Testimony of Norman M Turner
Lt. Col. USAF (retired)

Mr. Chairman, Senators, Thank you for allowing me to address this Committee today.

I am a former United States Air Force fighter pilot, who flew combat missions in two tours of duty in Vietnam. I have been working with Jack Bailey, primarily on the Donald Gene Carr case since the middle of June of this year. I have become familiar witht he facts of this case and am convinced that the photograph presented to the DOD and the press epicting a man held captive in Laos is in fact, Captain Donald Gene Carr.

I accompanied Jack Bailey on his first briefing of members of the Depratment of Defense and DIA in August, 1991. I also travelled with him to Thailand two weeks ago to help try to provide information requested by Secretary of Defense Cheney concerning the Carr case. I will state my observations and conclusions of the conduct of the latter trip to the Committee.

I was aware that Jack Bailey was frustrated by the inaction of the DIA before the trip started. He had given them his original negatives from which the Carr photos were made. Although he had requested their return, thathad not been done. Nor had he been repaid for his airline tickets for his travel to and from the Pentagon briefings as he had been promised.

From the time we arrived in Bangkok, until the day we left Jack had agents up country trying to make contact with the man who taken the Carr photos who we referred to as Mr. "X" and to bring him to Bangkok. Both Bailey and I paid out of our own pockets for the expense of sending people to various places in Souteast Asia. This sum was well over two thousand dollars. At one point I observed Jack leave one of his rings in a BAngkok hock shop to obtain more money to pay for expenses for one of his sources of information.

It was a frustrating time for both of us which was not helped by the numerous daily phone calls from the embassy asking if we had heard anything. On every occasion that we spoke to the DIA people they made mention of how short time was before they had to return to Washington for the hearings. It was obvious to me that they were far more interested in providing information to their superiors about the Carr case than in actual investigations of POWs. On one occasion Col. Cole asked, "What am I going to put into my report tonight?"

I am aware that testimony has been presented that while in Thailand Jack Bailey stated that the Carr pictures might have been taken in Thailand or Burma instead of Laos. I was present at Bailey's side every second that he was in the physical presence of people from the DOD/DIA. He never made any such statement to any of them. I am as aware of his views about the Carr case as any person on Earth. He does not believe any such thing.

When comment was made by others that the pictures looked as though they might have been taken in Bangkok, I have heard him state words in frustration to the effect, "Well if they were taken in Thailand, let's find out where in Thailand Butch Carr is and bring him home."

Whichever small minded DIA minion made such a bogus report to his superiors knew full well that he was quoting Bailey out of context and he also knew that no such meaning was ever intended by him.

The most significant event in the trip occurred when we made contact with a thai man called Mario. He had been involved in Jack Bailey's operation to return American prisoners of war held in Laos in 1990 which was to include Donald Gene Carr. Jack had been talking to people close to Mr. "X" trying to get him back down to Bangkok. When Mario was contacted in thsi process the word came back to us that he had bad feelings toward Jack and his primary source of information in Bangkok.

Through the help of a third party a meeting was made by Jack and his thai contact with Mario. I was not present at that first meeting buty was told that Mario had become alienated from the two of them because of information given to him by a man from the American embassy in Bangkok while the plan was in process. As a result of the statements of this man Mario became convinced that he and the other members of the team were being cheated out of money by Jack Bailey and his Thai contact and Mario convinced the others to call off the operation. After the discussion between the three of them, Mario realized that he had been told lies by the man from the embassy. He became contrite and apologized to Jack and his Thai contact for believing the worst about them.

My first contact with Mario was on the evening we brought him to meet with the DIA people. We were concerned because Mario was very apprehensive about talking to anyone from the American embassy. We asked Col. Cole to bring only one other person with him to keep the environment from being too intimidating. Three of them showed up. This was consistent with the mode of operation I have observed in dealing with the DOD and DIA throughout my limited experiences with them. They always went at least one step beyond what they agreed to. The three men who appeared to meet with Mario were Col. John Cole, Bob Sheetz and William Gadoury.

We asked them to sit down and talk a little while socially with Mario before starting to interrogate him in order to let him relax a little first. As soon as Mario sat down they whipped out their pads and started taking down everything he said. The first words addressed to Mario were that there was no credibility with his name because he didn't look like a "Mario."

The questioning was fairly inept at that meeting but there was one significant area addressed briefly. Mario was asked why the rescue mission failed and he told us about the man from the American embassy who gave him money and told him how Jack Bailey and his Thai contact wree cheating him out of his share of the money for the Carr operation. He also said that the man had told him that if Mario ever told anybody his name he couldn't be responsible for the safety of Mario, his daughter or his mother. One of the DIA men asked what the embassy man's name was. Mario said he didn't want to say it. Mario said, "He is very powerful. You all know him". The questioner, Bill Gadoury, dropped the whole line of inquiry.

