Frey on Luke at Murvaux

Stephen:
You ask acceptance of your premise that "Frank Luke died in full view of the villagers of Murvaux." Let me respond with a few observations:
Researchers in the immediate post-WWI period ascertained from contacts on the German side that, on the occasion of Luke's downing, there was, on the hillside of Cote St. Germain, one Lt. Mangels of the German Army. He was responsible for a balloon identified as "#35". (This was "the third balloon" Luke had attacked on his sortie). Upon the commncement of an attack by Luke, Mangels directed machine gun fire against the SPAD. The plane we are told made an immediate controlled landing on the southern slope of the hillside. The distance I'd surmise from the site of #35 to the to the landing site could be anywhere from 50-100 yards. Please note that from that relatively close distance the Germans could not see Luke leave his ship and they located him only by following the blood on the ground to where the aviator lay on the ground next to the creek. The only possible explanation I find tenable was that there was not enough daylight left to permit clear visibility.
Sustaining my conclusion is the statement by Hartney. He stated specifically (rather angrily, too!) held up Luke's departure until the time sun had descended. He stipulated Luke could not leave 'til sundown "at 5:22" which would be 6:22 German time. The villagers in Murvaux depose that the attack occurred between "6:30 and 7:00".
Stephen, if those Germans in such near proximity
couldn't discern the movement of the pilot away from his SPAD from their quite nearby perspective, how could the residents of a village ten times further away offer "eyewitness" testimony to the final moments of Luke's life?
I specifically doubt that they observed him in any action that could be construed as "firing"
at those seeking him.
The situation strongly suggests, I again offer, that whatever the Murvaux citizenry knew, they didn't learn it from direct eye-witness experience. Their sources, I suspect, were the various recitations of versions of the incident by German soldiery- and their own imagination.
If you stand at the edge of Murvaux this Fall at around 1900 hours and can tell me you are confident that you could see an individual in the trees by the Milly Creek at a distance of 700 yards or more aim a handgun at some specific target, I'll glady retract any and all of the above. BTW: There is an original SPAD XIII flying at the Jean Salis operation. Why don't you try for a flyover or a ground exhibit of that baby? Regards, Lee

Billy:
Yes. I know who has the P.J. Carisella documentation. The essential address information which enabled Royal Frey to contact ex-Lt Engels, was, as Frey's article tells us, provided by P.J. We can assume that Engels assured Frey that there was no gunfight after Luke had landed. Would Frey have stated "Don't believe it." (concerning the alleged "shootout") if his several exchanges of letters with Engels would not have so corroborated?. What I'm presuming here is that the letters in P.J's correspondence file from Engels are probably identical in content to those received by Frey. Accordingly, for the time being, I am not going to pursue any effort to retrieve the material. The individual who has the material is a writer also and methinks knows well what he has. Ie. P.J. had a great deal of unique materials re. Von R. and other luminaries.
I feel your "peripheral wound" theory unnecessary. Those wounds generally aren't fatal unless unattended for a significant period of time. Dr. Flanagan would have taken that into consideration and probably dismissed it, as I am, on the grounds that if you have such a non-organ invasive wound you don't die (as Lt. Luke did) in the matter of those few minutes that it took for the SPAD to cease its rollout until the Germans followed the blood trail to the creekside. BTW: the creek was deeply eroded (in the photo in Frey's article) to have warranted a wire sheep fence next to it. The trees are quite high and dense and anyone lying there certainly would not be easily seen. This latter point is another refutation of the scenario of Lt. Luke "firing/falling back" etc. and dying all occurring "in clear view of the villagers of Murvaux." Also BTW: There was a minor disagreement, it has been noted between Lt. Mangels, who was directing m.g. fire and a Lt. Roesch who had a "flak" (cannon)command, as to who hit Luke: It was quickly decided that a m.g. was the source of the wound. I assume this was determined by the dimensions of the wound that Luke bore.
The marker erected in 1957, by the group from the USAF at Etain, does not bear any relation to the "cross" that you describe. It seems nearly man-sized and rectangular with a protruding protective shelf over the area where the plaque was mounted. I appears to have a bell or representation of a bell on the top.
May I suggest that the only airplane that the re-dedication ceremony really demands is a SPAD XIII. An original one is in flying condition in the Jean Salis Collection near Paris. A flyover or a ground display of that XIII would be a extremely poignant and validating inclusion for the occasion. They have a website I believe- why not give this some consideration?
A quick question for you: What flyer did Hartney describe as "the idol of every enlisted man and officer in the 27th"?
Adios, Lee

[Ira_Silverman]

I have hesitated jumping into this discussion, feeling that I don’t have a great deal to add, but since that never stopped me before,

I’m with Lee and BillyH on this one - whether or not FL fired on the German infantry unit is irrelevant – his accomplishments during the previous several weeks speak volumes and IMHO raise him to the highest level of heroism.

Returning to what may have happened after FL landed, I would refer anyone interested to an article by John Kosek, "The Search for Frank Luke" in the Winter 1998 issue of OVER THE FRONT? I thought it to be quite well done and rather objective – he is clear to state what is known for fact, what can be presumed, and what can only be surmised. He referenced an article published in the 25 May 1919 NEW YORK TIMES SUNDAY MAGAZINE: “Frank Luke: Seventeen Days, Eighteen Huns,” which contains a copy of the Graves Registration Document/Affidavit of January, 1919 – probably as close to the original as I’ll ever get. I managed to get a copy (of the article) off of the microfilm held at the Brooklyn College Library.

What is interesting there is that the top part – the statement of the Graves Registration Officer, Capt. Chester E. Staten, reads; “…and upon landing opened fire with his automatic and fought until he was killed.”

The lower section, the Affidavit reads, “He had gone some fifty yards , when, seeing the Germans come toward him, still had the strength to draw his revolver to defend himself, and a moment after fell dead, following a serious wound received in the chest.”

The answer may be that his gun was drawn but never fired. My personal opinion on this specific issue is that the story provided by the witnesses (in addition to the points clearly stated by both Lee and Billy) was highly dependent on what the question was and how it was asked. Not to mention the sequence of questions, the language barrier,…. What a tangled web we weave!

Returning to the Kosek article. The author is married to a niece of FL and had access to family members and papers over a 45 year period. In addition, I just completed reading a novel he wrote about FL, A BONFIRE IN THE SKY (available through Amazon), in which he surmised what might have happened near the stream at Murvaux. A good read that pieces together the package without conflicting with what is known as fact.

And indeed, a flyover by Jean Salis’ would be MOST appropriate, not to mention probably free of most bureaucratic red tape..

Just my pre-inflationary nickel.

VBR,

Ira

[stephen]

Gentlemen:

We seem so intent on proving 14 chance bystanders to be liars that we're throwing out any rational semblence of logic whatsoever.

a) Assuming that all 14 witnesses were at the same place at the time of Luke's landing is illogical and unsupportable.

B) In an area of several square kilometers, it is impossible to count the millions upon millions of individual square feet upon which a human could stand and witness the events in question, or to count the opposite.

c) There is no indication that any of the witnesses were anywhere near La Maisonette at the time... the only reference to La Maisonette was at 2pm, 3 1/2 hours before Luke ever got in his airplane.

d) Critical point. I was asked earlier whether or not I could stand "at the church" and see Luke's landing site. My answer was "yes," because I moved to a point where I could see what I wanted to see. I could take you to the church and show you at least 100 different positions from which you could see the site and another 100 from which you couldn't. If either affidavit had given the location of the witnesses, it would in all likelihood be worthless information... were they standing behind this tree? Or that rock? Or on the roof? C'mon guys.

e) Both affidavits are littered with references to the witnesses specific knowledge of the event... "The undersigned... certify to have seen," "certify to have seen the German commandant," "the inhabitants also saw," "although we did not see the German aircraft," "we did see them," "we saw an Allied pursuit plane," "we are definately certain," "beyond any doubt," "were clearly seen by many of us," "according to what we could see and what Mssr Vohner told us," "the mother of Charles Hervieux remembered seeing," ad infinitum. In insurance investigations, the liars are after the money awarded for a false claim... what were these liars after? And please do not attempt to back out of calling them liars. Their claims were specific, clear, and well defined with no ambiguity. There is no where to run and nowhere to hide. They either told the truth or they lied. Why?

f) It cannot be demonstrated that these 14 people could not have seen what they claim to have seen. It cannot be demonstrated that they had any legitimate motive for lying whatsoever, let alone why they would do so en masse.

Lee, here is one of dozens of potential scenarios which would clearly explain why the Germans didn't see Luke, yet the witnesses say they could from a greater distance: Luke goes down just after sundown and is visible until he crawls into the weeds near Milly creek, after which he is hidden from view laying on the ground. As the Germans follow the trail of blood and draw nearer, still not seeing him, he "raised himself from the ground where he had lain," thereby becoming visible again to both the Germans and the witnesses, and "drew his gun and fired it at the German soldiers," during which time the gun flashes would remove all doubt as to what was happening even if darkness was complete by that time, which it was not.

Of course, I'll be doing more distance and line of sight work this fall, but it won't make any difference those whose minds are made up. What I claim to have seen has been rejected, what the witnesses claim to have seen has been rejected, the photographs I took have been rejected, and using the logic employed to date, any other findings which may be presented will surely be rejected as well.

[stephen]

I think we all agree that Luke's career does not rise or fall on any alleged shooting after his final landing.

Frankly - HAH! a pun! - I don't care whether it happened or not. But these 14 people were either telling the truth or they were lying.

"THE UNDERSIGNED CERTIFY TO HAVE SEEN" and "SHORTLY AFTER SUNSET... WE SAW" just doesn't leave a lot of room for squirming.

[Ira_Silverman]

Stephen:

I beg to differ with your last reply.

Nowhere on this or any other thread has anybody said that the 14 signers of the affidavit(s) were being unthruthful. Quite the opposite – their statements have been defended in the context of what they likely perceived at the time and again 40 years after the fact.

Their integrity has NEVER been questioned – why infer that now?

It remains a fact that none of these signers were affirming a document in their native tongue. Do we know if any of them at all spoke English? What was discussed and what were they asked before signing?

I’m afraid we will never know the answer to the last question.

Hindsight being 20-20, it would have been better had each been given a blank sheet of paper and been asked to record in their native French language what they witnessed that evening after the SPAD landed.

Perception being what it is, we likely would have had 14 (hopefully only slightly) different stories, which following translation could have been pieced into a unified scenario of what actually occurred that Autumn evening.

That, sadly, will never happen, and neither can we accept the affidavit as absolute truth. We can believe the signers were being truthful, but should also consider that they were signing a foreign language document presented to them by uniformed officers (intimidating, perhaps?), and with a fundamental lack of understanding of both the question asked and the document being signed.

After years of German occupation, they were likely more than willing to satisfy the representatives of the conquering allies by signing the affidavit if it was even close to what they perceived.

Food for thought?

VBR,

Ira

[stephen]

>>>we likely would have had 14 (hopefully only slightly) different stories, which following translation could have been pieced into a unified scenario of what actually occurred that Autumn evening


But Ira, that is very nearly what we have!! We have two separate accounts from a conglomerate of 14 different people which are in agreement on all the major points of the story... almost exactly what you asked for.

I find it interesting that people try desperately to show the statements of the witnesses as being untruthful, yet they also try desperately to avoid calling them liars. But there is no middle ground... these people claim to have seen, with their own eyes, specific events in a specific manner. They either told the truth or they did not. And if they chose to sign a document not knowing what they were claiming, then they are no less liars than if they'd concocted the whole story to begin with. Yes, Ira, if not the truthfulness, then certainly the integrity and wisdom of the witnesses is most certainly in question here.

We do not know if any of them understood english or not, and we cannot demonstrate how much of a barrier that language was or was not. That is all empty speculation which neither supports nor refutes the affidavits. We still have 2 affidavits which claim that Luke drew his weapon and fired, we still have 14 witnesses saying the same thing, and we still have to find a motive for their untruthfulness - or if you want to be kind - their extreme indiscretion and inexplicable willingness to sign anything put in front of them.

PS-the intimidation thing is also empty speculation. And I kinda doubt that, after 4 yrs of occupation by German forces, they were suddenly intimidated by soldiers... friendly ones at that.

So we're right back where we started. We still have 14 people who keep saying that Luke drew his weapon and fired, and its getting more and more difficult to either shut them up or make them out as confused buffoons.

[stephen]

Another interesting study here is to look at the selective acceptance of the witnesses testimonies. We seem to accept part of their statements as true - regardless of a complete lack of evidence - and disregard the parts we don't want to believe. To wit:

How do we know that Luke was ever hit by ground fire? Who's to say that he wasn't shot down by Fokkers? We have not a shred of evidence to go on except the eyewitness accounts - which for some reason, we've chosen to believe in this instance. We also seem to believe that Luke's SPAD was hauled away on a truck the following day, yet the only evidence we have is what Charles Hervieux testified that his mother remembered in a document that we don't want to believe. For all we know, Luke's SPAD stayed there and was dismantled by the advancing Allies. How do we know that the body of the soldier in the grave behind the church in January was the same one that was in the weeds by Milly creek in September? Capt. Staten of the Graves Registration Service certainly didn't know, the body had no identification and there was no autopsy. If the witnesses were confused by the language barrier and willing to sign anything put in front of them and agree to any statement that was suggested, then how do we know that Luke's body was ever recovered? And other than the fact that Luke was MIA, how do we know he was even killed? The eyewitness accounts and a generic Graves Reg. description were the only identification ever presented for the body, and unfortunately, Elgin sold more than one watch. As ridiculous as it sounds, without accepting their testimonies, we cannot prove beyond doubt that Luke didn't survive the war, move to Bolivia and become a plumber. We don't even know the serial number of the plane that Charles Hervieux claimed his mother saw on Oct 1, 1918... and we don't know the serial number of Luke's plane... so if we're really serious about the witnesses being confused and intimidated, we now have no way of positively placing Frank Luke in Murvaux at all.

Of course, we would all look at this line of thinking and believe it to be preposterous. But its an interesting study to look at what people choose to believe from these poor, confused witnesses, and what they wish to deny. Without their testimony the story of Frank Luke goes something like this:

Frank Luke took off at 5:22 and was not seen again. Unidentified body found four months later.

If we choose to believe the witnesses were intimidated, confused and unreliable, then must dismiss their claims.

All of them.

[Ira_Silverman]

Stephen:

While it must be comforting to view the world in terms of absolutes – either it’s the absolute truth or an absolute lie - I cannot agree with that logic.

The real world is not all black or all white, but rather shades of grey, and how we see those shades depends upon our perception. What the signees of the affidavit affirmed was their perception of the incident, not the absoluteness of it.

On this point, I surmise, we will have to agree to disagree.

But there is one other point I wish to note, as I did in my earlier thread. The copy of the 1919 affidavit that I have DOES NOT SAY THAT LUKE DREW HIS WEAPON AND FIRED! What it does say (as I wrote previously) is: “He had gone some fifty yards , when, seeing the Germans come toward him, still had the strength to draw his revolver to defend himself, and a moment after fell dead, following a serious wound received in the chest.”

While it does say he drew his revolver, it never says he fired it.

VBR,

Ira

[Barrett]

Ref. the previous notation that we don't know the number of FL's last SPAD. It was a XIII C.1, s/n S7984. Alan Durkota's excellent Flying Machines Press volume on WW I aviation CMHs cites research by Royal Frey and Alan Toelle from records of the 1st Depot at Colombey. The bird was assigned to 27AS on 28 Sept., the day before FL was KIA. Therefore, it almost certainly did not have squadron markings and is portrayed that way in one of the book's excellent profiles.
I just gotta figure that some German soldat carved out the serial number and took it home as a souvenir--which no doubt was then incinerated in WW II.