GUILTY TX - PFC Vanessa Guillen, 20, Fort Hood military base, items left behind, 22 Apr 2020 *arrests* #4

[Cryptic]

True.
But I thought that 9n this report Robinson was apparently not the harassing superior.

Yes, I think you are right.

Robinson was not her superior and they were in separate units and he was not an NCO. Rather, Robinson's position as a senior armorer gave him a "first among equals" status in some situations like weapons accountability.

One harasser (orgy proposal) spoke in Spanish. This individual is unlikely to have been Robinson and could have been a direct superior.

Likewise, the repeated "peeping tom" may of been Robinson, may have been the Spanish speaker, or may have been a third individual who was a direct superior.

 

[Niner]

Yes - see docket #61 - final entry on Pacer (there is no #63 on the source docket/Pacer).

(Take note that many of those "util" entries for 5/4 on courtlistener are in error because they don't actually exist on the source Pacer docket).

Well - unfortunately I don't have Pacer - so can't see that stuff.

So... you are saying the next hearing is on 6/2? and/or 5/25? I just looked on the Judge's calendar & she doesn't come up at all. And it goes thru June 4th.

Just want to keep my notes straight...

 

[Seattle1]

Well - unfortunately I don't have Pacer - so can't see that stuff.

So... you are saying the next hearing is on 6/2? and/or 5/25? I just looked on the Judge's calendar & she doesn't come up at all. And it goes thru June 4th.

Just want to keep my notes straight...

To be clear, Federal court docket posts by me are from Pacer.

@dixiegirl1035 noted a discrepancy in the later entries and asked me to confirm which I did by updating the court docket as of May 4 above.

The best I can tell, I believe there are two hearing on 5/25 AND 6/2-- each with a different Judge - as follows:

Two Motion hearings have been RESET on the docket:

Initial Hearing
03/24/2021
#51 ORDER SETTING MOTION HEARING as to Cecily Ann Aguilar, Set Motion Hearing in case as to Cecily Ann Aguilar 50 MOTION to Suppress . Motion Hearing set for 4/27/2021 01:30 PM before Judge Jeffrey C. Manske. Signed by Judge Jeffrey C. Manske. (bw) (Entered: 03/24/2021)

RESET MOTION to Suppress Hearing
04/09/2021
#55 ORDER RESETTING MOTIONS HEARING as to Cecily Ann Aguilar re 50 MOTION to Suppress for 5/25/2021 01:30 PM before Judge Jeffrey C. Manske. Signed by Judge Jeffrey C. Manske. (lad) (Entered: 04/09/2021)

__________________

On the second revision, I believe the Motion Hearing previously set for 5/10 that's been reset for 6/2 might be related to the Motion to Dismiss the Indictment but I don't know for certain since it's not defined in the actual docket entry or the single page Order setting the Motion Hearing.

I don't think there's more I can add for clarity but maybe @dixiegirl1035 has more knowledge of the case status and can provide more information for OP's notes.

 

[Niner]

Thank you @Seattle1 - it is now clear to me! I appreciate you taking the time to set me straight!

 

[PrairieWind]

Yes, I think you are right.

Robinson was not her superior and they were in separate units and he was not an NCO. Rather, Robinson's position as a senior armorer gave him a "first among equals" status in some situations like weapons accountability.

One harasser (orgy proposal) spoke in Spanish. This individual is unlikely to have been Robinson and could have been a direct superior.

Likewise, the repeated "peeping tom" may of been Robinson, may have been the Spanish speaker, or may have been a third individual who was a direct superior.

I would doubt that Robinson himself could have called Guillen and ordered her to come in on her day off. That would need to involve her platoon sergeant at least. If he did call her, I suspect he asked her to come in and help.

The Army seems to know who the supervisor harasser is and it was not Robinson.

 

[Cryptic]

I would doubt that Robinson himself could have called Guillen and ordered her to come in on her day off. That would need to involve her platoon sergeant at least.

