Harry Dean: Memoirs

[Paul Trejo]

Significantly, Wesley Swearingen dismisses Milteer's story. See: http://www.oswalddidnotkilljfk.com/Joseph-Milteer.html ...

As usual, Ernie, you exaggerate. Swearingen doesn't dismiss Milteer's story -- it's just that Swearingen found no evidence that Joseph Milteer was as close to the ground crew of the JFK plot as Don Adams believes.

Yet all Don Adams claims is that Milteer knew who shot JFK, and that he made himself available in Dallas to help as needed, and to witness history with his own eyes.

Even if Swearingen is 100% correct, that doesn't dismiss the story of Don Adams or even of Harry Dean -- it would only make Milteer and Walker into secondary players, in the opinion of former FBI Agent Wes Swearingen.

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

Edited March 9, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Ernie Lazar]

Significantly, Wesley Swearingen dismisses Milteer's story. See: http://www.oswalddidnotkilljfk.com/Joseph-Milteer.html ...

As usual, Ernie, you exaggerate. Swearingen doesn't dismiss Milteer's story -- it's just that Swearingen found no evidence that Joseph Milteer was as close to the ground crew of the JFK plot as Don Adams believes.

Yet all Don Adams claims is that Milteer knew who shot JFK, and that he made himself available in Dallas to help as needed, and to witness history with his own eyes.

Even if Swearingen is 100% correct, that doesn't dismiss the story of Don Adams or even of Harry Dean -- it would only make Milteer and Walker into secondary players, in the opinion of former FBI Agent Wes Swearingen.

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

I exaggerate? Swearingen does not dismiss Adam's claims about Milteer? Have you exchanged emails with him?

From his website (I underline the operative phrase in red font)

"Milteer could have heard rumors about JFK’s planned assassination, but Swearingen does not put any stock in Adams’ story because Swearingen was told in advance who would be involved in JFK’s assassination and Milteer was not one of them."

This proves, yet again, that Paul Trejo does not understand or apply the normal commonly understood meanings of words in the English language.

Edited March 9, 2014 by Ernie Lazar

[Ernie Lazar]

Incidentally, for anybody who actually believes that Paul Trejo EVER knows anything about the subjects he discusses, check out both of Swearingen's books about JFK's assassination (links below -- and there is a field for searching the content of each book)

There is NO mention of Milteer or Somersett or Don Adams in either of them! Which goes to show how much credence he places in Adams' contentions!

FBI SECRETS:

http://books.google.com/books?id=JGj0eiWGGFIC&printsec=frontcover&dq=swearingen,+fbi+secrets&hl=en&sa=X&ei=X84cU62gBcbfoATK8oKYCw&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=swearingen%2C%20fbi%20secrets&f=false

TO KILL A PRESIDENT

http://books.google.com/books?id=5EAXAQAAMAAJ&q=swearingen,+kill+a+president&dq=swearingen,+kill+a+president&hl=en&sa=X&ei=n84cU9fuCc-xoQTvmYGQBQ&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAA

Edited March 9, 2014 by Ernie Lazar

[Paul Trejo]

Significantly, Wesley Swearingen dismisses Milteer's story. See: http://www.oswalddidnotkilljfk.com/Joseph-Milteer.html ...

As usual, Ernie, you exaggerate. Swearingen doesn't dismiss Milteer's story -- it's just that Swearingen found no evidence that Joseph Milteer was as close to the ground crew of the JFK plot as Don Adams believes.

Yet all Don Adams claims is that Milteer knew who shot JFK, and that he made himself available in Dallas to help as needed, and to witness history with his own eyes.

Even if Swearingen is 100% correct, that doesn't dismiss the story of Don Adams or even of Harry Dean -- it would only make Milteer and Walker into secondary players, in the opinion of former FBI Agent Wes Swearingen.

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

I exaggerate? Swearingen does not dismiss Adam's claims about Milteer? Have you exchanged emails with him?

From his website (I underline the operative phrase in red font)

"Milteer could have heard rumors about JFK’s planned assassination, but Swearingen does not put any stock in Adams’ story because Swearingen was told in advance who would be involved in JFK’s assassination and Milteer was not one of them."

This proves, yet again, that Paul Trejo does not understand or apply the normal commonly understood meanings of words in the English language.

Yes, Ernie, you exaggerate -- continually and obsessively.

And, yes, I have exchanged emails with Wes Swearingen.

I learned, for example, that Wes Swearingen was in contact with Harry Dean in 2010, and that Harry sent Wes Swearingen a complimentary copy of his manuscript, CROSSTRAILS.

I learned, for example, that Wes Swearingen does NOT dismiss Harry Dean's account (or Don Adams' account) out of hand, because in his CIA-Mafia theory, Swearingen realizes that the CIA hand the funds and the clout to recruit volunteers by the ton.

Although Wes Swearingen does believe that the CIA-Mafia plot was the central plot, he also recognizes the possibility of the participation of the American right-wing at the ground-level, although the ground-level is not his principal focus (as it is for me).

Also -- do you believe that Wes Swearingen speaks of himself in the third person? You're jumping to conclusions yet again.

So, get a grip, Ernie. The more you keep insulting me in public, the more you're going to get the same treatment. You exaggerate. You're biased. You so-called research is sophomoric. You jump to conclusions and you specialize in FBI promotion -- because that's all you know. The rest is bluster.

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

Edited March 11, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Ernie Lazar]

Yes, Ernie, you exaggerate -- continually and obsessively.

And, yes, I have exchanged emails with Wes Swearingen.

I learned, for example, that Wes Swearingen was in contact with Harry Dean in 2010, and that Harry sent Wes Swearingen a complimentary copy of his manuscript, CROSSTRAILS.

I learned, for example, that Wes Swearingen does NOT dismiss Harry Dean's account (or Don Adams' account) out of hand, because in his CIA-Mafia theory, Swearingen realizes that the CIA hand the funds and the clout to recruit volunteers by the ton.

Although Wes Swearingen does believe that the CIA-Mafia plot was the central plot, he also recognizes the participation of the American right-wing at the ground-level, although the ground-level is not his principal focus (as it is for me).

Also -- do you believe that Wes Swearingen speaks of himself in the third person? You're jumping to conclusions yet again.

So, get a grip, Ernie. The more you keep insulting me in public, the more you're going to get the same treatment. You exaggerate. You're biased. You so-called research is sophomoric. You jump to conclusions and you specialize in FBI promotion -- because that's all you know. The rest is bluster.

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

Here is part one of an email Swearingen sent to me. Compare to what Paul Trejo believes.

Dear Mr. Lazar,

Joseph Milteer may have heard about a plan to kill JFK. The CIA was developing a hit squad. Milteer may have heard something, somehow. To my knowledge, Milteer did not have any Chicago Mob connections, therefore I don't know how he could have offered any assistance. The fact that Milteer is still alive, or at least was not murdered to my recollection, gives me reason to believe he was not involved because all the Mob figures I know to have been involved in killing JFK have been violently murdered Mob style.

Don Adams was a new agent when he talked to Milteer. I know from experience that new agents tend to believe what ever they are told without checking the facts. It is not that I don't believe Adams, I don't believe what Milteer told Adams. Milteer could have heard rumors about a plot to kill JFK. I don't know what his connections were. The Chicago Mob figures who received training at a CIA run camp in Florida would not pay any attention to someone like Milteer who just happened to have "made himself available" to help the crew who actually murdered JFK (in any way they requested). Adams does not mention the Chicago Mob as having been involved. I know for a fact that the Chicago Mob was involved and that those who were involved have been violently silenced.

[Ernie Lazar]

Part two of Wesley Swearingen's email to me..... this time about Harry's story. Once again: Compare to Paul Trejo's hallucinations!

Mr. Lazar,

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

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

Sincerely,

M. Wesley Swearingen

[Ernie Lazar]

AFTER reading the two emails I received from Mr. Swearingen --- make up your own mind if Paul's accusations against me are credible.

1. This is Paul Trejo's typical and routine debate tactic. He makes very bold and definitive statements which make it appear that he knows what he is talking about but when you do actual research into whatever matter is being disputed, you discover that Paul is NOT accurately summarizing the position or beliefs of the people whom he discusses.

2. Then, Paul insists upon demonizing ANYBODY who dares to challenge something he presents. He describes them as offering "insults" or "exaggerations" or they are "biased" or "sophomoric" or they are engaged in "obsessive" behavior. Paul uses these emotionally charged descriptive terms because he PREFERS to use ad hominem attacks instead of just graciously acknowledging that something he currently believes might be fundamentally flawed.

3. As I have repeatedly indicated in this thread, you CANNOT rely upon Paul for accurate, truthful, or factual information. Caveat emptor!

[Ernie Lazar]

And just to make everything absolutely and definitively clear.....

I sent Mr. Swearingen the following comment by Paul Trejo:

"I learned, for example, that Wes Swearingen was in contact with Harry Dean in 2010, and that Harry sent Wes Swearingen a complimentary copy of his manuscript, CROSSTRAILS. I learned, for example, that Wes Swearingen does NOT dismiss Harry Dean's account (or Don Adams' account) out of hand, because in his CIA-Mafia theory, Swearingen realizes that the CIA had the funds and the clout to recruit volunteers by the ton."

AND Mr. Swearingen replied as follows:

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

Edited March 10, 2014 by Ernie Lazar

[Paul Trejo]

As usual, Ernie Lazar relies on exaggeration and bias to make his weak points.

Anybody reading those messages from Wes Swearingen can tell immediately that he is not "dismissing" out of hand the accounts by Don Adams or Harry Dean.

JUST THE OPPOSITE.

Wes Swearingen admits that: "Joseph Milteer may have heard about a plan to kill JFK."

So, once again, Ernie is just blind to anything outside his bias. What a poor researcher Ernie is.

Furthermore, Wes Swearingen admits that: "Milteer could have heard rumors about a plot to kill JFK. I don't know what his connections were."

So, Wes Swearingen is indeed reporting in a professional and scholarly way -- but Ernie Lazar distorts Wes Swearingen's words, twisting them to fit his own biased pre-conclusions.

Shame on Ernie Lazar.

Furthermore, Wes Swearingen admits, "This does not mean that Dean's story of another plot is not true...Any group could have looked at LHO as a patsy, or a sucker play."

Furthermore, Wes Swearingen admits, "It is my belief that LHO played a secondary role, whatever that may have been. The physical evidence in this case does not support LHO as the lone assassin."

In this last statement, Wes Swearingen AGREES fully with BOTH Harry Dean and Don Adams!

So, again, Ernie Lazar merely twists what Wes Swearingen says in order to jump to his biased conclusions.

It is unfortunate that Wes Swearingen minimizes the ground-crew, and mostly sets Lee Harvey Oswald aside, without digging deeper into the forces that directly handled him -- but that is what happens with all theories that focus on a CIA-Mafia plot -- they are top-heavy.

It is unfortunate that Wes Swearingen suggests that Don Adams' story has "no evidence to back up" what he claims -- because in fact Don Adams has a tape recording of Joseph Milteer speaking to informant Willie Somersett, and describing the JFK assassination in prophetic detail! All JFK researchers know that.

Clearly, what the brilliant Wes Swearingen means is that Don Adams was not taking in a wide enough picture, and should have extended his focus to a CIA-Mafia plot. But that is far from Ernie Lazar's hasty claim that Wes Swearingen "dismissed" Don Adams' account.

It is in this same context that we must weigh Wes Swearingen's doubts about Harry Dean's story. First, we must first acknowledge that Wes Swearingen admitted contact with Harry Dean in 2010. That's firm.

Also, Wes Swearingen clearly and repeatedly stated that "the Chicago mob was involved in killing JFK and not any other group." Therefore, there is no way Wes Swearingen could accept Harry Dean's story as true.

Yet nobody said that Wes Swearingen ACCEPTED Harry Dean's story. All I said was what Wes Swearingen told me, namely, "That does not mean that Dean is wrong; it just means that we have different opinions."

So, Wes Swearingen honestly admits that he doesn't have all the data yet, and that it is still a matter of opinon. Yet Ernie Lazar falsely claims to the world that Wes Swearingen "dismisses" Harry Dean's account, as he "dismisses" Don Adams account.

The difference between what Wes Swearingen says and the twisted mess that Ernie Lazar makes of it is major. That's because Ernie Lazar uses a logical method that is one-sided, with dualist, either/or values lacking nuance.

Wes Swearingen has a lot of data to back up his claim -- but he doesn't tie up all the loose ends.

Wes Swearingen never gets down to the ground level, and never explains all the details of the intricate handling of Lee Harvey Oswald, or the possible role played by selected Dallas Police Officers in the execution and cover-up of the JFK murder.

The link between the stories of Don Adams, Harry Dean, Ricky White and the late Deputy Roger Craig is that they all focus on right-wing racists as taking a significant role in the JFK murder.

It is at this level that we find the ground-crew. That would be my argument for the intelligent and couragous Wes Swearingen.

Sincerely,
--Paul Trejo
<minor edits>

Edited March 17, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Ernie Lazar]

As usual, Ernie Lazar relies on exaggeration and bias to make his weak points.

Anybody reading those messages from Wes Swearingen can tell immediately that he is not "dismissing" out of hand the accounts by Don Adams or Harry Dean.

JUST THE OPPOSITE.

Well, again, Paul,.you seem to be operating with a different understanding of words in the English language. When somebody writes about Harry's story that "I immediately dismissed it as not truely connected to the JFK assassination" -- that would seem to be a very definitive statement. And when somebody writes that there is no evidence to support either Harry's story or that of Milteer, that also seems like a very definitive statement.

BUT---I am perfectly willing to listen to your further comments AFTER you contact Mr. Swearingen and ask him to be even more definitive (if that is even possible). Pose whatever question(s) you think will resolve our dispute -- and then let us know his answers.

Wes Swearingen admits that: "Joseph Milteer may have heard about a plan to kill JFK."

So, once again, Ernie is just blind to anything outside his bias. What a poor researcher Ernie is.

Straw man argument. Nobody is disputing what Milteer or anybody else might have "heard". Try paying attention to what actually is being discussed.

Your original statement was:

"Swearingen doesn't dismiss Milteer's story -- it's just that Swearingen found no evidence that Joseph Milteer was as close to the ground crew of the JFK plot as Don Adams believes."

But Swearingen's reply to YOUR comment was:

"Why do you want to believe stories by Dean and Milteer when they have no evidence to back up what they claim?"

That sounds pretty dismissive to me!

Furthermore, Wes Swearingen admits that: "Milteer could have heard rumors about a plot to kill JFK. I don't know what his connections were."

So, Wes Swearingen is indeed reporting in a professional and scholarly way -- but Ernie Lazar distorts Wes Swearingen's words, twisting them to fit his own biased pre-conclusions. Shame on Ernie Lazar.

Tell us Paul -- WHAT should Swearingen have written that would make his position any clearer for you? When somebody says "they have no evidence to back up what they claim" --- what does that mean to you? Spell it out for us!

Furthermore, Wes Swearingen admits, "This does not mean that Dean's story of another plot is not true...Any group could have looked at LHO as a patsy, or a sucker play." So, again, Ernie Lazar merely twists what Wes Swearingen says in order to jump to his biased conclusions.

Once again, you are conflating two different points and then creating a straw-man argument. The bottom-line is that Swearingen has definitively stated that he does not regard Harry's story as credible because he has no evidence to back up his claim. That explains why Swearingen does not even mention Harry or Milteer or any "JBS plot" in his two books. If there was anything pertinent in what Harry or Milteer believed, then don't you think Swearingen would have discussed it in one or both of his books?

But, AGAIN, contact Swearingen. Pose the question(s) which YOU think are the ones which need to be clarified. And then give us Swearingen's answers. If you are willing to do that, we can determine if your insults and ad hominem arguments have any basis in fact.

Furthermore, Wes Swearingen admits, "It is my belief that LHO played a secondary role, whatever that may have been. The physical evidence in this case does not support LHO as the lone assassin."

In this statement, Wes Swearingen AGREES fully with both Harry Dean and Don Adams!

So what? There are many "theories" about JFK's murder that conclude that LHO was not the lone assassin. That does not mean that they all agree with each other on the identity of the people who WERE involved.

It is unfortunate that Wes Swearingen does not focus on the ground-crew, and just sets Lee Harvey Oswald aside, without digging deeper into the forces that directly handled him -- but that is what happens with all theories that focus on a CIA-Mafia plot -- they are top-heavy. It is unfortunate that Wes Swearingen suggests that Don Adams' story has "no evidence to back up" what he claims -- because in fact Don Adams has a tape recording of Joseph Milteer speaking to informant Willie Somersett, and describing the JFK assassination in prophetic detail! All JFK researchers know that.

Why is it "unfortunate" if someone reviews evidence and arrives at a different conclusion from the one you prefer?

Clearly, what the brilliant Wes Swearingen means is that Don Adams was not taking in a wide enough picture, and should have extended his focus to a CIA-Mafia plot. But that is far from Ernie Lazar's hasty claim that Wes Swearingen "dismissed" Don Adams' account.

Instead of YOU telling us what Swearingen believes, why don't you contact him and ask him specific questions which you think will clarify his position and then let us know the answers he gives you to those questions?

It is in this same context that we must weigh Wes Swearingen's doubts about Harry Dean's story. First, we must first admit that Wes Swearingen was in contact with Harry Dean in 2010. That's firm.

Also, Wes Swearingen clearly and repeatedly stated that "the Chicago mob was involved in killing JFK and not any other group." So, he could not accept Harry Dean's story as true. Yet I never said that Wes Swearingen ACCEPTED Harry Dean's story. Neither did Harry. All I said was what Wes Swearingen told me, namely, "That does not mean that Dean is wrong; it just means that we have different opinions."

Please contact Swearingen and repeat your statement above -- and let us know the result.

The difference between what Wes Swearingen says and the twisted mess that Ernie Lazar makes of it is major. Wes Swearingen is rational enough to admit that he doesn't have all the data yet, and that it is still a matter of opinon. Ernie Lazar falsely claims to the world that Wes Swearingen "dismisses" Harry Dean's account, as he "dismisses" Don Adams account.

But I am not the person who said Swearingen "dismisses" Harry Dean. It is SWEARINGEN who wrote: "Why do you want to believe stories by Dean and Milteer when they have no evidence to back up what they claim?"

That's because Ernie Lazar uses a logical method that is one-sided, with dualist, either/or values lacking nuance.

I am only quoting what Swearingen wrote. If you think he does not know what he believes, then contact him and explain to him that he has some kind of mental deficiency.

Wes Swearingen has a lot of data to back up his claim -- but Wes Swearingen never gets down to the ground level, and never explains all the details of the intricate handling of Lee Harvey Oswald, or the possible role played by selected Dallas Police Officers in the execution and cover-up of the JFK murder. The connection between the stories of Don Adams, Harry Dean, Ricky White and the late Deputy Roger Craig is that they all focus on right-wing racists as taking a significant role in the JFK murder. It is at this level that we find the ground-crew. That would be my argument for the intelligent and couragous Wes Swearingen.

Then contact "intelligent and courageous" Wes Swearingen and tell him you want him to retract his previous comments -- and then let us know the result

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

My comments appear underneath yours.

This is another example of Paul's imitation of the classic Groucho Marx routine, i.e. "Who are you going to believe, me, or "YOUR LYING EYES".

Edited March 10, 2014 by Ernie Lazar

[Ernie Lazar]

I would like to make a correction to my previous report regarding Harry's Los Angeles file.

In my summary, I identified Special Agent William McCauley as the person whom was given a tip by a bank teller concerning Harry. That is mistaken. The Agent at the bank was Claude E. Willis.

Willis then notified McCauley about what happened at the bank and Agent McCauley opened the Los Angeles case file on Harry. He also had the case file assigned to himself because McCauley handled Cuban matters for the FBI's Los Angeles field office.

When NARA sent me Harry's file, they mistakenly sent me paper documents and they copied everything in reverse order i.e. the last serial (#65) was the first serial on the top of the file and the first serial (#1) was at the bottom of the pile. So, I had to re-organize everything to see all serials in their actual chronological sequence. Today, I received a disk containing Harry's Los Angeles file. While reviewing the file for a second time, I noticed my error.

Altogether, it appears that about 10 different Los Angeles Special Agents (and Supervisory Special Agents) had some sort of contact with Harry (answering his phone calls or personally contacting him at his home to advise him to stop claiming he was associated with the FBI etc). But McCauley reviewed and initialed all their reports (FD-71 contact forms) and McCauley personally saw Harry at least twice.

I just finished an OCR scan of all his Los Angeles file documents so I can now search for specific subjects or terms dates or whatever. I will be compiling much more detailed notes about Harry and, eventually, I will post a report online about his narrative.....but I have many other projects which require my attention first.

Edited March 10, 2014 by Ernie Lazar

[Paul Trejo]

ANYWAY -- let's press forward with some positive ideas here.

I'm reviewing Larry Hancocks' 2010, Someone Would Have Talked, with special attention to the Odio affair. It's rich in nuance, so I'd like to take this nice and slow, and dwell on it for a week or so.

Gaeton Fonzi re-opened the Silvia Odio case in 1977 at the request of the HSCA. Fonzi was disappointed with the sloppy job that that FBI did on behalf of the Warren Commission in this case. Fonzi and his staff believed Silvia Odio's sworn testimony and her corroborating witnesses.

However, they arrived at no conclusion about the significance of the visit of the two Latinos and Lee Harvey Oswald at Silvia Odio's home in the final week of September 1963. They only agreed that if Oswald had access to private transportation to get to Dallas, then this strongly implies a conspiracy to kill JFK, i.e. that Oswald had accomplices.

Gaeton Fonzi was particularly disappointed in three aspects of the FBI foul-ups:

1. The FBI failed to identify the two Latinos in 1964, when the leads were still warm.

2. The FBI failed to identify the red car that the Latinos and Lee Harvey Oswald rode to Odio's home in September 1963, when the leads were still warm.

3. The FBI spent most of its time in the Odio case debating over the possible whereabouts of Oswald in the final week of September 1963, and arrived at nothing conclusive.

There is, of course, more. Yet for purposes of this thread, Harry Dean's story harmonizes very well with Silvia Odio's story in several places:

A. Harry claims that, at the orders of Guy Gabaldon, Loran Hall (war name Lorenzo Pacillo) and Larry Howard (war name, Alonzo Escruido) drove Lee Harvey Oswald to Mexico during the final week of September.

B. Harry did not know about their stop at Siliva Odio's home, but Silvia Odio described them fairly well, and her descriptions match Loran Hall and Larry Howard.

C. Odio said that the taller, slimmer, lighter-skinned Latino did most of the talking. That would be Loran Hall, who was ruggedly handsome and articulate in both English and Spanish.

D. Odio said she could not perfectly recall their war names, but that one began with an 'L' and the other began with an 'A'. (This matches the war names of Lorenzo and Alonzo, which Harry Dean claims that Loran Hall and Larry Howard often used.)

E. Odio finally chose to call the talkative one, Leopoldo. She said that 'Leopoldo' lied about knowing her father who was languishing in a Cuban prison. She said that 'Leopoldo' also lied about the three men being members of JURE. She was a member of JURE and never saw them before that day.

E. This matches Harry's description of Loran Hall -- that he was somewhat pushy and immoral in character.

F. Odio also said 'Leopoldo' had a full head of dark hair, but was thinning at the temples. This matches the physical description of Loran Hall.

G. Odio failed to remember the war name of the second Latino, but it started with 'A' and was something like 'Angelo.' She said he appeared to be a Mexican, not a Cuban. He was stocky, had shiny black hair, with darker, coarser skin. This matches Larry Howard perfectly; a Mexican-American from Los Angeles.

H. Odio said that 'Angelo' spoke very little -- not much more than 'Hello' in Spanish; yet she could tell he could follow the 20-minute Spanish conversation that Silvia Odio held with 'Leopoldo'. This also matches Larry Howard -- who spoke very little, but was also bi-lingual.

Silvia Odio got a very good look at all three men -- the two Latinos and Lee Harvey Oswald. Yet the FBI in this Warren Commission case did not perform due diligence in researching Odio's story.

In trying to rebut her story, the FBI did find corroborating witnesses, most importantly Odio' psychiatrist, Dr. Burton Einspruch, whose sworn affidavit confirms that Silvia Odio told him all this information (and more) long before the JFK murder.

Dr. Einspruch assured the FBI that Silvia Odio was not given to fantasies. Her psychological problem, he told the FBI, was that although she was raised in a wealthy home, the Communists in Cuba took her family's property, arrested both her mother and her father, and left her in Puerto RIco to care for her younger siblings and her own children (she was 24 at the time) -- and then her husband left her! She was completely displaced, and she began to experience fainting spells. Dr. Einspruch cured her of her fainting spells for several weeks -- until the JFK murder.

In a further dramatic twist, the FBI did locate Loran Hall and Larry Howard, but Loran Hall told the FBI that the third man with him and Larry at Silvia Odio's that day was William Seymour, who looks a little like Lee Harvey Oswald. The FBI hurried this information to the Warren Commission -- calling Silvia Odio a 'mental case' -- and the Warren Commission went to press.

However, what the FBI didn't tell the Warren Commission is that Larry Howard and William Seymour both denied ever seeing Silvia Odio before in their lives. Then, Loran Hall took back his sworn testimony, only days later, and said he also never met Silvia Odio in his life; it was some other wealthy Cuban lady he saw that day, but he couldn't remember her name. In other words, Loran Hall impeached his own testimony.

Still -- Loran Hall's first story is what the Warren Commission took to press.

So, Gaeton Fonzi was profoundly disappointed in the FBI handling of the Silvia Odio case. This case was, in Fonzi's estimation, the key clue about the involvement of radical Cubans in the JFK murder. But it was squashed by the FBI . By the time of the HSCA, the leads were too cold to trace. Loran Hall did indeed testify again before the HSCA -- and continued to make incoherent statements.

We should not worry over the fact that the HSCA failed to interview Harry Dean in this regard -- they also failed to interview resigned General Edwin Walker.

Best regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited March 11, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Ernie Lazar]

Anyway, regardless of the repetitive and negative yammering of Ernie Lazar, let's press forward with some positive ideas here.

I'm reviewing Larry Hancocks' 2010, Someone Would Have Talked, with special attention to the Odio affair. It's rich in nuance, so I'd like to take this nice and slow, and dwell on it for a week or so.

Gaeton Fonzi re-opened the Silvia Odio case in 1977 at the request of the HSCA. Fonzi was disappointed with the sloppy job that that FBI did on behalf of the Warren Commission in this case. Fonzi and his staff believed Silvia Odio's sworn testimony and her corroborating witnesses.

However, they arrived at no conclusion about the significance of the visit of the two Latinos and Lee Harvey Oswald at Silvia Odio's home in the final week of September 1963. They only agreed that if Oswald had access to private transportation to get to Dallas, then this strongly implies a conspiracy to kill JFK, i.e. that Oswald had accomplices.

Gaeton Fonzi was particularly disappointed in three aspects of the FBI foul-ups:

1. The FBI failed to identify the two Latinos in 1964, when the leads were still warm.

2. The FBI failed to identify the red car that the Latinos and Lee Harvey Oswald rode to Odio's home in September 1963, when the leads were still warm.

3. The FBI spent most of its time in the Odio case debating over the possible whereabouts of Oswald in the final week of September 1963, and arrived at nothing conclusive.

There is, of course, more. Yet for purposes of this thread, Harry Dean's story harmonizes very well with Silvia Odio's story in several places:

A. Harry claims that, at the orders of Guy Gabaldon, Loran Hall (war name Lorenzo Pacillo) and Larry Howard (war name, Alonzo Escruido) drove Lee Harvey Oswald to Mexico during the final week of September.

B. Harry did not know about their stop at Siliva Odio's home, but Silvia Odio described them fairly well, and her descriptions match Loran Hall and Larry Howard.

C. Odio said that the taller, slimmer, lighter-skinned Latino did most of the talking. That would be Loran Hall, who was ruggedly handsome and articulate in both English and Spanish.

D. Odio said she could not perfectly recall their war names, but that one began with an 'L' and the other began with an 'A'. (This matches the war names of Lorenzo and Alonzo, which Harry Dean claims that Loran Hall and Larry Howard often used.)

E. Odio finally chose to call the talkative one, Leopoldo. She said that 'Leopoldo' lied about knowing her father who was languishing in a Cuban prison. She said that 'Leopoldo' also lied about them being members of JURE. She was a member of JURE and never saw them before that day.

E. This matches Harry's description of Loran Hall -- that he was somewhat pushy and immoral in character.

F. Odio also said 'Leopoldo' had lots of dark black hair, but was thinning at the temples. This matches the physical description of Loran Hall.

G. Odio failed to remember the war name of the second Latino, but it started with 'A' and was something like 'Angelo.' She said he appeared to be a Mexican, not a Cuban. He was stocky, had shiny black hair, with darker, coarser skin. This matches Larry Howard perfectly; a Mexican-American from Los Angeles.

H. Odio said that 'Angelo' spoke very little -- not much more than 'Hello' in Spanish; yet she could tell he could follow the 20-minute Spanish conversation that Silvia Odio held with 'Leopoldo'. This also matches Larry Howard -- who spoke very little, but was also bi-lingual.

Silvia Odio got a very good look at all three men -- the two Latinos and Lee Harvey Oswald. Yet the FBI in this Warren Commission case did not perform due diligence in researching Odio's story.

In trying to rebut her story, the FBI did find corroborating witnesses, most importantly Odio' psychiatrist, Dr. Einspruch, whose sworn affidavit confirms that Silvia Odio told him all this information (and more) long before the assassination of JFK.

Dr. Einspruch assured the FBI that Silvia Odio was not given to fantasies. Her psychological problem, he told the FBI, was that although she was raised in a wealthy home, the Communists in Cuba took her family's property, arrested both her mother and her father, and left her to care for her younger siblings and her own children (she was 24 at the time) and then her husband left her. She was completely displaced, and she began to experience fainting spells. Dr. Einspruch cured her of her fainting spells for several weeks -- until the JFK assassination.

In a further dramatic twist, the FBI did locate Loran Hall and Larry Howard, but Loran Hall told the FBI that the third man with him and Larry at Silvia Odio's that day was William Seymour, who looks a little like Lee Harvey Oswald. The FBI hurried this information to the Warren Commission -- calling Silvia Odio a 'mental case' -- and the Warren Commission went to press.

However, what the FBI didn't tell the Warren Commission is that Larry Howard and William Seymour both denied ever seeing Silvia Odio before in their lives. Then, Loran Hall took back his sworn testimony, only days later, and said he also never met Silvia Odio in his life; it was some other wealthy Cuban lady he saw that day, but he couldn't remember her name. In other words, Loran Hall impeached his own testimony.

Still -- Loran Hall's first story is what the Warren Commission took to press.

So, Gaeton Fonzi was profoundly disappointed in the FBI handling of the Silvia Odio case. This case was, in Fonzi's estimation, the key clue about the involvement of radical Cubans in the death of JFK. But it was squashed by the FBI. By the time of the HSCA, the leads were too cold to trace. Loran Hall did indeed testify again before the HSCA -- and continued to make incoherent statements.

We should not worry over the fact that the HSCA failed to interview Harry Dean in this regard -- they also failed to interview resigned General Edwin Walker.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

TRANSLATION OF PAUL'S FIRST PARAGRAPH:

In other words, Paul is not willing to contact Swearingen to ask pertinent questions in order to determine if Paul's interpretation is correct or false. Instead, Paul prefers to move on to his next falsehood in the hope that everyone will forget his previous falsehoods.

[Paul Trejo]

Ernie, you are such a PEST!

Actually, I enjoy a congenial correspondence with Wes Swearingen, and I don't choose to compromise it with your nonsense.

You're worse than a two-year old!

With utmost sincerity,

--Paul Trejo

Edited March 10, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

Seriously, though, I do want to focus on this under-developed aspect of Harry Dean's story -- namely, its relationship with the Silvia Odio story which was researched by Gaeton Fonzi in 1977-1979.

John Dolva, for one, did considerable research on the relationship of right-wing extremists involved in the JFK assassination, including the likes of Joseph Milteer and General Edwin Walker, and also found that Silvia Odio's story extends to Mrs. Lucille Connell, who named Edwin Walker in this regard.

Paul Brancato is willing to consider General Edwin Walker as a subordinate player in the JFK murder, underneath more senior players like Edward Lansdale, for example, who is easily linked to a CIA-Mafia scenario, similar to the scenario proposed by former FBI Agent, Wes Swearingen.

Larry Hancock wrote a lot about Silvia Odio's story, with careful attention to FBI failures to resolve her case cogently.

This is interesting to me in the context of the memoirs of Harry Dean.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Edited March 11, 2014 by Paul Trejo