Harry Dean: Memoirs

[Harry J.Dean]

That Lazar - Goy

A double-minded

Subverter boy

So un-grounded

In his Weird ways

From pressures in his head

Sending him so far astray!

With this I say a weary adios to undue

defamation, and incipient contrariety, by

the devious!

[Paul Trejo]

Former FBI Agent and whistle-blower, M. Wesley Swearingen released a book in 2010 entitled, To Kill a President. It is an excellent read for anybody interested in the internal behavior of the FBI with regard to the murder of JFK.

In October of 1960, Wes Swearingen, an FBI Agent in Chicago, was approached by a stranger -- a member of the Cuban Exile community in Chicago who wanted to tell the FBI about a secret invasion of Cuba that was being planned in Florida by his associates along with the CIA. He called himself "Ramon."

"Why me?" asked Agent Swearingen. Ramon replied, "because my people tell me I can trust you."

Agent Swearingen invited Ramon into his car and listened at length to the details and the names that Ramon wanted to share. The more he listened, however, the more Swearingen thought the idea was just wild imagnation. Finally he ordered this information "source" out of his car.

When the Bay of Pigs actually happened in early 1961, however, Agent Swearingen wished that he had listened more carefully to Ramon, because all the details he had heard just months beforehand unfolded in exactly the way that Ramon had told him.

In October of 1962, Wes Swearingen was still working as an FBI Agent in Chicago, and he was again approached by Ramon. This time Ramon wanted to tell him about a plot to murder JFK by his associates along with the CIA -- the same personnel as previously. This time Agent Swearingen listened and took notes.

Ramon named names: rogues from a CIA group called 'JM/Wave' in Florida had assembled former Cuban dictator Fulgencio Batista along with mafia figures, Sam Giancana, Johnny Roselli, Santo Traficante, Carlos Marcello and Jack Ruby, as well as Bay of Pigs veterans Manual Artime, Frank Sturgis, Bill Harvey and members of Alpha-66, along with questionable Chicago cops like Richard Cain and Guy Bannister. Ramon again provided lots of detail -- and this time Agent Swearingen wrote it all down.

Wes Swearingen rushed to tell his boss, Bill Roemer, who insisted that Ramon was "crazy." Agent Swearingen then escalated his report to his boss' boss, Joe Culkin, who also insisted that Ramon was "crazy." Swearingen was then willing to forget the whole thing, when suddenly he was transferred out of Chicago to Kentucky where he could work on interstate auto thefts for the rest of his FBI career.

When JFK was actually murdered one year later, Wes Swearingen was stunned. He tried again to offer the information he had written down, which could have been helpful, but he quickly learned that his information flatly contradicted FBI Director, J. Edgar Hoover, and he was warned repeatedly that if he ever dared to contradict the Director, he would be fired on the spot.

Swearingen at this point tried everything he could to obtain further information about the JFK murder from inside the FBI -- however, he was blocked at every turn. So, he made it his business to slowly gather information on the murder of JFK over the years. Among the strange events that fascinated FBI Agent Wes Swearingen, were the various sudden deaths of the very people that Ramon had named to him, whenever the JFK murder would be mentioned in national American news.

A few other FBI Agents were also interested in tracking the JFK murder, and one might suppose that FBI Agents had access to insider information. Not so.

In the early 1970's FBI Agent Ralph Hill, a former Chicago pal of Wes Swearingen and now in the Miami FBI tracking the mafia, told Wes, "The newspapers know more about what's going on down here in Miami than we do. We're still playing catch up just like we did in Chicago in 1959 when we had to read the papers to find out who was in the Mob."

Ralph Hill could only direct Swearingen back to his original source, "Ramon," for further information about the JFK murder. I'll stop my review of Swearingeng's book here -- and I hope I've interested the reader in obtaining a copy of, To Kill a President (2010) by M. Wesley Swearingen.

I was intrigued by what Ralph Hill told Swearingen, however, because it's so revealing that FBI Agents would ever need to consult civilian news media and civilian literature to learn about information that even the FBI does not have. What is the word on the street?

Wes Swearingen's account of his own research showed that he was often playing "catch-up" with JFK researchers in collecting details about the JFK assassination. His advantage, of course, was that he knew which JFK researchers were warm and which were cold -- because he had, after all, spoken with "Ramon" in 1962.

Still, the discoveries dug up by Mark Lane and Jim Garrison in the sixties and the seventies had not been available to the average FBI Agent, just as they were alien to the average US citizen after the Warren Commission dictated its irrational conclusion as history.

That is why, in my humble opinion, the memoirs of Harry Dean will soon take on an increasing relevance in JFK research. Just like the legitimate findings of Wes Swearingen, the legitimate findings of Harry Dean were suppressed by the FBI with its "Lone Nut" version of the JFK murder.

As I showed yesterday, the data of Wes Swearingen are rock solid as far as they go -- and yet I believe that they remain incomplete -- they don't reach down to the ground-crew in Dallas, to explore the personal handlers of Lee Harvey Oswald. To obtain that data we need to ask Harry Dean -- What was the word on the street?

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Edited March 18, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Ernie Lazar]

Ernie - at least Trejo is honest about what he believes. You continually evade the question of what you believe. Apparently you think that no one has the right to promote a theory without first proving that all the 'facts' support it. In the field of JFK assassination research that is a literal impossibility. Could Trejo or Dean try a little harder to did up every iota, every file, of info? Yes of course. Is Trejo prone to see everything through the lens of his own beliefs? Yes. We already knew that. You have not enlightened me about that - it's perfectly obvious. But we still don't know what you believe, other that your point that lefties and righties fall into the same logical traps. We, and I think I speak for most of us, nevertheless know on which side of that divide we stand. Where do you stand!

Paul B: Your message makes no sense whatsoever.

1. I have never evaded any question about what I believe. I have told everyone exactly what I believe.

2. I have no problem of any kind whatsoever with somebody "proposing a theory". For you to say otherwise is intellectually dishonest. However, EVERY genuine theory must conform to standard rules of evidence and logic and be subject to falsification or it is NOT a genuine theory.

3. Nor do I believe (or have I ever stated) that a theory requires anybody to "prove all the facts" to support it. A theory is a tentative explanation for what might be true. But it also recognizes that the proposed explanation might be false. Do you honestly expect anybody reading this thread to believe that Paul T. or Harry proposes that their "theory" might be FALSE? Of course not!

4. Nobody is asking Paul T. or Harry to "dig up every iota, every file of info". That is yet another straw-man argument. What is missing from Paul's (or Harry's) theory is ANY verifiable documentary evidence to support Harry's contentions regarding his alleged relationship with the FBI (or the CIA for that matter). The FACT is that Harry does not have one single document to prove anything much less "every single iota" of information required to prove a theory. No letters, no emails, no tax returns, no journal or diary, no photographs, no tape recordings, no affidavits, no films or videotapes, no transcripts, no FBI or CIA documents, -- NOTHING!

5. My personal opinions are irrelevant to this entire discussion. In fact, one could plausibly argue that personal opinions are the essence of the problem here. We are supposedly discussing one particular theory regarding a major historical event. That theory is NOT being presented as merely somebody's personal opinion. It is being presented as a FACT-BASED summary of what actually happened. When someone claims he/she is presenting FACTS, then there must be verifiable evidence to support whatever statements are made.

EXAMPLE: If a key component of one's "factual" assertions concerning what transpired during that historical event is that Harry had an ongoing close relationship during the summer of 1963 with the FBI Special Agent in Charge of the Los Angeles field office (Wesley Grapp), BUT one discovers through minimal research that Grapp did not physically arrive in Los Angeles until March 1964 -- then, obviously, a key proposed "fact" is proven FALSE. Furthermore, if the entire point of mentioning that SAC was to assert that Harry gave him information in September 1963 about a "plot" to murder our President, but we then discover that no such meeting ever took place -- we must draw the logical conclusion from that revelation.

Now -- does THAT make it any clearer for you about "where I stand"?

Edited March 18, 2014 by Ernie Lazar

[Ernie Lazar]

I'm OK with the fact that I'm still gathering the evidence I need to propose finality for my theory about the JFK murder. I'm patient and I'm willing to work and to wait.

Yet the pieces that we have today make a pattern that is becoming increasingly clear to me, and I'm hoping that I can convey it to others.

Paul Brancato was correct to separate research about Ex-General Edwin Walker from the memoirs of Harry Dean -- because the case against Edwin Walker will stand or fall on its own merits. Harry Dean's story, however, will fall if the case against Edwin Walker falls.

Nor would I feel bad if Edwin Walker was somehow exonerated -- even though I think Walker was totally wrong about Martin Luther King, the NAACP, James Meredith and Civil Rights, I continue to give Walker high marks for his heroism in World War 2 and for his accomplishments in the Korean War. Edwin Walker was, after all, a Major General from the Greatest Generation. Walker deserves our respect for his Miitary service, even if his career as a civilian was less than honorable.

Yet the personal papers of Edwin Walker himself will never let us forget Walker's obsession with the murder of JFK and Lee Harvey Oswald -- an obsession which lasted from 1961 until the year he died.

It is the personal papers of Edwin Walker himself that continually remind us about Lee Harvey Oswald, and how soon Edwin Walker knew that Oswald was his shooter on 10 April 1963. It was within days, wrote Walker, of that shooting.

Walker told a lot of people that Lee Oswald was his April shooter, including reporters of the German newspaper, Deutsche Nationalzeitung, during the early morning of 23 November 1963 -- less than 24 hours after JFK was murdered.

Ten days before Marina Oswald told the FBI about Oswald's April shooting (she told the FBI on 3 December 1963) Edwin Walker and his ANP publisher, Robert Allen Surrey were telling any newspaper reporter who would listen that Lee Harvey Oswald was also Edwin Walker's shooter back in April. Walker repeated this story contnually -- until the day he died. Walker really wanted to be associated with JFK and Lee Harvey Oswald in the public mind, and he wouldn't let anybody forget it.

Even when the HSCA started up in 1977, Edwin Walker also contacted them and demanded that they investigate Lee Harvey Oswald at his home on 10 April 1963. While some people might think that this would have been too risky for any normal person (to be guilty and then call Federal attention to oneself) those people don't know the personality of Ex-General Edwin Walker.

What keeps me intrigued about the memoirs of Harry Dean isn't simply that I find Harry believable -- despite minor gaps in his memory or in his assignment of cause. Those are normal attributes of any legitimate memoir. The amazing thing is that the key aspects of Harry's story match everything we now know about Ex-General Edwin Walker!

We have personal papers showing Walker's affiliation with Gerry Patrick Hemming. That spells Interpen, and that invokes Loran Hall. Loran Hall admitted to Jim Garrison that he visited the home of Edwin Walker in Dallas.

Also, one of Walker's lawyers, Robert Morris, gave Loran Hall legal assistance in Dallas in the autumn of 1963. There are real connections there.

These connections exist aside from memoirs of Harry Dean -- and Harry Dean has never changed his story since 1965 -- no matter what theories have come out by anybody -- including Jim Garrison, Mark Lane, or even E.Howard Hunt himself. Harry Dean's story remains consistent over a half-century and it harmonizes with what we are learning independently about Edwin Walker today.

Nor did Harry Dean ever see the personal papers of Edwin Walker (which were not available until the 21st century.)

That's why I'm confident that any documentation that the FBI throws at us will eventually be proved to conform to the general contours of Harry Dean's story -- because Harry Dean is telling the TRUTH.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

My only comment about this message by Paul is that there are ALWAYS "connections" which might appear to be significant. This is Paul's version of the "six degrees of separation" theory proposed by Hungarian author Frigyes Karinthy.

In addition, as science philosopher Karl Popper has pointed out, there are ALWAYS "confirmations" available for ANY statement or theory in the universe of available data. This is particularly true since the advent of internet.

In the past, I have frequently exchanged emails or participated in online discussions about the substance of Gary Allen's book, None Dare Call It Conspiracy -- and in particular a statement appearing on page 69 of his book.

On page 69, Gary quoted from what he claimed was a New York newspaper article to make a very serious accusation regarding the Jacob Schiff family. Incidentally, Gary was a Stanford University history graduate! Here is what Gary wrote:

"According to the New York Journal-American on February 3, 1949: 'Today it is estimated by Jacob's grandson, John Schiff, that the old man sank about 20,000,000 dollars for the final triumph of Bolshevism in Russia.' "

And, incidentally, DOZENS of other authors cited Gary Allen's book for their use of that "quotation". Significantly, however, NONE of them (including Gary Allen) ever provided a page number (in the NY Journal American) where the "article" appeared. See reason below.

One JBS member sent me an email chastising me for not just doing a google search on "John Schiff and $20 million" because, the Bircher insisted, that was the only research necessary to "confirm" the accuracy of the assertion made by Gary Allen in his book.

And if YOU perform such a search, you will see something in the vicinity of 5 MILLION (!!) hits containing references to Schiff and $20 million -- and a very considerable number of those hits "quote" the NY Journal American article as "proof".

Since my local library did not have microfilm of New York newspapers, I paid for an inter-library loan request to obtain the microfilm. When it finally arrived about 2 weeks later I was quite excited. I slowly went through the news section of the February 3rd issue but I couldn't find anything which discussed Jacob or John Schiff. So, then I thought maybe Gary Allen got the date wrong. So I carefully reviewed the news sections of every date from February 1st thru February 14th. But I still couldn't find anything!

I decided to return to the February 3rd edition and look one more time but I decided to review every page of the newspaper---even sports and TV sections! Well, I did finally find the "article". The comment Gary Allen "quoted" was not in the "news" section. It wasn’t even an “article”. Instead, the comment appeared in a society gossip column by someone unknown whose pseudonym was "Cholly Knickerbocker". This was the quality of evidence used by a Stanford University history graduate to make such a serious allegation! [Years later, I discovered the identity of the Hearst gossip columnist who wrote under the pen name Cholly Knickerbocker. It was Oleg Cassini. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/1667405/Cholly-Knickerbocker

This is why I keep bringing up "rules of evidence and logic" because of their importance to understanding how everyone goes about the task of ascertaining whether or not something they read is accurate and truthful. What type of research do you do? What standards do you have for analyzing, interpreting, and weighing evidence?

Edited March 18, 2014 by Ernie Lazar

[Ernie Lazar]

That Lazar - Goy

A double-minded

Subverter boy

So un-grounded

In his Weird ways

From pressures in his head

Sending him so far astray!

With this I say a weary adios to undue

defamation, and incipient contrariety, by

the devious!

And what does "That Lazar - Goy" reference mean Harry? Would you care to spell it out in plain English?

[Ernie Lazar]

Former FBI Agent and whistle-blower, M. Wesley Swearingen released a book in 2010 entitled, To Kill a President. It is an excellent read for anybody interested in the internal behavior of the FBI with regard to the murder of JFK.

In October of 1960, Wes Swearingen, an FBI Agent in Chicago, was approached by a stranger -- a member of the Cuban Exile community in Chicago who wanted to tell the FBI about a secret invasion of Cuba that was being planned in Florida by his associates along with the CIA. He called himself "Ramon."

"Why me?" asked Agent Swearingen. Ramon replied, "because my people tell me I can trust you."

Agent Swearingen invited Ramon into his car and listened at length to the details and the names that Ramon wanted to share. The more he listened, however, the more Swearingen thought the idea was just wild imagnation. Finally he ordered this information "source" out of his car.

When the Bay of Pigs actually happened in early 1961, however, Agent Swearingen wished that he had listened more carefully to Ramon, because all the details he had heard just months beforehand unfolded in exactly the way that Ramon had told him.

In October of 1962, Wes Swearingen was still working as an FBI Agent in Chicago, and he was again approached by Ramon. This time Ramon wanted to tell him about a plot to murder JFK by his associates along with the CIA -- the same personnel as previously. This time Agent Swearingen listened and took notes.

Ramon named names: rogues from a CIA group called 'JM/Wave' in Florida had assembled former Cuban dictator Fulgencio Batista along with mafia figures, Sam Giancana, Johnny Roselli, Santo Traficante, Carlos Marcello and Jack Ruby, as well as Bay of Pigs veterans Manual Artime, Frank Sturgis, Bill Harvey and members of Alpha-66, along with questionable Chicago cops like Richard Cain and Guy Bannister. Ramon again provided lots of detail -- and this time Agent Swearingen wrote it all down.

Wes Swearingen rushed to tell his boss, Bill Roemer, who insisted that Ramon was "crazy." Agent Swearingen then escalated his report to his boss' boss, Joe Culkin, who also insisted that Ramon was "crazy." Swearingen was then willing to forget the whole thing, when suddenly he was transferred out of Chicago to Kentucky where he could work on interstate auto thefts for the rest of his FBI career.

When JFK was actually murdered one year later, Wes Swearingen was stunned. He tried again to offer the information he had written down, which could have been helpful, but he quickly learned that his information flatly contradicted FBI Director, J. Edgar Hoover, and he was warned repeatedly that if he ever dared to contradict the Director, he would be fired on the spot.

Swearingen at this point tried everything he could to obtain further information about the JFK murder from inside the FBI -- however, he was blocked at every turn. So, he made it his business to slowly gather information on the murder of JFK over the years. Among the strange events that fascinated FBI Agent Wes Swearingen, were the various sudden deaths of the very people that Ramon had named to him, whenever the JFK murder would be mentioned in national American news.

A few other FBI Agents were also interested in tracking the JFK murder, and one might suppose that FBI Agents had access to insider information. Not so.

In the early 1970's FBI Agent Ralph Hill, a former Chicago pal of Wes Swearingen and now in the Miami FBI tracking the mafia, told Wes, "The newspapers know more about what's going on down here in Miami than we do. We're still playing catch up just like we did in Chicago in 1959 when we had to read the papers to find out who was in the Mob."

Ralph Hill could only direct Swearingen back to his original source, "Ramon," for further information about the JFK murder. I'll stop my review of Swearingeng's book here -- and I hope I've interested the reader in obtaining a copy of, To Kill a President (2010) by M. Wesley Swearingen.

I was intrigued by what Ralph Hill told Swearingen, however, because it's so revealing that FBI Agents would ever need to consult civilian news media and civilian literature to learn about information that even the FBI does not have. What is the word on the street?

Wes Swearingen's account of his own research showed that he was often playing "catch-up" with JFK researchers in collecting details about the JFK assassination. His advantage, of course, was that he knew which JFK researchers were warm and which were cold -- because he had, after all, spoken with "Ramon" in 1962.

Still, the discoveries dug up by Mark Lane and Jim Garrison in the sixties and the seventies had not been available to the average FBI Agent, just as they were alien to the average US citizen after the Warren Commission dictated its irrational conclusion as history.

That is why, in my humble opinion, the memoirs of Harry Dean will soon take on an increasing relevance in JFK research. Just like the legitimate findings of Wes Swearingen, the legitimate findings of Harry Dean were suppressed by the FBI with its "Lone Nut" version of the JFK murder.

As I showed yesterday, the data of Wes Swearingen are rock solid as far as they go -- and yet I believe that they remain incomplete -- they don't reach down to the ground-crew in Dallas, to explore the personal handlers of Lee Harvey Oswald. To obtain that data we need to ask Harry Dean -- What was the word on the street?

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

But, again, Paul -- what research have you done to establish whether or not Swearingen's recollections are accurate? OR did you just accept EVERYTHING he has written because you think it can be supportive of your own personal opinions?

Let me put my question in reverse.

When Swearingen writes something which does not correspond to what you currently believe, do you still quote from his book -- and cite him as an authoritative and reliable witness? Or is he only reliable and credible if some statement conforms to what you want us to believe?

[Paul Brancato]

Ernie - your personal opinions are very relevant, and you have not shared them to my knowledge, though I confess I have not read every single word you have posted. My post was a bit inflammatory but not at all dishonest in my opinion.

[Ernie Lazar]

Ernie - your personal opinions are very relevant, and you have not shared them to my knowledge, though I confess I have not read every single word you have posted. My post was a bit inflammatory but not at all dishonest in my opinion.

I'm sorry Paul B., but I don't agree with you that my personal opinions matter. The discussion in this forum is not intended to be a venue for expressing "opinion". Supposedly, we are attempting to separate FACT from FICTION (i.e. discover what is real versus imagined).

However, I will remind you that on several occasions I have briefly expressed my personal "opinion".

1. I have said (for example) that there are at least 13 different conspiracy theories pertaining to JFK's assassination. I also pointed out that there is no conceivable methodology which would satisfy any adherents of those theories -- in the sense that they would acknowledge that their particular theory has been proven false.

2. I have also stated that an interested person could spend their entire adult lifetime researching and attempting to "prove" or "disprove" just ONE of those 13 theories -- and, in fact, there are some people who actually have devoted most of their adult lifetime to just such a pursuit. [Personal note: I have devoted my entire adult lifetime to disproving arguments made by the Birch Society and I have only scratched the surface of what could be done. I have limited myself to about 6 major subjects which express the core ideology of the JBS but another researcher could (if they wanted to) devote their entire adult lifetime to researching DOZENS more arguments made by the JBS.]

3. And, lastly, I have stated that most political conspiracy theories are constructed to be self-sealing. In other words, the authors and adherents of those theories do not permit perceived critics or skeptics to introduce ANY evidence IF that evidence has the possibility of falsifying their theory or discrediting their sources of information.

You have seen a classic example of that phenomenon here in this thread when Paul Trejo has demanded that ONLY literal transcripts of questions and answers are permissible to be introduced as evidence. BUT EVERYBODY knows that no such transcripts exist because we are not discussing criminal investigative matters where that type of evidence might be required (i.e. formal sworn statements signed under penalty of perjury); instead, we are discussing casual conversations (i.e. casual contacts or interviews by FBI Agents) and those contacts/interviews NEVER result in any literal transcripts -- particularly when the FBI is NOT even conducting an investigation which they anticipate handing over to a U.S. Attorney for prosecution of some crime in a court). So, instead, interviewing FBI agents just summarize their contacts (whether those contacts are in person or by phone) on a standard FD-71 form used for ALL contacts (but FBI informant contacts are recorded on a different form---an example of which I uploaded here recently).

So, again, my point is that by attempting to LIMIT the type of permissible evidence, a conspiracy adherent knows, in advance, that his/her particular theory can NEVER be falsified -- which is precisely why that adherent demands that type of evidence!

And, lastly, the adherents of conspiracy theories NEVER apply their declared standard of acceptable evidence TO THEIR OWN WRITINGS!

For example, as previously pointed out, Paul Trejo's eBook contains no documentation of any kind whatsoever -- i.e. no footnotes, no bibliography, no scanned copies of pertinent documentary evidence, no oral history transcript, no reproduction of emails, no references to any documents obtained through FOIA requests, no copies of letters, no affidavits from key witnesses, no references to webpages that contain corroborating material --- in short, absolutely NOTHING. Nevertheless, Paul DEMANDS "independent confirmation" of EVERYTHING presented by his critics -- while he conveniently EXEMPTS himself (and Harry) from providing ANY such independent confirmation.

Edited March 18, 2014 by Ernie Lazar

[Paul Trejo]

In my humble opinion, what is missing in the account of former FBI Agent Wes Swearingen with regard to the JFK murder, is any reference to the details surrounding the career of Lee Harvey Oswald, and all the open questions that this entails.

As Larry Hancock was willing to discuss in his book, Someone Would Have Talked (2010), the Warren Commission questioning of Silvia Odio is part of the open question of Lee Harvey Oswald, because she claims that she saw Lee Harvey Oswald in the final week of September 1963 at her apartment in Dallas, accompanied by two accomplices -- two Latino men. They said they just drove in from New Orleans.

Those men spread lies to the effect that they knew her father (who, along with her mother, was in a Cuban prison) and that they were members of the Cuban Exile counter-revolutionary group, JURE. Later that week, one of the Latinos called her at home, and told her that Oswald said that JFK should be assassinated. This terrified her.

Silvia Odio provided a thorough physical description of the two Latinos to the FBI -- although she did not know their real names (as the men had only provided their so-called war names).

The FBI quickly picked up Loran Hall for questioning in this regard -- although they had nothing to go on, as far as we know, except Odio's physical description. (I suggest the FBI is not telling all it knows about the Loran Hall connection.)

Anyway, Loran Hall quickly confessed that he and Larry Howard were indeed at the apartment of Silvia Odio in Dallas during the last week of September 1963, and that they were indeed soliciting funding and support for their Anti-Castro counter-revolutionary raids on Cuba.

However, claimed Hall, the American with them was not Lee Harvey Oswald, but William Seymour (from Interpen) who looks a little like Lee Harvey Oswald -- therefore Silvia Odio made a simple mistake in her nervous condition.

This is the story that J. Edgar Hoover rushed to the Warren Report in time for publication.

However, J. Edgar Hoover had received three letters from Hall, Howard and Seymour the previous week, and he failed to tell the Warren Commission their contents, because they totally reversed Loran Hall's account above, namely: (1) William Seymour could prove that he was in Florida that week; (2) Larry Howard denied he ever visited the apartment of Silvia Odio; and (3) Loran Hall recanted his story, claiming that he, Larry and "Wahito" solicited funds in Dallas that week, but they visisted some other Cuban lady, and he can't recall her name.

Knowing that Loran Hall impeached his own affidavit, J. Edgar Hoover still carried this false affidavit to the Warren Commission, and submitted it as the truth.

The problem, as I say, with the account of FBI Agent Wes Swearingen is that he provides no data at all about this internal FBI affair -- and yet it remains germane to the JFK murder.

We should turn to the account of Harry Dean to address this question. Harry Dean claims to be one of the people in Southern California who helped to load the cars and trucks of Loran Hall and Larry Howard as they drove guns and medical supplies (drugs) from California to Lake Pontchartrain, Louisiana, to No Name Keys, Florida, and to other Cuban paramilitary camps in-between.

On one particular trip, claims Harry, during the final week of September, 1963, Guy Gabaldon instructed Loran Hall and Larry Howard to pick up Lee Harvey Oswald in New Orleans, and drive him to Mexico City.

The description that Silvia Odio gave to the FBI was so accurate that the FBI quickly picked up Loran Hall -- and this was so sudden that Loran Hall quickly confessed -- partly. But as Gerry Patrick Hemming often told this very Forum when he was still alive, he would never name names regarding the JFK murder, because the conspirators were still alive. When Loran Hall found that his comrades-in-arms failed to stand by his story (and Loran Hall avoided two close calls with death shortly after his confession to the FBI) he retracted his first report to the FBI.

The FBI later learned that "Wahito" also denied being in Dallas that week. Yet the FBI let the matter drop -- after all, the Warren Report was published, and the FBI Director only wanted to hear about "Lone Nut" stories, not about "Accomplice" stories. (Jim Garrison would subpoena Loran Hall four years later.)

Wes Swearingen's account is similar to the many other CIA-Mafia accounts we've read over the years -- the most famous perhaps being Professor Robert Blakey's, Plot to Kill the President (1981). It has much to recommend itself, but it also tends to remain at a high-level, discussing mainly meetings and money changing hands, and the vile hatred of JFK among these criminals and rogue CIA players. It never gets down to the ground-crew.

Harry Dean validates the story of Silvia Odio. This is an important dimension for JFK research. Soon I'll be ready with my review of Larry Hancock's work on Silvia Odio in his book, Someone Would Have Talked, showing how a discussion of Harry Dean's memoirs can add depth to Silvia Odio's claims.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Edited March 18, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Ernie Lazar]

In my humble opinion, what is missing in the account of former FBI Agent Wes Swearingen with regard to the JFK murder, is any reference to the details surrounding the career of Lee Harvey Oswald, and all the open questions that this entails.

As Larry Hancock was willing to discuss in his book, Someone Would Have Talked (2007), the Warren Commission questioning of Silvia Odio is part of the open question of Lee Harvey Oswald, because she claims that she saw Lee Harvey Oswald in the final week of September 1963 at her apartment in Dallas, accompanied by two accomplices -- two Latino men. They said they just drove in from New Orleans.

Those men spread lies to the effect that they knew her father (who, along with her mother, was in a Cuban prison) and that they were members of the Cuban Exile counter-revolutionary group, JURE. Later that week, one of the Latinos called her at home, and told her that Oswald said that JFK should be assassinated. This terrified her.

Silvia Odio provided a thorough physical description of the two Latinos to the FBI -- although she did not know their real names (as the men had only provided their so-called war names).

The FBI quickly picked up Loran Hall for questioning in this regard -- although they had nothing to go on, as far as we know, except Odio's physical description. (I suggest the FBI is not telling all it knows about the Loran Hall connection.)

Anyway, Loran Hall quickly confessed that he and Larry Howard were indeed at the apartment of Silvia Odio in Dallas during the last week of September 1963, and that they were indeed soliciting funding and support for their Anti-Castro counter-revolutionary raids on Cuba.

However, claimed Hall, the American with them was not Lee Harvey Oswald, but William Seymour (from Interpen) who looks a little like Lee Harvey Oswald -- therefore Silvia Odio made a simple mistake in her nervous condition.

This is the story that J. Edgar Hoover rushed to the Warren Report in time for publication.

However, J. Edgar Hoover had received three letters from Hall, Howard and Seymour the previous week, and he failed to tell the Warren Commission their contents, because they totally reversed Loran Hall's account above, namely: (1) William Seymour could prove that he was in Florida that week; (2) Larry Howard denied he ever visited the apartment of Silvia Odio; and (3) Loran Hall recanted his story, claiming that he, Larry and "Wahito" solicited funds in Dallas that week, but they visisted some other Cuban lady, and he can't recall her name.

Knowing that Loran Hall impeached his own affidavit, J. Edgar Hoover still carried this false affidavit to the Warren Commission, and submitted it as the truth.

The problem, as I say, with the account of FBI Agent Wes Swearingen is that he provides no data at all about this internal FBI affair -- and yet it remains germane to the JFK murder.

We should turn to the account of Harry Dean to address this question. Harry Dean claims to be one of the people in Southern California who helped to load the cars and trucks of Loran Hall and Larry Howard as they drove guns and medical supplies (drugs) from California to Lake Pontchartrain, Louisiana, to No Name Keys, Florida, and to other Cuban paramilitary camps in-between.

On one particular trip, claims Harry, during the final week of September, 1963, Guy Gabaldon instructed Loran Hall and Larry Howard to pick up Lee Harvey Oswald in New Orleans, and drive him to Mexico City.

The description that Silvia Odio gave to the FBI was so accurate that the FBI quickly picked up Loran Hall -- and this was so sudden that Loran Hall quickly confessed -- partly. But as Gerry Patrick Hemming often told this very Forum when he was still alive, he would never name names regarding the JFK murder, because the conspirators were still alive. When Loran Hall found that his comrades-in-arms failed to stand by his story (and Loran Hall avoided two close calls with death shortly after his confession to the FBI) he retracted his first report to the FBI.

The FBI later learned that "Wahito" also denied being in Dallas that week. Yet the FBI let the matter drop -- after all, the Warren Report was published, and the FBI Director only wanted to hear about "Lone Nut" stories, not about "Accomplice" stories. (Jim Garrison would subpoena Loran Hall four years later.)

Wes Swearingen's account is similar to the many other CIA-Mafia accounts we've read over the years -- the most famous perhaps being Professor Robert Blakey's, Plot to Kill the President (1981). It has much to recommend itself, but it also tends to remain at a high-level, discussing mainly meetings and money changing hands, and the vile hatred of JFK among these criminals and rogue CIA players. It never gets down to the ground-crew.

Harry Dean validates the story of Silvia Odio. This is an important dimension for JFK research. Soon I'll be ready with my review of Larry Hancock's work on Silvia Odio in his book, Someone Would Have Talked, showing how a discussion of Harry Dean's memoirs can add depth to Silvia Odio's claims.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Is Silvia still alive? Anybody know her birthdate? or death date? and last residence location (state?)

[Paul Brancato]

Ernie - your opinion is that no one can have an opinion on who killed JFK because none of the '13' theories can be proven. I already got that. Who do you think killed JFK?

[Larry Hancock]

As much as I would prefer to avoid it, I'll probably have to at least follow this thread forward. I can only say, if you do have SWHT/2010 and do reread my appendix on Odio Revisited, you will find my assessment going in a far different direction than I anticipate Paul is going to go... If you have the book, you can make your own comparisons and decisions. Otherwise this is merely a disclaimer for anyone who does not have the book.

As far as Ernie's more remarks in the thread, my reaction is that he paints with an awfully broad brush in certain of them. As for myself, I set forth my criteria for acceptable evidence in my Preface, readers are at least forewarned. Personally i find the following generic remark a bit offensive:

"And, lastly, the adherents of conspiracy theories NEVER apply their declared standard of acceptable evidence TO THEIR OWN WRITINGS!"

-- Larry

[Ernie Lazar]

Ernie - your opinion is that no one can have an opinion on who killed JFK because none of the '13' theories can be proven. I already got that. Who do you think killed JFK?

Another falsehood. Anybody can have "an opinion" about anything. All I said is that there is no way to refute or falsify an opinion.

I have no "opinion" regarding who killed JFK -- except that I do not think it was done by one lone person.

[Paul Trejo]

BUMP

Edited March 19, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Ernie Lazar]

As much as I would prefer to avoid it, I'll probably have to at least follow this thread forward. I can only say, if you do have SWHT/2010 and do reread my appendix on Odio Revisited, you will find my assessment going in a far different direction than I anticipate Paul is going to go... If you have the book, you can make your own comparisons and decisions. Otherwise this is merely a disclaimer for anyone who does not have the book.

As far as Ernie's more remarks in the thread, my reaction is that he paints with an awfully broad brush in certain of them. As for myself, I set forth my criteria for acceptable evidence in my Preface, readers are at least forewarned. Personally i find the following generic remark a bit offensive:

"And, lastly, the adherents of conspiracy theories NEVER apply their declared standard of acceptable evidence TO THEIR OWN WRITINGS!"

-- Larry

Larry: My observation is a generalization based upon my personal experience of 40+ years debating right-wing conspiracy theorists and, occasionally, equally wacko left-wing conspiracy theorists.

Nothing in my observation should be taken to mean that I discount ALL conspiracy theories, and in fact, in my article "Nature and Purpose of Conspiracy Theories" I open that article with the following comments:

We all know that conspiracies exist. There is ample indisputable historical proof in such matters as: the Communist Party USA, KKK involvement in crimes---including murder---which involved local law enforcement collusion and coverup such as the 1964 murders of Charles Eddie Moore and Henry H. Dee in Mississippi; Watergate, Enron, tobacco and drug companies suppressing adverse data about health-related consequences of their products, the Mafia, military-scandals such as Tailhook, Abu Ghraib, Haditha, and the recent Afghan "kill team" convictions [see "Soldier Given 3 Years In Plot; Los Angeles Times, 8/6/11, pAA-1]; military academy cheating, criminal prosecutions of politicians and law enforcement or correctional officers who lied under oath to protect themselves or others [see for example "5 Police Convicted In Shootings", Los Angeles Times, 8/6/11, pA7].

Political conspiracy theories are usually the most intricate. They arise most often when the "official version” of events seems inadequate, flawed, or incomplete -- and these situations present an opportunity for all sorts of bizarre and facile "explanations"

However: the entire purpose of most political conspiracy theories is NOT to carefully present evidence and then use reason and logic to arrive at sound, verifiable conclusions. Instead, most political conspiracy theories are primarily an intellectual device by which individuals and organizations identify and demonize their perceived enemies whom they propose to vanquish.