Geoff - in this article you say: "Many people who ...

2008-09-28T12:03:00.000-07:00

Geoff - in this article you say: "Many people who worked closely with Hughes at the time insist that he never left the penthouse floor of the Desert Inn Hotel between 1966 and 1970, and they dismiss Dummar's and Deiro's stories as impossible."
You are incorrect -ALL the people who worked closely with Hughes say he never left the penthouse floor, not MANY, as you state. There is a HUGE difference in these two statements. Did you interview ANYONE who worked closely with Hughes at the time who said he had ever left the Desert Inn during that time? I don't think so.
Paul B. Winn

Following is an e-mail I sent to Lee Benson of the...

2008-09-25T10:17:00.000-07:00

Following is an e-mail I sent to Lee Benson of the Deseret News in Salt Lake City:
I read with some interest your column of September 19 regarding the opinion of the Tenth Circuit of Appeals in the Dummar case. I was surprised that you made the statement, "It seems irrefutable now that Dummar picked up Howard Hughes in 1967 and likely saved his life." Let me refute that claim.
I was employed by Howard Hughes in August, 1957, as one of his personal secretaries. I worked in the Operations Center at 7000 Romaine Street for many years. I worked personally and directly with Hughes, particularly during the year 1961, when he and Mrs. Hughes moved to Rancho Santa Fe. I spent most of that year there with them.
During my employment with Hughes, for a period of time I worked the night shift and attended law school at the University of Southern California, and became a member of the State Bar of California. When Hughes died, I was one of the people who searched for approximately a year for a Hughes will.
I was very much involved in the Dummar will case and the trial here in Las Vegas. Of my personal knowledge, Hughes never left the Desert Inn from the time he went there in 1966 until he left in l970. Although I was not at the Desert Inn with Hughes during that time, I was at the Romaine Street office where all communications to and from Hughes were centered. Logs were kept of all of Hughes' activities - trips to the bathroom, on the telephone, eating, watching movies, etc. His every move was kept in logs.
Perhaps Mr. Dummar did in fact pick up someone in the desert, and perhaps that person did say he was Howard Hughes. But if that did happen, it was not, in reality, Howard Hughes.
If you will refer to the book "Empire" by Barlett & Steele (now published in paperback as "Howard Hughes"), published by Norton and Company, you will find references to me. In that book, at page 591, is a transcript of the Dummar will in question. It is also set forth in pages 50-51 of the Gary Magnesen book "The Investigation". If you look at the so-called will, immediately after the bequest to Dummar you will find " . . .ninth: one sixteenth to be devided (sic) amoung (sic) my personal aids (sic) at the time of my death -".
Dummar claims his one sixteenth share would have been $156 million; therefore, let's assume that another $156 million would have been divided among the six personal aides who attended Hughes at the time of his death, which would have given each of them some $26 million. Without exception, the aides of Hughes testified that he never left the Desert Inn. Dummar claims that they lied. I think it stretches credulity greatly to think that the six aides would lie, knowing that by telling that lie they were each giving up a $26 million bequest. Think about it - who in their right mind would lie in order to avoid receiving $26 million? All of the aides (and everyone else with personal knowledge) without exception testified that Hughes never left the Desert Inn. That's pretty compelling in itself. Although the aides had lifetime contracts, those contracts would not provide them with anything approaching that figure. If they lied in order to receive a small lifetime sum instead of $26 million, they are the biggest idiots in the history of mankind.
Melvin Dummar admitted that he told several lies in connection with the will; he committed perjury on the stand, and, in my opinion, should have been prosecuted for perjury. He is a proven liar.
Robert Deiro's story that he didn't know about the Hughes will trial at the time it was occurring, and how he came forward 30 years later,also stretches credulity. Not many people on the planet were unaware of that trial! I have not talked to Deiro personally, but I could discredit his story quickly by asking him some questions about Hughes which he would not be able to answer. (I have no proof of this, but I have been told by one investigator that Deiro is Magnesen's brother-in-law; I would like to know for sure.)
I have read Magnesen's book thoroughly, and it is so full of holes it is an embarrassment, especially for someone who is supposedly highly trained in investigations as he claims to be. I have not spoken to Magnesen, either, but I have a lot of questions that he would have great difficulty answering.
I was employed by The Howard Hughes Corporation until March, 1989, a period of almost 32 years. In 1971 I became Executive Assistant to Bill Gay. After Hughes' death in 1975, I moved to Las Vegas, where I reported directly to Will Lummis, and became Corporate Secretary and Director of Corporate Records. At the time of the Dummar trial I was Director of Corporate Records and was custodian of all the Hughes memos, files, logs, etc., and was very much involved with the document searches and assistance provided to counsel representing the Hughes interests. I have a very complete knowledge of Hughes, his businesses and his activities from 1957 until his death.
You can read many of the details of the will trial in the book "Empire". It is absolutely believable to me that a jury would have found that the will was a fabrication. Dummar has elicited some sympathy, but if you look at all the facts it is pretty obvious that he did not pick up Hughes in the desert - or anywhere else - regardless of his protestations to he contrary.
Paul B. Winn 8529 Glenmount Drive, Las Vegas, NV 89134 (702)363-8227 IMZGR81@COX.NET

Assuming it isn't Hughes' ring, then, what is the ...

2008-08-18T16:29:00.000-07:00

Assuming it isn't Hughes' ring, then, what is the significance of "HRH"? One thing I came across is that HRH is a common abbreviation for "His/Her Royal Highness." The folks at Wikipedia report that "in the British monarchy, the style of HRH is associated with the rank of prince or princess."

So, could it be that the ring has a connection to British royalty? Again, probably not.

Paul:Thank you for your comments re: the HRH ring....

2008-08-18T15:18:00.000-07:00

Paul:

Thank you for your comments re: the HRH ring. The only thing I know for sure that it was purchased in Pahrump, the rest was all speculation. Thank you for clearing it up...
Vicki

I was employed by Hughes in 1957 as one of his per...

2008-08-18T14:12:00.000-07:00

I was employed by Hughes in 1957 as one of his personal secretaries, later traveled with him, and spent 32 years of employment with The Howard Hughes Corporation. I never saw Hughes wear any jewelry of any kind, including a watch. I doubt very sincerely that this ring had any connection at all to Howard R. Hughes. Paul B. Winn

Howard Hughes Blog

Geoff - in this article you say: "Many people who ...

Following is an e-mail I sent to Lee Benson of the...

Assuming it isn't Hughes' ring, then, what is the ...

Paul:Thank you for your comments re: the HRH ring....

I was employed by Hughes in 1957 as one of his per...