trying my best to fix the regex and editing python code

pythonCode/personTestingOutput/cia.xml

@@ -3,7 +3,7 @@
 <p>By Greg Kaza</p>
 
 <p> This article is reprinted from Full Disclosure. Copyright (c) 1986
-<ent type='ORG'>Capitol Information</ent> Association. All rights reserved. <ent type='ORG'>Permission</ent> is hereby
+Capitol Information Association. All rights reserved. <ent type='ORG'>Permission</ent> is hereby
 granted to reprint this article providing this message is included in its
 entirety. Full Disclosure, Box 8275, <ent type='GPE'>Ann Arbor</ent>, <ent type='GPE'>Michigan</ent> 48107. $15/yr.</p>
 
@@ -46,7 +46,7 @@ there was nothing in the book that was harmful to national security or that
 was logically classifiable. <ent type='PERSON'>Bryan</ent> said the <ent type='ORG'>CIA</ent> was being capricious and
 arbitrary. They appealed, and a few months later down in <ent type='GPE'>Richmond</ent> the
 appellate court for the fourth district decided in the government's favor,
-and overturned <ent type='PERSON'>Bryan</ent>'s decision. Again, <ent type='ORG'>the Supreme Court</ent> did not hear the
+and overturned Bryan's decision. Again, <ent type='ORG'>the Supreme Court</ent> did not hear the
 case. It chose not to hear it, and the appellate court's decision stood.</p>
 
 <p>By this time, we had grown weary of the legal process. The book was published
@@ -56,7 +56,7 @@ stuff the <ent type='ORG'>CIA</ent> was trying to cut out. In all subsequent edi
 additional material is highlighted to show what it is they were trying to cut
 out.</p>
 
-<p>Of course the <ent type='ORG'>CIA</ent>'s position is that only they know what is a secret. They
+<p>Of course the CIA's position is that only they know what is a secret. They
 don't make the national security argument because that is too untenable these
 days. They say that they have a right to classify anything that they want to,
 and only they know what is classifiable. They are establishing a precedent,
@@ -96,7 +96,7 @@ you know its really a big joke.</p>
 
 <p><ent type='PERSON'>Marchetti</ent>: It had a tremendous effect on my life. The book put me in a
 position where I would forever be persona non grata with the bureaucracy in
-the <ent type='ORG'>federal government</ent>, which means, that I cannot get a job anywhere, a job
+the federal government, which means, that I cannot get a job anywhere, a job
 that is, specific to my background and talents. Particularly if the company
 has any form of government relationship, any kind of government contract.
 That stops the discussions right there. But even companies that are not
@@ -177,7 +177,7 @@ a lot of attention to it through their attempts to prevent it from being
 written and their attempts at censorship, which simply increased the appetite
 of the public, media, and <ent type='ORG'>Congress</ent>, to see what they were trying to hide and
 why. All of this was happening at a time when other events were occurring.
-<ent type='PERSON'>Ellsberg</ent>'s <ent type='ORG'>Pentagon</ent> Papers had come out about the same time I announced I was
+Ellsberg's <ent type='ORG'>Pentagon</ent> Papers had come out about the same time I announced I was
 doing my book. Some big stories were broken by investigative journalists. All
 of these things together, my book was part of it, did lead ultimately to
 congressional investigations of the <ent type='ORG'>CIA</ent>. I spent a lot of time behind the
@@ -185,16 +185,16 @@ scenes on the <ent type='ORG'>Hill</ent> with senators and congressman lobbying
 investigations and they finally did come to pass.</p>
 
