Guy Banister and the CIA

[Larry Hancock]

We actually have the FBI reports of their first two meetings with Oswald, he was very uncooperative in the first, more so in the second saying he would report any foreign contacts to them.  However he also lied to them on certain points about his entry into Russia. 

I do not recall if those FBI reports were copied to CIA HQ, that would be important to check.  What I can say is that the FBI and CIA always competed for information and the CIA generally felt that standard FBI interviews (which were very closed ended in most cases and of the "have you stopped beating your wife yet, just the facts" format) were not all that effective at getting the full story.

Given that Moore already had a source in the Russian community my guess is he figured he could probably get a better read on what Oswald was really thinking and especially how he felt about Russia and communism than the FBI could - and I suspect he was right.

 

 

[Gerry Down]

My understanding of what you are saying is that it was normal (and legal) for CIA field offices to use third party sources (like GDM) to collect basic information on a person of interest such as Oswald. This basic information would cover things such as verifying Oswalds return and settling in Fort Worth and settling among the white Russian community. It would also cover some details about his interest in communism and how his stay in the USSR affected this etc. Basic biographical info. The CIA field office would then use this info to update their file at CIA HQ on Oswald (because the CIA felt it could not rely on the FBI to get this info from Oswald). All of this would be legal and within the bounds of the 1947 National Security Act and the Title 50 code on clandestine operations (which by the way I wasn't able to find in the 1947 National Security act here: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/COMPS-1493/pdf/COMPS-1493.pdf . Maybe i'm not searching for the right item within that document). 

But according to Donald Deneselya, the info that would have been gathered from Oswald was not basic biographical information, but information on the Minsk radio factory. Deneselya said the report "gave alot of details about the organization of the Minsk radio plant". Now, if Oswald had given this info in the course of a normal debrief that would be ok. But the info was surreptitiously taken from Oswald via GDM. I just wonder if the fact the CIA were not confident in the legality of how the information had been got from Oswald is evidenced by the fact the report on Donald Deneselyas desk was being portrayed as a normal debrief, when in reality it wasn't a normal debrief. Oswald wouldn't even give proper info to the FBI, let alone provide a debrief to the CIA. 

 

Of course there could be multiple other reason why the CIA hid the manner in which GDM had got the info from Oswald. Perhaps the CIA, in anticipation of GDMs upcoming mission in Haiti, did not want GDMs name appearing on documents showing up in the Directorate of Intelligence. 

[Larry Hancock]

Gerry,  about all  I can say is that my impression of the CIA being concerned about legalities is indeed more a matter of "after the fact" concern rather than something that constrained them too much in daily activities of the time.  Certainly the Agency acted to conceal many of its activities (legal or illegal) and obfuscate legal inquiries into them. PR was a concern but possibly a greater one was their obsession with protecting the identities of personnel, sources and of course methods. I'm just not sure legalities every bothered them that much - take a look at Helms conviction for perjury and you get a feel for their attitude towards being constrained by the law.

In this case I'd be more inclined  to think that the basic concern, and what was being covered up was that they had paid any attention at all to Oswald once he was back in the States - distancing the CIA from knowledge of Oswald was pretty much a fixation after the assassination.

By the way, I assume what is being discussed here is Oswald's Historic Diary which he had typed up shortly after his return:

https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/pdf/WH16_CE_24.pdf

Or have I missed your point and have the wrong thing in mind?

[Gerry Down]

18 minutes ago, Larry Hancock said:

Gerry,  about all  I can say is that my impression of the CIA being concerned about legalities is indeed more a matter of "after the fact" concern rather than something that constrained them too much in daily activities of the time.  Certainly the Agency acted to conceal many of its activities (legal or illegal) and obfuscate legal inquiries into them. PR was a concern but possibly a greater one was their obsession with protecting the identities of personnel, sources and of course methods. I'm just not sure legalities every bothered them that much - take a look at Helms conviction for perjury and you get a feel for their attitude towards being constrained by the law.

In this case I'd be more inclined  to think that the basic concern, and what was being covered up was that they had paid any attention at all to Oswald once he was back in the States - distancing the CIA from knowledge of Oswald was pretty much a fixation after the assassination.

By the way, I assume what is being discussed here is Oswald's Historic Diary which he had typed up shortly after his return:

https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/pdf/WH16_CE_24.pdf

Or have I missed your point and have the wrong thing in mind?

