BREAKING: Hughes Arrested for 1981 Alavarez Murders

[desertfae]

Yes, but the truth about what?

The case and things surrounding it.

[American Dream]

OK- here's the important point:

It is one thing to get a conviction of a triggerman, and tell some truth about that person.

It is another thing to get at the immediate conspiracy to commit those murders, including those who gave the orders.

It is yet another thing to get at those responsible for other murders which may somehow be connected.

And even beyond that is the idea of exposing the truth and getting towards real justice regarding the big institutions which facilitated, protected and/or directly organized the many, many crimes which are tied to Cabazon.

John Powers may have goals related to his job and I'm not faulting him for that.

I'm certainly not faulting you for wanting a little justice around the murder of your father.

That all said, do you now understand my concern?

Rachel, with all due respect, a lot hinges on what is and isn't meant by "the truth" here.

.

[Kate Dixon]

I am going to give some thoughtful replies later tonight, and learn how to use the quote machine before I do so. I have to do some Saturday chores
as I am sure everyone does.

I think this thread has been pretty good so far, in that a lot of info and ideas have been batted around between very diverse people. If we are lucky we can have various threads going througout the legal process regarding Hughes, et al. and pursue that deceptive thing called "truth".

It seems there are various ways to pursue truth -- investigative reporter, citizen sleuth including relative of victim, victim and relatives, mass media, alternative media, book writers, Hollywood, being a person involved directly or indirectly in a situation about which people want truth, the judges, the prosecution, the defense.

Each of these persons (some institutions) has a role in serving or diserving truth. So when I look at a situation I look at it at the level I find it -- and using the above-named categories I see what their perspective is and it is not my perspective, obvously. I am in the category of alternative media, and reporter -- I am pursuing a degree in journalism at present, and I am trying to learn that racket as well as I learned the law racket.

Perspective, friends, perspective.....

Kate Dixon

[Project Willow]

As for truth, it's plainly obvious that the parties in this exchange are treating us to further exchanges in a long fought war. They seem so intent on their strikes they've developed a blindness to the perceptions of their newly generated audience. Sometimes it's good to sit back a couple of football fields away and take a deep breath. Or perhaps this case too is scheduled to be swallowed by the Internet tit for tat monster to such a point that the truth can never be untangled. The one thing I'll be looking for is the party who gives it the biggest shove. At least there will be a court record over time.

I have some advice for Ms. Dixon, attacking a sympathetic witness is a quick way to lose a case, yes, even if she attacked too or first, because you see, most of the audience doesn't factor that in, comparatively. Daughter of murder victim tends to trump. I would hope an attorney, or even a journalist, would understand... oh never mind.

Back to lurk mode again.

[desertfae]

I have some advice for Ms. Dixon, attacking a sympathetic witness is a quick way to lose a case, yes, even if she attacked too or first, because you see, most of the audience doesn't factor that in, comparatively. Daughter of murder victim tends to trump. I would hope an attorney, or even a journalist, would understand... oh never mind.

Back to lurk mode again.

