Posted on 08/12/2007 4:07:09 PM PDT by RedRover
Day Two / Tuesday, June 12 / NCIS Special Agent Mark Platt
Bumbling NCIS agents have been on horrifyingly hilarious display in the Haditha hearings. It was clear to anyone watching LCpl Justin Sharratt's hearing that he should never have been charged in the first place.
Agents broke every rule of an unbiased investigation...
A highlight (or lowlight, depending on your point-of-view) was the testimony of NCIS Special Agent Mark Platt. You can read his entire testimony here. Or just enjoy one of the best moments of testimony by a real-life Inspector Clouseau below (with my comments in italics).
This is the first time that any portion of the LCpl Sharratt hearing transcripts has been made available. I hope to have more soon.
To read the actual transcript of SA Platt's testimony, click at the link.
What’s Platt’s personal relationship with John Murtha?
Excellent question! Throughout Platt’s testimony, he says he narrowly focused on his assignments—which did not include following exculpatory leads.
If Agent Platt was following a script, I’d like to see whose signature was on it!
Excellent post, Red.
Red INSERT MIDDLE NAME Rover!
If I die, it will be the fault of you, NCIS and Inspector Clouseau
: )
Why does he look like inspector Clouseau?
Excellent post!
Nailed it, SA Platt is a real life Inspector Clouseau and to think the NCIS affect so many in our military.
(The link above has the transcript without pictures, if you want to read it that way.)
“Torturing Freema” is my middle name! ;)
Where ARE my manners (I’ve been reading and forgot to ping) ping.
Excellent thread. Thanks for sharing this important info.
Even the prosecution must be disgusted with NCIS.
Sure looks like the boneheads on the prosecution side are going to slowly get put through the hamburger grinder. About damn time.
Dang Red after reading that transcript, I think Barney Fife would have been a better choice than Clouseau. That was plum pitiful and an embarrassment to investigators every where. I sincerely hope this “investigator” is now investigating parking violations or the like.
BTW - his statement about “murder” was entirely too explicit to have just been a misspoken word. That phrase “right before their eyes” is telling indeed.
Discovery 27 Jul 07 00159
Q. Do you have any knowledge of what is actually in the report?
A. No, I do not.
Q. So what are your personal observations when you entered that back bedroom in house four?
A. Prior to our arrival at house four, we had no photographs from that house. The previous team of NCIS agents that had deployed out into that area, for whatever reason, the photographs that they took at house four somehow were compromised. So they had nothing; nothing on the outside, nothing on the inside, nothing of the area adjacent to house four. So we made the determination that we were going to go to house four first, being that we had nothing from that house.
Discovery 27 Jul 07 00161
Q. Was any other evidence gathered in that room?
A. Samples of all the major groupings of what we believed to be bloodstains were taken for future DNA analysis.
Q. You had mentioned earlier today that you ended up interviewing some Iraqi witnesses. How did that happen?
A. Again, those interviews occurred after I was initially at the dam. I departed for Fallujah and returned to the dam about a week or ten days later, arranged for these interviews to be conducted. I was escorted from the forward operating base by the Marines to house four where I conducted the interviews in a living room.
Q. How many days after the deaths did these interviews take place, approximately?
A. It was approximately ten days.
Q. Do you recall who you interviewed?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. Who did you interview?
A. The first interview I conducted was a young Iraqi female by the name of Ehab.
You’re welcome, LilAngel!
I actually started with Barney Fife but there was an arrogance to Platt that lead me to Clouseau. Besides, I have to save something for the next time!
I actually started with Barney Fife but there was an arrogance to Platt that lead me to Clouseau. Besides, I have to save something for the next time!
Thanks for the Polygraph, Red and the echo. :-)
D’oh!
D’oh!
:-) :-)
ping....hey jude
LOL, that is an excellent graphic!
I would trust Clouseau way before I would trust NCIS.
Yes, I'm sure the prosecution is steaming mad that NCIS investigators can't lie better.
Good grief! This reads like a bad movie script.
These people were in charge of investigating allegations against United States Marines??
What the heck?!
