Thursday, August 18, 2016

Will Williams in Vietnam

Since Will Williams became an officer of the National Alliance in the early 1990s, it has happened from time to time that someone would try to cast doubt on his military record. For example, Dr. William Pierce wrote in the National Alliance Bulletin of November-December 1992 that one such detractor "has insinuated in his recent letters that our Membership Coordinator, Will Williams, is ... an imposter who falsely claims to be a former Special Forces officer."

Here are some facts.

Lieutenant Will Williams was stationed at a Special Forces camp A-414 near the village of Thanh Tri, in a border-area west of Saigon nicknamed "the finger" because it formed an indentation into Cambodia. The dozen or so American Special Forces soldiers assigned to this camp became known as the Defenders of the Finger.

This plaque, made while Will Williams was in Vietnam with a carved hand that he bought in Thailand, represents Vietnamese territory in yellow and Cambodian territory in red, and shows the anomaly in the border known as "the finger," where the base was located.

Because of its proximity to Cambodia on three sides, the base was frequently shelled by the Viet Cong, who used Cambodia as a refuge. Whenever that happened, somebody would have to run to the top of a steel observation tower called "Silver Star Tower," (because whoever would climb that tower while the base was under attack deserved a medal) to try to determine whence the fire originated.

Terry McIntosh's documentary Double Agent Down narrates a particularly harrowing incident that Will Williams experienced in Vietnam while leading a CIDG (Civilian Irregular Defense Group).

Ten days after this battle, Lieutenant Will Williams was promoted to Captain.

Friday, April 1, 2016

Fred Streed's Affidavit for Will Williams

Fred Streed has information impeaching the credibility of the woman who  accused Will Williams of misdemeanor battery. Fred is well known as an honest man (entrusted by Dr. Pierce with the execution of his will), and nobody can twist his arm. I thoroughly believe what he says about this matter.

Some of it I can confirm from my own personal experience. I know, for example, that there was never any violence from Will Williams toward his wife Albina, because Albina herself told me.

Fred says (point 3 of the Affidavit) that during his recent stay on the National Alliance's property he noticed that Garland DeCourcy was "insisting events happened that I knew to be untrue," and not only about Will Williams. For example, she was claiming that the National Alliance was "raided" several times during Dr. Pierce's lifetime. (I was a member of the National Alliance from 1992 until after Dr. Pierce's death, and this is the first time that I ever heard such a story!) "Garland would spend an hour or more detailing convoluted conspiracy theories," writes Fred. The woman seems to have a wild imagination.

In the altercation between Garland DeCourcy and Will Williams, Will Williams' account of what happened (in response to my questioning) is this:

I held my right arm out as she came at me, wagging her finger in my face aggressively, screaming that I'm a "psycho," among other ridiculous things an employee doesn't scream at her employer. Between the crook of my thumb and forefinger was her chin. I never touched her neck. [Will Williams, 3 April 2016]

Michael Oljaca (a.k.a. Olanich), Garland's young boyfriend, was present and somehow intervened. Will's account of Michael's role is this:

He stood up, but his alleged effort at physically "separating" us is laughable. I think he may have yelled "stop," but directed more at her than at me. I wasn't the one who had jumped up and started screaming hysterically.
I removed my hand from her chin as soon as Mikey stood up. I then left the room and went back to typing for the September BULLETIN in the office across the hall. I let Garland know when I paid them [a short time later] that her services were no longer needed for the Alliance.

Garland's version is that Will was strangling her and that Michael interrupted it, saving her life. The SPLC has it that Will "allegedly attempted to beat and strangle" her.

Fred indicates in point 4 of his affidavit that he encountered Will, Garland, and Michael shortly after the alleged incident, and saw no sign that any violence had occurred:

On September 30th, 2015, Garland and Mr. Williams evidently had a heated conversation. I talked with Mr. Williams right after it happened, he was calm and did not appear angry. I also talked with Garland and Mr. Olanich soon after my conversation with Mr. Williams. She seemed very excited and angry but made no mention of an assault on her. I did not see any bruises on her throat or other signs of a physical altercation. 

