Harry Dean: Memoirs

[Paul Trejo]

...The ONLY disputed item pertains to whether or not Harry described himself to various individuals, in different places, at different times, in a manner which made them believe that he was either (1) an employee of the Federal government or (2) an "undercover agent" working for the FBI. And when you consider Harry's direct answer to two of Snyder's unambiguous questions -- one can at least make a plausible argument for accepting what FBI memos contain WITHOUT being accused of defaming Harry.

Ernie, you posted two PDF files for our review. The first was one page of an alleged transcript of the Tomorrow Show with Tom Snyder interviewing Harry Dean in 1975. In that page, Harry Dean categorically accuses the John Birch Society of complicity in the assassination of JFK.

This is a plausible conclusion based on Harry's claimed eye-witness of an event that occurred in mid-September 1963 in the main office of the John Birch Society in Southern California, in the office of the landlord of the John Birch Society building, who was also one of the fiercest advocates of the John Birch Society in Southern California and in the US Congress, namely, Congressman John Rousselot.

In that meeting, claims Harry Dean, was not only Congressman Rousselot behind his desk, but also Ex-General Edwin Walker, one of the most prominent members of the John Birch Society, and a frequent speaker at JBS events. Walker was especially prominent in Dallas, Texas where he allegedly led his own John Birch Society chapter in 1963. Walker was also well known throughout the South, among John Birch Society chapters in Florida, Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana and South Carolina.

In that meeting, claims Harry Dean, was also WW2-hero and frequent John Birch Society speaker Guy Gabaldon. Gabaldon was also a right-wing activist and a supporter of all anti-Castro causes. He wrote a book in 1970 entitled, America Betrayed, that extols the right-wing, bashes gays, and also bashes the Kennedy family. Dave Robbins was also a personal friend of Guy Gabaldon in Southern California.

In that meeting, claims Harry Dean, were also two prominent members of the local John Birch Society whose names he cannot yet recall.

It was in the context of this secret but official meeting of these John Birch Society members in offices owned by the John Birch Society principals that Harry Dean claims he heard both Rousselot and Walker speak about the exploitation of Lee Harvey Oswald as a patsy in the planned assassination of JFK in Dallas in November, 1963. All parties present heard the announcement and ostensibly shook hands on it.

That is Harry's claim. The scene strongly, combined with the John Birch Society literature he had read, suggested to Harry Dean that the plot to kill JFK clearly implicated the John Birch Society. The data I have seen so far tends to confirm Harry's claim, and I have yet to see data that convincingly debunks Harry's claim.

As for the second document that you posted, it was from the Los Angeles (LA) FBI. The LA-FBI wrote the following in this Airtel of 2 December 1963:

"...DEAN said...that he had no intention of furnishing information to the FBI for money, but only out of patriotic interest. He said that he never considered himself as an undercover agent of the FBI, or is one authorized to represent or act for it in any official capacity, and that he has never intended claiming any such relationship with it." (From SAC-LA FBI to J. Edgar Hoover, 12/2/1963)

I can't help noticing that this is the exact opposite of what you, Ernie, have been alleging for several months (or years) on this very Forum thread. And although the FBI is the source of this, I have independent confirmation of this particular FBI report from Harry Dean himself.

So, keep trying to debunk Harry Dean, Ernie, and keep posting your latest FBI materials here, because it keeps making our case stronger and stronger.

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Edited February 25, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Ernie Lazar]

JUST IN CASE

In the event that EF is shut down sometime in the near future (i.e. 1-6 months), I will be happy to share with you whatever my continuing research discovers with respect to Harry's story.

I will be creating an Email Distribution List just for updates regarding my research. If you are interested in being placed on that Distribution List, you may send me an email and I will add your name. EMAIL: ernie1241@aol.com

[Ernie Lazar]

...The ONLY disputed item pertains to whether or not Harry described himself to various individuals, in different places, at different times, in a manner which made them believe that he was either (1) an employee of the Federal government or (2) an "undercover agent" working for the FBI. And when you consider Harry's direct answer to two of Snyder's unambiguous questions -- one can at least make a plausible argument for accepting what FBI memos contain WITHOUT being accused of defaming Harry.

Ernie, you posted two PDF files for our review. The first was one page of an alleged transcript of the Tomorrow Show with Tom Snyder interviewing Harry Dean in 1975. In that page, Harry Dean categorically accuses the John Birch Society of some complicity in the assassination of JFK.

What do you mean by "alleged transcript"? Are you insinuating something Paul?

This is a plausible conclusion based on Harry's claimed eye-witness of an event that occurred in mid-September 1963 in the main office of the John Birch Society in Southern California, in the office of the landlord of the John Birch Society building, who was also one of the fiercest advocates of the John Birch Society in Southern California and in the US Congress, namely, Congressman John Rousselot.

In that meeting, claims Harry Dean, was not only Congressman Rousselot behind his desk, but also Ex-General Edwin Walker, one of the most prominent members of the John Birch Society, and a frequent speaker at JBS events. Walker was especially prominent in Dallas, Texas in 1963, but he was also well known throughout the South, in Florida, Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana and South Carolina.

Walker was a "prominent" JBS member only in the sense that his name was connected to the JBS at a time when most JBS members did NOT acknowledge their membership.

HOWEVER, in terms of the internal activities of the JBS -- Walker was not a major player And, as previously pointed out, Welch told members of his National Council that he was distancing the JBS from Walker because Welch was dismayed at the advice and counsel which Walker was accepting from people whom Welch described as having malign intentions.

In that meeting, claims Harry Dean, was also WW2-hero and frequent John Birch Society speaker Guy Gabaldon. Gabaldon was also a right-wing activist and a supporter of all anti-Castro causes. He wrote a book in 1970 entitled, America Betrayed, that extols the right-wing, bashes gays, and also bashes the Kennedy family. Dave Robbins was also a personal friend of Guy Gabaldon in Southern California.

In that meeting, claims Harry Dean, were also two prominent members of the local JBS whose names he cannot recall.

It was in the context of this secret but official meeting of these JBS members that Harry Dean heard both Rousselot and Walker speak about the exploitation of Lee Harvey Oswald as a patsy in the planned assassination of JFK in Dallas in November, 1963.

That is Harry's claim. The data I have seen so far tends to confirm Harry's claim, and I have yet to see data that convincingly debunks Harry's claim.

The second document you posted was from the Los Angeles (LA) FBI. The LA-FBI wrote the following in this Airtel of 2 December 1963:

"...DEAN said...that he had no intention of furnishing informatnoi to the FBI for money, but only out of patriotic interest. He said that he never considered himself as an undercover agent of the FBI, or is one authorized to represent or act for it in any official capacity, and that he has never intended claiming any such relationship with it."

