Howard Hunt and the JFK Assassination Options

[John Simkin]

Here are two articles that I think are well worth discussing. The first one by Victor Marchetti, was published in The Spotlight on 14th August, 1978. The second one was written by Joe Trento and Jacquie Powers and appeared six days later in the Sunday News Journal.

The first article resulted in E. Howard Hunt taking legal action against the publishers. In December, 1981, Hunt was awarded $650,000 in damages. Despite the similarities between the two articles, Hunt took no action against the Sunday News Journal.

As a result of an error made by his attorney, Hunt had to go to court again concerning his libel action. This time Marchetti’s publishers employed Mark Lane to defend itself against Hunt. Lane eventually discovered Marchetti’s sources. The main source was William Corson. Trento refused to name his sources. However, he admits he was in contact with Corson and Angleton during the period when he was writing the article.

As a result of obtaining of getting depositions from David Attlee Phillips, Richard Helms, G. Gordon Liddy, Walter Kuzmuk, Stansfield Turner and Marita Lorenz, plus a skilful cross-examination by Lane of Hunt, the jury decided in January, 1995, that Marchetti had not been guilty of libel when he suggested that JFK had been assassinated by the CIA.

Here are the two articles. Has anyone got any answers to these questions:

1. Did this 1966 CIA document actually exist?

2. Why was it never published via the HSCA?

3. Why did the CIA change its decision to “dump” Hunt?

4. Was Marita Lorenz story about Hunt, Hemming and Sturgis true? If not, why did these three men not sue Lorenz and those who published details of this story?

5. Why did Hunt not sue Trento?

6. What is the relevance of Trento’s attempt to link this CIA memo with a KGB plot to kill JFK. This is in direct contrast to Marchetti’s article that suggests that the assassination was carried out by right-wing forces in the CIA.

7. Is Trento’s story part of what Marchetti’s calls a "limited hangout" operation? This seems to be a follow-up to Edward J. Epstein's book, Legend: The Secret World of Lee Harvey Oswald. It was something that Trento was to return to in his book The Secret History of the CIA, 1946-1989 (2001).

8. We now know the HSCA eventually went with the “Mafia did it story”. Why did they not take up the CIA or KGB theories?

(1) Victor Marchetti, The Spotlight (14th August, 1978)

A few months ago, in March, there was a meeting at CIA headquarters in Langley, Va., the plush home of America's super spooks overlooking the Potomac River. It was attended by several high-level clandestine officers and some former top officials of the agency.

The topic of discussion was: What to do about recent revelations associating President Kennedy's accused assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald, with the spy game played between the U.S. and the USSR? (Spotlight, May 8, 1978.) A decision was made, and a course of action determined. They were calculated to both fascinate and confuse the public by staging a clever "limited hangout" when the House Special Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) holds its open hearings, beginning later this month.

A "limited hangout" is spy jargon for a favorite and frequently used gimmick of the clandestine professionals. When their veil of secrecy is shredded and they can no longer rely on a phony cover story to misinform the public, they resort to admitting - sometimes even volunteering some of the truth while still managing to withhold the key and damaging facts in the case. The public, however, is usually so intrigued by the new information that it never thinks to pursue the matter further.

We will probably never find out who masterminded the assassination of JFK - or why. There are too many powerful special interests connected with the conspiracy for the truth to come out even now, 15 years after the murder.

But during the next two months, according to sensitive sources in the CIA and on HSCA, we are going to learn much more about the crime. The new disclosures will be sensational, but only superficially so. A few of the lesser villains involved in the conspiracy and its subsequent coverup will be identified for the first time - and allowed to twist slowly in the wind on live network TV. Most of the others to be fingered are already dead.

But once again the good folks of middle America will be hoodwinked by the government and its allies in the establishment news media. In fact, we are being set up to witness yet another coverup, albeit a sophisticated one, designed by the CIA with the assistance of the FBI and the blessing of the Carter administration.

A classic example of a limited hangout is how the CIA has handled and manipulated the Church Committee's investigation of two years ago. The committee learned nothing more about the assassinations of foreign leaders, illicit drug programs, or the penetration of the news media than the CIA allowed it to discover. And this is precisely what the CIA is out to accomplish through HSCA with regard to JFK's murder.

Chief among those to be exposed by the new investigation will be E. Howard Hunt, of Watergate fame. His luck has run out, and the CIA has decided to sacrifice him to: protect its clandestine services. The agency is furious with Hunt for having dragged it publicly into the Nixon mess and for having blackmailed it after he was arrested.

