« Sheehan: “Put Troops On Iraq’s Borders” | Home | Look Who’s Combing The DC Madam’s Records »

Investigator Says Drop Haditha Marine’s Charges

From a distraught Los Angeles Times:

United States Marine Lance Corporal Justin Sharratt enters the courtroom for his Article 32 Investigation hearing at US Marine Corps Camp Pendleton June 11, 2007.

Haditha suspect may be cleared

By Tony Perry, Times Staff Writer
July 11, 2007

CAMP PENDLETON — A hearing officer recommended Tuesday that murder charges be dropped against Marine Lance Cpl. Justin L. Sharratt in the fatal shooting of Iraqi civilians in the western town of Haditha in late November 2005.

Lt. Col. Paul Ware said conflicting statements by Iraqis, inconclusive forensic evidence and questionable legal theories used by the prosecution were inadequate to send Sharratt to a court-martial on charges of killing three Iraqi brothers.

Ware’s recommendation goes to Lt. Gen. James N. Mattis, commanding general of the Marine Forces Central Command.

Sharratt is one of three enlisted Marines charged with murdering civilians.

His attorneys, Gary Myers and James Culp, praised Ware’s recommendation and report and said it contrasted with the “hysteria of some elements of the press and certain members of Congress.”

Ware, a lawyer, recommended that charges against Sharratt be dropped and that the Marine be given immunity and required to testify at hearings for other defendants.

Ware said he did not believe the Iraqis who said Sharratt and another Marine forced the brothers into a room and executed them.

Believing the Iraqis, he wrote, could “set a dangerous precedent that, in my opinion, may encourage others to bear false witness against Marines as a tactic to erode public support of the Marine Corps and the U.S. mission in Iraq.”

He added, “Even more dangerous is the potential that a Marine may hesitate at the critical moment when facing the enemy.”

Four Marine officers are charged with dereliction of duty for not investigating whether the deaths of the 24 civilians that day constituted a war crime.

A hearing officer has recommended that the charge against Capt. Randy W. Stone, an attorney for the 3rd Battalion, 1st Regiment, not be sent to court-martial. 

Good.

Though Lt. Col. Ware is actually the “Investigating Officer,” rather than just “a hearing officer.”

But isn’t it odd that this story is getting so little press?

(Of course that is a rhetorical question.) 

Here, in fact, is the actual recommendation from Lt. Col. Ware as it appears in his official report:

Recommended disposition of Charge

Due to the disparate accounts, it is tempting to simply conclude that this case should be tried to either exonerate LCp1 Sharratt or convict him of a crime. However, to adopt the government’s position that because there are two differing accounts, a general court-martial is warranted is an abdication of the necessary process of determining whether reasonable grounds exist to warrant a court-martial. It is not as simple as stating there are two accounts so a trial is necessary. Analysis of these two versions must provide reasonable grounds that the Government version of events may be true. In analyzing the evidence, I read several hundred pages of interviews, documents, articles and statements (IE 33-105).

Ultimately, there is only one statement by an eye witness to the events, LCp1 Sharratt, and his version of events is strongly corroborated by independent forensic analysis of the death scene. The government version is unsupported by independent evidence and while each statement has within it corroboration, several factors together reduces the credibility of such statements to incredible.

In addition, the statements of the Iraqis are unclear, contradictory in part, and simply state self-interested conclusions as to what occurred within house 4. Finally, to believe the government version of facts is to disregard clear and convincing evidence to the contrary and sets a dangerous precedent that, in my opinion, may encourage others to bear false witness against Marines as a tactic to erode public support of the Marine Corps and mission in Iraq. Even more dangerous is the potential that a Marine may hesitate at the critical moment when facing the enemy.

Much effort during the Article 32 focused on whether the victims were insurgents. Although determining if they were may have some bearing on the credibility of the Iraqi witnesses and may support that LCp1 Sharratt did perceive a hostile situation within house 4, such determinations are not necessary to conclude that LCp1 Sharratt is truthful in his account. From as early as February 2006 LCp1 Sharratt’s statements are supported by the forensic evidence. It is likely that members of the Ahmed family were either insurgents on 19 November 2005, or that they were attempting to defend their house and family when Marines entered house 4 uninvited and unannounced. On that fateful afternoon, Jasib heard someone enter house 4. He investigated with his AK-47 in his hands. LCp1 Sharratt saw him and perceived him as a threat. Using his training he responded instinctively, assaulting into the room emptying his pistol. Whether this was a brave act of combat against the enemy or tragedy of misperception born out of conducting combat with an enemy that hides among innocents, LCp1 Sharratt’s actions were in accord with the rules of engagement and use of force.

Accordingly I recommend that the Charge and specifications be dismissed without prejudice. I further recommend that LCp1 Sharratt be given testimonial immunity and ordered to cooperate with ongoing investigations concerning the events of 19 November 2005.

Emphasis his.

I have uploaded the “Investing Officer’s Report” in both a Word document format and in its original pdf file format — for those who want to read the entire 18 pages.

Related Articles:

  Print Email

11 Responses to “Investigator Says Drop Haditha Marine’s Charges”

  1. Gila Monster

    A very rhetorical question SG.

    I’ve lost track of how many Marines were originally charged in this MSM induced fiasco but if charges are indeed dropped against LCpl Sharrat and Capt Stone, only two enlisted and three officers will remain caught up in this disgraceful display of political shenanigans.
    I hope the others are exonerated as well, the sooner the better.

  2. Lokki

    Why nothing in the Press? Because the Haditha murder (sic) charge is old news now, and in fact, the fact of his innocence is not even news.

    Marine kills innoncents! is news.

    Marine Innocent of trumped up charges! is just so boring. Who wants to read about that?

    We only have so much time on the news, and there’s a new Paris Hilton Story, the breaking Harry Potter event, and, of course, the mandatory daily Global Warming warning.

    Who has time?

  3. amber

    Since the media was so eager to make money off of this story when they had no idea if any of it was true (and murtha for that matter) they should have to pay the legal fees of all of these Marines. With Sharratt and Stone, it now makes 3 who have been released from the charges…

  4. Helena

    “Believing the Iraqis, he [Ware] wrote, could “set a dangerous precedent that, in my opinion, may encourage others to bear false witness against Marines as a tactic to erode public support of the Marine Corps and the U.S. mission in Iraq.”

    Probably not the best way to phrase this, and the rest of the sentence does makes it clearer - but still, it could so easily be damaging if quoted out of context. Perhaps a better way would be “Accepting the Iraqi’s accusations as truth, unsubstantiated - indeed contradicted - by any physical evidence, and only corroborated by their similarly motivated relatives, may (yeah, just may) encourage others to bear false witness against Marines…”

    And I’m with Amber, instead of paying ‘death benefits’ to the relatives, that money and more from said Iraqi relatives’ pockets should go to the unjustly accused Marines’ costs.

  5. BannedbytheTaliban

    MSM won’t report it because

    A. They don’t like it when they lose
    B. They aren’t interested in reporting the truth
    C. It doesn’t make Bush/War look bad
    D. It has nothing to do with global warming

  6. wardmama4

    I think we should all go to Ssgt Wurterich’s support and help him sue ole John’killedincoldblood’ Murtha - why should these fine, upstanding Marines just get the money for their court expenses - that turncoat, traitor should set them up (like he lives) for the rest of their lives. Maybe it will teach him to keep his mouth shut (doubt it, but I can dream). Damn, I see the downside to that idea - it’s all our hard earned tax dollars - oh well I’d rather it go to the Marines than that piggish congresscritter.

    McGirk, Time Magazine, the msm and the Iraqis can pay their legal expenses. That way - maybe they will all think before they spew lies.

    I’ve been keeping track - out of the 8 incidents - 4 have had at least one (or all) charges dropped and also one only had one soldier charged with lying (not found guilty on more serious charges). That is 50% that have gone down in flames - utterly. That isn’t a good percentage rate. And as we’ve all pointed out - the original story sees daylight (and above the fold) reporting ad nauseum - but the end results - aren’t.

    Bias - I don’t see no stinkin’ bias.

  7. Old Grouch

    Not sure if it would be slander or libel. Did Murtha say it or print it? Is it in the Congressional Record? If the Duke kids can sue Nifong (don’t hear much about that one, do you?) maybe “semper fi NOT” can get taken down a peg.

  8. wardmama4

    OG well I have it in print - went after the Army Times for quoting that old traitorous windbag. And then stopped reading the AT. We’d have to go back to the original story to see, but I do believe - like his infamous ‘Redeploy to Okinawa’ remark - it was actually originally on a Sunday news show - and once again the media lets him get away with it and somehow he got re-elected.

    Talk about voter fraud.

  9. amber

    This is so sad, from the report:

    “It is at this point that the evidence presents two different versions of events. For simplicity, I will call the Iraqi witnesses’ version the government version and LCp1 Sharratt’s account as the defense version.”

    Isn’t LCpl Sharratt a representative of the President of the United States? Doesn’t he work solely for our country? Yet, it is the Iraqi’s, who has a very questionable background, whose version is the governments. What is happenning to our country? Seriously, what is hapenning?

  10. amber

    Sorry, I kept reading and they kept saying that the government’s version…over and over they refered to the Iraqi’s version as the government’s version, thus removing one’s ability to say that it was a terrorist or an anti-american who provided those facts because it is no longer the Iraqi’s version, it is the position of the US government that these honorable Marines murdered the people in Haditha.

  11. Lurkin_no_mo

    Of course it’s not getting any press. It didn’t go the way the MSM wanted it to go. To them these are cold blooded killers who committed a massacre. Wait until tomorrow and see if they don’t start screaming. With the MSM we will never, ever, win another war, just those quick Grenada, Panama, and DS1 things. If it goes on too long the antiwar factor has enough time to mobilize, criticize, and defame.


Leave a Reply

You must be registered and logged in to post a comment.


« Front Page | To Top
« Sheehan: “Put Troops On Iraq’s Borders” | Look Who’s Combing The DC Madam’s Records »