I can't help noticing that this is the exact opposite of what you have been alleging for several months (or years) on this very Forum thread.

No Paul you are again misrepresenting my position. First of all, you have the time-line screwed up in your head.

MOST of the allegations regarding whether or not Harry was describing himself as an employee of the Federal Government OR as an "undercover agent" for the FBI occurred years AFTER this memo was created. To be specific, the allegations we have focused upon commenced in June 1965 (the Valley Journal newspaper episode) and also the Joe Pyne Program (Decembeer 1964). Also, there was the "flowers" on LHO's grave episode when Mrs. Marguerite Oswald was quoted as describing Harry as an "FBI Agent" (in November 1966).

Second, it has NEVER been my contention that Harry was a "paid" FBI informant. YOU just INVENTED that straw-man argument and falsely attributed it to me. There is no "exact opposite" case to be made because your mind is VERY confused (or worse).

THIRD, the Los Angeles memo is merely quoting (accurately) Harry's self-serving statements. The memo does NOT make an evaluation about whether or not Harry's statements are accurate.

Although the FBI is the source of this, I have independent confirmation of this FBI report from Harry Dean himself.

You cannot "prove" anything by quoting Harry when it is Harry's statements which are in dispute or subject to interpretation. Independent (BY DEFINITION) means "OTHER THAN" Harry.

So, keep trying your best, Ernie, and keep posting FBI materials here, because it keeps making our case stronger and stronger.

So, keep trying your best, Paul - because everybody sees how vacuous your intellect is. And how intellectually dishonest you are.

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

My replies appear underneath your comments

[Paul Trejo]

This is what the FBI actually wrote about Harry Dean:

"...DEAN said...that he had no intention of furnishing information to the FBI for money, but only out of patriotic interest. He said that he never considered himself as an undercover agent of the FBI, or is one authorized to represent or act for it in any official capacity, and that he has never intended claiming any such relationship with it." (From Los Angeles FBI SAC to J. Edgar Hoover, 12/2/1963)

Does anybody else here -- aside from Ernie Lazar -- think that this sounds like the exact opposite of what Ernie Lazar has been claiming here for all these months?

Thanks,

--Paul Trejo

Edited February 26, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Ernie Lazar]

This is what the FBI actually wrote about Harry Dean:

"...DEAN said...that he had no intention of furnishing information to the FBI for money, but only out of patriotic interest. He said that he never considered himself as an undercover agent of the FBI, or is one authorized to represent or act for it in any official capacity, and that he has never intended claiming any such relationship with it." (From Los Angeles FBI SAC to J. Edgar Hoover, 12/2/1963)

Does anybody else here -- aside from Ernie Lazar -- think that this sounds like the exact opposite of what Ernie Lazar has been claiming here for all these months?

Thanks,

--Paul Trejo

Paul -- I GENUINELY am trying to understand your logic here. So bear with me.

1. What, exactly, have I "been claiming here for all these months" that you think is disproven by your quotation from the above referenced FBI report?

2. The FBI memo (which, incidentally, I provided -- right?) is a summary of what Harry told the FBI during one meeting. Significantly, because YOU think there is some value to this memo, suddenly you ACCEPT it as totally credible evidence! [so much for your FBI-is-not-trustworthy posturing.]

3. There is a substantive difference between a statement made by someone versus whether or not that statement is accurate.

4. So, again, what exactly have I been claiming for all these months? Let's briefly recap.

MY CLAIMS ARE AS FOLLOWS;

(1) There are multiple reports memorialized in FBI memos written by different FBI Special Agents, in different offices, and in different time periods during the 1960's regarding contacts or inquiries concerning Harry.

(2) Several of those reports state that Harry gave the impression to various people (in different cities and at different times) that he was "an undercover agent" for the FBI. In some of those memos, FBI Agents (in some cases, the same people whom you now think CORRECTLY summarized their contact with Harry in the Los Angeles memo I just uploaded) ALSO stated that Harry acknowledged to them during their interview that he had used terminology which gave a wrong impression about the nature of his association with the FBI. The reason was (according to one memo) that Harry wanted to appear on a television program which was syndicated around the country.

(3) I have already pointed out that perceptions about what FBI "agent" means to ordinary laymen differs depending upon the level of knowledge of each person. To some people, it conjures up the image of James Bond. For other people, it suggests that Harry was an FBI employee who had some sort of special knowledge which he acquired from his "connection" to the FBI. For still other people who are familiar with FBI protocols, they probably realized that Harry did nothing more than provide raw information to the FBI of unknown quality or accuracy or value.

(4) The specific 1963 memo which you now want to elevate to SUPREME importance does NOT address the SUBSEQUENT developments --- which occurred in later years (i.e. the publicity-seeking activities of Harry in 1964, 1965, 1966). So the significance of that one comment which you highlight is limited in time and place and does not help us determine what happened LATER.

(5) In addition, when confronted by FBI Agents IN PERSON at your home, most normal people are more likely to be cooperative and accommodating and accede to whatever those Agents are saying (unless you want to roll the dice and see what happens when you piss them off).

(6) All of this culminated in 1975 with the Tom Snyder interview. In that interview, Harry was asked two direct questions and Harry gave very straightforward answers. Unfortunately for your narrative, the answers which Harry gave do not conform to your assurances that Harry never gave anybody a wrong impression about his association with the FBI.

(7) So what is the ultimate bottom-line here?

** MY point is that there is mixed evidence.

** Unlike Paul, I do not immediately discard or de-value or discredit EVERYTHING that is considered inconvenient evidence. INSTEAD, I keep all this information in mind as I review all subsequent documentary evidence.

** BY CONTRAST: Paul admits that he functions as a "defender" of Harry so, naturally, Paul ALWAYS immediately rushes to accept and parrot whatever Harry says or whatever Harry remembers -- even though we are discussing events that occurred 50 years ago!

(8) What is the significance (TO ME) of the "agent" controversy in the larger scheme of things?

TO ME, it is a relatively minor point because I think there are much more important issues to discuss but Paul insists upon magnifying EVERY dispute into cosmic truth proportions.

In fact, Paul is totally ok with INVENTING falsehoods if he thinks it will advance his defense of Harry. Witness for example Paul's recent falsehood concerning what Harry actually said during his Snyder interview, (i.e. the "one word" episode).

Edited February 26, 2014 by Ernie Lazar

[Paul Trejo]

(1) Harry states that he moved his family from Chicago to California by car starting on June 28, 1961. Then, according to Harry: “Not long after we arrived in Los Angeles, Wesley Grapp of the local FBI contacted me out of the blue” and Grapp asked for Harry’s help with finding some information on an FPCC member who had also moved to California in 1961.