It was apparent to me that there existed a strong possibility that actions by an agent of the U.S. government had deliberately killed a viable operation to rescue American prisoners of war and I wanted to find out what I could about it. Jack and I took Mario to supper after the DIA men left. Mario ordered the most expensive item on the menu which went on my credit card. After we finished eating I tried as gently as I could to entice the name of the embassy man from Mario. He looked very pained and kept apologizing to Jack saying, "I'm sorry. I misunderstood. He told me you were cheating us. I can't say his name because he has many friends who would kill me."

Finally, after we explained that he might now be in greater danger is he did not tell us the man's name he said he was sorry again and began to cry, pressing his napkin to his eyes. At that point we ceased to pressure him further.

Several days later, on the evening befoe I left Bangkok, Jack Bailey, his Thai contact and I went to Mario's house. We brought a video camera, tape recorders and 35 millimeter cameras.

After talking with Mario for a while we set up the video camera and proceeded to do an interview with him. I did the questioning. On several occasions I referred to the actions and statements of the "Man from the embassy" and he responded appropriately.

He told us he had been contacted by this man who paid him a total of $50,000 Thai baht. Mario said that this man told him bad things about Jack and his Thai contact and said they were cheating him and the others out of the money that had been paid for the rescue operation. He was told that the Thai contact had used some of the money to buy a pig farm north of Bangkok. In actual fact that Thai contact inherited a large parcel of land from relatives years before. Mario said that he had no money then so he took what was given to him. Afterwards, he refused to work with the man from the embassy but he was still angry with Jack and his Thai contact at that time. Mario said he spent the money in two days on women and partying because it was "Black Money."

After a time we turned off the camera and the tape recorders and just sat talking. I again discussed the danger of his position noting that the embassy probably knew who the man was and if he would tell us he would be safer. Mario finally admitted that he had told three other people. One was a "connected" friend of his up country who had friends Mario hoped could protect him. The other two were Mr."X" and Dr."No", two fo the old Carr operation people.

Based on his years of experience in Southeast Asia, Jack Bailey had guessed that the man involved was one of two people he knew. Jack quietly told me the two names and I wrote them on the margin of a Thai newspaper lying on the floor inMario's house. I said, look at these names Mario. If you were to cross out one of them which one would it be? I handed Mario my pen.

He looked at the names I had written and after a few seconds made an "X" by one of the names. I saked him, "Cross out this one?"

Mario said, "No, that him."

We turned the video camera back on and I tried to get Mario to say the name outloud but he wouldn't. Finally we shut off the video camera and I turned on my little tape recorder again. I held it up in front of him and said to Mario, "It's __________ isn;t it?" He hesitated for several seconds and finally, quietly said, "Yes."

I am a Judge in a Criminal Court. I deal with victims and perpetrators of crimes wvery work day of the week. I have heard hundreds if not thousands of witnesses testify. I would not bet that every detail of what Mario told us is true and complete but I am convinced beyond a reasonable doubt of the following:

1. Mario's loyalties to Jack Bailey and the Carr Mission were deliberately estranged by lied told to him by a man who works for the government of the United States.

2. The mission was aborted because of the intervention of this man from the American embassy.

3. Mario now regrets his actions in stopping the mission.

4. Mario is terrified of the prospect of physical harm or death occurring to himself or his family through actions initiated by the man from the embassy or his "friends."

I have always considered myself a loyal American. I have served my country as an officer of the U.S. Air Force and a fighter pilot who flew over 335 combat missions in Southeast Asia. I am a registered Republican who has been a member of the establishment all of my adult life. To say my faith in the government has now been shaken now is a significant understatement.

Mr. Chairman, members of this Committee, you have in the span of the last three days been eyewitness to a complete microcosm of the moral and ethical defect in governmental agencies that has plagues the conscience of this Nation since the end of the war in Southeast Asia.

You have heard testimony from at least two members of the DIA/DOD team that accompanied Jack Bailey to Thailand. Those team members swore an oath to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth so help them God before testifying before you.

It is my understanding that those team members were asked if there was anything else theyknew about any matter concerning the pursuit of POWs in Southeast Asia. Apparently m=none of them present at the time of the questioning bothered to mention the matter of Mario and the aborted Carr Rescue Mission.

I was horrified to learn of the allegations of such criminal acts by an agent of the United States Government. Apparently these "investigators" did not feel such information was even worthy of being reported to their superiors or included in their sworn testimony even when directly asked.

The acts of the man from the embassy in aborting the Carr rescue mission by intimidation and bribery were recited bu the victim of those acts in the immediate presence of Robert Sheetz, the Chief of DIA's Office of POW/MIA Affairs at the Pentagon, Col. John M. Cole, Jr., the Chief of thePW/MIA team at the embassy of the United States in Bangkok, Thailand and William R. Gadoury of the Joint Casualty Resolution Center at the American embassy in Bangkok. These are the very men who are most responsible for the investigation of reports concerning American Prisoners of War being held in Southeast Asia by our government. How could such individuals recognize valid information concerning prisoners if they can't even see the relevance of the information just stated.

