Guy Banister and the CIA

[Larry Hancock]

Gerry,  it was up to the FBI to investigate both Oswald and Marina in regard to possible future contacts with Russian agents, or more likely Communist sympathizers or activists in the U.S..  The FBI did that directly and was of course also monitoring mail coming from overseas from Russia to Oswald, mail to the Russian embassy, etc, etc...and of course later mail to the FPCC as an identified subversive organization.  I think its fair to say that the FBI really did try to investigate Oswald and they filed a number of reports on him in Texas and later in New Orleans. 

As to the CIA, we have no indication they "investigated" Oswald in the same manner in an ongoing basis.  In fact we don't know that Domestic Ops via Moore and his contact with de Mohrenschieldt did much more than verify that Oswald did return to Texas as expected.  It seems likely that Moore got some feedback on Oswald's arrival in Forth Worth and his appearance within the White Russian community but I've never seen any sort of Domestic Ops investigative file on Oswald so I don't think CIA was duplicating the FBI contacts and tracking of Oswald (including his various moves, addresses, jobs, etc).

[Gerry Down]

1 hour ago, Larry Hancock said:

Gerry,  it was up to the FBI to investigate both Oswald and Marina in regard to possible future contacts with Russian agents, or more likely Communist sympathizers or activists in the U.S..  The FBI did that directly and was of course also monitoring mail coming from overseas from Russia to Oswald, mail to the Russian embassy, etc, etc...and of course later mail to the FPCC as an identified subversive organization.  I think its fair to say that the FBI really did try to investigate Oswald and they filed a number of reports on him in Texas and later in New Orleans. 

As to the CIA, we have no indication they "investigated" Oswald in the same manner in an ongoing basis.  In fact we don't know that Domestic Ops via Moore and his contact with de Mohrenschieldt did much more than verify that Oswald did return to Texas as expected.  It seems likely that Moore got some feedback on Oswald's arrival in Forth Worth and his appearance within the White Russian community but I've never seen any sort of Domestic Ops investigative file on Oswald so I don't think CIA was duplicating the FBI contacts and tracking of Oswald (including his various moves, addresses, jobs, etc).

It seems to me that Moores use of de Mohrenschildt was viewed as illegal in some way by the CIA and this is why Moore did not come right out and ask de Mohrenschildt to spy Oswald but hinted at it to de Mohrenschildt in return for an oil deal. If Moore was using de Mohrenschildt to find out about the Minsk radio factory - would that have been viewed as illegal by the CIA and so the CIA was forced to hide this after the assassination?

[Larry Hancock]

Actually Moore's use of de Mohrenschildt was standard practice as it relates to the use of third party sources - I can't tell you how many documents I've read which describe CIA contacts with all types of businessmen, both domestic and international for the purpose of intelligence collection, much of it just basic information on people of interest. 

In many cases it was all voluntary, in others there was a type of quid pro quo with the understanding that if the CIA came into information that would be helpful to an individual or a corporation they would pass it along or even make arms length introductions.  And of course that does not even cover the professionals - medical, legal, banking , etc that were investigated and vetted for CIA use on an as needed but deniable basis.

Interestingly enough in checking some timelines, Oswald gathered his notes and started the typing of the "manuscript" that contained information about his time in Russia and in Minsk well before he was contacted by de Mohrenschildt (something I had not realized when I myself wrote in SWHT). 

I have to admit as I've broadened my research and reading I've found that some what I picked up from earlier JFK literature or even made my own assumptions about has proved to be just flat wrong..sigh.

As far as "hiding" contacts, again, we actually have documents relating to Moore and de Mohrenschildt and Oswald now - but of course its also SOP for officers to never talk about those things to investigations (and belive it or not, that is actually legal in respect to the authorities granted for the CIA in 1948. 

I'm afraid we often view the CIA's authorities in the context of civil law or even military code (Title 10) but it is very much different, something I cover in some detail in Shadow Warfare.

[Gerry Down]

4 hours ago, Larry Hancock said:

Actually Moore's use of de Mohrenschildt was standard practice as it relates to the use of third party sources - I can't tell you how many documents I've read which describe CIA contacts with all types of businessmen, both domestic and international for the purpose of intelligence collection, much of it just basic information on people of interest. 

In many cases it was all voluntary, in others there was a type of quid pro quo with the understanding that if the CIA came into information that would be helpful to an individual or a corporation they would pass it along or even make arms length introductions.  And of course that does not even cover the professionals - medical, legal, banking , etc that were investigated and vetted for CIA use on an as needed but deniable basis.

I find this difficult to understand. Moores use of GDM to gather info from Oswald sounds to me like spying. And it was illegal for the CIA to spy on a U.S. citizen inside the U.S.

Consider the following:

In 1957, the Office of Security in the Directorate of Administration had denied GDM for “a security clearance as a potential source of intelligence information” (I presume this is CIA lingo for GDM being considered for use as an “agent”): https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=152644#relPageId=14&search=george_de%20mohrenschildt%20and%20nazi
So officially inside the CIA, GDM would only be considered good enough to be an asset but not good enough to be an agent.

As a result, this is why Moore (in the Domestic Contacts Division in the Directorate of Plans) had to ask GDM in a round about way to spy on Oswald (spying would be the role of an agent) without directly saying it. The resultant information obtained on the Minsk radio factory from this was therefore obtained in a manner against the direction of the Office of Security. As a result, when the information on the Minsk Radio Factory was being passed on to the Directorate of Intelligence, where it would eventually arrive on the desk of Donald Deneselya, its origin had to be concealed. This is why Donald Deneselya was told the defector who was giving this information about the Minsk radio factory had been debriefed in “New York”. The use of the location “New York” was a mechanism to conceal the fact the Directorate of Plans had used GDM in a manner in which the Directorate of Administration had said he could not be used.

Would that explain why the CIA had to conceal after the JFK assassination that GDM had been spying on Oswald? What the CIA had done in using GDM in this manner was not illegal in the federal sense (you stated after all that “Moore's use of de Mohrenschildt was standard practice as it relates to the use of third party sources”), but was illegal within the CIA itself because GDM had previously been denied “a security clearance as a potential source of intelligence information” by the Office of Security?

[Larry Hancock]

Gerry, I won't pretend to resolve the issue for you, all I can offer you is my personal observation from looking at actual CIA operations both domestically and overseas that Domestic Ops using a source to determine that someone who was on the State Dept defector list actually did return to the US and then returned to Texas and established himself as he had stated he would does not strike me as particularly odd. 

For all I know that closed out a domestic file on Oswald and from then on his activities would simply be copied to CIA by the FBI or other agencies - and of course reported by CIA assets who encountered him in suspect activities in New Orleans, as with DRE reporting to SAS/WAVE personnel in Miami.

On a side note, I can also confirm to you that CIA field offices certainly did use individuals as sources of information who did not pass operational security checks, for that matter the CIA used sources who were known criminals, drug dealers, gun runners - entire classes of folks who would never have met the criteria to be certified for actual CIA operations. 

Having said that, I would agree that the CIA certainly would not have wanted to expose those sorts of practices in general nor would they want to openly admit that Moore had used a private citizen to collect information on Oswald. For that matter they would not want to expose Moore as a CIA officer - it was standard practice not to acknowledge agency employees other than at the highest public levels. 

 

[Gerry Down]

21 minutes ago, Larry Hancock said:

Gerry, I won't pretend to resolve the issue for you, all I can offer you is my personal observation from looking at actual CIA operations both domestically and overseas that Domestic Ops using a source to determine that someone who was on the State Dept defector list actually did return to the US and then returned to Texas and established himself as he had stated he would does not strike me as particularly odd. 

For all I know that closed out a domestic file on Oswald and from then on his activities would simply be copied to CIA by the FBI or other agencies - and of course reported by CIA assets who encountered him in suspect activities in New Orleans, as with DRE reporting to SAS/WAVE personnel in Miami.

On a side note, I can also confirm to you that CIA field offices certainly did use individuals as sources of information who did not pass operational security checks, for that matter the CIA used sources who were known criminals, drug dealers, gun runners - entire classes of folks who would never have met the criteria to be certified for actual CIA operations. 

Having said that, I would agree that the CIA certainly would not have wanted to expose those sorts of practices in general nor would they want to openly admit that Moore had used a private citizen to collect information on Oswald. For that matter they would not want to expose Moore as a CIA officer - it was standard practice not to acknowledge agency employees other than at the highest public levels. 

 

Would the shear length of time, Sept 1962 to April 1963, in which GDM was friends with Oswald push the situation more into a definition of spying rather than simply being a typical CIA field office situation of an individual, GDM, being used as a source of information who just happened to pick up info from Oswald?

Did the fact that Moore directed this whole activity first day when he told GDM to go meet Oswald help further the definition of the situation into being a situation of spying? Afterall, its not as if GDM just happened to obtain info organically from Oswald and then passed this onto Moore. Moore directed it from day one and then there is the issue of a copy of Oswalds manuscript on the Minsk radio factory being passed on to Moore, which has an element of theft to it. 

[Ron Bulman]

33 minutes ago, Gerry Down said:

Would the shear length of time, Sept 1962 to April 1963, in which GDM was friends with Oswald push the situation more into a definition of spying rather than simply being a typical CIA field office situation of an individual, GDM, being used as a source of information who just happened to pick up info from Oswald?

Did the fact that Moore directed this whole activity first day when he told GDM to go meet Oswald help further the definition of the situation into being a situation of spying? Afterall, its not as if GDM just happened to obtain info organically from Oswald and then passed this onto Moore. Moore directed it from day one and then there is the issue of a copy of Oswalds manuscript on the Minsk radio factory being passed on to Moore, which has an element of theft to it. 

I think so.  But I'm more cynical and much less well informed than Larry, who has politely corrected me more than once.  Which I appreciate.  Maybe it's not overwhelming evidence but it does seem incriminating imho.

[Larry Hancock]

Well the problem is we don't know how many times or when de Mohrenschildt actually provided ongoing, detailed information to Moore...or if we do I haven't seen that, has anyone else?.  A timeline of that would help with the question and I'd love to see it

But for reference, Oswald was already done with his manuscript by the time he became associated with de Mohrenschildt and apparently gave a copy to him as a part of their getting to be friends; it would be hard to call that theft if a copy was passed on to Moore.

I've studied de Mohrenschildt at some length recently and while its clear he remained in contact with Oswald so did a number of folks from the Russian community - actually more remained in touch with Marina who they liked much more than Lee.   It would be interesting to know if any of those contacts were reported to Moore, again I've not seen that.

Its pretty clear to me at least that de Mohrenschieldt actually found Oswald interesting and did establish a sort of "world traveler" relationship with him, being much more liberal and politically experienced than virtually anyone else Oswald was in contact with over that period. de Mohrenschieldt even complained that Oswald was closer to him in his world view than his own kids...who did not like Oswald for that matter.

As I said, what of that he passed on to Moore is the question I would ask if you want to consider him a "spy",  which is not a term I use loosely. 

It would also be interesting to put together a detailed timeline of reports the FBI copied to the CIA about Oswald, whom they did have as an intelligence target,  using a variety of tools including pretext calls to employers, mail monitoring programs, etc. 

As a footnote in regard to your remarks about the time spent, I've seen CIA sources who reported about persons of interest for months and even years without being "operational", they simply passed on information either for their own agendas (sometimes to smear someone or divert attention from themselves) or to collect brownie points (which the CIA easily realized).  Its truly amazing how many folks were volunteer sources for either the CIA or the FBI, or both.

[Benjamin Cole]

6 hours ago, Larry Hancock said:

Actually Moore's use of de Mohrenschildt was standard practice as it relates to the use of third party sources - I can't tell you how many documents I've read which describe CIA contacts with all types of businessmen, both domestic and international for the purpose of intelligence collection, much of it just basic information on people of interest. 

In many cases it was all voluntary, in others there was a type of quid pro quo with the understanding that if the CIA came into information that would be helpful to an individual or a corporation they would pass it along or even make arms length introductions.  And of course that does not even cover the professionals - medical, legal, banking , etc that were investigated and vetted for CIA use on an as needed but deniable basis.

Interestingly enough in checking some timelines, Oswald gathered his notes and started the typing of the "manuscript" that contained information about his time in Russia and in Minsk well before he was contacted by de Mohrenschildt (something I had not realized when I myself wrote in SWHT). 

I have to admit as I've broadened my research and reading I've found that some what I picked up from earlier JFK literature or even made my own assumptions about has proved to be just flat wrong..sigh.

As far as "hiding" contacts, again, we actually have documents relating to Moore and de Mohrenschildt and Oswald now - but of course its also SOP for officers to never talk about those things to investigations (and belive it or not, that is actually legal in respect to the authorities granted for the CIA in 1948. 

I'm afraid we often view the CIA's authorities in the context of civil law or even military code (Title 10) but it is very much different, something I cover in some detail in Shadow Warfare.

I have to admit as I've broadened my research and reading I've found that some what I picked up from earlier JFK literature or even made my own assumptions about has proved to be just flat wrong..sigh.---LH

You have now violated the code of JFKA researchers. Never ever admit to error, or even alternative interpretations of events. 

As an aside, my much lesser research into the CIA indicates niceties of law and regulation often take a back seat to job execution, for reasons good and bad. 

[Benjamin Cole]

Additional note:

A family member of mine was a well-regarded engineer, active in aerospace, who actually traveled to Russia even in the Cold War days for academic research conferences and the like.  

He was routinely debriefed upon his returns, and I think was rather flattered at the attention and the feeling of being a "source" if not a spy for the US intel community. 

It helped that Russia (the government, not all the people) were bad guys, a role they have sadly re-assumed. 

 

[Gerry Down]

28 minutes ago, Larry Hancock said:

Well the problem is we don't know how many times or when de Mohrenschildt actually provided ongoing, detailed information to Moore...or if we do I haven't seen that, has anyone else?.  A timeline of that would help with the question and I'd love to see it

But for reference, Oswald was already done with his manuscript by the time he became associated with de Mohrenschildt and apparently gave a copy to him as a part of their getting to be friends; it would be hard to call that theft if a copy was passed on to Moore.

I've studied de Mohrenschildt at some length recently and while its clear he remained in contact with Oswald so did a number of folks from the Russian community - actually more remained in touch with Marina who they liked much more than Lee.   It would be interesting to know if any of those contacts were reported to Moore, again I've not seen that.

Its pretty clear to me at least that de Mohrenschieldt actually found Oswald interesting and did establish a sort of "world traveler" relationship with him, being much more liberal and politically experienced than virtually anyone else Oswald was in contact with over that period. de Mohrenschieldt even complained that Oswald was closer to him in his world view than his own kids...who did not like Oswald for that matter.

As I said, what of that he passed on to Moore is the question I would ask if you want to consider him a "spy",  which is not a term I use loosely. 

It would also be interesting to put together a detailed timeline of reports the FBI copied to the CIA about Oswald, whom they did have as an intelligence target,  using a variety of tools including pretext calls to employers, mail monitoring programs, etc. 

As a footnote in regard to your remarks about the time spent, I've seen CIA sources who reported about persons of interest for months and even years without being "operational", they simply passed on information either for their own agendas (sometimes to smear someone or divert attention from themselves) or to collect brownie points (which the CIA easily realized).  Its truly amazing how many folks were volunteer sources for either the CIA or the FBI, or both.

I'd agree with all of that.

GDM suggested that Moore did not come straight out and ask GDM to gather intel on Oswald but seemed to suggest it in a round about way. Can you think of a reason why Moore was not more forthright with GDM but seemed to come at it in a round about way to GDM?

