Dutch MP backs child sex (28.08.77)

The Guardian, 28th August 1977

G280877

Advertisements
9 comments
  1. Troyhand said:

    http://fultonhistory.com/Newspaper%2019/Albany%20NY%20Knickerbocker%20News/Albany%20NY%20Knickerbocker%20News%201961/Albany%20NY%20Knickerbocker%20News%201961%20-%205577.pdf#xml=http://fultonhistory.com/dtSearch/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getpdfhits&u=625eaaca&DocId=4696889&Index=Z%3a%5cIndex%20O%2dG%2dT%2dS&HitCount=2&hits=17d9+17da+&SearchForm=C%3a%5cinetpub%5cwwwroot%5cFulton%5fNew%5fform%2ehtml&.pdf
    The Knickerbocker News – Wednesday, 14 June, 1961

    Churchill Pilot Held On Morals Charge

    Tampa, Fla. (AP) – A former Air Force major who was personal pilot to Sir Winston Churchill and King George VI, remained free under $1,500 bond today pending a probation report.

    Woodrow W. Dickey pleaded guilty in Criminal Court yesterday to indecent assault on a teen-age youth. Six charges of crimes against nature were dropped.

    Dickey, a contractor, was arrested last March with 17 other persons when police broke up a homosexual ring.

  2. Troyhand said:

    http://books.google.com/books?id=GzUujkDSbmoC&pg=PT272&lpg=PT281&source=bl&ots=0Dyq_yG1GD&sig=Sgy4n_vcnnUmEOU4KzXWD3UFNb8&hl=en&sa=X&ei=fZMiU_XYMumf0AGsnYH4AQ&ved=0CCgQ6AEwAjgK#v=onepage&q&f=false
    Court-Martial Reports of the Judge Advocate General of the Air Force
    [Page 251-267]

    UNITED STATES v. DICKEY
    (ACM 2421)

    UNITED STATES
    v.
    Major WOODROW WILSON DICKEY, 10543A, Headquarters and
    Headquarters Squadron, 4th Fighter Wing

    ACM 2421

    Confession – voluntariness – extent of warning of rights under AW 24.

    1. An accused testifying as to the circumstances surrounding the taking of his pretrial statement declared that he was not warned of his rights either under AW 24 or the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution at the time the statement was taken. However, there was testimony to the effect that the accused, at the time of the taking, stated repeatedly that he was familiar with his rights under AW 24 and that he was informed of such rights in substance, although the evidence did not disclose that either of the officers who interrogated the accused, prior to such interrogation, warned the accused in the word-for-word language of AW 24 “that any statement by the accused may be used as evidence against him in a trial by court-martial”. There was evidence that the accused was told “that he was not required to make any statement, that it was entirely up to him, and that he had a right to refuse to make any statement that would incriminate him”; that his statement “would be referred to proper authority within the Air Force for a determination as to what action may be appropriate and for pursuit of such action as was determined appropriate”; that “one of the possible actions that could come about in this matter was court-martial”; that he was asked “if he was cognizant of the 24th Article of War”, to which he replied in the affirmative; and that any statement “could be used in any action at law against his interests”. There was evidence that the accused then indicated that he was fully aware of his rights. The accused was an officer with over eight years’ service. HELD: The conclusion is inescapable that the accused was fully cognizant of his rights under AW 24, when he participated in the interrogation which culminated in his signing the statement. There appears to be no abuse of discretion by the Court in resolving this conflict in evidence against the accused, and the Board of Review finds no reason to overturn its determination. (Citing Wharton’s Criminal Evidence, 11th ed, Vol 11, § 881; CM 267476, Wilson, 44 BR 1.)

    Confession – voluntariness – hope of benefit

    2. In the first paragraph of the pretrial statement or confession, the accused expressed the desire that “consideration be given to the possibility of affording” him such “medical treatment as may be found to be appropriate”. One of the investigating officers testified that the accused “was told that we were not action agency people, that we were simply investigators, but that in our opinion it was possible that the people who had to review this matter and determine what course of action to make might find it appropriate to furnish him medical treatment”. The other investigator testified that the accused introduced the subject of medical treatment and told him that he was then taking treatment. There was no evidence that the accused was at any time promised medical treatment or any other administrative disposition of the matter under investigation. There was no evidence of any statements, promises, or assurances made to the accused at the time of this interrogation from which he could reasonably have inferred that either of the investigating officers was vested with authority to determine any particular course of action with reference to the Charges then being investigated (ACM 1245, Howard, 1 CMR 328). HELD: The evidence is insufficient to show that the accused was swayed by any possible hope of benefit and thereby induced to make a detailed confession.