Your insight is much appreciated. I'm not sure about the historic diary. They never could fix a date for when he wrote that. He did try to get it typed up in June 1962 but according to Epstein, GDM got him to write a more detailed manuscript which GDM promised LHO he would get published in a magazine. GDM then made a copy and gave it to Moore. Now what exactly GDM gave to Moore is unclear. Is the historic diary we have today the one Oswald had written of his own accord by June 1962 or is the historic diary the more detailed manuscript GDM got Oswald to write in Sept 1962. Which i am not sure. 

[Larry Hancock]

I'm not sure either - and honestly I'm not a total fan of Epstein channeling de Mohrenschildt. 

As far as I can tell the typist did finish the Historic Diary using Oswald's notes and that's what he offered to de Mohrenschildt.  George wrote about critiquing what Oswald had written and offering him suggestions - but he described those suggestions in terms of what would create a piece that would be more salable, not the sort of remarks to get more detail about the factory inserted.

So we hit the wall of what Moore actually got once again...sigh.

 

 

[Gerry Down]

8 minutes ago, Larry Hancock said:

So we hit the wall of what Moore actually got once again...sigh.

Looks like it could be lost to history like so much in this case.

Did you form any opinion about who the Andy Anderson was? Was it GDM, Moore or Moores supervisor?

GDMs real name appears on CIA documents and so he does not appear to have had an alias such as "Andy Anderson". 

[Ron Bulman]

42 minutes ago, Larry Hancock said:

I'm not sure either - and honestly I'm not a total fan of Epstein channeling de Mohrenschildt. 

As far as I can tell the typist did finish the Historic Diary using Oswald's notes and that's what he offered to de Mohrenschildt.  George wrote about critiquing what Oswald had written and offering him suggestions - but he described those suggestions in terms of what would create a piece that would be more salable, not the sort of remarks to get more detail about the factory inserted.

So we hit the wall of what Moore actually got once again...sigh.

 

 

Not to impose on Gerry's more important question.  But you made me think of . . . Be no long time crossing, the bridge of sighs (in Venice).  I have this Theory that at least somewhat related videos/songs might attract attention to the site/subject/thread.  Probably that interest in marketing/psychology in college.  Sorry to administrators if it's not sticking to the subject sometimes per se.

 

Edited September 16, 2022 by Ron Bulman

[Larry Hancock]

Gerry, no opinion on Andy Anderson but it is not usual to find and officer's real name on CIA documents and also find he used one or more false names for social contacts, in many instances those would not even be recorded unless they became part of an actual operation. 

Wish I could help,  Larry

[Douglas Caddy]

 

 

https://www.crimemagazine.com/blowing-smoke-grave-e-howard-hunt-and-jfk-assassination?fbclid=IwAR3-Tg62mv2lvn-fZGk7jgDKgUtHoFA7Po8BOjvp_nsKm3QWpj3REzPmVfU

[Tom Gram]

I think this is worthy of a bump. The CIA finally released the name of the guy who wrote the 1960 investigative report on GB&A - someone named Elphege O. Dumond: 

https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/2022/104-10109-10379.pdf

Does anyone know anything about this guy? Could this help answer the question of why the heck the Los Angeles CIA office was looking to use a small private detective firm in New Orleans for cover?

I think I found the guy on Ancestry. I got a kick out of his middle name:

Elphege Oswall Dumond

[Benjamin Cole]

1 hour ago, Tom Gram said:

I think this is worthy of a bump. The CIA finally released the name of the guy who wrote the 1960 investigative report on GB&A - someone named Elphege O. Dumond: 

https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/2022/104-10109-10379.pdf

Does anyone know anything about this guy? Could this help answer the question of why the heck the Los Angeles CIA office was looking to use a small private detective firm in New Orleans for cover?

I think I found the guy on Ancestry. I got a kick out of his middle name:

Elphege Oswall Dumond

What a great name. I think I would have remembered such a name, and I have never seen it before. 

As for the L.A. CIA office, there are not a lot of connections to the JFKA, but it pops up from time to time. Of course, Richard Case Nagell (I am not a Nagell fan, but there it is). LHO was out in Santa Ana for while. 

If I understand this correctly, the L.A. CIA office wanted more info on Guy Bannister, and the FBI did a background check?

Or was it the FBI L.A. office that wanted info on Guy B. 

And why do they not spell out Bannister's name, even in the original? 

 

 

[Tom Gram]

1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:

What a great name. I think I would have remembered such a name, and I have never seen it before. 

