Siobhan Esposito's Blog

New Year's Tribute

2012-01-01T10:36:00.005-05:00

In today's Times Herald-Record, reporter Adam Bosch has assembled a tribute to the seventeen Hudson Valley and Catskills area servicemen and women who died in the war in Iraq.

My late husband, Captain Phillip Esposito, is profiled here.

Politico covers my FOIA suit against the Army

2011-12-17T00:08:00.002-05:00

In his coverage today of the court-martial of Army PFC Bradley Manning, Politico reporter and Freedom of Information Act expert Josh Gerstein reports on my FOIA lawsuit this spring against the Army. Here my story fit into the larger context of the Army's continued refusal to release documents related to its administration of justice—documents that would otherwise be available for public inspection were the accused before a civilian court.

The text pertinent to my lawsuit appears below:

When Siobhan Esposito, the wife of an Army Captain who was apparently murdered in his office in Iraq in 2005 asked for the official record of the public court martial where her husband's alleged killer was acquitted, the Army eventually released a partial transcript of the proceedings, but deleted the names, grades, duty positions and other identifying information of Army personnel "below the office director level" including the name of the military judge, the attorneys in the case and witnesses. The deletions were made even though the court martial, held at Fort Bragg, N.C., was open to the public and anyone in the room could have heard and written down the allegedly private details.

“It was crazy…..It was like something right out of the Marx Brothers," Fidell recalled.

Fidell filed suit in January of this year on Esposito's behalf. A couple of months later, the Army agreed to provide the widow with a full transcript of the open sessions of the court martial, with only the street address of one witness deleted. The Army also agreed to pay $2500 for the legal fees incurred in filing the case.

Fox News: Army Widow Lives with 'Unending Shock'

2011-05-31T22:35:00.003-04:00

Tonight, Fox News ran a story on the slaying of my late husband, Capt. Phillip Esposito and 1st Lt. Louis Allen at the hands of Staff Sergeant Alberto Martinez, a soldier under my husband's command.

I asked Fox to publish my own thoughts on the case, and my essay appears here [link] and below:

My husband, Phillip Esposito, was a captain in the Army. Imagine a man whose conscience made him see evil for what it is and whose compassion made him the protector of others. That was the man Phillip was. I loved him deeply, and we shared the joy of one daughter together.

On June 7, 2005, Phillip was murdered while deployed in Iraq. He and 1st Lieutenant Louis Allen were killed with a claymore anti-personnel mine that tore through their flesh and shattered their bones. Phillip died almost immediately; Louis was conscious and lingered for a few hours before finally succumbing upon the operating table.

I would learn that military investigators believed that Staff Sergeant Alberto Martinez, a soldier under my husband’s command, had set the blast in order to forestall Phillip from having Martinez drummed out of the military for professional incompetence. By seeking to have him fired, Phillip had threatened Martinez’s livelihood—and thus his fragile ego. I live today with the unending shock that this was Martinez’s alleged motive for the destruction of my husband’s life.

Over time, I came to learn that Phillip’s fellow soldiers had opportunity to prevent his death. Stunningly, prior to the murders, Martinez had told practically anyone who would listen that he hated my husband and that he wished to harm him. Under proper military discipline, Martinez would have been punished for these slurs and threats, but here, they went unreported. In fact, I was shocked to discover that Martinez enjoyed outright sympathy from his fellow soldiers, even as he spoke that my husband needed to die.

With his threats and the circumstances of the case lined up against him, it seemed impossible that Martinez could escape punishment for his crimes, yet in 2008, a military court-martial nevertheless voted to completely acquit Martinez of any responsibility for the death of my husband and Lt. Allen.

How could this come to pass? The answers here are many. The military judge administering the court martial allowed a married couple who were steadfastly opposed to the death penalty to sit in judgment; this after the husband indicated that he would vote to acquit even a guilty man if the penalty was death. One juror stated that he had been falsely accused of a crime by military investigators and that investigators routinely lie in order to secure convictions, and he too was allowed to sit in judgment. Martinez’s statement to investigators—the basis of his being their key suspect—was found inadmissible because Martinez had been improperly arrested by military police. If mercy to the wicked is treason to the good, at the court-martial of Alberto Martinez, there was mercy enough to spare.

I add up all the injuries, from the murder of my husband, to the fact that his death was needless and preventable, to the acquittal of his accused killer, to the pain our daughter and I feel in the cruelty of Phillip’s absence, and it forces me to take stock of life in a way that I never imagined. If we, as Americans, fail to learn the necessary lessons from the deaths of Phillip Esposito and Louis Allen, we permit these two men to have died in vain. These soldiers have been denied legal justice. A larger moral justice demands that we, as a people, correct for it.

Bozicevich is found guilty, but the Army stonewalls

2011-05-26T10:59:00.007-04:00

Yesterday, a military court martial found U.S. Army Sergeant Joseph Bozicevich guilty of murdering Staff Sgt. Darris Dawson and Sgt. Wesley Durbin in Iraq in 2008, although the military panel failed to deliver the unanimous verdict necessary to sentence Bozicevich to death. As always, my sincere condolences go to the families of the victims, and I continue to hope that Bozicevich's conviction helps to bring them closer to the justice and peace that they deserve.

Beyond the obvious horror of Bozicevich's crimes, there is one aspect of the court martial that I find jarring, particularly in the face of my lawsuit this spring against the Army for access to trial records from the court martial of my late husband’s accused killer. In the Bozicevich court martial, the Army is now refusing to release the name of an expert witness after the military judge ruled that the expert’s testimony was inadmissible. According to Marisa Taylor of McClatchy Newspapers,

Military Judge Col. Tara Osborn handed down the ruling on the testimony Monday after the prosecution belatedly revealed that the analyst with the U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Laboratory had made a mistake on a proficiency test.

The expert was identified as both Monika and Monica Wilk Garcia in military documents. An Army spokesman said the military doesn't believe her name should be publicized although she had testified in a public court proceeding. As a result, the spokesman refused to confirm the spelling of her first name. [emphasis mine].

So here we see that even after the Army settled my lawsuit against it for its failure to provide names from the trial of my late husband’s accused killer, the Army nevertheless continues to operate as if its attempts to stonewall key names and facts stated in open court is permitted under the law. It is not permitted, and it appears that yet again the Army needs to be made aware of it.

The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press report on my settlement

2011-04-02T22:07:00.003-04:00

Here's a link to The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press's coverage of my settlment with the Army.

In this report, the key quote comes from my attorney, Eugene Fidell.

"I hope this will cause the people who are responsible for responding to FOIA requests to take another look at the law," Fidell said. "People shouldn't have to litigate this. It's a shame Mrs. Esposito had to take [the Army] to court. It should have been resolved long before it came to this."

Needless to say, I wholeheartedly agree with Mr. Fidell. I too hope that those tasked with answering requests for government information under FIOA recommit themselves to the law. I further hope that the story of my run-in with the Army, coupled with the experiences of other Americans in bureaucratic obfuscation, will compel the Congress to strengthen FIOA in favor of disclosure.

Journal News Coverage: 'Army agrees to give Esposito's widow court-martial records'

2011-04-02T12:23:00.002-04:00

Here's the link to Hema Easley's full report on the settlement of my lawsuit against the Army in today's Journal News.

My key quote:

"I will review these records to identify what led to [Phillip's] murder and the acquittal of his murderer," Esposito said Friday. "In fighting for justice for Phillip, my daughter and myself, I also fight for justice for all officers and servicemembers. No other family should have to suffer as we have."

Statement from Phillip's parents on the conclusion of my lawsuit

2011-04-01T18:30:00.003-04:00

My parents-in-law, Joan & Thomas Esposito, have released the following statement concerning the successful conclusion of my lawsuit against the Army over the documents from the court-martial and acquittal of Staff Sergeant Alberto Martinez, the soldier accused of murdering their son and my late husband.

The ruling is instrumental and considered a positive step toward preventing future tragedies. The Army has been a barrier and now, 6 years after the murders, the barrier is coming down. We cannot bring back our son, Phillip, but it is a fitting memorial.

Staff Sgt. Martinez did get away with double murder, the murder of our son, Cpt. Phillip Esposito and Lt. Louis Allen, both were sons, husbands and fathers. Their deaths were needless and preventable.

Since Phillip’s death, not a minute goes by that we do not think about him and it brings us to tears. The death of a child is the most devastating loss parents can suffer and that experience is life-changing. We will never “get over it,” we just live life in a very different way.

Joan and Thomas Esposito, parents of Captain Phillip Esposito

I continue to be grateful to Joan and Tom for everything that they are that made their son Phillip the man that he came to be.

