NY NY - Patrick Rust, 24, Watertown, 16 March 2007

glory, i have many of the same questions. not only why not call father, why did father/mother not go by if he went mia when they had a trip planned. i mean he didnt even have a license so where did they think he went. in one of the links i posted it said the poi would not make a written statement and that they found out he was with patrick that day later. im thining this could be whoever gave him that ride home. they aparently found his wallet etc, i think, everything but stuff he bought at the mall. which would make even more sense if poi is whoever picked him up to give a lift. roomate was back soon after tanning and said patrick was not there. maybe the soldier offers to give him a lift and they go start drinking thinking, he never goes home. maybe he owed this soldier money, and he made the withdrawal, all he had, but owed the guy more. after the guy killed him he took the games cause he considered he was owed.
as far as the gay angle, that was my first thought as well. after looking around it seems this place is a commong hang out for the soldiers at fort drum, so i dont think that is it.
kinda weird 2 friends visiting from out of town the same day. must have been 2 since the one at the bar exchange numbers with him then. unless...
1)the friend visiting is only 1 person, and he was able to talk to patrick early using someone elses phone. like the person who picked him up to give a lift. maybe they really had plans, and just happened to pass patrick on the way to his house. and that is the soldier the visiting friend was with.

2)roommate made up story, but said friend visiting because he somehow knew patrick was with this guy at night.


i am very much leaning towards poi is whoever picked patrick up.
 
Let me begin by thanking all of you for your input. You make some great points and raise many valid questions.

Trident - Please provide my email address to anyone you think may be able to help. I'm picking up information that might lead to a motive, but I'm not totally comfortable with the sources. Perhaps if I can get some some input from uninvolved locals it will help to confirm or refute certain allegations and rumors. Thanks.

glorybug - Any suggestions or advice you have that will help Judy Rust to move this investigation forward will be greatly appreciated. Thanks for offering.

General

Patrick's mother and father - Judy and Rodney Rust - have been divorced for years and don't deal with each other. I placed calls to Rodney and his years-long girlfriend asking them to contact me regarding Patrick's disappearance and death. They failed to respond to me directly. However, I've heard from another source that they have no intention of cooperating in my inquiry.

The Army's investigation is closed. The two civilian agencies that were involved are listing the case as open but inactive. That status provides a reason to deny Judy's requests for the release of information.

One of the Crime Wire consultant lawyers reviewed Army Regulation 638-2 (beginning on page 65) that applies to the personal effects of deceased or missing soldiers (see below). In that person's opinion, this is the regulation that applies regarding the clearing of Patrick's personal effects from the apartment and that when the Ssgt entered off-base privately owned civilian housing it clearly violated that regulation. Keep in mind that this inventory/removal took place within 48 to 72 hours after Patrick disappeared. It was done before civilian law enforcement was involved and deprived them of the opportunity to treat the apartment as a possible crime scene. I have spoken with multiple sources familiar with military procedures. None of them can provide a logical explanation for the Ssgt's action and the speed with which he did it.

17–3. Statutory jurisdiction
The Army’s authority to collect the PE of deceased or missing persons is restricted by 10 USC 4712 to PE found “in camp or quarters.” In camp and quarters are those places under the Army’s control such as Army installations, Army leased buildings, cantonment areas, and unit areas in theaters of operations. Army officials and representatives are not authorized or permitted to collect or secure PE not found “in camp or quarters.” Accordingly, the status of the place where the PE are located must be determined before taking any action relating to the PE.

The apartment was a one bedroom. It is assumed the living room was being used as Patrick's bedroom.

As far as I know, neither the roommate or Ssgt's phone records or computers were examined. Neither was polygraphed in spite of what should have been obvious signs of deception in their written statements.

Patrick's bank accounts were with a military credit union and they refuse to give Judy any information regarding account activity. If civilian law enforcement obtained that data, they aren't saying.

I've come across no information so far that Patrick's new roomie was gay. The former classmate he met that night at Clueless was gay and was living with a gay soldier in a homosexual relationship. The classmate and his friend were two of the last people reported to have seen Patrick alive.

Patrick's belongings were released to his father. Due to the lack of a relationship between him and Judy, additional details are hard to come by.

No one seems to know who Patrick allegedly argued with. The information about an ex-girlfriend whose then-current boyfriend may have been with Patrick the night he went missing came in on a tip line Judy opened this April. The sheriff's detective assigned to the case was told about the call. He promised to respond to get the tipster's contact info, but never did. So this potentially important lead has not been followed up on.

