Paul Trejo

This post from Ernie Lazar (#601) was largely a response to my claim that the Los Angeles FBI was clearly interested in Harry Dean from 1962 through 1967 with more than 60 serials containing more than a hundred pages. I noted that this volume reflected so much interest that we must ask the question, Why? Although Ernie Lazar wishes to tell us that the Chicago FBI destroyed its records on Harry Dean because he was "a very minor annoyance" (post #668) who falsely represented himself as an FBI agent, Ernie will also hedge his bets! Ernie wouldn't like to see me out-guess him about the possible contents of the Los Angeles cache of Harry Dean serials and pages, so he rushed to add his own guess. As we see above, Ernie guesses the possible contents might be: 1. Copies of Chicago FBI field memos. 2. Details regarding Harry's contacts with Los Angeles SACs -- including Wesley Grapp 3. Letters that Harry wrote to Los Angeles FBI or others 3.1. Contact forms that Los Angeles FBI agents filled out to summarize a contact with Harry 4. Specific references to Harry reporting info to Los Angeles FBI about the Minutemen, Alpha 66, JBS, FPCC, Castro, and so on. (Or, if none of these, then a margin for the "very minor annoyance" wager.) 5. References to other FBI file numbers that contain references to Harry. There are 60 serials containing more than a hundred pages on Harry Dean -- and Ernie Lazar, who wishes us to believe that the FBI in Chicago, Los Angeles and Headquarters regarded Harry Dean as "a very minor "annoyance" who "misrepresented himself" as an FBI agent -- nevertheless has to admit that the FBI in Los Angeles maintained 60 serials on this "very minor annoyance" in over a five year period. I consider this to be a self-contradiction in Ernie's evaluation -- as though he simply wants to be on both sides of the bet. Time will tell. When we finally see the Los Angeles FBI serials on Harry Dean, we will be able to see clearly if Ernie Lazar was right or wrong. Sincerely, --Paul Trejo <edit typos>

I offer to the Forum a selection of phrases from another recent post by Ernie (post #583), and I note for the record that: 1. There is really nothing very unusual about somebody belonging to an extremist group and also contacting the FBI with information; 2. Regarding Harry's current and lifelong political beliefs -- Harry has always been a moderate Republican. He was a volunteer in his local Republical Party in Southern California, as well as a family man and a Scout Leader for the Boy Scouts of America. (Only somebody ignorant of Southern California Republican politics in 1963 would imagine that they were all choir boys.) 3. I finally found the time to quote Ernie Lazar. Sincerely, --Paul Trejo <edit typos>

This post by Ernie, #579, provides further evidence of his willingness to use slander and accusation as argumentation. Ernie has not been open-minded to my observations that: (1) millions Americans joined the FPCC as well as the JBS and the Minutemen, and this is not in the slightest way incompatible with calling the FBI and providing them with information; (2) the FPCC was just as capable of using weapons and performing crimes as the Minutemen -- and Harry Dean, who was inside the FPCC, would surely know that better than Ernie Lazar, who only knows the FPCC from the outside; (3) Again -- Harry Dean never claimed he was an FBI agent -- but an FBI agent reported to Hoover that Harry did, and Ernie believes that FBI agent. Instead, to address my assertions, Ernie resorts to the worst sort of name-calling. Sincerely, --Paul Trejo

This post, also, #551, is further evidence that Ernie plays fast and loose with accusations. It is an uphill battle trying to find corroborative documents for our side, but we're not giving up. Sincerely, --Paul Trejo

"YEARS"?? You must use very unusual calendar Paul. Altogether, I have probably written that Harry is not credible perhaps 2 times before joining this discussion in Education Forum... Yes, Ernie, for YEARS. The evidence is right here on this thread. (I've been so busy at work that I'm backlogged for weeks with my correspondence on EF.) In any case, the post by Ernie Lazar, claiming that the FBI disavows any relationship with Harry Dean is post #123 of this thread. It is dated 8 June 2010. That's nearly four years ago. So, yes, Ernie -- for YEARS. Yet since 2010 what do we find -- more than 60 FBI serials on Harry Dean from Los Angeles alone! Sincerely, --Paul Trejo

Although the actual word, "xxxx," isn't used in this post #545 by Ernie, "misrepresenting" sure comes close. Also, as regards that alleged "Minuteman membership list," there is one that has been circulating from the FBI for several years now, and many of us on the EF have seen it. It has a couple hundred names on it -- but there were many thousands upon thousands of Minutemen members. So, it is no surprise at all that Harry Dean's name is not on that list. That is old news. Sincerely, --Paul Trejo

Ernie, you ask: "IF Harry was viewed...by Hoover as a 'loose cannon' who had to be...squelched in some manner -- then why didn't the FBI require Harry to sign a statement acknowledging that Harry 'admitted' wrongly describing himself as an 'undercover agent.'" I reply: what would the FBI do if somebody refused to sign their document? You ask, "Or why not require Harry to sign a statement stating that he was NOT even 'an informant' for the FBI?" I again reply: what would the FBI do if somebody refused to sign their document? If I did see that type of document, I would surely accept it as proof -- because if Harry Dean signed it -- even under duress -- then the FBI won and Harry lost. But we have no such document! There are many more types of acceptable proof, too -- but none of them has been presented, either. Ernie, you claim: "The reason the FBI never bothered doing that is obvious -- to the FBI, Harry was a very minor annoyance -- like...other individuals who claimed to have been an informant (BUT were not)." I reply: It is only obvious that this is your INVENTION. Each case has to be evaluated separately. Different FBI informants can be dangerous to the FBI in different ways. You mention Matt Cvetic, who was a comparatively educated person, and represented as special sort of threat to the FBI. The specific knowledge that person has, and how sophisticated he or she may be -- all of that adds up to the unique aspect of that FBI informer. You then try to compare Matt Cvetic with Harry Dean, and you say that Harry "NEVER rose to this level of importance. The FBI did not rely upon ANY information provided by Harry about ANYTHING. He was never even considered for official informant status (because of his background)..." But that is your INVENTION, Ernie. You don't know what the FBI was thinking in the case of Harry Dean -- because first of all, you haven't seen all the documents that are now available under the FOIA act. Each FBI informant must be evaluated separately. Not all were alleged to be associated with the JFK assassination -- the real issue under discussion here on this Forum. The only thing that I know with certainty today, is that the Los Angeles FBI alone had 60+ serials on Harry Dean, with hundreds of pages of material. It sounds ridiculous for somebody to say that Harry Dean was "a very minor annoyance" under those circumstances. Why would the FBI have 60+ serials of "a very minor annoyance?" And this doesn't even count the FBI serials held at FBI headquarters, nor the FBI serials that were destroyed by the Chicago FBI. And please don't repeat your INVENTION that the Chicago FBI destroyed their files on Harry Dean because he was "a very minor annoyance." Harry was a known FPCC Secretary in Chicago. So, until we see all the FBI records on Harry Dean, his story will still stand as viable. Sincerely, --Paul Trejo <edit typos>

Well, Ernie, at least you admit that the FBI assertions that Harry Dean claimed to be an FBI agent won't hold up in court. I guess that's the most I can expect at this point. I know you keep saying that you aren't calling Harry Dean a xxxx, Ernie, but you do say that he makes FALSE statements. Are you saying that he is making these FALSE statements in a non-deliberate manner? If Harry is deliberately making FALSE statements, then he is a xxxx -- isn't that so? But John Simkin has said he would remove anybody from the EF who goes around calling people LIARS on his Forum. Now, you know that Harry Dean has said many times on this thread that he never at any time claimed to be an FBI agent. And you know that this FBI agent told J. Edgar Hoover that Harry Dean claimed to be an FBI agent. So -- somebody is LYING. I'm not saying (yet) that the FBI is lying -- I'm saying that I want to see proof that will stand up in court before I make a decision. I don't like being lied to, Ernie. I take people at face value, and I get very upset when they lie to me. If I found out that Harry Dean deliberately lied to me, that would jeopardize my friendship with him. It's that serious with me. It's unacceptable. So, if you're not saying that Harry Dean is lying, Ernie -- then you must be saying that you, too, want to see see proof that will stand up in court before you make a decision. Is that what you're saying? If (and only if) that's the case, then I apologize -- and you didn't call Harry Dean a xxxx. But it sounded to me as if you're really accepting the FBI agent's word for it, simply because he's an FBI agent. It sounds to me that you somehow doubt that we'll find corroborative evidence to back up this FBI agent's story. It won't hold up in court. Still -- who is right? The FBI or Harry Dean? In my opinion, it's their word against Harry's. I won't take a side yet -- I will only wait for further evidence, as painful as that is to me. How about you? Sincerely, --Paul Trejo

