Harry Dean: Memoirs

[Larry Hancock]

Again, big difference in terminology, there are several levels the FBI used to differentiate sources and several types of sources - the very lowest level is an individual who has expressed a willingness to provide information to the FBI on a given subject. In his first interview by the FBI following his return, Oswald said that he would do that if he were contacted by Russian agents. Later, in New Orleans, he voluntarily contacted the FBI and provided information on his Cuban exile contacts. Now compare that to Gerry Hemming, Hemming and most of the Inerpen guys routinely contacted the FBI and provided information on a host of things. Both Oswald and Hemming would be considered sources and have files.

Now if it appeared that either individual belonged to an organization where they could provide inside information, they would be considered a potential informant. Such sources are valuable because you may eventually take them to court if Justice believes a case has developed. So you could consider them potential informants. Now go a step further and say the FBI has a case open that it is pursuing and may want to escalate an informant to "provisional" status ...and you have Jack Ruby. Still not a full informant because guess what, full informants get paid. So Hoover can say, hey, Oswald was not an informant and be technically correct. Does that mean that Oswald was not prospective or provisional, well given that he had offered once and had actually delivered a second time, I'd say it would be reasonable to find a file on him in the New Orleans office but until or unless he is going to be used to build evidence for a case Justice is building he won't be technically made an informant.

Beyond that, most office agents were measured on how many informants they could recruit and build up through the levels to being full, legally useful informants, not just sources. I suspect that is what Wade was talking about, was Oswald a source, certainly; did he have a file, most likely in the subversive category since that would be the topic of his information. Was he technically a paid FBI informant, probably not. Of course its also important to know that many FBI persons of interest did contact the Bureau, sometimes routinely. Which makes it very difficult to determine exactly when they change their category - normally that's only possible if you get their actual file and Stu and I have done that for some true informants; doing that with their permission is easy. Doing it without is a bear, we have been working one example of that for three years. But that is the key.

-- deniablity comes in a lot of forms, Larry

Edited November 10, 2013 by Larry Hancock

[Ernie Lazar]

This is part two of a 2-part reply to Paul Trejo’s messages:

Paul characterizes the items on Harry's FBI rap sheet as the rantings of a “prejudiced FBI Agent”.

As I have already explained, this statement by Paul merely reveals his profound ignorance about the nature and purpose (and origins) of data appearing on a rap sheet – NONE of which originates from an FBI Agent (prejudiced or otherwise).

Consequently, we can totally dismiss everything Paul has written up to this point in his message because ALL of it is based upon his initial biased and totally false predicate.

Incidentally, this is typically how flawless circular arguments are born, i.e. one begins with an unproven predicate (which is often false) and then all subsequent discussion or analysis is based upon the original false predicate which, obviously, taints all the subsequent discussion.

In summary – what Paul describes as Harry’s rap sheet being “full of holes” – is simply Paul’s misunderstanding about what a rap sheet is all about and how the information comes to the FBI from outside law enforcement and other sources.

LET”S BEGIN: PAGE TWO OF RAP SHEET

1. INSANITY

Paul makes his case against the rap sheet reference to Harry’s commitment to a mental institution as being based solely upon two “weasel words”, i.e. charges withdrawn.

But once again, Paul misrepresents the information.

Notice that Paul does not tell us if he asked Harry Dean whether or not he was ever committed to a mental institution for any reason. Isn’t that significant?

“Insanity” is a legal term pertaining to a defendant's ability to determine right from wrong when a crime is committed and whether or not that person might be a risk to the community if allowed bail or release until trial.

Normally, what happens is that after a period of commitment for evaluation, THEN a determination is made whether or not someone accused of a crime is able to participate in his/her defense and whether or not they understood right vs. wrong at the time of the crime and whether or not they understood the nature of their actions when the crime was committed.

Obviously, many people are initially court-ordered to undergo a psychiatric evaluation (usually 48-72 hours) but they can be committed for longer periods if a court deems it necessary.

2. PAUL’S MYTHICAL FBI AGENT VILLAIN

And then Paul repeats his ridiculous comment about all this information about Harry’s commitment to a mental institution was based upon what some mythical “FBI Agent” thought when, instead, all of this information originated with Canadian law enforcement authorities.

Then, Paul really ramps up his mythology about Harry Dean and the FBI, when he asks us to consider “why the FBI would continue a smear campaign against Harry Dean for YEARS AND YEARS?” [His CAPS.]

Another example of Paul’s flawless circular reasoning based upon an entirely false predicate.

For one last time:

1. The information appearing in FBI memos about Harry Dean during the 1960’s, originated with other law enforcement agencies (including, as previously mentioned, Miami OK Police Department, Whiting Indiana Police Department, Detroit Police Department, the RCMP (in Canada), and the Provost Marshal at Wichita Falls TX.

2. None of the information contained in Harry’s rap sheet was put there to indicate a “hardened criminal”. It was put there simply to provide an accurate, factual summary of law enforcement contacts involving Harry J. Dean so that interested parties would have a summary of Harry’s arrest records or other contacts with law enforcement agencies---including items which were clearly marked as investigative leads because it was not known if the information was identical with the Harry J. Dean we are discussing.

Here is one description of a rap sheet which is much more useful than Paul Trejo’s hallucinations:

RAP SHEET:

A police record. The information included in a police record varies between countries and even between jurisdictions within a country. In most cases it lists all non-expunged criminal offenses and may also include traffic offenses such as speeding and drunk-driving. In some countries the record is limited to actual convictions (where the individual has pleaded guilty or been declared guilty by a qualified court) while in others it also includes arrests, charges dismissed, charges pending and even charges of which the individual has been acquitted.

3. PAUL’S “CLUE” – AND WHAT IT REVEALS ABOUT PAUL

Then Paul gives us HIS “clue” – i.e. the caption which appears at the top of many documents I posted here – which refers to “Gen. Edwin Walker and JFK assassination” – but that caption did NOT originate with the FBI. It comes from Mary Ferrell’s website and it may have originated with the House Select Committee on Assassinations since that it where Mary Ferrell got so many of her documents.

However, this is useful because it indicates how Paul Trejo JUMPS to false conclusions without performing due diligence. Instead, he rushes to make utterly false assumptions and statements. It illustrates, in other words, how PAUL “REACHES” for (and believes) ANYTHING if he thinks it helps advance his false predicate and his general pro-Harry Dean narrative.

4. FBI “TELLING HARRY TO GET LOST”

Paul tries to make an issue out of the fact that the FBI recorded info in its memos which Harry gave them – so that MUST mean that there is something suspect about the FBI memo comment which declares that the FBI told Harry in June 1961 that “his assistance is not desired”.

Once again, Paul begins with a false predicate and then uses that false predicate to build another circular argument. ANYBODY who contacted the FBI to report ANYTHING – would have their contacts memorialized in some form. For the general public, the data would be summarized on an FD-71 (previously discussed). For actual FBI informants, there was a different form used to record their reports (whether written or oral).

In 1961, the FBI would certainly have welcomed reliable information from any source about FPCC or about Cuban exiles operating inside the U.S. That is different from saying, however, that the FBI “requested” that someone continue to provide them with information OR that the FBI asked somebody to perform some service for the FBI in an undercover capacity.

5. FBI FUSS ABOUT JOE PYNE (OR ANY OTHER PUBLIC APPEARANCE)

A fiction writer has a major advantage over a non-fiction author. A fiction writer can simply imagine or invent his villains and heroes and then put dialogue into their mouths and motives into their hearts – while consciously moving the narrative along the lines which the author intended from the beginning of his story.

By contrast, a non-fiction writer is constrained by having to discover and verify FACTUAL evidence to support whatever narrative he/she wishes to write.

Paul tells us that the FBI created a fuss about Harry’s appearance on Joe Pyne’s TV program. But that is not true. In reality, the FBI never even became involved UNTIL the Program Director of the Joe Pyne show contacted the Los Angeles field office of the FBI to ask if Harry was correctly representing himself as an FBI “undercover agent”. (Harry’s self-description].

A local FBI SAC would normally contact HQ about such a matter because, obviously, a field office in Los Angeles could not know if somebody like Harry was telling the truth about his alleged relationship with the FBI in Chicago or elsewhere.

In addition, the Los Angeles field office could not know if Harry’s speaking engagements or interviews on TV or radio were already known to FBI HQ (and perhaps even authorized and assisted – as was the case with many other legitimate FBI informants when they decided to surface and acknowledge their FBI activities.

EXAMPLE: When Julia Brown told Los Angeles field (in 1961) that she wanted to write a book about her FBI experience AND she wanted to publish articles in various magazines), then FBI-Los Angeles contacted HQ and Cleveland field (Julia’s previous home) to request information. As a result, the FBI assisted Julia (who never completed high school) with publicity --- in fact, they gave Julia a contact name at Ebony magazine and they helped arrange for her interview by Ebony).

BY CONTRAST: When somebody falsely claimed to be associated with the FBI (or other internal security agencies) AND those folks were mis-representing their status or they were disseminating FALSE information – then the Bureau felt it had a responsibility to alert editors or producers at newspapers, magazines, TV/radio programs about the fact that such persons were NOT “agents” or “undercover operatives” or “informants” … OR if they had been FBI confidential sources or informants, then the Bureau made it clear that their personal opinions were their own – and did not represent the FBI.

I have obtained FBI informant files which reveal that their informant NEVER reported ANY information of the type which they subsequently used in their post-FBI appearances and books and speeches. This was true about Julia Brown (mentioned above). But Julia’s annual income was never higher than when she became a paid speaker for the John Birch Society—so this could easily explain why she changed her statements to make them conform to JBS ideology.

This is also true about other FBI informants who sought to capitalize upon their association with the FBI. For some of them – it was not a matter of income – it was a matter of wanting the spotlight – i.e. of being treated as special or as uniquely knowledgeable – because of “expertise” they acquired during their informant period. BUT an informant supplies RAW information – which has to be evaluated, weighed for importance or significance and then compared to OTHER information being received from other sources.

So, in conclusion, the FBI never (as Paul claims), “put up quite a fuss” about Harry Dean’s appearance on Joe Pyne’s show. It simply answered questions about his background so that the station could decide for themselves if they wanted Harry to appear. [incidentally, a life-long racist and anti-semite (Eustace Mullins) ALSO appeared on Joe Pyne’s show – even AFTER the FBI told Pyne in 1968 that Mullins was an unsavory and disreputable character.

One internal FBI memo described Mullins as having a “deranged and vicious mind”. Hoover hand-wrote the following comment on a summary memo discussing the matter: I don’t understand why Pyne gives exposure to such jackals.”

6. PAUL ON “UNDERCOVER AGENT”

Paul – suppose you own a major business which is widely regarded as among the best in your community and you have spent many years building your deserved reputation.

Suppose you decide to fire one of your employees for sub-standard performance or for repeated instances of not showing up for work.

Suppose, later, you discover that this former employee goes around town declaring that he was Vice-President of YOUR company and that he was responsible for all sorts of very important business matters…BUT IN REALITY, this former employee did nothing more than answer phones and file documents into filing cabinets and do various odd jobs for you (and was paid accordingly). Wouldn’t YOU be pissed off that somebody was using your good name and reputation in the community to advance himself? Wouldn’t you be concerned that a prospective employer might believe your former employee?

