Guy Banister and the CIA

[Larry Hancock]

Tom, I think taht  you are correct in thinking the inquiry was over operational approval, the timing would be consistent with what we know about the changes in his assignments at that point in time.

[Tom Gram]

22 hours ago, Jean Paul Ceulemans said:

Looks I made a mistake on the F-SB/1.   Gonna have to check some things to sort this out, I know at the time I was searching files on Cuba and a (possible) stay-behind network.  Somehow F-SB/1 and FPCC got connected in my searches, strange... I probably got distracted (lot's and lot's of side-information making it hard to stay on track sometimes)....  

 

I found that report on the FPCC. What’s interesting is that the Form 646 cover sheets signed by the SAC appear exclusively in CIA records from what I can tell:

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=14582#relPageId=3

https://www.maryferrell.org/search.html?q=F-IB and character and case&types=D&from=1

Another thing I noticed is that there are references to a Manhattan Field Office led by an SAC Francis Favorini. Was the MFO a thing in the FBI in the early 60’s? In FBI records I’ve only ever seen it referred to as the NYFO. 

Favorini’s name also only appears in CIA records on MFF. In OS officer Jim O’Connell’s Church Committee testimony, Favorini’s name comes up and he’s referred to as “head of the office” in the context of the Office of Security Investigative Division, so I’m starting to think these “special agents in charge” signing off on investigations and background checks are actually CIA officers. 

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1343#relPageId=168&search=Favorini

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=14836#relPageId=2

If that’s the case we’re back to Whiteside and Dumond being CIA - and I’m back to wondering why the heck Los Angeles specifically was involved in the GB&A investigation. The OOC reports were initiated by various field offices, so I think the answer is a little more complicated than just LA being in charge of background checks. 

[Benjamin Cole]

27 minutes ago, Tom Gram said:

I found that report on the FPCC. What’s interesting is that the Form 646 cover sheets signed by the SAC appear exclusively in CIA records from what I can tell:

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=14582#relPageId=3

https://www.maryferrell.org/search.html?q=F-IB and character and case&types=D&from=1

Another thing I noticed is that there are references to a Manhattan Field Office led by an SAC Francis Favorini. Was the MFO a thing in the FBI in the early 60’s? In FBI records I’ve only ever seen it referred to as the NYFO. 

Favorini’s name also only appears in CIA records on MFF. In OS officer Jim O’Connell’s Church Committee testimony, Favorini’s name comes up and he’s referred to as “head of the office” in the context of the Office of Security Investigative Division, so I’m starting to think these “special agents in charge” signing off on investigations and background checks are actually CIA officers. 

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1343#relPageId=168&search=Favorini

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=14836#relPageId=2

If that’s the case we’re back to Whiteside and Dumond being CIA - and I’m back to wondering why the heck Los Angeles specifically was involved in the GB&A investigation. The OOC reports were initiated by various field offices, so I think the answer is a little more complicated than just LA being in charge of background checks. 

I tried some online researching, but did not come up with much. 

In the CIA's Office of the Inspector General they use the term "special agent." 

"CIA Special Agent Jobs in Investigations

The CIA special agents (also referred to as CIA investigators) of the OIG’s investigations staff are tasked with conducting high-profile investigations into the CIA’s internal operations. These investigative professionals may work alone, within investigative teams, or as leaders of investigative teams."

---30---

So, there may be "special agents in charge" of a team of special agents, who would work in the CIA's Office of Inspector General, in theory. But I could not find any reference to such a title being used in the CIA today. 

 

[Guest]

I have little time currently, is there an unredacted version out there of this one  ?

157-10002-10148  Probably multiple, but redacted to different levels (as usual...).  So only asking - in case someone has the full doc. ?   The structure / location of some offices discussed can be interesting, 2 offices in N.Y. and 2 in Washington (the reason is obvious IMO, O'Connel says it has grown historically... yeah right...).  I have some manual notes on the "F-SB/x" characters on my desk, will have to check it out later when I have more time.   I still have a feeling there is more to it than just a "type of" investigation/information.   

