.png)
To our dedicated readers, we apologize for the delay. There has been an overwhelming amount of information and testimony to sift through following the two-day motions hearing. We want to ensure we provide an accurate and balanced account, particularly given the gravity of the situation and the many witnesses who have chosen to remain anonymous out of fear of reprisal from the 552d Air Control Wing (ACW) Command.
In a recent motion hearing regarding Captain Juan Gale, significant allegations of unlawful command influence (UCI) emerged, raising concerns about the integrity of military judicial proceedings. This article presents a factual overview of the hearing, including key interactions, defense arguments, and the implications for the military justice system.
Key Interactions and Allegations
One of the key issues on everyone’s mind is the role of the accusers. To maintain objectivity, we are focusing solely on the perspectives of those in the gallery who witnessed the proceedings firsthand.
Judge Colonel Stouffe granted the defense's motion to question accuser, Staff Sergeant Alexis Jordan Holderbland and Jenaisley Soto about their multiple statements to OSI, two Commander Directed Investigations, and to the now disgraced former lead prosecutor, Captain Melissa Lopes.
Particularly concerning, was the credibility of the testimony from Staff Sergeant Alexis Jordan Holderbland, who in her testimony, admitted to initially voluntarily messaging Captain Gale on Facebook. She then went on to recall a specific interaction on October 24, 2020, where Captain Gale allegedly made an inappropriate comment while offering a drink. Staff Sergeant Holderbland continued her testimony, recounting that she had reported to OSI that the incident listed above, caused her to feel similar feelings of trauma, that she alleges stemmed from a sexual assault allegation she made against another Airmen. However, when questioned about this alleged previous perpetrator by name, she claimed to not recall knowing him.
In addition, Staff Sergeant Holderbland, denied knowing the other accuser, Jenaisley Soto, although later admitted to messaging Soto on Instagram to discuss the #MeToo movement, and previously replying to Soto's Snapchat story, saying something to the effect of "That looks good."
The most concerning part of Staff Sergeant Holderbland's testimony was that she seemed to have the alleged dates confused. However, later admitting that she continued to initiate Facebook messages with Captain Gale for nearly nine months, through June of 2021, when she reported this incident to OSI.
Viewers in the gallery expressed frustration and disbelief as they heard the testimony. “It’s crazy to me how they treated it like a game,” said one enlisted member present at the hearing. A Non-Commissioned Officer added, “The accuser's stories conflicted with each other, and they couldn’t keep track of where one story ended and another began.”
The courtroom echoed with disbelief as Captain Gale’s attorney, Aaron Meyer, posed simple questions, yet the accusers’ answers shifted rapidly. “In a 30-second span, they’d claim they had provided all the evidence, then admit they hadn’t. They’d forget details and then suddenly remember them, deny being friends, only to later admit they were, and even admit they only signed on as victims because Captain Lopes told them to,” another witness recounted.
One of the most concerning aspects of this questioning was the inconsistencies in the accusers' timelines. Their allegations spanned across a confusing array of dates—summer of 2020, summer of 2021, August and October of 2020—while their supporting documents referenced completely different timeframes, including November of 2021.
Two enlisted members and three officers who witnessed the proceedings expressed astonishment. “I wouldn’t believe it if I hadn’t seen it with my own eyes,” they said. “How could OSI, JAG officers, and command leaders, with clear evidence of manipulation and false accusations, still send this to court-martial not once, but twice?”
Moreover, the inconsistencies in witness recollections, particularly regarding the events & dates raise significant doubts about the reliability of the allegations. The inability of witnesses to provide clear and consistent accounts undermines the credibility of the claims against Captain Gale. Additionally, the absence of comprehensive communication records further suggests that the narrative surrounding these allegations is not as straightforward as it may initially appear.