[Larry Hancock]

All I can really say is that seems to have been a fairly common approach to using what I would call generic sources,  those people who over time to provided observations to CIA officers but who were really not operational with the Agency...useful but not necessarily fully trusted or vetted. 

The CIA was not naive about its sources, realizing many had agendas of their own and were attempting to use the relationship - as I said above, with some of the higher level business folks quid pro quos were made available (some of the really top level sources who went beyond personal involvement to allow use of company assets as covers or resources were actually briefed before certain CIA operations).

Given he CIA files on de Mohrenschieldt I'd say he was in the generic class, having taken the trouble to provide information to more than one government agency over time.  And interestingly George refers to Moore as a "government man", likely one of many he had known over time without not necessarily being told specifically who they were or what agency they were with and not caring all that much.

Given that de Mohrenschildt also appears to have been in touch with a variety of Russian professionals including a number of Russian speaking petroleum engineers working in Texas, the Caribbean and elsewhere, I'd really love to know how many folks he might have been covered in chats with Moore or others over time. Certainly he appears to have provided information and even collected information about Haiti for "the government".

Anyway, I'm being long winded, but a "soft" approach by Moore on Oswald seems reasonable enough, simply using him as a type of "spotter".  Whether he was actually asked for more than the initial contact and observations on Oswald I would love to know - but I don't know that we do.

 

[Gerry Down]

5 hours ago, Larry Hancock said:

All I can really say is that seems to have been a fairly common approach to using what I would call generic sources,  those people who over time to provided observations to CIA officers but who were really not operational with the Agency...useful but not necessarily fully trusted or vetted. 

....

Anyway, I'm being long winded, but a "soft" approach by Moore on Oswald seems reasonable enough, simply using him as a type of "spotter".  Whether he was actually asked for more than the initial contact and observations on Oswald I would love to know - but I don't know that we do.

 

The way Epstein describes what Moore wanted done was an "unwitting debriefing".

There is a line between using generic sources such as GDM to provide information on Oswald to the CIA and actually full on spying on Oswald which would be illegal.

What in your estimation would cause such a line to be crossed where the situation would fall under the definition of spying on a U.S. citizen? What would Moore have to ask GDM to do and what would GDM have to do to cross this line in relation to Oswald?

[Larry Hancock]

Given that Oswald was on record as being a defector (whether he legally was or not) as well as offering military information to a foreign power I'd say the line would bend pretty far before anyone would even consider it an issue.

Of course the FBI was "spying" on him, there was no need for the CIA to do the sorts of things the FBI was already engaged in and no sign that they did; all they really did via George was to deniable update their files on Oswald in regard to his Soviet stay....as you say an "unwitting debriefing" (which by the way suggests Oswald was not a witting asset because if he was there would be no need for games).

I'd say the line would be crossed only if the CIA began to "operationalize" Oswald for counter intelligence or political action - without his knowledge. Which of course is what I maintain they did via SAS/WAVE starting  in the August/September time frame - and that had nothing to do with Domestic Operations.  To the extent that it involved "spying"  on him that would be crossing the line.

David Boylan and I will be expanding on how we think that came about in our DPUK presentation and in November in the JFK Lancer virtual conference.

 

[Gerry Down]

19 minutes ago, Larry Hancock said:

Of course the FBI was "spying" on him, there was no need for the CIA to do the sorts of things the FBI was already engaged in and no sign that they did; all they really did via George was to deniable update their files on Oswald in regard to his Soviet stay....as you say an "unwitting debriefing" (which by the way suggests Oswald was not a witting asset because if he was there would be no need for games).

Epstein did say that GDM told him that Moore said to GDM that LHO was being uncooperative with the FBI. This seems to be the root of Moore getting involved. 

I wonder if Moore felt that the CIA was doing a job the FBI was supposed to do and this is why Moore proceeded with caution in how he approached GDM in regards to approaching Oswald.