Harry Dean: Memoirs

[Harry J.Dean]

From the 1990 Manuscript/book CROSSTRAILS

The Coup D'Etat. The planned "New Americanist Scheme" with it's framework so cunningly in place

for more than half a century, moved quickly (upon the death of President Kennedy) to consolidate

and hold perpetual power over a bewildered government and confused nation.

Their guilty leadership , by stealth, with bloodstained hands, reached out and plucked the overripe

fruit of all constitutional government power and control. Wherein all other whites, colors and

nations are now and forever "second place subordinates " in all present and future schemes. These

are to serve the arrogant LDS plan for a totally materialistic, church-state for the eternal comfort of

this "caucasic beast" and it's political image!

No honest conservative really believed that we were trying to do more than call the Liberal establishment

communist sympathizers in order to replace it with conservatism. But we unknowingly were being used to

help install this present system that is surreptitiously using every power of US Government to force the extension

of a purely materialistic-religious empire that is intent on redesigning the entire world in it's own "communal"

image! An effort that includes brute force and isolation of resistant individuals and entire nations.

H Dean

1990

Former LDS member

Edited August 28, 2014 by Harry J.Dean

[Paul Trejo]

The CIA has always been highly compartmentalized with the clandestine service separated from analysis and counter intelligence separated from everyone - but with strong links to CIA security. Beyond that operational units such as SAS were isolated as much as possible from actual stations such as JMWAVE or Mexico City. So yes, the CIA was very much divided among itself, and when it came to counter intelligence often lied to itself as well. For that matter senior officers were legally authorized to lie to other groups inside the Agency even during investigations as standard information security practice.

All of which adds to the sort of confusion you find with multiple agendas around Oswald and in Mexico City.

But to get to the point. As I describe in NEXUS, one of the routine things Angleton did was to express his worries and concerns to a very small handful of people, people like Helms, Harvey, Dulles. According to first hand reports he would sit down, ramble on about his worries and how dangerous certain things were and then just leave. Sometimes that led to actual operations, more often not. That sort of thing was SOP at his level inside the Agency and gave ultimate deniablity. All of which means Angleton could well have given Harvey key information about the Castro contacts, expressed his view that JFK was a national security risk, shaken his head numerous times and gone off to another office - and had no idea what happened beyond that.

As Bill Simpich demonstrates, the mole hunt and other activities in Mexico City would quite normally develop around Oswald's visit, standard counter intelligence practices. The telephone impersonation is the point of focus for tracking fingerprints of the conspiracy, not the mole hunt.

So, do I see James Angleton as a villain, yes in a great many ways. Given certain of his remarks just before his death he appears to have begun to realize just how many terrible things had resulted from his own actions. Do I see him operationally involved in the conspiracy and the attack in Dallas - no.

Well, Larry, your anecdote about James Jesus Angelton is unconvincing. You're GUESSING that Angleton directed Helms, Harvey and Dulles, without written memoranda -- that simply on his water-cooler worries they would jump into action.

The compartmentalization that led to the confusion in Mexico City which Bill Simpich writes about can only go so far in explaining events.

You admit that "the telephone impersonation is the point of focus for tracking fingerprints of the conspiracy, not the mole hunt." Yet that is a two-edged sword.

All I needed was your admission that the telephone impersonation (which was the subject of a mole-hunt) is the proper focus for tracking fingerprints of the JFK conspiracy. That alone supports my point -- that the CIA moles who impersonated Duran and Oswald in Mexico City on 28 September 1963 in order to link Oswald's name with the name of KGB Agent Valery Kostikov, were doing so to frame Lee Harvey Oswald as a COMMUNIST -- so that he would be blamed for the murder of JFK as a patsy.

Then, Larry, you completed my point when you wrote: "Do I see [Angleton] operationally involved in the conspiracy and the attack in Dallas -- no."

This also agrees with my scenario. This top-level CIA Agent was NOT involved in the plot to murder JFK, but a middle-level CIA Agent, David Morales, was clearly involved, and operated underneath the radar of the official CIA.

So -- you claim that you disagree with my position -- but on the key points, it seems that you actually do agree.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

[Paul Brancato]

Point of clarification - Angleton conducted a mole hunt for years, beginning before the assassination. Aren't we conflating mole hunt with impersonations of Oswald and Duran? How do we know that Angleton, or for that matter any of the others higher ups, didn't know who did the impersonations after the fact? Would they have left a paper trail if they did figure it out? It doesn't really matter whether they knew beforehand, since that is an operational detail best left to the actual perpetrators.

Larry describes Angleton mentioning his worries and concerns to men like Dulles Harvey and Helms and then walking out of the room. What a perfect example of building deniability into covert operations. The details are left to the ground crew, there is no paper trail. As Larry points out, this is SOP when the object is to commit a crime of this magnitude, and not just for the CIA.

Thank you Larry.

[Ernie Lazar]

The CIA has always been highly compartmentalized with the clandestine service separated from analysis and counter intelligence separated from everyone - but with strong links to CIA security. Beyond that operational units such as SAS were isolated as much as possible from actual stations such as JMWAVE or Mexico City. So yes, the CIA was very much divided among itself, and when it came to counter intelligence often lied to itself as well. For that matter senior officers were legally authorized to lie to other groups inside the Agency even during investigations as standard information security practice.

All of which adds to the sort of confusion you find with multiple agendas around Oswald and in Mexico City.

But to get to the point. As I describe in NEXUS, one of the routine things Angleton did was to express his worries and concerns to a very small handful of people, people like Helms, Harvey, Dulles. According to first hand reports he would sit down, ramble on about his worries and how dangerous certain things were and then just leave. Sometimes that led to actual operations, more often not. That sort of thing was SOP at his level inside the Agency and gave ultimate deniablity. All of which means Angleton could well have given Harvey key information about the Castro contacts, expressed his view that JFK was a national security risk, shaken his head numerous times and gone off to another office - and had no idea what happened beyond that.

As Bill Simpich demonstrates, the mole hunt and other activities in Mexico City would quite normally develop around Oswald's visit, standard counter intelligence practices. The telephone impersonation is the point of focus for tracking fingerprints of the conspiracy, not the mole hunt.

So, do I see James Angleton as a villain, yes in a great many ways. Given certain of his remarks just before his death he appears to have begun to realize just how many terrible things had resulted from his own actions. Do I see him operationally involved in the conspiracy and the attack in Dallas - no.

Well, Larry, your anecdote about James Jesus Angelton is unconvincing. You're GUESSING that Angleton directed Helms, Harvey and Dulles, without written memoranda -- that simply on his water-cooler worries they would jump into action.

The compartmentalization that led to the confusion in Mexico City which Bill Simpich writes about can only go so far in explaining events.

You admit that "the telephone impersonation is the point of focus for tracking fingerprints of the conspiracy, not the mole hunt." Yet that is a two-edged sword.

All I needed was your admission that the telephone impersonation (which was the subject of a mole-hunt) is the proper focus for tracking fingerprints of the JFK conspiracy. That alone supports my point -- that the CIA moles who impersonated Duran and Oswald in Mexico City on 28 September 1963 in order to link Oswald's name with the name of KGB Agent Valery Kostikov, were doing so to frame Lee Harvey Oswald as a COMMUNIST -- so that he would be blamed for the murder of JFK as a patsy.

Then, Larry, you completed my point when you wrote: "Do I see [Angleton] operationally involved in the conspiracy and the attack in Dallas -- no."

This also agrees with my scenario. This top-level CIA Agent was NOT involved in the plot to murder JFK, but a middle-level CIA Agent, David Morales, was clearly involved, and operated underneath the radar of the official CIA.

So -- you claim that you disagree with my position -- but on the key points, it seems that you actually do agree.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Just a few messages ago, Paul characterized Larry's research as "expert thinking" but, now, Paul attempts to de-value or diminish Larry's thoughts with put-down words like "anecdote", "unconvincing", and "GUESSING".

Nevertheless, if a neutral party were to review all of Paul's messages here in EF along with his eBook -- most of Paul's contributions have been anecdotal OR uncorroborated speculations and they could be accurately described as "guessing" (but when Paul makes these sorts of comments he elevates them by describing them as his well-informed "theory").

We have seen many examples here of how Paul employs "guessing" to interpret evidence and we have seen how often Paul literally INVENTS assertions which have utterly no basis in fact -- particularly if something he wants to be true turns out to NOT BE supported by documentary evidence.

