Below is a link to the new article in Rolling Stone on the claims of St. John Hunt, E. Howard Hunt's son, knew the complete plot to assassinate JFK as Hunt met with Sturgis and was asked to participate. Oh, and he turned them down. In reality, there is no proof that Hunt and Sturgis knew each other in 1963 and for crying out loud, it is obvious that both Hunt and his son have read lots of conspiracy books. Follow the money indeed.

Just to let you guys know, the claim that Kevin Costner blew his interview with EHH is utterly false. I was in contact with his production partner during that time and know the true story. I also got an email from them today with a copy of what was sent to Rolling Stone in refutation. JFK Lancer and Larry Hancock will be writing a letter to the editor of RS.

I look forward to you comments.

Best,

Debra

PS: Please keep reading this thread for more on whether Hunt and Sturgis knew each other.



The Last Confessions of E. Howard Hunt

He was the ultimate keeper of secrets, lurking in the shadows of American history. He toppled banana republics, planned the Bay of Pigs invasion and led the Watergate break-in. Now he would reveal what he'd always kept hidden: who killed JFK

ERIK HEDEGAARD


http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/13893143/the_last_confessions_of_e_howard_hunt/1

The article states that Hunt’s son “had been a meth addict for twenty years, a meth dealer for ten of those years,” and had come to Miami “borrowing money to fly because he was broke.”

“At the moment, Saint doesn’t have a job; his felonies have gotten in the way. He has to borrow money to put gas in his Cutlass. Beach chairs substitute for furniture in the tiny apartment where, until recently, he lived with an ex-girlfriend, herself a reformed meth addict, and two kids, one hers, one theirs.”

“In 2001, on the heels of two drug busts, Saint decided to go straight. With his ex-girlfriend, their daughter and her son, he stayed in a series of shelters.”

After reading this claptrap, I’ve got just one question: Can’t that little puke talk without using expletives? And considering what it said about the alleged conversation between Hunt Junior and Kevin Costner, Costner should sue Hunt and Rolling Stone.

For better reading, please see “The Dog That Solved The JFK Assassination.”

http://www.jfklancerforum.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=3&topic_id=56857&mesg_id=56857&page=

"In reality, there is no proof that Hunt and Sturgis knew each other in 1963"

You really don't think Hunt and Sturgis knew each other in '63?

Richard, I think its reasonable enough to belive Hunt knew of Sturgis, anybody reading a newspaper in Miami in 61-63 would have known of Sturgis about the same way they knew of Hemming, Pedro Diaz Lantz and any number of folks who got frequent media coverage.

Also, given that Sturgis did work for San Jenis and was in Barker's informant chain I'd imagine Hunt could well have heard about his informant reports and his double role. Phillips knew about Sturgis being an informant so Hunt likely did. On the other hand, Hunt did not stay in the JM/WAVE mix after he bailed out before the Bay of Pigs and does not seem to have been playing in Miami in 1963 - we know he was working in D.C., helping Dulles write his book and working in Domestic Ops and apparently performing some AM/WORLD contact with Artime whom he did stay close to.

I think the real question here is the reverse; how well did Sturgis know Hunt - not to mention Morales (no indication of the latter although we know from memos that Morales didn't think much of Barker and contributed to getting him canned). Do we really think Morales would have brought the high profile and always entertaining Frank Sturgis into a Presidential conspiracy and then recruited Hunt via Sturgis? Or have let either one live knowing about it? To me that makes about as much sense as inviting Marita Lorenz into an assassination caravan going to Dallas at the same time she was getting front page newspaper coverage during her high profile child custody action with one of the ex dictators in residence in Miami. A free lancer photographer could show up any time - rightly so, she was a lot cuter than Hunt.

As I told the fellow from Rolling Stone a few weeks ago, this whole scenario just doesn't sound at all like Morales to me. Morales had his personal cadre of his own trainees, fiercely loyal to him and deeply embedded...people he could trust to do whatever he ordered, no questions asked. Morales using Sturgis and Hunt (Hunt's tradecraft was known to be just as bad as he demonstrated at Watergate and who had a reputation for talking to loud in motel rooms...

It's a nice set of names though, ought to get a bunch of milage based on that, after all, Howard told lots of people over a number of years what he knew about JFK was worth a million dollars...hmmm..I guess that's sort of like keeping a secret.

-- Larry

Thanks guys. All of this is great information and comments. I plan on sending RS the letter by Monday. If anyone wants to help out, please send me emails.

Best,

Deb

Larry,

I haven't been following this thread closely. However, In The Last Investigation (Fonzi), p.78, Andrew St. George is stated as having interviwed Sturgis once and Sturgis told him that he met Hunt during the Cuban business in the early 60's - that he met Barker through hunt. Sturgis later denied the story, but I'd tend to believe St. George. As for Cord Meyer, who knows? He was head of a division at CIA that encompassed, I believe some association at one point with Harold Isaacs. And Marilyn Murett may have been associated, even if peripherally with this division. Seems like there might have been some tie-in between some of Ruth Paine's activities and this division (International Students or some such?). This is all just off the top of the head, except for the Fonzi info. I'll have to look in my literature to better recollect the rest.

Jim Stubbs

>Larry,
>
>I haven't been following this thread closely. However, In
>The Last Investigation (Fonzi), p.78, Andrew St. George is
>stated as having interviwed Sturgis once and Sturgis told him
>that he met Hunt during the Cuban business in the early 60's -
>that he met Barker through hunt. Sturgis later denied the
>story, but I'd tend to believe St. George. As for Cord Meyer,
>who knows? He was head of a division at CIA that
>encompassed, I believe some association at one point with
>Harold Isaacs. And Marilyn Murett may have been associated,
>even if peripherally with this division. Seems like there
>might have been some tie-in between some of Ruth Paine's
>activities and this division (International Students or some
>such?). This is all just off the top of the head, except for
>the Fonzi info. I'll have to look in my literature to better
>recollect the rest.
>
>Jim Stubbs

Jim:

Are we missing something in that Frank Sturgis is really Frank Fiorini -(Sturgis) the Cia/Mafia double who operated with both Castro's band of gansters and ours?

He changed his name but is the same guy. Hunt's son's story got no traction because no one wanted to believe him about anything.

My brother once told me in my lecture days that there is so much out there on this story that the truth is concealed.


JRMenda:

JR,

I agree that the truth is difficult to weed out of the surrounding clutter. Best is to follow the evidence and keep the speculation in its proper place; interesting to think about, but don't let it run the investigation. Hunt (father) was so prolific a deflection artist that anything he said (or wrote) has to be held aside until the weight of evidence supports what he's said. Hunt also claimed not to have known James McCord prior to the Watergate affair. A lie. They were in contact in the period before the break-ins started. Further, they were likely acquainted during the Cuban business of the early '60's.

Jim Stubbs

>"In reality, there is no proof that Hunt and Sturgis knew
>each other in 1963"
>
>You really don't think Hunt and Sturgis knew each other in
>'63?

I find the mention of Hank Sturgis by Hunt in his Fifties novel, Bimini Run, to be too unlikely a coincidence. That mention along with the circles of acquaintanceships to which both men belonged, juxtaposed with their later association as White House Plumbers, leaves me comfortable with the conclusion that these men knew each other well by 1963.

Tim Carroll

Tim,

Point well taken and one I thought of before posting. "Knowing of" and "knowing" are two different things. "Knowing of" someone to the point of making them a character in your novel? Okay. But, I don't think Hunt knew Sturgis to the point of Sturgis inviting him down to a meeting to discuss the assassination of a president. Remember, according to St. John, Sturgis is the link.

This is something we really need to dissect. Please, Tim, continue to share your thoughts. Let's work on this and lay it all out. Now that Hunt's son's and his own "theory" are laid open to a new generation of readers we should and must decide what is real and what we would be comfortable with on our watch.

Sincerely,

Debra

Deb,

It's just my opinion, but Hunt's son seems to be a very poor source for anything believable. I seriously doubt that Hunt Senior had anything to tell his son. If he did write anything down, I expect that he knew his ne'er-do-well son could use it to make some money after he was dead. It doesn't mean that it's true.

Tony,
Your point is very well taken. There are two layers of credibility here; E. Howard and St. John. Even if the son is playing it straight, we don’t know if dad isn’t attempting to beef up his own legend.
Jeff Rollins

Jeff,

I would say that between E. Howard and St. John, there are four layers of credibility.

First, I find it hard (and I mean hard) to believe that this impoverished, middle aged, supposedly "ex-druggie" went to his dad and asked him who killed JFK. Second, I find it even harder to believe that his father would have given him any information at all. Third, I can't believe that E. Howard would tell this poor excuse for a son what the inside story on who killed JFK was. And fourth, I don't think that E. Howard knows who killed JFK.

St. John and his story have ZERO credibility.

"This is something we really need to dissect... Let's work on this and lay it all out. Now that Hunt's son's and his own "theory" are laid open to a new generation of readers we should and must decide what is real and what we would be comfortable with on our watch."


While I don't totally believe EH Hunt's revelations or that of his son, I still maintain that EH had played a part. We know he wasn't an insider at JM/WAVE, from where the conspiracy emimated. I agree with Tim, in that Hunt and Sturgis knew each other. That doesn't necessarily mean they were main participants or planners. I'm sure everyone would agree that they both had prior knowledge. I agree with Larry that Hunt was a bit of a bumbler and wouldn't have been given intimate details during the planning stage, or was given a high priority task, but I believe he may have been used in some fashion. I doubt EH was asked to participate and refused. He may have been used as a link in the compartmentalized operation, and I maintain that the photo taken in DP was indeed of Hunt crossing Elm St. I also beleve, if you think about it, that Hunt wouldn't have told his son details of his involvement. I do, however, believe he might have told him he wasn't involved but was asked to participate, and refused. What would lead to the Hunts' estrangement anyway? If my father was using me as an alibi, and his name was mentioned as a participant in the assassination of the President, I may have disowned him, and turned to a life of despair. These guys may want to make some money, and will no doubt enhance the story. Someone else needs to come out and corroborate.


Deb, Carol Williams of the LA Times seems sincerely interested. She responded to my email immediately. You may want to contact her, and perhaps give her a copy of Larry's book. We could use the exposure. At a minimum, the interest sparked by both Hunt and Saint could lead to more definitive revelations. There's still a great amount of smoke and mirrors, we just have to sift it out.

RJS

Richard, I certainly agree with you and actually I think Rolling Stone needs to be encouraged to give these claims the same sort of serious investigation they have one in previous political conspiracies.

I have little doubt that Hunt was in a position to hear insider gossip within the agency and especially from the hard core exiles, regardless of any recruitment attempt (personally my image of Morales is that if you back out of an offer from him you probably should expect an accident to follow pretty quickly).

The other thing that is getting overlooked is that Hunt was chief of ops for Domestic Operations in 1963 and may well have had inside word on Oswald and the games that were being played around him. Heck, he may even have been in Dallas investigating what games those were...neither Phillips nor Angleton would likely share any information willingly. Hunt could easily have carried Oswald info to the grave, leaving a fine story for his son to sell for profit. It's not like Howard didn't tease about having JFK info for sale for some time.

I should also mention one inconsistency that strikes me...if Dad turned down an offer from Morales to join a conspiracy and wanted nothing to do with it, the last place he had better be on November 22 was the middle of the Plaza. Morales had no sense of humor and you best not mess in his business. Personally, in spite of the photos, my conservative view is that Hunt was in some of the Artime meetings going on in DC that week, actual real honest to goodness CIA business, something he would not spill even at the Lane trial.

I sure hope Rolling Stone gives the clais a good solid investigation though..they have the sort of clout to carry on a next level investigation of Morales for example. I think that's something most of us could support, regardless.

-- Larry

Larry,

I know that DCI Colby testified to the Church Committee in 1975 that Hunt had, in earlier years, been with the CIA’s “Domestic Operations Division,” and that Hunt himself testified to the HSCA that he had been “an employee of the Central Intelligence Agency assigned to the Domestic Operations Division, located in a commercial building in Washington, D.C.”

But what is your source for stating that Hunt had been chief of ops for Domestic Operations in 1963? And are you asserting that Hunt was the chief of the “Domestic Operations Division,” or just chief of operations in that division?

Tony, my statement should have been more specific; Hunt was working as chief of covert operations under Barnes who in turn was chief of the Domestic Operations Division. Domestic Operations seems to have been a reformatting of the Domestic Contact Service but the Agency had never spelled out all the various funtional transitions.

Even the exact date and transition of Barnes into division (not to mention Hunt) is unclear as he appears to have performed some of these domestic roles well before, including making pay outs to the widows of the Alabama Guard pilots.

Sorry, don't recall the exact sources for Hunt off the top of my head but a search should bring it up for you; if you have my book check out Appendix B. Also I have a pretty big batch of Hunt's personnel file data from the HSCA but it a real mixture of information. As I recall at least segments of it are provided on the book web site.

-- Larry

Tony, a google search refreshed my memory, for a source on Hunt's position take a look at Peter Dale Scott:

"The CIA itself has said that Hunt's title at this time was Chief of Covert Operations for the Domestic Operations Division headed by Dulles' old friend" ...

www.assassinationweb.com/scottd.htm - 50k - Cached - Similar pages

and check footnote 66 for a primary newspaper source.

I also ran across another source which quoted Hunt on some of his routine duties in the position (maybe true, maybe not):

E. Howard Hunt, a former CIA agent, stated that in 1964 during his tenure with the CIA's domestic operations division he was ordered to arrange for the pick-up, on a daily basis, of "any and all information" that might be available at Senator Barry Goldwater's presidential campaign headquarters. Hunt said that the documents obtained about Goldwater were delivered to Chester L. Cooper, a White House aide who had worked for the CIA.

....Larry

Larry,

Is there any official documentation or testimony to corroborate either Scott's claim or the San Francisco Chronicle claim about Hunt. I kind of doubt that a CIA spokesperson would give out that kind of information.

And what do you make of that stuff about Hunt picking up info at Goldwater's campaign headquarters on behalf of the Johnson Administration? I would assume that a hard-nosed far right guy like Hunt would support Goldwater.

Tony, the CIA had to release a great more detail about Hunt because of Watergate, including his personnel files, which the HSCA did review and in turn released their own notes on (you might check my y book web site for samples of those). The CIA could not play its standard games and even Hunt felt free to talk about much of his CIa service inclduign his remarks about service in Domestic Operations and other CIA duty...the following is directly from the NARA search engine:


Hits 1-1 of 1

Hit Title From To Date Full Result Select
1 REQUEST FOR E. HOWARD HUNT'S TRAVEL RECORDS WHILE IN DOMESTIC OPERATIONS DIVISION BRIGGS, CHARLES A., CIA CHIEF, INFO & PRIVACY STAFF 08/30/1976



As to the Goldwater material, my take on that would be that was a rotine collection duty, I'd be surprised if they didn't do it on Wallace as well. Probably nothing to do with Hunt's personal politics at all. And I suspect he tossed it out as a very low level diversion from the much more serious type of intelligence work Domestic Ops was doing.

-- Larry

"Personally, in spite of the photos, my conservative view is that Hunt was in some of the Artime meetings going on in DC that week, actual real honest to goodness CIA business, something he would not spill even at the Lane trial."

Maybe so, as "Ultimate Sacrifice" puts Hunt in Washington on Nov. 22, 1963 on p.136. Anyway, that's Haynes Johnson's story. He says Hunt was meeting that day with Helms, Kirkpatrick and Harry Williams and perhaps others as well.

Good cite Tim, Lamar and I were pretty much using the same sources. Certainly there is no doubt those meetings were taking place and that Hunt was moved very covertly to Spain the following year as off shore support for the Artime project.

In my book appendix on Hunt I also point out that the apparent Angleton "limited hangout" floated during the HSCA was an effort to position the Agency to deal with the fact that a trail showing Hunt to have been in Dallas in November might have turned up in the investigation. This would have had to do with Hunt's Domestic Ops assignment and might have revealed further Agency knowledge of Oswald. It's highly speculative but there is some reason to suspect that some parties in the Agency were worried about things that some of the exiles were doing ...the Odio incident is only one example of that sort of strangeness.

-- Larry

I personally do not yet know What I believe about Saint John's and Rolling Stone's recent contributions.

What I try to keep in my mind howevever, is that just because one is known to be a former, "or even current" drug addict, this does not necessarily mean that they are incapable of both knowing and telling the truth.

I, myself, have very often inferred that very much "wrongdoing" may be traced to "money" amd I truly believe that it often is.

However, I have personally known recovering or "reformed" addicts that truly believe and live by some of the more basic tenents of their recovery programs.
Some believe deeply that they have had what is termed as a "spiritual awakening", and that their continued recovery is based
on their strict adherence to truth, and most specifically "self truth"!

I don't know this mans personal motivations or degree of spirituality. But I believe that denial of the possibility / probability of his telling the truth, based only on the premise that he is a recovering addict, would be a great injustice both to him and the research community.

I have heard it said on several ocassions that a person should not be believed because they are a whore or alcoholic. I don't feel that such classifcations should be assumed to mean that these people are incapable of telling the truth.

From the other end of the spectrum, one could just as ridiculously say, that a person MUST be believed because he is an ex U.S. President or is a U.S. Senator.

I would certainly like to believe this man. Even if St. John is telling the absolute truth, which he might be, I feel the greater question is the WHY of his Father's "deathbed" type statements, and how much can be taken seriously.

Given EH Hunts's history, "truth" from him
could result only from some great awakening on his part. Since he was a master of the principle that "all good lies are interspersed with some truths", it is possible that he was merely continuing what he knew best. This man had quite a good mind, regardless of what else that he was.

Did he in fact himself undergo a transformation....or is it more likely that he was a "Spy to the End"?

My somewhat paranoid nature of course leads me to the latter !

Charlie Black



"Farewell America", published more than four decades ago, was quite a prophetic title.

Charlie, I'd certainly agree with you and am fighting my own "why belive Hunt about anything?" mind set on this one, irrespective of anything about the messenger.

A few things stand out for me:

1. It's pretty obvious that all sorts of people with certain types of connections heard some fairly credible general "gossip" about the conspiracy...both before and after. I've no doubt that Hunt was well enough connected to have heard at least the general scenario and the "word" that Johnson was involved. Heck, Jack Ruby seems to have been told Johnson was involved and the fix was in at the very top - that doesn't make it true but I'm sure it may great leverage for some of the folks in the operation.

2. Hunt was a father who had not done particularly well by his wife or family...and obviously some of his children suffered from it. Why not think that at some point he felt compelled to give St. John the story he was asking for...maybe it would make up for things a bit...later he may have changed his mind.

3. If Hunt had really wanted to give a real death bed confession he could have called his lawyer, the press, the FBI...anybody. But he didn't, he simply gave a story to his son and apparently helped him "shop" it for a period.

-- all of this sounds at least a bit like David Phillips remarks not long before his death; no official death bed confession but simply revealing that he knew Dallas was a conspiracy and that intelligence officers he knew were involved.

4. There are elements of the story that are very consistent with other sources - naming Morales for example. Other parts seem to make little sense given what we know about how these folks operated...picturing Morales letting Hunt just walk loose with names and details of the operation sure does not strike me as what I would expect from Morales.

So after all this rambling, I guess my conclusion is pretty much in line with the similarity between this and Phillips; Hunt has simply confirmed to us that CIA officers and exiles were involved and most likely so was LBJ....beyond that I've yet to see that it takes us any further. On the other hand, if it spurs any media or investigative journalists or anyone with resources to take a closer look at Morales and his associates circa 1963, that could be a good thing.

-- Larry

Hello Larry

Am certainly in agreement with you and I hope this will spur some media attention.

With the "B" book's release in a couple of weeks....it will be needed !

Charlie Black

"Farewell America", published more than four decades ago, was quite a prophetic title.

david hunt | 3/24/2007, 1:16 am EST

The LA Times dismissed this “evidence” as inconclusive. Funny thing is they never examined it beyond a glimpse. 60 minutes on the other hand had hand writting analysis done on the notes….. no funny business found, its the real deal.When we decided to make this information public I knew that both my brother and I would be under suspicion. That is exactly why I brought Eric Hamberg on board to inspect the evidence, speak with my father and put some of these important pieces together. Eric Hamburg would have no interest in deceiving the american public. He was almost solely responsible for getting JFK documents
declassified. I think the new Rolling Stone story was exceptional. More to come soon.

They are well suited players for playing the part of assassin. Who triggerred them? Who gave them protection?

Did they choose Dallas to have blackmail options on LBJ? (Give us cover or we can implicate you, too.)

What was Nixon doing in Dallas? Why did Nixon state on record that "Kennedy will take Lyndon off the 64 ticket"? while at Love Field? What did Nixon mean by saying to reporters (when informed of Kennedy's assassination) "It must have been one of the nuts."

How could they infiltrate and steer the Secret Service? (Inform shooters of dates and times; routes; plans; leave Lancer unguarded and vulnerable).

Kennedy lost faith in the CIA, and carried out a secret war with them. Likewise they saw him as a traitor, a treasonous leader bent on disrupting their grip on Empire.

Hunt and Sturgis figure in. These are the CIA payroll freaks. The moles are in the Secret Service. Alpha 66 are the shooters. The pigeons are umbrella man and hispanic guy (and perhaps fainting man, and false S.S. personnel to cover the shooters and pick up expended cartridges)

Lyndon knew very well about Kennedy's 'war' with the CIA and military brass.

This is something we really need to dissect. Please, Tim, continue to share your thoughts. Let's work on this and lay it all out. Now that Hunt's son's and his own "theory" are laid open to a new generation of readers we should and must decide what is real and what we would be comfortable with on our watch.
Sincerely,
Debra

I assume that Debra's invitation to Tim applies to all the Carrolls, so here is my ten cents worth:

Anything Howard Hunt said can be assumed to be self-serving, and his statements to St. John about LBJ etc. do very little to further the JFK inquiry. It would not surprise me if everyone Hunt named, with the exception of LBJ, turns out to be innocent. In other words, his trail to LBJ via Phillips, Harvey, etc, is probably a wild goose chase.

The Harvey accusation especially has misinformation written all over it. Hunt well knew that LBJ did not make Harvey CIA director. LBJ appointed Richard Helms, and maybe Hunt is actually giving us, in roundabout fashion, a real clue here.

It does seem significant though that Hunt admitted to his son that he knew of a plot to kill JFK. Since he did not notify the proper authorities, that means he admitted being an accessory -- before and after the fact -- to murder.

What I think is really significant in the Rolling Stone article is this:

"One evening in Eureka, over a barbecue meal, St. John explains how he first came to suspect that his father might somehow be involved in the Kennedy assassination. "Around 1975, I was in a phone booth in Maryland somewhere, when I saw a poster on a telephone pole about who killed JFK, and it had a picture of the three tramps. I saw that picture and I ####ing -- like a cartoon character, my jaw dropped, my eyes popped out of my head, and smoke came out of my ears. It looks like my dad. There's nobody that has all those same facial features. People say it's not him. He's said it's not him. But I'm his son, and I've got a gut feeling."

Does this mean that St. John Hunt has positively identified his father as the oldman tramp in Dealey Plaza? It is a pity that the Rolling Stone writer did not nail this down properly, but no doubt St. John will have more to say and will clarify what he means by "a gut feeling."

If St. John Hunt is positively identifying is own father as one of the tramps, then I think we have a major breakthrough in the case. A recovered addict and rehabilitated former drug dealer is just as capable of recognizing his own father as anyone else.

At the very least, St. John has now completely blown his father's alibi.

“It does seem significant though that Hunt admitted to his son that he knew of a plot to kill JFK . . . A recovered addict and rehabilitated former drug dealer is just as capable of recognizing his own father as anyone else.”

We only have the word of Hunt’s druggie son that he admitted that he knew of a plot to kill JFK. Hunt Jr, who admitted that he was broke and that he borrowed money to fly to Miami, could have easily asked “Dad” to detail all the people who have been “alleged” to have been involved in a plot to kill JFK. Now that dad is dead, Jr is claiming that his dad gave him all the details of the plot to kill JFK.

A “recovered addict and rehabilitated former drug dealer” is just as capable of lying as anyone else. And assuming that he is “recovered” and “rehabilitated” is assuming a lot. To think that this little ex-druggie has the inside info on who killed JFK is patently absurd.

Anthony Frank wrote: "A “recovered addict and rehabilitated former drug dealer” is just as capable of lying as anyone else. And assuming that he is “recovered” and “rehabilitated” is assuming a lot."

People recover from addictions, and there are mountains of studies showing this to be the case, so it is actually not a very big assumption after all. One of my all-time favorite singers, Marianne Faithful, went from top of the charts ("As tears Go By") to homeless heroin addict. She eventually recovered and, now in her early sixties, her career is flourishing. I have nothing but admiration for Marianne Faithful.

Judging by the reporters for the LA Times and Rolling Stone who spent considerable time with St. John Hunt, I see no reason to doubt that his recovery has been successful. He has been through "years of exile, years of pain" (to quote a favorite poem of JFK) and I am sure that every right-thinking person wishes him, and the millions of others recovering from addictions, nothing but the best from here on out.

The death of one's father is a landmark in a man's life, and a very traumatic one at that. That is the sledgehammer moment when you see your own mortality staring you in the face. From my own observations, the trauma is greater for a man whose relationship with his father was a difficult one. Even with the prospect of financial gain, for St. John to publicly reveal information that is so damaging to his family name -- and to himself -- required an act of great foolishness or else an act of great courage. The latter is more likely.

Anthony Frank wrote: "To think that this little ex-druggie has the inside info on who killed JFK is patently absurd."

As I indicated in my previous post, I do not suggest that Howard Hunt gave his son the inside info on the assassination plot, though he may have dropped some cryptic clues. But the EVIDENCE that St. John Hunt posseses is not what his father told him, but what St. John himself can testify to from his own knowledge: His father's alibi for November 22nd 1963 was a sham, and his father was photographed in Dealey Plaza disguised as a tramp.

Even if that information were worth a billion dollars, I for one would not wish to trade places with St. John Hunt.

Saint John has admittedly been reading JFK assassination materials for some time and had to be well aware of the controversy over the tramp photos. The fact that he is now coming out about an identification of Hunt as a tramp, at the same time he is promoting his book, seems to me to make his identification questionable. Certainly it would draw fire in any legal situation where he might actually serve as a witness.

On another note, there is also a viable explanation for Hunt's lie
about his location on November 22. Hunt was very likely involved in an ongoing contact with Artime (Artime obviously trusted Hunt who had put his job on the line for him during the ramp up to the BOP) as part of the AM/WORLD project. We know a series of meetings was going on in DC in regard to that project the week of the assassination. Artime was there and the meetings including several high level people including RFK. That sort of thing is the sort of Agency secret Howard Hunt would lie about...in fact whatever you want to accuse him of, telling the truth about CIA operations that were considered secret was something he just didn't do.

For that matter, if anyone in the Agency still cares about all this, I suspect they are rather pleased by this "disclosure"....its a wonderful way to "contaminate" several important names such as Morales and Phillips - Saint John's background (however recovered he may be now)and obvious financial motive certainly have that effect.

-- Larry

Larry Hancock wrote: "Saint John has admittedly been reading JFK assassination materials for some time and had to be well aware of the controversy over the tramp photos."

In the segment of the Rolling Stone interview that I quoted yesterday, St. John made it clear that he did not learn about the tramp photos from reading an assassination book. He said he came across a poster of the tramp photos in 1975 by pure chance when he was making a phone call.

Larry Hancock wrote: "The fact that he is now coming out about an identification of Hunt as a tramp, at the same time he is promoting his book, seems to me to make his identification questionable."

No doubt those who defend Howard Hunt will question St. John's identification. The fact remains that a son's identification is powerful evidence. Anyone can corroborate St. John's identification by studying the photographs in COUP D' ETAT IN AMERICA, by Canfield & Weberman.

In regard to the timing of St. John's announcements about

1/ His father's phoney alibi

2/ His identification of his father in the tramp photos

I think most people would understand why he waited until his father died before making these disclosures.

Larry Hancock wrote: "On another note, there is also a viable explanation for Hunt's lie about his location on November 22."

Hunt had the best of all possible reasons to lie to his children and to the world about where he was when JFK was murdered. If he really was in Washington that day, he could have told his children that he was attending a meeting there when he got home that evening.

Of course Hunt did not make it home that evening, not even to help his wife wife chop vegetables, did he?

"St. John made it clear that he did not learn about the tramp photos from reading an assassination book. He said he came across a poster of the tramp photos in 1975 by pure chance when he was making a phone call . . . Hunt had the best of all possible reasons to lie to his children and to the world about where he was when JFK was murdered."

When he allegedly saw the tramp photo for the first time is just part of the "story" that he fabricated. Would you expect him to say that, after studying the JFK assassination books and reading that the tramp was alleged to be his dad, he looked at the photo and realized that it actually was "Dad"?

He had to make it sound plausible so he came up with the "chance" 1975 sighting of the tramp photo. You obviously believe it.

Why would Hunt Sr. tell the truth to his ex-druggie, twice-convicted felon son, whom he had disowned?

Anthony Frank wrote: "He had to make it sound plausible so he came up with the "chance" 1975 sighting of the tramp photo. You obviously believe it."

It makes not the slightest difference whether he first came across the tramp photos in a book or in the manner he described. Neither one is any more or less plausible than the other. He says it so happened that he first saw the tramp photos when he was making a phone call. I wasn't there, so I have no reason to disbelieve him.

I personally came across the tramp photos in 1986, in my local library. Perhaps you don't believe that either?

Anthony Frank wrote: "Why would Hunt Sr. tell the truth to his ex-druggie, twice-convicted felon son, whom he had disowned?"

Mr. Frank seems to want us to believe that Howard Hunt was a better man than his son.

As I indicated twice already on this thread, I am not suggesting that Howard Hunt told the truth about the JFK assassination to his son. His son is simply reporting what his father told him; he is not vouching for the truth of anything his father said about the assassination. To the contrary, he makes it clear that he believes his father lied repeatedly about that subject.

For those who are genuinely interested in learning the truth, St. John Hunt is an important witness, not because of what his father told him, but because of what he himself is witness to, namely his father's lies about where he was when JFK was shot, and his father's photo taken in Dealey Plaza on the day of the assassination.

The tramp photo has been under intense scrutiny for many years. Would someone on the forum know of a lab that could use the technology available today to see if the nose , the ear, the eye, etc. is E. Howard Hunt or someone else? Being from Kentucky, I would like to know if it is that old southern Ky. boy Chauncey Holt. He did, in fact,state that it was him, correct?
Terry

Would someone on the forum know of a lab that could
>use the technology available today to see if the nose , the
>ear, the eye, etc. is E. Howard Hunt or someone else?
>Terry

AJ Weberman, co-author of COUP D"ETAT IN AMERICA, has ben asking this question on the Education Forum and no one seems to know the answer.

Since Rolling Stone Magazine has now discovered new evidence in the statements made by St. John Hunt, surely this hi-tech magazine has the resources to arrange further studies of the tramp photos, focusing on the tramp identified as Howard Hunt by his son, and as Chauncey Holt, etc. by others.

If Debra or any other forum member has an insude track to Rolling Stone Magazine.....

Hi all,

I cannot say that Rolling Stone is pursuing this story any further. In the old days I think they may have but can't say that, not now. There are others, however, that are following up on the Hunt family claims. One will be at our November conference in Dallas. Due to confidentiality agreements, he has not been able to talk about Hunt for years. It promises to be good.

Best,

Debra

>Hi all,
>I cannot say that Rolling Stone is pursuing this story any
>further.
>Debra

I wrote to Dr. Juergen Pampas of Cognitec, a leader in the field of face recgnition technology, and received this reply:

"We think that this is not a suitable use case for face recognition software. Its strength is that is can work automatically and very fast, but it is not more precise on a given pair of photos than a human being. You should probably try to find a forensic expert to do this.
Sorry!

"Please understand that face recognition software (ours as well as that of other vendors) is not designed to deliver any meaningful result on such a comparison. The result of any two photos will be a numeric value like 0.4834 which does not mean anything to you nor to us. These values are relevant in cases where you do comparisons of images against large database to find a list of the most similars.

Best regards,
Juergen Pampus

Perhaps in the future software can be customized to deal with the identification of the tramps. Meantime members can explore the issue further on A.J. Weberman's website:
http://www.ajweberman.com/nodules2/nodulec20.htm

Anthony Frank wrote: "Why would Hunt Sr. tell the truth to his ex-druggie, twice-convicted felon son, whom he had disowned?"

Mr. Frank seems to want us to believe that Howard Hunt was a better man than his son.

Why don't you just answer the question: Why would Hunt Sr. tell the truth to his ex-druggie, twice-convicted felon son, whom he had disowned?

>Anthony Frank wrote:>
>Why don't you just answer the question: Why would Hunt Sr.
>tell the truth to his ex-druggie, twice-convicted felon son,
>whom he had disowned?

I have said several times on this thread that I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT HOWARD HUNT TOLD THE TRUTH TO HIS SON (or to any other member of his family).

What Howard Hunt told his son is hearsay and the only part that would be admissable in evidence is Howard Hunt's admission that he knew of an assassination plot ahead of time. Since there is no record that Hunt ever notified the proper authorities, his admission is incriminating. How much weight should be given to this is a matter for each person to decide.

The importance of St. John's testimony lies, not in what his father told him, but in his own perceptions and memory of November 22, 1963, and his identification of his own father in the Tramp photos taken in Dallas that day. Again, each person must decide how much weight to give this evidence, but it is evidence bearing on the assassination of JFK and it is NEW EVIDENCE.

>>Anthony Frank wrote:>
>>Why don't you just answer the question: Why would Hunt Sr.
>>tell the truth to his ex-druggie, twice-convicted felon
>son,
>>whom he had disowned?
>
>I have said several times on this thread that I DO NOT
>BELIEVE THAT HOWARD HUNT TOLD THE TRUTH TO HIS SON (or to any
>other member of his family).
>
>What Howard Hunt told his son is hearsay and the only part
>that would be admissable in evidence is Howard Hunt's
>admission that he knew of an assassination plot ahead of time.
>Since there is no record that Hunt ever notified the proper
>authorities, his admission is incriminating. How much weight
>should be given to this is a matter for each person to
>decide.
>
>The importance of St. John's testimony lies, not in what his
>father told him, but in his own perceptions and memory of
>November 22, 1963, and his identification of his own father in
>the Tramp photos taken in Dallas that day. Again, each person
>must decide how much weight to give this evidence, but it is
>evidence bearing on the assassination of JFK and it is NEW
>EVIDENCE.

Do you believe that Hunt made up a story and then shared it with his ex-druggie, twice-convicted felon son, whom he had disowned? Or do you think that St. John was lying about that?

>>>Anthony Frank wrote:>
>Do you believe that Hunt made up a story and then shared it
>with son...

This question has been asked and answered umpteen times already on this very thread.

Or do you think that St. John was lying about
>that?

I see no reason to doubt that St. John is finally able to speak openly and truthfully about what he knows about his father.

Most unbiased observers will consider that anything St. John says that is based on his own personal observations and experiences must be considered truthful until proven otherwise.

OK, so you maintain that Hunt did tell his son a story. Why would Hunt make up a fictitious story about who killed JFK for his ex-druggie, twice-convicted felon son, whom he had disowned?

Why would Hunt make up a fictitious story about who killed JFK?

Making up fictitious stories was both a vocation and an avocation for the late lamented Howard, or didn't you know that?

Correspondence Love Letters & Advice
Rolling Stone, May 3-17, 2007 Issue 10/25-26

Hunt's Hit Men

My Younger brother St. John Hunt has concocted a conspiracy tale in order to gain from our father's recent death. Decades of admitted drug abuse have clearly taken their toll on him. In league with maniplative conspiracy theorists, my brother took advantage of our sick, eighty-eight-year-old father, who was heavily medicated and confused. Knowing full well that the real story was about to be published in our father's memmoir, American Spy, St. John presured him into elaborating and speculating further on unfounded, hypothetical scenarios of Kennedy's assassination, for the sole purpose of having soemthing to exploit after his death. Our father fought these theories all of his life. I am just glad that he is no longer alive to endure any more suffering or betrayal.

Kevan Hunt Spence
Kirkwood, CA

According to the LA Times, Kevan Hunt Spence has practiced law for 25 years. I wonder why she refers only to the statements her father is said to have made, which she surely knows are hearsay, and why she did not specifically address her brother's direct evidence, namely his identification of their father in the tramp photos and his statement that he has no memory of his father being home on November 22nd 1963.

St. John's identification of his father in the tramp photos may be news to the public, but St. John testified for the Rockefeller Commission, presumably before he saw the tramp photos . Even back then St. John said he had no memory of his father being home the day of the JFK assassination.

It seems odd that Kevan Hunt did not seize the opportunity to refute the part of her brother's story that actually constitutes evidence implicating her father in the assassination.

I would just make a few observations here as I think no one can really say whether Hunt is telling the truth on that tape. My question would be if the tape was just a bogus theory concocted for his son's benefit, then why did the senior Hunt ask for the tape back? As well as the diagram he drew for him? I just read through the relevant sections of Hunt's book and I think he may be using a kind of code in the book. He discusses the various theories of the assassination and then proceeds to debunk each one, except the idea that LBJ, Cord Meyer, etc. were involved.

The elder Hunt says to his son that he "backed out" of the plot to kill JFK, but many have identified him as one of the tramps in the famous photo. He cannot have it both ways. If that is in fact him, he not only was part of the plot, but part of the coverup after the fact. Even his wife Dorothy told the children that he was in Dallas on a business trip on Nov. 22, 1963.
I am also somewhat leery of St. John's motives for writing all of this. I do not doubt that E. Howard Hunt was as notorious as his son claims and that he actually used his son to help him get rid of evidence. And I also believe that he blackmailed Nixon during Watergate to try to save his ass, and that his former wife's death in the plane crash was no accident.
But his son has had financial and drug problems for most of his life and money could be the motive for him to write all of this. And the elder Hunt is no longer around to dispute the facts.
One thing I do take issue with, however, is anyone referring to E. Howard Hunt as a "patriot". PLEASE!! Are they kidding? These men not only brought down a President trying to rid this nation of White House thugs and Mafia thugs, but they nearly brought down an entire nation in the process.
Our country has never really recovered from the events of the 1960's and 1970's, the assassinations, the Vietnam War, Watergate, the Warren Commission's lies and deceptions, the CIA led drug culture, and God knows what else. We will never again trust our nation's leaders.
And the sad fact is that many of the people in Washington who knew what was going on are still there. Still buying people's silence, still calling us conspiracy theorists "nut cases".
Look at these men and what they were doing!!! Running all over the world trading in illegal arms, murdering people, drugging people into suicides, starting illegal wars based on lies, murdering eyewitnesses, tampering with and destroying government property and evidence, tampering with elections, keeping minorities from voting,
inciting race riots in inner cities, dealing in and transporting illegal drugs, cavorting with prostitutes, buying media influence to continue the lies, the list goes on and on.
This man was no patriot. When I think of patriots I think of people like Patrick Tillman, the New York City Fire Department, Daniel Pearl, Jessica Lynch, and people who risked their lives trying to do the right thing for this nation instead of trying to save their own skin.
The truth will come out one day because we will not give up until it does, we owe it to our children and grandchildren.

It is an obvious contradiction that the third tramp in Dealy Plaza would be Hunt if he'd also pulled out of the job. But that element doesn't bother me as I don't give HH's story that he pulled out much credence. Why would he? His explanation for that makes little sense.

It seems much more likely that he would simply be softening his level of participation today while otherwise confessing the thing.

Regarding photoshop'd pictures of the tramps available today, we know what the original 1963 pics looked like. And in at least one of them, the resemblance is striking (depending on which comparison shot you use).

I just find myself reacting to this story the same way I do to all the Judyth Vary Baker stuff: it could so easily be hogwash, so why aren't I convinced it really is?

Of course I have my doubts about anything Howard Hunt says...and then again... Is it credible that he pulled out? I don't think so. It's important to remember that Hunt's last wife made him swear before he married her that he had no involvement in JFK's killing. So maybe in making this tape for his son, he was just covering for that. I am sure we are not going to be able to draw anything definitive from this, but I do find it compelling. So what did we find out from the last JFK Lancer conference on this subject?? For those of us who couldn't attend it would be nice to know.

T.

Folks,

David Giammarco has agreed to go over his entire experience with Hunt Sr. at our November conference in Dallas this year. We may well know the truth about Hunt's involvement or knowledge of the JFK assassination at last.

Best,

Debra

Debra,
That's interesting. Without giving away too much, can you give us some background on Mr. Giammarco?

David is a Canadian Reporter. Currently he is working as an entertainment reporter. He interviewed and wrote an article on Hunt for Cigar Aficionado magazine years ago and that began his relationship with Hunt. He is Kevin Costner's production partner and best friend. He has so much to tell us. It will be good. I promise.

Best,

Debra

Debra,

While Saint John Hunt's background as an admitted ex-drug-addled meth user with apparent insolvency might cast doubt upon his motives, it does not altogether preclude his version being factual to the best of his recollection and recounting. Although I have not yet reviewed the written version of his accounting (I heard him on radio), it is allegedly buttressed by longhand notation and audiotaped confession from his notorious father, albeit, I shall reserve further comment until opportunity presents itself to review these materials.

But more to the point, I must take issue with your contention that "In reality, there is no proof that Hunt and Sturgis knew each other in 1963."

Quite the contrary, there appears to be compelling evidence that the soi-disant "Eduardo" of Bay of Pigs infamy and Fiorini-Sturgis had a long, close, personal and professional relationship that pre-dated the Dallas assassination by several decades and therefore underscores allegations of complicity in covert intelligence operations that may extend from Guzman's overthrow in Guatemala in 1954, to the JFK-assassination-related break-in of the Democratic Party National headquarters at Watergate in 1972.
In the twisted world of intelligence operations wherein various inversions and arabesques, duplicitious statements and duplicate operatives are standard fare, almost nothing is ever transparently obvious.
As an example, for years journalists and conspiracy researchers have suggested or outright claimed that self-described “solider of fortune,” Frank Fiorini, changed his name to that of Sturgis based upon the lead character in E. Howard Hunt’s 1949 novel, Bimini Run.
Considering that Fiorini changed his name in 1952, such an assumption posits either a deep and lasting impression made by Hunt’s novel on Fiorini’s consciousness, or a close personal relationship that pre-dates not only the 1972 break-in of Democratic Party National Headquarters at the Watergate complex in Washington D.C., but involvement in various U.S. intelligence operations, most notably, the 1961 Cuban Bay of Pigs invasion and possibly several others, including the 1954 overthrow of Guzman in Guatemala.
Unfortunately, for conspiracy advocates, the claim seems to have been discredited by the fact that the name of Fiorini’s male guardian, his mother’s new husband, beginning in 1937, was that of Ralph Sturgis. End of story.
Or so, conventional wisdom would have it.

But consider an inversion, that quite the contrary of Frank Fiorini changing his surname based on the fictional character, Hank Sturgis, in E. Howard Hunt’s 1949 novel, Bimini Run, the opposite is true and that Hunt in fact based his fictional hero, Hank Sturgis on the character and exploits of his long-time friend and intelligence associate, Frank Fiorini, before Fiorini subsequently decided to adopt his stepfather’s name Sturgis in 1952. If true, this would underscore a long, close, personal and professional relationship between a confessed conspirator in the JFK assassination and a subject long accussed of complicity in the killing.
Consider this:
At birth, the name of Hunt’s friend and intelligence associate was Frank Angelo Fiorini. In 1937, when Fiorini was 12 years old, his mother divorced his father and married Ralph Sturgis.
In 1942, Fiorini joined the U.S. Marines, beginning his government service. According to several sources, the relationship between E. Howard Hunt and Frank Fiorini (a.k.a. “Sturgis”) dated to around this time, when the two met in Guadalcanal in 1943, Fiorini, a combatant, and Hunt, a Word War II correspondent.
In 1949 Hunt penned Bimini Run, whose protagonist, pipe-smoking Henry Reed “Hank” Sturgis, is doubtless a fictionalized composite of the author and Frank Fiorini. Aside from the similarity of names: Hank Sturgis and Frank Sturgis, there are simply too many parallels for this to have been anything but fictionalized biography based on intimate knowledge of a close friend and comrade.
For example: in Bimini Run, Sturgis is an ex-Marine trained at Parris Island. Coincidentally, Frank Fiorini, son of Ralph Sturgis, happened to be an ex-Marine also trained at Parris Island.
In the novel, Sturgis’ wartime experience included action in the Far East including "the Canal," with wounds suffered during combat and subsequent hospitalization after the war. In real life, Fiorini fought in Iwo Jima, Okinawa and Guadalcanal, suffering wounds with a resulting scar to his right wrist, and hospitalization following the war.
Hunt portrayed his character as an expert marksman, a trait that was also true of Fionrini at the time.
Hunt characterized his protagonist, Sturgis, as a gambler. According to FBI reports, Fiorini’s ex-wife, Juanita Terrell, described her husband as “involved in gambling activity.” As Frank Sturgis, Fiorini’s gambling acumen so impressed Fidel Castro as to justify the Cuban leader’s offer to make him head of casino operations in a post-Batista Cuba.
In the 1949 novel, Sturgis frequented the Gulfstream Race Track, the same track that employed Fiorini.
In the plot of Bimini Run, Sturgis is well acquainted with Andros Island, yet another fact of Frank Fiorini’s true life exploits.
Hunt’s fictional character lived in Miami. Discharged in 1945, Fiorini lived in Miami, where, according to his later testimony before the Rockefeller Commission, he first began to be involved with Cubans in terms of Cuban political affairs. The fluently Spanish-speaking Hunt, employed by the CIA’s precursor, the Office of Strategic Services, was so immersed in Cuban affairs as to be assigned by the CIA to Mexico City as Station Chief in 1950, the strategic operations locus for Cuban affairs under the agency’s charter of foreign-based exploits.
In the novel, Hank Sturgis was employed as a bartender. Returning to Virgina after living in Miami, Fiorini joined the Norfolk Police Force for three years, concurrently managing two bars, and more tellingly, adopting what was to eventually become more than a dozen aliases and three code names, making frequent return trips to Cuba, most likely for U.S. intelligence. In 1946, Fiorini was manager of the Virginia Tavern on East Main Street, in Norfolk Virginia. In 1948, he joined the Naval Reserve. The following year, at the time Bimini Run was brought to press and Hank Sturgis made his debut, Frank Fiorini, son of Ralph Sturgis, was back in Norfolk as owner and manager of the Whitehorse Tavern on East Main Street, before joining the Merchant Marine, shipping out to Europe and back. In 1950, Fiorini was with yet another branch of the U.S. military, surfacing in Germany as a member of yet the U.S. Army serving two years, only to once more return to nightclub management, this time in Virginia Beach in a capacity that often serves as an intelligence cover.
During this time, on September 23, 1952, he filed a petition in the Circuit Court of the City of Norfolk (Virginia) to change his name to Frank Anthony Sturgis.
Thus, as Frank Sturgis he become active in Cuban affairs in the Sierra Maestra, working for the CIA in Cuba from 1956 to 1961, entrusting himself to Fidel Castro in the Sierra Maestra, with various missions into Miami, Mexico, Venezuela, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Panama, Honduras, and the Bahamas – the entire landscape of Carribean and Latin American Cold War hot spots. In his various intelligence missions, Sturgis was involved in gunrunning to Cuba and was arrested on July 30th 1958 for illegal possession of arms, but was released without charge. The following year, he contacted Lewis McWillie, the manager of the Tropicana Casino. After Castro gained control of Cuba, Sturgis formed the Anti-Communist Brigade. Hans, Tanner, in his book, Counter-Revolutionary Agent, claims that the organization was "being financed by dispossessed hotel and gambling owners" who operated under Fulgencio Batista.
In 1959 Sturgis became involved with Marita Lorenz, mistress to Fidel Castro, and was subsequently recruited by Sturgis in January 1960, in an attempt to poison Castro. At this time, Sturgis was involved in helping the CIA organize the Bay of Pigs invasion.
Hunt was of course, intimately involved in the same operation, by his own admission, stating: “the CIA was given the responsibility of a twofold action against Cuba. There was the psychological warfare branch which I headed , and the paramilitary which oversaw the training that took place in Guatemala. My responsibility was to form and manage the future government of Cuba. At that point I formed the Cuban government-in-exile with Manuel Artime. I had told them to meet me in my safe house in Coconut Grove. . . I did go to Cuba . . .it was 1959 . . .” etc.

I could be wrong, but I believe it is safe to conclude that fictional Hank Sturgis and factual Frank Sturgis are virtually one-in-the-same, and that E. Howard Hunt’s 1949 protagonist is virtually point-by-point a construction of the traits, character, background and experiences of Frank Fiorini a.k.a. "Sturgis," a close personal friend who Hunt knew during or shortly after World War II, and who subsequently served with Hunt in various intelligence operations long before Watergate and long before the tragic events of November 22, 1963 in Dallas, Texas.

Regarding the Hunt "confession" I am withholding further opinions until I have heard the whole story from David Giammarco, whom I trust. Right now I am really conflicted over what Hunt Sr. has claimed to his son. Someone else I trust is working with St. John, however, so perhaps we will learn more from that camp.

As for the early Hunt-Sturgis relationship: You could well be right and I thank you for the information you have posted above. I spoke to Larry H. and a few others who also brought this information up. It makes sense, of course, that Hunt and Sturgis would at the very least know of each other even if they didn't actually work together.

Perhaps I am looking for more than what you have written above. I thought there was no real reason for Hunt to lie -as he testified- about an earlier than Watergate relationship with Sturgis. And I personally know writers who base a character on someone like a neighbor or even an unusual name they have heard. It doesn't necessarily mean they have a relationship with that person.