 

 

 

 

 

Edited January 6, 2023 by Jean Paul Ceulemans

[Tom Gram]

On 12/30/2022 at 10:01 AM, Jean Paul Ceulemans said:

A : I have little time currently, is there an unredacted version out there of this one  ?

157-10002-10148  Probably multiple, but redacted to different levels (as usual...).  So only asking - in case someone has the full doc. ?   The structure / location of some offices discussed can be interesting, 2 offices in N.Y. and 2 in Washington (the reason is obvious IMO, O'Connel says it has grown historically... yeah right...).  I have some manual notes on the "F-SB/x" characters on my desk, will have to check it out later when I have more time.   I still have a feeling there is more to it than just a "type of" investigation/information.   

B : "On the side" I'm keeping a list with all the different LHO file numbers or codes that were ever assigned to LHO in the different agencies.  Also pasport-numbers, etc.  Incl. some references to file "possible" numbers.  Examples :

1. Mill.Intell. AB 652873
2. Mill. ID Card Active 1653230
3. Mil. ID Card Inactive 4271617
4. ONI ref. to serial number of a file 05883P92
5. Pasport US 1733242
6. FBI file in Mex. 1052137
7. Mex.City Legat (Legal Attache) file opened Oct. '63 1053702 

So if one of you has one or more additions, please post !

I am still missing a bunch, hoping to make a list "to have handy"

 

 

 

 

It looks like you noticed this, but I think O'Connell's testimony confirms that the "field offices" referred to in these investigative reports were CIA. He specifically mentions the Manhattan Field Office and says it was an investigative office of CIA - and says the difference between the two CIA field offices in New York is that they were under different types of cover because of the type of work they were doing. I think that also confirms that these "special agents in charge" of the respective field offices were CIA officers. 

O'Connell's testimony contains some very interesting references to the use of contractors and proprietary organizations by the CIA to maintain deniability, and the use of private detectives for domestic wiretaps - but a ridiculous amount of his testimony is still redacted. This is another travesty of the 2022 "document release". O'Connell was the guy who recommended an alternate private detective agency to GB&A that the CIA could use for non-official cover in New Orleans. In his testimony, he talks about the Castro assassination plots, poison pills, Robert Maheu ... I highly doubt he mentions Banister or anything about New Orleans, but every word out of this guy's mouth is of the utmost public interest and his entire testimony should be declassified immediately: 

https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/2022/157-10002-10148.pdf

The "full" testimony is available here:

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1343#relPageId=1

[James DiEugenio]

Tom, how much of it is still declassified, just an estimate?

I agree with you, its pretty interesting stuff.

For one, he confirms that Maheu worked for Bellino before the CIA got him out and put him on retainer.

Edited January 2, 2023 by James DiEugenio

[Tom Gram]

12 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Tom, how much of it is still declassified, just an estimate?

It looks like about 7 entire pages worth, and 5 of those pages are consecutive and pretty much completely redacted. 

[Tom Gram]

On 12/29/2022 at 9:02 AM, Larry Hancock said:

Tom, I think taht  you are correct in thinking the inquiry was over operational approval, the timing would be consistent with what we know about the changes in his assignments at that point in time.

Here's a document on AMIRE-1/Emilo Rodriguez from the 2022 "release" that may be of interest and relevant to this thread. It looks like the only redactions they removed are the name George Hleovas and the 201 file number 201-274049.

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=157708

https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/2022/104-10180-10218.pdf

Do you know what "electronics consulting firm" Emilo was supposedly working for in 61-62? 

I'm trying to dig into the Central Cover Staff and how they operated, and I keep running into Emilo Rodriguez. One thing of interest is the following document discussing the preparation of non-official cover for Rodriguez in preparation for an assignment to Caracas.

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=157701#relPageId=11

https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/2022/104-10180-10210.pdf

I'm a little confused about what's going on here. It says Peter J. DiGerveno, who I'm assuming is Rodriguez, held the cryptonym AMIRE/1 from June 1960 through July 1961. It then says:

Central Cover Staff has not been requested to develop non-official cover for this agent before.

