WTF? Astronauts behaving badly!

"ed kyle" wrote:

On Feb 5, 10:30 pm, robert casey wrote:
"Fatal Attraction" meets "I Dream of Jeannie"?

Not what NASA needed this week. Hopefully Ms. Nowak will get
a good attorney, followed good some good counseling.

If any of this is true, I doubt that NASA would keep her as an
astronaut. They're not gonna want someone who could go loopy up in orbit...

Probably a career-ending deal, but I'm also thinking that
NASA might be well served to seek political help here,
to have someone powerful politely "ask" the local D.A.
to make the kidnapping charge go away.

That would be the *worst* thing NASA could do, as it would make it
look like they are attempting a coverup.

Kidnapping sounds very "iffy" anyway.

The charge is 'attempted kidnapping'.

(Who in the jury pool hasn't become goofy-angry over a relationship
conflict during their life, and at least thought about doing something
stupid?).

Everybody *thinks* about it - but Nowak crossed the line and *did*
something about it. Juries won't tend to be sympathetic to the
"you've thought about it, so she shouldn't be held responsible for
actually doing it" arguement.

This incident would quickly fade from the news without that more serious
charge - otherwise it could become a longer-running staple of the cable
talk-show circuit, like "Runaway Bride", et. al..

It would be awful hard to make that charge 'go away' considering the
detailed preperation made by Nowak - including items which could be
construed as showing evidence of stalking and other items which
provided a greater possible threat.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

On 2007-02-06 00:52:46 -0800, (Derek Lyons) said:

"ed kyle" wrote:

[...]

Probably a career-ending deal, but I'm also thinking that
NASA might be well served to seek political help here,
to have someone powerful politely "ask" the local D.A.
to make the kidnapping charge go away.

That would be the *worst* thing NASA could do, as it would make it
look like they are attempting a coverup.

Indeed. Because she is a high-profile Federal employee, the DOJ is a
lot more likely to bring a Lindbergh Act felony charge against her than
some US Park Service schmuck...

....Actually, it just now occurred to me that as active duty military,
she's liable to be charged under the UCMJ for this, right? Oh man,
that's bad ju-ju. Ring-knocker & astronaut court-martialed for a
high-profile attempted kidnapping (with hints of a planned murder)?
She could be in Leavenworth until they take her out in a coffin.



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

"Derek Lyons" wrote in message
...

(Who in the jury pool hasn't become goofy-angry over a relationship
conflict during their life, and at least thought about doing something
stupid?).

Everybody *thinks* about it - but Nowak crossed the line and *did*
something about it. Juries won't tend to be sympathetic to the
"you've thought about it, so she shouldn't be held responsible for
actually doing it" arguement.

This incident would quickly fade from the news without that more serious
charge - otherwise it could become a longer-running staple of the cable
talk-show circuit, like "Runaway Bride", et. al..

It would be awful hard to make that charge 'go away' considering the
detailed preperation made by Nowak - including items which could be
construed as showing evidence of stalking and other items which
provided a greater possible threat.

....and this wasn't an impulsive act done on the spur of the moment. She had
extensive "cool-down" time but went through with the crime anyway.

btw - what the hell is Oefelein doing mixed up with a married mother of
three or a 27-yo bimbo, let alone both simultaneously? Serious breach of
"keep your pecker stowed" etiquette. I doubt he will ever fly again either.

--
Terrell Miller


"One machine can do the work of fifty ordinary men. No machine can do the
work of one extraordinary man."
- Elbert Hubbard

On Tue, 6 Feb 2007 03:28:32 -0600, Bill Baker wrote
(in article ):

On 2007-02-06 00:52:46 -0800, (Derek Lyons) said:

"ed kyle" wrote:

[...]

Probably a career-ending deal, but I'm also thinking that
NASA might be well served to seek political help here,
to have someone powerful politely "ask" the local D.A.
to make the kidnapping charge go away.

That would be the *worst* thing NASA could do, as it would make it
look like they are attempting a coverup.

Indeed. Because she is a high-profile Federal employee, the DOJ is a
lot more likely to bring a Lindbergh Act felony charge against her than
some US Park Service schmuck...

...Actually, it just now occurred to me that as active duty military,
she's liable to be charged under the UCMJ for this, right? Oh man,
that's bad ju-ju. Ring-knocker & astronaut court-martialed for a
high-profile attempted kidnapping (with hints of a planned murder)?
She could be in Leavenworth until they take her out in a coffin.

I don't practice criminal law, but that thought had occurred to me as well.
She's in some VERY deep ****.


