[Sally'sConcerns]

Then how in the world, can the subsequent investigation prove that the initial investigation was wrong? How can anyone prove that the people that died that day, died of gunshot wounds vs shrapnel if there is no way to prove time of death?

This is not looking good for the media and Murtha, unless there were autopsies done.

There are pictures taken by the Marine who was part of the 'clean-up' crew (to pick up the bodies) who were sent in very shortly after this happened. There also could be bullets which could be retrieved fro the walls.

I agree with you autopsies would be much more definitive in determining whether the people were shot by the Marines or by others since they could test the guns and the bullets to see if there was a match. Not having seen the pictures but going off of what's been reported about the child being held in his Mom's lap, I just don't see how shrapnel could have killed all 24 of them. If shrapnel was the culprit and based upon everything I've ever read about people killed/wounded by shrapnel, there would have been some survivors who would have sustained shrapnel wounds.

I would like to see autopsies performed to determine whether the bullets used were those of weapons used by the Marines or whether they might have been shot by the enemy as a set-up.

I'll wait though until the report is finished before I lean either way. Murtha has no business opening his mouth and condemning our Marines until the report is final and/or the Marines if guilty, have been convicted. I'd like to know who appointed him judge, jury and executioner.

[freema]

Unfortunately, autopsies to check the bullets won't give anything definitive as weapons were taken in an ambush where Marines were killed a few months before.

[mjaneangels@aolcom]

"There are pictures taken by the Marine who was part of the 'clean-up' crew (to pick up the bodies) who were sent in very shortly after this happened. There also could be bullets which could be retrieved fro the walls."

I agree with all of that, but for all we know, there was also evidence of injury from shrapnel. In fact, blood from shrapnel and bullet wounds could have covered the bullet wounds. That is why I am sceptical without an autopsy.

I guess I can see how the initial report came out the way it did, and the final report could come out the way it did without either being false, but autopsies would prove one way or the other.

[mjaneangels@aolcom]

"I'd like to know who appointed him judge, jury and executioner."

I didn't do it, and apparently, you didn't either.