Harry Dean: Memoirs

[Ernie Lazar]

OK, Paul, let's try this from another perspective.

What is your BEST CASE SCENARIO for your hypothesis? Would it be something like this?

1. Sometime in the summer of 1963 (if we believe Harry's original story as told in your eBook), the FBI-Los Angeles office created one or more serials which report that Harry told Wesley Grapp about various persons who were JBS members and they were planning the murder of JFK.

2. HOWEVER, when FBI-Los Angeles created those serials in the summer of 1963, it consciously decided to NOT follow its normal procedure which would be to channel copies into their already existing main file pertaining to Harry (i.e. Los Angeles 105-12933) AND they also consciously decided to NOT file copies of those serials into the main files of the persons (such as Walker, Rousselot, Galbadon, etc.) who also already had existing main files.

3. In addition, for some reason (which you need to explain), FBI-Los Angeles also decided to adopt a policy which forbid its records-keeping personnel from indexing those serials into their filing system so that when anybody at Los Angeles field and/or HQ or another field office made a request to the Los Angeles office to search its records on Harry Dean, NOTHING would appear on "search slips" used by Los Angeles name check personnel.

4. NOW, at this time (summer of 1963), there was no main file created yet on the assassination of JFK -- so WHERE did Los Angeles file those serials pertaining to Harry's reports about a "JBS plot" to murder JFK?

• They did not file them in the JBS file (HQ or Los Angeles).
• They did not file them in Harry's main files (HQ or Los Angeles).
• They did not file them in the files of the persons whom Harry identified as being part of the "JBS plot".

So WHERE did they file them?

5. FURTHERMORE, the type of information which you and Harry claim was given to Wesley Grapp in the summer of 1963 was NOT the type of information which would be put into a separate or "secret" main file. Which is why we know about other files that discuss comparable subject matter-- i.e. various "plots" to kill JFK. So the next question you need to answer is WHY would FBI-Los Angeles think that Harry's information was so unique that it had to be hidden and all normal protocols violated?

6. Lastly -- correct me if I am wrong --- but AFTER Harry gave his "JBS plot" information to Wesley Grapp (or whomever) -- the FBI-Los Angeles office DID NOT send Agents out to Harry's home to interview him to get more details about that plot --- isn't that correct?

THEN YOU NEED TO EXPLAIN THIS "SMALL" PROBLEM >>>>>>>>>>>>>

7. AFTER Harry sent his 11/19/63 letter to Hoover, FBI-Los Angeles was instructed by HQ to send "mature" Agents to interview Harry and they did so on 12/10/63.

It was during THAT interview that Harry gave those two Agents (Cromwell and McCauley) copies of correspondence between him and Juan Orta and copies of various documents showing his connection to FPCC and J26M.

HOWEVER---Harry did not mention ONE WORD about the JBS, about the "JBS plot", or about any of the people connected to that "plot". Why is that?? Please explain!!!

OK, Ernie, let's try it by the numbers:

1. It is not guaranteed that the FBI recorded or kept Harry's original story about Walker, Rousselot and the JBS in September 1963. I offer as evidence the fact that when Lee Harvey Oswald made reports to the FBI, sometimes those notes were simply destroyed (e.g. by Hosty, but also by others). This is common knowledge among the JFK researchers.

Why would the FBI break protocol in that way? We only need to ask two former FBI Agents, namely Don Adams and Wesley Swearingen, who will tell us that FBI protocols were frequently broken in the interest of expedience. The rules were not so rigidly obeyed, as you seem to believe, Ernie.

One plausible scenario for the absence of Harry's story in current FBI files is that the FBI Agent who heard the story, just assumed that Harry was a "mental case" and threw the notes away (just as James Hosty threw away the note he received from Lee Harvey Oswald only weeks before the JFK murder).

2. However, if the records of Harry's story really were kept, then another plausible scenario is that AFTER the JFK murder and J. Edgar Hoover's mandate that any evidence of ACCOMPLICES of Lee Harvey Oswald must be squashed as soon as possible -- that the record of Harry's volunteer information about the JBS was moved to a special, secret folder of JFK murder files, AND ALL TRACES OF THAT DATA MOVEMENT WERE DESTROYED.

Again, I cite Don Adams and Wesley Swearingen, both of whom attest that the FBI would manipulate and suppress data related to the JFK murder -- including their own formally filed FBI reports.

3. Again -- because of the top secret nature of FBI files pertaining to the JFK murder, it is plausible to propose that the FBI violated its own policy and either DESTROYED the indexes to those files, or MODIFIED the indexes to those files. This would be reasonable, given the Top Secret nature of all FBI files dealing with the JFK murder that have been classified for the past fifty years. NOTHING must appear on "search slips" to give away ANYTHING about the Top Secret files -- not their quantity, their ID numbers or their contents.

If this is correct, this would expalin why even the most careful FBI researcher today cannot claim to know the quantity or file numbers of ALL of the FBI Secret Files on the JFK murder.

4. As for the summer of 1963, I have already proposed two scenarios: (i) that the FBI Agents who heard Harry's story simply destroyed those notes, thinking Harry was a "mental case" (as we have heard FBI Agents doing in the past); and (ii) that the files kept about Harry Dean were RECLASSIFIED at a point AFTER the JFK murder, and all INDEXES and records of their existence either destroyed or well-hidden. That would include HQ or LAX files about Harry Dean, the JBS or related personnel.

Of course nobody can have proof for or against this hypothesis at this point -- but at the end of 2017, we expect to have a full disclosure from the FBI.

5. Again, Ernie, even if the JBS information about JFK that Harry gave to the FBI in the summer of 1963 was seemingly trivial at the time, it was clearly AFTER the JFK murder that the significance of Harry's story would sting like a bee -- that is, Harry Dean (like Sylvia Odio) claimed that Lee Harvey Oswald had KNOWN ACCOMPLICES. Therefore, AFTER the JFK murder (which was clearly a major exception to FBI protocol) the account of Harry Dean would be far more sensitive, and would then be RECLASSIFIED among the JFK murder files, which remain Top Secret to this very day.

Of course nobody can have proof for or against this hypothesis at this point -- but at the end of 2017, we expect to have a full disclosure from the FBI.

6. I have no idea what the FBI did or didn't do after Harry Dean gave his JBS plot information to Wesley Grapp (or whomever), and furthermore, any FBI records on the matter would have likely been REMOVED FROM MAIN BUREAU FILES because of their relevance to the JFK murder.

I think this my explanation is very easy to understand, and quite plausible.

7. Again -- when FBI Agents interviewed Harry Dean on 12/10/1963, there is a possibility that Harry Dean told them everything on his mind -- including JBS information -- but AFTER the JFK murder and Hoover's mandate to hide all data regarding accomplices of Lee Harvey Oswald, it is plausible that this SENSITIVE information was SEPARATED from those files we possess today, and all INDEXES changed, and all traces of the DATA MOVE were either destroyed or well-hidden.

Again, I think this my explanation is very easy to understand, and quite plausible.

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

Paul -- I assumed that your answer would be what you wrote in your reply.

1. Let's begin with your point #7. Has HARRY ever said that he provided details re: the "JBS plot" to Agents Cromwell and McCauley when they interviewed him on 12/10/63?

2. AFTER the murder of JFK, does Harry contend that he sent any letters to Los Angeles field re: his knowledge about the "JBS plot" -- but those letters have been "purged" (according to your hypothesis) from his file?

3. With respect to Adams and Swearingen: Is there ANY subject matter which pertains to the FBI that you think they are NOT knowledgeable about? OR is it your contention that EVERYTHING they say or write is, ipso facto, factual and truthful because they know every conceivable detail about FBI practices and procedures at both their field offices and at HQ?

4. If the FBI has gone to such extraordinary lengths to suppress Harry's alleged 1963 reports (i.e. purging all references everywhere to their existence -- even within its own filing systems) then why would they EVER release anything in 2017 or any other time?

5. Is it your contention that the Assassinations Records Review Board was totally incompetent because they listed the types of information which were going to be withheld until 2017 (such as tax information and foreign government intelligence) -- but it does not include the type of information which you attribute to Harry?

6. What, specifically, is so sensitive about Harry's information -- as opposed to (for example) comparable information (originally classified) that was supplied by other persons concerning "plots" to murder JFK but which HAS been released and which the FBI never purged from their filing system?

7. Last, but not least, do you have any self-awareness of what you have done? You have created a circular argument and there is no conceivable method to falsify it. Not even you could falsify your own hypothesis (if somebody else created it) because there is no possible way to prove something whose basic predicate is that the FBI (as an institution) destroys, doctors, or purges and hides documents and files -- even from its own employees!

Edited October 21, 2014 by Ernie Lazar

[Ernie Lazar]

I want to discuss this portion of your response separately:

One plausible scenario for the absence of Harry's story in current FBI files is that the FBI Agent who heard the story, just assumed that Harry was a "mental case" and threw the notes away (just as James Hosty threw away the note he received from Lee Harvey Oswald only weeks before the JFK murder).

IF the criterion you think was operative for such matters was to "throw away" notes concerning contacts the FBI had with people they considered "a mental case" -- then WHY do we have so much very detailed documentary evidence in FBI files (including Harry's) which memorializes the specific contacts which FBI Agents had with such people?

For example; just this morning I was reading an Albuquerque field memo about their interview of a woman who claimed she had special advance knowledge about JFK's murder (as well as the murder of LHO) because of her special mental gifts. The FBI Agent who interviewed her obviously thought she was crazy but, nevertheless, he carefully documented his contact with her.

Similarly, in Harry's Los Angeles file there is serial #46 which contains this summary:

6/23/65 handwritten letter by William M. Hill addressed to “FBI – L.A.”

“Gentlemen: The enclosed article concerns a couple (the Deans’) now known to my wife and self.”

“Several weeks ago, Dean’s wife, Millie, was employed by my wife’s employer, Leach Corp., San Marino, Calif., phone 799-0831, Millie was in need of transportation and my wife has been driving her to and from work since she started. I have had several conversations with Millie Dean in the interim, and upon meeting her husband (when he comes to pick her up in the evening at my home), the first thing he said to me ‘I hate all people—black, white, red, yellow and all’. I replied ‘that’s a hell of a way to live’ and haven’t had anything to do with him since, figuring he was some kind of nut.”

“After reading, and thinking about the enclosed article, and being in a very good position to ‘cultivate’ a friendship with this person, I am wondering if there is some way it would be beneficial to your offices, and thus our country, to proceed with developing an association with this person.”

“Of course, if he is indeed an agent from your offices, then his hate attitude would be fake, and there would be no need for any service from me. However, he strikes me as a nut and if he is active Communist, I will be proud to do whatever I can to aid in our fight against this evil.”

“No one knows of this letter, not even my wife Jean, and if there is something I can do, you may contact me at my employer – Rheem Corp., 3383 E. Gage, Huntington Park, Cal., phone LU-36671. My home address is 1338 Greenberry Drive, La Puente, phone 333-9961 for 6 ½ years. Sincerely William Hill.”

AND SERIAL #45 which reports how the FBI handled this contact. I underline and bold one key portion:

LAX SA William J. McCauley to SAC LAX re: Harry Dean

“Attached is a letter received from one William M. Hill, 1338 Greenberry Drive, La Puente, telephone 333-9961, dated 6/23/65, concerning the subject, which letter was addressed to this office and conveyed the writer’s desire to be of service to the FBI in connection with the subject.”

