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.