Besides, Hunt is vulnerable - an easy target as they say in the spy business. His reputation and integrity have been destroyed. The death of his wife, Dorothy, in a mysterious plane crash in Chicago still disturbs many people, especially since there were rumors from informed sources that she was about to leave him and perhaps even turn on him.
In addition it is well known that Hunt hated JFK and blamed him for the Bay of Pigs disaster. And now, in recent months, his alibi for his whereabouts on the day of the shooting has come unstuck.

In the public hearings, the CIA will "admit" that Hunt was involved in the conspiracy to kill Kennedy. The CIA may go so far as to "admit" that there were three gunmen shooting at Kennedy. The FBI, while publicly embracing the Warren Commission's "one man acting alone" conclusion, has always privately known that there were three gunmen. The conspiracy involved many more people than the ones who actually fired at Kennedy, both agencies may now admit.

A.J. Weberman and Michael Canfield, authors of Coup d'Etat in America, published pictures of three apparent bums who were arrested at Dealy Plaza just after President Kennedy's murder, but who were strangely released without any record of the arrest having been made by the Dallas police. One of the tramps the authors identified as Hunt. Another was Frank Sturgis, a long time agent of Hunt's.

Hunt immediately sued for millions of dollars in damages, claiming he could prove that he had been in Washington D.C. that day-on duty at CIA. It turned out, however, that this was not true. So, he said that he had been on leave and doing household errands, including a shopping trip to a grocery store in Chinatown.

Weberman and Canfield investigated the new alibi and found that the grocery store where Hunt claimed to be shopping never existed. At this point, Hunt offered to drop his suit for a token payment of one dollar. But the authors were determined to vindicate themselves, and they continued to attack Hunt's alibi, ultimately completely shattering it.

Now, the CIA moved to finger Hunt and tie him to the JFK assassination. HSCA unexpectedly received an internal CIA memorandum a few weeks ago that the agency just happened to stumble across in its old files. It was dated 1966 and said in essence: Some day we will have to explain Hunt's presence in Dallas on November 22, 1963 - the day President Kennedy was killed. Hunt is going to be hard put to explain this memo, and other things, before the TV cameras at the HSCA hearings.

Hunt's reputation as a strident fanatical anti-communist will count against him. So will his long and close relationship with the anti-Castro Cubans, as well as his penchant for clandestine dirty tricks and his various capers while one of Nixon's plumbers. E. Howard Hunt will be implicated in the conspiracy and he will not dare to speak out-the CIA will see to that. In addition to Hunt and Sturgis, another former CIA agent marked for exposure is Gerry Patrick Hemming, a hulk of a man-six feet eight inches tall and weighing 260 pounds. Like Sturgis, Hemming once worked for Castro as a CIA double agent, then later surfaced with the anti-Castro Cubans in various attempts to rid Cuba of the communist dictator. But there are two things in Hemming's past that the CIA, manipulation HSCA, will be able to use to tie him to the JFK assassination.

First, Castro's former mistress, Marita Lorenz (now an anti-Castroite herself), has identified Hemming, along with Oswald and others as being part of the secret squad assigned to kill President Kennedy. And secondly, Hemming was Oswald's Marine sergeant when he was stationed at CIA's U-2 base in Atsugi, Japan-where Oswald supposedly was recruited as a spy by the Soviets, or was being trained to be a double agent by the CIA.

In any event, Hemming's Cuban career and his connection with Oswald make the Lorenz story difficult for him to deny, particularly since the squad allegedly also included Hunt and Sturgis.

Who else will be identified as having been part of the conspiracy and/or coverup remains to be seen. But a disturbing pattern is already beginning to emerge. All the villains have been previously disgraced in one way or another. They all have "right wing" reputations. Or they will have after the hearings.

The fact that some may have had connections with organized crime will prove to be only incidental in the long run. Those with provable ties to the CIA or FBI will be presented as renegades who acted on their own without approval or knowledge of their superiors.

As for covering up the deed, that will be blamed on past Presidents, either dead or disgraced. Thus, Carter will emerge as a truth seeker, and the CIA and FBI will have neatly covered their institutional behinds.

The timing of the hearings is another clue of what to expect and why. The committee has scheduled its open sessions of network TV to begin after Congress adjourns for the election campaigns. The first order of business will be the Martin Luther King, Jr. hearings-with James Earl Ray and his family as the star witnesses. Then there will be a short break and the JFK hearings will begin.

The committee plans to conclude its work by early October, just a month before the elections, perfect timing to cash in on the publicity the hearings are certain to create. And perfect timing for the Carterites to get the American public to forget about inflation, taxes, foreign affairs, and other White House blunders and elect a Congress more indebted and responsive to the presidency.

(2) Joe Trento and Jacquie Powers, Sunday News Journal (20th August, 1978)

A secret CIA memorandum says that E. Howard Hunt was in Dallas the day President John F. Kennedy was murdered and that top agency officials plotted to cover up Hunt's presence there.

