THE widow of a young soldier killed by friendly fire in the Iraq war has said she can move on after four years of waiting for answers about the tragedy.
Susan Hull wept as a coroner told her that the death of Matty Hull, 25, a Lance Corporal of Horse with the Household Cavalry, was "entirely avoidable". He said it was down to the "criminal" actions of a US A-10 Thunderbolt pilot who attacked L-Cpl Hull's armoured vehicle convoy without properly checking its identity or getting permission from ground controllers.
Mrs Hull, a 30-year-old assistant headteacher, said the landmark result meant that her quest for justice was finally over. She said she would move on and hoped the pilot who killed her husband in southern Iraq on 28 March, 2003 and his wingman could too.
She said: "I hope they are at peace in themselves and can move on with their lives.
I'm sure they are full of remorse for what they did, I hope so, anyway.
"Perhaps it sends a message to other pilots about how they need to be trained and the enormity of what they're doing in the sky, because it can have grave consequences."
The inquest made headlines around the world after the Sun newspaper obtained a leaked copy of a secret cockpit recording taken from one of the two A-10 planes circling above L-Cpl Hull's convoy, a reconnaissance patrol of the Windsor-based Household Cavalry Regiment.
The revelation forced the US government to declassify a transcript of the recording for use by Andrew Walker, Oxfordshire's assistant deputy coroner, a document he said was "vital" in helping him to reach his damning conclusions.
Mr Walker, who has heard the two week-long inquest, said the actions of the pilot were akin to manslaughter. He said: "The attack on the convoy amounted to an assault.
It was unlawful because there was no lawful reason for it and, in that respect, it was criminal. The pilot who opened fire did so with disregard for the rules of engagement and acting outside the protection of the law of armed conflict."
Following the verdict, the US defence department issued a statement calling L-Cpl Hull's death a "tragic accident".
A spokesman added that there was no cover-up by the United States. Both pilots involved in the incident, a major and a lieutenant colonel, were serving with the 190th Fighter Squadron, part of the Idaho Air National Guard, and neither had conflict experience.
Despite the coroner's assertion that "the full facts have not yet come to light", Mrs Hull said she sought no more answers and would not push for further action against the pilots.
She said: "There is a strange sense that it is now over. We've waited all this time. It's been a long and painful time and we need to move forward.
"
That pain, Mr Walker said before reaching his verdict yesterday, was exacerbated by the Americans' failure to co-operate with his inquiry and their repeated refusal to allow access to evidence to explain the events which led to L-Cpl Hull's death.
The coroner's sentiments were echoed by Harriet Harman, the constitutional affairs minister, who held several meetings with David Johnson, deputy chief of mission at the US embassy in London, urging him to participate in the inquest.
She said: "I share the frustration expressed by the coroner and lawyers for the family and the family as well, and I regret that I was not able to persuade [Mr Johnson to participate in the inquest].
"I explained this was not a criminal court, nobody could be found guilty and sent to prison, it [was] simply asking questions and requiring answers.
"I did explain to the Americans that it would be warmly received and people would think it was right for them to be prepared to come into a coroner's court where an allied serviceman's death was being investigated, so they could answer questions from the coroner, but above all from the family of the deceased. But they weren't prepared to change their position.
"
• THE Americans' failure to help Matty Hull's family find answers was inexcusable and caused them further "pain and suffering", coroner Andrew Walker said yesterday.
Mr Walker said he believed there was more to come out about how L-Cpl Hull died and went on: "I find the decision of the US authorities not to allow the relevant persons to attend to give evidence or to themselves provide full transcripts of questions those people were asked during the [American] Friendly Fire Investigation Board hard to understand.
"I believe that the full facts have not as yet come to light and I can only base my conclusion on the evidence that I have before me.
"
He said: "I hope that in future, this does not remain their position and it is recognised that these decisions cause great harm to those who make them and are a profound disservice to those who lost their lives in the service of their country and to the families left behind who simply want to know the truth."
It's not so much the crime, it's the cover-up that gets um. Right, Tony, George?
