Dorothy Hunt

[Tim Gratz]

John wrote:

QUOTE(David Yarnell @ May 19 2005, 01:21 AM)

Skolnick's credentials are dubious. Oglesby belonged to a late 1960s radical anti - war group that advocated violence.

I see that you are of the Tim Gratz school of thought that someone on the left cannot be trusted to tell the truth. It is indeed going to be very difficult to discuss these issues with someone who is so clearly prejudiced against some sections of the community.

John, I think you are using my name in vain here. I said COMMUNISTS cannot be trusted since their allegiance is to their "party line" whether it is the truth or not. I do not think every "leftist" is a Communist nor do I think that every, indeed, most leftists knowingly make false representations.

I think that the terms "right" and "left" should be changed to "right" and "wrong" since the leftist ideas are so often wrong. But the fact that I disagree with the "leftist" mind-set on issues such as capitalism; freedom; individual rights and responsibilty; etc. does not mean that I suspect their truthfulness; their intellectual abilities; or the integrity of their ideas.

You certainly know that while I disagree with almost all of your ideas, I have great respect for your intelligence and for the remarkable Forum you put together.

And, by the way, I have great respect for Oglesby as well and I enjoyed his book "The Yankee and Cowboy Wars" (which is not to say that I agreed with all of it but it is an interesting analysis).

COMMUNISTS: Truth does not matter.

NON-COMMUNIST LEFTISTS: Integrity and truthfulness

Just had to clarify that.

Thanks.

[John Simkin]

John, I think you are using my name in vain here.  I said COMMUNISTS cannot be trusted since their allegiance is to their "party line" whether it is the truth or not.  I do not think every "leftist" is a Communist nor do I think that every, indeed, most leftists knowingly make false representations.

On several occasions you have dismissed the testimony of investigators by the claim that he is a “communist”. You have done this again by claiming in this post that for a communist “truth does not matter”. This is pure prejudice. Why should a communist have any less respect for the truth that a right-wing conservative? How do you distinguish between a “communist” and a “leftist”? Why should they be so different in their ability to tell the truth.

This attitude is not acceptable to a historian who is trying to use evidence to discover the truth about the past. Although it is important for the historian to take into account the political beliefs of the person who has produced the evidence, he/she must not reject that evidence just because they are a “communist”, “fascist”, etc. A historian has to approach the evidence with the knowledge that a witness to an event may be lying. However, he/she, must not study the evidence with the conviction that they are lying just because they have labelled this person as a communist.

Attitudes held by people like David Yarnell and yourself date back to the McCarthy era. By labelling them as a “communist” you can dismiss them as liars. That is find when you are discussing politics in the Republican Party. However, it will not do if you are attempting to have a serious discussion about events from the past.

[John Simkin]

John, I think you are using my name in vain here.  I said COMMUNISTS cannot be trusted since their allegiance is to their "party line" whether it is the truth or not.  I do not think every "leftist" is a Communist nor do I think that every, indeed, most leftists knowingly make false representations.

On several occasions you have dismissed the testimony of investigators by the claim that he is a “communist”. You have done this again by claiming in this post that for a communist “truth does not matter”. This is pure prejudice. Why should a communist have any less respect for the truth that a right-wing conservative? How do you distinguish between a “communist” and a “leftist”? Why should they be so different in their ability to tell the truth.

This attitude is not acceptable to a historian who is trying to use evidence to discover the truth about the past. Although it is important for the historian to take into account the political beliefs of the person who has produced the evidence, he/she must not reject that evidence just because they are a “communist”, “fascist”, etc. A historian has to approach the evidence with the knowledge that a witness to an event may be lying. However, he/she, must not study the evidence with the conviction that they are lying just because they have labelled this person as a communist.

Attitudes held by people like David Yarnell and yourself date back to the McCarthy era. By labelling them as a “communist” you can dismiss them as liars. That is find when you are discussing politics in the Republican Party. However, it will not do if you are attempting to have a serious discussion about events from the past.

