Jump to content

The Sins of Robert Maheu


Pat Speer
 Share

Recommended Posts

One thing that bothered me reading Maheu's memoirs is that he states that he liked Giancana in part because he was an excellent cook.  Never mind, of course, that he was a vicious killer so long as he could cook a good steak!  This is a man who supposedly was at first troubled by the morality of the proposal to assassinate Castro.

I have lots of problems with Maheu's book. He says nice things about Giancana but makes it sound like Rosselli talked too much when he opened up to Jack Anderson about the CIA/mafia hits. Maheu leaves out that he himself blabbed about the CIA/mafia hits to Howard Hughes/the FBI/ Edward Bennett Williams and Edward Morgan--who told Drew Pearson, LBJ, and Earl Warren--and had asked the CIA to confirm his role with the FBI so that the wiretapping charges brought against him could be dropped--before Rosselli talked to anyone. Maheu makes it sound like Giancana thanked him for his silence on the CIA/mafia hits, when Giancana blabbed about his own involvement to a number of people, including Williams. I suspect Giancana thanked Maheu for his silence on another hit entirely.

Edited by Pat Speer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 34
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Good points, Pat. One minor quibble. I might even be recalling incorrectly, but if my recollection serves me Rossselli first guessed who Maheu's principal was. Maheu did not deny it to Rosselli but told Rosselli he would brand him a xxxx if Rosselli ever went public with it. So it is not quite like Maheu immediately "spilled the beans" to Rosselli. Then again, his performance as a "cut out" certainly left much to be desired!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good points, Pat.  One minor quibble.  I might even be recalling incorrectly, but if my recollection serves me Rossselli first guessed who Maheu's principal was.  Maheu did not deny it to Rosselli but told Rosselli he would brand him a xxxx if Rosselli ever went public with it.  So it is not quite like Maheu immediately "spilled the beans" to Rosselli.  Then again, his performance as a "cut out" certainly left much to be desired!

In Maheu's testimony, he may have said something like that. But he was lying. Here's what he says in his autobio: "When I presented Rosselli with the proposition, I made it clear that anything we talked about was strictly confidential. Nobody could know the details--not even the rest of the U.S. Government (Ironic in that it was Maheu who told the FBI)...If anyone connects you with the U.S. government, I will deny it" I told him. (Also ironic due to his immediately confirming Giancana's role to Edward Bennett Williams.) This was before Rosselli ever met O'Connell.

O'Connell testified that Rosselli guessed he was CIA from the beginning but that Rosselli said O'Connell shouldn't confirm it, for both of their sake. This would seem to be a game Maheu and Rosselli worked out beforehand since Maheu has now admitted he told Rosselli who O'Connell was BEFORE they ever met.

Maheu was just bad news. He was an undercover agent in WW2 and he never came all the way back--it's impossible to see where the man starts and where the lies end.

After RFK met with the CIA and decided to drop the wiretapping charges against Maheu, he briefed Hoover on the CIA's use of Maheu and the mob. On May 10, 1961, Hoover wrote "I expressed great amazement at this in view of the BAD REPUTATION of MAHEU and the horrible judgment in using a man of Giancana's background in the project. The Attorney General SHARED THE SAME VIEWS." Thus, in their eyes, Maheu and Giancana were both rotten. One wonders from whence Maheu received his wretched reputation--I would guess it came from his role in the Galindez disappearance.

I suspect that Maheu and Associates were in the assassination business, and not merely wire-tapping , and that both men knew this.

Edited by Pat Speer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maheu's right-hand man was ex-FBI man Dick Danner. Anybody know anything about him? (Jack White)

Hi Jack,

Dick Danner was the former head of the FBI office in Miami. In 1969 he went to work as manager of the Howard Hughes owned Frontier Hotel in Vegas. He also did some counterintelligence work for General Motors against Ralph Nader. Danner was a very close friend of Bebe Rebozo. When Nixon received the so-called secret $100,000 campaign contribution from Howard Hughes, it was Danner who delivered the cash to Rebozo.

