THE CRISIS: A Telltale Tape Deepens Nixon's Dilemma

(6 of 11)

second reference to the Uher at another point in its report, the experts have little doubt that Miss Woods' machine was used for the erasures. They cannot say so with absolute certainty only because it is conceivable that some other recorder could have the same component defect and produce recording characteristics identical with those of "Exhibit 60." But they greatly doubt that possibility.

Another major conclusion of the panel was that the 18-minute section of tape "probably contained speech originally." The evidence for this is that the scientists found three tiny "windows" on the tape—minute sections in which the buzz did not appear. Although undetectable by an untrained ear, they found in each of the windows "a fragment of speechlike sound lasting less than one second." These sections apparently were missed by the erase head in the multiple manipulations of whoever tampered with the tape. Bolt explained that the assumption that speech underlies the entire buzz is basically "a statistical argument." There are only three breaks in the hum—and speech fragments appear in each. But the panelists say there is no hope of ever recovering the original conversation.

The persuasive testimony of the technicians inspired a spirited contest between two aggressive lawyers: Richard Ben-Veniste, 30, the brash assistant prosecutor who has handled much of the tapes controversy in the Sirica hearings, and James St. Clair, 53, the Boston trial lawyer who became the President's new chief counsel for all of his Watergate defense on Jan. 1. Far less defensive than his soft-spoken predecessors, Buzhardt and Leonard Garment, the poised, silver-haired St. Clair sharply challenged any effort by Ben-Veniste to get the experts to draw conclusions going beyond their carefully stated report.

St. Clair interrupted Expert Weiss at midsentence in one answer with a curt, "Thank you." Objected Ben-Veniste: "This is a joint panel here and these experts should not be cut off." Sirica sustained the prosecutor. St. Clair, in turn, objected vigorously when Ben-Veniste tried to get one of the technicians to declare flatly that the erasure was "deliberate." Although the report leads to that inescapable conclusion, none of the experts would put it that bluntly. Sirica complained, "That's what I want to know." The best Ben-Veniste could get was Bolt's concession that "if it was an accident, it was an accident that was repeated five times." Several of the experts agreed that the markings on the tape were wholly "consistent" with a deliberate erasure.

They were so cautious that when Sirica asked Stockham if the signature marks on the tape could only be produced by pushing tape recorder buttons by hand, he replied: "With a hand. Or with a stick." "But not a foot pedal?" Sirica asked. "Not with a foot pedal," Stockham declared. When the technicians completed their presentation, St. Clair grumped, "I think I'm going to talk to my own experts." Protested Bolt: "I thought we were your experts."

That seemed to signal a new approach by White House attorneys: a turning away from past expressions of dismay at new revelations. St. Clair's pose was the more traditional defense lawyer's approach, seemingly