Bradley Ayers' THE ZENITH SECRET is out..

[Tim Gratz]

Dawn wrote:

That you would try to silence a potential witness in this manner is very troubling, imho.

Geez, Dawn, I'm just criticizing his writing, not attempting to shoot the guy! But most would agree that James Files should be ignored because most believe his writings afe more fiction than fact.

If Ayers is lost as a witness because he made up the Pearl story, that is HIS own responsibility. Like they say, don't get mad at the messenger.

It troubles me that it does not disturb you that Ayers may very well have made up this story. I for one do not believe Mrs. Eisenhower is a xxxx. That means that EITHER someone he calls Pearl lied TO HIM--and he never checked her story before publishing it--or he made up the whole story.

I submit that anyone who is SINCERELY interested in solving the JFK case ought to be very troubled by the possibility that an author fabricated his story. Why it surprises me that you, Robert and Bill are not in the Wisconsin northwoods knocking on Ayers' door demanding an explanation.

Edited October 29, 2007 by Tim Gratz

[Ashton Gray]

MY NAME IS MARK HOWELL. I AM A SENIOR WRITER FOR "SOLARES HILL", THE WEEKLY ARTS & LITERATURE SUPLLEMENT TO "THE KEY WEST CITIZEN".

AS MOST OF YOU KNOW, TIM GRATZ AND I HAVE AUTHORED SEVERAL ARTICLES ABOUT THE JFK ASSASSINATION, OFTEN CONCENTRATING ON THE POSSIBLE KEYS' CONNECTION.

TIM EXPLAINED TO ME THE CONTROVERSY IN THIS THREAD ABOUT WHETHER A MAN IDENTIFIED AS "PEARL'S FATHER" WORKED ON THE STAFF OF SEN BARRY GOLDWATER. HE TOLD ME THAT HE HAD CONTACTED MRS JUDY EISENHOWER, THE LONG-TIME CHIEF OF STAFF TO SENATOR GOLDWATER, FIRST BY PHONE AND LATER BY E-MAIL. SHE DENIED ANY SUCH PERSON WORKED ON THE GOLDWATER STAFF.

TIM THEN SAID THAT AT LEAST ONE PERSON ON THIS FORUM HAD ACCUSED HIM OF LYING ABOUT HIS CONTACT WITH MRS, EISENHOWER. HE ASKED ME TO LOOK AT HIS E-MAIL TO CONFIRM HIS CONTACT WITH MRS. EISENHOWER, SO A THIRD PARTY COULD DO SO.

I DID.

TIM SENT THIS E-MAIL TO MRS EISENHOWER ON SAT OCT 20 AT 6:28 p.m.:

Dear Mrs. Eisenhower:

Have you had a chance to read you the material I sent you re the allegations of Bradley Ayers re the father of a lady he identifies as "Pearl" who Ayers says Pearl says was a long-time member of Sen. Goldwater's staff?

Was there anyone associated with BG who met the description of the man Ayers describes as "Pearl's father" even if the man had no daughter named Pearl?

Thank you for any assistance you can provide so I can definitively "debunk" this lie.

I ALSO CONFIRMED THAT WHAT TIM SENT MRS EISENHOWER WAS CHAPTERS 31 AND 32 OF BRADLEY AYERS' BOOK.

THIS WAS MRS. EISENHOWER'S E-MAIL REPLY TO TIM, SENT TO TIM SUNDAY, OCTOBER 21st.

There was no one who met the description of a man such as [Ayers] describes on the Goldwater staff ever.

----- Original Message -----

I DO NOT FEEL AT LIBERTY TO DISCLOSE THE E-MAIL ADDRESS OF MRS. EISENHOWER.

I PRESUME THIS DISPOSES OF ANY POSSIBLE THOUGHT THAT TIM LIED ABOUT CONTACTING MRS. EISENHOWER OR WHAT SHE TOLD HIM.

IF ANYONE WANTS TO, I CAN VERIFY THIS POSTING MADE BY TIM BUT AT MY DIRECTION. MY E-MAIL ADDRESS IS

mhowell33040@yahoo.com.

THANK YOU.

One’s head literally spins from all the errors, omissions, distortions, self-serving misinterpretations, misstatements of fact, and unsupportable inferences drawn by Tim Gratz in his quest to discredit Brad Ayers.

With all due respect to Mark Howell, Tim Gratz’s co-author of a number of spurious articles written with the intent of pinning the Kennedy assassination on Castro, Howell’s confirmation of the Gratz/Eisenhower e-mail exchange, while quite telling in some ways, is not what Tim originally promised when he posted:

Oct 23 2007, 09:45 PM

“To satisfy you, I will provide someone on the Forum with my e-mail exchange with Mrs. Eisenhower.”

Mark is neither a Forum member nor an impartial and disinterested party, but a colleague in Tim’s past attempts to blame the assassination on Castro. Moreover, while the e-mail address provided may be his, it is demonstrable that anybody, using any name, can concoct a yahoo e-mail address.

Indeed.

Furthermore:

1. Without full headers included (in which Ms. Eisenhower's e-mail address could be redacted), claims of an e-mail exchange are absurd and have all the value of wet toilet paper.
   
2. On 13 October, in this thread, Gratz claimed: "I sent Mrs. Eisenhower a link to Chapters 31 and 32... ." Where is such a link?
   
3. By 20 October, Gratz had changed his claims about the "link" to Chapters 31 and 32, saying in this thread: "I e-mailed Mrs. Eisenhower Chapters 31 and 32 of Ayers' book and asked her to read them carefully... ." This is what the alleged Howell e-mail purports to confirm.
   