Some CIA sources speculate that Hunt thought he was assigned by higher-ups to arrange the murder of Lee Harvey Oswald.

Sources say Hunt, convicted in the Watergate conspiracy in 1974, was acting chief of the CIA station in Mexico City in the weeks prior to the Kennedy assassination. Oswald was in Mexico City, and met with two Soviet KGB agents at the Russian Embassy there immediately before leaving for Dallas, according to the official Warren Commission report.
The 1966 secret memo, now in the hands of the House assassination committee, places Hunt in Dallas Nov. 22, 1963.
Richard M. Helms, former CIA director, and James Angleton, former counterintelligence chief, initialed the memo according to investigators who made the information available to the Sunday News Journal.

According to sources close to the Select Committee on Assassination, the document reveals:


* Three years after Kennedy's murder, and shortly after Helms and Angleton were elevated to their highest positions in the CIA, they discussed the fact that Hunt was in Dallas on the day of the assassination and that his presence there had to be kept secret.

* Helms and Angleton thought that news of Hunt's presence in Dallas would be damaging to the agency should it leak out.


* Helms and Angleton felt that a cover story, giving Hunt an alibi for being elsewhere the day of the assassination, "ought to be considered."

Hunt, reached Friday at his Miami, Fla., home, denied that he was in Dallas on Nov. 23, 1963, and denied that he had been in Mexico City any time after 1961.

Hunt said that he was in Washington the day of the Kennedy murder. "I have plenty of witnesses. I took off at noon that day and went shopping and had a Chinese dinner in downtown Washington with my wife."

Hunt said he knew of no reason for such a memo to exist. He said he had he had never heard of the memo's existence.
CIA sources, who have provided the assassination committee with material pertaining to Hunt's alleged presence in Dallas, say that Hunt's story about shopping in downtown Washington was a cover story concocted as a result of the memo. They say all Hunt's witnesses are CIA arranged and that his wife cannot be questioned because she was killed in a plane crash.

The assassination committee will open hearings this fall on the Kennedy murder.

Dawn Miller, spokeswoman for the committee, said that there would be "no comment on the report of a memo. We will be holding detailed hearings in September. Because of committee rules that is all I am permitted to say."

Committee sources told the Sunday News Journal that both Helms and Angleton had been questioned by committee investigators but that the issue of the memo was not raised with either witness. Sources say Helms told the committee he could not answer specific questions on the CIA's involvement because of "an inability to remember dates."

Helms's faulty memory on ITT's involvement in Chile led to his sentencing last year of two counts of withholding
information from Congress, a charge reduced from perjury by order of President Carter.

Helms could not be reached for comment. A secretary said that he was out of town and would not be available.

When Angleton was questioned by committee staffers, he was "evasive," according to a source who was present. Angleton could not be reached for comment.

Asked to explain why a potentially damaging cover-up plot would be put out on paper, one high-level CIA source
said, "The memo is very odd. It was almost as if Angleton was informing Helms, who had just become director, that
there was a skeleton in the family closet that had to be taken care of and this was his response."

One committee source says the memo "shows the CIA involvement in the Kennedy case could run into the CIA hierarchy. We are trying not to get ahead of ourselves but the mind boggles."

As part of its $5-million expenditure on the Kennedy and Martin Luther King assassinations, the committee contracted a Cambridge, Mass., sonics firm to review tape recordings made as shots were fired at the Kennedy motorcade.

The firm has provided the committee's technical staff with new evidence which shows that four shots and not three were fired at the Kennedy car. Sources say this would have made it impossible for Oswald to act alone.

"Combined with the memo covering up Hunt's involvement in Dallas that day, what we have so far puts a real dent in the Warren Commission version," a committee source contends. Helms and Angleton currently are targets of an internal CIA probe and a new Senate Intelligence Committee investigation into the possibility that the Soviet KGB penetrated the CIA with a mole, or a high-level double agent.

Cleveland Cram, the former CIA station chief in Ottawa, Canada, was called out of retirement to investigate Angleton's and Helms' role in the penetration. Cram came across the Hunt memo in his mole study," one investigator suspects.
The urgency of the mole investigation within the agency has reached "a more intense level since the memo was discovered," according to a source close to the internal investigation.

Herbert E. Hetu, public affairs director of the CIA, told the Sunday News Journal, "I had heard rumors of such a memo but had been unable to track them down. I checked with our liaison with the assassination committee and he didn't know about it."

The possibility of a "mole" or double agent in the CIA in connection with Oswald was first brought to light in Edward
J. Epstein's book, Legend: The Secret World of Lee Harvey Oswald.

That book details Oswald's ties with U.S., Soviet and Cuban intelligence. According to Epstein's editor at Readers Digest Press, which published the book, Angleton was a main source for the author.

In 1964, a Soviet defector named Yuri Nosenko told the CIA that Oswald did not act as a Russian agent in the Kennedy assassination. For years, according to the book, a battle within the agency ensued as to whether or not Nosenko was telling the truth.

That battle ended in 1976 when Nosenko was accepted as a genuine defector and put on the CIA payroll and given a new identity.

According to the book, Angleton urged that Nosenko not be accepted because he believed the Russian to be a double-agent.

Hunt's appearance on the scene in Dallas and in Mexico City at the time of the murder adds strength to a theory shared by some internal CIA investigators. They believe Oswald was working for US intelligence, that he was ordered to infiltrate the KGB, and that this explains his life in Russia. They also believe that Oswald proved to be so unstable that he was "handled by the KGB into becoming a triple agent, and assigned for the Dallas job."

The same investigators theorize that Hunt was in Dallas that day on the orders of a high-level CIA official who in reality was a KGB mole. Hunt allegedly thought he was to arrange that Oswald be murdered because he had turned traitor. Actually he was to kill Oswald to prevent him from ever testifying and revealing the Russians had ordered him to kill Kennedy, the CIA sources speculate.

CIA investigators are most concerned that either Helms or Angleton might be that mole.

Hunt first detailed the existence of a small CIA assassination team in an interview with the New York Times while in prison in December 1975 for his role in Watergate. The assassination squad, allegedly headed by Col. Boris Pash, was ordered to eliminate suspected double agents and low-ranking officials.

Pash's assassination unit was assigned to Angleton, other CIA sources say.

Hunt's fondness for strange plots has 'been widely reported. He is alleged to have concocted schemes ranging from Watergate to a plot to assassinate columnist lack Anderson. Hunt is also the author of 45 spy novels.

It was also learned from CIA and committee sources that during the time that the Warren Commission was investigating the Kennedy assassination, Angleton met regularly with a member of the commission - the late Allen Dulles, then head of the CIA and Angleton's boss.

Dulles, on a weekly basis, briefed Angleton about the direction of the investigation. Angleton, according to sources, in turn briefed Raymond Rocca, his closest aide and the CIA's official liaison with the commission.

Rocca, now retired was unavailable for comment. His former wife, who also worked for Angleton, is now working for Cleveland Cram as part of the CIA mole investigation team.

[Gary Buell]

This was originally posted by me at www.jfkresearch.com in 2001

Correspondence with Trento on Hunt, Angleton and the Memo. Posted by Gary Buell 11/04/2001, 03:40:00

Members who have looked at Joseph Trento's new book "The Secret History of the CIA" know that it contains material of interest concerning the assassination, mostly from the perspective of James Jesus Angleton of the CIA. What it does not contain is anything about the alleged memo re Howard Hunt in Dallas which Trento had written about in an article in the Sunday News Journal, August 20, 1978, and which is reproduced in Plausible Denial by Mark Lane. So I thought I would ask him about it. What follows is our correspondence via e-mail:


Gary Buell: I am currently reading your fascinating new book. My particular interest is the JFK assassination and the information you received from Angleton deserves careful consideration. I think that there was one serious omission in your book in that regard. That is the lack of any mention of the memo that Angleton showed you concerning Howard Hunt's alleged presence in Dallas on 11/22/63. Many researchers believe that was an Angleton disinformation ploy of some sort but whether the memo was genuine or not I do not see how the reader can be expected to evaluate Angleton's views on the assassination without considering this material. I believe you yourself once speculated that he may have been attempting to obscure his own role in sending Hunt to Dallas. And, if I am not mistaken did you not also once suggest that Hunt may have been sent to Dallas by a KGB mole? Did you ever discuss this memo or its contents again with Angleton before his death?

Joe Trento: I left it out because Hunt's role had been so discussed. My view is that Hunt's presence was more an embarrassment then anything significant. That's how Angleton treated it. Lane made much more of this then I believe it deserved. Gary the real question is it was Angleton's disinformation or someone trying to force the CIA's hand by demonstrating employees had come to Dallas. The original manuscript did include the material but the publisher could not publish a 1,000 page book.

Gary Buell: Thanks for the prompt reply. I am not real clear on your answer. If it was Angleton's disinformation to what end? And was Hunt in Dallas or not and who sent him? If I recall your original article (which I did read quoted in Lane's book)you refer to sources at the HSCA admitting having this memo, which was later denied. The whole thing is confusing, particularly your coment about someone trying to force the CIA's hand. I mean Angleton was behind this in one way or another. I would be most interested in reading the section of your book on this that was cut for space, if you are agreeable.

Joe Trento: For contractual reasons I cannot give you the cut material to read. But to clarify the Angleton matter: I was originally tipped off by an assassination committee employee. They contacted me because I had written about Angleton and had access to him. They showed me a copy of the memo about Hunt being in Dallas. I called Angleton and he said he was aware of the memo and may even have a copy. He didn't. But a close friend of his did - and that friend said Angleton had entrusted to him. I read that copy, they matched. Jim did this sort of thing in an effort to get sensitive documents out during the months after his firing in 1974. I suspect Jim felt the document and Hunt story would come out anyway so he orchestrated the leak through me and the committee. The committee denial came because the document was never in the official group of documents they received. Jim told me he thought Hunt's presence was meaningless. He first claimed the reason the committee had the memo was because someone wanted to demonstrate he and Helms were covering up. I am convinced that the memo as written while Angleton did his internal probe to see what the Agency had done or not done and they ran across this business with Hunt and realized they had a potential public relations problem if the information got out. I never was told or got the impression that it was anything very significant - just very interesting. Did Jim tell me the truth on this? The answer is yes and no. I think Lane used this and other events to keep himself as part of the story. The reality is that all of this sideshow stuff diverted folks from looking at what the Soviet's did with LHO in Russia. I suspect at the time of the leak that's what Angleton and friends did not want researchers or reporters looking at.

Gary Buell: Thank you for your lengthy reply which answers some questions and raises others. So the HSCA did have the memo but could not confirm its authenticity because it was not officially turned over - that is interesting. To my knowledge this memo has never turned up in the archives of the committee or ever been acknowledged. I wonder if it still exists. Re-reading your original article you seem to have placed a great deal more importance on the memo at that time. You cite unamed CIA investigators who theorize that Oswald was working for US Intelligence and turned by the KGB. And that Hunt was in Dallas on the orders of a high-level CIA official who was in reality a KGB mole and who ordered Hunt to kill Oswald. Do you think Angleton sent Hunt to Dallas? If this were a movie then Angleton would turn out to be the mole but in real life I think that is far-fetched. What is your take on all this now? Was the memo authentic? Did Angleton send Hunt to Dallas and, if not, who did? If he was in Dallas at all. And what was his mission? Was Oswald a double- or triple agent?

Joe Trento: Angleton thought very little of Hunt so I doubt that they ever had much to do with each other. I suspect that the CIA successfully cited national security considerations regarding some of the JFK/ Soviet stuff. We had a number of sources from the CIA office of Security who offered a variety of theories. As far as it not showing up in the committee records, I suspect an agreement was made between the CIA and the Chairman. I would have never heard except from my staff sources. One possibility is they wanted to do something with it in the hearings and the members were against it, I may have been used as a trial balloon. At the time my colleague and I wrote the piece I suspected everyone's motives. Considering what I know now of the other screw ups the CIA and FBI perpetuated in this case the memo reflected potential public relations problem.

Gary Buell: Thanks for the reply. Obviously the CIA was able to cover-up this "public relations problem", thanks, as you said, to Blakey. Let me ask a few direct questions: 1. Do you think Hunt was in Dallas? If so, any idea who sent him and on what mission? Or are we left simply with speculation? The most fascinating speculation was that he was sent by the KGB mole. 2. Do you think there was a high-level mole in the CIA? If this is in the book, I apologize as I am still reading it. Can we rule out Angleton? Helms? You have been very gracious thus far and I realize that you cannot correspond endlessly with every reader.
Joe Trento: I think Hunt must have been in Dallas - perhaps not even on CIA business. Probably coming back from Mexico. I think the idea that a mole ordered him to Dallas was far fetched. You would have to assume he was competent and could carry out what the mole wanted. I don't think Helms or Angleton were moles. But it is clear that there were at least mid-level moles. Finish the book. You might want to get my previous book (with Bill Corson and Susan Trento Widows.) All best.

[Tim Gratz]

John wrote:

Was Marita Lorenz story about Hunt, Hemming and Sturgis true? If not, why did these three men not sue Lorenz and those who published details of this story?

John, it is my understanding that for a number of reasons Gaeton Fonzi did not believe Lowrenz after he investigated it.

One obvious problem in her story is that she did not come forward with it immediately, as I understand. Second, she claims that Oswald was part of this car caravan while both Marina Oswald and Ruth Paine state he stayed with Marina in Irving, Texas on November 21, 1963. I can think of no reason why Marina and Ruth would lie about his presence. And of course a fellow employee drove him to the TSBD Friday morning. So Lowrenz's claim that LHO was part of the caravan tends to discredit her entire car caravan story,

Today I purchased "Marita" by Marita Lorenz and Ted Schwarz. It contains some interesting information I will post later. It only calls Gerry Hemming "Gerry" so arguably he would have a difficult time suing for any statements in that book. Lowrenz liked Gerry. I suspect his last name was omitted precisely because of the libel laws.

