WFI Research Group

2019

 Over the last 18 months five of our cases have been identified and returned to their families for burial. Five cases may not sound like much but it is the highest number we've had resolved in such a short time frame since our first identification back in 2006. Unfortunately PFC Robert George Thompson, whose case was sent to DPAA in 2015 is still not home. 

In November 2016, we sent 147 cases at the DPAA. This set of files involved the 136 crewmen of the USS Turner which are buried as unknowns in the Long Island National Cemetery. The other 11 cases were American, British and Canadians all buried as unknown Americans overseas. The British government left their war dead where they fell stating "the sun never sets on the British Empire". In actuality the didn't have the funding to bring them home. The government may not care but we submitted the cases because the families might. No action has been taken on these case thus far.

We sent another 50 cases in January 2019. These are mostly Navy and Marine Corps aviation personnel. All of the Navy and Marine Corps aviation personnel are finished and we hope to start on the US Army Air Force personnel in the coming months.

We are assembling 275 new cases for delivery to the DPAA in the July/August time frame. Again they are mostly Navy and Marine non-aviation personnel.

We have the preliminary research done on an additional 1,207 cases from all branches and are just awaiting the Individual Deceased Personnel File (IDPFs) to submit them for identification. The saddest fact surrounding our work is that from the time we figure a unknown case out to the time we get him home is still 4-6 years. About a year to get the IDPF and the remainder of the time is for the DPAA to do their thing. Glacial pace at best but we always knew it would be a marathon, not a sprint.

Sadly we are coming across a large number of US Navy and US Marine Corps remains that never had a chance to be identified because the Navy failed to provide the physical and dental information to the Army at the close of the war.

2016

The four cases that were turned into DPAA last Memorial Day have all been recommend for disinterrment. One other submitted case, William R. Giles, has also been recommeded. The five disinterrments should take place in the near future.

On May 26, the remains of John E. Anderson were returned to his family in Willmar, MN. This was a 2009 case that was finally resolved. JPAC ignored the case when it was given to them. When the family made a second attempt, JPAC assigned a PhD (push here dummy) or (piled higher and deeper) to explain why the case shouldn't proceed. After six years of fustration the family finally got the DPAA to look at the body and he was identified.

We have the next group of ten ready to go to the DPAA as soon as the five disinterrments mentioned above have been completed. That will leave us with 1,552 other unknown cases that we are working on from the Pacific. The ETO and MTO unknowns will be completed later this year.

The sadest case of the year involves six men from the crew of the 29th Bomb Group. The crew was forced to bail out over Kyushu, Japan. Four were murdered by civilians on the ground. One was taken to Toyko for further interrogation and survived the war. The remaining six became subjects of medical experiments at the University of Kyushu. They all died and their remains cremated. In an attempt to hide what they had done the Japanese authorities claimed that they had been killed at Hiroshima by the atomic blast. We have found their burial site but because of the cremation, positive identification is not possible. The six involved were;

CPL JOHN C. COLEHOWER FROM MONTGOMERY COUNTY, PA

CPL LEON E CZARNECKI FROM MERCER COUNTY, NJ

2LT WILLIAM R. FREDERICKS FROM BELLEVILLE, NJ

2LT DALE E. PLAMBECK FROM DODGE COUNTY, NE

SSGT TEDDY J. PONCZKA FROM PHILADELPHIA COUNTY, PA

CPL ROBERT B. WILLIAMS FROM NEW YORK COUNTY, NY

2015

It has been over 70 years since they died but they are still missed and remembered. Many of the families have given up hope that they will ever be returned thanks to the foot dragging efforts of those tasked with returning them. From hiding paperwork to hiding over 9,000 unknown bodies they have done their best to hamper recovery efforts. An old Marine once told me that "the only reason they had war criminals and we didn't was because we won the war". What AGRS, CILHI, JPAC, DPMO, DPAA etc, etc, have done to the surviving families over the years is a crime. Since when in America should people be paid and allowed to retire with pension for not doing their job? Wake up America!

