Paul Trejo

Ernie, as I mentioned before, your faith in the truthfulness of the FBI is touching. Let's see if they can really live up to your hero-worship. I'm going to post my comparison of Harry Dean's letter (which he published in 1990 in his self-published book, Crosstrails, with the FBI memo that you shared with us this week. Regards, --Paul Trejo

Well, you're right, Ernie, you are nitpicking. The discrepancies that I seek will not be these minor spelling or grammatical errors, but MAJOR differences. All other questions must take second place to this vital question -- how close was Harry Dean's original text to J. Edgar Hoover 50 years ago compared with this offering by the FBI? It is an urgent question, because if there are MAJOR differences, then the FBI stands accused of FORGERY. This would be a material crime performed in the interest of National Security, no doubt, but a crime nonetheless. I'm not saying it's a forgery yet. I'm only now beginning my analysis. Regards, --Paul Trejo

Fair enough, Harry. Unless somebody beats me to the punch, after work today I'll make a detailed comparison of the FBI version of your letter to J. Edgar Hoover, with the letter to Hoover that you yourself published in 1990 on page 31 chapter 2 of your MS/Book, CROSSTRAILS. This promises to be interesting. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

All right, Harry, thanks for providing the facts. Naturally, our next question will be about the content. WHICH PARTS did you actually write, and WHICH PARTS did the FBI write in your name. Will you please identify those for the Forum here? Best regards, --Paul Trejo

Ernie, this one is easy to answer. Adam Fairclough was really a sneaky type of writer. Although he would "excuse" Martin Luther King of Communism with one hand, he would take it back with the other. I'm suprised you missed that nuance (or you deliberately ignored it). Here's my clear evidence -- the very last sentence in that same article about MLK written by Adam Fairclough is the following: King nevertheless showed every intention of going ahead. In the midst of the preparations for the campaign he went to Memphis to support striking sanitation workers in their fight for union recognition. 'In a sense', he told a reporter shortly before his assassination there, 'you could say we are engaged in the class struggle, yes'." Anybody who knows the history of Marxism knows that Fairclough is accusing Martin Luther King of Marxism -- the purest form of Communism. So it is Adam Fairclough's writing style of "smiling in your face with a knife for your back" that influences my final opinion about his screed. For purposes of this thread, I also found this sort of covert hostility to be a key feature of John Birch Society literature generally -- they knew how to appear as good guys to the American people, while in secret rooms they plotted evil against the US government. Harry Dean is a living witness of the excesses and covert hostility of the JBS and their culture. Regards, --Paul Trejo

Ernie, whatever our differences, I sincerely appreciate that you can supply these FBI documents to our Forum thread. All the same, you're posted many accusations all at once, and I don't have time to respond to all of them in one night -- however, I'm happy to take them one at a time. So, thanks for supplying the full letter which the FBI claims was written by Harry Dean (who is currently reading this thread) to J. Edgar Hoover on 19 November 1963. This letter was written 3 days before the JFK assassination. The context, according to Harry Dean, is that he informed the FBI in September 1963 that WW2 war-hero General Edwin Walker, Congressman John Rousselot, WW2 war-hero Guy Gabaldon, also two honorably discharged US military men, Loran Hall and Larry Howard (all closely associated with the Southern California John Birch Society and Minutemen) were involved in a JFK conspiracy involving Lee Harvey Oswald. Furthermore, from 1959-1961 Harry Dean was a Secretary of the Communist organization named, Fair Play for Cuba Committee (just as Lee Harvey Oswald was involved with this group) and Harry claimed that he gave a lot of information to the Chicago FBI about the Communists in Chicago as well. You provided the letter in a PDF file, Ernie; however that copy is smudgy in parts and is difficult to read. So, I took the time to type out the entire letter for the Forum, because I think this thread has real energy. (I typed it in all capital letters because that is how this PDF file presented the letter.) Harry Dean suspected (based on the bits and pieces of this letter which the FBI reported in a separate memo) that the FBI may have 'doctored' this memo. So it truly helps the thread along when we can all see the full memo that the FBI claims Harry Dean actually wrote. We're fortunate to have Harry Dean with us on the Forum, so we can ask him directly. So I hereby ask Harry Dean to please read this letter and kindly tell us if this is word-for-word what he actually wrote to J. Edgar Hoover on 19 November 1963. I note that the FBI version of this letter that Ernie Lazar shared with this thread is ENTIRELY IN CAPITAL LETTERS. Did Harry Dean type the letter all in capital letters? Did the FBI re-type this letter entirely in capital letters, using Harry's handwriting? If so, did the FBI make any mistakes in the re-typing? Did the FBI omit anything; add anything or invent anything? Harry Dean is the only person who can answer these questions for us today. ------------------- Start of Letter from the FBI allegedly written by Harry Dean to J. Edgar Hoover --------------------- FBI DIRECTOR 18109 ATINA DR J.E HOOVER LA PUENTE, CALIF WASHINGTON DC NOV. 19 1962 213-964-5111 DEAR SIR, FROM APPROXIMATELY, JULY 22 1960 TO JULY 14, 1961 I WAS A MEMBER OF THE FAIR PLAY FOR CUBA COMMITTEE, AND ALSO AN OFFICER OF SAME. DURING THIS TIME I GAVE A GREAT DEAL OF INFORMATION TO FBI AGENTS IN CHICAGO, ILLINOIS. WHEN I FIRST CONTACTED YOUR PEOPLE VIA PHONT THEY STATED THEY WERE UNAWARE THAT THIS FRONT HAD STARTED IN CHICAGO, AND ASKED THAT I CONTINUE IN THIS POSITION, AND ADVISED ME IN MANY NECESSARY DETAILS AND CAUTIONS. FOR SEVERAL MONTHS I USED ONLY THE TELEPHONE METHOD IN ALL MY DEALINGS WITH AGENTS. ONLY NEAR THE END OF MY ACTIVITIES (not anticipated) DID I MEET WITH THEM, AND AT THEIR KIND INSISTANCE PRIOR TO THIS IT WAS MY OWN RISK TO RELY ONLY ON THE PHONE METHOD OF CONTACT. AS YOU KNOW, WE ARE UNDER SUSPICION IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES BY THE FRONT PEOPLE. I LATER GAVE THE AGENTS MY HOME PHONE NUMBER. THEY CALLED ME ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS FOR INFORMATION AND TO ADVISE ME IN DETAILS IN THIS AREA. ONE ONE OCCASION AN AGENT STATED, "THIS IS THE BEST ONE MAN UNDERCOVER OPERATION WE HAVE SEEN." THIS PAID MY EFFORTS MORE THAN ONE COULD SAY. FOR OUR COUNTRY, I WOULD DO ANY JOB, ANYTIME, AGAINST ALL OUR ENEMIES FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC. I HAVE MADE MANY ERRORS IN MY TIME, AS A YOUNGER AND UNMARRIED MAN, AND UNTIL THE FIRST MEETING MY INSIDE INFORMATION SUFFICED, BUT AT THIS TIME THEY BEGAN INVESTIGATING ME. A SHORT TIME LATER, JUST PRIOR TO HEARINGS HELD ON THIS FRONT BY THE SENATE SUBCOMMITTEE IN JULY 1961, I WAS TOLD TO QUIT GIVING INFORMATION TO THE FBI, BY TWO AGENTS WHOM I MET ON CHICAGO'S NORTH SIDE, IN A STREET CORNER MEETING, PREARRANGED OF COURSE. THEY MADE IT CLEAR THAT I WAS FINISHED BY REASONS OF THEIR FINDINGS CONCERNING MY PAST, MOST OF WHICH I WOULD HAVE GLADLY RELATED TO THEM THE YEAR BEFORE WHEN I FIRST POINTED THE FINGER AT PROVEN, ACTIVE, COMMUNISTS IN, AND WORKING AGAINST OUR COUNTRY. THE VERY FACT OF THE MISTAKES I HAD MADE IN MY YOUNGER DAYS MADE IT POSSIBLE FOR ME TO PUT MYSELF, SO TO SPEAK, UNDER THE THUMB OF THE ENEMY. AS PROOF I TOLD THEM OF MY SHADY CHARACTER, AND ADDED MANY THINGS TO SUPPORT THE STORY. THAT WAS PART OF MY METHOD OF OPERATING. THIS PUT ME UNDER A [THUMB] FROM THEM, AND I PLAYED ALONG. BECAUSE OF THIS, AND THE FACT THAT I WAS CONSIDERED BY THE ENEMY ONE OF THE MOST DEVOTED, SOCIALIST, COMMUNIST STOOGES, THE FRONT MAN AT THIER DISPOSAL, ALSO HELPED. I PLAYED THE PART AS THOUGH I WERE THE BEST OF THEM. I KNOW THESE [FBI] AGENTS, ALL WHOM I DEALT WITH, WERE MY KIND OF PEOPLE. THEY WENT BY THE BOOK, THEY WERE PATRIOTS. WHEN THEY GAVE ME THE WORD TO NEVER MENTION ANY OF THESE ACTIVITIES, OR THEIR NAMES, AND THAT I COULD NO LONGER CONTINUE AS AN UNDERCOVER AGENT, I WAS SADDENED TO TEARS. THE FACT THEY WERE SORRY ABOUT THE WHOLE THING TURNING OUT AS IT DID MADE ME REALIZE, THEY ARE NOT ONLY HUMAN BUT ALSO DEDICATED TO THE SAME PRINCIPLES AS ARE WE. THE THING I WOULD LIKE TO BRING TO YOUR ATTENTION WITH THE HOPE OF BEING CLEARED IS THAT MY NAME APPEARS IN SENATE SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT NO. 96465 PART NO. 2 PAGES 84 & 85 AS AN OFFICER OF THE RED FRONT (FAIR PLAY FOR CUBA COMMITTEE). MANY PEOPLE THAT I ASSOCIATE WITH ARE AWARE OF THIS FACT. BUT EVEN THIS IS NOT AS URGENT AS THE FACT THAT ONE DAY I WILL, I AM SURE, LIVE TO REGRET UNLESS YOU CAN CLEAR ME BY SOME METHOD: HAD I BEEN CALLED TO TESTIFY IN 1961 I COULD HAVE BLOWN THE CASE FOR THE ENEMY, WHOM I HAD WORKED AGAINST FOR SO LONG. I DO NOT QUESTION WHY. THE REASONS ARE OBVIOUS, BUT I BELIEVE THAT ALL AMERICANS WERE CALLED TO WORK AGAINST SUCH AN AGENT THAT IS AN ENEMY OF US ALL. I CONTINUE THE FIGHT, DAY AND NIGHT, ALONG WITH OTHERS WHO ARE INFORMED OF THIS DEVILISH INTERNATIONAL CONSPIRACY, WITH WHICH I AM SO WELL AWARE: OUR GREAT WORK IN THIS BATTLE, INSPIRES MANY OF US. IT IS MY PRAYER THAT YOU WILL SEE TO THIS URGENT MATTER, AND WITH MY THANKS. VERY TRULY YOURS FOR A STRONG AMERICA HARRY DEAN ------------------- End of Letter from the FBI allegedly written by Harrdy Dean to J. Edgar Hoover -------------------- What do you say, Harry? Is this the actual letter that you wrote to J. Edgar Hoover fifty years ago? This is the key issue today -- whether the FBI got this right or got it wrong. We can deal with all the other issues only after we conclude on this current issue. Thanks, Harry. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

Ernie, I'm not sure why you keep asking me to ask Harry Dean for this, that or the other -- he's right here on this thread, so you can ask him yourself. Though, since you're clearly in 'attack mode,' you shouldn't be too surprised if he doesn't leap towards your less-than-friendly requests. Further, your continual defense of the FBI is heart-warming though naïve. You seem to imagine that the FBI has made no misdeeds in all its history. (Well, you probably also believe the biased nonsense published by Adam Fairclough claiming that MLK was a Communist.) In my opinion, the FBI sinned against the American people by hammering so hard on MLK during the Civil Rights movement, and failing to provide protection for him at the crucial hour -- probably MLK's room and phone were bugged on the night of his assassination. J. Edgar Hoover was far from perfect. I'm one of the few around here who strive to give J. Edgar Hoover the benefit of the doubt regarding his ungodly fumble of Lee Harvey Oswald, i.e. I say Hoover's cover-up of the JFK assassination was made in the interest of National Security, and I stand by that until further information comes in. Yet I don't give the FBI a free pass. They aren't perfect, and I suspect them of smearing Harry Dean just as they smeared Silvia Odio. These folks disagreed with J. Edgar Hoover's flimsy claims about Lee Harvey Oswald, and for their troubles they were blackballed by the FBI. That's how it appears to me, and to any impartial reader, IMHO. I'm not persuaded by your one-sided arguments and repetition, Ernie -- not because I'm biased, but because your arguments are biased. I'm open to actual facts, not to mere assertions by the high-falutin FBI. You seem to defend the FBI like a paid attorney, and yet they made too many mistakes in history, IMHO, to merit that sort of blind faith. To make a rigorous case for my position, of course, I would need several person-years of work, and I'm only one guy. You yourself accumulated your detail after several years of effort. I'm only getting started. Yet quantity of data alone cannot make a case, Ernie. You still don't have the right data to form your conclusions. As for your questions, I'll number them below: (1) WHY IS IT that only a handful of actual FBI informants ever had any problem AFTER they terminated their relationship with the Bureau? (A1) Simple -- because this handful was dealing with the JFK assassination, in which J. Edgar Hoover was personally invested. Silvia Odio is among this handful, and she suffered smears from the FBI for her entire life. Yet she also told the TRUTH. (2) Why is it that so FEW of them used the term “undercover agent” or similar terms? Why is it that ONLY people like Harry Dean – who CLAIM to have been an FBI informant or confidential information source have had controversies develop concerning their relationship with the FBI? (A2) Your harping on the semantics of "undercover agent" repeats the FBI harping, Ernie. We have plenty of documents from the FBI about Harry Dean to show that the FBI actually did receive information from him. Yet you focus on their smear campaign, and you don't stop hammering long enough to look around. (3) Didn't Harry Dean acknowledge IN WRITING in BOTH his November 19, 1963 letter to J. Edgar Hoover and (previously) in his June 28, 1961 letter to JFK, that the FBI in Chicago told him that his assistance was not required? (A3) No, Ernie, and you're not paying attention because of your bias. Harry Dean himself said on this very thread only days ago that the memo that you produced (evidently from the Mary Ferrell site) is not the same memo that he sent to J. Edgar Hoover on 11/19/63. As for the FBI redaction of that memo, the internal logic is clearly nil -- the contradictions there don't belong to Harry but to an angry FBI. Your own chronology is merely a repeat of the FBI nonsense, yet your faith in the FBI is touching. Further, you try to make links between clauses in the FBI redaction with Harry's memo to JFK which are not warranted -- they amount to your own INVENTION. As for your harping on the bizarre claim that Harry Dean perhaps might have received psychotherapy when he was a young man in Canada -- in this context that is clearly a political maneuver and has no relevance in the slightest to the JFK assassination. In my humble opinion, it is ludicrous that a man who was "certified insane" and "committed" in 1948 in Canada would in 1949 be walking around, working, paying bills, planning to get married, have children and build a family life in Chicago. The FBI can be so cruel. The FBI is clearly lying or REACHING (stretching the facts) -- and I don't need to ask Harry Dean about it. Anyway, it is an unfriendly question with no relevance to any important theme. In any case, Harry Dean is reading all these posts, and he is eminently capable of speaking for himself if he so chooses. (Yet the unfriendly and Stormtrooper aspect of this sort of interrogation is not inviting, as I've already noted.) (4) Isn't it customary for people like yourself who are quick to became apologists for one particular set of conclusions, to see only TWO possible choices -- truth or lies? Isn't it possible that Harry Dean is neither lying or telling the truth, but living in a fantasy world? (A4) While in principle I admit that there are never only TWO choices -- truth or lies -- in the case of Harry Dean I see no evidence -- on objective grounds -- of any fantasy life in the witness Harry has shared with the world since 1965. Errors are one thing, but a fantasy world has clear distinguishing markers. It would be obvious even to the casual observer if Harry Dean was living in a fantasy world. Clearly Harry operates on an information level lower than a professional FBI agent, but it is simply unkind to accuse him of a fantasy world. Yet that is clearly what the FBI is doing with their smear campaign. FBI memos must now be used to confirm their smear campaign or refute it. This will take some time, and we are far, far from having enough evidence today to draw a conclusion. It makes more sense to me that the FBI lied about Harry Dean in the past, and continues to lie about Harry Dean in the present, simply because his case is tied up with the JFK assassination, which remains an EXCEPTION to all the rules of all previous FBI procedure. We don't need to be experts in FBI procedure to know that. Regards, --Paul Trejo

No, I think Ernie was having PC issues the past few days. His input is valuable here, and I'm fairly sure he knows that. The FBI documents that he's produced regarding Harry Dean last week are a sea change on this thread -- if only we'd had these documents in past years. Yes, they're controversial, but that's why we're all here -- to hash things out. All best, --Paul Trejo

Ernie, according to my notes, Dallas DA Henry Wade claimed in January, 1964, that Lee Harvey Oswald had FBI informant number S179. Wade also claimed that Oswald was being paid $200 monthly for providing information to the FBI. The sources I've read suggest that Henry Wade's sources were undisclosed. However, Wade was accompanied by Texas Attorney General Waggoner Carr, and together they brought this to the attention of the Warren Commission in early January, 1964, just as the Warren Commission was setting up its coffee machines, so to speak. It then became necessary for J. Edgar Hoover to send a sworn affidavit to the Warren Commission flatly denying the truth of these allegations, and affirming that the FBI had no such interaction with Lee Harvey Oswald whatsoever. This affidavit is now a part of the Warren Commission volumes. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

Your post didn't offend me, Paul B., although I did worry a bit about Harry Dean. It's his past, after all. I also find that you're here in good faith -- and these questions are not easy, and are particularly frustrating since many of these questions are fifty years old -- a very long time for a question. Yet my point is that Harry Dean is not to blame for the distortions made in his name, either by W.R. Morris or by J. Edgar Hoover and his posse. When I met Harry Dean last year, I met a mild-mannered, good-humored working gentleman with proper manners, good grammar and a way with words. Harry is lucid, sharp as a tack, and is still eager to tell his account about what he saw in the final half of 1963. It is Harry's misfortune that his truth was 180 degrees opposed to that of J. Edgar Hoover. I'm reminded here of Silvia Odio, whose account I also believe. She was simply declared to be a mental case by the FBI, and that was the end of her testimony to the Warren Commission. Yet Silvia Odio's story not only involves Lee Harvey Oswald, it also involves Loran Hall, Larry Howard, and even General Edwin Walker along with Cuban Exile anti-Castro attack groups of which she was a member. There are a number of parallels between Silvia Odio and Harry Dean -- and they interacted at approximately the same level with the principals, as I see it. Keep asking your questions, Paul B., perhaps with a little more patience, and Harry Dean will very likely tell you everything he knows. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

Terry, thanks for the confirmation. The logical contradiction of these many FBI memos on Harry Dean is self-evident to me as well. I regard this thread as one of the most useful in JFK research today, because it directly points to the ground-crew of a JFK assassination conspiracy, beginning with a hero of WW2 and the Korean War, the only US General to resign in the 20th century, and a gadfly to JFK starting in 1961, explosive in late 1962 and vengeful throughout 1963, General Edwin A. Walker. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

Paul B., I'm grateful that Harry Dean does respond to our many questions as he's able -- yet let's please distance ourselves from an attitude of interrogation. If (and only if) Harry Dean withheld personal points about his past -- this shouldn't be construed as "lying" about his past. If certain private facts are not relevant to the JFK assassination, why should anyone bring them up? I believe there are more readers out there who are willing to give Harry Dean the benefit of a doubt, or willing to suspect that the FBI would go to any lengths to protect J. Edgar Hoover's claims about the JFK assassination. Let's let the evidence speak for itself, and also politely ask Harry for his confirmation or denial. Harry is reading all these posts -- he still contributes here -- this is still his thread -- and I'm disappointed if anybody remains insensitive to John Simkin's latest directive that all Forum members refrain from calling any contributor a xxxx, or implying that. Regards, --Paul Trejo

Paul B., I think you may be missing the nuance. Harry Dean is saying that the words he wrote to J. Edgar Hoover on 19 November 1963 do not match the words that we see in the PDF file that Ernie Lazar obtained from the FBI under a FOIA request. Further, I noted that the FBI memo that Ernie shared with us is marked, general edwin a walker and jfk assassination at the top, in all lower-case letters, in a different font -- it was not part of the original letter (obviously, since Harry wrote his letter to Hoover on 19 November 1963, and JFK was not assassinated until three days later). The key issue today is that Harry disputes the FBI rendition of this memo. I wondered about the memo, because the average person does not write in this clerical manner, for example: "...my name appears in the Senate Subcommittee Report No. 96465 Part No. 2 Pages 84 & 85..." Also, I perceive multiple self-incriminating clauses in the FBI version of Harry's letter, and these correspond to the FBI smear campaign that we have seen regarding Harry Dean (as well as Lee Harvey Oswald, both connected to the FPCC). The first self-incriminating clause is this one: "...I used only the telephone method in all my dealings with Agents. Only the near the end of my activities...did I meet with them...At this time they began investigating me..." Please -- that sounds like the standard FBI smear campaign we see later. I might have missed this nuance myself, except for the general edwin a walker and jfk assassination caption at the top of the FBI memo. The second self-incriminating clause is this one: "...I was told to quit giving information to the FBI..." Please -- that also matches the later FBI smear against Harry. I point out that some FBI records about Harry don't repeat this smear -- and that is what gives the lie to the smear campaign. If these smears were really true (as Bill Kelly also suggested) then there should be no other FBI memos that interview Harry for anything else -- but there are. A third self-incriminating clause is this one: "The thing I would like to bring to your attention, with the hope of being cleared, is that, my name appears in the Senate Subcommittee Report...as an officer of the Red Front." In one sense this matches Harry's memo to JFK from 1961 -- when Harry asked JFK for a pardon. Yet in the context of this memo, the FBI seems to be suggesting that Harry is pestering the FBI who only want to get rid of him. Yet Harry persists, implies the FBI, because Harry feels guilty about having supported the Communists in his originally humanitarian concern about Cuba and their plight with the Mafia. There is some truth in this clause, yet in the context of the smears above, it takes on a purely negative tone and implicitly accuses Harry of being nothing more than a gadfly for the FBI. As Bill Kelly suggests -- if Harry Dean was really a waste of time for the FBI, then we should find nothing else in the FBI files about him. Yet we find much more. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

Harry, I need some clarification about this response. My question begins by comparing the letter that Bill Kelly typed in for us, and the letter that Ernie Lazar shared with the Forum in a PDF link (in message #270 above). Ernie presented the link as an "FBI memo which incluides a portion of Harry's 11-19-63 letter to Hoover (without redactions)". Here is the comparison: ------------------ Begin letter that Bill Kelley typed in for us ---------------------- 18109 Atina Dr. La Puente Calif. Nov. 19, 1963 Director J. E. Hoover F.B.I. Washington D.C. Dear Sir, [REDACTED] 1960 [REDACTED] the Fair Play for Cuba Committee [REDACTED] information [REDACTED] local Chicago office of the Bureau. My present assignments [REDACTED] Los Angeles office [REDACTED] has this information. [REDACTED] undercover [REDACTED] in Chicago [REDACTED] done in June 1961 because Eastland’s Committee was issuing subpoenas to hold hearing on the Fair Play for Cuba Committee and the 26th of July Movement ([REDACTED] moved [REDACTED] Los Angeles [REDACTED] at this time [REDACTED] I associate with places my position here in urgent danger as the Eastland reports [REDACTED] released [REDACTED] making the rounds of anti-Communist [REDACTED] groups limiting my effectiveness. [REDACTED] name appears in that Senate Sub-Committee’s report no.96465 part 2 pages 84 and 85 as one of the Fair Play for Cuba [REDACTED] is being overlooked at this level [REDACTED] contacting you directly [REDACTED] of straightening out this problem, or one day I will, I am sure live to regret this fact. [REDACTED] that you will see to this urgent matter, [REDACTED] J.R. [REDACTED] Harry J. Dean -------------- Begin FBI memo copy supplied by Ernie Lazar ------------- Harry Dean 18109 Atina Dr. La Puente Calif. Nov. 19, 1963 Director J.E. Hoover FBI Washington, DC Dear Sir, From approximately July 22, 1960 to July 14, 1961, I was a member of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee, and also an officer of same. During this time I gave a great deal of information to FBI Agents in Chicago Illinois...I used only the telephone method in all my dealings with Agents, only the near the end of my activities...did I meet with them... At this time they began investigating me...Prior to hearings held on this front by the Senate Subcommittee in July, 1961, I was told to quit giving information to the FBI...The thing I would like to bring to your attention, with the hope of being cleared, is that, my name appears in the Senate Subcommittee Report No. 96465 Part No. 2 Pages 84 & 85 as an officer of the Red Front (Fair Play for Cuba Committee)...For our country, I would do any job, any kind, against all her enemies, foreign and domestic... Harry Dean --------------- END OF FBI Copy ------------- Now, there are points of identity, points of similarity, and points of difference between these two examples. The date is the same, the addresses are the same, the sending party and the receiving party are the same. Many of the first few words are the same -- however, after the first two lines, there is a diversion that never returns to a similarity. Are we to ask whether the FBI 'doctored' this letter that you sent to J. Edgar Hoover? I ask because the caption at the top of the letter that Ernie Lazar shared reads, "general edwin a walker and jfk assassination". Best regards, --Paul Trejo

Ernie, let's take a closer look at this so-called "rap sheet" that you provided. The first FBI memo you supplied has a date of 6 March 1964 -- three months later than the FBI memo I provided, which contradicts this FBI memo. (When the FBI contradicts itself, the reader should really be on the alert.) This FBI memo continues: Indiana PD Captain, Ed Grabovac, believed that Harry Dean's real name was "Gordon Hunt," and he said that "Gordon Hunt" left town with a warrant against him for bad checks. Yet he didn't prove that Harry Dean was Gordon Hunt, so it seems this FBI writer was REACHING. Ed Grabovac also alleged that Harry Dean had an FBI ID number of #4657880, and "had previously been committed as a mental patient in 1948 in Canada." He offers no details -- so far it's hear-say. Ed Grabovac also alleged that Harry Dean in 1948 was sentenced to a year in prison for "breaking and entering" in Ontario. In the same year? Somebody is REACHING. Evidently in the same year Harry Dean allegedly disturbed a religous meeting, and used indecent language, and was arrested for this by the Detroit Police Department. We presume he was charged, and we are not told if he was convicted, yet the FBI agent seems to compile a l-o-ong list and is REACHING to insinuate guilt. Yet the outcome of any trial is crucial, lest we presume guilt unfairly. The FBI agent goes on to repeat his charge that Harry Dean called the Chicago FBI with information, and at first "refused" to divulge his address, but later divulged it. This minor fact occupied this FBI writer, because he stated this fact TWICE -- a possible sign of REACHING. The FBI agent then repeats the story that the Chicago FBI told Harry Dean on 7 June 1961 that "his assistance was not desired." This was two weeks before Harry Dean's letter to JFK. The third page of that report reveals an alleged "rap sheet". Let's take a closer look, because Harry Jay Dean is not a unqiue name, and we want to be sure that the FBI is keeping perfect records here. First, we find Harry Dean enlisting in the US Army on 13 December 1945. Next, a person with the same name was arrested in Oklahoma on 8 May 1946 for being AWOL. Was this the same person? The same occurred in Texas on 22 May 1946. Does anybody think that a person who allegedly goes AWOL from the Army during peacetime is a hardened criminal? Let's continue. The next entry does not even have Harry Dean's name, and actually has an Army ENLISTMENT date of 8 March 1948. This is an entirely different person. So much for the perfection of FBI records. Next, back in Canada, Harry J. Dean allegedly was arrested by the Windsor Police for stealing a radio. Yet the disposition was not stated. It could have been a false charge, a trumped-up charge, or a case of mistaken identity -- the FBI refuses to say. Next, Harry J. Dean is said to have been AWOL again on 12 August 1949. Yet according to my notes, Harry was honorably discharged from the Army in 1948. How, then, could he be AWOL in 1949, one wonders. Could this be more 'perfect' record-keeping by the FBI? No wonder the disposition is still "pending" a dozen years later! Next, Harry J. Dean was allegedly arrested by the Detroit police on 30 January 1955 on the charge of "Inv RA," whatever that means. (I looked this up and found nothing at all.) No disposition is offered, either. Sounds to me like somebody is INVENTING charges. Finally, somebody named Harry Dean was arrested for obscene language on 5 December 1956 and sentenced to 90 days in jail. Well, this was 1956, and none of the judges in those days had cable TV. So, the first page of this so-called "Rap Sheet" is full of holes, and far from indicating a hardened criminal, only indicates an ordinary bloke being painted as a scapegoat by a prejudiced FBI agent. Let's look at page two: The key to all these allegations against Harry Dean is they every single one has an ASTERISK before it, and the notation admits that an ASTERISK indicates that the charges are NOT based on fingerprints -- but only "investigative leads as being possibly identical with subject of this record." So this flimsy report is where the horrible charge originates that Harry Dean was a "mental patient," right there in the second line, which reads as follows: "As Harry J. Dean Chatham Ontario Canada Housebreaking by day Sec 458 (a) CC 10/22/48 Certified insane committed to Mental Institution Chg withdrawn PD #2290 2/2/50." That's a strong allegation, but it has two weasel words in it, namely, "Chg withdrawn." It means "charge withdrawn." The charges were dropped. What's that all about? And should anybody claim that Harry Dean was "insane" based on a case in which the charges were DROPPED? Once again, the FBI agent who drew up this memo was REACHING. Thou dost protest too much." The FBI insists so passionately that Harry Dean is unreliable that we should suspect the opposite of what they are saying. Somebody had something to hide about Harry Dean in early 1964, and it wasn't Harry Dean, who was coming forward and telling the FBI and anybody else who would listen about everything he'd witnessed in 1963. What clues do we find in this so-called "rap sheet" to explain why the FBI would continue a smear campaign against Harry Dean for YEARS? I think the clue is obvious -- it is printed at the top of that same "rap-sheet" page. It reads, "General Edwin A. Walker and JFK Assassination." WHAT?!? We'd better read that caption again. Now let's keep reading this same page. The final paragraph clearly shows the FBI recording information from Harry Dean. They are not telling him to get lost. They are not telling him that "his assistance is not desired." Instead, the FBI records Harry's eye-witness account about Cuba, the 26th of July Movement, the Chicago FPCC, Joachin Freire, and various literature and photographs on this topic. That paragraph harmonizes very well with the FBI memo that I supplied just a couple days ago. Moving forward to the 7 January 1965 FBI memo by the SAC in Los Angeles, we immediately see an FBI agent who has been embarrased by Harry Dean who plans to appear on the Joe Pyne Show. This sad SAC must admit to J. Edgar Hoover himself that he lost control of Harry Dean, and he promises (naively) that "KTTV was contacted about DEAN on 12/31/64, and his 1/9/65 appearance has been cancelled." Actually, Harry's KTTV appearance went very smoothly. So, we see a pitiful side of the FBI -- the bowing and scraping that the average SAC performed before the throne of the almighty J. Edgar Hoover. As supporting documentation, this FBI agent encloses a memo citing a letter from Bob Hayward of KTTV saying that he would not use Harry Dean on his show if the FBI can prove that Harry was a "fraud" or "if his appearance is not desired by the Bureau." That turned out to be a joke, of course, because KTTV did show Harry Dean on its program, despite the fact that the FBI put up quite a fuss. The FBI also tried to prove that Harry Dean was a "fraud" way back in December, 1964 (and remember the Warren Report was only eight weeks old at that time). The key here is the argument that they used: namely, that Harry Dean used the term, "undercover agent" in his description of the functions he believed he performed. These words suggest too many things to too many people, so the FBI hammered on these two words (and this practice continues even today). Yet despite all the bluster and objections of the FBI, we should recognize that cooler minds prevailed. Regards, --Paul Trejo

Ernie, yes, we clearly need to continue arguing about this, because your prejudice against Harry Dean only increases with each post. On the positive side, I'm delighted that you found the elusive "Letter to JFK" that Harry Dean wrote in June, 1961. It confirms major parts of Harry Dean's story, and is valuable in the extreme. It also shows Harry Dean's high moral character and his respect for the US government. It also shows that Harry Dean felt betrayed when he realized that the Cuban Revolution was not a popular uprising as he thought, but a Communist tyranny -- and he felt terrible for his part in its success. No doubt this was why Harry asked JFK for a pardon. Regarding Harry's admitted "past difficulty with the law," that is unclear to me, unless it refers to the Cuban episode itself (or perhaps to Harry's juvenile record in Canada). In any case, it was nothing that the FBI or the Chicago police wished to deal with, as Harry was free to travel at will. In my opinion, this letter to JFK is a confirmation that Harry Dean's story is honest and true, and I wish everybody would read Harry's new eBook before the 22 November 2013 anniverary of JFK's assassination. Harry's eBook (of which I'm the co-author) is available at Smashwords at this URL: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/367550 Regards, --Paul Trejo

bump

Don't bother -- because you can surmise from the other documents which I posted recently (including a 1961 letter from Harry to JFK), what his 1963 letter was about You're contradicting yourself, Ernie. First you say you want Harry to produce an affidavit for FOIA request about his FBI records, and now you say you don't want to hear Harry's own words about his own memo which was HEAVILY REDACTED by the FBI? Also, you want to draw conclusions based on a few FBI memos that smear Harry Dean? You're insincerity at finding the truth is obvious in this one-day switch. Harry is here on this list. This is his thread. I, for one, would love to hear Harry Dean's response to Paul B.'s request to Harry to fill in the REDACTED blanks. That would be far more valuable than asking the FBI for further smears. Regards, --Paul Trejo

Because, Ernie, you're clearly prejudiced and relentless. Harry Dean is not a high-school graduate, and yet you continue to hold his feet to the fire regarding official language. It is easy for a layman to misunderstand the official implications of the reserved term, "undercover agent," because by the strict English definition, it has many meanings. Harry may not be educated, but English is his mother-tongue, and his testimony is useful. Yet you continue to harp on the point. The fact that the FBI also harped on this point -- including J. Edgar Hoover himself, causes me to think, "thou dost protest too much!" It is easier for me to believe that J. Edgar Hoover had something to hide (especially after locking up FBI files about Lee Harvey Oswald for 75 years) than that Harry Dean was trying to pull a fast one. The mammoth effort to smear Harry Dean which started 50 years ago is still running strong! Regards, --Paul Trejo

Ernie, these papers from the FBI are very valuable information about Harry Dean's case and the lengths that even J. Edgar Hoover was willing to reach to obscure our perception about Harry Dean. Thanks for sharing this information with the public. The letter by DeLoach begins as a straightforward report of factual information that accurately portrays Harry Dean's position. About half-way through the DeLoach memo, he reports denials by the Chicago FBI that Harry Dean was a source of information about the FPCC -- and they attempted to smear Harry Dean by claiming that "he was a former mental patient and had a criminal record." Knowing Harry Dean personally I can only laugh at such nonsense. It is my understanding that the FBI in Chicago initiated this smear campaign against Harry Dean to protect sensitive data they held, and to distract the information seeker (Bill Capps) away from Harry Dean. According to this hear-say memo, the Chicago FBI simply told Harry Dean that they "did not desire his assistance." In other words, 'get lost.' That's a horrible practice, yet I suspect that the FBI was not above that sort of smear. As for the report about the Los Angeles FBI contacting Dean and warning him "not to claim any past relationship with this Bureau," it flatly contradicts the Memo from the Los Angeles FBI that I provided above. I didn't make up that memo, I have it in my hands -- it's from the FBI. As for the FBI correcting Harry's usage of the term, "undercover agent," that sounds plausible, because to a professional FBI agent it would have an official meaning, while to a layperson it could easily mean something less official. Regarding the part in that memo about KTTV, that probably refers to Harry's appearance on The Joe Pyne Show, which the FBI directly warned Harry Dean to drop. Regarding the 1966 memo by J. Edgar Hoover himself, Ernie, I offer my kudos for digging that up. Yet let us make very clear that J. Edgar Hoover made similar blunt denials to the Warren Commission that Lee Harvey Oswald was ever an informant for the FBI (even though Dallas DA Henry Wade produced his FBI number in early 1964). Hoover promptly made all of Lee Harvey Oswald's FBI files into classified Top Security status, as they remain today. So, Hoover was not above lying himself -- that should be clear. As for the third FBI memo you found, Ernie, it is merely an emotional reponse to the sensationalized fiction of W.R. Morris, and the pulp fiction treatment that Morris gave to Harry Dean's story. As for the second page you refer to, it is merely a direct copy of the smear campaign from the first memo that you provided in this series. I should point out that it was commonplace in the early 1960's to try to dismiss political opponents as "mental patients," and even JFK and RFK attempted to do this with the resigned General Edwin Walker. That strategy backfired on them, simply because it was a cheap shot. Regards, --Paul Trejo

Ernie, we just saw the post by Paul B., asking Harry Dean to fill in the blanks for us. That is far more interesting and useful to the discussion at hand. I'm very interested in Harry Dean's answer to Paul B. Regards, --Paul Trejo

All right, Ernie, yet let's clarify some points. Your harsh words against Harry Dean in the past months have amounted to generalizations -- so I'll raise the bar if you raise the bar. Let's be clear that Harry Dean never claimed that he spied on the JBS on behalf of the FBI. He never made that claim, and yet you spent a lot of time blaming Harry for making that claim. You might want to publicly acknowledge that you misunderstood some things about Harry Dean, and that you might have been barking up the wrong tree. Harry Dean told me -- and told John Simkin -- that he reported to the FBI regarding specific INDIVIDUALS and it just so happened that these INDIVIDUALS were members in the same John Birch Society gatherings as Harry Dean was at the time. Immediately after the JFK assassination, Harry Dean put the pieces of his eye-witness experience together and drew a conclusion that these INDIVIDUALS in the John Birch Society had been aware of the activities of Lee Harvey Oswald for most of the year of 1963, and had been tracking Oswald in minute steps. The context of the John Birch Society was its extreme opinion that sitting US Presidents were Communist traitors. In the outreaches of their society stood INDIVIDUALS who were eager to act on that widespread belief. When the Warren Commission failed to nail these individuals, but placed the entire blame on Lee Harvey Oswald, Harry Dean moved to raise public awareness about this; first on the Joe Pyne Show in 1965, and later with W.R. Morris, and also the Tomorrow Show with Tom Snyder, and more. (Part of Harry's conclusion involved his suspicions about the LDS in this conspiracy, but that is no longer Harry's position, as he told me.) Harry never claimed that the FBI ever investigated the John Birch Society as a group. Harry never claimed that the FBI hired him to spy on the JBS. W.R. Morris tried to turn Harry's story into sensational fiction, and this garbled the field for decades. Yet if we focus on what Harry himself said -- he has never changed his eye-witness account of what he actually saw. Regards, --Paul Trejo

Not quite, Ernie. My position is that the only anecdotes I had in my notes about Harry Dean's reporting to the FBI in Los Angeles were about Wesley Grapp. It is possible that there are other details about Harry's interaction with the FBI that I have not noted. For example, the FBI document that I typed in a couple of days ago is clear FBI corroboration that Harry Dean was in contact with the FBI, and that this was clearly more than a crank telephone call. Regards, --Paul Trejo

Bill, I'm interested in your claim that "the US government records on Harry Dean are extensive." Not only does this seem to marginalize Ernie Lazar's claims about the relative ABSENCE of material on Harry Dean in FBI files, but it also intrigues me as somebody who is interested in known accounts about Loran Hall and Larry Howard. Are there links I can follow to see some of your writing on this topic? Best regards, --Paul Trejo

Ernie, it is significant that very few writers in the JFK assassination research field mention Harry Dean. However, it is equally significant that very few writers in the JFK assassination research field mention General Walker. It is equally significant that no JFK researcher in the past 50 years has solved the riddles of the JFK assassination. It is also significant that the Warren Commission volumes mentioned General Walker more than 500 times, while the HSCA decided to ignore General Walker's testimony. In my humble opinion, after years of reading JFK research books, General Walker has been overlooked in history. If I am correct, this explains very well why Harry Dean has been overlooked in history -- because Harry's eye-witness confessions also place General Walker front and center in the JFK assassination scenario. I suppose that it is difficult -- if not impossible -- for Americans to suspect one of the victorious Generals of WW2 of anything criminal. Only in the immediate wake of the JFK assassination would America tolerate the examination of General Walker. In my humble opinion, General Edwin Walker got away with fomenting a riot at Ole Miss in 1962 in which hundreds were wounded and two were killed. Also, General Walker got away with humiliating Adlai Stevenson in Dallas in October, 1963. Also, General Walker got away with making Lee Harvey Oswald into the patsy of the Dallas plot against JFK in November, 1963. We Americans honor our Generals -- and if he denied any wrong-doing in any of these cases, we are inclined to take him at his word. Harry Dean is, to the best of my knowledge, the only living eye-witness who challenges the testimony of General Walker to the Warren Commission. (By analogy, Episcopalian Bishop Duncan Gray of Mississippi is the only living eye-witness who challenges the testimony of General Walker to the Mississippi Grand Jury.) It is the general consensus of this Forum that *one* of the conspiracy theories being circulated in America about the JFK assassination will be proved to be substantially true, while the others will be prove to be largely false. According to you, Ernie, it should be impossible for any conspiracy theory to be true, because they are all based on closed-minded reasoning. Yet 20 years ago Robert MacNeil said on film: “We’ve seen revealed one conspiracy after another. Anybody would have to be a fool nowadays to dismiss conspiracies. Perhaps we lived in a fool’s paradise before the Kennedy assassination.” Those are stronger words than I would have used, but Karl Popper's criteria are too abstract. What is needed is a logical method that is more concrete and realistic. Best regards, --Paul Trejo