Francesco/who-killed-jfk huggingface dataset:
[104-10337-10001.pdf — page 251]
PAGE 31Federal News Service, JUNE 4, 1997time. We need to get the information to the American public.REP. HASTERT: Thank you very much. Mr. Hitchcock, I want to ask you, bringing students into the real realm of research and learning in that respect, how important is it that records like this be made available to the public so that folks like yourself can have the availability for students?MR. HITCHCOCK: I think, Mr. Chairman, it is extremely important for not only teachers of history and historians but also for future students and future generations. One of the things so special about our relationship with the review board has not only been an opportunity for students to travel to Washington, and they pay their own way and they do their own research on their on time. But it has helped change opinions in many cases by students about not only the assassination but about government, politics, agencies and people who work for the government.I cannot overstate the importance this has had for the 43 thus far, and soon to be 56, students from Noblesville High School who have had this research opportunity, that have been able actually to see, handle original documents, to work with documents, to see firsthand the evidence that exists. To have that opportunity is something that no teacher, no classroom, no film, no laser disk, nothing in the classroom can simulate such interest and focus as this trip to Washington DC, the review of documents, the working with people that we've had the opportunity to be with at the review board on a firsthand basis.It is just something that cannot be duplicated, or as I said, simulated in any classroom anywhere in the country. It's just been a fantastic opportunity and will provide students in the future with a place to go to find those records, to look at the records, to look at the documents, and be at least assured that as much as is available and is in existence can now be made available to them as ordinary citizens of this country, whether they be students at a university, students at a high school, or in their just curiosity and interest as American citizens.I don't think it can be overstated the impact that this will have in helping bridge that gap of skepticism, if this is the correct way to say it, that exists. I just cannot imagine what the many conspiracy theorists out there would think if the review board has to finish its stay without completing its work.REP. HASTERT: Thank you. The gentleman from Ohio.REP. LATOURETTE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.And Mr. Chairman, I would begin by indicating that my earlier query about your legal training was not meant to be an affront, and I should have recognized that your learned demeanor was that of a --REP. HASTERT: Not at all.
[104-10337-10001.pdf — page 252]
REP. LATOURETTE: Mr. Howe, I don't have a question but I'm glad you told the story of Otto Eisenschiml because somewhere in the back of my mind I remember a book or movie called the Lincoln conspiracy and I was certain that Secretary Stanton had something to do with the demise of our sixteenth president, so I'm glad you brought that up.Mr. Tunheim, I do want to ask you a follow-up question to what we were talking to Congressmen Stokes about and I was fascinated by the document that you held up. When I was in the prosecution business and we had a public records law in Ohio which was new on the books, we found that law enforcement agencies always wanted to take a big black magic marker and redact everything. It was my view that that led to more conjecture, rumor, suspicion than not, and I think this document that you brought forward, knowing that it came from the Swiss federal police, that would give, I think, some cause to believe that Mr. Oswald had some Swiss bank account and was squirreling away money from foreign nationals as part of a conspiracy.
[104-10337-10001.pdf — page 253]
# PAGE 32Federal News Service, JUNE 4, 1997When you un-redact it, if that's really a word, you find out like so many other people he apparently registered for the Albert Schweitzer College for the fall semester of 1960 and didn't show up. Nothing sinister or unusual in that at all. The question I have is, when you were testifying you indicated that the FBI originally appealed the decision to not-or to withdraw the redaction of this particular document. You also indicated that the vast majority of documents that you have left to review during this renewal period are located at the CIA and the FBI in the sequestered section, I assume.Are you any unusual difficulties with either of those agencies in terms of cooperation as you attempt to get to a public release of what should be appropriately publicly released?MR. TUNHEIM: Well, Mr. LaTourette, the answer - the question is, no, we're not receiving any degree of difficulty with those agencies right now. They are committed to this process. They are supportive of the effort to keep the process going for one additional year.The CIA has not appealed decisions that the review board has made. We've got a good working relationship with the people within that agency who are doing their work. The FBI appealed a significant number of our decisions, but now all of those appeals have been withdrawn. And we've got a working relationship with the FBI that I think has been constructive and professional and is working quite well.The FBI initially opposed release of the document that I held up and appealed the decision because they had contacted, in a general way, the Swiss federal police and asked whether this record could be released, and the answer was no. Our follow-up through the ambassador is showing what really this document was all about, led to some wiser approach to the particular issue. And sometimes it takes additional work like that to accomplish the release of important materials.REP. LATOURETTE: And the last question I would have is Congressman Stokes expressed the view that perhaps the fine work of this review board -- should another review board setting be required in the future to review another situation similar to this, that you may be breaking down some of the barriers in terms of suspicions that the intelligence community may have about do we need to, you know, stick to the script and have a page that has all black magic marker on it? Do you find that the lessons learned in this review board will be instructive to us as we move forward and think of ways of dealing with the release of documents in the future?MR. TUNHEIM: I think that's a very good question. And we have found through this effort, being the first group, an independent group outside of an agency, to have this degree of control over the declassification process. The process
[104-10337-10001.pdf — page 254]
at first was rough and difficult and fraught with suspicion. That has changed. There's been a sea change as these agencies have realized that release of this information is not going to harm our national security, that perhaps it's time simply to trust the American people with access to important information about their government. And I think everyone has learned important lessons from this process. It's a process that, while time- consuming, has worked very well for this set of records.REP. LATOURETTE: And in that regard and in that vein, have you at the review board put together sort of an instruction or an operating manual to be left behind for future such endeavors?MR. TUNHEIM: Well, we certainly will. We have -- virtually all of our work has been computerized so that we have an extensive record of exactly how we've approached all these issues. We do intend, in our final report, to make recommendations on how this effort can be extended in the future to other areas if the Congress so wishes.
[104-10337-10001.pdf — page 255]
PAGE 33Federal News Service, JUNE 4, 1997REP. LATOURETTE: Thank you for answering my questions. Thank you for your fine work. And thank you, Mr. Chairman.REP. : Thank you. I had a couple of questions. I read your testimony as I was listening to the other two. I'm sorry I was late. I wanted to ask Mr. Holland; were there credible historians who at this point were still questioning the assassination in the Warren Commission and the information that came out before this commission existed, before these documents came out?MR. HOLLAND: Basically, most historians have stayed away from it because they regard it as a tar baby. So there are actually surprisingly few. By historians, you mean professors at universities. Surprisingly few have written about it, because they just see it as a morass, and how are you going to possibly figure out what happened? So my answer would be -- and, you know, credible is in the eye of the beholder.But there's actually remarkably few, and that's one of my arguments is that you have to -- it is time to insert it back into history. It did happen during the Cold War, and that exerted a tremendous influence over what the government did. Right after the assassination, it was a precipitating element of the formation of the Warren Commission that the Cold War was ongoing, and they worried about to be frank, they worried about congressional committees holding hearings and disclosure of sources and methods, such as the fact that Oswald had gone to Mexico City and been observed by photographic surveillance, and how was that going to be handled by a congressional committee? So I do believe it has to be inserted into historical context. That's probably been the element that's been missing all this time.REP. : So you believe one of the elements of this commission is it'll bring out of pulp -- pop culture -- pulp culture was a bad choice of words -- pop culture and in more mainstream because more documents are there, less questions. It can now be analyzed. And also, you seem to hint that we'll gain as much, not necessarily that there's a lot of new information on the assassination, but that we're going to learn a lot about how our government worked and a lot of the interrelationships, and that may be, in fact, more use to the historians than any questions they had remaining about the assassination.MR. HOLLAND: I think my own particular view is that besides, you know, being an investigation of three crimes -- the murder of President Kennedy, the assault on Governor Connally and the murder of Officer Tippett (sp), and then the murder of Oswald, so four crimes -- the Warren Commission is a fantastic lens to view the operation of the government circa 1963-64, because they had an overriding mandate.But yet they were going up against agencies such as the FBI and CIA with
[104-10337-10001.pdf — page 256]
entrenched interests, and especially Hoover's FBI was sort of a wonder to behold. You dealt with it very gingerly. So it's a great -- and the FBI had not been second-guessed since Hoover became director. This was the first time. And you can't underestimate what that meant in terms of the difficulties it posed for the commission. Now, I maintain they still came to the right conclusion, but the fact is that they had a lot of trouble with the FBI.REP. : One of the questions here is it took so many years to get to this point. In looking at what future commissions might do, how much of that, do you think, can be overcome? In other words, how much of this was the Hoover FBI, say, and how much of this is institutional that in the first 10 years you'd have so many agents active in the field, ongoing operations, in the first 20 years there's still some - can we accelerate the process?What have we learned from this as to -- obviously this is one that particularly anybody in the '60s era was a defining event, so it's an extraordinary assassination. But what have we learned for investigations in the future? Do
[104-10337-10001.pdf — page 257]
# PAGE 34Federal News Service, JUNE 4, 1997you believe the CIA and FBI will release information sooner? And if so,presumably they'll still be redacted, which still could lead to Oliver Stonemovies and Lincoln conspiracy books and all sorts of things.MR. HOLLAND: Mr. Chairman, I think that the fact that these records are 30 yearsold has helped in obtaining their release. It's not information about theassassination per se that agencies have objected to releasing. It's more whosaid what to who, who's an intelligence agent and who's an informant for theFBI, those kinds of issues. And there will still be institutional reluctance torelease any of that information.I hope that through this process we can demonstrate to the public and to theseagencies that this information can be released to the public, that the publiccan be trusted with information like this. There will still be a need forsecrecy to a certain extent, but certainly not with the broad brush/black penapproach of the past.REP. : We first learned -- I was elected in '94, and our first experience inthis committee was with Waco, where we had similar questions and still had someinformation that wasn't able to be released. We're certainly having thatongoing debate with the administration right now, because it gets far beyond theinitial investigation. In the course of Travelgate we discovered the data bank.And, of course, with the data bank you discover the code, and then you find outthat the code leads to this. Pretty soon you're off into other investigations.That's going to be an ongoing problem. Do you believe, in the end, that thiswill have silenced most critics?MR. HOLLAND: In my view, Mr. Chairman, it will silence some. It will perhapsprovoke others.We're many years after an event that was investigated in a different era. Therewere many mistakes made at the time that cannot be corrected at this stage intime. But I think when the review board is done with its work, one thing weshould be able to prove to the American people is that the federal government isno longer keeping secrets from them relative to the Kennedy assassination. Ithink that will be a very significant development.Whether all the questions will be resolved or not, that's a question forhistorians in the future who will review these materials and will make theirdeterminations. This is like a gigantic puzzle with a lot of pieces missing.We are putting some of those pieces in, small pieces and large pieces. Butthere's a lot of pieces of the puzzle that will never be found.REP.: I want to ask one last question, and that's options of dealing withacquiring the Zapruder film. Is that going to be a cost additional to whatyou're requesting? Do you have options on how to pay for that? What's the
[104-10337-10001.pdf — page 258]
status of that?MR. HOLLAND: Well, the Zapruder film, as the chairman is aware, the review board designated that as an assassination record about a month or so ago. We felt that that decision was determined by the Congress in the passage of the JFK Records Collection Act when it said that all records in the possession of the National Archives are assassination records and should be included in this collection.Recognizing the potential cost of a film like this, we did set forth a 16-month period before the taking would take place, so that the Congress could address this issue and make appropriate determinations that the Congress wished to make those determinations. The board did feel that that decision had been made for it by the Congress in the earlier act and that it is the most significant piece of evidence of one of the most significant crimes in our nation's history. So, therefore, the original has an intrinsic value, and it should belong forever to the American public.
[104-10337-10001.pdf — page 259]
PAGE 35Federal News Service, JUNE 4, 1997We are hopeful that the Zapruder family will agree eventually to donate that film to the American public. We have no assurances of that at this point. But we did set the time frame far out in the future so that the Congress can review this issue and make its own determinations if it so wishes. REP. : Do you have any additional questions? With that, I thank you all for -REP. LATOURETTE: Mr. Chairman, if I could beg your indulgence and just ask one more question, if I may.Mr. Tunheim, if I might, my previous question about difficulty with the CIA and FBI. Sometimes I don't make things broad enough. And I guess my query would be, it's been brought to my attention that perhaps there's been some difficulty in obtaining records from the other body. Is there any agency within the federal government that you're having difficulty in terms of cooperation that would impede your ability to complete your work in a timely fashion, as envisioned by this legislation?MR. TUNHEIM: Mr. LaTourette, I have not seen any evidence currently that anyone is deliberately stonewalling us, so that when we go away, they will put the records back into the files. We had some significant problems early in the process, just really because agencies didn't understand what this was all about and didn't understand what the law really provided for. So it took some time. It's taken some time, for example, with the Secret Service to get them to the point of realizing their obligations under the act. They do now, and they've been very cooperative and easy to work with. But this has been a learning process for all of the agencies, and I feel at the current time there are no impediments among any of the agency partners that we're dealing with to completing the review of the records on a timely basis.REP. LATOURETTE: Thank you. I thank the chair for your indulgence.REP.: I thank you all for your testimony and appreciate your coming today. For procedural purposes, I'll now close this hearing -- the hearing is adjourned -- and open a subcommittee markup on HR 1553, markup of the John F. Kennedy Record Review Board Reauthorization Act. The hearing is now open.If there are no opening statements, the subcommittee will now proceed to the consideration of the bill as amended. Without objection, the first reading of the bill is dispensed with and the bill will be considered for amendment at any point. Do any members wish to be recognized to offer an amendment? Hearing none, the question is on favorable reporting of the bill, HR 1553, the John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Review Board Reauthorization Act. All those in favor say "Aye."MEMBERS: Aye.REP.: Opposed, "No." In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. It goes fast. The question now comes, will the subcommittee report the bill to the full
