Posted on 11/18/2007 12:06:20 PM PST by RedRover
The number marked photo’s shown to the pathologist seem to have been taken in the bedroom of house 4 -
“Multiple photographs show the remains of four deceased adult males in the room designated “Bedroom 1” (the more southern of the two bedrooms in the dwelling). The victims have red numbers written on their bodies in some of the photographs, and these numbers are designated below.”
What does the “in some of the photographs” there say to you ? That there were two sets shown, some of the same body with and without numbers ? Or simply that you can see the numbers in some of the pics ?
He dosen’t say anything about returning to the house later and taking more pics, and there would be no reason for him to do so.
Because the leftists scum wanted a new 'Abu Ghraib' type scandal.
I don't know how Tim McGirk, Murtha et al sleep at night.
Look at the charges AP says are against Frank Wuterich.
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/military/20071119-1507-ca-marines-haditha.html
And as far as the photos are concerned, it was NCIS who leaked them to the press from the investigation, with ol’ Ed Buice saying,
he could not comment on an open investigation: “NCIS strives to ensure the integrity of every investigation and finds the idea that someone might leak any of its investigative products to be deeply troubling.”
Gotta see this, scroll to the bottom:
http://www.todayszaman.com/tz-web/detaylar.do?load=detay&link=127359&bolum=135
[Call them; he will NEVER apologize.]
He is as insane as the leftists who served Hitler and therefore I to believe the man is past feeling and knowing truth and is one more puppet being used by the puppet master Satan to destroy good men from the face of the earth.
Thanks for the links, freema Well isn’t that just a “special” article by Kerim?
It’s all about john murtha getting laid, the whore, and screwing the troops.
http://www.house.gov/murtha/news05-06/statement_051117iraq.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/20/politics/politico/thecrypt/main3526032.shtml
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/dems-accuse-bush-of-playing-politics-with-defense-spending-2007-11-20.html
http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/politics/blog/2007/11/white_house_warns_of_xmas_mili.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/20/washington/20cnd-cong.html
Nice of him to remember Haditha. / sarc
“And as far as the photos are concerned, it was NCIS who leaked them to the press from the investigation,”
? according to your second link, the NCIS had to track down the photo’s after they were already out in the wild.
“But unlike the detainee photographs, which were turned over to officials who then investigated the case, the Haditha images were discovered months after the shootings as more than 60 Naval Criminal Investigative Service agents scoured the globe for them.”
Their report should never haver gotten leaked, but it appears the unauthorized pics were taken by Marines, and spread around somewhat by them before the NCIS were able to round them up.
The Times’, themselves, admit they were given the pictures by the authorities.
Also, whether or not these were not “unauthorized photos” is your interpretation. I believe these men were ordered to take these photos.
Being ordered to take pictures for official use is one thing, putting them on your personal web pages, "trading" them or presenting them to music is quite another, don’t you think ?
It kinda depends on a whole lot of factors, RS.
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=usmc+firefight&search=Search
“It kinda depends on a whole lot of factors, RS.”
... and what factors might those be, freema ?
Could you explain just what factor would kinda allow our soldiers to trade those photos like baseball cards ?
Okay, it’s looking like Laughner took pictures of the bodies in the 1:30-2:30 pm time frame in the houses. Sometime later in the day, at least in house 4(most likely all of them), numbers were placed on the dead Iraqis probably to cross-reference later with death certificates.
Who took the second set of photos? Could have been Briones and/or Wright, but it’s never been said and they’re not going to be called to testify. Did Laughner have a set of all of the photos? Was this full set what he destroyed, or only his set? So if someone else had another “official” set with the numbering identification why isn’t someone else charged with destroying those? Why charge just Grayson for ordering Laughner to get rid of his set once they had no more intelligence value?
As far as other Marines having photos, mailing them, whatever...No, they shouldn’t be keeping photos of dead Iraqis (especially the women and children) and putting anything to music. But that was a report by the LA Times and is quite general on who was doing what, and with what photos. There may have been a couple of bad apples that didn’t treat this properly. But there may have also been a few Marines who had pictures of the destroyed humvee and pictures of Terrazis set to music in memorian. The LA Times article is not clear. I’m not going to jump to the conclusion that a bunch of Marines were doing wierd things with the photos.
Those with the numbers were NOT destroyed, since they were given to forensics. We don’t know if Laughner’s photos were given to them - I can’t tell either way from the way the report is written.
Grayson may not have even known of their existence at the time. Anything to suggest he did ?
I’ve never thought a good defense was “ bu..but.. he was doing it too ! “
Do we have any idea just WHEN he ordered them destroyed ? If it was after the Iraqi produced pictures came out I would think he would have a problem, after all, he could have been ordering the destruction of evidence that would have refuted the Iraqi claims.
I’m not jumping to any conclusions based on anything printed in the media, RS (anymore than Girlene). No one knows what pictures were destroyed.
The article is clearly non-specific about what pictures were found stateside, on whose computers and drives, etc., etc., etc.
Why do you always jump on like you want to ride the horse hard and put it away wet?
” No one knows what pictures were destroyed.”
That’s the problem, isn’t it ? If the intelligence officer had wind that there were Iraqis taking photo’s and video’s regarding the events of that day, the intelligent thing to do would be to preserve ALL evidence from that day, not order it destroyed.
“The article is clearly non-specific about what pictures were found stateside, on whose computers and drives, etc., etc., etc.”
Yep - but I’m not sure your point - these pictures that they call horrific, that the Post apparently would not publish, are clearly taken taken by Marines onsite, and were found where they were not supposed to be.
... and I don’t put it away ... I take another ride :-)
There’s this thing called ‘critical thinking’, RS. Let me explain how this works, by example.
Let’s say, I tell you that I found a picture of a naked woman on my teenage daughter’s cell phone.
Some folks would jump to the conclusion that she is homosexual. Others would ask some probing questions.
The truth is out there.
“The truth is out there.”
Very true - but any search for the truth begins with the assumption that you do not already know it, correct ?
To tie-in with this thread, what would your thoughts be if you found horrific pictures of dead Iraqis on your daughters cellphone ? Would your thoughts change if your daughter was a Marine ?
No, RS, my thoughts would not change. I’d be so damn thankful that my daughter had her cell phone, and could look at the freaken pictures-rather than be burying her.
What kind of a freak question is that, anyway.
“What kind of a freak question is that, anyway.”
So let’s see, even if your daughter were NOT a Marine you would be perfectly comfortable, even thankfull, with her having the horrific pictures of war on her cell phone -—
... talk about freaky ...
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.