Carolyn E. Campbell, Ph.D. Author/Consultant cecampbell@earthlink.net http://www.truthwarriors.com/ Tucson AZ October 1, 1997. Janet Reno, Attorney General Dept. of Justice Washington D.C. Dear Attorney General Reno, Let me say for the record that I am in no way a 'conspiracy theorist' and I have never deliberately or systematically sought out information dealing with conspiracy theories on any subject. However, regarding the Kennedy assassination, like most Americans, I have never believed the Warren Commission Report was accurate. Please bear this in mind as you read this letter. In late 1994, I was browsing a bookstore at a Tucson shopping mall and inadvertently stumbled upon a book dealing with the Kennedy assassination (Plausible Denial by Mark Lane; NY: Thunder's Mouth Press, 1992, paperback). Being skeptical but mildly intrigued by the reviewers' comments on the back cover and because the book was '75% off' the cover price, I purchased and proceeded to read the book, which is the first book that I, a 'baby boomer' born in December, 1948, had ever read cover to cover on the Kennedy assassination. 'Plausible Denial' describes and summarizes not a conspiracy theory but a 1985 jury trial and unanimous jury verdict which dealt directly with the Kennedy assassination. Prior to reading Plausible Denial, my exposure to theories contrary to the Warren Report were a few chapters in books by Jim Garrison, Oliver Stone's film JFK and one or two programs on the Kennedy assassination which were broadcast on mainstream television stations. As you know, our system of jurisprudence is almost sacred and trial by jury a hallmark of our Constitution. Jury verdicts are not treated as theories to be debated but are taken as fact, often resulting in the long-term imprisonment or death of accused persons. It is about the trial and verdict described in Lane's book that I am writing you to demand that the Justice Department take action. The trial I read about in 'Plausible Denial' occurred in the state of Florida: United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, Miami Florida, Case number 80-1121-Civ-JWK. E. Howard Hunt, plaintiff, versus Liberty Lobby defendant. Given that you are an attorney from Florida and that you served as a Florida State Attorney prior to becoming US Attorney General, I am certain that you are aware of both the Hunt vs. Liberty Lobby trial as well as its unanimous jury verdict. However, let me refresh your memory. The reason for the trial was as follows. In 1978, Liberty Lobby, a publisher based in California, published an article in its magazine 'The Spotlight' which claimed that E. Howard Hunt, CIA agent and convicted Watergate felon, had been a conspirator in the 1963 assassination of President John Fitzgerald Kennedy. Hunt sued Liberty Lobby for libel claiming that he had nothing to do with the Kennedy assassination and therefore that the magazine had slandered him. There were two trials and prior to both of them, Hunt's attorneys carefully screened potential jurors to exclude anyone who might have the slightest inclination to decide against Hunt. If anything, both juries seemed to be stacked in favor of Hunt, not against him. The reason for the second trial was that the first verdict had been thrown out on appeal because inappropriate instructions had been given to the jury. On Feb. 6, 1985, at the end of the second trial, after hearing copious testimony from numerous witnesses, the jury had been sequestered for only a few hours when it announced that it unanimously agreed with what Liberty Lobby had published, i.e. that E. Howard Hunt had been a conspirator in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy : "We the jury, find for the defendant, Liberty Lobby and against the plaintiff, E. Howard Hunt. So say we all, signed by the Foreperson." Polling of the jury: The court asks, "Ladies and gentlemen, we will now go through a procedure which is referred to as polling the jury. As Mary calls you by name, if the verdict just read was in fact your verdict, respond in the affirmative that it was your verdict. If it was not, let us know. The purpose is to be sure the record reflects we have a unanimous verdict ." Polling showed that the verdict was unanimous. The US media undertook a virtual news blackout of the trial and verdict in spite of the fact that news organizations were amply represented in the courtroom when the verdict was announced. The New York Times and Washington Post were the most important national media organizations to witness but later essentially ignore the Hunt vs. Liberty Lobby verdict. Instead of 2-3 inch headlines announcing Hunt's role in JFK's assassination, some members of the media stooped to the level of harassing jury members after the trial. When you look at how the same media habitually prints, seemingly as fact, unproven allegations and innuendo on page 1 including banner headlines, often with color photos (i.e. as occurred with Paula Jones' recent allegations), the intentional decision not to report the Hunt vs. Liberty Lobby verdict at all takes on even greater meaning. I am certain that a poll taken tomorrow would find that less than 0.5% of the American people are even aware that this trial, the only trial to date on the Kennedy assassination, even took place. Lane's book has been the only vehicle for learning about Hunt vs. Liberty Lobby and, although the book was a 'best seller', relatively few Americans have read it. Recently, I was informed that someone has undertaken a smear campaign against Liberty Lobby and Mark Lane. However, in a jury trial, what counts is not the politics, lifestyle, race, religion, address, hair color or automobile of the plaintiffs, the defendants or their attorneys but rather the trial's testimony and resulting jury verdict. The smear campaign against Liberty Lobby and/or Mark Lane is simply a diversionary tactic to distract the public from the devastating implications of the unanimous jury verdict and the testimony which prompted that verdict. To say otherwise would be to say that because of some subjective attribute of or allegation against Mr. Goldman or his attorneys, O.J. Simpson should be able to successfully challenge the civil trial verdict which found him liable for damages in the deaths of Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman. If the unanimous jury verdict and its Constitutional implications in the Hunt vs. Liberty Lobby trial are written off and ignored, then no jury verdict in this great nation of ours has any validity and justice in the United States of America is nothing more than expensive theatrics and posturing and our moral authority as a democracy is fatally eroded not only at home but throughout the world. In any event, the Justice Department should not be dependent upon the media or public opinion to take action regarding federal capital murder offenses. I cannot believe that any attorney in the United States or elsewhere would contradict my opinion that the 1985 verdict which I describe in this letter is anything less than ample probable cause for a federal murder conspiracy indictment of E. Howard Hunt. In the O.J. Simpson case, had the civil trial with its unanimous guilty verdict come before any criminal trial, I cannot imagine that the judicial system would not have used the civil trial testimony and outcome as a demonstration of ample probable cause to issue a criminal murder indictment. The public surely would have demanded it. A unanimous civil trial jury verdict which directly or indirectly implicates one or more parties as having been involved in a murder is ample probable cause to indict for criminal murder. Said civil trial verdict does not make the party or parties automatically guilty of criminal murder, but it certainly justifies a murder indictment and trial. Whether or not a trial for murder would produce a unanimous guilty verdict in The United States vs. Hunt (and certainly other parties in addition to Hunt would eventually be indicted) remains to be seen. However, without such a trial, the United States will enter the twenty-first century with the sorry distinction of having executed or given long, often life sentences to hundreds of thousands of prisoners for crimes that are less serious than a presidential assassination while looking the other way when the known and knowable conspirators in the assassination of JFK not only remain free, but also collect sizable government pensions and receive health and other benefits. In fact, knowing that Hunt expected to walk away from his Florida libel suit with a half a million dollars in his pocket, demonstrates that he and his assassination cohorts are not only guilty of the JFK murder, but also that they have been exploiting it financially for the past 30+ years. That Mr. Hunt and his co-conspirators, rather than being in prison where they belong, have, since Nov. 22, 1963, received millions of US tax payer dollars in salaries and benefits makes me queasy. Furthermore, it is not unreasonable to speculate, given Hunt's employment situation on and after Nov. 22, 1963, that US taxpayer dollars financed most if not all of the 'costs' associated with the Kennedy assassination. And, given the nature of the cover-up, our tax dollars probably continue to finance the debacle to this day. Is that fair to the American people, to the veterans who died defending our democracy the past 200+ years or to our Founding Fathers who took great risks and made many sacrifices to establish the democratic American Republic which has, until now, been a beacon of freedom and justice throughout the world? It is my humble opinion, Madame Attorney General, that failure to indict Mr. Hunt in a timely manner for conspiracy to commit murder in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy makes a mockery of all justice in the United States and the lack of justice in JFK's murder is the critical factor ensuring our democratic decline and ultimate demise. I respectfully demand that you exercise your responsibility and indict E. Howard Hunt for the crime of conspiring to murder President John Fitzgerald Kennedy and cite the verdict described in this letter as ample probable cause. I hasten to remind you that there is no statute of limitations on murder. Given the testimony which came out in the Hunt vs. Liberty Lobby trial, the indictment of Frank Sturgis and others should be considered but your office will have to determine who besides Hunt should be indicted. Surely many names will eventually be added to the list since the conspiracy to assassinate President Kennedy was not a small one. Marita Lorenz' testimony alone indicates the names of many who were involved and should be considered for indictment as co-conspirators. It will destroy the fabric of law and the foundation of our government and Constitution if the year 2000 rolls around and your office has taken no action. Do you want that legacy on your shoulders – a legacy that may result in the demise of democracy in the United States? I recognize that the 1985 Hunt vs. Liberty Lobby trial and verdict occurred under the watch of the Reagan/Bush Administration and that they must take the burden of responsibility for not indicting Mr. Hunt in 1985 when the verdict was announced. However, given that it is likely that the Reagan/Bush Admin. and the Republican Party stood to lose politically from a federal indictment of Hunt, it is understandable albeit unforgivable that they did not indict . You and the Clinton Administration, on the other hand, have no logical forgivable or unforgivable political reasons for not indicting since the Democrats as a party have been victimized by the actions of men like Hunt since 1963. The fact that the same man whom a bona fide U.S. jury unanimously concluded had played a key role in the conspiracy to murder JFK was also a key man in the Watergate fiasco to influence the choice of Democratic Presidential candidates in 1972, is not insignificant. Furthermore, it is my opinion that the refusal of the Republican controlled Congress to approve President Clinton's politically centrist judgeship nominees (who are very similar to those nominated by Gerald Ford and not liberal judicial activists as Congressional Republicans would have us believe) is partly a result of the Court of Appeals decision to throw out the first verdict in the Hunt vs. Liberty Lobby case. The judge in the first Hunt vs. Liberty Lobby trial had indeed given grossly inappropriate jury instructions which ultimately invalidated the verdict of that trial. The current Congress would prefer that the Court of Appeals and other federal courts be stocked with right of center activist judges who look at the political ramifications of their decisions and not the judicial merits of cases. In the case of Hunt vs. Liberty Lobby, an activist judge with political beliefs in line with Nixon, Reagan, Bush, and Gingrich would have ignored the grossly inappropriate jury instructions and allowed the first trial verdict in favor of Hunt to stand. In any event, the US mass media, by failing to report the second verdict, made the second trial and its unanimous verdict virtually meaningless. With media self-censorship, stacking the deck in the judiciary is simply window dressing which adds a facade of democratic legitimacy to the 'process'. The realization that such developments have taken place in our socio-political system is troubling. Justice should not be held hostage to political expediency. That, Madame Attorney General, is serious corruption and it will destroy democracy in this nation if it is not corrected in a timely fashion and time is running out. I beg you and the President to not even consider using an indictment of Hunt as a bargaining chip to convince the Republicans to back off in their relentless 'grasping at straws' efforts to defame/discredit President Clinton. The Kennedy assassination was the crime not of the century but of the millennium given that JFK was a beloved world leader who, at the time of his demise, was evolving into that role with the justice and fairness such a role would entail and which would have, at long last, ushered in the era of peace expected but not delivered at the end of W.W.II. The American people – nay, the people of the world – demand and deserve that justice be done once and for all while the outcome of a trial would still have historical meaning. It will not have historical meaning in 2030 or 2040, when all those who knew of Kennedy during his presidency will be long dead. In case you have forgotten the nature of the testimony in the Hunt vs. Liberty Lobby trial, I annex an excerpt of the trial record, i.e., the deposition of Marita Lorenz, which I found to be the most compelling testimony of the trial for many reasons not the least of which is the fact that the same testimony had been given to the House Assassinations Committee twenty years ago. It is frightening to realize that President Carter and the Democratic majority in the House and Senate would be so intimidated as to refuse to indict Hunt in the late 1970's after hearing the Lorenz and other similar testimony. Several Democrats have since admitted that they feared devastating personal reprisals if they pushed for an indictment in the 1970's when the House Assassinations Committee heard some of the same key evidence that caused the Hunt vs. Liberty Lobby jury to unanimously find against Hunt concluding that the evidence had compelled them to vote that he indeed had been a conspirator in the JFK assassination. Such a situation of de facto psycho-political, gun-totin' terrorism against Congress by out of control, anti-democratic government agents who have no accountability and hide behind 'national security' arguments to flaunt and break the law in abominable ways cannot continue. The lack of effective accountability to and oversight by Congress and the option to willy nilly cite 'national security' as a cover for law breaking and treason against the Constitution and people of the United States of America by agencies involved in law enforcement and espionage must cease. I am very grateful to the members of the Hunt vs. Liberty Lobby jury for their courage and honesty in the face of imminent threats and harassment and only wish that Congress had the same courage twenty years ago. How different the world would be had they exercised their responsibilities. I respectfully remind you, Madame Attorney General, that you should not be swayed from your duty to indict E. Howard Hunt by anyone who attempts to trash my name and reputation in order to divert attention from the message I bear and the demand I have humbly made. I am a pacifist/activist and law-abiding citizen but given past performance of police agencies in this country (the Geronimo Pratt case and the Whitehurst exposé of FBI lab irregularities come to mind), I believe that while unlikely, it is remotely possible that those who feel threatened by my demands will seek to slander, defame or even frame me as a way to divert attention from my message. My country may do what it will with me, even to the point of executing me for crimes I did not commit. Such horrors have indeed happened throughout history to individuals who non-violently oppose corrupt power structures. I would give my life, in a non-violent sacrifice, to save my country and our world which is so totally influenced by what happens in our United States of America. As they say in Mexico, and it surely applies elsewhere, 'When the United States gets a cold, Mexico gets pneumonia'. My point is that a successful campaign to trash, target or frame me would in no way alter or dilute the fact that a US jury decided unanimously that E. Howard Hunt was a conspirator in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. No campaign against me would in any way liberate your office from the responsibility to indict E. Howard Hunt given that the Hunt vs. liberty Lobby verdict is sufficient probable cause. By the way, I do not feel that all CIA and FBI agents and cops are bad. In fact, I recently wrote a novel in which 12 CIA and FBI agents are among the heroes of the murder mystery and wherein cops from a small town, aided a bit and with honesty by officers from a large city, do wonderful things in honorable, courageous crime solving. The average CIA/FBI agent and the average cop are decent people whose work practice is polluted by corruption among their peers or leadership. Good cops benefit from accountability whereas bad cops suffer. Frank Serpico and other law enforcement 'whistle blowers' would agree with this in no uncertain terms. My novel is available free on my web site where this letter will shortly be posted, as well. I am editing the novel to improve it and the new version should be up by mid-October, 1997, in case you're interested. I intend to undertake a hunger strike (something I have done before) during the next year, assuming I am still alive/able to do so. I will have to organize my hunger strike in order to increase the chances that it will be understood and supported and that will take some time which is why I cannot give you an exact date. However, I am telling you in advance that my demands during the hunger strike, which my intellect and intuition tell me will go far towards remedying the ills faced by our beloved nation, will be threefold: 1) the indictment of E. Howard Hunt for conspiring to murder President John F. Kennedy; 2) the release, uncensored, of Count De Mohrenschildt's memoirs and 3) the extradition of General Manuel Noriega so he can be tried as a war criminal by an appropriate international war crimes tribunal. Noriega was captured by US forces during a war, accused of crimes that are indeed crimes against humanity, not just crimes against the United States. If he was dealing in drugs, etc., while President of Panama, given Panama's pivotal geographical position and consequent role in world trade and finance, his crimes surely affected the world, not just this country, and he should be tried and sentenced accordingly by a recognized international tribunal just as Bosnian, Nazi and other war criminals have been tried and sentenced. I sincerely hope that Mr. Noriega is safe from potential jail house murder since he surely has accomplices in crime who would like to silence him permanently. No one, Madame Attorney General, not you, not the President and surely not the FBI or CIA, is above the law. Law enforcement that is not accountable leads to dictatorship, however pretty the democratic facade might appear. If any of us is not a part of the solution to this debacle, then we are de facto part of the problem. Notwithstanding my respect and admiration for your intelligence, decency, honesty and courage, I still must pose two questions. First, Madame Attorney general, where do you stand on issues of justice and fairness? And, second, are presidential assassins on government payroll subject to laws different from the rest of us? Respectfully Submitted, Carolyn E. Campbell, Ph.D. cc: US Senators, Representatives and individuals/organizations concerned about justice Annex (Available also at my web site http://www.truthwarriors.com/ ) Marita Lorenz legal deposition given as testimony for United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, Miami Florida, Case number 80-1121-Civ-JWK. E. Howard Hunt, plaintiff, versus Liberty Lobby defendant. Unanimous jury verdict 2/6/85 in favor of Liberty Lobby. 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. Was that in relation to the assassination of President John Fitzgerald 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 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. 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. His 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. 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. 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 whom 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. 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 occasion, did you tell me in words or substance exactly the same thing that you have testified today? A. Yes. 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 occasion 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. What follows is the cross-examination of Marita Lorenz by E. Howard Hunt's attorney. [When asked about her early experience for the CIA in Cuba, Lorenz replied: "I will tell you what is on record. I stole secrets from Cuba. I was trained to kill. Anything else?"] 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. [In a pre-deposition interview, Lorenz had reluctantly told Lane, in response to his inquiry about the names of other persons in the two-car caravan from Miami to Dallas: "They killed Kennedy. I don't want to be the one to give their names; it's too dangerous." She did not want any testimony regarding the occupants of the second car to go on record but Lane warned her that Hunt's attorney could ask the question on cross examination--which indeed he did.] Q. [Who was the other person riding in the automobile with you?] 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 Novis and a pilot named Pedro Diaz Lanz were also in the caravan.] Q. Did you see the weapons in the second car? A. Yes. Q. What kind of weapons were there? A. Hand guns 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-1's, 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. Where 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. [At this point, Mark Lane, Defense Counsel, interrupted to state: "It is not a matter of public record that he was at the house that day. Be fair with the questions. She is not represented by counsel. She may well have violated the law on numerous occasions in response to your questions."] 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 anyway 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. 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. Q. I will have to start again because the court reporter cannot take nods down. A. I was nodding yes, to each. Q. What was your answer? A. They asked me about everything, my daughter's father [Fidel Castro], 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. [In response to a question concerning why Lorenz had left Dallas before the assassination, she replied: "I knew that this was different from other jobs. This was not just gunrunning. 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 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. Finally he agreed and drove me to the airport." Ms. Lorenz flew to Miami, got her child then flew to New York to stay with her mother in New Jersey.] Q. Did you ever talk with Frank Sturgis about it, since then? 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 indicate to you that he was involved in the assassination of the president? A. Yes. [Hunt's lawyer was asking delicate questions that Mark Lane, Defense Counsel, had been requested by Lorenz to avoid. She was uncomfortable answering but did answer. In response to one question, Lorenz said that Sturgis had 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."] This letter is © 1997 Dr. Carolyn E. Campbell All Rights Reserved