Pissant, put me on your ping list, please.
Thx,
abb
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?
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.
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?
SOI1 states all four had blood on clothing.
It is factually wrong to use the word "determined".
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.
One date was from the initial investigation report, not the present one.
It now seems possible that the murders were done in the early hours and the bodies not discovered till the next day?
These are my objections, too, P.
I will believe in our troops until they are proven guilty. I will give them the benefit of any doubt. If it turns out that they have abused our trust, then all shame, dishonor, and punishment be unto them. They have been unworthy of trust.
As you have said, if these allegations are true, then they deserve a quick execution...imo, before a hastily arranged firing squad.
Noticed you were on the older thread regarding this matter so just pinging you to the latest one.
Please add me to your military ping list on these cases too, if you would.
Your research has been excellent.
TIA.
The FBI agent begins by establishing that “each and every fact” known to him is not recounted, but only those he found necessary to establish probable cause.
That right there is interesting to me. But the affidavit is all we are discussing.
However, the affidavit is not going to answer my foremost question. Who is the squad leader? Is the squad leader one of the 5 soldiers? I would assume the squad leader was considered to be Green’s superior. Since Green was alleged to be the mastermind, convincing all to go along, how would he have this power over a leader?
And, what is the awareness of the entire squad’s superior --- say, a platoon sergeant --- while these 5 soldiers enjoyed so much free time to enact their alleged plan? Or was this done under cover of an assignment? My assumption is that soldiers are accountable for every minute of time/every action while deployed, particularly while on duty, and that radio contact with base would be essential.
Item 5. On 3/12/06, approx. 1730, three Iraqi males reported to TCP1 that a family had been killed “in their house.“ (No mention of proximity to TCP1) Does this imply that they reported this to U.S. forces only, or to joint U.S./Iraqi forces. Could they not have reported this to local Iraqi police first? Should they logically have done so?
Item 8. Each of the other 4 soldiers told SOI1 (the lookout) never to talk about the incident. No time frame is given between the date of the incident and the time that SOI1 supposedly disclosed the incident to SOI4. SOI4 claimed to have prior knowledge of the incident before questioning SOI1. SOI1’s answer to “Who did it?” was “everyone who was there”, although elsewhere throughout the affidavit it is stated Green did all the shooting and KP1 was the only other alleged rapist.
Item 9. SOI2 interview. First mention of alcohol consumption and clothing changes. The incident occurred on the “evening of 3/11/06?”
Item 10. Discrepancy: KP1 “threw a woman to the floor.” Later states SOI3 “had thrown to the floor.” Did SOI2 make both of these statements, or is it an error in transcription or FBI agent error? So, according to his own statement, SOI2 is the only one who did nothing, merely witnessed all.
Item 11. SOI3’s statement. No mention of SOI1 as part of the plan (lookout). Instead, SOI3 “stood guard at the front door to the residence.” No mention of the woman being “thrown to the floor.” SOI3 states he disposed of (Green’s) AK-47 in a canal “across the street.”
Item 12. Enter SOI5, manning TCP2 when one Iraqi national approached (3/11/06, no time given) to report 4 dead people including one woman in adjacent residence who had been raped. Iraqi Army personnel responded to the crime scene ahead of U.S. Army personnel.
Why did three Iraqi civilians report the crime scene early in the evening of 3/12/06, when it had already been reported on 3/11/06, at an undetermined time, and investigated by both Iraqi and U.S. Army personnel?
There are so many discrepancies, typos, gaps in this affidavit that it hardly seems presentable or a basis for arrest. The FBI agent apparently did not check his own work, and he’s a 19-year veteran at this? To me, it's a questionable appearing document.
On the scant evidence and all the gaps, so many theories could be put forward as to what actually happened, how this family came to be murdered. Which, incidentally, I believe to be a sad thing.
What sort of investigation was conducted in the immediate aftermath of the crime and what was found? It seems to me that evidence/clues could have been found at the scene that led to the soldiers in question, if indeed they were the perpetrators. However, more than 3 months elapsed before they became suspects.
How could oversight of soldiers be so absent as to provide opportunity for a crime spree?
The clothing changes add a fantastic element that makes it harder for me to believe the story as told in the affidavit, almost a TV show or movie touch. But, as pissant does, I have the most difficulty imagining how 5 soldiers could be made to agree on this diabolical plan and carry it out. I also find the shooting of the girl after the rape to be the most gruesome and evil element, that does not mesh at all with anything in the soldiers’ mission or in their infantry training. Once again, getting 5 to agree on this and cover it up for several months seems impossible.