Posted on 07/05/2006 3:33:11 PM PDT by pissant
First off, the information in the Affidavit and the MSM regarding this incident in Muhmudiyah does not look good for Steven Green or his alleged conspirators. If he or they are guilty of this crime, then I pray that the Military comes down on them like a ton bricks. The description of what happened is beyond disgusting and evil.
Having said that, I will continue to give the benefit of the doubt to Steven Green and the others, until they confess in a military court or are found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
So in the interim, I will try to do my best, like on the Haditha case, to poke holes in allegations, and to publicize the work of others doing the same thing.
In regards to the affidavit (AD) used to charge Steven Green, I have a couple of questions/observations. You can click on the URL above to see the affidavit.
Questions:
In Item #5 in the AD, the CID investigation states that 3 men approached checkpoint 1 (TCP#1) on 3/12/2006 at 5:30 PM and reported that a family had been killed in their house and that it was believed to have been done by Anti Iraq forces or "others".
In Item #12, SOI5 (source of information) says that on 3/11/2006 an Iraqi approached him and told him the house had been burned. The Iraqi said four were dead and one had been raped. An HOUR later, Iraqi army personnel and four US soldiers, including SOI5, went to the scene and presumably took the photos.
So did the event happen on 3/11 or 3/12? If SOI5 is correct, then the bodies would have been in the morgue by 3/12 and a 3/11 report would have been discovered by the CID.
Item #6 says that during a combat stress debriefing on 6/20/06 it was determined that these members of the 4th Infantry division commited this crime. Yet all the previous reports say that two guys were debriefed, neither an eyewitness. One said that he overheard guys talking about it, and another said that he heard that the guys burned their clothes. And it was not until 6/24/06 that the invistigation from CIS started. Therefore Item 6 is factually wrong to say it was "determined" on 6/20/06 that our men did this.
In Item #8, SOI1 says SOI2 and KP1 (known participant) changed clothes before heading to the house. Then he says that SOI2, SOI3, SG and KP1 all burned their clothes when they got back. First, SOI3 supposedly stayed guard at the door fo the house, so why would he burn his clothes? And if he was in uniform, would he really burn his uniform at a checkpoint and stand there in his skivvies? 2nd, was SOI1 really dumb enough to man the checkpoint by himself while these guys went raping and pillaging, especially since one of the M4s they took belonged to SOI1?
In Item #10, SOI2 states "Green went into the bedroom to keep the rest of the family there" and that "KP1 threw a woman to the floor". After Green killed the family, SOI2 states that he witnessed "Green and KP1 rape the woamn that SOI3 had thrown to the floor". So who threw the rape victim to the floor?? SOI3 was supposedly standing guard outside the house.
In Item #11, SOI3 says that SOI2 ordered him to toss the AK-47 used by Green into the canal. SOI2 does not mention (items #9 and #10) that he asked SOI3 to get rid of AK-47.
Item #13 is the photo evidence. If this photo evidence was taken 3/11/06 by the Iraqi and US soldiers that went to investigate per item #12 (SOI5's version) then something is terribly amiss about the timing of this story.
Pissant, put me on your ping list, please.
Thx,
abb
Will do.
I'd like to be on it, too, please?
Yes indeed.
Item #6 says that during a combat stress debriefing on 6/20/06 it was determined that these members of the 4th Infantry division commited this crime. Yet all the previous reports say that two guys were debriefed, neither an eyewitness. One said that he overheard guys talking about it, and another said that he heard that the guys burned their clothes. And it was not until 6/24/06 that the invistigation from CIS started. Therefore Item 6 is factually wrong to say it was "determined" on 6/20/06 that our men did this
The incident surfaced in a counseling session designed to deal with the stress of the kidnapping of two of their confreres. Those revelations happened from two servicemembers on 6/20. The investigation that started on 6/24 resulted from those revelations.
Two others have since implicated themselves in the murders/rape. Why would two soldiers lie about their own guilt? To protect insurgents?
No idea. Just pointing out the inconsistencies. Surely you don't mind.
They might lie about their own guilt because, reportedly, they were threatened with death sentences if they did not confess. Who knows? Time will tell.
Where was that reported, and could you post a link to it?
Well, if guilt is proven or confessed to then they deserve everything they get. The crimes referred to are abhorrent and deserve maximum punishment.
Most of these "inconsistencies" are marginal and not integral to the case built by the Justice Department.
The fact that some of these details differ proves that the servicemembers were not able to get their stories to jive with each other, which makes the actual facts of the rape and murders more believeable.
In your mind, I'm sure that's true. But a couple of the inconsistencies ain't trivial.
Which ones?
Yes, this is a disgusting and evil case. There is no happy outcome in this case for the U.S. military.
If you believe the witnesses, a horrible crime (four murders and a rape) was committed by four U.S. soldiers.
If you believe the defendants, then a horrible crime was committed on these two soliders (GREEN and KP1) by their fellow soldiers.
I'd start with the date. Was SOI5 correct and did the Iraqi army investigate with 4 of ours?
Yep, pretty sordid, no doubt.
In Item #12, SOI5 (source of information) says that on 3/11/2006 an Iraqi approached him and told him the house had been burned. The Iraqi said four were dead and one had been raped. An HOUR later, Iraqi army personnel and four US soldiers, including SOI5, went to the scene and presumably took the photos.
How did the Iraqi know that she had been raped if her body was burned?
No idea. Maybe he watches CSI.
PING
Why is that detail important? A timeline is not necessary for a charge when two people have confessed to being in on the murders and rape. The timeline will be developed by the prosecutors.
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.