Were covered up. We covered technical edits yesterday and those were edits where the staff and the Committee Members made edits. Those edits did not substantially change what was written. In most cases, it made it clear to the reader what was intended. Yesterday, there were several times where we had to stop what we were discussing because it needed to be discussed or deliberated in the public forum or Public Meeting today. When we get to those points, i will turn it over to the chair and she will discuss and handle that discussion. After you all come to a consensus, or dont come to a consensus, we will have a vote for what is going to go into the final report. We will start with the table of contents and page one. The edits that were made were approved by the general, as we move to page four, once again, those edits were approved yesterday because they did not have any substandard change to the report. Now we are on page six. Once again, we have no substantive change to the report of technical editor edits. We added a staff footnote and that was just to clear out what was going on in the paragraph that was discussed. Page nine, once again, approved the staff edits and we added his information into the report. On page 10, we added a footnote to clear up any ambiguity. That that footnote clears up. We go to chapter one which is on page 11 and chapter one is findings and observations based on the review of m cio, military criminal investigation organizations, penetrative sexual offense investigative case files closed in fiscal year 2017. And, so, we look at page 11, general had a comment, yesterday we went over that comment and he had no further issue. On page 12, we have one technical change. Throughout the report, you will see this change. I will not cover it every time we go over it. We changed the word Sexual Assault to sexual offense. For consistency throughout the report, that is the term we will use. Sexual offense. Page 13. We had more edits which we took care of yesterday. Same with page 14. Fifteen. Look at page 16. This is the first instance where the committee will have to discuss and deliberate. Ms. Garvin had a comment and i will turn it over to the chair to discuss the language that should be feared in the sentence that is in the first paragraph while some victims in the Council Agreed to do the followup interview, others requested that the m cio send written questions for the victim to answer which is less than ideal method for developing information. [inaudible] without the explicit statements which is being valued, what i was commenting on is, there are lots of ways of developing information. In a casebycase analysis, there cant be times where written questions are the most effective way for a particular person to respond to questions. We are making a globalized statement that it is always a less than ideal method for developing information. My question was for whom to what and not necessarily factoring that in a casebycase moment, they are different ways of listing effective information for purposes depending on the person being interviewed and followed up with beard my recommendation is at this relatively early phase in our work, putting that assessment in that we strike the clause. I was not a part of the case review process. There may be a review that thats an important clause. My thought on that is, unless you are dealing with a witness with some type of disability, written questions dont get sent someplace, they get answered and they get sent back. That completely curtails the ability to do followup questions. Mr. Kramer, if the government told you you can only communicate with your client with questions, do you think you get a full sense of what had happened . [inaudible] obviously, you are correct. I would never [inaudible] what if we added, for the victim to answer, except in rare instances, a less than ideal method. The value we are putting on here is left untreated less than ideal method for Law Enforcement to elicit what they perceive as a full story. Again, there would never be another moment before in person questioning, which, of course, if it comes to trial, there will be. The first round of questions with you and then lets say the sbc says and im assuming that that is where this came from said, you know what, i am not going to have them sit down for an in person again because when they sit down with you Law Enforcement, they actually start to have panic. Their memory becomes confused and they will give you a statement that is less accurate because of the way xy or z has impacted them. This is true of defendants, too. Sometimes our interrogation tactics do not factor the way the brain is working in the moment. It is less accurate and useful information from persons being interviewed or interrogated. Whatever verb you want to use. Either for my comfort i would either want it to be, which is often less than ideal for developing information from a Law Enforcement perspective. That, i would be comfortable with. Putting the lens on of who is assessing that this is effective information. With that friendly amendment which is often a less than ideal method for developing information for Law Enforcement, for our firm, from Law Enforcement perspective, does anyone have a problem with that . Raise your hand if you are in favor. Simply say yes. Yes. Miss yes. Okay. Thank you. We look at page 17. Those edits were handled yesterday. Page 18. Number two there under discussion. The last sentence in that paragraph says the word swiftly. That seemed because some issues. Investigators need the ability to tailor the scope of the investigation to the fact of that case including the ability to swiftly close investigations when appropriate. There was some discussion, but once again it entered into the realm of deliberation. An abundance of caution if we decide to discuss it today. There was some talk yesterday before we cut it off about just deleting that word. I will turn it over to the chair for discussion. Does anybody feel strongly that the word swiftly needs to be in there . I feel like what we were trying to address is the case is not making it out of the starting gate seemed to go on for six months. I think it would be fine if we say close when appropriate. When appropriate will