Ashton Gray Posted July 10, 2006 Share Posted July 10, 2006 (edited) Here is the link to the thread where the disputed text lies that is being lied about right in this thread by two disinformation cruds: The Diem cables—Did they exist or not? That's all that ever had to be said. Intelligent people of integrity can read all the facts in context and reach their own conclusions. Any more effluvium by babbling semi-literate pinheads telling you a dash means the same thing as a comma, or that a "typo" consists of hitting keys that are three inches apart on the keyboard, is nothing whatsoever but a transparent sabotaging attempt to keep the forum in constant foment, and to distract attention from the still burning questions in this thread waiting for Godot. I'm sorry, that was a typo: waiting for Mr. Caddy. And now that the thread is back on topic, here is the exact question I had posted for Mr. Caddy that, curiously, set off the latest round of frantic billows of smoke: I have a suggestion from a source I'm not entirely sure about that J. Edgar Hoover wasn't the only surprise package in a suit who was Director of a major national agency: that Richard McGarrah Helms also had eclectic, even exotic, interests, which were the best kept secret CIA has ever had. Do you have any similar information or knowledge? Ashton Gray Edited July 10, 2006 by Ashton Gray Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. Raymond Carroll Posted July 11, 2006 Share Posted July 11, 2006 (edited) I have a suggestion from a source I'm not entirely sure about that J. Edgar Hoover wasn't the only surprise package in a suit who was Director of a major national agency: that Richard McGarrah Helms also had eclectic, even exotic, interests, which were the best kept secret CIA has ever had. Do you have any similar information or knowledge?Ashton Gray There is no foundation for this question to Mr. Caddy. There is no evidence that Mr. Caddy ever met Richard Helms, or moved in the same social circles as Helms, and there is no evidence (unless you want to rely on the fallacy of guilt by association, as Mr. Gray -- being prone to fallacious reasoning generally -- seems to do), that Mr. Caddy was a CIA agent or asset. So if Mr. Gray wants to pursue his prurient interests, he should make inquiries of someone besides Mr. Caddy. As the Sufi said to the pilgrim: "O traveller! I fear you will never reach Mecca, for you are on the road to Turkestan. Edited July 11, 2006 by J. Raymond Carroll Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashton Gray Posted July 11, 2006 Share Posted July 11, 2006 I realized a marvelous oversight on my part: I have questions for Douglas Caddy lying fallow for weeks in the Watergate forum—since he is central to Watergate and was a mere apprentice to Rockefeller during the Kennedy assassination—yet the "Questions for Douglas Caddy" topic is in the JFK forum, for reasons I can't fathom. And I have never posted these questions in this most appropriately titled thread. So, on the "when in Rome" principle, I'm posting below the 52 questions I have asked Mr. Caddy in one of the topics I started in the Watergate forum: Who was Douglas Caddy Representing, and When? While many of these questions go, obviously, directly to who Mr. Caddy was representing—and, very importantly, when he was representing who—several of them also go to a possible, and in my view very likely, hidden link between Mr. Caddy and CIA—which he has steadfastly denied, which denials I understand some to accept at face value. This particular set of 52 questions have been sitting in the Watergate forum now for over two weeks, and Douglas Caddy—though central to Watergate, and central to every last one of these 52 questions—has not deigned to answer a single one. Not one. Contrary to any claims to the contrary, Mr. Caddy has not ever, in any of his scripted meanderings, answered any of these 52 specific questions. If he had, I wouldn't have asked them. He hasn't. Period. And rumors of my hostility have been greatly exaggerated. As anyone with a grain of sense or probity will see immediately, the questions below harbor no enmity. They are uncompromising. They are unvarnished. They are direct. They do not play pat-a-cake with a pat, rote script that can be regurgitated. In fact, they pierce any such pussyfooting. But they are fair questions. They are reasonable questions. They are questions that should be answered. Mr. Caddy is flanked by two magpie mouthpieces in this forum who leap, on cue, to his defense every time these and other tough questions are posed to him, and throw every deranged excuse, pretext, whitewash, and fly-blown evasion they can dream up to keep Mr. Caddy from facing the questions. The questions stand. With that: This message combines all the questions I asked Douglas Caddy in three separate messages at the beginning of the above captioned thread. The questions arise out of clear contradictions and omissions in the record regarding when and under what circumstances Mr. Caddy purportedly was hired to represent various actors in Watergate. In the original three messages where these questions reside, I include comparative testimony and accounts on these events from Douglas Caddy, E. Howard Hunt, and G. Gordon Liddy, which clearly demonstrate significant contradictions. I recommend reading those articles for a better understanding of the questions and the exact contradictions that are addressed. Quite a few of the questions below go to those contradictions. There is a fundamental principal at work: when two "facts" are contradictory, one is false, or both are false. Both can't be true. Both might be false. To assume either is true is a fool's game. (We are honored to have a grand master of that game in this thread. He also styles himself as a masterful critic of questions. And where would civilization be today without someone to keep a constant vigilant watch on questions?) On other important points, the record is silent, and I have asked some questions in an effort to solicit the cooperation of Mr. Caddy, with his unique percipient knowledge, to provide information to fill in those gaps. QUESTIONS FOR DOUGLAS CADDY SET I These questions arise from the article containing Douglas Caddy's own statements and accounts of events related to Watergate, in which there are contradictions and incongruous events that seem to have no explanation (such as knowing which aliases the arrested men had given to police, or knowing what Liddy's role had been in order to brief Caddy's law partner). Since the five men were using aliases with the police, and there is no record of Hunt or Liddy having given you the aliases, how did you and Rafferty know what names to look for on the arraignment sheet, and which names to use when making phone calls to find the men? How were you able to brief Robert Scott on Liddy's role in the break-in? Did you or did you not receive a telephone call from Bernard Barker's wife asking you to represent her husband and the other men? If so, what time was it and where were you when you received the phone call? Did E. Howard Hunt tell you at your apartment that Bernard Barker's wife was going to call you? If Rafferty was the attorney of record, why were you called before the grand jury as the attorney for the men? Was Rafferty called before the grand jury, too? If not, why not? Were you in the court on June 17, 1972 as an attorney or only "as an individual"? You reportedly told Woodward at the courtroom that the men were not your clients. Was that true or false? In your 10:30 a.m. meeting with the five men inside the cell block, did you properly disclose to each of them that you were not a criminal lawyer but a corporate lawyer? Since you were not a criminal lawyer, and Rafferty was, why did you stay on the case at all? On June 17, 1972, did you subscribe any permanent record, file, pleading, notice of appearance, or any other instrument related to the case for any or all of the men? If so, what? At any relevant time, were you acting as an "Attorney in fact" on behalf of E. Howard Hunt and/or G. Gordon Liddy, and if so, did you have an instrument granting you a power of attorney for either of them or both? If Rafferty was the attorney of record and was the criminal lawyer on the case, why did he get $2,500 while you got $6,000? QUESTIONS FOR DOUGLAS CADDY SET II These questions encompass and compare Hunt's account and Mr. Caddy's own accounts and statements, addressing not only contradictions in the various accounts, but also omissions of information that reasonably would be expected to be in the record, without which certain claims, statements, and event simply make little or no sense. As in all cases, I'm not foolish or naive enough to make the rash assumption that either of two conflicting "facts" automatically is true. Nor do I assume that one has to be false. One might be true. If two or more people are lying to cover up the truth, though, obviously all "facts" they present will be false, and the truth remains an unknown. I'm trying to get to the truth. You said in your accounts that two of your law firm's partners were out of town that morning and only one was available: Robert Scott. Hunt says that you told him that one partner was out of town and that you had spoken to two partners on the phone, and that as a consequence you had said to Hunt, "I'll tell you one thing, Howard, my partners [plural] certainly don't like my being involved in this thing." Which of these mutually exclusive accounts, if any, is true? Why did you alter the time that Hunt had supplied for his phone call to you when you supposedly "quoted" Hunt at the beginning of your article, "Gay Bashing in Watergate"? Did the purported call from Hunt to you come at 2:13 a.m. or at 3:13 a.m. on the morning of June 17, 1972—if at all? Since the burglars couldn't have been "caught" unless the first wave of law enforcement had been plain-clothes men in unmarked cars, in your due diligence for your clients, what did you discover concerning this bizarre police response for a reported burglary in progress? What section, division, department, or unit of the D.C. police were these plain-clothes first responders