Jump to content

Talk:L. Patrick Gray

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good article nomineeL. Patrick Gray was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 11, 2008Good article nomineeNot listed
August 29, 2008Good article nomineeNot listed
July 24, 2009Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Former good article nominee

The 'L'

[edit]

Question #1: Anybody want to share with the rest of us what the "L." stands for? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.224.226.245 (talk) 19:03, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The beginning of the article states that his full name was Louis Patrick Gray III. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:11, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exonerated

[edit]

Prosecutors are in the business of bringing prosecutions. When they fail to bring a prosecution it is not the same thing as being 'exonerated'. Indeed, even when cases go to trial and the prosecution fails, the verdict is "not guilty", rather than "innocent". If the Watergate Special Prosecution Force really did make some statement 'exonerating' Mr. Gray, it needs to be cited to the Watergate Special Prosecution Force or some independent source. Not to Mr. Gray himself. Re: [1] [2] [3] Dlabtot (talk) 19:14, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the sentiment, and logically I suppose it makes some kind of sense, but on the other hand, in your example, if a "not guilty" verdict is not exoneration, then what is? According to the source provided, the prosecutors in question wrote a letter of apology to Mr. Gray specifically stating that he was innocent, not just that they failed to charge him. I felt that this was enough to warrant the use of the word "exonerate," even at the hands of the prosecutors themselves. If you have a better way of putting it that provides for more than just "they failed to prosecute", I am open to it. (Morethan3words | talk) 18:10, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I raised the issue because the word exonerated is used by pretty much everyone who stands unconvicted - and is rarely accurate. But if the prosecutors wrote the letter you describe, that is exoneration... and it is very rare in a system with the presumption of innocence, because innocence is something that never needs to be proven. Since it sounds like you have access to the source, perhaps you could flesh this out in the article so other readers wont, like myself, assume this is simply a self-serving claim. IOW, could you add the detail about the letter to the article. Dlabtot (talk) 19:18, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That seems reasonable, I'll work on that as soon as my internet at home is fixed. I agree that prosecutors don't usually write the kinds of letters referred to in the book, and the book makes it clear that it was something Gray's lawyers fought for specifically to clear his name further, given the amount of press the whole thing got. If I remember correctly, the current citation is where the book talks about it, but I'll double-check that before changing the wording. (Morethan3words | talk) 20:47, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looking again at the statement in question, I realize where some of the confusion may have come up. The sentence is referring to him being exonerated for the Weather Underground illegal wiretapping, not Watergate. He was never accused of anything for Watergate, so it would be hard for him to be exonerated. I can't remember the actual prosecutor for the Weather Underground inquiries, but I doubt it was the Watergate Special Prosecution Force, so I went ahead and changed that to the DOJ to aid in clarity there. Again, I'll take a look at the source when I get home, and add more accurate wording on the letter, etc. but I think that should help at least a little bit until then. (Morethan3words | talk) 22:18, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So the source for the exoneration claim is a statement in Pat Gray's own book? That doesn't work as a source in this instance, unless you are specifically referring to a document reprinted in Gray's book (which I haven't read). Otherwise, you will need an independent news source for the claim. MarmadukePercy (talk) 22:33, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Patience, I'll have the proper wording in the morning after I've looked at the actual source. I don't remember exactly what he said, but as I recall it was something a little more convincing than "They said they were sorry." (Morethan3words | talk) 23:53, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to have missed my point. It is not adequate sourcing to cite the book written by the person who is accused of wrongdoing. That is wholly inadequate, unless you are simply referring to a third party document. A book written by the party is obviously self-serving, and in this instance not even close to an adequate source. You will need some third-party source, preferably an account in the media. MarmadukePercy (talk) 00:11, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with MarmadukePercy. That was my original point. Also, if they fought for this 'exoneration', surely they would have made it public when it happened, so independent sources should exist. Dlabtot (talk) 00:45, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
According to his book, it wasn't just a letter, the prosecution exonerated him in open court in 1980 (again, for the Weather Underground accusation, not Watergate). I wasn't necessarily demanding we keep the same source, but without knowing why the statement was put in there in the first place, the rest was guess work based off of fuzzy memory, that's why I asked for patience while I went back to the book. There is no need to assume there is an argument, or to be overly argumentative at the outset, I think we all want this article to be accurate and well sourced.
In any case, if the prosecution exonerated him in open court, then there could be another source for this. Any ideas where to find it? I'm not as well versed on internet research as some here on the wiki, so ideas would be welcome. (Morethan3words | talk) 14:26, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes stuff from before the internet is harder to find.... post the details from the book here and we'll make it a collaborative effort. Dlabtot (talk) 15:04, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant paragraph on page 272 states "Not only did the government finally drop its case against me, but it also issued an open-court public exoneration. This was no small white flag, this was unconditional surrender. I would have thanked them for it three years earlier. Now it just made me angrier. They had known the truth for three years and had refused to drop the case until Felt and Miller were convicted. By keeping me under indictment they had prevented me from testifying against my accusers at their own trials. Of all the prosecutorial outrages I endured in the seven-year war, this was by far the most egregious." Some quick google searching suggests it happened sometime in December of 1980 (I found a short blurb in a Miami newspaper about it dated December 12, 1980, not enough detail to be helpful though...) (Morethan3words | talk) 15:28, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll see what I can find. I would have to say though, that now that I see the text of the source, it only reaffirms my belief that it needs independent verification. Dlabtot (talk) 15:38, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In what court did this take place? What was the name of the judge, prosecutor, etc? Those kind of details will aid in searching for sources. Dlabtot (talk) 15:40, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All I know is it was federal court and the DOJ doing the prosecution, I don't know any more specifics than that. Though the crimes in question took place at FBI headquarters (i.e., the authorizations by Felt and Miller) so it's possible that it would be whatever federal court has jurisdiction over the District of Columbia. (Morethan3words | talk) 15:48, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(RESET INDENT) I found something that might work. An article in the Chicago Tribune (via UPI) dated December 12, 1980 which says "Washington |UPI| - A Federal judge, told by the government that the evidence was ‘unconvincing,’ Thursday exonerated former acting FBI Director L. Patrick Gray of the same 32-month-old conspiracy charge on which two top aides were convicted last month." If I change the citation to this source and keep the word "exonerated" are you guys okay with that? (Morethan3words | talk) 22:38, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is another one: The Bulletin, Bend, Oregon, December 12, 1980 Dlabtot (talk) 23:05, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looks solid to me. Dlabtot (talk) 22:59, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am good with that source and that exact quotation. Good check of the sources. MarmadukePercy (talk) 23:01, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

