Tim Gratz and the Plot to Kill Wallace

[Tim Gratz]

Okay, Stephen, I will agree with your point that there were probably many members who did not agree with the charges against me. And I realize (and I apologize to him for not including him in the previous post) that Pat wrote that he knew that Shanet's charges were bunk (although he thought I was getting overly upset with being charged with the most heinous crime imagineable). But it was only Dixie, George, Pat and Robert who had the courage to say the charges were ridiculous.

When you are in trouble, you want someone who will come to your defense, not someone who just stands idly by to see what develops. Have you heard the old story to the following effect: They came for the Jews, but I wasn't a Jew, so I did nothing; they came for the Catholics, but I wasn't a Catholic, so i did nothing; etc etc.; finally, when they come for the writer himself, there is no one left to come to his defense.

Trust me, Stephen, this has not been a pleasant experience for me. I think it should have been nipped in the bud when it was first started.

[Tim Gratz]

Mike Toliver wrote on a different thread:

What I've seen on this thread is a lot of "guilt by association". It's the kind of stuff that makes me want to stop visiting this site.

Mike wrote that in the context of "Young Americans for Freedom". YAF was an intellectually conservative youth organization, by no means extremist. But some would "paint with a broad brush" any one with whose political viewpoints they disagree, all the time proclaiming their support for human rights and tolerance. I'm not sure if it is humorous or pathetic.

There remains a lot of great information on this Forum but there has also developed, in the past six months or so, a bunch of nonsense that has been tolerated. That only weakens the reputation of the Forum, in my opinion.

For instance, I have repeatedly asked John to admit that Shanet's charge that Sam Papich was a conspirator was nonsense. No reply. And there were people who apparently agreed with Salandria's charge that "The Nation" was engaging in criminal activity when it did not agree with the "conventional wisdom" of the assassination research committee.

Edited July 22, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[Guest Stephen Turner]

When you are in trouble, you want someone who will come to your defense, not someone who just stands idly by to see what develops.  Have you heard the old story to the following effect:  They came for the Jews, but I wasn't a Jew, so I did nothing; they came for the Catholics, but I wasn't a Catholic, so i did nothing; etc etc.; finally, when they come for the writer himself, there is no one left to come to his defense.

Trust me, Stephen, this has not been a pleasant experience for me.  I think it should have been nipped in the bud when it was first started.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes Tim, I am Familiar with this Quote, it is by Pastor Niemayer, and contains the line " Then they came for the Communists,and not being a communist, I did nothing"Now please can we all let this drop, and get back to the subject at hand.

[Tim Gratz]

Stephen, I agree with you completely, but remember it was not me who posted "The Taking of America 1-2-3" on this Forum, calling it "one of the best books on the Kennedy assassination" and then started the thread regarding the statement in the book wherein Sprague misquotes Turner. We have all wasted a lot of time on this garbage when time should have been invested in researching the Kennedy assassination.

I assume that "The Taking of America 1-2-3" has been thoroughly discredited by the little detour we took.

Shanet was not wise enough to see through the charges and he took delight in using them to attempt to discredit me. In the end, his allegiance to the book discredited him. The book caused dissension and acrimony between many of our members and it did none of us any good: wasted all of our time and caused me much grief.

I suggest the book be renamed "The Taking of the Forum 1-2-3" since that is what it did.

Edited July 22, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[John Simkin]

When you are in trouble, you want someone who will come to your defense, not someone who just stands idly by to see what develops.  Have you heard the old story to the following effect:  They came for the Jews, but I wasn't a Jew, so I did nothing; they came for the Catholics, but I wasn't a Catholic, so i did nothing; etc etc.; finally, when they come for the writer himself, there is no one left to come to his defense.

Trust me, Stephen, this has not been a pleasant experience for me.  I think it should have been nipped in the bud when it was first started.

This is from the man who dismissed the account of Thomas Buchanan because he lost his job with the Washington Evening Star in 1948 because in the 1930s he had been a member of the American Communist Party. As a result of McCarthyism Buchanan was blacklisted and like a lot of left-wing members of the arts was forced to live in Europe. According to Tim, once you have been a member of the Communist Party, you are never to be believed about anything you say. It is because of Tim’s McCarthy-type tactics that members of the Forum have been reluctant to feel sympathy for him over recent events.

After being cross-examined on the Forum, Tim claims he is being persecuted and has the cheek to selectively quote from Martin Niemöller’s poem about Nazi persecution. As Stephen pointed out, Tim left out the reference to the persecution of the communism. This is not surprising as there have been attempts by the far right to rewrite the poem. Here is the poem as it was written by Niemöller:

First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a communist;

Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a socialist;

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a trade unionist;

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out - because I was not a Jew;

Then they came for me - and there was no one left to speak out for me.