part of? Did Hunt in fact tell you that you likely would be getting a call from Bernard Barker's wife? Did you ever receive such a call—as you told the Washington Post—and if so, where were you and what time was it? Hunt's account says not a word about any conversation with G. Gordon Liddy during his entire time at your apartment, and implies very strongly that neither he nor you had any contact at all with Liddy at all the entire time that Hunt was at your apartment, going so far as to say: "Thinking of Liddy, I said [to Douglas Caddy], 'There may be some calls for me tonight, and home is the only place I could be reached.'" You claim contrarily that both you and Hunt spoke to Liddy at some length on the telephone between 4:45 a.m. and 5:00 a.m., during which conversation you claim that Liddy told you that he wanted you to represent him. Which of these contradictory accounts, if any, is true? Hunt only claims to have given you aliases used by only two men: Bernard Barker, and another (McCord) who Hunt purportedly only described to you as "another man-who works for CREP." How did you get the aliases that the other men were using in order that you and Rafferty could locate them downtown? How were you able to do legal work for John Dean and G. Gordon Liddy beginning in March 1972 without ever encountering, meeting, or knowing of the Chief of Security for CREEP, James McCord? Hunt purportedly gave you the name "George Leonard" as the alias being used by McCord. That is the alias that had been used by G. Gordon Liddy at all other relevant times. When doing what you have described as minor legal research for Liddy beginning in March 1972, did you know Liddy as G. Gordon Liddy or as George Leonard? (Note: this question is asked despite Hunt's own self-conflicting accounts of who had which aliases.) Referring to your due diligence for your clients, what had Hunt done with the antenna he purportedly had stuffed down his pants leg? Referring to your due diligence for your clients, why was there purported "surplus electronic gear" in the temporary "command post" room with Hunt and Liddy? Referring to your due diligence for your clients, when did you learn that Hunt had stashed incriminating "surplus electronic gear" in his White House safe, and did you advise him to leave it there? Given that you had worked for John Dean beginning in March 1972; given that as an extension of that work did work for Liddy; given that you purportedly had been advised that Liddy was involved; given that Hunt says that Dean was in town at the time, did you contact John Dean that morning, and if not, why not? Referring to your due diligence for your clients, isn't it true that all "documentation" for every one of the aliases for every one of the participants had originated at CIA? Did you at any time put into the record the origins of the fake I.D.s used by the participants? Isn't it true the fake I.D.s supplied by Hunt to certain participants included not one, but two, different I.D.s that CIA had supplied to Hunt (in addition to a separate one that had been supplied by CIA to Liddy)? Can you list the exact aliases that the participants had supplied to the police that morning, linking each to the real names? Did you wait for Rafferty to come to your apartment, or did you meet Rafferty elsewhere? Had you ever seen or met James McCord prior to seeing him in the cell block? If so, when, where, and under what circumstances? What became of the tapes from the recording system that had been installed in Hunt's White House office on or about July 9, 1971? Had you ever met with Hunt in that office? Hunt, in telling you the men had been arrested, claims to have said to you: "You know one of them, Bernie Barker." Is that how it happened? Hunt says he never saw you again after he left your apartment. How did you manage to avoid ever encountering him throughout all the subsequent legal actions? Exactly when and under what circumstances did you stop representing each of the seven people that you have both claimed, and denied to the press, as having represented? QUESTIONS FOR DOUGLAS CADDY SET III The questions below arise out of comparisons of all three accounts—Caddy's, Hunt's, and Liddy's. See also questions posed above. While these questions address some inconsitencies and contradictions, they also address omissions in the record related to crucially important issues. Liddy is very specific about the time of a purported call to him from your apartment, Mr. Caddy: 5:00 a.m. He says that he made a point of the time to Hunt. You have said the call took place 15 minutes earlier, around 4:45, and that Hunt left your apartment right around 5:00 a.m., just when Liddy says Hunt was placing a call to Liddy. Hunt mentions nothing about any call at all to Liddy from your apartment, and implies strongly that he wasn't in touch with Liddy at all that morning at your apartment. Did such a call actually take place, and if you say it did, which time is correct? Liddy claims that Hunt asked Liddy's permission after 5:00 a.m., on the phone, to give you the $8,500. Hunt claims that he gave you the $8,500 just after arriving at your apartment, which you say happened at 3:35 a.m.—well before either the disputed 4:45 or 5:00 a.m. time of a purported phone call to Liddy. Hunt says nothing about any call at all to Liddy, much less about asking Liddy's permission to give you that fee. Yet according to Liddy's appelate court ruling, you testified that Hunt gave you the money only after talking to Liddy and getting approval. Which, if any, of these contrary accounts is true? The appelate court ruling says Hunt called you from room 723 of the Howard Johnson's motel. Hunt says he called you from his White House office. You testified that the call came about a half hour before Hunt arrived at your apartment, which you say happened at 3:35 a.m., placing the phone call at approximately 3:05 a.m. You also say that your apartment was only about a mile away from the Watergate. Where did Hunt call you from, and can you account for why it took Hunt half an hour to get there? Why did you allow your clients, the break-in team, to incriminate themselves and each other on additional counts for a purported "first break-in," when there was no physical evidence that could have incriminated them for additional counts, or even have made anybody aware that any purported "first break-in" had occurred at all? Did you advise your clients to so incriminate themselves and each other by telling the "first break-in" stories? If so, why? Going to your due diligence, did you advise your clients of a sweep by the phone company that had been done just days before they were "caught" inside the Watergate, evidence that would have exculpated them from self-incrimination and mutual incrimination on additional criminal liability for any such "first break-in" and planting of alleged "bugs" that were not present? If not, why not? Given that G. Gordon Liddy was your client, and that he personally had destroyed the physical evidence that might, or might not, have incriminated your other clients for any such purported "first break-in," did you advise the "break-in team" that Liddy had destroyed that evidence? If not, why not? Did you establish beyond a reasonable doubt, to your own satisfaction, that any purported "first break-in" had taken place at all over Memorial Day weekend? If you did, how did you? Did you actually know, at any relevant time, that no such "first break-in" had occurred at all? Are you currently participating in a continuing, knowing cover-up of the fact that there was no "first break-in" at the Watergate? Do you have any actual proof or physical evidence of the whereabouts and activities of E. Howard Hunt, G. Gordon Liddy, James McCord, and Alfred Baldwin, III over Memorial Day weekend—May 26, 27, and 28 1972? Was there a fraud upon the courts, upon Congress, and upon the people of the United States with the knowing intent to deceive regarding a purported "first break-in"? If there was such a fraud, given its consequences on the Office of the President—who is Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces—and given its consequences on the Congress—who has war powers—and given that the United States actively was engaged in war at the time, does this rise to USC 18 §2381, Treason? If you know. UPDATE: Given that the resident Questions Exorcist is an attorney and I am not, and given that he has invoked the Great Gods of Privilege with his mystic incantations on behalf of Mr. Caddy (which he has no standing to do), I am including below several points from my entirely lay understanding of the subject as they may or may not be relevant to all the foregoing, with the express caveat that this doesn't remotely pretend to be legal advice or opinion, but only my own personal opinion from my limited lay knowledge: The party seeking the protection of the privilege must be an actual or prospective client. The purported early-morning discussions between Hunt, Liddy, and Caddy therefore invoked no privilege vis a vis the five burglars unless Hunt and/or Liddy already, themselves, were legally established as agents for any or all of them. Even then, see "disclosure to third parties," below. The communication must be between the client and an attorney acting as counsel for the client. The communication must be made in confidence, outside the presence of third parties. "Public" communications are not protected. Every question I have asked is pursuant to public communications from Caddy, Hunt, and Liddy. The purpose of the communication must be to secure or provide an opinion of law or legal assistance. The privilege does not protect the underlying facts, general legal discussions, business or other non-legal advice. Please note that during the afternoon of June 17, 1972, Caddy is on public record saying that the burglars are "not my clients." I'm even trying to ascertain, first, whether that was true or an extraordinary public lie. If it were true, then there is no privilege to claim. The privilege must be asserted. The privilege does not automatically attach, and it must be claimed at the time of demand by a third party. Pretty