Below is the story of four Marines that we have been able to locate and identify. The case files are being forwarded to their familes for action with the advice that they contact their congressional representitives for assistance as it seems to take an act of congress to get our war dead back.

Special thanks to Dr. Roy H. Sonkin DDS FAAFS and Dr. Howard S. Glazer DDS FAGD FAAFS Kuentai-USA Advisors for their review of the dental records in each of these four cases. Their identification confirmations should aid in speeding up the recovery process.

Special thanks to Heidi Amell for her help in running down the next of kin in these four families.

_________________________________________________________________________

Captain Lester Albert Schade O-6220 "I" Company 3rd Battalion 4th Marines- home of record was Route 1 Box 95 Abbotsford, Wisconsin. Captain Schade became a prisoner of war following the fall of the Philippines in May, 1942. In late December 1944 he boarded the Enoura Maru for transportation to Japan. On 9 January 1945 the ship was attacked and sunk while at anchor in Takao Harbor, Formosa. The bodies were later removed from the ship and buried in a mass grave in the nearby Nakasu district of Takao City. In January 1947 the bodies were exhumed and transferred to the AGRS Mausoleum, Shanghai, China. In April 1947 the bodies were again transferred to the Schofield Barracks Mausoleum #2 in Hawaii. His body was finally laid to rest in the National Memorial Cemetery of the Pacific Section P grave 423 (photo below) in 1950. The Army claims to have recovered 340 cremated bodies from the mass grave but they eventually buried 408 unknowns from the grave. Most have physical and dental characteristics in the file which is never possible after cremation. A complete roster of the Americans that were lost on the ship can be found on the "HELLSHIPS" page of this web site.

Photo courtesy of Tracy Peters & Stephanie Duffield.

 __________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 Staff Sergeant Richard Joseph Murphy Jr. 405233 POW/MIA Detachment 6th Marines 2nd Marine Division- home of record was Washington, District of Columbia. SSgt. Murphy went missing on 15 June 1944 on the first day of the invasion of Saipan. Because of his MIA status, he was administratively transferred to the POW/MIA Detachment at Headquarters Marine Corps. His parent company and battalion are unknown at this time. What is known is that the body of an unknown was buried in Section B, Row 1, Grave 3 shortly after the battle began. This unknown body was later moved to the Philippine Mausoleum and then finally interred in the American Battle Monuments Cemetery, Fort McKinley, Manila, Philippines Islands on 29 March 1950 in Section L Row 9 Grave 61. Comparison of the available records allowed us to determine that these were the remains of SSgt. Murphy. His next of kin have been contacted and want the body returned to the states.

 Photo courtsey of Yukari Akatsuka Kuentai-USA.

Corporal Oscar Eli Koskela 387915 Headquarters Company 1st Battalion 29th Marines 2nd Marine Division- home of record was 6167 Ellsworth Avenue Detroit, Michigan. Corporal Koskela died of multiple wounds off Saipan aboard the USS SOLACE on 18 June 1944. His body was returned to the beach for burial at which time his identity was changed to unknown. His remains were buried in the 4th Marine Division Cemetery Plot 2 Row 9 Grave 335. Following the war he was moved to the Philippine Mausoleum and then finally interred in the American Battle Monuments Cemetery, Fort McKinley, Manila, Philippines Islands Section L Row 17 Grave 19 where he remains to this day. 

  Photo courtsey of Yukari Akatsuka Kuentai-USA.

Private First Class Robert George Thompson 473176 Company "C" 1st Battalion 24th Marines 4th Marine Division- home of record was 743 Halsey Street, Brooklyn, New York. (Unfortunately we have not been able to locate a next of kin for PFC Thompson. If anyone has any information that could help, please contact our office.) Few details are known about his demise. He was killed in action on Saipan 25 June 1944. His body was originally buried in the US Army 27th Division Cemetery Plot 2 Row 2 Grave 439. Following the war he was moved to the Philippine Mausoleum and then finally interred in the American Battle Monuments Cemetery, Fort McKinley, Manila, Philippines Islands Section H Row 9 Grave 144.