    Variance – date of offence

    3. A Specification charged an accused with committing an act of sodomy “during the month of September 1948”. The Court substituted the words “in or about” for the word “during” so that the Specification of which the accused was found guilty read that he did “in or about the month of September 1948” commit the offense. The only evidence fixing the date of the offense with any certainty was testimony that the incident occurred on 15 October 1948. Another Specification alleged that the accused committed an act of sodomy “during” the month of July 1948. The Court, by exceptions and substitutions, found that the accused “on or about the month of July 1948” committed the offense. The only evidence fixing the date of this offense was testimony that it occurred the second week of June 1948. It is the opinion of the Board that as to such Specifications the variances between pleading and proof were immaterial; that the exceptions and substitutions made by the Court were appropriate and were not prejudicial to any substantial rights of the accused; and that the evidence sustains the findings of the Court. (Citing CM 235011, Goodman, 21 BR 243,253; CM 203112, Burk. 7 BR 43, 44: ACM S-111, Kelley, 2 CMR 191. See also ACM 2103, McAbee, 2 CMR 487; ACM 2503, Gomez, 2 CMR 734; Winslett v. United States, 124 F2d 302; Dig Op JAG, 1912-40, § 428 (10), CM 130989, McBryde v. State, 34 Ga 202.)
    [See 27 Am Jur, Indictments and Informations, § 181.]

    Subverting and abusing functions of accused’s office – offense under military law.

    4. A Specification laid under AW 95 charged that the accused while on duty as “AF CAP Liaison Officer, National Capital, Washington, D. C.,” during the months of June, July and August 1948, did “subvert and abuse the functions of that office by wrongfully and unlawfully coercing, influencing, and inducing” a certain cadet under his supervision to engage in lewd, lascivious and immoral acts, “such conduct being to the prejudice of good order and military discipline and of a nature to bring discredit upon the military service.” It is the opinion of the Board that the Specification is legally adequate to allege an offense cognizable by military law and which, if proved, would constitute conduct violative of AW 95.

    Conduct unbecoming an officer – specification – sufficiency.

    5. An offense was charged under AW 95 but the termination phraseology of the Specification was that of AW 96. If the acts elsewhere denounced therein constitute a military offense cognizable under AW 95, these words (such conduct being to the prejudice of good order and military discipline and of a nature to bring discredit upon the military service) are mere surplusage and do not serve to alter the character of the offense charged to a violation of AW 96 instead of AW 95 (CM 319202, Wingard, 68 BR 201, 205; CM 319454, Barefoot, 68 BR 297, 303).

    Abusing and subverting office of accused – evidence – sufficiency.

    6. In separate Specifications under the same Charge, the accused was alleged as having, while on duty as Air Force Liaison Officer with the Civilian Air Patrol, Washington D. C., during the months of June, July and August, subverted and abused the functions of his office by “coercing, influencing, and inducing” certain named cadets under his supervision to engage in lewd, lascivious and immoral acts. One of the cadets, was named Lewis and the other Padgett. The evidence relative to these Specifications disclosed that in June, July and August 1948, the accused was assigned as Air Force Liaison Officer with the Civilian Air Patrol in Washington D. C. During that period he was, with relation to both Lewis and Padgett, in the position of a quasi-military superior. His functions were demanding of leadership, exemplary conduct, and the ability to train and mould groups of young civilians who were interested in flying into a semi-military unit. In pursuance of his functions he selected both Lewis and Padgett, two youths of impressionable age, to act as his aides. He detailed their duties. He exacted from them oaths of loyalty, affection and confidence. The evidence was undisputed that the acquiescence of Lewis in the repeated perverted acts of the accused was obtained through a belief on the part of Lewis in the promises made by the accused of the advantages and personal gains which the accused, through his office, was able to offer Lewis. While Padgett, in testifying, did not detail the motivation of his acquiescence, the evidence was clear that he continued as an aide to the accused during the period when these perverted acts were being accomplished and acquiesced therein, both in the office and in the home of the accused. There is evidence that he refrained from reporting these acts to his parents or others because of his oath which he had been required to give the accused. HELD: The evidence is compelling that the accused subverted and abused the functions of his office. The record, however, is insufficient to sustain a finding of guilty that the accused “coerced” either Lewis or Padgett in the alleged acts, inasmuch as the record contains no evidence of either threat or force, or compulsion beyond the measures of persuasion, influence and inducement. (Citing CM 244212, MacFarlane, 28 BR 217.)