LOLOL! That’s hilarious, Lancey!
That’s exactly what makes all this so revolting.
The whole transcript is loaded with gems (BTW, love your puss!).
All through the testimony, SPlatt claims he doesn't discuss any of the interview with case agent Mannle, in fact, on minute 175, testifies that he went to the house with SA's Brady & Maloney - no word of Mannle, and I got the impression he never spoke to her again.
But then, in minute 192, it's revealed that Mannle was in the living room of the same house at the same time SPlatt was digging out shell fragments in the bedroom and listening to a "narrative".
Yet, he and Mannle never talked about the case again.
Right. I think the prosecution just slam dunked one...in their own goal.
Questions by the investigating officer:Seems that this indicates the IO just discounted Platt's testimony; not necessarily that he will ignore any exculpatory info produced by the Defence though.
IO Q. Because it is confusing to me that you would advise someone of their rights and essentially all your questions are what kind of training did you receive.
Platt A. Right. These questions were very benign. There was no follow-up.
IO Q. And several of the responses were, No, I don't think I got sufficient understanding of this or that.
Platt A. Right.
IO Q. And you just passed this on to the Army for their admin investigation?
Platt A. That is correct. This interview that I participated in had absolutely nothing to do with your investigation whatsoever.
IO IO: That was my conclusion as well. Counsel have any follow-up with regard to Investigative Exhibit 45?
Red-
Have you any idea what Platt is talking about in these excerpts from my Post #18?
The previous team of NCIS agents that had deployed out into that area, for whatever reason, the photographs that they took at house four somehow were compromised.
~~~~~~~~~~
Q. How many days after the deaths did these interviews take place, approximately?
A. It was approximately ten days.
There are rules for evidentiary photographs (color bars in the photos, photos of the setting, etc.) that establish the time, place, and general authenticity of what the photos show. Otherwise, the photos only seem to show one thing or another.
This came up in the LCpl Tatum hearing. None of the photos used by the prosecution had much evidentiary value because they followed none of the rules.
Platt mentions using photos taken by pfcs after the incident. Those were taken for identification purposes of the bodies--not as crime scene evidence.
That's the best guess I can make about his meaning.
The scary part is that all these NCIS agents see themselves as Tom Cruise going after Col. Jesup rather then the arbiters of the truth.
But even scarier then that is that there seems to be teams of NCIS agents running around Iraq looking into every battlefield action trying to find one that can be proven to be a massacre and that perhaps these teams are the source McGirk’s and Murtha stories.
Maybe I’m wrong but if The NCIS were investigating this incident ten days after it happened, then they knew more about it then The two Iraqi “Human Rights” activists (one of whom was locked up during the incident) did before they approached McGirk with videos and even before any other sort of investigation was suggested through the chain of command and even before Murtha said these Marines killed in cold blood....
The Thought then occurs to me at least that they could have orchestrated the actions of the Iraqis “Human Rights activists”, McGirk, and Murtha or at least had a hand in feeding them this story until it grew some legs.
It is just the kind of back room political trickery we have come to expect from the operatives of a certain political party with a liberal idology you know the one that puts it’s quest for power above the defense of the Nation.
The prosecutor, LtCol Wiley Coyote, must have had that we-just-stepped-off-the-cliff feeling. He’ll have many more in the weeks to come. Metaphorically, he’s stuck running a Silk Purse Shop with only sows’ ears in stock.
I think the NCIS agent, Platt, made a mistake saying HIS interviews took place 10 days after the deaths in November. But he does refer to another NCIS group and their photos. It was never explained who these agents were, when were they deployed, what were the pictures of. If they were in the area right after the incident occurred, why pray tell, did they not report a “massacre”? If it was much later, say early March when Chiarelli wanted an investigation begun, that’s a different story.
My question - was there a team of NCIS agents early on, in November, 2005, and what did their report say if there was such a team?
November 19: The day of the incident.
November 20: A 43-year-old Iraqi named Thaer Thabit al-Hadithi videotapes bodies at the local morgue, people wailing, and inside the homes of the dead Iraqi civilians. He then sits on the videotape for four months.
