|
UPDATED
January 01, 2003 02:46 PM
What is the 'Group of 40'?
WHO'S WHO IN THE GEMSTONE
FILES
©2002 by Jim Moore. All rights reserved.
| 1963: JFK sets up "Group of 40" to fight
Onassis. |
The "Group of 40" was originally created
by the National Security Council as a top-level advisory group to
the President. This account is revealed by Tad Szulc, in a book
about E. Howard Hunt:
Under
a system in existence since the Eisenhower Presidency, a special
committee of the National Security Council—known in the 1970s as
the 40 Committee—is charged with the power of instructing the CIA
and the rest of the sprawling intelligence community as to how and
where to proceed. But what remains unclear to this day is the
precise extent to which the 40 Committee, the full National
Security Council, or the President of the United States specifically
assigns tasks to the intelligence agencies or simply sets forth
broad policies—or targets—under which they are free to perform
according to their lights.
The
40 Committee’s deliberations are, of course, top secret, and even
its existence is not publicly discussed by the administration. (The
group’s present name, incidentally, is derived from the number of
the National Security Council memorandum which reorganized it in
1969.) It is chaired by Henry A. Kissinger, the President’s
Secretary of State and Special Assistant for National Security
Affairs, and it
includes the heads of the CIA (the CIA Director also acts in his
capacity as Director of Central Intelligence coordinating all governmental intelligence activities), the Defense Intelligence
Agency, and the National Security Agency; the Deputy Secretary of
State; and the Deputy Secretary of Defense. The 40 Committee has the
power to make decisions in every field, although they are subject to
Presidential veto. But only the President is empowered to order the
intelligence community to commit acts of political assassination
in a foreign country. There is no record, naturally, of such an
act ever being ordered by the President of the United States, but
intelligence-community insiders say it has happened on a few
occasions. Neither the 40 Committee nor the President concern
themselves with garden-variety murders in the wars of intelligence
agents. These occur on all sides with a certain frequency, but they
come to public attention only by accident. A clandestine CIA (or
KGB) agent knows that violent death is a risk of his métier.
Sometimes, knowledgeable CIA people claim, on a particularly
sensitive assignment the Agency can totally bypass the 40
Committee by using the simple expedient of temporarily assigning an
American agent to a friendly foreign intelligence service, such as
the British MI-6, to perform his task theoretically under other
auspices than the CIA’s. Under existing agreements with several
British Commonwealth, West German, and other governments, foreign
agents may conversely operate out of the CIA. (The Compulsive Spy by
Tad Szulc, Viking Press, NY, 1974 – pp. 16-18)
And
in yet another brief revelation, we see how the group that served
the president may well have been transformed into the group that
assassinated him.
Jan 13, 1960 - Dulles presents "Cuban
project" for "careful planning of covert actions."
The CIA began "Operation 40," which took its name from
"the Group of 40" of the National Security Council group.
Their job was to formulate a plan for Cuba to provoke a general
uprising of the Cuban people with the collaboration of the forces in
exile and in this way "legitimize" a U.S. intervention.
(Alleged Assassination Plots Involving Foreign Leaders, 11/20/75;
Furiati pp 14-15)
There is no evidence, however, that it was "set
up to fight Onassis." My information is that it was established
under President Eisenhower, before Kennedy ever became president.
There was, however, a similar group Kennedy set up, but it was for
campaign purposes, not intelligence, and involved a rather Orwellian
concept of a huge databank that would predict how voters would vote.
I don't currently have access to those files.
The 'Extraterrestrial Link'
to 'The Group of 40'
  
 The "Group of 40" is believed to have also
been deeply involved in another, even stranger activity known as the
MJ-12 or Majestic-12 Group, set up after the alleged 1947 crash of
an unknown spacecraft near Roswell, NM in 1947. There is some debate
as to the actual name of that group, and some evidence indicates
that the group was known simply as "Majestic" with
each member being known as a number, e.g. MJ-6, MJ-12, MJ-4, and so
on. (See documents above). By necessity, some members of the
"Group of 40" also were members of "Majestic,"
since their national security responsibilities overlapped.
