Harry Dean: Memoirs

[Ernie Lazar]

I got distracted by a phone call when I was finishing my reply to Paul's message #656 and I forgot to include "evidence item #5" regarding the Harry "FBI agent" controversy, which is an 11/29/66 memo which quotes from an 11/26/66 United Press International article which originated in Ft. Worth TX but was published around the country which pertained to flowers which were placed on LHO's grave.

The FBI memo mentions two Los Angeles newspapers which carried the UPI report and it summarizes:

"The two papers had a statement indicating that according to Marguerite Oswald, the flowers had been sent by a former FBI Agent."

Then, there is one more piece of evidence which I will not use for our "agent" dispute because the copy is very poor and illegible in parts, but there is a comment which I found intriguing about another matter.

The document is a 3/21/67 letter from John Arvidson of Hacienda Heights CA. It is clear from the legible portion of Arvidson's letter (and from some background info about Arvidson contained in a CIA report) that Arvidson was unusually well acquainted with Harry's personal background -- including his arrest and conviction in Canada. Also Arvidson had personally spoken to Harry on more than one occasion -- probably because they had similar political viewpoints (both of them being JBS members at the time).

Among the interesting comments made by Arvidson:

1. On the day JFK was assassinated, Harry was "in a near state of hysteria" over the murder of JFK. Apparently, Harry thought he also might be assassinated!

2. Arvidson states that by early 1963, Harry was "very well known to local anti-Communist circles" and Harry spent a lot of time around anti-communist bookstores including JBS HQ in San Marino. Arvidson says that Harry wrote "several letters to my organization, American Veterans Against Communism" which were not answered.

3. Arvidson observed about Harry that because of "his pro-Communist past, he was not generally trusted in right-wing circles with the possible exception of the California Minutemen group , headed by Troy Houghton."

4. Arvidson says he visited Harry at this home in La Puente about one year after JFK's murder. Harry stated that he was a member in good standing of the MM at that time.

Edited February 19, 2014 by Ernie Lazar

[Paul Trejo]

... BUT---let's now proceed to the third piece of evidence.

#3 piece of evidence

This time, we have YET ANOTHER person who contacted the FBI to report how they interpreted Harry's comments about himself. This time it was Bob Hayward, the Executive Producer of the Joe Pyne Show. According to the 12/18/64 memo from SAC Los Angeles to Hoover, Mr. Hayward "said Dean claims he served as an 'undercover agent' for the FBI in Chicago and wants to appear on the Pyne Show to tell about his role in developing information for the Bureau in the 26th of July Movement and the FPCC."

... You STILL don't get it! It isn't "the FBI" or "Hoover" Paul. It is the people they interviewed (and in the Snyder example, HARRY HIMSELF! See previous answer.

<snip>

Well, Ernie, I won't comment on your atttempt to sell, sell, sell the FBI to the JFK research community as a specially qualified, reliable source of information Let's just talk about Harry Dean.

I responded to all of your examples of FBI agents which claimed this or that person said this or that about Harry Dean, but you don't seem to get it. So, I'll be patient and try again.

Let's take your Example #3. The FBI claims that somebody contacted them -- Bob Hayward, Executive Producer of the Joe Pyne Show, and on 18 December 1964 one of the Los Angeles FBI special agents in charge (SAC) told J. Edgar Hoover that Bob Hayward told him something incriminating about Harry Dean.

I repeat again -- please listen carefully. I will not believe this FBI agent under these circumstances. I want third party confirmation. That is, I want to see the actual letter from Bob Hayward to the effect that, "Harry Dean told me personally that he was a paid FBI agent."

That's it. That's all. Let me see that and then I'll fold my hand. That is my commitment. I won't insist that it's a forgery -- I'll keep an open mind about that aspect --- I promise to count it as a bit of legitimate evidence and not a part of the FBI spin machine -- at least until further information might become available.

Until I see the actual third-party writing, Ernie, we must consider the circumstances. This is December of 1964, and the Warren Commission is now being circulated and read by critics such as Harold Weisberg, Sylvia Meagher, Mark Lane and Jay Epstein. They are all hopping mad that the ballistics evidence does not add up, and that the Lone Gunman theory won the day.

Harry Dean was hopping mad, too, for his own reasons, and he decided to take his case to the Joe Pyne Show. Harry says he also informed the FBI that he was going to do this. According to Harry Dean (and I admit I have no proof of this, but it sounds logical to me) the FBI strongly advised Harry to stop this action. Harry tells me that he insisted he would do it anyway.

Now -- in that case, I presume (admittedly without any proof) that the FBI agent in Los Angeles would be grilled by the FBI Director, so this FBI agent would want to cover his behind. Would the SAC portray Harry Dean in the worst possible light to cover his own behind? Yes, I believe he would.

Therefore, nothing that this Los Angeles FBI agent tells J. Edgar Hoover in December 1964 about Harry Dean can be reliable, in my humble opinion, because he is on the spot for failing to control one of the people under his watch.

It doesn't matter to common sense that I know nobody in the FBI -- the scenario I portray here is simply common sense -- it's what any officer in any office would do, when put on the spot before the Company Director. It's just common sense.

So -- you say, Ernie -- that "it's the people they interview." I happen to agree with that. So, in this example, the person they interviewed was KTTV Executive Bob Hayward. Let me see a written document by Bob Hayward which was sent to the Los Angeles FBI which says in writing what this FBI agent told J. Edgar Hoover. (We know the FBI has many such third party documents in other cases -- we've seen some.)

Then I'll fold my hand on this thread (until more information is available). Otherwise, it's only FBI hear-say --most likely made up by one FBI agent to tell the Director what he wanted to hear.

I hope you finally understand my criterion, Ernie. We're talking about the FBI, and although they've done some great work in the past, I simply don't trust them on the topic of the JFK assassination.

Whatever errors Harry Dean might have made, those errors don't include the Warren Report.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Edited February 23, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Ernie Lazar]

... BUT---let's now proceed to the third piece of evidence.

#3 piece of evidence

This time, we have YET ANOTHER person who contacted the FBI to report how they interpreted Harry's comments about himself. This time it was Bob Hayward, the Executive Producer of the Joe Pyne Show. According to the 12/18/64 memo from SAC Los Angeles to Hoover, Mr. Hayward "said Dean claims he served as an 'undercover agent' for the FBI in Chicago and wants to appear on the Pyne Show to tell about his role in developing information for the Bureau in the 26th of July Movement and the FPCC."

... You STILL don't get it! It isn't "the FBI" or "Hoover" Paul. It is the people they interviewed (and in the Snyder example, HARRY HIMSELF! See previous answer.

<snip>

Well, Ernie, I won't comment on your atttempt to sell, sell, sell the FBI to the JFK research community as a specially qualified, reliable source of information Let's just talk about Harry Dean.

Wrong again Paul. It isn't "the FBI" as an amorphous boogeyman institution. It is the individual Special Agents (unconnected to each other, over different periods of time, and even in different cities) who interviewed people or who were contacted by all the individuals who were inquiring about Harry Dean because THEY (not the FBI) had personal contacts with Harry.

And, incidentally, do you accept the memos written by FBI Agents which report on their conversations with Harry regarding FPCC or J26M? Even though we have no copy of the text of the actual literal conversation?

If I find a memo from Wesley Grapp which conforms to something that Harry has said, will you accept Grapp's written memo -- even though there is no copy of the literal text of his conversation with Harry? Of course you will! Your ONLY dispute is with evidence that conflicts with whatever you want readers to believe about Harry!

And incidentally, aren't YOU attempting to (literally) "sell, sell, sell" Harry Dean's personal recollections (via the eBook)? So, if you want to trash somebody you should be trashing the individual FBI Agents (or CIA employees) whom, apparently, you believe were all chronic, habitual, pathological liars.

So, let's be very clear: Paul Trejo is saying that Los Angeles FBI Special Agents Richard L. Cromwell, William J. McCauley, Richard G. Douce, and Ferd J. Rapp are all LIARS!

I responded to all of your examples of FBI agents which claimed this or that person said this or that about Harry Dean, but you don't seem to get it. So, I'll be patient and try again.

If that is your attitude, then what possible value would ANY FBI file have for you? EVERY file consists of reports by FBI Special Agents based upon their contacts and interviews. How is your attitude about our law enforcement agencies any different from the Birch Society or the CPUSA attempt to discredit all of our institutions?

Let's take your Example #3. The FBI claims that somebody contacted them -- Bob Hayward, Executive Producer of the Joe Pyne Show, and on 18 December 1964 one of the Los Angeles FBI special agents in charge (SAC) told J. Edgar Hoover that Bob Hayward told him something incriminating about Harry Dean.

No, Paul, not "incriminating" -- Harry was not committing any crime. My comments refer to an IMPRESSION which Harry conveyed to MULTIPLE different people at different times and in different locations. As I told you before, there are only a handful of people who had this problem -- and, significantly, virtually ALL of them were linked to the JBS. How do you explain THAT?

I repeat again -- please listen carefully. I will not believe this FBI agent under these circumstances. I want third party confirmation. That is, I want to see the actual letter from Bob Hayward to the effect that, "Harry Dean told me personally that he was a paid FBI agent."

Bob Hayward never said "paid FBI Agent" so there will be no such letter. And if the contact was by phone or in person, then, obviously there is no "letter". But even if I provide you with that letter -- what difference would it make? If Harry denies it, then, in your scheme of things, the FBI has forged something yet again.

That's it. That's all. Let me see that and then I'll fold my hand. That is my commitment. I won't insist that it's a forgery -- I'll keep an open mind about that aspect --- I promise to count it as a bit of legitimate evidence and not a part of the FBI spin machine -- at least until further information might become available.

It just occurred to me that your eBook title is entirely appropriate because you want "CONFESSIONS" -- not normal evidence. But historical research is often based upon clues not outright 'confessions".

Until I see the actual third-party writing, Ernie, we must consider the circumstances. This is December of 1964, and the Warren Commission is now being circulated and read by critics such as Harold Weisberg, Sylvia Meagher, Mark Lane and Jay Epstein. They are all hopping mad that the ballistics evidence does not add up, and that the Lone Gunman theory won the day.

Harry Dean is hopping mad, too, for his own reasons, and he decided to take his case to the Joe Pyne Show. Harry says he also informed the FBI that he was going to do this. According to Harry Dean (and I admit I have no proof of this, but it sounds logical to me) the FBI strongly advised Harry to stop this action. Harry tells me that he insisted he would do it anyway.

In other words, it seems LOGICAL to you because it supports something Harry has said or which he wants people to believe. But you cannot and will not apply the same principle of "logic" to MULTIPLE examples which conflict with the story you want readers to believe. In those cases, you want literal "confessions". In short, to you, "logical" means whatever Harry tells you!

The FBI was not so stupid that they would invite critical media scrutiny in the second largest media market in the country. You can see the headlines now: "Local FBI office attempts to censor local TV talk show".....

Hoover was hyper-sensitive about negative media attention regarding FBI behavior. Neither he or any SAC would EVER do anything to compromise their generally favorable reputation in local communities.

Now -- in that case, I presume (admittedly without any proof) that the FBI agent in Los Angeles would be grilled by the FBI Director, so this FBI agent would want to cover his behind. Would the SAC portray Harry Dean in the worst possible light to cover his own behind? Yes, I believe he would.

The FBI had no interest whatsoever in Harry except when (like in other cases involving JBS members) they misrepresented themselves as informants who had special knowledge or expertise and they sought to capitalize upon their association with the FBI.

Therefore, nothing that this Los Angeles FBI agent tells J. Edgar Hoover in December 1964 about Harry Dean can be reliable, in my humble opinion, because he is on the spot for failing to control one of the people under his watch.

That is absurd and just another post hoc invention of your mind. For further reference check out any logic textbook which discusses the fallacious argument called "post hoc ergo propter hoc".

It doesn't matter to common sense that I know nobody in the FBI -- the scenario I portray here is simply common sense -- it's what any officer in any office would do, when put on the spot before the Company Director. It's just common sense.

When you cite "common sense" it is a subjective interpretation made when you have no actual evidence except in your own mind.

So -- you say, Ernie -- that "it's the people they interview." I happen to agree with that. So, in this example, the person they interviewed was KTTV Executive Bob Hayward. Let me see a written document by Bob Hayward which was sent to the Los Angeles FBI which says in writing what this FBI agent told J. Edgar Hoover. (We know the FBI has many such third party documents in other cases -- we've seen some.)

There are very few such documents as you describe. Usually, the only place you find that type of evidence is in criminal or subversive matters because the FBI knows its Agents may have to go to court. Plus, as previously noted, many times the FBI received a phone inquiry so everything was memorialized afterward in memos. In fact, Hayward ALSO contacted the CIA -- on 12/17/64 -- and that WAS a phone conversation not a "letter".

Then I'll fold my hand on this thread (until more information is available). Otherwise, it's only FBI hear-say --most likely made up by one FBI agent to tell the Director what he wanted to hear.

Your comment reveals a level of ignorance that I cannot even begin to fathom. Senior FBI management was focused upon substantive matters that required attention at the top of the food chain. Some guy in Los Angeles who wanted to appear on a local TV program was of absolutely no interest to the FBI. The entire "Pyne Program" episode was small potatoes and did not even rate more than about 4 memos. Harry appeared on the Pyne program even AFTER the FBI gave Hayward the information he requested. Nothing further happened because the FBI didn't care about Harry until the next episode of someone inquiring about him -- and then the FBI provided another brief statement saying that Harry was never an FBI informant -- and that was the end of the matter. EVERYTHING you have written is just PURE INVENTION.

ADDENDUM:

As I have previously attempted to explain, the issue we are confronting is the IMPRESSION which Harry conveyed when he wrote letters, gave interviews, or had phone conversations about his alleged association with the FBI. Bob Hayward (Joe Pyne Program Executive Producer) provided a xerox copy of Harry's 12/10/64 letter addressed to "Director, Joe Pyne Show" to the Los Angeles FBI office (specifically it was given to Special Agent Richard G. Douce).

When Hayward read Harry's letter, he characterized its substance as being statements made by somebody claiming to be an FBI "undercover agent" -- probably because in his letter, Harry stated that the FBI asked him "if I would pass info to them" and "after discution (sic), was happy to do so were (sic) FPCC was concerned..." Then Harry states he turned against FPCC "but stayed on inside to gain info on all activities, as later hearings show by U.S. Senate Subcommittee on 1961 June."

NOW, LET'S CONSIDER WHAT THESE STATEMENTS BY HARRY WOULD MEAN TO ANY NORMAL LAYMAN HEARING THEM:

1. Harry became involved in what many ordinary Americans (especially by 1964) considered a Communist-front organization

2. Harry claimed he was asked by the FBI to provide information about that organization...and he did so

3. THEN Harry figured out that "many Cuban friends like and took orders from local Communists, I turned against them but stayed on inside to gain info"

4. Harry then told Hayward that the US Senate Subcommittee hearings in 1961 "show" how successful he was in acquiring and sharing his info -- but that is FALSE. Those hearings do not show anything of the kind because Harry was never called to testify.

5. BUT -- to the Executive Producer of the Joe Pyne Program (and to any normal person), Harry conveyed the IMPRESSION that he was some sort of "undercover agent" working for the FBI under their direction AND he testified before a Senate Subcommittee -- just like numerous other actual genuine FBI informants were doing at that exact time.

This is what explains why Bob Hayward and the other persons I mentioned in my previous message were convinced that Harry was some sort of "undercover agent" working for the FBI -- EVEN IF they used the term "Agent" in the broadest possible generic sense, i.e. "somebody who acts for, or in the place of, another, by authority from him; one entrusted with the business of another." And Harry never bothered to correct that IMPRESSION -- EVEN WHEN many years later, Tom Snyder used the precise term "undercover agent" and even when Snyder described Harry as an "employee" of the federal government!

I hope you finally understand my criterion, Ernie. We're talking about the FBI, and although they've done some great work in the past, I simply don't trust them on the topic of the JFK assassination.

Whatever errors Harry Dean might have made, those errors don't include the Warren Report.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

My replies are underneath your comments.

Edited February 19, 2014 by Ernie Lazar

[Paul Trejo]

...So, according to you, as of right now, the earliest date you can identify connected to Morris MIGHT be 1968.

As you will notice in my previous message, I identified examples of the "agent" controversy starting in December 1964 and continuing into the summer of 1965 -- so...by your own statement, W.R. Morris was NOT responsible for creating this controversy or "inventing this fiction".

It certainly may be the case that insofar as someone read something written by Morris (or by some party who quoted Morris) which gave the impression that Harry was an "agent", they came to a false conclusion about Harry's status -- but it is clear from even my cursory research that this problem started YEARS before Morris got involved!

That's a good point, Ernie, and duly noted. Insofar as the FBI apparently accuses Harry Dean of claiming to be an FBI agent back in December, 1964, then we must eliminate W.R. Morris as the source of this FBI claim (based on the empirical evidence we have so far).

Therefore, since this FBI agent claimed that he got this account from KTTV Exective Bob Hayward, then IMHO we must absolutely confirm that Bob Hayward actually said this, and confirm that the FBI agent was not merely making this up to tell the FBI Director what he wanted to hear in the face of this loose cannon, Harry Dean, going public on the Joe Pyne Show.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

[Ernie Lazar]

...So, according to you, as of right now, the earliest date you can identify connected to Morris MIGHT be 1968.

As you will notice in my previous message, I identified examples of the "agent" controversy starting in December 1964 and continuing into the summer of 1965 -- so...by your own statement, W.R. Morris was NOT responsible for creating this controversy or "inventing this fiction".

It certainly may be the case that insofar as someone read something written by Morris (or by some party who quoted Morris) which gave the impression that Harry was an "agent", they came to a false conclusion about Harry's status -- but it is clear from even my cursory research that this problem started YEARS before Morris got involved!

That's a good point, Ernie, and duly noted. Insofar as the FBI apparently accuses Harry Dean of claiming to be an FBI agent back in December, 1964, then we must eliminate W.R. Morris as the source of this FBI claim (based on the empirical evidence we have so far).

Therefore, since this FBI agent claimed that he got this account from KTTV Exective Bob Hayward, then IMHO we must absolutely confirm that Bob Hayward actually said this, and confirm that the FBI agent was not merely making this up to tell the FBI Director what he wanted to hear in the face of this loose cannon, Harry Dean, going public on the Joe Pyne Show.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

1. There is absolutely NO evidence to support your assumption that Hoover thought of Harry Dean as a "loose cannon"

2. There is absolutely NO evidence to support your assumption that any FBI Agent would take a chance with his career by inventing something to send to Hoover

3. There IS considerable evidence, however, that when FBI employees did NOT provide Hoover with accurate information (by omitting materially important details for example), they were subject to disciplinary action -- as occurred when the Supervisor of the Name Check Unit characterized Highlander Folk School as a "Communist Training School" which Martin Luther King had attended. Hoover then discovered that the description "Communist training school" was NOT from an FBI investigation, it was made by a Georgia state agency created to preserve segregation in Georgia public schools. Nor (at that time) did Hoover know that the agency based its description upon the "report" by its "investigator" who was the official photographer for the Georgia unit of the United Klans of America!

As a result, the Supervisor of the Name Check Unit was placed on probation for 6 months and severely rebuked personally by Hoover AND by the Assistant Director in Charge of the Name Check Unit.

THAT reflects the reality inside the Bureau -- not your prejudiced imagination

[Paul Trejo]

<snip>

Paul wrote: "So, in this example, the person they interviewed was KTTV Executive Bob Hayward. Let me see a written document by Bob Hayward which was sent to the Los Angeles FBI which says in writing what this FBI agent told J. Edgar Hoover. (We know the FBI has many such third party documents in other cases -- we've seen some.)"

There are very few such documents as you describe. Usually, the only place you find that type of evidence is in criminal or subversive matters because the FBI knows its Agents may have to go to court. Plus, as previously noted, many times the FBI received a phone inquiry so everything was memorialized afterward in memos. In fact, Hayward ALSO contacted the CIA -- on 12/17/64 -- and that WAS a phone conversation not a "letter".

<snip>

NOW, LET'S CONSIDER WHAT THESE STATEMENTS BY HARRY WOULD MEAN TO ANY NORMAL LAYMAN HEARING THEM:

1. Harry became involved in what many ordinary Americans (especially by 1964) considered a Communist-front organization

2. Harry claimed he was asked by the FBI to provide information about that organization...and he did so

3. THEN Harry figured out that "many Cuban friends like and took orders from local Communists, I turned against them but stayed on inside to gain info"

4. Harry then told Hayward that the US Senate Subcommittee hearings in 1961 "show" how successful he was in acquiring and sharing his info -- but that is FALSE. Those hearings do not show anything of the kind because Harry was never called to testify.

5. BUT -- to the Executive Producer of the Joe Pyne Program (and to any normal person), Harry conveyed the IMPRESSION that he was some sort of "undercover agent" working for the FBI under their direction AND he testified before a Senate Subcommittee -- just like numerous other actual genuine FBI informants were doing at that exact time.

This is what explains why Bob Hayward and the other persons I mentioned in my previous message were convinced that Harry was some sort of "undercover agent" working for the FBI -- EVEN IF they used the term "Agent" in the broadest possible generic sense, i.e. "somebody who acts for, or in the place of, another, by authority from him; one entrusted with the business of another." And Harry never bothered to correct that IMPRESSION -- EVEN WHEN many years later, Tom Snyder used the precise term "undercover agent" and even when Snyder described Harry as an "employee" of the federal government!

First, Ernie, you say that "there are very few such documents as you describe," when I demanded to see third-party documentation of claims by the FBI. Yet I've seen plenty, myself, even among the FBI serials that you've shared with us on this thread.

Secondly, Ernie, you say that, "Usually, the only place you find that type of evidence is in criminal or subversive matters because the FBI knows its Agents may have to go to court." BINGO!

This is the quality of evidence I demand from the FBI, Ernie! I demand evidence that will hold up in COURT! The FBI hasn't produced this! They claim that this or that person said this or that. But a judge and a jury would demand to call that witness to speak for himself or herself! That's common sense!

Now, you will reply that Harry Dean does not provide witnesses on his behalf, either. I've always admitted that (with the minor exception of Dave Robbins, who is the only man in that gathering still living). But it is entirely unfair to hold one working class citizen to the same standard as the FBI who has thousands of employees and billions of dollars in funding.

If the FBI claims something, I want to see PROOF! They can afford it. This is the JFK assassination we're talking about, and their record in this matter has been disappointing.

Thirdly, Ernie, you say that "Hayward ALSO contacted the CIA -- on 12/17/64," so we should at the very least see the CIA report of that contact.

Fourth: Ernie, you want to focus on Harry's confessions to the FBI that he was a Secretary of the FPCC. When Harry joined the FPCC, he did not know it was a Communist Front organization -- and many other Americans were ignorant of that, too. Harry was among the first to obtain proof positive that it was a Communist Front organization, and instead of quitting, he told the FBI about it.

You then claim that, "Harry then told Hayward that the US Senate Subcommittee hearings in 1961 'show' how successful he was in acquiring and sharing his info." What is your source for that, Ernie?

It is true that the Senate records only indicate that Harry Dean was named as the Secretary of the FPCC, and no further information was obtained, because Harry Dean was not called as a witness (although he would have sung like a bird if he was called), and the witness who was questioned about Harry Dean pleaded the 5th Amendment.

So, it is important to know the source of your claim, Ernie, so that we can get the exact wording, so that we can determine if your charges that Harry Dean was LYING are reliable. Your record is not good so far.

Fifth: you say, "to the Executive Producer of the Joe Pyne Program (and to any normal person), Harry conveyed the IMPRESSION that he was some sort of 'undercover agent' working for the FBI"

Oh really, Ernie? Were you there? Did you overhear the conversation? What is your source for these accusations of yours that Harry Dean is a xxxx? Do you have proof? If not, aren't you ashamed? You've claimed several times this week alone that you don't call Harry Dean a xxxx, and yet here you go again!

Sixth: Ernie, you say that "this is what explains why Bob Hayward and the other persons I mentioned in my previous message were convinced that Harry was some sort of 'undercover agent' working for the FBI -- EVEN IF they used the term 'Agent' in the broadest possible generic sense, i.e. "somebody who acts for, or in the place of, another, by authority from him; one entrusted with the business of another."

Again, Ernie, were you there? What qualifies you to speak for these people? In fact, you are really only defending the FBI, extolling the FBI, and trying to convince people here that the FBI can do no wrong. Their bullying tactics justify your bullying tactics in your own mind. But that's only in your fantasy.

You have not proven anything -- you have merely repeated yourself endlessly, for months -- and trying to deny the bald fact that you are charging Harry Dean with LYING based on no further evidence than an FBI agent trying to cover his own behind.

Why don't you just come out and admit it?

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Edited February 19, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

I hadn't been following this thread. So I apologize to Paul and Ernie for not stepping in earlier.

Now, please cool it. No more personal attacks. Keep in mind that these are not private emails, but posts presenting ideas and information that will hopefully be read by students and researchers in years to come.

....Finally, Pat, is there any update on correcting the Spartacus entry on the John Birch Society that prints a false statement about Harry Dean? Here is the URL:

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKbirchS.htm

Harry Dean has already complained that this Spartacus page misrepresents him -- and actually I say that it defames him. I raised this issue only a few days ago in great detail. We hope that you can bring this to the attention of John Simkin (whom we believe controls the Spartacus pages).