(2) Serial #1 in Harry’s HQ main file (62-109068) is dated 11/22/63. It is a memo from Hoover to the SAC Chicago regarding the recent letter which Hoover received from Harry (from La Puente CA) dated 11/19/63. Hoover told Chicago that, “Bufiles contain no information indicating that this correspondent was considered an informant or a potential informant by your office.” Then Hoover instructed Chicago to provide both HQ and Los Angeles field with a summary of any information Chicago had regarding Dean. So, the obvious questions here are:

(2.1) How do we explain why FBI HQ had no copies of Harry’s alleged 1961 [or 1962] informant reports from Los Angeles field (presumably to Grapp)…?

(2.2) How do we explain that the FIRST serial in Harry’s HQ main file indicates that his file was opened in November 1963?

(3) Serial #2 in Harry’s main HQ file is dated 11/26/63. This is Chicago field’s reply to Hoover’s 11/22/63 memo to Chicago. Chicago advised HQ about Harry’s August 1960 telephone call (when he did not identify himself) and a subsequent phone call in December 1960. Chicago also advised HQ about the information which they received from FBI-Indianapolis that reported Harry’s background as provided by the Whiting IN Police Department.

(3.1) Chicago then advised HQ that on 6/7/61, two Chicago Special Agents told Harry “that this office did not desire his assistance”. Lastly, Chicago told HQ that all of this information was provided to Los Angeles field on September 19, 1962.

(3.2) So the next obvious question is why would FBI-Chicago have sent its first summary memo on Harry to Los Angeles in September 1962?

(3.3) If, as Harry claims, he was approached by Wesley Grapp [or the FBI] in the summer of 1961 [or later], then standard FBI field office procedure would require Los Angeles to contact Chicago field and/or HQ to get a summary memorandum from them about the person who claimed to have been an FBI informant in Chicago.

(4) …Harry’s HQ main file (62-109068) incorporated documents which originally were serialized and placed in HQ main file 62-109217 on Harry…One reason why multiple main files would be opened was to capture data about specific subjects. HQ main file 62-109217 was opened to archive information pertaining to Harry’s claims about his trip to Cuba.

(5) Serial #1 of HQ 62-109217 is a 2/19/64 memo from Hoover to SAC Los Angeles which responds to a Los Angeles communication to HQ dated 1/28/64 and a previous Los Angeles memo to HQ dated 12/10/63…Hoover instructs them to expeditiously provide a summary memorandum “setting forth background of subject (Harry Dean) together with results of interview concerning his trip to Cuba and his admitted membership and activities in the July 26^th Movement and the Fair Play For Cuba Committee.”

At this point, Hoover tells Los Angeles that it is unable to identify Frank Vega (whom Harry had mentioned to Los Angeles Agents) and Hoover instructs Los Angeles to prepare a separate memo to advise HQ what Dean knows about Vega, and the “reason Dean believes Vega to have been with Cuban G-2 and period Vega was reported to be in New York City.”

Serial #2 of HQ 62-109217 is the 3/6/64 Los Angeles response to Hoover’s 2/19/64 instructions. Los Angeles told HQ that it was using “concealed sources” for information contained in their memo which pertains to FPCC…According to Los Angeles, all of this information…originally came from reports made by the following FBI Special Agents: John N. Morgan in Chicago dated 7/26/61 and Lee R. Inman in Los Angeles dated 7/26/62. The obvious questions which arise from these two memos are as follows:

(5.1) Why is it that the first serial in HQ file 62-109217 indicates that this file was opened in February 1964 if, as Harry asserts, he was providing information to the Los Angeles-FBI (Grapp) about an FPCC member starting in the summer of 1961?

(5.2) Why is it, that in February 1964, FBI HQ still does not recognize who Harry Dean is and HQ has to instruct Los Angeles to interview Harry and then provide a report concerning Dean’s story?

(5.3) Why is it that HQ does not recognize Frank Vega, given Harry’s assertions about how he allegedly told the FBI and CIA (in Chicago) everything that transpired during Harry’s June 1960 trip to Cuba?

(5.4) Why is it that the primary case agent in Chicago in 1961 who was assigned to prepare reports on FPCC (John Morgan) is NOT an FBI Agent whose name Harry has previously cited as his case agent?

(6) …When FBI-Los Angeles contacted Harry in 1964, Harry gave them 16 items (mostly correspondence between Harry and Dr. Juan Orta, along with various documents related to the FPCC chapter in Chicago such as letters announcing date and location of FPCC meetings, copies of receipts showing Harry’s dues payments, etc. along with pages from Harry’s J26M membership book and correspondence to Harry about meetings of J26M.) …FBI-Los Angeles seemed to think that none of this information had ever previously been given to the FBI in Chicago because Los Angeles forwarded copies of everything to Chicago.

These selected quotes of Ernie Lazar are from post #635. I used Ernie’s numbers as far as possible to simplify answering them by the numbers. As the date of post #635 shows, I’m still about ten days behind in answering the torrent of challenges that Ernie Lazar posts to my efforts to defend the case of Harry Dean. It’s an uphill battle, but I'll keep plowing forward:

(1) Ernie Lazar notes that Harry Dean moved from Chicago to L.A. in 1961 and thought that the LA-FBI contacted him soon afterward. Ernie wants to see some record of that 1961 contact, however, Harry revised his recollection this month.. Harry now recalls that it wasn’t until 1962 that he and the FBI made contact in Los Angeles, specifically about FPCC and Castro questions. Nor can Harry recall the names of those FBI agents he spoke with in 1962, yet Harry looks forward to seeing the FBI records of those contacts.

(2) Ernie Lazar cites FBI serial #1 in the FBI headquarters main file on Harry Dean (62-109068) dated 11/22/63. Hoover got a letter from Harry Dean dated 11/19/1963 in which he claimed he had been in contact with the Chicago FBI since 1960. Hoover, however, had no file in FBI headquarters about Harry Dean, so Hoover demanded from the Chicago FBI that they send FBI headquarters and the LA-FBI a summary of everything they had on Harry Dean.

This is comical to me. The Chicago FBI here looks like the Keystone Kops, bumbling and falling all over each other. JFK has just been assassinated and Hoover demanded information about Harry Dean which Chicago kept to itself since 1960. So, the Chicago FBI rushed to send their Harry Dean files to FBI headquarters and to the LA-FBI when commanded by Hoover.

(2.1) Ernie Lazar asks why FBI headquarters had no copies of reports about Harry’s alleged contact with the Los Angeles FBI before 1963. Chicago’s Keystone Kops model provides a reasonable guess. The LA-FBI, like the Chicago-FBI, apparently decided that their Harry Dean files weren’t very important. Still, they had Harry Dean on file, and that’s the main point.

