Episode 7: Innocent in My Eyes

Summary

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.

Transcript

[Madeline Barron]

This episode is brought to you by Progressive Insurance. Do you ever find yourself playing the budgeting game? Well, with the name your price tool from Progressive, you can find options that fit your budget and potentially lower your bills. Try [e-mail], progressive Casualty Insurance Company and affiliates. Price and coverage match limited by state law. Not available in all states. Previously on in the Dark.

[Parker Yesko]

Oh my God. Sure it was. He was a goofball. He was very much into the pop punk. So like the sum 41 blink 182. That was his shtick. He loved that stuff.

[Madeline Barron]

He said I popped your 9 mils cherry. What did you think when he said that? What did I think? I assumed it meant that he had fucking shot someone with it.

[Samara Freemark]

So they just came out one after one and they all stood there on their grand father's front yard. You and you and you, you and you and you. They pointed at each one to go inside the house. So Ahab saying that this Marine who's claiming that this was his truth. She said that he knows the truth as she knows it. She doesn't care at all what he says.

[Madeline Barron]

One day just before Christmas in 2006, a little over a year after the killings, a Marine colonel took the podium in a drab briefing room at Camp Pendleton. On the morning of 19th November 2005.

[Parker Yesko]

A four vehicle convoy of Marines was moving through Hadithah.

[Madeline Barron]

The colonel told the press gathered in front of him that the investigations into what had happened were nearly complete. Based on the findings of the investigations.

[Parker Yesko]

Various charges have been preferred against four.

[Madeline Barron]

Marines relating to the deaths of the Iraqi civilians on 19 November 2005. These charges include murder murder charges against four marines brought by the US military itself the within its own justice system. That's the way war crimes for the most part are handled in the US in house. The first case to move through the military courts was the one against Lance Corporal Justin Sharratt, the squad's gunner who bragged about killing people Punisher style. Sherritt was charged for what had happened in that final house where the four brothers were all shot in the head. Sherritt was charged with killing three of the men. Sherritt's story about what had happened inside that house was dramatic. He described for investigators how he and his squad leader Frank Wouterich had gone into the house and had been confronted inside by armed insurgents. Sharrett had said that his assault weapon jammed so he quickly drew his 9 millimeter pistol and shot the men to save his own life. The Iraqi story of what had happened was so different from Sharratt's that the two accounts were almost irreconcilable. The surviving relatives had told us the Marines marched the four unarmed brothers away. Then they heard gunshots. They ran into the house and found the brothers, Jamal, Katan, Chasib, and Marwan lying dead. These two stories would collide in a public forum, a courtroom, and from there, they would wind their way through the opaque inner workings of the military justice system. They would climb up a hierarchy of men who'd each pass judgment until they reached a top commander who would decide which story was true. This is season three of in the Dark, an investigative podcast from the New Yorker. This season is about the killing of 24 men, women and children by US Marines in Haditha, Iraq. It's a story not just about the killings themselves, but also about the failure of the US military to bring the men responsible for them to justice. In this episode, we're going to start with the prosecution of Justin Sharratt, the first case to fall apart. Its collapse would shake the foundations of all the Haditha cases to follow. This is episode seven, Innocent in My eyes. Justin Sharrott's case began the way almost all serious military prosecutions do, with something called an Article 32 hearing. It's unique to the military justice system. Defendants get to have a kind of pretrial where both sides can present evidence to determine whether the case should go forward to a jury. The person who presides over the hearing and weighs all that evidence is a sort of judge called an investigating officer. And the way it worked in murder cases back then is the investigating officer would make a recommendation to a commander as to whether the case should go any further. Sherrod's Article 32 hearing happened at Camp Pendleton in June 2007. Newspapers across the country printed photos of Sherritt's arrival at the courthouse. He was escorted by his lawyers in their dark suits. Sherritt was wearing his combat fatigues, sleeves rolled up to his biceps, big black aviator glasses covering his eyes. Sherritt carried a binder and a stack of case documents so thick he could barely wrap his hands around them. As for what happened inside the courtroom, that was a little tricky to figure out because the military hasn't given us records of the hearing. Fortunately, we did end up finding unofficial transcripts on a now defunct webpage that was archived online. In reading through those transcripts, it was clear that prosecutors had a lot of evidence against Sherritt. There were the forensics and the photos showing that one of the men had been shot after jumping into a wardrobe, and another man had been shot while sitting or crouching on the ground. There was the fact that all four men had been shot in the head. None of this was what you'd expect to see in a life or death fight against armed enemies. There were details about who these men were, that there was no evidence that any of them had any connections to insurgents, and that, in fact, they all had regular jobs. One worked at a car dealership, one was a government engineer, one worked as a customs officer on the border with Jordan, and one was a traffic officer. And then, of course, there was the most powerful evidence of eyewitness testimony, the kind of thing that every prosecutor wants in a criminal case. People who saw what happened, who weren't themselves involved in the crime. Ehab Najla and Khalid Jamal said they'd witnessed the Marines taking the four brothers away unarmed and then heard gunshots. These Iraqi witnesses had given statements where they recounted all this in detail. The job of Sherritt's lawyers, of course, was to call all of this evidence into question. And that's exactly what they did. Those jobs the brothers had, car dealer, engineer, customs worker, traffic officer. Those, according to the defense, gave the men a grab bag of skills and resources that actually made them a, quote, ideal insurgent cell, a sort of village people of the insurgency. But what to do about the eyewitness statements, the ones that absolutely contradicted Sherritt's account that these men had pointed AK47s at them, so they had to kill them? Sherrod's lawyers brought in an expert witness to cast doubt on those statements. His name is Barack Salmoni. Salmoni worked for the Marine Corps, training Marines on Iraqi culture, and he has a doctorate in history and Middle east studies. On the stand, Somoni testified about why he thought the statements of the Iraqi witnesses, Ehab Najhl and Khalid Jamal, might not be credible. He noted that though they did give sworn statements, they weren't asked to swear an oath on the Quran itself. He suggested that because the interviews were conducted by outsiders, by non Muslims, the witnesses might have felt less compulsion to tell the truth. But what stood out to me the most about Simony's testimony was what he had to say about the value of the testimony of the Iraqi women. In particular, Simone testified that in Muslim society, traditionally, the testimony of a woman is worth half that of a man. He cautioned he wasn't necessarily saying that the testimony was half as truthful, but he did say that maybe it was less significant we wanted to ask Simony about all this, and so our producer Samara called him up.