FWIW.

James

Thanks, James. For a while in the early 60s, Danner was a sleazy auto dealer

in Fort Worth. He specialized in selling new Fords (DICK DANNER FORD) by

hiring young men to stand on the curb and wave motorists over to the curb.

The motorist would be "made an offer they could not refuse" to buy their

car on the spot and put them in a new car before they drove away. They

targeted mostly "young" male drivers driving certain cars. I don't know

what the scam was, but the radio commercials blared "LET US PUT YOU

IN A NEW CAR IMMEDIATELY, NO MONEY DOWN!" He skipped town about

the time of the assassination and moved to Las Vegas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As  I recall, she did not lose her suit based on anyone believing Liddy's theory.  The case was determined, as I remember, based upon whether or not she was a public figure, and whether she was in any way damaged by his conjecure over whether or not she ran a call-girl ring.

From Judge Motz's decision in the Wells suit against Liddy (When I Was a Kid, pp. 202-213):

"According to the Fourth Circuit, the portion of Liddy's remarks on which the case turns is his statement that there were pictures of prostitutes in Wells's desk that were shown to visitors to the DNC headquarters in call girl services. The sole source of this information was Phillip Bailey. The question thus becomes whether Liddy reasonably assessed the veracity of what Bailey told him about the pictures allegedly in Wells's desk.

"Bailey has a history of mental illness. . . . Liddy was required to examine Bailey's statements with caution and weigh them with great care. . . . I find that Wells failed to produce sufficient evidence at trial from which a jury could reasonably find that he acted negligently in giving credit to them. . . .

“A call girl theory of Watergate had emerged in the literature in 1984 when James Hougan had authored a book entitled Secret Agenda. . . . The record also establishes that Liddy tested what Bailey told him by independent investigation. . . .

"Wells presented no evidence at trial concerning anything else she kept in her desk in which the Watergate burglars might have been interested, and she suggested no alternative explanation as to why Martinez possessed the key. . . .

"In sum, the record is replete with facts that Liddy could reasonably believe support Bailey’s statements about the contents of Wells’s desk. . . . Wells had the burden of proving that Liddy lacked a reasonable basis for expressing the allegedly defamatory remarks about her. . . . (W)hatever the truth (of Watergate) may be, one thing should be certain: free debate about important public issues must be tolerated.”

I think the Deans had a separate suit which stretched on for years.

Liddy’s version of Dean’s suit (pp. 172-174, 222):

“Dean’s process server came to the studio from which I was broadcasting and served me live, on the air. I asked him how much he thought the papers weighed and he answered, ‘About two pounds.’ I said, ‘Good, because I’m going to shove them up Dean’s ass.’ Figuratively, that’s just what I did. . . . I tried for eight years to get Dean to trial. . . . Following Dean’s instructions, his lawyers withdrew most of his charges against me, and the judge dismissed the rest. . . . Dean was noticed as a witness for Miss Wells at the trial of her lawsuit against me. To the surprise of no one who knows him, once again he didn’t show up. . . . It has taken ten years and the expenditure of great energy and treasure to crush the Watergate rat, John Dean. It is personally gratifying, of course.”

Ron

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As  I recall, she did not lose her suit based on anyone believing Liddy's theory.  The case was determined, as I remember, based upon whether or not she was a public figure, and whether she was in any way damaged by his conjecure over whether or not she ran a call-girl ring.

From Judge Motz's decision in the Wells suit against Liddy (When I Was a Kid, pp. 202-213):

"According to the Fourth Circuit, the portion of Liddy's remarks on which the case turns is his statement that there were pictures of prostitutes in Wells's desk that were shown to visitors to the DNC headquarters in call girl services. The sole source of this information was Phillip Bailey. The question thus becomes whether Liddy reasonably assessed the veracity of what Bailey told him about the pictures allegedly in Wells's desk.

"Bailey has a history of mental illness. . . . Liddy was required to examine Bailey's statements with caution and weigh them with great care. . . . I find that Wells failed to produce sufficient evidence at trial from which a jury could reasonably find that he acted negligently in giving credit to them. . . .

“A call girl theory of Watergate had emerged in the literature in 1984 when James Hougan had authored a book entitled Secret Agenda. . . . The record also establishes that Liddy tested what Bailey told him by independent investigation. . . .

"Wells presented no evidence at trial concerning anything else she kept in her desk in which the Watergate burglars might have been interested, and she suggested no alternative explanation as to why Martinez possessed the key. . . .

"In sum, the record is replete with facts that Liddy could reasonably believe support Bailey’s statements about the contents of Wells’s desk. . . . Wells had the burden of proving that Liddy lacked a reasonable basis for expressing the allegedly defamatory remarks about her. . . . (W)hatever the truth (of Watergate) may be, one thing should be certain: free debate about important public issues must be tolerated.”

I think the Deans had a separate suit which stretched on for years.

Liddy’s version of Dean’s suit (pp. 172-174, 222):

“Dean’s process server came to the studio from which I was broadcasting and served me live, on the air. I asked him how much he thought the papers weighed and he answered, ‘About two pounds.’ I said, ‘Good, because I’m going to shove them up Dean’s ass.’ Figuratively, that’s just what I did. . . . I tried for eight years to get Dean to trial. . . . Following Dean’s instructions, his lawyers withdrew most of his charges against me, and the judge dismissed the rest. . . . Dean was noticed as a witness for Miss Wells at the trial of her lawsuit against me. To the surprise of no one who knows him, once again he didn’t show up. . . . It has taken ten years and the expenditure of great energy and treasure to crush the Watergate rat, John Dean. It is personally gratifying, of course.”

Ron

Thanks for posting Ron. So the Wells case was thrown out not because the judge believed Liddy's story but because Wells failed to show that Liddy lacked a reason to believe it. Liddy's comments on Dean are indicative of his real motivation. The fact that Hunt, Magruder and Colson, who would be in a position to know, fail to share his suspicions of Dean, is revealing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Former Warren Commission member Gerald Ford's first pick as the new CIA Director after firing Colby for talking too much--a position eventually handed over to George HW Bush--Edward Bennett Williams.

Jimmy Hoffa's, Richard Helms', and John Connally's attorney??? (All possibly connected to the JFK assassination) Edward Bennett Williams. (Pat Speer)

To Edward B. Williams' client list, we can add the one and only, Bobby Baker.

Baker on the left, Williams on the right.

James

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh yeah, Bobby Baker. While Williams lost this case, who knows what secret negotiations went on behind the scenes?

Willams' most famous legal move was when he arranged for Jimmy Hoffa to get a jury that was mostly black, and then arranged for former heavyweight champion Joe Louis, a tremendous hero to the black community, to come by and shake hands with Hoffa in front of the jury. Hoffa was acquitted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Mo Dean and Maxie Wells trials are very interesting.

Maxie Wells made a fairly strong claim to be a private citizen rather than a public figure, and as secretary to President Carter and a public figure simply through her political contacts and positions, I thought that was weak. If she had been a truly private (non-public) figure she would have had a stronger case against Liddy.

The Dean trial had a chilling effect, muzzling that angle quite a bit...

The motivation for Watergate and the foreknowledge of the principles is still up in the air.

I like to expose people to the nature of the call-girl theory, but I am not really a proponent of the "trick-book" theory.

I think there was a CIA influenced call girl ring in the hotels nearby.

I think that the intersection of the watergate team and the call girl extortion ring was a very dangerous place to be. John Paaisley was a liasson here, and knew of both efforts...on the other hand, Robert Bennett also knew and apparently capitalized on the power of knowledge.