Army FOIA Lawsuit Coverage on Hudson Valley News 12

2011-04-01T17:07:00.003-04:00

Today I was interviewed by Hudson Valley News 12 concerning the settlement of my lawsuit against the Army and its release of records from the the court martial and acquittal of Staff Sergeant Alberto Martinez, my late husband's murderer. The interview is slated to air at 6pm, and should be online on the News 12 website tomorrow.

Journal News reporter Hema Easley is also providing coverage tomorrow, with a teaser story published online here.

My key quote from Easley's report is below:

"The turnaround on the Army's part is stunning," said Esposito, who now lives in Virginia with her daughter. "It took my bringing the Army to court for them to stop their attempt at obstructing the law."

UPDATE: Here is the link to my News 12 interview.

The Army settles, and I get the records of US v. Martinez

2011-03-28T19:57:00.002-04:00

Today I settled my lawsuit with the Army after it agreed to release an un-redacted version of the court transcript from the court-martial of Staff Sergeant Alberto Martinez and withdrew its answer to my suit denying that my husband was murdered.

This is a resounding victory on the two-year-old question of whether I have the right to review the Army's court-martial and acquittal of my husband's killer. As soon as it had a Federal District Court Judge to answer to, the Army determined that my desire for transparency and accountability trumped its desire to bury this case.

And thus now begins the work of systematically reviewing these records in search of errors that demand action. I will not quit—I will not relent—until every substantive error of justice surrounding the murder of my husband Phillip is addressed.

Army FOIA Lawsuit Coverage in the Army Times

2011-03-21T14:49:00.005-04:00

Today Army Times reporter Joe Gould covered my lawsuit against the US Army for its refusal to provide records from the court martial and acquittal of Staff Sergeant Alberto Martinez, my late husband's murderer.

My key quote is below:

"I will not be deterred in my pursuit of justice on behalf of our daughter, my husband's memory and myself," she said. "My husband's murder demands transparency and accountability, and I shall not rest until I have it."

CNN: Army disciplines nine for not flagging Fort Hood suspect

2011-03-10T22:33:00.002-05:00

CNN reports that the secretary of the U.S. Army has disciplined nine officers for failing to warn of problems with Maj. Nidal Hasan -- accused of committing the 2009 Fort Hood, Texas, shootings -- before he was assigned to Fort Hood.

Secretary John McHugh's move comes after the service reviewed the circumstances leading up to the Fort Hood shootings, in which 13 people were killed and 43 others were wounded.

McHugh "initiated adverse administrative action against nine officers for administrative and leadership failures relating to the career" of Hasan, according to an Army statement released Thursday.

The officers were not identified. The Army statement said the severity of the discipline varied depending on the actions of each officer.

The Army report found no single factor ultimately led to the shooting but "certain officers clearly failed to meet the high standards expected of their profession."

I seek commensurate accountability and discipline for those responsible for failing to warn of problems with Staff Sergeant Alberto Martinez, to include the hundreds of threats he made against my late husband's life. I wonder precisely why there is such a disconnect between the Army's actions with the Ft. Hood tragedy and the tragedy of my late husband's murder. I mean, quite seriously, what is the secret here?

More Army FOIA Lawsuit Coverage in The Journal News

2011-03-10T10:31:00.004-05:00

Today Journal News reporter Hema Easley covered my lawsuit against the US Army for its refusal to provide records from the court martial and acquittal of Staff Sergeant Alberto Martinez, my late husband's murderer [link here].

My key quote is below:

"The Army is essentially rewriting the facts in order to hide from the galling truth that my husband's death was needless and preventable," said Esposito, describing the Army's response as dishonest and insulting.

"I'm frustrated and angry that I have to argue with the Army that Phillip was actually murdered," she said.

The Army’s Answer: Phillip’s Murder Denied

2011-03-06T12:30:00.013-05:00

On Friday, I received the Army’s answer to my complaint arguing that the Army is illegally denying my demand for records from the court-martial and acquittal of my late husband’s killer. In its answer, the Army not only denied that it is acting against the law in refusing my demand, which was expected, but it also did something that was completely unexpected. In its answer, the Army had the gall to deny that my late husband was the victim of murder.

In my complaint filed with the court, I listed the nature of my dispute with the Army. In a paragraph intended merely to lay out my identity and my interest in the case, I stated that I am:

“[t]he widow of Captain Phillip T. Esposito, a graduate of the United States Military Academy at West Point who was murdered on June 7, 2005 by means of a Claymore mine placed on his office window while he was serving on active duty as a Company Commander with the New York Army National Guard at Forward Operating Base (“FOB”) Danger, in Tikrit, Iraq.”

In a civil trial, such as the one that I am now engaged, a defendant is required to “answer” a plaintiff’s complaint by either admitting the plaintiff’s allegations or statements, denying them, or stating that they do not possess sufficient knowledge to answer. From these answers, the court determines the nature of the dispute between the parties so that it may properly adjudicate the matter.

In a normal course of events, one would have expected the Army to quickly admit my statement of identity as the widow of a murdered Army officer and move on to the more concrete and fundamental legal issues surrounding my demand for documents from the court-martial. Yet in its answer to my complaint, the Army conceded only that I am “Solbhan [sic] M. Esposito, widow of Captain Phillip T. Esposito, a graduate of the United States Military Academy, who died while in his office and on active military duty in Tikrit, Iraq” [emphasis added].

The implications of the Army’s answer above are astounding. In the space of a few words, the Army just denied that my late husband was murdered.

Of course, the Army’s claim that Phillip merely “died while in his office” is absurd on its face, offensive to Phillip’s memory, and disrespectful to my grief and the grief of Phillip’s family. Phillip did not merely die in his office as if from a cold, a slip, or a spoiled MRE. After exhaustive investigation, military investigators determined that Phillip died horrifically when a Claymore anti-personal mine was placed in the window of Phillip’s office and intentionally detonated by a soldier believed by Army prosecutors to be Staff Sergeant Alberto Martinez.

Thus, I reject the Army’s flippant denial of the manner of my husband’s death for I have no reason to accept it. On the contrary: I have every reason to believe, based upon the volumes of evidence collected by investigators and presented at trial by the Army’s own prosecutors, that my husband was murdered “by means of a Claymore mine placed on his office window” as I state in my complaint.

The Army’s euphemistic whitewashing of the manner of my husband’s death speaks to the desperate need for full transparency. Since Phillip’s death in 2005, the Army’s actions have repeatedly failed to deliver justice and engender trust in government, or reflect wise public policy. From the lack of discipline and accountability that contributed to Phillip’s murder, to the botched investigation of his killer, to his killer’s acquittal by military court-martial, the Army has only managed to take a horrific tragedy and make it worse.

I seek to correct these errors in order to lessen the likelihood that any American family will be made to suffer as mine has. And thus the American public and I shall require the full and complete record of my husband’s death and the court-martial of the soldier acquitted of killing him, for justice demands no less.

An Anonymous Smear Against My Slain Husband

2011-02-26T14:56:00.004-05:00

Today, I received the following anonymous comment in response to my post “Army FOIA Lawsuit Coverage in The Journal News.”

OMG its time to move on and go on with your life....YOUR HUSBAND was an ASSHOLE I KNOW I WAS THERE IN IRAQ WITH HIM.....

The venom above is apparently in response to my writing that I desire to prevent future tragedies such as my late husband’s murder by understanding exactly how my husband was killed and how his killer was permitted to go free.

According to my website’s logs, the commentator used a computer associated with Computer Sciences Corporation in Falls Church, Virginia after searching for “widows for justice/allen and esposito” via Yahoo. Reviewing my logs, this commentator has repeatedly visited my website from this IP address as the address shows up several times as the product of the same search terms and search engine. Needless to say, I will be contacting Michael Laphen, CEO of Computer Sciences Corporation, to ask him why an anonymous coward affiliated with his company is publicly smearing my slain husband using his company’s computers and internet connection. I expect a full and proper answer.

I will also briefly address the anonymous commenter’s claim that my late husband was an “asshole” and that I need to “move on.” As much as these comments are beneath my contempt, they nevertheless speak to the larger issues that animated the needless and preventable murder of my late husband and 1LT Allen.
My husband was murdered because of his virtues. A hardworking, just and moral military leader, Phillip was brought into the 42nd Infantry Division to command a grossly undisciplined and unprofessional unit and prepare it for the rigors combat in Iraq. Yet Phillip’s dedication and sense of duty was not met in kind; quite the opposite, the court-martial of his murderer revealed that soldiers of the 42nd Infantry Division deeply resented the discipline and accountability that my late husband worked to instill in his unit.