[Tim Gratz]

John, the point is that it is the Communist position and doctrine that truth does NOT matter, what matters is if it advances the party line. Therefore, a Communist will tell the truth if it advances the party line or lie if lying does.

This is not an attitude held, I believe, by most people who do not belong to totalitarian parties. Most left-wingers and right-wingers will try to tell the truth even if it is inconsistent with what would support their political philosophy.

So a statement by a Communist ought be given no credit, since one knows a Communist is indeed REQUIRED to lie if it supports the party. That is not true (to use the American system) of a Republican or a Democrat, or a Socialist.

So if a card-carrying member of the Socialist Party says: "I saw A do this", I would probably believe him unless I knew he was a xxxx. But if a Communist said the same thing I would give no credit whatsoever to the statement (absent other independent verification) since to a Communist the truth or falsity of a statement means not a whit.

That is the distinction. It is not prejudice. It is simply recognition of the facts. Do you dispute that Communists are required to lie if necessary?

In fact, the serious historian MUST take into consideration the Communist philosophy and thereby refuse to accept assertions made by Communists, without independent verification.

Note that an opinion is different since it is not a fact. An opinion can be logically evaluated regardless of who renders it. If a Communist says, for instance, "I think the SBT is ridiculous for the following reasons. . ." I would look at those reasons. They might be better articulated by the Communist than by anyone else. But if the Communist says, "I saw two men on the sixth floor" I would not believe him because he would say he saw two men even if he did not, if it advanced the Communist party line.

Of course there are other groups to which this also applies. For instance, I would not credit a statement by a Mafioso for the same reason.

Hopefully this makes my position clearer. It is not that I mistrust Communists simply because they are left-of-center.

If Mr. Weyl was alive, he would confirm this.

Read George Orwell's "1984" ('course I know you have). Orwell understood the nature of a totalitarianism political system.

Edited May 20, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[John Simkin]

I have recently read E. Howard Hunt’s book "Undercover". He is obviously very careful about what he discloses. He admits that his wife arranged the payment of money to the Watergate burglars. However, he denies it was blackmail because they were only receiving money that should have been paid anyway.

Hunt explains how the money was delivered. Dorothy had to drive to the “National Airport, go to a particular wall telephone in the American Airlines section and reach under it for a locker key taped to the underside. This she did and opened a nearby locker to find in it a blue plastic airlines bag”. Hunt claims he cannot remember how much money was in the bag but that he was disappointed with the overall sum.

On 8th December, 1972, Howard drove his wife to the National Airport. He did not go in with her as she wanted to spend some time shopping.

He later discovered that while waiting for her plane she purchased $250,000 in flight insurance payable to him. Now that seems a large sum of money. What made her take out such a large insurance policy? Why did she not tell her husband about this?

According to Hunt his wife was travelling to Chicago with $10,000 to invest in two Holiday Inns in the city. This is seems very strange. Why did she need to take cash with her to do this? Hunt also claims he was desperately short of money at the time. Is this the kind of time you would invest in two Holiday Inns?

I think this passage from Howard Hunt's book gives some insights into what happened that day.

In the morning available information was inconclusive. Few of the dead had been identified, and not all of the injured.

At midday an attorney who was a partner of Hal's in the motelmanagement firm joined us to use his good offices with the Chicago police and coroner. I told him that Dorothy was travelling with $10,000 in cash for the investment and had perhaps $700 in her purse besides. He suggested I sketch some of the jewelry she was wearing, and I did: wedding ring, family signet ring, engagement ring and finally a large solitaire diamond that had been my mother's.

A party had been planned for Dorothy, and Phyllis telephoned the invited guests to cancel the affair. Since the day before I had eaten nothing and slept little; from time to time I began crying uncontrollably.

Kevan telephoned me from our home but I was unable to tell her whether her mother was alive or dead. I spoke with the other children, all in highly emotional states, which increased my own. The United Airlines passenger agent who had given us his card seemed to be unavailable and we could get no information from other United offices.

Toward midafternoon the attorney returned to the Carlstead house and suggested that we go to the Cook County morgue, taking the sketches I had made of Dorothy's jewelry.

It was a long ride through gathering dusk to the ugly and solitary old building, and when our party had identified itself, we sat down for a long wait. Finally a functionary returned with a plastic bag containing scorched jewelry. This he emptied onto a table and I stared at it unbelievingly. Everything I had sketched was there - except my mother's diamond solitaire. The wedding ring.

I picked it up and held it in my hand; ashes dropped from it, smudging my palm. The charm bracelet, half melted by the heat. Her signet ring had not been harmed.

The man said, "Can you identify these, Mr. Hunt?"

I nodded wordlessly. To another functionary he said, "That takes care of body eighteen," and gave me a form to sign.

Is it possible that Dorothy Hunt was not on the aircraft that day? Did she pick up the next instalment of cash from Nixon that morning from the National Airport lockers? Did she know that the aircraft was going to crash? Is that the reason for the $250,000 flight insurance? Did she find some way for another passenger to carry a package that included her rings and $10,000? It would have been necessary for her to give it to someone who was flying in the first-class compartment. This is where the bodies were burnt. Hunt says that Dorothy asked if he minded if she got a first-class seat. Despite their shortage of money Hunt said yes.

Was it all part of a scam that began when Hunt arranged for the Watergate burglars to be caught? I will expand on this in more detail when I attempt to show the real link between the JFK assassination and Watergate.

[John Simkin]

I have recently read E. Howard Hunt’s book "Undercover". He is obviously very careful about what he discloses. He admits that his wife arranged the payment of money to the Watergate burglars. However, he denies it was blackmail because they were only receiving money that should have been paid anyway.

Hunt explains how the money was delivered. Dorothy had to drive to the “National Airport, go to a particular wall telephone in the American Airlines section and reach under it for a locker key taped to the underside. This she did and opened a nearby locker to find in it a blue plastic airlines bag”. Hunt claims he cannot remember how much money was in the bag but that he was disappointed with the overall sum.

On 8th December, 1972, Howard drove his wife to the National Airport. He did not go in with her as she wanted to spend some time shopping.

He later discovered that while waiting for her plane she purchased $250,000 in flight insurance payable to him. Now that seems a large sum of money. What made her take out such a large insurance policy? Why did she not tell her husband about this?

According to Hunt his wife was travelling to Chicago with $10,000 to invest in two Holiday Inns in the city. This is seems very strange. Why did she need to take cash with her to do this? Hunt also claims he was desperately short of money at the time. Is this the kind of time you would invest in two Holiday Inns?

I think this passage from Howard Hunt's book gives some insights into what happened that day.

In the morning available information was inconclusive. Few of the dead had been identified, and not all of the injured.

At midday an attorney who was a partner of Hal's in the motelmanagement firm joined us to use his good offices with the Chicago police and coroner. I told him that Dorothy was travelling with $10,000 in cash for the investment and had perhaps $700 in her purse besides. He suggested I sketch some of the jewelry she was wearing, and I did: wedding ring, family signet ring, engagement ring and finally a large solitaire diamond that had been my mother's.

A party had been planned for Dorothy, and Phyllis telephoned the invited guests to cancel the affair. Since the day before I had eaten nothing and slept little; from time to time I began crying uncontrollably.

Kevan telephoned me from our home but I was unable to tell her whether her mother was alive or dead. I spoke with the other children, all in highly emotional states, which increased my own. The United Airlines passenger agent who had given us his card seemed to be unavailable and we could get no information from other United offices.

Toward midafternoon the attorney returned to the Carlstead house and suggested that we go to the Cook County morgue, taking the sketches I had made of Dorothy's jewelry.

It was a long ride through gathering dusk to the ugly and solitary old building, and when our party had identified itself, we sat down for a long wait. Finally a functionary returned with a plastic bag containing scorched jewelry. This he emptied onto a table and I stared at it unbelievingly. Everything I had sketched was there - except my mother's diamond solitaire. The wedding ring.

I picked it up and held it in my hand; ashes dropped from it, smudging my palm. The charm bracelet, half melted by the heat. Her signet ring had not been harmed.

The man said, "Can you identify these, Mr. Hunt?"

I nodded wordlessly. To another functionary he said, "That takes care of body eighteen," and gave me a form to sign.

Is it possible that Dorothy Hunt was not on the aircraft that day? Did she pick up the next instalment of cash from Nixon that morning from the National Airport lockers? Did she know that the aircraft was going to crash? Is that the reason for the $250,000 flight insurance? Did she find some way for another passenger to carry a package that included her rings and $10,000? It would have been necessary for her to give it to someone who was flying in the first-class compartment. This is where the bodies were burnt. Hunt says that Dorothy asked if he minded if she got a first-class seat. Despite their shortage of money Hunt said yes.

Was it all part of a scam that began when Hunt arranged for the Watergate burglars to be caught? I will expand on this in more detail when I attempt to show the real link between the JFK assassination and Watergate.

[Ron Ecker]

It's interesting that Hunt's autobiography Undercover skips from 1962, when Hunt went to work for Tracy Barnes in the Domestic Operations Division, to the summer of 1964. About two years of Hunt's life disappear, nothing of historical consequence having taken place during that time.

Ron

[John Simkin]

I thought it might be interesting to examine the chronology of the money passed to the Watergate burglars:

20th June, 1972: Richard Nixon tells H. R. Haldeman that the Watergate burglars "are going to need money".

21st June, 1972: Gordon Liddy tells Frederick LaRue and Robert Mardian that the Watergate burglars expect to receive money for bail, legal expenses and family support. Mardian argues that this request is blackmail and should not be paid.

26th June, 1972: John Dean meets Vernon Walters to ask him if the CIA would provide financial assistance for the Watergate burglars.

28th June, 1972: Vernon Walters tells John Dean that the CIA is unwilling to provide financial assistance for the Watergate burglars. This information is passed on to John N. Mitchell, Frederick LaRue and Robert Mardian.

29th June, 1972: John Dean meets Herbert W. Kalmbach and tells him that H. R. Haldeman, John Ehrlichman and John N. Mitchell want him to raise money for the Watergate burglars. Later that day Maurice Stans gives Kalmbach $75,000. Of this money, William Bittman receives $25,000. Dorothy Hunt asks for $450,000 and gets the first instalment of $40,000.

19th July, 1972: Frederick LaRue gives $40,000 to Herbert W. Kalmbach. He then takes it to New York and this money is given to Anthony Ulasewicz.

29th July, 1972: Frederick LaRue gives $30,000 to Herbert W. Kalmbach. This is transmitting to Anthony Ulasewicz.

19th September, 1972: Anthony Ulasewicz flies to Washington and delivers $53,000 to Dorothy Hunt and $29,000 to Frederick LaRue.

14th November, 1972: E. Howard Hunt phones Charles Colson and demands extra money. He sets a deadline of 25th November.

15th November, 1972: Richard Nixon, Charles Colson, H. R. Haldeman and John Ehrlichman meet at Camp David to discuss Howard Hunt's latest blackmail threat.

1st December, 1972: John N. Mitchell told John Dean to give a portion of the $350,000 (taken from Hugh Sloan's office) to E. Howard Hunt. This money is then delivered to Frederick LaRue.

8th December, 1972: Dorothy Hunt, the wife of E. Howard Hunt, is killed in a plane crash.

6th January, 1972: Jack Anderson reports that E. Howard Hunt had arranged for fellow defendants to be paid up to $1000 for each month they spent in jail.

21st March, 1973: John Dean tells Richard Nixon that the Watergate burglars "are going to cost a million dollars over the next two years". Nixon replies that "I know where it could be gotten".

Some questions I would like to raise:

(1) How did E. Howard Hunt react when he discovered that the CIA was unwilling to pay the burglars any money (28th June, 1972). At this point does Hunt start blackmailing the CIA as well as Nixon?

(2) On 29th June, Dorothy Hunt asks for $450,000 and gets the first instalment of $40,000. On 19th September Hunt gets another $53,000. On 1st December, Mitchell tells Dean to give a portion of the $350,000 (taken from Hugh Sloan's office) to Hunt. This money is then delivered to Frederick LaRue. Does this money get passed to Dorothy Hunt at the National Airport on 8th December?

(3) On 21st March, 1973, Dean tells Richard Nixon that the Watergate burglars "are going to cost a million dollars over the next two years". Nixon replies that "I know where it could be gotten". Does this mean that Hunt is still blackmailing Nixon? If so, is the blackmail just about Watergate or does it now include the death of Dorothy Hunt?

[John Simkin]

I thought it might be interesting to examine the chronology of the money passed to the Watergate burglars:

20th June, 1972: Richard Nixon tells H. R. Haldeman that the Watergate burglars "are going to need money".

21st June, 1972: Gordon Liddy tells Frederick LaRue and Robert Mardian that the Watergate burglars expect to receive money for bail, legal expenses and family support. Mardian argues that this request is blackmail and should not be paid.

26th June, 1972: John Dean meets Vernon Walters to ask him if the CIA would provide financial assistance for the Watergate burglars.

28th June, 1972: Vernon Walters tells John Dean that the CIA is unwilling to provide financial assistance for the Watergate burglars. This information is passed on to John N. Mitchell, Frederick LaRue and Robert Mardian.

29th June, 1972: John Dean meets Herbert W. Kalmbach and tells him that H. R. Haldeman, John Ehrlichman and John N. Mitchell want him to raise money for the Watergate burglars. Later that day Maurice Stans gives Kalmbach $75,000. Of this money, William Bittman receives $25,000. Dorothy Hunt asks for $450,000 and gets the first instalment of $40,000.

19th July, 1972: Frederick LaRue gives $40,000 to Herbert W. Kalmbach. He then takes it to New York and this money is given to Anthony Ulasewicz.

29th July, 1972: Frederick LaRue gives $30,000 to Herbert W. Kalmbach. This is transmitting to Anthony Ulasewicz.

19th September, 1972: Anthony Ulasewicz flies to Washington and delivers $53,000 to Dorothy Hunt and $29,000 to Frederick LaRue.

14th November, 1972: E. Howard Hunt phones Charles Colson and demands extra money. He sets a deadline of 25th November.

15th November, 1972: Richard Nixon, Charles Colson, H. R. Haldeman and John Ehrlichman meet at Camp David to discuss Howard Hunt's latest blackmail threat.

1st December, 1972: John N. Mitchell told John Dean to give a portion of the $350,000 (taken from Hugh Sloan's office) to E. Howard Hunt. This money is then delivered to Frederick LaRue.

8th December, 1972: Dorothy Hunt, the wife of E. Howard Hunt, is killed in a plane crash.

6th January, 1972: Jack Anderson reports that E. Howard Hunt had arranged for fellow defendants to be paid up to $1000 for each month they spent in jail.

21st March, 1973: John Dean tells Richard Nixon that the Watergate burglars "are going to cost a million dollars over the next two years". Nixon replies that "I know where it could be gotten".

Some questions I would like to raise:

(1) How did E. Howard Hunt react when he discovered that the CIA was unwilling to pay the burglars any money (28th June, 1972). At this point does Hunt start blackmailing the CIA as well as Nixon?

(2) On 29th June, Dorothy Hunt asks for $450,000 and gets the first instalment of $40,000. On 19th September Hunt gets another $53,000. On 1st December, Mitchell tells Dean to give a portion of the $350,000 (taken from Hugh Sloan's office) to Hunt. This money is then delivered to Frederick LaRue. Does this money get passed to Dorothy Hunt at the National Airport on 8th December?

(3) On 21st March, 1973, Dean tells Richard Nixon that the Watergate burglars "are going to cost a million dollars over the next two years". Nixon replies that "I know where it could be gotten". Does this mean that Hunt is still blackmailing Nixon? If so, is the blackmail just about Watergate or does it now include the death of Dorothy Hunt?

[Shanet Clark]

Excellent factual analysis.

Of course, this string of events became central to the impeachment.

Nixon was willing to go to almost any length to satisfy HUNT.

It is entirely within the realm of possibility that Nixon gave the carrot, and the intelligence agencies gave HUNT the stick.

With the hush money coming in, Hunt was unlikely to tell all he knew about the 1970s. With the death of his wife, he was unlikely to tell what he knew about the 1960s.

[John Simkin]

I have just got hold of a very interesting book: Big Brother and the Holding Company: The World Behind Watergate (edited by Steve Weissman). The book is published by Ramparts, the magazine closed down by Operation Mockingbird. Most of the articles are written by journalists associated with Ramparts. It also includes articles by Noam Chomsky, Richard Popkin, Paul Sweezy and Peter Dale Scott.

One of the most interesting articles is Flight 553: The Watergate Murder? By Barboura Morris Freed. It looks very carefully at all the issues relating to the case. For example, it is much more comprehensive than the study carried out by Sherman Skolnick. Some of the issues covered include (I have added information that connects with these points):

(1) Dorothy Hunt was working for the CIA in Paris when she met Hunt. She was liaison between the American Embassy and the Economic Cooperation Administration (a CIA front). The ECA was one of those Marshall Plan organization that paid for Operation Mockingbird.

(2) The papers kept in Hunt’s office were seen as their “insurance”. According to Freed, L. Patrick Gray did not get all these papers. Roy H. Sheppard took most of them. Sheppard claimed he burned them at the city dump in November 1972, but Jack Anderson claimed they were returned to Hunt in August 1972.

(3) Howard Hunt originally planned to take Flight 553. He changed his mind at the last moment.

(3) The FBI were very quick to claim that Hunt’s $10,588 that was found in the wreckage was “clean”.

(4) Michelle Clark was not only interviewing Dorothy Hunt during the trip. Chicago Congressman, George Collins, was also helping her with an article she was writing about Watergate. Apparently he had information on the bugging of the Democratic National Headquarters.

(5) Another passenger on the flight was Harold Metcalf, a federal narcotics agent.

(6) At the time Attorney General John Mitchell was under investigation for corruptly helping the El Paso Natural Gas Company against its main competitor, the Northern Natural Gas Company. Mitchell’s decision to drop anti-trust charges was worth an estimated $300 million to El Paso. The flight included Ralph Blodgett and James W. Kreuger, two attorneys working for Northern Natural Gas Company in the investigation of Mitchell.

(7) Just hours after the crash an anonymous call was made to the WBBM Chicago (CBS) talk show. The caller described himself as a radio ham who had monitored ground control’s communications with 553, and he reported an exchange concerning gross control tower error or sabotage. CBS, Michelle Clark’s employer, kept this information from the authorities investigating the accident.

(8) FBI agents were at the scene of the crash before the Fire Department, which received a call within one minute of the crash. The FBI later claimed that 12 agents reached the scene of the crash. Later it was revealed that there were over 50 agents searching through the wreckage.

(9) It was completely irregular for the FBI to get involved in investigating a crash until invited in by the NTSB. The FBI director justified this action because it considered the accident to have been the result of sabotage. That raises two issues: (i) How were they able to get to the crash scene so quickly? (ii) Why did they believe Flight 553 had been a case of possible sabotage? Freed does not answer these questions. However, I would argue that it is possible to answer both questions with the same answer. The FBI had been told that Flight 553 was going to crash as it landed in Chicago.

(10) The Midway Control Tower did not report the crash until five minutes after it happened.

(11) One FBI agent went straight to Midway’s control tower and confiscated the tape containing information concerning the crash. The FBI did this before the NTSB could act – a unique and illegal intervention.

(12) The FBI sealed the crash site and barred even inspectors from the Federal Aviation Administration, which was authorized by law to investigate the accident.

(13) One of George W. Collins’ adies managed to get into the aircraft soon after it crashed (he used old military ID papers to do this). He was the one who reported that Collins was sitting next to Michelle Clark on the plane. He also recognised someone he knew going through the wreckage. He was a CIA agent.

(14) Dorothy Hunt, although terribly disfigured, was identified by Howard Carlstead. According to Hunt’s book, she was identified by the rings she wore. Carlstead was the man Hunt was taking the money to. He was associated with three mobsters, Freddie Smith, Grover Barnes and Sam De Stefano.

