Bill Simpich's State Secret

[Larry Hancock]

OK, lets follow along with a few more thoughts then...could you give me a primary source for exactly when and how Bannister knew about the Castro outreach ....is there anything quotable from him that shows he knew?

Also, if you have it handy could you give the actual verbiage for Garrison using the term Mongoose, or what he repeats from Martin....any detail might be helpful in brainstorming that.

As to Bannister/Morales being a long shot......knowing the timing would help but I kneed to now exactly how Bannister described and when. That story was circulating among certain exiles in Miami at a given point,

and some of them did travel to the New Orleans area. That's the sort of thing we can verify, speculating a Bannister/Morales link just because they both hated JFK doesn't seem to do much unless you can

show some personal or third part contact between the two, something to show that Morales would even think of Bannister as somebody he might share info with. Morales was notably tight lipped and according to

all we know talked to few people and trusted fewer. You had to do something pretty impressive to get on his buddy list.

[Paul Trejo]

OK, lets follow along with a few more thoughts then...could you give me a primary source for exactly when and how Bannister knew about the Castro outreach ....is there anything quotable from him that shows he knew?

Also, if you have it handy could you give the actual verbiage for Garrison using the term Mongoose, or what he repeats from Martin....any detail might be helpful in brainstorming that.

As to Bannister/Morales being a long shot......knowing the timing would help but I kneed to now exactly how Bannister described and when. That story was circulating among certain exiles in Miami at a given point, and some of them did travel to the New Orleans area.

That's the sort of thing we can verify, speculating a Bannister/Morales link just because they both hated JFK doesn't seem to do much unless you can show some personal or third part contact between the two, something to show that Morales would even think of Bannister as somebody he might share info with.

Morales was notably tight lipped and according to all we know talked to few people and trusted fewer. You had to do something pretty impressive to get on his buddy list.

OK, Larry, my source for Banister's knowledge of JFK's Castro outreach is secondary -- not primary. My source is Joan Mellen's book, A Farewell to Justice (2005). I believe you've accepted Joan Mellen as a worthy reporter in the past.

The actual verbiage from Jim Garrison about Operation Mongoose would be in his book, On the Trail of the Assassins (1988). I don't have his book handy today, but I'll find it after our University library opens up in January.

As for the timing of the Banister knowledge of JFK's Castro outreach, Joan Mellen says that Thomas Edward Beckham attended a meeting in New Orleans in the summer of 1963 at Carlos Marcello's Town and Country Hotel, along with (as I recall) Guy Banister, David Ferrie, Jack S. Martin, Fred Crisman, Clay Shaw, Cuban Exiles, Carlos Marcello and Frank Sturgis.

I think Mellen gave the approximate date for that meeting -- but again I'll need to wait for our library to open to confirm that.

I don't pretend to show a direct Banister/Morales link -- but I believe that Joan Mellen offers a suggestion in that direction with her admission that Guy Banister knew about SECRET CIA INFORMATION in the summer of 1963.

Yes, one could possibly say that one of the CIA flunkies of David Morales got the data from Morales and leaked it to Guy Banister and his team in NOLA, but I think that's a longer shot. David Morales, IMHO, was a consummate professional, and would never leak anything ACCIDENTALLY.

Here's what we KNOW: David Morales and a few, concerned CIA officers knew about the JFK/Castro outreach. Guy Banister and his NOLA team learned this Classified CIA data (early?) in the summer of 1963, according to Joan Mellen.

Putting two and two together, I get four. A Banister/Morales link is implied, not only because they both hated JFK, but by the TIMING of the meeting, and by the very specific DATA involved.

Why would Morales even think of Guy Banister? Here's a plausible theory: (1) David Morales wanted to kill JFK because of the Bay of Pigs; (2) David Morales failed to find high-level CIA officers who were willing to entertain such a plot; (3) David Morales asked his underground connections for a Citizen's plot to kill JFK; (4) Underground connections quickly came up with a plot involving General Walker, Joseph Milteer and Guy Banister.

Pushing this theory further: (5) David Morales checked out LHO in NOLA on Canal Street as the Neck Scratcher (with thanks to Tommy Graves for that theory); and (6) David Morales decided to join the Banister/Walker plot during the summer of 1963; (7) David's role would be to IMPERSONATE LHO in Mexico City, to try to link LHO with wanted KGB Agent Valerie Kostikov.

Again -- the ultimate aim of the Banister/Walker plot would be to blame the Communists for the JFK murder, and spur the invasion of Cuba and the assassination of Fidel Castro. This was what David Morales really wanted.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited December 26, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Brancato]

Ok Tommy - you're on.

Paul - nice theory. Could it possibly be that you are so wedded to your Walker Bannister scenario that you think you can squish Morales in there somehow? Why, if you think Morales a good suspect, as many of us do, for managing the assassination on the ground in Dallas, would you so cavalierly dismiss his perfectly obvious connections to the organization he actually worked for his whole life? And now you have a well written and well documented book about one of those co-workers, Mr. A Dulles, which you are no doubt ignoring because of your biases.

I have no trouble entertaining the idea that the right wing civilian zealots like Bannister, Walker, and Milteer were part of the operation. But when Morales is added to the mix a whole new set of characters enter the picture, some CIA like ...... and some civilian like William Pawley, John Martino etc. There is no way any sensible person would include Morales and leave out the CIA. It's absurd.

Edited December 26, 2015 by Paul Brancato

[James DiEugenio]

BTW, this is also the technique that Nelson used in his phony "Mastermind" book.

Realizing that he could not put together a credible substructure leaving out the CIA, he then borrowed Morales.

But he left out any connective tissue that established a direct LBJ link to Morales beforehand.

In Newman's book, he shows Morales working with Phillips hand in glove in Cuba before the Bay of Pigs. Purely CIA operations supervised by Dulles.

Edited December 26, 2015 by James DiEugenio

[Paul Trejo]

Paul - nice theory. Could it possibly be that you are so wedded to your Walker Bannister scenario that you think you can squish Morales in there somehow? Why, if you think Morales a good suspect, as many of us do, for managing the assassination on the ground in Dallas, would you so cavalierly dismiss his perfectly obvious connections to the organization he actually worked for his whole life? And now you have a well written and well documented book about one of those co-workers, Mr. A Dulles, which you are no doubt ignoring because of your biases.

I have no trouble entertaining the idea that the right wing civilian zealots like Bannister, Walker, and Milteer were part of the operation. But when Morales is added to the mix a whole new set of characters enter the picture, some CIA like ...... and some civilian like William Pawley, John Martino etc. There is no way any sensible person would include Morales and leave out the CIA. It's absurd.

The problem, Paul B., is that David Morales MUST be squished into the Walker-Banister plot, simply because David Morales confessed.

The same must also apply to Howard Hunt, because he confessed. Granted, it's easier to squish Howard Hunt inside a JFK plot, because Hunt himself said that he was "only on the sidelines."

Insofar as Bill Simpich was willing to name David Morales as part of the LHO IMPERSONATION in Mexico City -- I think we have the connection. LHO took with him to Mexico City a full resume of credentials from NOLA, which was built up with the help of Guy Banister, David Ferrie, Clay Shaw, Ed Butler and Carlos Bringuier.

The connections are there if you look.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

[James DiEugenio]

LOL

This is absolutely and perfectly emblematic of the whole Trejo technique.

Because Hunt and Morales confessed, they are part of the plot!

When did Morales confess? Please do not say that the comment reported in Fonzi's book amounts to a confession. No prosecutor in his right mind would back that up. For the simple reason that there are no specifics to it. Therefore what value does it have? And BTW, this quote then got embellished as it went along from author to author.

As per Hunt, you know nothing about how that so called "confession" came about, do you? This is absolutely crucial in understanding it. This is one of the things I scored Talbot's book on. Because of its dubious origins, its not reliable. Geez.

And the reason for your propping up SImpich and MC is see through. More a part of your agenda. Many credible people disagree strongly with that part of the book. To the point they don't take it seriously.

This is what I meant when I said criticism is nothing if not qualitative and comparative.

Edited December 26, 2015 by James DiEugenio

[Paul Trejo]

LOL

This is absolutely and perfectly emblematic of the whole Trejo technique.

Because Hunt and Morales confessed, they are part of the plot!

When did Morales confess? Please do not say that the comment reported in Fonzi's book amounts to a confession. No prosecutor in his right mind would back that up. For the simple reason that there are no specifics to it. Therefore what value does it have? And BTW, this quote then got embellished as it went along from author to author.

As per Hunt, you know nothing about how that so called "confession" came about, do you? This is absolutely crucial in understanding it. This is one of the things I scored Talbot's book on. Because of its dubious origins, its not reliable. Geez.

And the reason for your propping up SImpich and MC is see through. More a part of your agenda. Many credible people disagree strongly with that part of the book. To the point they don't take it seriously.

This is what I meant when I said criticism is nothing if not qualitative and comparative.

Actually, James, I insist upon citing the comment by David Morales to his friend, Ruben Carbajal, as reported in Gaeton Fonzi's book, simply because so many JFK researchers accept it.

Gaeton Fonzi, IMHO, was a *great* JFK researcher.

As for CIA officer E. Howard Hunt, he plainly confessed to a "sidelines" role in the JFK murder. Do you doubt that the tape recording of his voice is really his own voice? If so, show your evidence.

You're quick to make jokes and insults, James, but slow to present your evidence.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

[Larry Hancock]

Paul, I certainly recall you have cited Joan as the source for the Morales contact on many occasions; but so far you have not given her source. Citing authors as a source is fine for starters, but then you need to back it up with the authors actual source so we can all evaluate it...especially on such a critical claim - and to do it justice having a quote would help too. Exactly what verbiage was used to discuss the outreach, what sort of detail does it give us. There is a world of difference between what was going on in regard to Castro that spring....his interest in talks was actually being reported in national media .....and the new and highly secret outreach that began in early fall via back channels at the UN and in New York City.

[James DiEugenio]

Let me add to the above:

I for one am sick and tried of people who bring to this debate little more than a preconceived agenda, and then fill it out with what fits that agenda and ignore almost everything else in the case.

This began, of course, with Allen Dulles and the Warren Commission. Their agenda, from the start, was to pin the crime on Oswald. Ruby was an aggrieved saloon owner, and there was no conspiracy in any murder: JFK, Oswald, Tippit.

We then got Bob Blakey and his Mafia did it concept. Again, this was something that he brought to the inquiry beforehand. Now Oswald became a hit man for Trafficante and Marcello. (Who, with Oswald's marksmanship, should have had their heads examined.)

Then there was blowhard Barr McClellan who proclaimed on national TV that he knew LBJ did it. And that idiot Nigel Turner made him the selling point for his anniversary series. Did anyone besides me note that Barr put Oswald on the sixth floor firing at the motorcade? This was followed by Nelson and his"Mastrerrmind" thesis.

Then there was Waldron and Hartmann, and their Mafia did it and used Kennedy's secret invasion of Cuba to hide it. (It was so secret, McNamara never heard of it.)

Now we have Trejo and Caufield, with their predecessor the late Harry Livingstone, who want to say the Radical Right did it. Their emphasis is on Walker. So now Oswald is a secret rightist cooperating with the radical right in Dallas. What Caufield does to Oswald to come up with this alchemy is really a sight to behold, and I will write about it in my review.

Now, note I did not include Jim Garrison as those with a preconceived agenda. Because of the simple reason that Garrison had no idea what he was getting into when he walked down to 544 Camp Street that day. Or when he ordered the WC volumes, read them, and discovered Oswald was getting tested in Russian before going to the USSR.

Even at this point, Garrison did not really understand what to think. And contrary to what our so called authorities like Peter Scott, Tink Thompson, Tony Summers, Dan Moldea and the adorable Paul Hoch have said and written, Garrison did consider other suspects including the Radical Right and the Mafia. That proves he did not have an agenda. He was learning as he went. But after going through all this--including a Texas based LBJ plot--he ended up rejecting them. They did not fulfill the complete paradigm of the crime. (Which is what he stressed in his letters to HSCA lawyer Jon Blackmer,)

Now, in his book, Caufield actually states that there is nothing in the Garrison memoranda about the CIA. As someone who has gone through almost all of the extant Garrison memos, this is a rather bizarre declaration. And I can comment on this firsthand, because I have seen as many of those memos as anyone. In fact, Caufield only saw them because of the relationship he had with me at the time. (A fact he credits me with on about page 850 of his footnotes.)

Now, I don't know what kind of evidentiary rules are in play here. But when David Ferrie tells a friend of his about his employment in Mongoose--which he did--then that is a mention of the CIA in Garrison's memos. When Garrison investigators uncover training camps for both the Bay of Pigs and Mongoose in the New Orleans area, that is a CIA connection. When Garrison discovers that Ferrie was a part of both, then that is a CIA connection. When Garrison discovers that Banister's office was a way station for arms for the Bay of Pigs and Mongoose, that is a CIA connection. When Garrison discovers that Clay Shaw is involved with transporting arms to Alpha 66 in Miami, that is a CIA connection. And the last is one reason why Garrison became so obsessed with Alpha 66.

But he also understood that behind these Cuban exile groups stood a CIA control officer. In this case it was Phillips. Who, unbeknownst to JG, was working with a prime JG suspect Sergio Arcacha Smith. The man who told Rose Cheramie he was going to Dallas to kill JFK, and the man in who's apartment the Dallas police found maps of the sewer system in Dealey Plaza. Need I add that one of the earliest infiltrators into JG's office was Bernardo DeTorrres, who had photos of Dealey Plaza in a safe deposit box?

It was through the constant exposure of these kinds of things that made JG finally think--hey, maybe it was the CIA and the Cubans? He later on added the Mafia, but only in a support role. And he specifically named Meyer Lansky. In other words, although Summers is usually given credit for this triad of a CIA, Cubans, Mob conspiracy, Garrison had it first.

So what I am saying is that, unlike these others, Garrison really did not have an agenda. But these other concepts have grown up in opposition to him, for partly, that presumed reason. In Destiny Betrayed, I traced this trait to the phony Torbitt Document, from which all of these other theories originated. If you read it, they're all there: Mob, LBJ, Radical Right etc. Everything but the CIA.

I wonder why?

PS: Trejo's latest at 232 reveals he has not read my Talbot review. Surprised?

Edited December 26, 2015 by James DiEugenio

[Paul Trejo]

Paul, I certainly recall you have cited Joan as the source for the Morales contact on many occasions; but so far you have not given her source. Citing authors as a source is fine for starters, but then you need to back it up with the authors actual source so we can all evaluate it...especially on such a critical claim - and to do it justice having a quote would help too. Exactly what verbiage was used to discuss the outreach, what sort of detail does it give us. There is a world of difference between what was going on in regard to Castro that spring....his interest in talks was actually being reported in national media .....and the new and highly secret outreach that began in early fall via back channels at the UN and in New York City.

OK, Larry, all good points. As soon as PCL library opens in January, I'll provide Joan Mellen's original source for this claim that Guy Banister and his NOLA crew had a summer meeting at Carlos Marcello's Town and Country Motel to discuss JFK's Castro outreach -- which was a top-secret topic known only to the CIA in the summer of 1963.

I take this request on your part as encouraging, because my intuition tells me that Joan Mellen has detected something rare and valuable in the quest for the Truth in the JFK assassination.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

[Larry Hancock]

I'll look forward to it Paul but I need to put in a qualifier. As I noted, there had been national media coverage of media interviews with Castro in the spring, with Lisa Howard's reports and Castro's

remarks about some soft of dialog with the US. There was also much talk about JFK's crackdown on the Cuban exile group military activities and weapons buys, all linked to gossip about JFK being soft on Castro.

It was the start up of highly secret back channel contacts starting in early fall that was the real secret since JFK was doing that largely on his own and confidentially at the UN and via State Deparment

personnel. To find something significant, you need to locate something that is bringing that story to New Orleans from Miami in the late August/September time frame.

[Paul Brancato]

Paul - one could squish - more easily for sure - Morales into a Dulles Phillips plot. It only has to be Walker because you say so.

[David Boylan]

OK, lets follow along with a few more thoughts then...could you give me a primary source for exactly when and how Bannister knew about the Castro outreach ....is there anything quotable from him that shows he knew?

Also, if you have it handy could you give the actual verbiage for Garrison using the term Mongoose, or what he repeats from Martin....any detail might be helpful in brainstorming that.

As to Bannister/Morales being a long shot......knowing the timing would help but I kneed to now exactly how Bannister described and when. That story was circulating among certain exiles in Miami at a given point,

and some of them did travel to the New Orleans area. That's the sort of thing we can verify, speculating a Bannister/Morales link just because they both hated JFK doesn't seem to do much unless you can

show some personal or third part contact between the two, something to show that Morales would even think of Bannister as somebody he might share info with. Morales was notably tight lipped and according to

all we know talked to few people and trusted fewer. You had to do something pretty impressive to get on his buddy list.

Hi Larry,

I've never seen anything that links Morales and Banister. Below is probably what you are referring to about a general story about the Castro/US rapprochement. I'll see if I can find the original Allen/Scott story.

Printed in Kent Courtney's Independent American August, 1963

<quote on>

NEWS FROM THE ANTI-CASTRO CUBAN UNDERGROUND

On all fronts Kennedy continues to seek "accommodation" with the Communist conspiracy; continues to not stand up to or "provoke" the Soviet Union and/or its puppet, Castro.