Willow,
I'm doing my best to be nice to Kate, even though she and her partner on NMN are doing their best to attempt to discredit me, JP, the work we've done, lying about me, and most of all, attempting to interfere in the case... like they did PAT's case.
I try to remember when dealing with these two that they are human, and even though their motives aren't good, they can change if they so choose to. I keep hope that one day they will see all the damage they have caused, not only to me and my case, but others as well. That would require having a heart, which right now, I'm convinced in their case, is stone cold.
My attempt at trying to help Kate with the "quote function" of the site, was my trying to be nice.. and really, when I read what she wrote and replied with LOL or you crack me up, I really was laughing.
What's the saying, you can get more flies with honey than with vinegar . Perhaps they should learn this.
Let me tell you a story, it may even come as a shock to VM and KD.
Early on in my investigation (first week), I attempted to find VM to talk with her. Instead of getting this VM, I got another one on the phone. This other VM explained to me how she couldn't stand the VM I was trying to get in touch with. I thanked her and let her go after hearing why she couldn't stand her.
Shortly after this, I started getting emails and phone calls from others explaining to never trust VM or KD. And this may come as another shock to VM and KD, it's not who you think it is that contacted me. I literally had multiple people tell me nearly the same types of things, and most of these people didn't even know each other. Some of the things told to me were how they backstab people, steal documents from people, act as though they are trying to help people and then turn around and help the bad guys, etc. At this point, I started to look into them and what they had done (VM mostly), and made my decision to not contact them or work with them.
Since that time, they have lied about me (even here), tried to discredit me, sent others to try to get info from me (pretend to be my friend and then backstab me), and make people believe I'm something I'm not.
I explained all this to let KD and VM know that if you really do want to help someone that is working for justice, then not backstabbing them, or stealing from them gets you a lot futher with that specific person, or others in the future and trying to discredit them.
One other thing. I will never have a private exchange with either of these women, it will only be public so that anything I say can't be twisted or changed. So I apologize if anyone doesn't want to see this exchange ahead of time.

[Kate Dixon]

I have never attacked Ms. Begley and to me, she is only relevant as a tool used by the prosecution, almost a quasi-informant, to try to overcome transactional immunity granted to Jimmy Hughes during grand jury testimony in the early 80s. Apparently she and Mr. Powers are very upset that I pointed out the immunity issue. And I didn't even point it out. Channel 4 pointed it out and interviewed them about it. They both refuse to address it here on this thread. Instead, they (and I know you are busy on thread, John Powers) are trying to make this thread into my attacking her, which is not true. They still won't address the issue -- DOES JIMMY HUGHES HAVE TRANSACTIONAL IMMUNITY WHICH WILL BAR THIS
CURRENT PROSECUTION FOR WHICH HE IS ARRESTED IN MIAMI-DADE?
Did their attempt to have Ms. Begley come up with fresh evidence independent of the old investigation, succeed in defeating Hughe's immunity? If they say Hughes lied back then before the grand jury, then why hasn't Powers arrested him for perjury -- prove the perjury. No -- there is no charge for perjury. All this attempt to make the issue I brought up into some personal issue between Ms. Begley and me is ridiculous. It is not flying. Rachel and John, my dear friends, I say this as a Christian woman, You can't divert the public on the internet and in the press and on TV from the real issue here. The public wants to know -- DOES HUGHES HAVE TRANSACTIONAL IMMUNITY. Answer: Yes. (See TV show where John and Rachel talked about the issue with the reporter. Did Begley's investigation defeat that immunity, and was it independent of the Sheriff's and DA's and Rod Pacheco's old work on the case? Please answer this John and Rachel? Why haven't perjury charges been filed against Hughes if he lied? John, why didn't you serve him with an arrrest warrant for perjury? ANSWER ME STRAIGHT OR SIMPLY SAY YOU ARE GOING TO COVER UP THIS MATTER? But don't get personal with me. I am not personal with you. This is a very serious matter here -- three people were executed, and this man testified under a grant of immunity that he was the bag man. The police and sheriff then did not go out and arrest the person who presumably gave him the bag of money and the people to whom he presumably gave the money and did not arrest or pursue those leads from some 28 years. Now, Ms. Begley and Mr. Powers try to go around that transactional immunity and come up with some fresh stuff that is independent of the old investigation and that shows that Hughes lied in essentially admitted his role in the murder, for which he could have been charged for murder 1. But transactional immunity will probably bar prosecution despite their efforts to go around it -- it is difficult to get around unless a complaint for perjury is filed and tried and the person is found to have committed perjury, then a judge may or may not revisit the the grant of transactional immunithy and reconsider it.

So, let's get intellectual, Rachel and John. I'm beginning to think you think this is just a little game here about personalities. It isn't. It is about
reality and law and facts and history. People want the truth here. answer me John and Rachel -- you did a nice investigation and poured it all over the media for months, and now you are clamming up --- DOES HE HAVE TRANSACTIONAL IMMUNITY? Yes. Can you defeat it without filing a perjury charge? Answer? Come on now, let's use your brains and come up with some answers instead of playing some personal nonsense about people.

