Last Word: My Indictment of the CIA in the Murder of JFK

by Mark Lane

  We explored that matter in exquisite detail during his deposition. Hunt was not concentrating on a damage award before an emotionally charged jury, but trying to extricate himself from serious discrepancies. I met Hunt at his attorneys’ offices at 10:05 AM on July 11, 1984, for two hours and ten minutes. Although I asked questions about numerous matters, I wanted to know the answer to but one. When the Rockefeller Commission36 had investigated the matter it concluded, “It cannot be determined with certainty where Hunt and Sturgis were on the day of the assassination.” Since everyone had to be somewhere, and just about everyone of a certain age recalled where he or she was that day, it is difficult to understand the commission’s bewilderment. I asked Hunt about the matter and he told me that the commission must not have asked “the right questions of the right people.”

  Over continuing objections by his counsel, I asked Hunt where he had been at the time of the assassination. He had been at home with his wife, “a domestic servant” and his three children. His wife and the maid, he said, were now dead. In 1963, his daughters were teenagers, and his son, St. John, was ten.37 His aunt, who was also with the family, had also since died.

  Hunt testified that he was in his automobile in Washington when he heard the radio report of Kennedy’s death. He then picked up his children from school and went home. The entire family, the maid and the aunt remained together. They stayed there in the recreation room together for forty-eight hours watching television. They never left the house. Then he paused and seemed to be rethinking his testimony and he corrected himself. They had remained together for seventy-two hours. Surely they ate? Yes, they ordered food to be delivered.

  With me at the deposition was a paralegal, Brent Whitmore, and the general counsel for the publisher, Fleming Lee. When the deposition concluded, the three of us entered an elevator. Fleming seemed a bit disappointed. He casually observed that in view of Hunt’s changing alibis he thought that perhaps I might have been “more confrontational.” He said, “You might have gotten much more.” I was silent. When we left the building in search of a taxicab, I answered his unspoken question. “It wasn’t the right audience.” He asked what I meant by that. I said, “The jurors weren’t there.”

  The jurors were present in the Miami courtroom when the case began with opening statements from each side. Counsel for the plaintiff said that Hunt was an honorable man. He had been defamed by Marchetti, who had lied about everything, even his own role in the CIA where he was a mere “gofer,” little more than an errand boy. He said that Hunt was at home with his family watching television at the time of the assassination and that he and his family remained there together for days. His alibi was unshakable as the evidence would prove. I said to the jury that the evidence would demonstrate that the CIA killed their president and that Hunt was involved in that conspiracy. I observed that some of the jurors were astonished and one rolled her eyes in apparent disbelief.

  The testimony began with Hunt. It had been well rehearsed and smoothly described Hunt’s exploits for his country. He then repeated his assurance that he and his family were together at his home on Friday, November 22, watching television for days and did not leave the house until Monday or Tuesday.

  During my cross-examination, Hunt admitted that CIA records documenting sick leave on a two-week basis revealed that he took eleven hours of sick leave in the two-week period ending on November 23. The official records disclosed that if Hunt was in Dallas on the day before and the day of the assassination, there was nothing in the agency’s official records to dispute those conclusions. Hunt admitted that he had no recollection that he had been ill during that two-week period. He could not explain why he was absent from his job with the CIA in the D.C. area, or where he had been in the days just preceding the assassination. We had, of course, not proven that Hunt was in Dallas; we had established that there were no official records precluding that.

  Then I focused on Hunt’s alibi. I directed his attention to his testimony at the first trial. He agreed that on December 16, 1981, he had sworn that his children were very upset when they read that he had been in Dallas on November 22. He said that he tried to convince them that he had nothing to do with the assassination and that he was being persecuted for reasons unknown to him, but that they continued to believe the Marchetti accusations. He agreed that he had testified that the issue was the cause of a great deal of inter-family friction and exacerbated difficulties in the family. It seemed that neither Hunt nor his attorneys sensed the danger that was looming. I noticed that some of the jurors were anticipating the next questions, and they understood the path we were pursuing. I placed the dog-eared 1981 trial transcript on the counsel table, paused, and then asked Hunt a question that I believed he would not, could not, truthfully answer.

  Quietly, in a then silent courtroom, I said, “Mr. Hunt, why did you have to convince your children that you were not in Dallas, Texas, on November 22, 1963?” Hunt’s reaction was visceral; he sat up straight up in stunned silence. I asked again why his children needed to be told that their father wasn’t in Texas on the day of the assassination since they were at home with him on that day.

  I inquired if any of his three children were going to be called as witnesses in the case. None of them was going to testify for their father. I could have then subpoenaed them as witnesses for the defense, but I thought that they had suffered more than enough and that testifying that their father had committed perjury would have inflicted further undeserved pain. I also thought that his case was in shambles and that we had likely already prevailed. Hunt, while under oath, had lied to two juries, at numerous depositions, and before investigating committees, and it became apparent that he would not disclose where he had been on November 22.

  Hunt was going to call other witnesses. I thought that they would be irrelevant to an evaluation of the case by the jury. I met with my client and told him that I wished to focus almost exclusively upon evidence demonstrating the role of Hunt and the CIA in the assassination of President Kennedy. I suggested that we call Marchetti only for a rather cursory presentation and that Carto, the main potential witness as to lack of actual malice, should not testify at all. We had probably won the case for Willis and his newspaper. We had not established the truth about the assassination, and we had a unique opportunity to make that effort.

  Willis asked one question. “Have you ever been this confident about a jury’s verdict in advance and been wrong?” I laughed and conceded that over the years I had made numerous errors at trial, including misreading a jury’s reactions. We both knew that the plan could involve a substantial risk. Carto’s sense of history overcame his concerns of the survival for his organization, and he said, “Go for it.” He was on the next flight from Miami to his home to continue his daily work.

  After Hunt rested, I presented the testimony of Marita Lorenz. She had been the attractive eighteen-year-old daughter of the captain of a West German luxury liner docked in the Havana harbor at the time of the Cuban Revolution. She met Castro when he paid a visit to her father’s ship. Her romance with Castro continued even after her father’s ship had sailed away. Later, their child was born.

  Subsequently, Francisco Fiorini was named chief of security for the Cuban Air Force. It was not a significant assignment, since there wasn’t much of an air force, but it was useful to Fiorini because he was employed by the Central Intelligence Agency. The CIA fabricated a story that Castro was going to kill Marita’s child. That information was provided to Marita Lorenz by Fiorini, who arranged for her to flee from Cuba with the assistance of the government of the United States and the American embassy. Later in Miami, Fiorini, operating in the name of Frank Sturgis, recruited Lorenz for the CIA. Sturgis was later convicted for Watergate crimes along with Hunt, Liddy and various anti-Castro Cubans living in Miami who had been recruited by Hunt.

  When I met Lorenz in New York City, she was residing in a large apartment building on the east side of Manhattan in which minor and mid-level diplomatic emplo
yees of the Soviet Union also lived. Her assignment was to examine all of the garbage and trash in the apartment building in a search for letters or other documents discarded by the Russians. Marita Lorenz told me that she knew of my work in investigating the assassination of President Kennedy and that she wanted to share detailed information with me. The information was supported by documents and implicated both Sturgis and Hunt in planning and carrying out the assassination.

  When I was retained by the newspaper to defend it against Hunt, I located Marita. I asked her if she would testify at the trial in Miami. She seemed terrified at the thought and said, “You don’t know these people. They have killed and would not hesitate to kill again.” I suggested the possibility that she make a sworn statement in New York City before a court reporter, thus sparing her a trip to Miami with the horrible consequences that she feared would result. She considered that suggestion, and then asked if Hunt or his representatives would be at the deposition. When I said that they would be present, she said she would not appear. At that point I created a novel concept for the deposition. I would reserve a room at a large and impersonal hotel in Manhattan directly across the street from Madison Square Garden. Hunt’s representatives would meet me in the lobby and then be directed to the room. There was to be no telephone service from the room, and a representative of mine would be present when I left. The court reporter, Hunt’s counsel and my representative would be locked in the room when I left to meet Marita. She agreed, and I brought her to the room to testify. I explained that Marita and I would be leaving, and they would be remaining for twenty minutes after the deposition had been concluded. I also stated for the record that any further communication with Lorenz would be through me and that her address would not be made available. The deposition proceeded.

  At the trial, I offered the sworn statement of Lorenz as evidence of Hunt’s involvement in the assassination. Earlier at the trial, counsel for Hunt had read a deposition into the record utilizing the standard method. That is, in a somewhat bored manner, he began each statement with “Question” and after reading the question, then said, “Answer,” and read that. Before long, some of the jurors began to fidget, and others took a well-earned brief nap. That example demonstrated the weakness of a deposition as opposed to live testimony. Some lawyers ask permission to circulate copies of the deposition transcript to the jurors. That method creates an individual experience unlike a theater or a courtroom where everyone hears and sees all nuances together. In the theater and in a courtroom a communal response, laughter or horror, creates intensity. I have always considered the courtroom to be a stage for a dramatic production and that the most serious offense a lawyer may engage in is to bore the jurors, so I devised a method to both entertain and educate the jury about our case.

  I asked a woman to play the part of Marita Lorenz. She was dramatically inclined and had studied her script, the deposition transcript. While I asked the questions, she was able to respond not as a reader, but as a witness. Of course, I informed the jurors that the woman was not Marita Lorenz, but that the words she spoke were the statements to which Lorenz had sworn.

  Lorenz, through her proxy, testified:

  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.

  Lorenz had also done intelligence work for the New York Police Department.

  Q: During 1978, did you appear as a witness before the United States House of Representatives Select Committee on Assassinations?

  A: Yes.

  Q: Was that in relation to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy?

  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.

  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.

  Although Hunt had testified that Sturgis had never worked for the CIA, Richard Helms, the former director of the CIA, said he had. He testified in this case that “Frank Sturgis was an agent, an outside agent, a contract agent, of the agency.” Sturgis himself had stated under oath in another case that he had been recruited by the CIA. Hunt’s sworn denial that Sturgis had a CIA connection was repudiated by the testimony of all of the relevant witnesses.

  On the other hand, Lorenz, who had testified that Sturgis worked for the CIA, received corroboration from Helms and Sturgis himself.

  Q: Who did you witness make payments to Mr. Sturgis?

  A: A man by the name of Eduardo.

  Hunt had testified that he had used the alias “Eduardo.”

  Q: Who is Eduardo?

  A: That is his code name; the real name is E. Howard Hunt.

  Q: Did you know him and meet him during and prior to November 1963?

  A: Yes.

  Q: Did you witness payments made by Mr. Hunt to Mr. Sturgis or Mr. Fiorini on more than one occasion prior to November of 1963?

  A: Yes.

  In a previous meeting, Lorenz had agreed to talk about the days preceding the assassination, but her training in secrecy hindered her and her answers sounded stilted.

  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.

  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.