Harry Dean: Memoirs

[Ernie Lazar]

Ernie - you have the official record straight, and thanks for that. But you don't know that Grapp didn't meet with Dean in LA in 1963, you just know he wasn't the SAC until March 1964. You don't know that Dean's memory is defective, you just suspect that it is.

Ernie - you have the official record straight, and thanks for that. But you don't know that Grapp didn't meet with Dean in LA in 1963, you just know he wasn't the SAC until March 1964. You don't know that Dean's memory is defective, you just suspect that it is.

Well, Paul B., please explain your comment. Since Grapp was in New Jersey functioning as SAC there until March, why would he even know about the existence of Harry much less meet with him?

SAC's were administrators and public relations front men. They did not perform field work. So please explain why (in your scheme of things) Grapp would be interested in somebody or waste his time on somebody who was never an informant or confidential source AND was considered a "mental case" who contacted the Los Angeles office to provide his personal speculations and suppositions which amount to nothing more than gossip, rumor, anecdotes?

Actually, we have several examples of Harry's defective memory and I will be providing more. The only remaining question is how many examples do YOU require before you acknowledge that his memory and recollections are suspect?

Edited April 10, 2014 by Ernie Lazar

[Ernie Lazar]

On 11/29/1963 Wes.G. Grapp was issuing directives to "all FBI Los Angeles agents".

Prove it Harry -- don't just assert it. Explain how Grapp managed to "issue directives to all FBI Los Angeles agents" while he was physically in Newark NJ and William Simon was SAC in Los Angeles during that time.

And why did you put "all FBI Los Angeles agents" in quotation marks as if you were quoting from some source?

[Ernie Lazar]

In fact, Harry, I have a few more questions for you.

1. I now have in my possession a minimum of 7 letters written by you in ALL CAPS. Obviously, your standard practice (at least during the 1960's) was to type your outgoing correspondence in ALL CAPS. So why did you take so long to acknowledge that you wrote the 11/19/63 letter to Hoover?

2. Let's revisit your comments about the redacted version of your Hoover letter which Bill Kelly posted here

On page 17 of this thread, message #254, you wrote:

Posted 05 November 2013 - 03:48 PM

Yes, I wrote this 19 November 1963 note to Director Hoover. It is apparently redacted by the Bureau. Sadly I do not have that or other like items after 1995 theft from my Victorville Cal. storage unit. The police turned up nothing.

Harry

But on page 19 of this thread, message #281, you wrote:

Posted 06 November 2013 - 06:07 PM

Paul B & Bill & Paul T

Just compared letter to Hoover with copy in 1990 manuscript book, they are exact in their REDACTION. My reason for using it and other doc's, all since lost, was to show interested readers/researchers the connections of that history.

It now seems to me that the FBI took that manuscript document from my manuscript, because it was I who REDACTED it before publishing. Also not now able to fill in the missing words, I think it's message indicates what was transpiring in those days. I suppose now that Hoover was receiving that letter about the time JFK was dying in Dallas three days later and FPCC Oswald being hunted.

Harry

OK -- let's review this:

1. WHY did you redact the letter before you published in it your 1990 manuscript (I presume that means "Crosstrails"?). What was your purpose?

2. What did you mean by your comment that "the FBI took that manuscript document from my manuscript..." ? Why would they even care about your redacted version when they had the original?

3. I have never seen "Crosstrails" so I am curious -- is the redacted version in that publication printed in sentence case (as Bill Kelly posted it in message #253 of this thread?).

If your answer is "yes" -- then it would appear that the entire controversy over your Hoover letter was a circular argument in the sense that Bill Kelly merely copied what he found in "Crosstrails" -- which is what YOU published and for some unknown reason you redacted it to provide only an excerpt...but 23 years later you couldn't even remember that you had originally written the letter in ALL CAPS and it was much longer than what you put into Crosstrails.

Edited April 10, 2014 by Ernie Lazar

[Ernie Lazar]

Let's recap:

1. We have already established that Harry could never have spoken to Wesley Grapp in the summer of 1963 because Grapp did not arrive in Los Angeles until March 1964.

2. Harry now states very clearly that his "first" report regarding Galbadon, Hall, Howard and their possible connection to the murder of JFK was made circa November 17, 1964 when he claimed he contacted Agent Rapp. There is one serial by Rapp dated 11/30/64 which refers to Harry being interviewed...

3. It now seems clear that Harry's contact with the FBI regarding the JFK assassination never occurred prior to November 1963. Instead, it occurred a year later and it was not with Wesley Grapp. It was with Special Agent Ferd J. Rapp (the two names even sound familiar and could easily explain why Harry is confused about this).

4. Furthermore, it is clear that the FBI did not request Harry to provide any information. Instead, Harry was in the habit of constantly contacting the Los Angeles office (by phone and by letters) to "speculate" about all sorts of matters which HE thought the FBI might be interested in. Nor did Harry give the FBI-Los Angeles office any information about Rousselot or Edwin Walker or Robert Welch etc.

5. Another interesting potential anomaly: In his 12/5/64 letter, Harry declares that "I have been associated with J.U.R.E. in L.A. also" -- but in his May 1964 interview with an unspecified police department (but probably Los Angeles), Harry was asked if he was familiar with the JURE movement and J-U-R-E was spelled out for him. Harry's reply was: "No, I haven't heard of that one."

Once again, Ernie Lazar claims too much for the tiny bit that he has shown so far.

1. Ernie claims that "we have already established that Harry could never have spoken to Wesley Grapp in the summer of 1963 because Grapp did not arrive in Los Angeles until March 1964." In actual fact, nothing of the kind has been "established". Ernie has claimed this, based on the fact that he has personally seen no FBI records to prove otherwise. There is nothing at all to prove that Ernie Lazar has all the FBI records in the case. So, Ernie again jumps to a conclusion, and he exaggerates the quality of the evidence he claims to hold. Notice, too, that Ernie has stopped posting FBI files to support his case -- we don't know what Ernie is looking at these days. Ernie apparently supposes that he can just conclude anything he wants and have it accepted. What a joke.

2. Ernie Lazar has finally found some FBI files that prove that Harry Dean and Los Angeles FBI agent Wesley Grapp had multiple conversations about the JFK assassination. Will Ernie Lazar now apologize to Harry for publicly doubting that these records even existed (e.g. post #889)? I doubt it. As for the sworn testimony of Silvia Odio that she saw Lee Harvey Oswald at her doorstep with two Latinos during the final week of September, 1963, she was deemed credible by multiple FBI agents, Gaeton Fonzi and members of House Select Committee on Investigations. The opinion of FBI agent Wesley Grapp merely agrees with the conclusion that J. Edgar Hoovers sent to the Warren Commission, based on testimony from Loran Hall, which Hoover knew to be impeached. FBI agents did not contradict FBI Director Hoover -- so Grapp's opinion is itself impeached.

3. Ernie Lazar wishes to jump to the conclusion that "Harry's contact with the FBI regarding the JFK assassination never occurred prior to November 1963," based only on the few FBI records that he has found so far (and is willing to talk about). A mediocre researcher, Ernie refuses to open his mind and wait until all the evidence has been made plain. He wants you, dear readers, to close your minds as well.

4. Ernie Lazar wishes to jump to the conclusion that :"the FBI did not request Harry to provide any information." But this is based only on the little bit of FBI data that Ernie has seen (and is willing to talk about). Ernie further wants to limit the data that Harry told the FBI to the little bit that he's seen so far. What a joke..

5. Ernie Lazar wishes to make hay on the situation that Harry Dean didn't recall the organization JURE in May, 1964, but remembered it in December, 1964. Big deal. There were so many dozens or scores of Cuban Exile commando raid groups from coast to coast that it's a wonder Gaeton Fonzi himself could keep them straight.

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

Some additional questions for Paul T.

I copy below the entire memo written by Special Agent Ferd J. RAPP concerning his 11/19/64 interview with Harry (serial #23 of Los Angeles file 105-12933).

My questions for you are as follows:

1. Let's set aside (for now) our dispute over whether or not Harry had any contacts with Wesley Grapp. Instead, let's just focus upon the following 11/19/64 interview with Harry and his subsequent 12/5/64 letter to FBI-Los Angeles.

2. The entire point of your eBook with respect to Harry's narrative is that Harry warned Los Angeles FBI about a Birch Society plot to murder JFK (months before the actual event occurred).

3. You have always claimed that "secret files" exist which contain documents about the JFK assassination and about Harry's warnings to the FBI regarding the "JBS plot" -- but the FBI has not released those documents for "national security" reasons. Nevertheless, in Harry's FBI-Los Angeles file we have the very type of documents which YOU claim the FBI would not release -- i.e. documents pertaining to the murder of JFK and Harry's contacts with the FBI which discuss that matter.

4. However, when Harry spoke with Agent Ferd J. RAPP (not Grapp) on November 19, 1964, he did not mention one word about Rousselot or the Birch Society. Why is that? (in your opinion)

5. Furthermore, in Harry's 12/5/64 letter to the Los Angeles office he repeated the information he told Rapp during his interview on 11/19/64. So we have Harry's own words to support the summary which Ferd RAPP presented in his November 1964 memo concerning his conversation with Harry.

Notice that in Harry's letter he describes his own comments as "supposition". By definition, "supposition" means conjecture or speculation --- not actual factual knowledge.

WHY (in your scheme of things) would Harry still be speculating or conjecturing in his 12/5/64 letter a YEAR AFTER JFK's murder IF (as you contend in your eBook), more than a year earlier (summer 1963) Harry claims he was physically present when exact plans were made and Rousselot allegedly gave Galbadon $10,000 to carry out the assassination?

6. WHY in Harry's 12/5/64 letter to FBI-Los Angeles would he be so tentative and speculative if he supposedly had made firm conclusions based upon his purported "eyewitness" participation in the "plot" a year earlier? Again, I copy Harry's own words from his 12/5/64 letter to FBI-Los Angeles:

"I do not wish to interfere, or project any supposition into this case. It is hoped that none of these mentioned are in any way connected with the horrible death of Mr. Kennedy, as is my thinking by this time, I wish to clarify only my coincidental association with Hall and Howard, as I first reported to Agent Rapp near two weeks past."

7. Why in December 1964 is Harry still expressing his "hope" that "none of these mentioned are in any way connected with the horrible death of Mr. Kennedy..." IF (as you claim) Harry KNEW who was involved a year earlier??

8. And WHY is Harry proposing (in November 1964) that Oswald WAS involved as a "conspirator" with Hall and Howard "to commit the assassination"?

RAPP MEMO:

“Harry Dean, 18109 Atina Drive, La Puente, California, phone 964-5111, was interviewed at his request and in response to his telephone call to the Los Angeles Office. He advised the following on 11/19/64:

He read a copy of the Warren Report and was particularly interested in a section concerning Oswalds ‘alleged association with various Mexican or Cuban individuals’. Testimony was set forth concerning information furnished by a Mrs. Silvia Odio who related that two Cuban underground figures had contacted her, accompanied by an American whom she believed to be Oswald. It was determined that the two alleged Cubans were Lawrence Howard and Loran Eugene Hall. Subsequent investigation determined that it was not Oswald who had accompanied them. Dean stated that he had met Hall whom he knew as Lorenzo Hall who lived at one time at 877 West El Repetto, Monterey Park, California. He heard Hall make an anti-Castro speech in Covina, in September 1963. About this time he also met Lawrence Howard, Jr. who lived at 8325 Coral Lane, Pico Rivera California. He has had no contact with either of these persons since the time of the assassination. He did not hear either of them make any anti-Kennedy statements. Notwithstanding the evidence to the contrary, he stated that it was interesting to speculate that it might have been Oswald actually with these two men in Dallas. He speculated that both Hall and Howard who are anti-Castro leaders of the Cuban underground, actually wanted President Kennedy removed from the scene because of the failure of the 1960 Cuban invasion. He stated that in his opinion Hall and Howard would be capable of entering into conspiracy with Oswald to commit the assassination. Dean stated that the possibility of Oswald’s presence with these Cuban leaders appeared feasible to him and he wanted the FBI to be aware of this possibility in the event that it had not been previously checked out.”

[Paul Trejo]

Some additional questions for Paul T.

I copy below the entire memo written by Special Agent Ferd J. RAPP concerning his 11/19/64 interview with Harry (serial #23 of Los Angeles file 105-12933).

My questions for you are as follows:

1. Let's set aside (for now) our dispute over whether or not Harry had any contacts with Wesley Grapp. Instead, let's just focus upon the following 11/19/64 interview with Harry and his subsequent 12/5/64 letter to FBI-Los Angeles.

2. The entire point of your eBook with respect to Harry's narrative is that Harry warned Los Angeles FBI about a Birch Society plot to murder JFK (months before the actual event occurred).

3. You have always claimed that "secret files" exist which contain documents about the JFK assassination and about Harry's warnings to the FBI regarding the "JBS plot" -- but the FBI has not released those documents for "national security" reasons. Nevertheless, in Harry's FBI-Los Angeles file we have the very type of documents which YOU claim the FBI would not release -- i.e. documents pertaining to the murder of JFK and Harry's contacts with the FBI which discuss that matter.

4. However, when Harry spoke with Agent Ferd J. RAPP (not Grapp) on November 19, 1964, he did not mention one word about Rousselot or the Birch Society. Why is that? (in your opinion)

5. Furthermore, in Harry's 12/5/64 letter to the Los Angeles office he repeated the information he told Rapp during his interview on 11/19/64. So we have Harry's own words to support the summary which Ferd RAPP presented in his November 1964 memo concerning his conversation with Harry.

Notice that in Harry's letter he describes his own comments as "supposition". By definition, "supposition" means conjecture or speculation --- not actual factual knowledge.

WHY (in your scheme of things) would Harry still be speculating or conjecturing in his 12/5/64 letter a YEAR AFTER JFK's murder IF (as you contend in your eBook), more than a year earlier (summer 1963) Harry claims he was physically present when exact plans were made and Rousselot allegedly gave Galbadon $10,000 to carry out the assassination?

6. WHY in Harry's 12/5/64 letter to FBI-Los Angeles would he be so tentative and speculative if he supposedly had made firm conclusions based upon his purported "eyewitness" participation in the "plot" a year earlier? ...

7. Why in December 1964 is Harry still expressing his "hope" that "none of these mentioned are in any way connected with the horrible death of Mr. Kennedy..." IF (as you claim) Harry KNEW who was involved a year earlier??

8. And WHY is Harry proposing (in November 1964) that Oswald WAS involved as a "conspirator" with Hall and Howard "to commit the assassination"?

...

All right, Ernie, your post was objective and respectful, so perhaps we can begin a new chapter of civility on this thread. I'll respond to your questions carefully.

1. I'm willing, for the sake of argument, to focus on the 11/19/64 interview with Harry and his 12/5/64 letter to FBI-Los Angeles.

2. I agree that the main point of our eBook is that Harry Dean warned the Los Angeles FBI about a Birch Society plot to murder JFK (months before the actual event occurred.

3. I still maintain that we have not seen all the US government records about Harry Dean, simply because some of them relate to the JFK assassination, and are still protected under exceptions to the FOIA. Even though the FBI released *some* of those files, they have not released them *all*.

For example, the FBI released *some* documents about the murder of JFK and Harry's contacts with the FBI which discuss that matter, as long as Harry is made to look absurd in them -- very much like the FBI made Silvia Odio look absurd in 1964. Those records are already public. That will remain my opinion until the FBI verifiably releases all documents related to Harry Dean.

What is my rationale for promoting the memoirs of Harry Dean? Actually, I'm working a process of elimination regarding the claims of Harry Dean; yet after more than three years of effort, all efforts so far have shown that Harry Dean is telling the TRUTH. (Your negative efforts, Ernie, are paradoxically helpful to my project.)

Further, the FBI and NARA still adhere to FOIA exceptions on the topic of the JFK assassination. This worries me. Even though they promise to release everything by 2017, the mere fact that they have held back for a half-century remains suspicious.

We know, also, that some FBI records have already been destroyed. So, just in case the US government in 2017 claims to release all its JFK documents and yet still insists that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone -- then I think JFK researchers must be ready to respond. We cannot just rest and trust our government to tell the truth after a half-century of secrets. We need to ask the hard questions.

4. You note, Ernie, that when Harry spoke with FBI agent Ferd J. Rapp on 19 Nov 1964, Harry did not mention Rousselot or the Birch Society, and you ask why. In my opinion, not every conversation from Harry had to involve the JBS. I have already said that it was specific individuals within and around the JBS in Southern California that Harry Dean identified in a JFK plot -- including Loran Hall.

The conversation with Ferd Rapp that you cite was about Loran Hall. So, it was an indirect reference to the JBS. I would caution the reader, however, to avoid the conclusion that this letter by Ferd Rapp is the only such letter that the FBI has about Harry Dean's interaction with the Los Angeles FBIfrom 1963-1965

5. You also cite, Ernie, Harry's 12/5/64 letter to the Los Angeles office, recapping his Rapp interview. You would emphasize Harry's word, supposition. This is because of the context of Harry's interview -- which was about the behavior of Loran Hall and Larry Howard in Dallas during the final week of September 1963.

Harry personally witnessed planning meetings in which Guy Gabaldon instructed Loran Hall and Larry Howard to pick up Lee Harvey Oswald from New Orleans and drive him to Mexico City during the final week of September 1963. However, Harry was not present on that drive. Silvia Odio claimed that two Latinos and Lee Harvey Oswald paid her a surprise visit during the final week of September 1963. They claimed they were only passing through, and that they had come from New Orleans.

Now, as I say, Harry Dean was not present on that trip, so in all humility all he can do is "suppose," that Silvia Odio is telling the truth, and that she actually saw Loran Hall and Larry Howard with Lee Oswald at her doorstep. However, that stop was not part of the planning meetings in Southern California that Harry Dean witnessed. That is a sufficient explanation for the langauge that Harry used.

6. You ask, Ernie, why Harry's letter would be so tentative as to use the word, "supposition," and you copy Harry's own words from his 12/5/64 letter to FBI-LA: "I do not wish to interfere, or project any supposition into this case. It is hoped that none of these mentioned are in any way connected with the horrible death of Mr. Kennedy, as is my thinking by this time, I wish to clarify only my coincidental association with Hall and Howard, as I first reported to Agent Rapp near two weeks past."

I think I answered your question fully -- Harry wasn't present on that trip. The stop at Silvia Odio's was not planned in Los Angeles. However, the pieces fit like a glove.

7. You ask, Ernie, why Harry Dean expresses his "hope" that he is wrong about his information. The answer is that there actually remains a chance -- even today -- that Harry Dean's conclusions were mistaken. That is, although he surely witnessed a plot within the JBS, involving Rousselot, Walker, Hall and Howard, to murder JFK using Lee Harvey Oswald as a patsy, that is not enough to prove that this plot was SUCCESSFUL.

There were probably dozens of underground plots to murder JFK. Only one plot was SUCCESSFUL. Wes Swearingen believes the plot he heard about was the successful one. Larry Hancock believes the plot he heard about from John Martino was the successful one. Maybe they were. Maybe somebody ELSE entirely framed Lee Harvey Oswald.

If so, that would be a RELIEF to Harry Dean, because he has been carrying around this guilt for a lifetime -- that he actually encouraged these guys to go forth and kill JFK. He thought they were just letting off steam, and he wanted to be a part of the intrigue -- but when it actually happened, Harry was stunned.

Also, Harry Dean was not trying to pressure the FBi into accepting his story. He could see that, even at the end of 1964, the FBI was married to the idea of a Lone Assassin, because J. Edgar Hoover himself had been promoting it publicly for a solid year. So, Harry was being humble about it. What else could he do? This letter makes perfect sense to me.

8. You ask, Ernie, why Harry proposes (in November 1964) that Oswald was involved as a "conspirator" with Hall and Howard to commit the JFK assassination. As evidence you reproduce the entire memo by FBI agent Ferd Rapp as below:

RAPP MEMO: “Harry Dean, 18109 Atina Drive, La Puente, California, phone 964-5111, was interviewed at his request and in response to his telephone call to the Los Angeles Office. He advised the following on 11/19/64: He read a copy of the Warren Report and was particularly interested in a section concerning Oswalds ‘alleged association with various Mexican or Cuban individuals’. Testimony was set forth concerning information furnished by a Mrs. Silvia Odio who related that two Cuban underground figures had contacted her, accompanied by an American whom she believed to be Oswald. It was determined that the two alleged Cubans were Lawrence Howard and Loran Eugene Hall. Subsequent investigation determined that it was not Oswald who had accompanied them. Dean stated that he had met Hall whom he knew as Lorenzo Hall who lived at one time at 877 West El Repetto, Monterey Park, California. He heard Hall make an anti-Castro speech in Covina, in September 1963. About this time he also met Lawrence Howard, Jr. who lived at 8325 Coral Lane, Pico Rivera California. He has had no contact with either of these persons since the time of the assassination. He did not hear either of them make any anti-Kennedy statements. Notwithstanding the evidence to the contrary, he stated that it was interesting to speculate that it might have been Oswald actually with these two men in Dallas. He speculated that both Hall and Howard who are anti-Castro leaders of the Cuban underground, actually wanted President Kennedy removed from the scene because of the failure of the 1960 Cuban invasion. He stated that in his opinion Hall and Howard would be capable of entering into conspiracy with Oswald to commit the assassination. Dean stated that the possibility of Oswald’s presence with these Cuban leaders appeared feasible to him and he wanted the FBI to be aware of this possibility in the event that it had not been previously checked out.”

This memo makes perfect sense to me under the circumstances. First, it shows that FBI agent Ferd Rapp was a true believer in the J. Edgar Hoover story that he told the Warren Commission, namely, that the person Silvia Odio saw with the two Latinos (who were probably Loran Hall and Larry Howard) was really William Seymour. This is that the Warren Commission printed.

However, even at the time that J. Edgar Hoover submitted that report to the Warren Commission, he knew that Larry Howard and William Seymour had both denied the story -- and that Loran Hall then changed his mind and denied ever seeing Silvia Odio in his life! That was part of the FBI record before Hoover took the previous, impeached testimony of Loran Hall to the Warren Commission!

That is part of the historical record that almost every JFK researcher already knows.

J. Edgar Hoover lied to the Warren Commission multiple times, but it is part of the official record today. No FBI SAC or agent would dare to contradict the FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover, or he would be fired that day.

It is fitting to claim that Hall and Howard were "conspirators" along with Lee Harvey Oswald in the murder of JFK because they accompanied Oswald to Mexico. Now, the complexity arises that Oswald was the "patsy." Yet for the FBI, and for the Warren Commission, Lee Harvey Oswald was the Lone Assassin, and not the patsy. So, the terminology becomes muddled for all involved.

Lee Harvey Oswald had "associates" in his activities surrounding the JFK murder. They might also be called "accomplices", even if they ended up making Oswald their patsy. It was up to the FBI to sort out these associations -- but instead the FBI chose to blame Lee Harvey Oswald alone, and to lock up FBI files about Lee Harvey Oswald for a lifetime. That's why we're still sorting things out now.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited April 10, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Ernie Lazar]

Some additional questions for Paul T.

I copy below the entire memo written by Special Agent Ferd J. RAPP concerning his 11/19/64 interview with Harry (serial #23 of Los Angeles file 105-12933).

My questions for you are as follows:

1. Let's set aside (for now) our dispute over whether or not Harry had any contacts with Wesley Grapp. Instead, let's just focus upon the following 11/19/64 interview with Harry and his subsequent 12/5/64 letter to FBI-Los Angeles.

2. The entire point of your eBook with respect to Harry's narrative is that Harry warned Los Angeles FBI about a Birch Society plot to murder JFK (months before the actual event occurred).

3. You have always claimed that "secret files" exist which contain documents about the JFK assassination and about Harry's warnings to the FBI regarding the "JBS plot" -- but the FBI has not released those documents for "national security" reasons. Nevertheless, in Harry's FBI-Los Angeles file we have the very type of documents which YOU claim the FBI would not release -- i.e. documents pertaining to the murder of JFK and Harry's contacts with the FBI which discuss that matter.

4. However, when Harry spoke with Agent Ferd J. RAPP (not Grapp) on November 19, 1964, he did not mention one word about Rousselot or the Birch Society. Why is that? (in your opinion)

5. Furthermore, in Harry's 12/5/64 letter to the Los Angeles office he repeated the information he told Rapp during his interview on 11/19/64. So we have Harry's own words to support the summary which Ferd RAPP presented in his November 1964 memo concerning his conversation with Harry.

Notice that in Harry's letter he describes his own comments as "supposition". By definition, "supposition" means conjecture or speculation --- not actual factual knowledge.

WHY (in your scheme of things) would Harry still be speculating or conjecturing in his 12/5/64 letter a YEAR AFTER JFK's murder IF (as you contend in your eBook), more than a year earlier (summer 1963) Harry claims he was physically present when exact plans were made and Rousselot allegedly gave Galbadon $10,000 to carry out the assassination?

6. WHY in Harry's 12/5/64 letter to FBI-Los Angeles would he be so tentative and speculative if he supposedly had made firm conclusions based upon his purported "eyewitness" participation in the "plot" a year earlier? ...

7. Why in December 1964 is Harry still expressing his "hope" that "none of these mentioned are in any way connected with the horrible death of Mr. Kennedy..." IF (as you claim) Harry KNEW who was involved a year earlier??

8. And WHY is Harry proposing (in November 1964) that Oswald WAS involved as a "conspirator" with Hall and Howard "to commit the assassination"?

...

All right, Ernie, your post was objective and respectful, so perhaps we can begin a new chapter of civility on this thread. I'll respond to your questions carefully.

1. I'm willing, for the sake of argument, to focus on the 11/19/64 interview with Harry and his 12/5/64 letter to FBI-Los Angeles.

2. I agree that the main point of our eBook is that Harry Dean warned the Los Angeles FBI about a Birch Society plot to murder JFK (months before the actual event occurred.

3. I still maintain that we have not seen all the US government records about Harry Dean, simply because some of them relate to the JFK assassination, and are still protected under exceptions to the FOIA. Even though the FBI released *some* of those files, they have not released them *all*.

For example, the FBI released *some* documents about the murder of JFK and Harry's contacts with the FBI which discuss that matter, as long as Harry is made to look absurd in them -- very much like the FBI made Silvia Odio look absurd in 1964. Those records are already public. That will remain my opinion until the FBI verifiably releases all documents related to Harry Dean.

What is my rationale for promoting the memoirs of Harry Dean? Actually, I'm working a process of elimination regarding the claims of Harry Dean; yet after more than three years of effort, all efforts so far have shown that Harry Dean is telling the TRUTH. (Your negative efforts, Ernie, are paradoxically helpful to my project.)

Further, the FBI and NARA still adhere to FOIA exceptions on the topic of the JFK assassination. This worries me. Even though they promise to release everything by 2017, the mere fact that they have held back for a half-century remains suspicious.

We know, also, that some FBI records have already been destroyed. So, just in case the US government in 2017 claims to release all its JFK documents and yet still insists that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone -- then I think JFK researchers must be ready to respond. We cannot just rest and trust our government to tell the truth after a half-century of secrets. We need to ask the hard questions.

4. You note, Ernie, that when Harry spoke with FBI agent Ferd J. Rapp on 19 Nov 1964, Harry did not mention Rousselot or the Birch Society, and you ask why. In my opinion, not every conversation from Harry had to involve the JBS. I have already said that it was specific individuals within and around the JBS in Southern California that Harry Dean identified in a JFK plot -- including Loran Hall.

The conversation with Ferd Rapp that you cite was about Loran Hall. So, it was an indirect reference to the JBS. I would caution the reader, however, to avoid the conclusion that this letter by Ferd Rapp is the only such letter that the FBI has about Harry Dean's interaction with the Los Angeles FBIfrom 1963-1965

5. You also cite, Ernie, Harry's 12/5/64 letter to the Los Angeles office, recapping his Rapp interview. You would emphasize Harry's word, supposition. This is because of the context of Harry's interview -- which was about the behavior of Loran Hall and Larry Howard in Dallas during the final week of September 1963.

Harry personally witnessed planning meetings in which Guy Gabaldon instructed Loran Hall and Larry Howard to pick up Lee Harvey Oswald from New Orleans and drive him to Mexico City during the final week of September 1963. However, Harry was not present on that drive. Silvia Odio claimed that two Latinos and Lee Harvey Oswald paid her a surprise visit during the final week of September 1963. They claimed they were only passing through, and that they had come from New Orleans.

Now, as I say, Harry Dean was not present on that trip, so in all humility all he can do is "suppose," that Silvia Odio is telling the truth, and that she actually saw Loran Hall and Larry Howard with Lee Oswald at her doorstep. However, that stop was not part of the planning meetings in Southern California that Harry Dean witnessed. That is a sufficient explanation for the langauge that Harry used.

6. You ask, Ernie, why Harry's letter would be so tentative as to use the word, "supposition," and you copy Harry's own words from his 12/5/64 letter to FBI-LA: "I do not wish to interfere, or project any supposition into this case. It is hoped that none of these mentioned are in any way connected with the horrible death of Mr. Kennedy, as is my thinking by this time, I wish to clarify only my coincidental association with Hall and Howard, as I first reported to Agent Rapp near two weeks past."

I think I answered your question fully -- Harry wasn't present on that trip. The stop at Silvia Odio's was not planned in Los Angeles. However, the pieces fit like a glove.

7. You ask, Ernie, why Harry Dean expresses his "hope" that he is wrong about his information. The answer is that there actually remains a chance -- even today -- that Harry Dean's conclusions were mistaken. That is, although he surely witnessed a plot within the JBS, involving Rousselot, Walker, Hall and Howard, to murder JFK using Lee Harvey Oswald as a patsy, that is not enough to prove that this plot was SUCCESSFUL.

There were probably dozens of underground plots to murder JFK. Only one plot was SUCCESSFUL. Wes Swearingen believes the plot he heard about was the successful one. Larry Hancock believes the plot he heard about from John Martino was the successful one. Maybe they were. Maybe somebody ELSE entirely framed Lee Harvey Oswald.

If so, that would be a RELIEF to Harry Dean, because he has been carrying around this guilt for a lifetime -- that he actually encouraged these guys to go forth and kill JFK. He thought they were just letting off steam, and he wanted to be a part of the intrigue -- but when it actually happened, Harry was stunned.

Also, Harry Dean was not trying to pressure the FBi into accepting his story. He could see that, even at the end of 1964, the FBI was married to the idea of a Lone Assassin, because J. Edgar Hoover himself had been promoting it publicly for a solid year. So, Harry was being humble about it. What else could he do? This letter makes perfect sense to me.

8. You ask, Ernie, why Harry proposes (in November 1964) that Oswald was involved as a "conspirator" with Hall and Howard to commit the JFK assassination. As evidence you reproduce the entire memo by FBI agent Ferd Rapp as below:

RAPP MEMO: “Harry Dean, 18109 Atina Drive, La Puente, California, phone 964-5111, was interviewed at his request and in response to his telephone call to the Los Angeles Office. He advised the following on 11/19/64: He read a copy of the Warren Report and was particularly interested in a section concerning Oswalds ‘alleged association with various Mexican or Cuban individuals’. Testimony was set forth concerning information furnished by a Mrs. Silvia Odio who related that two Cuban underground figures had contacted her, accompanied by an American whom she believed to be Oswald. It was determined that the two alleged Cubans were Lawrence Howard and Loran Eugene Hall. Subsequent investigation determined that it was not Oswald who had accompanied them. Dean stated that he had met Hall whom he knew as Lorenzo Hall who lived at one time at 877 West El Repetto, Monterey Park, California. He heard Hall make an anti-Castro speech in Covina, in September 1963. About this time he also met Lawrence Howard, Jr. who lived at 8325 Coral Lane, Pico Rivera California. He has had no contact with either of these persons since the time of the assassination. He did not hear either of them make any anti-Kennedy statements. Notwithstanding the evidence to the contrary, he stated that it was interesting to speculate that it might have been Oswald actually with these two men in Dallas. He speculated that both Hall and Howard who are anti-Castro leaders of the Cuban underground, actually wanted President Kennedy removed from the scene because of the failure of the 1960 Cuban invasion. He stated that in his opinion Hall and Howard would be capable of entering into conspiracy with Oswald to commit the assassination. Dean stated that the possibility of Oswald’s presence with these Cuban leaders appeared feasible to him and he wanted the FBI to be aware of this possibility in the event that it had not been previously checked out.”

This memo makes perfect sense to me under the circumstances. First, it shows that FBI agent Ferd Rapp was a true believer in the J. Edgar Hoover story that he told the Warren Commission, namely, that the person Silvia Odio saw with the two Latinos (who were probably Loran Hall and Larry Howard) was really William Seymour. This is that the Warren Commission printed.

However, even at the time that J. Edgar Hoover submitted that report to the Warren Commission, he knew that Larry Howard and William Seymour had both denied the story -- and that Loran Hall then changed his mind and denied ever seeing Silvia Odio in his life! That was part of the FBI record before Hoover took the previous, impeached testimony of Loran Hall to the Warren Commission!

That is part of the historical record that almost every JFK researcher already knows.

J. Edgar Hoover lied to the Warren Commission multiple times, but it is part of the official record today. No FBI SAC or agent would dare to contradict the FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover, or he would be fired that day.

It is fitting to claim that Hall and Howard were "conspirators" along with Lee Harvey Oswald in the murder of JFK because they accompanied Oswald to Mexico. Now, the complexity arises that Oswald was the "patsy." Yet for the FBI, and for the Warren Commission, Lee Harvey Oswald was the Lone Assassin, and not the patsy. So, the terminology becomes muddled for all involved.

Lee Harvey Oswald had "associates" in his activities surrounding the JFK murder. They might also be called "accomplices", even if they ended up making Oswald their patsy. It was up to the FBI to sort out these associations -- but instead the FBI chose to blame Lee Harvey Oswald alone, and to lock up FBI files about Lee Harvey Oswald for a lifetime. That's why we're still sorting things out now.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Well, Paul, I do not propose to get into the individual "trees" which comprise your "forest" story. However, I have these general replies to your comments (copied below):

2. I agree that the main point of our eBook is that Harry Dean warned the Los Angeles FBI about a Birch Society plot to murder JFK (months before the actual event occurred.

Since you agree about the "main point" -- it is still necessary to apply that focus to what Harry contemporaneously told the FBI in 1964 when that "main point" was even more relevant and current. Human beings are more certain, more definite, and more likely to focus on "main points" when the events are relatively new.

3. I still maintain that we have not seen all the US government records about Harry Dean, simply because some of them relate to the JFK assassination, and are still protected under exceptions to the FOIA. Even though the FBI released *some* of those files, they have not released them *all*.

I'm sorry Paul but you are just totally wrong about this. The type of information which Harry was providing to the FBI was NOT the type which would be withheld. Supposition, conjecture, speculation, etc. was not "secret" or "top secret". Furthermore, the point you continually evade is that the exact same type of information which YOU claim Harry was privy to and was reporting to the FBI (but according to you is being "protected under exceptions to the FOIA" -- has already been released particularly with respect to other persons who had comparable stories. That is why we know so much about the National States Rights Party figures and the Milteer/Somersett conversations, and the Minutemen/William Gale/Stanley Drennan/George Clinton Wheat stories and even Wesley Swift's alleged "prediction" that JFK would be murdered.

As I have repeatedly told you, you are using this all-purpose excuse to de-value and dismiss all contradictory evidence. NOBODY (except you) believes that there are any "secret" Harry files. Even in 1961, 1962, and in 1963 prior to JFK's murder, the FBI in Chicago and Los Angeles categorically rejected Harry because of his background. And in Los Angeles, they considered Harry a "mental case". You have never come to terms with that FACT.

For example, the FBI released *some* documents about the murder of JFK and Harry's contacts with the FBI which discuss that matter, as long as Harry is made to look absurd in them -- very much like the FBI made Silvia Odio look absurd in 1964. Those records are already public. That will remain my opinion until the FBI verifiably releases all documents related to Harry Dean.

But you have NO factual evidence or even plausible clues that other documents actually exist. It is just your all-purpose intellectual escape hatch and WISH. Furthermore, Harry does a good job of making himself look absurd. He did not need any help from the FBI.

What is my rationale for promoting the memoirs of Harry Dean? Actually, I'm working a process of elimination regarding the claims of Harry Dean; yet after more than three years of effort, all efforts so far have shown that Harry Dean is telling the TRUTH. (Your negative efforts, Ernie, are paradoxically helpful to my project.)

You have never "eliminated" anything which Harry has told you -- except the Mormon Church absurdity.

Further, the FBI and NARA still adhere to FOIA exceptions on the topic of the JFK assassination. This worries me. Even though they promise to release everything by 2017, the mere fact that they have held back for a half-century remains suspicious.

You do not know what you are talking about Paul. Contact the Chairman of the ARRB (or review their final report).

http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/review-board/report/

You are "suspicious" by nature -- EXCEPT with respect to whatever Harry tells you.

We know, also, that some FBI records have already been destroyed. So, just in case the US government in 2017 claims to release all its JFK documents and yet still insists that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone -- then I think JFK researchers must be ready to respond. We cannot just rest and trust our government to tell the truth after a half-century of secrets. We need to ask the hard questions.

Yes, some records have been destroyed. But there are protocols which all federal agencies are required to observe -- and particularly the FBI because of Congressional involvement after the Church Committee hearings. This has NOTHING to do with "trust" in our government. I do NOT "trust" career bureaucrats. But I know how to discern fact from fiction.

4. You note, Ernie, that when Harry spoke with FBI agent Ferd J. Rapp on 19 Nov 1964, Harry did not mention Rousselot or the Birch Society, and you ask why. In my opinion, not every conversation from Harry had to involve the JBS. I have already said that it was specific individuals within and around the JBS in Southern California that Harry Dean identified in a JFK plot -- including Loran Hall.

But this is where your "main point" argument comes into play. If the JBS was the entire focus of Harry's understanding regarding a "plot" to murder somebody, it is inconceivable that NONE of Harry's letters to the FBI in Los Angeles mention the JBS or Walker or Rousselot!

The conversation with Ferd Rapp that you cite was about Loran Hall. So, it was an indirect reference to the JBS. I would caution the reader, however, to avoid the conclusion that this letter by Ferd Rapp is the only such letter that the FBI has about Harry Dean's interaction with the Los Angeles FBIfrom 1963-1965

There are many letters which Harry wrote to the Los Angeles office. NONE of them mention the JBS, Rousselot, Welch, Walker or any JBS plot. Nor did Harry mention any of those in his phone conversations as recorded by about 10 different FBI Special Agents on their FD-71 contact forms.

AND when Harry was interviewed by the unspecified police department in May 1964 (but probably Los Angeles since the informant symbol number identified as the source for the transcript was a Los Angeles informant), Harry did not mention ONE WORD about JBS, Rousselot, Walker, or any JBS plot!

Instead, Harry told the police department interviewers that he gave the Justice Department information about "the FPCC bunch that, as you know, finally killed Mr. Kennedy." THAT WAS HARRY'S CONCLUSION IN MAY 1964!

5. You also cite, Ernie, Harry's 12/5/64 letter to the Los Angeles office, recapping his Rapp interview. You would emphasize Harry's word, supposition. This is because of the context of Harry's interview -- which was about the behavior of Loran Hall and Larry Howard in Dallas during the final week of September 1963.

Harry personally witnessed planning meetings in which Guy Gabaldon instructed Loran Hall and Larry Howard to pick up Lee Harvey Oswald from New Orleans and drive him to Mexico City during the final week of September 1963. However, Harry was not present on that drive. Silvia Odio claimed that two Latinos and Lee Harvey Oswald paid her a surprise visit during the final week of September 1963. They claimed they were only passing through, and that they had come from New Orleans.

Now, as I say, Harry Dean was not present on that trip, so in all humility all he can do is "suppose," that Silvia Odio is telling the truth, and that she actually saw Loran Hall and Larry Howard with Lee Oswald at her doorstep. However, that stop was not part of the planning meetings in Southern California that Harry Dean witnessed. That is a sufficient explanation for the langauge that Harry used.

The problem here is that "supposing" something is possible or true IS NOT the same as "knowing" something is possible or true. The FBI was not interested in "suppositions"; it was interested in FACTS. And, as noted above, in May 1964 Harry was blaming the "the FPCC bunch" and by December 1964 he had changed his story to "suppose" that Hall, Howard, and Oswald might be involved.

6. You ask, Ernie, why Harry's letter would be so tentative as to use the word, "supposition," and you copy Harry's own words from his 12/5/64 letter to FBI-LA: "I do not wish to interfere, or project any supposition into this case. It is hoped that none of these mentioned are in any way connected with the horrible death of Mr. Kennedy, as is my thinking by this time, I wish to clarify only my coincidental association with Hall and Howard, as I first reported to Agent Rapp near two weeks past."

I think I answered your question fully -- Harry wasn't present on that trip. The stop at Silvia Odio's was not planned in Los Angeles. However, the pieces fit like a glove.

It makes no difference if Harry was on any trip with anyone. He supposedly had first-hand personal knowledge of the plot in the summer of 1963 but a year later he was "supposing" and "hoping" -- or translated, he was GUESSING!

7. You ask, Ernie, why Harry Dean expresses his "hope" that he is wrong about his information. The answer is that there actually remains a chance -- even today -- that Harry Dean's conclusions were mistaken. That is, although he surely witnessed a plot within the JBS, involving Rousselot, Walker, Hall and Howard, to murder JFK using Lee Harvey Oswald as a patsy, that is not enough to prove that this plot was SUCCESSFUL.

Does Harry agree with what YOU claim is his position?

Will Harry post a message here declaring in definitive, unambiguous, non-inscrutable plain-English terms that he might be entirely mistaken about this entire matter?

There were probably dozens of underground plots to murder JFK. Only one plot was SUCCESSFUL. Wes Swearingen believes the plot he heard about was the successful one. Larry Hancock believes the plot he heard about from John Martino was the successful one. Maybe they were. Maybe somebody ELSE entirely framed Lee Harvey Oswald.

If so, that would be a RELIEF to Harry Dean, because he has been carrying around this guilt for a lifetime -- that he actually encouraged these guys to go forth and kill JFK. He thought they were just letting off steam, and he wanted to be a part of the intrigue -- but when it actually happened, Harry was stunned.

Oh really? WHEN did Harry "encourage these guys to go forth and kill JFK?" BE SPECIFIC. You have previously written in this thread that Harry is NOT criminally liable because he was NOT an actual participant -- but merely a passive observer.

If your NEW position is actually the case, i.e. he "encouraged these guys to go forth and kill JFK", then Harry just became an accessory to murder and should be prosecuted!

Also, Harry Dean was not trying to pressure the FBi into accepting his story. He could see that, even at the end of 1964, the FBI was married to the idea of a Lone Assassin, because J. Edgar Hoover himself had been promoting it publicly for a solid year. So, Harry was being humble about it. What else could he do? This letter makes perfect sense to me.

What a silly comment. Harry had no ability to "pressure the FBI" into doing anything whatsoever.

8. You ask, Ernie, why Harry proposes (in November 1964) that Oswald was involved as a "conspirator" with Hall and Howard to commit the JFK assassination. As evidence you reproduce the entire memo by FBI agent Ferd Rapp as below:

RAPP MEMO: “Harry Dean, 18109 Atina Drive, La Puente, California, phone 964-5111, was interviewed at his request and in response to his telephone call to the Los Angeles Office. He advised the following on 11/19/64: He read a copy of the Warren Report and was particularly interested in a section concerning Oswalds ‘alleged association with various Mexican or Cuban individuals’. Testimony was set forth concerning information furnished by a Mrs. Silvia Odio who related that two Cuban underground figures had contacted her, accompanied by an American whom she believed to be Oswald. It was determined that the two alleged Cubans were Lawrence Howard and Loran Eugene Hall. Subsequent investigation determined that it was not Oswald who had accompanied them. Dean stated that he had met Hall whom he knew as Lorenzo Hall who lived at one time at 877 West El Repetto, Monterey Park, California. He heard Hall make an anti-Castro speech in Covina, in September 1963. About this time he also met Lawrence Howard, Jr. who lived at 8325 Coral Lane, Pico Rivera California. He has had no contact with either of these persons since the time of the assassination. He did not hear either of them make any anti-Kennedy statements. Notwithstanding the evidence to the contrary, he stated that it was interesting to speculate that it might have been Oswald actually with these two men in Dallas. He speculated that both Hall and Howard who are anti-Castro leaders of the Cuban underground, actually wanted President Kennedy removed from the scene because of the failure of the 1960 Cuban invasion. He stated that in his opinion Hall and Howard would be capable of entering into conspiracy with Oswald to commit the assassination. Dean stated that the possibility of Oswald’s presence with these Cuban leaders appeared feasible to him and he wanted the FBI to be aware of this possibility in the event that it had not been previously checked out.”

This memo makes perfect sense to me under the circumstances. First, it shows that FBI agent Ferd Rapp was a true believer in the J. Edgar Hoover story that he told the Warren Commission, namely, that the person Silvia Odio saw with the two Latinos (who were probably Loran Hall and Larry Howard) was really William Seymour. This is that the Warren Commission printed.

I have no idea what Ferd Rapp's personal position was regarding the assassination. Nor do you. Neither of us contacted him to ask any questions so don't pretend you know.

However, even at the time that J. Edgar Hoover submitted that report to the Warren Commission, he knew that Larry Howard and William Seymour had both denied the story -- and that Loran Hall then changed his mind and denied ever seeing Silvia Odio in his life! That was part of the FBI record before Hoover took the previous, impeached testimony of Loran Hall to the Warren Commission!

That is part of the historical record that almost every JFK researcher already knows.

J. Edgar Hoover lied to the Warren Commission multiple times, but it is part of the official record today. No FBI SAC or agent would dare to contradict the FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover, or he would be fired that day.

You don't like the word "lied" or "xxxx" -- EXCEPT when you think it advances your argument!

It is fitting to claim that Hall and Howard were "conspirators" along with Lee Harvey Oswald in the murder of JFK because they accompanied Oswald to Mexico. Now, the complexity arises that Oswald was the "patsy." Yet for the FBI, and for the Warren Commission, Lee Harvey Oswald was the Lone Assassin, and not the patsy. So, the terminology becomes muddled for all involved.

"Muddled" -- such as falsely claiming to be an "informant" or "undercover agent" or "spy" or "private investigator"?

Lee Harvey Oswald had "associates" in his activities surrounding the JFK murder. They might also be called "accomplices", even if they ended up making Oswald their patsy. It was up to the FBI to sort out these associations -- but instead the FBI chose to blame Lee Harvey Oswald alone, and to lock up FBI files about Lee Harvey Oswald for a lifetime. That's why we're still sorting things out now.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited April 10, 2014 by Ernie Lazar

[Paul Trejo]

Ernie, you're slipping back into your insulting ways. But I'll keep the door open a while longer. Here are my careful replies to those remarks of yours that were at least partially respectful:

2. You say, Ernie, that "it is still necessary to apply that focus to what Harry contemporaneously told the FBI in 1964 when that 'main point' was even more relevant and current."

I agree with this. Yet I want to see all the FBI files available, not just one or two. You're not providing the full picture for me to comment upon. Soon, however, Harry Dean will obtain FBI files from the US government about himself -- including many files about Wesley Grapp. Then we'll have something substantial to talk about.

3. You say, Ernie, "The type of information which Harry was providing to the FBI was NOT the type which would be withheld."

This is your continuing error -- you believe you KNOW all the information that Harry was providing to the FBI. I say that you cannot draw that conclusion on the little bit of data that the FBI was willing to show to you.

You say to me, Ernie, that "NOBODY (except you) believes that there are any 'secret' Harry files." But recent history has upheld my position. Last year you were announcing that the FBI had nothing about Harry Dean, not even a case number. Well, we found that case number, didn't we? And based on that you obtained hundreds of files on Harry Dean. No, they weren't secret - but they were unknown to you. I reserve the right to use the word, 'secret,' to refer to rare files that most people don't know about -- including Ernie Lazar.

You wrote about the FBI, Ernie, saying, "in Los Angeles, they considered Harry a 'mental case.' You have never come to terms with that FACT." You're mistaken, because I remarked on that fact at length -- I said that the Los Angeles FBI was arrogant and insulting, and they weren't offering a medical opinion, because they aren't qualified for that. They were just being arrogant.

Remember that the FBI Director decreed that Lee Harvey Oswald was the Lone Assassin of JFK. Harry Dean disagreed with that. No FBI agent would contradict J. Edgar Hoover -- so naturally, just as the FBI would consider Silvia Odio to be a 'mental case,' as they wrote, because she claimed that Oswald did not act alone, so also would the FBI in Los Angeles behave in exactly the same way towards Harry Dean.

4. You wrote, Ernie: "If the JBS was the entire focus of Harry's understanding regarding a 'plot' to murder somebody, it is inconceivable that NONE of Harry's letters to the FBI in Los Angeles mention the JBS or Walker or Rousselot!"

But you're simply mistaken, and I already answered this well. Why did you shut your eyes to my replies? The individuals that Harry Dean focused upon in those letters you cite included Loran Hall, who was clearly linked with the JBS and Walker as FBI records themselves have shown.

Also, you again seem to believe that you have *all* of the Harry Dean files and letters. But you don't. (In fact, you aren't sharing the few you have with this thread as you used to do -- so nobody here can really verify anything you say anymore.)

For example, Harry Dean -- whose word has been 99% perfect so far -- insists that he had long conversations with Wesley Grapp. You have not been able to find those FBI records -- so you gave up looking, and presumed they don't exist. I maintain that they will turn up -- sooner or later.

Also, Ernie, you wrote: "Harry told the police department interviewers that he gave the Justice Department information about 'the FPCC bunch that, as you know, finally killed Mr. Kennedy.' THAT WAS HARRY'S CONCLUSION IN MAY 1964!"

Yes, and actually New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison proved that the JFK plotters really were operating a fake FPCC chapter in New Orleans. Lee Harvey Oswald was the one and only member of that fake FPCC. So, yes, it really was that "FPCC bunch" that finally killed JFK. So, Harry Dean was right again.

7. You wrote, Ernie: "WHEN did Harry 'encourage these guys to go forth and kill JFK?' BE SPECIFIC. You have previously written in this thread that Harry is NOT criminally liable because he was NOT an actual participant -- but merely a passive observer. If your NEW position is actually the case, i.e. he 'encouraged these guys to go forth and kill JFK,' then Harry just became an accessory to murder and should be prosecuted!"

Actually, Ernie, Harry Dean has worried about this for half a century now. If you read our eBook you'd know that Harry Dean did play along with the plotters. He even put in his two cents during the main meeting with Walker and Rousselot at that JBS Headquarters, saying that 'the FPCC was a dangerous Communist organization that deserved to be shut down hard,' and so encouraged their plot.

At the same time, Harry Dean also admitted that he thought (and hoped) that the plotters were just "letting off steam" and putting on airs for each other. It was in this spirit of showing off that Harry Dean played along with them, and "encouraged these guys to go forth and kill JFK."

What exonerates Harry Dean is not, as you claimed, that he was "merely a passive observer." No, what we say in our eBook is that the innocence of Harry Dean is based on the fact that he took this information to the FBI as soon as he could -- and that the FBI still has these records! (Naturally, it will not be flattering for the FBI to expose these, so they are probably protected by "exceptions to the FOIA". That's my theory.)

8. As for Rapp's position on Silvia Odio and the JFK murder, his opinion is printed in black and white in the letter you copied in. I think you don't have enough background in the JFK murder yet, however, to understand Rapp's position.

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

Edited April 10, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Ernie Lazar]

Ernie, you're slipping back into your insulting ways. But I'll keep the door open a while longer. Here are my careful replies to those remarks of yours that were at least partially respectful:

2. You say, Ernie, that "it is still necessary to apply that focus to what Harry contemporaneously told the FBI in 1964 when that 'main point' was even more relevant and current."

I agree with this. Yet I want to see all the FBI files available, not just one or two. You're not providing the full picture for me to comment upon. Soon, however, Harry Dean will obtain FBI files from the US government about himself -- including many files about Wesley Grapp. Then we'll have something substantial to talk about.

You still have not explained what you mean by "all the FBI files available". There are only 2 main files about Harry which still exist (his HQ file and his Los Angeles field file) and you have seen or read my summaries about everything relevant contained in those files.

NOTHING in those files changes the original June 1961 evaluation made by the FBI which Harry correctly paraphrased in his 6/61 letter to JFK or in his subsequent 11/63 letter to Hoover.

You then refer to "many files about Wesley Grapp". There are not "many files" about Grapp. There is ONE file, his 67-prefix personnel file. I will have his file long before Harry since I submitted my request last October. The good news is that it is a large file (2931pp) but there is no valid reason to think anything in that file will provide you with any information that supports Harry's narrative.

HOWEVER, there ARE other files and individual serials from specific files which MAY provide even more definitive information re: Harry's association with the FBI -- but I doubt that Harry has bothered to request them -- nor is he (or anybody) likely to want to incur the cost for obtaining them.

I refer to the various HQ and field office files on FPCC and files on JURE/Alpha 66, and files on Minutemen in southern California and files which pertain to specific individuals on whom Harry claims he reported info to the FBI --- such as Edgar Swabeck or Frank Vega.

We already know from FBI correlation summaries on Edwin Walker that there are no references to Harry in any Walker-related file nor any cross-reference serial which mentions Harry. There are also no files on Rousselot that contain references to Harry (other than Rousselot's inquiry about Harry). Loran Hall's files are now at NARA, i.e. HQ 105-78016 and HQ 2-1693. There are some other cross-reference serials which include some mention of Harry. Some are at NARA; others have been destroyed and some will be processed for me and released in the future.

3. You say, Ernie, "The type of information which Harry was providing to the FBI was NOT the type which would be withheld."

This is your continuing error -- you believe you KNOW all the information that Harry was providing to the FBI. I say that you cannot draw that conclusion on the little bit of data that the FBI was willing to show to you.

No, Paul, this is YOUR continuing error. I am relying upon your eBook and Harry's answers to questions in this forum. This is NOT what you euphemistically describe as "the little bit of data that the FBI was willing to show you".

This reveals how intellectually dishonest you are. You do not have the faintest clue about how many total documents exist that discuss Harry (even if only a one-sentence reference in some cross-reference serial). But you PRETEND that you know the extent of information in FBI files which you have NEVER bothered to request so you get away with this b/s about "little bit of data" as if you know something factual about some treasure trove of documents which magically will appear someday.

You may recall that scores of messages ago I predicted that based upon everything which could be determined regarding Harry's files, that the grand total of EVERYTHING would be less than 1500 pages -- and I was right. The House Select Committee on Assassinations got his FBI HQ file and I obtained his Los Angeles field file.

Combined, they total only about 465 pages and much of the information contained in those files is duplicative.

The ONLY file that is not available is Harry's Chicago field file but one can easily estimate its size based upon the Chicago serials which are contained in his HQ and Los Angeles files. The fact that Chicago destroyed his file in May 1990 is further evidence that there was nothing significant in it because the FBI (as well as other government agencies) routinely destroy their field office files when their substantive content has already been sent to HQ.

You say to me, Ernie, that "NOBODY (except you) believes that there are any 'secret' Harry files." But recent history has upheld my position. Last year you were announcing that the FBI had nothing about Harry Dean, not even a case number. Well, we found that case number, didn't we? And based on that you obtained hundreds of files on Harry Dean. No, they weren't secret - but they were unknown to you. I reserve the right to use the word, 'secret,' to refer to rare files that most people don't know about -- including Ernie Lazar.

Yet again you attribute a comment to me which is a blatant falsehood -- which is why you never quote what I write.

I never wrote anything remotely comparable to what you attribute to me so STOP LYING PAUL.

And WILL YOU PLEASE PAY ATTENTION?

Nobody has discovered OR obtained "hundreds of files on Harry". You can't even intelligently discuss this subject by using correct terminology.

There are not "hundreds' of files. There are TWO files. There are NOT "hundreds" of serials in those files. There are a total of 65 serials in Harry's Los Angeles file and about 24 serials in his HQ file -- plus additional "sub-A file" material which refers to copies of documents which Harry gave to the FBI (16 items) and copies of some newspaper articles.

You wrote about the FBI, Ernie, saying, "in Los Angeles, they considered Harry a 'mental case.' You have never come to terms with that FACT." You're mistaken, because I remarked on that fact at length -- I said that the Los Angeles FBI was arrogant and insulting, and they weren't offering a medical opinion, because they aren't qualified for that. They were just being arrogant.

They were not offering a "medical opinion". They were offering their evaluation from dealing with Harry's constant unsolicited phone calls and letters. Which is why you can see "no acknowledgement necessary" handwritten on some memos discussing Harry's incoming communications -- because they considered Harry a pest who was not providing any valuable information (other than one time).

What YOU seem to be saying is that NOBODY should EVER form an opinion about ANYBODY based upon their frequent personal contacts with that person. If they arrive at a derogatory opinion, it can ONLY BE the result of them being "arrogant and insulting"

BUT---if FBI Agents had written glowing and highly favorable comments about Harry THEN you would be perfectly HAPPY to ACCEPT their comments as entirely reasonable and fair-minded, RIGHT?

Remember that the FBI Director decreed that Lee Harvey Oswald was the Lone Assassin of JFK. Harry Dean disagreed with that. No FBI agent would contradict J. Edgar Hoover -- so naturally the FBI in Los Angeles would consider Silvia Odio to be a 'mental case,' as the wrote, because she claimed that Oswald did not act alone. Therefore, the FBI in Los Angeles would behave in exactly the same way toward Harry Dean.

FBI Agents contradicted Hoover all the time (at least in terms of what investigations developed).

For example: Hoover was HOSTILE toward many prominent left-wing individuals (authors, politicians, newspaper editors, etc.) and organizations (such as ACLU) -- but, nevertheless, he did not let his personal hostility taint the investigative reports which were sent outside the Bureau (to the White House or to Congress etc) or the public speeches which senior FBI officials gave across the country.

In fact, as previously mentioned, Hoover went to great lengths to falsify many of the standard predicates of right-wing ideology.

* He supported gun control laws.

* He opposed outlawing the Communist Party.

* He denounced Robert Welch and the JBS (by name) as irrational and irresponsible right wing extremists.

* He rejected the arguments of white supremacists who declared that our civil rights movement was "Communist inspired" and "Communist controlled". Hoover made speeches stating the EXACT OPPOSITE.

* Hoover approved a major speech by the Assistant Director in charge of the Domestic Intelligence Division which falsified the entire predicate of the right-wing in our country about significant Communist influence and control over our clergy and religious institutions and THEN when all hell broke loose because of the national publicity which that speech produced, Hoover defended that Asst Director and he explicitly associated himself with the conclusions stated during that speech -- which ENRAGED the extreme right in our country.

You over-emphasize this point because apparently you have no personal experience with large bureaucracies and no knowledge about how government agencies operate.

There were THOUSANDS of FBI Special Agents in 56 field offices. Hoover had not the remotest clue what they were writing in all of their reports -- unless it was a major subject which made its way up through the food chain.

If you had even a cursory knowledge of FBI investigative files, you would notice HUNDREDS of handwritten comments by Hoover where he asks subordinates. "What do our files show about...? (enter name or subject matter here). He relied upon whatever the investigations developed.

The FBI did NOT consider anybody (Odio or Harry or anybody else) a "mental case" just because they arrived at different conclusions from the FBI. The mental case comment referred to irrational and/or incoherent people who often presented themselves as authorities or experts or specialists in some matter but, in reality, they were ignorant or simply promoting their own personal agenda.

4. You wrote, Ernie: "If the JBS was the entire focus of Harry's understanding regarding a 'plot' to murder somebody, it is inconceivable that NONE of Harry's letters to the FBI in Los Angeles mention the JBS or Walker or Rousselot!"

But you're simply mistaken, and I already answered this well. Why did you shut your eyes to my replies? The individuals that Harry Dean focused upon in those letters you cite included Loran Hall, who was clearly linked with the JBS and Walker as FBI records themselves have shown.

I am not shutting my eyes Paul. You just don't understand the relevant point.

EVERYTHING Harry supposedly believed in the summer of 1963 revolved around THE BIRCH SOCIETY as an organization. According to Harry, they planned the murder. They financed it. They executed it. And the senior officers of the JBS (Welch and Rousselot) were intimately involved. BUT YOU want us to believe that was nothing more than a secondary matter to Harry in 1964?

Harry never bothered to mention the JBS even ONE time in ANY letter or in ANY interview with law enforcement. That is INCONCEIVABLE. It would be equivalent to someone NEVER mentioning Al Qaeda or Osama Bin Laden in relation to 9/11.

Also, you again seem to believe that you have *all* of the Harry Dean files and letters. But you don't. (In fact, you aren't sharing the few you have with this thread as you used to do -- so nobody here can really verify anything you say anymore.)

All right Paul, stop this b/s once and for all. LIST the precise "files and letters" I don't have which you think are critically important because YOU KNOW they contain massively important information. Do NOT use weasel words and general statements. LIST THEM,

For example, Harry Dean -- whose word has been 99% perfect so far -- insists that he had long conversations with Wesley Grapp. You have not been able to find those FBI records -- so you give up looking, and presume they don't exist. I maintain that they will turn up -- sooner or later.

Another DELIBERATE LIE BY YOU. I have not "given up". I have more than TWO DOZEN FOIA requests pending -- including on Grapp and Ferd Rapp.

YOU, by contrast, HAVE NONE WHATSOEVER! What a damn hypocrite you are!

And Harry has not been "99% perfect so far" -- what a classic Trejo mis-statement of fact.

Also, Ernie, you wrote: "Harry told the police department interviewers that he gave the Justice Department information about 'the FPCC bunch that, as you know, finally killed Mr. Kennedy.' THAT WAS HARRY'S CONCLUSION IN MAY 1964!"

Yes, and actually New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison proved that the JFK plotters really were operating a fake FPCC chapter in New Orleans. Lee Harvey Oswald was the one and only member of that fake FPCC. So, yes, it really was that "FPCC bunch" that finally killed JFK. So, Harry Dean was right again.

WHAT? Make up your mind. Was it FPCC (left-wing) or JBS (right-wing)? And you miss the point. "99% perfect Harry" couldn't even identify the same primary actors in a single 6-month period!

7. You wrote, Ernie: "WHEN did Harry 'encourage these guys to go forth and kill JFK?' BE SPECIFIC. You have previously written in this thread that Harry is NOT criminally liable because he was NOT an actual participant -- but merely a passive observer. If your NEW position is actually the case, i.e. he 'encouraged these guys to go forth and kill JFK,' then Harry just became an accessory to murder and should be prosecuted!"

Actually, Ernie, Harry Dean has worried about this for half a century now. If you read our eBook you'd know that Harry Dean did play along with the plotters. He even put in his two cents during the main meeting with Walker and Rousselot at that JBS Headquarters, saying that 'the FPCC was a dangerous Communist organization,' and so encouraged their plot.

At the same time, Harry Dean also admitted that he thought (and hoped) that the plotters were just "letting off steam" and putting on airs for each other. It was in this spirit of showing off that Harry Dean played along with them, and "encouraged these guys to go forth and kill JFK."

What exonerates Harry Dean is not, as you claimed, that he was "merely a passive observer." No, what we say in our eBook is that the innocence of Harry Dean is based on the fact that he took this information to the FBI as soon as he could -- and that the FBI has these records!

There is not one shred of factual evidence to support what you just wrote. ALL you have is Harry's personal story.

And you obviously have no understanding of American law. If, as you wrote, Harry "encouraged" ANYBODY to commit a felony, he is as guilty (in both law and morality) as the persons who actually committed the crime. In many cases, prosecutors will offer a plea deal (i.e. shorter sentences) to cooperative "witnesses" but, nonetheless, they have committed an actionable FELONY. And in cases of "murder" -- prison time is almost always involved for the person who "encouraged" the murder.

8. As for Rapp's position on Silvia Odio and the JFK murder, his opinion is printed in black and white in the letter you copied in. I think you don't have enough background in the JFK murder yet, however, to understand Rapp's position.

No--Rapp's personal position is not printed in black and white. He was repeating his then-current understanding (in 1964) of what FBI investigations developed. However, nobody asked him what his PERSONAL opinion was (apart from the official FBI position).

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

My replies are underneath your comments

Edited April 10, 2014 by Ernie Lazar

[Paul Trejo]

Well, you've basically lost your manners again, Ernie. Still, I'll respond one more time.

A) You continue to claim that you know how many FBI serials, files, pages that exist on Harry Dean. But you haven't proved that. Still, you claim to be an expert on the topic. You know about the FBI forms, but you don't really know the FBI content. So, actually, you're not an expert on the topic.

B] I'm not the one who pretends to know the extent of FBI data, Ernie; that's your claim. I say that we haven't seen all the data yet. Every few months we find a new cache of FBI data on Harry Dean. I expect that to be the case with Harry's personal request for his FBI files. I predict we'll find things you never dreamed of, Ernie.

C) You seem to be ignorant, Ernie, about the JFK research on the FBI and J. Edgar Hoover. It's a paradox that you know more about FBI procedure and forms that most people, yet you seem to know very little about the status of J. Edgar Hoover and his multiple lies to the Warren Commission. That's really JFK Research 101 around here, Ernie. You're behind the times.

D) You keep using the word, 'INCONCEIVABLE,' Ernie. I don't think it means what you think it means.

E) As for the left-wing FPCC, it is a matter of historical fact that the JBS (e.g. Guy Bannister) and other right-wing radicals in New Orleans in 1963 had a fake FPCC. Lee Harvey Oswald was the one and only member of that fake FPCC. Every JFK researcher knows this fact, Ernie -- why don't you know it?

F) Insofar as Harry Dean took all his knowledge about a JFK plot to the FBI, then he committed no felony. On the contrary, J. Edgar Hoover and the FBI may have committed a felony by failing to act on that information, and by covering it up for fifty years. That's not only my position, Ernie, but it's the position of perhaps a growing number of JFK researchers.

Sincerely,
--Paul Trejo

Edited April 12, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Ernie Lazar]

Well, you've basically lost your manners again, Ernie. Still, I'll respond one more time.

A) You continue to claim that you know how many FBI serials, files, pages that exist on Harry Dean. But you haven't proved that. Still, you claim to be an expert on the topic. You know about the FBI forms, but you don't really know the FBI content. So, actually, you're not an expert on the topic.

B] I'm not the one who pretends to know the extent of FBI data, Ernie; that's your claim. I say that we haven't seen all the data yet. Every few months we find a new cache of FBI data on Harry Dean. I expect that to be the case with Harry's personal request for his FBI files. I predict we'll find things you never dreamed of, Ernie.

C) You seem to be ignorant, Ernie, about the JFK research on the FBI and J. Edgar Hoover. It's a paradox that you know more about FBI procedure and forms that most people, yet you seem to know very little about the status of J. Edgar Hoover and his multiple lies to the Warren Commission. That's really JFK Research 101 around here, Ernie. You're behind the times.

D) You keep using the word, 'INCONCEIVABLE,' Ernie. I don't think it means what you think it means.

E) As for the left-wing FPCC, it is a matter of historical fact that the JBS (e.g. Guy Bannister) and other right-wing radicals in New Orleans in 1963 had a fake FPCC. Lee Harvey Oswald was the one and only member of that fake FPCC. Every JFK researcher knows this fact, Ernie -- why don't you know it?

F) Insofar as Harry Dean took all his knowledge about a JFK plot to the FBI, then he committed no felony. On the contrary, J. Edgar Hoover and the FBI committed a felony by failing to act on that information, and by covering it up for fifty years. That's not only my position, Ernie, but it's the position of perhaps a growing number of JFK researchers.

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

A) What constitutes "proof" in your scheme of things? DO YOU have any "proof" to support your contentions? I do not claim to be "an expert". That is your constant put-down of anybody who knows more than you. What "FBI content" do YOU know about?? Share your brilliance with us. DO NOT just assert something. Provide SPECIFIC FACTUAL DETAILS -- as I have done.

-b-) Paul, all anybody can do is research available FACTUAL information. That information comes in many different forms. For example, I have previously told you that I have all the search slips which the FBI's Name Check Unit used in order to inform themselves (internally) about ALL files and cross-reference serials which pertain to Harry. IF you know something specific which is NOT shown on FBI search slips -- then let us know and stop pretending you have some sort of secret knowledge. Keep in mind that search slips are the ONLY way FBI employees had to determine (through their Name Check Unit) what data exists in FBI files.

The ONLY information Harry MIGHT get which I do not presently have -- are the cross-reference serials about him that originated in secondary field offices (such as Detroit, Indianapolis, and Legat-Ottawa). The reason why Harry might get them before me (IF they still exist) is because I am still waiting for the FBI to make a determination regarding my Public Interest Disclosure argument since I did not provide the FBI with a notarized affidavit from Harry authorizing release of such documents. I predict you will NOT find anything significant no matter what Harry receives (if anything). I also predict that the FBI will inform you that all main files are destroyed (like Chicago field) OR, possibly, there MIGHT be one which they transferred to NARA -- although I was not able to find any references when I used the "advanced search" option on NARA's website. However, if the FBI provides a specific file number (which they always do for files transferred to NARA), then it is possible to obtain it from NARA (at 80 cents per page).

C) My focus is on Harry Dean -- not your jeremiads against Hoover or the FBI. It makes no difference what Hoover believed or what "lies" he told to the Warren Commission. Our dispute is exclusively about whether or not Harry's story is believable. Neither you or Harry has provided one scintilla of verifiable factual or documentary evidence to support your claims. All you ever do is make assertions, assumptions, and speculations.

D) You know what inconceivable means as does any normal literate person. In the context of what we are discussing, it means Harry did not think it necessary to explain the most rudimentary and important facts about "the JBS plot" to ANYBODY in the FBI. Instead, his focus was two-fold: (1) he wanted to "clear" his name and (2) he was worried about possible prosecution as an accessory to murder.

E) Let's assume you are correct about the "historical fact" of the "fake FPCC". However, in March 1964 and subsequently, Harry never bothered to explain that "fake FPCC" to either the FBI or to the police department which interviewed him. Don't you think that is a curious omission? What is the point of having an "informant" or "confidential source" if that person does not define terms or explain the significance of what he believes is true? And don't humor yourself Paul. I am totally familiar with the fact that FPCC-New Orleans was a paper-only organization with no membership. But that is irrelevant. The point is that Harry was blaming " the FPCC bunch" WITHOUT explaining what he meant to the FBI and to the Police Dept interviewers -- as if that was an irrelevant point to his "JBS plot" argument.

YOU must think that law enforcement professional investigators are mind-readers!

F) You could not be MORE wrong Paul. I suggest that you contact ANY lawyer or legal scholar of your choice and ask them a very simple question, i.e. if somebody "encourages the murder" of a public official -- is it true that they have NOT committed a felony as long as they bring that information to any law enforcement agency?

AFTER you get a reply to that question, share it with us.

ALTERNATIVELY, you can do some research (not your strong point I know) about all the people currently serving time in prison who were sentenced to prison EVEN THOUGH they cooperated with law enforcement and told them about a criminal enterprise which they initially "encouraged".

Postscript

With respect to your comment in point "A" -- about "FBI content":

Let us refresh our memories about YOUR tortured interpretation of "FBI content" with respect to the alleged "forged" version of Harry's 11/63 letter to Hoover. YOU developed an elaborate psychiatric HOAX to explain all kinds of allegedly substantive flaws in the "forged" version which made it supposedly indisputable that Harry was correct and the FBI was "lying".

THAT is YOUR record of dealing with "FBI content". Shame on you!

Edited April 10, 2014 by Ernie Lazar

[Paul Trejo]

The John Birch Society was often scrutinized by the Warren Commission.

The Warren Commission published not only 26 volumes of Hearings and Exhibits, but also a single summary volume, entitled "The President's Commission on the Assassination of President Kennedy" (September, 1964). It is 888 pages long.

The John Birch Society was scrutinized in that volume in multiple places. For one thing, Lee Harvey Oswald had the name and the telephone number of resigned General Edwin Walker in his personal telephone book. This required an answer; and Edwin Walker was a leader in the John Birch Society.

For another thing, the famous 'black-bordered ad' entitled, "Welcome Mr. Kennedy to Dallas," which listed a dozen "WHY" items accusing JFK of Communism, was also traced to the John Birch Society on pages 294-299 of those volumes. The upshot of those pages is as follows:

1. The 'black bordered ad' was signed by Bernard W. Weissman, a member of CUSA (Conservatism USA), an ambitious right-wing action committee started by US Army servicemen in Germany in 1961. The leader of the CUSA group was Larrie Schmidt.

2. Bernard Weissman had been in Dallas only three weeks before publishing the 'black bordered ad.' Larrie Schmidt had been in Dallas about a year, maneuvering within Dallas right-wing circles for strategic advancement, and urging Weissman and other CUSA members to move to Dallas to help him.

3. Larrie Schmidt helped Ex-General Walker and other members of the John Birch Society booby-trap the Dallas Memorial Auditorium on 23 Oct 1963, in preparation for Adlai Stevenson's speech there on 24 Oct 1963.

4. National notoriety of Stevenson's humiliation greatly encouraged Bernard Weissman and another CUSA member to move to Dallas in early November 1963.

5. Once in Dallas, they promptly joined a local John Birch Society chapter, and were introduced to one of its active officers, Joseph P. Grinnan,

6. Grinnan managed and solicited money for the full-page ad, and also conferred with other, unnamed, John Birch Society leaders to provide and edit the wording of the ad. The role of Weissman was mainly to affix his signature to the bottom of the finished product, and to hand-deliver the ad to the Dallas Morning News. Weissman, the new kid in town, was basically used as a shill -- he did not know the names of the donors.

7. A fictitious sponsoring organization was invented to conceal the John Birch Society from publicity, namely, the "American Fact-Finding Committee." (Weissman admitted to the Warren Commission that the 'black bordered ad' was the creation of the John Birch Society.)

8. The Warren Commission then obtained the names of three men who donated money to Grinnan to support this ad -- all three were prominent members of the John Birch Society in Dallas, namely: Nelson B. Hunt, Edgar R. Crissey and H.R. Bright. These men had demanded authority over the wording of the ad (since they paid for it).

9. Grinnan, Hunt, Crissey and Bright were all questioned by the FBI, and all denied any knowledge of a plot to kill JFK.

The month prior to this, Lee Harvey Oswald spoke publicly of attending the 23 Oct 1963 meeting of Ex-General Walker at the Dallas Memorial Auditorium. Oswald wrote in a letter (cited by the Warren Commission) telling how Walker's meeting resulted in the attacks on Adlai Stevenson at that same auditorium the very next evening.

Larrie Schmidt told newspapers that he saw no spitting at Stevenson, and that Stevenson accidentally walked into a placard -- that the protests were peaceful. Schmidt later admitted, however, that the Auditorium was indeed booby-trapped with a giant, drop-down banner, hung from the ceiling the night before -- unfurled by a rope, which read, "US out of UN! and UN out of US!"

Harry Dean's memoirs, which place the John Birch Society front and center in the suspect list of JFK murderers, are not alone in their suspicions, nor have they ever been.

Best regards,
--Paul Trejo
<edit typos>

Edited April 14, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Ernie Lazar]

ANNOUNCEMENT

Today, I have posted my detailed summary of the content of FBI-Los Angeles field file serials on my new webpage devoted to Harry Dean. https://sites.google.com/site/xrt013/harrydean

During the next few weeks, I will be scanning and posting copies of key serials (including correspondence by Harry to FBI-Los Angeles) onto that webpage.

In addition, I will be creating a section devoted exclusively to presenting an analysis of what these documents reveal about Harry's story -- particularly the many anomalies in Harry's narrative as compared to his messages in Education Forum and as compared to his recollections in the October 2013 eBook written by Paul Trejo.

Edited April 14, 2014 by Ernie Lazar

[Paul Trejo]

On 11/29/1963 Wes.G. Grapp was issuing directives to "all FBI Los Angeles agents".

Harry, once your request for your FBI records is fulfilled, you'll be able to demonstrate your claims in concrete terms -- with supporting documentation.

Then you'll be able to put to rest the 48 years of disinformation continually spread about your Memoirs -- even in this very Forum; and even on the Spartacus web site, which is a sister-site of this Forum.

The coming FBI torrent of records won't be easy -- and it's going to take a lot of time and effort -- but I'm on your side in this.

Your Memoirs bring many aspects of the JFK murder into harmony and focus: Wesley Grapp; Ex-General Walker; Silvia Odio; Loran Hall; Larry Howard; Quarito; the John Birch Society; attorney Robert Morris; Lester Logue; Carlos Bringuier; Ed Butler; Interpen; La Sambra; DACA; Alpha 66; Lee Harvey Oswald -- all these accounts take on a sharper focus using your Memoirs.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited April 14, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Ernie Lazar]

On 11/29/1963 Wes.G. Grapp was issuing directives to "all FBI Los Angeles agents".

Harry, once your request for your FBI records is fulfilled, you'll be able to demonstrate your claims in concrete terms -- with supporting documentation.

Then you'll be able to put to rest the 48 years of disinformation continually spread about your Memoirs -- even in this very Forum; and even on the Spartacus web site, which is a sister-site of this Forum.

The coming FBI torrent of records won't be easy -- and it's going to take a lot of time and effort -- but I'm on your side in this.

Your Memoirs bring many aspects of the JFK murder into harmony and focus: Wesley Grapp; Ex-General Walker; Silvia Odio; Loran Hall; Larry Howard; Quarito; the John Birch Society; attorney Robert Morris; Lester Logue; Carlos Bringuier; Ed Butler; Interpen; La Sambra; DACA; Alpha 66; Lee Harvey Oswald -- all these accounts take on a sharper focus using your Memoirs.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Dream on Paul.

Actually, one of the significant aspects about the serials in Harry's Los Angeles FBI file (starting in March 1964 when Wesley Grapp became SAC Los Angeles) is that Grapp never wrote a single comment on any internal or any outgoing communication about Harry (or about any other matter discussed in Harry's Los Angeles file serials).

Many of the outgoing memos to other offices or to HQ which are shown as being sent by "SAC Los Angeles" have author/typist codes on file copies which reflect that "WJM" (Special Agent William J. McCauley) was the author of the comments made.

Also, it is now very clear that Special Agents McCauley and Ferd J. Rapp Jr. were the primary Los Angeles Special Agents who initiated or reviewed all contacts which Harry had with the Los Angeles field office. Grapp was never involved.

Edited April 14, 2014 by Ernie Lazar

[Ernie Lazar]

UPDATE:

This morning I started scanning and copying important Los Angeles FBI file serials into my new webpage on Harry. So far, I have copied all of Harry's letters to Los Angeles through April 1, 1965.

See: https://sites.google.com/site/xrt013/harrydean