What Is Your Theory?

[Brian Schmidt]

Mine: Basically the premise of Hunt's deathbed confession - LBJ instigating it by going to a relatively high level CIA officer who had an apparatus involving clique agents and anti-Castro Cubans. I don't think it went down exactly the way Hunt describes and I think certain high level government officials had foreknowledge and were on board with it, but I believe the thrust of what he said.

[Jon G. Tidd]

Brian,

I recommend Douglas Caddy's post on former CIA agent Robert Baer. Douglas has a link to an interview of Baer in connection with a book he wrote.

Baer was a CIA case officer in Lebanon in the 1980s. In the interview, at the outset, Baer describes how he operated as a case officer. He lied about everything, even mundane things. His whole projection was a lie. That was my personal experience in my one-year stint as a military intelligence officer in Viet Nam. It got to the point at times when I was the only person on the whole planet who knew exactly what I was about.

That's why I dismiss Hunt's death bed confession. He was a xxxx by profession. Guaranteed. Lying was ingrained, reflexive.

[Brian Schmidt]

I understand your point, Jon, and I agree with it.

My "theory" is based around certain conclusions I reached years before Hunt's confession became public. The fact that he spelled it out doesn't necessarily make my own beliefs stronger, my point was that my theory is generally the same premise as what Hunt "confessed" to.

Regarding the confession, there are parts of his story which I think are fabricated -- like the part about Morales and Sturgis coming him in the hotel room and offering him a position in the plot. I don't believe this to be true. I also don't know if all the conspirators he lists in the hierarchy are true. Why might be lie about some aspects of the assassination while honestly revealing the basic premise? I think your assertion that these CIA types can't help but lie at least a little is accurate to a degree. He also likely attempted to conceal the depth of his own involvement. His revelation that he was a 'benchwarmer' (he would backtrack on this later on the video version and imply that he wasn't involved at all) on the audio tape is probably fairly accurate. Finally, he openly admitted that he didn't know the full story exactly and likely filled in some details with speculation.

A lot of researchers throw out the confession as a flat out lie, or him getting the last laugh, especially because of questionable details and the fact that his book contradicts parts of his confession. Some people even accuse St. John Hunt of lying. For those interested in the subject, I would recommend reading St. John's book which is basically a chronology of his dad's revelations and the contractions are explained and it makes perfect sense.

[David Andrews]

Baer's whitewashing in his post-9/11 books and TV appearances, I'll wager.

Edited May 18, 2015 by David Andrews

[Larry Hancock]

Actually it would make a lot more sense if you had been at the Lancer conference where we heard a two hour presentation from one of the two film people who had been working to get Hunt's story...taking him up on his million dollar offer expressed years earlier...well before his son became involved with any story or with him again for that matter. Unfortunately due to legal concerns following his sons intent to produce a book taping was not allowed. The bottom line is that Hunt was pushed to give something solid for the better part of two years, finally came up with the sketch or org chart of those involved, later shared that with his son while ill and apparently in some remorse and the whole thing ended up in his son's book. If anyone wants to discuss it in more detail I'm happy to do so personally and privately but I can tell you that the conclusion of the folks offering the money...which Hunt could not claim as he offered nothing that could be substantiated....stated that they ultimately concluded what he really wanted was their help in funding and promoting a book so he could make some money given that his financial situation was strained. The above is strictly taken from my subjective impression of the conference presentation so that's all I have to share....

[Brian Schmidt]

Larry, is the person you are referencing Eric Hamburg?

He was present at the taping and has written an essay regarding it. St. John's book also gives a pretty complete chronology of the million dollar offer that Kevin Cosner was at one time involved in.

[Larry Hancock]

Brian, the offer is right but the individual presenting was Costner's partner and I don't think that's him...he would show up on the speaker list. I'll have to confirm the name for you ...I can't claim that level of

memory with certainty, not something I think about that often. Is Hamburg's essay online where I can read it, I'd like to if it is. Hopefully it generally gibes with what I posted.

[Brian Schmidt]

Larry, here is that link to the Hamburg essay: http://cryptome.org/2012/07/jfk-hunt.pdf. It is really an assessment of the confession itself and if it, in Hamburg's opinion, holds up to scrutiny and contains a bit of speculation. It's more of a 'fun" read than an academic one, but does contain good information about the nature of the 'confession' and some information that I haven't heard elsewhere.

Regarding the million dollar offer, if memory serves me correctly, it was originally Howard's idea of sorts. During the filming of Oliver Stone's Nixon, Hunt was a consultant and they were at dinner pressing him for information on the JFK assassination (just think of the irony if Hunt really was involved in the assassination and he's having dinner with Oliver Stone) and he blurted out "I'll tell you all I know for 5 million bucks," or something to that effect. Kevin Cosner later became a bit obsessed with the assassination a few years later and came back to Hunt with a serious offer drafted by an attorney and everything. Cosner was at Hunt's house and asked who killed Kennedy rather abrasively and Hunt was taken aback and refused to cooperate.

Like I said, this is all covered in St. John's book. A lot of researchers are biased against him in general because they feel his credibility is that of a tabloid, but the way he presents everything is very honest, IMO.

[Larry Hancock]

Thanks Brian, its an interesting read and I would not argue that some of the figures that Hunt named are credible - it would be silly for me to do that since I trace out a scenario involving several of the same people in NEXUS. The thing is that Hunt could have come up with the same names based on his experience and likely some rumors and gossip he heard from his exile friends, in particular Artime. If you recall, RFK's first thought, reflected in his telephone call the afternoon of the assassination was that exiles associated or at least known to those in the Artime project had been involved - and there is some solid data to substantiate that. I discuss my views of Hunt and his confession at some length in the 2010 edition of SWHT so I won't belabor it here....but nobody is going to convince me that Morales (who provably didn't trust Hunt for a moment and is in print saying he was a security risk because he could never keep his mouth shut) would have tried to recruit Hunt or if Hunt turned his back on it just let him walk away. That's just not Morales.

Hunt had been floating that million dollar plus claim for some time, he mentioned it to reporters and its classic Hunt. I suspect that when he was actually seriously approached he tried to play the guys along, for a book, for a movie. But what they wanted was something substantive, something that would prove Hunt was inside the plot, something tactical or at least something they could check. Where was the meeting in Miami, how did Morales contact him, why would Morales give him the entire chain of command and how did he do so, what specifically did they want Hunt to do. Apparently Hunt could never come up with anything like that and it was only relatively late in the contact that he even sketched out that simple chart. They declined to pay for that alone and apparently St John had come back into his life at that point, in a weakened moment Hunt gave him the story in hopes he could make something off of it since he had nothing else to give him and that was it. I don't doubt St. John is sincere, I seriously doubt his father's story.

[Larry Hancock]

Brian, I did locate the speaker I was discussing. It was David Giamarco. You can find an intro to his presentation on the conference page at:

jfklancer.com/dallas07/speakers.html

If that link doesn't work, just go to the conferences area of the site, pick 2007 and then speakers..

[Brian Schmidt]

Yes, that's him -I was trying to think of his name too. Supposedly Hunt had long conversations with him and he knows more than Hunt's sons about his revelations. I knew his name started with a G and was trying crude Google searches of Hunt and names that start with G, LOL. I'm going to respond to your earlier post momentarily.

[Brian Schmidt]

Larry, I have read NEXUS and consider it a very valuable resource. My problem with Hunt's confession is not that the names don't add up, it's that they're overly obvious. He wouldn't even need to have been a CIA agent or know them personally to concoct the story - someone doing a week's worth of assassination research on the internet could make up that story. Further, would all the players he named work in concert in the plot? Would Cord Meyer really go to Morales? I have also read your 2010 contribution to SWHT and found it very good.

You mention that Morales is on print saying that Hunt was a security risk due to his mouth. If I remember correctly, I thought he was talking about Sturgis (either scenario would undermine the confession, though), but I could be wrong.

In general, I think over the years researchers have unfairly branded Hunt a screwup goofball. I don't think this description fits Hunt--at all. He was not the fool he is portrayed as by many in the research community--he likely had upper level knowledge of many CIA activities. You mention that RFK's first thought was that one of Manuel Artime's men was behind it and there is substantial evidence to support this. I agree with you. Keep in mind that Artime is St. John's godfather and that him and Hunt were close until Artime's death. I don't think Hunt was so in the dark about these activities as some suggest.

Finally, I consider myself a very skeptical person. I consider almost any confession about the assassination to be a lie, at least at first. But, I just see Hunt's confession motives more pure than him struggling to pull together a story for purely monetary reasons and then simply fabricating it for the whole world to see right before his death. I think he had too much pride for that. I will submit, though, that senility may have played a substantial role in his confusion and contradiction of topics. In American Spy, please note, that he confuses many simple biographical details and assigns incorrect last names to basic people in his life.

[Ron Ecker]

I think the Liberty Lobby case pretty well established that Hunt must have been in Dallas. Didn't a son of his say as much? And if he was in Dallas, I think it would be pretty naive to think he wasn't involved in the plot. I do think his account of the plot is a little far-fetched, e.g. the French guy whose name escapes me on the grassy knoll etc. But who else could that be but Hunt in the trench coat crossing Elm, playing a spook to the hilt?

[Larry Hancock]

Brad, I would certainly agree the names are obvious, that was one of the problems Giamarco had...they could not get Hunt to tell them a single thing that would have been unique, something not generally

well known or discussed fairly widely. In regard to the Morales reference, he was asked if it was likely that Hunt and Barker would talk and his remark was something on the order that he

certainly expected they would since they had both been known for their lack of security practices and tendency to talk about things they should not. Morales tended to trust people in the paramilitary

side of the PP staff, not the psych warfare types like Phillips or the political action types like Hunt.

My view of Hunt was that he was old school, one of the "cadre" and as so held in special regard by individuals in the upper echelon...because of his early service and for that matter his spy novels which

people like Helms thought did a service for the agency. He had screwed up on a number of occasions, from his early assignment in Mexico City to his little motel room foul up in Miami but tradecraft was

not the strong suit for the political action guys - they focused on "bonding" and putting money in the right places. And Hunt certainly could do that with the assets whose political views were in synch

with his...his relationship with Artime was exceptionally strong. And I definitely think Hunt had insider info on the conspiracy, probably more from the Artime and exile connections than anywhere else.

Given the Wheaton/Jeankins/Quintero story we have good reason to believe that some of Artime's people did know the inside gossip about Dallas.

As to Hunt's motive, all I can say is that as I remember it, Giamarco said Hunt was all about money and in conversations with he and his wife of the time she was rather shocked at what he was

doing but Hunt told them that he really was financially pressed. They seemed to think that was what was overcoming his pride; however he kept setting conditions on them and in the end

they concluded he was really playing them to gain support for a book or movie rather than truly revealing something based on a fit of conscious or anything on that order. I guess my take is that

we simply don't need his names, we have them from other sources and he did not add anything of value. We can find that same gossip in a number of other places. He just doesn't take us any place

we haven't already been....

[Pat Speer]

If LBJ was the master of the plot, he must have lived in terrible fear post-assassination. Fear that he'd be uncovered. After all, many in the 1960s thought he was behind the assassination. LBJ appeared, to me at least, to have no such fear; no such guilt weighing on him.

I acknowledge that LBJ was a ruthless S.O.B., who likely had Mac Wallace as a gunman. Maybe he, LBJ, was without conscience. He certainly did seem to lack remorse over Viet Nam. Maybe LBJ was the master plotter.

I'm inclined to believe, however, the plotters were well aware of LBJ's legal predicament in the fall of 1963 and knew if they allowed him to become president, he would not come after them. They would always have the goods on LBJ.

It hasn't been widely reported, but the evidence is quite clear that LBJ DID live in constant fear, Jon. He told his ghostwriters that after the assassination he thought Robert Kennedy was gonna try to prevent him from becoming President. He said that if it hadn't been for the Warren Commission RFK would have had him arrested. He also told his buddy Abe Fortas that he thought RFK was behind all the conspiracy books.

He was paranoid. A number of psychiatrists have studied his behavior, moreover, and have concluded he was quite ill.

Think Macbeth.