So when Staff Sergeant Alberto Martinez, the man who murdered my husband, told practically anyone who would listen that he hated Phillip for holding him to account for his professional incompetence and that he wanted to kill him accordingly, Martinez found a largely sympathetic audience among the soldiers of the 42nd Infantry Division. Certainly none of these soldiers ever reported Martinez for his statements and gestures of contempt against my husband as demanded by the Uniform Code of Military Justice and their enlisted or commissioning oaths. Certainly Martinez’s murderous rage was never checked by anything these soldiers did or said to him. And today, much as it was during Martinez’s murder trial, the justification for this galling failure to act has been made plain. As the anonymous commentator posted on my website, my murdered husband was an all-caps “asshole”--the implication being that such “assholes” deserve everything they get, to include their murder at the hands of an unrepentant coward.

The anonymous commenter will no doubt be disheartened to learn that I reject their smear against Phillip and their free advice in regards to my own actions. On the contrary; their post helps to affirm my view that Staff Sergeant Martinez would not have been able to slaughter my husband and LT Allen but for the appalling lack of professionalism and military discipline in 42nd Infantry Division.

I shall not accept my husband’s murder and I shall not “move on” because it serves the vicious interest of some miscreant that my husband had the misfortune of serving with in Iraq. I seek nothing less than justice, and I shall be neither deterred, nor denied.

The Ominous Parallel

2011-02-05T10:58:00.015-05:00

On Thursday, the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee issued its report on the Fort Hood shootings; this report faults the Army and FBI with missing warning signs that could have prevented the massacre:

Our basic conclusion is as follows: Although neither DoD nor the FBI had specific information concerning the time, place, or nature of the attack, they collectively had sufficient information to have detected Hasan's radicalization to violent Islamist extremism but failed both to understand and to act on it. Our investigation found specific and systemic failures in the government's handling of the Hasan case and raises additional concerns about what may be broader systemic issues. [P. 7, “A Ticking Time Bomb: Counterterrorism Lessons From The U.S. Government's failure To Prevent The Fort Hood Attack” (emphasis mine).

This conclusion parallels my own concerning the murder of my late husband Phillip Esposito by Staff Sergeant Alberto Martinez in 2005; that is, leaders in Phillip’s unit did not have specific information concerning the time, place, or nature of Martinez’s attack against my husband, but they did have sufficient information to have detected Martinez’s vicious animus toward Phillip, only to fail to act properly against it.

The difference is that I believe that leaders in my late husband’s unit understood Alberto Martinez’s hatred toward my husband, but they simply allowed themselves to be disarmed in the face of it, either because they resented my husband for his role in instilling proper military discipline among those under his command, or because they were charmed enough by Martinez to grant him exception to the rules that govern the conduct of members of the armed forces and forbid gestures of hatred and contempt toward one's commanders.

This explains one of the reasons I seek the records from the court-martial of my husband's killer: I seek to understand why leaders in my late husband's unit failed to protect my husband's life and how such failures may be prevented in the future. I believe that Phillip's murder reflects systemic problems within the Army as do the killings at Ft. Hood, and that to leave these problems unaddressed is not acceptable, neither to me, nor the American people.

Army FOIA Lawsuit Coverage in The Journal News

2011-01-25T14:58:00.002-05:00

My key quote is below:

"My monument to Phillip's life is to work to prevent future tragedies such as his death," Esposito said in a statement.

"To fulfill that purpose, I need to fully understand why my husband was murdered and how his killer was permitted to go free. I need the records of his accused murderer's trial," she said.

Widow of Slain Soldier Sues Army for Access to Trial Records

2011-01-19T18:46:00.004-05:00

Today I filed suit against the Army for unjustly denying me records of the 2008 court-martial and acquittal of Army Staff Sergeant Alberto B. Martinez, the soldier accused of murdering my late husband Phillip and First Lieutenant Louis Allen. Below is the text of the media release I submitted to newspapers:

Widow of Slain Soldier Sues Army for Access to Trial Records

Summary: Siobhan Esposito, widow of slain US Army officer Captain Phillip Esposito, is suing the Army for records from the 2008 court-martial of a soldier who was acquitted of murdering her husband.

ALEXANDRIA, VA, January 19, 2011 — Siobhan Esposito, the widow of murdered US Army officer Captain Phillip Esposito, has filed suit against the Department of the Army for its failure to turn over records surrounding the 2008 court-martial and acquittal of Army Staff Sergeant Alberto B. Martinez, whom the Army had accused of murdering Esposito.

Mrs. Esposito’s lawsuit, filed today before the US District Court for the District of Columbia, asserts that the Army wrongly denied her Freedom of Information Act request for the record of Martinez’s 2008 murder trial. She believes the court-martial and acquittal represent an unacceptable low point in the Army’s administration of justice and that the injustice of her husband’s death demands public scrutiny.

“My husband was a West Point graduate and a dedicated officer who upheld the highest standards of personal integrity and leadership. He was a wonderfully loving husband and devoted father. Phillip’s absence in our daughter’s and my life is deeply painful,” says Esposito, “and his needless murder and the inexcusable acquittal of his murderer is a nightmare that demands a full and just accounting.”

“My monument to Phillip’s life is to work to prevent future tragedies such as his,” says Esposito. “To fulfill that purpose, I need to fully understand why my husband was murdered and how his killer was permitted to go free. I need the records of his accused murderer’s trial.”

“There is no legitimate reason for the Army to further insult Phillip’s memory by denying me the ability to review its files surrounding his case so that I may learn from these records and press the Army to take the necessary action to prevent similar tragedies in the future.”

Esposito is represented by Eugene R Fidell of Feldesman Tucker Leifer Fidell LLP. His practice includes federal administrative law and military justice, a field in which he frequently serves as a commentator for national and foreign news media.

Media Contact:
Siobhan Esposito
http://siobhanesposito.blogspot.com

###

Show lewd videos, get fired. Allow two men to be murdered, don't get fired.

2011-01-05T07:01:00.004-05:00

According to the AP, a Navy Captain has been removed from his command because of raunchy comedy videos he made and showed to his command several years ago.

"While Capt. Honors' performance as commanding officer of USS Enterprise has been without incident, his profound lack of good judgment and professionalism while previously serving as executive officer on Enterprise calls into question his character and completely undermines his credibility to continue to serve effectively in command," Harvey said in a statement read to reporters in Norfolk on Tuesday afternoon. [AP]

Contrast the Navy's action here with the Army's actions surrounding the murder of my late husband, Captain Phillip Esposito and First Lieutenant Louis Allen by Alberto Martinez, a soldier under my husband's command. In my late husband's case, Martinez issued hundreds of death threats prior to his act of murder; nevertheless, none of the individuals who heard these threats and failed to act against them have been held to account for their own "profound lack of good judgment and professionalism."

The fact is that Capt. Honors' video hurt literally no one, yet the Navy's punishment of this officer was infinitely more severe than any imposed upon those whose inaction led to my husband's murder. It goes without saying that there ought to be more justice for my late husband and Lt. Allen than what we have received.

Unconventional Heroes

2010-12-04T00:00:00.002-05:00

Two years ago today, a military court-martial acquitted Staff Sergeant Alberto B. Martinez of the double premeditated murder of my husband, Army Captain Phillip Esposito and First Lieutenant Louis Allen. After hearing evidence that placed Martinez at the scene of the crime, put the weapon that Martinez used in his hands, and showed how months of Martinez's threats and contempt culminated in Martinez's deliberate killing, this military jury nevertheless saw fit to absolve Martinez of his crimes. If the murder of my husband and Lieutenant Allen was vicious and senseless, the actions of the jury two years ago today only compounded that injury. I have often times heard of people who cry "no justice, no peace" as a threat. For me, such a cry is a sad fact of reality, for without justice, how can there ever be peace?

Alberto Martinez's brutality and cowardice was wicked and inexcusable. My husband and Lieutenant Allen were each men of moral stature and ability. Martinez murdered them for carrying out the obligations of their commissioning oaths; Martinez murdered them because Phillip and Louis accepted a solemn responsibility as officers and they chose to fulfill that responsibility.

Yet as much as Alberto Martinez squelched Phillip and Lou's lives, and as much as he escaped legal punishment for his crimes, his actions recoil upon him. Because of their unfailing devotion to the good, no matter the opposition, Phillip and Lou attained a unique grandeur, even as they were unable to achieve a practical victory over Martinez and his machinations, and even as the military justice system would betray them in falling to punish their killer. Phillip and Lou may not have died upon the battlefield, but their unconventional heroism speaks to me and others even in death. They remind me that there is such a thing as spiritual justice. It is my aim to help deliver it.

I shall soon be forming a justice advocacy institute that I will name in honor of my late husband. The Phillip T. Esposito Foundation for Justice will be dedicated to addressing the failures that led to my husband and Lieutenant Allen's murder, the acquittal of their killer, and the larger implication of these acts and failures upon our Armed Forces and system of justice. Phillip and Lou were horrifically failed—both in life and in death—and these failure reveal defects in our Armed Forces and system of justice too great to ignore.

