Harry Dean: Memoirs

[Ernie Lazar]

I would like to repeat a challenge to Harry Dean which I made many months ago with respect to him answering a series of questions.

I think Harry should take this final opportunity to clarify these matters, once and for all, in a clear, definitive, and unambiguous fashion which is not subject to further “misunderstanding”.

I propose the following methodology to minimize any problems with interpretation. Whenever possible, Harry’s answers should always BEGIN with:

(1) YES

(2) NO

(3) I’m not sure

(4) I don’t remember or

(5) I don’t know.

THEN Harry can add whatever comments he thinks are appropriate.

IF Harry would be willing to answer these questions, THEN his final, definitive answers would give interested parties a clear factual basis to make well-informed judgments about Harry’s narrative.

Harry could also use this opportunity to correct any previous misunderstandings or false information which he thinks needs to be addressed.

So in that spirit here are the questions I would ask Harry to answer:

GENERAL QUESTIONS

1. Is there ANY living person to whom you spoke (or to whom you wrote a letter or note) during the 1960’s (not including family members) who could verify any aspect of your narrative concerning your relationship with the FBI or the CIA? Particularly with respect to your “reports” about JBS members to FBI-Los Angeles?

2. Do you recall writing any correspondence during the 1960’s-1970’s, to any friend or acquaintance (living or dead; but not to government agencies) in which you mentioned specific information that you gave to the FBI or CIA or anybody else?

3. Prior to 1965, did you ever reveal (in confidence) your "FBI informant" or "undercover" status to any friend or acquaintance? If "yes" are any of those persons still living? Or do you have any correspondence from them in which they mention your status?

4. Which of the following statements is the best description of your relationship to the FBI?

(4.1) Upon your own volition, you periodically contacted FBI in Chicago and in Los Angeles to provide them with information in your possession which YOU thought they might find useful OR

(4.2) You were recruited by the FBI (i.e. specifically asked by FBI Agents) to provide them with information about various persons and organizations and you did so on an ongoing basis over a period of many years?

BIRCH SOCIETY-RELATED

1. Did you join the Birch Society using your own name? If not, what name did you use?

2. What was the code name or number of your JBS chapter(s)?

3. Did you belong to more than one JBS chapter (if you changed addresses? If so, what were the other chapter code names?)

4. What were the name(s) of your JBS chapter leader(s)?

5. What were the name(s) of your JBS section leader(s)?

6. What were the name(s) of your JBS Coordinators?

7. Did you normally attend JBS chapter meetings? If so, approximately how many times and during which specific years?

7a. Did you submit to JBS HQ (in Belmont MA) any MMM monthly messages?

8. Approximately how many different reports did you make to FBI-Los Angeles regarding the JBS as an organization – such as reporting what happened during chapter meetings or reports regarding JBS-sponsored events such as recruitment meetings, or speaking engagements sponsored by JBS-front groups (like TACT, SYLP, MOTOREDE, TRAIN, etc)?

9. Were your reports to the FBI about JBS members primarily written reports OR oral reports?

10. If you provided oral reports to FBI-Los Angeles, were you asked to subsequently read them and initial the Bureau-typed summaries of your oral reports to signify that they were accurate transcriptions of what you said?

11. Did FBI-Los Angeles assign you a code name which you were instructed to use when you submitted your JBS-related reports? If so, what was that code name?

12. Did FBI-Los Angeles assign you a post office box if you wanted to mail your reports to them? If so--at what location?

13. Did you ever meet personally with FBI-Los Angeles Special Agents at the FBI’s Los Angeles field office or any other FBI office?

14. Was Wesley Grapp the FIRST Los Angeles FBI Agent to whom you made your reports? If not, who was? What were the name(s) of the other FBI-Los Angeles Agents to whom you made oral or written reports? If possible, estimate the total number of reports you made to each person, i.e. more than 10 or less than 10 , etc.

15. Please provide a brief physical description of Grapp (approximate height, weight, any identifying marks, etc)

16. You have stated that you "drove around" with Grapp. What make/model of automobile did he drive?

17. Approximately how many individual JBS members did you report on to the FBI? [Less than 10, more than 10 or what?]

18. You have previously stated that you were paid “expenses” in cash by the FBI. Were those expenses related to your “informant” work re: the JBS? If “yes”, approximately how much (in total) were you paid and over what period of time? Also, please give us some idea what type of “expenses” you had. Did you submit paperwork to the FBI to document those expenses? If yes, please give us some examples of what type of receipts you gave the FBI.

MINUTEMEN-RELATED

1. Did you join the MM using your own name? If not, what name did you use?

2. What code name or identification number were you assigned by MM?

3. Did you receive any payments from the FBI for your travel or expenses that were related to your “informant” work re: MM? If “yes”, approximately how much (in total) and over what period of time?

CHICAGO INFORMANT PERIOD

1. Did FBI Special Agents in Chicago ever meet with you in the FBI-Chicago field office? If yes, where was the Chicago field office located, i.e. what street?

2. You have stated that when you returned from your June 1960 trip to Cuba, you were “debriefed” by FBI and CIA. At what location did that meeting take place?

3. Was a stenographer present in the “debriefing” location to make a transcript of your comments?

4. Did FBI-Chicago assign you a code name to use whenever you submitted your reports? If “yes”, what was that code name?

5. Were your reports to FBI-Chicago primarily oral or written?

6. Were you assigned a Post Office box to mail your reports to? If yes, at what location?

7. Approximately how many different members of FPCC-Chicago did you report on to the FBI?

8. Approximately how many different members of other pro-Castro groups in the Chicago area did you report on to the FBI?

9. In your November 1963 letter to J. Edgar Hoover, you wrote that you provided information to the FBI in Chicago. You then stated that after the FBI completed a background investigation into your past, you were “told to quit giving information to the FBI by two Agents whom I met on Chicago’s north side, in a street corner meeting.” The reason given was (you wrote to Hoover), was “by reason of their findings concerning my past” which you described to Hoover as “many errors in my time, as a younger and unmarried man”.