  
Some researchers claim one of the reasons Kennedy
was shot was that he planned to reveal the existence of
"Majestic" and of extraterrestrials in a speech that very
same day. Kennedy was planning to announce a program of space
cooperation with the Russians in the wake of the Bay of Pigs and
Cuban missile crisis, and was planning to withdraw US
"advisors" from Vietnam - any one of which could have
perhaps been enough to get him killed. While this goes far beyond
the scope of the Gemstone Files (at least Bruce Roberts' version),
there is some evidence to back this up - in the form of certain
presidential and "Majestic" documents.
Kennedy warned of a possible
coup attempt
Just a little more than a month before he was
killed, Kennedy was publicly warned of a possible coup attempt.
According to Mark Lane, "One of the really interesting columns published
in the New York Times on October 3, 1963 -- just a little over a month before John Kennedy was killed -- was written by Arthur
Krock. Krock was a longtime, close, personal friend of the Kennedy family.
He was actually quite conservative and, at that time, was probably
the most respected columnist in America. His column, which appeared in October 3, 1963, was entitled, `The Intra-Administration War
in Vietnam.'"
"Krock pointed out that John F. Kennedy had gone to war against the CIA. He concluded that Kennedy no longer could control the CIA.
The columnist stated that President Kennedy sent Henry Cabot Lodge, his Ambassador to Vietnam, with orders to the CIA on two separate
occasions, and in both cases the CIA ignored those orders, saying that it was different from what the agency thought should be done.
In other words, the CIA had decided that it -- not the President -- would make the decisions as to how American foreign policy should
be conducted."
"Now here is what's so incredible. Here's what Krock wrote about what a high Administration official had to say about all of this"
[It was probably either his friend, President Kennedy or perhaps Attorney-General Robert Kennedy to whom he was referring].
"This is what this unnamed official had to say -- in print -- about the CIA, one month before the President was murdered:"
"The CIA's growth was likened to a `malignancy' which the `very high official was not sure even the White House could control ...
any longer.'"
"`If the United States ever experiences [an attempt at a coup to overthrow the Government], it will come from the CIA and not
the Pentagon,' [the source said]. The agency `represents a tremendous and total unaccountability to anyone.'"
"This was John F. Kennedy sending out a message to the American people
through his trusted conduit Arthur Krock. The Krock column continued:
`Whatever else these passages disclose, they most certainly establish
that representatives of other Executive branches have expanded
their war against the CIA from the inner government councils to the
American people via the press.
And published simultaneously are details of the agency's operations
in Vietnam that can come only from the same critical official sources.
This is disorderly government. And the longer the President tolerates
it -- the period already is considerable -- the greater the real war
against the Vietcong, and the impression of a very indecisive
Administration in Washington.
The CIA may be guilty as charged. Since it cannot, or at any rate,
will not openly defend its record in Vietnam or defend it by the
same confidential press `briefings' employed by its critics, the
public is not in a position to judge ....
But Mr. Kennedy will have to make a judgment if the spectacle of
war within the Executive branch is to be ended and the effective
functioning of the CIA preserved.
And when he makes this judgment, hopefully he also will make it
public, as well as the appraisal of fault on which it is based.'"
(Krock himself cited a respected Scripps-Howard newspaper columnist,
Richard Starnes, as a source for some of this information.)
According to Lane, this is not "new" information, but rather it has,
until this time, gone unnoticed or has been deliberately ignored. Lane points out that the first thing the Warren Commission,
investigating the President's assassination, should have done would be to investigate these allegations further.
It was never done.
Oddly, in researching this, I came across the
repeated use of "a group of 40" in all kinds of covert
operations, which led me to wonder if there might not be some occult
meaning to that number. I found the term going all the way back to
the history of Paul the Apostle. Did it go even further back - the
the Cult of the Assassins? I don't know. The New Testament contains
numerous stories of how Paul sacrificed to serve the Churches,
preach the Gospel, take care of the poor and work his way through
the rather corrupt legal systems of his day. Paul was familiar with
his legal rights under Roman Law and frequently used them to his
advantage, causing public officials to panic at times (Acts
16:37–39; 22:25–29; 28:19). When a group of 40 men
conspired to kill Paul, he was actually protected by the Roman
soldiers (Acts 23:12–24). But he also received ill treatment from
the same system.
