Francesco/who-killed-jfk huggingface dataset:
[124-10273-10007_multirif.pdf — page 16]
Memorandum to Mr. W. R. WannallRE: SENSTUDY 7562-116395In accordance with established procedure, Sentinellawas advised that he would be contacted by someone from theOffice of the Legal Counsel who will make arrangements forà Bureau representative to be available for consultationshould Sentinella's testimony involve sensitive areas ofinquiry. Sentinella indicated his intention of arrivingin Washington, D. C., late in the afternoon or in theevening of the day preceding his testimony.ACTION:Refer to Legal Counsel so that someone from thatOffice may get in touch with Sentinella in accordance withthe foregoing.![signature]![handwritten text: me Sentinella. 4:30 PM 5/19/75 That Bu refresentative would be avail ://  censultation phones inter vien  RTO]![signature]![signature: PLM]![signature]- 2 -NW 88296 DocId:32989532 Page 17
[124-10273-10007_multirif.pdf — page 17]
# MemorandumTO: Mr. J. B. AdamsFROM: W. R. WannallSUBJECT: SENSTUDY - 751- Mr. J. B. Adams2- Mr. J. A. Mintz:(I - Mr. P. V. Daly)DATE: 5/16/751- Mr. W. R. Wannall1 - Mr. J. G. Deegan1 - Mr. R. L. Shackelford1- Mr. W. O. Cregar1- Mr. S. F. PhillipsThis informative memorandum is to report briefing of Senate Select Committee (SSC) Staff Members on informant matters by INTD personnel.At the request of the SSC Staff, a briefing session was held in my office from 8:50 a.m., to 10:50 a.m., 5/16/75. Representing the SSC were Staff Members Mark Gitenstein and Thomas Dawson. In addition to myself, present from the INTD were Deputy Assistant Director H. E. Helgeson, S. F. Phillips of SENSTUDY 75 Staff, and Unit Chiefs E. P. Grigalus (IS-2 Section), and H. A. Newman, Jr. (IS-1 Section). Also present was Supervisor J. D. Miller of the Legal Counsel's Office.SSC Staff Members had previously reviewed Sections 107 (Part I Security Informants) and 130 (Extremist Informants) of the Manual of Instructions and the purpose of the briefing was to go over these Sections and answer the visitors' questions and clarify doubtful areas. Such matters as the following were covered: Terminology regarding confidential sources, potential security informants and security informants; means for approving informants; payments to informants both on SAC approval and FBIHQ approval; converting of potential informants to informants; establishing reliability; assignment of symbol numbers; distinction between permanent and temporary symbol numbers; use of FD-401 for semiannual reports on informants; use of FD-405 for monthly and quarterly reports on informants. Also covered were: Use of informants in COINTELPRO; entrapment and agent provocateur aspects; movement of informants between field office territories; channelizing memoranda; handling of informants after determined to be unreliable; and inspectors' role relating to informants at field level.Mr. Gitenstein, who was the senior member of the SSC team present, indicated satisfaction with the results of the briefing and that all their inquiries had been answered. He madeCONTINUED - OVER62-116395SFP:cmc
[124-10273-10007_multirif.pdf — page 18]
Memorandum to Mr. J. B. AdamsRe: SENSTUDY - 7562-116395a very cogent observation concerning the FBI's handling of informants. The SSC Task Force he is on is studying informant matters in various intelligence community agencies including the FBI. He stated that they had found the FBI as so much far superior to other agencies that they considered the FBI as the standard for all law enforcement. He cited specifically the finding that the Internal Revenue Service and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms as very weak in informant aspects.It is believed that the visitors found the briefing most productive, as they themselves stated that briefings such as this one will be very helpful to the SSC in its work; and promote friendly and businesslike relations between the SSC and the Bureau.ACTION:None. For information.
[124-10273-10007_multirif.pdf — page 19]
# MemorandumTO: Mr. McDermottDATE: 5/9/75FROM: J. C. Farfington Select Committee of the SenateSUBJECT: SENATOR GARY HART (D-COLORADO)REQUEST FOR FBI DATA ON HIM UNDER THEFREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA)We received this afternoon, 5/9/75, from Mrs. Susan M. Hauser of the Deputy Attorney General's Office, the following data: 1) informal note from Doug Marvin to the Deputy. Attorney General re: Senator Hart's meeting with the Attorney General 5/6/75; 2) letter to Senator Hart by the Attorney General dated 5/7/75 advising that Hart's oral request for access to his FBI file will be treated as coming under the FOIA; and 3) a memorandum from for files dated 5/6/75 that appears to have been dictated by the Attorney General in which he sets forth pertinent information concerning his meeting with Senator Hart. The Attorney General points out that he will treat Hart's oral request as coming under the FOIA although he did not know whether the Senator should in fact make this request in writing (actually, the Code of Federal Regulations, of course, points out that FOIA requests must be in writing).According to the Attorney General's memorandum, Senator Hart indicated that he was not trying to make a particular point and did not want to go to court, but rather felt it would be helpful to members of the Senate Select Committee, who wanted to do it, to see what an FBI file was like, and he felt that by seeing his own file it would raise less problems than trying to see someone else's file.In view of the Attorney General's letter to Senator Hart of 5/7/75 advising him that his oral request will be processed under the FOIA, the FOIA Section will immediately institute the processing of this request. However, unless advised to the contrary, it is intended that Senator Hart's request will be put in chronological order and will receive no special treatment. It should also be noted that Senator Hart is under the mistaken belief that as a Senator, and particularly as a member of the Senate Select Committee, he could receive an FBI file on a third.1 - Mr. McDermott - Enc.1 - Mr. Mintz - Enc.1 - Mr. Wannall - Enc.Atten: Mr. Cregar1 - FOIA Section / Enc.
[124-10273-10007_multirif.pdf — page 20]
J. C. Farrington to Mr. McDermott memoRe: Senator Gary Hartparty and be allowed to look at it. This, of course, is not correct and we would advise Senator Hart the same as any other requester making a similar request that we would need authori- zation from the third party involved prior to releasing any data we may have to the Senator.Senator Hart is a new. Senator serving his first term. He was the campaign manager of Senator McGovern's 1972 Presidential campaign.RECOMMENDATION:For information.![signature]![handwritten notes]- 2 -NW 88296 Docld:32989532 Page 21
[124-10273-10007_multirif.pdf — page 21]
# UNITED STATES GOVERNMENTMemorandumTO: MR. W. R. WANNALLOFROM: MR. W. O CREGARSUBJECT: SENSTUDY 751 - Mr. J. B. Adams2 - Mr. J. A. Mintz(1-Mr.P.V.Daly)DATE: May 13, 19751 - Mr. E. W. Walsh1 - Mr. W. R. Wannall1 - Mr. W. O. Cregar1 - Mr. S. F. PhillipsThis informative memorandum to record highlights of information relating to an interview by Senate Select Committee (SSC) Staff Member of retired SA Alan G. Sentinella, as obtained by Supervisor Seymor Fred Phillips of the Bureau's Senstudy 75 Special Project.Pursuant to Bureau instructions, Phillips went to Atlanta, Georgia, to fulfill the request of Sentinella for the presence of a Bureau Agent at the time Sentinella was to be interviewed on 5/12/75 by SSC Staff Member Lester B. Seidel. Sentinella is presently Safety Director, Georgia State University, Atlanta. He has been retired from the FBI for about four years and in the period around 1964-66 he did work on the investigation of Martin Luther King, Jr., and for a time, the King case as well as that of King's organization, the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, was assigned to him. Sentinella had been told in advance by Seidel that he was to be interviewed concerning King and Levison (Stanley David Levison, former consultant to King who was under Bureau investigation because of his communist background).Phillips was in Sentinella's private office at 12:24 p.m. when Seidel arrived. Sentinella explained to Seidel that after Sentinella had agreed in a telephone conversation with Seidel 5/9/75 to being interviewed, he (Sentinella) contacted the Atlanta FBI Office because Sentinella was concerned with the sensitivity of the information he knew about King and Levison and wanted to protect the confidentiality of his information and the Bureau's interests, especially as pertaining to current investigations-sources, etc. Sentinella explained to Seidel that the FBI offered to have an Agent present, not to monitor the interview, but for consultation purposes should the interview reach into sensitive areas. Sentinella thus accounted to Seidel for Phillips' presence. At this point, Phillips reiterated the reasons given by Sentinella for the presence of an FBI Agent and Seidel was told that Phillips' presence was definitelySFP:ekw (9)1 - 67-432832 (Personnel File Former SA Alan G. Sentinella)CONTINUED - OVER
[124-10273-10007_multirif.pdf — page 22]
Memorandum to Mr. W. R. WannallRE: SENSTUDY 7562-116395not intended to have any chilling effect on Seidel's interviewand that Phillips was there only upon Sentinella's request andfor the purposes indicated. Phillips then retired to an adjoiningroom.Sentinella consulted with Phillips on only one occasion.At about 1:45 p.m. he came to Phillips adjoining office, andsaid that Seidel's current questioning was concerning the make-upof the squad Sentinella was assigned to around 1965. This squadhandled security, racial, and civil rights matters and Seidel wasapparently seeking information as to the parameters of these typesof investigations and what they entailed. At this point Phillipsjoined Seidel and Sentinella and offered the following in possibleassistance to Seidel. Phillips explained that the various Sectionsof the Bureau Manuals dealing with these types of investigationshad been made available to the SSC and insofar as the securitySections were concerned, there was presently being processed at theBureau superseded Sections dating back to 1960 to be made availableto the SSC. At this point Seidel stated he was not so much interestedin what the Manuals said but actually wanted Sentinella, to the bestof his recollection, to furnish names of individuals and organizationsunder investigation in Atlanta during the pertinent period.Sentinella refused to name any, stating that he had no idea as towhat might be under current investigation or how his furnishing ofinformation now might affect current Bureau's interests. Sentinellaalso told Seidel that he, Sentinella, was not so naive as tobelieve that his information might not appear in the press. Seidelimmediately said that he would furnish no information to the press.Sentinella then said that he was not intimating that Seidel would beresponsible, but that the information might still be publicized andthat once Sentinella gave the information it fell completely out ofhis control. Seidel indicated that Sentinella might be requiredthrough subpoena to testify before the SSC and be asked the samequestion. Sentinella responded that his answer before the Committeewould be the same. Phillips indicated to Sentinella that if hedesired to consult with Phillips concerning the names of anyinvestigations Sentinella recalled, Phillips would assist him byindicating, if he knew, whether they were of current FBI interest.Sentinella desired no such help and insisted to Seidel that he didnot desire to name the subjects of prior investigations. This inter-lude in the formal interview lasted about 10 minutes after whichPhillips returned to the adjoining room.- 2 -  NW 88296 Docld:32989532 Page 23
[124-10273-10007_multirif.pdf — page 23]
Memorandum to Mr. W. R. WannallRE: SENSTUDY 7562-116395At 2:20 p.m. the interview ended and Phillips wastaken by Sentinella back into the latter's office where Seidelsaid he was leaving and wanted to say good-bye. Phillips alludedto the interview having been completed to which Seidel responded,and these are to the best of Phillips' recollection, Seidel'sexact words, "Yes, you're not letting him give us the goodinformation." Immediately upon hearing this statement fromSeidel, Phillips interjected a strong protest by stating to Seidelthat neither Phillips nor the FBI was keeping Sentinella from givingany information; that the FBI has not injected itself in Sentinella'sdecision to give or not give information. Seidel responded with astatement to the effect that the result is the same -- Sentinellais not giving the good information. Phillips again responded bytelling Seidel that irrespective of the latter's opinion, Phillipswanted the record crystal clear that Sentinella has not beencounseled by Phillips or anyone else in the FBI as to what heshould or should not tell Seidel. Sentinella interrupted toexpress his loyalty to the Bureau as well as his respect forthe confidentiality of his relationship with the Bureau and itswork. He told Seidel that he did not intend to be a talkative,discontented former FBI employee as apparently :: are some ofthe sources being consulted by the SSC, Sentinella pointed outthat he himself had been the subject of disciplinary action by theBureau but that it had made him a better Agent and that it in noway would influence his loyalty and responsibility to the Bureau.Seidel then left.After Seidel's departure, Sentinella stated it was hispersonal desire to dictate a lengthy question and answer typestatement of the entire interview while it was fresh in his mindas he had not taken any notes. He said he preferred to handle thiswith his own secretary whom he trusts implicitly and has pledgedto maintain this information confidential. Sentinella advised thathe would have the typing of the statement completed the followingday and would immediately make a copy available to Atlanta SACDeBruler for transmittal to Bureau Headquarters. At Sentinella'sinvitation, Phillips sat in on the dictation of practically theentire statement as a means for Sentinella briefing Phillips onthe details of the interview. Instant memorandum is not intended- 3 -NW 88296 Docld:32989532 Page 24
[124-10273-10007_multirif.pdf — page 24]
Memorandum to Mr. W. R. WannallRE: SENSTUDY 7562-116395to summarize these details which will be forthcoming with Sentinella's statement to be mailed to the Bureau. However, one significant question asked of Sentinella should be noted. During a discussion of electronic surveillances in the King investigation, Seidel asked how other Agents felt about "illegal use of taps." Sentinella's response was that the taps were not illegal and were put on only after approval by the Attorney General.OBSERVATIONS:It is Phillips' view that Sentinella represents a high caliber former Agent who is completely loyal to the Bureau and will apparently go to any extreme to maintain the confidentiality of the work he did. He certainly could be described as a reluctant witness if he is ever called to testify. He expressed personal concern that he might be called but hoped that his uncooperativeness in some areas to Seidel's questions might discourage his being called.Two incidents related above are very suggestive of a lack of objectivity on the part of Seidel. The first concerns his comment to Phillips about the FBI not letting Sentinella give him "good information." To begin with, this was an unjustified allegation and Seidel was set straight immediately after his remark. Secondly, the mere fact that Seidel is referring to "good" information suggests itself that certain information fits their desires and others does not. There appears to be a lack of regard for merely securing the facts, regardless of what those facts might indicate. The second indicator of lack of objectivity was Seidel's inquiry about "illegal use of taps." This question fits the classic question of, "When did you stop beating your wife?"If the Committee is going to be asking questions like this one, its objectivity is certainly subject to challenge.As ex- or current employees volunteer to us results of interviews conducted of them by the SSC, we will carefully study them for, among other things, additional evidence of the nature discussed above. If there is a continuation of this line of questioning or other unjustified comments to Bureau representatives, we will consider taking up with the Attorney General the matter of possible protest to the SSC.
