Picture courtesy of BBC

 

Two US marines have been implicated in the infamous Haditha massacre during the Iraq war in 2005, according to newly uncovered evidence. An investigation by BBC Eye, supported by forensic expert Michael Maloney, sheds light on previously unexamined details of the incident, pointing the finger at these marines who were never brought to trial. The lack of accountability for such a significant crime raises critical questions about justice within the US military framework.

 

On 19 November 2005, US marines raided the Iraqi town of Haditha following a roadside bomb attack that killed a marine. Their response led to the deaths of 24 Iraqi civilians, including four women and six children. Among the dead was the family of a then 13-year-old Safa Younes, who miraculously survived by feigning death. This shocking event garnered global attention, yet despite it being the longest US war crimes investigation of the Iraq war, no convictions were made.

 

Statements from two involved marines, Lance Corporals Humberto Mendoza and Stephen Tatum, suggest direct involvement in the killings. Mendoza, in a recorded testimony, admitted to shooting Safa's father, acknowledging he was unarmed. Meanwhile, Tatum, after initially denying awareness of the women and children, later confessed to firing at them, describing one shot child vividly in his statements to investigators.

 

These revelations have profound implications. Michael Maloney, a forensic expert, used crime scene photos from the time to deduce that two marines had entered the bedroom where Safa's family died. His analysis suggests Mendoza was the first shooter, with Tatum following and firing repeatedly across the room. These findings significantly contrast with the original investigation's focus on squad leader Staff Sergeant Frank Wuterich, who ultimately faced a minor charge unrelated to the killings.

 

The failure to prosecute anyone meaningfully for the massacre has sparked criticism of the US military justice process. Both defence and prosecution teams have described the case's handling, particularly the decision to grant immunity to several marines in exchange for testimony, as deeply flawed. Haytham Faraj, Wuterich's military lawyer, likened the outcome to a "slap on the wrist," urging a re-examination of how such investigations are conducted.

 

Key Takeaways:

 

• BBC Eye investigation ties two marines to the Haditha massacre.
• Forensic analysis supports their presence and action in the killings.
• No convictions highlight flaws in the military justice system.

 

Read more World News HERE

 

  Adapted by ASEAN Now from BBC 2025-11-18

 

 

American history repeating itself.

Another My Lai.

Shameful cover-up on all levels.

Calley/Medina.

Tatum/Mendoza.

This is so bizarre you couldn't make it up.

18 minutes ago, DaddyWarbucks said:

American history repeating itself.

Another My Lai.

Shameful cover-up on all levels.

Calley/Medina.

Tatum/Mendoza.

This is so bizarre you couldn't make it up.

Nothing of the sort.

The BBC is presenting its biased opinion.  The house was identified as a hostile target. AK47s were found in the dwelling were they not? There may very well have been non combatant deaths, and it is unfortunate. Innocent people die in war zones, especially when the locals plant IEDs and snipe at their opponents.

 

It is easy 20 years later to interpret events and circumstances in a negative manner. The reality of combat zones is that people die and often they are not directly involved in the conflict. The marines did not state that they intended to murder anyone. They fired into the  dwelling because it was an active target. Warzones are high stress. Easy to point a finger when one has never been in a combat zone or in a hostile encounter. It's not like in the movies where you can easily identify the enemy and return fire from a safe position. You are usually scrambling not to get splattered and trying not to be a target for the snipers.

Trump will pardon any who might get convicted, like he already did with convicted US war criminals. 

21 hours ago, Patong2021 said:

Nothing of the sort.

The BBC is presenting its biased opinion.  The house was identified as a hostile target. AK47s were found in the dwelling were they not? There may very well have been non combatant deaths, and it is unfortunate. Innocent people die in war zones, especially when the locals plant IEDs and snipe at their opponents.

 

It is easy 20 years later to interpret events and circumstances in a negative manner. The reality of combat zones is that people die and often they are not directly involved in the conflict. The marines did not state that they intended to murder anyone. They fired into the  dwelling because it was an active target. Warzones are high stress. Easy to point a finger when one has never been in a combat zone or in a hostile encounter. It's not like in the movies where you can easily identify the enemy and return fire from a safe position. You are usually scrambling not to get splattered and trying not to be a target for the snipers.