[James Prentiss]

Go ahead.

[Barack Salmoni]

Is this Dr. Salmoni?

[Madeline Barron]

Yeah, this is he.

[Barack Salmoni]

Yes, this is Samara Freemark, the audio reporter for the New Yorker.

[Madeline Barron]

Salmoni told Samara he stood by what he said in the hearing.

[James Prentiss]

I didn't find the testimony of the.

[Madeline Barron]

Iraqis to be credible or reliable. Samara asked Salmoni about one of his claims in particular.

[Barack Salmoni]

There actually was one specific thing in your testimony I was hoping you could explain to me. I just want to make sure I was understanding it, and it has to do with the value of women and men's testimonies in Muslim societies.

[Madeline Barron]

Well, first.

[Barack Salmoni]

First read what I. Yeah, of course. Okay. Additionally, there is a question about the worth of testimony of females, not in our society, but in traditional Muslim societies.

[Madeline Barron]

Samara read back to Salmoni what he'd said at the hearing, the part where he said that in Muslim society, traditionally the testimony of a woman is worth half that of a man.

[Barack Salmoni]

And you say, I am not saying they're half as truthful as man. Maybe they may be less familiar and less significant in their testimony. And so, yeah, I was hoping you could just sort of explain where that's coming from.

[Madeline Barron]

Simone seemed almost embarrassed.

[James Prentiss]

So this is a while ago, right?

[Barack Salmoni]

This is 2006.

[Madeline Barron]

7.

[James Prentiss]

Correct. Long time ago.

[Madeline Barron]

Right.

[James Prentiss]

Hopefully I'm a little bit more mature than that. Just less hair.

[Madeline Barron]

But defended what he'd said in court. Okay.

[James Prentiss]

Traditionally, in sharia, across the different Mazaheer, it's not like it was worth half. If I understand correctly, the testimony of two women was equal to that of one man. Right.

[Madeline Barron]

Samara wondered if it was right. So she checked with two experts in Islamic law, experts from outside the Marine Corps, a professor at the University of Cincinnati's law school, Dr. Haider Allah. That's it. Borders on the outrageous. And Dr. Mohammad Fadliffe @ the University of Toronto's law school. That would be a complete misapplication of any Islamic legal doctrine. They both said the legal concept Simony was referencing was essentially an arcane provision of Islamic law dating back to medieval times, typically applied to contracts, completely inapplicable in this context. It's very poorly done by someone who, I'll say it strongly, clearly doesn't know a lot about Iraqi, contemporary Iraqi or contemporary Arab society to draw the kinds of conclusions that he does. But back at the Article 32 hearing, Simone's testimony went mostly unchallenged. Toward the end of the hearing, Sharratt himself read a statement he said that it had been his lifelong dream to enlist in the Marines. He talked about a love of country, duty, brotherhood, bravery. He gave a dramatic retelling of an intense battle in a different city, Fallujah, inside a building that came to be known as Hell House, where Sherritt said he tried to save his fellow Marines from a deadly ambush and saw his friend's head explode almost in slow motion right in front of him. When he turned to the events of November 19, 2005, Sharratt made it sound like he'd ended up in another Hell House. Blow by blow, he described defeating a pack of insurgents who'd wanted him dead. I am a disciplined Marine, he said, and I've always tried to act professionally with a civilian population. On November 19, I did exactly as I was trained to do, he went on. In the end, no matter how much I second guess myself, I would not change any of the decisions I made that day. The person whose job it was to listen to all this evidence and make a recommendation about what to do with it was a Marine lieutenant colonel named Paul Ware. Ware was what the military calls an investigating officer. His job was to oversee the hearing and then write a report about it and make a recommendation to the commander of Sherritt's unit about whether the case should go to an actual trial before a jury. Ware had never handled a war crimes case before, and now he was at the center of one of the largest war crimes cases in U.S. history. Ware was supposed to be a neutral party, but as I read over the transcripts of the Article 32 hearing, there was something that stood out to me in the way Ware had questioned some of the people on the stand. He seemed skeptical of the prosecution and sympathetic to the defense. Sometimes he almost seemed like another defense attorney, like when a friend of Sherritt's testified a Marine named James Prentiss. Prentiss was a particularly interesting witness. He was a close friend of Sherritt's, and the prosecutors brought him to the hearing because of what Prentiss had told investigators. Prentiss had said that he knew Sherritt's story about what happened inside that house wasn't true. Prentiss said Sherrod had confided in him that he'd made up the story about encountering insurgents armed with AK47s. It was all a cover story, a fiction. That was what Prentiss told the investigators. But when he testified at Sherritt's hearing, Prentiss walked it all back. Prentiss testified that actually Sherritt hadn't said it. And then Ware, the supposedly neutral arbiter, suggested something quite helpful for the defense, that maybe one of the military's own investigators had inserted this detail into Prentiss statement. Ware would go on to be the investigating officer for two more Haditha Marines, Stephen Tatum and Frank Wuderich. And prosecutors in those cases would end up sending letters to the commander written in concerned tones. Prosecutors wrote that Ware had made factual and legal errors. One pointed out that Ware lacked significant operational law experience, training or education, and lacked any experience with rules of engagement and escalation of force investigations in Iraq. As far as we could tell, Paul Ware had never given an interview about his role in the Haditha cases. But one evening our producer Samara drove out to Ware's house to see if he might talk to her. She brought along the 18 page report that Ware had written at the end of Sharratt's hearing. We'll be back after the break. Hey, it's Madeline. If you're a fan of in the Dark and you love long form storytelling and you've listened to all the serialized investigative podcasts and you've already watched everything good on Netflix, there is a wealth of stories you're going to love waiting for you at the New Yorker. Like this story published just this year by Patrick Radden Keefe, about a teen who got mixed up in the London underworld and then mysteriously fell into the Thames. In the four years since Zach's death, the family has had to confront the extent to which the boy they thought they knew had been living a double existence. None of the Brettlers had ever imagined that Zach might be moving about London, pretending to be someone else altogether. This season of in the Dark took us four years to report. You're hearing it now because the New Yorker believes in what we do. So go to newyorker.com dark and become a subscriber today. That's newyorker.com dark. Paul Ware is retired from the military. Now he lives in San Diego in a nice looking colonial style house. When Samara got there, Ware's wife came to the door.