I have reverted the initial addition not because I think the information should be removed from the article, I don't, but mostly because I think there are better places for it in the article than the legal struggles section. As written, there is a bit of a mixture of information with regard to his conduct regarding the investigation (i.e., sharing of investigative files with Dean) and information regarding his destruction of files from Hunt's safe, which all involved have insisted were not Watergate related. I think this information would be best incorporated to the individual subsections on the investigation and the destruction of the Hunt files.

Having said that, I also want to voice some concern about some of the statements used in this new addition. Taken as a whole, the addition appears to try and paint a picture of Gray that comes from the contributor's own understandings and conclusions. I think this is particularly the case with the third paragraph, which provided no cited material and offered opinions like "... it is Gray’s subsequent conduct that probably saved him from an indictment ..." Without appropriate citations for these assertions, I can't justify keeping them in the article.

Nonetheless, I think there is good material here and would like to work on incorporating some of this material into the article in the appropriate sections. I certainly welcome SBmeier's assistance in this, especially since I do not currently have access to Dean and Haldeman's respective memoirs, and anyone else taking an interest in the matter.

On a side note, I will be out of town this weekend and may not get another chance to look at this until early next week. I would appreciate if any significant work on the article was held off until then. (Morethan3words | talk) 06:54, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. Frankly, I wasn't sure where to put it but thought that it should be addressed somewhere. Besides the Haldeman and Dean books, I also used my copy of Woodward & Bernstein's The Final Days. They all seemed consistent. The last statement is really my own conclusion based, in part, on a quote (not used) from an FBI or AG exec who expressed serious distress that Gray put himself in the middle of this. As a former investigator myself (long ago), what I could piece together seemed like Gray did not make it his business to know what he should have known. He was a political appointee who was, at least for a time, acting like one. This bias as such is contrasted with repeated statements in these sources that the only hope is to prevent an investigation because once one starts it goes where it goes. SBmeier (talk) 22:43, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Destroyed Documents

[edit]

i do not believe it can be documented that in fact the documents he destroyed were "non watergate related" as is claimed here. in can NOT say "non watergate related" unless that fact can be documented. i'm removing that phase. the reference in the ny times about the section costs 4 bucks to read. i hardly think that qualifies as the kind of readily verifiable source information that is the whole idea of wikipedia.

most of this whole article uses gray's own books as a source. this is unacceptable. it all has to be outside sourced and the burden is on those that wrote it. i'll go to work on removing the most obviously biased parts and let people justify their inclusion if they want to lobby for their return. Jackhammer111 (talk) 19:56, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

i re wrote the bit about the destroyed documents to reflect what he said about them a month before he died. this article was not even clear about whether the documents regarding the Diem assassination were real or not!@@!! they were not! the plumbers had been planting rumors to that effect before watergate and they persist to this day. i was thrilled when gray spoke up and said unambiguously that they were forgeries before he died. to give credit, hunt's wiki page says the cables were forged. but it didn't say that here. the ed gray book was the source here. if the book is that unclear it's more reason why the book should NOT be source material for this page.Jackhammer111 (talk) 03:29, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me. Good job. Dlabtot (talk) 05:19, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jackhammer, I wrote most of what can be found in this article. I've used Gray's autobiography mostly because that's the only source I have that talks so in depthly about Gray himself, especially his early life and career, where the majority of the INW citations reside. Gray was not as public a figure after Watergate as some of the other central figures, and there really aren't that many sources that spend more than a few pages on him.
In any case, as I recall the book does speak to the illegitimacy of the Diem documents, but I did not address that issue when I wrote the passage because I was more concerned with the more common misconception of the documents being somehow related to the Watergate conspiracy and Plumber break-ins.
I've looked at your edits and am fine with them at this point. I agree that because there are no pictures of the documents that were destroyed, we can not be 100% certain of their contents. However, I believe all three people in the room at the time of the handover of the documents to Gray have stated (I believe under oath in some cases) that the documents were not Watergate related. I'll try to find a source (or sources) that state this, and once I do I may want to revisit that edit. (Morethan3words | talk) 00:59, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on L. Patrick Gray. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:21, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on L. Patrick Gray. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:20, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:L._Patrick_Gray&oldid=1207404279"