Richard E. Sprague

[John Simkin]

Richard E. Sprague graduated from Purdue University in 1942. He was employed as an engineer at Northrup Aircraft. In in 1950 he co-founded the Computer Research Corporation in Hawthorne, California in 1950 and served as Vice President of Sales. In 1960, he became the Director of Computer Systems Consulting for Touche, Ross, Bailey, and Smart.

In 1966 Sprague began his research into the photographic evidence associated with the assassination of John F. Kennedy. He served a year as photographic expert advisor in the investigations conducted by New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison and had amassed and analyzed a majority of the known evidence on film by 1968 when he CO-founded the Committee to Investigate Assassinations.

In 1968 Sprague established Sprague Research and Consulting for Computer Information Systems Consultation. Later he worked as a full time consultant to the Battelle Memorial Institute of Frankfurt, Germany.

Sprague worked as an advisor to Henry Gonzalez on House Resolution 203 which proposed the appointment of a committee to investigate the circumstances surrounding the deaths of John F. Kennedy, Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King. He later served as a consultant to Richard A. Sprague and G. Robert Blakey, the first and second General Counsels of the House Select Committee on Assassinations.

Sprague worked with Dick Russell on In Search of the Assassins (1977). He also published The Taking of America in 1985. In the book he names the following as being involved in the assassination of John F. Kennedy: William Seymour, Clay Shaw, David Ferrie, Guy Banister, Louis M. Bloomfield, Loran Hall, Lawrence Howard, Harry Dean, Richard Case Nagell, Sergio Arcacha Smith, Carlos Prio, Herminio Diaz Garcia, Jim Braden (alias Eugene Hale Brading), John Howard Bowen (alias Albert Osborne), Ronald Augustinovich, Mary Hope, Emilio Santana, Fred Lee Crisman and Jim Hicks.

The book can be read online here:

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/ToA/ToA.html#TOC

[Tim Gratz]

John wrote:

Richard E. Sprague worked as an advisor to Henry Gonzalez on House Resolution 203 which proposed the appointment of a committee to investigate the circumstances surrounding the deaths of John F. Kennedy, Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King. He later served as a consultant to Richard A. Sprague...

What John does not tell you is that in his book RES states that the members of the shadowy Power Control Group somehow "brainwashed" Henry Gonzalez into turning on RAS, thereby allowing the appointment of G. Robert Blakey and, per RES, the continuation of the cover-up.

RES does not suggest how this brainwashing occurred. Perhaps Gonzalez was hypnotized?

The Gonzalez brainwashing is only one of the many outlandish theories in RES' book. It also appears, for instance, that he wrongfully accused a Jewish-American book publisher of being a CIA front.

I think weberman once wrote that if Gerry Hemming did not like anyone he would put them in Dallas. It appears if RES did not like anyone he makes them a CIA agent or (WORSE!) a member of the (shhh!) Power Control Group.

It appears that absence of evidence never seemed to interfere with the pen of RES.

John, Harry Dean has denied any role in the assassination of JFK. Do you believe him?

And as you know in his book RES claims that William Turner had discovered that a group with which myself and my old buddy Donald Segretti were involved was funding Arthur Bremer. But I deny that, and Turner says he never told that to RES nor does he have any information linking me or Segretti to Bremer.

As far as cannons go, one does not get much looser than RES. He should have stuck to his photographs. His grand theorizing must have mad him delusional.

And by the way, although you reacted negatively to my suggestion of libel suits against Shanet and others, do you not remember why you once asked me, on this very forum, why I had not sued Sprague for what he wrote about me (implying that the failure to sue could be an indicia of guilt)?

Edited July 31, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[Jack White]

Richard E. Sprague graduated from Purdue University in 1942. He was employed as an engineer at Northrup Aircraft. In in 1950 he co-founded the Computer Research Corporation in Hawthorne, California in 1950 and served as Vice President of Sales. In 1960, he became the Director of Computer Systems Consulting for Touche, Ross, Bailey, and Smart.

In 1966 Sprague began his research into the photographic evidence associated with the assassination of John F. Kennedy. He served a year as photographic expert advisor in the investigations conducted by New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison and had amassed and analyzed a majority of the known evidence on film by 1968 when he CO-founded the Committee to Investigate Assassinations.

In 1968 Sprague established Sprague Research and Consulting for Computer Information Systems Consultation. Later he worked as a full time consultant to the Battelle Memorial Institute of Frankfurt, Germany.

Sprague worked as an advisor to Henry Gonzalez on House Resolution 203 which proposed the appointment of a committee to investigate the circumstances surrounding the deaths of John F. Kennedy, Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King. He later served as a consultant to Richard A. Sprague and G. Robert Blakey, the first and second General Counsels of the House Select Committee on Assassinations.

Sprague worked with Dick Russell on In Search of the Assassins (1977). He also published The Taking of America in 1985. In the book he names the following as being involved in the assassination of John F. Kennedy: William Seymour, Clay Shaw, David Ferrie, Guy Banister, Louis M. Bloomfield, Loran Hall, Lawrence Howard, Harry Dean, Richard Case Nagell, Sergio Arcacha Smith, Carlos Prio, Herminio Diaz Garcia, Jim Braden (alias Eugene Hale Brading), John Howard Bowen (alias Albert Osborne), Ronald Augustinovich, Mary Hope, Emilio Santana, Fred Lee Crisman and Jim Hicks.

