Ashton, since a lot of my problems with your assertions is that I think you're a fake, and since a lot of our time has been taken up with petty bickering as a result of these doubts, why don't we put our doubts aside and meet someplace? We're both Angelenos. Maybe we can meet somewhere in Hollywood. How about Hollywood and Highland? We can meet. I can check out your hat. You can show me an ID verifying that your name is really Ashton Gray, and we can be on our way. Or have lunch. Your pick.

If you find this prospect threatening, bring along some friends.

P.S. As witnessed below, some have perceived this as a threat. I assure you it is not meant to be so. Having been raised in the entertainment capital of the world, and having written a few screenplays and attended a few screenwriting conferences, I have met many colorful Hollywood types. Many of these have taken fake names. Having read dozens of screenplays, I am familiar with the kinds of names that Hollywood types like to pick. As a result, it has seemed obvious to me from day one of your arrival on this Forum that the man in the dramatic hat, with the flowing GRAY hair and the name ASHton GRAY (notice the doubles that you seem to like so much) is a fake. Call me paranoid, if you like. My offer above was completely sincere. If you would like to meet and show me that you're a real person, my offer still stands. My statement about "bring along some friends" was not meant to be an invitation to a "rumble" or anything like that, if that is your concern. I just meant that I would be by myself or with my girlfriend, and if you would like to have some friends around to assure that things didn't get weird, then that was perfectly acceptable. I apologize if this sincere gesture was interpreted as a threat. As stated in the various threads, your ability to look at slight conflicts in people's testimony and take from it that the events testified to never happened and were just invented in order to destroy Richard Nixon, is scary to me. It never occurred to me that you would be scared by me.

Once again, Mr. Gray, I apologize if this post caused you any alarm. If you would like for me to remove it, please state so and I will.

Some members have complained that they see this as a threat to Ashton. As I have met you I know that this is not the case. However, I can understand why they have interpreted it in that way. I think it would be a good idea to delete this comment. I would hate people to think that this is part of a strategy to drive Ashton from the Forum. After all, he has given you and Ray an intellectual beating.

Funny, I don't feel any after-effects of a "beating." Like Woody Allen, I'm glad I wasn't there when it happened. Could you please elaborate on when, where and how this "beating" is thought to have taken place or -- failing that -- post a link to the thread where this traumatic and momentous event is thought to have occurred?

Just my views on what has been debated. It has been reinforced by the personal attacks made by you and Pat on Ashton. I suspect this is a strategy to take the thread off the topic or to drive Ashton from the forum. You have a tendency to want people to leave the forum if you disagree with them.

When Pat posted his invitation I began wondering how Ashton Gray could escape from having his fake cover blown.

Now we know: John, our moderator, rushes to the rescue.

It is amazing the lengths that Gray and John will go to make sure that Gray is not exposed for what he is.

Why doesn’t Gray accept Pat’s invitation? Could it be that he would be shown for what he is?

I guess that I shall have to take Maj. Ed Dames’ course on remote viewing to ascertain Gray’s real identity. I always listen to Dames when he is interviewed on the radio show www.coasttocoastam.com.

Of course, in the age of the Internet there are other ways to trace and find a person’s true identity merely through the posting that the person has made. Law enforcement and private detectives do this all the time.

So sooner or later forum members will learn the truth about Mr. X, a/k/a Ashton Gray, and exactly who is pulling his strings, John’s coverup for Gray notwithstanding.

In the interim maybe the forum should sponsor a contest on who Gray really is. Could he be operating at the behest of the CIA in a disinformation program? Is he someone who is bitter for having been kicked out of the Church of Scientology for having heretical views? The possibilities are endless, based on the ravings that Gray has made in the Forum.