Per the cockpit transcripts; At the start of the contact with the target (the 'looking' stage) , one pilot notices orange panels on the vehicles and asks his controller whether there could be any friendly units in the area (the 'evaluation' stage). His command gives both pilots definite assurances there are no coalition forces in the area. The pilots then correctly open fire, but soon the error is realised and they are informed that friendly units were in the area .
...
. too late to do any good.
This does not amount to recklessness on the part of the pilots.
They did their jobs, and - because they destroyed the 'target' - did it well.
This unfortunate outcome is not the fault of the pilots - and it is shameful that this idiot 'coroner' elected to make the political statements he made to enhance the hatred of the pilots being stirred-up by some to serve their own agenda, rather than merely finding facts and drawing reasonable conclusions from same.
Whether one cares to agree or not, this was a UN-sanctioned war, approved by the governments of both the UK and the US, and many others, via their resepcive parliamentary/congressional processes.
Some may wish it were not so, but when the condition commonly known as 'war' arises things do tend to go wrong and since that 'wrong' involved instruments of death - people die.
But, blaming the pilots - totally out of bounds and a shameful attempt at scaprgoatism.
The widow, and the pilots critics, may take some perverse comfort in knowing that both pilots asre indeed full of remorse.
What a real tradgedy! As humans who have been on this planet for thousands of years, you would think that we would have learned how to get along, thus no need for war. Unfortunately we will never learn and stories such as this one will be part of our lives for ever.
The pilots must live with the fact that they killed this man. But then again, had the target been someone else they would still have had to live with the fact they killed..
.us humans are weird
This sorry episode was made even worse by the subsequent attitude of the US Government. - Inexcusable.
There was a saying during WW2 , When the Germans bomb, the British duck. When the British bomb, the Germans duck. When the Americans bomb, everyone ducks.
Yes, quick decisions in any difficult situation will sadly result in errors of judgement but despite learning good things from previous conflicts and there being improvements in technology, our American pals are still far to Gung-ho. Lots of the best kit, just often short on the brains to use it correctly.
Agree totally, it was not the pilots fault.
If the coroner had added to his statement to the effect that they were following the advice/orders given to them, the culpable parties could have been found. Perhaps he was leaned on to find against the pilots to stop his investigation looking further up the chain of command.
The behavior of the various US government departments involved in this is disgusting at the least.
Not to mention the fact that if you cant see/wont admit your failures you will never learn from them and will be bound to keep repeating them.
#2 and #5. I am really happy that I am not in a coalition vehicle with you two interpreting the rules.
At no stage in this engagement were the pilots cleared to attack - they did so of their own volition. There are clear and binding procedures for engaging targets which all aircrew must adhere to, these pilots ignored those procedures and their reckless actions cost innocent lives.
Their own reaction proves that they screwed up - we are going to jail dude!
! .
Mrs Hull a composed and bave lady whom her dead husband would be proud off said her quest for justice was finally over and she would now move on.
You lot should do the same Mrs Hull was at the inquest you lot wern't. Take a lesson from Mrs Hull.
#2, #5, agree with you guys in your comments.
It wasn't the fault of the pilots and it is too bad they have to live with this.
#4 Sceptic Man, what a nice comment. We dropped an inordinate number of dumb bombs compared to the other combatants.
The policy was that we dropped them on civilians as the Germans had started. Even if the Germans had not we would have done that since we were trying to break their will and ability to make war. Weapons were being made in private homes.
I suppose the V-1 and V-2 were carefully targeted to avoid civilians. Friendly fire is s fact of war. The controllers were possibly at fault not the pilots.
If there had been any doubt the controllers should have pulled the planes off. The pilots are there to aim the targets they are given. In the case of a tragedy of opportunity it is cleared by controllers or people on the ground.
By the way we should do better with smart bomb technology. Good thing someone cares enough to spend the money for bombs to reduce collateral damage.
#6, Old Siggy, I don't understand your comments.
From the cockpit tapes the protocol and procedures were done by the pilots as far as I know these procedures . My Son #1 was a pilot there, and #2 Son was a Tank commander.
It's real easy to second guess these men but you can't tell you would have done any different if you had been there.
This is a strict Walk in their shoes scenario.
That being said it is terrible that this happens but it is not always avoidable if you are going to defeat an enemy. The only true answer is not to have to do this at all.
