Defend Our Marines main page | Alleged crime scenes: The white taxi | House 1 | House 2

DEFEND OUR MARINES

__________________________________________

Scenes of the alleged crimes:
House 4

Undisputed facts

On 19 November 2005, LCpl Justin Sharratt fatally shot Jasib Aiad Ahmed, Kahtan Aiad Ahmed and Jamal Aiad Ahmed in Haditha Iraq. LCpl Sharratt engaged each with a M9 service pistol in a back room of a house owned by the Ahmed family. A fourth person, Marwan Aiad Ahmed was fatally shot by SSgt Frank Wuterich after LCpl Sharratt's magazine ran out of rounds.

A firefight--not murder

When the evidence was examined in a courtroom, LCpl Sharratt and SSgt Wuterich were exonerated of murder charges.

Why the prosecution failed

The prosecution followed the media's lead and presented a case of cold-blooded executions. The case failed for the best reason: it simply wasn't true.

The evidence presented by the prosecution was largely hearsay testimony. And much of it conflicted with forensic evidence.

Forensic evidence supported the defense

Statements by LCpl Sharratt and SSgt Wuterich about the incident were supported by forensics. The prosecution's witnesses were not. The following is from the Investigating Officer's report:

Evidence not consistent with an execution. Without question, the forensic evidence demonstrates that three of the men were shot in the head while facing forward from a distance of at least 2 feet. The three men in the specifications of the Charge all suffered fatal head wounds consistent with 9mm rounds fired from a distance beyond 2 feet. It is difficult, if not impossible to believe, that trained and experienced Marines would decide to execute 4 unarmed men by leading them into a house, moving them to the a back room with no light (curtains were closed) and allow them to move about the room while trying to shoot them with the least effective weapon in their arsenal. In addition, forensic evidence proves that one person was standing in the doorway and shot to the face while the other three men were further inside the room. Under such circumstances one would reasonably expect that the others would then attempt to run or fight. None of the victims received defensive wounds to their hands or arms nor did they receive wounds to their backs or rear of their heads. Each was shot facing forward, from a distance, and with a 9mm pistol which I find inconsistent with an execution or persons reacting to an execution. Furthermore, there is no evidence to suggest LCpl Sharratt attempted to hide the fact that he shot these individuals. To the contrary, SSgt Laughner testified that he was aware that people were shot in house 4 due to reports from the field.

Unbelievable witnesses

The statements by four Iraqi witnesses (none of whom witnessed the shooting itself) were not supported by forensic evidence. The following is from the Investigating Officer's report:

Witness accounts are not credible. The Iraqis' first statements to NCIS were taken in a group setting, five months after the events occurred and with knowledge that other families in Haditha had received monetary compensation from the United States for events that occurred on 19 November 2005. The interview that resulted in the witness statements were taken by Special Agent Mannle in a group setting, with each witness adding details and discussing the events in Arabic with one another in front of Special Agent Mannle who does not speak Arabic. Additionally, although $ 10,000 does not appear to be a large amount of money, testimony from Maj Hiatt suggested that such a sum of money was equal to 4 times the average annual salary of a typical resident of Haditha. Prior to making these claims, no payments were made to the Ahmed family.

The Ahmed family was represented by an attorney who represents other families who received compensation for Marines killing their family members. Shortly after making these claims, the Ahmed family was paid $10,000 in Solatia payments.

Timeliness of interviews. The interviews of Khalid, Nagham, Nagia and Ehab by Maj Erickson were conducted almost a year later in January 2007. These witnesses were placed under oath, although the form of the oath was translated in three different manners, the witnesses were not subject to American law of perjury and testimony by Dr. Salmoni suggested that cultural and religious beliefs in Iraqi suggests that these statements would not be considered under oath in an Iraqi court. In addition, Dr. Salmoni opined that women and children statements are considered inheritably less reliable than a man's statement in Iraqi law. Although such discrimination is not recognized in our society, the fact that these Iraqis have this cultural understanding suggests that they would believe United States authorities would likewise view their statements as less reliable and may suggest they would feel less need to be fully truthful. Finally, each witness was accompanied by the attorney who represented the family for Solatia payments, and the interviews were conducted in Arabic through a translator and Maj Erickson could not understand the Arabic conversations, relying on translation and in parts, interpretation by Mr. Alkaysey.

