Jump to content
The Education Forum
Joe Bauer

Was E. Howard Hunt's "Big Event" Confession A Hoax?

Recommended Posts

I've never seen much commentary on E. Howard Hunt's recorded JFK assassination confession.

Was it all a hoax?

If so, why do this and allow his son to tape record it, knowing it would be shared with the world after his death?

I always wondered why hardly anyone of literary and media stature would barely touch this Hunt confession, considering not just it's Earth shaking guilty parties revelation but also E. Howard Hunt's extremely high placed career positions in our agency government for decades and his closeness to and dealings at times with many of those so high up in our elected government.

Hunt was the opposite of a crazy nobody. He was a highly placed and highly intelligent somebody.

What made his confession so ignored?

Whether the story is true or not, why would he create such a mind blowing tale?

Was it his last act of agency loyal disinformation?

Was his "Big Event" JFK assassination confession a gift to his son as a possible block buster book deal ( even if it was made up ) that could hopefully have brought his son a huge book publishing advance fee?

Hunt wrote many spy books that were supposedly fiction mixed with elements of true spy craft experiences.

Maybe this confession was a book idea he had in mind?  

Hunt lied so much in his later years when confronted with investigatory committee questions. His whole adult career life was wrapped around this MO.

Still, because of Hunt's prolific involvement in our highest rungs of covert intelligence and for decades, It seems illogical to not give his end of life JFK "Big Event" guilty party confession more weight than it has been given imo.

Hunt's confession has been treated with no more seriousness than that given to some nut standing up in a JFK conference event audience and shouting " I KNOW WHO KILLED JFK...IT WAS WALT DISNEY!"

Anyone like to give their theory as to Hunt's "Big Event" confession? And why he would put out a false hoax like this?

Edited by Joe Bauer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm slowly moving to the stage when I'm forcing myself to draw some conclusions about this case, and one of them is believing that E. Howard Hunt likely did play a role in the JFK assassination.

  • Losing the retrial of Hunt v Liberty Lobby. That alone would seem to prove Hunt's involvement on some level.
  • H.R, Haldeman believed that when Nixon was discussing hush payments to Hunt during Watergate and referring to "the Bay of Pigs", Nixon was actually referring to the JFK assassination.
  • In the book "I Heard You Paint Houses" by Charles Brandt, 2016 edition, pgs 128 - 129: Frank "The Irishman" Sheeran, a labor union official that worked for Russell Bufalino, (Mafia boss of the Northeastern Pennsylvania Bufalino family from 1959 to 1989) and labor union leader Jimmy Hoffa, describes meeting Carlos Marcello’s (Mafia boss of New Orleans) pilot David Ferrie (initially the central figure in New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison’s 1966 JFK investigation.) Sheeran says that some time before the 1961 failed Bay Of Pigs invasion of Cuba, he was told by Hoffa to drive a truck to Baltimore, Maryland, and meet Ferrie at a landing strip at the Harry C. Campbell concrete plant. A group of soldiers loaded military uniforms, weapons, and ammunition onto Sheeran's truck and Sheeran drove the weapons to Orange Grove, Florida. According to Sheeran, Ferrie told him to deliver the weapons to E. Howard Hunt., even describing Hunt’s large ears. Sheeran says he delivered the weapons to Hunt and a group of anti-Castro Cubans.
  • In the book "The Idle Warriors" by Kerry Thornley, 1991 edition, pg 13, Thornley, who served with Oswald in the Marine Corps, writes in the preface "When I was stationed at Atsugi Naval Air Station undergoing much of the grist for this book, Edward Howard Hunt (the Watergate burglar was also there, on CIA assignment. We did not meet, but I was an outspoken radical with a reputation for "stirring up s**t" and so, perhaps, I came to his attention."
  • Hunt appears to name Cord Meyer as one of the principal figures in the conspiracy, which seems to line up with the revelations in the 2012 book "Mary's Mosaic" by Peter Janney.

Add the confession on top of all that, and in my personal opinion it's fairly compelling circumstantial evidence from a variety of disparate sources. There may even be other stories placing Hunt on the periphery or the inside of the JFK assassination. Judging from Thornley's other book "Oswald", he seems to be firmly in the LN camp, so the motive to make up a lie about Hunt being at Atsugi on CIA assignment at the same time Oswald was there seems questionable. At least, that's the way I look at it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn't Hunt conveniently leave himself (and Angleton, Lansdale, et.al.) out of the JFK assassination plot, in his death bed confession to his son?

As I recall, he pointed a finger at LBJ and Harvey.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not at liberty to go into the details, but I can say that Hunt's much publicized "confession" where he leaves himself out of the plot after being asked to be in on it, is not kosher.

And the article in Rolling Stone which tried to depict a reluctant Hunt turning down five million dollars from Costner is also not on the money.

Prior to Costner leaving the project, the things Hunt said in private, were not the same as what eventually became public.

That is all I can say about it, but I have a very solid source.  And Larry will back me on this.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do indeed back Jim, Hunt's "confession" was not really a confession, first it was an  effort to make money (or as a fall back to gain an introduction for a major book publishing deal). Later it appears to have turned into a sick bed gift to his son.  Hunt didn't turn down major money, he was simply unable to provide any facts or verifiable data to back up a claim for it.  Unfortunately I'm in the same boat as Jim and cannot quote my own first hand source who remains concerned about legal action.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it’s incredible that there is an unknown (to us) inside source on Hunt. What else did this source share with Jim and Larry?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So Jim and Larry, I take it you feel the motive behind the E.H. Hunt "confession" was simply a scam to gift Hunt's son with a major high dollar book or film deal?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That turned out to be the result, it may have begun with different intentions but the net of it - which actually is no more than a very brief "organizational chart" sketched on paper - ended up being a gift with no details at all to support it (such as the location or date or proof of travel or anything at all to verify the purported meeting with Morales).

As to Paul comment, the source I referred to is not really unknown at all in one sense.  The individual spoke for almost two hours on his participation in an outreach to Hunt at a Lancer conference and it was in front of a large audience and taped. Later, based on legal concerns he requested that the tape not be sold or reproduced.  Something on the order of a hundred people heard his remarks...which were made before the issue of a legal exposure emerged. 

I should also say that's not the only such experience I've had in twenty plus years of dealing with conferences.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Denny Zartman said:
  • In the book "The Idle Warriors" by Kerry Thornley, 1991 edition, pg 13, Thornley, who served with Oswald in the Marine Corps, writes in the preface "When I was stationed at Atsugi Naval Air Station undergoing much of the grist for this book, Edward Howard Hunt (the Watergate burglar was also there, on CIA assignment. We did not meet, but I was an outspoken radical with a reputation for "stirring up s**t" and so, perhaps, I came to his attention."
  • Hunt appears to name Cord Meyer as one of the principal figures in the conspiracy, which seems to line up with the revelations in the 2012 book "Mary's Mosaic" by Peter Janney.

 

Note to Kerry Thornley: E. Howard Hunt's first name was Everette (not  "Edward"), a venerable name in the farming-merchant-lawyerly Hunt line of Hamburg, NY, near which I live; there were other Everettes in the family backstory.  He did, apparently, answer to "Eduardo" among displaced Cubans.  Maybe it was the easy route to a nom de guerre.  Ease would have turned him on.

Hunt is a soft target for money-making mythmaking, more than partly on his own recognizance.  I'd weigh in opinion on the legacy of CT ticklers Hunt left behind him, but Jim and Larry confirm first-hand that what's been aromatic from a distance truly smells.

Everette seems to have grabbed the most recent trends and names (Cord Meyer, LBJ, David Morales) off that newly discovered internet thing and, in the last year of his life, confabulated them, in accord with popular opinion, into an inheritance for one of his two primary caregivers, the one of his own blood. 

The only ace I'm willing to spot Hunt is William Harvey.  Hunt couldn't, or wouldn't, accurately substantiate Harvey's participation, but I don't doubt it.

Don't let it get you down, Denny.  If books weren't persuasive things, they wouldn't be hanging around today.

Edited by David Andrews

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Larry Hancock said:

That turned out to be the result, it may have begun with different intentions but the net of it - which actually is no more than a very brief "organizational chart" sketched on paper - ended up being a gift with no details at all to support it (such as the location or date or proof of travel or anything at all to verify the purported meeting with Morales).

As to Paul comment, the source I referred to is not really unknown at all in one sense.  The individual spoke for almost two hours on his participation in an outreach to Hunt at a Lancer conference and it was in front of a large audience and taped. Later, based on legal concerns he requested that the tape not be sold or reproduced.  Something on the order of a hundred people heard his remarks...which were made before the issue of a legal exposure emerged. 

I should also say that's not the only such experience I've had in twenty plus years of dealing with conferences.

 

 

 

Larry,  Let me see if I got this right. So you and Jim are protecting the right of someone who made what he later judged to be a legal gaffe in front of 100 people, to request that what he said is not  sold or reproduced,  concerning an "outreach" (though I'm not sure what that means) to Hunt?  And then I would assume because his information denigrates the Hunt confession, he would then fear reprisals from ... St. John, or the Hunt family?

 

Edited by Kirk Gallaway

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had a thought a few years back wondering if the deathbed confession might have been an indirect (vague) way to payback, implicate, expose the CIA's involvement in both the JFK assassination and Watergate.  I.E. as in being abandoned by them and used as a limited hangout after both Watergate and with Liberty Lobby.  Could such have been a part of his motivation? 

