have resigned themselves to their grief and come away with a sense of helplessness and a loss of faith in their Government. Others, such as those here today, have begun to meet with each other at a crossroads of grief and anger as they understand the commonality of not only their loss, but their experiences with the Department of Defense. These families have chosen to seek accountability and answers. They have endured exhumations, second autopsies, brutal discussions of crime scene photos and they have often sought out independent expert opinions. They now want the records of these deaths amended because the military has not proven, through competent investigation, the manner of death-only the cause. They look now to you for recourse and for your collective commitment to families who may be similarly affected in the future. Frequently I am asked whether or not I believe these families are “in denial," which has become a catch-all phrase utilized by many military investigators and officials to describe those families who refuse to accept the official findings. This question appears to be based on failure to understand that a self-inflicted death-a suicide-is the only manner of death wherein the victim is also charged with the crime. But the victim cannot speak, nor defend himself. In a system where no provision exists to act in that capacity, the victims' families must. The motivating force behind these families is one of defense, not denial. Overall, the military investigators have not proven their cases against these servicemen. In fact, there is no mechanism within the military, no defense attorney, no investigative review board, that requires the military investigators to substantiate their allegations against these deceased servicemen and women. Even if, gentlemen, respected, professional opinion contradicts their findings. If an attempt were made to support a homicide charge with the types of investigations currently used to determine that an unattended death was accidental or selfinflicted, no court in the land would entertain such a prosecution. There would be no conviction. But here we have death after death-over 230 in 1995 and over 4,000 since 1979-subjected to flawed and incomplete investigations that have led to findings of suicide or accidental self-inflicted death: findings that are set in stone despite evidence to the contrary. My 21-year-old constituent, Marine Lance Corporal Scott Jakovic, died of a contact bullet wound to the head. Another young marine was court martialed for involuntary manslaughter, based upon an admission to a friend. In the end, the other Marine was acquitted because he had never been read his rights, because critical paperwork disappeared and because evidence had been mishandled. Scott Jakovic remains a self-inflicted death on the records. In most of the more recent cases, the armed forces' employment of psychological autopsies has compounded the injury done to these families. Its use, without checks and challenges, by under-specialized and possibly under-educated investigators has become a tool to conform or provide evidence where concrete evidence exists. In many of these cases, relationships between the victim and everyone that ever played a part in that victim's life is dissected in a vacuum. The importance of ordinary incidents and activities in a young person's life is magnified. Suddenly, the psychological autopsy becomes riddled with clichés describing why the victim took his life. Actual examples are the following: If he bounced a check, he had financial problems. If he liked to hike, he was a loner. If his grandfather drank too much, he was probably an alcoholic. If he was found to have been a homosexual, he was unhappy. If he worked out, he was overly concerned with being strong. If he had broken up with a girlfriend any time in his life, he never got over the rejection. If he argued with his parents, he was a disciplinary problem or they parents were overly harsh. I must say that I have the greatest respect of the criminal profiling efforts of the FBI experts at Quantico. I appreciate that developments in this field have lent valuable assistance to police throughout the country. I acknowledge that valuable that psychological autopsies spring from such profiling. However, psychological profiling as is currently being utilized in military psychological autopsies is only as good as the information provided to the profiler by criminal investigators who have performed a thorough criminal investigation. If, in fact, a DOD investigator is misusing information, misquoting witnesses and is deliberating or unknowingly misdirecting the profiler, the psychological autopsy is irretrievably corrupted. If the physical evidence from the body and the crime scene is withheld or mishandled, the profiler preparing the psychological autopsy is missing key elements in making his report. Here again, once these reports are prepared and part of the record, there exists no remedy to correct erroneous information alleged to be factual. In one case, for example, the mother of a young Air Force woman must live with a report stating that she had little communication or contact with her daughter, despite having enjoyed a 2-week touring vacation with her daughter shortly before her death. Without exception among these families, the flawed investigations, the reports, the unsupported findings and the absence of recourse are of continuing insult and immense personal pain to each family. We all recognize that suicides and self-inflicted deaths do happen. Often to our best and brightest without warning indicators. They are an unexpected, tragic and frequently unpreventable end to many young lives. However, the number of such military deaths is three times higher than their homicide rate and the suicide, self-inflicted determinations are usually made within a few hours after death. I submit that it is grossly improper and an unacceptable affront to these families