Douglas Caddy

An eight trillion dollar conspiracy in U.S. bearer bonds Three recent seizures of these bonds in Italy and Spain Listen to Joseph P. Farrell’s interview on the Byte Show. Click on the link below and scroll down to the listing of Dr. Farrell on 10 March 2012 titled, “Babylon Banksters5.mp3. (Part five). http://www.thebyteshow.com/Guests.html Is someone or some group sending a signal by arranging for these seizures to take place? If so, why? What is at stake? Listen to this fascinating interview that implies a secret worldwide financial system, which has been hinted at by Lord Blackheath in the House of Lords.

I concur with your comments about "our skewed history." Didn't Henry Ford say "history is bunk", meaning accepted history is basically deficient? That is why the members' informative postings on the Education Forum are so valuable to those who seek out the truth. As Tony Judt wrote in his final book, Thinking the Twentieth Century, just before he died in 2010: "Democracy bears the same relationship to a well-ordered liberal society as an excessively free market does to a successful, well-regulated capitalism. Mass democracy in an age of mass media means that on the one hand, you can reveal very quickly that Bush stole the 2000 election, but on the other hand, much of the population doesn't care....Democracies corrode quite fast; they corrode linquistically, or rhetorically, if you like -- that's the Orwellian point about language. They corrode because most people don't care very much about them."

I don’t know what to make of John Dean’s unbridled attack on Tim Weiner and excessive praise of Max Holland. When someone who is prominent and respected (as is Dean) does something like this, it raises a question in the reader’s mind as to whether there is some sort of personal agenda behind it. For what it is worth, here are Wikipedia and Amazon links to both Holland and Weiner and to their recent books. It is interesting, in light of Dean’s comments, that Weiner’s book on the FBI receives glowing reviews from a number of readers. Holland's book is still too new to have many reviews. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Holland http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Weiner http://www.amazon.com/Leak-Mark-Felt-Became-Throat/dp/0700618295/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1331344383&sr=1-1 http://www.amazon.com/Enemies-History-FBI-Tim-Weiner/product-reviews/1400067480/ref=sr_1_sc_1_cm_cr_acr_txt?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1

Will Mulcaire confess all? Church's priest says he may be victim of hacking Lawyers say evidence suggests that News of the World detective accessed voicemail of the confidant of singer's Catholic family The Independent James Cusick Saturday, 10 March 2012 The priest of singer Charlotte Church is taking legal action against the News of the World, claiming his phone was hacked by the jailed private investigator Glenn Mulcaire. The deliberate invasion of the "uniquely trusting" relationship between Ms Church's Catholic family and Father Richard Reardon threatens to derail News Corp's recent attempts to limit the public fallout from the scandal by settling every outstanding phone hacking claim. Evidence that Father Reardon's voicemails had been illegally intercepted by Mulcaire was expected to be one of the most explosive and controversial revelations heard in the High Court if Ms Church's damages claim against Rupert Murdoch's News Group Newspapers had gone to trial. Lawyers representing the Roman Catholic priest say they have now gathered evidence that points to Mulcaire listening to his private messages. Father Reardon, from the Archdiocese of Cardiff, has been told by the Metropolitan Police that his details are listed in Mulcaire's notebooks. They are gathered in a "family and friends" phone numbers section connected to Ms Church's stepfather James. The priest was a trusted confidant of the Church family throughout the period 2002 to 2006, when phone hacking at the NOTW was at its peak. After accepting damages of £600,000 from NI last month, the Welsh singer said: "Nothing was deemed off-limits by those who pursued me and my family." Tom Watson, the Labour MP at the centre of parliamentary investigations into NOTW's illegal practices, told The Independent: "People of faith will be horrified at this news. How did they [the NOTW] think that targeting a priest was in any way justifiable? It's a disgusting new low for Rupert Murdoch." Austen Ivereigh, a leading Roman Catholic commentator , said: "Catholics are used to opening their hearts and minds to their priests. The idea that a private investigator could hack a priest's phone in order to get a glimpse into the private life of one of his flock is genuinely shocking. Its takes the invasion of privacy exposed by this scandal to a whole new level." NI's leading counsel, Michael Silverleaf QC, told a pre-trial review held early last month that the company would dispute in court the claim that information contained in articles in the now-defunct tabloid could only have been obtained through hacking the priest's voicemails. Yesterday it was confirmed that Mark Thompson, the lawyer who represented Sienna Miller and Jude Law in their successful claims against News International, has been hired by Father Reardon. At his home in Usk, Father Reardon refused to comment. Ms Church was brought up a Catholic, and during the "lowest moments" of NOTW's years of hounding, the advice and guidance offered by the parish priest is said to have been invaluable. In court last month the family's lawyer, Mike Brookes, described how the Church family were effectively under constant surveillance for years and that the tabloid gained access to the medical records of Charlotte Church's mother, Maria. Father Reardon is understood to have been a key factor in helping the family cope with Maria Church's attempted suicide and the trauma that followed. Ms Chuch's legal action against NI and her settlement was confined to the News of the World, but following consultations with her legal advisers after the settlement with NI, she has decided to seek damages from The Sun. Her advisers believe articles in the paper contained information which could only have come from phone hacking. A spokeswoman from News International said last night they were not in a position to comment. Mulcaire's lawyer, Sarah Webb, said it would not be appropriate for her client to make any comment "pending the final resolution of all criminal proceedings against him".

Max Holland’s Page-Turner Explaining Deep Throat’s Motives Getting Watergate History Right Counterpurch.org by JOHN DEAN Weekend Edition March 9-11, 2012 As we approach the 40th anniversary of Watergate a number of books are being published to mark the occasion. Several of my friends report that they are reading Thomas Mallon’s novel, Watergate and they have asked me if Pat Nixon really did have an affair. To my knowledge, she didn’t, and it certainly was not possible that an affair could have occurred as Mallon describes it happening in the novel. A reporter also called me with a question about Don Folsom’s recently released Nixon’s Darkest Secrets: The Inside Story of America’s Most Troubled President, which, based on the questions the reporter posed to me, sounds more like fiction than Mallon’s work does, although I’ve not read it. Strikingly, and ironically, as more information has become available about Watergate, more writers are getting this history wrong. I suspect this is happening because the record is so massive that it has become overwhelming for most. For this reason, it is nice to discover a writer who not only get the facts right, but actually sheds light upon this dark history as never before. That is precisely what Max Holland has done with his terrific new work, Leak: Why Mark Felt Became Deep Throat. As the title indicates, this work is about why the FBI Assistant Director leaked key information about the Watergate investigation to the news media. Because I was asked by the publisher to read Holland’s work in manuscript form, I do not consider this a review. Rather, I believe it is a pre-publication opportunity to call attention to excellent work, and to take note of how Holland tackled the massive, complex, and often confusing record. The short explanation is that he did so very carefully, which takes time. To show how Holland effectively dealt with this difficult record, I will point out how another very able author fell short when recently writing on the same subject. Albeit, he wrote only cursorily and quite broadly about Watergate, unfortunately, he did so incorrectly. Dealing With a Massive Record The primary records of the Nixon presidency, together with the related Watergate investigation materials, have been conservatively estimated to exceed forty million pages, along with four thousand hours of secretly recorded conversations (most of which has never been transcribed). In addition, there are literally hundreds of thousands of pages of secondary sources. To effectively navigate this vast body of material requires not only familiarity with it, but a clear focus on what to look for and a knowledge of where to find it, at least if such research is to be undertaken in any reasonable period of time. Max Holland did a great job in using this material effectively and accurately. He started exploring it in 2007, some five years ago, broadly at first. Then, about two-and-a-half years ago, he became particularly interested in Mark Felt’s motive in leaking the FBI Watergate investigation to reporters. Holland’s narrowed focus then enabled him to deal with this massive record. By seeking the assistance of others who know this record well, he was able to be certain he had found virtually all of the available material that was relevant to his inquiry. In writing his book, Holland has carefully documented where he found everything, thereby further explaining why and how he drew the only reasonable conclusions that could be drawn from the clear and convincing evidence. Holland’s fast-paced narrative runs just under 200 pages. It’s a great story, well told. But the narrative is also the tip of an iceberg. From page 201 to page 274, Holland lists his sources, the foundation underlying his narrative. There are approximately 81,000 words in the narrative. There are some 37,000 words in the endnotes and references (much employing truncated abbreviations that are the norm for citations, but keys to the underlying documents). For most readers, endnotes and references are of little interest, which is surely why the narrative is printed in a very readable 11-point font, while the documentation is condensed into a 9-point font. But to a knowing reader, like yours truly, those notes are gold, and they show a level of scholarship that is to be admired. By way of comparison, Tim Weiner, a former New York Times reporter who has won a Pulitzer Prize and National Book Award, and who has just published Enemies: A History of the FBI, has totally misread this history. Weiner, who appear to have only taken glimpses at some of the same terrain that Holland plows in depth, got it very wrong. Getting It Wrong About Felt and Watergate Tim Weiner is a terrific journalist, but he’s not a very good historian—at least regarding the material he has written with which I am personally familiar. He recently posted an except from his new book Enemies on the Huffington Post: “The FBI, Watergate And Deep Throat-What Really Happened When Nixon Fell.” While this except is a small slice of a large book, it is deeply flawed. It reveals a writer who does not really grasp the record, and apparently did not spend the kind of time that Max Holland did to dig into that record. (Journalists ask questions and report, which Weiner does well. Those writing history must examine what others got right and what they got wrong, which Weiner appears not to have made the effort to do.) Just looking at the Huffington Post excerpt, Weiner made too many mistakes—such as getting dates wrong, and distorting facts—when he compressed information. Much more troubling, however, is the fact that he gets the big things wrong, as well. Based on Weiner’s documentation, it appears that he must have glanced at a few historical documents, primary and secondary, and that he talked to a few people. But he only skimmed the surface. His Watergate material is not good history. For example, Weiner claims, based on information from former FBI agent Paul Daly, that Mark Felt (and the others) leaked the information “because of the White House obstructing the investigation.” Max Holland, on the other hand, discovered by digging into the record, as can anyone who takes the time, that this was simply not true. The FBI’s investigative record shows that the subject of White House obstruction was discussed in a number of high-level memos by the men who Weiner (via Paul Daly, a person with only twice-removed hearsay) reports were involved in leaking. But all these men agreed that the White House, in fact, had not obstructed the FBI’s investigation. These confidential and contemporaneous exchanges show that these men had concluded—both before and after the Watergate cover-up had fallen apart—exactly the opposite. These memos were written at the time they were leaking. Which is better evidence: Second-hand after the fact hearsay from a single source, or a number of contemporaneous memoranda by the very person involved in writing about the subject? The answer is obvious. So Holland, who discusses Daly’s claim in passing, relied on the primary source material that Weiner appears to have ignored. Another example, and I won’t dwell on it, because it involves me, but Weiner claims that I lied to the FBI in a conversation that he conjured from what he apparently believe to be the record. In fact, the conversation he created is a totally invented exchange that never happened. The documents showing that Weiner got this wrong are in the record. Since the error does not appear malicious, perhaps he thinks that—like most he writes about—I have passed on, so I’ve ignored it. As it happens, Holland looked closely at the documents involved, and got it right. In addition, Weiner relied on another imaginary exchange. He reports a conversation—purportedly occurring on June 17, 1972—involving FBI supervisory agent Daniel Bledsoe, who was on the FBI’s Major Crimes desk when the arrests occurred at the Watergate. It appears that Weiner found this August 19, 2009 re-created conversation in the oral history assembled by the Society of Former Special Agents of the FBI. Regrettably, however, Bledsoe’s recall of the events that occurred on June 17, 1972, an account that was reconstructed almost four decades after the fact, is riddled with errors. Clearly, Weiner quoted Bledsoe without checking into the veracity of his statements, even when these statements were patently false. For example, Bledsoe claims that he immediately recognized G. Gordon Liddy as one of the persons arrested at the Watergate, because he had met Liddy a decade earlier when Liddy was an FBI agent. In fact, Liddy was not arrested at the DNC on June 17, 1972 (and was not even a suspect until June 28, 1972). Rather, it appears that Bledsoe has confused Liddy with James McCord, another former FBI agent who was arrested at the Watergate. Bledsoe also recalled a telephone call from John Ehrlichman, “the chief of staff at the White House,” who instructed the FBI “to terminate the investigation of the break-in” by order of the President. In fact, Ehrlichman was not Chief of Staff. Nor was it likely that Bledsoe told Ehrlichman, “Under the Constitution, the FBI is obligated to initiate an investigation to determine whether there has been a violation of the illegal interception of communication statute.” If Weiner had checked, he would have found no such provision in the Constitution, nor anything even close. Bledsoe’s memory ends with a claim that he called Mark Felt, who laughed it off. Yet if Ehrlichman had tried to halt the FBI investigation within hours of the arrests at the Watergate, Felt would never have laughed it off, nor failed to make a record of this fact, nor withheld this information from others. If Bledsoe’s story were true, it would have been (and still is) what Bob Woodward, Felt’s reporter of choice at the Washington Post, would call a “holy xxxx” story. A top Nixon adviser’s passing an order from the President to turn off the FBI’s investigation within hours of the arrests at the Watergate would be big news anytime. When Max Holland checked out this story, he discovered that none of the prosecutors (neither the Assistant U.S. Attorneys who handled the initial case, nor the lead prosecutor from the Watergate Special Prosecutor’s Office who handled the cover-up) had ever heard of this assertion, nor had the lead FBI agent on the case, who would have been told. This information correcting Bledsoe was available to Weiner for the asking. (The outline of what, in fact, actually did happen with Bledsoe is buried in the 25,000 pages of the FBI’s investigation, and it is a fascinating bit of history, which I will report on in my own work-in-progress. Suffice it to say, Bledsoe did get correct in his oral history that he had made contemporaneous notes, but he got it wrong when he claimed that those notes had vanished.) Here is a final comparison between Holland and Weiner, when it comes to taking the time and care to get Watergate history right. Both men quote from Nixon’s secretly recorded conversations. Holland prepared his own transcripts, and got them right. Wiener, on the other hand, does not say where he got his information from the Nixon tapes. But he quotes what has long been one of my favorite examples of people who are unfamiliar with Nixon failing to hear what he actually said during his conversations. While the tapes remain difficult to hear and transcribe, their audibility is better today, because the digital versions can be enhanced for listening. Nonetheless, Wiener quotes Nixon from a conversation when he was reacting to information I had learned on October 19, 1972, which unequivocally established that Mark Felt was leaking information. At one point, Nixon said to Haldeman, in Wiener’s (incorrect) version: “You know what I’d do with him [Felt]? Bastard!” In fact, what Nixon really said to Haldeman was much more telling, and interesting. He didn’t say “Bastard!” Rather, he said, “Ambassador.” In short, Nixon would have done with Felt what he would later do with CIA director Richard Helms, to keep him happy and get him out of the way: make him an ambassador in a foreign land. Holland’s Excellent Work Ought to Be Deeply Appreciated, but Sadly, It May Not Be I was delighted that the University Press of Kansas asked me to be one of several readers of Holland’s work. Unfortunately, only a few people will fully understand what Max Holland has accomplished and appreciate how he has unraveled and documented an important and key bit of historical information that helps to explain Watergate history. Indeed, based on the one review of Holland’s book that I have read so far, it is doubtful that reviewers will understand what Holland’s discovery means, and how it fits. In fact, hereafter no legitimate history of the Nixon presidency or Watergate can be written, nor can anyone truly understand this history, without taking this work fully into account. Holland does not explain the implications of his work, nor have I attempted to do so in this brief analysis, but they are of great significance to understanding this rather sorry chapter of American history. While Holland is scrupulously fair in this account, the family and friends of Mark Felt will not been sending this book out for gifts. Sophisticated journalists should appreciate this work because it is a glaring example of the reality they know well: Those who leak information almost always have a vested personal interest in doing so. This work shows how a master manipulated the news media, but to an end of which he never could have dreamed or anticipated, and for less than noble motives. John Dean served as Counsel to the President of the United States from July 1970 to April 1973. This column originally appeared in Justia‘s Verdict.

Ofcom steps up test of James Murdoch's fitness to keep BSkyB role Media regulator's Project Apple examines phone-hacking evidence to decide on 39-year-old's stewardship By Dan Sabbagh and Jason Deans guardian.co.uk, Thursday 8 March 2012 18.54 EST Ofcom has stepped up its investigation into whether James Murdoch is a "fit and proper" person to sit on the board of BSkyB, forming a project team to examine evidence of phone hacking and corrupt payments emerging from the police and the Leveson inquiry. The media regulator set up a dedicated group of seven or eight staff under the name Project Apple at around the turn of the year as part of an assessment that is also taking in whether News Corporation is a fit and proper controlling investor in the satellite broadcaster. If Ofcom concluded that either Murdoch or News Corp were not appropriate owners, the regulator could revoke Sky's licence to broadcast in the UK, forcing it to switch off its channels, unless Murdoch stepped down from the board or News Corp sold its 39.1% stake. The existence of Project Apple emerged following a freedom of information disclosure by Ofcom in response to questions from the Financial Times. Board meeting minutes released by Ofcom show that members discussed the existence of the project on 24 January and that the regulator's general counsel had "compiled files of relevant advice and evidence". It is understood the Ofcom officials are liaising with the Metropolitan Police's Weeting and Elveden teams investigating hacking and bribery allegations – and studying evidence given to the Leveson inquiry on press standards. Ofcom's work is still at an early, or assessment stage, but guidance issued by the regulator makes it clear that it could make a ruling on the "fit and proper" status of Murdoch or News Corp ahead of the conclusion of any criminal trials. Although Murdoch last week stepped down as executive chairman of News International, the owner of the Sun and the Times, the 39-year-old is determined to remain as the head of BSkyB. He took over from his father as chairman at the end of 2007, having spent the previous four years as chief executive. However, Murdoch faces a number of challenges to his continuing chairmanship of Sky. In addition to Ofcom's inquiry, his stewardship of News International will be judged as part of a wider inquiry into phone hacking at the News of the World by MPs on the culture, media and sport select committee. Their final report is due later this spring. Sky declined to comment on the developing Ofcom investigation, but insiders insisted the company was relaxed given that the regulator had an ongoing duty to ensure that any broadcaster passes the fit and proper tests as laid out in law. The company believes that Ofcom's position has not altered since Ed Richards, its chief executive, wrote to three Lib Dem MPs in July of last year to say that it was "continuing to gather and analyse information" from the Met and elsewhere. Meanwhile, the solicitor acting for Rebekah Brooks, the former News International chief executive, accused the Leveson inquiry into phone hacking and media ethics of presiding over a "spectacular failure" in allowing a senior Scotland Yard officer to give evidence about the arrest of Sun journalists over alleged illegal payments to public officials. Stephen Parkinson, writing in the Daily Telegraph, said Metropolitan police deputy assistant commissioner Sue Akers' comments could threaten the arrested Sun journalists' right to a fair trial. Parkinson, the head of criminal litigation at Kingsley Napley, said: "Those of us representing the current and former journalists, particularly at the Sun, who bore the brunt of the prejudicial comments, will inevitably make the point that publicity of this kind does not fade from the memory."

