Francesco/who-killed-jfk huggingface dataset:
[104-10332-10009.pdf — page 2]
SECRET8. If the rationale of the HSCA for pursuing the question of Nosenko's treatment is contrived, and largely peripheral to the real purpose of the Committee, as we believe it to be, it should be faced in those terms. No one would disagree with there being relevant inquiries, but it is hardly proper to take an internal critique and turn it against the Agency on a point irrelevant to the central purpose of the inquiry. The HSCA staff position is tendentious, and reflects on its face a hostile attitude that the Committee may not otherwise want to be so obvious. The Committee has the right to determine what is relevant to its charter, but the Agency should also assert a similar right to defend itself from truly peripheral and hostile fishing expeditions.9. Therefore, while we believe that the Hart Report should be made available to the HSCA staff, we do not believe that such action should be taken prior to attempting to limit the use made of information contained in the Report not related to the issue of Nosenko's bona fides.III10. There are aspects of the Hart Report that contain information on foreign liaison services that should not be exposed to the HSCA. There is, therefore, a question of some sanitization to be conducted prior to the Report's being made available.11. A version of the Report has been prepared for the FBI in which the names of employees below the DCI have been removed, as well as certain modifications in more dramatic rhetorical phrases. That version is in other respects faithful to the original Report. It provides a working basis for further sanitization. Sanitization prior to review is not foreign to the HSCA, as the Directorate of Operations has had a continuing policy of selected sanitization. Extending this practice to the Hart Report would be consistent with the extant working relationship with HSCA. The Report will remain classified.12. If the paper is made available, classified and sanitized, it should be on a highly restricted basis; the HSCA wants six named persons to have access to it, which is at least three times the number needed for bona fide research purposes.13. Staff Position: This paper favors making a sanitized version of the paper, in classified form, available to a limited number of the HSCA staff representatives at the CIA Headquarters Building at Langley. Any such release should be preceded by appropriate discussions limiting use of the material by the Committee. The General Counsel is of the opinion (Tab B)SECRET
[104-10332-10009.pdf — page 3]
13-00000SECRETthat if the paper is withheld, and a court test results, the Agencymust expect to fail in withholding the paper. The Office of the GeneralCounsel, the Office of Security, SE Division and CI Staff favor making thepaper available under the conditions set forth above.14. Recommendation: That you approve granting access to a limited    number of staff members of the HSCA to a classified, sanitized version of    the Hart Report. Such access shall be conditioned on agreement to limit    use of materials contained in the Report to those matters relating to the    question of Nosenko's bona fides.AttachmentsCONCURRENCE:SIGNEDGeneral Counsel31 MAY 1978DateChief, SE DivisionDateChief, CI StaffDateDirector of Security1 JUN 1978DateAPPROVAL: /s/ Frank C. CarlucciDirector of Central IntelligenceDateDISAPPROVAL:Director of Central IntelligenceDate4SECRET
[104-10332-10009.pdf — page 4]
13-00000SUBJECT: House Select Committee on AssassinationsRequest for Access to the "Hart Report"Distribution:Orig - Adse1 - DDCI1 - ER1 - OGC1 - C/SE Div1 - C/CI Staff1 - SA/DO/01- D/OS1 - OLC/Subj1 OLC/ChronoOLC/SDB/ksn (30 May 78)
[104-10332-10009.pdf — page 5]
# CIA SPECIAL COLLECTIONSRELEAS IN FULLNOTE FOR: Deputy Director for OperationsFROM: Peter EarnestChief, Media RelationsSUBJECT: WASHINGTON POST Request to Talk to an AgencySpecialist on the Kennedy Assassination11 March 1993The WASHINGTON POST is preparing a series of articles onthe occasion of the 30th anniversary of the Kennedyassassination.With the help of CIC, we recently arranged for GeorgeLardner and Walter Pincus of the WASHINGTON POST to interviewformer KGB officer Yuri Nosenko about his knowledge of LeeHarvey Oswald during the time Oswald lived in the SovietUnion. To ensure that Nosenko's resettlement identity andlocation would remain protected, I made the arrangements forNosenko to come to Washington for the interview.The POST reimbursed Nosenko for expenses and paid him a$250 consulting fee. The interview was done on Wednesday,3 March, at the POST offices downtown. I did not remain forit. Lardner and Pincus also hosted a lunch for Nosenko whichwas attended by Ben Bradlee. Lardner and Pincus were verypleased with their session with Nosenko and appreciative ofour making it possible. I also spoke afterwards with Nosenkowho said he was satisfied with how the interview wasconducted and with the financial arrangements.Shortly after the interview, Lardner faxed me a list ofthe questions that he and Pincus had prepared for themselvesto use in checking out Nosenko's information. They asked ifthere was anyone at the Agency they could talk to about theindividuals named. I told them that developing informationin response to their questions would probably take a gooddeal of research and that I doubted the Agency would be ableto take on such a task at this time for the POST. However, Isaid I would take it up with the appropriate offices.Although I told the POST that I do not believe anyonewould be willing to undertake research on their questions,I'm wondering if there is anyone around who might beknowledgeable of Nosenko's information who would be willingto talk with Lardner and Pincus on background based onhis/her existing knowledge. I think Lardner and Pincus wouldbe grateful for making such a person available even if
[104-10332-10009.pdf — page 6]
13-00000SUBJECT: WASHINGTON POST Requestall their questions aren't answered. Considering that theyare trying to do serious research on the Kennedyassassination, I think any effort on our part to help themwould be seen as a gesture of good will.![signature of Peter Earnest]Peter EarnestAttachment:As stated______ Agree to having a specialist talk to them on backgroundabout the Nosenko information if an appropriate person isavailable.______No, do not want anyone from the DO talking about theNosenko information.
[104-10332-10009.pdf — page 7]
SUBJECT: WASHINGTON POST Request to Talk to an Agencyspecialist in the Kennedy AssassinationDCI/PAI/Earnest:ncbx37758 (11 March 1993)Distribution:Original Addressee1 ADDO1 SA/DDO1 DO Registry1 D/PAI1 D/DO/CIC1 C/DO/NROC1 C/DO/CE1 C/CSI1 C/History Staff
[104-10332-10009.pdf — page 9]
Memo to: C/HRG3 March 1994Subject: Mangold LitigationToday I alerted OGC (Theresa Wilcox/Karny Kelly) that the JFK collections contains a significant number of documents on Nosenko (5-6000 pages) which may impact on the Mangold litigation. As I understand it, the Mangold Litigation is over the Angelton files and is several years old. According to JFK reviewers at the FBI, documents on Nosenko's defection and treatment are part of case. I talked with Theresa Wilcox who is the para-legal handling the litigation, however, she was not familiar with the documents involved. She will consult with Kelly, the lawyer on the case, and get back to me.I consider the ball in OGC's court. I propose that we continue to review the Nosenko files. If there are Mangold or other consideration to address, we can do so after the HRG review is complete.Barry
[104-10332-10009.pdf — page 10]
Re: NOSENKO9 march 44Having Reviewed Box 45 - we note several reports, not completely identified as to author.(1) "Conclusions & Comments in the case of Yuriy I. Nosenko" (Oct68) (the Soble Report) -264 pgs(This is in Box 45, Folder 8)(It has been released in JFK/-JFK62-F9(It concludes NOSENKO is GOOD)(2) "Case of Yuriy I. Nosenko" (835 page study) dated February 1967(No indication that it has been released)(Believe it was prepared in SB (perhaps by Bagley - or perhaps with CI/STAFF)(It concludes nosenko is BAD)(3) "The Examination of the Bona Fides of a KGB Defector" - TS # 197124 dated FEBRUARY 1968 (447 pages)(This is found in ORIS Box 62 JFR-FL9)(It was released except for Annex A which is found in Box 45 F. 23.(It concludes Nosento was NOT bona fide)(Don't know author)
[104-10332-10009.pdf — page 11]
INTERNAL USE ONLY 23 March 1994Memorandum For: C/HRGSubject: Nosenko and the Mangold LitigationI received a call from Kathy Kelly, OGC, this morning concerning the Nosenko files in the JFK files. I described the files again (about 4000+ pages that include transcripts of all his interrogations and numerous studies on his bona fides and treatment by the Agency including the Solie and Hart reports and an 835 page comprehensive study). Since Nosenko is an important figure in the JFK assassination story and the files are part of the sequestered collection, HRG is reviewing the files under the JFK Assassination Records Collections Act. However, we were aware that some of the documents were part of the Mangold litigation and wanted to make sure that they were properly coordinated.Kathy Kelly said that the Mangold litigation should not be a factor in HRG's review. If the files were subject to the JFK Records Act, they should be processed under that Act. When the review is complete, a list of the documents released should be provide so that OGC can treat them the same in the Mangold case.I also talked with Kathy Stricker (yesterday) to get some background on the handling of Nosenko files and what were the "secrets" given what we know is publicly available. She said for years the agency "glomared" Nosenko except for the Oswald information: however, once Golitsyn became public that ended. Today, the battle over his bona fides and how he was treated are public knowledge. The Agency up until a couple years ago had not released some of the studies (she mention Solie) but she was not sure that this was still the case or if it was possible to continue to deny them. DO has protected the information provided by Nosenko on other Soviet sources and leads for possible recruitment. This type of information should continue to be protected.Kathy Stricker's comments are consistent with HRG's handling of the Nosenko files. We are considering all of the files as related; his bona fides is a key element of the story and there was a large amount of information including parts of the studies on him in both the Oswald 201 and the JFK hard copy collection. We have deleted information provided on other sources and operations not related to the JFK story. We are also recommending release of the rest of the studies. Although they contain potentially embarrassing information for the Agency (as did the IG report on the Castro plots), there doesn't appear to be grounds for denying under the JFK Act.
[104-10332-10009.pdf — page 12]
# SECRETCIA INTERNAL USE ONLYRestrictions on Declassifying Material on Yuriy Ivanovich NOSENKOThe following should be used as guidelines in declassifying material files pertaining to the career and "bona fides" of Yuriy Ivanovich NOSENKO1. CIA Knowledge of Russian intelligence tradecraft. Specific information in the files about KGB targetting of American citizens could reveal to the Russian Intelligence service our knowledge of their tradecraft. Since the Russian services continue to target Americans, this information should continue to be protected.2. To protect a CIA asset. Yuriy Ivanovich NOSENKO remains an asset of this agency, and is under contract. Moreover, the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service (SVRR) remains interested in NOSENKO's whereabouts and activities. Russian intelligence services since the Second World War have tried to track their defectors. There are indications that the Russian services remain interested in the NOSENKO case.  * At the time of his arrest, Rick Ames had some NOSENKO files (AESAWDUST) in his possession. The US Counterintelligence Community is unsure if this material was passed to the Russian service.--Following NOSENKO's brother and mother's visit to the United States, both were questionned by the Russian service about NOSENKO's activity and place and residence.SECRETCIA INTERNAL USE ONLY
[104-10332-10009.pdf — page 13]
SEP 16 94 09:50AM P.3/4Mr.Robert Fringle2909 Rock Manor CourtHerndon, Virginia 22071Dear Bob,It was very good to meet with you again in Washington on June 12. I am writing to confirm our recent conversation about the CIA's release of documents about me to the National Archives. As I explained to you at our meeting. I am very displeased that this was done without my knowled- ge and especially since my photograph was officially released by the Agency for the first time in thirty years.As you know, it has come to my attention that the CIA released these many hundreds of pages to the public without consulting me or telling me that this was going to be done. I have already seen copies of two of these reports totalling more than 700 pages. One is the October 1968 report supporting me by Bruce Solie; the other was a February 1968 re- port by the CI Staff which attacked my credibility. (This latter report contains a copy of my photo from the late 1960s. I consider this a breach of my personal security.)I also consider many of the details in both of these reports to be of a very personal nature. Other pages deal with with some very sensitive cases which I gave the Agency about other people. The information in these reports was given freely and accurately by me to the CIA officers in the 1960s under terms of strict confidentiality. Although it is very difficult for me to say this, I feel that my trust in the Agency has now been seriously damaged.This release particularly troubles me because for the past thirty years I have remained very loyal to the Agency and considerate of its wishes. For instance, despite many requests, I have only spoken to a few jourf nalists, and only when the Agency advised me toso. I have never sought
[104-10332-10009.pdf — page 14]
Page 2on my own to publish my story in an article or book. But now, the CIAhas not returned this courtesy. Instead, it has released sensitiveinformation to the public without speaking to me first.Under the circumstances, I would like to respectfully request thefollowing:1.  That you show this letter to DDO Ted Price, Director James Woolsey,    and the current heads of the CIA's Freedom of Information Office and    Historical Review staff -- so that they are aware of what has happened.2.  I would like to receive, in writing, an explanation from these res-    ponsible. of why this release was done.3.  I would like to receive a list of the major reports about me which    have already been released. Aside from the twe reports that I already    have seen, I would like to receive copies of any other major studies    that have been released. (For instance, if there are reports released    by Peter Bagley, Newton Miler, James Angleton, the CI Staff and John    Hart, then I would like to see them as well.)4.  I would like te be given the Agency's written assurance that further    releases will not ecour without consulting me first.Bob, you should know that before I wrote this letter I have spokenabout this matter with my geed friend George Kalaris. He too was troub-led by what I told him, and he advised me that I should ask the Agencyfor an explanation.Beb, I apologize fer troubling you with this matter; but I have no oneelse to turn to fer assistance.Please let me know if there is any respense as seen as possible.Respectfully yours,
[104-10332-10009.pdf — page 15]
13-00000SEP 16 '94 09:50AMF.04# SecretDraft letter to Nosenko from the DDODear,CIA SPECIAL COLLECTIONSRELEASE IN FULL2000The Director has asked me to respond to your letterexpressing concern that US Government declassification ofmaterial could compromise your privacy and security.In regard to your question about the documents that havealready been released, rest assured that I have directedofficers responsible for FOIA requests to take special carein reviewing information concerning you in light of yourspecial circumstances. We will make full use of allpossible exceptions to FOIA-mandated declassification inorder to protect your privacy.As you know, in 1992 Congress passed the JFK AssassinationRecords Collection Act, which required all US Governmentagencies to release any records related to the investigation of theassassination of President Kennedy. As Deputy Director for Operations, Iam of course committed to fully supporting the DCI inmeeting this requirement, but I also appreciate your concernabout the files on you that are related to theassassination. I have therefore directed a senior officerin the DO to meet with the officials in the Agency'shistorical staff who are involved in the declassificationprogram. This officer has had extensive discussions withmembers of the staff and has worked closely with them toidentify those portions of the files that include personaland operational information.As a result of this effort, we have postponed release of anysensitive information touching on your private life or on operationalinformation pertaining to your debriefings. Under the JFKlaw, a Presidential Review Board will make the finaldecision on the disposition of the material. This Agencyvalues the sacrifices you have made for our country, and wewill present the Board with the strongest possible case forprotecting information that could affect your privacy andsecurity.Best wishes,![signature]Secret
[104-10332-10009.pdf — page 16]
13-00000UNCLASSIFIED17 April 1997Sue Amiano, SA/CIC, gave to Gary Brenneman to give to Barry Harrelson, Historical Review Group, X31825, 2 soft files entitled:1. "WARREN COMMISSION/OSWALD"2. "DOCUMENTS YURI Ivanovich NOSENKO/OSWALD"found by Al Bonner in the vault.Received17-APRIL-97UNCLASSIFIED
[104-10332-10009.pdf — page 17]
Administrative HRG Internal Use OnlyCIA SPECIAL COLLECTIONSRELEAXE IN FULL200030 April 1997Note To: ARRB StaffSubject: CIC Soft files:1. Warren Commission/Oswald2. Documents Yuri Ivanovich NOSENKO/OswaldThe attached files were located in CIC. They are soft (or working) files containing information on Nosenko, Warren Commission and Oswald. It is not clear if the files date from the Warren Commission period, or were created in 1975/76 (latest date of documents) in response to a request or investigation.Most of the documents are in the sequestered collection (OGC folders). The other documents may be in the Norsenko material put aside for discussion with the ARRB or in the Microfilm part of the sequestered material (the Microfilm is not indexed document by document).![signature]Administrative - HRG Internal Use Only
[104-10332-10009.pdf — page 18]
Administrative - HRG Internal Use Only30 April 1997Note for the RecordSubject: CIC Oswald/Nosenko related soft files:1. Warren Commission/Oswald2. Documents Yuri Ivanovich NOSENKO/Oswald1. I advised Sue Amiano, SA/CIC, that most of the documents in the two folders are duplicates of documents in the CIA JFK Collection sequestered by the HSCA. The other documents are related to Nosenko, but do not mention Oswald. These documents are probably duplicated in the Nosenko material set aside for discussion with the ARRB. I recommended that we make the folders available to the ARRB staff. She concurred.2. Documents will be made available to Michelle Combs, ARRB staff, on her next visit.![signature of Barry]BarryAdministrative - HRG Internal Use Only
[104-10332-10009.pdf — page 19]
# SECRETTO: Eileen M. WukitchFROM: James W. ZirkleDATE: 08/01/97 09:54:03SUBJECT: Re: The Nosenko PapersCL BY:2034442CL REASON: 1.5(c)DECL ON: X1DRV FROM: HUM 4-82Eileen: Let me introduce myself. I am CIC/Legal. C/CIC asked me to touch base with you concerning any possible ARRB release of privacy information concerning Nosenko. While we are aware that such a decision to release is within the Board's discretion, we do believe that the Agency, when giving this information over to them, should request that the Board protect such information to the maximum extent possible. If I can be of help in that regard just let me know. JimFrom the Desk of Dennis D. LambNOTE FOR: Ron L. SeckingerFROM: Dennis D. LambDATE: 07/31/97 10:44:28SUBJECT: The Nosenko PapersCL BY: 0790429CL REASON: 1.5(c)DECL ON: X1DRV FROM: HUM 4-82At about 1020 hrs on Tuesday, 31 July, I received a call from Eileen Wukitch of the Agency's External Support Group/Historical Collection Staff regarding Michelle Combs's interest in reviewing the Nosenko papers for the upcoming meeting of the Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB) on 5 August. Wukitch said Combs, an ARRB staffer, is planning on taking 20 pages of the Nosenko material with her. Wukitch wants to know whether we would like copies of the material Combs is taking. I said yes. Wukitch said Combs appears understanding of our concerns in this case and to this end wanted the following questions answered so she could put a human touch on our concerns in explaining our position to the ARRB.1. Is Nosenko married? (No one in CIC/AG knows.)2. What part of the country is he living in? (This is known, but I can't see why she or the ARRB needs to know.)3. Did the Soviets actually sentence Nosenko to death? Or was this just his claim. (No one in CIC/AG know, but it appears reasonable to assume that the Soviets did sentence him to death.)4. Nosenko's current age? (No one in CIC/AG knows off hand. Henry's observation was that Combs can find this out from open literature.)# SECRET
[104-10332-10009.pdf — page 20]
SECRETAccording to Wukitch, Combs also wants to take to the ARRB two letters pertaining to the affair: the letter Nosenko wrote in 1994 objecting to the release of his material without his being consulted or advised, and the letter Ted Price wrote to him in response assuring him that everything possible would be done to prevent further release of his papers. I don't see any problem with this since the papers would support our position--unless the ARRB starts thinking about releasing the letters also.Wukitch said she told Combs CIC would have Bob Pringle, former Chief of AG/FIOB currently serving as Officer in Residence at the University of Kentucky, flown in to address the ARRB if this appears necessary. Combs will pass this on to the ARRB. Wukitch noted that Combs alluded to the possibility that that ARRB might want to talk with Nosenko himself.CC:CC: John B. ENGBERT, Nancy T. BRUNONE, Edgar C. BAUML, Dennis D. Lamb, Curtis L. MACKIAN, Jacqueline Frankfort @ DCI, Ron L. SeckingerSECRET