McCord made it clear that Bennett, (Hunt's other employer) sat down with the Watergate burglary team and announced a parallel of interests between the CREEP group and Howard Hughes's Las Vegas interests. Lawrence O'Brien had just moved from SUMMA CORP., the Hughes Tool Company conglomerate to the Democratic HQ and had information relative to both parties, Hughes and Nixon.

On the otherhand, sexual content is clearly the theme of the Spencer Oliver State Democratic Watergate tapes and transcripts that moved though Liddy to Strachan to Haldeman in the Oval Office, these taped transcripts of what the CREEP bugs heard over the DEMOCRATIC PARTY lines have never been released. To protect the illegally tapped State Democratic Watergate officials who were the wronged party, but general descriptions of the tapes dwell on "who was sleeping with who" and "lots of kinky sex" .... also the mainstream historians who expand on the call girl theme insist on the motivation, opportunity and means of John Dean to intercept the Phil M. Bailey and Cathy Rieken Dieter materials...

So the weaknesses of the specific need to burgle Larry Obrien at Democratic HQ, are complemented by the strengths of the TRICKBOOK theme to muddy the waters.

The presence of Hunt, Sturgis, Martiniez, Bernard Barker and others know to the JFK reseaarch community remains an even larger historical problem, obviously blackmail was in the air if Hunt quietly engaged these men into a "botched" burglary. Nixon was in fact impeached on the Hunt hussh money iself, as proof of corruption and obstruction of justice.

Nixon, Dean, Haldeman and Mitchell shared responsibility for the burglary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Other clients include Frank Sinatra, the Soviet spy, Ivor Melekh, Armand Hammer, Thomas Dodd, Richard Helms and Gerald Ford. However, according to Evan Thomas (The Man to See - 1991) his closest friend was Ben Bradlee. The two men worked closely together on the publication of the Pentagon Papers. Evan Thomas's next book was The Very Best Men: Four Who Dared: The Early Years of the C.I.A. (1995), a book about the careers of Frank Wisner, Richard Bissell, Tracy Barnes and Desmond FitzGerald. I wonder if there is a connection between the contents of these two books.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Other clients include Frank Sinatra, the Soviet spy, Ivor Melekh, Armand Hammer, Thomas Dodd, Richard Helms and Gerald Ford. However, according to Evan Thomas (The Man to See - 1991) his closest friend was Ben Bradlee. The two men worked closely together on the publication of the Pentagon Papers. Evan Thomas's next book was The Very Best Men: Four Who Dared: The Early Years of the C.I.A. (1995), a book about the careers of Frank Wisner, Richard Bissell, Tracy Barnes and Desmond FitzGerald. I wonder if there is a connection between the contents of these two books.

I'm intrigued as to what services Williams provided for Dodd. Evidently Drew Pearson wrote a column about how Dodd got drunk when JFK died and publicly bemoaned what a lousy President JFK was; supposedly he wouldn't even let his son listen to the radio. Dodd was of course one of those most strongly opposed to Castro.

What's especially intriguing is that Dodd's son (the same one?) Christopher went on to become a congressman, and was one of the main men in the HSCA. He is currently the Senator from Connecticut. Maybe Arlen Specter isn't the only current Senator with something to hide.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm intrigued as to what services Williams provided for Dodd.    Evidently Drew Pearson wrote a column about how Dodd got drunk when JFK died and publicly bemoaned what a lousy President JFK was; supposedly he wouldn't even let his son listen to the radio.  Dodd was of course one of those most strongly opposed to Castro.

I assume details will be provided in Evan Thomas' book. I will get a copy and let you know. You might be interested in this. Earl E. T. Smith (the husband of Florence Pritchatt) gave evidence to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary on 27th August, 1960. The committee included Dodd.

F. W. Sourwine: Mr. Smith, when you were appointed Ambassador to Cuba, were you briefed on the job?

Earl E. Smith: Yes; I was.

F. W. Sourwine: Who gave you this briefing?

Earl E. Smith: I spent 6 weeks in Washington, approximately 4 days of each week, visiting various agencies and being briefed by the State, Department and those whom the State Department designated.

