Title: Additional Documents for COL Coffman's Testimony

Release Date: 2014-03-20

Text: DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMYBASE men - HENDERSON HALL204 LEE AVENUEFORT MYER. VIRGINIA 22211-1199REPLY TOATTENTION OF 12 AUG 2310MEMORANDUM FOR Director, Forensic Fellowship, Walter Reed Army MedicalCenter, Washington, DC 20307SUBJECT: Extension ot?Ruic for Courts-Martial (R.C.M.) 706 Bradley ManningI. Your request for an extension oftime to complete the Sanity Board Manning is:approved. Submit your report three months from the date of thismemorandum.approved, in part. Submit your report NLT six weeks from the date ofthismemorandum.approved. in part. Submit your report NLTdisapproved.2. Any future extension oftime Inust be submitted through the Government counsel to me forapprovai. Enel CARL R. COFFMAN, JR.E-mail Request. 6 Aug 10 COL, AVCommandingFromSubject: RE: RCM 706 Order (PFC Manning) (UNCLASSIFIED)Date: Tuesday, August 10, 2010 10:59:55 AMClassi?cation: UNCLASSIFIEDCaveats: NONEMAJ Hurley:We will proceed with this plan in mind (initial 6 week suspense date).It is therefore likely that we will need an extension and will sorequest along with an estimated time to completion if/when needed.Please note that due to sd1eduling conflicts, we will begin evaluationon 27 August. Please provide all standard relevant documents relates to706 evaluations, report of criminal investigation, mentalhealth/medical records, ERB, etc. This may be sent by courier (FedEx orsimilar service) to:Michael Sweda, Chief, Forensic Psydiology ServiceWalter Reed Army Medical Center6900 Georgia Avenue NW6 (Borden Pavilion), 3rd FloorWashington DC 20307v/ r,Michael Sweda, ABPP (Forensic)Board-Certi?ed Forensic Chief, Forensic ServiceDirector, Forensic Fellowship Walter Reed Army Medical Center "The United States themselves are essentially the greatest poem.Past and present and future are not disjoined but joined."From: Hurley, Thomas MAJ MIL USA OTJAG1]nt: ay, August 1 To: Sweda, Michael Dr CIV USA MEDCOM WRAMCCc: Fein, Ashden CPT USA Bouchard, Paul R. CPT USD-CDSTB CO TDS Sr Defense Counsel; Eaton, Michael CPT USF-I SJ A TrialDefense AttorneySubject: RE: RCM 706 Order (PFC Manning) (UNCLASSIFIED)8Classi?cation: UNCLASSIFIEDCaveats: NONEDr. SwedaIoarm one of PFC Manning's defense oounsel. I know we all (the attorneysparties) appreciate your prompt attention to this matter, and Igrist we all want a thorough evaluation of PFC Manning that follows thesigrsed by COL Coffman on 3 August. However, we (the defense) would becomfortable with an initial six week suspense. If, at the end of31>? tweeks, you need more time to complete a thorough evaluation, then wewould request that you forward a request for an extension that estimatesErnie required to complete the process.PFC Manning is in pre-trial con?nement, and we want to get his casereferred to trial sooner rather than later.On a substantive note, we believe the order signed by COL Coffman issuf?dent for the charges now preferred. There are no other additionalquestions we want you to answer in the course of completing this matter.Thanks.v/rThomas F. HurleyJA From: Sweda, Michael Dr CIV USA MEDCOM WRAMCSent: Friday, August 06, 2010 3:04 PMTo: Hurie Thomas MAJ MIL USA orrow, Lange, ristopherLTC MIL USA MEDCOM Montalbano, Paul Dr CIV Malone, Ricky COLMIL USA MEDCOM WRAMCSubject: RE: RCM 706 Order (PFC Manning) (UNCLASSIFIED)Classi?cation: UNCLASSIFIEDCaveats: NONECPT Fein:I have consulted with LTC Christopher Lange, who is my counterpart asDirector of the Forensic Fellowship, regarding the Manningcase.We are in the process of assembling a team for the evaluation, andexpectthe direct evaluation piece (interview and testing) of this to becompletedin two weeks. Generally, we ask for at least a six week suspense dateof a 706 report. In the case of PFC Manning, we would likeBequest a three month suspense from the date that he is first seen, tothorough evaluation.Please feel free to call or e-mail if you have any questions.v/r,Michael Sweda, ABPP (Forensic)Board-Certi?ed Forensic Chief, Forensic ServiceDirector, Forensic Fellowship Walter Reed Army Medical Center "The United States themselves are essentially the greatest poem.Past and present and future are not disjoined but joined."From: Hurlev. Thomas MIL USA OTJAG2 ay, ugust To: Fein, Ashden CPT USA Sweda, Michael Dr CIV USAMEDCOM WRAMCCc: Eaton, Michael usF-I s; ATrialDefense Attorney; Morrow, JoDean CPT MIL USASubject: RE: RCM er anning NCLASSIFIED)Classi?cation: UNCLASSIFIEDCaveats: NONEDr. Sweda/CPT FeinThere is no need for the members of the board to have a securityclearance.I will speak with PFC Manning tomorrow about the board and ensure thathisanswers to your questions do not include any classi?ed information. Ifhefeels he must disclose classi?ed information, then he will let you knowthat there is more that he wants to say but cannot. CPT Fein and I willthen seek an exception to the current order.v/rThomas F. HurleyMAJ, JA From: Fein, Ashden CPT USA SJA Sent:W ne y, ugust 1 To: Sweda, Michael Dr CIV USA MEDCOM WRAMCCc: Hurley, Thomas MAJ MIL USA Eaton, Michael CPT USF-I SJ A Trial Defense Attorney; Morrow, JoDean CPT MIL USAJect: Or er (PFC Manning) (UNCIASSIFIED)Sir,I do not foresee the need; however I rather defer that answer to MAJHurleyand the defense team. There is one caveat. A current protective orderisin place and it does not authorize the disclosure of any of theclassi?edinfomwation related to this case without a?irmative authonzation. Soifthere ends up being a need, although doubtful, then the Government willneedto work to get an exception to the protective order.v/ CPT FeinAshden FeinCPT, JAChief, Military JusticeU.S. Army Military District of Washington (MDW) Message--??-From: Sweda, Michael Dr CIV USA MEDCOM WRAMCSent: Wednesday, August 04, 2010 12:i0 PMTo: Fein, Ashden CPT USA SJACc: Hurley, Thomas MIL USA Eaton, Michael CPT USF-I SJ A Trial Defense Attorney;Subject: RE: RCM 706 Order (PFC Manning) (UNCLASSIFIED)Classi?cation: UNCLASSIFIEDCaveats: NONESir:will the sanity board members require any level of security clearanceformis?v/r.Midwael Sweda, ABPP (Forensic)Board-Certi?ed Forensic Chief, Forensic ServiceDirector, Forensic Fellowship Walter Reed Army Medical Center "The United States themselves are essentially the greatest poem.Past and present and future are not disjoined but joined."From: Fein. Ashden CPT USA SJA.Sent: ay, August 03, 2010 11:07 AMTo: Sweda, Michael Dr CIV USA MEDCOM WRAMCCc: Hurley. Thomas MAJ MIL USA _':Rose: ue 0- JA iemiitarvusticeSubject: RCM 706 Order (PFC Manning)Importance: HighSir,Good morning. Attadwed is a RCM 706 Board Order for PFC BradleyManning.Attadied is the order and a copy of the charge sheet. CCed on thisemailare the defense counsel (CPT Bouchard, CPT Eaton, and MAJ Hurley).Pleaseadvise of any delays and if your office needs additional time than theallotted suspense, please forward the request through me for theConveningAuthority.CPT FeinAshden FeinCPT, JAChief, Military JusticeUnclassi?ed_Discovery_ManningB 000422U.S. Army Military District of Washington (MDW)Classi?cation: UNCIASSIFIEDCaveats: NONEClassi?ca?on: UNCLASSIFIEDCaveats: NONEClassi?cation: UNCIASSIFIEDCaveats: NONEOassi?cation: UNCLASSIFIEDCaveats: NONEClassi?cation: UNCIASSIFIEDCaveats: NONE3 September 20l0MEMORANDUM THRU Su?? Judge Advocate. Office of the Staff Judge Advocate. US AnnyMilitary District of Washington. Fort Lesley J. McNair. Washington DC. 30219FOR Commander. US Army Garrison. Joint Base Myer-Henderson Hall. Fort Myer. Virginia222-! ISUBJECT: Request lb!? Appointment of Expert with Expertise in Forensic to Assistthe Defense in United State: PFC Bradley Manning.1. On 25 August 2010. the defense requested that the R.C.M. 706 boaml be deiayed until aforensic could be appointed to the defense team.2. The defense would like to supptement their 25 August 2010 memorandum by requesting thatany de?ense appointed expen possess-a Top Secret Sensitive Compartmented information (TS-SCD clearance.3. The POC is the undersigned at (401) 744-3007 or by e-mail atCOOMBSCivilian Defense Counsel18 September 2010THRLE Staff Judge Advocate. Office ofthe Staff Judge Advocate. US ArmyMilitary District of Washington. Fort Lesley .\lcNair. Washington DC. 30219FOR Commander. US Army Garrison. Joint Base Myer-Henderson Hall. Fort Myer. Virginia7771 1Preliminary Classification Review ofthe Accused's Mental Impressions UnitedPH B?rucl/ey .l{cmm'ngl. The defense believes that your order. dated 17 September 2010. directing PFC Manning todisclose the classified information that he wishes to discuss with his defense counsel and theRules for Court-Martial (R.C.M.) 706 board to Mr. Charles Uaniel prior to disclosing thisinformation to his civilian and military defense counsel is not a lawful order and in contraventionofthe holding of the Court of Appeals for the .Armed Forces (C.A.A.F.) in Schmidt. 60 MJ. 1 (C.A.A.I-7. 2004). The order attempts to circumvent the important role oftheattorney-client relationship in maintaining the fairness and integrity ofthe military justicesystem. As such. it is a violation Manning"s rights under the Sixth Amendment andArticle 27 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice to the effective assistance of counsel inpreparing a defense. at 2. citing L7niiedSru!e.i' Kiivg. 53 MJ. 425 (C.A.A.F. 2000).2. In the appellant was charged with dereliction ofduty for failing to exerciseappropriate flight discipline and failing to comply with rules ofengagement and specialinstructions in an air?to~ground bombing incident that caused the deaths of several Canadiansoldiers in Afghanistan. The appellant was privy to classified information pertaining to his case.The ruled. and the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed.that the appellant could not discuss the classified aspects ofhis case with his civilian defensecounsel (who eventually obtained an interim security clearance) without submitting a requestthrough the trial counsel. The C.A.A.F. vacated the opinion and reversed the rulingofthe militaryjudge. holding that Military Rule ofEvidence (M.R.E.) 505 "does not require anaccused. without benefit of his own counsel. to engage in adversarial litigation with opposingcounsel as a precondition to discussing with defense counsel potentially relevant information"that is already in the appellant's knowledge or possession. Schmidt. 60 at 2. As such. thegovernment cannot create a "classified information wall" between the accused and his defensecounsel as a precondition to the client being able to speak to his civilian and military defensecounsel. Id.3. The defense is well aware of its obligations to safeguard classified information under ArmyRegulation 380-5 and 18 l-i.S.C. 793. 794. and 798 and S0 421. Based upon thisknowledge. on 30 August 2010. the defense voluntarily returned classified information that wasgiven to it by the government without legal authority or proper authorization. See Attachment A.Likewiise. on .7.5 August 2010. the defense alerted the government to the concern ofelassifiedinformation being divulged during the R.C.M. 706 process. As such. the defense renews itsrequest that each defense counsel receive at least Top Secret Sensitive Compartmented Preliminary Classi?cation Review of the Accused's Mental Impressions .SIuIe.s' /3?rudfe"t' Information IS-SCI) clearance. 'l'he defense team is currently comprised ofthe followingcounsel: Mr. David Coombs in the United States Army Reserves): MAJ Matthew J.Kentkes; and CPT Paul R. Bouehard.4. Additionally. the defense renews its request for limited authorization for PFC Manning?saccess to classified information. It is likely that PFC .\1anning?s access has been suspended dueto the preferred charges. It is anticipated that the defense will need to discuss and share access tothe classified information at issue in this case with our client. Therefore. the defense requestsauthorization for limited access to classified information by the accused in accordance withM.R.E. 5. In order to comply with the preparation and filing of 5(J5(h) notice. the defenserequests that the protective order dated 17 September 2010 be amended to reflect the followingadditional guidance:a. The accused and defense counsel shall prepare forthwith. but in no event later than business days before any 706 Board, Article 32 Investigation. or court hearing. a briefwritten description ofany information known or believed to be classified. which the accusedreasonably expects to disclose or cause to be disclosed in any pre?trial motion or proceeding. orat trial of this case. hereinafter referred to as "the Aceuseds Disclosure as requiredunder Military Rule of Evidence b. For purposes ofpreparing the Accused's Disclosure .\'otice. defense counsel. subject tocompliance with the applicable provisions of this Order. shail be allowed to discuss.communicate and receive information from the accused concerning any matter believed by theaccused to contain. involve or relate to classified information. and believed by the accused torelate to this case. Any retained civilian defense counsel shall also comply with the provisions ofthis Order before having access to said classified information.c. The accused. through counsel. shall advise the (?onvening Authority and the trial counselwhen he has prepared or possesses the Accused's Disclosure Notice or any Other material whichthe accused or counsel believes contains classified information. which he intends to offer at anyR.C.M. 706 Board. the Article 32 Investigation. file in court or use in court. and shall thendeliver to the Court Security officer directly. or by means ofa courier designated by the CourtSecurity Officer. the Accused's Disclosure Notice and all copies thereof. or any other pleadings.All Associated materials and other documents ofany kind or description containing any oftheinformation in the Accused's Disclosure Notice shall be stored under conditions prescribed bythe Court Security Officer.d. Until further ()rder ofthe Convening Authority or the Court. the Accused DisclosureNotice and all other written pleadings shall be delivered to the Court Security Officer. The timeof delivery to the Court Security Officer shall be considered the date offiling. fhe CourtSecurity Officer shall review such pleadings and shall determine with the assistanceand consultation of the attorney for the government and any personnel from any agency SUBJECT: Preliminary Classification Review ofthe Accused?s Mental Impressions Um?/edSlates PFC Bmcl/e_t' necessary to make such determination. whether any of the material submitted is classified. andthe level of any such material. lfthe pleading or information does not containany classified information. the Court Security Officer shall forward it to the R.C.M.706 Board or Article 32 Investigating Officer or Court for routine tiling. lfthe pleading doescontain classified information, or information which might lead to or cause the disclosure ofclassified information. the Court Security Officer shall. after consultation with the trial counseland original classification authority:1) mark it appropriately:give a marked copy to the trial counsel:have the original filed under seal and stored under appropriate security7"9.3conditions.In this way. any documents containing classified information (or information believed to beclassified and which must undergo a classification determination) which are filed shall be sealedby order of the Convening Authority.6. The defense requests acknowledgement of receipt ofthis response. The defense furtherrequests that the Convening Authority rescind his "Preliminary Classification Review Order"dated 17 September 2010 and amend his "Protective Order" as discussed above.7. The POC is the undersigned at (-101) or by e-mail atii . 1?.i . AVID E. COOMBSCivilian Defense Counsel DEPARTIIENTOFTHEARMYIMLEEAVDJIIE3? FORT IVER. VIRGNIA Z11-1199OFI 2 OCT . 310MEMORANDUM FOR Mr. David E. Coornbs. Civilian Defense CounselSUBJECT: Appointment of Defense Expert Consultant in Forensic - g,s. v, PFQBgleg Manning1. I reviewed your request for appointment of an expert consultant in forensic for thedefense in the above-named case. After careful consideration, the defense request is:(WT. approved. I appoint C01. David M. Benedek as an expert consultant in the abovenamed case. I furtherdireet that COL Benedek bedesignated a member ofthedefenseteamunder . 25 MJ. 270 (C.M.A. I987) and Military Rule of [Evidence 502. Thisexpert appointment is at no expense to the United States beyond mileage reimbursement. ifauthorized.disapproved.2. The senior member of the RCM 706 board. in consultation with the accused?: primary carebehavioral health povider. will determine the extent to which COL Benedelt may participate inthe RCM 706 inquiry. including whether the defense expert consultant may be permitted tomonitor the examinations conducted by members of the RCM 706 board.?iARI. R. COFFMAN. JR.COL. AVCommanding18 February 201 1MEMORANDUM THRU Staff .ludge Advocate. Office ofthe Staff .ludge Advocate, US ArmyMilitary District of Washington, Fort Lesley J. McNair, Washington D.C. 30219FOR Commander, US Army Garrison, Joint Base Myer-Henderson l-lall, Fort Myer, Virginia2221 SUBJECT: Request for Appointment of Expert Assistance With Expertise in to Assist the Defense in United States v. Manning1. Purpose. Pursuant to R.C.M. 703(d), the accused. PFC Bradley Manning. requests aDepartment of Defense employee and a be designated as a member ofthe defense team under Military Rule of Evidence M.R.E. 502, and United States v. oledo, 25270 (CMA 1987). PFC Manning also requests that arrangements. in coordination withDefense Counsel, be made to have the appointed expert visit the Quantico Brig to conductindependent testing of PFC Manning.2. Law. A military accused has, as a matter of Equal Protection and Due Process. a right toexpert assistance when necessary to present an adequate defense. United States v. Garries, 22288 (CMA 1986); United States v. Robinson 39 MJ. 88 (CMA 1994), and Ake v.Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 226 (1971 The Court ofAppeals for the Armed Forces has embraced athree-part test for determining whether govemn1ent?funded expert assistance is necessary. Thedefense must show:?First. why the expert assistance is needed. Second, what would the expert assistanceaccomplish for the accused. Third. why is the defense unable to gather the evidence that theexpert assistant would be able to develop.? United States v. Gonzalez, 39 459 (1994).3. Basis. All of the above requirements for employment of an expert are present and the defenseis entitled to have an expert appointed to the defense as a matter of law. The govemment hasbegun the process of conducting a sanity board on PFC Manning. The defense is requesting asingle Department ofDefense to assist in understanding the work of the sanityboard. to possibly suggest additional testing to the sanity board, to interpret the results oftesting conducted by the sanity board, to critically evaluate the work of thesanity board, and to potentially conduct additional testing in order to prepare a rebuttal to theconclusions of the sanity board.a. Why Is Expert Assistance Needed? Expert assistance is needed to aid the defense inunderstanding medical information and testing concerning the mental statusof PFC Manning on the date of the alleged crimes. to determine whether he is able to understandthe nature and quality of the wrongfulness ofhis conduct, to evaluate whether PFC Manning isable to intelligently assist in his defense. and to prepare a possible sentencing case in extenuationand mitigation for PFC Manning. In short, the defense needs this assistance to better understandhow PFC Manning?s brain was working at the time ofthe charged offenses and how it isSUBJECT: Request for Appointment ofan Expert with Expertise in Information Assurance toAssist the Defense in the case of United States v. Marmingworking now. The knowledge required to do this is specialized, and concerns medical anddata that is beyond the scope of defense counsel?s understanding.b. What Would the Expert Assistance accomplish for the Accused? A assigned to the defense would assist the defense in understanding the wide range oftests that are available to evaluate PFC Manning. This expert would alsohelp the defense understand what tests are best suited to evaluate PFC Manning. Awould also assist the defense in interpreting and critically evaluating anytesting conducted by the sanity board. A would also beable to explain medical research in the ?eld of and its relevance to the presentcase. This expertise is beyond that of the current defense expert Capt. Kevin Moore, a forensicc. Why is the Defense Unable to Gather this Evidence on Their Own? The defense hasneither the experience nor expertise to adequately prepare this case. The defense counsel needs abasic understanding in order to present the defense case, including the need to prepare defenseexperts to testify. It will be difficult for the defense to properly prepare without having anindividual who has the con?dentiality guaranteed to protect the accused. A more relevantquestion is why the defense needs a separate if one is appointed to the sanityboard. The defense needs this separate for a number of reasons. First, anywho is a member of a sanity board is not a member of the defense team andthe defense does not have the ability to discuss possible case theories with that sanity boardmember. A appointed to assist the defense is able to engage in full and frankdiscussions with the defense on all aspects of the case and any issues relating to metalcompetency. Second, a working for the sanity board would be under noobligation to conduct additional evaluations and testing requested by the defense. Aappointed to the defense would be free to conduct additional testing withoutthe constraints of the sanity board. Third, the sanity board will likely conduct their evaluation ofPFC Manning without the benefit of a complete social history, and the board would notincorporate that information into their evaluation and testing. A appointed tothe defense would continue to work with the defense in all stages ofthe case and incorporatedetailed information of PFC Manning's social history into the testing and diagnostic process.Finally, testing and interpretation is a very subjective science. Any testingdone by members of the sanity board must be subjected to critical analysis. It is highly unlikelythat a member of the sanity board will objectively criticize their own work. The defense needsan independent to assist them in conducting this critical inquiry. For all ofthese reasons, the defense requests a be appointed to the defense team.4. Conclusion. For the above reasons. the defense requests that you issue an order appointing aas an expert; that you instruct this individual that he/she is a "defenserepresentative? and thus part of the defense team, and that matters related to him/her during thecourse of his/her employment as a member of the defense team will be confidential.SUBJECT: Request for Appointment of an Expert with Expertise in Information Assurance toAssist the Defense in the case of United States v. Manning5. The POC is the undersigned at (401) 744-3007 or by e-mail at DAVID E. COOMBSCivilian Defense Counsel20 April 2011MEMORANDUM THRU StaffJudge Advocate, Office of the Staff Judge Advocate. US ArmyMilitary District of Washington. Fort Lesley J. McNair. Washington D.C. 30219FOR Commander, US Army Garrison, Joint Base Myer-Henderson Hall. Fort Myer, Virginia2221 1SUBJECT: Request for Appointment ofa to Assist the Defense in the Caseof United States v. Manning1. Pursuant to the provisions of Article 46 ofthe Uniform Code ofMilitar_v Justice and Rule forCourt~Martial (R.C.M.) 703(d), the defense requests the appointment ofa located at or near Fort Leavenworth, Kansas to replace LCDR Carrie H. Kennedy and assist thedefense in the above-styled case. The defense further requests that this replacement expert bedesignated as a member of the defense team under Military Rule of Evidence M.R.E. 502. andUm'rea?Srmes 12 Toledo. 