Over the last two weeks, we have shared with you information provided by a well-placed source. When the information first came to us, we immediately contacted the source. This individual was more than willing to share his information and allow us to share that information with our members. Keeping his identity a secret was never a condition.

We chose to keep the source anonymous for two very important reason. We wanted those within the government to know that anyone coming to us with information would be protected, as we have protected sources in the past. We want these individuals to know they can give us information off the record, or on the record and that information would never be used in any way that would reveal their identity.

The second reason we choose to keep our source anonymous is that we wanted to limit the professional assassination and personal invectives that follows an individual’s decision to speak out on the POW/MIA issue. Perfect examples of this are Col. Mike Peck and Dr. Timothy Castle PhD, both of whom were vilified by DIA and DPMO hatchet men.

In this case, we knew that if we used noting other than the "laundry list" of DPMO failures, listed by our source, those within DPMO would immediately know his identity. In fact, DPMO had to have known, back in June, that we were in contact with this individual, as several of our still unanswered questions, (submitted at DPMO's request) were based directly on the sources information.

The folks within DPMO have not commented on our source or his information. Instead they turned to their two outside hatchet men, former employees, masters of misdirection and half truths, Bob Destatte and Joe Schlatter. Together, they have mounted a campaign to discredit our source.

Before we go any further, a word about these two former DIA/DPMO employees. It is known that Bob Destatte has " surreptitiously passed information to Hanoi which impedes a fullest accounting of our missing Americans, specific information to the Vietnamese..... When the Plans and Policy officer involved in this issue asked for an explanation as to why this information was faxed to Hanoi he was told that Mr. Destatte is in frequent extra-official contact with his “old-sergeant” network. It is instructive that Mr. Destatte did not send his unauthorized material to the Detachment commander, but rather to retired and active duty sergeants..... What other information is he sending to Hanoi? Policy and security concerns would seem to dictate that Mr. Destatte's E-mail and faxes to Hanoi be examined.” If you want more on information on this visit: http://www.nationalalliance.org/whistleblowers/castle.htm

In an email commenting on our Sept. 11^th Bits, Mr. Destatte wrote: “In case you haven't seen this already, I thought you might be interested. Be forewarned, because of the many misstatements and omissions of fact, you might find it painfully difficult to stick with this article to the end...."

To that comment our source stated: "Perhaps he also knows that there are additional items of evidence about Lao archives - but that is not an omission - how much more evidence is needed to prove the point? Misstatement? Absolutely not, and there is no one that can say otherwise."

In a volley of character assassination, Destatte referred to both Col. Peck and Dr. Castle both men of education, and integrity, “as well-intentioned but impetuous” and “mean-spirited and dissembling.”

The second individual, Joe Schlatter, maintains a web site peppered with mis-direction and half truths. Known to have ordered the destruction of a case related artifact, he denied this action until confronted with the documentation of his action. His web page on the subject contained so many inaccuracies, he was forced to remove it. If you'd like to check it out visit: http://www.ojc.org/powforum/schlatter/index.htm

Mr. Schlatter also commented on our Bits of Sept. 11^th, stating, among other things: “Any objective analysis of the evidence can only conclude that there can be no reasonable doubt that all surviving POWs were released during Operation Homecoming in 1973.”

Obviously, Mr. Schlatter is unfamiliar with the conclusions of the Senate Select Committee on POW/MIA Affairs which stated: "In 1976, the Montgomery Committee concluded that because there was no evidence that missing Americans had survived, they must be dead. In 1977, a Defense Department official said that the distinction between Americans still listed as "POW" and those listed as "missing" had become "academic". Nixon, Ford and Carter Administration officials all dismissed the possibility that American POWs had survived in Southeast Asia after Operation Homecoming. This Committee has uncovered evidence that precludes it from taking the same view. We acknowledge that there is no proof that U.S. POWs survived, but neither is there proof that all of those who did not return had died. There is evidence, moreover, that indicates the possibility of survival, at least for a small number, after Operation Homecoming....”

[Note: In commenting on our source, Schlatter points out that the Moon document was received from Congressman Solarz, not Congressman Sarbanes as our source indicated. This correction is confirmed by our source. To the Destatte/Schlatter ilk this minor point would be enough to discredit all information provided by our source, just as they use similar small discrepancies to discredit reports of POWs.]

In the words of our source, "it is now time to clear the air." At his request, and with our full support we now publically reveal the source of our information.

The individual who wrote the note is DPMO Intelligence Research Officer Warren Gray. The contents of the note is based upon his work in the POW issue for the past 20 years in the Army, the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) and in DPMO. During that time he was Chief, Site Development Office, Joint Casualty Resolution Center, Nakhon Phanom, Thailand in 1973-74, as an Army Major. As a DoD civilian he was the Lao-Cambodian Team Chief; an intelligence analyst; Chief of the POW Team during Desert Storm in 1991, Chief of the Current Operations Division in DPMO, and intelligence collection manager. His collection team controlled all HUMINT, SIGINT and IMINT support to the POW issue for years. In late 2001 he was selected as the collection manager for the DIA POW/MIA Analytic Cell, and he returned to DPMO in 2002.