    Variance – sate of offense.

    7. A Specification alleged that the accused did at a certain place on 20 June 1948 commit certain described lewd and lascivious acts upon the person of Donald . . . . The only evidence bearing upon the date of the alleged incident is found in the testimony of Donald . . . and in the pretrial statement of the accused. Donald . . . fixed the date of the incident as 14 July 1948, whereas the accused fixed the date as “early in June”. Under the circumstances, fixation of the exact date of the offense was immaterial, and the Court was justified in resolving the conflict of evidence as to the date of commission of the offense charged.
    [See 27 Am Jur, Indictments and Information, § 131.]

    Lewd and lascivious acts of offense.

    8. A Specification charged that the accused did at a certain time and place violate § 103, Title I, Public Laws 615, 80th Cong., by committing lewd and lascivious acts upon the person of Orman . . . . a male person under the age of sixteen years, by fondling the penis of said . . . with the intent of arousing, appealing to or gratifying the lust, passion, or sexual desire of both accused and the said . . . . The Court took judicial notice of the statute in question. The statute provided for the treatment of sexual psychopaths in the District of Columbia, and made the commission of any immoral, lewd, or lascivious act upon a child under sixteen years of age an offense. Since these offenses were allegedly committed within the limits of Washington, D. C., and since they are offenses condemned by the laws of the district of Columbia, they are properly charged under Article of War 96. (Citing MCM, 1949, par 183c.)

    Lewd and lascivious conduct – evidence – sufficiency.

    9. Evidence held sufficient to establish commission of lewd and lascivious acts upon a child under sixteen years of age in violation of a statute of the District of Columbia.

    Place of confinement – designation by reviewing authority.

    10. In cases requiring confirmation, the designation of a place of confinement is the responsibility of the confirming authority. Designation of a place of confinement in such a case by the reviewing authority is of no legal effect. (Citing MCM, 1949, par 87b.)

    Trial by General Court-Martial, convened at Bolling Air Force Base, Washington, D. C., 5, 6, 7 and 12 October 1949. Dismissal, total forfeitures after date of order, and confinement at hard labor for one (1) year and one (1) day.

    1. The record of trial in the case of the officer named above has been examined by the Board of Review and the Board submits this, its opinion, to the Judicial Council.

    2. The accused was arraigned and tried upon the following Charges and Specifications:

    CHARGE I: Violation of the 93rd Article of War.

    SPECIFICATION 1: In that Major Woodrow Wilson Dickey, Headquarters & Headquarters Squadron, 4th Fighter Wing, Langley Air Force Base, Virginia, did, at Lynchburg, Virginia, on or about 30 July 1948 commit the crime of sodomy by feloniously and against the order of nature having carnal connection per os with Donald F. Caskle, a male person.

    SPECIFICATION 2: (Finding of not guilty on motion of defense.)

    SPECIFICATION 3: In that Major Woodrow Wilson Dickey, Headquarters & Headquarters Squadron, 4th Fighter Wing, Langley Air Force Base, Virginia, did, at Fort Defiance, Virginia, during the month of September 1948 commit, the crime of sodomy by feloniously and against the order of nature having carnal connection per os with Naumann Miller, a male person.

    SPECIFICATION 4: In that Major Woodrow Wilson Dickey, Headquarters & Headquarters Squadron, 4th Fighter Wing, Langley Air Force Base, Virginia, did, at Washington D. C., during the month of July 1948 commit, the crime of sodomy by feloniously and against the order of nature having carnal connection per os with Wallace Lewis, a male person.