to precipitously arrive at the determination that any death was self-inflicted prior to completing a thorough investigation whose findings will withstand the same scrutiny as would those for a homicide. It is obvious there must be recourse to resolve differences of professional opinion; recourse in correcting military records concerning the manner of death; procedural changes in the procedures and practices of military criminal investigators; a means by which there is Federal investigatory involvement in those deaths which occur in civilian jurisdictions; the entitlement to a full physical autopsy documenting each physical finding no matter in what jurisdiction the death occurred; and a substantial change in the process of preparing psychological autopsies. Thank you. Senator KEMPTHORNE. Congressman Pallone, thank you very much. During the course of this hearing we are going to go into some detail of a number of the issues that you raise, so I appreciate that. Congressman Brownback from Kansas. STATEMENT OF CONGRESSMAN SAM BROWNBACK FROM KANSAS Mr. BROWNBACK. Thank you very much, Senator Kempthorne. I appreciate that. Senator Frahm, it a pleasure to be here with you today. Thank you very much for holding this hearing that you are presenting, and delving into this very difficult and very important subject. It is my honor to be here in front of you, and also to be presenting to you Mrs. Linda Shults, who is a special constituent of mine in the 2nd Congressional District in Kansas from Atchison, Kansas. I met with her, and we have been discussing her particular situation that was very touching and very difficult, and one that you are going to be hearing from her about. I am pleased that you are holding this hearing so that she can present that information to you and to the United States Senate. Mrs. Shults is here today to present testimony regarding a tragic and very serious situation which has plagued the armed forces of the United States for some years. Too often we hear about service members who have died in the service of our Nation, not from combat but from other causes. When the death of a service member is ruled a suicide, the family really must endure a state of shock, and the family is often left to pick up the pieces of a shattered life. What concerns the family most is the question of why and how the tragedy occurred. In these cases the family really has nowhere to turn except to the branch of service for answers, and it is the responsibility of the military branch to perform a thorough investigation to determine the nature of the loss and the reasons thereof. If the military investigation is not performed in a manner that gains the confidence of the family members, it only raises further questions and exacerbates the family's grief. You will hear testimony today from family members such as Linda Shults, and experts who are concerned about the efficiency of such investigations. I am pleased that you are investigating and looking into that. I appreciate the courage of Linda Shults and other family members who have worked so hard to gain answers to the questions that some investigations have raised. I also commend you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the subcommittee for your compassion and diligence in holding public hearings of this painful but very important subject. Please continue in your careful consideration of what Linda and others have to share with you as they relate their concerns about the fate of their sons and daughters. Thank you very much. Senator KEMPTHORNE. Congressman, thank you very much. Again, both of you, I appreciate the time that you have spent on this. I think you will find that this hearing is certainly going to address those issues that you have raised. I need to explain to everybody that a vote has just been called on the floor of the Senate, so I want to be sure to hear everyone's testimony. So rather than have us pass the gavel, I am going to take a brief recess. But first, let me ask if Senator Frahm or Senator Hutchison have any comments you would like to make before we take a brief recess. Senator FRAHM. I do not. Thank you. STATEMENT OF SENATOR KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON Senator HUTCHISON. Thank you so much for having this hearing. There are a number of families in our country that have real concerns, valid concerns, and I think that they have felt that perhaps they did not have the ear of anyone. I think the fact that you are holding these hearings and looking at this issue is very, very important, and I appreciate it very much. Senator KEMPTHORNE. Thank you very much, and thank you for being here. With that, we will take a brief recess. Again, to our two Members from the House, thank you very much for your input. While we are casting our votes, I would invite the next panel to come forward and become comfortable at your chairs, and we will be right back. [Recess.] Ladies and gentlemen, I will call the hearing back to order. I would also like to acknowledge that Senator Robb of Virginia has joined us. Senator, thank you very much for joining us at a very, very important hearing. Senator ROBB. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I had an opportunity to discuss the hearing with you on our way back from the vote on the floor. I think it is timely, and I am delighted that we have an opportunity to hear from the witnesses you have selected. I look forward to the testimony. Senator KEMPTHORNE. Thank you. With that, let me call on our first witness, Mrs. Linda Shults. Mrs. Shults, thank you very much. Again, I would just remind everyone that we have had the opportunity to go through all of the statements that you have provided us, so to the extent that you are comfortable, if you wish to summarize some of that I would ask each of you to take 5 to 7 minutes so that we can be sure to have sufficient time for questions. Mrs. Shults. STATEMENT OF LINDA SHULTS Mrs. SHULTS. First of all, I want to thank you for allowing me to speak here to this committee today about the issues concerning the military investigations into the tragic deaths of our loved ones whose deaths have been ruled self inflicted by the military. I would also like to say that we would not be here today if it were not for the efforts of Congressman Frank Pallone, Congressman David Levy, Senator Exon, Senator Dole, and Congressman Brownback, who in the beginning assisted this group. There is not a family member represented here today that would not like to be relating to you in their own words every aspect that has offended and troubled them in the handling of the death of their children, brothers, and sisters. Unfortunately, we are limited to five individuals-there are six sitting here now, we have had one additionalwho will instead attempt to relate to you issue by issue the shared experience of every family in this group, and how we view the result of section 1185, part A and B, represented by the DOD Inspector General. The tone and delivery contained in most of the IG reviews that have been received by families have been justifying, directed toward, and explaining the behavior of the original investigators. The section 1185 report itself points out certain defects, but appears to be directed at controlling the flow of information to the press and to the families, and suggests that in some areas there needs to be further training. Time and time again, a self-inflicted finding has been supported by the Office of the Inspector General in death situations that have astounded experts. For example, missing guns; missing shell_casings; unidentified blood stains; broken bones; superhuman feats worthy of Hudini, such as hanging yourself with your hands chained behind your back; the destruction of all physical evidence at the command's wish within a few months after the death; theft of all personal property; sloppy and incomplete pathology by the armed services; bizarre and incomplete preparation of psychological autopsies; and most certainly, leading and inappropriate interviews with witnesses, friends, and families, and in some cases, no interviews with them. We have read the reports of all investigations and reviews, and closely attended to the report issued by the Inspector General. Despite how it may be presented, it will not change the most basic fault in current investigations, investigative procedure, the behavior of the investigator. It is our common experience that the decision to weaken and replace the section 1023 language in the House national security bill was a sad day for all the families that will follow us. We believe that the dropping of language that dealt with the practice of criminal investigators making judgmental and suggestive statements during interviews and alluding to the con sequences in failing to cooperate with investigators will continue to be a key element in these particular cases that becomes a cancer on the investigation and obscures the truth. I ask you to remember that we supported the decision of our sons and daughters to serve this country, and trusted that their life and their death, if it came to that, would concern this Nation's leaders, no matter how they died in active duty. We have seen this body respond to Tailhook, loss of military lives in aircraft disasters, and bombings, but none of these have taken the number of lives has been taken in the last 20 years by alleged noncombat self-inflicted deaths. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator KEMPTHORNE. Mrs. Shults, thank you very much. What I would like to do is ask each of the members of the panel to give their opening comments, and then I will open it up to questions to the panelists. With that, let me call on Mrs. Cassandra Alleyne. STATEMENT OF MS. CASSANDRA ALLEYNE Ms. ALLEYNE. Hello, and thank you. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, in advocacy of the rights of our deceased children, we, the group, Until We Have Answers, thank you for this opportunity to hear from families on section 1185 issues. We also come here to petition for change in the conduct of investigative procedures. Our experience has provided a clear view of the motto, we take care of our own. We need answers that will explain to us how and why our children really died. These answers can only be obtained by reopening the investigations and answering all questions relative to these cases. The manner in which the Inspector General's Office has handled section 1185 tells us we may never get those answers. What are parents to do when their sons and daughters are reported to have allegedly died by their own hands while in the military, and the recorded circumstances of their deaths resound with unanswered questions that suggest negligence? What is a family to do when the only answers to their questions are I do not know, I am not sure, I cannot answer that, and I am sorry, but it is hard to explain how he died? What course have we as parents and taxpayers when the rights of our children have been violated? To whom can we turn, if not to the leaders of our country? What do our leaders represent? Suicide in the military is a crime, and in most States. Let the military go before this hearing to prove their case. Currently, the burden of proof rests with the parents, which means that exhuming bodies, hiring detectives, lawyers, and all other expenses must be carried by the parents until personal funds are expended to exhaustion, and until we as parents can no longer act or defend. At that point, justice in America has not been served. Only the selfgoverning have been served. In terms of change, there must be investigation into the fraternity of the military. The military must be charged with a clearly defined responsibility for conducting crime investigations in a concise and procedurally sound format. In terms of change, there must also be sensitivity to the dependent relationships of small-town law |