The only alternative conclusion to a complete breakdown of judgment on the part of three of the most critical members of our government's primary POW investigation team is that they are willing to ignore or hide evidence that they know is relevant or were ordered to do so. When such conduct is done uneroath it is called perjury or worse.

You have heard the testimony of Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney and principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense Carl W. Ford, Jr., which was apparently based on information provided by members of the team just discussed. The "independent" statements presented to this Committee by these two most senior members of the governemntal agency responsible for investigating POW reports are remarkable intheir consistency. The worsd "Lock Step" seem anarchistic in comparison.

I pray that this Committee will look closely into the methods, procedures and philosophy employed by those governmental agencies and individuals who, in the last twenty years, have been entrusted with that most solemn and sacred trust of seeking the truth about our men left behind.

It appears to me that what you have seen is the presentation of a governmental agency that has a firm and solidly understood "Party Line" as expressed by its leaders. You have seena nd heard from the key witnesses from the operational level who saw fit to omit the information that appears to me to be one of the most dramatic allegations I have ever heard inthe area of POW investigations.

Finally and most importantly it appears to me the strong possibility that a viable private operation to rescue American Prisoners of War was aborted by the deliberate efforts of a member of the embassy of the United States in Bangkok, Thailand. Further, it appears that this man did so by deliberate intimidation of a Thai citizen inhis own country. The specter of an employee of our government doinf such an act is unspeakable not only for its impact on the lives and possibly the deaths of American prisoners but as an international crime which would certainly result in a justifiable complaint from the government of a friendly nation and an international incident if found to be true.

It would certainly take more than the unverified word of a single witness to prove such an allegation. Without doubt it warrants the singular attention of some official body of our government that doesn't have a stake in theoutcome of the investigation. A key issue in such an investigation is whether or not the actions of this man were sanctioned by his supervisors and hence an official act of our government.

Finally I would like to address the statement I understood was made on November 5, 1991, by Secretary Cheney that there is no conclusive evidence of prisoners alive in Southeast Asia.

Before the latest trip to Thailand by the DIA people, Cheney indicated to Jack Bailey that he was very interested in the Carr case and was going to do everything in his power to investigate the matter. He even put on a POW/MIA bracelet with Carr's name on it given him by Bailey saying he would continue to wear it.

Now, two weeks later he makes a public statement that there is no conclusive evidence of POWs and that none of the leads have panned out. I find it absolutely incredible that the government of the United States for which Cheney speaks can make such an about face concerning the "highest national priority" after a single week of non-investgation in Thailand. This is the equivalent of a local police chief stating that there is no evidence of a crime because his officers are unable to bring in a key witness within two or three days.

In the face of the evidence that has been presented in the Carr case, Cheney's statement appears irresponsible at best. The above noted hypothetical police chief would soon be looking for another job but such thinking doesn't seem to be hazardous to a federal career. This sort of counter logic is beyond belief yet it appears to be the mind set of our government when the issue of POWs is raised.

In an incident reported locally on November 6, 1991, the Vietnam Ambassador to the United Nations, Trinh Xuan Lang remarked that his government could quickly settle the issue of missing American prisoners of war if Washington would just stop making it a condition for normalizing relations.

My feelings upon reading that quote were reminiscent of a child asking, "What does he mean Mommy?"

On a larger scale there seems to be a prevalent presumption in the hearts and minds of our governmental leaders that unless some individual can present solid, uncontroverted proof of the existence of a POW, the POW doesn't exist. That constitutes a presumption of death which is patent nonense.

In the law there are many presumptions. These presumptions were conceived over the years by a process of long and careful considerations of logic and public interest.

In the case of war a living, breathing man is sent forth into combat and barring some positive evidence of his death there is no conceivable reason in logic to presume such a thing just because he is misiing. There are a number of alternatives to such a conclusion in the majority of cases. That presumption, however, appears to be the rule in our governmental policy in this area.

Who made the decision in our government that out of sight constitutes a presumption of death. What gave our government the right to place the burden of proof to the contrary on the families of the missing men and private sekers of prisoners to prove beyond a reasonable doubt taht a POW exists before the government will act? Nowhere else in our system of government does such backward thinking exist. Although our governmental spokesmen deny that this is their policy, there is a virtually unanimous opinion among the families of MIAs who have, tried to deal with official agencies that such is the case.

In the undeclared war over Laos, in which I flew at least fifty strike missions, our country lost almost six hundred men MIA. Not one single Prisoner of War was ever returned by that country. For every six hundred such losses over Vietnam, we could expect to have over one hundred men returned. What do you suppose happened to all those folks? Why is it logical to presume they are dead without "conclusive evidence" to support such a conclusion?

Nowhere in the law could such logic long survive. Perhaps the difference in this instance is that there is no one to speak for the interests of the prisoners except those lonely voices of the family members and private seekers acting alone and without adequate means to refute the powere and majesty of gevernmental agencies fixed in their internal agendas who are both the investigators of the evidence and the judges of their own competence.

Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, thank you for your attention.

Norman M. Turner
Lt. Col. USAF (retired)