[Parker Yesko]

You want to go there?

[Barack Salmoni]

He's trying to reach Mr. Paul Ware. Yes, what can I do for you for him? I'm a reporter and I'm working on a story about a case that he was a judge on like many, many, many years ago.

[Madeline Barron]

I don't think he's interested in making a comment.

[Barack Salmoni]

Could I talk to him directly to could. He's on a work call right now. He's on a work Call right now, but, yeah.

[Madeline Barron]

So not sure how. I don't know what. Samara could see Ware pacing around in the background, talking on a cell phone. He's been on this call for a while, but after a few minutes, he came to the door.

[Parker Yesko]

So what can I do for you?

[Madeline Barron]

Ware was wearing a Marine shirt, and his gray hair was reminiscent of a classic Marine's. High and tight, buzzed on the side, a touch longer on top.

[Parker Yesko]

What is it you're trying to accomplish?

[Barack Salmoni]

Yeah, so I'm looking back on Haditha Kasen. You know, it was this huge thing, and so it's kind of a look back on, like, what happened.

[Parker Yesko]

Well, I don't think you'll ever know what happens, because if you looked at any of my reports, the problem is.

[Barack Salmoni]

Could we sit?

[Parker Yesko]

Could we? Yeah.

[Madeline Barron]

Ware led Samara into his study and pulled out a folding chair for her.

[Parker Yesko]

I got this chair.

[Barack Salmoni]

Oh, thank you. Well, tell me how you came to the case.

[Parker Yesko]

I didn't come to the case. I was a judge in Hawaii, and.

[Madeline Barron]

Back at the time, Ware was working as a military judge in Hawaii.

[Parker Yesko]

I got a call. They said that they had a case out of Haditha and they needed. They wanted a judge.

[Madeline Barron]

Ware packed his bags and headed for Camp Pendleton in San Diego.

[Parker Yesko]

It was a good opportunity for me to come back to California. My family's in California, where he stepped.

[Madeline Barron]

Into his role as the investigating officer on Sherritt's case.

[Barack Salmoni]

What was your general impression of the evidence in the case?

[Parker Yesko]

So I think people, a lot of people think, oh, these are just, you know, Marines that went out with revenge. I think it was the narrative that the government was using. They went out for revenge after seeing their friends killed. That wasn't my take on it.

[Madeline Barron]

Samara wanted to ask Guare about how he weighed the evidence in the case, the two stories that have been put in front of him. Sharratt's story of facing down a pack of insurgents and the Iraqi story of unarmed men being led to their deaths.

[Barack Salmoni]

You've got these two different stories. They're very different. So, like, how do you weigh those two testimonies? How do you assess who you think is telling the truth?

[Parker Yesko]

Well, there's no one telling the other side, so there's.

[Barack Salmoni]

There's no way.

[Parker Yesko]

There's no one telling the other side.

[Madeline Barron]

Ware said the only eyewitnesses that day were the Marines. He said no one else actually saw what happened.

[Parker Yesko]

You're dealing with spouses of the victims or family members of the victims who aren't in the room. And so they describe an aftermath.

[Madeline Barron]

Samara pushed back on this. Najla Ehab Khalid Jamal had described witnessing the Marines marching their unarmed family members into the house where they were shot.

[Barack Salmoni]

They were eyewitnesses to that scene. The scene that they claim happened.

[Parker Yesko]

Right. If you believe them.

[Barack Salmoni]

If you believe them, yes.

[Parker Yesko]

I didn't. And if you ever read the transcripts, I don't speak, you know, Farsi, and I don't. The interpreter is Arabic. I'm not sure what. And so they, you know, they're reinterpreting it and telling us what they said. So. So I don't. I didn't find their testimony to be particularly credible.

[Samara Freemark]

So why.

[Barack Salmoni]

Why do you think those people were lying? Like, what's their incentive?

[Parker Yesko]

I don't know that they're lying. I would say that I don't think that their version of what they're saying is very credible. Why does someone have a need to not tell the truth? Is there an incentive to not tell the truth? Or is there any reason why someone wouldn't tell the truth? One of the reasons they wouldn't tell the truth is they got payments.

[Madeline Barron]

Ware was talking about the money that the survivors had received from the US military to compensate for the loss of their four family members. What the military calls condolence payments. $2,500 for each death they've been paid.

[Parker Yesko]

Off, and they don't want to give the money back.

[Madeline Barron]

Ware was suggesting that the survivors were worried about the possibility of their condolence payment being clawed back. I've never heard of such a thing happening. The condolence payments weren't contingent on a conviction. They were part of a huge program set up by the US Military that paid out millions of dollars over the course of the war for death and destruction caused by US Forces in Iraq. Ware also told Samara that he thought that the fact that the women were interviewed together by NCIS investigators rather than separately cast doubt on their credibility because, he said, they might have felt they needed to have the same story. Samara turned to a section of Ware's report that she especially wanted to ask him about. It had to do with the testimony of the defense's Middle east expert, Barack Salmoni. Salmoni had said that in Muslim society, traditionally, the testimony of a woman was worth half that of a man.

[Barack Salmoni]

Okay, so you write. Salmoni opined that women and children's statements are considered inheritably less reliable than a man's statement in Iraqi law, although such discrimination is not.