However, in August 2006, you posted a comment on the Mary Ferrell website in which you stated that the Chicago FBI 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…Both agents seemed equally angry and disappointed, adding, ‘You can no longer deal with the Bureau’.”

In another Ferrell website message, you wrote: “Later in 1961 the Bureau fired me when I mentioned previous dealing with CIA agents re: Cuba.”

WHICH explanation is correct?

(9.1) The FBI background investigation into your past resulted in you being rejected by the FBI? OR

(9.2) A casual comment you made to two FBI Agents about your involvement with the CIA resulted in your dismissal from providing info to FBI?

OTHER SPECIFIC SUBJECTS

1. In an 8/22/06 comment you posted on the Mary Ferrell website, you stated that Chicago FBI “Agents also advised me to work out a code for message writing, kindly offering to do it for me if I could not.” According to your Ferrell comment, you chose "J.R." as your code name.

2. However, in your 11/63 letter to Hoover, you stated that “it was my own wish to rely only on the phone method of contact” and you also wrote: "I used only the telephone method in all my dealings with Agents..." [up until your street corner meeting with 2 Agents when they dismissed you in June 1961.

So which position is correct? Did you use only the "telephone method" OR did you also write "messages" to FBI-Chicago?

If you wrote messages, what subjects did you discuss in those messages?

3. Did you enlist in the US Army at Dearborn Michigan on 3/8/43 under the name George Robert Baker? If your answer is “yes” – then WHY did you use another name?

4. In a 8/13/06 message you posted on the Mary Ferrell website, you stated that as a result of your proposed appearance on the Joe Pyne Program in early 1965, FBI Agents “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!”

How much “expense money” were you receiving from the FBI during that period of time and what type of expenses did you incur?

Did you report your FBI expense money on your IRS or California income tax returns?

5. The transcript of your interview with Tom Snyder indicates that when you were asked by Snyder to identify the agencies you provided information to, you said:

"The internal security agencies of the United States and other police agencies."

Please specify what "other police agencies" you were referring to.

6. The Snyder transcript also indicates that Snyder asked you the following question:

"You were an agent of the FBI infiltrating into the John Birch Society, and there you learned of the plans to assassinate John F. Kennedy?". You replied: "That's right".

Is that still your current position?

7. The Snyder transcript also reports that when Snyder introduced you, he asked you if you wanted to be described as "Mr X" or "Mr. Agent" and you replied: "Either, Either will be fine." Was that your reply?

8. The Snyder transcript also reports that Snyder asked you a question which began by describing you "as an employee of the government of the United States of America" and your role when discovering information regarding a plan to murder our President was to "kick it upstairs and let a higher authority handle it."

Your reply did not correct Snyder's description of you "as an employee of the government of the USA" and you agreed with Snyder that your role was simply to bring the attention of "higher authority" to your information.

Is that a correct summary of what Snyder asked you and your reply?

9. The Snyder transcript also reports that he asked you if you thought Robert Welch knew about "the financial collections that were being conducted on behalf of his organization for the killing of JFK?" and you replied "I would say that he certainly did not." Is that an accurate summary of what you told Snyder AND is that your position today?

10. Dick Russell states in his 2008 book (On The Trail of JFK Assassins) that he interviewed you and both of you tape recorded the interview. According to Russell's recording you described yourself as an "undercover operative, to inform the FBI as to certain activities." Is that your position today?

ADDENDUM:

1. When you first contacted the FBI-Chicago, you did not provide your name. Why?

2. Subsequently, you did provide your name and address in Whiting Indiana.

3. Did FBI Agents from Indianapolis contact you? What questions did Chicago or Indianapolis FBI Agents ask about your background?

For example: did they ask for your birthdate, birthplace, social security number, names of relatives, employment history, military service history, educational background, criminal record?

4. For some period of time, you left Indiana and went to Detroit. You then returned to Illinois (Chicago) but you again refused to give FBI Agents your address. Why? How long were you in Detroit -- and can you give us the specific time period (i.e. dates?)

Edited October 18, 2014 by Ernie Lazar

[Paul Trejo]

Let's see the email from Swearingen.

OK, Paul B., here's an authentic email from former FBI Agent Wesley Swearingen to Ernie Lazar from last June, in which I was copied. I didn't want to spread this around, no matter how much Ernie insulted me on this Forum, but he's now clearly out of control, despite my repeated requests from Moderators for moderation here.

This email shows that Ernie can't rely on Wes Swearingen to make his points about the FBI. Wesley Swearingen had written in his book, To Kill a President (2008), that FBI Agents routinely lied to each other and to the Bureau. That was the context of their debate.

Here's the email:

-------------------------- BEGIN June 2014 post from Wesley Swearingen to Ernie Lazar -----------------------

From: wesley swearingen xxxxxxxxxxxx

To: ernie lazar xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Sent: Tue, Jun 10, 2014 7:47 am

Subject: Re: A Final Point

Ernie,

But the FBI did lie to itself. Agents lied to the Bureau about their informants. Inspectors lied to Hoover to make the inspector look good. Agents lied to the Inspectors.

The Bureau lied to Hoover about informants and statistics. Hoover lied to Congress when it made him look good.

You can't be serious, "Creating more security lists would not get more money for the FBI." What the FBI did was exaggerate criminal statistics, car recoveries and fugitives apprehended in order to get more money from Congress. The FBI never mentioned lists to Congress.