Evidence that the BBC is presenting its biased opinion?

21 minutes ago, Card said:

Evidence that the BBC is presenting its biased opinion?

The BBC producers have presented their interpretation of events using statements and testimony given in the aftermath of the killings. These producers are not qualified  forensic investigators and have no experience with battle condition incidents. They did not examine the incident  location and all of the evidence that was gathered.

As a reminder, eight marines were charged charged in these killings. however, the charges against six were dropped or dismissed,  one was acquitted, and one was guilty of improper conduct. The evidence, and there was a lot of it, was not sufficient to support the charges. Investigating officer Lt. Col. Paul Ware observed that  "The evidence was contradictory, the forensic analysis  limited and almost all the witnesses have an obvious bias or prejudice".  The BBC has relied on one NCIS team's interpretation of events. Other investigators did not agree with that interpretation. No mention of the alternative interpretation is offered by the BBC.

 

I am not saying, that this was an appropriate  shooting.  On the contrary, it is evident that the officer leadership was deficient and that there may have been  inadequate supervision of the  marines. However, there is inadequate evidence to support the  claim the marines pulled up that day, with the intent of undertaking a massacre as the BBC is intimating. The BBC producers ignore that  Haditha was in an active war zone, and the marines had already taken fire that day with casualties. The dead were the unfortunate collateral damage that occurs in war zones.

 

 

On 11/18/2025 at 10:27 AM, DaddyWarbucks said:

American history repeating itself.

Another My Lai.

Shameful cover-up on all levels.

Calley/Medina.

Tatum/Mendoza.

This is so bizarre you couldn't make it up.

Remember Abu Ghraib in Iraq where the US tortured and killed Iraqis, mostly civilians. The US military created 11+ investigations, all separated from each other, to obfuscate the responsibility of senior officers.  This Wiki has huge detail but overlooks this aspect, although the responsibility at the top of the chain is thoroughly discussed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_torture_and_prisoner_abuse

On 11/18/2025 at 10:53 AM, Patong2021 said:

Nothing of the sort.

The BBC is presenting its biased opinion.  The house was identified as a hostile target. AK47s were found in the dwelling were they not? There may very well have been non combatant deaths, and it is unfortunate. Innocent people die in war zones, especially when the locals plant IEDs and snipe at their opponents.

 

It is easy 20 years later to interpret events and circumstances in a negative manner. The reality of combat zones is that people die and often they are not directly involved in the conflict. The marines did not state that they intended to murder anyone. They fired into the  dwelling because it was an active target. Warzones are high stress. Easy to point a finger when one has never been in a combat zone or in a hostile encounter. It's not like in the movies where you can easily identify the enemy and return fire from a safe position. You are usually scrambling not to get splattered and trying not to be a target for the snipers.

Congratulations... You are the perfect example of a biased opinion

50 minutes ago, placnx said:

Remember Abu Ghraib in Iraq where the US tortured and killed Iraqis, mostly civilians. The US military created 11+ investigations, all separated from each other, to obfuscate the responsibility of senior officers.  This Wiki has huge detail but overlooks this aspect, although the responsibility at the top of the chain is thoroughly discussed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_torture_and_prisoner_abuse

For sure.

Many examples could be given. The list would be long.

I just picked My Lai because I was of draft age when it happened and the incident forever changed the way I saw my own country.

We were no longer the "Good guys".

53 minutes ago, ujayujay said:

Congratulations... You are the perfect example of a biased opinion

 

Have you read any of the trial  transcripts or the trial documents available? Or are you just relying on the views of producers at BBC? 

If so, what part of the evidence establishes the guilt of the personnel who were charged? From what I read, there was indeed conflicting evidence and testimony  such that  guilt beyond a reasonable doubt could not be established, let alone support the charges which were dismissed.

They are journalists, they report available information.

The claim made is that two marines are ‘implicated’, not a statement t of guilt, though clearly further formal investigation is warranted:

 

 

On 11/18/2025 at 6:02 AM, webfact said:

Statements from two involved marines, Lance Corporals Humberto Mendoza and Stephen Tatum, suggest direct involvement in the killings. Mendoza, in a recorded testimony, admitted to shooting Safa's father, acknowledging he was unarmed. Meanwhile, Tatum, after initially denying awareness of the women and children, later confessed to firing at them, describing one shot child vividly in his statements to investigators.

 

 

8 minutes ago, Patong2021 said:

 

Have you read any of the trial  transcripts or the trial documents available? Or are you just relying on the views of producers at BBC? 

If so, what part of the evidence establishes the guilt of the personnel who were charged? From what I read, there was indeed conflicting evidence and testimony  such that  guilt beyond a reasonable doubt could not be established, let alone support the charges which were dismissed.

Trial transcripts?

 

From the OP:

 

”An investigation by BBC Eye, supported by forensic expert Michael Maloney, sheds light on previously unexamined details of the incident, pointing the finger at these marines who were never brought to trial.”

16 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Trial transcripts?

 

From the OP:

 

”An investigation by BBC Eye, supported by forensic expert Michael Maloney, sheds light on previously unexamined details of the incident, pointing the finger at these marines who were never brought to trial.”

They were not brought to trial because the charges were dismissed. The charges were dismissed because the evidence could not support the charges. Trials by media have a bad habit of perverting justice.

42 minutes ago, Patong2021 said:

They were not brought to trial because the charges were dismissed. The charges were dismissed because the evidence could not support the charges. Trials by media have a bad habit of perverting justice.

 

So you admit your statement was utter nonsense:

1 hour ago, Patong2021 said:

Have you read any of the trial  transcripts or the trial documents available?

 

Meanwhile the BBC Journalists have uncovered evidence and testimony that raises serious concerns regarding the decision not to prosecute.

37 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

 

Meanwhile the BBC Journalists have uncovered evidence and testimony that raises serious concerns regarding the decision not to prosecute.

 

BBC "Journalists". 😄

 

Wonder who they paid this time. The son of one the victims?

 

BBC breached editorial guidelines over Gaza documentary narrated by son of Hamas official | Ents & Arts News | Sky News

 

https://news.sky.com/story/bbc-breached-editorial-guidelines-over-gaza-documentary-narrated-by-son-of-hamas-official-13396486

 

3 hours ago, Patong2021 said:

 

Have you read any of the trial  transcripts or the trial documents available? Or are you just relying on the views of producers at BBC? 

If so, what part of the evidence establishes the guilt of the personnel who were charged? From what I read, there was indeed conflicting evidence and testimony  such that  guilt beyond a reasonable doubt could not be established, let alone support the charges which were dismissed.

I´m sure, you have read the whole trial transcripts and documents available 😉

3 hours ago, JonnyF said:

 

BBC "Journalists". 😄

 

Wonder who they paid this time. The son of one the victims?

 

BBC breached editorial guidelines over Gaza documentary narrated by son of Hamas official | Ents & Arts News | Sky News

 

https://news.sky.com/story/bbc-breached-editorial-guidelines-over-gaza-documentary-narrated-by-son-of-hamas-official-13396486

 

Not even the same journalists Jonny.

 

Though why would such a detail bother you?!

On 11/17/2025 at 10:27 PM, DaddyWarbucks said:

American history repeating itself.

Another My Lai.

Shameful cover-up on all levels.

Calley/Medina.

Tatum/Mendoza.

This is so bizarre you couldn't make it up.

You can't make up the atrocities that North Vietnamese Soldiers committed against South Vietnamese civilians either.   But that wasn't newsworthy for U.S. media.  

5 hours ago, radiochaser said:

You can't make up the atrocities that North Vietnamese Soldiers committed against South Vietnamese civilians either.   But that wasn't newsworthy for U.S. media.  

That was widely reported.

So, does that excuse atrocious behaviour?

5 hours ago, radiochaser said:

You can't make up the atrocities that North Vietnamese Soldiers committed against South Vietnamese civilians either.   But that wasn't newsworthy for U.S. media.  

Are we remembering the same war?

I challenge you to name one mass killing of civilians by North Vietnamese regulars or by the VC.

They both depended on the civilian population of the south for support.

It would have been outright idiocy to alienate them.

 

Racist, murderous b-stards with automatic weapons. What could go wrong...

21 hours ago, stevenl said:

That was widely reported.

So, does that excuse atrocious behaviour?

No, they were not widely reported.   I would read reports from NVA (and Laotian Army) sent back to their Hanoi headquarters detailing numbers of villagers that were executed, numbers of villagers that were conscripted, along with food and animals taken.   

 

I never saw any reporting in news papers about those executions.    

21 hours ago, DaddyWarbucks said:

Are we remembering the same war?

I challenge you to name one mass killing of civilians by North Vietnamese regulars or by the VC.

They both depended on the civilian population of the south for support.

It would have been outright idiocy to alienate them.

 

They were not widely reported.  I would read reports from NVA (and Laotian Army) sent back to their Hanoi headquarters detailing numbers of villagers that were executed, numbers of villagers that were conscripted, along with food and animals taken.   

 

I never saw any reporting in news papers about those executions.    

 

The NVA had a practice of instilling fear in villagers that were not compliant with their demands.   Yes, they had support among some of the populace.

 

This probably complies with your, mass killing information request.   

 

" During the months and years that followed the Battle of Huế, which began on January 31, 1968, and lasted a total of 28 days, dozens of mass graves were discovered in and around Huế. Victims included women, men, children, and infants.^[1] The estimated death toll was between 2,800 to 6,000 civilians and prisoners of war.^[2] Victims were found bound, tortured, and sometimes apparently buried alive.^[3][4][5]"

 

https://military-history.fandom.com/wiki/Massacre_at_Huế

3 hours ago, radiochaser said:

I never saw any reporting in news papers about those executions.    

So you not paying attention or you not remembering is some sort of proof? You're wrong.

It's ok. Trump will pardon them...

3 hours ago, radiochaser said:

They were not widely reported.  I would read reports from NVA (and Laotian Army) sent back to their Hanoi headquarters detailing numbers of villagers that were executed, numbers of villagers that were conscripted, along with food and animals taken.   

 

I never saw any reporting in news papers about those executions.    

 

The NVA had a practice of instilling fear in villagers that were not compliant with their demands.   Yes, they had support among some of the populace.

 

This probably complies with your, mass killing information request.   

 

" During the months and years that followed the Battle of Huế, which began on January 31, 1968, and lasted a total of 28 days, dozens of mass graves were discovered in and around Huế. Victims included women, men, children, and infants.^[1] The estimated death toll was between 2,800 to 6,000 civilians and prisoners of war.^[2] Victims were found bound, tortured, and sometimes apparently buried alive.^[3][4][5]"

 

https://military-history.fandom.com/wiki/Massacre_at_Huế

The fact that you were unable to name any examples of civilian massacres by North Vietnamese forces or VC in non-combat situations doesn't mean they didn't exist. It's a possibility.

However, the overwhelming majority of civilian casualties in that war were caused by American troops, USAF bombing, napalm attacks, and chemical warfare using agent orange.

To deny that obvious truth is either willful ignorance or an attempt to whitewash history.

1 hour ago, DaddyWarbucks said:

The fact that you were unable to name any examples of civilian massacres by North Vietnamese forces or VC in non-combat situations doesn't mean they didn't exist. It's a possibility.

However, the overwhelming majority of civilian casualties in that war were caused by American troops, USAF bombing, napalm attacks, and chemical warfare using agent orange.

To deny that obvious truth is either willful ignorance or an attempt to whitewash history.

You don't consider this an example of NVA and VC massacre's?  

Mass killings of civilians who are not fighting against you, which would include babies.   That isn't a non combat situation?  

 

 

This probably complies with your, mass killing information request.   

 

" During the months and years that followed the Battle of Huế, which began on January 31, 1968, and lasted a total of 28 days, dozens of mass graves were discovered in and around Huế. Victims included women, men, children, and infants.^[1] The estimated death toll was between 2,800 to 6,000 civilians and prisoners of war.^[2] Victims were found bound, tortured, and sometimes apparently buried alive.^[3][4][5]"

 

https://military-history.fandom.com/wiki/Massacre_at_Huế

 

 

@radiochaser

You couldn't have picked a worse example than the battle for Hue during the Tet Offensive.

The recapture of the city took over a month of bloody house-to-house fighting.

It is thought to be one of the toughest and most intense urban battles ever fought.

Using this as a case in point of civilian massacres by the NVA and VC is beyond ludicrous.

This will be my last reply on the subject. Thanks for engaging in a spirited debate.