Husband of Loudoun Independent's mystery Greason accuser speaks. (Supposedly.)

An interesting comment appeared on my initial post regarding the Loudoun Independent story basically re-spreading some unsupported gossip. Someone claiming to be the husband of the woman who filed the initial complaint against then-Lt. Tag Greason decided to weigh in on my post. He says his name is David DesRosier, Major, US Army, Retired and that he and his wife have now come out from behind the Loudoun Independent’s anonymity shield. When I asked him to show me where that’s been reported he directed me to the comments section of the original story. Let’s look at that particular response first:

ricjames, go to the http://WWW.loudouni.com and look at the article and the comments generated. Since we never brought this out and since we don’t even have a clue where else this story is being reported she has responded to the comments and calls for her to identify herself. Hopefully that is good enough for you.

Comment by David DesRosier | September 27, 2009

OK, Major, what you’ve given me is a comment entered by an unverified, unauthenticated user of a newspaper’s public web site. A web site that requires absolutely no credentials to post on. Would that be good enough for you? You talk about yourself and your wife and reference using Google to look things up, as if you and she are on the top 10 responses from Google. For the record, a Google search on “major David DesRosier Army” produces about 225,000 hits. I don’t see anything in the first several pages that appeared to be you, so you’ll have to forgive all of us for not looking up your dossier.

As for suggesting that I (and any other HoodaThunk? reader) peruse those comments left at the original article, I’m not sure you’re doing yourself a service. First, you have the same issue as your wife allegedly does: simply posting your name on a comment over there proves nothing about your identity. That’s why I pinged the Loudoun Independent to confirm your wife was the source of the story. They haven’t responded, not at all. They are the only participant in this story that can confirm where they got the story and to whom they spoke, so we’re really going to need to hear that from the Independent to consider that to be a solid sourcing.

But just for the sake of completeness, let’s look at the 1st comment left here anyway and see what we can address:

Yet another hack job on summarizing a story without really telling the whole story. The woman in question, my wife, has come forward and revealed her name. The charges were not filed two years later. The initial report went to her 1SGT who dismissed her. Her sister did file a complaint. WE also filed a Department of the Army IG complaint when it became apparent the Fort Polk IGs office was doing nothing with the complaint. Another misstatement on your part, the woman never came forward, she was called out of the blue by the reporter to verify that she still stood by the claims she made in 1994, and again in 1996. She didn’t want the story to go forward but the reporter stated it would regardless of her request. Thanks for calling my wife a moron without any knowledge of who she is. Let me tell you a bit about the accuser, she is still in the military, She has attained the rank of SSG. She has served her country in peace time and in war time doing a tour in Afghanistan. She was extremely brave to have brought these charges against then LT Greason; I am sure you can imagine why it takes a certain kind of strength to level a charge like this. Because of that article Loudoun Independent readers have verbally assaulted my wife and I, and no one believes we didn’t initiate this. That is there right of course. but they spew out BS based on no knowledge of who we are and what happened. And let me repeat, NEITHER of us brought this case forward, as to how this got into the hands of a reporter, I can only imagine but do a google search every now and then and see what comes up. FOIA requests can get you lots of information. I guess just one more thing before I end this. There was no Military Court that reviewed this, otherwise my wife would have had to testify. Many will find this hard to believe but the Federal Court case was a complete mystery to us until this article came out. Had Sherry been notified of any court case she would have been there and any interviews with Tag Greason would have had to be from his prison cell in Fort Leavenworth.
Respectfully,
David DesRosier, Major, United States Army, Retired.

Comment by David DesRosier | September 26, 2009

Well, where to start with this one? I don’t normally go into full Fisking mode but when the situation demands it, I guess we must. You’ve got a lot of nerve calling my post a “hack job” considering the story that got this whole sorry situation started. You want to know who to blame for not going into the whole story? You head right over to John Geddie’s office. The reason no one who wrote about that gossip-rag review posing as “news” story told the “whole story” is because the Independent’s article was woefully deficient in that department. (Part of my complaint, if you’ll actually read my post in its entirety, I might add.) You complain about the reference to the charges being filed 2 years after the fact. The US District Court records are quite plain about that, if the story is to be believed at all: the charges were filed with them in 1996. Do the math. That’s 2 years. If you have a complaint with the way the IG’s office handled things, take it up with them. I commented on the facts as they were reported in the Independent and they said the charges were filed 2 years after the fact.

To address your next point, that I made a misstatement about your wife coming forward with this story, how about we go to the text of my actual post?

And how, exactly, did this story come up? The report says the woman expresses “concern” for Greason and hopes the incident doesn’t impede any good work he’s doing now. First off, what moron would think that an accusation like this wouldn’t hurt a person’s reputation and impact any work they’re doing? If she was so concerned about it and considers this “something in the past”, as she’s reported to say, then why come forward about it now?

Unless she didn’t come forward. Unless she was actively pursued by the reporters. Which, if true, calls the reporters’ motivations into question.

Emphasis done here. Not a misstatement, Major, it’s a question and it’s one the original “reporting” left open. I’m the one who suggested it might be either and that knowing which one it was would be important, not the one making the definitive call.

Strictly speaking, I didn’t call your wife a moron. I suggested that anyone who came forward repeating an unsubstantiated rumor like this and then expressed concern that it not harm any “good work” being done by the target of the unsupported accusation would be a moron. You say she didn’t come forward with this, she was pursued. Fine. Then it doesn’t apply to her, does it? But even if you think it does, your thanks belongs to John Geddie and the Independent, not me. His story is what leads the reader to think she was an active participant in this.