much all of the questions I've asked have not been asked before, and no privilege has been asserted for them. The privilege is easily lost or "waived" by disclosures to third parties. The privilege can be lost by voluntary disclosure. Also, involuntary or accidental disclosure may destroy the privilege. Everything I've asked about is pursuant to exactly such public disclosures. The privilege does not attach to communications in furtherance of an ongoing or prospective illegal activity. In addition, the privilege does not apply when an attorney defends himself or herself against charges of wrongful conduct. There is ample suggestion in the record, to me, of wrongful and even incompetent conduct, and I'm trying to get those impressions cleared away. I would think Mr. Caddy would be enthusiastically helpful in doing just that. Ashton Gray Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashton Gray Posted July 11, 2006 Share Posted July 11, 2006 Here is the relevant section of a message of mine that also is in the Who Was Douglas Caddy Representing, and When? topic. It expands upon, and asks even more specific questions about, a purported telephone call from Bernard Barker's wife to Douglas Caddy at a disputed time in the early morning hours of June 17, 1972. These are other pertinent, material questions of relevant fact concerning Mr. Caddy's claims about his participation in Watergate. He has evaded answering them for weeks. He won't answer these simple questions to clear the contradictions from the record. Maybe some of you would care to ask him why he won't address this. Although it's not thoroughly covered here, but has been elsewhere in the Wategate forum, when Mr. Caddy quoted E. Howard Hunt's biography in his own article, "Gay Bashing and Watergate," he changed Hunt's time for Hunt's purported call to Caddy on the morning of June 17, 1972 from "0213" (2:13 a.m.) to "3:15" a.m. without explanation. That's why I use the following language: "E. Howard Hunt says in your article..." regarding the purported phone call from Hunt to Caddy. Here's the message to Douglas Caddy: In regard to the matter of my telephone conversations with the wife of Bernard Barker in the early days of Watergate, I already covered this subject in my posting of Feb. 6, 2006, which can be found in the Douglas Caddy: Question and Answer thread. Actually, Mr. Caddy, I already was entirely familiar with what you had written in the thread you reference long before I posted a single question to you. The thread, by the way, is not titled "Douglas Caddy: Question and Answer." That's very imprecise language for an attorney. The thread is in the "JFK Assassination Debate" forum, and is entitled "Questions for Douglas Caddy." If you actually want people to be able to find what you said when you send them off somewhere else instead of answering a question, it might do them a considerable service to tell them the correct place to go. The one and only thing you said about Mrs. Barker in that other thread is not at all responsive to any questions I have asked about the purported phone call from Mrs. Barker that you have said you received from her shortly after 3:00 a.m. on the morning of June 17, 1972, and therefore is not responsive to Mr. Speer's civilized, reasonable suggestion that you answer a few of my questions on that specific point. In fact, not only is what you wrote there not responsive, it regretably adds yet another layer of confusion to the facts at issue. In that thread, you wrote the following: DOUGLAS CADDY: "I did talk to Mrs. Barker several times in the days immediately following her husband's arrest, primarily about providing security for bail to get him out of jail. With her permission I publicly alluded to these calls in order to provide an excuse for my showing up at the jail on the day of the arrests without having received a telephone call from any of those arrested."Thank you. The one (singular) specific call that you "publicly alluded to in order to provide an excuse" for your showing up at the jail on the day of the arrests is the one (singular) call that you told reporters from the Washington Post about on that very day, as reported in the Post, later repeated in "All the Presiden't Men." I quote: "Douglas Caddy, one of the attorneys for the five men, told a reporter that shortly after 3 a.m. yesterday [June 17, 1972], he received a call from Barker's wife. 'She said that her husband told her to call me if he hadn't called her by 3 a.m.: that it might mean he was in trouble.'" —The Washington Post June 18, 1972: "5 Held in Plot to Bug Democrats' Office Here"The same thing is repeated in "All the President's Men": "Caddy said he'd gotten a call shortly after 3:00 A.M. from Barker's wife. "She said her husband had told her to call me if he hadn't called her by three, that it might mean he was in trouble." —All the Presiden't Men, Woodward and BernsteinThese accounts of that one (singular) crucial phone call have stood for 34 years in these seminal references on Watergate, uncontested by you. In the post in that other thread you cited, which I have quoted above, you say that you had talked to Mrs. Barker "several times" (plural). That's fine. I have no idea what relevance the other conversations have to the one—and only one—specific phone call that you unquestionably "publicly alluded to" in order to "provide an excuse" for your having shown up "at the jail on the day of the arrests without having received a telephone call from any of those arrested." There is only one phone call anywhere in the available record that fits that description. One. That's the one I've been trying for some time now to get a few simple answers about, which even Mr. Speer has asked you to answer, and still no answers are forthcoming to the very pertinent questions that arise about that one purported phone call. The reasons the perfectly reasonable and logical questions, still unanswered, have been asked repeatedly now by several people, in many ways, is because you, yourself, told reporters that Mrs. Barker's call had come to you "shortly after 3:00 a.m." on the morning of June 17, 1972, specifically because her husband had given that time as a cut-off time by which she should become concerned, and specifically because Bernard Barker had given her your name and phone number as the person to call in that event. And very relevant to all the foregoing, there are these facts of record: You have testified under oath that you received a telephone call from E. Howard Hunt "between 3:05 a.m. and 3:15 a.m." on that same morning of June 17, 1972, and have testified that he arrived at your apartment at 3:35 a.m. that morning. E. Howard Hunt says in your article that his call to you that morning was made at 3:13 a.m. In that conversation, neither you or Hunt make any reference to any call from Mrs. Barker, and Hunt apologizes for having woken you up. In his autobiography, Hunt says that after speaking to you at 3:13 a.m. and securing his White House office, he then left his White House office and went across the street to his office at Mullen, and there placed a call to Mrs. Barker, who he says "shrieked" at the news of her husband's arrest. It had to be at least 3:20 a.m. by the time Hunt placed the call to Mrs. Barker. Hunt says that during that call he, not Bernard Barker, is the one who gave your name and phone number to Mrs. Barker. He says exactly: "I gave her Caddy's name and telephone number and asked that she phone Doug and retain him for her husband." You, on the other hand, told the Washington Post that Bernard Barker had told his wife to call you if she hadn't heard from him by 3:00 a.m., because it would "mean he was in trouble." Yet by as late as 3:20 a.m., or even later, apparently she hadn't been concerned enough to call anyone, and she got the news about the arrest delivered to her by E. Howard Hunt. According to Hunt, she had no idea that there had been any trouble. In Hunt's account of his purported conversation with Mrs. Barker, where Hunt gives her your name and number, she gives no indication at all of knowing anything about you, or of already having your name or your phone number, or of having been told to call you by her husband, Bernard Barker. Despite the above, you told the Post that she had your contact information from Bernard Barker, not Hunt. You gave that to the Post (purportedly with her permission) as your entire motive for having been present at all: an early morning call shortly after 3:00 a.m., from a concerned woman in Miami that you didn't know, telling you—a corporate attorney—that she thought her husband "might be in trouble" somewhere in Washington, D.C. What the nature of such trouble might be, or even where in Washington, D.C. he might be, presumably neither you nor she knew the slightest thing about. In your accounts, and in Hunt's accounts, there is no mention of any call from Mrs. Barker at all during the entire time Hunt was at your apartment, which you have said under oath was from 3:35 a.m. to 5:00 a.m. In Hunt's account, he says that at some unspecified time after he arrived at your apartment—which you have testified was not until 3:35 a.m.—he told you the following: "Bernie Barker's wife will probably call you and retain you officially to represent her husband and the other men." He says you didn't respond, only looked at your watch, and went off to call your law firm partner. (Or partners, since your accounts differ on that point, too, which I've covered in another thread.) Obviously, Mr. Caddy, these accounts conflict. I think any reasonable and rational person would be perfectly justified in attempting to get the conflicting accounts resolved in some direction for the sake of historical accuracy, specifically in wanting to ascertain: 1) Did Mrs. Barker actually phone you "shortly after 3:00 a.m." on the morning of June 17, 1972, as you told the Washington Post? 2) If Mrs. Barker did call you "shortly after 3:00 a.m.," did her call come before or after Hunt called you? (His call came at 3:13 a.m., according to your own article, "Gay Bashing in Watergate.") 3) If Mrs. Barker already had called you by 3:13 a.m. (when Hunt called you), why did you not tell Hunt when he called you, and why does your own article say that Hunt woke you? 4) If Mrs. Barker already had called you by the time Hunt purportedly called her and gave her your name and number—around or after 3:20 a.m.—do you have any way to account for her surprise that her husband was in trouble, or for her not telling Hunt she already had your name and number from her husband and already had called you? 5) If Mrs. Barker didn't call you until after Hunt's purported call to her at 3:20 a.m., did she tell you that Hunt had recently called her and given her your name and number and had said to call you, or did she tell you that her husband had given her your contact information and had said to call you—as you told the Washington Post? 6) E. Howard Hunt says Mrs. Barker asked him on the phone if she should call you from her home, and that he said to her: "No. Go to a pay telephone and do it." Did Mrs. Barker call you from her home, or had she gotten up, gotten dressed, and gone out to a phone booth, as Hunt says he told her to do? 7) You also said to the Washington Post that you simply had met Bernard Barker "a year ago over cocktails at the Army Navy Club in Washington." You have said this was the one and only time you had met Barker before June 17, 1972. Do you have any knowledge or understanding of why he would have had your name and number at all a year after that brief encounter, or why he would have given it to his wife as an emergency contact in a distant town without having made prior arrangements with you? 8) If Mrs. Barker called you before Hunt arrived at your apartment at 3:35 a.m., why did Hunt tell you the following when he was there with you: "Bernie Barker's wife will probably call you and retain you officially to represent her husband and the other men," and why did you say nothing in response? 9) If Mrs. Barker instead had not called you by 3:35 a.m., when Hunt arrived, did she not call you until after Hunt had left at 5:00 a.m.? If so, why did you tell the Post that her call had been received by you "shortly after 3:00 a.m."? 10) Is it, in fact, your position—as it appears—that an unknown woman called you out of the blue shortly after 3:00 a.m. on a Saturday morning, and said she was calling from Miami, and said that her husband had told her he had only met you over cocktails in a club a year before, but had told her to give you a call if she hadn't heard from him by 3:00 a.m. because he might be in some unknown kind of trouble at some unknown location in Washginton D.C., and that after hearing that at 3:00 o'clock in the morning, you did not slam down your phone and go back to sleep? These are perfectly valid and reasonable questions, Mr. Caddy. They are obvious questions arising from your own statements. They are perfectly logical questions. Some of them have already been expressed in earlier threads, some implied, but there they are. Your character isn't being assassinated by being asked straightforward questions about your own assertions of fact. Perhaps it isn't enough of the celebrity treatment to suit you, but speaking just personally, I didn't come to this forum for celebrity fawning, Mr. Caddy; I came here to read and discuss historical fact, and to sort fact from the fiction. I can assure you that if persons who have direct knowledge of historical events... 'Scuse me: the exact problem is that we have two completely different sets of purported "historical events" trying to occupy the same place at the same time in the instant case, Mr. Caddy: yours and Hunt's. That doesn't work in this universe. One set, or both sets, are not "historical events" at all, but "historical fictions." You have your own responsibility for both conflicting sets having equal "authority," since you have endorsed Hunt's account yourself by incorporating part of it into your own. How else can anyone hope to pull such taffy apart without asking reasonable questions? Ashton Gray Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawn Meredith Posted July 11, 2006 Share Posted July 11, 2006 I don't know where you've been, but Hunt testified under oath more than 30 years ago that, throughout his time working in the White house, he was reporting to Richard Helms through an intermediary at CIA Now, this is not a reply to Mr. Carroll, because I would not tell him the directions to Hades if he had nowhere else to go, and a hot date waiting there. I've yet to see him contribute any single thing of substance; apparently he is far too busy authoring sideline carping criticisms of other people's hard-won contributions, while back-channel tag-teaming (I've got it on record in the Diem cables thread in the Watergate forum) with Pat Speer, who posted sworn testimony there that he had subtley fudged to suit his own purposes (I've got it on record in the Diem cables thread). Ashton Gray Anyone interested in seeing how something as exotic as an agent/provocateur, or something as banal as an internet xxxxx, behaves, should just sit back and read Mr. Gray's posts. He couldn't counter that Colson testified to having been aware of the creation of the cables, so he decided to attack me as having mis-typed something on purpose. Simply amazing. When a man commits a crime, and admits to it, and multiple witnesses acknowledge they either witnessed the crime or it's being covered up, and NO ONE who knows the admitted criminal or the witnesses has the least bit doubt the crime occurred, it is simply wacky to decide the crime never occurred. Since Ashton has theorized this non-crime was invented to damage Nixon, perhaps he can show us how this non-crime damaged Nixon, as none of the men involved in the commission of this crime ever testified to Nixon having any knowledge of the crime or its cover-up. Perhaps he also can explain why inventing a story about faked cables was so much easier than actually creating fake cables. Pat: When I first came on this forum I actually thought you and Ray Carroll were intelligent, honorable men. I still believe you both to be intelligent. However, these days the two of you are making the antics of Tim Gratz look like those of a Sunday school teacher. Isn't there something more interesting for you boys to post on than Ashton? This is truley getting old. As well as terribly boring. Just mho here. Dawn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. Raymond Carroll Posted July 12, 2006 Share Posted July 12, 2006 (edited) I don't know where you've been, but Hunt testified under oath more than 30 years ago that, throughout his time working in the White house, he was reporting to Richard Helms through an intermediary at CIA Now, this is not a reply to Mr. Carroll, because I would not tell him the directions to Hades if he had nowhere else to go, and a hot date waiting there. Mr. Gray seems confident that he knows the road to Hades (like the back of his hand, no doubt), so I appreciate his acknowledgement that I, on the other hand, would have to ask directions, assuming I wanted to follow him there (which I do not). apparently he is far too busy ..... back-channel tag-teaming (I've got it on record in the Diem cables thread in the Watergate forum) with Pat Speer... I asked Pat Speer, first via the forum, later via PM, to post Colson's testimony. When Mr. Speer advised he did not have it, I addressed the same question to Ashton Gray. Mr. Gray refused point-blank to post Colson's testimony. That is my total experience in back-channel tag-teaming. If I did not think so highly of Mr. Gray, I might suspect that the reason he refused to post Colson's testimony is because it does not help his daft theory about the Diem forgeries I'd like you to note that Mr. Carroll doesn't quote any relevant testimony. He just tells you about it with his interpretation. Ah Ha, It seems I am now the one who has access to some obscure but highly relevant testimony that Mr. Gray, despite his vast knowledge of matters Wategate, had never heard of until he heard about it from me. The beauty is that this testimony actually supports Mr. Gray's own theory (and my own too, even though my theory is simpler than Mr. Gray's -- fewer assumptions, Ockham's razor and all that) . It's too bad that Mr. Gray refused to post the Colson testimony I requested, for if he had just shown me that little courtesy, I would now be morally obligated to share Hunt's little-known testimony with Mr. Gray. As things stand, I feel no such obligation. This is part of his pro-CIA disinformation technique, and that's exactly what it is. He, of course, will deny this. Ashton Gray Actually, I won't bother. We have already established that it is Ashton Gray, alone among the two of us, who has ever been down the road to Hades Edited July 12, 2006 by J. Raymond Carroll Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashton Gray Posted July 12, 2006 Share Posted July 12, 2006 (edited) By my count I have 63 pertinent and relevant questions in this thread for Mr. Caddy. There is no hostility in them. There is no antagonism. There is no attempted character assassination, as he has accused me of. Yet this very day he found time to go over to the Watergate forum and post a very clear and unmistakable attempt at character assassination against me, one which has absolutely nothing to do with Watergate and has absolutely no relevance to the purposes of these forums at all. Just innuendo, smear, privacy invasion, coy suggestions, smear, smear, smear. While finding time to attempt to smear me, he can't find time to answer any of 63 questions going directly to contradictions in his own statements and claims and testimony concerning Watergate, all of which actually is relevant to the purposes of these forums, and directly relevant to and on-topic for the subject title of this thread. So it isn't that he's gone away. He's just busy trying to get me to go away. I find that a very peculiar use of his time when 63 questions have been presented to him. The questions aren't going away. The questions are valid. The questions are waiting for answers. Why won't you answer them, Mr. Caddy? Why are you doing everything you possibly can dream up to get rid of me and evade the questions? Ashton