Harry Dean: Memoirs

[Terry Adams]

Bill and Paul T. I was going to comment, as you have, on the fact that the FBI acted on a 'clearance request', which by the way, was to Hoover himself. I suppose the Bureau had nothing better to do than go after a guy who was just a 'gadfly' and tell him that he will not be 'cleared' because there was nothing to clear him of anyway since he wasn't even an informant.........lol.

By the way, I believe Mr. Harry dean and consider him to be one of the lasting remaining direct connections to the assassination.

[Paul Brancato]

Paul T - your analysis of the FBI rap sheet seems logical - that it was a smear job by the FBI trying to distance itself from Dean. But I would like to hear it from Dean himself. Is his real name Gordon Hunt? Are any of the charges in the rap sheet true? Its not a make or break case for me if Dean had trouble with the law or went Awol or was committed to an institution for a time. But it does go to Dean's credibility as a witness to history if he lies about his past.

[Paul Trejo]

Paul T - your analysis of the FBI rap sheet seems logical - that it was a smear job by the FBI trying to distance itself from Dean. But I would like to hear it from Dean himself. Is his real name Gordon Hunt? Are any of the charges in the rap sheet true? Its not a make or break case for me if Dean had trouble with the law or went Awol or was committed to an institution for a time. But it does go to Dean's credibility as a witness to history if he lies about his past.

Paul B., I'm grateful that Harry Dean does respond to our many questions as he's able -- yet let's please distance ourselves from an attitude of interrogation.

If (and only if) Harry Dean withheld personal points about his past -- this shouldn't be construed as "lying" about his past. If certain private facts are not relevant to the JFK assassination, why should anyone bring them up?

I believe there are more readers out there who are willing to give Harry Dean the benefit of a doubt, or willing to suspect that the FBI would go to any lengths to protect J. Edgar Hoover's claims about the JFK assassination.

Let's let the evidence speak for itself, and also politely ask Harry for his confirmation or denial.

Harry is reading all these posts -- he still contributes here -- this is still his thread -- and I'm disappointed if anybody remains insensitive to John Simkin's latest directive that all Forum members refrain from calling any contributor a xxxx, or implying that.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited November 8, 2013 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

Bill and Paul T. I was going to comment, as you have, on the fact that the FBI acted on a 'clearance request', which by the way, was to Hoover himself. I suppose the Bureau had nothing better to do than go after a guy who was just a 'gadfly' and tell him that he will not be 'cleared' because there was nothing to clear him of anyway since he wasn't even an informant.........lol.

By the way, I believe Mr. Harry dean and consider him to be one of the lasting remaining direct connections to the assassination.

Terry, thanks for the confirmation. The logical contradiction of these many FBI memos on Harry Dean is self-evident to me as well.

I regard this thread as one of the most useful in JFK research today, because it directly points to the ground-crew of a JFK assassination conspiracy, beginning with a hero of WW2 and the Korean War, the only US General to resign in the 20th century, and a gadfly to JFK starting in 1961, explosive in late 1962 and vengeful throughout 1963, General Edwin A. Walker.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited November 8, 2013 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Brancato]

Paul T - I hope you and Dean dod not find my post distasteful. As you both know I read your book, and am participating here in good faith.

[Paul Trejo]

Paul T - I hope you and Dean dod not find my post distasteful. As you both know I read your book, and am participating here in good faith.

Your post didn't offend me, Paul B., although I did worry a bit about Harry Dean. It's his past, after all.

I also find that you're here in good faith -- and these questions are not easy, and are particularly frustrating since many of these questions are fifty years old -- a very long time for a question.

Yet my point is that Harry Dean is not to blame for the distortions made in his name, either by W.R. Morris or by J. Edgar Hoover and his posse.

When I met Harry Dean last year, I met a mild-mannered, good-humored working gentleman with proper manners, good grammar and a way with words. Harry is lucid, sharp as a tack, and is still eager to tell his account about what he saw in the final half of 1963.

It is Harry's misfortune that his truth was 180 degrees opposed to that of J. Edgar Hoover. I'm reminded here of Silvia Odio, whose account I also believe. She was simply declared to be a mental case by the FBI, and that was the end of her testimony to the Warren Commission.

Yet Silvia Odio's story not only involves Lee Harvey Oswald, it also involves Loran Hall, Larry Howard, and even General Edwin Walker along with Cuban Exile anti-Castro attack groups of which she was a member.

There are a number of parallels between Silvia Odio and Harry Dean -- and they interacted at approximately the same level with the principals, as I see it.

Keep asking your questions, Paul B., perhaps with a little more patience, and Harry Dean will very likely tell you everything he knows.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited November 8, 2013 by Paul Trejo

[Harry J.Dean]

What was, was

What is, is

If any become informants for the F B I

And tell later the facts, such as did I

They'll suffer silence or half-truth lies

National Security supersedes all things

To be involved one feels endless stings

When abused life and facts lie buried

By words or silence we'll always be harried.

Harry

[Paul Trejo]

<snip>

3. When you refer to Oswald's FBI number, please be specific. Are you referring to an "informant" code? If so, what was it according to the Dallas District Attorney? And how did he supposedly learn about it?

Ernie, according to my notes, Dallas DA Henry Wade claimed in January, 1964, that Lee Harvey Oswald had FBI informant number S179. Wade also claimed that Oswald was being paid $200 monthly for providing information to the FBI.

The sources I've read suggest that Henry Wade's sources were undisclosed. However, Wade was accompanied by Texas Attorney General Waggoner Carr, and together they brought this to the attention of the Warren Commission in early January, 1964, just as the Warren Commission was setting up its coffee machines, so to speak.

It then became necessary for J. Edgar Hoover to send a sworn affidavit to the Warren Commission flatly denying the truth of these allegations, and affirming that the FBI had no such interaction with Lee Harvey Oswald whatsoever. This affidavit is now a part of the Warren Commission volumes.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited November 9, 2013 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Brancato]

Ernie seems to have moved on.

[Paul Trejo]

Ernie seems to have moved on.

No, I think Ernie was having PC issues the past few days. His input is valuable here, and I'm fairly sure he knows that. The FBI documents that he's produced regarding Harry Dean last week are a sea change on this thread -- if only we'd had these documents in past years.

Yes, they're controversial, but that's why we're all here -- to hash things out.

All best,

--Paul Trejo

[Ernie Lazar]

TO EVERYONE:

Sorry for the delay in responding to the various comments here after my last message. I've been having some major PC problems which, hopefully, are now resolved.

I will attempt to address many the questions, issues, and concerns raised -- in this one message, but in no particular order. This will be PART ONE of a TWO-PART REPLY.

1. WHERE DEAN-RELATED DOCUMENTS ORIGINATED:

First of all Paul T. refers to me making an FOIA request to the FBI which produced the documents which I posted here as pdf files. That is entirely mistaken. I never previously made an FOIA request to the FBI for Harry Dean's files because, obviously, I did not have a notarized affidavit from him which would permit release of his FBI files.

HOWEVER, after Paul T. recently sent me one specific FBI document about Harry -- which contains a notation stating that the information was released in 1985 as a result of an FOIA request -- AND -- since FBI files in the 62-classification (Harry's HQ file) and the 100-classification (Harry's Chicago field file) are now subject to automatic declassification -- I did recently submit an FOIA request to see if the FBI still has these files and will release them. That process is likely to take a minimum of 6-8 months.

The documents I posted here in this thread were found on Mary Ferrell's website -- although, admittedly, the search process there can be somewhat tedious and counter-intuitive. That is why they have the caption "general edwin a. walker and jfk assassination" across the top of every page.

2. SMEAR JOB?

I think we need to have a more nuanced discussion about this.

The FBI did not just fabricate all the adverse information which readers here describe as a "smear job". First of all, the Detective Captain in the Whiting Indiana Police Department gave the FBI the information in September 1960 which he obtained from the Detroit Police Dept (re: Harry in January 1955). The Detroit PD got some of their information concerning Harry's past from the Royal Mounted Canadian Police of Canada.

Other info came from our National Personnel Records Center (St. Louis) which archives military service records of Americans. Other information on Harry's rap sheet originated from the Miami Oklahoma Police Department (May 1946), the Provost Marshal at Sheppard Field in Wichita Falls TX (May 1946), the Windsor, Ontario, Canada Police Department (March 1948), the US Army Medical Center in Washington DC (August 1949).

So unless your position is that ALL of these agencies "conspired" starting in the 1940's, to "smear" Harry Dean -- then I don't understand your objections to learning something about the background of Harry Dean.

3. HARRY's MENTAL CONDITION

In a previous message, Paul T. ridiculed the idea that Harry's mental condition should ever be questioned.

But, Paul, let us remember that you are only familiar with an 80+ year old man -- not the individual who (according to data in FBI documents) was distressed and "committed as a mental patient in Canada" in October 1948.

You also describe the evidence as "hearsay". Oh really? Did you ask Harry about it? Please define for us what you consider "hearsay".

This is critically important Paul because Grabovac got his information from the Detroit PD which, in turn, got their info from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (Ottawa Canada) -- based upon THEIR records regarding Harry. How does that become "hearsay"? It is either accurate and truthful OR it is not. What is YOUR conclusion? Was this information based upon mistaken identity, i.e. it does NOT pertain to Harry?

Please share with us what Harry says regarding whether or not he was "committed as a mental patient on October 22, 1948". Then, presumably, it won't be "hearsay".

Who among us has never experienced serious emotional or psychological problems in their lifetime? All of us confront stressful situations at some time. Perhaps about our financial circumstances, or perhaps with respect to family matters or perhaps with respect to our employment or perhaps with respect to terrible grief (such as major family disputes or loss of friends and family -- especially when unexpected or when family members die or are severely disabled.

I have no clue why Harry was "committed" in 1948 -- and I do not especially care. I only raise this matter because it is a false argument to characterize all factual information as nothing more than "a smear job" just because it presents something which might bear further analysis or consideration.

4. PAUL T. on "GORDON HUNT"

Paul -- you seem to entirely miss the point. All FBI files contains RAW information. Such information reports leads which need to be pursued and offers clues to what interviews need to be conducted (such as witnesses, neighbors, employers, financial institutions, relatives, fellow employees, public records checks, etc.) before final reports are written.

When a final report was written, the FBI report presents all the information which the FBI could verify -- AND -- it also identifies what information could not be verified or is in dispute.

THEN, the parties which might receive an FBI report (or a summary--without confidential details) (including other government agencies, county and state prosecutors, other law enforcement agencies (city, county, state). officials within the U.S. Justice Department, legislative committees (House and Senate), White House officials, etc.) make up their own minds regarding how to interpret the factal data contained in FBI memos or reports.

You are selecting one bit of raw information appearing on an FBI document and blowing it up to cosmic truth proportions -- then making ultimate final conclusions about the FBI's entire file on Harry. This artful selection of evidence by you calls into question your analytical process.

5. FBI "REACHING"??

You conclude that the FBI writer was "reaching". Oh really? Reaching for what??? Did you ask Harry about it?

Do you recall Harry's own words in his June 1961 letter to President Kennedy where he acknowledged his "outstanding debts which are many"? What does THAT refer to?

Was Detective Captain Grabovac mistaken (or "lying") when he reported that Harry "had skipped town and the Whiting PD had a warrant for his arrest on bad check charges."?? What would constitute "proof" in your scheme of things?

You then attempt to de-value Grabovac's report because he stated that, after the bad check situation, Harry was sentenced in the same year (1948) for B&E in Ontario, Canada . You ridicule the idea because it occurred in the same year, i.e. 1948 when Harry was committed as a mental patient but you don't explain your reasoning.

Is it not possible that (in Canada) a person could be "committed" to a mental institution for evaluation (for, say, 2 weeks) and then released to face the music for their pending criminal charges? You again use the term "reaching" -- but a rap sheet simply summarizes the data available from law enforcement agencies (both civilian and military). Are you again suggesting that all these different law enforcement agencies were LYING about Harry?? That, in reality, they had NO RECORDS of any kind about Harry and they just FABRICATED them from whole cloth and then cavalierly sent them to other police agencies in the U.S.?

You claim that there is no disposition shown for Harry's arrest for disturbing a religious meeting and using obscene language and you state that "We presume he was charged, and we are not told if he was convicted" -- but his rap sheet shows that he was arrested 12/5/56 and he was sentenced to 90 days. DID YOU ASK HARRY ABOUT IT?

Last point: This pertains to your comment about some FBI agent compiling a "long list REACHING to insinuate guilt".

6. RAP SHEET

Paul -- you could not be more mistaken in your interpretation. A "rap sheet" BY DEFINITION is a summary of all available information pertaining to whether or not somebody has ever been arrested by any law enforcement entity. It is equivalent to an audit -- i.e. it merely reports the data available. The recipient interprets it. It normally shows the arresting agency or agency which reported information, the charges made (if any), and the disposition of those charges (such as "charges dismissed",or "not guilty" or the specific sentence and time served and where person served time, or whether person was placed on probation or released, or whether or not the charges were still "pending" at the time when the rap sheet was produced, or whether the charges were "withdrawn", etc.

You have WRONGLY concluded that a rap sheet is somehow compiled by a SINGLE person in a SINGLE law enforcement agency when, in reality, it is the product of reports by MULTIPLE agencies or entities over a long period of time.

In some ways it is similar to a credit report because just as credit reports are based upon submissions from numerous different creditors over long periods of time, every law enforcement agency in our country and elsewhere also would contribute data which appears in their records about whomever is the subject of an inquiry.

INSINUATION? There is no "insinuation" of anything anymore than a credit report "insinuates" something. If you pay your bills on time and in full, your creditors report that every month. If you skip a payment or make a partial payment, they report that too. if you pursue bankruptcy -- that information is on your credit report. Any change to your address, phone number, credit lines, or credit terms are all reported by your creditors. They do not "insinuate" anything.

DITTO for "rap sheets". It is nothing more than a LIST of a person's contacts with law enforcement agencies and the subsequent developments, if any (such as court proceedings and subsequent dispositions).

7. HARRY'S CALL TO CHICAGO FBI

You attempt to make something out of the fact that Harry initially called the Chicago office but chose not to divulge his address and the FBI recorded that fact. YOU are "REACHING". This is what honest reporters do...i.e. they accurately summarize contacts made starting with contact #1. So, now, you are complaining about standard procedure -- i.e. reporting factually about how someone came to the attention of an agency. SHAME ON YOU!

8. AWOL AS A SIGN OF HARDENED CRIMINAL?

Your comment asks whether being AWOL is an act of a "hardened criminal"? This is totally irrelevant and a STRAW MAN argument.

The point of the rap sheet is merely to summarize data available. After I read this comment by YOU, I got to thinking about how law enforcement records would be different if YOU were put in charge of compiling them. Nobody would ever know ANY history -- because your delicate sensibilities would be offended if you found something potentially adverse -- so you would just delete it!

Now we know something about the criteria you use for reporting what you CLAIM to be accurate and truthful information. You want to edit out ANYTHING which bothers you or which is inconvenient to the story you want readers to believe--instead of acknowledging its existence and then interpreting it. SHAME ON YOU!

9. GEORGE ROBERT BAKER

Then you make a BIG DEAL out of the listing which refers to "George Robert Baker" who enlisted 3/8/48 in Dearborn MI and you state with categorical certainty "This is an entirely different person. So much for the perfection of FBI records."

This is actually an indisputable example of YOUR BIAS and IGNORANCE.

(1) First of all, as previously mentioned, a rap sheet reports ALL available information

(2) Second, keep in mind that there was a question re: whether or not Harry was using aliases. [i note for the record that in your private emails to me, you stated that you did not even know if Harry joined the Birch Society under his real name!]

(3) Third, notice that the army serial number on Baker is different from the serial number of Harry Jay Dean. So...ANY professional law enforcement person would realize that there would be a need to investigate the matter further if that data was significant to their current investigation.

(4) Fourth, notice that there is NO CHARGE connected with Baker. In other words, this was put into the rap sheet simply for informational purposes because it MIGHT (emphasis on MIGHT) be significant if there was a need for further investigation.

The reason this information was INCLUDED on Harry's rap sheet is obvious to anybody (BUT YOU). It is because this information was REPORTED by a law enforcement agency under Harry's FBI identification number, i.e. 4657880. Unlike Paul Trejo, the FBI was not in the habit of deleting information sent to the FBI on the theory that such data would NEVER be useful in the future to any law enforcement professional.

Please see my comment above regarding credit reporting agencies. I am sure you know that sometimes credit reporting agencies include information on one report which is actually on two different people --- usually because of similar names or social security numbers or other identifying data but they cannot determine if that data pertains to the same person.

Obviously, when there are data conflicts, somebody has to investigate the matter further to determine which data applies to which person. But first one must know about the existence of that data!!!

Data reported is something like AN AUDIT. An auditor does not insert his/her personal subjective OPINIONS. An auditor does not delete financial records or tax records or other information which is puzzling or subject to possible different interpretations. Instead, he/she reports all available pertinent data so that responsible parties can then investigate and interpret the available data (separating fact from fiction).

Your next comment re: Windsor Police is correct. There is no disposition shown. And the FBI clearly marked this item (along with the subsequent ones) with an asterisk (*). The asterisk signified (as stated below those entries) that "Notations indicated by * are NOT based on fingerprints in FBI files but are listed only as investigative leads as being possibly identical with subject of this record."

Contrary to YOUR FABRICATION -- the FBI did not "refuse to say" what the disposition was. It HONESTLY reported information it received and then it HONESTLY stated EXPLICITLY that this data was included "only as investigative leads".

1. Imagine that Paul Trejo was employed as an investigator with ANY law enforcement agency and he was assigned a major murder case.

2. Imagine that Paul has a hunch about possible perpetrators of this crime BUT when he pulls the rap sheets of the persons he suspects, he notices 3 or 4 items (with asterisks) signifying that they are merely INVESTIGATIVE LEADS to pursue.

3. Suppose Paul Trejo then consciously decides to TOTALLY IGNORE those "investigative leads" because they were NOT based upon "fingerprints"

If you were a murder victim's wife or son or daughter etc. wouldn't you demand that Paul Trejo be FIRED for GROSS INCOMPETENCE AND CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE?

10. AWOL CITATIONS

NEXT -- you refer to the 8/12/49 AWOL citation and you state that Harry was discharged from the Army in 1948 so how could he be AWOL in 1949?

But, somehow, you deliberately ignore what the rap sheet says. What the hell is wrong with you Paul?

(1) The charge was "pending" -- meaning that the FBI had no subsequent information reported about this matter So it is just another possible investigative lead.

Because of your extreme ignorance and bias against the FBI, you convert the "pending" notation into a criticism of the FBI -- although, again, you apparently do not realize that the FBI simply compiled the information supplied by other entities which was then sent to the FBI. [NOTE: In many FBI files I have received, you will see that field office Special Agents were instructed by HQ to contact the Clerk of a Court in order to discover the final disposition of a case. This was often done when that information was important to an ongoing or new FBI investigation.]

(2) This identification of a "Harry J. Dean" does NOT include his army serial number -- which means that the FBI could not verify that this record pertains to the same "Harry J. Dean" as the others where they had Harry's Army serial number.

Harry Dean is not an unusual name. In fact, if you perform a google search on "Harry J. Dean", you will produce 477,000 "hits" --- and 90% of them are NOT about the Harry J. Dean we are discussing.

(3) Furthermore, the data in this record originated with the Director of Security and Intelligence at the Army Medical Center in Washington -- DC -- so unless one knows more about THEIR information, no conclusion can or should be reached. Again, it is YOUR ignorance about the nature and purpose of a rap sheet that is the problem -- not the information itself.

(4) Lastly, (and this is critical and I am astonished that you did not consider this), the date you are referencing is in the column captioned "Arrested or Received".

So, obviously, the FBI might have "received" this information from a reporting agency in August 1949 but it MIGHT have referred to an incident which occurred before that date. And it could be about some OTHER Harry J Dean. Again, a rap sheet reports all available information received from reporting entities. The FBI does not edit out anything -- just because it might offend someone like you 62 years later.

In fact, given your previous comments about FBI filing practices and how the Bureau might have "modified" damaging or inconvenient documents containing references to Harry --- one has to ask you: why didn't they "modify" his rap sheet to exclude information such as you have referenced---to make it more damaging to Harry and less susceptible to critique?

I will address more points in your message in the second part of my reply --- to follow.

[Paul Brancato]

I don't have a dog in this fight, but I am interested and paying attention to the back and forth here. Ernie - can't the information in the rap sheet be an honest attempt to piece together Harry Dean's bio, and also be a smear attempt? It seems to me the only important thing is whether or not the FBI interacted with Harry, asked him to spy on FPCC and JBS, and heard his warning of a possible assassination attempt. Surely a rap sheet such as this, or even a much worse one, would not be a reason for the FBI to not use someone as an informant. But if the FBI would want to distance themselves from someone they had previously used, a rap sheet is a pretty convenient way to do so. It doesn't really matter whether everything in the rap sheet is true, or only some things, or even none.

[Larry Hancock]

Paul, I don't want to enter into this myself but things would clear up a lot with some real facts about the various classes of FBI assets including informants - I see the term informant being used very loosely here while the FBI had a very structured protocol for these things given that true informants had to be on record and usable in federal criminal prosecutions. I would recommend that everyone discussing it do some homework in a great source book, "Understanding the Files of the FBI" by Gerald Haines and David Langbart. I would also note that a great number of people provided information to the FBI at their own initiative and developed extensive files all without becoming either a potential or true informant. The FBI was very diligent at making files of what people told them.

-- Larry

[Paul Brancato]

Larry - what do you make of district attorney Wade's statement regarding Oswald having an actual informant number?

[William Kelly]

<snip>

3. When you refer to Oswald's FBI number, please be specific. Are you referring to an "informant" code? If so, what was it according to the Dallas District Attorney? And how did he supposedly learn about it?

Ernie, according to my notes, Dallas DA Henry Wade claimed in January, 1964, that Lee Harvey Oswald had FBI informant number S179. Wade also claimed that Oswald was being paid $200 monthly for providing information to the FBI.

The sources I've read suggest that Henry Wade's sources were undisclosed. However, Wade was accompanied by Texas Attorney General Waggoner Carr, and together they brought this to the attention of the Warren Commission in early January, 1964, just as the Warren Commission was setting up its coffee machines, so to speak.

It then became necessary for J. Edgar Hoover to send a sworn affidavit to the Warren Commission flatly denying the truth of these allegations, and affirming that the FBI had no such interaction with Lee Harvey Oswald whatsoever. This affidavit is now a part of the Warren Commission volumes.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

I think this story has been traced back to a trio of "journalists" - Houston Chronicle reporter Lonnie Hudkins, Hugh Aynesworth and Joe Goulden, the latter two being certified CIA assets - who wanted to float a "trial balloon" to see if it floated, and made up the number, but Wade, himself a former FBI agent who ran informants - was serious, and thought Oswald could have been used by the FBI without them having any official record of it, as he said was the case with many of the informants he ran.