Larry Hancock Interview (Out Of The Blank Ep. 1319)

[Tom Gram]

4 hours ago, Jean Paul Ceulemans said:

NY-3245-S* or Dallas T-1

Don't know if T-1 has been one and the same for some time,  but if he was there is a lot on him

 

To my understanding, FBI T-designations are report specific. The cover page of each FBI report always says something like what you just posted: 

Dallas T-1 is NY-3245-S* 

Dallas T-2 is Arnesto Rodriguez 

Dallas T-3 is PSI Joe Schmo

So Dallas T-1 in one report could be Dallas T-4 in another, NO T-1 in another etc., but the underlying informant number would be the same. It’s just an additional layer of security that conceals geographic information in addition to identity. 

I’ve also seen FBI reports where the same informant has multiple T-designations, which I’m assuming was to prevent people from deducing the informant’s identity from the type of information they provided. 

I’m not sure if the FBI did anything similar at a lower level - like if they’d cover multiple sources/methods with a single actual informant number like NY-3245-S*. 

I’d really like to know what the asterisk means. 

[Michaleen Kilroy]

It’s my understanding that the FPCC office in NY was completely infiltrated by the FBI by the time LHO gets involved. I think the second in command was an FBI informant and would copy all new docs when director VT Lee was out of town.

So LHO was basically corresponding with an FBI-run communist honeypot. LHO was too worldly not to know this, IMO.

Edited January 17, 2023 by Michaleen Kilroy

[Guest]

On 1/17/2023 at 11:40 PM, Tom Gram said:

To my understanding, FBI T-designations are report specific. The cover page of each FBI report always says something like what you just posted: 

Dallas T-1 is NY-3245-S* 

Dallas T-2 is Arnesto Rodriguez 

Dallas T-3 is PSI Joe Schmo

So Dallas T-1 in one report could be Dallas T-4 in another, NO T-1 in another etc., but the underlying informant number would be the same. It’s just an additional layer of security that conceals geographic information in addition to identity. 

I’ve also seen FBI reports where the same informant has multiple T-designations, which I’m assuming was to prevent people from deducing the informant’s identity from the type of information they provided. 

I’m not sure if the FBI did anything similar at a lower level - like if they’d cover multiple sources/methods with a single actual informant number like NY-3245-S*. 

I’d really like to know what the asterisk means. 

If one looks at the other list (the 5 page one 124-90132-10024  ), the ones with* never show additional information (location/file/...), seems like an extra layer of security (could be because of something like "from the inside".

I have only seen 1 document that included information from NY-3245-S* without the * and that had the file number/location (unlike all the others with the *" 

Edited January 19, 2023 by Jean Paul Ceulemans

[Tom Gram]

14 minutes ago, Michaleen Kilroy said:

It’s my understanding that the FPCC office in NY was completely infiltrated by the FBI by the time LHO gets involved. I think the second in command was an FBI informant and would copy all new docs when director VT Lee was out of town.

So LHO was basically corresponding with an FBI-run communist honeypot. LHO was too worldly not to know this, IMO.

Is the guy you’re talking about Thomas Vicente? I’m pretty sure John Newman wrote in Oswald in the CIA that the FBI broke into FPCC Headquarters in April ‘63 with Vicente’s help, but I don’t remember the source. Vicente seems to be a if not the prime candidate for NY-3245-S* - but I vaguely remember seeing something that made me doubt it was him over a year ago. 

[Michaleen Kilroy]

2 hours ago, Tom Gram said:

Is the guy you’re talking about Thomas Vicente? I’m pretty sure John Newman wrote in Oswald in the CIA that the FBI broke into FPCC Headquarters in April ‘63 with Vicente’s help, but I don’t remember the source. Vicente seems to be a if not the prime candidate for NY-3245-S* - but I vaguely remember seeing something that made me doubt it was him over a year ago. 

I don’t recall the name but believe it was in one of the Anthony Summers books.

[Guest]

removed

Edited January 18, 2023 by Jean Paul Ceulemans

[Larry Hancock]

A couple of points for discussion:

This from an rather old overview page on Spartacus:    The FBI also decided to infiltrate the Fair Play for Cuba Committee. Its main spy was Victor Thomas Vicente (T-3245-S), who became the head of the Social Committee for the FPCC. In May, 1961, Vicente supplied the FBI with the FPCC mailing list. Released documents suggest that the FBI was concentrating on FPCC operatives in Dallas, Tampa and Miami.