25 M.J. 270 (CMA 1987).2. On 19 April 201 I, the defense, like many others. learned that PFC Maiming was being movedto the Joint Regional Correctional Facility at Fort Leavenworth. Due to this abrupt move, LCDRKennedy is no longer ideally suited to ful?ll the role of the defense expert. At this point, LCDRKennedy has not had the ability to meet with PFC Manning. As such, no relationship has been established. The defense requests that the government provide a suitablereplacement for LCDR Kennedy who will have the ability to aid the defense in understandingmedical information and testing concerning the mental status of PFCManning on the date ofthe alleged offenses. to evaluate whether PFC Manning is able tointelligently assist in his defense. and to prepare a possible sentencing case in extenuation andmitigation for PFC manning.3. The POC is the undersigned at (401) 744-3007 or by e-mail atDAVID E. COOMBSCivilian Defense Counsel26 April 2011MEMORANDUM FOR Commander, Joint Base Myer Henderson Hall. 204 Lee Avenue. FortMyer, VA 22211-1199SUBJECT: Government Request for Delay of Article 32 Investigation. United States vs. PFCBradley E. Manning1. On 25 April 201 l. the Government requested that you delay restarting the Article 32Investigation until the United States received consent from all ofthe Original ClassificationAuthorities (OCAS) to release discoverable classi?ed evidence and information to the defense. Itappears that no OCA has given such approval since the Defense has yet to receive any classifiedevidence or information. Without this information, the Defense is unable to adequately preparefor the Article 32.2. In order to avoid any additional unnecessary delay. the Defense requests that you order theGovernment to:a. Provide either a substitute for or a summary ofthe information for relevant classifieddocuments;b. Allow the Defense to inspect any and all unclassified documents, tangible items. andreports within the Governments control. which are material to the Defense's preparation. Rulefor Court-Martial (R.C.M.) 405(g)(l and 70l(a). The standard set out in R.C.M.405 and R.C.M. 701 requires the Government to turn over items that are within the?Government?s control." This means that the Trial Counsel. upon Defense request. has anaf?rmative obligation to seek out requested evidence that is in the possession oftheGovernment even if that evidence is not already in the immediate possession of the TrialCounsel. United States v. I/I/illiams. 50 M..I. 436, 441 (C.A.A.F. 1999). The ?prosecutor will bedeemed to have knowledge ofand access to anything in the possession. custody. or control ofany federal agency participating in the same investigation of the defendant.? Umted States v.Bryan. 868 F.2d 1032, 1036 Cir. 1989); Williams, 50 M.J. at 441. The Defense specificallyrenews its request for discovery previously either denied or not provided by the Government.See Attachment A ANDc. Ensure the Defense has equal access to CID and other law enforcement witnesses byrequiring the Trial Counsel to make available any requested witness. R.C.M. 405(g)(l and703(a) establishes that the prosecution and defense ?shall have equal opportunity to obtainwitnesses and evidence." See also Article 46, UCMJ. The Defense has attempted to interviewseveral ofthe CID agents in this case. On 14 April 2011. the Defense received an email fromDeputy Director Daniel T. Andrews ofthe Computer Crime Investigative Unit, requesting thatthe Defense coordinate all witness interview requests through MDW Trial Counsel. Speci?cally.the Defense requests the ability to speak with SA Toni M. Graham. SA Thomas A. Smith, SAKenneth A. King, SA Charles T. Ames Jr., SA Mark A. Mander, SA Randall A. Bethke. SA SUBJECT: Government Request for Delay of Article 32 Investigation, United States vs. PFCBradley E. Manning Matthew J. Haywood, SA Jennie R. Lisciandri, CW2 Nathan E. Langley. SA Calder L.Robertson Ill, SA David S. Shaver, and SA Ronald Rock.3. Due to the limited discovery provided so far, it is likely that the Article 32 will need to bedelayed again unless the above information is provided in a timely manner. The Defenserequests that any additional delay be credited to the Government.4. The point ofcontact for this memorandum is the undersigned at (401) 744-3007.Encls DAVID EDWARD COOMBSAs Civilian Defense CounselUNITED STATESDEFENSE DISCOVERYREQUESTMANNING. Bradley li.. PFCus. Army. -Headquarters and Headquarters Company. Army Garrison. Joint Base t\lyer-Henderson Hall.Fort Myer. VA 222] I29 October 2010. In accordance with the Rules for Courts-Martial and the Military Rules ofEvidence. Manual for Courts-Martial. United States. 2008. Article 46,Unifomt Code of Military Justice, and other applicable law, request fordiscovery is hereby made for the charged offenses in the case of United Statesv. Bradley E. Manning.a. A copy of any handwritten. typed or recorded statements by the accused orany other potential witness in connection with the investigation of this casemade to representatives ofthe government to include summaries ofconversations with representatives of the government. which were notattached as allied papers at the time the charges were preferred.b. The contents of all statements. oral or written. made by the accused thatare relevant to the case. known to the trial counsel, and within control ofthearmed forces. The defense speci?cally requests that any statement made bythe accused that the trial counsel intends to introduce into evidence bereduced to writing and disclosed to the defense. The defense needs thesestatements in written form in order to prepare motions to suppress underM.R.E. The defense also requests any derivative evidence bedisclosed to the defense M.R.E. *Speeitically, defenserequests the complete Instant Message chat log and any emails allegedly sentbetween PFC Manning and Mr. Adrian A. Lamo.e. Disclosure of all evidence seized from the person or property of theaccused, whether believed to be owned by the accused or anyone else, that theprosecution intends to offer into evidence against the accused at trial.?Specifically. defense requests the results of any examination of computersallegedly used or owned by PFC Manning, and for the government to makethe hard drives from these computers accessible to the defense computerforensic expert Mr. Eric Lakes of Cyber Agents lne.. 128 Southland Drive.Lexington, Kentucky. 40503. Defense Discovery Request PFC Bradley E. Manningd. Copies of all medical and mental reports relating to the accused.*Specif1cally, the defense requests copies ofany behavioral healthassessments of PFC Manning both before, during, and after the deployment toIraq.e. evidence tending to diminish credibility of any witnessincluding, but not limited to, prior convictions under M.R.E. 609, evidence ofother character, conduct, or bias bearing on witness credibility under M.R.E.608. Specifically, the defense requests the name and contact information forany law enforcement agent working with Mr. Adrian A. Lamo. See Brady Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963): Um'tedSrates v. Agurs, 427 US. 97 (1976).The defense also requests any other evidence in the possession of thegovernment favorable to the accused. or tends to negate the guilt of theaccused of any offense charged, or reduce the punishment for any offensecharged.f. The names and contact information for all government investigators whohave participated or are presently participating in the investigation ofthecase.g. Any evidence ofother crimes, wrongs, or acts which the prosecution seeksto introduce for any purpose whatsoever. See M.R.E. 404(b).h. All personal or business notes. memorandums. and writings prepared byinvestigators in said case which are not fumished pursuant to any otherprovisions ofthis request.i. The military status of all witnesses. Where applicable. the defense requeststhe date of separation from the Army, and the discharge provisions used toeffect such discharge if for other than completion ofthe obligated term ofservice. Pursuant to M.R.E. 301 disclosure is requested of anyimmunity or leniency pertaining to witnesses or potential witnesses.j. The Tactical Sensitive Compartment Information (T-SCIF) accreditationpacket for FOB Hammer. The SOP for the at FOB Hammer. Thename and contact information for the security manager at the T-SCIF at FOBHammer. A copy of the Security Classification Guide (SCG) for the at FOB Hammer. PFC Manning's training records related to his MOS. Anydocumentation PFC Manning has signed dealing with information security.A list of any refresher training or in?country training PFC Manning hasreceived on information security.k. Any evidence of prior Article 15 action, civilian or military convictions,and adverse administrative actions relating to any ofthe government'sDefense Discovery Request PFC Bradley E. Manningwitnesses, defense witnesses, or the accused. Any evidence that thegovernment intends to use for impeachment purposes ofthe accused, or anyother witness. This inciudes any character evidence the govemment intendsto introduce at trial under M.R.E. 404.l. A list of all witnesses the prosecution intends to call during the Article 32along with their addresses and phone numbers and copies of all prior writtenstatements.m. Copies ofall business and official records which the prosecution intendsto introduce either during the Article 32 or at trial.n. A list of all exhibits the government plans to utilize at the Article 32 or attrial.0. Any evidence, testimony, or witnesses the government intends to use atthe Article 32 or at trial that have been obtained through grants ofimmunity,or any other concessions being granted to a witness, the content of suchtestimony or evidence. and the terms of any such grants ofimmunity orconcessions.p. All documents, memoranda, or records of conversations pertaining to thiscase, whether prepared by investigators, commanders. convening authority orany other person. The request in this paragraph includes but is not limited to:A compete copy ofthe CID file(s) (including but not limited to the so-called "right" and "left side") interviews, notes, and Agent ActivitySummaries or any other liles maintained by a law enforcement agency at FortMyer, Fort Drum, Contingency Operating Station Hammer, or any otherinstallation that participated in the investigation ofthis case.(2) A complete copy ofany other documents or files pertaining to theabove named individual.