Phone hacking: can these journalists really get a fair trial? The flaws in the design of the Leveson Inquiry have undermined the judicial process. By Stephen Parkinson, solicitor for Rebekah Brooks The Telegraph 6:59PM GMT 08 Mar 2012 No one can accuse David Cameron of rushing too quickly into setting up the Leveson Inquiry. He knew of all the potential problems. He knew that with a major police investigation already under way, there was a danger that a public inquiry would jeopardise its outcome. So when he faced the House of Commons last July, amid increasingly loud calls for action, Mr Cameron made clear that he intended to take his time, to ensure he got it right. His initial instinct was that something might be possible, but he asked for time to consult and consider, since, as he put it: “All too often these inquiries can be set up too quickly without thinking through what actually needs to be done.” We can be sure, therefore, that when the Leveson Inquiry was announced a week later, the Prime Minister had received all the advice he needed, from the Attorney General among others. So there is no excuse for the spectacular failure that occurred last week, one that was a direct result of the faulty arrangements put in place for examining the phone-hacking saga. We have now had, over the past year, two extensive select committee inquiries; Leveson itself; a number of parliamentary debates and statements; and a continuing police investigation, which has produced 30 arrests. Normally, our system protects those who are suspects in criminal investigations reasonably well. It allows them to maintain their silence until there is either a trial, in which all the facts can be put before a jury, or a decision that there is no case to answer. In return, it restricts the circulation of facts, comment and speculation about their guilt or innocence. Last week, that did not happen – and it has not happened for much of the past nine months. Witnesses have been summoned before both Parliament and the Leveson Inquiry. While those under police investigation have been permitted to maintain their silence on issues central to that process, others have been questioned with few restrictions. As a result, much prejudicial material has come into the public domain. Last autumn, Paul McMullan was allowed by the Leveson Inquiry to accuse my client, Rebekah Brooks, of being the “criminal-in-chief”. This was received uncritically. Mrs Brooks had been denied permission to be a core participant in the inquiry, so no one was there on her behalf to challenge the evidence. There was no cross-examination of Mr McMullan, his credibility or his motives. This is just one example of what has become a pattern. Last Monday, Sue Akers, the deputy assistant commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, responded to an invitation to “provide a statement about the investigation into police corruption providing as much detail as possible, without naming individuals, as is compatible with the ongoing police investigation”. DAC Akers took full advantage of that opportunity, alleging that there had been a culture at The Sun of illegal payments to a network of public officials. She said that systems had been created to facilitate such payments, which were authorised “at a very senior level”. She might not have mentioned names, but it did not take much to fill in the gaps. Nor was she alone. Brian Paddick and Jacqui Hames, both former police officers, went on to make their own allegations, going further than DAC Akers and naming names. Understandably, the press reported this extensively. Instantly, stories appeared about various individuals who had been arrested as part of the inquiry. The publicity was huge, dramatic and sensational. The Attorney General is now considering whether this reporting amounts to contempt of court. Quite separately, the judge will be bound to consider – if there is ever a prosecution – whether a fair trial is possible. Those of us representing the current and former journalists, particularly at The Sun, who bore the brunt of the prejudicial comments, will inevitably make the point that publicity of this kind does not fade from the memory. None of this should be seen as a criticism of the Leveson Inquiry. It has been coping with a structural weakness that goes back to the basis on which it was set up by David Cameron. It was to have two parts: the first would examine the culture, practices and ethics of the press, and make recommendations as to its future regulation and behaviour. The second would look at the specifics of what had gone wrong in the past. The intention was to leave until Part Two the specific examination of who did what to whom, following the police investigation and any court case. But Lord Justice Leveson found that he could not decide whether the current system had failed without obtaining “a narrative of events”. So the inquiry has heard evidence from victims, journalists, police and regulators, from which that “narrative” will be drawn. There has not been a criminal trial, and so none of the safeguards expected at a trial has been present. Lord Justice Leveson’s inquiry, and the other bodies investigating these events, have each been doing their job, and should not be criticised. But what is left is a deep sense of unease. There are a number of individuals out there whose reputations have been traduced. Few people know the impact of such publicity on their lives, and the depth of stress and worry they have had to bear. But each of us knows enough to question whether the public interest and the legal premise of “innocent until proven guilty” have been served by what we have seen and heard. Stephen Parkinson is head of criminal litigation at Kingsley Napley and solicitor for Rebekah Brooks

Police chief's comments may threaten fair trials for journalists The solicitor for Rebekah Brooks has questioned whether she would receive a fair trial after a “spectacular failure” allowed a senior police officer to give evidence about corruption allegations at News International. The Telegraph By Mark Hughes, Crime Correspondent 7:00PM GMT 08 Mar 2012 Writing in The Telegraph, Stephen Parkinson said that Miss Akers’ comments could threaten the right of journalists who have been arrested in the ongoing investigation to receive a fair trial. Last week Mrs Akers told the inquiry that there was a “culture of illegal payments” at The Sun newspaper. She said that the newspaper paid a “network of corrupt officials” for stories. The payments, Miss Akers said, were sanctioned by senior executives at the newspaper. This week it was revealed that the Attorney General is considering whether those remarks could amount to a contempt of court. Miss Brooks is one of 17 current and former News International journalists arrested in Operation Elveden, the Scotland Yard investigation into allegations of corrupt payments from journalists to police officers. Writing in The Telegraph, Mr Parkinson said: “There is no excuse for the spectacular failure that occurred last week. “Normally our system protects those who are suspects in criminal investigations reasonably well … It restricts the circulation of facts, comment and speculation about their guilt or innocent. “Last week, that did not happen – and it has not happened for much of the last seven months. Witnesses have been summoned before both parliamentary committees and the Leveson Inquiry. “As a result, much prejudicial material has come into the public domain.” Mr Parkinson, the head of criminal litigation at Kingsley Naopley, was particularly critical of Leveson Inquiry for allowing Paul McMullan to accuse Mrs Brooks of being the “criminal in chief”. He writes: “This was received uncritically. Mrs Brooks had been denied permission to be a core participant in the inquiry, so no one was there on her behalf to challenge the evidence.” He goes on to criticise Miss Akers’ testimony which she provided after being asked, Mr Parkinson says, to “provide a statement about the investigation into police corruption providing as much detail as possible …” Mr Parkinson adds: “DAC Akers took full advantage of that opportunity, alleging that there had been a culture at the Sun of illegal payments to a network of public officials ... She might not have mentioned names, but it did not take much to fill in the gaps.” Mr Parkinson claims that the comments have potentially prejudiced any future trial. He adds: “The judge will be bound to consider – if there is ever a prosecution – whether a fair trial is possible. Those of us representing the current and former journalists, particularly at the Sun, who bore the brunt of the prejudicial comments, will inevitably make the point that publicity of this kind does not fade from the memory.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Alsop

Another interesting article by Robert Parry: http://consortiumnews.com/2010/062410.html

Another interesting article by Robert Parry. http://consortiumnews.com/2010/062410.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/phone-hacking/9128660/Horsegate-Deal-to-lend-Raisa-discussed-at-lunch-between-Lord-Blair-and-Rebekah-Brooks.html

Lord Stevens quit paper over 'unethical behaviour' The former head of Scotland Yard has revealed how he quit his News of the World column after hearing of “unethical behaviour” at the now defunct Sunday paper. By Mark Hughes, Crime Correspondent The Telegraph http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/leveson-inquiry/9126270/Lord-Stevens-quit-paper-over-unethical-behaviour.html Lord Stevens told the Leveson inquiry that he quit the column, for which he was paid £7,000 per article, in October 2007 – nine months after the convictions of Glenn Mulcaire and Clive Goodman. But he refused to divulge exactly the allegations he heard. He said: “When the convictions were taking place, certain other information was coming to my ears which just [meant] I did not want to do it. In hindsight I would have never written the articles if I’d known what I know now.” Pressed on what “other information” he was referring to Lord Stevens replied: “It revolved around some unethical behaviour in relation to one or two articles that had got the headlines in the News of the World.” Despite suggestions that phone hacking at the paper went wider than one “rogue reporter” the Metropolitan Police refused to re-open the investigation until last year, twice declining to re-investigate after articles in the Guardian in 2009 and the New York Times in 2010. Lord Stevens, who ran the Metropolitan Police between 2000 and 2005, also appeared to criticise the failure of Sir Paul Stephenson and John Yates to re-open the inquiry. He said: “I have been disappointed by what has taken place. I would like to have thought that the issues that the Guardian had raised I would have picked up as commissioner. If they had been picked up I think I would have been quite ruthless about pursuing it.” Lord Stevens said he had attempted to make relations between Scotland Yard and the press more open upon being appointed commissioner. He told the inquiry, however, that he fears that relations between officers and journalists have recently deteriorated, with police “terrified” to speak to reporters. He said: “What I have heard is people are absolutely terrified of picking up a phone or speaking to the press in any way, shape or form and I do not think that is healthy. “The press have a job to do they have delivered, particularly investigative journalism, some outstanding work and there has to be a relationship between the police and the press for the right reasons.” Lord Condon, who ran the force from 1993 to 2000, agreed. He said: “I would be worried about anything which suggested that any contact between the police and the media was almost inherently wrong, that the media are given some sort of pariah status and almost being in the same room as them is bad.” But Lord Condon said that relationships between police and the media should be professional. He said: "I think that while you are commissioner you have certain professional relationships and you make life more difficult for yourself if those relationships carry into friendships and a social life that goes with frindships." The inquiry has already heard that John Yates enjoyed a friendship with Niel Wallis, the deputy editor of the News of the World and that the pair enjoyed drinks and dinners together. Lord Condon added: "In my view hospitality can be the start of a grooming process which can lead to inappropriate and unethical behaviour."

The many reviews by readers of the book are mixed. Some praise it and others tear into it. Here are the Editorial Reviews of the book as reported by Amazon: Editorial Reviews Review “Remarkable detail.”--Sir David Frost, Frost Over the World “Stunning Account of the Last Days of the Reich”--Parapolitical.com “Describes a ghastly pantomime played out in the names of the Fuhrer and the woman who had been his mistress.”--The Sun “Laid out in lavish detail.”--Daily Mail “Stunning saga of intrigue.”--Pravda “I thought the book was hugely thought-provoking and explores some of the untold, murky loose ends of World War Two.”--Dan Snow, broadcaster and historian, The One Show BBC 1 About the Author A well-established author, filmmaker, and photographer, Simon Dunstan has written more than 50 books on military history, particularly on World War II and Vietnam. They include Fort Eben Emael: The Key to Hitler's Victory in the West (Osprey) and Centurion Universal Tank 1943-2003 (Osprey). He has also written and directed numerous military history documentaries for the History Channel. An international television journalist for 30 years, Gerrard Williams became duty editor at Reuters Television. He has also worked as foreign duty editor at the BBC, Sky News, and APTN. In 1983, he directed his first documentary, Strength to Cry, on the famine in Sudan; it received international critical acclaim and was broadcast in 30 countries.

Was Osama Bin Laden Really Buried At Sea? WikiLeaks Emails Suggest Al Qaeda Chief's Body Was Flown To US Military Mortuary Huffington Post UK Sara C Nelson First Posted: 6/03/2012 09:40 Updated: 6/03/2012 10:18 http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/03/06/was-osama-bin-laden-really-buried-at-sea-wikileaks-emails-suggest-al-qaeda-chiefs-body-was-flown-to-us-military-mortuary_n_1323138.html?icid=maing-grid7%7Cmain5%7Cdl1%7Csec1_lnk3%26pLid%3D140859 Osama Bin Laden was apparently buried in the waters of the north Arabian sea, but internal emails from intelligence service Stratfor, obtained by hacker group Anonymous and posted by WikiLeaks suggest otherwise. According to official accounts, he was wrapped in a sheet and “eased” off the decks of the U.S.S Carl Vinson just hours after he was killed on May 2 in a United States-led operation, in accordance with Muslim tradition. But a leaked email from Stratfor vice president for intelligence Fred Burton, sent on 2 May 2011, at 5.26am states: “Reportedly, we took the body with us. Thank goodness.” A subsequent email on the same day at 5.51am states: “Body bound for Dover, DE on CIA plane. Than (sic) onward to the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology in Bethesda.” US forces said Bin Laden was killed in a siege at his compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan, on 2 May 2011, just after 1am local time. At 6.26am Burton wrote: “If body dumped at sea, which I doubt, the touch is very Adolph Eichman like. The Tribe did the same thing with the Nazi's ashes. We would want to photograph, DNA, fingerprint, etc. “His body is a crime scene and I don't see the FBI nor DOJ letting that happen.” The reference to Eichmann regards the cremation of the Nazi’s body following his capture, trial and execution, in order to prevent any memorial or shrine being built. Stratfor CEO George Friedman appears to agree, noting: “Eichmann was seen alive for many months on trial before being sentenced to death and executed. No comparison with suddenly burying him at sea without any chance to view him which I doubt happened.” By 1.36pm Burton writes again: “Body is Dover bound, should be here by now.” The conversation takes a puzzling turn at 3.11pm, with Burton stating: “Down and dirty done, He already sleeps with the fish…” A note adds: “It seems to me that by dropping the corpse in the ocean, the body will come back to haunt us… gotta be violating some sort of obscure heathen religious rule that will inflame islam? "The US Govt needs to make body pics available like the MX’s do, with OBL’s pants pulled down, to shout down the lunatics like Alex Jones and Glenn Beck.” The exchange casts a mystery over just what happened to the body of the Al Qaeda leader. The thread of emails - under the heading The Global Intelligence Files - was published by WikiLeaks on 27 February 2012 and contains correspondence dated between July 2004 and late December 2011. The site states: "They reveal the inner workings of a company that fronts as an intelligence publisher, but provides confidential intelligence services to large corporations, such as Bhopal's Dow Chemical Co., Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon and government agencies, including the US Department of Homeland Security, the US Marines and the US Defence Intelligence Agency. "The emails show Stratfor's web of informers, pay-off structure, payment laundering techniques and psychological methods." The New American reports: “The release of the Stratfor emails will likely revive the debate over just what happened to bin Laden’s body and consequently, whether or not US forces actually killed the terrorist mastermind in the first place. “Secrecy prior to the raid is understandable; a refusal to produce the key piece of evidence that the raid was successful, on the other hand, is quite curious indeed." According to White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, a member of the military “read prepared religious remarks” that were translated into Arabic at the burial ceremony. The lair where Bin Laden lived in secrecy before the alleged final stand off with US Commandoes was razed to the ground last month. Bin Laden moved into the three-storey house in 2005 and lived there until it was stormed by Navy Seals in May 2011. The house was located just half a mile from one of Pakistan’s top army training academies, which caused embarrassment for the country’s intelligence services, AP reported. US officials say there was no evidence senior Pakistan officials were aware of Bin Laden’s location. Residents living nearby told the Independent they had thought the building would be turned into a mosque, school or clinic. Shah Mohammad said: “I think they should build a mosque. If you build a school there, people will just associate it with Bin Laden.” A source had told the paper demolition was on the cards ahead of the event, adding: “There is an issue, in our culture, of such places becoming shrines.”

Frost/Bush NOT Nixon: TV host chooses George Snr interview as his proudest moment over infamous Watergate grilling By Eddie Wrenn Daily Mail 6th of March 2012 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2110931/Frost-Bush-NOT-Nixon-TV-host-chooses-George-Snr-interview-proudest-moment-infamous-Watergate-grilling.html The world will remember Sir David Frost for his seminal interviews with disgraced U.S. President Richard Nixon - but the veteran broadcaster has admitted his proudest moment was actually interviewing another President. Despite Frost's showdown with Nixon inspiring a hit play, an Oscar-nominated film and receiving the vote as the greatest broadcast interview ever, the TV host rates his patio chat with George Bush Snr as his own favourite. Although the meeting, which took place at a little wood cabin in the state of Maine in 1989, is little remembered, Frost was delighted because he scooped the world by getting the first full interview with Bush after his election victory. Asked about his favourite interview by the Radio Times magazine, Frost said: 'A man I greatly respect, the first President Bush - well, everybody had said that he never relaxed on television and when we did the first interview with him up at Kennebunkport, a little village in Maine. 'Although we'd never met before, within 10 or 15 minutes he was talking just so frankly about his family and the daughter he lost through leukaemia. 'He was direct and everything that he is in real life, but he'd never been seen that way on television.' Frost said his pride stemmed from getting 'something from a person who everybody told you would not give at all.' Frost picked up a number of interviews with Presidents, and also interviewed Bush Jnr in 2003, with the two discussing Tony Blair - described by Bush as 'a man of strong faith', the Middle East, and 9/11. The broadcaster's confrontation with Nixon was filmed in 1977 - three years after he resigned in the face of the Watergate scandal. WATERSHED INTERVIEWS Nixon had been out of the spotlight since his resignation in 1974, but was convinced by his publicist to talk to Frost. Nixon's advisers believed the former President would outwit Frost, partly due to a 'soft' 1968 interview between the pair. However Frost heavily researched the interview and insisted on no-holds-barred questioning. This led to insights into Nixon's behaviour during the Watergate scandal, and added more evidence to the public belief that Nixon covered up his involvement in the affair. The Watergate scandal saw the downfall of the President, after a break-in at the Democratic Party headquarters was linked to the Republican's President staff. The interviews were carried out over 12 days in March 1977 and took place in California. 45 million people watched the first episode - a world-record for a political interview. Nixon fought three and won two U.S. presidential elections but was forced to resign after the Watergate scandal revealed an array of dirty tricks carried out against his opponents by his political allies. The story of how Sir David persuaded Nixon to speak on camera in a series of interviews in which he admitted he 'let down the country' became the basis of the play Frost/Nixon. It was then turned into the multiple award winning film by acclaimed director Ron Howard, with Michael Sheen and Frank Langella in the title roles. Sir David said he did not mind that the Nixon interview had eclipsed his other work, saying that it was a such a great experience he 'wouldn't have wanted to be without that in my life'. He told the magazine: 'One wouldn't worry about it eclipsing anything. It was such a great experience that I wouldn't have wanted to be without that in my life.' Frost is known for asking soft questions with a sting in the tail - Labour leader John Smith once told Frost he had a way of 'asking beguiling questions with potentially lethal consequences'. Speaking about his questions to Nixon, Frost said: 'I had insisted on sole control - that he wouldn't know any of the questions in advance and so there was absolutely no legal barrier to me asking him whatever I wanted.' Frost will next be seen presenting a new series about the art of interviews, called Frost on Interviews, on BBC4, interviewing presenters including Michael Parkinson, Lord Bragg, Joan Bakewell and Graham Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2110931/Frost-Bush-NOT-Nixon-TV-host-chooses-George-Snr-interview-proudest-moment-infamous-Watergate-grilling.html#ixzz1oLyhUmRt

