Jump to content


Spartacus

Alfred C. Baldwin


  • Please log in to reply
100 replies to this topic

#1 John Simkin

John Simkin

    Super Member

  • admin
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 16,111 posts

Posted 19 July 2005 - 11:41 AM

Alfred C. Baldwin is one of the most interesting characters involved in the Watergate story. Yet he is rarely mentioned. I have been doing some research on Baldwin.

He studied law but repeatedly failed the Connecticut bar examination. He then served with the United States Marines before joining the Federal Bureau of Investigation in Tampa.

Baldwin resigned from the FBI and was living in Hartford when he was recruited by James W. McCord in May, 1972, to work for the Committee to Re-elect the President. His first job was to work as a bodyguard for Martha Mitchell, the wife of John Mitchell, who was living in Washington. According to McCord's testimony he selected Baldwin's name from a registry published by the Society of Former Special Agents of the FBI. As Jim Hougan (Secret Agenda) pointed out, this was a strange decision because despite hundreds of FBI retirees in the Washington area, McCord selected a man living in Connecticut. Hougan speculates that "Baldwin was somehow special and perhaps well known to McCord".

Baldwin accompanied Martha Mitchell to Chicago. Mitchell did not like Baldwin and described him as the "gauchest character I've ever met". Baldwin was quickly replaced by another security man.

On 11th May, 1972, McCord arranged for Baldwin to stay at Howard Johnson's motel, across the street from the Watergate complex. The room 419 was booked in the name of McCord’s company. The plan was to wiretap the conversations of Larry O'Brien, chairman of the Democratic National Committee. On 28th May, 1972, McCord and his team broke into the DNC's offices and placed bugs in two of the telephones.

It became Baldwin’s job to eavesdrop the phone calls. Over the next 20 days Baldwin listened to over 200 conversations. These were not recorded. Baldwin made notes and typed up summaries. Nor did Baldwin listen to all phone calls coming in. For example, he took his meals outside his room. Any phone calls taking place at this time would have been missed.

It soon became clear that the bug on one of the phones installed by McCord was not working. As a result of the defective bug, McCord decided that they would have to break-in to the Watergate office again. He also heard that a representative of the Vietnam Veterans Against the War had a desk at the DNC. McCord argued that it was worth going in to see what they could discover about the anti-war activists. Liddy later claimed that the real reason for the second break-in was “to find out what O’Brien had of a derogatory nature about us, not for us to get something on him.”

Baldwin was the look out during the second break-in. However, because Barker turned off his walkie talkie Baldwin was unable to warn the burglars of the arrival of the police.

Baldwin told his story to a lawyer called John Cassidento, a strong supporter of the Democratic Party. He did not tell the authorities but did pass this information onto Larry O’Brien. The Democrats now knew that people like E.Howard Hunt and Gordon Liddy were involved in the Watergate break-in.

As Edward Jay Epstein has pointed out: "By checking through the records of phone calls made from this listening post, the FBI easily located Alfred Baldwin, a former FBI agent, who had kept logs of wiretaps for the conspirators and acted as a look-out." On 25th June, Baldwin agreed to cooperate with the government in order to escape going to prison.

It was Baldwin that enabled the police to discover what the Watergate burglars were up to. He also gave them evidence that the first successful break-in took place on 26th May rather than 28th May. Why has this testimony been ignored.

It was Baldwin and not Woodward who exposed the Watergate operation. This took place on 25th June. Mark Felt, who interviewed Baldwin, never passed this information onto Woodward (or if he did, he did not publish it in the Washington Post). This is one of the main reasons why researchers have always refused to believe that Felt was Deep Throat.

#2 John Simkin

John Simkin

    Super Member

  • admin
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 16,111 posts

Posted 19 July 2005 - 05:41 PM

Namebase entry for Alfred C. Baldwin:

http://www.namebase....-C-Baldwin.html

Colodny,L. Gettlin,R. Silent Coup. 1992 (142-4)
CounterSpy 1973-F (23)
Fensterwald,B. Coincidence or Conspiracy? 1977 (503)
Havill,A. Deep Truth. 1993 (74)
Hougan,J. Secret Agenda. 1984 (135-7)
Hougan,J. Spooks. 1979 (274)
McCord,J. A Piece of Tape. 1974 (19)
Myerson,M. Watergate: Crime in the Suites. 1973 (107-8)
Reasons,C. The Criminologist. 1974 (217)
Schorr,D. Clearing the Air. 1978 (24-5)
Summers,A. The Arrogance of Power. 2000 (408-10, 416-7)
Tarpley,W.G. Chaitkin,A. George Bush. 1992 (252)
Thomas,E. The Man to See. 1991 (270)
Washington Post Book World 1984-11-25 (5)
Washington Times 1996-09-13 (A8)
Weissman,S. Big Brother and the Holding Company. 1974 (304)
Wise,D. The American Police State. 1978 (158)

#3 John Simkin

John Simkin

    Super Member

  • admin
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 16,111 posts

Posted 20 December 2005 - 10:01 AM

Alfred C. Baldwin has joined the Forum. He has complained that inaccurate statements have been made about him on this Forum and on my webpage on him.

http://www.spartacus...JFKbaldwinA.htm

I have started this thread so that these issues can be addressed.

#4 Pat Speer

Pat Speer

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5,410 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 20 December 2005 - 11:43 AM

Alfred C. Baldwin has joined the Forum. He has complained that inaccurate statements have been made about him on this Forum and on my webpage on him.

http://www.spartacus...JFKbaldwinA.htm

I have started this thread so that these issues can be addressed.


Welcome, Mr. Baldwin. I guess the first question would be who you felt you were working for. While it seems clear to me that the "burglars" were working for Magruder and Mitchell and that the break-in to the DNC was on behalf of Colson, there's this alternative theory now espoused by Liddy that it was all Dean's doing. Similarly, there are a lot of people who put CIA and CIA together and get CIA, and assume that McCord got caught on purpose to set-up Nixon. I'm skeptical of this one as well. Your views on these issues will be much appreciated.

#5 Alfred C. Baldwin

Alfred C. Baldwin

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 19 posts

Posted 20 December 2005 - 03:53 PM

Alfred C. Baldwin is one of the most interesting characters involved in the Watergate story. Yet he is rarely mentioned. I have been doing some research on Baldwin.

He studied law but repeatedly failed the Connecticut bar examination. He then served with the United States Marines before joining the Federal Bureau of Investigation in Tampa.

Baldwin resigned from the FBI and was living in Hartford when he was recruited by James W. McCord in May, 1972, to work for the Committee to Re-elect the President. His first job was to work as a bodyguard for Martha Mitchell, the wife of John Mitchell, who was living in Washington. According to McCord's testimony he selected Baldwin's name from a registry published by the Society of Former Special Agents of the FBI. As Jim Hougan (Secret Agenda) pointed out, this was a strange decision because despite hundreds of FBI retirees in the Washington area, McCord selected a man living in Connecticut. Hougan speculates that "Baldwin was somehow special and perhaps well known to McCord".

Baldwin accompanied Martha Mitchell to Chicago. Mitchell did not like Baldwin and described him as the "gauchest character I've ever met". Baldwin was quickly replaced by another security man.

On 11th May, 1972, McCord arranged for Baldwin to stay at Howard Johnson's motel, across the street from the Watergate complex. The room 419 was booked in the name of McCord’s company. The plan was to wiretap the conversations of Larry O'Brien, chairman of the Democratic National Committee. On 28th May, 1972, McCord and his team broke into the DNC's offices and placed bugs in two of the telephones.

It became Baldwin’s job to eavesdrop the phone calls. Over the next 20 days Baldwin listened to over 200 conversations. These were not recorded. Baldwin made notes and typed up summaries. Nor did Baldwin listen to all phone calls coming in. For example, he took his meals outside his room. Any phone calls taking place at this time would have been missed.

It soon became clear that the bug on one of the phones installed by McCord was not working. As a result of the defective bug, McCord decided that they would have to break-in to the Watergate office again. He also heard that a representative of the Vietnam Veterans Against the War had a desk at the DNC. McCord argued that it was worth going in to see what they could discover about the anti-war activists. Liddy later claimed that the real reason for the second break-in was “to find out what O’Brien had of a derogatory nature about us, not for us to get something on him.”

Baldwin was the look out during the second break-in. However, because Barker turned off his walkie talkie Baldwin was unable to warn the burglars of the arrival of the police.

Baldwin told his story to a lawyer called John Cassidento, a strong supporter of the Democratic Party. He did not tell the authorities but did pass this information onto Larry O’Brien. The Democrats now knew that people like E.Howard Hunt and Gordon Liddy were involved in the Watergate break-in.

As Edward Jay Epstein has pointed out: "By checking through the records of phone calls made from this listening post, the FBI easily located Alfred Baldwin, a former FBI agent, who had kept logs of wiretaps for the conspirators and acted as a look-out." On 25th June, Baldwin agreed to cooperate with the government in order to escape going to prison.

It was Baldwin that enabled the police to discover what the Watergate burglars were up to. He also gave them evidence that the first successful break-in took place on 26th May rather than 28th May. Why has this testimony been ignored.

It was Baldwin and not Woodward who exposed the Watergate operation. This took place on 25th June. Mark Felt, who interviewed Baldwin, never passed this information onto Woodward (or if he did, he did not publish it in the Washington Post). This is one of the main reasons why researchers have always refused to believe that Felt was Deep Throat.


Seldom do I respond to requests for interviews from authors, radio, or television, and thus over the years many iaccuracies have been forthcoming. I would like to state that I have deep respect for the BBC who covered the story with the most accuracy.

Since you are involved with education, I will proceed with the belief that you are sensitive to facts and the reporting of same.I have been contacted by several close friends who have stated that their are numerous personal and other misrepresentations, half-truths, and distrtations that require my involvement.

With the above said I would like to offer you the following information. I realize that some of the issues I have cannot be corrected, such as what appears in Mr.Hougan's book, Secret Agenda, one of the authors to whom I refused an interview.

I hope that the below can be corrected on the sites that you yourself are invoved with and produce.

1. I was born in 1936 in New Haven, Connecticut (Not 1937 in Hartford), and I was living in the New Haven area not Hartford at the tme of the incident.

2. I graduated from Fairfield Uniersity in 1957 with a BBA then entered the USMC as a 2nd Lt. Prior to that I was an enlisted-man in the USMC Reserve. My final rank in the USMC was Captain.

3. After three years of acticve duty with the USMC I entered law school in 1960 graduating in 1963 with an LLB which then became a JD. I also attended Southern Connecticut State University after Watergate receiving a Masters (MS) Degree in Education for employment in the New Haven and State of Connecticut (College Level) school systems.

NOTE: With respect to the Connecticut Bar Exam, I would like to furnish you with specific details. Your posts reflect that I "repeatedly failed". This statement is false and insome degree libelous. On successful completion of my final year at law school, May, 1963, I was assigned to a new agents class of the FBI to begin early June 1964. This assignment was changed due to the death of my father. I was thus assigned to a July, 1963 class, which I did successfully attend and complete. Also, I had in my last year of law school signed up to take the bar exam given during June, 1963, In view of the family death and my assignment with the FBI, I intended to pass on takng the bar exam. Several friends and close family members convinced me to take the exam since I had successfully completed the application. In Connecticut at that period of time before you were allowed to take the written test, which consisted of two days of written essay questions, one had to appear before a Board of Attorneys and pass an orarl examination and if one passed you then proceede to the written portion. On the first day of the written exam, immediately after lunch,I turned my paper in telling the Proctor I was not going to complete the exam. If this was a failure then one can say that I failed once, however, I was told, and believe it to be true today, that I had "withdarwn" and it was marked as "incomplete". I sould also point out that then and today one is only allowed three attempts at the Bar unless there is an exception granted. My reasons for taking the action I did were personal and if given that same opportunity again I would take the same course of action. I then waited until the mid 1980s, approximately twenty-three years (23) after law school to apply, take, and pass that examination. Thus I did not "repeatedly take" the exam. After passing the Bar examination I left teaching in the high-school and college and took a job as a prosecutor in the Division of Criminal Justice, State of Connecticut with the title of Assistant State Attorney at the time of my retirement.

4. I was assigned to guard Martha Mitchell and I have no idea why she referred to me as "the most gauchest character". I was later told that it was due to the fact that I had attended a cocktail party and had taken my shoes and socks off and had placed my bare feet on a cocktail table in front one of the President's cabnet members, I believe the Secretary of Transportation Volpe. This was totally false and I was willing to take a lie detector test to prove that I had never ever been in the presence of any cabinet member. The FBI was satisfied with my statement on this subject, and if there was any truth to Martha's clam of gauchness I am sure that her husband would not have allowed my continued employment at the Committee To Re-Elect The President where he became the hairman after leave the cabinet post of Attorney-Geeral.

5. My story was never told to John Cassidento initially. The lawyer who hear it first hand was my friend and classmate at law school, Robert Mirto, who latter appeared at the congressional hearings with me. John was an Assistant Federal Prosecutor in New Haven, not Hartford, who subsequently joined Mr. Mirto's law firm actually in West Haven, CT. Mr Mirto is still practicing law in West Haven. Mr Cassidento is deceased.

6. I did not cooperate to escape prision. The question of indictment must first be meet, then a trail if indicted, then prision if convicted. Since my position the and today is that we were operating under the orders, or with the authority of the Attorney-General, what took place was legal. I was cooperating to avoid the grand-jury not prision.

7. One last point, I never meet nor was I ever interviewed by Mark Felt.

I realize that the above is quite lengthy, however the facts must be stated correctly, and I hope that you would have the integrity/professionalism to incorporate the above into your comments and observations on the appropriate sites.

#6 John Simkin

John Simkin

    Super Member

  • admin
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 16,111 posts

Posted 21 December 2005 - 03:56 PM

I have corrected the mistakes you have pointed out. I have also added your statement to your web page:

http://www.spartacus...JFKbaldwinA.htm

I also have a few questions that hopefully you will answer.

(1) What work were you doing between 1966 and 1972?

(2) Did you know James W. McCord before he recruited you in 1972?

(3) Were you an active supporter of Richard Nixon's before 1972?

(4) Did you know any of the following before 1972: Anthony Ulasewicz, Douglas Caddy, Carmine Bellino, Tim Gratz, Jack Caulfield, E. Howard Hunt, Lou Russell, Donald Segretti and G. Gordon Liddy?

(5) Did you do any work for Operation Gemstone or Operation Sandwedge before the Watergate break-in?

(6) Are you aware of the real reason why the Watergate offices were burgled?

(7) It became your job to eavesdrop the phone calls. I believe that over a 20 day period you listened to over 200 phone calls. Could you explain the sort of information that McCord was looking for.

(8) Gordon Liddy later claimed that the real reason for the second break-in was “to find out what O’Brien had of a derogatory nature about us, not for us to get something on him.” Is that your understanding of the situation as well?

(9) On 17th June, 1972, Frank Sturgis, Virgilio Gonzalez, Eugenio Martinez, Bernard L. Barker and James W. McCord returned to O'Brien's office. It was your job to observe the operation from his hotel room. I believe that when you saw the police walking up the stairwell steps you radioed a warning. However, Barker had turned off his walkie-talkie and you were unable to make contact with the burglars. Is that correct?

(10) Is it true that when E.Howard Hunt arrived at your hotel room he made a phone call to Douglas Caddy?

#7 James Richards

James Richards

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,288 posts
  • Location:The Gold Coast, Australia

Posted 21 December 2005 - 10:45 PM

Mr. Baldwin,

I addition to John's list of questions, can I add the following?

Is it true that you used the alias Bill Johnson? If so, was this at the suggestion of James McCord?

James

Edited by James Richards, 22 December 2005 - 12:37 AM.


#8 Pat Speer

Pat Speer

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5,410 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 22 December 2005 - 03:48 AM

Mr. Baldwin, thanks for coming here to clear up some of these points. It's important that the story be told as straight as can be, so that people can come to informed decisions. I take from your comments on Hougan that you dispute the Liddy theory that Dean was behind it all. If I'm wrong, please let me know.

One minor point, however. Did a lawyer ever tell you that your actions were legal? As Liddy's operation was approved when Mitchell was still A.G., on the surface it might appear you were in the clear. But as the break-in itself was never approved by Mitchell, and as the break-ins and phone-tapping were conducted after Mitchell left to run CREEP, it could certainly be disputed. I believe you did the right thing by coming forward, even if it was to protect yourself. I'm wondering if Liddy, or anyone else, ever threatened you. Any comments appreciated.

Edited by Pat Speer, 22 December 2005 - 09:44 AM.


#9 Alfred C. Baldwin

Alfred C. Baldwin

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 19 posts

Posted 22 December 2005 - 09:31 AM

With the hoildays approaching I am pressed for time. However, if it is all right with you I will address each and every question to the best of my ability after the New Year Hoilday season is finished thus probably the first week in Jan., 2006 or sooner if time permits. I truly feel it is important to state facts as accurately as one can. One fact that I have learned, especially in the field of history, is that seldom does man learn from past history and there are those who will do their utmost to desort the truth.

#10 Owen Parsons

Owen Parsons

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 406 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 22 December 2005 - 04:29 PM

Mr. Baldwin, thanks for coming here to clear up some of these points. It's important that the story be told as straight as can be, so that people can come to informed decisions. I take from your comments on Hougan that you dispute the Liddy theory that Dean was behind it all. If I'm wrong, please let me know.


Liddy's thesis is not the thesis of Hougan's book, Secret Agenda. Secret Agenda's thesis is that Watergate was a CIA operation with Hunt and McCord at the helm. It also presents some pretty irrefutable evidence that the standard story of the wiretapping isn't true, which may be why Mr. Baldwin dislikes it so much.

Edited by Owen Parsons, 22 December 2005 - 04:35 PM.


#11 Pat Speer

Pat Speer

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5,410 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 23 December 2005 - 08:29 AM

Mr. Baldwin, thanks for coming here to clear up some of these points. It's important that the story be told as straight as can be, so that people can come to informed decisions. I take from your comments on Hougan that you dispute the Liddy theory that Dean was behind it all. If I'm wrong, please let me know.


Liddy's thesis is not the thesis of Hougan's book, Secret Agenda. Secret Agenda's thesis is that Watergate was a CIA operation with Hunt and McCord at the helm. It also presents some pretty irrefutable evidence that the standard story of the wiretapping isn't true, which may be why Mr. Baldwin dislikes it so much.


Owen, you're a bright person. You should read McCord's book A Piece of Tape before you get sucked into the "CIA set up poor Dicky" vortex. McCord acknowledges that he resented Nixon's trying to make the CIA take the fall. He knew that Hunt was working on behalf of the White House, and not the CIA. He let the White House try to bribe him...let them hang themselves...before he sprung the trap and told Sirica what was going on. McCord's role in history is incredibly diminished when people ascribe his actions to Helms. He deserves credit for being the whistle-blower that he was. IMO, and evidently Baldwin's, he was nobody's puppet.

Excuse my confusion between Secret Agenda and Silent Coup. Both books take the established facts of Watergate--that Nixon was corrupt and that it eventually caught up with him--and try to pin the blame on someone else, namely Helms and McCord in one book, Dean and Haig in the other (as I remember). The real story of Watergate is incredibly fascinating--a peek behind the curtain--and pretending or convincing ourselves that there is another curtain is silly, IMO. With Deep Throat exposed, the only mystery left as far as I can see is what was meant by the "Bay of Pigs" thing, and why conservatives such as George HW Bush "broke out in assholes and shit themselves" after hearing the tape where Nixon used those words.

#12 Owen Parsons

Owen Parsons

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 406 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 23 December 2005 - 05:36 PM


Mr. Baldwin, thanks for coming here to clear up some of these points. It's important that the story be told as straight as can be, so that people can come to informed decisions. I take from your comments on Hougan that you dispute the Liddy theory that Dean was behind it all. If I'm wrong, please let me know.


