THE MYSTERY / UNSOLVED

The 18½-minute gap: every theory

Woods, Nixon, Haig, a “sinister force”, and fifty years of tests.

Exhibit 73: Rose Mary Woods in her office, 1973–1974. The photograph does not establish responsibility for the entire erased tape segment.
National Archives / exhibit photographer not identified · Source & image context ↗

RECORD / AT A GLANCE

UNPROVEN

The erasure is proven, and experts found it was done in several separate manual segments. Who did it is unproven. No test has recovered a word, and the 2011 notes examination found nothing new.

THE EVENTS / THE CLAIM / THE RECORD

The chronology.

READ THE FILE

Evidence & assessment.

Open an article for its evidence, labeled AI assessment and numbered sources. Read the complete static edition ↗

WHAT PEOPLE SAY ABOUT THIS FILE

The claims, rated.

6 claims people make about this file, each rated documented, partly true, disputed, unproven or false. Think a rating is wrong? Use Dispute or Support, or join the Discussion.

DOCUMENTED The tapes & the gap

“The 18½-minute gap was erased on purpose.”

The court-appointed expert panel found the buzz was made by several separate manual erasures, not one accident.

Who says it: The 1974 expert panel.

The evidence in this file ↗ · On the full claims board ↗

UNPROVEN The tapes & the gap

“Rose Mary Woods erased the gap.”

Woods said she may have caused about five minutes by accident. That does not explain the rest, and no one has been shown to have made the other erasures.

Who says it: Common belief.

The evidence in this file ↗ · On the full claims board ↗

UNPROVEN The tapes & the gap

“A “sinister force” erased the tape.”

Haig used the phrase in court and said the theories included an unknown person. No one has been identified.

Who says it: Alexander Haig, 6 December 1973.

The evidence in this file ↗ · On the full claims board ↗

All 99 rated claims ↗

OPEN THE RECORD

Sources & limits.

Numbered citations in each article identify the relevant sources. These records have different purposes and evidentiary weight.

  1. Washington Post: “Haig Tells of Theories on Erasure”, 7 December 1973 ↗

    Contemporary report of Alexander Haig’s court testimony on the tape gap and “some sinister force”. The gap was then described as 18¼ minutes.

  2. Congressional Record, July 3, 1974: expert-panel finding on the tape erasure ↗

    Official contemporary Congressional Record reproducing the expert-panel conclusion, with a citation to the report filed June 4, 1974. Supports the erasure mechanism; does not identify an operator or recover missing words.

  3. Jill Wine-Banks: firsthand account of the Watergate prosecution and Woods examination ↗

    2025 retrospective by prosecutor Jill Wine-Banks, who examined Woods. Her recollections and inferences are identified as a participant’s account, separate from the technical panel findings.

  4. National Archives: archivist accepts failed tape-recovery test results, 2003 ↗

    NARA’s 2003 report on controlled recovery tests. No intelligible speech was recovered in those tests; that does not establish the erased conversation’s content.

  5. National Archives: results of the forensic examination of H. R. Haldeman’s notes, 2011 (nr11-142) ↗

    Reports the 2009–2011 attempt by NARA with the ATF, TIGTA and the Library of Congress to recover writing from Haldeman’s notes of 20 June 1972.

  6. National Archives: Nixon Grand Jury Records, page last reviewed 9 February 2026 ↗

    Lists the released Watergate Special Prosecution Force folders, including the 18½-minute gap folders, and notes that the stenographer’s tape of the deposition remains closed.

  7. National Archives: forensic examination of Haldeman’s handwritten notes ↗

    NARA’s later forensic investigation of handwritten notes; an independent physical-evidence project, not a recovery of the erased tape itself.

← The Watergate Files hub: the history, the full timeline and every file

Discussion

Comment, dispute or support a claim, submit a source or rate this page through a short Google Form. It asks you to sign in with Google so we know you are a real person; your email is never shown. Nothing appears here until it has been reviewed. Conversation on X tagged #AIFiles #AIFilesWatergate shows up below after the daily refresh.

CommentSubmit a sourceRate this pageStart a discussion on XFull forum topicSee all disputesFollow updates (Google Group)

Reader comments

Approved reader comments and ratings appear here when JavaScript is on.

On X

Posts from the daily snapshot appear here when JavaScript is on. You can read this subject’s threads on the forum: Forum: #AIFilesWatergate.

Reader comments are shown only after review, and rows removed from the form’s sheet disappear at the next refresh. X posts are a read-only daily snapshot; posts deleted or made private there are removed at the next refresh. Inclusion is not endorsement. A submitted source stays pending review until a page update says otherwise.