Apparently, the answer is a fuzzy in between. Robinson could not order her to come in.

But.... a professional NCO on the forum related that armorers have the ability to issue "strong recommendations" to other soldiers to report in if there is a weapon's accountability issue and the other soldier is needed to assist in accounting for the weapon.

The other soldier can be of senior rank, be an officer etc. and it does not matter. The NCO related that ignoring a "recommendation" by an armorer to assist in weapons accountability is the same as blowing off the company commander- not something you want to do.

Thus, Robinson did not order Guillen to come in on her day off. Rather, he "strongly recommended" that she do so, apparently under the following ruse:

- Robinsion: I cant account for a weapon. I think it was turned into your armory by mistake. I strongly recommend you come in to help resolve this....
- Guillen: Goes into her armory on her day off to help account for the fictitious weapon discrepancy. In trying to do so, she texts Robinson a serial number.
- Robinson: Things still dont match. You need to come over to my armory in person. We need to review the paperwork.....

The Army seems to know who the supervisor harasser is and it was not Robinson.

Yes, I agree. The harasser was identified as a Spanish speaking superior. Robinson was not a superior and it is not very likely that he spoke Spanish.

 

[Boxer]

Apparently, the answer is a fuzzy in between. Robinson could not order her to come in.

But.... a professional NCO on the forum related that armorers have the ability to issue "strong recommendations" to other soldiers to report in if there is a weapon's accountability issue and the other soldier is needed to assist in accounting for the weapon.

The other soldier can be of senior rank, be an officer etc. and it does not matter. The NCO related that ignoring a "recommendation" by an armorer to assist in weapons accountability is the same as blowing off the company commander- not something you want to do.

Thus, Robinson did not order Guillen to come in on her day off. Rather, he "strongly recommended" that she do so, apparently under the following ruse:

- Robinsion: I cant account for a weapon. I think it was turned into your armory by mistake. I strongly recommend you come in to help resolve this....
- Guillen: Goes into her armory on her day off to help account for the fictitious weapon discrepancy. In trying to do so, she texts Robinson a serial number.
- Robinson: Things still dont match. You need to come over to my armory in person. We need to review the paperwork.....


Yes, I agree.
The harasser was identified as a Spanish speaking superior. Robinson was not a superior and it is not very likely that he spoke Spanish.

The "not her superior" thing is actually cya from the now disgraced Ft Hood chain of command. Namely Effland who wished to make the whole thing disappear as soldier on soldier violence. She was promoted posthumously.

Spc4 Robinson was senior to PFC Guillen.
Robinson was not in her chain of command and the Spc4 rank is not a command rank - just as warrant officers 1-4 are not command ranks.

Still, within the company or battalion the armory staff have additional authorized powers necessary to do the job.

 

[PrairieWind]

Apparently, the answer is a fuzzy in between. Robinson could not order her to come in.

But.... a professional NCO on the forum related that armorers have the ability to issue "strong recommendations" to other soldiers to report in if there is a weapon's accountability issue and the other soldier is needed to assist in accounting for the weapon.

The other soldier can be of senior rank, be an officer etc. and it does not matter. The NCO related that ignoring a "recommendation" by an armorer to assist in weapons accountability is the same as blowing off the company commander- not something you want to do.

Thus, Robinson did not order Guillen to come in on her day off. Rather, he "strongly recommended" that she do so, apparently under the following ruse:

- Robinsion: I cant account for a weapon. I think it was turned into your armory by mistake. I strongly recommend you come in to help resolve this....
- Guillen: Goes into her armory on her day off to help account for the fictitious weapon discrepancy. In trying to do so, she texts Robinson a serial number.
- Robinson: Things still dont match. You need to come over to my armory in person. We need to review the paperwork.....


Yes, I agree. The harasser was identified as a Spanish speaking superior. Robinson was not a superior and it is not very likely that he spoke Spanish.

I spent nearly 15 years in the Army as enlisted/NCO. An armorer who is a Specialist has no more authority over anyone than any other Specialist. If he had missing weapon issue, that isn't something appropriately taken care of at the non-NCO level. Now, he may have, as a ruse, hinted to her that he wanted her to come help him so he didn't have to report this higher, but her appropriate response should have been to contact her section sergeant, platoon sergeant, or 1SGT. But, perhaps this was part of the apparent total break down of command here. But that is not the way this is supposed to work.

 

[Cryptic]

I spent nearly 15 years in the Army as enlisted/NCO. An armorer who is a Specialist has no more authority over anyone than any other Specialist.

Now, he may have, as a ruse, hinted to her that he wanted her to come help him so he didn't have to report this higher, but her appropriate response should have been to contact her section sergeant, platoon sergeant, or 1SGT. But, perhaps this was part of the apparent total break down of command here. But that is not the way this is supposed to work.

The other NCO described the summoning ability or armorers as being very real and actually used. To paraphrase:

"Unless you have a very good reason, ignoring an armorer's request to report in to account for a sensitive item is the same as blowing off the company commander".

I don't have any personal experience in the active duty military. As a result, I don't really know why his experience and yours is different regarding the matter.

The other NCO's MOS was infantry. Perhaps these matters are handled differently in those units?

 

[PrairieWind]

The other NCO described the summoning ability or armorers as being very real and actually used. To paraphrase:

"Unless you have a very good reason, ignoring an armorer's request to report in to account for a sensitive item is the same as blowing off the company commander".

I don't have any personal experience in the active duty military. As a result, I don't really know why his experience and yours is different regarding the matter.

The other NCO's MOS was infantry. Perhaps these matters are handled differently in those units?

As I said, I served almost 15 years and never heard of one unit's armorer having any authority over soldiers in another unit. If the armorer needs info from another unit's soldier, he goes through the chain of command.

 

[Cryptic]

As I said, I served almost 15 years and never heard of one unit's armorer having any authority over soldiers in another unit. If the armorer needs info from another unit's soldier, he goes through the chain of command.

And as I said, I don't have the required personal experience to affirm or refute your statements. Nor can I affirm or refute the statements of the other NCO.

Likewise, I do not know why your experiences and his are apparently different on the matter.

 

[Boxer]

As I said, I served almost 15 years and never heard of one unit's armorer having any authority over soldiers in another unit. If the armorer needs info from another unit's soldier, he goes through the chain of command.

Was R superior in rank at that point?: yes.
Was AR her superior in her chain of command?: no.

Would one armor shop talk directly to another? Yes.

It's Effland that got the he is/was not her superior thing rolling.
He wanted to paint a soldier on soldier violence picture in order to save himself and the army from a perception of corrupt command structure.

Her command structure was in fact deeply corrupt.

No need to hang on to Effland's, "it's just soldier on soldier violence" its just flak from his early attempts to squash investigation.

 

[Boxer]

Without Vanessa family and friends unrelenting pursuit of finding her and finding out what happened, Robinson would be a sergeant now, and Effland would be off to a prestigious high command.
That the fire to find her did not start in her unit pretty much tells the story.
A false afternoon roll call! Multiple last seen reports... on HOW, no wait last seen in a parking lot, or by the gym. MPs let a murderer run. CID obtuse, arrogant and recalcitrant.

VG a stand out athlete and student wanting to be US Army all the way.

There were not enough discharges.
Response still way too soft.

 

[AmandaReckonwith]

Vanessa Guillen Case Archive:
Vanessa Guillen -TX-

JUSTICE for Vanessa, sub-section:
(this has everything after she was found, pertaining to changes in the Army and what happens to the defendant(s):
Justice For Vanessa

 

[Niner]

Tuesday, May 25th:
*Motions Hearing (Federal case) (@ 1:30pm CT) - TX – Army Specialist PFC Vanessa Guillén (20) (last seen sometime between 11:30am & 12:30pm on April 22, 2020 in the parking lot of her 3rd Cavalry Regiment Engineer Squadron Headquarters. Keys to her car & her barracks room & her ID card and wallet were later found in the armory room where she had worked earlier in the day; reported missing April 23, 2020, Ft. Hood military base, remains were found by contractors working on a fence along the Leon River in Bell County on June 30, 2020 in 3 shallow graves & the remains were sealed in concrete in Belton; ID’d on July 6, 2020) - *Cecily Ann Aguilar (22) – (Robinson’s GF) – arrested (7/1/20), charged (7/2/20) & arraigned & indicted (7/14/20) with 1 count 2nd degree conspiracy to tamper with evidence with intent to impair a human corpse, to corruptly alter, destroy, mutilate or conceal an object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the objects integrity or availability for use in a criminal case & 1 count conspiracy felony tampering with witness, victim or informant & 1 count felony tampering with witness, victim or informant. Plead not guilty. Held without bond.
A federal affidavit released on July 2, 2020 says Robinson beat Guillen, with a hammer & that her body was later dismembered & burned. If convicted, Aguilar could face up to 20 years in prison with a maximum fine of $250K.
Trial was set to begin on 3/8/21 with jury selection has been cancelled on 3/1/21. No further dates available.
Robinson info, Timeline see post #534 & court info from 1/5/21 to 3/30/21 reference post #216 here:
Found Deceased - TX - PFC Vanessa Guillen, 20, Fort Hood military base, items left behind, 22 Apr 2020 *arrests* #4
4/16/21 Update: A status conference will be held at the federal courthouse in Waco on 4/20/21, motion to suppress to be filed by 5/15/21. During the May 25 hearing, U.S. Magistrate Judge Jeffrey C. Manske will hear arguments regarding a 16-page “motion to suppress” that was filed on March 24 by Aguilar’s defense attorney.
4/20/21 Update: Next motions hearing on 5/25/21 re motions to suppress in front of Judge Manske. 4/27/21 Update: Attorney Lewis Ganior for Aguilar filed a motion to have her indictment dismissed. The motion argues the 7/14/20 indictment lacks specificity, fails to state an offense & charges the same offense in more than one count. Gainor's second argument focuses primarily on the wording in the indictment that includes "destroy records, documents, or other objects." Gainor argues that while the complaint alleges Aguilar helped Robinson dispose & conceal Guillen's body, the indictment is not sufficient because her body is not an object. Gainor's final argument asks the court to dismiss because the same offense is charged in more than one count. The motion will be heard in Judge Alan Albright's court. The motion to dismiss indictment on 6/2/21.
5/4/21: Extension of time to file response/reply; Order & - Util-Set/reset motions hearings; Order of Motion for extension of time to file: response/reply filed; Util-Terminate hearings & order; Set/reset Motions hearings & Order. Reset motions hearing on 5/10/21 to 6/2/21.

 

[Niner]

Wednesday, June 16, 2021, Waco District Courtroom #1

1:30 PM MOTION HEARING
WA:20-CR-00097
CT1:18:1512(C)(1) AND (K)-CONS TO TAMPER W DOCS OR PROCEED CT 3:18:1512(C)(1)-TAMPERING WITH DOCS OR PROCEEDINGS

USA
Plaintiff
ATTY: Mark Frazier
(254) 750-1580
ATTY: Gregory S. Gloff
(254)750-1589
Versus

(1) Cecily Ann Aguilar CUSTODY
Defendant
ATTY: Lewis Berray Gainor FPD
915-352-2934

Remarks: In Person

link: Judges’ Calendars – U.S. District Court

 

[dixiegirl1035]

Wednesday, June 16, 2021, Waco District Courtroom #1

1:30 PM MOTION HEARING
WA:20-CR-00097
CT1:18:1512(C)(1) AND (K)-CONS TO TAMPER W DOCS OR PROCEED CT 3:18:1512(C)(1)-TAMPERING WITH DOCS OR PROCEEDINGS

USA
Plaintiff
ATTY: Mark Frazier
(254) 750-1580
ATTY: Gregory S. Gloff
(254)750-1589
Versus

(1) Cecily Ann Aguilar CUSTODY
Defendant
ATTY: Lewis Berray Gainor FPD
915-352-2934

Remarks: In Person

link: Judges’ Calendars – U.S. District Court

Was just coming to post as I saw also. That date is stated to include the motions to suppress and dismiss. (see screenshot below)

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.1102033/gov.uscourts.txwd.1102033.66.0.pdf




Also of note from yesterday, May 27th Vanessa Guillen Act passes in Texas Legislature, heads to Gov. Abbott's desk for final approval

TEMPLE, Texas — The Vanessa Guillen Act, or Senate Bill 623, is headed to Gov. Greg Abbott's desk for final approval after both the House and Senate passed the bill earlier this week.

It was filed by Sen. Cesar Blanco around the one-year anniversary of Guillen's death. It aims to protect military members who report sexual harassment and sexual assault without fear of retaliation, lack of confidentiality or concern that nothing will be done.

 

[Boxer]

Hey PFC Guillen, hope that Cecily Ann Aguilar is held, tried and found guilty of her gruesome actions.

 

[dixiegirl1035]

Whoa!

Lot's of new information on court site.

June 7 2021 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response as to Motion to Dismiss by the state https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.1102033/gov.uscourts.txwd.1102033.67.0.pdf
"The Government’s response to the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Indictment is due June 7, 2021. It is anticipated that the parties will be filing an agreed motion to continue the hearing on the Motion to Dismiss Indictment only, which is currently set for June 16, 2021. Both parties believe that additional briefing on the issues raised in the Motion will be submitted to the Court at a future date. The United States requests an extension until July 20, 2021 to respond. It is anticipated that the parties will be prepared to proceed on the Motion to Suppress hearing which is set on June 16, 2021."

June 8 2021 Response to Motion by USA to Motion to Dismiss https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.1102033/gov.uscourts.txwd.1102033.68.0.pdf 14 pages

June 9 2021 MOTION to withdraw as attorney and for substitution of new counsel
"1. Counsel filed his notice of attorney appearance as co-counsel on January 6, 2021, to represent defendant.
2. Ms. Ashley Askari an assistant within the Office of the Federal Public Defender has agreed to accept responsibility for defendant’s representation and joins in this motion to be substituted as attorney of record.
3. It is not for the purpose of delay or lack of responsibility that this motion is filed."

June 9 2021 Government's Agreed motion to continue https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.1102033/gov.uscourts.txwd.1102033.70.0.pdf
"A hearing on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Indictment filed in this matter is scheduled for June 16, 2021.
II. Both parties believe that additional briefing of the issues raised in Defendant’s Motion will be submitted to the Court at a future date. Based on this, the Government and Defense are in agreement that a continuance of the current hearing date would be appropriate and in the best interest of all parties. This continuance request is in regard to the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Indictment only.The parties are prepared to proceed to hearing on the Defendant’s Motion to Suppress set for June 16, 2021. "


June 10 2021 Order on motion to withdraw as atty

BRB to attempt and do an ETA to see if I can attach these documents. It appears that the June 10th ORDER is ONLY on Pacer, so I know I cannot do that one at this time. Does anyone have Pacer that can view the order?

ETA: All links have now been added to post, and screenshot and link below.

SOURCE of all above and below screenshot:
Docket for United States v. Aguilar, 6:20-cr-00097 - CourtListener.com

 

[PrairieWind]

Vanessa Guillen’s fiance, closest friends detail upsetting investigation

A lot of information from the family's and friends' point of view in this article. I didn't know that Vanessa was engaged.