....Finally, Pat, is there any update on correcting the Spartacus entry on the John Birch Society that prints a false statement about Harry Dean? Here is the URL: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKbirchS.htm Harry Dean has already complained that this Spartacus page misrepresents him -- and actually I say that it defames him. I raised this issue only a few days ago in great detail. We hope that you can bring this to the attention of John Simkin (whom we believe controls the Spartacus pages). Best regards, --Paul Trejo Pat, I just noticed that there is a second Spartacus web page that spreads disinformation about Harry Dean. Here is the URL: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKSinvestBirch.htm In this case, the false information about Harry Dean is given as the very first paragraph. It reads: ----------------------Begin Spartacus web page --------------------------- Harry Dean was an undercover agent for the Federal Bureau of Investigation. In 1962 he infiltrated the John Birch Society. He later reported that leading members of the society, including John Rousselot and Edwin Walker, hired two gunman, Eladio del Valle and Loran Hall, to kill President John F. Kennedy. ----------------------End Spartacus web page --------------------------- This information about Harry Dean is completely mistaken. Harry never even heard of Eladio del Valle until these lies about him were published by W.R. Morris in 1975 in the made-for-fiction writing, The Men Behind the Guns. Although W.R. Morris claimed that Harry Dean was his co-author, that was a deliberate lie. Harry Dean had broken relations with W.R. Morris before the publication of that book, precisely because W.R. Morris would not stop making up fiction and putting Harry Dean's name on it, no matter how many times Harry Dean told W.R. Morris to stop doing that. Unfortunately, the stories by W.R. Morris have formed a "Harry Dean Legend" that is hard to reverse -- but Harry Dean has been trying to reverse it for decades. Harry wrote his own manuscript, "Crosstrails," and published it in 1990, which sets the record straight. It has sold very few copies. When Harry wrote Crosstrails, he also made every effort to send a copy to everybody he named in the manuscript, to warn them that they were being named. Today, Dave Robbins is the only person named in that JFK account who is still living. Furthermore -- I just noticed that there remain errors on the "corrected" version of the Spartacus web site's Harry Dean page, at this URL: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKdeanH.htm Not only is Eladio del Valle still mixed in with Harry's story in its first paragraph -- but there remains an entire section on that page devoted to W.R. Morris and his fiction! Please ask John Simkin (whom I presume is responsible for these pages) to act to clarify this contradictory information. Harry Dean is still alive, and can still be asked directly for the precise nature of his claims -- we don't need to guess. (I've tried to contact John Simkin myself, but he's not accepting personal messages from EF these days, evidently). Best regards, --Paul Trejo <addition>

First, Ernie, you say that "there are very few such documents as you describe," when I demanded to see third-party documentation of claims by the FBI. Yet I've seen plenty, myself, even among the FBI serials that you've shared with us on this thread. Secondly, Ernie, you say that, "Usually, the only place you find that type of evidence is in criminal or subversive matters because the FBI knows its Agents may have to go to court." BINGO! This is the quality of evidence I demand from the FBI, Ernie! I demand evidence that will hold up in COURT! The FBI hasn't produced this! They claim that this or that person said this or that. But a judge and a jury would demand to call that witness to speak for himself or herself! That's common sense! Now, you will reply that Harry Dean does not provide witnesses on his behalf, either. I've always admitted that (with the minor exception of Dave Robbins, who is the only man in that gathering still living). But it is entirely unfair to hold one working class citizen to the same standard as the FBI who has thousands of employees and billions of dollars in funding. If the FBI claims something, I want to see PROOF! They can afford it. This is the JFK assassination we're talking about, and their record in this matter has been disappointing. Thirdly, Ernie, you say that "Hayward ALSO contacted the CIA -- on 12/17/64," so we should at the very least see the CIA report of that contact. Fourth: Ernie, you want to focus on Harry's confessions to the FBI that he was a Secretary of the FPCC. When Harry joined the FPCC, he did not know it was a Communist Front organization -- and many other Americans were ignorant of that, too. Harry was among the first to obtain proof positive that it was a Communist Front organization, and instead of quitting, he told the FBI about it. You then claim that, "Harry then told Hayward that the US Senate Subcommittee hearings in 1961 'show' how successful he was in acquiring and sharing his info." What is your source for that, Ernie? It is true that the Senate records only indicate that Harry Dean was named as the Secretary of the FPCC, and no further information was obtained, because Harry Dean was not called as a witness (although he would have sung like a bird if he was called), and the witness who was questioned about Harry Dean pleaded the 5th Amendment. So, it is important to know the source of your claim, Ernie, so that we can get the exact wording, so that we can determine if your charges that Harry Dean was LYING are reliable. Your record is not good so far. Fifth: you say, "to the Executive Producer of the Joe Pyne Program (and to any normal person), Harry conveyed the IMPRESSION that he was some sort of 'undercover agent' working for the FBI" Oh really, Ernie? Were you there? Did you overhear the conversation? What is your source for these accusations of yours that Harry Dean is a xxxx? Do you have proof? If not, aren't you ashamed? You've claimed several times this week alone that you don't call Harry Dean a xxxx, and yet here you go again! Sixth: Ernie, you say that "this is what explains why Bob Hayward and the other persons I mentioned in my previous message were convinced that Harry was some sort of 'undercover agent' working for the FBI -- EVEN IF they used the term 'Agent' in the broadest possible generic sense, i.e. "somebody who acts for, or in the place of, another, by authority from him; one entrusted with the business of another." Again, Ernie, were you there? What qualifies you to speak for these people? In fact, you are really only defending the FBI, extolling the FBI, and trying to convince people here that the FBI can do no wrong. Their bullying tactics justify your bullying tactics in your own mind. But that's only in your fantasy. You have not proven anything -- you have merely repeated yourself endlessly, for months -- and trying to deny the bald fact that you are charging Harry Dean with LYING based on no further evidence than an FBI agent trying to cover his own behind. Why don't you just come out and admit it? Sincerely, --Paul Trejo <edit typos>

That's a good point, Ernie, and duly noted. Insofar as the FBI apparently accuses Harry Dean of claiming to be an FBI agent back in December, 1964, then we must eliminate W.R. Morris as the source of this FBI claim (based on the empirical evidence we have so far). Therefore, since this FBI agent claimed that he got this account from KTTV Exective Bob Hayward, then IMHO we must absolutely confirm that Bob Hayward actually said this, and confirm that the FBI agent was not merely making this up to tell the FBI Director what he wanted to hear in the face of this loose cannon, Harry Dean, going public on the Joe Pyne Show. Regards, --Paul Trejo

Well, Ernie, I won't comment on your atttempt to sell, sell, sell the FBI to the JFK research community as a specially qualified, reliable source of information Let's just talk about Harry Dean. I responded to all of your examples of FBI agents which claimed this or that person said this or that about Harry Dean, but you don't seem to get it. So, I'll be patient and try again. Let's take your Example #3. The FBI claims that somebody contacted them -- Bob Hayward, Executive Producer of the Joe Pyne Show, and on 18 December 1964 one of the Los Angeles FBI special agents in charge (SAC) told J. Edgar Hoover that Bob Hayward told him something incriminating about Harry Dean. I repeat again -- please listen carefully. I will not believe this FBI agent under these circumstances. I want third party confirmation. That is, I want to see the actual letter from Bob Hayward to the effect that, "Harry Dean told me personally that he was a paid FBI agent." That's it. That's all. Let me see that and then I'll fold my hand. That is my commitment. I won't insist that it's a forgery -- I'll keep an open mind about that aspect --- I promise to count it as a bit of legitimate evidence and not a part of the FBI spin machine -- at least until further information might become available. Until I see the actual third-party writing, Ernie, we must consider the circumstances. This is December of 1964, and the Warren Commission is now being circulated and read by critics such as Harold Weisberg, Sylvia Meagher, Mark Lane and Jay Epstein. They are all hopping mad that the ballistics evidence does not add up, and that the Lone Gunman theory won the day. Harry Dean was hopping mad, too, for his own reasons, and he decided to take his case to the Joe Pyne Show. Harry says he also informed the FBI that he was going to do this. According to Harry Dean (and I admit I have no proof of this, but it sounds logical to me) the FBI strongly advised Harry to stop this action. Harry tells me that he insisted he would do it anyway. Now -- in that case, I presume (admittedly without any proof) that the FBI agent in Los Angeles would be grilled by the FBI Director, so this FBI agent would want to cover his behind. Would the SAC portray Harry Dean in the worst possible light to cover his own behind? Yes, I believe he would. Therefore, nothing that this Los Angeles FBI agent tells J. Edgar Hoover in December 1964 about Harry Dean can be reliable, in my humble opinion, because he is on the spot for failing to control one of the people under his watch. It doesn't matter to common sense that I know nobody in the FBI -- the scenario I portray here is simply common sense -- it's what any officer in any office would do, when put on the spot before the Company Director. It's just common sense. So -- you say, Ernie -- that "it's the people they interview." I happen to agree with that. So, in this example, the person they interviewed was KTTV Executive Bob Hayward. Let me see a written document by Bob Hayward which was sent to the Los Angeles FBI which says in writing what this FBI agent told J. Edgar Hoover. (We know the FBI has many such third party documents in other cases -- we've seen some.) Then I'll fold my hand on this thread (until more information is available). Otherwise, it's only FBI hear-say --most likely made up by one FBI agent to tell the Director what he wanted to hear. I hope you finally understand my criterion, Ernie. We're talking about the FBI, and although they've done some great work in the past, I simply don't trust them on the topic of the JFK assassination. Whatever errors Harry Dean might have made, those errors don't include the Warren Report. Regards, --Paul Trejo <edit typos>

Well, Ernie, the first place I've seen that with my own eyes is in a 1975 issue of The Tattler, which tells Harry's story with many weird embellishments. For example, W.R. Morris claims he chatted with Harry Dean at the gravesite of Lee Harvey Oswald. That happens to be a lie. When Harry first saw that lie in The Tattler in 1975, he made efforts to telephone W.R. Morris and ask him what the heck was going on. To the best of my knowledge, this is the very first time that Harry Dean met W.R. Morris. However, there is one report I am researching, that found W.R. Morris' story as early as 1968, the year of the Jim Garrison trials. If confirmed, we have W.R. Morris talking and bragging about Harry Dean seven years before he ever met the man. This suggests that W.R. Morris got Harry's story originally from the Joe Pyne show. Since W.R. Morris was a fiction writer by trade (he wrote the famous, Walking Tall, series in the 60's) he was not above adding his original drama, just in case he could sell the story. W.R. Morris followed Mark Lane, Harold Weisberg and all the old guard. It was from Jim Garrison's case that the name of Eladio del Valle came up, and by 1975 W.R. Morris had added Eladio Del Valle to Harry Dean's story -- although Harry never before heard of Eladio Del Valle. Regards, --Paul Trejo <edit typos>

With respect to Ernie’s message #654 attempting to respond to my demand for hard evidence from his side, he uses 3,255 words to basically say, “no, first YOU provide proof and hard evidence from YOUR side, Paul!” I’ve long admitted that Harry and I lack proof for our eBook. Ernie is also right to note that to make any full, historical case out of Harry’s story would require a professional team with lots of resources; and that isn’t me. I’m just one guy, and I do what I can. I think that Ernie and I both actually agree on what constitutes reliable evidence, proof and fact. We also seem to agree today that neither of us have this. These matters were well established even in the days of Moses, who would hear a charge in court only when there were “two or three” witnesses, and not only one. That is quite reasonable, and I accept it, and I take it that Ernie accepts it. The FBI constitutes a single entity, and anything they claim, IMHO, must be confirmed by a second reliable party. The same applies to Harry Dean. He is one entity, and as his spokesperson, I count as part of his team. If we claim something, that is only one team claiming it – only one witness. So, really, my standard for proof is nothing special – it is common sense. Ernie can see that, and he can admit that he also lacks this proof – so far. Ernie is in a better position to find proof than I am. Ernie has access to countless thousands of FBI documents, and I don’t, and neither does Harry Dean. FBI documents, we know, will sometimes cite reliable third-parties. On this thread, I have thanked Ernie repeatedly for sharing his FBI documents with the Forum. It is a valuable service, no matter how much Ernie and I clash on sides. If, for example, Ernie finds a document by Senator George Murphy, or an Executive from KTTV, for example, which says in writing, “Harry Dean told me clearly that he was an FBI agent,” then I’ll fold my hand. But it’s not good enough for the FBI alone to say it – or even J. Edgar Hoover – and that’s because JFK researchers have come to doubt the veracity of the FBI in the case of the JFK assassination. The FBI was the primary source of information for the Warren Commission, and their conclusions were self-contradictory. So, we are justified in our doubt. So, although I know I don’t have proof for Harry’s position, I won’t just accept the FBI’s word for it if they disagree. Ernie remains mistaken, however, on the charge that I have only Harry Dean’s word for it. On the contrary, as Ernie mentioned in passing, I’ve had access to the personal papers of Ex-General Walker, and actually this is what got me interested in Harry Dean in the first place. Ex-General Walker told the FBI and the Warren Commission that he never heard the name of Lee Harvey Oswald until the day of the JFK assassination. This is a matter of record. Walker’s personal papers, however, prove Walker suspected as early as Easter Sunday, 1963, that Lee Harvey Oswald tried to kill him in his Dallas home on 10 April 1963. I have shown this several times in past years with actual documents from Walker’s own typewriter. This self-contradiction constitutes genuine evidence. Actually, Commission Attorney Wesley Liebeler already suspected Walker of knowing about Oswald prior to the JFK assassination. Liebeler questioned Walker about Oswald from the angle of the story in the German newspaper, the Deutsche Nationalzeitung, which was published the weekend after the JFK assassination. (This is found in the testimony by Edwin Walker in volume 11 of the Warren Commission Hearings.) In this story, just 18 hours after the JFK assassination, the reporters at the Deutsche Nationalzeitung in Germany were in contact with Edwin Walker, and Walker told them early in the morning of 23 November 1963 that Lee Harvey Oswald was also his shooter on 10 April 1963. They finalized their story the next day, and on the weekend of 29 November 1963, German readers saw it in print. We know that Edwin Walker told this story to the German reporters, because the German BKA (Germany's FBI equivalent) forced the information out of them. Walker, they admitted, was the source of their story. When Attorney Liebeler demanded to know from Walker how he knew that Oswald was his shooter on 10 April 1963, Walker denied any knowledge of it. When Liebeler asked how the Deutsche Nationalzeitung came to print it, Walker said, “they must have guessed it.” Liebeler then dropped the issue, knowing that the BKA has no jurisdiction or business in US politics or jurisprudence. If that’s all we had, I wouldn’t say another word – but we have documents from Walker himself, demanding from every Administration since LBJ for further facts about his 10 April 1963 case – as he was convinced that there were two shooters involved. Walker said in his letter to Frank Church that members of the US government told him on Easter Sunday that Lee Harvey Oswald was one of the shooters, was arrested and was released that same night. Walker repeated that story until the year he died. So, in fact, I do have a third-party corroboration that Walker lied about his knowledge of Lee Harvey Oswald before the JFK assassination. It goes deeper than that, but for now, I’ll get back to the topic at hand, which is Harry Dean. What intrigues me about Harry Dean's story is that Harry never refers to the Walker papers, and never refers to any other JFK conspiracy theory in the literature. Harry does not reference anything by Harold Weisberg, Jay Epstein, Mark Lane, Sylvia Meagher or Jim Garrison – Harry is just telling us what he saw and heard. Harry says that it has been a terrible burden, knowing he was part of the conspiracy to kill JFK – but actually it’s not as though Harry was a shooter. Harry wasn’t in Dallas or anything. Harry knows nothing of Gerry Patrick Hemming, Frank Sturgis, Marita Lorenz, Maurice Bishop, David Atlee Phillips, E. Howard Hunt, David Morales or William Harvey. Harry only knows what he saw and heard. Other JFK researchers have already linked Walker with Hemming, for example, and with Loran Hall. But Harry Dean does not refer to other JFK researchers at all. Harry claims that he saw and heard, over the course of several months in 1963, the antics of Ex-General Walker, Gabby Gabaldon, Loran Hall, Larry Howard, Congressman John Rousselot and sundry JBS members whose names he cannot recall, involved in a JFK plot that named Lee Harvey Oswald. Dave Robbins is afraid to speak about these issues, but he has verified (and probably will continue to verify, because he is an honest man) that all the above named people were movers and shakers in his event-planning activities for the right-wing in Southern California in 1963. He denies any knowledge of any plot to kill JFK, however. So, it’s not only Harry’s word alone that I work with. I’m also perfectly willing to admit that Harry Dean might be mistaken about this or that aspect of events that occurred 50 years ago. However, when it comes to my suspicions about Ex-General Edwin Walker – I feel I am on firm ground, and I seek, seek, seek more and more data and information – anything I can get. I feel certain that Ex-General Walker was far closer to the center of the cyclone of the JFK assassination than any other researcher has ever before identified. (The writer who comes closest to my theory is Dick Russell in his landmark effort, The Man Who Knew Too Much. In that book Russell interviewed Edwin Walker as well as H.L. Hunt's butler who admitted that he overheard Edwin Walker and H.L. Hunt speaking about Lee Harvey Oswald prior to the JFK assassination.) Best regards, --Paul Trejo <edit typos>