  Photo courtsey of Yukari Akatsuka Kuentai-USA.

These four cases are complete. All that remains now is for the DPAA to do is give them back to their families for proper internment. We are still working on 66 other missing Marines with the hope of having them recovered and identified. They are;

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

LAST YEAR
2014

PHOTO IS FROM PLOT L, ROW 4, GRAVE 74 ABMC CEMETERY, MANILA, PHILIPPINE ISLANDS

THE FORGOTTEN 29

      THE GRAVE CONTAINS THE CREMATED REMAINS OF 22 OF THESE AIRMEN. THEY WERE EXECUTED BY THE JAPANESE DURING 1945. WHEN THE WAR ENDED THE BODIES WERE CREMATED IN AN ATTEMPT TO CONCEAL THE CRIME. ALTHOUGH WE WILL NEVER BE SURE OF JUST WHO IS IN THE GRAVE, IT IS MY OPINION THAT THEY SHOULD ALL BE REMEMBERED.

     FOLLOWING THE WAR, THE JAPANESE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE WAR CRIMES WERE TRIED AND FOUND GUILTY. SENTENCES SEEMED LIGHT. LISTED BELOW IS THE INFORMATION I'VE FOUND CONCERNING THE CASE.

Singapore Cases: No. 235/1102
Fukudome Case (3rd Seletar Beheading Case)

Accused: (1) Vice Admiral FUKUDOME Shigeru
(2) Rear Admiral ASAKURA Bunji
(3) Commander INO Eiichi
(4) Vice Admiral IMAMURA Osamu
(5) Captain MATSUDA Gengo
(6) Capt SAITO Yakichi
all of the Imperial Japanese Army.

Place and Date of Trial: Singapore, 9, 12, 17-20, 23 and 27 Feb 1948

Finding and Sentence: Each charge - Each accused - Guilty

Accused Sentence
1 3 years imprisonment
2 2 years imprisonment
3 3 years imprisonment
4 8 years imprisonment
5 2 years imprisonment
6 2 years imprisonment
There was no printed finding and sentence by the court.

Charge: 1st charge: (Against all the accused)
Committing a War Crime in that they at SINGAPORE between 1st July and 31st
August 1945 were, in Violation of the Laws and Usages of War, concerned in the execution of eight Allied Prisoners of War, the crew of a PBY 4 Aircraft.

2nd charge: (Against all the accused)
Committing a War Crime in that they at SINGAPORE between 1st February and 31st August 1945 were, in violation of the Laws and Usages of War, concerned in the execution of some Allied Prisoners of War, the crew of a B29 Aircraft.

Facts relating to the charge: (taken from the Abstract of Evidence)
The Order of Battle at the Japanese occupied Seletar Naval Base at the time of the incidents of the charges was as follows:
In the main it was occupied by two Japanese Naval Organizations - viz - H.Q. 10th Zone Fleet Commanded by Vice Adm. FUKUDOME (Accused 1) with Vice Adm. ASAKURA (Accused 2) as his Chief of Staff; Comr. INO (Accused 3) as his Intelligence-cum-Communications Officer, and Lt. Comdr. KOMORI as the Chief Legal Advisor to C-in-C Fukudome (Accused 1). Subordinate to this Command was the 10th Special Base Unit commanded Vice Adm. IMAMURA (Accused 4), with Capt. MATSUDA (Accused 5) as his Chief of Staff and Capt SAITO (Accused 6) as Senior Staff Officer - while Comdr. OKAMOTO was Chief Engineer Staff Officer. Certain Lieutenants concerned in the case, viz - KOBAYASHI; MIYAWAKI together with P.Os. TOU and HIKIJI were also attached to various sub-units of the 10th Special Base under IMAMURA who came (for matters of policy particularly) under Vice Adm. FUKUDOME as C-in-C and G.O.C. 10th Zone Fleet.

