Francesco/who-killed-jfk huggingface dataset:
[157-10014-10178.pdf — page 30]
STATEMENTS OF JOHN N. IRWIN IITO FREDERICK D. BARON ON SEPTEMBER 22, 1975Throughout 1960 and until the end of the Eisenhower Administration, I served as Assistant Secretary of Defense. My current business address is c/o Patterson, Bellknap & Webb, 30 Rockefeller Plaza, New York, New York.1. On September 22, 1975 in my law office I reviewed the following documents to refresh my recollection on discussions that took place at certain governmental meetings: the Memorandum for the Record of the Special Group meetings of June 30, 1960 and August 25, 1960; the Memorandum for the Record of the National Security Meetings of July 21, 1960, August 18, 1960, and September 21, 1960; and the Record of Action of the NSC meetings of July 15, 1960 and September 7, 1960. As indicated in these documents, I attended all of these meetings except the NSC meeting of August 18, 1960, where I was represented by Mr. Hadyn Williams. I also reviewed the affidavit of C. Douglas Dillon dated May 21, 1975 which refers, *inter alia*, to a meeting at the Pentagon in the summer of 1960.2. Even after attempting to refresh my recollection by reviewing the above-mentioned documents, I still have no direct recollection of the discussions which they memorialize. I do not recall any discussion of any assassination plan connected to the United States government during the entire course of my
[157-10014-10178.pdf — page 31]
-2-government service. I do not recall whether I ever heard of theCIA adopting any assassination plan; nor do I recall whether Iever heard the President make a statement that could be construedas an order for the assassination of Patrice Lumumba.3. It is my opinion as a former member of the Special   Group and as a participant in the meeting of August 25, 1960 that   the following language from the Memorandum for the Record is broad   enough to cover a discussion of assassination:It was finally agreed that planning for theCongo would not necessarily rule out "con-sideration" of any particular kind of activitywhich might contribute to getting rid ofLumumba.However, I do not remember any such discussion. I do not haveany direct recollection of the substance of that meeting..4. It is my opinion as a frequent participant in NSC   meetings and as a participant in the meeting of September 21,   1960, that the following language from the Memorandum for the   Record is broad enough to cover a discussion of assassination:Mobutu appeared to be the effective powerin the Congo for the moment but Lumumba wasnot yet disposed of and remained a gravedanger as long as he was not disposed of.However, I do not remember any such discussion. I do not haveany direct recollection of the substance of that meeting.5. Although Hadyn Williams probably reported to me on the   substance of the NSC meeting of August 18, 1960, I do not haveNW 50955 DocId:32423566 Page 323
[157-10014-10178.pdf — page 32]
any recollection of such a report nor do I have any other recol- lection of learning by another source of any of the substance of the discussion at that meeting.6. It is likely that I was present at the meeting at the Pentagon to which Mr. Dillon's affidavit refers. However, I do not remember if I was at this particular meeting; nor do I re- member whether I was present at any meeting at the Pentagon where the question of assassinating Patrice Lumumba was raised.7. It is my general opinion that it would be improper for the Director of Central Intelligence to undertake an assassination operation without an express directive from the President.Prepared by me on this 22nd day of September, 1975.Frederick D. Baron,Special Assistant to the Chief CounselSenate Select Committee to StudyGovernmental Operations With Respect toIntelligence Activities
[157-10014-10178.pdf — page 33]
State of New YorkCounty ofSS:JOHN N. IRWIN II, being duly sworn, deposes and says:I have read the attached statement consisting of three pages prepared by Frederick D. Baron, Counsel to the Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations With Respect to Intelligence Activities, based upon my conversation with him on September 5, 1975, and I hereby adopt and ratify this statement which is true and correct to my direct knowledge.John N. Irwin IISworn to before me this day of September, 1975.Notary PublicNW 50955 DocId: 32423566 Page 34
[157-10014-10178.pdf — page 34]
MEMORANDUM OF CONVERSATIONWITH ROBERT JOHNSONSUBJECT: ASSASSINATION OF LUMUMBAPARTICIPANTS: MR. JOHNSON AND MR. WILLIAM G. MILLERDATE: JUNE 10, 1975Mr. Robert Johnson who is now at the Overseas Development Council for the summer, telephone 234-8701, was a member of the National Security Council staff working on Asian affairs in the last two years of the Eisenhower Administration and the first year of the Kennedy Administration. He said that on occasion, when people were on vacation, he was assigned the task of taking notes at NSC meetings. In July or August of 1960, Mr. Johnson had the task of note taking. After a review of world events, by Director of CIA Dulles, which included a description of Mr. Lumumba's activities in Africa, Eisenhower turned to Dulles during the meeting in the full hearing of all those in attendance, and said something to the effect that Lumumba should be eliminated. According to Mr. Johnson, there was a stunned silence for about 15 seconds and the meeting continued. He said he wrote the notes and that if they still exist, they are probably in the Eisenhower Presidential papers. He said that notes generally in presidential papers, official documents of the NSC, remain with the NSC. He said that the impression at the time was one of great shock. He said he had heard of nothing like that since. He said it was uncharacheristic of Eisenhower to speak of anything of substance during NSC meetings, reserving judgment to private meetings. He does not remember exactly who was at the meeting beyond Herter and Dulles, and possibly James Lay, Gordon Gray and Robert Mory.
[157-10014-10178.pdf — page 35]
-2-I asked if he would be willing to say this under sworn testimony. He said that having gone this far he would, but he cautioned that 15 years had passed and he could not vouch for the exact wording, although his memory of the impact of the meeting is firm.Mr. Johnson called one hour after the meeting saying that upon reflection, he would prefer not to testify if at all possible unless it was absolutely essential. He fears retribution, saying that such testimonies in the past have blackballed people who were interested in working for the government. Again, he cited people who had testified for the right cause such as the Dodd case. He said he would testify if it were deemed to be absolutely necessary but he did cant to raise this question.
[157-10014-10178.pdf — page 36]
MEMORANDUMTo: The FilesFrom: Frederick D. BaronDate: September 5, 1975Re: Interview with Robert Johnson regarding the Lumumba Case.I interviewed Robert Johnson by phone this afternoon to supplement the earlier interview (June 10, 1975) and examination (June 18, 1975) that the Committee conducted with him. At the beginning of the conversation I explained there were a number of questions raised by his interview and examination that needed to be answered on the record. Because it was inconvenient for him to make a trip to Washington in the near future and because of the limited amount of additional information he was able to provide, we agreed that I would memorialize the important points of our interview in the form of an affidavit to which Mr. Johnson would swear.The following points are related as faithfully as possible in the manner in which Mr. Johnson made them:1.  I never heard of a CIA plot assassinate Lumumba with lethal biological substances.2.  To the best of my recollection, President Eisenhower turned toward Allen Dulles when he made the statement relating to Lumumba about which I have testified.3.  After the meeting at which I heard the statement by President Eisenhower which I described in my testimony on June 18, 1975, I must have consulted James Lay (Executive Secretary of the NSC) for advice on how to treat the President's statement in my memorandum of the meeting. Mr. Lay was meticulous about including in the record some form of reference to every major subject that was discussed at NSC meetings. So we probably included the President's statement in some form, but in what form I do not know. In general, these memoranda would be as complete as we could make them. Nevertheless, on something as sensitive as this, we may have decided to handle it with euphemism.4.  The NSC meeting of September 21, 1961 is probably not the meeting at which I heard the President's
[157-10014-10178.pdf — page 37]
Memo for the FilesPage TwoSeptember 5, 1975statement in reference to Lumumba. Based on Mr. Baron's representation that I am not listed (either by name or position) among the participants in the memorandum of record, I am convinced that I heard the President's statement at a different meeting.5. After hearing Mr. Baron read portions of the minutes of the NSC meeting of September 21, 1961 to me, I do have a recollection of some of the subject matter that was discussed at that meeting. This would not be unusual, however, because as a member of the NSC Planning Board I received a debriefing on the subject matter of each NSC meeting. I do not, however, have a recollection of the statement by Mr. Dulles as related in the minutes of the meeting: "Lumumba was not yet disposed of and remained a grave danger as long as he was not disposed of."
[157-10014-10178.pdf — page 38]
IX-C-2-g- BlueW(LAY)STATEMENTS BY JAMES LAYINVENTORIED:ON 3/31/77BCTO FREDERICK D. BARON ON SEPTEMBER 8, 1975I was the Executive Secretary of the National Security Council throughout 1960. My summer address is Route 2, Box 273-A, Stanley, Virginia 22851.1. I am unable, after all these years as Executive Secretary' of the NSC and subsequently of the United States Intelligence Board, to recollect the substance of discussions relating to the Congo in NSC meetings during 1960. My principal function at NSC meetings was as the official recorder of the minutes of these meetings, and not as a policymaker. I cannot at this time recall the substance of any specific discussions or decisions relating to Patrice Lumumba in NSC meetings during this period.2. I cannot recall whether there was any discussion of assassinating Lumumba at any NSC meetings.3. I do not recall whether President Eisenhower ever made a remark at an NSC meeting that could have been construed as an order to assassinate Lumumba.4. I do not recollect whether any reference was made at any NSC meeting to an assassination plan or attempt in which the United States was engaged.5. In 1960 Robert Johnson was a member of the NSC Staff as the notekeeper at NSC meetings in the absence of Deputy Executive Secretary Marian Boggs, who normally took the notes and prepared a first draft of the official NSC minutes subject to my review and//NW 50955 DocId: 32423566 Page 39
[157-10014-10178.pdf — page 39]
-2-revision for circulation to the NSC members for approval.6. If extremely sensitive matters were discussed at an NSC meeting, it was sometimes the practice that the official NSC minutes would record only the general subject discussed without identifying the specially sensitive subject or the discussion. In highly sensitive cases, no reference to the subject would be made in the NSC minutes.According to my recollection at this time, there was no fixed procedure for recording the discussions of these sensitive matters which were usually discussed in a very limited attendance. Some of these discussions were of a general nature which did not need to be recorded. Others were of such importance that a full record was drafted by me and my deputy, as he attended, and circulated by highly classified memorandum to each of the NSC members for approval. In some cases, only a record of the conclusions and decisions, if any, were similarly drafted and approved. As approved by the NSC members and finally the President, the record of these extremely sensitive matters were circulated on a very strictly controlled distribution.Prepared by me on this 8th day of September, 1975.![Signature of Frederick D. Baron]Frederick D. BaronSpecial Assistant to the Chief CounselSenate Select Committee to StudyGovernmental Operations With Respectto Intelligence Activities
[157-10014-10178.pdf — page 40]
State of VirginiaCounty of Page ) SS:JAMES LAY, being duly sworn, deposes and says: I have read the attached statement consisting of two pages prepared by Frederick D. Baron, Counsel to the Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations With Respect to Intelligence Activities, based upon my conversation with him on September 8, 1975, and I hereby adopt and ratify this statement which is true and correct to my direct knowledge.![Signature of James Lay]James LaySworn to before me this 26 th day of September, 1975.![Signature of Happy B. Pettit]Happy B. PettitNotary PublicMY COMMISSION EXPIRES AUGUST 20, 1977NW 50955 DocId: 32423566 Page 419
[157-10014-10178.pdf — page 41]
IX-C-2-g-wcia)SEL COMFile:September 23, 1975Mr. James LayRoute 2, Box 273-AStanley, Virginia 22851Dear Mr. Lay:Enclosed please find a copy of the statement I prepared as a result of our recent discussion.Please feel free to make any additions or corrections in the statement. It would be appreciated if you would mail a sworn copy of your statement to me as soon as possible.Thanks very much for your help in this matter.Sincerely,Frederick D. BaronSpecial Assistant to theChief CounselEnclosurebcc: Rhett DawsonFritz SchwarzFDB/do
[157-10014-10178.pdf — page 42]
