Air Force OSI Agent Now Serving 30 Years | The Robert Condon Story - S.O.S. #234

A decorated OSI agent who helped capture Taliban fighters and aided disaster survivors should be building a life in his forties. Instead, Robert Condon has spent 12 years behind bars, sentenced to 30, while his mother—retired Toledo police officer Holly Yeager—keeps fighting a case she believes was built on pressure, politics, and broken process. We open the file and follow the twists: a drug ring investigation that put Robert at odds with command priorities, a single accuser whose SANE exam reportedly found no injuries consistent with her extreme account, and two more “victims” cultivated through interviews that steered words toward charges and dangled immunity for unrelated misconduct.

Holly walks us through the evidence gaps that still haunt the record: a second phone noted but never collected, weeks of exculpatory messages lost when Robert’s device was destroyed after chain-of-custody issues, and discovery that surfaced a concealed felony history too late to test at trial. We talk Article 32 anomalies, special victims counsel influence, and a panel of superiors deciding guilt under the shadow of congressional pressure. Non‑unanimous verdicts, repeated speedy‑trial slippage, and unsworn statements shaped a path to a 30‑year sentence far above average. On appeal, mismatched and sealed record-of-trial pages made it harder for judges to validate citations or see context, dimming the chance for dissent and relief.

Beyond the legal maze lies a family’s cost: a son who lost his thirties, a 92‑year‑old grandfather running out of road trips, and a parole process that hinges on treatment requiring admissions he won’t make. Holly’s message is blunt and humane: protect real survivors and protect due process. Stop manufacturing narratives to save weak cases. Build independent evidence integrity, require unanimous verdicts, insulate panels from command, and hold investigators to the same standards we demand in civilian courts.

Listen, share, and weigh in with your perspective on military justice reform. If this story moved you, subscribe, leave a review, and send the episode to someone who cares about truth over optics.

Chapters

• 0:00 Trigger Warning And Mission Of Truth
• 2:01 Holly’s Background And Robert’s Service
• 8:40 Deployments, OSI Work, And Recognition
• 12:55 Mother’s Law Enforcement Lens
• 15:26 The 2013 Pivot: Drugs Case And Fallout
• 20:45 Accuser A: Relationship And Texts
• 26:30 Accuser M: Craigslist, Claims, And SANE Findings
• 33:20 Missing Phones, Destroyed Evidence, Chain Issues
• 37:40 Coercive Tactics And Pressure On Witnesses
• 42:10 Accuser J: Statements Reframed Into Crimes
• 48:30 Pretrial Confinement And Speedy Trial Delays
• 53:15 Article 32 Irregularities And SVP Dynamics
• 58:10 Panel Pressures, Non‑Unanimous Verdicts
• 1:03:05 Conviction Shock And Aftermath
• 1:08:10 Brady Material, Sealed Records, Appeal Gaps
• 1:14:20 Twelve Years Lost And Family Cost
• 1:19:30 Parole, Treatment, And Next Steps
• 1:25:10 What Listeners Can Do And Final Plea

Transcript

SPEAKER_03: 0:01

Good evening, everyone, and welcome back to the Stories of Service podcast. And tonight I have a very, very special guest. And I am starting a little early, as my husband just reminded me in the comments. But the reason I'm doing so is to talk about the fact that this is going to be a very difficult subject. And if any of you are triggered by talk of any type of sexual crime accusation or anything along those lines, I want to have give you the opportunity to prepare yourself. I want you to listen and I want you to come at this with an open mind and an open heart. But I also want you to know that there's going to be some difficult subjects that we're going to discuss tonight. But as you all know on the Stories of Service podcast, I intend to tell the truth. And I do my best to show you a story, even if that story is difficult to tell. And tonight I have another one of those difficult stories to tell. Holly Yeager, how are you doing today?

SPEAKER_02: 1:00

I'm doing fine. Thank you. Thank you for having me.

SPEAKER_03: 1:03

Well, thank you so much for agreeing to do this. I did postpone this show. I was going through a little bit of difficulties myself. Those of you who follow me online know what I'm talking about. And I wanted to make sure that it was the right time to tell this story. And I believe it is the right time. But before we get started, as we always do, welcome to, I believe this is probably episode 235, 236 of the Stories of Service Podcast. Ordinary people who do extraordinary work. I'm the host, Teresa Carpenter. And as we always do to get these shows started, I'll do an intro from my father, Charlie Pickard.

SPEAKER_00: 1:36

From the moment we're born, lock eyes with our parents. We are inspiring others. By showing up as a vessel of service, we not only help others, we help ourselves. Welcome to SOS Stories of Service, hosted by Teresa Carpenter, here from ordinary people from all walks of life who have transformed their communities by performing extraordinary work.

SPEAKER_03: 2:01

And what makes this story, because I have covered other stories of what I believe are false allegations, is a dual perspective of a mother fighting for her son and that of a seasoned law enforcement professional. Holly spent 30 years with the Toledo Police Department. The first 10 years she worked in a clerical role, then in 1985, she attended the police academy and spent the next 20 years serving as a uniformed street patrol officer. And the experience that she'll talk about today, I believe, gives her a unique lens on investigations, evidence, and the importance of justice done right. And today we're going to talk about the painful journey of watching her son, a former Air Force OSI agent, Robert Condon, go from a decorated investigator to a man serving 30 years in military prison. In 2014, Robert was court-martialed and convicted on multiple charges, including sexual assault, stalking, and obstruction of justice. To the Air Force, his case was a sign that the system works. But to Holly and many others, drawing on her experience of law enforcement experience, it is proof of something far more troubling. How coercion, flawed investigations, and unchecked power can destroy lives. And today we're going to talk about that in more detail. Holly, how are you doing?

SPEAKER_02: 3:11

I'm doing good. Thank you.

SPEAKER_03: 3:13

So first off, I want to talk about a little bit about Robert's backstory. Where was Robert uh born and raised? And tell me a little bit about what he was like as a child.

SPEAKER_02: 3:24

Okay. He's my oldest child, my only son. He was born in 1984 in Toledo, Ohio. He had a very energetic personality. He loved all superheroes. And because it's Halloween tomorrow, I was thinking about all the things that he was. I have pictures of him as a Ghostbuster, a Ninja Turtle, Superman, Zorro, and even Fox Mulder from the X-Files. He always, he's dressed as a military guy in one of the Halloween pictures. He always wanted to be a superhero. His father was a Green Beret during Vietnam, and he looked up to him. His great-grandfather on on the Condon side lost a lower part of a leg at the Battle of the Bulge during uh World War II. So he had grown up with those examples. My father served in Korea, those examples, and he wanted to live up to those examples. There was no choice. It's not my mother's choice for her son to join the military, but there was no way that you were going to stop my son from joining the military.

SPEAKER_03: 4:32

Right. So he joined the Air Force. Was he originally an OSI agent when he joined, or what did he join as?

SPEAKER_02: 4:38

He wanted to become a pararescuan, but he was not very good at the swimming. So when he washed out of that attempted training, he went instead into security forces. Both his mother and father were law enforcement, and so I think that was a natural fit. He started in Ellis and then later said he wanted to consider OSI. I encouraged that. During the time that he was in, he went in in April of 2003. He deployed six times. During his time up to 2013, when the accusation was made, he had got his associate's and bachelor's degree in criminal justice. He attended uh law enforcement, the federal law enforcement training center in Georgia, became a flexi, it's called, and became a federal agent. And that's when he was became OSI.

SPEAKER_03: 5:29

Gotcha. And tonight we also have a couple people who are joining who have also talked to you. Uh Rich LaMonica says, Hello, Holly and Teresa. So I'm not the first person to bring Holly's story. It was Rich uh who did it first before me, I believe. Is that correct? Yes, yes. And his story and him showing your story and so bravely speaking up about this was also a big inspiration for myself. So also wanted to share a little bit about Robert. That is Robert right there. Tell us a little bit about when that picture was taken.

SPEAKER_02: 6:02

Um and he was home. Um, he was always very proud of his uniform. Um, I think that was at church that day. That picture was taken. You can see all the decorations. Uh, he's a decorated combat veteran. He served in Afghanistan, Iraq, he's been to Africa a couple times, Jordan. Um, he his first uh his first deployment was to Hurricane Katrina to help the survivors there. And he he was very emotionally touched by that, seeing our own people, helping our own people.

