Guy Banister and the CIA

[Guest]

And wondering a little if there 2 files of each (Guy and Grey / personnal and Co.),

would they make thàt kind of a "mistake" ? Twice.... ?

 

[Tom Gram]

3 hours ago, Jean Paul Ceulemans said:

I keep bumping into this one (the 58p doc)

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=102736#relPageId=2&search="OFFICE_OF SECURITY FILE ON BANISTER"

1993.08.02.09:57:29:400060  OFFICE OF SECURITY FILE ON GREY BANISTER ASSOCIATES, INC

and

1993.08.02.09:55:54:590060 OFFICE OF SECURITY FILE ON BANISTER, GREY

 

I figured out some new stuff in the last two days that I've been trying to condense into an email for Larry S. but I having a bit of a hard time articulating all this stuff. . 

The ARRB requested that the CIA release records document by document if any single document in the file contained redactions. As a result of this unfortunate request, many multi-page files like Banister's OS files became a bunch of unconnected documents in the ARC that are very difficult to reconstruct. The Old-RIF versions on MFF are all we have to go on, and both of Banister OS files are missing pages.    

HOWEVER, I'm 99% sure now that the missing pages from both OS files on MFF were just the 9/13/60 background investigation from Elphege Dumond. If this is true, it could be a much bigger problem than I originally thought. The Banister OS files made it into the ARC through the HSCA Segregated CIA Collection. The HSCA Segregated CIA Collection is split into physical records and microfilm. The physical records are records that the HSCA accessed during their investigation. The microfilm records were copied from the complete files to which the HSCA had gained access. Both Banister OS files on MFF are from physical records and according to the CIA the files were not microfilmed.

The problem is that Banister's personal OS file had two envelopes worth of material sanitized prior to HSCA review, and the the GB&A file was reviewed in full. Thus, if the missing pages of material on MFF from both files are just the 9/13/60 background investigation, and I'm confident that they are, the two envelopes worth of sanitized material look to have been withheld from the HSCA copy of Banister's OS file.

This could be a massive problem with missing records since many other OS files were sanitized in the same way prior to review by the HSCA. However, in this case there may be a simpler explanation. The 9/13/60 background investigation looks to have been released at the special request of HSCA staffer Pat Orr on 3/1/78. Orr was the first person to access Banister's OS file on 2/23/78, so it's possible that the two sealed envelopes did contain the missing 16-page background investigation. This theory is supported by the fact that the GB&A file was not reviewed by the HSCA until July 1978.  

HOWEVER, if the envelopes contained the background investigation, the OS file provided to the HSCA contained no documentation whatsoever of Banister's Nov. 1960 NI(a) covert security approval, which is honestly just as bad because we know for a fact that such documentation existed.  

The CIA admitted to contact use of Banister at least once in that previously sanitized Garrison era cable. According to Joseph Newbrough, the CIA utilized Banister's services by contacting Banister personally to get around the anti-Pinkerton Act. Banister's Nov. 1960 CSA would enable exactly that type of relationship, so I think it's a worthwhile effort to try to find a contemporaneous record of that clearance. 

 

[Guest]

To me the way you are describing it is clear.

And I'm pretty sure Larry can "condense" it where needed. E.g. there is (for now) no need for Larry to include the assumptions of what is/could be in those envelopes or  what could have caused the problem (basically that's up to them to find out).  He will (I think) focus on the missing pages first, how/what is a secondary matter.  If any clarification is needed that shouldn't be a problem. 

 

[Benjamin Cole]

5 hours ago, Tom Gram said:

I figured out some new stuff in the last two days that I've been trying to condense into an email for Larry S. but I having a bit of a hard time articulating all this stuff. . 

The ARRB requested that the CIA release records document by document if any single document in the file contained redactions. As a result of this unfortunate request, many multi-page files like Banister's OS files became a bunch of unconnected documents in the ARC that are very difficult to reconstruct. The Old-RIF versions on MFF are all we have to go on, and both of Banister OS files are missing pages.    

HOWEVER, I'm 99% sure now that the missing pages from both OS files on MFF were just the 9/13/60 background investigation from Elphege Dumond. If this is true, it could be a much bigger problem than I originally thought. The Banister OS files made it into the ARC through the HSCA Segregated CIA Collection. The HSCA Segregated CIA Collection is split into physical records and microfilm. The physical records are records that the HSCA accessed during their investigation. The microfilm records were copied from the complete files to which the HSCA had gained access. Both Banister OS files on MFF are from physical records and according to the CIA the files were not microfilmed.

The problem is that Banister's personal OS file had two envelopes worth of material sanitized prior to HSCA review, and the the GB&A file was reviewed in full. Thus, if the missing pages of material on MFF from both files are just the 9/13/60 background investigation, and I'm confident that they are, the two envelopes worth of sanitized material look to have been withheld from the HSCA copy of Banister's OS file.

This could be a massive problem with missing records since many other OS files were sanitized in the same way prior to review by the HSCA. However, in this case there may be a simpler explanation. The 9/13/60 background investigation looks to have been released at the special request of HSCA staffer Pat Orr on 3/1/78. Orr was the first person to access Banister's OS file on 2/23/78, so it's possible that the two sealed envelopes did contain the missing 16-page background investigation. This theory is supported by the fact that the GB&A file was not reviewed by the HSCA until July 1978.  

HOWEVER, if the envelopes contained the background investigation, the OS file provided to the HSCA contained no documentation whatsoever of Banister's Nov. 1960 NI(a) covert security approval, which is honestly just as bad because we know for a fact that such documentation existed.  

The CIA admitted to contact use of Banister at least once in that previously sanitized Garrison era cable. According to Joseph Newbrough, the CIA utilized Banister's services by contacting Banister personally to get around the anti-Pinkerton Act. Banister's Nov. 1960 CSA would enable exactly that type of relationship, so I think it's a worthwhile effort to try to find a contemporaneous record of that clearance. 

 

Amazing video. 

[Guest]

Just had some more time to look at the video, The name of the Cuban para-military group at the end was ? Somethink like Flydell ?? Sounded familiar.... 

 

[Paul Brancato]

1 hour ago, Jean Paul Ceulemans said:

Just had some more time to look at the video, The name of the Cuban para-military group at the end was ? Somethink like Flydell ?? Sounded familiar.... 

 

Great video - where is the rest of it? Jean Paul - Slidell was the location in Louisiana. 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Paul Brancato said:

Great video - where is the rest of it? Jean Paul - Slidell was the location in Louisiana. 

Part 1 (it's repeated unedited shots, but it does tell something on the campstreet entrance, the staircase, 2nd floor, etc) 

Perhaps there is an edited/final version out there of the 2 parts, don't know 

The grandson (who made these available) says : "These are unreleased outtakes of my grandfather being interviewed about Lee Harvey Oswald. Joseph Newbrough was a New Orleans investigator and former CIA operative who was personally acquainted with figures connected to the Jim Garrison trials such as Guy Bannister and David Ferrie. He was recently cited in Joan Mellen's book A Farewell to Justice (2005)."

 

 

 

Edited February 12, 2023 by Jean Paul Ceulemans

[Guest]

Now, we have no realize there are a huge number of files simply not available yet (online).

This is not abnormal of course, but you need to have some luck if your busy working on somehting... 

E.g. some of files where Banister is involved (also some others), it's just an example), left is what's documents there are, right the ones on MFF.

A lot has been done, but there is still a very long way ahead (most of you will know this of course, but some don't), and not all of us can simply walk or fly over to NARA.  Going to the National Archives in Antwerp and Brussels is keeping me busy as is...

 

**Picture removed to save space **

 

 

Edited February 14, 2023 by Jean Paul Ceulemans
**Picture removed to save space **

[Tom Gram]

3 hours ago, Jean Paul Ceulemans said:

Now, we have no realize there are a huge number of files simply not available yet (online).

This is not abnormal of course, but you need to have some luck if your busy working on somehting... 

E.g. some of files where Banister is involved (also some others), it's just an example), left is what's documents there are, right the ones on MFF.

A lot has been done, but there is still a very long way ahead (most of you will know this of course, but some don't), and not all of us can simply walk or fly over to NARA.  Going to the National Archives in Antwerp and Brussels is keeping me busy as is...

 

I have a list of all the CIA records in the NARA database that are not available online and contain either spelling of Banister’s name in the RIF sheet, and a few with similar metadata like “WGBA”. There is nothing in the metadata of any of these records pertaining to a Nov. 1960 CSA or any contacts with the DCD, but it’s definitely possible that the files I’m looking for are somewhere at NARA. I’ll be doing a reproduction request soon but I probably won’t get the records until summer. 

I did figure something else out today though. I guessed half-correctly but the answer was staring me in the face the whole time. The sealed envelopes that were sanitized from OS files prior to HSCA review appear to have been scanned into the HSCA Segregated CIA Collection, but only the exterior of the labeled envelopes. One of the sealed envelopes in Banister’s file was indeed the 9/13/60 background investigation, and the envelope was subsequently opened by the CIA for HSCA staffer Patricia Orr.

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=102735#relPageId=25

The other envelope was not opened by the HSCA and was titled “microfiche of contents of file”: 

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=102735#relPageId=4

This is pretty interesting, IMO. Was this microfilm of the contents of Banister’s OS file ever turned over to NARA? Was there anything on the microfilm that was not in the OS file provided to the HSCA? A Garrison era CIA memo states that an OS Indices Search revealed that Banister was granted a CSA on 11/10/60, but there is no record of that approval in either of the Banister OS files provided to the HSCA. Were the CSA records on the microfilm? If the CSA records were not on the microfilm, what the hell happened to them? Were any records deliberately concealed from the HSCA? Why was the Banister OS file microfilmed but not the GB&A file? Etc. etc. etc. 

Many of the OS files in the ARC were obtained through the HSCA Segregated CIA Collection. Was any effort made by the ARRB to obtain the material in those files that was sanitized by the CIA and placed in sealed envelopes prior to HSCA review? If the answer to that question is no, there could be a ton of Office of Security assassination records missing from the ARC, but it’ll take a lot more research to confirm that this is actually a real problem. 

Edited February 13, 2023 by Tom Gram

[Guest]

About GB&A, what actually went to the HSCA I don't know, they should have been able to consult those.

But I think there's a lot of 301's that will never see the light of day.