 <p>It took awhile. President <ent type='PERSON'>Ford</ent> tried to sweep everything under the rug by
-creating the <ent type='ORG'>Rockefeller Commission</ent>, which admitted to a few <ent type='ORG'>CIA</ent> mistakes but
+creating the <ent type='PERSON'>Rockefeller</ent> Commission, which admitted to a few <ent type='ORG'>CIA</ent> mistakes but
 swept everything under the rug. It didn't wash publicly. By this time, the
 public didn't buy the government's lying. So we ultimately did have the Pike
 Committee, which the <ent type='ORG'>CIA</ent> and <ent type='ORG'>the White House</ent> did manage to sabotage. But the
-big one was <ent type='ORG'>the Church Committee</ent> in the <ent type='ORG'>Senate</ent> which conducted a pretty broad
+big one was <ent type='ORG'>the Church Committee</ent> in the Senate which conducted a pretty broad
 investigation and brought out a lot of information on the <ent type='ORG'>CIA</ent>. The result of
 that investigation was that the <ent type='ORG'>CIA</ent> did have to admit to a lot of wrongdoing
 and did have to make certain reforms. Not as much as I would have liked. I
 think everything has gone back to where it was and maybe even worse than what
-it was, but at least there was a temporary halt to the <ent type='ORG'>CIA</ent>'s free reign of
+it was, but at least there was a temporary halt to the CIA's free reign of
 hiding behind secrecy and getting away with everything, up to and including
 murder. There were some changes and I think they were all for the better.</p>
 
@@ -320,7 +320,7 @@ will review them and make sure you don't say anything you shouldn't say and
 so on and so forth. Then we will get in touch with our counterparts, and see
 to it that this information gets out to the West, which will publish it, and
 then it will get back to the <ent type='NORP'>Soviet</ent> Union in a variety of forms. It will get
-back in summaries broadcast by <ent type='ORG'>the Voice</ent> of <ent type='GPE'>America</ent> and <ent type='ORG'>Radio Liberty</ent>, and
+back in summaries broadcast by <ent type='ORG'>the Voice</ent> of <ent type='GPE'>America</ent> and Radio Liberty, and
 copies of the book will come back in, articles written about it will be
 smuggled in, and this in turn will be a big influence on the intelligentsia
 and the party leaders and it will undercut <ent type='PERSON'>Suslov</ent> and the right wingers.''
@@ -354,7 +354,7 @@ to this episode but never went into it. It's an open secret in the press
 corps here in <ent type='GPE'>Washington</ent> and <ent type='GPE'>New York</ent>, but nobody ever wrote a real big story
 for a lot of reasons, because I guess it's just the kind of story that it's
 difficult for them to get their hooks into. I knew people who were then in
-<ent type='ORG'>the White House</ent> and <ent type='ORG'>State Department</ent> who were very suspicious of it because
+<ent type='ORG'>the White House</ent> and State Department who were very suspicious of it because
 they thought the <ent type='ORG'>KGB</ent>...</p>
 
 <p>FD: Had duped <ent type='ORG'>TIME</ent>?</p>
@@ -409,20 +409,20 @@ this story to in depth.</p>
 
 <p><ent type='PERSON'>Marchetti</ent>: It probably did but I was already out of the agency and I don't
 know what it was. But I do know it was a very sensitive activity and that
-people very high up in <ent type='ORG'>the White House</ent> and <ent type='ORG'>State Department</ent> who you would
+people very high up in <ent type='ORG'>the White House</ent> and State Department who you would
 have thought would have been aware of it were not aware of it. But then
 subsequently they were clearly taken into a room and talked to in discussions
 and were no longer critics and doubters and in fact became defenders of it.</p>
 
-<p>FD: Let me make sure I am clear about the <ent type='ORG'>CIA</ent>'s motivation...</p>
+<p>FD: Let me make sure I am clear about the CIA's motivation...</p>
 
-<p><ent type='PERSON'>Marchetti</ent>: The <ent type='ORG'>CIA</ent>'s motivation was that here we have a former <ent type='NORP'>Soviet</ent> premier
+<p><ent type='PERSON'>Marchetti</ent>: The CIA's motivation was that here we have a former <ent type='NORP'>Soviet</ent> premier
 talking out about the events of his career and revealing some pretty
 interesting things about his thinking and the thinking of others. All of
 which shows that the <ent type='NORP'>Soviet</ent> Union is run by a very small little clique. A
 very small <ent type='NORP'>Byzantine</ent>-like clique. There is a strong tendency to stick with
 <ent type='NORP'>Stalinisn</ent> and turn to <ent type='NORP'>Stalinism</ent> but some of the cooler heads, the more
-moderate types, are trying to make changes. Its good stuff from the <ent type='ORG'>CIA</ent>'s
+moderate types, are trying to make changes. Its good stuff from the CIA's
 point of view and from the U.S. government's point of view. This is what
 we're dealing with. This is our primary rival. Look at how they are. And
 <ent type='PERSON'>Khruschev</ent> had to dictate these things in secrecy and they had to be smuggled
@@ -444,7 +444,7 @@ government we are dealing with here. These are the kinds of people they are
 and the kind of lies they live.</p>
 
 <p>FD: Let's turn to world affairs for a moment. One of the events of recent
-years that has always puzzled me is <ent type='GPE'>United States</ent> support for the Vanaaka
+years that has always puzzled me is United States support for the Vanaaka
 Party in what was once the <ent type='LOC'>New Hebrides</ent> Islands. In the late '70s, before the
 <ent type='LOC'>New Hebrides</ent> achieved independence, there were basically two factions
 fighting between themselves to see who would maintain control when the
@@ -463,7 +463,7 @@ without a revolution and things of that sort. The classic example is West
 <ent type='GPE'>Berlin</ent>. Back in the '50s we were contesting with the <ent type='NORP'>Russians</ent> for influence
 in <ent type='GPE'>Berlin</ent>. This was at a time when the <ent type='NORP'>Russians</ent> and <ent type='NORP'>East Germans</ent> were putting
 tremendous pressure on to have <ent type='GPE'>West Berlin</ent> go almost voluntarily into the
-<ent type='NORP'>Soviet</ent> bloc. The <ent type='GPE'>United States</ent> was struggling mightily to keep <ent type='GPE'>West Berlin</ent>
+<ent type='NORP'>Soviet</ent> bloc. <ent type='GPE'>The United</ent> States was struggling mightily to keep <ent type='GPE'>West Berlin</ent>
 free. At that point in time the strong power in West <ent type='GPE'>Germany</ent> were the
 <ent type='NORP'><ent type='NORP'>Christian</ent> <ent type='NORP'>Democrats</ent></ent> under <ent type='PERSON'>Konrad Adenauer</ent>, and these were the people that we
 were supporting.</p>
@@ -477,7 +477,7 @@ instead of putting all of our eggs in the <ent type='NORP'>Christian</ent> Democ
 <ent type='PERSON'>Brandt</ent> and the Social <ent type='NORP'>Democrats</ent> were able to maintain a free <ent type='GPE'>West Berlin</ent> and
 we were able to achieve our goal. There were some people in the <ent type='ORG'>CIA</ent> who
 thought this was terrible, we were not being ideologically pure, and one of
-them happens to be E. <ent type='PERSON'>Howard Hunt</ent>, who actually considered <ent type='PERSON'>Willy Brandt</ent> a <ent type='ORG'>KGB</ent>
+them happens to be E. Howard Hunt, who actually considered <ent type='PERSON'>Willy Brandt</ent> a <ent type='ORG'>KGB</ent>
 spy. So there are times when you have to, I guess you would call it, choose
 the lesser of two evils.</p>
 
@@ -506,9 +506,9 @@ inconsequential at the time by <ent type='PERSON'>Carter</ent> and everyone invo
 it so inconsequential that they don't even remember it. It's something they
 signed off on. My guess from what you have told me is that it was a mistake.</p>
 
-<p>FD: You mentioned E. <ent type='PERSON'>Howard Hunt</ent> earlier. I understand that you wrote an
+<p>FD: You mentioned E. Howard Hunt earlier. I understand that you wrote an
 article for a <ent type='GPE'>Washington</ent>-based publication about the assassination of John F.
-<ent type='PERSON'>Kennedy</ent> and <ent type='PERSON'>Hunt</ent> sued the publication, charging libel. Could you give us some
+<ent type='PERSON'>Kennedy</ent> and Hunt sued the publication, charging libel. Could you give us some
 background on this matter?</p>
 
 <p><ent type='PERSON'>Marchetti</ent>: The article was written in the summer of 1978 and published by
@@ -523,7 +523,7 @@ I forget the exact date, but this memo was something like six years old,
 while <ent type='PERSON'>Helms</ent> was still in office as director.</p>
 
 <p>The memo said that at some point in time the <ent type='ORG'>CIA</ent> was going to have to deal
-with the fact that <ent type='PERSON'>Hunt</ent> was in <ent type='GPE'>Dallas</ent> the day of the <ent type='PERSON'>Kennedy</ent> assassination or
+with the fact that Hunt was in <ent type='GPE'>Dallas</ent> the day of the <ent type='PERSON'>Kennedy</ent> assassination or
 words to that effect. There was some other information in it, such as did you
 know anything about it, he wasn't doing anything for me, and back and forth.
 I had that piece of information, along with information that the House Select
@@ -544,7 +544,7 @@ information that there was more than one shooter and probably come up with
 this memo, this internal <ent type='ORG'>CIA</ent> memorandum, and there will be some other things.
 Then the <ent type='ORG'>CIA</ent> will conduct a limited hangout, and will admit to some error or
 mistake, but then sweep everything else under the rug, and in the process
-they may let a few people dangle in the wind like E. <ent type='PERSON'>Howard Hunt</ent>, Frank
+they may let a few people dangle in the wind like E. Howard Hunt, Frank
 <ent type='PERSON'>Sturgis</ent>, <ent type='PERSON'>Jerry</ent> Hemming, and other people who have been mentioned in the past
 as being involved in something related to the <ent type='PERSON'>Kennedy</ent> assassination. It was
 that kind of speculative piece.</p>
@@ -552,7 +552,7 @@ that kind of speculative piece.</p>
 <p>What happened is that about a week after my article appeared in SPOTLIGHT the
 Wilmington News-Journal published an article by <ent type='PERSON'>Joe Trento</ent>. This was a longer
 and more far-ranging article, in which he discussed the memo too but in
-greater detail. A couple of weeks after that <ent type='PERSON'>Hunt</ent> informed SPOTLIGHT that he
+greater detail. A couple of weeks after that Hunt informed SPOTLIGHT that he
 wanted a retraction. I checked with my sources and said I don't think we
 should retract. I said we should do a follow-up article. Now by this time
 some <ent type='ORG'>CIA</ent> guy was caught stealing pictures in the committee, some spy, so
@@ -560,11 +560,11 @@ things were really hot and heavy at the time. There was a lot of expectation
 that the committee was going to do something, some really good work to bring
 their investigation around. So I said to SPOTLIGHT let's do a follow-up
 piece, but the publisher chickened out and said, nah, what we'll do is tell
-<ent type='PERSON'>Hunt</ent> we'll give him equal space. He can say whatever he wants to in the same
+Hunt we'll give him equal space. He can say whatever he wants to in the same
 amount of space.</p>
 
-<p><ent type='PERSON'>Hunt</ent> ignored the offer. A couple of months later <ent type='PERSON'>Hunt</ent> comes to town for
-secret hearings with the committee, and was heard in executive session. <ent type='PERSON'>Hunt</ent>
+<p>Hunt ignored the offer. A couple of months later Hunt comes to town for
+secret hearings with the committee, and was heard in executive session. Hunt
 was suing the publisher of the book 'Coup D'Etat in <ent type='GPE'>America</ent>,' and deposed me
 in relation to that case, and then he brought in, he tried to slip in, this
 SPOTLIGHT article. I was under instructions from my lawyer not to comment. My
@@ -573,14 +573,14 @@ privilege, and also on the grounds of my relationship with the <ent type='ORG'>C
 had on his own gone to the <ent type='ORG'>CIA</ent> before I gave my deposition and asked them
 about this, and they said to tell me to just hide behind my injunction. I
 told my lawyer I don't understand it, and he told me all that the <ent type='ORG'>CIA</ent> said is
-that they hate <ent type='PERSON'>Hunt</ent> more than they hate you and they're not going to give
-<ent type='PERSON'>Hunt</ent> any help. So that's what I did, and that was the end of it. We thought.</p>
+that they hate Hunt more than they hate you and they're not going to give
+Hunt any help. So that's what I did, and that was the end of it. We thought.</p>
 
-<p>Two years after it ran <ent type='PERSON'>Hunt</ent> finally sued SPOTLIGHT over my article. SPOTLIGHT
+<p>Two years after it ran Hunt finally sued SPOTLIGHT over my article. SPOTLIGHT
 thought it was such a joke, all things considered, that they really didn't
 pay any attention. I never even went to the trial. I never even submitted an
-affidavit. I was not deposed or anything. The <ent type='PERSON'>Hunt</ent> people didn't even try to
-call me as a witness or anything. I was left out of everything. <ent type='PERSON'>Hunt</ent> ended up
+affidavit. I was not deposed or anything. The Hunt people didn't even try to
+call me as a witness or anything. I was left out of everything. Hunt ended up
 winning a judgment for $650000. Now SPOTLIGHT got worried. They appealed and
 <ent type='ORG'>the Florida Appellate Court</ent> overturned the decision on certain technical
 grounds, and sent it back for retrial. The retrial finally occurred earlier
@@ -588,27 +588,27 @@ this year. When it came time for the retrial, which we had close to a year to
 prepare for, SPOTLIGHT got serious, and went out and hired themselves a good
 lawyer, <ent type='PERSON'>Mark Lane</ent>, who is something of an expert on the <ent type='PERSON'>Kennedy</ent>
 assassination. They got me to become involved in everything, and we ended up
-going down there and just beating <ent type='PERSON'>Hunt</ent>'s pants off. The jury came in, I
+going down there and just beating Hunt's pants off. The jury came in, I
 think, within several hours with a verdict in our favor. The interesting
 thing was the jury said we were clearly not guilty of libel and actual
-malice, but they were now suspicious of <ent type='PERSON'>Hunt</ent> and everything he invoked
-because we brought out a lot of stuff on <ent type='PERSON'>Hunt</ent>.</p>
+malice, but they were now suspicious of Hunt and everything he invoked
+because we brought out a lot of stuff on Hunt.</p>
 
-<p><ent type='PERSON'>Hunt</ent> lost, and was ordered to pay our court costs in addition to everything
+<p>Hunt lost, and was ordered to pay our court costs in addition to everything
 else. He has subsequently filed an appeal and that's where its at now. It's
 up for appeal. I imagine it will probably be another six months to a year
-before we hear anything further on it. Based on everything I have seen, <ent type='PERSON'>Hunt</ent>
+before we hear anything further on it. Based on everything I have seen, Hunt
 doesn't have a leg to stand on because the deeper he gets into this the more
 he runs the risk of exposing himself. We had just all kinds of material on
-<ent type='PERSON'>Hunt</ent>. We had a deposition from <ent type='PERSON'>Joe Trento</ent> saying, yes, he saw the internal
+Hunt. We had a deposition from <ent type='PERSON'>Joe Trento</ent> saying, yes, he saw the internal
 <ent type='ORG'>CIA</ent> memo. We produced one witness in deposition, <ent type='PERSON'>Marita Lorenz</ent>, who was
-<ent type='PERSON'>Castro</ent>'s lover at one point, and she said that <ent type='PERSON'>Hunt</ent> was taking her and people
+Castro's lover at one point, and she said that Hunt was taking her and people
 like <ent type='PERSON'>Sturgis</ent> and <ent type='PERSON'>Jerry</ent> Hemmings and others and running guns into <ent type='GPE'>Dallas</ent>.
-Lorenz said that a couple of days before the assassination <ent type='PERSON'>Hunt</ent> met them in
+Lorenz said that a couple of days before the assassination Hunt met them in
 <ent type='GPE'>Dallas</ent> and made a payoff. What they all were doing, whether it was connected
 to the assassination, we don't know.</p>
 
