Posted on 10/21/2007 7:33:12 AM PDT by RedRover
Bumbling and corrupt NCIS agents have been on horrifyingly hilarious display in the Haditha hearings. It was clear to anyone watching LCpl Justin Sharratt's hearing that he should never have been charged in the first place.
The media (naturally) has ignore this facet of the hearings, but NCIS agents broke every rule of an unbiased investigation: exculpatory evidence was ignored and incriminating evidence was not tested. Democrats, usually so vocal about the rights of accused, do not care when the accused is an American serviceman.
In a previous dramatized installment, we brought you testimony of a real-life Inspector Clouseau, NCIS Special Agent Mark Platt.
We now present verbatim testimony from the lead investigator into the incident at Haditha, Special Agent Nadya Mannle (as portrayed by Hillary Duff as Lizzie McGuire). Special Agent Mannle's entire testimony must be read to be believed.
Our government reportedly spent $43 million on the Haditha investigation, so Ms. Mannle wasn't being frugal. NCIS chose not to record testimony so they could make promises to witnesses and falsify statements (as with the testimony of LCpl Prentice).
Folks, it's essential that patriots pay attention to what's going in at Camp Pendleton and for patriots to help defend our Marines.
Read Special Agent Mannle's entire testimony here.
Maloney’s testimony is interesting - taking my time going through it. - anything specifically there that caught your eye ?
I was pretty interested that so much could be reconstructed in house four. Apparently, this was not the case with houses one and two which were repaired.
I need to go back over the testimony myself. It takes a long time to go over the converted file (from a pdf) and make it legible. (For some reason, there are always lots of missing spaces between words and random paragraph marks to be removed before it can be posted.) So I need to read it now from start to finish once I've regained my eyesight.
Didn’t see a lot here that gives any insight -
This might want to be noted -
Q. Now, is there the slightest possibility, ma’am — and I say this with all due respect — is there the slightest possibility that this is a 9-millimeter round that caused this?
A. It certainly — I would say more consistent with a high velocity type weapon. Again, when it is atypical, there are different forces transmitted, tumbling, defamation of the bullet, and the transfer energy is different.
Q. This is simple physics, isn’t it? This is simply how much momentum you can transfer. And if you lose some MV when you go through the door, the MV you got left is less. And that small round just isn’t going to do that. Guys in combat know that, don’t they?
This exchange appears to be aimed at excluding a 9mm round as being the one through the closet ( same as Mallorey determined ) BUT at the end the questioner says “And that small round just isn’t going to do that”
By “small round” he is characterizing the 9mm as a pistol, low velocity “small” round, rather then the 5.56 M4 high velocity round.
Only problem there is that the 5.56 round is actually smaller in diameter then the 9mm. Some nit-picker might make a big deal over that.
The bullet they recovered was a 5.56mm, and they were able to exclude it from every weapon used that day except Wuterich.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.