Did the Dallas Radical Right kill JFK?

[Paul Brancato]

18 minutes ago, Jason Ward said:

How many of us can say we were once considered a serious candidate for the famous unknown man pictured outside the Soviet embassy in Mexico City?

 

That's interesting. Was this resolved? 

[Ernie Lazar]

12 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said:

That's interesting. Was this resolved? 

Yes-- it was discussed in Harry's FBI-Los Angeles file.

[Paul Trejo]

On ‎10‎/‎24‎/‎2017 at 12:17 PM, Harry J.Dean said:

Hey Paul will the Canada chap with three names  just fade away again?...... answer is, YES ! 

Harry James Dean -- why won't you fade away?
Because, dear sir -- you have something to say!
A Yank was born -- in jolly Canada.
He served us in -- our Navy armada.
His wife and kids -- flourished in Chicago.
And then the world -- witnessed Fidel Castro.
Harry James Dean -- twenty-sixth of July.
Went to Cuba -- and suffered, my, oh my!
Secretary -- of the FPCC.
So full of Reds -- he's not too blind to see.
Harry James Dean -- informed the FBI
California -- his next locale to fly.
The Minutemen -- John Birch Society.
Gen'ral Walker -- Loran Hall and Larry.
JFK killed -- Lee Harvey Oswald blamed.
Joe Pyne 6-5 -- The Truth was fin'lly named.
The time has flown -- It's been 54 years
Sometimes a laugh -- but often time for tears.
Who now believes -- the Yank from Canada?
Harry James Dean -- I, for one, believe ya!

All best,
--Paul
(with deepest apologies to Harry and to poets of all epochs and climes)

Edited November 17, 2017 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

13 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

That's interesting. Was this resolved? 

Paul B.,

In personal interviews with Harry Dean in early 2013, he told me that in the weeks leading up to the JFK Assassination, his best pal in the John Birch Society, namely, Guy Gabaldon ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guy_Gabaldon ) invited him out to dinner, and began acting strange, i.e. he invited a photography girl  (these were common in the early 1960's) over to their table, and Guy took her camera, and began taking several photos of Harry and the Girl -- but especially of Harry, from multiple positions. 

Guy Gabaldon had never done anything like that before, and it was spooky to Harry, who quickly put a stop to it, and then left.  After the JFK Assassination,  Harry couldn't help thinking that this charade was about setting up Harry for a Patsy role. 

See -- it would not even matter if the JFK Patsy was in Dallas at the time -- as long as the Patsy could be linked to Fidel Castro, the FPCC or the Communist Party in any way, shape or form!   That's what happened to Lee Harvey Oswald, and it could have happened to Harry Dean.

Harry Dean, for his part, claims that he was not in Mexico City at any time during September/October 1963 -- however, Harry does claim that Guy Gabaldon was there -- and furthermore, Guy was there at exactly the same time that Lee Harvey Oswald was driven to Mexico City by Loran Hall and Larry Howard, two of Guy Gabaldon's closest allies in the War against Fidel Castro.  

(Yes, September 25 - October 2, 1963)

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited November 17, 2017 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Brancato]

How much digging have you or Jason done into Gabaldon?

[Guest]

Bill Decker was an FBI informant, from today's FBI releases

https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/docid-32171560.pdf

[Ernie Lazar]

5 minutes ago, Bart Kamp said:

Bill Decker was an FBI informant, from today's FBI releases

https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/docid-32171560.pdf

Nothing particularly unusual about that. 

The FBI routinely contacted local and state law enforcement officials to inquire about whatever matters were of interest.  Often, these folks were considered "established sources" -- because the FBI could ask them for information about any matter with the understanding that they would keep such contacts confidential. 

In the most generic sense, an "FBI informant" could be ANYBODY in an official or in an unofficial capacity who provided information.  If YOU contacted the FBI or if you were contacted BY the FBI because they wanted to know something which you may have knowledge about -- then YOU might be listed on an FBI document as an "FBI informant".   BUT it is entirely possible that you might be contacted only once or twice for some specific purpose.

In order to determine if Sheriff Decker was genuinely an FBI informant would require obtaining his FBI file (if one even exists).  If he regularly supplied the FBI with information, he would not be given just a T-number (a temporary code to conceal the identity of the person who provided information to the FBI).  Instead, a genuine FBI informant would be assigned a permanent symbol number.  If that person was an informant for the Dallas FBI field office, then his permanent symbol number would start with "DL" (for Dallas) and there would be a suffix added to his symbol number -- such as:  DL-1234 (Rac) or (S) or (PSI) or (CI).  Here is what such suffixes would mean:

DL-1234-S = (a security informant for the Dallas field office)

DL-1234-S* = (a security informant whose identity would never be revealed AND who was NOT available for court testimony; the asterisk (*) designated non-available informants)

DL-1234 (Rac) = (a racial matters informant for the Dallas field office)

DL-1234 (PSI) = a potential OR probationary security informant for the Dallas field office  [Potential Security Informant refers to a person who was not yet established as a reliable information source.  That process might take a year for the FBI to make a conclusion with respect to their reliability.)

