New Book!

[Ernie Lazar]

For those following the release of the documents, a number of us "document geeks" have looked into it at length including extended discussions with the folks at NARA. I'm afraid Ernie is much more accurate in his expectations than Paul is...at this point most truly new information is coming from FOIA activities in areas outside the JFK collection - if anyone thinks the government has secretly held the real truth about the assassination in its collections of documents and will release that in 2017 - well it would be nice but...

Now that the book is moving into Milteer and Sommersett it should be interesting since Stu and I researched both extensively in our work on the King assassination.....going well beyond 1963 and beginning when the FBI was working with Sommersett to sting a rifle deal in Miami for a weapon to be used on King. It was at that time that Sommersett became suspected within the ultra right community - though JB Stoner - as an informant.

For starters I surely hope the book will put to bed the urban legend that the Milteer remarks were not reported to the Secret Service by the FBI; they most certainly were and those documents exist. The problem was that in his ramblings Milteer mentions an attack in DC (he also expresses a willingness to help folks blow up the Supreme Court) the report went to the SS DC protection file...and since the SS seems unable to have comprehended that a theat in one location could actually be relevant to another, the WHD would not have found the Milteer report in a search related to cities in Texas for the Texas trip.

Larry -- can you give us some additional information re: your comment that: "at this point most truly new information is coming from FOIA activities in areas outside the JFK collection" ? What sort of FOIA activities, i.e. what subjects are being pursued?

[Larry Hancock]

Ernie, some of the areas have to do with Cuban exile groups and their activities in Dallas, New Orleans and Miami. Others have to do with individual CIA officers or CIA assets. Some have to do with Cuban exile statements and outreach to the FBI, in several cases they are requests for further related documents that we already know about. Unfortunately in most cases the response is either very slow or negative. Of course this is just in the area of JFK. Some much more productive FOIA work is being done on Cold War history in general, intelligence projects, military projects, military operations, State Department activities. You find a lot of that showing up at either the National Security archive or in various military blogs and articles for the service magazines. I should have been more clear that I don't necessarily expect the JFK related requests to produce all that much at this point in time, its just the most interesting to me. As you can tell from my post, I don't think we are going to see a lot more than we have already, no matter how much we search for it.

What I should have said is that "the most truly new information could come from FOIA activities", but that is on the optimistic side. What is more likely is that the reply will be that the documents we want have been routinely destroyed or in the case of the CIA are still witheld...which is what we most commonly hear.

[Ernie Lazar]

I think I have figured out what Paul's next argument is going to be. Silly of me not to have considered this.

Here is what Paul is going to tell us:

1. Yes, Ernie, the ARRB listed only 4 remaining FBI documents to be released in 2017.

2. And, yes, Ernie, you have correctly identified the subjects discussed in those documents and, yes, they don't have any connection to Harry Dean.

3. However, there are "Top Secret" documents which the FBI never previously told anybody about and that explains why they do not appear on the ARRB list.

4. Therefore, in October 2017, those documents will be released and vindicate Harry's story.

Here are the problems with Paul's argument:

1. First of all, the content of Harry's story does not contain any information or elements which qualify for "Top Secret" status.

Normally, "Top Secret" documents contain information which (if released) would compromise the identity of our intelligence assets in foreign countries OR which would enable our perceived enemies to identify our sources of information. Other categories of "Top Secret" information include things like our war plans, status of our military, cryptographic codes used by civilian and military agencies, our intelligence about foreign governments, etc. Harry's story might seem dramatic but there is nothing about it that is particularly sensitive and as previously noted, FBI documents containing virtually identical stories were released decades ago.

2. The two FBI files already released on Harry (HQ and Los Angeles) contain the contemporaneous search slips which the FBI used internally (in the 1960's) to identify all references in their filing system (HQ and field) that pertained to persons named "Harry Dean". I have now obtained all those references with the exception of FPCC files. Most of the individual serials that were listed on those search slips were not even about our Harry Dean. They pertained to other people by that name. The few serials that did pertain to our Harry Dean were references to what was already contained in his HQ or Los Angeles field files. There were no serials that mention the Birch Society or anything about a "plot".

3. We also know that the HQ and Los Angeles field files on the JBS have already been released (I have them both). There are no references in those files to Harry--other than the one serial which discusses the interview he gave to the Las Virgenes newspaper and the letter which the ASAC of Los Angeles wrote to deny that Harry had any connection to the FBI and to deny that Harry was ever an informant for the FBI in Los Angeles or anyplace else.

4. The 89-number series files (HQ and field) which pertain to threats against JFK have also been released. Nobody has ever found anything in those files re: Harry Dean reporting any sort of "JBS plot".

5. As both Harry and Paul admit, Harry has no documentary evidence of any kind to support his story.

6. It does not make much logical sense to claim that the FBI would withhold (and not even acknowledge the existence of) some "Top Secret" documents from the WC, the HSCA, and from ARRB. It makes even less logical sense to believe that if the FBI was so convinced (in the 1960's) of the extreme sensitivity of those alleged documents, that, somehow, they would have a sudden change of heart and cheerfully release them in 2017.

7. In a free society, very few secrets are kept for very long. The secrets which genuinely pertain to our survival and well-being as a nation (or which would cause extreme embarrassment) are kept for the longest period of time (such as work on the A-bomb or working to discredit or overthrow a foreign leader) but even those types of secrets are eventually revealed by persons who had first-hand knowledge about them. There is absolutely nothing in Harry's story (as told to Paul in his eBook) that remotely qualifies for that type of secrecy. Significantly, nobody within government (or outside it) has ever corroborated Harry's story.

[Ernie Lazar]

Ernie, some of the areas have to do with Cuban exile groups and their activities in Dallas, New Orleans and Miami. Others have to do with individual CIA officers or CIA assets. Some have to do with Cuban exile statements and outreach to the FBI, in several cases they are requests for further related documents that we already know about. Unfortunately in most cases the response is either very slow or negative. Of course this is just in the area of JFK. Some much more productive FOIA work is being done on Cold War history in general, intelligence projects, military projects, military operations, State Department activities. You find a lot of that showing up at either the National Security archive or in various military blogs and articles for the service magazines. I should have been more clear that I don't necessarily expect the JFK related requests to produce all that much at this point in time, its just the most interesting to me. As you can tell from my post, I don't think we are going to see a lot more than we have already, no matter how much we search for it.

What I should have said is that "the most truly new information could come from FOIA activities", but that is on the optimistic side. What is more likely is that the reply will be that the documents we want have been routinely destroyed or in the case of the CIA are still witheld...which is what we most commonly hear.

Ok--thanks Larry.

Because of my own experience with making FOIA requests, I now believe that there should be something like a permanent independent FOIA Review Board to make all decisions regarding what can be released and what can be redacted.

The entire FOIA process should be taken away from government agency bureaucrats because most of them are profoundly hostile toward the intent of FOIA and most of them use every conceivable device to prevent release.

In addition, I wish we had politicians with a spine who would enact a new FOIA law which states that ALL documents (including Congressional documents--not just Executive Branch) over 25 years old should be released in their entirety without redaction (no exceptions of any kind permitted) and any bureaucrat caught playing games (destroying documents, withholding them or redacting them) should go to jail for at least 10 years.

[Paul Trejo]

For those following the release of the documents, a number of us "document geeks" have looked into it at length including extended discussions with the folks at NARA. I'm afraid Ernie is much more accurate in his expectations than Paul is...at this point most truly new information is coming from FOIA activities in areas outside the JFK collection - if anyone thinks the government has secretly held the real truth about the assassination in its collections of documents and will release that in 2017 - well it would be nice but...

Well, Larry, I'm also prepared for that eventuality -- although I do have more faith in the US Government than many here.

If (and only if) the US Government fails to honor the 1992 JFK Records Act to release any and all JFK assassination related materials by Thursday 26 October 2017, then this will be my plan of action:

(1) Step up efforts to investigate General Edwin Walker -- his contacts in Dallas especially.

(2) Prepare for the possible failure of the 1992 JFK Record Act by stepping up efforts to investigate General Edwin Walker starting TODAY.

