Who Was Douglas Caddy Representing, and When?

[Ashton Gray]

Is it just me, or is there a lot of baying and howling in here, like something's been treed?

Ashton Gray

[Pat Speer]

Is it just me, or is there a lot of baying and howling in here, like something's been treed?

Ashton Gray

Those aren't answers, Ashton. Your theory is full of malarkey and you know it. You've uncovered that people experiencing the same event remember the event differently. Big whoop. Didn't we learn that in seventh grade? When we told a story and whispered it around the class room, and then had the last person tell the story out loud so that everyone could see how it had changed?

I'm still waiting for you to offer one reason to believe the first break-in never happened, or that the Diem cables never existed, etc. You cite that a group of people remember things differently and then draw from this that the event they're remembering NEVER happened. This is absolutely bone-headed, IMO. What's worse, you harrassed Baldwin and Caddy from the Forum and cited their refusal to answer questions as proof of their complicity, and yet you refuse to answer questions yourself. So what does that say about you?

[J. Raymond Carroll]

In my last post in this thread I posted relevant accounts by Douglas Caddy of the June 17, 1972 Watergate arrests and their aftermath, as germane to who retained or secured Caddy as a lawyer for any of the participants, when that occurred, and under what circumstances.

Ashton Gray

I am reposting this from the "Ashton Gray" thread, because it addresses some of the questions raised by Mr. Gray on this thread.

At the risk of being accused of trying to post something actually relevant to the topic of this thread, let me say that I do not support the removal of Mr. Gray from this forum, but I believe he should be severly reprimanded by the moderator for persistently accusing Mr. Douglas Caddy of being a xxxx.

I would also advise him to stop insulting the intelligence of members of this forum by asking asinine questions of Mr. Caddy.

This is from the thread entitled: "Who Was Douglas Caddy Representing, and When?"

Mr. Gray's questions are in quotes:

" [*]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?"

The "if at all" part seems just gratuitously insulting. As to whether the call came at 2.13 or 3.13, clearly one of these was a typo. Anyway, what difference would it make?

"[* in your due diligence for your clients, what did you discover concerning this bizarre police response for a reported burglary in progress?"

How in heaven's name would that be any part of Mr. Caddy's "due diligence"?

[*]What section, division, department, or unit of the D.C. police were these plain-clothes first responders part of?

See previous note. Even if Mr. Caddy once had this information in memory 30-odd years ago, it is absurd to think that he would be able to recall it today.

"[*]Did Hunt in fact tell you that you likely would be getting a call from Bernard Barker's wife?"

Previously asked and answered

"[*] You claim contrarily [to Hunt's account] that both you and Hunt spoke to Liddy at some length on the telephone between 4:45 a.m. and 5:00 a.m.... Which of these contradictory accounts, if any, is true?"

Again, the "if any" is gratuitously insulting. It is not at all clear that there IS a conflict here, but -- even if there is -- using Howard Hunt's version in an attempt to impeach Mr. Caddy is, well, a bit silly.

"[*]." How did you get the aliases that the other men were using in order that you and Rafferty could locate them downtown?"

What difference does it make?

"[*]Referring to your due diligence for your clients, what had Hunt done with the antenna he purportedly had stuffed down his pants leg?"

I can answer that myself. At some point Hunt took the antenna out of his pants. Of course there is no evidence that he did this in Mr. Caddy's presence. The question is completely lacking in foundation, like so many other questions posed to Mr. Caddy by Mr. Gray.

"[*]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?"

Here, as in other questions, Mr. Gray is asking Mr. Caddy to violate the attorney-client privilege ( I am assuming, for the sake of argument, that Hunt told Mr. Caddy about this electronic gear. It would not surprise me if that assumption is false). I think Mr. Caddy has amply demonstrated that he is willing to go to jail before he would violate his solemn obligations in this regard.

Does Mr. Gray have delusions that he is John J. Sirica? Is he going to put Mr. Caddy in jail for refusing to answer his asinine questions?

Mr. Caddy has demonstrated that he acts upon his principles; Mr Gray has yet to demonstrate that he has any, unless persistently calling Mr. Caddy a xxxx, or insinuating that he is one, is Mr. Gray's idea of a "principle."

"[*]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?"

Why in heaven's name would he? Is a lawyer supposed to notify his other clients every time one client gets in trouble? This one is a candidate for the title of "Most Asinine Question Ever Asked by Ashton Gray," but the competition is intense.

"[*]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?"

Why ask Mr. Caddy that question? He has already made it crystal clear that he had no CIA clearance. Or is this just another of the myriad ways Mr. Gray is inventing as an excuse to call Mr. Caddy a xxxx?

Besides, even if Mr. Caddy could prove that the documents originated in CIA, would this have done much to assist his clients defense, which was Mr. Caddy's sole responsibility?

Mr. Gray's final questions for Mr. Caddy in that thread [EDIT meaning his June 25 post]are listed below. There will be a prize for the first person who can correctly list them in order of asininity:

"[*]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?

Ashton Gray"

On June 15, 2006, in the thread "Douglas Caddy, Hunt, Liddy, Mullen, and the CIA"

Mr. Caddy wrote:

"No, I was not cleared and witting of the Mullen Company’s involvement with the CIA. I only learned for certain of such involvement when I read Senator Howard Baker’s supplemental lengthy statement that was released about the same time that the final Senate Watergate Committee report was promulgated."

Despite Mr. Caddy's unambiguous statement about what he knew and did not know about the operations of the Mullen Company, Mr. Gray keeps on insinuating that Mr. Caddy is lying.

Mr. Gray: What part of "no" do you not understand?

If Mr. Caddy is no longer answering Mr. Gray's questions, I suspect it is not just because he persists in casting aspersions on Mr. Caddy's character; it is also because he persists in insulting Mr. Caddy's (and our) intelligence

.

I could respond to most of Mr. Gray's remaining questions for Mr. Caddy in the same vein, but I doubt if that would stop Mr. Gray from continuing his game that I call "TRIVIAL PUSUIT WITH MALICE."

[Dawn Meredith]

[ Mr Carroll

Leaving aside the subject of Watergate for one second I wish to turn to another matter. A matter where you were the one who was very nasty, to me, with absolutely no provocation from me. I did PM you a few weeks ago with a request that a fellow researcher contact you (via PM) for the sole purpose of making some inquiries relevent to the Mac Wallace case. First I responded honestly to your request-(last year) that I contact Earl Golz and "write an article on him". I told you sincerely in my PM that I had called Earl several times and that his wife Lois is no longer allowing him to do interviews due to failing health. So I was unable to carry out your request to "interview Golz about his book" . I also informed you that there is no book. And I told you why. Only then did I bring up the subject of my friend wishing to contact you and ask some questions. Then said friend did post his questions. (He did NOT PM you because I told him I had just received from you a very nasty PM and that he should seek his information in an alternative manner.) So he posted it. Adding insult to injury you immediately posted about receiving a PM from me, as if I was somehow harrassing you. Of course you totally omitted all the information that it was you who first contacted me with fasle information re a non-existent book, about which I should write an article. I wholehartedly agree that the very important work-done by Earl Golz, from the inception of this case should be memorialized in a book. Indeed the fact that Earl's work was published by the Operation Mockingbird controlled press is in itself worthy of a book.

On these points we agree.

So for you to come to this forum acting all sanctimonious over Ashton Gray's alleged nasty attitide really makes me laugh. At least he is honest. Your dishonesty and overt nastiness to me, both in private and then in public demonstrates you as the hypocrite I know you to actually be.

So let's keep our facts straight here shall we? I have watched you stalk Ashton Gray on this forum and twist his every sentence. Do you really think you are fooling anyone here with your ho-li-er- than thou attitude?

He calls it how he sees it. And has the research to back it up. Irrelevent to you and Mr Spear perhaps, but none- the- less honest. So you don't like his "tone". Well there are people here who don't care for yours as well.

Dawn Meredith

[J. Raymond Carroll]

Mr Carroll

I told him I had just received from you a very nasty PM

Dawn Meredith

Perhaps you would be kind enough to post this PM so the whole world can see what a scoundrel I am in private.

P. S. Not everything I post on the forum is directed at Dawn Meredith personally.

Edited July 9, 2006 by J. Raymond Carroll

[Ashton Gray]

This message combines all the questions I asked Douglas Caddy in three separate messages at the beginning of this 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.

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).

1. 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?
   
2. How were you able to brief Robert Scott on Liddy's role in the break-in?
   
3. 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?
   
4. Did E. Howard Hunt tell you at your apartment that Bernard Barker's wife was going to call you?
   
5. If Rafferty was the attorney of record, why were you called before the grand jury as the attorney for the men?
   
6. Was Rafferty called before the grand jury, too? If not, why not?
   
7. Were you in the court on June 17, 1972 as an attorney or only "as an individual"?
   
8. You reportedly told Woodward at the courtroom that the men were not your clients. Was that true or false?
   
9. 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?
   
10. Since you were not a criminal lawyer, and Rafferty was, why did you stay on the case at all?
    
11. 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?
    
12. 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?
    
13. 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.

1. 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?
   
2. 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"?
   
3. 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?
   
4. 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?
   
5. What section, division, department, or unit of the D.C. police were these plain-clothes first responders part of?
   
6. Did Hunt in fact tell you that you likely would be getting a call from Bernard Barker's wife?
   
7. Did you ever receive such a call—as you told the Washington Post—and if so, where were you and what time was it?
   
8. 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?
   