SPEAKER_03: 6:35

Yeah, and for the the listening audience, I'm just showing uh three images uh that we have of Robert. Uh the first image was him in his dress uniform. The second image uh looks to be more in a in a combat zone, and also as well as with this one here. I'll take this one down and just share this one. This is probably the best picture because you kind of see him out with some of the local population. Was this in Afghanistan?

SPEAKER_02: 6:58

This was in Afghanistan, and by this time he is an OSI special agent, and he um excelled at that uh in Afghanistan and counterintelligence work. I have a handwritten note from the head general of the Air Force, um Mark Welsh, at that time, thanking Andy's commander for his his uh help during his visit. He it was very complimentary to have a handwritten note um from the head general of the Air Force, um complimenting on your son. Um, yeah, he excelled at that. They got several awards. Um, he was on his commendation that they credited him with the capture of 78 Taliban fighters. Um, I think 11 new insurgents came to mind. They uncovered um several places that they were hiding. Uh, all that was his work. And I asked him if that was the whole total unit, and he said no, everybody's commendation had different numbers on it. They this was in particular his work that captured that 78 Taliban fighters.

SPEAKER_03: 8:06

Wow, that that's pretty significant.

SPEAKER_02: 8:08

Yeah, things we didn't even know. He he really he really did excel at counterintelligence work.

SPEAKER_03: 8:14

And what's really interesting too is not only did Robert go into law enforcement and have that background, he had a mother who was in the law enforcement uh community. So tell me a little bit about how that has shaped your perspective of of what you've seen happen to your son.

SPEAKER_02: 8:33

Well, it it's unbelievable because the difference between um civilian law enforcement and what I saw happen to my son is so bizarre. Um, that when they placed him under arrest, they shipped him five hours away from his home. That would be like if we arrested somebody in Toledo and we shipped them to Cincinnati. That's just not done. Any lawyer that you know locally is that's who you want to hire, somebody that you know locally. They shipped him away from everybody he knew. We hired him an attorney in Jacksonville, Brig. Jacksonville Naval Brig is where they put him. We hired a man that had been in the Navy, a JEG, a commander, and had that experience, but was now in civilian law. And as soon as we did that, then they shipped him the next court, the second next court appearance, then they put him five hours away from that attorney. Then my son is would be able to help in his own case, but not if you completely separate him repeatedly and geographically away from his attorneys. Right. He never went back to Jacksonville then. Then they kept him in a civilian uh facility called Santa Rosa County Jail, um, which made it very difficult for him. And and the lieutenant colonel in charge of the law force said it's um Santa Rosa makes it very difficult for attorneys to have conversations with their with the inmates. She knew that going into trial made it more difficult for him. Um they also have been accused of starving prisoners during that time. My son lost 40 pounds in weight. He was there about 60, no, 79 days before the next trial date was set. And then they moved into uh joint base Charleston. So it's, you know, like moved him four four times, back and forth four times, and always away from his attorneys.

SPEAKER_03: 10:28

And the point that I'm making is that these are just some of the due process violations that we'll get into, or or what we allege are due process violations uh that Robert dealt with that would not necessarily be the case on the civilian side. And the civilian side, from what we can tell, does afford protections that unfortunately the military, the people who are defending our country are are not afforded those same uh due process protections. And do want to also give a shout out to Arvis Owens. Uh, Arvis has been a wonderful advocate who connected uh myself with you, Holly, and has connected me with a lot of the other uh advocates and other uh people who are what I would call survivors of false allegations. So I really do appreciate all the work that Arvis has done to bring people together. But take me back to what happened in 2013, the first time that you heard about these allegations and what what what started this? What kicked off this incident?

SPEAKER_02: 11:29

When I tell the story uh recently, uh my friends goes back, go back to the spring of 2013. In the spring of 2013, he had come back from a deployment. His command um met with him and told him that in order to make himself more promotable, he needed to stop deploying so often, and he needed to stay um in country and work on criminal cases. So he went out to do that, and in the next couple weeks, he uncovered nine airmen on the base at Hurlburg Field dealing drugs to other airmen on the base at Herlberg Field. He and his partner, who ends up later being accuser A, stated um uh they were working on the case together. She and he were working on the cases together. Then they became immediately, the coming and became immediately upset, and they deployed him again to Africa and they sent her to Flexi for the advanced course on sexual assault investigation.

SPEAKER_03: 12:32

Sorry to interrupt, but when you say upset, what do you mean?

SPEAKER_02: 12:36

You know, they said don't deploy, and then immediately when he has these nine drug arrests, now they're all in a tizzy about that, and they deploy him. Now, you know what do they want? Which do they want? And my son had not done a lot of criminal cases because he was always working the counterintelligence, so he um needed some help with paperwork, and he kept requesting help with the paperwork, and he was relying on the the accuser A that later becomes the accuser, her help because she was working on criminal cases all the time. She hadn't deployed, but they shipped her away, and then he's just left floundering trying to get his paperwork done with this deployment over his head in June.

SPEAKER_03: 13:21

Gotcha.

SPEAKER_02: 13:22

Okay, so um accuser A comes back from her deployment or her uh TDY, right? T D Y they call that training. Yes, and um she gives him a card um trying to make amends because they had basically been dating and split them up this way by moving her her to training and him deploy um uh a little letter, it had a coded message in it, and and all these crazy little little sentences, and in each sentence was a large letter, and then he was supposed to put all the large letters together and figure out what the code was. Okay, he had no patience with that. So when I got that letter, I decoded it and it said, Take care, I want you back. Okay, so he goes to Africa while he's in Africa. He had put an ad online, Craigslist. Craigslist. Now, not something a mother really wants to know about Craigslist, and basically he's talking about um men seeking women and what kind of things he's into. And accuser M answers his ad and she explains that she has participated in this kind of behavior before, this kind of sexual interest before, and wants to meet him, but he is an African.

SPEAKER_03: 14:46

So they she and by the way, this is a very normalized process. I I will I would say the acronyms. I know people will know what I'm talking about, but if you've ever read that book and and Arvis or somebody what's the book called?

SPEAKER_02: 15:00

The Fifty Shades of Gray.

SPEAKER_03: 15:02

Fifty Shades of Gray. It is it romances, it romances it and it glamorizes it, yes, to to a lot of people.

SPEAKER_02: 15:10

And a lot of women that read the book, they're intrigued because they romanticize it.

SPEAKER_03: 15:15

They romanticize about this particular practice, and this was something that he he mentioned he was into this. She responded back. Oh, yes, BDSM. I'll just say what it is. And then the next thing you know, they are meeting up and and talking, correct? Or not meeting up, but texting, texting back and then.

SPEAKER_02: 15:51

On the 11th of August, my mother passes, and on the 13th, he comes home for a funeral. On the 20th, he goes back and they continue seeing each other sleeping together, experimenting with all these things for the next few weeks. Okay. But he is not being monogamous at this point. He continues to date other women, and so he he has uh should we go into how that next one happens? So accuser A, who had been his partner and his girlfriend in the past, um Right, the fellow, the fellow agent.

SPEAKER_03: 16:26

Fellow OSI.

SPEAKER_02: 16:27

They see each other at the bar. It's a bar that he goes to that she doesn't normally go to, but she's there with friends. And that particular night, she's celebrating with her roommate, um, who just got a new job. And they're all supposed to go to the roommate's fiancé's house to spend the night. She and my son flirt back and forth all evening long. And um, he even has takes a picture of her smiling at him right before she leaves. She tells her roommate that she wants to sleep in her own bed. She wants to go home and sleep in her own bed, and she gets the her and the fiancé to take her back to her own place. Um, what is really interesting in Article 32, um, the agent A says that she went into the house herself. The roommate says we had to carry her in, she was so drunk. The fiance says the girls went in and I stayed in the car. So you see, nobody's telling who the full story. Okay, right. Yeah. All right. So as soon as she is in her in her town or her apartment by herself, and she knows her roommate's a gone for the whole night, she immediately starts texting my son to come over. He knows they both have been drinking, they're agents, and he says to her, Are you sure? Okay, now he's crazy. He's crazy about this girl. When they broke up in April, he was very sad, okay, very upset. But he says, Are you sure? Why don't we wait and do this right? We've both been drinking. I don't want a of tomorrow to be upset at this decision tonight. She is she taxes and calls him six times, and those phone records I do have six times in five minutes. And she tells him, if you don't want to come, I'll call somebody else. Well, he says, if you're sure. So he goes to her house like 45 minutes later, knocks at the door, she lets him in. She's wearing her pajamas, there's not a movie on. We haven't set up the scrabble board. We know why we're here. Okay. So they sleep together in the middle of the night. He texts her and said, I have to leave. I don't have any clariton with me. And she is a cat and he's allergic. The prosecution makes it she's passed out. That's why he texts us. He texts us because she's sleeping, and he texts and says, I'm really sorry I had to leave. Wolford, that's the cat's name, is making my allergies crazy. I'll see you tomorrow night when I take you out to dinner. Okay, and he leaves. All right. She wakes up about four o'clock in the morning and she is furious that he left. Way to make a girl feels what she says. On a text, on a text. And he it's not romantic that he left. She wanted to spend the whole night, but he couldn't because of the cat. Leave me. He wanted to spend the whole night because he was crazy about A. But he left and she was angry. And so they go back and forth, and he he explains to her, but she's not really having it. She asks for a plan V pill, okay. He says he'll get her one. She and she does what? She invites somebody else over. She invites another agent over that she had also been flirting with. They had not been together, but I believe she used that to try to make my son jealous. Okay, so she does call somebody else. Um, all right. Our one attorney did ask him when he was on the stand and stuff. She did ask him privately, were you hoping for a romantic relationship with A? And he said, Yes, he was. So yeah. So um about four days later, on the 3rd of September.

SPEAKER_03: 20:17

What happened with the plan B?

SPEAKER_02: 20:19

He brought it later on that day. They said they talked and everything was fine. They were going out for dinner. Um, they still had a list of things that they called their bucket list. They were planning later in the month or maybe in the summer to no later in the year to go to Six Flags Together. Okay. They had been to uh they had spent a weekend in St. Augustine, they had spent a weekend um at Mardi Gras. You know, this was a romantic relationship. Um it wasn't a one-night stand, it wasn't uh a sexual assault. It it could have been uh confusion about whether that's what she really wanted, maybe, but every time that they'd spent the night together before that, they had had sex. So they there was at that time uh part of the code that they said mistake of mistake of understanding. Could have been mistake of understanding. I don't think so.

SPEAKER_03: 21:18

Like I said, she she answered the door in her pajamas, you know. Right, and there were text messages before and after.

SPEAKER_02: 21:27

And the next day she's he says, You asked me to the expletive that's not nice. You asked me to F you. She said yes, but you should have known I meant that I meant no. Come on. How is he supposed to think you mean no? You just asked him. That's in the text messages. Okay. So so there they make up, they're gonna continue to go out. On the September 3rd, um, accuser M. This is the only accuser that comes forward on her own to make a complaint against my son.

SPEAKER_03: 22:06

This is the one from Craigslist.

SPEAKER_02: 22:08

Right. This is the one from Craigslist. She comes to his house. She is angry with him because she saw that his dad was back on Craigslist. She stated she thought this was a relationship. She could have gotten back with her ex-boyfriend. He has noticed really strange things about her. One, he says he continued to date other people and he didn't intend to really stop seeing other people. He um did not want a serious relationship because he planned on getting out of the service and coming home. Um, he uh found her sitting down. So his driveway, he lives in a townhouse. And the townhouse um, like say goes east to west, and just to the north of the townhouses is the driveway. He lives all the way down to the very end on the water. This this driveway is like a hundred feet long at least. Okay. He'd find her sitting in that driveway 20, 30 feet from his townhouse, watching it in the middle of the night. You know, that's strange behavior for somebody who's known like only you communicated with two months, and she've only known like a total of three months. That's you know, I mean, that's and he said it just wouldn't work because he had friends that were friends that were girls. He didn't want he didn't he just said this was this just not working out, right? So um they get into an argument, she's hysterical. He says, We're just gonna break up. That's just how it is, it's over. She's hysterical and crying. He says to her, Look, I don't want you driving if you're this upset. If you want to spend the night here, that's fine, but I'm going to bed. And he goes upstairs and gets in bed alone, okay, and to watch a show. And later on, she comes up, gets all her clothes off, gets into bed with them, she puts her shoulder, her head on his shoulder, and her arm or her shoulder underneath his armpit, and um like goes to sleep. But the whole we think at this time she was trying to get his DNA, but she tries to initiate um sexual intercourse and he's he refuses because the relationship is over. Okay.

SPEAKER_03: 24:18

Right, he's got he's got red flags, it sounds like he's he has red flags.

SPEAKER_02: 24:22

Yeah, he doesn't want her to drive, and I don't think he expected her to really come upstairs, but she did. And so uh during the evening, um she decides to go home, she gets dressed, he walks her to the door to make sure. He says, Call me when you get to the dorm to make sure you're okay, and you get there safe. Um, and then um the next day, oh safe. So from there, she goes um back to her dorms, uh, but never goes in. She calls a friend that she we find out later she was arrested with prior. She goes from there to the Saint, um, no, to Fort Walton Beach, which is a civilian hospital. She wants to make um a sex assault report. She asks them what they'll do. They tell her that they will file uh charge, they will call the police, will file charges immediately, and that he would probably be arrested today. She's not sure she wants that. So she leaves there and she goes to the military hospital. Right.

SPEAKER_03: 25:22

And this is important to know too, because Em is not only a girl that he was dating. My understanding is she was also active duty in the military, correct?

SPEAKER_02: 25:30

Active duty Air Force. She was training to become an air traffic controller. Um, she's having some trouble with her studies, okay, and she joined the military hiding a felony conviction from her prior life, which she did not disclose before she joined. My son told me they weren't taking anybody with uh criminal history of any kind. It should uh civilian, my understanding is that civilian air traffic controllers as well as military air traffic controllers can have no criminal record at all for those positions. So she leaves there and she has the same nurse do the report and she makes it restricted later that day.

SPEAKER_03: 26:12

Yeah, and a restricted report for people who don't know what I'm sorry to keep interrupting, I just want to make sure that the story is so super clear. Or unrestric or unrestricted. Restricted.

SPEAKER_02: 26:20

Restricted, they take all the evidence, the DNA, all that kind of thing, and they save it, but no investigation starts. Unrestricted, it and they they call an OSI. Okay, she makes it restricted until later on that day when she doesn't show up from work, probably because she's exhausted from all this stuff all night long she was doing. So she doesn't show up and her commands upset with her, and then she states that she was sexually assaulted and she makes it unrestricted. And from there, it just it just went crazy from there, right?

SPEAKER_03: 26:56

So at this point, you are only having M as the accuser, right?

SPEAKER_02: 27:04

She is the only woman that came forward on her own and said she was sexually assaulted on her own, and only because her commander challenged her for not showing up for work.

SPEAKER_03: 27:17

Okay. So then the what so tell me about how the next few weeks play out. Okay, from this point.

SPEAKER_02: 27:22

My son is an OSI, he is working um at Herbert Field, Florida, so those agents cannot do his case. Now, of course, they have to have somebody interviewer to begin with. So they have an agent, um, I think it was a major that was in my son's circle, and uh another um regular agent um come and do the initial report. They note that she has two phones and they make a note to the agents that will come from Quantico to do this case that she has two phones and they should collect both. They never did. They um look for the same nurse questions. She said she has bruises. The same nurse can't find them.

SPEAKER_03: 28:10

She uses um which is a sexual assault nurse examiner, just for people that want to know what a sane nurse is.

SPEAKER_02: 28:16

Sexual assault nurse examiner. She goes through her whole body, she cannot find any signs of physical injury. And M had made an accusation of an extremely violent sexual assault, um, vaginal rape, oral rape, um, being paddled, being bitten, um, being held up off her feet by her neck and choked till she thought her eyes would bug out, um, that she was hit in the mouth and she could taste blood, all of these things. They swab her mouth, no blood. They find no choke marks on her neck, they find no bite marks on her shoulder, they find no bruises anywhere. The agent, the female agent that was one of the original ones, ask her to move aside her uniform, sleeves, and and uh to look. She can't find any bruises. Okay, no one can see them. The same nurse uses a wood slamp, which actually highlights secretions and things in case there's something that a victim doesn't totally remember. Nothing. The Quantico people finally come in and they call in a subdermal camera from Quantico to be delivered there to look below below the layers of her skin on her shoulder, which she said he bit her and she was screaming in pain. They know the camera's working because they can see the different layers of the tattoo, but no injury, no trauma. Okay. This and some statements that she kept changing and moving around. Um, she deleted messages from her phone. Before she gave it to OSI, she deleted them. She changed her story, she kept adding more egregious things, trying to make it sound worse. She The and and things that you wouldn't add later, you would have definitely remembered the first day. All these things they should have known, and perhaps they did by that time know about the felony conviction. They should have known that she wasn't telling the truth. Any investigator's the purpose of exposing assault, they might say he shoved me into the wall, and you might not see anything, but all these things choked, bitten, raped, all these things, nothing, you know. Right, you would never have an assault like that that you didn't have some sign as it's like four hours later. That's it's crazy. So rather than letting it go and saying, okay, you're not telling the truth, which is what they would do, the civilian people would do, and what they probably did in the military before Congress got involved, is they are gonna double down. So they need to find another accuser to bolster this case because it's so obvious that it's untrue.

SPEAKER_03: 31:03

I so there wasn't enough evidence. Uh there wasn't enough evidence. And because of that, they wanted to find other cases that we have heard is is is usually standard practice. Now, of course, playing devil's advocate, you could say, well, there is this um allegation that they think is credible, and they want to ensure that this is a pattern or they want to show that this is a pattern, so they start digging into somebody's past to see where that to see if there really is a pattern of this behavior. So at some on some level, I can understand why they do that. But what also was, in my view, a red flag that I just want to make sure that we touch it, that we that we give it some some some attention is the fact that she had that fraudulent enlistment. So that already showed that this person had a propensity, propensity to lie in a major way to to law enforcement. Like this was something that I mean, I know when I joined, I wasn't lying about anything. I was terrified. Like if I were to say anything, uh they were gonna they were gonna find it. They were gonna, they were gonna find, they were gonna go through my past and they were gonna find out what I did. And so that right there uh should have been some indicator, but as you said, it it never we'll get into this later, but it never came up, it was never uh used in court, and it was something that you only found out later after the court martial, which to me is completely unacceptable. But let's go back to where we were in the story where they start looking for other victims.

SPEAKER_02: 32:39

Yeah, so the investigation begins on the 4th of September, and they are they are talking to his co-workers, and then someone in the office says, He I thought he dated um A. And so they call in A. And A is very she has just finished the advanced court on sexual assault investigation. She is very sensitive to women's issues because of course she's a woman. She um she's horrified that they're making these accusations against a man that she's been dating for on and off for almost a year. Um and and I think I think that they made her feel, and she stated herself that she felt responsible for other women, that she should have protected them, that somehow she should have seen this. Like there wasn't any possible way that they, you know, that the girl was lying, okay.

SPEAKER_03: 33:38

Um this was a true allegation. And so in her mind, she says, I I gotta protect other women. She felt responsible and I'm gonna come forward, other people, yeah.

SPEAKER_02: 33:54

And and so she she they convince her that she's a victim, even though she repeatedly stated she did not think she was a victim. Okay, now when she woke up, and you know, my and this is what they do, they take this consensual act that happened prior and they make it non-consensual for their own purposes. Okay, so when she woke up, she was angry that he left. No woman in her right mind has ever been angry that the rapist left. Okay, they wake up, the rapist is gone, they're calling 911. She didn't call law enforcement, she didn't have a saying report made, she did not feel she was a victim, and two of those agents from Quantico made her into a victim, again, for their own purposes. She repeatedly stated that she did not think she was a victim, but she had this feeling that she was responsible for other women, and they found some minor misconduct on personal misconduct on her part and offered immunity if she would cooperate as a victim in this case.

SPEAKER_03: 34:59

That is important. That is a very, very important part of this case because I will tell you, I am now in touch with another person who is a subject of false allegations, not sexual, but other kinds of allegations. And it's the same thing where they have dirt on somebody that they want to weaponize against this person, and they investigators will threaten that dirt against the person. This is not uncommon, not not uncommon at all. Darren Lopez is on the call and she said he says, Yes, they do. Thank you, thank you, Miss Yeager. Yes, we've seen this, we have seen this pattern play out where it's they say, Well, we've got something on you, and if you don't testify or you don't do this, well, I mean, I don't know how they word it to the person, but that's pretty much so they offer her immunity and she agrees to cooperate, and that is in the middle of September, but they can't put him in pretrial confinement, which is what they're really wanting to do, okay, unless they can find continuing behavior, and so they come and they find and they and they have his phone, they're contacting every woman in his phone.

SPEAKER_02: 36:11

They contacted like 150 people, they contacted the first girl he dated in high school, okay. He's been in the service 10 years, he's 29 years old, and they're going back to high school. Okay, he called me by the way on the first day that she made this complaint. As soon as he knew he was being investigated, he called me so and explained the situation. So they finally come against accuser uh Jay. And accuser Jay had been dating him on and off for two years. And accuser Jay tells the officer, who comes by himself, by the way. Usually they come in twos, so each one can say what the other one said. They're a witness for each other. He comes by himself.

SPEAKER_03: 36:55

And by the way, Holly, you said that they contacted 150 people. I just want to make note of the fact that you've probably heard from some of these other people of the 150 and and and what they told and and the way that these questioning would go down. Tell me a little bit about that first. Before we get into M, let's talk about what happened to the people that were like, No, nothing happened. How did they say that the investigators treated them?

SPEAKER_02: 37:20

Do you get what I'm saying? His his best friend is uh Joe, he calls her Joe, and I didn't even know it was a woman. Her name is Sarah Joe, and they contacted her. Two women agents came to her house. Her husband was CID in the army, and he was OSI in the Air Force, so they were friends. They had actually, we're gonna go on our next deployment in the same area at the same time, but he was best friends. He calls Sarah Joe, his best friend. Okay, and they contacted her, they came to her house. Her husband was deployed. They asked her if there had ever been any sexual assault between her and Rob. That's how they my son's name is Rob or Andrew. Okay, so Rob, she says, No, she explains that they're just friends. Um, she was so cautious about this appearance of impropriety that even when uh Andy went to her house, they would go outside and sit on the pad y'all because she didn't even want her neighbors to think that there was ever anything going on. So she states there was never anything but a platonic relationship between me and Rob. She states that repeatedly. They said, What if we told you that we have you romantically Skyping with him? Um a romantic Skype between you and him on well, on Skype. She says, I would tell you I've never Skyped with Rob ever. Ever. And you have me mistaken with somebody else. And then they said, What if we tell your husband that you're having an affair with Rob? What will he say? Her husband's deployed. Can you imagine the pressure?

SPEAKER_03: 38:56

She's saying in her mind, she's probably thinking to herself that these people can just make up text messages, these people can make up Skype chats.

SPEAKER_02: 39:03

I would oh my god, have I actually skyped? She actually got her computer out to see for she if for every reason she had ever skeduck, she said the only person.

SPEAKER_03: 39:15

So this just tells you the integrity. I mean, I just want to put this out for the audience. Um, I just recently did an article on undue command influence, and the one thing I did not cover down on is what to do with investigators. But uh, I can tell you, I I did an interview uh about a year ago, maybe a year and a half ago with Tim Parlatore, and we went into detail about some of these tactics that the investigators use. Uh, and and and I just I mean, I have nothing to compare it to on the civilian side, but this is just highly unprofessional, highly unprofessional to say things like that.

SPEAKER_02: 39:46

And for women to treat other women that way, that was two women. She said, I have told you repeatedly that we are just friends, that there's never been a sexual assault, and I know I'm gonna be a really good man, and I want you to leave my house. And then she called her husband and told her exactly what she had been accused of, and he was furious because he had talked his wife into cooperating and at least allowing an interview.

SPEAKER_03: 40:08

I mean, that's victimizing. I mean, right there. That's just that's just victimizing somebody. Um, and it just pisses me off that they would even do that. And so that just tells you right from the start that this is an investigation that is not about getting the truth. This is an investigation that is a witch hunt that is looking for victims. So let's go back to M. And and Arvis did say too, yeah, M's phone got lost uh as well. I believe. Yes. So, but we'll get into that in a little bit. Um, but first off, so tell me a little bit about how M was brought into this investigation. This is the third.

SPEAKER_02: 40:38

So she's the one, the only one that that filed on her own is M. Okay.

SPEAKER_03: 40:43

Oh, I'm sorry, not not M. Um You're talking about Jay. Jay. Talking about Jay. Let's go back to Jay.

SPEAKER_02: 40:48

Yeah, and and that's a good point that that Arvis is saying there. M's phone. Um, she had two phones, and they and the original agents that did the first interview that same night stated she had two phones and they should collect both. They only collected one that she used five days. The one that she had done for 53 days, she never turned over to OSI. And they destroyed my son's phone. That shows all those messages, her sending uh erotic pictures of herself, all the things she's asking him to do to her when he comes back to the country. All those messages, 50-some days, are lost because that phone was destroyed while it was in the hands of the prosecution.