[104-10337-10001.pdf — page 260]
committee? All those in favor, say "Aye." MEMBERS: Aye.REP.: Opposed, "No." In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. The bill moves forward to the full committee. There is no other business before the subcommittee. We now stand adjourned. Thank you all for your hard work.~END~
[104-10337-10002.pdf — page 0]
2025 RELEASE UNDER THE PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY ASSASSINATION RECORDS ACT OF 1992FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY25 August 1993NOTE FOR: All HRG MembersSUBJECT: Briefing of HPSCI on Denied JFK DocumentsThis is to let everyone know that HRG has been asked to brief the HPSCI staff on the 10,000 pages of JFK materials that we have denied in full (so far).The request came from HPSCI Chairman Dan Glickman, who apparently anticipates questions from others in Congress about the denied documents.Among the questions we are asked to address in the briefing are the following:*   How many documents are involved (as opposed to pages)?*   What specific types of sources and methods are we protecting?*   What is the review process?*   Who made the judgments to deny the documents?*   Are there provisions for continuing review of the denied documents?We've asked that the briefing not take place until the week of 30 August, but HPSCI may want it sooner.![Signature of John F. Pereira]John F. PereiraFOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
[104-10337-10002.pdf — page 1]
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY26 August 1993HPSCI BRIEFING OUTLINECIA SPECIAL COLLECTIONSRELEASE IN FULL2000JFK ASSASSINATION RECORDSI. Overview: CIA declassification program for JFK records- Sequestered files and Oswald 201 file- Total JFK records:  Hardcopy documents: 162,000 pages  Microfilm: 73 reels, 150,000 pagesII. Resources devoted to JFKNumber of people: 15 HRG (9 staffers, 6 retirees)25 indexers (overtime, weekends)10 DO for coordinationIII. Documents Released:Oswald 35,000 pagesSequestered files 90,000 pagesTotal 125,000 pagesIndexing and identification forms for each documentShow example of iden formWithheld temporarily:HSCA-originated: 20,000 pagesThird Agency 7,000 pagesDenied-in-full- Continuing review of the DIF documents by HRG- Likelihood CIA will release a number (many ?) of DIF- Review Board's determination on DIF items
[104-10337-10002.pdf — page 2]
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLYIV. Identification forms provided to NARA for each DIF DocumentV. Types of information protected in DIF items- Grounds for postponement of information under JFK LawVI. Who made judgments on withholding documents- 15 reviewers- Followed procedures- Senior Reviewers provided guidance- Directorates coordinated- Third agency coordinationVII. Issues for Review BoardFOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
[104-10337-10002.pdf — page 3]
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLYCIA SPECIAL COLLECTIONS September 1993RELEASE IN FULL2000JFK ASSASSINATION RECORDSHPSCI BRIEFING OUTLINEIntroduction: Discuss how CIA fulfilled requirements of the JFK Act.Discuss the withheld documentsGeneral Remarks1. Every JFK record will be seen by the Review Board.2. We have followed the JFK Assassination Records Act in determining which records will be postponed. (Section 6)   - Our presumption was that a record would be released.3. We made every effort to meet the 22 August deadline established by the JFK Act. The Director was committed to this.4. This called for a major effort--additional people, lot of overtime and weekend shifts.5. We are continuing to review the postponed documents, and expect to release a high percentage of them.
[104-10337-10002.pdf — page 4]
23 January 1996# CIA SPECIAL COLLECTIONS RELEASE IN FULLMemo for RecordSubject: Status of JFK Records Review 2000References: Letter from Marwell to Pereira, dtd 15 Dec 96,(same subject);Letter from Pereira to Marwell, dtd 19 Jan 96,(response to above letter);Phone Conversation with Marwell, 22 Jan 96,(same subject).1. Marwell requested a figure for the number of records in the sequestered files that contained postponements. I explained that our review figures were based on pages and that there was no record count for the microfilm part of the collection. However, based on the HRG index unaudited record count (see below) of the Oswald 201 file and the JFK hardcopy boxes, I was able to give him an estimate of 28,000 records.2. Unaudited HRG Index statistics:|                | Total Records          | Records w/Postponements || -------------- | ---------------------- | ----------------------- || Oswald         | 4,349                  | 1,871                   || JFK (63 boxes) | 28,532                 | 12,132                  ||                | 32,881 (154,724 pages) | 14,003                  |The page count for the hardcopy part of the collection is within 10,000 pages of the Microfilm (163,500). Given that the microfilm contains many duplicates and similar records as the hardcopy, the percentage of sanitized documents should be close to the same. I estimate the total number of records with postponements to be approximately 28,000.