| #6 There was actually a substantial weight of evidence suggesting Gallagher had gone nuts before the alleged murder. Apparently the officers who commanded his unit were aware that he was rashly exposing his men by using them as bait to attract bad guys, going on unauthorized and unapproved missions, etc. His field CO's even started going on missions with his squad because there was complaining from his men he was careless and prone to tactical error. There were also a number of complaints that he was shooting civilians, although as anyone in a similar position knows, complaining about the guy next to you is a risky proposition. He was not a popular NCO. But in the end, so many failed to take action (and so, could not comment truthfully without endangering themselves for failure to report) or were put in the position of shutting up or losing their jobs, and others no doubt were sympathetic to Gallagher, the entire truth is murky. The prosecution pretty clearly were trying to railroad Gallagher based on anecdotal evidence, because they couldn't prove the murder. The first prosecutor and the NCIS agent both got caught violating their ethical duty if nothing else. Early on, Crenshaw was reported as believing some of the allegations and that Gallagher was bringing trouble to the SF community. Crenshaw wrote a letter asking that Gallagher be moved to less restrictive confinement, allowed access to his family, lawyers and medical, and suggesting Gallagher was being treated unfairly. That's not exactly how Gallagher frames it, so Gallagher is being a little loose with the truth himself. As far as I can see, Crenshaw only went so far to stand up for a guy he thought was guilty because the prosecution was not playing by the rules. |
