In The Dark: Episode 7 - "Innocent in My Eyes" Detailed Summary

Released September 3, 2024 by The New Yorker

Introduction

"Innocent in My Eyes," the seventh episode of In The Dark, delves deep into one of the most controversial and complex cases in U.S. military history: the prosecution and eventual exoneration of Lance Corporal Justin Sharratt for the killings of four Iraqi civilians in Haditha, Iraq, on November 19, 2005. Hosted by Madeleine Baran, this episode meticulously unpacks the intricacies of the military justice system, the conflicting narratives surrounding the incident, and the profound impact on both the victims' families and the accused Marines.

The Haditha Incident and Initial Response

On November 19, 2005, a tragic event unfolded in Haditha, Iraq, where a U.S. Marine convoy encountered a roadside bomb, resulting in casualties. In the aftermath, four Iraqi brothers—Jamal, Katan, Chasib, and Marwan—were killed by Marines, leading to allegations of war crimes.

[00:52] Sharratt recounts an unsettling statement: "I popped your 9 mils cherry." Initially perceived as a threat, this remark underscores the tension and the blurred lines between camaraderie and hostility in combat zones.

Article 32 Hearing and Prosecution of Justin Sharratt

The military justice process began with an Article 32 hearing—a pretrial proceeding unique to the military system designed to determine whether sufficient evidence exists to merit a court-martial.

[00:27] Parker Yesko describes Sharratt as a "goofball" passionate about pop-punk bands like Sum 41 and Blink-182, painting a picture of a relatable, albeit complex individual.

During the hearing at Camp Pendleton in June 2007, substantial evidence was presented against Sharratt:

• Forensic Evidence: Photos indicated that one victim was shot after jumping into a wardrobe, and another while seated, all executed with a 9-millimeter pistol—a deviation from expected combat engagements.

• Victims' Profiles: The victims were unarmed civilians with no insurgent affiliations, contradicting Sharratt's account of facing armed insurgents.

• Eyewitness Testimonies: Iraqi witnesses, Ehab Najla and Khalid Jamal, claimed they saw Marines march the brothers away unarmed before hearing gunshots.

Defense Strategies and Controversial Testimonies

Sharratt's defense challenged the credibility of the Iraqi testimonies, introducing Barack Salmoni—a Marine Corps Middle Eastern culture expert.

[06:07] Salmoni suggested cultural factors could undermine the reliability of female witnesses: "In Muslim society, traditionally, the testimony of a woman is worth half that of a man." This assertion was later debunked by Islamic law experts, revealing misunderstandings of cultural and legal norms.

[09:16] Despite these defenses, questionable motivations were implied, such as the possibility of survivors seeking financial compensation through "condolence payments."

Lieutenant Colonel Paul Ware's Involvement and Recommendations

Paul Ware, the investigating officer overseeing Sharratt's hearing, faced scrutiny for his handling of the case:

• Bias Concerns: Transcript analyses revealed Ware exhibited skepticism towards prosecution evidence and seemed sympathetic to the defense, potentially undermining his neutrality.

• Handling of Witnesses: Ware questioned the credibility of Iraqi women witnesses, a stance later criticized by legal experts as a misinterpretation of Islamic law.

[19:00] Parker Yesko recounts Ware's assertion: "You're dealing with spouses of the victims or family members of the victims who aren't in the room." This perspective downplays firsthand accounts from those directly affected.

Independent Review by Lieutenant Colonel Bill Riggs

Lieutenant Colonel Bill Riggs, a Marine Corps lawyer, provided an independent assessment that starkly contrasted Ware's recommendations.

• Critique of Ware's Analysis: Riggs identified "various contradictions and fallacies" in Ware's report, emphasizing the need for a jury to evaluate disputed facts.

• Recommendation for Trial: Contrary to Ware's advice to dismiss charges, Riggs advocated for Sharratt to be tried for murder, highlighting deficiencies in Ware's approach.

