Harry Dean: Memoirs

[Larry Hancock]

Ernie, I think your post actually clarifies one of the reasons why this thread is so long. Certainly you and Paul can have an indefinite dialog about the technically correct relationship between Harry and the FBI. Indeed there are very specific criteria which could be used to judge that and you are acknowledged a master of those criteria. The distinctions are valid and meaningful in the evaluation of Harry's true status. From my perspective Harry's remarks and related stories about him are not new; I was fallowing it long before this thread and before the Education forum was even created.

However in my very pragmatic view, they are meaningless in terms of evaluating the fundamental importance of Harry's story - either he was in meetings with the true Lee Oswald and those involved very specific planning in regard to Lee Oswald, connecting the figures in the meetings to Oswald and ultimately to the attack in Dallas - or not. If true it supports Paul's time and effort with Harry. if not it is simply one more diversion. From that perspective, which is solely mine, that is the core of the matter. Given that I've seen other actual reports of sources telling the FBI about right wing plans to attack JFK, any general discussion on that subject related by Harry would not be inconsistent. For that matter the Secret Service took a lead and picked up an NSRP member in San Antonio who was talking about an attack in Texas. That's all an old story.

The key point in this matter - IMHO - is whether Harry and Paul can provably link between specific meetings and specific people to Lee Oswald and a conspiracy. That's why the rest is semantics to me; I know that's a tightly focused view but after 20 plus years at this that's were I am.

[Ernie Lazar]

Ernie, I think your post actually clarifies one of the reasons why this thread is so long. Certainly you and Paul can have an indefinite dialog about the technically correct relationship between Harry and the FBI. Indeed there are very specific criteria which could be used to judge that and you are acknowledged a master of those criteria. The distinctions are valid and meaningful in the evaluation of Harry's true status. From my perspective Harry's remarks and related stories about him are not new; I was fallowing it long before this thread and before the Education forum was even created.

However in my very pragmatic view, they are meaningless in terms of evaluating the fundamental importance of Harry's story - either he was in meetings with the true Lee Oswald and those involved very specific planning in regard to Lee Oswald, connecting the figures in the meetings to Oswald and ultimately to the attack in Dallas - or not. If true it supports Paul's time and effort with Harry. if not it is simply one more diversion. From that perspective, which is solely mine, that is the core of the matter. Given that I've seen other actual reports of sources telling the FBI about right wing plans to attack JFK, any general discussion on that subject related by Harry would not be inconsistent. For that matter the Secret Service took a lead and picked up an NSRP member in San Antonio who was talking about an attack in Texas. That's all an old story.

The key point in this matter - IMHO - is whether Harry and Paul can provably link between specific meetings and specific people to Lee Oswald and a conspiracy. That's why the rest is semantics to me; I know that's a tightly focused view but after 20 plus years at this that's were I am.

Well, Larry, here is my take on this matter.

1. For 50 years, Harry Dean has sought to generate publicity with respect to his story. And, as you point out, you have been familiar with this story long before EF was ever created.

2. In effect, we are all collectively functioning as jurors, i.e. we are reading what is presented and we are trying to determine to what extent Harry's testimony and recollections are accurate, truthful, factual.

This is particularly difficult because there is so little documentary evidence or corroborating witness testimony. Like all jurors, we need to make informed judgments about the competence and credibility of the alleged major "eyewitness", in this instance, Harry. That does not represent a personal "attack" upon, or "smear" of, Harry. Instead, it is a routine, normal function which ALL researchers perform when they are investigating historical controversies.

3. Anything we confront which reveals bias, or a prior inconsistent statement, or untruthful or dishonest character, or a defective ability to observe, remember, or recount whatever matter is under scrutiny deserves our consideration because we are obliged to make reasonable, informed conclusions regarding the accuracy and truthfulness of Harry's story. [Also, keep in mind, that Harry is just one of many persons whom have, over the decades, presented similar stories but all of us have finite time, energy, and resources -- so we cannot possibly properly examine or investigate all of them.]

4. The "fundamental importance" of Harry's story is in two parts.

Part 1 concerns what he claims was his ongoing relationship to, and involvement with, our "intelligence agencies".

Part 2 concerns the specific details of what Harry claims was a "plot" to murder JFK (which he says he was privy to)and in particular, his associations with the persons involved in that plot.

5. There is a standard rule of evidence (and logic) which observes that if one materially important statement is proven to be false, then subsequent statements become suspect. This is particularly true if the initial false statement does not pertain to any complex or arcane matter but, instead, the matter involves nothing more than a self-description.

6. If somebody cannot accurately describe themselves and their relationships (the subject about which they have the most certain and most intimate knowledge), then why should we believe that they can accurately and truthfully present fact-based data or interpretations about much more complex and difficult subjects?

[Paul Trejo]

Ernie, I think your post actually clarifies one of the reasons why this thread is so long. Certainly you and Paul can have an indefinite dialog about the technically correct relationship between Harry and the FBI. Indeed there are very specific criteria which could be used to judge that and you are acknowledged a master of those criteria. The distinctions are valid and meaningful in the evaluation of Harry's true status. From my perspective Harry's remarks and related stories about him are not new; I was fallowing it long before this thread and before the Education forum was even created.

However in my very pragmatic view, they are meaningless in terms of evaluating the fundamental importance of Harry's story - either he was in meetings with the true Lee Oswald and those involved very specific planning in regard to Lee Oswald, connecting the figures in the meetings to Oswald and ultimately to the attack in Dallas - or not. If true it supports Paul's time and effort with Harry. if not it is simply one more diversion. From that perspective, which is solely mine, that is the core of the matter. Given that I've seen other actual reports of sources telling the FBI about right wing plans to attack JFK, any general discussion on that subject related by Harry would not be inconsistent. For that matter the Secret Service took a lead and picked up an NSRP member in San Antonio who was talking about an attack in Texas. That's all an old story.

The key point in this matter - IMHO - is whether Harry and Paul can provably link between specific meetings and specific people to Lee Oswald and a conspiracy. That's why the rest is semantics to me; I know that's a tightly focused view but after 20 plus years at this that's were I am.

Larry, we should note immediately that Harry Dean never claimed to have met or even seen Lee Harvey Oswald in his life; either in Southern California or anywhere else.

According to Harry Dean, before the JFK assassination, he only remembers the name of Lee Harvey Oswald in the context of meetings with high-ranking members of the John Birch Society, especially Ex-General Edwin Walker and Congressman John Rousselot.

Other people present at those meetings around San Marino JBS headquarters were -- allegedly -- WW2 hero and right-wing activist, Guy Gabaldon, and right-wing mercenary Loran Hall.

According to Harry Dean, these men spoke in early September, 1963 about making Lee Harvey Oswald the patsy of their plot to kill JFK. This was only days after Lee Harvey Oswald had been sheep-dipped (in the words of Jim Garrison) in New Orleans by appearing in police reports, newspaper reports, on radio and even on television, as an officer of the FPCC (which was an acknowledged Communist front-group).

As Jim Garrison pointed out, the New Orleans chapter of the FPCC was a front -- not for the Communists (as it was in NYC and other cities) but for Guy Banister and his Anticommunist operations in New Orleans. There were no members in the New Orleans FPCC, aside from Lee Harvey Oswald. It was a fake. Yet to this very day the FBI continues to claim that Lee Harvey Oswald was an officer of the FPCC. (Even the FPCC itself denied that Lee Harvey Oswald was ever an officer -- but that doesn't prevent the FBI from perpetuating the fiction.)

I'm certain you know all this -- as do many reading this thread. Yet it may help to clarify the context of Harry Dean's claims about Lee Harvey Oswald.

Harry Dean also places Loran Hall and Larry Howard on the road with Lee Harvey Oswald in late September as they traveled through Texas to Mexico City (and stopped at the home of Silvia Odio along the way). The war names of Loran and Larry correspond closely to the war names they gave Silvia Odio, according to her sworn testimony to the Warren Commission.

That's Harry Dean's claim about Lee Harvey Oswald. Based only on those key meetings in early September 1963, Harry Dean remains convinced to this day that Lee Harvey Oswald did not assassinate JFK -- but that he was made into a patsy by the actual assassins.

I hope Harry's claim is now clear. If so, I wonder if it affects your opinion of Harry Dean's claim.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited March 2, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Larry Hancock]

Lets focus even further Paul:

Beyond Harry's personal statement, what is the corroboration for Harry being in specific meetings with those individuals on those dates?

Is there any contemporary evidence of any of those named by Harry ever having mentioned the name Oswald - as reported by someone else - before the

assassination?

How exactly did Harry know of Hall and Howard being on the road with Oswald, when did he know it and when did he first state that for the record?

As a side comment, after years spent researching both Hall and Howard I wouldn't trust a word they ever said without considerable corroboration. Not a point

I'd want to argue, strictly my opinion.

To me, something far more useful than a debate over Harry's "status" with the FBI would be a detailed timeline of what he knew, when he revealed it and

what independent corroboration exists for each point.

-- Larry

[Paul Trejo]

Lets focus even further Paul:

Beyond Harry's personal statement, what is the corroboration for Harry being in specific meetings with those individuals on those dates?

Is there any contemporary evidence of any of those named by Harry ever having mentioned the name Oswald - as reported by someone else - before the

assassination?

How exactly did Harry know of Hall and Howard being on the road with Oswald, when did he know it and when did he first state that for the record?

As a side comment, after years spent researching both Hall and Howard I wouldn't trust a word they ever said without considerable corroboration. Not a point

I'd want to argue, strictly my opinion.

To me, something far more useful than a debate over Harry's "status" with the FBI would be a detailed timeline of what he knew, when he revealed it and

what independent corroboration exists for each point.

-- Larry

Good questions, Larry. Beyond Harry's personal statement, I have very little to go on -- but more than nothing.

1. Dave Robbins confirmed to me that these men were all seen periodically around the San Marino JBS headquarters. Walker was a periodic speaker there. So was Gabaldon. So was Hall. Rousselot owned the building, and also gave speeches there. Robbins remembers Harry Dean -- but apparently less well than Harry Dean remembers Robbins.

2. We also have the confirmation of John Arvidson about Harry Dean being around the San Marino JBS headquarters.

3. One confirmation we have about one of those men mentioning Lee Harvey Oswald before the assassination comes from Dick Russell's book, The Man Who Knew Too Much (1992), where Russell interviewed H.L. Hunt's butler, who told Russell that he overheard H.L. Hunt and Edwin Walker speaking about Lee Harvey Oswald together -- before the JFK assassination.

4. One other confirmation I have about Edwin Walker mentioning Lee Harvey Oswald before the assassination comes from Walker's personal papers -- and not just one -- but multiple papers that speak of Walker knowing that Lee Harvey Oswald was his shooter on 10 April 1963, long before Marina Oswald told anybody. I've shared this with the Forum in other threads, but here is a key one, FYI:

---------------------- BEGIN MEMO FROM EX-GENERAL EDWIN WALKER (emphasis added) -----------------------

Senator Frank Church

US Senate Office Bld'g

Washington D.C.

June 23, 1975

Dear Senator Church,

The Warren Commission found and concluded that Lee Harvey Oswald attempted to assassinate the undersigned at his home at 9pm on April 10, 1963.

The initial and immediate investigation at the time of the incident reported two men at my home, one with a gun, seen by an eyewitness -- a neighbor.

Within days I was informed by a Lieutenant on the Dallas City Police Force that Oswald was in custody by 12pm that night for questioning. He was released on higher authority than that in Dallas.

There were two men, not a Lonely Loner.

Please inform me if the CIA was involved in that attempted assassination.

Yours sincerely,

Edwin A. Walker

------------------------ END MEMO BY EX-GENERAL EDWIN WALKER (emphasis added) -------------------------------------------

5. This account of Oswald's shooting at Walker back in April folds in neatly with page 318 in Dick Russell's book, about George De Mohrenschildt and his friends, Mr.and Mrs. Igor Voshinin of Dallas. Mrs. Voshinin told Dick Russell that on Easter Sunday -- three days after the April shooting -- George came to visit them and told them that Jeanne and he had visited the Oswalds the night before, and found strong evidence that Lee Oswald was Walker's shooter.

5.1. The Voshinin's told George to call the police, but George said he wanted nothing further to do with it, and he left. Immediately, said Mrs. Voshinin to Dick Russell, she called the FBI and told them George's story. This, IMHO, would explain why some official in Dallas could call Edwin Walker "within days" as he said, to name Lee Harvey Oswald to him, in connection with this Dallas shooting that occurred only a few days before Easter Sunday, 1963.

5.2. By the way, this account by Walker also matches the report he gave to a German newspaper (Deutsche Nationalzeitung) less than 24 hours after the JFK assassination. This bombshell was revealed within the Warren Commission hearings themselves..

6. You ask, Larry, how Harry Dean knew about Loran Hall and Larry Howard being on the road with Lee Harvey Oswald -- and when. Harry says that Loran Hall was a close and personal friend of Guy Gabaldon, WW2 hero; in fact Hall idolized Gabaldon. The same was true of Larry Howard, says Harry Dean. So both Hall and Howard were often found at Guy Gabaldon's home in Southern California.

6.1. One of the activities of the JBS in Southern California in 1963, according to Harry Dean, was collecting money, arms and medical supplies from wealthy and professional class JBS members, to supply Anti-Castro mercenaries in continuing raids on Cuba. Loran Hall admitted collecting funds for this purpose in many of his interviews (including his interview for the Tattler during the Jim Garrison period).

6.2. One of Loran Hall's supply lines was at the home of Guy Gabaldon. There was also a period when Harry Dean himself used his own garage to store these supplies, he says. So, Gabaldon and Harry Dean actually helped Hall and Howard load up their truck during at least one of their trips to Dallas. This is how Harry Dean knew about their whereabouts during their visit to Silvia Odio.

6.3. When was the first time Harry Dean said that for the record? I don't know -- to the best of my knowledge it was possibly his 1990 manuscript, Crosstrails.

7. As for Hall and Howard -- I agree that they were quite slippery. Jim Garrison probably got more information out of Loran Hall than anybody else.

7.1. Yet I still wonder to this day, after Silvia Odio failed to remember identifying details about the two men who visited her home with Lee Harvey Oswald in mid-September, 1963 -- the FBI quickly picked up Loran Hall (who initially confessed). How did they know to pick up Loran Hall? I haven't seen an adequate explanation for that.

7.2. HSCA researcher, Gaeton Fonzi expressed his impression that the FBI held back information about the Silvia Odio episode as well as about Loran Hall.

8. I agree that independent confirmation of Harry Dean's story remains an issue, Larry -- but in my opinion we are accumulating a little bit more every year. Harry Dean (like Edwin Walker) has received far less attention than deserved, IMHO -- and that explains why there is so little mention of Harry Dean in the literature -- outside of the wild fiction told by W.R. Morris.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Edited March 2, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Larry Hancock]

Very interesting Paul, some of it familiar and some of it I might even have known at one time long ago and

forgotten; I did spend a great deal of time on Hall, Howard et al and their California connections. If you have

a copy of the 2010 edition of SWHT I'd suggest you review the appendix "Odio Revisited"...

My thought would be that it would be very useful for you to convert those posts into a thread of its own and

make it something you retain for use online after this forum goes away. I really think its more useful to viewers in

that format.

I do share certain of Ernie's concerns but as far as I can tell the answer to the whole credibility issue is

developing further points of corroboration. If you have not investigated it, I suggest you look into Walker's

time in Miami during the summer of 1963 and the contacts he made there - it seems to have been follow on

to the various approaches to him for financial support, which he certainly didn't have all that much of personally.

-- Larry

[Paul Trejo]

Very interesting Paul, some of it familiar and some of it I might even have known at one time long ago and

forgotten; I did spend a great deal of time on Hall, Howard et al and their California connections. If you have

a copy of the 2010 edition of SWHT I'd suggest you review the appendix "Odio Revisited"...

My thought would be that it would be very useful for you to convert those posts into a thread of its own and

make it something you retain for use online after this forum goes away. I really think its more useful to viewers in

that format.

I do share certain of Ernie's concerns but as far as I can tell the answer to the whole credibility issue is

developing further points of corroboration. If you have not investigated it, I suggest you look into Walker's

time in Miami during the summer of 1963 and the contacts he made there - it seems to have been follow on

to the various approaches to him for financial support, which he certainly didn't have all that much of personally.

-- Larry

Thanks for your encouraging words, Larry. I've already posted this information on other threads in the JFK Forum over the years.

My interest in this thread is to defend Harry Dean from FBI-and-Morris accusations that Harry claimed more for his FBI relationship than was appropriate. It's important, IMHO.

As for your excellent book, Someone Would Have Talked (2010) I have read it, with particular attention to your "Odio Revisited" section.

My enduring goal on this Forum is to uncover more and more about Edwin Walker -- and I searched there for any information that might link Odio with Edwin Walker. The narrative about Mrs. Lucille Connell was promising -- but Connell pulled one way and Odio pulled the opposite way, and a full story never emerged.

I concluded that Odio expected more professional treatment from the FBI than she received -- since when they finally got around to her, so late in the hearings, the Warren Commission Council told her flatly that no matter what she said, if she didn't conform to the Commission's settled conclusions, her testimony would be scrapped.

That's what they did -- the FBI treated Silvia Odio badly, and ultimately accused her of being a neurotic and a mental case. It was hard to get her cooperation after the Warren Report came out..

The FBI followed Hoover's direction that he set in November 1963, when he leaked to every major newspaper in America -- over and over -- that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone killer, and had zero, none, no accomplices.

No FBI agent in his right mind was going to cross Hoover on this dogma. Silvia Odio was bulldozed by the FBI. The FBI mistreatment of Silvia Odio is a glowing feature of the FBI legacy in the Warren Commission drama.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Edited March 3, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

Lets focus even further Paul:

...How exactly did Harry know of Hall and Howard being on the road with Oswald...?

