PDA

View Full Version : Sex Charges Dropped; Aviano IG freed from Brig



loggie94
02-27-2013, 02:34 PM
http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2013/02/air-force-aviano-ig-wilkerson-overturned-022613w/

Wow...just wow. Congratulations to Lt Col Wilkerson, I guess..?

imported_Sgt HULK
02-27-2013, 02:56 PM
http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2013/02/air-force-aviano-ig-wilkerson-overturned-022613w/

Wow...just wow. Congratulations to Lt Col Wilkerson, I guess..?

Oh I get it it was his word vs hers and he won.

when on the same foot those enlisted MTI's word vs some chicks word and he was automatically guilty.

No physical evidence in any cases but it only mattered in this one case?

im calling bullshit

Sergeant eNYgma
02-27-2013, 03:12 PM
Oh I get it it was his word vs hers and he won.

when on the same foot those enlisted MTI's word vs some chicks word and he was automatically guilty.

No physical evidence in any cases but it only mattered in this one case?

im calling bullshit

I'm with you...

JD2780
02-27-2013, 03:16 PM
The third witness was his wife. It seem hokie from the beginning. Plus with the MTIs there were MULTIPLE incidents. Different issuess.

imported_DannyJ
02-27-2013, 03:33 PM
The third witness was his wife. It seem hokie from the beginning. Plus with the MTIs there were MULTIPLE incidents. Different issuess.

And hard evidence. I'm with JD on this one.

Smeghead
02-27-2013, 04:20 PM
And hard evidence. I'm with JD on this one.

Which hard evidence was this? DNA? Rape kit? Scratches on the rapist's face? Other CSI type stuff?

OtisRNeedleman
02-27-2013, 06:18 PM
Wonder if he will get his promotion to O-6, or just retire.

JD2780
02-27-2013, 06:19 PM
Which hard evidence was this? DNA? Rape kit? Scratches on the rapist's face? Other CSI type stuff?

From what I gathered there wasnt much evidence of anything except for testimony.

BRUWIN
02-27-2013, 10:19 PM
Staying away from the officer vs enlisted disciplinary issue....there was never a doubt in my mind this guy was innocent.

Robert F. Dorr
02-27-2013, 11:43 PM
I think he's innocent, too, but he has only been found not guilty. "Where do I go to get my reputation back?"

raider8169
02-28-2013, 12:18 AM
Oh I get it it was his word vs hers and he won.

I would hope nobody gets convicted of a crime based on one person's word vs. another. He didnt win, the case was just dropped. Charges can always be filed later if new evidence is found.

sandsjames
02-28-2013, 12:58 AM
He said "hard evidence".:thumb

CrustySMSgt
02-28-2013, 04:56 AM
Given none of us have any knowledge of the actual evidence, other than what has been reported, there are only 2-3 people who know what actually happened. If he's innocent, I'm glad it worked out for him, but there is no way he'll ever get his life back, not to mention repay him for the 3 months he spent in the brig. If he's not, then I guess karma will have to work its magic on him.

These he said/she said cases are tough... as long as you don't leave any evidence and there aren't any witnesses, you can pretty much get away with anything if the rest of the world thinks you're a great guy.

loggie94
02-28-2013, 07:27 AM
Crusty, I agree completely... cases like this that involve no physical evidence and the clouded judgement of alcohol are a mess to sort out. I've sat on the jury in a similar case, so I feel for those that convicted him based on the evidence that they were presented, which was likely only aobut 60% of the info, if they were lucky enough to get that much. In the case I was involved in, the other panel members and I wanted 10 minutes alone with the accused, accuser and on witness, which we figured would have been more benificial than 3 days of courtroom antics in sorting out what really happened.

The General was privy to more information that the jury, which obviously made a difference in his decision.

To me, his case differs greatly from those going on at Lackland. In his case first, if you believe his story, he's innocent and a pissed-off lady made up a story that tubed his career, marriage, life. Second, if you believe her story, two consenting peers partied together beyond a level they should have, which led to a sexual encounter that shouldn't have happened.

In the Lackland cases, the great majority of them were very predatorial in nature with leaders(?) taking advantage of those they were in charge of. Much worse in my book.

And yes, good luck to him trying to get back to 'normal' life after this whole event.

Pullinteeth
02-28-2013, 01:47 PM
He probably did it in a very uncomfortable spot.

Like the back of a Volkswagen?

Pullinteeth
02-28-2013, 01:49 PM
I think he's innocent, too, but he has only been found not guilty. "Where do I go to get my reputation back?"

No he wasn't.... he was convicted. The Gen just overturned the conviction. Not the same thing.


I would hope nobody gets convicted of a crime based on one person's word vs. another. He didnt win, the case was just dropped. Charges can always be filed later if new evidence is found.

He was convicted. The case was NOT dropped. Charged cannot be filed again-the prosecution can appeal (I think) but charges cannot be refiled.

RobotChicken
03-01-2013, 04:47 AM
I guess in 'today's pc military'; you need a jag,wingman,security detail around u 24/7 to legally protect u. :nono

BRUWIN
03-01-2013, 09:59 AM
Given none of us have any knowledge of the actual evidence, other than what has been reported, there are only 2-3 people who know what actually happened.

I got all my facts from the AF Times. There is no doubt in my mind he's innocent.

And if anybody ever questions the integrity of the AF Times then ask any AF people at the Pentagon what they think of it. They all hate it....so it has to be good.

Koa1121
03-02-2013, 12:54 AM
To me, his case differs greatly from those going on at Lackland. In his case first, if you believe his story, he's innocent and a pissed-off lady made up a story that tubed his career, marriage, life. Second, if you believe her story, two consenting peers partied together beyond a level they should have, which led to a sexual encounter that shouldn't have happened.

In the Lackland cases, the great majority of them were very predatorial in nature with leaders(?) taking advantage of those they were in charge of. Much worse in my book.

And yes, good luck to him trying to get back to 'normal' life after this whole event.

:wacko

Really? Leaders acting as predators? You really ate up those articles for all they were worth huh? They sensationalized those Lackland cases beyond anything I have ever read. Walker case aside, what I gathered from Lackland's issues was this-- A few MTI's and Tech Schoolers hooked up, and had sex. I haven't heard of any cases since Walker's where an MTI "preyed" upon their trainees. Some didn't even do anything more than add former trainees as friends on facebook and were listed as so called "predators" and Court Martialed.

loggie94
03-02-2013, 06:36 AM
:wacko

Really? Leaders acting as predators? You really ate up those articles for all they were worth huh? They sensationalized those Lackland cases beyond anything I have ever read. Walker case aside, what I gathered from Lackland's issues was this-- A few MTI's and Tech Schoolers hooked up, and had sex. I haven't heard of any cases since Walker's where an MTI "preyed" upon their trainees. Some didn't even do anything more than add former trainees as friends on facebook and were listed as so called "predators" and Court Martialed.

There is no denying that the stories were sensationalized...and, there is no denying that due to the worst of the cases, those guilty of lesser offenses are going to get hammered harder than if they were an individual, isolated incident. And....I wouldn't even argue if you said the ladies involved in much of this were just as guilty for letting the relationships get established. However, in the majority of the case information I have seen, those involved took advantage of their senior position to establish and further their relationship with the young women they were supposed to train and protect.

CrustySMSgt
03-02-2013, 06:51 AM
:wacko

Really? Leaders acting as predators? You really ate up those articles for all they were worth huh? They sensationalized those Lackland cases beyond anything I have ever read. Walker case aside, what I gathered from Lackland's issues was this-- A few MTI's and Tech Schoolers hooked up, and had sex. I haven't heard of any cases since Walker's where an MTI "preyed" upon their trainees. Some didn't even do anything more than add former trainees as friends on facebook and were listed as so called "predators" and Court Martialed.

Sorry, but I gotta side with "the man" on this one. Some professions have very clear lines and the AETC world is one of them. Just being a teacher, it is made very clear that you do not develop personal relationships with your students. That line is very clear to those serving in those positions and the consequences of violations are well known. Choose to cross the line and you can't bitch about being held accountable. Even "do(ing) anything more than add former trainees as friends on facebook" crosses that line...

KellyinAvon
03-02-2013, 12:47 PM
Sorry, but I gotta side with "the man" on this one. Some professions have very clear lines and the AETC world is one of them. Just being a teacher, it is made very clear that you do not develop personal relationships with your students. That line is very clear to those serving in those positions and the consequences of violations are well known. Choose to cross the line and you can't bitch about being held accountable. Even "do(ing) anything more than add former trainees as friends on facebook" crosses that line...

Some of the best advice I ever received about being a supervisor was, "keep a distance between you and your troops." There was no Facebook back then, but I think it would apply the same.

Koa1121
03-02-2013, 03:26 PM
Never said it was right, but to use words like "predator" and phrases like "culture of intimidation" seem a bit outlandish to describe a few inappropriate relationships. Also using the "trainee" description for every "victim" is misleading as well.

CrustySMSgt
03-04-2013, 06:46 AM
On topic:

The latest story on this case. I think this will be the flashpoint to have someone from outside the DoD step in and take control of these cases, taking it out of the hands of the commanders. A panel of his peers (4 O6s and an O5) found him guilty. The conviening authorities legal counsel found the conviction met legal standards and recommended the conviction stand, but in his infinite wisdom (and power), he threw it out. If they're allowed to retain that kind of authority to discount the legal process and evidence, why even have a trial?

http://www.stripes.com/news/air-force-pilot-s-sex-assault-dismissal-sparks-cries-for-reform-1.210371




Never said it was right, but to use words like "predator" and phrases like "culture of intimidation" seem a bit outlandish to describe a few inappropriate relationships. Also using the "trainee" description for every "victim" is misleading as well.

