Seaman Provost started his watch at 2330. His body was discovered when his relief arrived at 0330. Why so long? We’re technically on a wartime footing, aren’t we? If the murderer had been a squad of saboteurs, they could have done a lot of damage in (up to) four hours. If a guard is on duty alone, shouldn’t he be required to report periodically? It wouldn’t keep him from being murdered, but it would shorten the time before discovering his body. In a murder, the timeframe would be reduced such that suspects might be more easily identified. (In this particular case, a suspect is in custody.) In sabotage, it would reduce the time the saboteurs have before a response is sent.
I doubt that Camp Pendleton is operating in a wartime mode. I work aboard a Navy base near DC, and we’re pretty much operating in a normal mode. It’s a fairly secure facility, but with a sticker on my car and my gov’t ID, I’m waved aboard.
As for reporting in - when I was on active duty back in the early 70s, I would have a roving patrol watch all alone in a fairly large building. I did not make calls to anyone unless there was a problem, so for 4 hours, I’d be the only person on the premises, walking the halls, making sure the building was secure. Every hour, I’d make a log entry.
He should have been found by someone more senior: Petty-Officer-of-the Watch, Corporal of the Guard, Sergeant of the Guard (on Camp Pendleton, any of those could be applicable) when that person made his or her rounds. If those rounds weren’t made at least once per watch, they should have been, or he should have been required to report his status by phone or radio.
I drive by that installation a lot. The sentry post to the entrance for LCAC Unit 5 is well within Camp Pendleton’s perimeter, ball-park one and a half miles. The post is not a primary security position. I base this on the lack of zig-zag Jersey barriers and the observation of seeing a single sentry when I come through after dark.
Provost was being harassed about being non-hetero. He couldn’t level a complaint about that because under Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, it would have put him at risk of being found unfit for the duty that he chose and loved because he was, by all reports, bisexual and in a relationship with another man. If he could’ve simply said “I’m being harassed” without turning scrutiny on himself, it may have saved his life.
I assume you’re relying on the statement made by his family member. But it’s unclear what evidence prompted the family member’s belief. She says simply that “in her heart” she believes he was killed because he was bisexual. But that’ not exactly strong evidence. Is there something else?
Oh, I guess you raise a good point Bricker. I mean here she is, in what seems to be regular communication with the kid, and linking the suspicious circumstances of his death with a well prejudice among certain quarters of the military. You, on the other hand, heard about this second-hand on an internet message board, knowing nothing about the principals until tonight.
So, yes, let’s accept your eminently reasonable insinuation: it is at least as likely that this woman is an inveterate advocate for the repeal of DADT and has chose to embellish and politicize her nephew’s death to further this end as it is that she was acquainted with the facts and circumstances of his sexuality and his service in the Navy and she shared this information to perhaps bring about a change in policy that may avert other infrequent–but needless all the same–deaths in the future.
And, of course, we have only Bricker’s wprd that he’s a retired-from-active-practice attorney, and not someone with a passable knowledge of the law who’s spent ten years impersonating a lawyer on this board.
Not, you must understand, that I’m insinuating that Bricker has been a troll all these years – just that there are levels of proof – as was pointed out by Bricker himself in the O.J. Simpson criminal acquittal/wrongful-death loss discussions.
The point I’m driving at is that the evidence and suspicions voced by Provost’s family is sufficient to warrant an investigation as to whether there’s truth behind them – not that they should be taken as absolutely veracious, but that there is reasonable ground to suspect they may be well founded, and hence should be looked into.
