Paul Trejo

As usual, Ernie Lazar relies on exaggeration and bias to make his weak points. Anybody reading those messages from Wes Swearingen can tell immediately that he is not "dismissing" out of hand the accounts by Don Adams or Harry Dean. JUST THE OPPOSITE. Wes Swearingen admits that: "Joseph Milteer may have heard about a plan to kill JFK." So, once again, Ernie is just blind to anything outside his bias. What a poor researcher Ernie is. Furthermore, Wes Swearingen admits that: "Milteer could have heard rumors about a plot to kill JFK. I don't know what his connections were." So, Wes Swearingen is indeed reporting in a professional and scholarly way -- but Ernie Lazar distorts Wes Swearingen's words, twisting them to fit his own biased pre-conclusions. Shame on Ernie Lazar. Furthermore, Wes Swearingen admits, "This does not mean that Dean's story of another plot is not true...Any group could have looked at LHO as a patsy, or a sucker play." Furthermore, Wes Swearingen admits, "It is my belief that LHO played a secondary role, whatever that may have been. The physical evidence in this case does not support LHO as the lone assassin." In this last statement, Wes Swearingen AGREES fully with BOTH Harry Dean and Don Adams! So, again, Ernie Lazar merely twists what Wes Swearingen says in order to jump to his biased conclusions. It is unfortunate that Wes Swearingen minimizes the ground-crew, and mostly sets Lee Harvey Oswald aside, without digging deeper into the forces that directly handled him -- but that is what happens with all theories that focus on a CIA-Mafia plot -- they are top-heavy. It is unfortunate that Wes Swearingen suggests that Don Adams' story has "no evidence to back up" what he claims -- because in fact Don Adams has a tape recording of Joseph Milteer speaking to informant Willie Somersett, and describing the JFK assassination in prophetic detail! All JFK researchers know that. Clearly, what the brilliant Wes Swearingen means is that Don Adams was not taking in a wide enough picture, and should have extended his focus to a CIA-Mafia plot. But that is far from Ernie Lazar's hasty claim that Wes Swearingen "dismissed" Don Adams' account. It is in this same context that we must weigh Wes Swearingen's doubts about Harry Dean's story. First, we must first acknowledge that Wes Swearingen admitted contact with Harry Dean in 2010. That's firm. Also, Wes Swearingen clearly and repeatedly stated that "the Chicago mob was involved in killing JFK and not any other group." Therefore, there is no way Wes Swearingen could accept Harry Dean's story as true. Yet nobody said that Wes Swearingen ACCEPTED Harry Dean's story. All I said was what Wes Swearingen told me, namely, "That does not mean that Dean is wrong; it just means that we have different opinions." So, Wes Swearingen honestly admits that he doesn't have all the data yet, and that it is still a matter of opinon. Yet Ernie Lazar falsely claims to the world that Wes Swearingen "dismisses" Harry Dean's account, as he "dismisses" Don Adams account. The difference between what Wes Swearingen says and the twisted mess that Ernie Lazar makes of it is major. That's because Ernie Lazar uses a logical method that is one-sided, with dualist, either/or values lacking nuance. Wes Swearingen has a lot of data to back up his claim -- but he doesn't tie up all the loose ends. Wes Swearingen never gets down to the ground level, and never explains all the details of the intricate handling of Lee Harvey Oswald, or the possible role played by selected Dallas Police Officers in the execution and cover-up of the JFK murder. The link between the stories of Don Adams, Harry Dean, Ricky White and the late Deputy Roger Craig is that they all focus on right-wing racists as taking a significant role in the JFK murder. It is at this level that we find the ground-crew. That would be my argument for the intelligent and couragous Wes Swearingen. Sincerely, --Paul Trejo <minor edits>

As usual, Ernie, you exaggerate. Swearingen doesn't dismiss Milteer's story -- it's just that Swearingen found no evidence that Joseph Milteer was as close to the ground crew of the JFK plot as Don Adams believes. Yet all Don Adams claims is that Milteer knew who shot JFK, and that he made himself available in Dallas to help as needed, and to witness history with his own eyes. Even if Swearingen is 100% correct, that doesn't dismiss the story of Don Adams or even of Harry Dean -- it would only make Milteer and Walker into secondary players, in the opinion of former FBI Agent Wes Swearingen. Sincerely, --Paul Trejo I exaggerate? Swearingen does not dismiss Adam's claims about Milteer? Have you exchanged emails with him? From his website (I underline the operative phrase in red font) "Milteer could have heard rumors about JFK’s planned assassination, but Swearingen does not put any stock in Adams’ story because Swearingen was told in advance who would be involved in JFK’s assassination and Milteer was not one of them." This proves, yet again, that Paul Trejo does not understand or apply the normal commonly understood meanings of words in the English language. Yes, Ernie, you exaggerate -- continually and obsessively. And, yes, I have exchanged emails with Wes Swearingen. I learned, for example, that Wes Swearingen was in contact with Harry Dean in 2010, and that Harry sent Wes Swearingen a complimentary copy of his manuscript, CROSSTRAILS. I learned, for example, that Wes Swearingen does NOT dismiss Harry Dean's account (or Don Adams' account) out of hand, because in his CIA-Mafia theory, Swearingen realizes that the CIA hand the funds and the clout to recruit volunteers by the ton. Although Wes Swearingen does believe that the CIA-Mafia plot was the central plot, he also recognizes the possibility of the participation of the American right-wing at the ground-level, although the ground-level is not his principal focus (as it is for me). Also -- do you believe that Wes Swearingen speaks of himself in the third person? You're jumping to conclusions yet again. So, get a grip, Ernie. The more you keep insulting me in public, the more you're going to get the same treatment. You exaggerate. You're biased. You so-called research is sophomoric. You jump to conclusions and you specialize in FBI promotion -- because that's all you know. The rest is bluster. Sincerely, --Paul Trejo

As usual, Ernie, you exaggerate. Swearingen doesn't dismiss Milteer's story -- it's just that Swearingen found no evidence that Joseph Milteer was as close to the ground crew of the JFK plot as Don Adams believes. Yet all Don Adams claims is that Milteer knew who shot JFK, and that he made himself available in Dallas to help as needed, and to witness history with his own eyes. Even if Swearingen is 100% correct, that doesn't dismiss the story of Don Adams or even of Harry Dean -- it would only make Milteer and Walker into secondary players, in the opinion of former FBI Agent Wes Swearingen. Sincerely, --Paul Trejo

Well, that's quite right, Larry. Just because somebody spoke about killing JFK in 1963 -- that's no proof that they did it. As I've often said, there were so many plots to kill JFK -- millions of dollars probably changed hands in those days as this or that group promised to do the deed. But it was all talk. This was Harry Dean's feeling in 1963, too, when he heard this same talk among the Minutemen in Southern California. The topic of killing JFK was a daily event -- but it was all talk -- letting off steam by cussing the President. Gerry Patrick Hemming said he was regularly offered big money from right-wingers to kill JFK. Loran Hall told the National Enquirer and Jim Garrison in 1967 that right-wingers in Dallas offered him $50,000 on the spot if he'd do it. We have evidence that Carlos Marcello put up a half-million dollar contract to kill JFK and/or RFK. We have evidence that Jimmy Hoffa spent lots of money underground for explosives to blow up the home of RFK. So we know money changed hands -- but it was still all talk. There was lots of tough talk in 1963 -- how does one decide which one of the many, many plots out there was the successful one? We must ask because one and only one of those many plots was actually successful! The answer must stand to reason, however, because only the plot that involved Lee Harvey Oswald as patsy was the successful plot. So we have a quick way to separate the wheat from the chaff, so to speak: was Oswald a part of the conversation or not? Even in the case of Milteer, Oswald's name was not mentioned. However, the concept of a "patsy" (someone picked up within hours just to throw the public off) was certainly part of the Milteer plot -- so his plot is exceptionally suspicious. Further, the twin elements of (1) an office building; and (2) a high-powered rifle, are even more suspicious. In the account of Harry Dean, however, Oswald was mentioned by name. To the best of my knowledge, this is a rare occurrence. The common element of the Don Adams account and the Harry Dean account is the extreme right wing -- and the common figure in the extreme right-wing in El Monte, California and in Miami, Florida appears to be Ex-General Edwin Walker. Further, we know that Walker lied to the Warren Commission when he said he never heard of Lee Harvey Oswald until the murder of JFK -- we know this from his personal papers, e.g. his letter to Senator Frank Church, in which he says he learned that Lee Harvey Oswald was his 10 April 1963 shooter "within days" of that incident. There is other evidence. What makes Ex-General Edwin Walker a towering figure in the extreme right-wing in the USA, coast to coast, is his fame among the racist element for his role in the riots at Ole Miss University in late September, 1962, in which two were killed and hundreds were wounded (mostly Federal marshals). Though most Americans thought Edwin Walker was nutty for starting that race riot, the extreme right-wing thought Walker was a hero and a true leader. The JBS defended Walker's actions as patriotic in a book dedicated entirely to the Ole Miss riots. If the JBS defended Walker after those riots, we can be sure that the NSRP, the ANP and the KKK were all happy to offer their support to Ex-General Edwin Walker at all levels. Robert Allen Surrey, member and publisher for the ANP in Dallas hardly ever left Walker's side -- and he was with Walker at Ole Miss. Gerry Patrick Hemming also offered his encouragement to Edwin Walker (as we find in Walker's personal papers). Loran Hall told Jim Garrison that he visited the home of Edwin Walker in Dallas. There is more. I think that the accounts told by Don Adams and Harry Dean are harmonious in many ways. They are easily linked together by extreme right-wing personnel. This is the place to dig, IMHO. I will continue to dig in Miami, Larry. I realize that you've done a lot of work on this, Larry, as your works take their place in the 400+ books on JFK assassination research in the past 50 years. Yet we all admit that the case is not yet solved. We hope that all answers will be given in 2017, but should we stop digging now? I'm going to keep digging. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