-<p>I think if <ent type='PERSON'>Hunt</ent> keeps pursuing this, all that he's doing is setting the stage
+<p>I think if Hunt keeps pursuing this, all that he's doing is setting the stage
 for more and more people to come forward and say bad things about him, and
 raise more evidence that he was in <ent type='GPE'>Dallas</ent> that day and that he must have been
 involved in something. If it wasn't the assassination it must have been some
@@ -617,61 +617,61 @@ assassination and the wires just got crossed and it was a coincidence at the
 time.</p>
 
 <p>One of the key points in the mind of the jury as far as we've been able to
-tell at SPOTLIGHT is that <ent type='PERSON'>Hunt</ent> to this day still cannot come up with an alibi
-for where he was the day of the assassination. <ent type='PERSON'>Hunt</ent> comes up with the
+tell at SPOTLIGHT is that Hunt to this day still cannot come up with an alibi
+for where he was the day of the assassination. Hunt comes up with the
 weakest, phoniest stories that he can't corroborate. Some guy who was drunk
 came out of a bar and waved at him. His story doesn't match with that guy's
-story. <ent type='PERSON'>Hunt</ent> says he can produce his children to testify he was in <ent type='GPE'>Washington</ent>.
+story. Hunt says he can produce his children to testify he was in <ent type='GPE'>Washington</ent>.
 None of his children appeared at the trial. It's a very, very strange thing.
-<ent type='PERSON'>Hunt</ent> clearly was, in my mind, not in <ent type='GPE'>Washington</ent> doing what he says he was
+Hunt clearly was, in my mind, not in <ent type='GPE'>Washington</ent> doing what he says he was
 doing Nov. 22, 1963. He was certainly not at work that day at the <ent type='ORG'>CIA</ent>. This
 subject has come up before, whether he was on sick leave, an annual leave, or
-where the hell he was. <ent type='PERSON'>Hunt</ent> just cannot come up with a good alibi.</p>
+where the hell he was. Hunt just cannot come up with a good alibi.</p>
 
-<p><ent type='PERSON'>Hunt</ent> has gone before committees. <ent type='ORG'>The Rockefeller Committee</ent>, I believe he was
+<p>Hunt has gone before committees. The <ent type='PERSON'>Rockefeller</ent> Committee, I believe he was
 before <ent type='ORG'>the Church Committee</ent>, and before <ent type='ORG'>the House Select Committee</ent>. Nobody
-will give <ent type='PERSON'>Hunt</ent> a clean bill of health. They always weasel words. Their
-comment on <ent type='PERSON'>Hunt</ent> is always some sort of a way that can be interpreted anyway
+will give Hunt a clean bill of health. They always weasel words. Their
+comment on Hunt is always some sort of a way that can be interpreted anyway
 that you want. You can say this indicates the committee looked into it and
 they feel he wasn't involved. Or you can look at it and say the committee
-looked into it and they have a lot of doubts about <ent type='PERSON'>Hunt</ent>, and they're just
-being very careful about what they are saying. <ent type='PERSON'>Hunt</ent> himself will not tell you
+looked into it and they have a lot of doubts about Hunt, and they're just
+being very careful about what they are saying. Hunt himself will not tell you
 what happened before these committees. He says that his testimony is
-classified information. Well, if the testimony vindicates <ent type='PERSON'>Hunt</ent> and provides
+classified information. Well, if the testimony vindicates Hunt and provides
 him with an alibi then why can't he tell us? The mystery remains.</p>
 
-<p>FD: Do you believe it possible that the <ent type='ORG'>CIA</ent> knows where <ent type='PERSON'>Hunt</ent> was Nov. 22,
+<p>FD: Do you believe it possible that the <ent type='ORG'>CIA</ent> knows where Hunt was Nov. 22,
 1963, but just do not want to release that information?</p>
 
 <p><ent type='PERSON'>Marchetti</ent>: That's my guess. I think that subsequently, by now, the <ent type='ORG'>CIA</ent> may
-not have known where <ent type='PERSON'>Hunt</ent> was at the time, and they may not have even
+not have known where Hunt was at the time, and they may not have even
 realized what he was up to until years after and years later when his name
 started to be commonly mentioned in connection with the assassination. I
-think by now the <ent type='ORG'>CIA</ent> probably knows where <ent type='PERSON'>Hunt</ent> was and what he was doing or
+think by now the <ent type='ORG'>CIA</ent> probably knows where Hunt was and what he was doing or
 have some very strong feelings about that, and they're not too happy about
-it. But whatever it was, and is, that <ent type='PERSON'>Hunt</ent> was involved in, it seems to be,
+it. But whatever it was, and is, that Hunt was involved in, it seems to be,
 or would appear, that he was in or around <ent type='GPE'>Dallas</ent> about the time of the
 assassination, involved in some kind of clandestine activity. It may have
 been an illegal clandestine activity, even something the <ent type='ORG'>CIA</ent> was unaware of.
-The <ent type='ORG'>CIA</ent> acts very strangely about this. The <ent type='ORG'>CIA</ent> will not give <ent type='PERSON'>Hunt</ent> any help.
+The <ent type='ORG'>CIA</ent> acts very strangely about this. The <ent type='ORG'>CIA</ent> will not give Hunt any help.
 He got no help at all from the <ent type='ORG'>CIA</ent> in the preparation of his case against us
-or in the presentation of his case. They just left him out there. <ent type='PERSON'>Hunt</ent>
+or in the presentation of his case. They just left him out there. Hunt
 managed to scrounge up a couple of his <ent type='ORG'>CIA</ent> friends who on their own were
 willing to give some help, but caved in right away. One guy didn't testify.
 Another guy gave a stupid deposition in the middle of the night to us
 (laughs) which wasn't worth the paper it was written on.</p>
 
 <p><ent type='PERSON'>Helms</ent> gave a deposition which said nothing. No way would he go out on a limb
-for <ent type='PERSON'>Hunt</ent>. In my own mind, I have a feeling that the <ent type='ORG'>CIA</ent> knows where <ent type='PERSON'>Hunt</ent> was
+for Hunt. In my own mind, I have a feeling that the <ent type='ORG'>CIA</ent> knows where Hunt was
 and what he was doing, and while they're not going to prosecute him for a lot
 of reasons, they're involved in the cover-up themselves and don't want to
 bring any embarrassment upon the agency. On the other hand, they feel if he
 screws around and gets his own mit in the ringer, that's his own fault, and
-we can cover our ass. <ent type='PERSON'>Hunt</ent>, for his own part, apparently feels he has some
+we can cover our ass. Hunt, for his own part, apparently feels he has some
 sort of pressure on the <ent type='ORG'>CIA</ent> that while it might not be strong enough to bring
 them forward to defend him before any committee or in a court of law, its at
 least strong enough for them not to take any overt action against him. So it
-seems to me to be some kind of double graymail. <ent type='PERSON'>Hunt</ent>'s graymailing the <ent type='ORG'>CIA</ent> on
+seems to me to be some kind of double graymail. Hunt's graymailing the <ent type='ORG'>CIA</ent> on
 one hand and they're graymailing him on the other hand. Its a very, very
 strange thing.</p>
 
@@ -693,7 +693,7 @@ in.</p>
 <p><ent type='PERSON'>Marchetti</ent>: No.</p>
 
 <p>FD: You mentioned that it is possible the <ent type='ORG'>CIA</ent> is withholding information on
-<ent type='PERSON'>Hunt</ent>'s whereabouts Nov. 22, 1963. The <ent type='ORG'>CIA</ent> has been accused many times in the
+Hunt's whereabouts Nov. 22, 1963. The <ent type='ORG'>CIA</ent> has been accused many times in the
 past of engaging in a cover-up of the <ent type='PERSON'>JFK</ent> assassination. Do you believe they
 are still covering up in a lot of ways?</p>