Alfred C. Baldwin

Mr. Baldwin, isn't it true that E. Howard Hunt followed you in the early morning hours of June 17, 1972 as you drove the van full of incriminating "evidence" to McCord's house and planted it there, Hunt having already planted his set of incriminating "evidence" at the White House? And isn't it true that Douglas Caddy knows this completely, that Hunt never went to Caddy's apartment, and that Caddy has been providing an alibi for Hunt for 34 years to cover this up—which accounts entirely for all the contradictions in their stories?

Ashton Gray

1. I did not "plant" anything at McCord's house. I took what was in the room at the HJ and did what I was told to do, which was to deliver all of it to Jim's house. Those were the instructions I had been given and that I followed.

2. No it is not true. I know for a fact no one followed me that AM to McCord's house. If you have Hunt saying that he followed me then it would have been said as a "figure of speech" in that at some point of time he drove to McCord's house after my trip. I don't believe that anyone else, other than myself or Hunt, would have made that statement since they would not have been there, and I know for a fact that I never made any statement about "anyone following me". I can not speak for Hunt.

3. As to what Caddy knew or didn't know I can not address. You would have to direct those questions to Mr. Caddy.

Carl Shoffler was the policeman who arrested the Watergate burglars. Shoffler should not have been on duty that night. Shoffler’s shift ended at 10.00 pm on 16th June, 1972. He volunteered for an extra shift and then parked his car close to the Watergate building. He was therefore in a good position to take the call and arrest the burglars.

Shortly after the Watergate break-in, Shoffler told his former commanding officer, Captain Edmund Chung, that the Watergate arrests were the result of a tip-off. He also revealed that he knew Alfred Baldwin. It was implied that Baldwin was the one who tipped him off about the break-in. Shoffler also told Chung that if he ever made the whole story public, “his life wouldn’t be worth a nickel”.

Did you know Shoffler? Did you tip him off about the break-in?

John - never knew him - but did meet and talk to him during trail phase, Also, I didn't "tip" him.

Mr. Baldwin, as long as we're in a setting-the-record-straight mode, might I ask you a few questions about Robert Jackson? Jackson was, I believe, the Los Angeles Times reporter to whom you and McCord first talked. Amazingly, for those of us who search for coincidences involving Watergate and the Kennedy assassination, the one reporter who saw a rifle in the sniper's nest during the shooting, and who was quoted on this issue in Kennedy's autopsy report, was also a Robert Jackson. Even more amazingly, this Robert Jackson just so happened to have been in the exact right place at the exact right time to capture the famous image of Ruby shooting Oswald two days later. A conspiracy-minded person might think there was a connection, that Jackson was saying what he was supposed to say regarding the sniper's nest, and was told where to stand for the Ruby image, and was given access to McCord and yourself through his CIA connections. While I believe this is nonsense, I am nevertheless curious about how you came to talk to Robert Jackson, and whether this was the same Robert Jackson. Your recollections of Jackson appreciated.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/20...e-sources_x.htm

Pat - never spoke with anyone named Robert Jackson. He was not the reporter from the Los Angeles Times.

1. Yes, I was there in Wash., D.C.through ouit the Memorial Day week-end on each and every day of that week-end (not off on some other clandestine work), and did work that I have testified about including being at the HJ on the break-in (prior to the June 17 break-in), which I have testified about under oath and have stated in numerous interviews. I am speaking about the break-in prior to the 17th of June where I actually saw Jim McCord come to one of the windows in the DNC. I have testified to the prior entry, that is prior to the 17th, not only in court under oath, FBI interviews, and congressinal hearings under oath. If at any time I had lied I would have faced serious legal, professional, and personal consquences.

2. Yes, I did monitor conversations for those days in June up to the 17th, and did turn most of the logs over to Jim, other than the ones that were delivered to the DNC. I have testified to this and to the contents of the conversations not only to the FBI, but also to a Federal Judge. Also, there were "bugs" in the DNC because I would monitor some conversations when I saw the phone being used in that office and the conversations would start and end with different individuals using the phone in that office. Thus watching those individuals there is no doubt that the "bug" in that office was working. Also, Jim actually displayed some of the "bugs" to me prior to installation. The logs, and copies of the logs, are a fact that cannot be denied or questioned by anyone.

The best way, and I'm not trying to avoid a direct answer, would be to review the FBI 302 interview documents given during July, 19 72. Now with the passage of time every single attempt to review specific events might lead tp misleading answers. Another source would be the interview I gave during October to the Los Angeles newspaper. I am sure these sources given immediately after the event would be more helpful than my failing memory of that time.