“Hill was contacted telephonically at his place of employment (in accordance with his request) on 6/29/65 and advised that it was not desired that he act in any way on behalf of this office in connection with the subject. He said that he understood the situation particularly since learning through his wife that the subject’s wife is considering having the subject committed. Hill said that he himself has been the editor of the ‘Legionnaire’, published by the American Legion’s West Covina Post #790, and can be relied upon to help in any way desired. He said that it would not be necessary to acknowledge his letter by formal reply.”

“Recommendation: It is recommended that this memo be routed to SA Ferd Rapp for his information only. It may be that Hill can be of some service to him in the future in some other matter.”

Why didn't the FBI just destroy all this documentation if (as you seem to think) "notes" about people whom they thought were "mental cases" would just be discarded as worthless information? Why would this memo be routed to Agent Rapp "for his information only" ? Why would any Agent think that another Agent would want to know about the mental condition of somebody if such notes were worthless data to the FBI?

There are literally at least HUNDREDS (and probably THOUSANDS) of FBI serials which discuss people who contacted the FBI and the FBI considered them to be "a mental case" of some type. Why did the FBI keep all those "notes" if your theory is correct?

[Paul Trejo]

...There are literally at least HUNDREDS (and probably THOUSANDS) of FBI serials which discuss people who contacted the FBI and the FBI considered them to be "a mental case" of some type. Why did the FBI keep all those "notes" if your theory is correct?

Well, Ernie, you're asking me to explain the behavior of countless FBI Agents.

I have read that when Lee Harvey Oswald spoke to an FBI Agent in New Orleans in August 1963, after he was jailed for a pre-planned street-brawl with his accomplice, Carlos Bringuier, that the FBI Agent in that case threw away his notes.

We know as recorded history that FBI James Hosty threw away the note that Lee Harvey Oswald sent him just weeks before the JFK murder.

You want ME to explain why THEY did these deeds? That's certainly beyond my scope.

My only point is that while most of the time FBI Agents would go by the book, and faithfully record all their interactions with the public -- SOMETIMES they took it upon themselves to throw some notes away.

We have former FBI Agents Don Adams and Wesley Swearingen -- with decades of FBI experience between them -- who tell us that the FBI really and factually broke FBI protocol on a FREQUENT basis when they felt pressured to do so.

It just isn't my purview to explain WHY individual FBI Agents behaved as they did.

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

Edited October 22, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

...6. What, specifically, is so sensitive about Harry's information -- as opposed to (for example) comparable information (originally classified) that was supplied by other persons concerning "plots" to murder JFK but which HAS been released and which the FBI never purged from their filing system?

7. Last, but not least, do you have any self-awareness of what you have done? You have created a circular argument and there is no conceivable method to falsify it. Not even you could falsify your own hypothesis (if somebody else created it) because there is no possible way to prove something whose basic predicate is that the FBI (as an institution) destroys, doctors, or purges and hides documents and files -- even from its own employees!

Well, Ernie, with regard to (6) here's what so sensitive about Harry's information -- Harry Dean claimed that Lee Harvey Oswald had KNOWN ACCOMPLICES.

We know from a half-century of research that all the FBI information given to the Warren Commission was scrubbed clean of all evidence that diverged from J. Edgar Hoover's mandated conclusion that Lee Harvey Oswald must be portrayed as the "Lone Shooter" or the "Lone Nut" as the FBI called him, who had NO accomplices.

The FBI tampered with photographic evidence by the pound. They tampered with countless witnesses who claimed to have heard shots or seen smoke from behind the Grassy Knoll. They tampered with ballistics evidence. They tampered with medical evidence. The list is very long -- and all for one single purpose -- to PROVE that Lee Harvey Oswald HAD NO ACCOMPLICES.

When we finally arrive at the day when we see all the FBI evidence that has been withheld for a half-century, I believe I can predict with pinpoint accuracy what we will see -- WE WILL SEE EVIDENCE THAT LEE HARVEY OSWALD HAD ACCOMPLICES.