DL-1234 (CI) = (a criminal informant for the Dallas field office) -- OR "PCI"

One of the JFK-related FBI documents released during 2017 contains a list of literally DOZENS of Chiefs of Police and County Sheriffs in Texas who were contacted about some matter (I forget what the subject was right now).  All may have been given a T-number but few actually were genuine FBI informants.

[Guest]

Interesting reply, but you should have added that "T" stands for temporary.

However a snitch is a snitch, you can colour code it as much as you want 

Decker, Stringfellow and also interestingly Rothermel (Hunt's guy who tried to get the Z film) is on it as well.

[Ernie Lazar]

13 minutes ago, Bart Kamp said:

Interesting reply, but you should have added that "T" stands for temporary.

However a snitch is a snitch, you can colour code it as much as you want 

Decker, Stringfellow and also interestingly Rothermel (Hunt's guy who tried to get the Z film) is on it as well.

That is a silly reply.  If the FBI contacts a Police Chief or Deputy Sheriff to ask them if they have information about Bart Kamp -- i.e. was he ever arrested or convicted of some crime in his city --- how does it become "snitching"?

I did point out that a T-number was a temporary number designed to conceal the identity of someone who provided information.  T-numbers were assigned to bank officials, credit reporting agencies, landlords, employers, law enforcement officials, newspaper reporters, contacts at veterans organizations, and a host of other information sources used by the FBI in order to develop background info about whatever subject was of interest.

[Guest]

26 minutes ago, Ernie Lazar said:

That is a silly reply.  If the FBI contacts a Police Chief or Deputy Sheriff to ask them if they have information about Bart Kamp -- i.e. was he ever arrested or convicted of some crime in his city --- how does it become "snitching"?

I did point out that a T-number was a temporary number designed to conceal the identity of someone who provided information.  T-numbers were assigned to bank officials, credit reporting agencies, landlords, employers, law enforcement officials, newspaper reporters, contacts at veterans organizations, and a host of other information sources used by the FBI in order to develop background info about whatever subject was of interest.

You are right about the T number, which I did not see at first, I overlooked it. So my bad.

However I totally disagree with your classification as described above, as a matter of fact I see it as an apologetic excuse. Someone who does a routine check does NOT get a classification as an informant, you'd have to do more than that. As per your explanation Will Fritz and others would be marked  as T informants then as well as they were in regular contact w them.

Then have a look at some of the other names such as Rothermel as per your so called your classification and anyone with a tad of common sense will realise that there's more to it than what you describe.

No need to push on and discuss this further, I will not be swayed.

[Ernie Lazar]

29 minutes ago, Bart Kamp said:

You are right about the T number, which I did not see at first, I overlooked it. So my bad.

However I totally disagree with your classification as described above, as a matter of fact I see it as an apologetic excuse. Someone who does a routine check does NOT get a classification as an informant, you'd have to do more than that. As per your explanation Will Fritz and others would be marked  as T informants then as well as they were in regular contact w them.

Then have a look at some of the other names such as Rothermel as per your so called your classification and anyone with a tad of common sense will realise that there's more to it than what you describe.

No need to push on and discuss this further, I will not be swayed.

Sorry -- I do not totally understand your point.  We agree that routine background checks (from persons who have direct knowledge about something) would not qualify someone as "an FBI informant" -- although they might be assigned a T-number.  The purpose of the T-number was simply to NOT reveal anything regarding how the FBI got its information. 

Actually, T-numbers were also assigned to NON-HUMAN sources -- such as wire taps or mail covers or surreptitious entries (aka black bag jobs).  For example:

In March 1955, FBI Director Hoover sent a memo to the Attorney General which made the following observations:

"In many instances, a source concealed by a temporary informant symbol is not a live informant, but, instead, is a technical surveillance, a microphone surveillance, a trash cover, mail cover, or other investigative technique...In an estimated 55% of the Security of Government Employee cases, the reports contain inanimate sources of this type whose identities are concealed by temporary informant symbols.  Other temporary informant symbols would pertain to such sources as live informants and neighbors or professional men who specifically requested their identities not be disclosed." [HQ 66-2542-3, serial #928, page 2; 3/1/55 Hoover memo to AG]

Rothermel was NOT an FBI informant.   If you are interested, I have posted his FBI personnel file online here:

https://archive.org/details/RothermelJr.PaulM.HQ1

One of the methods that can be used to determine who actually was an FBI informant requires a review of their FBI file(s).  Actual FBI informants had files created on them with either a 134- or a 137-prefix.  In addition, very often, FBI files contain "search slips" which identify all references to that person contained in FBI files. 

Those search slips list all the file numbers (and often the specific serial numbers) which contain references to that person.  So--it becomes easy to determine if any informant file was ever created. 

Lastly, all FBI informants submitted information to the FBI on a regular basis and their information was recorded on a specific form such as FD-209 or FD-306.  If the informant provided a verbal report that was typed, he often was required to initial or sign that report to signify it was accurately reflecting his report.

Significantly, there are no such documents in Rothermel's file.  HOWEVER: he did contact the FBI-Dallas field office and FBI-HQ upon several occasions to provide unsolicited information which he thought the Bureau would want to know.

[Jason Ward]

4 hours ago, Bart Kamp said:

You are right about the T number, which I did not see at first, I overlooked it. So my bad.

However I totally disagree with your classification as described above, as a matter of fact I see it as an apologetic excuse. Someone who does a routine check does NOT get a classification as an informant, you'd have to do more than that. As per your explanation Will Fritz and others would be marked  as T informants then as well as they were in regular contact w them.

Then have a look at some of the other names such as Rothermel as per your so called your classification and anyone with a tad of common sense will realise that there's more to it than what you describe.

No need to push on and discuss this further, I will not be swayed.

I've read about 4000 documents in their entirety released this year and thumbed through another 10000ish.  I agree with your point here.  

In those days credit bureaus were not national as today, they were local to each city; and were more knowledgeable about average non-criminal citizens than any government agency of the era BY FAR. 

Before the FCRA and other consumer regulations prohibited such practices, the credit bureaus basically kept a small intelligence file on every local citizen.   Step one in any FBI investigation from the 1940s through the 1960s was to check with the local credit bureau.    They saved a huge amount of time for special agents because a lot of basic information was readily available (jobs, addresses, finances); but additionally the credit bureaus sometimes provided information well beyond what in any sense of the word might seem credit-related (i.e. drinking habits, friends and family information, sometimes racially stereotypic notations, etc.)  In some cities the credit bureau was pretty basic in data-collection standards - while in other cities the credit bureau operated as a full-time domestic intelligence unit complete with gossip and innuendo as part of someone's credit file.

Credit bureau employees typically had either they own CI number (rare) or were simply referred to by their name (very common).  A T number has nothing to do with the occupation of the informant.  T numbers have NOTHING to do with "developing background" of an investigative target.

Credit union clerks and assistant managers were never given T numbers or any other informant number in the documents I've seen - with a few rare exceptions.   In my sense of the evidence, the T numbers were assigned when the information provided the FBI was illegally obtained even by the flimsy consumer-protections of the day, or if the information was so explosive that danger existed for the source if their identity became known.  (example: some credit files had notations like, "rumored to have killed mom for inheritance," or "known to be having an affair with his boss's wife," etc...)  In this case, a T number was assigned only to ensure that the ultimate reader of the document would not find the true CI number of the informant.  The FBI might do this for documents shared outside of the FBI.

So, sorry for the roundabout essay here and apologies if it seems like I'm preaching to the choir, but I do definitely agree the mountains of internal FBI data I've seen supports your statement I quote above.

 

regards

 

Jason

Edited November 18, 2017 by Jason Ward

[Jason Ward]

4 hours ago, Bart Kamp said:

You are right about the T number, which I did not see at first, I overlooked it. So my bad.

However I totally disagree with your classification as described above, as a matter of fact I see it as an apologetic excuse. Someone who does a routine check does NOT get a classification as an informant, you'd have to do more than that. As per your explanation Will Fritz and others would be marked  as T informants then as well as they were in regular contact w them.

Then have a look at some of the other names such as Rothermel as per your so called your classification and anyone with a tad of common sense will realise that there's more to it than what you describe.

No need to push on and discuss this further, I will not be swayed.

By way of example, the most common way I've seen T-symbols used is when the writer of a FBI documented wanted to temporarily refer to an informant who already had a symbol designation of some kind, typically as a confidential informant.   See the example below.   In effect, the T number is as far as I've seen just a code often used only once in a single document when the document for whatever reason may be exposed beyond FBI circles.  So, rather than expose a confidential informants 'symbol' in a document that might be shared with the CIA, INS,  a local police agency and so forth, the document will refer to that person as "T-1".    Then, a document-by-document code sheet is created.

In the example below, all the T-numbers are created so that the FBI doesn't have to reveal the actual CI numbers, perhaps in a document they will in this case share with the LAPD. T-1 through T-7 are applied to those with already-established symbols/numbers for use in this one document only.   It has nothing to do with how often they are called upon to provide information, nor does it have to do with the quality or type of information they provide.  T numbers are not assigned to bank officials, credit bureau employees, contacts at veterans organizations, reporters, cops, nor any other particular type of informant - they are assigned based only on a document-by-document need to temporarily obscure the established FBI informant number from readers of the document.

In sum, from my review of the evidence, T-numbers are not assigned to temporary or occasional informants, they are assigned on a document-by-document basis so that the reader of the document is not shown the true informant symbol (code / number).

 

Jason

 

 

T numbers ARE NOT assigned to a certain type of informant, nor is the frequency, type or quality of their information in any way used to create a T designation.  For example, the informants below all have established informant numbers (in this case CNDI - confidential national defense informant), but in order to protect their established CNDI numbers from non-FBI clients and sponsors, they were allocated T numbers for this document only.

 

Edited November 18, 2017 by Jason Ward

[Jason Ward]

4 hours ago, Bart Kamp said:

You are right about the T number, which I did not see at first, I overlooked it. So my bad.

However I totally disagree with your classification as described above, as a matter of fact I see it as an apologetic excuse. Someone who does a routine check does NOT get a classification as an informant, you'd have to do more than that. As per your explanation Will Fritz and others would be marked  as T informants then as well as they were in regular contact w them.

Then have a look at some of the other names such as Rothermel as per your so called your classification and anyone with a tad of common sense will realise that there's more to it than what you describe.

No need to push on and discuss this further, I will not be swayed.

...and again...you are correct....

.

.

.

As the document below whos, T numbers are assigned not based on occupation (cop or credit bureau clerk or newspaper reporter), nor on how often information is provided, nor on the quality of information.

T numbers are provided to mask the true confidential informant number in documents of wide dissemination and/or documents distributed to non-FBI readers:

 

 

 

[Ernie Lazar]

34 minutes ago, Jason Ward said:

I've read about 4000 documents in their entirety released this year and thumbed through another 10000ish.  I agree with your point here.  

In those days credit bureaus were not national as today, they were local to each city; and were more knowledgeable about average non-criminal citizens than any government agency of the era BY FAR. 

Before the FCRA and other consumer regulations prohibited such practices, the credit bureaus basically kept a small intelligence file on every local citizen.   Step one in any FBI investigation from the 1940s through the 1960s was to check with the local credit bureau.    They saved a huge amount of time for special agents because a lot of basic information was readily available (jobs, addresses, finances); but additionally the credit bureaus sometimes provided information well beyond what in any sense of the word might seem credit-related (i.e. drinking habits, friends and family information, sometimes racially stereotypic notations, etc.)  In some cities the credit bureau was pretty basic in data-collection standards - while in other cities the credit bureau operated as a full-time domestic intelligence unit complete with gossip and innuendo as part of someone's credit file.

Credit bureau employees typically had either they own CI number (rare) or were simply referred to by their name (very common).  A T number has nothing to do with the occupation of the informant.  T numbers have NOTHING to do with "developing background" of an investigative target.

Credit union clerks and assistant managers were never given T numbers or any other informant number in the documents I've seen - with a few rare exceptions.   In my sense of the evidence, the T numbers were assigned when the information provided the FBI was illegally obtained even by the flimsy consumer-protections of the day, or if the information was so explosive that danger existed for the source if their identity became known.  (example: some credit files had notations like, "rumored to have killed mom for inheritance," or "known to be having an affair with his boss's wife," etc...)  In this case, a T number was assigned only to ensure that the ultimate reader of the document would not find the true CI number of the informant.  The FBI might do this for documents shared outside of the FBI.

So, sorry for the roundabout essay here and apologies if it seems like I'm preaching to the choir, but I do definitely agree the mountains of internal FBI data I've seen supports your statement I quote above.

 

regards

 

Jason

I am in the process of installing my new computer so I don't have a lot of time to address your claims.  Briefly, however, the T-number was used by the FBI to conceal the identity of the person OR the method by which the FBI obtained information.  So when a letterhead memorandum was sent outside the Bureau, the recipient could only know that the FBI obtained info from a source which was identified by that T-number and, as I mentioned previously, the T-number could even refer to NON-HUMANS -- as discussed by Director Hoover in his memo to the Attorney General.

You could not be more mistaken when you claim that credit reporting agencies were never referenced by a T-number.  You also could not be more mistaken when you claim that information primarily obtained illegally was assigned a T-number.

After I finish installing all my new software and I have moved all my saved files over to my documents section -- I will be happy to give you some specific examples from my FBI files collection online.