Edited by Ron Bulman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Ron Bulman said:

I had a thought a few years back wondering if the deathbed confession might have been an indirect (vague) way to payback, implicate, expose their involvement in both the JFK assassination and Watergate.  I.E. as in being abandoned by them and used as a limited hangout after both Watergate and with Liberty Lobby.  Could such have been a part of his motivation? 

I wouldn't put revenge past Hunt, and I wouldn't unduly blame him.  But Dick Helms and Dick Nixon would have been closer to the bullseye than the cast of characters Hunt named.  Nixon, for one, would have meant National Enquirer money for the family legacy.

Still, revenge is a broad-minded endeavor.  Don't ask me how I know.

Edited by David Andrews

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't put revenge beyond him at all. Nor would I necessarily impugn his "characters" as they would be  the only characters he would be involved with, if the story were true... He even prefaced his fingering of LBJ as stating, "in my opinion".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, David Andrews said:

Note to Kerry Thornley: E. Howard Hunt's first name was Everette (not  "Edward"), a venerable name in the farming-merchant-lawyerly Hunt line of Hamburg, NY, near which I live; there were other Everettes in the family backstory.  He did, apparently, answer to "Eduardo" among displaced Cubans.  Maybe it was the easy route to a nom de guerre.  Ease would have turned him on.

Hunt is a soft target for money-making mythmaking, more than partly on his own recognizance.  I'd weigh in opinion on the legacy of CT ticklers Hunt left behind him, but Jim and Larry confirm first-hand that what's been aromatic from a distance truly smells.

Everette seems to have grabbed the most recent trends and names (Cord Meyer, LBJ, David Morales) off that newly discovered internet thing and, in the last year of his life, confabulated them, in accord with popular opinion, into an inheritance for one of his two primary caregivers, the one of his own blood. 

The only ace I'm willing to spot Hunt is William Harvey.  Hunt couldn't, or wouldn't, accurately substantiate Harvey's participation, but I don't doubt it.

Don't let it get you down, Denny.  If books weren't persuasive things, they wouldn't be hanging around today.

I'm not down, David. I'm as happy as a bug in a rug. Thanks for your reply.

You make some good points in your post, but I don't see anything that would cause me to believe that E. Howard Hunt definitely wasn't involved on some level. I don't need to be "persuaded" to believe the verdict of the retrial of Hunt v Liberty Lobby. That verdict alone is enough to settle the issue in my mind. The other instances are supporting circumstantial evidence. The questions for me now are: to what extent was Hunt involved, what role did he play, and how much (if any) of his alleged confession is accurate?

Hunt died in 2007 and "Mary's Mosaic" was published in 2012. Hunt certainly didn't use "Mary's Mosaic" as his source on Cord Meyer, and I'm reasonably certain author Peter Janney didn't rely solely upon Hunt's confession as his source of information regarding Cord Meyer's possible involvement or Cord's quote at the end blaming Mary's death on the same people who killed Kennedy. Perhaps I'm wrong about that. I'm sure someone will correct me if I am.

I understand being suspicious of Thornley. He was not a professional researcher, and from what I've read, some suspect him of intentionally planting disinformation that would tend to incriminate Oswald. You rightly pointed out his error in Hunt's first name, a simple one that should have been caught by Thornley or his editors somewhere along the way. It's only the preface of a short novel, for goodness' sake. I wonder how Thornley knew Hunt was Atsugi when Thornley claims to have not met Hunt at the time? How did anybody know who Hunt was at that time anyway? Accepting all the understandable skepticism about Thornley, it still stands that Thornley did know Oswald in the Marines, so he's always going to have some inherent value as a witness. Judging by Thornley's other book "Oswald", Thornley is a LN. What would motivate an LN to make up a lie about knowing Hunt on CIA assignment at Atsugi at the same time as Oswald? That kind of lie is not in the LN wheelhouse. If it was a lie to get attention and sell more books, why not play it up more instead of an offhand reference in a preface? If it was a lie to get attention and sell more books, why not at least get Hunt's first name right?

Setting aside Thornley's statement and Hunt's confession for the moment, how do you explain Sheeran's linking of Hunt and Ferrie?

How do you explain Haldemans belief about Nixon's references to the Bay of Pigs?

I don't believe Hunt was just a dying old man poking around on the internet collecting little bits of JFK conspiracy theories to set his kid up with a book deal after he died. (JFK conspiracy theories that Hunt just happened to "get lucky" to have been in litigation about.) I'd say it's arguable that at a moment in time Nixon's presidency hinged on keeping E. Howard Hunt quiet about what Hunt knew, and Nixon's Chief of Staff has stated for the record that he thought those secrets Hunt was involved in included the JFK assassination. I believe history has proven beyond a doubt that E. Howard Hunt was as involved in top-level clandestine government activity as anyone has ever been. Simply put, he was in a position to know. He was in extended litigation to try and deny being in Dallas on the day of the assassination, and he lost that lawsuit in a retrial.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×