Former Met head Lord Condon slams hacking investigation The Indepedent By Sam Marsden Tuesday 06 March 2012 Former Metropolitan Police Commissioner Lord Condon retired head of Scotland Yard today criticised his former force's failure to investigate fully allegations of widespread phone-hacking at the News of the World. Lord Stevens told the Leveson Inquiry he hoped he would have been "quite ruthless" about pursuing claims in 2009 that the illegal practice was far more prevalent than previously believed. Fellow former Metropolitan Police commissioner Lord Condon said he was "very disappointed and concerned" by issues about the behaviour of Scotland Yard officers exposed by the press standards inquiry. Scotland Yard's original phone-hacking investigation resulted in the jailing of News of the World royal editor Clive Goodman and private investigator Glenn Mulcaire in January 2007 after they admitted intercepting voicemail messages left on royal aides' phones. But the Met was widely criticised for failing to reopen the probe after the Guardian published a story in July 2009 alleging there were more journalists and many more victims involved in the case. Lord Stevens, who was head of Scotland Yard from February 2000 to February 2005, told the Leveson Inquiry today: "Like Paul Condon, I have been disappointed with what has taken place. "I would like to have thought that the issues with the Guardian that were raised, I would have picked up as commissioner. "If they had been picked up then, I think I would have been quite ruthless about pursuing it." Lord Stevens terminated a contract to write a column for the News of the World at £7,000 per article in October 2007 over concerns about the phone-hacking convictions and other "unethical behaviour" at the paper, the inquiry heard. "I would never have written the articles if I had known what I now know," he said. "By terminating the contract with five articles to write, I was throwing away money, but that didn't worry me." The inquiry heard that Lord Stevens dined with former News of the World executive editor Neil Wallis both privately and for work. On two occasions their wives were present as they discussed the former policeman's charity, Convoy 2000. Lord Stevens said his relationship with Mr Wallis was "totally professional" and would not have affected any decision to investigate the News of the World. "I am afraid if it comes to enforcing the law, any relationship has to go to one side," he told the hearing. "If there is evidence to pursue in terms of any criminal activity, whether it be phone-hacking, corruption or otherwise, that has to be pursued." The former commissioner also had meals with then News of the World editor Rebekah Brooks, who was always trying to persuade him to support her campaign for a "Sarah's Law" giving parents the right to know if a paedophile was living nearby, the inquiry heard. Lord Stevens also accused former home secretary David Blunkett of briefing the media against him. He said: "Every now and again I was seeing headlines saying he was going to sack me and things like that, which of course had never been said to my face. "I found that quite difficult, especially as we were getting superb results." Asked whether he was saying that Mr Blunkett was briefing the press behind his back, the former commissioner said: "Yes." The inquiry heard last week that a number of senior Met officers dined at fine restaurants and drank champagne with News of the World journalists after the paper was investigated for phone-hacking. News of the World crime editor Lucy Panton was told by her newsdesk in 2010 to "call in all those bottles of champagne" to get inside information about a terrorist plot from John Yates, Scotland Yard's then head of counter-terrorism. Lord Condon, who was Met commissioner from 1993 to 2000, told Lord Justice Leveson today: "Based on what is in the public domain, primarily from what has happened in your inquiry, sir, I have been very disappointed and concerned by some of the issues that have emerged. "And had I still been involved in the service, I would have been probably very angry."

Phone hacking: Home Office briefed in 2006 The Telegraph 3:26PM GMT 05 Mar 2012 Former home secretary John Reid received two briefing papers about Scotland Yard's phone-hacking investigation the day after News of the World royal editor Clive Goodman's arrest, the Leveson Inquiry heard. olice prepared one document for Dr Reid and the second was written by the private secretary to the Home Office's permanent secretary, the hearing was told. Neil Garnham QC, counsel for the Metropolitan Police, said both briefing notes were dated August 9 2006, the day after officers swooped on Goodman and private investigator Glenn Mulcaire. Former Scotland Yard anti-terror chief Peter Clarke – who oversaw the 2006 News of the World investigation, known as Operation Caryatid – gave evidence to the Leveson Inquiry on Thursday about how Dr Reid was kept informed. He was asked whether his discussion with the then-home secretary made it clear that the range of phone-hacking victims was "far wider than the royal household" and that other journalists "might well" have been involved. Mr Clarke replied: "I think it did. I don't remember the exact content of that discussion. "I know that a briefing paper went from the Metropolitan Police to the Home Office, and that Dr Reid was aware of it and it was on the basis of that that he asked me some questions in the margins of another meeting, a meeting actually about the airlines terrorist plot." But Dr Reid told The Guardian on Friday: "I can categorically say that I did not receive any briefing from the Met suggesting that there was widespread hacking including MPs and the deputy PM." Mr Garnham said today that the police briefing paper for Dr Reid has now been provided to the Leveson Inquiry, and efforts are under way to find the internal Home Office document about the phone-hacking investigation. The press standards inquiry is currently looking at relations between police and the press, and will next examine links between politicians and newspapers. Chairman Lord Justice Leveson observed: "This is about the extent to which the police kept the Government informed about Caryatid ... "It is obviously very important, not least because of the interplay between this part of the inquiry and the next part of the inquiry."

News Corp dropped top US anti-bribery lawyer from its legal team Amid possible US prosecution, leading expert on FCPA stopped advising Murdoch empire soon after he was hired this summer By Ed Pilkington in New York guardian.co.uk, Monday 5 March 2012 17.35 EST News Corporation, Rupert Murdoch's media empire that is under investigation by the FBI for possible violation of US anti-bribery laws, is no longer being advised by Mark Mendelsohn, one of the world's leading experts on the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. Mendelsohn was taken on by News Corp last July to head its legal team, advising the company on how to prepare for potential prosecution under the act as a result of the UK phone-hacking scandal. But the Guardian has learned that he was let go almost as soon as he was hired. Mendelsohn was brought on board by Murdoch amid the maelstrom that followed the Guardian's revelation that the News of the World had hacked into the mobile phone of missing teenager Milly Dowler. His hiring by News Corp came first reported just two weeks after the Dowler story broke by one of Murdoch's own newspapers, the Wall Street Journal. The newspaper said he had been retained from Paul Weiss, the international legal firm where he has worked as a partner since leaving the justice department in 2010. Mendelsohn has consistently been reported over the past eight months to be acting as a leading legal adviser to News Corp on FCPA. However, his formal relationship with the company ended last summer, shortly after he was taken on by the firm. Under the FCPA, companies headquartered in the US, such as News Corp, are liable to prosecution if they can be shown to have engaged in bribery of officials in foreign countries for company gain. The company is facing allegations that its British newspapers, the Sun and the defunct News of the World, engaged in payments to police officers and other public officials that amounted, the Leveson inquiry heard recently, to a network of corrupted officials. Past penalties under FCPA include the record-breaking pursuit of Siemens AG that settled for $800m in 2008, and a case that was first exposed by the Guardian and led to a criminal fine of $400m in 2010 against the British arms company BAE Systems for sweeteners paid to a Saudi prince. Both those cases were prosecuted by Mendelsohn when he was heading the department of justice's fraud section between 2005 and 2010. Between those years he developed the FCPA from being a relatively minor and infrequently used law to being a powerful prosecutorial weapon. He is specifically credited as having devised the aggressive approach to enforcement of the FCPA that now threatens News Corp with massive fines and possible imprisonment of its executives. To have him on board at News Corp was considered a huge bonus for the company as it faces the rippling transatlantic consequences of the UK phone-hacking scandal. But the Guardian understands that Mendelsohn had barely begun to advise the company before he was let go. It is not clear why such a serious player in this part of the law should have been retained and then released by News Corp in such quick succession. Mendelsohn himself did not respond to questions from the Guardian, and News Corp declined comment. A source with understanding of the internal workings of News Corp said Mendelsohn's rapid departure was connected to the legal strategy put together by Joel Klein, the former head of New York City's public education system whom Murdoch has entrusted with managing the phone-hacking crisis from the company's Manhattan headquarters. When Mendelsohn was taken on, Klein simultaneously brought in the law firm Williams & Connolly to act as legal firefighters, and it is possible that as roles were clarified Mendelsohn was edged out. Mike Koehler, an expert in FCPA law at Butler university, said it was plausible that there might have been an internal turf war over who took the lead in handling the company's response to the FCPA investigation. But he was surprised that Mendelsohn had come and gone so suddenly. "The pace of the scandal was rapid-fire last July. But even so when you hire a person of the calibre of Mark Mendelsohn, who used to lead the justice department's FCPA project, and then shortly thereafter say you don't need his services – that's unusual." The US authorities began an investigation under the FCPA in the wake of the Milly Dowler story. The US attorney general, Eric Holder, announced he was initiating a preliminary inquiry into whether News Corp had breached the anti-bribery law last July – the same month as Mendelsohn was hired. In recent weeks the FBI is understood to have interviewed several top News Corp executives. Meanwhile, the Wall Street Journal reports that News Corp's FCPA woes have spread around the globe. The newspaper says the FBI is investigating a former Russian subsidiary called News Outdoor Russia and alleged bribes paid to local officials.