    SPECIFICATION 5: (Finding of not guilty on motion of defense.)

    CHARGE II: Violation of the 95th Article of War.

    SPECIFICATION 1: (Finding of guilty disapproved by the reviewing authority.)

    SPECIFICATION 2: In that Major Woodrow Wilson Dickey, Headquarters & Headquarters Squadron, 4th Fighter Wing, Langley Air Force Base, Virginia, while on duty as AF CAP Liaison Officer, National Capital, Washington D. C., did on various occasions, during the months of June, July and August 1948, subvert and abuse the functions of that office by wrongfully and unlawfully coercing, influencing and inducing Wallace Lewis, a CAP cadet under his supervision, to engage in lewd, lascivious, indecent and immoral acts for the purpose of obtaining sexual satisfaction against the order of nature, such conduct being to the prejudice of good order and military discipline and of a nature to bring discredit upon the military service.

    SPECIFICATION 3: In that Major Woodrow Wilson Dickey, Headquarters & Headquarters Squadron, 4th Fighter Wing, Langley Air Force Base, Virginia, while on duty as AF CAP Liaison Officer, National Capital, Washington D. C., did on various occasions, during the months of June, July and August 1948, subvert and abuse the functions of that office by wrongfully and unlawfully coercing, influencing and inducing Orman Padgett, a CAP cadet under his supervision, to engage in lewd, lascivious, indecent and immoral acts for the purpose of obtaining sexual satisfaction against the order of nature, such conduct being to the prejudice of good order and military discipline and of a nature to bring discredit upon the military service.

    CHARGE III: Violation of the 96th Article of War.

    SPECIFICATION 1: (Finding of guilty disapproved by the reviewing authority.)

    SPECIFICATION 2: (Finding of not guilty.)

    SPECIFICATION 3: In that Major Woodrow Wilson Dickey, Headquarters & Headquarters Squadron, 4th Fighter Wing, Langley Air Force Base, Virginia, did, at Washington D. C., on or about June 1948, willfully and wrongfully commit a lewd and lascivious act upon a part of the body, to-wit, the penis, of Donald F. Caskie, by fondling his penis with the intent of arousing, appealing to or gratifying the lust, passion or sexual desire of both the accused and the said Donald F. Caskie.

    SPECIFICATION 4: (Finding of not guilty disapproved by the reviewing authority.)

    SPECIFICATION 5: In that Major Woodrow Wilson Dickey, Headquarters & Headquarters Squadron, 4th Fighter Wing, Langley Air Force Base, Virginia, did, in violation of Section 103, Title I, Public Law 615-80th Congress, at Washington D. C., on or about 15 July 1948, commit a lewd and lascivious act upon a part of the body, to-wit, the penis, of Orman Padgett, a male person under the age of 16 years, by fondling his penis with the intent of arousing, appealing to or gratifying the lust, passion or sexual desire of both the accused and the said Orman Padgett.

    SPECIFICATION 6: In that Major Woodrow Wilson Dickey, Headquarters & Headquarters Squadron, 4th Fighter Wing, Langley Air Force Base, Virginia, did, in violation of Section 103, Title I, Public Law 615-80th Congress, at Washington D. C., on or about 22 July 1948, commit a lewd and lascivious act upon a part of the body, to-wit, the penis, of Orman Padgett, a male person under the age of 16 years, by fondling his penis with the intent of arousing, appealing to or gratifying the lust, passion or sexual desire of both the accused and the said Orman Padgett.

    SPECIFICATION 7: In that Major Woodrow Wilson Dickey, Headquarters & Headquarters Squadron, 4th Fighter Wing, Langley Air Force Base, Virginia, did, in violation of Section 103, Title I, Public Law 615-80th Congress, at Washington D. C., on or about 31 July 1948, commit a lewd and lascivious act upon a part of the body, to-wit, the penis, of Orman Padgett, a male person under the age of 16 years, by fondling his penis with the intent of arousing, appealing to or gratifying the lust, passion or sexual desire of both the accused and the said Orman Padgett.