(2.2) Ernie Lazar asks why Serial #1 in the FBI HQ main file on Harry Dean was opened on 11/22/1963. The answer seems obvious: the Chicago and LA FBI offices failed to send these reports to J. Edgar Hoover, because they believed that Harry Dean wasn’t very important. But after JFK was killed, Hoover demanded to see those files immediately.

(3) Ernie Lazar notes that Serial #2 in the FBI HQ main file on Harry Dean consists of Chicago FBI’s speedy reply to Hoover’s command. According to Ernie, their records went back to August, 1960, and then in December 1960, which were phone contacts.

Next, says Ernie, this file also contains “information which they received from FBI-Indianapolis that reported Harry’s background as provided by the Whiting IN Police Department.” But I will doubt that until I see it. IMHO, Hoover was upset with the Chicago FBI because JFK has just been killed, and Harry Dean was a person of interest in those critical days, yet Chicago was sitting on data that it failed to share. IMHO, the Chicago FBI was motivated to prove to J. Edgar Hoover that Harry Dean was an unimportant figure – that would excuse them from failing to send vital data to FBI headquarters.

In this scenario, the Chicago-FBI could have pulled data from some other Harry Dean (as it’s a common name). Or, since Indiana is next to Chicago, perhaps the FPCC was also active in Indiana, and the police busted Harry and the FPCC in Indianapolis. Of course, until we can see the data, we can’t really form an opinion.

(3.1) Ernie Lazar notes that “Chicago then advised HQ that on 6/7/61, two Chicago Special Agents told Harry ‘that this office did not desire his assistance’.” Again, insofar as this was highlighted, it seems obvious that the Chicago FBI was trying to convince Hoover that Harry Dean was unimportant, and thus shift blame from themselves onto Harry Dean for their failure to regard Harry’s file as important enough to send to FBI headquarters.

Finally, Ernie Lazar notes that the Chicago FBI told FBI HQ that they sent all this information to the Los Angeles (LA) FBI on 9/19/1962. This confirms my suspicion of the Chicago-FBI shifting blame – here they want the LA-FBI to share some of the blame – after all, the LA-FBI also had the same information going back to 9/19/1962.

(3.2) Ernie Lazar next asks why the Chicago FBI would have sent its oldest files on Harry to the LA-FBI in September of 1962. However, Ernie then answers his own question.

(3.3) Ernie Lazar notes that if the Los Angeles FBI was in contact with Harry Dean in 1962 [not 1961] then it would have been standard practice for the LA-FBI to ask the Chicago-FBI for any files on him. Bingo! So, here we have our first independent confirmation of Harry Dean’s claim that the Los Angeles FBI was in contact with Harry Dean in 1962 – and specifically around September of 1962!

(4) Ernie Lazar notes that Harry’s FBI HQ main file (62-109068) was later updated with other FBI serials (62-109217) which contained archive data about ”Harry’s claims about his trip to Cuba.” Well, so what?

(5) Ernie Lazar notes that Serial #1 of HQ 62-109217 is a 2/19/64 memo from J. Edgar Hoover to the LA-FBI which responds to their memos dated 1/28/64 and 12/10/63. Hoover demanded an immediate summary of the background of Harry Dean, including his Cuba trip and his membership in the FPCC and the 26^th of July Movement. Hoover also demanded that the LA-FBI find out what Harry Dean knew about Frank Vega and his alleged ties to the Cuban G-2 and the time when Vega was allegedly in NYC.

This tells me that J. Edgar Hoover wanted the FBI to interview Harry Dean. This tells me that Harry Dean was considered a viable source of information to the Director of the FBI, no matter what low opinion the field offices of the FBI might have expressed about Harry Dean. This suggests to me that the field office FBI minimized Harry Dean in order to excuse their own failures – they had to make Harry Dean look unimportant, because the FBI Director, J. Edgar Hoover, was breathing down their necks. All this makes more sense to me than the “very minor annoyance” theory that Ernie has been pushing about Harry Dean.

Ernie Lazar notes that Serial #2 of HQ 62-109217 is the 3/6/64 reply of the LA-FBI to Hoover, claiming to use “concealed sources” for its data about the FPCC. Concealed even from J. Edgar Hoover? That sounds dumb. Did they bother to ask Harry Dean himself? Ernie doesn’t say. Again, we must see the document ourselves for the full picture. The LA-FBI named two SACs, John N. Morgan in Chicago (7/26/61) and Lee R. Inman in Los Angeles (7/26/62). Are these the concealed sources? What was their role? Again, we must see this document for ourselves.

(5.1) Ernie Lazar asks why Serial #1 of HQ 62-109217 was opened in February 1964 since Harry claims he provided the LA-FBI information about the FPCC as early as 1962 (not 1961). I want to know that, too, especially since the Chicago-FBI admitted that it sent its files to the LA-FBI in 1962, thus independently confirming Harry Dean’s 1962 claim. It sounds like FBI headquarters had its own bureaucratic foibles.

(5.2) Ernie Lazar asks why, in February 1964, FBI HQ again had to tell the LA-FBI to interview Harry Dean and provide a report concerning his story! Again, FBI HQ had files on Harry Dean since November 1963, but now it demands even more! .It sounds as though the LA-FBI and the Chicago-FBI did a poor job of capturing data on Harry Dean! Probably they thought Harry Dean was “unimportant” so they just went through the motions – but it sounds like that wasn’t good enough for J. Edgar Hoover in February 1964!

(5.3) Ernie Lazar asks why FBI headquarters demanded further information about Frank Vega, even after Harry told the Chicago FBI everything he knew about Vega in 1960? I think the answer is becoming clearer – the Chicago FBI most likely dropped the ball and kept terrible records of its activities. Hoover didn’t trust their shoddy work. The Chicago FBI didn’t even send their 1960 and 1961 records about Harry Dean to FBI headquarters! Hoover didn’t ask the Chicago FBI to interview Harry again – instead, he asked the LA-FBI to interview Harry this time. So, perhaps Hoover was miffed at the Chicago FBI for dropping the ball so badly on the topic of Harry Dean. This is a reasonable guess – until we can actually see the FBI HQ records for ourselves.

(5.4) Ernie Lazar asks why the primary case agent in Chicago in 1961 assigned to the FPCC (John Morgan) isn’t named by Harry as his case agent. It’s a fair question, but I think we have the answer. The Chicago FBI was probably incompetent. We have a Senate Subcommittee of the HUAC period that named Harry Dean as FPCC Secretary in Chicago, but SAC John Morgan didn’t have a file on Harry Dean? That sounds like gross incompetence. Of course, once we actually see all the Chicago FBI files on Harry Dean – oh, wait – those have all been destroyed! Hmm.

(6) Ernie Lazar asks why, when the LA-FBI contacted Harry in 1964, and Harry gave them 16 documents that he saved from the FPCC period, the LA-FBI “seemed to think that none of this information had ever previously been given to the FBI in Chicago, because Los Angeles forwarded copies of everything to Chicago.”

Well, I think that we can propose a theory. The Chicago FBI was apparently incompetent. They dropped the ball, they failed to keep clear records, they failed to share their Harry Dean files with FBI headquarters, their FPCC SAC didn’t keep a file on Harry Dean despite Senate Subcommittee hearings, and now they seem to have lost important documents that Harry Dean probably gave them.

How could they be so incompetent? In the absence of further information, we can justly conclude that Chicago FBI was 100% certain that Harry Dean was a “very minor annoyance.” And that’s why they kept dropping the ball.

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Edited February 26, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Ernie Lazar]

(1) Harry states that he moved his family from Chicago to California by car starting on June 28, 1961. Then, according to Harry: “Not long after we arrived in Los Angeles, Wesley Grapp of the local FBI contacted me out of the blue” and Grapp asked for Harry’s help with finding some information on an FPCC member who had also moved to California in 1961.

(2) Serial #1 in Harry’s HQ main file (62-109068) is dated 11/22/63. It is a memo from Hoover to the SAC Chicago regarding the recent letter which Hoover received from Harry (from La Puente CA) dated 11/19/63. Hoover told Chicago that, “Bufiles contain no information indicating that this correspondent was considered an informant or a potential informant by your office.” Then Hoover instructed Chicago to provide both HQ and Los Angeles field with a summary of any information Chicago had regarding Dean. So, the obvious questions here are:

(2.1) How do we explain why FBI HQ had no copies of Harry’s alleged 1961 [or 1962] informant reports from Los Angeles field (presumably to Grapp)…?

(2.2) How do we explain that the FIRST serial in Harry’s HQ main file indicates that his file was opened in November 1963?

(3) Serial #2 in Harry’s main HQ file is dated 11/26/63. This is Chicago field’s reply to Hoover’s 11/22/63 memo to Chicago. Chicago advised HQ about Harry’s August 1960 telephone call (when he did not identify himself) and a subsequent phone call in December 1960. Chicago also advised HQ about the information which they received from FBI-Indianapolis that reported Harry’s background as provided by the Whiting IN Police Department.

(3.1) Chicago then advised HQ that on 6/7/61, two Chicago Special Agents told Harry “that this office did not desire his assistance”. Lastly, Chicago told HQ that all of this information was provided to Los Angeles field on September 19, 1962.

(3.2) So the next obvious question is why would FBI-Chicago have sent its first summary memo on Harry to Los Angeles in September 1962?

(3.3) If, as Harry claims, he was approached by Wesley Grapp [or the FBI] in the summer of 1961 [or later], then standard FBI field office procedure would require Los Angeles to contact Chicago field and/or HQ to get a summary memorandum from them about the person who claimed to have been an FBI informant in Chicago.

(4) …Harry’s HQ main file (62-109068) incorporated documents which originally were serialized and placed in HQ main file 62-109217 on Harry…One reason why multiple main files would be opened was to capture data about specific subjects. HQ main file 62-109217 was opened to archive information pertaining to Harry’s claims about his trip to Cuba.

(5) Serial #1 of HQ 62-109217 is a 2/19/64 memo from Hoover to SAC Los Angeles which responds to a Los Angeles communication to HQ dated 1/28/64 and a previous Los Angeles memo to HQ dated 12/10/63…Hoover instructs them to expeditiously provide a summary memorandum “setting forth background of subject (Harry Dean) together with results of interview concerning his trip to Cuba and his admitted membership and activities in the July 26^th Movement and the Fair Play For Cuba Committee.”

At this point, Hoover tells Los Angeles that it is unable to identify Frank Vega (whom Harry had mentioned to Los Angeles Agents) and Hoover instructs Los Angeles to prepare a separate memo to advise HQ what Dean knows about Vega, and the “reason Dean believes Vega to have been with Cuban G-2 and period Vega was reported to be in New York City.”

Serial #2 of HQ 62-109217 is the 3/6/64 Los Angeles response to Hoover’s 2/19/64 instructions. Los Angeles told HQ that it was using “concealed sources” for information contained in their memo which pertains to FPCC…According to Los Angeles, all of this information…originally came from reports made by the following FBI Special Agents: John N. Morgan in Chicago dated 7/26/61 and Lee R. Inman in Los Angeles dated 7/26/62. The obvious questions which arise from these two memos are as follows:

(5.1) Why is it that the first serial in HQ file 62-109217 indicates that this file was opened in February 1964 if, as Harry asserts, he was providing information to the Los Angeles-FBI (Grapp) about an FPCC member starting in the summer of 1961?

(5.2) Why is it, that in February 1964, FBI HQ still does not recognize who Harry Dean is and HQ has to instruct Los Angeles to interview Harry and then provide a report concerning Dean’s story?

(5.3) Why is it that HQ does not recognize Frank Vega, given Harry’s assertions about how he allegedly told the FBI and CIA (in Chicago) everything that transpired during Harry’s June 1960 trip to Cuba?

(5.4) Why is it that the primary case agent in Chicago in 1961 who was assigned to prepare reports on FPCC (John Morgan) is NOT an FBI Agent whose name Harry has previously cited as his case agent?

(6) …When FBI-Los Angeles contacted Harry in 1964, Harry gave them 16 items (mostly correspondence between Harry and Dr. Juan Orta, along with various documents related to the FPCC chapter in Chicago such as letters announcing date and location of FPCC meetings, copies of receipts showing Harry’s dues payments, etc. along with pages from Harry’s J26M membership book and correspondence to Harry about meetings of J26M.) …FBI-Los Angeles seemed to think that none of this information had ever previously been given to the FBI in Chicago because Los Angeles forwarded copies of everything to Chicago.

These selected quotes of Ernie Lazar are from post #635. I used Ernie’s numbers as far as possible to simplify answering them by the numbers. As the date of post #635 shows, I’m still about ten days behind in answering the torrent of challenges that Ernie Lazar posts to my efforts to defend the case of Harry Dean. It’s an uphill battle, but I'll keep plowing forward:

(1) Ernie Lazar notes that Harry Dean moved from Chicago to L.A. in 1961 and thought that the LA-FBI contacted him soon afterward. Ernie wants to see some record of that 1961 contact, however, Harry revised his recollection this month.. Harry now recalls that it wasn’t until 1962 that he and the FBI made contact in Los Angeles, specifically about FPCC and Castro questions. Nor can Harry recall the names of those FBI agents he spoke with in 1962, yet Harry looks forward to seeing the FBI records of those contacts.

