The reports about Cpt Dinsmore’s most recent testimony states that the prosecutor kept asking him if he had evidence that any of the dead were insurgents. The paper reports that Dinsmore finally agreed that they could have all been civilians.
It seemed an odd exchange that it would have to be asked so many times by the prosecutor before Dinsmore supposedly conceded. I wondered if he had classified info but was unable to share it at the time because it was still classified until this past week.
Do you have any thoughts on that?
The media reporting has been so poor that it’s difficult to get a real sense of the testimony and the impact it’s having.
The media is reporting the story from a presumption of guilt. The reporting does not reflect what’s really happening in the hearings—which is a search for truth to a reasonable degree of certainty.
There is grey area in any investigation. Even the NCIS agent who presented forensic evidence in the Sharratt hearing (evidence that I believe will exonerate the lance corporal) said his findings were highly probable but not absolutely certain.
Similarly, Capt Dinsmore’s testimony was to the data and conclusions an experienced S2 drew from them.
Insurgents ARE civilians. Is it possible that a military age male at the scene of an ambush with an AK-47 is just on his way to a wedding party?
Yes, it’s possible, but judgements in the heat of combat are based on instinct. We should never second guess that in a courtroom.