Theory & Speculation

Please treat the following as what it is, unsubstantiated theory and speculation.

I have received information that there is a large gay community including both civilian and military personnel in Watertown. And illegal drugs, particularly cocaine, are a big business. These two things aren't mutually exclusive.

The Crime Wire statement analyst reviewed the written statements of the roommate and Ssgt. He concluded that they were both deceptive when asked about cocaine and would not have passed a polygraph had one been administered. He believes that whatever happened to Patrick involved cocaine and money. And these two individuals were directly involved or have knowledge of the why and who.

If true, it might provide the reason for the Ssgt and the roommate to go through and remove Patrick's personal effects so quickly and before civilian law enforcement was brought in.

Again, this is only speculation at this point. But it is food for thought.
 
Please forgive me, I am new to this thread and have a lot of questions.

According to the army rules, does this mean that if Patrick had disappeared, and he'd moved in with his mother at that point, that the army would have marched into her house and confiscated all of his belongings?

If they had tried to, and she'd claimed he was missing, not AWOL, would they have stopped? My reasoning, of course, is that it seems very convenient that the roomate reported him as not 'going to be' in formation. And, the roommate obviously allowed them to confiscate his belongings without clarifying that he had not expressed an intent to go AWOL.

I know that it cannot be rare that someone in the army goes on a bender, or gets stuck out of town or has their car break down. Can just anyone text an officer andn tell them that they are not going to show up, and then their possessions can be immediately confiscated?


Please. That cannot be how things work.

No glorybug. The soldier was residing off post and not with another family member. IMHO, until we get more details I'm not sure this SSG wasn't acting as he was told to do by his Command Team. That includes the CDR and the 1SGT.

It is not uncommon whatsoever to see a chain of command enter a soldier's dwelling off post and secure his/her belongings once they are considered AWOL. It takes a minimum of 24 hours away from your duty position and away from contact with your soldiers chain of command (telephone--etc.).

They are doing it to protect the soldier's belongings for him/her and I posted above the outline for how the actions must be taken.

If it is illegal then my own Husband has broken the law many times over by securing AWOL soldier's belongings early in his career by order and later by ordering them secured. JMHO.

I will go by what the lawyer at crimesider said but honestly I think a Lawyer familiar with JAG should be consulted.

The problem with interpreting this AR is this---when it refers to a missing soldier. That would be referring the an Official Military Status of missing. Not missing in how you and I define it. That was my point above.

Prayers for Patrick's Mother.
 
Thank you for clarifying that. It was the impression I'd gotten by reading wht you posted.

So, correct me if I am wrong-

Patrick was essentially reported as being AWOL by his roommate, by his choice of calling to say he 'would not be at formation' rather than calling and reporting him missing? That seems odd, and kind of convenient for the roommate- if he was involved in his disappearance.

If Patrick last had contact with his chain of command at approx. 5pm on the 15th, that would mean that by 5pm on the 16th they could be confiscating his belongings? That would also mean the roommate would have to be there, directing them as to what items were his and what were Patricks? That is REALLY suspicious. At no time did he step in and say- he's not AWOL, he's 'missing'? The only reason not to say that would be if he knew Patrick was laying in a field, since Patrick was obviously not AWOL if his packed bag was still in the apartment.

It is not likely that Patrick took the new items he bought to a bar. They were likely left in the apartment. If they did not show up later in his possessions, either the roommate took them or the people packing his things did.

It makes no sense that the roommate would know how much money Patrick withdrew unless there was a plan to spend that money- drugs would make sense. You don't need $300 to go to a bar. Any knowlege of Patrick or the roommate being in trouble for drugs before?

Has the mom asked anyone in politics (like the governor) in her area to look into the matter? With no cooperation locally or militarily, that's the only way I can think of off the top of my head to put pressure on this one.

I'll have to think some more.
No glorybug. The soldier was residing off post and not with another family member. IMHO, until we get more details I'm not sure this SSG wasn't acting as he was told to do by his Command Team. That includes the CDR and the 1SGT.

It is not uncommon whatsoever to see a chain of command enter a soldier's dwelling off post and secure his/her belongings once they are considered AWOL. It takes a minimum of 24 hours away from your duty position and away from contact with your soldiers chain of command (telephone--etc.).

They are doing it to protect the soldier's belongings for him/her and I posted above the outline for how the actions must be taken.

If it is illegal then my own Husband has broken the law many times over by securing AWOL soldier's belongings early in his career by order and later by ordering them secured. JMHO.

I will go by what the lawyer at crimesider said but honestly I think a Lawyer familiar with JAG should be consulted.

The problem with interpreting this AR is this---when it refers to a missing soldier. That would be referring the an Official Military Status of missing. Not missing in how you and I define it. That was my point above.

Prayers for Patrick's Mother.
 
I've been following this thread but haven't added anything because you all seem to pretty well have it covered. The only thing that may help is:

Isn't his mom his next of kin?

IF she is, then she would be the one who would receive all of his belongings, everything.

This should include any monies left etc.

As she's the next of kin, I would think that whoever he banked with, even if it was military, they would be obligated to provide any records she requested. I believe this could also possibly be true for his cell phone?

I could be wrong on that, but she may want to check on it with legal counsel.

JMHO
fran
 
How extensively have the former classmate and his roommate been investigated? They were the last ones to see Patrick alive.

When I read the original post a few minutes ago, I scrolled down too quickly and skipped a paragraph. So, I read this first:


While at the bar Patrick met a classmate from his school days. This man was in the company of his roommate, another Fort Drum soldier. According to witness statements Patrick and his former classmate engaged in lengthy conversation about their school days. As time passed Patrick obtained his old acquaintance’s phone number so they could keep in contact and hook up again in the future
For some reason I immediately wondered if Patrick and/or the old classmate and his roomie were gay. THEN, I scrolled up and read this paragraph:

The next reported sighting of Patrick takes place at around 9:30 when he was observed in a bar called Clueless located at 545 Arsenal Street. Clueless is known as a gay and lesbian bar; but straights are welcome as well. There is no indication that Patrick was gay; and according to all available information he had never been in the establishment before.
Strange.

I know Patrick's roommates actions are hinky, and packing up his belongings so quickly is even hinkier, even if legal. If there was something in the apartment that should not have been there (drugs), though, it makes sense that once the roommate sensed something was awry, he would want Patrick's things out of there before an investigation started. In other words, his suspicious behavior might have had nothing to do with Patrick's disappearance. Still, that text message is hard to explain.

I don't know, but I'd take a second look at the former classmate and his friend. Last ones to see him alive. Last phone calls placed by Patrick were to the classmate's phone. Hmm...Why did Patrick call him back after he left the voice message? Patrick was drunk; maybe he wanted to party some more or just hang out and talk a little longer. Did he hang up because just after he dialed the former classmate happened to walk around the corner?
 
Thank you for clarifying that. It was the impression I'd gotten by reading wht you posted.

So, correct me if I am wrong-

Patrick was essentially reported as being AWOL by his roommate, by his choice of calling to say he 'would not be at formation' rather than calling and reporting him missing? That seems odd, and kind of convenient for the roommate- if he was involved in his disappearance.

If Patrick last had contact with his chain of command at approx. 5pm on the 15th, that would mean that by 5pm on the 16th they could be confiscating his belongings? That would also mean the roommate would have to be there, directing them as to what items were his and what were Patricks? That is REALLY suspicious. At no time did he step in and say- he's not AWOL, he's 'missing'? The only reason not to say that would be if he knew Patrick was laying in a field, since Patrick was obviously not AWOL if his packed bag was still in the apartment.

It is not likely that Patrick took the new items he bought to a bar. They were likely left in the apartment. If they did not show up later in his possessions, either the roommate took them or the people packing his things did.

It makes no sense that the roommate would know how much money Patrick withdrew unless there was a plan to spend that money- drugs would make sense. You don't need $300 to go to a bar. Any knowlege of Patrick or the roommate being in trouble for drugs before?

Has the mom asked anyone in politics (like the governor) in her area to look into the matter? With no cooperation locally or militarily, that's the only way I can think of off the top of my head to put pressure on this one.

I'll have to think some more.

