Lt Col Wilkerson sexual assault case

[The Lefty]

I always understood that the whole military justice / court-martial system operates at the behest of a commanding officer. There simply is no independent judiciary in the military. Courts-martial are convened because the commander does not have enough time to arbitrate each case. It's interesting that people are incensed over a commander's authority to overturn a verdict, yet have no problem with the President's authority to pardon known criminals.

As for the case itself, when the investigating officer's decision to recommend a court-martial was based on the fact that the woman had no motivation to invent the story, I find that pretty weak. Couple that with the current state of fighter pilot hating ginned up by Tsgt Smith and co. and you have a very accuser-friendly environment.

[Flaco]

And I ask:

What is the punishment for a woman who falsely accuses a man of sexual assault, destroys his career, and causes him to spend 4 months in jail?

[Day Man]

you could probably get a good idea here...

[Fuzz]

you could probably get a good idea here...

Oh yeah I can see the headline now, "AF prosecutes sexual assault victim after General dismisses jury conviction", whoever made that decision would have 6-9 female members of congress on their ass in less the .69 seconds.

[Muscle2002]

And I ask:

What is the punishment for a woman who falsely accuses a man of sexual assault, destroys his career, and causes him to spend 4 months in jail?

Probably nothing, but there may be recourse in a civil lawsuit.

Edited April 16, 2013 by Muscle2002

[Hueypilot]

Even after the release of the general's letter and the court documents, the public opinion is still tilted against the general. Reading some articles makes your blood boil, like this one:

"Air Force General Defends Overturning Sexual Assault Conviction By Blaming Victim"

https://thinkprogress.org/security/2013/04/11/1851221/general-overturn-sexual-assault/?mobile=wt

The author obviously read the memo with their mind already made up. The facts they cherry picked for the article were the weaker facts and they completely left out the bigger holes in the case. The comments are even more maddening, and it's obvious 99% of those commenting didn't even read the memo but instead threw out their Jump To Conclusions mat...

Worse, now Hagel is jumping on the popular bandwagon and suggesting that GCMCAs be stripped of any ability to overturn or set aside any part of convictions...

"Hagel wants military brass stripped of ability to overturn convictions, officials say"

https://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57578482/hagel-wants-military-brass-stripped-of-ability-to-overturn-convictions-officials-say/

Did any of these clowns READ any of the trial testimony? I read a lot of it today as well as the general's letter and there are HUGE question marks. There were NO smoking guns or clean kills presented by the prosecution. And Gen Franklin did say that it wasn't impossible for the events to happen the way the accuser stated they did, but he felt strongly that it was also not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that it did happen. After reading the court information, I also had significant questions that were not addressed.

Unfortunately we live in an era where in these types of cases you are often guilty until proven innocent.

Edited April 16, 2013 by Hueypilot

[Steve Davies]

Wow. The most powerful country in the world really is run by a bunch of retards:

Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo. said that Franklin's decision sets the Air Force "all the way back to Tailhook."

[TreeA10]

Wow. The most powerful country in the world really is run by a bunch of retards:

And you just noticed? And to make it worse, I think they have gone full retard. Never go full retard.

[Red Fox]

Wow. The most powerful country in the world really is run by a bunch of retards:

Steve, I would say that most are not retards (except maybe the congressman who thought Guam would tip over if overpopulated with American military), but elected by retards. McCaskill was trying to win points with her dumbed-down constituents. IMHO, we have a very uninformed electorate that elects politicians who don't offer real solutions to our problems, but instead, tell them what they want to hear. Maybe it's that way in the UK also. Regards, RF

[Steve Davies]

RF

Yes, I don't doubt that's true. I was reading that quote, plus the fact that the Air Force's own civilian leader appears to have an ill-formed view, plus the completely retarded questions asked of the CIA by another senator about the White House's armed drones, and then tarnishing them all with the same brush.

It's exactly the same over here. A helicopter recently crashed in London. An MP went on the news and said that she thought that private helicopters flying in London was dangerous (despite this being the first ever fatality in 40+ years), and that this was particularly the case when they hovered over the Houses of Parliament. The only helos allowed to do that are police ones. She is, clearly, a cretin.

So, yes, it is clear that politicians the world over are the same in that they say what they think their constituents want to hear.

Steve, I would say that most are not retards (except maybe the congressman who thought Guam would tip over if overpopulated with American military), but elected by retards. McCaskill was trying to win points with her dumbed-down constituents. IMHO, we have a very uninformed electorate that elects politicians who don't offer real solutions to our problems, but instead, tell them what they want to hear. Maybe it's that way in the UK also. Regards, RF

[HuggyU2]

Lawyer up if you even think there is a chance of something happening.

I was #3 in a 4 ship where the flight lead got violated. I went straight to the ADC. Sure enough, a few days later, I was put under oath in the investigation. Talk to NO ONE without a lawyer. For me, that includes Wing Safety.

This was the 3rd time I've used the ADC.

My incidents were minor, obviously, and nothing criminal. But why someone would speak with investigators on a crime this serious without an attorney giving advice is beyond me.

[Fud]

But why someone would speak with investigators on a crime this serious without an attorney giving advice is beyond me.

Huge 2!

Martha Stewart's insider trading case is a great example of why she should have had an attorney with her when she was questioned. If all else fails, you will be will be charged with "false official statement" when talking to investigators, unless you are just that good (most aren't). Stewart was convicted only for lieing to federal investigators. On a side note, investigators can lie to you without penalty and will do so to garner a confession.

I'm on part 3 of the video OSI interview tape, and it was very disheartening to see the Lt Col go through this. After reading all the other FOIA material and digesting it, I cannot see how a jury could convict someone on such circumstatial evidence. Lesson learned, no more parties at my house, and I'll never be in a room alone with a female again that is not a romantic partner.