    The accused plead not guilty to all Charges and Specifications. He was found guilty of Charge I and Specifications 1 thereunder; guilty of Specification 3 thereunder except the word “during”, substituted therefor the words “in or about”, of the excepted word, not guilty, of the substituted words, guilty; guilty of Specification 4 thereunder except the word “during”, substituting therefor the words “in or about”, of the excepted word, not guilty, of the substituted words, guilty. He was found guilty of Specifications 1, 2 and 3, Charge II. and Charge II, and guilty of Charge III and Specifications 1, 3, 5, 6 and 7 thereunder, and not guilty of Specification 2 thereunder. At the close3 of prosecution’s case defense moved for findings of not guilty of all Charges and Specifications (R. 200) and the motion was granted as to Specification 2, Charge I, Specification 5, Charge I, and Specification 4, Charge III. No evidence of previous convictions was introduced. He was sentenced to be dismissed the service, to forfeit all pay and allowances to become due after the date of the order directing execution of the sentence, and to be confined at hard labor for ten years. The reviewing authority approved the findings of guilty of Specification 1, 3 and 4, Charge 1, and Charge I; disapproved the findings of guilty of Specification 1, Charge II; approved only so much of the finding of guilty of Specification 2, Charge II, as finds that the accused did, while on duty as Air Force CAP Liaison Officer, National Capital, Washington, D. C., during the month of June 1948, subvert and abuse the functions of that office by wrongfully and unlawfully coercing, influencing and inducing Wallace Lewis, a CAP cadet under his supervision, to engage in lewd, lascivious, indecent and immoral acts for the purpose of obtaining sexual satisfaction against the order of nature, such conduct being to the prejudice of good order and military discipline and of a nature to bring discredit upon the military service; approved the findings of guilty of Specification 3, Charge II, and Charge II; disapproved the finding of guilty of Specification 1, Charge III; approved the findings of guilty of Specifications 3, 5, 6 and 7, Charge III, and Charge III; approved the sentence, but reduced the period of confinement to one year and one day, and designated the United States Penitentiary, Atlanta, Georgia, or elsewhere as the Secretary of the Army might direct, as the place of confinement, and forwarded the record pursuant to Article of War 50.

    3. Evidence of the Prosecution.

    [Page 261]

    It was stipulated that the accused was born 31 July 1918 at Mendonhall, Mississippi; that he was graduated from the University of Florida in 1939; that he entered military service in 1940 and completed pilot training in November 1942; that he had 21 combat missions and 110 combat hours with a troop carrier unit; that he was shot down over Italy and hospitalized in an RAF hospital; that he was assigned as pilot to the Supreme Allied Commander, Field Marshall Alexander, and served as pilot and aide until October 1945; that he also served as pilot for Winston Churchill, King Umberto of Italy, and various cabinet ministers; that he was assigned as Assistant Air Attache to Rome upon request of United States Ambassador to Italy; that he returned to the United States 5 May 1947 and was assigned to the Foreign Liaison Branch of the War Department General Staff; later he was assigned to Civilian Air Patrol Headquarters and subsequently as Liaison Officer for the National Capital Wing.

    A letter from Field Marshal Alexander to General H. H. Arnold, a letter from the United States Military Attache at Rome, Italy, to the accused, and a letter from the Italian Minister of Aeronautics to the President of the United States, all commending the accused for his wartime or postwar military services, were introduced as evidence in his behalf.

    [Page 267]

    His records show that he is authorized the following awards and decorations: American Defense Medal; American Theater Ribbon; EAME Ribbon with five bronze campaign stars; Purple Heart; Knight Commander of the Crown of Italy; Air Medal; Unit Citation Badge; British Air Force Cross; Pilot Insignia Royal Yugoslavian Air Force (Order of White Eagle); Order of King of England; Polish Gold Cross with Swords; Order of Saint Maurizio e Lazzero; Bronze Star; Constantiniana Order of Saint George, Degree of Grand Officer; Imperial Order of St. George of Corinthia, Cavalier of the Grande Cross; Order of Knights of Malta; Honorary Military Pilot Insignia, Italy; War Cross for Military Valor (Italian); War Cross for Military Merit (Italian); Air Force Cross; Order of St. Hubert of Lorraine and Bar, Knight Commander (Vatican); and Grand Officer of Royal Military Order of Our Lady of Mercy.