(3) A complete copy of any emails or memorandums relating to thepreferral of charges in this case or to the level ofcourt-martial.q. Any writings used to refresh the memory of any government witness. IAWM.R.E. 612.r. Copies of the report concerning the polygraph examinations administeredto any person related to this case. This includes copies of statements takenafter the polygraph exam.Defense Discovery Request PFC Bradley E. Manning5. A copy of any Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request and anyresponse or internal discussions of any such request that is related tothe classified video charged in Specification 1, Charge and Specification] 2, and 5 of Charge ll.2. The defense requests that the government informs the defense counsel if itdoes not intend to comply with any speci?c provision of this request.3. it is understood that this is a continuing request.4. A copy of this request was served on Trial Counsel by email on 29October 2010.DAVID EDWARD COOMBSCivilian Defense CounselUNITED STATESDEFENSE DISCOVERYREQUESTMANNING. Bradley PFCU.S. Anny. Headquarters and Headquarters ompany. U.S.Army Garrison. Joint Base Myer-Henderson Hall.Fort Myer, VA 222llDATED: 15 November 2010I. In accordance with the Rules for Courts-Martial and the Military Rules ofEvidence, Manual for Courts-Martial. United States, 2008. Article 46.Uniform Code ot?Military Justice. and other applicable law, request forsupplemental discovery is hereby made for the charged otlenses in the case ofUnited States v. Bradley E. Manning.2. The defense requests that the government respond to each item listed in its29 October 2010 discovery request and the following additional discovery:a. The names and contact information for all govcmment investigators whohave participated or who are presently participating in the investigation of thecase. previously requested on 29 October 20l0. Specifically. the names ofthe investigators and an inventory of the items seized from the home of Ms.Debra Van 1492 Selworthy Road. Potomac, MD 20854 on 2November 2010. Additionally. a list ofitems seized from Mr. David Houseand a copy of all reports or analysis of the items seized by the Department ofHomeland Security, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), or any othergovernment agency on 3 November 2010. Finally. a copy of all fieldinterviews and reports conducted by the FBI or any other governmentalorganization involving witnesses from Boston. Massachusetts or any othercity from 24 Ma_v 2010 to the present involved in this case.b. The entire counseling packet for PFC Manning. Specitically, anycounseling or assessments done of PFC Manning by his chain of command.MSG Paul Adkins. CPT Casey Martin. SSG Peter Bigelow. PT MatthewFreeburg. or Mark Woodworth.c. All Behavioral Health Assessments (BHA) or mental evaluations of PFCManning. previously requested by the defense on 29 October 2010. Thedefense requests any assessment by CAPT Kenneth J. lverson. CAPT BruceBalfour. CAPT William Hocter. CPT Eden ritch?eld, PT Dale Hill or anyother individual who has evaluated or commented on PFC Manning?s mentalstate at any time. Speci?cally. the defense requests the 22 May and 28 May Defense Discovery Request PFC Bradley E. Manning2010 BHA, and all assessments for POI recommendations to the QuanticoCon?nement Facility. Id. Any and all documents or emails considered by CPT Kevin Ley as themilitary magistrate to support his search and seizure authorizations.e. Recorded video footage of when PFC Manning collapsed in confinementas referenced at 000095 and any other recorded audio or video footage ofPFC Manning while in con?nement either in Iraq, Kuwait. or the UnitedStates.f. Network logs for all computers searched by CPT Thomas Cherepko or anyother government employee or investigator as referenced at 000186-87.g. The application. Security and System Network logs obtained from PFCBlake Dudley as referenced at 0000187.h. The results of SA Calder Robertson and SA David Shaver?sanalysis of any computers analyzed in this case as well as copies of anyinvestigative notes or assessments by Computer Crimes Investigative Unit(CCIU). Additionally, the names of all individuals from the CCIU or anyother government agency that have performed or are performing anycomputer forensic analysis in this case.i. All documentation or information provided by the government to LTCCraig Merutl-ca. Specifically. copies ofthe chat logs referenced at 000455 andcopies of the CC IU reports referenced at 000463.j. The results ofinquiry/investigation and all discussions and assessmentsdone in compliance with Department of Defense (DOD) Directive 5210.50.Directive 5200.1 Chapter 10. S-5105.21-M-1, Instruction5240.4, and Executive Order 13526. Specifically, the defense requests theanswers to the following required investigative determinations by the aboveDirectives. Instruction, and Executive Order: When. where, and howdid the incident occur? What persons, situations, or conditions caused orcontributed to the incident?? What classi?ed information was compromised?If a compromise occurred, what speci?c classified information and/ormaterial was involved? If classi?ed information is alleged to have been lost,what steps were taken to locate the material?? In what specific media articleor program did the classi?ed infonnation appear?? To what extent was thecompromised information disseminated? Was the infonnation properlyclassi?ed?? Was the information oflicially released? Are there any leads tobe investigated that might lead to identification of the person(s) responsiblefor the compromise? Defense Discovery Request PFC Bradley E. Manningk. The defense also requests copies of any noti?cation to the OriginalClassi?cation Authorities (OCA), the contact information for the OCAS, andthe required answers by DOD Directive that states when noti?ed of thecompromise of classified information or material, the original classi?cationauthority for that information or material shall: Verify the classi?cation andduration ofclassi?cation initially assigned to the information; Reevaluate theclassi?cation of the information to determine whether the classi?cationshould be continued or changed; and complete a damage assessment inaccordance with Instruction and Directive. The veri?cation,reevaluation and damage assessment process is required by Directive tobe completed as soon as possible following noti?cation of a compromise.3. The defense requests that the government informs the defense counsel if itdoes not intend to comply with any speci?c provision ofthis request.4. It is understood that this is a continuing request.5. A copy of this request was served on Trial Counsel by email on I5November 2010. DAVID EDWARD COOMBSCivilian Defense CounselLa.)UNITEDSTATESmscovr-:m'REQUESTBradley E.. PFCU.S. Army. Headquarters and Headquarters Company. U.S.Army Garrison. Joint Base .\1yer-Henderson Hall.Fort Myer, VA 2221 8 December 20101. In accordance with the Rules for Courts-Martial and the Military Rules of Evidence.Manual for lfnited States. 2008. Article 46. Uniform Code of.\lilitaryJustice. and other applicable law. request for supplemental discovery is hereby made forthe charged offenses in the case of United States Bradley Manning.2. The defense requests that the government respond to each item listed in its 29 Octoberand 15 November 2010 discovery requests and the following additional discovery:a) The names and contact information for all government investigators who haveparticipated or who are presently participating in the investigation of the case. previouslyrequested on 29 October and I5 November 2010. Speci?cally. contact information forSA Hyung Kim from the Department of Defense and SA Richard Bowen from the ArmyComputer Crimes Unit and an inventory ofthe items seized from the home of Paulrancia at 60] Hazelwood Terrace. Rochester. .\ew York 14609.b) All forensic results and investigative reports by the Department of State regarding theinformation obtained by Wikileaks as referenced by Assistant Secretary of State forPublic Affairs PJ. Crowley. Additionally. any specific damage assessment by theDepartment of State regarding the disclosures ofthe diplomatic cables by WikiLeaks.Any assessment, report. e-mail. or document by Secretary ofState Hillary RodhamClinton regarding the disclosures of diplomatic cables by Wikileaks. Any report. e-mail.or document discussing the need for the State Department to disconnect access to its filesfrom the govemment's classified network.c) All forensic results and investigative reports by the Department of Defense regardingthe information obtained by Wikileaks and the results of any joint investigation with theFederal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) as referenced by Secretary of Defense Robert .Gates. Additionally. any specific damage assessment by the Department ofDefenseregarding the disclosure ofclassified documents and videos. the subject ofthis case. byWikiLeaks.Defense Discovery Request PFC Bradley E. Manningd) Any and all documentation related to the Department oflustice investigation into thealleged leaks by WikiLeaks as referenced by Attomey General ofthe United States EricH. Holder.e) Any and all documentation related to President Barack H. Obama's order for aninvestigation and a govemment wide~review of how agencies safeguard sensitiveinformation. Additionally, any and all documents related to the steps the administrationis considering regarding these leaks and the nature ofthe criminal investigation underwayinto how the documents were made public as referenced by Robert Gibbs. the WhiteHouse spokesman.f) Any assessment given. or discussions concerning. the Wikileaks disclosures by anymember ofthe govemment to President Obama. Any e?mail, report. assessment.directive. or discussion by President Obama to the Department of Defense. Department ofState or Department of Justice.g) Any and all documents relating to the Government Task Force created to review thevarious WikiLeaks releases for potentially damaging information prior to the actualreleases. This Task Force apparently had over 120 members reviewing the documentsthat were either released or pending release to determine the possible harm to nationalsecurity.h) The results ofany investigation or review by Mr. Russell Travers who has beenappointed by President Obama to head an interagency committee assigned to assess thedamage caused WikiLeaks exposures and to organize efforts to tighten security measuresin government agencies.i) Any and all documentation related to the Pentagon?s review on the policy andtechnological shortfalls that led to the WikiLeaks disclosures as referenced by Pentagonspokesman Bryan Whitman.j) Any and all documentation related to the Central lntelligence Agency (CIA)investigation of Wikileaks announced by CIA Director Leon Panetta and any internal orexternal memorandums addressing the investigation of Wikileaks, PFC Bradley Manningor the nature ofthe Office ofSecurity?s investigation into these matters.k) Any and all documentation relating to the govemmenfs position oftaking a hard lineon unauthorized leaks ofinformation. as demonstrated by the prosecutions ofa formerNational Security Agency official. a Federal Bureau of Investigation linguist. and a StateDepartment contractor and referenced by CIA Director Leon Panetta. Additionally, anyand all memorandums. e-mails. or other references by Congressmen. Senators, orgovemment officials conceming the disposition of this case or the need to punish Bradley Manning.Defense Discovery Request Bradley E. Manning1) Any and all documentation. e?mails, or reports given to the Summary Court-MartialConverting Authority. the General Court-Martial Convening Authority, or the StaffjudgeAdvocate concerning the disposition of Bradley Manning?s case or the nature ofthecharges or possible charges against Manning. Specifically, any attempt to influencethe independent discretion of anyone involved in the military justice process.m) Any and all documents or observation notes by employees ofthe Quanticoconfinement facility relating to PFC Bradley n) The results ofthe 15-6 investigation into the goventmenfs improper release ofclassified information to the defense. Whether the 15-6 investigating officer looked intothe following additional potential spillage:i. The disc allegedly found in PFC Manning?s Room indicated the contents wereSECRET. A photo ofthe disk can be found at 000293. Was the title on the diskclassified or not??ii. The photos ofthe T-SCIF show a map in the background that was partiallyexposed (000301 and 000302).The snapshots ofthe computer screens in the T-SCIF were exposed. Was thereclassified infomiation being viewed on the screen?? (000305 and 000306).iv. The snapshots ofthe computers had documentation on the table appear to showclassified information. (000333. 