Yet in the document linked above, we have CCG/NC developing cover for AMIRE/1 in late October 1961 - "pursuant to your requirement for status cover". 

The documents I've looked at suggest that CCD/NC got renamed to CCG/NC around 1961, and it was led by John Southard, then Thomas Strange. It looks like the same division just got renamed to CCS/NC sometime around 1962 - so I'm not sure why they'd write that they'd never been requested to develop non-official cover for Rodriguez. Is status cover different from non-official cover, even though it was developed by the non-official cover group? 

Also, just for fun, here's a CIA document that mentions corporate cover practices that's still heavily redacted with the most important sections (for this thread at least) still withheld in full.

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=164063#relPageId=136

https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/2022/124-10185-10099[c06716624].pdf

The first (and longest) section in "Corporate Cover" is still completely redacted, and the entire section on "Proprietary Entity Cover" is also still completely redacted.

We have compelling evidence that the CIA was using a New Orleans private detective agency as a front company for running NOCs in the early 60s - a proprietary entity - but according to the CIA, the "identifiable harm" of releasing a one-paragraph summary of general cover practices with corporations and proprietary entities prepared in the early 70s to describe activities that "in certain contexts could be construed as delicate or inappropriate" outweighs the public interest in disclosure. My ass. 

 

Edited January 3, 2023 by Tom Gram

[David Boylan]

Tom,

Here's Rodriguez's personnel file. He worked for Robert Hunkeler undercover as an electronics salesman. Hunkeler was former CIA. Rodriguez worked as an electronic salesman in Havana. His father Arnesto Sr was his boss for a bit. He was deep undercover. David Morales kept him away from JMWAVE to keep his cover intact.

From our Lancer presentation:

Worked for TFW along with Sforza, Rene Dubois and Frank Belsito

Nov 9, 1967 he suffered a heart attack at Dulles Airport. Was travelling under the name of David Cordova.

ER Doctor was a CIA contract employee who recognized some familiar names. WH Security notified William Broe.

Some of the names in Emilio's address book as noted by the ER doctor.

 

[Tom Gram]

I think I found a solid clue about why Los Angeles might have been involved in the GB&A investigation. This killer Church Committee document pretty much lays it all out. The timelines are not 100% concrete - but basically the CIA OS ran investigations through a commercial cover named Anderson Enterprises that had one of its main field offices in Los Angeles. The document even talks specifically about the CIA violating the Anti-Pinkerton Act and using private detective companies to provide cover for Agency investigators. I think it’s a pretty safe bet that that’s what the OS was looking for, and found, in New Orleans. 

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=148890#relPageId=114

EDIT: Also, here's another Church Committee document that's still significantly redacted. They don't even want us to know everything that Committee requested from the CIA, let alone the actual material. What's particularly interesting about this document IMO is the list of CIA personnel to be interviewed/deposed. We already know there are several missing transcripts - but the CIA is still withholding the names of some of the people who were interviewed, so we don't even really know everything to look for. 

https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/2022/178-10003-10453.pdf

What's relevant to this thread is the supposed interview/deposition of Eric Eisenstadt  who was the Chief of the Corporate Cover Branch from 1965-1975. It looks like his name was previously redacted:

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=149007#relPageId=22

I would love to see a transcript of an interview this guy - but I'm not going to hold my breath. In addition to Eisenstadt, it looks like the CIA just released a bunch of names of other CIA personnel who were interviewed by the Church Committee, including 24 names from the Office of Security. Where are those transcripts/interview reports? One of the names is Frank Favorini - Special Agent in Charge of the Manhattan Field Office who wrote the 1961 investigative report on the FPCC:

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=14582#relPageId=3

Edited January 7, 2023 by Tom Gram

[Larry Hancock]

Slightly off topic but apparently one of the other activities of these domestic Office of Security field offices was apparently keeping track of criminal assets used by the CIA for various work done by Staff D.  They had to coordinate their use of those assets - including burglars, safe crackers, electronics specialists - with the FBI so that the Bureau didn't bust guys working on sanctioned domestic projects.