Gray Edited July 12, 2006 by Ashton Gray Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Mauro Posted July 12, 2006 Share Posted July 12, 2006 I don't know where you've been, but Hunt testified under oath more than 30 years ago that, throughout his time working in the White house, he was reporting to Richard Helms through an intermediary at CIA Now, this is not a reply to Mr. Carroll, because I would not tell him the directions to Hades if he had nowhere else to go, and a hot date waiting there. I've yet to see him contribute any single thing of substance; apparently he is far too busy authoring sideline carping criticisms of other people's hard-won contributions, while back-channel tag-teaming (I've got it on record in the Diem cables thread in the Watergate forum) with Pat Speer, who posted sworn testimony there that he had subtley fudged to suit his own purposes (I've got it on record in the Diem cables thread). Ashton Gray Anyone interested in seeing how something as exotic as an agent/provocateur, or something as banal as an internet xxxxx, behaves, should just sit back and read Mr. Gray's posts. He couldn't counter that Colson testified to having been aware of the creation of the cables, so he decided to attack me as having mis-typed something on purpose. Simply amazing. When a man commits a crime, and admits to it, and multiple witnesses acknowledge they either witnessed the crime or it's being covered up, and NO ONE who knows the admitted criminal or the witnesses has the least bit doubt the crime occurred, it is simply wacky to decide the crime never occurred. Since Ashton has theorized this non-crime was invented to damage Nixon, perhaps he can show us how this non-crime damaged Nixon, as none of the men involved in the commission of this crime ever testified to Nixon having any knowledge of the crime or its cover-up. Perhaps he also can explain why inventing a story about faked cables was so much easier than actually creating fake cables. ___________________________________________________________ When a man commits a crime, and admits to it, and multiple witnesses acknowledge they either witnessed the crime or it's being covered up, and NO ONE who knows the admitted criminal or the witnesses has the least bit doubt the crime occurred, it is simply wacky to decide the crime never occurred. Since Ashton has theorized this non-crime was invented to damage Nixon, perhaps he can show us how this non-crime damaged Nixon, as none of the men involved in the commission of this crime ever testified to Nixon having any knowledge of the crime or its cover-up. Perhaps he also can explain why inventing a story about faked cables was so much easier than actually creating fake cables. Sunday, 18 June 1972* The Washtington Post breaks its first story on the Watergate break-in, all planned and timed to be released on Sunday, the biggest newspaper circulation day. Despite Woodward having called Hunt the morning before to tell Hunt that the trap had been set, and despite other news sources naming Hunt, there is no mention of E. Howard Hunt in their Sunday lead story. There is, though, mention of James McCord's background with CIA. And most importantly for what is to come, there is mention of the burglars having "almost $2,300 in cash, most of it in $100 bills with the serial numbers in sequence." [NOTE: The Washtington Post will incrementally build the CIA links, then will be the propaganda mouthpiece to perfect the CIA bait-and-switch.] * Although his home supposedly is "under seige" by reporters, the following is what Hunt does according to his autobiography: "Sunday morning I left the house early and drove to the Old Executive Office Building [EOB—adjacent to the White House]. I entered it as before [showing his White House credentials], went to my office and opened my safe. I put the contents of the two attaché cases [that Hunt had left on the floor of the office after the "arrests", containing McCord's "surplus electronics equipment"] into my safe and locked it again, removing the two empty attaché cases from the office and taking them home. As I drove into my property, I could see television cameras stationed on River Road. Reporters followed my car up the drive on foot but I asked them to leave." For any serious student of Watergate, I could end this timeline right here on this utterly incredible note, and you would easily know or could figure out the rest. You will already know that Hunt's safe purportedly is booby-trapped at the time with the (fictional) forged "Diem cables" that supposedly have been sitting there uselessly for eight months. But these non-existent "fabricated cables" are only one more layer of the criminal CIA hoax, which later will further hobble the Presidency in riveting spotlighted melodrama. See The Diem Cables: Did They Exist or Not for full exposure of that part of the criminal CIA black operation on the Presidency. So on this date, with his name purportedly already in lights (but see Part II), Hunt goes to his White House office for no other purpose than to further "load" his White House safe with incriminating "evidence" against the White House, then walk out with two now empty briefcases that had contained that electronic "evidence" (which never existed for any other purpose than to incriminate the White House in the first place). Empty. The brazen intentional planting of the "evidence" in the safe alone is the act of the most craven criminal mind that can be conceived. The timing of the act bespeaks complete knowing "in your face" immunity being provided to Hunt by CIA. To then layer upon it the straight-razor cuts of an "admission" (made long after the fact) of having walked away with two empty briefcases that easily could have carried away all purported incriminating "evidence" against the White House simply is an act of vicious sadism. There is no other possible explanation. But Hunt still is not done. He will want to rub salt, now, into the razor cuts. And so we come to the events of Monday, 19 June 1972, and the entrance of John Dean and L. Patrick Gray into the willful sabotage of the Presidency during time of war. Continued in the next article: PART II: The CIA Watergate Bait-And-Switch—19 June 1972 Ashton Gray So what don't you see here, Pat? It seems pretty cut and dry, to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hogan Posted July 12, 2006 Share Posted July 12, 2006 (edited) J. Raymond Carroll writes: "Mr. Gray seems confident that he knows the road to Hades...." And, as a three hour afterthought, Carroll adds this parting shot to his post: "We have already established that it is Ashton Gray, alone among the two of us, who has ever been down the road to Hades." Seems like it is Carroll, and Carroll alone that is aware that there is a "road" leading to Hades. When a person has to wait almost 3 hours to add such a petty final statement to their post.......It just confirms what John and Dawn have been saying, and many others have been thinking. Edited July 12, 2006 by Michael Hogan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted July 12, 2006 Share Posted July 12, 2006 (edited) I don't know where you've been, but Hunt testified under oath more than 30 years ago that, throughout his time working in the White house, he was reporting to Richard Helms through an intermediary at CIA Now, this is not a reply to Mr. Carroll, because I would not tell him the directions to Hades if he had nowhere else to go, and a hot date waiting there. I've yet to see him contribute any single thing of substance; apparently he is far too busy authoring sideline carping criticisms of other people's hard-won contributions, while back-channel tag-teaming (I've got it on record in the Diem cables thread in the Watergate forum) with Pat Speer, who posted sworn testimony there that he had subtley fudged to suit his own purposes (I've got it on record in the Diem cables thread). Ashton Gray Anyone interested in seeing how something as exotic as an agent/provocateur, or something as banal as an internet xxxxx, behaves, should just sit back and read Mr. Gray's posts. He couldn't counter that Colson testified to having been aware of the creation of the cables, so he decided to attack me as having mis-typed something on purpose. Simply amazing. When a man commits a crime, and admits to it, and multiple witnesses acknowledge they either witnessed the crime or it's being covered up, and NO ONE who knows the admitted criminal or the witnesses has the least bit doubt the crime occurred, it is simply wacky to decide the crime never occurred. Since Ashton has theorized this non-crime was invented to damage Nixon, perhaps he can show us how this non-crime damaged Nixon, as none of the men involved in the commission of this crime ever testified to Nixon having any knowledge of the crime or its cover-up. Perhaps he also can explain why inventing a story about faked cables was so much easier than actually creating fake cables. ___________________________________________________________ When a man commits a crime, and admits to it, and multiple witnesses acknowledge they either witnessed the crime or it's being covered up, and NO ONE who knows the admitted criminal or the witnesses has the least bit doubt the crime occurred, it is simply wacky to decide the crime never occurred. Since Ashton has theorized this non-crime was invented to damage Nixon, perhaps he can show us how this non-crime damaged Nixon, as none of the men involved in the commission of this crime ever testified to Nixon having any knowledge of the crime or its cover-up. Perhaps he also can explain why inventing a story about faked cables was so much easier than actually creating fake cables. Sunday, 18 June 1972* The Washtington Post breaks its first story on the Watergate break-in, all planned and timed to be released on Sunday, the biggest newspaper circulation day. Despite Woodward having called Hunt the morning before to tell Hunt that the trap had been set, and despite other news sources naming Hunt, there is no mention of E. Howard Hunt in their Sunday lead story. There is, though, mention of James McCord's background with CIA. And most importantly