[Madeline Barron]

It appeared that in his report, Ware had taken the statement from Salmoni and run with it, Ware had written, quote, although such discrimination is not recognized in our society, the fact that these Iraqis have this cultural understanding suggests that they would believe United States authorities would likewise view their statements as less reliable and may suggest they would feel less need to be fully truthful. Wares seem to be advancing a convoluted theory that if in Iraq, women's testimony isn't taken as seriously as men's, then women in Iraq don't feel like they need to tell the truth. And so therefore women in Iraq don't tell the truth. It appeared to be an incredibly long winded way of saying don't believe Iraqi women. We read this section of Ware's report to one of the experts in Middle Eastern law we spoke to. He called it a mistaken understanding built upon a mistaken understanding. It was, he said, a bit of a mess. Samara wanted to find out from where himself, why he wrote these lines and what he was thinking.

[Barack Salmoni]

So I want to make sure I understand what you were saying with that.

[Parker Yesko]

I don't know how I can make you understand. I mean, you read it and understand it. I mean, I'm not sure what you mean.

[Barack Salmoni]

I mean, it seems to me that you're saying that we should trust the testimony of women less or of Iraqi women less because of their cultural context. I mean, I just don't know how.

[Parker Yesko]

I'm not saying that at all. That's absolutely insane. That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that they have that understanding and I say may suggest to them that they're not going to be taken as serious. That's what I'm saying.

[Barack Salmoni]

You say may suggest they would feel less need to be fully truthful. I mean, it seems like you're speaking directly to their.

[Parker Yesko]

They may feel less need to be fully truthful. These are not American women grew up in a culture that says, hey, you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and then you're taking. And your credibility is not analyzed on your gender, but it's analyzed on what you have to say. If I was told that my testimony is worth half of that of a man and that's the world I grew up in, I would not believe that another country is going to take my word, one for one, that I'm not going to be able to speak with my voice and clarity. So I don't know if those five women, if one of them has a different version of the facts, but wouldn't speak it out because they have to be collectively with other people because they, I think that they're being manipulated into a narrative.

[Barack Salmoni]

But the story they tell is very detailed and also very specific. And I've actually talked to some of them, and they're telling the same story now. It's like, why would they be lying to me?

[Parker Yesko]

You're very naive if you think that. Why would they. Very detailed, full memory under the trauma of that event. They got together and they talked about it, and they built in this narrative. And so now at this point, they could probably raise their hand and say, this is what they believe happened 100%. Because the more you talk about it and you get these details down and you. You coalesce those details with other people and then you embed it in your mind, and now you have a memory of what's going on.

[Barack Salmoni]

Yeah. I think the thing that struck me the most was there was a boy who was 14 at the time, and he describes. And he has described this in statements in the past as well. He describes, like, the separation scene. He describes the men being taken away, and he describes, like, trying to go with them and his aunt pulling him back and saying, like, no, no, no. Today you don't go with them. Like, you're a boy today, you're not a man. And it's just like, such a specific would be. Just feels like such a weird thing to just, like, fabricate, really. But like, to what end? Like, why?

[Parker Yesko]

Because at this point, you don't think, after all these times, you don't hate American Marines. That's. That's. I mean, the Marines didn't go around spreading peace and love there. They went and killed all the family members.

[Barack Salmoni]

They don't seem like they hate.

[Parker Yesko]

You. Get. I know that you've bought hook, line and sinker, the other version of it. And, hey, you haven't been out there with carrying a rifle and killing their villagers. You're going out to this reporter, and you are a tool that they can use to exact their revenge or their. The thing. That's. That's.

[Barack Salmoni]

And did you. Did you put any value on the testimony of the Iraqis.

[Parker Yesko]

On the women that told. No.

[Madeline Barron]

In his report, Ware recommended that the case go no further, that all the charges against Sharratt be dropped. Ware wrote that believing the statements of Najla Ehab Khalid Jamal and their other relatives, quote, sets a dangerous precedent and might, quote, encourage others to bear false witness against Marines. And though he noted, quote, I suspect Lance Corporal Sherritt has not been entirely truthful concerning all the events on the 19th of November, 2005. Ware chose to accept the account of the person who, if he was guilty of murder, had a bigger incentive than anyone to lie. Ware wrote. Ultimately, there was only one statement by an eyewitness to the events, Lance Corporal Sherrit. I wondered if Ehab and Najla, whose husbands had both been killed on November 19, had any idea what Paul Ware had written about them or that their statements had been dismissed so completely. So when Samara and I were in Iraq with our interpreter Aya, meeting with Ehab and Najla in Erbil, I told them about Ware's report. And so there was a report that was written by a person who was in charge of making a recommendation about whether or not Sherritt should be charged for the killing of your family. And so what this report said, what this person named Paul Ware, who wrote the report, what he said was that he doubted that the family was telling the truth, and he thought that the family might have said it because they wanted money. And he said that in Iraq, women and children's testimony is less trustworthy.

[Samara Freemark]

Oh, my God, this is so hard.

[Madeline Barron]

As Aya started translating what I was saying, Najla put her hand on her heart.

[Samara Freemark]

I think Najla is not feeling well. She's heartbroken. She said that, like, I feel like I'm dying, basically, of hearing this.

[Madeline Barron]

For much of the interview, Nigel had been quiet. Ehab had been doing most of the talking, but now all her emotion just came out. Naja spoke for a long time.

[Samara Freemark]

I will probably listen to that later on and translate it for you. They are heart. We are all heartbroken right now.

[Madeline Barron]

Aya had been working with us for several days at this point, spending many hours a day translating a lot of things that were hard to listen to. And in this moment, it was like Aya hit her limit.

[Samara Freemark]

She was. She is so devastated. So am I. Just only for hearing her struggles, just hearing about it amaz me.

[Madeline Barron]

I'm sorry. Yeah, let's take a bite.

[Barack Salmoni]

Take just a few minutes for a break.

[Samara Freemark]

Okay.

