It would be nice if you were right -- we'd all love for this to turn out right. However, the articles so far talk about evidence that isn't good (like photos from Marine intelligence troops, overhead surveilence footage, radio traffic logs, and testimony from the Marines who were there). So I'm afraid we'll just have to wait and see.
I've read two articles about this thing, both from major media outlets and I read nothing about radio logs or overhead surveilence footage. It's hard to understand what overhead footage would reveal about what went on inside. The interviews claim contradictions between accounts, but there were numerous interviews and details are sketchy. I understand the the photos Marine intelligence took were after the event occurred and the scene was probably tampered with.
It reminds me a little of the Duke University Lacrosse allegations. That could be distorting my view of this, true, but the press is doing essentially the same thing they did to those kids.
I finished a book recently: No True Glory, Bing West, author, about the Fallujah fiasco. The constraints those soldiers are under are unimaginable and their fidelilty to the mission is awesome. It also describes how the terrorists operate: sniping from mosques while claiming sanctuary. Wearing two sets of clothes to facilitate transformation from jihadi to civilian. It describes how rifles are taken from the dead jihadis to recycle them and claim civilian status for the dead. It tells how virtually all photographs conveyed by the media originated with sypathetic journalists, most from Al Jazeerah. Western journalists knew they would be killed and so didn't venture beyond their compound. Recall the soldier charged with killing the wounded jihad? The jihadi was a plant, a suicide bomber. The embedded journalist never reported this. Who to believe?