  3. Troyhand said:

    http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=rUYyAAAAIBAJ&sjid=POkFAAAAIBAJ&pg=5242%2C6945801
    Miami News – 14 June 1961
    Famed Ex-Flier In Morals Case

    TAMPA – Woodrow W. Dickey, a former Air Force major who was personal pilot to Sir Winston Churchill and King George VI, remained free under $1,500 bond today pending a probation report.

    Dickey pleaded guilty in Criminal Court yesterday of indecent assault on a teen-age youth. Six charges of crimes against nature were dropped by the state attorney’s office.

    Dickey, a contractor, was arrested last March with 17 other persons when police broke up a homosexual ring.

    Dickey was assigned by the Air Force to pilot other European dignitaries such as Yugoslavia’s King Peter II and Great Britain’s Field Marshal Sir Harold Alexander.

    He received many decorations from foreign governments.

  4. Troyhand said:

    http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=HNwbAAAAIBAJ&sjid=w2QEAAAAIBAJ&pg=2200%2C300463
    Sarasota Herald-Tribune – 3 June 1953
    Nick Robertson’s Sportscript

    Optimists wrok hard on local net program

    After a full year of intense tennis promotion the Sarasota Optimists Tennis Association can look back on a job well done – one that is just beginning, however.

    The local group has planted the seed of court activity in numerous boys and girls – now SOTA must work harder than ever to maintain and further engender the tennis spirit.

    Thanks to Maj. Woodrow Dickey of the Tampa Optimist Club the local junior high school had 84 tennis rackets which made it possible to make the net sport part of the junior high physical education program.

    SOTA purchased tennis balls for the interested boys and girls and after the fundamentals were learned in school classes, after-school ladder tourneys were held. A total of 37 completed.

  5. Troyhand said:

    http://books.google.com/books?id=Z1EeAQAAIAAJ&q=%22Woodrow+Dickey%22&dq=%22Woodrow+Dickey%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=1s4iU8ziJM-tkAehmoHQDA&ved=0CD4Q6AEwBTgK
    Town Meeting, Part 2 – 1954

    Mr. Murray: May I take this occasion to thank you, Congressman John Bell Williams of Mississippi and Ralph E. McGill, editor of the Atlanta Constitution, for your contribution to our discussion this evening.

    Our appreciation to the Tampa Optimist Clubs — Gean Berni, Lieutenant Governor, who spearheaded this program for the Optimists and Tampa; Dr. Henry Fernandez, President of the Optimist Club Council, and Major Woodrow Dickey, publicity director. Thanks also to Mayor Curtis H. Hixon; Frank Frankland, president of the Chamber of Commerce and Joseph R. Mickler, Chairman of the Tampa Centennial Committee – and radio station WSUN, ABC in Tampa and St. Petersburg.

  6. Troyhand said:

    http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1964&dat=19530424&id=yPMiAAAAIBAJ&sjid=1cwFAAAAIBAJ&pg=1405,3431244
    Palm Beach Post – 24 April 1953
    Gulf Stream Net Entries Pour-In

    DELRAY BEACH – Mixing business with business the early part of the week in St. Petersburg, Dr. E. Monroe Farber, director of the seventh annual Gulf Stream Junior Tennis Tournament, returned Thursday from a dental convention with a pocket full of the State’s ranking junior netters from the West Coast as entries in the tourney here.

    The junior meet will be held May 9-10, and May 16-17, and last year attracted 140 youngsters from throughout the State.

    Pro Jack Rogers of the St. Petersburg Country Club, and Maj. Woodrow Dickey, of the Tampa recreation department, entered these players;…

  7. Troyhand said:

    http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1755&dat=19520511&id=oIEcAAAAIBAJ&sjid=vWQEAAAAIBAJ&pg=5296,1653227
    Sarasota Herald-Tribune – 11 May 1952
    Mrs. Leyerzaph Named To Represent Sarasota

    Tampa, May 10 – Maj. Woodrow W. Dickey, National Junior Development Committeeman of United States Lawn Tennis Association, and chairman of Florida Lawn Tennis Association’s Junior Development Committee, announced the appointment of Mrs. John Leyerzpath, Bay Island, to represent Sarasota on the State Junior Development Committee for 1952.

%d bloggers like this: