Jump to content
The Education Forum

Edwin P. Wilson


John Simkin
 Share

Recommended Posts

Regarding the 22 tons (depending on who you believe ) of explosives (mostly Semtex from the Czechs) is mostly fiction. In the first place there was no source of that much production. And, C4 in such amounts would have left a trail a mile wide.

Libya definitely blew up some things with C4 so they got it somewhere.

Ed is still under threat of prosecution and at his age, I suspect he will maintain his silence. I think even he would be shocked at who his enemies were...and who now are his defenders. But, John, except for historical research, Ed's story is only part of the prologue.

If that is the case, Ed Wilson will have to go to the grave knowing that people will believe the official story.

Note: The VP says very little as expected, but when it comes to listing the real power brokers inside the Beltway, He would top any list. His companies and contacts are such legends that they almost define arrogance.

Gates is a very good chief of shadows, he would be anyone's candidate for Number 2, he should get the vote.

I am sure you are right about George H. W. Bush. Will Ed Wilson tell the full story when he dies?

Interesting idea about Gates. Maybe he is being groomed to become the next VP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am sure you are right about George H. W. Bush. Will Ed Wilson tell the full story when he dies?

Reply from the undercover agent:

"Regarding Ed Wilson's silence. I believe he will carry his secrets to the grave. I don't think he gives a damn what "people" or the official story says about him. Ed is not about being a historical personage. If I were writing his obit, it would be short and concise...."A Patriot".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 years later...
I am sure you are right about George H. W. Bush. Will Ed Wilson tell the full story when he dies?

Reply from the undercover agent:

"Regarding Ed Wilson's silence. I believe he will carry his secrets to the grave. I don't think he gives a damn what "people" or the official story says about him. Ed is not about being a historical personage. If I were writing his obit, it would be short and concise...."A Patriot".

Hello Fellow members of this Forum:

My name is Greg Kooyman, I am an amatuer history buff and a sometime member of this forum. I mostly spent my time in the past reading what most of you fine researchers and members have posted. I have recently gotten back into reading this forum more actively. I feel compelled at this stage of my life to try to do what I can to track down and try to find some of those people that lived the events and times surrounding the assassination of JFK and see if I can glean anything that can be useful to solving this crime of the century.

I resurrected this thread on the premise that I disagree that Ed Wilson will carry his secrets to his grave. I think spending all that time in prison and the false charges trumped upon him have made him bitter. I believe he is a fighter which is why he found a way to gain his freedom to get his guilty verdict overturned in the first place. Edwin Wilson was very close to to Ted Shackley, Thomas Clines, Raphael Quintero, and most likely knew David S. Morales, Carl Jenkins and even David Atlee Phillips.

While I don't necessarily think he was involved in the assassination, I believe he was aware of the plot and who the players were, even if it was post-assassination knowledge.

I believe I have the ability to reach Edwin Wilson, or at the least his brother. He would be 83 years old now, and maybe as a "Flawed Patriot" he may wish to set the historical records straight at this stage in his life.

I put this forth to any researchers out there if there are questions you would like to make to Edwin Wilson, please get with me offline via email.

If I can get enough interest in this, I will try to approach Mr. Wilson by phone and see if he is willing to talk.

-Greg Kooyman

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am sure you are right about George H. W. Bush. Will Ed Wilson tell the full story when he dies?

Reply from the undercover agent:

"Regarding Ed Wilson's silence. I believe he will carry his secrets to the grave. I don't think he gives a damn what "people" or the official story says about him. Ed is not about being a historical personage. If I were writing his obit, it would be short and concise...."A Patriot".

Hello Fellow members of this Forum:

My name is Greg Kooyman, I am an amatuer history buff and a sometime member of this forum. I mostly spent my time in the past reading what most of you fine researchers and members have posted. I have recently gotten back into reading this forum more actively. I feel compelled at this stage of my life to try to do what I can to track down and try to find some of those people that lived the events and times surrounding the assassination of JFK and see if I can glean anything that can be useful to solving this crime of the century.

I resurrected this thread on the premise that I disagree that Ed Wilson will carry his secrets to his grave. I think spending all that time in prison and the false charges trumped upon him have made him bitter. I believe he is a fighter which is why he found a way to gain his freedom to get his guilty verdict overturned in the first place. Edwin Wilson was very close to to Ted Shackley, Thomas Clines, Raphael Quintero, and most likely knew David S. Morales, Carl Jenkins and even David Atlee Phillips.

While I don't necessarily think he was involved in the assassination, I believe he was aware of the plot and who the players were, even if it was post-assassination knowledge.

I believe I have the ability to reach Edwin Wilson, or at the least his brother. He would be 83 years old now, and maybe as a "Flawed Patriot" he may wish to set the historical records straight at this stage in his life.

I put this forth to any researchers out there if there are questions you would like to make to Edwin Wilson, please get with me offline via email.

If I can get enough interest in this, I will try to approach Mr. Wilson by phone and see if he is willing to talk.

-Greg Kooyman

Thanks Greg,

I too think that Ed Wilson is a valuable and neglected witness, especially as a former ONI and CIA officer, who was also involved in Libyan operations,

which might have more to do with his censorship than what happened at Dealey Plaza.

BK

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Tom Scully

Greg Kooyman, considering all the exposure, with so little resulting impact, and Wilson's age now, my advice is to leave it alone.... (I never thought I'd be offering advice like this, but, IMO, the U.S. DOJ has ceased to be the DOJ and has become the Department of Selective Enforcement and Elite Enablers.)

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=14271&view=findpost&p=166249

.....Don Bohning, a self professed champion of accuracy and a critic of left oriented ideologically driven distortion, described Edwin P Wilson as a "rogue CIA agent", "convicted of his crimes". Bohning does not tell us that powerful CIA counsel and managers, along with officials of the DOJ, were found to have framed

Wilson and kept their crimes secret while Wilson rotted in federal prison for 22 years:

Reports from 2000 to 2003 were that the OPR at the DOJ would investigate this official misconduct in the prosecution and conviction of Edwin Wilson:

http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=%22...ed=us&hl=en

Under the Bush regime, the Office of Professional Responsibility stopped reporting ANYTHING after 2005, and the OPR buried the Wilson investigation:

http://www.usdoj.gov/opr/reports.htm .....

Doug Weldon, after I read about the background of a federal judge's decision to free Ed Wilson several years ago, it strains belief that any of the federal lawyers who remained silent all those years Wilson was imprisoned, could still be members of the bar in good standing, let alone

promoted by a U.S. president to sit as a judge on a federal appeals court, By the way, the OPR seems to have avoided dealing with this, although it was reported to be investigating. (see article images at the bottom of this post.)

(quote) http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/Investigation/story?id=708779&page=3

'The Most Dangerous Man in America'

Conviction of Former CIA Agent Overturned on False Affidavit (page 3)

April 27, 2005

...Government Lawyers

Hughes, in his ruling, singled out Greenberg, about whom he wrote, "deliberately, knowing the facts, Greenberg ignored the CIA attorneys' requests and used it."

In a statement to Nightline, Greenberg says he was never warned by the CIA that the affidavit was false, that the concerns were about tactics.

Greenberg said he would never file "with the court an affidavit or other document which I knew to be inaccurate or false."

The supervising prosecutor on the case, Larry Barcella, says he cannot recall seeing the affidavit before it was introduced and denies doing anything improper when the issue was raised later. But according to Adler, Barcella participated in the meetings when it was discussed that something might have to be corrected about the affidavit.

Wilson has filed complaints with the Washington, D.C., bar association about Barcella.

"Evil, that's a word I like. Evil," Wilson said about the prosecutors. "They were not just doing their jobs. They were doing it for themselves."

After the guilty verdict, the CIA general counsel, Stanley Sporkin, who had told prosecutors prior to introduction of the affidavit in the trail that it should be amended or not used, again raised a red flag, according to one of the documents Adler and Wilson discovered.

"The CIA drafted up a letter that the agency proposed be sent to Wilson's attorneys disclosing the problem with the affidavit," Adler said. "And again the Justice Department rejected the CIA's suggestion that the letter be sent to Mr. Wilson's lawyer, and so it was never disclosed at that juncture either."

page 4

D. Lowell Jensen was in charge of the criminal division of the Justice Department when the decision was first made. He declined to comment on his role in the Wilson case. Adler said he "found a fair number of memos that were addressed to him, or from him, talking about the problem, talking about the decision to keep quiet about this."

Stephen Trott replaced Jensen as the top Justice Department official at the time. Trott says he recalls a meeting on the Wilson case but none of the details.

The Justice Department has now admitted the affidavit used to convict Wilson was false, an innocent error, its lawyers told Hughes.

As for the CIA, they will only say, "It was Mr. Wilson's decision to sell explosives to Libya, and that's why he was sent to jail."

However, Hughes put it another way. "America will not defeat Libyan terrorism by double-crossing a part-time, informal government agent," he wrote.

Wilson says he lost all he had, his family and his wealth, over the 22 years he was in prison. Now living with his brother in Seattle, he says he simply wants to clear his name.

Vic Walter, Avni Patel and Jessica Wang contributed to this report. (/quote)

(quote) http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/Investigation/story?id=708779&page=1

'The Most Dangerous Man in America'

Conviction of Former CIA Agent Overturned on False Affidavit

by Brian Ross ABC News Chief In vestigative Correspondent

April 27, 2005 — This is the story of a man, a one-time CIA officer, who spent 22 years in prison after being branded a traitor and a threat to the country.

"That was me," Ed Wilson said. "The most dangerous man in America, which is ridiculous."

Wilson, at age 54, was sentenced in 1983 to 52 years in prison. He was convicted on selling weapons and 20 tons of C-4 plastic explosives to Moammar Gadhafi's Libya. He was also convicted of trying to arrange a contract hit on the prosecutors.

Wilson's defense was that he was still working with the CIA and that the agency knew and approved of everything he was doing with Libya, including the shipment of the explosives.

Prosecutor Ted Greenberg said at the time that Wilson was making up his connection to the CIA. "Mr. Wilson did not work for the CIA or any other part of the intelligence community," he said.

In Houston, Texas, Wilson's conviction was overturned by a federal judge, Lynn Hughes, who identified about two dozen government lawyers, including Greenberg, who participated in the use of a false CIA affidavit that sent Wilson to prison and the silence about the affidavit after serious questions were raised about its accuracy. And Hughes minced no words in his opinion.

"In the course of American justice, one would have to work hard to conceive of a more fundamentally unfair process," wrote Hughes, "than the fabrication of false data by the government, under oath by a government official, presented knowingly by the prosecutor in the courtroom with the express approval of his superiors in Washington."

Wilson is a free man now.

The Affidavit

The CIA would not disclose its records but did provide an affidavit in the final days of the trial from a top CIA official that said, with one minor exception, Wilson "was not asked or requested, directly or indirectly, to perform or provide any services, directly or indirectly, for CIA."

It was the lynchpin of the government's case, according to Wilson's current lawyer, David Adler.

"It was read into evidence during the trial," Adler said. "The jury went back to deliberate. After a short time of deliberations, the jurors asked to hear this affidavit again. It was re-read to them, and an hour later they voted guilty on all counts for Mr. Wilson. So I think it was critical to the jury's decision." ....

...It would take 20 years for Wilson to prove that the affidavit was false. From his cell in Marion, Wilson began to seek government documents using the Freedom of Information Act. It was 14 years later that the government turned over an internal Justice Department memo, buried in a large stack of other documents, in which Justice Department officials acknowledge the CIA affidavit was possibly false and discuss what to do about it.

"Somebody slipped up and never intended for Mr. Wilson to see this document," Adler said. "I think they forgot that if you put someone in solitary confinement, that they don't have a lot to do all day other than to pore through these documents, and I think Mr. Wilson paid a lot more attention to the materials than the people who were responsible for releasing them at the Justice Department."

Since then, Adler, a former CIA officer himself who was at first skeptical when assigned the case, has discovered dozens of Justice Department and CIA documents that prove the key affidavit in the Wilson case was false and that many in the government knew it. He said one document revealed at least 80 instances of contact between Wilson providing and the CIA.

"I'm not skeptical anymore," Adler said. "I think the documents are about as clear as they could be that this was an intentional, purposeful effort to conceal the truth from the judge, from the jury, from Mr. Wilson and his defense lawyers and from the public."

And some of those involved in the Wilson case went on to become some of the most prominent men in legal circles today.

"Many careers were greatly enhanced by the successful prosecution of Mr. Wilson back in 1983," Adler said. "I think I've uncovered something that, at the very least, should question whether or not they deserve to have those types of positions."

Government Lawyers

Hughes, in his ruling, singled out Greenberg, about whom he wrote, "deliberately, knowing the facts, Greenberg ignored the CIA attorneys' requests and used it."

In a statement to Nightline, Greenberg says he was never warned by the CIA that the affidavit was false, that their concerns were about tactics.

Greenberg said he would never file "with the court an affidavit or other document which I knew to be inaccurate or false."

The supervising prosecutor on the case, Larry Barcella, says he cannot recall seeing the affidavit before it was introduced and denies doing anything improper when the issue was raised later. But according to Adler, Barcella participated in the meetings when it was discussed that something might have to be corrected about the affidavit.

Wilson has filed complaints with the Washington, D.C., bar association about Barcella.

"Evil, that's a word I like. Evil," Wilson said about the prosecutors. "They were not just doing their jobs. They were doing it for themselves."

After the guilty verdict, the CIA general counsel, Stanley Sporkin, who had told prosecutors prior to introduction of the affidavit in the trail that it should be amended or not used, again raised a red flag, according to one of the documents Adler and Wilson discovered.

"The CIA drafted up a letter that the agency proposed be sent to Wilson's attorneys disclosing the problem with the affidavit," Adler said. "And again the Justice Department rejected the CIA's suggestion that the letter be sent to Mr. Wilson's lawyer, and so it was never disclosed at that juncture either."

D. Lowell Jensen was in charge of the criminal division of the Justice Department when the decision was first made. He declined to comment on his role in the Wilson case. Adler said he "found a fair number of memos that were addressed to him, or from him, talking about the problem, talking about the decision to keep quiet about this."

Documents Related to the Case: http://abcnews.go.com/images/Nightline/wilson3.pdf (/quote)

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/309675_spy30.html

Last updated March 29, 2007 11:21 p.m. PT

Ex-spy dealt setback in fight to clear name

By TRACY JOHNSON

P-I REPORTER

A notorious former spy living in the Seattle area was dealt a blow Thursday in his efforts to show he was unfairly labeled a traitor, though he will keep fighting to clear his name.

A judge in Houston dismissed Edwin Wilson's lawsuit against seven former federal prosecutors -- including two who are now federal judges -- and a former executive director of the CIA. U.S. District Judge Lee Rosenthal found that even if the officials' behavior was improper when Wilson was sent to prison in the early 1980s, all eight legally have immunity from Wilson's claims of wrongdoing.

"I'm not giving up at all. I'm going all-out to win this thing," Wilson, 78, said Thursday. "This is just a minor setback."

An attorney for former prosecutor Lawrence Barcella, who spent years working to put Wilson in prison and was a target of his lawsuit, said she was pleased.

"The judge did absolutely the right thing," attorney Melinda Sarafa said. "We have felt from the beginning that the claims against the prosecutors would not hold up."

Wilson's attorney, Steve Berman, said he was disappointed for Wilson and will appeal.

"There were lies told before, during and after his trial, and the judge basically said, 'too bad,' " Berman said. "We don't believe they have immunity."...

http://fas.org/sgp/jud/wilson102703.pdf

(page 15)

The court has identified about two dozen government lawyers who actively participated in the original non-disclosure to the defense, the false rebuttal testimony, and the refusal to correct it.

Governmental regularity—due process—requires personal and institutional

integrity. CIA attorneys told Assistant U.S. Attorney Ted Greenberg that the Briggs affidavit should not be used as evidence, as then written, and asked him not introduce it. He did.

CIA General Counsel Stanley Sporkin advised that, at minimum,the word

“indirectly” should be removed from paragraph four. Deliberately, knowing the

facts, Greenberg ignored the CIA attorneys' requests and used it. (Wilson Mot. to

Vacate, Ex. 98 ¶¶ 3-5.)

Although it admits that it presented false evidence at Wilson’s trial and

now lists solicitations and services he performed post-termination, the

governmentsaysthat Wilson has not proved that the prosecutors knew that it was false. Persistence in this contention reveals that consistency is valued higher than fidelity at the Department of Justice.

First, the government says that the prosecutors meant “taskings related to

the gathering of intelligence” where Briggs’s affidavit reads, “asked or requested directly or indirectly to perform or provide services.” (Gov't Answer at 54.)...

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/printout/0,8816,1139812,00.html

Monday, Dec. 12, 2005

A Rogue's Revenge

Disavowed by the CIA and jailed for 22 years, an ex-spy now wants someone to pay

By ADAM ZAGORIN

...Largely using the Freedom of Information Act to compel the government to turn over papers, Wilson has dug up official records of more than 80 contacts he had with CIA officials--many of them high ranking--during the period in question. Those documents show that prosecutors and the CIA officials assisting them were aware of the contacts. The foreman of the jury that found Wilson guilty of selling C-4 to Libya, which was subject to a total U.S. arms embargo at the time, told ABC News earlier this year, "If we had known [of Wilson's CIA links], I could say unequivocally that there would not have been a guilty verdict." It was on the basis of the newfound evidence that District Court Judge Lynn Hughes threw out Wilson's conviction, saying from the bench, "One would have to work hard to conceive of a more fundamentally unfair process ... than the fabrication of false data by the government ... presented knowingly by the prosecutor in the courtroom with the express approval of his superiors in Washington."

That same day a UPI wire service story described the deliberations. "Juror Betty Metzler said the panel was divided 11-1 almost from the start, and one juror was not convinced until Saturday morning by rereading of Briggs' affidavit denying Wilson's actions had anything to do with the CIA."

A week later, on February 10, 1983, Attorney Kim E. Rosenfield in the Attorney General's office sent a memorandum to Deputy Assistant Attorney General Mark Richard who ran DoJ's Criminal Division. The title of the memorandum was "Duty to Disclose Possibly False Testimony" and the memorandum pulled no punches. It went straight to prevailing case law (then and now) as decided by the U.S. Supreme Court and cited two cases known as Brady and Napue. The Napue case held that, "Failure of prosecutor to correct testimony which he knows to be false violates due process, whether the falsehood bears on credibility of witness or guilt of defendant, if it is in any way relevant to the case." In Brady the court ruled that "Suppression of material evidence by the government requires a new trial, irrespective of good or bad faith."

The memorandum continued, "Prosecutor has duty to correct false testimony even if falsehood was inadvertent or caused by another government officer. New trial required if the false testimony could "in any reasonable likelihood have affected the judgement of the jury." ..........

......From the documents in the filing it is apparent that through November of 1983, long after Edwin Wilson had been sentenced to 17 years on the C-4 violations, every lawyer from the Justice Department who became aware of the "inaccuracy" of the Briggs affidavit kept their mouth shut about it. A reading of the law and an easily understandable sense of fair play suggest that this was wrong. That many people were worried about the use of the memorandum is clear. Both Stanley Sporkin and Mark Richard can be seen, in a variety of memoranda and meetings, arguing for disclosure or some remedy. It is apparent that either their consciences or their fears of exposure were very "sensitized."