[Madeline Barron]

Later, we got what Najla said. Translated. My life was ruined, Najla told us. I was totally destroyed. You know how many plans we had for our life? Our life was beautiful. We had plans for our son. I had plans to complete my studies, to finish my university degree, but I couldn't. I had to think of my son. My nerves broke down. But I remained silent for my son's sake. I didn't want him to see me crying. The man who wrote this, she said, should face me alone. We'll be back after the break.

[Barack Salmoni]

On October 3, 1980, a bomb was detonated outside a synagogue on Copenhagen street in Paris. Three decades later, French investigators finally identified a suspect in the case, a Lebanese Canadian sociology professor living a quiet life on the outskirts of Ottawa, Canada. Is Hassan Diab guilty? Can you introduce yourself? Or is he a scapegoat? Hassan Diab from Canadaland. This is the Copernic affair. Listen wherever you get your podcast.

[Madeline Barron]

A quirk of the military justice system, a system with many, many quirks, is that important decisions in criminal cases are often made not by judges or even by lawyers, but by commanders, essentially by the defendant's boss or boss's boss, or, in the case of Sherritt, his boss's boss's boss's boss's boss's boss. So Ware's report wasn't the final word. The commanders would be. And on its way to the commander, Sherritt's case had to be reviewed by another lawyer, a lieutenant colonel named Bill Riggs. Riggs was the commander's staff lawyer. He gave guidance on all sorts of legal matters. And Riggs was required to weigh in on criminal cases, to write up a letter of advice so his boss could have two independent opinions on the evidence. In practice, these advice letters are often brief, flatly written, unemotional. Riggs letter, which we found buried in some of the court records we sued the government to get, was the exact opposite. Riggs eviscerated Ware's analysis. He underlined a variety of contradictions and fallacies. He criticized Ware for choosing to believe Sherritt's account over all others, even though Ware himself had noted that he suspected Sherritt had, quote, not been entirely truthful. Riggs argued that disputed facts deserve to be put before a jury. Riggs advised his boss, the commander, to reject Ware's recommendations. Instead, he wrote, sherritt should be tried for murder. Our producer Samara, talked briefly to Riggs. He's now a judge at a federal agency. He was friendly when she showed up at his house, but said he wouldn't grant an interview. Before Samara left, though, Riggs did very concisely get his opinion of Paul Ware on the record. Samara mentioned that she'd recently talked to Ware, and Riggs responded with a single word, Dipshit. Riggs's recommendation and Ware's recommendation, one arguing to send the case to trial, the other to drop it, both landed on the desk of the man who would decide what to do next. The man who would make this decision was the head of Marine Corps Forces Central Command, a general in charge of 65,000 Marines who later became very famous as a member of President Donald Trump's cabinet. General James Mattis Mattis was already a mythic figure in military circles. He prided himself on being a free thinker, impervious to the opinions of others. He was known as Mad Dog, warrior, monk and Chaos. His radio call sign, a biographer described him as seemingly defying basic human needs, surviving on four hours of sleep a night, drinking only water, eating freeze dried meals without warming them or rehydrating them, reading the works of Roman emperors in his spare time. In a memoir, Mattis wrote years later, he described his review of the Haditha case file, poring over it alone night after night, more than 9,000 pages, which he noted was the equivalent of two dozen books. Two months after Sherritt's Article 32 hearing, Mattis issued his decision in the form of a letter addressed to Sherritt but clearly intended for a wider audience. I have determined that the charges in your case will be dismissed, mattis wrote. I have made this decision based upon all of the evidence I've seen other decisions by commanders and most would have ended there. But Mattis continued on, veering away from the evidence in the case and towards something more like a short treatise on courage for weary troops. Mattis wrote about the brutal reality of being a Marine at war and quoted Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes. Detached reflection cannot be demanded in the face of an uplifted knife, Mattis told willingly put yourself at great risk to protect innocent civilians. Where the enemy disregards any attempt to comply with ethical norms of warfare. We exercise discipline and restraint to protect the innocent caught on the battlefield. Our way is right, but it is also difficult. With the dismissal of these charges, Mattis wrote, you may fairly conclude that you did your best to live up to the standards followed by us fighting men throughout our many wars. 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.

[Gary Myers]

We got the letter and read it and looked at each other and said what we said probably is not a credible matter.

[Madeline Barron]

That's Sherritt's defense attorney, Gary Myers. He's 80 now and semi retired after a 54 year career. But when our reporter Parker talked to him, he had no trouble remembering the moment he got Mattis letter.

[Gary Myers]

We were delighted.

[Justin Sharrett]

And you said that you and the other attorney exchanged some words that weren't fit to print. I mean, what are the words that lawyers share at that moment?

[Gary Myers]

Well, I think words to the Effect. I'm even hesitant. I said, holy, this is amazing.

[Madeline Barron]

Myers called Sherrod and his family and shared the good news. I mean.

[Gary Myers]

I mean, he was pleased. Obviously, his reaction was not as effusive as his mother, father, sister. They were ecstatic because a sense of relief just knowing this is sort of thing is behind you.

[Madeline Barron]

Myers had been working as a defense attorney for members of the military for a long time, and he'd represented other alleged war criminals. A guard from Abu Ghraib, even a radio operator from My Lai. And this letter was unusual.

[Gary Myers]

To have someone of menace'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.

[Justin Sharrett]

Have you ever had another case in which an investigating officer or a judge or a convening authority, anyone has, in writing deemed your client innocent?

[Gary Myers]

Never. Never. It's just not. The idea of innocence is not a concept that is even thought about in criminal settings. Not guilty is not innocent.

[Justin Sharrett]

It is a word you don't often hear in a criminal court context.

[Gary Myers]

Well, you hear it, but from people who don't understand what they're saying.

[Justin Sharrett]

Do you think Mattis understood?

[Gary Myers]

Oh, there's no doubt in my mind that that was a message he sent. Mattis, you know, is a quintessential Marine in a sense of being a warrior. And he's a guy who, I think, truly loves the Marine Corps and the people in it. And he. He wasn't about allow an injustice to stand. And the best way to do that was declare that there was no crime here. Case is over.