Hi, Mr. Baldwin. Thanks very much for your reply. I appreciate your citing the 302 document, but I don't know of any easy availibility.

I do, though, have access to your sworn congressional testimony, which I hope will be agreeable to you as a means of refreshing your memory, and which is reasonably contemporary with the events at issue. Referencing that source, perhaps I could be more specific than I was when I wasn't certain whether you could be reached.

According to that testimony, there were two incidents within about a month when you went back to your home in Connecticut, and just to obviate any possible confusion about the two separate incidents, the first occured on 9 May 1972, with your returning on 12 May 1972. That's the trip we've been discussing in which you carried the gun. In the second event, you left D.C. on 23 May 1972, and returned on 26 May 1972--the same day as the purported Ameritas "first attempt" at a "first break-in."

Focusing, with your indulgence, on the first event, I'm still a bit perplexed, and please allow me to explain why.

In your reply to me, above, you said you kept the .38 because: "with further possible deployment where the weapon could be used for personal defense it woul have been and was normal for the weapon to remain on my person at all times after it had been issued to me." The "further possible deployment" you are referring to, according to your congressional testimony, was a possible second assignment to travel in the capacity of a bodyguard with Martha Mitchell. You already had done so once according to your record, leaving on 2 May 1972, arriving back in D.C. on 9 May 1972--the same day you left for Connecticut.

I was a bit surprised to hear that you flew to Connecticut on your 9-12 May trip to collect some personal things (since you had driven to D.C. originally, and you drove yourself on the second trip), and learning that you flew also actually compounds, a bit, my confusion concerning this trip you took, and your carrying the gun with you, for these reasons:

1) In your sworn testimony you said that the trip that was scheduled for Martha Mitchell on which you might have a possible second assignment of traveling with her, leaving from D.C.--the supplied reason for keeping the gun with you--was scheduled for 11 May 1972. Yet you didn't return to D.C. until the day after her scheduled departure from D.C.: 12 May 1972. If you and the gun were in Connecticut on 11 May 1972, the day she was scheduled to leave on her trip, how could you (and the gun) have been factored in for a possible bodyguard assignment?

2) I'm sorry, but I still don't understand any rationale for having the gun in Connecticut, when the assignment for which it purportedly was issued would be departing from D.C. You didn't have Martha Mitchell with you in Connecticut. You took no gun with you on your second trip to Connecticut (23-26 May). Why, then, did you need one with you on the first trip there--especially when you didn't return at all until the day after Martha Mitchell already had left, on 11 May, with Fred LaRue instead of you? I can't make this make any sense to me.

3) If you flew, did you buy a round trip ticket with a return date a day later than your possible assignment?

4) Did you take the gun on the plane, and if so, did you have to report that to anyone?

5) Did you have a permit for carrying the gun?

I'm sorry to be a pest, but the details have been pestiferous for me, and I cannot easily express my gratitude for this opportunity to lay these nagging questions to rest.

Thank you again, and in advance, for your help.

Ashton Gray

1. Originally, for my interview with McCord for a job position, I did not drive I flew to D.C. and of course had no weapon on my person.

2. Yes, I had a round trip ticket and before I left I was told by McCord that a specific date fo the next Martha trip had not been finalized but it would be in the middle or later part of the week of my return. McCord had not been told or given any reason for my replacement on her next trip prior to my departure to Connecticut, and I had meet with John Mitchell himself prior to my leaving for Connecticut. He "de-briefed me" and thanked me, and left me with the impression there was further work to be done on my part.

3.Yes I had the weapon on the plane and had to report this fact at the ticket counter. Since I was not active in the law-enforcement field the ticket manger was called and I provided him with a phone number to call to verify the fact that I was working in a security position with the re-election committee. He called the number and then cleared me to board with the weapon. The number was for the Security Office of Jim McCord at the Committee and what he told the manger has never been explained or told to me. You must remember this was the early 70's prior to any of the threats that this nation faces today, but there was an air marshall program in effect at that time different I am sure to the programs in effect today.

4. No I did not have a permit for the weapon at any time and when I advised McCord of this fact and that I would not be acting in any official law enforcement capacity while carying the gun he furnished me a business card with his name and a telephone number, His exact words were "if you have any difficulty or if anyone questions your having this weapon have them call this number". I believe that on two occassions that I had to utilize that business card and in both instances I was allowed to proceed with the weapon on my person.