About the beginning of 1945 some Allied POWs (American Airmen raiding Singapore) were brought to the Seletar Naval Base (Singapore). They were handed over by the G.H.Q. 10th Zone Fleet to the H.Q. 10th Special Naval Base and incarcerated there until executed without trial by the 10 S.N.B. under orders from Adm. FUKUDOME's H.Q.
Again in July of the same year (1945) other POWs (American Airmen) were brought in and as before were handed over to Adm. IMAMURA's (Accused 4) Command, interrogated, imprisoned for a while, then, on the excuse that there were no guards to spare, executed like the others, at the Nee Soon Rifle Range. Soon after the war ended, a meeting was called at which the C-in-C Adm. FUKUDOME presided and the subject under discussion was the destruction of Evidence with a view to screening those responsible for the two executions mentioned in the Charges. All the Accused are involved in the decisions taken at this meeting; to warn all concerned to keep quiet; to dispose of the bodies; and to keep knowledge of these War Crimes from the Allies.

Sworn statements from all the accused will be produced at the trial and Prosecution will call as witnesses Lt. Comdrs. OKAMOTO and KOMORI together with Lt. KOBAYASHI and P.O. HIKIJI.

Accused handling of the charge: All the accused denied that they or either of them had given any instructions to have the POWs executed or even know that such executions had taken place until sometime after the occurrences.

Main issues of the case raised by prosecution and defence:

1) Facts and evidence of the case
The defence argued according to five general matters regarding the facts and evidence of the case, which involved all the accused, as follows:
a) That the prisoners of war mentioned in this case were not transferred by the 10th Zone Fleet HQ to the 10th Special Naval Base.
They argued that Accused 4 was independently authorized in handling these POWs, and as he was solely responsible there was no need of any order or instruction to be issued from the 10th Zone Fleet H.Q. concerning this. Therefore, the defence submitted that the testimony of Prosecution Witness Lt-Comdr. OKAMOTO, that the prisoners of war were interned and detained by the order of the 10th Zone Fleet H.Q. was quite an untrue allegation and completely against the known facts.
b) That it was not true that the 10th Special Naval Base asked for an order or instructions concerning the prisoners of war in this case to be issued by the 10th Zone Fleet H.Q.
The defence presented five facts that showed that this allegation was a deliberate contrivance.
c) That there was no fact that the 10th Zone Fleet H.Q. issued an order to the 10th Special Naval Base H.Q. to execute the POWs of this case.
The defence argued that the issue of an order of the 10th Zone Fleet H.Q. to the 10th Special Naval Base would be the Accused 1 himself, and its recipient would be the Admiral Commanding the 10th Special Naval Base, Accused 4. No other person was authorized to issue or receive the "Fleet Order". They argued that the Prosecution witness' alleging that POWs were executed in accordance with the First Order was based on an opinion and not fact and hence was unreliable. Concerning the POWs of the second charge, the prosecution witness gave more unreliable evidence, in the form of a vague and ambiguous statement regarding where the order came from.
d) That the POWs of this case were not executed by the 10th Special Naval Base (Admiral Commanding IMAMURA (Accused 4), Chief of Staff Matsuda (Accused 5), Senior Staff-Officer SAITO (Accused 6))
The defence argued that these executions of POWs were not carried out on the orders of the 10th Special Naval Base. The execution was carried out quite secretly by some persons of the 10th Naval Base while Accused 4, 5 and 6 were quite unaware of it.
e) That nothing was discussed or decided to conceal the fact and destroy evidence of the execution of the POWs of this case.
All the accused admitted that conferences were held day and night at the Fleet H.Q. after the surrender, but these conferences were not specially meant to discuss the execution of the POWs, but to collect various materials for reports which were to be sent to Tokyo Central Government, Count Terauchi's Southern Expeditionary Forces Headquarters and the British Naval Authorities. The defence argued that accused 1 heard of this execution for the first time at the conference, as testified by Prosecution witness Komori. Prosecution witness KOMORI alleged that the conference was specially held for the purpose of destroying evidences of the POWs execution case, but the defence argued that this witness could not be trusted, and his testimony was in variance with the truth of the case.