And THAT, Ernie, is why the FBI would find the motivation to suppress the information that Harry Dean volunteered to them about the JFK murder in 1963 and 1964.

=*=

Now, as regards (7), you're entirely mistaken. My argument isn't circular, because once the FBI reveals all (and I do mean all) of its Top Secret files on the JFK murder, then if my theory is incorrect, I'll be the first to admit it.

But that alone will be my criterion. Until that day, no amount of your bias, badgering or insults will convince me to dismiss Harry Dean's VERY PLAUSIBLE ACCOUNT of the criminal associates of Lee Harvey Oswald who betrayed him just as they betrayed the USA.

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

Edited October 22, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Brancato]

Well Paul - I agree with you about the FBI subversion of a real investigation, but have almost no hope that 2017 will change anything.

[Paul Trejo]

Well Paul - I agree with you about the FBI subversion of a real investigation, but have almost no hope that 2017 will change anything.

It's 50/50 whether the JFK Information Act will agree to release all the top secret records about the JFK murder. There remains a proviso inside the JFK Information Act that allows the US Government to change its mind at the last minute.

The same rules would apply in 2017 as they did in 1964 -- namely, if NATIONAL SECURITY would be threatened by showing the world that the traitorous, back-stabbing accomplices of Lee Harvey Oswald were RIGHT-WING vigilantes -- would that cause riots in the streets and a possible Civil War?

If the US Government still fears that outcome, then of course the secret files on JFK will be kept secret until 2039. Then I wonder if I'll still be alive to read them.

Still, I think you and I see the same data but draw different conclusions. I think that you see the FBI tampering with JFK evidence as a sign that they were PART of the JFK murder. However, I see FBI tampering with JFK evidence as a sign that the FBI was afraid of a Civil War -- and weren't part of the JFK murder, but only part of the JFK Cover-up, and so arguably did the RIGHT THING.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited October 22, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Brancato]

I don't think there is a hard line between the perpetrators and the coverup as you do. But I also don't suspect the FBI in the crime itself, just the coverup. It's the CIA I am not so sure of.

[Paul Trejo]

I don't think there is a hard line between the perpetrators and the coverup as you do. But I also don't suspect the FBI in the crime itself, just the coverup. It's the CIA I am not so sure of.

Fair enough, Paul B.

Let me underscore the hard line between the Kill Team and the Coverup Team: The Kill Team insisted that Lee Harvey Oswald was a COMMUNIST, and that he had Communist accomplices.

That was plain starting in April 1963 when Oswald moved to New Orleans to begin making public appearances as an alleged officer of the FPCC -- Fidel Castro's favorite American support organization.

Those public appearances were organized by Guy Banister and his crew -- this was proved by Jim Garrison.

The Cover-up Team, on the contrary, insisted that Lee Harvey Oswald was a LONE NUT and had NO accomplices. This was the position of the FBI, following J. Edgar Hoover.

That is a Grand Canyon between these two groups. There is no way to reconcile them. They are night and day.

You can always recognize the JFK plotters -- they spent the rest of 1964 trying to convince the public that Lee Harvey Oswald had Communist accomplices -- even in the face of the FBI denials.

These people included: (1) Ex-General Walker, who even blurted this out to the Warren Commission; (2) Revilo P. Oliver, who also told this to the Warren Commission; (3) David Morales, via Mass Media contacts; (4) John Martino; (5) Johnny Roselli; (6) Frank Sturgis; (7) Joseph Milteer; (8) Billy James Hargis; (9) the John Birch Society and others.

While David Morales was clearly with the CIA -- none of the other main plotters were.

As far as I can tell today, David Atlee Phillips had a solid alibi. And if he did, then so did all other CIA Officers above him in the hierarchy. David Morales was the main CIA guy in the JFK plot.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited October 22, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Ernie Lazar]

...There are literally at least HUNDREDS (and probably THOUSANDS) of FBI serials which discuss people who contacted the FBI and the FBI considered them to be "a mental case" of some type. Why did the FBI keep all those "notes" if your theory is correct?