At night, before she goes to sleep, our daughter often struggles with the reality of Phillip's death. She asks why she cannot see her father, and why he is unable to come back to hold her and love her as he would have had he lived. As her mother, our daughter's suffering is deeply painful to me.

And yet, our daughter and I have hope. The last word on my life will not be said by Alberto Martinez or the members of the jury that acquitted a murderer. Our daughter will thrive and be the living refutation of the evil loosed upon her father. And I will not be deterred in my pursuit of justice, or happiness.

My position on the Purple Heart for Captain Phillip Esposito

2010-11-12T21:26:00.008-05:00

There is a grassroots effort afoot that seeks to award the Purple Heart to my late husband, Army Captain Phillip T. Esposito, for his death by murder at the hands of Alberto Martinez. This effort seeks to expand the criteria for the Purple Heart to include the criminal killing of a member of the armed forces by a fellow service member. While ostensibly aimed at honoring the memory of my late husband, I believe that this effort confuses the concerns that surround Phillip's murder by introducing an unrelated side issue. I do not condone or support it.

The specific category that these advocates seek to create in their expanded criteria for the Purple Heart is that of an "unconventional enemy." Yet Alberto Martinez, the soldier who killed my husband, is not an "unconventional enemy;" he is a cold-blooded, premeditated murderer and he needs to be identified as such. Changing the Purple Heart from a mark of wounds and death from combat action with a foreign enemy to a mark of homicide does nothing to address who Martinez is and the conditions that he exploited in order to kill.

Lest we forget, my late husband's death was needless and preventable. Had soldiers in Phillip's unit enforced well-established principles of military discipline, Martinez's rage would have been checked long before his actions rose to murder. Further insult came when military leaders administered a defective court-martial, resulting in Martinez's acquittal. But for a trial where biased jurors were allowed to sit in judgment, where key evidence was excluded because of professional incompetence, and where a guilty plea was rejected by military commanders without so much as informing me of its existence, Alberto Martinez would be behind bars or facing lethal injection, rather than enjoying the life of freedom that he lives today.

None of these failures are corrected by awarding my late husband the Purple Heart. The Purple Heart is utterly meaningless in this context. What would I do with it? What would our young daughter do with it? Could the Purple Heart even begin to make up for all that we have been put though as a result of Phillip's savage murder and the unacceptable acquittal of his killer?

The answer is, of course, no. Even in the unlikely event that the criterion for receipt of the Purple Heart is expanded to include Phillip's murder, I would refuse the award. The leaders responsible for my husband's death and for the acquittal of his killer do not atone for their failures by awarding Phillip a posthumous medal. They atone for their errors by righting the wrongs that led to Phillip's murder and insuring that no other American family has to suffer as our daughter and I have.

The most serious failure of the Army is not that it failed to award my husband the Purple Heart, but that it allowed him to be murdered, failed to punish those responsible, and then failed to learn the needed lessons from this tragedy. I remain committed to correcting these injustices. I thank those who continue to stand with me.

A letter to my husband on Veterans Day

2010-11-11T18:56:00.002-05:00

Dear Phillip,

It is Veterans Day and I honor your incredible life. Madeline asks me if you knew that you would die when you went to Iraq. I reassure her that neither you nor your family could foresee that you would never come home. Alberto Martinez viciously took your life, but he couldn’t take your spirit. Just as Madeline’s picture was standing after the explosion, she continues to be the antithesis of everything wrong in this world. Madeline is a bubbly and vivacious seven-year-old with a bottomless supply of energy and enthusiasm for life. And in spite of the egregious injustice she has been forced to endure, I assure you that she will live, love and grow up to do amazing things and defy this evil. We have met an amazing man named Nick who supports and loves us. Nick and I will not let the world forget that justice has not been served. We are working to get the Army to address the problems that led to your murder and the acquittal of your killer while insulating Madeline from the battle. Please give us the strength and grace to carry out this mission.

Love,

Siobhan

Blame the Widow

2010-02-02T20:35:00.003-05:00

A self-described friend of Major General Joseph Taluto, a retired Army First Sergeant and milblogger who calls himself "Bouhammer" speaks up on his blog in support of his buddy:

Right after the [not-guilty] verdict was passed down on Martinez, the widow of CPT Esposito lashed out in anger and demanded an investigation into MG Taluto saying he was at fault and that because of his leadership at the Division level, her husband was killed by one of his own soldiers. Now anyone that knows military ranks and levels of leadership know that blaming the Division Commander is like blaming the President for something that a TSA agent does at an airport. Those two positions (Division Commander and Company Commander) are so far apart and disconnected, it isn’t even funny. It is asinine, idiotic and downright stupid to hold a CG accountable for something like a fragging within a company.

However Mrs. Esposito, out of an act of desperation and anger to hold someone accountable went after MG Taluto. Because of her failure to understand the Army rank systems, her frustration with the Army not doing its job on the prosecution, and her position as the poor widow she got and maintained attention on the matter long enough to stall the confirmation of MG Taluto for the NG Director position and his 3rd star. [Emphasis mine]

Bouhammer leaves out my weariness from having to suffer fools such as he, but goes on with his sundry claims that America has been denied a dear leader and other such chest-pounding puffery.

One almost has to admire how Bouhammer strings together his narrative. Leaving aside his temporal errors which show that he has no real knowledge of the case and looking only at his root argument, Bouhammer's position is little more than "hysterical widow has bad day in court, takes it out upon the poor undeserving." If only . . .

Albeit inadvertently, Bouhammer does nevertheless reveal the mindset of those for whom it impossible to conceive how military discipline was allowed to slip within the 42nd Infantry Division and how the responsibility for that decline ultimately rests with its division commander. The 42nd Infantry Division was allowed to descend to the point where a staff non-commissioned officer could issue literally hundreds of threats and gestures of contempt against his commander in front of officers up to the rank of Lieutenant Colonel and non-commissioned officers up to the rank of Sergeant Major and suffer nothing for it. For Bouhammer and those who agree with him, Article 89 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice must be no more than a mere suggestion and the role of a general officer in ensuring that those entrusted to his command uphold well-established principles of military discipline, well, that's just "asinine, idiotic and downright stupid."

Of course, my family and I are forced to endure the blowback from such stupidity every day. Such the pity that I can't make Bouhammer walk a mile in our shoes.

Blaming the Victim

2010-02-02T09:50:00.002-05:00

This morning, an anonymous visitor to my blog left the following comment:

Its sad that you feel that its everybody else that is to blame for your husband's death. Your husband was in charge of the company and was in charge of SSG Martinez. If he felt threatened and did nothing about it, he is the one at fault. I am sorry for what happened to him and feel sorry for your baby growing up without a father. Stop putting blame on someone else. Your letter did nothing to stop or slow down the process MG Taluto's nomination nor did you have anything to do with his retirement. Move on with your life and find a new outlet for your anger and do something that will make you happy.

This comment is obviously factually wrong and the individual who wrote it is beneath contempt, but as a specimen of a phenomena I first observed during the court martial of my husband's murderer, I find it illustrative. During Alberto Martinez's court martial, his lawyers argued that my late husband Phillip was essentially to blame for his own murder. In reality, of course, Phillip never saw it coming. Phillip never knew that Alberto Martinez was issuing death threats behind his back because the soldiers who heard Martinez issue these threats, to include field-grad officers and staff NCO's, never told Phillip about it.

In action, these soldiers proved more loyal to Martinez then to their oaths to uphold the laws that govern the armed forces--laws that demand accountability for such gestures of contempt. That these individuals were never held to account for their failures is a grave injustice and one that has yet to be properly addressed. In this regard, holding General Taluto to account for his failures is but the tip of the iceberg.

I also find it illustrative that the anonymous visitor tells me that I need to "find a new outlet for [my] anger." It must somehow serve those who seek to preserve the status quo to dismiss my arguments as those of a hysterical widow. I hope that they continue along these lines; such individuals will continue to underestimate me and in the end, they will make my task of fighting to protect the lives of our soldiers all the easier.

Saturday coverage of General Taluto's withdrawal

2010-01-30T10:26:00.004-05:00

Here is another story on Major General Taluto's withdrawal that appeared today.

The Journal News
Widow applauds general's retirement
[link]

I think this part of Hema Easley's coverage is noteworthy:

Eric Durr, director of public affairs for the state Division of Military and Naval Affairs, said Taluto had planned to retire in 2009 but agreed to head the National Guard at the urging of members of the military. As the confirmation process dragged on, the general decided to retire, Durr said.

Taluto's confirmation has been delayed for eight months, but Durr said that was not unusual.

"It's Washington," he said. "There are 200 nominations waiting that have not been acted upon."

Sure. The withdrawal of General Taluto's nomination is nothing more than the routine course of affairs and the investigation of my allegations against Taluto had nothing to do with his retirement.