Well, Larry, I'm actively pursuing your good advice, and further exploring Ex-General Edwin Walker and his right-wing activities in Miami, Florida. Walker was active in extreme right-wing activities throughout the South, coast to coast. Extreme right-wing activities in Miami evoke a 2012 tell-all by Korean War Veteran and former FBI Agent, Don Adams. Encouraged by the recent book by former FBI Agent Wesley Swearingen (To Kill a President, 2010), Don Adams finally (2012) came out with his own criticism of the FBI role in feeding information to the Warren Commmission. (See www.adamsjfk.com ) In a nutshell, here's his story. On 13 November 1963, Don Adams was assigned to investigate a man named Joseph Milteer regarding a plot to kill JFK. A covert phone tap had been recorded by Miami PD Intelligence Officers on 9 November 1963, in which right-wing extremist Joseph Milteer spoke with a Miami PD covert informant, William Somersett, about assassinating JFK. This tape is now well-known, but I'll type in few lines here, to orient the reader: SOMERSETT: Well, how in the hell do you figure would be the best way to get him? MILTEER: From an office building with a high powered rifle. SOMERSETT: Are they gonna really try to kill him? MILTEER: Oh, yes, it's in the works. SOMERSETT: Boy, if that Kennedy gets shot we have to know where we're at; because you know that will be a real shake if they do that. MILTEER: They wouldn't leave any stone unturned there -- no way. They will pick somebody up within hours afterwards, if anything like that would happen; just to throw the public off. FBI Agent Don Adams worked day and night with the Miami PD and the Secret Service on this investigation, and submitted his FBI report on 15 November 1963. Adams fully expected that the Secret Service would stop the President from traveling to Dallas. They did not, and a week later JFK was apparently murdered "from a tall building with a high powered rifle" and somebody (Lee Harvey Oswald) was indeed "picked up within hours." Devastated, Don Adams desperately set about to capture Joseph Milteer. Adams' FBI supervisor, SAC McMahon, warned him however, if Milteer is captured, there was only a handful of very specific questions that Adams was permitted to ask Milteer. Adams protested, because he had prepared dozens of questions -- but he was warned sternly not to disobey orders. So, Adams obeyed. On 27 November 1963 Milteer was in custody and submitted to a handful of questions by Milteer and fellow FBI Agent Ken Williams. Milteer admitted being a member of the White Citizens' Council of Atlanta, Georgia. He denied ever making threats about JFK. He denied participation in the JFK assassination. He denied ever hearing anybody else making such threats. Since he was not under arrest, no fingerprints or mug shots were taken. Joseph Milteer was set free. Later, Milteer heard from his supervisor that Joseph Milteer had been "accounted for," and that he was "in Quitman, Georgia at the time of the JFK murder." So Don Adams forgot all about Joseph Milteer at this point. In 1964 Don Adams was then transferred to the FBI in Dallas to support FBI research for the Warren Commission. Adams saw the Zapruder film, and when JFK reached for his throat with both hands, Adams exclaimed that JFK had been shot in the throat -- from the front -- and "the minute that you have a frontal shot, Oswald can't be the shooter!" Other FBI Agents cautioned Don Adams, in effect, "Be careful what you say and how you say it, because the Warren Commission has already concluded that Oswald was the lone shooter, that there were no accomplices, and so all the shots had to come from behind JFK." The FBI had already reported to the Warren Commission that three shots were fired -- but Don Adams counted eleven shots. When Don Adams exclaimed that nobody could shoot three shots with world-class precision from a bolt-action rifle in seven seconds, the FBI demanded that Don Adams keep his observations to himself. So Don Adams dropped the matter -- perhaps the FBI had good reasons for their sloppy research, he concluded. He eventually lost interest in an investigation in which his sharpest skills of observation were unwelcome. Thirty years after the JFK murder, Don Adams was suddenly reminded of it all again, while reading Robert Groden's book, High Treason (1990), where he saw a photograph showing Joseph Milteer in the crowd at Dealey Plaza, personally glaring at JFK while the JFK motorcade was passing by, just moments before JFK was murdered. Adams was stunned. This began Adams' personal mission of research. At NARA, Adams, tells us today, many FBI files that he personally knew about "were missing or manipulated." His own report on Joseph Milteer from 1963, he says, is missing: "Everything that I had done was gone." However -- Adams uncovered other clues, e.g. soon after JFK was murdered, the Miami PD taped a further conversation between a jubilant Milteer and informant Somersett, as follows: MILTEER: Everything ran true to form! I guess you thought I was kidding when I said he would be killed from a window with a high-powered rifle! SOMERSETT: ...Were you just guessing when you said that...? MILTEER: I don't do any guessing! Don't worry about Oswald...because he doesn't know anything. We're in the clear...The patriots outsmarted the Communists...this time." Despite all of that, as former FBI Agent Don Adams reminds us, Joseph Milteer was never mentioned once in the Warren Report. When Hoover set up the FBI, he established a strict rule -- never embarrass the FBI. Hoover announced the "Lone Killer" theory on the evening the Lee Harvey Oswald was arrested. No FBI Agent would dare to embarrass J. Edgar Hoover by contradicting him in public. So, the lie keeps moving forward to this very day. Now -- Harry Dean is not mentioned anywhere by Don Adams -- but that doesn't matter. Harry Dean saw his little part, and Don Adams saw his little part. What matters is that the radical right-wing in the USA was identified by both accounts as suspect number one. What is topical for your advice to me, Larry, is that the Joseph Milteer drama takes place in Miami, Florida, where extreme right-winger Ex-General Edwin Walker was also an active participant. Best regards, --Paul Trejo <edit typos>

Ernie, you have not presented any FBI evidence at all that even MENTIONS Harry's story about the JFK assassination. You are delusional if you think you have resolved anything. There is far more evidence than Harry Dean's word for these events that he witnessed in September 1963 regarding the JFK assassination conspiracy. The personal papers of Edwin Walker offer evidence. FBI reports about Silvia Odio and Loran Hall offer evidence. Jack Ruby's naming of Edwin Walker is more evidence. ATF Agent Frank Ellsworth statement about Edwin Walker is more evidence. There is much more - and I've expressed it dozens of times in this thread -- and you just block it out. You're biased. Harry's story doesn't have the character of fiction. The FBI would like to portray it as fiction. They probably hired W.R. Morris to make Harry's story sound like fiction. (And even the Spartacus Web Site today keeps posting W.R. Morris' fiction about Harry's story). If Harry wanted to write fiction, he would have changed his story every so often to accomodate new information published by JFK researchers -- but he never did. Harry never changed his story from the first day he went public. He only told what he saw -- with all the power and limitations of that eye-witness account. You want me to name what you "cherry picked" Ernie? Even before you gave your little summary of 60+ FBI serials, you prefaced it with the two remarks by FBI Agent William McCauley, giving his unprofessional, snotty and disrespectful opinion that Harry Dean is a "mental case." You put that barb front and center, Ernie, and everybody here saw you do it. Is that specific enough for you? As for your "massive effort to discredit Harry as a witness", you have had no other purpose on this EF thread since 2010. I was very eager to know what was in the Los Angeles FBI files. I now have a choice -- I can believe the hatchet job you presented after one day of examining them, or I can wait until I see the documents with my own eyes. There is another choice -- I can accept your report without your bias, and surmise that the FBI absolutely refuses to release information about Lee Harvey Oswald to just anybody! That makes the most sense to me. In which case, Ernie Lazar still resembles nothing less than a shill for the FBI, and reveals that he is seriously lacking in critical thinking skills. Clearly the JFK research community has no choice but to wait until 2017, to see if the FBI has the honesty, integrity and patriotism to truly obey the JFK Act. Ernie wishes to know whether there were any references to Harry Dean in any of Edwin Walker's personal papers stored at UT Austin. I've seen all 90 boxes worth, and I can say with certainty that there is no mention of Harry Dean by Edwin Walker himself (although Walker did obsessively collect newspaper articles about the JFK assassination, including articles by the Tattler, which do mention Harry Dean). But that means little. Harry Dean never claimed to be a major player in the JFK conspiracy. On the contrary, Harry was a fund-raiser, a yes-man, a storage-man and a local driver -- a minor player. It is because Harry Dean had a trusted but low profile that he was in a position to hear things that are valuable for American History. Ernie is 100% convinced that nothing ever existed in the FBI files that can confirm or deny what Harry Dean has claimed about the JFK assassination -- even though he has not yet seen all the FBI files that are available on the topic of Lee Harvey Oswald. Nobody has outside the FBI. But Ernie Lazar is still 100% certain. Obviously Ernie lacks critical thinking skills. I repeat, we must wait until 2017 to know the full truth about the FBI and Harry Dean. I only hope Harry Dean can hang in there. Finally -- it makes no difference to me at all that Harry Dean's name is among the least mentioned in the 400+ books about the JFK assassination that have appeared in the past fifty years. Those books have failed to solve the JFK murder mystery. The hatchet job done by W.R. Morris and perpetuated by Ernie Lazar and the Spartacus web site to this very day are ample evidence that the FBI stomped as hard as it could on the Confessions of Harry Dean, and so far they have been fairly successful. Sincerely, --Paul Trejo <edit typos>

Ernie Lazar's latest effort to dismiss the eye-witness account of Harry Dean was unsuccessful. Harry Dean reports that he observed high-level members of the Southern California John Birch Society in September 1963 as they plotted against both JFK and Lee Harvey Oswald, to hopefully assassinate them both in Dallas in November 1963. Harry Dean further reports that he told the Los Angeles FBI about this before and after the assassination of JFK. That's the substance of Harry Dean's claim. Instead of addressing these claims, Ernie Lazar launches a massive effort to discredit Harry Dean as a witness -- not based on contradictory FBI information -- but on INSULTS and SMEARS that he carefully cherry-picked from FBI materials that only he has read. There is no reference at all of the material that Harry Dean mentions -- and for Ernie Lazar, this is some sort of FINAL PROOF that there are no FBI records about this material. But actually, Ernie hasn't PROVED that at all. In fact, Ernie has only PROVED that one or two snotty FBI Agents liked to cast about INSULTS about American citizens who tried to offer them information. As for my charges of Ernie's "bias" it has been amply demonstrated in dozens of posts in the past eight weeks on this very thread. There is no need to repeat all that again, ad nauseum. Ernie blissfully believes anything the FBI says -- or doesn't say. Simply because the FBI has omitted any meeting between Harry Dean and Wesley Grapp, Ernie Lazar is 100% convinced that it never took place. Nonsense. Ernie Lazar resembles nothing less than a shill for the FBI. Ernie is so proud of his knowledge of FBI procedure that he boasts about like a rooster crowing at sunrise. Ernie practically claims omniscience about the case of Harry Dean because of the little bit of data that the FBI has let researchers see to date. The fact that the FBI still retains SECRET FILES about Lee Harvey Oswald does not cause Ernie Lazar to reflect very much at all. The main thing we've learned about FBI Agent William McCauley was that he was snotty, arrogant and INSULTING. Other than that, he provides us with almost no information at all. Also, it's no surprise that FBI Agents agree with each other and support each other with subjective opinions and so forth -- but providing independent confirmation has not been their strong suit so far. Although it may be true that Harry Dean is not a man of many words, and must be coaxed into further details, that is no reason to quit the research of Harry's claims, as many JFK researchers have done. There is still plenty of material that merits research, especially the details about Ex-General Edwin Walker, mercenaries Loran Hall and Lawrence Howard, as well as the boistrous Guy "Gabby" Gabaldon whose book, "America Betrayed" bashes the Kennedys, homosexuals, and anybody else to the left of Robert Welch. Furthermore, it makes no difference in the slightest that Harry Dean was -- as normal people are -- involved in youthful indiscretions going back to 1948. To raise the issue (as the FBI does) is merely misdirection. It changes the subject. Again, I say, Ernie's latest effort does not impress me, nor should it impress any impartial reader or researcher into JFK assassination accomplices. We have waited for weeks to learn about these Los Angeles FBI serials and files -- and the result has been a let-down. Nothing substantial has been revealed in them about Harry Dean's account of the JFK assassination. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

Actually, Ernie's latest display of his biased reading of 60+ FBI Files is disappointing and unsatisfactory. If we had actually read from SAC Wesley Grapp any contradiction of Harry Dean's claims, I would have been impressed -- instead we got SILENCE. The argument Ernie promotes is a mere ABSENCE of evidence. What Ernie seizes upon from start to finish, is Los Angeles FBI Agent, William McCauley's bias against Harry Dean, calling him "a mental case." Well -- was FBI Agent William McCauley also a psychiatrist? A medical doctor? No? Then his opinion amounts to nothing more than simple INSULT. This was merely McCauley's way of saying he had no respect for Harry Dean. So what? Whom did he respect -- J. Edgar Hoover -- who gave us the Warren Commission investigation. Hmm. So what did we find from Ernie Lazar's reading of 60+ FBI serials with over 200 pages of files? We found SILENCE (which could obviously suggest secret files) and we found INSULT (which spells bias). Therefore -- I'm left with mainly two conclusions regarding Ernie's biased reading of these FBI serials: 1. secret files 2. bias Sincerely, --Paul Trejo

Ernie, my comments are underneath yours. --Paul Trejo

Ernie, my comments are underneath yours. --Paul Trejo

Very biased reporting, Ernie. You apparently lack skills in critical thinking. Also, is there any independent confirmation that Harry said these things -- or is the FBI just offering their best impression? Let's take a closer look... SIncerely, --Paul Trejo

No, problem, Ernie. As usual, I'll expect your customary bias regarding anything about Harry Dean -- especially FBI files -- so I'll take my customary grain of salt with your opinion. The FBI files themselves will tell much about this side-drama of the JFK assassination -- and may even tell more than they intended to tell. By way of background, Sylvia Meagher wrote in 1967 that the incident involving Loran Hall, Larry Howard, Lee Harvey Oswald and Silvia Odio was, in her opinion, "proof of the plot" (p. 376, Accessories After the Fact). The FBI did their best to keep the truth about Loran Hall and Lee Harvey Oswald from the pages of the Warren Commission. If they had included the information that Harry Dean (allegedly) told them in 1963, however, it would have been impossible to withhold further facts about Loran Hall and his associates. I note for background that Gerry Patrick Hemming also told the FBI that Loran Hall and Larry Howard met Lee Harvey Oswald in Dallas in November 1963 -- and this FBI report did not find its way into the Warren Report. I note for background that Dallas Deputy Sheriff Roger Craig told the Warren Commission that he saw Lee Harvey Oswald flee the TSBD building in a Green Rambler station wagon with a dark-skinned man matching the description of Larry Howard -- and also got Oswald to acknowledge that stagion wagon (which Oswald claimed belonged to Mrs. Paine -- who indeed did own a Green Rambler station wagon). The FBI distorted this in the Warren Report, saying that Roger Craig didn't get a good look at the station wagon, or its occupants, and that Oswald banged on the desk -- which wasn't true, giving Capt. Fritz plausible deniability. I note for background that son of Dallas Policeman Roscoe White told the FBI his father confessed to being in the right-wing party that killed J.D. Tippit and shot JFK from the grassy knoll, and blamed it on Lee Harvey Oswald as planned. All attempts at pointing out accomplices in the JFK murder were distorted by the FBI. Any evidence leading to any other conclusion than Hoover's "Lone Nut" conclusion was squashed by the FBI. Harry Dean's account -- without even trying -- supplies confirming evidence for Silvia Odio, Gerry Patrick Hemming, Roger Craig and Ricky White -- about their separate knowledge of a right-wing conspiracy to kill JFK. I'm prepared for any distortions that the FBI might have made to Harry's story in this regard. Regards, --Paul Trejo

Wait, Ernie, I didn't say that Harry Dean used the term 'informant' in the way I myself used it. I was only speaking for myself. I think we should wait to see the Los Angeles FBI records themselves, before we jump to any conclusions about what Harry Dean himself might have claimed in the past -- and not just what others claimed that he claimed. Regards, --Paul Trejo

Ernie, we're probably defining the term, 'informant,' in different ways. You have the official, technical definition - and I am using a far more informal vocabulary -- a layman's vocabulary -- regarding what Larry Hancock said might be better described as a "source" of information. For the layman, there may seem to be little difference between an FBI Informant and a "source" who might from time to time volunteer information to the FBI. But as we have seen over the past several months, the terminology is vitally important to the FBI. I can readily understand that the FBI would not accept a member of the John Birch Society (JBS) as an official FBI Informant. This is related to the FBI rule that no FBI Agent was allowed to be a member of the JBS. This is because JBS loyalty to the USA was in question because of their doctrine (simply put) that all US Presidents since 1933 were Communist or Communist-controlled. J. Edgar Hoover disbelieved the JBS line. FBI Agents were forbidden to believe it. Despite Hoover, however, the JBS was very influential in the USA in the 1960's, and as we saw, Congressman John Rousselot of California, and other US Congressmen were members of the JBS in that decade. While it is admitted that the FBI did not infiltrate the JBS, or make them a target of a formal Investigation, it is fair to say that J. Edgar Hoover would never have made FBI rules against the JBS without some research (however informal) into the beliefs and political positions of Robert Welch and the leaders of the JBS. Furthermore -- all that is aside from the question about a "source." Just because the FBI was forbidden to use a JBS member as an official FBI Informant, that would not necessarily preclude an FBI Agent from picking up clues or data from JBS members who simply picked up the telephone and volunteered information to them. Former JBS member, Harry Dean, claims in his Confessions that he rode in a car with Los Angeles FBI Special Agent in Charge (SAC) Wesley Grapp at some point between 1963 and 1965. Harry also claims to have spoken with other Los Angeles FBI Agents between 1963 and 1965. This week you might receive a cache of 60+ FBI serials from the Los Angeles FBI about Harry Dean (unless the postal service is slow due to this harsh winter weather). NARA says these serials contains more than 200 pages of information about Harry Dean and his relationship with the FBI. We're all holding our breath for your findings -- what did the Los Angeles FBI say about Harry Dean, nearly fifty years ago? Regards, --Paul Trejo

It's interesting, Larry, that Harry Dean's story could have reversed the Warren Commission's opinion of Silvia Odio's claim that Loran Hall and two Hispanic men visited her home around 25-27 September 1963. The Warren Commission chose not to believe Silvia Odio because the FBI presented two main reasons: (1) Loran Hall said that he visited Silvia Odio's house with Larry Howard and William Seymour, who "looked a little like Lee Harvey Oswald; and (2) bus riders claimed that Lee Harvey Oswald was on a bus to Mexico, as he had no access to an automobile. The FBI and the Warren Commission looked the other way when Loran Hall impeached his own testimony by reversing his claim only days later -- and claimed he never met Silvio Odio before in his life. (This was possibly because Larry Howard threatened to kill Hall for naming Howard to the Warren Commission.) Also, William Seymour could prove he was elsewhere in late September. Harry Dean claims that Loran Hall and Larry Howard (aka. Lorenzo Pacillo and Alonzo Escuirdo) were driving supplies that Harry Dean and Guy Gabaldon had collected from JBS members, and helped them load in their vehicle. According to Harry Dean, Gabaldon also gave Hall and Howard cash and instructions to escort Lee Harvey Oswald from New Orleans to Mexico City. They chose to drive through Dallas on their way to Mexico. So, according to Harry Dean, Hall and Howard drove Oswald in their car to Mexico City. Silvia Odio said that the men drove up to her apartment house in a car -- and that the one whom she believed called himself, "Leopoldo," was the driver. Her description of the two men with Lee Harvey Oswald was very close to our photographs of Hall and Howard -- that Leopoldo (Lorenzo) was a white Hispanic man, on the taller side, unshaven, balding on the temples with a shock of hair in the front; while Angel (Alonzo) was stocky, darker and appeared to be a Mexican rather than Cuban. In fact, that's exactly how Hall and Howard appear. According to Mrs. Lucille Conner, Silvia Odio would surely know how Lee Harvey Oswald looked, because she had seen him before, making speeches at Anti-Castro rallies of Cubans in Dallas, along with Ex-General Edwin Walker. According to a 11/22/1963 Dallas Police report by Detective Buddy Walthers, Lee Harvey Oswald had been seen at 3128 Harlandale Drive in Dallas -- the meeting place of Alpha-66, a militant group of Anti-Castro Cuban Exiles. (Further, the resident of that address, Manuel Rodriguez, was a Cuban Exile and a member of the Minutemen organization, and was connected with Hollis Mason of Dallas, who owned a gun store and supplied Minutemen with weapons -- and also kept a stock of bullets for Manlicher-Carcano rifles. Masen was questioned by AFT agent Frank Ellsworth who sought the source of the bullets in Oswald's Manlicher-Carcano. Frank Ellsworth also reported to the FBI that "Edwin Walker and the Minutemen" are probably at the center of the JFK assassination.) Although the Warren Commission in 1964 denied that Silvia Odio was believable, the HSCA concluded in 1979 that Silvia Odio was believable, and criticized the Warren Commission and the FBI for scrambling the record about her. Harry Dean, as everybody knows, wasn't called as a witness in the Warren Commission hearings, even though he (allegedly) told the FBI shortly after the JFK assassination that Ex-General Edwin Walker and the JBS in Southern California were part of a plot to kill JFK using Lee Harvey Oswald as a patsy. (Also, in June 1964, Jack Ruby told Earl Warren personally that Edwin Walker and the JBS were key conspirators in the JFK assassination.) We hope to see FBI records from Los Angeles -- perhaps soon -- that might confirm or deny Harry Dean's claims to have given this information to the FBI in Los Angeles soon after JFK was assassinated. I think we're all eager to see these FBI files. Best regards, --Paul Trejo <edit typos>

Thanks for your encouraging words, Larry. I've already posted this information on other threads in the JFK Forum over the years. My interest in this thread is to defend Harry Dean from FBI-and-Morris accusations that Harry claimed more for his FBI relationship than was appropriate. It's important, IMHO. As for your excellent book, Someone Would Have Talked (2010) I have read it, with particular attention to your "Odio Revisited" section. My enduring goal on this Forum is to uncover more and more about Edwin Walker -- and I searched there for any information that might link Odio with Edwin Walker. The narrative about Mrs. Lucille Connell was promising -- but Connell pulled one way and Odio pulled the opposite way, and a full story never emerged. I concluded that Odio expected more professional treatment from the FBI than she received -- since when they finally got around to her, so late in the hearings, the Warren Commission Council told her flatly that no matter what she said, if she didn't conform to the Commission's settled conclusions, her testimony would be scrapped. That's what they did -- the FBI treated Silvia Odio badly, and ultimately accused her of being a neurotic and a mental case. It was hard to get her cooperation after the Warren Report came out.. The FBI followed Hoover's direction that he set in November 1963, when he leaked to every major newspaper in America -- over and over -- that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone killer, and had zero, none, no accomplices. No FBI agent in his right mind was going to cross Hoover on this dogma. Silvia Odio was bulldozed by the FBI. The FBI mistreatment of Silvia Odio is a glowing feature of the FBI legacy in the Warren Commission drama. Best regards, --Paul Trejo <edit typos>

Good questions, Larry. Beyond Harry's personal statement, I have very little to go on -- but more than nothing. 1. Dave Robbins confirmed to me that these men were all seen periodically around the San Marino JBS headquarters. Walker was a periodic speaker there. So was Gabaldon. So was Hall. Rousselot owned the building, and also gave speeches there. Robbins remembers Harry Dean -- but apparently less well than Harry Dean remembers Robbins. 2. We also have the confirmation of John Arvidson about Harry Dean being around the San Marino JBS headquarters. 3. One confirmation we have about one of those men mentioning Lee Harvey Oswald before the assassination comes from Dick Russell's book, The Man Who Knew Too Much (1992), where Russell interviewed H.L. Hunt's butler, who told Russell that he overheard H.L. Hunt and Edwin Walker speaking about Lee Harvey Oswald together -- before the JFK assassination. 4. One other confirmation I have about Edwin Walker mentioning Lee Harvey Oswald before the assassination comes from Walker's personal papers -- and not just one -- but multiple papers that speak of Walker knowing that Lee Harvey Oswald was his shooter on 10 April 1963, long before Marina Oswald told anybody. I've shared this with the Forum in other threads, but here is a key one, FYI: ---------------------- BEGIN MEMO FROM EX-GENERAL EDWIN WALKER (emphasis added) ----------------------- Senator Frank Church US Senate Office Bld'g Washington D.C. June 23, 1975 Dear Senator Church, The Warren Commission found and concluded that Lee Harvey Oswald attempted to assassinate the undersigned at his home at 9pm on April 10, 1963. The initial and immediate investigation at the time of the incident reported two men at my home, one with a gun, seen by an eyewitness -- a neighbor. Within days I was informed by a Lieutenant on the Dallas City Police Force that Oswald was in custody by 12pm that night for questioning. He was released on higher authority than that in Dallas. There were two men, not a Lonely Loner. Please inform me if the CIA was involved in that attempted assassination. Yours sincerely, Edwin A. Walker ------------------------ END MEMO BY EX-GENERAL EDWIN WALKER (emphasis added) ------------------------------------------- 5. This account of Oswald's shooting at Walker back in April folds in neatly with page 318 in Dick Russell's book, about George De Mohrenschildt and his friends, Mr.and Mrs. Igor Voshinin of Dallas. Mrs. Voshinin told Dick Russell that on Easter Sunday -- three days after the April shooting -- George came to visit them and told them that Jeanne and he had visited the Oswalds the night before, and found strong evidence that Lee Oswald was Walker's shooter. 5.1. The Voshinin's told George to call the police, but George said he wanted nothing further to do with it, and he left. Immediately, said Mrs. Voshinin to Dick Russell, she called the FBI and told them George's story. This, IMHO, would explain why some official in Dallas could call Edwin Walker "within days" as he said, to name Lee Harvey Oswald to him, in connection with this Dallas shooting that occurred only a few days before Easter Sunday, 1963. 5.2. By the way, this account by Walker also matches the report he gave to a German newspaper (Deutsche Nationalzeitung) less than 24 hours after the JFK assassination. This bombshell was revealed within the Warren Commission hearings themselves.. 6. You ask, Larry, how Harry Dean knew about Loran Hall and Larry Howard being on the road with Lee Harvey Oswald -- and when. Harry says that Loran Hall was a close and personal friend of Guy Gabaldon, WW2 hero; in fact Hall idolized Gabaldon. The same was true of Larry Howard, says Harry Dean. So both Hall and Howard were often found at Guy Gabaldon's home in Southern California. 6.1. One of the activities of the JBS in Southern California in 1963, according to Harry Dean, was collecting money, arms and medical supplies from wealthy and professional class JBS members, to supply Anti-Castro mercenaries in continuing raids on Cuba. Loran Hall admitted collecting funds for this purpose in many of his interviews (including his interview for the Tattler during the Jim Garrison period). 6.2. One of Loran Hall's supply lines was at the home of Guy Gabaldon. There was also a period when Harry Dean himself used his own garage to store these supplies, he says. So, Gabaldon and Harry Dean actually helped Hall and Howard load up their truck during at least one of their trips to Dallas. This is how Harry Dean knew about their whereabouts during their visit to Silvia Odio. 6.3. When was the first time Harry Dean said that for the record? I don't know -- to the best of my knowledge it was possibly his 1990 manuscript, Crosstrails. 7. As for Hall and Howard -- I agree that they were quite slippery. Jim Garrison probably got more information out of Loran Hall than anybody else. 7.1. Yet I still wonder to this day, after Silvia Odio failed to remember identifying details about the two men who visited her home with Lee Harvey Oswald in mid-September, 1963 -- the FBI quickly picked up Loran Hall (who initially confessed). How did they know to pick up Loran Hall? I haven't seen an adequate explanation for that. 7.2. HSCA researcher, Gaeton Fonzi expressed his impression that the FBI held back information about the Silvia Odio episode as well as about Loran Hall. 8. I agree that independent confirmation of Harry Dean's story remains an issue, Larry -- but in my opinion we are accumulating a little bit more every year. Harry Dean (like Edwin Walker) has received far less attention than deserved, IMHO -- and that explains why there is so little mention of Harry Dean in the literature -- outside of the wild fiction told by W.R. Morris. Best regards, --Paul Trejo <edit typos>

Larry, we should note immediately that Harry Dean never claimed to have met or even seen Lee Harvey Oswald in his life; either in Southern California or anywhere else. According to Harry Dean, before the JFK assassination, he only remembers the name of Lee Harvey Oswald in the context of meetings with high-ranking members of the John Birch Society, especially Ex-General Edwin Walker and Congressman John Rousselot. Other people present at those meetings around San Marino JBS headquarters were -- allegedly -- WW2 hero and right-wing activist, Guy Gabaldon, and right-wing mercenary Loran Hall. According to Harry Dean, these men spoke in early September, 1963 about making Lee Harvey Oswald the patsy of their plot to kill JFK. This was only days after Lee Harvey Oswald had been sheep-dipped (in the words of Jim Garrison) in New Orleans by appearing in police reports, newspaper reports, on radio and even on television, as an officer of the FPCC (which was an acknowledged Communist front-group). As Jim Garrison pointed out, the New Orleans chapter of the FPCC was a front -- not for the Communists (as it was in NYC and other cities) but for Guy Banister and his Anticommunist operations in New Orleans. There were no members in the New Orleans FPCC, aside from Lee Harvey Oswald. It was a fake. Yet to this very day the FBI continues to claim that Lee Harvey Oswald was an officer of the FPCC. (Even the FPCC itself denied that Lee Harvey Oswald was ever an officer -- but that doesn't prevent the FBI from perpetuating the fiction.) I'm certain you know all this -- as do many reading this thread. Yet it may help to clarify the context of Harry Dean's claims about Lee Harvey Oswald. Harry Dean also places Loran Hall and Larry Howard on the road with Lee Harvey Oswald in late September as they traveled through Texas to Mexico City (and stopped at the home of Silvia Odio along the way). The war names of Loran and Larry correspond closely to the war names they gave Silvia Odio, according to her sworn testimony to the Warren Commission. That's Harry Dean's claim about Lee Harvey Oswald. Based only on those key meetings in early September 1963, Harry Dean remains convinced to this day that Lee Harvey Oswald did not assassinate JFK -- but that he was made into a patsy by the actual assassins. I hope Harry's claim is now clear. If so, I wonder if it affects your opinion of Harry Dean's claim. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

Ernie, I appreciate your posting of objective information by third-parties -- not FBI Agents -- about Harry Dean. Let's take a closer look. (1) First, we have a UPI newspaper report about flowers that kept appearing on Oswald's grave every year since 1964. Harry Dean admits that he was the one who sent those flowers -- claiming that Lee Harvey Oswald was unfairly convicted by the FBI and Warren Commission of killing JFK. That 26 November1966 newspaper article quoted Marguerite Oswald saying that "the flowers had been sent by a former FBI Agent." It's widely accepted that Marguerite Oswald was beside herself with grief over the fate of her son, and she was likely to accept any story about Lee to defend him from the charge that the FBI and the Warren Commission placed on his shoulders. It's plausible that Marguerite Oswald invented the story that Harry Dean was "a former FBI Agent." Perhaps she misunderstood something Harry said, or perhaps she just made it up. But this isn't the earliest appearance of that mistake. FBI Agents seem to identify KTTV Executive Bob Hayward in connection with its first appearance -- but that was in an internal memo to Hoover. This 1966 UPI article is the first public appearance of the phrase linked to Harry Dean that I've seen so far. Very interesting. (2) Secondly, with regard to the March 1967 letter by John Arvidson of Hacienda Heights, California, it is interesting on multiple levels. Arvidson provides independent confirmation of several points within Harry Dean's account -- at least as many as Dave Robbins. A. Arvidson confirms Harry's claim that he moved within JBS circles in Southern California. B. Arvidson confirms Harry's claim that he told his JBS friends in Southern California about his FPCC past. C. Arvidson confirms Harry's claim that he was "very well known to local Anticommunist circles." D. Arvidson confirms Harry's claim that he spent a lot of time around the JBS headquarters in San Marino. (This is the location where Harry Dean claims he heard the plot to kill JFK using Lee Oswald as a patsy.) E. Arvidson confirms Harry's claim that he was often kept at an arm's distance because of his former support of Fidel Castro. F. Arvidson confirms Harry's claim that he belonged to the Minutemen in Southern California, under Troy Houghton. G. Arvidson confirms Harry's claim that he was deeply disturbed by the JFK assassination. (Harry writes in his Confessions that he didn't think the plotters were serious, since he'd heard so much bluster about killing JFK for more than a year.) H. Arvidson also confirms Harry's claim that he lived in La Puente somewhat before, during and after the JFK assassination. Arvidson's claim that Harry Dean was still a member in good standing of the Minutemen in late 1964 contradicts Harry's Confession that he became inactive with their group after the death of JFK. Perhaps that was a misunderstanding by John Arvidson. Sincerely, --Paul Trejo <edit typos>

These quotations from Ernie Lazar are from post #650, dated 17 Feb 2014. (I numbered them for ease of response.) (1) Ernie Lazar said: “...Those two field offices…were following mandatory procedures contained in section 107 of the FBI's "Manual of Instructions"…Any…failures to comply with those rules…resulted in…blistering rebukes…from the appropriate Assistant Director – but also from Hoover personally.” Actually, Ernie is exaggerating. I cite former FBI Agent Don Adams who says that J. Edgar Hoover himself broke FBI rules, and of course there was no rebuke at all – on the contrary, the FBI Agents involved were obliged to break those rules in cooperation with Hoover. So it all depends on the context. Although this was generally rare, Don Adams is an eye-witness who says that in the single case of the JFK assassination, this was common. Yet Ernie wants us to accept whatever the FBI says, because their bureaucratic procedures are so orderly. Well – yes and no. Hoover himself made exceptions, according to Don Adams. (I’m not inventing this – any impartial reader can read Don Adams’ recent writings on this topic at www.adamsjfk.com .) (2) Ernie Lazar said, “...Significantly, however, there are no references in any FBI file (HQ or field office) to any such [informant] document being prepared on Harry.” Actually, this is not necessarily damaging to the claims of Harry Dean. While it is possible that the FBI is holding back records related to the JFK assassination – that’s a secondary point. Remember that Harry Dean continually insisted (contrary to W.R. Morris and Ernie Lazar) that he was never a formally recognized, i.e. paid, informant for the FBI. There is simply no contradiction! But Ernie Lazar keeps reminding us that some FBI Agents wrote to Hoover that Harry Dean himself claimed to be an FBI informant! I question the truth of these statements by these FBI Agents – is there independent confirmation? We’re talking about the JFK assassination here, a case in which Don Adams confesses that rules and procedures were broken! To be generous to these Agents, I’d claim that these FBI Agents were mistaken about what they heard. Ernie Lazar objects that I, Paul Trejo, deliberately reject “evidence developed by our nation's primary law enforcement investigative agency.” Yes, I’m proud of that, because I’m in good company in this position. Even the US Government HSCA rejected the FBI conclusions on the JFK assassination! (3) Ernie Lazar said, “...Now, we all know what Paul's reply will be – i.e. there are some ‘secret files’ in existence which we have not yet seen.” That’s not necessarily so. Many FBI files about Harry Dean are being released now, so perhaps a full and clear portrait of the issues will be presented. I’ll keep an open mind about it. At the same time, I think most JFK researchers accept that the FBI still keeps some files related to the JFK assassination locked, closed and out of bounds until October, 2017. So, I’ll always reserve the right – until 2017 – to refer to those secret files as a problem. Why should there be any secret FBI files at all about the JFK assassination, given the FBI claim that Lee Harvey Oswald, now dead for 50 years, was the lone killer? It boggles common sense. (4) Ernie Lazar said, “...Why, for example, was Mark Allen able to obtain all the FBI documents sent to the HSCA…but we can find NO references to Harry in those same documents as an FBI informant?” Actually, the answer is simple: Harry Dean was questioned by neither the Warren Commission in 1964 nor by the HSCA in 1977-1979. It seems that Earl Warren never heard about Harry Dean from the FBI. But we know that the FBI had files on Harry Dean going back to 1960. For that matter, Ex-General Edwin Walker was not questioned by the HSCA, either! The HSCA had lost the trail, thanks to the mangled job the FBI did for the Warren Commission. The HSCA started from square one, and they never got around to Edwin Walker, though he was mentioned hundreds of times in the Warren Commission volumes! They lost the trail. (My personal theory is that this is exactly what the FBI was hoping for.) The testimony of Harry Dean is first and foremost (as Paul Brancato noted last week) an accusation of Ex-General Edwin Walker as the central figure in the JFK assassination plot. Harry Dean claims to be an eye-witness to Edwin Walker in a John Birch Society meeting in September 1963, proposing to use Lee Harvey Oswald as the patsy in a plot to kill JFK in Dallas in November. It is no accident that Jack Ruby told Supreme Court Justice Earl Warren a similar account in 1964, naming Edwin Walker and the John Birch Society in Dallas as central in the JFK plot. I’ll keep pursuing this thread until conclusive, empirical and independently confirmed proof is presented. (5) Ernie Lazar said, “At some point, one has to...stop fabricating excuses for the total absence of confirming data in FBI files about Harry's status and, simultaneously, the incessant references in FBI files (HQ and field office) which categorically state Harry was NOT an FBI informant!” Actually, Ernie Lazar has been confusing this issue for weeks now. Actually, it is Harry Dean who categorically states that “Harry was NOT an FBI informant!” So, why does Ernie keep harping about “the incessant references in FBI files (HQ and field office) which categorically state Harry was NOT an FBI informant”? Clue: Ernie is not saying that the FBI agrees with Harry – although the unwary reader might get that idea. Actually, Ernie is suggesting – in an underhanded way – that the FBI is contradicting a claim (ostensibly by Harry Dean) that Harry Dean was an FBI informant. This is the irritation that keeps surfacing in Ernie’s posts. He now only insinuates that Harry Dean claimed to be an FBI informant. He no longer calls Harry Dean a “xxxx” outright, but insinuates that Harry Dean was not telling the truth due to “confusion” or some other reason to “inflate his credentials.” But it comes down to the same thing, doesn’t it? Ernie should be more direct and clear about his claims here. When a serious researcher like Larry Hancock can’t determine what Ernie Lazar is saying, it’s clear that Ernie is being too underhanded in his claims. Come out with it, Ernie, and tell the readers what you really think! (6) Ernie Lazar said, “Does anybody know about ANY OTHER person who claims to have been an FBI (or CIA) informant sometime during 1960-1965…but the… FBI and CIA have categorically denied that they were an informant?” Again, Ernie underhandedly suggests that Harry Dean claimed to be an FBI informant sometime during 1960-1965. Ernie – you should show hard evidence that this was the case before you go around smearing people like that! Clue: FBI claims in this case are not enough evidence, because we are talking about the JFK assassination, and we have former FBI agent Don Adams (for one) admitting that the FBI cannot be trusted on this topic. So, Ernie, stop accusing Harry Dean of saying something the FBI only claimed he said, until you get independent confirmation! (7) Ernie Lazar said, “According to Paul's ‘solid points,’ he is asking us to believe that Chicago and Los Angeles...BOTH field offices ‘forgot’ to send ALL of their required quarterly reports to HQ…” Actually, I’m not asking any such thing, Ernie. You asked me to explain why, if Harry Dean was in contact with the FBI from 1960-1962, that FBI Headquarters had no files on Harry Dean until November of 1963. I said that it’s possible the FBI field offices bungled their reporting, since we know they had records on Harry Dean, and we know that FBI headquarters lacked those records. It’s also possible that the several FBI serials held by the field offices on Harry Dean were simply beneath their radar. However, it is curious that Harry Dean’s name did come up in the context of the FBI investigation of the JFK assassination, but were never presented to Chief Justice Earl Warren. I’ll wait for further evidence to surface. (8) Ernie Lazar said, “...Although I AGREE with Paul – that obtaining and reviewing Harry's Los Angeles FBI file is likely to be quite important because it may provide us with an even more definitive understanding of Harry's relationship with the FBI – AND – that Los Angeles file may also provide many more clues...nevertheless...all of the available evidence reflects a general pattern which every new piece of evidence seems to reinforce. Here Ernie alludes to “a general pattern” but now Ernie becomes reticent. He doesn’t come out and say in clear English what he means. The explanation becomes clear by a review of point #5 above. Sincerely, --Paul Trejo <edit typos>

These quotes from Ernie Lazar are from post #649 dated 17 Feb 2014. (I numbered the quotes for ease of response below.) (1) Ernie Lazar cites The American Historical Association ‘Standards of Professional Conduct’, and he adds that I, Paul Trejo, “simply DO NOT UNDERSTAND these basic principles.” This is Ernie’s rhetoric to try to foreclose the debate by accusing his opponent of incompetence. Actually, Ernie’s own incompetence is the real issue. I fully understand the principles of Historical Analysis, and I’ve violated none of them in my attempt to revive the 48-year-old claims of Harry Dean for serious reconsideration by the JFK research community. What are Ernie’s objections? They are unclear, as we’ve seen from recent feedback by Larry Hancock. Ernie floods this thread with volume, deliberately obscuring his message with exaggeration, ad hominem attacks (like those above) and mincing words so that his accusations against the veracity of Harry Dean seem to be merely patronizing rather than open accusation. Still, those with the patience to wade through the morass can make out the contours of bias. Ernie objects to accusations that the John Birch Society was complicit in the JFK assassination. Ernie also seeks respect and deference to J. Edgar Hoover who was, in Ernie’s words, “a very competent Administrator.” Ernie also seeks deference to the FBI itself, in Ernie’s words, “our nation's primary law enforcement investigative agency.” Ernie does not seem to be aware that he is addressing his remarks to the JFK research community which has taken Hoover and his FBI to task precisely on the topic of the JFK assassination. Although Ernie insinuates that he himself is an objective historian, he has not yet offered his own opinion of the JFK assassination. So far, his labors on this Forum have been exclusively negative – to shut down the claims of Harry Dean. In this effort Ernie has labored since 2010, and shows no signs of slowing down. (2) Ernie Lazar says about me, Paul Trejo, “He cannot even grasp the concept of intellectual neutrality or…taking no side, defending nobody, but just explicitly recognizing when statements made are FALSE, GROSSLY EXAGGERATED, INACCURATE, UNFAIR, or OUT-OF-CONTEXT. Actually, Ernie continually makes statements that are "false, grossly exaggerated, inaccurate, unfair and out of context." I continually point this out to him – but Ernie won’t listen. The main source of bias and exaggeration on this thread, as I've amply demonstrated, is Ernie Lazar himself. (3) Ernie Lazar attempts to patronize me, Paul Trejo, by saying, “What Paul needs to learn is the difference between defending a principle, or subscribing to standards of intellectual honesty, versus "defending" an organization.” Actually, my principles are clear and firm – I'm seeking the truth about the JFK assassination, despite the falsehoods created and maintained by the FBI starting in 1963. The Lone-Nut theory that accuses Lee Harvey Oswald of being the sole killer of JFK has long been refuted by scholars and objective historians. The House Select Committee on Assassinations (1979) concluded that “JFK was probably killed as part of a conspiracy.” So even the US Government disagrees with the FBI on this point. Still, those who uncritically and blindly believe the FBI, and its alleged “evidence developed by our nation's primary law enforcement investigative agency” (to use Ernie’s own words) continue to loudly object to doubting the FBI – a half century later. (4) Ernie Lazar says about me, Paul Trejo, that, “Paul's comment reveals that he is totally CLUELESS…” Actually, Ernie's sophomoric statements reveal the weakness of Ernie’s reasoning. Ernie is prone to exaggeration, and he can’t seem to help himself. He seems to think that ad hominem attacks work in his favor – when for most readers, they only show that Ernie finds it difficult to be impartial. Sincerely, --Paul Trejo

These quotations from Ernie Lazar are from post #648 dated 17 February 2014. (I numbered the quotations for ease of response below). (1) When Harry Dean changed his mind about the year he spoke with the LA FBI and FBI SAC Wesley Grapp, Ernie Lazar said: “So, here again, we see the peril of relying EXCLUSIVELY upon the recollection of one ‘witness’ and…the profound defects of employing Paul's 'give the benefit of the doubt' methodology.” Actually, Ernie is being melodramatic. I’ve always candidly admitted that Harry Dean and I lack objective proof of his claims. This is why I encouraged Harry to title our eBook, “Harry Dean’s Confessions,” because his story isn’t yet ready for a historical treatment. Thanks to the recent honesty of the FBI, however, Harry Dean is accumulating more evidence for his claims, and this also refreshes his memory about events that occurred a half century ago. Actually, there are no “profound defects” in the method of “giving the benefit of the doubt” to witnesses in the JFK assassination case – in which the FBI has withheld evidence for so many decades. It is a legitimate method of theory-making, and it has proved useful. I also give the benefit of the doubt to Marina Oswald, to Ron Lewis, to Kelly Brown, to George De Mohrenschildt, to Jack Ruby, to Silvia Odio and to many other eye-witnesses in the saga of Lee Harvey Oswald. My method yields a consistent theory, even though I still need to accumulate independent confirmation. Ernie Lazar, on the other hand, prefers to rush to judgment, and prefers to stop all evidence gathering with a few memos from the FBI. According to Ernie Lazar, the FBI Director was such a “competent Administrator” and Ernie is proud to believe any and all “evidence developed by our nation's primary law enforcement investigative agency.” I, on the other hand, number myself among the doubters of the FBI, and I’m proud of that standing. (2) Ernie Lazar says, “There is not the remotest possibility that the FBI…would continue to ‘classify’ a document which mentions that one or more FBI Agents ‘met’ with some information source. Such documents would automatically be de-classified if they are over 25 years old and they would be released…” Again, Ernie Lazar is exaggerating. The JFK research community knows that there are documents about the JFK assassination that are already 50 years old and are still “classified” by the FBI as well as the CIA. The US Government admits this. Nobody except the highest officials in the USA knows their contents. Ernie Lazar is ignorant of their contents. So, how can Ernie Lazar pontificate about what the FBI may or may not keep classified? Since nobody knows what the classified files contain, Ernie should be more humble; at least he should stop exaggerating his claims like some sophomore. Sincerely, --Paul Trejo

This selection of quotations from Ernie Lazar is from post #645, dated 16 February 2014. (I numbered his quotes so that I can respond by the numbers, which I think is courteous to the reader. I'm moving as fast as I can, but I'm still about ten days behind.) (1) Ernie Lazar says that when I ask him to wait until all the evidence has been presented before he rushes to judgment on Harry Dean, that this “is like saying that I must drink an entire gallon of sour milk before I can make a reasonable conclusion about the taste or condition of that milk.” Actually, it’s not like sour milk at all. We’re talking about a person here. Also, your remark is callous, because when judging a fellow human being we ought to take care to weigh all the evidence that is available – and not just rush to judgment based on circumstantial evidence, or superficial appearances, as the FBI did in the case of Lee Harvey Oswald. (2) Ernie Lazar asks me, Paul Trejo, “If, as you claim, you have made ‘no conclusions,’ then what has this entire debate been about?” Actually, Ernie, it has been about your hasty conclusions. (3) Ernie Lazar says about me, Paul Trejo, “Your ‘theory’ is NOT based upon ANY facts. Consequently, what you propose is NOT a legitimate theory.” Actually, Ernie, I have a lot of facts on my side – but you just close your eyes and ears to them – which is obvious to the average reader here. (4) Ernie Lazar says, “I have made the effort to obtain the relevant documentary evidence. I then saw a CONSISTENT PATTERN which appears in that evidence.” Actually, you have seen a little bit of the evidence, and then you rush to judgment without seeing all of the evidence. Your opinion is biased, Ernie; your methods are sloppy; and you exaggerate too much. (5) Ernie Lazar says to me, Paul Trejo, “What you describe as ‘putting down Harry’ is simply an inescapable conclusion which any rational, fair-minded person would draw from the available documentary evidence.” Actually, Ernie, the average reader sees through your excuses – you are simply reaffirming your position and pretending that you aren’t being biased. It’s obvious. (6) Ernie Lazar says, “I have REPEATEDLY told you that your defamatory and libelous characterizations of Harry are logically fallacious.” This is comical. Ernie Lazar, who wants to portray Harry Dean as “confused,” and “exaggerating in his own mind” about the role he played with the FBI from 1960-1963, accuses me, Harry’s friend, of libel against Harry! Why? Because I can see through Ernie’s nonsense and I can see that Ernie is mincing words so that he can convince people to that Harry Dean cannot be believed. He’s afraid of using the word, ‘xxxx’ as he did in post #551, so he’s denying he ever used it, and he’s saying that I, Paul Trejo, am the one who is calling Harry Dean a xxxx! What weasel words! (7) Ernie Lazar says: “Witness testimony is universally recognized as the most unreliable – NOT because anybody is ‘lying’…but because of many other different factors.” So, Ernie is taking back his charge that Harry Dean is a xxxx (post #551) probably because he now knows that John Simkin banned that word from this Forum – instead Ernie only wants to show that Harry’s claims are “most unreliable.” Not because Harry is “lying”, oh no, but “because of many other factors.” In plain English, Ernie wants to call Harry a xxxx but doesn’t want to use the word, xxxx. Everybody sees right through Ernie’s claptrap. (8) Ernie Lazar says, “There is nothing ‘top secret’ about the speculations of a non-informant.” But actually it all depends on the context, as we all know. For example, if the context is the JFK assassination, we know that the FBI cannot be trusted. Even former FBI Agent Don Adams assures us of this fact. So, really, context is everything, and Ernie is just trying to squirm out of the facts here. (9) Ernie Lazar says to me, Paul Trejo: “We are constantly subjected to your FEVERED IMAGININGS!” Actually, I produce carefully worded observations about the JFK assassination – while Ernie provides exaggerations in the defense of the FBI on the one hand, and of the John Birch Society on the other hand. Let the reader decide. (10) Ernie Lazar says: “We have plenty of ‘proof’ with respect to Harry Dean.” Actually, Ernie means that he believes, in his opinion, that we have sufficient FBI records to jump to the conclusion that Harry Dean’s claims are “most unreliable.” But when asked to show that ‘proof,’ we get more exaggerations from Ernie. (11) Ernie Lazar says, to me, Paul Trejo: “Every time somebody finds some evidence which is not supportive of your claims regarding Harry – then you trot out…it was W.R. Morris who “manipulated” Harry or some such nonsense.” Actually, Ernie, the fiction of W.R. Morris lives down to this very day, not only in the web pages of Spartacus, but also in your own prejudice against Harry Dean, even though you deny it. (12) Ernie Lazar says about me, Paul Trejo, “Has Paul ever contacted ANY FBI employee…to ask that person what type of information would be classified as “Top Secret” by the FBI?...No! Of course not! Because Paul operates EXCLUSIVELY in terms of whatever he IMAGINES in his own mind!” Actually, Ernie, I’m very interested in what the FBI records say about Harry Dean. I read them all as they are presented here on this thread (and on the Mary Ferrell web site). So far, they haven’t contradicted Harry’s recollections more than a cat’s hair. (13) Ernie Lazar says: “Every other person who provided comparable information about a ‘plot’ to murder JFK has had their FBI files released (if any existed) which is why we know about all those other ‘plots’ – even when individual serials in their files were classified ‘secret’ or ‘top secret’.” There are two main flaws in Ernie’s claim. First, Ernie presumes there are “comparable” claims to Harry Dean’s claim about the plot to involve specifically Lee Harvey Oswald in a plot to kill JFK in Dallas. But nobody else ever presented that. Secondly, Ernie placed the word ‘plot’ in quotation marks, insinuating that he, Ernie, does not even believe that such a ‘plot’ existed. Like the average FBI Agent today, Ernie evidently looks down upon us deluded conspiracy buffs who believe in a JFK plot and perhaps aliens from Mars. (14) Ernie Lazar says: “I have stated over and over and over again, that it is entirely plausible that Harry gave unsolicited information to the FBI (in both Chicago and Los Angeles)…also…that Harry may be confused about, or may be exaggerating in his own mind, the nature and significance of his contacts with the FBI…” Actually, Ernie is merely patronizing Harry Dean now, so that he can escape from his original claim that Harry Dean is a xxxx (post #551). Ernie’s position today is that Harry Dean is not a xxxx – but only “confused” and “exaggerating in his own mind.” And he expects us to accept this. (15) Ernie Lazar challenges me, Paul Trejo, to “QUOTE THE EXACT COMMENT I MADE. Be sure to specify the message number…so everyone can go back to it and check it out.” OK, Ernie, as you can see for the past several days, I’m quoting the exact comments you made Sincerely, --Paul Trejo

This selection of quotations from Ernie Lazar is from post #638, dated 14 February 2014. (1) Ernie Lazar admits of “exceptions” to the rule that, “EVERY FBI file which contained JFK-related material was identified…and…released.” Ernie claims, however, that these exceptions are “very few.” Actually, Ernie is no FBI insider, so it is impossible for Ernie to know how many exceptions there really are. Yet Ernie wants us to believe that his expertise in FBI bureaucratic procedure also gives him the authority to tell us that “very few” exceptions to FOIA releases exist. (2) Ernie Lazar says that I, Paul Trejo, have “NO PROOF that any file(s) exist on Harry other than the ones we know about.” Actually, that applies equally to Ernie Lazar – he has NO PROOF that all the Harry Dean FBI files have been identified. Ernie says “MANY” formerly classified FBI files have been released, but that remains vague -- all we know is that "MANY" is usually more than “very few.” (3) Ernie Lazar says, “There is NOTHING which…Harry reported to the FBI which would preclude releasing his type of information. MUCH MORE SERIOUS information has already been released.” Or so Ernie claims. Actually, Ernie fails to give any examples, so his objection is toothless. Actually, Harry Dean named (as Jack Ruby named) Ex-General Edwin Walker and the John Birch Society as the center of conspiracy involving the exploitation of Lee Harvey Oswald in the assassination of JFK! Somebody please tell me when “much more serious” information has ever been released by the FBI! I know of nothing more serious than a direct naming of the key conspirators! In fact, the FBI to this day denies that any conspiracy even existed! Again, Ernie Lazar hopes that his reputation as an FBI expert will be enough for readers to accept anything he says. (4) Ernie Lazar says about me, Paul Trejo, “You…make it seem that the entire FBI bureaucracy was incompetent on JUST ONE ‘informant’ – Harry Dean. Nobody else. Not ever.” Here again we see Ernie Lazar exaggerating, since he has no stronger arguments to work with. (5) Ernie Lazar claims to understand why FBI HQ had no serials about Harry Dean from 1960: “(i) Harry's phone calls were just ordinary routine contacts…(ii) Chicago…quickly determined from FBI-Indianapolis that Harry was not somebody whose background would make it possible…to…provide any useful information so they told Harry his assistance was not required.” Actually, given that Harry’s initial phone calls to the Chicago FBI were routine, why does Ernie rush to the conclusion that Chicago “quickly determined” that Harry was not suitable as an informant? How “quickly” is “quickly?” Is it fuzzy like “very few” or “MANY?” These weasel words are common in Ernie’s so-called research. Does Ernie hope his readers will presume that the Chicago FBI rejected Harry’s assistance in the very same day that Harry phoned them? But Harry phoned them in December, 1960, with full identification, and it was not until June, 1961, that the Chicago FBI told Harry that his services were not required. So, we can reasonably ask – what happened between December 1960 and June 1961 regarding Harry Dean and the Chicago FBI? It seems to me that seven months is longer than what we usually mean by the word, “quickly.” (5.1) Ernie Lazar says that, “when Harry started contacting Hoover directly (in 1963)…Hoover wanted to know who this guy was…So Chicago (and Los Angeles) then summarized everything they had in their files regarding Harry -- and that was the end of the matter.” Actually, dear readers, there is much more to it than that. What are the contents of these alleged summaries? Is there any bias or behind-covering in them? When can we see them? (6) Ernie Lazar asks me, Paul Trejo, “In October 2017, if you discover that there is NO other FBI-Los Angeles file and NO other FBI-Chicago file and NO other FBI-HQ file on Harry – won't your position be that the FBI destroyed all of Harry's files which had all the data you claim is currently ‘classified’?” Actually, that all depends on the contents of the FBI files we actually receive, doesn’t it? (7) Ernie Lazar says about me, Paul Trejo, that, “You have not presented any answer which corresponds to what scholars or researchers know about standard FBI procedures and practices.” By this, Ernie refers to himself – an authority on FBI procedures and practices. So Ernie sets himself up as judge of any statements that non-experts make about the FBI and its methods. Hmm. In the same way, Ernie Lazar wishes to present J. Edgar Hoover, for all his faults, as a "very competent Administrator." I’ve had it up to here with “very competent Administrators” and “excellent bureaucratic practices,” and so forth. JFK researchers know for a fact that the FBI was the main source of information for the Warren Commission, and the bias and contradictory evidence that the FBI provided to the Warren Report cannot be trusted – although they followed “standard practices!“ Ernie Lazar seems to have a lot more faith in the FBI than the average JFK researcher. We agree with former FBI Agent Don Adams, who was an eye-witness to dishonest FBI record-keeping practices in the case of the JFK assassination! The FBI does not get a free pass just because J. Edgar Hoover was an “very competent Administrator!“ Sincerely, --Paul Trejo <edit typos>

This selection of quotes from Erne Lazar is from post #636, from 14Feb14. (1) Ernie Lazar counts the number of comments made by Harry Dean and W.R. Morris to the 85 questions asked by Tom Snyder of the Tomorrow Show in 1975. Since Harry answered about 3/4 of the questions, Ernie wishes to conclude that Harry dominated the interview -- as if quantity tells more than quality. Actually, W.R. Morris arranged the interview ahead of time with Tom Snyder. It was W.R. Morris’ show, and he was paid for it – not Harry Dean; in fact W.R. Morris promised to pay Harry Dean’s expenses, but at the end of the show he refused to do so – being basically a dishonest operator. W.R. Morris prepared Tom Snyder with an initial orientation and told Snyder to direct his questions to Harry Dean. Morris was out to sell his book (The Men Behind the Guns), and he was exploiting Harry Dean as a patsy in his marketing scheme – unknown to Harry at the time. Harry was asked leading questions by Tom Snyder that leaned toward the story that W.R. Morris had told Tom Snyder beforehand. Once Harry Dean caught on to the game – near the end of the interview – only then did he begin to contradict the message of W.R. Morris – and it caused a lot of friction. (This is probably why Morris refused to pay Harry Dean for his ticket and traveling expenses, as promised.) Harry and Morris split up after that show, never to reconcile. Here’s something most people don’t know that Harry Dean told me. Tom Snyder decided to give Harry Dean the taped copy of the show, just as they were leaving the studio. W.R. Morris reached for it, and promised to send Harry a copy. Harry held on to it, and promised to send Morris a copy. (Harry did send Morris his copy). W.R. Morris printed only a part of the original transcript in his book, The Men Behind the Guns, and he doctored parts of it. As it happens, Morris’ version of that TV show is the only available version, because Harry Dean’s trunk of documents was stolen, according to a Victorville Police Department record ca. 1990. That means that even the page that Ernie Lazar posted to this thread this week is really only a reflection of the fiction published by W.R. Morris. Ernie doesn’t even realize how much his perceptions of Harry Dean depend on W.R. Morris, down to this very day. (The same must also be said about our sister Spartacus site.) (2) Ernie Lazar says that ”silence gives consent,” and that Harry Dean should have set the record straight in that interview, “when he ought to have spoken, and was able to." Actually, silence does not give consent in all cases, such as cases of fraud. Ernie has no sympathy with the fact that W.R. Morris was a flim-flam man and that Harry Dean did not know it at the time. Harry admits that he was fooled by W.R. Morris at first – and played right into his hands. Immediately after the Tomorrow Show, however, Harry Dean broke off all relations with W.R. Morris. Sadly, Morris only hired an actor to play Harry Dean to tour the USA with him to market his book. (4) Ernie Lazar says that, “IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE WHATSOEVER that Harry has not said ’I was an FBI agent.’” In other words, Ernie – despite his many denials – still proposes that Harry claimed to be an FBI agent. This sort of underhanded insinuation reveals the bias of Ernie Lazar that drips out of every pore. (5) Ernie Lazar claims that the real question is, “whether or not Harry has presented himself in numerous different contexts in ways ordinary people could reasonably expect to understand,” that he was an FBI agent. Even granting that in the Tomorrow Show interview, Harry Dean actually said the words, “I am not an FBI Agent,” that still does not change Ernie’s mind one bit. (6) Ernie Lazar admits, “the FBI has repeatedly stated that…Harry never…an ‘informant’ or a ‘confidential source’.” Actually, Harry Dean also said that repeatedly -- but that’s the part we don’t hear from Ernie Lazar. (7) Ernie Lazar challenges me, “Why don't you focus ALL your attention on the FBI documents which categorically deny Harry's claims?” Actually, Ernie must first show that Harry Dean actually CLAIMED what Ernie charges! Ernie today insists that he never said that Harry claimed to be an FBI agent – but he does accuse Harry of “claiming” something along those lines. We can’t get straight talk from Ernie Lazar about what Harry allegedly claimed – even Larry Hancock, a distinguished writer on this topic – can’t make out what Ernie Lazar is charging. Perhaps that’s because Ernie is hedging his bets – he wants to be on both sides of the question when the proof finally comes out. Sincerely, --Paul Trejo