I'll try to answer your questions and clarify to the best of my ability--I am not in any way a subject matter expert on this---

1. Patricks' roommate called his SSG to inform him that Patrick would not be at the 7:30 AM formation. The chain of command, ( Leadership team including the CDR and 1SGT) would have noted that he was indeed not at formation and then they are bound by regs to start the process of declaring Patrick AWOL at 24 hours of no contact with Patrick himself. Patrick is not officially AWOL until he was absent from his duty for 24 hours, that includes verbal contact. If they had talked to Patrick on the phone they could have used a gray area within the rules and regs to hold off on processing him as AWOL. To process Patrick as missing status, it would have had to be that he went missing in a combat environment. (understand?) There are clear distinctions on how the Miltary must process a soldier given the circumstances.

About AWOL. We are talking about Official Military Status Glory. Patrick was here in the States. He was not overseas when he went missing. The military would have had no jurisdiction in the town that Patrick resided and his murder took place. At the time that Patrick did not show up for formation and 24 hours after they had no contact with Patrick it was their duty (punishable by reg if they didn't) to process him as AWOL.

Included in the AR that I referenced which is for the "absentee baggage" of a soldier of AWOL status within CONUS (Continental United States). That means someone appointed by his Chain of Command (his leadership team) which appears to have been the SSG (which could have been Patrick's squad leader I don't know) would have had to go to the apartment and not only secure any personal belongings that Patrick had at that apartment but also the military issue that he was given. At that point in time if procedures (conducted inventory, had the witnesses) were followed then his things (military and personal) were taken to the unit supply room and secured.

However, once Patrick was declared deceased (his body found) his status would have changed within the Military system and those belongings could be requested and sent to his DESIGNATED next of kin.

Again a military term. Patrick was the one who had to fill out a DD Form 93. (Record of Emergency Data) He is the one who designated his next of kin.

Who did Patrick have on his DD Form 93? That's important.

Glory, thank you so much for asking these questions. And your input at the bottom of you post!

FWIW, I am focused on Patrick's roommate. IMHO, he knows something even if he is not directly involved in Patrick's murder.

About Patrick's Mother and her access to his accounts that are held in a Credit Union. The fact that it's a Military Credit Union is beside the point in the matter of which laws govern the banking industry. What I'm trying to say is just because it has the name Military---the Military doesn't own credit unions that I"m aware of---it's more than likely a civilian bank with a name like "Pentagon Credit Union" or "Fort Hood Credit Union" as examples. (we bank at one of those I listed for reference).

Does Patrick's mother have an Active Power of Attn that lists this accnt? If so, she should be able to access the records.

Did Patrick have a will? Since he deployed to a combat arena from Fort Drum, and the will hasn't been located---his last unit would have had a copy but now we are three years down the road and they might not have it now.

Bottom line. Patrick's Mother needs a lawyer. She needs one that is well versed in Military law. They are not hard to find. Once she gets one she can petition to access any of his accnts. UNLESS: he had named someone else as his beneficiary on his DD93 form and/or his will and/or an active POA.

My questions are these: (in addition to the ones above)

1. As for the military investigation. Was it a chain of command investigation or did it involve CID? Big difference in the investigations and big difference in the exact paperwork you can request by FOIA.

2. As for the roommate of Patrick who was/is currently deployed to the Middle East: 1. Is he in the same unit? 2. Who were his and Patrick's buddies within the unit they were both in at the time of Patrick's murder? 3. Has anyone talked to them offering them the protection of anonymity? 4. Of those buddy soldiers did any of those buddies have wives? IMHO and experience it's a lot easier to get the wife's to open up and tell all they know under the protection of anonymity if the could be tracked down they might have a goldmine of info. JMHO.
 
One of the Crime Wire consultant lawyers reviewed Army Regulation 638-2 (beginning on page 65) that applies to the personal effects of deceased or missing soldiers (see below). In that person's opinion, this is the regulation that applies regarding the clearing of Patrick's personal effects from the apartment and that when the Ssgt entered off-base privately owned civilian housing it clearly violated that regulation.17–3. Statutory jurisdiction
The Army’s authority to collect the PE of deceased or missing persons is restricted by 10 USC 4712 to PE found “in camp or quarters.” In camp and quarters are those places under the Army’s control such as Army installations, Army leased buildings, cantonment areas, and unit areas in theaters of operations. Army officials and representatives are not authorized or permitted to collect or secure PE not found “in camp or quarters.” Accordingly, the status of the place where the PE are located must be determined before taking any action relating to the PE.

respectfully snipped by me. (only for space)

Denny, again I am not arguing with your lawyer. I'm really not! but I think that he/she needs to review other regs first in relation to Patrick's timeline.

That is this (this is just how the Army works these matters)

The Army has to designate the status of each individual Soldier. As far as the Army knew Patrick was absent from duty.

After 30 days he is dropped from the rolls (DFR) so that his unit can resupply. (replace his MOS) (Soldier is usually redesignated into Deserter status)

Look at from this perspective. From day 1-30 Patrick is considered AWOL within reg. When they recieve official information that Patrick is indeed deceased his status is changed.

An official Death Certificate is used to change Patrick's status.

Again, I"m not trying to argue, but the exact regulation must be applied given where we are exactly within Patrick's timeline and Patrick's circumstances.

Question:

1. Was Patrick's Mother given access to a CAO (Casualty Assistance Officer, which does include Sr. NCO's trained in these matters)? Very important and if not, I'll try to find out why.

2. The Mother can't resolve any issue unless she has a hard copy of Patrick's Death Certificate.

I won't even get into why the civilian's aren't handling this matter. I'm irked with them at this moment and his Mother is going to have a rough road in getting a fire lit under their behinds.
 
Kat has raised the issue about the Ssgt's authority to inventory and remove Patrick's personal effects from the off-base apartment. I contended that under 638-2 he didn't have that authority. Kat felt that section may not apply in this case because Patrick was an AWOL as opposed to "missing." She made a valid point and I thank her for that. I looked up the section Kat cited. It is very clear that she was right about there being a difference between the two.

However, regarding the Ssgt's authority or lack thereof, my opinion hasn't changed. And my basis for that is the word "control." Below is the paragraph that immediately precedes the section about AWOLs, followed by the first sentence of the AWOL section. I've highlighted in red why I feel the Ssgt removed Patrick's property from the apartment without proper authority.

Absent Soldiers

When soldiers are absent from their units under unusual circumstances, you must ensure that both their personal and organizational property are protected from theft, damage, or loss. Even if soldiers are absent due to misconduct, the duty to protect their property does not change. Your failure to comply may result in claims against the Army. Your duty as a commander requires you to enter the absent soldier's area and may require you to forcibly search wall and foot lockers to make a complete inventory. Such authority applies only to areas under your control and does not apply off post.

ABSENT WITHOUT LEAVE

As soon as a soldier is listed as AWOL, you will select an officer, warrant officer, or noncommissioned officer (pay grades E5 through E9) to inventory all of the soldier's property under your control.

The restrictions above placed on the military regarding the removal of personal effects from off-base civilian-controlled property seems consistent with the provisions and definitions in 638-2. So my reading is that whether Absent or Absent Without Leave, control of the site where the personal items are located is a requirement. Lacking that the authority doesn't exist.

However, Kat said that it is not uncommon to remove personal effects of Absent or AWOL soldiers from off-base civilian-owned premises. I certainly accept her at her word on that. That practice directly contradicts my interpretation of the regs and I'm at a loss to explain it. Suffice it to say that I'm confused.

At any rate, it's a good discussion and I'm glad Kat put it out there. Hopefully back and forth like this will help to resolve some issues and advance the effort to find out what happened to Patrick.
 
Thank you Denny. I appreciate you taking the time to look at what I have written (I apologize it was so lengthy! :))

I am at a loss to interpet regs myself Denny. It has been my experience that even CDR's and 1SGT's don't intepret regs. They contact the legal department of the facility in which the unit is located and ask on a daily basis how to handle cases involving soldiers.

Off topic: When we were stationed at Fort Hood, all questions about regs and such were sent up to III Corps. The only reason I know that is I am only familiar with the regs that directly effect family members and the FRG program (Family Readiness Group) and had to ask the Rear Detach CDR many times to send a request for interpretation of regs on behalf of the two reasons I listed above. :)
 
Kat, I really appreciate your input regarding military regs and procedure since my knowled in that area is quite limited. It was stated downthread that Patrick's belongings were secured within 48-72 hours after his disappearance. In practice, would you (or your husband from his experience) consider that a "normal" timeframe in this type of situation, meaning one where there were no apparent indication that a subject was likely to abscond? TIA
 
What great posts and questions!

Kat and I have been going back and forth discussing whether the Ssgt had the authority to inventory and remove Patrick's personal effects from the apartment - see my post from yesterday at 8:57 pm.

When I was researching the regulation Kat referred to I was intrigued by the two categories - Absent and Absent Without Leave. That raised a question in my mind regarding how Patrick's disappearance was classified and at what point.

The definition of an Absent soldier under that particular regulation says, "When soldiers are absent from their units under unusual circumstances..." Based on three documents I have reviewed, I wonder if Patrick qualified as an Absent soldier - at least initially - rather than an AWOL.

The sworn statements that the roomie and the Ssgt gave military investigators both included wording that it was out of character for Patrick to miss formations; that he had just reenlisted and was looking forward to his new assignment to the state of Washington. The report of the Watertown Police Dept. dated 3/19/07 shows that the roomie and Ssgt came to the PD on that date to report that Patrick had not been seen or heard from since the the night of March 15-16 and that this was not his normal behavior. The report said the incident was being treated as an "attempt to locate." On the followind day, 3/20, Patrick's parents came to the PD at separate times to report him as a missing person.

Was Patrick's disappearance "under unusual circumstances" rather than a clear AWOL? It probably doesn't matter in the great scheme of things, but I'll be interested in learning when Patrick was classified as what.

I have also seen the inventory form the Ssgt filled out. It is dated 3/19, but doesn't specify the time of day or the location from which the items were impounded. That can be important because Patrick had belongings in the barracks as well as the apartment. There is no question that the barracks inventory was totally within the Army's authority. But there aren't two inventory documents, so I'm assuming the one I've seen is a combination of items removed from both locations.

There is no way to tell from that form whether the inventory of the apartment took place before or after the roomie and SSgt went to the PD on 3/19. But it definitely occured before Patrick was officially reported as missing and before a police investigation would commence. It should also be noted that on the PD report of 3/19 there is no mention that Patrick's personal effects had already been removed from the apartment or that there was a plan to do so.

As a side note, when Judy Rust questioned the authorities at Fort Drum regarding Patrick's belongings in the summer of 2007, they said the property had already been turned over to her ex-husband. She asked if that included items from the apartment. Their response was pretty much, "What apartment?" Their paperwork made no mention of the off-post location. Judy subsequently received a letter from the Army admitting they should have released Patrick's personal belongings to her and not her ex.

Judy plans to schedule a meeting with CID at Fort Drum early next month. She intends to point out what she feels was a gross mishandling of Patrick's case, including the removal of his off-post belongings and a less than adequate investigation. She hopes they'll agree to take a second look and has asked me to accompany her.

We're compiling a list of questions to ask at that meeting. Any suggestions you have for that list are welcome.
 
Kat, I really appreciate your input regarding military regs and procedure since my knowled in that area is quite limited. It was stated downthread that Patrick's belongings were secured within 48-72 hours after his disappearance. In practice, would you (or your husband from his experience) consider that a "normal" timeframe in this type of situation, meaning one where there were no apparent indication that a subject was likely to abscond? TIA

Hi Bessie. I discussed this particular case with my Husband at length yesterday afternoon (we had taken the children to the beach and were watching them play). A very casual low key convo.

To answer your question simply yes it would have been SOP to see Patrick's belongings secured anywhere after 24-78 hours after the process started to classify him as AWOL.

This is SOP (Standard Operating Procedure). It is by the Reg from what I've seen so far. I haven't seen any docs to contradict that the SSG didn't get assigned this task (doing Inventory of an AWOL soldiers belongings is considered a menial task).

Why this SSG? IMHO and my Husband's I think it would be safe to assume since he was the same SSG that got the call that Patrick wouldn't be in formation later that morning and he was the same SSG assigned to inventory Patrick's belongings then that SSG was more than likely Patrick's Squad leader or could have very well been his Platoon Leader (if that unit was short the needed NCO's/ JR. Officers needed to fill that position, it happens often).

About the taking the inventory of absentee baggage for an AWOL soldier. Even off post housing.

The SSG wouldn't have gone alone to inventory Patrick's belongings. It is considered a menial task as I said and there would have been more than just the SSG and the Roommate there. Not just my Humble opinion. If there wasn't then---that's something we would need to know and then discuss.

When they inventoried Patrick's belongings we have to remember that it's not just his personal belongings that would have been inventoried. It would include all of his Military issue (TA-50, etc.) That can take a bit of time and must be done on the proper forms.

An E-7 or above must sign off on that inventory once it is back at the unit and getting ready to be placed in storage for the AWOL Soldier.

I'm not saying the SSG isn't involved with Patrick's murder, I'm just saying that looking at the circumstances as they've been outlined so far, all I'm seeing is that SSG was doing what he was told to do. That would have been an oral directive by the one in the Command Team. It would have come from the mouth of the 1SGT more than likely but could have very well come from the CDR of that unit. (I'm also not saying that the roommate did not move or remove some of Patrick's belongings before the SSG and the other members of the unit got to the apartment to inventory Patrick's belongings!)

FWIW Bessie, every single day each military member must be accounted. It must be notated who's on leave, who's on medical profile, who's in formation and active on the job----lot's of categories.

As for starting the process of changing Patrick's official military status as AWOL it is something that the command team had to do if they did not have any contact with Patrick after 24 hours of that missed formation.

The Roommates phone call was a huge red flag. But the command team wouldn't have started the process at that time.

The status of AWOL has nothing to do with Patrick being missing is what I'm trying to say---it's something that has to be done because of regs.

I hope I gave you more insight :)
 
What great posts and questions!

Kat and I have been going back and forth discussing whether the Ssgt had the authority to inventory and remove Patrick's personal effects from the apartment - see my post from yesterday at 8:57 pm.

When I was researching the regulation Kat referred to I was intrigued by the two categories - Absent and Absent Without Leave. That raised a question in my mind regarding how Patrick's disappearance was classified and at what point.

The definition of an Absent soldier under that particular regulation says, "When soldiers are absent from their units under unusual circumstances..." Based on three documents I have reviewed, I wonder if Patrick qualified as an Absent soldier - at least initially - rather than an AWOL.

The sworn statements that the roomie and the Ssgt gave military investigators both included wording that it was out of character for Patrick to miss formations; that he had just reenlisted and was looking forward to his new assignment to the state of Washington. The report of the Watertown Police Dept. dated 3/19/07 shows that the roomie and Ssgt came to the PD on that date to report that Patrick had not been seen or heard from since the the night of March 15-16 and that this was not his normal behavior. The report said the incident was being treated as an "attempt to locate." On the followind day, 3/20, Patrick's parents came to the PD at separate times to report him as a missing person.

Was Patrick's disappearance "under unusual circumstances" rather than a clear AWOL? It probably doesn't matter in the great scheme of things, but I'll be interested in learning when Patrick was classified as what.

I have also seen the inventory form the Ssgt filled out. It is dated 3/19, but doesn't specify the time of day or the location from which the items were impounded. That can be important because Patrick had belongings in the barracks as well as the apartment. There is no question that the barracks inventory was totally within the Army's authority. But there aren't two inventory documents, so I'm assuming the one I've seen is a combination of items removed from both locations.

There is no way to tell from that form whether the inventory of the apartment took place before or after the roomie and SSgt went to the PD on 3/19. But it definitely occured before Patrick was officially reported as missing and before a police investigation would commence. It should also be noted that on the PD report of 3/19 there is no mention that Patrick's personal effects had already been removed from the apartment or that there was a plan to do so.

As a side note, when Judy Rust questioned the authorities at Fort Drum regarding Patrick's belongings in the summer of 2007, they said the property had already been turned over to her ex-husband. She asked if that included items from the apartment. Their response was pretty much, "What apartment?" Their paperwork made no mention of the off-post location. Judy subsequently received a letter from the Army admitting they should have released Patrick's personal belongings to her and not her ex.

Judy plans to schedule a meeting with CID at Fort Drum early next month. She intends to point out what she feels was a gross mishandling of Patrick's case, including the removal of his off-post belongings and a less than adequate investigation. She hopes they'll agree to take a second look and has asked me to accompany her.

We're compiling a list of questions to ask at that meeting. Any suggestions you have for that list are welcome.

Denny, please see my previous posts for questions. I appreciate it deeply.

It's important to know who Patrick had listed on his DD93 form as next of kin.

If you don't mind once you outline the questions you have for the CID could you give us a brief synopsis of what you are going to ask?

Denny, you are more than likely going to be sitting in a room with Officers as well as CID investigators. Does Patrick's Mother know of an officer on Fort Drum that can go with her during this interview?

IMHE (in my humble experience) it helps to have an officer within the chain of command (Patrick's old unit) to sit with you when going into a meeting like this.

No particular reason other than to provide moral support and make sure you don't get smoke blown up your wazoo. :) Not that the military is more prone to do that, it happens in civilian LE meetings too.
 
FWIW, and only IMHO this is going to sound harsh but it's not said that way in my head, it's said with the utmost respect and with compassion for Patrick's Mom.