(15) According to the New York Times the FBI found the $10,585 in Hunt’s purse.

(16) The day after the crash Nixon appointed the head of the “Plumbers”, Egil Krogh, as Undersecretary of Transportation. This put Krogh in charge of the National Transportation Board and the Federal Aviation Administration, the two organizations with responsibility of investigating the accident.

(17) Ten days later Nixon appointed Alexander Butterfield as head of Federal Aviation Administration.

(18) The Tail Flight Recorder stopped recording fourteen minutes prior to the crash.

(19) According to Sherman Skolnick, it was claimed that the “bus bar” was tampered with at the National Airport in Washington. A filament was inserted that would short out the electrical system on descent.

(20) The pilot Wendell Whitehouse, was found with high counts of cyanide. The post-crash fire might have produced part of the cyanide but was 4 times more than could have been expected from such a fire.

(21) Alex J. Bottos, who was working as a deep cover agent for the Justice Department Strike Force, claimed that the FBI took important papers from James W. Kreuger’s briefcase (see point 6 above). He also reported that an additional $40,000 was taken from Hunt’s bag.

(22) Robert Mullen claimed that Richard Helms “twisted my arm hard” to hire Hunt. He suggested that Dorothy Hunt’s aircraft had been sabotaged.

[John Simkin]

I have just got hold of a very interesting book: Big Brother and the Holding Company: The World Behind Watergate (edited by Steve Weissman). The book is published by Ramparts, the magazine closed down by Operation Mockingbird. Most of the articles are written by journalists associated with Ramparts. It also includes articles by Noam Chomsky, Richard Popkin, Paul Sweezy and Peter Dale Scott.

One of the most interesting articles is Flight 553: The Watergate Murder? By Barboura Morris Freed. It looks very carefully at all the issues relating to the case. For example, it is much more comprehensive than the study carried out by Sherman Skolnick. Some of the issues covered include (I have added information that connects with these points):

(1) Dorothy Hunt was working for the CIA in Paris when she met Hunt. She was liaison between the American Embassy and the Economic Cooperation Administration (a CIA front). The ECA was one of those Marshall Plan organization that paid for Operation Mockingbird.

(2) The papers kept in Hunt’s office were seen as their “insurance”. According to Freed, L. Patrick Gray did not get all these papers. Roy H. Sheppard took most of them. Sheppard claimed he burned them at the city dump in November 1972, but Jack Anderson claimed they were returned to Hunt in August 1972.

(3) Howard Hunt originally planned to take Flight 553. He changed his mind at the last moment.

(3) The FBI were very quick to claim that Hunt’s $10,588 that was found in the wreckage was “clean”.

(4) Michelle Clark was not only interviewing Dorothy Hunt during the trip. Chicago Congressman, George Collins, was also helping her with an article she was writing about Watergate. Apparently he had information on the bugging of the Democratic National Headquarters.

(5) Another passenger on the flight was Harold Metcalf, a federal narcotics agent.

(6) At the time Attorney General John Mitchell was under investigation for corruptly helping the El Paso Natural Gas Company against its main competitor, the Northern Natural Gas Company. Mitchell’s decision to drop anti-trust charges was worth an estimated $300 million to El Paso. The flight included Ralph Blodgett and James W. Kreuger, two attorneys working for Northern Natural Gas Company in the investigation of Mitchell.

(7) Just hours after the crash an anonymous call was made to the WBBM Chicago (CBS) talk show. The caller described himself as a radio ham who had monitored ground control’s communications with 553, and he reported an exchange concerning gross control tower error or sabotage. CBS, Michelle Clark’s employer, kept this information from the authorities investigating the accident.

(8) FBI agents were at the scene of the crash before the Fire Department, which received a call within one minute of the crash. The FBI later claimed that 12 agents reached the scene of the crash. Later it was revealed that there were over 50 agents searching through the wreckage.