Which only proves my point about the inherent problems with witness memory or testimony that have nothing whatsoever to do with "lying".

(2) Ernie Lazar cites FBI serial #1 in the FBI headquarters main file on Harry Dean (62-109068) dated 11/22/63. Hoover got a letter from Harry Dean dated 11/19/1963 in which he claimed he had been in contact with the Chicago FBI since 1960. Hoover, however, had no file in FBI headquarters about Harry Dean, so Hoover demanded from the Chicago FBI that they send FBI headquarters and the LA-FBI a summary of everything they had on Harry Dean.

No, Paul, as usual, you miss the significance of what I presented. The problem was NOT that Hoover had "no file in FBI HQ about Harry Dean". The problem we need to address is why FBI HQ had no references to Harry -- in order to at least recognize who he was -- particularly if (as you and Harry claim), Harry was an FBI informant since August 1960.

This is comical to me. The Chicago FBI here looks like the Keystone Kops, bumbling and falling all over each other. JFK has just been assassinated and Hoover demanded information about Harry Dean which Chicago kept to itself since 1960. So, the Chicago FBI rushed to send their Harry Dean files to FBI headquarters and to the LA-FBI when commanded by Hoover.

The only thing "comical" is your post hoc rationalizations.

There is no such thing as a field office keeping information to itself for three years !! about one of its informants. Every field office was required to first request authorization from HQ before they could even begin using an informant.

IF authorization was received, then that informant had to be assigned a symbol number so that ANY information obtained about ANY subject could be put into FBI memos for dissemination outside the Bureau to interested parties (such as Secret Service, military Intelligence, the White House, Congressional investigative committees, etc.) without identifying the informant by name. So, for example, a HQ report on FPCC sent outside the Bureau might contain a comment such as this: "According to information obtained from T-1, an informant of known reliability...." But the ONLY way, FBI HQ would know who "T-1" was meant to designate, is from reports they periodically received from the originating field office. IN ADDITION: the originating field office would have to tell HQ Supervisors the name(s) of the field office case agents assigned to handle any informant.

Your post hoc rationalization is absolutely absurd. Chicago did not "rush" to send their Harry Dean "files" to HQ or to Los Angeles. Chicago responded to a normal inquiry, in a normal manner, by preparing a summary memorandum.

Once again, if you had even the remotest familiarity with FBI protocols or informant files, you would understand (at a minimum) that the FBI (field offices and HQ) kept meticulous cross-referenced records about everything. Mandatory protocols were followed.

One wonders, for example, why it is (in your scheme of things), that a major field office could somehow NOT follow protocol about Harry for three years when there has never been an example of ANY field office "forgetting" to send HQ the required numerous reports about one of its informants?

ALSO: Harry claims he was paid "expenses" by "intelligence agencies". There is no way ANY field office could pay any informant without first obtaining HQ authorization. As part of that mandatory process, the field office had to summarize the type and quality of information received from its informant and then submit a WRITTEN JUSTIFICATION to HQ to seek their approval for whatever amount of "expenses" were being requested.

So, again, one has to ask the obvious question: How could a field office (in your scheme of things) pay one of its informants "expenses" without notifying HQ about the existence of their informant and the information which they obtained from that informant?

See the Jackson field office 4-page memo to HQ on Delmar Dennis which I have posted online which gives you the exact format which field offices always used in order to request FBI HQ authorization to use an informant and to pay any "expenses" to an informant.

(2.1) Ernie Lazar asks why FBI headquarters had no copies of reports about Harry’s alleged contact with the Los Angeles FBI before 1963. Chicago’s Keystone Kops model provides a reasonable guess. The LA-FBI, like the Chicago-FBI, apparently decided that their Harry Dean files weren’t very important. Still, they had Harry Dean on file, and that’s the main point.

Pure sophistry that bears no relationship to any reality. See previous answer.

(2.2) Ernie Lazar asks why Serial #1 in the FBI HQ main file on Harry Dean was opened on 11/22/1963. The answer seems obvious: the Chicago and LA FBI offices failed to send these reports to J. Edgar Hoover, because they believed that Harry Dean wasn’t very important. But after JFK was killed, Hoover demanded to see those files immediately.

Impossible. See section 107 of FBI "Manual of Instructions" for field protocols with respect to informants. If a field office concluded that Harry "wasn't very important", then he would never have been proposed to HQ as an informant in the first place.

(3) Ernie Lazar notes that Serial #2 in the FBI HQ main file on Harry Dean consists of Chicago FBI’s speedy reply to Hoover’s command. According to Ernie, their records went back to August, 1960, and then in December 1960, which were phone contacts.

Not "according to Ernie". According to Harry's recollections regarding his first contacts with FBI-Chicago. Nor is it necessary for you to insert your gratuitous adjectives like "speedy" in order to convey something which is not the case.

Next, says Ernie, this file also contains “information which they received from FBI-Indianapolis that reported Harry’s background as provided by the Whiting IN Police Department.” But I will doubt that until I see it. IMHO, Hoover was upset with the Chicago FBI because JFK has just been killed, and Harry Dean was a person of interest in those critical days, yet Chicago was sitting on data that it failed to share. IMHO, the Chicago FBI was motivated to prove to J. Edgar Hoover that Harry Dean was an unimportant figure – that would excuse them from failing to send vital data to FBI headquarters.

Total fabrication unrelated to reality or rationality.

In this scenario, the Chicago-FBI could have pulled data from some other Harry Dean (as it’s a common name). Or, since Indiana is next to Chicago, perhaps the FPCC was also active in Indiana, and the police busted Harry and the FPCC in Indianapolis. Of course, until we can see the data, we can’t really form an opinion.

(3.1) Ernie Lazar notes that “Chicago then advised HQ that on 6/7/61, two Chicago Special Agents told Harry ‘that this office did not desire his assistance’.” Again, insofar as this was highlighted, it seems obvious that the Chicago FBI was trying to convince Hoover that Harry Dean was unimportant, and thus shift blame from themselves onto Harry Dean for their failure to regard Harry’s file as important enough to send to FBI headquarters.

More unhinged post hoc rationalizations which bear no semblance of rationality.

Finally, Ernie Lazar notes that the Chicago FBI told FBI HQ that they sent all this information to the Los Angeles (LA) FBI on 9/19/1962. This confirms my suspicion of the Chicago-FBI shifting blame – here they want the LA-FBI to share some of the blame – after all, the LA-FBI also had the same information going back to 9/19/1962.

There is no "blame" to shift. All that is revealed in the documents you are discussing is that one field office prepared a routine normal summary memorandum and sent it to another field office.

(3.2) Ernie Lazar next asks why the Chicago FBI would have sent its oldest files on Harry to the LA-FBI in September of 1962. However, Ernie then answers his own question.

They did not send their "files". Your irrationality is so all-encompassing that you cannot even use the correct descriptive terms.

(3.3) Ernie Lazar notes that if the Los Angeles FBI was in contact with Harry Dean in 1962 [not 1961] then it would have been standard practice for the LA-FBI to ask the Chicago-FBI for any files on him. Bingo! So, here we have our first independent confirmation of Harry Dean’s claim that the Los Angeles FBI was in contact with Harry Dean in 1962 – and specifically around September of 1962!

No---again, your comment reveals that you cannot accurately summarize or paraphrase what somebody writes. This ROUTINE incessant problem with your messages means EVERYTHING you write cannot be trusted.

I sincerely do not understand your "bingo" comment. ALL we know right now is that the first serial in the Los Angeles file was dated July 1962. There is no "independent confirmation" of anything at the present time. And, in any event, you have already told us that FBI files are not trustworthy.

Before a few days ago, you insisted (based upon Harry's mistaken recollection) that Harry's first contact with Grapp was in July 1961. IF Harry began providing information to FBI-Los Angeles in July or August of 1962, then the first required quarterly field report to HQ (summarizing contacts with Harry and reporting substance of information he provided and estimating its reliability and value) would be dated October (for July first contact) or November (for August first contact). However, there are NO SERIALS in Harry's two HQ files dated in either October or November of 1962. Nor are there any serials dated December 1962, or January through October of 1963. So much for your "bingo" comment.

(4) Ernie Lazar notes that Harry’s FBI HQ main file (62-109068) was later updated with other FBI serials (62-109217) which contained archive data about ”Harry’s claims about his trip to Cuba.” Well, so what?

I simply was pointing out that two HQ main files were opened on Harry. Researchers need to know what files exist and when files are combined so that people like you cannot make irrational assumptions about them.

(5) Ernie Lazar notes that Serial #1 of HQ 62-109217 is a 2/19/64 memo from J. Edgar Hoover to the LA-FBI which responds to their memos dated 1/28/64 and 12/10/63. Hoover demanded an immediate summary of the background of Harry Dean, including his Cuba trip and his membership in the FPCC and the 26^th of July Movement. Hoover also demanded that the LA-FBI find out what Harry Dean knew about Frank Vega and his alleged ties to the Cuban G-2 and the time when Vega was allegedly in NYC.

Hoover did not "demand an immediate summary" -- that is your hyperbole which you use to manipulate readers into believing your warped narrative. Hoover sent a routine inquiry which was responded to in a routine manner. You ALWAYS want to embellish the literal truth to add drama where there is none.

This tells me that J. Edgar Hoover wanted the FBI to interview Harry Dean. This tells me that Harry Dean was considered a viable source of information to the Director of the FBI, no matter what low opinion the field offices of the FBI might have expressed about Harry Dean. This suggests to me that the field office FBI minimized Harry Dean in order to excuse their own failures – they had to make Harry Dean look unimportant, because the FBI Director, J. Edgar Hoover, was breathing down their necks. All this makes more sense to me than the “very minor annoyance” theory that Ernie has been pushing about Harry Dean.

I am not presenting "a theory". I am accurately summarizing the content of several FBI files based upon documents currently available. There was no known "failure" here except in your fevered imagination. Think about it this way: ANY person could use your template to claim that the FBI was "excusing its own failures" -- IF that person could not find any data in FBI files about themselves. You have created an all-purpose intellectual escape hatch to explain the ABSENCE of confirming data. As previously noted, the absence of proof, becomes "proof" in your scheme of things.

Ernie Lazar notes that Serial #2 of HQ 62-109217 is the 3/6/64 reply of the LA-FBI to Hoover, claiming to use “concealed sources” for its data about the FPCC. Concealed even from J. Edgar Hoover? That sounds dumb. Did they bother to ask Harry Dean himself? Ernie doesn’t say. Again, we must see the document ourselves for the full picture. The LA-FBI named two SACs, John N. Morgan in Chicago (7/26/61) and Lee R. Inman in Los Angeles (7/26/62). Are these the concealed sources? What was their role? Again, we must see this document for ourselves.

No Paul....not concealed from Hoover. It was a descriptive term used to describe the source of FBI information. But you're correct. YOU DO SOUND DUMB!

(5.1) Ernie Lazar asks why Serial #1 of HQ 62-109217 was opened in February 1964 since Harry claims he provided the LA-FBI information about the FPCC as early as 1962 (not 1961). I want to know that, too, especially since the Chicago-FBI admitted that it sent its files to the LA-FBI in 1962, thus independently confirming Harry Dean’s 1962 claim. It sounds like FBI headquarters had its own bureaucratic foibles.

(5.2) Ernie Lazar asks why, in February 1964, FBI HQ again had to tell the LA-FBI to interview Harry Dean and provide a report concerning his story! Again, FBI HQ had files on Harry Dean since November 1963, but now it demands even more! .It sounds as though the LA-FBI and the Chicago-FBI did a poor job of capturing data on Harry Dean! Probably they thought Harry Dean was “unimportant” so they just went through the motions – but it sounds like that wasn’t good enough for J. Edgar Hoover in February 1964!

Your comments are becoming more and more irrational and do not deserve serious consideration.

(5.3) Ernie Lazar asks why FBI headquarters demanded further information about Frank Vega, even after Harry told the Chicago FBI everything he knew about Vega in 1960? I think the answer is becoming clearer – the Chicago FBI most likely dropped the ball and kept terrible records of its activities. Hoover didn’t trust their shoddy work. The Chicago FBI didn’t even send their 1960 and 1961 records about Harry Dean to FBI headquarters! Hoover didn’t ask the Chicago FBI to interview Harry again – instead, he asked the LA-FBI to interview Harry this time. So, perhaps Hoover was miffed at the Chicago FBI for dropping the ball so badly on the topic of Harry Dean. This is a reasonable guess – until we can actually see the FBI HQ records for ourselves.

I have already addressed your fabrications in a previous message.

(5.4) Ernie Lazar asks why the primary case agent in Chicago in 1961 assigned to the FPCC (John Morgan) isn’t named by Harry as his case agent. It’s a fair question, but I think we have the answer. The Chicago FBI was probably incompetent. We have a Senate Subcommittee of the HUAC period that named Harry Dean as FPCC Secretary in Chicago, but SAC John Morgan didn’t have a file on Harry Dean? That sounds like gross incompetence. Of course, once we actually see all the Chicago FBI files on Harry Dean – oh, wait – those have all been destroyed! Hmm.