If Congress asked about informants, the FBI told Congress what they wanted to hear. Stolen cars recovered by police that traveled interstate were reported to Hoover as recovered by the FBI.

This is a fact.

Fugitives apprehended by police were claimed as a statistic if the fugitive was one wanted by the FBI. The FBI created phony informant figures when it needed them.

Raymond Wannall put it best, but then you have no idea what I am talking about. You have no idea how the FBI created phony statistics.

The fact that you said "the FBI might create criteria for various indexes which were designed to produce more names..." proves you don't know what you are talking about because neither Congress nor anyone outside the FBI ever knew of the FBI's SI until the Church committee ordered FBI files. And, then Congress was not give accurate info.

Please don't bother me with silly comments when you have no idea what you are talking about.

Wes

---------------- END June 2014 post from Wesley Swearingen to Ernie Lazar -----------------

So, Paul B., there you have it. That was actually a mild one in a series of such e-mail exchanges between them. Out of modesty I won't post the harsher ones.

When it comes to actual FBI procedures, I'll take the word of a former FBI Agent over the word of an FBI wannabe any day.

From this one can see that I'm not the only one who maintains that Ernie Lazar's opinions about the FBI are questionable at best.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Edited October 18, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Larry Hancock]

Paul, its pretty clear that what Wes is talking about is external reporting of statistics for its own promotional purposes. Everybody should have a pretty good idea of Hoover's tendencies toward departmental self promotion by now. It would be naive to assume that SAIC's did not prepare such reports to make their operations look as good as possible, or to ignore Hoover's constant efforts to shine his Bureau's reputation. Swearingen's remarks appear to me to have little to do with internal communications.

On the other hand, Ernie has generated a very good list of questions for Harry; I hope you encourage Harry to respond to them - it would really help clarify matters at this point - especially in what has surely become one of the internet's longest and most convoluted threads.

[Paul Trejo]

Paul, its pretty clear that what Wes is talking about is external reporting of statistics for its own promotional purposes. Everybody should have a pretty good idea of Hoover's tendencies toward departmental self promotion by now. It would be naive to assume that SAIC's did not prepare such reports to make their operations look as good as possible, or to ignore Hoover's constant efforts to shine his Bureau's reputation. Swearingen's remarks appear to me to have little to do with internal communications.

On the other hand, Ernie has generated a very good list of questions for Harry; I hope you encourage Harry to respond to them - it would really help clarify matters at this point - especially in what has surely become one of the internet's longest and most convoluted threads.

Well, Larry, you seem to imagine that I have some influence over Harry Dean, and that's not really the case.

Harry Dean is now 87 years old, and has given the past 50 years his best shot to tell the world what he saw and heard about accomplices of Lee Harvey Oswald, like Loran Hall and Larry Howard. In virtually all that time he got no help at all.

On the contrary, like Silvia Odio, he was simply called "a mental case" by the FBI.

On the contrary, fiction writers like W.R. Morris made money by forging books in Harry Dean's name, and making wild claims about Harry Dean being a combination FBI Agent and CIA Agent, and infiltrating the JBS on orders from the FBI.

On the contrary, people have misrepresented Harry Dean for a half-century.

The truth is that Harry Dean is a simple man who was a political activist in his youth who volunteered information to the FBI, and he has never changed the basics of his simple story about the JFK murder in the past fifty years.

Also, Harry Dean is no man of means. He did keep files as long as he could, but he lost most of his possessions at one unfortunate point in his life, and he has virtually no material records of his political activities. The only lasting record of Harry Dean that we possess today remains in the hands of the FBI.

Again, I say, Harry Dean has had virtually no help in the past fifty years, and that's a long time for anybody to keep repeating the same account, over and over, and being rejected, insulted, misrepresented, lied about and attacked.

Harry Dean reads all the posts on this thread. Harry Dean told me that he doesn't like Ernie Lazar's tone and insulting manner on this list (e.g. the large print, with colors, which seems like SHOUTING) and everybody here actually knows this.

For some reason, some people continue to think that they can treat Harry Dean any way they like -- good manners aside -- because, after all, that's how people have always treated Harry Dean for the past half-century.

So it should be clear -- Harry Dean reads very well. If Harry Dean wants to respond to Ernie Lazar's hostile attacks on this thread, he is perfectly capable of doing so.

Then again -- look at the technical detail that Ernie Lazar is aggressively demanding. What ordinary working man keeps these sorts of records? I don't know any.

In my honest opinion, we're failing to use ordinary, good manners to address an elderly American and WW2 veteran, to obtain information about important events and deeds that he was close to in 1963 regarding the JFK murder.

Exactly one year ago, Harry Dean and I published an eBook (Harry Dean's Confessions) that for the most part sets the record straight versus the lies told about Harry Dean by W.R. Morris since 1965. (I thank John Simkin for removing Morris' lies from the Spartacus entries about Harry Dean, Loran Hall and the JBS this year.) Yet there remains the problem of Harry Dean's recollection of details of events so long ago -- e.g. all the names of all the FBI Agents with whom he spoke 1961-1964 (which is why we generalized in our eBook).

For the few minor flaws in our eBook, I must take the responsibility.

There's nothing I can possibly do or say to make up for the excesses of others.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Edited October 18, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Larry Hancock]

Paul, in all honesty Ernie is asking Harry the questions you should have asked him long ago if you are to accept him as a credible source.....if you don't appreciate that and if Harry does not and is unwilling to answer them then it simply raises credibility issues with him as a source. Given the weight you put on his observations that should be an issue for you - but in truth they are the sort of questions that are pretty routine in certifying sources - its just that we rarely get the chance to ask them at this stage in the inquiry. Not to mention that most of the people we would be interested in would/would have not necessarily been interested in volunteering information, unlike Harry.