Will Williams is a burly and vigorous former Special Forces soldier. Michael Oljaca is said to be not so formidable. The notion that Michael Oljaca tussled with Will Williams and emerged without a mark on him is no more credible than the claim that Will "attempted to beat and strangle" Garland and that the only mark she had to show for it was this little rash:

Nonetheless Michael O., the only eyewitness other than the plaintiff and the defendant, has been supporting the plaintiff's account. 

If you want to understand how it is possible that a woman could get a man or several men to support her in an accusation that might be exaggerated or false, look at the recent accusation of misdemeanor battery against Donald Trump's campaign-manager Corey Lewandowski. The journalist Michelle Fields wildly exaggerated and distorted what happened in her brief physical interaction with Lewandowski and talked two male witnesses who could have contradicted her story (Washington Post's reporter Ben Terris and photographer Jabin Botsford) into going along with it . (See this exposé.) I heard a female caller to Rush Limbaugh call it "playing the woman-card." In the jargon of men's rights it is also called damseling, and the complementary male behavior is called white-knighting. A well known phenomenon.

A lack of any inherent importance in whatever did happen between Will Williams and Garland DeCourcy on 30 September 2015 is also implicit in the fact that she waited two months, until 2 December 2015, to file a complaint. The police-report does not say that she had suffered any physical harm.

Fred's observations unfortunately were not admitted as evidence for the trial, which took place in the Magistrate Court of Pocahontas County, West Virginia, on 28 March 2016 and, with neither a witness nor an affidavit to support the defendant, ended in Will Williams' being convicted on a misdemeanor charge of battery.

Friday, January 1, 2016

About Will Williams

I just want to say a few words about Will Williams in light of a controversy that has arisen in the past few weeks. The controversy is that Will Williams is alleged to have laid hands in a hostile way on Garland DeCourcy, an employee of the National Alliance, of which Will is the chairman. I read that he was charged with misdemeanor battery for this, but that he has acquired an attorney and is fighting it.

I do not know anything about this alleged altercation beyond the police-documents that have been published online. There is no statement in those documents that the plaintiff incurred any physical injury. If there were bruises, they would have been invisible by the time of the report on the incident, because the documents indicate that Garland DeCourcy waited two months (from 30 September 2015 until 2 December 2015) to file a complaint.

I can only say that in my experience it is not typical of Will to do something like that. I would say that he has an aggressive and audacious personality, but I have never known him to be violent. I cannot say that he never would, but in 22 years I have neither seen nor heard about him doing anything violent toward anybody.

There is a story from the last of Ben Klassen's memoirs, Trials, Tribulations, and Triumphs (1993), that alleges that there were violent altercations between Will Williams and his girlfriend Lucinda Coleman during the time when they both worked for him in the late 1980s. This story has been cherished by certain people that have made a hobby out of attacking Will.

I had a chance to talk to Lucinda several years ago, and, according to her, Klassen's account of the nature of the relationship between her and Will is very inaccurate and permeated with negative bias.

Klassen makes this claim: "In one fight, Will had kicked Cindy around with his hob-nailed army boots, and when she tried to protect her behind with her hand, he kicked her so hard he broke one of the metacarpus bones in her right hand."

According to Lucinda, there was no fight, only horseplay between herself and Will, wherein her hand was accidentally injured. Will kicked her in the butt (not hard enough to harm her butt) but because she put her hand in the way, a bone was broken.

Klassen also makes much of the fact that Will slept by himself, apart from Cindy. Klassen took it as an indication of discord between them, but I think it most likely has to do with PTSD from the Vietnam War, which commonly includes sleep-disturbances that can be troubling for someone else trying to sleep in the same room.

In any case, Cindy indicated to me that Will was not physically abusive to her.

It is evident from the rest of Klassen's last book that he had a very sour outlook in general at that stage of his life. After all, it was only a short time later that he killed himself. It is not hard to believe that his perception of what happened between Will and Cindy was distorted.

All these years later Will and Cindy are still on good terms.

I can also say that Will seems to get on very well with his current wife, with whom he has been married, I am not sure how long, but more than a decade. I had a chance to observe this when I visited in 2012. It was apparent to me that Will makes efforts to accommodate her and to keep her happy, as a man normally does in a healthy, loving relationship.