Newsmakingnews will go forward with this issue, just as NBC did. You can't stop me and you didn't stop NBC. This cat is waaaay out of the bag!!

Kate Dixon

[desertfae]

Nice try with the baiting Kate.

[Kate Dixon]

Nice try with the baiting Kate.

This is not baiting. I am asking a simple direct question about an essential matter in a case in which you are involved.

If you don't want to answer, simply say so. Admit, that you must now keep this issue of immunity a secret. Then we all will know that the Octopus is no longer being "exposed" but is being "covered up" at least to the extent that the issue of Hughes' immunity is being covered up.

Really, you and John have to sit down and go over the issue of Hughes' immunity and please try to straighten out what it means and how it will affect your future in this case? I.E.: Will you two be credible given this immunity issue and how it may play out in court? And how it will play out in the media? I wish you and John would utilize a little common sense about issues and questions that people raise. This shroud of secrecy that you two are pulling around this case is really at variance with your original purpose, Rachel, of exposing the Octopus and seeking justice regarding your father.
I realize some aspects of a prosecution case must be kept secret, but this aspect of the case is so big, glaring, obvious and important, that keeping a secret about it is really going to be impossible. Look, I am trying to help you two out. If you two listen to me, about this issue, people will really trust you more and appreciate your telling them the truth about the immunity issue, and you will look very good before the media and the public.
Lord, it is really hard to help you two! But I am not giving up. I am sure that one day you and John will appreciate me.
Kate Dixon

[barracuda]

I will never have a private exchange with either of these women, it will only be public so that anything I say can't be twisted or changed.

Just kibbutzing here, but this seems like a high-quality decision.

[justdrew]

Kate/NMN: review the time lines of the two cases, it's fairly clear that even if prosecutors had talked about granting him immunity when Hughes, on his own initiative, came forward with his "I was the bag man" story, that never went to trial, instead he went public with his "story" and fled the country. How could you possibly misinterpret events into thinking he even might have any immunity? He never even went to trial with his story. There's no freaking way he has immunity.

[compared2what?]

Admit, that you must now keep this issue of immunity a secret. Then we all will know that the Octopus is no longer being "exposed" but is being "covered up" at least to the extent that the issue of Hughes' immunity is being covered up.

Ms. Dixon, I've been drinking Veuve Clicquot, with which you can catch more flies than you can with either honey or vinegar, btw.

Nevertheless, even full of champagne that I can't afford as well as the fervent if futile wish to understand you, I can't help noticing that there's a big fat logical fallacy in those two sentences, and one to which you often recur. I bring it to your attention out of an abundance of caution, and also out of hopes that your study of journalism will eventually have a remedial effect on the world in general. In formal logical terms, it's most commonly called affirming the disjunct. Although you could also call it "the fallacy of the alternative disjunct." You might want to keep an eye out for it. To paraphrase Kitty Wells, it has caused many a good girl to go wrong.

Je vous prie de croire a l`expression de mes sentiments distingués.

c2w

[Kate Dixon]

Kate/NMN: review the time lines of the two cases, it's fairly clear that even if prosecutors had talked about granting him immunity when Hughes, on his own initiative, came forward with his "I was the bag man" story, that never went to trial, instead he went public with his "story" and fled the country. How could you possibly misinterpret events into thinking he even might have any immunity? He never even went to trial with his story. There's no freaking way he has immunity.

Please look at the TV NBC LA show which was posted by American Dream
in about the middle of this thread where Det. Powers and Ms. Begley discuss the fact that Hughes had some "immunity". He was granted this when he testified before the grand jury in Riverside in the early 80s. After that, the nature of his testimony became public knowledge, at least to some extent, and he fled to Latin America.