4. On 13 October, in this thread, Gratz claimed he located Ms. Eisenhower through Google, discovering there that "she was a member of a Phoenix lobbying firm." What "Phoenix lobbying firm," and where is their contact information?
   
5. According to the claims of Gratz and the completely unconfirmed claims of Howell, Ms. Eisenhower must have so trusted this complete stranger that she gave him her private, not business, e-mail address, since the Gratz/Eisenhower e-mail exhange supposedly "documented" by Gratz above is purported to have taken place on 20 October (Gratz to Eisenhower), which was a Saturday, and on 21 October (Eisenhower to Gratz), which was a Sunday.
   

Ashton

[Miles Scull]

MY NAME IS MARK HOWELL. I AM A SENIOR WRITER FOR "SOLARES HILL", THE WEEKLY ARTS & LITERATURE SUPLLEMENT TO "THE KEY WEST CITIZEN".

AS MOST OF YOU KNOW, TIM GRATZ AND I HAVE AUTHORED SEVERAL ARTICLES ABOUT THE JFK ASSASSINATION, OFTEN CONCENTRATING ON THE POSSIBLE KEYS' CONNECTION.

TIM EXPLAINED TO ME THE CONTROVERSY IN THIS THREAD ABOUT WHETHER A MAN IDENTIFIED AS "PEARL'S FATHER" WORKED ON THE STAFF OF SEN BARRY GOLDWATER. HE TOLD ME THAT HE HAD CONTACTED MRS JUDY EISENHOWER, THE LONG-TIME CHIEF OF STAFF TO SENATOR GOLDWATER, FIRST BY PHONE AND LATER BY E-MAIL. SHE DENIED ANY SUCH PERSON WORKED ON THE GOLDWATER STAFF.

TIM THEN SAID THAT AT LEAST ONE PERSON ON THIS FORUM HAD ACCUSED HIM OF LYING ABOUT HIS CONTACT WITH MRS, EISENHOWER. HE ASKED ME TO LOOK AT HIS E-MAIL TO CONFIRM HIS CONTACT WITH MRS. EISENHOWER, SO A THIRD PARTY COULD DO SO.

I DID.

TIM SENT THIS E-MAIL TO MRS EISENHOWER ON SAT OCT 20 AT 6:28 p.m.:

Dear Mrs. Eisenhower:

Have you had a chance to read you the material I sent you re the allegations of Bradley Ayers re the father of a lady he identifies as "Pearl" who Ayers says Pearl says was a long-time member of Sen. Goldwater's staff?

Was there anyone associated with BG who met the description of the man Ayers describes as "Pearl's father" even if the man had no daughter named Pearl?

Thank you for any assistance you can provide so I can definitively "debunk" this lie.

I ALSO CONFIRMED THAT WHAT TIM SENT MRS EISENHOWER WAS CHAPTERS 31 AND 32 OF BRADLEY AYERS' BOOK.

THIS WAS MRS. EISENHOWER'S E-MAIL REPLY TO TIM, SENT TO TIM SUNDAY, OCTOBER 21st.

There was no one who met the description of a man such as [Ayers] describes on the Goldwater staff ever.

----- Original Message -----

I DO NOT FEEL AT LIBERTY TO DISCLOSE THE E-MAIL ADDRESS OF MRS. EISENHOWER.

I PRESUME THIS DISPOSES OF ANY POSSIBLE THOUGHT THAT TIM LIED ABOUT CONTACTING MRS. EISENHOWER OR WHAT SHE TOLD HIM.

IF ANYONE WANTS TO, I CAN VERIFY THIS POSTING MADE BY TIM BUT AT MY DIRECTION. MY E-MAIL ADDRESS IS

mhowell33040@yahoo.com.

THANK YOU.

One’s head literally spins from all the errors, omissions, distortions, self-serving misinterpretations, misstatements of fact, and unsupportable inferences drawn by Tim Gratz in his quest to discredit Brad Ayers.

With all due respect to Mark Howell, Tim Gratz’s co-author of a number of spurious articles written with the intent of pinning the Kennedy assassination on Castro, Howell’s confirmation of the Gratz/Eisenhower e-mail exchange, while quite telling in some ways, is not what Tim originally promised when he posted:

Oct 23 2007, 09:45 PM

“To satisfy you, I will provide someone on the Forum with my e-mail exchange with Mrs. Eisenhower.”

Mark is neither a Forum member nor an impartial and disinterested party, but a colleague in Tim’s past attempts to blame the assassination on Castro. Moreover, while the e-mail address provided may be his, it is demonstrable that anybody, using any name, can concoct a yahoo e-mail address.

Indeed.

Furthermore:

1. Without full headers included (in which Ms. Eisenhower's e-mail address could be redacted), claims of an e-mail exchange are absurd and have all the value of wet toilet paper.
   
2. On 13 October, in this thread, Gratz claimed: "I sent Mrs. Eisenhower a link to Chapters 31 and 32... ." Where is such a link?
   
3. By 20 October, Gratz had changed his claims about the "link" to Chapters 31 and 32, saying in this thread: "I e-mailed Mrs. Eisenhower Chapters 31 and 32 of Ayers' book and asked her to read them carefully... ." This is what the alleged Howell e-mail purports to confirm.
   
4. On 13 October, in this thread, Gratz claimed he located Ms. Eisenhower through Google, discovering there that "she was a member of a Phoenix lobbying firm." What "Phoenix lobbying firm," and where is their contact information?
   
5. According to the claims of Gratz and the completely unconfirmed claims of Howell, Ms. Eisenhower must have so trusted this complete stranger that she gave him her private, not business, e-mail address, since the Gratz/Eisenhower e-mail exhange supposedly "documented" by Gratz above is purported to have taken place on 20 October (Gratz to Eisenhower), which was a Saturday, and on 21 October (Eisenhower to Gratz), which was a Sunday.
   

Ashton

Very odd & suggestive of a hoax on Tim's part.

What is the explanation, if there is one?

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

To consider Robert Charles-Dunne's post just boggles the mind.

Some minds boggle more easily than others.

First, he denies that he ever suggested I lied about my contacts with Mrs. Eisenhower.

If you can find me having said anything different, feel free to quote it. Should be child’s play, yet I see no citation from you.

But then he implies that I might have made up the post from Mark Howell and manufactured an e-mail address for him to further that fiction!

You simply got caught promising one thing and delivering another. It’s not the first time, but it would be nice if it were the last.

Just astounding.

RCD wrote:

Unfortunately, Tim is not “smart enough” to realize that the very same theorem - which cannot yet be used against Ayers - does apply to him, which is why his own prior misdeeds are considered germane. [it is also telling that Tim refuses to read Ayers book because he’s already prejudged it and found it “is probably replete with lies.” There’s a civics class model of due process, in Tim Gratz’s world.]

Two comments. Note that RCD uses the term "yet" with respect to Ayers. I think he in his heart of hearts suspects that AT LEAST Chapters 31 and 32 belong in the fiction section of the library.

Unlike you, I remain open to any number of possibilities. You’ve decided to prejudge the merit of what Ayers says because Pearl’s tale includes one of your political heroes, and you just cannot abide that. Were your interest sincere, you could, would and should have contacted Ayers to determine the basis of his information. But since your interest in this topic is a mile wide but only an inch deep, you cannot be bothered. It would require twenty minutes of your time and a postage stamp. Too great an imposition, apparently.

The reason I used the word “yet” was simply to illustrate that your attempts to impeach Ayers’ credibility currently have no real foundation. If they did, you would not consistently dodge the question asked by Miles Scull:

“Other than that, is there anything at all which might cause you or a thinking person to doubt Ayers' Pearl story?”

And, on a technical note, "falsus in uno" I believe does NOT apply to my postings here. Technically, "falsus in uno" applies if one has made a misstatement of fact in a legal proceeding, then the jury is entitled, as instructed by the court, that it can disregard all other statements made within that proceeding. Since my Bar problems in no way relate to the issues here, one really cannot apply that principle (it's a principle, not a theorem) to me. But as noted above, I did provide independent verification from Mark Howell re my contacts with Mrs. Eisenhower.

But you have made what thus far remains a “false statement.” You have asserted Brad Ayers is a “xxxx,” but cannot offer any compelling proof for the contention. Is there some past record of Brad Ayers having lied about something of which I am unaware? If so, feel free to cite it. Until then, you’ve yet to present any such precedent for our consumption. Your reading of the Pearl tale is well within your rights; your branding Ayers a “xxxx” based upon what you’ve offered thus far is not.

Your “Bar problems” constitute such a precedent of bad past acts. They illustrate the character of the person making the accusations against Ayers. Forum members can judge for themselves whom they find more credible, you or Ayers. I have faith in their ability to reach their own conclusions.

As for Ms. Eisenhower, you are no doubt aware that she is hardly a disinterested party, which is why her assertion is open to scrutiny. You maintain that Ayers has fabricated and dissembled in a bid to sell more books, which is a remote but hypothetical possibility. Yet you seem unable to bring the same critical thinking to the table when it comes to Ms. Eisenhower. Such inconsistencies do not go unnoticed.

Now, although RCD claims he never implied that I was lying about my contacts with Mrs. Eisenhower (I still think he did in one of his many posts here but I will try to research that) he clearly DOES imply that I fabricated the verification of a contact that he does not (he says) dispute. Where is the logic of THAT?

Bait and switch, Tim. You promised one thing and delivered another. I merely pointed out that fact. If you wish to be taken seriously, it would help you immeasurably to simply live up to your own promises, freely made of your own volition. If you have no intention of living up to your own obligations, simply quit obliging yourself.

Now RCD goes on and on about the need for a second source to verify what Mrs. Eisenhower said. He states or implies that Mrs. Eisenhower might have lied to protect BG or herself or both. Well, obviously any source I could find to verify what Mrs. Eisenhower said would also be someone very close to BG. Do you suspect RCD would not also challenge that second source?

This is a hollow feint, Tim. Once you’ve troubled yourself to provide such a second source, we’ll be better able to determine whether he merits our credence or should be subject to a challenge. Isn’t that the proper order in conducting such affairs?

Now I have located a second potential source but frankly I don't want to disturb this fellow (who is obviously now "up in years")...

Your solicitude is duly noted. Would that you had a fraction of that consideration for Brad Ayers. Perhaps you’ll get around to “disturbing” Ayers, eventually.

....unless RCD agrees that if this man verifies what Mrs. Eisenhower says, he will then accept as fact that no one as described by Mr. Ayers in Chapter 31 and 32 ever worked for BG. Then we can turn our attention to whether Ayers ever met anyone he calls "Pearl" and if that person lied to him (and he never bothered to check her story) or whether Ayers just made up the whole story.

You keep insisting that Ayers never bothered to verify Pearl’s story, but have no basis for making the claim. If you have some intimate knowledge of Ayers’ own due diligence process, please cite it. If you have no such knowledge, simply admit it.

