Thanks Isaka, but I think you misunderstood: the clause "PF read some Aq. and some Mont." should of course be read with what follows and modifies the clause, namely, "before writing ...". This leaves it quite open whether she read Aq. at other points, or whether she was taught by a Thomist or not, just as saying that I drink some coffee before breakfast is compatible with my drinking 7 cups a day, or with my being a coffee connossieur.
Interesting fact about Anscombe and her relation to Aq's writings (from an interview by J. Haldane (http://www.3ammagazine.com/3am/aquinas-amongst-the-analytics/)): "When I was a student I corresponded with her about a position she maintained with regard to the idea of the ‘moral’ and I noted that Aquinas took a very similar line. She acknowledged this but also described a policy of reading Thomas after one had a thought about an issue to see if he had anything to say that might help, rather than going first to him as if he were a source of ideas."
Finally, I agree with you that Pitt is probably the best place to study "Footian" ethics (though UCLA, where she taught, and where Gavin Lawrence still teaches, might give it a run). I'm not sure though that I see as close a connection between this and its being the best place to study--to be short, if I make it off the wait-list, it will be a very hard decision with many things to consider.
p.s. Might I assume you are also interested in Foot's and Anscombe's thought?