F. W. Sourwine: Any particular individual or individuals who, had a primary part in this briefing?

Earl E. Smith: The answer is, in the period of 6 weeks I was briefed by numbers of people in the usual course as every Ambassador is briefed.

F. W. Sourwine: Is it true, sir, that you were instructed to get a briefing on your new job as Ambassador to Cuba from Herbert Matthews of the New York Times?

Earl E. Smith: Yes; that is correct.

F. W. Sourwine: Who gave you these instructions?

Earl E. Smith: William Wieland, Director of the Caribbean Division and Mexico. At that time he was Director of the Caribbean Division, Central American Affairs.

F. W. Sourwine: Did you, sir, in fact see Matthews?

Earl E. Smith: Yes; I did.

F. W. Sourwine: And did he brief you on the Cuban situation?

Earl E. Smith: Yes; he did.

F. W. Sourwine: Could you give us the highlights of what he told you?...

Earl E. Smith: We talked for 2 1/2 hours on the Cuban situation, a complete review o£ his feelings regarding Cuba, Batista, Castro, the situation in Cuba, and what he thought would happen.

F. W. Sourwine: What did he think would happen?

Earl E. Smith: He did not believe that the Batista government could last, and that the fall of the Batista government would come relatively soon.

F. W. Sourwine: Specifically what did he say about Castro?

Earl E. Smith: In February 1957 Herbert L. Matthews wrote three articles on Fidel Castro, which appeared on the front page of the New York Times, in which he eulogized Fidel Castro and portrayed him as a political Robin Hood, and I would say that he repeated those views to me in our conversation....

F. W. Sourwine: What did Mr. Matthews tell you about Batista?

Earl E. Smith: Mr. Matthews had a very poor view of Batista, considered him a rightist ruthless dictator whom he believed to be corrupt. Mr. Matthews informed me that he had very knowledgeable views of Cuba and Latin American nations, and had seen the same things take place in Spain. He believed that it would be in the best interest of Cuba and the best interest of the world in general when Batista was removed from office.

F. W. Sourwine: It was true that Batista's government was corrupt, wasn't it?

Earl E. Smith: It is true that Batista's government was corrupt. Batista was the power behind the Government in Cuba off and on for 25 years. The year 1957 was the best economic year that Cuba had ever had.

However, the Batista regime was disintegrating from within. It was becoming more corrupt, and as a result, was losing strength. The Castro forces themselves never won a military victory. The best military victory they ever won was through capturing Cuban guardhouses and military skirmishes, but they never actually won a military victory.

The Batista government was overthrown because of the corruption, disintegration from within, and because of the United States and the various agencies of the United States who directly and indirectly aided the overthrow of the Batista government and brought into power Fidel Castro.

F. W. Sourwine: What were those, agencies, Mr. Smith?

Earl E. Smith: The US Government agencies-may I say something off the record?

(Discussion off the record.)

F. W. Sourwine: Mr. Smith, the pending question before you read your statement was: What agencies of the US Government had a hand in bringing pressure to overthrow the Batista government, and how did they do it?

Earl E. Smith: Well, the agencies, certain influential people, influential sources in the State Department, lower down echelons in the CIA. I would say representatives of the majority of the US Government agencies which have anything to do with the Embassy...

F. W. Sourwine: Mr. Smith, when you talked with Matthews to get the briefing before you went to Cuba, was he introduced to you as having any authority from the State Department or as being connected with the State Department in any way?

Earl E. Smith: Let me go back. You asked me a short while ago who arranged the meeting with Mr. Matthews.

F. W. Sourwine: And you said Mr. Wieland.

Earl E. Smith: I said Wilham Wieland, but Wilham Wieland also had to have the approval of Roy Rubottom, who was then Assistant Secretary of State for Latin American Affairs. Now, to go back to this question, as I understood it, you said - would you mind repeating that again?

