You may remember that Congressman Murtha pronounced a ‘guilty’ verdict on some Marines in Haditha a while back. But the case against them isn’t all that convincing, which may be why coverage of the trial has been so sparse. If you’re interested, you can follow it here in the local paper, the North County Times, which provides much more detail than you get in the occasional reports in the big dead-tree media.
For example, chew on this–from a similar case about events in Hamdania–for a minute or two:
On Thursday, attorneys for Cpl. Marshall Magincalda…lost their bid to argue that the victim was a wanted Iraqi insurgent and not a disabled, retired policeman, as prosecutors have said.
Judge Lt. Col. Eugene Robinson will allow prosecutors to remove the man’s name from the charges, effectively blocking defense attorneys from challenging who the victim really was, and whether he was a known insurgent.
The essence of both cases is an accusation that the Marines cold bloodedly murdered innocent civilians. The defense is arguing that they counter-attacked in self-defense. It strikes me as significant that the defense apparently had evidence that one of the alleged victims was a known terrorist, and not a “disabled, retired policeman” (of course he could have been both). And apparently their evidence was pretty good, since the prosecutors asked to have the victim’s name removed from the case.