Jump to content
The Education Forum

Douglas Caddy, Hunt, Liddy, Mullen, and the CIA

Ashton Gray

Recommended Posts

But I'm afraid that such a charitable interpretation probably would have to be attributed more to "the principle of ignorance" than to "the principle of charity."

Let the record show that Mr. Gray has started the name-calling. For the record, I am not quite as ignorant as I pretend to be.

You see, Mr. Caddy was referring specifically to E. Howard Hunt's non-fiction when he made his now chewed-to-death quote. Did I fail to mention that before? <Tcht!> I am so sorry. I don't know how I overlooked mentioning that!

This comment is as silly as the comment from Michael hogan that I mispelled Wikkipedia, or however it is spelled.

Notice there where Doug said, concerning this private meeting with Hunt and Barker in June of 1971—before the "Pentagon Papers," mind you—the following:
  • "I do not recall exactly what we discussed but it most likely was Barker's role under Hunt in the ill-fated invasion of Cuba that took place under President Kennedy."

Now compare what Mr. Caddy said to me on the first page of this very thread:

  • "When I arrived Hunt was already there with his guest, Bernard Barker. Hunt made the introductions. The luncheon conversation was almost entirely consumed with Hunt and Barker recounting their involvement in the ill-fated Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba."

I think that's part of the "principle of vacillating memory by convenience," isn't it? Or maybe his story about what he recalled or didn't recall changed only because Hunt had been sitting too close to him at the table way back then. You think? Maybe it's sort of a "principle of Hunt-osis by lunch table osmosis" syndrome that science and Wikipedia haven't caught up with yet.

Ashton Gray

I don't know if I'm alone in this, and I hope other forum members will comment, but I don't see any meaningful difference in Mr. Caddy's recollections. His best recollection was that the Bay of Pigs was discussed at the meeting, and he has said the same thing ever since, has he not?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 34
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

But I'm afraid that such a charitable interpretation probably would have to be attributed more to "the principle of ignorance" than to "the principle of charity."

Let the record show that Mr. Gray has started the name-calling. For the record, I am not quite as ignorant as I pretend to be.

Oh, for the love of Aunt Marcie. "Ignorance" is a state of being uninformed on any particular datum. I am far more ignorant than I am not ignorant, because there are far more things I don't know than there are things that I know. That's why I am on a long quest for knowledge, one I don't yet foresee an end to. You obviously were uninformed of the context of Caddy's quote. And of course the only thing that was "called a name" was a principle. Diagram the sentence, unless you're just here trying to incite and mount another "let's get Ashton banned" movement on any pretext.

Of course that would seem pretty consistent with everything else you've done in this thread so far.

I don't know if I'm alone in this, and I hope other forum members will comment, but I don't see any meaningful difference in Mr. Caddy's recollections.

<Raising hand> Me? Me? Can I answer? I know the answer: no, you're not alone. Some people can discern a very clear difference, others can't, still others will latch onto it and cry "trivial, trivial, trivial."

A brick is pretty trivial, too. One brick doesn't make a wall; that just makes a brick. People who have met face-to-face with a brick wall, though, will tell you it ain't trivial at all.

Count it as just another brick in the wall.

Ashton Gray

Edited by Ashton Gray
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is an edited re-post of questions for Mr. Caddy posted earlier in this thread that haven't been answered. I've edited only to get the post down to its essentials, and am re-posting this to get the thread back on track from irrelevant distractions that have been injected into this thread.

First stop is that same Washington Post article you mentioned and that I quoted from above. In it you not only spill the beans about having been in a private meeting with Hunt and Barker a year earlier, you also tell the world how you got tapped to represent Mr. Barker. Remember this?

  • "Douglas Caddy, one of the attorneys for the five men, told a reporter that shortly after 3 a.m. yesterday, 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, Sunday, June 18, 1972, "5 Held in Plot to Bug Democrats' Office Here," by Alfred E. Lewis

So here we have you on contemporaneous record, Mr. Caddy, avowing that Bernard Barker had told his wife in Miami, at some undetermined point in time but certainly prior to the "break-in," to call you in Washington, D.C. if Barker "hadn't called her by 3 a.m." So Barker himself had given his wife your name and phone number prior to the 16-17 June 1972 break-in, after purportedly having met and spoken to you only once in his life, that one brief meeting having been a year earlier. :D

Let me first assume, to your credit, that Bernard Barker had been so beguiled and impressed by you at the Army-Navy Club back in June 1971 that he had asked for your business card, and had kept it until it was creased and dirty and dog-earred just in case he ever got into criminal trouble in Washington, D.C., and therefore gave it to his wife before kissing her on the cheek and flying off to D.C. to commit criminal acts—even though he had to know that you were not a criminal lawyer. :D

