Site Map

BOOTS ON THE GROUND BY DUSK: MY TRIBUTE TO PAT TILLMAN

Chapter 12

Action is the antidote to despair.
-- JOAN BAEZ

I have been home for nearly a week. I'm still living out of the suitcase I took with me to Birmingham, and I'm trying to organize some of the letters, cards, and other tributes people have sent to me since Pat's death. I look through a stack of cards and come across one from Pat's agent, Frank Bauer. I sit looking at the card, reminded of a phone conversation I had with Mr. Bauer shortly after Pat's death.

He told me he had never met anyone even remotely like Pat, then he went on to tell me how he was also the agent of Mike Martz, head coach of the St. Louis Rams. In 2000, the Rams had just won the Super Bowl after a remarkable 1999 season. Frank asked Pat to interview with the Rams because they were interested in recruiting him. Pat didn't really want to leave the Cardinals, but he agreed to meet with the Rams' coaches, mostly as a favor to his agent. Mr. Bauer told me, "Mike Martz loved Pat."

He told me the team president, John Shaw, tried hard to get Pat to make the move. He made an offer of $9.6 million for five years, with $2.6 million up front. Mr. Bauer told me Pat said, "'No. Number one, the Cardinals gave me a shot; Bob Ferguson [the general manager] drafted me in the seventh round. I love Coach Mac; I love Phoenix, I've played there, everybody knows me, I love the area; I don't want to leave.'" Pat was making $512,000 with the Cardinals. Mr. Bauer said to him, "Pat, you're killing me!"

The story was characteristically Pat. He was such a loyal person. He always wanted to do right by the people who mattered to him. I remember people trying to get him to rethink his position on accepting the offer from the Rams, but he wouldn't budge. Not only did he feel he owed it to his coaches and those who believed in him to stay, he also liked the idea of being part of a team in transition. It wasn't appealing or challenging to him to be part of an already victorious team. He loved being a Sun Devil in the years when the team was transformed from mediocrity to a powerhouse. He hoped he could be part of the same thing with the Cardinals.

I smile recalling what a unique man Pat was, then become angry thinking about the contradictions in the stories and documents with regard to his death. I get on the computer and begin to look up all I can find on friendly fire deaths, and I enter Pat's name to see if anyone with knowledge of what happened to Pat has posted anything. After several hours, I become very frustrated and angry. I type into the computer, "What happened to my son?" I'm so distraught; I expect an answer. When none comes, I begin to cry.

School started two weeks ago. Kevin calls as I'm leaving for work to tell me Marie is having trouble getting Pat's autopsy from the Army. He tells me he is going to talk to the casualty assistance liaison himself and see what he can do. He then tells me he has talked to the medic who got to Pat's body first. The medic told him Pat was gone when he got to him. There was no attempt to save him. Hesitantly, he informs me the medic said Pat's bulletproof Kevlar vest was riddled with green markings; American ammunition is green-tipped. This further confirms that Pat was hit by his own men. He told Kevin Pat's uniform and equipment had been burned because they were a biohazard, and that one of the soldiers who burned the vest mentioned the green tips. I can tell Kevin is very disturbed knowing Pat was hit so many times.

I try not to make it worse for him by getting upset, but when I get off the phone, I find myself feeling tremendous sadness and outrage. I think to myself, "How could any of the soldiers not realize Pat was killed by his own men when his vest was full of U.S. rounds?" I leave for work, but I can't get the disturbing question out of my mind. I'm also angry that the Army hasn't provided Marie with Pat's autopsy report.

At lunchtime I call Senator John McCain. I have made several calls to him in the past few months about concerns we have. When he comes on the line, I ask him if we are being unrealistic to expect Pat's autopsy after five months. He tells me we should have it by now and indicates he will make sure it's sent to us. When I tell him I have many questions about the 15-6 report, he tells me to formulate a list for the Army, and he will get it to the proper people.

When I get home, I make dinner, grade a few papers, then sit at the computer and try to find any information I can to help us determine what happened to Pat. I look up smoke grenades. It has always baffled me that Sergeant Greg Baker and his soldiers claim they never saw the smoke when other soldiers indicate they did. I remember the smoke quite well from seeing it used at Pat and Kevin's boot camp graduation. It is thick and moves like liquid. I don't see how anyone could mistake it for flying dirt. I read that the average soldier can throw a grenade about thirty to thirty-five meters, and it ignites within three seconds. The documents indicate that Lieutenant Colonel Jeffrey Bailey found the grenade canister near the road just in front of where the vehicle would have passed. This makes me wonder if Pat was far closer than we have been told. I also discover that white smoke is produced for 105 to 150 seconds. Why didn't they see it?

The next day school is busy and I'm somewhat distracted, but I keep forming questions in my head to send to McCain. I'm also anxious about the autopsy. I wonder if calling McCain is enough. Maybe I should call the office of the secretary of the Army. Trying to contact people, especially with the time difference, is frustrating. I try to make my calls to the East Coast in the morning before I go to work. It's often difficult to catch anyone during my break or lunchtime.

As soon as I get home, I see an envelope from Fed Ex. The envelope was sent from Rockville, Maryland; it's Pat's autopsy report. I sit at my kitchen table staring at the envelope that contains the coroner's findings. The cover letter tells me not to look at it alone, but I prefer to read it by myself. Slowly, I remove the cover letter and begin to read the document. The first time I read through, I process nothing. The second time I'm struck by information that disturbs me. I go back and read the top of the first page.