SPEAKER_03: 41:34

Okay, and that's evidence that could have been used in his court martial to help.

SPEAKER_02: 41:37

That's evidence that would have supported him. But they have seen that evidence, they had seen it before. They put that phone into evidence, then it was found to be laying out on someone's desk. That's a broken chain of custody. It was still working when that same woman major put it back into evidence. It was still working. She put it in a Faraday bag to protect it from being accessed remotely. Okay, and when it came out the next time it was broken. And they decided the prosecution decided to do a chip-off to get those messages, and that phone was destroyed, and those messages were lost forever. Now they should be on Em's phone, on that phone that she hid from OSI, but they never collected the second phone, despite the fact that my son was saying, get her other phone, despite the fact that that original agent said there was a second phone, they didn't collect it because they've already seen those messages and they know if those messages come to light, they cannot get a conviction for M. Okay, so this is why they bring in A to try to boost the credibility of M. But they want to put him in pretrial confinement, so here comes Jay. Now Jay has been dating him for on and off for two years. She tells the agent, who goes alone with no witnesses, that was a normal sex life, she was 100% willing every time that anytime she had uh he suggested some sex act that she wasn't into she and rejected, he respected that. Okay. That and then and then he manages to convince her that she's she's an uh been a victim, okay. Despite her saying all this, he makes her into an accuser. So she agrees to do a statement and she meets him later that night, okay, at Starbucks to go over the statement, which is which I have right here.

SPEAKER_03: 43:38

It's and I want to I want to pause on something because there's gonna be people who are watching this. This goes, How in the world can you convince somebody they're a victim? But I will submit.

SPEAKER_02: 43:47

Okay, I'm gonna just I'm gonna just say, probably told her she was dating several other women, probably told her that other women were claiming that he abused them. And the particular night that be okay, he she spent the night with him before he deployed to Africa. She drove him to the airport. When he returned, he'd seen her around, but they hadn't been out. He came across her. What day didn't I? Oh, he continued to see her um through September. Um he she had moved while he was in Africa. She had moved. So they see each other at the Red Dwarfs moon. She's wants him to come over and spend the night. He says, I don't, I don't know where you she leads the way to her house. He doesn't even know where she lives. He she leads the way to her house. They go up to uh the bedroom. Now she states that she wasn't interested in having sex. Okay. Um, and that he convinced her to have sex.

SPEAKER_03: 44:50

I don't know what's what all the point that I was gonna make, Holly, is that we don't have to look any further than all the people who are coerced into making false false confessions. So so I'm just saying, like, there's these investigators when you are repeatedly questioning someone, when you lead them with certain questions, people can be swayed, they can be convinced to think things that are not true.

SPEAKER_02: 45:18

Yeah, I see this as a completely consensual situation this evening. Then following morning it was raining. He was on his motorcycle, he said, Let me take you to breakfast. She drove them to breakfast. They brought in the waitress from breakfast who was a who he knew because they were both Ohio State fans from Ohio, and she came in and testified they looked like a perfectly normal, happy couple. Um, Jay forgets what they did afterwards, but he had said she said she was dog singing for people that were on vacation. They drove up to Niceville, I think was the name of Florida, so she could let those dogs out and feed them. Then she goes back to her place and he takes his motorcycle and goes home. Okay. There was nothing unconsensual about it until that agent made it unconsensual. So now she says 100% willing every time. He convinces her that she is a victim. She becomes accuser J.

SPEAKER_03: 46:16

And you have original statements. Uh I have original statements, and where she says she's not a victim, right?

SPEAKER_02: 46:22

She types out a two-page statement, okay, to him, and she meets him at Starbucks, the detective, that night. He reads through it, and when he reads through it, he says to her, I'm sorry, what you described here is not a crime. He said, So this is her typewritten, second page of her typewritten statement, and he has her cross out where she says, He convinced me to have sex, okay, because convincing a woman is not a crime, and has her change. You see, she crosses out and writes in what will make it a crime. Now, now he's already changed her original words 100% willing. He's now changed her words, he convinced me. And why did he do it? I have this report that we did not have at the time, but my investigators found much, much later. And let me just read. Agent P, I'll call him, also told me he located another victim, that's that's accuser J, who was sexually battered by Condon, increasing the number to three. He said, per the UCMJ, Condon can now be classified as a serial offender and arrested as such. Agent P um said upon Condon's arrest, he would be transported um to Charleston, South Carolina. So he's changed her statement once, twice, and he's using it to make my son into a serial criminal for his own agenda. Now, it should be noted, and I want your viewers to know, at trial, at Article 32, she cried on the stand and said, You don't understand I'm in love with Rob. Again, nobody's in love with a rapist. Two at trial, he was found not guilty of all of the charges alleged by her. It was an easy thing to do because if they had got her phone, you can see on the date afterwards, she states to her friend. She states through a text, I made bad blank decisions last night. And her friend said rob decisions, and she said yes, but it was a fun night anyway.

SPEAKER_03: 48:52

And this was Jay, correct? This was Jay. So so let's let's let's just I want to I want to make sure the audience is following this. The original accuser is M. The other two that get pulled in are A and J. Right. A has been threatened that they have dirt on her if she doesn't play along, and then Jay has just said she's in love with him and had several statements stating that she was not a victim. So the fact that you've now, in my view, in my belief, in my opinion, you have now victimized people by making them victims. Yes, because I would imagine that to this day both of them still believe that they are victims, and that to me is also a tragedy of this whole entire situation, is that not only does it victimize the false allegation victim and all of the family like yourself, it now turns people into thinking that they are now victims, yes, and that is just absolutely disgusting, absolutely criminal, absolutely, absolutely criminal. I I'm just I'm floored, I'm floored. Holly, I'm floored when I heard this story. I I couldn't believe it. And oh, by the way, just in case you guys want more information on this story, Robert has written a book. It's called The Invisible Casualty. It's not an easy book to read because he is an OSI special agent, and he is very, very detailed in how he goes through line by line in this case and goes back to his record of trial and uses page numbers and uses references to show all of the mistakes in the case. And that is another big piece of this in pretrial, harshly treated, 71 days of solitary confinement in a civilian facility. We talked about that earlier, charged with starving prisoners, he lost 40 pounds, denied basic legal representation by the military, intentionally and repeatedly geographically separating him from his privately hired legal counsel. We talked about that, exorbitantly lengthy. Now, this is where we're going to get into this because this is where he was charged. 344 days incarceration before trial, violating speedy trial rights. So now let's go back to that because now we're at this state, we're at this place where they have enough now to charge him because there's three accusers. And so now tell me what happens next.

SPEAKER_02: 51:24

Okay, so they're still doing the investigation, but they ship him to um Jacksonville military, naval base, Breg. That's where they're holding him. They're still doing the investigation at this point. They don't actually charge him with a crime for 120 days yet, okay? But the convenient authority of the base goes in and demands that the nine drug cases be dismissed. And I believe this is the reason why they needed to make um accuser A into a into a victim, even against her will, because she had already brought to court martial two of the nine while my son was in Africa and got convictions. If they don't take her down to, she can do all nine. Okay. But the commanding authority of the base, he wants those drug cases dismissed.

SPEAKER_03: 52:17

And he wanted them dismissed because these people were part of an airmen's council, if I remember right.

SPEAKER_02: 52:23

Three of them. Three of them specially appointed prestigious airmen's council. Those are supposed to be future leaders of the Air Force, right? Okay, they're young guys, but they're hand-picked as future leaders.

SPEAKER_03: 52:35

So he's he's going after people's people's prize children. And I will tell you that is very similar to the story that I did about Adam Dorito, where Adam Dorito was an OSI um secret agent. Like they basically employed him to feed them information, and Adam started seeing cases of sexual assault of football pla football players who were sexually assaulting women, and he tried to come forward with that to the agents, and same thing happened. It was information that he had on these people, so they found a way, in my view, and in what he has told me, to come after him. And that's what they will do if you uncover something that they don't want people to see. So that also, in in your view, and in the belief of what you've seen on this case, that that is a very real possibility for why they would come after him.