Ernie wants to be quoted. OK, fair enough. I quote him 20 times in this post from the same messages he requested. My position hasn’t changed and I suspect that Ernie’s position won’t change, but here our differences are highlighted in clear terms. I begin with the Message Number, and then I quote Ernie word for word before I respond. Let’s hope that Ernie can respond calmly to these replies, without accusations, and without defining words that everybody already knows, and without citing FBI documents about other subjects than Harry Dean. Post by Ernie #591 (2/10/2014) ASSERTION BY ERNIE: FBI documents already released in 1985 to Mark Allen make it very clear that employees of the Joe Pyne program along with reporters and publishers from several southern California newspapers contacted the FBI to inquire if Harry was (as he claimed) an “agent of the FBI” who was an undercover operative for the Bureau. This claim is asserted without any written evidence. ASSERTION BY ERNIE: ….And, in fact, there are FBI memos which state that even Harry himself acknowledged to the FBI that he falsely described himself when he made contacts with some of these programs or journalists -- because he was trying to interest them in his story. This is asserted without any written evidence. Let us see those alleged acknowledgements in Harry’s own writing. If I see this, then I’ll have no choice but to drop my entire argument on this thread. It’s to your advantage, Ernie, to show written proof – the smoking gun. Where is it? ASSERTION BY ERNIE: …The FBI was not “displeased” that Harry told his story in the public media. The FBI's problem with Harry was his false description of his relationship to the FBI. This is asserted without any written evidence. Let us see the “false description” in Harry’s own writing. ASSERTION BY ERNIE: …The problem (from the FBI perspective) was that Harry was falsely linking himself to the FBI. This is asserted without any written evidence. Let us see the “false linking” in Harry’s own writing. ASSERTION BY ERNIE: FBI…HQ frequently instructed Los Angeles to contact Harry Dean and tell him to desist from claiming that he was an FBI “agent” or “undercover operative”. This is asserted without any written evidence. Let us see the false claim in Harry’s own writing. ASSERTION BY ERNIE: “So much of the ‘interest’ in Dean (by Los Angeles field) arises from the numerous attempts by Dean to obtain publicity for his story and the controversies which developed over Harry's mis-representation of himself.” This is asserted without any written evidence. All these are mere claims that anybody can make if they are motivated. It isn’t hard to prove them – just provide some written documentation by somebody else besides the FBI claiming this. That’s all. I’m a reasonable guy. Post by Ernie #604 (2/12/2014) ASSERTION BY ERNIE: “It is VERY clear that Harry described himself as an ‘agent of the FBI’.” In this claim, Ernie gives the example of Tom Snyder firing questions at Harry, and Harry saying ‘yes’ to the last part of the question – and not being quick enough to correct Tom Snyder. But common sense can see that this example is a far cry from Harry “describing himself as an agent of the FBI.” ASSERTION BY ERNIE: “And there are several FBI memos which reflect that Harry personally acknowledged to FBI Special Agents that he had referred to himself as an “agent” of the FBI and Harry told them he would not do that again…” In this claim, Ernie shows uncritical acceptance of the FBI report saying that they contacted Harry Dean to tell him “to stop making false claims about his relationship with the FBI.” No evidence is offered other than the word of this FBI report. Nothing is produced in writing from Harry Dean. In this claim, also, Ernie quotes that FBI report as saying that “Dean admitted representing himself as an undercover agent for the FBI in talks with representatives of…KTTV.” Again, no evidence of this is offered other than this FBI report, and nothing is produced in writing from Harry Dean. Common sense must point out Harry’s claim that the FBI expressed their displeasure that Harry was going on KTTV with his story. Before I accept the FBI’s word over Harry’s, I will need more evidence. In this claim, also, Ernie quotes that FBI report as alleging that Harry Dean made this false claim about being an undercover FBI agent, “in order to be selected for a guest spot on the Joe Pyne Show.” Again, no evidence is offered except this FBI agent’s word, and nothing in writing was produced in writing from Harry Dean, or even anybody from KTTV, as would be expected. ASSERTION BY ERNIE: “In fact, all [senator George] Murphy was told…is that Harry was never authorized to represent or act in any official capacity for the FBI and the Bureau had to contact Harry several times to tell him to desist from making such claims.” In this claim, Ernie shows that the FBI repeated their hostile profile of Harry as a person who claimed to be an FBI agent; but no evidence is offered other than his FBI report, nor produced in writing from Harry Dean. ASSERTION BY ERNIE: “The file copy notation on the Bureau copy of the Murphy letter also points out that Harry “continued to make such claims to a newspaper and television station and was again contacted on 1/6/65 and admonished emphatically to desist from his claims”. The file copy notation refers to several different occasions when the FBI tried to get Harry to stop making such claims: 6/7/61, 12/2/63, 1/5/65.” In this claim, Ernie shows that the FBI repeated their accusation that Harry claimed to be an FBI agent; but no evidence is offered other than his FBI report, nor produced in writing from Harry Dean. Ernie claims to have seen this FBI memo to Senator George Murphy, but this JFK Forum has not seen it. Perhaps if we can view the FBI file itself, it may affect our opinion. Further, even if the FBI noted “several different occasions” when the FBI tried to get Harry to stop, this amounts to “hostile” reporting unless the FBI itself can come up with written examples in Harry Dean’s own writing. Otherwise, it is hear-say, even if it is FBI hear-say. Without written evidence, we only have the FBI’s word for it – and common sense sees that the FBI word is potentially “hostile” to Harry Dean UNLESS IT CAN BE PROVEN TO BE TRUE by written documents in Harry’s own pen. That is, if the FBI made up these allegations about Harry claiming to be an FBI agent, then obviously these FBI reports are "hostile." That is not stretching that word in the least. ASSERTION BY ERNIE: “But you do not apply that same standard to HARRY DEAN! Instead, as you admit, you prefer giving him ‘the benefit of the doubt’ even though there is not even ONE document or ONE person whom corroborates Harry's story. ALL of your assertions in your eBook (a memoir which contains not even ONE footnote, not even ONE scanned document, not even ONE transcript of an interview) is based upon YOUR (and Harry's) ALLEGATIONS!” In this claim, Ernie wishes to hold an individual citizen, Harry Dean, to the same standards as a USA institution – the FBI – which has thousands of employees. Harry and I wrote his eBook as a Memoir, a Confession, rather than as a historical document. We’re content to wait for FBI documents to be released through the FOIA to supply footnotes and appendices in a future edition of our eBook. I’m confident that historical documents will support the key points of Harry’s Memoirs, otherwise I wouldn’t have taken the time to publish the eBook. I’m willing to drop the entire project if I see convincing evidence that contradicts Harry’s key points (and by the way, minor points here or there, like the date of a meeting with the FBI, are not key points). ASSERTION BY ERNIE: “As I have repeatedly stated (and you continually ignore this), nobody that I know of has ever made the accusations which you are making about FBI documentary evidence or about FBI files or about FBI Special Agent interviews.” In this claim, Ernie holds that “nobody” has ever accused the FBI of being less than truthful. We can only smile here, because this is the JFK Education Forum, and many if not most of its members have continually accused the FBI of being less than truthful. Doubting the FBI isn’t based only on Harry Dean’s word, but on hundreds, literally hundreds of books published over the past 50 years on the JFK assassination. Post by Ernie #608 (2/12/2014) ASSERTION BY ERNIE: “Paul: what your standard of proof reveals, is that you would never accept ANYTHING except a direct admission by Harry (the person whose recollections are being disputed) -- which means (by definition) you have no OBJECTIVE standard.” In this claim, Ernie sees that I demand a direct admission from Harry Dean before I accept any hostile accusations by the FBI that Harry claimed to be an FBI agent. The FBI has 65 serials and hundreds of pages on Harry Dean – and I must insist that they have the resources to capture documents that is unmatched by any individual on the face of the earth. Ernie hopes to portray this as “no OBJECTIVE standard,” while common sense can see that by demanding a written proof from the FBI in Harry's own pen, I am setting a very OBJECTIVE standard. ASSERTION BY ERNIE: “OK – from now on, we will demand THE EXACT SAME STANDARD OF PROOF FROM YOU! If you do not have a specific document signed and notarized by Harry, NOTHING you state will be accepted. NOTHING.” This is an emotional reply to my demand for written proof. The FBI can afford this proof, if it indeed exists. Harry Dean is an ordinary working man who had been opposed by the FBI at every turn since 1965. Actually, his trunk of documents was stolen decades ago. I never denied that I’m taking Harry Dean’s word above the FBI’s word. This is a legitimate scholastic experiment, as we wait for solid, acceptable evidence from the FBI. ASSERTION BY ERNIE: “They are not ‘FBI sources.’ They are independent sources which were interviewed by many different FBI Special Agents OR sources which sent letters to the FBI or CIA -- all of which made the same general statements about what Harry claimed about himself.” If this is so, then showing examples of this should not be difficult. Where are the examples? For a starter, just show one, Ernie. What I have seen so far are FBI reports from FBI agents who claim that Harry Dean claimed to be an FBI agent. If they got their information from a third-party, let them produce the third-party Affidavit. I have not seen this, yet. Yet, of course, if this third-party is an everyday FBI stooge or xxxx, then this must also be taken into consideration. I will accept written testimony from a KTTV Executive, for example, or from a US Senator, for example. In the absence of such written evidence, these FBI reports amount to hear-say, IMHO. ASSERTION BY ERNIE: “THEN WHY DO YOU WANT TO SEE ANYTHING APPEARING IN FBI FILES? OBVIOUSLY NOTHING IN THEM IS CREDIBLE TO YOU, or, quoting your recent comment, ‘THAT'S NOT GOOD ENOUGH’.” I am very eager to see the FBI files, Ernie. Further, if the FBI fails to support its allegations against Harry Dean with written evidence by Harry Dean himself, I will seriously consider written evidence from a believable Third-party, which the FBI can be expected to supply. In the absence of this, I must continue to doubt the veracity of the FBI in this matter (just as I reserve the right to doubt FBI veracity in all matters pertaining to the JFK assassination). Post by Ernie #635 (2/14/2014) QUESTION BY ERNIE: “Why is it that the first serial in HQ file 62-109217 indicates that this file was opened in February 1964 if, as Harry asserts, he was providing information to the Los Angeles-FBI (Grapp) about an FPCC member starting in the summer of 1961?” I have already said that Harry Dean might have been mistaken about the 1961 date with regard to Wesley Grapp. Yet again, until we can see these 60+ Los Angeles FBI serials on Harry Dean with my own eyes, we can’t very well count them as evidence. QUESTION BY ERNIE: “Why is it, that in February 1964, FBI HQ still does not recognize who Harry Dean is and HQ has to instruct Los Angeles to interview Harry and then provide a report concerning Dean’s story?” I have already offered a reasonable explanation – the field offices of the FBI dropped the ball. QUESTION BY ERNIE: “Why is it that HQ does not recognize Frank Vega, given Harry’s assertions about how he allegedly told the FBI and CIA (in Chicago) everything that transpired during Harry’s June 1960 trip to Cuba? That will be difficult to answer since the Chicago FBI destroyed all its files on Harry Dean. We can only hope that copies were preserved at FBI Headquarters. QUESTION BY ERNIE: “Why is it that the primary case agent in Chicago in 1961 who was assigned to prepare reports on FPCC (John Morgan) is NOT an FBI Agent whose name Harry has previously cited as his case agent?” That is fairly well explained by the fact that Harry is now 87 years old, and these events happened 50 years ago – and also that his trunk of documents was stolen decades ago. Sincerely, --Paul Trejo, MA <edit typos and color>

Pat, as you may have noticed in Ernie's post from yesterday, your perception of his position is actually different than you perceived it four days ago. Ernie Lazar isn't defending the John Birch Society, Pat; instead, Ernle is defending the FBI. The FBI, I suggest, have shown themselves to be less than forthcoming on the topic of the JFK assassination. Ernie apparently argues that the recent FOIA requests and releases from the FBI already resolve the key issues --- at least when it comes to Harry Dean's account of the JFK assassination. Of course, we haven't seen all of the FBI serials yet -- but Ernie Lazar, who is purportedly the world's foremost authority on FBI materials outside of the FBI itself (at least in terms of quantity, if not quality) is confident that the FBI's opinion of Harry Dean -- which is quite dim (and which in many ways matches the W.R. Morris fiction about Harry) -- is assuredly the correct opinion. My position is that until I myself see these FBI serials on Harry Dean, that I will not blindly accept the FBI side of the story. It is my position, along with Harry Dean, that the FBI began playing hard-ball with Harry Dean in 1965, when Harry Dean took his story to the public in the live TV program, The Joe Pyne Show in Los Angeles. It is apparently Ernie Lazar's position that the FBI was actually calm and reasonable toward Harry in 1965 and at all times later. That's my take on the actual dispute between Ernie and myself. Finally, Pat, is there any update on correcting the Spartacus entry on the John Birch Society that prints a false statement about Harry Dean? Here is the URL: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKbirchS.htm Harry Dean has already complained that this Spartacus page misrepresents him -- and actually I say that it defames him. I raised this issue only a few days ago in great detail. We hope that you can bring this to the attention of John Simkin (whom we believe controls the Spartacus pages). Best regards, --Paul Trejo

All right, I'll respond to this challenge -- which won't be quick, because it involves seven different (long) posts by Ernie. The challenge from Ernie is for me to find ONLY ONE PLACE where Ernie accused me (and/or Harry) of pretending we have final proof of Harry's story. I take this challenge to go beyond Harry's claims to have met with Wesley Grapp -- and about Ernie's general accusation that we claimed to have proof. Further, I won't limit myself to these seven posts by Ernie, rather, I reserve the right to include all of Ernie's posts in the past few weeks. Before I do, however, I want to clarify a key point. Our eBook reports that Los Angeles FBI SAC Wesley Grapp contacted Harry Dean in 1961, shortly after Harry moved his family to Los Angeles. So I said that we should expect to find FBI records for 1961, and if we don't find these FBI records we face only three choices: (1) the records never existed; (2) the FBI made a mistake; or (3) the FBI records remain classified. However, there is another major choice, namely: (4) Harry was in error about the 1961 date that he and Wesley Grapp made contact. Harry and I are talking about this possibility as of this writing. Harry Dean was in contact with the Los Angeles FBI with regard to Cuba and the FPCC in 1962 -- that much seems certain because of the existence of FBI serials about Harry Dean from Los Angeles that are dated in 1962. So, Harry is now willing to admit that perhaps that 1961 date regarding his contact with FBI SAC Wesley Grapp might be mistaken. If so, that would make one erratum in our eBook, and one correction, making this another step forward in our history. All right. That said, I'll review the seven posts that Ernie selected, and others as required. Sincerely, --Paul Trejo <edit typos>

1. Ernie, my arguments are not straw-man, as you falsely charge. I make solid points, and you merely demean them to evade them. As for analysis – a final analysis must always wait until all the evidence has been presented. But all the evidence has not been presented. You, Ernie, wish to jump into analysis before all the evidence is presented – which is a flaw in your methodology. The only “clues” that you are really qualified to pursue have little to do with the JFK assassination, but are strictly limited to the rules of FBI bureaucratic methods. This is useful only in a limited way – but still you rush to judgment. I myself have no conclusions – I have a theory that patiently awaits for further evidence – further facts. And while you admit that nobody can discuss what is not currently known, that doesn’t stop you from jumping to conclusions today, and putting down Harry Dean. You admit that there remain exceptions (though you claim “very few”) to the FOIA release of all JFK-related materials held by the FBI. But its very clear to most of us – there remain some exceptions. Yet until we have all the evidence, then all our conclusions mine, yours, anybody's – must be open to doubt. You can tell us about the FBI bureaucracy rules about these files – but you don’t know what’s being kept Top Secret. Still, you're aware that something is being kept Top Secret – even if it’s only one single file. I’ve always admitted that I have NO PROOF of anything that the FBI possesses, other than the ones it tells us about. We might be able to make some deductions based on internal evidence -- but until we can see it all, we must leave our minds open to doubt. My only point has been that you have NO PROOF either. All your knowledge about FBI bureaucratic rules still can't give you Top Secret knowledge. You don’t know – and I don’t know – and nobody except select people in the FBI knows what is contained in the Top Secret files related to the JFK assassination. So this always presents a doubt in the minds of all reasonable Americans about the TRUTH in the JFK assassination. I’m not inventing anything here – it's common knowledge that the US Government continues to keep Top Secret files about the JFK assassination that occurred 50 years ago, even though the one and only alleged assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald, has been dead for 50 years! What, then, is the purpose of keeping any Top Secret files? Even one? I want to see those FBI files as soon as possible, and I’m sure that everybody on this Forum (except possibly you, Ernie) can hardly wait to see the contents of those Top Secret FBI files. Evidently we must now wait until 2017. Also, you misunderstood me to say that it is a fact that Wesley Grapp met with Harry Dean in mid-1961. It is only a fact that Harry Dean claimed this. Now, I believe Harry Dean is telling the truth -- you however, believe Harry Dean is lying "to inflate his credentials." I’m humbly waiting for verification of this – and I admit (and I have always admitted) that I still don’t have the verification. You continue to misrepresent my position as claiming that we have proof. I have always, always, always said we don’t have proof. All I added was that you have no proof to the contrary! You know you don’t, still you insist that you’re right, even without proof. You keep repeating that “all facts must be verifiable” as if anybody disputes that, but nobody ever disputed that – you’re just evading my points. You yourself don't have any verification that Harry Dean is lying. Also, you effort to grill Harry Dean carries no kindness or humanity in it. Harry dislikes your attitude toward him, and I don’t think anybody here blames him – you come on so strong with your FBI persona that it is offensive to the very person you wish to question. You should be really think about that. I said that if (and only if) Harry Dean is telling the truth about his meetings with Wesley Grapp in the latter part of 1961, then there must be FBI records of the event. I stand by my statement – it is not an invention as you charge, it is a clear and logical proposition. Since there are no known FBI records of that event, I see only three possibilities: (1) they don’t exist; or (2) they have been overlooked by bureaucratic bungling; or (3) they are part of Top Secret FBI papers. That is clearly logical. But you, Ernie, don't like that logical proposition -- you insist on #1 without final proof. Also, the MANDATORY declassification rules that took effect years ago cannot have any effect whatever on #2 and #3. That’s not an invention – these are common sense facts: (i) mistakes can be made, and (ii) Top Secret Files still exist. But you, Ernie, don’t have the logical confidence to admit these simple facts – instead you insist on #1 and you insist fiercely that you are right. 2. I stand by my observation that Hoover was apparently angry with the Chicago FBI office in 1963 simply because they had files on Harry Dean going back to 1960, but FBI headquarters had NONE. Why hadn't the Chicago FBI kept FBI HQ informed? That's a legitimate question based on the situation that J. Edgar Hoover complained in 1963 that his offices had no files on Lee Harvey Oswald from the Chicago FBI from 1960-1961. (Nor did I say that this was the only time they were incompetent, as you charged, but like all bureaucracies, I presume the FBI shows signs of incompetence every single year.) 3. You ask how I determine something is “slow” as opposed to the customary procedure, even though I don’t know their procedure. But it’s only common sense: if the Chicago FBI had files on Harry Dean going back to 1960, and in late 1963 the Director demands to know why his FBI headquarters has no files on Harry Dean – it is only common sense to say that this is S-L-O-W. Nobody I know would ever claim that a three-year delay in reporting is “normal” in any office in the world. You ask me if I’m using the August 1960 Chicago FBI contact date with Harry Dean as an indicator that the FBI headquarters should have received copies of those files sometime before 1963. My answer is, yes, because that's common sense. Yet we must also add to this the admission by the Chicago FBI that they had further contact with Harry Dean regarding the FPCC and Fidel Castro’s Cuba in that time. This is obvious. So, yes, yes, yes, the Chicago FBI should have told FBI Headquarters about Harry Dean sometime before late 1963. It’s just common sense. You do offer an alternative theory here, Ernie: you claim that all this is evidence that the Chicago FBI never used Harry as an official informant. But that is circular thinking. It does not admit that something positive could later turn up. We should demand to see not only all of the 63 Los Angeles FBI serials about Harry Dean, but we must also demand to see all of the uncounted Chicago FBI serials about Harry Dean. But wait – they have all been DESTROYED! Now, in your world, Ernie, the Chicago FBI destroyed all its Harry Dean files simply because Harry was not really an informant for them. Yet we know that Harry Dean was known to be an FPCC secretary -- as a matter of documented Senate Subcommittee record. You want us to believe that the Chicago FBI files on a known FPCC Secretary from 1960 to 1961 were simply of no interest to the Chicago FBI – but that makes no sense. You, Ernie, want us to believe that for the Chicago FBI, Harry’s phone calls were just “routine contacts – like many thousands of others.” Really? From the Chicago FPCC Secretary? Don't you see that you're reaching? HOWEVER, according to FBI Headquarter records, Hoover demanded those files in 1963 – so I now suspect (though I’m not an expert in FBI procedures) that the Chicago FBI would obey the orders of the Director, and send FBI Headquarters all of its files on Harry Dean. So maybe we really haven’t lost all these FBI serials after all. Yet you, Ernie, use the absence of Chicago FBI records at FBI headquarters in 1963 to build your own invention that Harry was useless to the Chicago FBI. Well, I’m not satisfied with your invention, Ernie. I wonder how many Forum readers are satisfied with it. 3.1. Next, Ernie you ask me a direct question. If I discover that there are no other FBI-LA files, and no other FBI-Chicago files and no other FBI-HQ files on Harry Dean – won’t I claim that they were then destroyed? Not necessarily. Yet since the Chicago FBI already admitted that it destroyed its Harry Dean files, then I will surely keep an open mind about the issue. There is no circular argument in this – I have empirical facts on my side. None of my observations here are inventions – they are rational observations, presented as theories only. Also, if I’m wrong – if evidence is presented to me that answer all my questions – I can and will change my mind. This was proved when I reversed my position about the November 1963 letter written to J. Edgar Hoover by Harry Dean. Based on the evidence I was presented earlier this year, I thought the FBI version was a forgery. When I got more information, I admitted publicly that it was most likely genuine. So, show me real evidence to the contrary and I’ll change my mind. Until then, I go by the evidence before me. I want to see the facts and the evidence as much as any person here. Finally, Ernie, it is useless, as you should know, to simply ask academic experts about any of this. It is well-known that the JFK assassination topic is generally avoided by conservative historians, political scientists or legislators. We saw this clearly in the 50th anniversary of the JFK assassination in Dallas last November – when all JFK conspiracy theorists were generally banned from the streets and the microphones that day. This does not convince us that we are wrong – it only convinces us that public opinion has become apathetic about the JFK assassination. Most of us agree -- as long as the FBI and the US Government continues to keep ANYTHING secret about the JFK assassination, and still insists that only one guy, who has been dead 50 years, is responsible – then everybody really knows that something is fishy. Shades of Watergate. There is more, but this post is long enough, and besides it really addresses the key points. Sincerely, --Paul Trejo

Well, Ernie, I've always been willing to address your broken-record claims -- although it does get boring -- like a broken record. I'll answer you AGAIN -- and this time, please actually pay attention. 1. Don't fool yourself that just because you're receiving 63 FBI serials about Harry Dean from Los Angeles, that you are being guaranteed that there are no more. You have no proof that these 63 represent the full cache on record. If any are still Classified, then of course you don't have them. I've reminded you about this for MONTHS now, but it doesn't seem to dawn on you. This is not some conspiracy theory -- it's simple business. Harry says that Wesley Grapp contacted him in the latter part of 1961 -- and you have no evidence to the contrary. None. Zero. Zip. That's a fact, not an invention of mine. Now, it's quite true that I don't have any proof for sticking to Harry's story -- but I do have Harry's word on it, and there is no contradictory fact -- there is only silence from the FBI. And that is no argument at all. So, until I see FACTS to the contrary (and not more useless desk-pounding from Ernie Lazar) I will continue to believe the word of Harry Dean -- Wesley Grapp contacted Harry in the latter part of 1961. Now, insofar as this might be true, and insofar as the FBI has NOT produced any FBI serials on this matter, then my only LOGICAL conclusion has to be that the FBI is still withholding these FBI serials because they are CLASSIFIED. That's a legitimate guess on my part -- not an invention. 2. You ask why the FBI HQ in 1963 had no copies of Harry's alleged contact with Wesley Grapp in 1961. You base your question on the statement by Hoover: “Bufiles contain no information indicating that this correspondent was considered an informant or a potential informant by your office.” Well, obviously Hoover is asking the same question, isn't he? Also, Hoover is not happy about the fact. Hoover has been blindsighted by the inept handing of the Harry Dean case by the Chicago office. Here is it -- after the JFK assassination -- and Hoover has no inkling that Harry Dean, who was clearly in conact with the Chicago FBI (as official documents prove) is now a person of interest with regarding to the JFK assassination. You are asking me why -- but more importantly, Hoover is asking the Chicago FBI why! Why hasn't Chicago kept HQ informed! That's a legitimate interpretation of Hoover's question. You also ask why the FBI's first serial in Harry's HQ files is dated 11/26/1963, while the first date of the Los Angeles FBI serial is 7/1962. Yet that is not a question for me, that is a question for the Los Angeles FBI about their inept handling of their own records! 3. In the same light, the second serial in the FBI HQ is dated 11/26/1963, and consists of the Chicago FBI speedily sending everything they had on Hoover -- probably because Hoover was steaming mad that he was blind-sighted by their slow action. The contents of the Chicago FBI serial to Hoover goes all the way back to 1960! Back to 1960! And yet Hoover's FBI Headquarters did not have copies of this documents! This is clear proof of bureaucratic bungling inside the FBI. There is no other logical explanation. Harry Dean and the Chicago FBI sharply break their communication in June, 1961, when Harry Dean moves his family to Los Angeles. The FULL contents of the Chicago records must interest us a great deal -- although we must again have some assurance that we are seeing ALL the contents, and that anything that is CLASSIFIED is reported to us as off-limits because it is CLASSIFIED. 4. You raise the topic of FBI reports about Harry's trips to Cuba, Ernie, but you don't offer any details to comment upon. 5. At the late date of 12/10/1963 J. Edgar Hoover demands from his Chicago FBI staff a expeditious provision of information about Harry Dean. Hoover doesn't have this information ready-to-hand, but it is already old, going back from 1960-1961. That is not something that Harry has to explain -- it is something the Chicago FBI must explain. As for Frank Vega, there is plenty of information about him -- it's only that Hoover didn't have it ready-to-hand when he wanted it. The Chicago FBI dropped the ball, evidently. 6. You seem surprised that the Los Angeles FBI seemed to think that none of the information about Juan Orta was previously given to the Chicago FBI -- and yet we have just seen that the Chicago FBI failed to produce its files to J. Edgar Hoover himself, until he demanded them! So, true to any bureaucracy, the Chicago FBI is clearly to blame for hoarding its information. That's the explanation that best matches the given data. So, there, once again, Ernie, I took time out of my busy day to answer your questions -- and I hope this time you'll pay closer attention. My answers are plausible, logical and match the given data. Sincerely, --Paul Trejo

Pat, it's important to know a key fact here: although Harry Dean and W.R. Morris collaborated for a brief period in 1975, surrounding the preparation and airing of the Tomorrow Show, Harry sharply broke his relationship with W.R. Morris. W.R. Morris, however, went around the USA for years lying about Harry Dean, and claiming that he spoke for Harry Dean. W.R. Morris even hired an actor to pretend to be Harry Dean, to spew his lies wider and wider. There was nothing that Harry Dean could afford to do about this. All Harry could do, eventually, was to write his own manuscript (Crosstrails) and publish it himself -- one copy at a time. Harry also attempted to send free copies to every person he named in the JFK conspiracy, to warn them that he was coming out and naming names. It seems, however, that W.R. Morris won the day. Even as I write, the W.R. Morris version of the Harry Dean story still appears on the Spartacus web page about the John BIrch Society. Here is the web page. http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKbirchS.htm The false information about Harry Dean is posted in the section for 1975. Please seek to have this changed this ASAP. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

Your contradiction, Ernie, is that you now say you're relying on what Harry said during an interview -- but that Interview (The Tommorow Show with Tom Snyder of 8 April 1975 was actually arranged by W.R. Morris. W.R. Morris was also present during the interview, and in fact sat right next to Harry Dean during the interview. So, once again, you don't even know what you're talking about. The entire interview was coordinated and evidently manipulated by W.R. Morris. And you bought this farce, hook, line and sinker. Also, you claim that Harry "said" that he was an FBI agent in that Interview. You know that's inaccurate; but that doesn't slow you down. What you refer to so callously was actually Tom Snyder's question about a statement inside W.R. Morris' book, The Men Behind the Guns (1975) in which W.R. Morris claimed that Harry Dean was a CIA agent and an FBI agent who had inside information. In that Interview -- if you bothered to read it (which you probably didn't) Harry made it clear that he was NOT an FBI agent. However, there was one question which Tom Snyder asked -- and he asked it quickly and softly, and Harry Dean only heard the last clause of it. What Harry Dean heard was something like -- "did you report that the John Birch Society was involved in a plot to kill JFK?" To which Harry answered, "Yes." The first part of the question was muffled, but it turns out to be closer to this: "Were you an agent of the FBI and did you report that the John Birch Society was involved in a plot to kill JFK?" First of all, Harry didn't hear the question fully. Secondly, there was intense pressure from a live TV program. Thirdly, the FBI warned Harry against appearing on the Tomorrow Show, adding to the pressure. Finally, the word "agent" can be ambiguous, and unclear in a given context. So, when Harry answered "yes" to the second part of that question, it was unclear to him at the time that he was playing into the hands of W.R. Morris - who was sitting right next to him. That's the truth. What you continue to promote -- even though you deny it -- is the fiction promoted by W.R. Morris. EVEN THOUGH YOU DENY IT. Finally -- you have NEVER, EVER quoted that Harry Dean wrote or said the words, "I was an FBI agent." NEVER. EVER. So don't lie about it. Sincerely, --Paul Trejo

Pat, in case you wish to know what sentences Harry Dean would approve, I propose something like the following: --------------------------- BEGIN PROPOSED SPARTACUS ENTRY ON THE JOHN BIRCH SOCIETY ------------------------ In 1965 Harry J. Dean went on The Joe Pyne Show (Los Angeles, KTTV) to make public the reports that he shared with the FBI before and after the JFK assassination about a plot that apparently originated within the Southern California John Birch Society. JBS members Ex-General Edwin Walker, Congressman John Rousselot, war-hero Gabby Gabaldon, and militant mercenaries Loran Hall and Larry Howard included Harry Dean in their September 1963 plot to assassinate JFK, and to blame Lee Harvey Oswald for the killing. In that Joe Pyne program, Harry Dean told Marguerite Oswald that he believed her son was innocent of killing JFK. Harry Dean still sticks to that story today, despite continual opposition. In 1975 W.R. Morris took Harry's story and made a fiction of it, pretending Harry was an FBI and a CIA undercover agent, and introducing the figure of Eladio del Valle. This fiction (The Men Behind the Guns, 1975) is still circulated widely as the Harry Dean story, although it remains pure fiction. --------------------------- END PROPOSED SPARTACUS ENTRY ON THE JOHN BIRCH SOCIETY ------------------------ Harry: What do you think? Is this version worded fairly well in your opinion? I note here, Pat, that the reason Harry waited until 1965 (or rather, December, 1964) to go public with this information, is that he still had faith in the Warren Commission -- that they would conclude with the truth about Ex-General Walker and his plotting. When the Warren Report came out in late 1964, and failed in their mission, but instead chose to blame Lee Harvey Oswald, and him alone, for the slaying of JFK, Harry decided he had to tell the world the truth all by himself. That's what Harry's been doing ever since, despite violent opposition of the sort we see on this very thread. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

Pat, I have noted this before, but there is still a problem that exists on the Spartacus pages regarding Harry Dean's name. Since we're discussing W.R. Morris, I decided to raise this issue again. Last year, 2013, John Simkin (I presume) kindly listened to Harry Dean's plea for a correction of the record, and changed the Spartacus pages for the Harry Dean entry. For more than ten years that page repeated the fiction of W.R. Morris, that Harry Dean was a former "FBI undercover agent." Last year that page was kindly corrected. However, the job isn't done. Even today, in 2014, the Spartacus page on the John Birch Society still posts these sentences: ------------------------ BEGIN SPARTACUS ENTRY ON THE JOHN BIRCH SOCIETY ------------- In 1975 Harry J. Dean claimed he had been an undercover agent for the Federal Bureau of Investigation who in 1962 infiltrated the John Birch Society. He later reported that John Rousselot and General Edwin Walker had hired two gunman, Eladio del Valle and Loran Hall, to kill President John F. Kennedy. ------------------------ END SPARTACUS ENTRY ON THE JOHN BIRCH SOCIETY ------------------ That is the fiction by W.R. Morris, and not the account told by Harry Dean. Harry Dean never even heard of Eladio del Valle until W.R. Morris wrote this fiction! Please, Pat, do what you can to help change this Spartacus page. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

(1) You say, Ernie, that nobody cares what W.R. Morris wrote or said, but that's simply incorrect. In fact, W.R. Morris first invented the fiction that Harry Dean claimed to be an FBI agent, and it is this very fiction that is part of the very FBI record that you keep citing -- and promoting as Truth. In fact, if anybody goes to NARA today, and does a search for Harry Dean, what do you know -- the fiction by W.R. Morris is among the records that come up first! So, the fictional account about Harry Dean is still promoted from within NARA -- the US Government -- itself! (2.1) You say, Ernie, that "the only pertintent evidence is contained in FBI files" about Harry. Yet those same FBI files have already shown this bias that conforms to the fiction of W.R. Morris. It would seem that not only NARA, but the FBI itself has been thoroughly misled by W.R. Morris. In the absence of further information, this is the only explanation that matches all available data. And if that turns out to be the case (which still remains to be seen) then your faith in the FBI, Ernie, on the topic of Harry Dean, is really a dependence upon W.R. Morris -- and in that case you are really believing in W.R. Morris and all his fiction without even realizing it. Yet you say that "nobody cares what W.R. Morris wrote or said." In fact, because neither you nor the FBI has -- after hundreds of documents, shown conclusively that Harry Dean claimed to be an FBI agent -- in his own writing -- then I can justly argue that everybody cares what W.R. Morris wrote or said, because W.R. Morris apparently has the last word on Harry Dean to this very day. (2.2) You say, Ernie, that Harry's answers to your questions about the FPCC, JBS, MM, and so on would be pertinent -- and surely they would be -- but somehow this doesn't inspire you to ask him kindly and courteously Instead, your tone has been accusatory -- and everybody who has been reading your posts for the past several months here has seen few exceptions to this. The plain fact is that Harry Dean doesn't like your tone. No reasonable person wants to be grilled and accused. So, that's why Harry doesn't rush to answer your questions. Surely you must see that. (3) You say, Ernie, that the FBI did not "warn" Harry to not appear on the Joe Pyne Show. Yet you have no evidence to support your claim. None at all. Harry Dean was there. Harry Dean says that the FBI did warn him. But although you have no evidence, you still insist that the FBI didn't warn him. That is tantamount to calling Harry Dean a xxxx, Ernie, and you know it. Sincerely, --Paul Trejo

Thank you, Pat, for moderating. ANYWAY -- as I was saying...we were speaking of Ex-General Edwin Walker, whom Harry Dean recalls as the lead person in the Southern California JBS to reveal a September 1963 plot to kill JFK and to frame Lee Harvey Oswald at the same time. This is unique in JFK assassination research. Of course it needs to be proved -- yet before it can be proved, it must first be allowed to be heard. Starting with a 1965 objection by the FBI spoken to Harry Dean, warning him not to appear on the Joe Pyne Show in January of that year (49 years ago), Harry Dean has met opposition ever since. Part of that opposition came in the form of books and boolkets by the fiction writer, W.R. Morris, who embellished Harry Dean's story in a shameless manner, making Harry an FBI agent and a CIA agent at the same time -- and claiming that he had the right to speak for Harry. Harry broke off relations with W.R. Morris with a few months of meeting him, but W.R. Morris was relentless -- and he even hired an actor once, to pretend to be Harry Dean, to go out on a road tour with him and spread his fiction coast to coast. When newspapers and radios across America heard the story of Harry Dean, it was usually corrupted by the menace of W.R. Morris. Was Morris working for the FBI in this? Only time will tell. In any case, the light was unfairly turned away from Ex-General Walker and these JBS members whom Harry identified, and placed back onto Harry Dean. But my research into Walker's personal papers has shown that researchers have barely scratched the surface with regard to Ex-General Edwin Walker. Harry Dean's story is the key to unlock this riddle. Harry is the last living witness of these events -- to the very best of my knowledge. Those who try to waste Harry Dean's time and obscure his message on this thread are only carrying forward the same suppression that Harry Dean felt in 1965 -- forty-nine years ago. Best regards, --Paul Trejo