While some may be on the very low end of the scale, I'd hardly classify 36 individuals being charged as "a few."

tiredretiredE7
03-04-2013, 02:28 PM
On topic:

The latest story on this case. I think this will be the flashpoint to have someone from outside the DoD step in and take control of these cases, taking it out of the hands of the commanders. A panel of his peers (4 O6s and an O5) found him guilty. The conviening authorities legal counsel found the conviction met legal standards and recommended the conviction stand, but in his infinite wisdom (and power), he threw it out. If they're allowed to retain that kind of authority to discount the legal process and evidence, why even have a trial?

http://www.stripes.com/news/air-force-pilot-s-sex-assault-dismissal-sparks-cries-for-reform-1.210371

I have been waiting to reply to this post to see if anyone would look at this and all rape cases from a different angle but no one else has so I will. There was some evidence suppressed by the judge that the defense presented concerning the victim lying previously. The victim’s friend said the victim was a liar and this was apparently suppressed by the judge so the jury did not hear any negative testimony about the victim's credibility. I would also overturn the findings and set the guy free. I am not saying he is innocent and he did have significant complaints about his on-duty behavior but that still does not add up to incarceration for a he said she said (she probably lied as revenge for getting kicked out of the house) event. Some women have abused the "victim" card in the past and will in the future. The AF needs convening authorities who are willing to overturn bad findings regardless of the current politically-hyped climate concerning sexual assaults in the AF. There has been a huge spike in women playing the victim role and the current political climate has influenced investigators to find the accused guilty and not to look for any evidence of the accused being innocent. The following link takes some time to read through but you will see a trend of biased investigators, jury panel stacking with Victim advocates, expert testimony by non-experts and efforts to suppress testimony about the victim’s credibility.

http://www.ucmjdefense.com/military-defense-lawyer-recentcases.htm

Now put yourself in the convening authority's shoes and what call would you make? The AF is also not charging the victim(if AD) when it is obvious the victim lied. This will only embolden women to use the false accusation of a sexual assault as a form of revenge.

imported_chipotleboy
03-05-2013, 01:44 AM
I have been waiting to reply to this post to see if anyone would look at this and all rape cases from a different angle but no one else has so I will. There was some evidence suppressed by the judge that the defense presented concerning the victim lying previously. The victim’s friend said the victim was a liar and this was apparently suppressed by the judge so the jury did not hear any negative testimony about the victim's credibility. I would also overturn the findings and set the guy free. I am not saying he is innocent and he did have significant complaints about his on-duty behavior but that still does not add up to incarceration for a he said she said (she probably lied as revenge for getting kicked out of the house) event. Some women have abused the "victim" card in the past and will in the future. The AF needs convening authorities who are willing to overturn bad findings regardless of the current politically-hyped climate concerning sexual assaults in the AF. There has been a huge spike in women playing the victim role and the current political climate has influenced investigators to find the accused guilty and not to look for any evidence of the accused being innocent. The following link takes some time to read through but you will see a trend of biased investigators, jury panel stacking with Victim advocates, expert testimony by non-experts and efforts to suppress testimony about the victim’s credibility.

http://www.ucmjdefense.com/military-defense-lawyer-recentcases.htm

Now put yourself in the convening authority's shoes and what call would you make? The AF is also not charging the victim(if AD) when it is obvious the victim lied. This will only embolden women to use the false accusation of a sexual assault as a form of revenge.

Agree wholeheartedly on this one. Looking at the comments by the professionally outraged folks interviewed for the Stars and Stripes article, I have to say I doubt this case makes it to trial in the civilian world, much less gets a conviction from a civilian jury.

CrustySMSgt
03-05-2013, 05:45 AM
I have been waiting to reply to this post to see if anyone would look at this and all rape cases from a different angle but no one else has so I will. There was some evidence suppressed by the judge that the defense presented concerning the victim lying previously. The victim’s friend said the victim was a liar and this was apparently suppressed by the judge so the jury did not hear any negative testimony about the victim's credibility. I would also overturn the findings and set the guy free. I am not saying he is innocent and he did have significant complaints about his on-duty behavior but that still does not add up to incarceration for a he said she said (she probably lied as revenge for getting kicked out of the house) event. Some women have abused the "victim" card in the past and will in the future. The AF needs convening authorities who are willing to overturn bad findings regardless of the current politically-hyped climate concerning sexual assaults in the AF. There has been a huge spike in women playing the victim role and the current political climate has influenced investigators to find the accused guilty and not to look for any evidence of the accused being innocent. The following link takes some time to read through but you will see a trend of biased investigators, jury panel stacking with Victim advocates, expert testimony by non-experts and efforts to suppress testimony about the victim’s credibility.

http://www.ucmjdefense.com/military-defense-lawyer-recentcases.htm

Now put yourself in the convening authority's shoes and what call would you make? The AF is also not charging the victim(if AD) when it is obvious the victim lied. This will only embolden women to use the false accusation of a sexual assault as a form of revenge.

The conviening authority isn't a judge, and isn't likely to be a lawyer. For all that bitch about constitutional violations, this flies right int he face of our legal system. He was given a fair trial, convicted, and even the conviening authority's legal counsel found the verdict legally sufficient. There are higher appelate courts the case would have gone to, but for the General to thumb his nose at the legal process and throw the case out is a travesty of justice. What is the point of having a trial if you've already made up your mind? Why have a panel of peers determine guilt when their opinion means nothing? The General didn't sit in the courtroom and hear ALL the evidence/testimony presented. He cherry picked what he was told and made his decision based on emotion, not facts.

How is it obvious the victim lied?

As I said, 2 or 3 people know what actually happened. He was given a trial and convicted. Anything beyond that should have been handled within the JAG channels.

imported_Sgt HULK
03-05-2013, 02:23 PM
In the AF Minorities and women have all the power and hold everyone by the balls, the fear of offending dominates the ranks, Being told you are auto guilty until proven innocent is all that was needed to convince me. Any woman with a bug up her ass that day can take down anyone whenever they want

CrustySMSgt
03-05-2013, 03:35 PM
The latest volley




http://www.stripes.com/news/senators-ask-hagel-to-review-overturning-of-sexual-assault-conviction-1.210544

Senators ask Hagel to review overturning of sexual assault conviction

By Nancy Montgomery Stars and Stripes Tweet

Published: March 5, 2013

Two U.S. senators have asked Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel to review an Air Force general’s decision to overturn the sexual assault conviction of a fighter pilot in his chain of command.

Sens. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., and Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., asked Hagel to “immediately review” the decision by Lt. Gen. Craig Franklin to reinstate Lt. Col. James Wilkerson into the Air Force after a jury in November convicted him of aggravated sexual assault and sentenced him to a year in jail and dismissal.

“(W)e ask that you immediately provide us detailed information regarding the basis for General Franklin’s decision, including whether you have the authority to overturn the dismissal of the case,” the senators wrote in a letter to Hagel posted on Boxer’s website. “In addition, we urge you, in the strongest possible terms, to take immediate steps to restrict Convening Authorities from unilaterally dismissing military court decisions.”

Franklin, commander of the Third Air Force based at Ramstein Air Base, and the authority who convened Wilkerson’s court-martial, had concluded in his post-trial review that the evidence did not prove Wilkerson’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, according to a Third Air Force statement.

Wilkerson was released on Feb. 26 from a military jail in Charleston, S.C., according to a Third Air Force spokesman and paperwork was being done to return Wilkerson to “full-duty status.”

The letter to Hagel, dated March 4, is the latest reverberation in the case that has cast a spotlight on the unique discretion military commanders have in deciding outcomes of criminal cases.

Advocates for military sexual assault victims maintain that commander discretion is a flaw in the military justice system, rife with bias and conflict of interest, and discourages victims from reporting and emboldens offenders.

The two senators joined Democratic Rep. Jackie Speier of California in condemning Franklin’s action. Speier said last week after Franklin’s decision became public that the matter would be the subject of a congressional hearing.

Wilkerson, an F-16 pilot, was the 31st Fighter Wing inspector general when he was accused last March of groping a sleeping houseguest.

“It is clear that despite sweeping reforms by the Department of Defense to improve prevention, investigation and prosecution of military sexual assaults — including adding specially trained legal personnel and Victim Advocates — these efforts become irrelevant when a case of this magnitude can be thrown out at the discretion of a Convening Authority,” the senators wrote.

“This is a travesty of justice,” the letter said. “At a time when the military has unequivocally stated that there is zero tolerance for sexual assault, this is not the message it should be sending to our service men and women, and to our nation.”

tiredretiredE7
03-05-2013, 04:52 PM
The conviening authority isn't a judge, and isn't likely to be a lawyer. For all that bitch about constitutional violations, this flies right int he face of our legal system. He was given a fair trial, convicted, and even the conviening authority's legal counsel found the verdict legally sufficient. There are higher appelate courts the case would have gone to, but for the General to thumb his nose at the legal process and throw the case out is a travesty of justice. What is the point of having a trial if you've already made up your mind? Why have a panel of peers determine guilt when their opinion means nothing? The General didn't sit in the courtroom and hear ALL the evidence/testimony presented. He cherry picked what he was told and made his decision based on emotion, not facts.

How is it obvious the victim lied?