John, this last statement is incredibly off-the-mark. I can't believe you believe this. On the Diem cables thread, it was demonstrated that the perpetrator of a forgery testified to committing his crime, and that the President's private counsel and the acting director of the FBI testified to seeing the forged documents. The President's top political adviser testified to his awareness of the forged documents, to his role in the decision leading to the passing of the documents to the acting director of the FBI, and to his witnessing a package he believed contained the forged documents being handed to the acting FBI director. The perpetrator's superior, while denying personal responsibility for the crime, nevertheless testified to his knowledge of the creation of the forged documents, and insisted he contacted Life magazine to make sure the forged documents were not used in a story. Additionally, the ex-Attorney General of the United States testified that he participated in a conspiracy to cover up various crimes committed by White House employees, including the creation of the forged documents. This alone should convince a reasonable person that the forgery occurred. But there are also the tapes of the President's conversations, in which the top political adviser told the President that the confessed perpetrator's boss had admitted to him that he'd ordered the creation of the forged documents. A subsequent tape has another close Presidential aide telling the President that he believed the perpetrator's boss had ordered the forgery and the President stating that the perpetrator's boss had told him the creation of the forged documents was due to a misunderstanding. From this, the only rational debate should be whether the perpetrator really was ordered to commit his forgery, or whether he did it on his own. Someone anxious to show that the CIA was behind the Watergate scandal might wish to conclude the perpetrator created the cables on his own in order to entrap his boss, a close adviser to the President. But instead Mr. Gray has concluded that the CRIME NEVER OCCURRED AND NO FORGED DOCUMENTS EVER EXISTED. This is beyond bizarre. When the insanity of his theory was exposed to the cold light of day, he kept trying to deflect the argument, accusing those who disagreed with him of CIA involvement. He accused me of spreading disinformation when I typed a period instead of a dash. He also failed to deal with the evidence presented, ignoring the taped conversations entirely. His floundering was pathetic, IMO. I honestly felt sorry for the man. I repeatedly asked him to modify his theory to try and have it make sense, and held out hope that he would harness his energy into doing research built upon a logical foundation.

If you really believe that he whupped me intellectually then I'm at a complete loss of words.

Don't you have anything to support your views? even a link to the thread where you think this "beating" was administered?



I cannot speak for Pat Speer, but the record shows that Ashton Gray launched the first personal attack against me. My criticisms of Ashton Gray's posts have centered mainly around his repeatedly calling Douglas Caddy a liar. Of course, since you have called Mr. caddy a liar yourself, your only options are to apologize to Mr. Caddy or to defend teacher's pet. We now know which option you have chosen.



I'd like to know when I have EVER taken a thread off-topic since the day I joined the forum.



That's a good one, John, coming from you. I recommended the dismissal of two persons since I joined the forum, and in neither case was it just because I disagreed with them. I have fundamental disagreements with Pat Speer, for example, and probably with many others on the forum, with no bother to anyone.
I recommended the dismissal of Tim Gratz, but it was you who DECIDED to take away his posting priviledges. I also recommended that Brendan Slattery be removed, but it was you who DECIDED to place him on permanent moderation.

Finally, I know you know that I recommended that Ashton Gray be publicly reprimanded by the moderators for repeatedly calling Douglas Caddy a liar, and I also know you know that I am not now, nor have I ever been, in favor of Ashton Gray's removal.

[quote name='J. Raymond Carroll' date='Jul 12 2006, 03:06 AM' post='68072']

I am not now, nor have I ever been, in favor of Ashton Gray's removal.
[/quote]


Well you sure had me fooled.

Dawn

[quote name='Dawn Meredith' date='Jul 12 2006, 02:20 AM' post='68074']
[quote name='J. Raymond Carroll' date='Jul 12 2006, 03:06 AM' post='68072']

I am not now, nor have I ever been, in favor of Ashton Gray's removal.
[/quote]


Well you sure had me fooled.

Dawn
[/quote]

Don't blame me if you don't read the threads you are responding to.

Pat -- It looks as though Ashton Gray is going to be a no show. So it turns out that not only is he a Great Fake but also a Great Flake.