In the book, Lowrenz writes that "like me, [Hemming] didn't like being kept in the dark about what our mission was." Clearly implying he did not know the purpose of the trip to Dallas. Nowhere in the book does she state that he actually participated in the assassination. Another reason why it would be difficult for Gerry Hemming to sue Lowrenz, Schwartz and/or the publisher.

Hemming, of course, states he was in Miami on Friday. Plus, Hemming detested Sturgis and I think it highly unlikely Hemming would participate in any operation that involved Sturgis.

Re what Lowrenz testified to during the Hunt trial I am quite certain any trial testimony is privileged and the witness is immune from civil liability. If the testimony is determined to be false, the only remedy is a criminal proceeding for perjury.

Hunt may not have sued her because he already lost one proceeding in which she had testified. His testimony in that suit was such a mess he probably realized he could never win a suit against her. I have no idea why Sturgis did not sue her. Her book makes it clear that unlike Hemming he was part of the plot.

There is additional information in her book which I want to post later, however, that may shed some light on the credibility of her story.

This post has been edited by Tim Gratz: May 17 2005, 05:13 AM

[Tim Gratz]

Gary Buell's post of his e-mail exchange with Trento was very interesting and is much appreciated.

[Ryan Crowe]

Can someone refresh my memory? Did Lorenz ever state what kind of car it was and how many people were in this car??

[Ron Ecker]

Lowrenz's claim that LHO was part of the caravan tends to discredit her entire car caravan story

Oswald was seen in numerous places at the same time he was somewhere else, so Lorenz saying that Oswald was in the caravan does not discredit her story. It can even be argued that it gives the story more credence, since why would she make up Oswald's presence and thus sound "ridiculous"?

I have no idea why Sturgis did not sue her.

It could have something to do with the fact that the U.S. Congress couldn't find out for sure where Sturgis was on 11/22/63. Maybe Sturgis didn't want it looked into any further.

Ron

[Tim Gratz]

Ron wrote:

It could have something to do with the fact that the U.S. Congress couldn't find out for sure where Sturgis was on 11/22/63. Maybe Sturgis didn't want it looked into any further.

Does anyone know where Sturgis was, by the way?

Was Sturgis deposed by HSCA? If so is all or part of the deposition a matter of public report?

[Ron Ecker]

Ryan,

Lorenz said there were two cars in the caravan, but she didn't describe them. Along with Sturgis on the trip, there was Gerry, "Ozzie," the two Novis brothers, and Pedro Diaz Lanz.

Tim,

I goofed, it was the Rockefeller Commission, not the Congress, that didn't know for sure where Sturgis was. The commission stated, "It cannot be determined with certainty where Hunt and Sturgis actually were on the day of the assassination" (quoted in Last Investigation, p. 77).

Fonzi interviewed Sturgis, but I don't think he testified. It's not clear why.

Ron

[James Richards]

Hunt first detailed the existence of a small CIA assassination team in an interview with the New York Times while in prison in December 1975 for his role in Watergate. The assassination squad, allegedly headed by Col. Boris Pash, was ordered to eliminate suspected double agents and low-ranking officials.

Pash's assassination unit was assigned to Angleton, other CIA sources say. (John Simkin)

Boris Pash - now there's a name that doesn't pop up all that much in assassination discussions. Apart from allegedly being assigned to Angelton, Pash's involvement with Military Intelligence is another interesting area of research.

Pash spoke Russian and allegedly headed a CIA backed unit designated PB/7.

James

[Tim Gratz]

Ron wrote:

Fonzi interviewed Sturgis, but I don't think he testified. It's not clear why.

That reminds me of something interesting Gerry Hemming mentioned to me Sunday morning. He said that his deposition before HSCA lasted about seven hours but the transcript length only indicates a deposition of about two hours in length. Yet it does not show any redactions or omissions.

Any thoughts?

[John Simkin]

Gary, thank you very much for this information. It does seem very relevant that Joe Trento decided not to include the story of the memo in his book. Nor does Victor Marchetti get a mention. I believe this is significant.

When Mark Lane interviewed Marchetti he was at first reluctant to reveal his sources. Lane pointed out that this was going to be necessary if Libby Lobby was to win its libel action against Hunt. Marchetti admits that a member of the HSCA had told him about the contents of this memo. Trento also admits that he was receiving information from a staff member of the HSCA. If so, we can probably assume it was the same person. Another possibility is that Marchetti was Trento’s main source. After all, Trento’s article appeared six days after Marchetti’s piece in Spotlight.