...For surcease from this spinning sensation, I'm going to flip in my Tour Guide Book to the one other "authoritative source" on this call from Bernard Baker's wife, your good friend and long-time client, E. Howard Hunt. Below is what he tells us, in excruciating, exacting detail about Mr. and Mrs. Barker and you on that fateful night. I am aware that you lionize Mr. Hunt's writing skills, but with apologies to you and his editors at Berkley/Putnam, I'm going to prune his prose with hedge clippers to get at what's relevant. Here's Hunt on his germane activities right after the arrest. He's just gone to his White House office with some disputed number of "attaché cases" brim full with evidence that will incriminate the White House and deposited it there—naturally. Having planted the evidence, he does the following, according to his account in his autobiographical book, "Undercover":

  • "I opened my two-drawer safe, took out my operational notebook, found a telephone number and dialed it. After several rings the call was answered and I heard the sleepy voice of Douglas Caddy. 'Yes?'
    "'Doug? This is Howard. I hate to wake you up, but I've got a tough situation and I need to talk to you. Can I come over?'
    "'Sure. I'll tell the desk clerk you're expected.'"

So while you're heating up water for instant coffee, and with the evidence conveniently planted in his White House safe, Hunt makes sure his "operational notebook" that he'd gotten your number from gets put back into the White House safe (naturally), then trots across the street to his convenient Mullen office—for no other apparent reason than to call Barker's wife:

  • "From my [Mullen] office I dialed Barker's home in Miami and spoke with his wife, Clara.
    "'Clarita,' I said, 'things have gone wrong and Macho's [bernard Barker] been arrested.'
    "I heard a muffled shriek. Then, 'Oh, my God!'
    "'He's got bail money with him,' I told her, 'so maybe he'll be able to get out before dawn. I don't know how these things work, but I think you ought to have an attorney. I've already called one and I want you to call him too.'
    "I gave her Caddy's name and telephone number and asked that she phone Doug and retain him for her husband."

Now, just for the tour participants, Doug, so they don't get too disoriented in this maze, I think I should mention that the "burglars" had been arrested at 2:30 a.m. Hunt and Liddy purportedly already had watched part of the arrest, then collected up a lot of incriminating evidence to plant in the White House, then Hunt had driven Liddy to Liddy's jeep, then Hunt had driven to the Howard Johnson's and gone up to the seventh floor and told Baldwin—who he claims never to have met before, although Baldwin claims otherwise—to "get rid of" all the electronic equipment—which Baldwin drives straight over to McCord's house, naturally—then Hunt had driven to the White House and called you while planting the evidence there, then had gone over to his Mullen office across the street (are you worn out yet?) and called Mrs. Barker and only then made it over to your apartment. (Whew!) And let's remind people that you told the Post Barker's wife had called you "shortly after 3 a.m." :blink:

But we're not done: Hunt finally gets to your apartment, and it could not possibly have been before 3:30 a.m., and you welcome him, having boiled some water for instant coffee—but no milk for his ulcer. And he briefs you on what's happened. And having briefed you—to your dismay of course—he hands you $8,500 and asks you if you "can bail them out."

And only after all that, with it now having to be pushing at least 4:00 a.m., Hunt claims that he said the following to you, and describes your response:

  • "'Bernie Barker's wife will probably call you and retain you officially to represent her husband and the other men.'
    "Caddy looked at his wristwatch, then went to another room to phone [Caddy's law firm's partners]."

:blink: I'll tell you, Mr. Caddy, for the sake of my sanity and that of the tour attendees, for now I'm going to have to just gloss right over the fact that Hunt's first mention to you of a man you purportedly had only met and spoken to once a whole year earlier was using the chummy "Bernie Barker," and get directly to what you had to have seen when you looked at your wristwatch.

It sure as hell wasn't "shortly after 3 a.m." It had to be considerably later. And there still is no call from Bernard Barker's wife to you. And E. Howard Hunt stays at your apartment all the way through the phone calls from two of your law firm's partners, and all the way through them scaring up Rafferty (an actual criminal lawyer), and all the way through two phone calls from Rafferty, and all the way through you telling Hunt that Rafferty is coming to your apartment so you can tag along like a fifth wheel for reasons nobody in the world knows to this very day—since by your own endless protestations, you were not a criminal lawyer—and when Hunt finally leaves to go home, it's already nearly dawn.

And still there is not one single word about a call having come to you from Bernard Barker's wife while he was there.