F. W. Sourwine: I asked if, when you were, sent to Mr. Matthews for this briefing, he was introduced to you as having any official connection with the State Department or any authority from the Department?

Earl E. Smith: Oh, no. I knew who he was, and they obviously knew I knew who he was, but I believe, that they thought it would be a good idea for me to get the viewpoint of Herbert Matthews, and also I think that Herbert Matthews is the leading Latin American editorial writer for the New York Times. Obviously the State Department would like to have the support of the New York Times...

James Eastland: Mr. Smith, we have had hearings, a great many, in Miami, with prominent Cubans, and there is a thread that runs through the whole thing that people connected with some Government agency went to Cuba and called on the chiefs of the armed forces and told them that we would not recognize the government of the President-elect, and that we would not back him, and that because of that the chiefs of the armed forces told Batista to leave the country, and they set up a government in which they attempted to make a deal with Castro. That is accurate, isn't it, Tom?

Thomas Dodd: I would say so, yes...

James Eastland: Let me ask you this question. As a matter of fact, isn't it your judgment that the State Department of the United States is primarily responsible for bringing Castro to power in Cuba?

Earl E. Smith: No, sir, I can't say that the State Department in itself is primarily responsible. The State Department played a large part in bringing Castro to power. The press, other Government agencies, Members of Congress are responsible...

James Eastland: You had been warning the State Department that Castro was a Marxist?

Earl E. Smith: Yes, sir.

James Eastland: And that Batista's government was a friendly government. That is what had been your advice as to the State Department?

Earl E. Smith: Let me answer that this way, which will make it very clear. When I went to Cuba, I left here with the definite feeling according to my briefings which I had received, that the U.S. Government was too close to the Batista regime, and that we were being accused of intervening in the affairs of Cuba by trying to perpetuate the Batista dictatorship.

After I had been in Cuba for approximately 2 months, and had made a study of Fidel Castro and the revolutionaries, it was perfectly obvious to me as it would be to any other reasonable man that Castro was not the answer; that if Castro came to power, it would not be in the best interests of Cuba or in the best interests of the United States....

In my own Embassy there were certain ones of influence who were pro-26th of July, pro-Castro, and anti-Batista.

James Eastland: Who were they?

Earl E. Smith: Do I have to answer that question, Senator?

James Eastland: Yes, I think you have to. We are not going into it unnecessarily.

Earl E. Smith: I don't want to harm anybody. That is the reason I asked.

I would say the Chief of the Political Section, John Topping, and the Chief of the CIA Section. It was revealed that the No. 2 CIA rnan in the embassy had given unwarranted and undue encouragement to the revolutionaries. This came out in tke trials of naval officers after the Cienfuegos revolution of September I957...

James Eastland: He (Batista) didn't have to leave. He had not been defeated by armed force.

Earl E. Smith: Let me put it to you this way: that there are a lot of reasons for Batista's moving out. Batista had been in control off and on for 25 years. His government was disintegrating, at the end due to corruption, due to the fact that he had been in power too long. Police brutality was getting worse.

On the other hand there were three forces that kept Batista in power. He had the support of the armed forces, he had support of the labor leaders. Cuba enjoyed a good economy.

Nineteen hundred and fifty-seven was one of the best years in the economic history of Cuba. The fact that the United States was no longer supporting Batista had a devastating psychological effect, upon the armed forces and upon the leaders of the labor movement. This went a long way toward bringing about his downfall.

On the other hand, our actions in the United States were responsible for the rise to power of Castro. Until certain portions of the American press began to write derogatory articles against the Batista government, the Castro revolution never got off first base.

Batista made the mistake of overemphasizing the importance of Prio, who was residing in Florida, and underestimating the importance of Castro. Prio was operating out of the United States, out of Florida, supplying the revolutionaries with arms, ammunition, bodies and money.

