Harry Dean: Memoirs

[Paul Trejo]

Ernie, you're a poor listener, a poor logician, and you merely repeat yourself endlessly.

You have a mission, clearly, but nobody can yet tell what that is.

I've responded to all of your charges, and all of your nonsense -- and now the time has come for me to make a change.

The benefits you used to bring have finally been outweighed by your weaknesses. Your interference with my congenial correspondence with former FBI Agent Wes Swearingen was the last straw.

So, from this point on I'm changing my EF settings to "IGNORE" for all of your posts. That way I'll never see them again.

Unless somebody else responds to you, I'll never even know you're on the EF at all.

I hope you finally find peace in your Quixotic quest to defend the right-wing in American History -- but I doubt it.

With utmost sincerity,

--Paul Trejo

Edited March 12, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Ernie Lazar]

Ernie, you're a poor listener, a poor logician, and you merely repeat yourself endlessly.

You have a mission, clearly, but nobody can yet tell what that is.

I've responded to all of your charges, and all of your nonsense -- and now the time has come for me to make a change.

The benefits you used to bring have finally been outweighed by your weaknesses. Your interference with my congenial correspondence with former FBI Agent Wes Swearingen was the last straw.

So, from this point on I'm changing my EF settings to "IGNORE" for all of your posts. That way I'll never see them again.

Unless somebody else responds to you, I'll never even know you're on the EF at all.

I hope you finally find peace in your Quixotic quest to defend the right-wing in American History -- but I doubt it.

With utmost sincerity,

--Paul Trejo

And you DO NOT have a mission? Give us all a major break!

Swearingen's message regarding you and Harry and your "research" and your "theory" is still the best available short summary:

Mr. Trejo,

Please let me explain one more time what I think of Dean's information. If you read my book TO KILL A PRESIDENT, you should know what my position is on who killed JFL. I have reliable witnesses. Dean has only his opinion, which he cannot support with reliable witnesses or physical evidence.

Dean claims to have been a FBI informant and to have ridden in a car with SAC Wesley Grapp. Dean could have talked to FBI agents in Chicago. That does not make him a FBI informant. As to Dean's informant status, FBI agent William McCauley of Los Angeles characterized Dean as a "mental case." There is no way McCauley would have had Dean as an informant. Dean may have talked to an agent in Los Angeles. This does not make him an informant.

As to Dean riding around in a car with SAC Wesley Grapp, that is absolutely preposterous. SACs do not do agent field work. JFK was killed in 1963. Grapp did not become SAC of Los Angeles until 1964.

Dean may, or may not have talked to various individuals and groups. These people may have been joking with Dean, especially if they thought Dean was a "mental case," just as FBI agent McCauley thought.

Dean's idea that some people he talked to were involved in the JFK assassination is as weak as his idea that he was a FBI informant and that he rode around in a car with SAC Wesley Grapp.

It is my opinion, after reading Dean's manuscript and hearing what you claim is true about Dean, that Dean is drastically in need of professional help. It is also my opinion that what Dean has claimed as fact is absolute fiction.

Sincerely,

M. Wesley Swearingen

[Ernie Lazar]

For everybody following this "debate" -- as I receive additional FBI documents from my pending FOIA requests, I will share them here (as long as EF continues to operate).

Eventually, I will create a new webpage to summarize everything relevant -- along with providing scanned copies of pertinent documents.

In addition, this summer, I will include Harry's Los Angeles FBI file on the DVD containing FBI files which I am sending to Internet Archive and Democracy-US websites so that they can post them online with my other files, here:

https://archive.org/details/lazarfoia

http://www.buildingdemocracy.us/archive/dox/

As all of this should make obvious, the difference between me and Paul Trejo is:

1. I provide factual evidence supported by documentation. Paul provides ONLY his unsubstantiated opinions.

2. I provide scanned copies of relevant documents. Paul provides nothing whatsoever.

3. I respect normal rules of evidence and logic. Paul respects neither and has contempt for both.

4. I quote directly and accurately from what Harry or Paul or others write. Paul prefers to ATTRIBUTE assertions or beliefs or statements to people and he claims that his attributions are accurate summaries or paraphrases but he rarely actually QUOTES their original statements. [see his tortured summary regarding Wesley Swearingen's position on Harry and on Joseph Milteer for example and then compare Paul's summary to what Wesley Swearingen wrote in reply to Paul.]

Edited March 12, 2014 by Ernie Lazar

[Paul Trejo]

Dear Reader:

Now that we've established from Harry Dean that he actually wrote this letter to J. Edgar Hoover ALL IN CAPS on 19 November 1963, we can take a closer look at it from Harry's viewpoint. Let's do that now.

FBI DIRECTOR 18109 ATINA DR
J.E HOOVER LA PUENTE, CALIF
WASHINGTON DC NOV. 19 1963

DEAR SIR,

FROM APPROXIMATELY, JULY 22 1960 TO JULY 14, 1961 I WAS A MEMBER OF THE FAIR PLAY FOR CUBA COMMITTEE, AND ALSO AN OFFICER OF SAME. DURING THIS TIME I GAVE A GREAT DEAL OF INFORMATION TO FBI AGENTS IN CHICAGO ILLINOIS.

Here we see Harry Dean honestly addressing J. Edgar Hoover on 19 November 1963, and supplying his identity and his status. Harry Dean is not claiming to be an FBI Agent or an FBI Informant or to be acting in any official capacity.

WHEN I FIRST CONTACTED YOUR PEOPLE VIA PHONE THEY STATED THEY WERE UNAWARE THAT THIS FPCC HAD STARTED IN CHICAGO, AND ASKED THAT I CONTINUE IN THIS POSITION, AND ADVISED ME IN MANY NECESSARY DETAILS, AND CAUTIONS.

It is possible that Harry Dean spoke with an uninformed person in the FBI, who had not known about the FPCC operating in Chicago as late as July, 1960. The FBI had been tracking the FPCC in New York City since early 1960, because the FPCC was clearly a front for the Communist Party and a major fund-raiser for Fidel Castro's Cuba.

FOR SEVERAL MONTHS I USED ONLY THE TELEPHONE METHOD IN ALL MY DEALINGS WITH AGENTS. ONLY NEAR THE END OF MY ACTIVITIES (not anticipated) DID I MEET WITH THEM, AND AT THEIR KIND INSISTANCE PRIOR TO THIS IT WAS MY OWN RISK TO RELY ONLY ON THE PHONE METHOD OF CONTACT.

If the Chicago FBI had not (reportedly) destroyed all of its records relating to Harry Dean, we might be able to determine if files existed to record a personal meeting between Harry and FBI Agents (for Harry speaks in the plural case).

We should try to grasp the history in 1960. Silvia Odio's father, Amador Odio, also supported Fidel Castro in 1959, just as Harry Dean did, and many other patriotic and conservative Americans (e.g. Gerry Patrick Hemming and Loran Hall). However, after Fidel Castro showed his Communist colors in 1960, all these men (and many others) turned against Castro, just like Harry Dean.

Silvia Odio's father and mother were sent to prison, which nearly ruined their family. Harry Dean chose to spy on the FPCC (as a trusted Secretary in Chicago) and then report their activities to the FBI. Harry Dean was not an official FBI informant, but he patriotically volunteered to be a source of data for the FBI about the FPCC. Harry says this involved some risk on his part, and this is reasonable.

AS YOU KNOW, WE ARE UNDER SUSPICION IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES BY THE FRONT PEOPLE. I LATER GAVE THE AGENTS MY HOME PHONE NUMBER. THEY CALLED ME ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS FOR INFORMATION AND TO ADVISE ME IN DETAILS IN THIS AREA.

Harry speaks of the "Front people," by which he means the FPCC acting as a Communist Front. When Harry would make a private phone call, outside the earshot of others in the FPCC office, he would be suspicious to them, naturally.

In response to this, Harry says he gave FBI Agents his home telephone number, and Harry claims that the FBI called him on "several occasions," evidently to obtain data, informally, and perhaps to explain to Harry Dean any FBI policy details about his unofficial role..

ONE ONE OCCASION AN AGENT STATED, "THIS IS THE BEST ONE MAN UNDERCOVER OPERATION WE HAVE SEEN." THIS PAID MY EFFORTS MORE THAN ONE COULD SAY. FOR OUR COUNTRY, I WOULD DO ANY JOB, ANYTIME, AGAINST ALL OUR ENEMIES FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC.

Here Harry claims that one FBI Agent praised his work. Evidently this was over the telephone, and we (reportedly) have no records of any Chicago interactions between Harry and the FBI in 1960, so we have no way to verify this today -- but it is not an earth-shaking claim. It is possible that some FBI Agent might have wished to flatter Harry for some unofficlal reason. In any case, the remark evidently encouraged Harry greatly, as we see here.

Furthermore, Harry says that this mere compliment by this FBI Agent "paid" his efforts, thus suggesting an emphasis to Hoover that Harry Dean received no money for his voluntary offer of data about the Chicago FPCC. Again, this underscores Harry's activities for the FBI as patriotically motivated volunteer activities.

I HAVE MADE MANY ERRORS IN MY TIME, AS A YOUNGER AND UNMARRIED MAN, AND UNTIL THE FIRST MEETING MY INSIDE INFORMATION SUFFICED, BUT AT THIS TIME THEY BEGAN INVESTIGATING ME.

Here Harry alludes to mistakes he made as a youth, i.e. arrests for bar room brawls or the like (which were common enough during World War Two). At a certain stage of his interaction with FBI Agents, they possibly investigated Harry to find his suitability to be an official FBI Informant -- and learned that Harry did not pass their criteria. Evidently, any police record in one's youth disqualifies one to be an official FBI Informant.

A SHORT TIME LATER, JUST PRIOR TO HEARINGS HELD ON THIS FRONT BY THE SENATE SUBCOMMITTEE IN JULY 1961, I WAS TOLD TO QUIT GIVING INFORMATION TO THE FBI, BY TWO AGENTS WHOM I MET ON CHICAGO'S NORTH SIDE, IN A STREET CORNER MEETING, PREARRANGED OF COURSE.

For some odd reason, the FBI Agents not only decided to dismiss Harry Dean as a potential, official FBI Informant, but also told Harry to stop giving the FBI any information at all. This was puzzling to Harry Dean, because the Senate Subcommittee of July 1961 relating to UnAmerican Activities was going to ask questions about the FPCC, and Harry Dean, being a Secretary of the FPCC in Chicago, was in a position to give the US Senate lots of information about it.

Somehow the obvious nature of this circumstance eluded our FBI Agents in Chicago -- and Harry Dean was not called to testify before that Subcommittee, although his name was raised in connection with the FPCC, and the witnesses who appeared merely pleaded the Fifth Admendment. If the US Government had called Harry Dean to testify, they would have received a lot of first-hand information -- so Harry saw this as an opportunity lost -- and so do I.

THEY MADE IT CLEAR THAT I WAS FINISHED BY REASONS OF THEIR FINDINGS, CONCERNING MY PAST, MOST OF WHICH I WOULD HAVE GLADLY RELATED TO THEM THE YEAR BEFORE, WHEN I FIRST POINTED THE FINGER AT PROVEN, ACTIVE, COMMUNISTS IN, AND WORKING AGAINST OUR COUNTRY.

Harry Dean's youthful police record was a show-stopper for the Chicago FBI. But was that really so important when the pressing issue of 1960 -- for every Republican citizen -- was to stand up to the Communist Menace inside the USA? What were the flaws or incompetence of the Chicago FBI that worked to withhold Harry Dean's willing testimony to the US Senate Subcommittee about the FPCC? It remains a mystery at present.

THE VERY FACT OF THE MISTAKES I HAD MADE IN MY YOUNGER DAYS MADE IT POSSIBLE FOR ME TO PUT MYSELF, SO TO SPEAK, UNDER THE THUMB OF THE ENEMY. AS PROOF I TOLD THEM OF MY SHADY CHARACTER, AND ADDED MANY THINGS TO SUPPORT THE STORY. THAT WAS PART OF MY METHOD OF OPERATING.

The failure of the Chicago FBI to recommend Harry Dean as a witness about the FPCC in those days is puzzling. In fact, as Harry explains to Hoover, it was precisely Harry's rough background that showed in his personality which convinced the FPCC to trust him! Perhaps the FPCC thought they could control Harry Dean more easliy since he was a street person, so to speak. Harry Dean did not make any secret of his youthful arrest record, as it proved to be useful.

THIS PUT ME UNDER A [THUMB] FROM THEM, AND I PLAYED ALONG. BECAUSE OF THIS, AND THE FACT THAT I WAS CONSIDERED BY THE ENEMY ONE OF THE MOST DEVOTED, SOCIALIST, COMMUNIST STOOGES, THE FRONT MAN AT THIER DISPOSAL ALSO HELPED. I PLAYED THE PART AS THOUGH I WERE THE BEST OF THEM.

It was precisely because of the rough days of his youth that Harry Dean was prepared to take the risks of spying on the Communist Front of the FPCC and bring this information to the US Government. It was this rough background that helped Harry Dean put on his act of being a "rebel" so to speak, and fool the FPCC into trusting him more and more. This is what Harry explains to J. Edgar Hoover on 19 November 1963.

I KNOW THESE [FBI] AGENTS, ALL WHOM I DEALT WITH WERE MY KIND OF PEOPLE. THEY WENT BY THE BOOK, THEY WERE PATRIOTS. WHEN THEY GAVE ME THE WORD TO NEVER MENTION ANY OF THESE ACTIVITIES, OR THEIR NAMES, AND THAT I COULD NO LONGER CONTINUE AS AN UNDERCOVER AGENT, I WAS SADDENED TO TEARS.

Harry was disappointed beyond words by the rejection he suffered at the hands of the Chicago FBI. Harry, a conservative Republican even in those days, supported Fidel Castro only because he refused to believe that Castro was a Communist. Harry supported Fidel Castro because he believed it was the conservative American thing to do. Many other Americans were fooled in that way -- not only Gerry Patrick Hemming, but also Frank Sturgis, David Ferrie, David Atlee Phillips and many others.

THE FACT THEY WERE SORRY ABOUT THE WHOLE THING TURNING OUT AS IT DID MADE ME REALIZE, THEY ARE NOT ONLY HUMAN BUT ALSO DEDICATED TO THE SAME PRINCIPLES AS ARE WE.

Here Harry tells Hoover that the FBI Agents who turned him down in Chicago were not happy about it, but sympathetic. This let Harry down easily, and Harry appreciated their kind attitude.

THE THING I WOULD LIKE TO BRING TO YOUR ATTENTION WITH THE HOPE OF BEING CLEARED IS THAT MY NAME APPEARS IN SENATE SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS SG 96465 PART NO. 2 PAGES 84 & 85 AS AN OFFICER OF THE RED FRONT (FAIR PLAY FOR CUBA COMMITTEE). MANY PEOPLE THAT I ASSOCIATE WITH ARE AWARE OF THIS FACT.

Now we get down to brass tacks. This is the meat of what Harry Dean wants to tell Hoover. Harry's great disappointment was that he was not called to the Senate SubCommittee on UnAmerican Activities to answer questions about the FPCC, when in fact Harry was ready to testify!

To make matters worse, the US Senate recorded in its hearings that Harry Dean was a Secretary of the FPCC in Chicago -- and added no explanatory information! This fact would forever be a part of US HIstory! Harry Dean's chlidren could see this in print! It makes Harry Dean, a conservative Republic activist -- APPEAR TO BE A COMMUNIST!

Here is the problem Here is what Harry Dean was hoping that J. Edgar Hoover would be able to "clear" for him. Not only his legacy -- Harry Dean was even worried about his employment status -- what if his customers would find out about this? He would not be hired! It could affect his livelihood and his ability to support his family.

We must remember that this was the peak of the Cold War, and these worries were very real fifty years ago, although they seem relatively trivial to us today. It was a major concern to all Americans in those days.

BUT EVEN THIS IS NOT AS URGENT AS THE FACT THAT ONE DAY I WILL, I AM SURE, LIVE TO REGRET UNLESS YOU CAN CLEAR ME BY SOME METHOD. HAD I BEEN CALLED TO TESTIFY IN 1961 I COULD HAVE BLOWN THE CASE FOR THE ENEMY, WHOM I HAD WORKED AGAINST FOR SO LONG. I DO NOT QUESTION WHY. THE REASONS ARE OBVIOUS, BUT I BELIEVE THAT ALL AMERICANS WERE CALLED TO WORK AGAINST SUCH AN AGENT THAT IS AN ENEMY OF US ALL.

Here Harry Dean reverts to his patriotic cause. Even his own legacy and personal reputation are not as important as the big picture -- the threat of Worldwide Communism facing the world in 1963. By the time that Harry Dean writes this letter to J. Edgar Hoover, we remember, Harry has been thoroughly indoctrinated by the John Birch Society.

That is, Harry Dean has been conditioned to believe that the Communists are winning the Cold War, and that they have already taken over the White House, and very soon they would take over the whole Free World, unless patriots act very quickly to do SOMETHING.

I CONTINUE THE FIGHT, DAY AND NIGHT, ALONG WITH OTHERS WHO ARE INFORMED OF THIS DEVILISH INTERNATIONAL CONSPIRACY, WITH WHICH I AM SO WELL AWARE: OUR GREAT WORK IN THIS BATTLE, INSPIRES MANY OF US.

IT IS MY PRAYER, THAT YOU WILL SEE TO THIS URGENT MATTER, AND WITH MY THANKS.

VERY TRULY YOURS
FOR A STRONG AMERICA
HARRY DEAN

Here Harry Dean vows his patriotic loyalty to the USA and against Global Communism. His letter to Hoover is complete. His main request was for Hoover to clear the name of Harry Dean from a legacy of linkage with the FPCC, which was a Front for the Communist Party.

Despite critics, this is the actual content and meaning of Harry Dean's letter to J. Edgar Hoover on 19 November 1963.

Best regards,
--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Edited March 13, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Pat Speer]

I see both sides on this issue. While Ernie is correct that one must document one's claims as much as possible, Paul is correct in that one can't take FBI files as the gospel, particularly files from the Hoover era.

P.S. Ernie, since you seem to have a better understanding of FBI record-keeping than most, I'm wondering if you can read this short article\

http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Essay_-_Proof_the_FBI_Changed_Documents%2C_and_Vincent_Bugliosi_Was_Wrong

and tell me if you find anything suspicious about the FBI's behavior in this instance. Your thoughts appreciated...

[Ernie Lazar]

Dear Reader:

Now that we've established from Harry Dean that he actually wrote this letter to J. Edgar Hoover ALL IN CAPS on 19 November 1963, we can take a closer look at it from Harry's viewpoint. Let's do that now.

FBI DIRECTOR 18109 ATINA DR

J.E HOOVER LA PUENTE, CALIF

WASHINGTON DC NOV. 19 1962

DEAR SIR,

FROM APPROXIMATELY, JULY 22 1960 TO JULY 14, 1961 I WAS A MEMBER OF THE FAIR PLAY FOR CUBA COMMITTEE, AND ALSO AN OFFICER OF SAME. DURING THIS TIME I GAVE A GREAT DEAL OF INFORMATION TO FBI AGENTS IN CHICAGO ILLINOIS.

Here we see Harry Dean honestly addressing J. Edgar Hoover on 19 November 1963, and supplying his identity and his status. Harry Dean is not claiming to be an FBI Agent or an FBI Informant or to be acting in any official capacity.

Nor would he dare do so to any official of the government because it could lead to the FBI opening an "impersonation" case against Harry. Instead, Harry relied upon the gullibility and ignorance of ordinary people who (unlike professional law enforcement) could not differentiate between all the various options to describe Harry, i.e. employee or agent or operative or informant or spy You are giving Harry credit for something which even he understood was a potential federal crime!

WHEN I FIRST CONTACTED YOUR PEOPLE VIA PHONE THEY STATED THEY WERE UNAWARE THAT THIS FPCC HAD STARTED IN CHICAGO, AND ASKED THAT I CONTINUE IN THIS POSITION, AND ADVISED ME IN MANY NECESSARY DETAILS, AND CAUTIONS.

It is possible that Harry Dean spoke with an uninformed person in the FBI, who had not known about the FPCC operating in Chicago as late as July, 1960. The FBI had been tracking the FPCC in New York City since early 1960, because the FPCC was clearly a front for the Communist Party and a major fund-raiser for Fidel Castro's Cuba.

This is quite the laugh. Perhaps the FBI person was "uninformed" -- despite all of the examples we have of Harry's defective memory and statements!

For your information, the Chicago field file on FPCC was opened PRIOR TO Harry contacting the FBI in August 1960 --so, obviously, they already knew about the existence of FPCC in Chicago. Why? Because Richard and Florence Criley (the key organizers) were on the FBI's Security Index. Criley was a Communist Party member and the FBI monitored EVERYTHING he did. This is another example of Paul's attempt at a post hoc rationalization which is totally absurd on its face.

FOR SEVERAL MONTHS I USED ONLY THE TELEPHONE METHOD IN ALL MY DEALINGS WITH AGENTS. ONLY NEAR THE END OF MY ACTIVITIES (not anticipated) DID I MEET WITH THEM, AND AT THEIR KIND INSISTANCE PRIOR TO THIS IT WAS MY OWN RISK TO RELY ONLY ON THE PHONE METHOD OF CONTACT.

If the Chicago FBI had not (reportedly) destroyed all of its records relating to Harry Dean, we might be able to determine if files existed to record a personal meeting between Harry and FBI Agents (for Harry speaks in the plural case). We should try to grasp the history in 1960.

The only thing we would have learned is what we already know from his HQ file which contains the Chicago field's summary regarding their contacts with Harry, i.e. Harry phoned the FBI and volunteered some information.

Silvia Odio's father, Amador Odio, also supported Fidel Castro in 1959, just as Harry Dean did, and many other patriotic and conservative Americans (e.g. Gerry Patrick Hemming and Loran Hall). However, after Fidel Castro showed his Communist colors in 1960, all these men (and many others) turned against Castro, just like Harry Dean.

Silvia Odio's father and mother were sent to prison, which nearly ruined their family. Harry Dean chose to spy on the FPCC (as a trusted Secretary in Chicago) and then report their activities to the FBI. Harry Dean was not an official FBI informant, but he patriotically volunteered to be a source of data for the FBI about the FPCC. Harry says this involved some risk on his part, and this is reasonable.

AS YOU KNOW, WE ARE UNDER SUSPICION IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES BY THE FRONT PEOPLE. I LATER GAVE THE AGENTS MY HOME PHONE NUMBER. THEY CALLED ME ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS FOR INFORMATION AND TO ADVISE ME IN DETAILS IN THIS AREA.

Harry speaks of the "Front people," by which he means the FPCC acting as a Communist Front. When Harry would make a private phone call, outside the earshot of others in the FPCC office, he would be suspicious to them, naturally.

In response to this, Harry says he gave FBI Agents his home telephone number, and Harry claims that the FBI called him on "several occasions," evidently to obtain data, informally, and perhaps to explain to Harry Dean any FBI policy details about his unofficial role..

So what? We have the EXACT SAME INFORMATION in Harry's Los Angeles file, i.e. the FBI called Harry "on several occasions" to ask him questions or to instruct him to desist from claiming he was connected to the FBI as an informant or undercover operative.

ONE ONE OCCASION AN AGENT STATED, "THIS IS THE BEST ONE MAN UNDERCOVER OPERATION WE HAVE SEEN." THIS PAID MY EFFORTS MORE THAN ONE COULD SAY. FOR OUR COUNTRY, I WOULD DO ANY JOB, ANYTIME, AGAINST ALL OUR ENEMIES FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC.

Here Harry claims that one FBI Agent praised his work. Evidently this was over the telephone, and we (reportedly) have no records of any Chicago interactions between Harry and the FBI in 1960, so we have no way to verify this today -- but it is not an earth-shaking claim. It is possible that some FBI Agent might have wished to flatter Harry for some unofficlal reason. In any case, the remark evidently encouraged Harry greatly, as we see here.

Furthermore, Harry says that this mere compliment by this FBI Agent "paid" his efforts, thus suggesting an emphasis to Hoover that Harry Dean received no money for his voluntary offer of data about the Chicago FPCC. Again, this underscores Harry's activities for the FBI as patriotically motivated volunteer activities.

And nobody has ever claimed that Harry was "paid" or motivated by money. Straw man argument which tells us nothing whatsoever about the actual substantive issues. In one respect, however, it would have been better if Harry HAD been paid for his services (as informants sometimes were -- but those payments were C.O.D. -- meaning the information supplied had to be of sufficient quality and value that it was worth paying someone. The fact that Harry was NOT paid only provides more evidence that the FBI did NOT regard whatever information he provided to be of any significance. Lastly, the FBI had at least FOUR informants reporting on the Chicago chapter of the FPCC. (I think it is actually 5 -- BUT one or more might be electronic or technical devices to record meetings -- not a human being. I will be better able to answer that when I get the FBI-Chicago file on FPCC.)

I HAVE MADE MANY ERRORS IN MY TIME, AS A YOUNGER AND UNMARRIED MAN, AND UNTIL THE FIRST MEETING MY INSIDE INFORMATION SUFFICED, BUT AT THIS TIME THEY BEGAN INVESTIGATING ME.

Here Harry alludes to mistakes he made as a youth, i.e. arrests for bar room brawls or the like (which were common enough during World War Two). At a certain stage of his interaction with FBI Agents, they possibly investigated Harry to find his suitability to be an official FBI Informant -- and learned that Harry did not pass their criteria. Evidently, any police record in one's youth disqualifies one to be an official FBI Informant.

TOTALLY FALSE description by Paul.

Paul wants to euphemize this because he does not want anybody to know the specific details regarding what Harry was charged with or at what age.

Many of Harry's problems occurred long after he was "a youth". Youth normally means PRIOR TO becoming an adult. The most serious charges (in Canada) occurred when Harry was 21, 22, and 23 years old (i.e. an ADULT). As a courtesy to Harry and in respect for his privacy, I will not share what I have discovered from RCMP regarding what the actual charges were in regard to -- but let me just say they were NOT typical "youthful" transgressions such as a joy ride or drunk and disorderly.

A SHORT TIME LATER, JUST PRIOR TO HEARINGS HELD ON THIS FRONT BY THE SENATE SUBCOMMITTEE IN JULY 1961, I WAS TOLD TO QUIT GIVING INFORMATION TO THE FBI, BY TWO AGENTS WHOM I MET ON CHICAGO'S NORTH SIDE, IN A STREET CORNER MEETING, PREARRANGED OF COURSE.

For some odd reason, the FBI Agents not only decided to dismiss Harry Dean as a potential, official FBI Informant, but also told Harry to stop giving the FBI any information at all. This was puzzling to Harry Dean, because the Senate Subcommittee of July 1961 relating to Un-American Activities was going to ask questions about the FPCC, and Harry Dean, being a Secretary of the FPCC in Chicago, was in a position to give the US Senate lots of information about it.

There is nothing "puzzling" about this. And Paul is once again deliberately muddying the waters by using phony categories such as "official FBI informant" as if there are different (lesser) types of informants. One point I have never brought up but is worthy of much more scrutiny is that Harry has written about those Senate hearings that: "...because I was at that time informing FBI on FPCC and other pro-Castro activities the bureau arranged that I not be called even though my name appeared in hearings reports with other officers." Obviously, this is a falsehood. The FBI did not "arrange" for Harry "not to be called" because of his alleged FPCC reports. The Bureau told Harry on JUNE 7, 1961 that his assistance was NOT required. The hearings were in JULY 1961.

Somehow the obvious nature of this circumstance eluded our FBI Agents in Chicago -- and Harry Dean was not called to testify before that Subcommittee, although his name was raised in connection with the FPCC, and the witnesses who appeared merely pleaded the Fifth Admendment. If the US Government had called Harry Dean to testify, they would have received a lot of first-hand information -- so Harry saw this as an opportunity lost -- and so do I.

What would Harry have contributed that is NOT already in the hearings and the final report?

THEY MADE IT CLEAR THAT I WAS FINISHED BY REASONS OF THEIR FINDINGS, CONCERNING MY PAST, MOST OF WHICH I WOULD HAVE GLADLY RELATED TO THEM THE YEAR BEFORE, WHEN I FIRST POINTED THE FINGER AT PROVEN, ACTIVE, COMMUNISTS IN, AND WORKING AGAINST OUR COUNTRY.

Harry Dean's youthful police record was a show-stopper for the Chicago FBI. But was that really so important when the pressing issue of 1960 -- for every Republican citizen -- was to stand up to the Communist Menace inside the USA? What were the flaws or incompetence of the Chicago FBI that worked to withhold Harry Dean's willing testimony to the US Senate Subcommittee about the FPCC? It remains a mystery at present.

WRONG AGAIN. It was not his "youthful police record". It was a PATTERN of arrests and convictions over a period starting in 1945 and continuing through 1956 (when Harry was 29 years old).

THE VERY FACT OF THE MISTAKES I HAD MADE IN MY YOUNGER DAYS MADE IT POSSIBLE FOR ME TO PUT MYSELF, SO TO SPEAK, UNDER THE THUMB OF THE ENEMY. AS PROOF I TOLD THEM OF MY SHADY CHARACTER, AND ADDED MANY THINGS TO SUPPORT THE STORY. THAT WAS PART OF MY METHOD OF OPERATING.

The failure of the Chicago FBI to recommend Harry Dean as a witness about the FPCC in those days is puzzling. In fact, as Harry explains to Hoover, it was precisely Harry's rough background that showed in his personality, and which convinced the FPCC to trust him! Perhaps the FPCC thought they could control Harry Dean more easliy since he was a street person, so to speak. Harry Dean did not make any secret of his youthful arrest record, as it proved to be useful.

Law enforcement agencies use different criteria and make different evaluations from the one you propose with respect to whether or not a probationary informant should be developed.

THIS PUT ME UNDER A [THUMB] FROM THEM, AND I PLAYED ALONG. BECAUSE OF THIS, AND THE FACT THAT I WAS CONSIDERED BY THE ENEMY ONE OF THE MOST DEVOTED, SOCIALIST, COMMUNIST STOOGES, THE FRONT MAN AT THIER DISPOSAL ALSO HELPED. I PLAYED THE PART AS THOUGH I WERE THE BEST OF THEM.

It was precisely because of the rough days of his youth that Harry Dean was prepared to take the risks of spying on the Communist Front of the FPCC and bringing this information to the US Government. It was this rough background that helped Harry Dean put on his act of being a "rebel" so to speak, and fool the FPCC into trusting him more and more.

This is what Harry explains to J. Edgar Hoover on 19 November 1963.

Very dramatic but totally irrelevant. The FBI in Chicago already had at least 4 other informants inside the FPCC.

I KNOW THESE [FBI] AGENTS, ALL WHOM I DEALT WITH WERE MY KIND OF PEOPLE. THEY WENT BY THE BOOK, THEY WERE PATRIOTS. WHEN THEY GAVE ME THE WORD TO NEVER MENTION ANY OF THESE ACTIVITIES, OR THEIR NAMES, AND THAT I COULD NO LONGER CONTINUE AS AN UNDERCOVER AGENT, I WAS SADDENED TO TEARS.

Harry was disappointed beyond words by the rejection he suffered at the hands of the Chicago FBI. Harry, a conservative Republican even in those days, supported Fidel Castro only because he refused to believe that Castro was a Communist. Harry supported Fidel Castro because he believed it was the conservative American thing to do. Many other Americans were fooled in that way -- not only Gerry Patrick Hemming, but also Frank Sturgis, David Ferrie, David Atlee Phillips and many others.

Yes, many entirely decent and honorable and patriotic Americans (both liberals and conservatives) have, over the years, joined what they initially thought were responsible and honorable organizations.

THE FACT THEY WERE SORRY ABOUT THE WHOLE THING TURNING OUT AS IT DID MADE ME REALIZE, THEY ARE NOT ONLY HUMAN BUT ALSO DEDICATED TO THE SAME PRINCIPLES AS ARE WE.

Here Harry tells Hoover that the FBI Agents who turned him down in Chicago were not happy about it, but sympathetic. This let Harry down easily, and Harry appreciated their kind attitude.

Which only goes to undermine your subsequent argument about how FBI Agents participated in "smear attacks" on Harry. What all of Harry's FBI files reveal is that the FBI had no interest in Harry. FBI field offices only became involved AFTER Harry attempted to generate publicity about himself in ways which falsely linked him to the FBI.

THE THING I WOULD LIKE TO BRING TO YOUR ATTENTION WITH THE HOPE OF BEING CLEARED IS THAT MY NAME APPEARS IN SENATE SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS SG 96465 PART NO. 2 PAGES 84 & 85 AS AN OFFICER OF THE RED FRONT (FAIR PLAY FOR CUBA COMMITTEE). MANY PEOPLE THAT I ASSOCIATE WITH ARE AWARE OF THIS FACT.

Now we get down to brass tacks. This is the meat of what Harry wants to tell Hoover. Harry's great disappointment was that he was not called to the Senate SubCommittee on Un-American Activities to answer questions about the FPCC, when in fact Harry was ready to testify!

To make matters worse, the US Senate recorded in its hearings that Harry Dean was a Secretary of the FPCC in Chicago -- and added no explanatory information! This fact would forever be a part of US HIstory! Harry Dean's chlidren could see this in print! It makes Harry Dean, a conservative Republic activist -- APPEAR TO BE A COMMUNIST!

NO...wrong conclusion. As you just got done pointing out, MANY Americans joined ONE or TWO organizations which they later discovered were Communist fronts. Nobody rational makes "appears to be a Communist" conclusions from a SINGLE reference in a SINGLE obscure Senate report. Which is why Los Angeles field agents told Harry that he was not even on their radar nor was he on any sort of "hook". I suspect that less than 1000 people even read that Senate report and of that 1000 probably nobody except Harry recognized his name.

Here is the problem Here is what Harry Dean was hoping that J. Edgar Hoover would be able to "clear" for him. Not only his legacy -- Harry Dean was even worried about his employment status -- what if his customers would find out about this? He would not be hired! It could affect his livelihood and his ability to support his family.

And how would a prospective employer find out? You are really stretching here Paul. It was an obscure report with a single reference to a common name (Harry Dean). No rational being on this planet makes the kinds of judgments which you propose as being commonplace. And the proof is that Harry never confronted anybody that referred to that Senate report as a reason for denying him employment.

We must remember that this was the peak of the Cold War, and these worries were very real fifty years ago, although they seem relatively trivial to us today. It was a major concern to all Americans in those days.

But "all Americans" were not reading Senate hearings and reports and memorizing tens of thousands of names contained in them.

BUT EVEN THIS IS NOT AS URGENT AS THE FACT THAT ONE DAY I WILL, I AM SURE, LIVE TO REGRET UNLESS YOU CAN CLEAR ME BY SOME METHOD. HAD I BEEN CALLED TO TESTIFY IN 1961 I COULD HAVE BLOWN THE CASE FOR THE ENEMY, WHOM I HAD WORKED AGAINST FOR SO LONG. I DO NOT QUESTION WHY. THE REASONS ARE OBVIOUS, BUT I BELIEVE THAT ALL AMERICANS WERE CALLED TO WORK AGAINST SUCH AN AGENT THAT IS AN ENEMY OF US ALL.

Here Harry Dean reverts to his patriotic cause. Even his own legacy and personal reputation are not as important as the big picture -- the threat of Worldwide Communism facing the world in 1963. By the time that Harry Dean writes this letter to J. Edgar Hoover, we remember, Harry has been thoroughly indoctrinated by the John Birch Society. That is, Harry Dean has been conditioned to believed that the Communists are winning the Cold War, and that they have already taken over the White House, and very soon they will take over the whole Free World, unless patriots act very quickly to do SOMETHING.

I challenge your characterization of "indoctrinated". Harry joined the JBS because HE believed their arguments. The real question is WHY would Harry (or anybody else) be RECEPTIVE to arguments whose predicate is that virtually all of our national leaders and politicians and government officials in the 20th century were conscious traitors? THAT receptive attitude betokens a HUGE intellectual defect entirely separate from whatever "indoctrination" Harry experienced.

Similarly, why would ANYBODY (regardless of political convictions) allegedly sit and listen (on multiple occasions) to specific plans to murder our President and then EVEN DRIVE the key actor to a location to pick up the money to facilitate the murder -- but not immediately end his relationship with EVERYONE involved and go to local police or Secret Service office or the FBI and inform them immediately about the "plot"? The most likely scenario for what would happen next if someone made such a report is that the law enforcement agency would have asked Harry to wear a wire to record the principals in the act of plotting to murder JFK so they could then be arrested.

I CONTINUE THE FIGHT, DAY AND NIGHT, ALONG WITH OTHERS WHO ARE INFORMED OF THIS DEVILISH INTERNATIONAL CONSPIRACY, WITH WHICH I AM SO WELL AWARE: OUR GREAT WORK IN THIS BATTLE, INSPIRES MANY OF US.

IT IS MY PRAYER, THAT YOU WILL SEE TO THIS URGENT MATTER, AND WITH MY THANKS.

VERY TRULY YOURS

FOR A STRONG AMERICA

HARRY DEAN

Here Harry Dean vows his patriotic loyalty to the USA and against Global Communism. His letter to Hoover is complete. His main request was for Hoover to clear the name of Harry Dean from a legacy of linkage with the FPCC, which was a Front for the Communist Party.

Despite critics, this is the actual content and meaning of Harry Dean's letter to J. Edgar Hoover on 19 November 1963.

Which you insisted was a forgery

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

My replies are underneath your comments

Edited March 12, 2014 by Ernie Lazar

[Ernie Lazar]

I see both sides on this issue. While Ernie is correct that one must document one's claims as much as possible, Paul is correct in that one can't take FBI files as the gospel, particularly files from the Hoover era.

P.S. Ernie, since you seem to have a better understanding of FBI record-keeping than most, I'm wondering if you can read this short article\

http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Essay_-_Proof_the_FBI_Changed_Documents%2C_and_Vincent_Bugliosi_Was_Wrong

and tell me if you find anything suspicious about the FBI's behavior in this instance. Your thoughts appreciated...

Pat:

I cannot intelligently respond to the substance of the article you linked because I am not familiar with all the relevant evidence. However, I can speak, generally, to the larger point.

1. First of all, one has to distinguish between raw information contained in FBI files and the ultimate final reports written by FBI agents and approved by field office Supervisors and SACS, or HQ Section Chiefs or Assistant Directors.

2. In many cases, I have seen initial memos submitted by a field office to HQ (or even by a Special Agent to his SAC) which contained inaccuracies. Sometimes a person's name is spelled wrong or his/her birthdate is wrong or there are characterizations (descriptions of people or organizations or publications) which are mistaken in some materially important details.

3. When you review FBI employee personnel files and especially when you review annual Inspection Reports on every FBI office and HQ Division, you will often see discussions regarding "error rates" -- which refers to everything from spelling and grammar errors on outgoing correspondence to substantive errors contained in summary memos and investigative reports. [if I had $1 for every time I saw a censure letter sent to an FBI Agent in his personnel file for some negligence on his part, I would be very wealthy.]

4. A while back I discussed here in EF one huge mistake made by the "Names Check Unit" at FBI HQ when a Supervisor sent Hoover a summary memorandum about Highlander Folk School (Monteagle TN) which described Highlander as a "Communist training school". The memo also mentioned that Martin Luther King Jr. had attended a function at this school.

Based upon that description, Hoover notified the Attorney General of the U.S. that MLK Jr. had "attended a Communist training school" but Hoover subsequently learned that the description he used was NOT based upon any FBI investigation. Instead, it was a reference to how a Georgia State agency described Highlander and they based their description upon the reports made by an "investigator" who was a life long racist and segregationist (and the official photographer for the Georgia KKK).

When Hoover discovered what had happened, he directed that the Section Chief who prepared that memo should receive a censure letter and be placed on probation.

5. JFK / WARREN COMMISSION

When the Warren Commission issued its report which contained criticisms of the way in which the FBI handled the JFK investigation, the result was that Hoover directed Associate Director Tolson to prepare a summary memorandum to recommend disciplinary actions against every responsible FBI employee -- including Assistant Directors who oversaw the investigation and subsequent HQ reports/memos.

I attach one of those disciplinary memos -- sorry for the poor quality of some pages.

As you can see, some FBI employees were targeted for demotion and others received censure letters and probation. The Assistant to the Director who oversaw the General Investigative Division, the Special Investigative Division and the Domestic Intelligence Division (Alan Belmont) was censured. Belmont had previously been censured and placed on probation several times for gross negligence in reviewing and approving FBI summary reports -- and within a year of this JFK-censure, he abruptly retired from the FBI.

6. CULTURE AT FBI

So, what I am suggesting Pat, is that there was a culture at the FBI which did not casually accept or make excuses for errors made in FBI memos and reports nor did FBI Supervisors accept any sort of misconduct by FBI employees. [Cleon Skousen's brother, Leroy, was also a Special Agent. Leroy was censured (and he abruptly retired) after his SAC discovered that Leroy had taken his FBI car home every day at lunch time to check on his wife who had a medical problem.]

Now, if you want me to discuss whether or not the FBI ever edited a memo or report after they discovered new information -- then the answer is yes.

But, if you want me to discuss whether or not there was a systematic and routine practice of falsifying internal FBI records -- then I have to defer to the real experts on this matter, namely, (as I have previously mentioned and quoted here in EF), people like Dr. Athan Theoharis.

I previously posted here in EF a reply I received from Dr. Theoharis to several questions I posed to him concerning whether or not he had seen (or heard about) any instances where FBI employees deliberately created false documents or if they ever lied in their internal communications among themselves regarding what FBI investigative files show. I copy Theoharis's answers again below.

Let me thus answer your questions in the order that you posed.

First, I am unaware of any instance when an FBI official forged a letter to appear that it was submitted by someone outside the Bureau.

Second, it is impossible to verify that the FBI systematically purged records. We do know, under the Do Not File procedure, that requests seeking authorization to conduct break-ins were submitted in a way to ensure that they could be (and were) safely destroyed.

We also know, under the “summary memorandum procedure", that whenever field offices formally submitted information on congressional candidates that would normally result in that communication be serialized in the FBI’s central records system that they were instructed to resubmit informally to avoid serialization.

We also know, under the blue/pink/informal memorandum procedure, that sensitive communications among officials at FBI headquarters were submitted (under this procedure) to avoid serialization and permit destruction.

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"

9-30-64 Disciplinary Actions re LHO.PDF

Edited March 12, 2014 by Ernie Lazar

[Paul Trejo]

I see both sides on this issue. While Ernie is correct that one must document one's claims as much as possible, Paul is correct in that one can't take FBI files as the gospel, particularly files from the Hoover era.

P.S. Ernie, since you seem to have a better understanding of FBI record-keeping than most, I'm wondering if you can read this short article\

http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Essay_-_Proof_the_FBI_Changed_Documents%2C_and_Vincent_Bugliosi_Was_Wrong

and tell me if you find anything suspicious about the FBI's behavior in this instance. Your thoughts appreciated...

It's an intriguing question, Pat.

A similar example was shown in 1965 by Penn Jones in his Midlothian Mirror, when he demonstrated clearly that J. Edgar Hoover sent a message to the Warren Commission on 21Sep1964 saying that Loran Hall proved that Silvia Odio mistook William Seymour for Lee Harvey Oswald during the final week of September 1963 at her home.

It was similar because from 18Sep1964 through 20Sep1964 the FBI received affidavits from William Seymour and Larry Howard denying Loran Hall's story -- and even a retraction of his story from Loran Hall himself.

J. Edgar Hoover knew this, but he sent the Warren Commission the first Loran Hall story anyway -- and simply pretended that he never saw the contrary affidavits from the previous three days.

By the way, did Vincent Bugliosi ever respond to this question about the obviously changed FBI documents about Oswald's alleged paper bag?

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited March 13, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Pat Speer]

I see both sides on this issue. While Ernie is correct that one must document one's claims as much as possible, Paul is correct in that one can't take FBI files as the gospel, particularly files from the Hoover era.

P.S. Ernie, since you seem to have a better understanding of FBI record-keeping than most, I'm wondering if you can read this short article\

http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Essay_-_Proof_the_FBI_Changed_Documents%2C_and_Vincent_Bugliosi_Was_Wrong

and tell me if you find anything suspicious about the FBI's behavior in this instance. Your thoughts appreciated...

Pat:

I cannot intelligently respond to the substance of the article you linked because I am not familiar with all the relevant evidence. However, I can speak, generally, to the larger point.

1. First of all, one has to distinguish between raw information contained in FBI files and the ultimate final reports written by FBI agents and approved by field office Supervisors and SACS, or HQ Section Chiefs or Assistant Directors.

2. In many cases, I have seen initial memos submitted by a field office to HQ (or even by a Special Agent to his SAC) which contained inaccuracies. Sometimes a person's name is spelled wrong or his/her birthdate is wrong or there are characterizations (descriptions of people or organizations or publications) which are mistaken in some materially important details.

3. When you review FBI employee personnel files and especially when you review annual Inspection Reports on every FBI office and HQ Division, you will often see discussions regarding "error rates" -- which refers to everything from spelling and grammar errors on outgoing correspondence to substantive errors contained in summary memos and investigative reports. [if I had $1 for every time I saw a censure letter sent to an FBI Agent in his personnel file for some negligence on his part, I would be very wealthy.]

4. A while back I discussed here in EF one huge mistake made by the "Names Check Unit" at FBI HQ when a Supervisor sent Hoover a summary memorandum about Highlander Folk School (Monteagle TN) which described Highlander as a "Communist training school". The memo also mentioned that Martin Luther King Jr. had attended a function at this school.

Based upon that description, Hoover notified the Attorney General of the U.S. that MLK Jr. had "attended a Communist training school" but Hoover subsequently learned that the description he used was NOT based upon any FBI investigation. Instead, it was a reference to how a Georgia State agency described Highlander and they based their description upon the reports made by an "investigator" who was a life long racist and segregationist (and the official photographer for the Georgia KKK).

When Hoover discovered what had happened, he directed that the Section Chief who prepared that memo should receive a censure letter and be placed on probation.

5. JFK / WARREN COMMISSION

When the Warren Commission issued its report which contained criticisms of the way in which the FBI handled the JFK investigation, the result was that Hoover directed Associate Director Tolson to prepare a summary memorandum to recommend disciplinary actions against every responsible FBI employee -- including Assistant Directors who oversaw the investigation and subsequent HQ reports/memos.

I attach one of those disciplinary memos -- sorry for the poor quality of some pages.

As you can see, some FBI employees were targeted for demotion and others received censure letters and probation. The Assistant to the Director who oversaw the General Investigative Division, the Special Investigative Division and the Domestic Intelligence Division (Alan Belmont) was censured. Belmont had previously been censured and placed on probation several times for gross negligence in reviewing and approving FBI summary reports -- and within a year of this JFK-censure, he abruptly retired from the FBI.

6. CULTURE AT FBI

So, what I am suggesting Pat, is that there was a culture at the FBI which did not casually accept or make excuses for errors made in FBI memos and reports nor did FBI Supervisors accept any sort of misconduct by FBI employees. [Cleon Skousen's brother, Leroy, was also a Special Agent. Leroy was censured (and he abruptly retired) after his SAC discovered that Leroy had taken his FBI car home every day at lunch time to check on his wife who had a medical problem.]

Now, if you want me to discuss whether or not the FBI ever edited a memo or report after they discovered new information -- then the answer is yes.

But, if you want me to discuss whether or not there was a systematic and routine practice of falsifying internal FBI records -- then I have to defer to the real experts on this matter, namely, (as I have previously mentioned and quoted here in EF), people like Dr. Athan Theoharis.

I previously posted here in EF a reply I received from Dr. Theoharis to several questions I posed to him concerning whether or not he had seen (or heard about) any instances where FBI employees deliberately created false documents or if they ever lied in their internal communications among themselves regarding what FBI investigative files show. I copy Theoharis's answers again below.

Let me thus answer your questions in the order that you posed.

First, I am unaware of any instance when an FBI official forged a letter to appear that it was submitted by someone outside the Bureau.

Second, it is impossible to verify that the FBI systematically purged records. We do know, under the Do Not File procedure, that requests seeking authorization to conduct break-ins were submitted in a way to ensure that they could be (and were) safely destroyed.

We also know, under the “summary memorandum procedure", that whenever field offices formally submitted information on congressional candidates that would normally result in that communication be serialized in the FBI’s central records system that they were instructed to resubmit informally to avoid serialization.

We also know, under the blue/pink/informal memorandum procedure, that sensitive communications among officials at FBI headquarters were submitted (under this procedure) to avoid serialization and permit destruction.

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"

Thanks, Ernie, for your thoughtful response.

My sense is that most field reports were supposed to be accurate, but that internal memorandums were often smoke.

In December 1963, for example, Hoover wrote a memo in which he accused Katzenbach and I believe Warren of leaking the FBI's report on the assassination to the press. The nature of the leaks, however, pointed directly back at the FBI. And Assistant Director William Sullivan later told the Church Committee that it was in fact Hoover and DeLoach who were behind the leaks.

[Pat Speer]

I see both sides on this issue. While Ernie is correct that one must document one's claims as much as possible, Paul is correct in that one can't take FBI files as the gospel, particularly files from the Hoover era.

P.S. Ernie, since you seem to have a better understanding of FBI record-keeping than most, I'm wondering if you can read this short article\

http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Essay_-_Proof_the_FBI_Changed_Documents%2C_and_Vincent_Bugliosi_Was_Wrong

and tell me if you find anything suspicious about the FBI's behavior in this instance. Your thoughts appreciated...

It's an intriguing question, Pat.

A similar example was shown in 1965 by Penn Jones in his Midlothian Mirror, when he demonstrated clearly that J. Edgar Hoover sent a message to the Warren Commission on 21Sep1964 saying that Loran Hall proved that Silvia Odio mistook William Seymour for Lee Harvey Oswald during the final week of September 1963 at her home.

It was similar because from 18Sep1964 through 20Sep1964 the FBI received affidavits from William Seymour and Larry Howard denying Loran Hall's story -- and even a retraction of his story from Loran Hall himself.

J. Edgar Hoover knew this, but he sent the Warren Commission the first Loran Hall story anyway -- and simply pretended that he never saw the contrary affidavits from the previous three days.

By the way, did Vincent Bugliosi ever respond to this question about the obviously changed FBI documents about Oswald's alleged paper bag?

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Bugliosi never responded to anything I had to say about anything. I sent him some research before his book came out. It came back in the mail. After his book came out, someone started an email campaign to convince him to debate me on the medical evidence. He never responded. Although his book was supposed to answer all the questions, he never debated anyone in its defense.

I later met him at a book-signing. We had a friendly discussion and I gave him a copy of my DVD. He said he'd take a look and get back to me. Nothing.

Perhaps he had someone look me up and see what I had to say about his book. If so, they probably found this:

http://www.patspeer.com/chapter9b%3Areclaiminghistoryfromreclaimin2

[Ernie Lazar]

I see both sides on this issue. While Ernie is correct that one must document one's claims as much as possible, Paul is correct in that one can't take FBI files as the gospel, particularly files from the Hoover era.

P.S. Ernie, since you seem to have a better understanding of FBI record-keeping than most, I'm wondering if you can read this short article\

http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Essay_-_Proof_the_FBI_Changed_Documents%2C_and_Vincent_Bugliosi_Was_Wrong

and tell me if you find anything suspicious about the FBI's behavior in this instance. Your thoughts appreciated...

Pat:

I cannot intelligently respond to the substance of the article you linked because I am not familiar with all the relevant evidence. However, I can speak, generally, to the larger point.

1. First of all, one has to distinguish between raw information contained in FBI files and the ultimate final reports written by FBI agents and approved by field office Supervisors and SACS, or HQ Section Chiefs or Assistant Directors.

2. In many cases, I have seen initial memos submitted by a field office to HQ (or even by a Special Agent to his SAC) which contained inaccuracies. Sometimes a person's name is spelled wrong or his/her birthdate is wrong or there are characterizations (descriptions of people or organizations or publications) which are mistaken in some materially important details.

3. When you review FBI employee personnel files and especially when you review annual Inspection Reports on every FBI office and HQ Division, you will often see discussions regarding "error rates" -- which refers to everything from spelling and grammar errors on outgoing correspondence to substantive errors contained in summary memos and investigative reports. [if I had $1 for every time I saw a censure letter sent to an FBI Agent in his personnel file for some negligence on his part, I would be very wealthy.]

4. A while back I discussed here in EF one huge mistake made by the "Names Check Unit" at FBI HQ when a Supervisor sent Hoover a summary memorandum about Highlander Folk School (Monteagle TN) which described Highlander as a "Communist training school". The memo also mentioned that Martin Luther King Jr. had attended a function at this school.

Based upon that description, Hoover notified the Attorney General of the U.S. that MLK Jr. had "attended a Communist training school" but Hoover subsequently learned that the description he used was NOT based upon any FBI investigation. Instead, it was a reference to how a Georgia State agency described Highlander and they based their description upon the reports made by an "investigator" who was a life long racist and segregationist (and the official photographer for the Georgia KKK).

When Hoover discovered what had happened, he directed that the Section Chief who prepared that memo should receive a censure letter and be placed on probation.

5. JFK / WARREN COMMISSION

When the Warren Commission issued its report which contained criticisms of the way in which the FBI handled the JFK investigation, the result was that Hoover directed Associate Director Tolson to prepare a summary memorandum to recommend disciplinary actions against every responsible FBI employee -- including Assistant Directors who oversaw the investigation and subsequent HQ reports/memos.

I attach one of those disciplinary memos -- sorry for the poor quality of some pages.

As you can see, some FBI employees were targeted for demotion and others received censure letters and probation. The Assistant to the Director who oversaw the General Investigative Division, the Special Investigative Division and the Domestic Intelligence Division (Alan Belmont) was censured. Belmont had previously been censured and placed on probation several times for gross negligence in reviewing and approving FBI summary reports -- and within a year of this JFK-censure, he abruptly retired from the FBI.

6. CULTURE AT FBI

So, what I am suggesting Pat, is that there was a culture at the FBI which did not casually accept or make excuses for errors made in FBI memos and reports nor did FBI Supervisors accept any sort of misconduct by FBI employees. [Cleon Skousen's brother, Leroy, was also a Special Agent. Leroy was censured (and he abruptly retired) after his SAC discovered that Leroy had taken his FBI car home every day at lunch time to check on his wife who had a medical problem.]

Now, if you want me to discuss whether or not the FBI ever edited a memo or report after they discovered new information -- then the answer is yes.

But, if you want me to discuss whether or not there was a systematic and routine practice of falsifying internal FBI records -- then I have to defer to the real experts on this matter, namely, (as I have previously mentioned and quoted here in EF), people like Dr. Athan Theoharis.

I previously posted here in EF a reply I received from Dr. Theoharis to several questions I posed to him concerning whether or not he had seen (or heard about) any instances where FBI employees deliberately created false documents or if they ever lied in their internal communications among themselves regarding what FBI investigative files show. I copy Theoharis's answers again below.

Let me thus answer your questions in the order that you posed.

First, I am unaware of any instance when an FBI official forged a letter to appear that it was submitted by someone outside the Bureau.

Second, it is impossible to verify that the FBI systematically purged records. We do know, under the Do Not File procedure, that requests seeking authorization to conduct break-ins were submitted in a way to ensure that they could be (and were) safely destroyed.

We also know, under the “summary memorandum procedure", that whenever field offices formally submitted information on congressional candidates that would normally result in that communication be serialized in the FBI’s central records system that they were instructed to resubmit informally to avoid serialization.

We also know, under the blue/pink/informal memorandum procedure, that sensitive communications among officials at FBI headquarters were submitted (under this procedure) to avoid serialization and permit destruction.

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"

Thanks, Ernie, for your thoughtful response.

My sense is that most field reports were supposed to be accurate, but that internal memorandums were often smoke.

In December 1963, for example, Hoover wrote a memo in which he accused Katzenbach and I believe Warren of leaking the FBI's report on the assassination to the press. The nature of the leaks, however, pointed directly back at the FBI. And Assistant Director William Sullivan later told the Church Committee that it was in fact Hoover and DeLoach who were behind the leaks.

Well, Pat, the sine qua non of all conspiracy theories (and I suppose the same can be said about most revisionist history narratives) is to de-value and dismiss most available documentary evidence and then make very broad generalizations such as "internal memorandums were often smoke".

In my lifetime, I have had online debates (or exchanged correspondence/emails) with literally hundreds of people. When I was in high school, I used to take a bus into San Francisco to see a movie or whatever but I would always stop by what was then the Communist Book Store on McAllister Street (and by coincidence, 30 years later I wound up living in the apartment building above where that bookstore was located).

Naturally, the debates which I had with the ladies who staffed that bookstore proceeded along the lines you might expect. They had their own version of history which required that I first accept their premise that my government routinely lied.

Then, I started debating Birch Society members and had the exact same experience -- albeit from the opposite side of the political spectrum. Actually, the JBS arguments were much more imaginative and intellectually challenging than the Communist arguments - but they both started from the same predicate and they both ultimately arrived at the same conclusion, i.e. what you might describe as the "mostly smoke" school of thought. And I even shared that skepticism. I used to have a "Challenge Authority" bumper sticker on my car. And I had letters published in my local newspaper which declared that our government was lying about Vietnam.

The human intellect is capable of believing just about anything and I suppose it is human nature to always look for mistakes and flaws and inconsistencies and then argue over the significance of those defects.

People still debate the murder of Abraham Lincoln and I am absolutely certain they will debate the murder of JFK for generations to come. Ditto for our 9/11 tragedy. I spent weeks debating people in one Yahoo conspiracy group who insisted that World Trade Center building #7 was brought down by explosives planted by our government (not by any airplane impact). And you can see dozens of "9/11 Truth" videos on youtube.

My point: There is no way to resolve most of the claims made by conspiracy theorists. However, in terms of the subject of this particular thread (i.e. HARRY DEAN), we can make reasonable conclusions, EVEN IF you want to discard the FBI files which are now available. Based upon what Harry Dean has said and written it is clear to anyone who is genuinely objective, that Harry is NOT a reliable or credible source. His entire story disintegrated once it became apparent that Wesley Grapp was not even physically in Los Angeles at the time Harry claims he and Wesley were driving around town "for hours" and Harry was supposedly meeting with Grapp to give him information about (...you fill in the blanks here).

[Harry J.Dean]

My reason to not bother requesting my FBI records was simply that I was there in every situation. However being goaded into

the fray on E Forum my request for these records is well underway. Upon their arrival hopefully soon, everyone will know

the facts already known for years to me.

These FBI records will be 'destructive' to the over spoken Lazar, but informative to interested persons. It is important to notice

that a result of these exposures may cause threats or physical harm from this vicious critical source.

[Ernie Lazar]

Well, Harry, I am glad that you are making a request -- but I hope you asked for copies of all "search slips" used by the FBI so that they will identify all files which contains references to you.

We already know that your HQ and Los Angeles files are at NARA -- and your Chicago file was destroyed --- but I hope you asked the FBI to provide you with ANY documents from ANY field office so that, for example, the Indianapolis and Detroit and the Ottawa Canada-Legat office will be searched.

The fact that "you were there in every situation" does not mean a lot. The main question is, and always has been, the exact nature of your relationship with the FBI (or CIA). There are numerous examples of people who claim to have been an informant for a police department, or for some agency of our federal government (FBI, INS, ATF, Secret Service, etc.) but when their documentary records are released, it turns out that they grossly exaggerated their status OR their informant period was very limited in time, place, scope, and purpose.

I have my personal theory regarding what happened with you and the FBI --- but I prefer to rely upon empirical evidence -- not just my personal speculation. Because of that, this week I have submitted another couple dozen FOIA requests which pertain to subjects that you supposedly were involved with--long before there was any JFK-connection. For example: I am requesting files on Edgar Swabeck, Frank Vega, FPCC-Chicago chapter, Alpha 66 (Los Angeles), Richard Criley, and other subjects -- including most of the cross-reference serials which are identified in your HQ and Los Angeles files.

[Ernie Lazar]

The Mary Ferrell website has "comments" pages where interested parties can enter their personal observations about every document which is on that website.

For interested parties, I copy below all of the comments which Harry has posted. I have not corrected spelling or punctuation errors. The "document page" links refer to the original document which Harry was commenting upon.

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/comments/getList.do?member=HarryDean

Letter Nov. 19, 1963
by HarryDean on Tue, Aug 29, 2006, 11:19 PM GMT (#1465)
Comment on document page: ROUTING AND RECORD SHEET, Pg 4
There is more to the Hoover letter..? The Chicago Bureau office dumped me when I casually mentioned to my FBI contacts I had confided to a CIA agent about also advising the Bureau re; Cuban affairs. They said " You told them!" Both agents seemed equally angry and disappointed, adding," You can no longer deal with the Bureau"! This put me on the outs with All sides of the U.S. and Cuban fury. We hurriedly packed and hauled for southern California. In the transition phase from heartfelt facination with the Revolution and Cuba I came to realize that all of my involvements for and then against them, were in the final costly waists. Mr. Hoover must have known about my earlier contacts with Central Intelligence Agents? The first was 1960 close to my departure time to visit the Cuban Revolutionary Government. The second encounter after returning, to be interviewed\debriefed. The third connection, several days prior to the 1961 planned invasion of Cuba. H. Dean

Code Name "J.R."
by HarryDean on Tue, Aug 22, 2006, 2:25 AM GMT (#1463)
Comment on document page: ROUTING AND RECORD SHEET, Pg 11
At the outset {1960} I told FBI agents I could never go to the office, as Cuban activists and others I dealt with would spot me, or worse. They agreed. When I first contacted the Bureau, the agent answering the phone registered suprise, saying "we did'nt know that The Fair Play For Cuba Committie had started yet in Chicago." The Chicago Office instructed me to choose a code name for use when either of us contacted the other. I came up with the initials "J.R." My wife and I knew who was calling when they ask for J.R. requesting information and\or to set up a meeting. Agents also advised me to work out a code for message writing, kindly offering to do it for me if I could not. H. Dean

FBI Los Angeles
by HarryDean on Tue, Aug 22, 2006, 1:25 AM GMT (#1462)
Comment on document page: ROUTING AND RECORD SHEET, Pg 14
The FBI office in Los Angeles wanted information on the activities of SWP\FPCC member Ed Swabeck. The Bureau gave me his address in the Venice section of L.A. When I walked in Swabeck and wife Marge were suspicious and said so! Under fire, I grabbed their phone, dialed information saying, I told you are listed Ed. I did'nt know his name and address were listed, I did'nt even know they were in 'Southern' California. The beauty of that assignment netted Cuban DGI Castro agent, Fransisco Vega, then illegally in the U.S. Much other information also resulted. The Bureau was extremely pleased. So was I. Vega had arrested and interrogated me in Cuba, for several hours. H. Dean

Page 2

Who said I said that?
by Harry Dean on Sun, Aug 20, 2006, 2:18 PM GMT (#1459)
Comment on document page: ROUTING AND RECORD SHEET, Pg 12
I do say; The sudden change in Eisenhower's Cuba Policy had left me hanging. I knew I was just as suddenly in trouble being a member of two pro-Castro groups. Castro's Network In The United States the Fair Play For Cuba Committie, and Castro's 26 July Movement. Contacting the FBI would save me being considered a Communist subversive {executive order 10450} The Bureau convinced me to stay-in and pass it all information. I did. Later, in 1961 the Bureau fired me when I mentioned previous dealings with CIA agents re; Cuba. They were plenty excited and angry. I wondered why? So thats what it's like to be suddenly out in the cold with no explanation. I had accepted cash expences at their insistence, but not this time. A few months later in Los Angeles, California I became involved in simular actions for that office. I sure welcome the opportunity to correct such semi-official twisted statements on the MaryFerrell.org site. Thanks. H. Dean

FPCC
by Harry Dean on Sun, Aug 20, 2006, 1:00 PM GMT (#1458)
Comment on document page: ROUTING AND RECORD SHEET, Pg 14
Re; the Chicago North side branch of The Fair Play For Cuba Committie. Communist Party and Socialist Workers Parties were opposing groups. SWP Swabeck ask me as FPCC Secretary to get CP leaders to allow SWP members to set up the North Side Chapter. It was allowed only if a CP member was in top leadership. Naturally this info. went to my Bureau agent contact. H. Dean

The Bureau
by HarryDean on Wed, Aug 16, 2006, 9:51 PM GMT (#1457)
Comment on document page: ROUTING AND RECORD SHEET, Pg 5
Intelligence agencies naturally pour out unflatering information usually in somewhat 'twisted form' re; anyone who 'blabbs later' about having labored for them. Such information insures continued co-operation. It is their methodology. Re; FBI, they kicked me loose in Chicago because I mentioned talking with CIA agents there. Re; the Canada episode mentioned above. I went back there in 1946 to visit relatives. Sadly married a persistent Canada girl {since died}. Prison, resulted from wife, self and mother-in-law continued battles, where I was interned for much of two years, finally escaping from that awful British\Canada society with which I had since my early teens been at war! H. Dean

For the record
by HarryDean on Wed, Aug 16, 2006, 8:58 PM GMT (#1456)
Comment on document page: ROUTING AND RECORD SHEET, Pg 5
I moved from Chicago to the nearby suburb of Whiting Indiana, assumed a new name to avoid danger to my family from anti-Castro agents. Began a business, purchased an apartment bldg. a rental property, and a private residence. Bad check charges were\are untrue! The Whiting, Indiana Power structue feared I intended to sell the apt. bldg. to a negro person from Chicago. They also knew of visits by a Castro official in a vehicle with Cuban government licence plates. Whiting's power structue questioned me via a Whiting cop who was also my employee. My wife, children and I were under physical attacks. Suddenly, we left, loosing everything. Their check charges were a further method of attack about which I only recently learned from the above report. H. Dean

Photos and fingerprints 1955
by HarryDean on Mon, Aug 14, 2006, 3:34 PM GMT (#1453)
Comment on document page: LETTER: ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT JOHN FITZGERALD KENNEDY, 11/22/63, DALLAS, TEXAS, Pg 2
To correct the inference above, I have seen the 1955 photos taken by Detroit Police Dept.{full length front and side views}. These photos were made when I applied for and received a Detroit Cab Company licence. The unidentified Mexico\Russian Embassy photo, is a 'non-mystery' intended to invole me in anti-Kennedy actions by former associates. H. Dean

CE 237
by HarryDean on Sun, Aug 13, 2006, 6:19 PM GMT (#1452)
Comment on document page: MEMO: FBI CONCURS TART DEAN NOT IDENTICAL W/UNIDENTIFIED PERSON IN WARREN COMMISSION REPORT, Pg 3
In this, Ardvison is only one of several who thought I resembled #237 in Warren Report. I notice that a first cousin, George Dean,a cop in Michigan called FBI there re; seeing a photo in Bay City, MI., thought it looked like me. We had last met in 1964.The George Dean FBI call was made in 1968. Dean said he had not seen me in several years? Re; the FBI interviewing me several times, in Los Angeles areas, the purpose of such, for example: to seek out information on L.A. area ALPHA 66 activities, and specifically it's leadership, after being shown an FBI photo of same. There are endless other examples "called interveiws". H. Dean

Joe Pyne show et al.
by HarryDean on Sun, Aug 13, 2006, 5:35 PM GMT (#1451)
Comment on document page: HARRY DEAN, Pg 2
Hayward's warning to FBI brought Bureau agents out to forbid my going on this or any TV or Radio show re; my association with FBI in Los Angeles, Chicago or elsewhere. I did go on, as a way to end my informant status with them. The Bureau was furious. No more information, no more expense money! I was glad! H. Dean

Unidentified
by HarryDean on Sun, Aug 13, 2006, 5:07 PM GMT (#1450)
Comment on document page: HARRY J. DEAN, Pg 3
There was a devious plan by my ant- Kennedy, anti-Communist,anti-Castro associates, to involve me in the so-called, Mexico City, Los Angeles\Kennedy scheme having to do with the unidentified person # 237 in Warren Report.

Page 3

by HarryDean on Sun, Aug 13, 2006, 4:45 PM GMT (#1449)
Comment on document page: OSI TRACES ON HARRY DEAN, Pg 2
I am a U.S. citizen at birth through my American father, and was not arrested under the registeration act by either the Detroit Police Dept. or the RCMP. I was arrested and questioned then immediately released by U.S. Customs and immigration Service. H.Dean

[Ernie Lazar]

Notice that in Harry's August 2006 comments copied above -- there is considerable information not previously presented.

With respect to Harry's first comment -- which pertained to the March 1964 Los Angeles memo which excerpted Harry's 11/63 letter to Hoover:

Notice that in August 2006, Harry did not challenge the accuracy of that excerpt.

Nevertheless, when we began discussing this Los Angeles memo excerpt here in EF, and then I found Harry's entire letter to Hoover on the Ferrell website which I posted here -- Harry insisted (and Paul employed his tortured exegesis of that letter to confirm what Harry stated) that the FBI copies were bogus forgeries designed to "smear" Harry.

From the beginning, I said that there was nothing in the unredacted long version (or excerpted Los Angeles memo version) which disadvantaged Harry or advantaged the FBI so I asked what possible purpose would the FBI have in creating such an alleged forgery?

And I challenged Paul to explain WHY the FBI would even bother to re-type a letter in ALL CAPS -- particularly when the FBI could not know how many original copies were in circulation. And, of course, Paul just summarily dismissed my comments as being nothing more than what a toady of the FBI would believe.

It is these sorts of issues that make it very obvious to impartial observers that there is something fundamentally flawed in Harry's story.

Will we ever know the complete, entire, factual truth about Harry's relationship with the FBI? Maybe not. But as I have repeatedly said, we have more than enough factual evidence to make reasonable, fair-minded, judgments without being accused of having "blind faith" in FBI integrity or record-keeping procedures.