In light of these considerations, it is crucial to uphold Captain Gale's innocence until proven otherwise. The defense asserts that the allegations do not reflect his true character or intentions. As the investigation progresses, it is imperative that all evidence is thoroughly examined, and that the legal principles of fairness and justice are upheld.
Unlawful Command Influence (UCI) Hearing
The allegations of Unlawful Command Influence (UCI) by senior leaders—Lt Colonel Higashi, Lt Colonel McCormick, Colonel Coyle, Colonel Voigt, General Koscheski, Lt Colonel Eberle, Captain Lopes, and Major Bowman—have become an equally explosive issue.
During the motion hearing, the defense contended that Colonel Coyle acted under the direct influence of General Koscheski when preferring charges against Captain Gale, arguing that this compromised the fairness of the military justice process. Judge Smith acknowledged the potential for UCI, noting that Colonel Coyle felt compelled to act at the behest of General Koscheski. As Captain Gale’s attorney, Aaron Meyer, pointed out this indicated both apparent and actual UCI in the case.
Following these judicial remarks, the government withdrew the charges against Captain Gale. The defense interpreted this move as an acknowledgment of the UCI concerns raised during the hearing. Discussions throughout the proceedings highlighted the defense's assertion that the command's actions violated the rights of the accused and undermined the integrity of the military justice system.
“I had to see it for myself,” said a Senior Airman who had worked closely with Captain Gale. “I had heard the rumors from previous hearings, but when Captain Gale's attorney presented hard evidence that Command was coercively targeting Captain Gale, I was floored.”
According to this Senior Airman, the manipulation began after OSI’s first investigation in August 2021. When OSI informed Lt Colonel Higashi that there was no evidence of sexual assault involving SSgt Alexis Holderbland, Lt Colonel Higashi reportedly ordered her to be re-interviewed to “make sure” she hadn’t been assaulted. “Command wanted Captain Gale gone, no matter what,” the airman said. “If they could do this to him, how many others have they ruined just because of Command's egos?”
Attendees in the gallery recount hearing Meyer recap previous testimony from Command for nearly an hour and a half, including testimony from General Michael Koscheski, who was proven to have committed apparent and actual unlawful influence. This recap from Meyer was not objected to, in any way, by the prosecution.
"It's difficult to keep giving command the benefit of the doubt and trusting that no UCI occurred, when we heard it for ourselves. Gale's attorney recapped their previous testimony, where they openly admit to committing UCI," reported an attendee in the gallery. "It has me scratching my head, realizing that I may have been falsely misled to believe command's story over Captain Gale."
If Captain Gale's attorney outlining the previously proven UCI wasn't enough, Justice 4 Juan Gale was recently provided with a shocking text message where Colonel "Hitch" Coyle again "allegedly" commits UCI. In this instance, Col Coyle sent a text message to a now retired subordinate after they wrote a testimonial on the J4JG site. In this text message that we will share at a later date, Coyle stated, "Juan is not innocent in all of this despite what the site says. I don't disagree that it has taken too long...but I just want you to know it isn't all the 552's fault."
In this text message alone, it appears that Col Coyle commits Unlawful Command Influence by declaring Captain Gale guilty.
Dismissal of Charges: A Tactical Move?
General Koscheski’s actions have also come under intense scrutiny. One of the most controversial aspects of General Koscheski's actions was his stated intent to "cleanse" the case. “The intent was to clean this thing, and to clean this thing was to get rid of Judge Smith”, quoted from the defense attorney Meyer. This admission to “cleanse” the case raised eyebrows, as it suggested a desire to manipulate the judicial process rather than uphold its integrity.
General Koscheski further elaborated on his plan to "cleanse" the case, indicating that he aimed to reset the process entirely. He stated, "The plan was specifically to start it over and prefer new charges again." Such statements have led to accusations that the command was attempting to evade accountability and reshape the narrative surrounding the case.