9. 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?
   
10. 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?
    
11. 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.)
    
12. Referring to your due diligence for your clients, what had Hunt done with the antenna he purportedly had stuffed down his pants leg?
    
13. 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?
    
14. 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?
    
15. 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?
    
16. 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?
    
17. Did you at any time put into the record the origins of the fake I.D.s used by the participants?
    
18. 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)?
    
19. Can you list the exact aliases that the participants had supplied to the police that morning, linking each to the real names?
    
20. Did you wait for Rafferty to come to your apartment, or did you meet Rafferty elsewhere?
    
21. Had you ever seen or met James McCord prior to seeing him in the cell block? If so, when, where, and under what circumstances?
    
22. 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?
    
23. Had you ever met with Hunt in that office?
    
24. 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?
    
25. 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?
    
26. 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.

1. 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?
   
2. 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?
   
3. 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?
   
4. 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?
   
5. Did you advise your clients to so incriminate themselves and each other by telling the "first break-in" stories? If so, why?
   
6. 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?
   
7. 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?
   
8. 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?
   
9. Did you actually know, at any relevant time, that no such "first break-in" had occurred at all?
   
10. Are you currently participating in a continuing, knowing cover-up of the fact that there was no "first break-in" at the Watergate?
    
11. 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?
    
12. 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"?
    
13. 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.
    

Ashton Gray

Edited July 9, 2006 by Ashton Gray

[Ashton Gray]

As I've posted in the "Alfred C. Baldwin" thread, and in the "Questions for Douglas Caddy" thread in the JFK Assassination forum, I think it's become very clear why Douglas Caddy will not answer any of my questions going to the extraordinary number of contradictions between his, Hunt's, and Liddy's stories about Hunt's visit to Caddy's apartment in the early morning hours of 17 June 1972.

The reason is just too simple: It's all fiction. It's pure fiction.

It's Caddy trying to provide an alibi for Hunt, and just doing a real "Phyllis Diller does Ophelia" job of it. The performance just stinks. It reeks. Of course what it reeks of just as much is Hunt's hack spy fiction writing. So between them, it's a disaster of contradictions and completely non-sensical "historical events" (as Caddy likes to call his fiction in order to puff himself up). I pointed out the contradictions and holes in their stories with my questions to him about that morning. Of course he wouldn't answer the questions. Why?

Oh, I'm a big bad bully he says, and I'm an infiltrator he says, and I'm a saboteur he says, and I'm a fifth-columnist he says, and I'm here to disrupt the board he says. Worm, worm, worm. Anything and everything to worm out of answering the questions.

And all it ever was is exactly what you'd expect, given that I exposed his and Hunt's really catastrophically gruesome attempt at doing a little one-act play to give Hunt an alibi for his whereabouts during those hours.

So where was Hunt, really, that Caddy is covering up for (and has been for 34 years)? With Alfred Baldwin, planting "evidence" at James McCord's house to incriminate the White House, Hunt being Baldwin's ride to where he needed to go.

It's just too damned simple. And there couldn't possibly be anybody else but Hunt to be the driver for Baldwin. All the other actors were in jail except Liddy, and Liddy's role didn't have to do with planting "evidence" like Hunt's and Baldwin's roles both did. Liddy also had to be on deck early in the morning for another part of the op.

So now you know what all the writhing and "chaos" Caddy complains about really was: Caddy's flailing and moaning about having been caught in his fiction, and nothing else.

Problem is, this brings up a whole other set of questions, then, about Caddy. I think that when those start getting asked of Caddy, they're going to be being asked by properly constituted authorities who will make me look like Mother Theresa. Doug may soon be longing and pining for these nice, friendly, chummy forum moments with me.

Ashton Gray

Edited July 13, 2006 by Ashton Gray

[Pat Speer]

Problem is, this brings up a whole other set of questions, then, about Caddy. I think that when those start getting asked of Caddy, they're going to be being asked by properly constituted authorities who will make me look like Mother Theresa. Doug may soon be longing and pining for these nice, friendly, chummy forum moments with me.

Ashton Gray

Ashton, if we can't get the "properly constitued authorities" to take another look at the Kennedy assassination, then you don't stand a snowball's chance in hell of getting the "properly constituted authorities" to look at your so-called "evidence." When is the last time you heard of a criminal investigation being re-opened when most of the supposed perps have already served time, none of them have confessed to additional crimes, and the only evidence supporting their purported conspiracy is minor conflicts in their subsequent statements?

Perhaps you should head over to the FBI tomorrow. I'd love to see the looks on the faces of the local agents when you tell them that the central thesis of your theory is that the former acting director of the FBI was in fact a CIA "water-carrier."

[Michael Clark]

Bump for study