A little followup with Graviss. Question - what is small arms fire? Is this a pistol, an AK-47, what? I had assumed it was not AK-47 fire. Graviss said he didn't hear AK-47 fire, only what sounded like M16's.
"He said we should have shot all the people," Graviss testified.
I'm assuming he's referring to Dela Cruz's alleged statement. {You're right, some of this is a little shaky writing). Okay, who asked this question? Defense or prosecution? Why would the prosecution try to make one of their star witnesses for Wuterich's upcoming hearing look bad? And what does this have to do with Sharratt's case?
And what does this have to do with Sharratt's case?By jingo, I believe I've spotted a trend.
In the Chessani hearing, Sgt Dela Cruz testified against Sgt Wuterich.
In the Stone hearing, Sgt. Justin Laughner testified against Lt Grayson.
Now, in the Sharratt hearing, Former-Marine Graviss is testifying against Sgt Wuterich (or whoever "he" is).
So the prosecution uses a little time in each hearing to give their "star" witnesses a warm-up. That's not going to help with Graviss. He just sounds like a dope.