The book can be read online here:

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/ToA/ToA.html#TOC

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

John...you must add some important stuff about Dick. He was the first critic to investigate the PHOTOGRAPHIC ASPECT OF THE CASE. He collected about 500 important photos directly from the sources. He was the first to publicize the arrest of the tramps. He wrote frequent articles on the case for the trade magazine COMPUTERS AND AUTOMATION. He was one of three PHOTO CONSULTANTS to the HSCA (along with Robert Groden and Jack White). In our work for the committee I got to know Dick and Robert very well. All three of us were forced by Blakey to sign SECRECY AGREEMENTS, but Dick SIGNED UNDER PROTEST, which he made a part of the committee records. He had a massive slide presentation which he showed frequently, and he and close friend Robert Cutler made frequent appearances on radio talk shows. Dick was a very nice guy, and I had frequent correspondence with him. He wrote frequent early articles and was a major influence on me and many other early researchers.

Jack

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

John wrote: 

Richard E. Sprague worked as an advisor to Henry Gonzalez on House Resolution 203 which proposed the appointment of a committee to investigate the circumstances surrounding the deaths of John F. Kennedy, Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King. He later served as a consultant to Richard A. Sprague...

What John does not tell you is that in his book RES states that the members of the shadowy Power Control Group somehow "brainwashed" Henry Gonzalez into turning on RAS, thereby allowing the appointment of G. Robert Blakey and, per RES, the continuation of the cover-up.

RES does not suggest how this brainwashing occurred. Perhaps Gonzalez was hypnotized?

I can't vouch for the "brainwashing" or your "hypnosis" theory, but the rest are simply the facts of the matter.  It was an orchestrated campaign against Sprague in DC that led to an open clash of wills between Gonzalez and Sprague.  One of them had to go, so Sprague did the honourable thing.  That didn't save Gonzalez from a similar fate, however, now did it?

In the process, the two key players who actually gave a rat's ass about the case were removed from positions of power to investigate the case, and were replaced with persons of somewhat less firm resolve.    

The Gonzalez brainwashing is only one of the many outlandish theories in RES' book.  It also appears, for instance, that he wrongfully accused a Jewish-American book publisher of being a CIA front.

Excuse me, but what does being "Jewish-American" have to do with anything?  Do you identify yourself as being a "Protestant-American" or "Catholic-American" [or whatever your religion might be?]  Does the fact that one is Jewish take precedence over being "American" in your book?  Or is it that by citing his Jewish heritage, you seek to make it appear that the man in question couldn't possibly have fronted for CIA?  Or is this to be inferred as a token of your great liberalism?  Please do elaborate on the necessity for this hyphenated distinction. 

I think weberman once wrote that if Gerry Hemming did not like anyone he would put them in Dallas. 

Keen observer, that Weberman.  For most of us however, we don't need a Weberman to know which way the wind blows.

It appears if RES did not like anyone he makes them a CIA agent or (WORSE!) a member of the (shhh!) Power Control Group.

It appears that absence of evidence never seemed to interfere with the pen of RES.

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.  Takes one to know one, Tim.  Think about it.

John, Harry Dean has denied any role in the assassination of JFK.  Do you believe him?

I do not believe that Harry had a direct and witting role in murdering the President.  However, by Harry's own admission, he was directly involved in the very milieu that he suspects was responsible for that assassination, and - what's more - was manipulated into playing that role by others who appealed to his patriotism.  You'll also note that Harry's list of suspected conspirators and Sprague's list do have some names in common.  Hence, your effort to paint them as diametrically opposed is not quite on the mark.  I hope Harry will weigh in with his own comments.

Now, given that Sprague drew the wrong conclusion about Harry, but based upon an essentially correct set of facts, how does that contrast with his mention of you?  As was the case with Harry, I do not believe that you had a direct and witting role in the attempted murder of Wallace.  But, like Harry, you were directly involved in the very milieu - Donald Segretti, Tony Ulasewicz - that was alleged to have influenced, manipulated or steered Arthur Bremer toward his date with destiny. 

Harry awoke one day to realize that he was involved with a bunch of right wing lunatics who fantasized aloud about murdering the President.  Just as you awoke one day to realize you were involved with a bunch of right wing lunatics [you saw only the Segretti tip of that iceberg, apparently], who fantasized aloud about destroying the Presidential aspirations of a legitimate Democratic candidate who was twice the man your own candidate turned out to be.  You may have simply been an innocent waif who found himself caught up in things bigger and darker than he could understand.  You and Harry may both have been unfairly depicted as a result, but you have no way of knowing which "group" Segretti and Cassini may have been fronting for, any more than Harry can know for certain who was manipulating him and the group with which he was associating at the time.  You and Harry have far more in common than merely being slagged by Sprague.    

And as you know in his book RES claims that William Turner had discovered that a group with which myself and my old buddy Donald Segretti were involved was funding Arthur Bremer.  But I deny that, and Turner says he never told that to RES nor does he have any information linking me or Segretti to Bremer.

As usual, you begin with a conclusion and work backwards, positing too much based upon too little.  In this case, you purport to rebut accusations never made.  Sprague does not say that Turner told him anything.  Nor did Sprague say that Turner knew anything about you.  It's one sentence, Tim, and it's nowhere near as damning of you as you make it appear, though you conflate it into strawmen of your own invention for the singular purpose of mocking your own irrelevant conclusions.  Let's break it down, shall we? 

The cost of Bremer's travels and accommodation far surpassed his income.  Somebody was funding Bremer, and unless you were involved, you have no way of knowing who that was.  Since you had only a peripheral contact with Segretti, you cannot presume to speak for him, or whatever "group" he [and/or Cassini] may have represented.  Without knowing which "group" Sprague was referring to - YAF, perhaps? - you are in no position to definitively declare this impossible. 

Moreover, Turner may well have developed information suggestive of that "group"'s identity.  Whether or not Turner passed it directly to Sprague, that one fact could have made its way to Sprague, and Sprague then identified Segretti and Cassini as being operatives affiliated with the "group."  The question, then, is how he came to select the name of a relative non-entity from Wisconsin for inclusion in that "group."        

As far as cannons go, one does not get much looser than RES.  He should have stuck to his photographs.  His grand theorizing must have mad him delusional.

People who live in glass houses.... need a lot of Windex.

And by the way, although you reacted negatively to my suggestion of libel suits against Shanet and others, do you not remember why you once asked me, on this very forum, why I had not sued Sprague for what he wrote about me (implying that the failure to sue could be an indicia of guilt)?

Actually, ex-counsellor, a failure to sue a first offender gives all subsequent offenders a legal basis to defend against any suits against them, citing a lack of legal action against the first offender as precedence.  This is true in libel law, as well as copyright or trademark infringement, etc.  It doesn't indicate guilt; merely a legal sloppiness that might prove fatal to a plaintiff's later legal efforts.  It's all a matter of what precedent one is prepared to allow to stand.  Sprague's book was first printed nearly 30 years ago.  Were Sprague still alive, and you sued him, any judge would ask why you waited so long, wouldn't he? 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Edited July 31, 2005 by Robert Charles-Dunne

[John Simkin]

John, Harry Dean has denied any role in the assassination of JFK.  Do you believe him?

And as you know in his book RES claims that William Turner had discovered that a group with which myself and my old buddy Donald Segretti were involved was funding Arthur Bremer.  But I deny that, and Turner says he never told that to RES nor does he have any information linking me or Segretti to Bremer.

Robert has already explained why members of the Forum accepted his answer. You are indeed another case.

The section where Sprague's refers to you is very short. See:

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/ToA/ToAchp8.html

At the end of the section he includes the following references. Although he mentions Turner in relation to you, in theory it could be any of the following:

"Report of an Investigation" by William Turner for the Committee on Government Intelligence.

"Bremer Wallace and Hunt", The New York Review of Books -- Gore Vidal -- December 13, 1973.

"The Wallace Shooting" -- Alan Stang -- American Opinion -- October, 1972.

"Why Was Wallace Shot?" -- R.F. Salant -- Self Published -- Monsey, N.Y.

"Interview With Charles Colson" -- Dick Russell -- Argosy -- March, 1976.

[J. Raymond Carroll]

I would support the removal of Tim Gratz from this forum. The reason is simply that I am convinced that Tim has no interest in solving the asassination of JFK. I offer the following from C.S. Peirce:

§4. The First Rule of Reason1

135. Upon this first, and in one sense this sole, rule of reason, that in order to learn you must desire to learn, and in so desiring not be satisfied with what you already incline to think, there follows one corollary which itself deserves to be inscribed upon every wall of the city of philosophy:

Do not block the way of inquiry.

136. Although it is better to be methodical in our investigations, and to consider the economics of research, yet there is no positive sin against logic in trying any theory which may come into our heads, so long as it is adopted in such a sense as to permit the investigation to go on unimpeded and undiscouraged. On the other hand, to set up a philosophy which barricades the road of further advance toward the truth is the one unpardonable offence in reasoning, as it is also the one to which metaphysicians have in all ages shown themselves the most addicted.

Let me call your attention to four familiar shapes in which this venomous error assails our knowledge:

137. The first is the shape of absolute assertion. That we can be sure of nothing in science is an ancient truth. The Academy taught it. Yet science has been infested with overconfident assertion, especially on the part of the third-rate and fourth-rate men, who have been more concerned with teaching than with learning, at all times. No doubt some of the geometries still teach as a self-evident truth the

proposition that if two straight lines in one plane meet a third straight line so as to make the sum of the internal angles on one side less than two right angles those two lines will meet on that side if sufficiently prolonged. Euclid, whose logic was more careful, only reckoned this proposition as a Postulate, or arbitrary Hypothesis. Yet even he places among his axioms the proposition that a part is less than its whole, and falls into several conflicts with our most modern geometry in consequence. But why need we stop to consider cases where some subtilty of thought is required to see that the assertion is not warranted when every book which applies philosophy to the conduct of life lays down as positive certainty propositions which it is quite as easy to doubt as to believe?

138. The second bar which philosophers often set up across the roadway of inquiry lies in maintaining that this, that, and the other never can be known. When Auguste Comte was pressed to specify any matter of positive fact to the knowledge of which no man could by any possibility attain, he instanced the knowledge of the chemical composition of the fixed stars; and you may see his answer set down in the Philosophie positive.1) But the ink was scarcely dry upon the printed page before the spectroscope was discovered and that which he had deemed absolutely unknowable was well on the way of getting ascertained. It is easy enough to mention a question the answer to which is not known to me today. But to aver that that answer will not be known tomorrow is somewhat risky; for oftentimes it is precisely the least expected truth which is turned up under the ploughshare of research. And when it comes to positive assertion that the truth never will be found out, that, in the light of the history of our time, seems to me more hazardous than the venture of Andrée.2)

139. The third philosophical stratagem for cutting off inquiry consists in maintaining that this, that, or the other element of science is basic, ultimate, independent of aught else, and utterly inexplicable — not so much from any defect in our knowing as because there is nothing beneath it to know. The only type of reasoning by which such a conclusion could possibly be reached is retroduction. Now nothing justifies a retroductive inference except its affording an explanation of the facts. It is, however, no explanation at all of a fact to pronounce it inexplicable. That, therefore, is a conclusion which no reasoning can ever justify or excuse.

140. The last philosophical obstacle to the advance of knowledge which I intend to mention is the holding that this or that law or truth has found its last and perfect formulation — and especially that the ordinary and usual course of nature never can be broken through. »Stones do not fall from heaven,« said Laplace, although they had been falling upon inhabited ground every day from the earliest times. But there is no kind of inference which can lend the slightest probability to any such absolute denial of an unusual phenomenon.

[Jack White]

I would support the removal of Tim Gratz from this forum. The reason is simply that I am convinced that Tim has no interest in solving the asassination of JFK. I offer the following from C.S. Peirce:

SNIPPED IN INTEREST OF SPACE

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I can name 3 or 4 other candidates whose sole objectives are to insult and obfuscate. They offer no advancements to the case.

Jack

[Harry J.Dean]

John wrote: 

Richard E. Sprague worked as an advisor to Henry Gonzalez on House Resolution 203 which proposed the appointment of a committee to investigate the circumstances surrounding the deaths of John F. Kennedy, Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King. He later served as a consultant to Richard A. Sprague...

What John does not tell you is that in his book RES states that the members of the shadowy Power Control Group somehow "brainwashed" Henry Gonzalez into turning on RAS, thereby allowing the appointment of G. Robert Blakey and, per RES, the continuation of the cover-up.

RES does not suggest how this brainwashing occurred. Perhaps Gonzalez was hypnotized?

I can't vouch for the "brainwashing" or your "hypnosis" theory, but the rest are simply the facts of the matter.  It was an orchestrated campaign against Sprague in DC that led to an open clash of wills between Gonzalez and Sprague.  One of them had to go, so Sprague did the honourable thing.  That didn't save Gonzalez from a similar fate, however, now did it?

In the process, the two key players who actually gave a rat's ass about the case were removed from positions of power to investigate the case, and were replaced with persons of somewhat less firm resolve.    

The Gonzalez brainwashing is only one of the many outlandish theories in RES' book.  It also appears, for instance, that he wrongfully accused a Jewish-American book publisher of being a CIA front.

Excuse me, but what does being "Jewish-American" have to do with anything?  Do you identify yourself as being a "Protestant-American" or "Catholic-American" [or whatever your religion might be?]  Does the fact that one is Jewish take precedence over being "American" in your book?  Or is it that by citing his Jewish heritage, you seek to make it appear that the man in question couldn't possibly have fronted for CIA?  Or is this to be inferred as a token of your great liberalism?  Please do elaborate on the necessity for this hyphenated distinction. 

I think weberman once wrote that if Gerry Hemming did not like anyone he would put them in Dallas. 

Keen observer, that Weberman.  For most of us however, we don't need a Weberman to know which way the wind blows.

It appears if RES did not like anyone he makes them a CIA agent or (WORSE!) a member of the (shhh!) Power Control Group.

It appears that absence of evidence never seemed to interfere with the pen of RES.

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.  Takes one to know one, Tim.  Think about it.

John, Harry Dean has denied any role in the assassination of JFK.  Do you believe him?

I do not believe that Harry had a direct and witting role in murdering the President.  However, by Harry's own admission, he was directly involved in the very milieu that he suspects was responsible for that assassination, and - what's more - was manipulated into playing that role by others who appealed to his patriotism.  You'll also note that Harry's list of suspected conspirators and Sprague's list do have some names in common.  Hence, your effort to paint them as diametrically opposed is not quite on the mark.  I hope Harry will weigh in with his own comments.

Now, given that Sprague drew the wrong conclusion about Harry, but based upon an essentially correct set of facts, how does that contrast with his mention of you?  As was the case with Harry, I do not believe that you had a direct and witting role in the attempted murder of Wallace.  But, like Harry, you were directly involved in the very milieu - Donald Segretti, Tony Ulasewicz - that was alleged to have influenced, manipulated or steered Arthur Bremer toward his date with destiny. 

Harry awoke one day to realize that he was involved with a bunch of right wing lunatics who fantasized aloud about murdering the President.  Just as you awoke one day to realize you were involved with a bunch of right wing lunatics [you saw only the Segretti tip of that iceberg, apparently], who fantasized aloud about destroying the Presidential aspirations of a legitimate Democratic candidate who was twice the man your own candidate turned out to be.  You may have simply been an innocent waif who found himself caught up in things bigger and darker than he could understand.  You and Harry may both have been unfairly depicted as a result, but you have no way of knowing which "group" Segretti and Cassini may have been fronting for, any more than Harry can know for certain who was manipulating him and the group with which he was associating at the time.  You and Harry have far more in common than merely being slagged by Sprague.    

And as you know in his book RES claims that William Turner had discovered that a group with which myself and my old buddy Donald Segretti were involved was funding Arthur Bremer.  But I deny that, and Turner says he never told that to RES nor does he have any information linking me or Segretti to Bremer.

As usual, you begin with a conclusion and work backwards, positing too much based upon too little.  In this case, you purport to rebut accusations never made.  Sprague does not say that Turner told him anything.  Nor did Sprague say that Turner knew anything about you.  It's one sentence, Tim, and it's nowhere near as damning of you as you make it appear, though you conflate it into strawmen of your own invention for the singular purpose of mocking your own irrelevant conclusions.  Let's break it down, shall we? 

The cost of Bremer's travels and accommodation far surpassed his income.  Somebody was funding Bremer, and unless you were involved, you have no way of knowing who that was.  Since you had only a peripheral contact with Segretti, you cannot presume to speak for him, or whatever "group" he [and/or Cassini] may have represented.  Without knowing which "group" Sprague was referring to - YAF, perhaps? - you are in no position to definitively declare this impossible. 

Moreover, Turner may well have developed information suggestive of that "group"'s identity.  Whether or not Turner passed it directly to Sprague, that one fact could have made its way to Sprague, and Sprague then identified Segretti and Cassini as being operatives affiliated with the "group."  The question, then, is how he came to select the name of a relative non-entity from Wisconsin for inclusion in that "group."        

As far as cannons go, one does not get much looser than RES.  He should have stuck to his photographs.  His grand theorizing must have mad him delusional.

People who live in glass houses.... need a lot of Windex.

And by the way, although you reacted negatively to my suggestion of libel suits against Shanet and others, do you not remember why you once asked me, on this very forum, why I had not sued Sprague for what he wrote about me (implying that the failure to sue could be an indicia of guilt)?

Actually, ex-counsellor, a failure to sue a first offender gives all subsequent offenders a legal basis to defend against any suits against them, citing a lack of legal action against the first offender as precedence.  This is true in libel law, as well as copyright or trademark infringement, etc.  It doesn't indicate guilt; merely a legal sloppiness that might prove fatal to a plaintiff's later legal efforts.  It's all a matter of what precedent one is prepared to allow to stand.  Sprague's book was first printed nearly 30 years ago.  Were Sprague still alive, and you sued him, any judge would ask why you waited so long, wouldn't he? 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

RCD & all

I did not learn of Sprague and some other authors until

after 1999, having acquired a computer late in that year.

It is quite likely that I first learned of Sprague's book on

John's Forum. I can only refer you to what is already

stated by me on this Forum.

Harry

[Harry J.Dean]

John wrote: 

Richard E. Sprague worked as an advisor to Henry Gonzalez on House Resolution 203 which proposed the appointment of a committee to investigate the circumstances surrounding the deaths of John F. Kennedy, Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King. He later served as a consultant to Richard A. Sprague...

What John does not tell you is that in his book RES states that the members of the shadowy Power Control Group somehow "brainwashed" Henry Gonzalez into turning on RAS, thereby allowing the appointment of G. Robert Blakey and, per RES, the continuation of the cover-up.

RES does not suggest how this brainwashing occurred. Perhaps Gonzalez was hypnotized?

I can't vouch for the "brainwashing" or your "hypnosis" theory, but the rest are simply the facts of the matter.  It was an orchestrated campaign against Sprague in DC that led to an open clash of wills between Gonzalez and Sprague.  One of them had to go, so Sprague did the honourable thing.  That didn't save Gonzalez from a similar fate, however, now did it?

In the process, the two key players who actually gave a rat's ass about the case were removed from positions of power to investigate the case, and were replaced with persons of somewhat less firm resolve.    

The Gonzalez brainwashing is only one of the many outlandish theories in RES' book.  It also appears, for instance, that he wrongfully accused a Jewish-American book publisher of being a CIA front.

Excuse me, but what does being "Jewish-American" have to do with anything?  Do you identify yourself as being a "Protestant-American" or "Catholic-American" [or whatever your religion might be?]  Does the fact that one is Jewish take precedence over being "American" in your book?  Or is it that by citing his Jewish heritage, you seek to make it appear that the man in question couldn't possibly have fronted for CIA?  Or is this to be inferred as a token of your great liberalism?  Please do elaborate on the necessity for this hyphenated distinction. 

I think weberman once wrote that if Gerry Hemming did not like anyone he would put them in Dallas. 

Keen observer, that Weberman.  For most of us however, we don't need a Weberman to know which way the wind blows.

It appears if RES did not like anyone he makes them a CIA agent or (WORSE!) a member of the (shhh!) Power Control Group.

It appears that absence of evidence never seemed to interfere with the pen of RES.

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.  Takes one to know one, Tim.  Think about it.

John, Harry Dean has denied any role in the assassination of JFK.  Do you believe him?

I do not believe that Harry had a direct and witting role in murdering the President.  However, by Harry's own admission, he was directly involved in the very milieu that he suspects was responsible for that assassination, and - what's more - was manipulated into playing that role by others who appealed to his patriotism.  You'll also note that Harry's list of suspected conspirators and Sprague's list do have some names in common.  Hence, your effort to paint them as diametrically opposed is not quite on the mark.  I hope Harry will weigh in with his own comments.

Now, given that Sprague drew the wrong conclusion about Harry, but based upon an essentially correct set of facts, how does that contrast with his mention of you?  As was the case with Harry, I do not believe that you had a direct and witting role in the attempted murder of Wallace.  But, like Harry, you were directly involved in the very milieu - Donald Segretti, Tony Ulasewicz - that was alleged to have influenced, manipulated or steered Arthur Bremer toward his date with destiny. 

Harry awoke one day to realize that he was involved with a bunch of right wing lunatics who fantasized aloud about murdering the President.  Just as you awoke one day to realize you were involved with a bunch of right wing lunatics [you saw only the Segretti tip of that iceberg, apparently], who fantasized aloud about destroying the Presidential aspirations of a legitimate Democratic candidate who was twice the man your own candidate turned out to be.  You may have simply been an innocent waif who found himself caught up in things bigger and darker than he could understand.  You and Harry may both have been unfairly depicted as a result, but you have no way of knowing which "group" Segretti and Cassini may have been fronting for, any more than Harry can know for certain who was manipulating him and the group with which he was associating at the time.  You and Harry have far more in common than merely being slagged by Sprague.    

And as you know in his book RES claims that William Turner had discovered that a group with which myself and my old buddy Donald Segretti were involved was funding Arthur Bremer.  But I deny that, and Turner says he never told that to RES nor does he have any information linking me or Segretti to Bremer.

As usual, you begin with a conclusion and work backwards, positing too much based upon too little.  In this case, you purport to rebut accusations never made.  Sprague does not say that Turner told him anything.  Nor did Sprague say that Turner knew anything about you.  It's one sentence, Tim, and it's nowhere near as damning of you as you make it appear, though you conflate it into strawmen of your own invention for the singular purpose of mocking your own irrelevant conclusions.  Let's break it down, shall we? 

The cost of Bremer's travels and accommodation far surpassed his income.  Somebody was funding Bremer, and unless you were involved, you have no way of knowing who that was.  Since you had only a peripheral contact with Segretti, you cannot presume to speak for him, or whatever "group" he [and/or Cassini] may have represented.  Without knowing which "group" Sprague was referring to - YAF, perhaps? - you are in no position to definitively declare this impossible. 

Moreover, Turner may well have developed information suggestive of that "group"'s identity.  Whether or not Turner passed it directly to Sprague, that one fact could have made its way to Sprague, and Sprague then identified Segretti and Cassini as being operatives affiliated with the "group."  The question, then, is how he came to select the name of a relative non-entity from Wisconsin for inclusion in that "group."        

As far as cannons go, one does not get much looser than RES.  He should have stuck to his photographs.  His grand theorizing must have mad him delusional.

People who live in glass houses.... need a lot of Windex.

And by the way, although you reacted negatively to my suggestion of libel suits against Shanet and others, do you not remember why you once asked me, on this very forum, why I had not sued Sprague for what he wrote about me (implying that the failure to sue could be an indicia of guilt)?

Actually, ex-counsellor, a failure to sue a first offender gives all subsequent offenders a legal basis to defend against any suits against them, citing a lack of legal action against the first offender as precedence.  This is true in libel law, as well as copyright or trademark infringement, etc.  It doesn't indicate guilt; merely a legal sloppiness that might prove fatal to a plaintiff's later legal efforts.  It's all a matter of what precedent one is prepared to allow to stand.  Sprague's book was first printed nearly 30 years ago.  Were Sprague still alive, and you sued him, any judge would ask why you waited so long, wouldn't he? 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

RCD & all. I did not learn of Sprague and some other authors until after 1999, having acquired a computer late in that year. It is quite likely that I first learned of Sprague's book on John's Forum. I can only refer you to what is already stated by me on this Forum.

Harry

[Tim Gratz]

Robert Charles-Dunne wrote:

Keen observer, that Weberman. For most of us however, we don't need a Weberman to know which way the wind blows.

Robert, you must know who did it!

For according to that august group, Peter, Paul & Mary, "the answer is blowing in the wind." Thus, if you know which way the wind blows without consulting the Weberman, you must be closing in on the answer.

Good line, though!

[Tim Gratz]

Robert wrote:

Harry awoke one day to realize that he was involved with a bunch of right wing lunatics who fantasized aloud about murdering the President. Just as you awoke one day to realize you were involved with a bunch of right wing lunatics [you saw only the Segretti tip of that iceberg, apparently], who fantasized aloud about destroying the Presidential aspirations of a legitimate Democratic candidate who was twice the man your own candidate turned out to be. You may have simply been an innocent waif who found himself caught up in things bigger and darker than he could understand. You and Harry may both have been unfairly depicted as a result, but you have no way of knowing which "group" Segretti and Cassini may have been fronting for, any more than Harry can know for certain who was manipulating him and the group with which he was associating at the time. You and Harry have far more in common than merely being slagged by Sprague.

A couple of points, Robert.

Segretti never fantasized with me about "destroying the aspirations of a legitimate Democratic candidate". Clearly one of his priorities was getting a spy in the Muskie campaign, and that was what he kept asking about in his repeated calls to me.

Second, I am unaware of any evidence linking Segretti to Bremer. Nor, per his phone conference with me, is Turner.

Does that necessarily mean Segretti was not involved in any manipulation of Bremer? No, but there simply is no evidence to suggest that he was.

Let's go to your point that perhaps YAF was funding Bremer. First thing to be said is where is the evidence it was? Second, why would Sprague mention my asssociation with YAF if I had nothing to do with funding Bremer? He might as well have said a group with which Segretti, Buckley and Cassini were involved.

The sloppiness of Sprague's verbiage suggests one of two things: 1) his logic was as sloppy as his language; or 2) he was being intentionally vague. If there was anything to his proposition, why did he not clearly set it forth?

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

Robert wrote:

Harry awoke one day to realize that he was involved with a bunch of right wing lunatics who fantasized aloud about murdering the President.  Just as you awoke one day to realize you were involved with a bunch of right wing lunatics [you saw only the Segretti tip of that iceberg, apparently], who fantasized aloud about destroying the Presidential aspirations of a legitimate Democratic candidate who was twice the man your own candidate turned out to be.  You may have simply been an innocent waif who found himself caught up in things bigger and darker than he could understand.  You and Harry may both have been unfairly depicted as a result, but you have no way of knowing which "group" Segretti and Cassini may have been fronting for, any more than Harry can know for certain who was manipulating him and the group with which he was associating at the time.  You and Harry have far more in common than merely being slagged by Sprague.   

A couple of points, Robert.

Segretti never fantasized with me about "destroying the aspirations of a legitimate Democratic candidate".  Clearly one of his priorities was getting a spy in the Muskie campaign, and that was what he kept asking about in his repeated calls to me.

With the intent to do what?  Find out whether Muskie would like anchovies on the 50 pizzas that would arrive in George Mitchell's name at 4 AM?  The fact that Segretti never said to you "Let's derail the Muskie campaign" doesn't alter the purpose of his mission, one that even you found so potentially damaging to Nixon in the event of disclosure and blowback that you refused to cooperate.  You knew Segretti's intent, even if he didn't spell it out for you in elaborate detail, and made the right call.  Please don't play all coy and disingenuous 33 years after you made that call. 

