I heard the part of "these are the wounded who were left behind" quite clearly. I didn't interpret it as "whispering into the mike," personally, but I will listen to it again with that interpretation in mind. I had taken it that the Marines had just not listened to the cameraman.
This goes to my other point, which is, why should our forces have to rely on an embedded reporter to tell them that information? Why were these wounded not evacuated earlier? I think we just don't know enough about why this Marine didn't have enough information to make a proper response to the situation (since as you point out, after the shooting, I don't think that even his officer thought what he'd done was a "good thing"tm).
"Why were these wounded not evacuated earlier? " etc. . .
When I first heard of this incident, I thought that the Marines were aware of the fact that a previous squad had cleared the bldg. and treated and disarmed the wounded. Sites was present at that time. So he knew that -- As he made clear in his recording.
It would seem that status information would come from the other Marines, not a reporter. BUT the fact is, that the reporter HAD that information BECAUSE he had been with that other squad -- NOT information he received independently, from an unnamed source, etc. So he had a duty to pass on information, if he could.
I assume that, if indeed this second squad did not know as it now seems, it was because: first, the medics would have been informed about evac'ing the wounded, not another squad. Otherwise, chaos and tempo of the battle. That is understantable.
When Sites spoke into the recorder, "these are the wounded left behind", it was an aside, to the camera/recorder. He was not addressing it to the Marines. I don't see that they heard that at all. He was right next to the mike. He did not have to speak up to get it on the tape. The other guys were shouting. He did NOT shout that information to THEM: "hey those are the wounded xxx's squad treated yest!"
The time for him to have told them, was before they entered the building, not knowing what to expect inside. By the tactics you heard on the early part of the tape (the complete one Hannity played, not the part on TV), it sounds as if the Marines had no knowledge of what to expect in the building. Yet Sites let them go on, without telling them that wounded might be encountered.
Alright, could we allow that he didn't know that they didn't know? Possibly. But you read his other statement, about how his violation of the comradeship with the unit hosting him may seem like betrayal, but that cannot prevent him from questioning the authority of those who run the war, and the way the soldiers on the ground have to deal with it . . . and you see a guy with an agenda to capitalize on a situation just such as this . . . who may have the mentailty that it is ethical to withhold contextual battlefield information from the Marines, and to stand back and allow this to happen so that he could film it.
IOW -- the DRAMA of the scene is BECAUSE HE KNEW these were wounded and unarmed AND STATED SO ON THE TAPE BEFORE THE MARINE SHOT. It is THIS contemporaneous statement on the tape which makes it seem as if the Marine knowingly shot a wounded man. Try to remember the FIRST time you heard the tape, and see if the implication is not that the Marine also knew he was shooting a wounded who had been left behind by the other squad?
If Sites had been uninformed, HE ALSO would not have known the likely condition of the men encountered on the floor, and could not have played it up as a possibly criminal shooting of unarmed wounded TO BEGIN WITH.
SO his (Sites') knowledge about them being wounded left-behind is the KEY to the tape's DRAMA: US Marine killing unarmed wounded man. I.E. it would not be a STORY otherwise: if he and the Marines happened upon a bunch of guys on the floor with NO ONE having any idea of what was going to happen, he could not have said that on the tape, and that statement is WHAT sets the scene for the implication. Intended or unintended.
Just a Pulizer Prize coincidence? You tell me . . .
BTW I am basing this on Hannity's tape, which I heard only once. I haven't been able to get it to play online. If you have seen a complete transcript of the whole thing, which Hannity played, I would love to read that, in light of this theory.