On the Wallace shooting, there is an odd concatenation of events beginning 1 May 1972 culminating in the Wallace shooting on 15 May 1972, not the least of them involving McCord having issued a .38 revolver to Alfred Baldwin on 1 May 1972, which purportedly was turned back in by Baldwin to McCord on 12 May 1972--three days before Wallace was shot in Laurel, Maryland with a .38 revolver. Even more curious is that on 10 May 1972, McCord is on record as having been in Rockville, Maryland, which is only about 6 miles from Laurel, and on that date, Baldwin--still in possession of the McCord-issued .38--purportedly had traveled back to his home in Connecticut to "get more clothes." This extraordinary sequence of coincidences is part of what I'd like to gain more understanding of from Mr. Baldwin, particularly why he took the .38 with him on a trip home to "get more clothes."

At this point of time I would only state that the sequence of events as to the 38 and when it was obtained and turned back to McCord can ony be verified by the FBI interview as recorded on their 302 interview document. With the passage of years I am now relucant to state a fact from my memory when it comes to precise dates. There is nothing unusual with the fact that I travelled to Connecticut with the weapon. As an FBI agent one always carried one's weapon 24/7. Thus having been issued the weapon and with further possible deployment where the weapon could be used for personal defense it woul have been and was normal for the weapon to remain on my person at all times after it had been issued to me. It is a fact I went to Connecticut to obtain more personal items, such as clothing, and to meet with my personal friend and later attorney Robert Mirto. I did fly to Connecicut and back from Connecticut that weekend and remained there the entire weekend, which has been verified by the FBI.

On the Wallace shooting, there is an odd concatenation of events beginning 1 May 1972 culminating in the Wallace shooting on 15 May 1972, not the least of them involving McCord having issued a .38 revolver to Alfred Baldwin on 1 May 1972, which purportedly was turned back in by Baldwin to McCord on 12 May 1972--three days before Wallace was shot in Laurel, Maryland with a .38 revolver. Even more curious is that on 10 May 1972, McCord is on record as having been in Rockville, Maryland, which is only about 6 miles from Laurel, and on that date, Baldwin--still in possession of the McCord-issued .38--purportedly had traveled back to his home in Connecticut to "get more clothes." This extraordinary sequence of coincidences is part of what I'd like to gain more understanding of from Mr. Baldwin, particularly why he took the .38 with him on a trip home to "get more clothes."

At this point of time I would only state that the sequence of events as to the 38 and when it was obtained and turned back to McCord can ony be verified by the FBI interview as recorded on their 302 interview document. With the passage of years I am now relucant to state a fact from my memory when it comes to precise dates. There is nothing unusual with the fact that I travelled to Connecticut with the weapon. As an FBI agent one always carried one's weapon 24/7. Thus having been issued the weapon and with further possible deployment where the weapon could be used for personal defense it woul have been and was normal for the weapon to remain on my person at all times after it had been issued to me. It is a fact I went to Connecticut to obtain more personal items, such as clothing, and to meet with my personal friend and later attorney Robert Mirto. I did fly to Connecicut and back from Connecticut that weekend and remained there the entire weekend, which has been verified by the FBI.

Thank you, Mr. Baldwin. It is refreshing and enlightening to read your correspondence. It's noble of you to come here and volley a bit with us. Nice to have you along. I know that I and others hope you had a nice holiday season.

A couple of more questions: Were you ever approached by Mr. Woodward or Mr. Bernstein during the early to mid seventies to go on or off the record? Did you ever know either of them? Do you believe Mark Felt was Deep Throat? Why did you assent to an interview with the Los Angeles Times? Thanks again.

Regards,

John G

John--I was never directly approached by either Woodward or Bernsten, however, I did learn at a latter date that they had contacted my lawyers who refused to have aything to do with them for reaons that were never disxlosed to me. Thus I can say that I did not know either of them. As to whethern or not Mark Felt was Deep Throat I can honestly say that I have my doubts especially since I had been in cotact wit the FBI in July, 1972 yet there is no mention of me by either Bernstein or Woodwar in he early (post July, 1972) days. So if Felt was reading all the FBI 302s (interview reports) why didn/t he alert those writers to the act that John Mitchell had been named in my very first interview with the FBI, So in July 1972 the government had a "trail" to Mitchell, whichwould have been termendius news at that period of time. Lastly, believe it or not the interview was given to the Los Angeles Times reporters(two of them) for basically two reason. The first was that they were present on a daily basis at my lawyer's office in West Haven, Connecticut for weeks into months presenting themselves by saying that " if and when he (myself) decides to tell his story they would be present to take it". The second reason was they were perfect gentlemen and never pressed the issue and agreeded to print everything that I said with no exceptions, deletions, or comments. Their honsty and sincerity impressed me, and my lawyers knew that I had "been left out to hang in the wind with no support or backing from ANYONE in Washngto, D.C.". Then add the fact that I had been told " you wont find a job anywhere, not even driving a truck" and you have the partial answer to that interview with those reporters.

I hope this answers your questions and thank you for your comments. ---Al Baldwin

Jim Hougan in Secret Agenda dismisses Felt as a possible Deep Throat for much the same reason. Since Deep Throat failed to tell Woodward about Baldwin, and Felt knew about Baldwin, Felt can't be Deep Throat... I think what has been missed is that, according to Woodstein, Deep Throat rarely provided information; he mostly confirmed information that they'd already uncovered. And even this was done in vague terms, sometimes so vague he was misunderstood. Remember the screw-up regarding Haldeman's pre-knowledge? That almost got Woodstein pulled off the case.

To whomever stated that Felt "rarely provided info",I'm glad the word "rarely" was used because he did in a round about way provide information on occassions. I believe naming John Mitchell in July,1972 and a "possible White House connection" was of such importance that if Felt was Deep Thoat some type on mention or innuendo would have been provided to either of the two.

Thank you, Mr. Baldwin. It is refreshing and enlightening to read your correspondence. It's noble of you to come here and volley a bit with us. Nice to have you along. I know that I and others hope you had a nice holiday season.

A couple of more questions: Were you ever approached by Mr. Woodward or Mr. Bernstein during the early to mid seventies to go on or off the record? Did you ever know either of them? Do you believe Mark Felt was Deep Throat? Why did you assent to an interview with the Los Angeles Times? Thanks again.

John - I was never directly approached by either Woodward or Bernsten, however, I did learn at a latter date that they had contacted my lawyers who refused to have anything to do with them for reaons that were never disclosed to me. Thus I can say that I did not know either of them. As to whethern or not Mark Felt was Deep Throat I can honestly say that I have my doubts especially since I had been in contact with the FBI in July, 1972 yet there is no mention of me by either Bernstein or Woodward in he early (post July, 1972) days. So if Felt was reading all the FBI 302s (interview reports) why didn't he alert those writers to the act that John Mitchell had been named in my very first interview with the FBI, So in July 1972 the government had a "trail" to Mitchell, which would have been termendius news at that period of time. Lastly, believe it or not the interview was given to the Los Angeles Times reporters (two of them) for basically two reason. The first was that they were present on a daily basis at my lawyer's office in West Haven, Connecticut for weeks into months presenting themselves by saying that "if and when he (myself) decides to tell his story they would be present to take it". The second reason was they were perfect gentlemen and never pressed the issue and agreeded to print everything that I said with no exceptions, deletions, or comments. Their honsty and sincerity impressed me, and my lawyers knew that I had "been left out to hang in the wind with no support or backing from ANYONE in Washington, D.C.". Then add the fact that I had been told " you won't find a job anywhere, not even driving a truck" and you have the partial answer to that interview with those reporters.

I hope this answers your questions and thank you for your comments. - Al Baldwin

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

I believe I have already answered the question as to who I felt I was working for, but I will expand further. When I was initially hired there was no doubt in my mind that I was being hired for a position with the Committee To Re-Elect the President, which in turn was being chaired by the then Attorney General John Mitchell. I was also told that once Nixon was re-elected I would be re-instated as a Special Agent with the FBI with White House backing, and even told with the President's intervention should Hoover object to my re-instatement. In May, 1972, on my return to Washington from a short visit to Connecticut and immediately prior to my monitoring duties at the Howard Johnson I was told that I would be engaged in "activities", such as surveillance, counter-terrorism, etc., and that such activities came with the approval of the Attorney General and the White House at "the highest level".

I really can’t speak to what other individuals are espousing to as the reasons for Watergate, and with regards to McCord's reason for doing what he did I feel it would be more appropriate for him to state his position. I do know for a fact that I made a promise to him that I would allow him to state his position/reasons, however, if he did not do so prior to is demise than I would be free to comment should I be asked that question. His book "A Piece of Tape" does not truly furnish the answers.

