Posted on 04/28/2005 2:36:01 PM PDT by Former Military Chick
CAMP LEJEUNE, N.C. — A key witness in the case against a Marine officer accused of murdering two Iraqi civilians was abruptly taken off the stand Wednesday, accused of giving interviews.
Marine Sgt. Daniel Coburn was testifying at a hearing against 2nd Lt. Ilario Pantano when the investigating officer, Maj. Mark E. Winn, read Coburn his rights and told him he was suspected of violating orders from superior officers.
Defense attorneys had cross-examined Coburn about interviews he has given. Coburn said he had been told he was allowed to defend his character.
The focus on Coburn brought to a temporary halt an Article 32 hearing to determine whether Pantano should face a court-martial in the April 2004 shooting deaths of two men who were being searched outside a suspected terrorist hideout in Iraq.
Prosecutors say the shootings were murder. Pantano, a 33-year-old former Wall Street trader who rejoined the Marines after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, has said he acted in self-defense, thinking the men were about to attack him.
Earlier, Coburn testified that he was present when Pantano opened fire on the two men after ordering a search of the car they had driven away from the suspected hideout.
He said Pantano was agitated because a superior officer had ordered him to release the men when nothing was found in initial searches of their car.
Ordered to scan the nearby area for threats, Coburn said he was looking away from the men when he heard shots.
Earlier, Navy corpsman George Gobles, who was present at the shooting, testified that he found it strange that Pantano ordered the Iraqi men to search the car again after initial searches turned up nothing.
The hearing, similar to a civilian grand jury, will help determine whether Pantano will face a court-martial. If convicted of murder, Pantano could face the death penalty.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lt. Pantano's trial enters second day
CAMP LEJEUNE -- A key prosecution witness in a Marine's murder investigation left the stand Wednesday asking for his own lawyer after an officer warned that his interviews about the case could get him charged also. The second day of a Marine Corps hearing into accusations that 2nd Lt. Ilario Pantano, 33, shot two Iraqi detainees in the back was a tough one for the prosecution, with another witness spending much of his testimony lauding the defendant's leadership. Lawyers for Pantano, a former Goldman Sachs trader and film company executive, have said he acted in self defense when he thought the two suspected insurgents were threatening him on April 15, 2004. The case has generated nationwide attention, with bloggers, conservative radio hosts and others saying it's wrong to prosecute a Marine for doing his job in a war zone. Sgt. Daniel L. Coburn, Pantano's main accuser and former radio operator, said Wednesday that he triggered the investigation when a Marine he talked to weeks after the killings passed his story up the chain of command. But Coburn admitted under withering questioning from Pantano's civilian attorney that five times he had violated orders not to talk to reporters about the case, after first claiming he hadn't. The lawyer, Charles Gittins, also suggested in court that Coburn might have committed perjury during his testimony. Because Coburn was giving evidence that could be used to charge him, Maj. Mark E. Winn, who was presiding over the evidentiary hearing, read Gittins his rights and asked whether he needed an attorney. Coburn said yes. Gittins used Coburn's admissions of wrongdoing to question his reliability as a witness. "Everybody sitting in that courtroom knows that the problems with the testimony were profound," Gittins said later. He said Coburn had twisted the story of the shootings in revenge for Pantano's demoting him to the radio operator job. A Marine spokesman said it was unclear whether Coburn will complete his testimony. Coburn and another prosecution witness Wednesday, Navy medic George A. Gobles, were the two U.S. troops closest to Pantano when he killed the Iraqis. Gobles, like Coburn, told the court that he didn't think the killings were justified but repeatedly described Pantano as a model officer, one to whom he looked up. Pantano was interested in his Marines' welfare, trained his platoon harder than any other in the battalion, and proved himself a cool, competent commander in at least a dozen firefights. "He's a damn good leader," Gobles said. The incident began when Marines got a report that insurgents were holding a family in a house in Mahmudiyah hostage so they could use the yard to fire mortars at a Marine camp. As Marines approached the house, two men came out, got into a small white four-door sedan and began driving slowly away, Coburn said. Marines shouted for the car to stop and when it didn't, fired warning shots. The driver stopped. Two men were pulled out, and Coburn searched the vehicle twice. Pantano then ordered Gobles to cut the plastic "flexcuffs" off the men so that they could search their own vehicle and told Coburn and Gobles to take up positions guarding the area, which meant they would have to face away. Both men said they heard Pantano say "stop" in Arabic and then again in English, before a long burst of fire. Coburn estimated that Pantano fired a full magazine -- 30 rounds -- from his M-16 rifle, then changed magazines and fired about 30 more. Gobles said he turned when he heard the first shots and saw Pantano shooting the men in the back. He testified that the men had been crouching, one in the driver's door, the other in the rear driver's side door. The bodies of both men came to rest partway inside their respective doors, the witnesses said. Coburn and Gobles said they were surprised by the shooting and that Coburn had asked the medic: "What the hell just happened?" Gobles replied that he shouldn't worry, the blood wasn't on Coburn's hands, according to both men. Several witnesses have testified that Pantano posted a sign over the bodies bearing a Marine slogan: "No Better Friend, No Worse Enemy." He later removed the sign. Minutes after the shooting, another car approached the scene, and Pantano ordered the five occupants out and had them walk past the dead men, the witnesses said. A translator testified that Pantano had him tell the men that if they joined the insurgency, they would meet the same fate. He then allowed the men, who were covered in paint and said they'd been painting a nearby house, to drive away, but as they started to leave, Pantano bent and jammed his knife into one of their tires. Witnesses said that troops later searched the house the dead men had just left and found pro-Osama bin Laden and pro-Saddam Hussein propaganda, three loaded assault rifles, bulletproof vests, several pieces of identification that didn't belong to anyone in the house and a stake used for aiming a mortar. The hearing continues today. Winn might not make a recommendation on whether to court-martial Pantano for weeks. Staff writer Jay Price can be reached at 829-4526 or jprice@newsobserver.com
|
I predict that LT Pantano will walk (but not before being drug through the mud) by this smileball Sgt who apparently has an axe to grind.
It remains to be proved - that Coburn's "estimate" of how man rounds were fired can be corroborated.
For the moment - he remains highly suspect...
Semper Fi
River Rat, you wrote:
"It remains to be proved - that Coburn's "estimate" of how man rounds were fired can be corroborated."
Well, let me give you an admission from Pantano himself in a sworn statement taken before he lawyered up back in June 2004,
"I placed my weapon on 3 round burst and began fire (sic). I hit the men with my rounds and continued to fire until my first magazine was empty. I then changed magazines and continued to fire until the second magazine was empty...I had fired both magazines into the men, hitting them with about 80% of my rounds." This can be found at Starnewsonline.com.
I agree that Coburn's credibility is suspect, but not because of the changing magazine issue. I think an admission from the accused would be corroboration enough. Coburn certainly appears to be the disgruntled NCO that Gittens has made him out to be in the MSM. Whether his disposition is enough to make him lie about a combat incident in order to overcome his fitness report, is a matter to be determined by the Article 32 Hearing Officer.
And likewise, some of the defense team's arguments and strategies are equally suspect. How many holes can you poke into Pantano's story?
I mean in yesterday's argument, Gittens said that Pantano followed the 4 S's "Shout, Show, Shove, Shoot." When you read his statement from June 2004, Pantano says that they "quickly pivoted their bodies towards each other." He says nothing about them coming towards him. "They did this simultaneously, while still speaking in muffled Arabic. I thought they were attacking me and I decided to fire my M-16A4 service rifle in self defense."
Which one is it? Were they coming at him, he says stop, they disregard and he shoots. Or, did they quickly pivot towards each other, and he shoots. Unfortunately, you can't cross examine a sworn statement from the accused like you can grill a witness for approximately 6 hours.
Maybe, we'll know at the court-martial, if there is one.
RR,
I know that by all accounts Pantano's attorney stated that he was in a life threatening situation where he had to use the 5 S's: Shout, Show, Shove, Shoot a Warning, Shoot to kill.
"To coolly "execute" a couple of unarmed marks in cold blood - you put them down with a round or two and then deliver a couple of head shots... Four to Six rounds total for the two of them..NOT 60 rounds!"
It could be either or. There's no doubt that he was juiced. Was he angry because he was told to let them go, or were they coming right at him. If he really thought they were attacking him, then it seems that he should have been more concerned about an ambush like he was when he got the original cordon and knock mission. He knew it was safe, so he loaded another magazine and emptied it, too.
But, I think that perhaps the proper SOP when he had them in cuffs (Secured) would be the 5 S's, that's Secure, Safeguard, Segregate, Silence, and Speed to the rear.
But, nobody hits upon Gobles' statement taken on 10 June 2004, where he states on the last page before the questioning:
"[After the shooting], Lt. Pantano told me that he told them to stop (Aqwfu) and that they both resisted and tried to flee."
Well, which one is it?
1. Did they turn toward each other which he thought was threatening? (Pantano in his June 2004 statement)
2. Were they coming towards him? (Gittens numerous statements to the press after Feb 2005)
3. Were they trying to flee? (Pantano according to Gobles on the day of the shooting)
4. Or, did he uncuff them with the intent to shoot them in the back because he knew they were bad guys, wanted to kill them, but knew that under the ROE he couldn't shoot two guys in flexicuffs, so he uncuffed them, shot them, and made up a story? (Coburn)
It is really easy to pick on Coburn because he is a substandard Marine with an axe to grind. There is no doubting that, but everybody is ignoring the 500 gorilla in the middle of the room. I've read 3 different versions of what happened from the defense, and the version that hasn't changed is Coburn's. And did Gillian testify by phone?
Anybody wonder if someone would alter their testimony because Lt. Pantano is so loved? That is a rather unpopular thought, and I hope they wouldn't.
But, I've been in a situation a long time ago where I saw something happen as clear as day, as well as every person in the company. But, when it came down to stepping forward in a Saturday formation that apparently was an investigation, not one person, myself included stepped forward to report what we saw when asked by top. And, it wasn't because the accused was so loved. It was because the victim was so hated. But, I can see how a servicemember would attempt to minimize when a beloved platoon leader potentially stepped on it.
I wonder what would have come out during a Major Keane cross of Pantano? Pantano has no obligation to testify because he is innocent, until the Government proves their case. But, there is one person who definitely knows what happens. And, he didn't take the stand, which he has every right not to do and it should not be held against him whatsoever.
My forecast is reasonable doubt exists; Pantano walks. I would prefer to see Coburn break down on the stand like Nathan R. Jessup and state that he made the whole thing up.
But, taking an impartial look at the evidence based on common sense and the way things work in the world, there are too many inconsistencies with the defense. But, I still believe that it is possible, but less likely, that Coburn made the whole thing up, and while they will probably get past the Article 32, it will be a difficult hurdle for the Government to overcome at court-martial.
I agree with everything you stated above.
So, I will pose one question regarding the fear that Pantano's conviction will have on Marines facing split second life or death decisions regarding the use of deadly force.
Who would have known about this case if it wasn't for the Defense's strategy to use the media?
Even after every conservative pundit railed against the Corps, they still did not make a statement, even though I believe they were entitled to under Rule 3.6.
How much have you heard about these cases found at this website? I wonder how much DtD.org would be willing to give to their appeals to go hire a civilian attorney?
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/apus_story.asp?category=1110&slug=Marine%20Iraq%20Death%20Glance
Soldiers charged in Iraqi, Afghani deaths
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
A look at some of the soldiers charged with murder as a result of military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan since 2001. Does not include soldiers charged in deaths of Iraqi and Afghani prisoners.
Marines:
-2nd Lt. Ilario Pantano is undergoing an Article 32 hearing to determine whether he will face a court-martial on charges he murdered two Iraqis. The hearing, similar to a civilian grand jury hearing, began Tuesday at Camp Lejeune, N.C.
-One other Marine was charged with murder during the Iraq war, but that charge was dismissed following an Article 32 hearing, a Marine spokesman said Tuesday.
Army:
Army spokeswoman Lt. Col. Pamela Hart said Tuesday 15 Army soldiers have been charged with murder during the Iraq conflict. Of those, she said, eight have gone to trial with four convicted of murder. The others were convicted of lesser charges.
Some of the Army cases:
-Staff Sgt. Johnny Horne pleaded guilty in December to killing a severely wounded 16-year-old Iraqi male during fighting in Baghdad's Sadr City neighborhood. Staff Sgt. Cardenas J. Alban was convicted in January in the same killing.
-Capt. Rogelio "Roger" Maynulet was convicted in March of assault with intent to commit voluntary manslaughter in the shooting death of a wounded Iraqi.
-Pvt. Federico Daniel Merida, of the North Carolina National Guard, pleaded guilty in September to killing a 17-year-old Iraqi soldier after the two had consensual sex in a guard tower.
-Sgt. 1st Class Tracy Perkins was acquitted in January of involuntary manslaughter in the alleged drowning of an Iraqi civilian but convicted of assault for forcing the man and his cousin into the Tigris River for violating curfew. 1st Lt. Jack Saville pleaded guilty in March to assault and other crimes in the same incident.
-Staff Sgt. Shane Werst faces a court-martial on charges he murdered an Iraqi civilian during a search for suspected insurgents.
-Cpl. Dustin Berg, Indiana National Guard, faces a court-martial on a charge he murdered an Iraqi police officer.
-Spc. Brent May and Sgt. Michael P. Williams face charges of premeditated murder and lesser counts in a killing in Sadr City, Baghdad. A court-martial is pending.
Navy and Air Force:
-Military spokeswomen said Tuesday that no Navy or Air Force personnel have faced murder charges during the current conflicts.
Did you hear anything about them? I think I heard something in passing about CPT Maynulet, an Army O-3 who got convicted, but got no jail time.
I understand that everybody is entitled to a defense. But, it seems that Pantano's media strategy in this case has had a detrimental effect on the morale of Marines.
It seems that it would have been better on all Marines if he would have done from the beginning what he did at his Article 32.....kept his mouth shut.
It seems that it would have been better on all Marines if he would have done from the beginning what he did at his Article 32.....kept his mouth shut."
Amen to that!
Plus, you're spot on about the defense's pursuit of Media exposure -- which could lead one to believe they feel his only hope is pressure from the public to save his ass... I hope that isn't the case -- but I agree, it does smell bad.
It should be obvious by now, my extreme positive bias toward the Corps I love... But, your crisp unbiased analysis of the situation was truly interesting, informative and allowed me to see the "other side"..
I appreciate your comments on this case, and hope you will ping me to case updates with your perspective.... I respect what I have concluded is your "professional" perspective...
Be safe, friend.
Semper Fi
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.