And let us remember, this is the very same Eric Durr who said the following in a radio report broadcast on North Country Public Radio last spring. Speaking of the hundreds of often graphic death threats my husband received from Alberto Martinez prior to my husband's murder, Durr argued:

"I would just submit that if you took the instance where everybody said "I hate that S.O.B." or "I'm going to take care of him" in a moment of anger in any organization, in hindsight it all seems wonderfully clear, but as we go though our day-to-day life it is never that crystal clear [emphasis added]."

What I think is wonderfully clear is that but for such an attitude, my husband and Louis Allen would be alive. Worse, had the Army learned from my husband and Louis Allen's murder, the victims of the massacre at Fort Hood would also be alive.

News Coverage of General Taluto's Withdrawal and Retirement

2010-01-29T13:33:00.003-05:00

Here is some of today's media coverage of Major General Taluto's withdrawal and retirement.

North Country Public Radio
Maj. Gen. Taluto from Washington County drops bid to lead Army National Guard
[link] [audio]

Albany Times Union
Did Army widow help end career?
General quits bid for job after woman blames Iraq killings on negligence
[link]

The Record (Troy, NY)
Gen. Taluto quits nomination, retires
[link]

The Journal News
Esposito widow applauds general's withdrawal from top National Guard job
[link]

The Army Times
Nominee to lead Guard withdraws his name
[link]

The Associated Press Wire (via the New York Times)
Nominee to Lead National Guard Withdraws His Name
[link]

My letter to the Deputy Secretary of Defense on Taluto

2010-01-29T05:01:00.002-05:00

Note: the letter below was sent in June 2009 as part of my opposition to Major General Joseph Taluto's appointment to serve as Director of the National Guard. I include it here so that it may be part of the public record.

* * * *

June 8th, 2009

The Honorable William J. Lynn III
Deputy Secretary of Defense
The Department of Defense
The Pentagon
Washington, DC 20301-1010

CC: Senator Carl Levin, Chairman, Senate Committee on Armed Services
Senator John McCain, Ranking Member, Senate Committee on Armed Services
Senator James Webb, Member, Senate Committee on Armed Services
Mr. Gordon Peterson, Legislative Asst. to Sen. Webb

Re: Nomination of Major General Joseph Taluto to serve as Director of the National Guard

Dear Deputy Secretary Lynn:

I have recently learned that Chairman of the Senate Committee on Armed Services Senator Carl Levin and ranking member Senator John McCain have contacted you asking that you investigate Major General Joseph Taluto's fitness to be appointed as Director of the National Guard. I wish to communicate to you my steadfast opposition to this appointment. Based upon his actions surrounding the murder of my husband, Captain Phillip Esposito in Iraq in 2005, I hold that Major General Taluto is utterly unsuited to hold this position of great trust. My reasoning is as follows:

In 2005, Major General Taluto commanded the 42nd Infantry Division, a division defined by its lack of military discipline and disrespect for the rules, regulations and laws that govern the armed forces. Specifically, he oversaw a division in which a staff non-commissioned officer issued repeated threats of murder against his superior officer without any consequence or punishment. Additionally, court records reveal that he oversaw a division that lost nearly a million dollars of battle-necessary gear—again with no consequence for those responsible.

BACKGROUND

On the evening of June 7th, 2005, Army Captain Phillip Esposito and 1st Lieutenant Louis Allen were murdered in Tikrit, Iraq by a solider believed by military prosecutors to be Staff Sergeant Alberto Martinez.

CPT Esposito, commander of Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 42nd Infantry, was set to relieve SSG Martinez of his position as the enlisted chief of his unit's supply section and replace him with 1LT Allen due to SSG Martinez's alleged role in the disappearance of over $980,000 worth of government property assigned to his care and allegations that SSG Martinez had stolen government property for his personal use. Despite the severity of these allegations, over five months passed before CPT Esposito was given authorization to relieve SSG Martinez of his duties. Despite his requests, at no time was CPT Esposito allowed by his superiors to have SSG Martinez arrested or otherwise cordoned for his alleged actions.

Trial records and sworn statements reveal that prior to his death, CPT Esposito was the recipient of literally hundreds of threats against his life made by SSG Martinez. These threats, observed by both officers and enlisted soldiers of the 42nd Infantry and known throughout the chain of command, were left unchallenged and unpunished under the Uniform Code of Military Justice which proscribes such gestures of contempt.

After the murder of CPT Esposito and 1LT Allen, critical mistakes were made in the processing of the crime scene and the questioning of the accused murderer and these mistakes contributed greatly to the acquittal of SSG Martinez by a military court-martial in 2008. First, the crime scene was not properly secured and amazingly, even cleaned prior to the arrival of investigators. Second, and more importantly, Criminal Investigation Division agents performed a flawed interrogation of SSG Martinez that led his statement to be excluded from his trial on constitutional grounds.

THE ARGUMENT AGAINST MAJOR GENERAL TALUTO

A military unit is like few other social institutions; as a body empowered to use deadly force, its success is predicated upon its members subordinating themselves to the laws enacted by Congress that govern the mission and conduct of the armed forces. If proper discipline is maintained, soldiers face the rigors of the battlefield supported by an institution that is both fair and just, yet if proper discipline is not maintained, soldiers are left to be victims of whim, avarice and caprice—and risk military defeat.

Contrary to the claims made in the sundry accommodations it received for its performance in Iraq, the 42nd Infantry suffered from a deeply defective leadership culture. In the case of CPT Esposito and 1LT Allen, repeated and wanton violations of Article 89 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice led to an environment where a recalcitrant with a pattern of vicious contempt for his commander was left unchecked and ultimately free to express his well-known rage to deadly effect.

Concrete evidence of this inexcusable pattern of contempt was revealed at the trial of the accused murderer; there, witness testimony and sworn statements showed that both senior commissioned and non-commissioned officers of the 42nd Infantry had witnessed SSG Martinez issue his threats firsthand up to ten months before he committed his attack against CPT Esposito and 1LT Allen . Yet appallingly, at no time either before or after the murders were any of these individuals sanctioned in any way for their failure to uphold the Army's standards.

And thus by failing to instill a properly disciplined military culture across his division, Major General Taluto bears responsibility for the needless deaths of CPT Esposito and 1LT Allen. At root, Major General Taluto's culpability lies in his negligent inaction: had 42nd Infantry been disciplined, had its officers and soldiers been pressed to uphold the Uniform Code of Military Justice as their sworn oaths mandated, SSG Martinez would have been held to account for his actions long before these actions rose to the level of premeditated double murder.

Furthermore, if Major General Taluto is not to be held accountable for the negligence, incompetence and lack of discipline that infested the 42nd Infantry Division, just who then is accountable? Why were these individuals never pursued by Major General Taluto? Why did he not rest until full and complete justice was ensured and all those who bear responsibility for this tragedy were held to account for their actions? I can only surmise that his interests and ambitions lay elsewhere.

Astonishingly, Major General Taluto personally acknowledged as much to me at a Memorial Day commemoration that we both attended in 2007. There I asked Major General Taluto if he had been aware that 1LT Allen had been brought especially to Iraq to relieve SSG Martinez of his responsibilities in supply. Major General Taluto's response was both exact and concise: "Phillip [Esposito's] job was on the base. My job was off the base."

In reality, Major General Taluto's job was both on and off his division's base. E-mails and sworn statements submitted into evidence in the trial of SSG Martinez reveal that commanders up to Major General Taluto's Chief of Staff were personally aware of the problems faced by my late husband. SSG Daniel Tobin, a solider with the Staff Judge Advocate of the 42nd Infantry freely admitted in court that he observed SSG Martinez's vitriol and contempt and stated that he regretted that he failed to enforced Article 89 against Martinez. Even Major General Taluto's own son had heard SSG Martinez issue death threats and hundreds of thousands of dollars of government property (to include sensitive message encryption gear) was missing and presumed lost or stolen. Yet in the face of these wanton violations of well-established standards of military discipline, we are asked to simply accept that Major General Taluto's legitimate focus rested elsewhere.

In fact, Major General Taluto's public spokesman, Mr. Eric Durr, Director of Public Affairs for the New York State Division of Military and Naval Affairs has already begun to spin as much in a public effort to refute my arguments against the nomination of the general. In National Public Radio's May 29th, 2009 coverage of my opposition to Major General Taluto, Mr. Durr stated:

"In the normal course of events, a general officer does not involve himself in what's going on in one of the seventy-plus companies that make up this twenty-three thousand soldier task force."

Mr. Durr continues:

"I would just submit that if you took the instance where everybody said "I hate that S.O.B." or "I'm going to take care of him" in a moment of anger in any organization, in hindsight it all seems wonderfully clear, but as we go though our day-to-day life it is never that crystal clear [emphasis added]."