000334, and 000335).v. Was the investigating officer made aware ofthe govemment disclosure oftheoriginal five discs to the military defense counsel??3. The defense requests that the govemment inform the defense counsel if it does notintend to comply with any specific provision ofthis request.4. It is understood that this is a continuing request.5. A copy ofthis request was served on Trial Counsel by e-mail on 8 December 2010. AVID EDWARD CO wasCivilian Defense CounselUNITED STATESDEFENSE DISCOVERYREQUESTMANNING. Bradley E.. PFCU.S. Anny. Headquarters and Hea quarters Company. US.Anny Garrison. Joint Base Myer?Henderson Hall.Fort Myer. VA 2221 DATED: l0 January 20ll1. In accordance with the Rules for Courts-Martial and the Military Rules of Evidence.Manual for Courts-Martial. United States, 2008. Article 46, Uniform Code of MilitaryJustice, and other applicable law. request for supplemental discovery is hereby made forthe charged offenses in the case of United States v. Bradley E. Manning.2. The defense requests that the government respond to each item listed in its previousdiscovery requests on 29 October. 15 November. and 8 December 2010 and to alsorespond to the following additional discovery:Any infonnation relating to 18 U.S.C. 2703(d) order or any search warrant by thegovemment of Twitter, Facebook. Google or any other social media site. Any metadata,MD5 hash marks or other unique identifying infonnation obtained from the 2703(d) orderor search warrant.b) The results and all supporting documents for the investigation conducted by LTGRobert Caslen Jr. The report is directed by the Secretary of the Amiy John McHugh andis supposed to be completed by 1 February 201 1. It will address how PFC BradleyManning was selected for his job, how he was trained. whether his superiors missedwarning signs that he was downloading documents that he did not need to read and howPFC Manning allegedly released the documents.c) Results of any inquiry and testimony taken by House of Representative oversightcommittee led by Representative Darrell lssa. The committee is due to look intoWikileaks, the actions of Attomey General Eric Holder. and the investigation of PFCBradley Manning.d) A copy ofall Agents Investigation Reports maintained under CID Regulation 195-]not previously provided to the defense. A copy of all agent notes. other govemmentalinvestigative reports. and sworn statements.3. The defense requests that the govemment infonn the defense counsel if it does notintend to comply with any speci?c provision of this request.4. It is understood that this is a continuing request.Defense Discovery Request PFC Bradley E. Manning5. A. copy ofthis request was served on Trial Counsel by e-mail on 10 January 201 1./3 /gEDWARD Civilian Defense Counsells)UNITED STATESDEFENSE REQUEST TOPRESERVE EVIDENCEMANNING. Bradley E., PFCArmy, Headquarters and Headquarters Company. U.S.Anny Garrison. Joint Base Myer-Henderson Hall.Fort Myer. VA 22211DATED: 19 January 201 11. In accordance with the Rules for Courts-Martial 701(a) and Manual forCourts-Martial. United States, 2008. Article 46. Unifonn Code of Military Justice. andother applicable law. defense counsel in the above entitled case respectfully request thatthe U.S. Government preserve the confinement facility video tape of the allegeddisruptive behavior of PFC Bradley Manning and provide a copy to the defense for itsinspection.2. On l8 January 20l l. the defense was noti?ed that PFC Manning, at the direction ofW04 James Averhart. was placed in suicide prevention. This decision was made overthe recommendations of Capt. William Hocter and the defense appointed expert Capt.Kevin Moore. When PFC Manning was being ordered to surrender his clothes. the Brigmade the decision to videotape this event along with an interrogation of PFC Manning byW04 Averhart and others.3. In accordance with R.C.M. 70l(e), ?[e]ach party shall have equal opportunity to inspect evidence." Defense counsel is requesting an equal opportunity to inspect thevideo tape. The defense believes this evidence will support a motion for credit forunlawful pretrial punishment under Article 13, Uniform Code of Military Justice(UCMJ).4. Defense counsel respectfully request the Govemment preserve the video and providea copy to the defense5. A copy of this request was served on Trial Counsel by email on 19 January 20] I .VID EDWARD COOMBSCivilian Defense CounselUNITED STATESDEFENSE DISCOVERYREQUESTU.S. Army. Headquarters and eadquarters Company. U.S.Army Garrison. Joint Base Myer-Henderson Hall.Fort Myer. VA 2221lMANNING, Bradley E.. PFC DATED: 16 February 201 l. In accordance with the Rules for Courts-Martial and the Military Rules of Evidence,Manual for Courts-Martial. United States. 2008. Article 46. Uniform Code of MilitaryJustice, and other applicable law, request for supplemental discovery is hereby made forthe charged offenses in the case of United States v. Bradley E. Manning.2. The defense requests that the government respond to each item listed in its previousdiscovery requests on October. l5 November, 8 December 20l0. and 10 January 201 and to also respond to the following additional discovery:a) The defense team has learned that a number of soldiers at Fort Drum have received aimposed flag as a result ofinvestigations into the alleged leak by PFC Manning.The defense requests the names of the soldiers who have been flagged. the nature for whythey were ?agged. who imposed the flag. and any other derogatory information relating tothis case to include. but not limited to: any reprimand (oral or written). action. oradministrative separation actions.b) The defense team has learned that Army CID has audio surveillance of the firstvisitation booth immediately adjacent to the control room where we meet with PF Manning. This appears to be the booth where attomey-client visits take place. Thedefense requests a copy of any and all audio or video tapes of PFC Manning at any timewhether they be from in person visits or from telephonic conversations.C) A copy of the latest ID investigation report and all Agents Investigation Reportsmaintained under CID Regulation 195-! not previously provided to the defense.Additionally, a copy of all agent notes. other govemmental investigative reports. andswom statements.(1) A roster of all individuals assigned to HllC. ZBCT, l0"? Division, specificallyany soldier assigned in the S2 Section of ZBCT. The defense requests full name. rank.email and phone contact information for each individual.e) Access to all classi?ed information that the government intends to use in this case.To include any damage assessment or information review conducted by anygovernmental agency or at the direction ofa govemmental agency.Defense Discovery Request PFC Bradley E. Manning3. The defense requests that the government inform the defense counsel if it does notintend to comply with any speci?c provision ofthis request.4. It is understood that this is a continuing request.5. A copy ofthis request was served on Trial Counsel by e-mail on 16 February 201 1.I- .- DAVID EDWARD COOMBSCivilian Defense Counsel25 July 2011MEMORANDUM FOR Commander, Joint Base Myer Henderson Hall. 204 Lee Avenue, FortMyer, VA 22211-1199SUBJECT: Government Request for Delay of Article 32 Investigation - United States vs. PFCBradley E. Manning1. On 25 July 2011. the Government requested that you again delay restarting the Article 32Investigation until it has received consent from all of the Original Classi?cation Authorities(OCAs) to release discoverable classi?ed evidence and information to the defense. Althoughclassi?cation reviews typically take time to complete. the Government has now had over a yearto do so. The latest request by the trial counsel for excludable delay does not adequately explainwhat has been done to require timely response and reviews by the relevant OCAS.2. Given the fact PFC Manning is currently in pretrial con?nement. the Government mustdemonstrate due diligence in securing classi?cation reviews. On 9 January 2011. the Defensemade a request for speedy trial. The Defense once again renews this request. United States v.Thompson. 68 MJ. 308 (C .A.A.F. 2009)(holding that Article 10. UCMJ, creates a more exactingspeedy trial demand than does the Sixth Amendment).3. The Defense also renews its request for you to order the Government to provide either asubstitute for or a summary of the infonnation for the relevant classi?ed documents; to allow theDefense to inspect any and all unclassi?ed documents. tangible items, and reports within theGovemment?s control; to provide discovery to the Defense either previously denied or notprovided; AND to provide access to all CID and other law enforcement agents who have workedon this case. Rule for Court?Martial (R.C.M.) and 701(a).4. Any additional delay should not be excluded under R.C.M. 707(c). Instead. the requesteddelay should be credited to the Government.5. The point of contact for this memorandum is the undersigned at (800) 588-4156.1Ii/ vn) EDWARD MBSCivilian Defense Counsel3 August 2011MEMORANDUM THRU Staff Judge Advocate. Office of the Staff Judge Advocate, US ArmyMilitary District of Washington. Fort Lesley J. McNair, Washington D.C. 30219FOR Commander, US Army Garrison. Joint Base Myer-Henderson Hall. Fort Myer. Virginia22211SUBJECT: Request for Appointment of Dr. Thomas A. Crrieger to Assist the Defense in theCase of United States v. Manning1. Pursuant to the provisions of Article 46 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and Rule forCourt-Martial (R.C.M.) 703(d), the defense requests the appointment of Dr. Thomas A. Griegerto replace Capt. Kevin D. Moore and assist the defense in the above-styled case. See attachedcurriculum vitae. The defense further requests that Dr. Grieger be designated as a member of thedefense team under Military Rule of Evidence M.R.E. S02, and United States v. Toledo, 25 M.J.270 (CMA 1987).2. On 2 August 2011, the defense received an email from Capt. Moore indicating that he couldno longer perform his duties as the defense forensic See attached email. Capt.Moore informed the defense that his current clinical schedule did not provide him with adequatetime to assist the defense. Additionally. Capt. Moore stated that due to PFC Manning?s assignedlocation at the Joint Regional Correctional Facility at Fort Leavenworth. he no longer believedthat he was suited to ful?ll the role of the defense expert.3. This is the second time that the defense has had to request for a replacement forensicdue to the assigned time commitments and conflicts with other militaryduties. Previously. the defense was given COL David Benedick. COL Benediek also citedmilitary commitments as the basis for why he could not adequately assist the defense team. Inlight of this persistent problem. the Defense requests the appointment of a civilian forensic4. The defense requests that you appoint the following expert:Dr. Thomas A. Grieger, M.D.. DFAPA Captain (retired Medical Co 5. United States Navy,7617 Virginia Lane. Falls Church. VA 22043,5. Dr. Grieger?s fees are $330.00 per hour for consultation as de?ned in paragraphone of his fee schedule. See attached fee schedule. The fee for all travel is based upon whethertravel is required outside of a hundred mile radius of Washington D.C. or not. If within thisradius, it is $450.00 per hour for a maximum of $4,500 per day. If outside of this radius. it is$4,500 per day. There is no fee for testimony time. only for the associated travel time and anyexpenses incurred. Likewise. there is no fee for expenses for airfare, car rental, lodging and perdiem as those fees are included in the rate detailed above. The estimated total fee for Dr.Grieger?s assistance in this case is $48.550.00. 