Comments on: Nightmare: Iraqi victim’s relatives won’t let U.S. exhume body

By: georgej

georgej — Tue, 18 Jul 2006 20:21:01 +0000

In the case of Lt. Ilario Pantano, the bodies were exhumed and showed that the Iraqis were NOT shot in the back, but where shot front-on, consistent with Pantano’s testimony, and negating his accuser’s.

This is not a case where the remains have been destroyed. The body in this case, like those bodies of the “victims” allegedly murdered at Haditha, is of prime importance to the defense, as it may be exculpatory.

I would think that a fair trial could NOT be held if the defense were denied the right to an impartial autopsy. The case against the defendents includes rape and murder, the circumstances of both are in dispute (as evidenced by the “not-guilty” pleas).

I would think that absent an impartial autopsy, it would be very difficult to prove rape and murder beyond a reasonable doubt.

But that’s my untutored, ignorant, opinion.

By: Dread Pirate Roberts VI

Dread Pirate Roberts VI — Tue, 18 Jul 2006 13:03:47 +0000

Case closed! Thank you! Move along! Move along!

By: entagor

entagor — Tue, 18 Jul 2006 02:46:38 +0000

What am I missing? Iraqi Mass Graves Strategic Plan Iraq's Legacy of Terror: Mass Graves There was a ton of forensics on those victims, with family cooperation because the survivors sought proof of injustice. The current sensitivity sounds a lot like the staged wedding party, and other familiar tales. I would be surpised were forensics refused if it could take out a group of infidels who desecrated one of their own.

By: docdave

docdave — Tue, 18 Jul 2006 01:20:34 +0000

I believe 4 things are required for a murder conviction. The victims body, the motive, the weapon, something placing the suspect at the scene of the crime (corraborating witnesses, signed confession, DNA, ect). Without the body, proof becomes very subjective and circumstantial. A good defense lawyer could probably shred the case. Remember all one has to do to acquit is to prove reasonable doubt.

By: neandertal

neandertal — Mon, 17 Jul 2006 22:57:22 +0000

“The problem is that American crimes are only a hundredth of the crimes committed by the militias,” said Omar al-Jubouri, the human rights officer for the Iraqi Islamic Party, a powerful Sunni group that still considers itself the vanguard of political resistance to the Americans. “It’s like one hair compared to all the other hairs on a camel.”

By: Kokonut

Kokonut — Mon, 17 Jul 2006 21:24:59 +0000

Allah,

Tell them “Welcome to the real world” when it comes to forensic science for truth, liberty and justice for all.

Ok…that sounds too much like hawking this new Superman movie.

Oh well…

By: ScottG

ScottG — Mon, 17 Jul 2006 21:17:23 +0000

No evidence? No worries. Nifong to the rescue!!!!!

No offense intended to the victims’ families.

By: thirteen28

thirteen28 — Mon, 17 Jul 2006 21:00:43 +0000

It certainly makes one wonder. This same thing raised a big red flag on the whole Haditha ‘massacre’ story, which has fallen off the media radar screen as of late.

I don’t want to take these charges lightly, as there could be a few bad apples among our soldiers. But the Islamic idea that it is taboo to exhume the bodies when they know we need them for evidentiary purposes should give one pause, particularly when many muslims seem to have no problem breaking their own religious edicts when it is convenient for them (e.g., blowing up mosques, etc.).

Seems to me that, without examining the body, the worst you can say is that the charged soldiers might be guilty. But might be guilty is not sufficient to put them away for a long prison sentence.

By: Hening

Hening — Mon, 17 Jul 2006 20:42:52 +0000

How many cases get trashed for much less than no evidence?

No evidence, no case. Make up your mind Mohamed.

By: Defector01

Defector01 — Mon, 17 Jul 2006 20:36:39 +0000

there is none
its heresay (he said she said)
You need real physical evidence here (DNA, bodies, semen samples SOMETHING) if you want to tie the marines to the rape and murder. Without actual testing I can’t do a damn thing in prosecution and the soldiers will walk.

By: Kid from Brooklyn

Kid from Brooklyn — Mon, 17 Jul 2006 20:22:36 +0000

Attention, attorneys (armchair and otherwise). In this case, what kind of case is there without a body?

By: Romeo13

Romeo13 — Mon, 17 Jul 2006 20:10:03 +0000

You have to understand that to a large portion of the world, what they BELIEVE needs no proof…

Why open up the caskets to get proof, when they already KNOW the truth??? When they already can, and have, used this for political gain. PROOF would allow us to either punish this crime (which we can’t do without proof, but would make us look good), or DISPROOVE the allegations…

Either way, its a loose loose for Islamic Jihadists if we get permission to look at the bodies.

By: rightwingprof

rightwingprof — Mon, 17 Jul 2006 20:05:54 +0000

Uhm, can we say, court order?

Screw cultural sensibilities.

By: Allahpundit

Allahpundit — Mon, 17 Jul 2006 19:57:56 +0000

I don’t think “best efforts” will curry much favor with the Iraqis.

By: see-dubya

see-dubya — Mon, 17 Jul 2006 19:54:52 +0000

Doesn’t the court-martial fall apart without that evidence? I mean, if we do all we can to discover the truth, and we’re denied crucial evidence by cultural taboos…well, we tried.

I’d like to see the soldiers exonerated based on all the evidence, or convicted, if the evidence points to their guilt. This is not ideal, but we’ve at least shown our willingness to try the suspects.