Photo #6

There are many members of the Facebook group, including myself, that do not think the woman in Photos #3 - #6 look like Gayle Hunnicutt.  As a small sample, here are a few of their comments:
 

So, what do we know for sure?  What evidence do we actually have?  Do we have any evidence at all?

We know Stefanie Powers appeared in a second season episode of The Rockford Files and not in the first season episode titled Tall Woman in Red Wagon as mentioned in the Internet Movie Database Trivia section.   We know no photo stills of Pwers from an episode can exist if Powers is not in that episode in the first place.

We know Powers appeared in an episode in Season 2 but the title sequence would have been long finished by then.

We know photographer Dan Wolfe was hired to take still photos that were to be used in the title opening sequence of an upcoming TV series starring James Garner. We know for sure these photos were taken during the summer of '74 and most likely specifically in mid July of 1974.

We know least four of the photos Dan Wolfe took are of an attractive woman with auburn-colored hair, sitting in the passenger seat of Jim's vehicle. (Photos #3, #4, #5, #6)  These are part of the collection of photos Jim Suva purchased.  We know for sure these photos indicate a woman wearing a shoulder-covering blue shirt/blouse and that Garner is wearing a checkered sport coat.

We know Photos #1 and #2 show a woman wearing a shoulder-revealing blouse/shirt/dress and that Garner is wearing a solid-colored jacket or sport coat.  We know these are the two photos that ended up being in the TV series opening title sequence, and not Photos #3 - #6.

We know in 1974 Hunnicutt did not live in the United States.  She moved to England six years earlier, in 1968.  (Note that I found a couple of sources that say she moved in 1970. Her first Internet Movie Database credit from the U.K. is from 1970, so it's possible 1970 is correct, but whether it's 1968 or 1970 is irrelevant.)

We know Hunnicutt, in 1974 specifically, was quite active starring in movies and TV shows, all of which were produced and filmed in the United Kingdom: (The Internet Movie Database lists four different roles in '74, one of which was the TV series Fall of Eagles in which she appeared in six different episodes.)

We know in mid July of '74, Hunnicutt was filming Affairs of the Heart, a Henry James story for TV about a beautiful girl who becomes blind.  We know the following week she began rehearsals on the stage adaptation of Emile Zola's novel Therese Raquin. 

From Geerhart's research, we know Dan Wolfe most likely took his photos in mid July.

We know Hunnicutt moved to the United Kingdom to get away from Hollywood. She wanted to become a serious actress.  ("In California I was going down the path of being bulit up on my looks," she explains. "A pretty face is never a hindrance," she admits, "but it has nothing to do with what I wish to contribute.")



What do we not know for sure?  What is pure conjecture? 

We don't know for a fact if any of the six photos (Photos #1 - #6) are in fact Gayle Hunnicutt.  Positive identification has not been established.  The number of people who look at those photos and say, "That looks like her" is about equal to the number of people that look at the same photos and say, "It doesn't look like her at all."

We don't know if Hunnicutt was in the United States at all, let alone working in Los Angeles, during the summer of '74. 

We don't know if the woman in Photos #1 and #2, whoever it is, is the same woman in Photos #3 - #6.  The different outfits clearly make it possible the photos were taken at different dates/times and thus it's very possible it's with different model/actress.  (This point is very, very important, hence the reason for the larger font.  Even if we were to establish who the woman is in Photos #3 - #6, that doesn't mean that's the same woman in Photo #1 and Photo #2.)

We don't know if it was Hunnicutt herself who answered Jim Suva's text message but we can safely assume it was.  However, we don't know if she fully understood what specific photo shoot he was referring to. Her answer was about as brief and short as possible... and certainly not at all informative.  It's not out of the question for a 79-year-old woman (who would pass away just six months later... so maybe her health was already an issue), to misremember events that happened 50+ years ago.

Note that Hunnicutt's text response is not evidence.  It doesn't prove anything.  It doesn't mean it is true.  For example, you can talk to dozens of people today that will tell you they were abducted by aliens  And these people aren't lying... they honestly believe it to be the truth!  The claim they were abducted by aliens still needs to be demonstrated.  It still needs to be proven.  You can talk to people who say the saw Elvis long after he supposedly passed away.  It's much more likely they are simply mistaken.)  As already stated, Hunnicutt may indeed simply be mistaken, lying, confused, etc.  Her statement alone is not evidence.

Of course, if she had provided any additional details regarding the incident, that would help immensely.  For example, if we had asked her if the photo stills used in the Ironside television series were her, and if her response was something like... 

"I don't know, love.  I don't recall doing that.  However, the one photo shoot I do recall was with James Garner, for an upcoming new TV series he was going to star in.  I was working that summer in the U.K. but I had to fly to Los Angeles for a business meeting.  While out there I reached out to Jim just to say hello, and he asked me if I would be available for a photo shoot later that day.  The model they hired had canceled at the last minute, I believe.  I almost didn't agree because my flight back home was later that evening.  But I wanted to see Jim and he promised it would only take an hour.  He was wrong!  It took several hours and I missed my flight!  That's why I remember this shoot so vividly."

... then it makes her entire testimony much, much more likely to be true.

Based upon all of the above information, the claim the woman in Photo #1 and #2 is Gayle Hunnicutt must be rejected.  The claim has not met the burden of proof. 

It's not  even close.  If this were a trial, the "prosecution" failed to provide enough evidence to support their claim and thus our verdict from the jury must be returned as "not guilty."  We can and should, reject the claim it is Gayle Hunnicutt.

Seriously.  Flip it around a bit.  Let's say that you, dear reader, were accused of a crime, and the only evidence you was...

1. Two sets of photos, one of which some people say look like you, while others says it doesn't look anything like you.  This first set photos were taken somewhere close to the scene of the crime.  The other set of photos, two of them, were taken at the scene of the crime, but both of these photos are so blurry and unclear it could be just about anyone. 

2. Testimony by someone who's only comment was directed to you and saying, "Yes, love, that was him." and then passed away without giving any further information to indicate this person knew what they were talking about.

Do you really think you should be convicted of this crime based upon that?  Seriously?

Of course not.  The verdict that must be returned is not guilty.  The burden of proof has not been met.  Not even close.


Now, I fully understand how the initial claim came about.   To some, photos #3 - #6 look like Hunnicutt.  "Hey, isn't that Gayle Hunnicutt!  And didn't she work with Garner five years earlier in Marlowe?  The two have a connection!"

However, at that time I suspect those reaching this conclusion, 1) did not know Hunnicutt didn't live in the United States, 2) didn't know why she left Hollywood, 3) didn't know she was actively working in the U.K. as an actress at that time and 4) didn't notice the photos actually used in the opening title sequence show the woman, and Garner, each wearing different outfits.

Armed with all of this additional information, it is much less likely to believe the woman is Hunnicutt at all.  It is.



Now, just to clarify, I'm not claiming the woman in any of the Photos #1 - #6 is NOT Gayle Hunnicutt. I simply reject the claim that it IS.

Edit/Updated:  A few days after this page went live, a viewer wrote to me and didn't understand the above sentence. She told me that if I reject the claim it is Hunnicutt, then isn't that the same thing as claiming the woman in the photos is not her?

No, no, no. That's not correct at all. That's not how it works.  I can reject the claim it is her, without claiming it is not her.

Let me see if I can clarify with an example.

Let's say I told you there was an EVEN number of blades of grass on the White House front lawn. You might, and probably should, reject this claim. Before you accepted it as true, you might want to know HOW the blades of grass were counted (what method was used), WHO counted them, WHY were these blades of grass counted, WHEN were they counted, etc.

Note that the count would have to be exact - the error rate zero - because even if the count were off by a single blade of grass, that would mean there were and ODD number of blades of grass, not an EVEN number.

You might (and probably should) want to know all of these things before you accepted the claim of an EVEN number of blades of grass on the White House front lawn.