My point was whether they were close enough for Sturgis to have shared the conspiracy information with Hunt as Hunt claimed. I'm not sure that Hunt would ever wish to be around Sturgis again after having the knowledge that he killed Kennedy. Would Hunt really put Sturgis on the Watergate team with that knowledge?

However, I also wonder: did Hunt really know about the conspiracy and somehow Nixon found out -- leading to the "Bay of Pigs" statements (meaning the JFK assassination as Haldeman claimed). I guess anything is possible. Nixon was certainly afraid of Hunt but not so of Sturgis. The mind boggles. :)

Because of your research and others I will certainly reconsider my opinion.

Thanks sincerely,

Debra

Thank you for your gracious and thoughtful reply. You are correct, of course, in approaching these matters cautiously but with an open mind. That’s all we, as historians and truth-seekers, can do – especially when dealing with evidence discerned by sifting through the detritus and disinformation strewn across the murky landscape of amoral espionage.

There is much about Hunt and Fiorini / Sturgis that has yet to come to light. I, for one, would like to know about Hunt’s formative years in Florida during the time his father moved his legal practice from East Hamburg N.Y., to the Fort Lauderdale area and whether Fiorini /Sturgis’ early post-war activity in Miami encountered the likes of Hunt and/or George Smathers, another right-winger deeply involved in the murky intrigues of Cuban affairs, including, much later, proposals to assassinate Fidel Castro.

George, son of Frank Smathers, a New Jersey attorney who also moved his practice to Florida, settling in Dade County in 1920, was a key figure in the careers of Nixon, Johnson, and Kennedy, employed Mary Jo Kopechne, and roomed at college with Phil Graham (whose father-in-law helped finance George Bush’s Zapata Offshore, a CIA proprietary. On August 3, 1963, three months before JFK’s assassination Graham, who had close ties to top-echelon CIA personnel, was found dead, allegedly having committed suicide with a shotgun blast to his head – not dissimilar to the manner in which anti-fascist Castro supporter Ernest Hemingway expired some time earlier during the CIA’s Cuban invasionary phase.) Smathers, who had pre-Castro Cuban investments with Nixon and was supported by Dupont’s right-wing Florida power-broker, Ed Ball, sponsored Frank Fiorini’s U.S. citizenship after the CIA agent ostensibly lost his American citizenship in 1960 for serving in a foreign military force - Castro’s army and his subsequent Cuban appointment to the position of Chief Inspector for all gambling casinos and cabarets in Havana.

Sturgis returned to America with his close friend, Pedro Diaz Lanz, then-chief of the Cuban air force. Diaz Lanz, became active in Cuban exile activities in Miami as well as extremist right-wing movements including the John Birch Society and the Rev. Billy James Hargis’ Christian Crusade, both of which have been linked to various anti-Kennedy plots during JFK’s presidency.

It would be interesting to find out when and how these figures became acquainted, whether in Dade County political circles or elsewhere.

Debra, thanks again for your reply and for the time you spent with me a while back on the phone. I am indebted to your long, valuable, in-depth commitment to truth and justice in this country.

Another telling fact is that LBJ's wife Lady Bird Johnson has been recorded on camera stating that LBJ - "Stormed into the room furious, - he had that explosive temper, he said those two sons of bitches wont embarass me after tomorrow"
This should be sounding alarm bells but if the Hunt, Sturgis, Files, Bush and Ford utterences prove to be true, I find it highly likely that any government department of present day will ever do anything about it.
Another point of interest is the correlation between the injuries of JD Tippit in relation to those of JFK. there is some suggestion that discrepencies between the sets of autopsy pictures, xrays and conflicting testimonials, could be due to telling the public that pictures are of JFK, when they are in fact Tippit used to disprove the multi shooter theory.

Paul,
please recheck your "facts" re. Ladybirds alledged statement, you might find out that is wasn't made by her, but instead by one Madeleine Brown if my memory serves me right.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKbrownM.htm

Google and type in "Arrest Bush 41"

I hope I am not intruding in your discussion. I have a question and a statement to make.

First, can anyone verify that the voice heard on the tape is actually the voice of E. Howard Hunt? It could be an impostor and it's just an idea I've had after thinking about this since I first heard the recording and after reading this thread.

Second, I really don't think that tramp in the photos is E. Howard Hunt. The mouth is different and from what I can see of the tramp's ears, they appear to connect to the side of the head/face in a different way than E. Howard Hunt's do, as per all the photos I have been studying.

Don't get me wrong. I would like nothing more than to solve this mystery or to have someone else solve it for us all and I'd really like to see someone prove that tramp is in fact, Hunt, but from what I am seeing and comparing, I don't think they are one in the same.

Thanks, Kathie

Kathie,

Please don't feel you are intruding. The info on the tape is much the same as in Hunt's last book. Although I don't think anyone has done a "voice verification", I would say without much question the voice is that of Hunt, and his book entries virtually verify it. And I agree with you, in that the IMO the tramp is not EHH. I believe Hunt is pictured here:







RJS

Hi Richard,

Thanks for answering me. Since I haven't read E.H. Hunt's book, yet, I couldn't compare the tape and the book as well. Thanks for clearing that up for me.

What I have found on the net regarding the tramp who people think/claim is E.H. Hunt are so many Photoshopped examples of all 3 tramps that unless one studies the original photos, even if they are blown up, there will be no proper comparison. The one of the Sturgis tramp looks a lot more like Sturgis than the Hunt one does.

I do think it's remarkable that of the three men found in that boxcar they all resemble CIA agents so well. It's almost stranger than if they were for positive the agents, themselves. Very strange, IMHO.

Anyway, I hope I am doing this right. I have the photo comparison of the EH Hunt tramp and a man named Abrams who someone believes is the actual EH Hunt tramp. I'd have to say yes on that one. That man had very thick lips compared to E.H. Hunt and appears to have an attached ear lobe (which by the way is a recessive trait). I've tried to enclose those pictures. I hope it works. LOL

Marita Lorenz tells the story of travelling from Miami to Dallas in the company of Frank Sturgis and others, where they met E. Howard Hunt who handed out money to them. She claims that she returned to Miami when she found out what they were up to, and that when she met Sturgis again after the assassination he told her that he had been part of the conspiracy to kill the president.
EHH was quite willing to use his kids as alibi witnesses in one of the stories he used in his defamation action against Spotlight. It is quite plausible that EHH would have given his children a story that could be turned into cash. The only problem I have with this story is that it relies on an accomplished 'black operator' suddenly becoming massively incompetent and indiscrete. The subsequent 'outing' by his former CIA employers did nothing to undermine Hunt's ability to avoid any official investigation into his activities in late November 1963. It is bizarre that Hunt survived more than 40 years without having to explain where he was and what he was doing between 17-22 November 1963. Haldeman's explanation that Hunt's blackmail of Nixon after the Watergate break-in was not over the Bay of Pigs as Hunt asserted, but rather 'Bay of Pigs' was code for the Kennedy Assassination. The story becomes even more confused when we find George HW Bush and Democrat John Connally in the Nixon White House and Frank Sturgis among the burglars. Assassination researchers would love to have seen Hunt questioned under oath by the HSCA but it was never going to happen.

Does anyone know if Saint John and David Hunt has seen that photo that Richard posted above?

Also, does anyone know if or when Saint John is actually suppose to be on 60 Minutes?


__________
Dixie