Final Autopsy Examination Report Name: Tillman, Patrick D. Autopsy No. xxxx-xxx SSN: xxx-xx-xxxx Date of Birth: 6 NOV 1976 Rank: CPL, US Date of Death 22 APR 2004 Place of Death: Afghanistan Date of Autopsy: 27 APR 2004 Place of Autopsy: Port Mortuary Date of Report: 22 JUL 2004

I read where it indicates Pat's autopsy was performed on April 27, 2004, then see where the date of the report is July 22, 2004. I wonder why it took so long for the coroner to complete and sign the document. The second page presents a description of the gunshot wounds. I don't understand the information other than to recognize much of Pat's head was gone. I move on to the next page. Pat was five foot eleven -- seventy-one inches tall -- but the autopsy states he was seventy-three inches. I can't understand, considering the nature of his head wounds, why he would measure taller.

The autopsy states that Pat was wearing a gold wedding band, yet his ring was platinum, having a dull, silver appearance. I'm also struck by the fact that no distinguishing features have been documented. Pat had a scar under his right arm, the result of rotator cuff surgery; a torn bicep from a football injury; a broken little finger on his left hand; and residual scarring on his lungs from having had valley fever in college. None of these features are mentioned. I then come to a section of the document that says "Medical Interventions." It reads: "A 3-3/4 x 3-1/2 inch area on the left upper chest is consistent with an attempt at defibrillation."

"Defibrillation!" I say out loud. Why would Pat be defibrillated? The medic told Kevin that he made no attempt to save Pat on the scene. He said Pat was clearly gone. Pat had been wrapped in a poncho and deemed KIA, killed in action. He must have been dead nearly two hours before he arrived at the field hospital. "Why would anyone defibrillate a body with no head?"

I don't want to alarm Marie, but I feel I must call her. I'm certain she received the autopsy report as well, as I told McCain to have it sent to both of us; however, I'm not certain she would have read it yet. When Marie answers the phone, I attempt to make small talk, but she cuts me off. She has read the report and feels as I do; something is wrong.

"That isn't Pat," she says.

The next morning before I leave for work, I place a call to Commander Craig Mallak, Armed Forces medical examiner at Rockville, Maryland. Commander Mallak explains that he didn't perform Pat's autopsy; a Dr. James Caruso did. He says Dr. Caruso is currently in Iraq, but he tells me he is quite familiar with Pat's case. I ask Dr. Mallak why Pat would measure two inches taller when he was missing so much of his head. He tells me that the measurements aren't very exact. He says he may have been measured with his toes pointed. The explanation sounds ridiculous, but I just go on to the next concern. I tell him Pat's wedding band was platinum, yet the report says the ring was gold. Mallak tells me the ring was described from a photograph and that the lighting in the room made the ring appear gold in the photograph.

"Why aren't descriptions written down while looking at the body? It makes no sense to describe details from a photograph."

"Yes, ma'am," he says. "We can send you a cropped photo of your son's hand if you like, or I can send you a photo of the ring itself after it was removed."

"Sir, my daughter-in-law has Pat's ring. What concerns me is that we might have the autopsy of the wrong man."

I ask him why none of Pat's distinguishing features were documented. I go over them with him carefully. He tells me the torn muscle was not noted because they don't do internal examinations. He disregards me when I explain that Pat's injury was plainly visible. Mallak says there were no signs of active fungal infection of the lungs, although he admitted Pat's lungs were not looked at microscopically. Looking at the pictures, he finds there is no indication of a rotator cuff scar or a broken finger. My frustration is mounting, and I feel as though I want to cry.

"Why would Pat have been defibrillated?" I ask. "He essentially had no head, and he had been dead at least two hours before getting to the field hospital."

"Ma'am," he says self-righteously, "we normally don't fault someone for trying to save someone's life."

I want to scream. "I'm not faulting anyone, sir. I just wonder why there was an attempt to save his life when he was so clearly gone."

The commander explains that the shape of the abrasion on Pat's chest was interpreted as a mark from a defibrillator. He says the abrasion could have been from prolonged CPR or other medical treatment. It is as if he isn't hearing a word I'm saying. I can see I 'm getting nowhere, and I don't want to get so upset that I alienate him, but I ask him one more question.

"Commander, why is Pat's autopsy dated July 22, nearly three months after the autopsy was performed?"

"Ma'am, Dr. Caruso and I didn't believe the information we read on the casualty report. Enemy rounds don't cause the type of wounds your son had. Dr. Caruso refused to sign the autopsy report."

"Thank you, Commander," I say, stunned, as I hang up the phone.

I have been researching information on fratricides and trying to get information on Pat's death since I returned home from Alabama. The information I just learned from Dr. Mallak makes me more fearful and suspicious that Pat may have been killed intentionally. I say very little about my suspicions to anyone other than my closest friends and family because I know people won't understand. I have tried getting information from the computer using Pat's name, but I always get ultra left-wing, often irrational sites with far-fetched conspiracy theories. I have no interest in reading them. I type in the words "military lies," and a list of sites comes up. I click on an article titled "Lies Upon Lies Upon Lies: US Military in Crisis," by Brian Cloughley, dated June 13, 2004, more than three months ago, right about the time we were being briefed at Fort Lewis. I scan the article and find it is quite interesting, but it doesn't have anything I'm looking for. Then, just when I'm ready to click off, I read:

Here is the official US Army citation concerning the award of posthumous and hysterically-publicized bravery decoration to an American soldier who was killed in Afghanistan on April 22.

Oh, my God! I can't believe what I'm reading.

"Through the firing [soldier X's] voice was heard issuing fire commands to take the fight to the enemy on the dominating high ground .... Only after his team engaged the well-armed enemy did it appear their fires diminished. As a result of his leadership and his team's efforts, the platoon trail section was able to maneuver through the ambush to positions of safety without a single casualty."

But here is what really happened, according to a reliable source, an Afghan, who was reported by CBS News on May 29 as saying that "two groups of soldiers had drifted some distance apart during the operation in the remote Spera district of Khost province. 'Suddenly the sound of a mine explosion was heard somewhere between the two groups and the Americans in one group started firing,' the official said, citing an account given to him by an Afghan fighter who was part of that group .... 'Nobody knew what it was ... or what was going on, or if enemy forces were firing. The situation was very confusing,' the official said. 'As the result of this firing, that American was killed and three Afghan soldiers were injured. It was a misunderstanding and afterwards they realized that it was a mine that had exploded and there were no enemy forces.'"

There was an ambush with enemy forces, I say to myself. The information I'm reading is shocking and frustrating. I had read an Associated Press account of Pat's death just after the fratricide information was released that said there was no enemy and no ambush. The article stated there was an explosion that caused confusion, and the two units of soldiers started firing on each other. However, that is not true. Kevin was involved in the ambush, and he and fellow soldiers saw enemy on the high ground, above the canyon walls. I think, "If that wasn't the enemy, who was it?" I'm perplexed by the article's reference to three injured Afghans. "Three Afghans weren't injured. Where is this information coming from?"

In other words, there was a monster stuff-up. And this sort of thing is far from unknown in battle: tragic disasters occur frequently. But what is astonishing and unforgivable is the deliberate, systematic, official, Bush-government-approved lying about what happened at the time.

It is evil and dishonorable that the account of the death of this young man was a Pentagon machine fabrication. The gallantry citation was a downright lie, forged for public relations' [sic] purposes because soldier X had a national image.

The article goes on to discuss how Lieutenant General Philip R. Kensinger lied to the media in the press conference about what happened to soldier X, whom I realize is Pat. When the members of the press tried to get answers, he refused to take questions. The author calls Kensinger "a moral coward." Since we have learned about the fratricide, I have wondered if Kensinger knew the true circumstances of Pat's death when he came to the memorial service. It upsets and angers me that he might have known the truth and let a false narrative be read. I have got to find out more about the author of this article.

I discover Brian Cloughley is a writer/journalist living in New Zealand. He enlisted in the British Army in 1958 and served in both the British and Australian armies. I read on from his Web site.

He was later commissioned, spent nine years as an artillery officer on regimental duty, mainly as a Forward Observer [1] and saw active service in Borneo with 42 Commando, Royal Marines; 1st Battalion Sarawak Rangers; and 4th Battalion of the Royal Australian Regiment.

He also served as an intelligence officer in Cyprus at the end of colonial rule, on attachment with the Jordan Desert Police Force, as Reconnaissance and Survey Officer in a nuclear missile regiment in Germany, and officer commanding the Australian Psychological Operations Unit in Vietnam ....

He has been involved in analysis of South Asian affairs since late 1970s. In 1985 he visited Pakistan at the invitation of President Zia, and travelled extensively in Balochistan. In 1996-1997 he was consultant to the OECD [2] on the relationship between defence expenditure and international aid in South Asia and had government-level discussions in Bangladesh, India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka.

When I finish reading his biography, I learn his e-mail information is provided, and I'm able to locate a phone number for him. It is clear Mr. Cloughley has had extensive experience with the military, and he continues to work in Pakistan and surrounding regions. He has very solid credentials. I need to know where he got his information about what happened to Pat. I quickly type an e-mail and send it to him.

Mr. Cloughley

I'm Pat Tillman's mother. I read your article, "Lies Upon Lies Upon Lies: U.S. military in Crisis." I would very much like to speak to you. The circumstances surrounding Pat's death are very suspicious. The army has not given us a straight story either ....

Thank you. Sincerely, Mary L. Tillman

After sending the e-mail, I also place a call to him. I have no idea what time it is in New Zealand; I just hope I'm not calling at three in the morning. The call goes directly to an answering machine, and I leave a message for him to contact me.

The following day Mr. Cloughley writes:

Dear Mrs. Tillman,

Thank you so much for writing to me. I offer my deepest sympathy on the loss of your son, I know you will always remember ... no matter the circumstances of his death ... that he was a fine person and behaved honorably.

I'm sorry but I can't add anything to the official statements and press reports about the cause of his death. If I knew anything at all, I would of course tell you at once. And if I do hear anything, you will be the first to know.

At the moment I am in Britain, attending a conference, then I travel to Pakistan for a week, then go home to New Zealand.

He continues by telling me he will be in touch when he returns home. He says in the meantime he will ask his "discreet" sources if they know anything about the manner in which Pat died.

Later that night, I call Mike and tell him about the article and the e-mail I received from Mr. Cloughley. Mike is very interested because he also thinks something suspicious surrounds Pat's death. He is also haunted by the autopsy report. It is a concern to both of us that local Afghans keep reporting to U.S. and foreign press that there was no enemy in the area when Pat was killed, yet there are witnesses who state enemy were firing on the unit. I wonder if it's possible the ambush was staged; I wonder if Pat was killed on purpose. Mike and I discuss the timing of Pat's death. April was the worst month for recorded casualties in the war; a tragically unsuccessful attempt had been made to capture Fallujah, one of the most peaceful areas of the country after the fall of Saddam; and the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal was being made public. Mike and I have believed for weeks that the military and the administration lied about the circumstances of Pat's death to rally patriotism and deflect public outrage over the breaking news from Iraq. Now we wonder if his death was deliberate.

Mike tells me he has read a book called Bush on the Couch, by Dr. Justin A. Frank. He tells me Dr. Frank is a psychiatrist who lives and works in Georgetown. He has done a lot of research on the president and has observed him from afar. The book states that Bush doesn't admire or respect the soldiers; on the contrary, he resents them. They are true warriors; Bush can only pretend. Mike brings the book to my house, and I read all night. In the morning before leaving for work, I call information and get Dr. Frank's number at George Washington University Medical School. I leave a message telling him my name and that my son was killed in Afghanistan in April. I let him know I want to speak to him and that I will be home by four p.m. Pacific time, then I leave my number. When I return home from work, I have a message from Dr. Frank. He tells me he knows who I am, and he will stay in his office until I return home to call him. Immediately, I dial the number, and he answers right away. I waste no time getting to the point.

"Hello, Dr. Frank. I'm Mary Tillman. I don't want to waste your time. I'm calling to ask you a question. Do you think it's possible that this administration orchestrated my son's death?"

"Sad to say, yes."

I'm positively stunned by his response. I thought he would gently tell me that he doesn't believe the administration is very honorable, but it would never do something so heinous as to have a soldier killed. "You believe they killed him?" I ask numbly.

"I think it's possible. Mrs. Tillman, I'm a psychiatrist. It would be unethical and irresponsible for me to tell a grieving mother to pursue such a thing if I didn't think it was possible."

Over the weekend the whole family goes to Arizona. The Cardinals are retiring Pat's number on Sunday, September 19. Mike and I fly to Arizona together, and we talk about what Dr. Frank told me. Mike encourages me to pursue answers. He has a very strong sense something is wrong. Mike and I share our suspicions with Richard, who also believes we need to get more information. Kevin and Marie are not in a frame of mind to discuss this topic. Kevin is especially apprehensive talking about this as anything but an accident.

While in Arizona, I check my home messages. There's one from Margaret Cloughley, Mr. Cloughley's wife. She received the phone message I had sent days before and wanted to let me know her husband was in Pakistan. I explain to her that he already responded to an e-mail I sent at the same time I left the phone message. She is very gracious and concerned. She says she feels terrible about what happened to Pat, and she supports us in our search for answers and hopes her husband can be of help when he returns.

On October 2, I receive a long e-mail from Mr. Cloughley.

Dear Mrs. Tillman,

I have now returned home to New Zealand. During my travels in the past month I talked with several people about your son.

There is no doubt his death was the result of what we former soldiers used to call a "patrol clash." I was close to one (but not directly involved) in Borneo many years ago, and experienced the shock that any soldier feels when things go terribly wrong and involve the death of men who are killed in error by their own comrades. But in [those] days (almost forty years ago) the natural reaction was to admit and to explain what went wrong. Things are different now.

The words "friendly fire" disgust me. It is a typical PR weasel phrase used to try to disguise the unpalatable fact that horrible accidents happen. And in this case the tragedy was made worse by lies told at the highest level to make it appear that your son died in circumstances that were later detected as being falsely described and notified.

... If you wish the case to be given Maximum publicity, then I suggest we approach a major newspaper. I happen to know the managing editor of the Washington Post (Steve Coll: we were in Pakistan together 10 years ago when he was a reporter and I was the Australian defense attache) and would be prepared to ask him to have the story covered in a tasteful fashion.

I send Mr. Cloughley a summary of what we have been able to piece together about Pat's death. Again, he encourages me to contact Steve Coll. He tells me he tried e-mailing him but didn't receive a response. I indicate to him that I will try to get in touch with him as well.

During my lunch break at school, I call the Washington Post and ask for Steve Coll. After a few minutes of conversation, Mr. Coll confides that his Pentagon reporter was very suspicious about the way Pat's death was reported by the Army. He is interested in talking to me in person and viewing the 15-6 report. I tell him that, coincidentally, I will be in D.C. to meet a friend in several weeks. I let him know I can go to the paper to talk to him. After ending the conversation, I call Senator McCain. I tell him I will be writing questions and e-mailing them to him. I also let him know there are anomalies in the autopsy report, but I want to speak to Dr. Caruso when he returns from Iraq before I do anything.

As soon as I get home from work, I sit down at my computer, overwhelmed with all the questions I have about Pat's death and its aftermath. I go to my room and grab Pat's brown T-shirt and wrap it around my neck. I sit back down at the computer, and the questions come rapidly and sequentially.

1. Why would a unit hold up for two days in a village in a hostile area to repair a Humvee, allowing the enemy to prepare for an ambush? Why does the vehicle have greater priority than the mission? Why bring a jinga truck through a dangerously narrow canyon where an ambush is likely to take place?

2. Why the insistence from Florida to bring the vehicle to Tit rather than abandon or destroy it? Why are orders coming from Florida period?

3. Why were the terms "dawn" and "dusk" used when orders were given to move out to Manah? Why was military time not used?

4. Why the hysterical reaction from Baker and his men? Aren't Rangers trained to assess a situation before shooting?

5. Aren't Rangers trained to go back and help sections of their troops when they're in trouble?

6. Weren't Baker and his men prepared to watch for the first serial, as Rangers come back to help their troops?

7. The driver of Baker's vehicle stated he recognized the Afghan as a friendly "within a split second" of coming out of the canyon. He also saw friendlies on the ridgeline and U.S. vehicles down the road. Why didn't the others see these things?

8. Why didn't the driver do more to stop the shooting?

9. Why didn't the driver physically yank Baker off the vehicle or do something to let him know he was allowing his men to shoot at friendlies?

10. There was a cessation of fire after the AMF was killed. What caused that cessation of fire? Bailey suggested at one point they were reloading. Don't they look around when they're reloading?

11. Baker and his men say they had tunnel vision. If so, they had to have seen what they were shooting. Why didn't they recognize them as friendlies? Baker and his men also state they saw nothing. Which is it? Why didn't they see the smoke?

12. Why did Baker and his men shoot CPL Tillman in the head three times and riddle his body with rounds?

13. Why did Baker and his men drive down the road shooting at buildings? Isn't that illegal?

14. Why were CPL Tillman's clothes burned?

15. Why were young soldiers under orders to keep quiet?

16. Why were men asked to share the blame?

17. Why did it take five weeks to tell the family CPL Tillman was killed by his own men? Why was the family not given a copy of the 15-6 investigation prior to the meeting rather than when we were walking out the door?

18. Why was there no attempt to take accurate measurements?

19. Why were there sketches of vehicles rather than photos of real vehicles?

20. Why wasn't a person situated near the rocks in the photos so scale could be determined? Why were there no tough follow-up questions posed to the soldiers?

21. Why was CPL Tillman's death so embellished by the military?

22. Why did LGEN Kensinger not take questions at the press conference regarding the fratricide?

23. Why didn't the military clear up the untrue and nebulous stories that were released after fratricide was determined to have caused CPL Tillman's death?

24. Why was CPL Tillman's death called an accident?

25. Why has it been stated there is no fault?

26. Why did the Army try to convince Marie to have a military funeral?

A week before leaving for Washington D.C., I read a column in the San Jose Mercury News about a woman named Dolores Kesterson, who lives in nearby Santa Clara. Her son Erik had been a Marine for eight years. In 2000, he earned the Navy and Marine Corps medal for heroism after pulling seven fellow Marines from a flaming helicopter after it crashed. Erik was living a civilian life when September 11th compelled him to re-enlist, this time in the Army. On November 15, 2003, Erik was killed when a chopper, flying in the wrong airspace, hit his Black Hawk helicopter. He was twenty-nine. Dolores was invited to Fort Lewis in June, along with other families of fallen soldiers, to meet with President Bush. The column indicates she was shocked by his behavior toward her. I call information and get her number. After several tries, I'm finally able to reach her, and we arrange to meet for coffee the next day.

Dolores is a strong, down-to-earth woman with a sharp sense of humor and a quick wit. Her large blue eyes reveal sadness as she takes out a copy of the letter she wrote to George Bush when she went to Fort Lewis. She describes how her purse was taken from her and searched.

She believes the letter was shown to the president before he met with her. She waited in a small cubicle until an aide announced, "The president will now see you." Dolores said [the president] "came marching in and got right in my face ... eyeball to eyeball, and said, 'I'm George Bush, president of the United States, and I understand you have something to say to me in private.'" She felt like he was attempting to intimidate her. She would not be threatened, however.

She made it clear to him that she believes the U.S. presence in Iraq is illegal. She shortly changed the subject to her son, telling the president that he was a young man with a zest for life and a wonderful sense of humor whose favorite saying was "Life is good."

The president looked at her blankly and said, "How do you know his life would have been good?"

Dolores was stunned by the insensitivity of his remark, and she shot back, "Life is life, good or bad, nobody wants to die." Dolores says, "Bush has no conscience about the death and destruction he has caused."

What Dolores has told me about her meeting with Bush is shameful, yet I'm not really shocked. The president does not appear to have any empathy. Anytime he tries to convey it, he comes across as insincere or callous. Dolores and I talk for about an hour, sharing stories about Pat and Erik. I let her know I will contact her when I return from Washington.

During my break the following day, I call Dr. Frank to let him know I will be going to D.C. and I'll be staying in Georgetown. I ask if he would be able to meet with me so I can show him the autopsy report. He says he would be happy to look at any documents I have.

Just days before I leave for my trip, I get a call from Dr. Caruso. He gives me the same information Dr. Mallak gave me. But he indicates that both he and Dr. Mallak were angry that Pat came back without his uniform or equipment. He tells me that all fallen soldiers are to be returned stateside with their uniforms. He mentions that the uniforms of wounded soldiers are usually destroyed. He, like Mallak, doesn't understand why I'm unwilling to accept the idea that someone tried to defibrillate Pat. He tells me I should have Marie request the field hospital report to find out what procedures were done there.

As soon as I get off the phone, I call Marie and Kevin and tell them what Dr. Caruso advised. Marie says she will call her casualty assistance liaison and make the request. I tell her I believe someone wants it to appear that there was an attempt at resuscitation because then there would be a reason to destroy the uniform. Uniforms of wounded soldiers can be destroyed. "I think they wanted it to appear Pat came in alive so they would have a reason to remove his uniform and destroy it. They needed to destroy the evidence of fratricide," I tell her.

I arrive in Georgetown on Sunday, October 17. I meet my friend Greg Martin for dinner, and we walk along M Street and talk about his trip to Canada. The next day we both meet Dr. Frank for lunch. I show him the 15-6 documents and the autopsy report. He agrees that many of the soldiers' statements are confounding and says he doesn't think the autopsy was very thorough. He believes I'm doing the right thing by requesting answers.

On Tuesday, Greg and I have lunch with Maura and Sheila Mandt before Maura and I leave to see Steve Coll at the Post. Maura is in the media business, and she suggested she come with me in the event I need some help. Once we arrive at the paper, we are taken to an area outside Steve Coll's office, where we wait for a few minutes. Mr. Coll comes out and introduces himself and his Pentagon correspondent, Josh White. We follow both of them through a maze of reporter cubicles to a meeting room where we sit around a large conference table.

I don't want to waste their time with small talk. I take out all the documents and place them on the table, then I draw a map of the canyon and label Magarah, Tit, and Manah. I outline the sequence of events and indicate movements on the map. I then outline all the anomalies and discuss my suspicions. I tell them what we find disturbing about the autopsy report. Steve is quite a quick study. It doesn't take him long to understand the situation. Josh White tells me he was present at both news conferences, the one that broke the news of Pat's death and the one that revealed his death was a fratricide. He says there was something suspicious about both of them. It was clear the Army was holding back.

I tell Steve and Josh that I would like them to do a story presenting Pat's true actions and the irregularities in the documents. I make it clear that I'm not convinced Pat's death was an accident and that my family feels the soldiers in the vehicle who killed Pat and the AMF soldier and wounded Uthlaut and Lane should have faced more serious consequences. We suspect they weren't dealt with more severely because a court-martial would implicate individuals of higher rank. I let them know that no one in our family wants to be quoted in the story. I explain that Pat's persona puts us in an awkward position, and we are not comfortable being in the public eye. Steve calls his secretary in to make photocopies of the documents.

Shortly after I get back to San Jose, I learn that Senator McCain gave my questions to the acting secretary of the Army, Les Brownlee. He asked the US Army Special Operations Command to address the conduct of the earlier investigation, the handling of evidence, and the delayed reporting of the true nature of Pat's death and report back to him. Lieutenant General Philip R. Kensinger assigned Brigadier General Gary Jones to conduct another 15-6 investigation into Pat's death.

I also learn from Kevin that he met an officer who did a previous investigation, which started within hours of Pat's death. The officer Captain Richard Scott became Kevin's Company Commander when Kevin asked for a reassignment when the unit came back from Afghanistan. One day, Kevin spoke to Scott regarding his unhappiness with the Army's handling of his brother's death. Scott attempted to help Kevin by talking to him and trying to clarify some of the inconsistencies in the investigation. Scott seemed to allude that he had recommended harsher punishment for some of the soldiers involved in the shooting and he had similar concerns about the ambiguity of the orders given. The regiment took over Scott's investigation and told him they were handing it over to an officer of higher rank. Kevin says Captain Scott was shocked to learn the soldiers were not more harshly punished. Kevin and I discuss the fact that he will have to make sure Brigadier General Jones knows about Captain Scott's investigation.

I stay in touch with Steve Coll, keeping him updated with any information we get. He wants to go to Afghanistan to visit the site where Pat died and talk to local Afghans about what took place that day. I want to travel to Afghanistan with him, but Kevin doesn't approve. He is adamant that it's too dangerous for anyone to go over there. I don't want to worry him, so I let Steve know I can't go.

The first week of December, I receive a letter from a Los Angeles Times reporter, David Zucchino, which is addressed to Pat's father and me. The letter indicates that he has been in Afghanistan and has spoken to locals in and around Manah who say there was no enemy and no ambush. Mr. Zucchino says he is informing us as a courtesy that he will be writing the story within the week. I try to call Steve right away to let him know the reporter intends to write the story, but I can't reach him. The whole purpose of asking Steve to write the story is to get the story of Pat's death right -- to get to the truth. If this reporter writes his piece without looking at documents or interviewing soldiers, he is going to skew the facts even more.

I place a call to Zucchino and tell him his story isn't that newsworthy. I let him know that the Associated Press printed a story in June about the fact there was no ambush. I explain that my son Kevin was there, and there were people shooting at the serial from the top of the canyon. He seems surprised when I tell him Kevin was part of the platoon. I can't believe he has never heard Kevin was there. I tell him I really don't think it's a good idea for him to write a story without the benefit of soldier statements. I suggest he will embarrass himself if the writes the story.

During the conversation, I give him information off the record, telling him he can use it to track down other facts. By the end of the conversation, Zucchino tells me he won't write the story without looking into the facts further. I find out he also called Patrick, who told him the same thing I did: that he needs to get more information before he writes a piece.

That evening I get a call from Steve and I tell him about the reporter. Steve says he'll have to rush his story. He doesn't believe the reporter will hold up his article. On December 5, part one of Steve's story on Pat comes out in the Washington Post. The piece is comprehensive, powerful, and distressing. It angers me on many levels that the Army lied about Pat's death, but what upsets me most is that Pat was removed from the context of his death and turned into a caricature. Steve did an amazing job presenting the events of April 22 and establishing Pat's true and honorable actions that fateful day.

On Monday, December 6, part two is published, and it is equally compelling and poignant. However, David Zucchino's story is printed that same morning in the LA Times. I'm absolutely furious -- not only did he write facts that were not carefully checked, he also quoted information I gave him off the record. Patrick called to tell me Zucchino quoted him inappropriately as well. To be publicly quoted against your wishes is unsettling and a serious violation of journalistic ethics. I call Mr. Zucchino and tell him to never contact me again.

In March 2005, Brigadier General Jones briefs my family on the findings of his investigation. Kevin and Marie are briefed at Fort Lewis, and Patrick, Mike, and I are briefed at Moffett Field; however, Patrick is briefed at a different time.

My casualty assistance liaison picks up Mike and me at my house and takes us to the airfield. Brigadier General Jones greets us just inside the door. He is a tall, well-built man with a confident and friendly demeanor. He walks us down several halls to a meeting room. We are seated around a conference table with various military personnel, one of whom is a JAG officer -- a judge advocate general, a legal officer -- Lieutenant Colonel Michael Hargis. General Jones stands behind a podium and begins his presentation. He indicates right away that light conditions were very poor that evening. I politely interrupt him and tell him that Colonel Bailey told us he walked the site where Pat was killed approximately twenty-four hours after the incident, and he told us the light conditions were good. He told us he didn't understand how Baker and his men could not see the friendlies. Jones tells us that Bailey didn't walk the site at that time; he says Bailey was there in the morning hours.

"Are you saying Bailey lied to us about that?"