As for the L.A. CIA office, there are not a lot of connections to the JFKA, but it pops up from time to time. Of course, Richard Case Nagell (I am not a Nagell fan, but there it is). LHO was out in Santa Ana for while. 

If I understand this correctly, the L.A. CIA office wanted more info on Guy Bannister, and the FBI did a background check?

Or was it the FBI L.A. office that wanted info on Guy B. 

And why do they not spell out Bannister's name, even in the original? 

 

 

From what I can tell, the Los Angeles CIA field office initiated the 1960 investigation of GB&A for use as a front company, and sent their own guy to do the investigation, who I’m assuming is this Dumond character since he was the author of the report. The investigation was supposedly covert i.e. Banister didn’t know about it, and FBI was not involved.

When derogatory information turned up on Banister, the CIA found an “alternate private detective company” to use for cover instead. I have my suspicions since a second, similar agency was investigated during the Banister inquiry and no derogatory information was found, but the alternate agency is not named in any of the relevant documents. 

Also, even though GB&A was rejected for cover purposes, Banister was cleared as a CIA source about a month or two after the inquiry - but the CIA claimed they never used him. I’ve never seen any contemporaneous documents on Banister’s clearance, and the CIA gave different dates for the clearance in reports published during the Garrison case and later the HSCA. 

I’m hoping some background on this Dumond guy might shed some light on what the heck was really going on here.

[Benjamin Cole]

8 hours ago, Tom Gram said:

From what I can tell, the Los Angeles CIA field office initiated the 1960 investigation of GB&A for use as a front company, and sent their own guy to do the investigation, who I’m assuming is this Dumond character since he was the author of the report. The investigation was supposedly covert i.e. Banister didn’t know about it, and FBI was not involved.

When derogatory information turned up on Banister, the CIA found an “alternate private detective company” to use for cover instead. I have my suspicions since a second, similar agency was investigated during the Banister inquiry and no derogatory information was found, but the alternate agency is not named in any of the relevant documents. 

Also, even though GB&A was rejected for cover purposes, Banister was cleared as a CIA source about a month or two after the inquiry - but the CIA claimed they never used him. I’ve never seen any contemporaneous documents on Banister’s clearance, and the CIA gave different dates for the clearance in reports published during the Garrison case and later the HSCA. 

I’m hoping some background on this Dumond guy might shed some light on what the heck was really going on here.

Dale B. Whiteside CIA SAIC in L.A. also investigated Emilio Rodriguez in March 1960. 

https://documents.theblackvault.com/documents/jfk/NARA-July2017/JFK-July_2017_Release-Formerly_released_in_part/DOCID-32371557.PDF

 

Some more info

https://www.maryferrell.org/php/cryptdb.php?id=AMIRE-1

Edited December 19, 2022 by Benjamin Cole

[Gerry Down]

On 12/18/2022 at 11:45 PM, Tom Gram said:

I think this is worthy of a bump. The CIA finally released the name of the guy who wrote the 1960 investigative report on GB&A - someone named Elphege O. Dumond: 

https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/2022/104-10109-10379.pdf

That CIA document says the Newman building has 4 floors. Looks like 3 floors in photos of it. 

[Guest]

On 12/19/2022 at 12:45 AM, Tom Gram said:

I think this is worthy of a bump. The CIA finally released the name of the guy who wrote the 1960 investigative report on GB&A - someone named Elphege O. Dumond: 

https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/2022/104-10109-10379.pdf

Does anyone know anything about this guy? Could this help answer the question of why the heck the Los Angeles CIA office was looking to use a small private detective firm in New Orleans for cover?

I think I found the guy on Ancestry. I got a kick out of his middle name:

Elphege Oswall Dumond

1) Dumond, Elphege O, b. 05/29/1919, d. 03/20/1996, US Army Air Corps, SGT, Res: San Antonio, TX, Plot: 17 0 450, bur. 03/25/1996, data from Fort Sam Houston National Cemetery San Antonio, Bexar County

2) 31131685 DUMOND ELPHEGE O,  BOSTON MASSACHUSETTS / Compon. 19th Army,  enlisted 23/5/42  Private / Warrant / Officers /USA/MAINE,  from WWII records :  http://files.usgwarchives.net/ma/middlesex/military/ww2/enlistment/armyenli465gmt.txt 

3) Went to Boston University Law School (1950 grad.) and served 23 years for the Government according the newspaper obit.

Boston could connect to.. well.. a lot... (if that's were he got into "the business")

 

 

Edited December 26, 2022 by Jean Paul Ceulemans