Contrary, to speculation posted by Mr. Schlatter, we received Mr. Gray's "good-bye note" from an individual other than Mr. Gray and without Mr. Gray’s knowledge. We now know that Mr Gray never intended for the memo to be disseminated outside DPMO, but since it was by personnel within DPMO and since it has gained some attention, he recommended that the memo be released in full. His farewell note, written on April 21st 2004, and sent to by e-mail to some 20 or so co-workers within DPMO follows:

[Begin Note]

Page 1 of 1

OSD-DPMO
From: Gray, Daniel W. Mr., OSD-DPMO
Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2004 3:16 PM
To: 20 Personnel within DPMO
Subject: Retirement

CLASSIFICATION: UNCLASSIFIED
CAVEATS: NONE
TERMS: NONE

Gentlemen: This being my last day in DPMO, I wanted to say so long to each of you since you are truly representative of the few good people left in DPMO. As of today I have 19 years and 8 months as a civilian.

Since I was denied access to work the POW issue (regarding Southeast Asia) by Joe Harvey when I returned on 2 February 2002 from the position of Collection Manager with the DIA POW/MIA Analytic Cell, and since I have done essentially little or nothing since then, I figured it was time to go of my own free will.

I remain extremely disappointed regarding many aspects of the POW issue, but this is neither the time nor place to go into detail about those many issues. I do plan to sit at home and write and may publish details of the listing below later. I anticipate it will include at a minimum the fact that the military personnel in DPMO have effectively been "reorganized" out of this military issue; failure of this organization to respond to a report of live Americans in SEA; the 185 report; POWs moved from Laos to Vietnam; the Schederov report about Hrdlicka; why I feel the Lao have not and never will cooperate in the issue; Lao retention of a file cabinet containing POW information that we never requested; my proposal to approach Lao doctors in Beijing who worked previously with American POWs in NE Laos; the DPMO attitude towards Stony Beach; my position on the Speicher case; my position on the Deferred and No Further Pursuit cases, and as you can see, this would be a long listing since these few topics are but the tip of the iceberg. I was never introduced to the DASD during the two years back which was probably a good thing since I would have taken him through several of the topics listed above.

Although my plans were to go into full retirement and help my wife with seven grandchildren, after I decided I would retire and announced my plans, I was offered two jobs with security firms that specialize in conducting background investigations. I have 20-years experience as a counterintelligence special agent in the Army conducting those type investigations, so I have accepted the position of Consultant / Investigator with a private corporation, and will conduct background investigations from home.

My hat is off to each of you; good luck in this issue. I am sure I left off a few names above that I wanted to say good-bye to and if I remember later, will call them.

Warren

CLASSIFICATION: UNCLASSIFIED
CAVEATS: NONE
TERMS: NONE

[End Note]

As we indicated previously, after we received a copy of the note, we approached Mr Gray to ask questions about issues identified in the memo and he agreed to discuss them at length.

You have seen those initial questions, presented in our Bits N Pieces of Sept. 11th and 18th. You have also seen Mr. Gray's detailed and unedited responses.

The content of his "good-bye" note and the candor of his responses to our questions, led us to attempt to conceal his identity, even though he never asked that we do so.

There should be no further speculation as to who wrote the note or who responded to our questions. We do know that as he has indicated in his note, he plans to write further on specific matters regarding the POW issue, issues that have plagued the POW effort for years, and which relate directly to questions raised by family members.

As mentioned in the Sept. 11th Bits, we were requested to submit a list of questions to DPMO. These questions, we were told, would be addressed during our annual briefing. They were not. We have tried to get DPMO to respond to our specific questions and as expected, have been stonewalled.

One of the questions, yet to be addressed is “Do you have reporting that live Americans are being held in SEA at this moment?”

We’ll address this question in a future Bits.

Question – A recent Air Force Press Release boosted on the POW/MIA Accounting Process. According to a quote contained in the release “Having worked here 14 years with these families, the most gratification I get is when we identify a POW or MIA," said Mr. Frampton, senior liaison officer for the branch. "It means a lot to me to know another one of our warriors is home, and that his family can now be at peace. That takes a little burden off my heart."

Our Question, do those POWs or MIAs identified, those warriors who are home, include the following members of the United States Air Force, Joseph Matejov, Todd Melton, Dale Brandenberg, Peter Matthes, Charles Rowley, Ronnie Hensley, Robert Ireland, Stephen Harris, Donald Lint, William Brooks, Charles B. Davis, Donald G. Fisher, John C. Towle, Thomas Adachi, James Preston, William L. Madison, Kenneth D. McKenney, Lavern G. Reilly, Marshall L. Tapp, George W. Thompson, James E. Williams,, Thomas Hart, George MacDonald, Jerry Pool, Donald Klinke, Richard Nyhof, Stanley Lehrke, Richard Cole, Paul Gilbert, Robert Harrison, Leon Hunt, Larry J. Newman, Robert A. Wilson, etc. etc. etc. all of whom were identified and buried without benefit of recovery of remains.

Why Does Johnie Webb still have a job?

We’re Still Waiting – for DPMO to produce the Directive that would allow a designation/status of Prisoner of War to captured American Servicemen. Does anyone still think they can produce one?

We’re going back to our schedule of the second and fourth Saturdays of the month for Bits. See you Oct. 9^th.

Sooner if something comes up.