BeldarBlog

Questions I wish Lisa Myers had asked, or would ask, William M. Zaladonis

In my recent posts, I've complained repeatedly about the fuzziness with which the press treats the various eyewitnesses who've surfaced in the SwiftVets vs. Kerry debate.  I suppose I should back that up with a specific example of how I think it ought to be done if one's goal is not to make headlines or spin the story for one side or the other, but to actually sort out the "truth" — or if not a single objective "truth" upon which everyone can agree, at least a more clear record as to what these gentlemen actually have to say and where their statements genuinely and irreconcilably conflict with one another.

NBC's Lisa Myers conducted a telephone interview with pro-Kerry Swiftee William M. Zaladonis to follow up on Mr. Zaladonis' claims that Adm. Bill Schachte was not aboard the "skimmer" with young Lt. Kerry on the training mission on 02Dec68, as a result of which Kerry was awarded his first Purple Heart.  Mr. Zaladonis stuck to his story.  But Ms. Myers' questioning of him was, shall we say, somewhat less skeptical and vigorous than her questioning of Adm. Schachte.  Worse, it was just damned sloppy.

So I've composed a list of follow-up questions that I wish Ms. Myers had asked, or would ask, Mr. Zaladonis. 

The questions are phrased to presume a continuation by her of the original interview, and hence refer to Mr. Zaladonis' "earlier statement"; if someone else were doing it, they'd need to be modified slightly, and a fair questioner would give Mr. Zaladonis the opportunity to review the full transcript from Myers' previous interview before starting the follow-up questioning, and upon his request at any time during the follow-up questioning.

I also should note that I'm assuming that Mr. Zaladonis said in the original telephone interview with Ms. Myers that he was firing an "M-60" — not (as it's transcribed in one place) an "M-16" — because he's consistently described himself as having manned the skimmer's M-60 machine gun in all of his other public statements that I've seen, and because the two phrases sound enough alike as to have encouraged a transcription error.

Note that if I were cross-examining Mr. Zaladonis as a hostile advocate trying to discredit and impeach his statements, I'd have written a very different set of questions than these fairly open-ended (but hopefully precise) ones.  If some of them are, technically, "leading," they're only gently leading to expedite the process.  If I confined myself to purely nonleading questions, not only would this post be twice as long, but the reader would have triple the difficulty making sense of the logical path of the examination.  The same information could be developed through a longer set of questions that all begin with a "what" or a "why" or a "how," which is what any seasoned advocate would do upon hearing a "leading" objection from opposing counsel. 

Nor have I asked any questions at all on the subjects of Mr. Zaladonis' potential biases.  And I have not  asked any of the broad set of questions intended to fully "place and identify" the witness — his pre- and post-military education and career, his family, his political affiliations and sentiments, and so forth — that would also be useful to an advocate who's trying to argue whether he or Adm. Schachte is inherently a more credible and trustworthy individual.  In short, these questions pretty much take Mr. Zaladonis and his past statements at face value, but simply seek to develop those statements in much greater detail than anyone in the press has yet done, so that observers can use their own common sense to decide how much weight they're entitled to.

----------------

• Did Lt. Kerry select you to participate in the skimmer mission on 02Dec68?  If not Lt. Kerry, who did select you?  What was your understanding of why you were selected?

• Did Lt. Kerry give you your instructions before the skimmer mission on what the purposes of the mission were and what your role in it was to be?  If not Lt. Kerry, who did?  What instructions were you given?

• Do you know who first conceived the idea of using skimmers for missions of the sort in which you participated on 02Dec68?  I'll represent to you that Adm. Schachte, then a lieutenant, has stated that he developed the concept for these missions and planned them.  If you assume with me that he's made that statement, do you have any first-hand or second-hand information to dispute that statement?

• Do you know whether similar skimmer missions had been conducted before 02Dec69?  Do you know who was the officer or who were the officers participating in any of those previous skimmer missions?

• I'll represent to you that Adm. Schachte has said that he participated in all such previous skimmer missions, and that it was his routine and unvarying habit and practice to personally command those missions.  Leaving aside for the moment the skimmer mission on 02Dec68 that you've described having been on, do you have any first-hand or second-hand information to dispute Adm. Schachte's statements about those other missions?

• Whether it was Admiral (then-Lieutenant) Schachte or another officer, do you believe it is likely or unlikey that there were other officers stationed there with you who had previous experience in commanding skimmer missions of the type you've said you participated in on 02Dec68?

• You described your rank as an "engineman third class," abbreviated "EN3."  Although I'm sure you had some training and perhaps some experience to qualify you, for example, to fire various weapons and perform other tasks as a Swiftee, is it fair to say that in general, EN3s' primary responsibilities were to look after engines?  Indeed, during the several weeks that you later served under Lt. Kerry's command while you and he were both assigned to a Swift Boat, PCF 44, was that your primary responsibility?

• Was Pat Runyon, who you've said was also with you and Lt. Kerry on the skimmer mission, and who's also shown on the Swiftboat.net website as an "EN3," another engineman third class like yourself? 

• You've said twice in your earlier statement that the mission on 02Dec68 was the only mission aboard a skimmer in which you ever participated.  Would it be fair to characterize this as a training mission for you?

• In your earlier statement, you said, "I'm fairly sure it was the only one that John Kerry was on — and the only one that Pat Runyon was on also." To the best of your knowledge, then, was the skimmer mission on 02Dec68 the only skimmer mission in which either EN3 Runyon or Lt. Kerry participated in?

• Was it your understanding that as of 02Dec68, Lt. Kerry had only recently arrived at your base from his Swift Boat training at Coronado Naval Base in San Diego, California?  As you understood it, as of 02Dec68, had Lt. Kerry been given responsibility for commanding his own Swift Boat?  Instead, as you understood it, was he supposed to complete some additional field training first, of which this skimmer mission on 02Dec68 was a part, before he'd be entrusted with his own Swift Boat command and the lives of crewmen like yourself on such a Swift Boat?

• In your earlier statement, you described this as, quote, "one of the scariest nights I've had in my life," unquote.  Is it fair to say that you understood the skimmer mission to have been at least a potentially dangerous one?

• As you understood it at the time, then, were you, EN3 Pat Runyon, and Lt. Kerry were being sent on a dangerous mission — of a type and on a type of craft that were completely new to each of you — without anyone aboard who'd ever participated in that type of mission on that type of craft?

• At the conclusion of the skimmer mission on 02Dec68, did then-Lt. Schachte debrief you regarding the mission?  Did any other officer debrief you, and if so, who?  If no officer debriefed you about the mission, do you have any explanation as to how Lt. Kerry's performance on this training mission was expected to be evaluated by his superior officers?

• As you understood it at the time and understand it now, shortly after the skimmer mission on 02Dec68, was Lt. Kerry put into a hostile environment potentially involving hot combat, in command of his own Swift Boat and responsible for himself, the Swift Boat, and its crew — without ever having had another senior or more experienced officer personally observe him in command of a small vessel in a potentially hostile environment, and without even having debriefed the enlisted sailors like yourself who'd personally observed him?

• Was the skimmer a small boat or a large boat?  Did it have only one engine — or more precisely, only an outboard motor — at its back or stern?  Was it a more or less complicated motor than the large twin diesel engines you later were in charge of on PCF 44?  As EN3s, would your and Mr. Runyon's training and experience have equipped each of you to have run that small outboard motor on the skimmer and keep it running?  In your judgment, would it therefore have made good sense for the officer or officers who selected the enlisted crew for skimmer missions like this one to generally put an EN3 in charge of running the skimmer's outboard motor?

• Was the skimmer's most powerful armament one M-60 machine gun in the front — that is, the bow?

• Is it also fair to say that there were other sailors whose classifications — for example, gunner's mate third class or GM3 — meant that in general, they were expected to maintain and fire machine guns?  Would Steve Gardner, the GM3 who served with you aboard PCF 44 in the Swift Boat's twin .50-caliber gun tub, be an example of someone like that?

• Do you have any explanation for why the officer or officers who selected the enlisted crew for the skimmer mission on 02Dec68 picked two EN3 and no GM3s — when there was only one motor, but also one machine gun?

• When you were asked earlier whether you recall any enemy fire that night, you answered, quote, "I'm not sure.  I don't really remember.  But it was so hard for me to tell.  I can't say there was or there wasn't.  I believe Mr. Kerry thought that there was, but I was busy with that M-60 and I was trying to empty all my ammo out as quick as possible, and get the heck out of there.  It was a pretty scary situation — I can't say we weren't fired on, but I can't really tell if we were.  I didn't see any tracers, but that doesn't mean anything ‘cause if they were using small arms there wouldn't have been any tracers," unquote.  Can we correctly assume from the fact that you did not mention hearing any large explosions, that in fact you did not hear any large explosions? 

• In an article from the Boston Globe by Scot Lehigh dated August 20, 2004, the following statement appears — quote, "'I am reasonably sure we didn't have an M-79,' Zaladonis said. 'I didn't see one. I don't remember it,'" unquote.  First, is Mr. Lehigh's quotation of you in the Globe substantially accurate? 

• Mr. Lehigh's article goes on to say, quote, "Runyon says the only weapons the trio had were an M-60 machine gun, two M-16 combat rifles, and, possibly, a .45 caliber pistol. Is he 100 percent sure there wasn't an M-79 grenade launcher in the boat? 'I wouldn't say 100 percent, but I know 100 percent certain that we didn't shoot them,' replies Runyon," unquote.  Is this quotation of you, and description of what you told Mr. Lehigh, substantially accurate?

• Who was responsible for selecting the armaments carried aboard the skimmer on 02Dec68?  Assume with me that others have said that it was routine to carry both M-16 assault rifles and M-79 grenade launchers aboard such skimmer missions.  Do you have any first-hand or second-hand knowledge to dispute that statement as to any other skimmer missions, other than the one on 02Dec68?

• In your earlier statement, when asked whether there was enemy fire that night, you said, quote, "I believe Mr. Kerry thought that there was, but I was busy with that M-60 and I was trying to empty all my ammo out as quick as possible, and get the heck out of there."  And in Mr. Lehigh's article, it says, referring to you, quote, "He does remember Kerry having trouble with his M-16. 'His gun jammed or he ran out of ammunition — I don't know which — but he bent down to pick up the other M-16,' he says," unquote, with "he" there referring to you, Mr. Zaladonis.  Is it fair to say that you were paying more attention to your M-60 and to "getting the heck out of there" than to the condition of Lt. Kerry's weapon or weapons?

• Did the skimmer ever turn over?  Did the skimmer or any of the gear on it sustain any blast or shrapnel damage to your knowledge? 

• I'll ask you to assume with me that Lt. Kerry and others have described his injury as being from a small piece of shrapnel.  If you assume with me that they have said that, do you have any first-hand or second-hand knowledge to dispute that statement?

• In your earlier statement, you said, quote, "I only remember popping a flare and the flare worked so it didn't explode or anything on the skimmer — it did its job," unquote.  Is it fair to assume that neither Lt. Kerry nor anyone else aboard the skimmer was injured by shrapnel from the flare?

• If we assume that Lt. Kerry's injury was indeed from a piece of shrapnel, is it fair to say that you simply cannot explain where that piece of shrapnel came from, based on your first-hand knowledge — what you saw with your own eyes and heard with your own ears?

• If we assume that Lt. Kerry's injury was indeed from a piece of shrapnel, is it fair for us to assume that something, somewhere, exploded to create that shrapnel — without your having noticed it?

• In your earlier statement, you said that Lt. Kerry, quote, "was firing an M-16 and it either jammed or he ran out of ammo.  And he bent over to pick up another one and then he got hurt, as he was bent over.  As far as I can remember," unquote.  And then when asked how Lt. Kerry got hurt, you said, quote, "I'm not sure.  I'm not sure at all," unquote.  When asked how you knew Lt. Kerry was hurt, you said, quote, "I guess we discussed that on the way back to the swift boat," unquote.  Is it fair to say, then, that your only knowledge as to whether, when, or how Lt. Kerry got hurt is second-hand knowledge, based on what Lt. Kerry told you?

• Whatever the scope of Lt. Kerry's injuries were, is it fair to say that after you heard about them from him on the way back to the Swift Boat, you saw no need to examine his wound or treat him yourself?  Did you have to clean any of Lt. Kerry's blood off of your own clothes or gear after the skimmer mission on 02Dec68?  Or off the skimmer or the Swift Boat?  Did anyone else, to your knowledge, other than perhaps Lt. Kerry with his own clothes?