But then I don't know why I keep entering this thread, got to get control of myself. What I would like to see is some comment from someone who has found some real value in it or who has decided to follow you in researching your scenario....it would be interesting to see what in particular broad them on board or what they see as valuable.

[Ernie Lazar]

Let's see the email from Swearingen.

OK, Paul B., here's an authentic email from former FBI Agent Wesley Swearingen to Ernie Lazar from last June, in which I was copied. I didn't want to spread this around, no matter how much Ernie insulted me on this Forum, but he's now clearly out of control, despite my repeated requests from Moderators for moderation here.

This email shows that Ernie can't rely on Wes Swearingen to make his points about the FBI. Wesley Swearingen had written in his book, To Kill a President (2008), that FBI Agents routinely lied to each other and to the Bureau. That was the context of their debate.

Here's the email:

-------------------------- BEGIN June 2014 post from Wesley Swearingen to Ernie Lazar -----------------------

From: wesley swearingen xxxxxxxxxxxx

To: ernie lazar xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Sent: Tue, Jun 10, 2014 7:47 am

Subject: Re: A Final Point

Ernie,

But the FBI did lie to itself. Agents lied to the Bureau about their informants. Inspectors lied to Hoover to make the inspector look good. Agents lied to the Inspectors.

The Bureau lied to Hoover about informants and statistics. Hoover lied to Congress when it made him look good.

You can't be serious, "Creating more security lists would not get more money for the FBI." What the FBI did was exaggerate criminal statistics, car recoveries and fugitives apprehended in order to get more money from Congress. The FBI never mentioned lists to Congress.

If Congress asked about informants, the FBI told Congress what they wanted to hear. Stolen cars recovered by police that traveled interstate were reported to Hoover as recovered by the FBI.

This is a fact.

Fugitives apprehended by police were claimed as a statistic if the fugitive was one wanted by the FBI. The FBI created phony informant figures when it needed them.

Raymond Wannall put it best, but then you have no idea what I am talking about. You have no idea how the FBI created phony statistics.

The fact that you said "the FBI might create criteria for various indexes which were designed to produce more names..." proves you don't know what you are talking about because neither Congress nor anyone outside the FBI ever knew of the FBI's SI until the Church committee ordered FBI files. And, then Congress was not give accurate info.

Please don't bother me with silly comments when you have no idea what you are talking about.

Wes

---------------- END June 2014 post from Wesley Swearingen to Ernie Lazar -----------------

So, Paul B., there you have it. That was actually a mild one in a series of such e-mail exchanges between them. Out of modesty I won't post the harsher ones.

When it comes to actual FBI procedures, I'll take the word of a former FBI Agent over the word of an FBI wannabe any day.

From this one can see that I'm not the only one who maintains that Ernie Lazar's opinions about the FBI are questionable at best.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Don't worry about "modesty" Paul. I told you a long time ago that you are free to post anything you want. I understand your normal procedure is to believe everything which you think advances your argument without performing due diligence to check out, for yourself, the statements which are made.

I do not propose to respond in depth to everything which Swearingen wrote to me. But I will simply repeat what I wrote previously. No former FBI employee gets automatic credibility. Every word he writes is subject to normal rules of evidence and logic. If you carefully read Swearingen's messages to me you could miss his most salient point, namely, that Swearingen believes that objective truth is unknowable because the FBI, as an institution was entirely corrupt under Hoover. Even its internal stats and records cannot be trusted. So, bottom-line is that "TRUTH" is ONLY what Swearingen says or writes. It is an all-purpose, flawless, perpetual method to "disprove" everything which Swearingen disagrees with.

For those interested check out page 44 of his book, "FBI Secrets". Swearingen discusses the "bogus informants" created by another Agent in the Chicago offiice. Swearingen states that he could not tell his immediate superior (Joseph Culkin) because Culkin would have told the Chicago SAC (Richard Auerbach). And he also states that the Agent who created the bogus informants "would be in trouble for falsifying government documents". Huh? Why? According to Swearingen, the entire Chicago office was corrupt from top to bottom and Agents routinely created bogus statistics and reports -- so why would anybody be in trouble for telling management at Chicago what was going on since management was using those bogus reports and stats to give Hoover "what he wanted to hear"??

[Ernie Lazar]

Paul, its pretty clear that what Wes is talking about is external reporting of statistics for its own promotional purposes. Everybody should have a pretty good idea of Hoover's tendencies toward departmental self promotion by now. It would be naive to assume that SAIC's did not prepare such reports to make their operations look as good as possible, or to ignore Hoover's constant efforts to shine his Bureau's reputation. Swearingen's remarks appear to me to have little to do with internal communications.

On the other hand, Ernie has generated a very good list of questions for Harry; I hope you encourage Harry to respond to them - it would really help clarify matters at this point - especially in what has surely become one of the internet's longest and most convoluted threads.

I would add something which everyone probably already knows. Whatever you think about Hoover or the FBI under his direction, nobody disputes that Hoover was exceptionally gifted as an administrator. He knew exactly what politicians to cultivate and how to generate the most favorable public perception of his agency and how to obtain (without reduction) whatever amount of money he thought was required for FBI operations. I think Hoover once said that during his tenure, there was not a single instance when the budget request of the FBI was reduced by Congress!

Many career bureaucrats (like Hoover) knew all the levers which needed to be used and how to promote their agency self-interest. BUT, as Larry points out, what is done EXTERNALLY is different from what is required INTERNALLY.