Lane was able to look at the notes Marchetti made while writing the article. It included numerous references to JA, BC and AJ. Marchetti admitted that this referred to James Angleton, Bill Colson and AJ Weberman. I think it is pretty clear that Trento also used these three men to write his article.

It is interesting to read the two articles side by side. They both include references to the memo but their interpretation of it is very different. Marchetti describes the story that will emerge as a “limited hangout”. To quote Marchetti:

A "limited hangout" is spy jargon for a favorite and frequently used gimmick of the clandestine professionals. When their veil of secrecy is shredded and they can no longer rely on a phony cover story to misinform the public, they resort to admitting - sometimes even volunteering some of the truth while still managing to withhold the key and damaging facts in the case. The public, however, is usually so intrigued by the new information that it never thinks to pursue the matter further.

We will probably never find out who masterminded the assassination of JFK - or why. There are too many powerful special interests connected with the conspiracy for the truth to come out even now, 15 years after the murder.

But during the next two months, according to sensitive sources in the CIA and on HSCA, we are going to learn much more about the crime. The new disclosures will be sensational, but only superficially so. A few of the lesser villains involved in the conspiracy and its subsequent coverup will be identified for the first time - and allowed to twist slowly in the wind on live network TV. Most of the others to be fingered are already dead.

But once again the good folks of middle America will be hoodwinked by the government and its allies in the establishment news media. In fact, we are being set up to witness yet another coverup, albeit a sophisticated one, designed by the CIA with the assistance of the FBI and the blessing of the Carter administration.

A classic example of a limited hangout is how the CIA has handled and manipulated the Church Committee's investigation of two years ago. The committee learned nothing more about the assassinations of foreign leaders, illicit drug programs, or the penetration of the news media than the CIA allowed it to discover. And this is precisely what the CIA is out to accomplish through HSCA with regard to JFK's murder.

Joe Trento on the other hand takes a very different approach. He does not suggest that the leakage of this memo has anything to do with a CIA disinformation plot. He also denies Angleton’s role in this and claims he was unable to reach him for comment.

The first half of Trento’s article deals with the CIA memo. The second-half of the article is unrelated to the memo and the HSCA. It is in fact Angleton’s theory of the KGB’s role in the assassination of JFK. This was of course to appear later in Trento’s book, The Secret History of the CIA.

To understand what is going on here we need to look at Victor Marchetti. While serving in the US Army in Germany after the war Marchetti was sent to the European Command's School at Oberammergau to study Russian. Later he was involved in intelligence work concerning East Germany.

After leaving the military Marchetti studied history at Penn State University. While at university Marchetti was secretly recruited by the CIA. He officially joined the organization in 1955. Marchetti became a Soviet military specialist and was the CIA's leading expert on aid given to Third World countries. This included Soviet military supplies to Cuba in the early 1960s.

In 1966 he became special assistant to the Chief of Planning, Programming, and Budgeting. The following year he was special assistant to Richard Helms. Marchetti became disillusioned with the "agency's policies and practices" and in 1969 resigned from the CIA. He wrote about his experiences in the CIA in the novel The Rope-Dancer (1971). He then began work with John Marks on a book about the need to reform the CIA.

The CIA and the Cult of Intelligence was completed in 1973. CIA officials read the manuscript and told Marchetti and Marks that they had to remove 399 passages, nearly a fifth of the book. After long negotiations the CIA yielded on 171 items. That left 168 censored passages. The publisher, Alfred A. Knopf, decided to go ahead and publish the book with blanks for those passages, and with the sections that the CIA had originally cut but then restored printed in boldface.

The publication of Marchetti's censored book raised concerns about the way the CIA was censoring information. It led to investigative reports by Seymour Hersh in The New York Times and the decision by Frank Church to establish a Select Committee to study government operations. The report, Foreign and Military Intelligence, was published in 1976.

Marchetti was a strong critic of CIA’s covert operations. He was also a former insider who knew all about “limited hangouts”. No doubt Angleton also told Marchetti about his KGB theory. However, he did not buy it, instead he believed that right-wing figures in the CIA was responsible for JFK’s death. There were strong rumours in the CIA that some members of the organization were involved in the conspiracy. Rather than expose them, the leaders of the CIA decided to protect them and took part in the cover-up.

Liberals like Marchetti thought that the conspirators should be exposed. By the time this article was published, the leading figures involved in the plot, David Morales and Rip Robertson, were dead. However, Hunt, who I suspect had a fairly minor role in the assassination, was still alive and an easy target for those like Marchetti who wanted the true story to emerge. There was others, like Richard Helms, who wanted only a “limited hangout”.