[124-10273-10007_multirif.pdf — page 25]
Memorandum to Mr. W. R. WannallRE: SENSTUDY 7562-116395RECOMMENDATION:This memorandum is for the immediate information of Bureau officials. When the detailed statement of Sentinella is received, we will prepare an LHM for the Attorney General with a copy for possible forwarding to Mr. James Wilderotter, Associate Counsel to the President. This is the procedure we have been following when former Agents have volunteered to us the results of interviews of them by the SSC.- 5 -NW 88296 Docld:32989532 Page 26
[124-10273-10007_multirif.pdf — page 26]
# UNITED STATES GOVERNMENTMemorandumTO: Mr. J. B. AdamsDATE: April 23, 1975FROM: W. R. WannallSUBJECT: SENSTUDY 75FORMER SUPERVISOR LISH WHITSONASSIGNED INTELLIGENCE DIVISIONBy memorandum captioned as above submitted earlier today,I advised you of a telephone call received 4/22/75 from former SpecialAgent Whitson. He had called to advise that he had been requestedto appear for interview by Michael Epstein, staff member of theSenate Select Committee.At 2:50 p.m. today (4/23/75) Mr. Whitson called at my officeand said that he had just been interviewed by Mr. Epstein and wasdesirous of reporting the results.Epstein first asked Whitson when he entered the Bureau, whenhe first arrived for assignment at Headquarters, to what HeadquartersDivision he had been assigned, and when he retired. Epstein then saidthat he knew that Whitson had at one time mailed a package toMrs. Martin Luther King from Tampa, Florida, and asked Whitson torelate the details concerning this matter. Whitson thereupon toldhim that in the late Summer of 1964 former Assistant to the DirectorWilliam C. Sullivan had telephoned Whitson at his home one Saturdayand told him that former Director Hoover wanted Whitson to delivera package to Miami, Florida, by plane and on arrival at the MiamiAirport to telephone Sullivan for further instructions. Whitson didas directed and upon calling Sullivan was instructed to address thepackage to Mr. Martin Luther King. Accordingly, Whitson had thepackage weighed, put stamps on it, and addressed it to Martin LutherKing (not Mrs. Martin Luther King as Epstein had indicated). Thefollowing day, Sunday, Whitson flew back to Washington. The next day,Monday, he informed Sullivan that his instructions had been carriedout and Sullivan commented "Someday I will tell you/about that."Epstein asked him who had paid for the stamps to mail thepackage and Whitson said that he had probably done so utilizing perdiem money. Epstein asked whether he had put a return address on thepackage and Whitson replied in the negative. Epstein asked if Whitsonhad gone to the Miami Office, whether any Agent had met him at theWRW:1m1 (6)1 - Mr. Adams1 - Mr. Mintz1 - Mr. Cregar1 - Mr. Wannall1 - Personnel File of SA Lish Whitson (Out of Service)
[124-10273-10007_multirif.pdf — page 27]
# Memorandum to Mr. AdamsRe: SENSTUDY 75FORMER SUPERVISOR LISH WHITSONASSIGNED INTELLIGENCE DIVISIONMiami Airport, or whether Whitson had discussed this with anyone. Whitson advised Epstein that he had not gone to the Miami Office, that no Agent had met him, and that he had discussed the matter only with Sullivan. At this point, Whitson asked Epstein how he got the story. Epstein merely laughed and did not reply to the question.The foregoing represents the information furnished to Epstein by Whitson. Whitson made the following additional comments and observations.When Sullivan told Whitson he wanted him to fly the package to Miami, he stated that only he, Sullivan, Mr. Hoover, Mr. Tolson, and Mr. Belmont knew of this situation. Sullivan never did explain to Whitson anything more regarding this incident. Sullivan did during Whitson's anniversary celebration in 1968 in Sullivan's office refer to Whitson as "a real pro who knows how to carry out an assignment," and further commented that someday he would tell Lish about the assignment to which he had referred in his remarks.Whitson said that when he arrived at the North Terminal of National Airport, following Sullivan's telephonic instructions, a young man who was unknown to Whitson but who addressed him as "Mr. Whitson" turned a package over to him which was wrapped in brown paper and sealed with sealing tape. It is Whitson's recollection the package measured approximately 8 inches by 8 inches by 1 inch.It is Whitson's recollection that at the time the foregoing occurred, Martin Luther King was either just about to go abroad to receive the Nobel Peace Prize or probably had already gone abroad. It was Whitson's further recollection that sometime shortly after the mailing of the package Sullivan commented to Whitson that the package had not yet been received by Martin Luther King. Because of this remark, Whitson is of the belief that the package was mailed to Martin Luther King at the headquarters of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference and not to Mr. King at the latter's home. Further, it was Whitson's recollection that it was not long after he had mailed the package that Martin Luther King had a personal meeting with former Director Hoover in Mr. Hoover's office.Whitson stated that during the interview Epstein asked Whitson if he had ever written a memorandum regarding this matter, to which Whitson replied in the negative. He was also asked by Epstein if he had ever seen a memorandum on this and Whitson again replied in the negative. Whitson observed that in his opinion the information which was in the possession of Epstein prior to his interview with- 2 - CONTINUED - OVER