Lt Col Wilkerson sexual assault case

[HossHarris]

.... digitally penetrated ....

Cyber warfare!

(Giggety)

[17D_guy]

Being a 49 year old civilian divorcee female MDG employee at an overseas base makes one a prime suspect to be batshit crazy IMO

Truth.

[flyusaf83]

Really? And your expertise in civilian criminal court matters stem from what?

Quit talking out your ass, he would have stood the same chance of being acquitted (the correct term) in a civilian court as he did before a courts martial.

Any more comments such as these and I will have to assume you are deliberately trolling, at which point I will take appropriate action. Understand?

If I'm the falsely accused... given the current witch-hunt climate of the AF, I would rather get tried in a civilian court.

Edited April 18, 2013 by flyusaf83

[USMCAirWinger]

I would rather get tried in a civilian court.

This applies whether falsley or not. The military stacks the odds in the services favor.

[17D_guy]

I don't feel like reading through the brick of text he posted in reply since it started with him not even reviewing all the FOIA info, or even the Gen's letter. Especially since the poster said a victim's testimony should be enough to convict.

If you're cool with that...

[USMCAirWinger]

If you're cool with that...

The only thing I'm not cool with is the ability for a jury decision to be reversed by a commander when there is an appeals process.

To me thats a slap in the face to the court system.

As to the evidence, I'm not in the jury so my opinion regarding that is irrelevant.

[Hueypilot]

The only thing I'm not cool with is the ability for a jury decision to be reversed by a commander when there is an appeals process.

To me thats a slap in the face to the court system.

As to the evidence, I'm not in the jury so my opinion regarding that is irrelevant.

Governors and the president have powers of pardon, and while its raises eyebrows with some of the shady people pardoned in the past, no one is screaming to get rid of pardoning rights.

In the case of the military GCMCA powers, overturning a conviction is reserved for doing do when there are irregularities with the conviction. While there is nothing stopping a GCMCA from overturning a conviction for any reason, you'd be hard pressed to find any officer who'd do so without compelling reason.

Pardons, on the other hand, seem to be granted for just about any spurious reason, to include political favors (see Clinton's list of pardons).

At least the UCMJ had a rhyme and reason for the process.

[Oo7kerpow]

This case made me sick. As someone who has felt the wrath of the military justice system before, I can see plenty of reasons why this case never would have flown in a civilian court.

I hate the argument "she has no reason to lie." Bullshit. We're all human, and we all lie. Why is it assumed that the man committed a crime? It's the same logic used in reverse. You could argue that he had no reason or motive to do this. Neither are good arguments.

As to being convicted by a jury of your peers. What makes you think that the court of law is an entirely fair process? Why do lawyers fight to get certain evidence removed, so as to not influence the jury? Because it would be devastating to their case, not whether it is relevant to the guilt or innocence of their client.

Who does the jag work for? Who does the adc work for? Who does the military judge work for? The government. If you don't think the odds are stacked against the accused, you're wrong.

How many commanders know jack squat about the law and blindly accept the word of the jag(the ones prosecuting you)?

The Air Force as an institution had plenty of reason the go all out here. Anyone remember the c17 pilot court martialled for an off dz drop? The Air Force didn't think he would be convicted. They did it to send a message. And to appease everyone screaming for blood.

Put yourself in his shoes. Would you still think the same thing if the genders were reversed? I doubt it.

Edited April 19, 2013 by Oo7kerpow

[Guest one]

OSI should have smelled everyone's fingers.

Collecting evidence is no joke.

[Learjetter]

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

[Fuzz]

Apples and oranges, his prior indiscretion (alleged) doesn't automatically override the need for "beyond a reasonable doubt" in his current case and isn't an indication of "just how wrong LTG Franklin was".

[Guest CannonCrashPad]

Apples and oranges, his prior indiscretion (alleged) doesn't automatically override the need for "beyond a reasonable doubt" in his current case and isn't an indication of "just how wrong LTG Franklin was".

Did anybody claim those things?

[Fuzz]

The gist of the article was. that he had an affair therefore he was also by some twisted logic also guilty of sexual assault.

A spokesman for Rep. Mike Turner, R-Ohio, said via email Thursday that while the congressman won’t comment on pending investigations, “these revelations are highly troubling, and if true would show just how wrong LTG Franklin was in his decision to singlehandedly overturn the conviction of LTC Wilkerson.”

[BitteEinBit]

Unfortunately the timing on this sucks for him. While I still don't think he's guilty, certainly this doesn't help the "he's an upstanding officer and husband" defense Lt Gen Franklin used (partly) in dropping the conviction. All that aside, something he did 10 years ago doesn't make him guilty in THIS case, but of course with all the sh*t going on right now with sexual assault and the Air Force, I see politics and the media playing a big part in what happens next. Timing is everything...

Edited May 7, 2013 by BitteEinBit

[one1]

I really don't understand this. Let me start by saying, I am not trolling. I am sincerely trying to understand the logic of some of you….especially after a woman came out of the woodwork saying that she had a child with the Lt Col Wilkerson. I am just interested in the topic and not trying to offend or argue with anyone.

After reading the FOIA information, some of you came to the conclusion the woman was a liar even though there was absolutely nothing specific to suggest a reason for her to lie. She may have plenty of reasons to lie but nothing was discussed specifically in court and a jury of O-5/O-6 believed her.

After reading the news article, you can’t see any reason why this would have any impact on the credibility of Lt Col Wilkerson or his wife? Cheating on your wife and lying on security clearance paperwork is against the law. So if this allegation is true and Lt Col Wilkerson even secretly signed away rights to a child, it is established that he has a history of lying in very serious circumstances. Does this not weaken his credibility? The other woman said that Beth Wilkerson was aware of his other relationship. Does this not weaken her credibility? How many of you have changed your mind about this case after this allegation has come to light?

He was found guilty by a jury of officers before this information was known. Do you really think that he wouldn’t be found guilty after this came to light…or do you think there is some big conspiracy to find this guy guilty?

[HeloDude]

Dude, you're a tool. You argue this as well as you argue everything else--based off of emotion. You're not a chick, are you?

If the AF wants to investigate this guy for something he may have done 9 years ago then I'm assuming that's definitely within their lane of authority (not sure if there is a time limit on brining up such charges)--though they would be singleing him out to a degree because there are a lot more people than you think cheating on their wives...and husbands, and most people just look the other way. But to say that because a guy cheated on his wife 9 years ago gives more evidence that he assualted the recent chick is pretty stupid. Evidence is evidence and the 3-star tossed his conviction because be didn't believe there was sufficient evidence in the trial to uphold the conviction.

Try thinking with your brain for a change...

[one1]

It is easy to relate to a rated officer that is a Lt Col. It is easy to see things through his eyes and how messed up it would be to be falsely accused. It is not easy to see things through the eyes of someone who is potentially the victim.

No matter our opinions on the matter, it is a fact that this makes the Air Force look very bad. Overturning the conviction looks really negative, especially after the allegations he had a secret child he doesn’t support and has a history of cheating on his wife. It just looks bad.

If you don’t think him cheating on his wife, having a secret child he doesn’t support, and not telling the truth during security clearance investigations is not grounds to question his credibility, then I believe you are the one using your emotions instead of common sense. To say that the Air Force would be "singleing" him out because so many people cheat on their wives is a stupid argument. Everyone knows it is against the UCMJ to cheat on your spouse.

The woman Wilkerson knocked up must be another liar trying to setup him up. He must have the worst luck.

Most of you will be happy to know that I won’t comment on this topic again. I was just wondering if the new information changed anyone’s mind.

Edited May 7, 2013 by one1

[Hueypilot]

No it doesn't really change my mind. I read the FOIA info and there were large gaps that weren't answered. I would have felt like the general did- that guilt beyond a reasonable doubt was not proven that day. Perhaps her story was true, perhaps not, but nothing made me feel that her story was highly likely to be true.

Even if he had an affair and lied on his security paperwork, that does not mean he is capable of assaulting a woman. I know of a number of officers (to include quite a few females) that have cheated on their spouses, and they likely also did not tell the security clearance people their acts (because many of them are still in uniform), but that does not mean now they are all likely to sexually assault someone. Had they uncovered behavior with this guy that is consistent with assaulting someone (ie past examples of abusive behavior) then sure, that would sway may opinion.

As wrong as it may be, getting horny when you're drunk and getting lucky with the wrong girl doesn't mean now you're a monster capable of forcefully acting on others.

[frog]

Even if he had an affair and lied on his security paperwork, that does not mean he is capable of assaulting a woman.

Along the same lines, being a good dude doesn't make you incapable of assaulting a woman. I think that is what gets a lot of people in trouble...they just don't realize the evil that lies waiting for a drunk moment in a bad situation. I read the FOIA docs too, and I may not have gotten to a guilty vote, but I would bet money that something happened.

I also love that everyone will throw out the accuser's statements, but are perfectly willing to accept the wife's statements without a second thought. She has more to lose than anyone in the case, and has every reason to lie. Not saying that she did, but just my experience from watching previous cases.

[Duck]

Maybe this is a reach and maybe it has been touched on before, but who's to say it wasn't mutual until the moment the wife walked in and flipped out? Prompting some serious CYA from the "victim".

[DFRESH]

Maybe this is a reach and maybe it has been touched on before, but who's to say it wasn't mutual until the moment the wife walked in and flipped out? Prompting some serious CYA from the "victim".

Puns intended?

[Rusty Pipes]

If you don’t think him cheating on his wife, having a secret child he doesn’t support, and not telling the truth during security clearance investigations is not grounds to question his credibility, then I believe you are the one using your emotions instead of common sense. To say that the Air Force would be "singleing" him out because so many people cheat on their wives is a stupid argument. Everyone knows it is against the UCMJ to cheat on your spouse.

I will start with this... the fact that adultery is a prosecutable crime under the UCMJ is absolutely stupid! You want to talk about budget savings... how much does the DoD spend prosecuting this "crime" every year? I get it, cheating is bad and I don't condone it... but as far as I'm concerned, if his wife knew about it and also knew he signed away parental rights then it isn't any of my or your business and it isn't a "secret child". As far as him not supporting the child, you have no idea what the agreement was between him and the woman. I guess I either have a bad memory or got a different questionnaire than you did, but I've had a TS or higher clearance for my whole career... I don't remember the part where they asked anything about having an affair or having a "secret child". I don't care that Slick Willey and JFK were using the Oval Office like the Jungle Room at Graceland and I don't care that Gen Patreaus and Eisenhower were letting some "advisor" polish their Stars in the AOR... and I certainly don't want to spend money for some JAG to prosecute the 21 year old SrA for "adultery" because his soon to be ex-wife was pissed when she found out he is dating his old high school girlfriend while they are separated just waiting on some State timeline requirement for a divorce decree to be signed! Before we start convicting guys of crimes because of something they did 10 years ago (that isn't a crime to any other American) and isn't remotely related to the facts of this case, maybe we should go back 10-20 years on those in Congress and talk about glass houses.

And before you start chiming in with blackmail/extortion over cheating and security clearances... I get it. But how much of that goes away if you remove the UCMJ violation part?

Rant complete...

[one1]

You don't remember the part of the SF86 that asks you the names of your children? It is also one of the first things the investigator asks you about. On the first page of your SF86, it says if you have agreements involving child custody or support, be prepared to show documentation at your investigation.

If you don’t believe me here is the link to a SF86..

http://www.opm.gov/f...f_fill/sf86.pdf

This is standard stuff.

Depending on if you have a lifestyle/full scope investigation, the questions would have been much more personal. None of us have any clue on the additional types of investigations which may have taken place, but everyone does the SF86.

Just because you don’t agree with a law doesn’t mean you can disregard it. Knowingly breaking laws speaks of someone’s character. Lying on a SF86 is a felony whether you agree with it or not.

Edited May 8, 2013 by one1

[HeloDude]

Ok dude, you went from your argument being that this alleged past affair now makes it more likely that he assaulted that chick, to...what's on a security clearance request form...getting a little bit in the weeds to say the least. Overall though, by your reasoning, everything Bill Clinton or Gen Patreus said was a lie since they both cheated on their wives, and additionally, at least in the case of clinton Clinton, originally lied about it too. Oh, and does that mean that Clinton also assaulted those women he allegedly slept with even before being President, being that one directly has to do with the other, right?

I thought you were done talking about this subject? Here's a tip--don't become a lawyer.

[one1]

I don't have any additional comments on Lt Col Wilkerson.

My comments were just aimed at how the SF86 certainly does ask about your children.

I guess I either have a bad memory or got a different questionnaire than you did, but I've had a TS or higher clearance for my whole career... I don't remember the part where they asked anything about having an affair or having a "secret child".

I was just addressing this. As obvious as this should be...You are asked if you have kids during your investigation and if you knowingly lie about it, you are committing a felony.

Edited May 8, 2013 by one1