• THE Americans' failure to help Matty Hull's family find answers was inexcusable and caused them further pain and suffering , coroner Andrew Walker said yesterday.
Yes - That does rather stick in the gullit, does it not?
I can't believe your comments above!
The British vehicles were displaying the correct marker panels. The pilots seen the orange markers and chose to ignore them. Why did they not confirm visually themselves?
They could not wait to unload their ordnance onto the vehicles below, rather than fly home with unused ammunition.
Friendly fire?
I would describe friendly fire as stray rounds, not deliberate targeting by US military aircraft.
Too many weapons, infinite supplies, not enough training.
#10, listen to the tapes. Everything was reported correctly and then they were told to take the shot.
As far as trying to cover this up unfortunately this is the unwritten policy of diffusing the blame, As far as making mistakes other than a few British/Scot. soldiers and pilots who else is there to make a mistake? With the thousands of sorties the odds are you will make a mistake.
This is terrible for the widow but you have to be pragmatic and accept that their will be errors. Unfortunately death is a result. I'm not excusing it only accepting that is is a normal result of this type of action.
Running the story over and over is not helping anyone except the insurgents and pro PC Detractors. We need to get out of Iraq and leave the country to the Muslims and let them fight it out.
#8.
What is there not to understand? Speak to #1 son, he will tell you that pilots must have specific, unambiguous clearance to attack each and every target. That is the rule.
Listen to the tapes. At no stage were those pilots cleared by the controller to mount an attack. How many blue on blues have there been between British aircraft and coalition vehicles?
British pilots possess a degree of self discipline sadly lacking in their US counterparts. The US pilots were criminally negligent, you know it, they know it, the US Government knows it, the MOD knows it but they will get away with it to safeguard the special relationship .
I hope that in future, this does not remain their position and it is recognised that these decisions cause great harm to those who make them and are a profound disservice to those who lost their lives in the service of their country and to the families left behind who simply want to know the truth.
The US failure to provide all the necessary data demonstrates a clear lack of respect for our our judicial systems and consolidates the long held view of many- that the US/UK partnership/alliance is naught but a one way street that serves only to futher the aims of the current US government.
#12, OLD, I listened carefully to the tapes as I'm sure most have that have followed this story and under the rules of engagement laid down by the US Military they did not violate them. I'm not saying it was right but the fault lay with the controllers as they read the situation.
Try to picture yourself in that situation and be sincere. If there was or is a cover up then that is wrong and the Widow should be compensated appropriately is that is any consolation for her loss. Blaming a couple of pilots is wrong.
The rules of engagement were wrong at the time as they have been in a number of situations since 1993. If a blame has to be given it is with the larger Military not a couple of grunts or even the controllers. My son told me there was way too much subjective reasoning in the policy but was designed to protect the pilots.
#14 I'm not understanding you - could you just explain why did the pilots immediately say we're going to jail dude if they had followed all the right procedures?
I agree that the cover-up is the big shame of this incident, but there were human errors all along the line as far as I can tell. The pilots were told they had no friendlies near them but said they could see orange marks.
One was also concerned about running out of fuel, and they decided that they wanted to take the chance of making the hit without visual confirmation rather than miss out and having to go back to base. They knew and immediately accepted that they had made an error.
As far as I'm concerned the problem with US armed forces has always been that they are much, much more trigger happy than British forces.
They breed soldiers differently over there, and always have. But the worst result of them being trigger happy isn't the friendly fire problem, bad though that is - it's the exacerbation of the situation in Iraq and Aghanistan by cowboys who shoot first and ask questions later. In a complex civil war environment that is literally like throwing oil on the flames.
I don't know how to solve that problem other than by completely overhauling the US military training strategy. But you're talking about a country that elected George Bush - I just don't think they have the wits.
#15, I feel that at the moment they realised as shown in the tapes that a mistake had been made.
I also realise that a normal reaction to this type of situation is fear that the blame will go to the pilot and then that is a normal reaction. Face it todays PC world you don't need much to blame someone since it can so easily be done without the facts. It depends on the direction of the wind and which side the press is on that day.