1-lis hourly rate and fees comport with the ExpertWitness Rate Schedule for the Department of Justice.SUBJECT: Request for Appointment of Dr. Thomas A. Grieger to Assist the Defense in theCase of United States v. Manning6. The POC is the undersigned at (800) 588-4156 or by e?mail atDAVID E. COOMBSCivilian Defense Counsel DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMYunrreo STATES ARMY TRIAL DEFENSE SERVICEFORT MEADE FIELD OFFICEFORT MEADE. MARYLAND 20755REPLY TOATTENTION OF: AFZD-TD 6 August 2011MEMORANDUM THRU Staff Judge Advocate, Office of the Staff Judge Advocate, U.S. ArmyMilitary District of Washington, Fort Lesley J. McNair, Washington, D.C. 203 I 9FOR Commander, U.S. Army Military District of Washington, Fort Lesley J. McNair, Washington,D.C. 20319SUBJECT: Request for computer hardware and software for necessary computer forensics work,matter of United States PFC Bradley Manning.1. On July 23, 2010, MG Terry A. Wolff, the original convening authority in the matter of US v.PFC Brat?ey Manning, approved the appointment of Mr. Eric Lakes to be part of the Defense Teamas a computer forensics expert and set the funding for Mr. Lakes? services at $5,600.00. (Seeattachment dated 23 July 2010). On 6 July 2011, the Defense requested additionally ?mding for Mr.Lakes? services and clari?ed that the Defense?s computer forensics expert assistant for the case athand was Cyber Agents, Inc. and its employees, not solely Mr. Lakes, the owner of Cyber Agents,Inc. (See attachment dated 6 July 201 1). The purpose of this memorandum is to request that theGovernment provide the Defense with the necessary computer hardware and software products forCyber Agents, Inc. to do the computer forensics analysis.2. Cyber Agents, Inc. needs the following hardware and software equipment to properly do thecomputer forensics to assist PFC Manning in his defense: (Note 1: these hardware and softwareneeds can be purchased at an estimated cost of $1,256.00 and are further described, including vendor,etc., in the attachment titled Hardware and Software, US v. Manning. Note 2: CAGE Code for CyberAgents, Inc. is Two Samsung SpinPoint MP4 HMSOOJJ hard drives, 500GB, SATA 300;Two NetAnalysis V1.52/HstEx v3 (Non-Dongle Version);Two Vmware Works'tations7;Two Snagit licenses;Two Live View Government Version;Two Mount Image Pro Two Microsoft Office 2010;Two Adobe Acrobat Pro3. The Defense respectively requests that the Government provide the hardware and softwareequipment outlined in number 2 above (equipment that is further described in the attachment titledHardware and Software US v. Manning) to the Defense and/or Cyber Agents, Inc. in order for CyberAgents, Inc. to conduct the necessary computer forensics. The basis and justi?cation for this requestis as follows:a. The matter of US v. Manning involves some 8 terabytes of computer data, and a properdefense cannot be rendered without proper computer forensics analysis; SUBJECT: Request for computer hardware and software, matter of United States v. PFC BradleyManning.b. Without the aforementioned computer hardware and software, Cyber Agents, Inc. willnot be able to do the necessary computer forensics analysis;c. The accused is entitled to a proper defense, and computer forensics analysis is vital to aproper defense;d. Should the Government have to purchase the aforementioned equipment and software,such equipment and so?ware costs estimated at some $1,300.00 are not prohibitive;e. The aforementioned equipment and software are indeed necessary, and they are readilyavailable on the commercial market.lmportantly, Mr. Lakes and his company, Cyber Agents, Inc., are properly equipped attheir facility in Lexington, Kentucky, to conduct computer forensics, but given that someof the computer data in US v. Manning is classi?ed as opposed to unclassi?ed data, theGovernment has made it clear to the Defense and to Cyber Agents, that thecomputer forensics will be conducted in a properly secured and approved facility usingapproved and secured equipment and software. It is this reason that constitutes thenecessity for this equipment and so?ware request because of the classi?ed nature ofsome of the data in question, Cyber Agents, Inc. carmot use some its own equipment andPAUL R. BOUCHARDCPT, JADefense Counsel DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMYUNITED STATES ARMY mm DEFENSE sERvzcE4217 ROBERTS AVENUE. SUITE 5030FORT MEADE. MARYLAND 20755REPLY TOOF9 August 20] IMEMORANDU Tl Trial CounselFOR Commander, Army Garrison, Joint Base Myer-Henderson Hall, 204 Lee Avenue, FortMyer, VA 222! I-l l99SUBJECT: Request for Computer Forensics Experts to Assist the Defense in United SIat?e.s* PFCBradley Manning.. PFC Bradley Manning, the accused, by and through counsel, respectfully requests theemployment of Eric Lakes and Trent Struttmann as computer forensics experts in the matter of US v.Manning. PFC Manning further requests that Mr. Lakes and Mr. Struttmann be designated asmembers ofthe Defense team under (IS. v. Toledo, 25 MJ. 270 (C.M.A. I987) and Military Rule ofEvidence 502.2. Mr. Lakes and Mr. Struttmann are co-owners Agents, Inc., a Lexington. Kentucky-basedcomputer forensics finn. Both individuals are well-qualified in the field ofcomputer forensics, andhave often been employed for courts-martial cases. Manning is entitled to a proper defense, andcomputer forensics expertise is necessary for a proper defense.3. Estimated Fees. Mr. Lakes and Mr. Struttmann estimate their services will cost the Government$14,000.00 excluding associated travel costs gasoline, hotel, food, etc.). This $l4,000.00 figureis based on the following:a. Mr. l.akes and Mr. Struttmann charge $l75.00 per hour per person for their services;b. The Government has notified the Defense that the case of US v. Manning involves some8 terabytes of data, and given that figure, Mr. Lakes and Mr. Struttmann estimate theycan do the necessary computer forensics work in five days. (Note: 8 hours of work perday at $175.00 per hour per person equates to $1,400.00 per day per person. $2,800.00per day for two people (Mr. Lakes and Mr. Struttmann) times five days equates to$l4,000.00 for five days of work);c. This $l4,000.00 estimated fee is also derived on the following:l. That the computer forensics work will not take place at Mr. Lakes? and Mr.Struttmanns? lab in Lexington, but rather, that it will take place in theWashington, D.C. area in a properly secured facility;2. That Mr. Lakes and Mr. Struttmann will provide their own hardware needs exceptfor hard drives. (Note: It is the Defense?s understanding that it will berecommended to the Government that the Government provide the necessary harddrives); SUBJECT: Request for Computer Forensics Experts to Assist the Defense in United States v.PFC Bradley Manning.3. That Mr. Lakes and Mr. Struttmann will provide the necessary Encase software,but that other necessary software will be provided by the Government. (Note: It isthe Defense?s understanding that the following will be recommended to theGovernment: l) that the Government provide the necessary software with theexception of the Encase software and 2) that any licensed software that isnontransferable will either be provided by the Government, or, should Mr. Lakesand/or Mr. Struttmann need to purchase such so?ware, that the Governmentreimburse Mr. Lakes and Mr. Struttmann for such software purchases).d. Signi?cance of Estimate. It is important to note that the estimated $l4,000.00 fee isjustthat an estimate. Given the sheer volume of data involved in the case of US v. Manning(8 terabytes), and given the complexities and uncertainties that can take place incomputer forensics work, there is no exact way that a fee can be precisely pinpointed experts can only estimate how long it will take them to do the necessary work.Nonetheless, understanding the amount of data involved and other factors, Mr. Lakes andMr. Struttmann estimate they can complete the work in five days at a cost of $14,000.00excluding travel costs. Should Mr. Lakes and Mr. Struttmann need more than five days tocomplete their work, such work will be billed at the rate of $175.00 per hour per person.c. Note on Travel Costs. The estimated $14,000.00 fee does not include travel costs.lmportantly, Mr. Lakes and Mr. Struttmann have made it clear that they desire to drive tothe Washington, D.C. area to do their work instead of ?ying via commercial airfare.Flying from Lexington, KY to Washington, D.C. can be expensive; having Mr. Lakesand Mr. Struttmann drive to the Washington, D.C. area would actually save theGovernment money.4. Why Two Experts are Requested. Given the sheer volume of computer data involved in the caseof US v. Manning, and given past experiences of Mr. Lakes and Mr. Struttmann, both individuals areconfident that two experts doing the computer forensics work is better, more efficient, and less timeconsuming then having just one computer forensics expert do the work. Simply put, having twocomputer forensics experts on the Defense team would actually save the Government money ascompared to havingjust one Defense computer forensics expert.5. The following sections ofthis request further outline the basis and rationale explaining why theDefense needs Mr. Lakes and Mr. Struttmann as computer forensics experts. (Note: for more on Mr.Lakes and Mr. Struttmann, to include their CVs, visit 6. Law. 846. Article 46 ofthe U.C.M.J. provides that Defense and Government should have equalopportunity to obtain witnesses. In particular, a military accused has, as a matter of Equal Protectionand Due Process, a right to expert assistance when necessmy to present an adequate defense. US. v.Garries, 22 MJ. 288 (C.M.A. US. v. Robinson, 39 MJ. 88 (C.M.A. I994), citing Britt v.North Carolina, 404 U.S. 226 (I971) and Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 US. 68 (1985). Failure to employMr. Lakes and Mr. Struttmann would effectively deprive Manning ofhis ability to present adefense in this case and would deny him "lm]eaningful access to justice." Ake v. Oklahoma, 470US. 68 (I985). The Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (formerly the Court of MilitaryAppeals) provided a three?pronged test for determining whether government-funded expertassistance is necessary: Request for Computer Forensics Experts to Assist the Defense in United States v.PFC Bradley Manning.First, why the expert is needed? Second, whatwould the expert assistance accomplish for theaccused? Third, why is the defense counsel unable to gather and present the evidence that theexpert assistant would be able to develop?United States v. Uonzrilez, 39 M.J. 459 (C.M.A. I994) (quoting US v. Allen, 3l 542, 623(N.M.C.M.R. I990) aff"d, 33 209 (C.M.A. l99l)). 