Harry Dean: Memoirs

[John Dolva]

Larry's endorsement means a lot. I have to second that. I have a rudimentary knowledge that has been enhanced by Ernies detailed posts.

[Paul Trejo]

1…It is VERY clear that Harry described himself as an "agent of the FBI"…

2…There are several FBI memos which reflect that Harry personally acknowledged to FBI Special Agents that he had referred to himself as an "agent" of the FBI and Harry told them he would not do that again…

3...If your premise is accurate (i.e. "we have not seen those FBI serials yet"), then how can YOU make definitive declarations that there ARE such "hostile reports"?

4…What is particularly striking about Harry's FBI file documents is that the FBI kept the most derogatory information about Harry (from his rap sheet) confidential -- within the Bureau itself instead of giving it to sources who could then circulate it publicly without the FBI's fingerprints on it.

5…All…George Murphy…was told "for your confidential information" is that Harry was never authorized to represent or act in any official capacity for the FBI and the Bureau had to contact Harry several times to tell him to desist from making such claims. But nothing was shared with Murphy re: Harry's background---which is what the FBI would do if they ACTUALLY DID want to discredit somebody.

6…The file copy notation on the FBI Bureau copy of the Murphy letter also points out that Harry "continued to make such claims to a newspaper and television station and was again contacted on 1/6/65 and admonished emphatically to desist from his claims". The file copy notation refers to several different occasions when the FBI tried to get Harry to stop making such claims: 6/7/61,

12/2/63, 1/5/65.

7…You simply do not want to acknowledge that there is a HUGE difference between accepting unsolicited information OR answering routine questions versus becoming a genuine FBI informant.

8…nobody that I know of has ever made the accusations which you are making about FBI documentary evidence or about FBI files or about FBI Special Agent interviews.

9…OK--you question the veracity of the FBI -- but based upon what evidence? NOTHING but Harry's word!

10…you have provided NOTHING whatsoever to refute the FACT that the FBI categorically denies that Harry was ever an informant or confidential source.

11…Harry claims that he was an FBI informant for several years (in some communications he says 1960-1965) and he allegedly made reports to the FBI (in both Chicago and Los Angeles) about many different persons and organizations. IF that was true, then his FBI files should be MUCH larger than the ones we know about.

These selected quotes of Ernie Lazar are from post #604. I numbered them above so that I can answer them by the numbers (which is far more courteous to the reader, IMHO).

1. It is only “very” clear to YOU, Ernie, that Harry described himself as an "agent of the FBI". That is because you accept the FBI claims without challenging the FBI.

2. You say that “several FBI memos reflect that Harry personally acknowledged to FBI Special Agents” that he referred to himself as an FBI Agent, and that Harry later apologized. But I challenge their story because it seems to cover their behind at a time when Harry told them he was going public. I demand independent confirmation before I believe the FBI on the topic of the JFK assassination.

3. You ask how I can claim that the FBI made “hostile reports” about Harry Dean since I haven’t seen all the FBI serials yet. But I reply that the ones we have are already hostile, starting with those mentioned above. Until I see independent confirmation, I feel justified in treating those reports as hostile reports.

4. You imply that the FBI could have been far more hostile to Harry Dean if they wanted to – for example, by publicizing their alleged ‘rap sheet’ on Harry Dean, which I have shown is full of holes. It is just as likely that the FBI was afraid of publicizing a fraud – knowing they could be sued and that would have been bad PR – something Hoover dreaded. Only if I see independent confirmation of the FBI will I change my mind.

5. You say that the FBI told Senator George Murphy that Harry Dean was warned “several times” for claiming to be an FBI agent. You also say this was “confidential,” but that can be interpreted as the FBI spreading its hostile fiction about Harry Dean, and keeping a lid on it, because any publicized libel could result in bad PR. Nor did the FBI need to share their fraudulent “rap sheet” with Senator Murphy – in fact that would have seemed like overkill and given away their hand. So, until I see independent confirmation of the FBI fiction that Harry Dean claimed to be an FBI agent, I will continue to treat that claim as a hostile report.

6. You say that the FBI letter to Senator Murphy also claims that Harry "continued to make such claims to a newspaper and television station and was again contacted” on the dates 6/7/61, 12/2/63, 1/5/65 and 1/6/65, “and admonished emphatically to desist from his claims". Says who? Says the FBI. What confirmation do they offer? None. Senator Murphy was friendly to the FBI, so he didn’t challenge them, presumably. I respect the FBI, too, except on the topic of the JFK assassination.

7. You say I deny the difference between unsolicited information, routine questions “versus becoming a genuine FBI informant,” and that’s simply incorrect. Harry Dean told me he never accepted money from the FBI except informally, for minor expenses (e.g. gas). So I’m certain that Harry Dean was never a formal, paid informant of the FBI. Harry told me that he offered the FBI information, they asked him questions, and he answered their questions; period. Also, the very existence of 60+ FBI serials containing hundreds of pages about Harry Dean from Los Angeles alone proves that they exchanged communications! So, without even seeing the contents of these FBI serials, I will stand up and affirm today that Harry Dean told me the truth!

8. You said, Ernie: “nobody that I know of has ever made the accusations” that Paul Trejo is making about FBI documentary evidence, FBI files or SAC interviews. But you also admitted to Paul Brancato that you are not very familiar with JFK research literature! If you knew JFK research literature, you would never make such a weak statement!

9. You say, Ernie, that I question the veracity of the FBI based on “NOTHING but Harry's word!” That is simply incorrect. Again, if you knew JFK research literature, you would never say anything so weak. For just one of many examples, I will cite a retired FBI Agent who even today accuses the FBI of lying about the JFK assassination for the past 50 years. His name is Don Adams; his web site is www.adamsjfk.com and he is the FBI Agent who investigated and questioned Joseph Milteer. Most JFK researchers know immediately who he is, so I won’t go into his story here, but will quote Don Adams here and now:

“The vast majority of men and women in the FBI are dedicated to their country and to the work they are doing…That is what I believe makes the FBI the greatest law enforcement agency in the business...[However]; when the Director of the FBI – in this case, J. Edgar Hoover – takes an attitude that is contrary to a good and solid investigative direction, then the people who work under him are compelled to follow his direction. That direction may detour those men and women from what they know to be the proper direction and away from the investigative procedure they should follow…It is my belief that this is what happened in the [JFK] assassination investigation.” (Don Adams, former FBI Agent, 2010)

That is only the tip of the iceberg, Ernie, but since you are new to JFK research, you might be forgiven for claiming that I rely on NOTHING but Harry’s word when I doubt the FBI!

10. You say, Ernie, that I provide nothing to refute the fact that the FBI denies Harry was ever a formal informant or source. That is a poor way of putting it. Actually, I don’t seek to refute that fact at all. Harry told me his relationship with the FBI was informal. All these fictions that Harry claimed to be an FBI Agent, or an Official and paid Informer always come from the FBI and W.R. Morris, as far as I can see. The burden of proof is not on me to disprove their fiction, but on YOU to prove it with independent confirmation.

Evidently the FBI invented this to discredit Harry – and this what I call a hostile report. YOU believe the FBI claim, Ernie, not me. So I have nothing to refute here. It’s an FBI and W.R. Morris fiction, pure and simple – and the exact date it started still remains to be determined.

