|
Post by Beth on Sept 22, 2016 19:10:12 GMT
Thanks Steve. I do agree that LBH is a large cold case. Looking at it via primary sources and archaeological information is going to be the best way to understand what happened.
As an investigator is it better to put all previous work to one side and begin again or start from the beginning yourself. There is so much poor scholarship with LBH it would be easy to go down the wrong trail.
|
|
|
Post by deadwoodgultch on Sept 23, 2016 12:36:45 GMT
I am sorry the Welshman is not here, as I would love Steve and him to work the case together. I would be glad to caddy.
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Sept 23, 2016 14:30:33 GMT
I wish so too. I also wish we would hear from him.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Sept 23, 2016 14:41:09 GMT
I am going to disagree a little here, in that I do not think this is a cold case who done it. We are not trying to determine the perpetrator, nor do we seek the motivational factors, method or opportunity. Those two factors have been well known since the late afternoon of 25 June 1876.
What we are trying to determine is HOW.
What is required is the skill set of a forensic accident examiner, not a homicide detective.
|
|
dave
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,679
|
Post by dave on Sept 24, 2016 18:48:18 GMT
QC
That is a different point of view but one with which I are in agreement. That being said what was the beginning point? Sheridan's orders? Terry's? Custer's actions and attacking early and alone?
I vote for Custer attempting to make this campaign an all 7th Cavalry event and attacking a day early. He then made a series of decisions that lead to the defeat and annihilation of 5 companies and the mauling of 7 others prior to the arrival of General Terry's command.
So when are starting the analysis of Gordon Harper's tome?
I have been dismayed with the behavior of a poster on another board as he brays like an ass at the moon blaming everyone except GAC for the disaster at the Little Big Horn. This board has a history of serious scholarship and I expect it to continue. So let's open the first chapter and begin the study. Regards Dave
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Sept 24, 2016 21:08:05 GMT
With respect Dave, that is not the way a forensic accident examiner would go about it.
1) You are making an assumption about Custer, a fact not in evidence, that he was out for himself. That may very well be, and you are not the first, nor will you be the last to make that particular comment. The point is, that if you have that conclusion, before you start, you color everything that follows, with that particular shade of red (or pink, or blue, or green, you pick)
2) You assume that he made a series of decisions and by the tone of the sentence it does not take a degree in rocket science to conclude you think them all bad. In fact they all may have been bad, or most, or all but one, or in fact none. He may have made every decision completely correctly, based upon that which was in front of him at the time.
There was a movie, based upon a book of the same name, "Fate is the Hunter". All I remember is the move starred Rod Taylor and Glenn Ford. Taylor is the pilot of a commercial airliner that crashes. Everyone dies, except one stewardess. There is an inquiry. Ford who flew with Taylor over the Hump in Burma is tasked with finding out the truth. Taylor was a pilot known for playing fast and loose, certainly not risk adverse, and some would say reckless. The movie goes on, and with the help of the stewardess, now recovered, they recreate the whole accident scenario, by flying the duplicate route and simulate every flight condition. It turns out, and hope this does not spoil the movie or book for anyone, that a sudden updraft caused a cup of coffee to spill, which fried some electronics, which then gave false readings, which led directly to decisions being made based upon those false readings, and thus the crash. No one's fault. Just one of those things that happen.
3) Hindsight is the great arbiter of correct tactical decision making. Foresight is a crap shoot. Our job is to find out if the outcomes were a result of bad decision making or if coffee spilled
You would better spend your time ruminating on the anal orifice of a jack assed mule, then waste one fraction of a second having been dismayed by such creatures.
|
|
dave
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,679
|
Post by dave on Sept 24, 2016 21:57:37 GMT
So you think I might be biased? Could be since I believe everything that is the opposite of the belief of the costumed clown of great renown!
So let us begin the study of Harper's tome without any bias as a forenscic scientist would. Regards Dave
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Sept 24, 2016 22:08:45 GMT
I find that my opinions about what happened at BLBH are contantly changing, perhaps evolving--or at least I hope so. I've gone from Custer was an idiot, to Custer was incompetent to perhaps it didn't really matter who Custer was.
I think that looking it as an accident investigation or even as a cold case has certain merit and would combine perhaps a cold case aspect. If no one objects I would like to move the conversation to it's own thread starting from my reply to Steve. I will do it later in the evening. I want to read up about what an accident involves beyond what I 'think' it is so perhaps we can have a rough guideline.
I am suggesting that we start the discussion on Harper's book after Ian returns from vacation if that fits well with everyone else.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Sept 25, 2016 2:27:07 GMT
Dave: If you did not possess some bias, you would either not be human, or a complete illiterate, having no ability to read what others have written over the past 140 years.
Everything you read induces bias of some form. What we must do is look only at verified fact, and not anyone's opinion. That includes Harper's opinion, my opinion, Steve's opinion, and everyone else that has ever opened their mouth, or taken pen in hand, that was not present on that day in June. To those that were, we must sort through what they said, every little crumb and kernel, and fact test it.
Beth: I sometimes have one opinion in the morning and another in the afternoon. I believe that to be healthy
I do agree that a forensic approach should be separate and apart from the discussion of the Harper book.
