After a brief discussion of the book, Dr. Ed asks Keri about her boyfriend and she both tells his story and, more importantly, how we can advocate for an American hero falsely accused and imprisoned on American soil.
Because when you enlist to serve your country, the real danger is not from a foreign adversary, but from ambitious officers conniving for stars on their collars.
Do you remember the news reports of the supposed “canal killings” back in 2009. The United States Army effectively created a depiction of 1SG Hatley as a cold-blooded killer who executed four Iraqis. Because of it, he has been in prison for ten long years. But the Army has also told this supposed "cold-blooded killer" that he can go home tomorrow if he will just confess to the crime.
But Hatley won’t admit guilt because he is innocent!
Keri tells us how there were no bodies found, no names of victims or their families, and absolutely no physical or forensic evidence. A seven-man dive team searched the canal where the bodies were supposedly dumped and found nothing. No bullets or casings were found in the area, which is in itself weird because this had been the site of intensive fighting.
Criminal Investigation Division (CID) was taken to the house where the nameless insurgents allegedly killed by Hatley were reported to have lived. The people there said no one was missing or dead in their families. But again, their names were not obtained. Neighbors in the area were also questioned and they too said no one was missing or dead. The farmer who owned the land of the supposed killings said he knew of no one being killed.
At trial there were major discrepancies of testimony with some "eye-witnesses" (also ambitious soldiers) claiming there were four victims, others claiming five. None of the "witnesses" nor CID knew what happened to the fifth man. Testimony was inconsistent and contradictory.
The charges themselves were not filed until ten months after the event when a sergeant under Hatley's command was up on charges by Hatley for two instances of striking an NCO, and one count of threatening an officer with great bodily harm. He offered CID info on a "homicide" if they would grant him immunity. Immunity was not granted, but his attorney had already given CID the file. All men in the patrol were interrogated intensely with some being threatened with life in prison. All of them but John Hatley took plea deals rather than risk “life in prison.” The threats were probably similar to what Lieutenant General Michael Flynn was subjected to by the FBI in the whole Russian collusion caper.
John E. Hatley was convicted by the United States Army solely on the basis of coerced testimony. One witness said when he shot a man in the back of the head, he fell back against his leg. That’s highly unlikely if not impossible, because when people are shot, their body normally goes in the direction of the bullet.
Again, there were no bodies, no names, no physical or forensic evidence—only the testimony of men with something to gain. If they testified as they were told by Army lawyers, they would receive a much better deal.
Oh and hey… Army brass had something to gain also. By convicting someone (anyone) for murdering innocent civilians, they could help to make amends for other Army wartime atrocities. Anyone remember Abu Ghraib military prison where people were being subjected to torture and humiliation for the entertainment of sadistic officers?
This is just another case of someone railroaded right into a military penitentiary, not based on any evidence, but based on the ambition of politically correct officers and their Congressional overseers.
We found out a long time ago, the military doesn’t need evidence to convict someone. In the civilian world a district attorney can indict a ham sandwich. Because of the closed military structure, that same “ham sandwich” is not only indicted but convicted as well. It’s heinously disgraceful how our military can manipulate their judicial system to protect the organization itself, and senior military officers from any scrutiny or accountability.
Such is the John Hatley story, the object of much of this week's broadcast.