(9) It was completely irregular for the FBI to get involved in investigating a crash until invited in by the NTSB. The FBI director justified this action because it considered the accident to have been the result of sabotage. That raises two issues: (i) How were they able to get to the crash scene so quickly? (ii) Why did they believe Flight 553 had been a case of possible sabotage? Freed does not answer these questions. However, I would argue that it is possible to answer both questions with the same answer. The FBI had been told that Flight 553 was going to crash as it landed in Chicago.

(10) The Midway Control Tower did not report the crash until five minutes after it happened.

(11) One FBI agent went straight to Midway’s control tower and confiscated the tape containing information concerning the crash. The FBI did this before the NTSB could act – a unique and illegal intervention.

(12) The FBI sealed the crash site and barred even inspectors from the Federal Aviation Administration, which was authorized by law to investigate the accident.

(13) One of George W. Collins’ adies managed to get into the aircraft soon after it crashed (he used old military ID papers to do this). He was the one who reported that Collins was sitting next to Michelle Clark on the plane. He also recognised someone he knew going through the wreckage. He was a CIA agent.

(14) Dorothy Hunt, although terribly disfigured, was identified by Howard Carlstead. According to Hunt’s book, she was identified by the rings she wore. Carlstead was the man Hunt was taking the money to. He was associated with three mobsters, Freddie Smith, Grover Barnes and Sam De Stefano.

(15) According to the New York Times the FBI found the $10,585 in Hunt’s purse.

(16) The day after the crash Nixon appointed the head of the “Plumbers”, Egil Krogh, as Undersecretary of Transportation. This put Krogh in charge of the National Transportation Board and the Federal Aviation Administration, the two organizations with responsibility of investigating the accident.

(17) Ten days later Nixon appointed Alexander Butterfield as head of Federal Aviation Administration.

(18) The Tail Flight Recorder stopped recording fourteen minutes prior to the crash.

(19) According to Sherman Skolnick, it was claimed that the “bus bar” was tampered with at the National Airport in Washington. A filament was inserted that would short out the electrical system on descent.

(20) The pilot Wendell Whitehouse, was found with high counts of cyanide. The post-crash fire might have produced part of the cyanide but was 4 times more than could have been expected from such a fire.

(21) Alex J. Bottos, who was working as a deep cover agent for the Justice Department Strike Force, claimed that the FBI took important papers from James W. Kreuger’s briefcase (see point 6 above). He also reported that an additional $40,000 was taken from Hunt’s bag.

(22) Robert Mullen claimed that Richard Helms “twisted my arm hard” to hire Hunt. He suggested that Dorothy Hunt’s aircraft had been sabotaged.

[David Mignery]

Is there any documented evidence concerning the following questions:

1. That Michele Clark spent time in Milwaukee in late 1971 or early 1972?

2. That she was investigating the RFK assassination prior to her work on Watergate?

3. That she spent time in Cuba?

4. That she had any contact with Dennis Cossini?

5. That Dennis Cossini was a journalism student at Marquette University in 1971 or 1972?

6. That she had ever had any contact with Dr. William J. Bryan?

7. That Arthur Bremer's brother worked with Sirhan Sirhan at a Santa Anita racing stable?

8. That the stable in question had any connection with Dr. Bryan?

9. How exactly did John J. McCleary of Sacramento "drown in the Pacific Ocean" and who was he?

10. What was the nature of the friendship between Arthur Bremer and Dennis Cossini?

From the opposite side, is there any evidence that the premise of any of the above questions is false?

[David Mignery]

A reporter named Michele Clark is mentioned several times in Ray Mungo's 1970 memoir titled "Famous Long Ago" which is available on line at http://sunrisedancer.com/radicalreader/lib...uslongago05.asp

He was a co-founder of the Liberation News Service which provided material about the activities of various radical groups during the 1960s. He apparently knew her while living in New York and Washington DC but first met her in Cuba. He says she was married to a New York film maker.

Can anyone expand on this?

[David Mignery]

An interview with television reporter Carole Simpson is at http://npc.press.org/wpforal/sim4.htm. She talks about the crash of United Flight 553 which she covered for a Chicago TV station and she also talks about Michele Clark.