Where Meheu fell off the rails with the Vegas tap was because the Castro assassination effort was being so compartmentalized that it brought the FBI actively into the crime and there was no CIA override in place to explain or sanction it.

Such activities clearly must have been a real area of tension between Hoover and the CIA, of course the CIA wanted to do everything itself but I suspect recruiting former FBI agents or using detective firms as covers must have driven Hoover nuts.

 

[Tom Gram]

Thanks to Steve Roe for providing some interesting "new" info that's relevant to this thread. Apparently Banister was used as a CIA source at least once, when he supposedly gave the CIA some information on Jeeps being shipped to Cuba, which was subsequently passed on "verbally" to HQ:

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=55187#relPageId=10

I can't really tell if the date says 1960 or 1963 (it looks like the latter), plus there is a redaction which I'm assuming refers to a file number or something. Steve has suggested that the Jeep business was the same incident as this Feb' 61 report from the FBI, even though the date doesn't match, which is possible:

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=81057#relPageId=8

Apparently there's a nebulous, questionable connection to Jack Ruby here that was discussed in a newspaper article:

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=9925#relPageId=339

Even if it is the same information - where is the CIA contact report with Banister? I found a reference to a CIA doc on Banister dated 2/23/61 that the CIA never turned over to the HSCA, UFGA-929. The reason given was "unable to locate":

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=150642#relPageId=1

Other references suggest that this document was about the FDC - so I think UFGA-929 is probably a report from Banister on the same Jeep incident, and the redaction in the cable might very well just be that same file number...to be continued
 

Edited January 31, 2023 by Tom Gram

[Tom Gram]

The CIA cable from Steve also says that Banister has a security status of NI(A) dated what looks like 12 Nov. 1960. Banister's security approval is reported elsewhere as dated 11/10 and 11/16, so this seems like it's referring to the same thing. I'm not sure what NI(A) means though. The only other reference I can find to this security status is for William Martin, who coincidentally(or not) worked for Banister. This document says that Martin had security status of ad hoc through Secret, and a subsequent status of NI(a) - approved on Jan '65, which coincides with Martin's final period of official contact with CIA while he worked at the Trade Mart. 

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=66161#relPageId=2

My quite possibly incorrect deduction from this is that NI(a) was a substantial level of clearance, but I really have no idea. We should be able to find a request for security clearance on Banister, like this request for a proprietary approval on Priscilla Johnson (which is pretty interesting), but I still haven't been able to find anything like that:

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=33024#relPageId=2

Here's a reference to a NI(b) clearance on another "highly cooperative source" who informed on Garrison, Jack Rogers:

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=55186#relPageId=252

Anyway, the more I look into this the more I think that Banister's involvement with CIA was deliberately downplayed by the agency. The Jeep incident was not mentioned in any of the relevant CIA memos on Banister - which is odd because the CIA seems to have had no problem disclosing Clay Shaw's DCD contacts, for example:

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=66333#relPageId=2

Plus the date in that CIA cable says 1963 - so we don't even know if it's the same Jeep incident. There's some other interesting stuff in the cable too, like the CIA cutout in New Orleans who passed on information on the MDC training camp from Ricky Davis (I'd bet my lunch money it's Elise Cerniglia), but I don't really have time to dig much deeper today. 

Edited January 31, 2023 by Tom Gram

[Benjamin Cole]

1 hour ago, Tom Gram said:

The CIA cable from Steve also says that Banister has a security status of NI(A) dated what looks like 12 Nov. 1960. Banister's security approval is reported elsewhere as dated 11/10 and 11/16, so this seems like it's referring to the same thing. I'm not sure what NI(A) means though. The only other reference I can find to this security status is for William Martin, who coincidentally(or not) worked for Banister. This document says that Martin had security status of ad hoc through Secret, and a subsequent status of NI(a) - approved on Jan '65, which coincides with Martin's final period of official contact with CIA while he worked at the Trade Mart. 