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ciadrugs/Ed_Wilson_1.html

Ed Wilson's Revenge

The Biggest CIA Scandal in History Has Its Feet in the Starting Blocks in a Houston Court House

by Michael C. Ruppert

.....The Briggs Declaration

Charles A. Briggs was, on February 3, 1983, the third highest-ranking official at the Central Intelligence Agency. He was one of few men at CIA who could break through the compartments and search anywhere for records. He was the man to solve the problem in Houston. In Langley, Virginia, at 2:23 P.M., Houston time (according to a government teletype), Charles Briggs signed a declaration stating that on November 8th of 1982 he had authorized a search of all records of the CIA "for any material that in any way pertains to Edwin P. Wilson or the various allegations concerning his activities after 28 February 1971, when he resigned from the CIA."

Paragraph 4 of the Briggs Declaration states, "According to CIA records, with one exception while he was employed by Naval Intelligence in 1972, Mr. Edwin P. Wilson was not asked or requested, directly or indirectly, to perform or provide any services, directly or indirectly, for CIA."

At 2:30 P.M., Houston time, CIA General Counsel Stanley Sporkin certified the affidavit and affixed the seal of the Central Intelligence Agency to it. It was also notarized by a notary public licensed in Fairfax County, Virginia. Harold Fahringer, one of Wilson's attorneys was served with a copy of the affidavit at 3:55 P.M. Houston time - presumably in Houston. According to a partially declassified CIA memorandum, included in Wilson's filings, dated March 15, 1983 (40 days after Wilson's conviction), on the day and evening of February 3, 1983 "CIA attorneys stated to Assistant U.S. Attorney (AUSA) Ted Greenberg that the Briggs affidavit should not be admitted into evidence as then written, and requested that Greenberg not introduce the affidavit.

"The signers of the affidavit further state that CIA General Counsel Stanley Sporkin stated that, at minimum, the word 'indirectly' should be removed from paragraph four of the Briggs affidavit.

The signers of the document further state in the document that AUSA Greenberg decided against complying with the CIA attorneys' requests described above."

Apparently, through the evening of February 3rd, the phone lines between Langley and Houston were smoking. FTW has interviewed a number of people close to the trial and none indicate that Ted Greenberg left Houston to retrieve the declaration. Stanley Sporkin knew that the affidavit was incorrect and so did a great many people at CIA. The Houston time apparently indicates that a copy was telexed to Wilson's lawyer and another copy was placed in the master DoJ case files in Houston. Larry Barcella has "no recollection" of being involved in those phone conversations. No phone logs listing participants in them have, as yet, been disclosed....

...And, on close scrutiny, the remedy that was found does not sit well either. From exhibits filed by Adler on Wilson's behalf it is apparent that Assistant Attorney General Steven Trott, now a Judge on the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, gave permission to the worried lawyers to disclose some "inaccuracies" in the Briggs affidavit in an obscure paragraph in filings to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. This was long after the conviction. If the Appeals court said to do something they would, if not, they were off the hook. Adler's response on this point is clear and compelling. "The problem with the logic is, at least, twofold. The 'disclosure' was made to the appeals court, not the trial court. I don't believe the Supreme Court's prohibition on the government's knowing use of false testimony is rectified by admitting the truth to an entirely different court. The second problem is that telling the truth and admitting a lie has been told are two different statementsÉ It [DoJ's attempt to satisfy disclosure requirements] simply mentioned (in a document only a few select people had access to) that Wilson had provided 'a few services'. The trial court and, more importantly, the jury were never told."

Barcella's position is that a lot of honorable people engaged in a lot of mental effort, that may have "gotten too technical" to protect the integrity of a conviction that doesn't need to be undermined.....

WP11-1-03pg1.jpg

WP11-1-03pg2.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Greg Kooyman, considering all the exposure, with so little resulting impact, and Wilson's age now, my advice is to leave it alone.... (I never thought I'd be offering advice like this, but, IMO, the U.S. DOJ has ceased to be the DOJ and has become the Department of Selective Enforcement and Elite Enablers.)

Tom,

I guess when you put it in that perspective, I have to agree. If I were Ed Wilson, I doubt I would ever talk in public again. One can only hope he reveals what he knows to a family member, or has his memoirs published after his death with details on what he knew.

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...