• In your earlier statement, when asked how badly Lt. Kerry was hurt, you said, quote, "I don't know how badly he was injured.  I knew it wasn't life-threatening," unquote.  Later, you said, quote, "I knew he wasn't going to lose his arm or anything like that."  You said that when, quote, "we got back to the swift boat," unquote, Lt. Kerry, quote "went to the pilothouse and I went to the fantail. Myself and Runyon went back to the fantail and we both smoked back then so we went back there and smoked."  Is it fair for us to assume, then, that you did not observe Lt. Kerry receive any emergency medical treatment, administered by him or yourself or anyone else, while on the skimmer?  Is it fair for us to assume as well that you did not observe Lt. Kerry receive any emergency medical treatment back on the Swift Boat?  Is it fair for us to assume that you did not accompany Lt. Kerry and observe him receive any medical treatment at Cam Ranh Bay Naval Base?

• Assume with me that Dr. Louis Letson has said that he was the medical officer at Cam Ranh Bay as of 02-03Dec68, and that he says that he and the late Jesus C. Carreon, then a hospitalman first class, treated Lt. Kerry for his wounds.  If he has made that statement, do you have any first-hand information to dispute it?  Likewise, if he has described the nature of the wound he treated, or the nature of the piece of shrapnel he removed from Lt. Kerry's arm, do you have any first-hand basis to dispute those statements?

• In your earlier statement, you said that while you and Mr. Runyon were smoking on the fantail of the Swift Boat after the skimmer mission, quote, "we were talking to the Swift Boat crew."  Is it possible that, since you'd just been talking with Lt. Kerry about his injury, you may have discussed that with the crew, either while you and Mr. Runyon were smoking or at another time?  Do you know whether any of the other men who you were talking to on the Swift Boat may have accompanied Lt. Kerry to see Dr. Letson and Hospitalman Carreon for treatment?  Regardless of how they claimed to have come by the information they may have relayed to him, if Dr. Letson recalls having been told something by those other Swiftees about how Lt. Kerry was injured, do you have any first-hand basis to dispute Dr. Letson's statement?

• Do you have any knowledge as to whether an official casualty report was filled out by anyone in connection with the skimmer mission on 02Dec68?  Do you have any knowledge as to whether an after-action report was filled out by anyone in connection with that mission?  Do you know whether or not, as a matter of routine or regulations, such casualty reports should have been filled out if any American sailors were injured?  Do you know whether or not, as a matter of routine or regulations, such after-action reports should have been filled out if there had been any incoming fire from the enemy, regardless of whether any American sailors were injured?  If others say that there were neither a casualty report nor an after-action report filled out by anyone in connection with the 02Dec68 skimmer mission, do you have any first-hand or second-hand information to dispute those statements?

• You were asked again how you knew Lt. Kerry was hurt, and you said in your earlier statement, quote, "You know, up until recently, I hadn't thought about it a whole lot," unquote.  But you also said, referring to EN3 Pat Runyun, quote, "Pat and I have shared this story a few times since we've been out of the Navy.  We've been very good friends ever since we've been — when we were in the Navy and out — and this is something that we talked about every now and then."  Is it fair to say, then, that whatever else you and Mr. Runyon have "talked about every now and then" when you "shared this story a few times," your discussions did not include the fact that Lt. Kerry was hurt?  Or how badly hurt he was? Or how he came to be hurt?  Is it correct, then, that any in your and Mr. Runyun's discussions of the 02Dec68 skimmer mission, neither of you thought Lt. Kerry's wound was important enough to prompt you to discuss it further?  Is it also correct that you've only had occasion to discuss Lt. Kerry's wound from the 02Dec68 skimmer mission with anyone since Sen. Kerry began running for President?

----------------

I'm sure I've missed some details that someone with military experience would think to ask.  But I believe if we had Mr. Zaladonis' answers to these questions, we'd be in a far better position to resolve the differences between his statements and those of Adm. Schachte.

Update (Sun Aug 29 @ 1:20am): Tom Maguire and his commenters have an interesting debate going on regarding who to believe, which includes some links to other public statements of Messrs. Zaladonis and Runyon that I hadn't seen.

With friends like Doug Brinkley, does John Kerry need enemies?

PrestoPundit Greg Ransom has posted lengthy quotes from newspaper articles just published in the New Orleans Times-Picayune and WaPo about author Douglas Brinkley, whose early 2004 book Tour of Duty: John Kerry and the Vietnam War energized the SwiftVets into public action.  (Greg also gave me a hearty belly-laugh with his pithy description of this bit of nonsense from the Kerry campaign as a "John Nash moment.")

Clearly University of New Orleans Prof. Brinkley wants to be helpful to Sen. Kerry.  The whole point of his book, after all, was to argue that Kerry's tour of duty in Vietnam and his subsequent antiwar activism have shaped and defined his moral and political character to make him a fit President.  The WaPo article notes that

with this book, Brinkley has become a political historian as well, having authored a book that burnishes just the part of Kerry's biography that the candidate chose to highlight to defeat a wartime president who never has seen battle himself. "These days, Brinkley is acting a lot less like a historian and a lot more like a PR flack for John Kerry," wrote Boston Globe columnist Alex Beam. In its review, the New York Times referred to "the odor of salesmanship that lingers around 'Tour of Duty.'"

Now, I think it'd be harsh and unjustified to compare Prof. Brinkley to more obvious salesmen like, say, Joe Isuzu.  But just as the fictional Professor Philip Brainard's invention, Flubber, didn't always bounce the way one expected it to, neither has absent-minded Prof. Brinkley's output always bounced in ways that help propel John Kerry toward the White House.

In the back rooms of the Kerry campaign this morning, for example, there must be gnashing of teeth and low mutterings over this bit of candor from Prof. Brinkley in the WaPo article (boldface mine throughout):

The Kerry campaign has refused to release Kerry's personal Vietnam archive, including his journals and letters, saying that the senator is contractually bound to grant Brinkley exclusive access to the material. But Brinkley said this week the papers are the property of the senator and in his full control.

"I don't mind if John Kerry shows anybody anything," he said. "If he wants to let anybody in, that's his business. Go bug John Kerry, and leave me alone." The exclusivity agreement, he said, simply requires "that anybody quoting any of the material needs to cite my book."