Liddy's thesis is not the thesis of Hougan's book, Secret Agenda. Secret Agenda's thesis is that Watergate was a CIA operation with Hunt and McCord at the helm. It also presents some pretty irrefutable evidence that the standard story of the wiretapping isn't true, which may be why Mr. Baldwin dislikes it so much.


Owen, you're a bright person. You should read McCord's book A Piece of Tape before you get sucked into the "CIA set up poor Dicky" vortex. McCord acknowledges that he resented Nixon's trying to make the CIA take the fall. He knew that Hunt was working on behalf of the White House, and not the CIA. He let the White House try to bribe him...let them hang themselves...before he sprung the trap and told Sirica what was going on. McCord's role in history is incredibly diminished when people ascribe his actions to Helms. He deserves credit for being the whistle-blower that he was. IMO, and evidently Baldwin's, he was nobody's puppet.


From the excerpts Hougan quotes, A Piece of Tape appears to be a somewhat bizarre little book. IMO, Secret Agenda pretty convincingly shows all the falsehoods in the stories of both McCord and Hunt. Hunt's protestations of "retirement" from the CIA are very convincingly debunked. I don't think I'll be capable of taking McCord's writings on his supposed motivation seriously after reading Hougan's carefully documented and argued book. If McCord's role in history is diminished, then it is deservedly so.

Excuse my confusion between Secret Agenda and Silent Coup. Both books take the established facts of Watergate--that Nixon was corrupt and that it eventually caught up with him--and try to pin the blame on someone else, namely Helms and McCord in one book, Dean and Haig in the other (as I remember). The real story of Watergate is incredibly fascinating--a peek behind the curtain--and pretending or convincing ourselves that there is another curtain is silly, IMO. With Deep Throat exposed, the only mystery left as far as I can see is what was meant by the "Bay of Pigs" thing, and why conservatives such as George HW Bush "broke out in assholes and shit themselves" after hearing the tape where Nixon used those words.


Secret Agenda doesn't absolve Nixon from blame at all. Nixon gets full credit for the cover-up (which is all he is credited with in the standard story). Hougan accepts Nixon's guilt as established and refers readers to Lukas' Nightmare for the details of the cover-up. He thinks the Watergate break-ins themselves have been overlooked, and sets about remedying the situation. I had originally thought that looking for "another curtain" was silly, but eventually decided to read Secret Agenda and was very impressed by it. Its a surprisingly cautious and careful book; it doesn't even propose a Deep Throat candidate. I get the impression that you haven't read the book, just the summaries.

Edited by Owen Parsons, 23 December 2005 - 06:11 PM.


#13 Gerry Hemming

Gerry Hemming

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 382 posts

Posted 23 December 2005 - 09:22 PM

Mr. Baldwin, thanks for coming here to clear up some of these points. It's important that the story be told as straight as can be, so that people can come to informed decisions. I take from your comments on Hougan that you dispute the Liddy theory that Dean was behind it all. If I'm wrong, please let me know.


Liddy's thesis is not the thesis of Hougan's book, Secret Agenda. Secret Agenda's thesis is that Watergate was a CIA operation with Hunt and McCord at the helm. It also presents some pretty irrefutable evidence that the standard story of the wiretapping isn't true, which may be why Mr. Baldwin dislikes it so much.



If you are permitted, is it your (or other parties currently unknown) agenda to drive Mr. Baldwin off of this Forum. Do your "associates" fear that he might make some untoward remarks as to the realities of the "Watergate Affair"??

#14 Alfred C. Baldwin

Alfred C. Baldwin

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 19 posts

Posted 23 December 2005 - 10:09 PM

Mr. Baldwin,

I addition to John's list of questions, can I add the following?

Is it true that you used the alias Bill Johnson? If so, was this at the suggestion of James McCord?