It is also rather strange, is it not, that although RCD vigorously demand a second source verification from me re what Mrs. Eisenhower said, he apparently claims not a whit that Ayers never apparently attempted any verification of the story "Pearl" told him (assuming Pearl even exists outside Ayers' mind. One might perhaps call this as double standard. Why does RCD not suggest to the reader that one might want to take the whole "Pearl" story with severalgrains of salt because there is no independent verification of any of it?

Correction: “there is no independent verification of any of it” that you’ve bothered to seek. Feel free to contact Ayers. This is your obligation, or would be if the “sense of decency” you claim to possess weren’t so selectively applied.

RCD states in response to one of my arguments why the Pearl story is, on its face, nonsense, the following:

Tim has repeatedly insisted that Mob types need not rely upon solid citizens, for they have enough of their own flunkies, and that solid citizens cannot be dragooned into providing that service to the Mob in any case. This is fatuous nonsense. Mobsters love using solid citizens, for the patina of respectability they convey to the broader world minimizes the chance of getting caught, and provides the Mobsters with plausible deniability in the event that they are caught. “Solid citizens” need only be liable to coercion or corruption.

Interestingly, RCD provides no support for his statements from ANY recognized expert on OC.

No, instead of relying upon an expert, I merely provided one such real life example of a sitting US state Senator acting as a money courier for what he thought were criminal interests. You previously insisted that such things just don’t happen, because "straight arrows" wouldn't do such things on behalf of criminals. You were wrong. Apparently you prefer “expert” testimony to actual real life events.

Moreover, according to Brad's "Pearl", her father was neither coerced or corrupt. Well, there goes THAT RCD explanation out the window!

If he was acting at Goldwater’s behest, then it is Goldwater, not Pearl’s daddy, who may have been acting under the duress of coercion or corruption. Pearl’s father would merely have obliged his boss’ instruction.

Does it ever strike anyone that with all the effort RCD has spent formulating his attacks on me, he could have, in far less time, written to Ayers HIMSELF and simply asked Ayers for what documentation or support he had for the "Pearl" story? But don't worry, Robert, I will get around to writing Ayers myself.

Yes, and I also understand the Messiah will return. Were I a betting man, I’d wager odds on which will occur first.

ROBERT, DO YOU ACCEPT WHAT I SAID IN BOLD ABOVE? ONE REASON I SO REQUEST IS THAT I DO NOT HAVE AN E-MAIL ADDRESS FOR MY SECOND SOURCE AND WILL NEED TO PRINT OUT ALL OF CHAPTER 31 AND 32 TO MAIL TO HIM. I DON'T WANT TO UNDERGO THAT EXPENSE UNLESS I HAVE YOUR ASSURANCE YOU WILL NOT THEN BRAND THAT GENTLEMAN AS A xxxx.

First let us determine whether or not your second source is a xxxx, and then make the appropriate decision shall we? That is the ethical protocol for such matters, is it not? Isn’t that precisely what you should have done with Brad Ayers?

ALSO I WOULD REQUEST YOUR RESPONSE TO THIS QUESTION: IN KEEPING WITH THE REQUIREMENT FOR SECOND SOURCE VERIFICATION SHOULD WE NOT THEN DISREGARD EVERYTHING AYERS WRITES FOR WHICH HE DOES NOT PROVIDE INDEPENDENT VERIFICATION?

It would be helpful to know what Ayers did to confirm Pearl’s story prior to including it in his book, and you should feel free to question him in this regard. It has now been two and one half weeks since you branded him a “xxxx.” Since then, you have repeatedly asserted that you would contact him in this regard. When can we realistically expect you to make good on that promise?

[Tim Gratz]

First response to Ashton Gray:

Without full headers included (in which Ms. Eisenhower's e-mail address could be redacted), claims of an e-mail exchange are absurd and have all the value of wet toilet paper.

MARK HOWELL SAW HER E-MAIL ADDRESS AND THE COMPLETE EXCHANGE. YOU HAVE BOTH HIS BUSINESS AND PERSONAL E-MAIL ADDRESS. MARK IS AN AWARD-WINNING JOURNALIST (FIVE FIRST PLACE AWARDS IN ONE YEAR--A RECORD). MR. GRAY, DO YOU ASSERT HE WOULD RUIN HIS REPUTATION BY LYING ABOUT MY E-MAIL EXCHANGE WITH HER? IT IS YOUR IMPLICSATION THAT THIS IS A HOAX THAT IS ABSURD.

On 13 October, in this thread, Gratz claimed: "I sent Mrs. Eisenhower a link to Chapters 31 and 32... ." Where is such a link?

AS NOTED ABOVE, THE LINK IS IN POST #51 IN THIS THREAD, POSTED BY BILL KELLY. THAT IS WHAT I E-MAILED TO HER FOLLOWING OUR FIRST PHONE CONVERSATION.

By 20 October, Gratz had changed his claims about the "link" to Chapters 31 and 32, saying in this thread: "I e-mailed Mrs. Eisenhower Chapters 31 and 32 of Ayers' book and asked her to read them carefully... ." This is what the alleged Howell e-mail purports to confirm.

I E-MAILED HER A LINK TO CHAPTERS 31 AND 32. WHAT DO YOU THINK, THAT I SOMEHOW CUT AND PASTED THE ENTIRE CHAPTERS TO SEND HER? (HARD TO DO WITH PDF FILES ANYWAY. YOU ARE MAKING A DISTINCTION WITHOUT A DIFFERENCE.

On 13 October, in this thread, Gratz claimed he located Ms. Eisenhower through Google, discovering there that "she was a member of a Phoenix lobbying firm." What "Phoenix lobbying firm," and where is their contact information?

I AM UNDER NO OBLIGATION TO "DO YOUR HOMEWORK FOR YOU." IF I FOUND HER IN AN HOUR, YOU CAN TOO IF YOU REALLY WANT TO. WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE THAT I DID NOT PROVIDE CONTACT INFO WITH HER? YOU THINK I MADE HER UP? READ GOLDWATER'S AUTOBIOGRAPHY. HER MAIDEN NAME WAS JUDY ROONEY. SHE WAS GOLDWATER'S SECRETARY FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS BEFORE SHE BECAME HIS CHIEF OF STAFF.

According to the claims of Gratz and the completely unconfirmed claims of Howell, Ms. Eisenhower must have so trusted this complete stranger that she gave him her private, not business, e-mail address, since the Gratz/Eisenhower e-mail exhange supposedly "documented" by Gratz above is purported to have taken place on 20 October (Gratz to Eisenhower), which was a Saturday, and on 21 October (Eisenhower to Gratz), which was a Sunday.

THE COMPLETELY UNCONFIRMED REPORTS OF HOWELL? WHAT DO YOU WANT ME TO DO, BRING IN A THIRD PERSON TO CONFIRM WHAT HOWELL SAID? AS I SAID ABOVE, YOU CAN E-MAIL HOWELL DIRECTLY TO CONFIRM THAT I ALLOWED HIM ACCESS TO MY E-MAIL EXCHANGE WITH MRS. EISENHOWER. AND YES, SHE DID TRUST ME OVER THE PHONE. I TOLD HER HOW PRESIDENT EISENHOWER HAD INSPIRED ME TO BECOME A REPUBLICAN WHEN I WAS ONLY EIGHT OR NINE YEARS OLD, AND HOW FERVENTLY I SUPPORTED BARRY GOLDWATER. AGAIN, WHAT ARE YOU IMPLYING? IT CAN ONLY BE: 1. THAT I MADE THIS UP; AND 2. MARK IS RISKING HIS REPUTATION TO LIE TO CORROBORATE MY STORY. THOSE SUGGESTIONS ARE MORE THAN ABSURD, MR. GRAY. THEY ARE WAY OUT THERE IN La-LA LAND. I SUGGEST YOU CHANGE THE FLAVOR OF KOOL AID YOU ARE DRINKING,

Edited October 29, 2007 by Tim Gratz

[Tim Gratz]

To Robert:

Way back eons ago Mark Howell did join the Forum but to the best of my knowledge he posted only once or twice and he forgot his password. Your making a big point that I had Mark confirm the story rather than a recognized Forum member is--well, it's just plain silly. You were smart enough to locate his business e-mail address. Let me state that the reason I did not give out that address is that Mark is sensitive about receiving e-mails re the Kennedy case through an e-mail address that I believe his employer can monitor.

Now you LOVE to bring up my Bar problems to try to demonstrate I am a person of low moral character. Well, it is now time for me to finally be frank about what I think about your doing that. Being in desperate financial straits, having lost a huge case and then losing several months' of work due to a sickness, knowing what I did was wrong, I "borrowed" money from my trust account but was repaying it once I was again earning income. Once I was contacted by the Bar investigator, I went in to her office and leveled with her. It was appropriate that I was discovered and paid a very heavy price for it. But it is completely wrong for you to use that incident to claim I am of bad character. I know there are other Forum members who understand that.

After Hurricane Georges in 1998, I worked for several months as an overnight stock person in K-Mart. Never once did I even take a single candy bar from K-Mart. A year or so ago, I worked in a hotel with a man named Fred K. I had worked with Fred in the same place about six years earlier. Showing what a small city Key West is, it turns out that Fred's brother was once married to Mark Howell's wife and that Mark's stepdaughter is my friend Fred's nephew. Well, in any event, Fred can confirm that I would quite often find a dollar, or a five, left at the bar for the bartender who had already left. I always made sure the bartender received his tip although I could have pocketed the money and no one would be the wiser.

I think it shows YOUR moral character, Robert, that you continually bring up the Bar "incident" to characterize me as a dishonest person. Unless you assert I am LYING about my exchange with Mrs. Eisenhower, for instance, since my "credibility" is not in issue, the moral lapse I had twenty years ago is of no relevance whatsoever.

Do you have ANY evidence whatsoever that apart from the Bar incident in the early 1990s I have ever before or since committed any immoral or illegal act (other than occasionally exceeding the speed limit)? If you do not, I really suggest you stop questioning my moral character due to one incident that was both egregious and contrary to my moral standards. I also suggest, as Jesus told the hypocrites about to stone the adulterer, that the person who had never sinned should cast the first stone. With all the moral indignation you have heaped upon me every chance you get, can we assume you have never committed an immoral act yourself?

You wrote in response to one of my questions:

I merely provided one such real life example of a sitting US state Senator acting as a money courier for what he thought were criminal interests. You previously insisted that such things just don’t happen, because "straight arrows" wouldn't do such things on behalf of criminals. You were wrong. Apparently you prefer “expert” testimony to actual real life events. Sorry, I missed where you posted this. Can you recite it once more?

And I have this simple question for you: are you going to apologize to me if I get around to writing Ayers' before the Second Coming of the Messiah and he stonewalls and dodges or refuses to answer my questions? Do you agree it is an egregious thing if he made up the Pearl story? Obviously anyone who deliberately inserts false evidence about the Kennedy assassination both impedes and hinders the search for truth.

Edited October 29, 2007 by Tim Gratz

[Tim Gratz]

Robert wrote:

You keep insisting that Ayers never bothered to verify Pearl’s story, but have no basis for making the claim. If you have some intimate knowledge of Ayers’ own due diligence process, please cite it. If you have no such knowledge, simply admit it.

Gee, Robert, are you only as intelligent as you often seem when you put on your thinking cap? Well you must have not had it on when you wrote that. Please redon it and then read this:

Do you think that had Ayers verified that a person as named by Pearl (whether that is his infoermant's real name or sex) had actually worked for BG he might have found the time and space to insert a single sentence to that effect? I think the ONLY reasonable inference why he did not state he had performed that basic first-step verification is because he had not done so. Do you have another other reason why he did not write: "And dear reader, I confirmed through [whatever source] that Pearl's father was indeed a long-term employee of Senator Goldwater." If you have such a reason to believe he did that simple first-step verification but failed to write eighteen words to verify it, I would certainly LOVE to hear your explanation!

[Tim Gratz]

In Post # 68 here Robert Charles-Dunne wrote: (my emphasis)

And the very first thing that Tim did was to seek a second confirmation that Judy Eisenhower is who she claimed to be, that she was indeed BG's chief of staff in the pertinent time period, that she did indeed know everyone in BG's rather large social circle, that she could indeed make sweeping declarations of who BG did and didn't know, based solely upon the existence of a daughter whose name may or may not have been Pearl. Oh, Tim didn't do that, or else he would have provided us with chapter and verse on same in his posts? My what a completely predictable and telling oversight.

Now remember what Robert wrote re Ayers:

You keep insisting that Ayers never bothered to verify Pearl’s story, but have no basis for making the claim.

Do you notice a double standard in operation here, folks? Robert concludes that if I had "a second confirmation that Judy Eisenhower is who she claimed to be" I "would have provided chapter and verse in [my] posts". And yet, despite the fact that Ayers never claims any independent verification for what Pearl told him (if she even existed) that is not suifficient for Robert to draw the VERY SAME CONCLUSION that had Ayers had any such confirmation he would have written about it.

I simply drew the same conclusion re Ayers that Robert drew about me!

Note also that EVERY SINGLE TIME that Robert challenges me on a poiint, I am proven correct. In his very first post in his thread, Robert was trying to cast doubt that Judy Eisenhower was who she claimed to be. But he now knows full well that she was indeed first BG's secretary and later his chief of staff. Listening to Robert's rhetoric gets you no place fast, folks.

Robert, am I not entitled to draw the same conclusion about Ayers' lack of independent verification (because he never wrote about it) that you drew about mine (if I had it I would have wriiten about it)? If so, then just how could you argue that I had "no basis" for making the claim that Ayers had not verified Pearl's story? My BASIS re Ayers was EXACTLY your basis about my post!

Of course it is awfully hard to verify the story of someone who exists only in your mind.

Edited October 30, 2007 by Tim Gratz

[Tim Gratz]

Robert, I do owe you an apology about one thing. It was indeed Bill and not you who suggested I was lying about Mrs. Eisenhower:

Bill wrote:

I thought we were evaluating BEA's character, and you said he made up "Pearl" as a figment of his imagination, and I now question whether you are making up characters too. Why is that an insult to you, but not to BEA?

So BIll thought I "made up" Mrs. Eisenhower? What a laugh!

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

To Robert:

Way back eons ago Mark Howell did join the Forum but to the best of my knowledge he posted only once or twice and he forgot his password. Your making a big point that I had Mark confirm the story rather than a recognized Forum member is--well, it's just plain silly. You were smart enough to locate his business e-mail address. Let me state that the reason I did not give out that address is that Mark is sensitive about receiving e-mails re the Kennedy case through an e-mail address that I believe his employer can monitor.

Now you LOVE to bring up my Bar problems to try to demonstrate I am a person of low moral character. Well, it is now time for me to finally be frank about what I think about your doing that. Being in desperate financial straits, having lost a huge case and then losing several months' of work due to a sickness, knowing what I did was wrong, I "borrowed" money from my trust account but was repaying it once I was again earning income. Once I was contacted by the Bar investigator, I went in to her office and leveled with her. It was appropriate that I was discovered and paid a very heavy price for it. But it is completely wrong for you to use that incident to claim I am of bad character. I know there are other Forum members who understand that.

After Hurricane Georges in 1998, I worked for several months as an overnight stock person in K-Mart. Never once did I even take a single candy bar from K-Mart. A year or so ago, I worked in a hotel with a man named Fred K. I had worked with Fred in the same place about six years earlier. Showing what a small city Key West is, it turns out that Fred's brother was once married to Mark Howell's wife and that Mark's stepdaughter is my friend Fred's nephew. Well, in any event, Fred can confirm that I would quite often find a dollar, or a five, left at the bar for the bartender who had already left. I always made sure the bartender received his tip although I could have pocketed the money and no one would be the wiser.

I think it shows YOUR moral character, Robert, that you continually bring up the Bar "incident" to characterize me as a dishonest person. Unless you assert I am LYING about my exchange with Mrs. Eisenhower, for instance, since my "credibility" is not in issue, the moral lapse I had twenty years ago is of no relevance whatsoever.

Do you have ANY evidence whatsoever that apart from the Bar incident in the early 1990s I have ever before or since committed any immoral or illegal act (other than occasionally exceeding the speed limit)? If you do not, I really suggest you stop questioning my moral character due to one incident that was both egregious and contrary to my moral standards. I also suggest, as Jesus told the hypocrites about to stone the adulterer, that the person who had never sinned should cast the first stone. With all the moral indignation you have heaped upon me every chance you get, can we assume you have never committed an immoral act yourself?

False assumptions are your specialty, Tim, so assume what you like. You have falsely assumed much about Brad Ayers, based solely upon your reading of his Goldwater story. Your reasons for doing so are two-fold: he has impugned one of your political heroes with the Pearl story, and by attempting in return to impugn Ayers’ book in toto, you give aid and comfort to CIA, which remains one of your recurring tics here.

I have already cited the reasons for bringing up your “Bar problems,” so will refrain from reiterating yet again why I thought it germane. Far too much attention has already been drawn to it, far more than I had intended. However, now that it is on the record, let us reach an accommodation with each other on that score.

First, neither of us need mention anything further about it. It’s in the record, you’ve offered your thoughts on it, and readers can draw their own conclusions from it. The longer it is dwelled upon, the more attention gets drawn to it, which serves neither of us well.

Second, I think the essential problem is your use of the word “xxxx” as regards Ayers, absent sufficient proof, yet to be presented. I think you would find the heat here reduced considerably, and your own good name could only benefit, were you to offer up a half-hearted retraction of “xxxx.” Something like, “While I strongly suspect Brad Ayers fabricated the Pearl story, it was inaccurate and intemperate of me to state categorically that he is a “xxxx.” If and when I can present such evidence as might prove Ayers fabricated the Pearl story, I will revisit the issue.”

You see, basic fairness requires that one refrain from such sweeping condemnations as “xxxx” without sufficient evidence. As I recall, it was the implication that you had lied about something on the Forum that led to you threatening a lawsuit. Can you not see that, absent compelling evidence to the contrary, Ayers is entitled to the very same consideration that you have sought for yourself? Otherwise, there is an errant hypocrisy evident in your approach.

Third, as I’ve already pointed out, none of this is intended to silence your thoughts on the matter, only that you use the appropriate language. I notice that since you were called on depicting Ayers as a “xxxx,” you have strenuously qualified your subsequent statements by liberal use of the word “if.” That’s as it should be. More measured use of language doesn’t prevent you from questioning Ayers’ veracity or drawing attention to what you think are flaws or weak spots in his story. Feel free.

You wrote in response to one of my questions:

I merely provided one such real life example of a sitting US state Senator acting as a money courier for what he thought were criminal interests. You previously insisted that such things just don’t happen, because "straight arrows" wouldn't do such things on behalf of criminals. You were wrong. Apparently you prefer “expert” testimony to actual real life events. Sorry, I missed where you posted this. Can you recite it once more?

I think you missed this link, cited in my post # 16:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html...75BC0A961948260

And I have this simple question for you: are you going to apologize to me if I get around to writing Ayers' before the Second Coming of the Messiah and he stonewalls and dodges or refuses to answer my questions? Do you agree it is an egregious thing if he made up the Pearl story? Obviously anyone who deliberately inserts false evidence about the Kennedy assassination both impedes and hinders the search for truth.

I couldn’t agree more, which is why I would ask you to refrain from making what remain to date false accusations against Ayers. Disagree with him all you like, do your best to prove your contention that he falsified something. Just don’t convict him as guilty until you’ve given him the benefit of a fair trial. It’s what you’ve insisted upon for yourself on this very Forum in the past. Extend him the same courtesy your demand for yourself.

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

To save time and Forum space, I’ll respond to several of Tim’s posts in one reply.

Robert wrote:

You keep insisting that Ayers never bothered to verify Pearl’s story, but have no basis for making the claim. If you have some intimate knowledge of Ayers’ own due diligence process, please cite it. If you have no such knowledge, simply admit it.

Gee, Robert, are you only as intelligent as you often seem when you put on your thinking cap? Well you must have not had it on when you wrote that. Please redon it and then read this:

Do you think that had Ayers verified that a person as named by Pearl (whether that is his infoermant's real name or sex) had actually worked for BG he might have found the time and space to insert a single sentence to that effect? I think the ONLY reasonable inference why he did not state he had performed that basic first-step verification is because he had not done so. Do you have another other reason why he did not write: "And dear reader, I confirmed through [whatever source] that Pearl's father was indeed a long-term employee of Senator Goldwater." If you have such a reason to believe he did that simple first-step verification but failed to write eighteen words to verify it, I would certainly LOVE to hear your explanation!

As I’ve repeated to the point of fatigue, it would be helpful to know this, and I invite you to ask him about it, as you’ve repeatedly said you would. It is not unusual for authors to present characters in their work and refrain from explaining all the due diligence involved in assessing their veracity. It is incumbent upon any author to mention reasons for possibly dis-believing those characters, where reason to doubt their veracity exists. If there are reasons to consider Pearl’s credibility untrustworthy, Ayers had an obligation to the reader to provide same. Let us know once you’ve contacted him, as you’ve promised to do repeatedly.

TIM ALSO WROTE:

Robert, I do owe you an apology about one thing.

Thank you. It is most gracious.

It was indeed Bill and not you who suggested I was lying about Mrs. Eisenhower:

Bill wrote:

I thought we were evaluating BEA's character, and you said he made up "Pearl" as a figment of his imagination, and I now question whether you are making up characters too. Why is that an insult to you, but not to BEA?

So BIll thought I "made up" Mrs. Eisenhower? What a laugh!

Please see my comments about this below.

TIM ALSO WROTE:

In Post # 68 here Robert Charles-Dunne wrote: (my emphasis)

And the very first thing that Tim did was to seek a second confirmation that Judy Eisenhower is who she claimed to be, that she was indeed BG's chief of staff in the pertinent time period, that she did indeed know everyone in BG's rather large social circle, that she could indeed make sweeping declarations of who BG did and didn't know, based solely upon the existence of a daughter whose name may or may not have been Pearl. Oh, Tim didn't do that, or else he would have provided us with chapter and verse on same in his posts? My what a completely predictable and telling oversight.