There are hundreds of examples in FBI personnel files which reveal FBI Agents and FBI Assistant Directors and SAC's being disciplined and put on probation for lengthy periods because of their errors.

Errors could be failure to spot grammatical and spelling problems on outgoing communications OR tardiness in reply to inquiries from media, politicians, or others

Errors could be slowness to react to important incoming information

Disciplinary action was taken against Agents for NOT informing superiors about problems inside a field office.

Leroy Skousen (Cleon's brother) was disciplined because he used a Bureau vehicle to go home at lunchtime every day to check on his sick wife -- without notifying his SAC.

Dan Smoot was censured because a report he prepared for Hollywood gossip columnist Hedda Hopper contained several factual errors. Smoot was censured and disciplined again when he made charges against the Dallas SAC which he subsequently acknowledged were based entirely upon hearsay---not his own first hand knowledge and no other Agents supported his claims.

Cleon Skousen was disciplined when the unit he supervised failed to process an incoming communication in a timely manner.

Assistant Directors were disciplined because of deficiencies discovered in their Division operations during annual Inspection Reports.

SAC's were routinely disciplined when they did not properly supervise their subordinates.

So.....you can believe Swearingen who never worked at FBI HQ nor was he ever in a supervisory position. You can believe Swearingen, who by his own book's words tells of his frustration and anger because he was passed over for promotions AND he was not given what he thought should have been proper recognition for his work as an Agent.

You can believe Swearingen who claims he was disgusted by the pervasive corruption inside the FBI so he submitted his resignation -- but then later he asked to be re-hired by the FBI (and he was).

OR -- you can ask PROBING questions to determine what is truth vs fiction vs personal grievance on his part.

[Ernie Lazar]

Paul, its pretty clear that what Wes is talking about is external reporting of statistics for its own promotional purposes. Everybody should have a pretty good idea of Hoover's tendencies toward departmental self promotion by now. It would be naive to assume that SAIC's did not prepare such reports to make their operations look as good as possible, or to ignore Hoover's constant efforts to shine his Bureau's reputation. Swearingen's remarks appear to me to have little to do with internal communications.

On the other hand, Ernie has generated a very good list of questions for Harry; I hope you encourage Harry to respond to them - it would really help clarify matters at this point - especially in what has surely become one of the internet's longest and most convoluted threads.

Well, Larry, you seem to imagine that I have some influence over Harry Dean, and that's not really the case.

Harry Dean is now 87 years old, and has given the past 50 years his best shot to tell the world what he saw and heard about accomplices of Lee Harvey Oswald, like Loran Hall and Larry Howard. In virtually all that time he got no help at all.

On the contrary, like Silvia Odio, he was simply called "a mental case" by the FBI.

On the contrary, fiction writers like W.R. Morris made money by forging books in Harry Dean's name, and making wild claims about Harry Dean being a combination FBI Agent and CIA Agent, and infiltrating the JBS on orders from the FBI.

On the contrary, people have misrepresented Harry Dean for a half-century.

The truth is that Harry Dean is a simple man who was a political activist in his youth who volunteered information to the FBI, and he has never changed the basics of his simple story about the JFK murder in the past fifty years.

Also, Harry Dean is no man of means. He did keep files as long as he could, but he lost most of his possessions at one unfortunate point in his life, and he has virtually no material records of his political activities. The only lasting record of Harry Dean that we possess today remains in the hands of the FBI.

Again, I say, Harry Dean has had virtually no help in the past fifty years, and that's a long time for anybody to keep repeating the same account, over and over, and being rejected, insulted, misrepresented, lied about and attacked.

Harry Dean reads all the posts on this thread. Harry Dean told me that he doesn't like Ernie Lazar's tone and insulting manner on this list (e.g. the large print, with colors, which seems like SHOUTING) and everybody here actually knows this.

For some reason, some people continue to think that they can treat Harry Dean any way they like -- good manners aside -- because, after all, that's how people have always treated Harry Dean for the past half-century.

So it should be clear -- Harry Dean reads very well. If Harry Dean wants to respond to Ernie Lazar's hostile attacks on this thread, he is perfectly capable of doing so.

Then again -- look at the technical detail that Ernie Lazar is aggressively demanding. What ordinary working man keeps these sorts of records? I don't know any.

In my honest opinion, we're failing to use ordinary, good manners to address an elderly American and WW2 veteran, to obtain information about important events and deeds that he was close to in 1963 regarding the JFK murder.

Exactly one year ago, Harry Dean and I published an eBook (Harry Dean's Confessions) that for the most part sets the record straight versus the lies told about Harry Dean by W.R. Morris since 1965. (I thank John Simkin for removing Morris' lies from the Spartacus entries about Harry Dean, Loran Hall and the JBS this year.) Yet there remains the problem of Harry Dean's recollection of details of events so long ago -- e.g. all the names of all the FBI Agents with whom he spoke 1961-1964 (which is why we generalized in our eBook).

For the few minor flaws in our eBook, I must take the responsibility.

There's nothing I can possibly do or say to make up for the excesses of others.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Unfortunately, Paul, over the past 50 years nobody has ever asked Harry any probing questions (except Tom Snyder---and his interview was never broadcast!)

Virtually everything available regarding Harry consists of softball questions intended to give Harry a forum to present his story -- but not challenge him in any normal way.

You think I am hostile toward Harry. Not true. I am frustrated that nobody ever asks him materially important and probing questions -- including YOU. What you describe as "hostile attack" is standard fact-checking and witness impeachment procedure. But when someone is totally unaccustomed to answering probing questions, I can understand why everything designed to ferret out the truth might seem hostile.

