I have been trying for quite some time without even modest success to determine who Douglas Caddy was representing at what relevant times, and at whose behest or request, in the Watergate case. Since he is a member in this forum and a pivotal figure in Watergate, and is also central to this precise issue, I appeal to him in good faith to reconcile in the most straightforward and unambiguous way possible the inconsistencies and discordances in the record.

I don't appeal on my own behalf; I appeal on behalf of the cause of setting forth a truthful record for posterity. I have no personal vested interest. I have no dog in the fight. Therefore, if, as there have been some indications, Mr. Caddy feels some personal antipathy toward me, I ask him to rise above it for the good of all.

Despite some allegations that have been made in this forum, I don't ask the questions to hound or needle. I have no personal axe to grind with Mr. Caddy; I don't know him. What I know is what's in the record, and the record is bedlam. The record is at war with itself—which is oddity at high water, since the record is made by people who all purport to tell the same thing. Mr. Caddy is one of the narrators, and is the only one of them participating here who can answer the questions.

If he finds me simply too persona non grata to countenance, then I ask that some other member of the forum step forward and present the obvious and logical questions that arise from the embattled accounts. Who presents the questions is of no relevance at all. To make personalities the issue is to obfuscate the issues.

I'm going to lay the pertinent accounts out in as orderly a procession as possible, but the very nature of the contradictions is such as almost to defy the ambition.

I've settled on the convention, rightly or wrongly, of presenting the accounts provided by the three relevant sources—Douglas Caddy, E. Howard Hunt, and G. Gordon Liddy—each in a separate message following this introductory message. At the end of each of those messages I will append questions arising out of them.

I respectfully request that the forum members permit me the opportunity to get all three sets of accounts and questions posted before commenting in order to have the overview, but of course this is only a request. I'll get them posted as quickly as I can.

The first of the three, immediately below, contains accounts and statements by Douglas Caddy himself.

Ashton Gray

This is the first in a series of three messages in which I'm going to lay out the accounts of the relevant principals concerning when, where, how, and under what circumstances Douglas Caddy was secured to represent parties related to Watergate.

First, I file Mr. Caddy's relevant record, taken from several sources, which I cite. At the end of this section are questions arising directly from Mr. Caddy's own accounts, without address to conflicting accounts by other parties involved. Those will come after I've posted all three sets of accounts.

Before I begin this section, I need to make a note about something quoted by Mr. Caddy himself in an article he wrote. It is a passage from E. Howard Hunt's autobiography, Undercover, which Mr. Caddy used as on opening to his own article, "Gay Bashing in Watergate." In quoting Mr. Caddy from that article, I'm also going to be quoting relevant parts of what he used from Undercover, but I encountered a time discrepancy between his excerpt (from the prologue of the book) and a first edition copy I have. Maybe he can clarify this. In my copy of the book, the time given by Hunt is "0213." Mr. Caddy quotes this as "3:13," a difference of an hour. I have put the 0213 time in brackets directly after Mr. Caddy's 3:13 indication.

DOUGLAS CADDY'S ACCOUNTS, DIRECT AND AS REPORTED

First is Caddy's succinct statement, made in the forum in February of this year, of being hired by both Hunt and Liddy:

In brief, I was retained as an attorney in the early morning hours of June 17, 1972 by Howard Hunt and Gordon Liddy to represent them in the case and to represent the five persons arrested within the Democratic Party's national headquarters.

Next is Caddy's more lengthy statement concerning those events, excerpted from his article, "Gay Bashing and Watergate." It begins with Caddy's own quoting of E. Howard Hunt from Hunt's biography, Undercover. The quotation marks used for the Hunt excerpt are in the original Caddy article, which itself is not set in quotes. This is where the time discrepancy appears:

"Carrying three heavy attaché cases, I entered the Pennsylvania Avenue door, showed my blue-and-white White House pass to the uniformed guards, and took the elevator to the third floor. I unlocked the door of 338 and went in. I opened my two-drawer safe, took out my operational handbook, found a telephone number and dialed it.

"The time was 3:13 [0213 in the hardcover book] in the morning of June 17, 1972, and the five of my companions had been arrested and taken to the maximum-security block of the District of Columbia jail. I had recruited four of them and it was my responsibility to get them out. That was the sole focus of my thoughts as I began talking on the telephone.

"But with those five arrests the Watergate affair had begun...

"After several rings the call was answered and I heard the sleepy voice of Douglas Caddy. 'Yes?'

"'Doug? This is Howard. I hate to wake you up, but I've got a tough situation and I need to talk to you. Can I come over?'

"'Sure. I'll tell the desk clerk you're expected.'

"'I'll be there in about 20 minutes,' I told him, and hung up.

"From the safe I took a small money box and removed the $10,000 Liddy had given me for emergency use. I put $1,500 in my wallet and the remaining $8,500 in my coat pocket. The black attache case containing McCord's electronic equipment I placed in a safe drawer that held my operational notebook. Then I closed and locked the safe, turning the dial several times. The other two cases I left beside the safe, turned out the light and left my office, locking the door."

--E. Howard Hunt, Undercover: Memoirs of an American Secret Agent (Berkley, 1974)

...About half an hour after he telephoned me, Hunt arrived at my Washington apartment on P Street N.W., located just a five-minute drive from both the White House and the Watergate complex.

After Hunt told me what had happened and answered a number of questions which leaped to my mind, I turned my attention to securing skilled criminal legal counsel for the five arrested individuals--McCord and the four Cuban-Americans--who were sitting in jail, naively expecting to be freed momentarily.

My law firm had the then-traditional Washington practice in that it specialized in corporate law, not criminal cases. Of the three partners in the firm that Saturday, one was in Italy, another at Hilton Head, and the third, Robert Scott, was at home. I telephoned Scott, a former assistant U.S. attorney and a former assistant to the U.S. attorney general (and who later was appointed by President Carter to be a judge of the District of Columbia superior court).

My 4 a.m. call awakened Scott, just as Hunt's call had awakened me about an hour earlier. I sketched the case for Scott: the arrests of the five at the Democratic National Committee headquarters, the roles of Hunt and Liddy, and the need for a skilled criminal defense attorney to represent the five incarcerated individuals. Scott, who by then was wide awake, exclaimed, "They must have been set up," and told me to sit tight while he telephoned his nephew, who was an attorney. Moments later he called back and said we would have to find another attorney, and after several more calls, Scott settled upon Joseph Rafferty, whom he knew but I did not. I then telephoned Rafferty, who told me to meet him in the arraignment courtroom of the superior court at 8:30 a.m. to begin our efforts to obtain the release of the incarcerated five.

Within minutes of my conversations with Scott and Rafferty, Hunt used my home telephone to call Liddy. Hunt talked briefly to Liddy and then handed the telephone to me and we conversed. At that point Liddy retained me to represent him in the matter, Hunt having done so shortly after he arrived at my apartment. The idea of representing all seven defendants did not appeal to me, but the case was developing so fast and was of such serious nature that I was required to act, to postpone dealing with any potential conflict of interest among the various clients.

Hunt then left my apartment about 5 a.m., telling me he was exhausted and was going home to get some sleep.

Rafferty and I met at 8:30 a.m. but had some initial trouble locating the five arrested. Their names did not appear on the list of defendants scheduled to be arraigned in superior court. Finally, after some phone calls, we found them at the second police precinct at 23rd and L streets N.W., where they had been taken shortly after being caught. Around 10:30 a.m., the events of the day having begun at 2:30 a.m. when the arrests were made, Rafferty and I conferred with the five inside the cell block. At the end of our conference, James McCord, Bernard Barker, Virgilio Gonzalez, Frank Sturgis, and Eugenio Martinez asked us to represent them in the case.

The five were then transferred to the arraignment courtroom and a hearing begun.

...here are six questions along with the answers I was ultimately forced to disclose:

The question was, When was the last time that you saw Mr. Hunt? (Answer: from 3:35 a.m. to 5 a.m. on the morning of June 17 after the break-in when he came to my apartment seeking my legal counsel.)

Did you see Mr. Hunt within one-quarter mile of the Watergate Hotel on June 16 or 17 of this year? (Answer: As the crow flies, my apartment was about a mile from the Watergate Hotel, and thus I saw Hunt when he came to my apartment after the break-in when he sought legal counsel.)

At what time did you receive a telephone call in the early morning hours of June 17, 1972? (Answer: Between 3:05 a.m. and 3:15 a.m. when Hunt called to retain me, the arrests having taken place at 2:30 a.m.)

Between the hours of Friday at midnight, June 16, and 8:30 a.m. Saturday, June 17, did you receive a visit from Mr. Everett Howard Hunt? (Answer: Yes, at 3:35 a.m.)

Who, if anyone, asked you to represent those five individuals who were in jail at the 23rd and L streets N.W. that morning? (Answer: Hunt, when he called me between 3:05 a.m. and 3:15 a.m.; Liddy, when I spoke with him after Hunt telephoned him about 4:45 a.m.; and later the five individuals themselves.)

All right, I believe the first question that we asked you, at which point you indicated a desire to consult with counsel, was the date on which Mr. X became your client? [Liddy was listed as Mr. X in this question, as his name had not yet surfaced publicly.] (Answer: Liddy became my client on June 17 when we spoke by telephone around 4:45 a.m.)

Here is the account as summarized from trial testimony, including Caddy testimony, in the Appeals Court ruling U.S. v. Liddy, No. 73-1565 United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit:

When McCord, Barker, Martinez, Gonzalez, and Sturgis were apprehended in the DNC offices in the Watergate complex on June 17, at 2:00 a.m., they had in their possession walkie talkies, burglary tools, documents that had been taken from DNC files, telephone bugging devices, and equipment capable of transmitting voice conversations. Baldwin, who was acting as a lookout from the balcony of room 723, saw two men emerge from an alleyway near the Watergate building shortly after uniformed policemen arrived at the scene. He identified one of the men as Hunt and testified that the other was wearing a suit he recognized as Liddy's. At about 3 a.m. Hunt arrived at room 723 with a walkie talkie and used the telephone to call an attorney, Michael Douglas Caddy.

Caddy's testimony established that about a half hour after this phone call, Hunt visited Caddy's apartment. Caddy then made a series of telephone calls to retain an attorney with more experience in criminal law. Caddy stated that at about 5 a.m. Hunt called Liddy from Caddy's apartment and informed Liddy that an attorney experienced in criminal law matters had been retained. Caddy talked to Liddy and confirmed what Hunt had said. Then Hunt gave Caddy $8500 in cash, one $500 bill and the rest in $100 bills.

At 8:30 a.m., Caddy went to arraignment court where he met Joseph Rafferty, a lawyer with experience in criminal law. They checked with the clerk to see whether the arraignment sheet contained names of five individuals, names that were the aliases then being used by the five men arrested in the Watergate. Shortly thereafter the attorneys went to a police station to confer with the five men. Caddy had met Barker a year previous but had never met any of the others. Caddy had not been contacted by any of these men prior to his appearance at the police station. After the meeting at the police station, Caddy called Hunt at home. A few days later, Liddy directed Caddy by telephone to pay to Mr. Rafferty $2500 of the $8500 he had received.

Next, here is the account from "All the President's Men" quoting Caddy:

Woodward went inside the courtroom. One person stood out. In a middle row sat a young man with fashionably long hair and an expensive suit with slightly flared lapels, his chin high, his eyes searching the room as if he were in unfamiliar surroundings.

Woodward sat down next to him and asked if he was in court because of the Watergate arrests.

"Perhaps," the man said. "I'm not the attorney of record. I'm acting as an individual."

He said his name was Douglas Caddy and he introduced a small, anemic-looking man next to him as the attorney of record, Joseph Rafferty, Jr. Rafferty appeared to have been routed out of bed; he was unshaven and squinted as if the light hurt his eyes. The two lawyers wandered in and out of the courtroom. Woodward finally cornered Rafferty in a hallway and got the names and addresses of the five suspects. Four of them were from Miami, three of them Cuban-Americans.

Caddy didn't want to talk. "Please don't take it personally," he told Woodward. "It would be a mistake to do that. I just don't have anything to say."

Woodward asked Caddy about his clients.

"They are not my clients," he said.

But you are a lawyer? Woodward asked. "I'm not going to talk to you."

Caddy walked back into the courtroom. Woodward followed. "Please, I have nothing to say." Would the five men be able to post bond? Woodward asked. After politely refusing to answer several more times, Caddy replied quickly that the men were all employed and had families-factors that would be taken into consideration by the judge in setting bond. He walked back into the corridor.

Woodward followed: Just tell me about yourself, how you got into the case.

"I'm not in the case." Why are you here?

"Look," Caddy said, "I met one of the defendants, Bernard Barker, at a social occasion."

Where?

"In D.C. It was cocktails at the Army-Navy Club. We had a sympathetic conversation... that's all I'm going to say."

How did you get into the case?

Caddy pivoted and walked back in. After half an hour, he went out again.

Woodward asked how he got into the case.

This time Caddy said he'd gotten a call shortly after 3:00 A.M. from Barker's wife. "She said her husband had told her to call me if he hadn't called her by three, that it might mean he was in trouble."

Finally, here are the following excerpted relevant sections of an article that appeared in the Washington Post on Sunday, June 18, 1972, "5 Held in Plot to Bug Democrats' Office Here":

...Douglas Caddy, one of the attorneys for the five men, told a reporter that shortly after 3 a.m. yesterday, he received a call from Barker's wife. "She said that her husband told her to call me if he hadn't called her by 3 a.m.: that it might mean he was in trouble."

...Caddy, one of the attorneys for the five, said he met Barker a year ago over cocktails at the Army Navy Club in Washington. "We had a sympathetic conversation -- that's all I'll say," Caddy told a reporter.

Caddy said that he was probably the only attorney whom Barker knew in Washington.

Caddy, who says he is a corporate lawyer, attempted to stay in the background of yesterday's 4 p.m. court hearing. He did not argue before Superior Court Judge James A. Belson himself but brought another attorney, Joseph A. Rafferty Jr., who has experience in criminal law, to do the arguing.

QUESTIONS FOR MR. CADDY

1. Since the five men were using aliases with the police, and there is no record of Hunt or Liddy having given you the aliases, how did you and Rafferty know what names to look for on the arraignment sheet, and which names to use when making phone calls to find the men?
   
2. How were you able to brief Robert Scott on Liddy's role in the break-in?
   
3. Did you or did you not receive a telephone call from Bernard Barker's wife asking you to represent her husband and the other men? If so, what time was it and where were you when you received the phone call?
   
4. Did E. Howard Hunt tell you at your apartment that Bernard Barker's wife was going to call you?
   
5. If Rafferty was the attorney of record, why were you called before the grand jury as the attorney for the men?
   
6. Was Rafferty called before the grand jury, too? If not, why not?
   
7. Were you in the court on June 17, 1972 as an attorney or only "as an individual"?
   
8. You reportedly told Woodward at the courtroom that the men were not your clients. Was that true or false?
   
9. In your 10:30 a.m. meeting with the five men inside the cell block, did you properly disclose to each of them that you were not a criminal lawyer but a corporate lawyer?
   
10. Since you were not a criminal lawyer, and Rafferty was, why did you stay on the case at all?
    
11. On June 17, 1972, did you subscribe any permanent record, file, pleading, notice of appearance, or any other instrument related to the case for any or all of the men? If so, what?
    
12. At any relevant time, were you acting as an "Attorney in fact" on behalf of E. Howard Hunt and/or G. Gordon Liddy, and if so, did you have an instrument granting you a power of attorney for either of them or both?
    
13. If Rafferty was the attorney of record and was the criminal lawyer on the case, why did he get $2,500 while you got $6,000?

Next will come E. Howard Hunt's full account of the relevant events.

Ashton Gray

Request for a moderator to delete this mysterious vestige posting. (I still cannot find any consistent reason why some messages post twice. I've tried to avoid doing anything that has seemed to account for it—then it happens again. There must be some kind of conflict between my browser and the forum software that I'm still trying to find a fix or workaround for.)

[quote name='Ashton Gray' date='Jun 26 2006, 05:53 AM' post='66478']


Legitimate questions in my estimation. Might I suggest Asthton that you give Mr Caddy some time to respond and not ask any further questions- (at THIS time). He has stated, I believe on a different thread, -
(where I inadvertantly said I was going to ask him just one question, then quite stupidly, asked him two, that he is in the midst of writing a book, and is very busy. )

We are privileged to have people like Doug Caddy here on the forum, as well as Mr. Baldwin. I wish we also had Misters Hunt, McCord, Liddy, Dean, and especially Mr. Woodward. Alas, we do not.

So, please allow Mr Caddy the time he needs to address your questions. And you may also wish to tone down the sarcasm a bit, as it appears not everyone is viewing your writing style AS sarcasm. In particular Mr. Caddy.

Although having been interrogated by a Grand Jury, threatened and held in contempt by Judge SIrica, I cannot imagine how Mr Caddy would ever feel "threatened" by a mere "writer/editor" at this forum, he still deserves our respect, if we wish him to respond to questions. After all, he is, like the rest of us, an invited guest at this forum.

Dawn

On another thread, Mr. Caddy mentioned that he'd already written about his contact with Mrs. Barker, back in February. I believe this is the post to which he was referring:

"I did not represent Bernard Barker, one of the Watergate burglars, prior to the case breaking open on June 17, 1972. However, I did meet him on one occasion several months earlier and so testified before the grand jury in the first weeks of the case.

My meeting came about by Howard Hunt inviting me to join him for lunch at the Navy Club in Washington, D.C. When I arrived there, Hunt and Barker were already seated and Hunt made the introductions. I do not recall exactly what we discussed but it most likely was Barker's role under Hunt in the ill-fated invasion of Cuba that took place under President Kennedy, who later came to believe that he had been misled and misadvised by the CIA on the matter. Hunt's recounting of the invasion is told in his book, "Give Us This Day." Even Hunt's most vociferous critics concede that he is an extremely gifted writer and this is reflected in all of his books, including the above-mentioned one.

I did talk to Mrs. Barker several times in the days immediately following her husband's arrest, primarily about providing security for bail to get him out of jail. With her permission I publicly alluded to these calls in order to provide an excuse for my showing up at the jail on the day of the arrests without having received a telephone call from any of those arrested. Of course, it is well known now that Hunt and Liddy retained my legal services within hours after the arrests to represent them and those arrested. But I could not then publicly disclose Hunt's and Liddy's names as they had not been arrested.

When Hunt came to my residence about an hour after the arrests, having a short time earlier telephoned me from his office in the Executive Office Building that adjoins the White House, I was amazed that he did not fully comprehend the significance of what had occurred at the Watergate complex and its potential grave impact. After hearing what he related, I was dismayed and said to myself, "Well, the Republicans have really done it to themselves this time." I knew that it was unlikely that the five arrested individuals could be quickly set free on bail but attempted nevertheless, with the advice of one of the partners of my law firm who was a former Assistant U.S. Attorney, to do so in the hope of averting a major scandal. My effort was in vain, just as I had feared it would be. The rest, as the saying goes, is history."

I believe Ashton has already read this post, as I recall him quoting Mr. Caddy's comments about Hunt's writing skills. If so, then he apparently missed Mr. Caddy's acknowledgement that he talked to Mrs. Barker and used her as his excuse to show up in court without having received a call from any of the "burglars."

[quote name='Pat Speer' date='Jun 26 2006, 11:16 PM' post='66523']


Pat:

Somewhere here on one of these threads you asked if I had read McCord's book, "A Piece OF Tape".
No I have not. But I know that McCord has always denied that he was TRYING to get caught at Watergate.

And it was this matter to which I was referring when I said you "believed (him)".

I recall- and I may be wrong here, but I thought that I once read that you were suspicious about this entire taping the doors- TWICE- incident, until you read his book. Am I mistaken here, when it was in fact perhaps Tim Gratz who said this? If so I apologise. But it was that exact quote to which I was referring in my post.

Dawn

[quote name='Dawn Meredith' date='Jun 27 2006, 12:16 AM' post='66526']
[quote name='Pat Speer' date='Jun 26 2006, 11:16 PM' post='66523']


Pat:

Somewhere here on one of these threads you asked if I had read McCord's book, "A Piece OF Tape".
No I have not. But I know that McCord has always denied that he was TRYING to get caught at Watergate.

And it was this matter to which I was referring when I said you "believed (him)".

I recall- and I may be wrong here, but I thought that I once read that you were suspicious about this entire taping the doors- TWICE- incident, until you read his book. Am I mistaken here, when it was in fact perhaps Tim Gratz who said this? If so I apologise. But it was that exact quote to which I was referring in my post.

Dawn
[/quote]

Yes, I said I thought his behavior was suspicious until I read his book. He makes no bones that he is a super-patriot. He resented that Nixon was mis-usng the intelligence agencies for partisan political purposes, and trying to make the CIA take the fall for Watergate. The book does a good job, IMO, of showing how McCord came to his decision to talk to Sirica. Once he realized the Federal Prosecutors were under Nixon's influence. and were helping the White House push the whole thing aside, his disgust reached record levels. He decided to let the whole thing play out, so he could THEN go to Sirica, and expose the corruption of the system. I think a lot of people get caught up in thinking the CIA is the root of all evil. The CIA is a tool, all too often misused by the Presidency for political purposes. I think McCord is an honest man. While the tape was his mistake, there were a number of other mistakes made contributing to the capture of the burglars. If you read McCord's book, you'll see that he was encouraging a complete clean-up of Washington. I don't see the CIA as ever recommending such a thing or tolerating one of its agents recommending such a thing...too many skeletons, too many closets... I think McCord is an honest man and I'm sure Mr. Baldwin agreed.

Sometimes we have to let go of our "pet" theories before we can make sense of things. I let go of my "pet" theory that McCord deliberately got caught. The Watergate break-in and its aftermath now makes almost perfect sense to me. Nixon was out of control. He had a bunch of cowboys working for him. It was only a matter of time before they'd get caught. They got caught. Hunt blackmailed him. McCord flip-flopped back and forth but eventually decided to do the right thing. He went to an honest, if perhaps overly aggressive, judge. Most of the truth came out. Are their secrets? Sure. I think there was a secret deal between Nixon and the men behind the Watergate hearings (inc. Ted Kennedy?) to force Agnew out of the chain-of-command. NO ONE wanted him as President. It also wouldn't surprise me one bit if Hunt and Liddy had something to do with Hoover's death and/or the assassination attempt on Wallace. I had a "pet" theory for a long time that they'd been behind the break-ins at FBI offices, and the exposure of COINTELPRO, in an attempt to force Hoover from office, as well. That theory went out the window last year with an acknowledgement from a respected Forum member that he had a very good idea--wink wink--who was involved. And it wasn't the White House or the CIA, but honest-to-God leftists, who remain at large... So much for "pet" theories. I suppose one of the reasons they're called "pet" theories is because we usually outlive them,

<Long sigh> No. No, Pat. No, I had not missed a single syllable. Apparently you missed the fact that your question was knowingly evaded by Mr. Caddy using a tired, ancient, cobwebbed, swaybacked, transparent gimmick of sending you off somewhere looking through messages (which he knows very well most casual readers won't even bother to do) for a nonresponsive statement that contained key words like "Mrs. Barker" and "telephone call," confident that you would believe the questions had been answered. He even gave the wrong name for the thread. Of course you, being a forum veteran, were able to track it down—something he well knew that the vast majority of casual readers never would accomplish.

He was quite confident that you, having been supplied a puff of air, would believe, after encountering certain key words, that you had been given an answer. And here you are telling me that you got an answer. And you got no answer at all.

However, I see you've managed to use the no-answer Caddy gave you in that other thread to bring it over and hijack this thread and take it off topic. Therefore, I am reposting below the reply I have just posted (in the appropriate thread) to the no-answer Mr. Caddy gave you, and that you ran over here waving. And in posting this, I want to make you this personal undying vow: this is the last response to anything you post in this or any forum that you ever will see from me. Happy trails.

Here's the message to Douglas Caddy:



Actually, Mr. Caddy, I already was entirely familiar with what you had written in the thread you reference long before I posted a single question to you. The thread, by the way, is not titled "Douglas Caddy: Question and Answer." That's very imprecise language for an attorney. The thread is in the "JFK Assassination Debate" forum, and is entitled "Questions for Douglas Caddy." If you actually want people to be able to find what you said when you send them off somewhere else instead of answering a question, it might do them a considerable service to tell them the correct place to go.

The one and only thing you said about Mrs. Barker in that other thread is not at all responsive to any questions I have asked about the purported phone call from Mrs. Barker that you have said you received from her shortly after 3:00 a.m. on the morning of June 17, 1972, and therefore is not responsive to Mr. Speer's civilized, reasonable suggestion that you answer a few of my questions on that specific point.

In fact, not only is what you wrote there not responsive, it regretably adds yet another layer of confusion to the facts at issue. In that thread, you wrote the following:

DOUGLAS CADDY: "I did talk to Mrs. Barker several times in the days immediately following her husband's arrest, primarily about providing security for bail to get him out of jail. With her permission I publicly alluded to these calls in order to provide an excuse for my showing up at the jail on the day of the arrests without having received a telephone call from any of those arrested."

Thank you.

The one (singular) specific call that you "publicly alluded to in order to provide an excuse" for your showing up at the jail on the day of the arrests is the one (singular) call that you told reporters from the Washington Post about on that very day, as reported in the Post, later repeated in "All the Presiden't Men." I quote:

"Douglas Caddy, one of the attorneys for the five men, told a reporter that shortly after 3 a.m. yesterday [June 17, 1972], he received a call from Barker's wife. 'She said that her husband told her to call me if he hadn't called her by 3 a.m.: that it might mean he was in trouble.'" —The Washington Post June 18, 1972: "5 Held in Plot to Bug Democrats' Office Here"

The same thing is repeated in "All the President's Men":

"Caddy said he'd gotten a call shortly after 3:00 A.M. from Barker's wife. "She said her husband had told her to call me if he hadn't called her by three, that it might mean he was in trouble." —All the Presiden't Men, Woodward and Bernstein

These accounts of that one (singular) crucial phone call have stood for 34 years in these seminal references on Watergate, uncontested by you.

In the post in that other thread you cited, which I have quoted above, you say that you had talked to Mrs. Barker "several times" (plural). That's fine. I have no idea what relevance the other conversations have to the one—and only one—specific phone call that you unquestionably "publicly alluded to" in order to "provide an excuse" for your having shown up "at the jail on the day of the arrests without having received a telephone call from any of those arrested."

There is only one phone call anywhere in the available record that fits that description. One. That's the one I've been trying for some time now to get a few simple answers about, which even Mr. Speer has asked you to answer, and still no answers are forthcoming to the very pertinent questions that arise about that one purported phone call.

The reasons the perfectly reasonable and logical questions, still unanswered, have been asked repeatedly now by several people, in many ways, is because you, yourself, told reporters that Mrs. Barker's call had come to you "shortly after 3:00 a.m." on the morning of June 17, 1972, specifically because her husband had given that time as a cut-off time by which she should become concerned, and specifically because Bernard Barker had given her your name and phone number as the person to call in that event.

And very relevant to all the foregoing, there are these facts of record:

• You have testified under oath that you received a telephone call from E. Howard Hunt "between 3:05 a.m. and 3:15 a.m." on that same morning of June 17, 1972, and have testified that he arrived at your apartment at 3:35 a.m. that morning.
  
• E. Howard Hunt says in your article that his call to you that morning was made at 3:13 a.m. In that conversation, neither you or Hunt make any reference to any call from Mrs. Barker, and Hunt apologizes for having woken you up.
  
• In his autobiography, Hunt says that after speaking to you at 3:13 a.m. and securing his White House office, he then left his White House office and went across the street to his office at Mullen, and there placed a call to Mrs. Barker, who he says "shrieked" at the news of her husband's arrest.
  
• It had to be at least 3:20 a.m. by the time Hunt placed the call to Mrs. Barker. Hunt says that during that call he, not Bernard Barker, is the one who gave your name and phone number to Mrs. Barker. He says exactly: "I gave her Caddy's name and telephone number and asked that she phone Doug and retain him for her husband."
  
• You, on the other hand, told the Washington Post that Bernard Barker had told his wife to call you if she hadn't heard from him by 3:00 a.m., because it would "mean he was in trouble." Yet by as late as 3:20 a.m., or even later, apparently she hadn't been concerned enough to call anyone, and she got the news about the arrest delivered to her by E. Howard Hunt. According to Hunt, she had no idea that there had been any trouble.
  
• In Hunt's account of his purported conversation with Mrs. Barker, where Hunt gives her your name and number, she gives no indication at all of knowing anything about you, or of already having your name or your phone number, or of having been told to call you by her husband, Bernard Barker.
  
• Despite the above, you told the Post that she had your contact information from Bernard Barker, not Hunt. You gave that to the Post (purportedly with her permission) as your entire motive for having been present at all: an early morning call shortly after 3:00 a.m., from a concerned woman in Miami that you didn't know, telling you—a corporate attorney—that she thought her husband "might be in trouble" somewhere in Washington, D.C. What the nature of such trouble might be, or even where in Washington, D.C. he might be, presumably neither you nor she knew the slightest thing about.
  
• In your accounts, and in Hunt's accounts, there is no mention of any call from Mrs. Barker at all during the entire time Hunt was at your apartment, which you have said under oath was from 3:35 a.m. to 5:00 a.m.
  
• In Hunt's account, he says that at some unspecified time after he arrived at your apartment—which you have testified was not until 3:35 a.m.—he told you the following: "Bernie Barker's wife will probably call you and retain you officially to represent her husband and the other men." He says you didn't respond, only looked at your watch, and went off to call your law firm partner. (Or partners, since your accounts differ on that point, too, which I've covered in another thread.)

Obviously, Mr. Caddy, these accounts conflict. I think any reasonable and rational person would be perfectly justified in attempting to get the conflicting accounts resolved in some direction for the sake of historical accuracy, specifically in wanting to ascertain:

1) Did Mrs. Barker actually phone you "shortly after 3:00 a.m." on the morning of June 17, 1972, as you told the Washington Post?

2) If Mrs. Barker did call you "shortly after 3:00 a.m.," did her call come before or after Hunt called you? (His call came at 3:13 a.m., according to your own article, "Gay Bashing in Watergate.")

3) If Mrs. Barker already had called you by 3:13 a.m. (when Hunt called you), why did you not tell Hunt when he called you, and why does your own article say that Hunt woke you?

4) If Mrs. Barker already had called you by the time Hunt purportedly called her and gave her your name and number—around or after 3:20 a.m.—do you have any way to account for her surprise that her husband was in trouble, or for her not telling Hunt she already had your name and number from her husband and already had called you?

5) If Mrs. Barker didn't call you until after Hunt's purported call to her at 3:20 a.m., did she tell you that Hunt had recently called her and given her your name and number and had said to call you, or did she tell you that her husband had given her your contact information and had said to call you—as you told the Washington Post?

6) E. Howard Hunt says Mrs. Barker asked him on the phone if she should call you from her home, and that he said to her: "No. Go to a pay telephone and do it." Did Mrs. Barker call you from her home, or had she gotten up, gotten dressed, and gone out to a phone booth, as Hunt says he told her to do?

7) You also said to the Washington Post that you simply had met Bernard Barker "a year ago over cocktails at the Army Navy Club in Washington." You have said this was the one and only time you had met Barker before June 17, 1972. Do you have any knowledge or understanding of why he would have had your name and number at all a year after that brief encounter, or why he would have given it to his wife as an emergency contact in a distant town without having made prior arrangements with you?

8) If Mrs. Barker called you before Hunt arrived at your apartment at 3:35 a.m., why did Hunt tell you the following when he was there with you: "Bernie Barker's wife will probably call you and retain you officially to represent her husband and the other men," and why did you say nothing in response?

9) If Mrs. Barker instead had not called you by 3:35 a.m., when Hunt arrived, did she not call you until after Hunt had left at 5:00 a.m.? If so, why did you tell the Post that her call had been received by you "shortly after 3:00 a.m."?

10) Is it, in fact, your position—as it appears—that an unknown woman called you out of the blue shortly after 3:00 a.m. on a Saturday morning, and said she was calling from Miami, and said that her husband had told her he had only met you over cocktails in a club a year before, but had told her to give you a call if she hadn't heard from him by 3:00 a.m. because he might be in some unknown kind of trouble at some unknown location in Washginton D.C., and that after hearing that at 3:00 o'clock in the morning, you did not slam down your phone and go back to sleep?

These are perfectly valid and reasonable questions, Mr. Caddy. They are obvious questions arising from your own statements. They are perfectly logical questions. Some of them have already been expressed in earlier threads, some implied, but there they are.

Your character isn't being assassinated by being asked straightforward questions about your own assertions of fact. Perhaps it isn't enough of the celebrity treatment to suit you, but speaking just personally, I didn't come to this forum for celebrity fawning, Mr. Caddy; I came here to read and discuss historical fact, and to sort fact from the fiction.



'Scuse me: the exact problem is that we have two completely different sets of purported "historical events" trying to occupy the same place at the same time in the instant case, Mr. Caddy: yours and Hunt's. That doesn't work in this universe. One set, or both sets, are not "historical events" at all, but "historical fictions."

You have your own responsibility for both conflicting sets having equal "authority," since you have endorsed Hunt's account yourself by incorporating part of it into your own.

How else can anyone hope to pull such taffy apart without asking reasonable questions?



Okay. It's fine with me if you leave these, and all the other questions I've asked, sitting here festering and unanswered. They're generating quite a good deal of interest in some quarters, I hear, just as questions, and even more interest in why you're going to such extreme, even draconian lengths to keep from answering them. In fact, it's my opinion that the longer you don't answer them, the more the questions are answering themselves in fell voice.

I also have a pretty good prescience that even if you should succeed in your strident cries for my head on a platter (hat and all ) these questions—these very same questions—will be following you for a very, very long time to come. In fell voice.

Your mileage may vary.



That's very imprecise language for an attorney, Mr. Caddy. You meant "alleged violations."

And it's not "Mr. Ashton." It's "Mr. Gray." But you can call me Pat.

Ashton Gray

For the record, Ashton, or Pat, I interpreted Mr. Caddy's evasiveness differently. I thought he'd sent me to that thread because he wanted to answer the Barker question without answering YOUR question. Keeping my own opinions out of it for a second, he feels you've insulted him. It seemed perfectly reasonable to me that he would not want to reward what he interprets as your bad behavior by directly providing the answers you've demanded. I urge you to try and step outside your own skin and see things through his eyes. Why on Earth would he respond to any questions from you?

No one is forced to participate on this Forum. When one engages in respectful discussion, it encourages others to engage in respectful discussion. You may want to go back through the Forum archives and read the many discussions between Robert Charles-Dunne and Tim Gratz to see how this can be done. They disagreed on almost everything. but never called each other evil or soul-less.

As far as the Barker situation, I believe Mr. Caddy answered that sufficiently. He said he had Mrs. Barker's permission to use her as an excuse. As to whether he received this permission retro-actively--the bone of your contention--you're correct, it's still unclear. And will probably remain that way. I just don't see Mr. Caddy, or anyone with any pride, caving in at this point and saying "you're right, I told a fib...Sue me!" knowing that as soon as he admitted as much you'd use his honesty against him and denounce him as a liar and do a little victory dance.

It's a whole chapter of "How to Spin for the CIA":

"Ally yourself with the opposition. Be 'one of them.' Express similar doubts and concerns you might have shared with them at one time. Then say that you gave the CIA operative a fair hearing, a just consideration, and realized that, as with all CIA operatives, he really was always and only of pure motive and purpose, doing his best at every step for truth, justice, and the American way. He was a victim of circumstances beyond his control, and of the failings and foibles of others around him who lacked the discipline and unblemished chaste virtue that at every moment was his own guiding light."

The advanced lessons say it's even all right to trash another CIA op (like Hunt) if you have to in order temporarily to sell the "Come to Jesus" sermon for one you're trying to peddle (like McCord)—you know, like saying that the other one blackmailed somebody while your choir boy was only trying to "do the right thing."

You can always come back in a separate argument, and say the one who you admitted was a blackmailer in one breath (Hunt) was always 100% virtuous and truthful and honest-to-a-fault in everything else he ever said or did. You know, like everything he ever said about private, closed-door meetings he had with other CIA operatives. "That? Oh, that, well, that you can just take to the bank." Don'tcha' know.

(Watch for this exact flip-flop claim to be coming soon to a thread near you!)

Ashton Gray

[quote name='Pat Speer' date='Jun 27 2006, 03:19 AM' post='66536']

QUOTE (Dawn Meredith @ Jun 27 2006, 12:16 AM)

QUOTE (Pat Speer @ Jun 26 2006, 11:16 PM)

Pat:

Somewhere here on one of these threads you asked if I had read McCord's book, "A Piece OF Tape".
No I have not. But I know that McCord has always denied that he was TRYING to get caught at Watergate.

And it was this matter to which I was referring when I said you "believed (him)".

I recall- and I may be wrong here, but I thought that I once read that you were suspicious about this entire taping the doors- TWICE- incident, until you read his book. Am I mistaken here, when it was in fact perhaps Tim Gratz who said this? If so I apologise. But it was that exact quote to which I was referring in my post.

Dawn

Yes, I said I thought his behavior was suspicious until I read his book. He makes no bones that he is a super-patriot. He resented that Nixon was mis-usng the intelligence agencies for partisan political purposes, and trying to make the CIA take the fall for Watergate. The book does a good job, IMO, of showing how McCord came to his decision to talk to Sirica. Once he realized the Federal Prosecutors were under Nixon's influence. and were helping the White House push the whole thing aside, his disgust reached record levels. He decided to let the whole thing play out, so he could THEN go to Sirica, and expose the corruption of the system. I think a lot of people get caught up in thinking the CIA is the root of all evil. The CIA is a tool, all too often misused by the Presidency for political purposes. I think McCord is an honest man. While the tape was his mistake, there were a number of other mistakes made contributing to the capture of the burglars. If you read McCord's book, you'll see that he was encouraging a complete clean-up of Washington. I don't see the CIA as ever recommending such a thing or tolerating one of its agents recommending such a thing...too many skeletons, too many closets... I think McCord is an honest man and I'm sure Mr. Baldwin agreed.

Sometimes we have to let go of our "pet" theories before we can make sense of things. I let go of my "pet" theory that McCord deliberately got caught.


So, you let go of your common sense "pet theory" that McCord was TRYING to get caught upon reading McCord's (self-serving) book that he simply made some mistakes. Hmmmm. Shudda stuck with common sense. I find it hard to believe you'd be this naive. (DM)


The Watergate break-in and its aftermath now makes almost perfect sense to me. Nixon was out of control. He had a bunch of cowboys working for him.


No disagreement there. (DM)


It was only a matter of time before they'd get caught. They got caught. Hunt blackmailed him. McCord flip-flopped back and forth but eventually decided to do the right thing.

At least that is how he tried to make it LOOK. (DM)


He went to an honest, if perhaps overly aggressive, judge. Most of the truth came out.

Not a chance. Most of the "truth" was covered up. (imho) (DM)

Are their secrets? Sure. I think there was a secret deal between Nixon and the men behind the Watergate hearings (inc. Ted Kennedy?) to force Agnew out of the chain-of-command. NO ONE wanted him as President.


I doubt Ted Kennedy was in on any deal with Tricky Dick. I think Teddy knows better than that. I agree noone wanted Agnew as president. They did want the man they knew they could depend on tho. The one who'd been such a good boy in helping cover up for the assassination of JFK. Gerry Ford. (Remember his little book "Portrait of AN Assassin" ?) How convenient that he would also make Bush head of the CIA. HOw utterly convenient Patrick. Good old dependable Gerry. (DM)


It also wouldn't surprise me one bit if Hunt and Liddy had something to do with Hoover's death and/or the assassination attempt on Wallace.

Well, now there's a thought....(DM)


I had a "pet" theory for a long time that they'd been behind the break-ins at FBI offices, and the exposure of COINTELPRO, in an attempt to force Hoover from office, as well.


Sounds like a good theory to me...so far, but... (DM)

That theory went out the window last year with an acknowledgement from a respected Forum member that he had a very good idea--wink wink--who was involved. And it wasn't the White House or the CIA, but honest-to-God leftists

OR, do you mean it was leftists who "exposed COINTELPRO"? (Sid Bluementhal did write a seminal article on COINTELPRO "How The FBI Tried to Destroy the Black Panthers". It's in Government by Gunplay (Harvey Yazijian and Sid Blumenthal). (1976)
,

WHAT????? Now you've done a 180. (And does "wink wink" mean we are, or are NOT to take this "pet theory" seriously???) DM)

who remain at large... So much for "pet" theories. I suppose one of the reasons they're called "pet" theories is because we usually outlive them,

I am still struggling with your throwing out the only explanation based on common sense, of the taping of the doors HORIZONTALLY, TWICE , in favor of a new theory based on what Jim McCord wrote in his book. You are one trusting soul for someone who studies this stuff.

Dawn

Dawn, I urge you to read McCord's testimony as well as his book. He's quite credible. And I'm not naive. What is incredibly naive is to assume that there was a vast conspiracy, including men such as Caddy and Baldwin, to pretend there was a first break-in, in order to cover up what these men were really up to. You are a lawyer. Does it make sense to you that an accused perpetrator of a crime would admit to a previous crime in order to hide their involvement in another crime, when they have never been accused of this other crime, and when this CRIME HAS NEVER BEEN IDENTIFIED? That's a looney theory if ever there was one.

As far as the break-in at the Meridian PA FBI office, which led to the exposure of COINTELPRO, let me clarify. As Nixon had been praying for Hoover's removal from office, due to his resistance to the the Huston plan, and as ithe exposure of COINTELPRO led to cries for Hoover's ouster, by Hale Boggs, among others, I had suspected that the break-in had been orchestrated by Nixon, using Hunt and the Cubans. The fact that no one was ever arrested for this break-in, one of the most embarrassing chapters in the history of the FBI, seemed too much a coincidence. Certainly, I thought, a bunch of hippies embarking on such a break-in would get arrested shortly thereafter. When someone on this forum wrote about COINTELPRO, I shared my "Pet" theory, only to get shot down. I was assured that the real "Committee to Investigate the FBI" was a small group of leftist intellectuals, who remain silent to this day. Although the statute of limitations on the break-in has long passed, there is a separate law regarding conspiracy to hide a criminal act, which evidently still applies. Thus, the continued silence.

Mr. Gray, I have been on this Forum for years, discussing many aspects of our recent history. I have been quite critical of the CIA throughout, and have even assisted Larry Hancock in research for his book Someone Would Have Talked. My research concluded that Tracy Barnes, in his role as Director of the Domestic Operations Division of the CIA, with his background as Assistant Director of Plans, and his close working relationship with Rip Robertson, David Morales, David Phillips, and Howard Hunt, would have been in pefect position to fund and organize an assassination attempt on the President of the United States and any other leader, without the knowledge of higher-ups, and without leaving a paper trail. I hardly see this as a position sympathetic to the CIA. Your post accusing me of being some sort of CIA apologist is both incredibly off-the-mark and insulting. It is also indicative of your own lack of scholarship, as you are prone to seeing conspiracies when there is none. This is a forum for intellectual discussion and is designed to help students think critically about our history, and you do nothing but fill it full of PROPAGANDA proposing what appears to be a bizarre theory. When challenged, rather than discuss the logical basis for your theory, you announce that you are through with the challengers and will no longer respond to them. You then try to make them seem disingenuous by suggesting that their posts are somehow being orchestrated by the CIA. As a result, you bring down the level of discourse on this forum.

If, as you claim, the CIA was trying to bring down Nixon in order to put Gerald Ford in power, why would it concoct such an arcane and overly complicated scenario as the Watergate break-in, when there were more damaging items at its disposal, such as the Huston plan, the Diem cables, the ITT memo, and the Ellsberg break-in? If, as you seem to believe, this plan was put in place by Helms, why did none of these things come to light until Helms was long gone? Why didn't Helms speak up about Haldeman's attempts to get him to cut off the FBI investigation of Watergate before he was shipped off? Why did Helms subsequently perjure himself in order to conceal the Nixon Administration's involvement in the overthrow of Allende? Did the CIA continue as the orchestrator of the plot against Nixon after Helms was removed? Did Schlesinger, Nixon's hatchet man, creator of the "family jewels," continue with the CIA's plot against Nixon? If so, why? As for Ford, just how did the CIA know he would be put in place to replace Agnew? And how did the CIA know Agnew was going to resign? According to Agnew, Nixon himself was behind his ouster. Did the CIA cut a deal with Nixon to dump Agnew? If so, why didn't they put this plan in place before the 72 election, so that Ford could actually have been elected, and have more credibility once President? Similarly, if the CIA was so all fired-up to support Ford, what kinds of plots were hatched against Carter in 76 to preserve Ford's reign? Geoge H.W. Bush was DCI during this period. Are you telling me he was a willing part of the move to overthrow Nixon, his mentor, but did nothing as DCI to help Ford defeat Carter, and continue his own reign as DCI?

Your whole theory is as full of holes as a whiffle ball. Please stop, regroup,and at least try to have it make sense before you accuse those of us with functioning critical faculties of being CIA lackeys.

Is it just me, or is there a lot of baying and howling in here, like something's been treed?

Ashton Gray

Those aren't answers, Ashton. Your theory is full of malarkey and you know it. You've uncovered that people experiencing the same event remember the event differently. Big whoop. Didn't we learn that in seventh grade? When we told a story and whispered it around the class room, and then had the last person tell the story out loud so that everyone could see how it had changed?

I'm still waiting for you to offer one reason to believe the first break-in never happened, or that the Diem cables never existed, etc. You cite that a group of people remember things differently and then draw from this that the event they're remembering NEVER happened. This is absolutely bone-headed, IMO. What's worse, you harrassed Baldwin and Caddy from the Forum and cited their refusal to answer questions as proof of their complicity, and yet you refuse to answer questions yourself. So what does that say about you?

I am reposting this from the "Ashton Gray" thread, because it addresses some of the questions raised by Mr. Gray on this thread.



How in heaven's name would that be any part of Mr. Caddy's "due diligence"?



See previous note. Even if Mr. Caddy once had this information in memory 30-odd years ago, it is absurd to think that he would be able to recall it today.

"[*]Did Hunt in fact tell you that you likely would be getting a call from Bernard Barker's wife?"

Previously asked and answered

"[*] You claim contrarily [to Hunt's account] that both you and Hunt spoke to Liddy at some length on the telephone between 4:45 a.m. and 5:00 a.m.... Which of these contradictory accounts, if any, is true?"

Again, the "if any" is gratuitously insulting. It is not at all clear that there IS a conflict here, but -- even if there is -- using Howard Hunt's version in an attempt to impeach Mr. Caddy is, well, a bit silly.

"[*]." How did you get the aliases that the other men were using in order that you and Rafferty could locate them downtown?"

What difference does it make?

"[*]Referring to your due diligence for your clients, what had Hunt done with the antenna he purportedly had stuffed down his pants leg?"

I can answer that myself. At some point Hunt took the antenna out of his pants. Of course there is no evidence that he did this in Mr. Caddy's presence. The question is completely lacking in foundation, like so many other questions posed to Mr. Caddy by Mr. Gray.

"[*]Referring to your due diligence for your clients, why was there purported "surplus electronic gear" in the temporary "command post" room with Hunt and Liddy?"

"[*]Referring to your due diligence for your clients, when did you learn that Hunt had stashed incriminating "surplus electronic gear" in his White House safe, and did you advise him to leave it there?"

Here, as in other questions, Mr. Gray is asking Mr. Caddy to violate the attorney-client privilege ( I am assuming, for the sake of argument, that Hunt told Mr. Caddy about this electronic gear. It would not surprise me if that assumption is false). I think Mr. Caddy has amply demonstrated that he is willing to go to jail before he would violate his solemn obligations in this regard.

Does Mr. Gray have delusions that he is John J. Sirica? Is he going to put Mr. Caddy in jail for refusing to answer his asinine questions?

Mr. Caddy has demonstrated that he acts upon his principles; Mr Gray has yet to demonstrate that he has any, unless persistently calling Mr. Caddy a liar, or insinuating that he is one, is Mr. Gray's idea of a "principle."

"[*]Given that you had worked for John Dean beginning in March 1972; given that as an extension of that work did work for Liddy; given that you purportedly had been advised that Liddy was involved; given that Hunt says that Dean was in town at the time, did you contact John Dean that morning, and if not, why not?"

Why in heaven's name would he? Is a lawyer supposed to notify his other clients every time one client gets in trouble? This one is a candidate for the title of "Most Asinine Question Ever Asked by Ashton Gray," but the competition is intense.

"[*]Referring to your due diligence for your clients, isn't it true that all "documentation" for every one of the aliases for every one of the participants had originated at CIA?"

Why ask Mr. Caddy that question? He has already made it crystal clear that he had no CIA clearance. Or is this just another of the myriad ways Mr. Gray is inventing as an excuse to call Mr. Caddy a liar?

Besides, even if Mr. Caddy could prove that the documents originated in CIA, would this have done much to assist his clients defense, which was Mr. Caddy's sole responsibility?

Mr. Gray's final questions for Mr. Caddy in that thread [EDIT meaning his June 25 post]are listed below. There will be a prize for the first person who can correctly list them in order of asininity:

"[*]Did you wait for Rafferty to come to your apartment, or did you meet Rafferty elsewhere?

[*]Had you ever seen or met James McCord prior to seeing him in the cell block? If so, when, where, and under what circumstances?

[*]What became of the tapes from the recording system that had been installed in Hunt's White House office on or about July 9, 1971?

[*]Had you ever met with Hunt in that office?

[*]Hunt, in telling you the men had been arrested, claims to have said to you: "You know one of them, Bernie Barker." Is that how it happened?

[*]Hunt says he never saw you again after he left your apartment. How did you manage to avoid ever encountering him throughout all the subsequent legal actions?

[*]Exactly when and under what circumstances did you stop representing each of the seven people that you have both claimed, and denied to the press, as having represented?
Ashton Gray"

On June 15, 2006, in the thread "Douglas Caddy, Hunt, Liddy, Mullen, and the CIA"

Mr. Caddy wrote:

"No, I was not cleared and witting of the Mullen Company’s involvement with the CIA. I only learned for certain of such involvement when I read Senator Howard Baker’s supplemental lengthy statement that was released about the same time that the final Senate Watergate Committee report was promulgated."

Despite Mr. Caddy's unambiguous statement about what he knew and did not know about the operations of the Mullen Company, Mr. Gray keeps on insinuating that Mr. Caddy is lying.

Mr. Gray: What part of "no" do you not understand?

If Mr. Caddy is no longer answering Mr. Gray's questions, I suspect it is not just because he persists in casting aspersions on Mr. Caddy's character; it is also because he persists in insulting Mr. Caddy's (and our) intelligence [QUOTE OFF].

I could respond to most of Mr. Gray's remaining questions for Mr. Caddy in the same vein, but I doubt if that would stop Mr. Gray from continuing his game that I call "TRIVIAL PUSUIT WITH MALICE."

[quote name='J. Raymond Carroll' date='Jul 8 2006, 04:03 PM' post='67612']
[quote name='Ashton Gray' post='66444' date='Jun 25 2006, 07:52 PM']
[ Mr Carroll
Leaving aside the subject of Watergate for one second I wish to turn to another matter. A matter where you were the one who was very nasty, to me, with absolutely no provocation from me. I did PM you a few weeks ago with a request that a fellow researcher contact you (via PM) for the sole purpose of making some inquiries relevent to the Mac Wallace case. First I responded honestly to your request-(last year) that I contact Earl Golz and "write an article on him". I told you sincerely in my PM that I had called Earl several times and that his wife Lois is no longer allowing him to do interviews due to failing health. So I was unable to carry out your request to "interview Golz about his book" . I also informed you that there is no book. And I told you why. Only then did I bring up the subject of my friend wishing to contact you and ask some questions. Then said friend did post his questions. (He did NOT PM you because I told him I had just received from you a very nasty PM and that he should seek his information in an alternative manner.) So he posted it. Adding insult to injury you immediately posted about receiving a PM from me, as if I was somehow harrassing you. Of course you totally omitted all the information that it was you who first contacted me with fasle information re a non-existent book, about which I should write an article. I wholehartedly agree that the very important work-done by Earl Golz, from the inception of this case should be memorialized in a book. Indeed the fact that Earl's work was published by the Operation Mockingbird controlled press is in itself worthy of a book.

On these points we agree.

So for you to come to this forum acting all sanctimonious over Ashton Gray's alleged nasty attitide really makes me laugh. At least he is honest. Your dishonesty and overt nastiness to me, both in private and then in public demonstrates you as the hypocrite I know you to actually be.

So let's keep our facts straight here shall we? I have watched you stalk Ashton Gray on this forum and twist his every sentence. Do you really think you are fooling anyone here with your ho-li-er- than thou attitude?

He calls it how he sees it. And has the research to back it up. Irrelevent to you and Mr Spear perhaps, but none- the- less honest. So you don't like his "tone". Well there are people here who don't care for yours as well.

Dawn Meredith

Perhaps you would be kind enough to post this PM so the whole world can see what a scoundrel I am in private.

P. S. Not everything I post on the forum is directed at Dawn Meredith personally.

This message combines all the questions I asked Douglas Caddy in three separate messages at the beginning of this thread. The questions arise out of clear contradictions and omissions in the record regarding when and under what circumstances Mr. Caddy purportedly was hired to represent various actors in Watergate.

In the original three messages where these questions reside, I include comparative testimony and accounts on these events from Douglas Caddy, E. Howard Hunt, and G. Gordon Liddy, which clearly demonstrate significant contradictions. I recommend reading those articles for a better understanding of the questions.

Quite a few of the questions below go to those contradictions. There is a fundamental principal at work: when two "facts" are contradictory, one is false, or both are false. Both can't be true. Both might be false. To assume either is true is a fool's game. (We are honored to have a grand master of that game in this thread. He also styles himself as a masterful critic of questions. And where would civilization be today without someone to keep a constant vigilant watch on questions?)

On other important points, the record is silent, and I have asked some questions in an effort to solicit the cooperation of Mr. Caddy, with his unique percipient knowledge, to provide information to fill in those gaps.

QUESTIONS FOR DOUGLAS CADDY SET I

These questions arise from the article containing Douglas Caddy's own statements and accounts of events related to Watergate, in which there are contradictions and incongruous events that seem to have no explanation (such as knowing which aliases the arrested men had given to police, or knowing what Liddy's role had been in order to brief Caddy's law partner).

1. Since the five men were using aliases with the police, and there is no record of Hunt or Liddy having given you the aliases, how did you and Rafferty know what names to look for on the arraignment sheet, and which names to use when making phone calls to find the men?
   
2. How were you able to brief Robert Scott on Liddy's role in the break-in?
   
3. Did you or did you not receive a telephone call from Bernard Barker's wife asking you to represent her husband and the other men? If so, what time was it and where were you when you received the phone call?
   
4. Did E. Howard Hunt tell you at your apartment that Bernard Barker's wife was going to call you?
   
5. If Rafferty was the attorney of record, why were you called before the grand jury as the attorney for the men?
   
6. Was Rafferty called before the grand jury, too? If not, why not?
   
7. Were you in the court on June 17, 1972 as an attorney or only "as an individual"?
   
8. You reportedly told Woodward at the courtroom that the men were not your clients. Was that true or false?
   
9. In your 10:30 a.m. meeting with the five men inside the cell block, did you properly disclose to each of them that you were not a criminal lawyer but a corporate lawyer?
   
10. Since you were not a criminal lawyer, and Rafferty was, why did you stay on the case at all?
    
11. On June 17, 1972, did you subscribe any permanent record, file, pleading, notice of appearance, or any other instrument related to the case for any or all of the men? If so, what?
    
12. At any relevant time, were you acting as an "Attorney in fact" on behalf of E. Howard Hunt and/or G. Gordon Liddy, and if so, did you have an instrument granting you a power of attorney for either of them or both?
    
13. If Rafferty was the attorney of record and was the criminal lawyer on the case, why did he get $2,500 while you got $6,000?

QUESTIONS FOR DOUGLAS CADDY SET II

These questions encompass and compare Hunt's account and Mr. Caddy's own accounts and statements, addressing not only contradictions in the various accounts, but also omissions of information that reasonably would be expected to be in the record, without which certain claims, statements, and event simply make little or no sense. As in all cases, I'm not foolish or naive enough to make the rash assumption that either of two conflicting "facts" automatically is true. Nor do I assume that one has to be false. One might be true. If two or more people are lying to cover up the truth, though, obviously all "facts" they present will be false, and the truth remains an unknown. I'm trying to get to the truth.

1. You said in your accounts that two of your law firm's partners were out of town that morning and only one was available: Robert Scott. Hunt says that you told him that one partner was out of town and that you had spoken to two partners on the phone, and that as a consequence you had said to Hunt, "I'll tell you one thing, Howard, my partners [plural] certainly don't like my being involved in this thing." Which of these mutually exclusive accounts, if any, is true?
   
2. Why did you alter the time that Hunt had supplied for his phone call to you when you supposedly "quoted" Hunt at the beginning of your article, "Gay Bashing in Watergate"?
   
3. Did the purported call from Hunt to you come at 2:13 a.m. or at 3:13 a.m. on the morning of June 17, 1972—if at all?
   
4. Since the burglars couldn't have been "caught" unless the first wave of law enforcement had been plain-clothes men in unmarked cars, in your due diligence for your clients, what did you discover concerning this bizarre police response for a reported burglary in progress?
   
5. What section, division, department, or unit of the D.C. police were these plain-clothes first responders part of?
   
6. Did Hunt in fact tell you that you likely would be getting a call from Bernard Barker's wife?
   
7. Did you ever receive such a call—as you told the Washington Post—and if so, where were you and what time was it?
   
8. Hunt's account says not a word about any conversation with G. Gordon Liddy during his entire time at your apartment, and implies very strongly that neither he nor you had any contact at all with Liddy at all the entire time that Hunt was at your apartment, going so far as to say: "Thinking of Liddy, I said [to Douglas Caddy], 'There may be some calls for me tonight, and home is the only place I could be reached.'" You claim contrarily that both you and Hunt spoke to Liddy at some length on the telephone between 4:45 a.m. and 5:00 a.m., during which conversation you claim that Liddy told you that he wanted you to represent him. Which of these contradictory accounts, if any, is true?
   
9. Hunt only claims to have given you aliases used by only two men: Bernard Barker, and another (McCord) who Hunt purportedly only described to you as "another man-who works for CREP." How did you get the aliases that the other men were using in order that you and Rafferty could locate them downtown?
   
10. How were you able to do legal work for John Dean and G. Gordon Liddy beginning in March 1972 without ever encountering, meeting, or knowing of the Chief of Security for CREEP, James McCord?
    
11. Hunt purportedly gave you the name "George Leonard" as the alias being used by McCord. That is the alias that had been used by G. Gordon Liddy at all other relevant times. When doing what you have described as minor legal research for Liddy beginning in March 1972, did you know Liddy as G. Gordon Liddy or as George Leonard? (Note: this question is asked despite Hunt's own self-conflicting accounts of who had which aliases.)
    
12. Referring to your due diligence for your clients, what had Hunt done with the antenna he purportedly had stuffed down his pants leg?
    
13. Referring to your due diligence for your clients, why was there purported "surplus electronic gear" in the temporary "command post" room with Hunt and Liddy?
    
14. Referring to your due diligence for your clients, when did you learn that Hunt had stashed incriminating "surplus electronic gear" in his White House safe, and did you advise him to leave it there?
    
15. Given that you had worked for John Dean beginning in March 1972; given that as an extension of that work did work for Liddy; given that you purportedly had been advised that Liddy was involved; given that Hunt says that Dean was in town at the time, did you contact John Dean that morning, and if not, why not?
    
16. Referring to your due diligence for your clients, isn't it true that all "documentation" for every one of the aliases for every one of the participants had originated at CIA?
    
17. Did you at any time put into the record the origins of the fake I.D.s used by the participants?
    
18. Isn't it true the fake I.D.s supplied by Hunt to certain participants included not one, but two, different I.D.s that CIA had supplied to Hunt (in addition to a separate one that had been supplied by CIA to Liddy)?
    
19. Can you list the exact aliases that the participants had supplied to the police that morning, linking each to the real names?
    
20. Did you wait for Rafferty to come to your apartment, or did you meet Rafferty elsewhere?
    
21. Had you ever seen or met James McCord prior to seeing him in the cell block? If so, when, where, and under what circumstances?
    
22. What became of the tapes from the recording system that had been installed in Hunt's White House office on or about July 9, 1971?
    
23. Had you ever met with Hunt in that office?
    
24. Hunt, in telling you the men had been arrested, claims to have said to you: "You know one of them, Bernie Barker." Is that how it happened?
    
25. Hunt says he never saw you again after he left your apartment. How did you manage to avoid ever encountering him throughout all the subsequent legal actions?
    
26. Exactly when and under what circumstances did you stop representing each of the seven people that you have both claimed, and denied to the press, as having represented?

QUESTIONS FOR DOUGLAS CADDY SET III

The questions below arise out of comparisons of all three accounts—Caddy's, Hunt's, and Liddy's. See also questions posed above. While these questions address some inconsitencies and contradictions, they also address omissions in the record related to crucially important issues.

1. Liddy is very specific about the time of a purported call to him from your apartment, Mr. Caddy: 5:00 a.m. He says that he made a point of the time to Hunt. You have said the call took place 15 minutes earlier, around 4:45, and that Hunt left your apartment right around 5:00 a.m., just when Liddy says Hunt was placing a call to Liddy. Hunt mentions nothing about any call at all to Liddy from your apartment, and implies strongly that he wasn't in touch with Liddy at all that morning at your apartment. Did such a call actually take place, and if you say it did, which time is correct?
   
2. Liddy claims that Hunt asked Liddy's permission after 5:00 a.m., on the phone, to give you the $8,500. Hunt claims that he gave you the $8,500 just after arriving at your apartment, which you say happened at 3:35 a.m.—well before either the disputed 4:45 or 5:00 a.m. time of a purported phone call to Liddy. Hunt says nothing about any call at all to Liddy, much less about asking Liddy's permission to give you that fee. Yet according to Liddy's appelate court ruling, you testified that Hunt gave you the money only after talking to Liddy and getting approval. Which, if any, of these contrary accounts is true?
   
3. The appelate court ruling says Hunt called you from room 723 of the Howard Johnson's motel. Hunt says he called you from his White House office. You testified that the call came about a half hour before Hunt arrived at your apartment, which you say happened at 3:35 a.m., placing the phone call at approximately 3:05 a.m. You also say that your apartment was only about a mile away from the Watergate. Where did Hunt call you from, and can you account for why it took Hunt half an hour to get there?
   
4. Why did you allow your clients, the break-in team, to incriminate themselves and each other on additional counts for a purported "first break-in," when there was no physical evidence that could have incriminated them for additional counts, or even have made anybody aware that any purported "first break-in" had occurred at all?
   
5. Did you advise your clients to so incriminate themselves and each other by telling the "first break-in" stories? If so, why?
   
6. Going to your due diligence, did you advise your clients of a sweep by the phone company that had been done just days before they were "caught" inside the Watergate, evidence that would have exculpated them from self-incrimination and mutual incrimination on additional criminal liability for any such "first break-in" and planting of alleged "bugs" that were not present? If not, why not?
   
7. Given that G. Gordon Liddy was your client, and that he personally had destroyed the physical evidence that might, or might not, have incriminated your other clients for any such purported "first break-in," did you advise the "break-in team" that Liddy had destroyed that evidence? If not, why not?
   
8. Did you establish beyond a reasonable doubt, to your own satisfaction, that any purported "first break-in" had taken place at all over Memorial Day weekend? If you did, how did you?
   
9. Did you actually know, at any relevant time, that no such "first break-in" had occurred at all?
   
10. Are you currently participating in a continuing, knowing cover-up of the fact that there was no "first break-in" at the Watergate?
    
11. Do you have any actual proof or physical evidence of the whereabouts and activities of E. Howard Hunt, G. Gordon Liddy, James McCord, and Alfred Baldwin, III over Memorial Day weekend—May 26, 27, and 28 1972?
    
12. Was there a fraud upon the courts, upon Congress, and upon the people of the United States with the knowing intent to deceive regarding a purported "first break-in"?
    
13. If there was such a fraud, given its consequences on the Office of the President—who is Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces—and given its consequences on the Congress—who has war powers—and given that the United States actively was engaged in war at the time, does this rise to USC 18 §2381, Treason? If you know.

Ashton Gray

As I've posted in the "Alfred C. Baldwin" thread, and in the "Questions for Douglas Caddy" thread in the JFK Assassination forum, I think it's become very clear why Douglas Caddy will not answer any of my questions going to the extraordinary number of contradictions between his, Hunt's, and Liddy's stories about Hunt's visit to Caddy's apartment in the early morning hours of 17 June 1972.

The reason is just too simple: It's all fiction. It's pure fiction.

It's Caddy trying to provide an alibi for Hunt, and just doing a real "Phyllis Diller does Ophelia" job of it. The performance just stinks. It reeks. Of course what it reeks of just as much is Hunt's hack spy fiction writing. So between them, it's a disaster of contradictions and completely non-sensical "historical events" (as Caddy likes to call his fiction in order to puff himself up). I pointed out the contradictions and holes in their stories with my questions to him about that morning. Of course he wouldn't answer the questions. Why?

Oh, I'm a big bad bully he says, and I'm an infiltrator he says, and I'm a saboteur he says, and I'm a fifth-columnist he says, and I'm here to disrupt the board he says. Worm, worm, worm. Anything and everything to worm out of answering the questions.

And all it ever was is exactly what you'd expect, given that I exposed his and Hunt's really catastrophically gruesome attempt at doing a little one-act play to give Hunt an alibi for his whereabouts during those hours.

So where was Hunt, really, that Caddy is covering up for (and has been for 34 years)? With Alfred Baldwin, planting "evidence" at James McCord's house to incriminate the White House, Hunt being Baldwin's ride to where he needed to go.

It's just too damned simple. And there couldn't possibly be anybody else but Hunt to be the driver for Baldwin. All the other actors were in jail except Liddy, and Liddy's role didn't have to do with planting "evidence" like Hunt's and Baldwin's roles both did. Liddy also had to be on deck early in the morning for another part of the op.

So now you know what all the writhing and "chaos" Caddy complains about really was: Caddy's flailing and moaning about having been caught in his fiction, and nothing else.

Problem is, this brings up a whole other set of questions, then, about Caddy. I think that when those start getting asked of Caddy, they're going to be being asked by properly constituted authorities who will make me look like Mother Theresa. Doug may soon be longing and pining for these nice, friendly, chummy forum moments with me.

Ashton Gray

Ashton, if we can't get the "properly constitued authorities" to take another look at the Kennedy assassination, then you don't stand a snowball's chance in hell of getting the "properly constituted authorities" to look at your so-called "evidence." When is the last time you heard of a criminal investigation being re-opened when most of the supposed perps have already served time, none of them have confessed to additional crimes, and the only evidence supporting their purported conspiracy is minor conflicts in their subsequent statements?

Perhaps you should head over to the FBI tomorrow. I'd love to see the looks on the faces of the local agents when you tell them that the central thesis of your theory is that the former acting director of the FBI was in fact a CIA "water-carrier."