The best sources we have here for accident investigation procedure would be Steve and Colt. If they don't know how to do it you can bet they know people that do, whom they can turn to. I think Chris may have some related experience as well.
|
|
azranger
Brigadier General
Ranger
Posts: 1,824
|
Post by azranger on Sept 25, 2016 14:09:45 GMT
I still think a cold case is appropriate because they don't always involve a homicide. One definition that I have found is :
An unsolved criminal investigation which remains open pending the discovery of new evidence.
Here is federal definition.
The definition of a cold case varies from agency to agency. The National Institute of Justice currently defines a cold case as any case whose probative investigative leads have been exhausted. In essence, this means a case that is only a few months old may be defined as being "cold."
I think television focuses so much on homicides that it redefined the term cold case. Some cases are terminated do to a statute of limitations. Others the time doesn't begin until discovery.
So I think that someone accused of being drunk, a coward, moving to slow, or malfeasance, or nonfeasance without resolution could be the subject of a cold case.
My problem is the approach. I did not work much with civil cases. Our revocation and civil assessment processes are about the scope of civil actions taken by the Department.
The difference we all know:
"There are two main classifications of law. Criminal laws regulate crimes, or wrongs committed against the government. Civil laws regulate disputes between private parties. This lesson explains the main differences between criminal and civil law."
It seems to me that the problem occurs when individuals attempt to use the burden of proof for a civil case while alleging a criminal violation.
I think if a Custer family member sued a Reno family member that would be a civil case.
A forensic investigation in a civil case is still a civil case and the burden of proof is a lower standard.
In a criminal case a directed verdict can resolve a case. Finding sufficient evidence to ask for a directed verdict may be easier than finding evidence sufficient to be found guilty.
In my limited studies of this battle I have not seen civil actions taking place to resolve wrongful death lawsuit.
So one of things we should look for is what standard are we going to choose?
I think Gordie's book would be interesting to work through but I know he blames Reno and Benteen. So part of our discovery should be anything we know about the prejudice, expertise, and experience of the author.
Reading someone's opinion is more suitable in a civil action in most instances unless the person is qualified as an expert witness.
In my course of studies on the boards I have learned military terms such as retrograde (Marines are not taught that word) and breakout (Chesty Puller was ordered to do that). Those terms and understanding of them at least on my part seem to act as something that could be used as a directed verdict.
It someone (Brown Board) alleges is that is a military criminal act for an advance guard to ever retrograde and use a breakout to start the retrograde that should be easy to refute.
I do agree that some of things we would like answered is what were they doing during a certain time period and the use of forensic techniques to look at them. Doug Scott initiated the forensics on bullets on the battlefield to show movement. That in turn could be used for investigations.
Regards
Steve
|
|
dave
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,679
|
Post by dave on Sept 25, 2016 17:51:56 GMT
To begin this thread we are to admit we can not "know" what happened and we know little about the battle. We have participant testimony, written reports, artifacts recovered from the battlefield---which has been corrupted with "seeded relics" and unrecorded finds---and Indian testimony that was recorded by whites who did not speak the Indian's languages and relied on interpreters of dubious qualities. Have I got this right?
So what do we know for sure? Regards Dave
|
|
azranger
Brigadier General
Ranger
Posts: 1,824
|
Post by azranger on Sept 25, 2016 18:08:14 GMT
The 7th cavalry was defeated at the Little Big Horn.
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Sept 25, 2016 20:21:52 GMT
The 7th cavalry was defeated at the Little Big Horn. That seems like a good place to start. There is a proverb For want of a nail the shoe was lost. For want of a shoe the horse was lost. For want of a horse the rider was lost. For want of a rider the message was lost. For want of a message the battle was lost. For want of a battle the kingdom was lost. And all for the want of a horseshoe nail. Whether we look at it as a cold case or an accident report I suspect that the methodology would be similar. I will add that the was also a massive system failure as well and perhaps the journey for an answer will end not at sunrise on the 25th but in some smoke filled room in Washington months earlier. We should try to find the 'nail' but perhaps to get to the nail we have to start with the lost battle--put things in rewind. I agree that perhaps the place to start would be with the physical evident-the archaeology and things like equipment-was the Army's choice of carbine a factor, then move on to eyewitness accounts--and perhaps the prejudices of the accounts. (Those are not always a bad thing, different people filter events differently based on their own personal experiences, point of view-physically and emotionally-and how much time has passed since the event.) This could be a long discussion.
|
|
|
Post by deadwoodgultch on Sept 26, 2016 0:32:33 GMT
While Chuck's opinion here will carry weight, I would like several other officers to comment. Again I miss the Welshman. All are obviously welcome to comment. Did GAC disobey orders when he turned toward the LBH? Was he really in close proximity, at that point? What impact did not sending Herendeen through Tullocks to Terry have? Was the opinion of NA scouts disregarded? I know my opinion.
On the other side of the coin, in a different vein, was there collusion and or witness tampering involved at the RCOI?
Much transpired in between, so there is much to look at. Outside opinions such as Grant's, Miles', Sheridan's must be disregarded in any investigation.
|
|
azranger
Brigadier General
Ranger
Posts: 1,824
|
Post by azranger on Sept 26, 2016 11:37:02 GMT
I would like to look at the expectations in Terry's order. Did it contain what information should be obtained by moving up the Rosebud.
Some claim it was only to follow and make contact with the Indians.
What intel would be missed by not continuing up the Rosebud.
Regards
Steve
|
|