Frey on Luke at Murvaux

[stephen]

Mornin', fellers:

No, I'm not viewing the universe as all black or white, though that viewpoint has the advantage of consistency. I said it was an interesting study to look at what people choose to believe from the affidavits and what they insist on denying, given equal evidence (or lack thereof) for both.

Its true that the '19 affidavit doesn't state specifically that Luke fired his sidearm, but it certainly indicates it. It does not say that FL "had gone some fifty yards, when, seeing the Germans come toward him, still had the strength to draw his revolver and wave it around in a gesture of goodwill." It says he drew it for a purpose, and that purpose was to defend himself. The only means in which a gun can be used for self defense are to a) throw it at them, B) bludgeon them with it, or c) shoot at them. I think logic dictates the latter course, especially given the fact that the '62 affidavit further clarifies the situation by stating specifically that he did fire, and that he fired specifically at the Germans in question. Remember when you asked for multiple accounts of the same event, so logical conclusions and points of consistency could be drawn from them? The first affidavit says he drew his gun to defend himself, the second says he fired it at the Germans. 14 separate witnesses who use different verbage which describes the same course of action with the second giving more details that the first. Watch what you wish for...

Barrett, I'll have to reread Durkota's book which has been on the shelf for a while. Of course, we still have lingering claims of Luke in SPAD #26 and no ID for the SPAD supposedly hauled out of the field west of Murvaux on Oct 1st, so from a critic's standpoint, we still can't put Luke's SPAD in Murvaux on September 29th without the witnesses testimonies and the greater point remains. But thanks - I'll reread it.

[stephen]

FACT: We have two accounts from 14 people who claim to be eyewitnesses of the events in question, claiming veracity, specificity and first-person knowledge of the events, each of whom can be reasonably placed at Murvaux on the date in question and have no known motive for propogating falsehoods.

Let us now shift the arena of debate. To date, the tactic has been to look at the sworn testimony of eyewitnesses and cast doubt, suspicion, refusal to believe their testimonies and hysterical - I mean historical - revision... i.e., if you make enough accusations, then actual guilt is irrelevent because the credibility of the witness is destroyed.

To specifically address the question, "Did or did not Luke fire at least one round from his pistol at the Germans?," we shall begin looking at the proof (as opposed to "speculation") and the eyewitnesses available which can actively and positively refute the available eyewitness accounts. Any witnesses produced must have family names and histories which are easily traceable to that location and time, such as Colin or Hervieux, or be reasonably placed at Murvaux as the appropriate place and time. The number of refuting witnesses must exceed the number 14 or be acknowledged as a minority witness. If no refuting witnesses are available, then documention must be provided that demonstrates that the claimants were not at the time and place necessary to make such observations. If no documentation is available, then photographic evidence of their inability to witness the events in question must be produced.

Assuming you have no witnesses, no documentation, no photographs and no testimonies available to refute the known accounts, we will assume you can only make your case by attempting to destroy the existing testimonies. Destruction of those testimonies will only be accepted via actual evidence which refutes them beyond question... speculators and doubters need not apply. Any guesswork regarding the witnesses ability to see the events in question must demonstrate the exact location of each witness it intends to destroy, then provide actual photographic evidence that their line of sight was blocked from that location on September 29, 1918.

Until then, we are stuck with the uncomfortable fact that there are 14 people out there who claim to have personally seen Luke draw his weapon to defend himself/fire it at his captors.

Let the presentation of evidence begin...

Re. "Whutcha got":
What we got? Here is "Note 2" from Royal Frey's observations recorded after his 27 July, 1962 visit when he interviewed those who were present at the occasion of Luke's downimg in 1918:

"The first three witnessses
of th above statement deny
that they signed any previous
statement but their names are on
.

Re. "Whutcha got":
What we got? Here is "Note 2" from Royal Frey's observations recorded after his 27 July, 1962 visit when he interviewed those who were present at the occasion of Luke's downimg in 1918:

"The first three witnessses
of th above statement deny
that they signed any previous
statement but their names are on
.

Re. "Whutcha got":
Here is a "got" for ya. This is "Note 2" from Royal Frey's observations recorded after his 27 July, 1962 visit when he interviewed those who were present at the occasion of Luke's downimg in 1918:

"The first three witnessses
of the above statement deny
that they signed any previous
statement but their names are on
. the first affidavit."

A pretty serious indictment re the legitimacy and accuracy of the "first affidavit" I suggest.
Lee

Re. "Whutcha got":
Here is a "got" for ya. This is "Note 2" from Royal Frey's observations recorded after his 27 July, 1962 visit when he interviewed those who were present at the occasion of Luke's downimg in 1918:

"The first three witnessses
of the above statement deny
that they signed any previous
statement but their names are on
. the first affidavit."

A pretty serious indictment re the legitimacy and accuracy of the "first affidavit" I suggest.
Lee

[Ira_Silverman]

Stephen:

To me it's pretty clear what is stated. Luke was able to draw his weapon but fell dead before firing it.

No conflict there.

VBR,

Ira

[Ira_Silverman]

Stephen:

BTW, what I asked for was 14 independent affidavits written in the witnesses' native language describing the events as they saw it without the influence of external sources.

That's far from what I got.

VBR,

Ira

[stephen]

- Ira, I'm crushed! You have refused to participate in the presentation of actual evidence to refute the witnesses claims. And, you have yet to acknowledge the existence of the statement "the pilot raised himself from the ground where he had lain wounded, drew his gun and fired it at the German soldiers." C'mon, man. The ship is sailing here! Give me something to work with.

- Lee, you have raised an excellent point. The 4 witnesses in the '62 affidavit did indeed deny signing the '19 affidavit. And in doing so, they explicitly stated beyond doubt that the information in the first affidavit was indeed produced by the residents of Murvaux in response to American inquiries, and that those residents did indeed give their names to support the veracity of their statements. Oops. Worse yet, they knew of the first affidavit, mentioned it specifically, and they stated that the information they were offering to Frey agreed with what had been given in 1919! "We related to them the same details as appear in this statement." Darn those rascals!

And if you choose to accept Frey's documents in an attempt to discredit the 1919 report, you now have a much, much bigger problem. In the first affidavit Luke's drawing his gun and his intent are stated, but the firing can only be presumed as a course of logic. In the second affidavit, all four witnesses explicitly state - and agree - that they personally saw him fire his weapon! Please tell me how the testimonies of 4 witnesses - in the document that you claim to be credible - saying that Luke "drew his gun and fired it at the German soldiers" proves that Luke didn't fire his gun at the German soldiers. I can't wait to see the verbal gymnastics on this one. Better watch this stuff about using the second affidavit to discredit the first... it'll blow up in your face like a Colt .45.


Now where were we? Oh, yeah. Irrefutable evidence that the witnesses are not credible and that Luke did not fire his gun. Speculators and wishful thinkers need not apply. Now let's get on with it...

[Barrett]

This goes back a year at least, but when we first reviewed the did he or didn't he question, I posted the "earwitness" account of a French visitor to the Champlin Fighter Museum some years ago. He told Mr. Champlin that his grandfather heard pistol shots (plural) followed by "machine gun fire." His only other comment, "It didn't last very long."
I do not have the gentleman's name, nor do I know just where his grandfather was. However, if his grand-daddy's report is credible, the fact that he distinguished between pistol shots (plural) and what sounded like full auto indicates that:
FL fired more than one round.
The Germans replied with a rapid-fire rifle volley that resembled an automatic weapon.
Worth investigating during the November dedication.
There's also the matter of Mutley's post. (BTW: Whatever happened to The Movie?) In his screenplay research he cited a document indicating that one or more Germans were wounded. I think I have that message stashed in my FL file in Arizona. Will be in touch w/Stephen about it when I return.