Now remember what Robert wrote re Ayers:

You keep insisting that Ayers never bothered to verify Pearl’s story, but have no basis for making the claim.

Do you notice a double standard in operation here, folks? Robert concludes that if I had "a second confirmation that Judy Eisenhower is who she claimed to be" I "would have provided chapter and verse in [my] posts". And yet, despite the fact that Ayers never claims any independent verification for what Pearl told him (if she even existed) that is not suifficient for Robert to draw the VERY SAME CONCLUSION that had Ayers had any such confirmation he would have written about it.

I simply drew the same conclusion re Ayers that Robert drew about me!

Note also that EVERY SINGLE TIME that Robert challenges me on a poiint, I am proven correct. In his very first post in his thread, Robert was trying to cast doubt that Judy Eisenhower was who she claimed to be. But he now knows full well that she was indeed first BG's secretary and later his chief of staff. Listening to Robert's rhetoric gets you no place fast, folks.

Robert, am I not entitled to draw the same conclusion about Ayers' lack of independent verification (because he never wrote about it) that you drew about mine (if I had it I would have wriiten about it)? If so, then just how could you argue that I had "no basis" for making the claim that Ayers had not verified Pearl's story? My BASIS re Ayers was EXACTLY your basis about my post!

Of course it is awfully hard to verify the story of someone who exists only in your mind.

This conflates two separate issues.

First, to view Tim’s point from the opposite perspective, he feels perfectly sanguine in branding Brad Ayers a “xxxx” without seeking out a second source to back up the contention, and then justifies the use of the word “xxxx” because Brad Ayers didn’t advise his readers whether or not he had sought out a second source. Ayers’ is a sin of omission, and possibly worse; Tim’s is a sin of commission, which is worse. Apparently Tim would like to apply one standard to Ayers, and another to himself. It is a recurring tic.

Second, I drew an incorrect inference about the nature of your relations with Ms. Eisenhower, because of the wording in the first reference to it I found, in the thread entitled “Take Over.” To wit:

It is what you could call a low stress job. But when duty calls I rise to the occasion. I just checked in (took about an hour) a lovely family of seven from England: grandparents, parents and three children. The grandparents and parents are renewing their wedding vows on Smathers Beach tomorrow. Frankly, I would rather work with people than post on the Forum but when it is slow the Internet both passes the time and prevents me from dozing off. It was in 2003 that while "surfing" Gordon's web-site I encountered the story of Gaeton Fonzi's trip to Key West and it was in pursuing that story and the other Key West connections that got me into this. It has been a fascinating experience. Why just this morning I got to speak with the lady who was Barry Goldwater's long time chief of staff. a lady married to a relative of President Eisenhower. It is those kind of personal interactions that IMO make this research interesting.

Due to the stream-of-consciousness nature of the above, I incorrectly inferred Tim had met Ms. Eisenhower during the course of his clerking duties. That is why I suggested it would be additionally helpful to confirm whatever she told him. This has led to subsequent confusion, for which I can only apologize. I suspect Bill Kelly’s comments, cited above, may have been fed in part by my comment.

[Tim Gratz]

Robert, your last paragraph was most gracious. I could not figure out why you thought I had met Mrs. Eisenhower checking her in to the hotel!

But it is amazing who I have met in Key West. e.g. about ten years ago Karl Rove's secretary and then about three years ago Ken Starr's secretary. Must just be a coincidence. About seven years ago Melody's mom was working in a jewelery store, happened to wait on a lady, and after talking to her, it turned out she was from Marshfield, WI and what was even more amazing she was married to a doctor who had treated Loretta when she was in a bad car accident on a snow-covered Wisconsin backroad some twenty or so years ago. So an hour or two later Loretta met the doctor who had helped save her life twenty years earlier!

[William Kelly]

Robert, I do owe you an apology about one thing. It was indeed Bill and not you who suggested I was lying about Mrs. Eisenhower:

Bill wrote:

I thought we were evaluating BEA's character, and you said he made up "Pearl" as a figment of his imagination, and I now question whether you are making up characters too. Why is that an insult to you, but not to BEA?

So BIll thought I "made up" Mrs. Eisenhower? What a laugh!

Tim, Did I even mention Mrs. Eisenhower? Is she the only character in your stroy?

Is this week Fantasy Fest in Key West?

Is it too late to book a room?

BK

[Tim Gratz]

Sorry, Bill, you missed it by a week. The parade was last Saturday.

My favorite entry was the "Fidel" entry. Fidel was riding in an open jeep, with a huge cigar (of course). The jeep was preceded by a bevy of beautiful girls, dressed in camoflaugue uniforms (thus being the only fully-clothed females in the parade) and carrying "mock" submachine guns. Two signs were prominent: "Find the party before THE PARTY finds you!" and "Party like it's 1959!"

Edited October 31, 2007 by Tim Gratz

[Tim Gratz]

INTERESTING INTERCHANGE:

Bill wrote (many moons ago):

I thought we were evaluating BEA's character, and you said he made up "Pearl" as a figment of his imagination, and I now question whether you are making up characters too. Why is that an insult to you, but not to BEA?

To which I responded yesterday:

So BIll thought I "made up" Mrs. Eisenhower? What a laugh!

To which Bill's retort is:

Tim, Did I even mention Mrs. Eisenhower? Is she the only character in your stroy?

Why, Bill, yes of course Mrs. Eisenhower is the only person I introduced into this thread. You know that as well as I do. Pearl, of course, was invented by Mr. Ayers, not by me.