Kate Dixon

[Kate Dixon]

Admit, that you must now keep this issue of immunity a secret. Then we all will know that the Octopus is no longer being "exposed" but is being "covered up" at least to the extent that the issue of Hughes' immunity is being covered up.

Ms. Dixon, I've been drinking Veuve Clicquot, with which you can catch more flies than you can with either honey or vinegar, btw.

Nevertheless, even full of champagne that I can't afford as well as the fervent if futile wish to understand you, I can't help noticing that there's a big fat logical fallacy in those two sentences, and one to which you often recur. I bring it to your attention out of an abundance of caution, and also out of hopes that your study of journalism will eventually have a remedial effect on the world in general. In formal logical terms, it's most commonly called affirming the disjunct. Although you could also call it "the fallacy of the alternative disjunct." You might want to keep an eye out for it. To paraphrase Kitty Wells, it has caused many a good girl to go wrong.

Je vous prie de croire a l`expression de mes sentiments distingués.

c2w

Thanks for the French, the video and the logic lesson. How you put all these together at this time of the morning is beyond me. I will have to study this.

Kate Dixon

[desertfae]

This is not baiting. I am asking a simple direct question about an essential matter in a case in which you are involved.

This most certainly IS baiting.

If you don't want to answer, simply say so. Admit, that you must now keep this issue of immunity a secret. Then we all will know that the Octopus is no longer being "exposed" but is being "covered up" at least to the extent that the issue of Hughes' immunity is being covered up.

More baiting. Since you can't seem to understand why, I"ll spell it out in big, bright colors to you.

In this, you're trying to imply that because I won't give you an answer on something you're completely wrong about, that I must be part of the conspiracy, again attacking me, claiming that I'm involved in a "cover up".

(for those readers that don't need the big, bright colors, here it is again normal)-
In this, you're trying to imply that because I won't give you an answer on something you're completely wrong about, that I must be part of the conspiracy, again attacking me, claiming that I'm involved in a "cover up".

As I told you before, I am not going to do or say anything that will screw up all I've worked for, no matter how much you or VM whine about it. Besides, that, I don't owe you a thing, and what makes you or VM think after all the interference and damage you two have tried to do, that I would tell you anything anyway? What I find funny is that you are sounding a lot like VM here.

Really, you and John have to sit down and go over the issue of Hughes' immunity and please try to straighten out what it means and how it will affect your future in this case? I.E.: Will you two be credible given this immunity issue and how it may play out in court? And how it will play out in the media? I wish you and John would utilize a little common sense about issues and questions that people raise. This shroud of secrecy that you two are pulling around this case is really at variance with your original purpose, Rachel, of exposing the Octopus and seeking justice regarding your father.
I realize some aspects of a prosecution case must be kept secret, but this aspect of the case is so big, glaring, obvious and important, that keeping a secret about it is really going to be impossible.

You and VM are in no position to tell me or JP what we need to do. Oh looky, again you are trying to imply at the end of this that I'm not exposing any of this, or seeking justice for my dad's murder... more baiting.. good slip in there Kate.

Look, I am trying to help you two out. If you two listen to me, about this issue, people will really trust you more and appreciate your telling them the truth about the immunity issue, and you will look very good before the media and the public.
Lord, it is really hard to help you two! But I am not giving up. I am sure that one day you and John will appreciate me.
Kate Dixon

LOL you are certainly not trying to help this case, me, or JP at all. The baiting posts here are nothing more than just that, baiting. Yet another attempt in the long list, of trying to interfere in this case (although this attempt is much more subtle that some of the previous attempts pulled offline) .
As far as JP goes, he certainly doesn't need your help in the slightest. What makes you think that JP would want the help of an attorney that has been disbarred over ethics violations?

[OP ED]

let's get intellectual

i think that's my new sig line.

reminds me of something from my childhood...

oh, yeah.







You "journalists" are creepy. And those of you siding with the "journalists" get creepier day by day.

(for those readers that don't need the big, bright colors, here it is again normal)

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