Batista told me that when Prio left Cuba, Prio and Alameia (Aleman) took $140 million out of Cuba. If we cut that estimate in half, they may have shared $70 million. It is believed that Prio spent a great many millions of dollars in the United States assisting the revolutionaries. This was done right from our shores....

F. W. Sourwine: Is there any doubt in your mind that the Cuban Government, under Castro, is a Communist government?

Earl E. Smith: Now?

F. W. Sourwine: Yes.

Earl E. Smith: I would go further. I believe it is becoming a satellite.

The logical thing for the Russians to do would be to move into Cuba which they had already done, and to take over, which they would do by a mutual security pact.

Then, when the United States objects, all they have to say is:

"We will get out of Cuba when you get out of Turkey."

Thomas Dodd: You are not suggesting-

Earl E. Smith: That is a speech I made in February.

Thomas Dodd: Yes, but you are not suggesting that the Communists will cease and desist from their activities in Cuba and Central and South America, or anywhere else, if we get out of these other places?

Earl E. Smith: Out of Turkey?

Thomas Dodd: Yes.

Earl E. Smith: It would mean a great deal to them if we got out of Turkey. I am no expert on Turkey.

Thomas Dodd: You do not have to be an expert on Turkey, but you ought to be a little bit of an expert on the Communists to know this would not follow at all.

Every time we have retreated from one place, they have moved into new areas.

Earl E. Smith: Senator, I did not say what they would do.

Thomas Dodd: I know, but...

Earl E. Smith: That they would move into Cuba to retaliate with us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm intrigued as to what services Williams provided for Dodd.    Evidently Drew Pearson wrote a column about how Dodd got drunk when JFK died and publicly bemoaned what a lousy President JFK was; supposedly he wouldn't even let his son listen to the radio.  Dodd was of course one of those most strongly opposed to Castro.

I assume details will be provided in Evan Thomas' book. I will get a copy and let you know. You might be interested in this. Earl E. T. Smith (the husband of Florence Pritchatt) gave evidence to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary on 27th August, 1960. The committee included Dodd.

I have the Thomas book and there is little on Dodd. I assume the case had to do with the corruption charges brought out in Pearson's column.

I believe Dodd was the one who did a study on the inter-state shipment of rifles and told the FBI to check into Klein's. Either he knew his stuff or it was one lucky guess.

Edited by Pat Speer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have the Thomas book and there is little on Dodd.  I assume the case had to do with the corruption charges brought out in Pearson's column.

Pat: Could you check details of the people who Williams represented before the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC). It seems very strange that soon afterwards he was representing Joseph McCarthy during the Senate censure proceedings against him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have the Thomas book and there is little on Dodd.  I assume the case had to do with the corruption charges brought out in Pearson's column.

Pat: Could you check details of the people who Williams represented before the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC). It seems very strange that soon afterwards he was representing Joseph McCarthy during the Senate censure proceedings against him.

Acording to Thomas, Williams' first HUAC client was the screenwriter Martin Berkeley, who named 154 names, purportedly at Williams' urging. Williams later denied this, but acknowledged he did nothing to prevent his client from ratting out everyone he ever suspected of leaning left. Another client who ratted was Robert Rossen, the producer of All the King's Men, who named 57 reds, including two who would be blacklisted, Budd Schulberg and Ring Lardner, Jr. (Ironically 57 is the number of commies originally cited by Joseph McCarthy as working in the State Dept. The Manchurian Candidate hinted that he picked this number because it was the number of his favorite ketchup and easy to remember...even more ironically, it was the ketchup company that created the wealth of Teresa Heinz Kerry, John Kerry's wife, and this has upset the new McCarthys so much they've decided to create W, the right wing jingo-istic super ketchup, as advertised on websites everywhere.) Williams went on to represent screenwriter Howard Koch, screenwriter Carl Foreman and producer Harold Hecht, a man named by Berkeley, charging them exorbitant fees in what might well be considered extortion, seeing as Williams also represented their chief accuser, McCarthy..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...