--
You can run on for a long time,
Sooner or later, God'll cut you down.
~Johnny Cash

Herb Schaltegger wrote:
On Tue, 6 Feb 2007 03:28:32 -0600, Bill Baker wrote
(in article ):

On 2007-02-06 00:52:46 -0800, (Derek Lyons) said:

"ed kyle" wrote:
[...]
Probably a career-ending deal, but I'm also thinking that
NASA might be well served to seek political help here,
to have someone powerful politely "ask" the local D.A.
to make the kidnapping charge go away.
That would be the *worst* thing NASA could do, as it would make it
look like they are attempting a coverup.
Indeed. Because she is a high-profile Federal employee, the DOJ is a
lot more likely to bring a Lindbergh Act felony charge against her than
some US Park Service schmuck...

...Actually, it just now occurred to me that as active duty military,
she's liable to be charged under the UCMJ for this, right? Oh man,
that's bad ju-ju. Ring-knocker & astronaut court-martialed for a
high-profile attempted kidnapping (with hints of a planned murder)?
She could be in Leavenworth until they take her out in a coffin.

I don't practice criminal law, but that thought had occurred to me as well.
She's in some VERY deep ****.

So, when do you think she'll be fit to fly again?

--
The Tsiolkovsky Group : http://www.lifeform.org

My Planetary BLOB : http://cosmic.lifeform.org

Get A Free Orbiter Space Flight Simulator :

http://orbit.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/orbit.html

"Terrell Miller" wrote in message
news
btw - what the hell is Oefelein doing mixed up with a married mother of
three or a 27-yo bimbo, let alone both simultaneously? Serious breach of
"keep your pecker stowed" etiquette. I doubt he will ever fly again
either.

I'll bet he'll keep his job at NASA as an astronaut, even if he never flies
again.

Jeff
--
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a
little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor
safety"
- B. Franklin, Bartlett's Familiar Quotations (1919)

Herb Schaltegger wrote:

On Tue, 6 Feb 2007 03:28:32 -0600, Bill Baker wrote
(in article ):

...Actually, it just now occurred to me that as active duty military,
she's liable to be charged under the UCMJ for this, right? Oh man,
that's bad ju-ju. Ring-knocker & astronaut court-martialed for a
high-profile attempted kidnapping (with hints of a planned murder)?
She could be in Leavenworth until they take her out in a coffin.

I don't practice criminal law, but that thought had occurred to me as well.
She's in some VERY deep ****.

IIRC; (I'm not a lawyer, I don't play one on TV, and I haven't stayed
at a Holiday Inn Express - but once upon a time I was subject to the
UCMJ.)

Since the offense occurred off of Federal property, and involved a
civilian (I.E. someone not under the UCMJ, even though employed by the
DoD), civilian criminal proceedings takes precedence. Because of
double jeopardy, if she is tried by a civilian court - she cannot
subsequently be charged under the UCMJ for the same crime(s).

The catch is however - she *can* be tried for UCMJ offenses related to
the crime which are not covered by the civilian trial or are not
civilian offenses. (Conduct Unbecoming for example, or under the
General Article.) Her relationship with CDR Oefelein, while not an
offense under civilian law, is potentially one under the UCMJ - and
she could be charged with Fraternization.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

On Tue, 6 Feb 2007 11:10:51 -0600, Derek Lyons wrote
(in article ):

ince the offense occurred off of Federal property, and involved a
civilian (I.E. someone not under the UCMJ, even though employed by the
DoD), civilian criminal proceedings takes precedence.

The victim was a USAF captain and the paramour (not directly involved in the
crimes) is a Navy commander.

--
You can run on for a long time,
Sooner or later, God'll cut you down.
~Johnny Cash

"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
...

"Terrell Miller" wrote in message
news
btw - what the hell is Oefelein doing mixed up with a married mother of
three or a 27-yo bimbo, let alone both simultaneously? Serious breach of
"keep your pecker stowed" etiquette. I doubt he will ever fly again
either.

I'll bet he'll keep his job at NASA as an astronaut, even if he never
flies again.


In a wet dream maybe! They are ALL pretty much done and to think otherwise
is, well, half-baked...

Herb Schaltegger wrote:

On Tue, 6 Feb 2007 11:10:51 -0600, Derek Lyons wrote
(in article ):

ince the offense occurred off of Federal property, and involved a
civilian (I.E. someone not under the UCMJ, even though employed by the
DoD), civilian criminal proceedings takes precedence.

The victim was a USAF captain and the paramour (not directly involved in the
crimes) is a Navy commander.

My bad. The first condition however still applies, the offense
occurred off of federal property, which means civilian law could still
take precedence. The UCMJ only takes unquestioned precedence when the
offense occurs between individuals under the UCMJ *and* it occurs on
federal property. It's not unheard of for local jurisdictions to hand
over a case involving two such individuals off of federal property to
the military authorities - but AFAIK, that's mostly low level stuff
misdemeanors etc...

Again, this is IIRC.

(And dammit, the one guy I could call and get a contact at the Legal
office just upped anchor and headed out to sea.)


D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL