MIA Facts Site

It Just
Keeps On
Getting Deeper

Summary.  Have you read the first article ("Were Two Americans . . . ") and the second article (And These People Want . . .) in this series?  If not, go back and read them in order.  Get some coffee first -- both are long and boring.   Now, here comes the third installment.


Attn.:  All:

Please give the following statements as much widespread public distribution
as possible. 

Although it is not my, Dave Murray's, or Steve Golding's intention to
discredit or destroy all of the well-meaning efforts of the national
organization of VVA as a whole or the collective camaraderie of its
individual chapters, its current National POW/MIA Chair is now being held
directly responsible for providing answers regarding Mr. Necci's contact with
2 Americans in Laos which, by his own admission was made last March and
discussed in an e-mail with one Randall W. Armann on March 5th, 2000 while
still overseas in Laos as part of  the Veterans Initiative Task Force. 

Please bear in mind that there has been no attempt on the part of Dave,
Steve, or myself to imply that these men are POWs, however Mr. Necci has, in
a March 5th e-mail (of which we each have a copy) clearly stated that the men
have made claims of being former American soldiers... miss their homes and
families... and are currently "paying a heavy price for their decisions."

All efforts to resolve this matter quietly with Mr. Necci have been futile
and as of this date, no detailed explanation has been forthcoming other than
his recent and highly evasive "Damage Control Memo" to which Steve makes
reference below and to which I responded on September 11th with a
counter-statement of my own.

As of September 11th, both e-mail addresses connected to Mr. Necci and
AIIPOWMIAI are currently out of service.  His private e-mail is no longer in
existence and that which is connected to AIIPOWMIAI is currently not
accepting incoming correspondence.

Nonetheless, it is our hope that the following public letter from Steve to
Bob will reach him so that this matter can be resolved peaceably.

Please bear with us while we continue in our efforts to get to the bottom of
this matter.

Bob if you read this yourself, your truthful response to these simple
questions is all that is necessary to resolve this ongoing hindrance in our
efforts to learn the truth once and for all.

Please Read on...

Amanda Y. Kidd
Relative of CMSgt. James A. Preston~ MIA~ Laos
Crew of Spooky 10~ Twice-abandoned in Southeast Asia


>  Date:    9/15/00 12:09:39 AM Eastern Daylight Time
>  From:   
steveg@nyct.net (Steve Golding)
>  CC: 

>  9/14/00  Please give widest possible distribution. I apologize for any
>  duplicate copies.

>  On September 10, 2000, I wrote the following message to Mr. Bob Necci, VVA
>  National POW/MIA Chair in response to his "POW Memorandum."   This is
>  lengthy, but it also includes his memorandum for reference. In my answer
>  his memorandum, I posed certain questions to and advised him that he did
>  not have to answer me directly. That he could answer two other individuals
>  dedicated to obtaining the truth.  I further advised Mr. Necci that if I
>  received e-mail from the two individuals that state he answered the
>  questions satisfactorily, I would put out an e-mail stating that the
>  had been all cleared up and even offered to state that I made an error in
>  disparaging Bob. I truly would love to report that to be the case. Sadly,
>  cannot.

>  Necci's response has been silence and his e-mail addresses have been
>  disabled. One no longer exists and the other is not accepting mail. In
>  fairness to the VVA and VI, the Veterans Initiative Team Leader,  VVA
>  National VP Tom Corey, has written a memo whereby I  responded to earlier
>  this evening. In a few days I hope to mass mail that this matter has been
>  resolved.


>  Bob, first of all thanks for writing this. It's too bad that you decided
>  remain silent on it for months while people were asking you about the
>  incident. People like Amanda Kidd. People like Dave Murray, one of your
>  POW/MIA state chairs. People like Roger Young and people like me. All you
>  needed to do was answer some questions, Bob. This could have been handled
>  discreetly rather than by putting the proverbial gun to your head.

>  Be that as it may, the answer below is unsatisfactory. It amounts to
>  control.

>  What you are claiming does not make sense, so perhaps you can help me out
>  here. You claim that the misinformed and misguided have destroyed a 14
>  network of dedicated individuals who follow-up on the live POW portion of
>  the issue. Can you elaborate on how it was destroyed? I mean, afterall,
>  Bob, we were looking for answers from you-one of the so called
>  keep the rest of us informed. When we requested, month after month, for
>  information from you your response was to not respond. How would you have
>  handled this if our roles were reversed, Bob? Need I remind you of Hendon
>  again or Tim Castle? You want to talk potential damage, Bob?

>  Tell us all about these investigations, Bob. Tell us what was produced in
>  the 14 years that these investigations took place and were subsequently
>  terminated due to this situation. And why were they terminated exactly? If
>  there is nothing to hide, then you hide nothing! It sounds like something
>  was going on that bringing this to light caused it to be terminated but
>  since you refuse to answer questions we cannot determine what it was that
>  was terminated. We only have your word on that.

>  By not responding to some questions, I have to tell you that your word is
>  in serious question right now.

>  You claim that you were approached in SEA in Dec. of 1999 by individual(s)
>  who told you that they had information on Americans but that it would cost
>  cash. I guess you forgot about the POW reward offered by Hendon that has
>  been given widespread attention and which you were briefed on when we all
>  were briefed at an Alliance of Families meeting several years ago. There
>  didn't need to be any negotiation, Bob. You could've flat out told them
>  that 2.5 million dollars was available. But OK, you said what you said.

>  Following your meeting with one individual in December 1999, the
>  who appeared Asian and may have been drinking, you thanked everyone for
>  their humanitarian effort and left to return to your hotel? Humanitarian
>  effort? Isn't that straight out of the USG handbook on dealing with this
>  nations highest priority? But OK, you say you thanked them and departed.
>  You make note here that he was not of Vietnam era aged. This was in
>  December 1999. Stay with me Bob, because I am one of the uninformed
>  sarcastic I may be.

>  So now we are in Laos in December of 1999 and you are talking with a Lao
>  who purports to be a former US adviser and he tells you of former American
>  soldiers who are living in Laos. You want a meeting and he comes back to
>  you with it was not possible at that time. You then tell him you will be
>  returning on an official VVA/VI visit in Feb/Mar. He agrees to set up a
>  meeting during your official visit.

>  So let me ask you, just because I need to clarify, are you somehow
>  that because your trip in Dec. 1999 was privately funded, (which I am not
>  YET getting into) and the Lao could not set-up a meet between you and the
>  alleged Americans, that somehow translates to the official visit as being
>  private because of this delay? Or don't I get it?

>  But let's continue. You report the above incidents of a privately funded
>  excursion to see friends whose homes had been devastated by floods, you
>  report these incidents to the BOD of the VVA and the POW/MIA Committee and
>  the VI Committee so they could....? Is this the point that this changes
>  from private to official? Just for clarification.

>  Here's a question: When did you become involved with the subject known as
>  Randy Armann? Was this before the privately funded trip to see friends
>  whose homes had been destroyed? Did he give you information that led to
>  of the contacts that you claim above, prior to the official visit in

>  So now you are on an official visit to SEA.

>  On 2/25/00 you met with 2 individuals whereby you claim "Both individuals
>  did not appear to be of Vietnam era age. Their nationality could not be
>  discerned, but they appeared to be Caucasian. They had a fair command of
>  the English language. Their dress was counterculture. One did ask if I
>  could give him some money. Our discussion covered many topics. The one
>  intrigued them the most was the work of the Veterans Initiative and why at
>  this late date we would still be involved in this activity." I almost want
>  to ask if they had been drinking, but I won't get insulting.

>  Then you go on to claim that your March 5 e-mail you admit writing to
>  Armann from SEA covered the period of Dec. 1999 through 2/25/00; am I
>  getting this right? And this is now twice that you met with
>  non-Vietnam-era-aged individuals, right? Dec. 1999 and 2/25/00. If I
>  your piece below correctly.

>  Yet in your March 5 e-mail to Armann you didn't state that their was a
>  question of their ages nor that you could not discern their nationality.
>  fact, you allude to them being Americans in that they missed their former
>  homeland and their families. And that they are paying a high price for
>  their decisions. Why is that Bob? Why didn't you mention your concerns
>  in that 3/5/00 e-mail from a communist country? Moreover, if the
>  information didn't pan out why did you e-mail Armann while you were in SEA
>  and give him a heads-up on your itinerary? That's one of the things I am
>  having a problem with.

>  And although the piece below states that you decided to stay on in Saigon
>  when the rest of the VI team departed for the States on March 9, you
>  on, according to the information below, to visit with a family that you
>  knew there. That is what you offer as the very reason why you extended
>  stay. You insinuate that it was just to visit friends. You toss out the
>  last meeting in Bangkok as almost an afterthought. Your expressed reason
>  for the extension was not the humanitarian effort that you called this
>  issue in Dec 1999, it was to visit with friends.

>  Yet in another separate 3/5/00 e-mail from SEA to Armann, you write that
>  you will be extending your stay for 2 days in Thailand (completely
>  Saigon) and that you would make "discreet inquiries" on your way home. In
>  the piece below you claim that: "My last meeting was scheduled to be held
>  in Bangkok on my way home. Through a U.S. contact, I was to met an
>  individual who would provide information on "soldiers" involved in the
>  trade. I waited at the designated site
>  without contact." Was that US contact Randy Armann? You know it was. What
>  information did he give you that made enough sense to you to extend your
>  trip and please don't tell us that you stayed to visit with friends in
>  Saigon. Your meeting was in Bangkok, so even if you went out of your way
>  a couple of hours, you did go out of your way so Armann had to tell you
>  something convincing, Bob. What was it?

>  And then, when you start getting questions about the trip you give several
>  different answers:

>  You tell Amanda Kidd that respective to her query over the 3/5 e-mail that
>  Armann forwarded to her that this was a private trip and how are we going
>  to get people home if it is broadcast all over the internet.

>  You tell Roger Young that there are questions over the individuals
>  nationalities, that they are not Vietnam-era aged and their allegations
>  were in question. (Bob I notice the absence of alleged allegations made by
>  the 2 individuals in your damage control piece below. By the way, WHAT
>  the allegations made by the 2 individuals?)

>  And you tell Beverly Haire that the individuals that you met were retirees
>  in SEA and there was nothing to Randy's stories.

>  Yet, you continued to communicate with Randy Armann at least through April
>  19 2000 of which I have a copy.

>  Lastly, Bob, you give us official VVA/VI policy about reporting such
>  incidents. You claim that policy dictates that reports are filed with
>  with the Casualty Office and with the National League of Families. You did
>  not say that you DID report these particular incidents, you tell us what
>  the official VVA/VI policy is. You withhold this type of information from
>  your own membership and you withhold it from the very community that you
>  claim that you are serving.

>  How do you reconcile the fax network and AIIPOWMIA to the fact that Bob
>  Necci withholds information from the very people he claims that he is
> serving?

>  How do you reconcile your contact with Armann and the fact that you are
>  still attempting to conceal your contact below by telling all that you
>  to meet an individual "through a US contact" who would provide information
>  on soldiers involved in the drug trade?

>  And, Bob, if the 2 individuals that you made contact with were not in the
>  PMSEA, the Brightlight List and the Vietnam Casualty List, whereby you
>  concluded that the names presented were fictitious; if this is so then the
>  very policy that you cite as an explanation for your silence would not be
>  required to be adhered to in this instance. If their names are not in the
>  PMSEA, the Brightight list or the Vietnam Casualty List, then you don't
>  need to report it to DPMO. If they are not in the PMSEA, the Brightlight
>  list or the Vietnam Casualty List, what Casualty Office could you report
>  to? And if they are not in the PMSEA, the Brightlight list or the Vietnam
>  Casualty List, then what families are involved that would require a report
>  to the National League of Families? In short, what did you have to report
>  to them that precluded your reporting it to us if the individuals did not
>  meet the criteria you cited as an explanation for your silence?

>  So citing the policy does not explain; it just creates more questions.
>  Questions of credibility. And if that is the VVA/VI policy, then that
>  should raise red flags to anyone that has ever given a dime, not to
>  the skirting of laws governing tax exempt status.

>  Bob, VVA funds were expended. VI funds were expended. Policy
>  notwithstanding, there are legal issues here. Issues that could effect the
>  tax exempt status of the VVA. I'm not putting their exempt status in
>  jeopardy. I'm not putting their credibility in jeopardy. You are. I'm just
>  going to follow-up until answers are forthcoming and reasonable; not
>  insulting the collective intelligence of the POW/MIA community. Secrecy is
>  how the USG has fostered this issue on us. When we said we'd never allow
>  this to happen again, we never dreamed that we'd be demanding answers from
>  you or the VVA/VI.

>  Here is what I am prepared to do. You answer the questions to Roger Young
>  and Dave Murray. If I get an e-mail from them telling me that your answers
>  satisfactorily puts these questions behind us, then I will send out
>  mass mailing telling folks that you've given satisfactory answers to the
>  questions, that there is nothing to the Armann-Necci connection and I,
>  depending on what Roger and Dave tell me, may go far as to say that I made
>  an error and take whatever heat comes my way for disparaging you. That is
>  what I am prepared to do. This is a way out of this mess, Bob, and I
>  believe that I am being generous. But the answers had better be
>  satisfactory and not another attempt like the one below.

>  I never wanted to take it this far in the first place, Bob. You forced the
>  issue and IMHO you still are. If you decide to decline I will follow-up
>  publicly and I will also take this to the Department of Justice to demand
>  full audit of the VVAs books and damn you for putting me in this position.

>  You cannot have it both ways. You cannot claim you are providing answers
>  the families and the POW/MIA community while citing a policy that
>  you from reporting to US. You sound more like a government agency when you
>  cite crap like that rather than an organization that is supposed to be
>  getting answers on comrades that were left behind on the battefield.

>  Take notice, Bob, that I am copying only a few people and asking that they
>  hold this until I release it. Again I am setting a deadline. But this time
>  I'll set 96 hours to give you more time to consider your options and
>  coordinate with National. I am not out to destroy anyone or the VVA/VI.
>  VI was one of my brightest hopes, once.

>  For the record, I am not enjoying this. I shouldn't have to force you to
>  report to us. I shouldn't have to spend the monumental amount of time
>  forcing you and an organization that is supposed to be fighting for us to
>  give us a credible response to legitimate questions.

>  I hope that you will do the right thing here, Bob, but I am prepared to go
>  all the way with this.

>  Steve Golding

>  At 02:19 PM 9/10/00 -0400, you wrote:
>  Advocacy And Intelligence Index
>  For Prisoners Of War/Missing In Action, Inc.
>  (
>  Bob Necci and Andi Wolos

>  aiisep10.00a


>  TO: The POW/MIA Community

>  FROM: Bob Necci


>  DATE: September 9, 2000

>  The allegations, misinformation, disinformation and suppositions recently
>  posted on the Internet concerning myself, have irretrievable destroyed a
>  14-year network of dedicated individuals who were investigating and
> following
>  up on leads of "live American POWs," which had become known through the
>  length and breath of the POW/MIA Community.

>  The uninformed and misguided have taken my silence as a sign of cover-up.
>  When in fact, it was for the protection of those who had contributed a
>  significant portion of their lives and financial resources to "seek the
>  truth," wherever it may have taken them. They were informed of this
> situation
>  and all investigations were terminated.

>  In December 1999, I undertook a privately funded trip to Vietnam and Laos.
>  went to visit friends in Vietnam who had lost their homes to the
>  floods and storms and in Laos to follow up on information that had been
>  available to me. It was during the Vietnam trip that individuals who said
>  they knew the whereabouts of "American POWs" in Vietnam approached me. I
>  asked to meet with these "Americans." They said it could be arranged, but
>  would cost "American dollars." As is my custom, I stated that I would meet
>  with these individuals and if it turns out that they are who they said they
>  are, then, we would negotiate a finder's fee. They agreed.

>  Two nights later, I was introduced to an individual. His appearance was
>  Asian. His English was very poor. His age was not Vietnam-era and he could
>  not answer the most rudimentary questions about the U.S. or the Vietnam
>  He had also been drinking.

>  Following this conversation, I thanked everyone for their humanitarian
>  concern and departed for my hotel. One of the individuals followed me for a
>  short way asking for money for his help. I declined and continued my return
>  to the hotel.

>  During my visit to Laos, I made contact with an individual [Lao Advisor to
>  U.S. forces, his story], (from information provide to me in the U.S.), who
>  said he knew of two former American soldiers living in Laos. I asked him if
>  he could set up a meeting while I was in Vientiane. Several hours later, he
>  returned to my hotel and said it was not possible at this time. I informed
>  him that I would be returning in the February/March period as part of the
>  Vietnam Veterans of America, Veterans Initiative Task Force. He agreed to
> set
>  up the meeting at that time.

>  It was at this time that he informed me of the "unknown" crash site. With
>  great difficulty and a small sum of up front money, we departed for the
>  field. By evening, we bedded down and left again in the early morning. By
>  midmorning, we arrived at an area in which he was told an aircraft had gone
>  down. I could fine no visible evidence of a crash. I returned disappointed.

>  At the January 2000 Vietnam Veterans of America, board of directors
>  I reported the Vietnam encounter at both the national POW/MIA Committee
>  meeting and the Veterans Initiative Task Force meeting.

>  On February 25, 2000, the Veterans Initiative Task Force flew into
>  Laos. Following an evening dinner at the home of the Ambassador, the
> Veterans
>  Initiative delegation returned to the hotel. All retired, except for
>  I waited for the first of my two scheduled meetings, which had been agreed
> to
>  in December 1999. One to be held at the outside patio of the hotel and the
>  other about mile from the hotel at a small Christian church.

>  Both individuals did not appear to be of Vietnam era age. Their nationality
>  could not be discerned, but they appeared to be Caucasian. They had a fair
>  command of the English language. Their dress was counterculture. One did
>  if I could give him some money. Our discussion covered many topics. The one
>  that intrigued them the most was the work of the Veterans Initiative and
>  at this late date we would still be involved in this activity.

>  The March 5 email covered the period beginning with the December trip and
>  intervening time, through and in conjunction with the February/March trip.

>  On March 9, 2000, the Veterans Initiative Team departed for the U.S. I
>  remained in Saigon for several days to visit with a family I knew there.

>  My last meeting was scheduled to be held in Bangkok on my way home.
> a
>  U.S. contact, I was to met an individual who would provide information on
>  "soldiers" involved in the drug trade. I waited at the designated site
>  without contact.

>  At the April Vietnam Veterans of America board of directors meeting, I
>  informed the national POW/MIA Committee and the Veterans Initiative Task
>  Force of my meetings with the individuals in Lao. I informed the committees
>  that I had checked the names against the Personnel Missing in Southeast
>  List, the Brightlight List and the Vietnam Casualty List, concluding that
> the
>  names presented were fictitious.

>  It has been the policy of Vietnam Veterans of America that information,
> which
>  references any family member, is to be turned over to the Defense Prisoner
> Of
>  War/Missing Personnel Office, Joint Task Force-Full Accounting, the Service
>  Casualty Officer (who forwards it to the family) and the National League of
>  Families. The Veterans Initiative Task Force and POW/MIA Committee strictly
>  adhere to this policy.

>  Information, which cannot be documented or verified, is reported to
> committee
>  and the matter is then considered closed.

>  **********************************************************
>  DISCLAIMER: The content of this message is the sole responsibility of the
>  originator. Posting of this message to the POW/MIA E-MAIL NETWORK(c)
>  list does not constitute AIIPOWMIAI endorsement. It is provided so that you
>  may be informed of current information. AIIPOWMIAI is not associated in any
>  capacity with any United States Government agency or entity, nor with any
>  nongovernmental organization.

>  **COPYRIGHT NOTICE** In accordance with Title 17 U. S. C. Section 107, any
>  copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use without
> profit
>  or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the
>  included information for nonprofit research and educational purposes only.
>  [Ref.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml ]

>  Advocacy And Intelligence Index
>  For Prisoners Of War/Missing In Action, Inc.
>  1220 Locust Avenue, Bohemia, Long Island, New York 11716-2169 USA
>  Voice: (1-631) 567-9057 Fax: (1-631) 244-7097 TDD: (1-631) 244-6996
>  E-mail:
BobNecci@aol.com (Bob Necci)
andi@earthlink.net (Andi Wolos)
>  Website:


What a farce.