"This morning our daughter told us of a Marine who had been exonerated by forensic evidence after being falsely accused of murdering two Iraqi insurgents. The accusation was that he shot the insurgents in the back, but he maintained all along that he killed them in combat, in self-defense.
I found this story from Fox News that tells part of the story: video.foxnews.com
The back story related by my daughter is that a colleague of her husband's was pivotal in exonerating this Marine. My son-in-law and his colleague are both forensic pathologists. (My son-in-law is still in active duty in the US Army, while the colleague is retired.) The colleague went to Iraq and had the bodies of the insurgents exhumed. Despite severe decomposition owing to the way muslims insist on being buried, the pathologist was able to determine that they WERE NOT shot in the back as the false accuser claimed, but frontally shot in a clear case of self-defense. The accuser was read his rights on the witness stand.
The troubling thing about this case is that not only was the accusation false, NCIS tried to suppress evidence that exonerated the Marine. The pathologist who went to Iraq after retirement said the whole thing never should have happened.
I do not understand this case at all. Number one, the insurgents were the enemy and you're supposed to kill them. Number two, we train these young men to kill, give them deadly weapons, and send them into harms way. By God, we should cut them some slack. Number three, why is NCIS doing this egregious disservice? Their mission should be to expose the truth, not suppress it."
Message 27830040 |