vary depending upon an investigation. I think part of the thing that we wanted to address was the seed. I would just add a little twist to what you suggest to close the investigations. The ability to close investigation in a timely fashion. Anybody have any thoughts about mr. Kramers proposed amendment . I am sorry, the ability to close investigations in a timely fashion, or timely manner. It can be prosecution as well. It does not mean closing it down with no action. Could use a timely and appropriate fashion . Say it again. Timely and appropriate fashion. Timely and appropriate fashion. Okay. Judge grimm has proposed closing investigations in a timely and appropriate. Appropriate fashion. Anybody have any problems with that . Okay. In favor. Everybody present is in favor. Yes. Okay. That is unanimous. Are judge grimm and ms. Raising their hands when they say yes but your mark. And we are dancing. [laughter] and saluting. Turning to page 19. My a inquire, on page 18, did we delete a portion of the sentence before the one we just addressed, shape and scope. I believe yesterday we agreed it would say most case files revealed that investigators did not have discretion to pursue investigative steps that they deemed appropriate based on the facts of a particular allegation [inaudible] and then also at the last paragraph on page 18, we decided to delete the agency that was mentioned. Turning to page nine teen. I have a . Next to ms. Garvins comment. That was removed yesterday. Thank you. There is nothing further on page nine teen. Page 20, those were technical edits made by the staff. Same with page 21. Same with page 22. Twentythree. Twentyfour and 25. Twentysix and 27. Twentyeight and 29. As well as page 30. Page 31, ms. Garvin had a comment that raised deliberation and, so, it was in the second full paragraph there. I will turn it over to the chair. The sentence of, i am concerned [inaudible] the question sentences the committee is most concerned about those cases reviewed in which a victim preference to go forward to trial prevailed even though there was inadmissible evidence to obtain and sustain a conviction. Can you tell us those concerns . Literally over that bird. I am not sure at this juncture of our understanding of the cases that i am concerned, i am interested in further analyzing these cases and understanding whether there was a robust enough investigation that could have led to admissible evidence, but, at this juncture, based on the testimony we have heard and the pieces ive been personally privy to, i am not concerned. I am curious and interested in further analyzing. Members of the committee. I think that that is valid to raise since we have some thoughts about whether or not we were able to review the complete record, even those given. To flag it as something, we need to use a term that indicate we want to go back and look. First of all, this does reach the conclusion that there was insufficient evidence at the matter of the case versus what we reviewed did not meet the standard shared we had talked about, and i know this will implicate Something Else that we did not always watch the interviews and there was other evidence that we would see. We would just take the reports summarizing it. I do not know what the verb is, though. Any other comments . Suggestions . It seems a propria did the amendment. Im not sure what the amendment was. [inaudible] analyzing or further analyzing. I am interested in digging in. There is clearly something we need to look at. The amendment was that the sentence would read the committee is interested in further analyzing those cases. I agree. I think that is more accurate for what were trying to get to. With that amendment, sorry, does the committee endorsed that amendment . Everybody here says yes. On the line . Yes. No problem. Yes. It passes. Okay. That was all that was on page 31. Page 32. Technical changes that we handled yesterday. Looking at page 35, it was a staff change. First full paragraph there in blue. The issue is half way down that paragraph, on page 33, excuse me , the implementation, the implementation of the judge having revisions to the new disposition guidance should be followed up on thorough site visits to ensure judge advocate advises being conveyed to the initial disposition of authority added time and appropriate matter to inform the position of what action, if any, to take on the allegation. I think that was, i will turn it over to the chair to discuss what word may think should be done to help the committee in that paragraph. The job to ensure that the advises being done and conveyed good more to see, to observe, to assist. That is wonderful. If we move, take out and add assess. Does the committee think that that changes, that that is appropriate. Yes. Yes. Yes. Have the word whether there. [inaudible] okay. In favor. Okay. Just to make sure that the staff is clear, meaning me, the word in short will be removed and the sentence will assess whether judge advocate advises being conveyed. Not wea th er. [laughter] that was all the changes on page 33. We looked to page 34 and the staff was going to add a footnote after that first paragraph and we discussed that. We will add that in to the final draft. Turn to page 35. There were no additional comments. Those were technical edits which i mentioned earlier about infirmities throughout the report. So, turning to page 36, under observation six, the sentence starts troubled. In some cases, the comment was troubled. Was that the correct language that should be used in that vengeance. I think this is just a word smithing change. I turn it over to the chair for discussion. Im not sure that curious really captures what we saw. No pc and yet charges were referred. How about has concerns. Has concerns regarding this and further analyzed. I am okay potentially with has concerns here if it is particularly in light of everything we have heard about how these hearings are going and what has happened in them. It is an investigative moment for us. I am okay even in this situation has concerns and would like to further analyze. I would be okay with that. I just dont want it to be a period after the verb which grammatically it kind of is. My teacher would be very happy i am focused on verbs right now. What they verb . [laughter] conjunction junction. Concerns regarding cases where charges of specification for sexual offenses were preferred. When. That. The officer determined not supported by evidence establishing probable cause to believe the accused committed the offense. The deck ipad will continue to investigate this issue. Would it be more proper to use the word where as opposed to that . I am agnostic regarding that. I am agnostic regarding that. Which charges and specification . Continue on with that sentence and the deck ipad will continue to investigate this issue. Could somebody read the whole thing. The deck ipad has concerns regarding cases in which charges and specifications for penetrated sexual offense were preferred that the preliminary hearing officer were not determined by evidence establishing probable cause to believe that the accused committed the offense. The deck ipad will continue to assess the cases. Then you interrupt the next question. Not referred to courtmartial. [inaudible] you would put that at the end of the paragraph . Yes. That works. Yes. All in favor of that amendment. Judge graham. Ms. Topaz. Yes. Yes. No problem. That passes. Moving down to almost the bottom. The last sentence in that paragraph we were just working on. After footnote 110 the reviewers expressed concern, that paragraph, it was determined yesterday that that was one long almost nonunderstandable sentence. What the staff did was draft a potential, broke it down into more manageable pieces. That sentence would read, cw, dr wg reviewers expressed concerns about cases referred to trial by General Court martial that the preliminary hearing officer had determined lack of probable cause to believe the accused committed a penetrated sexual offense. If such referrals were based on evidence, not presented at the hearing, the benefits of the process were lost. Is that a staff edit . Okay. All in favor. I am sorry. I apologize. Could you reread it, sir. Absolutely. Case review working Group Reviewers expressed concern about cases referred to trial by General Court marshals that the preliminary hearing officer had determined lack of probable cause to believe the accused committed a penetrated sexual offense. As such referrals were based on evidence presented at the hearing, the benefits of the hearings adversarial process were lost. [inaudible] sir, that clarified it for me now i have my notes. Thank you. All in favor of that proposed edit. Judge graham, ms. Topaz. Yes. Yes. Okay. That is unanimous. Turned to page 37. We took care of those edits yesterday. Page 38. Took care of that yesterday. Turning to page 39. Observation eight. There was some discussion about the observation itself which states many Sexual Assault cases are being referred to Courts Martial when there is insufficient evidence to support and sustain a conviction. I believe, ms. Long, you had concerns about using the word many in that observation. I did based on the limits of our review. My suggestive language i tried to revise by replacing many with, or, inserting before many based on information this dr wg reviewed the investigative file. Probably too clunky. Basically saying what we reviewed we found this. Again, i think it is one of those we probably need to look at it more deeply because we know our review is to limited, at times. So i believe, let me see if i have the sentence right, based on information reviewed, and that is before many so it would be based on information reviewed, many Sexual Assault cases are being referred. What if we did it the other way which is many of the Sexual Assault cases that were referred by the working group. What about based on the cr wg review i just wanted to flag in there that our review is limited just a nobody draws a conclusion that it was true, given we know we did not look at some things. That was my pushback. If im the outlier, im happy to just be at the center on this. Did we address what was in the case files earlier in the report that we did not either have access to or were able to review the tapes of the statements . What we stated earlier was our review by the working groups was we reviewed those investigations that were provided to us based our analysis on the case file that was presented, that was reviewed. That is really not the full picture. If we did not watch the tapes, which we did not, then we did not reveal what was given to us. What if we put a footnote on that and at the bottom referred back to the pages where we addressed that point and the other point about the limitation based only on the investigative files on page whatever and the one where added the sentence about we did not know, we relied on the investigators putting the Key Information into the summary. We were upfront about that. If we footnote to those two pages, then anybody that looks at that and raises her eyebrows, then they will read the other stuff again. That is fine with me. Okay. The staff will have to find that to footnote it. [inaudible] yes. Yes. Okay. That passes. [laughter] almost like you are not here. [laughter] my comments are coming. Did you stand up . [laughter] its okay. That was all the edits or deliberation on page 39. [inaudible] there was no, on page 40, just technical edits. Moving to page 41. There were some comments about observation nine and ms. Garvin had a comment. I will turn it over to the chair for discussion. Can you tell us what your concern was. The observation talks about pretrial advice being more helpful to convening authorities if it included explanations to the conclusions and we had not yet, i dont believe we had heard from convening authorities telling us that fact. This is us assuming that it would be more useful to them. I thought that clarification point might be useful so it is not misconstrued as a testimonial based on facts. That is my recollection. What i remember was a checkbox. We have jurisdiction over the accused. The forms specifications are correct, and there was one more. Three checks. Jurisdictions, forms specifications and probable cause. Based on what we saw in the files, we have heard in testimony that there is a lot of oral advice that is not documented that is given. Since it is not documented, we do not know what it is. What the word could as opposed to