"No, ma'am," he says, then continues with his presentation.

He tells us that the farthest distance the Afghan was from Baker's vehicle was seventy-five meters. He indicates that Pat was around sixty-five meters away. However, based on soldiers' statements and looking at the photographs, Mike says the distance between Pat and Baker's vehicle would have been around 35 meters.

I question Jones about how the men in the vehicle could have not seen the Afghan, Pat, and the other friendlies at such close distances. I remind him that Bailey had originally told us Pat and the AMF soldier were nearly 150 to 200 meters away.

"I find it suspicious now that the distances are shrinking and the light conditions are deteriorating. How is it the driver, Sayre, was able to identify the AMF soldier and the friendlies?" Mike asks. "And why didn't he do more to stop the shooting?"

"There wasn't time for him to stop the shooting. They shot up that ridgeline in a matter of four seconds."

"What! Four seconds?" Mike and I yell at once.

"It took longer than four seconds for Pat to pull the pin and throw the smoke grenade," Mike says.

"You're telling us the men in that vehicle shot up the ridgeline in a matter of four seconds? From the time they left the canyon until they stopped past the village?" I ask.

"Yes, ma'am."

"Well, Colonel Bailey told us Baker was out of the vehicle when he shot the Afghan. He also told us there were several lulls in fire. In fact, O'Neal states in his testimony the vehicle stopped firing, then they got in a better position to shoot before they opened up again," I say in frustration.

"No one got out of the vehicle. That early information is incorrect, and O'Neal is the least reliable witness because he was so traumatized," Jones says.

"You won't believe O'Neal, but you'll believe the guys who were shooting at him!"

Jones stares at me before moving on to his next point. He tells us that the Army is very sorry for the fact we weren't told about the circumstances of Pat's death sooner, but there was misunderstanding about the protocol. He says the Army is going to begin telling families right away when fratricide is suspected.

I ask the general if he knows why Pat's uniform, MOLLE [3], and other equipment were burned, and he tells me his things were a biohazard.

"Well, Pat's body was a biohazard; why didn't they leave the uniform on the body to go back to Dover? Commander Mallak, the medical examiner, told me that all uniforms and equipment must be returned with the body."

"That's a new policy, ma'am. Not everyone is familiar with it."

"Pat's death was a suspected fratricide," Mike says. "Shouldn't his things have been preserved as evidence? Isn't that common sense?"

The meeting is becoming frustrating, and I feel we are not getting any answers. General Jones tells us we won't get a copy of the thousand-plus- page report for several weeks, but I'm given a binder with his summary. Mike and I thank him and leave.

I sit up all night reading and rereading Jones's summary. I also go over the 15-6 again. At about seven a.m., I call my casualty assistance liaison and ask her if I can meet with the general again today. She says she will find out and call back. Fifteen minutes later, she calls back and tells me General Jones has agreed to see me again.

I walk into the familiar room and sit down at the table. The same personnel are seated there.

Jones greets me and gets up to stand behind his podium.

"Could you please not do that? Could you please just sit here at the table and talk to me?"

The general looks over at his JAG for a second, then sits down in a chair across from me.

I tell him I have gone through his summary binder, and I found a few things I want to talk about. I tell him there is a protocol already in place about telling families about suspected fratricide. I tell him that there is also a protocol in the books about preserving the uniforms and equipment of fallen soldiers, which has been in place since before the new edict. I tell him I don't understand why so many soldiers and officers were unaware of procedure.

General Jones listens to me but doesn't respond. I tell him that in looking at the statements in the 15-6 report, I'm sickened by the remarks of some of the soldiers in the vehicle. One of the soldiers is asked if he positively identified his target, and the soldier said, "No." He wanted to be in a firefight. I ask the general how he got away with saying something like that. The general agrees the remark is horrible, but he doesn't indicate anything will come of it.

I ask him if he looked into the orders that were given from Salerno, splitting the troops and moving in daylight. He tells me that even though splitting troops and moving in daylight is not policy, it had been done before. Again, I feel I'm getting nowhere. I tell General Jones he will be hearing from me after I have a chance to go through the whole report. I thank him and leave. Three weeks pass before we each finally get our copies of the report. The report fills six binders, although the fifth binder is classified and unavailable to us. Going through this report is daunting. I welcome taking a break from it today to visit Pat. Today Pat has been gone a year.

I drive to Santa Cruz to the Crow's Nest, where Pat proposed to Marie. Sitting on the deck, I stare out at the water. Five months ago, on Pat's birthday, we chartered a little Popeye-type boat and scattered Pat's glittering ashes just past the lighthouse. I tell Pat that he would have loved the run that was held in his honor last weekend. Six thousand people showed up to participate in the first annual Pat's Run, organized by the Pat Tillman Foundation. [4] It was a wonderful celebration of his life and his infectious spirit.

Throughout early spring, media people have been calling everyone in the family, offering to do stories or investigative pieces. For a time we were interested in 60 Minutes or Dateline doing an investigative piece, but ultimately both programs decide not to do anything because no family member will consent to be interviewed on camera. We had a family agreement that any story should be about Pat, not us. Josh White comes to the house and examines the Jones report once the documents arrive. He writes several solid pieces about his findings in the Washington Post, which draw attention to the lies told in Pat's situation.

One day he receives a phone call from the mother of a soldier killed just weeks after Pat. She is searching for someone to help her find answers. Josh calls me and asks if I will speak to her. He tells me her name is Peggy Buryj (pronounced "Booty"). I call her right away. Peggy tells me her son Jesse was killed May 4, 2004. She and her husband were first told Jesse was killed when a truck hit his vehicle. Three months later, they learned he was shot. Days ago she finally received Jesse's autopsy report, after nearly a year, and it revealed he was shot in the back. The Army is saying Polish allies killed him, but she doesn't know what to believe. I tell Peggy I have no formula in trying to get answers. Peggy is tough, smart, and resilient. I encourage her to keep fighting.