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Pat, I just noticed that there is a second Spartacus web page that spreads disinformation about Harry Dean. Here is the URL:

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKSinvestBirch.htm

In this case, the false information about Harry Dean is given as the very first paragraph. It reads:

----------------------Begin Spartacus web page ---------------------------

Harry Dean was an undercover agent for the Federal Bureau of Investigation. In 1962 he infiltrated the John Birch Society. He later reported that leading members of the society, including John Rousselot and Edwin Walker, hired two gunman, Eladio del Valle and Loran Hall, to kill President John F. Kennedy.

----------------------End Spartacus web page ---------------------------

This information about Harry Dean is completely mistaken. Harry never even heard of Eladio del Valle until these lies about him were published by W.R. Morris in 1975 in the made-for-fiction writing, The Men Behind the Guns.

Although W.R. Morris claimed that Harry Dean was his co-author, that was a deliberate lie. Harry Dean had broken relations with W.R. Morris before the publication of that book, precisely because W.R. Morris would not stop making up fiction and putting Harry Dean's name on it, no matter how many times Harry Dean told W.R. Morris to stop doing that.

Unfortunately, the stories by W.R. Morris have formed a "Harry Dean Legend" that is hard to reverse -- but Harry Dean has been trying to reverse it for decades. Harry wrote his own manuscript, "Crosstrails," and published it in 1990, which sets the record straight. It has sold very few copies.

When Harry wrote Crosstrails, he also made every effort to send a copy to everybody he named in the manuscript, to warn them that they were being named. Today, Dave Robbins is the only person named in that JFK account who is still living.

Furthermore -- I just noticed that there remain errors on the "corrected" version of the Spartacus web site's Harry Dean page, at this URL:

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKdeanH.htm

Not only is Eladio del Valle still mixed in with Harry's story in its first paragraph -- but there remains an entire section on that page devoted to W.R. Morris and his fiction!

Please ask John Simkin (whom I presume is responsible for these pages) to act to clarify this contradictory information. Harry Dean is still alive, and can still be asked directly for the precise nature of his claims -- we don't need to guess. (I've tried to contact John Simkin myself, but he's not accepting personal messages from EF these days, evidently).

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

<addition>

Edited February 19, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Ernie Lazar]

<snip>

Paul wrote: "So, in this example, the person they interviewed was KTTV Executive Bob Hayward. Let me see a written document by Bob Hayward which was sent to the Los Angeles FBI which says in writing what this FBI agent told J. Edgar Hoover. (We know the FBI has many such third party documents in other cases -- we've seen some.)"

There are very few such documents as you describe. Usually, the only place you find that type of evidence is in criminal or subversive matters because the FBI knows its Agents may have to go to court. Plus, as previously noted, many times the FBI received a phone inquiry so everything was memorialized afterward in memos. In fact, Hayward ALSO contacted the CIA -- on 12/17/64 -- and that WAS a phone conversation not a "letter".

<snip>

NOW, LET'S CONSIDER WHAT THESE STATEMENTS BY HARRY WOULD MEAN TO ANY NORMAL LAYMAN HEARING THEM:

1. Harry became involved in what many ordinary Americans (especially by 1964) considered a Communist-front organization

2. Harry claimed he was asked by the FBI to provide information about that organization...and he did so

3. THEN Harry figured out that "many Cuban friends like and took orders from local Communists, I turned against them but stayed on inside to gain info"

4. Harry then told Hayward that the US Senate Subcommittee hearings in 1961 "show" how successful he was in acquiring and sharing his info -- but that is FALSE. Those hearings do not show anything of the kind because Harry was never called to testify.

5. BUT -- to the Executive Producer of the Joe Pyne Program (and to any normal person), Harry conveyed the IMPRESSION that he was some sort of "undercover agent" working for the FBI under their direction AND he testified before a Senate Subcommittee -- just like numerous other actual genuine FBI informants were doing at that exact time.

This is what explains why Bob Hayward and the other persons I mentioned in my previous message were convinced that Harry was some sort of "undercover agent" working for the FBI -- EVEN IF they used the term "Agent" in the broadest possible generic sense, i.e. "somebody who acts for, or in the place of, another, by authority from him; one entrusted with the business of another." And Harry never bothered to correct that IMPRESSION -- EVEN WHEN many years later, Tom Snyder used the precise term "undercover agent" and even when Snyder described Harry as an "employee" of the federal government!

First, Ernie, you say that "there are very few such documents as you describe," when I demanded to see third-party documentation of claims by the FBI. Yet I've seen plenty, myself, even among the FBI serials that you've shared with us on this thread.

I'm not sure what you mean by "third party documentation". There are only two parties directly involved in your hypothetical questions, namely, (1) the FBI employee who was contacted and (2) the person making the contact (such as Bob Hayward). Sometimes, the individual contacting the FBI did so by mail and other times contacts were made by phone or in person. Hayward contacted the CIA by phone to ask them for comment on Harry's assertions. With respect to the FBI, Hayward gave a copy of Harry's letter to the Pyne program to Special Agent Douce -- and that is why we have a copy of that letter in Harry's HQ file. [i suspect there will be another copy in the Los Angeles field file when I get that file from NARA).

Secondly, Ernie, you say that, "Usually, the only place you find that type of evidence is in criminal or subversive matters because the FBI knows its Agents may have to go to court." BINGO!

This is the quality of evidence I demand from the FBI, Ernie! I demand evidence that will hold up in COURT! The FBI hasn't produced this! They claim that this or that person said this or that. But a judge and a jury would demand to call that witness to speak for himself or herself! That's common sense!

Well, Paul, that is PRECISELY THE DEFECT IN YOUR REASONING. Harry's alleged association with the FBI had NOTHING whatsoever to do with him potentially appearing in court.

Nor was Harry involved in ANY capacity with ANY government agency (local, state, or federal) which might hypothetically require his testimony in court OR his testimony in any administrative proceeding OR even testifying under oath before a legislative committee.

Consequently, one cannot ask for "evidence that will hold up in court" for situations where THAT TYPE OF EVIDENCE is never created in the first place!

The problem here as I previously pointed out, is that you demand the highest possible standard of proof for a situation NOT involving illegal or subversive activities. All that was happening with Harry is that he volunteered raw information to (first) Chicago and (then, allegedly to) Los Angeles.

HOWEVER......if you want to see examples of the FBI's relationships with informants whom the FBI ACTUALLY DID THINK might be asked to provide "evidence that will hold up in court" -- then I suggest you review the FBI files I have posted online regarding (for just one example), Matt Cvetic.

IN ADDITION: I will use Cvetic below to illustrate another matter which falsifies your assumptions.

Now, you will reply that Harry Dean does not provide witnesses on his behalf, either. I've always admitted that (with the minor exception of Dave Robbins, who is the only man in that gathering still living). But it is entirely unfair to hold one working class citizen to the same standard as the FBI who has thousands of employees and billions of dollars in funding.

Nobody is asking Harry to provide the same standard of evidence as the FBI or any other agency uses in legal proceedings. Another straw man argument. Don't you EVER STOP?

Any rational person would simply ask Harry to provide SOMETHING OTHER THAN just his personal opinions or recollections. BUT, on the other hand, if you just want your eBook to be considered a FICTIONAL NOVEL -- then no evidence is required.

If the FBI claims something, I want to see PROOF! They can afford it. This is the JFK assassination we're talking about, and their record in this matter has been disappointing.

We are NOT talking about the JFK assassination. We are reviewing Harry's publicity-seeking activities in the mid-1960's and we also are discussing the impression which Harry gave to parties who had direct PERSONAL contact with Harry with respect to his alleged association with the FBI (and CIA).

Thirdly, Ernie, you say that "Hayward ALSO contacted the CIA -- on 12/17/64," so we should at the very least see the CIA report of that contact.

If you are interested, the CIA summary document is on the Mary Ferrell website. The CIA summary memo is dated December 18, 1964 and it concerns Robert Hayward's telephone call to the Los Angeles CIA office on 12/17/64. The document record number is: 104-10404-10046. The CIA told Hayward that they would forward his info about Harry to their HQ but their local office had no references to Harry. The CIA also forwarded the same information to the FBI in Los Angeles.

Fourth: Ernie, you want to focus on Harry's confessions to the FBI that he was a Secretary of the FPCC. When Harry joined the FPCC, he did not know it was a Communist Front organization -- and many other Americans were ignorant of that, too. Harry was among the first to obtain proof positive that it was a Communist Front organization, and instead of quitting, he told the FBI about it.

WRONG. When Harry first contacted the FBI in Chicago about FPCC (his August 1960 phone call), the Chicago office had at at least 4 informants inside FPCC (and perhaps 5) who were reporting information to the FBI. Obviously, the FBI always sought to have multiple informants in one organization (if possible) so that they could compare the raw information provided by each person to see if it matched -- and, if it did, that increased the FBI's "reliability" rating for their informant(s).

You then claim that, "Harry then told Hayward that the US Senate Subcommittee hearings in 1961 'show' how successful he was in acquiring and sharing his info." What is your source for that, Ernie?

Harry's letter to the Joe Pyne Show. Didn't you read it?

As I previously stated, Harry frequently uses sentence or thought fragments or he runs everything together without punctuation which make his comments very difficult to read but in the paragraph where he starts by discussing his "propaganda work" (7th paragraph from the top) he refers to how he "asked Fedral (sic) Bureau re some of these people" and then according to Harry, the Bureau asked him "if I would pass info to them" and after he discussed it with the FBI, Harry says he "was happy to do so".

Then, Harry made the comment about finding out that his "many Cuban friends like and took orders from local Communists, I turned against them but stayed on inside to gain info on all activities, was successful, as later hearings show by U.S. Senate Subcommittee of 1961 June."

This is another example of how Harry (like yourself) likes to embellish the literal truth to produce a more favorable reaction from whatever audience he directs his comments to (in this case KTTV television in Hollywood).

It is true that the Senate records only indicate that Harry Dean was named as the Secretary of the FPCC, and no further information was obtained, because Harry Dean was not called as a witness (although he would have sung like a bird if he was called), and the witness who was questioned about Harry Dean pleaded the 5th Amendment.

So, it is important to know the source of your claim, Ernie, so that we can get the exact wording, so that we can determine if your charges that Harry Dean was LYING are reliable. Your record is not good so far.

Once again it is YOU who chooses to defame Harry by claiming he is "lying". My "record is not good so far"? So far, you have acknowledged several materially important errors (I am using the kindest word possible) which I have identified. What "errors" have YOU discovered? You just passively accept EVERYTHING which Harry tells you. I suspect that you have never asked him even one serious probing question. You have a lot of nerve Paul! It is entirely possible that his Los Angeles FBI file will provide even more examples and we all wonder what new excuses you will invent to explain away any further discrepancies.

Fifth: you say, "to the Executive Producer of the Joe Pyne Program (and to any normal person), Harry conveyed the IMPRESSION that he was some sort of "undercover agent" working for the FBI"

Oh really, Ernie? Were you there? Did you overhear the conversation? What is your source for these accusations of yours that Harry Dean is a xxxx? Do you have proof? If not, aren't you ashamed? You've claimed several times this week alone that you don't call Harry Dean a xxxx, and yet here you go again!

FOR THE LAST TIME: I have explicitly stated that I DO NOT believe Harry was "lying". If you repeat that one more time -- then YOU ARE A xxxx.

The "proof" I have offered you is a series of instances involving multiple different people in different time periods who had PERSONAL contacts with Harry and they arrived at a conclusion about what Harry was attempting to say. If your position is that multiple different sources who arrive at the same conclusion is WORTHLESS evidence -- then just say so.

Sixth: Ernie, you say that "this is what explains why Bob Hayward and the other persons I mentioned in my previous message were convinced that Harry was some sort of 'undercover agent' working for the FBI -- EVEN IF they used the term 'Agent' in the broadest possible generic sense, i.e. "somebody who acts for, or in the place of, another, by authority from him; one entrusted with the business of another."

Again, Ernie, were you there? What qualifies you to speak for these people? In fact, you are really only defending the FBI, extolling the FBI, and trying to convince people here that the FBI can do no wrong. Their bullying tactics justify your bullying tactics in your own mind. But that's only in your fantasy.

You keep describing the situation as "the FBI". It is not "the FBI". It is INDIVIDUAL HUMAN BEINGS who are making the same judgments after listening to comments made by persons who were directly involved with Harry. But, again, why don't you just say what you really mean? In your scheme of things, NOTHING in an FBI file is credible -- no matter how many times it appears, no matter how many different interviews produce the same conclusion, and no matter how many months or years pass between each example.

You obviously did not read my previous message concerning the difference between honestly reporting what documentary evidence reveals VERSUS "defending" or "extolling". You are so obtuse that you think just because you INVENT an allegation, that is the same thing as it being accurate and truthful.

You have not proven anything -- you have merely repeated yourself endlessly, for months -- and trying to deny the bald fact that you are charging Harry Dean with LYING based on no further evidence than an FBI agent trying to cover his own behind.

Why don't you just come out and admit it?

IF, as you contend, Harry was viewed at ALL levels of the FBI (including by Hoover), as a "loose cannon" who had to be punished and squelched in some manner -- then why didn't the FBI require Harry to sign a statement acknowledging what some Agents had reported in their memos to their SAC and to HQ, i.e. that Harry "admitted" wrongly describing himself as an "undercover agent" -- OR why not require Harry to sign a statement stating that he was NOT even "an informant" for the FBI?

That would have been precisely the type of "documentation" you presumably would accept as acceptable "proof".

The reason the FBI never bothered doing that is obvious (particularly when you compare Harry's situation with other REAL FBI informants).

To the FBI, Harry was a very minor annoyance --- the kind of annoyance which the Bureau frequently confronted with other individuals who claimed to have been an informant (BUT were not).

Even more significantly, the Bureau confronted individuals WHO ACTUALLY WERE FBI INFORMANTS -- and, AFTER their FBI association, they latched onto right-wing extremist organizations (this includes several prominent JBS members---such as Matt Cvetic).

Many legitimate FBI informants (such as Cvetic) had testified (under oath) at one or more of the following:

* House Committee on Un-American Activities

* Senate Internal Security Subcommittee

* Loyalty Review Board

* Subversive Activities Control Board

* and numerous court trials (especially Smith Act cases) or administrative hearings (such as, for example, INS deportation hearings)

Consequently, when any adverse information was developed about ANY of these people, it actually did send shivers down the spine of the FBI because they had to wonder what current or former cases might have been contaminated by false or suspect information obtained and used from these informants.

[Are you familiar with the Harvey Matusow fiasco? He was an FBI informant who subsequent publicly stated that he had deliberately lied under oath. His recanting of his testimony produced a MASSIVE internal review within the entire Justice Department to determine what cases might be overturned on appeal because of Matusow's revelations.]

But Harry Dean NEVER rose to this level of importance. The FBI did not rely upon ANY information provided by Harry about ANYTHING. He was never even considered for official informant status (because of his background) and, obviously, Harry was NOT being groomed by ANY government intelligence agency for potential future testimony in court cases or administrative hearings pertaining to FPCC or any other matter.

So, instead of being concerned about what Harry might say or write (as you think), the FBI totally ignored him EXCEPT when they received inquiries about him -- particularly from print and radio/TV media.

MATT CVETIC (a JBS member) was initially a very valuable FBI informant. But, eventually, the FBI became VERY concerned about him because of his chronic alcoholism, his son's commitment of Matt into a psychiatric facility on several occasions, Matt's assault and battery conviction involving his sister-in-law, and the fact that Matt disclosed his informant status without authorization to a journalist and to a relative. THEN, Matt started demanding more and more money from the FBI or, he said, he would NOT testify in court.

NOW-- this REALLY DID make Hoover (and lower FBI officials) "steaming mad". So they dropped Cvetic as an informant and when they received inquiries about him, they replied with only the barest pertinent facts about the time period during which he provided information and the fact that his personal opinions were his own but not shared by the FBI.

In addition, because one of the defendants in a Smith Act trial got word of Matt's problems with the Justice Department, the FBI had to review ALL the court cases during which Matt had testified to make sure they had alternate sources of corroboration for everything he said so that the Justice Dept prosecutions would not be overturned.

A June 1950 FBI-Pittsburgh memo discusses material discrepancies in Cvetic’s HUAC testimony including his comments about seven specific individuals whom he named as "Communists" but whom were not found in reports he made to FBI.

The Pittsburgh PA SAC concluded: “It is the observation of this office that in many instances where Cvetic became confused in his testimony, he evaded further interrogation by stating that he could not recall full particulars but that he had furnished same to the FBI. It is noted that in most of these cases such information cannot be found in the files of this office and that Cvetic is mistaken in his belief the same was made available to this office. As stated in my letter of March 13, 1950, Cvetic’s testimony when considered on a broad basis and in its entirety, is fairly accurate but in many instances it is couched in half truths and contains minor and major misstatements when compared with reports submitted by him.” [HQ 100-372409, 6/21/50, #184 SAC Pittsburgh to JEH, p. 6]

THERE IS NOTHING COMPARABLE TO REPORT ABOUT HARRY DEAN -- which is why (contrary to your imagination) the FBI had no interest in him -- and, in fact, HQ initially did not even know who he was!

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

MY REPLIES ARE UNDERNEATH YOUR COMMENTS

Edited February 19, 2014 by Ernie Lazar

[Paul Trejo]

...Consequently, one cannot ask for "evidence that will hold up in court" for situations where THAT TYPE OF EVIDENCE is never created in the first place!

FOR THE LAST TIME: I have explicitly stated that I DO NOT believe Harry was "lying". If you repeat that one more time -- then YOU ARE A xxxx.

The "proof" I have offered you is a series of instances involving multiple different people in different time periods who had PERSONAL contacts with Harry and they arrived at a conclusion about what Harry was attempting to say. If your position is that multiple different sources who arrive at the same conclusion is WORTHLESS evidence -- then just say so.

Well, Ernie, at least you admit that the FBI assertions that Harry Dean claimed to be an FBI agent won't hold up in court. I guess that's the most I can expect at this point.

I know you keep saying that you aren't calling Harry Dean a xxxx, Ernie, but you do say that he makes FALSE statements. Are you saying that he is making these FALSE statements in a non-deliberate manner? If Harry is deliberately making FALSE statements, then he is a xxxx -- isn't that so?

But John Simkin has said he would remove anybody from the EF who goes around calling people LIARS on his Forum.

Now, you know that Harry Dean has said many times on this thread that he never at any time claimed to be an FBI agent.

And you know that this FBI agent told J. Edgar Hoover that Harry Dean claimed to be an FBI agent.

So -- somebody is LYING. I'm not saying (yet) that the FBI is lying -- I'm saying that I want to see proof that will stand up in court before I make a decision.

I don't like being lied to, Ernie. I take people at face value, and I get very upset when they lie to me. If I found out that Harry Dean deliberately lied to me, that would jeopardize my friendship with him. It's that serious with me. It's unacceptable.

So, if you're not saying that Harry Dean is lying, Ernie -- then you must be saying that you, too, want to see see proof that will stand up in court before you make a decision.

Is that what you're saying? If (and only if) that's the case, then I apologize -- and you didn't call Harry Dean a xxxx.

But it sounded to me as if you're really accepting the FBI agent's word for it, simply because he's an FBI agent.

It sounds to me that you somehow doubt that we'll find corroborative evidence to back up this FBI agent's story. It won't hold up in court.

Still -- who is right? The FBI or Harry Dean? In my opinion, it's their word against Harry's. I won't take a side yet -- I will only wait for further evidence, as painful as that is to me.

How about you?

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

Edited February 19, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Ernie Lazar]

Paul pretends to be VERY concerned about honesty and he claims he want us to rely ONLY upon verifiable documentary proof for any derogatory accusation made

--- BUT ----

we are all STILL WAITING for Paul to reveal his evidence for his claim that I "misrepresented" his position (in other words, Paul claims I lied).

According to Paul, I supposedly "misrepresented" his position not just one time, but I "continued" to do so -- which suggests it happened more than one time -- so it should be relatively easy for Paul to QUOTE the misrepresentation, correct?

Paul agreed to provide the evidence when he wrote in message #646, 3 days ago:

"All right, I'll respond to this challenge -- which won't be quick, because it involves seven different (long) posts by Ernie. The challenge from Ernie is for me to find ONLY ONE PLACE where Ernie accused me (and/or Harry) of pretending we have final proof of Harry's story."

THEREFORE...........Once again, I copy the pertinent section from my challenge below:

FIRST -- Paul's statement from message #643 and I highlight the operative accusation

"Also, you misunderstood me to say that it is a fact that Wesley Grapp met with Harry Dean in mid-1961. It is only a fact that Harry Dean claimed this. Now, I believe Harry Dean is telling the truth -- you however, believe Harry Dean is lying "to inflate his credentials." I’m humbly waiting for verification of this – and I admit (and I have always admitted) that I still don’t have the verification. You continue to misrepresent my position as claiming that we have proof. I have always, always, always said we don’t have proof."

MY CHALLENGE

HOW/WHEN DID I "CONTINUE TO MISREPRESENT" YOUR POSITION "BY CLAIMING THAT WE HAVE PROOF"??

1. When was the FIRST time I misrepresented your position, i.e. when I stated that you or Harry claimed to "have proof"?

2. When was the SECOND time I misrepresented your position, when I "continued" to state that you or Harry claimed to "have proof"?

3. And when did I state that Harry was "lying" about this matter (i.e. the date of his first meeting with Grapp)??

[Paul Trejo]

<snip>

IF, as you contend, Harry was viewed at ALL levels of the FBI (including by Hoover), as a "loose cannon" who had to be punished and squelched in some manner -- then why didn't the FBI require Harry to sign a statement acknowledging what some Agents had reported in their memos to their SAC and to HQ, i.e. that Harry "admitted" wrongly describing himself as an "undercover agent" -- OR why not require Harry to sign a statement stating that he was NOT even "an informant" for the FBI?

That would have been precisely the type of "documentation" you presumably would accept as acceptable "proof".

The reason the FBI never bothered doing that is obvious (particularly when you compare Harry's situation with other REAL FBI informants).

...But Harry Dean NEVER rose to this level of importance. The FBI did not rely upon ANY information provided by Harry about ANYTHING. He was never even considered for official informant status (because of his background) and, obviously, Harry was NOT being groomed by ANY government intelligence agency for potential future testimony in court cases or administrative hearings pertaining to FPCC or any other matter.

So, instead of being concerned about what Harry might say or write (as you think), the FBI totally ignored him EXCEPT when they received inquiries about him -- particularly from print and radio/TV media.

MATT CVETIC (a JBS member) was initially a very valuable FBI informant. But, eventually, the FBI became VERY concerned about him...

THERE IS NOTHING COMPARABLE TO REPORT ABOUT HARRY DEAN -- which is why (contrary to your imagination) the FBI had no interest in him -- and, in fact, HQ initially did not even know who he was!

Ernie, you ask: "IF Harry was viewed...by Hoover as a 'loose cannon' who had to be...squelched in some manner -- then why didn't the FBI require Harry to sign a statement acknowledging that Harry 'admitted' wrongly describing himself as an 'undercover agent.'"

I reply: what would the FBI do if somebody refused to sign their document?

You ask, "Or why not require Harry to sign a statement stating that he was NOT even 'an informant' for the FBI?"

I again reply: what would the FBI do if somebody refused to sign their document? If I did see that type of document, I would surely accept it as proof -- because if Harry Dean signed it -- even under duress -- then the FBI won and Harry lost. But we have no such document! There are many more types of acceptable proof, too -- but none of them has been presented, either.

Ernie, you claim: "The reason the FBI never bothered doing that is obvious -- to the FBI, Harry was a very minor annoyance -- like...other individuals who claimed to have been an informant (BUT were not)."

I reply: It is only obvious that this is your INVENTION.

Each case has to be evaluated separately. Different FBI informants can be dangerous to the FBI in different ways. You mention Matt Cvetic, who was a comparatively educated person, and represented as special sort of threat to the FBI. The specific knowledge that person has, and how sophisticated he or she may be -- all of that adds up to the unique aspect of that FBI informer.

You then try to compare Matt Cvetic with Harry Dean, and you say that Harry "NEVER rose to this level of importance. The FBI did not rely upon ANY information provided by Harry about ANYTHING. He was never even considered for official informant status (because of his background)..."

But that is your INVENTION, Ernie. You don't know what the FBI was thinking in the case of Harry Dean -- because first of all, you haven't seen all the documents that are now available under the FOIA act.

Each FBI informant must be evaluated separately. Not all were alleged to be associated with the JFK assassination -- the real issue under discussion here on this Forum.

The only thing that I know with certainty today, is that the Los Angeles FBI alone had 60+ serials on Harry Dean, with hundreds of pages of material.

It sounds ridiculous for somebody to say that Harry Dean was "a very minor annoyance" under those circumstances. Why would the FBI have 60+ serials of "a very minor annoyance?"

And this doesn't even count the FBI serials held at FBI headquarters, nor the FBI serials that were destroyed by the Chicago FBI.

And please don't repeat your INVENTION that the Chicago FBI destroyed their files on Harry Dean because he was "a very minor annoyance." Harry was a known FPCC Secretary in Chicago. So, until we see all the FBI records on Harry Dean, his story will still stand as viable.

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Edited February 23, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Ernie Lazar]

...Consequently, one cannot ask for "evidence that will hold up in court" for situations where THAT TYPE OF EVIDENCE is never created in the first place!

FOR THE LAST TIME: I have explicitly stated that I DO NOT believe Harry was "lying". If you repeat that one more time -- then YOU ARE A xxxx.

The "proof" I have offered you is a series of instances involving multiple different people in different time periods who had PERSONAL contacts with Harry and they arrived at a conclusion about what Harry was attempting to say. If your position is that multiple different sources who arrive at the same conclusion is WORTHLESS evidence -- then just say so.

Well, Ernie, at least you admit that the FBI assertions that Harry Dean claimed to be an FBI agent won't hold up in court. I guess that's the most I can expect at this point.

But nobody but YOU has ever suggested that such proof is required. As previously stated, there are different types (and qualities) of evidence. In CRIMINAL matters, "beyond a reasonable doubt" applies. But we are NOT discussing CRIMINAL matters -- so why would you even expect that type of evidence to be produced? It is a total non-sequitir!

AGAIN: I challenge you to present YOUR standards for acceptable evidence to ANY historian or political scientist of your choice or ANY scholar for that matter. And then let us know what THEY think of your standard.

I know you keep saying that you aren't calling Harry Dean a xxxx, Ernie, but you do say that he makes FALSE statements. Are you saying that he is making these FALSE statements in a non-deliberate manner? If Harry is deliberately making FALSE statements, then he is a xxxx -- isn't that so?

PAUL: Believe me, I hate doing this but you leave me no alternative.

A "lie" by definition is a false statement which is INTENTIONALLY made to deceive. In other words, the person making the false statement KNOWS it is a falsehood -- but makes that statement anyway.

An HONEST MISTAKE (by definition) is a statement made in good faith which subsequently is proven to be erroneous --- but the original statement was not made to intentionally deceive anybody.

Common examples of honest mistakes include:

memory problems

defective logic

conflating two separate distinct matters into one

repeating gossip or rumors without checking them out

casual conversation when someone expresses a personal opinion (without having or even being expected to have any real evidence to support one's opinion)

quoting a source (such as a newspaper article or a Wikipedia article) which one presumes to be accurate -- but it is not, etc.

Let me give you an example from my own RECENT personal experience.

I was involved in a debate on another website and I stated that the first time I voted was in 1964. I made that statement because I was 19 years old in 1964. However, I had forgotten that the eligible voting age at that time was 21 (not 18, as currently). So my actual first vote was in 1966 -- when I voted for Ronald Reagan as Governor of California.

I did not LIE. I made an honest mistake. ARE YOU SO OBTUSE THAT YOU TRULY DO NOT UNDERSTAND THIS POINT?

But John Simkin has said he would remove anybody from the EF who goes around calling people LIARS on his Forum.

Now, you know that Harry Dean has said many times on this thread that he never at any time claimed to be an FBI agent.

And you know that this FBI agent told J. Edgar Hoover that Harry Dean claimed to be an FBI agent.

So -- somebody is LYING. I'm not saying (yet) that the FBI is lying -- I'm saying that I want to see proof that will stand up in court before I make a decision.

TOTALLY DEFECTIVE LOGIC---see my previous reply.

Once again (as is your custom) you give us a FALSE "either/or" choice. Your defect (in logic) is referred to as the fallacy of the excluded middle. It is also known as the "false dilemma" fallacy.

I don't like being lied to, Ernie. I take people at face value, and I get very upset when they lie to me. If I found out that Harry Dean deliberately lied to me, that would jeopardize my friendship with him. It's that serious with me. It's unacceptable.

Then open your heart to other possibilities and stop defaming Harry by your false "either/or" attitude.

So, if you're not saying that Harry Dean is lying, Ernie -- then you must be saying that you, too, want to see see proof that will stand up in court before you make a decision.

NO--I do NOT expect or require CRIMINAL standards of proof for NON-CRIMINAL matters.

Is that what you're saying? If (and only if) that's the case, then I apologize -- and you didn't call Harry Dean a xxxx.

But it sounded to me as if you're really accepting the FBI agent's word for it, simply because he's an FBI agent.

No--I am surveying the entire universe of available documentary evidence available in FBI files and then I am accurately reporting what that evidence reflects. I do not care if I approve or disapprove of what the evidence shows. My function is to HONESTLY, ACCURATELY, and FACTUALLY report what is contained in those reports and do so IN CONTEXT.

HOWEVER---it IS also true, that I (like anybody else) can draw a conclusion from some accumulation of evidence---if there is a pattern revealed. I don't have to wait for ALL evidence. I went through this debate with Hitler admirers who INSISTED that I provide them with a HANDWRITTEN DOCUMENT by HITLER HIMSELF -- in which Hitler made a statement such as:

"I want all Jews in our territory murdered -- and use gas ovens if you need to."

Obviously, NO HISTORIAN ANYWHERE ON THIS PLANET, has ever found such a letter -- nor will they be likely to ever do so. But THAT is NOT the only acceptable type of "proof".

It sounds to me that you somehow doubt that we'll find corroborative evidence to back up this FBI agent's story. It won't hold up in court.

Still -- who is right? The FBI or Harry Dean? In my opinion, it's their word against Harry's. I won't take a side yet -- I will only wait for further evidence, as painful as that is to me.

How about you?

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

MY REPLIES APPEAR UNDERNEATH YOUR COMMENTS

[Paul Trejo]

...Since I have acquired numerous FBI files on actual informants it authorized to infiltrate both legitimate and subversive organizations -- and I am, therefore, intimately familiar with the type of data contained in such files -- it is 100% certain that Harry Dean is misrepresenting his "FBI" association in order to inflate his credentials.

...Incidentally, a while back I asked Harry if he joined the Minutemen under his own name and if he paid dues to them. The reason I asked is because I have a Minutemen membership list and Harry's name does not appear on it. However, this particular list was limited to dues-paying members.

Although the actual word, "xxxx," isn't used in this post #545 by Ernie, "misrepresenting" sure comes close.

Also, as regards that alleged "Minuteman membership list," there is one that has been circulating from the FBI for several years now, and many of us on the EF have seen it. It has a couple hundred names on it -- but there were many thousands upon thousands of Minutemen members. So, it is no surprise at all that Harry Dean's name is not on that list. That is old news.

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

Edited February 20, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

...

For YEARS, Ernie, you've been posting over the Internet that Harry Dean was a xxxx, and that you were certain of this because you could find no FBI files at all that mention Harry Dean [as an FBI informant].

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

"YEARS"?? You must use very unusual calendar Paul. Altogether, I have probably written that Harry is not credible perhaps 2 times before joining this discussion in Education Forum...

Yes, Ernie, for YEARS. The evidence is right here on this thread. (I've been so busy at work that I'm backlogged for weeks with my correspondence on EF.)

In any case, the post by Ernie Lazar, claiming that the FBI disavows any relationship with Harry Dean is post #123 of this thread. It is dated 8 June 2010. That's nearly four years ago. So, yes, Ernie -- for YEARS.

Yet since 2010 what do we find -- more than 60 FBI serials on Harry Dean from Los Angeles alone!

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

Edited February 20, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Ernie Lazar]

<snip>

IF, as you contend, Harry was viewed at ALL levels of the FBI (including by Hoover), as a "loose cannon" who had to be punished and squelched in some manner -- then why didn't the FBI require Harry to sign a statement acknowledging what some Agents had reported in their memos to their SAC and to HQ, i.e. that Harry "admitted" wrongly describing himself as an "undercover agent" -- OR why not require Harry to sign a statement stating that he was NOT even "an informant" for the FBI?

That would have been precisely the type of "documentation" you presumably would accept as acceptable "proof".

The reason the FBI never bothered doing that is obvious (particularly when you compare Harry's situation with other REAL FBI informants).

...But Harry Dean NEVER rose to this level of importance. The FBI did not rely upon ANY information provided by Harry about ANYTHING. He was never even considered for official informant status (because of his background) and, obviously, Harry was NOT being groomed by ANY government intelligence agency for potential future testimony in court cases or administrative hearings pertaining to FPCC or any other matter.

So, instead of being concerned about what Harry might say or write (as you think), the FBI totally ignored him EXCEPT when they received inquiries about him -- particularly from print and radio/TV media.

MATT CVETIC (a JBS member) was initially a very valuable FBI informant. But, eventually, the FBI became VERY concerned about him...

THERE IS NOTHING COMPARABLE TO REPORT ABOUT HARRY DEAN -- which is why (contrary to your imagination) the FBI had no interest in him -- and, in fact, HQ initially did not even know who he was!

Ernie, you ask: "IF Harry was viewed...by Hoover as a 'loose cannon' who had to be...squelched in some manner -- then why didn't the FBI require Harry to sign a statement acknowledging that Harry 'admitted' wrongly describing himself as an 'undercover agent.'"

I reply: what would the FBI do if somebody refused to sign their document?

There are many different options on an escalating scale of grief for Harry.

IF Harry really was somebody on the FBI's radar (which he was not), and IF the FBI was really "pissed off" by Harry's public comments and they wanted to punish him and prevent him from getting any significant publicity, here are just a FEW of the possibilities:

1. the Bureau could have leaked very derogatory information from Harry's rap sheet to a friendly media source (particularly a Hearst newspaper in L.A. area) and let them have a field day with the juiciest portions (and perhaps even get more "dirt" by contacting RCMP in Canada for their specific details, and have a reporter get Harry's military service records)

2. the Bureau could have contacted the Managing Editors or Program Directors of newspapers, radio, and TV stations in Los Angeles to advise them that if they printed anything about Harry or allowed him to appear on any of their shows, the FBI in Los Angeles would no longer provide them with any assistance when they asked for background info (on or off the record about any matter) or when they wanted copies of Bureau press releases or FBI publications (crime stats for example), AND the Bureau could have told these folks that the FBI would contact some of their major advertisers (who were Bureau-friendly) to advise them about the unwillingness of these hostile media outlets to cooperate with the FBI

3. instead of just briefly responding to occasional incoming inquiries, FBI-Los Angeles could have taken a much more aggressive anti-Harry stance by issuing a press release to every news outlet in California stating its case against Dean and summarizing information in its files which would totally discredit Harry --- INCLUDING (but not limited to)

(3.1) releasing a copy of his letter to Hoover and to JFK where Harry admitted his "past problems with the law"

(3.2) releasing a copy of the July 1961 Senate hearings which reflect that Harry was Secretary of the Chicago chapter of FPCC (which the Bureau could then mention was a "Communist front")

(3.3.) releasing copies of documents showing that Harry traveled to Cuba in 1960 and he was PRO-Castro

4. Lastly, the NUCLEAR OPTION:

The Bureau could have told Harry that if he refused to sign a statement acknowledging that he was NOT an FBI informant and NOT an undercover agent, AND admitting that he wrongly created that impression in his conversations with other people --- that the FBI would open an "impersonation" case against Harry to make his life miserable. In addition, the Bureau could have hinted that they were prepared to resurrect the "Unregistered Foreign Agent" inquiry --- and then leak all the pertinent details to the local press.

As you should know, the accusation is all anybody ever remembers -- not the denials...and REMEMBER: Even as late as 1966, Harry was STILL trying to get some government official to help him "clear" his name. Which goes to show how sensitive Harry was about that Subcomittee Report reference. Imagine what would have happened if the FBI decided to go to DEFCON-1 and totally destroy Harry's reputation!

You ask, "Or why not require Harry to sign a statement stating that he was NOT even 'an informant' for the FBI?"

I again reply: what would the FBI do if somebody refused to sign their document? If I did see that type of document, I would surely accept it as proof -- because if Harry Dean signed it -- even under duress -- then the FBI won and Harry lost. But we have no such document! There are many more types of acceptable proof, too -- but none of them has been presented, either.

See my previous answer

Ernie, you claim: "The reason the FBI never bothered doing that is obvious -- to the FBI, Harry was a very minor annoyance -- like...other individuals who claimed to have been an informant (BUT were not)."

I reply: It is only obvious that this is your INVENTION.

NOPE---not my invention. Merely self-evident FACT which is apparent from the tone and substance of all FBI memos pertaining to Harry. AGAIN: Compare what is in Harry's files to files where the FBI really was "pissed off" at somebody --- such as Eustace Mullins.

Each case has to be evaluated separately. Different FBI informants can be dangerous to the FBI in different ways. You mention Matt Cvetic, who was a very educated person, and represented as special sort of threat to the FBI.

Cvetic was NOT an "educated person" -- and certainly NOT (as you write) a "very educated person". He only completed 10th grade. Where do you get all this crap?

The specific knowledge that person has, and how sophisticated he or she may be -- all of that adds up to the unique aspect of that FBI informer.

I have no clue what your statement means. Informants provided RAW INFORMATION. Their information could be routine and irrelevant for FBI purposes, false, ambiguous, fragmentary, exaggerated, gossip, rumors, half-true, so what difference does it make how "sophisticated" they were? Whatever that means.

YOU are a VERY-WELL EDUCATED PERSON....but that didn't prevent you from just making a stupid, factually untrue comment about Cvetic's educational background. If YOU were an FBI informant, you could make the exact same type of mistakes, no matter how "sophisticated" you were in comparison to other people.

You then try to compare Matt Cvetic with Harry Dean, and you say that Harry "NEVER rose to this level of importance. The FBI did not rely upon ANY information provided by Harry about ANYTHING. He was never even considered for official informant status (because of his background)..."

But that is your INVENTION, Ernie. You don't know what the FBI was thinking in the case of Harry Dean -- because first of all, you haven't seen all the documents that are now available under the FOIA act.

I have seen the memos starting in the early 1960's and then continuing into the mid-70's -- and ALL OF THEM (without exception) give the EXACT SAME PICTURE.

What, even hypothetically, do you think is going to change?

Do you, for example, think that something in the Los Angeles file is going to refute or falsify the statements which can be found in the Los Angeles serials we have already seen ALL OF WHICH make the SAME evaluation of Harry? What would be the basis for such extraordinary optimism?

SUPPOSE, for example, that there are 3 FBI files about YOU and each one of them reflects that the FBI described you as an irrational fanatic, a convicted felon, and a former psychiatric patient.

Do you think that, IF you discovered that a 4th file existed about you (not previously known) -- that, by some incredible miracle, you could reasonably expect that 4th file to show that the FBI suddenly changed ALL of their previous evaluations of you in those other 3 files?

Each FBI informant must be evaluated separately. Not all were alleged to be associated with the JFK assassination -- the real issue under discussion here on this Forum.

I know that is VERY central to your argument -- but you are wrong Paul. Eventually, you may have the ability to acknowledge your mistake.

The only thing that I know with certainty today, is that the Los Angeles FBI alone had 60+ serials on Harry Dean, with hundreds of pages of material.

It sounds ridiculous for somebody to say that Harry Dean was "a very minor annoyance" under those circumstances. Why would the FBI have 60+ serials of "a very minor annoyance?"

You are confusing QUANTITY with SUBSTANCE. As I told you before, many of those serials are duplicative and many of them (in fact about 40% of the entire file) pertain to just one or two subjects (the Bill Capps newspaper article and the Pyne Program and the CIA -- all those inquiries and replies for example),

In addition, there is the back and forth between Los Angeles and Chicago, Los Angeles and HQ, and HQ and Memphis/Dallas -- which pertains solely to summarizing Harry's background -- depending upon whom was asking about Harry.

And this doesn't even count the FBI serials held at FBI headquarters, nor the FBI serials that were destroyed by the Chicago FBI.

As previously noted, it may be possible to re-construct a major portion of the Chicago file from copies of serials appearing in other files --- but it is unusual for an originating office to destroy a file unless they believed it had no significant material that was not already sent to HQ. The only exception (normally) would be an informant file. I cannot recall off the top of my head, any originating field office which has ever destroyed one of its "informant" files.

And please don't repeat your INVENTION that the Chicago FBI destroyed their files on Harry Dean because he was "a very minor annoyance." Harry was a known FPCC Secretary in Chicago. So, until we see all the FBI records on Harry Dean, his story will still stand as viable.

Harry's FPCC "title" was on paper and even that did not last very long -- but his actual functions (in terms of decision-making or policy) do not seem to be very significant. The REAL key actors in FPCC-Chicago were John Rossen, Angus Sumner, Juan Del Rosario, and Flo and Richard Criley...plus there is another person whose name is not familiar to me but the FBI opened a main file on him so I assume he was significant.

Consequently, there is no reason to believe that Chicago would have destroyed their file on Harry IF (1) he actually was an FBI informant OR (2) even if not an official informant, if he was a good source of confidential information that the Chicago office did not have available from any other source.

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

MY REPLIES UNDERNEATH YOUR COMMENTS