(refiles to add dropped word "about" in first paragraph) By Kristin Roberts WASHINGTON, Jan 17 (Reuters) - An attorney for the leader of a group of U.S. Marines accused of murdering 24 civilians in Haditha, Iraq, said on Wednesday that Pentagon officials intentionally misled or deceived the public about the case. Mark Zaid, attorney for Staff Sgt. Frank Wuterich, said the original 2006 investigation report, obtained by Reuters, fully cleared his client and other Marines of wrongdoing. But Defense Department (DoD) officials speaking anonymously last May about that first report from Col. Gregory Watt, as the case began to grab international attention, had said the investigation raised questions about the Marines' actions. "I think the Watt report is proof of a concerted effort by certain DoD officials to either mislead or deceive the public on what occurred in Haditha," Zaid said. Zaid said his client and the other Marines were victims of a U.S. government crackdown aimed at improving public perception of the American presence in Iraq after the Abu Ghraib prison abuse scandal and amid a series of cases in which service members were accused of killing civilians. "Because of the timing of this case with other clear criminal acts by the U.S. military it has caused these Marines to be held accountable on a macro level for policies they had nothing to do with," Zaid said. A Marine Corps spokesman was not immediately available to comment. Zaid's client and three other Marines have been charged with murder and four other Marines have been charged with dereliction of duty in the 2005 killing of unarmed men, women and children in Haditha. At first, the U.S. military said civilians were killed by a roadside bomb. Iraqi witnesses, however, said enraged Marines shot the civilians in their homes in retaliation for an attack that killed another U.S. serviceman. Watt, the investigating officer, delivered a report in March 2006 that concluded there was no indication the Marines intentionally targeted and killed civilians. The Marines were taking small-arms fire and entered houses in the area as part of that fight, according to the report. Watt also concluded that the insurgents could not be distinguished from the civilians and that the amount of force used by the accused Marines was "proportional and provided overmatch" to ensure victory. "This overmatch was appropriate in nature, scope and duration," according to the report. Unnamed defense officials, however, cast the conclusions differently. In press reports, those officials said Watt found the Marines were not provoked by small-arms fire. They also said the report raised questions about whether Marines followed the right rules for identifying threats.