In the past I did not consider Klassen's "Will and Cindy" story very worthy of discussion, but it seems important to dispel it now because some people are bringing the allegation from 1988 to bear on the current misdemeanor battery charge and saying that together they imply a pattern of violence toward women. Regardless of how the present accusation may turn out, there does not seem to be any basis for claiming such a pattern, because, in addition to the huge time-interval between the two allegations, the woman who was supposed to be the victim of violence in 1988 says that it did not happen.

Sunday, September 7, 2014

The Tragedy of Edgar J. Steele

Edgar J. Steele suffered a severe cardiac trauma in November 2009. In June 2010 he was charged with attempting to hire somebody to kill his wife and mother-in-law. The key evidence against Steele was an audio recording made by the FBI, although there were also witnesses: Steele's handyman Larry Fairfax, whom Steele was accused of hiring to do the killing, and several FBI agents who monitored what Steele was saying while his conversation with Fairfax was being recorded.

Steele claimed that the recording was a fraud, and that he was being framed in a "Mission Impossible, world-class operation." That is an extraordinary claim and I did not believe it. Neither did Jim Giles, who had a daily Internet talkshow at the time.

Giles and I collaborated in the summer of 2010 in studying the Steele case. Giles conducted interviews and I wrote up the results and did research and made suggestions.

There were essentially two different, mutually exclusive approaches to the case.

The first approach was to take Steele seriously. If  Steele really was being framed with a fraudulent recording then he would need a forensic audio expert to demonstrate that it was a fraud. Giles interviewed two top forensic audio experts; the name and contact information for the more experienced of the two was given to Steele in the letter below.

The second approach to the case was to try to explain why Steele would have done that of which he was accused. I discovered that after serious heart traumas and surgery, people are often not in their right minds, sometimes for a long time. Giles interviewed a forensic psychiatrist who said that an adverse effect on Steele's mind and disposition as a result of the trauma was entirely possible. Since Steele had done a number of things that suggested that he was not thinking clearly, I strongly favored this explanation.

Jim Giles asked me to compose this letter that he would send to Steele. Essentially it tells  him how he should pursue his frame-up defense if it is true (which, believe it or not, nobody else was discussing at the time, the talk instead being entirely about how Steele was being railroaded and had no chance), but also gently suggests that he should pursue a psychiatric defense instead if his "Mission Impossible" story happened not to be true.

Jim Giles
Radio Free Mississippi
173 Pear Lane
Pearl, MS 39208-8749
July 15, 2010

Edgar Steele #361857
Spokane County Jail
W. 1100 Mallon
Spokane, Wash. 99260-0320

Mr. Steele:

I have been making inquiries relevant to your case and have turned up some information that may be of great use to you.

I understand that the key evidence against you consists of audio recordings, which you say have been manufactured. Recently I discussed your case with one of the leading forensic audio experts in the country, Mr. Tom Owen. Mr. Owen has worked on many prominent cases, and he has not been afraid to find that the government has at times done wrong. If in fact the recordings have been falsified, he can help you by scientifically demonstrating it to the court, even if the counterfeit is very sophisticated. Mr. Owen is one of only four or five audio experts in the country with this level of expertise. His contact information is as follows:

Tom Owen 758 S. Middlesex Ave. P. O. Box 189 Colonia, NJ 07067
Voice: (732) 574-9672
Fax: (732) 381-4523

What I wish to see is the truth of the matter brought to light. If it happens to be the case that the recordings are genuine and that you did that of which you are accused, I still think you could make a credible defense based on diminished capacity, because there is a well known condition called post-operative psychosis, which is especially common as a sequel to heart surgery. If you have not had a psychiatric evaluation since the arrest, by all means, do.

If it is at all possible, I would also urge you to seek a private attorney rather than relying on the Federal Public Defender. Somebody like Jerry Spence would be ideal. Can you have your counsel seek a private attorney for you?

Do you have access to adequate funds? I have heard that your personal assets are frozen. Can you instruct your counsel to seek to have your assets unfrozen?