11. You keep spreading the rumor, Ernie, that “Harry claims that he was an FBI informant for several years,” in the sense that he was a paid, Official Informant. But Harry never told me that in our interviews, nor have I ever seen that in writing outside FBI hostile reports and the lies of W.R. Morris. I predict you will one day retract your many YEARS of claiming this – one day soon.

You also claim that “IF that was true, then his FBI files should be MUCH larger than the ones we know about,” and that is simply irrelevant. Each FBI informant (official or unofficial) is unique, so it is nonsense to compare the size of their files, as if quantity is more important than quality. In my opinion, 60+ serials and hundreds of pages is plenty to demonstrate that there was indeed communication between the FBI and Harry Dean between 1960-1967. So, have a look at them before broadcasting the fiction spread by W.R. Morris, OK?

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Edited February 21, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Ernie Lazar]

OUESTION

Has Ernie Lazar been helpful or useful to Historians, JFK researchers or individuals

with interest in the JFK Assassination.

Your opinions are requested, your input will be appreciated and valuable. Do not

be fearful, the 'wordsmith' LAZAR is awaiting your daring opinions.

Well, Harry, we could ask the same question about you.

What "historians" for example, have written in their books and/or peer-reviewed academic journal articles that your story has been helpful with respect to the understanding of the murder of our President? [see below for more info.]

Can you name (I'll make this easy for you) TWO well-known historians who have a clear record of scholarship whom presumably are currently (or were) employed at a college or university in our country?

I'll make it even easier for you.

I have online access to several major library databases which enable me to search for all sorts of interesting stuff. Here is what I discovered with respect to you.

JSTOR

In case you are not familiar with it, JSTOR is a library database which provides full-text pdf copies of articles and monographs appearing in 2000 academic journals in 50 disciplines, including, of course, history and political science (from volume 1, #1 to the current issue) . JSTOR has digitized over 50 million pages of articles and it adds about 3 million pages annually.

In recent years, JSTOR has expanded its selection to include eBooks and pamphlets, manuscripts, oral histories, and government documents.

TOTAL NUMBER OF REFERENCES TO "Harry Dean" and "Harry J. Dean": ZERO [except for some other person]

NEWSBANK

Newsbank contains millions of newspaper articles -- some going back as far as 1979 -- but most of them are from the past 30 years.

TOTAL number of article references to Harry Dean or Harry J. Dean = ZERO

ACADEMIC SEARCH--by EBSCO

This database shows the content of articles appearing in 11,700 journals and periodicals

TOTAL number of references to Harry Dean or Harry J. Dean = ZERO

As Robin Ramsay points out in his book, "Who Shot JFK" (2nd edition 2009):

"Dean has never been taken seriously by the Kennedy researchers, though I am not sure why."

[Ernie Lazar]

1…It is VERY clear that Harry described himself as an "agent of the FBI"…

2…There are several FBI memos which reflect that Harry personally acknowledged to FBI Special Agents that he had referred to himself as an "agent" of the FBI and Harry told them he would not do that again…

3...If your premise is accurate (i.e. "we have not seen those FBI serials yet"), then how can YOU make definitive declarations that there ARE such "hostile reports"?

4…What is particularly striking about Harry's FBI file documents is that the FBI kept the most derogatory information about Harry (from his rap sheet) confidential -- within the Bureau itself instead of giving it to sources who could then circulate it publicly without the FBI's fingerprints on it.

5…All…George Murphy…was told "for your confidential information" is that Harry was never authorized to represent or act in any official capacity for the FBI and the Bureau had to contact Harry several times to tell him to desist from making such claims. But nothing was shared with Murphy re: Harry's background---which is what the FBI would do if they ACTUALLY DID want to discredit somebody.

6…The file copy notation on the FBI Bureau copy of the Murphy letter also points out that Harry "continued to make such claims to a newspaper and television station and was again contacted on 1/6/65 and admonished emphatically to desist from his claims". The file copy notation refers to several different occasions when the FBI tried to get Harry to stop making such claims: 6/7/61,

12/2/63, 1/5/65.

7…You simply do not want to acknowledge that there is a HUGE difference between accepting unsolicited information OR answering routine questions versus becoming a genuine FBI informant.

8…nobody that I know of has ever made the accusations which you are making about FBI documentary evidence or about FBI files or about FBI Special Agent interviews.

9…OK--you question the veracity of the FBI -- but based upon what evidence? NOTHING but Harry's word!

10…you have provided NOTHING whatsoever to refute the FACT that the FBI categorically denies that Harry was ever an informant or confidential source.

11…Harry claims that he was an FBI informant for several years (in some communications he says 1960-1965) and he allegedly made reports to the FBI (in both Chicago and Los Angeles) about many different persons and organizations. IF that was true, then his FBI files should be MUCH larger than the ones we know about.

These selected quotes of Ernie Lazar are from post #604. I numbered them above so that I can answer them by the numbers (which is far more courteous to the reader, IMHO).

1. It is only “very” clear to YOU, Ernie, that Harry described himself as an "agent of the FBI". That is because you accept the FBI claims without challenging the FBI.

Paul---as I was reading your message, I thought of a new way to express my problem with your argument against accepting what appears in FBI memos -- which are contemporaneous primary source documents.

Let's rewind our debate to 6 or 8 weeks ago. Let's go back to the point in time BEFORE I had found the copy of Harry's 1961 letter to JFK and BEFORE I had found a copy of his November 1963 letter to Hoover and BEFORE I had found a copy of his December 1964 letter to the Joe Pyne show.

So---all I am relying upon (at this point) are the FBI memos which you would describe as unsubstantiated "FBI claims" regarding FBI contacts with Harry and about his story.

Are you following me so far?

NOW---let's compare the summaries appearing in memos by FBI employees (HQ and field office) concerning what they "claimed" Harry had written or said to what we subsequently discovered when I found and scanned and posted online the actual letters written by Harry.

It turns out that in EVERY instance, the FBI memo is accurate.

I am not going to repeat everything here but let me provide this brief summary starting with one of the very first serials in Harry's HQ file 62-109068 (dated 12/10/63) -- a memo from SAC Los Angeles to J. Edgar Hoover

1. The 12/63 FBI-Los Angeles memo refers to Harry being involved in pro-Castro groups such as FPCC and July 25th Movement in Chicago and it mentions that Harry joined the FPCC in July 1960 -- which, as it turns out, Harry's 6/28/61 letter to JFK and his 11/19/63 letter to Hoover both confirm.

2. The FBI memo mentions that after Harry concluded that he was involved with Communists in those organizations (in leadership positions), that he contacted the FBI office in Chicago in the summer of 1960 and he continued to periodically call the FBI with more info until July 1961. And, as it turns out, Harry's letters to JFK and Hoover confirm that.

3. The FBI memo states that Harry was interested in getting his named "cleared" -- and Harry's letters to JFK and Hoover confirm that.

4. The FBI memo mentions that Harry was never called to testify before the Senate Subcommittee (in 1961) -- and Harry's letters confirm that.

Now -- let's move on to another FBI memo (this one a HQ summary memo dated 6/16/65).

5. The FBI memo summarizes all the info above (#1 - #4) which we already know is accurate. Then it adds new info such as:

6. The HQ memo states that Harry had a former criminal record. Harry's letters to JFK and Hoover use more general phrases such as "my past difficulty with the law" without providing any details other than one cryptic reference to "my outstanding debt"

7. The HQ memo states that in June 1961 Harry was advised that "the Chicago Office did not desire his assistance". Harry's JFK letter confirms that too -- although there is a discrepancy about the date. Harry's letter to JFK says he was notified "today" by the Chicago Agents (referring to date of his letter, i.e. 6/28/61) whereas the FBI memo says he was contacted "personally by two Agents on 6-7-61 at which time he was advised that the Chicago Office did not desire his assistance."

8. The HQ memo states that Harry had been in touch with Bob Hayward of station KTTV (date not specified) but we know Harry has confirmed that by his 12/10/64 letter to "The Director" of the Joe Pyne Show.

9. The HQ memo then refers to Harry's contacts with Bill Capps, a newspaper reporter for the Valley Journal. We know that is true. And the HQ memo states that Capps was told that Harry was never an FBI undercover agent nor was he ever asked by the FBI to do anything for the FBI. And we know that Capps ignored all that information and wrote a 2-part article which was published starting on 6/16/65, the first part dealt with Harry's story with respect to Chicago and FPCC and the second part published the next week dealt with Harry's views on the JFK assassination.

BOTTOM-LINE

I could use a lot of space here Paul to compare what is contained in many other FBI memos to what Harry has already confirmed (one way or another in his letters, or your eBook or in messages appearing here in EF or from other sources).

My point is this: the FBI memos, as shown above, were VERY accurate (EVEN BEFORE we had the ability to confirm them because we did not know about the specific letters which Harry wrote.)

CONSEQUENTLY -- there is NO basis for us to believe your derogatory ASSUMPTION or SPECULATION.

When contemporaneous historical records are challenged or disputed -- it is because somebody has discovered VERIFIABLE FACTUAL EVIDENCE to support such a challenge or dispute. Primary source documents are NOT challenged or disputed just because a self-interested party wants people to believe ONLY his particular story -- usually because it puts him in a more favorable light.

NOW---here is ONE point of YOURS which MIGHT have some credence. I use the word "MIGHT" because neither you or Harry has provided any further details.

10. You went to great lengths to slime the FBI for Harry's rap sheet and to ridicule its content as being NON-credible. But neither you or Harry has provided ANY specific details regarding ANYTHING contained in Harry's rap sheet. And, again, for the record, keep in mind, that the FBI is not the originating source for any info appearing in a rap sheet. It merely collects and summarizes what other law enforcement entities SEND to the FBI. SO....if there are inaccuracies appearing in that document, then we certainly can accept any corrections to our understanding which need to be made but (as with all disputed primary source historical records) we need some kind of verifiable factual evidence.

2. You say that “several FBI memos reflect that Harry personally acknowledged to FBI Special Agents” that he referred to himself as an FBI Agent, and that Harry later apologized. But I challenge their story because it seems to cover their behind at a time when Harry told them he was going public. I demand independent confirmation before I believe the FBI on the topic of the JFK assassination.

No, Paul, I did not write that. This is our continuous problem. You falsely ATTRIBUTE a comment to me, but you always REFUSE to actually QUOTE it.

3. You ask how I can claim that the FBI made “hostile reports” about Harry Dean since I haven’t seen all the FBI serials yet. But I reply that the ones we have are already hostile, starting with those mentioned above. Until I see independent confirmation, I feel justified in treating those reports as hostile reports.

I did not write that either. You need professional help Paul. Please seek it out.

4. You imply that the FBI could have been far more hostile to Harry Dean if they wanted to – for example, by publicizing their alleged ‘rap sheet’ on Harry Dean, which I have shown is full of holes. It is just as likely that the FBI was afraid of publicizing a fraud – knowing they could be sued and that would have been bad PR – something Hoover dreaded. Only if I see independent confirmation of the FBI will I change my mind.

I did NOT write that either. I wrote that the FBI could have leaked information to friendly media and then the media could have had a field day with publicizing derogatory info about Harry. The FBI would never directly publicize anything which could lead back to them. Instead, they would have contacted a friendly reporter and given them some hints such as: "By the way, did you know that Harry was born in Canada? Maybe you should contact your sources with law enforcement authorities up there and inquire into his background." Thus, the entire burden (and responsibility) would fall upon the journalists to discover what they could and the FBI could plausibly deny that they had provided any specific information from their files. With respect to your comment about a lawsuit, you obviously are ignorant about American law. With respect to your comment about you supposedly showed re: the rap sheet, you are delusional.

5. You say that the FBI told Senator George Murphy that Harry Dean was warned “several times” for claiming to be an FBI agent. You also say this was “confidential,” but that can be interpreted as the FBI spreading its hostile fiction about Harry Dean, and keeping a lid on it, because any publicized libel could result in bad PR. Nor did the FBI need to share their fraudulent “rap sheet” with Senator Murphy – in fact that would have seemed like overkill and given away their hand. So, until I see independent confirmation of the FBI fiction that Harry Dean claimed to be an FBI agent, I will continue to treat that claim as a hostile report.

Another total invention by you. Here is what I actually wrote in message #604:

Even Bureau-friendly politicians (like George Murphy) received very circumspect answers to their inquiries about Harry's status. In fact, all Murphy was told "for your confidential information" is that Harry was never authorized to represent or act in any official capacity for the FBI and the Bureau had to contact Harry several times to tell him to desist from making such claims. But nothing was shared with Murphy re: Harry's background---which is what the FBI would do if they ACTUALLY DID want to discredit somebody.

With respect to your comments about the meaning of "for your confidential information", your ignorance is showing again Paul. When the FBI provided confidential information to a Bureau-friendly source, which was NOT intended for public distribution, they used that phrase.

The Bureau provided many people with background information as a courtesy so that they would not (for example)

(1) make a public statement which would come back to embarrass them in the future OR

(2) in the case of job applicants, not recommend or hire somebody who might cause them grief in the future

6. You say that the FBI letter to Senator Murphy also claims that Harry "continued to make such claims to a newspaper and television station and was again contacted” on the dates 6/7/61, 12/2/63, 1/5/65 and 1/6/65, “and admonished emphatically to desist from his claims". Says who? Says the FBI. What confirmation do they offer? None. Senator Murphy was friendly to the FBI, so he didn’t challenge them, presumably. I respect the FBI, too, except on the topic of the JFK assassination.

We aren't discussing the JFK assassination in this context. We are discussing a person (Harry) who claims to have been a FBI (and CIA) informant (even before JFK was assassinated).

In any event, you seem to miss the point. If an historian asks the question: "What did the FBI tell Senator Murphy (or any other public figure) about Harry Dean?" -- then the only way one can answer that question is by finding the appropriate relevant contemporaneous historical records. If there was a phone conversation, one can search for any memos which summarize the phone conversation (for example: Hoover routinely sent all the Assistant Directors written summaries of his phone contacts with the White House and with the Attorney General). One can also search for the same type of documents which were made by the recipient of the phone call -- to compare their recollections with the FBI summary.

But if you eliminate EVERYBODY's contemporaneous documents -- then you eliminate all possibility of knowing what happened (although you might rely upon oral history interviews which normally are recorded years or decades later -- but that is a very dicey proposition because so much time has passed and it becomes problematic)

7. You say I deny the difference between unsolicited information, routine questions “versus becoming a genuine FBI informant,” and that’s simply incorrect. Harry Dean told me he never accepted money from the FBI except informally, for minor expenses (e.g. gas). So I’m certain that Harry Dean was never a formal, paid informant of the FBI.

You do not understand the meaning of the term "official informant". It has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do whether or not the person was paid. Another STRAW-MAN ARGUMENT BY YOU.

Harry told me that he offered the FBI information, they asked him questions, and he answered their questions; period. Also, the very existence of 60+ FBI serials containing hundreds of pages about Harry Dean from Los Angeles alone proves that they exchanged communications! So, without even seeing the contents of these FBI serials, I will stand up and affirm today that Harry Dean told me the truth!

It does not "prove" anything of the sort. There are numerous large FBI files which contain NO communications whatsoever between the subject of the file and the FBI. But what this DOES indisputably prove is that you do not have the remotest clue about what FBI files contain. "The very existence of 60+ serials..." proves absolutely nothing except that there were 60+ serials.

8. You said, Ernie: “nobody that I know of has ever made the accusations” that Paul Trejo is making about FBI documentary evidence, FBI files or SAC interviews. But you also admitted to Paul Brancato that you are not very familiar with JFK research literature! If you knew JFK research literature, you would never make such a weak statement!

You have garbled and combined two different matters and then made a totally false conclusion. Let me spell it out for you, so that you do not make this childish mistake again.

(1) I have no particular INTEREST in JFK assassination literature because, as I previously pointed out, there are (at a minimum) 13 different "plot" theories and they are mutually exclusive in most cases. Plus there is no way to resolve any of the disputes. So it is pointless to even try--although it can be intellectually challenging.

(2) I have told you repeatedly, however, (and you conveniently ignore this) that I have MANY of the FBI files which pertain to the very people (and organizations) which YOU think are critical to understanding who was involved in the "plot".

(3) As merely one small example: I told you that over 20 years ago, I received (as paper docs) about 2600 pages of Edwin Walker's FBI files. A very substantial number of the serials contained in his files were cross-reference copies of serials which ORIGINATED in the FBI HQ main file on the JFK-assassination (i.e. HQ 62-109060). MANY serials in Walker's file pertain to LHO for example.

(4) In addition, I have a considerable number of books in my personal library which discuss the assassination and various theories regarding the key actors. Beyond that, I have boxes full of articles and pamphlets and transcripts which contain all sorts of references to various JFK-related conspiracy theories.

(5) There are ALWAYS people who will challenge conventional wisdom or orthodoxy regarding any major event (which is fine!)

BUT -- my reference was to nobody making the type of accusations which you have made, particularly if you consider our nation's most knowledgeable scholars about FBI history and FBI practices. ANY malcontent can invent something but the folks who devote their entire careers to researching some specialized subject -- and then publish peer-reviewed books and articles -- and are universally recognized as experts in their fields are NOT making the accusations which YOU make about the FBI. Which is why I posted Dr. Theoharis's answers to my questions here in EF.

9. You say, Ernie, that I question the veracity of the FBI based on “NOTHING but Harry's word!” That is simply incorrect. Again, if you knew JFK research literature, you would never say anything so weak. For just one of many examples, I will cite a retired FBI Agent who even today accuses the FBI of lying about the JFK assassination for the past 50 years.

But Don Adams has nothing to say about Harry Dean -- does he? Was Don Adams an employee of the FBI in 1960-1965 in Chicago, Los Angeles, or at HQ -- and familiar with reports about Harry Dean?

His name is Don Adams; his web site is www.adamsjfk.com and he is the FBI Agent who investigated and questioned Joseph Milteer. Most JFK researchers know immediately who he is, so I won’t go into his story here, but will quote Don Adams here and now:

“The vast majority of men and women in the FBI are dedicated to their country and to the work they are doing…That is what I believe makes the FBI the greatest law enforcement agency in the business...[However]; when the Director of the FBI – in this case, J. Edgar Hoover – takes an attitude that is contrary to a good and solid investigative direction, then the people who work under him are compelled to follow his direction. That direction may detour those men and women from what they know to be the proper direction and away from the investigative procedure they should follow…It is my belief that this is what happened in the [JFK] assassination investigation.” (Don Adams, former FBI Agent, 2010)

That is only the tip of the iceberg, Ernie, but since you are new to JFK research, you might be forgiven for claiming that I rely on NOTHING but Harry’s word when I doubt the FBI!

10. You say, Ernie, that I provide nothing to refute the fact that the FBI denies Harry was ever a formal informant or source. That is a poor way of putting it. Actually, I don’t seek to refute that fact at all. Harry told me his relationship with the FBI was informal. All these fictions that Harry claimed to be an FBI Agent, or an Official and paid Informer always come from the FBI and W.R. Morris, as far as I can see. The burden of proof is not on me to disprove their fiction, but on YOU to prove it with independent confirmation.

More straw-man arguments. And frankly Paul I am growing weary of your inability to focus upon the real issues. There is no such thing as an "informal" FBI informant.

Look -- I am happy to continue our discussion about everything else EXCEPT the "FBI Agent" assertion. You seem to think that I am attempting to prove that Harry stated he was an FBI Agent. I am not. All I am saying is that Harry gave that impression to other people and he could have (and he should have) made it perfectly clear in all his interviews that he was NOT an FBI employee and he was NOT an FBI informant. He could have said "I provided some information to FBI while I lived in Chicago" and that would have covered the matter. IF (repeat, IF) he also volunteered some information to Agents in Los Angeles, or answered some questions they posed to him, then Harry could say that too. No problem. But Harry was NOT an "FBI informant".

The ultimate problem Paul is that most Americans never made any careful distinctions between an "FBI informant" or an "FBI undercover agent" or an "FBI Agent" -- which is why Hoover objected to informants using any phrase which included the word "Agent" in it.

FBI AGENTS were TRAINED EMPLOYEES of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (and the Federal Government)

FBI AGENTS were required to meet MINIMUM educational standards (specific eligible college degrees).

FBI AGENTS were required to attend extensive initial 13-week training courses

FBI AGENTS were required to attend subsequent specialized training and refresher courses. [For example: the guys who wanted to work in the Domestic Intelligence Division were required to take classes pertaining to communism whereas other employees did not receive that training; FBI Agents who wanted to become Supervisors (in field offices or at HQ) were required to take Supervision courses, etc.]

FBI AGENTS were required to show their identification (badge and card) to anybody who asked

FBI AGENTS were required to participate in "moot court" proceedings to accustom them to testifying in real court

FBI AGENTS were required to be available for court testimony -- even if that meant traveling to another state

FBI AGENTS were required to work in (accept transfers to) multiple different field offices (the typical Agent worked in a minimum of 4 different offices)

FBI AGENTS received annual performance evaluations and their salary increases were dependent upon meeting stringent performance standards

FBI AGENTS were paid a specific annual salary which was periodically increased

FBI AGENTS received specific benefits (insurance, pensions, health plans, sick leave, vacation, etc)

FBI INFORMANTS were NOT employees of the FBI or of the Federal Government

FBI INFORMANTS were NOT required to meet any minimum educational standards (most never even attended college)

FBI INFORMANTS were NOT required to attend ANY initial training classes

FBI INFORMANTS were NOT required to attend any specialized training or refresher courses

FBI INFORMANTS did NOT have ANY sort of identification card or badge and they were specifically forbidden to identify themselves as an informant

FBI INFORMANTS were NOT required to testify in court (although some did so)

FBI INFORMANTS were NOT required to transfer to a different FBI field office

FBI INFORMANTS were NOT paid a salary

FBI INFORMANTS did NOT receive any benefits (insurance, pensions, health plans, sick leave, vacation, etc)

Evidently the FBI invented this to discredit Harry – and this what I call a hostile report. YOU believe the FBI claim, Ernie, not me. So I have nothing to refute here. It’s an FBI and W.R. Morris fiction, pure and simple – and the exact date it started still remains to be determined.

11. You keep spreading the rumor, Ernie, that “Harry claims that he was an FBI informant for several years,” in the sense that he was a paid, Official Informant. But Harry never told me that in our interviews, nor have I ever seen that in writing outside FBI hostile reports and the lies of W.R. Morris. I predict you will one day retract your many YEARS of claiming this – one day soon.

What do you mean by "rumor"? Harry has stated that he was an informant. I have never ever stated that Harry was a paid informant. That is your invention. There is no such category as "paid Official informant". That is YOUR invention. Nor have you seen that description in FBI "hostile reports". That is your INVENTION.

Paul we have enough matters to discuss without you INVENTING all this crap. Here is the bottom line.

1. Harry claims he was an FBI informant. Period. End of story.

2. Whether or not he ever received money (for expenses such as travel) or even for services provided (which sometimes happened with informants) is TOTALLY IRRELEVANT --- except that (if he did receive any money), it would provide another avenue for research into his claims.

You also claim that “IF that was true, then his FBI files should be MUCH larger than the ones we know about,” and that is simply irrelevant. Each FBI informant (official or unofficial) is unique, so it is nonsense to compare the size of their files, as if quantity is more important than quality. In my opinion, 60+ serials and hundreds of pages is plenty to demonstrate that there was indeed communication between the FBI and Harry Dean between 1960-1967. So, have a look at them before broadcasting the fiction spread by W.R. Morris, OK?

There is no such thing as an "unofficial" FBI informant. Will you please stop inventing stuff?

Please clarify your last statement. What fiction by Morris am I broadcasting? Spell it out in plain English.

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

PAUL: MY REPLIES APPEAR UNDERNEATH YOUR COMMENTS

Edited February 21, 2014 by Ernie Lazar

[Gary Murr]

I think Ernie has been quite knowledgeable and is a very valuable source on FBI procedures, practices and protocols. I thought I was reasonably well informed in many areas of their documentation and process but he is far more so - given that I always value his comments and analysis.

-- Larry

I echo the comments of my colleague, Larry, in answering the question posed by Harry. As someone who has spent 40+ years in the acquisition and analysis of hundreds of thousands of pages of documents generated by numerous agencies and archival institutions, I felt reasonably comfortable with my expertise in dealing with this subject matter, and in particular documents generated by the FBI. I have been very impressed with Ernie's understanding of the house of mirrors that was and is the FBI's construct of documentation. I dare say that Ernie's ability to maneuver his way through the paper maze that is the FBI's manner of doing business far exceeds anything that I have been able to accomplish. And if that were not enough, his use of precise references in his numerous responses throughout this particular thread is indeed refreshing.

Gary

[Paul Trejo]

I echo the comments of my colleague, Larry, in answering the question posed by Harry. As someone who has spent 40+ years in the acquisition and analysis of hundreds of thousands of pages of documents generated by numerous agencies and archival institutions, I felt reasonably comfortable with my expertise in dealing with this subject matter, and in particular documents generated by the FBI. I have been very impressed with Ernie's understanding of the house of mirrors that was and is the FBI's construct of documentation. I dare say that Ernie's ability to maneuver his way through the paper maze that is the FBI's manner of doing business far exceeds anything that I have been able to accomplish. And if that were not enough, his use of precise references in his numerous responses throughout this particular thread is indeed refreshing.

Gary

I also agree that Ernie Lazar has something positive to offer this thread -- what Larry, John and Gary have all agreed, namely, Ernie's expertise about FBI files and procedures.

Now, if Ernie could just stop pushing like a madman that Harry Dean claimed to be an FBI agent, then we could all breathe easier here, I believe.

Also, Ernie seems to me to place a lot of credence in the FBI statements -- and doesn't seem to tolerate much doubt about FBI claims. Have you noticed this, Larry, John or Gary?

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

[Ernie Lazar]

To Larry Hancock and John Dolva -- thanks for your kind words.

[Ernie Lazar]

I think Ernie has been quite knowledgeable and is a very valuable source on FBI procedures, practices and protocols. I thought I was reasonably well informed in many areas of their documentation and process but he is far more so - given that I always value his comments and analysis.

-- Larry

I echo the comments of my colleague, Larry, in answering the question posed by Harry. As someone who has spent 40+ years in the acquisition and analysis of hundreds of thousands of pages of documents generated by numerous agencies and archival institutions, I felt reasonably comfortable with my expertise in dealing with this subject matter, and in particular documents generated by the FBI. I have been very impressed with Ernie's understanding of the house of mirrors that was and is the FBI's construct of documentation. I dare say that Ernie's ability to maneuver his way through the paper maze that is the FBI's manner of doing business far exceeds anything that I have been able to accomplish. And if that were not enough, his use of precise references in his numerous responses throughout this particular thread is indeed refreshing.

Gary

Thanks very much Gary.

When I first started making FOIA requests to the FBI (in 1980), I made a lot of really stupid mistakes (because I was not familiar with the FBI's arcane filing practices or the evasive terminology which they used.).

For example, often I would get a response that said "no main file records" exist OR they would say "no records" but add a qualifying phrase such as "which show any investigative interest by the FBI".

At that time I did not understand the difference between a "main file" and a "cross-reference". Also, I did not understand that the FBI would not search for "sub-A" or "1A" or "1B" files -- or ELSUR (electronic surveillance) documents or certain other categories. The reason why they would not search for EVERYTHING was because it significantly reduced their administrative burden -- particularly when field office file indexes were still manual (not computerized).

Now, however, my standard request letter template addresses ALL of these issues and I routinely appeal any FBI attempts to evade the full scope of what I ask for.

The point being that it takes a lot of experience with the FBI in order to understand how they classify and index records. On a scale between zero and 100, I would place myself at about 65. But the REAL experts are people like Dr. Theoharis and also authors like Gerald K. Haines and David Langhart who wrote the 1993 book "Unlocking The Files of the FBI: A Guide to its Records and Classification System'. Also, the court-ordered NARA study of FBI records and filing systems is exceptionally useful.