As I said, 2 or 3 people know what actually happened. He was given a trial and convicted. Anything beyond that should have been handled within the JAG channels.

I am guessing you did not take the time to read link I provided. Civilian lawyers routinely get "he said, she said" cases dismissed or win during Court Martials. Why? Because civilian lawyers actually interview/question the victim, ask questions about the victim's credibility and look at the medical records of the victim. If you read the link, you will see current military investigators only investigate the case to find the victim guilty, not to get all of the contributing facts of the case. It should take you less than 1 minute of reading the link I previously provided to see how current military investigations are one-sided.

Here is the giant elephant in the room question. Why do civilian lawyers routinely win these cases but their military counterparts routinely lose these cases?

Many AD are only looking at the case from the victim's perspective and fail to look at all sides of the case to ensure the accused is not wrongly convicted. Again, take the time to read the link. These are actual Court Martial cases on record.

wxjumper
03-06-2013, 02:39 AM
Which hard evidence was this? DNA? Rape kit? Scratches on the rapist's face? Other CSI type stuff?

Cell phone communications, sexting, etc. Kind of hard to explain away sending a pic of your engorged penis to a recently graduated Airman.

OtisRNeedleman
03-06-2013, 05:44 AM
Cell phone communications, sexting, etc. Kind of hard to explain away sending a pic of your engorged penis to a recently graduated Airman.

A question, please. Perhaps I'm showing my relative geezerness, but just what was this guy trying to accomplish by sending a picture of his penis? Heck, he was taking the chance the female might laugh at the pic or show it to her friends as an example of a mini-meat. Personally never saw the need to send any woman a picture of my weenie. Figured when it was the proper time they'd see it in the flesh. And if you are a mature individual, you'll find proper ways to get to that proper time.

Pueblo
03-06-2013, 06:27 AM
I am guessing you did not take the time to read link I provided. Civilian lawyers routinely get "he said, she said" cases dismissed or win during Court Martials. Why? Because civilian lawyers actually interview/question the victim, ask questions about the victim's credibility and look at the medical records of the victim. If you read the link, you will see current military investigators only investigate the case to find the victim guilty, not to get all of the contributing facts of the case. It should take you less than 1 minute of reading the link I previously provided to see how current military investigations are one-sided.

Here is the giant elephant in the room question. Why do civilian lawyers routinely win these cases but their military counterparts routinely lose these cases?

Many AD are only looking at the case from the victim's perspective and fail to look at all sides of the case to ensure the accused is not wrongly convicted. Again, take the time to read the link. These are actual Court Martial cases on record.

What did Lt Gen Franklin's legal team advise? What legal training does Lt Gen Franklin have? How many times prior has Lt Gen Franklin dispensed such benevolence? Did Lt Col Wilkerson and Lt Gen Franklin ever fly together when the latter was the Wing Commander at Aviano?

And how often do civilian rape trials have DNA evidence available?

CrustySMSgt
03-06-2013, 06:54 AM
I am guessing you did not take the time to read link I provided. Civilian lawyers routinely get "he said, she said" cases dismissed or win during Court Martials. Why? Because civilian lawyers actually interview/question the victim, ask questions about the victim's credibility and look at the medical records of the victim. If you read the link, you will see current military investigators only investigate the case to find the victim guilty, not to get all of the contributing facts of the case. It should take you less than 1 minute of reading the link I previously provided to see how current military investigations are one-sided.

Here is the giant elephant in the room question. Why do civilian lawyers routinely win these cases but their military counterparts routinely lose these cases?

Many AD are only looking at the case from the victim's perspective and fail to look at all sides of the case to ensure the accused is not wrongly convicted. Again, take the time to read the link. These are actual Court Martial cases on record.

The link you provided is an "advertisment" for a law firm. That'd be like telling me to go read a link on Exxon's page to learn how envorinmentally safe their practices are.

A few quotes from the website that indicate what the true intent is, as to be expect, to get their client off (NOT to prove they are innocent:


•U.S. v. Army O-3 – Fort Jackson, SC -
Client was the Company Commander of a Basic Training Company. He was accused by three different female trainees of sexual assault as well as charges of fraternization, violation of a regulation, conduct unbecoming and officer, and sexual harassment. In addition to the alleged victims, a number of other soldiers came forward to testify against our client. Our client also made a statement to CID that did not help his case. (Because of the sensitivity of the case, we are not including details, but the facts were not good for the defense). Our objective was to avoid a sex offender registration and jail time.



•U.S. v. Air Force O-5 - McGuire AFB, New Jersey - Lt Col client was accused of 9 specifications including adultery, indecent language towards female subordinates, unprofessional relationship with 3 subordinates, illegal use of a Government cell phone, and fraternizing with three lower enlisted subordinates. Our goal was to save his retirement, avoid lengthy jail time and to get a Not Guilty on the adultery. The client was married as was one subordinate. The evidence was overwhelming and included text messages, numerous witnesses, Facebook messages, a hotel receipt and phone records.

So they admit he was guilty, they were just trying to mitigate the damage



.S. v. Air Force E-5 - Luke AFB, Arizona - Client accused of Article 120 sexual assault and other offenses. He allegedly assaulted the wife of another airman. We were hired before charges were preferred and contacted OSI and the command to let them know our client intended to fight the charges. After several weeks of investigating, the command decided to not charge our client. Instead, he was given an Article 15 for sexual assault, which is almost unheard of.

Client avoided jail, a conviction, sex offender registration and only received a one grade reduction and forfeiture of pay

If he was innocent, why did he accept the 15?

Defense lawyers get paid to get people off. Does the website point out the possibility that the cases weren't handled appropriately, sure.

Still doesn't justify a conveining authority, who didn't hear all the evidence in this specific case, to drop all the charges based on his personal biases.

Do I think the military justice system is perfect, of course not, no different than the civilian system is.

tiredretiredE7
03-06-2013, 05:38 PM
I think he's innocent, too, but he has only been found not guilty. "Where do I go to get my reputation back?"

He is or soon will be an 0-6. He doesn't need a reputation and 0-6 retirement pay is enough for most people. His call-sign should be changed to "the teflon Don". I always side with the guy in "he said, she said" cases since I have seen women abuse the system for 20 years. This case would not have went to trial in a civilian court.

MACHINE666
03-06-2013, 06:21 PM
He should throw a rager kegger now that he's off the hook, and invite all the hot chicks on base to his house in order to celebrate! Make it a pool party/toga party combo, with swim suits and togas mandatory until your third drink....afterwards, optional!!!

:D :D :D :D :D D

WillsPowers
03-07-2013, 12:13 AM
False charges? Rights violated? Stupid California Retarded Senators complain but say nothing about the MAJOR JILL METZGER SCANDAL?

Sounds like that Colonel has a case to sue his accuser for slander and libel. He should go for it and kick her little whore ass to kingdom come.

JD2780
03-07-2013, 03:01 AM
False charges? Rights violated? Stupid California Retarded Senators complain but say nothing about the MAJOR JILL METZGER SCANDAL?

Sounds like that Colonel has a case to sue his accuser for slander and libel. He should go for it and kick her little whore ass to kingdom come.

A good thing was ruined by WP(Richard) all over agian.

RobotChicken
03-07-2013, 03:52 AM
:clock Don't they make rocks anymore for trolls to hide under? Wait!!....We have to order them from China...can we export him there??:wacko

Pueblo
03-08-2013, 12:46 PM
If Lt Col Wilkerson was a politician who was pardoned by the governor who also happened to be his friend, there would be fewer accusations made against the victim in this case. Here's a question: will Lt Col Wilkerson be forced to register as a sex offender? When asked on a job application if he's ever been convicted of a felony, will he answer yes?

SENDBILLMONEY
03-08-2013, 02:37 PM
If Lt Col Wilkerson was a politician who was pardoned by the governor who also happened to be his friend, there would be fewer accusations made against the victim in this case. Here's a question: will Lt Col Wilkerson be forced to register as a sex offender? When asked on a job application if he's ever been convicted of a felony, will he answer yes?

No, because the findings and sentence were not approved. It never happened.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/860

BOSS302
03-08-2013, 03:08 PM
The only honest truth in all this is that Aviano is a mess. I was there last year for about a 30-day TDY and it was not fun. Granted, this is simply my opinion based on a limited timeframe of interactions and dealings, but those 30 days put a very sour taste in my mouth and a low regard for Aviano leadership.

Brewhound
03-08-2013, 04:01 PM
That place will be a PC shithole on the politicians radar until the next incident happens somewhere else. Just like Lackland.

Pullinteeth
03-08-2013, 04:50 PM
A U.S. senator is calling for the possible firing of the Air Force lieutenant general who set aside a jury’s guilty verdict in a sexual assault case and re-instated the convicted fighter pilot to full-duty status

So at WORST, they will make him retire and move into a cushy defense contractor job... Big whoop...

SENDBILLMONEY
03-09-2013, 01:55 AM
So at WORST, they will make him retire and move into a cushy defense contractor job... Big whoop...

If that happened, it would have a chilling effect on the exercise of convening authority ability to exercise independent judgment and discretion. It would be absolutely toxic to morale and shatter confidence in the military justice system. On that basis, let's look for it to happen by May 1st.

SENDBILLMONEY
03-09-2013, 02:31 AM
There is confidence in the military justice system and the 99.99% conviction rate???

I wasn't worried during my time on AD. Were you?

Last USAF stats I saw (2009) had an 84.2% conviction rate at GCM, 92.1% at SpCM, and 100% at SCM.
Keep in mind that the process is designed to keep iffy cases from getting to trial in the first place.

Pueblo
03-10-2013, 06:18 AM
If that happened, it would have a chilling effect on the exercise of convening authority ability to exercise independent judgment and discretion. It would be absolutely toxic to morale and shatter confidence in the military justice system. On that basis, let's look for it to happen by May 1st.

So it would have a chilling effect on a rarely used, obscure loophole in the military justice system. Considering the fact that virtually no one had heard of it until Franklin decided to hook up his friend, I don't see the loss of this unknown footnote hurting morale.

SENDBILLMONEY
03-10-2013, 02:59 PM
So it would have a chilling effect on a rarely used, obscure loophole in the military justice system. Considering the fact that virtually no one had heard of it until Franklin decided to hook up his friend, I don't see the loss of this unknown footnote hurting morale.

I should have employed an appropriate emoticon for wryness (re the 1 May bit). Still, it would be a stunningly bad idea to do anything to the GCMCA that even had the appearance of reprisal. Other GCMCAs would be hesitant to exercise their authority in cases they deemed deserving.

Did I miss something about the accused being friends with the GCMCA?

Pueblo
03-10-2013, 06:50 PM
I should have employed an appropriate emoticon for wryness (re the 1 May bit). Still, it would be a stunningly bad idea to do anything to the GCMCA that even had the appearance of reprisal. Other GCMCAs would be hesitant to exercise their authority in cases they deemed deserving.

Did I miss something about the accused being friends with the GCMCA?

Yes, what a tragic day it will be when Generals lose the right to throw out the verdicts of juries at will, against the recommendations of legal experts. Remind me why the right of the convening authority (an admitted generalist without legal training of any sort) to arbitrarily think he or she knows better than a jury of one's peers is a good thing?

imported_chipotleboy
03-11-2013, 01:18 PM
Yes, what a tragic day it will be when Generals lose the right to throw out the verdicts of juries at will, against the recommendations of legal experts. Remind me why the right of the convening authority (an admitted generalist without legal training of any sort) to arbitrarily think he or she knows better than a jury of one's peers is a good thing?

Judges on the civilian side have the same power. They can throw out a guilty verdict by a jury if they think there was insufficient evidence in the case.

True, this general is not a legal expert, but seeing how the politicians reacted to this decision, tell me with a straight face that a SJA would recommend setting aside a verdict knowing the firestorm they would encounter and knowing that they would be blackballed when they re-enter civilian practice.

The general probably looked at the record, saw that there was no evidence beyond the allegation, which was contradicted by a an admittedly interested witness, saw the witch hunt for what it was, and chose to do the right thing. Most of the people outraged by this decision haven't even looked at the details of the case--they just see "General lets fighter pilot buddy off after guilty sexual abuse verdict" and don't look further.

As for these senators, I lost all respect for one of them when she tried to use the power of her office to intervene in child custody case of one of my NCOs by contacting my commander and threatening him if he didn't get my SSgt to back off. Fortunately, he had the stones to say no.

Pullinteeth
03-11-2013, 03:55 PM
Judges on the civilian side have the same power. They can throw out a guilty verdict by a jury if they think there was insufficient evidence in the case.

True, this general is not a legal expert, but seeing how the politicians reacted to this decision, tell me with a straight face that a SJA would recommend setting aside a verdict knowing the firestorm they would encounter and knowing that they would be blackballed when they re-enter civilian practice.

The general probably looked at the record, saw that there was no evidence beyond the allegation, which was contradicted by a an admittedly interested witness, saw the witch hunt for what it was, and chose to do the right thing. Most of the people outraged by this decision haven't even looked at the details of the case--they just see "General lets fighter pilot buddy off after guilty sexual abuse verdict" and don't look further.

As for these senators, I lost all respect for one of them when she tried to use the power of her office to intervene in child custody case of one of my NCOs by contacting my commander and threatening him if he didn't get my SSgt to back off. Fortunately, he had the stones to say no.

You are of course aware that in most cases, there is no requirement for a civilian judge to be a legal expert either right?

imported_chipotleboy
03-11-2013, 04:50 PM
You are of course aware that in most cases, there is no requirement for a civilian judge to be a legal expert either right?

Your point is ... ?

MajesticThunder
03-11-2013, 06:50 PM
http://www.stripes.com/news/hagel-orders-review-of-ucmj-sex-assault-rules-after-wilkerson-case-1.211333

Explanations requiring the fewest assumptions are most likely to satisfy haste of escalating political reality that uniformed services ultimately answer to subjective civilian masters.

With recent history of the BMT scandal involving TIs any real or perceived impropriety of a convening authority pilot “overturning” a jury verdict for a fellow pilot who just happened to an IG a position of trust to “police” a promised vigilant culture of zero tolerance for any sex offences was a negative impression too far for some that the Air Force (military) was still a nest of vice and bastion of injustice.

Military law regulations will be changed to rein in convening authority powers and a few retirements will be promptly solicited to pacify current pack of baying political hounds.

:deadhorse

KellyinAvon
03-12-2013, 12:24 AM
Anybody here known/worked for/sat in a meeting with/launched the jet of Lt Gen Franklin? He was my Wing/CC right before I left Eglin in 03, got there maybe a month before I left. He was a group/CC in the 53 WG before that. I never had any dealings with him but I don't remember anything negative about him from his group/CC days.

We don't have all the details, I'd bet neither do all the senators jumping on the bandwagon. Seems like he was an AEW/CC a while back, somebody here has to have more to go on than "was my Wing/CC when I was outprocessing".

Pueblo
03-12-2013, 05:01 AM
Judges on the civilian side have the same power. They can throw out a guilty verdict by a jury if they think there was insufficient evidence in the case.

But in cases where the judge and defendant have crossed paths prior to the case, both professionally and personally, the judge is obligated to recuse his or herself and identify the conflict of interest. I don't know for certain if they had, but it seems very likely given the airframe they flew. At minimum, Lt Col Wilkerson's character witnesses had personal relationships with LTG Franklin that would've required a civilian judge to remove his or herself from the case.


True, this general is not a legal expert, but seeing how the politicians reacted to this decision, tell me with a straight face that a SJA would recommend setting aside a verdict knowing the firestorm they would encounter and knowing that they would be blackballed when they re-enter civilian practice.

The general probably looked at the record, saw that there was no evidence beyond the allegation, which was contradicted by a an admittedly interested witness, saw the witch hunt for what it was, and chose to do the right thing. Most of the people outraged by this decision haven't even looked at the details of the case--they just see "General lets fighter pilot buddy off after guilty sexual abuse verdict" and don't look further.

As for these senators, I lost all respect for one of them when she tried to use the power of her office to intervene in child custody case of one of my NCOs by contacting my commander and threatening him if he didn't get my SSgt to back off. Fortunately, he had the stones to say no.

What about him lying to OSI? The wife lying to OSI? The reckless behavior of Lt Col Wilkerson that characterized the whole evening (drinking and driving, 7 people to a 5 person car)? The previous incident of him peering over a stall while a subordinate's wife was urinating? Her allegation is that Lt Col Wilkerson groped her while potential witnesses would've been sleeping, so I'm curious as to what evidence would convince you that this crime occured?

Pueblo
03-12-2013, 05:10 AM
From the NY Times:

WASHINGTON — Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel is beginning an internal review of a decision by a senior Air Force commander to overturn the sexual assault conviction of an Air Force fighter pilot, he said in a letter to top lawmakers made public Monday.

Mr. Hagel said he would review the decision by Lt. Gen. Craig A. Franklin, the commander of the Third Air Force, to dismiss the sexual assault conviction of Lt. Col. James Wilkerson, a pilot who was also the inspector general of the 31st Fighter Wing at Aviano Air Base in Italy. Colonel Wilkerson was found guilty in November of aggravated sexual assault and was sentenced to one year in military prison. General Franklin’s decision to overturn the findings of the court-martial freed Colonel Wilkerson, and allowed him to be reinstated in the Air Force.

In a March 7 letter to Senator Barbara Boxer, a California Democrat, and Senator Jeanne Shaheen, a New Hampshire Democrat, Mr. Hagel said that while General Franklin’s decision could not be overturned, he had asked Pentagon lawyers and the secretary of the Air Force to review the way in which General Franklin decided the case. He also said he wanted a review of whether the military should change the way it handles sexual assault cases.

The furor over Colonel Wilkerson’s case comes as the issue of sexual assaults in the military has been gaining prominence because of a recent string of scandals. The most wide-ranging case involves the Air Force’s basic training program at Lackland Air Force Base in Texas, where 62 trainees were the victims of assault or other inappropriate actions by their instructors between 2009 and 2012. So far, 32 training instructors at Lackland have been charged, convicted or investigated in connection with the scandal.

On Wednesday, a Senate Armed Services subcommittee plans to hold a hearing on sexual assaults in the military, the first Senate hearing on the issue in nearly a decade, and Colonel Wilkerson’s case is expected to be one of the focuses of the hearing.

The Wilkerson case has gained attention because it highlights what critics say is one of the biggest problems in how the military justice system handles sexual assault cases. In the system, senior commanders decide whether criminal charges are brought against military personnel, and even after charges are brought, the commanders also have the ability to veto the findings of a court-martial. That means the military justice system lacks the independence of the civilian law enforcement and judicial systems. For women who have been sexually assaulted, it means that their bosses decide whether charges are brought against their assailants, and that information about their assaults is shared in their workplaces.

Several women in the military have complained about the commanders’ control of the legal process. Last year, the secretary of defense, Leon E. Panetta, said that while there were 3,191 reported cases of sexual assault in the military in 2011, the actual number of episodes was believed to be as high as 19,000, because most women do not report the assaults.

General Franklin’s decision to overturn Colonel Wilkerson’s conviction by a jury came after Colonel Wilkerson had failed a polygraph examination concerning the offenses, according to several people close to the case. General Franklin did not check with the victim before making his decision to dismiss the case, for which he has not given a detailed public explanation, and instead tried to promote Colonel Wilkerson and give him a new command, according to people familiar with the case.

General Franklin “was looking for a way to show the pilot community he had their backs,” said one person familiar with the case.

Documents obtained in connection with Colonel Wilkerson’s case also provide a glimpse into the fighter pilot culture of the Air Force that some women say encourages misogynistic behavior. In a personal e-mail he wrote while he was at Aviano in November 2011, Colonel Wilkerson, who had recently been named the inspector general of the Air Force’s 31st Fighter Wing, describes his own behavior in a confrontation with military police. The e-mail, filled with bravado, expletives and fighter pilot jargon, describes an incident in which Colonel Wilkerson and other fighter pilots burned a couch in the middle of the base and then barked at the police and pulled rank to get them to back down when they came to investigate.

He wrote to another pilot that he deserved an award for helping ensure “the ability for the bros to either continue their merriment or skip away without notice.” He added that he cared “about bros and traditions,” and that he wanted to be remembered by his fellow pilots as someone who is “willing to stand up to the man, flip him the most wary of middle fingers, and then daring him to touch it.”

The couch-burning incident was a small matter, but Colonel Wilkerson’s belligerent treatment of the military security personnel who responded to the fire was considered more serious. The day after the incident, Colonel Wilkerson was dressed down by his commander, and the incident came back to haunt him during his trial, according to a person close to the case. After he attempted to provide evidence about his good military character, prosecutors were able to enter evidence about other incidents, including the couch-burning matter. Colonel Wilkerson’s lawyer, Frank Spinner, did not respond to a request for comment.



Can someone explain why he, and not the victim, gets the benefit of the doubt in this case?

Pullinteeth
03-12-2013, 01:19 PM
From the NY Times:

WASHINGTON — Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel is beginning an internal review of a decision by a senior Air Force commander to overturn the sexual assault conviction of an Air Force fighter pilot, he said in a letter to top lawmakers made public Monday.

Mr. Hagel said he would review the decision by Lt. Gen. Craig A. Franklin, the commander of the Third Air Force, to dismiss the sexual assault conviction of Lt. Col. James Wilkerson, a pilot who was also the inspector general of the 31st Fighter Wing at Aviano Air Base in Italy. Colonel Wilkerson was found guilty in November of aggravated sexual assault and was sentenced to one year in military prison. General Franklin’s decision to overturn the findings of the court-martial freed Colonel Wilkerson, and allowed him to be reinstated in the Air Force.

In a March 7 letter to Senator Barbara Boxer, a California Democrat, and Senator Jeanne Shaheen, a New Hampshire Democrat, Mr. Hagel said that while General Franklin’s decision could not be overturned, he had asked Pentagon lawyers and the secretary of the Air Force to review the way in which General Franklin decided the case. He also said he wanted a review of whether the military should change the way it handles sexual assault cases.

The furor over Colonel Wilkerson’s case comes as the issue of sexual assaults in the military has been gaining prominence because of a recent string of scandals. The most wide-ranging case involves the Air Force’s basic training program at Lackland Air Force Base in Texas, where 62 trainees were the victims of assault or other inappropriate actions by their instructors between 2009 and 2012. So far, 32 training instructors at Lackland have been charged, convicted or investigated in connection with the scandal.

On Wednesday, a Senate Armed Services subcommittee plans to hold a hearing on sexual assaults in the military, the first Senate hearing on the issue in nearly a decade, and Colonel Wilkerson’s case is expected to be one of the focuses of the hearing.

The Wilkerson case has gained attention because it highlights what critics say is one of the biggest problems in how the military justice system handles sexual assault cases. In the system, senior commanders decide whether criminal charges are brought against military personnel, and even after charges are brought, the commanders also have the ability to veto the findings of a court-martial. That means the military justice system lacks the independence of the civilian law enforcement and judicial systems. For women who have been sexually assaulted, it means that their bosses decide whether charges are brought against their assailants, and that information about their assaults is shared in their workplaces.

Several women in the military have complained about the commanders’ control of the legal process. Last year, the secretary of defense, Leon E. Panetta, said that while there were 3,191 reported cases of sexual assault in the military in 2011, the actual number of episodes was believed to be as high as 19,000, because most women do not report the assaults.

General Franklin’s decision to overturn Colonel Wilkerson’s conviction by a jury came after Colonel Wilkerson had failed a polygraph examination concerning the offenses, according to several people close to the case. General Franklin did not check with the victim before making his decision to dismiss the case, for which he has not given a detailed public explanation, and instead tried to promote Colonel Wilkerson and give him a new command, according to people familiar with the case.

General Franklin “was looking for a way to show the pilot community he had their backs,” said one person familiar with the case.

Documents obtained in connection with Colonel Wilkerson’s case also provide a glimpse into the fighter pilot culture of the Air Force that some women say encourages misogynistic behavior. In a personal e-mail he wrote while he was at Aviano in November 2011, Colonel Wilkerson, who had recently been named the inspector general of the Air Force’s 31st Fighter Wing, describes his own behavior in a confrontation with military police. The e-mail, filled with bravado, expletives and fighter pilot jargon, describes an incident in which Colonel Wilkerson and other fighter pilots burned a couch in the middle of the base and then barked at the police and pulled rank to get them to back down when they came to investigate.

He wrote to another pilot that he deserved an award for helping ensure “the ability for the bros to either continue their merriment or skip away without notice.” He added that he cared “about bros and traditions,” and that he wanted to be remembered by his fellow pilots as someone who is “willing to stand up to the man, flip him the most wary of middle fingers, and then daring him to touch it.”

The couch-burning incident was a small matter, but Colonel Wilkerson’s belligerent treatment of the military security personnel who responded to the fire was considered more serious. The day after the incident, Colonel Wilkerson was dressed down by his commander, and the incident came back to haunt him during his trial, according to a person close to the case. After he attempted to provide evidence about his good military character, prosecutors were able to enter evidence about other incidents, including the couch-burning matter. Colonel Wilkerson’s lawyer, Frank Spinner, did not respond to a request for comment.

Can someone explain why he, and not the victim, gets the benefit of the doubt in this case?

Does that help?

imported_chipotleboy
03-12-2013, 08:38 PM
Pueblo,

You make a good argument. I concede. I was wrong. You are not only right, but d*mn right on this one.

It looks like the AF hasn't changed since "Mackey v. Milam". If you're in the mood to be outraged, look that one up.

CrustySMSgt
03-13-2013, 06:19 AM
True, this general is not a legal expert, but seeing how the politicians reacted to this decision, tell me with a straight face that a SJA would recommend setting aside a verdict knowing the firestorm they would encounter and knowing that they would be blackballed when they re-enter civilian practice.


I'm no lawyer, nor do I know anything about how hard or easy it is to get hired post-military service, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say that prospective employers don't scrutnize every legal review an SJA has conducted, because they do them on a daily basis.


Can someone explain why he, and not the victim, gets the benefit of the doubt in this case?

That story about sums up all the reasons why this looks like one pilot taking care of another. Wilkerson not only had access to military representation, but he hired civilian representation. Both sides presented the evidence available. A panel of Lt Cols & a Col ALL agreed the evidence presented met the specifications for the charges and found him guilty. The General's SJA reviewed the case and found it legally sufficient. But instead of letting the military court appelate process run its course, the general took care of his "bro."

During the "health & welfare inspection" did anyone check General Franklin's office for his songbook?

Pueblo
03-13-2013, 12:05 PM
That story about sums up all the reasons why this looks like one pilot taking care of another. Wilkerson not only had access to military representation, but he hired civilian representation. Both sides presented the evidence available. A panel of Lt Cols & a Col ALL agreed the evidence presented met the specifications for the charges and found him guilty. The General's SJA reviewed the case and found it legally sufficient. But instead of letting the military court appelate process run its course, the general took care of his "bro."

Funny you mention the appellate process, because it's possible that Lt Gen Franklin was aware of the military's own broken appeals system (http://www.stripes.com/news/air-force/air-force-slow-to-handle-appeals-for-convicted-airmen-officers-1.190280) that would've seen Lt Col Wilkerson already released from the brig by the time he was to even get a hearing. It's very plausible to me that he would want to shield a F-16 Lt Col from this harrowing process through which every other airman convicted of a crime suffers.


All told, defense attorneys have counted, the Air Force court took longer than 18 months on 39 percent of the appeal decisions issued from June 1, 2011, to Aug. 31 of this year.

I find it difficult to believe that Lt Gen Franklin sits and anguishes equally over each and every conviction that passes through his office. Even further, I am aware of a great deal of cases in which those acquitted of a crime at a court martial are still given an LOR following the trial based on "perception." To my knowledge, this has not happened to Lt Col Wilkerson either. Only the non-ers need be concerned about the UCMJ, apparently.

Pueblo
03-13-2013, 12:27 PM
Pueblo,

You make a good argument. I concede. I was wrong. You are not only right, but d*mn right on this one.

It looks like the AF hasn't changed since "Mackey v. Milam". If you're in the mood to be outraged, look that one up.

That's a very rare mature response for these forums, and it's definitely appreciated. I hope I can do the same when I'm wrong on something.

CrustySMSgt
03-13-2013, 12:30 PM
Word on the street is the CSAF has done a telecon with all MAJCOM CCs, who have in turn done one with all their CCs, briefing them on this matter. Not going to divulge what was discussed, but I'm sure you can guess.

tiredretiredE7
03-13-2013, 02:07 PM
Word on the street is the CSAF has done a telecon with all MAJCOM CCs, who have in turn done one with all their CCs, briefing them on this matter. Not going to divulge what was discussed, but I'm sure you can guess.

What, no more convening authority? How will pilots take care of one another? The military court appeals process will be allowed to operate as intended? I wish the disparity between enlisted and officer punishments would become the next focus. This LtCol is not officer material but I still think his is innocent.

Bunch
03-14-2013, 04:29 AM
Funny you mention the appellate process, because it's possible that Lt Gen Franklin was aware of the military's own broken appeals system (http://www.stripes.com/news/air-force/air-force-slow-to-handle-appeals-for-convicted-airmen-officers-1.190280) that would've seen Lt Col Wilkerson already released from the brig by the time he was to even get a hearing. It's very plausible to me that he would want to shield a F-16 Lt Col from this harrowing process through which every other airman convicted of a crime suffers.



I find it difficult to believe that Lt Gen Franklin sits and anguishes equally over each and every conviction that passes through his office. Even further, I am aware of a great deal of cases in which those acquitted of a crime at a court martial are still given an LOR following the trial based on "perception." To my knowledge, this has not happened to Lt Col Wilkerson either. Only the non-ers need be concerned about the UCMJ, apparently.

This case just keeps growing and growing everyday which makes wonder. Is it pretty much safe to assume that the careers of Lt Gen Wilson and Lt Col. Wilkerson are for all sense of purposes over at this point? I will find it very hard for to believe their careers will recover after this.

CrustySMSgt
03-14-2013, 04:36 AM
What, no more convening authority? How will pilots take care of one another? The military court appeals process will be allowed to operate as intended?

turn 180°...

RobotChicken
03-14-2013, 04:50 AM
:peep And ALL E-1 through E-9 will get a 1 day stand down on how to 'host house guest' in private quarters. "NO booze,beer,cigarettes,condoms,any offensive material,WW-II.. 'any offensive AIRCRAFT PICTURES; NAMES in your AF PAID HOME'." "Airforce destroyed all that art so we wouldn't have all that 'nonsense' to deal with"!!!!!!! :behindsofa

imported_chipotleboy
03-14-2013, 09:25 AM
Word on the street is the CSAF has done a telecon with all MAJCOM CCs, who have in turn done one with all their CCs, briefing them on this matter. Not going to divulge what was discussed, but I'm sure you can guess.

How long until we get a mandatory viewing video like when Fogleman did the one on accountability after the Blackhawk shootdown?

Pullinteeth
03-14-2013, 12:43 PM
Word on the street is the CSAF has done a telecon with all MAJCOM CCs, who have in turn done one with all their CCs, briefing them on this matter. Not going to divulge what was discussed, but I'm sure you can guess.

"Bros, Ya'll are doing a great job. Nevermind what all those noners think. We are the most important people in the Air Force and don't ever let anyone forget it. Bros before hos my friends, and bros before laws. Just if you can, next time try to do it on the DL. Ok, I have some crew rest to get to so if anyone wants to stop by for a beer, I will be up all night!"

Was I close?

loggie94
03-15-2013, 07:50 AM
"Bros, Ya'll are doing a great job. Nevermind what all those noners think. We are the most important people in the Air Force and don't ever let anyone forget it. Bros before hos my friends, and bros before laws. Just if you can, next time try to do it on the DL. Ok, I have some crew rest to get to so if anyone wants to stop by for a beer, I will be up all night!"

Was I close?

Out of CSAF -- no. He's not like that. From past dealings with him, he's as sincere as he can be about addressing the sexual assult issues for every level of airman.

That being said, I think you nailed it pretty close for a great many of the pointy-nosed airplane flyers I've dealt with in the past. Not a majority of them, but enough of them to still tarnish the reputation of all of them.

Pullinteeth
03-15-2013, 02:05 PM
This case just keeps growing and growing everyday which makes wonder. Is it pretty much safe to assume that the careers of Lt Gen Wilson and Lt Col. Wilkerson are for all sense of purposes over at this point? I will find it very hard for to believe their careers will recover after this.

It most certianly is not safe to assume that. They will both get to retire and it is highly likely they will have either a civil service or a defense contractor job already lined up when they do.


Out of CSAF -- no. He's not like that. From past dealings with him, he's as sincere as he can be about addressing the sexual assult issues for every level of airman.

That being said, I think you nailed it pretty close for a great many of the pointy-nosed airplane flyers I've dealt with in the past. Not a majority of them, but enough of them to still tarnish the reputation of all of them.

I like that...as sincere as he can be... Doesn't mean he is sincere, just as sincere as he can be...

Class5Kayaker
03-15-2013, 03:13 PM
Just got this email:


Please do a search of all paper and electronic files for the names, and incidents below:

AFXXX 2013-003 - Search concerning all records pertaining to Lt Col James Wilkerson, former IG at Aviano AB, from 21 Mar 2012 to present.

Please conduct a diligent and complete search for records and information to capture only information on names or terms listed below, regardless or classification or compartmentalization. Each key search term is separated by a semi-colon. Ensure each key search term is searched. Responsive documents are documents that have the "whole" search term in the document or a combination.

The document must contain either one of the following terms:
(U) Lt Col James Wilkerson; James Wilkerson

Both NIPR and SIPR need to be searched and I need total search time for each. If you have positive findings please take normal steps to preserve findings and send them to me with your response via email.

TVANSCOT
03-15-2013, 06:08 PM
As someone else said, it is a he said she said situation, but none of us know the truth. You have to wonder though, will any of the MTI's currently being prosecuted under the same type of circumstances be treated the same?

Pullinteeth
03-15-2013, 07:15 PM
You have to wonder though, will any of the MTI's currently being prosecuted under the same type of circumstances be treated the same?

Were they fighter pilots too?

TVANSCOT
03-15-2013, 07:17 PM
Were they fighter pilots too?

No, not members of the club, I know. Just sayin.

Pueblo
03-17-2013, 07:04 AM
As someone else said, it is a he said she said situation, but none of us know the truth. You have to wonder though, will any of the MTI's currently being prosecuted under the same type of circumstances be treated the same?

If the defendant and his wife are on record making multiple conflicting statements on his behavior that night, then it's more than just a "he said, she said." Rather, it dramatically increases the likelihood that he is lying and the victim is telling the truth. Furthermore, I woud hope that people understand the difference between my references to the wife's conflicting accounts of what happened (found in the court transcripts) and the allegations against the veracity of the victim (found in peoples' imaginations, forum posts, and replies to articles in the Stars and Stripes). One is record, while the other is hearsay.

Koa1121
03-17-2013, 09:13 PM
As someone else said, it is a he said she said situation, but none of us know the truth. You have to wonder though, will any of the MTI's currently being prosecuted under the same type of circumstances be treated the same?

Not as long as they fly in 'cultural experts' from universities to persuade the judge into thinking that a woman called her rapist over 600 times, texted him over 2,000 times and flew to visit him twice after the rape occurred because of her upbringing..

tiredretiredE7
03-18-2013, 12:36 AM
If the defendant and his wife are on record making multiple conflicting statements on his behavior that night, then it's more than just a "he said, she said." Rather, it dramatically increases the likelihood that he is lying and the victim is telling the truth. Furthermore, I woud hope that people understand the difference between my references to the wife's conflicting accounts of what happened (found in the court transcripts) and the allegations against the veracity of the victim (found in peoples' imaginations, forum posts, and replies to articles in the Stars and Stripes). One is record, while the other is hearsay.

I am not arguing your point but do you have any information to backup these assertions? I am very interested in this case because the victim is HN civilian and I wonder how the US side will determine her credibility. I had a link (but lost it) on one of the victims friend's testimony that was not positive for the victim.

Pueblo
03-18-2013, 08:39 AM
I am not arguing your point but do you have any information to backup these assertions? I am very interested in this case because the victim is HN civilian and I wonder how the US side will determine her credibility. I had a link (but lost it) on one of the victims friend's testimony that was not positive for the victim.

From the 1 Nov 12 Stars and Stripes (http://www.stripes.com/news/brigadier-general-takes-stand-in-aviano-sexual-assault-case-1.195550):

According to James Wilkerson’s accuser, he had begun touching her sexually while she slept, and she thought she was dreaming until she felt discomfort. A light came on in the guest bedroom, and she saw Wilkerson in bed with her — and his wife standing in the doorway, she testified.

Beth Wilkerson then threw her out, the woman testified, and she left the house after 3 a.m. without her shoes.

Beth Wilkerson denied that. She testified her husband had slept in his bed the entire night and that she had told the woman to leave in the middle of the night because she’d been noisy, walking around the house, and “erratic.”

She testified that she had offered the woman’s shoes to investigators when they came to interview her and that they had refused to take the shoes.

On Thursday, the agent who interviewed her during the investigation said that was untrue. Beth Wilkerson never offered the shoes, he testified, and in fact denied she knew their whereabouts.

In addition, Capt. Dawn Brock, who was at the Wilkerson house the night of the incident and had gotten a ride home to the base from Beth Wilkerson, rebutted the wife’s testimony.

So that covers the part about Beth Wilkerson lying to OSI. And since it's impossible to prove a negative, I can only say that the victim didn't lie in this case, nor does she have a record of lying. Any claim to the contrary requires evidence derived from sources other than the hearsay of the coments section below Stars and Stripes articles or this forum.

When you say the accuser's friend denied her story, I'm interested to read her testimony; especially since she wasn't there at the time of the assault.

CrustySMSgt
03-30-2013, 12:34 PM
Here's the latest



Reinstated Air Force pilot Wilkerson assigned to Davis-Monthan
By Nancy Montgomery Stars and Stripes Tweet

Published: March 29, 2013

Lt. Col. James Wilkerson has been assigned to be the 12th Air Force chief of flight safety at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base in Tucson, according to the Air Force Personnel Center.

“The assignment was based upon his qualifications and the needs of the Air Force,” the center said in an email.

Wilkerson’s position does not include airmen reporting to him or being rated by him, an Air Force spokesman said.

Capt. Justin Brockhoff, 12th Air Force public affairs director, said that Wilkerson was among more than 20 servicemembers scheduled to soon arrive at the base with new assignments, and all would be received the same way.

“He’ll be treated just like any other airman who gets assigned here,” Brockhoff said.

Asked whether Wilkerson’s assignment might affect morale at the base, Brokhoff said, “I can’t speculate as to what other people may know or think. I can’t speculate as to how individuals are going to feel.”

http://www.stripes.com/news/reinstated-air-force-pilot-wilkerson-assigned-to-davis-monthan-1.214256

KellyinAvon
03-30-2013, 12:50 PM
Here's the latest

Ah yes, the old "obscure NAF staff job, followed by obscure MAJCOM staff job, followed by a not-so obscure job but hopefully everybody forgot" trick. 1998, 66RQS at Nellis. 12 blue-suiters and two Pave Hawks lost, promotions kept coming for the O-6s.

Pueblo
03-30-2013, 02:09 PM
Ah yes, the old "obscure NAF staff job, followed by obscure MAJCOM staff job, followed by a not-so obscure job but hopefully everybody forgot" trick. 1998, 66RQS at Nellis. 12 blue-suiters and two Pave Hawks lost, promotions kept coming for the O-6s.

In case there were any lingering doubts regarding the integrity of James Wilkerson (http://www.stripes.com/news/former-ig-gets-1-year-sentence-dismissal-for-sexual-assault-1.195865).

He promised to retire immediately if the jury did not strip him of benefits.

OtisRNeedleman
03-30-2013, 09:13 PM
Just got this email:

Sounds like something from the Oceanian Ministry of Truth.

OtisRNeedleman
03-30-2013, 09:14 PM
In case there were any lingering doubts regarding the integrity of James Wilkerson (http://www.stripes.com/news/former-ig-gets-1-year-sentence-dismissal-for-sexual-assault-1.195865).

I believe Jim needs to retire NOW and stop pushing his luck. Just go quietly and let this go away.

CrustySMSgt
03-31-2013, 03:39 PM
I believe Jim needs to retire NOW and stop pushing his luck. Just go quietly and let this go away.

Why should he, when he can strut around in his flight suit thumbing his nose at the commoners, demonstrating the power of the flight suit mafia.

Pullinteeth
04-01-2013, 06:38 PM
Never fear, he has a new job at DM....he is now the Flight Safety Officer for 12th AF....

http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2013/04/airforce-wilkerson-assigned-davis-monthan-040113w

CrustySMSgt
04-02-2013, 06:07 AM
Never fear, he has a new job at DM....he is now the Flight Safety Officer for 12th AF....

http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2013/04/airforce-wilkerson-assigned-davis-monthan-040113w

lol... a couple days late with your breaking news! :)

FLAPS
04-02-2013, 11:18 AM
I believe Jim needs to retire NOW and stop pushing his luck. Just go quietly and let this go away.

Now that he's PCSing to D-M, he's now incurred a 1-year ADSC. He'd be smart to retire at his first chance, before someone in Congress gets their way and puts him back in jail.

Pullinteeth
04-02-2013, 01:33 PM
Now that he's PCSing to D-M, he's now incurred a 1-year ADSC. He'd be smart to retire at his first chance, before someone in Congress gets their way and puts him back in jail.

And how exactly would they do THAT? Can't try him again...

OtisRNeedleman
04-02-2013, 09:51 PM
Now that he's PCSing to D-M, he's now incurred a 1-year ADSC. He'd be smart to retire at his first chance, before someone in Congress gets their way and puts him back in jail.

Understand, but I'd bet if Jimbo put in his papers he'd be on the street in a heartbeat if he wanted. Fastest I ever saw so far was nine days.

FLAPS
04-03-2013, 12:50 AM
Understand, but I'd bet if Jimbo put in his papers he'd be on the street in a heartbeat if he wanted. Fastest I ever saw so far was nine days.

To get out of his commitment he could always tell them he's gay. Oh wait, that doesn't work anymore.

Robert F. Dorr
04-03-2013, 02:40 AM
Now that he's PCSing to D-M, he's now incurred a 1-year ADSC. He'd be smart to retire at his first chance, before someone in Congress gets their way and puts him back in jail.

That probably means "active duty service commitment." How difficult would it be for him to get out of it in today's downsizing climate?

RobotChicken
04-03-2013, 03:01 AM
To get out of his commitment he could always tell them he's gay. Oh wait, that doesn't work anymore.

:boom 'Boomerang' :brick

FLAPS
04-03-2013, 10:15 AM
That probably means "active duty service commitment." How difficult would it be for him to get out of it in today's downsizing climate?

When is your birthday? I want to give you a free subscription to "acronymfinder.com" AWESOME site!

Pullinteeth
04-03-2013, 02:16 PM
That probably means "active duty service commitment." How difficult would it be for him to get out of it in today's downsizing climate?

Generally speaking, fliers are immune from all the Force Shaping nonesense... Not always (2x passovers got whacked regardless of AFSC) but generally... Not only are they generally immune, they are usually prohibited from even applying for voluntary separation through Force Shaping...

imported_chipotleboy
04-05-2013, 06:28 PM
And how exactly would they do THAT? Can't try him again...

Simple. Pull the same trick the feds did when they didn't like the Rodney King beating verdict. Put Wilkerson on trial for 'violating the civil rights' of the victim.

SomeRandomGuy
04-05-2013, 07:21 PM
Simple. Pull the same trick the feds did when they didn't like the Rodney King beating verdict. Put Wilkerson on trial for 'violating the civil rights' of the victim.

I actually did some research on double jeopardy. It is possible to get charged twice for the same crime. You can be charged once by the state and once by federal officials. It is apparantly very common in drug cases when the feds do not feel like the offender recieved a long enough sentence. Probably does not apply here but still interesting info.

tiredretiredE7
04-10-2013, 09:01 PM
The victim’s friend said the victim was a liar and this was apparently suppressed by the judge so the jury did not hear any negative testimony about the victim's credibility. I would also overturn the findings and set the guy free. I am not saying he is innocent and he did have significant complaints about his on-duty behavior but that still does not add up to incarceration for a he said she said (she probably lied as revenge for getting kicked out of the house) event. Some women have abused the "victim" card in the past and will in the future. The AF needs convening authorities who are willing to overturn bad findings regardless of the current politically-hyped climate concerning sexual assaults in the AF. There has been a huge spike in women playing the victim role and the current political climate has influenced investigators to find the accused guilty and not to look for any evidence of the accused being innocent. The following link takes some time to read through but you will see a trend of biased investigators, jury panel stacking with Victim advocates, expert testimony by non-experts and efforts to suppress testimony about the victim’s credibility.

http://www.ucmjdefense.com/military-defense-lawyer-recentcases.htm

Now put yourself in the convening authority's shoes and what call would you make? The AF is also not charging the victim(if AD) when it is obvious the victim lied. This will only embolden women to use the false accusation of a sexual assault as a form of revenge.

Here is an update for those of you who doubted me. "The Air Force commander who overturned a guilty verdict in a sexual assault case says he found too many inconsistencies with the alleged victim's account of the incident and determined that the accused officer was more believable." I can't wait for the entire letter to be publicized to see if the statements from the victim's friend is about the victim's past truthfulness is addressed. I will not reveal the source who told me about the details of the case during the proceedings. Some believe the victim made up the story as revenge for being kicked out of the house. I will end with saying it again "the victim lied in this case" and the jury apparently did not get some testimony regarding the victim's credibility.

So keep doubting the information my posts, I will be correct 99.9% of the time. ALWAYS get a civilian lawyer if you are read your rights, do NOT trust the ADC.

//militarytimes/article/20130410/NEWS/304100018/Air-Force-general-defends-overturning-sex-assault-verdict

tiredretiredE7
04-10-2013, 09:15 PM
I have been waiting to reply to this post to see if anyone would look at this and all rape cases from a different angle but no one else has so I will. There was some evidence suppressed by the judge that the defense presented concerning the victim lying previously. The victim’s friend said the victim was a liar and this was apparently suppressed by the judge so the jury did not hear any negative testimony about the victim's credibility. I would also overturn the findings and set the guy free. I am not saying he is innocent and he did have significant complaints about his on-duty behavior but that still does not add up to incarceration for a he said she said (she probably lied as revenge for getting kicked out of the house) event. Some women have abused the "victim" card in the past and will in the future. The AF needs convening authorities who are willing to overturn bad findings regardless of the current politically-hyped climate concerning sexual assaults in the AF. There has been a huge spike in women playing the victim role and the current political climate has influenced investigators to find the accused guilty and not to look for any evidence of the accused being innocent. The following link takes some time to read through but you will see a trend of biased investigators, jury panel stacking with Victim advocates, expert testimony by non-experts and efforts to suppress testimony about the victim’s credibility.

http://www.ucmjdefense.com/military-defense-lawyer-recentcases.htm

Now put yourself in the convening authority's shoes and what call would you make? The AF is also not charging the victim(if AD) when it is obvious the victim lied. This will only embolden women to use the false accusation of a sexual assault as a form of revenge.

For those of you who have not seen the article the update is the case was overturned due to "The Air Force commander who overturned a guilty verdict in a sexual assault case says he found too many inconsistencies with the alleged victim's account of the incident and determined that the accused officer was more believable." The forum upgrade is keeping me from posting links. Many of you doubted my information but fail to remember I am correct 99.9% with the information in my posts. I believe the full letter will address some testimony from one of the victim's friends about the problems with the victim telling the truth. So yes, I was correct and the UCMJ failed once again but was corrected in this case. There are men in jail because the victim lied in those cases.

My point is to get a civilian lawyer and do not use the ADC if you are read your rights. The UCMJ as always been broken and the current PC climate will result in more innocent men going to jail because the military will not charge an AD victim even after it has been proven the victim lied. This only emboldens women to use the UCMJ against any man.

Me 11/12
Crusty 1/13
RFD 4/13.

CrustySMSgt
04-11-2013, 09:10 AM
The latest update:


Military commander defends overturning verdict in sex assault caseLt. Gen. Craig Franklin, 3rd Air Force commander, speaks with an officer during a visit April 16, 2012, at Incirlik Air Base, Turkey. Franklin, who overturned the sexual assault conviction of a fellow fighter pilot on Feb. 26, 2013, now finds himself caught in a political crossfire that could change military justice.
Jarvie Wallace/U.S. Air Force

By LOLITA C. BALDOR
The Associated Press Tweet

Published: April 10, 2013

U.S. Air ForceWASHINGTON — The Air Force commander who overturned a jury's guilty verdict in a sexual assault case - enraging members of Congress and prompting talk of military justice reform - explained his case in a letter to a top Pentagon official, saying he found the accused officer and his wife more believable than the alleged victim.

In a detailed six page letter to Air Force Secretary Michael Donley, Lt. Gen. Craig Franklin lays out why he decided to reverse the verdict - a widely criticized move that led to the Defense Department proposing that commanders be largely stripped of their ability to reverse criminal convictions of service members. The letter was obtained by The Associated Press.

http://www.stripes.com/military-commander-defends-overturning-verdict-in-sex-assault-case-1.215941



This letter makes this look even more like the "fighter pilot mafia" taking care of their own. I think he shot himself in the foot with this one; I think his letter BOLSTERS the whole reason this needs to be looked at. His decision was made using personal bias, discounting evidence presented at trial, not to mention the Lt Col failing a polygraph, and threw out the conviction because SURELY a FIGHTER PILOT (and "doting father with a good career") couldn't POSSIBLY have committed this crime.

tiredretiredE7
04-11-2013, 09:45 AM
The latest update:



This letter makes this look even more like the "fighter pilot mafia" taking care of their own. I think he shot himself in the foot with this one; I think his letter BOLSTERS the whole reason this needs to be looked at. His decision was made using personal bias, discounting evidence presented at trial, not to mention the Lt Col failing a polygraph, and threw out the conviction because SURELY a FIGHTER PILOT (and "doting father with a good career") couldn't POSSIBLY have committed this crime.

Wow, I had a post pending for approval from the mods and that militarytimes article included information from the letter about the victim's inconsistent statements. The updated militarytimes article does not mention anything about the victim's inconsistent statements. The new militarytimes article does make it look like "fighter pilot mafia" taking care of their own. I guess I have to take scrren shots of militarytime articles from now on. I am guessing my pending post will not be approved by the mods.

TJMAC77SP
04-11-2013, 11:37 AM
I actually did some research on double jeopardy. It is possible to get charged twice for the same crime. You can be charged once by the state and once by federal officials. It is apparantly very common in drug cases when the feds do not feel like the offender recieved a long enough sentence. Probably does not apply here but still interesting info.

It is interesting but in this case the military is a federal charge and there is no state to charge him here (the assault happened at Aviano right?)

CrustySMSgt
04-11-2013, 11:55 AM
Wow, I had a post pending for approval from the mods and that militarytimes article included information from the letter about the victim's inconsistent statements. The updated militarytimes article does not mention anything about the victim's inconsistent statements. The new militarytimes article does make it look like "fighter pilot mafia" taking care of their own. I guess I have to take scrren shots of militarytime articles from now on. I am guessing my pending post will not be approved by the mods.

Did you post a link? That's what usually gets posts hung up. If you do leave out the link, make your post and then edit it to add the link, it'll work. As far as the mods approving posts later, it is hit or miss as to whether it will actually show up.

There are inconsistant statements made by every single party involved.

poindexter
04-11-2013, 12:58 PM
Here is the link:

http://www.stripes.com/military-commander-defends-overturning-verdict-in-sex-assault-case-1.215941

CrustySMSgt
04-11-2013, 02:36 PM
Here is the link:

http://www.stripes.com/military-commander-defends-overturning-verdict-in-sex-assault-case-1.215941

Yes, that is the link included in my post. tiredretiredE7 was refering to a military times story on the same subject.

Pullinteeth
04-11-2013, 06:34 PM
SecDef letter came out...he is recommending that convening authorities would only have the authority to change the findings in a courts-martial for minor offenses that would not ordinarily warrant trial by court-martial and that they would have to explain their decision in writing....

eman_osan
04-12-2013, 02:57 AM
Here's the link to the letter
http://www.scribd.com/doc/135203535/Air-Force-General-explains-why-he-overturned-the-decision-in-sexual-assault-case

CrustySMSgt
04-26-2013, 07:43 AM
DAMN... just when you thought it was over... a new twist!!



Air Force plans to investigate new allegations against Wilkerson
Lt. Col. James Wilkerson, 80th Fighter Squadron commander, gets into his F-16 Fighting Falcon to fly a simulated combat sortie April 15, 2011 during the RED FLAG-Alaska exercise at Eielson Air Force Base.
Thomas Skinkle/USAF file photo

By Nancy Montgomery Stars and Stripes Tweet

Published: April 25, 2013

Lt. Col. James Wilkerson in a photo taken while he served as the 80th Fighter Squadron commander at Kunsan Air Base, South Korea. He left Kunsan in 2011.
U.S. Air ForceThe Air Force plans to investigate an allegation that fighter pilot Lt. Col. James Wilkerson, whose sexual assault conviction was overturned by a lieutenant general in part because the general believed Wilkerson was an upstanding husband and officer, had an extramarital affair in 2004 with a woman who says she gave birth to his baby, according to an email obtained by Stars and Stripes.

The planned Air Force investigation follows an allegation made by the woman, who says she and Wilkerson had a brief affair in Utah and that he fathered her child.

She told Stars and Stripes in a phone interview that she and Wilkerson were intimate only once, after being introduced by mutual friends.

Rest of the story: http://www.stripes.com/news/air-force/air-force-plans-to-investigate-new-allegations-against-wilkerson-1.218182



So much for being an outstanding officer and family man! Simple DNA test will prove it. I suspect General Franklin is drafting his resignation as we speak...

Measure Man
04-26-2013, 03:04 PM
DAMN... just when you thought it was over... a new twist!!



So much for being an outstanding officer and family man! Simple DNA test will prove it. I suspect General Franklin is drafting his resignation as we speak...


Air Force Secretary Michael Donley wrote in an email to an official in the Office of the Secretary of Defense that the Wilkerson case “is taking a new turn with allegations [that Wilkerson] may have fathered a child with a woman not his wife, some 7 years ago while he was stationed at Luke AFB.”


Under the UCMJ, adultery carries a five-year statutory limit for criminal prosecution and less than that for non-judicial punishment.

The irony of it all...Franklin is gonna get a worse fate than Wilkerson probably.

[quote]

John Jameson
04-26-2013, 05:48 PM
Read and judge for yourself:

http://www.foia.af.mil/reading/thewilkersonfoiacase.asp

Pueblo
04-27-2013, 05:06 AM
DAMN... just when you thought it was over... a new twist!!



So much for being an outstanding officer and family man! Simple DNA test will prove it. I suspect General Franklin is drafting his resignation as we speak...

As far as Lt Gen Franklin is concerned, in his own words, it's almost unthinkable for married career military officers to sexually assault women. In light of his justification, I don't even know why he, as convening authority, allowed a trial.

CrustySMSgt
04-27-2013, 05:39 AM
The irony of it all...Franklin is gonna get a worse fate than Wilkerson probably.



Goes to show, you better be damn sure whoever you put your pee pee on the chopping block for is worth it!

One can only hope Wilkerson will have even a sliver of pride and finally admit he has no credibility and slink off in to retirement.

Chief_KO
04-28-2013, 04:10 AM
I hear the zippers in the flight suit are being replaced with buttons to keep things like this from happening in the future. That's why the Navy pants have 13 buttons...