The problem with that argument is that it is saying Chessani is guilty of dereliction for not reporting that which was not able to be seen.
As near as I can tell from what I have read, the battalion, engaged in constant battle that day and in continuous contact with the enemy, DID FORWARD detailed reports of the incidents.
I also know that courtesy inspections are the point at which units are told that they are improperly interpreting "requirement B(1)(a) after the semicolon" type of requirements. There isn't any commander, including Petraeus, that if someone wanted to hold him responsible for the literal fulfillment of every regulation, every policy, every memorandum of instruction ever written, every voco instruction ever spoken, that he would fail that test. In short, you can get ANY soldier on those kind of things.
Assume that Wuterich is exhonerated. Therefore, there we are left with a day in which a number of civilians were killed as collateral damage in a battle. That unit knew it had the requirement to report that incident, which it did. It had a requirement to send a detailed report, which it did.
There was absolutely no evidence of anything outside of law being done by their troops. The only way that could have been discovered is if Wuterich had stepped up and said, "I had unclear thoughts before pulling the trigger in Room #2."
He didn't do that.
Therefore, the unit reported and analyzed and nothing came up.
Where is the dereliction? We both believe there is none, RR, and I am at a loss to see how Jag thinks it can prove it.
Unless it's some silly-assed thing like failing to fill in item 27 on Form 16b in red ink.
At the Article 32, the prosecution relied on Marines in Chessani's command who say they told Chessani there should be an investigation. I think that will also be the game plan in the CM.
The defense has a real challenge. It's easiest to defend an action than not acting. I think Thomas More is up for the challenge, but they'll really earn their keep.