Further references: https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/docid-32169775.pdf

https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/2018/docid-32176310.pdf

and a commentary piece with some information:  http://freedomarchives.org/pipermail/news_freedomarchives.org/2009-July/003080.html

One of the cautions about the use of T designations is that as noted above they did change by office and may have been used for multiple sources over time.  Another is the speculation that certain illegal activities such as burglaries and phone taps may have generated information that was sourced under anonymous T source designations.  Just something to consider.

[Guest]

removed

Edited January 19, 2023 by Jean Paul Ceulemans

[Guest]

On 1/17/2023 at 11:40 PM, Tom Gram said:

informant number like NY-3245-S*. 

I’d really like to know what the asterisk means. 

Here's one (124-10230-10422) where Hosty did not use the asterisk,

and, as mentioned previously, the File No Where Located is now there.

I think it's an extra layer of security they sometimes use (the * confirming the absence of the File No )

But, for all we know, perhaps Hosty had forgotten the * this time

 

Edited February 10, 2023 by Jean Paul Ceulemans

[Guest]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this one seems to confirm my assumption the * is an extra layer

of security (by keeping the informant anonymous). 

It would not surprise me if Hosty did screw up in the previous report I posted...

 

 

Edited February 10, 2023 by Jean Paul Ceulemans

[David Boylan]

It looks like the * refers to electronic surveillance. Here's an example:

 

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=232733#relPageId=890

 

[Tom Gram]

3 minutes ago, David Boylan said:

It looks like the * refers to electronic surveillance. Here's an example:

 

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=232733#relPageId=890

 

Very interesting, thank you David. Do you think photographs taken by an informant would qualify as electronic surveillance? 

If Vicente was NY 3245-S*, which to my knowledge has not been fully confirmed, it looks like he helped the FBI break into FPCC Headquarters in April ‘63 to photograph bank records, and Oswald’s letter got scooped up in the mix. The priority of the FBI was to investigate potential sources of Cuban funding to the FPCC, so the negative of Oswald’s letter was not developed for over two months, or something like that. There’s legitimate reason to be suspicious of the 69-day delay, but the “official” scenario seems plausible. 

The ELSUR thing gets really interesting if Vicente, et al. planted a bug in Vincent Lee’s office or something. I also find it hard to believe that the FBI didn’t have a mail cover on FPCC Headquarters and Vicente, etc. was their only source of intel on incoming and outgoing mail. I’d love to see any other examples of intercepted personal letters, action taken by the FBI on members in correspondence with FPCC, etc. 

[Gerry Down]

46 minutes ago, Tom Gram said:

Very interesting, thank you David. Do you think photographs taken by an informant would qualify as electronic surveillance? 

If Vicente was NY 3245-S*, which to my knowledge has not been fully confirmed, it looks like he helped the FBI break into FPCC Headquarters in April ‘63 to photograph bank records, and Oswald’s letter got scooped up in the mix. The priority of the FBI was to investigate potential sources of Cuban funding to the FPCC, so the negative of Oswald’s letter was not developed for over two months, or something like that. There’s legitimate reason to be suspicious of the 69-day delay, but the “official” scenario seems plausible. 

The ELSUR thing gets really interesting if Vicente, et al. planted a bug in Vincent Lee’s office or something. I also find it hard to believe that the FBI didn’t have a mail cover on FPCC Headquarters and Vicente, etc. was their only source of intel on incoming and outgoing mail. I’d love to see any other examples of intercepted personal letters, action taken by the FBI on members in correspondence with FPCC, etc. 

But weren't the FBI and CIA opening and photographing all mail going to the FPCC HQ at a mail room at New York airport as part of the HTLINGUAL program? So any mail seen during the April 1963 break in would be mail they had already seen at the mail room at New York airport?

[Larry Hancock]

Gerry, I think the airport mail intercept may only have been for international mail?

[Gerry Down]

25 minutes ago, Larry Hancock said:

Gerry, I think the airport mail intercept may only have been for international mail?

Oh ok, so HTLINGUAL intercepted mail destined for the Soviet Union and China.

Was there a similar program for domestic mail, what was its name? I had assumed the CIA/FBI were opening and reading all domestic mail going to the likes of the CPUSA, FPCC HQ and USSR embassy in Washington etc. For example, I assume that the FBI/CIA got hold of Oswalds Nov 9th 1963 letter to the USSR embassy in Washington and had it in their possession before the JFK assassination.