Well, Ernie, you're asking me to explain the behavior of countless FBI Agents.

I have read that when Lee Harvey Oswald spoke to an FBI Agent in New Orleans in August 1963, after he was jailed for a pre-planned street-brawl with his accomplice, Carlos Bringuier, that the FBI Agent in that case threw away his notes.

We know as recorded history that FBI James Hosty threw away the note that Lee Harvey Oswald sent him just weeks before the JFK murder.

You want ME to explain why THEY did these deeds? That's certainly beyond my scope.

My only point is that while most of the time FBI Agents would go by the book, and faithfully record all their interactions with the public -- SOMETIMES they took it upon themselves to throw some notes away.

We have former FBI Agents Don Adams and Wesley Swearingen -- with decades of FBI experience between them -- who tell us that the FBI really and factually broke FBI protocol on a FREQUENT basis when they felt pressured to do so.

It just isn't my purview to explain WHY individual FBI Agents behaved as they did.

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

Yes--when you make a broad generalization about the behavior of "thousands of Agents" (or a general practice of an institution) then I would expect you to have a plausible explanation based upon verifiable facts -- not speculation or rumors or gossip.

You place enormous credence in Adams and Swearingen but I doubt that you have ever performed even rudimentary research into their assertions and, in fact, there is no way to do so because their personnel files are not available to you plus you have no way to interview the people whom they discuss. But I understand that they are an all-purpose excuse for you to make whatever conclusions you want to make -- by presenting their assertions and accusations as indisputable truth.

1. There is nothing particularly "sensitive" about Harry claiming that LHO had "known accomplices". Numerous people made such claims which is why most Americans have concluded from the very beginning that there was "a conspiracy" involved -- not a lone gunman.

2. I think the problem here Paul is three-fold: (1) first, you apparently have never read the final report of the Assassination Records Review Board so you are not familiar with the type of information that is being withheld until 2017 and you just ASSUME that Harry's speculations (which Grapp supposedly immediately dismissed when he heard them) would fall into a "top secret JFK files" category, (2) you use any example of FBI (or government) misbehavior to "prove" whatever crazy idea you have in your mind and (3) you totally mis-comprehend the very nature of FBI record-keeping practices so you think it actually would be possible to perpetually hide documents or files -- even from the FBI's own employees (i.e. the units responsible for providing accurate summaries of what information was contained in FBI files) not to mention all the documents sent OUTSIDE the FBI to other agencies or entities -- and the FBI does not control their filing systems or release protocols.

3. Paul B. correctly understands the internal illogic of your argument.

IF we assume (for sake of argument) that the FBI made a conscious decision in 1963 or 1964 to suppress knowledge about Harry's speculations to Grapp, and

Then if we further assume that the FBI made a conscious decision to hide those documents from the ARRB and from the House Select Committee on Assassinations AND

We further assume that nobody who saw those documents (i.e. both employees within the FBI and persons outside the FBI who saw copies which were sent outside the Bureau) has ever been willing to come forward to confirm their existence -- THEN the inescapable and logical conclusion would be that the FBI would either just DESTROY all those documents to prevent embarrassment in 2017, OR, the FBI would just insist that they continue to be withheld for "national security" reasons --- even though there are no national security implications to them.

4. As previously noted, you have created a circular argument. A circular argument begins with an unproven predicate -- but all subsequent analysis and discussion is based upon the original unproven predicate. Consequently all conclusions reached depend upon the original unproven predicate -- which is why it is called a circular argument. The reason why circular arguments are considered logical fallacies is because there is no way to use human intellect to falsify them.

Your circular argument proceeds as follows:

1. UNPROVEN PREDICATE: Harry's reports to the FBI about a "JBS plot" to murder JFK were placed in "secret" FBI files and FBI filing systems were purged of all references to them

2. Therefore, that explains why we cannot find any documents in any FBI file which confirm that Harry made such reports

3. That also explains why no FBI document even contains a reference to the "secret" file number

The circle BEGINS with a "secret file" and ENDS with "secret file" -- which is why it is a CIRCULAR argument!