It is precisely Mr. Durr's statement above that reveals that the Army has not learned the necessary lessons from this tragedy and why Major General Taluto must not be confirmed to serve as Director of the National Guard. Article 89 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice does not have a "wonderfully clear" clause that absolves soldiers of their duty to enforce the law in moments of alleged ambiguity. On the contrary: every article of the Code is explicitly clear in its meaning and every article demands fidelity. That the soldiers and officers of the 42nd Infantry Division felt differently to the point that an officer could receive hundreds of threats against his life and no one would act to uphold the law reveals a systemic lack of discipline that indicts the entire chain of command—to include the senior-most commander who now seeks even greater responsibility.

CONCLUSION

For Major General Taluto to be confirmed as Director of the National Guard, one must maintain that he is in no way accountable for the deaths of my husband and 1LT Allen and that the act of murder that ended these officers' lives was a singular aberration and not part of a larger failure to enforce military discipline. The evidence speaks plainly to another, more honest conclusion however: the soldiers and officers of the 42nd Infantry had ample opportunity to prevent this tragedy, yet they failed to even try. But for a command culture where brazen infractions of the Uniform Code of Military Justice were tolerated, two soldiers would be alive today, two women would have their husbands and five children would have their fathers. As commander of the 42nd Infantry, Major General Taluto bears ultimate responsibility for this defective and ultimately deadly leadership culture.

Furthermore, there has been no accountability on the part of the Army for the causes that led to this needless tragedy. To date, not a single soldier or officer of the 42nd Infantry Division has received even the slightest sanction or reprimand for his or her role in the death of my husband and 1LT Allen four years ago.

Again, every finger points to Major General Taluto as the conductor of this farce. As division commander, Major General Taluto had every mandate to insure that the dereliction of duty by those under his command would not go unpunished. And yet again, we witness the same pattern: where justice demands action on the part of Major General Taluto, there is only evasion and inaction.

I submit this letter to you in the hope that justice will finally be served. Both my husband and 1Lt Allen deeply loved the Army and each man gave his life in faithful service to it. I believe that we must be equal to their valor and that the only way to achieve this is to conduct an honest and frank examination of the conditions that led to their needless deaths. The nomination of Major General Taluto to a role of great trust presents us with such an opportunity. I thus steadfastly oppose the nomination of this officer for the position that he has been selected to fulfill and I request that my arguments be added to the record of any investigation of his suitability for command.

Sincerely,

Mrs. Siobhan Esposito

Fragging Widow Applauds General's Withdrawal to Serve as Director of the Army National Guard

2010-01-29T05:00:00.002-05:00

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Friday, January 29th, 2010

Alexandria, VA— Siobhan Esposito, the widow of Army Captain Phillip Esposito who was murdered alongside 1st Lieutenant Louis Allen in Iraq in 2005 applauds Major General Joseph Taluto's unprecedented decision yesterday to ask for the withdrawal of his nomination to serve as Director of the National Guard. Taluto's withdrawal is due to an investigation Mrs. Esposito instigated examining Taluto's failed leadership as commander of the 42nd Infantry Division of the New York National Guard—a failure Esposito believes directly contributed to the murder of her late husband and the acquittal of his killer.

"Gen. Taluto's withdrawal and retirement," says Esposito, "made before the special Army report investigating his role in my late husband's death was publicly released is vindication of my call for the Army to properly address the unforgivable lack of military discipline that led to my husband's murder."

"Two American heroes like my husband and Louis Allen cannot be murdered in cold blood without those responsible being held to account for it," says Esposito. "I believe Alberto Martinez murdered my husband, but it was the Army's lax standards that gave him license to do it and then get away with his crime."

"The Army must learn from these needless and preventable deaths, punish those responsible for them and reform its standards or there will be more deaths like my husband's and Lt. Allen's in the future," says Esposito. "Had the Army learned from its mistakes surrounding my husband's murder, I hold that its leaders could have prevented further tragedies such as the horrific massacre of soldiers at Fort Hood."

"I am deeply indebted to Senator Jim Webb for his leadership in support of my quest," says Esposito. "His willingness to support my call for an investigation of General Taluto's conduct helped me and my young daughter secure the first iota of accountability since my husband was murdered in 2005."

"No soldier should ever fear his comrades—least of all when there are clear warning signs that demand action," says Esposito. "My act of justice to the memory of my husband will be to fight for reform until the mistakes that lead to the preventable deaths of our soldiers are corrected."

Media Mentions and the Army's Spin

2009-05-30T17:15:00.009-04:00

On Friday, a report detailing my opposition to the confirmation of Major General Joseph Taluto to serve as Director of the National Guard was broadcast on NCPR radio [link to audio here] and syndicated nationally on NPR's "All Things Considered" [link here]. Additionally, the story of my opposition was picked up in the Schenectady Gazette [link here] and the Lower Hudson Journal [links here and here].

These stories reveal the Army's strategy for dismissing my arguments. According to Mr. Eric Durr, director of public affairs for the New York State Division of Military and Naval Affairs, Major General Taluto should be in no way held responsible for the murder of my husband and 1st Lieutenant Allen and the subsequent acquittal of the murderer.

In the NCPR story, Durr says:

In the normal course of events, a general officer does not involve himself in what's going on in one of the seventy-plus companies that make up this twenty-three thousand soldier task force.

Yet that is not what I allege. I hold that Major General Joseph Taluto's negligence rests not with his failure to involve himself in the day-to-day minutiae of those under his command, but with his failure to enforce well-established and broad-based principles of military discipline and ensure that these principles were enforced throughout his division. Specifically, General Taluto's negligence rest in the lackadaisical enforcement of the Uniform Code of Military Justice that permeated the 42nd Infantry Division.

My husband was the victim of a long string of threats and contemptuous statements made by Staff Sergeant Alberto Martinez prior to my husband's murder. One solider testified that he heard Martinez state that he wished to kill my husband over one hundred times. One field-grade officer testified that he heard Martinez say that he could kill my husband and that he did not think Martinez was joking; another field-grade officer testified that Martinez made statements of vulgar contempt just two days before the assault that took my husband's life. Major General Taluto's own son admitted to investigators that he heard Martinez wish for my husband's death and that he also thought Martinez's threats seemed credible.

Yet in the face of all these repeated, explicit and even convincing threats, not once did anyone in the 42nd Infantry Division think to enforce Article 89 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice prohibiting disrespect to a superior officer. Had anyone fulfilled their sworn duty to enforce this article, no doubt two husbands and fathers would be alive today.

Of course, Mr. Durr has an answer to that. In the NCPR report, he says:

I would just submit that if you took the instance where everybody said "I hate that S.O.B." or "I'm going to take care of him" in a moment of anger in any organization, in hindsight it all seems wonderfully clear , but as we go though our day-to-day life it is never that crystal clear [emphasis added].

It is precisely Mr. Durr's statement above that reveals that the Army has not learned the necessary lessons from this tragedy and why Major General Taluto must not be confirmed to serve as Director of the National Guard. Article 89 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice does not have a "wonderfully clear" clause that absolves soldiers of their duty to enforce the law in moments of alleged ambiguity. On the contrary: every article of the Code is explicitly clear in its meaning and intent and every article demands absolute fidelity. That the men and officers of the 42nd Infantry Division felt differently to the point that an officer could receive hundreds of threats against his life and no one would act to uphold the law reveals a systemic lack of discipline that indicts the entire chain of command—to include the senior-most commander who now seeks even greater responsibility.

Amazingly though, to date, not a single solider or officer of the 42nd Infantry Division has received even the slightest sanction or reprimand for his or her role in the death of my husband and 1st Lieutenant Allen almost four years ago. Again, every finger points to Major General Taluto as the architect of this absurd, patently offensive and ultimately deadly scenario, yet Mr. Eric Durr has a defense for Major General Taluto here as well. In the NCPR report, Durr says:

Major General Taluto and the 42nd Infantry Division essentially had no say in the case after about two days.

Lest we forget, within those two days that Mr. Durr refers to above, the crime scene was utterly compromised and Martinez's interrogation was so poorly handled that it would ultimately be rendered inadmissible as evidence due to what the military's own judge considered to be flagrant Constitutional violations. Within the two days that Mr. Durr acknowledges that Major General Taluto and the 42nd Infantry Division did have a say, the case against my husband's murderer would be lost.

Lastly, if Major General Taluto is not to be held accountable for the negligence, incompetence and lack of discipline that infested the 42nd Infantry Division, just who then is accountable? Why were these individuals never pursued by Major General Taluto? Why did he not rest until full and complete justice was ensured and all those who bear responsibility for this tragedy were held to account for their actions? I can only surmise that his interests and ambitions lay elsewhere.