Yet just hours later, you told a Washington Post reporter that Clara Barker had called you from Miami "shortly after 3 a.m.," not at the behest of E. Howard Hunt, but because Barker himself had told his wife to call you if Barker hadn't called her by 3:00 a.m.

Well, if what you told the Washington Post that same day is true, Mr. Caddy, Mrs. Barker's call to you had to have come before Hunt ever even got to your apartment. And if that's the case, then Hunt's whole little anecdote about leaving one phone at his White House office to go to another phone at his Mullen office just to call to Mrs. Barker, and her dramatic little shriek, is just complete fiction. Just really, really bad, hack-writer spy fiction. It's just embarrassing! It's one of his trashy little spy novels passed off as "fact."

So since we're just chatting candidly and casually here, tete-a-tete, Mr. Caddy, I have to tell you that I can see only three possibilities:

1) Hunt lied.

2) You lied.

3) You both lied.

Before the tour continues, I sure would like to have that one deadly booby trap cleared off the path. I'll be perfectly happy to find out that your client, Hunt, lied like a dog.

So is it 1), 2), or 3) above?

Ashton Gray

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is an un-edited re-post of unanswered relevant questions asked of Mr. Caddy earlier in this thread. I'm reposting it after the edited repost, directly above, of other unanswered questions so both sets can easily be located together, and to get the thread back on-topic after "answers" by others (that weren't answers at all) to questions that can't possibly be answered in any meaningful way by anyone other than Mr. Caddy. I hope he will respond.

Mr. Caddy,

I didn't mean to slight you by being this long in getting back to you on these questions, but I wanted to give your answers due and proper consideration, and I'm very glad to see that you're posting here in the forum.

Thank you again for your more than thoroughgoing address to most of the questions I'd asked. At a point that would have been a very good ending of your message, you wrote:

I believe that above responses cover the inquiries posed by you.

They certainly covered most of them, but there are a few that were left unanswered, two that I'm afraid I have to apologize to you for not having asked very clearly (which I'll clear up below), and then—if you could see your way clear to extend your largesse—there are a few that arose from a couple of your answers. I'll set off sections for each category

First, here are the questions that weren't answered. I've edited or amended one or two very slightly—just to reflect answers that you did provide where applicable, or because they've been taken out of their original context—and have renumbered them for simplicity:


  1. Who besides Hunt at Mullen was "witting and cleared" of the CIA relationship? (If you don't have that specific information, who else can you name who worked at Mullen while you were there?)
  2. If you know, did Hunt, or you, or anyone at the Mullen company have any contact, directly or through an intermediary, with Daniel Ellsberg?
  3. If you know, were persons employed at or by Gall Lane "cleared and witting" of Mullen ties to CIA at any relevant time? If so, who?
  4. If you know, was Gall Lane in any sort of relationship with CIA that was similar to the relationship that the Mullen company enjoyed? (At any relevant time.)
  5. Did any of your legal tasks for either Liddy or Hunt include arranging for possible overseas travel? (You may have answered this by indirect exclusion, but I wasn't certain, and would like to have it cleared up.)

This next section is where I think I inadvertently created some confusion by my cavalier tossing around of the word "probate" in its more general sense, from Black's: "...in current usage this term has been expanded to generally include all matters and proceedings pertaining to administration of estates, guardianships, etc." I get the idea that you were interpreting and using the word "probate" in its more narrow sense of court procedure determining validity of a will of a dearly departed—after the fact, so to speak.

To correct my legalese faux pas, with your continued graciousness, I'll set forth my original questions and the relevant parts of your answers to those, then I'll ask more specifically what I was trying to ask in the first place.


  • QUESTION: Hunt became a client a Gall Lane, and you were one of the attorneys working with Hunt. You've said you consulted with Hunt regarding probate and "other matters." What were the "other matters"?
    DOUGLAS CADDY: At Hunt’s request, we prepared a will for him... . None of this legal work involved probate matters.
    QUESTION: Did the probate matters include Dorothy Hunt's probate?
    DOUGLAS CADDY: At no time was I involved in any probate matters dealing with Dorothy Hunt. ...I do not know who handled the probate of Dorothy Hunt’s estate.

Thank you. Now here is more narrowly what I had hoped to learn:

  1. At any time, did you prepare a will for Dorothy Hunt? If not, do you know of anyone who did, and if so, who?
  2. Do you know if Dorothy Hunt had a will at the time you were preparing one for her husband, E. Howard Hunt?
  3. If you know, was E. Howard Hunt named as the primary beneficiary and/or executor of any will of Dorothy Hunt at any relevant time.

I hope that narrows this considerably, and thanks for your patience.

Finally, there are several questions that came up in my review of the answers you provided, if you would be so kind.