I would strongly advise for your sake that you make no further statements to anybody except your legal counsel about the case, and conduct all communication with the outside world through your legal counsel, including any response to this missive.


Jim Giles

Steele responded with the following letter (revealed now for the first time, since Steele had requested that it be kept confidential), in which he heartily embraces the suggestion that he may not have been in his right mind -- "Your mentioning what you called 'post-operative psychosis' was of particular interest" -- for a variety of reasons that he then proceeds to list.

           Main Letter 1
                Main Letter 2
         Medical Recap 1
             Medical Recap 2

The Trial

In spite of all this private endorsement of the proposition that he had not been in his right mind (which implies that he knew that he was not the victim of a conspiracy), Steele continued to claim publicly that he had been framed, and acted on our suggestion to hire a forensic audio expert if he were going to persist in that claim. 

On May 5, 2011 Ed Steele was found guilty after a very short trial, where the defense essentially had no argument. The entire frame-up argument would have hinged on the finding of the defense's forensic audio expert. Unfortunately for all the supporters of the frame-up conspiracy story, Dr. George Papcun's finding was not such as to make a difference, and for that reason was not even admitted into evidence:

George Papcun, who has a doctorate in acoustic phonetics, testified that he examined the recordings and found anomalies that could have been triggered by editing, or by other factors including electronic glitches. He said he wouldn’t use the term “suspicious,” because a variety of factors could have caused the glitches he observed. [Betsy Z. Russell, "Judge Says Steele Witness Unreliable, Spokesman-Review, 22 April 2011]

Nothing "suspicious" in Papcun's finding meant nothing helpful for Steele's case.

Steele was sentenced to fifty years, exactly what the prosecution had asked. After a period of visibly declining health he died on 4 September 2014 at the age of 69, nearly five years after the ruptured aneurysm that nearly killed him and seemed to mark the beginning of his downward spiral.

Sunday, May 25, 2014

Hadding Scott and Carolyn Yeager discuss the smears against Frazier Glenn Miller

The discussion about Glenn Miller is in the second hour:

The Heretics' Hour: The Right not to Associate in America

I made one misstatement in the show.

Raw Story paraphrases Kirk Lyons saying that he picked up the transvestite prostitute story from rumors at the courthouse during the Shelby III Adult Bookstore trial. I think I overstated when I said that KL said that he had gotten the rumor from prosecutors.

It was actually Harold Covington -- of all people -- who specified (in his generally strongly anti-Miller Brief History of the White Nationalist Movement) that the Negro transvestite story was put out by prosecutors. He said that prosecutors also put out the rumor that Miller had AIDS:

... the source of the “Peaches” story was later traced to deliberate leaks to the Sheets defense team from Sam Currin’s office, as was a story that Miller allegedly had AIDS, which since he is still alive and drinking today, is palpably untrue.

The “Peaches” episode sounds credible in view of what we know about Miller’s mental and emotional state, and it is also credible in view of the long history of sickening misbehavior by so-called “Great White Leaders.” However, in view of the strong possibility that it may be disinformation from the U. S. Attorney designed to get revenge on their own stumblingly incompetent witness, we will redact it from this report. [Harold Covington, A Brief History of the White Nationalist Movement

Normally anything said by Harold Covington about any other figure in the White Nationalist milieu should be met with extreme skepticism. When, however, he admits that some scurrilous accusation against a person that he habitually attacks is false, it does carry some credibility, because it is contrary to his known bias. The former federal prosecutor Doug McCullough certainly encouraged propagation of the smear in 2014, although subsequently distancing himself from it.

Wednesday, April 30, 2014

Former federal prosecutor backtracks from "salacious" accusation against Frazier Glenn Miller

Jim Giles is actually hostile to Frazier Glenn Miller.  He has felt very strongly that Frazier Glenn Miller was guilty, as alleged in mass-media, of having been caught in a lewd act with a Black transvestite prostitute sometime in the 1980s. But the fact that the accusation appeared dubious due to lack of documentation troubled him. Giles therefore contacted the source* of the lurid accusation, former federal prosecutor and current North Carolina Judge Doug McCullough, hoping to get confirmation of the claims about Miller, but the result is more nearly the opposite. In fact, by seeking the truth, Jim Giles has done us all, including Frazier Glenn Miller, a great favor.

McCullough claims only one "contempt of court" conviction to show for his plea-agreement with Frazier Glenn Miller

Apart from the Black transvestite prostitute accusation, recent news-reports attributed two other deceptive statements to former federal prosecutor Doug McCullough. The initial report from WTVD-TV in Raleigh includes this quote:

"We secured a number of convictions with his assistance...." [Doug McCullough, quoted by Steve Daniels, WTVD-TV, 24 April 2014]

"A number of convictions" would generally be understood to mean many convictions. It is a well known and easily verifiable fact, however, that none of the defendants were convicted in the Fort Smith Mass-Sedition Trial, and Frazier Glenn Miller's associates Douglas Sheets and Robert Jackson were not convicted of the Shelby III Adult Bookstore murders. Those are the two cases where Miller testified as part of the plea-agreement that enabled him to get out of prison after only three years instead of dying behind bars. (McCullough's other misrepresentation is that Miller would be a free man by now anyway even without the plea-agreement.) There has been criticism (e.g. from Leonard Zeskind) of the fact that McCullough ultimately gained nothing from his deal with Miller, and that is precisely because of the dearth of convictions.

Giles asks McCullough if it is true that there were no convictions made with the cooperation of Frazier Glenn Miller. McCullough responds that there was "at least one person who was convicted. I think he was convicted of contempt of court, and that Miller assisted in that prosecution."

McCullough probably has in mind the conviction of Robert Eugene Jackson for failing to appear in court. Glenn Miller's testimony was clearly not necessary to secure that conviction, since Jackson either had appeared or had not.

After the acquittal of all 13 defendants at the Fort Smith Mass-Sedition Trial, after the acquittal of Douglas Sheets for the mass-murder at the Shelby III Adult Bookstore in a trial lasting only 5½ hours, and after charges were dismissed against Robert Eugene Jackson in the same case, all that former federal prosecutor Doug McCullough can claim for a success to justify his plea-agreement with Frazier Glenn Miller  is a conviction for something along the lines of contempt of court.

The fact that McCullough was clearly being deceptive about the value of his plea-agreement with Frazier Glenn Miller encouraged skepticism about his other, more bizarre claim.

The Black Transvestite Prostitute Accusation

Giles asks McCullough if it is true that Miller was caught in a lewd act with a Black male prostitute:

"I am not going to say he was in the act. I don't have any recollection of that. He was in the company of this person, is the way I have consistently stated it. If anybody has said that I described him as being engaged in an act, that would be erroneous. He was in the company of a person who was known to the police to be engaged in that kind of activity for money, but to say that they were engaged in that act at the very moment that the police-officer pulled him over, I don't think that would be accurate, and I've never said that." (Doug McCullough, 30 April 2014)

McCullough surely knows that WTVD-TV has indeed claimed that Glenn Miller was caught in the act. This is from WTVD's report, which was picked up by the ABC Television Network and then traveled around the world:

The ABC11 I-Team has also learned something stunning about Miller's time in the Raleigh area. In the 1980s, Raleigh police caught him in the backseat of a car engaged in a sex act with a prostitute - a prostitute who was a black man dressed as a woman. [Steve Daniels, WTVD-11, 24 April 2014]

Context implies that McCullough, who claimed to have seen the incident-report in question, was also responsible for the claim that Miller was "caught in the act." Now McCullough says that this is not true. McCullough also denies knowing the related detail about being caught "in the backseat":

"I don't recall. I don't recall if it described where the two parties were sitting." (Doug McCullough, 30 April 2014)

Since McCullough refers to Miller's being "pulled over" -- which would mean that he was driving his vehicle -- the probability that Miller was in the back seat at the time seems very slight. 

So here we have the former prosecutor, the ostensible source of the scurrilous tale about Frazier Glenn Miller and the Black transvestite prostitute, denying knowledge of much of what has been reported, and implying that WTVD's reporter Steve Daniels, or some source that Daniels was using but did not name (McCullough implies the SPLC), substantially invented the story.**

McCullough proceeds to complain about how mass-media distorted his account, but then lets slip that he has in fact misrepresented his own knowledge about the matter. He claims that there were "salacious" details which he told reporters he did not wish to discuss, even though he now admits that there could not have been any "salacious" details, because according to what McCullough now says, no lewd act was recorded in the alleged incident-report.

McCullough refers to the incident-report that is alleged as the basis of the whole scandal as a document of "marginal significance." That is McCullough's explanation for the fact that neither he nor anybody else seems to have retained  the document. Given the nationwide notoriety of Frazier Glenn Miller in the 1980s, and the sensational nature of the accusation, such an incident-report would not be a document of marginal significance, and it does not seem like something that would be discarded.

Frazier Glenn Miller, in an interview with the SPLC's Heidi Beirich last year, admitted that there was some incident with a Black transvestite prostitute, but maintains that his intentions toward that person were violent. The details of the story as reported by television-station WTVD and subsequently repeated by news-media around the world, especially the claim that Miller had been caught in the midst of a lewd act, made Miller's version of the story seem untenable. At this point however, the man who says that he actually saw the incident-report, who is also the only source for the story mentioned by WTVD, former federal prosecutor J. Douglas  McCullough, has disavowed all alleged details that contradict Frazier Glenn Miller's account. 

This is in no way meant to justify Frazier Glenn Miller's or anybody else's actions in random "coon-conking" or "fag-bashing." This kind of activity was perhaps common at one time among skinheads and klansmen, but, although it may offer some immediate gratification, the ultimate effect of such uncivilized behavior, while law and order are still somewhat in effect, is counterproductive. 

The point is that former federal prosecutors and mass-media should not be lying or elaborating vivid accusations around an ambiguous grain of truth -- even about a person that they are confident nobody will try to  defend. 
* McCullough is the only source that Steve Daniels named regarding the accusation about the male prostitute, and is thereby indicated as the source for all alleged details of the incident. Context also implies it. If McCullough was not the source for the claim that Miller was caught in a lewd act with a male prostitute, then Daniels has written a very misleading report.

** Steve Daniels was contacted and informed of the falsity and credibility-problems of some of the claims in his report, but no correction has been made. Even if McCullough did all the lying and Daniels accurately represented what McCullough had said, Daniels and whoever edits WTVD's news still bear responsibility for not being skeptical about wild claims, and for not bothering to check facts -- especially after they have been informed that there is a problem.


Upload MP3 and download MP3 using free MP3 hosting from Tindeck. Upload MP3 and download MP3 using free MP3 hosting from Tindeck. Upload MP3 and download MP3 using free MP3 hosting from Tindeck.

Saturday, April 26, 2014

Is former Federal Prosecutor and current North Carolina Judge Douglas McCullough LYING about Frazier Glenn Miller?

On 14 April 2014 WTVD-11.of Raleigh, North Carolina, an ABC affiliate, published a story by Steve Daniels attacking the character of Frazier Glenn Miller. This story was immediately propagated far and wide by ABC and then predictably echoed uncritically by other mass-media.

The source of these attacks on Miller's past was Douglas McCullough, a former federal prosecutor who is now an elected (Republican) judge. As an elected official -- in other words, a politician -- McCullough is not an uninterested party in this matter.

First, McCullough seems to exaggerate the value of Miller's cooperation under a plea-agreement that McCullough arranged with Miller in the late 1980s:

"We secured a number of convictions with his assistance and in our view we had removed him from a leadership role in the White Patriot Party, because now he was in jail," explained McCullough.

This is a puzzling claim from the former federal prosecutor, because there were no felony convictions in either of the trials where Frazier Glenn Miller testified, neither in the Fort Smith Mass-Sedition Trial nor in the Shelby III Adult Bookstore trial. What "convictions" McCullough has in mind is not evident.**

McCullough seems to be claiming past successes for himself, where in fact he failed.

The fact that McCullough is defending his own reputation becomes even clearer in this section of WTVD's report:

According to a 1987 sentencing memorandum from federal prosecutors, if Miller had not become an informant, and if the government had pursued all charges against him, he could have faced a 100-year sentence if convicted.
We asked McCullough if it's possible Miller would still be in prison and three people in Kansas would still be alive.
"Not possible. You have to take into context types of sentences that were actually being imposed and the types of offenses he had committed," McCullough explained.
He said Miller would have served no more than 10 to 12 years.

The former federal prosecutor may claim in 2014 that Glenn Miller would have served no more than 10 to12 years in prison if prosecutors had not made a deal with him, but that is closer to the maximum that Miller could have faced after the deal was made. The Associated Press reported in 1988 that Miller could have been sentenced to more than 100 years in prison if federal prosecutors had not offered him a plea-agreement (Associated Press, 4 January 1988).

That's two major misrepresentations that save the former prosecutor's reputation at Glenn Miller's expense. Then McCullough makes an innuendo of sexual perversion about Miller:

The ABC11 I-Team has also learned something stunning about Miller's time in the Raleigh area. In the 1980s, Raleigh police caught him in the backseat of a car engaged in a sex act with a prostitute - a prostitute who was a black man dressed as a woman. "It was pretty shocking," said McCullough.  "...because of his personal stances that he had taken and what he was now accused of engaging in."

McCullough told ABC11 he read the Raleigh police report about the incident with the prostitute. "The facts speak for themselves, and people can draw their own conclusion about how incongruous something like that is," he offered.

Miller did not face charges in connection with the incident. McCullough explained that's likely because the government was pursuing the much bigger case against him.

While McCullough claims that that the facts "speak for themselves," he presents no facts. He does not even state the year in which the incident is supposed to have occurred. The claim that some crime was committed and discovered by Raleigh Police without any charge being filed also seems highly suspect. It is not clear how the federal government's alleged intentions toward Miller should have motivated local authorities in Raleigh to desist from prosecuting an alleged violation of a local law. McCullough's account is void of details and makes no sense on its face.

A spokesman for the Raleigh Police Department, responding to an inquiry on 24 April 2014,  says that no record of the incident to which McCullough refers could be found. He is quoted here with permission:

Recent news articles have included a mention of an incident said to have occurred in Raleigh, N.C., involving F. Glenn Miller; however no police report of such an incident has been located and no record of and an arrest for such an incident has been found. [Jim Sughrue, Director of Public Affairs, Raleigh Police Department, 25 April 2014]

When giving permission to be quoted, Mr. Sughrue cautioned that there was some possibility that the documents relating to the incident (assuming that they existed) had been misfiled, since they would date from the period before RPD computerized its record-keeping.

However, since certain other elements of Doug McCullough's account of Glenn Miller seem to be false (especially the claim that convictions were secured with Miller's help), the most likely explanation seems to be that there was no such incident-report and no such arrest.

There are two discernible motives in McCullough's statements. One is to kill any sympathy that might exist for Miller and whatever he represents by branding him as a closet homosexual and hypocrite. These are typical themes of smear-propaganda that have been standard for many decades. Such accusations were even used in ancient times. The other is McCullough's exaggeration of his own record of success as a prosecutor, and self-justification in the question of whether federal prosecutors should have worked with Miller, since there has been general criticism recently of federal prosecutors' practice of seeking the cooperation of criminals.

This is not to justify the shootings that Miller committed recently. The premise here is that nobody is justifiably tarred with lies.
* Some news-sources are even adding baseless details to the story. The New York Daily News adds the detail that Glenn Miller "paid" to have sex with the alleged Black transvestite prostitute, a detail that does not appear in their source, the report from WTVD. The addition of a detail like that is not inconsequential: it cuts off much of the possibility for doubting the approved interpretation of what happened. With sufficient aggregation of assumed details like that, a completely convincing story can be created out of practically nothing.

** “His testimony was extremely weak,” complains Leonard Zeskind, “I believe that Miller was essentially playing a game with the feds. And I don’t think he had any intention of becoming a good witness.” Zeskind clearly opines that McCullough's plea-agreement with Glenn Miller was not worthwhile. (James Hill, ABC News, 24 April 2014) McCullough claimed on 30 April 2014 that he got a conviction for "contempt of court" with Miller's cooperation, but that is not a felony, and if he means the conviction of Robert Jackson for failing to appear in court, Miller's testimony was not necessary for that.