[Larry Hancock]

Actually the proper word to describe my NEXUS scenario would be "hypothesis", there are some elements of it that have actually led to me to look for things it would suggest - and then find them - so that moves it a bit closer to being a theory, but that's about it. One of those would simply be that Angleton and Harvey, unlike much of what had been written about the two earlier, proved to have been jointly involved in the the Castro assassination project, with Angleton actually backing up Harvey. In addition the two men continued a relationship up to Harvey's death and Anglegon's correspondence speaks to something they have in common they must keep silent. Another would be the discovery that Angleton was heavily involved in Cuban counter intelligence at the same time Morales was and that Angleton used the AMOT's as sources for an intel report on Cuba after the BOP. Up to that point the word had generally been that Angleton was interested in the Soviet Union and Israel but Cuba was never on his radar.

The point though is that as a hypothesis allow others to work with it, give it further research, etc. Whether it "convinces" anyone is not all that important to me since I really don't evangelize it.....publish and move on, that's me...grin. Paul has his own hypothesis on Walker, fine by me....

As to points of agreement, possibly other than that I give no credence to Walker's involvement, mistrust Paul's key sources such as Hall and Howard, etc. and feel that at best whatever Harry heard was wishful thinking much like the stuff - Milteer was hearing. Hearing ultra right guys talk about killing JFK was as common as hearing crime figures talk about it. Its the people who weren't shooting off their mouths that were really dangerous.

[Paul Trejo]

Point of clarification - Angleton conducted a mole hunt for years, beginning before the assassination. Aren't we conflating mole hunt with impersonations of Oswald and Duran? How do we know that Angleton, or for that matter any of the others higher ups, didn't know who did the impersonations after the fact? Would they have left a paper trail if they did figure it out? It doesn't really matter whether they knew beforehand, since that is an operational detail best left to the actual perpetrators.

Larry describes Angleton mentioning his worries and concerns to men like Dulles Harvey and Helms and then walking out of the room. What a perfect example of building deniability into covert operations. The details are left to the ground crew, there is no paper trail. As Larry points out, this is SOP when the object is to commit a crime of this magnitude, and not just for the CIA.

Thank you Larry.

OK, Paul B., these are all good points. Let me try to defend my position here.

1. I don't want to push Angleton's mole-hunt over the very reason it was started -- namely, the impersonations of Oswald and Duran. The important thing is the impersonations. The mole-hunt is only the proof that these were really impersonations.

2. The reason we know that Angleton and the CIA high-command were clueless about the impersonators is that Bill Simpich found a CIA paper trail showing the mole-hunt still in progress much, much later. The paper trail is good evidence because nobody but the CIA high-command were allowed to see mole-hunt documents.

3. As for Angleton expressing his worries to Dulles, Harvey and Helms and then walking away -- that is an interesting anecdote but it proves nothing at all. It might raise suspicions, but it proves nothing. As for the CIA culture of plausible denial, we already know a lot about it -- and that was really what opened the CIA up to abuses like the impersonation of Oswald and Duran in the first place.

4. Just as I object to the modern argument that LBJ's ignorance about any details of the JFK murder is somehow a proof that LBJ planned the whole thing (which is just nonsense), in the same way I object to arguments that the lack of a paper trail in the CIA is somehow a proof that the CIA planned the whole thing. You can't use the lack of evidence as proof.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited August 29, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Greg Burnham]

AJ Weberman recently commented on my website with this:

PS: Paul, don't you just get sick of being right all the time?

Hemming never confessed "of his participation" to Weberman because he didn't participate. Trejo makes it up as he goes along.

Greg, there's no way I made that up. In fact, Gerry Patrick Hemming spent more hours interviewing with A.J. Weberman than with you, and the interviews of A.J. Weberman are famous, while yours are less well-known.

As I recall the interview -- Gerry Patrick Hemming told A.J. Weberman that he called Lee Harvey Oswald from Florida on 11/21/1963 and offered Oswald double the market price of his Mannlicher Carcano if only Oswald would bring it to the Texas School Book Depository on Friday 11/22/1963 and leave it on the 6th floor.

The reason was that some desperate figure needed it, and would pay extra for it. Oswald took the bait, and that's why he took his rifle to the TSBD on that day.