I would challenge your "no help" for Harry statement. Quite the contrary. Considering that Harry has no documentary or oral history support for his assertions, it is amazing how much uncritical publicity he has received. EVEN WHEN the FBI advised people that Harry was NOT an undercover operative or agent for the FBI, they STILL put Harry on their TV programs or published interviews with Harry! You would almost think that Harry had hired the most expensive and productive PR Agent in the history of the world -- given the extraordinary amount of (favorable) attention Harry has received.

The more interesting point, however, is that even other researchers and authors who SHARE your general point of view have, nevertheless, dismissed Harry's story as non-credible.

For example: Penn Jones wrote in his JFK-assassination newsletter [The Continuing Inquiry] in September 1981:

"While on the subject, there is another 'former' CIA operative (or FBI or both) in whom I put little or no credence and that is Harry Dean."

And if you check the indexes to the books written by the most prominent JFK-conspiracy authors, in almost every case they do not even mention Harry Dean or his story. And major researchers like Joan Mellen state that nobody they have interviewed over the decades has ever mentioned Harry Dean. AND you have seen the skepticism about Harry's story which contributors here in EF have expressed -- including people whom you profess to respect and admire!

Now, TO YOU, that means Harry has been wrongly ignored and even "insulted" or he has been the "victim" of relentless "lies" and "misrepresentations".

But to most ordinary people, Harry's imprecision with the English language and his substantive mistakes and his refusal to answer basic questions makes it impossible to give credence to his story.

You constantly mention W.R. Morris but the questions concerning Harry's credibility surfaced long before Morris came upon the scene. And please remind yourself that MOST of our disputes in this thread pertaining to Harry and his story have absolutely nothing to do with Morris. As just one example: I recently spent a lot of time showing you how Harry has described himself over the years vis-a-vis the FBI.

Lastly, you constantly use your "secret files" excuse to explain the absence of confirming documentary evidence to support Harry's story. And, yesterday, you again used your phony explanation regarding "JFK-related files" that you think were sequestered somewhere -- and THAT explains why the pertinent documents cannot be found in any files which have been released -- not even references to those file numbers.

BUT what about all the non-JFK subject matters which should have resulted not only in documentary evidence but also resulted in references to file numbers and serial numbers that would be expected to be listed on any inventory of those matters -- such as on search slips?

For example: In 1960-1961-1962, (three years!) Harry claims that he gave information to the FBI in both Chicago and Los Angeles about numerous subjects (persons and organizations and events). But, so far, we cannot any documentary evidence to confirm...

(1) that the FBI requested Harry to provide such information

(2) that the FBI instructed Harry to provide information about any specific subjects

(3) that the FBI encouraged Harry to continue providing them with such information (other than the standard FBI notice to everybody to contact their local FBI office if they have anything to report).

(4) that the FBI incorporated Harry's information into any of its reports (i.e. there is no reference on FBI serials or summary reports about non-JFK subjects which refer to Harry's name or to his file numbers--showing him as the source who provided the information)

(5) that the FBI paid anything to Harry (for "expenses" he incurred in the process of obtaining that information)

(6) that the FBI ever praised or thanked Harry

(7) that the FBI ever assigned Harry a symbol number code (temporary or permanent -- such as a T-number or "CG" symbol number)

(8) that the FBI ever disseminated information outside the Bureau based upon information supplied exclusively by Harry

What is striking about everything I listed above is that I can routinely find everything I mentioned above...in the files of many legitimate FBI confidential sources, FBI informants, and FBI undercover operatives -- but not Harry!! And, again, for clarity -- I am referring to Harry's NON-JFK information. Granted -- I am still awaiting processing of some key files (FPCC, Alpha 66, JURE, etc.) so my statement may change in the future --- but keep in mind that there are many documents already posted online about those subject matters and none of them ever refer to Harry or to someone who matches his description.

And all that has nothing to do with JFK's murder.

Lastly, I cannot let this comment by you pass without comment because it reveals your total inability to accurately and truthfully report easily verified evidence:

On the contrary, like Silvia Odio, he was simply called "a mental case" by the FBI.

1. The FBI (as an institution) did not describe Harry as "a mental case"

2. One FBI Agent in Los Angeles hand-wrote a comment on an internal memo

3. The ONLY other reference to Harry's mental condition appears on his "rap sheet" where it factually summarized what the RCMP (Canada) reported concerning Harry in October 1948.

It is this sort of hyperbolic falsehood which makes it impossible to have a rational discussion with you because you cannot or will not distinguish between official reports disseminated within or outside the FBI versus the personal evaluation made by a single FBI Agent.

Ironically, when Wesley Swearingen makes his personal comments (which are frequently hostile personal attacks upon his co-workers and superiors) you have no problem believing him and stating "he knows what he is talking about" -- BUT ONLY WHEN an FBI Agent makes a derogatory reference to Harry do you suddenly decide that such comments are verboten.

Apparently, you have no personal knowledge regarding the training which law enforcement officers receive. As you surely must know, all law enforcement personnel realize that they may be put into a situation where they have to make split-second life-and-death decisions?

For example: officers might confront somebody who is threatening to commit suicide OR they may have to make judgments about the potential for violence as they confront some suspect. And, obviously, they have to make evaluations concerning whether or not somebody is in full control of their emotions and whether or not they are perceiving reality or perhaps under the influence of some kind of drug.

ALL of those types of decisions require exceptional people-skills and YES, Paul, those skills include PSYCHOLOGICAL evaluations about the persons whom they come into contact with.

Those split-second psychological evaluations may make the difference between someone being hurt or killed versus somebody being peacefully arrested or brought out alive from a hostage situation.