The statements made in Jan 2007 are contradictory to each other in parts. Some of the key contradictions are:

Khalid states that the Marine with a pistol guarded them and did not go into house number 4 (see pages 6-8 of IE 39). He also describes the Marine who guarded him and the women in house 3 as having a weapon on a tripod (SAW) and that he heard only 4 shots separated by a few seconds. He describes the men who left house 4 both had AK-47's slung on their shoulders. He later claims that the men also had pistols in their holsters but only after several prompting questions by Maj Erickson. Ultimately, he could not identify where the pistols were, but concluded that all the "men" had pistols. LCpl Sharratt had a SAW and pistol, SSgt Wuterich and Cpl Salinas had Ml6s only. Khalid's description suggests that LCpl Sharratt was the one guarding them at house 3 and that can not be factually supported. Khalid's account of seeing 2 AK-47s begin removed from house 4 further supports LCpl Sharratt's account that two of the Iraqi men had AK-47s when he shot them.

Nagham states that the Marine with the pistol was in charge giving orders to the other two (see page 11 of IE 37). She also says that no one moved the bodies before the Marines arrived to take photographs. Finally, she stated that they were planning on taking a trip to Baghdad later that day and that is why Kahtan's suitcase was packed with clothes and a shaving kit (see page 15 of IE 37). It is highly unlikely that two senior Marines, SSgt Wuterich and Cpl Salinas would defer in authority to LCpl Sharratt and allow him to issues orders to themselves and the Iraqis. Because we know that only LCpl Sharratt had a pistol, her account that the one with the pistol was in charge appears to be factually false. Forensic evidence clearly proves that the bodies must have been moved from the location where they fell to where they were covered with sheets and later photographed. Finally, it is incredible to believe the family was traveling to Baghdad that day if only Kahtan was packed and ready for the trip. 

Nagla states that the man with the pistol was in charge telling the other Marines what to do (see page 7 of IE 38). Again we see the theme that the "one with the pistol" was the person in charge. Clearly by now, these witnesses know that their loved ones were killed with 9mm rounds from a pistol and that LCpl Sharratt is the one accused. To facilitate a story of execution, placing LCpl Sharratt in charge would make the story more plausible except for the fact it is incredible to believe that two senior Marines would subjugate themselves to LCpl under these conditions. 

Ehab states that Kahtan was about to travel to Trabeed (ph) and that she assisted in packing his suitcase so she knew what was inside it (see page 8 of IE 40). This contradicts Nagham who said the "family" was traveling to Baghdad. Again she reiterates that the "one with the pistol was in charge" (see page 6 of IE 10).

There are other inconsistencies between the four statements and with the "group statement" to NCIS. NCIS was unable or chose not to conduct further research into the following significant issues:

Whether Kahtan was employed on the Jordan border as claimed by the Iraqi witnesses?

Whether Marwan was an engineer at the Haditha dam and had a properly issued CAG card? The Iraqi witnesses claimed Marwan tried to show this card to the Marines but the Marines were uninterested. NCIS investigation revealed no CAG card was ever issued to Marwan and NCIS did not follow up on whether Marwan was employed at the dam.

Whether Jasib was a traffic officer? There was no uniform found at house 4 and there was no formal recognized police force in Haditha in November 2005.

Whether Jamal was a local businessman? No NCIS follow up to determine if he was a businessman and if so, what business he was involved in.

Not following up on these claims supports the defense contention that NCIS did not critically examine the credibility of these witnesses during its investigations. If these claims are untrue, then the credibility of these witnesses is further eroded.

Finally, the family's unwillingness to allow NCIS to exhume bodies and conduct an autopsy prevents the defense from discovering exculpatory evidence. Failure to examine the bodies does not in itself raise reasonable doubt, but coupled with inconsistencies in statements and apparent fabrications in the Iraqi witness statements the government's version is seriously deficient. Furthermore, the Ahmed family stated to Special Agent Mannle that they would rather forgive the Americans than allow the bodies to be exhumed and examined.

Exposure of the Haditha fraud ignored by the media

The media largely ignored the exoneration of LCpl Sharratt and SSgt Wuterich for the shooting in House 4. A few sources that covered the story hinted darkly that the Marines may be getting away with murder rather than admitting the initial reporting was false.