Critical Questions That An Impartial Investigator Should Consider
The above causes SYMA to conclude that the Office of Air Force History, for whatever reason, has felt that it is best public relations for the Air Force to have the credit divided between Lanphier and Barber. The following suggests some critical questions that an impartial investigator should consider when reviewing the entire case.
Why were the cards changed in 1969 and no one involved advised until 1978?
Why were there three different records of proceedings for the original Victory Credit Board of Review?
Dr. Kohn and Cargill Hall knew at the time that SYMA was formally started that it was planning the trip to the Bougainville jungle to examine the wreckage and bring back factual data on which to make an accurate determination of which pilot shot down the airplane. Cargill Hall and Dr. Kohn knew at that time because they had photographs of the wreckage that showed the left wing was still attached when the airplane entered the jungle and the right wing is adjacent to the wreckage. They already knew that Lanphier had not attacked the Yamamoto airplane because he said he shot the wing off of the bomber that he attacked. Why did they not come forward with this information? Why were they determined to continue to split the credit?
Based on the opinion that nothing SYMA or anyone else could do would change the determination of Dr. Kohn at the Office of Air Force History, i.e. that he was not going to change his position that the credit should be divided between Lanphier and Barber, SYMA went to the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records. It was and is SYMA’s position that a decision by the AFBCMR and the Secretary of the Air Force could compel the OAFH to change its position. Why did Secretary Rice not refer the issue to the AFBCMR when it was the recommendation of a majority of the board members that he do so? Who drafted Secretary Rice’s decision? Was it drafted by OAFH or a lawyer named Wilder?
Why did Chairman Baseman of the AFBCMR say that every point raised in the hearing, if it was not unanimously accepted by the all of the members of the panel, it would have to be voted on and the reasons for their vote recorded? Only evidence presented and questioned at the hearing was to be considered. And yet, when the Board made its decision, Chairman Baseman did not vote and there were two members in favor of changing the split credit and two members voted to keep it as a split credit. Why did Mr. Baseman not enforce the rules that he set down?
Mr. Herbert Kaiser turned in a scathing criticism of Rex Barber for having brought the action to the Board. Most of his scathing criticism was based on information that he gathered outside of the formal hearing and was not subject to examination by other members of the Board or by Rex Barber or his attorney. Why did Chairman Baseman not disqualify Mr. Kaiser for violating the rules of procedure for the Board? Why did he allow such a document to be circulated? Was it part of the package that went to Secretary Rice? Does this represent lack of due process?
It seems that when a government office, such as the Office of Air Force History, takes a certain position it never wants to admit that it was wrong and change the position in light of irrefutable contrary evidence subsequently discovered. Is this a true description of the Air Force culture? This view is further substantiated by General McPeak’s statement that the decision to not change the history was based on the elapsed time since the shoot-down occurred, not the merits of the case. Does the Air Force support the view that historical accuracy should be sacrificed for convenience? Are the review procedures based on new evidence only window dressing? Was the elapsed time argument used to justify the Air Force not admitting that its original position was wrong?
Dr. Richard Kohn, Chief, Office of Air Force History, promised SYMA that he would convene a new VCBR if it could present credible new evidence that the previous finding was incorrect. Dr. Kohn made very sure that he could consider the evidence presented was not credible. It is interesting that the American Fighter Aces Victory Confirmation Board and the General Staff of the Confederate Air Force found the evidence to be compelling. Why?
Mr. R. Cargill Hall, Chief, Research Division, knew early on that both wings were still attached to the Yamamoto airplane when it entered the jungle. Therefore, he had to know that the division of credit on the basis of Lanphier shooting off the wing of the airplane that he attacked made it impossible for attributing half credit for the shoot down to Lanphier could not be correct. Why did he not act accordingly?
Mr. Mack M. Burton, who is currently the Executive Director of the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records is most culpable for the actions of the present board in not considering the new evidence of Lanphier’s 1984 letter, that the airplane he attacked was undamaged in any way. Mr. Burton is responsible for the way in which the board members he selects carefully consider the evidence. They have not done so with regard to Rex Barber’s petition based on the Lanphier/Condon letter. Why has he acted so irresponsibly?
Mr. Harlan G. Wilder, Chief, General Law Division, JAG, in his letter of 1 February 2000, paragraph 2, deliberately omits the compelling part of the new evidence submitted by Rex Barber and instead focuses on a part of the Lanphier/Condon letter of the wing being shot off which had earlier been considered. The key point of the airplane that Lanphier attacked being intact from nose to tail, Wilder deliberately leaves out of his response. In paragraph 3 of his 1 February 2000 letter, Wilder goes on in great detail focusing the attention on the wing being shot off instead of considering the new evidence of the statement that the airplane was intact from nose to tail where, in fact, for Lanphier to get half credit, it must have been already damaged by Barber. Why did Wilder make such a deliberate attempt to obfuscate the truth?
Why did Max Burton not counsel Rose M. Kirkpatrick, Chief Examiner, AFBCMR, and panel members, Mr. Benedict A. Kausal IV, Panel Chair, Mrs. Barbara A. Westgate, Panel Member, and Mr. Gregory H. Petkoff, Panel Member, for their careless lack of action to notice how Harlan G. Wilder had disregarded the main point of Barber’s petition submitting new evidence? Why did he allow them to focus on the previously considered subject of a wing being shot off?
The board members should have been directed to more carefully read the petition and recognize Wilder’s deceitful conclusion. Why was the SYMA rebuttal of Wilder apparently ignored?
Request for Reconsideration Denied
|