I thus ask if this is the kind of indifferent and incompetent leadership we want governing the affairs of the entire National Guard? As one of the victims of a horrific and easily preventable crime, I say "No."

I am Scheduled to Appear on NCPR Friday Morning

2009-05-28T19:30:00.004-04:00

Today I was interviewed by Brian Mann of North Country Public Radio to discuss my opposition to the nomination of Major General Joseph Taluto to serve as Director of the National Guard due to his role in the events surrounding the murder of my husband and the acquittal of his killer. This interview is slated to be broadcast tomorrow morning at around 8 AM. Here is the link to NCPR's live feed and a link to its featured story page where I expect my interview will also be posted.

Albany Times Union Coverage of My Opposition to General Taluto

2009-05-28T09:05:00.003-04:00

This article [link] made the front page of the Albany Times Union. In it Robert Gavin chronicles my opposition to the nomination of General Taluto to serve as Director of the National Guard.

I noticed that Eric Durr, a spokesman for the state Division of Military and Naval Affairs, attempted to spin away General Taluto's responsibility for the murder of my husband. I think my own statements in the article refute his spin; nevertheless I'd like to answer him directly here.

A commander bears ultimate responsibility for the actions of those under his command. My charge against General Taluto is not that he was the trigger man and not that he had specific knowledge that my husband would be murdered by Staff Sergeant Alberto Martinez, but that the systemic lack of discipline in the 42nd Infantry Division was a product of the General’s lack of concern and professional incompetence. I simply find it unacceptable that a soldier could issue repeated death threats against his superior officer and no one in the chain of command would feel compelled to act.

Ultimately, the failure of the soldiers of the 42nd Infantry Division to enforce Army rules and regulations must rest with General Taluto. If not, one would have to claim that no one is accountable whatsoever for the state of military discipline in a military unit—yet that is precisely what Mr. Durr attempts to insinuate. Needless to say, the act recoils upon him.

Taking the fight to the US Senate

2009-05-19T20:32:00.003-04:00

Today I visited the offices of US Senators who sit on the Senate Armed Services Committee to communicate my opposition to nomination of Major General Joseph Taluto to serve as Director of the Army National Guard. Below is the text of the letter I left with the Senators and their staff.

Re: Nomination of Major General Joseph Taluto to serve as Director of the Army National Guard

Dear Senator:

I wish to communicate to you and your colleagues serving on the Senate Armed Services committee my steadfast opposition to the appointment of Major General Joseph Taluto to serve as Director of the Army National Guard. Based upon his actions surrounding the murder of my husband, Captain Phillip Esposito in Iraq in 2005, I hold that General Taluto is utterly unsuited to hold this position of great trust and that the Senate should reject his appointment. My reasoning is as follows:

In 2005, General Taluto commanded the 42nd Infantry Division, a division defined by its lack of military discipline and disrespect for the rules, regulations and laws that govern the armed forces. Specifically, he oversaw a division in which a staff non-commissioned officer issued repeated threats of murder against his superior officer without any consequence or punishment. Additionally, court records reveal that he oversaw a division that lost nearly a million dollars of battle necessary gear—again with no consequence for those responsible.

When two officers under his command were murdered (to include my late husband), General Taluto oversaw an investigation that was so compromised that it subsequently resulted in the full acquittal of the accused perpetrator. These egregious errors denied justice to those who deserved it, ranging from the perpetrator (who deserved the full weight of the law borne upon him) to the families of the victims of this crime (who deserved the opportunity to live the rest of their lives knowing that proper justice had been served and the deaths of their loved ones had been avenged under the law).

When I approached General Taluto after the death of my husband, while initially supportive, he ultimately became evasive and defensive as it became clear that the larger negative culture of the division that he commanded led to the needless deaths of those in his charge. General Taluto refused to answer even basic questions concerning his responsibilities and the nature of his command over his men. General Taluto displayed a chronic lack of interest for the actions of his men--again, actions which led to the murder of two officers serving under his command. I maintain that even if General Taluto's duties prevented him from having direct knowledge of the actions of those under his command, he is still accountable for the overarching tone that animated his division and the professional actions of his subordinates.

Thus the horror of my life is that my husband's death was avoidable, if only a man like General Taluto had performed his job properly. General Taluto might not have set off the claymore mine that eviscerated my husband, left me a widow and left my daughter a half-orphan, but his inaction and bungling was an unforgivable catalyst for my husband's death and the acquittal of his killer. For this, Major General Joseph Taluto bears ultimate responsibility: the 42nd Infantry Division was his division and his division alone.

At root, I hold that General Taluto's actions reveal that he has nothing less than a callous disregard for the lives and fate of his own men. To somehow maintain that this general has displayed the integrity, trustworthiness and competence necessary to direct the affairs of the entire National Guard is to ignore his repeated and substantive failures. As such, I urge you and your colleagues in the Senate to reject General Taluto's nomination to serve as Director of the Army National Guard.

Sincerely,

Mrs. Siobhan Esposito

Fragging Widow Slams Taluto as Unfit to Lead Guard

2009-05-14T22:30:00.003-04:00

This is a press release I sent out today in response to the nomination of Major General Joseph Taluto to serve as Director of the Army National Guard. --SME

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: Siobhan Esposito

ALEXANDRIA, VA—The widow of a slain Army officer condemned President Barack Obama's nomination of Major General Joseph Taluto to serve as Director of the Army National Guard, stating that Taluto's weak and inattentive leadership in Iraq directly contributed to the murder of her husband.

"Under Joseph Taluto's leadership, the New York National Guard unit in which my late husband served was defined by a horrific lack of military discipline and personal accountability," said Siobhan Esposito, the widow of Capt. Phillip Esposito who was murdered in Iraq alongside 1st Lt Louis Allen in 2005 by a solider under General Taluto's command. "For his many failures on the battlefield, General Taluto should be reprimanded and retired, not promoted and entrusted with responsibility over the entire National Guard."

"General Taluto permitted the soldiers in the 42nd Infantry Division to conduct themselves in an utterly un-military and unprofessional manner," said Esposito. "In the case of my husband's murder, a solider was permitted to make repeated violent threats against my husband's life—threats that culminated in my husband's murder—without so much as a slap on the hand from Gen. Taluto or his lieutenants."

"Military commanders are directly responsible for the actions of the men and women under their authority," said Esposito, "yet at no time since the murder of my husband has Gen. Taluto taken any responsibility for Phillip's death. Not once has Gen. Taluto shown that he understands that his failures led to the division that he was entrusted to command to slip to the point where actions that plainly violated the laws that govern the armed forces were left completely ignored."

"I cannot imagine a worse betrayal of the trust our nation puts in the leaders of our Armed Forces," says Esposito "than to have a person who failed to protect the welfare of our fighting men in Iraq given the responsibility to ensure the welfare of the entire National Guard."

"The US Senate should reject Gen. Taluto as unqualified to lead," said Esposito. "His inaction and negligence puts the blood of my dead husband upon his hands and in no way should he be entrusted with the lives of other military men and women."

A Letter to Senator Webb

2009-03-04T20:29:00.006-05:00

NB: I sent the following letter to Senator James Webb, who serves as one of my representatives in the US Senate and as a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

March 5, 2009

The Honorable James H. Webb, Jr.
United States Senate
144 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510-4604

Re: US v. Alberto Martinez

Dear Senator Webb:

I am the widow of US Army Captain Phillip Esposito who was murdered in Iraq in 2005 alongside 1st Lt. Louis Allen by one of the solders in his unit. I seek a meeting with an appropriate member of your staff so that I may brief them on the facts of this case and the various discrepancies that lead to this crime being committed and the acquittal of its perpetrator. These discrepancies include:

That an individual with blemished character and a dubious past was admitted into the National Guard and placed in a position of trust and responsibility.
That when this individual was accused of incompetence and corruption, he was nevertheless retained in his position. The initial attempts by his commander to relieve him were met with indifference, as if sympathy was extended not to the commander attempting to enforce order, but to the recalcitrant attempting to evade it.
That when this individual issued repeated threats of violence against his commander, his outrageous and undisciplined behavior was left unchecked by his peers and the other commanders in his unit.
That when this individual committed the crime of premeditated double murder, a lack of professionalism on the part of military investigators led to valuable evidence being excluded from his trial.
That when this individual offered to admit his guilt and accept life imprisonment, his plea was unilaterally rejected by Army commanders and without informing the families of the dead or seeking their counsel.
That a jury was seated with members that had clear conflicts of interests to include a married couple opposed to capital punishment and solider who stated that he believed that military investigators routinely lie in order to secure convictions.
That when a jury was tasked with the responsibility of determining this individual's guilt under the laws that govern the armed forces, it failed to reach a logical conclusion based upon the evidence presented before it and instead voted to acquit this individual of any responsibility for his crimes.
That other ancillary criminal charges against this individual were severed from the murder indictment against him and not pursued when he was acquitted of murder.
That the individual's military attorneys, having full knowledge of their client's guilt based upon the ethical requirements of their submitting his plea bargain attempt to the government, nevertheless chose to celebrate his acquittal by press release, a gratuitous and unnecessary an act extending far beyond their client's right to council under the Sixth Amendment.
That this individual was honorably discharged from the armed forces and released a free man without informing the families of his victims of his release and without there being any legal means to restrain him should he threaten them with his presence.