The FBI already knew about Harry's involvement with FPCC because of a New York informant report. And the Senate Subcommittee was so unimpressed by Harry that they did not even want him to testify.

(6) Ernie Lazar asks why, when the LA-FBI contacted Harry in 1964, and Harry gave them 16 documents that he saved from the FPCC period, the LA-FBI “seemed to think that none of this information had ever previously been given to the FBI in Chicago, because Los Angeles forwarded copies of everything to Chicago.”

Well, I think that we can propose a theory. The Chicago FBI was apparently incompetent. They dropped the ball, they failed to keep clear records, they failed to share their Harry Dean files with FBI headquarters, their FPCC SAC didn’t keep a file on Harry Dean despite Senate Subcommittee hearings, and now they seem to have lost important documents that Harry Dean probably gave them.

Oh give us all a major break Paul.

How could they be so incompetent? In the absence of further information, we can justly conclude that Chicago FBI was 100% certain that Harry Dean was a “very minor annoyance.” And that’s why they kept dropping the ball.

There is no evidence that Chicago dropped the ball. There is, however, considerable evidence that Harry was never an informant -- as admitted by Harry in his own handwriting when he said Chicago Agents told him in July 1961 that his assistance was not required -- particularly given his background.

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

My replies appear underneath your comments. Many of your comments are comical.

Edited February 26, 2014 by Ernie Lazar

[Paul Trejo]

My replies appear underneath your comments. Many of your comments are comical.

Ernie, every single one of your comments is comical. Your so-called research is a one-sided broken record with no aim.

What do you even believe? What do you stand for? Who can tell from your comments which are uniformly negative!

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

Edited February 26, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

Let me try this again -- will somebody else besides Ernie please comment on this?

This is what the FBI actually wrote about Harry Dean:

"...DEAN said...that he had no intention of furnishing information to the FBI for money, but only out of patriotic interest. He said that he never considered himself as an undercover agent of the FBI, or is one authorized to represent or act for it in any official capacity, and that he has never intended claiming any such relationship with it." (From Los Angeles FBI SAC to J. Edgar Hoover, 12/2/1963)

Does anybody else here -- aside from Ernie Lazar -- think that this sounds like the exact opposite of what Ernie Lazar has been claiming here for all these months?

Many thanks,

--Paul Trejo

[Ernie Lazar]

My replies appear underneath your comments. Many of your comments are comical.

Ernie, every single one of your comments is comical. Your so-called research is a one-sided broken record with no aim.

What do you even believe? What do you stand for? Who can tell from your comments which are uniformly negative!

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

No surprise, Paul, that you do not understand normal rules of evidence and logic.

But I am glad you find something amusing -- because you seem to need a diversion from your mania about defending Harry.

Within the next few days, I will have the Los Angeles field file and perhaps there will be some significant new information contained in it. If not, I am certain that you will give us even more comical relief by your new tortured explanations.

[Ernie Lazar]

Let me try this again -- will somebody else besides Ernie please comment on this?

This is what the FBI actually wrote about Harry Dean:

"...DEAN said...that he had no intention of furnishing information to the FBI for money, but only out of patriotic interest. He said that he never considered himself as an undercover agent of the FBI, or is one authorized to represent or act for it in any official capacity, and that he has never intended claiming any such relationship with it." (From Los Angeles FBI SAC to J. Edgar Hoover, 12/2/1963)

Does anybody else here -- aside from Ernie Lazar -- think that this sounds like the exact opposite of what Ernie Lazar has been claiming here for all these months?

Many thanks,

--Paul Trejo

How do you arrive at your loaded question that I have been claiming the exact opposite "for all these months"?

Let's break your paragraph down -- sentence by sentence.

1. Furnishing information for money

I never claimed that Harry provided information for monetary gain. So there is no "exact opposite" there.

2. Patriotic interest

I never disputed Harry's patriotic motivation. So there is no "exact opposite" there.

3. "He said" -- he did not consider himself an undercover agent.

I merely pointed out that other people came to a different conclusion AND Harry's answer to two questions posed by Snyder could reasonably support such a belief --regardless of my personal opinion. However, as previously mentioned, this particular statement by Harry (in December 1963) was made BEFORE most of the accusations commenced regarding how he had described himself -- so you are focusing upon the wrong time period.

4. No official capacity

I agree with that comment. So no "exact opposite" there.

5. Never intended claiming any such relationship with FBI

Well, THAT is what we are considering.

[Paul Trejo]

Let me try this yet again -- will somebody else besides Ernie please comment on this?

This is what the FBI actually wrote about Harry Dean:

"...DEAN said...that he had no intention of furnishing information to the FBI for money, but only out of patriotic interest. He said that he never considered himself as an undercover agent of the FBI, or is one authorized to represent or act for it in any official capacity, and that he has never intended claiming any such relationship with it." (From Los Angeles FBI SAC to J. Edgar Hoover, 12/2/1963)

Does anybody else here -- aside from Ernie Lazar -- think that this sounds like the exact opposite of what Ernie Lazar has been claiming on this thread?

Many thanks,

--Paul Trejo

[Larry Hancock]

Paul in all honesty the length of this single threat is overwhelming but my impression is as follows:

Ernie has been saying that other people including a couple of other people who promoted Harry's story positioned Harry as an undercover agent, paid informant etc...having some ongoing

connection to the Bureau -- while Ernie himself has only described Harry as an individual who offered information to the Bureau on occasion. Now the latter sounds very much like I see in the

quote in the field office Bureau file

No idea whether my view is correct but its based on my only on my recollection of reading those dozens of long and convoluted posts ...so the short answer is no I don't think it sounds like the opposite.

-- Larry

[Paul Brancato]

The only real dispute is whether released or unreleased files would show a deeper relationship with the FBI, and whether, if they did not show a deeper relationship, and/or did not provide direct corroboration of Harry Dean's story of the assassination plot and plotters, that the FBI files should then be considered proof that this plot as detailed by Harry Dean did not exist.

Let's see what Lazar uncovers. If nothing new is revealed we can then debate the general question of the ultimate veracity of Intelligence files. We read often that so and so destroyed this or that file. We know cops cover their tracks as best they can, and that is true everywhere. Its easy for me to conclude that the FBI, CIA, ONI etc deliberately misfile or otherwise hide from investigators any files that reveal illegal actions by their operatives.

[Paul Trejo]

Many thanks to Larry Hancock and Paul Brancato for their opinions. Very useful. I'd also like to hear from John Dolva and Malcom Ward if possible.

All best,

--Paul

P.S. I agree that this thread is very long and repetitive -- some people seem to believe that volume and repetition is convincing. I would love to move on from the barrage of charges and defenses.

Edited February 26, 2014 by Paul Trejo