Sell
Research and Tools
Parts & Service
- Auto Parts
- Service & Repair
- Quick Searches
- Auto Repair
- Oil Change
Evidence called inconclusive in Wuterich trial
By: MARK WALKER - Staff Writer | ∞
CAMP PENDLETON -- A federal agent said Wednesday that he couldn't tell if five Iraqi civilians killed nearly two years ago in the city of Haditha were running away when they were shot, as a Marine staff sergeant charged with the killings contends.
Special Agent Thomas Brady said his reconstruction of the scene outside a car where the five men were slain moments after a roadside bomb destroyed a Humvee and killed a lance corporal the morning of Nov. 19, 2005, was inconclusive on that point.
Brady's testimony came on the third day of an Article 32 hearing for Staff Sgt. Frank Wuterich, who is accused of killing 17 Iraqi civilians that day. The hearing will determine whether Wuterich faces court-martial for the largest civilian slaying case to arise out of the Iraq war.
Brady, a Naval Criminal Investigative Service investigator, also said his work clearly showed that two people shot the men, bolstering a defense contention that their client, Wuterich, may not have fired the first shots.
Wuterich's attorneys contend that the reconstruction suggests that while their client shot at those men, it was Sgt. Sanick Dela Cruz and not Wuterich who fired the fatal shots. Wuterich is charged with killing 17 of the 24 Iraqi civilians slain in Haditha and is one of three enlisted men from Camp Pendleton charged in the slayings.
The 27-year-old married father of three maintains he is innocent and that the civilian deaths were an unfortunate result of his Marines carrying out a legitimate action in response to the bombing. Six children and two women were among the civilians killed, slayings that prompted a worldwide outcry when they came to light early last year.
The men from the car were shot moments after emerging from their car. Wuterich maintains that the men were running, a signal he interpreted to mean they were insurgents involved in the bombing and therefore could be lawfully shot.
Dela Cruz has testified the men were not running and several stood with their hands raised over their heads when Wuterich shot them. Dela Cruz also has acknowledged also firing at those men, but testified last week he did not do so until after Wuterich began shooting.
"There were two shooting positions," Brady said under questioning from Wuterich's lead attorney, Neal Puckett, who also attempted to show from the reconstruction that Dela Cruz fired first.
In other testimony, Wuterich was described as a respected squad leader whose dealings with Iraqi civilians prior to the Nov. 19 incident were seen as positive.
"He was the least aggressive," said Staff Sgt. Travis Fields, a member of the Kilo Company platoon from Camp Pendleton's 3rd Battalion, 1st Marine Regiment involved in the Haditha killings. "He was the calmest in the squad in interacting with Iraqis."
Fields also testified that Wuterich had a good grasp on the rules of engagement, rules prosecutors contend he ignored in leading his squad in a series of "house clearing" operations following the bombing.
The house clearing began with Wuterich leading his Marines in the shooting of a man who came to the door of the first for four homes stormed that day, according to undisputed testimony. That was followed by the shooting of a second man in that home and culminating when a grenade was thrown inside a bedroom followed by indiscriminate shooting of every person inside, the testimony has shown.
That tactic was not endorsed by Fields, who said some form of positive identification should have taken place.
Asked about a statement that Wuterich made to investigators last year, that he had told his men to "shoot first and ask questions later," Fields said such a command was improper.
"It goes directly against what the rules of engagement say," he said.
Another witness, Capt. Alfonso Capers Jr., an instructor who teaches Marines about the rules of engagement, acknowledged under sharp questioning that there was no absolute standard given Marines in 2005 on how to clear rooms inside homes declared hostile and where Marines believed insurgents were hiding.
The house clearing operation had been ordered by Lt. William Kallop, the platoon commander who responded to the scene of the bombing and issued the directive to Wuterich.
"If there's a threat in there, your first job is to eliminate the threat," Capers said.
Wuterich's hearing is expected to conclude this afternoon. His attorneys said he may make an unsworn statement, meaning anything he says will not be uttered under oath and he cannot be cross-examined by prosecutors.
The Marine officer presiding over the hearing, Lt. Col. Paul Ware, also presided over hearings for two of Wuterich's co-defendants, Lance Cpls. Justin Sharratt and Stephen Tatum.
In July, Ware recommended charges against Sharratt be dropped, a recommendation later carried out by Camp Pendleton's Lt. Gen. James Mattis, the convening authority over the case.
Last month, Ware recommended charges against Tatum also be dropped. In both instances, Ware cited insufficient evidence to warrant a trial as well as inconsistencies in witness statements.
Four officers also were charged with dereliction of duty for failing to fully investigate the Haditha killings. Charges were subsequently dropped against one of those officers.
-- Contact staff writer Mark Walker at (760) 740-3529 or mlwalker@nctimes.com.
Al wrote on Sep 6, 2007 6:17 AM:War is hell and sometimes innocent people are killed. But I would rather have our Marines shooting first and asking questions later than being killed because they hesitated to pull the trigger. If our Marines and soldiers in WOrld War II had been subjected to this constant $%#@, we would all be speaking German or Japanese.