At root, the catalyst for the murder of two innocent officers was a systemic lack of professionalism and military discipline within the National Guard and Army. The American all-volunteer military is one of the greatest evolutions of freedom in human history, yet for it to meet the demands of defending the nation, this force must be a disciplined force and its members must be held to the highest standard of conduct.

As evidenced above, I have serious issues with this prosecution of this case and its larger implications for the Army. As someone who has paid an unfathomable price through the loss of my husband, I am determined that the larger problems that led to this miscarriage of justice be addressed and corrected. As you are my representative in the Senate and a member of the Armed Services Committee, I seek to enlist your support accordingly.

Please have an appropriate member of your staff contact me to arrange a meeting at their earliest convince so that I may brief them. From there, we can contemplate the next course of action. I may be reached via e-mail at [withheld] or via phone at [withheld].

Sincerely,

Mrs. Siobhan Esposito

'After Guilty Plea Offer, G.I. Cleared of Iraq Deaths '

2009-02-21T01:22:00.004-05:00

It has been three months since Alberto Martinez was acquitted of his responsibility for the double murder of my husband Capt. Phillip Esposito and his comrade 1st Lt. Lou Allen. Today the New York Times ran a front page story describing how Martinez had offered a plea deal to the government acknowledging his guilt and accepting life imprisonment in exchange for his being spared the death penalty. The article details how Martinez’s offer was unilaterally rejected by Lt. Gen. John R. Vines who had made his decision without so much as informing the families affected by Martinez’s actions.

This news is shocking and offensive. I hold that Lt. Gen. Vines had an ethical responsibility to inform us that Martinez had admitted his guilt and offered a plea. Nevertheless, he withheld this crucial information from us and denied us any input into his decision. Now we have to live with the fallout of his actions while he does nothing but enjoy his retirement.

This is yet another injustice and proof that my husband and my family were betrayed by the leadership of the Army.

Update: Here is additional coverage of this story by Robert Gavin of the Times Union.

Silence Is Not Golden

2009-02-04T11:32:00.000-05:00

It is now almost two months since the verdict that acquitted Alberto Martinez of his responsibility for the murder of my husband. I am still standing, but I am also still struggling to understand all that has happened and the reasons behind it.

A few weeks ago, I sent the following message to the members of the military jury that sat in judgment of Martinez.

I understand that my friend Barbara has contacted you and I wanted to do the same. I am writing you to ask for your assistance.

I recognize that the rules governing courts martial preclude you from discussing your deliberations in the trial of my husband's accused murderer and I respect your obligations under these rules. Nevertheless, for my own peace of mind and the peace of mind of my daughter, who I will soon have to explain all that has occurred as a result of the death of her father, I respectfully ask that you share with me your thoughts about the trial in which you served. I specifically ask that you share with me your personal estimate of the evidence presented in court.

I have reviewed the instructions that you have been given and I believe that you can share your opinions with me and do so without violating your instructions not to discuss your deliberations or the deliberations of your fellow panel members. I ask that you do as much, even as I recognize that it may be uncomfortable for you to open yourself in this way.

We sat in the courtroom together. I saw your face and you saw mine. I doubt that I need to impress upon you what the death of my husband has done to my life. What I need now is the ability to reconcile all that has happened. Good or bad, I ask that you help give me the ability to put all the facts in their proper place so that I may continue with my life. You have that power.

Not knowing or understanding is torture. I ask you to grant me some relief.

If you wish for me not to communicate with you further please let me know and I will honor that wish. My purpose is not to intrude or make you uncomfortable. My purpose is to understand.

Sincerely,

Siobhan Esposito

Two jurors subsequently contacted me. Hearing from them has helped me--it has helped me to understand that I was not fully alone in the courtroom for those two months of trial. I thank them for their willingness to speak to me.

I do not thank the individuals behind the following message that I received via my attorney (I have redacted the personal information of the SJA and my attorney):

From: USA FORSCOM [mailto]
Sent: Mon 1/26/2009 3:26 PM
To: My Attorney

Cc: COL RES USA FORSCOM
Subject: Contact with Panel Members (UNCLASSIFIED)

Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE

[My attorney],

Mrs. Esposito and Mrs. Allen have been e-mailing the panel members requesting information about the trial. Please inform the spouses that the following panel members do not want to be contacted:

COL Fiorey
LTC Crespo
LTC Bowsher
MAJ Burton
MAJ Crespo
SGM Wilson
SFC Evans

I will pass on any other names of members who inform me that they do not desire further contact.

Thanks,

[redacted]

Chief, Criminal Law Division
Office of the Staff Judge Advocate
XVIII Airborne Corps
Fort Bragg, North Carolina

In my e-mail, I had addressed each juror individually. Each had an opportunity to respond to me even if only to say that they wished not to communicate. Rather than face me head on like I deserve to be faced, these jurors have decided to have the Staff Judge Advocate speak for them.

The silence is deafening. Why did these officers and NCO’s feel that there was nothing they could say to me? The military judge’s gag order only limits the jurors from talking about their deliberations. What does this say for the current leadership in the Army? One of the values the Army loves to tout when it is convenient for them is personal courage which is egregiously absent in this instance.

* * *

All this serves as yet another reminder of the massive dereliction of duty that resulted in the murder of Phillip and Lou and that perpetuates this injustice. Where was the Army four years ago about enforcing good order and discipline? Where was the Army when my husband asked for its help? Instead it let two exemplary officers get brutally murdered while its members stood by and let it happen.

My husband has been failed by his Army peers, by the former president and vice president of the United States, our current secretary of state, Senator Lieberman and the Adjutant General of New York. The list keeps getting longer and longer--and all in the name of what? I am afraid to contact my representatives from the state of Virginia because I don't think that I can handle the list getting any longer.

There is no excuse for this morally reprehensible conduct—not for the verdict, not for the time up to the trial, not for the time after it and not for everything that allowed this pointless crime to happen in the first place.

I am told that I need to move on and put all this in the past. I know that as much is said to Barbara as well. Others seem to be able to live in a state of denial and without so much as an afterthought. Barbara and I continue to be less fortunate.

A Letter I Received Yesterday

2008-12-06T12:13:00.002-05:00

Yesterday, I received the following letter in the mail:

Dear Ms. Esposito:

There is nothing that we – the Korean War Veterans, Rockland Chapter – can say or do to alleviate the pain and suffering that you have gone through over the sudden death of your Husband, Phillip in Iraq. As we said in Korea, he went to fight for a people he hardly knew and a land he never saw. God has a special place in Heaven for men like Captain Esposito who fought to defend the rights of others. All of us knew that when we went to Korea.

The Korean War Veterans, Rockland Chapter ask that you accept this contribution in your husband's honor for your needs.

They also serve who only stand and wait. (John Milton: On His Blindness).

Korean War Veterans
Rockland Chapter

Enclosed was a financial gift that expressed that the letter above was not mere words, but a deeply held sentiment made real by action.

In a time of hardship and despair, I have received many such statements and gifts. I am deeply thankful for them all. They cannot assuage all of my and my daughter's grief, but they nevertheless serve to remind us that we are not alone.

“He slaughtered our husbands and that’s it!”

2008-12-05T22:17:00.004-05:00

Those are the words of my dear friend Barbara Allen whose husband was also killed alongside mine by this despicable man.

I am disgusted. This is a miscarriage of justice. My husband took an oath and died in fulfillment of it. The officers and non-commissioned officers who sat in judgment of Alberto Martinez betrayed their oath. Their task was to ensure justice and they failed utterly. I want them to pay for their failure.

They have said in a time of war you can take a personal grudge and turn it into premeditated murder and get away with it. He got away with murder. How can that be?

How do I explain to my daughter that her father would give his life to an institution that would turn his back on him so many times? How do I find the words? How do I come to grips with it myself?

I'm afraid for myself and my child. This man who murdered my husband leered at me in the courtroom in front of the jury. If he was innocent he would feel nothing but compassion for our families and would have shown it.

Barbara and I have been betrayed. The fact that it was by men and women who wore the same uniform as our husbands and claimed to share the same values makes this both sickening and wrong. This is the second worst day of my life.

Thank God for my family and friends whose untiring support gives me the strength to carry on (and some days, to keep living).