7. Why Expert Assistance is Needed.a. This case unquestionably involves complex computer message traffic that requires expertanalysis and opinion. PFC Manning is charged with serious crimes. Without someone with anexpertise in computers and digital forensics, the Defense will not be able to completely understand,evaluate, or prepare a defense to the Government?s case.b. Mr. Lakes and Mr. Struttmann are experts in computer forensics. They have been employedbefore as Defense experts in courts-martial, and they possess numerous eenifications. (For more onthe qualilications of Mr. Lakes and Mr. Struttmann visit viww.cyberagentsinc.com).c. No member of the Defense is learned in the complex field of computer forensics, and none canbecome so between the time of this request and the date of the Article 32 hearing and of the possibletrial.8. What Would Expert Assistance Accomplish for the Accused.a. Expert assistance would provide the Defense with the necessary understanding ofthe complexcomputer message tra?icking involved in this case. Such understanding is not the province of laypeople. The experts? explanations are, therefore, critical for the Defense, the linder of fact, MilitaryJudge, and everyone involved in understanding the very essence of the case at hand.b. Both Mr. Lakes and Mr. Struttmann are highly regarded experts in the field of computerforensics. They possess the requisite knowledge, experience, and expertise to fully analyze theGovernments evidence and to aid the Accused in the preparation ofan effective defense. Both Mr.Lakes and Mr. Struttmann would embark on a full review of the evidence in the case to identify anyexculpatory information that may be contained in the Government's evidence, and to identify thepotential weaknesses in the Governments evidence.9. Why the Defense ls Unable to Gather and Present this Evidence.a. No member of the Defense team is trained or otherwise knowledgeable in the complex ?eld ofdigital forensics. Denying the Accused of this fundamental right to present an adequate andknowledgeable defense would amount to a violation of his Constitutional rights.b. The requested experts will be advised that they are members of the Defense team and are, assuch, obligated to keep all matters concerning the ease con?dential pursuant to the attorney-clientprivilege, subject of course to those exceptions should they become a defense witness.IO. For the aforementioned reasons, failure to provide the requested assistance will result in afundamentally unfair trial. Clearly, this case meets the necessary elements ofthe Gonzalez case setforth by our highest court, the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces. The requested experts shouldthus be appointed to the Defense team as a matter oflaw.SUBJECT: Request for Computer Forensics Experts to Assist the Defense in United States v.PFC Bradley Manning.1 1. POC is the undersigned at ?/414 PAUL R. BOUCHARDCPT, JADefense Counsel DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMYJOINT BASE MYEFI-HENDERSON HALL204 LEE AVENUE- FOFIT MYEFI, 22211-1199. REPLY TOATTENTION orIMND-MHH-ZA l5/M3. MEMORANDUM FOR Mr. David E. Coombs, Civilian Defense CounselSUBJECT: Appointment of Defense Computer Forensics Expert Consultants United States v.PFC Bradley ManningI reviewed the request for appointment of Mr. Eric Lakes and Mr. Trent Struttmann as computerforensic expert consultants for the defense in the above-named case. After careful consideration,the defense request is:approved. 1 appoint Mr. Eric Lakes and Mr. Trent Struttmann as computer forensicexpertconsultants for the defense in the above-named case. I further direct that Mr. Lakes andMr. Sruttmann be designated members of the defense team under U.S. v. Toledo, 25 M.J. 270(C.M.A. 1987) and Military Rule of Evidence 502. I authorize the expenditure of up tofor computer forensic consultation. Any expenditure of funds in excess ofwill be disapproved, unless the additional amount is approved by me, in advance,through a separate written request and written approval. Additionally, reasonable travelreimbursement and per diem, IAW the JFTR, is authorized.disapproved. You are free to renew your request with me, and similarly, if 1 forwardthis case, you may renew your request with the GCMCA.CARL R. COFFMAN, JR.COL, AVCommanding DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMYJOINT BASE MYER-HENDERSON HALL204 LEE AVENUE FOFIT MYEFI. VIRGINIA 22211-1199REPLY ToATTENTION orIMND-MHH-ZA lib? Aw, MEMORANDUM FOR Mr. David E. Coombs, Civilian Defense CounselSUBJECT: Appointment of Defense Expert Consultant in Forensic United States v.PFC Bradley ManningI reviewed your request for appointment of an expert consultant in forensic for thedefense to replace CAPT Kevin D. Moore in the above-named case. After careful considerationof your enclosed request and the enclosed email, dated 4 August 2()11, the defense request is:approved. I appoint Dr. Thomas A. Grieger as an expert consultant in the above-named case to replace CAPT Moore. I further direct that Dr. Grieger be designated a member ofthe defense team under US. v. Toledo, 25 M.J. 270 (C.M.A. 1987) and Military Rule ofEvidence I authorize the expenditure of up to for consultation. Anyexpenditure of funds in excess of will be disapproved, unless the additional amountis approved by me, in advance, through a separate written request and written approval.disapproved, in part. I appoint LCDR David L. Moulton as an expert consultant inthe above-named case to replace CAPT Moore. I further direct that LCDR Moulton bedesignated a member of the defense team under 11.8. v. Toledo, 25 M.J. 270 (C.M.A. 1987) andMilitary Rule of Evidence 502. LCDR Moulton is an adequate substitute for Dr. Grieger and isprovided at no expense to the government, beyond mileage reimbursement, if authorized.disapproved. CAPT Moore will remain the defense expert consultant.CARL R. COFFMAN, JR.as COL, AVCommanding 70: Em. CC: QESE EM.A SJASubject: RE: us v. PFC BM (UNCLASSIFIED)Date: Thusday, August 04, 2011 5:03:26 PMCPT Fein,On August 28, I am slated to go work as a forensic psydiiatrist in the Forensic Psydiiatry Service of thenew Walter Reed Military Medical Center (COL Malone will be my boss). My PCS date is July 2013. Justtoday, I corresponded with my specialty advisor, who stated that she does not anticipate that I will bedeployed in the next year as I have already deployed twice and there are several people ahead of meon the deployment list who have never deployed. I do not see any con?icts with me giving theappropriate attention to this case, to include even regular travel to Fort Levenworth to evaluate theclient.v/r.LCDR MoultonFrom: Fein, Ashden CPT USA SJA Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2011 3:15 PMTo: Moulton, David L. LCDR NNMCCc: Morrow JoDean, CPT USA D.L. Moulton, Ford, Arthur D. WO1 USA JFHQ-SJASubject: US v. PFC BM (UNCLASSIFIED)Sir,Thank you for your interest in being a possible defense expert witness in forensic Please seeattached request and let us know whether you are quali?ed and whether you will be available for thenext 12 - 15 months.Please take into account any possible deployments or other taskers that might make you unavailableand understand this appointment will likely require you to travel to Fort Leavenworth, KS.Thank you.v/ CPT FeinDAVID L. MOULTON, MDCDR(sel) MC USNNational Naval Medical Center8901 Rockvillc PikeBethesda, MD 20889EducationB.A. HumanitiesBrigham Young University, Provo, UT I996M.D. Doctorate of MedicineUniformed Services University, Bethesda, MD 2000Internship National Capital Consortium, Bethesda, MD 200]Residency National Capital Consortium, Bethesda, MD 2004Fellowship Forensic National Capital Consortium, Bethesda, MD 20l0Professional AchievementsAssociate Program Director, National Capital Consortium Residency Program, Bethesda,MD, July 2010 to present; September 2008-June 2009. This program provides comprehensiveGraduate Medical Education in a large training program of 44 residents. Speci?cresponsibilities involved direct oversight of training at the National Naval Medical Center, as well asadvisor to the Program Director on diverse matters pertaining to the operation of the Residency.Clinical Chief Inpatient Service, National Naval Medical Center, Bethesda, MD, October2007-April 2009. This is a 12-bed adult inpatient facility providing full-spectrum acute inpatientservices to active-duty service members and their dependants. Supervisory role for two LicensedClinical Social Workers. Supervisory role over Residents, lntems and Medical Studentsrotating on the service.Clinical Chief Combat Stress Control, I 13"? Medical Company, Taji, Iraq, March 2007-July 2007,and the 785"? Medical Company July 2007-Sept 2007. One of two on FOB Taji, whichsupported ?ve Combat Brigades and over 20,000 Soldiers.Department Head, Naval Hospital Camp Lejeune, Jacksonville, NC Aug 2004-January 2005;September 2005-February 2007. Department Head over Inpatient Services, a 20-bed adultinpatient facility providing full-spectrum acute inpatient services to active-duty service members andtheir dependants. This included supervisory responsibility of 20 staff members.Department Head, CLB-2, 2D SSG (MLG) Operational Stress Center, Al Asad, Iraq, February 2005-September 2005, providing mental health services to deployed Marine, Army, Navy and Air ForceService Members who honorably serve our country in Operation Iraqi Freedom.Academic AppointmentsAssistant Professor of Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda,MD. Appointed July 25, 2011.Special QualificationsFleet Marine Force Qualified Of?cer, February, 2005.Navy Pistol Quali?cation (E)Personal and Unit AwardsMeritorious Service MedalNavy Commendation Medal (x2)Army Commendation MedalNavy Achievement MedalArmy Achievement Medal (x2)Presidential Unit CitationMeritorious Unit Citation (x2)Iraq Campaign Ribbon (x2)Recognitions and CommendationsPatient Safety Award of Excellence, National Naval Medical Center, Aug 2008Letter of Commendation, Naval Health Clinic Quantico, March 2008Invited PresentationsSex Offenders and Issues in Sexual Assault. Presented to the Naval Justice School,Newport, RI, April 2010.PTSD in the Court Room. Presented to the Naval Justice School, Newport, RI, May 2011.Board Certi?cationsGeneral American Board of and Neurology, Certi?ed June 7, 2006.Forensic American Board of and Neurology, Certi?ed June 7, 201 1.State Medical Board LicensuresMaryland Board of Physicians, License No: D0069601Virginia Board of Medicine, License No: 0101232547North Carolina Medical Board, License No: 20040121 (inactive)Court Consultant Expert Witness Military Courts Martial Federal Felony CasesU.S. v. Ramzi bin al Shibh, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, June 2011; (9/11 Terror Suspect)U.S. v. Clark, Baumholder, Germany, April 201 12* (Negligent Homicide, 3 counts)U.S. v. McA??rey, Fort Bragg, NC, December 20102 (Attempted Murder, PTSD Mitigation)U.S. v. Law, MCB Camp Lej eune, November 20101 (Premeditated Murder)U.S. v. Chamberlain, MCB Quantico, September 20102 (Assault)U.S. V. Afa, Baumholder, Germany, August 20102 (Sexual Assault)U.S. V. Sobenes, Pensacola, FL, March 20l01* (Sexual Assault)Chastain v. U.S. Navy, MCB Camp Lejeune, January 20101 (Hostile Work Environment)Kirk v. U.S. Navy, MCB Camp Lejeune, January 20101 (Hostile Work Environment)U.S. v. Walker, Baumholder, Germany, February 20102* (Sexual Assault)Maryland v. Mary Koontz, Baltimore County, MD, January 2010l* (First Degree Murder)U.S. v. Schwartz, Fort Myer, November 20092* (Conspiracy to Commit Murder)U.S. v. Hall, MCB Quantico, VA, May 20092* (Illicit Substance Use, PTSD Mitigation)1 Government Consultant2 Defense ConsultantIndicates Expert Testimony Provided in Addition to Consultation DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMYJOINT BASE MYEFI-HENDERSON HALL204 LEE AVENUEI. FORT 22211-1199REPLY TOATTENTION or IMND-MHH-ZA MEMORANDUM FOR Mr. David E. Coombs, Civilian Defense CounselSUBJECT: Defense Request for Computer Hardware and Software United States v. PFCBradley Manning1. 