SPEAKER_02: 53:29

Why do they charge why do they decide to dismiss these charges before my son's even charged with the crime? And if my son is found innocent at trial, what does backlash does the commander get for dismissing nine drug cases? You know, there's some questions there. Just questions, yeah. Questions. Just some questions. And and I'm not saying I can't prove that that's sure the thing, but it's just something that happened and it snowballed, and it's it's like from those drug cases being found to the end, and the 30-year sentence when the average given at that time was 3.39 years. Okay.

SPEAKER_03: 54:11

So you you have to wonder. You do, I would agree. So that so we've basically we've gone through all the pretrial um issues, and then the trial. So let's let's kind of push forward. All right.

SPEAKER_02: 54:27

The next thing is Article 32. They charge them in late January. Article 32 happens in March. Um, all the uh all the accusers have to come in. In a civilian court, he would never allow an accuser or a witness to sit in the courtroom. All three accusers sat with their lawyers and their special victim advocates.

SPEAKER_03: 54:52

And let's let's let's let's touch upon special victim advocates as well. So in military law, not only do a military uh person get the benefit of the prosecution as the people who are charging the accused, so prosecution team, which is, oh, by the way, can now not connected to the convening authorities, but back then was the convening authorities decided which cases went to trial and which cases didn't uh when it came to this, when it came to sexual assault during this period. Oh, by the way, this was also during a period of very heightened attention by Congress, especially by people like Senator Gillibrand and when they had the documentary The Invisible War. So this was already a very heightened environment within the military around sexual assault convictions and an emphasis on ensuring that we were getting tough on sexual assault. Rightly so, rightly so, but there was that type of pressure being put on commanding authority. So I just want to paint the picture of the time period this was. And then, oh, by the way, at this point, the if you are an accuser, you not only to have the benefit, like I said, of all the prosecution attorneys, you now get a special victims advocate. So that is just more people to research your case, more people with legal expertise to build a case. And if you are the accused, you get a defense attorney from the military who probably has hundreds and hundreds of other cases. I've heard from some that you're not even guaranteed an investigator. And a lot of times, Holly, in your case and in the case of others, you're reliant on hiring private attorneys at your own expense, correct?

SPEAKER_02: 56:44

Yes, and investigators. Now, the first thing I was told when I came into town my son had been arrested is that OSI was impartial, that they would do the investigation on both sides. That was the biggest load of crap in the whole thing. Because they certainly never try to verify or not verify my son's story. They they certainly didn't. So in Article 32, all the ladies uh take the stand, and I sat in there and took notes. And right after the article 32, uh Cuser A, the agent, changes her mind, and she writes a three-page letter to the convening authority stating she wants no part of this case. And I really would like to read some little portions of it. I can't read the whole three pages, but I'll read some portions of it. And then it's basically like this from the very beginning, this was never an investigation that I wanted to be part of. First, I had a personal relationship with Sergeant Condon, and I felt my participation would be betrayal to him. The confiscation of my phone eliminated any remaining desire to participate in this case. Um, the agent took my phone by force from my hand and began snapping photos of it. I told him multiple times that I was not comfortable with this. And he um made me uh he criticized me and said I should uh expect to forfeit my phone. Um she said the agent asked if her phone was in her possession um and presented a search and seizure warrant. She later learned that the search and seizure uh provided was not legal because it was made out from the wrong base. She felt uh the immunity argument was used as a tool to manipulate her into complying and testifying and held over her head at every turn. She does not believe these tactics are ethical, nor do they uphold the values and integrity within our legal system. I have tried to feel tolerate feelings mistreated because I thought I was doing the right thing. I am not so sure anymore. The government's actions have left a much more significant impact on my life than anything between Tech Sergeant Condon and I. And she says, um, uh, she said, I feel so mistreated by the government, but because Tech Sergeant Condon is someone I care about. So that's just little portions of it. She feels more mistreated by the government than anything that ever happened between her and Rob.

SPEAKER_03: 59:46

She yeah, by the the basically, the the government is doing more to her than the in this case basically destroyed her career.

SPEAKER_02: 59:56

She left the Air Force after this.

SPEAKER_03: 59:58

Wow, and and for my office. Audience, as you see, we're we're we're at the top of the hour, but we're gonna go over the hour because this is a a case that deserves that kind of time. So I do want to thank all of you for sticking around with us. So we get through the preliminary hearing and you realize that this is now gonna keep on going from that point, correct?

SPEAKER_02: 1:00:19

Right. The the trial um speaking trial requires that if you have the person in custody, you must bring the case to trial within 120 days. They were over by about 30 days when it came to trial in May. But the judge dismissed the case but allowed the prosecution to refile, and they added four more charges. They weren't ready for trial. So they have to move the trial down the road to July. When we come to court in July, they're not ready for court then either, because the judge, they haven't left enough, the prosecution hasn't left enough time, and the judge has to go to Guantanamo before a case. So the case is moved to September, about the 14th or 15th before it started. Okay. So he's in custody at this time 344 days before it comes to trial. So they violate speedy trial, not once, but twice. Okay. Wow. So he's convicted. They sentenced him to 30 years in prison, which is completely outrageous. One of the things that I want to say is when she wrote this letter, she's speaking her the truth. She had her advocate with her. She knew that they probably wouldn't be able to prosecute on her cases without her. That's what she wanted. Then at the end of trial, they have what they call unsworn statements. Okay, the victim can make an unsworn statement. Now there were two of them because they only found him guilty of two, M and A. And they it's an unsworn statement. So you can say anything. It's unsworn. In a court of law, they say all this stuff that happened that makes the jury believe that he's this horrible person. This letter is what she said. She wanted no part of this. She's being ordered to do it, even in her trial testimony. The beginning of her trial testimony, they say to her.

SPEAKER_03: 1:02:27

And I also want to point out one of the other conflicts is right here in the phone issue. I just want to go back to it real quick. It says the family defense hired Global Compu Search as our electronic expert in November 2013. The government then hired the same company, Global Compu Search, but the boss of our expert. This company. Yeah. So, all right. So we're at the point where now the trial happens. You did not attend the trial, is my understanding.

SPEAKER_02: 1:04:38

I was at the trial and they wouldn't, they our lawyer came to us, came to me, and he told me the prosecution hates you. Okay. They felt that I was helping my son evade justice, obstruct justice. Never, ever, ever would I do that. Never ever. That was a law enforcement.

SPEAKER_03: 1:05:02

You're a law enforcement. All right.

SPEAKER_02: 1:05:04

They hated me because during the Article 32, I sat there and I took notes. And I took a lot of notes. And then they didn't want me in there to be able to help my son. And he and Mr. Our attorney, Mr. Ropers, told me that he felt that it would go better for my son if I wasn't in there because the prosecution disliked me so much. So I should sit in during the trial. My father did, but my father is hard of hearing. Okay. And so he doesn't remember every single thing that you know, because he can't hear every single thing. Um, that was a mistake on my part. I should have absolutely insisted. Absolutely insisted. I should have made them look at this mother and find her son guilty 30 years. But I believe it's those unsworn statements that helped convince the jury. Um, the bailiff did say that there was screaming in the consultation room. Um, and I I, you know, everybody's your superior, okay. And this is another case.

SPEAKER_03: 1:06:11

Oh, yeah, this is another case.

SPEAKER_02: 1:06:13

This is another case where it's different from civilians. In a civilian trial, nobody in the in the jury knows anyone. They don't know the officers, they don't know the suspect, they don't know the victim, they don't know anybody. And if they do, they're dismissed. In this case, it's not only not a jury of your peers, it's a jury of your superiors. It's a small base. They know the Congress wants more sexual assault, um convictions, convictions, right? And so it all their jobs, all their careers, all their retirements depend on making Congress happy. They also know the convenient authority of the base wants a conviction, okay, and they some of them work for him, directly work for him.

SPEAKER_03: 1:06:59

And as Arvis says, no unanimous jury. So not everyone has to be in agreement. In fact, if I remember correctly, and Arvis, you can correct me if I'm wrong, because I think it used to be like 65% that had to think it was a guilt, or you know, had to sway it. Now it's I think three-fourths, or they've they've made it a little bit more that you need to have in to to to vote one way or the other, but it's not unanimous. So it's just it's that also isn't really giving people the the same due process protections because to get a unanimous verdict is obviously a lot harder. But the military, I think, probably wants to avoid a mistrial, and so they make it easier to come to yes. Uh thank you, Arvis. It used to be two-thirds uh that could, so that's only of two-thirds is like 66%. So I was close. 66% have to agree. Now, 75% have to agree. But to me, that's still absolutely unacceptable. It should be the same as what it is in the military. Is and that is also in the article I wrote about undue command influence. Number one, the panels should be completely separate from one's chain of command. They should be people that nobody knows, they should be completely outside of any military circles of the accuser. And then number two, it needs the juries need to be unanimous. Okay, so they find Robert guilty, and I'm sure you're shocked.