AP Sources: FBI's News Corp. Probe Goes To Russia Updated: Monday, 05 Mar 2012, 3:29 PM EST Published : Monday, 05 Mar 2012, 11:54 AM EST NEW YORK - The FBI is investigating whether a Russian billboard company once owned by media giant News Corp. bribed local officials to get sign placements approved, part of a growing probe of Rupert Murdoch's company that stems from a scandal in the U.K. The expanding investigation of News Corp. properties -- besides the British tabloids accused of phone hacking and bribery of public officials -- is typical of a U.S. probe of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. The 1977 act allows the Justice Department to levy hefty fines on U.S.-based companies for ill-gotten profits that come from bribing foreign officials. Two people familiar with the investigation told The Associated Press that the FBI will examine operations at former News Corp. subsidiary News Outdoor Russia. The two people spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the investigation. Investigators are trying to establish whether there is a pattern of bribery and corruption at News Corp. outlets abroad, they said. A spokesman for News Corp. in New York declined to comment. The Wall Street Journal, a News Corp. newspaper, earlier reported on the FBI probe. Michael Koehler, a law professor at Butler University, and former legal adviser to businesses on the FCPA, said such a probe could take years and cover many News Corp. properties around the world. In past cases where it has found wrongdoing, the Justice Department has imposed fines of up to double the amount of illicitly gained profits, he said. "The breadth and scope of conduct is going to be one factor for the enforcement agencies in deciding how to resolve a case like this," he said. The investigation grew out of Britain's phone hacking scandal, which revealed that journalists at News Corp.'s News of the World tabloid illegally eavesdropped on politicians, celebrities, sports stars and even crime victims --all in the service of scoring scoops. That led to separate investigations in Britain covering the bribery of public officials for scoops and computer hacking. More than 20 people have since been arrested in the bribery probe, including journalists from News Corp.'s The Sun and now-shuttered News of the World. None have been charged. News Corp. sold its 79 percent stake in News Outdoor Russia in July along with a similar business in Romania for a combined $360 million. The sale does not prevent U.S. agencies from fining the company for profits reaped in the past through bribes. Read more: http://www.myfoxdc.com/dpp/news/ap-sources-fbs-news-corp-probe-goes-to-russia-030512#ixzz1oIJUqViA

Among Howard Hunt's CIA travels in pre-Watergate years was a fishing trip in the Andes whose real purpose was Nazi-hunting. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=18849

