HOWARD HUNT'S KIDS CONFESSION

[John Simkin]

How could he be one of the tramps!

Hunt testified he was at home all of the day of the assassination with his children.

Have any of his children denied that he was with them on the day of the assassination? If so Hunt committed perjury.

Yes. See this recent article:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/worl...icle1642197.ece

This has been debated on this thread:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=3841

[Antti Hynonen]

Chris Brown Posted Today, 08:50 AM

QUOTE(A.J. Weberman @ Apr 12 2007, 01:47 PM)

There have been several new developments in the JFK thing - Sturgis's nephew who provided his alibi has told me that his aunt told him to say Frank was watching TV all day and Hunt's son provided some interesing information about November 22. He believes his father was one of the tramps. But no matter what happens the truth will continue to be supressed as studying the Kennedy assassination has become a game

How could he be one of the tramps!

Hunt testified he was at home all of the day of the assassination with his children.

Have any of his children denied that he was with them on the day of the assassination? If so Hunt committed perjury.

Recently Howard Hunt's eldest son St. John has revealed that he (and his siblings) gave his father a false alibi for that day.

Please see:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/worl...icle1642197.ece

From the article behind the above link:

One evening, Saint explained how he came to suspect that his father might be involved in the Kennedy assassination. “Around 1975, I was in a phone booth in Maryland when I saw a poster on a telephone pole about who killed JFK, and it had a picture of the three tramps. I saw that picture and I f***ing? like a cartoon character, my jaw dropped, my eyes popped out of my head? It looks like my dad. There’s nobody that has those same facial features. Then, like an epiphany, I remember ’63, and my dad being gone, and my mom telling me he was on a business trip to Dallas. I’ve tried to convince myself it’s some kind of false memory, something I heard years later. But his alibi for that day is he was at home with his family. I was in the fifth grade. We were at recess. I was playing on the merry-go-round. We were told to go home, because the president had been killed. I remember going home but I don’t remember my dad being there. Then he has this whole thing about shopping for Chinese food with my mother that day, so they could cook a meal together.” His father testified to this in court on more than one occasion, saying he and his wife often cooked meals together.

Saint pauses. “I can tell you that’s the biggest load of crap in the f***ing world. He was always looking at things like he was writing a novel; everything had to be just so glamorous. He couldn’t even be bothered with his children. James Bond doesn’t have children. So, my dad in the kitchen? Chopping vegetables with his wife? I’m so sorry, but that would never happen. Ever.”

Ahhh, John Simkin beat me to it.

Edited April 18, 2007 by Antti Hynonen

[Kathleen Collins]

John, there were a number of articles--the one in Rolling Stone comes to mind-- in which Hunt's son said he thought his dad might be one of the tramps. Still, if Hunt's son has been talking to Mr. Weberman, his father's long-time nemesis, you can count me among the curious as to what was said.

Maybe Hunt's kids hate him and will reveal things about the assassination we don't know yet. Of course, there's the chance they'll make things up. In either case, I don't think they liked their old man if they're going public.

Kathy

[Thomas Graves]

imo, the Hunt offspring have no reason to keep any of this percolating unless they're looking for cash or fame. And given the state of affairs in the US culture, my guess is that they're truly hoping to achieve a famegasm.

_______________________________

Mark,

Try to imagine the possibility that E. Howard Hunt believed that he was dying in August of 2003.

OK, good, now imagine the possibility that Hunt might have been open, at that point in his life, to having some sort of reconciliation with his (inquisitive) long-estranged "loser" oldest son to whom he may have felt a moral (or guilt-based or "ethical" or love-based or "whatever") obligation, for lack of a better word, to thank or express gratitude to in some way for 1) having been his oldest son in the first place and, 2) having put up with the Hunt's almost total neglect and/or abuse, and/or 3 helping him dispose of some very self-incriminating Watergate break-in evidence [and convey on his person a huge some of cash when he (Hunt) had been in straits quite dire]? Hmm?....

Good, now can you imagine that Hunt somehow knew a lot about the conspiracy to assassinate JFK before it happened?

Obviously. OK, now imagine that Hunt, believing he was dying, wanted to "unburden his soul" just a bit by telling this same neglected inquisitive loser son of his what he knew about the conspiracy to assassinate JFK....

Good, now don't you agree that it is reasonable to assume that Hunt didn't necessarily tell his son everything he knew about the conspiracy to assassinate JFK?

OK, now just imagine that you are Hunt's son and that your father (Hunt) has recently died.

Wouldn't you (Hunt's hypothetical son) feel compelled, for whatever reason, to make it publicly known what your father had told you?

OK, now if you were this son of Hunt's and was basically unemployable due to your long drug-related criminal record, would you consider revealing to the world what your father (Hunt) had told you about the assassination, regardless of what people might think of your possible motives and your down-and-out, "loser" past?

If so, would you do it only on the condition that you receive no money for your story (in order to prove to skeptical nay-sayers that what you were revealing just had to be true because you weren't trying to make any filthy filthy lucre on "the scoop"), or would you say to yourself, "The heck with Mark Valenti and skeptical nay-sayers of his ilk-- I can kill two or three birds with one stone here! Most importantly, I can tell the world what my father knew about the assassination. Also I can make a few bucks on this and (heaven forbid) might even become famous, (which neither Mark Valenti nor his nemesis Thomas Graves have any chance whatsoever of ever becoming!..." ? (lol)

Now, do you think the last two "objectives" are necessarily incompatible with the first one, i.e. trying to make a potentially huge contribution to modern American history?

Thanks,

--Thomas

P.S. Would you rather that St. John not have come forward at all?

________________________________

Edited April 19, 2007 by Thomas Graves

[Thomas Graves]

imo, the Hunt offspring have no reason to keep any of this percolating unless they're looking for cash or fame. And given the state of affairs in the US culture, my guess is that they're truly hoping to achieve a famegasm.

_______________________________

Mark,

Try to imagine the possibility that E. Howard Hunt believed that he was dying in August of 2003.

OK, good, now imagine the possibility that Hunt might have been open, at that point in his life, to having some sort of reconciliation with his (inquisitive) long-estranged "loser" oldest son to whom he may have felt a moral (or guilt-based or "ethical" or love-based or "whatever") obligation, for lack of a better word, to thank or express gratitude to in some way for 1) having been his oldest son in the first place and, 2) having put up with the Hunt's almost total neglect and/or abuse, and/or 3 helping him dispose of some very self-incriminating Watergate break-in evidence [and convey on his person a huge some of cash when he (Hunt) had been in straits quite dire]? Hmm?....

Good, now can you imagine that Hunt somehow knew a lot about the conspiracy to assassinate JFK before it happened?

Obviously. OK, now imagine that Hunt, believing he was dying, wanted to "unburden his soul" just a bit by telling this same neglected inquisitive loser son of his what he knew about the conspiracy to assassinate JFK....

Good, now don't you agree that it is reasonable to assume that Hunt didn't necessarily tell his son everything he knew about the conspiracy to assassinate JFK?

OK, now just imagine that you are Hunt's son and that your father (Hunt) has recently died.

Wouldn't you (Hunt's hypothetical son) feel compelled, for whatever reason, to make it publicly known what your father had told you?

OK, now if you were this son of Hunt's and was basically unemployable due to your long drug-related criminal record, would you consider revealing to the world what your father (Hunt) had told you about the assassination, regardless of what people might think of your possible motives and your down-and-out, "loser" past?

If so, would you do it only on the condition that you receive no money for your story (in order to prove to skeptical nay-sayers that what you were revealing just had to be true because you weren't trying to make any filthy filthy lucre on "the scoop"), or would you say to yourself, "The heck with Mark Valenti and skeptical nay-sayers of his ilk-- I can kill two or three birds with one stone here! Most importantly, I can tell the world what my father knew about the assassination. Also I can make a few bucks on this and (heaven forbid) might even become famous, (which neither Mark Valenti nor his nemesis Thomas Graves have any chance whatsoever of ever becoming!..." ? (lol)

Now, do you think the last two "objectives" are necessarily incompatible with the first one, i.e. trying to make a potentially huge contribution to modern American history?

Thanks,

--Thomas

P.S. Would you rather that St. John not have come forward at all? ________________________________

____________________

bump

P.S. Interesting that A.J. felt compelled to "scream" at us, by using all upper-case letters in the thread title, to get our attention. Come on, A.J., we truly "love" you and we all know that what you have to say is seriously worth reading!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Next time, could you please "tone it down" a bit? --Thanks!

____________________

____________________

Edited April 19, 2007 by Thomas Graves

[Chris Brown]

[...] Hunt testified he was at home all of the day of the assassination with his children.

Have any of his children denied that he was with them on the day of the assassination? If so Hunt committed perjury. [...]

__________________

Chris,

I don't know if any of Hunt's children have (very recently; i.e. since his death) "denied that he was with them on the day of the assassination," but regardless-- many years ago Attorney Mark Lane was able to trip him up under oath on the question of why he (Hunt) had testified that he had had to remind his children that he had been at home watching TV with them that day, and as a result the jury overturned the very large monetary judgment which Hunt had won in his earlier libel suit against Liberty Lobby, the publisher of "The Spotlight." Hunt was lucky that he didn't screw up in court more than he did, otherwise he probably would have been brought up on the charges of perjury, and yes, convicted... If you haven't already read it, I highly suggest that you read Lane's book "Plausible Denial."

--Thomas

Thomas,

I own a copy and have read (more than once) ‘Plausible Denial’. As I read the chapter where Mark Lane trips Hunt up; I (I’m sure like everybody reading the book, the jury at the trial, the public gallery, Hunts legal team. In fact everyone except Hunt himself) saw the setup coming.

I can’t see all of his children publicly stating whether he was or wasn’t with them on that fateful day. Therefore IMO we can’t put any meat on the bones of the speculated sighting’s of Hunt in Dealy Plaza on the day of the assassination.

Mark like Jim Garrison where among the first of the dissenters to the Warren report, who seem to be looked on with distain by some of the serious researchers on the JFK assassination web sites. As someone who is relatively new to the websites I find this surprising. IMO you can pick holes in all of the research on both sides of the debate. However my opinion on that is for another thread.

Chris Brown.

[Guest Mark Valenti]

imo, Howard Hunt suffered from a grandiosity and arrogance that hampered his career, which was strewn with failures.

He was willing to lie, cheat, steal, destroy careers, and assist, albeit indirectly, in murder to accomplish goals based on what he considered higher purpose. But his loyalty was a pliable thing - he dispensed it with variable intensity. When he found that the Nixon team wouldn't agree to his blackmail demands, he sang like a bird to the Watergate Committee. "I realized these men were not worthy of my loyalty."

He admitted committing perjury 12 times to help officials of the Nixon administration -- all for a price. His loyalty, in other words, was for sale. It's no great leap to consider that his memory of past events was also pliable if it involved a payday. He was jailed, humiliated, beaten - and I imagine he experienced a fair amount of anger over that circumstance.

Consider this: he was a novelist who spent hundreds of hours crafting his tales of intrigue. Writing a novel is no small thing, it takes enormous effort. He was prolific, having written something like 80 books, but his work wasn't what you would decribe as widely read, despite occasional successes.

Worst of all, he created a family unit that imploded, in my opinion the ultimate failure.

Samuel Hart, a former US diplomat who met him in Uruguay in 1950, said Hunt was "totally self- absorbed, totally amoral and a danger to himself and anybody around him".

So how much of our personal currency should we invest in Howard Hunt's word? It seems a rather flimsy ladder to climb on our way to the truth.

[Thomas Graves]

[...] "As I read the chapter [in Plausible Denial]where Mark Lane trips Hunt up[...] everyone except Hunt himself saw the setup coming."

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

What's your point here, Chris? Do you think Hunt was unfairly tripped up, or, for some reason wanted to be tripped up?

--T.G.

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

"I can’t see all of his children publicly stating whether he was or wasn’t with them on that fateful day." [emphasis added]

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

We all know that his oldest son, St. John, has recently said that his father wasn't home that day. What does it matter that all of St. John's siblings haven't come out (yet?) in agreement with St. John on this, and even if they never do, or, heaven forbid, actually say that "Daddy was home that day!"-- what does that matter? In other words, do all of the kids have to be in agreement with each other as to whether or not Daddy was home that day for whatever they say about it to be true?

--T.G.

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

"Therefore IMO we can’t put any meat on the bones of the speculated sightings of Hunt in Dealy Plaza on the day of the assassination." [...]

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

Non sequitur.

--T.G.

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

Edited April 20, 2007 by Thomas Graves

[Thomas Graves]

imo, Howard Hunt suffered from a grandiosity and arrogance that hampered his career, which was strewn with failures.

He was willing to lie, cheat, steal, destroy careers, and assist, albeit indirectly, in murder to accomplish goals based on what he considered higher purpose. But his loyalty was a pliable thing - he dispensed it with variable intensity. When he found that the Nixon team wouldn't agree to his blackmail demands, he sang like a bird to the Watergate Committee. "I realized these men were not worthy of my loyalty."

He admitted committing perjury 12 times to help officials of the Nixon administration -- all for a price. His loyalty, in other words, was for sale. It's no great leap to consider that his memory of past events was also pliable if it involved a payday. He was jailed, humiliated, beaten - and I imagine he experienced a fair amount of anger over that circumstance.

Consider this: he was a novelist who spent hundreds of hours crafting his tales of intrigue. Writing a novel is no small thing, it takes enormous effort. He was prolific, having written something like 80 books, but his work wasn't what you would decribe as widely read, despite occasional successes.

Worst of all, he created a family unit that imploded, in my opinion the ultimate failure.

Samuel Hart, a former US diplomat who met him in Uruguay in 1950, said Hunt was "totally self- absorbed, totally amoral and a danger to himself and anybody around him".

So how much of our personal currency should we invest in Howard Hunt's word? It seems a rather flimsy ladder to climb on our way to the truth.

___________________________________

Mark,

I think that what Hunt told St. John was a limited-hangout deathbed confession unburdening of the heart attempt to set history "right."

IMHO, it's important information for assassination researchers, no matter how we look at it or what kind of spin we might want to put on Hunt's spin....

--Thomas

___________________________________

Edited April 20, 2007 by Thomas Graves

[John Simkin]

imo, Howard Hunt suffered from a grandiosity and arrogance that hampered his career, which was strewn with failures.

He was willing to lie, cheat, steal, destroy careers, and assist, albeit indirectly, in murder to accomplish goals based on what he considered higher purpose. But his loyalty was a pliable thing - he dispensed it with variable intensity. When he found that the Nixon team wouldn't agree to his blackmail demands, he sang like a bird to the Watergate Committee. "I realized these men were not worthy of my loyalty."

He admitted committing perjury 12 times to help officials of the Nixon administration -- all for a price. His loyalty, in other words, was for sale. It's no great leap to consider that his memory of past events was also pliable if it involved a payday. He was jailed, humiliated, beaten - and I imagine he experienced a fair amount of anger over that circumstance.

Consider this: he was a novelist who spent hundreds of hours crafting his tales of intrigue. Writing a novel is no small thing, it takes enormous effort. He was prolific, having written something like 80 books, but his work wasn't what you would decribe as widely read, despite occasional successes.

Worst of all, he created a family unit that imploded, in my opinion the ultimate failure.

Samuel Hart, a former US diplomat who met him in Uruguay in 1950, said Hunt was "totally self- absorbed, totally amoral and a danger to himself and anybody around him".

So how much of our personal currency should we invest in Howard Hunt's word? It seems a rather flimsy ladder to climb on our way to the truth.

Good post. I especially liked the following: "Worst of all, he created a family unit that imploded, in my opinion the ultimate failure."

[Thomas Graves]

imo, Howard Hunt suffered from a grandiosity and arrogance that hampered his career, which was strewn with failures.

He was willing to lie, cheat, steal, destroy careers, and assist, albeit indirectly, in murder to accomplish goals based on what he considered higher purpose. But his loyalty was a pliable thing - he dispensed it with variable intensity. When he found that the Nixon team wouldn't agree to his blackmail demands, he sang like a bird to the Watergate Committee. "I realized these men were not worthy of my loyalty."

He admitted committing perjury 12 times to help officials of the Nixon administration -- all for a price. His loyalty, in other words, was for sale. It's no great leap to consider that his memory of past events was also pliable if it involved a payday. He was jailed, humiliated, beaten - and I imagine he experienced a fair amount of anger over that circumstance.

Consider this: he was a novelist who spent hundreds of hours crafting his tales of intrigue. Writing a novel is no small thing, it takes enormous effort. He was prolific, having written something like 80 books, but his work wasn't what you would decribe as widely read, despite occasional successes.

Worst of all, he created a family unit that imploded, in my opinion the ultimate failure.

Samuel Hart, a former US diplomat who met him in Uruguay in 1950, said Hunt was "totally self- absorbed, totally amoral and a danger to himself and anybody around him".

So how much of our personal currency should we invest in Howard Hunt's word? It seems a rather flimsy ladder to climb on our way to the truth.

___________________________________

Mark,

I think that what Hunt told St. John in 2003 was a sort of limited-hangout deathbed confession unburdening-of-the-heart attempt to set history "right" in a limited-hangout sort of way.

