Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Questions about the Affidavit against Pvt. Green (Iraqi Rape/Murder case)
Findlaw.com/Pissant ^ | 7/5/06 | Pissant

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.


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption
KEYWORDS: iraqrapecase; mahmoudiya; propaganda; stevendgreen
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 521-525 next last
To: Pikachu_Dad
2) You had a question as to why SOI1 let them take his M4. The four soldiers left with 4 weapons (3 - M4's and a shotgun). So this means that one of them left SOI1 with their weapon. So SOI1 is probably well armed.

Four guns, FIVE men. Four men left with four guns.

41 posted on 07/05/2006 4:46:16 PM PDT by OmahaFields ("What have been its fruits? ... superstition, bigotry and persecution.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: pissant
determined >>>> discovered
42 posted on 07/05/2006 4:47:32 PM PDT by OmahaFields ("What have been its fruits? ... superstition, bigotry and persecution.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jude24

Thanks for the link jude24.


43 posted on 07/05/2006 4:50:50 PM PDT by TexKat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Pikachu_Dad
6) #10 is flaky. First it is KP1 who threw the a woman to the ground and then it is SOI3. Since SOI3 is guarding the door, it is likely just a typo. It is not a minor point as it relates to how involved SOI3 was in the crime.

Two different women. Read it again, more carefully.

44 posted on 07/05/2006 4:53:04 PM PDT by OmahaFields ("What have been its fruits? ... superstition, bigotry and persecution.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Pikachu_Dad
ick. NPR source. I trust them to get it right about as much as I trust CBS or the BBC.

I'm in the minority around here, but NPR is one of my primary news sources in conjunction with the NYT and Wall St. Journal. I've found that that combination tends to give me an in-depth understanding of the news without the sensationalism of (spit!) FOX.

I choose to endure the middle-brow poetry of NPR (hoenstly - who reads poetry on an evening newscast?) to avoid the race to the bottom of sensationalism the other news station in my city has along with all the broadcast and cable networks.

This is the report that claims the woman was 14-15. The military report says she was 25ish.

Loose ends to be expected. This report is based on rumors; the military's investigation is incomplete. The truth is probably somewhere between the two. Let the Army criminal investigators and JAGs do their jobs, and this will get hammered out. America has a history of going after her own war criminals.

45 posted on 07/05/2006 4:53:57 PM PDT by jude24 ("I will oppose the sword if it's not wielded well, because my enemies are men like me.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: OmahaFields; sinkspur
From the Charoltte Observer on July 4:

News reports Monday said the family included two sons, ages 8 and 12, who discovered the bodies when they came home from school. They were screaming in the front yard of their house when police arrived.

Janabi, the neighbor, told the Post he was one of the first people at the house after the attack.

He said he'd found Abeer's burned body in a corner.

So the kids were the first to discover the bodies AFTER SCHOOL? Do they attend night school? If this was done during the day, why would the guys wear "dark clothes" to "not be seen"?

There sure seems to be alot of folks to be the first ones to discover the bodies.

46 posted on 07/05/2006 4:56:10 PM PDT by pissant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: pissant
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?

SOI1 states all four had blood on clothing.

47 posted on 07/05/2006 4:56:46 PM PDT by OmahaFields ("What have been its fruits? ... superstition, bigotry and persecution.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OmahaFields
Four guns, FIVE men. Four men left with four guns.

Yes, but all FIVE men have guns. So there is ONE gun not accounted for. Possibly 2 - they should all have M4's, no?

48 posted on 07/05/2006 4:58:19 PM PDT by Pikachu_Dad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: OmahaFields

I know he did. And that they burned their clothes. Funny site to see a guy standing there at a checkpoint in his underwear burning his uniform though.


49 posted on 07/05/2006 4:58:34 PM PDT by pissant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Pikachu_Dad
1) #8 Why did SOI1 not stop them when they went to rape the woman? This reads like he knew what was going to happen. Perhaps it is just written poorly and he only learned their real intent after the fact. As written, it reflects badly on SOI1.

See #25 re SOI1.

50 posted on 07/05/2006 5:00:02 PM PDT by OmahaFields ("What have been its fruits? ... superstition, bigotry and persecution.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: OmahaFields
SOI1 states all four had blood on clothing.

It certainly does seem to read that way. That would imply much greater involvement by SOI2 and SOI3 in the crime than what they testify to.

51 posted on 07/05/2006 5:01:40 PM PDT by Pikachu_Dad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Pikachu_Dad
7) #10 and #11. Those are some rough guys to want to have sex just after they killed a three people.

Correct!

52 posted on 07/05/2006 5:01:42 PM PDT by OmahaFields ("What have been its fruits? ... superstition, bigotry and persecution.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: pissant
I know he did. And that they burned their clothes. Funny site to see a guy standing there at a checkpoint in his underwear burning his uniform though.

I am not following you.

53 posted on 07/05/2006 5:03:58 PM PDT by OmahaFields ("What have been its fruits? ... superstition, bigotry and persecution.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: OmahaFields

SOI3 was in his uniform. Maybe he only burned his jacket and not his pants. Though there should have been no reason he had blood on him if the affidavit is to be believed.


54 posted on 07/05/2006 5:06:14 PM PDT by pissant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Pikachu_Dad
Yes, but all FIVE men have guns. So there is ONE gun not accounted for. Possibly 2 - they should all have M4's, no?

No. Four men left with Four guns taking SOI1's M4 with them. I don't know what happened, Just reading the affidavit. It was stated that there was one shotgun.

55 posted on 07/05/2006 5:07:28 PM PDT by OmahaFields ("What have been its fruits? ... superstition, bigotry and persecution.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: pissant
SOI3 was in his uniform. Maybe he only burned his jacket and not his pants. Though there should have been no reason he had blood on him if the affidavit is to be believed.

Didn't I2 testify that I3 threw the woman to the floor?

I think there is a lot more to the story. Remember this was just an affidavit to go after SG. I am sure they limited what they put in about a lot of the details about the other guys behavior.

56 posted on 07/05/2006 5:12:31 PM PDT by OmahaFields ("What have been its fruits? ... superstition, bigotry and persecution.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: OmahaFields

I2 testified first that KP1 threw the woman to the floor, then contradicts himself and says I3 did it. But she was presumably not bleeding when that occurred either way, and was only shot after the rapes.

There is ALOT more to the story, and of particular significance is the testimony of I5 and the fact that he and others including Iraqi army checked out the deaths on 3/11. Which would be before the 3/12 murders.


57 posted on 07/05/2006 5:17:57 PM PDT by pissant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: pissant
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.

It is factually wrong to use the word "determined".

58 posted on 07/05/2006 5:18:10 PM PDT by OmahaFields ("What have been its fruits? ... superstition, bigotry and persecution.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pissant
I2 testified first that KP1 threw the woman to the floor, then contradicts himself and says I3 did it. But she was presumably not bleeding when that occurred either way, and was only shot after the rapes.

Read it again. It was two different women.

59 posted on 07/05/2006 5:19:20 PM PDT by OmahaFields ("What have been its fruits? ... superstition, bigotry and persecution.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: pissant

Kind of hard to believe that 4 guys agree to help one guy rape and murder a girl?

Why would they do that, I mean waht's in it for them?

I'm sure there are lowlifes in any group of people, but 4 of them got together so one could rape the girl?

Kinda strange


60 posted on 07/05/2006 5:19:38 PM PDT by observer5 ("Better violate the rights of a few, than of all!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 521-525 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson