As reported by nbcnews.com here and by the New York Post here, former CIA Director David Petraeus and General John Allen submitted letters on behalf of Natalie Khawam, the twin sister of Tampa socialite Jill Kelley, during a custody modification proceeding. Jill Kelley recevied threatening emails from Petraeus biographer Paula Broadwell. The investigation to identify the sender of the emails also uncovered the fact that Petraeus and Broadwell were having an affair. The discovery of the affair eventually led to Petraeus’ resignation as CIA director. Kelley also exchanged questionable emails with General Allen which led to an investigation of Allen. Here are the actual letters submitted on behalf of Khawam. Apparently the letters were attached to a motion filed on behalf of Khawam by her attorney.
First, I am surprised that Petraeus and Allen were willing to put their reputations on the line by writing these letters supporting Khawam. I wonder if either of them actually knew all of the facts surrounding the underlying case. I also wonder if either of them understood that they may eventually have to had to actually testify in the proceeding. In particular, Allen was running a considerable risk given the allegedly inappropriate emails he was later discovered to have been exchanging with Kelley. It is at least theortically possible that a discovery request could have been made for the emails. It is equally possible that the father's lawyer might have stumbled upon Allen's relationship with Kelley during cross examination. It is appropriate to ask questions on cross examination concerning a witness's bias. If Allen was involved with Kelley, then certainly he would be disposed to testify favorably on behalf of Kelley's sister. It is important to note that the actual letters themselves would not be admissible in evidence in Virginia because they would be hearsay. It doesn't matter that the letters were attached to a legal motion. I'm even more surprised that Khawam would rely on the letters and possible testimony of Petraeus and Allen. My first impression was that this was an extraordinary example of legal name dropping. Given the history of her case (as listed in the articles linked to above), this kind of sensationalism seems to be a continuation of the problems which resulted in her loosing custody of her child in the first place.
-Rob Hagy, Charlottesville Divorce Lawyer. For assistance, please call at (434)293-4562 or email at rob@robhagylaw.com.
Comments