The CIA plot to assassinate Fidel Castro resulted in
the creation of "Project 40" also known as "Operation
40," starring Barry Seal, Felix Rodriguez, Frank
Sturgis, William Seymour, Guillermo Novo, Juan Restoy, Raul Ernesto
Cruz Leon, Luis Posada Carriles, Ingacio Novo, and Frenchy,
according to some.
This group of fun-loving guys are the members of
a CIA hit squad called Operation
40 (also a few other appropriated names) and are whooping it up
in a Mexico City nightclub in 1963 in a photo that has since dropped
out of sight. (If any reader can provide this photo, based on the
description below, I would be forever grateful!)
The man who is covering his face is none other
than Frank Sturgis, aka one of the Watergate burglars. He was also
involved in the Bay of Pigs through a CIA station chief by the name
of George H. W. Bush. Later, he made a written confession of his
role in the assassination of President Kennedy just before he died.
The man he has his arm around is William Seymour, aka the Second
Oswald, who was the one who most likely actually shot Officer
Tippett, setting up Oswald as the patsy. And the man next to him?
Another future Watergate burglar, Felipe De Diego.
Further down on the left we have Juan Restoy, who
later was captured and imprisoned after riding down a plane load of
Heroin and Cocaine in sunny Southern California. Later, he escaped
(through help) and died in a shootout with Federal Agents, who just
happened to be waiting for him.
Next, we have the infamous Novo brothers,
Guillermo and Ignacio, who took turns firing bazookas into heavily
populated areas: Guillermo at the U.N. building when Che Guevara was
addressing the assembly in 1964, and Ignacio at the Cuba Pavilion at
the Montreal World's Fair in 1967. In 1976 they set off a car bomb
in broad daylight in Washington, DC killing the former Foreign
Minister of Chile, Orlando Leteliere and two other passengers in his
car, one of whom was human rights pioneer Ronnie Moffett. Later,
they were found guilty of the crime (even though CIA Director Bush
stonewalled the investigation), but their confessions and
convictions were thrown out on appeal, thanks to some last
minute finagling by CIA man and Bush buddy Jorge Mas Canosa (who
bush acknowledged after being elected President), a man who, with no
visible means of support, managed to build a $100 million empire.
Only in America! Guillermo is presently in jail in Panama for
another attempt at assassinating Castro.
Look for an escape.
CIA agent says Operation 40
was to hit Kennedy
 According
to at least one person, a woman who was a CIA agent or asset at the
time, Allen W. Dulles, who had been fired by Kennedy as CIA director
(but was later put on the Warren Commission by Lyndon Johnson), gave
orders to the Operation 40 team that, for the time at least, their
target was changed. It would now be "an American
politician."
The following is the sworn testimony of Marita Lorenz, the ex-lover of Fidel
Castro whom the CIA had convinced was in mortal danger (along with her child)
from the wrath of Castro. She later worked with E. Howard Hunt and Frank
Sturgis in Operation 40, which was a CIA attempt to discredit and possibly
assassinate Castro. (It was run during the Eisenhower Administration
by Richard Nixon) This testimony was given, as best as I can
determine, in a libel suit by E. Howard Hunt, against a writer who
claimed Hunt had been in Dallas Nov. 22, 1963 and had taken part in
the assassination. (Hunt lost the suit.) SOURCE: Plausible
Denial by Mark Lane.
During his appearance on the Editor's Roundtable, Mark Lane also made
public additional information relating to suspects implicated in the Kennedy assassination. Lane also pointed out that when he
defended The Spotlight against libel charges brought by ex-CIA man
E. Howard Hunt, the primary defense witness was former CIA operative
Marita Lorenz. Miss Lorenz testified, in a deposition, that one day prior to the President's assassination, she arrived in Dallas
(traveling from a CIA "safe house" in Miami) in a two-car caravan. Accompanying Miss Lorenz on what she described as a secret mission
were several CIA operatives who were armed with telescopic rifles.
Upon arrival in Dallas, they met with not only E. Howard Hunt, who was functioning as the CIA operatives' paymaster, but also
alleged assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald.
It was Miss Lorenz's testimony that convinced the jury in the case of Hunt vs. Liberty Lobby (the publisher of
The Spotlight) that the CIA was involved in the Kennedy
assassination, according to Lane. Some assassination
researchers claim that Hunt's loss in this trial is
"proof" that he was part of a JFK assassination plot. I'm
sorry, but being a long-time journalist, it is my job to know
something about libel law - and the decision was just that - a libel
decision - and no more. It proved that, in the minds of the jury, E.
Howard Hunt was not libeled. There are many factors involved in
libel law, such as intent, maliciousness, etc. on the part of the
author, not the person alleging libel. Despite the damning
credibility of the testimony you are about to read, please keep in
mind that the verdict had nothing to do with Hunt's guilt or
innocence - just the issue of libel. The defendants (a conservative
weekly called The Spotlight) did use the
"truth is the best defense" defense - and planted enough
doubt in the jury's mind that one could infer that Hunt's
involvement indeed was established - and so this evidence but
not proof. MARK LANE:
During 1977, according to Lorenz who was then living in New York City,
Sturgis threatened to kill her. She called the local police and Sturgis
was arrested. At that time, I contacted Lorenz to discuss evidence tying
her to the initial stages of the plan to assassinate President Kennedy.
...she told me in some detail of her knowledge of the plan to assassinate
President Kennedy and of the roles played by Sturgis and Hunt. ...
...Years later...I located her and asked her if she would testify at the
trial in Miami. She seemed genuinely frightened and said, "You don't know
these people. They have killed and would not hesitate to kill again." She
said she was terrified at the prospect of returning to Miami.
I asked her if she would consider testifying at a neutral site, a hotel
suite in Manhattan, if I agreed not to require her to state her home
address or telephone number and place of employment and if I agreed not to
inform Hunt's counsel, who of course would be present, of her home address.
She considered my suggestion and in time acceded to it.
The testimony began:
Q: What is your present employment?
A: I do undercover work for an intelligence agency.
Q: Are you permitted to discuss the nature of that work, or where you work?
A: No, I am not.
Q: Is it also true that, as I have stipulated, you do not wish to give your
home address?
A: No. I do not.
Q: Have you been employed by the Central Intelligence Agency?
A: Yes.
Q: Are you at liberty to discuss the details of that employment?
A: No.
Q: Have you been employed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation?
A: Yes.
Q: Are you at liberty to discuss that?
A: No.
Q: Have you been employed by the New York Police Department?
A: Yes.
Q: Was that intelligence work?
A: Yes.
Q: Are you at liberty to discuss the details of that work?
A: No.
Q: During 1978, did you appear as a witness before the United States House
of Representatives Select Committee on Assassinations?
A: Yes.
Q: Did you appear as a witness after the chief judge of the United States
district court of Washington had signed an offer conferring immunity upon
you and compelling you to testify?
A: Yes.
My questions and her answers established the foundation for the relationship that existed among Lorenz, Hunt, and Sturgis. I then
moved toward the matter at hand.
Q: During and prior to November 1963, did you live in Miami, Florida?
A: Yes, I did.
Q: I want you to understand, if I ask you any question which you are not
permitted to answer, you may of course say that, but I will try, based on
my previous interview with you, to just ask you questions which you can
answer.
A: Yes.
Q: During and before November of 1963, did you work on behalf of the Central
Intelligence Agency in the Miami area?
A: Yes.
Q: Did you work with a man named Frank Sturgis, while you were working
for the CIA?
A: Yes, I did.
Q: Was that in Miami, during and prior to November 1963?
A: Yes.
Q: What other names, to your knowledge, is Frank Sturgis known by?
A: Frank Fiorini, Hamilton; the last name, Hamilton. F-I-O-R-I-N-I-.
Q: Was Mr. Fiorini or Mr. Sturgis, while you worked with him, also employed
by the Central Intelligence Agency?
A: Yes.
Q: During that time were payments made to Mr. Sturgis for the work he was
doing for the CIA?
A: Yes.
Q: Did you ever witness anyone make payments to him for the CIA work which you
and Mr. Sturgis were both involved in?
A: Yes.
[misc tidbits deleted...]
It was clear that Lorenz was about to reveal the name of the paymaster and control for Sturgis's secret operations. The
courtroom was hushed. Even the miscellaneous spectator background sounds, coughing, clearing of throats, rustling of papers, and
moving about came to a sudden, almost eerie, halt.
Q: Who did you witness make payments to Mr. Sturgis?
A: A man by the name of Eduardo.
Q: Who is Eduardo?
A: That is his code name; the real name is E. Howard Hunt.
[At this point Hunt began to confer with his attorneys]
Q: Did you know him and meet him during and prior to November 1963?
A: Yes.
We then moved to the events immediately preceding the assassination of President Kennedy.
Q: Did you go on a trip with Mr. Sturgis from Miami during November of 1963?
A: Yes.
Q: Was anyone else present with you when you went on that trip?
A: Yes.
Q: What method of transportation did you use?
A: By car.
Q: Was there one or more cars?
A: There was a follow-up car.
Q: Does that mean two cars?
A: Backup; yes.
Q: What was in the follow-up car, if you know?
A: Weapons.
Q: Without asking you any of the details regarding the activity that you and
Mr. Sturgis and Mr. Hunt were involved in, may I ask you if some of that
activity was related to the transportation of weapons?
A: Yes.
Q: Did Mr. Hunt pay Mr. Sturgis sums of money for activity related to the
transportation of weapons?
A: Yes.
Q: Did Mr. Sturgis tell you where you would be going from Miami, Florida,
during November of 1963, prior to the time that you traveled with him in
the car?
A: Dallas, Texas.
Q: He told you that?
A: Yes.
Q: Did he tell you the purpose of the trip to Dallas, Texas?
A: No; he said it was confidential.
Q: Did you arrive in Dallas during November of 1963?
A: Yes.
Q: After you arrived in Dallas, did you stay at any accommodations there?
A: Motel.
Q: While you were at that motel, did you meet anyone other than those who
were in the party traveling with you from Miami to Dallas?
A: Yes.
Q: Who did you meet?
A: E. Howard Hunt.
Marita Lorenz then provided details about her stay in Dallas.
Q: Was there anyone else who you saw or met other than Mr. Hunt?
A: Excuse me?
Q: Other than those?
A: Jack Ruby.
Q: Tell me the circumstances regarding your seeing E. Howard Hunt in Dallas
in November of 1963?
A: There was a prearranged meeting that E. Howard Hunt deliver us sums of
money for the so-called operation that I did not know its nature.
Q: Were you told what your role was to be?
A: Just a decoy at the time.
Q: Did you see Mr. Hunt actually deliver money to anyone in the motel room
which you were present in?
A: Yes.
Q: To who did you see him deliver the money?
A: He gave an envelope of cash to Frank Fiorini.
Q: When he gave him the envelope, was the cash visible as he had it in the
envelope?
A: Yes.
Q: Did you have a chance to see the cash after the envelope was given to
Mr. Fiorini?
A: Frank pulled out the money and flipped it and counted it and said "that
is enough" and put it in his jacket.
Q: How long did Mr. Hunt remain in the room?
A: About forty-five minutes.
Q: Did anyone else enter the room other than you, Mr. Fiorini, Mr. Hunt,
and others who may have been there before Mr. Hunt arrived?
A: No.
Q: Where did you see the person you identified as Jack Ruby?
A: After Eduardo left, a fellow came to the door and it was Jack Ruby,
about an hour later, forty-five minutes to an hour later.
Q: When you say Eduardo, who are you referring to?
A: E. Howard Hunt.
The presence of Ruby, the man who had been a hit man for organized crime as early as 1939 in Chicago, and who served as an FBI
informant in Dallas since 1959, brought the circle closer.
Q: When did that meeting take place in terms of the hour; was it daytime
or nighttime?
A: Early evening.
Q: How soon after that evening meeting took place did you leave Dallas?
A: I left about two hours later; Frank took me to the airport and we went
back to Miami.
Q: Now, can you tell us in relationship to the day that President Kennedy
was killed, when this meeting took place?
A: The day before.
Q: Is it your testimony that the meeting which you just described with
Mr. Hunt making the payment of money to Mr. Sturgis took place on November 21, 1963?
A: Yes.
Q: When was the first time that you met me?
A: In 1977.
Q: On that occassion, did you tell me in words or substance exactly the
same thing that you have testified to today?
A: Yes.
The original focus at the first trial by Hunt's lawyer, Ellis Rubin, upon the importance of establishing Hunt's
alleged absence from Dallas on November 22, had so skewed the
defense that the CIA sought out witnesses and documentary evidence to provide a false alibi for the wrong day.
...Thus Hunt's CIA witnesses, misled as to the implications of the record, focused upon November 22 to the exclusion of the previous day.
...Hunt himself was misled as to his own objective. When I confronted Hunt with the fact that CIA records disclosed that he
had taken eleven hours of sick leave in the two-week period ending November 23, 1963, he responded that he was quite sure he had not
utilized any of those eleven hours on November 22.
Having decided that he had exculpated himself from the relevant potential accusation, he agreed
that it was certainly possible that he had been absent from work on November 21.
...During the Lorenz deposition I inquired about her identification of the man she described as Jack Ruby.
Q: Two days after President Kennedy was assassinated, that is on November 24,
1963, Lee Harvey Oswald, who was arrested and charged with the assassination of President Kennedy and the murder of police officer
J.D. Tippit, was killed in Dallas by a man named Jack Ruby?
A: Yes.
Q: On that occassion and subsequent to that time, did you see pictures of
Jack Ruby in the newspaper and did you see Jack Ruby on television.
A: Yes, I did.
Q: Is it your testimony that the man who killed Lee Harvey Oswald is,
to the best of your ability to identify him, the person who was in the room in the motel in Dallas the night before the president was
killed?
A: Yes.
Q: Had you ever seen Jack Ruby before November 21, 1963?
A: No.
Dunne's cross-examination did not succeed in calling into question a single statement that she had made. Indeed, it provided an
opportunity for her to fill in a number of details.
...When asked why she had not appeared before the Warren Commission, she testified that she was instructed by her superiors in the CIA
not to do so. Dunne persisted.
Q: Is it your testimony today, that today's testimony is consistent with
what you said before the House Select Committee?
A: That's right.
Q: When was the first time you met Howard Hunt?
A: 1960, in Miami, Florida.
Q: How was he identified to you?
A: Introduced. Introduced as Eduardo.
Q: How do you spell that?
A: E-D-U-A-R-D-O., Eduardo. E-D-U-A-R-D-O. He was to finance the operations in Miami.
Q: What language did he speak to you in?
A: English and Spanish.
Q: English and Spanish?
A: Yes.
Q: Do you speak Spanish?
A: Yes.
Q: Any other languages?
A: German.
Q: When is it that you became aware that this person you know as Eduardo
was E. Howard Hunt?
A: About the same time. Eduardo was the name we were to refer to him as,
when discussing things.
Q: Who did you believe he was working for at that time?
A: CIA.
Q: Why?
A: Because we were all at that time CIA members of Operation
40. We had been given instructions from Eduardo and had certain rights and
permissions to do things that the average citizen could not do.
When Dunne asked her about her early experiences for the CIA in Cuba she answered:
"I will tell you what is on record. I stole secrets from Cuba. I was trained to kill. Anything else?"
During my interview with Marita prior to the deposition, I had asked for the names of the other persons in the two-car caravan
from Miami to Dallas. She was very reluctant to answer that question: "They killed Kennedy. I don't want to be the one to give
their names; it's too dangerous." I told her that I would neither pursue the matter then nor inquire of her about their identities
at the deposition. I told her that it was possible, however, that Hunt's lawyer might ask that question.
At the deposition, Hunt's lawyer demanded that she provide the name of one more person in the automobile with her. She looked at me,
stared at Dunne as if to say, "Well, you asked for this," and responded:
A: The other one was Jerry Patrick ....
Q: Jerry Patrick ... ?
A: Hemming.
Q: Is that, H-E-M-M-I-N-G?
A: Yes.
She added that two Cuban brothers named Novos and a pilot named Pedro Diaz Lanz were also in the caravan.
After the deposition I discussed that question with her. She said, "If Hunt and his friends in the CIA wanted that question answered,
or were too dumb or lazy to keep their lawyer from asking it, the responsibility is theirs, not mine."
According to Lane, "Before Miss Lorenz testified, I asked her,
`Will you tell me the names of the people who traveled with you
in that two-car caravan?' She said she wouldn't name names.
`That could get me killed,' she said. `Don't ask me that question.
I want you to promise me you won't ask me that question.'
I did not. However, Mr. Hunt's lawyer asked her that question,
and she answered it, to my surprise. She said it was the Novo brothers."
According to Lane, "The Novo brothers are very interesting characters. I've done some research on them. I can assure you, incidentally,
that the first time I heard their name connected with the Kennedy
assassination was when Miss Lorenz gave their names to Hunt's lawyer.
She had not told me anything before that."
"After her testimony to Hunt's lawyer, I asked Miss Lorenz,
`Why did you tell them?' She said -- referring to Hunt, the CIA
and his lawyers -- `If they are so dumb as to ask me that question,
then it is not my fault if I give them the answer. It's on their
heads. If YOU had asked me, it would have been a different story.
However, if the CIA -- through Hunt and his lawyers -- asked that
question, then it's on the record, and it's their fault, not mine.'"
"These Novo brothers that Miss Lorenz named have been involved in
a series of intelligence-related crimes. They were involved in
the murder in Washington, D.C. in 1976 of former Chilean Government
official Orlando Letelier and Ronnie Moffit, a woman who was with him.
An Englishman named Michael Townley who was connected with the
Chilean secret police was involved in planning the Letelier murder
with the Novo brothers. When Townley was indicted, he testified
against the Novo brothers."
"Townley was questioned by an FBI agent named Whack who asked
Townley to show him where in New York City he had his first
meeting with the Novo brothers. Townley pointed out a building
at 500 Fifth Avenue and showed Whack the office on the 41st floor
where the first meeting was held."
According to Lane, research indicates that the meeting was held in the office of former U.S. Senator James Buckley
(Conservative-N.Y.). Buckley, now a federal judge on the U.S. District Court of Appeals
for the District of Columbia, is the brother of former CIA operative
and NATIONAL REVIEW Editor William F. Buckley Jr. E. Howard Hunt
was William F. Buckley's immediate superior in the CIA during the
period that the two served together in the CIA in Mexico.
"The testimony by Townley made reference to a William Sampol who
worked in James Buckley's office. Sampol was a cousin of the
Novo brothers."
Lane points out that the murder of Letelier took place during the time that George Bush was Director of the CIA.
"There is evidence that Bush was given information indicating that
the Chilean Government was responsible for the murder of Letelier."
KILLED BY SUPPORTERS
"However, Bush gave information to selected friends in the news
media; the story that Letelier was killed by his own supporters
who wanted to make him [Letelier] a martyr. Guess who took that
story from George Bush -- all false disinformation -- and ran with
it, and gave it to America. None other than William F. Buckley Jr.
The media followed Buckley's lead, but it turned out not to be true."
"The Novo brothers were both convicted and sentenced to prison.
These are the brothers whom Marita Lorenz testified were in the
two-car caravan of killers traveling from Miami to Dallas for the
purpose of assassinating President Kennedy."
Lane is skeptical about the growing move within the Establishment to support the grass-roots demand that the secret Warren Commission,
House Committee, and CIA files be released to the public.
"The Government is now saying, `OK, let's look at the files.'
They want us to be satisfied with the opening of the files.
This is not enough, however. Think of it this way:
If there was a bank robbery and the police found out who did it,
we would not be satisfied if they just opened the files so that
everybody could look at the files and see what happened."
"The only way to get the truth about the assassination is to appoint
a special prosecutor who will bring those responsible to trial." |
Dunne wanted to know about the weapons.
Q: Did you see the weapons in the second car?
A: Yes.
Q: What kinds of weapons were there?
A: Handguns and automatics.
Q: Could you identify for me today what kind of guns they were, specifically?
A: Rifles; there were cases of machine guns, rifles, thirty-eights, forty-fives.
Q: Have you been trained in firearms?
A: Yes.
Q: What were the kind of rifles that were there?
A: M-16's, M-1s, shotguns; several.
Q: There were machine guns?
A: Yes.
Q: In your work for the CIA Operation 40, was that one of the major
tasks you undertook was to transport guns?
A: Yes.
Q: Was that for the anti-Cuba activities.
A: Yes, it was.
Q: What happened to those guns when you got to Dallas.
A: They were in the car and I presume they took them to the motel the
next day, the next night. A lot of things they carried in.
Q: Were did you leave from?
A: From the house in Miami.
Q: Is that a CIA house?
A: A safe house. Yes.
Q: Did everyone meet at the same place?
A: Yes.
Q: Who else was at the house, besides the seven people you identified?
A: This fellow is incarcerated; it is not fair to answer. Another fellow
is dead:
Q: Incarcerated where?
A: Out of the country, right now, Venezuela somewhere.
Q: Is his name Bosch?
A: Yes.
Q: What is his first name?
A: Orlando.
Q: Was he one of the anti-Castro Cubans involved in Operation 40?
A: Yes.
Q: Isn't that a matter of public record?
A: Yes.
I broke in to address Dunne: "It's not a matter of public record that he was at the house that day...."
Q: Who was the person at the house that is now deceased?
A: Alexander Rorke, Jr.
Q: Is he a CIA employee?
A: Yes.
Q: What did you do after you got to New York and found out that President Kennedy was just
assassinated in Dallas?
A: Talked to the FBI.
Q: You talked to the FBI?
A: Yes.
Q: Voluntarily?
A: They wanted to talk to me about certain things with my child's father and
they picked me up and took me to the office.
Q: What day would that have been?
A: A few days after I arrived, after everyone got over the initial shock.
Q: It would be some time in the month of November of 1963?
A: Yes.
Q: In your discussions with the FBI, they inquired about your activities
which related to Dallas and this group of seven people that took the
car trip?
A: Well, they discussed my associates down there and my relationship
with my daughter's father, mostly.
Q: Did they know the names of the people you took the car trip with, from
Miami to Dallas?
A: Yes.
Q: Did they ask you about each of those people?
A: Yes.
Q: Did you tell them about the guns and money and about Eduardo?
A: Yes. They asked me about everything, my daughter's father, and I am
glad I am back up here away from that.
Q: You told them about Eduardo?
A: Yes.
Q: And the guns?
A: They know about all those associations. They didn't want to go into
it. Those were CIA activities, not FBI.
Before the day ended Marita Lorenz explained why she had left Dallas before the assasination:
"I knew that this was different from other jobs. This was not just gun-running. This was big, very big, and I wanted to get out. I told
Sturgis I wanted to leave. He said it was a very big operation but that my part was not so dangerous. I was to be a decoy. Before he
could go further, I said please let me get out. I want to go back to my baby in Miami.
[...counsel for the prosecution continues - Lane is narrating]
Dunne had developed a penchant for not leaving bad enough alone. The testimony of the witness had implicated Hunt and Sturgis in the
assassination. Dunne decided to put a fine point to the testimony.
Q: Did you ever talk with Frank Sturgis about it since then?
Lorenz was reluctant to respond directly to the question.
A: We are not on talking terms, Frank and I.
Q: That was not my question. Have you ever talked about it with Frank
Sturgis since 1963?
A: Yes.
Q: Did he ever indicate to you that he was involved in the
assassination of the President?
A: Yes
Dunne continued to ask questions that Marita Lorenz had requested that I avoid. Due to
my commitment to her, I did not make the inquiries, but Dunne rushed in asking questions
to which he did not know the answer.
Later Lorenz, prompted by Dunne's questions, explained that when Sturgis sought to
recruit her for yet another CIA project, he told her that she had "missed the really big one"
in Dallas.
He explained, she said, "We killed the President that day.
You could have been a part of it -- you know, part of history. You should have stayed. It was safe. Everything was covered
in advance. No arrests, no real newspaper investigation. It was all covered. Very professional."
[misc information about Russian defector Nosenko deleted for brevity..]
At 9:30 the next morning the jurors met to discuss the case. One hour and five minutes later the clerk informed the court that
there was a verdict.
THE COURT: Have you arrived at a verdict in this case?
THE FOREPERSON: Yes.
THE COURT: Would you give it to the clerk? Publish the verdict.
THE CLERK: United States District Cort, Southern District of Florida,
Miami, Florida, case numbber 80-1121-Civ-JWK. E. Howard Hunt, plaintiff, versus Liberty Lobby, defendant. Verdict as of
February 6, 1985. We, the jury, find for the defendant, Liberty Lobby and against the plaintiff, E. Howard Hunt.
So say we, all.
From the Bay of Pigs through the Kennedy
Assassination, Watergate, Iran-Contra and beyond, these are the men
Bush has put his trust and loyalty into through thick and thin.
Whether it was assassination, murder, running drugs, running arms,
burglaries, and everything else, he calls these men first, still to
this day. It's always nice when loyalty is involved, don't you
think?
|
