- Spitfire List - https://spitfirelist.com -

FTR #318 Kidding Around: Child Molestation and Pedophilia in the GOP

[1]MP3 Side 1 [2] | Side 2 [3]

This pro­gram exam­ines alle­ga­tions pre­sent­ed in a book by a very con­ser­v­a­tive Nebras­ka state sen­a­tor con­cern­ing orga­nized pedophile rings with­in the ranks of the Repub­li­can par­ty. These alleged activ­i­ties over­lap not only the admin­is­tra­tion of the elder George Bush but some of the activ­i­ties involved in the Iran-Con­tra scan­dal as well.

1. The pro­gram begins with dis­cus­sion of the arrest of a GOP may­or for alleged­ly lur­ing a minor for sex. As we shall see, this sort of thing is not as unusu­al as one might sup­pose with­in the ranks of the GOP. The alle­ga­tions con­tained in The Franklin Cov­er-Up [1] put the con­cept of “fam­i­ly values”—much bal­ly­hooed by the GOP, in a dra­mat­i­cal­ly dif­fer­ent light.

“May­or Philip A. Gior­dano of Water­bury, who lost a long-shot bid last year to unseat Sen­a­tor Joseph I. Lieber­man and whose city has been tee­ter­ing on the edge of bank­rupt­cy, was arrest­ed in New Haven this morn­ing by fed­er­al agents in New Haven and accused of lur­ing a minor for sex. . . . At a news con­fer­ence at the office of the Unit­ed States attor­ney for Con­necti­cut in New Haven, offi­cials said Mr. Gior­dano had engaged in ‘inap­pro­pri­ate sex’ with ‘chil­dren,’ though they did not state the num­ber, age or sex of the vic­tims. The spe­cial agent in charge of the Fed­er­al Bureau of Inves­ti­ga­tion in Con­necti­cut, Michael J. Wolf, said, ‘The pub­lic expects and deserves utmost hon­esty, integri­ty and strong moral fiber from those who serve on their behalf.’ He called Mr. Giordano’s con­duct ‘dis­grace­ful.’”

(“Con­necti­cut May­or Is Arrest­ed by U.S. Agents in Child Sex Case” by David M. Her­szen­horn; The New York Times; 7/27/2001; p. A19.)

2. Accord­ing to the con­ser­v­a­tive Nebras­ka state leg­is­la­tor John W. De Camp (a dec­o­rat­ed Viet­nam vet­er­an), the sort of activ­i­ties that Gior­dano was accused of engag­ing in are, to a cer­tain extent, rep­re­sen­ta­tive of how ele­ments of the GOP get their kicks. While prob­ing the col­lapse of a Nebras­ka finan­cial insti­tu­tion, inves­ti­ga­tors came upon some inter­est­ing oper­a­tions alleged­ly super­vised by a promi­nent Nebras­ka GOP big­wig, Lar­ry King (not to be con­fused with the syn­di­cat­ed talk show host.) Mr. Emory notes that the sec­ond edi­tion of the book con­tains some mate­r­i­al which is eas­i­ly discredited—due, appar­ent­ly, to De Camp’s hav­ing been over­ly trust­ing of some of the infor­ma­tion being dis­sem­i­nat­ed by the less respon­si­ble ele­ments of the mili­tia milieu.

(The Franklin Cov­er-Up; by John W. De Camp; Copy­right 1992 by AWT, Incor­po­rat­ed; ISBN 0–9632158‑0–9.)

3. De Camp describes Lar­ry King’s polit­i­cal and “extracur­ric­u­lar” activ­i­ties.

“When Lar­ry King trav­eled the polit­i­cal cir­cuit, he evi­dent­ly had two agen­das. To the pub­lic, he was the ris­ing GOP star with the res­o­nant bari­tone voice. Some­thing else went on behind closed doors.”

(Ibid.; p. 166.)

4. What were the alleged clan­des­tine activ­i­ties that De Camp was refer­ring to?

“At the Dal­las [GOP] con­ven­tion in 1984, King threw his splashy par­ty at South­fork Ranch, remem­bered by me and many oth­er del­e­gates as an unpar­al­leled extrav­a­gan­za. Accord­ing to sev­er­al vic­tim-wit­ness­es, he also arranged some pri­vate events dur­ing the con­ven­tion. They recall being flown to Dal­las, to be sex­u­al­ly used by con­ven­tion-goers. Gary Caradori mapped the rec­ol­lec­tions of the Webb fos­ter chil­dren in his notes of Feb­ru­ary 1990: ‘Dur­ing this vis­it [the children’s aunt] Mar­cy informed [social work­er] Joanie that [the youngest Pat­ter­son Webb sis­ter] Kendra had told her she had been trans­port­ed around the coun­try sev­er­al times, she thought to Texas and Louisiana. Mar­cy remem­bered Texas in par­tic­u­lar, and a Repub­li­can Con­ven­tion because one of the chil­dren, pos­si­bly Kendra, had a book of match­es from Texas and that is how the chil­dren had known where they were at. Joanie stat­ed she remem­bered that the chil­dren had been exploit­ed sex­u­al­ly in Texas, and she indi­cat­ed that it was [the] feel­ing this activ­i­ty had been occur­ring for sev­er­al years.’”

(Ibid.; p. 167.)

5. De Camp con­tin­ues with his alle­ga­tions con­cern­ing King.

“I was lat­er to learn from Paul Bonac­ci, that he was also at the famed South­fork par­ty. He described it for me in exact detail, some sev­en years after the par­ty took place. He had been here for the pur­pose of pro­vid­ing sex­u­al favors for peo­ple Lar­ry King want­ed to accom­mo­date, sat­is­fy, or com­pro­mise. Paul said he was one of a troop of teenaged boys and girls, whom King had shipped to Dal­las for his pur­pos­es.”

(Ibid.; p. 167.)

6.

“I have talked to Paul repeat­ed­ly about this par­ty. I have lis­tened to his descrip­tion. Only by hav­ing been there, could some­one describe the set­ting the way Paul did to me. Because I was there myself for the par­ty, I am cer­tain that Paul Bonac­ci was there and did not invent his sto­ry or his descrip­tion of the par­ty. This was, it hap­pens, just one of Paul’s leads into mat­ters sur­round­ing Lar­ry King and Franklin that I could per­son­al­ly check out and know the boy was telling the truth. Not because some­body told me he was telling the truth. Not because some­body said he passed a lie detec­tor test on the sub­ject. But because I was there and saw a part of it, and saw the exact same things this boy did.”

(Idem.)

7. More about King’s social activ­i­ties and a Repub­li­can con­ven­tion, this one in New Orleans in 1988.

“Again in 1988, atten­dance at Lar­ry King’s par­ty was vir­tu­al­ly manda­to­ry for any true Nebras­ka Repub­li­can attend­ing the Repub­li­can Nation­al Con­ven­tion, held this time in New Orleans. Most of the Nebras­ka del­e­ga­tion was trans­port­ed to the par­ty by bus. The theme of the fes­tiv­i­ties was Mar­di Gras.”

(Idem.)

8. De Camp alleges that the “fun and games” that King was arrang­ing at the New Orleans con­ven­tion were sim­i­lar to the activ­i­ties at the 1984 Dal­las con­ven­tion.

“King’s par­ties were designed to bring in every­body, from the inno­cent to the top-rank­ing busi­ness­men and politi­cians. I per­son­al­ly attend­ed the two largest par­ties he ever threw, as did many Repub­li­can offi­cials. As a guest at the par­ty, you would not know from the out­er glit­ter, what sor­did activ­i­ty was going on behind the scenes. I am sure that was the char­ac­ter of many of Lar­ry King’s par­ties, par­tic­u­lar­ly the polit­i­cal events. Out­ward­ly, they had the appear­ance of legit­i­ma­cy, with promi­nent peo­ple in atten­dance, from may­ors to pres­i­dents, from busi­ness­men to con­gress­men. So, when peo­ple say to me, Well, I was at one of Lar­ry King’s par­ties and I did not see any of this sex or drug or pedophil­ia stuff,’ I under­stand that they may be speak­ing with hon­esty and accu­ra­cy. As to what real­ly went on, I believe they are wrong.”

(Ibid.; p. 168.)

9. De Camp dis­cuss­es some oth­er inter­est­ing man­i­fes­ta­tions of King/GOP “fam­i­ly val­ues.”

“King acquired con­tacts in Washington’s homo­sex­u­al pros­ti­tu­tion scene, one of whom was the late Craig Spence. A lob­by­ist and polit­i­cal oper­a­tive, Spence main­tained a call boy ring that catered to the polit­i­cal elite and, unlike most D.C. call boy rings, offered chil­dren to its clients.”

(Ibid.; p. 169.)

10. More about the afore­men­tioned Craig Spence.

“Spence’s activ­i­ties made ban­ner head­lines in the Wash­ing­ton Times on June 29, 1989: ‘Homo­sex­u­al pros­ti­tu­tion inquiry ensnares VIP’s with Rea­gan, Bush.’ Spence’s access was so good, that he could arrange night­time tours of the White House for his clients. The Times added on August 9, 1989, that Spence ‘hint­ed the tours were arranged by ‘top lev­el’ per­sons, includ­ing Don­ald Gregg, nation­al secu­ri­ty advi­sor to Vice Pres­i­dent Bush. . . .” Spence, accord­ing to friends, was also car­ry­ing out homo­sex­u­al black­mail oper­a­tions for the CIA.”

(Idem.)

11. De Camp alleges that Lar­ry King’s activ­i­ties were dis­cov­ered through an inves­ti­ga­tion into Spence’s oper­a­tions.

“Accord­ing to a Wash­ing­ton, D.C. inves­tiga­tive jour­nal­ist who researched the Spence ring, ‘The way we dis­cov­ered Lar­ry King and this Nebras­ka-based call boy ring, was by look­ing through the cred­it card chits of Spence’s ring, where we found King’s name.’ Anoth­er inves­ti­ga­tor, with per­son­al knowl­edge of the call-boy rings oper­at­ing in Wash­ing­ton, put it this way: ‘Lar­ry King and Craig Spence were busi­ness part­ners. Look at two com­pa­nies, ‘Dream Boys’ and ‘Man to Man’, both of which oper­at­ed under anoth­er ser­vice, ‘Bod­ies by God.’”

(Idem.)

12. Appar­ent­ly, the inves­ti­ga­tion of Spence’s activ­i­ties was fol­lowed by a seri­ous down­turn in Spence’s health. De Camp alleges that both Spence and King were involved with the Iran-Con­tra imbroglio.

“When Craig Spence turned up dead—a sui­cide, police were quick to say—in a Boston hotel room, in Novem­ber 1989, it was the lat­est in the long string of deaths of per­sons linked to Iran-Con­tra covert oper­a­tions and fund­ing. There is evi­dence that Lar­ry King had Wash­ing­ton busi­ness in that area as well. ‘In the 6 ½ months since fed­er­al author­i­ties closed Franklin, rumors have per­sist­ed that mon­ey from the cred­it union some­how found its way to the Nicaraguan con­tra rebels,’ said a World-Her­ald arti­cle on May 21, 1989.”

(Idem.)

13.

“The first World-Her­ald reporter on the Franklin case, James Allen Flan­ery, appar­ent­ly found more than rumors about the mon­ey-laun­der­ing. In late 1988, Flan­ery called Car­ol Stitt to dis­cuss what he had learned. Their con­ver­sa­tion is relat­ed in a Feb­ru­ary 21, 1989 report by Jer­ry Lowe: ‘Carol’s notes also have a ref­er­ence to Lar­ry King run­ning guns and mon­ey into Nicaragua . . . . Carol’s notes on Dec. 21, 1988 reflect that she talked with Flan­ery and in addi­tion to the Nicaraguan info, he was also now talk­ing about CIA involve­ment and pro­vid­ed info that yes­ter­day (Dec. 20) the FBI quit coop­er­at­ing with him . . . . Carol’s notes next jump to Feb.6, 1989, where she talked on the phone with Flan­ery and Flan­ery told her that the appro­pri­ate peo­ple didn’t want to believe any of this and who was ever going to pros­e­cute it. Appar­ent­ly Flan­ery told Car­ol he was close to resign­ing and the rea­sons he didn’t think any­one want­ed to do any­thing was because of the pos­si­bil­i­ty of a White House con­nec­tion, the con­nec­tions to a num­ber of big peo­ple, and he fact that the inves­ti­ga­tors want­ed bad­ly to con­fine this all to the mon­ey. Also many white peo­ple made Lar­ry King [who was African-Amer­i­can], he did not hap­pen on his own.’”

(Ibid.; p. 170.)

“Appar­ent­ly Flan­ery told Car­ol he was uncom­fort­able on the phone, his edi­tor was dis­tressed and things he had writ­ten were con­tin­u­al­ly edit­ed, he want­ed to his byline off the arti­cle print­ed the 9th among oth­er things . . . Flan­ery also expressed con­cern to Car­ol that if he didn’t get off this sto­ry he wor­ried about being com­pro­mised.” Soon Flan­ery was off the Franklin case, which con­tin­ued for months to be the major news lead in Nebras­ka, and went to the Uni­ver­si­ty of Kansas on Sab­bat­i­cal. When he returned a year lat­er, Flan­ery no longer wrote. about Franklin.”

(Idem.)

14. The sub­ject of the Iran-Con­tra scan­dal will be revis­it­ed lat­er in the dis­cus­sion. One should note that the views expressed in what fol­lows are those of the speak­ers and are not to be mis­con­strued as homo­pho­bia. Rather, the self-right­eous chest-beat­ing on the part of the GOP, their embrace of the Chris­t­ian Right and their exco­ri­a­tion of gays and cyn­i­cal manip­u­la­tion of homo­pho­bia in order to advance the Repub­li­can elec­toral agen­da are quite note­wor­thy in this con­text. (Writer David Brock not­ed the gay skele­tons in the Repub­li­can Par­ty when he was attacked for his own gay­ness fol­low­ing the pub­li­ca­tion of his book The Seduc­tion of Hillary Clin­ton.) De Camp notes the reac­tion of an offi­cial of the Franklin Nation­al Cred­it Union to his inves­ti­ga­tion. Again, the views expressed here are De Camp’s.

“Squelch­ing inter­est in an Iran-Con­tra con­nec­tion to Fanklin was also a top­ic of the hour, in that phone call I received from Nation­al Cred­it Union admin­is­tra­tion offi­cial Fen­ner, back in the ear­ly months of the leg­isla­tive Franklin probe. ‘Why would the head of the NCUA be want­i­ng to talk to me?’ I won­dered out loud, when my sec­re­tary said that Fen­ner was on the line. The man on the oth­er end of the phone said he knew I was a close friend of for­mer CIA head Bill Col­by, and that I also was Sen­a­tor Loran Schmit’s per­son­al attor­ney. He quick­ly came to his point.”

(Ibid.; pp. 170–171.)