for what is to come, there is mention of the burglars having "almost $2,300 in cash, most of it in $100 bills with the serial numbers in sequence." [NOTE: The Washtington Post will incrementally build the CIA links, then will be the propaganda mouthpiece to perfect the CIA bait-and-switch.] * Although his home supposedly is "under seige" by reporters, the following is what Hunt does according to his autobiography: "Sunday morning I left the house early and drove to the Old Executive Office Building [EOB—adjacent to the White House]. I entered it as before [showing his White House credentials], went to my office and opened my safe. I put the contents of the two attaché cases [that Hunt had left on the floor of the office after the "arrests", containing McCord's "surplus electronics equipment"] into my safe and locked it again, removing the two empty attaché cases from the office and taking them home. As I drove into my property, I could see television cameras stationed on River Road. Reporters followed my car up the drive on foot but I asked them to leave." For any serious student of Watergate, I could end this timeline right here on this utterly incredible note, and you would easily know or could figure out the rest. You will already know that Hunt's safe purportedly is booby-trapped at the time with the (fictional) forged "Diem cables" that supposedly have been sitting there uselessly for eight months. But these non-existent "fabricated cables" are only one more layer of the criminal CIA hoax, which later will further hobble the Presidency in riveting spotlighted melodrama. See The Diem Cables: Did They Exist or Not for full exposure of that part of the criminal CIA black operation on the Presidency. So on this date, with his name purportedly already in lights (but see Part II), Hunt goes to his White House office for no other purpose than to further "load" his White House safe with incriminating "evidence" against the White House, then walk out with two now empty briefcases that had contained that electronic "evidence" (which never existed for any other purpose than to incriminate the White House in the first place). Empty. The brazen intentional planting of the "evidence" in the safe alone is the act of the most craven criminal mind that can be conceived. The timing of the act bespeaks complete knowing "in your face" immunity being provided to Hunt by CIA. To then layer upon it the straight-razor cuts of an "admission" (made long after the fact) of having walked away with two empty briefcases that easily could have carried away all purported incriminating "evidence" against the White House simply is an act of vicious sadism. There is no other possible explanation. But Hunt still is not done. He will want to rub salt, now, into the razor cuts. And so we come to the events of Monday, 19 June 1972, and the entrance of John Dean and L. Patrick Gray into the willful sabotage of the Presidency during time of war. Continued in the next article: PART II: The CIA Watergate Bait-And-Switch—19 June 1972 Ashton Gray So what don't you see here, Pat? It seems pretty cut and dry, to me. What's cut and dry? I honestly don't get it. From the moment of the arrests Hunt was trying to save his own skin. By putting the evidence in the White House safe, he forced the White House to either destroy the evidence, thereby incriminating themselves, or deny the evidence existed, thereby incriminating themselves. Either way, he had the ability to blackmail them. In the following days, he repeatedly called Colson, and Colson's secretary, trying to force Colson to come to his rescue. Colson, for his part, wrote a memo for the record distancing himself from Hunt's activities. As stated, the Watergate story only makes sense when you understand the characters and the dynamics between them. I don't pretend to understand every aspect or evey element of the story, but know enough to see through Ashton's nonsense. For example, Liddy hated Dean for his disloyalty to Nixon, as proven by Liddy's book and the most recent lawsuit between them, instigated after Liddy publicly theorized that Dean's wife had been a prostitute. In Ashton's world, these men were co-conspirators in bringing down the otherwise-innocent Richard Nixon. This is mind-numbing. P.S. I just looked up to see JOHN DEAN on the Daily Show, complaining about the fascist turn in this country, and criticizing the CIA for its acceptance of torture. Yeah, he's a CIA operative... Get real. Edited July 12, 2006 by Pat Speer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawn Meredith Posted July 12, 2006 Share Posted July 12, 2006 [quote name='Dawn Meredith' date='Jul 10 2006, 02:00 PM' post='67832'] Mr Caddy: I respect you for returning here. Can we all agree on one thing: that the purpose of this forum is to arrive at the truth? It is my sole purpose. And your post above certainly apears to be sincere. I do not know how long you have been reading this forum but I joined in 10/04 and the flaming and name calling drove me away several times. In fact I begged for rules that would later be established regarding the manner in which posters should treat each other. With respect and civility. You do not have to answer anyone's questions here, but I do have a few rather broad ones: 1. Do you believe that the full truth about Watergate was aired during the hearings? 2. Are you personally satisfied the that Dorothy Hunt was killed in an "accident? on 12/8/72? 3. Do you believe that there is a free press in this counrty, uncontrolled by Operation Mockingbird.? 4. If not, do you believe that Bob Woodward is/was an Op Mockingbird journalist? Thank you. If you have covered any of these questions in the past I apologise for any repititon of same. (Most of us do not possess photographic memories, so occassionally I ask a question that has been alreadly dealt with. ) Dawn Dawn: Thank you for asking these questions that are framed in a professional manner. I am pleased to answer them to the best of my ability. (1) Taken as a whole, I think that much of the truth about Watergate was aired during the Watergate Committee hearings. However, two subjects that should have been covered but were omitted were (i) the alterations of my grand jury testimony and the sworn testimony of Alfred Baldwin by the original prosecutors; and (ii) Robert "Butch" Merritt's allegations about how the FBI and the Washington, D.C. police department recruited him as an informant on the activities of the New Left and the gay community and of me as an attorney in Watergate. The lengthy article about Merritt published in the Advocate in 1977 reproduced a photograph of a signed receipt of money given to Merritt by the Washington, D.C. police to cover costs of his role as an informant. So the story he told was not something that he made up out of thin air. (2) All I can say about the death of Dorothy Hunt in the plane crash in 1972 is that the circumstances of the crash remain highly suspicious. (3) I do not believe that we have a free press in the U.S. today. Operation Mockingbird may not be in place at the present time but instead the mass media is controlled by a small number of corporations. These corporations bend when the government asks them to do in curtailing the dissemination of news. The most encouraging develop in the last year has been the rise of the bloggers, who are like bloodhounds on the scent of government corruption and controlled news. The biggest challenge facing the successors of Operation Mockingbird is how to control the Internet (which they are now trying to do through proposed legislation) and rein in the bloggers. (4) Bob Woodward is known to have had close ties to the Pentagon even before Watergate. His role in trying to downplay the Plame investigation has led to allegations that he engaged in some sort of coverup. Woodward today gives the appearance of someone heavily influenced by government authorities. Contrast him with Seymour Hersh and the difference between a controlled newsman and a free one becomes quite evident. Thank you very much Mr. Caddy. I think I have another question or two for you, and some thoughts on what you posted, but have to get out the door for a trial. (Fortunately for me it will be short: a parole revocation hearing with a mentally ill inmate. ) Sometime perhaps we can discuss the legal bus...off this forum... I know that you and Barr are close as are Barr and I. (email daily, of late, re Nathan Darby's death, and the work he is doing now, about which I will PM you, later.) Dawn Thank you again Doug. As you know from my prior questions to you my interest is in the JFk assassination. Not to say I am not deply interested in Watergate, but I want to go back to 11/22/63. I believe I may have already asked you this, so forgive me if I did, but 1. How did Billie sol Estes come to pick you to rep. him? (Or at least to write to AG Trott). 2. (If you know) how did Trott become the person to whom you wrote? I ask this because as soon as HSCA ended and it got turned over to the Justice Dept. I began calling and called every year on 11/22 . The name of the AG in charge - or so I was told- was Cubbage. I spoke with him several years in a row. Not that I ever thought under Reagan there was a prayer that Justice WOULD follow-up, I called none the less. Got nowhere. 3.Do you have an opinion on who killed JFk? 4. Do you have an opinion as to why he was killed? 5. I am curious as to what lead you here. The why of it? (I got here by goglging a name of one of my favorite researchers (also probably the nicest): -Atty Vince Salandria in 10/04- and life has not ever been the same:)) Again, with much appreciation. I also have some comment re your answers above but want to just check in here, then have a ton of legal work to get done....Do you ever miss practicing law? I doubt I will ever retire as I love it still, after now 21 years. Dawn ps Your answer re the Mac Wallace press conference is the same as Barr's. It's J who had it wrong then. J -God rest his soul- thought/told me- there was to be a joint press conf in DC with you and Barr. Guess Barr did not get around to asking you til later. Sounds like Barr! I am mailing him a picture packet today, of different times we were all here in Austin. The town where Mac Wallace's first murder was fixed. JFK's next stop if Dallas did not "work out". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawn Meredith Posted July 12, 2006 Share Posted July 12, 2006 John, this looks like a very important essay. Can I be so bold as to ask that you repost it as a single piece with footnotes to the sources, if not for my sake then for posterity's? For example, the quote above refers to Grand Jury testimony, and Grand Jury testimony, by definition, is secret. Of course there are rare occasions when Grand Jury testimony is made public (as in the Republican attempt to destroy the Clinton Presidency). Even as I ask the question it occurs to me that the source must be Billie Sol himself, and if so when and to whom did he reveal the substance of his testimony? You are correct in the general assertion that grand jury testimony is secret. However, there is a recognized exception to this legal rule that permits any witness who has appeared before the grand jury to disclose publicly what transpired during that witness's appearance, including testimony and queries posed by the prosecutor and jury members. This is applicable even if the witness is a defendant, although in most cases a defendant decides not to speak out. I talked to Billie Sol within a few days following his grand jury appearance in March 1984 in Robertson County, Texas. He had received transactional immunity from the prosecutor before testifying. The grand jury appearance had been arranged with Billie Sol's consent by U.S. Marshal Clint Peoples. It was my impression in talking to Billie Sol afterwards that he wanted his testimony before the grand jury to be made public and had so authorized public discussion by the prosecutor, U.S. Marshal Peoples, and his own attorney. There were a number of press reports at the time, so it would be impossible now to state which exact source of information about Billie Sol's testimony was used by the writer of a particular press report. Billie Sol desired to set the record straight publicly about murders commissioned by LBJ and wisely employed the grand jury system to accomplish this end. Doug: Thanx for the reminder here. We discussed the highly suspicious death of the great US Marshall- (and former TX Ranger)- Clint Peoples privately, some time ago, for which I remain most appreciative. 1. What do you think of the print evidence? (Mac Wallace known prints from murder conviction of Kinsner, to latent print on 6th floor, matched by Nathan Darby and others (one wishing to remain private, and one by an expert in France). 2. Do you have a personal opinion as to why Billie sol was not killed? (Especially given that the brave men who investigated Billie sol's evidence/testimony to Grand Jury : Henry Marshall, and Clint Peoples were, in my opinion, murdered. Again I appreciate your reply. Dawn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawn Meredith Posted July 12, 2006 Share Posted July 12, 2006 [quote name='Pat Speer' date='Jul 12 2006, 10:20 AM' post='68138'] I don't know where you've So on this date, with his name purportedly already in lights (but see Part II), Hunt goes to his White House office for no other purpose than to further "load" his White House safe with incriminating "evidence" against the White House, then walk out with two now empty briefcases that had contained that electronic "evidence" (which never existed for any other purpose than to incriminate the White House in the first place). Empty. The brazen intentional planting of the "evidence" in the safe alone is the act of the most craven criminal mind that can be conceived. The timing of the act bespeaks complete knowing "in your face" immunity being provided to Hunt by CIA. To then layer upon it the straight-razor cuts of an "admission" (made long after the fact) of having walked away with two empty briefcases that easily could have carried away all purported incriminating "evidence" against the White House simply is an act of vicious sadism. There is no other possible explanation. But Hunt still is not done. He will want to rub salt, now, into the razor cuts. And so we come to the events of Monday, 19 June 1972, and the entrance of John Dean and L. Patrick Gray into the willful sabotage of the Presidency during time of war. Continued in the next article: PART II: The CIA Watergate Bait-And-Switch—19 June 1972 Ashton Gray[/color] ________________________________________________________________________________ __ So what don't you see here, Pat? It seems pretty cut and dry, to me. (Terry) What's cut and dry? I honestly don't get it. (Pat) ***I honestly don't believe you. (Dawn) (Note to Dawn: Will learn a different method of posting, color is getting confusing so I have put names after each line, as well as ***before my words). From the moment of the arrests Hunt was trying to save his own skin. (Pat) *****Was and still is. Will go to his grave doing so. And your point is? (Dawn) By putting the evidence in the White House safe, he forced the White House to either destroy the evidence, thereby incriminating themselves, or deny the evidence existed, thereby incriminating themselves. Either way, he had the ability to blackmail them.[ (Pat) ****Precisley, I told you that you were "getting it". (Albeit, you still want to believe the cable fable) (Dawn) I don't pretend to understand every aspect or evey element of the story, (Pat) *****I think you do; very much like our dear Tim Gratz did the same thing. (Dawn) Opps re: John Dean on Daily show. Saw it too. So what? So he's against torture.... Why is everything either/or with you? Dawn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Douglas Caddy Posted July 12, 2006 Share Posted July 12, 2006 [quote name='Dawn Meredith' date='Jul 10 2006, 02:00 PM' post='67832'] Mr Caddy: I respect you for returning here. Can we all agree on one thing: that the purpose of this forum is to arrive at the truth? It is my sole purpose. And your post above certainly apears to be sincere. I do not know how long you have been reading this forum but I joined in 10/04 and the flaming and name calling drove me away several times. In fact I begged for rules that would later be established regarding the manner in which posters should treat each other. With respect and civility. You do not have to answer anyone's questions here, but I do have a few rather broad ones: 1. Do you believe that the full truth about Watergate was aired during the hearings? 2. Are you personally satisfied the that Dorothy Hunt was killed in an "accident? on 12/8/72? 3. Do you believe that there is a free press in this counrty, uncontrolled by Operation Mockingbird.? 4. If not, do you believe that Bob Woodward is/was an Op Mockingbird journalist? Thank you. If you have covered any of these questions in the past I apologise for any repititon of same. (Most of us do not possess photographic memories, so occassionally I ask a question that has been alreadly dealt with. ) Dawn Dawn: Thank you for asking these questions that are framed in a professional manner. I am pleased to answer them to the best of my ability. (1) Taken as a whole, I think that much of the truth about Watergate was aired during the Watergate Committee hearings. However, two subjects that should have been covered but were omitted were (i) the alterations of my grand jury testimony and the sworn testimony of Alfred Baldwin by the original prosecutors; and (ii) Robert "Butch" Merritt's allegations about how the FBI and the Washington, D.C. police department recruited him as an informant on the activities of the New Left and the gay community and of me as an attorney in Watergate. The lengthy article about Merritt published in the Advocate in 1977 reproduced a photograph of a signed receipt of money given to Merritt by the Washington, D.C. police to cover costs of his role as an informant. So the story he told was not something that he made up out of thin air. (2) All I can say about the death of Dorothy Hunt in the plane crash in 1972 is that the circumstances of the crash remain highly suspicious. (3) I do not believe that we have a free press in the U.S. today. Operation Mockingbird may not be in place at the present time but instead the mass media is controlled by a small number of corporations. These corporations bend when the government asks them to do in curtailing the dissemination of news. The most encouraging develop in the last year has been the rise of the bloggers, who are like bloodhounds on the scent of government corruption and controlled news. The biggest challenge facing the successors of Operation Mockingbird is how to control the Internet (which they are now trying to do through proposed legislation) and rein in the bloggers. (4) Bob Woodward is known to have had close ties to the Pentagon even before Watergate. His role in trying to downplay the Plame investigation has led to allegations that he engaged in some sort of coverup. Woodward today gives the appearance of someone heavily influenced by government authorities. Contrast him with Seymour Hersh and the difference between a controlled newsman and a free one becomes quite evident. Thank you very much Mr. Caddy. I think I have another question or two for you, and some thoughts on what you posted, but have to get out the door for a trial. (Fortunately for me it will be short: a parole revocation hearing with a mentally ill inmate. ) Sometime perhaps we can discuss the legal bus...off this forum... I know that you and Barr are close as are Barr and I. (email daily, of late, re Nathan Darby's death, and the work he is doing now, about which I will PM you, later.) Dawn Thank you again Doug. As you know from my prior questions to you my interest is in the JFk assassination. Not to say I am not deply interested in Watergate, but I want to go back to 11/22/63. I believe I may have already asked you this, so forgive me if I did, but 1. How did Billie sol Estes come to pick you to rep. him? (Or at least to write to AG Trott). 