James - I did use the name Bill Johnson in order to obtain some information and while working for McCord, however, it was not at his suggestion Actually, Bill J was a cousin of mine in Connecticut who was an Assistant Fire Chief in West Haven, Connecticut, who I felt would not be angered at my use. I hope this answer is satisfactory.

#15 Alfred C. Baldwin

Alfred C. Baldwin

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 19 posts

Posted 23 December 2005 - 10:23 PM

[quote name='John Simkin' post='49533' date='Dec 21 2005, 04:56 PM'](1) What work were you doing between 1966 and 1972?[/quote]

1. Between 1966 and 1972 I worked as the Director of Security for a multi-state trucking firm. I left this position to work for a retired Naval Admiral who was creating a college degree program for law enforcement personnel who desired a college degree in the police administration and law enforcement field. I was hired as his assistant with the task of hiring adjunct professors as well as teaching law related subjects. The college was the University of New Haven located in New Haven. Yes, there are other colleges/universities other than Yale located in New Haven.


[quote name='John Simkin' post='49533' date='Dec 21 2005, 04:56 PM'](2) Did you know James W. McCord before he recruited you in 1972?[/quote]

2. Prior to 1972 I did not know James McCord, but I was aware of the fact that he was a former Special Agent with the FBI.


[quote name='John Simkin' post='49533' date='Dec 21 2005, 04:56 PM'](3) Were you an active supporter of Richard Nixon's before 1972?[/quote]

3. No


[quote name='John Simkin' post='49533' date='Dec 21 2005, 04:56 PM'](4) Did you know any of the following before 1972: Anthony Ulasewicz, Douglas Caddy, Carmine Bellino, Tim Gratz, Jack Caulfield, E. Howard Hunt, Lou Russell, Donald Segretti and G. Gordon Liddy?[/quote]


4. No



[quote name='John Simkin' post='49533' date='Dec 21 2005, 04:56 PM'](5) Did you do any work for Operation Gemstone or Operation Sandwedge before the Watergate break-in?[/quote]

5. You will have to define operation Gemstone. The files I complied were referred to as Gemstone. No with respect to Operation Sandwedge.


[quote name='John Simkin' post='49533' date='Dec 21 2005, 04:56 PM'](6) Are you aware of the real reason why the Watergate offices were burgled?[/quote]

6. I have my own personal opinion based on my conversations with McCord at that time, and I should add this opinion hasn't changed in any way even with all the information and data that has come forth since 1972.


[quote name='John Simkin' post='49533' date='Dec 21 2005, 04:56 PM'](7) It became your job to eavesdrop the phone calls. I believe that over a 20 day period you listened to over 200 phone calls. Could you explain the sort of information that McCord was looking for.[/quote]

7. Will leave this for a future reply because it might require a lengthy explanation.


[quote name='John Simkin' post='49533' date='Dec 21 2005, 04:56 PM'](8) Gordon Liddy later claimed that the real reason for the second break-in was “to find out what O’Brien had of a derogatory nature about us, not for us to get something on him.” Is that your understanding of the situation as well?[/quote]

8. Gordon can state whatever he wants. I worked for McCord who may not have Liddy's viewpoint.


[quote name='John Simkin' post='49533' date='Dec 21 2005, 04:56 PM'](9) On 17th June, 1972, Frank Sturgis, Virgilio Gonzalez, Eugenio Martinez, Bernard L. Barker and James W. McCord returned to O'Brien's office. It was your job to observe the operation from his hotel room. I believe that when you saw the police walking up the stairwell steps you radioed a warning. However, Barker had turned off his walkie-talkie and you were unable to make contact with the burglars. Is that correct?[/quote]

9. I really cannot make a judgement call on what Mr. Baker did or didn't do because my communications where with McCord. Now if McCord gave his unit to Baker your statement might be relevant.


[quote name='John Simkin' post='49533' date='Dec 21 2005, 04:56 PM'](10) Is it true that when E.Howard Hunt arrived at your hotel room he made a phone call to Douglas Caddy?[/quote]

10. True Hunt on arriving at my room did make a call to someone who I realized was a lawyer due to the nature of the conversation coming from Hunt. No name was ever used so I can not name that person.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users