Sort of like E. Howard Hunt was a no-show at your apartment in the early morning hours of Saturday, June 17, 1972, right Doug? Stood up again?

Hunt was tailing Baldwin to go plant the "evidence" at McCord's house, instead of being at your apartment that morning, as you've been leading the world to believe for 34 years, isn't that true?

You were, and are, his alibi, isn't that true?

The thing that I find so fascinating is that so many people have actually been conned into believing all this time that E. Howard Hunt would be so flamingly idiotic as to entrust the disposal of the elecronic "evidence" from the "listening post" to somebody who Hunt claims that he never even met until after the arrests, and who he claims to have had a three-minute encounter with, and whose name he claims not even to have known.

And there's the unfortunate detail that Baldwin didn't have any White House credentials, as Hunt did, and there wasn't a chance in hell that they were going to run the risk of Baldwin getting stopped with all that very important equipment that had been bought to incriminate the White House. Hunt had White House credentials and could easily dispense with any problem that might arise en route to McCord's house.

Once you get enough cold water splashed on your face and wake up and actually look at Hunt's and Baldwin's van-load of manure, the entire concept that Hunt would just tell some stranger to ditch the "evidence" and then walk away to go to your apartment is so ludicrous that you laugh till you cry. (Well, I don't mean "you" literally—you are one of chief salesmen for this load of crap.)

Then you sit and laugh some more at his ridiculous story of going across the street to his Mullen office, calling Mrs. Barker and telling her to call you, when supposedly he just had called you and said he was coming over to your place. All he had to do was go to your apartment, call her from there, and put you on the phone with her. You just laugh till you cry. (Well, I don't mean "you" literally—you are one of chief salesmen for this load of crap.)

It's all just more of Hunt's utterly atrocious pulp spy fiction, peddled by a pack of con men as being "historical events." "Hysterical events" is more like it. His writing is like teeth scraping across a blackboard. (Wait—I think you have a different opinion of his writing, don't you? What was it? Oh, that's right: you said he is a "very gifted writer." Don't quit your day job to take up literary criticism.)

I guess, though, you are obliged to give a glowing endorsement to Hunt's fiction writing, because you've spent half of your life going around selling that bag'o'crap as "historical events," haven't you? When you know damned well he wasn't at your apartment at all that morning, don't you? And that's the one and only reason you've been evading my questions about all the contradictions and holes in yours and Hunt's pure fiction about that morning, isn't it?

So I guess that makes you something of a resident forum expert on "no-shows."

Can't wait to see your new book.

Ashton Gray

I'm posting—again—the 52 questions I have asked Douglas Caddy in this thread: Who was Douglas Caddy Representing, and When?

It seems clear to me that the reason Douglas Caddy keeps evading the many questions below that have to do with E. Howard Hunt's purported visit to Caddy's apartment in the early morning hours of Saturday, 17 June 1972, is because Hunt never was at Caddy's apartment at all that morning, as Caddy willfully has led the world to believe for 34 years.

That would seem to me to be the most simple and obvious reason why there are so many contradictions and holes in Caddy's and Hunt's and Liddy's stories about that purported visit: it's complete fiction, beginning to end, written to give Hunt an alibi for where he really was, which was tailing Alfred Baldwin to plant incriminating "evidence" at James McCord's house.

But that would mean Caddy has been selling this cooked-up alibi for Hunt as "historical events" for over a quarter of a century, and profiting from it. So naturally he can't clear up all the contradictions and holes in badly-written fiction, if it's nothing but fiction to begin with; you can't patch up holes and cracks in bad fiction. But to admit that, Caddy would have to admit that he's been running a self-serving fraud on the world. So, that would seem to me to be the blatantly obvious reason that he just endlessly evades the questions.

Simple, huh?

Here are the questions he won't answer. You decide.

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.

UPDATE:

Given that the resident Questions Exorcist is an attorney and I am not, and given that he has invoked the Great Gods of Privilege with his mystic incantations on behalf of Mr. Caddy (which he has no standing to do), I am including below several points from my entirely lay understanding of the subject as they may or may not be relevant to all the foregoing, with the express caveat that this doesn't remotely pretend to be legal advice or opinion, but only my own personal opinion from my limited lay knowledge:

• The party seeking the protection of the privilege must be an actual or prospective client. The purported early-morning discussions between Hunt, Liddy, and Caddy therefore invoked no privilege vis a vis the five burglars unless Hunt and/or Liddy already, themselves, were legally established as agents for any or all of them. Even then, see "disclosure to third parties," below.
• The communication must be between the client and an attorney acting as counsel for the client.
• The communication must be made in confidence, outside the presence of third parties. "Public" communications are not protected. Every question I have asked is pursuant to public communications from Caddy, Hunt, and Liddy.
• The purpose of the communication must be to secure or provide an opinion of law or legal assistance. The privilege does not protect the underlying facts, general legal discussions, business or other non-legal advice. Please note that during the afternoon of June 17, 1972, Caddy is on public record saying that the burglars are "not my clients." I'm even trying to ascertain, first, whether that was true or an extraordinary public lie. If it were true, then there is no privilege to claim.
• The privilege must be asserted. The privilege does not automatically attach, and it must be claimed at the time of demand by a third party. Pretty much all of the questions I've asked have not been asked before, and no privilege has been asserted for them.
• The privilege is easily lost or "waived" by disclosures to third parties. The privilege can be lost by voluntary disclosure. Also, involuntary or accidental disclosure may destroy the privilege. Everything I've asked about is pursuant to exactly such public disclosures.
• The privilege does not attach to communications in furtherance of an ongoing or prospective illegal activity. In addition, the privilege does not apply when an attorney defends himself or herself against charges of wrongful conduct. There is ample suggestion in the record, to me, of wrongful and even incompetent conduct, and I'm trying to get those impressions cleared away. I would think Mr. Caddy would be enthusiastically helpful in doing just that.

Ashton Gray

Ashton Gray, a/k/a the Great Fake/the Great Flake, seems to be avoiding meeting you. One can only wonder why.

If such a meeting does take place, which is very unlikely as it would blow Ashton Gray's false cover, you might ask him why he poses unprofessional questions in the Forum that are based on false premises and are designed to mislead the reader.

You might also ask him if he is actually Huntley Troth. See below:

Forum members and readers of this thread are invited to contrast what Ashton Gray has written about the first break-in at Watergate and the document below from Wikipedia. The dates of Huntley Troth writing on this topic in Wikipedia and those of Ashton Gray in our Watergate Forum appear to be suspiciously aligned. Huntley Troth even makes note in Wikipedia of the virus that appeared in the Spartacus Forum on virtually the same day of its appearance.

In Wikipedia an alert observer who apparently can spot a phony writes about Huntley Troth:

“What I forgot to mention: The already dubiously looking name given by the original author is nothing but an unimaginative anagram of "Only the Truth". I leave it to others to check out how reliable Wikipedia contributions are whose authors claim that they possess the truth.”

In the Watergate forum reference has been made that Ashton Gray is the name of Canadian porn star.

I leave it to the readers to draw their own conclusions of whether Ashton Gray may actually be Huntley Troth or whether both of these are made-up names for someone who actually may be an undisclosed third party. Or whatever or however the bizarre case may be. In any event the credibility of Ashton Gray and Huntley Troth is being questioned in the Watergate Forum and in Wikipedia.

From Wikipedia::


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contr...s/Huntley_Troth


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Watergate_first_break-in

I think that would be "why." But the "one" wondering is you.

Nobody cares.

I'm not a Watergate figure. You are.

Hunt wasn't at your apartment when you say he was on June 17, 1972, was he?

It's all been his alibi and part of a much larger cover-up you're involved in, hasn't it?

Ashton Gray