2. (If you know) how did Trott become the person to whom you wrote? I ask this because as soon as HSCA ended and it got turned over to the Justice Dept. I began calling and called every year on 11/22 . The name of the AG in charge - or so I was told- was Cubbage. I spoke with him several years in a row. Not that I ever thought under Reagan there was a prayer that Justice WOULD follow-up, I called none the less. Got nowhere. 3.Do you have an opinion on who killed JFk? 4. Do you have an opinion as to why he was killed? 5. I am curious as to what lead you here. The why of it? (I got here by goglging a name of one of my favorite researchers (also probably the nicest): -Atty Vince Salandria in 10/04- and life has not ever been the same:)) Again, with much appreciation. I also have some comment re your answers above but want to just check in here, then have a ton of legal work to get done....Do you ever miss practicing law? I doubt I will ever retire as I love it still, after now 21 years. Dawn ps Your answer re the Mac Wallace press conference is the same as Barr's. It's J who had it wrong then. J -God rest his soul- thought/told me- there was to be a joint press conf in DC with you and Barr. Guess Barr did not get around to asking you til later. Sounds like Barr! I am mailing him a picture packet today, of different times we were all here in Austin. The town where Mac Wallace's first murder was fixed. JFK's next stop if Dallas did not "work out". Dawn: In answer to your questions:: (1) As I have recounted previously, Billie Sol was in federal prison in Big Spring, Texas. He telephoned Shearn Moody, Jr., one of the three trustees of the billion-dollar Moody Foundation of Galveston, Texas, upon the advice of one of the inmates, a former Austin, Texas lobbyist for Moody who had committed a federal crime after he moved to Washington that was unrelated to any work that he had done for Moody. Billie Sol asked Moody for a Moody Foundation grant in order to tell what he knew about LBJ. Moody, who was a history buff, was enthusiastic and asked me to go the prison where Billie Sol was incarcerated and talk to him. I advised Billie Sol that the best way to get his story out was by writing a book. Billie Sol upon his release from prison in December 1983 again contacted Moody and said that he wanted to write the book and needed a Moody Foundation grant to do it. I visited Billie Sol in Abilene, Texas and we went together to see the president of Abilene Christian University, a Church of Christ institution. Billie Sol was a life-long member of that church. The university president was receptive to the idea of a Moody Foundation grant to assist Billie Sol to tell his story as the university had previously received grants from the Foundation. It was both Shearn Moody’s and Billie Sol’s decision that I represent him in getting his proposed book published. Billie Sol’s first needed to get both federal and state immunity before he could tell his story. (2) Edward Miller, a former Assistant Director of the FBI, was already working with me on another Moody Foundation grant. Miller and Mark Felt had both convicted and then pardoned by President Reagan for engaging in “black bag” jobs against the New Left in the early 1970's. Miller knew Stephen Trott, the Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division, in the U.S. Dept. Of Justice, who had arranged for the presidential pardon. This led to my writing Trott and visiting him several times in the U.S. Dept. of Justice, accompanied by Miller in order to obtain immunity for Billie Sol so that he could tell his story. (3) My personal opinion as to who killed JFK counts for nothing. If one is to believe Billie Sol, Mac Wallace was instrumental in doing it upon the orders of LBJ. (4) Who stood the most to gain by JFK’s murder? LBJ. The historical record shows that LBJ was facing a potential criminal investigation and indictment for his involvement with Billie Sol Estes and Bobby Baker in their respective scandals in the months leading up to the assassination. Had JFK not been killed, LBJ’s political career at the minimum would have come to an abrupt halt. (5) As to why I joined the Forum, I would state that occasionally I google my name to see what new has been posted about me. Earlier this year I saw that John Simkin had started a thread about me, apparently as a result of the article about me that was published in the Advocate in August 2005. He noted that my name surfaced in both Watergate and the JFK assassination. I was hesitant to join at first because John’s biography of me and comments were somewhat negative. But after I saw that Alfred Baldwin had joined the forum, I decided to do so also. Until recently I thought that I might attempt to contact John Dean to see if he were interested in joining the Forum. However, in light of the destructive postings of Ashton Gray, I have decided that encouraging Dean or anyone else who has a direct knowledge to join the Forum is not a viable option. John, this looks like a very important essay. Can I be so bold as to ask that you repost it as a single piece with footnotes to the sources, if not for my sake then for posterity's? For example, the quote above refers to Grand Jury testimony, and Grand Jury testimony, by definition, is secret. Of course there are rare occasions when Grand Jury testimony is made public (as in the Republican attempt to destroy the Clinton Presidency). Even as I ask the question it occurs to me that the source must be Billie Sol himself, and if so when and to whom did he reveal the substance of his testimony? You are correct in the general assertion that grand jury testimony is secret. However, there is a recognized exception to this legal rule that permits any witness who has appeared before the grand jury to disclose publicly what transpired during that witness's appearance, including testimony and queries posed by the prosecutor and jury members. This is applicable even if the witness is a defendant, although in most cases a defendant decides not to speak out. I talked to Billie Sol within a few days following his grand jury appearance in March 1984 in Robertson County, Texas. He had received transactional immunity from the prosecutor before testifying. The grand jury appearance had been arranged with Billie Sol's consent by U.S. Marshal Clint Peoples. It was my impression in talking to Billie Sol afterwards that he wanted his testimony before the grand jury to be made public and had so authorized public discussion by the prosecutor, U.S. Marshal Peoples, and his own attorney. There were a number of press reports at the time, so it would be impossible now to state which exact source of information about Billie Sol's testimony was used by the writer of a particular press report. Billie Sol desired to set the record straight publicly about murders commissioned by LBJ and wisely employed the grand jury system to accomplish this end. Doug: Thanx for the reminder here. We discussed the highly suspicious death of the great US Marshall- (and former TX Ranger)- Clint Peoples privately, some time ago, for which I remain most appreciative. 1. What do you think of the print evidence? (Mac Wallace known prints from murder conviction of Kinsner, to latent print on 6th floor, matched by Nathan Darby and others (one wishing to remain private, and one by an expert in France). 2. Do you have a personal opinion as to why Billie sol was not killed? (Especially given that the brave men who investigated Billie sol's evidence/testimony to Grand Jury : Henry Marshall, and Clint Peoples were, in my opinion, murdered. Again I appreciate your reply. Dawn In response to your questions, (1) I have full faith in Nathan Darby’s expert analysis of Mac Wallace’s fingerprint that was left on a box on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository Building. (2) In light of the murders of so many persons directly involved in the Billie Sol Estes –LBJ relationship, I am surprised that Billie Sol’s name has not been added to the list of those who are no longer with us. I have no personal opinion why this is the way it has turned out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashton Gray Posted July 12, 2006 Share Posted July 12, 2006 (edited) Until recently I thought that I might attempt to contact John Dean to see if he were interested in joining the Forum. However, in light of the destructive postings of Ashton Gray, I have decided that encouraging Dean or anyone else who has a direct knowledge to join the Forum is not a viable option. Do you make John Dean's decisions for him about where to participate or not? (Now that's 64 questions. Ka-ching!) Regardless of whether you answer or not, it's good to know that you and ol' John Wesley are in touch with each other. If you do talk to him, please pass on my regards, and let him know I'm doing a small series in the Watergate forum, growing his legend. Significantly. By all means, I'd love for there to be two Watergate-related attornies here running from me. Do you think you could get Liddy and Hunt to join the game? Hell, I'll type with only one hand if I could get all four of you here, and especially if Alfred Baldwin would come back out from under the porch. Come on, Doug. If you could drag Colson away from the pulpit long enough, bring him along, too! Let's all play Question-and-Evade! I'm ready. Six against one. You can't beat those odds! Oh! While we're on the subject of Hunt and Baldwin, and since Baldwin has lost his voice, and since you apparently are close to him, too: I don't think Hunt came to your apartment at all on the morning of June 17, 1972, but instead followed Baldwin, who was driving the van to McCord's house, then took Baldwin where he needed to be taken after Baldwin had planted the "evidence" there. And I think you know, too. I think you were and are Hunt's alibi for being in knowing collusion with Baldwin on planting the "evidence" at McCord's house, after Hunt had planted his "evidence" in the White House, which is precisely why you're avoiding all my questions about that. Did I ring the bell, Doug? Do I win a kewpie doll? Please see if you can round up all your Watergate pals. Bring 'em on. Ashton Gray Edited July 12, 2006 by Ashton Gray Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now