First in this section of new questions is something that arose out of the following exchange:

  • QUESTION: What was the nature of the "legal tasks" you were doing for Liddy?
    DOUGLAS CADDY: In March, 1972, George Webster...asked for a lawyer to do voluntary campaign work in John Dean’s office. I was "volunteered" by John Kilcullen. I did several legal research assignments given to me by Dean and one of his associates.

That's very interesting in light of something I'm about to take up with Pat Speer if he posts the new topic I asked him to post. (By the way: I think it was very thoughtful of you to post something about the kind of unwarranted and irrelevant ad hominem attacks he has launched on me repeatedly, but really, it's nothing. It's just sort of like having a gnat buzzing around.)

But this thing you said about working for Dean: John Dean, of course, is the one who took possession of the contents of Hunt's White House safe and divided it into two neat piles: one pile he turned over to the rank-and-file FBI agents on Tuesday, June 27, 1972 (two days after Baldwin started cooperating with the U.S. Attorneys); the other pile Dean placed into a big envelope (or "two folders," depending on which section of L. Patrick Gray's congressional testimony you happen to be listening to), and, in the presence of Ehrlichman, handed directly to L. Patrick Gray on Wednesday, June 28, 1972—right around the very time you went before the grand jury as the very first witness called.

So the questions that your answer above caused to spring immediately to mind are:

A. Who was the "associate" of John Dean that you also were doing research work for?

B. What was the work you were doing for Dean and that associate?

C. Did you know that Dean could open Hunt's safe?

And the last few questions I have that arose out of your answers is a real head scratcher for me. I'm in a real pickle here, and I hope you can help me out. Here are the relevant questions and sections of your answers:

QUESTION: Were you cleared and witting of the Mullen company's involvement with CIA?

DOUGLAS CADDY: No, I was not cleared and witting of the Mullen Company’s involvement with the CIA.

QUESTION: Hunt became a client a Gall Lane, and you were one of the attorneys working with Hunt. You've said you consulted with Hunt regarding probate and "other matters." What were the "other matters"?

DOUGLAS CADDY: This work was performed in conjunction with a partner of that law firm, Robert Scott, a former Assistant U.S. Attorney, who later became a judge. At Hunt’s request, we...analyzed his proposed business relationship with the Mullen Company after Robert Bennett assumed its ownership (no mention was made then by Hunt of the CIA’s involvement with the Company)... .

Okay. I've got all of that, and that's very clear. But here's why I'm in a pickle.

First, the Mullen company, as a matter of CIA record, had been cooperating with CIA for at least seven years (since 1963) when Hunt went to work there, and you were already working out of the Mullen D.C. office at that time.

Second, the Mullen company, as a matter of CIA record, had overseas offices, at least one of which in Europe was "staffed, run, and paid for by CIA."

And given all of that information, I've got this passage from Hunt's own autobiography that I'm trying to reconcile with your answers. Read along with me, if you would, as Hunt recounts his early days at Mullen (my bold emphasis added):

  • "The CIA placement officer had told me that the Mullen firm had "cooperated" with CIA... . So I inferred that my CIA background would not prove a handicap to employment with Mullen as it had with several multinational firms.
    "During a second meeting Mullen told me that he was getting on in years, the company was comfortably established and he was casting about for younger successors to take over the managment and direction of the firm. One of Mullen's accounts was the General Foods Corporation, whose Washington representative, Douglas Caddy, worked out of the Mullen offices. According to Mullen, with Caddy, myself and an as-yet-unselected individual, Mullen would be able to retire, leaving the business in the hands of this successor triumverate."
    —E. Howard Hunt, Undercover

Can you kind of see why this is a head-scratcher for me? The owner of the Mullen company was going to retire soon, and in his mind you and Hunt had been dubbed as two of his successors. But he was in an on-going long-term secret relationship with CIA, including overseas installations completely manned, funded, and run by CIA, and so with the answers you gave above, I gotta' tell you, Mr. Caddy, I can't figure out for the life of me how the hell he expected you to be one the of three co-managers of the entire international CIA-front company if you were totally ignorant of CIA's involvement.

Can you clear that up?

Thanks again so much.

Ashton Gray

Edited by Ashton Gray
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Diagram the sentence, unless you're just here trying to incite and mount another "let's get Ashton banned" movement on any pretext.

Of course that would seem pretty consistent with everything else you've done in this thread so far.

You have completely missed my purpose, Mr. Gray. I actually find you very entertaining.

But I will let Mr. Caddy himself respond to your questions, if he thinks they are worth answering. My accountant has just advised me that Mr. Caddy has not paid my last bill.

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

  • Create New...