SPEAKER_02: 1:08:27

We are shocked. Now, three women in the courtroom cried. I was not one of them because I'm a cop and we don't cry until later. I had my breakdown about halfway through Georgia driving his car at home. Court reporter was a woman, she cried. Our female attorney cried, and the young woman that had been guarding him, an OSI agent for a week, she cried. She ran out of the room crying. Because I think that those people knew he wasn't guilty. They knew that his life was going to be destroyed. The court reporter has heard how many cases, how many cases. She sat there and listened to all the evidence. She typed all the evidence, you know, every single word. Who would know better? And she cried. So after the trial was over, I asked um a couple of Toledo policemen who were now retired and investigators to go over the case, to do what they could to see if there was anything else that we could fight at the appeal during the appellate review or the CAF review. They found the criminal record. I do not believe that the Air Force was ever going to disclose that to us. Since the trial, um uh general stated to us that we had that criminal record one day before the post-trial clemency request went in. That was done by his attorney, his female attorney, Shalimar Addy. She completed it on 1 30 of 15. Now, the attorney has requested criminal background checks on 10, 16 of 13, a year, like a year and a quarter before. And this general is saying that we had it one day before post- after the trial, not be after the trial, one day before post-trial clemency report. We never had it. Um, Chris Gill, who's my investigator, wrote an affidavit. I wrote an affidavit that I hired him. Andy wrote an affidavit that we had never had the criminal record. And Shalmar Addy wrote an affidavit that we did not have that criminal record ever. All right, so that's a Brady violation. The other thing we found out is after, and we weren't allowed to use that. We weren't allowed to use it at the CAF, that's we found it before CAF, because it hadn't been used in the trial and it hadn't been used in the appeal. But it would have made a difference because it would show that she already had a history of lying to the Air Force and she could have been lying to stay in the Air Force. There was a time when if a woman was in the military and she had some misconduct, if she had been a victim of sexual assault, her her misdeeds could be forgiven as long as that man was thrown under the bus. And I and so that's a possibility. That's a possibility. So I printed it out and I had it sitting around in stacks of 100 around the living room. And then my son and I are talking by phone. And as we're talking by phone, he keeps telling me this issue's on page such and such. And I pull up my page such and such, and it's not the same thing. And I had suggested that to one of his assigned Air Force appellate attorneys, was there two different records of trial? Because nobody could find the things that my son was telling his lawyers were issues. They wanted to list them as gross defonds, which are not taken seriously. Okay. Every time, if we have a dissenting opinion, if the other two judges had been able to accurately find what our attorney was highlighting as an issue, we could have had three dissenting opinions and my son would be home.

SPEAKER_03: 1:12:44

Exactly, because the issue here is that all they had to go on was what is in the appeal. They couldn't go back to the record of trial and page by page see the full context of the allegation. So it's just like when you're writing a report and you have a reference, there's some people like me that are nerdy that want to go to the reference and then they want to see the full reference and they want to see the context of the reference. So the reference was the record of trial. And so when you're putting in the when your lawyer is putting in the appeal, what page number of the record of trial the particular violation of the due process violation allegation is, they should be able to go to the record of trial and see the full context in case they want to see what happened before that what happened after. And they're not able to do that because they don't have the same page numbers, which is ridiculous to me. And not only did they not have the same page numbers, Holly, as you told me in one of our earlier phone calls, they even had missing pages.

SPEAKER_02: 1:13:47

The sealed record of the trial. There's it's different portions of the trial that they seal.

SPEAKER_03: 1:13:52

And you to this day don't even and to this day you don't even know what's on those sealed records. No. And there could be, what was the word I was excatory. There could possibly be something in those 66 pages that are sealed that you don't have access to to properly fight for your son's freedom. That just blows my mind that you don't get the full record of trial.

SPEAKER_02: 1:14:14

Yes, and oh so, like, like I say, to up page to page 139, the records of trial are the same. On page 140, it says the next 20 pages are in the sealed record. And so the next page number is should be should be what 162 or something, okay? 20 pages later. Sure. But in what our attorney got, the next one is the next number 141, 142, 140. So he can see on 140 the next 20 pages are supposed to be gone, the sealed record, but then then they're there. So he can assume that he has the entire record of trial. He never even requests the sealed record because he thinks he has it.

SPEAKER_03: 1:15:02

Right. It's just it's it's absolutely blows my mind. And to this day, you still don't have those records.

SPEAKER_02: 1:15:09

So the prosecutor in charge of the case, one of the prosecutors, um, let's say prosecutor H, she is present when the phone is destroyed. She is the one that talks to two extra people who weren't even allowed to be um victims and convinces them after one was interviewed five times by different agents and said nothing ever occurred, but when when she comes to her, she makes her into an accuser. And the other one was was interviewed by five different agents. Everything was cool until they talked to her. So she's convincing, I don't know what she's saying and what she's doing, but no one's present, there's no notes and there's no recordings, right?

SPEAKER_03: 1:15:53

And and again, this goes back to the hundreds of people that they contact.

SPEAKER_02: 1:15:58

It's like she is the person that's supposed to put the record of trial together and to make sure that it gets to everybody that it's supposed to get to. She's the person, and that general that lied and said that we had that rec that criminal record on the 30th, her admin at that time is that same prosecutor, only up one now, a major instead of a captain.

SPEAKER_03: 1:16:23

The part that upsets me about this, and Arvis has even said it. I mean, how many years has he been in jail now?

SPEAKER_02: 1:16:28

He has been okay, so I count all the time. Sure, he was originally 10, 10 or 13. So he has just passed 12 years in custody. He has actually been at the USDB, you know, 11 years, but he has been in custody away from his family, away from his life for 12 years. They arrested him and he was 29. He turned 30 at the Naval Brig. He has spent every day of his 30s and the first two years of his 40s in prison. You think, I don't know, you're people out there who have gone through their 30s, you know this is when you're marrying. This is when you're settling into your career and making and being serious about it, getting promotions. This is having children. My son has missed all of that. All of that. And our family is truly devastated by it. It has consumed thousands, hundreds of thousands of dollars in time. And every holiday there's a person missing. He I can't even, I can't even explain the grief it causes. My father um went with me 15 times, nine times to Florida before the trial. He's traveled with me during the trial. He was he goes to he went to uh 12-hour drive out to Kansas multiple times. He is now 92 years old. He cannot travel anymore, and he has a hard time making peace with the fact that he is probably never going to see this grandson again, you know.

SPEAKER_03: 1:18:13

This is this is absolutely unacceptable. This upsets me every time I hear this story. I know it's upsetting to my audience as they're listening to this.

SPEAKER_02: 1:18:22

It's so many things they did if he was guilty of accuser M. Why was it necessary to do all this other stuff? Why was it necessary to victimize these other women? Why was it necessary to destroy his phone? Why was it necessary to hide the record of make the record of trial different? Why was it necessary if he was so guilty? It's because he is innocent. He is innocent, and the 30-year sentence is makes them want to hide it as long as possible. My son has been up for parole three times. They keep saying it's because he hasn't had treatment. You had to admit guilt to do treatment. He wrote a thing that you know he didn't want to make this kind of mistake again so that he could do treatment, so that he would qualify for parole. That was in 2019. In 2022, he was scheduled for the treatment. As soon as he got to it, they said, nope, not yet. You're here for 30 years. We'll do somebody who's going to be out in 21st. Okay.

SPEAKER_03: 1:19:31

Wow.

SPEAKER_02: 1:19:32

They moved him back, they moved him back, they moved him back. Um, I hired, we paid for the treatments from the federal prison system. Um, he took four, they were$55 a piece. We sent them, he we ordered for him. He filled them out, he read the material, filled them out, sent them in, has the certificate of completion for sexual assault, domestic violence, substance abuse, and contentious relationships. It's good enough for the federal law enforcement, uh the federal prison system, but it's not good enough for the Air Force. Okay. The following year, I hired a psychologist who did all the tests, all the tests to see what a person's like. Okay.$600 the testing cost.$2,000 I paid so he could talk to him every week, once or twice a week for six weeks prior to coming up for parole. Not good enough. He said that what he found the most destructive thing that my son had was chronic PTSD. And that if he wasn't suffering from PTSD, he would not have made the mistakes that got him to this trouble. And he, I think, is basically, you know, dating the wrong kind of girl.