Your dismissal of the significance of using “undercover agent” or similar terms is probably because (unlike myself) you have never reviewed FBI files on its informants – some of whom decided to capitalize upon their FBI experience to claim expertise which they never had or which was limited in time, place, scope, and duration.

I previously cited one example (in another context). Edgar Bundy (Church League of America) claimed he worked in “Air Force Intelligence” and he used that description in every biographical statement about himself to enhance his credentials and hopefully convince people to BELIEVE what he asserted AND buy copies of his publications or attend his speeches etc. IN REALITY, he worked in “weather intelligence” – and even that was for a relatively brief period of time. The Air Force asked him to stop claiming that he worked in “intelligence” because people wrongly believed that Edgar Bundy had access to classified information which informed all of his public statements. Another example pertains to an actual FBI Special Agent i.e. Cleon Skousen. Most of his assignments while he served in the FBI were administrative or public relations or they pertained to his training at police schools in matters such as juvenile delinquency. Despite this, many Skousen admirers believe that he was an “administrative assistant” to J. Edgar Hoover and was uniquely qualified to discuss internal-security-related matters!

There is a standard FBI checklist which Agents used when they considered using a legitimate informant. At first, all such people were probationary until the Bureau could evaluate their reliability.

On that checklist were about 25 different things which Agents were supposed to do or advise the informant about.

The FIRST thing they had to do was complete a background investigation on the prospective informant (education, military service, marital history, family history, employers, credit report, political affiliations, etc.)

Then, Agents were required to advise their probationary informant that they were NOT FBI employees (or “Agents”) – even if they were compensated for expenses or services. In addition, there was a confidentiality (non-disclosure) affidavit which informants had to sign and have notarized. They were also told that they could not continue if they had criminal offenses or did not file tax returns etc.

So my questions to PAUL are:

WHY IS IT that only a handful of actual FBI informants (or confidential sources) ever had any problem AFTER they terminated their relationship with the Bureau?

Why is it that so FEW of them used the term “undercover agent” or similar terms? Why is it that ONLY people like Harry Dean – who CLAIM to have been an FBI informant or confidential information source have had controversies develop concerning their relationship with the FBI?

7. DID FBI “DOCTOR” HARRY’S NOVEMBER 1963 LETTER??

In your message addressed to Harry, you declare that “after the first two lines” of the letter which Bill Kelley referenced (with redactions), “there is a diversion that never returns to a similarity” with the content I posted here from a March 6, 1964 FBI memo which quoted the first paragraph of Harry’s letter. I must not be looking at the same documents as you are?

First of all, the single most important FACT is that Harry acknowledged IN WRITING in BOTH his November 19, 1963 letter to J. Edgar Hoover and (previously) in his June 28, 1961 letter to JFK, that the FBI in Chicago told him that his assistance was not required.

Also – the internal logic makes absolute perfect sense. See my chronology which I posted in a previous message. Briefly, here is what happened (and this was standard Bureau procedure).

1. In August 1960 Harry telephones the FBI field office in Chicago – on his own accord. [For some reason, in his November 1963 letter to Hoover, Harry claims that he began his relationship with Chicago FBI on July 22, 1960 not in August. One wonders why he was so specific about that July date?]

2. Harry never was “asked” by the FBI to contact them. [incidentally, there is a document somewhere which I don’t have in front of me right now where Harry claims that he joined the FPCC in order to give information to the FBI – but that contradicts what he has written previously. But let’s ignore than for now.]

3. The FBI in Chicago writes down the information which Harry provided to them on an unsolicited basis.

4. Harry states that he would be amenable to being interviewed by FBI agents.

5. As is normal Bureau procedure, they start a background investigation on Harry to learn who he is.

6. As a result of contacts from the Whiting Indiana Police Department in September 1960, the FBI receives its first derogatory information about Harry’s background. [Harry had been living and self-employed in Whiting IN at the time].

7. Harry contacts FBI-Chicago several more times by phone and gives them more info on Cuban nationals involved with the J25M and persons involved with FPCC.

8. Meanwhile, the FBI concludes that Harry is not the type of person who could be considered as an FBI informant because of his background --- which Harry specifically acknowledged in his letter to JFK, i.e. “my past difficulties with the law” and his “outstanding debts which are many”.

9. This is PRECISELY the type of adverse background information which normally would preclude the FBI from wanting to associate itself with someone like Harry. But then add to that --- the information which the Bureau received concerning the possibility that Harry had been a mental patient in Canada – and that would obviously have sealed Harry’s fate.

In both my private emails to you, and here on EF, I stated that there was a THIRD option to the two which you originally gave me as explanations for why the FBI claimed no relationship with Harry.

As is customary for people like yourself who are quick to became apologists for one particular set of conclusions, you declared that there were only TWO possible explanations for any discrepancies between Harry’s story and what appears in FBI documentary evidence:

(1) Harry Dean is telling the truth; or (2) Harry Dean is lying

I suggested a third possibility --- which, as it turns out, after seeing the documents which I found on Mary Ferrell’s website now seems to be an even more compelling explanation than when I first proposed this third possibility:

It is possible that Harry went to his local FBI office (or called them or sent them a letter or some combo of all three) to report something which he thought was significant info that the Bureau would be interested in receiving.

THEN, after that original "contact" it is possible that the FBI contacted Harry to get more details from him. In fact, it is even possible that that the FBI contacted Harry two or three times for those details. [There is nothing unusual or extraordinary about what I just described---it was standard FBI procedure).

HOWEVER -- Harry might have (in his mind) conflated and then exaggerated all these "contacts" with the FBI -- and converted himself into becoming an "FBI informant" -- because, after all, he provided information "as requested" by the FBI, i.e. he answered questions they posed to him as a result of his original unsolicited "contact"

[Ernie Lazar]

Harry - could you fill in any details on what you wrote?

Yes, Harry, could you fill in the redactions for us so we know what type of info they don't want us to read?

I'd like to know why, if Harry's letters were unsolicited, why they would be redacted at all?

And i'm really surprised that J. E. Hoover and other high government officials would even bother to write up documents about Harry if he had no relationship with them at all.

I know how the FBI dealt with one of John O'Neil's undercover informants - who infiltrated an animal rights group - and how he kept things compartmentalized and didn't write up any official reports for the files - that I can find.

And then there's Henry Wade, the Dallas DA who had been an FBI agent who ran informants in Mexico and said that he knew how the FBI handled informants when he worked for them, how they were contacted, how they were controlled, how they were paid, and how there were virtually no records kept of their work.

So if Harry recognized that Oswald had a similar relationship to the government as he did - while in the Chicago FPCC, then why are we surprised that the top echelon of FBI deny any relationship with Harry or Oswald?

BK

Bill:

Redactions on FBI documents are based upon FOIA exemptions -- most of which relate to personal privacy (especially if someone is still alive) or information which could jeopardize on ongoing law enforcement investigation or a source who provided information to the FBI with the expectation that it would be kept confidential (such as an employer, or a foreign government, etc).

With respect to this comment by you:

"And i'm really surprised that J. E. Hoover and other high government officials would even bother to write up documents about Harry if he had no relationship with them at all."

You obviously are not familiar with FBI files. Often, one file contains THOUSANDS of incoming letters and complaints about some person or organization or publication. Standard Bureau procedure was to determine what sort of reply should be made -- particularly if lots of people ask the same question. The most obvious example concerns those former FBI informants (such as Matt Cvetic or Julia Brown) or FBI Special Agents (such as Cleon Skousen and Dan Smoot) who were circulating FALSE information not only about themselves but about internal security matters which, in some cases, they had NO knowledge about.

With respect to this comment by you:

And then there's Henry Wade, the Dallas DA who had been an FBI agent who ran informants in Mexico and said that he knew how the FBI handled informants when he worked for them, how they were contacted, how they were controlled, how they were paid, and how there were virtually no records kept of their work.

That is absurd. The FBI kept meticulous and voluminous records about all of its informants. In fact, just look at ANY investigative file and you will see numerous references on the "administrative page" to the identities of whichever informants were used for information appearing in the FBI memo or report. Normally, in the report being sent outside the FBI, the informant was identified with a code such as T-1 or T-2. AND such codes did not always refer to a human being. It could have been ELSUR (electronic surveillance) or wiretap or some other technical means (including mail covers and collecting garbage from a targeted source). In other cases, the T-number referred to other law enforcement agencies (such as contacts with a Police Chief or the intelligence division of a Police Dept -- such as New York City's "Bureau of Special Services") or the T-number referred to a neighbor, or employer, or credit reporting agency, or a clerk of a court which reported info about civil actions, etc.)

With respect to this comment by you:

"So if Harry recognized that Oswald had a similar relationship to the government as he did - while in the Chicago FPCC, then why are we surprised that the top echelon of FBI deny any relationship with Harry or Oswald?"

Because the FBI never bothered to deny its relationship with HUNDREDS of other informants -- particularly when they surfaced and publicly acknowledged their relationship. Furthermore, there are so many different methods by which one can research who provided information to the FBI -- IF the Bureau was actually using an informant. In fact, every field office (and HQ) kept a specific Informant Index (containing both active and inactive informants).

Furthermore, the most secretive informants or moles we ever had in our country are now known (the Childs brothers) as well as details about the single most important counterintelligence operation ever conducted by our government (Operation SOLO). So why would some small fry like Harry Dean deserve such special consideration if he was actually a low-level informant who only reported speculation about various people and organizations?

[Ernie Lazar]

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.

There is no such thing as an "FBI clearance". All the FBI did was provide a copy of a finished investigative report to the agency which requested it. Then THAT agency decided what to do about any adverse information appearing in the FBI investigative report. In MANY cases, agencies decided that derogatory information contained in an FBI report was not significant or was disputed and, consequently, that agency issued their own "clearance" in the sense that they decided to employ the person who was investigated despite whatever derogatory information was contained in the FBI background report.

[Ernie Lazar]

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. --- you are entirely wrong --- see my separate lengthy reply to Paul Trejo. Rap sheets were not created by the FBI in the sense that the FBI decided what information to include on them. Rap sheets are compilations of reports made by outside independent law enforcement entities. Usually, they reported to the FBI whatever arrest records they had (and dispositions of cases) . You are blaming the FBI for information which the Bureau received from other law enforcement agencies -- so why attack the FBI as presenting "a smear job"? That makes no sense whatsoever -- particularly when you consider that ALL rap sheets are based upon the behavior of the person who is the subject of the rap sheet!

There is no "logic" to Paul Trejo's analysis of Harry's rap sheet -- see my comments in reply to him. There is only Paul's apologia for Harry Dean.

[Ernie Lazar]

<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

Paul -- I need one further point of clarification. Was Oswald supposedly given that informant number while he was living in Dallas?

[Ernie Lazar]

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.

Paul -- I really don't understand your point. How can a factual summary of police reports to the FBI be "a smear job"?

Or let me put it differently: WHAT data do you want law enforcement agencies to TOTALLY OMIT from rap sheets so that there is no question that they are never "smear jobs"?

A rap sheet is NOT time-limited. In other words, if you are contacted by somebody in year 1960 and you want to perform an investigation on that person in order to determine their background so you can make an informed judgment re: their credibility/reliability -- you do not order a rap sheet for just the year 1960, or just for 1959-1960. You get the ENTIRE rap sheet.

Suppose (using this hypothetical example), somebody was convicted of perjury in 1957 but your rap sheet only reported information for year 1960. Would you be willing to excuse a police department or government agency for using a perjurer as an informant just because they told you that they never bothered to obtain any rap sheet info prior to year 1960?

[Paul Brancato]

Ernie - Your responses to Trejo have become a bit too aggressive for my taste, and seem more like attacks than anything else.

I asked if you had an opinion on the JFK assassination as to what happened that fateful day, and you ducked that question by saying you really hadn't given it much thought, or something like that. This is a forum for researchers and other interested parties on just that - what happened on Dealey plaza. You describe yourself as a researcher on conspiracy theories pertaining to the right. At this point I would like to know a bit more about where you stand generally. Your self description could mean anything, but what it appears to mean is that you are a debunker of conspiracy theories aimed at right wing forces. If that is the case, you could confirm it. Its hard to have discussions with people when you don't know where they are coming from. You keep calling Trejo biased. I wouldn't argue that point - his mind appears to be pretty much made up as to his theories. But at least I know what they are. Won't you consider elaborating a bit on your own research? Do you think organizations like the JBS, the Mormon Church, or intelligence agencies like the FBI are valid places to look for conspiracy? Do you think the FBI, or the CIA, are beyond covering their tracks by skewing their files, or hiding them? Are they only trying legitimately to protect methods and sources, and never to cover their own misdeeds?

[Ernie Lazar]

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

Larry -- you are partially correct.

1. First -- the FBI used many different sources of information (human and technical) which they then included in their reports.

2. You are totally correct -- all field offices were required to follow very strict protocols regarding use of information sources -- including official informants. Those protocols were spelled out in the Bureau's "Manual of Instructions" (now known by a different name).

3. Every field office had to receive authorization from FBI HQ in Washington for anybody they wanted to use as an informant. THEN, that person was put on probationary status.

See the first document on my webpage on Delmar Dennis at link below. Delmar Dennis became an FBI informant on November 9, 1964.

https://sites.google.com/site/ernie124102/dennis

Notice the "Subject' line which states:

DELMAR DENNIS

RI (PROB)

"RI" stands for "Racial Informant"

"PROB" is "Probationary"

During the probationary period, field offices submitted reports to HQ (usually quarterly) to summarize what information was received from each informant. In addition, the field office estimated the degree of reliability of that information in percentage terms so that HQ could decide if it was advisable to continue using that person AND whether or not (if the field office requested it) to pay the informant for services and expenses incurred.

Check out the other pages on my Delmar Dennis webpage to see the standard format used by field offices to request authorization to use an informant or pay them for services/expenses.

Once an informant established their reliability, FBI reports or memos would use terminology like this: "Delmar Dennis,an informant who is known to have provided reliable information" ...

3. However, you are mistaken in your comment that "true informants had to be on record and usable in federal criminal prosecutions".

Informants were assigned a symbol (a code to hide their identity). If their FBI symbol contained an asterisk after their number (such as CG-5824-S*) that meant they could NEVER be publicly identified AND they were NOT available for ANY court proceedings. This was limited to those informants who were so critically important to our intelligence gathering that it was not worth losing them just for prosecution purposes in court.

The informant number example I used above is an ACTUAL informant -- i.e. Morris Childs -- who was our most important mole inside the Communist Party. Both he and his brother (Jack) were NEVER to be publicly identified or used in court. There are MANY more comparable examples.

4. You are also totally correct about FBI diligence. In fact, I will take it a step further. The Bureau was FANATICAL about keeping detailed records of EVERYTHING.

Nobody will ever be able to know everything important about the FBI during the Hoover years. There are MILLIONS UPON MILLIONS of pages of documents. Last year I stumbled across a FBI file number which nobody even knew about and what I found shocked many of our nation's most prominent scholars, historians, political scientists. Many of them contacted me to ask questions because this was something never previously known.

There is an FBI HQ file which was begun in year 1922 and it contains over 745,000 pages. It is captioned "FBI Security Informant Program". I will be posting online several sections of this file (starting with year 1950) sometime in early 2014 when I receive the first 2 or 3 interim releases from the FBI. There is also a sub-file of this main file which is yet another 240,000 pages -- which contains instructions to field offices re: FBI policies and procedures for handling informants along with statistical reports.

[Ernie Lazar]

Again, big difference in terminology, there are several levels the FBI used to differentiate sources and several types of sources - the very lowest level is an individual who has expressed a willingness to provide information to the FBI on a given subject. In his first interview by the FBI following his return, Oswald said that he would do that if he were contacted by Russian agents. Later, in New Orleans, he voluntarily contacted the FBI and provided information on his Cuban exile contacts. Now compare that to Gerry Hemming, Hemming and most of the Inerpen guys routinely contacted the FBI and provided information on a host of things. Both Oswald and Hemming would be considered sources and have files.

Now if it appeared that either individual belonged to an organization where they could provide inside information, they would be considered a potential informant. Such sources are valuable because you may eventually take them to court if Justice believes a case has developed. So you could consider them potential informants. Now go a step further and say the FBI has a case open that it is pursuing and may want to escalate an informant to "provisional" status ...and you have Jack Ruby. Still not a full informant because guess what, full informants get paid. So Hoover can say, hey, Oswald was not an informant and be technically correct. Does that mean that Oswald was not prospective or provisional, well given that he had offered once and had actually delivered a second time, I'd say it would be reasonable to find a file on him in the New Orleans office but until or unless he is going to be used to build evidence for a case Justice is building he won't be technically made an informant.

Beyond that, most office agents were measured on how many informants they could recruit and build up through the levels to being full, legally useful informants, not just sources. I suspect that is what Wade was talking about, was Oswald a source, certainly; did he have a file, most likely in the subversive category since that would be the topic of his information. Was he technically a paid FBI informant, probably not. Of course its also important to know that many FBI persons of interest did contact the Bureau, sometimes routinely. Which makes it very difficult to determine exactly when they change their category - normally that's only possible if you get their actual file and Stu and I have done that for some true informants; doing that with their permission is easy. Doing it without is a bear, we have been working one example of that for three years. But that is the key.

-- deniablity comes in a lot of forms, Larry

In case this would be of any interest, this is a general description of FBI information sources OTHER THAN official informants:

Established Sources = Any source with which the FBI has developed a relationship over time. Usually refers to a confidential source rather than a paid informant.

Panel Sources = Panel sources are defined as individuals who are not involved in an investigated group but who "will attend its public gatherings on behalf of FBI for intelligence purposes or as potential witnesses." Panel sources were first developed to meet the need for witnesses in the course of Smith Act trials of Communist Party members in the1950s. In those trials, it was necessary to prove, for example, simple facts as to the existence of the Communist Party, the dates and places of public meetings held by the Party, and similar matters. To avoid surfacing regular informants within the Party to establish such facts, panel sources were developed. Panel sources are used for similar purposes today.

Office Contacts = Each field office had a contact program whereby they would establish liaison with local groups and enterprises in the community. These were mostly goodwill efforts, but did provide venues for the Bureau to talk about issues that might effect the group or its members, and to solicit help in the form of confidential sources or panel sources.

Confidential Sources = Individuals who furnish the FBI information available to them through their employment or position in the community. The FBI Manual [of Instruction, ca.1975] cites as examples of confidential sources "bankers, telephone company employees, and landlords."

The definitions for “Panel Sources” and “Confidential Sources” comes from a Church Committee staff report titled “The Use of Informants in FBI Domestic Intelligence Investigations.”

A copy of this may be found at

http://www.icdc.com/~paulwolf/cointelpro/churchfinalreportIIId.htm

[Harry J.Dean]

Thanks Ernie, I am not sure about our understanding of; "There's no such thing as bad publicity being better than no publicity"

and your efforts may, or not increase eBook sales of, HARRY DEAN'S CONFESSIONS I MIGHT HAVE KILLED JFK, located at

SMASHWORDS.COM as the still withheld positive documents of detailed meetings between the Bureau and I could see an

earlier than planned release date. How could we handle such an event? Again my thanks.

Harry

[Ernie Lazar]

Ernie - Your responses to Trejo have become a bit too aggressive for my taste, and seem more like attacks than anything else.

I asked if you had an opinion on the JFK assassination as to what happened that fateful day, and you ducked that question by saying you really hadn't given it much thought, or something like that. This is a forum for researchers and other interested parties on just that - what happened on Dealey plaza. You describe yourself as a researcher on conspiracy theories pertaining to the right. At this point I would like to know a bit more about where you stand generally. Your self description could mean anything, but what it appears to mean is that you are a debunker of conspiracy theories aimed at right wing forces. If that is the case, you could confirm it. Its hard to have discussions with people when you don't know where they are coming from. You keep calling Trejo biased. I wouldn't argue that point - his mind appears to be pretty much made up as to his theories. But at least I know what they are. Won't you consider elaborating a bit on your own research? Do you think organizations like the JBS, the Mormon Church, or intelligence agencies like the FBI are valid places to look for conspiracy? Do you think the FBI, or the CIA, are beyond covering their tracks by skewing their files, or hiding them? Are they only trying legitimately to protect methods and sources, and never to cover their own misdeeds?

Paul --- I responded honestly to your original question. I have never devoted any significant time to pursuing the various JFK assassination theories. More importantly, I know from personal experience over a period of 40+ years that people invested in a particular conspiracy theory rarely (if ever) are willing to acknowledge error.

I once wrote to somebody that I could spend my entire adult lifetime trying to disprove JUST ONE conspiracy theory to the satisfaction of its author or adherents. That is particularly true about the JFK theories. The 13 (or more) theories cannot all be true because they posit different key actors and plotters along with different motivations.

My particular interest in this matter came about because I was receiving emails from people who wanted to know what I thought about Harry Dean's contentions regarding the JBS. I never had heard of Harry Dean prior to that time. So, I attempted to discover what he was writing/saying. When I learned the specific details (at least as far as presented on this website), I knew there was a huge problem with Harry's story because I have many of the FBI files on persons and organizations whom he claims have been involved in the "conspiracy" to murder JFK and there is nothing in those files to support his "revelations".

JBS / MORMON CHURCH -- and CONSPIRACY:

I touched on this in a previous reply to Paul Trejo. Historically, various people have claimed that the Birch Society was created or controlled by (1) Jews, (2) Catholics, (3) Mormons, (4) Nelson Rockefeller and his family, (5) Freemasons (6) the Soviets as a disinformation campaign to neutralize anti-communists.

Do you really expect anybody to spend their finite time and resources to "disprove" these assertions? I actually attempted to do so on the Nelson Rockefeller theory -- which was popularized by Eustace Mullins in the 1980's but this theory was first circulated in the late 1950's by other people. I spent hours doing necessary research and falsifying, point-by-point every assertion being made as part of this theory. I even pointed out obvious factual errors which Mullins made in his Rense.com interview and in his book where he made his assertion.

So what was the end-result of spending all that time and effort? Not a single person who believed Mullins accepted anything I wrote. Instead, t(for example) a neo-nazi constructed a webpage such as this one to "refute" my evidence: http://jewonstormfront.blogspot.com/

I am not an expert about all things JFK-related. Has there EVER been an explanation for a murder of a politician which was universally accepted and which never resulted in some dissenting conspiracy theory? People STILL argue about Abraham Lincoln!!! And they will argue 100 years from now about JFK.

As I mentioned to Paul Trejo -- I will not be alive to see it -- but I guarantee you that when all JFK records are released (by 2017) -- which will add to the 5 million pages already available for researchers to analyze --- EVEN THEN, there will be a NEW conspiracy theory created if there is no confirmation of the prevailing theory being discussed in this forum, i.e. "the JBS plot".

[Larry Hancock]

Ernie, that's what I get for first recommending people actually read a source book and then overgeneralizing. Certainly their were several tiers of relationship and sources were sorted

by type of federal crimes as well as by subject - and each would have linked to a related file type. Number 89 related to killing a Federal officer, 134 related to

counter intelligence assets, 137 for racial hate groups which also seems to have covered criminal informants. Security informants and double agents were filed under both 134 and 137.

Sources on civil unrest went into 157 files.

I think it should also be noted that a true informant, rather than a source, would be someone inside an organization, group, business etc who was able to provide inside primary

information, not just secondary rumors and gossip. Primary material is much preferred for legal action.

The book I refer to contains very specific parameters soliciting and managing sources and informants including when to pay informants, how long to hold their files, how to transition them etc. As you say, not all informants were paid although my reading of the rules gave me the impression that if a criminal case was actually pending and they began taking direction they may have been. Its also true that Hoover passed

on supporting a number of civil rights prosecutions so that he would not be forced to expose informants that were felt to have ongoing use. Officially civil rights case informants

would be kept secret but in many of the courts and legal systems involved in such cases there was a risk....and to get a prosecution in such courts, putting someone like Delmar Dennis

on the record by name was very desirable for the prosecution.

[Ernie Lazar]

Ernie, that's what I get for first recommending people actually read a source book and then overgeneralizing. Certainly their were several tiers of relationship and sources were sorted

by type of federal crimes as well as by subject - and each would have linked to a related file type. Number 89 related to killing a Federal officer, 134 related to

counter intelligence assets, 137 for racial hate groups which also seems to have covered criminal informants. Security informants and double agents were filed under both 134 and 137.

Sources on civil unrest went into 157 files.

I think it should also be noted that a true informant, rather than a source, would be someone inside an organization, group, business etc who was able to provide inside primary

information, not just secondary rumors and gossip. Primary material is much preferred for legal action.

The book I refer to contains very specific parameters soliciting and managing sources and informants including when to pay informants, how long to hold their files, how to transition them etc. As you say, not all informants were paid although my reading of the rules gave me the impression that if a criminal case was actually pending and they began taking direction they may have been. Its also true that Hoover passed

on supporting a number of civil rights prosecutions so that he would not be forced to expose informants that were felt to have ongoing use. Officially civil rights case informants

would be kept secret but in many of the courts and legal systems involved in such cases there was a risk....and to get a prosecution in such courts, putting someone like Delmar Dennis

on the record by name was very desirable for the prosecution.

Larry: Are you are referring to the "Unlocking The Files of the FBI" book? if so, there really is not much information in there about how to manage sources or when to pay informants. That sort of information appeared in the 1960's in the "FBI Manual of Instructions" (now known by a different name).

It is true that the FBI was VERY cautious about surfacing informants for prosecution purposes because, in many cases, their informant was more important as a continuing information source AND there were often concerns about their physical safety. Delmar Dennis, for example, was Grand Titan of the most violent Klan in our nation's history -- which means he functioned as the administrative assistant to Imperial Wizard Samuel H. Bowers. The main reason why the FBI was able to solve the 1964 murders of the three civil rights workers in Mississippi so quickly was because they had specific leads provided by Dennis and another informant, James E. Jordan. Dennis also provided useful information used in the prosecution of Byron de la Beckwith in 1994.

Both Dennis and Jordan had to leave Mississippi after their testimony. Both had their lives threatened by KKK and someone shot buckshot into Dennis's home window. Dennis's wife divorced him. His church (which he organized) told him to leave. He resigned from the Masons after he discovered they were going to kick him out. The insurance company he was working for fired him. He went to work for the Birch Society, but they subsequently dropped him. He moved to Albuquerque NM and then to southern California. He ultimately returned to Mississippi years later but he left again for Tennessee -- and he died in 1996 at 56 years of age.

I have posted online some files of actual FBI informants. See: http://www.buildingdemocracy.us/archive/dox/fbi-admin/000%20FBI%20INFORMANTS/ I will be posting more online in early 2014 after the FBI finishes processing all my requests.

I recommend that anybody seriously interested in this topic review at least a few of these files so you can get a sense of how informants were handled by the FBI and what sorts of documentation was created about them and their reports to the FBI.

I particularly recommend (for openers) the file on George DeMerle because there are so many similarities between the background of DeMerle and that of Harry Dean---even including mental problems at one time. See especially serial dated August 15, 1967 (pages 9-10 of file section).

http://www.buildingdemocracy.us/archive/dox/fbi-admin/000%20FBI%20INFORMANTS/DeMerle,%20George%20E.-1.pdf

Edited November 10, 2013 by Ernie Lazar

[Paul Trejo]

<snip>

So my questions to PAUL are:

WHY IS IT that only a handful of actual FBI informants (or confidential sources) ever had any problem AFTER they terminated their relationship with the Bureau?

Why is it that so FEW of them used the term “undercover agent” or similar terms? Why is it that ONLY people like Harry Dean – who CLAIM to have been an FBI informant or confidential information source have had controversies develop concerning their relationship with the FBI?

<snip>

Ernie,

I'm not sure why you keep asking me to ask Harry Dean for this, that or the other -- he's right here on this thread, so you can ask him yourself. Though, since you're clearly in 'attack mode,' you shouldn't be too surprised if he doesn't leap towards your less-than-friendly requests.

Further, your continual defense of the FBI is heart-warming though naïve. You seem to imagine that the FBI has made no misdeeds in all its history. (Well, you probably also believe the biased nonsense published by Adam Fairclough claiming that MLK was a Communist.) In my opinion, the FBI sinned against the American people by hammering so hard on MLK during the Civil Rights movement, and failing to provide protection for him at the crucial hour -- probably MLK's room and phone were bugged on the night of his assassination. J. Edgar Hoover was far from perfect.

I'm one of the few around here who strive to give J. Edgar Hoover the benefit of the doubt regarding his ungodly fumble of Lee Harvey Oswald, i.e. I say Hoover's cover-up of the JFK assassination was made in the interest of National Security, and I stand by that until further information comes in. Yet I don't give the FBI a free pass. They aren't perfect, and I suspect them of smearing Harry Dean just as they smeared Silvia Odio. These folks disagreed with J. Edgar Hoover's flimsy claims about Lee Harvey Oswald, and for their troubles they were blackballed by the FBI. That's how it appears to me, and to any impartial reader, IMHO.

I'm not persuaded by your one-sided arguments and repetition, Ernie -- not because I'm biased, but because your arguments are biased. I'm open to actual facts, not to mere assertions by the high-falutin FBI. You seem to defend the FBI like a paid attorney, and yet they made too many mistakes in history, IMHO, to merit that sort of blind faith.

To make a rigorous case for my position, of course, I would need several person-years of work, and I'm only one guy. You yourself accumulated your detail after several years of effort. I'm only getting started. Yet quantity of data alone cannot make a case, Ernie. You still don't have the right data to form your conclusions.

As for your questions, I'll number them below:

(1) WHY IS IT that only a handful of actual FBI informants ever had any problem AFTER they terminated their relationship with the Bureau?

(A1) Simple -- because this handful was dealing with the JFK assassination, in which J. Edgar Hoover was personally invested. Silvia Odio is among this handful, and she suffered smears from the FBI for her entire life. Yet she also told the TRUTH.

(2) Why is it that so FEW of them used the term “undercover agent” or similar terms? Why is it that ONLY people like Harry Dean – who CLAIM to have been an FBI informant or confidential information source have had controversies develop concerning their relationship with the FBI?

(A2) Your harping on the semantics of "undercover agent" repeats the FBI harping, Ernie. We have plenty of documents from the FBI about Harry Dean to show that the FBI actually did receive information from him. Yet you focus on their smear campaign, and you don't stop hammering long enough to look around.

(3) Didn't Harry Dean acknowledge IN WRITING in BOTH his November 19, 1963 letter to J. Edgar Hoover and (previously) in his June 28, 1961 letter to JFK, that the FBI in Chicago told him that his assistance was not required?

(A3) No, Ernie, and you're not paying attention because of your bias. Harry Dean himself said on this very thread only days ago that the memo that you produced (evidently from the Mary Ferrell site) is not the same memo that he sent to J. Edgar Hoover on 11/19/63. As for the FBI redaction of that memo, the internal logic is clearly nil -- the contradictions there don't belong to Harry but to an angry FBI.

Your own chronology is merely a repeat of the FBI nonsense, yet your faith in the FBI is touching. Further, you try to make links between clauses in the FBI redaction with Harry's memo to JFK which are not warranted -- they amount to your own INVENTION.

As for your harping on the bizarre claim that Harry Dean perhaps might have received psychotherapy when he was a young man in Canada -- in this context that is clearly a political maneuver and has no relevance in the slightest to the JFK assassination.

In my humble opinion, it is ludicrous that a man who was "certified insane" and "committed" in 1948 in Canada would in 1949 be walking around, working, paying bills, planning to get married, have children and build a family life in Chicago. The FBI can be so cruel.

The FBI is clearly lying or REACHING (stretching the facts) -- and I don't need to ask Harry Dean about it. Anyway, it is an unfriendly question with no relevance to any important theme. In any case, Harry Dean is reading all these posts, and he is eminently capable of speaking for himself if he so chooses. (Yet the unfriendly and Stormtrooper aspect of this sort of interrogation is not inviting, as I've already noted.)

(4) Isn't it customary for people like yourself who are quick to became apologists for one particular set of conclusions, to see only TWO possible choices -- truth or lies? Isn't it possible that Harry Dean is neither lying or telling the truth, but living in a fantasy world?

(A4) While in principle I admit that there are never only TWO choices -- truth or lies -- in the case of Harry Dean I see no evidence -- on objective grounds -- of any fantasy life in the witness Harry has shared with the world since 1965. Errors are one thing, but a fantasy world has clear distinguishing markers. It would be obvious even to the casual observer if Harry Dean was living in a fantasy world. Clearly Harry operates on an information level lower than a professional FBI agent, but it is simply unkind to accuse him of a fantasy world.

Yet that is clearly what the FBI is doing with their smear campaign. FBI memos must now be used to confirm their smear campaign or refute it. This will take some time, and we are far, far from having enough evidence today to draw a conclusion.

It makes more sense to me that the FBI lied about Harry Dean in the past, and continues to lie about Harry Dean in the present, simply because his case is tied up with the JFK assassination, which remains an EXCEPTION to all the rules of all previous FBI procedure. We don't need to be experts in FBI procedure to know that.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited November 10, 2013 by Paul Trejo