February 10: A Time magazine reporter contacts military sources in Baghdad about the circumstances of the Haditha incident.
February 14: Army Lt. Gen. Peter W. Chiarelli, commander of multinational forces in Iraq, appoints Army Col. Gregory Watt to head a preliminary investigation into the Haditha deaths.
Below 00159...
A. Prior to our arrival at house four, we had no photographs from that house. The previous team of NCIS agents that had deployed out into that area [no date given], for whatever reason, the photographs that they took at house four somehow were compromised. So they had nothing; nothing on the outside, nothing on the inside, nothing of the area adjacent to house four. So we made the determination that we were going to go to house four first, being that we had nothing from that house.
Q. Do you remember what approximate day and month this was?
A. Right at the end of March. It was probably around 28, 29 March.
About the earlier photos, he mentions the Marine's civil affairs team (this is below 190)...
Q. Do you know whether Major Hyatt was present on 19 November in that home?
A. I do not know. I know that the civil affairs officer had gone to houses one and two on one day. And it wasn't until several days later that he was made aware of houses three and four. I can't recall exactly whether he had visited that residence prior to us being there, no. I know that we did not have photographs from Major Hyatt of house four prior to us processing it.
Q. Did you know that at the time Sergeant Laughner had been to the home on 19 November after the events had occurred where people were shot?
A. I don't recall exactly when I was made aware of that. However, we did not have his photographs prior to going to that house. We had photographs that were taken by -- excuse me, I don't recall. It was a younger Marine, a lower ranking Marine, a PFC, I believe. I don't recall his name. If I heard it, I might remember it. But we had his photographs, and that was about it.
Here's a bit from Washington Post, January 7, 2007:
One Marine who decided to hold onto the photographs made it certain that officials would have a clearer view of what happened that day. Lance Cpl. Andrew A. Wright, who arrived on the scene after the violence to care for the bodies, took photographs of the dead and kept a full set.
"I decided that it was in my best interest to obtain the photos I had taken that night," Wright told investigators. "Even though there was no investigation at the time, I felt that the photographs would be evidence if anything came up in the future. In my opinion, the people that I photographed had been murdered."
Because the killings in Haditha were not investigated until four months afterward -- initially, Marine officers decided the shootings did not appear out of the norm -- the photographs are in some cases the only hard evidence. Officials are hoping to use them to reconstruct the events because they have not been able to exhume the Iraqi victims' bodies.
NCIS officials are comparing the images with the Marines' statements about what happened.
Investigators have found 44 photographs that a civil affairs officer took in the days after the incident as part of an effort to make condolence payments to the families of the dead. The pictures show pockmarked walls and bloodstained floors.
Investigators also found video from an unmanned aircraft that was aloft in the region that day, but it began recording after the first reports of a roadside bomb and the initial shootings, according to the documents. The video shows Marines conducting door-to-door searches, according to an intelligence officer's statement.
Defense lawyers for four Marines who have been charged with murder in the killings said they believe it will be hard to prove anything based on the photographs alone, other than that the Marines killed the people while hunting for insurgents. The Marines have told investigators that they were following their rules of engagement.
Marine Corps officials believe that many of the photographs -- which show the results of grenade explosions inside civilian homes and close-range rifle shots -- are inflammatory by their nature, no matter whether a crime was committed. Investigators have gone to great lengths to keep them private. It is possible that even the most grim images will surface publicly in military court proceedings.
The Thought then occurs to me at least that they could have orchestrated the actions of the Iraqis “Human Rights activists”, McGirk, and Murtha or at least had a hand in feeding them this story until it grew some legs.
cobra-I'm glad you caught this! I keep wondering if I'm reading it wrong.
Q. How many days after the deaths did these interviews take place, approximately?
A. It was approximately ten days.
I don't think he misspoke, but of course if he did then he does so a lot.
I just have a hard time picturing NCIS agents going into Haditha on Nov 29 06 without major protection—and without being noticed by Marines monitoring the area.
Still, it’s worth checking out. I’ve asked some reliable sources for their take on this.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.