The service and record of your wife – and you, for that matter – are wonderful things. The service you two have rendered to your country (and that she continues to render) are respected a great deal by my family and I. It buys neither of you a thing in accusing a man of unethical, dishonorable, and illegal b
ehavior. Even if it did buy you some additional credibility over the average joe, it’s precisely the same service rendered by Tag Greason, also an officer in the US Army. Why should it mean something when weighing your claims and mean nothing when weighing his? Your service is commendable but it’s meaningless for the purpose of validating an accusation. I have no need to imagine the strength required for a woman to bring such charges. I am fully cognizant of what it requires. That does not excuse anyone from having to justify those accusations with evidence and, to date, I’ve not seen anything to indicate such evidence exists. In fact, the dismissal of the charges says that such evidence does not exist.

As to your contention that no one believes you two didn’t bring this story forward, that’s not true. I actually do believe that and I suggested it might be the case in my original post, as I’ve already mentioned. Which, of course, brings up the question of why she elected to contribute to the story if she really didn’t want it to go forward. I read somewhere that she was told by the reporter that the story would go ahead with or without her cooperation. If that was true, what was the point of contributing? If she really didn’t want the story to proceed and she was powerless to stop it, she certainly wasn’t in the position of being required to assist it. She made the call the she did and it was her call. The ramifications of that decision include criticism for doing it. You don’t get to contribute to re-airing baseless allegations and then not be subject to the commentary that flows from that action.

You say that you never knew about the Federal Court case and that many will find this hard to believe. You’re right, I do. I have some working knowledge of how the Federal Courts work. The notion that the IG’s office would forward them a case and that the District Court would file criminal charges against someone without ever contacting the purported victim to build that case is just a huge stretch. Especially considering your wife’s still on active duty and a simple phone call to the IG’s office would be able to produce your locations, it just makes no sense that they would pursue multiple extensions in court without ever attempting to notify you. Or, rather, your wife since you technically weren’t a party to the case.

Your closing comments reveal a bit of either ignorance or confusion on certain matters. For Google searches to be effective you need pretty specific search criteria. Nothing in that story nor in any of your comments produces a search specific enough to definitely identify you as I’ve already said. FOIA deals with public agencies and documents, not newspapers, unless you’re suggesting I FOIA the court documents. You’re missing the point of my post if that’s what you mean. My entire anger over this story was centered on the newspaper’s insistence on printing an accusation already determined to be unsupported without asking all of these questions. And what would I really find if I did issue that FOIA request? That the case was dismissed? What would that prove that I don’t already know? Nothing.

Your closer’s a real howler, too:

Had Sherry been notified of any court case she would have been there and any interviews with Tag Greason would have had to be from his prison cell in Fort Leavenworth.

Says you. Which is the whole problem with the whole thing, isn’t it? Anyone can make an accusation. That’s why our legal system is “innocent until proven gulity” and not vice-versa. You say no review was made of this. Garbage. No review was made that resulted in support for the allegations, you mean, and that’s not how it works. The accusations were completely without supporting evidence and that’s why the case was dismissed. My issue all along has been with the decision by the Loudoun Independent to print this story as if it were news. It’s not news, it’s gossip. It’s gossip that’s aimed directly at hurting the reputation of a man who’s been a class act and a fine Loudoun citizen and who, incidentally, is running for public office. The running of this story is a dirty political trick. Neither you nor your wife should have been involved in that and neither of you is really the story, here. The story is who is attempting to utilize the Independent as a political knife to stab Tag Greason in the back and whether the leadership at the Independent is complicit in that arrangement or merely possessed of extremely bad judgment.

Good luck to you and your wife, Mr. DesRosier. Assuming you are who you say you are and that you and your wife really don’t want to be involved, I suggest you prove it and drop the matter. Go back to your lives wherever that is, since that’s all you’ve supposedly wanted to do, and leave Loudoun politics to Loudouners. G’day.

Nothing in any of this has changed what the real focus of this situation should be. The accusation was baseless and without merit years ago and it still is. The Loudoun Independent has seen fit to repeat what amounts to vicious gossip on its pages, rendering their entire credibility in news reportage suspect. Who pointed them at this unfounded rumor remains the question as does whether they decided to help someone stage a personal attack against an opposing candidate or if their judgment on what’s news and what’s gossip is deficient. That’s all this story really means.

Advertisements

4 comments

  1. Ric, well done.

    Using rational thought you are and have been making this guy or group whomever he / they are look silly. Your ability to combat nitwittery gets better with time.

  2. The whole thing is confounding, and to top it off Mr. DesRosier issued an apology for his comments.

    The campaign is and I believe Tag will win, but he is lucky to have defenders like you to combat the

  3. Sorry, hit send too quick, last comment should be:

    “The campaign is going full steam ahead and I believe Tag will win, but he is lucky to have defenders like you to combat the nitwits.”

    Thanks Ric.

  4. Appreciate the assist, Ric. TAG really needed “someone” with a cool head (which eliminated Stone and I) to draw this down one line at a time.
    Saw Poisson Tuesday morning for the Chamber of Commerce Business Breakfast (as well as Geddy)and I avoided Dave. I was especially afraid of what I might say to him.
    I have always been friendly with the man, and thought more of him when he welcomed Tag as a challenger, but this kind of desperation undoes personal admirations.
    It was an attempt to work right past policy and ideology and get right into the gut of people…and that knee jerk reaction will probably cost him more votes in the end.
    He should have stayed cordial and at least put a showing in.

Comments are closed.