The good news is, we have Jeff Caufield's new book in hand. It's 900 pages long, and we've barely surpassed page 100 so far. Let's keep digging!

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

[Ernie Lazar]

For those following the release of the documents, a number of us "document geeks" have looked into it at length including extended discussions with the folks at NARA. I'm afraid Ernie is much more accurate in his expectations than Paul is...at this point most truly new information is coming from FOIA activities in areas outside the JFK collection - if anyone thinks the government has secretly held the real truth about the assassination in its collections of documents and will release that in 2017 - well it would be nice but...

Well, Larry, I'm also prepared for that eventuality -- although I do have more faith in the US Government than many here.

If (and only if) the US Government fails to honor the 1992 JFK Records Act to release any and all JFK assassination related materials by Thursday 26 October 2017, then this will be my plan of action:

(1) Step up efforts to investigate General Edwin Walker -- his contacts in Dallas especially.

(2) Prepare for the possible failure of the 1992 JFK Record Act by stepping up efforts to investigate General Edwin Walker starting TODAY.

The good news is, we have Jeff Caufield's new book in hand. It's 900 pages long, and we've barely surpassed page 100 so far. Let's keep digging!

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Well, Paul, you still have not addressed the salient question. So let's cut to the chase:

1. Is it your contention that the FBI deliberately withheld from all interested parties (including ARRB, WC, and HSCA) details concerning FBI files or documents which pertain to the assassination? In other words, the reason why the ARRB listed only 4 remaining FBI documents (to be released in 2017) is because the FBI lied to the ARRB?

2. How will you EVER know whether or not (as you put it) that "any and all JFK assassination related materials" have been released?

In other words, what is YOUR methodology for discovering the total number of such documents so that you can then conclude (at some point) that "all" of them have been released?

Normally, when there is some question or dispute over quantity of records released vs the total number in existence, the dispute focuses upon some specific metric -- i.e. somebody has specific factual knowledge about the total number of documents involved and then compares that number to what has being released.

For example:

(1) Suppose you know that every FBI field office opened a main file on the Birch Society.

(2) Then you can factually state that there should be 56 FBI field office files released AND

(3) If each field office created an index which listed every serial number contained in their main file on the JBS, AND their index specifies the total number of pages which each of those serials contained -- THEN you could calculate the grand total number of files, serials, and pages with respect to FBI field office main files on the JBS.

(4) BUT (and this is a very big "but") -- How would you (or anybody) know about all the subsidiary or supplementary files created that contain references to Birch Society-related topics? For example: how would you know how many FBI field offices created files on persons who had some connection to the JBS, or, created files on some subject matter linked to the JBS (such as their front-groups or their publications)?

(5) Correct me if you think I am wrong -- but EVERYTHING would depend upon the thoroughness and extent to which cross-referencing was done within whatever indexing system was created -- right?

So---for example, you and I and most readers here know that Edwin Walker was a JBS member and we also know about other figures connected to Walker who were JBS members or JBS endorsers (like Dan Smoot and J. Evetts Haley). But what about all the persons whose names you DO NOT know? Or what about all the organizations independently created by JBS members which used the same arguments as the JBS but which were never formally connected to the JBS. (One example: Gerda Koch's Minneapolis organization, Christian Research Inc.)

(6) In conclusion -- to repeat -- how would you EVER know that "all" JFK-related records had been released?

Isn't your argument perpetually open-ended in the sense that no matter what is eventually released, you will ALWAYS have an intellectual escape hatch by claiming that something was NOT released? Or it was destroyed -- and, consequently, you will ALWAYS claim that the "smoking gun" you are looking for was in those files and documents which are no longer available?

Edited October 22, 2015 by Ernie Lazar

[Ernie Lazar]

For those following the release of the documents, a number of us "document geeks" have looked into it at length including extended discussions with the folks at NARA. I'm afraid Ernie is much more accurate in his expectations than Paul is...at this point most truly new information is coming from FOIA activities in areas outside the JFK collection - if anyone thinks the government has secretly held the real truth about the assassination in its collections of documents and will release that in 2017 - well it would be nice but...

Well, Larry, I'm also prepared for that eventuality -- although I do have more faith in the US Government than many here.

If (and only if) the US Government fails to honor the 1992 JFK Records Act to release any and all JFK assassination related materials by Thursday 26 October 2017, then this will be my plan of action:

(1) Step up efforts to investigate General Edwin Walker -- his contacts in Dallas especially.

(2) Prepare for the possible failure of the 1992 JFK Record Act by stepping up efforts to investigate General Edwin Walker starting TODAY.

The good news is, we have Jeff Caufield's new book in hand. It's 900 pages long, and we've barely surpassed page 100 so far. Let's keep digging!

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Actually, Paul, it is indisputable that you have NO "faith in the U.S. government". Go back to our debate in the Harry Dean "Memoirs" thread when we were trying to ascertain the provenance of the short and long versions of Harry's letter to J. Edgar Hoover. Bill Kelly introduced the short version.

YOUR argument at that time (with absolutely NO factual basis) was that the FBI routinely forged documents and attributed them to certain people (like Harry) to discredit those individuals. You then created an elaborate psychiatric hoax to explain why FBI employees would do that. You never even bothered to ask Harry one critical question (and I could not get him to answer this either), i.e. -- did he normally type his correspondence in ALL CAPS?

Instead of asking Harry that obvious question, you just immediately responded as follows to my comments. Keep in mind that, ultimately, we discovered that what YOU described as the "FBI forgery" (aka the long version of Harry's 11/63 letter to Hoover) was ACTUALLY WRITTEN BY HARRY!

"There's no way I have time to put together a comprehensive list (in chronological sequence) of everything which I believe constitutes evidence of how the FBI 'persecuted' Harry Dean. I have an 8-5 job, and I'm plenty busy with it...Also, the FBI's alleged 'rap sheet' about Harry Dean, so full of holes as I pointed out, had no other purpose than to discredit Harry Dean after the JFK assassination. This is clearly another proof of 'persecution.' "

and you also wrote:

"The FBI version of Harry’s 19Nov63 letter to J. Edgar Hoover presumes an advantage and benefit for the FBI by painting Harry Dean as an unreliable witness. This puts Harry Dean at a disadvantage by the method of character assassination."

and you also wrote:

"First, you continue to refer to the FBI version of Harry’s 19Nov63 letter to J. Edgar Hoover as 'Harry's letter', which shows your massive bias. Then, you blind yourself to the digs and jabs at Harry's character there. There are major differences between the letters, and you haven't scratched the surface.Your bias against Harry Dean amounts to a blind spot in your vision, Ernie. Your lack of objectivity is probably obvious to everybody on this thread except yourself."

So, obviously, YOUR "massive bias" and YOUR blindness was responsible for your incorrect analysis -- and it all originated from your "lack of faith" in the FBI's record-keeping system and, for that matter, your total lack of faith in the integrity of FBI employees.

Edited October 22, 2015 by Ernie Lazar

[Paul Trejo]

Getting back to Jeffrey Caufield's new book, General Walker and the Murder of President Kennedy: The Extensive New Evidence of a Radical Right Conspiracy, Chapter 4, Joseph A. Milteer and the Plot to Murder the President, Caufield next examines Joe Milteer's knowledge of the FAKE FPCC that Banister and LHO ran in New Orleans.

Willie Somersett continued to spy on Joseph Milteer after the JFK murder, with a special focus on Milteer's possible knowledge of the details of the JFK murder. One of the central topics that Somersett asked Milteer -- while pretending to be a fellow racist -- was about the FPCC that Lee Oswald "directed" in NOLA. Jeff Caufield writes:

Milteer told Somersett, in regard to "infiltration," that "the underground had no worries as to being exposed, because this group that this Oswald belonged to which was pro-Castro had been promptly infiltrated, and of course, money had been put into the right hands, funished to the right people to do this right job without throwing anything on to the Patriots." (Caufield, General Walker and the Murder of President Kennedy, 2015, p. 114)

Jeff Caufield goes on to clarify the nuances of this communication between Milteer and Somersett as follows:

(1) The Underground, or Patriot Underground, spoken of by Milteer, were the "good guys" in his view; the Segregationists.

(2) The pro-Castro group that Oswald "belonged to" was the FPCC.

(3) The FPCC had been "promptly infiltrated" by Oswald himself, working for Guy Banister.

(4) The "money" put into the right hands came from Joseph Milteer.

(5) The "right people to do this right job" were Guy Banister and his Team in NOLA.

(6) "Without throwing anything onto the patriots" again refers to Guy Banister protecting Joseph Milteer and the Segregationists from exposure.

In actual history, even to this day, most journalists believe that LHO really was a legitimate member of the FPCC, and really was legitimately pro-Castro. This is good evidence that Guy Banister's plot worked brilliantly to ensure success "without throwing" suspicion onto the real perpetrators, namely, the Segregationists. Even though Jim Garrison suspected something like this in 1968, it remained unclear until 2015.

Somersett described how jubilant Joseph Milteer was about the JFK assassination. "Didn't I tell you just how it would happen!?" Milteer did not want to dwell on it, though, because he was ready for his new target -- the Jews. Milteer was evidently thrilled that the "American Fact-Finding Committee," which had published the Black-bordered Ad in the DMN in Dallas on 11/22/1963, was signed by a Jew, namely, Bernard Weissman. Jeff Caufield writes:

The slaying of Oswald was confirmed on the car radio on the way to the drive-in. Milteer reacted to news of the shooting of Oswald, saying, "That makes everything perfect, now! The Jews killed Kennedy and the Jews killed Oswald! Now we have no worry!" (Caufield, General Walker and the Murder of President Kennedy, 2015, p. 116)

Somersett went on to note that Jack Ruby's Jewish name had been changed years ago, and wondered how Milteer knew that Jack Ruby was Jewish -- unless he had foreknowledge.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited October 22, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[Harry J.Dean]

Lazar in final desperation will suggest that H.Dean upon returning

from Cuba in 1960 continued as a sincere Castro agent! among other

of his errors. Look for it.

In exposing the obedience of Lazar in all things JFK and Cuba one

must fearfully realize that Lazar is a hopeless servant of Belial!

[Ernie Lazar]

Lazar in final desperation will suggest that H.Dean upon returning

from Cuba in 1960 continued as a sincere Castro agent! among other

of his errors. Look for it.

In exposing the obedience of Lazar in all things JFK and Cuba one

must fearfully realize that Lazar is a hopeless servant of Belial!

Harry--I have no such belief. I also have no "desperation". Like any other normal person, I just look for factual evidence. Sorry that bothers you.

[Paul Trejo]

The role of Harry Dean in the JFK saga involving General Walker is important to Jeff Caufield's case. When we get past page 500, we'll see that Jeff Caufield finds Harry Dean's portrait in several exhibits.

I, for one, am grateful that we have Harry Dean with us -- one of the few people who still remember seeing General Walker in person and in action in 1963.

That said, Harry Dean never mentioned Joseph Milteer or Willie Somersett in the context of his contact with General Walker, and I myself wish to proceed through Jeff Caufield's book in the order in which it is presented. I hope that's still OK.

Now -- perhaps we're getting very little feedback about Joseph Milteer and Chapter 4 because JFK researchers are already so familiar with the story of Milteer from so many different sources, most visibly, from FBI Agent Don Adams who first broadcasted the topic.

Actually, looking at the next chapter in Jeff Caufield's new book, General Walker and the Murder of President Kennedy: The Extensive New Evidence of a Radical Right Conspiracy, Chapter 5, Milteer in Dealey Plaza, many of us already know from Don Adams how he discovered the fact that Joseph Milteer truly was in Dealey Plaza when JFK was being killed -- and how the FBI suppressed the fact!

Jeff Caufield does provide us more data about this event, including the red-hot battles waged in the HSCA over it. I think we might possibly move on to Chapter 5, then. We have a long way to go before we come to Jeff Caufield's treatment of Harry Dean.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited October 23, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[Larry Hancock]

Paul, its fine to go forward but as I noted, there are a number of sources on Milteer and Sommersett beyond Don Adams and we actually have more detail in AGOG...and those clearly go to documents that Adams never tracked down or reviewed. Hopefully the book at least references other sources. But first I want to make sure that Caufield did debunk the point that Milteer's information was not passed from the FBI to the Secret Service and that it was indeed handled and put on record....not well or effectively but consistent with the very limited PRS practices of the time.

[Ernie Lazar]

The role of Harry Dean in the JFK saga involving General Walker is important to Jeff Caufield's case. When we get past page 500, we'll see that Jeff Caufield finds Harry Dean's portrait in several exhibits.

I, for one, am grateful that we have Harry Dean with us -- one of the few people who still remember seeing General Walker in person and in action in 1963.

That said, Harry Dean never mentioned Joseph Milteer or Willie Somersett in the context of his contact with General Walker, and I myself wish to proceed through Jeff Caufield's book in the order in which it is presented. I hope that's still OK.

Now -- perhaps we're getting very little feedback about Joseph Milteer and Chapter 4 because JFK researchers are already so familiar with the story of Milteer from so many different sources, most visibly, from FBI Agent Don Adams who first broadcasted the topic.

Actually, looking at the next chapter in Jeff Caufield's new book, General Walker and the Murder of President Kennedy: The Extensive New Evidence of a Radical Right Conspiracy, Chapter 5, Milteer in Dealey Plaza, many of us already know from Don Adams how he discovered the fact that Joseph Milteer truly was in Dealey Plaza when JFK was being killed -- and how the FBI suppressed the fact!

Jeff Caufield does provide us more data about this event, including the red-hot battles waged in the HSCA over it. I think we might possibly move on to Chapter 5, then. We have a long way to go before we come to Jeff Caufield's treatment of Harry Dean.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Actually, Paul, Harry Dean's story is merely a footnote in Caufield's narrative -- but feel free to exaggerate its importance when you get to that portion of the book.

For anybody who actually wants to know what Caufield proposes that we consider as a reasonable and logical argument (before reading all 1000+ pages), Caufield uses a methodology similar to what happens in a court of law in the sense that the initial chapters build a case concerning the relationships which exist between and among many people and organizations.

The common denominator in those relationships (Caufield suggests) is their extreme hostility toward the JFK Administration (often expressed with very violent and inflammatory rhetoric) AND the presumed "hard core underground" nexus which was allegedly created by those folks.

One of the things which I am having difficulty understanding about Caufield's narrative is this:

Caufield spends considerable time building a case about white supremacists who thought the southern way of life would be destroyed as a result of JFK policies and proposals. To be sure, there are other actors involved (such as a Supreme Court which many conservatives and extreme rightists thought was making un-Constitutional and pro-Communist decisions).

At one point Caufield mentions (for example) that H.L. Hunt (whom he proposes was a major actor in the plot -- particularly in terms of financial backing) became despondent when Edwin Walker was trounced in his bid to become Governor of Texas. Apparently, Caufield believes that Hunt thought Walker could use the Governorship as a springboard to become President of the United States. [As an aside, I find it impossible to believe that anybody with Hunt's intelligence could possibly believe that.]

OK -- so Hunt concludes that when you eliminate Walker from the options to "save the country", then the remaining options are "few and dire" (to quote Caufield).

At this point, readers are being asked to believe that the most plausible "dire" option becomes assassination of JFK.

So---what I have trouble understanding about this paradigm (but perhaps will be better explained as I continue reading the book) is why eliminating JFK would make any difference? His obvious successor was LBJ and LBJ's personal history was clearly NOT in sync with what the extreme right wanted -- as was shortly proven when LBJ launched huge new government programs which the extreme right considered "communist", "socialist", "un-American" and similar terminology and when LBJ used every ounce of his political capital to get Congress to approve historic new civil rights legislation which (one could argue) really DID destroy the old southern way of life (Jim Crow et al).

At this point we must set aside our universal antipathy toward the specific characters whom Caufield mentions as being critical parts of his narrative. It does not matter how much I (or you) dislike or may have contempt for people like H.L. Hunt, John Crommelin, Guy Banister, Clyde Watts, Leander Perez, Robert DePugh, Edwin Walker, Charles Willoughby, George Stratemeyer, Arch Roberts, Joseph Milteer, David Ferrie, or groups like Constitution Party, Congress of Freedom, Council For Statehood, National States Rights Party, Minutemen, or the JBS.

Whatever we may think about their objectives and political convictions it is, nevertheless, also true that many of these guys were intelligent and accomplished individuals. It simply is not credible to propose that they all universally believed that eliminating JFK would "solve" the basic problem which they identified in their public and private jeremiads against JFK and his Administration's policies (foreign and domestic).

We've touched on this subject briefly in the past -- but, ultimately, what may very well be the Achilles heel in Caufield's argument is the insanity of proposing that any of these people actually believed that murdering JFK would produce some miraculous and historic change in the entire direction of our country. [see my previous message regarding Gallup polling data in early 1963 on JFK for example -- to understand the attitude of our general population.]

Edited October 23, 2015 by Ernie Lazar

[Paul Trejo]

Paul, its fine to go forward but as I noted, there are a number of sources on Milteer and Sommersett beyond Don Adams and we actually have more detail in AGOG...and those clearly go to documents that Adams never tracked down or reviewed. Hopefully the book at least references other sources. But first I want to make sure that Caufield did debunk the point that Milteer's information was not passed from the FBI to the Secret Service and that it was indeed handled and put on record....not well or effectively but consistent with the very limited PRS practices of the time.

OK, two points Larry.

(1) Although Jeff Caufield interviewed FBI Agent Don Adams for these chapters on Milteer, this new book goes far beyond Don Adams in its exposure of Joseph Milteer. relying heavily on recent FBI FOIA and NARA releases, ADL documents, Groden, Wiesberg, newspapers, the HSCA. Somersett's publications, and much more.

(2) Caufield's treatment of the Secret Service in the Milteer affair is a topic in Chapter 5.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

[Ernie Lazar]

Paul, its fine to go forward but as I noted, there are a number of sources on Milteer and Sommersett beyond Don Adams and we actually have more detail in AGOG...and those clearly go to documents that Adams never tracked down or reviewed. Hopefully the book at least references other sources. But first I want to make sure that Caufield did debunk the point that Milteer's information was not passed from the FBI to the Secret Service and that it was indeed handled and put on record....not well or effectively but consistent with the very limited PRS practices of the time.

OK, two points Larry.

(1) Although Jeff Caufield interviewed FBI Agent Don Adams for these chapters on Milteer, this new book goes far beyond Don Adams in its exposure of Joseph Milteer. relying heavily on recent FBI FOIA and NARA releases, ADL documents, Groden, Wiesberg, newspapers, the HSCA. Somersett's publications, and much more.

(2) Caufield's treatment of the Secret Service in the Milteer affair is a topic in Chapter 5.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

One of the strengths of Caufield's book is the number of interviews which he conducted. However, let's remember that just because somebody says something in an interview does not mean that their comments are accurate and true. This is always the problem with "eyewitness" testimony. Numerous studies have shown that as time passes, "eyewitnesses" embellish their recollections -- often because they have heard or read information from other sources which they then incorporate into their own story -- even though they did not report that information in their original statements.

In addition, with respect to Don Adams -- keep in mind former FBI Special Agent Wesley Swearingen's comments about Adams -- as well as what Adams acknowledged himself.

(1) New FBI Agents (says Swearingen) often believe whatever they are told -- perhaps because they are still learning the techniques which enable them to separate fact from fiction or which help them to identify exaggerations, half-truths, rumors, gossip, hearsay, etc. and

(2) Adams acknowledged that when he was assigned to interview Milteer he felt overwhelmed so he contacted his SAC to request that another person accompany him. This makes sense because when you are a new Agent, you obviously want to prove that you know how to get interviewees to be candid and forthright and you want to ask all the pertinent questions which will make your summary report stand out to your superiors -- and part of that process depends upon what type of questions are asked. Even though FBI Agents received training in mock court trials -- when you confront suspicious or hostile or evasive people, it is often difficult to immediately "think on your feet" and figure out how to make the person being interviewed feel relaxed and be willing to share information.

Edited October 23, 2015 by Ernie Lazar