I've followed this case for some time, and I was floored to hear that LTG Franklin set aside his conviction and reinstated him into the USAF. I had never heard of LTG Franklin before this instance, but you Sir, are a Patriot with true integrity.

[afnav]

I definitely concur with the ADC referral. A rogue shoe colonel suspended my clearance for no other reason than to prove she could, and a captain ADC had her mumbling like an idiot before it was over. She damn near earned herself an investigation for abuse of a subordinate, and likely pissed off a two-star above her for being an idiot. Apparently, I was far from her only target.

The ADC is one of the best benefits out there for a military member, and if you get a good one, they can save your life.

[Guest one]

I am also glad he did not get anymore time in prison but this Lt Col really didn't make things easy for himself. Some of the stuff he was saying was really weird. He kept insinuating he was drugged. That is pretty questionable in itself.

This was his word against her word. Her explanation was pretty simple. I know it is difficult to see the other side but what if he did cross the line? I doubt that he just couldn't help himself from assaulting some 50 year old bar slut but what if they were messing around and she said no. Then he gets mad and kicks her out of his house. This isn't sexual assault but it gives the woman a much better motive to lie. All this is obviously speculation but you can still see how this issue was made more complicated than it had to be by the Lt Col if he did lie about some of the details. I do not believe either were 100% truthful about the situation.

This is why you don't have complete strangers sleep at your house. This is why you don't talk to OSI without a lawyer.

Edited April 17, 2013 by one

[Fuzz]

I have an idea let's all have a party at your house, with alcohol, then 3 weeks later throw you in a room with OSI agents and have them grill you for 2-3 hours and recount he entire night in detail. I bet you would be "less than truthful" because you just don't remember.

hell there are some weeks I couldn't tell you in detail what I did 3 days ago let alone 3 weeks.

[Ziplip]

This is why you don't have complete strangers sleep at your house.

I'm sure no one here has ever let a female stranger spend the night in their house. /sarcasm

[Guest one]

I have an idea let's all have a party at your house, with alcohol, then 3 weeks later throw you in a room with OSI agents and have them grill you for 2-3 hours and recount he entire night in detail. I bet you would be "less than truthful" because you just don't remember.

hell there are some weeks I couldn't tell you in detail what I did 3 days ago let alone 3 weeks.

I don't remember is a reasonable response. Insinuating you have been drugged is an unreasonable response that sounds a little crazy given the circumstances. This is the type a thing a lawyer would advise you not to say. I completely understand being nervous and starting saying things out of fear. I can't believe an IG would not know the importance of being advised by a lawyer in this type of situation.

Edited April 17, 2013 by one

[USMCAirWinger]

I can't believe an IG would not know the importance of being advised by a lawyer in this type of situation.

He felt like he was untouchable and was correct.

[Hueypilot]

I think even the general acknowledged that something fishy *could* have happened, but from what I could see and apparently from Lt Gen. Franklin's point of view, there were still large inconsistencies that left the door wide open to serious doubts. I saw nothing that caused me to say "oh yeah, he got nailed there (sts)".

Last I checked we don't convict people based on "could haves" or "seemed to appears". In my experiences with friends and even myself, when it comes to these highly politicized charges like rape, sexual assault and other gender-based crimes, the man is very often guilty until proven innocent. In many cases they are right, but I know of people who were accused of stuff that were only involved in situations they believed (at the time) in good faith to be "ok".

Edited April 17, 2013 by Hueypilot

[Smokin]

He felt like he was untouchable and was correct.

Pretty sure actually spending time in a federal prison is not untouchable.

[USMCAirWinger]

Pretty sure actually spending time in a federal prison is not untouchable.

Being that he was convicted but the Commander used his authority to reverse the conviction sounds pretty untouchable to me.

If this was the average enlisted troop instead of a "Bro" fighter pilot, former IG, would the General have made the same decision?

[Azimuth]

What about the old AFMC Command Chief who cried to Lt Gen Allardice about being punished for sexual assault, adultery that Dice reduced his sentence by 16-months (from 20)? This isn't a E vs O thing.

[Guest one]

If he was trialed in a civilian court, there is no way he would have been found innocent. If a jury of all officers who are much more socially conservative than the average American found him guilty, the odds of him being found innocent in a civilian court would be slim.

I know many of you found it hard to believe a jury could find him guilty because the evidence was circumstantial but when a "victim" is testifying against you and there is no clear motive to why they would lie, that is not considered circumstantial. I am sure the defense tried to question her credibility but the jury obviously felt she was credible.

[Hueypilot]

Being that he was convicted but the Commander used his authority to reverse the conviction sounds pretty untouchable to me.

If this was the average enlisted troop instead of a "Bro" fighter pilot, former IG, would the General have made the same decision?

Ugh, enough already with the officer vs enlisted diatribes....reading some of the other military forums that's all anyone seems to care about in this case.

[Guest one]

What about the old AFMC Command Chief who cried to Lt Gen Allardice about being punished for sexual assault, adultery that Dice reduced his sentence by 16-months (from 20)? This isn't a E vs O thing.

Reducing a sentence and overturning a conviction are very different. The Lt Col will not even have to register as a sex offender. It is as if he was perfectly innocent. If this exact situation happened to a SSgt instead of a Col select, the conviction would not be overturned or even looked at by the General.

I am not saying that this doesn't make sense. You would think a Colonel has earned more benefit of the doubt than someone who has been in for five years but let's not pretend it doesn't make a drastic difference.

Edited April 18, 2013 by one