SPEAKER_03: 1:20:44

Well, he was a he was a serial dater, as many as men are.

SPEAKER_02: 1:20:48

He's a little cavalier, but he is not a rapist. And these girls were pursuing him. Um in I hear you. A came to him with a little romantic note, I want you back. Yeah, you know, take care, I want you back. M is sending him seductive pictures and making all kinds of suggestions what she wants to do. Jay is is showing up wherever he and his friends are, uninvited, saying to his friends she wants to marry him, and inviting him in repeatedly, day after day after day, into her hot tub, even offering sexual favors to get him to come over. These girls were as invested in their relationship with him as he was with them.

unknown: 1:21:34

Yep.

SPEAKER_03: 1:21:34

So now you are awaiting another parole date. You've exhausted the appeal.

SPEAKER_02: 1:21:41

He says that they have just told him that he will start his treatment um November 13th. He doesn't need treatment, he didn't do a crime, but he will put himself through it, you know, because it's the only way for him to come home before he's 60. Okay. He wants to, he worries that he won't come home and everybody will be dead. Okay, his grand his father, whose actual birthday it is today, would be 77, but he passed away two years ago. His paternal grandmother passed away a year before that. My father's 92 and he's not doing great. And he, you know, I hate to say, sure, you know, but what if he comes home and his mother's gone? Right. And his stepfather's gone.

SPEAKER_01: 1:22:29

And you know, but what are these other remedies?

SPEAKER_03: 1:22:34

Yeah. So you have parole, you have you've exhausted appeals. Is there a possibility of a pardon? Have you gone through that process?

SPEAKER_02: 1:22:44

We have requested it. Um we requested it when uh Trump was in office last time. Okay. Um, John Maher is an attorney out of Illinois. He has vetted three of the sexual assault cases. Camacho, um Santucci, and my son. He's gone through all their trial testimony, and he would not allow them to be a part of this thing unless he believed they were innocent. So there's another lawyer that's vetted it. Um, he put it in, but it never went anywhere. We've requested um, you know, through mail, emails, sure, that kind of thing. We haven't gotten anywhere. I wrote to the um Trump calls or his pardons are.

SPEAKER_03: 1:23:32

Yeah.

SPEAKER_02: 1:23:33

Um, I haven't heard anything back there.

SPEAKER_03: 1:23:35

But my point is that these are all the avenues right now. We've got a parole, a next parole date. You don't know when that's going to be, but there's next May will be the parole.

SPEAKER_02: 1:23:44

His parole packet will have to go in in May. Okay. We'll finish the treatment about two months before, I believe. Okay. So that's our next best option. But they see him, they believe, they believe the decision by the court. They do not want to relitigate. You can't even bring this stuff up. They won't even discuss these things.

SPEAKER_03: 1:24:06

But it but there's a possibility. I'm just I'm just laying out possibility for every parole. Every every avenue. There's a possibility of parole.

SPEAKER_02: 1:24:13

Then he would have to register as a sexual offender, right? You know, and but he would at least be out to be able to have some kind of a life. Correct. That's why he started right, you know, all of his education was in criminal justice. Okay. So he's never going to be able to be in criminal justice again. So that's why he started writing the books, you know, as maybe, as maybe.

SPEAKER_03: 1:24:35

And and and by the way, I I have not started it. I'll be the first to uh admit that to you, but you did so kindly send me uh one of his other books. So he's actually written books while he's incarcerated. Um, he actually wrote me a letter as well, which I I found to be uh he really appreciates that you're willing to let us tell a story. Well, I appreciate you, and I appreciate the fact that your patience with me. I know we had to postpone this for about a month just uh for some personal reasons on my end. So I really appreciate you doing that. If anybody wants to get involved in this case or they have questions, uh where where do you suggest they turn?

SPEAKER_02: 1:25:17

Well, I think that um Arvis would say sign the petition. Okay. Um if you know anybody who who has a podcast, you can always, you know, um ask them to do our story too. Um call your congressman, speak to anybody you know that you think could possibly help. Um keep my son in your prayers. Tell your friends and family. If you have anyone that is thinking about making the military their career, and there are parents involved, make sure that they ask the recruiters what they are doing for falsely accused and wrongly convicted military men. Because this has happened not to just my son, but to at least hundreds, and this is a devastating, devastating blow to their lives. Absolutely, every bit as devastating as some of the injuries they get in combat. This can this really impacts their future.

SPEAKER_03: 1:26:26

And I'd also want to let people know that if you go on to my website under Teresa's Tapestries.com, right at the very top you'll see here I have a military false accusations, and I created just a home page uh where I have some of the cases that I have looked at, and there's a list of some of these uh cases here, and I believe I have the petition that she's talking about right here. Read the petition on how we got here, and then you can go on the petition that Arvis Owen wrote, and this has a really good rundown of the issue and some of the case studies that back this issue up. And of note, this was studied by Congress. They not Congress, I'm sorry, the Defense Department or the Secretary of War now Department, the War Department, when they had a uh DAC iPad, the Defense Advisory Committee, and I will not get the acronym right, but there was DAC slash I-PAD.

SPEAKER_02: 1:27:36

So um the Defense Advisory Committee on the investigations of sexual assaults, um by the prosecution and prosecution and defense, yeah.

SPEAKER_03: 1:27:48

And it was looking at everything, it was looking at justice issues when it came to sexual assault on the um on on you know, it was unbiased. It was going to be on about just the process. And you you testified, Arvis testified, Darren testified. Then they disbanded the committee this year. But of note, I will say in the SecWars memos that he put out right after his speech at Quantico, there is mention of a justice committee. So there is currently still a justice committee that is meeting. I do not know who stands the justice committee, I do not know anything about the justice committee. There's no minutes that are posted online about the justice committee, but there is a justice committee that is ongoing. And my hope for that justice committee, talking to you, Department of War, is that you are looking at cases like Roberts and considering those conviction integrity units and actually bringing back some of these cases that, in my view, and in the view of many others, were negatively impacted by undue command influence. I have an example of an undue command influence case in the article that I just wrote recently for Real Clear Defense. I will also hyperlink to that. I'll hyperlink to the military false accusations. I will also hyperlink to your podcast with Rich, where you originally told this story with the help of Arvis and uh one of the investigators that you hired. And I thought that was also yep, and I thought that was also a really good conversation. But in trying to wrap up this podcast as we're we're getting further down the line, is there anything I'm going over your notes as I say this, is there anything else that we haven't covered that we're that we that we want to talk about on this case? I don't really think there is that I can remember. I think we've done a pretty good overview of what people can do, so the due process issues that happened. But if there's anything else that comes up or anything that we didn't Cover down on. I definitely will put those in the show notes. If there's links that you'd like me to include, I will do so. But all I ask my audience to do is share this video. Share this video. I will make clips afterwards. I will have a blog afterwards. And in closing, Holly, I want to give you the last word for anything else you would like to tell our audience.

SPEAKER_02: 1:30:26

I don't know what else to say. I, you know, as a law enforcement officer, I have been accused by my male um partners that I was overly sensitive to female victims and children victims. Um I've I it's kind of ironic considering what the situation is. I would never ever want a true victim not to seek justice. What I really, what the military's done here is not that they they created a whole nother group of victims, the falsely accused and wrongly convicted. I want the military to do the right thing. And I want all law enforcement across the country, military and not, to seek the truth. Seek the truth and justice, not fabricate, not stack charges. Seek the truth.

SPEAKER_03: 1:31:28

Thank you. Thank you so much, Holly. I'm gonna go full screen, say goodbye to my audience, and I'm gonna meet you backstage and say goodbye to you.

SPEAKER_02: 1:31:37

Okay, thank you.

SPEAKER_03: 1:31:39

All right, guys, thank you so much for sticking around. Really appreciate your time. This next week and the week after, I'll be pretty light on podcasts. I have some other things that are going on in my life, but I really do hope you'll share this story. I hope you'll talk to your friends about it. I hope you will question the system about this. This is something we need to talk about, and this is something we cannot be afraid to confront. As Corky Gal just said here, absolutely, military justice needs reform. We need to bring back due process. This is not about the accused, this is not about the accuser, this is about due process and military justice reform. So thank you all for taking the time to join us here tonight on the Stories of Service podcast. As I always close out these calls, please take care of yourselves, take care of each other, and bye bye now.