{"id":26268,"date":"2021-07-09T20:05:27","date_gmt":"2021-07-09T20:05:27","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/one.sightlinemg.com\/marinecorpstimes\/uncategorized\/2021\/07\/09\/uss-bonhomme-richard-fire-emails-raise-questions-about-criminal-charges\/"},"modified":"2026-08-08T19:17:29","modified_gmt":"2026-08-08T19:17:29","slug":"uss-bonhomme-richard-fire-emails-raise-questions-about-criminal-charges","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/one.sightlinemg.com\/marinecorpstimes\/news\/2021\/07\/09\/uss-bonhomme-richard-fire-emails-raise-questions-about-criminal-charges\/","title":{"rendered":"USS Bonhomme Richard fire emails raise questions about criminal charges"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

While the U.S. Navy has remained mum regarding what caused a devastating multi-day fire aboard the amphibious assault ship Bonhomme Richard<\/a> in San Diego a year ago, the question of whether anyone will be criminally charged for the disaster has remained at the forefront.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Naval Criminal Investigative Service<\/a> spokesman Jeff Houston told Navy Times late last month that no charges have been filed to date.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But at one point in November, a Navy prosecutor from a San Diego-based legal office was involved in discussions of evidence preservation aboard the ship, according to San Diego Fire-Rescue Department<\/a> emails recently obtained by Navy Times.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Mention of a \u201ctrial counsel,\u201d or prosecutor, in one email raises questions about whether the sea service was at some point planning to, or actually did, charge someone in connection to the fire, before backing off for reasons that have not been made public.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

On Nov. 25, an email from a Navy official who signed the message \u201cXO,\u201d short for executive officer \u2014 a unit\u2019s second-in-command \u2014 noted that there was \u201ca request to preserve some evidence in the Lower V,\u201d a reference to the ship\u2019s aft section.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cTrial counsel has asked that we not access, clean up, etc., the Lower V until that request has been adjudicated and\/or the evidence has been collected,\u201d the XO\u2019s email states.<\/p>\n\n\n

<\/atype-video-jwplayer>
Images of the badly scorched interior of the U.S. amphibious assault ship Bonhomme Richard have started to emerge online.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n

The emails, first reported on by the Times of San Diego<\/a> news site, showcase the back and forth between Navy officials and fire department leadership following the Bonhomme Richard blaze, which started on July 12, 2020, burned for more than four days and has since led the ship to an early retirement on the scrap heap.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Municipal firefighters joined sailors from across the waterfront in battling the blaze.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Lt. Cmdr. Arlo Abrahamson, a Navy spokesman, confirmed this week that the trial counsel reference in the XO email referred to a Navy prosecutor.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Abrahamson declined further comment on the email, citing the ongoing investigation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

While several probes of the fire remain underway, a command investigation is expected to be completed and released this summer, according to U.S. Pacific Fleet officials.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Whether the email mentioning trial counsel was sent from Bonhomme Richard\u2019s XO, or another executive officer, remains unclear.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Citing an anonymous senior defense official, the Associated Press reported on Aug. 26, 2020, that arson was a suspected cause of the fire<\/a>, and that a sailor was being questioned.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A week before that AP report, on Aug. 19, an official whose name is redacted in the released emails cancelled a meeting with fire department personnel due to \u201cnew developments in the BHR criminal investigation.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It remains unclear what those new developments might have been.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Technically, the term \u201ctrial counsel\u201d comes into effect when someone is charged and a court is convened. The naming of a trial counsel would be included in a convening order for that case, according to Lawrence Brennan<\/a>, a retired Navy captain and attorney who now teaches at Fordham University\u2019s School of Law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Brennan added that the only other reason he could see for there being trial counsel involved was \u201cif an accused was placed in pre-trial confinement and a hearing before a military magistrate required the presence of counsel for both the government and defense.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\t