But even though you reject the claim of an EVEN number, that doesn't mean you believe there is an ODD number!  You're not saying that at all. You don't know how many blades of grass there are.  You simply reject the claim of an even number. You're not making any claims yourself.  You're simply rejecting a claim.

Yes, there must be either an even number of blades of grass or an odd number of blades of grass. We know that to be true. But again, rejecting one claim does not mean you are accepting the other claim.  Rejecting the claim of EVEN number does not mean you think it is an ODD number.

In our country, in our judicial system, we vote on whether someone is "guilty" or "not guilty."  And yet a vote of "not guilty" does not mean we think the defendant is innocent!  It doesn't!  "Not guilty" simply means the prosecution has not met its burden of proof on the guilty claim.

Yes, the woman in photos #1 - #6 is either Gayle Hunnicutt or it is not Gayle Hunnicutt.  We know this must be true.  But rejecting the claim that it is her, does not mean I'm saying it is not her.

I don't know WHO it is, so how can I say it is not her? 

I can say things like...  I don't think it resembles her, or I can say... I don't believe it is her, or I can say... it is not likely to be her.  Etc. But I'm not certainly not claiming it isn't her.

One Chance in Thousand

I'm reminded of a scene in the wonderful movie Jaws. 



In that movie, Police Chief Martin Brody (Roy Scheider) is absolutely overjoyed when a bunch of local fisherman, in response to the reward the city put up to capture the shark that's been terrorizing their community, are indeed successful in capturing a  large shark. Martin Brody couldn't contain his excitement and had a big smile on his face.  He believed his problems were finally over.  He just knew this was the fish that caused the death of several people.

However, oceanographer Matt Hooper (Richard Dreyfus) wasn't convinced at all.

Matt Hooper: Martin, there's all kinds of sharks in the water, you know? Hammerheads, whitetips, blues, makos, and the possibility that these bozos caught the exact shark that -

Chief Brody: Oh, there's no other shark like this in these waters!

Hooper: Martin, Martin, it's a hundred to one. A hundred to one.

That's how I feel about the lovely Gayle Hunnicutt. 

The chances that Hunnicutt...

...a woman known to be living overseas at that time, a woman who disliked Hollywood enough to move to another country to fulfill her dream of becoming an actress, a woman who was very busy working in the U.K. that summer (as an actress, not as a model), a woman not known to do photo shoots in Los Angeles, a woman that many don't even think looks like her...

...is the woman in Photo #1 and #2, has got to be a hundred to one against.

Martin, Martin, it's a hundred to one.  A hundred to one.

(Truth be told, it is probably more like ten thousand to one.)

Unfortunately, we have no evidence Photo #1 and #2 are Gayle at all.  None at all.  In fact, the actual evidence we do have (living and working in the U.K. at that time) all point against it being her.

January 2024 Edit

What about Gloria Dixon?

According to D.W. Burns, a top contributer to the above-mentioned Rockford Files fan page, the green Vega that is seen in several episodes was owned by Gloria Dixon!  Furthermore, he mentions Gloria Dixon was the stand-in for the female episode lead (including Beth) for pre-take blocking!!  

What?!!  That's huge!!!! 

According to the IMDb page, Gloria Dixon appeared uncredited in three early first season Rockford Files episodes, including episodes #2 and #3 of that first season.  Thus, she was most likely available for this type of a photo shoot during that time.  She could very easily be the woman in Photo #1 and Photo #2!

Alas, at this time I can find few photos of Gloria, other than this one:

It's possible we may never uncover any evidence to determine Rockford's date, the woman in Photo #1 and Photo #2.

Of course, it's also possible something might turn up tomorrow!  Something might turn up that either a) determines who it is or b) rules out Hunnicutt completely.

So for now, the question of who was "Rockford's date" is still unknown.  Claims it was Stefanie Powers or Gayle Hunnicutt or Gretchen Corbett or Mariette Hartley or Lindsay Wagner or Lynette Mettey can all be rejected.. the burden of proof for any of these actresses has not been met.