In early April 1975 a Rockefeller Commission investigator interviewed CIA Staff member William C. Sturbitts. His notes read: "HUNT - on sick leave November 22, 1963, (per. Fin. Ofc.) On duty status November 21, 1963." During his Rockefeller Commission testimony, William C. Sturbitts was asked:

Q. Do you know what HUNT was doing for the Agency in 1963?

A. Well, it seems to me, he was here at Headquarters in 1963, and I think he was assigned to the European Division of the DDP.

Q. This is your best recollection?

A. Yes.

Q. --at the moment. It is possible he was with Domestic Operations Division in the field of (Deleted) engaged--

A. I guess you are right, I believe he was there.

Q. Did you personally know HOWARD HUNT?

A. No.

Q. Never met him?

A. I met him. That is all. I can't say I know him.

Q. You would not have known anything about his whereabouts on any particular day, then, is that true?

A. Can we go off the record?

(Off the record discussion)

THE WITNESS: Let's go back on the record.

BY MR. OLSEN

Q. I would like to have it on the record.

A. Do you have a particular day?

Q. No. I have just asked you if your acquaintance with HUNT was such that you would have known his whereabouts on any particular day.

A. No.

Q. Was it very infrequently that you saw him?

A. Oh, I would see him in the halls, this type of thing but -- bump into him perhaps downtown the street.

Q. But you would have no occasion for knowing from one day to the next.

A. No

Q. Have you ever conducted any kind of inquiry on behalf of the agency as to where he was on November 22, 1963?

A. Yes. I have done it twice that I recall, and the most recent one was I guess -- I am trying to think. Well it wasn't too long ago because we did have an inquiry and we obtained the time and attendance records from the Office of Finance which showed that HOWARD HUNT was on sick leave that day.

Q. Was this fairly recently?

A. Yes.

Q. I understand from the files I have seen, Mr. Sturbitts, that the only records that were available from the Office of Finance showed that he had nine hours of sick leave during the two week pay period ending November 23, 1963, but that the records were not available as to how much sick leave or annual leave had been taken on any particular day.

A. Well--

Q. Am I mistaken?

A. As I recall, he was in a duty status one day, and a sick leave status the next day, and back to duty the next day. I would have to check that with my Budget and Fiscal Officer. He is the chap that got that for me.

Q. Can you check that for us?

A. Sure.

Q. And give us the results of that?

A. Yes.

Q. This is much more detailed information than I have been previously aware is available in the files of the agency.

A. All right. I will do that.

Q. In response to whose inquiry was that investigation made?

A. I don't know. I would have to look that up too. I don't recall exactly who asked for it. I don't know whether -- I will just have to check that. I don't know who it was.

Q. And the date? Do you have any idea when you made the inquiry?

A. No. But I can find out from the B and F guy, hopefully.

Q. You said there was a previous inquiry?

A. Yes. The previous inquiry came from Archie Roosevelt, who is now retired, and at that time was Chief of the European Division. That was about a year ago I guess.

Q. About the first time these photographs began to be circulated. About the bums in Dallas.

A. Yes, and actually I think this -- Archie's inquiry came from some magazine or newspaper man in Europe. Archie was (deleted) for a long time and he apparently made a lot of acquaintances over there among the media.

Q. This is something relating to Der Stern Magazine.

A. That is right.

Q. And I did understand you to say that in checking with the Office of Finance that it was positively ascertained that HUNT was on sick leave on November 22nd?

A. Well, I will have to check that. That is the way I understood it, but I did get this through our Budget people who have contact with the Office of Finance.

Q. And that he was on annual leave the day before.

A. No, he was on a duty status the day before, on sick leave, and then on duty status the following day.

Q. Was there any effort to determine what Mr. HUNT'S previous pattern with respect to sick days had been?

A. (Nods in negative)

Q. November 22, 1963, was a Friday. When you say the record reveals he was on duty status the next day --

A. It was a Friday. Then I was mistaken.

Q. Does that mean he was on duty the following Monday or on the next day, Saturday?

A. No. On the following Monday. I didn't realize the 22nd was a Friday.

Q. Will you check that thing for us and give us a memo together with whatever supporting -- copies of supporting documents you can find?

A. Okay.

Q. As promptly as possible on this question.

(Off the record discussion).

[NARA SSCIA 157-10011-1083 4.16.75]

Sturbitt's testimony was disturbing to the Rockefeller Commission because it was far more detailed than the information it had previously received. The outcome of this was unclear.

In late 1975 HOWARD HUNT was asked to supply the Rockefeller Commission with an affidavit regarding his whereabouts on November 22, 1963. HUNT filed this affidavit dated March 10, 1975, for the Rockefeller Commission:

I, E. HOWARD HUNT affirm the following to be my recollection of my whereabouts on November 22, 1963.

1. On that date I was an employee of the CIA assigned to the DOD located in a commercial building in Washington, D.C.

2. I was driving with my late wife on H Street near 8th or 9th Street when we first heard of the Kennedy shooting on the car radio. We had been purchasing Chinese groceries in a store named, as best as I can recall it, "Wah Ling." I do not know how long after the first radio reports were made that my wife and I first heard the news. Brinkley was the commentator I remember because of his having theorized a "right wing plot" i.e. Dallas citizens had abused Adlai Stevenson and the climate of Dallas extremism had caused Kennedy's shooting.

3. From the Chinese grocery store we drove out to Wisconsin Avenue to pick up our daughter Kevan, from Sidwell Friends School. On joining us my daughter told us what we already knew: that President Kennedy had been shot. She had learned this because two of Robert Kennedy's children had been taken from Sidwell Friends School presumably by Secret Service Agents.

4. From Kevan's school we drove directly to our home on Baltan Road in Sumner, Maryland (off Massachusetts Avenue extended.) At home was my newly born son David, (DOB September 1, 1963) a maid, Mary Trayner, and my wife's aunt, the late Leona Drexler of Chicago. Our elder son, St. John, a student at nearby Brookmont Elementary School, was probably already home. As I recall, our eldest child, Lisa, arrived soon afterward by bus from Ursuline Academy and joined us at the television set in our basement recreation room where we stayed long hours watching the unfolding events.

5. As to why I was not at my office that entire afternoon, I can only presume that I left early to help my wife shop for a planned Chinese dinner, in preparation of which I normally assisted.

6. I was never in Dallas, Texas, until late 1971, when, at the request of Charles Colson, I flew there to interview General Paul Harkins, former U.S. military commander in Vietnam.

7. I did not meet FRANK STURGIS until the spring of 1972, the introduction being performed by and at the office of BERNARD L. BARKER.

8. I never at anytime met or knew LEE HARVEY OSWALD, JACK RUBY or any other person involved in the Dallas slayings.

9. I was not in Mexico in 1963. In fact, I was not in Mexico between the years 1961 and 1970, and I have not been there since a weekend pleasure trip to Acapulco in July 1970.

10. I have no diaries or other memorabilia prior to 1969, having destroyed as many outdated files and records as possible to save weight in the move to my Florida home in July 1974. I retained only such records, bank statements, etc. as are required by the five year IRS for income tax purposes.

[NARA SSCIA 157-10011-10090]

HOWARD HUNT did not mention having had lunch with his wife at home as he did in his first interview with the FBI.

Kevan Hunt, who was 13-years-old in 1963, stated: "On November 22, 1963, I was a fifth grade student at the Sidwell Friends School in Washington, D.C. My father was not usually at breakfast with his children, so I do not recall seeing him in the morning before I went to school. To my knowledge, however, he was indeed home. He had not been traveling in the previous months.

"I remember that day more clearly than most children my age at the time, because two of Robert Kennedy's sons attended Sidwell Friends School. Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. was in my class, and Joseph was a year ahead of me.

"It was rumored that afternoon that both Bobby and Joe had to be taken out of school. Later an announcement was made that the President had been shot in Dallas.

"At 3:30 p.m. both my mother and my father picked me up at school and took me home. I believe that they had been shopping earlier because grocery bags were in the car. I told them about the announcement that had been made at school, and my parents said they had just heard about it over the car radio. My father's reaction was shock and disbelief.

"My father was at home that weekend as well, and the family watched all of the television coverage related to the Presidential plane's arrival in Washington, and funeral proceedings.

"To my knowledge, my father had not left on any trips the months preceding the President's assassination, he was at home the day of the assassination, and he did not leave home that weekend. Kevan Hunt, March 12, 1975."

HUNT'S maid, Mary Trayner (born in England on November 11, 1918 - never married) sent HUNT this letter on February 6, 1975:

4806 DeRussey Parkway

Chevy Chase, Maryland 20015

Dear Mr. HUNT:

I'm so glad that you thought of writing to me. I remember the day President Kennedy was shot very well, and I certainly remember you were there.

If you recall, Mrs. HUNT'S Aunt Leonie (I am sorry I can't remember her last name) from Chicago was staying with you for a few days and on the Friday Mrs. HUNT, her Aunt, and three children were going downtown to a movie matinee when Veronica Moppet called from the Spanish Embassy to tell Mrs. HUNT that the President had been shot. I remember we all stood around and stared at each other, than you put the television on, and the first thing we heard was the newsman saying that it was now 45 minutes since the shot had been fired, and that they still did not know how badly he had been injured.

I know that Mrs. Hunt's aunt is now dead, but it is possible that when she went back to Chicago she may have mentioned that you were there when the news came through to her daughter, Mrs. Hunt's cousin, Phyllis, although she might not remember it. She just may be able to corroborate your story too.

I can of course remember lots more details. It was the kind of day that stays in your mind. Mary Trayner gave this affidavit to the Rockefeller Commission:

2. On November 22, 1963, I was employed as a housekeeper by Mr. and Mrs. E. HOWARD HUNT who then lived on Baltan Road in Sumner, Maryland with their four children.

3. On that date Mrs. HUNT'S now deceased Aunt Leonie (whose last name I cannot recall) was visiting the HUNT'S house as a guest for a few days. She lived in Chicago. It may have been because of the Aunt's visit or a "Teachers Day" holiday that the children were all home from school in the early afternoon of that Friday.

4. Mr. HUNT was home as well. He was writing a book and spent a good deal of his time in the house. Mrs. HUNT was home too, and planned, with her aunt, to treat the three older children to a movie matinee.

5. Mrs. HUNT worked part-time at the Spanish Embassy where one of her close associates was Veronica Moppet, who has since married and departed the Embassy.

6. At about 2:15 p.m., as the two women and three children were preparing to go downtown to the matinee, Moppet telephoned Mrs. HUNT to report that President Kennedy had been shot. I remember that all of us, including Mr. and Mrs. HUNT, stood and stared at each other. I ran next door to the neighbors and asked what had happened. A neighbor suggested I turn on the radio. When I went back in the HUNT'S house, Mr. HUNT was turning on the T.V. set.

7. The first thing we heard on the T.V. was a newsman saying it was now 15 minutes since the shot had been fired and they still did not know how badly the President had been injured.

8. Mr. and Mrs. HUNT, Aunt Leonie, the three older Hunt children and I spent the rest of the day and that evening in the house watching T.V. reports.

Rockefeller Commission handwritten notes revealed "Mary Trayner 652-2939 Matinee? Went next door over radio HUNT around all day, I think. Children home. May have been excused for matinee since aunt visiting. 45 minutes after assassination. Watched in evening too with HUNT."

During a telephone call with HUNT on March 7, 1975, Robert Olsen, an investigator for the Rockefeller Commission, was told by HUNT: "Mary Trayner seems to be in error if she means that Mrs. HUNT learned of assassination for first time from Veronica Moppett. He has no recollection of Moppett call, but it certainly could have happened." This was extracted from Olsen's handwritten notes. In his report on this telephone conversation he wrote, "I asked Mr. HUNT about the apparent inconsistency between his description to us of the circumstances under which he heard about President Kennedy's assassination and the letter from a former family maid, Mary Trayner. In particular I called his attention to the fact that Mrs. Trayner, in her letter, advises that Mr. and Mrs. HUNT were at home when word of the assassination came in a telephone call from Veronica Moppett. This is inconsistent with Mr. HUNT'S statements that he and Mrs. HUNT heard about the assassination on the car radio while they were in downtown Washington, D.C. Mr. HUNT stated that Mary Trayner seems to be in error. He says it is entirely possible that there was such a call from Veronica Moppett, although he does not remember it. He said a lot of people were calling each other with news about the shooting of the President. He says it is possible this was the manner in which Mary Trayner heard about the shooting, and that she is simply in error in her recollection that the HUNTS were then at home."

No effort was made by Olsen to contact Virginia Moppett. Research indicated Mary Trayner died on September 17, 1980, of generalized carcinomatosis, cachexia and carcinoma of the pancreas. [D.C. Cert. of Death 80-006220] During the second HUNT v. SPOTLIGHT trial HUNT was asked why he did not depose witnesses to his whereabouts on November 22, 1963, during HUNT v. ajweberman. He stated: "The one who was alive and might have been deposed during another deposition exercise in Washington was Mary Trayner. She was alive at the time I filed the lawsuit. She was alive at the time Messrs. Helms and ANGLETON were deposed by ajweberman in Washington. She was not deposed. She was noticed, but I guess it got late in the day and they decided not to. Subsequently she died."

The Rockefeller Commission questioned Howard St John Hunt:

1. When, where and how you first learned of the shooting in Dallas.

- I was only nine years old at the time and to the best of my recollection I was in school, in class, and I believe the announcement was made over the school P.A. system.

2. What did you do during the remainder of the day after learning of the shooting?

- I went about my usual school routine and went home.

3. Who was with you when you learned of the assassination and later that day?

- To the best of my memory I can't recall anyone in particular that was with me.

4. The whereabouts of your father as best you can recollect from your own observation on November 22, 1963.

- To the best of my recollection I do not recall seeing my father on that day. I might also add that I do not recall him not being there, at our house.

5. The whereabouts of your mother as best as you can recollect from your own observation on that day.

- To the best of my recollection on that day I do not recall seeing my mother. As with the above answer I do not recall her absence.

As I was at a very young age, [9] my recollections of November 22, 1963, are not very vivid in my mind. May 6, 1975.

The Rockefeller Commission: "A son, who was nine-years-old at the time [Howard St. John], could not recall whether his parents were present or absent that day." Notes of a telephone call with St. John revealed his recollection of that day was hazy: "School got out at usual time. Either got picked up by parents or rode bus. Doesn't remember his father or mother not being there."

Lisa Hunt a was 14-year-old at the time. Her affidavit stated: "On that date I was living with my parents in our house in Sumner, Maryland. After returning from school that afternoon and throughout the weekend that followed, I was with my father and my mother at our house spending much of the time watching television. May 16, 1975." An Archivist with the initials KBH withheld a Memo by Robert Olsen to File for National Security reasons. "Interview with HOWARD HUNT and his daughter Lisa Hunt on March 4, 1975, regarding HUNT'S association with CIA and his whereabouts on November 22, 1963. Creation date March 6, 1963, six pages Collection/Series/Folder ID 01800005 Box 1 Folder title O-R (I-AA) HUNT, E. Interviewed March 4, 1975. Date withdrawn March 16, 1992. Withdrawing Archivist KBH. Withdrawal ID 04316." Parts of this document have been subsequently released.

In June 1977 HUNT testified under oath about his whereabouts on November 22, 1963:

Q. Could you specifically give me, to the best of your recollection, your location at the time you heard that President Kennedy was killed?

A. All I can give you is that when I first heard the news, which came over the car radio, I was on 'H' Street about 9th N.W., Washington. I was driving home from a Chinese grocery store.

Q. Do you remember the name of the Chinese grocery store?

A. Wah Ling.

Q. This is near your home?

A. No, it was quite a distance. It was in downtown Washington, and I lived in suburban Maryland at the time.

Q. So in fact on that day you were away from the house for how long a period?

A. I don't recall.

Q. Could it have been six to eight hours, or more, or less? Can you pinpoint it?

A. I would put it about two hours.

Q. Do you recall your telephone number at that time?

A. No.

Q. Do you recall any friends who may have called you by telephone that day?

A. No.

Q. Can you recall any other activities, or contacts, unusual enough to remember, besides the grocery store and the guests at your house?

A. No.

Q. Are there any independent witnesses who would know of your whereabouts since 1963, or connected with the Intelligence Division, to your knowledge, house guests?

A. Not to the best of my knowledge or recollection, no.

Q. At the time of the Rockefeller Commission Report, the report states, and I quote "A son who was nine years old at the time could not recall whether his parents were present or absent that day." Can you explain the problem of the child's failure to remember seeing you for any reason?

A. No.

Q. Are you totally certain of your whereabouts on the day of the assassination?

A. Totally certain.

Q. Were you in good health that day?

A. As far as I know I was.

Q. Did you take any sick leave during that period?

A. I may have. I don't know.

Q. Would sick leave be taken on that particular day?

A. It's entirely possible. I suffer from ulcers.

Q. I am asking whether you took 11 hours of sick leave during that period?

A. I don't recall. If they have that on record they would certainly have a day-by-day rundown of it then.

Q. It does not give a specific day that you took the sick leave. That is why I am asking you if you recall.

A. No, I don't recall.

Q. Perhaps you visited the CIA during the day, as you would during an ordinary business day?

A. I have no idea. Certainly, afterward I did.

Q. But you could have stopped by the office?

A. It's possible I was there in the morning, yes.

HUNT was asked about witnesses to his whereabouts. He replied: "I was with a large number of people. Later on I went home and was with my wife and children, my aunt, and I was with the maid, and neighbors." The deposition continued:

Q. What are the names of the children that saw you on November 22, 1963?

A. My son Howard, my daughter Lisa, and my daughter Kevan.

Q. Are there any problems in the minds of any of your children, in other words, are they clear and accurate in their memories, do they have any problems with remembering things?

A. One daughter was hospitalized in 1966 [Lisa Hunt had received in-patient treatment for a psychiatric disorder in 1966 which HUNT claimed was caused by brain damage after an automobile accident] but as of that time there have been no problems.

Q. All of the children saw you that day?

A. Yes.

Q. The Rockefeller Commission Report states, "A son who was nine-years-old at the time could not recall whether his parents were present or absent that day." Can you explain the problem of the child's failure to remember seeing you for any reason?

A. No.

Q. Did the other two children in fact verify with certainty your whereabouts on that day?

A. I know one did later, my daughter, because she went to the Rockefeller Commission with me and was interrogated several times. The other daughter was not in the Washington vicinity. I don't know when or at what time she was contacted.

Q. But she was there on November 22, 1963?

A. Yes, but as I say I don't know what her contact with the Rockefeller Commission was.

Q. Would her testimony indicate with certainty what the other daughter had given by way of testimony?

A. I would assume so.

Q. But you don't know? Did you ever ask her?

A. Oh, yes. She remembers me picking her up at school. She was with several of Bobby Kennedy's kids. I came by earlier than usual to pick her up after school.

Q. Do you remember the time?

A. No.

Q. Other than your children and your wife, would anybody else be able to verify your whereabouts on that day?

A. Yes. Mr. and Mrs. Raymond Thomas of Pompano Beach, Florida. They are former neighbors, but they moved away, and I've lost track of them.

Q. Anybody else you can recall that might be able to verify your whereabouts on that day?

A. My wife's aunt was staying with us at the time, the late Mrs. Leona Drexler. She had spoken with her daughter that day about the events. So the daughter in Chicago would be able to give you a third party. [The daughter of Leona Drexler was not deposed since her testimony would have been hearsay.]

HUNT'S testimony was self-contradictory. He said he was away from home for two hours that entire day, then said he may have been in the office that morning.

This data base compiler snookered HOWARD HUNT into changing his alibi. In the Spring of 1978 HEMMING telephoned me in Washington, D.C., to offer his services in helping compose the deposition questions in HUNT v. ajweberman. That afternoon, this researcher had discovered that a Wah Ling's grocery store existed in Washington, D.C., during a search of the Washington, D.C., 1963 Coles Crisscross Directory. I told HEMMING: "You ain't gonna believe this my man, but I located Mr. Wah Ling! And he doesn't remember HUNT coming into his store that day." HEMMING said, "I believe it A.J.. 'cause you do your homework." HEMMING recorded this telephone call and gave the tape to HUNT who changed his alibi during his June 1978 deposition:

Q. Did you telephone Wah Ling's grocery store on the morning of November 22, 1963?

A. No.

Q. Where is Wah Ling's located in Washington, D.C.?

A. I don't think that the grocery store existed or ever existed. In fact, in the testimony that I gave to the Church Committee, if you recall I said, to the best of my recollection, the name of the grocery store was Wah Ling (phonetic). Having revisited the site, in fact, by chance having dinner in Chinatown fairly recently, I determined the name of the grocery store was Tuck Cheong, T-u-c-k C-h-e-o-n-g.

Q. So you are now saying that your alibi for the day of the assassination, Wah Ling's grocery, is now changed to a different grocery store?

A. Well, I am saying now that attempting to recollect a couple of years ago, the name of the Chinese grocery store, one of several on 8th Street, that my wife visited on that afternoon, certainly is subject to re-examination and refreshment which I have done.

Q. Now that you have refreshed your memory, where is this Tuck Cheong?

A. It is on H Street between 6th and 7th Northwest, in Washington.

Q. What did you purchase that day?

A. I don't know. My wife made the purchases. She went into the grocery store. I stayed in the car with the children.

Q. If I told you there was a Wah Ling's grocery in Washington, D.C., would that surprise you?

A. I would say simply that it was one, of the probably several, that my wife visited that day.

Q. Do you remember the testimony you gave to the FBI as to when you picked up your children that day?

A. No I have never seen the FBI memorandum.

ajweberman: Here it is.

Rubin: If you have it there may we see it?

Friedman: Yes, sir. We are going to show it to you. (Hands a copy of instrument to counsel.)

Rubin: All right, go ahead and read it.

Friedman: "On October 17, 1974, E. HOWARD HUNT advised [the FBI] that he recalls hearing about the assassination over his car radio immediately after leaving a Chinese grocery store in the area of 9th and H Street N.W. Washington, D.C., on November 22, 1963. He was with his wife Dorothy, who is now deceased. Before returning home, they picked-up their daughter, Kevan, at Sidwell Friends School, Wisconsin Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. He could recall no contact on that date with anyone other than possibly a former neighbor. He advised that his personal records pertaining to November 22, 1963, were destroyed several years ago."

Mr. Rubin: All right. Now how has Mr. HUNT testified any differently than from what you have just said?

Q. (By Mr. Friedman.) Within the context of this particular report, which I will present to you while we make copies of it, it indicates that the grocery store came before picking up the children.

A. Then I would say that I stayed in the car with the dog, rather than with the children.

Q. This would be different from what you testified earlier.

A. Well, we are talking about recollection of a good many years ago. Yes.

Q. So this refreshes your recollection?

A. Yes, as to what I testified to earlier. This is not testified, and it is not a sworn statement in any case.

Thinking Mee Wah Ling was to appear as a witness, HUNT changed his alibi to Tuck Cheong. There was no Tuck Cheong in the 1963 crisscross directory or phone book. Tuck Cheong could never be produced in a court of law, because he did not exist. HUNT stated that he had waited in the car to cover himself in the event Mee Wah Ling was produced at the trial. This would be HUNT'S explanation as to why Mee Wah Ling did not remember him coming into his store that day. Seeking a reason for having waited in the car, instead of accompanying his wife into the store, he had to fabricate someone, or something, in the car that needed supervision. At first it was his children, then his dog. During the 1985 HUNT v. SPOTLIGHT trial, HUNT stated: "I was at the time of the shooting, I was in Washington, D.C., on H Street between 8th and 9th seated in our car with my two and a half month old son David, while my wife was making purchases at Chinese grocery stores on both sides of the street." When confronted with his change in alibi by Lane he stated:

A. Well, my wife made purchases at several grocery stores. There was another one nearby that she may have gone by, Tuck Cheong, I don't know and subsequently I added that statement. Tuck Cheong.

Q. My question is: Did you in an affidavit state under oath that you had been purchasing groceries? "We had been purchasing groceries in a Chinese grocery store." That you recall at that time to be called Wah Ling?

A. Yes, I so stated.

Q. Was that a mistake, or now you are saying you were in more than one grocery store?

A. I am saying my wife was in more than one grocery store. Chinese names are not terribly easy for me to remember. It seems the one we were parked in front of was Wah Ling.

Q. Then in 1978, when you appeared before the HSCA did you not, in fact, say the Wah Ling reference was wrong?

A. I did.

Q. Now are you saying it's right or wrong?

A. I am saying it could have been either way. Tuck Cheong or Wah Ling.

Q. Now, are you saying that [your HSCA testimony] was wrong, in fact, it was both of them, is that correct?

A. It could easily have been.

HUNT was crossed examined by his attorney, William Sndyer:

Q. Mr. Lane asked you about the name of the Chinese grocery store and said you had testified on a prior occasion that the name was Wah Ling, then you testified it was Tuck Cheong. Now you think it is both. Were you in any way misleading anyone when you gave those prior statements?

A. No, I don't regard it as significant. Anybody who has ever been to Chinatown in Washington, D.C., would know that you have Chinese grocery stores. There are grocery stores on both sides of the street. They line the place. That is the nature of Chinatown. There was no intent to deceive.

During his deposition in June 1978, HUNT offered to settle the lawsuit for $1 and a letter of apology. At a latter deposition Ellis Rubin was asked about this offer: "Who said that?" "I believe you did." "I did?" "Yes." "Where was this?" "During the last depositions here in Miami" "I deny that most emphatically." "Off the record, you did it off the record." "Off the record, or on the record, I never said such a thing, because I am not authorized by HOWARD HUNT to say such a thing."

HEMMING denied having had contact with HUNT in 1978. In 1994 HEMMING stated: "STURGIS lived on 125th Street. I stopped by his house. We went to the Jeb Bush campaign. Two of my guys were working with him at the time, 1977. I had no other dealings with STURGIS in 1978."

In 1981, during a deposition in the first HUNT v. SPOTLIGHT case, HUNT stated: "My wife had...driven downtown with our infant son, who was only about three months old, to pick me up. She wanted to buy ingredients for Chinese dinners, and we proceeded from my office downtown over to 'H' Street where there are several Chinese restaurants and a number of grocery stores. She needed me to sit in the car while she went into the grocery store." HUNT waited in the car with the baby while she bought the groceries. This explained why she did not buy the groceries before picking up her husband, and supported HUNT'S previous testimony.

Why drive around with a three-month-old baby? Why didn't Dorothy Hunt leave the baby with Mary Trayner? HUNT'S claim that he was at his office that morning conformed to the testimony of Walter Kuzmuk.

On February 6, 1979, Walter P. Kuzmuk had signed the following sworn statement that was entered into evidence in HUNT v. ajweberman:

Having become aware through the press of questions raised concerning the whereabouts of E. HOWARD HUNT on November 22, 1963, the day which President Kennedy was assassinated, I wish to make the following voluntary statement:

On November 22, 1963, I was in Washington, D.C. I lunched that day at Duke Zeibert's restaurant on L Street just off Connecticut Avenue. My luncheon companion was Mr. John Sucard.

When we left the restaurant, we walked to Connecticut Avenue, and while waiting at the red light I noticed E. HOWARD HUNT and his wife, Dorothy, driving in their Chevrolet station wagon. It is my recollection that their direction of travel was northward.

I was familiar with the HUNT'S station wagon, having ridden in it from time to time with Mr. HUNT, to and from CIA offices. And as a near neighbor of the HUNTS I knew Mrs. HUNT, having been in their home on several occasions.

Shortly after seeing the HUNTS on Connecticut Avenue I became aware that President Kennedy had been shot in Dallas and most of the government offices were closing for the rest of the day. However I returned to my office before going home.

Walter Kuzmuk

POB 756

Long Key, Florida. 33001

February 6, 1979

Walter Kuzmuk had served in the OSS with HUNT in 1945, and was a 27-year veteran of the CIA who, in 1963, was HUNT'S friend and neighbor. He had visited HUNT'S home on more than several occasions. These men saw each other on a daily basis, and worked in the same office, on the same floor. Walter Kuzmuk: "We lived within four or five houses of one another's homes. My wife was friendly with his wife, and my children were friendly with his children...his children and our children went to school together, and there was always like - they bring them home and things of that nature." [Kuzmuk testimony, 2nd HUNT v. SPOTLIGHT trial, Kuzmuk deposition in same matter 6.28.84] Walter Kuzmuk did not reveal this information until February 1979, when he decided to mail it to Ellis Rubin. Walter Kuzmuk wrote: "Having become aware through the press of questions raised concerning E. HOWARD HUNT'S whereabouts on November 22, 1963, I wish to make the following voluntary statement."

What took Walter Kuzmuk so long to become aware of the allegations that HUNT was in Dallas? Walter Kuzmuk claimed it was the Dick Gregory press conference that triggered his affidavit. The Dick Gregory press conference took place in 1975, four years before Walter Kuzmuk came forward. Why did he wait until HUNT'S Wah Ling alibi fell apart? The CIA had an interest in clearing HUNT. If HUNT was connected with the Kennedy assassination it would have meant the end of the CIA. The CIA followed the progress of HUNT v. ajweberman. When Attorney Mark Lane questioned Richard Helms about the CIA's interest in Clay Shaw, Richard Helms' CIA Counsel handed him his HUNT v. ajweberman deposition. Did Walter Kuzmuk come forward at the request of the CIA? Or at HUNT'S request?

In the Spring of 1980 a Nazi newspaper called The Spotlight ran a story by Victor Marchetti that placed HUNT in Dallas on November 22, 1963. HUNT sued Spotlight. On December 15, 1981, during the first HUNT v. SPOTLIGHT trial, the testimony of Walter Kuzmuk was repeated when Ellis Rubin read from his December 7, 1981, deposition. Walter Kuzmuk had testified: "I got into the office in the morning [of November 22, 1963] and then lunch time arrived. As usual, several of us got together and went to lunch at Duke Ziebert's, right around the corner from where the office was located, and I was with several of my colleagues. I guess it was around 1:00 p.m., 1:30 p.m...and I saw a car go by and I noticed HOWARD and Betty - not Betty - Dorothy...and I waved at them."

In his first statement he said he was dining with one man - now he was with several. During the second HUNT v. SPOTLIGHT trial Kuzmuk said he was with John Sucher and Louis Rucker. Due in part to the testimony of Walter Kuzmuk, Spotlight lost the first HUNT v. SPOTLIGHT trial and the jury awarded HUNT $100,000 in compensatory damages and $550,000 in punitive damages.

A Federal Court of Appeals Judge reversed the Spotlight conviction on a technicality and ordered a new trial begin. Spotlight hired Mark Lane to represent it. Mark Lane punched holes in Kuzmuk's story. When Mark Lane questioned HUNT about how he traveled to the CIA on the morning of November 22, 1963, HUNT stated: "There was no other way I could have gotten into work that morning. I would have had to have driven in with him [Kuzmuk]." Mark Lane cross-examined Walter Kuzmuk who stated: "Although he had previously testified that he and HUNT drove together to the CIA almost every morning, alternating automobiles, he could not testify that he had seen HUNT on any weekday beginning Monday, November 18, 1963, and ending Friday, November 22, 1963, except for the time HUNT drove past the restaurant that Kuzmuk was leaving after lunch...Furthermore, to the best of his recollection, HUNT had not shown up for regularly scheduled meetings on November 20, 1963, and on November 22, 1963." Walter Kuzmuk repeatedly asserted that he had not driven to work with HUNT on November 22, 1963: "So on that date, I drove, because Mr. HUNT was not with me that day until I met him on the avenue."

This part of Walter Kuzmuk's testimony conflicted with HUNT, who stated: "I probably rode in from Maryland with Mr. Kuzmuk that day."

Mark Lane also pointed to the fact that HUNT had failed to mention Walter Kuzmuk in his first deposition in HUNT v. ajweberman. HUNT: "I omitted Mr. Kuzmuk's name, and it was not brought to my attention, until a letter arrived a couple of years later from him reminding me we had been together on that particular day." When the FBI questioned HUNT on October 17, 1974, he said, "He could recall no contact on that date with anyone other than possibly a former neighbor [Raymond Thomas]."

In June 1977, HUNT stated: "I would put [the time I was away from the house on November 22, 1963] at about two hours."

Only in later depositions had HUNT left open the possibility of his being at the CIA that morning.

The Rockefeller Commission: "HUNT could not recall whether he was on duty with the CIA on the morning of that day." When HUNT was deposed in June 1977, HUNT was again uncertain whether he had gone to the office that morning. He was asked: "But could you have stopped by your office?" He answered: "It is possible I was there in the morning, yes."

Mark Lane also pointed out that Walter Kuzmuk could not place HUNT at the Agency that day. Walter Kuzmuk: "I am not sure whether he was in the office that day. I mean it's easy to be that you are on sick leave, or whatever." Walter Kuzmuk could not cite other witnesses' testimony to corroborate his testimony. No impartial agency employee could be questioned. Mark Lane asked Walter Kuzmuk if he saw HUNT later that day. He answered: "Well, I would say sure, why not? Probably on his front lawn or maybe on my front lawn. So in all probability I did." HUNT testified: "I have no reason to believe I saw Mr. Kuzmuk for the balance of that day..."

When HUNT heard the news of the assassination, why didn't he go to his office at the CIA where he could be most useful to his country? Mark Lane asked HUNT if he had learned about the assassination prior to encountering Walter Kuzmuk. HUNT: "Yes, indeed. I had learned about it when we were parked in front of a Chinese grocery store between 8th and 9th Street." Walter Kuzmuk testified that he was not aware of the assassination when he encountered HUNT. Why didn't HUNT pull over and give them the news?

HUNT testified he got the news after he reached the Chinese grocery store, not after they left the Domestic Operations Division building. Walter Kuzmuk would have had to have seen the HUNTS as they drove to Sidwell Friends School. If the HUNTS drove from Chinatown to Sidwell Friends School did the HUNTS have to have passed the Domestic Operations Division building?

HUNT'S fifth alibi accommodated the testimony of his secretary at the Domestic Operations Division, Connie Hicks Mazerov. In May 1978, during the period when HUNT was erroneously under the impression that Mee Wah Ling had been located, Connie Mazerov composed the following sworn statement:

The following statement represents the factual events of November 22, 1963.

I was employed by the CIA from April 1961 through August 1964 as a clerk typist. On November 22, 1963, I was working for the Domestic Operations Division whose offices were located at 1717 H Street in Washington, D.C. My superior was E. HOWARD HUNT. On the morning of Friday, November 22, 1963, I was at my desk doing routine work. Mr. HUNT was in his office until lunch time, at which time he left. His secretary, Ms. Margaret Amesbury and I were in the office after lunch, when a co-worker informed us John F. Kennedy had been shot. Ms. Amesbury and I discussed whether we should leave as Mr. HUNT had not yet returned from lunch. We decided that as soon as he heard the news he would realize that most government workers had been dismissed, and we both left our office. (Signed)

Connie Joy Hicks Mazerov.

May 16, 1978.

Connie Mazerov had revealed the address of a former CIA installation, and the name of a CIA employee - Margaret Amesbury. Had she obtained the permission of the CIA to do this?

Connie Mazerov was contacted in February 1994: "No, I never at any time talked to anyone from the CIA. They did not ask me to come forward with this. What happened is I am close friends with Elizabeth McIntosh. We have remained in contact with each other for many years. She called me. She was retired. She said, 'Do you remember seeing HOWARD that day?' I talked to her for awhile. That was the only contact. She did not have any contact, nor had I. She knew where I was. I had not heard about the HUNT/tramp allegations prior to this. I followed HOWARD'S role in Watergate. I had no idea the rest of that was going on. I assume HOWARD may have called her and asked her to call. She was in contact with him at that point. I assume he called her, and asked her what her schedule was that day, and if she remembered seeing him at the office. Because, at the point in time, when all of this was going on, HOWARD'S wife was already dead. His children were fairly young."

Elizabeth "Betty" McIntosh was in the OSS during World War II. McIntosh first met HUNT when she was serving "in the OSS in Chicago, behind the lines with HOWARD in 1944." On December 13, 1977, McInosh attended a luncheon sponsored by David Atlee Philips where she told The New York Times: "'That's what hurts, you've lived so long, you thought you were doing it the right way, and people now say you were doing something terrible and dishonorable.' Mrs. McIntosh, who was at Pearl Harbor on the day it was bombed, spoke for many when she said 'There was a real reason for what we were doing in those days. A lot of things we tried didn't work, but it was war, and it was important. Today we seem to be swimming around in a bowl of warm mush.' Mrs. McIntosh recalled the time when she was serving with a psychological warfare unit in China in World War II. Since surrender was anathema to Japanese culture, Mrs. McIntosh and her comrades covertly placed on a dead courier false documents that purported to be a message from the Prime Minister. The documents, written by prisoners of war, said that it was alright to surrender under certain circumstances, and Mrs. McIntosh believes this helped to weaken the Japanese resistance." [NYT 12.13.77]

McIntosh was the female counterpart to HOWARD HUNT. She was the author of a article entitled The Role of Women in Intelligence [published by Association of Former Intelligence Officers] and a book entitled Undercover Girl.

Connie Mazerov was more than HUNT'S secretary, she was his operative. When HUNT ran an operation against Senator Barry Goldwater, he had Connie Mazerov pick up the campaign speeches of Senator Barry Goldwater. Connie Mazerov told The Washington Post that she did perform courier work when she worked for the CIA. [Wash. Post 12.21.73] Connie Mazerov: "I worked for Amesbury and HOWARD. In the course of my duties as a clerk/typist I picked-up information, and I didn't know what it was. I picked up envelopes at one location and took them to another location."

On September 15, 1971, "(Deleted) HUNT asked CIA to detail a certain secretary to the White House to work for him. (Deleted) General Robert Cushman (deleted)." [CIA Memo for Rec. 6.19.73 Meeting with (deleted) Chief EEAB/Pers.]Connie Mazerov submitted her statement during the HUNT v. ajweberman proceedings, however, she testified for the first time at the second HUNT v. SPOTLIGHT trial. Connie Mazerov said she had seen HUNT at work early that morning. Mark Lane wrote: "As to the meetings he was supposed to have attended later that morning [according to one of HUNT'S versions of events] she couldn't recall seeing him there. She never saw anyone else that morning who could have seen him." Connie Mazerov: "I would have never been in a meeting. I was a GS-5." Like Walter Kuzmuk, Connie Mazerov was unable to name other witnesses who saw HUNT at the CIA that day, however, Connie Mazerov unequivocally stated that she had seen HUNT at the CIA that morning. There were two possibilities: Either Connie Mazerov was mistaken or she surfaced at the CIA's or at HUNT'S behest. The possibility exists the CIA activated Connie Mazerov (and Walter Kuzmuk) when it saw that HUNT'S defense was floundering, although no sources in the CIA or CIA documents have confirmed this to date. Mark Lane pointed to the fact that HUNT failed to mention Connie Mazerov as a witness to his whereabouts on November 22, 1963, in his first deposition in HUNT v. ajweberman, in order to cast doubt on her testimony.

Connie Mazerov: "I saw HUNT at the CIA that day. What time? I'm really digging here. As close as I can recall - its been a lot of years since I testified too." Connie Mazerov's testimony was read to her: "I knew I'd seen him in the morning, and that he had left for lunch. It could have been 11:30 a.m., 12:00 p.m. He generally didn't tell us what he was going to do for lunch. Mrs. Amesbury saw him too. At that time I was in my early 20's, and this woman was in her 50's. There's a very good chance this lady is not alive. When I testified in Florida, I believe at that time they could not locate her. I think the only people they had was Betty McIntosh and myself. She also was my superior, a GS-13. To understand how somebody could be there, and no one could see them, you'd have to understand the way the offices were set up. The building that we were in - everybody had two or three rooms in there - and the doors were closed. So it possible to come in and go into your office and really not see anybody. Each group did their own thing and didn't know what the people next door were doing. There are no traces of him being there that I know of. But you understand it was a lot of years before anyone would have looked for anything like that. I believe Mrs. McIntosh did not see him that day. She was out. She was in the city.

"I did not testify at first Spotlight trial. I testified during the second trial. To my knowledge he was in the office all morning. At least that's what I remembered at the time. There is no way I could be mistaken. I think everyone fairly well remembers what they were doing that day. If you picked another day out of a year, 25 or 30 years ago, I probably wouldn't even remember what state I was living in. He was there. I've seen the tramp shots. Nothing I ever saw would lead me to believe it was him."

HEMMING told this researcher: "People tend to remember the events of an hour preceding the assassination and what went on as they heard more and more news, and what happened that evening. But details of who was supposed to be where, or what, before the event, is not likely. Even a week after the event. Mazerov made the statement out of pure loyalty to HUNT. You probably have a two or three day period there where he ain't around. Or somebody could have put things in her mind, saying 'Don't you remember we did this?' Amesbury called her looking for a witness."

Connie Mazerov had seen HUNT before he went to lunch - this testimony was contradicted by HUNT'S first FBI interview during which he said he had lunch with his wife at home. In addition to these numerous contradictions, during HUNT'S testimony in the second HUNT v. SPOTLIGHT trial, HUNT said he drove to work on the morning of November 22, 1963, with Walter Cushman.

HUNT maintained that he did not know STURGIS in 1963 so he could not have been involved with him in a plot to kill John Kennedy. HUNT claimed he met STURGIS in the Spring of 1972, through BERNARD BARKER. STURGIS, however, told Andrew St. George: "The Bay of Pigs, hey, there was one sweet mess. I met HOWARD HUNT that year [1961], he was the political officer of the exile brigade. BERNARD BARKER was HUNT'S right hand man, his confidential clerk - his body servant. I wish I'd never met the dumb head. You know, BARKER tells everybody to call him 'Macho.' That's supposed to be his nick name. A man who is macho is supposed to be some kind of virile hard charger. Calling BARKER macho is like call Liberace 'Slugger.' When he is around HUNT, or anybody that's over him, BARKER is like a valet. Servile. You know what I mean? 'Sit here Mr. HUNT so the sun won't bother you.' It's disgusting. 'Yes, sir, Mr. HUNT let me refresh your drink, sir.' And BARKER is the biggest scrooge you ever saw. HUNT gives him $500 saying, 'Round up some men, we have a job to do.' So BARKER comes downtown and he says to me 'Let's have lunch, I need some people for Mr. HUNT.' And you know where we end up having lunch? In the cheapest hamburger joint in Miami." [St. George, Swank, 8.64] In 1961 STURGIS told a CIA source he was a "member of the anti-Castro group Cuban Revolutionary Front." [CIA DBF 75627 4.24.61; DBF 89191 9.22.61]

In 1978 STURGIS was asked:

Q. Did you know HOWARD HUNT in 1963?

A. Let me say this here. I have worked in the intelligence field off and on for years and there is compartmentation with people that you work with directly. I don't recall ever meeting HOWARD HUNT personally. I don't recall meeting HOWARD HUNT. In 1963.

Q. Do you remember speaking to Andrew St. George about the Bay of Pigs?

A. Oh, that was so many years ago, it's possible.

Q. Do you remember telling Andrew St. George that you worked with HOWARD HUNT on the Bay of Pigs invasion?

A. Andrew may get his things a little bit mixed up. Now, understand one thing, before the Bay of Pigs invasion I was working in a different sector because E. HOWARD HUNT was a political officer and I was not associated with the political end of the Bay of Pigs invasion.

Q. Did you say that to Andrew St. George?

A. No, and if Andrew said that he is lying.

Q. And if Marita says it, she is lying, too?

A. If she picked up what Andrew says, then it's not so.

MR. RUBIN: They are lying just like they ajweberman did in his book. The whole book is a lie and we will prove it in court.

During his deposition in HUNT v. ajweberman STURGIS stated:

A. Now again I don't believe I ever met E. HOWARD HUNT, but we all knew, many of us knew, "EDUARDO" was the officer of the Cuban Revolutionary Council.

Q. Did you ever meet EDUARDO?

A. I don't recall. This is the thing. I don't recall.

In 1975 the Rockefeller Commission questioned him about this: "Doesn't recall saying that, or recall meeting him before 1972." Handwritten notes reflected that STURGIS told the Rockefeller Commission: "Met HUNT when: In 1972 personally. Know of him as "EDUARDO" as early as 1960 or 1961. BARKER introduced them in 1972 at BARKER'S office in Miami."

"Quotes regarding HUNT: 'Met him in 1961' - Doesn't recall saying that, or recall meeting him, before 1972.Heard of him in connection with Bay of Pigs, as "EDUARDO" knew of him then, but doesn't think they ever met. HUNT is professional who has affected disposals. Denies ever saying this. HUNT was a political officer and didn't have a hand in killings." STURGIS also told Olsen: "HUNT left Miami one week before Bay of Pigs."

STURGIS was questioned by Robert B. Olsen of the Rockefeller Commission:

STURGIS: I don't know if it was in 1972 or the latter part of 1971 that I met HUNT, and I was introduced. And he said, FRANK, this is HOWARD HUNT.

Olsen: Who introduced you?

STURGIS: BARKER did. And I said 'Oh EDUARDO!'

Olsen: Do we understand then, FRANK, that you had heard of "EDUARDO" during the Bay of Pigs planning and so forth, but you had never met him?

STURGIS: Right, sir. To the best of my knowledge I had never met HOWARD HUNT up until the day in Miami when BARKER introduced me to HOWARD in his office.

HUNT and STURGIS' relationship dated back to World War II. Events indicated they met in Guadalcanal in 1943, when STURGIS was a Marine, and HUNT a war correspondent. When HUNT spoke with Andrew St. George in August 1974 he was unaware of the implications of his remarks regarding his long term relationship with HUNT, however, once the tramp story surfaced STURGIS changed his tune. Now, he said, he could not have been one of the tramps in Dealey Plaza along with HUNT, because he did not know HUNT in 1963, having first been introduced to HUNT by BARKER in 1971. STURGIS claimed to have little respect for BARKER. As this researcher has documented, STURGIS was BARKER'S number one source of information for many years. STURGIS said BARKER, on behalf of HUNT, approached him to do a domestic assassination. This indicated how close the relationship was between the two men and that by denouncing BARKER, STURGIS was trying to hide this relationship.

STURGIS told a Rockefeller Commission investigator that "he started getting involved with Cuban people in Miami in about 1945." In 1949 HUNT wrote Bimini Run, which he prefaced with the disclaimer: "The people in this book are imaginary and are not intended to represent persons living or dead.":

1. The hero of Bimini Run, Hank Sturgis, was an ex-Marine who had been trained at Parris Island. FRANK STURGIS was an ex-Marine who had been trained at Parris Island.

2. Hank Sturgis had seen extensive combat in the Far East including "the Canal."

FRANK STURGIS was in Iwo Jima, Okinawa and Guadalcanal.

3. Hank Sturgis had been wounded in action.

FRANK STURGIS had been wounded in action and had a scar on his right wrist from the wound.

4. Hank Sturgis had been hospitalized after the war.

FRANK STURGIS had been hospitalized after the war.

5. Hank Sturgis worked as a bartender.

FRANK STURGIS worked as a bartender and owned a tavern.

6. Hank Sturgis lived in Miami.

FRANK STURGIS lived in Norfolk, but visited Miami frequently.

7. Hank Sturgis was a gambler.

Juanita Terrell told the FBI that her ex-husband, FRANK STURGIS, was involved in gambling activity.

8. Hank Sturgis frequented the Gulfstream Race Track.

FRANK STURGIS worked at the Gulfstream Race Track.

9. Hank Sturgis was an accomplished marksman.

FRANK STURGIS was an accomplished marksman.

10. Hank Sturgis was familiar with the Andros Islands.

FRANK STURGIS was familiar with the Andros Islands.

STURGIS was asked if he had ever worked as a bartender:

A. I did work as a bartender. As a matter of fact, during the Watergate investigation I was questioned about that book. I have never read that book...

Q. Don't you think the character Hank Sturgis seems to follow your own history to a great extent?

A. Right. My wife thinks that too. She says, 'It could be you.' I don't see how it could be. He didn't know me at that particular time when he wrote the book...I don't know when he wrote it.

Robert B. Olsen of the Rockefeller Commission questioned STURGIS about Bimini Run:

Olsen: Was the any particular reason why you wanted to change your name when you were already an adult, grown up?

STURGIS: The reason for that was that I felt there were too many FIORINIS, FRANK FIORINI'S especially. I don't know. My mother wanted me to change the name really because she had a bad situation with my father and she hated the FIORINI family.

Olsen: I take it from what you say on that score, then, FRANK, that you were not then aware at the time your name was legally changed in Norfolk, Virginia, of the fact that E. HOWARD HUNT had written a novel in the late 1940's in which a character appeared by the name of Hank Sturgis. Is that true?

STURGIS: Would you believe that the Special Committee, they got me on that. And it is a coincidence, because I got the book at home. And my wife read that book and I read that book. And it is just like it would be my type of character.

Pipe smoking Henry Reed Sturgis, a college dropout, was actually a synthesis between FRANK STURGIS and HOWARD HUNT. Evidence suggested FRANK FIORINI used the name FRANK STURGIS before he legally changed it in 1952 -- three years after HUNT wrote about Hank Sturgis in Bimini Run.

In 1975 STURGIS told Michael Canfield how he had used the two names to conceal his identity: "You see where I live at? A lot of people in that area before the Watergate thing, they never knew who I was. I go off two, three weeks at a time. They figured I was a salesman. And here I am, involved in every goddamn thing imaginable. And I've never used STURGIS in any of my activities. I've always used FIORINI...So if any publicity came out, it came out in [FIORINI]. I left STURGIS alone." Conversely, when FRANK'S legal name was FIORINI he might have used STURGIS for "every goddamn thing imaginable." HUNT knew him by his nom-de-guerre, FRANK STURGIS, and used the name in his novel.

A. During the war I met a Captain Sturgis, whom I became very fond of. He contracted tuberculosis in the jungles. He came back home in a ship and went up to Saranac Lake Sanitarium. I heard subsequently he died of the T.B. he incurred in the Far East during the war. I was a great admirer of this individual. His name came to mind when I wrote the book.

Q. What was his first name?

A. My guess is it was Lee.

Q. What is his hometown, how can we get in touch with him?

A. I said he died.

Q. Did you in fact characterize HANK STURGIS in the 1949 book as a bartender as well as a soldier-of-fortune and ex-Marine?

A. Gee, I wouldn't remember. I probably wrote three dozen books since then.

HUNT added that the rest of Hank Sturgis' characteristics were his own invention. There was no similarity to FRANK STURGIS besides the name, although he admitted: "I heard of an adventurer [named] FIORINI, but it wasn't until early 1972 that BERNIE BARKER introduced me to an individual now known as FRANK STURGIS."

THE ROCKEFELLER COMMISSION

The Rockefeller Commission attempted to resolve the Bimini Run question, however, it did not address itself to the real issue, because Dick Gregory's associate, Ralph Schoenman, confused the information that had been given to him by this researcher. Ralph Schoenman testified that FIORINI took the name STURGIS from a character in Bimini Run, rather than testifying that HUNT had patterned a character in Bimini Run after STURGIS: "One witness asserted that STURGIS is a pseudonym; that his name is FRANK FIORINI; and that he took the name STURGIS from a fictional character [Hank Sturgis] in a novel written by HUNT in 1949 [Bimini Run]...A search of the relevant court records disclosed that a petition was filed on September 23, 1952, in the Norfolk [Virginia] City Circuit Court pursuant to which a FRANK ANGELO FIORINO petitioned to change his name to FRANK ANTHONY STURGIS. The petition recited that his mother had divorced his father about 15 years previously, and had married one Ralph Sturgis, that he had been living with his mother all of his life, that his mother was known as Mary Sturgis, and that his stepfather also desired him to change his name to STURGIS. A court order was entered on September 23, 1952, (the same date as the petition) changing his name to FRANK ANTHONY STURGIS...In the petition and the order relating to the change of name, FIORINI was misspelled as Fiorino. In light of this documentary evidence, no weight can be given to the claim that STURGIS took his present name from a character in a HUNT novel - or that the name change was associated in any way with STURGIS' knowing HUNT before 1971 or 1972."

Rockefeller Commission notes dealt with the Fiorino question: "Telephone Conversation with STURGIS May 3, 1975, Called him to ask about spelling of the name 'Fiorino" on petition snf order covering his name change. He joked about the fact Italians can't spell. Said his birth certificate and military records were all FIORINI, but that his grandfather might have spelled the name Fiorino. Confirmed that his mother's maiden name was Mary Vona, and his father was Angelo Anthony Fiorini. For his new middle name, he switched from his father's first name to his father's middle name - Italian custom to carry father's name, he said. Probably just an error on the court papers - both of which were probably prepared by the same attorney. Note. FRANK'S signature on the petition is ambiguous. It could be read as either 'I' or an 'o.'"

HUNT and STURGIS both knew the same people so it was likely that they knew one another. The CIA pointed this out in 1975, in the course of evaluating STURGIS' Agency connections. A CIA document generated by Jerrold Brown pointed out:

(1) HUNT knew Lanz. Lanz knew STURGIS. Therefore HUNT could have known STURGIS through Lanz.

(2) Manuel Artime knew STURGIS.

STURGIS was asked:

Q. Did you know the late Manuel Artime?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you work with him in the MIR?

A. Let me say this here. I had contact with Artime, since Artime came from Cuba. I was part of the original officers that organized the MIR. Manuel Artime was an individual who left Cuba, and came to the United States. I did not know Artime in Cuba, but I was one of the original officers who helped organize the MIR movement in the United States.

Q. Was your friend, Geraldine Shamma, also associated with Dr. Artime.

A. Yes.

HUNT knew Manuel Artime. Therefore HUNT could have known STURGIS through Manuel Artime.

(3) HUNT knew Nino Diaz. Nino Diaz knew STURGIS. Therefore HUNT could have known STURGIS through Diaz.

(4) HUNT knew BARKER. BARKER knew STURGIS. Therefore HUNT could have known STURGIS though BARKER.

(5) HUNT knew BARKER. BARKER knew Alexander Rorke. Alexander Rorke knew STURGIS. Therefore HUNT could have known STURGIS through BARKER/Alexander Rorke.

(6) HUNT knew Manuel Artime. Manuel Artime knew Alexander Rorke. Alexander Rorke knew STURGIS. Therefore HUNT could have known STURGIS through Manuel Artime/Alexander Rorke.

In the course of HUNT v. ajweberman, HUNT was questioned about Pedro Diaz Lanz.

Q. Did you know Pedro Diaz Lanz?

A. I met him on a couple of occasions. BARKER brought him to my home in Coconut Grove probably in January or February 1961.

Q. Did you know that Pedro Diaz Lanz was in fact a close friend of STURGIS?

A. I'm not sure he was a friend. I know he and FIORINI joined him in Havana.

Q. But you never met FRANK STURGIS through Pedro Diaz Lanz?

A. No.

Q. You had no contact with him?

A. I didn't know him in 1972 under that name.

James W. Franklin, Chief, Official Cover Branch, CCS stated: "I reviewed the file of STURGIS which contained no reference to HUNT, although reference was made to some other associates in the Bay of Pigs period." [CIA MFR 11.2.73]

Pedro Diaz Lanz was asked:

Q. When did you first meet FRANK STURGIS?

A. When? 1957.

Q. Where was that?

A. Santiago De Cuba.

Q. When did you first see Mr. STURGIS with Mr. HUNT, what date?

A. Never.

Q. Did STURGIS indicate in 1957, or a time subsequent, that he had knowledge of Mr. HUNT?

A. No.

Q. When did you first meet Mr. HUNT?

A. Never met him.

Q. Did you ever see Mr. HUNT or Mr. STURGIS in November 1963?

A. No, sir.

Q. Did you know Mr. HUNT as "EDUARDO" of the Cuban Revolutionary Front?

A. No, sir.

Q. Did you ever see Mr. HUNT, or Mr. STURGIS in November 1963?

A. No, sir.

Q. Either in Miami or in Dallas Texas?

A. I said I never seen them.

Q. You have never seen Mr. HUNT though?

A. No.

Q. Have you ever talked to him on the telephone.

A. (No response).

Q. I again ask the question that was objected to: Did you, Mr. Lanz, become acquainted with Manuel Artime?

MR. DARRACH: Same objection. [Lanz Depo 2.3.78]

In 1977 Pedro Diaz Lanz told Gaeton Fonzi "he was with BARKER many times. He told BARKER that Artime was a Communist...Lanz described Bender (Droller) as an older man over 45 years of age (1960's) curly hair, European accent. He met Bender at safe house in Coconut Grove, and Bender offered him position as Chief of Air Strike Force in Guatemala (Bay of Pigs Operation). Lanz did not accept it because he would not have been in on the planning. It was all very secret and run by the CIA. Lanz was then offered another position in Cuba, but refused and had heated words with Bender because he stated it was just an effort to destroy the Cuban forces in exile. Bender agreed off the record. Lanz was very hot and someone came over and attempted to calm him down. Believes this was HUNT. Shortly thereafter Artime arrived and he and Bender hugged and kissed each other on the mouth. This drew Lanz attention because he knew it wasn't an American or French or Spanish custom for men to kiss each other."

Gaeton Fonzi returned the next day with a photograph of HUNT. "Pedro Diaz Lanz could not ID HUNT...I asked Lanz to explain how HUNT wrote about him in his book, Give Us This Day. Lanz could not explain." [HSCA Gonzales and Fonzi 9.23.77]

"Marcos Diaz Lanz said that he early recognized that Castro was a Communist and that he was using Communism as a vehicle to take over Cuba. He said he reported this to Colonel Nichols, the Air Force Military Attache at the American Embassy, with whom he had been in regular contact..."

Gaeton Fonzi questioned Marcos Diaz Lanz about HUNT: "It was pointed out to Marcos that HOWARD HUNT mentions, in Give Us This Day, the leaflet raid [October 21, 1959] and that HUNT writes of immediately afterwards interviewing Pedro, but not Marcos or STURGIS. Marcos Diaz Lanz responded: 'I wouldn't waste a minute reading his book. I don't know the man. The book to me, I don't think I'm going to learn anything reading the book, because I don't know the man.' He was then asked if he had ever met HUNT. He said he had not. He was then asked if he had ever met "EDUARDO." He said: 'Well, you know, someone will come to you and say they worked for the Company and they will be wearing a bracelet that says 'John' on it and they will tell you another name. You just don't know who you meet.'" [HSCA Memo 3.7.78]

In a deposition in HUNT v. ajweberman, HUNT said he met Pedro Diaz Lanz at least once. In Give Us This Day, HUNT indicated he was well acquainted with Pedro Diaz Lanz.

In (deleted) 1964 an unidentified office of the CIA issued this memo:

MEMORANDUM (Deleted) 1964

SUBJECT: Involved in Arms Smuggling and in a Planned Insurrection of Minutemen in Florida Area.

1. This office is in the process of monitoring a clandestine arms smuggling operation in the Miami area directed against Venezuela. In this connection (deleted), an arms supplier, operating under the alias of Pedro Garcia, who offered to supply arms of any type and any amount within a period of one week. (Deleted) Pedro Garcia, the latter indicated that he was member and associated with an ultra-rightist group called Minutemen, who are training in an area in Florida called Yahagva (phonetic; possibly Yalaha, near Leesburg). Pedro Garcia stated that if Lyndon Johnson were re-elected President this group planned to revolt in an armed insurrection against the U.S. Government. Garcia bragged that he provided the arms for the above revolt.

2. (Deleted) Pedro Garcia remarks were made casually, (deleted). As of the writing of this memorandum this office has not been able to determine whether the above information constitutes a bit of braggadocio on the part of Pedro Garcia (deleted) or whether there is indeed some element of truth in Pedro Garcia's claim.

3. This office has been able to identify Pedro Garcia as Marcos Jose Diaz Lanz A11 811 130.

4. This office will continue to monitor the arms smuggling operation, and particular emphasis will be placed on uncovering Marcos Jose Diaz Lanz' intentions and activities in connection with the above cited insurrection plans. In this context, it is requested that this office be informed if the above information relative to an insurrection coincides with any information available to our office. If so, details are requested. (Deleted).

5. For these reasons, it is requested that the above information be handled on a need-to-know basis and that no action be taken on this information without prior coordination with this office. In this regard, we will be glad to service any requirements (deleted). We will of course keep you informed of any further developments that may occur in this case." [CIA 201-259,716]

MEMORANDUM (Deleted) 1964

SUBJECT: Marcos Diaz Lanz

REFERENCE: Memorandum this office dated (Deleted) 1964 Subject: Planned Insurrection of Minutemen in Florida area.

1. On (deleted) 1964 this office received a report (deleted) pertaining to (deleted) Marcos Diaz Lanz (deleted).

2. (Deleted) Marcos Diaz Lanz talked freely about the election results which by that time indicated President Johnson had been elected for another term. As the margin of votes for Johnson increased, Marcos Diaz Lanz became more and more excited. Marcos Diaz Lanz criticized Johnson very severely and referred to him as an SOB. He said it was becoming obvious that 'they' would have to go and fight in the streets because 'they' were unable to accept the Johnson Government. Marcos Diaz Lanz did not clarify who the 'they' were, but it was understood (deleted) to mean the Minutemen. (Deleted) received a definite impression that Marcos Diaz Lanz himself was deeply involved in any action contemplated.

3. (Deleted). Marcos Diaz Lanz made some reference to the fact that the U.S. would be better off if Johnson were dead, but (Deleted) could not say that Marcos Diaz Lanz had made any direct reference or suggestion that he or the Minutemen intended to do anything beyond going to the streets to fight as indicated in the referenced memorandum.

4. This office will keep you informed of any developments that may occur in this case as they evolve. [CIA 201-259716]

BERNARD BARKER was questioned during HUNT V. ajweberman:

Q. When did you first meet HOWARD HUNT?

A. I'm trying to think right now if that came out in any declarations of mine at Watergate. I think it did. I met HOWARD HUNT in Miami somewhere around the year 1960. He was air commander or chief of the CIA.

Q. How did you become his number one assistant?

A. That is a question only he can answer.

Q. Did you work for him in Cuba, too?

A. No.

Q. Did you work for the Cuban Revolutionary Front, and Cuban Revolutionary Council?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you ever have any correspondence with the New Orleans Cuban Revolutionary Council.

A. No...I will go further and say I have never been in New Orleans.

BARKER admitted he knew STURGIS, but when asked if he had seen HUNT and STURGIS together prior to the time he allegedly introduced the two men to each other circa 1972, he responded:

A. No, never.

Q. When you introduced HUNT to STURGIS do you remember the conversation?

A. When we went on the, I think it was the second trip, before the - STURGIS had known of the existence of HUNT. From his conversations with me, I knew STURGIS was quite excited at meeting the famous "EDUARDO." On the other hand, HUNT said he was going to have to meet STURGIS now because he is going to be involved in something. So I introduced him to HUNT at that time and from official expressions, the excitement of meeting the great "EDUARDO," meeting somebody removed. This is to the best of my knowledge, under oath I can tell you, they first met, therefore it's...

Tony Varona told the HSCA: "I know the name FIORINI, because I know there was a pilot by that name. I never saw him present. Maybe, I am not sure, he was working with Bender. Possibly with BARKER."

In April 1993 Howard K. Davis was asked: "Did you ever see HOWARD HUNT back in the early 1960's?" Howard K. Davis replied: "Well he was around every place, yeah. But I had no great contact with him." He was asked: "Did you ever see HUNT and STURGIS together?" Howard K. Davis stated: "I can't say that I did, no. But then I'd see STURGIS with a whole bunch of different people. I wouldn't know who they were."

HEMMING told the HSCA "He was aware of HUNT, but never worked with him." In 1994 HEMMING stated, "Who walks in the fucking door but STURGIS, and HUNT and Bill what-the-fuck's his name. We were at Freedom Tower to meet with Cisneros and Veciana and a bunch of other people. Frank Watterson was supposed to be there. This was October 1963."

The Rockefeller Commission tackled the question of whether HUNT knew STURGIS before 1972: "HUNT testified that he had never met FRANK STURGIS before they were introduced by BERNARD BARKER in Miami in 1972. STURGIS testified to the same effect. STURGIS further testified that while he had often heard of "EDUARDO," a CIA political officer who had been active in Cuban Revolutionary Council work in Miami before the April 1961 BAY OF PIGS OPERATION, he had never met him and did not know until 1971 or 1972 that "EDUARDO" was E. HOWARD HUNT. STURGIS had also been active in Miami area anti-Castro groups before, during and after HUNT'S 1960 and early 1961 assignment regarding the political aspects of the Bay of Pigs Project."

A Rockefeller Commission investigator wrote: "Marita Lorenz - mistress of Fidel Castro - said recently to a reporter that when she came to the U.S. in 1960 or so, the first people she met was STURGIS and HUNT. STURGIS denies this, says that the person who was with him was Alex Rorke or Jose Joachim Sanjennes Pardomo - not HUNT."

Undoubtedly STURGIS was curious about "EDUARDO'S" identity back in the early 1960's. He admitted having heard about him. All STURGIS had to do was to ask any number of friends to introduce him to "EDUARDO" and he would have met HUNT. Tad Szulc was asked, in the course of HUNT v. ajweberman, if he had developed any information that linked HUNT to STURGIS prior to 1971. Szulc stated: "And, the answer would be: I believe I did on the basis of conversations with writer people with whom I dealt in it, but again, I would, my memory is not perfect on this point." Szluc said that their relationship involved the United States Government and that it occurred at the time of the Bay of Pigs invasion.

The pattern of deliberate disassociation that appeared in the HUNT/STURGIS relationship also appeared in the HUNT/ANGLETON relationship. ANGLETON claimed that he never met HUNT. Scott Malone stated: "ANGLETON, Newton S. Miler and HUNT were thick as thieves at the CIA." Charles Colson "mentioned the fact that ANGLETON had had contact with HUNT while HUNT was in the White House." [Werbell Ex. 4 see Conein in Record Groups] In an interview with Daniel Schorr, ANGLETON denied knowing HUNT. [Wise, Molehunt p246] During his deposition in HUNT V. ajweberman ANGLETON was asked: "During the course of yours and his professional duties on behalf of the Agency, did you ever have an occasion to have a professional relationship with HUNT?" Answer: "No." ANGLETON was asked "And are you friends with him?" He answered: "No." William Hood was questioned about HUNT and ANGLETON by this researcher: "I can't imagine. I would doubt very much if their paths ever crossed." The CIA reported on June 19, 1972: "HUNT'S security file reflects that Subject has, in the past, been of operational interest to Mr. JAMES ANGLETON, Chief, CI Staff/ DDP in connection with an operational matter. One June 19, 1972, Mr. Fred Hubbard, CI Staff, advised that he will provide information as to the nature of Mr. ANGLETON'S utilization of Subject." In January 1974 ANGLETON was questioned about his relationship with HUNT:

ANGLETON: According to Lyle Miller, Deputy Legislative Counsel, he has a paper of Security's on this fellow HUNT. Paragraph 15 [of] Subject's Security file reflects that Subject has in the past been of operational interest to Mr. JAMES ANGLETON, Chief /Counter-Intelligence Staff, DDP, in connection with an OP matter. On June 19, 1972, Fred Hubbard, Counter-Intelligence/Staff, advised that he will provide information as to the nature of Mr. ANGLETON'S utilization of Subject. That's the end of the quote.

SDO: Yes Sir.

ANGLETON: As I told Mr. - when I talked to Mr. Osborn I didn't have this in hand and he didn't recall it - so it throws - the fact that I talked to Fred Hubbard who denies all of this.

SDO: Please hang on. Mr. ANGLETON could you hang on to this - he doesn't remember it?

ANGLETON: No, he doesn't remember making such a statement. According to him, I remember him well - Second, I've never met HUNT in my life, and I'd appreciate it if Mr. Howard Osborne, who's going up with the Director today, finds out who the author is of all of this and brief him on all of this. That's it.

SDO: Thank you. I will.

The operation referred to in this document may have dealt with Counter-Intelligence's subsidy of HUNT'S career as an author of spy novels. This came to light as a result of this chain of events:

In 1968 the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, Richard Helms, "discussed with Jack Valenti, President of the Motion Picture Association of America, the potential of several books written by David St. John, a former Agency employee. Mr. Helms thought these books gave a favorable impression of the Agency and might be exploitable for the movies."

On or about May 1971, Mr. Martin S. Davis, Chairman of the Gulf and Western subsidiary, Paramount Pictures, met with Mr. Kern, of the New York City Domestic Contacts Office concerning the possibility of Paramount doing a T.V. series on the CIA similar to that presently on T.V. concerning the FBI. "...According to Mr. Davis, the decision had been reached by the Agency that it would be unwise to attempt such a series, but that if and when the Agency felt such a series to be desirable, it would first offer the opportunity to Mr. Davis and Paramount Pictures."

Mr. Helms said that on May 9, 1972, Mr. Valenti introduced him to Mr. Charles Bluhdorn, chairman of the board of Gulf and Western which owns Paramount pictures at a showing of The Godfather at the headquarters of the Motion Picture Association of America."Mr. Helms related that Mr. Bluhdorn did not raise the issue of the books by David St. John nor say anything about a possible T.V. series on the Agency, although he could have easily done so. Mr. Helms said their conversation related principally to wine from grapes grown in the Napa Valley. Mr. Helms said flatly that he made no commitment to anyone regarding the possibility of a T.V. series on the Agency and, as a matter of fact, opposed presentation of a series on the Agency."

Charles Bluhdorn, a World War II Jewish immigrant from Austria who arrived in America with $15, used the money he made from Brazilian coffee to set up Gulf and Western in 1956. Gulf and Western invested heavily in Latin America. Charles Bluhdorn was associated with Vatican banker Michelle Sidona through the Societa Generale Immobiliare, a multinational real estate firm. He was also associated with Ivan Boesky and reputed mafia attorney Sidney Korshak. The largest single beneficiary of the U.S. invasion and subsequent government policies in the Dominican Republic was Gulf and Western. After the U.S. invasion of the Dominican Republic in April 1965, Gulf and Western supported the appointment of Juan Balaguer as president - as did organized crime figure Joe Zicaralli. Many Cuban exiles were involved in Gulf and Western's Dominican operations. In July 1970 top Gulf and Western executives were asked to appear before the Illinois Racing Board, then investigating ties between a Gulf and Western controlled company and organized crime. Mr. Bluhdorn and his associates denied any and all knowledge of organized crime figures connected with Gulf and Western properties, but evidence was presented that indicated Gulf and Western was in partnership with Philip Levin, who was also a Gulf and Western director, in a hotel in Acapulco that was run by Moe Morton as a private club. Guests included Meyer Lansky and Sidney Korshak.[NACLA 4.75] Charles Bluhdorn died circa 1983.

The CIA: "Mr. Davis was upset because Mr. Bludorn, on the morning of May 10, 1972, put a number of St. John's books on Martin S. Davis' desk with a note 'maybe I should deal with Mr. Helms myself.' According to Martin S. Davis, Jack Valenti had given the books to Mr. Bluhdorn after supposedly having received them from Mr. Helms. Mr. Davis assumed that Mr. Bluhdorn had received them from Mr. Valenti the previous evening when Mr. Bluhdorn was present at a showing of The Godfather to which Mr. Helms and number of other White House advisors were also invited. Relating this transmission of the St. John books to Gulf & Western's interest in doing a T.V. series, Mr. Bluhdorn questioned the accuracy of Mr. Davis' information that the Agency did not want to do a T.V. series. Mr. Bluhdorn is apparently interpreting this coincidence to mean that Mr. Helms is now interested in doing the series.

4. Mr. Isenstead, Chief, Cover and Commercial Staff, related the above to Mr. Cord Meyer, Deputy Director, Plans, on May 10, 1972, and was informed that Mr. Davis and the company should exercise their own judgements concerning David St. John's books, and that there is no pressure from the Agency on the matter.

5. Mr. Davis and Mr. Lukoskie met on May 11, 1972, at (deleted). At the meeting, Davis showed Lukoskie several books by David St. John, one of which was a hardcover book and the other paperback copies selling for 50 cents. The cover described David St. John as a former CIA agent. Mr. Davis referred to the books as a 'bunch of crap' and said they 'can't possible do the Agency any good.' He checked with another Gulf and Western vice president, Mr. Levinson, who said that Valenti had informed Mr. Levinson, a couple of weeks ago, that Mr. Helms, a personal friend of David St. John, said he would like to help St. John get the books made into movies of a T.V. series. Mr. Davis stated flatly that he has no interest in the books, but that he is unhappy because he felt he had a commitment from the Agency through Mr. Kerns which would give Mr. Davis and Paramount first opportunity to produce a T.V. series if the Agency is willing. Mr. Davis fears that someone in the Agency is talking to Valenti about the possibility of a T.V. series and the Agency is reneging on it's commitment to him. Mr. Davis wants to know whether he does or does not have a commitment from CIA by way of Mr. Kerns of the DCS office to be given the first opportunity to produce a T.V. series of movie concerning the CIA."

On May 10, 1972, as a result of the controversy with Paramount, the ID/I/F Supervisor received a call from "Martin J. Lukowski, Cover and Commercial Staff/CCB. He asked me to identify for him by true name the Agency employee who had in the past extensively used the pen name David St. John. Martin J. Lukowski believed it was either (Deleted) OS# 37435 or the Subject. Lukowski identified the Subject as HOWARD HUNT. Martin J. Lukowski said he needed the information urgently, but he did not explain the need or identity of his requestor. Initial OS indices search revealed no record of David St. John, and numerous files in the name of (Deleted) and HOWARD HUNT. I consulted privately with Edward F. Sayle, Office of Security, Security Research Staff, in the hope that SRS might have some record of pen names used by Agency employees whose works had been published. Sayle recalled from memory that HUNT had written several books under Agency sponsorship, using the pen-name David St. John. The intent of the novels had been to provide a series similar to the James Bond novels, presenting a favorable image of the Agency. The project had, Edward F. Sayle said, been under the guidance of the Counter-Intelligence Staff. It had not, he noted, proved very successful...In as much as Subject had written under the guidance of the Counter-Intelligence Staff, Edward F. Sayle advised against identifying him by name to Martin J. Lukowski. He suggested instead that Martin J. Lukowski be referred to Ray Rocca, Deputy Chief, Counter-Intelligence Staff, or Mr. ANGLETON, Chief, CI Staff. I called Mr. Lukoskie on Red Line 1978. In his absence I advised Ellen, his secretary, that I did not that the authority to identify David St. John by his true name and suggested that Mr. Lukoskie contact Mr. Rocca or Mr. ANGLETON. At no time did I identify Subject as the user of the pen name David St. John." [CIA File Number 235000 MFR] William Hood commented, "God knows JIM would have never read any of those books, I would think, because they're so bad."

On May 23, 1972, Martin J. Lukoskie, CCS/CCB met with Martin S. Davis in Mr. Davis' office in New York City. Davis was informed that the Agency was against doing a television series on the CIA and Davis readily agreed to drop the matter. Harry Real, a Domestic Contacts Division Agent from New York discussed the possibility of producing a series of movies based on the paperback novels of David St. John (one of HOWARD HUNT'S pen names).

Martin S. Davis succeeded Charles Bluhdorn as Chairman of the Board of Gulf and Western.

February 1974

FROM: Edward F. Sayle

MEMORANDUM FOR: Mr. KUHN

SUBJECT: General Paul F. Gaynor's Recollections

1. This date, at your instruction, I called General Paul Gaynor to seek his recollections regarding his knowledge of the writings of Mr. HUNT and any official who might be aware of the circumstances of any Agency involvement in that effort.

2. General Gaynor advised that his memory is not all together clear on that matter, and that he was "reaching," but stated that as he reconstructs the matter:

3. He became aware that HUNT, while in WH, was accomplishing a steady flow of spy books, and that security approval was not being requested on the manuscripts before submission to publishers. (He stated that this activity continued later, as he recalls it, in CI Staff, and agreed with the idea that the volume of writings was sufficient to indicate that a great deal of time was involved in HUNT'S writing.) General Gaynor advised that he raised the issue "up front" on several occasions. The reaction he received from raising the issues was that "keep your stinking nose out of this business." He stated that he was led to believe that Mr. Helms desired to improve the image of the intelligence profession, and the Agency, and that HUNT'S books were a part of the program to do so. He stated he was never told outright this was the case, but the responses he received led him to believe this was the case.

4. He suggested that two people might be able to assist in clearing the issue were Ray Rocca and Walter Pforzheimer, both of whom were involved in the "image" materials. He stated that Pforzheimer seemed to be aware of all the details - on an up to date basis - of HUNT'S departure from the Agency to join the public relations firm, to the degree that General Gaynor gained the belief that HUNT was merely moving his desk outside the building, but being paid by the same source as before. He also advised that he kept Mrs. Ethel Mendoza fairly current on what he was learning about HUNT'S activities because she followed the case for him and suggested that her recall about what he had learned, and when and what resulted, might be better than him at this date. (He also mentioned an incident in which Morse Allen while on TDY was told by a COS to ask Headquarters to remove HUNT from the area because of his direct liaison with the President of that country, and other activities which were confounding station operations. Later the COS told Morse to forget about relaying the message, with the implication that HUNT was being directed by higher authority in the Agency and the COS did not (illegible).

4. He also suggested that another person -- definitely no friend of HUNT -- who might have some recall or have picked-up information about the book-writing might be Anita Potocki of CI Staff, formerly of Division D. (I gather that she did not have official knowledge, but because of her dislike for HUNT, she made it somewhat her business to follow his career). Edward Sayle.

February 14, 1974

MEMORANDUM FOR THE RECORD

SUBJECT: Interview with Raymond A. Rocca on the David St. John Novels.

1. On the morning of February 14, 1974, Messrs. Fredrick Evans and Lawrence Howe interviewed Mr. Raymond A. Rocca, Deputy Chief, Counter-Intelligence Operations. The purpose of the interview was to follow up on information contained in Office of Security files which stated the belief that individuals in the Counter Intelligence Operations Office had knowledge of the writing activities of HUNT. This belief was a matter of record in the files of the former Security Research Staff and was attributed to Mr. Paul Gaynor, now retired, and Mr. Edward Sayle.

2. During this interview Mr. Rocca was specifically asked whether or not he had knowledge of the existence of any form of official sponsorship or encouragement to HUNT to write novels to improve the image of this Agency. Additionally, Mr. Rocca was asked whether or not any assistance was requested of the Counter Intelligence Operations Office to be provided to Mr. HUNT, or whether or not that staff had any relationship with Mr. HUNT whatsoever. In response to these questions, Mr. Rocca responded "on the record" that he has no knowledge of any such arrangements, not at any time was he party to any assistance, or requests for assistance to Mr. HUNT. Mr. Rocca stated that the particular section which had been most actively concerned in the past years was responsible for handling a variety of tasks categorized under the area of "setting the record straight." In this sense the image mission of the office was to counter misinformation currently in the media, or otherwise believed to be part of an effort to discredit the Agency. Mr. Rocca feels that any assumption that Mr. HUNT was engaged in any form of Agency sponsored image activity would have probably lead to the conclusion that it was done under the Counter Intelligence Operations. However, Mr. Rocca emphatically stated that this was not the case.

3. Mr. Rocca was thoroughly candid and cooperative during the course of this interview. He was unable to suggest alternate means of attempting to determine if any official agency sponsorship of Mr. HUNT did, in fact, exist. Mr. Rocca did venture the opinion that he felt that in all probability an official acquiescence on the part of senior officials might have been involved, rather than an official sponsorship. It was agreed by all in this discussion that the nature of any informal support given to Mr. HUNT would be far more difficult to define in the absence of any formalized agreements.

Lawrence J. Howe.

FROM: Lawrence Howe

TO: Mr. Steven L. Kuhn

SUBJECT: The David St. John Novels

1...It had previously been alleged in Office of Security records that Paul Gaynor and Edward Sayle of Security Research Staff, believed that HUNT had written novels at Agency request and that his effort had been known to Mr. JAMES ANGLETON, Chief, Counter-Intelligence Operations.

2. Mr. Pforzheimer provided a verbal summary of his knowledge of Mr. HUNT'S fictional writings under the pen name, David St. John. Mr. Pforzheimer stated that when the first St. John book, On Hazardous Duty, appeared in 1965, he undertook to identify the true name of the author. Mr. Pforzheimer related that he checked with a source in the copyright office, only to find at the time that the true name was not given on the copyright application. The mailing address given for the author was checked against telephone cross reference directory. The address on the copyright application was identified with HUNT. Mr. Pforzheimer stated that after making the identification, he called Mr. Thomas Karamessines and related his discovery. Pforzheimer recalled from the nature of Karamessines' reaction that he had uncovered a sensitive matter of senior officer concern. Pforzheimer then recommended to Mr. Karamessines that 'if the Agency is involved in this thing, why not see to it that HUNT leaves his address of the copyright applications in the future. Mr. Karamessines reportedly accepted the suggestion, and Mr. Pforzheimer recalls that subsequent copyright applications were submitted without the address. Within five minutes of the conversation with Mr. Karamessines, Mr. Pforzheimer recalls being called by Richard Helms, then the Deputy Director of Central Intelligence. Pforzheimer recalls the substance of the conversation as being: "For Christ sake Walter, this is the first book to come along and say something good about the Agency. Why not leave the goddamn thing alone?"

3. The undersigned asked Mr. Pforzheimer, who, to his knowledge, would be in a position to confirm or deny whether Mr. HUNT was under any sort of Agency sponsorship in his writing of the David St. John novels. Pforzheimer replied that he was never officially briefed on the matter and that only Mr. Helms or Mr. Karamessines could provide the answer. Pforzheimer was then asked if ANGLETON or Raymond Rocca of Counter Intelligence Operations, would have any knowledge of this activity. Pforzheimer replied that he doubted it seriously.

5. Tracing Mr. HUNT'S career assignments, it is noted that he was assigned to the Office of the Deputy Director of Operations Group, in February 1965. The first David St. John book was published during 1965. From June 1965, through September 1966, Mr. HUNT was assigned (deleted). During 1966 three St. John books appeared in print, the highest output for any year. Mr. HUNT published one book under the St. John pseudonym in 1967 and one each in the years 1968, 1969, 1971 and 1972."

Lawrence Howe also stated: "Subsequent to publishing the last St. John novel, Mr. HUNT published a novel entitled EDUARDO, using his old Agency issued alias, Edward J. Hamilton." [2.6.74]

Walter Pforzhiemer, contacted in 1993, commented: "I don't think he needed an Agency subsidy. His books sold." Walter Pforzhiemer was informed that this author had read all of HUNT'S early paperbacks: "You're a tough man. Now what do you want me tell you, whether he was involved in the Kennedy assassination?" I told him, "I already know he was involved." He responded, "I don't think he was within hundreds of miles of Dealey Plaza."

Another HUNT/ANGLETON link surfaced on August 9, 1973, when Director /Office of Security, Bruce Solie generated this document:

Director of Security August 9, 1973

Bruce L. Solie

NOSENKO, Yuriy Ivanovich

1. (Deleted) Soviet Bloc/Counter-Intelligence has advised of the following information which he noted during a review of a diary kept by David Murphy while he was Chief, Soviet Research.

2. In the above diary is an entry for April 9, 1964, that "called HOWARD HUNT to confirm that he has been told about the doubts regarding AEFOXTROT bona fides by Tracy Barnes and had then passed it on to Virgil Harris. I will discuss this matter with Tracy or Rositzke."

3. (Deleted) was not involved in the Nosenko case and has no other information in regard to the April 9, 1964, entry. In the absence of a specific request (deleted) will make no inquiry concerning why Murphy considered it necessary to make sure HUNT was aware of the doubts concerning AEFOXTROT bona fides.

4. It is presumed that no precautions can or should be taken in regard to the information that HUNT was briefed in April 1964 concerning Nosenko. It is a matter for serious concern if HUNT has testified or does testify concerning his knowledge o