Anyone know if Johnny Rosselli's attorney Tom Wadden is still alive and if so where he lives?
Per Richard D. Mahoney interview with Wadden's former law partner Hundley, Wadden had told Hundley that Rosselli had confessed his role in the JFK conspiracy.
That is just about all that Mahoney writes about it in "Sons and Brothers".
Hundley I believe is now deceased.
It would sure be great if Wadden is still alive to find out exactly what Rosselli told him.
Full Version: Tom Wadden
Good Day Tim.... Interesting "Adnan Khashoggi Linked to 911 Terrorists" article that mentions washDC attorney, THOMAS A. WADDEN Jr., the CIA, SHACKLEY, drugs, ROSSELI, etc, etc....
http://www.questionsquestions.net/docs04/khashoggi-911.html
....and another article about mafia prosecution in NJ....
http://www.mafianj.com/addonizio/addonizio5.shtml
Best Regards in Research,
Don
Don Roberdeau
U.S.S. John F. Kennedy, CV-67, "Big John," Plank Walker
Sooner, or later, The Truth emerges Clearly
ROSEMARY WILLIS 2nd Headsnap; Westward, Ultrafast, & Directly Towards the "Grassy Knoll"
Dealey Plaza Professionally-surveyed Map Detailing Victims locations, Witnesses, Photographers, Suspected trajectories, Evidentiary artifacts, etc
4 Principles
T ogether
E veryone
A chieves
M ore
For the United States
"Drehm seemed to think the shots came from in FRONT OF or BESIDE the president."
(my EMPHASIS)
----CHARLES F. BREHM, a combat gunfire experienced, United States Army Ranger, World War II, D-day veteran, & very close Dealey Plaza attack witness, quoted only minutes after the attack, and while he was still standing within Dealey Plaza (11-22-63 "Dallas Times Herald," appeared only in the fifth & final daily edition, which mis-spelled his name)
http://www.questionsquestions.net/docs04/khashoggi-911.html
....and another article about mafia prosecution in NJ....
http://www.mafianj.com/addonizio/addonizio5.shtml
Best Regards in Research,
Don
Don Roberdeau
U.S.S. John F. Kennedy, CV-67, "Big John," Plank Walker
Sooner, or later, The Truth emerges Clearly
ROSEMARY WILLIS 2nd Headsnap; Westward, Ultrafast, & Directly Towards the "Grassy Knoll"
Dealey Plaza Professionally-surveyed Map Detailing Victims locations, Witnesses, Photographers, Suspected trajectories, Evidentiary artifacts, etc
4 Principles
T ogether
E veryone
A chieves
M ore
For the United States
"Drehm seemed to think the shots came from in FRONT OF or BESIDE the president."
(my EMPHASIS)
----CHARLES F. BREHM, a combat gunfire experienced, United States Army Ranger, World War II, D-day veteran, & very close Dealey Plaza attack witness, quoted only minutes after the attack, and while he was still standing within Dealey Plaza (11-22-63 "Dallas Times Herald," appeared only in the fifth & final daily edition, which mis-spelled his name)
Great information, Don. Many thanks.
One of the assassination books consistently refers to Wadden as a "mob lawyer." I had not known that he had associated with the legendary Edward Bennett Williams.
I think what Hundley told Mahoney is of GREAT significance. Few (if any) would doubt Mahoney's credibility or suspect that he would invent the story of what Hundley told him. Nor would many (if any) doubt Hundley.
The only question might be whether Wadden was stretching things, but there seems to be no motive for it. For instance, he never wrote a book about his dealings with the Mafia and Rosselli.
Mahoney does not write much about what Hundley told him. More details of what Wadden told Hundley would be wonderful. Too bad Hundley was not questioned while he was alive.
One of the assassination books consistently refers to Wadden as a "mob lawyer." I had not known that he had associated with the legendary Edward Bennett Williams.
I think what Hundley told Mahoney is of GREAT significance. Few (if any) would doubt Mahoney's credibility or suspect that he would invent the story of what Hundley told him. Nor would many (if any) doubt Hundley.
The only question might be whether Wadden was stretching things, but there seems to be no motive for it. For instance, he never wrote a book about his dealings with the Mafia and Rosselli.
Mahoney does not write much about what Hundley told him. More details of what Wadden told Hundley would be wonderful. Too bad Hundley was not questioned while he was alive.
QUOTE (Tim Gratz @ Sep 4 2007, 01:22 PM) 
Great information, Don. Many thanks.
One of the assassination books consistently refers to Wadden as a "mob lawyer." I had not known that he had associated with the legendary Edward Bennett Williams.
I think what Hundley told Mahoney is of GREAT significance. Few (if any) would doubt Mahoney's credibility or suspect that he would invent the story of what Hundley told him. Nor would many (if any) doubt Hundley.
The only question might be whether Wadden was stretching things, but there seems to be no motive for it. For instance, he never wrote a book about his dealings with the Mafia and Rosselli.
Mahoney does not write much about what Hundley told him. More details of what Wadden told Hundley would be wonderful. Too bad Hundley was not questioned while he was alive.
One of the assassination books consistently refers to Wadden as a "mob lawyer." I had not known that he had associated with the legendary Edward Bennett Williams.
I think what Hundley told Mahoney is of GREAT significance. Few (if any) would doubt Mahoney's credibility or suspect that he would invent the story of what Hundley told him. Nor would many (if any) doubt Hundley.
The only question might be whether Wadden was stretching things, but there seems to be no motive for it. For instance, he never wrote a book about his dealings with the Mafia and Rosselli.
Mahoney does not write much about what Hundley told him. More details of what Wadden told Hundley would be wonderful. Too bad Hundley was not questioned while he was alive.
This Hundley mentioned, is this William Hundley ex Justice Department and Special Assistant to RFK, represented Time Inc. during the early to mid 1960's, and was John Mitchell's defense attorney during the Watergate drama?
James
That is an affirmative, James. I understand he and Wadden were once law partners (explaining Wadden's comments to him).
QUOTE (Tim Gratz @ Sep 4 2007, 08:01 AM)
That is an affirmative, James. I understand he and Wadden were once law partners (explaining Wadden's comments to him).
I would certainly be interested in the info, but, as an attorney, I don't like seeing another lawyer completely ignore the attorney-client privilege.
I don't care how long it has been or how egregious the crime, if a client confides in a lawyer, the attorney should take the confidential info to his or her grave.
Does the privilege end at the death (in this case the dismemberment) of the client?
QUOTE (Tim Gratz @ Sep 4 2007, 09:56 PM)
Does the privilege end at the death (in this case the dismemberment) of the client?
No, but it only applies to confidences (revealed by the client) and to matters that the attorney should know to be harmful to the client's interests or reputation.
In this case, however, Roselli was apparently using his lawyer as his mouthpiece ( for revelations, disinformation, or both) to the media, which I had forgotten.
Roselli is an interesting figure, and I would sure like to be privy to the information that he took to his grave.
But the case that held that the attorney-client privilege survived the death of the client, Swidler & Berlin v. United States, was decided in 1998, only after Wadden made his revelation to Hundley. Before that case there was a question about the survivability of the privilege.
Here is a pre-Swidler case that, I think, extended the doctrine of the survivability of the privilege to an absurd result:
William Macumber was on trial for first-degree murder.In his defense at trial he offered to prove that another person had confessed to the murder for which he was being tried. The third party had confessed he was the murderer to his two attorneys. After the confessed murderer had died, the two lawyers stepped forward and were willing to testify at Macumber’s trial about the confessions. The trial court, on its own motion, excluded the attorneys’ testimony.
On appeal, the Arizona Supreme Court affirmed. Even though the two attorneys had gotten an informal opinion from the Committee on Ethics of the state bar that the attorney client privilege did not prevent them from testifying, the court held that the dead client’s lawyers could not answer questions about confidential communications they had with the client prior to his death. According to the court, the privilege survived the death of the client and could only be abrogated in situations where doing so would further the dead client’s interest. Here, of course, the interest that would be furthered by the attorney’s testimony was Macumber’s, not the dead client’s. As a result, the two lawyers were not permitted to testify.
I am not sure what happened to poor Macumber. It seems absurd to me that a man should face a possible death sentence for a crime he did not commit merely to protect the reputation of the decedents who, if their confessions were honest, were in fact murderers. No wonder the famous Dickens' quote: "The law is an ass."
In any event, whether or not Wadden should have told Hundley what Rosselli told him, he did in fact do so. That confession, I submit, conclusively answers the question whether there was a conspiracy.
Here is a pre-Swidler case that, I think, extended the doctrine of the survivability of the privilege to an absurd result:
William Macumber was on trial for first-degree murder.In his defense at trial he offered to prove that another person had confessed to the murder for which he was being tried. The third party had confessed he was the murderer to his two attorneys. After the confessed murderer had died, the two lawyers stepped forward and were willing to testify at Macumber’s trial about the confessions. The trial court, on its own motion, excluded the attorneys’ testimony.
On appeal, the Arizona Supreme Court affirmed. Even though the two attorneys had gotten an informal opinion from the Committee on Ethics of the state bar that the attorney client privilege did not prevent them from testifying, the court held that the dead client’s lawyers could not answer questions about confidential communications they had with the client prior to his death. According to the court, the privilege survived the death of the client and could only be abrogated in situations where doing so would further the dead client’s interest. Here, of course, the interest that would be furthered by the attorney’s testimony was Macumber’s, not the dead client’s. As a result, the two lawyers were not permitted to testify.
I am not sure what happened to poor Macumber. It seems absurd to me that a man should face a possible death sentence for a crime he did not commit merely to protect the reputation of the decedents who, if their confessions were honest, were in fact murderers. No wonder the famous Dickens' quote: "The law is an ass."
In any event, whether or not Wadden should have told Hundley what Rosselli told him, he did in fact do so. That confession, I submit, conclusively answers the question whether there was a conspiracy.
Wadden was also the personal attorney of Fred Black, "lobbyist" extraordinaire, co-conspirator of Bobby Baker in Serv-U Corp.-related influence-peddling, neighbor of LBJ, and very close friend of Johnny Rosselli. As Black was being investigated in 1964, he was rumored to have threatened to reveal knowledge he had of the JFK assassination. Perhaps he had good sources...
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.