http://www.redicecreations.com/radio/2012/03/RIR-120304.php

Attorneys for RFK convicted killer Sirhan push 'second gunman' argument By Brad Johnson and Michael Martinez, CNN updated 5:10 PM EST, Sun March 4, 2012 http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/04/justice/california-rfk-second-gun/index.html STORY HIGHLIGHTS • Lawyers for convicted assassin Sirhan Sirhan contend a second gun killed RFK • Sirhan -- the only person charged and convicted -- is serving a life sentence • For the first time, Sirhan's attorneys rule out a security guard as a gunman • Sen. Robert F. Kennedy was assassinated in Los Angeles in 1968 Los Angeles (CNN) -- If there was a second gunman in Sen. Robert F. Kennedy's assassination, who was it? Lawyers for convicted assassin Sirhan Sirhan claim their client did not fire any of the gunshots that struck the presidential candidate in 1968. And in their latest federal court filing, they also rule out another man some have considered a suspect -- a private security guard named Thane Eugene Cesar, who was escorting Kennedy at the time he was shot. Attorneys William Pepper and Laurie Dusek insist someone other than their client, Sirhan, fatally shot Kennedy. They now say the real killer was not Cesar, a part-time uniformed officer long suspected by some conspiracy theorists of playing a sinister role in the senator's murder. Pepper and Dusek made the claim in papers submitted to a U.S. District Court in Los Angeles last week. Attempts by CNN to contact Cesar, a relative of his and a former attorney of his were unsuccessful. Prosecutors, attorneys argue: Was there a second gunman? Cesar was walking behind Kennedy and drew his service revolver as Sirhan fired his own handgun in a Los Angeles hotel on June 5, 1968, only moments after the candidate claimed victory in California's Democratic primary election. The gunfire in the Ambassador Hotel left the senator the most seriously wounded of six shooting victims. Kennedy died the following day while the other five survived. Sirhan was the only person arrested, tried and convicted of murdering the candidate and wounding the others. Now 67, he is serving a life sentence at Pleasant Valley State Prison in Coalinga, California. Pepper and Dusek are trying to win Sirhan immediate freedom or a new trial based on what they call "formidable evidence" of his innocence and "horrendous violations" of his rights. The New York attorneys argue that two guns were fired in the assassination, that Sirhan's revolver was not the gun that shot Kennedy and that Sirhan was not responsible for his actions at the Ambassador. Instead, the defense lawyers insist Sirhan was "hypno-programmed" by conspirators to be a diversion for the real assassin in Kennedy's murder. Going back to the time of the murder At the time of Kennedy's shooting, Cesar and two hotel captains were escorting the presidential candidate through the Ambassador's kitchen service pantry. Cesar, working as a special officer for the Ace Guard Service, was carrying his service revolver in a right-side holster. For decades, some have publicly speculated that just such an armed security guard could have been a second shooter -- perhaps even the real killer, they have theorized -- who fired bullets from behind Kennedy while Sirhan fired his shots from in front as a distraction, wounding bystanders. A few hours after the assassination, Cesar told Los Angeles police he was immediately behind Kennedy, holding the senator's right elbow with his left hand, when Sirhan suddenly appeared and began firing. The guard told police he reacted to Sirhan by pulling his own gun from his holster with his right hand. Prosecutors rebut Sirhan's claims But Cesar also told police he never actually fired his weapon. However, because authorities did not check his gun or perform an examination to determine whether he had just shot a weapon, some people have speculated Cesar could have fired his gun in the pantry. Court arguments In their court brief filed February 22, Sirhan's lawyers said that Cesar is "believed in some quarters (not here) to be the second gunman." "It is my personal belief, at this time, that the security guard, Cesar, was not the second shooter," William Pepper said in e-mail to CNN. But Pepper added Cesar still might have been involved in an assassination conspiracy. "He may well have played a role," he said. "I have information but cannot reveal it at this time," said Pepper, who insisted that his information requires a new trial for Sirhan or, at minimum, an evidentiary hearing. "We need an evidentiary hearing to deal with the second shooter and his identity," he added. Cesar has long denied involvement in Robert Kennedy's assassination and, after years of harassment over the murder, he was believed at one point to have moved outside the United States. But Pepper told CNN, "I believe that he has returned to the U.S. from the Philippines, where he resided for a number of years." Sirhan seeks prison release Pepper and his co-counsel also allege fraud was committed at Sirhan's 1969 trial when prosecutors allowed substitute bullets to be admitted as evidence in place of the real bullets removed from Kennedy's neck and shooting survivor Ira Goldstein's hip. "There was a fraud on the court with respect to the ballistics evidence, I think this is quite clear," Pepper told CNN. "The remedy is a new trial or (Sirhan's) release." Opposing Pepper's and Dusek's efforts in federal court, California Attorney General Kamala Harris said in recent court papers that the ballistics allegations fall "well short of dismantling the prosecution's overwhelming case" against Sirhan. In a federal court brief submitted February 1, Harris said Sirhan's original prosecution never relied on ballistics or forensic evidence because he was detained "in the process of shooting at the victim and was the killer by all credible accounts." At the Ambassador Hotel In 1968, the 42-year-old Robert Kennedy, younger brother of assassinated President John F. Kennedy, was a contender for the Democratic presidential nomination against then-Vice President Hubert Humphrey and Minnesota Sen. Eugene McCarthy. On the night of his assassination, Kennedy's supporters were gathered for a rally at the Ambassador Hotel, which was razed a few years ago and replaced by a public high school named for the late senator. Kennedy had just appeared on live nationwide television in the hotel's Embassy Room ballroom to claim victory over McCarthy in the California primary. Moments later, at a quarter past midnight, he was fatally wounded in the kitchen pantry while heading for a press conference set for a small banquet room just beyond the pantry. Three bullets struck Kennedy's body while a fourth bullet passed harmlessly through the shoulder of his suit coat. The assassination itself was not captured by any cameras -- only its bloody aftermath was caught on film -- but the sounds of the shooting were preserved on the audiotape of a single cassette recorder being carried by freelance newspaper reporter Stanislaw Pruszynski, who did not know his microphone was still on. ABC News television videotape of the ballroom where Kennedy had just claimed victory in the primary shows Pruszynski holding his recording equipment in his left hand while descending a small set of ballroom steps, approximately 40 feet away from the kitchen pantry shooting, and moving toward a corridor accessing the pantry -- all of that during the five to six seconds when the shots were being fired in the pantry, off camera. At the heart of the second-gun theory The Pruszynski recording -- uncovered by a CNN International senior writer in 2004 and highlighted on CNN's "BackStory" in 2009 -- is now at the heart of the second-gun evidence in Sirhan's court effort. Watch 2009 CNN "BackStory" report on recording Sirhan's lawyers say the audiotape reveals that a second gun fired at least five shots in addition to the eight shots fired by their client. Pepper and Dusek base this on an analysis of the recording by audio expert Philip Van Praag, who has concluded that the sounds of at least 13 shots can be counted on the tape, even though there were only eight bullets in Sirhan's one and only gun, which he had no opportunity to reload. "Sirhan was set up to be the distracting actor, whilst the shooter bent down close behind Bob (Kennedy) and fired close and upward, with four bullets hitting the senator's body or passing through his clothing," Pepper told CNN. In her court papers filed a month ago, California's attorney general conceded that Sirhan's lawyers may be able to show two guns were involved in Kennedy's assassination. Harris wrote that Sirhan's defense team "at most has shown that, according to Van Praag, two guns could be heard firing 13 shots in an audiotape of the shooting." But Harris called Van Praag's analysis "pure speculation." "In sum, (Sirhan) cannot possibly show that no reasonable juror would have convicted him if a jury had considered his 'new' evidence and allegations, in light of the overwhelming evidence supporting the convictions and the available evidence thoroughly debunking (Sirhan's) second-shooter and automaton theories," Harris said in court papers Pepper and Dusek say Van Praag's conclusions are not speculation, but are "based on solid scientific evidence," and Pepper says Harris' recent court filing has now raised public recognition of the second-gunman scenario that he and Dusek are advancing. "What is of interest is that there now seems to be more recognition of the fact that there was a second shooter, well positioned to put three bullets into the senator from close powder-burn range behind him, whilst Sirhan was always some distance in front of him," Pepper told CNN. The Van Praag audio analysis concludes that the Pruszynski recording is authentic and that all 13 sounds are gunshots -- not a single one of them a bursting balloon or any other non-shot noise, shot ricochet or echo. It also finds that some of the shots were fired too rapidly, at intervals too close together for all the shots to have come from Sirhan's inexpensive handgun, and that the five shots which Van Praag says were fired opposite the direction of Sirhan's eight shots -- those five being the 3rd, 5th, 8th, 10th and 12th shots in the sequence -- displayed an acoustical "frequency anomaly" indicating the alleged second gun's make and model were different from Sirhan's weapon. Did other recordings capture gunshots? Until recent years, some researchers thought that other recordings might have captured the sounds of the kitchen pantry gunshots. However, Van Praag has concluded that audiotapes made at the Ambassador by radio reporters Andrew West and Jeff Brent did not record any of the shots. He also says he found no gunshots in sound tracks from any of the other known films or videotapes recorded that night. Pepper and Dusek insist none of Sirhan's eight shots hit Kennedy. Instead, they argue, the senator was struck in the body by three of at least five shots, which they believe were secretly fired by a second gunman who was positioned in back of the candidate. The New York attorneys say witnesses -- even including some of the original prosecution witnesses -- reported Sirhan was standing several feet in front of Kennedy and firing almost horizontally, even though the medical evidence showed Kennedy's body and clothing were struck by four bullets fired at upward angles point-blank from behind the senator. Pepper and Dusek say witnesses reported bystanders grabbed Sirhan immediately after he fired his first two shots and that they had his firing arm pinned against a steam table, forcing Sirhan to fire his gun's remaining six bullets away from Kennedy, thus striking other people instead. The defense lawyers argue that over the years, private researchers have found physical evidence of more than eight bullets fired in the Kennedy shooting but that authorities did not report extra bullets removed from the crime scene or bullet-riddled hotel wood panels and ceiling tiles -- and instead secretly disposed of the alleged items. Sirhan and his memory For decades after the 1968 assassination, Sirhan claimed he could not remember the Kennedy shooting. Pepper and Dusek argue this was because he was hypno-programmed by conspirators to fire his gun in the pantry and to then forget the shooting, his programming and those who programmed him. They say that for many years Sirhan himself believed he shot Kennedy because people told him he did. In 2008, Pepper and Dusek hired a Harvard University memory expert who says he got the imprisoned Sirhan to recall the Kennedy shooting for the first time. That expert is Daniel Brown, an associate clinical professor in psychology at Harvard Medical School. He is described in the defense team's court papers as "one of the world's foremost experts in hypno programming." Brown interviewed Sirhan for 60 hours over a three-year period. According to Pepper and Dusek, Brown says Sirhan now remembers that when he fired his shots in the pantry he believed he was at a gun range and shooting at circular targets. Sirhan's lawyers say Brown believes Sirhan was programmed to do this so as to cause a distraction in the pantry, allowing a second gunman to secretly shoot Kennedy from behind. They say Brown believes a mysterious young woman in a polka dot dress lured Sirhan into the pantry as part of the alleged mind control plot. According to the defense attorneys, Brown says Sirhan now remembers hearing loud sounds he describes as "the thunderclap of other bullets" being fired by another gun in the pantry. They say Brown says Sirhan also recalls seeing at least one flash in front of him that he associates with gunfire inside the pantry but not coming from his own weapon. In reply, Harris told the court last month "the theory that a person could be hypnotized into planning and committing a murder against his will is a controversial (if not fantastic) one and has not been adopted by most of Brown's peers, including the American Psychological Association." Pepper and Dusek responded to Harris last week by arguing that people actually can be hypno-programmed to do things against their morals yet, in the case of Sirhan, he was not programmed to shoot Kennedy but only to fire at what he imagined were range targets, so as to create a diversion for a second shooter to secretly kill Kennedy. At Sirhan's 1969 trial, prosecutors argued the defendant, a Christian Palestinian, killed Kennedy because of statements the New York senator had made about the United States sending fighter jets to aid Israel. However, in their series of court filings since October 2010, Sirhan's attorneys Pepper and Dusek have dismissed that allegation as a "most speculative motive" without any sworn statements for substantiation. "The denial of justice ... " Sirhan was initially sentenced to death after his conviction, but three years later his sentence was commuted by California courts to life in prison. He will turn 68 on March 19. According to his lawyers, Sirhan never became a U.S. citizen, so if he were released from prison, he would be deemed an illegal immigrant and likely would be deported to Jordan, where he has extended family. Pepper says he personally knew Robert Kennedy and his family, and even ran his election campaign in the heavily Republican Westchester County in New York when Kennedy, a Democrat, successfully ran for the U.S. Senate in 1964. In 1999, Pepper represented the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King's family in a wrongful death lawsuit concerning King's April 4, 1968, murder and successfully persuaded a Memphis, Tennessee, jury to find a Memphis man, Lloyd Jowers, responsible as an accomplice in the King assassination. As for the current effort on behalf of Sirhan that Pepper and co-counsel Dusek are making in federal court, California's attorney general insists there is "overwhelming evidence" against the defense attorneys' claims. But Sirhan's defense team says the evidence is "so overwhelming in terms of his actual innocence ... it compels his release after spending 44 years in prison for a crime he did not commit." "Justice requires this long overdue result," Pepper told CNN. "The denial of justice in this case diminishes us all and clearly demonstrates that the technique of political assassination is alive and well in this republic." CNN's Brad Johnson reported from Atlanta and Michael Martinez from Los Angeles.