The prosecution argued that "the order" (for the execution of the 2nd charge) was issued by the Fleet Command - approved by the Naval Base - passed over to Yamaguchi, the Guard Commander, who as the order was issued by the Fleet H.Q. reported back to the H.Q.; that the execution had been held at the Nee Soon Rifle Range. This was a statement submitted by witness Okamoto. The prosecution also submitted that the execution was ordered by Accused 1. An important matter in the execution of POWs could not be carried on without the Fleet Command's Orders. The prosecution pointed out that the executed were not tried at all. They submitted also that during the execution all the Accused were there except Accused 4 and this was virtually confirmed by Komori.

In the mouth of two witnesses they submitted that the purpose of the conference (sponsored and conducted by Accused 2 and addressed by accused 1 and attended by Accused 3, 5 and 6) was the destruction of evidence and the protection thereby of the principals to the War Crimes. On the evidence of the Accused themselves, it was a decidedly stormy meeting and afterwards orders were sent out from Accused 2 and 3 of the Fleet H.Q. to exhume corpses from the Nee Soon Rifle Range and dispose of this and a warning was issued to hide and say nothing about the execution and the disposal of the bodies. None of this evidence was disputed in cross-examination. These facts were also confirmed by Komori in principle, who also contended the necessity of destroying evidence of the illegal execution and how by hiding the facts, the names of the principles would "not come out". In short, the disposal of the bodies and hiding of the facts, that the decision and orders of the accused arising out of this conference were implemented was confirmed by Kobayashi.

2) Individual responsibility of each accused
Accused 1
The defence argued that accused 1 thought that the POWs should be sent to the Singapore POWs Concentration Camp as soon as possible, and he conveyed this opinion to Accused 4. He was in no way concerned with the execution of the POWs carried out afterwards. This is clear from the testimonies explaining the circumstances under which Accused 1 came to know about the execution. They submitted that the Prosecution evidence was still not sufficient to prove that the execution of the POWs was decided and carried out by the intention of accused 1.
Accused 1 also did not know about the POWs of the second charge being interned at the 10th Naval Base. He knew no more of the execution than he did of the existence of these POWs nor was he in any way concerned with it.

The prosecution argued that Accused 1 knew of the presence of the POWs victims of the 1st charge at Seletar and decided to advise Accused 4 to hand them over to the POW authorities but never had any report that they had been not handed over. The prosecution said that Okamoto was definitely made responsible at any rate for the incident of the 1st charge, and submitted that the silence on this subject aided and abetted the principles to the crimes, although accused 1 was sorry he did not think to clear these principles.

Accused 2
The defence argued that the exact date of the POW's execution in the first charge was unknown, thought it was thought to have been on the 10th of August. At this time, Accused 2 was on a tour of duty to French Indo-China, Siam and Burma, and he was not at Singapore. This was proved by his testimony. As far as the first charge was concerned, the alibi was sufficiently proved, and there was not a bit of doubt that he was not concerned in it in any way. Other evidence relating Accused 2 to the first charge was based on mere assumption and therefore unreliable as evidence. Also, with relation to the issue of destroying of evidence, this was also brought up by untrue evidence and therefore accused 2 should not be held responsible for something based on untrue testimony.

The prosecution submitted that Accused 2 shadowed Accused 1 and his evidence was a series of Denials of Prosecution Witness' statements and implications. He did admit to knowledge of the presence of POWs at Seletar in January but never knew they had actually gone to Tokyo.