Second, I am unaware of any evidence linking Segretti to Bremer.  Nor, per his phone conference with me, is Turner.

Does that necessarily mean Segretti was not involved in any manipulation of Bremer?  No, but there simply is no evidence to suggest that he was.

Well, the assertion has been made by a number of people over the years, but the basis for making it seems vaporous.  You seemed like a game sort of chap, back in the day, telling Ulasewicz [or whomever your memo was addressed to] that you thought some of Segretti's ideas were well worth doing.  If Segretti had certain plans that frightened off even you, one could hypothesize a scenario in which a Bremer - the purported SDS activist - might fit into some of Segretti's plans, even without Segretti being involved in the attempt on Wallace.  Again, recall that Sprague didn't say that Segretti, Cassini or Gratz gave money to Bremer; only that he received money from a group with which all three of you were associated.     

Let's go to your point that perhaps YAF was funding Bremer.  First thing to be said is where is the evidence it was?  Second, why would Sprague mention my asssociation with YAF if I had nothing to do with funding Bremer?  He might as well have said a group with which Segretti, Buckley and Cassini were involved.

Yes, well that's precisely the point, isn't it?  We don't know what "group" he was referring to, and perhaps he stopped short of mentioning its name for fear that he might be sued by that group.  So, instead, he may have mentioned the names of the only three "group" members he knew about, as a clue to others to help identify that group, without naming it and being sued.  I am the one who mentioned the Republican party and YAF as possible "groups" to which Sprague may have referred, based on what little I know of the groups with which you were affiliated at the time.  If you were involved with other such groups, perhaps you could itemize them, so we can examine whether Segretti and Cassini were also involved with them, too.  And, once again, please note that Sprague did not accuse any of the three members he named of passing money to Bremer; only that it had been supplied to him by the "group" of which all three were members.  Help us identify that "group" and perhaps you can help to fill in a few gaps in our historical knowledge.  [All of which, of course, assumes - arguendo - that there was a kernel of truth to what Sprague wrote.]   

The sloppiness of Sprague's verbiage suggests one of two things:  1) his logic was as sloppy as his language; or 2) he was being intentionally vague. 

Given Sprague's background, when forced to choose between two propositions - "He was dumb or he was clever" - I'll opt for the latter over the former.  Clearly, Sprague could, would and should have been far more forthright in his assertions.  That he wasn't might have been due to fear. 

You have recently posted a few comments about your own fears back in the day, and the empathy it gave you for JFK witnesses who were intimidated into silence, or altering their testimony.  Extend that empathy to Sprague, for just a moment.  As a hypothetical exercise, let us imagine that Sprague has found out - or thought he had - a stunning detail about a "group" that had passed money to Bremer.  If it were a legitimate group - YAF, Republican Party, Young Republicans, Tupperware Appreciation Society, or what-have-you - whose purpose was hijacked in some way for nefarious deeds like funnelling untraceable money to guys like Bremer, naming it would have invited a law suit.  Or worse.  Mindful of that possible fate, Sprague chose to identify the only group members of whom he was aware, as a clue to its identity, but without implicating any of them individually in the wrongdoing.   

If there was anything to his proposition, why did he not clearly set it forth?

Why did you report Segretti to the Republican hierarchy, rather than the police, FBI, press or Democratic party?  It is true that by doing so, you likely thought you had put a stop to it [but didn't.]  It is also true that had you gone instead to any one of the others mentioned above, you might have attracted hostile attention to yourself.  You took the path that offered the least likelihood of harm befalling you.  Perhaps Sprague did the same.  If so, you both elected the avenue that would minimize possible negative repercussions to yourselves and your own lives.   

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Tim Gratz]

A thoughtful post, Robert. Got to go soon but in a day or two I will comment on it further.

And despite my differences with Sprague, I agree he seemed an intelligent person and I understand he did great work for the HSCA. (GASP!) Can't believe I said that about a man who I consider smeared me! But i do want to give him his due.

[John Simkin]

Robert wrote:

Harry awoke one day to realize that he was involved with a bunch of right wing lunatics who fantasized aloud about murdering the President.  Just as you awoke one day to realize you were involved with a bunch of right wing lunatics [you saw only the Segretti tip of that iceberg, apparently], who fantasized aloud about destroying the Presidential aspirations of a legitimate Democratic candidate who was twice the man your own candidate turned out to be.  You may have simply been an innocent waif who found himself caught up in things bigger and darker than he could understand.  You and Harry may both have been unfairly depicted as a result, but you have no way of knowing which "group" Segretti and Cassini may have been fronting for, any more than Harry can know for certain who was manipulating him and the group with which he was associating at the time.  You and Harry have far more in common than merely being slagged by Sprague.   

A couple of points, Robert.

Segretti never fantasized with me about "destroying the aspirations of a legitimate Democratic candidate".  Clearly one of his priorities was getting a spy in the Muskie campaign, and that was what he kept asking about in his repeated calls to me.

Second, I am unaware of any evidence linking Segretti to Bremer.  Nor, per his phone conference with me, is Turner.

Does that necessarily mean Segretti was not involved in any manipulation of Bremer?  No, but there simply is no evidence to suggest that he was.

Let's go to your point that perhaps YAF was funding Bremer.  First thing to be said is where is the evidence it was?  Second, why would Sprague mention my asssociation with YAF if I had nothing to do with funding Bremer?  He might as well have said a group with which Segretti, Buckley and Cassini were involved.