Looking through my incoming e-mail, I notice I received two messages from my casualty assistance liaison. I see Marie got them as well. One has an attachment of a psychological evaluation Pat had in December 2002. The other has the field hospital report attached. I had asked Marie, as Pat's next of kin, to request both months ago. I remembered that Pat had talked about having more psychological evaluations than anyone he knew, and I wanted to see if I could learn why the evaluations were given. I had wanted the field hospital report to help determine why Pat had the strange abrasions on his chest. Since we know the medic didn't attempt to defibrillate Pat, we think someone in the field hospital did.

I first open the two-page field hospital document. I feel trepidation as I begin to scan the pages. The report is filled out in typical doctor scrawl. The first page is dated April 22, 2004. I scan the page. There are notes written across the first sheet.

Gun/shrapnel to head No BP [blood pressure] or pulse obtainable Large calvarial defect: exposed grey matter No cardiac tones

I notice the second page looks as though it is dated April 25, 2004. The page is hole punched over the day, but I can clearly see that the last number is a 5, and not a 2, suggesting the date of death as April 25, 2004. The second page reads:

Surgery Pt [patient] died of wounds no vs [vital signs] obtainable [through] resuscitation Disposition-mortuary services

The document makes it look as though Pat died on the 25th. I turn back to the first page and read what the doctor wrote:

1. CPR performed 2. Trans to ICU for cont. CPR

What? If this were Pat, why would the doctor write that he was given CPR? Why would you transfer a man who had been dead for hours to intensive care for continued CPR? What kind of surgery would you perform on a man who had no brain and no skull, who was transported as a KIA (killed in action)?

I then open the psychological evaluation attachment, which is difficult to read. The psychologist's handwriting is so small that I use a magnifying glass to try to make out what it says. There are only a few lines I can read. One statement indicates that Pat is a "moderate risk." Others say he "doesn't respect authority" and "Cockiness will get him in trouble, will square off with authority," "arrogant."

I'm outraged as I read this assessment of Pat. I put the document aside, and I start to feel sick. Why would a psychologist write such things? Pat may have had some authority issues as a teenager, but not the man I knew before he died. I immediately am reminded of a lovely letter Pat's platoon leader, Lieutenant David Uthlaut, sent to Patrick and me last Christmas. He described Pat as down-to-earth and someone who was unusual in his consideration of others. He told a story about Pat's relationship with younger Rangers, particularly Bryan O'Neal, the soldier whose life Pat saved.

"Whenever a new soldier comes into the platoon," Uthlaut wrote, "the more senior soldiers generally take to 'initiating' them in some fashion, and make them prove themselves worthy of being in the Rangers. Pat saw his role very differently. When Private O'Neal came into the platoon and got assigned to Pat's fire team, Pat did not force him to prove himself; instead, he made it his primary mission to prepare this young and inexperienced soldier for the upcoming deployment. Every time I walked by the squad room, Pat was instructing; he was either showing O'Neal battle drills with a whiteboard and marker, showing him how to properly tie down his equipment, or giving him general advice on how to survive. By showing that he was not only knowledgeable, but that he also genuinely cared for the soldier under his charge, Pat embodied the qualities of a true leader. He will forever have my respect, not because he turned down NFL contracts to serve his country, but because he was an exceptional soldier and a talented leader."

I was very touched by Lieutenant Uthlaut's letter, and after I received it, I called him, and we had a nice conversation. He's an honorable man, and it is obvious he carries a sad and heavy burden because of what happened. I am sure he would be as dumbfounded as I am by the psychologist's evaluation of Pat.

A few days later, walking along Almaden Road, I watch the flags flutter in the slight breeze. The neighborhood put the flags up for the first anniversary of Pat's death. I cried when I drove down the driveway and saw them once again flanking the road.

Today is Memorial Day. I wonder if the flags will come down or if they will be left until after the Fourth of July. As I walk up the driveway, three hens and a rooster scurry past me. Walking across my yard, I notice a paper has been left on the ledge of my Dutch door. It is a printout of a column written by Robert Scheer titled A Cover-Up as Shameful as Tillman's Death. My neighbor Annie must have left it for me. I sit in a lawn chair in the warm sun and read. Mr. Scheer, a nationally syndicated columnist, clearly has been following Pat's story, and he very pointedly blames the administration for covering up Pat's death. I'm impressed with the courage it took to write the piece.

The next day I place a call to Robert Scheer at USC, where he teaches, to thank him for writing the column. He doesn't answer, so I leave a message asking that he call me. When he returns my call, his voice sounds uneasy. He tells me he was a bit afraid to call me. He thought I might have been unhappy with the piece. I laugh that he would take pot shots at the administration, but he was afraid of a phone call from me. Before we ended the conversation, Mr. Scheer asks if he might be able to come see the report. I tell him he can come anytime. He asks if the upcoming Saturday is all right, and I say yes. He then asks if he can bring his wife, the deputy editor of the San Francisco Chronicle. I tell him that it would be fine.

Early afternoon on Saturday, Robert Scheer and Narda Zacchino drive up my driveway.

_______________

Notes:

1. Soldier responsible for directing artillery fire and close air support onto enemy positions.

2. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

3. Modular Lightweight Load-carrying Equipment.

4. The Pat Tillman Foundation seeks to carry forward Pat's legacy by inspiring and supporting young people striving to promote positive change in themselves and the world around them.

Go to Next Page