James Rockford's Unknown Date

Edward D. Collins

(Click on any photo below to view a larger image.)

Page updated with new information on June 14, 2024!


Photo #1
Photo #2


These two photo stills shown above are from the opening title sequence of The Rockford Files 1970's television series.   As a big fan of The Rockford Files, I, and as it turns out, other fans, have often wondered who this woman is.

According to the Internet Movie Database, in the trivia section for the episode Tall Woman in Red Wagon, we have an answer.

It's actress Stefanie Powers!



I reject that statement. I don't believe it to be true... for the simple reason that Stefanie Powers didn't appear in Tall Woman in Red Wagon!  The actress who appeared in Tall Woman in Red Wagon was Sian Barbara Allen. Powers didn't appear in it at all, so there couldn't possibly be any stills of her from that episode.

Furthermore, let's assume whoever supplied that piece of trivia simply got the episode wrong.  Stefanie Powers did appear in a Season 2 Rockford Files episode titled, The Real Easy Red Dog.  (Note that both of these episode use the word "red" so maybe that is part of the confusion.)

However, I recently re-watched The Real Easy Red Dog and although yes, there are scenes of Powers in Rockford's Firebird, Powers doesn't wear a dress/blouse that shows her shoulder, as Photo #1 clearly shows.

Furthermore, The Rockford Files opening title sequence was put together prior to Season 1.  Stefanie's guest appearance in The Real Easy Red Dog wasn't until episode #7 of Season 2, in the fall of '75.  The first season of The Rockford Files began in the fall of '74 and we know most all of the photo still used in the title sequence were shot during the summer of '74.   It is very unlikely the episode with Powers was shot a full year earlier.

Finally, although it's very hard to tell from Photos #1 and #2, the woman in the car just doesn't look like Powers. Powers had auburn-colored hair during this period, and although it's hard to tell, it appears as if the woman in Photo #1 might be a blonde.

So yes, I believe that piece of trivia from the Internet Movie Database to be incorrect.

So, if the woman in the car is not Stefanie Powers, who is it?


Another claim, supported by several members in the public Facebook group, The Rockford Files Unofficial Fan Appreciation Site, believe it was the late actress Gayle Hunnicutt.  

I reject that claim too.

(Note that Gayle Hunnicutt passed away on 8/31/2023, at the age of 80.   Also note that at the bottom of this page are several different photos of Gayle Hunnicutt.)

As it turns out, the reason for people believing the woman is Hunnicutt originates from this website; Jim Suva and The Suva Files:

Like me, it appears Jim Suva is also be a big fan of The Rockford Files TV series.  On this page, Suva tells a very entertaining story of how he recently purchased photographs Dan Wolfe took, back in 1974, that were used in The Rockford Files opening title sequence.

The Rockford Files was first shown in late March of '74 as a two-hour TV movie, most likely specifically as a possible pilot for a new weekly series. The movie had favorable ratings, and we all know it was indeed picked up as a series.

Photographer Dan Wolfe was hired that summer to take photos for the upcoming series, to be used in the opening title sequence. It appears he took these photos during July of 1974.  (The first episode of The Rockford Files aired September 13, 1974.)

Please visit Suva's blog and read the entertaining and interesting story of how he came to purchase the photos, and view some of the these previously unseen photos taken by Dan Wolfe. As a sneak preview, here are just a few of them:




There are four photographs on Jim's blog that show a woman in Rockford's Firebird with him.  Throughout this document I refer back to these photos as Photo #3 - #6.  At the bottom of the page I zoom in and show a closeup of the woman.

Photo #3

Photo #4

Photo #5

Photo #6


From Jim's blog:   "We now know, Gayle Hunnicutt is this actress, who appeared with Jim in the opening credits."

I suspect he first believed it was Hunnicutt from an e-mail or text message he received, from member John Greco.  In February of 2023 Jim Suva announced to the above-mentioned Facebook group the identity of the woman in the passenger seat is now known.  Jim wrote:  "John Greco recognized her from her role in Marlowe."

Recognized her?  Hmmm....