Edited October 22, 2014 by Ernie Lazar

[Ernie Lazar]

Paul -- haven't seen your answer to these important previous questions:

1. Let's begin with your point #7. Has HARRY ever said that he provided details re: the "JBS plot" to Agents Cromwell and McCauley when they interviewed him on 12/10/63?

2. AFTER the murder of JFK, does Harry contend that he sent any letters to Los Angeles field re: his knowledge about the "JBS plot" -- but those letters have been "purged" (according to your hypothesis) from his file?

[Paul Trejo]

Paul -- haven't seen your answer to these important previous questions:

1. Let's begin with your point #7. Has HARRY ever said that he provided details re: the "JBS plot" to Agents Cromwell and McCauley when they interviewed him on 12/10/63?

2. AFTER the murder of JFK, does Harry contend that he sent any letters to Los Angeles field re: his knowledge about the "JBS plot" -- but those letters have been "purged" (according to your hypothesis) from his file?

Ernie, these are questions for Harry Dean. This is his thread and he monitors it. Let's see if he wants to reply to you.

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

Edited October 22, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Ernie Lazar]

Paul -- haven't seen your answer to these important previous questions:

1. Let's begin with your point #7. Has HARRY ever said that he provided details re: the "JBS plot" to Agents Cromwell and McCauley when they interviewed him on 12/10/63?

2. AFTER the murder of JFK, does Harry contend that he sent any letters to Los Angeles field re: his knowledge about the "JBS plot" -- but those letters have been "purged" (according to your hypothesis) from his file?

Ernie, these are questions for Harry Dean. This is his thread and he monitors it. Let's see if he wants to reply to you.

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

Seems to me that you would have asked Harry these sort of questions before publishing an eBook designed to defend and promote his story.

IF, for example, Harry says that he never mentioned anything to McCauley and Cromwell regarding the "JBS plot" during his 12/10/63 interview -- then that would beg the question, why not?

IF, for example, Harry says that his letters to FBI-Los Angeles which I found in his Los Angeles file are the only ones he recalls ever writing to the FBI -- then one would wonder why he never wrote anything down re: the "JBS plot" -- as he routinely did about much lesser and insignificant topics.

AND, absent the existence of such documentation, it would make it much more probable that there is NO proof which is still extant regarding Harry's narrative.

[Paul Trejo]

...IF, for example, Harry says that he never mentioned anything to McCauley and Cromwell regarding the "JBS plot" during his 12/10/63 interview -- then that would beg the question, why not?

IF, for example, Harry says that his letters to FBI-Los Angeles which I found in his Los Angeles file are the only ones he recalls ever writing to the FBI -- then one would wonder why he never wrote anything down re: the "JBS plot" -- as he routinely did about much lesser and insignificant topics.

AND, absent the existence of such documentation, it would make it much more probable that there is NO proof which is still extant regarding Harry's narrative.

Well, Ernie, in your biased world, in which you've been pushing for such a conclusion for years and years -- this would make sense.

My point is that much work remains to be done on the question of Harry Dean.

The eBook that we published exactly one year ago this month -- which has sold less than 20 copies -- wasn't intended to be the last word on Harry Dean, but only a reminder to serious JFK researchers that there is more work to be done.

I'm not a researcher -- I'm a computer maintenance guy. It saddens me that JFK researchers have so little insight into this 50 year old topic that they ignore the gems under their noses.

One of these days the world will discover the real reason you've been slamming and slamming at Harry Dean for YEARS on this thread -- and why you always want to rush to the conclusion that Harry Dean's honest account of the JFK murder was nothing much.

Somebody is running scared. Somebody has been running scared for 50 years.