15. De Camp dis­cuss­es his rela­tion­ship with for­mer CIA chief William Col­by and dis­cus­sion of the loot­ing of Franklin in order to finance the Con­tras.

“‘I know there are a lot rumors, that Franklin was being used as a front for laun­der­ing mon­ey for the Con­tras and that a lot of the mon­ey that is miss­ing from Franklin actu­al­ly went to finance the Con­tras.’ I acknowl­edged that I had heard such talk, and told, him, ‘I myself am one of those who won­der, if that is not a real pos­si­bil­i­ty, in light of the way things have been shak­ing out on the Con­tra scan­dal.’ Fen­ner then gave me a flood of details on the secret Franklin accounts, and where the miss­ing mon­ey sup­pos­ed­ly went. No des­ti­na­tions linked with Iran-Con­tra were men­tioned.”

(Idem.)

16. Note that the views that fol­low are those of the speak­ers.

“‘So tell me,’ I said, ‘just what is at the bot­tom of it? If it is not laun­dered mon­ey involved in the Iran-Con­tra scan­dal, what the blazes is it? And how could Lar­ry King get away with this, with­out you or some­body else know­ing what was going on? Looks to me as if he had to have one heck of a lot pow­er­ful polit­i­cal pro­tec­tion at the high­est lev­els.’ ‘Homo­sex­u­als,’ Fen­ner said, ‘Franklin financed the biggest group of homo­sex­u­als any state has ever seen. A lot of awful­ly pow­er­ful and promi­nent per­son­al­i­ties involved. But prob­a­bly not any­thing you can do any­thing about.’”

(Idem.)

17. Oth­er sources have not­ed the role of sex­u­al black­mail oper­a­tions in the con­text of pow­er pol­i­tics and the world of covert oper­a­tions. One of the most pow­er­ful alleged play­ers on this stage is Robert Kei­th Gray [4].

“The career of anoth­er Nebraskan, Robert Kei­th Gray, illu­mi­nates this milieu and why it would be so con­ge­nial to a per­son like Lar­ry King. Gray is the chair­man and CEO of Hill and Knowl­ton, one of the two biggest pub­lic rela­tions firms in the world, with such blue-chip clients as AT&T, IBM, Xerox, and DuPont. CBS-TV’s 60 Min­utes has called Hill and Knowl­ton ‘by far, the biggest, most influ­en­tial PR firm in Wash­ing­ton,’ adding that ‘crit­ics accuse them of being an unelect­ed shad­ow gov­ern­ment.’ Gray first came to Wash­ing­ton D.C. dur­ing the Eisen­how­er Admin­is­tra­tion, as Ike’s appoint­ments sec­re­tary and then sec­re­tary of the cab­i­net. He went to Hill and Knowl­ton in 1961. Gray played a role in Ronald Reagan’s 1976 pres­i­den­tial cam­paign and, in 1980, he was deputy direc­tor of com­mu­ni­ca­tions. Report­ing direct­ly to Bill Casey.”

(Ibid.; p. 178.)

18.

“On the strength of his con­nec­tions in the new admin­is­tra­tion, he left Hill and Knowl­ton to set up his own PR firm. With­in a year, Gray and Com­pa­ny secured over $9 mil­lion in billings from a clien­tele includ­ing Warn­er Com­mu­ni­ca­tions, NBC, GTE, Mutu­al of Oma­ha, the Amer­i­can Truck­ing Asso­ci­a­tion, the Amer­i­can Iron and Steel Insti­tute, and the gov­ern­ments of Cana­da and Turkey. In 1986, Hill and Knowl­ton bought out Gray and Co.; Gray became chair­man and CEO of Hill and Knowl­ton. Said to be Harold Andersen’s ‘clos­est friend in Wash­ing­ton,’ Gray is also report­ed­ly a spe­cial­ist in homo­sex­u­al black­mail oper­a­tions for the CIA.”

(Idem.)

19. The rela­tion­ship between Gray and the Wil­son, Ter­pil oper­a­tions detailed in RFA#4.

“Dur­ing the Water­gate era, Robert Kei­th Gray served on the board of Con­sul­tants Inter­na­tion­al, found­ed by CIA agent Edwin Wil­son. When Wil­son and fel­low agent Frank Ter­pil got caught run­ning guns abroad, Gray tried to deny his con­nec­tion with Wil­son. ‘Yet ten years before,’ accord­ing to Peter Maas’ book Man­hunt, ‘in a top secret Navy review of Wilson’s intel­li­gence career, Gray described Wil­son as a per­son of ‘unqual­i­fied trust,’ with whom he’d been in con­tact ‘pro­fes­sion­al­ly two or three times a month’ since 1963.’”

(Ibid.; p. 179.)

20. De Camp relates Jim Hougan’s account of anoth­er aspect of Gray’s alleged activ­i­ties. (Note that Tong­sun Park [5]—a key fig­ure in the Kore­a­gate scandal—was close­ly asso­ci­at­ed with the Moon orga­ni­za­tion, which also has strong con­nec­tions [6] to the Bush admin­is­tra­tion.

“Author Jim Hougan in Secret Agen­da [7], report­ed anoth­er aspect of Wilson’s work for the CIA: ‘Accord­ing to fugi­tive ex-CIA offi­cer Frank Ter­pil, CIA-direct­ed sex­u­al black­mail­ing oper­a­tions were inten­sive in Wash­ing­ton at about the time of the Water­gate scan­dal. One of those oper­a­tions, Ter­pil claims, was run by his for­mer part­ner, Ed Wil­son. Wilson’s base of oper­a­tions for arrang­ing trysts for the polit­i­cal­ly pow­er­ful was, Ter­pil says, Kore­an agent Ton Sun Park’s George Town Club. In a let­ter to the author, Ter­pil explained that ‘His­tor­i­cal­ly, one of Wilson’s Agency jobs was to sub­vert mem­bers of both hous­es [of Con­gress] by any means nec­es­sary. . . .Cer­tain peo­ple could be eas­i­ly coerced by liv­ing out their sex­u­al fan­tasies in the flesh. . . .A remem­brance of these occa­sions [was] per­ma­nent­ly record­ed via select­ed cam­eras. . . . The tech­ni­cians in charge of film­ing. . .[were] TSD [Tech­ni­cal Ser­vices Divi­sion of the CIA] The unwit­ting porno stars advanced in their polit­i­cal careers, some of [whom] may still be in office.’”

(Idem.)

21. De Camp alleges that the oper­a­tions in which Wil­son, Ter­pil and Gray alleged­ly engaged in were an exten­sion of the activ­i­ties of for­mer Joseph McCarthy aide Roy Cohn.

“Gray’s asso­ciate Wil­son was appar­ent­ly con­tin­u­ing the work of a report­ed col­lab­o­ra­tor of Gray from the 1950’s—McCarthy com­mit­tee coun­sel Roy Cohn, now dead of AIDS. Accord­ing to the for­mer head of the vice squad for one of America’s biggest cities, ‘Cohn’s job was to run the lit­tle boys. Say you had an admi­ral, a gen­er­al, a con­gress­man, who did not want to go along with the pro­gram. Cohn’s job was to set them up, then they would go along. Cohn told me that him­self.’ The first pres­i­dent of Tong Sun Park’s George Town Club, where Wilson’s sex­u­al black­mail oper­a­tions were report­ed­ly run, was Robert Kei­th Gray.”

(Ibid.; pp. 179–180.)

22. Gray’s activ­i­ties over­lap those activ­i­ties of the Iran-Con­tra scan­dal and also the milieu of the Bush fam­i­ly. The Catholic youth home Covenant House was impli­cat­ed in orga­nized child molesta­tion and also had ties to the Bush­es.

“Gray employ­ee Rob Owen set up a pri­vate group to solic­it funds for the Con­tras. Owen was called before Con­gress, to tes­ti­fy on how he deliv­ered bags of cash to the Con­tras. In Feb­ru­ary of 1989, Hill and Knowlton’s Charles Perkins rushed to New York for a frac­tion of the firm’s usu­al fee, to help with pub­lic rela­tions for Covenant House. The youth organization’s direc­tor, Father Bruce Rit­ter, was alleged to have molest­ed youth who took refuge with him.”

(Ibid.; p. 180.)

23.

“Laud­ed by the Rea­gan and Bush Admin­is­tra­tions as a show­case for the pri­va­ti­za­tion of social ser­vice, Covenant House had expand­ed into Guatemala as a gate­way to South Amer­i­ca. Accord­ing to intel­li­gence com­mu­ni­ty sources, the pur­pose was pro­cure­ment of chil­dren from South Amer­i­ca for exploita­tion in a pedophile ring. The flag­ship Guatemalan mis­sion of Covenant House was launched by a for­mer busi­ness part­ner of Nicaraguan dic­ta­tor Anas­ta­sio Somoza–Roberto Ale­jos Arzu–who had ties to the CIA, accord­ing to the Vil­lage Voice of Feb. 20, 1990. The Voice quot­ed Jean-Marie Simon, author of Guatemala: Eter­nal Spring, Eter­nal Tyran­ny: ‘It’s like hav­ing Idi Amin on the board of Amnesty Inter­na­tion­al.’”

(Idem.)

24.

“A top source of mon­ey for Covenant House has been Robert Macauley, founder of Ameri­cares, a ser­vice orga­ni­za­tion impli­cat­ed in chan­nel­ing funds to the Con­tras. A close friend of the Bush fam­i­ly since Con­necti­cut, Andover and Yale days, Macauley has George Bush’s broth­er Prescott on the Ameri­cares’ board. Father Rit­ter was a vice pres­i­dent of Ameri­cares, at least until he had to resign from Covenant House in Feb­ru­ary 1989, and spent week­ends at Macauley’s estate in Con­necti­cut, accord­ing to a for­mer Covenant House employ­ee. As in New York, also in Nebras­ka an insti­tu­tion that shel­tered child abuse could count on pro­tec­tion from Wash­ing­ton. The atti­tude of fed­er­al agen­cies towards Lar­ry King’s Franklin Cred­it Union fits the mold.”

(Ibid.; pp. 180–181.)

25. More of De Camp’s alle­ga­tions con­cern­ing Lar­ry King imply con­nec­tions between King, the intel­li­gence com­mu­ni­ty and George Bush (the Elder.)

“If King was involved with CIA mon­ey laun­der­ing, that jibes with a report from a mem­ber of Con­cerned Par­ents: ‘I heard from two dif­fer­ent black peo­ple in North Oma­ha that King used to send lim­ou­sines down to Offutt Air Base [home of the Strate­gic Air Com­mand] to pick up CIA per­son­nel for par­ties.’ The some­times expan­sive Lar­ry King used to talk fond­ly about his friends. In a Sept. 7, 1988 inter­view with the Met­ro­pol­i­tan, King said, ‘I know some of the peo­ple I admire aren’t very pop­u­lar. Ed Meese. The late Bill Casey of the CIA. And I love for­mer Chief Jus­tice Burg­er. Those are the peo­ple I real­ly like to talk to. Bill Casey. . . . I just thought so very high­ly of him.’”

(Ibid.; p. 175.)

26.

“Lar­ry King adored Bill Casey, but what about one of Casey’s pre­de­ces­sors at Cen­tral Intelligence—George Bush? Ever since July 23, 1989, when the lead edi­to­r­i­al in the World-Her­ald said that ‘one child . . . is said to believe that she saw George Bush at one of King’s Par­ties,’ King’s con­nec­tion with Bush has been a fre­quent­ly asked ques­tion about the Franklin case. Anx­i­ety on this account has run espe­cial­ly high in Omaha’s black com­mu­ni­ty, where in Decem­ber 1990, one young lady stood up at a pub­lic meet­ing and pro­claimed, ‘I think George Bush is involved in this child abuse case, and that is why all these peo­ple have been dying.’”

(Idem.)

27. Accord­ing to De Camp, Bush’s name sur­faced in the begin­ning of the inves­ti­ga­tion into the Franklin/pedophilia con­nec­tion.

“Inside inves­ti­ga­tors of Franklin, and the Webb case before it, know that Bush’s name came up at the very begin­ning, and it came up more than once. The July 1989 World-Her­ald col­umn, in an attempt to dis­cred­it this and oth­er vic­tim-wit­ness tes­ti­mo­ny, attrib­uted the men­tion of Bush to a per­son ‘under psy­chi­atric care,’ mean­ing Loret­ta Smith. In real­i­ty, the report was from Nel­ly Pat­ter­son Webb.”

(Idem.)

28.

“Nel­ly first brought up Bush in 1986, when she told Julie Wal­ters about the sex par­ties she was flown to in Wash­ing­ton and Chica­go. She saw Bush at two of these par­ties, she said, one in each city. Nel­ly also told Wal­ters that one fre­quent par­ty-goer with King was a boy named ‘Brent,” the one who was ‘flown to anoth­er city some­where’ after a falling out with King. Wal­ters did not have the resources to cross-check this infor­ma­tion with the life of Brandt Thomas, the Boys Town res­i­dent who had moved in with Lar­ry King. Franklin cred­it union files con­tained a let­ter signed by King, in his capac­i­ty as Youth Affairs Com­mit­tee advi­sor for the Nation­al Black Repub­li­can Coun­cil, list­ing Thomas as one of two nation­al con­tact peo­ple for NBRC cam­pus chap­ters.”

(Ibid.; p. 176.)

29.

“Three years lat­er, with an inves­ti­ga­tion of abuse by King and the Webbs final­ly under way, Nel­ly was inter­viewed again. Speak­ing to Franklin com­mit­tee Jer­ry Lowe, she repeat­ed her account of the Chica­go par­ty, and said that Bush and two men he arrived with appeared to have left the affair with a young black man she called ‘Brandt.’ Of course, as I have made clear, mere atten­dance by a politi­cian, be he the Pres­i­dent or any oth­er office-hold­er, at a Lar­ry King par­ty does not mean that per­son knew of or was involved in Lar­ry King’s sor­did activ­i­ties. Almost every top Nebras­ka Repub­li­can, includ­ing myself, attend­ed the two largest par­ties King ever host­ed, the ones at the Repub­li­can nation­al con­ven­tions in 1984 and 1988.”

(Idem.)

30. De Camp relates anoth­er alleged con­nec­tion between Bush and the Lar­ry King/pedophilia con­nec­tions.

“Bush’s name sur­faced again in Lowe’s May 1989 review of reports by Thomas Vla­houlis from the state attor­ney general’s office: ‘Soren­son told Vla­houlis that both Kim­ber­ly and Nel­ly brought up the name of George Bush and indi­cat­ed that they had both met him. . . .’ On June 10, 1989, Lowe received a let­ter from a cit­i­zen: ‘There is a psy­chol­o­gist in Oma­ha who used to work for the CIA. In response to a direct ques­tion by an Oma­ha psy­chi­a­trist regard­ing George Bush’s pri­vate life, this psy­chol­o­gist report­ed hear­ing rumors when Bush was head of the CIA, that cor­re­spond direct­ly with one of the infer­ences made by Nel­ly Webb, and com­ment­ed to the psy­chi­a­trist, ‘But how do you inves­ti­gate your boss?’”