She needs to find a focus for her complaint. If the military did screw up the inventory of Patrick's belongings and released them to the wrong person. Then by all means, she should be extended an apology and also she can rest assured (even is she is not told this) that the Soldiers within that chain of command that caused the errors will be reprimanded.

IMHO she needs to focus on why the Civilian authorities are not actively investigating Patrick's case.

IMHO, the military can only investigate his death to a certain extent. Their hands are tied so to speak because 1. Patrick was off post when the crime against him happened. 2. His body was discovered off post.

It's the Civilian LE that has to work this and why aren't they? I would like to know what excuse they have for giving Patrick's case an inactive status?

It's inexcusable that the DET in Patrick's is not taking his Mother's calls. Shame on him.

I have no experience in those matters but I'm sure there are WS members who know what avenues to take to get attention once again on Patrick's case.
 
Thanks so much for taking the time to explain, Kat. Obviously, the question in my mind was whether or not someone higher up the chain of command was in a hurry to sweep dirt under the proverbial rug. At least now I know that the timeframe for the inventory was SOP, and I certainly understand the need to secure standard issue expediently. That's not something to be left lying around unattended. On the other hand, where foul play is suspected, it seems that military procedure comes in conflict with what would be considered SOP from a law enforcement standpoint. That's an interesting twist that hasn't come up in other cases I've followed, at least not that I can recall right now. I hope you don't mind if I ask more questions when I've had time to give this more thought.
 
I'm going to try to give a brief definition of the following terms. I, in no way, can cite AR or interpret how they are used, I am only defining these terms as I, personally, have seen them used in the past:

1. AWOL- Absent WithOut Leave. This means simply put that the Soldier has not been in contact with his Chain of Command and did not request and/or was not granted leave from duty.

2. Absent (under unusual circumstances)- Broad category. Could include special circumstances of 1. Being attached to another unit and but not PCSed to that unit. The Soldier is (in civilian terms) on loan to another unit because of his job skill/training (MOS). 2. The soldier has no leave accrued and due to a death in his/her family requests to go home (away from duty). At that point in time he/she is absent but not on leave. 3. The Soldier has an ill relative (Mother, Father, Sibling) that the presence of the Soldier has been requested (usually through RC channels) and the soldier is granted leave under unusual circumstances (allowing soldier to take leave with no accrued leave or has accrued leave but needs to not use those days because of another reason for that leave to be used, in my experience I've seen this extended to Soldiers who's wife was due to have a baby, the leave had been requested for use for that baby and then the Soldier's Mother had a stroke and was not expected to pull through...etc.)

Again, I am not a subject matter expert but I hope that my broad definitions have cleared up some questions. :)
 
Thanks so much for taking the time to explain, Kat. Obviously, the question in my mind was whether or not someone higher up the chain of command was in a hurry to sweep dirt under the proverbial rug. At least now I know that the timeframe for the inventory was SOP, and I certainly understand the need to secure standard issue expediently. That's not something to be left lying around unattended. On the other hand, where foul play is suspected, it seems that military procedure comes in conflict with what would be considered SOP from a law enforcement standpoint. That's an interesting twist that hasn't come up in other cases I've followed, at least not that I can recall right now. I hope you don't mind if I ask more questions when I've had time to give this more thought.

That's what my Husband and I thought too Bessie. My Husband said that if the Military unit had received notification from Civilian Authorities that the apt. was or could have been a crime scene they wouldn't have gone.

That the matter would have been worked out being the Chain of Command (higher than the unit CDR which was probably a CPT) and the Civilian LE.

In the cases of the Military being contacted prior to going to an offpost home, and told that the home was or could possibly be a crime scene, then the Military definately holds off.

I see nothing to indicate that the Military had been informed that the apartment was a potential crime scene. At that point in time they were doing what they had to do by regs. All JMHO.

(FWIW, I have seen this done in cases where there a was dual Military couple, a murder-suicide. The Military held off until getting clearance from the Civilian LE to go in and inventory the military issue at that home. There was no need to inventory personal belongings of the couple because one of their family members came from afar to be there at that time, they had been there to take care of details of the funerals and the children left behind).
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
176
Guests online
2,545
Total visitors
2,721

Forum statistics

Threads
590,041
Messages
17,929,260
Members
228,044
Latest member
Bosie
Back
Top