S.T. Patrick

I'm attaching the article as a PDF. If you would like it (issue 003) - and the others - in print of PDF, the link for all issues of garrison is: http://www.lulu.com/spotlight/MidnightWriterNews Thanks. LR196-202.pdf

Thanks, Jim. Larry did a great job, correct. I'll post the article here as a new thread this evening. But thanks for the kind words about the magazine. Larry Rivera will be back in the April issue.

The JVB does have a sister who remains supportive and was at the conference this year. I have never seen her speak on the subject, but I'm assuming her support at the conferences means something about her trust in the story. Also, there is a woman named Victoria Sulzer, who places Oswald at the apartment of Sherman. Shes spoken at several conferences. She says openly that she never saw The JVB there or anywhere, but she is 100% sure it was LHO at Sherman's apartment. I believe Ms. Sulzer lived in the same building. I've spoken with her various times and find her to be incredibly nice and sincere. She's also kind of shy, absolutely not an attention seeker. But again she states openly that she's an Oswald-Sherman witness and not an eyewitness of The JVB.

I was thinking on the lines of what Ron said re: books. Media: Mal Hyman, Burying the Lead and Matt Taibbi, Hate, Inc. Manson/Bugliosi: Tom O'Neill, Chaos Watergate: Ray Locker, Haig's Coup is a masterwork and deserves to be somewhere near the top of Watergate works (and I was going to add Shane O' Sullivan's Dirty Tricks, but I checked the copyright and it was 2018. Same with Pease on RFK). Film: Joseph McBride, Frankly: Unmasking Frank Capra Misc History/Conspiracy: Donald Jeffries, Crimes and Cover Ups, 1776-1963 And, agreed with the above folks who gave thumbs up to Bart Kamp/Malcolm Blunt and their continuing work. I also very much enjoyed the return of "The Lone Gunman Podcast" in 2019, the work being done at KennedysandKing.com, and the work I'm blessed to read and include at garrison. For Twitter follows, Caitlin Johnstone, Aaron Mate, Matt Taibbi, Max Blumenthal, and Elizabeth Vos all had a strong 2019. For Facebook, David Talbot and Jim Hougan continue to write some really good stuff, which needs to be archived. Not sure what 2020 will bring, but Whitney Webb is finalizing her book on Epstein, Nikolas Schreck should finally release (sooner than later) the updated Manson File, and we will embark on year two of garrison.: The Journal of History & Deep Politics. I'm sure there will be many more good books in 2020, as we are blessed to have so many good people and good writers working on these issues and stories. Have a good 2020, everyone!

Thanks, Shane, for your answer. I read your chapter with great interest, and I've also seen Hougan's responses on social media. Very interesting from both sides. A lot of Watergate falls with "Whom do you believe?" We believe Hunt when he says X, but not when he says Y. We believe Magruder when he says X, but yet if he was personally involved in the ring, as Stanford wrote, then can he be believed on issue X? Liddy, Dean, Mitchell, Ehrlichman, Haldeman's comments in The Ends of Power. And, then of course, when is every figure close to the case engaged in serious self-preservation? While Watergate is a smaller case in breadth and depth than, say, the John Kennedy assassination, almost every character involved has a serious reason to self-preserve, and are thus, questionable. It's endlessly fascinating, but it's also rife with researchers having to make choices regarding whom to believe and when. That is some tough research. You said you were still "deeply skeptical of Dean." I'd like to know - in what way? Where do you think the truth differs most from his conflicting testimony and authoring efforts? Where is Dean's involvement the highest?

I respect that, Shane. You know I love your work, man. But let me ask you, if it doesn't exonerate Dean to dismiss the call girl theory - and I'm open to your answer - then where would Dean's motivation be for the break-ins? For someone who dismisses it, as I know you do, respectfully, what onus do you put on Dean?

A truer post was never written. This field is not a path to riches, nor is it motivation. Bugliosi and Pozner received a wealth of media attention and hyperbolic blurbs. The best writers here usually get handshakes and thanks at conferences and invitations to podcasts. "Not that there's anything wrong with that." Yet, I think we have the satisfaction of knowing good work is being done. As John Judge said in Randy Benson's The Searchers, "...doing this so (we) can sleep at night." But the CIA-driven attacks have been successful to a degree. People still see tin foil where they should see truth.

It was my understanding that he did so not because he didn't believe in it but because of the Dean lawsuit. He tired of the whole thing. I've talked to him since. I didn't ask him that directly, but that was the story I got, and that was what he more or less explained. He did say he was very happy with the work they did.

I respect your views on Rosen and Shepard. I think you're 100% correct about Hougan. I understand the criticisms, though I don't think being a part of Nixon's defense team negates all of the legal criticisms of the committees and judges. One day, a Trump team member will write a legal work criticizing Mueller's team. Will it be biased? Yes, by both ideology and experience. But that won't mean that it's wrong in its criticisms. I also thought Shepard's thesis on Ted Kennedy was a massive reach. It seemed like one of those things where you start with the thesis and then find the evidence that proves it (and only that evidence, disregarding all other evidence that disproves it). However, The Real Watergate Scandal, his second book, is, I believe, a fair legal criticism. I disagree about Len Colodny. He has never struck me as a political shill, even slightly. Yes, he spoke to Mitchell a lot. He also spoke to Ehrlichman at length. But I think if you asked Len and Bob Gettlin, they would tell you that they would have been happy and eager to speak to Dean, Haig, and Nixon every day during their process. But they had no control over who answered the phone. The transcript of their interview with Woodward shows a very hostile Woodward. Therefore, that was the last conversation they had with him. They tried diligently to get everyone on the record. Some talked a lot, some talked once or twice, some not at all. If you have someone as high in the administration as Mitchell talking, I think the "good researcher" thing to do is to keep talking. The more you get on record, the better. I do think that the more one believes the Rikan/Call Girl Ring story, the more one usually believes Dean (John re: Mo) is directly involved in the actual break-ins, or at least the second one. To dismiss the Rikan ring is also to try to exonerate Dean. So, there probably is a link there in whether someone goes further down the Mitchell road or the Dean road. But, as always, Jim, I read your comments and will think about them. I always respect what you have to say.

For those interested, I have done these Watergate-based episodes: Episode 124 Ray Locker Ray Locker on Haig’s Coup and Watergate (Part 2) Episode 123 Ray Locker Ray Locker on Haig’s Coup and Watergate (Part 1) Episode 108 Geoff Shepard Reassessing Watergate with Geoff Shepard (Part Two) Episode 102 Geoff Shepard Reassessing Watergate with Geoff Shepard Episode 084 Douglas Caddy Douglas Caddy – Eyewitness to Watergate Episode 053 Len Colodny Colodny vs Woodward on Nixon vs Trump Episode 037 Ray Locker Nixon’s Gamble Episode 036 Phil Stanford Watergate and the White House Call Girl Episode 029 Saint John Hunt E. Howard Hunt, Watergate, & the JFK Assassination Episode 003 Len Colodny The Silent Coup of Richard Nixon Thanks!

I echo Jim's views on Secret Agenda. It's the cornerstone of Watergate books, in my view. But yes, what Haig's Coup (Ray Locker) does is brilliant, as well. There are so many revelations and patches to the story. Locker fills more and more in each chapter. Regarding Deep Throat, I would be surprised if Al Haig was not one of the major (if not the major) source for Woodward, at least. Colodny & Gettlin nail down the Woodward-Haig relationship in Silent Coup (Adm. Thomas Moorer, Melvin Laird, and Jerry Friedheim confirm), but Haig's Coup nails it down tightly. Like Jim, I would also highly suggest In Nixon's Web. The real genesis of this alternative thought on Watergate, to a degree, was Nightmare by J. Anthony Lukas (1976), but Hougan is still the cornerstone. I would also suggest James Rosen's The Strong Man: John Mitchell and the Secrets of Watergate. For those who have an issue with Rosen's conservative leanings, Hougan is no conservative and he has very recently said great things about Rosen's work. When someone asked Hougan what he thought of Rosen's bio on Mitchell, Hougan responded, "Rosen is a meticulous investigative reporter. His biography of John Mitchell is one of the best, most insightful and deeply researched books about the Watergate affair." There are more books I would recommend for those who want to take a deep dive into Watergate. Phil Stanford's Watergate and the White House Call Girl is an amazing little work on the Heidi Rikan affair, the Deans, and Jeb Magruder. I cannot suggest this enough. And if you want to know about the first few hours and days, Doug Caddy has some great insights (one which he has turned into a nice article for the January issue of garrison). And while Shane O' Sullivan differs a lot on the revisionist version of Watergate - a version of which most of the above authors, for the most part, agree - Dirty Tricks is valuable. If you're someone who likes to question what she/he believes, it has tremendous value. I am in full agreement with the Hougan/Colodny/Locker/Stanford train of thought, but Shane's book did a nice job of making me step back and question it all, which I like. I've always liked that Shane asks me to consider things I might not have before, but he's not heavy-handed about it. If I were making a list of Watergate books you should own, his is on it. I also like Geoff Shepard's work on Watergate, but it's almost entirely legal and deals with the proceedings and congressional investigations. I didn't read Max Holland on Watergate, because I just couldn't do it. My opinion of his work is... well, I just didn't read it. I'll stop there. Who else would I avoid? Lamar Waldron and Stanley Kutler. John Dean, of course, but as a principal, I'd say all of his statements are worthy of knowing or logging. I would say its safe to throw out Woodward & Bernstein, but you need a base by which to build the revision. So, I guess it's the base. That said, one of the above authors once told me that he's convinced that Bernstein did the Rolling Stone piece in part as a warning to Woodward. The thinking was that Woodward was starting to pull out of harbor alone, and Bernstein basically wrote it as a "Look, I'm not mentioning you, but don't forget that I know you VERY well." While I recognize that Bernstein's piece is important, it's woefully lacking, inasmuch as it doesn't mention the Washington Post as the leading paper that is spooked up. Maybe that was also due to Woodward.

Thanks, everyone. Very helpful, as usual. I do appreciate it.

Andrej, I have encountered The JVB on quite a few occasions. I admit that I've never read Me & Lee, as, honestly, I've never been that interested in that angle, and, like with The Inheritance, I find the myriad claims so fantastic as to be almost too fitting. Yet, I will admit that I've spent zero time researching The JVB's story. But I will also admit to liking Haslam and DMM. I'm glad you brought up the idea of "belief." Having encountered her more than a few times, and knowing many who've encountered her even more, I can tell you that I fully believe that SHE believes her own story. When she talks about her story, I believe she's talking about it as something that, to her, seems true. Now, there could be quite a number of reasons this is true. I do not believe, at all, that she is talking about her story knowing it isn't true. Now, that doesn't mean I believe most of it. But I do believe its been created and then etched into her own believed autobio. So, as long as she believes it, we are never going to get that "gotcha" moment. We're also going to never see her "admit" anything that works against her story. Imagine what your reaction would be if you "KNOW" you went to Thomas Jefferson High School (I'll use fictional names here), but then a research community is telling you that you went to County High School. They are telling you there is no record of you being at TJSH, yet you believe you were and you have stories that you can tell, stories you remember vividly. Imagine what that causes in your mind. I think that's what goes on in her mind. I can say this as long as I don't mention the researcher's name, but someone who knows her well also once explained to me that her difficult personality is caused by Aspergers. Look up the topic of lying and Aspergers/Autism. They manipulate greatly, but they have a hard time lying - some even find it impossible to lie or lie well. I would add here "...UNLESS they believe it." Unless there is something else happening mentally that causes them to believe what they've created. Now, I have no proof that she has Aspergers. Just hear-say from someone who knows her well but won't deal with her anymore. I don't know if this post ads anything to the mix of value, but I think there are more possibilities and layers (mental) than, say, the James Files story.

Ladies and gentlemen, I'm doing a full-page sidebar for the upcoming issue of garrison and it concerns Warren Commissioners who expressed doubts later. I was wondering if there was a single place where someone has these instances listed, or if maybe I could get some assistance by those posting them here? Though LBJ is not a commissioner, per se, I would also like to place his more ambiguous statements into the sidebar. Thank you.

I consider Rob a friend, as I know Bart does, as well. Rob and I differ a lot on the idea of conferences/gatherings/events etc., but I understand everything Rob is saying, and I understand where he is coming from. There is much good and bad that can be said of gathering. One thing that he absolutely nailed were the numbers. Rob's show and my show have comparable numbers. Yet, Rob is correct, we'll have speakers say "no" to coming on the show (where they'll get heard by thousands of people in the first 4-6 weeks), yet they'll jump at the chance to speak to 150 people in Dallas. And I think he's correct that demographics have a lot to do with that. Older researchers see conference invitations at the top of the research food chain. Younger researchers are more apt to understand the numbers of podcasts, YouTube videos, etc. But numbers are numbers. He's also correct that books are overpriced at the conferences (and by a lot). I discounted the magazines I took to Dallas. I wanted to get it out there. Did I hand them out for free? No. I had to buy them; but I discounted them, and I didn't raise the price for conferences. Rob is correct in a lot of this episode. It's a good one by him, and I say that as someone who finds a lot of value in the conferences.

Its my understanding from those interviewed that the interviews for the doc were done a few months ago. The JVB isnt in the project. From what Ive been told, there was never plans to have her in. This seems like a non-issue, the possibility of her being involved. She isn't. I still contend that the appearance was good-natured PR to the other half of the community-at-large. In that hallway, there were at least 50 people watching closely, maybe 75. Stone knew he was being watched the entire time. And everyone was snapping pics. I'm sure there was an understanding that every movement was being recorded by someone - to be posted on Facebook later. Whether many here like it or not, that half of the community is a chunk of the core audience. If Stone believes her - and maybe he does, maybe he doesn't - this is an honest move. If he doesnt believe her but thinks these years-long bloodsport battles over Baker, Files, Z-film alteration, Doorway man, etc., are just dividers and not uniters (which would be a typical big picture Hollywood view), then he was just looking to do some uniting in preparation for the doc. I knew when it happened that this would be a huge event in the community (for lack of a better word), one that causes both an overreaction of elation, while also driving some to a near-nervous breakdown. I just dont think Stone saw it that way. He may not understand the daily squabbles within this field, and for his sanity, that's probably a good thing. I still think he saw this as a good gesture, good PR, and no big deal. I think Jim is on the right side on a LOT of issues. He and I have some of the same enemies right now (some who have been banned from here). But, in his defense, I dont think he needs to be a part of this story. These were Oliver's decisions. Jim did nothing wrong here. For the record, The JVB has asked multiple times to be on the show. She asks me why I don't want to ever ask her any questions and why her story hasn't been a part of the magazine. The truth is that, for personal reasons and beliefs, I can't do a support show with softballs. But I also detest feeling like I'm doing an intentional hit piece. I hate feeling like there are enemies within. Granted, I KNOW there are. But we have so much work to do to fight the mainstream media, the historical establishment, and the textbook conglomerates.... I hate always feeling like the internal is attacking itself as the external sits back, smiles, and smokes a cigar. Maybe this is the cowardly response. And if it is, I'm sorry.

Jim, I saw you deliver this live at CAPA. I absolutely thought it was a highlight of the weekend. Congratulations. You hit a home run.

I concur. I am not a star-struck person at all, though I would like to meet Cheryl Ladd, Jaclyn Smith, and Kate Jackson. LOL. That said, I was happier to meet Jim DiEugenio after working with him on the magazine. It was great to do so, and in fact, I believe Jim delivered the best speech I saw all weekend. It was fantastic. It was great to meet him. He was very nice and his sense of humor is much like mine.

Oh, I don't doubt that at all. I never believed she would be a part of the doc. I was saying that the whole scene could be a bit of good-hearted PR. From what I have heard she was not a part of the interviews, nor would I ever expect her to be. I've never read her book and am pretty ambiguous on the story. There are certain angles of this case that have always interested me most, and her story hasn't been one of them. I just did NOT want anyone here to think that my reportage of what happened was in any way praising it or projecting some elation about it. At this moment, I am without opinion on it. Some of my best friends in the field were speakers at her conference. That's why I attended on Thursday and Saturday, to see them.

I went to both conferences this weekend and I was in the hallway when the meeting took place. I was in back and couldn't hear the words, but then I went to two separate people (and then Peter Battani later in the evening) who were up close. I asked them (not at the same time and not when they were beside one another) what he said at the end. All three answered, "He said 'I believe you.'" I wanted to confirm that for the Dallas conference review episode that I'll be doing for the show. Edit added: I thought the purpose of the surprise visit was to mend fences in prep for the new doc.

Thank you very much!

https://midnightwriternews.com/mwn-episode-134-walt-brown-on-conference-history-turncoats-and-yankees/ Thanks!

Thanks, Bart. Looking forward to reading that. Novell is an "interesting" character. I have a radio program where Novell calls in. Posting that as an episode soon.

Interesting Twitter analysis from Aaron Mate of The Nation: "Roger Stone was found guilty on charges stemming from his false claim of a Wikileaks backchannel. In reality, he had none. Let that sink in: the top proponents of Trump-Russia-Wikileaks 'collusion' are now pretending that this verdict doesn't undermine their conspiracy theory."

I agree. What Nikolas and I have tentatively agreed to do is to set up a series of episodes after The Manson File is released. The plan (so far) is to take a few chapters of the book, per episode, and just discuss those chapter, allowing us to really zoom in on the various chapters. That's the tentative plan. But I'll once again ask for EF questions for each chapter range for those who get the book. I'd like to do this collaboratively. Everyone's questions were very good, and I know Nikolas thought so, as well.