Harry Dean: Memoirs

[Paul Trejo]

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.

No, problem, Ernie. As usual, I'll expect your customary bias regarding anything about Harry Dean -- especially FBI files -- so I'll take my customary grain of salt with your opinion.

The FBI files themselves will tell much about this side-drama of the JFK assassination -- and may even tell more than they intended to tell.

By way of background, Sylvia Meagher wrote in 1967 that the incident involving Loran Hall, Larry Howard, Lee Harvey Oswald and Silvia Odio was, in her opinion, "proof of the plot" (p. 376, Accessories After the Fact).

The FBI did their best to keep the truth about Loran Hall and Lee Harvey Oswald from the pages of the Warren Commission. If they had included the information that Harry Dean (allegedly) told them in 1963, however, it would have been impossible to withhold further facts about Loran Hall and his associates.

I note for background that Gerry Patrick Hemming also told the FBI that Loran Hall and Larry Howard met Lee Harvey Oswald in Dallas in November 1963 -- and this FBI report did not find its way into the Warren Report.

I note for background that Dallas Deputy Sheriff Roger Craig told the Warren Commission that he saw Lee Harvey Oswald flee the TSBD building in a Green Rambler station wagon with a dark-skinned man matching the description of Larry Howard -- and also got Oswald to acknowledge that stagion wagon (which Oswald claimed belonged to Mrs. Paine -- who indeed did own a Green Rambler station wagon). The FBI distorted this in the Warren Report, saying that Roger Craig didn't get a good look at the station wagon, or its occupants, and that Oswald banged on the desk -- which wasn't true, giving Capt. Fritz plausible deniability.

I note for background that son of Dallas Policeman Roscoe White told the FBI his father confessed to being in the right-wing party that killed J.D. Tippit and shot JFK from the grassy knoll, and blamed it on Lee Harvey Oswald as planned.

All attempts at pointing out accomplices in the JFK murder were distorted by the FBI. Any evidence leading to any other conclusion than Hoover's "Lone Nut" conclusion was squashed by the FBI.

Harry Dean's account -- without even trying -- supplies confirming evidence for Silvia Odio, Gerry Patrick Hemming, Roger Craig and Ricky White -- about their separate knowledge of a right-wing conspiracy to kill JFK.

I'm prepared for any distortions that the FBI might have made to Harry's story in this regard.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited March 5, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[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.

No, problem, Ernie. As usual, I'll expect your customary bias regarding anything about Harry Dean -- especially FBI files -- so I'll take my customary grain of salt with your opinion.

The FBI files themselves will tell much about this side-drama of the JFK assassination -- and may even tell more than they intended to tell.

By way of background, Sylvia Meagher wrote in 1967 that the incident involving Loran Hall, Larry Howard, Lee Harvey Oswald and Silvia Odio was, in her opinion, "proof of the plot" (p. 376, Accessories After the Fact).

The FBI did their best to keep the truth about Loran Hall and Lee Harvey Oswald from the pages of the Warren Commission. If they had included the information that Harry Dean (allegedly) told them in 1963, however, it would have been impossible to withhold further facts about Loran Hall and his associates.

I note for background that Gerry Patrick Hemming also told the FBI that Loran Hall and Larry Howard met Lee Harvey Oswald in Dallas in November 1963 -- and this FBI report did not find its way into the Warren Report.

I note for background that Dallas Deputy Sheriff Roger Craig told the Warren Commission that he saw Lee Harvey Oswald flee the TSBD building in a Green Rambler station wagon with a dark-skinned man matching the description of Larry Howard -- and also got Oswald to acknowledge that stagion wagon (which Oswald claimed belonged to Mrs. Paine -- who indeed did own a Green Rambler station wagon). The FBI distorted this in the Warren Report, saying that Roger Craig didn't get a good look at the station wagon, or its occupants, and that Oswald banged on the desk -- which wasn't true, giving Capt. Fritz plausible deniability.

I note for background that son of Dallas Policeman Roscoe White told the FBI his father confessed to being in the right-wing party that killed J.D. Tippit and shot JFK from the grassy knoll, and blamed it on Lee Harvey Oswald as planned.

All attempts at pointing out accomplices in the JFK murder were distorted by the FBI. Any evidence leading to any other conclusion than Hoover's "Lone Nut" conclusion was squashed by the FBI.

Harry Dean's account -- without even trying -- supplies confirming evidence for Silvia Odio, Gerry Patrick Hemming, Roger Craig and Ricky White -- about their separate knowledge of a right-wing conspiracy to kill JFK.

I'm prepared for any distortions that the FBI might have made to Harry's story in this regard.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Paul -- you really need to invest in a dictionary. If someone reviews documentary evidence and then arrives at a different conclusion from the one you prefer, that is not "bias". It is simply a different interpretation. Your bias has already been acknowledged, i.e. you describe yourself as Harry's "#1 defender". I am not "defending" either him or the FBI. I am merely summarizing what contemporaneous documents reveal.

Furthermore, Harry wrote several letters to Los Angeles (always IN CAPS -- so let's not have any more of YOUR biased nonsense about "FBI forgeries"). Those letters contain damaging admissions by Harry. There is also a TRANSCRIPT of an interview which Harry gave to some southern California Police Department. So spare us your biased fabrications about that type of evidence too.

I have just finished reviewing serial #42 (6/29/65) and contrary to Harry's story -- there has not been EVEN ONE reference to Wesley Grapp. There are, however, references to many other Special Agents who filled out FD-71 forms (standard contact forms which were NOT used for information received from informants---because there was a separate form used for recording those contacts).

As previously mentioned, the Los Angeles Special Agent who was in charge of everything in Los Angeles territory regarding Cuban matters was Agent William J. McCauley. Significantly, virtually everything Harry Dean reported (by phone, by mail, or in person) has McCauley's initials on it -- and, often, there are hand-written comments by him on memos and contact forms. [And, incidentally, McCauley personally interviewed Harry along with his #2 man, Agent Richard L. Cromwell.)

Here is one McCauley handwritten comment about Harry in October 1964 which you might appreciate:

"Is this fellow a mental case somewhere?"

And another (from May 1965):

"This man is apparently a mental case."

I have to check your eBook for some details regarding Harry's claims about Lawrence Howard and William Seymour's meeting with Sylvia Odio. There may be a major discrepancy there.

And, just to tease you a bit: In May 1964 Harry was telling a Police Department interviewer that "the FPCC bunch...finally killed Kennedy".

[Ernie Lazar]

OK -- here is a basic summary of Harry's Los Angeles file. I present this in Q&A form to, hopefully, make everything as clear as possible

GENERAL OBSERVATION:

Q1. Was it worth spending $212 to obtain these 265 pages?

A: Yes, for several reasons. First, it is much easier to see the progressions of how Harry interacted with the Los Angeles office. In addition, many of the copies of Harry's letters (which we previously have seen) are much cleaner and clearer because they are original copies which do not contain HQ markings. And, of course, there are many documents which are not posted on Mary Ferrell's website.

THE SPECIFIC ISSUES WHICH WE HAVE DEBATED

Q2. Do we now know the date of the first contact by the Los Angeles office with Harry? Was Harry's first contact with Special Agent Wesley Grapp "shortly after" arriving in Los Angeles or at any other subsequent time?

A: The first contact was in August 1962. Special Agent William J. McCauley (hereafter WM) contacted Harry to arrange a convenient time to interview Harry. Wesley Grapp is not mentioned even one time in the entire Los Angeles file.

Q3: Why did Agent WM want to talk to Harry? In fact, how did WM even learn about the existence of Harry Dean?

A: The answer begins on July 18, 1962 when Agent WM went to his bank (Security First National Bank). The teller who was handling WM's transaction volunteered some information about Harry -- who also had an account at that bank. The teller expressed some concern about whether or not Harry was genuinely anti-Castro because of a comment which Harry made to another teller on July 12th. WM interviewed the other teller on July 13th, whereupon WM decided he should contact Harry. Keep in mind that WM was the Los Angeles Agent responsible for Cuban-related matters in southern California.

By checking Los Angeles indices, WM determined that Los Angeles had "several subversive type references on the name Harry Dean" and a search slip in Harry's file lists all of those references.

Q4: What did Harry say to WM?

A: Harry gave his usual story about his Chicago experiences with FPCC and he claimed that he had been an informant for the Chicago FBI "but that largely because his wife had become very upset over his activities on behalf of the FBI, he had discontinued his informant activities and had come to the Los Angeles area..."

Harry mentioned that he still had contacts with some FPCC members such as Edgar and Marjorie Swabeck (who also moved to Los Angeles from Chicago). Marjorie was the Secretary of the Los Angeles chapter of FPCC.

Harry told WM that he had "no particular interest in the FPCC, and that while he himself is not personally averse to resuming informant activities on behalf of the FBI, he hesitates to do so because of his wife's feelings in the matter."

COMMENT: Notice the difference in this summary from what Harry has previously claimed. First of all, there was no contact with Wesley Grapp. Second, the fundamental problem was not Harry's disillusionment with the FBI but his wife's feelings AND Harry was willing to provide info re FPCC in Los Angeles but his hesitation was because of his wife!

Q5: What happened next -- after WM's conversation with Harry?

A: Los Angeles field contacted Chicago field and asked them "to verify and furnish a brief summary of the subject's background, particularly his activities as an informant and his reliability while known to the Chicago office."

COMMENT: Notice that this corresponds to my previous reply to Paul regarding standard Bureau procedures. More significant however is something very interesting on the Los Angeles memo in the "to/from" heading at the top of the memo. In the heading, the Los Angeles office entered its file number on Harry, i.e. 105-12933. In the "to" section they entered "Chicago" and then (the 134- prefix). In other words, Los Angeles was assuming that the Chicago field file would have a 134-prefix number (although they did not know any actual Chicago file number associated with Harry). As I have previously mentioned, -134 is the file classification number designated bu the FBI for informants. Significantly, when Chicago field replied to the Los Angeles inquiry, they showed their actual file number (100-38257) which is NOT an informant classification.

Q6: What was Chicago's reply to Los Angeles?

On 9/19/62, Chicago provided the exact same information which all of us have seen before. They referred to his first phone call to Chicago in August 1960 (without identifying himself) and then a subsequent phone call later that month when he told Chicago he was living at 1540 Central Ave in Whiting, Indiana and he was self-employed as owner of Whiting Plastering Co. Chicago confirmed that Harry volunteered some information about the leadership of Chicago FPCC and he stated that he would be "amenable to an interview with an Agent of the FBI."

Then, because he was living in a different field office territory, Chicago contacted Indianapolis FBI and asked them to get background information about Harry.

I won't repeat all the data here -- but this is where the Whiting IN Police Department informed the FBI about Harry's aliases, the outstanding warrant for his arrest on bad check charges, and the information which they obtained from Detroit Police regarding Harry's problems in Canada.

In December 1960, Harry called Chicago again to report he had been living in Detroit for the previous two months (October-November 1960) but had returned to Chicago. He refused to give his current address however.

Harry continued to contact Chicago field by phone "on several occasions until June 1961". Chicago declared that Harry "was never considered a PSI (potential security informant) or informant by this office" -- because of the background information they received from Indianapolis. In August 1960, a former informant of the Chicago office gave a physical description of Harry to Chicago.

Q7: What was the Los Angeles response to all this information from Chicago field?

A: On 9/28/62, WM wrote a memo to SAC Los Angeles (this was not Wesley Grapp at this time) which reported that Chicago had provided information about Harry "indicating general unreliability" so WM then declared: "In view of the information received from Chicago, it is recommended that this case be closed administratively."

Q8: What happened next?

Harry's file was dormant from September 1962 until April 1963. Supervisor Joseph O. Smith at the Los Angeles office received a phone call from Paul Strobel of the West Covina CA Tribune. Strobel told Smith that Harry had been in his office that same day and Harry had claimed "he had been a former counterspy for the FBI in Chicago until May 1961." Strobel told Smith that Harry said he reported info to the Chicago FBI on FPCC and J26M and "had used the code name of Junior with the office there."

Strobel asked the FBI if they could confirm Harry's story. The FBI gave their standard reply, i.e. "confidential nature" of FBI files precluded them from saying anything. Strobel then told Smith that Dean's story sounded like "fruitcake to him" so "he was not going to take any any further notice of it."

Q9: What happened when Harry sent his letter to Hoover. Does it match what Paul T. has previously written here?

A: After FBI HQ received Harry's 11/19/63 letter, Hoover told both Chicago and Los Angeles that there would be no reply to Harry until both field offices reported what they knew about Harry "in order that his statements may be evaluated. Your recommendations as to how this matter should be handled should also be furnished. The Los Angeles office will hold in abeyance any contact with correspondent until instructions are received from the Bureau."

COMMENT: As this reveals, Hoover was not "frantic" nor "angry" nor was he "steamed" as Paul invented in his imagination. Instead, the best adjective that might be applied is that Hoover was perplexed --- because HQ had no information about this person named Harry Dean. So, Hoover sent a ROUTINE inquiry to both field offices and waited for their replies before deciding what the next step should be. And he even solicited THEIR recommendations about how to handle any potential reply to Harry.

When SAC Chicago replied to Hoover on 11/26/63, they repeated the same basic summary about Harry as we are all now familiar with. Chicago also denied Harry's assertion (in his letter to Hoover) that the Chicago field office was not aware that FPCC had created a local chapter in Chicago until Harry brought that info to their attention in August 1960. Chicago also pointed out that at no time did they ask Harry to continue in his position with the FPCC and after they received the background report from Indianapolis "no encouragement was given to Dean to continue his connection with the FPCC."

As a consequence of this information from Chicago to HQ,, Hoover then instructed Los Angeles on 12/2/63 to have "two mature and experienced Agents" contact Dean to inform him that he was never an undercover agent for the FBI nor was Harry ever authorized to represent the FBI nor act in any capacity for the FBI. Also, Harry was to be informed that the FBI does not issues clearances of any type.

The Los Angeles Agents who subsequently contacted Harry were William McCauley and Richard L, Cromwell.

I will continue this message after dinner -- perhaps in a couple hours..........

Edited March 6, 2014 by Ernie Lazar

[Ernie Lazar]

PART 2 REGARDING HARRY'S LOS ANGELES FILE

As we all know, Harry maintains that starting in August 1963, he began supplying information to FBI-Los Angeles re: the John Birch Society

Q10: Are there any documents in the file which support Harry's claim re: his reports on the JBS?

A: None whatsoever. In fact, the words "John Birch Society" or any derivative thereof do NOT appear in the entire file.

Q11: Are there any reports from Harry about Minutemen?

A: Nope -- None whatsoever.

Q12: Are there any reports by Harry re: Edwin Walker or John Rousselot?

A: Nope -- None whatsoever.

Q13: OK, what does the remainder of Harry's file reflect?

A: In December 1963, when Special Agents WM and Richard Cromwell interviewed Harry, Harry gave them 16 documents pertaining to FPCC and J26M. These documents consisted of letters which Harry had received from Dr. Juan Orta (in Cuba) along with copies of Harry's J26M membership card and other records showing Harry's involvement with FPCC or J26M -- plus copies of notices mailed to Harry regarding meetings scheduled by FPCC and J26M in Chicago. There was nothing particularly earth-shaking about any of this material. The primary value was that it allowed the FBI to index the names of people connected to these groups (assuming they did not already know about them).

However, one subject did pique the interest of HQ. In February 1964, HQ asked Los Angeles to prepare a more detailed summary regarding Harry's trip to Cuba. Los Angeles then did prepare a Letterhead Memorandum. Then, in March 1964, Los Angeles prepared a separate memo concerning what Harry recalled regarding his contact with Frank Vega in Cuba (June 1960):

"Dean said that he cannot be positive now but that he believed Vega identified himself as an officer of the Cuban G-2" but if he was not G-2 then "it was in some comparable police capacity." The memo concluded that "Dean said that this was the only time that he ever saw Vega."

COMMENT: As I have tried to explain to Paul, witness testimony is always very problematic--especially as time goes by. As this report reveals, in December 1963, Harry was no longer sure that Vega was Cuban G-2.

More significantly, Harry stated in Paul's eBook that in 1961:

"Also during this time, when anti-Castro Cubans became completely befuddled by Castro’s moves, the FBI asked for my help. Cuban spies had been moving in and out of the USA with alarming freedom, and this included Che Guevara himself, it was believed. Their main aim was to buy weapons on the black market. The FBI asked me to try to spot him in their nationwide photographs. I failed to find Che – however, I did spot Francisco Vega in New York City, and I handed him over, and that was a satisfying feeling of retribution." [my emphasis in italics and underlined]

But in his December 1963 interview with Agents McCauley and Cromwell, Harry told them that the "only time that he ever saw Vega" was in June 1960.

But it gets worse!

In May 1964, Harry was interviewed by a southern California Police Department (specific location not identified). During the course of that lengthy interview Harry made some comments which reveal great imprecision in his memory.

(1) Harry was asked his full name and he replied "Harry Dean". He then was asked if he had a middle name. His answer was "No". [so much for the "Harry J. Dean" references.]

(2) Harry was asked how long he was a member of FPCC in Chicago. He answered "to be exact, it was probably August of 1960" but then he changed his answer to "latter part of July or early part of August 1960 until June 1961, when I came here."

But in the eBook Harry says that the FBI in Chicago asked him to go to Cuba as scheduled (June 1960) and when he returned from his trip "we want you to continue to give us regular reports about the Fair Play for Cuba Committee in Chicago.”

"Continue to give us regular reports"? That would indicate Harry was already providing reports to Chicago in June 1960 or even before then!

(3) Harry was asked why he decided to leave the FPCC and he answered "...they were on to me, you see. They were aware of the fact that I was fingering them to the Justice Department people."

Huh?

I don't recall seeing anything in the eBook about FPCC being "on to me" because they "were aware...that I was fingering them to the Justice Dept people."

Instead, Harry has said that he had become disillusioned by his entire alleged informant experience -- particularly the demands made by the FBI (see his quote below):

"Still, by the end of spring in 1961 I’d had enough -- I had become disillusioned by the entire experience. What had begun as a simple act of charity had become a dangerous nightmare. Also, my FBI contacts were never happy, no matter how much information I brought to them. It was like a never-ending life sentence and I wanted out. So I made a decision – I would change my name and move my family to California."

When the interview of Harry continued, he was asked: "Were you working for the Justice Department while you were a Secretary?" [of FPCC] and Harry replied:

"No, I'm not to say that. I volunteered information to the Justice Department at all times."

BINGO! But what a different story from his original claim that he was "asked by" the FBI to do various things.

Harry also gave a very long answer to another question (one of his "inscrutable" answers) -- which, at the end, included Harry's statement that "the FPCC bunch that, as you know, finally killed Mr. Kennedy..."

Huh?

This was MAY 1964 when Harry made that comment to the Police interviewers.

BUT... (according to the eBook and according to everything Paul and Harry have posted here in EF), Harry concluded in the SUMMER OF 1963 that JFK was murdered by a "JBS PLOT" -- which is what he supposedly told Wesley Grapp in September 1963!

On October 3, 1964, Harry sent a letter to FBI-Los Angeles. He addressed it as follows:

Chief Agent, FBI

1340 W. 6th Street

Los Angeles CA

If, as Harry claims, he was buddies with Wesley Grapp (who then was SAC Los Angeles), don't you think Harry would have addressed a letter to the specific name of the person whom he claims he was reporting to directly?

In that letter, Harry pointed out that in "late September 1964, I met with FBI Agent 'Rapp' " after having received a phone call from Agent Fern Rapp the previous day. The purpose of that meeting, according to Harry, "was to identify a photograph that could possible (sic) have been a G-2 secret agent of the Castro government whom I met in Havana in 1960, and who in 1960 or 1961 had been known to be in New York City at an address known by myself and then given to the FBI in 1961..."

Harry continued: "A great deal of time had past (sic) since my meeting with Castro Agent Francisco Vega but I am sure that the informal photograph shown me by FBI Agent 'Rapp' of the Pomona California office, was not that of the G-2 Castro Agent Francisco Vega"

Harry then expressed the hope that Vega would ultimately "be apprehended as I know him to be a dangerous pro-Castro anti-American especially if he had been and still remains in the United States."

HUH??

See previous comment above re: Vega. First of all, according to Harry, he identified Vega's photo in 1961 and "I handed him over" to the FBI. So why does the FBI supposedly need his assistance in identifying a photo of Vega in "late September 1964"? And if the FBI had Vega's New York address in 1961 -- why is the FBI supposedly uncertain about his whereabouts in 1964?

It is on this memo that Agent McCauley hand-wrote about Harry: "Is this fellow a mental case somewhere?" Furthermore, there is another hand-written notation by WM declaring "No acknowledgement needed" -- i.e. the FBI was not even going to reply to Harry's October 1964 letter because it was so preposterous!

I am not sure about the significance of this next tidbit -- but I will present it for your consideration:

In a 12/5/64 letter to FBI-Los Angeles, Harry quotes Larry Howard as stating that he (Howard) knows that William Seymour was "never at Mrs. Odio's with or without [Loran] Hall. He said he had told the FBI this etc. recently."

In mid-December 1964, the FBI learned about Harry's contacts with Bob Hayward (Joe Pyne Show). We have already addressed the multiple back-and-forth serials which discuss this matter.

In March 1965, Harry called the FBI office at 7:30pm to report his association with J.U.R.E. which Harry describes in the eBook as a Cuban counterrevolutionary group. Harry told Los Angeles that he had been contacted by a JURE representative (Roland Barrio in El Monte CA) to request assistance in securing arms for JURE's anti-Castro activities.

On March 31, 1965 Harry sent a letter to FBI-Los Angeles addressed to:

"Office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation

Los Angeles, California"

This letter was typed in ALL CAPS.

On 4/3/65, Harry phoned the Los Angeles office. His comments were recorded on form FD-71 -- used to record contacts from everybody (except informants).

On 5/3/65, another FD-71 form reporting an in-person visit from Harry. He was going to mail a letter but was in the neighborhood so just dropped it off instead. The letter (about JURE) was typed in ALL CAPS. Agent McCauley handwrote a comment about Harry: "This man is apparently a mental case"

Harry's letter suggested that some former associates of his in JURE "were not in fact anti-Castro but rather pro-Communist..."

Harry reported that he was guessing regarding the actual sympathies of these men.

On 5/2/65, Harry called the Los Angeles office at 3:30pm and said he had attempted to contact FBI Agent Ferd Rapp (Ontario CA Resident Agent) but the office was closed.

On 5/10/65 Harry called the Los Angeles office at 10:05am and spoke with Agent Philip S. Andrist. Again, he wanted to report his speculation about people connected to JURE

On 6/10/65, an FBI Supervisor (William J. Nolan) answered a phone call from Bill Capps of the La Puente Valley Journal. We are already familiar with that story. A number of serials record the back-and-forth regarding the request by Capps asking if the FBI could confirm or deny Harry's story.

On 6/23/65, William M. Hill sent a letter to FBI-Los Angeles concerning Harry. Agent WM contacted Hill by phone. During the phone conversation, Hill told WM that his wife drove Harry's wife (Millie) to and from work everyday since they both worked for the Leach Corp. According to Mr. Hill, Millie told Hill's wife that she (Millie) was thinking about having Harry committed. Hill wanted to know if the FBI wanted his assistance with respect to keeping tabs on Harry. The FBI said no.

On August 24, 1965, the Fullerton Police Dept reported to the FBI that Harry had visited them (and other police departments) and passed out copies of the Valley Journal article. During his visit, Harry told the Fullerton police that the recent race riot in Watts was "Communist inspired" [Note: both the Intelligence Division of the Los Angeles Police Department and the FBI concluded that the riots were NOT Communist inspired.]

10/6/65 -- another FD-71 form -- this time a phone call from Ray William Gardner who said he was in the Public Relations business and Harry had approached him about getting assistance to publish a book or article re: his FPCC experiences. Gardner asked the FBI if Harry's story could be verified by the FBI.

10/14/65 -- SAC Boston contacted SAC Los Angeles because of a contact they had from Michael Krause of South Action MA. Krause stated that in 1963 he was living in El Monte CA and he was Editor of the local newspaper. In April of 1963, Harry had visited the El Monte paper office "to inquire whether the paper would be interested in printing a series concerning his activities during the Cuban Revolution...Shortly after this contact, Dean asked Krause if he (Krause) would write a book about Dean's activities...During about the first or second week of June 1963, Dean again contacted Krause and told him to forget the idea of preparing the book."

From October 1965 to mid-October 1966 -- there were no new serials created re: Harry.

10/14/66 = California Senator George Murphy sent an inquiry to FBI HQ concerning Harry. Attached were copies of documents which Harry sent to Murphy -- including his June 1961 letter to JFK. Harry wanted Murphy's help in getting his name "cleared" because (Harry said) the 1961 Senate report reference to him as Secretary of FPCC had "harmed him from getting further jobs".

NOTE: Harry has never explained how that obscure one sentence reference could harm his employment prospects.

11/22/66 = Los Angeles received a phone call from Harry. This time Agent Philip Reilly answered the call. Dean repeated his entire story as though nobody in Los Angeles had ever heard of him. According to Reilly's memo, "He implied that he had been informant of the Chicago office of the FBI in supplying information regarding the activities of the FPCC. Dean said he knew Larry Howard and Lorenzo Hall in the FPCC and indicated that Howard and Hall had traveled in Cuba with Lee Harvey Oswald. Dean was rambling and disconnected in his narration and when asked for purpose of his call, he stated that he wanted to 'clear his name' and clarify his status with regard to his name being mentioned in the U.S. Senate Committee on the FPCC..."

11/29/66 = Los Angeles Supervisor Neal McGinnis reported receiving a phone call from FBI HQ "Division 6" (the Investigative Division) regarding an 11/26/66 UPI report in Dallas newspapers which stated that someone described as "a former Agent of the FBI" had put flowers on LHO's grave. President Johnson called the FBI to inquire into the name of the "Agent".

12/3/66 = Special Agent Willie R. White wrote memo reporting a phone call received from W.R. Marshal of the Sherman TX Democrat newspaper. Marshal stated he was inquiring about the present location for interview purposes "of Harry Dean, a former FBI Special Agent...Mr. Marshal contacted Mrs. Oswald, who informed him that Junior was the code name of a former FBI Agent named Harry Dean. She indicated that Dean was an undercover Agent for the FBI."

12/8/66 = Agent WM and Henry J. Pratt went to Harry's to ask him what he wanted to explain to the FBI (responding to Harry's 11/22/13 call to Agent Reilly). Harry again repeated his entire story about his name appearing in the 1961 Senate Subcommittee report "and that he wanted it made clear for the benefit of his children's futures...that he is not a 'red' as the report would suggest, but is in fact anti-communist."

Harry described himself as needing to "get off the hook". "He was told that he was not 'on the hook' so far as the U.S. Government is concerned...It was explained to him that the consequences of his activities, whether or not the opposite of what he intended, were of no interest to the U.S. Government. He said he now understood that and that he might have been better off if he himself had forgotten the past and done nothing tending to revive it."

2/22/67 = Another FD-71 form, this time summarizing telephone contact from Charles Page of the Los Angeles Herald Examiner. Page reported to FBI about a phone call he received from Harry "who identified himself as a former undercover agent who had been involved with Lee Harvey Oswald in the FPCC. Dean claimed to be in fear of his life because of the investigation taking place in New Orleans and the suicide in that city of someone who apparently was under investigation. He (Dean) claimed to have contacted this office and had asked for protection and been told the FBI did not provide protection. Dean told Page for this reason he was going to start to carry a gun."

2/23/67 = Assistant Special Agent in Charge Arnold C. Larsento, received phone call from Val Clenard of KMPC News concerning Harry. Clenard asked FBI for any information regarding Dean but was declined.

May 1967 = Three serials report John Arvidson's letter to CIA which suggested that Harry might be person shown in Warren Commission Exhibit #237, departing Soviet Embassy in Mexico City. Los Angeles suggested that FBI HQ contact Detroit field office because they had fingerprinted Harry in January 1955 and might have photo. Then 3 Los Angeles Agents who had personally seen and interviewed Harry (Rapp, McCauley, Cromwell) all reported that CIA photo was NOT Harry.

Between May 1967 and April 1, 1977 -- Harry's file contains no new serials.

4/1/77 = Assistant Special Agent in Charge Richard E. Gebhardt sends letter to James Horwitz because of 3/16/77 Horwitz column in Las Virgenes CA Independent Valley News which reported that Harry had been an undercover agent or informant for the FBI. Gebhardt categorically denied any FBI association with Harry.

That's All Folks!

Decide for yourself if Paul Trejo's previous suspicions regarding all the "activity" in the Los Angeles file warrants his conclusions.

Significantly, all the FD-71 contact forms were prepared by numerous different Los Angeles Agents --- exactly what you would expect if Los Angeles was just accepting routine contacts from any person. If Harry had ever been an actual FBI informant, he would have been assigned one or two specific case agents and ALL his reports would have been made to just those Agents so that they could keep track of everything he was providing and they also would have the best ability to evaluate reliability of informant information over time.

What Harry's Los Angeles file reveals is that Harry willy-nilly contacted the FBI office whenever he felt like it and on no particular schedule -- even if only to "guess" or speculate about some matter (whether riots in Los Angeles or the alleged sympathies of persons associated with JURE, etc)

Perhaps the single most striking aspect of his file is the number of times Harry repeated his ENTIRE story (starting with FPCC in Chicago in 1960) as if no Agent in Los Angeles had the remotest clue who he was! And Agent McCauley (the Agent who was the Los Angeles's office senior Agent for Cuban-related matters) dismissed Harry as a "mental case" -- not some valuable information source for the FBI.

Also striking is the number of times Harry repeated his interest in having his name "cleared" -- over a period of MANY years.

I still cannot figure out why, exactly, Harry was so worried about that ONE reference in an obscure report which nobody probably even read. A single reference to someone in ANY report means absolutely nothing -- so why was Harry so obsessed over it?

Edited March 6, 2014 by Ernie Lazar

[Paul Trejo]

...Here is one McCauley handwritten comment about Harry in October 1964 which you might appreciate:

"Is this fellow a mental case somewhere?"

And another (from May 1965):

"This man is apparently a mental case."

I have to check your eBook for some details regarding Harry's claims about Lawrence Howard and William Seymour's meeting with Sylvia Odio. There may be a major discrepancy there.

And, just to tease you a bit: In May 1964 Harry was telling a Police Department interviewer that "the FPCC bunch...finally killed Kennedy".

Very biased reporting, Ernie. You apparently lack skills in critical thinking.

Also, is there any independent confirmation that Harry said these things -- or is the FBI just offering their best impression?

Let's take a closer look...

SIncerely,

--Paul Trejo

[Ernie Lazar]

...Here is one McCauley handwritten comment about Harry in October 1964 which you might appreciate:

"Is this fellow a mental case somewhere?"

And another (from May 1965):

"This man is apparently a mental case."

I have to check your eBook for some details regarding Harry's claims about Lawrence Howard and William Seymour's meeting with Sylvia Odio. There may be a major discrepancy there.

And, just to tease you a bit: In May 1964 Harry was telling a Police Department interviewer that "the FPCC bunch...finally killed Kennedy".

Very biased reporting, Ernie. You apparently lack skills in critical thinking.

Also, is there any independent confirmation that Harry said these things -- or is the FBI just offering their best impression?

Let's take a closer look...

SIncerely,

--Paul Trejo

Explain why my report is "biased". Are you saying that I have presented FALSE information concerning what FBI-Los Angeles serials contain?

You must use the word "biased" to mean something totally different from the normal understanding of the word.

And what does "critical thinking" have to do with anything in this regard? I simply presented an accurate, truthful, factual, and in-context summary of everything contained in Harry's Los Angeles file.

I guess what you are saying is that if YOU were asked to prepare a summary of what is contained in Harry's Los Angeles file, you would have excised all derogatory references to Harry which Agents wrote in their serials. And THAT is what YOU would have considered "unbiased" reporting ??

Edited March 6, 2014 by Ernie Lazar

[Paul Trejo]

OK -- here is a basic summary of Harry's Los Angeles file. I present this in Q&A form to, hopefully, make everything as clear as possible

GENERAL OBSERVATION:

Q1. Was it worth spending $212 to obtain these 265 pages?

A: Yes, for several reasons. First, it is much easier to see the progressions of how Harry interacted with the Los Angeles office. In addition, many of the copies of Harry's letters (which we previously have seen) are much cleaner and clearer because they are original copies which do not contain HQ markings. And, of course, there are many documents which are not posted on Mary Ferrell's website.

THE SPECIFIC ISSUES WHICH WE HAVE DEBATED

Q2. Do we now know the date of the first contact by the Los Angeles office with Harry? Was Harry's first contact with Special Agent Wesley Grapp "shortly after" arriving in Los Angeles or at any other subsequent time?

A: The first contact was in August 1962. Special Agent William J. McCauley (hereafter WM) contacted Harry to arrange a convenient time to interview Harry. Wesley Grapp is not mentioned even one time in the entire Los Angeles file.

Q3: Why did Agent WM want to talk to Harry? In fact, how did WM even learn about the existence of Harry Dean?

A: The answer begins on July 18, 1962 when Agent WM went to his bank (Security First National Bank). The teller who was handling WM's transaction volunteered some information about Harry -- who also had an account at that bank. The teller expressed some concern about whether or not Harry was genuinely anti-Castro because of a comment which Harry made to another teller on July 12th. WM interviewed the other teller on July 13th, whereupon WM decided he should contact Harry. Keep in mind that WM was the Los Angeles Agent responsible for Cuban-related matters in southern California.

By checking Los Angeles indices, WM determined that Los Angeles had "several subversive type references on the name Harry Dean" and a search slip in Harry's file lists all of those references.

Much context is missing here. Why did the Teller of a bank start up a conversation with a bank customer (who was FBI agent William McCauley) about another bank customer?

Why did the Teller assume that WM knew Harry Dean was a member of the FPCC? (Had the FBI been spying on Harry Dean without his knowledge?)

Why did the Teller assume that WM knew that Harry Dean portrayed himself as anti-Castro? (How long had both the Teller and WM been spying on Harry Dean?)

Why did that Teller report to WM concerns that a second Teller expressed regarding something Harry Dean allegedly said to him? (Was the second Teller also spying on Harry Dean?)

What exactly did the second Teller say to WM? Why are you leaving that out, Ernie?

What were those ‘subversive references’ that WM allegedly had on Harry Dean? Why are you leaving those out, Ernie?

Q4: What did Harry say to WM?

A: Harry gave his usual story about his Chicago experiences with FPCC and he claimed that he had been an informant for the Chicago FBI "but that largely because his wife had become very upset over his activities on behalf of the FBI, he had discontinued his informant activities and had come to the Los Angeles area..."

Harry mentioned that he still had contacts with some FPCC members such as Edgar and Marjorie Swabeck (who also moved to Los Angeles from Chicago). Marjorie was the Secretary of the Los Angeles chapter of FPCC.

Harry told WM that he had "no particular interest in the FPCC, and that while he himself is not personally averse to resuming informant activities on behalf of the FBI, he hesitates to do so because of his wife's feelings in the matter."

All this sounds normal to me.

Q5: What happened next -- after WM's conversation with Harry?

A: Los Angeles field contacted Chicago field and asked them "to verify and furnish a brief summary of the subject's background, particularly his activities as an informant and his reliability while known to the Chicago office."

All this sounds normal to me.

Q6: What was Chicago's reply to Los Angeles?

On 9/19/62, Chicago provided the exact same information which all of us have seen before. They referred to his first phone call to Chicago in August 1960 (without identifying himself) and then a subsequent phone call later that month when he told Chicago he was living at 1540 Central Ave in Whiting, Indiana and he was self-employed as owner of Whiting Plastering Co. Chicago confirmed that Harry volunteered some information about the leadership of Chicago FPCC and he stated that he would be "amenable to an interview with an Agent of the FBI."

Then, because he was living in a different field office territory, Chicago contacted Indianapolis FBI and asked them to get background information about Harry. I won't repeat all the data here -- but this is where the Whiting IN Police Department informed the FBI about Harry's aliases, the outstanding warrant for his arrest on bad check charges, and the information which they obtained from Detroit Police regarding Harry's problems in Canada.

In December 1960, Harry called Chicago again to report he had been living in Detroit for the previous two months (October-November 1960) but had returned to Chicago. He refused to give his current address however.

Harry continued to contact Chicago field by phone "on several occasions until June 1961". Chicago declared that Harry "was never considered a PSI (potential security informant) or informant by this office" -- because of the background information they received from Indianapolis. In August 1960, a former informant of the Chicago office gave a physical description of Harry to Chicago.

This is interesting -- Harry contacted the Chicago FBI "on several occasions" between December 1960 and June 1961. But how many is several? Also, what was the content discussed in those contacts? This is critical data, and it is merely omitted! Very sloppy.

Q7: What was the Los Angeles response to all this information from Chicago field?

A: On 9/28/62, WM wrote a memo to SAC Los Angeles (this was not Wesley Grapp at this time) which reported that Chicago had provided information about Harry "indicating general unreliability" so WM then declared: "In view of the information received from Chicago, it is recommended that this case be closed administratively."

This seems to be a major contradiction. Harry Dean did not initially contact the FBI in Los Angeles, rather, the FBI (William McCauley, WM) first contacted Harry on the word of Harry's bank Teller who was evidently spying on Harry Dean for the FBI.

So, WM contacted the Chicago FBI for information about Harry – and when he learned about Harry’s alleged “general unreliability” from Chicago, WM decided that “this case be closed administratively”?

It makes no sense! Why would WM investigate a report from a Bank Teller about Harry Dean, and then close the case because Harry himself was allegedly “unreliable?”

It is non-sequitur. You're leaving out too many steps, Ernie. Perhaps you can't really process 60+ FBI serials in one day.

Q8: What happened next?

Harry's file was dormant from September 1962 until April 1963. Supervisor Joseph O. Smith at the Los Angeles office received a phone call from Paul Strobel of the West Covina CA Tribune. Strobel told Smith that Harry had been in his office that same day and Harry had claimed "he had been a former counterspy for the FBI in Chicago until May 1961." Strobel told Smith that Harry said he reported info to the Chicago FBI on FPCC and J26M and "had used the code name of Junior with the office there."

Well – until we find out what happened in those "several contacts" which the Chicago FBI admits they had with Harry Dean between 12/1960 and 6/1961, we cannot honestly evaluate these allegations.

Also, until we verify that the FBI correctly duplicated Paul Stobel’s report, then we can’t even make a conclusion about the alleged code name of “Junior.”

Also, if the FBI assumed such an arrogant attitude toward Harry Dean, an 8^th grade graduate and World War II Veteran, that they called a “mental case” in their internal memos, then I submit that the FBI was also arrogant enough to manipulate with Harry Dean and pretend to him that his code name was “Junior,” even though Harry was never a PSI.

In the absense of further information, this possibility remains open.

Strobel asked the FBI if they could confirm Harry's story. The FBI gave their standard reply, i.e. "confidential nature" of FBI files precluded them from saying anything. Strobel then told Smith that Dean's story sounded like "fruitcake to him" so "he was not going to take any any further notice of it."

Well, the FBI didn’t actually say anything to Strobel one way or another. If there was even a smidgen of truth in it, the FBI would never tell a newspaper reporter. So, the reporter's personal opinion proves nothing.

Q9: What happened when Harry sent his letter to Hoover. Does it match what Paul T. has previously written here?

A: After FBI HQ received Harry's 11/19/63 letter, Hoover told both Chicago and Los Angeles that there would be no reply to Harry until both field offices reported what they knew about Harry "in order that his statements may be evaluated. Your recommendations as to how this matter should be handled should also be furnished. The Los Angeles office will hold in abeyance any contact with correspondent until instructions are received from the Bureau."

When SAC Chicago replied to Hoover on 11/26/63...Chicago...denied Harry's assertion (in his letter to Hoover) that the Chicago field office was not aware that FPCC had created a local chapter in Chicago until Harry brought that info to their attention in August 1960.

Again, until we get more information about Harry’s admitted “several contacts” from 12/1960 through 6/1961 with the Chicago FBI, then we can’t really tell if they were only covering their own behind with these words.

Chicago also pointed out that at no time did they ask Harry to continue in his position with the FPCC and after they received the background report from Indianapolis "no encouragement was given to Dean to continue his connection with the FPCC."

Ditto.

As a consequence of this information from Chicago to HQ,, Hoover then instructed Los Angeles on 12/2/63 to have "two mature and experienced Agents" contact Dean to inform him that he was never an undercover agent for the FBI nor was Harry ever authorized to represent the FBI nor act in any capacity for the FBI. Also, Harry was to be informed that the FBI does not issues clearances of any type.

The Los Angeles Agents who subsequently contacted Harry were William McCauley and Richard L, Cromwell.

One may argue that J. Edgar Hoover had to clean up a mess made by the Chicago FBI in their manipulation of Harry Dean. He sent two men from the Los Angeles FBI to explain things plainly to Harry, because the Chicago FBI confused matters in their callous handling of Harry's offer of information.

Again, until we know exactly what happened between December 1960 and June 1961, when the Chicago FBI admits there were “several contacts” made between Harry and themselves, none of this material is conclusive.

Ernie, my comments are underneath yours.

--Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

PART 2 REGARDING HARRY'S LOS ANGELES FILE

As we all know, Harry maintains that starting in August 1963, he began supplying information to FBI-Los Angeles re: the John Birch Society

Q10: Are there any documents in the file which support Harry's claim re: his reports on the JBS?

A: None whatsoever. In fact, the words "John Birch Society" or any derivative thereof do NOT appear in the entire file.

Q11: Are there any reports from Harry about Minutemen?

A: Nope -- None whatsoever.

Q12: Are there any reports by Harry re: Edwin Walker or John Rousselot?

A: Nope -- None whatsoever.

Ernie, under the circumstances of the JFK assassination, I will argue that we cannot draw a conclusion based on the absence of files at this point.

Q13: OK, what does the remainder of Harry's file reflect?

A: In December 1963, when Special Agents WM and Richard Cromwell interviewed Harry, Harry gave them 16 documents pertaining to FPCC and J26M. These documents consisted of letters which Harry had received from Dr. Juan Orta (in Cuba) along with copies of Harry's J26M membership card and other records showing Harry's involvement with FPCC or J26M -- plus copies of notices mailed to Harry regarding meetings scheduled by FPCC and J26M in Chicago. There was nothing particularly earth-shaking about any of this material. The primary value was that it allowed the FBI to index the names of people connected to these groups (assuming they did not already know about them).

However, one subject did pique the interest of HQ. In February 1964, HQ asked Los Angeles to prepare a more detailed summary regarding Harry's trip to Cuba. Los Angeles then did prepare a Letterhead Memorandum. Then, in March 1964, Los Angeles prepared a separate memo concerning what Harry recalled regarding his contact with Frank Vega in Cuba (June 1960):

"Dean said that he cannot be positive now but that he believed Vega identified himself as an officer of the Cuban G-2" but if he was not G-2 then "it was in some comparable police capacity." The memo concluded that "Dean said that this was the only time that he ever saw Vega."

COMMENT: As I have tried to explain to Paul, witness testimony is always very problematic--especially as time goes by. As this report reveals, in December 1963, Harry was no longer sure that Vega was Cuban G-2.

More significantly, Harry stated in Paul's eBook that in 1961:

"Also during this time, when anti-Castro Cubans became completely befuddled by Castro’s moves, the FBI asked for my help. Cuban spies had been moving in and out of the USA with alarming freedom, and this included Che Guevara himself, it was believed. Their main aim was to buy weapons on the black market. The FBI asked me to try to spot him in their nationwide photographs. I failed to find Che – however, I did spot Francisco Vega in New York City, and I handed him over, and that was a satisfying feeling of retribution." [my emphasis in italics and underlined]

But in his December 1963 interview with Agents McCauley and Cromwell, Harry told them that the "only time that he ever saw Vega" was in June 1960.

Ernie, you evidently presume that Harry “spotted” Vega in person, while Harry actually spotted Vega from photographs. So, you're jumping to conclusions again.

But it gets worse!

In your opinion, Ernie.

In May 1964, Harry was interviewed by a southern California Police Department (specific location not identified). During the course of that lengthy interview Harry made some comments which reveal great imprecision in his memory.

Why was the specific PD not identified? Without an honest source, anything claimed by the "interviewer" is compromised.

(1) Harry was asked his full name and he replied "Harry Dean". He then was asked if he had a middle name. His answer was "No". [so much for the "Harry J. Dean" references.]

Says some unidentified interviewer.

(2) Harry was asked how long he was a member of FPCC in Chicago. He answered "to be exact, it was probably August of 1960" but then he changed his answer to "latter part of July or early part of August 1960 until June 1961, when I came here."

Says some unidentified interviewer.

But in the eBook Harry says that the FBI in Chicago asked him to go to Cuba as scheduled (June 1960) and when he returned from his trip "we want you to continue to give us regular reports about the Fair Play for Cuba Committee in Chicago.”

"Continue to give us regular reports"? That would indicate Harry was already providing reports to Chicago in June 1960 or even before then!

It doesn't mean "even before then." Still, if we need to adjust the date (from Harry's memory) we're happy to work with independent confirmation.

(3) Harry was asked why he decided to leave the FPCC and he answered "...they were on to me, you see. They were aware of the fact that I was fingering them to the Justice Department people."

Huh?

You don’t get that, Ernie? The Communists and the Americans were killing each other over Fidel Castro. We can name the dead today. Are you ignorant of the Cold War period?

I don't recall seeing anything in the eBook about FPCC being "on to me" because they "were aware...that I was fingering them to the Justice Dept people."

Instead, Harry has said that he had become disillusioned by his entire alleged informant experience -- particularly the demands made by the FBI (see his quote below):

"Still, by the end of spring in 1961 I’d had enough -- I had become disillusioned by the entire experience. What had begun as a simple act of charity had become a dangerous nightmare. Also, my FBI contacts were never happy, no matter how much information I brought to them. It was like a never-ending life sentence and I wanted out. So I made a decision – I would change my name and move my family to California."

When the interview of Harry continued, he was asked: "Were you working for the Justice Department while you were a Secretary?" [of FPCC] and Harry replied:

"No, I'm not to say that. I volunteered information to the Justice Department at all times."

BINGO! But what a different story from his original claim that he was "asked by" the FBI to do various things.

So, Harry did get one right -- you admit it!

Harry also gave a very long answer to another question (one of his "inscrutable" answers) -- which, at the end, included Harry's statement that "the FPCC bunch that, as you know, finally killed Mr. Kennedy..."

Huh?

Again, Ernie, this is all taken from an unidentified source! Aren't you ashamed to accept data like this? How do we know Harry actually said this? Or, how do we know that the reporting person actually understood Harry? Or, how do we know that the reporting person even understood the context?

This was MAY 1964 when Harry made that comment to the Police interviewers.

That is, the unidentified Police interviewers!

BUT... (according to the eBook and according to everything Paul and Harry have posted here in EF), Harry concluded in the SUMMER OF 1963 that JFK was murdered by a "JBS PLOT" -- which is what he supposedly told Wesley Grapp in September 1963!

Something is indeed fishy here -- the promotion of unidentified interviewers!

On October 3, 1964, Harry sent a letter to FBI-Los Angeles. He addressed it as follows:

Chief Agent, FBI

1340 W. 6th Street

Los Angeles CA

If, as Harry claims, he was buddies with Wesley Grapp (who then was SAC Los Angeles), don't you think Harry would have addressed a letter to the specific name of the person whom he claims he was reporting to directly?

In that letter, Harry pointed out that in "late September 1964, I met with FBI Agent 'Rapp' " after having received a phone call from Agent Fern Rapp the previous day. The purpose of that meeting, according to Harry, "was to identify a photograph that could possible (sic) have been a G-2 secret agent of the Castro government whom I met in Havana in 1960, and who in 1960 or 1961 had been known to be in New York City at an address known by myself and then given to the FBI in 1961..."

Harry continued: "A great deal of time had past (sic) since my meeting with Castro Agent Francisco Vega but I am sure that the informal photograph shown me by FBI Agent 'Rapp' of the Pomona California office, was not that of the G-2 Castro Agent Francisco Vega"

Harry then expressed the hope that Vega would ultimately "be apprehended as I know him to be a dangerous pro-Castro anti-American especially if he had been and still remains in the United States."

HUH??

Ernie, I think you’re reading this information incorrectly.

See previous comment above re: Vega. First of all, according to Harry, he identified Vega's photo in 1961 and "I handed him over" to the FBI. So why does the FBI supposedly need his assistance in identifying a photo of Vega in "late September 1964"? And if the FBI had Vega's New York address in 1961 -- why is the FBI supposedly uncertain about his whereabouts in 1964?

I think you’ve mistaken the context.

It is on this memo that Agent McCauley hand-wrote about Harry: "Is this fellow a mental case somewhere?" Furthermore, there is another hand-written notation by WM declaring "No acknowledgement needed" -- i.e. the FBI was not even going to reply to Harry's October 1964 letter because it was so preposterous!

Perhaps WM also misunderstood it -- and he surely shows himself to be arrogant. To be sure about WM's understanding, however, we'll need to see the actual document.

I am not sure about the significance of this next tidbit -- but I will present it for your consideration:

In a 12/5/64 letter to FBI-Los Angeles, Harry quotes Larry Howard as stating that he (Howard) knows that William Seymour was "never at Mrs. Odio's with or without [Loran] Hall. He said he had told the FBI this etc. recently."

You don’t know the significance of THAT, Ernie?? Loran Hall had recently lied to the FBI saying that he was at Silvia Odio’s house with William Seymour, and not with Lee Harvey Oswald as Silvia Odio testified under oath! Loran Hall later recanted his claim about Seymour! Death threats were flying within the rightist underground in Southern California.

In mid-December 1964, the FBI learned about Harry's contacts with Bob Hayward (Joe Pyne Show). We have already addressed the multiple back-and-forth serials which discuss this matter.

But we have not arrived at the bottom of the claims the FBI made about this!

In March 1965, Harry called the FBI office at 7:30pm to report his association with J.U.R.E. which Harry describes in the eBook as a Cuban counterrevolutionary group. Harry told Los Angeles that he had been contacted by a JURE representative (Roland Barrio in El Monte CA) to request assistance in securing arms for JURE's anti-Castro activities.

On March 31, 1965 Harry sent a letter to FBI-Los Angeles addressed to:

"Office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation

Los Angeles, California"

This letter was typed in ALL CAPS.

On 4/3/65, Harry phoned the Los Angeles office. His comments were recorded on form FD-71 -- used to record contacts from everybody (except informants).

On 5/3/65, another FD-71 form reporting an in-person visit from Harry. He was going to mail a letter but was in the neighborhood so just dropped it off instead. The letter (about JURE) was typed in ALL CAPS. Agent McCauley handwrote a comment about Harry: "This man is apparently a mental case"

That’s the second time that FBI SAC William McCauley wrote that -- he seems like a particularly arrogant person.

Harry's letter suggested that some former associates of his in JURE "were not in fact anti-Castro but rather pro-Communist..."

Harry reported that he was guessing regarding the actual sympathies of these men.

As would anybody in the world of covert politics during the Cold War!

On 5/2/65, Harry called the Los Angeles office at 3:30pm and said he had attempted to contact FBI Agent Ferd Rapp (Ontario CA Resident Agent) but the office was closed.

On 5/10/65 Harry called the Los Angeles office at 10:05am and spoke with Agent Philip S. Andrist. Again, he wanted to report his speculation about people connected to JURE

On 6/10/65, an FBI Supervisor (William J. Nolan) answered a phone call from Bill Capps of the La Puente Valley Journal. We are already familiar with that story. A number of serials record the back-and-forth regarding the request by Capps asking if the FBI could confirm or deny Harry's story.

On 6/23/65, William M. Hill sent a letter to FBI-Los Angeles concerning Harry. Agent WM contacted Hill by phone. During the phone conversation, Hill told WM that his wife drove Harry's wife (Millie) to and from work everyday since they both worked for the Leach Corp. According to Mr. Hill, Millie told Hill's wife that she (Millie) was thinking about having Harry committed. Hill wanted to know if the FBI wanted his assistance with respect to keeping tabs on Harry. The FBI said no.

I'm glad the FBI said no, because all of this amounts to mere rumor and gossip.

On August 24, 1965, the Fullerton Police Dept reported to the FBI that Harry had visited them (and other police departments) and passed out copies of the Valley Journal article. During his visit, Harry told the Fullerton police that the recent race riot in Watts was "Communist inspired" [Note: both the Intelligence Division of the Los Angeles Police Department and the FBI concluded that the riots were NOT Communist inspired.]

So what? That was Harry’s honest opinion, and it's still a free country.

10/6/65 -- another FD-71 form -- this time a phone call from Ray William Gardner who said he was in the Public Relations business and Harry had approached him about getting assistance to publish a book or article re: his FPCC experiences. Gardner asked the FBI if Harry's story could be verified by the FBI.

But of course the FBI laughed at such a request -- or they better have.

10/14/65 -- SAC Boston contacted SAC Los Angeles because of a contact they had from Michael Krause of South Action MA. Krause stated that in 1963 he was living in El Monte CA and he was Editor of the local newspaper. In April of 1963, Harry had visited the El Monte paper office "to inquire whether the paper would be interested in printing a series concerning his activities during the Cuban Revolution...Shortly after this contact, Dean asked Krause if he (Krause) would write a book about Dean's activities...During about the first or second week of June 1963, Dean again contacted Krause and told him to forget the idea of preparing the book."

Why in heaven’s name would Krause bother the FBI about that topic at anytime, but even worse, 2.5 years after the fact?

From October 1965 to mid-October 1966 -- there were no new serials created re: Harry.

10/14/66 = California Senator George Murphy sent an inquiry to FBI HQ concerning Harry. Attached were copies of documents which Harry sent to Murphy -- including his June 1961 letter to JFK. Harry wanted Murphy's help in getting his name "cleared" because (Harry said) the 1961 Senate report reference to him as Secretary of FPCC had "harmed him from getting further jobs".

NOTE: Harry has never explained how that obscure one sentence reference could harm his employment prospects.

Big deal. Harry honestly thought that it might affect his employment. Remember that this was the Cold War period. Look at what happened to Dallas Deputy Roger Craig's employment history because he became a Warren Commission critic!

11/22/66 = Los Angeles received a phone call from Harry. This time Agent Philip Reilly answered the call. Dean repeated his entire story as though nobody in Los Angeles had ever heard of him. According to Reilly's memo, "He implied that he had been informant of the Chicago office of the FBI in supplying information regarding the activities of the FPCC. Dean said he knew Larry Howard and Lorenzo Hall in the FPCC and indicated that Howard and Hall had traveled in Cuba with Lee Harvey Oswald. Dean was rambling and disconnected in his narration and when asked for purpose of his call, he stated that he wanted to 'clear his name' and clarify his status with regard to his name being mentioned in the U.S. Senate Committee on the FPCC..."

It sounds, instead, as though Reilly was confused, and did not understand what was being said, or the context. Harry was simply repeating his standard story.

11/29/66 = Los Angeles Supervisor Neal McGinnis reported receiving a phone call from FBI HQ "Division 6" (the Investigative Division) regarding an 11/26/66 UPI report in Dallas newspapers which stated that someone described as "a former Agent of the FBI" had put flowers on LHO's grave. President Johnson called the FBI to inquire into the name of the "Agent".

Until the source of that story is identified, this story is inconclusive.

12/3/66 = Special Agent Willie R. White wrote memo reporting a phone call received from W.R. Marshal of the Sherman TX Democrat newspaper. Marshal stated he was inquiring about the present location for interview purposes "of Harry Dean, a former FBI Special Agent...Mr. Marshal contacted Mrs. Oswald, who informed him that Junior was the code name of a former FBI Agent named Harry Dean. She indicated that Dean was an undercover Agent for the FBI."

By Mrs. Oswald you probably mean Marguerite Oswald – whom we already saw spread the rumor that Harry Dean was an FBI Agent. This was clearly her misunderstanding.

12/8/66 = Agent WM and Henry J. Pratt went to Harry's to ask him what he wanted to explain to the FBI (responding to Harry's 11/22/13 call to Agent Reilly). Harry again repeated his entire story about his name appearing in the 1961 Senate Subcommittee report "and that he wanted it made clear for the benefit of his children's futures...that he is not a 'red' as the report would suggest, but is in fact anti-communist."

Again -- this was the Cold War period. Harry Dean was being cautious and prudent for his children's sake. It is a strange fact that Harry Dean regarded himself as a conservative Republican in 1959 -- and still does today!

Harry described himself as needing to "get off the hook". "He was told that he was not 'on the hook' so far as the U.S. Government is concerned...It was explained to him that the consequences of his activities, whether or not the opposite of what he intended, were of no interest to the U.S. Government. He said he now understood that and that he might have been better off if he himself had forgotten the past and done nothing tending to revive it."

Clearly, Harry Dean was tormented by his past involvement with Fidel Castro and the Cuban movement. This is understandable in the height of the Cold War in Southern California. It is actually normal behavior for his generation.

2/22/67 = Another FD-71 form, this time summarizing telephone contact from Charles Page of the Los Angeles Herald Examiner. Page reported to FBI about a phone call he received from Harry "who identified himself as a former undercover agent who had been involved with Lee Harvey Oswald in the FPCC. Dean claimed to be in fear of his life because of the investigation taking place in New Orleans and the suicide in that city of someone who apparently was under investigation. He (Dean) claimed to have contacted this office and had asked for protection and been told the FBI did not provide protection. Dean told Page for this reason he was going to start to carry a gun."

In point of historical fact, when Jim Garrison was probing the JFK assassination in NOLA, he also put feelers into Southern California. That’s how close Garrison got to the truth. He identified Eugene Bradley, a Christian rightist and dear friend of David Robbins, whom Dallas Deputy Sheriff Roger Craig positively identified as the person who claimed to be a Secret Service Agent in Dealey Plaza minutes after JFK was assassinated. Jim Garrison tried to extradite Eugene Bradley from California, but then Governor Ronald Reagan denied the extradition.

Also, Loran Hall was sought by Jim Garrison, and so was Larry Howard. Furthermore, Loran Hall’s life was jeopardized twice during that time period (possibly by Larry Howard himself). So, under those harsh circumstances, Harry Dean’s fears were justified and rational. Those days were dangerous, and Harry Dean knew all those players involved – personally. In that context, Harry Dean's behavior was completely defensible.

2/23/67 = Assistant Special Agent in Charge Arnold C. Larsento, received phone call from Val Clenard of KMPC News concerning Harry. Clenard asked FBI for any information regarding Dean but was declined.

No big deal.

May 1967 = Three serials report John Arvidson's letter to CIA which suggested that Harry might be person shown in Warren Commission Exhibit #237, departing Soviet Embassy in Mexico City. Los Angeles suggested that FBI HQ contact Detroit field office because they had fingerprinted Harry in January 1955 and might have photo. Then 3 Los Angeles Agents who had personally seen and interviewed Harry (Rapp, McCauley, Cromwell) all reported that CIA photo was NOT Harry.

Now who's the strange one?

Between May 1967 and April 1, 1977 -- Harry's file contains no new serials.

4/1/77 = Assistant Special Agent in Charge Richard E. Gebhardt sends letter to James Horwitz because of 3/16/77 Horwitz column in Las Virgenes CA Independent Valley News which reported that Harry had been an undercover agent or informant for the FBI. Gebhardt categorically denied any FBI association with Harry.

That's All Folks!

That’s it? That’s 60+ FBI serials containing more than 220 pages?

Hmm.

Sorry, Ernie, but your biased reading of these documents is disappointing.

Ernie, my comments are underneath yours.

--Paul Trejo

Edited March 6, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Ernie Lazar]

OK -- here is a basic summary of Harry's Los Angeles file. I present this in Q&A form to, hopefully, make everything as clear as possible

GENERAL OBSERVATION:

Q1. Was it worth spending $212 to obtain these 265 pages?

A: Yes, for several reasons. First, it is much easier to see the progressions of how Harry interacted with the Los Angeles office. In addition, many of the copies of Harry's letters (which we previously have seen) are much cleaner and clearer because they are original copies which do not contain HQ markings. And, of course, there are many documents which are not posted on Mary Ferrell's website.

THE SPECIFIC ISSUES WHICH WE HAVE DEBATED

Q2. Do we now know the date of the first contact by the Los Angeles office with Harry? Was Harry's first contact with Special Agent Wesley Grapp "shortly after" arriving in Los Angeles or at any other subsequent time?

A: The first contact was in August 1962. Special Agent William J. McCauley (hereafter WM) contacted Harry to arrange a convenient time to interview Harry. Wesley Grapp is not mentioned even one time in the entire Los Angeles file.

Q3: Why did Agent WM want to talk to Harry? In fact, how did WM even learn about the existence of Harry Dean?

A: The answer begins on July 18, 1962 when Agent WM went to his bank (Security First National Bank). The teller who was handling WM's transaction volunteered some information about Harry -- who also had an account at that bank. The teller expressed some concern about whether or not Harry was genuinely anti-Castro because of a comment which Harry made to another teller on July 12th. WM interviewed the other teller on July 13th, whereupon WM decided he should contact Harry. Keep in mind that WM was the Los Angeles Agent responsible for Cuban-related matters in southern California.

By checking Los Angeles indices, WM determined that Los Angeles had "several subversive type references on the name Harry Dean" and a search slip in Harry's file lists all of those references.

Much context is missing here. Why did the Teller of a bank start up a conversation with a bank customer (who was FBI agent William McCauley) about another bank customer?

Why did the Teller assume that WM knew Harry Dean was a member of the FPCC? (Had the FBI been spying on Harry Dean without his knowledge?)

Why did the Teller assume that WM knew that Harry Dean portrayed himself as anti-Castro? (How long had both the Teller and WM been spying on Harry Dean?)

Why did that Teller report to WM concerns that a second Teller expressed regarding something Harry Dean allegedly said to him? (Was the second Teller also spying on Harry Dean?)

What exactly did the second Teller say to WM? Why are you leaving that out, Ernie?

What were those ‘subversive references’ that WM allegedly had on Harry Dean? Why are you leaving those out, Ernie?

Q4: What did Harry say to WM?

A: Harry gave his usual story about his Chicago experiences with FPCC and he claimed that he had been an informant for the Chicago FBI "but that largely because his wife had become very upset over his activities on behalf of the FBI, he had discontinued his informant activities and had come to the Los Angeles area..."

Harry mentioned that he still had contacts with some FPCC members such as Edgar and Marjorie Swabeck (who also moved to Los Angeles from Chicago). Marjorie was the Secretary of the Los Angeles chapter of FPCC.

Harry told WM that he had "no particular interest in the FPCC, and that while he himself is not personally averse to resuming informant activities on behalf of the FBI, he hesitates to do so because of his wife's feelings in the matter."

All this sounds normal to me.

Q5: What happened next -- after WM's conversation with Harry?

A: Los Angeles field contacted Chicago field and asked them "to verify and furnish a brief summary of the subject's background, particularly his activities as an informant and his reliability while known to the Chicago office."

All this sounds normal to me.

Q6: What was Chicago's reply to Los Angeles?

On 9/19/62, Chicago provided the exact same information which all of us have seen before. They referred to his first phone call to Chicago in August 1960 (without identifying himself) and then a subsequent phone call later that month when he told Chicago he was living at 1540 Central Ave in Whiting, Indiana and he was self-employed as owner of Whiting Plastering Co. Chicago confirmed that Harry volunteered some information about the leadership of Chicago FPCC and he stated that he would be "amenable to an interview with an Agent of the FBI."

Then, because he was living in a different field office territory, Chicago contacted Indianapolis FBI and asked them to get background information about Harry. I won't repeat all the data here -- but this is where the Whiting IN Police Department informed the FBI about Harry's aliases, the outstanding warrant for his arrest on bad check charges, and the information which they obtained from Detroit Police regarding Harry's problems in Canada.

In December 1960, Harry called Chicago again to report he had been living in Detroit for the previous two months (October-November 1960) but had returned to Chicago. He refused to give his current address however.

Harry continued to contact Chicago field by phone "on several occasions until June 1961". Chicago declared that Harry "was never considered a PSI (potential security informant) or informant by this office" -- because of the background information they received from Indianapolis. In August 1960, a former informant of the Chicago office gave a physical description of Harry to Chicago.

This is interesting -- Harry contacted the Chicago FBI "on several occasions" between December 1960 and June 1961. But how many is several? Also, what was the content discussed in those contacts? This is critical data, and it is merely omitted! Very sloppy.

Q7: What was the Los Angeles response to all this information from Chicago field?

A: On 9/28/62, WM wrote a memo to SAC Los Angeles (this was not Wesley Grapp at this time) which reported that Chicago had provided information about Harry "indicating general unreliability" so WM then declared: "In view of the information received from Chicago, it is recommended that this case be closed administratively."

This seems to be a major contradiction. Harry Dean did not initially contact the FBI in Los Angeles, rather, the FBI (William McCauley, WM) first contacted Harry on the word of Harry's bank Teller who was evidently spying on Harry Dean for the FBI.

So, WM contacted the Chicago FBI for information about Harry – and when he learned about Harry’s alleged “general unreliability” from Chicago, WM decided that “this case be closed administratively”?

It makes no sense! Why would WM investigate a report from a Bank Teller about Harry Dean, and then close the case because Harry himself was allegedly “unreliable?”

It is non-sequitur. You're leaving out too many steps, Ernie. Perhaps you can't really process 60+ FBI serials in one day.

Q8: What happened next?

Harry's file was dormant from September 1962 until April 1963. Supervisor Joseph O. Smith at the Los Angeles office received a phone call from Paul Strobel of the West Covina CA Tribune. Strobel told Smith that Harry had been in his office that same day and Harry had claimed "he had been a former counterspy for the FBI in Chicago until May 1961." Strobel told Smith that Harry said he reported info to the Chicago FBI on FPCC and J26M and "had used the code name of Junior with the office there."

Well – until we find out what happened in those "several contacts" which the Chicago FBI admits they had with Harry Dean between 12/1960 and 6/1961, we cannot honestly evaluate these allegations.

Also, until we verify that the FBI correctly duplicated Paul Stobel’s report, then we can’t even make a conclusion about the alleged code name of “Junior.”

Also, if the FBI assumed such an arrogant attitude toward Harry Dean, an 8^th grade graduate and World War II Veteran, that they called a “mental case” in their internal memos, then I submit that the FBI was also arrogant enough to manipulate with Harry Dean and pretend to him that his code name was “Junior,” even though Harry was never a PSI.

In the absense of further information, this possibility remains open.

Strobel asked the FBI if they could confirm Harry's story. The FBI gave their standard reply, i.e. "confidential nature" of FBI files precluded them from saying anything. Strobel then told Smith that Dean's story sounded like "fruitcake to him" so "he was not going to take any any further notice of it."

Well, the FBI didn’t actually say anything to Strobel one way or another. If there was even a smidgen of truth in it, the FBI would never tell a newspaper reporter. So, the reporter's personal opinion proves nothing.

Q9: What happened when Harry sent his letter to Hoover. Does it match what Paul T. has previously written here?

A: After FBI HQ received Harry's 11/19/63 letter, Hoover told both Chicago and Los Angeles that there would be no reply to Harry until both field offices reported what they knew about Harry "in order that his statements may be evaluated. Your recommendations as to how this matter should be handled should also be furnished. The Los Angeles office will hold in abeyance any contact with correspondent until instructions are received from the Bureau."

When SAC Chicago replied to Hoover on 11/26/63...Chicago...denied Harry's assertion (in his letter to Hoover) that the Chicago field office was not aware that FPCC had created a local chapter in Chicago until Harry brought that info to their attention in August 1960.

Again, until we get more information about Harry’s admitted “several contacts” from 12/1960 through 6/1961 with the Chicago FBI, then we can’t really tell if they were only covering their own behind with these words.

Chicago also pointed out that at no time did they ask Harry to continue in his position with the FPCC and after they received the background report from Indianapolis "no encouragement was given to Dean to continue his connection with the FPCC."

Ditto.

As a consequence of this information from Chicago to HQ,, Hoover then instructed Los Angeles on 12/2/63 to have "two mature and experienced Agents" contact Dean to inform him that he was never an undercover agent for the FBI nor was Harry ever authorized to represent the FBI nor act in any capacity for the FBI. Also, Harry was to be informed that the FBI does not issues clearances of any type.

The Los Angeles Agents who subsequently contacted Harry were William McCauley and Richard L, Cromwell.

One may argue that J. Edgar Hoover had to clean up a mess made by the Chicago FBI in their manipulation of Harry Dean. He sent two men from the Los Angeles FBI to explain things plainly to Harry, because the Chicago FBI confused matters in their callous handling of Harry's offer of information.

Again, until we know exactly what happened between December 1960 and June 1961, when the Chicago FBI admits there were “several contacts” made between Harry and themselves, none of this material is conclusive.

Ernie, my comments are underneath yours.

--Paul Trejo

In answer to your questions:

1. The bank teller (Jose Acosta, an anti-Castro Cuban exile) had spoken with Harry on several occasions. YOU just INVENTED the part about FPCC - your typical straw-man ploy. I said nothing about the teller making any comment about or connection between Harry and FPCC. Isn't that an example of YOUR "bias" -- since you (again) cannot accurately summarize what is presented?

Nor did the teller "assume" that Harry portrayed himself as anti-Castro. There was no "spying" involved -- another indication of your extreme bias and paranoia! See quote below.

"Acosta advised that he has spoken about three times to a customer by the name of Harry Dean who indicated to Acosta that he had met and talked to Fidel Castro but later became anti-Castro. Acosta stated that he questions if Dean is actually anti-Castro because of a statement made to Miss Joyce Fordyce, bookeeper, at the same bank, on July 12, 1962. After it was noted that Dean had overdrawn his account, Miss Fordyce told him that a charge would be made by the bank because of this. Dean then replied, 'Well, if you are going to be so damned capitalistic!' (Miss Fordyce verified this statement to the writer on July 13, 1962.)"

One more interesting point: according to information which Harry provided to his bank, he said he was born in Detroit.

2. SUBVERSIVE REFERENCES: I am not "leaving them out". They are cross-references from other files so they do not exist in this Los Angeles file except as a list of files/serial numbers.

3. SEVERAL CONTACTS: There is nothing "sloppy" when you consider the larger context. And it is not (as you claim) "critical data". Chicago was getting occasional phone calls from Harry but, given his background, they did not consider him to be a reliable source of information. And based upon the documents which Harry gave to the FBI in Los Angeles, one can deduce that there was not any significant information provided by Harry which Chicago field did not already have from other sources (they had at least 4 other informants reporting on FPCC). The fact that Chicago destroyed its main file on Harry makes it likely that there was nothing significant to preserve -- particularly when you consider that we now know that in September 1962, Los Angeles field ALSO concluded that Harry's file should be "administratively closed" because there was nothing significant being provided by Harry.

4. TELLER SPYING ON HARRY: Totally false assumption on your part. And no "major contradiction". Try paying attention Paul. Here is the sequence:

-a- FBI Agent responsible for all Cuban matters in southern California receives a tip from an anti-Castro Cuban who reports that Harry had met and talked with Fidel Castro in Cuba

-b- This tip occurs at a time when there is hyper-interest about all Castro-related activities in the U.S.

-c- FBI Agent notices that FBI indices contain "subversive references" re: Harry (perhaps FPCC-related for example)

-d- FBI Agent decides to contact Harry to see if there is any basis for concern

-e- While talking with Harry on the phone, Harry mentions that he had been an informant for the FBI in Chicago and he was Secretary of the Chicago FPCC; Harry also mentioned that he had casual contacts with the current Secretary of the Los Angeles chapter of FPCC and her husband

-f- FBI Agent in Los Angeles then contacts Chicago to find out if Harry's assertions about himself are accurate

-g- Chicago reports that Harry was never an informant and they share derogatory background info with Los Angeles

-h- FBI-Los Angeles administratively closes file on Harry until subsequent contact in April 1963

Maybe the "Paul Trejo School of Investigation" does not teach its investigators to follow leads -- but the FBI is an investigative agency responsible for internal security matters.

5. CHICAGO MESS: You are delusional Paul. There was no "mess" -- just the boring routine which you can see in ANY investigative file on ANY subject

[Ernie Lazar]

PART 2 REGARDING HARRY'S LOS ANGELES FILE

As we all know, Harry maintains that starting in August 1963, he began supplying information to FBI-Los Angeles re: the John Birch Society

Q10: Are there any documents in the file which support Harry's claim re: his reports on the JBS?

A: None whatsoever. In fact, the words "John Birch Society" or any derivative thereof do NOT appear in the entire file.

Q11: Are there any reports from Harry about Minutemen?

A: Nope -- None whatsoever.

Q12: Are there any reports by Harry re: Edwin Walker or John Rousselot?

A: Nope -- None whatsoever.

Ernie, under the circumstances of the JFK assassination, I will argue that we cannot draw a conclusion based on the absence of files at this point.

This is always your all-purpose cop-out and escape hatch. You cannot identify ANY file but you demand that we ASSUME there is one or more -- even though there are no references to such files on any search slips or on any documents about the JFK assassination which have been released. So, in summary, the absence of files becomes proof of something in your scheme of things.

As I have previously pointed out, ANYBODY can copy and paste your template into ANY false argument they want to fabricate. It is a perfect self-sealing circular argument which can NEVER be falsified. EVEN IN 2017 when you do not find those mysterious files, you will conclude that the files have been destroyed or are still being withheld.

Q13: OK, what does the remainder of Harry's file reflect?

A: In December 1963, when Special Agents WM and Richard Cromwell interviewed Harry, Harry gave them 16 documents pertaining to FPCC and J26M. These documents consisted of letters which Harry had received from Dr. Juan Orta (in Cuba) along with copies of Harry's J26M membership card and other records showing Harry's involvement with FPCC or J26M -- plus copies of notices mailed to Harry regarding meetings scheduled by FPCC and J26M in Chicago. There was nothing particularly earth-shaking about any of this material. The primary value was that it allowed the FBI to index the names of people connected to these groups (assuming they did not already know about them).

However, one subject did pique the interest of HQ. In February 1964, HQ asked Los Angeles to prepare a more detailed summary regarding Harry's trip to Cuba. Los Angeles then did prepare a Letterhead Memorandum. Then, in March 1964, Los Angeles prepared a separate memo concerning what Harry recalled regarding his contact with Frank Vega in Cuba (June 1960):

"Dean said that he cannot be positive now but that he believed Vega identified himself as an officer of the Cuban G-2" but if he was not G-2 then "it was in some comparable police capacity." The memo concluded that "Dean said that this was the only time that he ever saw Vega."

COMMENT: As I have tried to explain to Paul, witness testimony is always very problematic--especially as time goes by. As this report reveals, in December 1963, Harry was no longer sure that Vega was Cuban G-2.

More significantly, Harry stated in Paul's eBook that in 1961:

"Also during this time, when anti-Castro Cubans became completely befuddled by Castro’s moves, the FBI asked for my help. Cuban spies had been moving in and out of the USA with alarming freedom, and this included Che Guevara himself, it was believed. Their main aim was to buy weapons on the black market. The FBI asked me to try to spot him in their nationwide photographs. I failed to find Che – however, I did spot Francisco Vega in New York City, and I handed him over, and that was a satisfying feeling of retribution." [my emphasis in italics and underlined]

But in his December 1963 interview with Agents McCauley and Cromwell, Harry told them that the "only time that he ever saw Vega" was in June 1960.

Ernie, you evidently presume that Harry “spotted” Vega in person, while Harry actually spotted Vega from photographs. So, you're jumping to conclusions again.

You are (as usual missing the point). If Harry identified a photograph of Vega in 1961 and "handed him over", then why is the FBI still wondering who Vega is or where he is located subsequently?

But it gets worse!

In your opinion, Ernie.

In May 1964, Harry was interviewed by a southern California Police Department (specific location not identified). During the course of that lengthy interview Harry made some comments which reveal great imprecision in his memory.

Why was the specific PD not identified? Without an honest source, anything claimed by the "interviewer" is compromised.

Suppose I could tell you the specific PD? Why would you care? Wouldn't you still object?

(1) Harry was asked his full name and he replied "Harry Dean". He then was asked if he had a middle name. His answer was "No". [so much for the "Harry J. Dean" references.]

Says some unidentified interviewer.

No -- says Harry according to the literal written transcript of the interview. There you go again! Actually, my point is much more subtle. These types of issues (or anomalies) do not occur normally when people are telling the truth. In other words, there are consistent replies to basic questions. Names don't change, birth places don't change, etc.

(2) Harry was asked how long he was a member of FPCC in Chicago. He answered "to be exact, it was probably August of 1960" but then he changed his answer to "latter part of July or early part of August 1960 until June 1961, when I came here."

Says some unidentified interviewer.

No-- says Harry according to a literal written transcript. When you consider our recent experience where Harry finally acknowledged that he did indeed write the letter to Hoover AND he changed his mind about the date when he first met Grapp (or somebody) -- don't you think such errors betoken memory problems?

What are you really suggesting? Spit it out Paul. Is your story now going to be that the FBI "forged" from whole cloth an entire interview transcript and claimed it was a Police Department interview?

But in the eBook Harry says that the FBI in Chicago asked him to go to Cuba as scheduled (June 1960) and when he returned from his trip "we want you to continue to give us regular reports about the Fair Play for Cuba Committee in Chicago.”

"Continue to give us regular reports"? That would indicate Harry was already providing reports to Chicago in June 1960 or even before then!

It doesn't mean "even before then." Still, if we need to adjust the date (from Harry's memory) we're happy to work with independent confirmation.

If I say to Paul------------Paul, I would like to continue our debate after you return from your vacation. Doesn't that suggest that we had some sort of communication BEFORE his vacation period? "Continue" means to resume after some period of interruption.

In the context of what we are discussing, the "interruption" was Harry's upcoming trip to Cuba. Since Harry arrived in Cuba on June 10, 1960, then, at a minimum, Harry was supposedly reporting information about FPCC in Chicago to the FBI earlier than June 10th.

Consequently, Harry's answer to the question he was asked which referred to when he joined FPCC could not have been his original August answer nor his subsequent "latter part of July" answer, right?

(3) Harry was asked why he decided to leave the FPCC and he answered "...they were on to me, you see. They were aware of the fact that I was fingering them to the Justice Department people."

Huh?

You don’t get that, Ernie? The Communists and the Americans were killing each other over Fidel Castro. We can name the dead today. Are you ignorant of the Cold War period?

I don't "get" why Harry never made such a statement in your eBook nor anyplace else as far as I know. He has always declared (quite boldly) that he left FPCC because of his personal disgust with his entire "informant" experience -- not because of any concern that FPCC might have discovered he was "fingering" them to the Justice Dept. That seems like an incredible piece of information to leave out of a memoir, don't you think?

Also, if that was actually the case, then why would Harry have told Agent McCauley that he was not averse to providing information to the FBI about FPCC in Los Angeles. How could he have done so if FPCC knew Harry was a Justice Dept informant?? Harry did not say they merely "suspected" him. He said "they were aware of the fact that I was fingering them..."

I don't recall seeing anything in the eBook about FPCC being "on to me" because they "were aware...that I was fingering them to the Justice Dept people."

Instead, Harry has said that he had become disillusioned by his entire alleged informant experience -- particularly the demands made by the FBI (see his quote below):

"Still, by the end of spring in 1961 I’d had enough -- I had become disillusioned by the entire experience. What had begun as a simple act of charity had become a dangerous nightmare. Also, my FBI contacts were never happy, no matter how much information I brought to them. It was like a never-ending life sentence and I wanted out. So I made a decision – I would change my name and move my family to California."

When the interview of Harry continued, he was asked: "Were you working for the Justice Department while you were a Secretary?" [of FPCC] and Harry replied:

"No, I'm not to say that. I volunteered information to the Justice Department at all times."

BINGO! But what a different story from his original claim that he was "asked by" the FBI to do various things.

So, Harry did get one right -- you admit it!

"Says some unidentified interviewer"??? See--when you think something supports Harry's narrative, THEN you accept whatever the source says and you have the nerve to claim you are not biased!

Harry also gave a very long answer to another question (one of his "inscrutable" answers) -- which, at the end, included Harry's statement that "the FPCC bunch that, as you know, finally killed Mr. Kennedy..."

Huh?

Again, Ernie, this is all taken from an unidentified source! Aren't you ashamed to accept data like this? How do we know Harry actually said this? Or, how do we know that the reporting person actually understood Harry? Or, how do we know that the reporting person even understood the context?

Why should I be ashamed of considering any documentary evidence? Suppose, just for sake of argument, I copied the entire text of the interview which is 22 pages and you conclude that 97% of it conforms to Harry's narrative. Would you then accept it as a legitimate piece of documentary evidence?

Aren't you ASHAMED to produce an eBook that does not have a SINGLE piece of documentary evidence and not a SINGLE piece of corroborating evidence?

This was MAY 1964 when Harry made that comment to the Police interviewers.

That is, the unidentified Police interviewers!

BUT... (according to the eBook and according to everything Paul and Harry have posted here in EF), Harry concluded in the SUMMER OF 1963 that JFK was murdered by a "JBS PLOT" -- which is what he supposedly told Wesley Grapp in September 1963!

Something is indeed fishy here -- the promotion of unidentified interviewers!

On October 3, 1964, Harry sent a letter to FBI-Los Angeles. He addressed it as follows:

Chief Agent, FBI

1340 W. 6th Street

Los Angeles CA

If, as Harry claims, he was buddies with Wesley Grapp (who then was SAC Los Angeles), don't you think Harry would have addressed a letter to the specific name of the person whom he claims he was reporting to directly?

In that letter, Harry pointed out that in "late September 1964, I met with FBI Agent 'Rapp' " after having received a phone call from Agent Fern Rapp the previous day. The purpose of that meeting, according to Harry, "was to identify a photograph that could possible (sic) have been a G-2 secret agent of the Castro government whom I met in Havana in 1960, and who in 1960 or 1961 had been known to be in New York City at an address known by myself and then given to the FBI in 1961..."

Harry continued: "A great deal of time had past (sic) since my meeting with Castro Agent Francisco Vega but I am sure that the informal photograph shown me by FBI Agent 'Rapp' of the Pomona California office, was not that of the G-2 Castro Agent Francisco Vega"

Harry then expressed the hope that Vega would ultimately "be apprehended as I know him to be a dangerous pro-Castro anti-American especially if he had been and still remains in the United States."

HUH??

Ernie, I think you’re reading this information incorrectly.

See previous comment above re: Vega. First of all, according to Harry, he identified Vega's photo in 1961 and "I handed him over" to the FBI. So why does the FBI supposedly need his assistance in identifying a photo of Vega in "late September 1964"? And if the FBI had Vega's New York address in 1961 -- why is the FBI supposedly uncertain about his whereabouts in 1964?

I think you’ve mistaken the context.

It is on this memo that Agent McCauley hand-wrote about Harry: "Is this fellow a mental case somewhere?" Furthermore, there is another hand-written notation by WM declaring "No acknowledgement needed" -- i.e. the FBI was not even going to reply to Harry's October 1964 letter because it was so preposterous!

Perhaps WM also misunderstood it -- and he surely shows himself to be arrogant. To be sure about WM's understanding, however, we'll need to see the actual document.

I guess what you are saying is that it is not possible for anybody to ever make an honest conclusion which reflects negatively upon Harry.

I am not sure about the significance of this next tidbit -- but I will present it for your consideration:

In a 12/5/64 letter to FBI-Los Angeles, Harry quotes Larry Howard as stating that he (Howard) knows that William Seymour was "never at Mrs. Odio's with or without [Loran] Hall. He said he had told the FBI this etc. recently."

You don’t know the significance of THAT, Ernie?? Loran Hall had recently lied to the FBI saying that he was at Silvia Odio’s house with William Seymour, and not with Lee Harvey Oswald as Silvia Odio testified under oath! Loran Hall later recanted his claim about Seymour! Death threats were flying within the rightist underground in Southern California.

I did not take the time to look it up in your eBook but I vaguely recalled that there was some sort of issue about the Odio matter so I included the quote in case it was significant. No big deal.

In mid-December 1964, the FBI learned about Harry's contacts with Bob Hayward (Joe Pyne Show). We have already addressed the multiple back-and-forth serials which discuss this matter.

But we have not arrived at the bottom of the claims the FBI made about this!

There is no methodology acceptable to you which would ever get to the bottom of this or any other matter---except if Harry "confesses" to some erroneous recollection.

In March 1965, Harry called the FBI office at 7:30pm to report his association with J.U.R.E. which Harry describes in the eBook as a Cuban counterrevolutionary group. Harry told Los Angeles that he had been contacted by a JURE representative (Roland Barrio in El Monte CA) to request assistance in securing arms for JURE's anti-Castro activities.

On March 31, 1965 Harry sent a letter to FBI-Los Angeles addressed to:

"Office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation

Los Angeles, California"

This letter was typed in ALL CAPS.

On 4/3/65, Harry phoned the Los Angeles office. His comments were recorded on form FD-71 -- used to record contacts from everybody (except informants).

On 5/3/65, another FD-71 form reporting an in-person visit from Harry. He was going to mail a letter but was in the neighborhood so just dropped it off instead. The letter (about JURE) was typed in ALL CAPS. Agent McCauley handwrote a comment about Harry: "This man is apparently a mental case"

That’s the second time that FBI SAC William McCauley wrote that -- he seems like a particularly arrogant person.

Or, alternatively, not arrogant, but just troubled by the constant contacts he was seeing summarized on FBI contact forms (or experiencing first-hand) about somebody whom he thought was not competent. There is no reason for any FBI Agent to arrive at such a conclusion without some basis in fact.

Harry's letter suggested that some former associates of his in JURE "were not in fact anti-Castro but rather pro-Communist..."

Harry reported that he was guessing regarding the actual sympathies of these men.

As would anybody in the world of covert politics during the Cold War!

You miss the point. The reason the FBI (or other agencies) use informants or "confidential sources" is to get reliable fact-based data -- not guesses or speculations. That is why FBI Agents were required to estimate the degree of reliability of information provided by each of their informants or sources. If an informant or source was just presenting personal opinions or speculations, they were worthless to the FBI.

On 5/2/65, Harry called the Los Angeles office at 3:30pm and said he had attempted to contact FBI Agent Ferd Rapp (Ontario CA Resident Agent) but the office was closed.

On 5/10/65 Harry called the Los Angeles office at 10:05am and spoke with Agent Philip S. Andrist. Again, he wanted to report his speculation about people connected to JURE

On 6/10/65, an FBI Supervisor (William J. Nolan) answered a phone call from Bill Capps of the La Puente Valley Journal. We are already familiar with that story. A number of serials record the back-and-forth regarding the request by Capps asking if the FBI could confirm or deny Harry's story.

On 6/23/65, William M. Hill sent a letter to FBI-Los Angeles concerning Harry. Agent WM contacted Hill by phone. During the phone conversation, Hill told WM that his wife drove Harry's wife (Millie) to and from work everyday since they both worked for the Leach Corp. According to Mr. Hill, Millie told Hill's wife that she (Millie) was thinking about having Harry committed. Hill wanted to know if the FBI wanted his assistance with respect to keeping tabs on Harry. The FBI said no.

I'm glad the FBI said no, because all of this amounts to mere rumor and gossip.

In your opinion, because anything which reflects negatively upon Harry is unacceptable to you. So the RCMP reference on Harry's rap sheet to Harry's commitment to a mental institution was unacceptable. McCauley's comments are unacceptable. And the wife of someone who drove Harry's wife to work every day is unacceptable. The ONLY acceptable evidence (in your scheme of things) would be if Harry acknowledged in writing that he ever had some sort of serious emotional problems. Even the fact that Harry went from extreme left to extreme right in his political convictions -- means nothing to you. And the fact he listened attentively to what he claims were murder plots against our President means nothing to you (and he never did anything about it). Oh, I know---there are those "secret files" which have something. Did you ever think it was odd that Harry never went to his local Police Dept or to the Los Angeles Times or to a person he trusted (clergyman perhaps) or SOMEBODY to reveal what he supposedly was privy to?

On August 24, 1965, the Fullerton Police Dept reported to the FBI that Harry had visited them (and other police departments) and passed out copies of the Valley Journal article. During his visit, Harry told the Fullerton police that the recent race riot in Watts was "Communist inspired" [Note: both the Intelligence Division of the Los Angeles Police Department and the FBI concluded that the riots were NOT Communist inspired.]

So what? That was Harry’s honest opinion, and it's still a free country.

It is an indication of the quality of Harry's thought process. He was parroting the JBS (and KKK) line. It was an "opinion" that was not fact-based.

10/6/65 -- another FD-71 form -- this time a phone call from Ray William Gardner who said he was in the Public Relations business and Harry had approached him about getting assistance to publish a book or article re: his FPCC experiences. Gardner asked the FBI if Harry's story could be verified by the FBI.

But of course the FBI laughed at such a request -- or they better have.

Why should they "laugh"? The FBI was constantly getting inquiries from media types who wanted to publish or air Harry's story.

10/14/65 -- SAC Boston contacted SAC Los Angeles because of a contact they had from Michael Krause of South Action MA. Krause stated that in 1963 he was living in El Monte CA and he was Editor of the local newspaper. In April of 1963, Harry had visited the El Monte paper office "to inquire whether the paper would be interested in printing a series concerning his activities during the Cuban Revolution...Shortly after this contact, Dean asked Krause if he (Krause) would write a book about Dean's activities...During about the first or second week of June 1963, Dean again contacted Krause and told him to forget the idea of preparing the book."

Why in heaven’s name would Krause bother the FBI about that topic at anytime, but even worse, 2.5 years after the fact?

You always rush to judgment without considering the possible reasons. Kraus (I mis-spelled his name previously) had moved to Massachusetts in November 1964 to take a new job there. He went through some old boxes and discovered 25 photostats which Harry had given him in 1963 re FPCC and J26M. He thought the FBI might want the material.

The point (which you missed as usual) is that all of these "contacts" explain the "activity" which you thought was so suspicious because there were 65 serials and 200+ pages in Harry's file. If you subtract out all of the pages which are the result of media contacts to inquire about Harry and Harry's letters to the FBI or the serials about his phone calls to the FBI -- then his L.A. file probably is less than 50 pages and almost all of those pages contain repetitive info about what Harry claimed and the subsequent FBI denials.

From October 1965 to mid-October 1966 -- there were no new serials created re: Harry.

10/14/66 = California Senator George Murphy sent an inquiry to FBI HQ concerning Harry. Attached were copies of documents which Harry sent to Murphy -- including his June 1961 letter to JFK. Harry wanted Murphy's help in getting his name "cleared" because (Harry said) the 1961 Senate report reference to him as Secretary of FPCC had "harmed him from getting further jobs".

NOTE: Harry has never explained how that obscure one sentence reference could harm his employment prospects.

Big deal. Harry honestly thought that it might affect his employment. Remember that this was the Cold War period. Look at what happened to Dallas Deputy Roger Craig's employment history because he became a Warren Commission critic!

I am more aware than you concerning how adverse publicity affected people's employment. But Harry's situation was much different. How do you suppose Harry could have been affected? If Harry was a plasterer -- how do you suppose any potential client could learn about Harry's connection to FPCC? Do you honestly believe that millions upon millions of people were reading obscure Senate reports and that they saw the one-sentence reference to a common name "Harry Dean" and immediately associated it with our Harry? There had been ABSOLUTELY NO PUBLICITY about Harry except what HE CREATED. And when he created it, it was produced to make Harry appear in a favorable light. So how, exactly, was Harry going to be punished for his Chicago activities?

11/22/66 = Los Angeles received a phone call from Harry. This time Agent Philip Reilly answered the call. Dean repeated his entire story as though nobody in Los Angeles had ever heard of him. According to Reilly's memo, "He implied that he had been informant of the Chicago office of the FBI in supplying information regarding the activities of the FPCC. Dean said he knew Larry Howard and Lorenzo Hall in the FPCC and indicated that Howard and Hall had traveled in Cuba with Lee Harvey Oswald. Dean was rambling and disconnected in his narration and when asked for purpose of his call, he stated that he wanted to 'clear his name' and clarify his status with regard to his name being mentioned in the U.S. Senate Committee on the FPCC..."

It sounds, instead, as though Reilly was confused, and did not understand what was being said, or the context. Harry was simply repeating his standard story.

What was Reilly "confused" about? Everything is exactly accurate. You always attempt to minimize evidence. The only "confusion" was because Harry did not immediately explain why he had called.

BTW, this reminds me -- the Police Dept transcript of their interview with Harry matches Harry's syntax, grammar, thought fragments, and "inscrutable" answers to questions. How do you suppose the Police Dept managed to get all that correct if the transcript is (as you insinuate) bogus?

11/29/66 = Los Angeles Supervisor Neal McGinnis reported receiving a phone call from FBI HQ "Division 6" (the Investigative Division) regarding an 11/26/66 UPI report in Dallas newspapers which stated that someone described as "a former Agent of the FBI" had put flowers on LHO's grave. President Johnson called the FBI to inquire into the name of the "Agent".

Until the source of that story is identified, this story is inconclusive.

12/3/66 = Special Agent Willie R. White wrote memo reporting a phone call received from W.R. Marshal of the Sherman TX Democrat newspaper. Marshal stated he was inquiring about the present location for interview purposes "of Harry Dean, a former FBI Special Agent...Mr. Marshal contacted Mrs. Oswald, who informed him that Junior was the code name of a former FBI Agent named Harry Dean. She indicated that Dean was an undercover Agent for the FBI."

By Mrs. Oswald you probably mean Marguerite Oswald – whom we already saw spread the rumor that Harry Dean was an FBI Agent. This was clearly her misunderstanding.

It doesn't matter that she "misunderstood" anything. The point is that she was merely one of a long line of people who came away with the same impression of what Harry was saying about himself. Again, I point out, that this problem is relatively rare. The FBI had thousands of informants over the years. I have dozens of their files and most of these folks never had the problem which Harry had, i.e. being "misunderstood" re: their relationship with the FBI. And, as previously noted, all the cases I know about "coincidentally" involve JBS members or endorsers.

12/8/66 = Agent WM and Henry J. Pratt went to Harry's to ask him what he wanted to explain to the FBI (responding to Harry's 11/22/13 call to Agent Reilly). Harry again repeated his entire story about his name appearing in the 1961 Senate Subcommittee report "and that he wanted it made clear for the benefit of his children's futures...that he is not a 'red' as the report would suggest, but is in fact anti-communist."

Again -- this was the Cold War period. Harry Dean was being cautious and prudent for his children's sake. It is a strange fact that Harry Dean regarded himself as a conservative Republican in 1959 -- and still does today!

Except that most conservative Republicans in 1959-1960 did not join Communist fronts and then join paramilitary right-wing extremist groups like Minutemen or another group which YOU described as treasonous in its views -- the JBS!

Harry described himself as needing to "get off the hook". "He was told that he was not 'on the hook' so far as the U.S. Government is concerned...It was explained to him that the consequences of his activities, whether or not the opposite of what he intended, were of no interest to the U.S. Government. He said he now understood that and that he might have been better off if he himself had forgotten the past and done nothing tending to revive it."

Clearly, Harry Dean was tormented by his past involvement with Fidel Castro and the Cuban movement. This is understandable in the height of the Cold War in Southern California. It is actually normal behavior for his generation.

What are you saying was "normal behavior" -- surely not joining the JBS and Minutemen?

2/22/67 = Another FD-71 form, this time summarizing telephone contact from Charles Page of the Los Angeles Herald Examiner. Page reported to FBI about a phone call he received from Harry "who identified himself as a former undercover agent who had been involved with Lee Harvey Oswald in the FPCC. Dean claimed to be in fear of his life because of the investigation taking place in New Orleans and the suicide in that city of someone who apparently was under investigation. He (Dean) claimed to have contacted this office and had asked for protection and been told the FBI did not provide protection. Dean told Page for this reason he was going to start to carry a gun."

In point of historical fact, when Jim Garrison was probing the JFK assassination in NOLA, he also put feelers into Southern California. That’s how close Garrison got to the truth. He identified Eugene Bradley, a Christian rightist and dear friend of David Robbins, whom Dallas Deputy Sheriff Roger Craig positively identified as the person who claimed to be a Secret Service Agent in Dealey Plaza minutes after JFK was assassinated. Jim Garrison tried to extradite Eugene Bradley from California, but then Governor Ronald Reagan denied the extradition.

Also, Loran Hall was sought by Jim Garrison, and so was Larry Howard. Furthermore, Loran Hall’s life was jeopardized twice during that time period (possibly by Larry Howard himself). So, under those harsh circumstances, Harry Dean’s fears were justified and rational. Those days were dangerous, and Harry Dean knew all those players involved – personally. In that context, Harry Dean's behavior was completely defensible.

2/23/67 = Assistant Special Agent in Charge Arnold C. Larsento, received phone call from Val Clenard of KMPC News concerning Harry. Clenard asked FBI for any information regarding Dean but was declined.

No big deal.

May 1967 = Three serials report John Arvidson's letter to CIA which suggested that Harry might be person shown in Warren Commission Exhibit #237, departing Soviet Embassy in Mexico City. Los Angeles suggested that FBI HQ contact Detroit field office because they had fingerprinted Harry in January 1955 and might have photo. Then 3 Los Angeles Agents who had personally seen and interviewed Harry (Rapp, McCauley, Cromwell) all reported that CIA photo was NOT Harry.

Now who's the strange one?

I have no clue what your comment means.

Between May 1967 and April 1, 1977 -- Harry's file contains no new serials.

4/1/77 = Assistant Special Agent in Charge Richard E. Gebhardt sends letter to James Horwitz because of 3/16/77 Horwitz column in Las Virgenes CA Independent Valley News which reported that Harry had been an undercover agent or informant for the FBI. Gebhardt categorically denied any FBI association with Harry.

That's All Folks!

That’s it? That’s 60+ FBI serials containing more than 220 pages?

Hmm.

Sorry, Ernie, but your biased reading of these documents is disappointing.

You keep using the word "biased". Do you actually know the meaning of that word? How can a factual summary containing direct quotations from those documents be "biased"?

I think what you are trying to say is that you have different interpretations of what the various people discussed in these documents reported to the FBI. So THEY might be biased in some manner?

Can you give me a brief summary of what you would consider a NON-biased summary of documentary evidence?

Ernie, my comments are underneath yours.

--Paul Trejo

AND MY REPLIES ARE UNDERNEATH YOURS

Edited March 6, 2014 by Ernie Lazar

[Ernie Lazar]

Paul: To begin at the end of your message:

You keep using the word "biased". How can a factual summary containing direct quotations from documents be "biased"?

I think what you are trying to say is that you disagree with what the various people discussed in these documents reported to the FBI. So THEY might be biased in some manner?

Can you give me an example of what you would consider a NON-biased summary of documentary evidence? I must be missing something in what you are trying to say,

BY DEFINITION: A summary of documentary evidence, presents the essence of whatever is contained in a document.

So, for example, if a document on Paul Trejo reports biographical and personal background information (age, height, weight, birthdate, birthplace, marital status, education, employment history, military service, organizational memberships, criminal record, etc.) --- then if someone presents a summary of that information, how can it be "biased"?

What I did is literally go through every serial in Harry's file, in chronological order, and then summarize the subject matters discussed.

So -- unless you clarify what you mean by "biased reading of these documents" -- we all must assume that you DO NOT KNOW the meaning of the word "biased".

Also: I am sure you will assure us that you EXEMPT yourself from EVER presenting any "bias" in your writing?

Edited March 6, 2014 by Ernie Lazar

[Larry Hancock]

Thanks Ernie, its good to see solid research on the forum... Larry

[Ernie Lazar]

Thanks Ernie, its good to see solid research on the forum... Larry

Thanks for your kind words Larry.

Permit me to repeat (and amplify upon) the observation which I originally made umpteen messages ago.

What bothers me most about both Harry and Paul is NOT that they present criticisms of me, or the FBI, or about anybody else for that matter. Nor am I particularly upset that they post messages questioning or expressing skepticism about something which I have found (or anybody else has found) or which has been posted on other websites.

What actually bothers me is that the material which I just summarized above (along with much more material) could have been obtained by Harry or by his designee (with affidavit from Harry) at least 40 years ago AND it actually was obtained as a result of an FOIA request by someone 30 years ago! In fact, had Harry (or a designee) submitted an FOIA request prior to 1990, the Chicago field file on Harry could have been saved. But no! They couldn't be bothered!

The profound intellectual laziness of both Harry and Paul betokens a complete contempt for genuine research -- much less "solid research". Instead, Harry and Paul leave all the really difficult research (and associated expense) to other people. Meanwhile, they are free to make the most egregious comments and allegations without fear of contradiction because nobody has ever seen any of this material.

And IF somebody has the unmitigated gall to challenge something which Harry or Paul write, they are instantly dismissed as "biased" or "defending" the FBI. And Paul, in particular, continuously presents absolute falsehoods about all sorts of historical matters as though he were presenting factual information (such as his claims regarding what the JBS was teaching its members around 1959-1960-1961; or his claims regarding what Edwin Walker supposedly was teaching the troops under his command).

If you step back for a second and just let the full scope and impact of all of Paul's messages sink in --- Paul has only TWO replies to EVERYTHING in dispute or being questioned

(1) secret files

(2) bias

No matter what evidence is being discussed, no matter what year(s) the evidence pertains to, no matter what source is being quoted -- Paul's rejoinder is ALWAYS

(1) secret files and (2) bias.

This is why I have written that ANYBODY could adopt Paul's debate tactic and apply it to ANY SUBJECT. And it would not make any difference whatsoever regarding what governmental agency (local, state, national) is being discussed, or what people are being discussed, or what evidence is being presented --- Paul's template could just be copied onto any other controversy or dispute. It is a perfect self-sealing circular argument incapable of being falsified no matter what volume of information can be discovered.

How convenient! and how transparently intellectually dishonest!

[Paul Trejo]

Actually, Ernie's latest display of his biased reading of 60+ FBI Files is disappointing and unsatisfactory.

If we had actually read from SAC Wesley Grapp any contradiction of Harry Dean's claims, I would have been impressed -- instead we got SILENCE. The argument Ernie promotes is a mere ABSENCE of evidence.

What Ernie seizes upon from start to finish, is Los Angeles FBI Agent, William McCauley's bias against Harry Dean, calling him "a mental case."

Well -- was FBI Agent William McCauley also a psychiatrist? A medical doctor? No? Then his opinion amounts to nothing more than simple INSULT. This was merely McCauley's way of saying he had no respect for Harry Dean. So what? Whom did he respect -- J. Edgar Hoover -- who gave us the Warren Commission investigation. Hmm.

So what did we find from Ernie Lazar's reading of 60+ FBI serials with over 200 pages of files?

We found SILENCE (which could obviously suggest secret files) and we found INSULT (which spells bias).

Therefore -- I'm left with mainly two conclusions regarding Ernie's biased reading of these FBI serials:

1. secret files

2. bias

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

Edited March 6, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Ernie Lazar]

Actually, Ernie's latest display of his biased reading of 60+ FBI Files is disappointing and unsatisfactory.

If we had actually read from SAC Wesley Grapp any contradiction of Harry Dean's claims, I would have been impressed -- instead we got SILENCE. The argument Ernie promotes is a mere ABSENCE of evidence.

What Ernie seizes upon from start to finish, is Los Angeles FBI Agent, William McCauley's bias against Harry Dean, calling him "a mental case."

Well -- was FBI Agent William McCauley also a psychiatrist? A medical doctor? No? Then his opinion amounts to nothing more than simple INSULT. This was merely McCauley's way of saying he had no respect for Harry Dean. So what? Whom did he respect -- J. Edgar Hoover -- who gave us the Warren Commission investigation. Hmm.

So what did we find from Ernie Lazar's reading of 60+ FBI serials with over 200 pages of files?

We found SILENCE (which could obviously suggest secret files) and we found INSULT (which spells bias).

Therefore -- I'm left with mainly two conclusions regarding Ernie's biased reading of these FBI serials:

1. secret files

2. bias

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

Paul, you STILL have not explained what you mean by "biased reading of 60+ files" (you meant serials,not files). Specifically, what is my bias? Give us an example so everyone will understand what you consider "bias".

How could Wesley Grapp contradict anything if he was never involved with Harry?

I don't "seize upon" McCauley from "start to finish". The problem here is that you do not recognize that McCauley was the primary Agent in Los Angeles who handled Cuban matters, and, consequently, he reviewed almost everything that came into Los Angeles regarding Harry. What you seem to be suggesting, is that you do not respect anybody who has developed expertise about a particular subject matter. But, again, if I had quoted McCauley AGREEING WITH Harry or providing support for Harry's assertions, does anybody think Paul would THEN dismiss McCauley's observations??? OF COURSE NOT!

Do you really want us to believe that people whose entire job requires daily public contact have no acceptable basis for making evaluations or judgments about the mental competence of the people they deal with? Even a lowly clerk at McDonalds immediately recognizes when someone walks into their restaurant who appears to be emotionally disturbed or not dealing with a full deck. Nor was the observation limited to McCauley. Agent Reilly mentioned that Harry was rambling and unable to get to the point of why he was calling the L.A. office. MANY of Harry's comments are, as Larry Hancock has correctly observed, "inscrutable". Furthermore, we know that Harry had some sort of emotional issues in Canada which resulted in hospitalization for some unknown period of time in October 1948.

You can PRETEND that none of this matters. but NON-BIASED analysts recognize there is something to pursue here.

SILENCE does not "suggest secret files". Silence suggests absence of confirming evidence. Once again, this proves beyond dispute that you have never taken any courses in logic or historical research.