IMHO, it's important information for assassination researchers, no matter how we look at it or what kind of spin we might want to put on Hunt's spin....

Why limited hangout? Form of habit, I suppose and so-called "second nature," on Hunt's part.

--Thomas

___________________________________

-----------

bump

-----------

Edited April 20, 2007 by Thomas Graves

[Guest Mark Valenti]

I think that what Hunt told St. John was a limited-hangout deathbed confession unburdening of the heart attempt to set history "right."

IMHO, it's important information for assassination researchers, no matter how we look at it or what kind of spin we might want to put on Hunt's spin....

--Thomas

___________________________________

I agree that all information should be collected and addressed and there is historical value to Hunt's latter-day statements, no question.

But I can't ignore the context which, in this case, places Hunt squarely within the range of a man who felt obscenely wronged, with decades of vitriol built up. He was, at the end of his life, light years away from where he thought he would/should be. History could give him the benefit of the doubt, but why? Fool me once...etc.

[Chris Brown]

What's your point here, Chris? Do you think Hunt was unfairly tripped up, or, for some reason wanted to be tripped up? --T.G.

No, just surprised Hunt didn't see it comming. C.B.

We all know that his oldest son, St. John, has recently said that his father wasn't home that day. What does it matter that all of St. John's siblings haven't come out (yet?) in agreement with St. John on this, and even if they never do, or, heaven forbid, actually say that "Daddy was home that day!"-- what does that matter? In other words, do all of the kids have to be in agreement with each other as to whether or not Daddy was home that day for whatever they say about it to be true? --T.G.

Sorry I'm an Engineer not a Solicitor (Lawyer) so I suppose I should have said:- Just one to corroborate St. John's statement. C.B.

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

"Therefore IMO we can’t put any meat on the bones of the speculated sightings of Hunt in Dealy Plaza on the day of the assassination." [...]

Non sequitur.--T.G.

"it does not follow."

I had to find the meaning of this as its latin. I studied at a state school in the UK and then on to Technical University. It's only the public school system in the UK that teaches Latin. I suppose I should have said:- corroborated sightings of E. Howard Hunt in Dealy Plaza on the day of the assassination. C.B.

[William Kelly]

Correspondence Love Letters & Advice

Rolling Stone, May 3-17, 2007 Issue 10/25-26

Hunt's Hit Men

My Younger brother St. John Hunt has concocted a conspiracy tale in order to gain from our father's recent death. Decades of admitted drug abuse have clearly taken their toll on him. In league with maniplative conspiracy theorists, my brother took advantage of our sick, eighty-eight-year-old father, who was heavily medicated and confused. Knowing full well that the real story was about to be published in our father's memmoir, American Spy, St. John presured him into elaborating and speculating further on unfounded, hypothetical scenarios of Kennedy's assassination, for the sole purpose of having soemthing to exploit after his death. Our father fought these theories all of his life. I am just glad that he is no longer alive to endure any more suffering or betrayal.

Kevan Hunt Spence

Kirkwood, CA

There's also decent interviews with Bob Dylan and Keith Richards, among others, in the 40th annual edition. - BK

[J. Raymond Carroll]

Correspondence Love Letters & Advice

Rolling Stone, May 3-17, 2007 Issue 10/25-26

My Younger brother St. John Hunt has concocted a conspiracy tale in order to gain from our father's recent death.... St. John presured him into elaborating and speculating further on unfounded, hypothetical scenarios of Kennedy's assassination, for the sole purpose of having something to exploit after his death.

Kevan Hunt Spence

Kirkwood, CA

According to the LA Times, Kevan Hunt Spence has practiced law for 25 years. I wonder why she refers only to the statements her father allegedly made, which she surely knows are hearsay, and why she does not specifically address her brother's direct evidence, namely his identification of their father in the tramp photos and his statement that he has no memory of his father being home on November 22nd 1963.

St. John's identification of his father in the tramp photos may be new to the public, but St. John testified for the Rockefeller Commission, presumably before he saw the tramp photos [the Rockefeller Commission took statements from all the Hunt kids, but did not ask them to examine the "Tramp" photos]. Even back then St. John said he had no memory of his father being home the day of the JFK assassination (an excerpt from this testimony is on Weberman's website).

It seems odd that Kevan Hunt does not try to refute that part of her brother's story that actually constitutes evidence implicating her father in the assassination.

Edited April 25, 2007 by J. Raymond Carroll