Marchetti’s article was extremely embarrassing to the CIA. Ironically, the publication of his article in Spotlight guaranteed that Hunt and company would not be exposed as being part of the conspiracy to assassinate JFK. The CIA memo was not published by the HSCA. Nor were the implications of this memo followed up. Instead attempts were made by Angleton to direct attentions away from the CIA and towards the KGB. Trento is therefore given details of the CIA memo plus false information about KGB involvement in the assassination.

At the same time the CIA are also leaking information to its media assets that the Mafia was behind the assassination of JFK. As a result of the understandably poor response to the KGB theory (it appears only Joe Trento and Tim Gratz believed Angleton’s story) it is eventually decided that the HSCA should promote the Mafia theory.

Joe Trento, A.J. Weberman, and Gerry Hemming are all members of this Forum. I will ask them all to comment on this case. I will also ask G. Robert Blakey to contribute (although he will refuse the offer). Does anyone have contact with Victor Marchetti and Mark Lane? It would be nice if they could join in this discussion.

[Tim Gratz]

If I recall correctly (an important caveat from one who periodically misplaces car keys, etc) there is a footnote in Dick Russell's book wherein Marchetti comments on a large number of Soviet moles in the CIA and speculates that the assassination could have been orchestrated by Soviet moles in the CIA. In that sense Marchetti's perspective may not be that different from Angleton's.

Of course the following is only speculation. But assume a fairly highly placed Soviet mole in the CIA. Further assume the KGB (GRU per GPH) wants JFK dead. The Soviet mole knows anti-Castro exiles who hated JFK over the Bay of Pigs. The mole tells the Cubans that JFK is going to "sell out" Cuba, inspiring them to kill JFK. (Note I am not claiming or implying that any specific person was this mole.)

Even better than framing a patsy is manuevering your political opponents to do your dirty work for you. They are presumably as guilty as you even though they do not know who was their actual "sponsor". Plus, of course, if they are caught they take the fall and you deny everything.

I think the above is similar to the scenario Marchetti was suggesting as at least a possibility.

[Tim Gratz]

John wrote:

As a result of the understandably poor response to the KGB theory (it appears only Joe Trento and Tim Gratz believed Angleton’s story) it is eventually decided that the HSCA should promote the Mafia theory.

Of course John understands that the accuracy of a fact is not dependent upon the number of people who believe it.

For although John is a proclaimed atheist, he understands that the vast majority of people in the world believe in some kind of deity. Yet John still clings to his atheism.

Of course I have no personal knowledge that Angleton was correct in his perspective. There is certainly more evidence suggesting Cuban involvement than evidence in the public record pointing to Soviet involvement.

But my point is simply that you do not assess the accuracy of a fact by the number of people who believe it. Ask, for instance, Christopher Columbus or Galileo. And John since twelve jurors heard all of the OJ case for what sixteen months and found him not guilty are you then convinced that, as a matter of fact, he was not guilty?

Another way to look at it: I suspect you knew there was a conspiracy even when the majority still believed in the LN premise of the WC.

This post has been edited by Tim Gratz: May 17 2005, 09:58 AM

[John Simkin]

But my point is simply that you do not assess the accuracy of a fact by the number of people who believe it.  Ask, for instance, Christopher Columbus or Galileo.

You have to ask the question why people like Galileo were in a small minority. The reason being is that the vast majority of the population were victims of a massive disinformation campaign (run by the Church rather than the CIA).

My point is not that the majority of the general public reject the KGB or Castro did it theories. Their opinions are irrelevant because they have not studied the case in any detail. The point I am making is that the overwhelming majority of researchers who have studied this subject in any depth reject the KGB or Castro theory.

Therefore one has to ask why Joe Trento and yourself have studied this evidence but have come up with a different conclusion. It could be that the two of you possess superior intellects to the rest of us. Or, there might be some other explanation. In your case, it seems to me that your right-wing political philosophy makes you want to believe it. I would very much like to know why Joe Trento believes it. That is why I have emailed Joe and asked him to join the debate.

[Tim Gratz]

John wrote:

Or, there might be some other explanation. In your case, it seems to me that your right-wing political philosophy makes you want to believe it.

John, there may be some truth to this. Hopefully you would also admit that there may be a reason why people whose political views are left-of-center tend to see the conspirators as coming from the "right wing". I suppose no one wants to think that someone whose political views were similar to theirs commited this great crime.

The argument that Castro did it is different than "the KGB did it" theory, because it stipulates that my country engaged in murderous attacks on Castro and so, if he did it, his action, while certainly not defensible, is understandable and can be considered defensive rather than retaliatory. How many times could Castro be expected to dodge bullets paid for by the United States fired by guns and rifles also paid for by the US, without striking back?

This post has been edited by Tim Gratz: May 17 2005, 10:47 AM