Bilecki Challenges Alleged Image Distribution in Italy; OSTC Defers Charges

Bilecki Challenges Alleged Image Distribution in Italy; OSTC Defers Charges

June 2024

Italy

Army Specialist – E-4

Allegations: UCMJ Article 117a Wrongful Broadcast of Intimate Visual Images

Facts

An Army Specialist stationed in Italy was under an active Article 117a investigation, with the matter routed through the Office of Special Trial Counsel as a covered offense. Maximum exposure on the documented allegation: years of confinement, a punitive discharge, and a federal felony record on conviction.

Our client retained Bilecki at the investigation stage, before any preferral.

The chat record had language that read like distribution on the surface. Claims about videos. Claims about identifying a third woman. Claims about having sent material.

We pulled the chat record apart.

The completed broadcast or distribution allegation required proof that intimate images had actually been broadcast or distributed. Talk about distribution, threats of distribution, and references to videos in chat logs are not the same as a completed outbound distribution. The defense investigation surfaced what the chat record did not show: a single completed outbound distribution to any actual third party. There was no NCMEC tip. There was no recipient identified in the chats. There was no metadata establishing transmission to anyone outside the alleged victim and our client.

We also surfaced the alleged victim's own motive context.

The Italian civilian complainant had been in a brief consensual romantic relationship with our client. The relationship had broken down over a separate Italian woman our client was simultaneously involved with. The complainant had reached out directly to that other woman after the breakup to inform on our client's conduct. The breakup was bilateral. The threats and contact attempts ran in both directions.

We organized the WhatsApp and Instagram chat exports, the contact attempt log, and the talk-versus-action distinction into a submission to OSTC trial counsel.

OSTC deferred the case. No subsequent action followed the deferral.

Result: OSTC deferred. No charges preferred. No adverse action.

---

FAQ

Q: What was missing from the distribution allegation?
Bilecki compared the claims in the conversations with the available evidence of transmission. The chats did not identify a recipient, and the metadata did not establish that an image had been sent to anyone outside the relationship. Statements about sending images can be evidence. The defense's point was that the investigators had not established the act those statements appeared to describe.

Q: What did the defense submit to OSTC?
The defense organized the WhatsApp and Instagram records alongside the history of contact between the parties. That let Bilecki address both the claimed distribution and the circumstances of the accusation. OSTC deferred the matter, and no charges or adverse action followed.