(Ibid.; pp. 176–177.)

31. De Camp notes the elder Bush’s pro­cliv­i­ties for appoint­ing Nebras­ka Repub­li­cans.

“In August 1990, Bush appoint­ed Ronald Roskens of Nebras­ka, to head the Agency for Inter­na­tion­al Devel­op­ment (AID). Roskens had been fired the pre­vi­ous year as chan­cel­lor of the Uni­ver­si­ty of Nebras­ka, where Lar­ry King was a mem­ber of his ‘chancellor’s advi­so­ry com­mit­tee.’ Gary Caradori’s dai­ly notes for Feb. 19, 1989 record: ‘I was informed that Roskins [sic] was ter­mi­nat­ed by the state because of sex­u­al activ­i­ties report­ed to the Regents and ver­i­fied by them. Mr. Roskins was report­ed to have had young men at his res­i­dence for sex­u­al encoun­ters. As part of the sep­a­ra­tion from the state, he had to move out of the state-owned house because of the lia­bil­i­ty to the state if some of this sex­u­al behav­ior was ‘ille­gal.’ Upon Roskins vacat­ing the house, he was pro­vid­ed a house by Joe Seacrist [sic] of the Lin­coln Jour­nal-Star.’ The lead­er­ship of AID is the kind of sen­si­tive job—AID assign­ments have been used as a ‘cov­er’ by CIA agents, for instance—for which appointees under­go a back­ground check that would have to turn up what Caradori also heard. Nev­er­the­less, George Bush appoint­ed Roskens.”

(Idem.)

32. Inves­ti­ga­tor Gary Caradori was among the many casu­al­ties of the Franklin inves­ti­ga­tion. De Camp has an appen­dix of a list of “sus­pi­cious deaths tied to the Franklin case.”

“(1.) BILL BAKER. He was a restau­rant own­er in Oma­ha, and a part­ner of Lar­ry King in homo­sex­u­al pornog­ra­phy oper­a­tions. He was found shot in the back of the head.

(2.) SHAWN BONER. Broth­er of vic­tim-wit­ness Troy Bon­er, he died of a gun­shot wound from ‘Russ­ian Roulette.’

(3.) GARY CARADORI. Chief inves­ti­ga­tor for he leg­isla­tive Franklin Com­mit­tee, Caradori told asso­ciates days before his death that he had infor­ma­tion that would ‘blow this case wide open.’ He died when his plane crashed on July 11, 1990.

(4.) ANDREW ‘A.J.’ CARADORI. Died at the age of 8, in the plane crash with his father.

(5.) NEWT COPPLE. A con­fi­den­tial infor­mant for Caradori and his inves­tiga­tive firm, Cop­ple was a key behind-the-scenes activist fight­ing the cov­er-up of the Franklin case. Son of Com­mon­wealth Sav­ings own­er S.E. Cop­ple, busi­ness­man in his own right, an ex-cham­pi­on wrestler with no pri­or health prob­lems and par­ents who lived into their late eight­ies and nineties, Cop­ple sud­den­ly ‘died in his sleep’ in March 1991, at the age of 70.”

(Ibid.; p. 250.)

33. More of De Camp’s Franklin death list fol­lows.

“(6.) CLARE HOWARD. The for­mer sec­re­tary of Alan Baer, who arranged Baer’s pedophile trysts, Howard ‘died in her sleep’ in 1991.

(7.) MIKE LEWIS. A for­mer care­giv­er for vic­tim-wit­ness Loret­ta Smith. He died of a ‘severe dia­bet­ic reac­tion’ at the age of 32.

(8.) JOE MALEK, asso­ciate of Lar­ry King and own­er of Peony Park, where homo­sex­u­al galas were held. His death from gun­shot was ruled a sui­cide.

(9.) AARON OWEN, the broth­er of vic­tim-wit­ness Alisha Owen. He was found hanged in his cell in Lin­coln, Nebras­ka, hours before one of his sister’s court appear­ances.

(10.) CHARLIE ROGERS. A reput­ed homo­sex­u­al part­ner of Lar­ry King, Rogers said that he feared for his life, in the days before his death. His head was blown off with a shot­gun, in what was ruled a sui­cide.

(11.) DAN RYAN, an asso­ciate of Lar­ry King. He was found stran­gled or suf­fo­cat­ed in a car.

(12.) BILL SKOLESKI. An offi­cer in the Oma­ha Police Depart­ment who was believed to be keep­ing a file on Lar­ry King, he died of a heart attack.

(13.) KATHLEEN SORENSON. The fos­ter par­ent for Nel­ly and Kim­ber­ly Webb after they fled the home of Lar­ry King’s rel­a­tives, Jar­rett and Bar­bara Webb, she was an out­spo­ken activist against Satanism. Her death in a sus­pi­cious car crash is relat­ed in Chap­ter 15.

(14.) CURTIS TUCKER. An asso­ciate of Lar­ry King, he fell or jumped out of the win­dow of the Hol­i­day Inn in Oma­ha.

(15.) HARMON TUCKER. A school super­in­ten­dent in Nebras­ka and Iowa, a reput­ed homo­sex­u­al, his death had signs of satan­ic rit­u­al mur­der. He was found dead in Geor­gia, near the plan­ta­tion which Harold Ander­sen and Nebras­ka-Iowa FBI chief Nicholas O’Hara used for hunt­ing.”

(Ibid.; pp. 250–251.)

34. Among the casu­al­ties that De Camp believes to be con­nect­ed to the Franklin inves­ti­ga­tion was the late William Col­by, for­mer direc­tor of the CIA. De Camp worked with Col­by dur­ing the Viet­nam War. Col­by had worked with De Camp on the book, and served as an inves­tiga­tive source.

“It is a lit­tle over four years since I, John De Camp, wrote the words you have just read. My clos­es friend and men­tor, Bill Col­by, like so many oth­ers in the Franklin case, is dead; he was fished out of a riv­er in front of his home, under the most ques­tion­able of cir­cum­stances, in April of 1996. Was he killed because of his involve­ment in Franklin? I don’t know. What I do know, is that Bill Col­by was the heart and soul of the Franklin inves­ti­ga­tion. Although at a cer­tain point he warned me against inves­ti­gat­ing the case fur­ther, it was he who relent­less­ly pushed to pub­licly expose what had already been dis­cov­ered, when every­one else, includ­ing, at times, myself, want­ed to call it quits. With­out him, this book would nev­er have been writ­ten.”

(Ibid.; p. 1.)

35. It is inter­est­ing that the late Col­by had been a sup­port­er of Pres­i­dent Clin­ton and that his wife worked for Clin­ton.

“Not only was Bill’s wife, Sal­ly Shel­ton Col­by, in a senior posi­tion in the Clin­ton Admin­is­tra­tion, but Col­by him­self had empha­sized to me, repeat­ed­ly, that Clin­ton was a great Pres­i­dent, and that it was urgent that he be re-elect­ed.”

(Ibid.; p. 388.)

36. De Camp describes the death of his friend and col­league.

“A week after out get-togeth­er, in which Bill spoke so enthu­si­as­ti­cal­ly about his work and his trav­els, he was dead—under the most unusu­al cir­cum­stances, his death offi­cial­ly labeled an ‘acci­dent.’ I did not believe it then, and I do not believe it now. But I do believe what Bill said: ‘If it’s done right, you will nev­er know how it was done, or who did it.’”

(Ibid.; p. 389.)

37. De Camp expounds on his skep­ti­cism con­cern­ing Colby’s death, based on exten­sive knowl­edge of the late director’s behav­ior.

“Col­by had a sail­boat and his lit­tle get-away cot­tage, where he went as often as he could. I vis­it­ed him there on sev­er­al occa­sions, as Bill invit­ed me sail­ing when­ev­er I was in town. Inevitably, how­ev­er, the weath­er fore­cast would warn of a pos­si­bil­i­ty of rain, or a drop of rain would fall, or he’d notice that the moon was not in the right posi­tion, or the sun too hot, or what­ev­er. And Bill would decide not to take the risk and go out sail­ing.”

(Ibid.; pp. 384–385.)

38.

“My point is sim­ple. Bill Col­by was the sin­gle most metic­u­lous­ly care­ful, pro­grammed, orga­nized indi­vid­ual I have ever encoun­tered, espe­cial­ly when it came to mat­ters of safe­ty, secu­ri­ty, and per­son­al activ­i­ties. There­fore, the descrip­tion giv­en in the media, sur­round­ing his death, does not cohere with Bill Colby’s per­son­al­i­ty, his char­ac­ter, his modus operan­di, and my per­son­al expe­ri­ences with him over many years. Bill Col­by was not the kind of per­son who would take off on an evening boat­ing expe­di­tion, leav­ing his com­put­er still turned on at his desk, his half-fin­ished din­ner still sit­ting on the table, and most of the lights on in the cot­tage. That was not Bill.”

(Ibid.; p. 385.)

39. Recount­ing an inci­dent that escaped most people’s notice (includ­ing Mr. Emory’s), De Camp relates an inci­dent that fore­shad­owed Colby’s death.

“Fur­ther­more, Bill had been the vic­tim of a ‘rob­bery’ in Wash­ing­ton, D.C., not too long before his death, in which he had been bad­ly beat­en, and eas­i­ly could have died. This ‘rob­bery’ and his actu­al death were both mys­te­ri­ous inci­dents, in a rel­a­tive­ly short span of time. I have a hard time believ­ing in coin­ci­dences, when it comes to peo­ple like Bill Col­by. His mys­te­ri­ous death has also brought, to my mind, his own expla­na­tions of how peo­ple end up dead, in the course of our dis­cussing the death of Franklin case inves­ti­ga­tor Gary Caradori—a death Col­by him­self had inves­ti­gat­ed. His exact state­ment on this was: ‘If it’s done right, you’ll nev­er know how it was done, or who did it for sure. That’s what pro­fes­sion­al­ism is all about.’”

(Idem.)