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

Juha Jarvinen: That is not her.

Skip Stabile: I think the nose is all wrong.

Brian Moore: I don’t think it’s her. Doesn’t look anything like her. Intriguing riddle!

Paul Ryan: I don't think it is Gayle, but the actress looks familiar. Trying to place where I have seen her.

David Hall: Different nose for a start.

Patty Persons: They don't look anything alike, that's true.

Marie Chalmers: Definitely not her.

Hal Harmon:  I agree with you, Ed.

Scott Dickman: There is a similarity but I don't think it is her!

Richard Welch: Not Gayle. This came up once before. It looked like another actress (I forgot the name).

David Bishop: They don't really look alike to me. Close. But I don't think they are the same.

Roger Byrne:  I don't think it's her either. Doesn't really look like her at all. Are people only going on the fact that she has red hair?

Matt Smith:  At first I thought yeah that's her. But now after looking again at some side shots that nose is definitely one of a kind perfectly shaped to a point. The girl with Jim does not have the exact nose.
Brad Cammack: The high round cheek bones in the 4 Suva photos don't look like Hunnicutt. I looked at around 100 photos of her online and couldn't find one with the same cheek bones.


There were a few others who voiced the same opinion, but you get the idea.  I don't want to possibly embarrass the people who believe it is her by listing them here, but there were also, most likely, an equal number of people who did accept the woman in Photos #3 - #6 was Gayle Hunnicutt!

However, we also now have other reasons to believe it's not her.  Keep reading...


The largest piece of "evidence" we have that it is Hunnicutt (and yes, there's a reason why I put "evidence" in quotes) comes from Gayle Hunnicutt herself! 

Gayle Hunnicutt passed away on August 21, 2023.  About six months or so before she passed away, Jim Suva contacted her via her Facebook page, most likely soon after receiving John Greco's message.  Jim also provided a (partial?) transcript of the short conversation:


Gayle Hunnicutt
Lol yes you are right that was me then thanks so much

You sent
That’s great. Fans of The Rockford Files have been wondering for a few years. How did you get the job.

February 6
Feb 6, 2023, 7:08 PM

You sent
Here is a story that I wrote about that photo shoot. Thought you might like to see it. https://jimsuva.typepad.com/.../the-rockford-files-the...
The Rockford Files: The Lost Films

Gayle Hunnicutt
Lol yes you are right that was me then thanks awesome

February 7
Feb 7, 2023, 11:22 AM
Gayle Hunnicutt
Hello how are you doing?

February 7
Feb 7, 2023, 1:23 PM
You sent
Doing fine.

February 8
Feb 8, 2023, 3:52 AM
Gayle Hunnicutt

February 9
Feb 9, 2023, 2:02 PM
Gayle Hunnicutt
Hello my friend

February 9
Feb 9, 2023, 2:24 PM
You sent
Good afternoon.

Gayle Hunnicutt
How are you

You sent
Doing fine.


Ouch!  That is not exactly a reliable confirmation, that much is clear.   She didn't reply with any information at all about the event or how she got the job, despite being asked to do so.

A couple of comments regarding this conversation.

It's possible (although I think rather unlikely) it was not actually Gayle Hunnicutt who responded. Many celebrities have people working for them who monitor and answer social media sites, and these people give responses to the fans as if the celebrity themselves was he one responding.  However, with Hunnicutt, a retired or out-of work 79-year-old actress, with zero credits listed on her IMDb in the past 24 years, who most of the population wouldn't recognize by name or by sight, this is probably not the case.  I have no problem accepting the claim that Hunnicutt was indeed the one who responded to Jim's text message.

And yet we don't know her state of mind.  Was she confused about the event and (assuming she did take the time to view the photos), was she remembering Marlowe, the movie she did with Garner back in '69?   Or maybe she did not remember the event at all... but assumed Jim Suva was correct and so she simply answered yes, in kind?

To you and I, spending a day driving around Los Angeles with James Garner would probably be an event we'd remember forever.  For an actress who worked with many other actors and actresses and posed in front of a camera for a living, thousands of times, it is not out of the question to mis-remember an event that happened in 1969.

