Jump to content
The Education Forum

Frank Sturgis in Wikipedia


Recommended Posts

What a surprise.

Nobody's interested.

I know we're not supposed to refer to Wikipedia, but:

There's a photo of Frank Sturgis in Wikipedia.

Is he one of the shooters named by John Simkin earlier?

Looking at him, he looks more like a Mafia hitman than a CIA operative.

I think he is Italian originally.

Is it possible that he was at least a go-between between the Mob and the CIA?

Is it possible that the Mafia had penetrated the CIA as early as 1960?

You might want to do a bit of research into Mr. Sturges Cuban heritage before posting questions like yours to this very knowledgeable audience.

Looking at him, it's difficult to see what side he's on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's that supposed to mean?

I'm starting to think there's a conspiracy here!!

Does, or does not, Frank Sturgis look like a mafia hitman, rather than a CIA operative?

What a surprise.

Nobody's interested.

I know we're not supposed to refer to Wikipedia, but:

There's a photo of Frank Sturgis in Wikipedia.

Is he one of the shooters named by John Simkin earlier?

Looking at him, he looks more like a Mafia hitman than a CIA operative.

I think he is Italian originally.

Is it possible that he was at least a go-between between the Mob and the CIA?

Is it possible that the Mafia had penetrated the CIA as early as 1960?

You might want to do a bit of research into Mr. Sturges Cuban heritage before posting questions like yours to this very knowledgeable audience.

Looking at him, it's difficult to see what side he's on.

_______________________________________________

What the hell does Sturgis's "looking" like an "Italian mafia hitman" have to do with it? Do you think that everyone who is of Italian ancestry is a Mafia hitman or a member of the Mafia?

Doh.

P.S. Speaking of "looks like," where is your photo?

_______________________________________________

Edited by Thomas Graves
Link to comment
Share on other sites

..and in my opinion, there's a lot of misdirection on this 'well informed' forum.

For every grain of truth, there's a sackload of misdirection.

Carl, Sturgis was born Frank Fiorini, and was an Italian-American. He spent time in Castro's Cuba, and came back to the United States to fight against Castro. While in Cuba he became a CIA operative. He continued to report on the anti-Castro community in Florida after his return. While he was never officially an agent, he had two contact officers in their employ, one of whom was Bernard Barker, who would later become the bagman for the Watergate break-in. While Barker worked closely with E. Howard Hunt, known as Eduardo in the anti-Castro community, Sturgis supposedly never met Eduardo until the creation of the Plumbers unit responsible for the Watergate break-in. Many assume this to be a lie, as Hunt had written a book with a character named "Hank Sturgis" many years before. Sturgis, as I recall, told the Church Committee he'd been contacted by one of his CIA contacts and asked to perform an assassination within the United States, but he refused. Maybe someone else can chime in here--but I don't believe the identity of the CIA contact or the proposed victim has been disclosed. There is reason to believe, however, that it may have been Manolo Ray, a leftist slated to have been part of the new America-friendly government that would have majestically risen to power after the Bay of Pigs invasion, should it have been successful. Significantly, Hunt thought Ray was almost as bad as Castro. Ray was, briefly, a member of this forum. I asked him if he'd ever looked into the rumors that Sturgis' group, Operation 40, was created to kill him. He did not respond.

So..long story short. Yes, Sturgis may have been involved in the assassination, and Hunt's naming of Sturgis as a conspirator is significant, if Hunt's testament is to be believed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With all due respect to Pat, of course Hunt is not to be believed.

In "American Spy" his posthumously published memoirs Hunt states that Sturgis was too dumb for anyone to involve him in a complicated conspiracy. Hunt writes that Sturgis' IQ was at room temperature level. Hemming had the same impression of Sturgis except he expressed it in more colorful, shall we say, language.

Hunt also wrote in his memoirs that it would make no sense for a high level CIA operative like Cord Meyer to go directly to a man as low on the totem pole as Sturgis. He suggests Meyer may never have had occasion to even encounter Sturgis.

IMO what Hunt writes in his memoirs sounds a lot more believeable than the story he allegedly told his son.

In his memoirs Hunt admits lying under oath in congressional hearings and lying in his first autobiography. Nothing Hunt says can be considered significant. The most reasonable conclusion about anything Hunt writes is that it is probably a lie.

Edited by Tim Gratz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

...well, if you're well informed, you'll remember whether John said he was one of the shooters.

Wikipedia tells of his Cuban connections.

************************************************

Are you for real?

Enter Frank Sturgis aka Frank Fiorini into google.com, and you should be able to find enough to keep you busy for the next 24 hours..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Carl,

Is he one of the shooters named by John Simkin a few months ago?

He was supposed to be at Watergate.

This is what it says on Sturgis's Spartacus biography page:

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

(Marita) Lorenz also testified before the House Select Committee on Assassinations where she claimed that Sturgis had been one of the gunmen who fired on John F. Kennedy in Dallas.

Sturgis denied that he had been involved in the assassination of Kennedy. Sturgis testified that he was in Miami throughout the day of the assassination, and his testimony was supported by that of his wife and a nephew of his wife. The committee dismissed Lorenz's testimony, as they were unable to find any other evidence to support it.

As far as Watergate, he was there.

Steve Thomas

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With all due respect to Pat, of course Hunt is not to be believed.

In "American Spy" his posthumously published memoirs Hunt states that Sturgis was too dumb for anyone to involve him in a complicated conspiracy. Hunt writes that Sturgis' IQ was at room temperature level. Hemming had the same impression of Sturgis except he expressed it in more colorful, shall we say, language.

Hunt also wrote in his memoirs that it would make no sense for a high level CIA operative like Cord Meyer to go directly to a man as low on the totem pole as Sturgis. He suggests Meyer may never have had occasion to even encounter Sturgis.

IMO what Hunt writes in his memoirs sounds a lot more believeable than the story he allegedly told his son.

In his memoirs Hunt admits lying under oath in congressional hearings and lying in his first autobiography. Nothing Hunt says can be considered significant. The most reasonable conclusion about anything Hunt writes is that it is probably a lie.

Tim, I have American Spy, too. And Hunt says he doesn't think Meyer would have direct contact with Sturgis. So, in the scenario he laid bare for his son, he says Morales and Harvey were involved--there's your middle-man.

While you're absolutely right that nothing Hunt says can be taken as a fact, there's the concept that when one says something that goes against their interest, they are more likely to be telling the truth. By that standard, Hunt's confession to his son, should be allotted a certain amount of credibility.

Has St. John let anyone study the tape, to make sure it wasn't spliced together? That would be one step he could take.

As far as Sturgis being "too dumb"...that's ludicrous. Sturgis was trusted to rifle through the office of Ellsberg's attorney, and beat up protesters on the Washington mall, and bug the DNC, all of which, if exposed, could bring down the president of the United States, but he wasn't trusted enough to be involved in an assassination plot, even on a low level, where he probably would not have known his "client"? Did you forget that he was the head of OP 40, which is believed to have been a top secret assassination squad, working for the U.S. government? Sorry. No dice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...