Haditha Update: LtCol Chessani and LCpl Sharratt Results of the Article 32

The investigating officers (IO) for LtCol Chessani and LCpl Sharratt have returned with their recommendations. In LtCol Chessani’s case the recommendation is to continue to a court-martial for dereliction of duty. In LCpl Sharratt’s case it is recommended that no charged be sent to court-martial.

The charges against LtCol Chessani stem from his alleged failure to investigate the deaths in Haditha. The report stated that LtCol Chessani “failed to thoroughly and accurately report and investigate a combat engagement that clearly needed scrutiny.” His Article 32 investigation was filled with some interesting events. Including the chief-of-staff invoking his 5th Amendment privilege and refusing to testify. LtCol Chessani explained that he did not feel a need to investigate, because his “men are not murderers!”

The case against LCpl Sharratt could be over if the commanding general, Gen Mattis, accepts the recommendations of the investigating officer. The investigating officer indicated that he deemed the Marines more credible than the residents of Haditha, who said the killings were executions. There were numerous problems with the evidence in this case, including NCIS losing a briefcase seized at the scene that contained AK-47 rifles and Jordanian passports.

Thus far in the Haditha matter, we have had the following Article 32 investigations:

  • Capt Stone – IO recommends no charges and superiors failed to act on the same information.
  • LCpl Sharratt – IO recommends no charges.
  • LtCol Chessani – IO recommends charges for dereliction of duty.

It is interesting to compare the outcomes with the investigating officers. In the case of Capt Stone and LCpl Sharratt, the investigating officers, Maj Mann and LtCol Ware were both judge advocates (lawyers in the Marine Corps). In the case of LtCol Chessani, the IO was Col Conlin, an infantry officer and former battalion commander. Take this into consideration before comparing this to the Duke case.

yojoe out

4 Responses

  1. […] by yojoe     16Jul07 is day one of LCpl Tatum’s Article 32 investigation.  Given the success that Cpl Sharratt had with LtCol Ware as his Article 32 investigator, it appears that LCpl Tatum’s lawyers are using […]

  2. Two interesting things that I haven’t noticed in my readings; the lost exculpatory evidence, and Col Conlin’s MOS. There’s always room to judge the decisions made by others after the fact without the concurrent demands of command. If he gets a fair court, he’ll walk. Then I hope he sues the ass off of Time Inc for slander, before they go broke under their own steam.

  3. It’s a black eye, whether deserved or not. Someone’s going to trial, and I’d rather it be the commander on a DD count than a LCPL on murder.

    I’m with Casca though – I expect that – so long as there are peers on the court who themselves have seen the wolf – Chessani gets off, or at the very worst gets some adverse paper.

    There are all kinds of risks to command.

  4. […] violation of the UCMJ. That is the jargon. Essentially LtCol Chessani is facing three charges. The results of LtCol Chessani’s Article 32 recommenced charged proceed to court-martial for dereliction of duty. The investigating officer […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: