BREAKING: Hughes Arrested for 1981 Alavarez Murders

[desertfae]

i think we should all do all of our posts like that.

LOL it would make reading hard for most that aren't in need of the big bright colors LOL

[Cordelia]

[quote="OP ED"][quote]You "journalists" are creepy. And those of you siding with the "journalists" get creepier day by day./quote]

I don't think this is about journalism. I've been trying to make sense of what Kate Dixon is finding of such importance but my eyes are crossing, due to my lack of legal knowledge, and I've gotten lost with the seemingly complex issues raised about a fair trial. Being no stranger to seeking answers to the cover-up of a murder, I fully understand (and admire) Rachel Begley's quest for justice, but I'm perplexed by what motivates you, Ms. Dixon. You wrote, about Rachel Begley: "I am interested in her in that I am intrigued as to how she is being used." This seems disingenuous. I may have missed another explanation, but your 'interest' reads to me like you're tossing in a red herring, in order to create suspicion about her honesty and/or you're harassing, and, as she writes, baiting her, for the sake of....what?

Can you address again what motivates you about this case?

[Dr_Doogie]

I am neither an attorney or law enforcement, but isn't any grant of immunity contingent on the witness telling the truth? I know in the Gallego "sex slave murders", Charlene Gallego's immunity required her to tell of EVERY murder that she knew of and was specifically told that the deal was off if anything she said was false - wouldn't this be true of ALL grants of immunity? So if Hughes claimed that he was only the bagman when later evidence is discovered that he was the triggerman, wouldn't any immunity be revoked?

[OP ED]

I don't think this is about journalism.

Hence the scare quotes.

[Cordelia]

[quote="OP ED"Hence the scare quotes.[/quote]

Of course--sorry!

[American Dream]

Rigorous Intuition wrote:

Please refrain from personal attacks, and let's try to keep arguments issue-based.

http://rigorousintuition.ca/board/viewtopic.php?t=9030

[chiggerbit]

Doogie asked:

... but isn't any grant of immunity contingent on the witness telling the truth?

Is there a difference between transactional immunity and the immunity that might have been offered in plea bargaining? And what if transactional immunity was granted, and then the prosecutor, whether through incompetence or corruption, proceeded to not ask probing questions, didn't ask the right questions? Is the immunity still applicable?

[compared2what?]

I am neither an attorney or law enforcement, but isn't any grant of immunity contingent on the witness telling the truth? I know in the Gallego "sex slave murders", Charlene Gallego's immunity required her to tell of EVERY murder that she knew of and was specifically told that the deal was off if anything she said was false - wouldn't this be true of ALL grants of immunity? So if Hughes claimed that he was only the bagman when later evidence is discovered that he was the triggerman, wouldn't any immunity be revoked?

I am also neither an attorney nor law enforcement. And I propose that we hereby start using the (I think) Marcy-Wheeler-coined acronym "IANAL" to denote that we are not lawyers, when that's necessary or advisable or, you know, true. It can be, like, my private tribute to Marcy Wheeler, whose close-reading skills I admire. Okay? Okay.

So if Hughes claimed that he was only the bagman when later evidence is discovered that he was the triggerman, wouldn't any immunity be revoked?

Well, IANAL. But obviously, the answer to any question regarding Jimmy Hughes's presumed loss of some kind of immunity from prosecution for something is contingent on the circumstances and terms under which he was granted some kind of immunity from prosecution for something back in, approximately, 1984.

And that's not at all clear.

Ms. Dixon's hypothesis is that he was given transactional immunity by a judge. This presumes, among other things, that he was granted immunity after seeking it in connection with a grand jury subpoena. And that's possible, of course. But it's certainly not the only possibility. According to a November 22 AP report, for example, in or around 1984:

Hughes approached law enforcement and claimed he had been asked in the presence of Nichols, the tribal administrator, to deliver $25,000 to a hitman to kill Alvarez.

That claim prompted reexamination of the murders, including probes by the Riverside County grand jury and the state attorney general.

I have no idea what the sourcing for that is. However, if it's true that Hughes approached law enforcement with that information of his own volition around 1984 and prior to whatever grand jury testimony he later gave, then it's also possible -- in fact, it's highly fucking likely -- that he negotiated the terms of his immunity with the Riverside County DA at that point. In which case, I doubt that it would have been transactional rather than use immunity.

For a number of reasons, the chief of which is that I very much doubt that he would have approached law enforcement (presumably the Riverside County Sheriff's office) if he wasn't already in some kind of jeopardy and seeking to minimize it -- ie, I doubt that he would have been holding a strong enough hand for there to have been any realistic expectation whatsoever that the DA was going to be granting him transactional rather than use immunity, just out of a madcap excess of prosecutorial munificence.

Furthermore, although IANAL, I'd say that in general, the sequellae to the immunized testimony he gave to some grand jury about something in the course of someone's investigation into some crime and/or crimes at some point in 1984 (or possibly 1985; I think he left the country in '84, but the reporting varies enough to leave some room for ambiguity wrt that one) are far, far more compatible with a hypothesis that assumes use immunity than they are with one that assumes transactional immunity. For example, they didn't include the indictment of John Philip Nichols for those murders. And they did include Jimmy Hughes going public with his story and promptly departing from the U.S. and its jurisdictions in 1984 (or 1985). In addition to which, that AP excerpt, which occurs low in the story, serves as a pivot for these concluding graphs:

In 1985, Nichols was charged in a separate murder-for-hire plot that was foiled by police informants, for which he served 1½ years.

Authorities were unable to connect that plot to Alvarez's death and the case went cold for two decades, Powers said. This time, investigators are confident — and hint there could be more arrests.

"If it was the story Jimmy gave back in 1985, we wouldn't be charging him with murder," Powers said. "It is much more than what he said."

And, you know. IANAL, and everything, but not only is John Powers a homicide detective, he's a homicide detective who can't really have failed to ascertain what kind of immunity Hughes was granted back in the mid-'80s long, long before giving a quote to an AP reporter in November 2009 that's as professionally and responsibly circumspect in terms of keeping the legal details to himself as it should be. And therefore technically inconclusive, if your standards for conclusion-reaching are so high that nothing short of full knowledge of all legal details can satisfy them. But to whatever degree it supports any hypothesis about the original grant of immunity at all, I'd say (though IANAL) it strongly fucking suggests "use." And not "transactional." Which, were it the case, would mean that whatever immunity he may once have had is no longer an issue.

But all of that is just tea-leaf reading, based on too few tea leaves to be worth very much. As is all of Ms. Dixon's argument. Because, I mean, it's also possible that the present investigation uncovered something funky enough about the actions of the authorities back in the mid-80s to recast them as acts in the furtherance of a criminal conspiracy rather than legally valid agreements by which the state of California is bound, just to snatch a plausible hypothesis for which proofs aren't yet available out of the clear blue air at random. Lots of things are possible. But since there have been no signs whatsoever at any point in the last 28 years that Hughes had transactional immunity and there still aren't, I personally wouldn't say that particular possibility is even very probable, let alone so probable that it's as good as guaranteed.

But even if I did think that -- though I really don't know why this needs saying, it's so incredibly fucking self-evident -- the plain and indisputable fact that a man had been arrested and was sitting in a jail in Florida in a case as high profile as this one would generally but nevertheless strongly suggest to me that the prosecution was very fucking confident that they were in a very fucking legitimately rock solid position to meet any potential defense challenge to the legality of his detention that was based on the grant of transactional immunity that I was taking for granted.

To me, that's just common sense. But IANAL.

[Dr_Doogie]

C2W?:

Your deductions seem logical.

So Jimmy Hughes has not even been extradited back to California yet, but already we have seen:

*Virginia McCullough try to represent the indictments against Hughes as weak, even though the indictments are sealed by court order so NO details are available for public (including VM's) review, and...

*Kate Dixon attempt to muddy the waters with spurious claims of immunity deals that seem obviously not an issue to even us IANAL's.

Boy, we are barely into this case and already it is clear where these two "objective journalist's" agenda lies. They have used these same sleight-of-hand tricks before in other cases, but the difference is that this time we are aware of how the tricks are done. Whatever additional hocus-pocus they try, people here are poised to expose the trickery.

You gals have had a good run, but it looks like your act has grown stale.

[American Dream]

Dr. Doogie, how could a person aware of conspiracies such as yourself claim to be "undecided" as far as Ted Gunderson and Michael Riconosciuto go, and yet seem to be so very decided in terms of many issues that relate to them?

[compared2what?]

http://www.mydesert.com/article/20091018/NEWS0801/910180317/1015/news08/Court-records--Suspect-feared-for-his-life

October 18, 2009

Court records: Suspect feared for his life

Monica Torline
The Desert Sun


Jimmy Hughes, the only suspect to be arrested in the “Octopus Murders,” once had fears about a contract out on his own life.

The suspicions are detailed in a 1984 court document Hughes filed seven months after leaving his job with the Cabazon Band of Mission Indians.

Hughes worked for the tribe from 1980 to 1984. He said he left after realizing tribal administrator John Philip Nichols and members of his family were taking part in activities that “were criminal,” including issuing contracts to commit murder.

After parting ways, Hughes said he was working with Nichols' former business partners to look into whether money was being skimmed from profits at the tribe's gambling enterprise. Hughes stated in court documents that he initiated contact with law enforcement agencies “to report to them what I knew concerning Nichols' illegal activities, including a contract to commit murder.”

Following a meeting at the Riverside County District Attorney's Office in April 1984, Hughes said he received a death threat in the form of a photograph attached to his car windshield. It was a chilling image of a dead body.

“I was told that there was a contract on my life by a friend,” he stated, adding that he believed a $30,000 cash withdrawal was made to pay for the “hit.”

None of his allegations were ever proven.

A year later, when Nichols pleaded no contest to murder solicitation charges in a different case, Hughes was in the courtroom for sentencing.

“I want them to see me,” he said at the time about his desire to face Nichols and his family. “It will blow their minds.”