Edited February 21, 2014 by Ernie Lazar

[Ernie Lazar]

I echo the comments of my colleague, Larry, in answering the question posed by Harry. As someone who has spent 40+ years in the acquisition and analysis of hundreds of thousands of pages of documents generated by numerous agencies and archival institutions, I felt reasonably comfortable with my expertise in dealing with this subject matter, and in particular documents generated by the FBI. I have been very impressed with Ernie's understanding of the house of mirrors that was and is the FBI's construct of documentation. I dare say that Ernie's ability to maneuver his way through the paper maze that is the FBI's manner of doing business far exceeds anything that I have been able to accomplish. And if that were not enough, his use of precise references in his numerous responses throughout this particular thread is indeed refreshing.

Gary

I also agree that Ernie Lazar has something positive to offer this thread -- what Larry, John and Gary have all agreed, namely, Ernie's expertise about FBI files and procedures.

Now, if Ernie could just stop pushing like a madman that Harry Dean claimed to be an FBI agent, then we could all breathe easier here, I believe.

Also, Ernie seems to me to place a lot of credence in the FBI statements -- and doesn't seem to tolerate much doubt about FBI claims. Have you noticed this, Larry, John or Gary?

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

But I am not "pushing" that claim....You are attributing it to me.

Nor am I placing "a lot of credence in FBI statements". I am telling you that ABSENT contradictory verifiable FACTUAL evidence, I have no reason to believe that a specific FBI memo or report is suffused with deliberate falsehoods. Again, I refer you back to the statement by Dr. Theoharis on this matter.

For further information re: FBI files, see Dr. Theoharis's article: Secrecy and Power: Unanticipated Problems in Researching FBI Files

Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 119, No. 2 (Summer, 2004), pp. 271-290

Among the FBI files which Dr. Theoharis donated to Marquette University are the following:

http://www.marquette.edu/library/archives/Mss/FBI/FBI-main.shtml

FBI INVESTIGATION AND SURVEILLANCE RECORDS

120.0 FEET

Series 1 Watergate Investigation File, 1972-1979

Series 2 Southern Christian Leadership Conference Investigation File, 1957-1980

Series 3 House Committee on Un-American Activities Investigation File, 1928-1980

Series 4 Burton K. Wheeler File, 1924-1933, 1937-1960, 1985

Series 5 ROTC Firebombing and Shooting at Kent State University, 1970-1975

Series 6 Albert Einstein Investigative File, 1932-1955

Series 7 Women's International League for Peace and Freedom, 1922-1978

Series 8 Destruction of Records File, 1913-1983

Series 9 War Resisters' League, 1939-1962

Series 10 David J. Williams Papers, 1918-1985

Series 11 Jesse Jackson Investigative File, 1967-1984

Series 12 National Negro Congress Investigative File, 1930-1961

Series 13 Paul Robeson, Sr. Investigative File, 1941-1978

Series 14 Black Panther Party of North Carolina Investigative File, 1968-1976

Series 15 Osage Indian Murders Investigation File, 1923-1976

Series 16 J. Edgar Hoover Official and Confidential File, 1925-1977

Series 17 Bureau Bulletins, 1919-1958

Series 18 American Legion Contact Program, 1940-1966

Series 19 Committee for Public Justice, 1971-1972, 1977

Series 20 Senate Subcommittee on Security and Terrorism, 1947-1957, 1959-1980

Series 21 Courtney Ryley Cooper, 1929-1968

Series 22 Manuals, 1927, 1936, 1939, 1941, 1976, 1978

Series 23 James E. Haggerty, 1961-1969

Series 24 Communist Activity in Entertainment, 1942-1958

Series 25 Walter Winchell, 1934-1945, 1948-1972

Series 26 Tom C. Clark, 1936-1949, 1952-1973

Series 27 Francis Biddle, 1939-1970

Series 28 Frank Murphy, 1939-1942

Series 29 Homer S. Cummings, 1929-1940

Series 30 Adolf A. Berle, Jr., 1940-1966

Series 31 John F. Carter, 1937-1967

Series 32 Vincent Astor, 1940-1977

Series 33 Ralph Van Deman, 1938-1957

Series 34 Robert Jackson, 1938-1968

Series 35 Henry W. Suydam, 1934-1955

Series 36 Val O'Farrell, 1933-1956

Series 37 Gerald Nye, 1930-1933

Series 38 Lyle C. Wilson, 1941-1967

Series 39 David Lawrence, 1939-1973

Series 40 John Henry Faulk, 1943-1967, 1976, 1978-1979

Series 41 Dissemination of Information, 1948-1955

Series 42 Responsibilities of the FBI, 1951-1956

Series 43 Saville Sax and Theodore Hall, 1951-1969

Series 44 Surveillance, 1946-1953

Series 45 Fulton Lewis, Jr., 1938-1968

Series 46 Henry Grunewald, 1939-1962

Series 47 Abraham Teitelbaum, 1952-1958

Series 48 Donald Whitehead, 1955-1972

Series 49 Clyde A. Tolson, 1928-1973

Series 50 Frederick Woltman, 1947-1970

Series 51 Thomas J. Walsh, 1933

Series 52 Harlan F. Stone, 1924-1958

Series 53 David Sentner, 1941-1943

Series 54 Howard Rushmore, 1940-1955

Series 55 James McGranery, 1958

Series 56 George Sokolsky, 1952-1974

Series 57 Fulton Oursler, 1937-1964

Series 58 Westbrook Pegler, 1935-1966

Series 59 J. Howard McGrath, 1940-1966

Series 60 William J. Donovan, 1940-1974

Series 61 Edward A. Tamm, 1930-1978

Series 62 Executive Conference, 1938-1949, 1951, 1955-1957

Series 63 Freedom of Information-Privacy Act (FOIPA), 1946-1991

Series 64 Joseph McCarthy, 1947-1971

Series 65 Departmental Orders, 1958-1980

Series 66 Federal Register, 1936-1980

Series 67 Privacy Act of 1974, 1959-1976

Series 68 American Legion, 1937-1951

Series 69 Herbert Brownell, 1953-1957

Series 70 Burt Lancaster, 1948-1963

Series 71 Alfred C. Kinsey, 1948-1955

Series 72 JUNE Mail, 1951-1981

Series 73 SAC (Special Agent in Charge) Letters, 1919-1928, 1931-1984

Series 74 Comintern Apparatus (COMRAD), 1943-1963, 1970

Series 75 Paul Corbin, 1944-1966

Series 76 John Francis Cronin, 1943-1969

Series 77 Student Papers, 1990

Series 78 Supreme Court, 1935-1985

Series 79 U.S. v. John Doe, 1947-1949

Series 80 J. Edgar Hoover, Speeches, 1938-1942, 1945-1947, 1950, 1961

Series 81 Orson Welles, 1935-1956

Series 82 Walt Disney, 1940-1967

Series 83 Lana Turner, 1945-1960

Series 84 John Wayne, 1952-1978

Series 85 Warren Commission, 1964

Series 86 Venona Project, 1942-1945, 1995-1996

Series 87 Humphrey Bogart, 1943, 1947-1951

Series 88 Allen Ginsberg, 1963-1966, 1968-1969, 1971-1972, 1975-1976

Series 89 Victor A. Kravchenko

Series 90 Kenneth O'Reilly Research Materials, 1922-1991

Series 91 Fellowship of Reconciliation (FOR), 1923-2003

Series 92 Louis B. Nichols Official and Confidential Files, 1910-1967

Edited February 21, 2014 by Ernie Lazar

[Ernie Lazar]

Because Paul continues to bring this subject up -- as though he knows something -- I thought it might be useful to post this Q&A again:

MY QUESTION TO DR. THEOHARIS

This last question pertains exclusively to internal documents (memos, reports, airtels, etc) where FBI officials communicated with each other about some individual or organization or subject.

In other words, for purposes of this question, I am not referring to any communication sent outside the FBI to any non-FBI employee.

Have you ever seen, or heard about, any factual evidence which establishes that FBI employees (during Hoover's tenure) deliberately lied when they prepared memos or reports to communicate among themselves about any subject matter?

For example: suppose a field office was asked to provide HQ with a summary of information in its files concerning a specific individual OR suppose a HQ Section Chief was instructed by Hoover or by an Assistant Director to provide a summary of information in FBI files about a specific individual.

Do you know of any proven instance where a field office SAC or Special Agent would deliberately write a false report about what was contained in their files and then send it to HQ?

OR do you know of any instance where a HQ Section Chief or Assistant Director would deliberately write a false report supposedly summarizing information in FBI files -- which then would be forwarded to other FBI employees or perhaps even to Hoover?

DR. THEOHARIS'S REPLY:

Third, I am unaware of any instances of lying. Fourth, I am unaware of any instance of false reporting. I trust that this is somewhat helpful. Athan

MY COMMENT

I am presenting this information because Paul Trejo often makes accusations about FBI behavior or practices which (as I have previously pointed out) not even the most severe critics of Hoover have ever made.

If we are going to have any sort of rational fact-based discussion it is incumbent upon ALL of us to present high-quality verifiable factual evidence. As I have mentioned before, any fiction writer can INVENT a story or INVENT an accusation which may seem to be plausible. There is a never-ending bottomless pit of hypothetical possibilities to consider if one's imagination is the only restraining factor.

Addendum:

I received a new email from Dr. Theoharis after I posted my previous message (above). Theoharis replied to a question I asked him regarding FBI informants. His comment was as follows:

"Operating on the assumption that FBI records would never see the light of day, there was no reason for FBI officials to have purged or forged records relating to FBI informers or investigations of American Communists. I find these kinds of wild assertions just that wild and unbelievable. Athan."

[Larry Hancock]

Although not nearly as valuable as the more experienced comments above, the only thing that I've seen that would add to it is a matter of "focus" in reporting. Often agents were sent to do an interview and very clearly were tightly focused in their questions (I've seen very few of what I would call open ended) interviews. Over and over again in reviewing files we tended to gasp at the obvious questions that were not asked, even about contradictory statements. However after a time I came to realize that a lot of the questioning was very "canned", the agents were sent to get certain information and that was what they did. Also, in many instances, agents seemed to be essentially closing off leads to get them off their workload. Their investigations were more collection of facts and taking of statements - which the interviewees never got to see, so what the agent wrote down was what was important to them and sometimes not nearly as comprehensive as the persons remarks.

This whole pattern tightens up even further when you move from the agent to the SAC, whose reports often leave out a lot of detail and you are left clueless because the only remaining files are headquarters files and you can't even be sure what the SAC chose not to mention in the summary report to headquarters. It also really is important to understand the reports in the context of what the agent was being asked to do - simply to follow up on a call and take down some information, to query a source, to actually collect factual information for a federal case being pursued by the Justice Department etc.

But from a purely pragmatic view I certainly agree with the above, there was no reason to lie about anything in a document because there was never even a thought that anybody would see those reports - as a verification of that viewpoint, just look at the totally illegal, immoral and just flat stupid stuff that showed up when a) Bureau offices got burgled or documents did get released. Check some of they things the regional offices reported to Hoover about in their quest to stop MLK's march on Washington, you can be pretty sure there was never a thought to the fact that would become public. In comparison, the CIA left its dirty laundry largely verbal; being the Hoover centric organization it was, the Bureau of the 60's actually put it on paper and sent it to the Director.

-- Larry

[Ernie Lazar]

There is another matter which I have neglected to ask Paul and Harry about -- which arises from a comment which Harry has made.

I cannot find the specific reference right now (I think it is from Harry answering a question here in EF] but Harry stated that, at some point in time, after he moved to California, he became a "private investigator".

A relative of mine (who started out as a California policeman) also became a private investigator here. Therefore, I know that he was required to go through a licensing procedure.

Here is the current applicable licensing requirements webpage (by Calif Bureau of Security and Investigative Services)

http://www.bsis.ca.gov/forms_pubs/pi_fact.shtml

So:

(1) Did Harry undergo the required "criminal history background check through the California Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)."

(2) If "yes", is it Harry's contention that he received his private investigator license in California?

(3) If yes again, can Harry give us his license number -- AND -- tell us for what period of time (i.e. which years) he had a valid investigator license?

Edited February 22, 2014 by Ernie Lazar

[Ernie Lazar]

Although not nearly as valuable as the more experienced comments above, the only thing that I've seen that would add to it is a matter of "focus" in reporting. Often agents were sent to do an interview and very clearly were tightly focused in their questions (I've seen very few of what I would call open ended) interviews. Over and over again in reviewing files we tended to gasp at the obvious questions that were not asked, even about contradictory statements. However after a time I came to realize that a lot of the questioning was very "canned", the agents were sent to get certain information and that was what they did. Also, in many instances, agents seemed to be essentially closing off leads to get them off their workload. Their investigations were more collection of facts and taking of statements - which the interviewees never got to see, so what the agent wrote down was what was important to them and sometimes not nearly as comprehensive as the persons remarks.

This whole pattern tightens up even further when you move from the agent to the SAC, whose reports often leave out a lot of detail and you are left clueless because the only remaining files are headquarters files and you can't even be sure what the SAC chose not to mention in the summary report to headquarters. It also really is important to understand the reports in the context of what the agent was being asked to do - simply to follow up on a call and take down some information, to query a source, to actually collect factual information for a federal case being pursued by the Justice Department etc.

But from a purely pragmatic view I certainly agree with the above, there was no reason to lie about anything in a document because there was never even a thought that anybody would see those reports - as a verification of that viewpoint, just look at the totally illegal, immoral and just flat stupid stuff that showed up when a) Bureau offices got burgled or documents did get released. Check some of they things the regional offices reported to Hoover about in their quest to stop MLK's march on Washington, you can be pretty sure there was never a thought to the fact that would become public. In comparison, the CIA left its dirty laundry largely verbal; being the Hoover centric organization it was, the Bureau of the 60's actually put it on paper and sent it to the Director.

-- Larry

I would only add that FBI Agents (and in fact ALL law enforcement professionals) are trained extensively in how to interview people in different situations. For example, among the factors that would be considered:

Why a non-confrontational approach is more effective

How to develop interview and interrogation strategies

Which questions to ask and when to ask them

How to think on your feet in tough situations

If, when, and how to use confrontation

Obviously, questions asked would depend upon the specific circumstances involved. A criminal investigation proceeds differently from a job applicant background investigation or a subversive activities investigation or just a general "what do you know about this person" investigation?

I do not pretend to be an expert about any of this -- but I do know from some general discussions I have had with my policeman-relative that law enforcement officers are trained to ask "open-ended" questions in certain circumstances.

By open-ended, I mean questions which allow the interviewee or witness to give any answer which THEY think is relevant as opposed to directing or leading the interviewee to think in terms of what the questioner has in mind.

EXAMPLE:

OPEN-ENDED QUESTION: Tell me about your relationship with your boss

CLOSED-ENDED QUESTION: Do you have any problems with your boss

OPEN ENDED: How fast was each vehicle going when the accident happened?

CLOSED: How fast was the red car going when it smashed into the blue car?

Also, interrogation techniques often involve being taught to recognize verbal and physical clues (fidgeting, body movements, inability to have direct eye contact, rapid speech patterns, etc.)

All of these techniques were employed when FBI Agents participated in "moot court" exercises.

What bothers me most about Paul's "solid points" litany is that Paul thinks we should just assume FBI malign intent (with respect to Harry) instead of considering that most FBI Special Agents were entirely honorable, decent, moral, and competent investigators who produced accurate, truthful documentary evidence.

Did they ever get anything wrong? Of course. They are human beings.

But that is different from saying that every FBI employee in every FBI office in every year devoted all of their energy to concocting false reports about everything related to Harry Dean (even though they were creating documents to be used only internally within the FBI) -- as if they had nothing more serious to occupy their time or attention.

Edited February 22, 2014 by Ernie Lazar

[Larry Hancock]

Ernie, could you give me some references to such training say circa 1963-1968. That's the period where I'm most familiar with from reading literally thousands of FBI interviews and reports. I'm not challenging the training happened although I'd like to see the reference just for my eduction - but I certainly seem to recall a number of interviews that seemed to me to be far from open ended...beginning following the JFK assassination and going though the end of the decade. And that would not be out of just one field office but several... In one particular one out of Dallas, the witness kept trying to bring the subject back to his main point but once he mentions having been at Ruby's club its as if he tripped a switch and they never go back, just hammer on his potential connections to Ruby.

As to a "non-confrontational approach", I've also seen reports where literally the first exchange is something like..."we have a report that you did...(fill in the blank)....amazingly enough the suspect almost always moves to immediate denial...and not much happens after that...

I'm not at all assuming any malign intent but I can certainly recall a number of interviews that would not seen to pass the training criteria you listed...which are of course the correct way to go about it.....we discuss a number of such interviews in The Awful Grace of God.....as well as the agents assessment practices, including one incident in which a suspect is clearly telling an untruth based on available Bureau records but in which the agents close it out in their report simply because the suspect was a known and respected business figure in the community, hence could not have had the radical Klan contacts reported...

And of course these comments have nothing at all to do with your and Paul's exchanges and Harry's story, they are simply my impressions from reading numerous documents, many with fine interviewing and assessment skills in play - and in others, not so much...

-- Larry

[Ernie Lazar]

Ernie, could you give me some references to such training say circa 1963-1968. That's the period where I'm most familiar with from reading literally thousands of FBI interviews and reports. I'm not challenging the training happened although I'd like to see the reference just for my eduction - but I certainly seem to recall a number of interviews that seemed to me to be far from open ended...beginning following the JFK assassination and going though the end of the decade. And that would not be out of just one field office but several... In one particular one out of Dallas, the witness kept trying to bring the subject back to his main point but once he mentions having been at Ruby's club its as if he tripped a switch and they never go back, just hammer on his potential connections to Ruby.

As to a "non-confrontational approach", I've also seen reports where literally the first exchange is something like..."we have a report that you did...(fill in the blank)....amazingly enough the suspect almost always moves to immediate denial...and not much happens after that...

I'm not at all assuming any malign intent but I can certainly recall a number of interviews that would not seen to pass the training criteria you listed...which are of course the correct way to go about it.....we discuss a number of such interviews in The Awful Grace of God.....as well as the agents assessment practices, including one incident in which a suspect is clearly telling an untruth based on available Bureau records but in which the agents close it out in their report simply because the suspect was a known and respected business figure in the community, hence could not have had the radical Klan contacts reported...

And of course these comments have nothing at all to do with your and Paul's exchanges and Harry's story, they are simply my impressions from reading numerous documents, many with fine interviewing and assessment skills in play - and in others, not so much...

-- Larry

Well, Larry, it would be very hard to give you specific references without me spending hours going through all the FBI employee personnel files I have obtained or all of the files pertaining to background investigations conducted on people who applied for work in the federal government or on Presidential appointments (such as Cabinet officers).

I don't know if this will meet your requirements but you might want to take a look at the first 25-50 pages of Joseph Condon's file to see the type of interviews which FBI field offices were instructed to conduct into his background and then the type of summary memos which were prepared about him.

Also, on page 60, you can see one checklist regarding the training classes he attended and the grades he received. Also, on page 64, you can see the categories in which FBI Special Agents were rated in terms of their performance evaluations. By coincidence, his SAC at that time (in Butte MT) was the infamous Guy Banister! Condon was generally an excellent employee but also see next section re: Alan Belmont.

http://www.buildingdemocracy.us/archive/dox/fbi-admin/000%20FBI%20EMPLOYEES/Condon,%20Joseph%20F.-1.pdf

Also, on pages 105-106, there is a detailed report regarding areas where he needed improvement.

You will see letters of commendation in his file; also memos regarding letters of censure.

In section 2 of his file: http://www.buildingdemocracy.us/archive/dox/fbi-admin/000%20FBI%20EMPLOYEES/Condon,%20Joseph%20F.-2.pdf

You can see memos concerning specialized training which he received because of his duties within the Domestic Intelligence Division.

The third section of his file (pages 11-37): http://www.buildingdemocracy.us/archive/dox/fbi-admin/000%20FBI%20EMPLOYEES/Condon,%20Joseph%20F.-3.pdf

---contains his "Permanent Brief" -- which usually appears in all FBI Agent files. It presents a very detailed overall summary of an Agent's entire career.

The most interesting files, however, are those of Agents (or even Assistant Directors) who really screwed up.

I know this is a LOT of reading, but it is a fascinating glimpse into the standards which FBI employees were held to. This file pertains to Alan Belmont, Assistant Director of the Domestic Intelligence Division:

http://www.buildingdemocracy.us/archive/dox/fbi-admin/000%20FBI%20EMPLOYEES/Belmont,%20Alan%20-%208.pdf

Belmont's Permanent Brief starts on page 59 and runs thru page 105. It starts with glowing assessments but, then, Hoover really lowered the boom on this guy and you start seeing constant references to "censure" letters he received. By 1955 he was placed on probation (see page 87) as a consequence of the Harvey Matusow fiasco and also because of major deficiencies in investigative reports prepared within the Division. He was again placed on probation in 1958 (page 96 of Brief)

I think you can get a general idea from Belmont's Permanent Brief -- regarding the types of "errors" and delinquencies which resulted in Special Agents or even Assistant Directors getting poor performance evaluations.

Like I said, I don't know if this will satisfy what you are looking for -- but it's the best I can do right now.

P.S.: There are also memos in this file section on Belmont which show censure notices to Belmont because of mistakes with respect to investigative reports regarding Lee Harvey Oswald (see pages 134-144 for example). Also details re: demotions and probation for several FBI employees!

Edited February 22, 2014 by Ernie Lazar