If this was deemed culpable to the pilot due you for 1 minute believe that the PC Police would not jump on this and make as big a deal as the prison scandal out of it. This was an identical reaction when a helicopter pilots wiped out one of our Bradley's in 93 on the battlefield. If you are going to be in this situation of making split second decisions there is certainly a possibility for errors.
The more fighting the more errors, simple numbers. Someone asked why the US has more errors than the other troops, well who has the most exposure to making errors. I'm not justifying this only understanding how it can happen.
Try flying a helicopter gunship in Viet Nam when we didn't have any rules of engagement except try to stay alive. It's easy to judge until you walk in their shoes..
#16 Duncan In Edinburgh: I agree that you might be looking at an honest appraisal of the situation until your last two sentences. You may be correct in our culture being more confrontational but there is no solution to this problem, none , except not being there in the first place. It was a bad decision in the first place but it has to be shared by a large number of people not just GWB or Blair.
As far as a military goes I will take the US Military every time. When I was in Viet Nam we were not anywhere near as skilled or dedicated as this military is today and the way they are treated is criminal. Anyone who indicates that they are brainwashed is incorect.
They are conditioned through training to taking lives and that is not easy for a young man to do. I can speak with authority on that. Do you know that their dependents do not even have proper benefits?
If I were a young married man today I would have to be very dedicated to my country to choose a career that was so lacking in pay and benefits for my family. These guys are smarter, tougher, and more dedicated than we were and they deserve our utmost respect. Are you saying that in the face of overwhelming terror you might not make a incorrect decision?
You rely on training.
we are at war, when at war you break things kill people . this is something the detractors,i.
e. enemy sympathizers anti-war crowd, just aren't intelligent enough to understand.
the pilot that said we're going to jail dude , certainly understood, that today, no matter if they were in the right, they would still be wrong in the eye's of this bunch.
these enemy sympathizers anti-war crowd are the minority, because the media agrees w/them, they get the headlines. it's a no-win situation for these brave men serving our nation. to further this story (after the wife of this most brave Marine, said her quest for justice was finally over would like to move on hoped the pilot could too) by the coroner is political posturing, should stop, but alas!
! it won't..
...
...
...
..
This can be explained in a book I read about American special forces that dealt with the training of their Delta Force.
A lot of their tactics was lifted from the British SAS with one difference.
The British SAS are trained to ensure that in the correct situation they will discharge a firearm. The Delta Force and other American special forces are trained the opposite way to ensure that in the wrong situations they dont discharge their arms.
Like it or not its a different culture and Americans are gun obsessed and trigger happy.
#19--got a name for that book??
#17 I appreciate your experiences and your justifications. I would however question whether these flyers were facing overwhelming terror . They were part of a massive invasion force with thousands of times the firepower of their opposition, waging a strategic war and facing guerilla tactics.
In this instance they were in potential danger, certainly, but the odds were hugely on their side should any ground forces attack them. But more importantly they didn't react to an attack situation, they took what they thought was an opportunity to weaken the enemy with a surgical strike. Mistakes can't therefore be justified with reference to acting in terror.
They acted under normal battle stress, nothing more.
In the first Gulf war My son-in law was almost killed by the americans. The British government is culpable here by sending our forces into an illegal war with these unreliable allies.
(War was not santioned by the UN #2 - they were still investigating when Bush Blair went in)
The sooner our forces are out of the wars dominated by the USA the safer this country will be.
Sandy @ 18..
.
Regretably these things do happen in war from time to time..
..
In this country when such incidents occur, an inquest is generally ordered in the hope that lessons might be learned which might help avoid future similar occurences.
..
Don't you think that the US military might have been a wee bit more co-operative with the UK judiciary in this sorry affair?
I'd call the failure of the US to cooperate with this admirable coroner a disappointment. Except it's not - it's just typical of the contempt Dubya holds everyone in unless they're American and on his side.
#24--JonBoy---yes, they should have co-operated
from the beginning.
...
...
if the pilots were asked, i believe they would agree...
If you people would update your antiquated equipment it would help with your crybaby whining. Then again, it's not as if y'aal are doing anything else worthwhile. Why dont you wrap up your junk and take it and yourselves on home.
The fact of the matter is she was wanting money out the deal and nothing more.
News RSS