THAT'S A CONFESSION. Gerry Patrick Hemming confessed to A.J. Weberman that he knowingly and deliberately took part in the framing of Lee Harvey Oswald for the murder of JFK.

If Hemming didn't tell you that, Greg, then too bad. He told Weberman, and that's an EXCELLENT source.

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

AJ Weberman recently commented on my website with this:

PS: Paul, don't you just get sick of being right all the time?

Congratulations, Greg, on obtaining a rave review from A.J. Weberman himself. I'm impressed.

After years of interviews, A.J. Weberman became certain of the key role that Gerry Patrick Hemming played in the murder of JFK.

NOTE: The personal papers of resigned General Edwin Walker at UT Austin contain part of the correspondence between Gerry Patrick Hemming and Edwin Walker in 1963.

Also, one episode that Hemming shared with Weberman was a visit to the home of Walker in Dallas, shortly after Walker's famous 10 April 1963 shooting. It wasn't a private meeting -- other members of Interpen were with them on the back porch of Walker's home, smoking cigars and drinking beer, like the good old war veterans that they were.

There is a DIRECT connection between Gerry Patrick Hemming and Ex-General Edwin Walker that links them BOTH to the JFK murder.

Yet historians at UT Austin might become the first to unravel this relationship, since A.J. Weberman failed to pursue this line of research, and I haven't seen anything from your site that refers to it.

Or perhaps there is, Greg; is there anything in your interviews with Gerry Patrick Hemming that dwells on the resigned General Edwin Walker?

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited August 29, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

...As to points of agreement, possibly other than that I give no credence to Walker's involvement, mistrust Paul's key sources such as Hall and Howard, etc. and feel that at best whatever Harry heard was wishful thinking much like the stuff - Milteer was hearing. Hearing ultra right guys talk about killing JFK was as common as hearing crime figures talk about it. Its the people who weren't shooting off their mouths that were really dangerous.

Well, Larry, that might be an overstatement. When seeking out trouble-sources in a University, for example, one of the first things that psychologists do is seek out the people who were shooting off their mouths.

I certainly agree that more people talk boldly than act boldly. That's true. But in almost every case of a social disaster, the culprits were giving themselves away fairly regularly -- but their associates didn't report it.

So -- let's just not write off people who were shooting off their mouths.

For example -- let's take some people who shot off their mouths that we know about:

1. Lee Harvey Oswald (I'm A Patsy!)

2. Jack S. Martin (to Jim Garrison)

3. David Ferrie (to Jim Garrison)

4. Frank Sturgis

5. Johnny Roselli

6. John Martino

7. Richard Case Nagell

8. Loran Hall

9. Gerry Patrick Hemming (to A.J. Weberman)

10. Thomas Edward Beckham (to Joan Mellen)

And the list goes on. Do you doubt the involvement of these people, just because they shot off their mouths?

Actually, most of what we know from Jim Garrison first came from Jack S. Martin, to be confirmed by David Ferrie. One of the keys of my own theory is that I take first-person eye-witness claims VERY seriously.

Furthermore -- as for Loran Hall -- even Jim Garrison interviewed him at great length. Also, Gaeton Fonzi explored his involvement as far as he could. He's there in Dallas on that day, and he admitted associating with people who offered him big money to kill JFK. He lied about the Silvia Odio episode -- very plainly.

Furthermore -- as for Harry Dean's claims -- FBI Agents themselves told Harry that he only overheard "wishful thinking" among big talkers shooting off their mouths. Harry knows that's a possibility. He even hoped that this was a possibility. However, the naming of Lee Harvey Oswald as the patsy is the kicker. That can't be just "wishful thinking."

Furthermore, I don't doubt that Joseph Milteer was involved, just as FBI Agent Dale Adams insists to this day, although probably at a very low level. It wasn't just his boasting on tape -- it was his photographed presence in Dealey Plaza at the moment of the JFK shooting -- that is the harder evidence.

I admit -- and Harry Dean admits -- that listening to ultra-right-wing guys talk about killing JFK was an everyday, commonplace occurrence. It was no big deal in those days. But just because they shot off their mouths about it doesn't prove their innocence.

Best regards,

-Paul Trejo

Edited August 29, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Larry Hancock]

Paul, the word would not be "innocence" and it would not be "guilt", the right word for evaluating their remarks should really be "reliability", another relevant word would be "credibility".

Talking about the innocence or guilt of each in regard to involvement or even of of personal knowledge of the Dallas attack is something else entirely.

Assessing such things for the individuals on your list is something I spent at least two decades on and I've published a lot of that research - totally independently of my books - in papers,

presentations etc. That's the context of my assessment - which in the end is simply an educated opinion. I have mine, you have yours....I'll follow along to see if you come up with

anything new but as others have observed, these dialogs don't really seem to accomplish much. If I see a factual problem I'll sign in, otherwise I'll watch for something

out of those Walker papers you have remarked about so often...

-- Larry

[Paul Trejo]

... If I see a factual problem I'll sign in, otherwise I'll watch for something

out of those Walker papers you have remarked about so often...

-- Larry

Thanks, Larry, for the invitation to share something from Edwin Walker's personal papers currently in storage at UT Austin.

One of the things we all look for with regard to testimony and documentation is the occurrence of blatant contradiction. Today I'd like to share such a contradiction.

This contradiction is between Edwin Walker's testimony to the Warren Commission in July 1964, and a personal letter that he sent to Senator Frank Church in June 1975.

In his testimony to attorney Wesley Liebeler, Walker said he had never heard of Lee Harvey Oswald until 11/22/1963, but in his letter to Senator Frank Church, Walker admitted that he had. It's noteworthy, IMHO, that the authorities never followed up on this blatant contradiction. Here are the documents:

------------------------- Begin extract of Warren Commission testimony of 23 July 1964 --------------------------------

Mr. LIEBELER. The Dallas Police Department investigated this attack on you that occurred on April 10, 1963? They sent men out there and talked to you and took some pictures?

General WALKER. ...Right; they did.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did they discuss with you any possible suspects that they might have come up with, any leads they had on it as to who might have been involved?

General WALKER. I don't recall that they did. They may have, and I may have told them who had been in and about around the house, or who had worked for me. I don't recall this definitely, but the records will probably show.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you have any records like that here?

General WALKER. No; I don't.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did the name Lee Harvey Oswald come up in connection with this investigation in any way at that time?

General WALKER. No; it didn't.

Mr. LIEBELER. You never even heard of Oswald?

General WALKER. ...I have no information of Oswald's name ever being mentioned in my house, and I had never heard of the name with regard to the individual we are referring to at any time since I have been in Dallas or any other time.

Mr. LIEBELER. You have never heard of any connection until the assassination?

General WALKER. Until his activities of November 22...

------------------------- End extract of Warren Commission testimony of 23 July 1964 --------------------------------

OK, we can see Edwin Walker's very specific, plain statement to the effect that he never heard of Oswald, even stating, "I had never heard of the name...at any time since I have been in Dallas or any other time."

Walker wanted to wipe the slate clean of any suspicion of contact with Oswald before Oswald became globally infamous. (We should recall in the context that Walker was accompanied by his own long-time attorney Clyde Watts during his questioning. Watts, along with another Dallas attorney, Robert Morris, got Edwin Walker acquitted by a Mississippi Grand Jury for his role in the Ole Miss riots of late 1962.)

There is some chance that this blanket statement of denial of any knowledge about Lee Harvey Oswald was made on advice from Walker's counsel. Nevertheless, there it is, in sworn testimony -- Walker's denial of any knowledge about Lee Oswald prior to 11/22/1963.

Now for the blatant contradiction. On 23 June 1975 Edwin Walker wrote a letter to Senator Frank Church, who was heading up the Church Committee on JFK, and asked him to re-open the investigation of his own 10 April 1963 shooting in this regard. In this letter, Edwin Walker plainly states that he had information about Lee Harvey Oswald back in April, 1963.

I could type in the letter -- it's quite short. But I think it's more helpful for people to see it on Walker's letterhead with Walker's signature at the bottom, as it appears in Walker's personal papers. Here's the link:

http://www.pet880.com/images/19750623_EAW_to_Frank_Church.pdf

That's my opening salvo, Larry. Again, many thanks for requesting information about the personal papers of Edwin Walker.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited September 1, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Larry Hancock]

That is an interesting letter Paul; it will be even more interesting if you find something actually dated before Nov. 22, 1963. One of the problems this sort of thing raises is that it shows Walker was willing to lie - either in 1963 or 1965 - either that or it demonstrates he was was simply unreliable. Perhaps he did indeed have good reason to lie in 1963, a whole lot of people that did know or had at least had heard of Lee Oswald prior to the assassination most definitely had sudden memory loss at that point in time. I wish they had responded and asked him to explain the discripency you point out.

[Ernie Lazar]

UPDATE re HARRY DEAN's CIA FILE

Today I received Harry's CIA file (201-767846) from NARA.

The most succinct description of it is -- a total waste of money.

There is nothing in it that is not already known to us by virtue of the documents having already been posted on Mary Ferrell's website as well as from documents appearing in Harry's FBI-Los Angeles field file.

The first document (by date) is a copy of the 3/6/64 FBI memo which begins with the short version of Harry's 11/63 letter to J. Edgar Hoover and then summarizes Harry's contacts with FBI-Chicago in 1960. This is the same memo which contains Harry's rap sheet along with a detailed summary of the documents regarding FPCC and J26M in Chicago (i.e. letters, flyers, receipts for dues payments etc) which Harry gave to the FBI in Los Angeles when they interviewed him on 12/10/63 at his home.

The next document is a 12/18/64 CIA summary memo concerning the contact made by Robert Hayward (Joe Pyne Show producer) to the Los Angeles field office of CIA. Hayward told the CIA about Harry's proposed appearance on the Pyne program on 1/9/65. Hayward told the CIA that Harry stated that "he was an informant for the FBI and claims either to have considerable contact with or at least knowledge of CIA activities re: Cuba. Hayward added that he was advising both this office and FBI-Los Angeles in the event either office had any suggestions or recommendations for the handling of the subject during the live broadcast."

The next document is a copy of the 4/14/67 FBI memo which discusses a CIA photograph of a man entering the Soviet embassy in Mexico City in October 1963. John Arvidson's letter to CIA had suggested that the man in the photo resembled Harry Dean but the three FBI agents who had personally interviewed Harry stated that the person in the photo was not Harry.

The next document is the CIA summary of the "OSI traces" [Air Force Intelligence] on the name Harry Dean -- dated 4/26/67 - which reports Harry's FBI identification number (4657880) and then summarizes his service in the U.S. Army "as Harry Jay Dean, #16179397 on 13 December 1945. He was also in again as George Robert Baker on 8 March 1948 at Dearborn Michigan."

Then CIA mentions "FBI memo dated 6 March 1964 made at Los Angeles, Calif., captioned Harry Dean, concerning his membership in the Fair Play For Cuba Committee." The CIA document concludes by mentioning that their OSI contact (Col. Boyd) suggested that CIA "check Army file #6039128 and ONI (NIS) files RO-54AD014, MO-1660079, and #64D138412. Subject was also arrested by the RCMP and the Detroit Police under the Registration Act."

The CIA file concludes with a photo of Harry taken by the Detroit Police Department in January 1955 -- which was sent to the FBI.

SUMMARY

1. There is nothing in Harry's CIA file which is new and previously unknown or which amplifies upon data already online on Mary Ferrell's website -- or from documents appearing in Harry's FBI-Los Angeles field file.

2. There is nothing in Harry's CIA file which corroborates anything which Harry claims with respect to him allegedly being "debriefed" by the FBI and/or by CIA agents after Harry's 1960 visit to Cuba

3. There is nothing in Harry's CIA file which confirms that Harry ever provided information to CIA about any subject matter

4. There is nothing in Harry's CIA file which identifies any additional CIA or FBI file numbers to research

LASTLY:

Today I also received the FBI-Los Angeles field file on Edwin Walker (Los Angeles 62-5164). There is nothing in that file which mentions Harry or anybody corresponding to Harry's description nor is there any reference to any of Harry's file numbers (i.e. identifying him as a FBI source of information re: Walker or about the JBS or about any related subject matter.)

Edited September 2, 2014 by Ernie Lazar

[Ernie Lazar]

It would be interesting to learn from Harry if:

1. Is it factually accurate that he re-entered the U.S. Army on 3/8/48 under the name George Robert Baker?

2. If the answer to #1 is "yes" -- then perhaps Harry would be willing to tell us why he used a different name?

[Paul Trejo]

Larry, I agree that a statement to this effect would be a power-driver if it can be found in Walker's personal papers BEFORE 11/22/1963. So far I've not found that -- but I do have something from 11/23/1963 -- so it's VERY CLOSE.

Actually, in 1963 and 1964 this statement by Walker was well-known to the JFK Research Community -- it involves a German newspaper named Deutsche Nationalzeitung and it went to print on the weekend after the murder of JFK. Still, the interview itself occurred on 11/23/1963 -- less than 24 hours after the murder of JFK.

The call took place around 7am the next morning, as Walker called a German newspaper (but told the newsman to claim that they called Walker instead). It seems Walker could not wait to tell SOMEBODY that Lee Oswald had been his shooter on 10 April 1963.

It's worthwhile reviewing this snippet of Walker's testimony for the Warren Commission on this. Yet before we get into it, some background is in order, according to the best of my recollection.

(1) There is no such person as Hasso Thorston -- that is the pen-name for Helmet Hubert Muench, a news reporter in Munich, Germany, writing for the Deutsche Nationalzeitung.

(2) The editor of that newspaper was the ultra-right-wing publisher, Dr. Gerhard Frey, who was possibly befriended by Walker when he had a command in Augsburg Germany (1959-1961)

(3) The article itself is about four pages long and can be found on the Mary Ferrell Web site.

(4) The article is a transcript of a phone call interview between Edwin Walker and Helmet Muench early in the morning after the murder of JFK.

(5) In this interview, Edwin Walker tells Helmet Muench that Lee Harvey Oswald was also his own shooter back in 10 April 1963.

(6) Dr. Gerhard Frey advised Muench to change his name, and to obscure parts of the interview, e.g. to suggest that it was Muench who first made contact with Walker, rather than the reverse.

(7) As soon as the article came out, the German FBI (BKA) arrested Helmet Muench and made him talk. Muench confessed to using Hasso Thorsten as a pen-name, and to the source of his information -- the resigned US General, Edwin Walker.

This article also became known to US citizens who could read German. Here is a link to the headline page of that weekend report (found among Walker's personal papers):

http://www.pet880.com/images/19631129_Deutsche_NZ.jpg

We must bear in mind that the FBI did not officially learn that Lee Oswald was Walker's shooter until the first week of December, 1963, when Marina finally told them. So -- the Warren Commission wanted to know, urgently, how Edwin Walker knew this fact even before the FBI knew it.

OK, with that background in mind, let's review Walker's testimony to the Warren Commission:

----- Begin excerpt of the 23 July 1964 testimony of Edwin Walker to the Warren Commission -----

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you know Helmet Hubert Muench?

General WALKER. That name is not familiar to me. Can you give me anything to refresh me?

Mr. LIEBELER. Yes. He is a West German journalist who wrote an article that appeared in the Deutsche Nationalzeitung und Soldatenzeitung, a Munich, Germany, newspaper.

General WALKER. No; I don't know him.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you ever talk to him?

General WALKER. Not that I know of.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you talk to him on a transatlantic telephone call in which you told him about the fact or the alleged fact that Lee Harvey Oswald was the person who made an attempt on your life?

General WALKER. I don't recall that name. Did he speak English? I don't speak German.

Mr. LIEBELER. Have you ever seen a copy of that newspaper?

General WALKER. Yes; I have.

Mr. LIEBELER. In fact, I suggest that you have seen the November 29, 1963, copy of that newspaper which had on its front page a story entitled in German "The Strange Case of Oswald", that told about how Oswald had allegedly attacked you.

General WALKER. November 29, that is correct.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now, where did that newspaper get that information, do you know?

General WALKER. I do not. There was an article in the paper that he probably got from me.

Mr. LIEBELER. Well, in fact, the issue of that newspaper has right on the front page what purports to be a transcript of a telephone conversation between you and some other person.

General WALKER. Thorsten?

Mr. LIEBELER. Yes. Hasso Thorsten, is that the man?

General WALKER. He called me in Shreveport.

Mr. LIEBELER. When were you in Shreveport?

General WALKER. He called me the morning of November 23, 1963, about 7 a.m.

Mr. LIEBELER. That is when you gave him this information about Oswald having attacked you?

General WALKER. I didn't give him all the information -- I think the portion you are referring to, I didn't give him, because I had no way of knowing that Oswald attacked me. I still don't. And I am not very prone to say in fact he did. In fact, I have always claimed he did not, until we can get into the case or somebody tells us differently that he did.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you have a record here that indicates when you were in Shreveport?

General WALKER. I don't know that I have a record here. I can tell you definitely when I was in Shreveport.

Mr. LIEBELER. Would you?

General WALKER. Well, starting back to make the record clear, I had a speaking engagement in Hattiesburg, Miss., either the 18th or 19th of November. I went from there to New Orleans and stayed 2 or 3 days. I was in the airplane between New Orleans and Shreveport about halfway, when the pilot announced that the President had been assassinated. I landed in Shreveport and went to the Captain Shreve Hotel and stayed there two nights and returned to Dallas and was walking into my house, just about the time of the immediate rerun of the shooting of Oswald. I had been out of the city on speaking engagements.

Mr. LIEBELER. The question was, when were you in Shreveport, and when did you talk to this man?

General WALKER. I was in Shreveport the night of the 23d and the night of the 22d. Do you have a transcript of my conversation with Mr. Thorsten?

Mr. LIEBELER. Yes, sir.

General WALKER. Sir?

Mr. LIEBELER. I have what appears to be that; yes.

General WALKER. Where did you get that?

Mr. LIEBELER. It is apparently taken from the newspaper. The newspaper itself had a transcript printed right in it.

General WALKER. I believe the article you referred to in the newspaper was separate from the other article in the paper which evolved out of the conversation.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now so that there were in this particular issue of the newspaper two transcripts of a conversation between yourself and Thorsten, and also a story about how Oswald had allegedly fired at you, is that correct?

General WALKER. In the newspaper I remember two separate articles. One based upon the conversation we had between us, as he understood it, and then as a separate article which I consider that the newspaper had done on its own.

Mr. LIEBELER. What was the separate article about? Did that have any reference to the fact that Oswald had allegedly fired at you?

General WALKER. Yes. As I remember the article, it alleged that Oswald was the one that had fired at me, and that this had been known earlier, and that this had been known and that nothing was done about it. And if something had been done about it at that time, he wouldn't have been the man that--it wouldn't have been possible for him to have killed the President.

Mr. LIEBELER. Well, now, did you tell anybody from this newspaper that Oswald had shot at you and that this had been known prior to the time of the assassination of the President?

General WALKER. No; I did not. I wouldn't have known it. It was much later that they began to tie Oswald into me, and I don't even know it yet.

Mr. LIEBELER. And you certainly didn't know it before November 22?

General WALKER. Or the morning of the 23d, certainly not. I was very surprised to see the article.

Mr. LIEBELER. So the best of your recollection is that you never provided them with the information?

General WALKER. I did not. I didn't know it at the time of this conversation at all. I didn't know it until I started reading the newspaper, which would have been later than then.

Mr. LIEBELER. I think that is right, so that you only had two conversations with these people, is that correct?

General WALKER. In connection with this incident, as I remember, there was a call back to verify something on the original conversation? I don't remember how the conversation came about. There were two telephone conversations; right.

Mr. LIEBELER. They both took place while you were down in Louisiana, the 23d and the 22d of November?

General WALKER. The first one was 7 o'clock in the morning the 23d, and it woke me up.

Mr. LIEBELER. You didn't have the faintest idea that Oswald had taken a shot at you and you didn't make a statement to that effect to the newspaper?

General WALKER. No; I didn't know.

Mr. LIEBELER. You didn't make a statement to the newspaper or anybody connected with it at any other time, isn't that a fact?

General WALKER. No.

----- End excerpt of the 23 July 1964 testimony of Edwin Walker to the Warren Commission -----

Notice that in that interview, Walker again denies to the Warren Commission that he ever heard of Lee Harvey Oswald before 11/22/1963. He repeats it and insists upon it.

Yet to Senator Church, as we saw -- Edwin Walker quickly admitted that he knew about Lee Harvey Oswald by Easter Sunday, 1963.

Nor is the letter to Senator Church (or this German article) in any way unique or even rare. This was one of the most common themes inside the personal papers of JBS member, Edwin Walker. In future posts I will share more of such letters and memos by Walker to this effect.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Edited September 3, 2014 by Paul Trejo