It's time that some serious JFK researchers re-opened the book on Ex-General Edwin Walker. Perhaps next year, when Dr. Jeffrey Caufield publishes his 400+ page book on Edwin Walker, the JFK research community will finally sit up and take notice. Then the world will finally see the enormous value of Harry Dean's eye-witness account of the ACCOMPLICES of Lee Harvey Oswald.

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

Edited October 23, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Greg Burnham]

[...] Then the world will finally see the enormous value of Harry Dean's eye-witness account of the ACCOMPLICES of Lee Harvey Oswald.

Accomplices to what? Accomplices to his having been framed? Accomplices to his having never fired a shot? Accomplices to his not being involved in a conspiracy?

I can hardly wait.

[Paul Trejo]

[...] Then the world will finally see the enormous value of Harry Dean's eye-witness account of the ACCOMPLICES of Lee Harvey Oswald.

Accomplices to what? Accomplices to his having been framed? Accomplices to his having never fired a shot? Accomplices to his not being involved in a conspiracy?

I can hardly wait.

Well, Greg, "accomplices" is an ambiguous term, in the context of the JFK murder.

In Hoover's Lone Shooter mandate, Lee Harvey Oswald "had no accomplices who are still at large." That's why the FBI stomped so hard on the testimony of Sylvia Duran, who claimed she saw Lee Harvey Oswald at her doorstep with two Hispanic guys, who also talked about killing JFK.

Now, I think you and I agree that Lee Harvey Oswald did not kill JFK, and didn't even SHOOT at JFK. We agree on that. So then -- why would I say that Lee Harvey Oswald had ACCOMPLICES? I will now explain my use of this term.

(1) Lee Harvey Oswald was UNAWARE that he was part of a plot to murder JFK, but in fact HE DID BECOME a part of the plot.

(2) Lee Harvey Oswald was FRAMED for the murder of JFK, and was completely fooled by the people who FRAMED him. Oswald fully COOPERATED with the people who framed him. That is how Lee Harvey Oswald came to be part of the plot to kill JFK.

(3) Lee Harvey Oswald cooperated FOR MONTHS with the people who murdered JFK. That's what makes Oswald part of the plot.

(4) Lee Harvey Oswald left himself wide open to be fooled by the JFK plotters -- and even let his own rifle fall into their hands! So, even against his will, Oswald was part of the plot.

(5) Gerry Patrick Hemming told A.J. Weberman that he himself called Lee Harvey Oswald the night before the JFK murder, and offered Oswald double the market price of his rifle if he would only bring it to the TSBD the next morning. Because Oswald let himself be fooled by Hemming -- Oswald let himself become part of the plot.

(6) After the JFK murder -- of which Lee Harvey Oswald did not directly take part -- Oswald fled the scene, went home to fetch his pistol, and then fled to the Texas Theater -- on the run. He should have run directly to the nearest DPD policeman -- but because he failed to do that, he made himself part of the plot.

(7) While under arrest at the DPD jail, Lee Harvey Oswald realized too late that he was "just a Patsy." Yet when he realized that, he should have told the whole world who his ACCOMPLICES were -- the very people he had been associating with for MONTHS beforehand, including Guy Banister, David Ferrie, Clay Shaw, Carlos Bringuier, Ed Butler, Loran Hall, Larry Howard, Gerry Patrick Hemming and so many more. But Oswald kept hoping that they would come running to his side to help him with "legal assistance." He continued to trust them -- and that is what finally made Lee Harvey Oswald a part of the plot.

(8) Even though Oswald was fooled and was a Patsy, he had a chance to spill the beans in the last two days of his life, and he didn't take that chance -- and at the very least Oswald became an "accessory after the fact." In other words, he had become part of the plot.

And that is why, despite the complications, it is still viable to say that Lee Harvey Oswald had ACCOMPLICES. Yes, they were back-stabbing accomplices, but they still qualify under the broadest meaning of that term.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Edited October 23, 2014 by Paul Trejo