The point that Niemöller was making is that Hitler did not start with persecuting the Jews. The first people arrested and put into the concentration camps were socialists and communists. As A.J.P. Taylor has pointed out, more communists were killed by the Nazis than Jews. People on the right feel uncomfortable about this and have tried to ignore this historical fact.

It is often forgotten that Niemöller was a strong supporter of Hitler until 1937. He was on the extreme right and did not object to the communists, trade unionists and Jews being rounded up and placed into concentration camps. A pastor of the Church of Jesus Christ he only became politically active when Hitler began restricting the power of the Church. As a result of his protests he was arrested. Niemöller remained a supporter of Hitler and in 1939 actually volunteered to join the German Navy (he had been a First World War hero).

Niemöller is actually writing about himself in the poem. He did not speak out when the Nazis persecuted the communists. He was very much like Tim, he actually welcomed the persecution of these people. However, unlike Tim, he learnt from his experience. After the war he became very left-wing. As a result he was banned from visiting America in the 1950s because he was seen as a communist.

Niemöller was therefore a victim of McCarthyism. He was not of course, he was a member of the libertarian left and campaigned for democracy in Eastern Europe. McCarthyites have always had great difficulty distinguishing between different left-wing groups.

Niemöller was a strong opponent of nuclear weapons. He thought the dropping of the atom bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was immoral. He upset the American government when he stated that after Adolf Hitler, he thought that Harry S. Truman "was the greatest murderer in the world."

In April 1958 he travelled to England and took part in the march to Aldermaston that had been organized by the recently formed Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. He also campaigned against military alliances such as NATO.

In 1965 Niemöller upset the United States by visiting North Vietnam and meeting Ho Chi Minh. Afterwards he commented: "One thing is clear, the president of North Vietnam is not a fanatic. He is a very strong and determined man, but capable of listening, something that is very rare in a person of his position." Niemöller won several awards for his work for world peace.

On his 90th birthday in 1982 Niemöller stated that he had started his political career as "an ultra-conservative who wanted the Kaiser to come back; and now I am a revolutionary. I really mean that. If I live to be a hundred I shall maybe be an anarchist."

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/GERniemoller.htm

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

Tim, I'm not a lawyer, but I think you are QUITE wrong about this. 

That's OK, Pat.  Tim's not a lawyer, either, and hasn't been one for about a dozen years.  In fact, the twelfth anniversary of having his licence revoked should be coming up quite soon, if memory serves.  September, wasn't it, Tim?

And, yes, Tim is quite often wrong.  He just hopes that if he spews a whirlwind of bluster our way, we'll not notice.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

I am sure Mr. Turner does not want to be deluged with phone calls.  I gave him the reference to the Forum.  I would like to suggest that perhaps Larry could call him to verify that everything I said about my conversation with Turner is accurate, and that I omitted nothing from my report.

I think Tim is most wise to suggest that somebody other than he verify with William Turner what Tim has reported as fact here. 

Tim's penchant for making grandiose assertions without supporting evidence has damaged his credibility with a great number of people here, and it would be a shame were he disbelieved by those people [myself included] on the one occasion when proof for his assertions might actually exist.

Moreover, Tim has a vested personal interest in the outcome of this matter, so having an impartial party confirm what Turner says, or better yet, getting Turner to post something to that effect here, would again lift from Tim any lingering suspicions about his motives.

Thanks to Mr. Dean for referencing Mr. Turner's residence.

Now maybe everyone can understand why I was so upset.  And to Pat, I understand you were once falsely accused of being a homosexual.  Well, I am not in any way sympathetic to that lifestyle, but I suggest there is a WORLD of difference between being "accused" of being a homosexual and being accused of being a party to a conspiracy to commit murder.

That's only your hyperbolic interpretation of the offending passage in Sprague's book.  As I've repeatedly pointed out, the sentence itself declares no such thing; you do.  And then insist we all feel sympathy for you due to the injustice of it all.  Puh-lease, put away the crying towel and get a grip, dear boy. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Mark Knight]

Mark Knight wrote:

Turner, via Sprague, implicated you...justly or unjustly. You claim you're innocent. I'm in no position to say you're innocent simply because you SAY you're innocent

Eat your words, Mark. Turner did no such thing.

Tim, the point I was making was that Sprague said that Turner implicated you...notice that I also added the disclaimer "justly or unjustly." And there is no disputing that point. Sprague DID imply that Turner implicated you...that is a FACT. So I won't eat THOSE words, nor the ones that I'm in no position to judge you innocent merely on your own say-so.

Had I not included the qualifier "via Sprague," I would plead guilty as charged and eat my words.

But I never judged you as GUILTY, either...so I have no words to eat on that account, either.

But thanks for including me in this. Just recall that I went to great pains to post that, based upon the evidence, I could neither vouch for your innocence OR guilt, and that any claims against you were based upon the Sprague account of what Turner said, and not from my own investigation or any subsequent information which turned up here on the forum.

[Tim Gratz]

In looking through past posts on the Forum, I noticed a thread called "Harry Dean and Richard E. Sprague". In it, John asked Harry if it was true (as Sprague stated in his book) that Mr. Dean was involved in the assassination. Mr. Dean denied that he was.

I have no reason to disbelieve Mr. Dean.

Therefore, it appears that Mr. Sprague's book has libeled two members of this Fotum.

This is just another reason to dismiss everything Sprague writes in his book. As I recall, he lists few if any references or footnotes for his statements. And in my case, when he did at least make mention of a source (William Turner) Mr. Turner denied ever making the statement attributed to him.

Again, I hope this will teach members of this Form (and guests) not to believe everything they read in an assassination book, particularly one that contains no sources that can be checked.

[Bernice Moore]

As Mark has stated ""I could neither vouch for your innocence OR guilt, and that any claims against you were based upon the Sprague account of what Turner said, and not from my own investigation or any subsequent information which turned up here on the forum.""

When all this began, and the first question arose, re the Sprague account of what Turner had said in his book..and the first accusation was made..I asked what I thought was a simple question, when were we going to see the evidence to prove such...I was assured, that no accusation had been made, that it simply was a question, words to that effect.....but as we all have seen many weeks later, there

were many accusations that followed.....to the point of threatening to sue....get a hold of yourselves ...all..

And Charles wrote

""Tim's penchant for making grandiose assertions without supporting evidence has damaged his credibility with a great number of people here, and it would be a shame were he disbelieved by those people [myself included] on the one occasion when proof for his assertions might actually exist.""

Tim of this you are extremely guilty....so two wrongs did not make a right.....and it

all grew out of hand...

Stephen wrote

""Tim, this posturing is getting tiresome, most of the good people here have not accused you of anything, and that includes me. So I take exception at being told off by yourself. Get a grip man..""

and Tim what do you do, but blame the many, the most......Perhaps two lessons

have been learned, do not jump to conclusions, and do not make statements nor any that could be interpreted as accusations, without proof.....and if so, for heavens sake mention that it is simply your opinion....

The most solid thought I have read on all this, in weeks, has been that Larry will speak to Mr.Turner, and clear this matter up.....But will it smooth over the hard

feelings ??

And Shanet get the heck back on here, so you got dinged, so what ?we all have at one time or another....Recall the weekend that you and the other Tim ran around on three different threads from Friday till Sunday and gave Harry and myself such a hard time, over his Walker information, and his little $5.00 CD, that he had mentioned ,his information was available on, through the JFK Research Forum from Rich..and yet at the same time Larry's book was being advertised on here for $40.00 yet that was o.k. ??

He didn't leave, I didn't leave, we took your games and your crap ,been there done that before...you have to learn to take it as well as give it out...sometimes we are wrong, and have to admit it, sometimes we are right, and that makes up for it, this is not a popularity contest...hard but it happens to all..Now Harry is regarded as the man with the info, as he has always been with some, he has always been true and blue, his story has never changed ,never veered.......and now you, as well as all, have seen some of the information and all that Walker was involved in, ruddy amazing, and now Shanet of late till you left, you have been one of his best atta boys....

In this research world we all have to eat some crow, or go through the fire, as they say, if we are serious..if not ,you do not last..that is the way it is..

Now could Larry please post soon ,whatever information he does receive from Mr. Turner, and Tim could you get off the grandstand, and stop blaming the most for

your own actions, or any......just cease... your actions previously did lead up to a lot of this, and was the cause...and could we get back to work.....enough resources have been wasted, this is suppose to be a JFK research Forum, anything else, like the Republican Party Youth, or whatever, go to the History area and post it there, and stop mucking all up for those that simply are not in the least interested...get it off the board....if it does not pertain to the assassination........IMO....

Enough already.....ten times over....

Thanks B.....

Edited July 23, 2005 by Bernice Moore

[Tim Gratz]

What? No ice cream cone today?

[John Simkin]

I emailed William Turner a couple of days ago and asked him to join the Forum to discuss his books on the JFK assassination. He was interested in doing this until he received a phone call from Tim. This is what he had to say:

Last night Timothy Gratz called. I have no idea where he got my number. He pressed me on the Bremer thing. I told him I didn't have a clue on how Dick Sprague got his info. I never talked to Sprague about the Bremer case. I never heard of Gratz before. The only piece I had done on the Bremer case was a chapter in "Government by Gunplay," and he wasn't in it. He rambled on about how he met Gordon Winslow and so forth. I found the call disturbing. I don't think I want to become involved in this kind of thing.

What did you do Tim? Did you tell him you were a lawyer? Did you threaten to sue him? Why did he find your phone call so disturbing?

[Tim Gratz]

John, I thought I had a pleasant conversation with Mr. Turner. He never seemed disturbed by it. He seemed quite pleasant and willing to answer the few questions I had for him.

Mr. Turner never asked me how I got his number (nor do I want to publicly disclose at this time how I got it.)

I told him how I had become reinterested in the Kennedy assassination in part by "bumping into " Gordon Winslow when he checked into the hotel where I was working.

I never told Mr. Turner I was a lawyer. Nor did I threaten to sue him. Why would I threaten to sue him when he supported the fact that he never had any information connecting me to Bremer? And who would you not just ask him those questions?

You do not state whether you had a phone conversation with Mr. Turner which you are paraphrasing or if what you posted came in an e-mail. If it was an e-mail, why not post the entire exchange?

The important thing is that he confirmed he had never even heard my name.

I suggest (speculate) he might have been disturbed by the fact that through my phone call he learned that his name was being bandied about on the forum as the source of information which he knew was not true.

But again you have now answered the request of Robert and Bernice that what Mr. Turner told me be independently verified.

Edited July 23, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[David G. Healy]

Robert Charles-Dunne wrote:

[...]

That's OK, Pat. Tim's not a lawyer, either, and hasn't been one for about a dozen years. In fact, the twelfth anniversary of having his licence revoked should be coming up quite soon, if memory serves. September, wasn't it, Tim?

And, yes, Tim is quite often wrong. He just hopes that if he spews a whirlwind of bluster our way, we'll not notice.

_______________

oh, me-oh-my... there goes my Pulitzer!

Edited July 23, 2005 by David G. Healy

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

John, I thought I had a pleasant conversation with Mr. Turner.  He never seemed disturbed by it.  He seemed quite pleasant and willing to answer the few questions I had for him.

And yet Turner has now declined John's invitation to join us here, which it seems he had accepted, prior to receiving your phone call.  You sure have a way with people, Tim.  Must be your many years in the hospitality industry.

Mr. Turner never asked me how I got his number (nor do I want to publicly disclose at this time how I got it.)

When you first posted your commentary with Turner, I wondered how you obtained the phone number.  William Turner's a pretty common name, and there are many hundreds of them lisited in California.  From his reaction to your call, as recounted in John's prior post, it seems to be an unlisted number in any event, which is the only way Turner could be surprised that you obtained it. 

Yet, now you wish to keep that source a great, deep, dark secret.  Could it be G-o-r-d-o-n-W-i-n-s-l-o-w?  You know, the guy who collects researchers' phone numbers and addresses by pretending it'll help put them in touch with like-minded researchers.... ?

I told him how I had become reinterested in the Kennedy assassination in part by "bumping into " Gordon Winslow when he checked into the hotel where I was working.

BINGO!  Gee, the oddest people, with the strangest agendas, keep showing up at hotels where you work, Tim.  Donald Segretti, Tony Ulasewicz, Gordon Winslow, the Cuban exile relative you recently alluded to but wouldn't name....  Fascinating.

I never told Mr. Turner I was a lawyer.  Nor did I threaten to sue him.  Why would I threaten to sue him when he supported the fact that he never had any information connecting me to Bremer?  And who would you not just ask him those questions?

Given the empty but blustery legal threats you've made here in the recent past, it's a perfectly valid question to ask.  Surely something you said to Turner disinclined him to participate here when he had previously agreed to do so, by the sound of it.  It sure doesn't seem like Turner felt he was on the receiving end of a major charm offensive, now does it?     

You do not state whether you had a phone conversation with Mr. Turner which you are paraphrasing or if what you posted came in an e-mail.  If it was an e-mail, why not post the entire exchange?

The important thing is that he confirmed he had never even heard my name.

I suggest (speculate) he might have been disturbed by the fact that through my phone call he learned that his name was being bandied about on the forum as the source of information which he knew was not true.

That's a possible rationale, although the least likely for a former FBI man.  Turner is not some quivering pansy, nor has he been out to lunch for the past 30-plus years.  I know for a fact that he has been in contact with several other 'name-brand' assassination researchers over those same decades, and would bet dollars to donuts that this is not the first time that he's been asked about the allegations contained in Sprague's book.  If so, one wonders - as John asked - what made this particular inquiry so "disturbing?" 

But again you have now answered the request of Robert and Bernice that what Mr. Turner told me be independently verified.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>