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=66161#relPageId=2

My quite possibly incorrect deduction from this is that NI(a) was a substantial level of clearance, but I really have no idea. We should be able to find a request for security clearance on Banister, like this request for a proprietary approval on Priscilla Johnson (which is pretty interesting), but I still haven't been able to find anything like that:

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=33024#relPageId=2

Here's a reference to a NI(b) clearance on another "highly cooperative source" who informed on Garrison, Jack Rogers:

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=55186#relPageId=252

Anyway, the more I look into this the more I think that Banister's involvement with CIA was deliberately downplayed by the agency. The Jeep incident was not mentioned in any of the relevant CIA memos on Banister - which is odd because the CIA seems to have had no problem disclosing Clay Shaw's DCD contacts, for example:

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=66333#relPageId=2

Plus the date in that CIA cable says 1963 - so we don't even know if it's the same Jeep incident. There's some other interesting stuff in the cable too, like the CIA cutout in New Orleans who passed on information on the MDC training camp from Ricky Davis (I'd bet my lunch money it's Elise Cerniglia), but I don't really have time to dig much deeper today. 

Love your work Tom.

I am preaching to the choir, but how on earth there are justifiable redactions today...except to hide the truth (accepted by a largely compliant media, btw).

 

[Tom Gram]

3 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Love your work Tom.

I am preaching to the choir, but how on earth there are justifiable redactions today...except to hide the truth (accepted by a largely compliant media, btw).

 

Thanks Ben. I thought that the redaction on Banister must be released somewhere, but I can't find any reference at all to 1994.04.12.12:16:07:600005 in the NARA spreadsheets, or even any similar number, which makes me think that the cable is only on microfilm, and still likely redacted. I think the redaction is probably the file number of the "missing" CIA report on Banister, Arcacha, and the FDC, UFGA-929, but there's no way to know for sure. 

I did find something interesting and possibly relevant though. The CIA received a name trace request from the FBI on Banister, Arcacha, etc. and they responded on 3/30/61. This file, CSCI-3464414 was supposedly given to the HSCA but I haven't found it yet. This is the same link posted above showing the "unable to locate" on UFGA-929:

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=2259#relPageId=5

In the Russ Holmes work file is a list of file traces he did on various people, and one of those people was Guy Banister. Holmes only got one file back on Banister, CSCI-3464414, but there was a note on the trace saying "answer to name trace from FBI based on UFGA-929". Holmes subsequently wrote up his well-known memo "Garrison and the Kennedy Assassination" and listed his results, which became the official response from CIA:

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=3238#relPageId=5&search=3764414

The kicker on this is that Holmes did a trace on the name "Bannister". Could this have been intentional? It looks like it was a computer search and the results on CSCI-3464414 came back with the correct spelling, but still. We know for a fact that there were a lot more files on Banister in the CIA records, like his Nov. 1960 covert security approval (that I've been looking for since I started this thread), and two separate OS files on Banister (#428810) and GB&A (#22918).

Also, in Banister's individual OS file, there's a different file number listed, #EE-28810. Is that the same as 428810, or a separate file that we've never seen before? 

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=102735#relPageId=7

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=103859#relPageId=53

Lastly, the copy of Banister's personal OS file on MFF (#428810) is pretty interesting. I'm pretty sure I wrote this early in the thread but it's worth repeating. The file is supposedly 42 pages long, but there are only 26 pages available. On the cover sheet under "deletions, if any" it lists "TWO SEALED ENVELOPES":

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=102735#relPageId=2

This is another case of the old-style RIF number not appearing in the NARA database, so there's no way to track down the missing 16 pages. I'd really love to see what was in the sealed envelopes. For reference, the GB&A file has the same type of cover page with no deletions listed - which suggests that the missing pages in the 428810 file are not just duplicates from the 22918 file:

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=102736#relPageId=4

Also, there's plenty of miscellaneous stuff in both files, so it's weird IMO that neither file contains CSCI-3464414 or UFGA-929. Were those records only filed under the name "Bannister"? Were they in a separate DCD file? I have no idea. If anyone can find any of this stuff let me know. 

 

Edited February 1, 2023 by Tom Gram