1 reviewed the request for computer hardware and software to assist appointed computerforensic expert consultants in the above-named case and your request is:(W) approved. I authorize for the purchase of the below requested equipmentand software:a. x2 hard drive.b. x2 NetAnalysis v1.52/HstEx v3 (Non-Dongle Version) Software.c. x2 Vmware Workstation 7 Software.d. x2 Snagit License.disapproved. You are free to renew your request with me, and similarly, if I forwardthis case, you may renew your request with the GCMCA.2. The United States will provide the following items:a. x2 Live View (Government Version) Software.b. x2 Mount lmage Pro v4 Software.c. x2 Microsoft Of?ce 2007 Software.d. x2 Adobe Acrobat Pro 9 Software.CARL R. COFFMAN, JR.COL, AVCommanding DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMYumreo sures ARMY TRIAL oerense ATLANTIC roar um-:n new ornceroar men. VIRGINIA 22211REPLY TOAT TENHON OF:ANJA-TDS 20 September 201 1MEMORANDUM FOR Commander, Joint Base Myer-Henderson Hall, 204 Lee Avenue, FortMyer, Virginia 222 I I-1 l99SUBJECT: Request for Courier Cardsl. I am requesting your assistance with issuing CONUSISECRET courier cards to designatedmembers of the defense team representing PFC Bradley Manning. For the reasons below, we arerequesting courier cards from the government as soon as possible.2. There is an immediate legitimate need for the defense team to transport classified evidence.The government delivered three classified laptops and four compact discs containing classi?eddata to my of?ce yesterday. Defense team members need courier cards to allow us to transportthe laptops and computers to other locations where our defense experts can use them to preparefor the case. In addition, we will need courier cards to travel between the TDS offices, andeventually to the trial which is expected to take place at Fort Meade.3. Cards are required for the following defense members:MAJ Matthew Kemkes, Fort Myer TDSCPT Paul Bouchard. Fort Meade TDSCPT Josh Tooman, Fort Leavenworth TDSCW2 Melissa Santiago, Fort Myer TDSSSG Cherise Purcell, Fort Myer TDS09?39?. Thank you4 You may contact me afor your consideration of my request.mzf?MATTHEWMAJ JASenior Defense Counsell. The above request is (approved) (-disapproved)2. If approved, each command security manager will issue a DD Form 2501, with an authorizedlevel up to to each member ofthe defense listed above. lftravel must occur outsideofthe local geographic limit, then an additional courier authorization letter will be issued foreach individual per trip. Prior to utilizing a courier card or authorization, each member ofthedefense listed above, must received courier training from a defense security expert.28 SEP 2011 CARL R. COL, AVCommanding DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMYUNITED STATES ARMY TRIAL DEFENSE SERVICE4217 Roberts Avenue. Suite 5030FORT GEORGE MEADE. MARYLAND 20755TOATTENTION OF23 November 20! iTHRU Staffiudgc Advocate, Office ofthe Staffludge Advocate. U.S. ArmyMilitary l)istrict ofwashington. Fort Lesley]. McNair, Washington. DC. 20319FOR Commander. U.S. Army Military District ofwashington, Fort Lesley J. McNair, Washington,D.C. 20319SUBJECT: Request for computer software for necessary computer forensics work. matter of Unitedtr Mamwmg.1. Eric Lakes and 'l'rent Struttmann are defense expert assistants in the area of computer forensics inthe matter of .S?m1e.s' v. PFC'Brml1cy Manning. As members of the Defense team. Mr. Lakesand Mr. Struttmann request the following computer software to properly conduct their necessarycomputer forensics work:Chrome Analysis Plus;b. Internet Evidence Finder.2. Justilication. There is an immediate legitimatejustilication for these software products.a. Chrome Analysis Plus is necessary because:1. Using Chrome Analysis Plus would bring about signi?cant time savings to M5. Lalgesand Mr. Struttmann and thereby save the Government great expense. By using ChromeAnalysis Plus, Mr. Lakes and Mr. Struttmann wouldn?t need to individually figure outsearch terms necessary to recover Chrome artifacts i.e. by using Chrome Analysis, thesearch terms would automatically be there and figured out. Mr. Lakes and Mr.Struttmann estimate. conservatively, that using Chrome Analysis would save one-third oftheir time searching for Chrome artifacts. importantly, Mr. Lakes and Mr. Struttmanncharge $175.00 per hour ($350.00 per hour for the two of them) for their services.2. The Chrome Analysis license key is for a single use; it is licensed for onecomputer. As a one-time cost and one-time use, Chrome Analysis is unique to the US v.Mcmm'ng case Mr. Lakes and Mr. Struttmann would not be able to use ChromeAnalysis on their other cases.3. The accused. PFC Manning. allegedly used a Chrome browser at some p_qint, andChrome Analysis Plus is the best and most eflicicntsoftware to properly do computerforensics involving a Chrome browser.4. Chrome Analysis costs roughly $75.00, and is readily available for purchase. Request for computer hardware and software, matter of United States v. PFC BradleyManning.b. Internet Evidence l-?indcr is necessary because:I. l.ike analysis, it would enable Mr. Lakes and Mr. Struttmann to retrievecertain artifacts Quickly and g?jcigmly thereby saving the Government mom;Without Internet Evidence liinder. Mr. Lakes and Mr. Struttman would have todesign certain search terms a time-consuming and therefore expensive task. Mr.Lakes and Mr. Struttmann conservatively estimate that using EvidenceFinder would safe them 25-to-40 percent of their time.2. It is used to recover chat messages regardless of the platfonn used. WhetherI-'accbook or Yahoo chat messages or Myspace was allegedly used. EvidenceFinder can retrieve such chats. The case of Umied States v. Bradley .lf?mnmginvolves many alleged chats.3. Though Internet Evidence Finder does not have a single-use license key - i.e. it is notindividually licensed for one machine. the Defense would be willing to borrow theGovernment lnternct Evidence Finder from (United States ArmyCriminal lnvestigative Lab) and return such after the completion oftheDefense's computer forensic work.3. Though Chrome Analysis and Internet Evidence liinder are not absolutely necessary for theDefense?s Computer Forensics Team - Mr. Lakes and Mr. Struttmann could perform their forensicwork without these software products it is without question that these software tools would clearlybring about significant efficiency gains, time savings. and cost benefits to not only the Defense butalso to the Government. Having the computer forensics work done more efficiently and at lowercosts is in the Government's interests. Moreover, both software products are readily available.Simply put. the clear justification for these software products trumps the fact that it is possible forMr. Lakes and Mr. Struttmann to do the work without Chrome Analysis Plus and Internet EvidenceI-?inder. Indeed, time savings -are important to the Defense. and efficiency and cost savings are alegitimate Government interest.4. For the reasons outlined in this request, the Defense respectfully requests the software productsChrome Analysis Plus and Internet Evidence Finder.5. roe is the undersigncd l.PAUL R. BOLCHARDCPT, JADefense Counsel DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMVJOINT BASE IIYEH-HENDERSON HALL204 LEE AVENUEFORT MYEH. VIRGINIA 2221 1-1 199DEC Z-allMEMORANDUM FOR CPT Paul Bouchard, Defense CounselSUBJECT: Defense Request for Computer Software - United States v. PFC Bradley Manning1. I reviewed the enclosed request for computer software to assist your computer forensic expertconsultants in the above-named case. You assert that there is an ?immediate legitimatejustification" for the listed software products and by authorizing their purchase your expertswould save a signi?cant amount of time and save this command ?great expense.?2. Based on your assertion that these purchases will ?bring about significant time savings? foryour experts consultants to conduct their forensic analysis, your request is:approved. I authorize no more than $1,000.00 for the purchase of the belowrequested equipment and software:a. Chrome Analysis Plus.b. lntemet Evidence Finder.disapproved. You are free to renew your request with me, and similarly, if I forwardthis case, you may renew your request with the GCMCA.2 Encls CARL R. COFFMAN. JR.1. Defense Request, 28 Nov 1] COL, AV2. Internet Evidence Finder Quote Commanding DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMYUNITED STATES ARMY TRIAL DEFENSE SERVICE4217 Roberts Avenue. Suite 5030FORT GEORGE MEADE. MARYLAND 20755TOAT OF28 November 201 MEMORANDUM THRU Stafl'.ludge Advocate, OlTce ofthe Staff Judge Advocate. U.S. ArmyMilitary District ol'Washington. Fort Lesley J. McNair. Washington. D.C. 20319FOR Commander. U.S. Army Military District of Washington, Fort Lesley J- McNair. Washington,D.C. 20319SUBJECT: Request for computer software for necessary computer forensics work, matter of UnitedManning.l. Eric Lakes and 'l'rent Struttmann arc defense expert assistants in the area of computer forensics inthe matter of .S'lule.t' v. PFC Bradley Manning. As members ofthe Defense team. Mr. Lakesand Mr. Struttmann request the following computer software to properly conduct their necessarycomputer forensics work:a. Chrome Analysis Plus;b. lnternet Evidence Finder.2. Justil'icati_gn. There is an immediate legitimate justification for these software products.a. Chrome Analysis Plus is necessary ?because:3- sin Anal sis Plus would rin about si nil." ant time savings to Mr. Lakesand Mr. Struttmann and thereby save the Government -great By using ?ChromeAnalysis Plus, Mr. Lakes and Mr. Struttmann wouldn't need to individually ?gure outsearch terms necessary to recover Chrome artifacts i.e. by using Chrome Analysis, thesearch terms would automatically be there and figured out. Mr. Lakes and Mr.Struttmann estimate. conservatively, that using Chrome Analysis would save one-third oftheir time searching for Chrome artifacts. importantly, Mr. Lakes and Mr. Struttmanncharge $175.00 per hour ($350.00 per hour for the two of them) for their services. 2. The Chrome Analysislicense key is for a single usg; it is licensed for onecomputer. As a one-time cost and one-time use, Chrome Analysis is unique to the US v.Manning case Mr. Lakes and Mr. Struttmann would notbe able to use ChromeAnalysis on their other cases.3. 'l'he accused. PFC Manning, allegedly used a Chrome browser at some point, andChrome Analysis Plus is the best and most efficient software to properly do computerforensics involving a Chrome browser.4. Chrome Analysis costs roughly ?75.00. and is readily available for purchase. SUBJECT: Request for computer hardware and software. matterof United States v. PFC BradleyManning.b. lntemet Evidence Finder is necessary because:I. l.ike Chrome Aggmig, it would enable Mr. Lakes and Mr. Struttmann to retrievecertain artifacts ggigkly and ggving the Government money?without Internet Evidence I-?inder. Mr. lakes and Mr. Struttman would havetodesign certain search terms a time-consuming and therefore expensive task. Mr.Lakes and Mr. Struttmann conservatively estimate that using lntemet EvidenceFinder would safe them 25-to-40 percent of their time.2. It is used 15; g_e_?regardless of the Qlg?gnn Whetherliaccbook or Yahoo chat messages or MySpace- was allegedly used. Internet EvidenceFinder can retrieve such chats. The case of UniledSra1es v. PFC Bradley Manninginvolves many alleged chats.3. Though lntemet Evidence Finder does not have a single-use license key i.e. it is notindividually licensed for one machine, the Defense; would be willing to borrow the(iovemmegt Internet Evidence Finder from USACIL (United States ArmyCriminal investigative Lab) and return such after the completion 0 theDefense?s computer forensic work.3. Though Chrome Analysis and lntemet Evidence Finder are not absolutely necessary for theDefense's Computer Forensics Team - Mr. Lakes and Mr. Struttmann could perform their forensicwork without these software products it is without question that these software tools would clearlybring about signi?cant efliciency gains, time savings, and cost benefits to not only the Defense butalso to the Government. Having the computer forensics work done more efficiently and at lowercosts is in the Government's interests. Moreover, both software products are readily available.Simply put. the clear justification for these software products trumps the fact that it is possible forMr. Lakes and Mr. Struttmann to do the work without Chrome Analysis Plus and lnternet Evidencel-?inder. lndeed, time savings are important to the Defense, and efficiency and cost savings are alegitimate Government interest.4. For the reasons outlined in this request. the Defense respectfully requests the software productsChrome Analysis Plus and lntemet l-Evidence Finder.PAUL R. BOUCHARDCPT, JADefense Counsel5. POC is the undersigned at

e-Highlighter

Click to send permalink to address bar, or right-click to copy permalink.

Un-highlight all Un-highlight selectionu Highlight selectionh