-- Larry

It's interesting, Larry, that Harry Dean's story could have reversed the Warren Commission's opinion of Silvia Odio's claim that Loran Hall and two Hispanic men visited her home around 25-27 September 1963.

The Warren Commission chose not to believe Silvia Odio because the FBI presented two main reasons: (1) Loran Hall said that he visited Silvia Odio's house with Larry Howard and William Seymour, who "looked a little like Lee Harvey Oswald; and (2) bus riders claimed that Lee Harvey Oswald was on a bus to Mexico, as he had no access to an automobile.

The FBI and the Warren Commission looked the other way when Loran Hall impeached his own testimony by reversing his claim only days later -- and claimed he never met Silvio Odio before in his life. (This was possibly because Larry Howard threatened to kill Hall for naming Howard to the Warren Commission.) Also, William Seymour could prove he was elsewhere in late September.

Harry Dean claims that Loran Hall and Larry Howard (aka. Lorenzo Pacillo and Alonzo Escuirdo) were driving supplies that Harry Dean and Guy Gabaldon had collected from JBS members, and helped them load in their vehicle. According to Harry Dean, Gabaldon also gave Hall and Howard cash and instructions to escort Lee Harvey Oswald from New Orleans to Mexico City. They chose to drive through Dallas on their way to Mexico.

So, according to Harry Dean, Hall and Howard drove Oswald in their car to Mexico City. Silvia Odio said that the men drove up to her apartment house in a car -- and that the one whom she believed called himself, "Leopoldo," was the driver.

Her description of the two men with Lee Harvey Oswald was very close to our photographs of Hall and Howard -- that Leopoldo (Lorenzo) was a white Hispanic man, on the taller side, unshaven, balding on the temples with a shock of hair in the front; while Angel (Alonzo) was stocky, darker and appeared to be a Mexican rather than Cuban.

In fact, that's exactly how Hall and Howard appear.

According to Mrs. Lucille Conner, Silvia Odio would surely know how Lee Harvey Oswald looked, because she had seen him before, making speeches at Anti-Castro rallies of Cubans in Dallas, along with Ex-General Edwin Walker. According to a 11/22/1963 Dallas Police report by Detective Buddy Walthers, Lee Harvey Oswald had been seen at 3128 Harlandale Drive in Dallas -- the meeting place of Alpha-66, a militant group of Anti-Castro Cuban Exiles.

(Further, the resident of that address, Manuel Rodriguez, was a Cuban Exile and a member of the Minutemen organization, and was connected with Hollis Mason of Dallas, who owned a gun store and supplied Minutemen with weapons -- and also kept a stock of bullets for Manlicher-Carcano rifles. Masen was questioned by AFT agent Frank Ellsworth who sought the source of the bullets in Oswald's Manlicher-Carcano. Frank Ellsworth also reported to the FBI that "Edwin Walker and the Minutemen" are probably at the center of the JFK assassination.)

Although the Warren Commission in 1964 denied that Silvia Odio was believable, the HSCA concluded in 1979 that Silvia Odio was believable, and criticized the Warren Commission and the FBI for scrambling the record about her.

Harry Dean, as everybody knows, wasn't called as a witness in the Warren Commission hearings, even though he (allegedly) told the FBI shortly after the JFK assassination that Ex-General Edwin Walker and the JBS in Southern California were part of a plot to kill JFK using Lee Harvey Oswald as a patsy. (Also, in June 1964, Jack Ruby told Earl Warren personally that Edwin Walker and the JBS were key conspirators in the JFK assassination.)

We hope to see FBI records from Los Angeles -- perhaps soon -- that might confirm or deny Harry Dean's claims to have given this information to the FBI in Los Angeles soon after JFK was assassinated.

I think we're all eager to see these FBI files.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Edited March 3, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Ernie Lazar]

As I was going through my 25+ year-old notes regarding the FBI HQ file on the JBS, I came across serial #2027 which was a January 1, 1964 memo in response to an internal discussion about whether or not the FBI would consider accepting a JBS member as an informant or as an employee. Here is the relevant text:

"The Domestic Intelligence Division states that the Bureau does not have the John Birch Society under investigation and has not placed any undercover informant in the organization. As a matter of fact, the Bureau will not approve any individual for development as a confidential informant if he is a member of the John Birch Society."

"No information is available to indicate membership of any Bureau employee in the JBS. All employees are required to list all organizations to which they presently belong on their Personnel Status Form which are required annually from investigative employees each February 1 and from all other employees each August 1."

[Paul Trejo]

Ernie, we're probably defining the term, 'informant,' in different ways. You have the official, technical definition - and I am using a far more informal vocabulary -- a layman's vocabulary -- regarding what Larry Hancock said might be better described as a "source" of information.

For the layman, there may seem to be little difference between an FBI Informant and a "source" who might from time to time volunteer information to the FBI. But as we have seen over the past several months, the terminology is vitally important to the FBI.

I can readily understand that the FBI would not accept a member of the John Birch Society (JBS) as an official FBI Informant. This is related to the FBI rule that no FBI Agent was allowed to be a member of the JBS. This is because JBS loyalty to the USA was in question because of their doctrine (simply put) that all US Presidents since 1933 were Communist or Communist-controlled.

J. Edgar Hoover disbelieved the JBS line. FBI Agents were forbidden to believe it. Despite Hoover, however, the JBS was very influential in the USA in the 1960's, and as we saw, Congressman John Rousselot of California, and other US Congressmen were members of the JBS in that decade.

While it is admitted that the FBI did not infiltrate the JBS, or make them a target of a formal Investigation, it is fair to say that J. Edgar Hoover would never have made FBI rules against the JBS without some research (however informal) into the beliefs and political positions of Robert Welch and the leaders of the JBS.

Furthermore -- all that is aside from the question about a "source." Just because the FBI was forbidden to use a JBS member as an official FBI Informant, that would not necessarily preclude an FBI Agent from picking up clues or data from JBS members who simply picked up the telephone and volunteered information to them.

Former JBS member, Harry Dean, claims in his Confessions that he rode in a car with Los Angeles FBI Special Agent in Charge (SAC) Wesley Grapp at some point between 1963 and 1965. Harry also claims to have spoken with other Los Angeles FBI Agents between 1963 and 1965.

This week you might receive a cache of 60+ FBI serials from the Los Angeles FBI about Harry Dean (unless the postal service is slow due to this harsh winter weather). NARA says these serials contains more than 200 pages of information about Harry Dean and his relationship with the FBI.

We're all holding our breath for your findings -- what did the Los Angeles FBI say about Harry Dean, nearly fifty years ago?

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited March 4, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Ernie Lazar]

Ernie, we're probably defining the term, 'informant,' in different ways. You have the official, technical definition - and I am using a far more informal vocabulary -- a layman's vocabulary -- regarding what Larry Hancock said might be better described as a "source" of information.

For the layman, there may seem to be little difference between an FBI Informant and a "source" who might from time to time volunteer information to the FBI. But as we have seen over the past several months, the terminology is vitally important to the FBI.

I can readily understand that the FBI would not accept a member of the John Birch Society (JBS) as an official FBI Informant. This is related to the FBI rule that no FBI Agent was allowed to be a member of the JBS. This is because JBS loyalty to the USA was in question because of their doctrine (simply put) that all US Presidents since 1933 were Communist or Communist-controlled.

J. Edgar Hoover disbelieved the JBS line. FBI Agents were forbidden to believe it. Despite Hoover, however, the JBS was very influential in the USA in the 1960's, and as we saw, Congressman John Rousselot of California, and other US Congressmen were members of the JBS in that decade.

While it is admitted that the FBI did not infiltrate the JBS, or make them a target of a formal Investigation, it is fair to say that J. Edgar Hoover would never have made FBI rules against the JBS without some research (however informal) into the beliefs and political positions of Robert Welch and the leaders of the JBS.

Furthermore -- all that is aside from the question about a "source." Just because the FBI was forbidden to use a JBS member as an official FBI Informant, that would not necessarily preclude an FBI Agent from picking up clues or data from JBS members who simply picked up the telephone and volunteered information to them.

Former JBS member, Harry Dean, claims in his Confessions that he rode in a car with Los Angeles FBI Special Agent in Charge (SAC) Wesley Grapp at some point between 1963 and 1965. Harry also claims to have spoken with other Los Angeles FBI Agents between 1963 and 1965.

This week you might receive a cache of 60+ FBI serials from the Los Angeles FBI about Harry Dean (unless the postal service is slow due to this harsh winter weather). NARA says these serials contains more than 200 pages of information about Harry Dean and his relationship with the FBI.

We're all holding our breath for your findings -- what did the Los Angeles FBI say about Harry Dean, nearly fifty years ago?

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Well, Paul, I certainly agree that both you and Harry have used the word "informant" much differently than the commonly accepted definition or application of that term. As I noted in a previous message, "laymen" conjure up all sorts of things when they read terms like "informant", "undercover agent", "undercover operative", "counterspy".

I do not agree with your assertion that our problem is use of a "technical" definition however because it is clear from the way which both you and Harry have described Harry's relationship with the FBI, that he was given ASSIGNMENTS by FBI Agents. In other words, both of you have ALWAYS claimed that Harry was "asked" to provide certain information on an ongoing basis -- and not just for one or two weeks or even one or two months but for YEARS!

Now -- let's consider your use of the word "source".

In BureauSpeak, the FBI often sought information from "confidential sources". When Bureau memos were produced, those individuals often were described as "CS". But here again, Harry was NOT a "confidential source". The FBI definition of CS is as follows:

Confidential Sources = Individuals who furnish the FBI information available to them through their employment or position in the community. The FBI Manual of Instructions cites as examples of confidential sources bankers, telephone company employees, and landlords.

With respect to the FBI authorizing use of a JBS member (or any other political extremist) as an actual "informant" for the FBI.....there were exceptions made to the general rule.

For example: Delmar Dennis was a JBS member when the FBI accepted him for development as a probationary informant in November 1964. But there was a very clear reason, i.e. the relatively recent murders of three civil rights workers in Mississippi and the FBI's suspicion of involvement by local members of the most violent Klan in our country (White Knights of the KKK of MS). Dennis was the Grand Titan of that Klan -- i.e. the personal assistant to the Klan's Imperial Wizard, Samuel H. Bowers -- so Dennis was in a position to help the FBI identify multiple Klan members who participated in or facilitated all sorts of criminal activities in Lauderdale County, MS and vicinity.

Dennis was also involved with his local units of the Citizens Councils, plus Americans For The Preservation of the White Race, and other white supremacist groups. He had access to membership lists, dues payment records, recruitment activities, the personnel responsible for Klan Bureau of Investigation (which actively sought to weed out FBI informants inside the Klan) etc.

At NO time, did the FBI consider the "loyalty" of ANY JBS member to be in doubt or question. That is precisely why the FBI never conducted a formal investigation into the JBS. In February 1965, President Johnson received an inquiry from a citizen who wanted to know why the JBS was not being investigated. Johnson asked the Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Justice Department's Internal Security Division (J. Walter Yeagley) to respond.

This was Yeagley's explanation:

There was no JBS investigation because even though "it has been highly critical and even slanderous of many government officials and is in strong disagreement with several governmental policies, it [the JBS] does not seek to alter the form of government of the United States by unconstitutional means, but, rather, it favors our constitutional form of government."

ALSO, the JBS "does not advocate or approve the commission of acts of force or violence to deny others their rights under the Constitution." AND, there was no evidence that the JBS is "dominated, financed, or controlled by a foreign power, or foreign political party, or even subject to any foreign influence."

THUS there existed "...no factual grounds upon which the JBS could be designated by the Attorney General under Executive Order 10450."

This exact same reasoning was applied to many left-wing groups which adherents of JBS ideology thought should have been subjected to FBI investigation and listing on the Attorney General's List of Subversive Organizations -- such as, for example, American Civil Liberties Union.

FBI Agents were never (as you wrote) "forbidden to believe" what you call "the JBS line". Based upon their post-FBI activities, you can be certain that many FBI Special Agents thought the JBS was more correct than incorrect -- but as long as they did not become JBS members or endorsers during their employment with the FBI -- they could "believe" whatever they wanted.

Furthermore, I do not think you have the remotest clue about the actual character of the typical JBS member. You usually create a cartoon caricature which is NOT an accurate understanding of what the typical JBS member believed or how they behaved. This is why JBS members so often describe their critics as ignorant fools because the most outrageous hyperbolic comments are made about the JBS by persons who know virtually nothing of their actual history. Many of the people whom I have debated were shocked to discover (for example) that the JBS had a couple hundred African American members along with well known Jewish conservatives (including some Rabbis!).

Hoover was aware that the JBS was attracting many VERY prominent and respected businessmen, community leaders, clergymen, major Hollywood personalities, local/state/national politicians, law enforcement professionals (including former FBI Agents), newspaper publishers, best-selling authors, and senior retired military officers.

With respect to this comment by you:

"Furthermore -- all that is aside from the question about a "source." Just because the FBI was forbidden to use a JBS member as an official FBI Informant, that would not necessarily preclude an FBI Agent from picking up clues or data from JBS members who simply picked up the telephone and volunteered information to them."

That is what I have been trying to make you understand for MONTHS or even YEARS--if you want to go back to my original 2010 message!

"Sources" and "informants" provide RAW information -- of varying quality, accuracy, and value. It is entirely possible (even likely) for a "source" or "informant" to provide FALSE information. All they are doing is giving the FBI the benefit of what they have heard (your "hearsay" argument) or seen.

But it was VERY common for actual FBI or police department or ATF informants who subsequently were connected to right-wing extremist groups (such as Matt Cvetic, David Gumaer, Julia Brown, etc) to express their PERSONAL OPINIONS which were NOT what the FBI determined from its investigations.

Obviously, these informants or sources had no awareness of what OTHER information the Bureau was receiving nor did they necessarily have any accurate understanding of the larger picture outside their particular location. In other words, somebody who was an informant about people, organizations, or activities in, say, Dayton Ohio would not be likely to know anything pertinent about Peoria IL or San Francisco CA or Boston MA or dozens of other locations. And even if they DID know something about another location (other than their home base), that information was limited to their particular time period -- not years or decades later.

With respect to these comments by you:

"Former JBS member, Harry Dean, claims in his Confessions that he rode in a car with Los Angeles FBI Special Agent in Charge (SAC) Wesley Grapp at some point between 1963 and 1965. Harry also claims to have spoken with other Los Angeles FBI Agents between 1963 and 1965. This week you might receive a cache of 60+ FBI serials from the Los Angeles FBI about Harry Dean (unless the postal service is slow due to this harsh winter weather). NARA says these serials contains more than 200 pages of information about Harry Dean and his relationship with the FBI."

NARA charged my credit card $212 on February 27th. So that means there were 265 pages copied. I noticed that most Federal government employees did not work yesterday. So, I suspect that my package is being mailed today or tomorrow and I should have it by the end of this week. After I get it and I review the entire file, I will post a message in Q&A format to address all of the most pertinent questions regarding what the file shows.

Edited March 4, 2014 by Ernie Lazar

[Paul Trejo]

Wait, Ernie, I didn't say that Harry Dean used the term 'informant' in the way I myself used it. I was only speaking for myself.

I think we should wait to see the Los Angeles FBI records themselves, before we jump to any conclusions about what Harry Dean himself might have claimed in the past -- and not just what others claimed that he claimed.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited March 4, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Ernie Lazar]

I am not referri

Wait, Ernie, I didn't say that Harry Dean used the term 'informant' in the way I myself used it. I was only speaking for myself.

I think we should wait to see the Los Angeles FBI records themselves, before we jump to any conclusions about what Harry Dean himself might have claimed in the past -- and not just what others claimed that he claimed.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Straw-man argument. I am not referring what "others claimed". I am relying upon YOUR description (as the co-author of Harry's eBook) and HARRY's self-description.

As previously mentioned, there is more than one way to communicate a thought. For example, there are:

1. direct (and declarative) sentences

2. indirect statements (such as accepting the premise of a question which describes someone as both an "agent" and as "an employee of the federal government" but not correcting the interviewer's premise)

3. insinuations and innuendos (such as by using terminology which MOST ordinary laymen would interpret in the plain-English sense of the meaning.)

The general context should also be considered -- i.e. the overall narrative which is being presented and how that narrative would be interpreted by any audience. For example, there is a huge major difference between the following two options:

OPTION #1

"In the summer of 1960 and during a few months of 1961, I called my local FBI field office in Chicago because I had some information which I thought might be of interest to the FBI. During my conversations, the Agents who answered the phone, politely accepted my information --- BUT -- I was not an FBI employee and I was not an FBI informant nor was I any sort of counterspy nor an intelligence asset or anything like that. Instead, on several occasions, I just volunteered some information, as any ordinary patriotic citizen would do and the FBI accepted that information. I have no idea what they did with my information because I was never an employee of the FBI."

VERSUS

OPTION #2

"In the summer of 1960 and continuing until the early summer of 1961 in Chicago and then commencing again in Los Angeles in 1962 through part of 1965, I was in frequent contact with FBI Special Agents who gave me assignments regarding information THEY wanted with respect to both left-wing and right-wing individuals and organizations. The FBI gave me a code name. They paid my expenses. As is the case with all of their other FBI spies and informants, the FBI does not officially acknowledge my ongoing relationship with them, for national security reasons --- but I provided information which THEY requested over a period of 5 years. I completed my mission (from the FBI) to investigate and report upon numerous persons and organizations."

Edited March 5, 2014 by Ernie Lazar

[Ernie Lazar]

BULLETIN:

I just received a UPS package from NARA containing Harry's Los Angeles file. I will review everything and then post a message here -- probably in about 2-3 hours.

[Ernie Lazar]

I am only half-way through the file so it will be another 2-3 hours before I post anything specific here....but, as a friendly suggestion to Paul T., perhaps you might like to take a valium and then have a nice nap so you will be emotionally prepared for what Harry's Los Angeles FBI file reveals.