(2) Mr. Baldwin, thanks for coming here to clear up some of these points. It's important that the story be told as straight as can be, so that people can come to informed decisions. I take from your comments on Hougan that you dispute the Liddy theory that Dean was behind it all. If I'm wrong, please let me know. One minor point, however. Did a lawyer ever tell you that your actions were legal? As Liddy's operation was approved when Mitchell was still A.G., on the surface it might appear you were in the clear. But as the break-in itself was never approved by Mitchell, and as the break-ins and phone-tapping were conducted after Mitchell left to run CREEP, it could certainly be disputed. I believe you did the right thing by coming forward, even if it was to protect yourself. I'm wondering if Liddy, or anyone else, ever threatened you. Any comments appreciated. (Pat Speer)

2. I definitely dispute ANY theory that places John Dean as the one responsible for Watergate.

With respect to whether or not a lawyer advised me as to my actions I believe I had previously answered that question. Again, I will expand somewhat on my previous answer. One must understand that at the time of this event in 1972 I was an attorney/lawyer and had been a Special Agent with the FBI. Thus I felt capable of making the decisions that I was making and I in no way felt it was necessary to seek legal advice on what was taking place. Also, remember that I felt we were acting with the approval of the Attorney General and the White House. What lawyer/attorney could trump that? Also, keep in mind that what you may term are break-ins are still occurring today; however, they most likely are be done under terms of "National Security".

Last issue on question 2 is that I am not coming forward to protect myself, and yes, I did learn of threats but they were never direct threats.

(3) Are you aware of the real reason why the Watergate offices were burgled? (John Simkin)

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

I would be very interested to hear what your opinion is on this matter. (John Simkin)

3. I am not sure that anyone can answer the question as to "the real reason why the Watergate offices were burglarized". I do know that one of the reasons was to correct one of the listening devices that was not transmitting. One has to remember that it was known to all that O'Brien was not in D.C. and would be out of town for several months. Thus no one can truly assert that the device in O'Brien's office had to be corrected unless that devise was in O'Brien's office but was there for a different purpose. I also know that the devise in Spencer Oliver’s office that was working was being left in place. As to other reasons, I am still awaiting Jim McCord's answers before I elaborate further.

(4) How sexual were the phone conversations? Were they graphic to the point of call girl or madam conversations, were you listening to a sexual procurement operation?" (Shanet Clark)

4. Sorry, based on our current federal statutes I can not discuss the essence of the conversations overheard.

"5) On May 7, 1990, in an interview with the San Francisco Chronicle, Frank Sturgis acknowledged: "the reason why we robbed in Watergate was because (Richard) Nixon was interested in stopping the news leaks related to the photos of our role in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy." Were you aware of any connection between Watergate and the assassination of JFK?" Simkin

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

Messrs. Baldwin/Hemming,

Could either of you please comment if you saw or heard anythng to corroborate the Sturgis quote, above? Also, If the reason for the "robbing" at Watergate was, as Sturgis states, because of Nixon's concerns regarding fallout from the Dealey Plaza 'tramp' photos, could one of you - Gary in particular - comment on the judiciousness of the use of any operatives from that group and the likelihood of such assignment(s) if indeed some were photographed among the 'tramps'?

5. Since Frank is now deceased I truly believe it is inappropriate for me to comment on anything Frank has said or done. I would state that I have been asked a similar question as to my personal knowledge of any connection between Watergate and the assassination of JFK. I can state without hesitation that I have no knowledge of any facts of any nature that would result in a connection between those two events.

Will answer your questions in the next few days.

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

I never did any work for Operation Gemstone or Sandwedge. The only knowledge I have of Gemstone is that was the name assigned to all the "logs" that were being typed with respect to overheard conversations at the DNC.

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

Regarding the nature of the material being collected from those wire-taps the courts have "sealed" the records and the only thing that I am allowed to say is that the "explicitly intimate" contents may not be publicly divulged.

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

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

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

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

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

3. No

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

4. No

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Baldwin,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Born: JUNE 23, 1936

Education: BBA, Fairfield Univ. 1957

MS, Southern Connectcut State College, 70's

JD, University of Connectiucut, School of Law 1963

Occupations: USMC-- Captain--Retired --Reserve -& Active Duty

(Full Time Active Duty from 1957-1960, 3mth Summer Tours while in Reserve)

Federal Bureau Of Investigation---Special Agent--1963-1966

Commitee To Re-Elect President---1972

New Haven, Connecticut--Board of Education--

Teacher 1974--1986

Southern Connecticut State University--Adjunct Professor---Approx 8 yrs--late 70's ealy 80's

State of Connecticut Division of Criminal Justice--Assistant State Attorney (Prosecutor) 1986 to 1995

Retired from State of Connecticut ( 20 + years) 1996 to present

Residence: Vero Beach, Florida, USA

Reason for joining forum: As a former educator I believe it is important that historical facts be recited with the utmost accuracy. Since I had direct involvement with the incident known today as "Watergate" I find it necessary to correct certain inaccuracies that have been setforth on your forum including posts that you yourself have written and some that have appeared on the Spartacus site.