Jump to content
The Education Forum

Recommended Posts

QUESTIONS FOR PAUL TREJO:

1. Did you find any correspondence from Drennan to Walker in Walker's personal papers?

2. Did you find any correspondence from Walker to Drennan?

3. Did you find any correspondence from Walker to other persons which mentioned Drennan?

4. If your answers to all these questions is "no" -- then what does that suggest to you (in the context of your interest in Walker and his supposed connections to a "JBS plot")?

5. If Walker's personal papers do NOT reflect that he ever was in contact with (or that he never mentioned knowing about) people like Harry Dean, Stanley Drennan, Guy Galbadon, G. Clinton Wheat, F.X. Ranuzzi, etc. -- then what does that suggest to you?

6. In fact, is there anything in Walker's papers to reflect that he was in regular contact (at any time from 1959 thru 1964) with John Rousselot or Loran Hall or Stanley Drennan, or Galbadon, or Harry Dean, or Ranuzzi or anybody else supposedly involved in any "JBS plot"?

Well, Ernie, the personal papers of Edwin Walker stored at the Briscoe Center for the Study of American History (Austin, Texas) consists of 90 boxes of material. Of these, 55 boxes were donated by Walker's nephew, George Walker, and 35 boxes were donated by Walker's secretary, Julie Knecht.

All of the boxes are poorly maintained or cataloged.

I did look through all of those boxes -- but not with a documentary team. I didn't make my own catalog. I found 1,200 items of interest -- all of Walker's copyrighted speeches, his collection of memorabilia from the Ole Miss riots of 1962, and perhaps most valuable, his actual Grand Jury transcripts from December 1962 through January 1963.

Also in his personal papers we find a correspondence with Gerry Patrick Hemming.

Yet there are also thousands of other letters in that collection -- and I cannot say that I classified them. I copied the letters to and from public officials, his mother, his brother Frank, Robert Welch, Billy James Hargis and Gerry Patrick Hemming.

Now that I'm aware of a connection between Dr. Stanley Drennan and Edwin Walker, I would need to return to his personal papers to search for his name in particular. That could take months (because I have a full-time job and a family).

Still, the Drennan connection is intriguing. It seems to confirm Harry Dean's story to a remarkable degree. So, it may be well-worth the effort.

I remind everybody here that I'm only one person -- and I've been trying since 2011, with few supporters besides Harry Dean, to raise interest in Edwin Walker as a suspect in the JFK murder. Most of my time is spent defending our position, and very little is spent making forward progress.

Yet the Drennan angle is forward progress -- I think anybody can see the potential. Here is a clue. This only tells us where to start digging.

I'm fully convinced that Jack Ruby was right, and that there was indeed a JBS plot to murder JFK. The people who knew most about this plot, however, lived in Dallas -- and only secondarily in Los Angeles and New Orleans.

The living people we need to interview are in Dallas, Texas. Dallas has been withholding facts about the JFK murder for 50 years. Only their children are left, and most of them don't know the full story. But some do. It's the children of the principals in Dallas, Texas, who would know the most.

I say that if we ask the children of JBS members during 1963 in Dallas, Texas, about a plot to murder JFK, we would be astounded at the amount of positive data we would receive.

But who would help me organize such a survey?

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

BTW -- as a postscript to my reply Paul Trejo's message:

POSTSCRIPT:

Loran Hall told Jim Garrison about speeches which Loran made in early 1963 to solicit support for anti-Castro guerrilla activities. Present at one of his speeches (Hall said) was Edgar Eugene Bradley and Dr. Stanley Drennan. Hall stated that before and after these speeches, he frequently overheard "some people discussing the possibility of assassinating Kennedy and how it might be done."

One speech recalled by Hall was in September 1963 at 233 S, Lafayette Park Place in Los Angeles -- a home which was owned by G. Clinton Wheat. Wheat was an ex-convict who served time in a Louisiana prison for murder. Wheat headed the California chapter of "The Committee of One Million Caucasians To March on Washington in 1964" which was formed in February 1962 by James R. Venable and Herbert Butterworth. Venable was the leader of the National Knights of the KKK in Georgia. Also present at this meeting was William Potter Gale.

In addition, in May 1968, Hall stated that he knew about a tape recording of a 11/9/63 meeting in Miami Florida which he characterized as a meeting of "states righters". According to Hall, "one man's voice [on the recording] said the group had a man selected to kill Kennedy and another to be the patsy." Furthermore, the voice on the recording stated that the same assassin was "gunning for Martin Luther King Jr."

...

Well, Ernie, this information about Loran Hall directly connects Stanley Drennan directly with Loran Hall, who was once one of Gerry Patrick Hemming's "Cuba Raiders." Both were connected to Edwin Walker.

It also names Edgar Eugene Bradley in connection with Loran Hall. Jim Garrison was very interested in Edgar Eugene Bradley, and sought extradition of him from California, which was opposed by then Californa Govenor Ronald Reagan.

Harry Dean told me about one living person who could corroborate his story -- David Robbins. I did contact Robbins, who did confirm various parts of Harry's story -- but flatly stopped short of any talk about murder.

Anyway, David Robbins told me that he was a close, personal friend of Edgar Eugene Bradley -- in fact, they went to the same Church together. He and his wife would visit at Bradley's home in Southern California.

David Robbins also knew of Loran Hall and his speeches -- so in one of Loran Hall's speeches to the John Birch Society (JBS) in Southern California in 1962-1963 one could find Dr. Stanley Drennan, Edgar Eugene Bradley, John Rousselot and Harry Dean. On a special day, Ex-General Edwin Walker could be there.