Finally, and probably most importantly, even if that is Hunnicutt in Photos #3- #6, and even if she did indeed take the time to view them and recognized herself and did indeed remember the photo shoot, we still don't have confirmation she is the woman in Photo #1 and #2, the actual stills used in the opening title sequence!  (Photos #3 - #6 were not used in the title sequence.)

The woman in Photos #3 - #6 is clearly wearing a blue blouse/shirt.  This blouse/shirt covers her shoulders.  James Garner is clearly seen in these photos wearing a checkered sport coat.

And yet the woman in Photos #1 - #2, the photos from the actual opening series title sequence, is wearing a blouse or dress that does not cover her shoulders.  James Garner is clearly wearing a solid colored (possibly tan or beige-colored) jacket. 

This is no small thing.  The different outfits is a huge, huge clue.  It indicates these two sets of photos were taken at a different date and/or time from each other.

Ed, it could be a simple costume change.

Sure, that's possible of course.... but that's conjecture and in this case, somewhat unlikely.  For this type of a photo shoot there's no reason to change outfits.

We don't even know for sure if Dan Wolfe took these two particular photos.  We do know for a fact he took many/most of the photos used in the opening title sequence, but it is not out of the question that during production of the title sequence, one or two others he did not take were slipped in and used, for any number of possible reasons.   Photos #1 and #2 could very easily be with a different actress or model, again, because the outfits from Garner and the women are different!

If Jim Suva is able to post other photos that resemble #1 and #2, showing the inside of the Firebird (close enough to just about see Garner's lap), the food tray hanging on the driver's side door, etc. will we be able to know for sure that Wolfe also took Photo #1 and #2.

But who took the photos is mostly irrelevant anyway.

The woman in Photos #1 and #2 is simply not identifiable enough to say, with any degree of certainty, it's the same woman in Photo #3 - #6.


Bill Geerhart makes an valid observation:


OK, now I am beginning to wonder if Gayle Hunnicutt really is the woman in the car with James Garner.

This August 14, 1974 UK Guardian article says she had been living and working in London for six years.  The article references a London play she was about to open in which she presumably had been in rehearsals for. We know that the Dan Wolfe photo shoot for the title sequence took place on or around July 15, 1974 because that is when POINT BLANK played very briefly at the Optic Theatre in downtown Los Angeles (POINT BLANK is on the marquee seen in the opening).

Could Hunnicutt have been visiting Los Angeles during this time period and could she have posed for the photographs?

Maybe. Let's just say I have my doubts now.




Not only had Hunnicutt been living in England for the past six years, she was very active working in the U.K. in 1974.  The Internet Movie Database lists no less than four different movies / TV shows she starred in, all of which were shot and produced in the U.K during that year alone.

The July 19, 1974 edition of the Evening Star periodical mentions Hunnicutt was currently filming a Henry James story (in the U.K.) for TV.  That's almost exactly when Wolfe took his photos!  It is no small thing (a ten hour flight) to hop on a plane and fly from England to Los Angeles.  One is not going to do it specifically for a photo shoot.  The cost would be prohibitive... it wouldn't be worth it.  Furthermore, Hunnicutt didn't do photo shoots.  She was and wanted to be an actress and not just "another pretty face."  That's why she left Hollywood in the first place.


Okay, what do we know for sure?

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 let's 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.  Thus Hunnicut's respons 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?

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.


Why not Lynette Mettey?

It is just as likely, if not more so, the woman in Photo #1 and #2 is, for example, actress Lynette Mettey!

Why not? 

During the '70s Mettey appeared in such television shows as

All in the Family, Banacek, Cannon, Columbo, Dan August, Harry O, Hawaii Five-O, Hogan's Heroes, Ironside, Kojak, Love Story, M*A*S*H, Marcus Welby, M.D., Movin' On, Police Story, The F.B.I., The Six Million Dollar Man,
and The Streets of San Francisco

just to name a few.  She also appeared, of course, in a first season episode of The Rockford Files. (In Pursuit of Carol Thorne)

Her IMDb page also mentions she appeared in dozens of television commercials in the '70s and '80s.

One can argue it's more likely Mettey is the woman in Photo #1 and #2, especially if you believe the woman in those photos is indeed a blonde. 

Obviously, Mettey was actively working in Hollywood during the summer of 1974 and thus is more likely to be available for a three-hour photo shoot during that time. 

We can't say the same about Hunnicutt.  (We don't even know if Hunnicutt was in the country during the summer of 1974, let alone working in southern California.)

Of course, there's no evidence at all to suggest it was Mettey... and thus there's no reason to believe it was her.  Absolutely none.  The time to believe in something, anything at all, is after there is evidence and a valid justification to warrant that belief.  Not before.

Alas, there's also no evidence at all to suggest it was Hunnicutt either.  (Hunnicutt's confirmation is not evidence.  It's not.)

There has to be hundreds if not thousands of other actresses or models that are more likely the woman in Photo #1 and #2.  I'm serious.  

The only reason Hunnicutt is even a part of this debate seems to originate with John Greco who "recognized" the woman in Photos #3 - #6  from the movie Marlowe! As already mentioned, there are many others who don't think those photos look like Hunnicutt at all, and again, for the final time, we don't know for sure if the woman in #1 and #2 is the same woman in #3 - #6!   We don't know that for sure, especially when you consider their outfits are different!!

Seriously gang, it's unlikely Hunnicutt was in Los Angeles at that time at all, let alone doing a photo shoot during that time.   Her busy life was in the U.K.


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:




June 2024 Edit

What about Sharon Farrell?

D.W. Burns now believes the woman in photos #1 and #2 is actress Sharon Farrell.  He writes: She worked with Garner on the film ‘Marlowe’. She also dated Garner’s neighbor Steve McQueen.  Farrell suffered an embolism which caused her heart to stop beating for four minutes. She ended up with serious brain damage that resulted in memory loss and physical impairments. With the help of colleagues, Farrell worked to regain her abilities, including her memory, and resumed her acting career, yet she kept her illness a secret under the advice of friend and actor Steve McQueen, who warned her that if word of her illness got out, her career would be over.  During this period, Spring 1974, she was trying to put her life back together, and Garner tried to support her in getting her life back on track.

Sharon Farrel

According to Farrell's IMDb listing, she was definitely active and working in Hollywood in 1974.  During that year alone, she appeared in no less than eleven different TV series:  Police Woman; Police Story; The Six Million Dollar Man; Police Surgeon; This is the Life; Chase; The F.B.I. ; Insight; Petrocelli; The Wide World of Mysteryy; Love American Style.  (And two movies... The Underground Man and It's Alive.)

So yes, the woman in Photos #1 and #2 could definitely be Farrell!.  I'd say it is much, much more likely Farrell than anyone else, especially Gayle Hunniutt.



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.  I will continue to research and determine if the June 2024 update, the claim the woman is Sharon Farrell, can be accepted.



Here are a couple of dozen or so photos of Hunnicutt.  Again, click on any of them for a larger image.

A YouTube video of still images of Hunnicutt, which was as it turns out was uploaded just a couple of weeks prior to her death, can be found here.







Here are a couple of zoomed closeups of the auburn-haired woman in Jim's Firebird:



Try this experiment.  Very carefully examine all of these photos of Gayle Hunnicutt, and any others you find, one at a time.  Spend several minutes doing so.   Get the image of her face firmly planted in your mind.   Try not to look at the hair, but concentrate on her eyes, her nose, her face...

And then, after doing this, now look at these four closeup photos photographer Dan Wolfe took of this auburn-colored hair actress seen in the car with Garner.

If you do this, I contend you won't see the same person at all.  Her face is completely different.

Experiment #2

Tell a friend all of these faces belong to the same actress, with the exception of one, which may or may not belong to that same actress.  See if they can correctly identify which face may or may not be the same actress. 

(Note that it's really not a fair experiment, since the one good photo we have of the auburn-haired woman is a partial profile and is not as clear as the others.  Still, some people might be able to ignore that and just concentrate on the face.)