Accused 3
The defence argued for the first change, accused 3 only knew about the execution after it had taken place. Prosecution witness Okamoto alleged that he received the execution order from Accused 3, but this was strongly denied by the testimonies of all the accused. The defence believed that the evidence that Okamoto gave was a lie.
Regarding the second charge, it was clear from the testimony of Accused 3 that he did not know at all about the POW's execution. It was also not his fault not to have known about it.
Accused 3 gave inconsistent evidence when questioned. The prosecution submitted that he showed guilty knowledge at Fleet H.Q. and this made him abet a War Criminal. The best commentary on his garbled and contradictory statements was found in the Court's questions to him.

Accused 4
The defence argued that he did not know about the execution until after it had been carried out. It was clear from testimonies of accused 1, 5 and 6 that Accused 4 had no intention to execute these POWs at any time, therefore it could not have happened that he issued an order or instruction to execute these POWs nor was it conceivable that he connived at the execution. He believed that the POWs had been sent to Tokyo as planned. There was other ambiguous and vague evidence against this accused, but the defence submitted that it was impossible to admit any connection between Accused 3 and the POW execution based on such statements.

All the prosecution submitted regarding Accused 4 was whether or not it was likely that Accused 4 when penning the notorious 5th paragraph had in mind not the fact that Accused 6's report concerned the actual execution of the POWs, but the sending back of Italian, German, Indian and British POWs labour to their bases and that there was then no need for him to report any negligence of duty or lack of disciplinary control of subordinates resulting in the illegal execution of POWs and thereupon a war crime.

Accused 5
The defence argued that he did not know at all about the POW execution of the first charge at the early part of August 1945, but a few days before the surrender he came to know about it for the first time by the report of Accused 6. He testified in Court in a very straightforward, earnest and truthful manner how he came to know about it. It was also clear from the testimonies in court that Accused 5 did not give the execution order or instruction to anybody, and that there was no fact that he knew about the execution beforehand and connived at it or did not stop it.
With regards to the second charge, Accused 5 had an alibi which was sufficiently proved and therefore there was no doubt that he was not concerned with the second charge.

The prosecution submitted that with regard to the statements made by Accused 5, it was necessary to emphasize that the 5th Accused's amended version as given in his second statement was made about Okamoto's death sentence. In his first statement he actually protects Okamoto saying he was directly under him and if he had interrogated the prisoners he would have reported to him.

Accused 6
The defence argued that he was not at the site of the execution the day it took place and it was only the day after the execution that he came to know roughly about the execution by the report of Yoda, the guard commander. It was also clear from this testimony that the execution was carried out quite secretly while accused 6 and the other staffs of the 10th Naval Base were unaware of it. There was no fact that the execution was carried out by the intention of Accused 6 nor was it his fault not to have known about the execution.
With regard to the second charge, the defence submitted that Accused 6 was not concerned at all. He did not know that the POWs had been executed. He believed the story of Staff Officer Okamoto and of the guard commander to be true that the POWs had been sent to Tokyo. There was no fact that he issued any order or instruction to dispose of the corpses of the POWs mentioned both in the 1st and 2nd charges. The defence argued that the testimony of Prosecution witness Komori was based on mere opinion, the statement itself told this, and his opinion was quite improper.

The prosecution argued that he also gave a 'revised version' after Okamoto's death sentence.

In conclusion, the prosecution submitted that according to the Abstract of Evidence, all the accused were concerned in the killings as stated in the charges and on their own admission, all (or their representatives) were at the aforesaid conference and all openly and tacitly approved of the 'redisposed' measures, while certainly ALL since, have connived at and abetted the War Crimes by evading the truth, denying the facts and or holding their peace.

D.J.A.G.'s review:
The D.J.A.G. took the evidence as a whole and said that there was ample testimony to support the charges that the accused were concerned in the execution. He advised the findings and sentences to be confirmed.
Accused 4 probably received the most severe sentence due to his rank in the 10th Special Base Unit and involvement in the case. The rest of the accused received relatively uniform sentences.