The Truth Behind the Case
Click on each link below to read more.
No. He is accused of “forced oral sodomy” with one woman, on two occasions.
Sodomy sounds really bad. Does it mean what I think it does?
Probably not. Oral sex qualifies as sodomy. If you have ever engaged in oral sex with a partner, by the Army’s standard, you have engaged in sodomy.
Then why did the Army charge Sinclair with sodomy?
The Army wants you to infer that Sinclair forced the ACCUSER to have anal sex. Sexual assault of any sort is a very serious crime, full stop. But in this case, the Army employed the word “sodomy,” because the term has a very specific emotional resonance.
How solid is the oral sodomy charge?
Not solid at all. Sinclair passed two very specific polygraph tests absolving him of this accusation. Click here to see the polygraph tests.
During the Article 32 hearing, ACCUSER admitted that she never intended to accuse Sinclair of forced oral sex, but did so only when her Army attorneys encouraged her to lodge the charge. Click here to read ACCUSER’s testimony to this effect.
The prosecution refuses to permit ACCUSER to take a polygraph test, and ACCUSER refuses to specify when she was assaulted.
Within the general time frame that ACCUSER claims she was assaulted, she was engaged in a consensual affair with Sinclair. Her journal entries and text messages to Sinclair document the consensual nature of their relationship.
While nobody should ever discount the existence of marital and relationship rape, the evidence in this case is nonexistent.
No. He is accused of having an affair with one woman, ACCUSER. He is accused of exchanging inappropriate texts and emails with four other women.
Why do most of the news reports suggest that he was having affairs with five women?
Because the Army has tried to make the case seem worse than it is, and most reporters covering the story have not had a chance to delve deeply into the evidence or Article 32 transcripts.
So he didn’t have physical relationships with the other four women?
No. He did not, and the Army has not suggested that he did.
Does Sinclair admit to the extramarital affair?
Yes. Sinclair admitted from the start to his affair with ACCUSER, and to inappropriate texts/emails with four other women. He has been forthright in acknowledging his mistakes and believes that he ought to be sanctioned proportionately for them.
Do the other four women consider themselves victims?
No. It became clear during the Article 32 hearing that the government compelled them to testify. Some of the women are themselves married. All involved admit that the exchange of inappropriate texts was a mistake.
No. The government claims that his computer’s cache revealed prior access of pornographic images.
So Sinclair wasn’t keeping a stash of magazines and movies under his bed?
Can the government prove that Sinclair was the person who watched or downloaded the pornography?
No. Many of Sinclair’s subordinates, as well as ACCUSER, had access to his quarters and his computer. In fact, during the Article 32 hearing, it materialized that Sinclair was out of the country when many of the files were downloaded. The Army dropped some of the pornography charges because of these discrepancies.
Why is the Army charging Sinclair with possession of pornography when no chain of custody can be established to his computer?
Because they want you to believe that he’s a porn-addicted, alcoholic rapist. It sounds worse than, “he had an affair, and exchanged some inappropriate text messages with other women.”
Because 26 specifications makes for great newspaper copy. It’s more alarming than, “The General is accused of having an affair.”
Can someone really be charged more than once for having an affair?
Yes. The Army lodged four separate charges, encompassing five different specifications, against Sinclair for having an affair with one woman, ACCUSER.
The Army lodged three separate charges, encompassing seven different specifications, against Sinclair for exchanging inappropriate text messages with four women.
Do you mean that the Army could theoretically charge Sinclair with different specifications for each time that he sent an inappropriate text?