A recent example, regarding Communist Cuba, is reported in a July 26, 1963, dispatch of the Associated Press which stated: "The United States is protesting to the Castro government against the seizure of the U.S. embassy in Havana but will not retaliate by seizing the Cuban embassy in Washington, the State Department announced Thursday."

Earlier, in a June 20 column by Robert S. Allen and Paul Scott it was reported that "For more than a month, the President and his top foreign policy advisors have been discussing a plan under which the U.S. would resume 'contact' with Castro on both 'an informal and formal basis'."

Just what kind of deceitful sell out is the Kennedy Administration planning?

An inkling of what may be in the works is contained in the

July 20, 1963 issue of CUBAN INFORMATION SERVICE, Carlos Todd, Editor. Terming the following information still in the rumor stage, but likely to be born out by coming events, Todd revealed: The U.S. and Russia have agreed that Castro must go; he will become the fall guy in a complete reorganization of the regime which will purportedly be free of Soviet influence. The plan calls for "uprisings" and "desertions" and "guerrilla fronts", all directed by the Reds in Cuba and their agents in exile.

Castro flees to Moscow and a new government is set up with such men as David Salvador, Manuel Ray and Hubert Matos as top dogs. And although these men are either in "exile" or in "jail", they will respond to the tactical changes in the Communist master plan for the conquest of the hemisphere....

The Russians would remove some--not all--of their troops in Cuba. Soldiers would merely change into civilian attire and become "technicians". Then an election, Soviet style, with the certain winners to be Ray, Salvador and or Matos.

<quote off>

[Paul Trejo]

Paul - one could squish - more easily for sure - Morales into a Dulles Phillips plot. It only has to be Walker because you say so.

Not at all, Paul B., because for the first time in five years, I have a formidable ally, namely, Dr. Jeffrey Caufield, and his new book, General Walker and the Murder of President Kennedy: Extensive New Evidence of a Radical Right Conspiracy (2015).

Jeff Caufield also says that General Walker was the mastermind of the JFK murder plot.

As for David Atlee Phillips, his 1988 manuscript, THE AMLASH LEGACY, only admits that he was grooming LHO for a plot to murder Fidel Castro. That makes most sense in the context of David Atlee Phillips' career.

Phillips says that somebody hijacked LHO for the JFK murder plot -- and while its possible that Phillips found out about this only days before the JFK murder -- and might have been late to the table -- we seem also to have evidence that Phillips was present in Dallas on 11/22/1963. Still -- that doesn't make Phillips into the mastermind, but at most only a late-comer "on the sidelines," much like E. Howard Hunt.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

...I've never seen anything that links Morales and Banister. Below is probably what you are referring to about a general story about the Castro/US rapprochement. I'll see if I can find the original Allen/Scott story.

Printed in Kent Courtney's, Independent American, August, 1963

<quote on>

NEWS FROM THE ANTI-CASTRO CUBAN UNDERGROUND

...Earlier, in a June 20 column by Robert S. Allen and Paul Scott it was reported that "For more than a month, the President and his top foreign policy advisors have been discussing a plan under which the U.S. would resume 'contact' with Castro on both 'an informal and formal basis'."

Just what kind of deceitful sell out is the Kennedy Administration planning? ...

<quote off>

This is a superb quotation, David, so thanks for this.

There is more, however, that links David Morales to the Guy Banister operation in NOLA in the summer of 1963, namely, the behavior of David Morales as described by Bill Simpich in his 2014 eBook, State Secret: Wiretapping in Mexico City.

The material evidence is given in CIA documents released in the 21st century, namely:

(1) The Lopez Report, which reveals the actual "credentials" résumé that LHO showed to the Cuban Consulate in Mexico City. These included newspaper clippings forging a fake Directorship of LHO in the Fake FPCC in NOLA, with addresses at Guy Banister's offices, as well as visa photos of LHO himself.

(2) CIA evidence of a Mole Hunt (courtesy Bill Simpich) which suggests that David Morales led the plot to impersonate LHO calling from the Cuban Consulate telephone to the USSR Embassy telephone, asking for wanted KGB agent, Valerie Kostikov.

Since it was well-known by David Morales that this telephone was perhaps the single most wire-tapped telephone on earth, it is safe to assume that David Morales knew that the CIA would jump on any linkage between LHO and Kostikov. When this fact was added to the "credentials" résumé that LHO showed to the Cuban Consulate in Mexico City, faking LHO's affiliation with Communists, we can now link David Morales' faking with Guy Banister's faking -- both pinpointing LHO in Mexico City.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited December 29, 2015 by Paul Trejo