So there was some relief, and surprise, when the army quietly disclosed a few weeks later that an African-American soldier was suspected of spray-painting the doors, including his own. The army suggested the two-foot-high swastikas were not racially motivated but merely the work of a disgruntled soldier, whom it didn’t name. Members of the Special Forces said they felt vindicated, and leaders of the local black community accepted the explanation.
But now it seems that neat picture was far too simple. Last week, after NEWSWEEK began making inquiries, the army filed a less serious charge against the black soldier, Sgt. Robert L. Washington, and, according to his lawyer, signaled plea negotiations. Washington’s civilian lawyer, James A. Martin, said he was told by army prosecutors that the ““evidence was falling apart and was very, very weak.’’ Washington and Martin go further, contending that the army’s evidence–paint found on the soldier’s shoes and pants–is so suspect it may very well have been planted. Nearly as disturbing is Washington’s contention he was singled out because he was considered a troublemaker–he had several times in his career filed charges of racial harassment–and this was payback time.
In response to questions, the Special Forces command asserted in a statement that it had conducted a ““thorough and exhaustive investigation’’ and was treating Washington fairly. It declined to discuss specific evidence but said it was continuing with administrative proceedings against Washington.
On paper Washington, 31, doesn’t fit the image of a mischief maker. Documents show a nearly spotless record and lavish praise for his work analyzing intelligence reports for the Special Forces. A native of Tifton, Ga., he joined the army in 1990 after getting a bachelor’s degree in sociology from the University of Georgia.
Yet a review of the investigative files shows that army probers strangely zeroed in on Washington within hours of the incident in the early morning of July 16. After searching his barracks room and finding nothing, investigators bluntly told him they knew he did it, Washington said. According to the army records, a former commander, with whom Washington had tangled on a racial complaint a year before, had suggested that prosecutors home in on the soldier. Washington also said an investigator told him that he knew a black person had done it because ““95 percent of the time a black person complains about vandalism, the black is doing it to himself.''
Investigators immediately took clippings of his fingernails and the clothes he slept in. Subsequent tests revealed no evidence of paint on those items, documents show. A few days later investigators asked him to spray-paint more than 80 swastikas on barracks doors in some sort of a test. A few days after that, now a week and a half after the actual incident, investigators removed seven pairs of his shoes for testing.
Forensic tests of those items constitute the heart of the army’s case. A report from the army’s Criminal Investigation Laboratory in Fort Gillem, Ga., concludes that the red paint from the doors was ““consistent with’’ paint marks found on Washington’s shoes and pants. But the report goes on to say that the spherical paint particles had not adhered to the clothing–like a stain–but instead ““were found laying on the surface’’ of the items. This indicated, the report said, that the paint was ““dry prior to contacting the surface.’’ Martin, who only recently left the army, where he served as a lawyer, contends that spray paint would not dry from the time it left the can until it hit the clothing. He suggests one way dried paint chips would get on the clothing: if someone placed them there. He doesn’t rule out contamination from another source, such as, bizarrely enough, Washington’s paint test.
If the army has a problem with the evidence, it’s not quite willing to clear Washington. The army originally was seeking an ““other than honorable’’ discharge, a severe sanction that would deny him military benefits for life. Under the new offer, according to Martin, he would receive a more favorable discharge but have to leave the army for a totally unrelated reason–he recently failed a physical-fitness test. Washington, rejecting his lawyer’s advice, says he’s not taking the deal. ““These guys were out to slander my name, so why should I leave quietly?’’ he says. He also says leaving now won’t help answer the question, just who did paint the swastikas? The army seems to be wondering, too: it’s left a $10,000 reward on the table until December.