From your mouth to WaPo's ears, Prof. Brinkley!  WaPo, "go bug John Kerry"!  How much material are we talking about?  Perhaps the Kerry campaign would prefer to downplay the size of the pile of evidence they're stonewalling to protect, but count on Doug Brinkley to give us some context here too:

"I'm talking a massive archive. I had to sit in his house, with this woman watching me, and go through the collection — 12-page letters, notebooks, journals. I made three different trips, and stayed there for days," said Brinkley, who also interviewed the senator for about 12 hours.

And people have mocked Nixon for merely keeping a few shelves full of Oval Office tapes!

Then there's this searing description from Prof. Brinkley of John Kerry's claims to have spent "Christmas in Cambodia":

"I'm under the impression that they were near the Cambodian border," said Brinkley, in the interview. So Kerry's statement about being in Cambodia at Christmas "is obviously wrong," he said. "It's a mongrel phrase he should never have uttered...."

Ahem.  "Mongrel phrase" might more aptly be used to refer to Kerry's tales of his acrobatic dog, "VC," who apparently was miraculously catapulted from PCF 94's deck onto another unidentified SwiftBoat at or about the same time the day before Lt. Rassmann was catapulted into the Bay Hap River.  But the flying pooch isn't part of Brinkley's ToD, and [ed: whoops] I'll leave the spirited fisking of that tale to Hugh Hewitt and James Taranto, the latter of whom has been sniffing out the story of VC's gymnastics since last spring.  [Update: And also to Steve Sturm, thanks!]

From the NOTP's article, we find that Prof. Brinkley is oddly comforted by the ways in which the SwiftVets have been able to make use of his book against Kerry:

Brinkley said the dual use of his successful book [by both the senator's opponents and supporters] is proof of his objectivity. Everything he has written and said to date, he insisted, has been based on the historical record.

Well, yes — that's sorta true, if one includes within the term "historical record" John Kerry's own amazing contemporaneous writings from his time "in-country."  For example, this passage from page 310 of ToD with a lengthy quote from Kerry's journals may not be a very profound or reliable source on the topic of war profiteering and corruption, but it certainly gives the reader some vivid, if weird and disturbing, insights into the self-absorbed mind of young Kerry during the 13Mar69 action that preceded the "rice pile explosion" and his subsequent Bronze Star and third Purple Heart:

I was amazed at how detached I was from the whole scene.  I just lay in the ditch, not firing because I wanted to save ammo and because I couldn't see what I was firing at, and I thought about what was happening in New York at that very moment, and if people really felt that I was doing something worthwhile while they went down to Schraaftt's and had another ice cream sundae or while some fat little old man who made another million in the past months off defense contracts was charging another $100 call girl to his expense account.  And then, when the shooting stopped, I came back to where I was.

This sort of detail is indeed useful for voters who are trying to decide whether the Global War on Terrorism should continue to be prosecuted by George W. Bush or instead by, say, Captain John Yossarian.

I'm about a quarter of the way through ToD, and I'm enjoying it.  And I have to admit, I sorta like Prof. Brinkley, from what I know about him.  I'm just worried, though, that the Kerry campaign is going to lock him in a small room for a long weekend of "strategic reprogramming" with James Carville and Lanny Davis.

WaPo's Dobbs stumbles off track

On August 21st, Washington Post staff reporter Michael Dobbs wrote what is easily the best and most serious examination of the SwiftVets' factual allegations about Sen. Kerry's war record by the mainstream media to date.  He barely scratched the surface of those allegations, but he at least made some useful attempts at genuine investigative journalism — something beyond regurgitating the Kerry camp's talking points (although he did that, too).  And Mr. Dobbs figured out, and stated (albeit in a mushy way near the bottom of his piece), the indisputable fact that presidential candidate John F. Kerry is withholding or blocking the release of key documentary evidence which would go a long way to either prove or dispove the SwiftVets' allegations.  It was a good start, but only a start.

Dobbs' new article in Saturday's WaPo is therefore a major disappointment to me and others who'd hoped that he'd continue to dig into the substance of the SwiftVets' charges. 

Although Dobbs interviewed, and quoted, John O'Neill for this new piece, O'Neill is just an emblem and a spokesman for the SwiftVets, not one of its principle fact witnesses (as he himself will be the first to agree).   Instead, in this article, Dobbs' focus is almost entirely upon a presidency that's only of remote historical interest today — Richard Nixon's — and the related, somewhat more topical historical question of whether during his antiwar protester days, young Kerry was a "top downer" who wanted to work within the political process or a "bottom upper" who wanted to challenge it through civil disobedience and violence.

Now, I fancy myself a serious lifelong student of history, and I'm not without interest in these issues.  But Mr. Dobbs' latest effort brings out nothing particularly new or remarkable on them.  In the meantime, WaPo's Mr. Dobbs and the mainstream media that he represents have generally failed in their duty to plumb the SwiftVets' very detailed factual allegations about Sen. Kerry's war-hero record and their factual allegations about his more obscure anti-war activism (the Paris trip or trips to meet with representatives of the North Vietnamese government and Viet Cong, for example). 

The blogosphere can provide, and has provided, punditry galore on the SwiftVets vs. Kerry controversy.  Occasionally it's provided some genuine factual investigation, in addition to its more usual function of collating and commenting upon what's already in the public domain.  But the blogosphere, which is diffuse and highly distributed by definition, lacks the access and concentrated delivery that still, for better or worse (mostly worse), is a monopoly of the mainstream media.  If Glenn Reynolds and Ed Hennisey and Roger Simon and Hugh Hewitt and Mickey Kaus and Jim Garaghty and yours truly all pound our internet pulpits together in rhythm demanding that Sen. Kerry sign Standard Form 180, the Kerry camp can simply stonewall and ignore us. 

A similar drumbeat for a week or so however from, say, WaPo, NYT, and NBC would ramp up the political pressure on Kerry to the point that his ongoing cover-up would become too painfully obvious to the public and, finally, intolerable.  Sen. Kerry's only going to release the bad stuff — and right now, it's legitimate for us to assume it's "bad stuff" or he'd already have released it — when the political costs of not doing so threaten to exceed his estimates of how much damage the bad stuff might do when released.

If Woodward and Bernstein had been similarly lethargic, Richard Nixon would have finished his presidency.

I'll grant that it took Woodward and Bernstein many weeks, in those days of a longer "media cycle," to uncover what they did.  And my hope is that Mr. Dobbs' detour into chortling over Chuck Colson sucking up to Nixon is only a temporary wandering off course.  But it's absolutely critical that Mr. Dobbs — or someone, and hopefully many members of the mainstream media — will use the access and resources of their profession to accomplish the things that the blogosphere can't do as effectively.  The most significant reporting during the past week — that of syndicated columnist Bob Novak and NBC's Lisa Myers on Adm. Bill Schachte and Kerry's first Purple Heart — was the result of Schachte coming to them to break his previous media silence.  That's well and good, but it's nowhere near good enough.

Brandishing the "liar finger" in the SwiftVets vs. Kerry dispute

It's been my privilege to practice law for twenty-four years now, almost exclusively in a civil litigation practice that has always had me in the midst of disputes over facts and opinions, and frequently in courtrooms trying to resolve those disputes.  In that time, I've yet to have a "Perry Mason moment" in which I've leapt to my feet, brandished my index finger at a witness, and shouted, "You're lying!"  It's almost always a singularly stupid tactic for a lawyer and a disasterous example of overplaying one's hand.

With that frame of reference, it occurs to me that today's appearance of another eyewitness speaking out on the subject of the Bay Hap River action and the Rassmann rescue, Butch Vorphal, demonstrates some points worth pondering about the list of "Dramatis Personae" in the SwiftVets vs. Kerry controversy, and the various subheadings and cross-references among them.  Those points, in turn, lead me to some gentle ranting about what strikes me as too great a readiness among both sides and their supporters to brandish the "liar finger" at the other.

*******

The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, an organization that I've generally referred to with the shorthand reference of "SwiftVets," claim over 250 men among their membership — which by definition "is limited to former military officers and enlisted men who served in Vietnam on U.S. Navy 'Swift Boats' or in affiliated commands."  All of these men have taken affirmative steps to align themselves with the SwiftVets and at least some of their explicit goals.

I and others have, by contrast, used the term "Swiftees" to refer to all of the men who served on the Swift Boats during the Vietnam War — which is a much larger group than the still-considerable number who've stepped forward to join the SwiftVets.  In this arbitrary but useful terminology, both Sen. John Kerry and Adm. Bill Schachte, for example, are "Swiftees" — but neither is a "SwiftVet." 

There are also apparent eyewitnesses to some of the key events under dispute who are neither Swiftees nor SwiftVets — Jim Rassmann, for example, who was an Army lieutenant; so, too, Jim Russell, who's described as a Navy lieutenant but appears to have been a PsyOps officer who likely was part of a different command structure.

Among both the SwiftVets and the broader group of Swiftees, many of them, one presumes, may have no other connection to the dispute than having been in the same unit (Coastal Division One) in which John Kerry also served — that is, they may not have been present during any of the events out of which Kerry's medals were awarded, and/or they may not have ever met John Kerry while he was in Vietnam.  John O'Neill is one such example.

Some Swiftees, like Adm. Schachte and now Butch Vorphal, are not among the SwiftVets, yet have given their recollections of events that are decidedly unflattering to Sen. Kerry's war record.  Other non-SwiftVet Swiftees, like Rich McCann and Rich Baker, have expressed their support for Sen. Kerry's candidacy without having yet weighed in on any of the factual disputes now being waged.  Some non-SwiftVet Swiftees, like Bill Rood, have done the converse — that is, offered up factual recollections that support the Kerry team's version of events, without having broadly endorsed Kerry's candidacy.  And some non-SwiftVet Swiftees, like Robert E. Lambert, may dislike and disapprove of Sen. Kerry, yet offer factual testimony favorable to him on one or another of the incidents being debated.

So it's hard to put these men into neat columns of names under clear subject headings, or even to draw a Venn diagram in which they'd appear as points among partially overlapping oval fields.

The press report of Mr. Vorphal's recollections that appeared today demonstrates that even among the SwiftVets — who by definition have taken affirmative steps to join those opposed to Sen. Kerry as a prospective Commander in Chief — there may be many important, competent eyewitnesses whose first-hand accounts of crucial events the SwiftVets' leaders have yet to find out about, much less publicize.  And the same is undoubtedly true of the Kerry campaign, which is also finding and publicizing new witnesses on a near-daily basis.

The notion here that either side in this dispute is orchestrating a well-coordinated and effective conspiracy of deliberate liars and lies therefore strikes me as highly improbable.  The public spokesmen for both sides are obviously still scrambling to add names to the list of Dramatis Personae, grasp even the roughest outlines of the facts and opinions of these various players, and adjust their talking points and strategies accordingly.

So what's going on now bears only the most remote resemblance to an organized presentation of a courtroom trial after comprehensive pretrial discovery.  For those, like me, who are trained in the particular and peculiar disciplines of that method of truth-seeking, this is a frustrating and chaotic process to observe.

*******

But that chaos makes me even less willing than I would be in the more organized setting of civil litigation to start pointing the "liar finger" at any of these men, or to posit the existance of well-organized and competent ringleaders who are directing their efforts as part of an organized "smear campaign."

To the contrary — even moreso than I would to members of the general public — I'm inclined to grant all of the participants at least an initial presumption of veracity and good faith.  Remember, please, that we're talking here about a diverse set of individuals whose single common attribute is that they served this country in uniform during wartime.  Every man jack of them, on either "side" of this controversy, deserves respect for that much at a minimum.

One of my recent pro-Kerry commenters, in the midst of some other fairly astute arguments, has indulged in one that I think is profoundly unwise.  He insists that this is an "either-or" situation, in which one must conclude that all of the pro-Kerry Swiftees-plus-other-eyewitnesses are liars, or that all of them are truthtellers whose accounts must be accepted as entitled to conclusive weight.  Well, that's just not the way things work, even in courtrooms, and certainly not in politics. 

Rather, to decide what weight any individual's recollections and opinions should be entitled to, one must start with much more mundane considerations.  What was the individual's opportunity to observe?  What training and experience did he have, or lack, to appreciate and correctly understand what he thought he was observing?  Precisely what facts does he claim to be relating?  Are they internally consistent with one another?  If he's rendering an opinion, what qualifications does he have or lack which might lead one to credit or be skeptical of that opinion? 

As a lawyer whose daily job it's been to serve as the proponent of many witnesses and the opponent of many others, only after I've exhausted my efforts to get answers to these questions — and to reconcile as many conflicts and inconsistencies as I can using them — do I then move on to questions of veracity like "what motive does this witness have to lie?" or "what biases has this witness displayed that might affect his credibility?" 

For most of these men — and especially for new ones who pop suddenly into public view, with a big splash like Bill Rood or a little one like Butch Vorphal — I'm a long, long way from having enough contextual information to render anything remotely approaching a well-informed judgment as to whether any of them are "liars"!

So:  To my readers who are SwiftVet partisans, and alike to those who are Kerry partisans, I ask that you temper your passions a bit, and that you let the better angels of your nature hold you back from pointing the "liar finger" too quickly at any, much less all, of these supporting cast members on one side or the other of this great drama.  And if you see me violating my own advice on this point, please don't hesitate to point it out to me.

I'm trying to retain some objectivity, despite my obvious leanings, in assimilating and processing all this information.  And both as an observer, and even as a pundit-advocate for one side, I think I'll do a more effective job if I try to keep my "liar finger" mostly in my pocket, instead of in these witnesses' faces.

Butch Vorphal joins eyewitnesses disputing enemy fire during Kerry's Rassmann rescue

Another eyewitness has spoken out on the subject of whether there was or wasn't enemy fire from the shores during the Bay Hap River action out of which Sen. Kerry received his Bronze Star for rescuing Jim Rassmann:

An Oconto Falls man says he was there when John Kerry earned his Purple Heart and his Bronze Star in Vietnam. And, Butch Vorphal has a very different account of what happened that day. Kerry says he earned bothmedals for pulling a fellow soldier out of a river while under heavy enemy fire. Vorphal was on board Swift Boat Number Three, which was hit by mines that day. While the blast knocked him out for a short time, Vorphal told [Green Bay, Wisconsin, radio station WTAQ's] Bill LuMaye the only gunfire he remembers was cover fire from the Swift Boats themselves. Vorphal says they lay down cover fire because they assume there's going to be enemy gunfire. He says when they stopped firing, there was no other gunfire. Vorphal says none of his shipmates remember seeing bullet holes from enemy fire in the Swift Boats. Vorphal says he doesn't remember anyone else being injured enough to get a purple heart.

Leslie L. "Butch" Vorphal is a verifiable Swiftee who served aboard PCF 3 from February through August 1969, and although he is not listed in Unfit for Command's Appendix A, he is listed on the SwiftVets' website as having joined in their letter to Sen. Kerry dated May 4, 2004, that called upon him to sign Standard Form 180 and to "provide a full, accurate accounting of [his] conduct in Vietnam."

Mainstream media references to "Vorphal" from Google News as of this moment:  zero.

That Mr. Vorphal's version of events comes to us via a radio station in Green Bay, Wisconsin — rather than, say, through a press conference called by the SwiftVets — brings me to an essay (or perhaps a bit of a rant) that I'll post separately just above this one.

BeldarBlog's background colors

A few readers have emailed to complain that they had trouble reading the black text on the dark gray shade I'd been using for my sidebar and in my blockquotes.  I've altered my site graphics to switch to pure white as the background for regular post text, with a light gray for the sidebar and blockquotes.  If that causes folks problems as well, I'm willing to try something different and welcome my readers' feedback, either through comments to this post or via email.

Coordination between Bush and SwiftVets?

From Friday's New York Times:

Mr. Bush did not hesitate when asked about the central charge issued by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, the veterans' group that has leveled unsubstantiated attacks against Mr. Kerry's record in Vietnam. "I think Senator Kerry should be proud of his record,'' Mr. Bush said. "No, I don't think he lied.''

And from Friday's Wall Street Journal op-ed by SwiftVets spokesman John O'Neill:

We formed Swift Boat Veterans For Truth for one purpose: to present to the American public our conclusion that John Kerry is not fit to be commander in chief. We are organized as a "527 group" with Adm. Roy Hoffmann at the helm, our leader today as he was some 35 years ago when we served under him in Coastal Squadron One in Vietnam. Our membership is transparent and shown on our Web site, www.swiftvets.com, currently including more than 250 Swiftees. We have 17 of the 23 officers who served with Mr. Kerry, most of his chain of command, and most sailors. We have more than 60 winners of real Purple Hearts. No one has a better right than we do to speak to the matters involving our unit....

We do not take direction from the White House or the president's re-election committee, and our efforts would continue even if President Bush were to ask us directly to stop.

If the SwiftVets and BushCheney04 were the carefully coordinated ballroom dance partners that the Kerry campaign would have you believe they are, I think this would pretty much disqualify both contestants.  Not even Karl Rove is cunning enough to plot to win a dance competition by having two partners stomp on each other's feet. 

Lambert/Lambeau Field: Does Kerry have SwiftVets on the brain?

CBS News' Steve Chaggaris files this campaign report (hat-tip to Jim Geraghty's Kerry Spot):

On Wednesday, Kerry made his third visit to Green Bay, Wis., this year and made it a point to focus on the main thing the city revolves around: football and the Green Bay Packers....

As he was taking questions from the audience, he referred to the legendary Packers stadium, Lambeau Field (which has been called that for 39 years) as "Lambert Field."

If the voters catch wind of that gaffe, it could take Kerry another three visits to Green Bay to make up for it.

So why was Kerry thinking "Lambert" instead of "Lambeau"?  Could it be that while his body was in Wisconsin, his mind was in Eagle Point, Oregon?

Robert E. Lambert doesn’t plan to vote for John Kerry.

But the Eagle Point man challenges claims by a group called Swift Boat Veterans for Truth that there was no enemy fire aimed at the five swift boats, including the one commanded by Kerry, on March 13, 1969 on the Bay Hap River in the southern tip of what was then South Vietnam.

Lambert, now 64, was a crew member on swift boat PCF-51 that day. The boat was commanded by Navy Lt. Larry Thurlow, a now-retired officer who questions why Kerry was awarded a Bronze star for bravery and a third Purple Heart for the March 13 incident.

"He and another officer now say we weren’t under fire at that time," Lambert said Wednesday afternoon. "Well, I sure was under the impression we were."

Lambert’s Bronze Star medal citation for the incident praises his courage under fire in the aftermath of a mine explosion that rocked another swift boat on that day 35 years ago.

"Anytime you are blown out of the water like that, they always follow that up with small arms fire," he said.

Thus does the Jackson County (Oregon) Mail Tribune utterly scoop (hat-tip to my commenter "GT" for this link earlier today) their esteemed competition Newsweek, who reported today:

Lambert’s military record shows he retired from the U.S. Navy in 1978. Efforts to trace him have been unsuccessful.

This as part of Newsweek's own rather unsurprising "discovery" (also reported by the Mail Tribune) that Lambert's Bronze Star citation — exactly like Thurlow's and Kerry's — references enemy fire during the Bay Hap River incident in which Kerry rescued Rassmann.  Pardon me while I yawn — that's been assumed by folks actually following this story in the blogosphere for about a week now, and we've moved on to the still unanswered question of who wrote or provided the information for all three citations, and whether that information was or wasn't accurate. 

Blogosphere to Newsweek: If the Navy citations were conclusive, we wouldn't be having any of this discussion, 'cause nobody doubts that Kerry did get the Bronze Star.  You guys are so missing the point, it's almost as pathetic as the LAT, who's still stuck on the "all Kerry's crewmen support him" canard.  And way-to-go blogosphere:  15 Technorati hits at the moment for the link from the Mail Tribune, all bloggers; no relevant hits on Google News for "Lambert 'Eagle Pass.'"

Lambert's name must be added to those of other Swiftees who contend that there was hostile fire of some sort during the general timeframe and general vicinity of Kerry's rescue of Rassmann.  I'm sure Kerry doesn't mind not getting Mr. Lambert's vote, but is damned glad to have his supportive recount of events.

As such things go, Mr. Lambert's version — "Well, I sure was under the impression we were [under fire]" — is considerably less dramatic than Kerry's "about to get a bullet to the head" version.  Mr. Lambert's follow-up comment will lead some to wonder whether he actually has a specific, detailed recollection, or whether he's speculating — genuinely giving an "impression — based on what was usually the case in ambush situations. 

Without meaning to diminish the luster of the Mail Tribune's scoop, I'm left reading this press account, like the recent press accounts of Bill Russell's tale, with the intense, overwhelming desire to examine any of these witnesses thoroughly and competently under oath — not to smear anyone or discredit anyone, but just to find out the exact scope of what these men can actually tell us!  Color me not necessarily skeptical, but just very, very frustrated.

Does anyone following this slow motion train wreck think John Kerry doesn't have SwiftVets on the brain these days?  "Lambert Field."  I'm sure the ghost of Vince Lombardi got a good chuckle out of that one.

The third SwiftVets ad

The third SwiftVets ad is just Steve Gardner.  Some have suggested that it's the least effective of the three so far. 

I respectfully disagree.  Some very large chunk of the American public hasn't been following this controversy at all, but early one meme from the Kerry camp that they likely absorbed was "None of these SwiftVets served on Kerry's boat."  This ad is worth running just to decisively debunk that canard.  It's not a bases-clearing home run, but it's a solid single through the gap between first and second that at least gets another man on base.

"Seared — seared" will be worth a commercial of its own — one with maps and animated graphics of the Vietnam-Cambodia border, hopefully, and some juicy example of the Kerry camp having backpedaled on that particular tale to contrast against the "seared" quote.

Batman rips Robin: Adm. Schachte disputes Kerry's 1st Purple Heart claim in new Novak column

I'm told that now coming across the newswires is a new column from Bob Novak that contains extensive quotes from Retired Rear Adm. William L. Schachte Jr. 

Schachte, call-sign "Batman," has broken his press silence to insist that he was indeed aboard the Boston Whaler or "skimmer" in the early morning mission on December 2, 1968, out of which Sen. John Kerry's first Purple Heart was awarded. Schachte maintains that Kerry's minor arm wound was indeed the result of Kerry — code-named "Robin" on this mission — being careless in firing an M-79 grenade launcher. Other officers are quoted to support the likelihood of Schachte's presence.

I'll update this post when I can find the full Novak column online.

Update:   There's a teaser in my comments.

Update (Fri Aug 27 @ 1:20am):  Here is a report on Novak's column from Andy Soltis in Friday's New York Post, entitled "Enemy Never Wounded Kerry: Admiral":

An officer who served with John Kerry yesterday finally broke his silence about the Swift vets controversy — and said Kerry accidentally wounded himself before requesting his first Purple Heart. In a detailed new account that is certain to fuel the growing controversy, eyewitness William Schachte Jr., a retired rear admiral, told columnist Robert Novak for today's papers that he was "astonished" to hear Kerry's version of the events of Dec. 2, 1968, when Schachte was in command of Kerry aboard a skimmer boat on the Mekong River.

Schachte said that Kerry:

• Wasn't wounded by hostile fire.

• Wasn't even under fire by the enemy.

• "Nicked" himself with a grenade launcher and "requested a Purple Heart" afterward.

If Schachte's version is accurate, Kerry would not have been eligible for the award, the first of the three Purple Hearts he received.

No link yet for Novak's actual column. 

Update (Fri Aug 27 @ 1:50am):  The Novak full column is on Townhall.com, and also in the Chicago Sun-Times.

Read the whole thing, twice. 

So was Schachte on the Boston Whaler/skimmer with Kerry or not?  To answer that question, say the word along with me now, just as Sen. Kerry — he of the searable memory — said it to Adm. Schachte when Senator recognized Admiral, after twenty years' separation from their night together on the Boston Whaler, in the U.S. Senate subway in the basement of the Russell Senate Office Building:

"Batman."

-------------

[Editor's confession:  I am so red in the face with embarrassment.  In earlier updates I'd indicated that I didn't think Novak's column said anything one way or the other about whether there was or wasn't enemy fire.  I'd thought I'd seen it on my first pass through, then couldn't find it again.  But after further review, I've concluded that I was right the first time, and in my later looking, I just missed the very short, key lines:

Kerry's M-16 rifle jammed, so he picked up the M-79 grenade launcher, Schachte said.

"I heard a 'thunk.' There was no fire from the enemy," Schachte recalled.

I've shamelessly edited my updates and original post above to fit what I'd written in the first place before any editing, which is also what Novak's column actually says, because I think that would cause less confusion than a bunch of strikethroughs.  Mea culpa maxima!  Finally, I think Novak's wrong on one small detail — the "Batman" call-sign probably applied to Schachte, not the skimmer, per Unfit for Command (p. 36).]

------------------

Update (Fri Aug 27 @ 3:00am):  Here's some info on Adm. Schachte (pronounced SHOCK-tee) from the law firm to which he's of counsel.  It's written to emphasize his legal, not his combat, experience, but it looks to me like he was one of the top lawyers in the Navy by the time he retired.  Note also that law school — University of South Carolina, J.D., 1973; George Washington University, LL.M., with highest honors, 1989 — came after Vietnam (as with John O'Neill), and that the words "war hero" aren't anywhere written (but feel free to draw your own inferences):

Bill Schachte (R. Adm. USN Ret.) has an extensive background in Naval and maritime issues.

After law school, he began his legal career assigned to the Naval Legal Service Office, Charleston, South Carolina. After receiving his Masters of Law, Rear Admiral Schachte served as the Head of the Law of the Sea Branch, International Law Division, Office of the Judge Advocate General. He was next assigned to the Office of the Secretary of Defense, International Security Affairs (ISA) and served as a member of the U.S. Delegation to the UN Conference on Law of the Sea. In 1984, Admiral Schachte was assigned as the Deputy Assistant Judge Advocate General (Military Personnel) where he served as the JAG Corps community manager and was also responsible for managing the LDO (Law) and Legalmen (LN) communities. In 1986, he was assigned as the Deputy Assistant Judge Advocate General (International Law), and additionally appointed by the Secretary of Defense as the Deputy DOD Representative for Ocean Policy Affairs. In May 1987, Admiral Schachte was appointed Acting DOD Representative for Ocean Policy Affairs while continuing to serve as Deputy Assistant Judge Advocate General (International Law). Subsequently, the Secretary of Defense designated him DOD Representative for Ocean Policy Affairs again, representing both the Secretary of Defense and the Joint Chiefs of Staff in that capacity until August 1989. In October 1992 Admiral Schachte was appointed Acting Judge Advocate General of the Navy. He served in these four assignments until he retired in October 1993.

During his distinguished Naval career, Admiral Schachte was a Vietnam volunteer and served in combat from January to December 1968. He also served as Executive/Operations Officer for Coastal Division Fourteen, Republic of Vietnam.

Admiral Schachte's personal decorations include the Defense Distinguished Service Medal, Distinguished Service Medal, Defense Superior Service Medal, the Legion of Merit with Gold Star (in lieu of second award), the Bronze Star with "V", the Meritorious Service Medal with Gold Star (in lieu of second award) and the Combat Action Ribbon.

I'd expect him to make a rather formidable witness.

------------------

Update (Fri Aug 27 @ 8:20pm):  An anonymous commenter has provided a link to the Lisa Myers interview with Adm. Schachte.  It's strong stuff indeed.  As to why he was on the skimmer with Kerry:

The boats were manned by two officers and one enlisted person.  Officers because officers were briefed daily.  We had daily intelligence briefings seven days a week, with the latest intelligence from the area.  Or in the patrolling boat – officers would come back and debrief their area.  So, the officers had a good feel for everything that was going in our area of operation and our sectors.

The enlisted person operated the motor.  Now, this was my idea.  And I went on each one of these – in command of each one that we did up to and including the night with Lieutenant Junior Grade Kerry.

I did that because it was my idea and people volunteered for this.  And I didn't think it was right having one of these operations and being on a swift boat or back at Operations Center or something like that.

As to the events of that night:

This night, we were in an area – I recall we were so close to the beach you could actually hear the water lapping on the shoreline.  It was between two and three in the morning – I don't remember.  I detected what I thought was some movement.  So, I took one of the hand-held flares and popped it instantly.  It went up and when it burst – I don't know if you've heard that described, but it really lights up the area.  I thought I saw the same area of movement.  So, I opened up on it with my M-60.

Those guns were double loaded with tracers – Tango India, target identification.  And John, right after I opened up, opened up with his M-16 and I could see he was firing in the direction of my tracer fire, which is why we had the double-loaded tracer.  My gun jammed after the first burst and as I was trying to clear my weapon – John's gun apparently jammed too because he wouldn't fire anymore – I heard the old familiar, ‘thump’ – ‘POW!’.  And I looked, and John had fired the M-79 grenade launcher. 

We were receiving NO fire from the beach.  There were no muzzle flashes.  The water wasn't boiling around the boat as it were – and the only noise was the noise we were making.  So, I told the boat operator – the motor operator – to, you know, ‘let's leave the area.’ And we did, went back to port, eventually – went back to the swift boat and went back to port.

As to the immediate aftermath and Kerry's Purple Heart:

And that morning, I went in and debriefed my commanding officer – our division commander, then Lieutenant Commander [Grant] 'Skip' Hibbard.

And I told him what happened.  And I told him I was NOT going to be filing an after-action report, which is required if you have enemy action, because we had no enemy action.  And I also after giving him all the details and I said, 'Oh, by the way –'  and I don't remember my exact words – 'John nicked himself with the M-79.'  Those M-79s, by the way, have a kill radius of about five meters.  A  little over five yards.  But, there is a shrapnel area beyond that.  And that's what happened.  And I was upset because that could have gone in somebody's eye and so on and so forth.

The division commander said, 'Fine, understand – no after-action report required.'  Then, I found out that John had come in. And then I went back into a meeting and he had this small piece of shrapnel in his hand and he was requesting a Purple Heart.  I was opposed to that.  The division commander was opposed to that.

And John left our division four or five days later. I departed country maybe three weeks later.  Skip left a few days after I left.  So, we were all gone.  And I forgot about it.  Until some years later, someone told me – and I don't recall who – to my surprise, John had been awarded a Purple Heart for that incident.

And as to whether Sen. Kerry remembers being on the boat with Adm. Schachte:

And that's the way things were until about 20 years or so later.  I was then an Admiral and I was in uniform – didn't have my hat on; I'd left that someplace in an office I was visiting.  I was in the basement of the Senate Russell Office Building.  And you have this subway system in the Capitol.  I was waiting for a subway with a friend.

And he pointed – 'Look, that's Senator Kerry over there.' And I said, 'I know him.'  And he said, 'You do?'  And I hadn't seen or talked with John since Vietnam.  And I guess I embarrassed my friend because I said, 'Hey, John!'  Just like that.  Well, he turned around, looked at me – it's about 20 paces away – and he kind of strolled over to me.  And that call sign that night, if I haven't mentioned it, was 'Batman.'  I think I have. But, John walked over to me and got kind of close and he said, 'Batman.'

Sounds to me like Bill Schachte's presence on that skimmer was seared into young Lt. Kerry's memory.

Again, read the whole thing.  Myers did a fairly good job of probing Adm. Schachte's memories, motives, and so forth — even trying to bait him into name-calling (which he resolutely refused to do).  Myers also did a new telephone interview with William Zaladonis, who continues to deny that Schachte was present.