The timing of the dismissal of charges against Captain Gale has also been a point of contention. The defense argued that the government's withdrawal of charges occurred shortly after the judge indicated he would rule on the UCI issue, suggesting a tactical maneuver to avoid the implications of UCI. General Koscheski's comments on the dismissal further fueled this perception, as he described the situation as "absurd" and acknowledged the significant implications of dismissing a case on the eve of trial.
Inconsistent Testimonies and Lack of Transparency
Throughout this hearing, inconsistencies in testimonies from military personnel highlighted a troubling lack of coherence in command decisions. The defense pointed out that Colonel Coyle and others within this case admitted to feeling compelled to act as directed by General Koscheski, raising serious concerns about the command's leadership and decision-making processes.
Moreover, the prior Judge Smith noted the command's lack of transparency, stating that the government had not been forthcoming in its actions. This failure to provide clear and honest communication further eroded trust in the military justice system and raised questions about the command's commitment to upholding justice.
Key Quotes from General Koscheski
Several statements made by General Koscheski during the hearing shed light on his perspective regarding the allegations of UCI:
Denial of UCI: "There was no UCI because there was no direction or order in that capacity." This statement was made in response to questions about whether his actions constituted UCI.
On the Plan to Cleanse: "My plan was to cleanse the case and start the process all over again.” This indicates his perspective on the motivations behind the dismissal and repreferral of charges.
Authority Statement: "If he would have done anything but prefer and send it right back to me, I would have just taken the power away from him." This quote illustrates the command's overreach and the lack of autonomy for subordinate officers, raising concerns about the integrity of the command structure.
On Accuser Status: "It was known that this was the CG's case. It was known. There was no question about it." This emphasizes the awareness among personnel regarding the command's involvement in the case.
Defense's Key Points on UCI
The defense presented several critical arguments regarding UCI during the hearing:
Lack of Independence: They contended that Colonel Coyle lacked autonomy and acted under pressure from General Koscheski, constituting UCI.
Violation of RCM 306: The defense asserted that the actions taken by General Koscheski and Colonel Coyle violated the Rules for Courts-Martial, undermining the legitimacy of charge preferral.
Appearance of UCI: The defense emphasized that even the appearance of UCI damaged the integrity of the military justice process.
Dismissal Timing: They characterized the dismissal of charges as a tactical move to evade the implications of UCI.
Manipulation of Judicial Process: The defense accused the military command of manipulating the judicial process to achieve a desired outcome, compromising fairness.
A Pattern of Abuse?
Another anonymous source, a Captain who once served as an executive officer for command, shared troubling insights into how leadership operates. “I witnessed JAG advising command to throw the book at members who refused an Article 15. If a member turned it down, command would double down. I watched them make people’s lives hell until they broke or submitted. If they acted out under pressure, it was an easy path to an LOR, LOC, or worse, a case to support the original Article 15.”
This Captain attended the hearing to “witness history in the making,” as Captain Gale’s case is potentially exposing years of systemic abuse at the 552d ACW and Tinker Air Force Base. “You don’t do this to someone unless it’s worked before.”
The motions hearing has left the Gale family and many observers in shock, not just at the evidence presented, but at the potential scale of the misconduct being revealed. As the case continues to unfold, we will keep you updated on every development. "Stay tuned, and as always, we thank you for your prayers, your patience and your support," said a cousin of Captain Gale's.
"We commend the Judge on his due diligence in rehearing the UCI motion and we continue to remain hopeful that this case will be dismissed with prejudice," said the Gale family. "We keep praying that someone will step up and start doing right by the law, Juan and the American taxpayers who are funding this nearly four-year-long litigation."
Conclusion
The motion hearing surrounding Captain Juan Gale illuminated significant concerns regarding unlawful command influence and the integrity of military judicial proceedings. The defense's arguments, bolstered by testimonies and judicial observations, raised critical questions about the command's influence, accountability, and transparency within the military justice system. As the case unfolds, these issues will likely continue to impact perceptions of fairness and due process in military trials.