Harry Dean at one of these speeches of Larry Hall, decided to purchase the 12" LP record that Loran Hall was selling at these fund-raisers for his "Cuba Raider" team. Harry shared those records with me, and I had them digitized to share them freely on YouTube. Now you can hear what the JBS heard for those fund-raisers. Here are the URL locations:

[]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6daWtQYlydQ]

[]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kLVVHQ_Myg]

By the middle of 1963, Loran Hall had stopped working for Gerry Patrick Hemming, and started his own "Cuba Raider" squad called, "La Sambra," or "The Shadow." Loran Hall had a flair for melo-drama.

Harry also said that he would regularly help Loran Hall and Larry Howard load up their trailer of supplies for the Cuba Raids -- supplies of weapons and drugs -- obtained from medical doctors, lawyers and dentists belonging to the JBS in Southern California.

Harry also said that talk about killing JFK within radical circles of the JBS, and even more frequently within the sister organization, The Minutemen, which was heavily armed, and conducted paramilitary training exercises in the East Los Angeles desert.

Harry was the only one I knew about who said that Edwin Walker was directly connected to plots to kill JFK -- until this month -- when we learned that Dr. Stanley Drennan also dropped the name of Edwin Walker in the context of his boasting about a JBS plot to kill JFK.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Obviously, you think that the single reference to Walker in one serial in Drennan's file is momentous "evidence" of something.

So---how do you explain that neither the Secret Service or the FBI ever connected Walker to Drennan (or vice-versa) -- except for mentioning that Drennan liked Walker??

How do you explain, for example,that when you review Walker's FBI files they DO NOT reflect any references to Drennan by name AND they do not even mention anything about Drennan in Walker's correlation summary (not even a reference to a Drennan file number)?

NOBODY disputes the intra-connections which existed among numerous radical right groups. In fact, 40 years ago, a Washington DC organization (Institute For American Democracy---now defunct) created a flow chart to show the connections of the major figures on the extreme right and their organizations to other persons and organizations. Needless to say, the Birch Society had the greatest number of lines connecting them to other prominent right-wing persons and groups.

Every large organization attracts weirdos and wackos (WW's) who think they can manipulate the organizations they belong to, i.e. get them to adopt the wacko ideas and agendas which WW's think should prevail. THAT is why YOU will always find "dots" to connect.

However, in the final analysis, one has to make judgments not just about motive and opportunity but also about temperament.

You may not agree -- but the Birch Society (as an organization) was constitutionally incapable of engaging in the type of "plot" which you so readily accept as credible.

Their entire moral and philosophical belief system precluded what they interpreted as "mob" psychology where aggrieved people take "direct action" to "terminate with prejudice" perceived "enemies". However, that does not mean that individual WW's whom, coincidentally, were JBS members or sympathizers could not be involved in such a plot.

BY CONTRAST: the NSRP had the motive, opportunity AND (more importantly) the vicious temperament to engage in such "direct action".

In fact, if you had $1 for every NSRP member who had a criminal record and who was arrested and convicted for arson, bombings, attempted murder, actual murder, assault with a deadly weapon, etc. you could take your wife out to a ritzy restaurant for a steak dinner every night for the next month or two!

Furthermore, the official ideology of the NSRP was explicitly inciteful of racial and religious bigotry and violence. The NSRP newspaper, The Thunderbolt, had as its insignia a design which was reminiscent of the insignia of German SS storm-troopers. The design of their emblem essentially replicated what Emory Carney Burke created for his postwar neo-fascist group, The Columbians. [in the 1930's, Burke was an organizer for the German-American Bund and in subsequent decades he was a co-founder of the racist United White Party -- which merged into NSRP. The NSRP issued Burke membership card #1 in honor of his service to their cause.]

So, Paul, if you really want to "connect the dots" -- try focusing your attention upon NSRP.

And, incidentally, the NSRP despised Robert Welch and the JBS. In fact, they sued Welch for libel. See, for example the following issues of The Thunderbolt:

November 1968 = has article entitled “Robert Welch Hires Pimp To Smear Klan”)

June 1970 = has article entitled “Shocking Facts Behind the John Birch Society”)

March 1964, pg 5:

· Robert Welch Attacks NSRP: Dr. Fields To File Million Dollar Suit (referring to February article in American Opinion by Welch attacking NSRP). NSRP described Welch article as “one of the most vicious attacks printed against Dr. Edward R. Fields and National States Rights Party.

· NSRP Policy Statement on Robert Welch [“We must declare, however, that when the leader of another organization publicly flaunts his hostility toward us and attempts to destroy us through the use of the most shameless, false, and libelous smear, then the time for ‘peace and friendship’ has come to an end.”

May-June 1964, pg 5:

· Robert Welch Admits Libel But Refuses To Retract

August 1964, p 13

· Welch Retracts and Apologizes

Edited by Ernie Lazar
Link to post
Share on other sites

Obviously, you think that the single reference to Walker in one serial in Drennan's file is momentous "evidence" of something.

So---how do you explain that neither the Secret Service or the FBI ever connected Walker to Drennan (or vice-versa) -- except for mentioning that Drennan liked Walker??

...

No, Ernie, I think that this single reference to Walker in one FBI serial in Drennan's file is ONE CLUE. I think there is more -- but nobody has been looking at Edwin Walker for 49 years.

The last body to examine Edwin Walker the way I'm doing today was the Warren Commission.

It's wonderful to find this ONE CLUE about Walker and Drennan -- because it suggests to me that there are MANY MORE THAT REMAIN TO BE DISCOVERED.

Now -- here's how I explain that the Walker-Drennan connection never came up in connection with the JFK murder before now: the explanation is simply that the Warren Commission was set-up to validate Hoover's "Lone Shooter" theory to the exclusion of all other theories of the JFK murder.

Any hint of a suggestion that Lee Harvey Oswald had any accomplices or associates of any kind in the JFK murder were flatly stomped on hard by the FBI (and therefore by all other branches of the US Government).

Sylvia Odio -- an eminently believable witness who testified that Oswald had accomplices -- was accused of being "a mental case" by the FBI.

Naturally, then, no government knowledge about any other theory about the JFK murder would ever be made public by the US Government.

Perhaps the key difference between my recognition of the FALSITY of the "Lone Shooter" theory and most other JFK researchers, is that I defend the FBI for its actions, because these actions were taken for purposes of National Security -- for a damn good reason.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to post
Share on other sites

Obviously, you think that the single reference to Walker in one serial in Drennan's file is momentous "evidence" of something.

So---how do you explain that neither the Secret Service or the FBI ever connected Walker to Drennan (or vice-versa) -- except for mentioning that Drennan liked Walker??

...

No, Ernie, I think that this single reference to Walker in one FBI serial in Drennan's file is ONE CLUE. I think there is more -- but nobody has been looking at Edwin Walker for 49 years.

The last body to examine Edwin Walker the way I'm doing today was the Warren Commission.

It's wonderful to find this ONE CLUE about Walker and Drennan -- because it suggests to me that there are MANY MORE THAT REMAIN TO BE DISCOVERED.

Now -- here's how I explain that the Walker-Drennan connection never came up in connection with the JFK murder before now: the explanation is simply that the Warren Commission was set-up to validate Hoover's "Lone Shooter" theory to the exclusion of all other theories of the JFK murder.

Any hint of a suggestion that Lee Harvey Oswald had any accomplices or associates of any kind in the JFK murder were flatly stomped on hard by the FBI (and therefore by all other branches of the US Government).

Sylvia Odio -- an eminently believable witness who testified that Oswald had accomplices -- was accused of being "a mental case" by the FBI.

Naturally, then, no government knowledge about any other theory about the JFK murder would ever be made public by the US Government.

Perhaps the key difference between my recognition of the FALSITY of the "Lone Shooter" theory and most other JFK researchers, is that I defend the FBI for its actions, because these actions were taken for purposes of National Security -- for a damn good reason.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Forget the Warren Commission.

Try focusing upon all of the primary source evidence such as FBI, Secret Service, and HSCA interviews with literally many dozens of people. How do you explain that no connection between Walker, Drennan, Ranuzzi etc. and their supposed involvement in some JBS plot never came up before?

Actually, I see a pattern in your thought process. You always seek out "single clues" or single explanations -- regardless of the source. You believe Harry Dean. You believe Don Adams, You believe Wesley Swearingen about the FBI (but not when he says Harry is crazy and non-credible). You believe Stanley Drennan. Your mind is like a Venus Fly Trap for "single clues" and you attach an importance to them which vastly exceeds their actual value or credibility.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Forget the Warren Commission.

Try focusing upon all of the primary source evidence such as FBI, Secret Service, and HSCA interviews with literally many dozens of people. How do you explain that no connection between Walker, Drennan, Ranuzzi etc. and their supposed involvement in some JBS plot never came up before?

Actually, I see a pattern in your thought process. You always seek out "single clues" or single explanations -- regardless of the source. You believe Harry Dean. You believe Don Adams, You believe Wesley Swearingen about the FBI (but not when he says Harry is crazy and non-credible). You believe Stanley Drennan. Your mind is like a Venus Fly Trap for "single clues" and you attach an importance to them which vastly exceeds their actual value or credibility.

Ernie, you're starting to sound nasty again. Your insulting manner is unwelcome here.

First of all, Wesley Swearingen never accused Harry Dean of being literally "crazy" -- he actually said that Harry Dean's story MIGHT be true, but he firmly doubted it because it didn't match his own story, which he insists is entirely true.

What Wesley Swearingen missed is the possibility that his story, PLUS Don Adams story, PLUS Harry Deans story, PLUS Robert Morrow's story, PLUS many others -- can ALL be true, with just a tiny bit of compromise here and there.

Former FBI Agent Wesley Swearingen is convinced that Chicago dirty cop, Richard Cain, was the leader of the plot to kill JFK. But I say that his evidence that Richard Cain was indeed involved in the JFK murder is not enough to claim that Richard Cain was the *leader* of that plot -- and anyway, Cain would have been most useful in the Chicago plot to murder JFK.

Look at Robert D. Morrow's book on JFK -- First Hand Knowledge (1992) -- which claims that David Ferrie was the *leader* of the plot to kill JFK. Morrow was closely connected with the CIA; wouldn't he know better? Not necessarily. His reasoning was that he, Morrow himself, supplied David Ferrie with several Mannlicher-Carcano rifles, beefed up with precision tools, and modified to be quickly disassembled and re-assembled.

Yet Jim Garrison found that David Ferrie worked for Guy Banister. Who is right? They can ALL be right -- with just a tiny bit of compromise. That's why I propose a Unified Theory of the JFK Murder.

Far from seeking out "Single Clues", I have a synthetic method that *combines* clues that have never yet been combined.

Also, I'm humble enough to regard my findings so far as a working hypothesis.

So -- the summary -- Wesley Swearingen can be partially right -- and Don Adams, the FBI Agent who tracked Joseph Milteer -- can also be partially right. (Dr. Jeffrey Caufield will show a direct connection between Milteer and Edwin Walker in Dallas in his forthcoming book on Walker next year.)

Everybody seems to have a PIECE of the truth. There were members from the CIA, from the Mafia, from the JBS, from the States Rights Parties, from the Minutemen, from the Cuban Exile paramilitary groups, from the White Citizens Councils, from the Friends of Walker and more.

The only relevant question is WHO WAS THE LEADER.

In my Unified Theory of the JFK Murder, when we make Edwin Walker into the Leader, all the pieces snap into place like a jigsaw puzzle. But it takes patience, Ernie. Patience.

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to post
Share on other sites

Since it would appear that your nearly full time job is enumerating your unified field theory here ad infinitum, might I suggest you go back to the Walker papers which, after all, are nearby, and look for the names Ernie suggests in Walker's correspondences? You have an interested audience here, despite your protestations, and you are the man for the job.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Since it would appear that your nearly full time job is enumerating your unified field theory here ad infinitum, might I suggest you go back to the Walker papers which, after all, are nearby, and look for the names Ernie suggests in Walker's correspondences? You have an interested audience here, despite your protestations, and you are the man for the job.

Like I say, Paul B., I'm only one guy. Also, since Christmas is coming up, with all the family gatherings planned, I'm more inclined at this point to follow the advice of John Lennon, who once wrote:

Nowhere Man, don't worry,

Take your time, don't hurry,

Leave it all,

Till somebody else lends you a hand!

Seasons Greetings,

--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to post
Share on other sites

Forget the Warren Commission.

Try focusing upon all of the primary source evidence such as FBI, Secret Service, and HSCA interviews with literally many dozens of people. How do you explain that no connection between Walker, Drennan, Ranuzzi etc. and their supposed involvement in some JBS plot never came up before?

Actually, I see a pattern in your thought process. You always seek out "single clues" or single explanations -- regardless of the source. You believe Harry Dean. You believe Don Adams, You believe Wesley Swearingen about the FBI (but not when he says Harry is crazy and non-credible). You believe Stanley Drennan. Your mind is like a Venus Fly Trap for "single clues" and you attach an importance to them which vastly exceeds their actual value or credibility.

Ernie, you're starting to sound nasty again. Your insulting manner is unwelcome here.

First of all, Wesley Swearingen never accused Harry Dean of being literally "crazy" -- he actually said that Harry Dean's story MIGHT be true, but he firmly doubted it because it didn't match his own story, which he insists is entirely true.

What Wesley Swearingen missed is the possibility that his story, PLUS Don Adams story, PLUS Harry Deans story, PLUS Robert Morrow's story, PLUS many others -- can ALL be true, with just a tiny bit of compromise here and there.

Former FBI Agent Wesley Swearingen is convinced that Chicago dirty cop, Richard Cain, was the leader of the plot to kill JFK. But I say that his evidence that Richard Cain was indeed involved in the JFK murder is not enough to claim that Richard Cain was the *leader* of that plot -- and anyway, Cain would have been most useful in the Chicago plot to murder JFK.

Look at Robert D. Morrow's book on JFK -- First Hand Knowledge (1992) -- which claims that David Ferrie was the *leader* of the plot to kill JFK. Morrow was closely connected with the CIA; wouldn't he know better? Not necessarily. His reasoning was that he, Morrow himself, supplied David Ferrie with several Mannlicher-Carcano rifles, beefed up with precision tools, and modified to be quickly disassembled and re-assembled.

Yet Jim Garrison found that David Ferrie worked for Guy Banister. Who is right? They can ALL be right -- with just a tiny bit of compromise. That's why I propose a Unified Theory of the JFK Murder.

Far from seeking out "Single Clues", I have a synthetic method that *combines* clues that have never yet been combined.

Also, I'm humble enough to regard my findings so far as a working hypothesis.

So -- the summary -- Wesley Swearingen can be partially right -- and Don Adams, the FBI Agent who tracked Joseph Milteer -- can also be partially right. (Dr. Jeffrey Caufield will show a direct connection between Milteer and Edwin Walker in Dallas in his forthcoming book on Walker next year.)

Everybody seems to have a PIECE of the truth. There were members from the CIA, from the Mafia, from the JBS, from the States Rights Parties, from the Minutemen, from the Cuban Exile paramilitary groups, from the White Citizens Councils, from the Friends of Walker and more.

The only relevant question is WHO WAS THE LEADER.

In my Unified Theory of the JFK Murder, when we make Edwin Walker into the Leader, all the pieces snap into place like a jigsaw puzzle. But it takes patience, Ernie. Patience.

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

Paul -- why do you continue to pretend that Swearingen thought Harry's story "might be true"?

1. How many different ways can Swearingen tell you that he DOES NOT believe someone before you candidly acknowledge that is his position?

Let's recap his comments -- I highlight the key points in each:

1.1 = March 10, 2014

Mr. Lazar,

I vaguely recall Dean's story, but I immediately dismissed it as not truely connected to the JFK assassination. This does not mean that Dean's story of another plot is not true. It means that the folks Dean mentions were not connected to the assassination. LHO was a fairly public figure with his Fair Play for Cuba Committee activities and public comments. Any group could have looked at LHO as a patsy, or a sucker play.

It is my belief that LHO played a secondary role, whatever that may have been. The physical evidence in this case does not support LHO as the lone assassin. The FBI Lab changed the story to fit Hoover's plan to blame LHO. Please read my book as to what I believe happened and what sources I know to be reliable have told me...Why do you want to believe stories by Dean and Milteer when they have no evidence to back up what they claim?"

Sincerely,

M. Wesley Swearingen

1.2 =

"Ernie, I have no idea where Trejo got the idea that I thought Dean was a credible source. I may have made a carefully guarded comment to avoid a lawsuit, but I never implied Dean was a credible source. It sounds as though Trejo is taking something out of context. I have insisted all along that the Chicago mob was involved in killing JFK and not any other group.

1.3 = March 11, 2014

Ernie,

I don't know how I can make it any clearer. In my opinion both Dean and Milteer are wishing they had a true story. I don't believe their stories, but that does not mean they don't know something. It means to me they don't know who actually killed JFK because they have no evidence that would hold up in a court of law... Sincerely, M. Wesley Swearingen

1.4 =

Dean claims to have met with Wesley Grapp, SAC of the Los Angeles FBI office. Grapp did not become SAC until 1964. Agents are never assigned to an office and then made SAC. They are made SAC directly from the Training and Inspection Division in Washington, D.C. Grapp would not have driven around in a car with Dean when Grapp was SAC. Grapp was not in Los Angeles before he became SAC of LA. Now that Grapp is deceased, Dean can claim anything, but he needs to get his facts straight.

The description of Dean by William McCauley as a "mental case" is proof to me that Dean was not an FBI informant. I don't know how to make it any clearer. It sounds as though Dean met McCauley, but is claiming to have met with Grapp, just to give his claims a little more class.

Dean may have illusions that he knew some group, whatever name he wants to pick, as wanting to kill JFK. If he knew some group that was thinking of killing JFK, that does not mean that the group he had in mind actually did kill JFK. In my opinion, Dean is just blowing smoke rings at Paul Trejo and Trelo is grasping into thin air. I hope this answers your question about Dean and what I think of his theory and alleged information on the killing of JFK. Sincerely, M. Wesley Swearingen

1.5 =

Mr. Trejo,

Please let me explain one more time what I think of Dean's information. If you read my book TO KILL A PRESIDENT, you should know what my position is on who killed JFK. I have reliable witnesses. Dean has only his opinion, which he cannot support with reliable witnesses or physical evidence.

Dean claims to have been a FBI informant and to have ridden in a car with SAC Wesley Grapp. Dean could have talked to FBI agents in Chicago. That does not make him a FBI informant. As to Dean's informant status, FBI agent William McCauley of Los Angeles characterized Dean as a "mental case." There is no way McCauley would have had Dean as an informant. Dean may have talked to an agent in Los Angeles. This does not make him an informant.

As to Dean riding around in a car with SAC Wesley Grapp, that is absolutely preposterous. SACs do not do agent field work. JFK was killed in 1963. Grapp did not become SAC of Los Angeles until 1964.

Dean may, or may not have talked to various individuals and groups. These people may have been joking with Dean, especially if they thought Dean was a "mental case," just as FBI agent McCauley thought.

Dean's idea that some people he talked to were involved in the JFK assassination is as weak as his idea that he was a FBI informant and that he rode around in a car with SAC Wesley Grapp.

It is my opinion, after reading Dean's manuscript and hearing what you claim is true about Dean, that Dean is drastically in need of professional help. It is also my opinion that what Dean has claimed as fact is absolute fiction.

Sincerely,

M. Wesley Swearingen

PAUL:

What else should Swearingen write in order to convince you (and for you to candidly acknowledge) that his position is that Harry Dean's story is "absolute fiction" and Harry is "drastically in need of professional help"???

Edited by Ernie Lazar
Link to post
Share on other sites

Since it would appear that your nearly full time job is enumerating your unified field theory here ad infinitum, might I suggest you go back to the Walker papers which, after all, are nearby, and look for the names Ernie suggests in Walker's correspondences? You have an interested audience here, despite your protestations, and you are the man for the job.

Like I say, Paul B., I'm only one guy. Also, since Christmas is coming up, with all the family gatherings planned, I'm more inclined at this point to follow the advice of John Lennon, who once wrote:

Nowhere Man, don't worry,

Take your time, don't hurry,

Leave it all,

Till somebody else lends you a hand!

Seasons Greetings,

--Paul Trejo

Paul -- I do not accept your excuse. You state that the Walker collection consists of 90 boxes.

About 20 years ago, I travelled from San Francisco to Los Angeles on two occasions to do research into the Morris Kominsky Collection which is at the Southern California Library for Social Studies and Research.

Komisky's collection is 65 boxes. Like Walker's collection, the "finding aid" to the Kominsky collection is almost useless because it does not identify which boxes contain specific items (such as identifying correspondence by the person's name). So, I literally went through every folder in every one of the 65 boxes.

For 5 days, I spent about 5-6 hours every day in the Library. AND I made hundreds of photocopies plus I took written notes about many items. Five days for 65 boxes. [so, in total, about 30 hours for 65 boxes, i.e. about 30-40 minutes per box).

But you want us to believe that you have not had sufficient time to go through 90 boxes in how long? 365 days? 750 days?

Edited by Ernie Lazar
Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr. Trejo, I suggest you re-read that FBI report.

*It does NOT state that DRENNAN claimed to be a follower of Edwin Walker.

*It does NOT state that THE INFORMANT claimed that Drennan was a follower of Edwin Walker.

*So it just MIGHT be that the FBI itself developed this information themselves. Unfortunately, the FBI report doesn't give a source for that information.

But NOWHERE does the report state that Drennan had EVER had PERSONAL contact with Edwin Walker. You may not realize it, but it's possible for people to be followers of famous persons and yet never have any personal contact with them. So to use the words that Drennan was a FOLLOWER of Edwin Walker as evidence that Walker was a part of an alleged plot to kill JFK, RFK, Senator Javits and others that Drennan was reportedly involved in is stretching the actual EVIDENCE beyond what the evidence states.

And NO, the evidence doesn't even "imply" that Walker is part of such a plot. Except in YOUR mind, apparently.

Please do not INVENT evidence where evidence does not exist. Now, if you find ACTUAL evidence that connects Drennan with Walker--CONCLUSIVELY, and not SPECULATIVELY--they you may have something to build upon.

For now, you're building a castle on a foundation of weak and shifting sand.

Link to post
Share on other sites
In the film by Kurosawa ,Rashomon ,one event is shown via 4 different people , 4 viewpoints.
Below Guy Gabaldon a possible story in two viewpoints (by Steve Gaal).
####################################################################
Paul Trejo view :
Mexican Federal Police talking to Gabaladon...."please, please tell us more about your JFK assasination network, Senior Gablaldon."
Paul Trejo thinks some far right Mexican police interested in killing JFK.
###################################################################
Steve Gaal view : Mexican police coaxing info out of Gabladon to report to their CIA masters. (low level Mexican police would never take the initiative to kill the POTUS and to think so is a strangely odd of balance mental stance, IMHO)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Overview: The CIA, the Drug Traffic, and Oswald in Mexico
www.history-matters.com/pds/dp3_overview.htm
Deep Politics III by Peter Dale Scott ... Kryptocracies, Kryptonomy, and Oswald:
the Mexican CIA-Mob Nexus ... from the CIA in Mexico City in the social context of
actions of a sister agency (the Mexican Federal Security ... had admitted this (
albeit under torture) in response to questions from the Mexican DFS or secret
police.
==
  • The CIA and Drug-Trafficking: Affidavit by Peter Dale Scott ...
    https://www.lewrockwell.com/.../the-cia-and-drug-trafficking-affidavit-by-peter-dale-scott/

    Oct 17, 2014 ... The CIA and Drug-Trafficking: Affidavit by Peter Dale Scott ... and often support to,
    top-level drug-traffickers in Mexico, Honduras, El Salvador, Costa Rica, ...
    Although 150 agents and police rounded up members of Meneses' network, and
    over ... In this trial Carrasco was a federal prosecution witness (12).

    ++++++++++++++

    ++++++++++++++

    ++++++++++++++

    One of the CIA moles in the Walker camp ??? = Colonel L. Robert Castorr
    ================
    The template for some, if not most political assassinations in the Americas has been the same since at least the beginning of the Cold War:

    Use a patsy
    Leave false trails and float false solutions
    Control the evidence and large portions of the press
    Marginalise dissenters

    From a psyop viewpoint, it’s a winning formula (GREG PARKER)
    ====================================
    Parker4 - Reopen KENNEDY CASE!
    www.reopenkennedycase.net/parker4.html
    Much is often made of the influence Robert had on Lee – but I believe John Pic's
    ..... colonel described by Nancy Perrin Rich who was in league with Jack Ruby in
    a guns to Cuba ... Colonel L Robert Castorr and his wife at Buckingham Palace.
Edited by Steven Gaal
Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul -- why do you continue to pretend that Swearingen thought Harry's story "might be true"?

1. How many different ways can Swearingen tell you that he DOES NOT believe someone before you candidly acknowledge that is his position?

Let's recap his comments -- I highlight the key points in each:

1.1 = March 10, 2014

Mr. Lazar,

I vaguely recall Dean's story, but I immediately dismissed it as not truely connected to the JFK assassination. This does not mean that Dean's story of another plot is not true...

Sincerely,

M. Wesley Swearingen

There it is in plain print, Ernie... "This does not mean that Dean's story of another plot is not true."

Only your bias prevents you from seeing the words written by Wes Swearingen himself. Pitiful.

"Ernie, I have no idea where Trejo got the idea that I thought Dean was a credible source. I may have made a carefully guarded comment to avoid a lawsuit, but I never implied Dean was a credible source. It sounds as though Trejo is taking something out of context. I have insisted all along that the Chicago mob was involved in killing JFK and not any other group.

Sincerely,

M. Wesley Swearingen

Well, Ernie, clearly Wes Swearingen got the idea from Ernie Lazar that Paul Trejo thought that Wes Swearingen thought that Harry Dean was a credible source.

I never said that Wes Swearingen said that Harry Dean was "credible." In Wes Swearingen's vocabulary, that means True and Correct. I know that Wes thinks Harry Dean is WRONG. Yet he never said Harry Dean was literally "crazy" which is the unkind (and possibly libelous) word that you, Ernie, chose to use.

I only noted that Wes Swearingen said, in his own words: "This does not mean that Dean's story of another plot is not true."

Wes only believes that Harry Dean is mistaken. Not "crazy". Credible means correct for Wes. You twisted my words to Wes -- you were the only one between us at that point.

PAUL:

What else should Swearingen write in order to convince you (and for you to candidly acknowledge) that his position is that Harry Dean's story is "absolute fiction" and Harry is "drastically in need of professional help"???

Ernie, your hostile bias prevented you from reading the actual words of Wesley Swearingen himself: "This does not mean that Dean's story of another plot is not true."

That cannot be twisted to mean, in your words, "absolute fiction." That's your hostile vocabulary.

And further, you are the one who used the word "crazy" to describe Harry Dean, and I totally object to that.

In fact, I call for a MODERATOR here on the Forum to set you straight about the rules here.

That there is no mistake about that is proved by your words in this last post of yours, when you say that "Harry is drastically in need of professional help." That might be libel, Ernie.

I ask for a MODERATOR's opinion, please.

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul -- why do you continue to pretend that Swearingen thought Harry's story "might be true"?

1. How many different ways can Swearingen tell you that he DOES NOT believe someone before you candidly acknowledge that is his position?

Let's recap his comments -- I highlight the key points in each:

1.1 = March 10, 2014

Mr. Lazar,

I vaguely recall Dean's story, but I immediately dismissed it as not truely connected to the JFK assassination. This does not mean that Dean's story of another plot is not true...

Sincerely,

M. Wesley Swearingen

There it is in plain print, Ernie... "This does not mean that Dean's story of another plot is not true."

Only your bias prevents you from seeing the words written by Wes Swearingen himself. Pitiful.

Paul, you mis-interpret Wes's comment. By "another plot" Wes simply meant that perhaps Harry had overheard something but as Wes points out repeatedly, Harry had NO CREDIBLE EVIDENCE for his comments.

"Ernie, I have no idea where Trejo got the idea that I thought Dean was a credible source. I may have made a carefully guarded comment to avoid a lawsuit, but I never implied Dean was a credible source. It sounds as though Trejo is taking something out of context. I have insisted all along that the Chicago mob was involved in killing JFK and not any other group.

Sincerely,

M. Wesley Swearingen

Well, Ernie, clearly Wes Swearingen got the idea from Ernie Lazar that Paul Trejo thought that Wes Swearingen thought that Harry Dean was a credible source.

Paul -- Wes got no ideas from me. I merely sent him VERBATIM QUOTATIONS of your comments here in EF and from your eBook. Plus you miss the most important point. Wes had read Harry's "Crosstrails" booklet -- YEARS before I ever contacted him and Wes concluded from the beginning that he DID NOT believe Harry's story.

I never said that Wes Swearingen said that Harry Dean was "credible." In Wes Swearingen's vocabulary, that means True and Correct. I know that Wes thinks Harry Dean is WRONG. Yet he never said Harry Dean was literally "crazy" which is the unkind (and possibly libelous) word that you, Ernie, chose to use.

Credible has a standard meaning Paul. It is not subject to your personal idiosyncratic definition. Credible means "convincing", "reasonable" "persuasive".

When YOU wrote that Swearingen's position is that Harry's story "might be true" -- that is EXACTLY what credible means. If you doubt me -- then contact Wes again and ask him whatever specific questions you think will resolve this matter.

I only noted that Wes Swearingen said, in his own words: "This does not mean that Dean's story of another plot is not true."

You misunderstand Wes's reference to "another plot". His comment does not exist in a vacuum. All Wes was saying is that there were many people who talked about killing Kennedy and maybe Harry overheard something but Wes then said that Harry's story was NOT credible because he had NO evidence to support it. You (or anybody else) can propose ideas but if you have no verifiable evidence then you are just SPECULATING -- and presenting your personal opinions.

Wes only believes that Harry Dean is mistaken. Not "crazy". Credible means correct for Wes. You twisted my words to Wes -- you were the only one between us at that point.

I never "twisted your words" and you have NO evidence to support such an unkind and untrue accusation.

Wes's comment was made based upon HIS reading of Harry's "Crosstrails" booklet AND based upon Wes's familiarity with internal FBI procedures regarding (for example) the type of work performed by SAC's. That's why Wes described Harry's assertions re: Wesley Grapp as "preposterous" --- NOT because of any comments by me.

With respect to "crazy", Wes's comment is based upon his understanding of Harry's story -- NOT upon anything I wrote to him. IF you think Wes misunderstood something -- then the responsibility belongs to YOU and HARRY -- because THAT is what Wes based his analysis upon -- NOT something I wrote.

I note, for the record, that you NEVER QUOTE anything by me which "twisted your words"....Instead, yet again, you just ATTRIBUTE something to me.

PAUL:

What else should Swearingen write in order to convince you (and for you to candidly acknowledge) that his position is that Harry Dean's story is "absolute fiction" and Harry is "drastically in need of professional help"???

Ernie, your hostile bias prevented you from reading the actual words of Wesley Swearingen himself: "This does not mean that Dean's story of another plot is not true."

That cannot be twisted to mean, in your words, "absolute fiction." That's your hostile vocabulary.

I did not write the words "absolute fiction". Swearingen wrote that comment --- so why do you accuse ME of using that vocabulary?

And further, you are the one who used the word "crazy" to describe Harry Dean, and I totally object to that.

Paul -- please invest in a Thesaurus. You will discover the following synonyms for the word crazy:

absurd, bizarre, fantastic, fanciful, foolish, insane, nonsensical, preposterous, unreal, wild

In fact, I call for a MODERATOR here on the Forum to set you straight about the rules here.

Unfortunately, you do not understand the English language and you want to censor everyone so that they only use words you favor. When someone states that they think a person is "drastically in need of professional help" WHAT DO YOU THINK they intend to convey? Your argument is with Swearingen -- not me.

That there is no mistake about that is proved by your words in this last post of yours, when you say that "Harry is drastically in need of professional help." That might be libel, Ernie.

But Paul, that was NOT MY COMMENT. It was Wesley Swearingen's. Do you truly not understand that after all this time?

I ask for a MODERATOR's opinion, please.

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

My replies appear underneath your comments.

Edited by Ernie Lazar
Link to post
Share on other sites

Because Paul Trejo falsely accuses ME of using certain "hostile vocabulary" which, in reality, is NOT something I wrote, I have decided to copy below the entire email I received from Wesley Swearingen last March so that everyone here can see that Paul Trejo is NOT accurately summarizing what Swearingen believes and Paul knows it because Swearingen addressed this message to Paul with a cc: to me:

I use red bold type to highlight one key portion:

--------------------------------------------------------

From: WESSWEAR <WESSWEAR@aol.com> To: Paul.Trejo <Paul.Trejo@mccombs.utexas.edu> Cc: ernie1241 <ernie1241@aol.com> Date: Tue, Mar 11, 2014 12:16 pm
Mr. Trejo,
Please let me explain one more time what I think of Dean's information. If you read my book TO KILL A PRESIDENT, you should know what my position is on who killed JFL. I have reliable witnesses. Dean has only his opinion, which he cannot support with reliable witnesses or physical evidence.
Dean claims to have been a FBI informant and to have ridden in a car with SAC Wesley Grapp. Dean could have talked to FBI agents in Chicago. That does not make him a FBI informant. As to Dean's informant status, FBI agent William McCauley of Los Angeles characterized Dean as a "mental case." There is no way McCauley would have had Dean as an informant. Dean may have talked to an agent in Los Angeles. This does not make him an informant.
As to Dean riding around in a car with SAC Wesley Grapp, that is absolutely preposterous. SACs do not do agent field work. JFK was killed in 1963. Grapp did not become SAC of Los Angeles until 1964.
Dean may, or may not have talked to various individuals and groups. These people may have been joking with Dean, especially if they thought Dean was a "mental case," just as FBI agent McCauley thought.
Dean's idea that some people he talked to were involved in the JFK assassination is as weak as his idea that he was a FBI informant and that he rode around in a car with SAC Wesley Grapp.
It is my opinion, after reading Dean's manuscript and hearing what you claim is true about Dean, that Dean is drastically in need of professional help. It is also my opinion that what Dean has claimed as fact is absolute fiction.
Sincerely,
M. Wesley Swearingen
---------------------------------------------
NOTICE that in Swearingen's last paragraph he stated VERY clearly and emphatically that he is basing his conclusions upon:
1. reading Harry's manuscript (i.e. Crosstrails) and
2. reading information that Paul Trejo sent to Swearingen

It really takes a lot of gall for Paul to make accusations against me for "twisting" his words OR me supposedly using "hostile vocabulary" when, IN REALITY, Swearingen was not basing his conclusions upon anything I wrote and it was Swearingen (not me) who used what Paul thinks is unkind and hostile vocabulary!!!

Edited by Ernie Lazar
Link to post
Share on other sites

Greetings, here are some of my contentions and relevant evidence regarding the Walker incident.

The Rumor heard around the World

An official touchstone of the Kennedy case has been the repeated allegation that Lee Harvey Oswald fired his Carcano at General Walker and missed. Some contend this demonstrates Oswald's propensity for the subsequent assassination of President Kennedy, and striking at the enemies of Communism. Yet Lee Harvey Oswald was not a Communist.i "Investigation by the Commission has produced no plausible evidence..." that Oswald was connected to the Communist Party, Socialist Workers Party, or any other leftist organization.

. . .

Sincerely,

C. A. A. Savastano

Well, Carmine, I'm glad to read your contribution, which focuses nicely on the theme of this thread. I disagree with your main premise – you think Oswald didn’t shoot at Walker, and I think he did. Yet at the same time, I actually agree with most of your points. This could prove interesting. These are my responses to your points which I reproduce in red:

(1) Lee Harvey Oswald was not a Communist. I agree entirely.

(2) Lee Oswald's FPCC chapter in New Orleans was bogus. I agree entirely.

(3) Oswald associated with right-wing groups. I agree entirely.

(4) Carlos Bringuier said Oswald was either a "FBI informant" or a "Communist penetration agent". Although I agree he said that, I say that Bringuier was almost always lying to interviewers, because actually Bringuier was an accomplice of Lee Harvey Oswald in New Orleans. Both were radical right-wingers, trying to portray Oswald as a Communist in a Guy Banister's plot to undermine the FPCC and Fidel Castro.

(5) The arrest of Bringuier in New Orleans for a street fight with Oswald was staged. I agree entirely.

(6) Oswald repeatedly lied -- and one of the things he lied about was being a Communist. I agree entirely.

(7) You ask, Carmine, "Without this sincere commitment to Communism, why would Oswald fire at Walker?" Your question, Carmine, presumes that only a Communist would hate Edwin Walker enough to kill Him. That’s incorrect. There were at least three liberal citizens of Dallas who hated Edwin Walker because of his racist politics, namely: (i) George De Mohrenschildt; (ii) Volkmar Schmidt; and (iii) Michael Paine. The first two of these men confessed to working on Oswald heavily around February 1963 to direct his hostilities toward Ex-General Edwin Walker. It was at this time that Oswald bought his weapons, made a single photo of himself with his weapons, made photo-fakes of his original photo at his place of employment at Jaggers-Chiles-Stovall, signed one of the fakes and gave it to George De Mohrenschildt, sent another to the Militant newspaper, and gave another to Roscoe White.

Michael Paine is still alive today, and is in a position to confirm or deny this suspicion.

(8) Oswald never (or rarely) practiced shooting, so he didn’t shoot at Walker. Actually, that’s a better explanation for Oswald missing his shot.

(9) As for Marina Oswald's testimony -- she mainly repeated the lies that Lee Harvey Oswald told her about it. Oswald never buried his rifle. Oswald never acted alone. Oswald was never solely on foot -- he rode in a car, as seen by eye-witnesses on the day before and on the day of the shooting. But Oswald told Marina the reverse of all these facts. She merely repeated what she heard -- and had believed was the truth.

(10) Actually, Marina Oswald's sworn testimony is reliable. Her critical sources are themselves full of faults. This has been demonstrated at length on the Forum. If you want a URL I can give you one.

(11) The flaw in the Warren Commission that you neglect, Carmine, is the nonsense that if Oswald shot at General Walker, then that somehow proves that Oswald shot at JFK. The logic is faulty. For those of us who deny that Oswald was the "Lone Shooter" at JFK, too many of us then assert that because Oswald did not shoot at JFK, then he cannot have shot at Walker. The logic is faulty. It is entirely possible that Oswald shot at Edwin Walker, but did not shoot at JFK.

(12) The questions about the letter and the bullets are therefore tertiary.

(13) The German newspaper (Deutsche Nationalzeitung) carried the Oswald/Walker story because Walker gave them the story. That is true, however, Walker found out that Oswald was his shooter from officials who got their information from friends of George De Mohrenschildt, who was the ORIGINAL source of the story. This came out in the Warren Report – by THREE witnesses, and I find them credible.

(14) IMHO, it was precisely because Lee Harvey Oswald (in a conspiracy with George De Mohrenschildt, Volkmar Schmidt, and possibly Michael Paine and others) tried to murder Ex-General Walker in his Dallas home, that Walker subsequently manipulated events to make Lee Harvey Oswald into the Patsy in his Dallas plot to murder JFK. This is my theory, and it obtains increasing confirmation month after month.

We agree on many of your points, Carmine. I hope you will consider my alternative interpretation of the same events.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...