Air Force general to retire after criticism for handling of sexual-assault case

Washington Post ^ | 1/8/2014 | Craig Whitlock

[SZonian]

"the general overturned it based on his own personal feelings. Not the facts of the case, his own personal bias."

Two things;

1. Please see post #7 where I highlighted the specific section of the UCMJ the General is obligated to comply with and

2. Please cite/provide a source for your comment.

Thanks.

[verga]

From the article: Franklin initially gave no reason for granting clemency in the Wilkerson case. But after his decision received widespread media coverage, he released a six-page letter to defend himself.

He explained that after reviewing the case file, he had nagging doubts about the victim’s credibility. He also said he had a hard time believing that the accused pilot could have committed “the egregious crime of sexually assaulting a sleeping woman,” given that he was “a doting father and husband” who had been selected for promotion.

If he had done it based on the facts of the case fine, but he had been convicted by a Jury of his peers. From the Article: The pilot, Lt. Col. James Wilkerson, had been found guilty in November 2012 by an all-male jury in what was seen as a test of the Air Force’s willingness to tackle such crimes.

[SZonian]

Thanks, but again, did the General consult with the legal staff as directed by the UCMJ? Did the legal staff present some proof or evidence as well that may have contributed to the General’s doubts?

The UCMJ permits a convening authority the right to set aside a conviction, regardless of whether the accused was convicted by a jury of peers...so even if we disagree with the General, the feminists, etc...the General was still within his rights to exercise the set aside.

If and I qualify this statement with IF, the General failed to comply with the UCMJ, then I agree that he deserved what happened. However, facts are sticky things and the media has proven time and again that inconvenient facts will be omitted from the story.

I’m beginning to wonder if the General is falling on his sword to protect the legal staff who may have presented a recommendation that he acted on.

And I do suspect the case being tainted in the sense that it was “seen as a test of willingness to tackle such crimes.” I would be a tad apprehensive about being the defendant in such a “case”. Wouldn’t you?

[verga]

I would be a tad apprehensive about being the defendant in such a “case”. Wouldn’t you?

I agree and I normally don't trust the media at all, but it just seemed peculiar that the jury convicted him, the general set it aside and then the other allegations come out.

How many times have we seen stories on FR and everyone is all jacked up about the mean old boss, or the crazy bus driver etc.... and it turns out that they did the right thing. I was just saying I wanted to hear the whole story, and it seemed the general did not have the whole story.

[SZonian]

My distrust of the media leads me to question everything...everything.

I have also learned to no longer make snap judgements because of that...as you alluded to, it’s quite embarrassing to find out the whole story and not the partial one.

Like you, I am looking for the whole story...I just haven’t seen anything that mentions whether the General complied with the UCMJ article...I don’t understand why this hasn’t been mentioned as it would be, IMO, a major component of the story.

I think we’re burning the candle from both ends here...;^)