ROK Drop

Avatar of GI KoreaBy on April 25th, 2013 at 1:44 am

New Twist In Lt Col Wilkerson Case

Based on what I have read online about Wilkerson he seems to me to be a bit sleazy which this latest revelation further shows:

The 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 subsequently 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.
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.” [Stars and Stripes]

You can read the rest at the link but just because the guy is sleazy does not make him a rapist, but clearly anything in this guy’s background is going to be used to hammer him. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone

Tags: ,
  • Liz
    5:37 am on April 25th, 2013 1

    There was an incident at the base here where an airman claimed (during an ORI, at night) that a man broke into her room, and they had a huge brawl….she described her attacker in great detail, down to the smell. She had a rip on her shirt and a cut on her lip. The state got involved and everyone was looking for this culprit. Forensics found no evidence whatsoever, and it was discovered that she had made such claims on four other separate occasions. The state had expended so many wasted man hours they wanted to prosecute the woman, but the military stepped in and asked them not to because they were concerned about how that would reflect on the service. The woman is still employed by the military, though they’ve started a file on her for the next time. Think any of that information would ever be made public?

    Why is it our business that he fathered a bastard?

  • guitard
    6:19 am on April 25th, 2013 2

    Why is it our business that he fathered a bastard?

    Assuming that the bastard is his. The very first order of business should be a paternity test.

  • JoeC
    6:21 am on April 25th, 2013 3

    Apparently, part of the reason he was exonerated from his rape conviction was the general was given some information about his alleged victim’s past that discredited her reputation.

    Would this discrediting information about Wilkerson’s past also have affected the general’s decision if he had been given it?

  • Ole Tanker
    6:56 am on April 25th, 2013 4

    Sorry comment on our society.

    All of these “hatefull” women are jealous of the fairytale perfect man and wonderful family, they just want to destroy it.

    You can’t have him gurls! So give it up.

  • Bobby Ray
    7:18 am on April 25th, 2013 5

    This here is one of them tricks. When the government wants to cause trouble for someone they say they is “under investigation” or “a person of interest”. Course everybody knew all along they didn’t do nothing but the media reports them accusations or near accusations but there aint never a follow up to the whole deal.

    Now I can’t say as this gal had his baby or not but best I can tell she made this here claim without any proof and the media is running with it like it is news. If it turns out she is just some crazy gal who wanted to stir up trouble cause she is all hurt that he done got off of the last deal we won’t hear much bout it again. This kind of stuff shouldn’t be in the news until after there is one of them DNA tests and everybody is sure he is the daddy.

    Anyone doing any kind of speculating at this point aint got no sense and anybody reporting this as news got themselves a mean streak. If I call that Stars and Stripes and tell them the general done knocked up my sister, they going to print that like its news? It aint no more or less credible than that gal’s story.

  • Ole Tanker
    7:34 am on April 25th, 2013 6

  • 2ID Doc
    8:03 am on April 25th, 2013 7

    It’s almost a guarantee that if it turns out the the LTC is the father that a court martial will be convened for adultery and whatever else will stick, and no General will be able to pull his body parts out of the fire this time. Something for those who know the Air Force better than me, does the Air Force have the unofficial Air Force Protective Association, like the Army’s unofficial West Point Protective Association where ring knockers take care of ring knockers?

  • William
    8:23 am on April 25th, 2013 8

    The worst problem we have in the military is at the senior ranks the culture and power to get away or influence the bad stuff they do.

    In the past, it was much easier to establish and maintain these good ole boy networks, but with the advent of technology and social media, an increasing number of them will get ratted out by an outraged public.

    This seems to be a driving force in holding some of these accountable.

    I make no comments directly about the LTC, I am speaking strictly about our past and current culture at the upper levels of our military.

  • Glans
    1:21 pm on April 25th, 2013 9

    Kimberly Hanks has many relatives who live near Davis-Monthan AFB, and they’re unhappy that Lieutenant Colonel Wilkerson was transferred there. Here’s the big story.

  • Ole Tanker
    2:45 pm on April 25th, 2013 10

    Glans! Very good article.

    Ms. Hanks should have never falsely accused a high ranking officer anyway!

    BTW, the LTC may have been drunk or incapacitated in another way when he fathered the child. He is smart enough to know what he can prove and what he can’t without sufficient credible evidence.

  • jackshi
    8:11 pm on April 25th, 2013 11

    # 7

    Adultry in the military has a five year limit. So there will be no courts martial for adultry.
    What they could try is lying on “security clearance” questions.

  • jim
    11:02 pm on April 25th, 2013 12

    #11, security clearance questionnaires only go back to date of last clearance granted. wilkerson probably has a ts, so it would be 5 years at most.

  • Liz
    4:58 am on April 26th, 2013 13

    #10: OT, Methinks you’re having far too much fun on this topic. ;-)

  • Liz
    4:58 am on April 26th, 2013 14

    You’d better not be poking fun at me….

  • Ole Tanker
    11:41 am on April 26th, 2013 15

    Time to take the old cell phone camara to the local Red Lobster.

  • Ole Tanker
    7:41 pm on April 26th, 2013 16

    Liz #14!

    My very favorite LTC Wilkerson fan! How could I? But then. If the shoe fits.

    No! Wait! If the glass slipper fits……

  • Liz
    4:31 am on April 27th, 2013 17

    I’m not a Lt Wilkerson fan. He looks like a douche to me.

    Just a fan of the Constitution. Think those protections should apply to soldiers too. Even *gasp* avaitors.

  • Liz
    4:36 am on April 27th, 2013 18

    No one has ever associated my feet with glass slippers! :shock: More like nursing shoes.

    When I wear my cheater shoes, I make sure to wear the type that can cover a few flaws.

  • Obama's Speech Coach
    6:59 am on April 27th, 2013 19

    #17. Yes.

  • Ole Tanker
    11:21 am on April 27th, 2013 20

    #18 There ya go muddying the waters up with patriotic stuff.

    We all know Military gives up some constitutional rights and are covered by Military regulations.

    Wilkerson was given a trial by jury and given due process.

    And by Regulation exonerated by the General.

    Our history is full of innocent folks going to jail and guilty folks going free.

    I bet if a lower enlisted guy was in the same situation they’d been found guily, MAX’ed out and no one would have had a second thought about it.

  • Obama's Speech Coach
    3:00 pm on April 27th, 2013 21

    Divide and conquer, eh OT?

    Class warfare?

    Your Marxist dialectic lessons appear to have taken hold at last… :mrgreen:

  • Avatar of GI KoreaGI Korea
    3:50 pm on April 27th, 2013 22

    @20- Over the past 20 the Air Force had 327 sexual assault cases and of those cases clemency was given fives times. Two times for officers, one time for an NCO, and twice for junior enlisted:

    So this is not just an officer thing and the fact it used about once a year in the Air Force shows it is a very rare thing. This goes against the perception the special interests are trying to manufacture that all these generals are going around and hooking up their buddies committing sexual assaults.

  • JoeC
    4:43 pm on April 27th, 2013 23


    The article you linked to kind of makes a mess of making clear a key point.

    Clemency was granted in five of the 327 Air Force sexual assault convictions in the last five years — less than 2 percent of the time, Harding said. The Aviano and Vandenberg cases accounted for two of those. The three others involved an airman first class and a senior airman at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, Alaska, and a technical sergeant at Cannon Air Force Base, N.M. Only the senior airman had his conviction reversed; the others saw their charges reduced to lesser offenses, according to information provided by the Air Force.

    What I get from that is ‘clemency’ does not only mean the reversal of convictions but also having charges reduced. Using that distinction, the article is saying that while the two officers (at Aviano and Vandenberg) had their convictions reversed, only one of the enlisted persons had his conviction reversed.

    Having no criminal conviction verse any criminal conviction, no matter how small it’s reduced to, does make a difference for the rest of your life.

  • Ole Tanker
    5:16 pm on April 27th, 2013 24


    I don’t understand why everyone wants to support the elitist clik!

    But, that is what our society has become:(

    #21 If I am a marxist, than so was Col Chamberlain and SGM kilrain.

  • Liz
    5:27 pm on April 27th, 2013 25

    And here I was under the impression that the presumption of innocence was fundamental to due process.
    Which is guilt beyond reasonable doubt, which would require some modicum of evidence.

    Presumption of guilt would be a lapse in due process, of the sort experienced during the Salem witch trials (promoted by rivalries, interestingly enough…though this was all before Col Chamberlain’s time).

    Perhaps we should introduce witch cake into military court martial proceedings too.

  • JoeC
    7:17 pm on April 27th, 2013 26

    I guess I need to say where I’m coming from on all this.

    I know the military justice system is flawed. I’ve ruffled feathers here before by being very critical of it. I personally know people who were wrongly convicted while in the service. But I guess they weren’t someone who knew someone who could make a compelling case and convince the general to throw out their convict.

    The problem, as I see it, is the outcome at some levels is too imbalanced and based on who you are and who you know. While acknowledging the problems in the system and that some people will be screwed by it, I’d be more satisfied if they made it so everyone is screwed equally. Take the finger off the scale.

    The jury based aspect of western common law came about because people were fed up with judgments from monarchs, nobles and magistrates giving so much unchecked power they often ended up abusing it. We decided 240 years ago that we didn’t like the idea of too much unchecked power in the hands of individuals and a system of checks and balances was better. What we have seen of our generals over and over again only in recent months should be enough to convince us that they are fallible, to say the least.

    So, I ask again, since the military justice system has evolved into this elaborate thing we have today, with several higher levels of appeals courts, do we still need this artifact from 1775?

  • Liz
    7:37 pm on April 27th, 2013 27

    Well, Joe C. Thousands of years ago societies as we know them hadn’t yet formed, and there were lots of cavepeople. Some cavepeople got a hold of poisoned berries and some ate them and died.
    In some cases, friends and relatives said, “Damn! We’d better stop eating those berries. They are bad news. Keep the kids away from that crap.”
    In other cases, the friends and relatives said, “That isn’t fair at they died! I’m not going to warn anyone about those berries. And I’m just going to let everyone else eat them too.”

    The latter cavepeople have one thing in common. They aren’t our ancestors.

  • Bobby Ray
    8:04 pm on April 27th, 2013 28

    Liz if you think that is bad then you aint going to like that California is trying to let non Americans serve jury duty. I reckon that sounds real good to them California hippies but it will cost them a whole lot of time and money cause the first thing I would do is push for one of them mistrials being that some foreigner aint my peer. Course if I was found innocent cause some foreigner thinks honor killing is OK, I wouldnt let out no peep. Then again them Californians never found no liberal cause they didnt want to implement regardless of expense or side effect.

    Now on a national level we got some of that indefinite detention and secret warrantless searches and military tribunals and god knows what else coming down the line. You kind of get the feeling the justice system is getting more arbitrary. I wouldnt hold my breath for no military justice reform. Them arbitrary systems is just more convenient for them folks in power.

  • Ole Tanker
    8:35 pm on April 27th, 2013 29

    Liz~! Liz! Liz!

    Even for you to compare the Wilkenson case to the Salem witch trials is quite a stretch.

    We had a failed polygraph. (For anyone else a real black mark)

    Telephone records that show no activity up to when the victim was kicked shoeless out of the house.

    A wife with a vested interest, making statements clearly to protect her personal interests.

    And a jury of Field Grade Officers ruling Guilty based on the evidence they were given.


  • Liz
    4:40 am on April 28th, 2013 30

    No evidence. None. Even the ostensible victim admitted she thought she was dreaming until the light came on. She might have been dreaming, and was too inebriated by all evidence and her own testimony to remember much of anything.

    I spoke with an OSI agent who has been working in the field a long, long time. He told me that in his experience about 70 percent of the sexual assault accusations are discovered to be fabricated (either intentionally or unintentionally…the woman might not remember clearly in some cases, or in others she has a motivation to lie, angry spouse of boyfriend to pacify, she’s simply nutty, or whatever). If no evidence if found during the investigation, the case should not go to trial in the first place. The standard to go to trial is beyond reasonable doubt after investigation, less than reasonable doubt (assuming the culprit is still somewhat suspect) in most cases results in nonjudicial punishment (which, for an officer is usually a career killer). This was a politically motivated prosecution where the commander in charge sent it to trial when he should not have (political pressure, send that hot potato along), the jury was under political pressure to prosecute (going easy on sexual assault is a current career killer), and General Franklin was under political pressure to approve it (look at the crap storm halting it has brought him, and everyone I know who knows him says he’s a very straight shooter, a good guy which is highly unusual praise for a general).

    So I think witch trials are a pretty good analogy to the current climate of sexual assault prosecutions in the military, actually. And I find the position that an equal distribution of injustice is preferable to justice absurd.

  • Glans
    6:44 am on April 28th, 2013 31

    Ole Tanker, polygraphs are a superstition suitable for witch trials.

    Liz, estimony is evidence. Part of the court’s job is to decide if it’s convincing evidence, but it is evidence. Our British friends even call testifying “giving evidence.”

    Bobby Ray, everyone’s so sure Dzhokar Tsarnaev is guilty. CNN, NY Times, Washington Post, …, everyone except his mama and daddy. But I have to ask you: are Obama and Holder persecuting a Caucasian?

  • Glans
    6:45 am on April 28th, 2013 32

    Uh, I meant testimony is evidence. :oops:

  • Bobby Ray
    8:50 am on April 28th, 2013 33

    I don’t even know what you are asking me there Glans.

  • Ole Tanker
    1:19 pm on April 28th, 2013 34

  • Glans
    2:11 pm on April 28th, 2013 35

    And if phone records were introduced into evidence, they are indeed evidence. Whether they inculpate or exculpate the defendant, I do not know. That’s one more thing for the court to think about.

  • Liz
    1:39 am on April 29th, 2013 36

    General Franklin: “Mrs. Wilkerson’s version of the events at her house the night of the alleged incident was substantially consistent from her initial OSI interview statement, to her Article 32 investigation statement, and through her court testimony. And my detailed review of all the phone records (of all the key witnesses) validated Lt Col and Mrs. Wilkerson’s combined version on the night in question and the next morning. Please note, I spent close to 4 hours looking at the phone record evidence alone. In particular, I determined that the alleged victim’s cell phone records (times and durations of incoming/outgoing calls and text messages) when aligned with the testimony and phone records of the friend of the alleged victim, all merged to a common picture more consistent with Lt Col and Mrs. Wilkerson’s combined version of events.”

  • Liz
    2:22 am on April 29th, 2013 37

    Here is a link to the letter written by Franklin:

  • GIMP
    9:13 am on June 1st, 2013 38

    Without commenting specifically on this case I will say that my personal observation with regards to military legal have been that an individual is far more likely to be punished for something they did not do than not punished for something they did.

    The system is completely biased against the accused and while on paper there is a presumption of innocence, in reality the presumption is of guilt.

    At non-judicial punishment (NJP) the standard of proof is that the Commander “believes” the accused is guilty. Commanders regularly hand out punishment for crimes military members are accused of, finding them guilty and punishing them very rapidly while their cases make it through the civilian legal system. If the case is dropped in the “real” legal system it doesn’t matter at all. Still guilty in the military. Even if the event never actually happened.

    Members can appeal NJP and go to court martial, however they usually don’t because if they’re convicted at the court martial for something they didn’t do, they’re a convicted criminal, even if the civilian courts find that the incident either never happened or the member wasn’t involved. Evidence doesn’t matter. Command influence is pervasive and members can be ground down, crushed, and permanently destroyed because something they are accused of makes the military look bad. Guilty or not.

    Members of military trials, especially officers, know that their ruling at trial, if not the politically popular one, can come back to prevent their promotion. Any sitting politician that has a problem with the outcome of a trial can get the names of the people seated on the jury and block their promotions. The jury has a very strong incentive to convict. Nobody is going to block a promotion because a jury convicted an innocent man of sexual assault, but the reverse is definitely not true.

    Charges of sexual assault are taken so seriously and prosecuted so aggressively that it is inconceivable that anyone who would be found guilty in a civilian court would ever walk on a charge. The military goes so far as to consider an offensive comment an assault and go after it like a rape. All the talk of military sexual assaults is based upon a survey, but there are no facts to back it up whatsoever. The truth is that the military regularly convicts people with no evidence in cases that wouldn’t even be prosecuted in the civilian world. Everyone on active duty knows this and some use it to their advantage as a weapon.


RSS feed for comments on this post | TrackBack URI

By submitting a comment here you grant this site a perpetual license to reproduce your words and name/web site in attribution.

Bad Behavior has blocked 58930 access attempts in the last 7 days.