[Madeline Barron]

The end of Sherritt's case also meant the end of any accountability for what happened to the four brothers. Prosecutors had initially also charged the squad leader, Frank Wuderich, for one of those killings. But after General Mattis dropped the case against Sherritt, prosecutors withdrew that charge against Wouterich. No one would ever be tried for killing Jamal, Jassib, Katan, and Marwan. We tried to reach Mattis, but he never responded. In 2017, when he was profiled in the New Yorker, the topic of Haditha came up. You can't criminalize every mistake, Mattis said. Bad things happen in war. You have to have a degree of humanity when you're given the authority to lock your own troops up in jail for the rest of their life because they have the guts to volunteer to go into that situation. Not long after Mattis dismissed his case, Sharratt gave an interview to Frontline. Personally, Sharratt Said, I think I did everything perfectly that day. He added, the way the system worked for me, I thought it worked pretty well. A couple weeks later, Sharratt received an honorable discharge from the U.S. marine Corps. One of the first things I did when I started reporting on Haditha was. Was look up Justin Sharad on Facebook. His photos were visible to the public. There are pictures from his time in the Marines, including a few of Miguel Terrazas, who'd been killed by the IED on November 19, and terrazzas memorial service a few days later. But mostly, Sherritt posted pictures of his car, a blue 1969 GTO convertible with a black racing stripe. He'd posted some videos of the car on YouTube.

[James Prentiss]

This is Justin here. Figure today is a good day. It's nice enough out. I'll give you a walk around of my. My gto. So it's got the hideaway headlights. They work with a little motor that I made.

[Madeline Barron]

Sherrod had tricked it out in all sorts of custom ways so I can.

[James Prentiss]

Adjust my ride height with the airbags and the coil springs.

[Madeline Barron]

He'd added neon blue underglow lights to the bottom and blue lights on the dashboard.

[James Prentiss]

But I did blue LED back spacing.

[Madeline Barron]

I imagined him driving around in it near his home in rural Pennsylvania, top down, glowing like a blue lava lamp blasting Blink 182. I knew that at some point, I'd need to try to reach Justin Sharritt. But one day back when we were just starting our reporting and we were out talking to Marines from 3 1.

[Gary Myers]

Hello.

[Madeline Barron]

We're working on this audio project on something that happened at our producers, Natalie and Raymond heard something.

[James Prentiss]

So I don't know if you guys remember, Sharon. He was part of the investigation, Right? He just killed himself last year.

[Madeline Barron]

What?

[James Prentiss]

Yeah.

[Madeline Barron]

Oh, my God.

[James Prentiss]

About a year ago.

[Madeline Barron]

Really?

[James Prentiss]

Yeah.

[Madeline Barron]

Wow. I had no idea.

[James Prentiss]

Yeah.

[Madeline Barron]

Oh, my gosh. I'm sorry to hear that.

[James Prentiss]

Yeah.

[Madeline Barron]

According to a coroner's report, Sharratt died sitting in his office chair at the computer desk in his basement. His sister told the coroner that he had PTSD and that the family had always worried that he would commit suicide. She told the coroner that he'd actually been hospitalized during high school for suicidal thoughts. Not long after that, he deployed to Iraq. Justin Sharrett had used a 9 millimeter to shoot Jassib Katan. And then Jamal. Nearly 20 years later, he used a 9 millimeter to shoot himself. He left no note saying why. At the time of his death, Sharrott was living in southwest Pennsylvania. He bought his grandmother's small white and green house located out on a road with a couple other families who, like Sharratt's, had been there for generations. He was divorced and lived there by himself. After we learned of Sharratt's death, our reporter Parker went to Pennsylvania to try to talk to people who Sherritt was close with. It had been a little over a year since he died. Parker knocked on the doors of neighbors who'd known him since he was a kid. They described Sharratt as reserved. They said he spent a lot of time at home tinkering on his car and shooting his pistols into the woods. They said he often drank too much, usually miller lite. Parker found his co workers. He'd been a jail guard and an underground coal miner and a nighttime electrician at a mill owned by US Steel. They told Parker that Sharrott was extremely good at mechanical things and electrical things and that he almost never talked about his time in the service. She found people in his car club who'd hang out with him at meets. Sharritt would be sitting there in his GTO with a hood up. They admired Sharrott's wrenching skills and they threw a rowdy memorial for him after he died.

[James Prentiss]

Justin was here for us. Every one of you, get to your cars. Fire that shit up.

[Madeline Barron]

It makes the fucking noise. Several hundred revved their engines all at once. One actually caught on fire. And the friend who'd driven Sharratt's GTO to the gathering used Sharratt's own fire extinguisher to put it out. Parker learned that Sherritt rarely talked to anyone about that day in Haditha. She met several close friends of Sharratt's who hadn't even heard about the incident until they googled him after he died. Sherritt's shift partner at US Steel, an electrician named Justin Schultz, a guy Sharrett spent hours with every workday, was one of the only people who Sharrett talked to about that day in Haditha. Schulz said the conversation was brief.

[James Prentiss]

He was not ashamed.

[Madeline Barron]

I mean, it was what it was. He was never ashamed, never expressed regret for it.

[James Prentiss]

He just. It was a job and he had to do it.

[Madeline Barron]

There was one person who we knew Sherrit had talked to and who we knew we should talk to, too.

[Gary Myers]

Hello?

[Justin Sharrett]

Hey, James, it's Parker.

[Parker Yesko]

Oh, hi.

[James Prentiss]

How are you?

[Justin Sharrett]

Good. How you doing?

[Madeline Barron]

James Prentice, Sherritt's old friend and fellow Marine who testified at Sherritt's Article 32 hearing. He's the guy who was expected to give damning testimony about how Sherritt's story of how the four brothers were killed was made up a fiction, but who on the stand walked it all back? And then the investigating officer, Paul Ware, had suggested that the military's own investigators had inserted that detail in Prentiss statement. Prentice had never talked to a reporter about any of this. Parker met him at his apartment complex and followed up with him later on the phone.

[Justin Sharrett]

Yeah, I, like, wanted to ask you about.