[17:29] When approached for comment, Riggs bristled at Ware's handling, dismissively referring to him as a "dipshit."

General James Mattis' Decision and Its Implications

General James Mattis, then head of Marine Corps Forces Central Command, ultimately made the pivotal decision to dismiss charges against Sharratt.

• Extensive Review: Mattis personally reviewed over 9,000 pages of the case file, exemplifying the weight he placed on this decision.

• Dismissal Letter: In his letter, Mattis not only dismissed the charges but also declared Sharratt "innocent," a rare and unprecedented move in military justice.

  [38:38] Gary Myers, Sharratt's defense attorney, remarked: "To have someone of Mattis's position declare not only that he's not going forward with the proceedings, but, oh, by the way, I believe you are absolutely innocent. That's really fairly remarkable."

• Philosophical Underpinnings: Mattis emphasized the challenges faced by Marines in combat, asserting the necessity of "discipline and restraint to protect the innocent."

Impact on Najla Ehab and Khalid Jamal

The dismissal of charges left the families of the deceased without justice.

• Emotional Toll: Najla expressed profound heartbreak upon learning of Ware's report, saying, "I feel like I'm dying, basically, of hearing this."

• Loss of Trust: The military's rejection of eyewitness testimonies based on flawed cultural assumptions eroded trust between the Iraqi community and U.S. forces.

Sharratt's Life After Exoneration

Following his exoneration:

• Honorable Discharge: Sharratt received an honorable discharge from the Marine Corps, signaling official closure to his service.

• Personal Struggles: Despite outward appearances—such as showcasing his customized 1969 GTO convertible—Sharratt battled internal demons, culminating in his suicide nearly two decades later.

  [44:55] A coroner's report revealed Sharratt died from a self-inflicted gunshot wound, leaving behind a legacy marked by unresolved trauma.

Interactions with James Prentiss

James Prentiss, a fellow Marine and friend of Sharratt, played a crucial role in the unraveling of the case.

• Initial Testimony: Prentiss initially supported the prosecution, claiming Sharratt fabricated the story of facing insurgents.

• Pressure and Retraction: Under military pressure and legal advice, Prentiss recanted his statements, leading to Ware questioning the reliability of his deposition.

  [54:38] Parker Yesko notes Prentiss' struggle in maintaining his testimony amidst competing narratives and personal relationships.

• Redemption through Service: On his final deployment, Prentiss began to question prior prejudices and recognized the humanity of the Iraqi civilians, reflecting a profound personal transformation.

Conclusion

"Innocent in My Eyes" offers a compelling exploration of the complexities inherent in military justice, the fraught intersection of duty and morality, and the enduring scars left on all parties involved. Through meticulous investigation and heartfelt testimonies, the episode underscores the imperative for accountability and the profound human cost of war.

Notable Quotes

• Sharratt at Article 32 Hearing [02:10]: "I am a disciplined Marine, and I've always tried to act professionally with a civilian population."

• Barack Salmoni [09:55]: "Maybe they may be less familiar and less significant in their testimony."

• Gary Myers [38:28]: "To have someone of Mattis's position declare not only that he's not going forward with the proceedings, but, oh, by the way, I believe you are absolutely innocent. That's really fairly remarkable."

• General James Mattis in Letter [38:38]: "In the face of life or death decisions made by you in a matter of seconds in combat, you remain in the eyes of the law and in my eyes, innocent."

• Najla [30:50]: "My life was ruined. I was totally destroyed. I had plans for my son. I had to think of my son. ... I remain silent for my son's sake."

Implications and Reflections

The episode not only chronicles the specifics of the Haditha case but also serves as a broader commentary on the challenges of seeking justice within hierarchical and often opaque systems. It raises critical questions about truth, accountability, and the moral responsibilities of those in power.

In "Innocent in My Eyes," The New Yorker continues its tradition of award-winning investigative journalism, shedding light on stories that demand public attention and introspection.