It is VERY significant that you want to discredit law enforcement in order to defend Harry. IF you had performed due diligence and you had asked Harry probing questions about his background, chances are you would have made some adverse psychological conclusions about Harry yourself!

Edited October 18, 2014 by Ernie Lazar

[Paul Trejo]

Paul, in all honesty Ernie is asking Harry the questions you should have asked him long ago if you are to accept him as a credible source.....if you don't appreciate that and if Harry does not and is unwilling to answer them then it simply raises credibility issues with him as a source. Given the weight you put on his observations that should be an issue for you - but in truth they are the sort of questions that are pretty routine in certifying sources - its just that we rarely get the chance to ask them at this stage in the inquiry. Not to mention that most of the people we would be interested in would/would have not necessarily been interested in volunteering information, unlike Harry.

But then I don't know why I keep entering this thread, got to get control of myself. What I would like to see is some comment from someone who has found some real value in it or who has decided to follow you in researching your scenario....it would be interesting to see what in particular brought them on board or what they see as valuable.

Larry, you're looking at the question from an academic viewpoint. If this was an academic question (instead of real life) then I'd agree with you. The likelihood is that Harry Dean has forgotten the answers to many of these questions. Does anybody propose to badger him into remembering?

Also, the weight that I give Harry Dean's observations doesn't come from Harry Dean personally -- but from the weakness of JFK theories that neglect Ex-General Edwin Walker was a suspect.

The key to Harry Dean isn't Harry Dean -- it's his accidental fall into the identification of Ex-General Edwin Walker as a JFK murder suspect, when nearly NOBODY ELSE (including yourself) regards Walker as a suspect.

It's the same with Ron Lewis.

From 1963-1964 Ex-General Edwin Walker was a viable suspect. After the Warren Commission and its absurd Lone Nut theory, nobody (except Harry Dean) kept pointing back to Walker as a suspect.

That includes JFK researchers closest to the events, like Harold Weisberg, Mark Lane, Sylvia Meagher, Jay-Epstein and Jim Garrison.

Even when Harold Weisberg received the so-called Jack Martin home-movie from Jack Martin himself, which opened with a scene of flying to Dallas to film the bullet holes in Walker's home, and then flying to New Orleans to film Lee Harvey Oswald being arrested near Canal Street for his FPCC leaflet activity -- that didn't make Harold Weisberg connect any dots.

I will say this -- it's not much fun being a lonely voice against Ex-General Edwin Walker around here.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

[Ernie Lazar]

Paul, in all honesty Ernie is asking Harry the questions you should have asked him long ago if you are to accept him as a credible source.....if you don't appreciate that and if Harry does not and is unwilling to answer them then it simply raises credibility issues with him as a source. Given the weight you put on his observations that should be an issue for you - but in truth they are the sort of questions that are pretty routine in certifying sources - its just that we rarely get the chance to ask them at this stage in the inquiry. Not to mention that most of the people we would be interested in would/would have not necessarily been interested in volunteering information, unlike Harry.

But then I don't know why I keep entering this thread, got to get control of myself. What I would like to see is some comment from someone who has found some real value in it or who has decided to follow you in researching your scenario....it would be interesting to see what in particular brought them on board or what they see as valuable.

Larry, you're looking at the question from an academic viewpoint. If this was an academic question (instead of real life) then I'd agree with you. The likelihood is that Harry Dean has forgotten the answers to many of these questions. Does anybody propose to badger him into remembering?

Also, the weight that I give Harry Dean's observations doesn't come from Harry Dean personally -- but from the weakness of JFK theories that neglect Ex-General Edwin Walker was a suspect.

The key to Harry Dean isn't Harry Dean -- it's his accidental fall into the identification of Ex-General Edwin Walker as a JFK murder suspect, when nearly NOBODY ELSE (including yourself) regards Walker as a suspect.

It's the same with Ron Lewis.

From 1963-1964 Ex-General Edwin Walker was a viable suspect. After the Warren Commission and its absurd Lone Nut theory, nobody (except Harry Dean) kept pointing back to Walker as a suspect.

That includes JFK researchers closest to the events, like Harold Weisberg, Mark Lane, Sylvia Meagher, Jay-Epstein and Jim Garrison.

Even when Harold Weisberg received the so-called Jack Martin home-movie from Jack Martin himself, which opened with a scene of flying to Dallas to film the bullet holes in Walker's home, and then flying to New Orleans to film Lee Harvey Oswald being arrested near Canal Street for his FPCC leaflet activity -- that didn't make Harold Weisberg connect any dots.

I will say this -- it's not much fun being a lonely voice against Ex-General Edwin Walker around here.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Maybe "being a lonely voice" is merely a marker for a theory or conclusion that has no credibility for people who have devoted years to studying some subject matter?

Once again, Paul introduces a word through which he wants to scare us into suppressing our critical faculties....i.e. "academic".

What does "academic" mean? Once again, let's consult a dictionary to discover why Paul wants to put-down what he considers "academic" discussions:

1. not of practical relevance; of only theoretical interest.

2. learned or scholarly but lacking in worldliness, common sense, or practicality

So, according to Paul's methodology, questions posed to an "eyewitness" are "irrelevant" because they lack "common sense" or "practicality" -- because the eyewitness may have "forgotten the answers to many of these questions".

If that is true --- then why bother with ANY eyewitness testimony?

What is really funny about Paul's reply to Larry is that he confirms one of my major points -- i.e. the notorious problems with, and unreliability of, "eyewitness" testimony. And I am not referring to 50-years after the fact. I am referring to short-and-medium term memory loss and imprecision -- i.e. within relatively short periods after the events being scrutinized.

Isn't it interesting, however, how Paul weaves his way in-and-out of this?