[Madeline Barron]

And Prentiss started telling her a story that we hadn't heard before. Back in 2005, Sharrott and Prentiss were best friends. They'd met right after boot camp when they were still teenagers. They'd survived Fallujah together. They'd become so close that even their moms were close.

[James Prentiss]

His mom talked to my mom all the time.

[Madeline Barron]

Their moms kept in touch while their sons were overseas.

[James Prentiss]

If he was able to call before I did, his mom would call my mom and say, oh, they're okay.

[Madeline Barron]

After Fallujah, when they got back to Camp Pendleton, they spent a ton of time hanging out together. They covertly swapped the room assignments posted on the barracks doors so they could bunk together. They watched Dazed and Confused and the Big Lebowski. They listened to Blink 182 and built a beer pong table out of plywood.

[James Prentiss]

I used to have, like, big tournaments with, like, everybody in the barracks room in there. That place would be a disaster the next day.

[Madeline Barron]

They went on spring break together and got arrested for underage drinking together.

[James Prentiss]

We spent the night in jail. I paid for both of us to get out.

[Madeline Barron]

Then a few months later, they headed back to Iraq together to Haditha. On November 19, 2005, Prentiss wasn't in Sherritt's squad. He wasn't there when the IED exploded and killed Miguel Terrazas. But he was sent to the scene later on.

[James Prentiss]

Everything had pretty much calmed down by then. It was dark.

[Madeline Barron]

He spotted his buddy Sherrod on the street.

[James Prentiss]

I kind of, like, saw him, and, you know, and then, you know, he saw me, and, you know, kind of, like, asked him, like, are you okay? Or whatever.

[Madeline Barron]

The two friends stood near the hood of one of the Humvees and chatted for just a few minutes.

[James Prentiss]

I asked him, like, what happened? And then that's when he told me he wasn't. He didn't, like, volunteer the information to me. I asked what happened, and then that's when he started talking.

[Madeline Barron]

And then Prentiss told Parker what Sharrott.

[James Prentiss]

Had said it, told me that after the IED went off and they kind of assessed the situation there as far as who was wounded and everything, that they went to the nearby houses and cleared those. And then. And then he had told me about the guy that he shot, like point blank range. And he was just standing there. And then they were going to come up with a story. That Guy aimed the AK47 at him, and then that his M249 jammed, and that's why he had to use the pistol.

[Justin Sharrett]

He's essentially saying that the idea that an AK40 was pointed at me, we made that up. That was something he made up.

[James Prentiss]

Yeah, that's what they were gonna say.

[Justin Sharrett]

Did he say why he shot the guy if the guy Wasn't pointing an AK47 at him?

[James Prentiss]

No. I mean, not directly. I mean, I can kind of assume that, you know, because I know that, you know, they got hit with that IED and everything, and, you know, I don't know if that's, you know, they were upset about what happened and that was part of their retaliation or whatever, but. But he never, like, directly, you know, told me, like, I just shot him for this reason, whatever it was.

[Madeline Barron]

Prentiss ended up telling NCIS investigators about his conversation with Sharrott. He was afraid he'd get in trouble if he didn't. But after that, things snowballed. He had to give a deposition to prosecutors who clearly thought he'd be a good witness for their side. And Prentice met with Sherritt's lawyers, who made it clear to him that what he'd said to NCIS was really not good for his friend Justin. The fallout seemed to spread.

[James Prentiss]

My mom had called his mom, and when she answered the phone, she told my mom, it's not a good idea we talk to each other anymore.

[Justin Sharrett]

Did you say why?

[James Prentiss]

No, but it was kind of implied because at this point, you know, I guess in their mind, like, I'm against their son.

[Madeline Barron]

Prentiss had re upped his contract with the Marines during this time and was preparing for a third deployment to Iraq. One day, Prentiss ran into Sharrott. Their platoon was about to ship out. Sharrott was staying behind.

[James Prentiss]

He came by where our platoon was and kind of talked to everybody. And I remember trying to talk to him, and he just kind of, like, ignored me, like, acting like I wasn't there.

[Justin Sharrett]

And what'd you say to him?

[James Prentiss]

I don't remember, like, word for it now, but kind of like, hey, how's it going? Or something like that, and I remember he kind of, like, looked at me and then just, like, looked away.

[Justin Sharrett]

Said nothing?

[James Prentiss]

No.

[Madeline Barron]

Prentiss left for Iraq with a sense of unease. But he tried to put the Haditha business out of his mind. And he did mostly forget about it until the middle of the night. One night, Prentiss was working guard duty near Lake Tartar, where Saddam Hussein had had a palace, when the commanding officer of his company appeared and ordered him into a Humvee.

[James Prentiss]

We went back to the battalion firm base. Still didn't tell me what was going on. I thought I was in trouble for something.

[Madeline Barron]

A Marine Corps lawyer took Prentiss to a room with a chair and a phone.

[James Prentiss]

He said, you're going to go in this room. The phone is going to ring, and you're going to answer it.

[Madeline Barron]

Eventually, the phone rang, and Prentiss listened as the investigating officer, Paul Ware, introduced himself. It was at about this moment that Prentiss realized what was happening. He was on speakerphone in a courtroom in Camp Pendleton, where it was daytime and where his friend Justin Sharrett was sitting, facing murder charges and listening.

[James Prentiss]

And then I can hear another voice. They told me to stand up and raise my right hand. And I remember kind of looking around and going, well, I'm not doing that.

[Justin Sharrett]

So you didn't?

[James Prentiss]

No. And I figured, it doesn't really matter. No one can see me.

[Madeline Barron]

Then Prentiss was asked to repeat what he told ncis, that Sherritt had told him about the killings and had told him about making up a cover story. Words that he knew could help send his friend to prison. Prentiss mind drifted back to the meeting that he'd had with Sherritt's defense attorneys before he'd return to Iraq. He told Parker that they'd suggested something that seemed like a way out. But maybe what was in Prentiss's written statement to NCIS wasn't accurate. Then maybe the statement was wrong. And if so, Prentice could just say that.

