|
Post by tubman13 on Mar 24, 2014 9:25:36 GMT -6
It's not a matter of who we like. Most people think this court was to look into the whole battle and it was not. What part of Reno's decision making do you think was left out? I am sure that if something else was uncovered then that could be looked at also. If not giving information outside of that which is required to make a judgement regarding Reno's action is a white wash than all percedings are white wash. There are lots of people testifying in actual trials that need further investigation. Regards AZ Ranger White wash was probably a poor choice on my part regarding RCOI. I think the RCOI was fine and did, for the most part clear up Reno issues. By cover up/white wash, I think the military wanted the questions about the battle, Custer, and military management to go away. Many insights, were given by the witnesses, into the management or mismanagement of this campaign, especially as it pertains to execution of the events on 6/26/76. I also think insights into the military thought process can be seen by the witnesses not brought in. In other words, if things had gone bad for Reno here would he and others begin pointing fingers, and slandering the dead, as well as those who put the dead in command of the expedition. Containment might have been an even better description of what the RCOI was designed to do.
I mentioned the two witnesses above, I also would have loved Benteen, had he been pushed beyond his patients point. I think he did very well.
Regards, Tom
|
|
|
Post by fred on Mar 24, 2014 10:20:39 GMT -6
Most people think this court was to look into the whole battle and it was not. Precisely. And "tubman," "whitewash" is not too strong a term. I would not use it myself, but I believe you are correct in your general statement. The army just wanted this thing to go away. I do not accept "lies" as the defining subject of the inquiry, simply because there were too many diverse individuals involved. I do believe with some of Reno's comments-- memories, if you will-- that he was kidding himself and never thought such at the time, but that was between him and his conscience and who is to say what Reno was thinking at those specific times. I believe some of the witnesses could have told more and circumvented the questions, but I think a careful reading will get you just about everything you want to know. For my two cents the RCOI is the most important document we have, and that includes diaries and immediate letters. Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Mar 24, 2014 11:59:20 GMT -6
If we just use the RCOI as the sole source of info on the LBH then that limits what we know. Many witnesses may not have been as fully truthful and didn't offer up more info other than asked. Then there are the many other survivors that never were called to the RCOI. I agree the RCOI is a important tool for figuring out what happened, but like any good carpenter you have to use all your tools to get something finished.
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Mar 25, 2014 7:11:24 GMT -6
I don't think DC proposed only using the RCOI rather a time range of information. Over time the chances of incorrect recall enter into the picture. Also if one learns that this important to others and I was there. It could lead to increased activity be an individual and a changing of his recollection.
Regards
AZ Ranger
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Mar 25, 2014 7:20:30 GMT -6
I believe there were enough inconsistencies in testimonies to question just how accurate the information was at the RCOI. If I recall Girard contradicted statements made by Wallace and there were contradictions with the two civilian packers about their encounter with Reno. I'm sure there were more but can't recall them but the two above stick out.
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Mar 25, 2014 7:34:14 GMT -6
When we debrief that is as close to confession of what we did wrong in an open sharing of what went wrong. If you take it to a level of misconduct or crimnal activity than one would have to be naive to think you have an obligation to hang yourself. RCOI is not the forum for white washing what anyone other than Reno did right or wrong.
We now have lots of public information persons working for us and if white washing were to occur it would be releases from the highest levels. I don't think that even if the Court found differently regarding Reno that it would change anything. Reno was the guy you love to hate so if white washing was a plan then why not sacrifice him to the public.
Headlines
The Army and Custer did everything right it was Reno whom we found lacking that screwed up everything.
The congress did not provide enough money to do things right leading to lack of training resulting in a lack of Battle Readiness.
The reality is that we see in the background the Army quickly making modifications to the weapon system, more emphasis on marksmanship and an increasing training effort in cavalry horsemanship with Godfrey and Edgerly making significant contributions. These are positive reactions to information that would be shared at some type of debriefing without assigning guilt.
Regards
AZ Ranger
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Mar 25, 2014 7:37:05 GMT -6
I believe there were enough inconsistencies in testimonies to question just how accurate the information was at the RCOI. If I recall Girard contradicted statements made by Wallace and there were contradictions with the two civilian packers about their encounter with Reno. I'm sure there were more but can't recall them but the two above stick out. Why do you limit this to RCOI? Has someone stated using only the RCOI? Regards AZ Ranger
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Mar 25, 2014 10:26:25 GMT -6
It seems some have decided that only info up to and including the RCOI is the most reliable testimony we can rely on. Since witnesses had taken an oath to tell the truth apparently that makes whatever was said the absolute truth which I don't buy. Anything stated not under oath leaves the door open to all flights of fancy but I have to think that most people will tell some of the truth and throw in some "extras." I still say we can use accounts regardless of whether under oath or not and regardless of how much time has gone by. It may not be 100% accurate due the passage of time but as I stated earlier people can remember significant and/or traumatic events of their past.
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Mar 26, 2014 6:36:00 GMT -6
Seems you stating an opposing position that has no one stating the opinion as you claim. The suggestion is that accounts, testimony and whatever closer to the event have less chance for unintentional error such as memory degradation. Over time the public recognition keep the event alive and a sharing of information would tend to blend recall of events and recall of others accounts.
No one states there are absolutes one way or the other. The probability of error increases with time. when reading Private Peter Thompson it is obvious that there are items that cannot possibly be accurate recall.
Regards
AZ Ranger
|
|
|
Post by herosrest on Oct 19, 2023 4:22:38 GMT -6
The pace of testimony at Chicago, during the Reno Court of Inquiry, caused scribes to quit one after another, indicated by changes in handwriting. When no scribes were available the Court pasted clippings from the Chicago Times into transcript as "official record". The paper record was seriously deteriorated by the 1920's and the original handwritten transcript lost after W.A.Graham's work on the file. A 35mm microfilm made around 1930, and in the National Archive, and was copied to searchable, book marked and indexed PDF format in 2008, and 1,262 pages of handwritten testimony, summations, findings and exhibits are indexed by page and day. The numerous published transcripts available today are underpinned by this files true look into what is, and can only be considered, unrepeatable farce. It is of course a primary source document for the 1879 event giving the remaining original handwritten official record, unedited, unchanged and uninterpreted. Although of course the original record was interupted, altered, and edited; during the proceedings, in due process. The original record had also, by the 1920's become crumbling deterioration. link
|
|