Deposition of Marita Lorenz in Hunt v. Weberman (1978)

[Paul Trejo]

2 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Sturgis testified at the Church Committee hearings and described himself as a CIA assassin and said he was also involved in "domestic" assassination plots.

His testimony begins here:

http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=33941#relPageId=1&tab=page

Jim,

How can we be surprised that Frank Sturgis would describe himself as a CIA agent -- since this went far to justify his many misdeeds?

The same can be said of the son of Loran Hall, obviously, or Johnny Roselli, or David Ferrie, or Jack S. Martin, or Fred Crisman.

A person's self-report is insufficient to promote that same person to the status of a CIA agent.  What else do you have?

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited August 8, 2017 by Paul Trejo

[Michael Clark]

10 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

 

If (and only if) Frank Sturgis is a fabricator (as I think he is) then who can be surprised that he would describe himself as a CIA agent -- in order to justify his many misdeeds?

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

LOl, I love Paul's "If (and only if)" statements. They are invariably absurd.

Paul, If Sturgis is not a fabricator, that is, he is telling the truth, then no one would be surprised that he would be saying this.

Thats exactly what Hunt did.

Paul Trejo, You have a gift for saying incrementally less (nothing at all) the more that you say.

[Michael Clark]

6 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

David,

Frank Sturgis was a Radical Right mercenary.  The CIA often exploited his type, but never hired them full time; they never had the "right stuff".

I mean, can you imagine Frank Sturgis doing paperwork?

Furthermore, Frank Sturgis was the only JFK plotter who openly boasted about it.  He was a glory hound -- not a team player.

Frank Sturgis was a hot head.  He fought alongside Fidel Castro and Che Guevara (and Interpen guys) in 1959 and was prized by Fidel for his fighting spirit.  Then he turned against Fidel and Che with an equal fighting spirit.  (In this sense Sturgis resembled Harry Dean.)

The people closest to Frank Sturgis were other hot heads like G. Gordon Liddy.

IMHO: the actor most fitting to portray Frank Sturgis in film would be a young Joe Pesci.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

6 hours ago,  Paul Trejo said: 

David,

Frank Sturgis was a Radical Right mercenary.  The CIA often exploited his type, but never hired them full time; they never had the "right stuff".

Frank Sturgis was a hot head.  He fought along side Fidel Castro and Che Guevara (and Interpen guys) in 1959 and was prized by Fidel for his fighting spirit.

The people most similar to Frank Sturgis would be hot heads like Gordon Liddy.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

--------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------

 

Paul, I posted, above, your original post, from a few hours ago, along with the same post that you edited.......

 

for clarity

[David Andrews]

7 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

David,

Frank Sturgis was a Radical Right mercenary.  The CIA often exploited his type, but never hired them full time; they never had the "right stuff".

I mean, can you imagine Frank Sturgis doing paperwork?

Furthermore, Frank Sturgis was the only JFK plotter who openly boasted about it.  He was a glory hound -- not a team player.

Frank Sturgis was a hot head.  He fought alongside Fidel Castro and Che Guevara (and Interpen guys) in 1959 and was prized by Fidel for his fighting spirit.  Then he turned against Fidel and Che with an equal fighting spirit.  (In this sense Sturgis resembled Harry Dean.)

The people closest to Frank Sturgis were other hot heads like G. Gordon Liddy.

IMHO: the actor most fitting to portray Frank Sturgis in film would be a young Joe Pesci.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Frank Sturgis was a gun for hire.  Anti-communism paid the best, and he absorbed the Ideology. 

Why do you think Sturgis fought beside Castro?  Because the CIA backed Castro over Batista until Castro rejected us for the Soviets.

Where's Gerry Hemming's paperwork?  Roy Hargraves'?  Bill Seymour's?  Nonetheless -- all paymastered by...the company.

Like I said, Fiorini was no CIA officer.  He didn't need no stinkin' paperwork.

Edited August 8, 2017 by David Andrews

[Paul Trejo]

58 minutes ago, David Andrews said:

Frank Sturgis was a gun for hire.  Anti-communism paid the best, and he absorbed the Ideology. 

Why do you think Sturgis fought beside Castro?  Because the CIA backed Castro over Batista until Castro rejected us for the Soviets.

Where's Gerry Hemming's paperwork?  Roy Hargraves'?  Bill Seymour's?  Nonetheless -- all paymastered by...the company.

Like I said, Fiorini was no CIA officer.  He didn't need no stinkin' paperwork.

All true, David, except for the part about Gerry Patrick Hemming, Roy Hargrave and Will Seymour.

They were also mercenaries, and no more CIA agents than Jack S. Martin, Johnny Roselli or Marita Lorenz.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited August 8, 2017 by Paul Trejo

[Larry Hancock]

As much as I want to stay out of this, for those who have not already made up their minds I need to say that key records on Sturgis have been available for some time.  The same can be said for Hemming (who was also cleared as a CIA source for a short period after he came out of Cuba, until he violated some basic security protocols). For those who don't know, Hemming was continually volunteering information to the FBI and the CIA, as were Hargraves and Howard. Generally on other groups or people they were competing with for donations or publicity .

I dug into this about a decade ago and got the files on Sturgis which show exactly how he became involved in Cuba, his involvement in buying and smuggling in weapons - much like McKeown.  After he came out he appears to have been paid with unofficially with discretionary funds (most likely by Hunt) to do wild things like the leaflet and bombing runs over Havana (they even helped his buddy the former Cuban Air Force chief Diaz Lantz acquire the surplus plane to do that) and how eventually he was brought on as a "source" informing generally on any and all exile Cuban activities.  I should also note that the documents show that before coming out he volunteered to put together an assassination of Castro, the offer got to the CIA and they rejected it.

Hemming called Sturgis a snitch and eventually he was, his information shows up in JM/WAVE station reports. Again, it appears he was paid for that with discretionary funds, was certainly not an officer and most likely not on any formal payroll (as Cuban exile assets were).  Hunt and Barker held the money bag and Barker in particular was doing a good deal of private stuff on the side, some of it apparently illegal and that got him dismissed. I put all this in the Keys to Conspiracy CD which will indeed be available shortly from Lancer, they just burned new copies.   Anyone interested can email me and I'll let you know when and how you can order it.

[Mark Knight]

According to the dictionary, an AGENT is a person who acts on behalf of another person or group.

That would make Frank Fiorini/Sturgis an AGENT of the CIA.

[Michael Clark]

8 minutes ago, Mark Knight said:

According to the dictionary, an AGENT is a person who acts on behalf of another person or group.

That would make Frank Fiorini/Sturgis an AGENT of the CIA.

Using Trejo's Hegelian Dialectics one could identify Sturgs as a cupcake decorator.

[Larry Hancock]

OK, since I have mentioned this so many times, here it is - the Keys to Conspiracy includes documents on Nagell, Martino, Hemming/Sturgis, and the 112th/Prouty.   You can order it through through the page shopping cart on the following link:

http://jfklancer.com/catalog/CDrom.html

I won't belabor it any further...I'll leave it up to anyone reading the material to come up with their own appropriate name for the roles Hemming and Sturgis were filling...

 

[David Andrews]

2 hours ago, Mark Knight said:

According to the dictionary, an AGENT is a person who acts on behalf of another person or group.

That would make Frank Fiorini/Sturgis an AGENT of the CIA.

Being on the payroll implies conditional ownership.  Ask Alex Rorke.  However, an agent is - by the CIA book - strictly a foreign national.  Because, of course, CIA does not operate domestically.  I prefer the word operative.  I don't know what the Company prefers.

Edited August 9, 2017 by David Andrews

[Ron Bulman]

Thank You,  Larry, David and Mark.  Enlightening.  Weberman, Sturgis/Fiorini and Hemming are all questionable figures.  JMO.

Edited August 9, 2017 by Ron Bulman

[Chris Newton]

13 minutes ago, David Andrews said:

Being on the payroll implies conditional ownership.  However, an agent is - by the CIA book - strictly a foreign national.  Because, of course, CIA does not operate domestically.  I prefer the word operative.  I don't know what the Company prefers.

 I agree. CIA Officers run CIA Agents, which are, normally foreigners but not exclusively. I like "operative" but I think "contractor" and "asset" are used as well.

Edited August 9, 2017 by Chris Newton

[Ron Bulman]

1 hour ago, Larry Hancock said:

OK, since I have mentioned this so many times, here it is - the Keys to Conspiracy includes documents on Nagell, Martino, Hemming/Sturgis, and the 112th/Prouty.   You can order it through through the page shopping cart on the following link:

http://jfklancer.com/catalog/CDrom.html

I won't belabor it any further...I'll leave it up to anyone reading the material to come up with their own appropriate name for the roles Hemming and Sturgis were filling...

 

Used?   If so, by whom?

Edited August 9, 2017 by Ron Bulman

[Larry Hancock]

Ron, not sure if that was a question for me or for someone else....I think I described a couple of ways in which Sturgis was used - and not used -  in an earlier post.  Both Hemming and Sturgis were smart guys with their own agendas, I recall listening to a tape of Sturgis talking to his lawyer in later  years, describing how he hoped to entrap people accusing him of things so he could file for slander. 

[Sandy Larsen]

My take on Marita Lorenz's testimony:

I just can't see any reason why Lorenz would lie about the things she testified to. Regarding her Oswald stories, I could see her disseminating disinformation on behalf of the CIA, designed to help steer attention away from the CIA as being behind the JFK assassination. But it seems to me that she wasn't doing that at all. Because in one breath she blamed Frank Sturgis for the assassination, and in the next breath she pointed out that Sturgis was CIA. She said precisely what the CIA wouldn't want her to say.

So I tend to believe her testimony.

But what I have trouble with is her identification of Lee Harvey Oswald. She saw Oswald while he was still in Russia. So who she saw must have been a double who looked quite a lot like the real Oswald. Because not only was Lorenz fooled by the guy's looks, but the guy she saw was just as scrawny as the real Oswald. (In her deposition, she said Oswald looked malnourished, so much so that she thought he couldn't even hold a rifle.)

Jim H., what is your Harvey & Lee take on Lorenz's identification of Oswald? I know that you believe her early visits with him -- when HARVEY was in Russia -- had to have been with LEE. But what about the 1963 trip to Dallas? Would that have been HARVEY, given that she said he look malnourished?