[James Prentiss]

They didn't really say, like, this is what you have to do, but if you more or less, if you did this, then it would help.

[Justin Sharrett]

And did that. Did the idea that you could help your friend at this point, like, did that at that moment appeal to you?

[James Prentiss]

Yeah. I mean, I didn't want anything to happen to him. So if there was a way I could help, that you were, like, you.

[Justin Sharrett]

Were willing to do what you could at that point to maybe soften the blow of what you had said or.

[James Prentiss]

You know, I really didn't want anything to happen to Sharon.

[Madeline Barron]

And so that's what Prentiss was thinking about. As he testified, he started walking back what he'd said to ncis. He tried to undo it bit by bit, right up to the moment when Sharratt's lawyer asked. Just to make this clear, he did not say he was making up a story or would make up a story or had made up a story, but rather that was his story. Instead of telling the truth, Prentiss found himself saying yes. Back when Sharrott told Prentiss about what he had done that day. Didn't really faze Prentiss. He said the conversation was basically matter of fact, just one Marine describing a kill to another Marine. But Prentice said, thinking back on it now, it was obvious Sharon knew he'd done something bad.

[James Prentiss]

If you think that you didn't do anything wrong, then you wouldn't have to come up with a story to cover up something.

[Justin Sharrett]

Right. And what do you think it was that he thought or knew that he knew he'd done wrong?

[James Prentiss]

Well, I mean, if he shot somebody that was unarmed, I mean, that's like, you know, against the Geneva Convention and all that stuff, so.

[Justin Sharrett]

And presumably he, like, would have known that.

[Madeline Barron]

Prentice told Parker that at the time he walked back the truth at Sherritt's Article 32 hearing. He didn't have much sympathy for the people Sherritt had killed.

[James Prentiss]

At the time. I didn't really care, I mean, to be honest.

[Justin Sharrett]

Yeah.

[James Prentiss]

And I know the Marine Corps does a pretty good job of, like, brainwashing us and which I can kind of see now. And at the time, like, anyone that was, like, Middle Eastern looking or whatever, I had a pretty big prejudice against.

[Madeline Barron]

It wasn't until his third and last deployment, the one he'd just begun when he testified, that Prentiss said he started to see things differently.

[James Prentiss]

They sent us on this assault on this village that we were told was, like, this big insurgency area. And the intelligence we were given was that their cover was that they were fishermen. They said they. They'll say that they're fishermen. And we get to this village and it's literally full of fishermen. Like, every, like every house has, like, fishing gear in it, nets and tackle and all that kind of stuff. And I think we found one AK47 in the entire place. And you can tell it was old and probably hadn't even been used in years. I was like, what are we doing?

[Justin Sharrett]

And so what ended up happening with the fishermen?

[James Prentiss]

Oh, nothing. They just left.

[Madeline Barron]

Not long after returning from Iraq, Prentiss got out of the Marines.

[James Prentiss]

I think the third deployment kind of made me see more of, like, the humanity there than I had before. Like, that veil of everyone there is like evil was kind of, I guess, lifted.

[Gary Myers]

Mm.

[Justin Sharrett]

And what did you, what did you see when the veil was lifted is.

[James Prentiss]

That these are people that are just trying to live their life.

[Madeline Barron]

Just fishermen, just car dealers, engineers, traffic officers and customs workers. Just fathers, uncles, brothers. And the people they left behind. Ehab Najla and Khalid Jamal would never get justice for the deaths of their family members. Sharrett's story had won, but the other survivors still had a chance. That's next time on in the Dark. If you're having suicidal thoughts, you can call or text the number 988 to reach the Suicide and Crisis Lifeline. There's also a veterans crisis line that you can reach by dialing that same number 988, and then pressing 1. More resources are available online by going to 988lifeline.org or veteranscrisisline.net. if you want to listen to episode 8 right now ad free, you can do that by subscribing to the New Yorker subscribers. Get the remaining episodes ad free a week early. Go to newyorker.com dark to subscribe and listen. Now in the Dark is reported and produced by me, Madeline Barron, managing producer Samara Freemark, producers Natalie Jablonsky and Raymond Tungakar, and reporter Parker Yesko. In the Dark is edited by Catherine Winter and Willing Davidson. Interpreting in Iraq by Aya Muth. Additional interpreting and translation by Aya Lshakarchi. Additional translation by Shereen Khalid. This episode was fact checked by Linnea Feldman Emerson Original music by Alison Layton Brown. Additional music by Chris Julen. Our theme is by Gary Meister, sound design and mix by John Delor. Our art is by Emiliano Ponzi, art direction by Nicholas Conrad and Aviva Michaelov. FOIA legal representation from the FOIA team at Lovie and Lovie Legal Review by Fabio Bertoni. In the Dark was created by American Public Media and is produced by the New Yorker. Our managing editor is Julia Rothschild. The head of global audio for Conde Nast is Chris Bannon. The editor of the New Yorker is David Remnick. If you have comments or story tips, you can send them to us at inthe dark@new yorker.com and make sure to follow in the Dark wherever you get your podcasts.

[James Prentiss]

I'm Vincent Cunningham.

[Madeline Barron]

I'm Alex Schwartz. And I'm Nomi Frye. And we're critics at large. The New Yorker's flagship culture podcasts.

[Gary Myers]

Flagship, flagship.

[Madeline Barron]

Love that. We want to invite you to a.

[James Prentiss]

Special live event that's coming right up.

[Madeline Barron]

On March 11th at the bell House in Brooklyn. We're doing a show about a classic conundrum for critics. What happens when you write a review and you get it wrong? We will be looking back at some of the classic pieces of New Yorker criticism that may have missed the mark, like, for example, a scathing review that declared the wizard of Oz a stinkeroo marred by eye straining. Technicolor, not a stinkeroo. Oh, yes. And of course, we will also talk about critics who got it right as well. So if you're in New York or if you feel like traveling, come see us live at the bell House on March 11th. You can buy tickets at thebellhouse ny.com we'll see you there.

[Barack Salmoni]

From PRX.