Horsegate: PM David Cameron urged to investigate 12 month 'cover-up' by Downing Street David Cameron is being urged to investigate allegations that Andy Coulson covered up the fact that the Prime Minister was a riding partner of the husband of former News International chief executive Rebekah Brooks. By Christopher Hope, Senior Political Correspondent The Telegraph 1:59PM GMT 05 Mar 2012 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/phone-hacking/9123628/Horsegate-PM-David-Cameron-urged-by-Tom-Watson-to-investigate-12-month-cover-up-by-Downing-Street.html Tom Watson, the campaigning Labour MP, has written to the Prime Minister asking why his former press aide allegedly misled journalists over the affair over a year ago. However, the Prime Minister’s official spokesman on Monday told reporters at the morning Westminster press briefing there were no plans to probe the claims, and he would not raise the issue with Mr Cameron. The Prime Minister was last week forced after days of questioning by The Daily Telegraph to admit that he had ridden a horse loaned to Mrs Brooks by the Metropolitan police with her racehorse trainer husband Charlie Brooks. On Sunday the Mail on Sunday claimed that it had been misled over the affair, after first raising the suggestion with Mr Coulson towards the end of 2010. In his letter, Mr Watson said: “Following the persistent questioning by Mr Christopher Hope, of The Daily Telegraph, last week, you have admitted to frequently riding the Metropolitan police horse, Raisa, with the husband of Rebekah Brooks. “Yesterday, the Mail on Sunday claimed journalists were misled when they put similar questions to your press team last year. I would be grateful if you could answer the following questions. “The Mail on Sunday claim they put a series of suggestions regarding horse riding in the company of Mr Brooks that were denied by Mr Andy Coulson. Did Mr Coulson discuss the matter with you before issuing the denial?” Mr Watson also asked: “At what times last week did Downing Street staff raise the concerns of journalists with you? What steps are you taking to establish whether the reports are true? “You are on record as saying that, whilst working for you, Mr Coulson did ‘an excellent job in a proper, upright way at all times’. If the investigation finds this claim is inaccurate, what steps are you taking to ensure that other potential incidents of wrongdoing are investigated? “If these reports are true it would be a sign of, at worst, a culture of dishonesty developing in Downing Street or, at best, a failure by yourself to ensure [that] the highest standards of integrity are maintained by your staff. In either case, how do you propose to address this?” The Prime Minister’s official spokesman on Monday said that there no plans to investigate the claims. He said he would not raise it with the Prime Minister because he was going home at lunchtime. The spokesman appeared to try to distance Downing Street from Mr Coulson, saying: “He is no longer an employee of the Government. We are not talking about someone who is currently an employee of the Government. “You are asking me about allegations relating to a phone conversation that may have taken place a year ago.” The Mail on Sunday claimed that it had first asked Mr Coulson, former editor of The Sun and former head of communications at Downing Street, about rumours that Mr Cameron went riding with Charlie in late 2010. It said Mr Brooks, an old friend from Mr Cameron’s Eton school days, had been giving Mr Cameron tips at riding with a hunt. But Mr Coulson categorically denied that the Prime Minister had ever ridden with Charlie Brooks. The newspaper reported that he stated that “Mr Cameron had not had lessons from Mr Brooks and had not been riding with him”. Last week Mr Cameron was forced to admit after days of questioning from The Daily Telegraph that he had indeed gone riding with Mr Brooks, on a retired police horse called Raisa which had been loaned to Rebekah Brooks by the Metropolitan Police. He told a press conference after a European summit: “Before the election I did go riding with him. He has a number of different horses and yes one of them was this police horse Raisa, which I did ride.” Last night, Mr Cameron’s aides attempted to distance themselves from any suggestion that they had tried to conceal the fact Mr Cameron went riding with Mr Brooks. One aide said: “I am absolutely certain we would not have given a categorical denial to something that was true. We would not have denied something that is true. I don’t know how that situation came about.” The aide said Mr Cameron rode with Mr Brooks on a “handful of occasions” although Mrs Brooks’ spokesman said the pair had ridden together “many times”. Downing Street also said Mr Cameron had not ridden to hounds in an official hunt since the nation-wide ban was introduced in February 2005. The aide said: “He has not taken part in hunting since that time.” It emerged last week that Mr Cameron rode Raisa several times, while Mrs Brooks, rode her only once because of the horse’s difficult temperament. Mrs Brooks said on Sunday that she had never ridden with Mr Cameron. For his part, the Prime Minister has insisted that he could not recall riding with Mrs Brooks. David Wilson, Mrs Brooks’ spokesman, said: “They have never ridden together. She is unequivocal – she has never ridden with David Cameron.” Mr Coulson did not return messages left on his mobile telephone on Monday. Letter from Tom Watson MP to the Prime Minister The Rt Hon David Cameron MP Prime Minister 10 Downing Street London SW1A 2AA 5 March 2012 Dear Mr Cameron, Following the persistent questioning by Mr Christopher Hope of the Daily Telegraph last week, you have admitted to frequently riding the Metropolitan police horse, Raisa, with the husband of Rebekah Brooks. Yesterday, the Mail on Sunday claimed journalists were misled when they put similar questions to your press team last year. I would be grateful if you could answer the following questions. The Mail on Sunday claim they put a series of suggestions regarding horse riding in the company of Mr Brooks that were denied by Mr Andy Coulson. Did Mr Coulson discuss the matter with you before issuing the denial? At what times last week did Downing Street staff raise the concerns of journalists with you? What steps are you taking to establish whether the reports are true? You are on record as saying that, whilst working for you, Mr Coulson did "an excellent job in a proper, upright way at all times." If the investigation finds this claim is inaccurate, what steps are you taking to ensure that other potential incidents of wrongdoing are investigated? If these reports are true it would be a sign of, at worst, a culture of dishonesty developing in Downing Street or, at best, a failure by yourself to ensure the highest standards of integrity are maintained by your staff. In either case, how do you propose to address this? I look forward to hearing from you. Yours sincerely Tom Watson Member of Parliament for West Bromwich East

News Corp. Staving Off a Scandal The New York Times By AMY CHOZICK March 4, 2012 Last Monday, British investigators said that News Corporation’s British tabloid, The Sun, had participated in widespread bribery to “a network of corrupted officials.” Then on Wednesday, the widening inquiry into illegal activity at News Corporation’s British newspapers led to James Murdoch’s resignation as head of the company’s embattled British publishing unit. What happened back in New York? News Corporation’s stock went up. The wave of incriminating headlines and the surging stock price reflect the cognitive dissonance generated by News Corporation’s phone hacking scandal. Even while Rupert Murdoch, the company’s chairman and chief executive, has doubled down on one of the newspapers at the center of the worsening scandal, creating a new Sunday edition of The Sun, investors have been cheering the possibility that the negative news in Britain could prompt the company to spin off its newspapers. Last Tuesday, Chase Carey, News Corporation’s chief operating officer, said at a Deutsche Bank media conference in Palm Beach, Fla., that within the company “certainly there are a number of parties who feel — would push to looking at a way to spin the publishing business separate from the rest.” James Murdoch’s resignation from News International inextricably links Mr. Carey to the British newspapers, properties he technically oversaw before but had little interest in, according to people with knowledge of the internal dynamics at the company. News International’s chief executive, Tom Mockridge, will now report directly to Mr. Carey, having previously reported to James Murdoch. “Chase has no exposure whatsoever to the newspaper business, and Mockridge is a straight arrow,” said one of the people, who like the others requested anonymity to speak candidly about the company. “Either Chase learns the business, or they spin off the papers and Mockridge runs the new company.” A News Corporation spokeswoman pointed to Mr. Carey’s defense of the newspapers at the conference in Florida, in which he said: “Our focus right now is in managing these businesses and improving their profitability.” Wall Street has long disliked News International, publisher of The Sun and the closed News of the World. The unit accounts for less than 3 percent of News Corporation’s profits and brings outsize troubles. Analysts estimate that the cost of legal fees and settlements related to the hacking crisis could reach $1 billion. News Corporation has a market capitalization of $49 billion. Other than newspapers, the company’s assets like the Fox network, the Fox studios and cable channels like FX accounted for nearly 90 percent of its $2.9 billion in profit in the six months that ended Dec. 31. “Wall Street would love it even if negative news drove to a sale or separation of the newspaper group,” said Richard Greenfield, a media analyst at BTIG. On Friday, News Corporation closed at $20.15, up 46 percent from a 52-week low of $13.83 reached last summer at the height of the revelations about phone hacking at News of the World. Shares have gained about 10 percent in the last 12 months. The company is unlikely to spin off its newspapers as long as Mr. Murdoch, who turns 81 next week, runs the company. He is often said to have newspaper ink in his veins. “He’s not even considering that path,” said one former executive at News Corporation who requested anonymity to talk about internal debates at the company. On Feb. 26, Mr. Murdoch introduced The Sun on Sunday, partly to make up for the lost revenue at the closed News of the World, where reporters repeatedly hacked into voice mails. The creation of The Sun on Sunday, which Mr. Murdoch said sold 3.26 million copies in its first week, also sent a message to News Corporation executives that, like it or not, Mr. Murdoch was sticking with the British publishing business. (The company has not discussed spinning off News Corporation’s print assets in the United States like The Wall Street Journal, published by Dow Jones & Company, and The New York Post, according to people with knowledge of discussions within the company.) “He’s a combative guy,” Barton Crockett, a media analyst at Lazard Capital Markets, said of Mr. Murdoch. “He’s going to fight hard to stay relevant in the publishing business in the U.K., and I think investors are somewhat fearful about that.” To ease investors’ concerns about the print business, News Corporation in July approved a $5 billion stock buyback program led by Mr. Carey. As of Feb. 7, the company had bought $2.7 billion of its own Class A shares. Last week Mr. Carey said he planned another buyback when the current one ends in June. “We certainly have an undervalued stock, to me a woefully undervalued stock,” Mr. Carey said at the Deutsche Bank conference. “We think of another buyback to make sense.” James Murdoch, Rupert’s younger son, has long been viewed as his father’s heir apparent. James now works from News Corporation’s New York headquarters, a move first announced last March. As the company’s deputy chief operating officer, he oversees the company’s lucrative international pay-cable channels like Star TV in Asia, Sky Deutschland and Sky Italia. News Corporation predicts that Fox International Channels will bring in $1 billion in operating income by the fiscal year 2015. “The Fox International business plus the Star India business, which is run separately and reports directly to James Murdoch, we are the leaders in the international markets amongst the U.S. multinational media,” David Haslingden, president and chief operating officer of Fox Networks Group, told analysts at a conference the day James Murdoch resigned from the publishing unit. James’s position in New York does not sit well with some shareholders who have called for his removal from News Corporation’s board. “Responsibility for this debacle ends with the board,” said Michael Pryce-Jones, a spokesman for the CtW Investment Group, a shareholder activist group in Washington that works with pension funds for large labor unions like the Teamsters. “This is a governance issue, and obviously much of the burden falls upon James given his role as a key executive.” There is no clear end in sight to the scandals embroiling the company, as British investigators continue to inspect documents turned over by News Corporation’s management and standards committee. If the accusations of bribes authorized by “people at a very senior level within” The Sun to elected officials, the British police and the military are true, it could lead to heightened scrutiny in America. The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act makes bribery of international officials by American companies and their foreign subsidiaries a criminal offense. In a statement released last Monday, Rupert Murdoch said the bribery practices explained in the investigation were “ones of the past, and no longer exist at The Sun.” That defense signaled that he saw a future for his besieged tabloid. “Rupert is unlikely to make decisions when backed into a corner,” said Doug Mitchelson, an analyst at Deutsche Bank Securities. “If they ever spun off print, it’d be because he fixed it and wanted to highlight the value of print, not to remove the cancer from the organization.”