1. On the one hand, when Paul wants to enhance his personal arguments -- then Harry's recollections are quoted and believed as indisputable ("he knows what he is talking about")

2. On the other hand, when Paul is afraid that a probing question might reveal imprecision or discrepancies in Harry's answers -- then Harry should be spared from any questioning because it would only be of "academic" interest.

Everyone here can see the methodology in use by Paul. It is self-apparent. Whatever he can use to support his contentions becomes "truth" but anything inconvenient should just be discarded (or not even asked in the first place).

Edited October 18, 2014 by Ernie Lazar

[Paul Trejo]

Maybe "being a lonely voice" is merely a marker for a theory or conclusion that has no credibility for people who have devoted years to studying some subject matter?...

No, Ernie, because those people who have devoted years to studying say, the JFK murder, have also FAILED to solve the JFK murder.

At this point, a lonely voice is just as viable to provide the solution to the JFK murder as the HUNDREDS of books on the topic that have appeared for FIFTY YEARS.

If y'all had PROOF, then I wouldn't say a word. But y'all come up with your own guesses and speculations, and hope to be taken at your word. That just ain't gonna happen.

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

[Ernie Lazar]

Maybe "being a lonely voice" is merely a marker for a theory or conclusion that has no credibility for people who have devoted years to studying some subject matter?...

No, Ernie, because those people who have devoted years to studying say, the JFK murder, have also FAILED to solve the JFK murder.

At this point, a lonely voice is just as viable to provide the solution to the JFK murder as the HUNDREDS of books on the topic that have appeared for FIFTY YEARS.

If y'all had PROOF, then I wouldn't say a word. But y'all come up with your own guesses and speculations, and hope to be taken at your word. That just ain't gonna happen.

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

One does not have to "solve" a murder to recognize implausible or phony stories.

My point is that many dozens of people have spent their entire adult lives (and considerable money) acquiring as much primary source data and interviewing as many people as possible. Significantly, those many dozens of people never bother to devote their finite time or resources to Harry's story because, in their judgment, it is a futile exercise since there is no documentary evidence trail to pursue beyond Harry's CIA or FBI files along with JBS-related files and other files pertaining to Harry's story BUT, so far, those files clearly falsify most of Harry's narrative.

ANY complex historical event, will ALWAYS produce people who believe that they are a "lonely voice" -- and tilting against windmills. I do not wish to denigrate anybody who pursues an unorthodox hypothesis. We should always welcome the contributions of independent researchers because, OFTEN, their persistence and commitment produces new valuable information.

BUT -- nothing which you or Harry have produced during the past 5-10 years is materially significant new information. All of the same questions remain unanswered and NOBODY (not even you) has discovered and revealed new documentary or oral evidence to support Harry's recollections. So we just go round and round like a cat chasing its tail.

Nothing in dispute can be definitively resolved because:

1. Harry has produced no new documentary or oral history evidence

2. We have discovered that Harry's memory is imprecise and sometimes mistaken (aka unreliable)

3. No person connected to Harry's story has come forward to verify his account of events and even worse, ALL of the principals are DEAD!

4. No researcher has discovered anything new with respect to Harry's narrative --- other than finding original copies of Harry's letters which are archived in FBI files

5. There is no CIA or FBI document which supports Harry's "JBS plot" story

6. And Harry refuses to answer relevant questions and you want to give him a perpetual excuse for not answering probing questions

BOTTOM-LINE

For those persons who are skilled independent researchers (especially those who enjoy detective work) -- Harry's story is a "dry hole" and worthless to pursue.

POSTSCRIPT:

I've never mentioned this option before but I wonder if Harry would agree to take a polygraph examination?

One of the things I find very hard to understand is how it would be possible (especially after 1965 when Harry supposedly ended his FBI reports and in 1966 when Harry solicited subscriptions to his "expose" as advertised in his "I Confess" flyer) -- why nobody has copies of the documents which Harry says he produced during that period?

Also: Harry seems to have a fairly large family. Why is it that none of them have come forward in the 1960's, 1970's, 1980's etc to support his assertions and recollections? Surely, Harry would have sent copies of his documents to at least SOME of them? How about that cousin who was Deputy Sheriff in Michigan? Or a brother? Or a son? SOMEBODY????

Edited October 18, 2014 by Ernie Lazar

[Paul Trejo]

One does not have to "solve" a murder to recognize implausible or phony stories...

Actually, it would make a big difference if the one who claims to distinguish the plausible from implausible had actually "solved" any murder at all in his career. Or solved anything major.

Otherwise, we have a series of armchair generals -- where every opinion is equal to every other opinion.

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

[Ernie Lazar]

One does not have to "solve" a murder to recognize implausible or phony stories...

Actually, it would make a big difference if the one who claims to distinguish the plausible from implausible had actually "solved" any murder at all in his career. Or solved anything major.

Otherwise, we have a series of armchair generals -- where every opinion is equal to every other opinion.

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

Well, Paul, you have made a remarkable and all-encompassing anti-intellectual statement which reveals a LOT about you.

Note to Larry Hancock: Burn all your books and stop writing! You have never solved any murder -- so you are no longer worth listening to!

[Larry Hancock]

And here I was just going to take a nap on Sunday afternoon, now I need to clean out the library......should free up a good deal of space for something though. Now that I think of it though, Paul's remark sort of sounds like a classic "appeal to authority" - trust in the professionals and the system, those who have solved or rendered career judgements on crimes would be the arbiters. Given that, perhaps I should leave some room on the shelves for the Warren Commission report - and for that matter Bugliosi's study. After all, he was a hugely successful criminal prosecution attorney so his judgements would be the ones to go by....