The sloppiness of Sprague's verbiage suggests one of two things:  1) his logic was as sloppy as his language; or 2) he was being intentionally vague.  If there was anything to his proposition, why did he not clearly set it forth?

I think I have found out where Sprague got his information from about Tim Gratz. I was reading a collection of articles about politics in the early 1970s that was published by Ramparts Magazine entitled ‘Big Brother and the Holding Company: The World Behind Watergate’ (1974). If you remember, Sprague says he got the information from William W. Turner, who at the time worked for Ramparts.

There are several articles that provide interesting information about Donald Segretti (Donald Simmons). Donald Freed’s article ‘Gemstone’ explores Segretti’s recruitment policies. He explains how Segretti targeted members of the “ultra-conservative Young Americans for Freedom (YAF). He claims that E.Howard Hunt and Charles Colson had been founder members of this organization. I found information from a Washington Post article (June 21, 1972) that the lawyer that Hunt contacted after the Watergate break-in, Douglas Caddy, was the first executive director of the YAF. I suspect that the group that Sprague referred to when writing about Tim Gratz, Dennis Cassini and Donald Segretti was indeed the YAF.

Donald Freed refers to the fact that Segretti attempted to recruit another member of the YAF, Ronald Johnson of San Diego State College, to join his dirty tricks campaign. However, Segretti’s ideas were not innocent as those that were apparently expressed to Tim. According to Johnson, Segretti suggested “getting-rid of” left-wing leaders in San Diego. Johnson claimed that Segretti was a “paramilitary operative” with extremist ideas. Johnson turned Segretti down.

Freed also refers to the case of Roger Gordon, a member of another covert Republican Party group called the Secret Army Organization (SAO). On 13th July, 1973, Associated Press reported that Gordon had attempted to gain political asylum in Fiji. Gordon claimed he “had secret information concerning Watergate” and feared for his life. His information was that he had seen Tony Ulasewicz giving orders to Arthur Bremer on an Ohio ferry. It was of course Ulasewicz, chief field officer with Operation Sandwedge, who had met with Tim Gratz to talk about Segretti.

The SAO was another organization linked to Segretti. In another article that first appeared in Ramparts, Richard Popkin writes about the SAO in San Diego. Richard Nixon planned to hold the Republican Convention in San Diego in 1972. According to Louis Tackwood, a member of SAO, the plan was to “turn San Diego into a bloodbath during the convention”. This included killing a senior Republican official and planting a bomb in the convention hall. The plan was to implicate the Democrats in these acts of violence. This would paint the Democratic Party as an extremist organization. The plan came unstuck when a member of the SAO, William Yakopec, was charged with bombing the Guild Theatre. The chief witness against Yakopec was Barry Godfrey, a fellow member of SAO. It turns out that Godfrey had been a FBI undercover agent since 1967.

In 1973, Jerry Busch gave an interview to the editor of the local newspaper about his time in the SAO. According to Busch, the SAO were getting their orders from Donald Segretti (he used the name Donald Simmons). It seems that Segretti’s activities were not as harmless as he made out. According to these witnesses Segretti was organizing paramilitary activities. If Ronald Johnson is to be believed, this included murder and acts of terrorism.

[John Simkin]

Freed also refers to the case of Roger Gordon, a member of another covert Republican Party group called the Secret Army Organization (SAO). On 13th July, 1973, Associated Press reported that Gordon had attempted to gain political asylum in Fiji. Gordon claimed he “had secret information concerning Watergate” and feared for his life. His information was that he had seen Tony Ulasewicz giving orders to Arthur Bremer on an Ohio ferry. It was of course Ulasewicz, chief field officer with Operation Sandwedge, who had met with Tim Gratz to talk about Segretti.

I'm confused by this paragraph. Does Freed say that Gordon saw Ulasewicz, or is that what you're assuming?

These are the two relevant passages:

Donald Freed, Gemstone (1974)

The full story remains to be told. But during 1972-Z3, our research group, the Citizens Research and Investigation CommitteeCRIC), receive severa bits of unconfirmed information which are worthy of note:

(1) On July 13, 1973 Roger Gordon, fifty-three, a member of the rigtit-wing Secret Army Organization (SAO) fled from a hiding place in Australia to beg asylum in Suva, Fiji. According to the Associated Press, Gordon "had secret information concerning Watergate" and feared for his life. His information: that the heavy-set man with the "Joisey brogue" seen giving orders toBremer on an Ohio ferry was Anthony Ulasewicz, a White House operative.

(2) Secret Army Organization (SAO) and FBI sources in the San Diego area reported that White House agent Donald Segretti gave moriey to Bremer.

(3) During 1970 Tom Huston, a Nixon aide, prepared a series of memoranda which attempted to tighten White House control of the FBI, CIA, etc., and intensify the use of electronic surveillance, "penetration agents," and illegal break-ins. According to a staff member of the Ervin Committee, White House files contain a still undivulged memo in which Huston justifies selective assassination.

(4) On May 18, 1972, three days after the Wallace shooting, Charles Colson staged a "Victory in Vietnam" march and rally in Washington, under the auspices of the right-wing preacher Carl McIntire. Mr. and Mrs. Calvin Fox of the Secret Army Organization drove from San Diego to attend, passing en route near the site of the Wallace shooting. Sources in San Diego reported that while the Foxes were away, FBI Special Agent Steve Christianson entered Mr. Fox's office files and planted documents which could implicate him in the assassination attempt. A group of Washington-based former intelligence agents have since confirmed this.

Richard Popkin, The San Diego Coup, Ramparts Magazine (October, 1973)

The L.A. Times reported on July 13, 1973 that a former Minuteman had requested political asylum in Fiji, saying he had secret information on Watergate and feared assassination.