Praise not Persecution wrote on Sep 6, 2007 6:58 AM:Why does President Bush want to persecute our soldiers? Make no mistake, pursuing these legal actions are the President's decision. There is a war in Iraq. People die. Wishing it weren't so and therefore mistreating our soldiers is totally the wrong answer.
Lee wrote on Sep 6, 2007 8:25 AM:These dismissed atrocities go on and on and on. It makes me sick and ashamed. Are there no honorable men left in our armed forces.
why did they wrote on Sep 6, 2007 1:48 PM:ask us to go there and help them in the first place? ungrateful iraqis.
to 1:48 wrote on Sep 6, 2007 5:10 PM:to why did they?....they didn't! This was an unprovoked illegal attack by America against Iraq. No one asked us to invade, to destroy the infrastructure, to disband the army and the police and leave the people without security, electricity, water,or hope. This was an unprovoked criminal act of aggression!
GBS wrote on Sep 6, 2007 7:56 PM:Interesting set of comments. What is going on in Iraq right now is about as far away from WWII as we can get. President Bush is "persecuting" our soldiers? Our soldiers operate with RULES and are accountable for their actions! That's what separates us from so many other militiaries. SOME of the actions at Haditha were VERY questionable and deserve a full ivestigation. "Dismissed attrocities"? Conducting investigations and putting people on trial is "dismissing attrocities"? Or in your mind, if the accused are US military, they MUST be guilty? An unprovoked illegal attack, huh? Don't know quite where to start on that one, except to surmise that you must be about 5 years old, because you evidently weren't around to soak in the 13 years of conflict between the US and Iraq before our "unprovoked criminal act of aggression".
Chris to GBS wrote on Sep 6, 2007 8:31 PM:What are you talking about when you talk about 13 years of conflict between the US and Iraq. After the first gulf war the U.S.unilateraly put in the no fly zone wich in reality was a way to continue the war by constantly attacking Iraq. Iraq had not committed any hostilities during that time although our lying government kept saying that they were.
AW4cryinoutloud wrote on Sep 6, 2007 9:04 PM:Too bad the Hamdania and Haditha cases weren't tried in a civilian court. Oh! Then again; they would never have gotten that far. A civilian court would require evidence. A civilian court would require proof that Miranda rights were afforded the accused. Otherwise; No Case! What if 8 civilians with honorable reputations are accused by gang-bangers of a crime and then investigators take the word of the gang-bangers over those 8 men. Then, what if NO gang-bangers show up to face the accused and what if there is NO evidence to corroborate the gang-bangers accusations? Then, what if a politician makes inflammatory remarks about the 8 honorable civilians and the politician leaks "unauthorized", unsubstantiated, unverified, unproven, negative information to the media which, in turn, reports as if gospel? Rights trampled, No evidence, and Unlawful Influence...equals NO CASE! Yet the military professes to have a judicial system superior to that of the civilian? Yeah! Prove that...Beyond A Reasonable Doubt!
Jake wrote on Sep 7, 2007 9:41 AM:Gang Bangers???? That is outrageous. The Marines shot civilian youths who they had detained and who were standing with their hands on their heads as ordered, and then they went on a killing spree--killing women and little children. These needless killings were bad enough, but AW4 goes so far as to assault their memory. There is no evidence that these young men were the equivelent of "gang bangers". The post at 9:09 PM sounds like Sadaam trying to justify the killing of the Kurds and the Shite children, by depicting them as criminals.
AW4cryinoutloud wrote on Sep 8, 2007 12:09 AM:To Jake: I've tried twice today to post. Will give it another go. Why the hysteria over the Gang Banger thing? I was comparing the military sham to civilian courts using gang bangers and civilans. Big Whoop! If you want to be defensive about it then let me clarify; the insurgents are far worse than gang bangers. You call them civilian youths. I call them insurgent youths. So? There was an attack by insurgents and a firefight in which Marines exercised their right to defend themselves. Footage from a Drone proved it; although only a few edited segments were allowed in court. I don't "assault" the memory of any innocent. I just don't pay homage to the memory of insurgents.
Jake wrote on Sep 8, 2007 3:14 PM:Calling the dead victims of American atrocities in Hadithia, "gang bangers", is like calling the victims of the attack on the world trade towers, criminals. They were all innocent victims of terrorist attacks. We have met the enemy and they are us.
AW4cryinoutloud wrote on Sep 8, 2007 5:39 PM:To Jake: I did not call the dead insurgents in Haditha Gang Bangers. You interpreted it that way. Then, when I responded to your silly accusation I said the insurgents were worse than Gang bangers. I do agree partially with you on one thing; there is definitely an enemy within.
marine wrote on Mar 17, 2008 8:31 PM:you know...everyone can have there own opinion..but not one of you was there in the city of Haditha on Nov 19th...I was and I know what happened. Before you say your opinion just realize that thats all it is..your opinion, and you have no knowledge of the events to back them up.
First name only. Comments including last names, contact addresses, email addresses or phone numbers will be deleted. All comments are screened before they appear online, so please keep them brief. Comments reflect the views of those commenting and not necessarily those of the North County Times or its staff writers. Click here to view additional comment policies.
Today's Stories
Advertisement