You know, I wasn't reading this thread for a little while in its very early stages, for some reason. But the above -- as well as an NMN post citing a 1985 Los Angeles Times story that also has Hughes going to the law with the "I was a bagman" story and thus initiating the process that led to the grand jury investigation -- really puts the proposition that he got transactional immunity from a judge under the statutorily mandatory terms then in effect for unwilling recipients of grand jury subpoenas pretty far out of the running for win, place or show. And arguably removes it from the field altogether.

It might not be what it looks like in every regard. But it looks like he attempted to get himself out of jeopardy for those murders by transferring it to Nichols. After which, upon learning that he hadn't succeeded well enough to be certain that he mightn't be putting his health and/or freedom at risk by lingering around the jurisdiction for much longer, he took out the only insurance policy that was still available to him by going to the media, then got out of Dodge before it expired.

That's the most straightforward reading, anyway. Which also has the advantage of leaving no loose ends. That doesn't make it correct, necessarily. But I'd say that it does make it a reasonable conjecture. Right?

[Dr_Doogie]

Dr. Doogie, how could a person aware of conspiracies such as yourself claim to be "undecided" as far as Ted Gunderson and Michael Riconosciuto go, and yet seem to be so very decided in terms of many issues that relate to them?

I have, elesewhere on the web, made numerous posts concerning Ted and what I believe are his "kooky" beliefs - so many that I long had a reputation as a "Ted-basher". The passage of time has led me to moderate my opinion, only in the sense that I feel no need to openly mock his beliefs. I still believe that he is a "kook", but I see no purpose in shouting it from every hilltop at every chance I get because most people who study these type of subjects as dealt with here, I suspect, have come to a similar conclusion.

As stated before, my interactions with Mike R. are minimal, consisting of one email sent to him through his website which was not answered. His claims are intriguing, but seem questionable since he appears to have been the Forrest Gump of conspiracies - always showing up in the middle of every major story for the last thirty years. That, to me, points toward him having an active imagination.

But both of these men seem to have been eyewitnesses to the activities on the Cabazon Reservation and the principals involved. And as such, what they say is worthy of review even if some of what they say is obvious nonesense. I do not remain undecided about the men - it is their information that I remain undecided about.

While Rachel Begley has publicly said that she has had contact with these two men, I do not see that any of her case is dependent on the veracity of either man.

[American Dream]

Dr_Doogie wrote:

I have, elesewhere on the web, made numerous posts concerning Ted and what I believe are his "kooky" beliefs - so many that I long had a reputation as a "Ted-basher". The passage of time has led me to moderate my opinion, only in the sense that I feel no need to openly mock his beliefs. I still believe that he is a "kook", but I see no purpose in shouting it from every hilltop at every chance I get because most people who study these type of subjects as dealt with here, I suspect, have come to a similar conclusion.

I don't think that most serious researchers have come to the conclusion same conclusion as you, Dr. D. We are talking about a man who was one of the leading COINTELPRO perpetrators who has a long, long history of hurting the movements he claims to want to help and involving himself with all kinds of shady drama. And you're trying to tell us he's just a kook, i.e. a "lone nut"?

You've got to be kidding!

[Dr_Doogie]

I don't think that most serious researchers have come to the conclusion same conclusion as you, Dr. D. We are talking about a man who was one of the leading COINTELPRO perpetrators who has a long, long history of hurting the movements he claims to want to help and involving himself with all kinds of shady drama. And you're trying to tell us he's just a kook, i.e. a "lone nut"?

You've got to be kidding!

I am telling you that I believe that he is a kook. If you choose to believe that he has a more sinister agenda, go for it - you may be correct and I may be wrong. But neither conclusion has one iota of importance on whether Jimmy Hughes was involved in the Alvarez/Octopus triple murder.

You seem to have some sort of litmus test for other conspiracists which is certainly your perogative. I personally reject this idea that the only way anyone's opinion here can be valid is if it first contains the equivilent of a loyalty oath: "I do not, nor have I ever, believed anything that has ever come out of Ted Gunderson's mouth." I just don't see him as the boogeyman that you seem to, nor do I see him as really having much to do with the case that we are discussing.

TG and MR may or may not have provided information that effected the investigation of Hughes, but their information would have only pointed investigators in a particular direction. As a purely hypothetical example, lets say MR said that so-and-so owned land near Indio that related to the case. Based on this info, investigators do a deed search that shows this information to be correct. It would be the deed, not the supplied tip, that is of value as evidence.

Ninty percent of what TG and MR may be BS, but it is the other ten percent is what interests me. Conversely, ninty percent of what KD and VM write may be true, but it is the other ten percent that concerns me. The NMN site provides much more information about certain cases than the mainstream media, but I believe that the offending ten percent is designed to shape public perception of these events in a manner to ultimately distort reality.

[desertfae]

Conversely, ninty percent of what KD and VM write may be true, but it is the other ten percent that concerns me. The NMN site provides much more information about certain cases than the mainstream media, but I believe that the offending ten percent is designed to shape public perception of these events in a manner to ultimately distort reality.

Don't give them so much credit lol. 90% for truth is rather high.