# STATEMENTS BY JAMES LAYTO FREDERICK D. BARON ON SEPTEMBER 8, 1975I was the Executive Secretary of the National Security Council throughout 1960. My summer address is Route 2, Box 273-A, Stanley, Virginia 22851.1. I am unable, after all these years as Executive Secretary of the NSC and subsequently of the United States Intelligence Board, to recollect the substance of discussions relating to the Congo in NSC meetings during 1960. My principal function at NSC meetings was as the official recorder of the minutes of these meetings, and not as a policymaker. I cannot at this time recall the substance of any specific discussions or decisions relating to Patrice Lumumba in NSC meetings during this period.2. I cannot recall whether there was any discussion of assassinating Lumumba at any NSC meetings.3. I do not recall whether President Eisenhower ever made a remark at an NSC meeting that could have been construed as an order to assassinate Lumumba.4. I do not recollect whether any reference was made at any NSC meeting to an assassination plan or attempt in which the United States was engaged.5. In 1960 Robert Johnson was a member of the NSC Staff as the notekeeper at NSC meetings in the absence of Deputy Executive Secretary Marian Boggs, who normally took the notes and prepared a first draft of the official NSC minutes subject to my review and
[157-10014-10178.pdf — page 43]
-2-revision for circulation to the NSC members for approval.6. If extremely sensitive matters were discussed at an NSC meeting, it was sometimes the practice that the official NSC minutes would record only the general subject discussed without identifying the specially sensitive subject or the discussion. In highly sensitive cases, no reference to the subject would be made in the NSC minutes.According to my recollection at this time, there was no fixed procedure for recording the discussions of these sensitive matters which were usually discussed in a very limited attendance. Some of these discussions were of a general nature which did not need to be recorded. Others were of such importance that a full record was drafted by me and my deputy, as he attended, and circulated by highly classified memorandum to each of the NSC members for approval. In some cases, only a record of the conclusions and decisions, if any, were similarly drafted and approved. As approved by the NSC members and finally the President, the record of these extremely sensitive matters were circulated on a very strictly controlled distribution.Prepared by me on this 8th day of September, 1975.Frederick D. BaronSpecial Assistant to the Chief CounselSenate Select Committee to StudyGovernmental Operations With Respectto Intelligence Activities
[157-10014-10178.pdf — page 44]
State of VirginiaCounty of                                  SS:JAMES LAY, being duly sworn, deposes and says:  Ihave read the attached statement consisting of two pages pre-pared by Frederick D. Baron, Counsel to the Senate SelectCommittee to Study Governmental Operations With Respect toIntelligence Activities, based upon my conversation with himon September 8, 1975, and I hereby adopt and ratify this state-ment which is true and correct to my direct knowledge.                                                James LaySworn to before me thisday of September, 1975.                                                Notary PublicNW 50955 DocId: 32423566 Page 45
[157-10014-10178.pdf — page 45]
September 9, 1975Dear hr, Baron:I received your draft statement today. I'm afraid that it is difficult to record telephone Statements in the way that the speaker used, Therefore I am enclosing a redraft in which I haved tued to to clarify and in some cases conect buy statements without undue modification. I hope that this will prove satisfactory to you,I apologize for my handwritten thanscription but we don't have our good stationery here in the mountanik as we do at om Falls Church home.I am also retrumming your haft statement.Sincerely,James A. Hay, JaDISTRIBTUION original + attachments = F Baroncy + attachments = Research Centercy no atts + bluecy no atts = clerkNW 50955 DocId: 32423566 Page 46
[157-10014-10178.pdf — page 46]
# Statements by James S. Lay Jr.To Frederick D. Baran on Septether 8, 1975I was the Executive Secretary of the hational Security Council, thuonghaut 1960. hry summer address is Route 2, Box 213-A, Stanley, Vagina 22851.1. I am unable, after allthiese years as Executive Secretary of the NSC subsequently of the Whited States Intelligence Board, to recallect the substance of discussions relating to the Congo Din NSC qugetuigs during 1960. Huy by principal of unction at NSC meetings was as as the official recorder of the minutes of these meetings, and Inot as a policymaker, I cannot at this time we call the substance of any w specific discussions or decisions relating to Patrice Lumumba in NSC meetings during this period.2. I cannot recall whether there was any discussion of assassinating Lennuinta at any NSC meetings.3. I do not recall whether President Eisenhower ever made a
[157-10014-10178.pdf — page 47]
remack at au NSC meeting that couldhave been coustuned as an order toassassinate L.4. I do not recollect whether   any reference was made at any   NSC imeeting to an assassivation   plane or attempt in which the limited   "States was engag   is engaged.   gagahert5. In 1968 Robert Johuson was a   member of the N.SC. Staff as the   notekeeper at NSC meetings in the   absence of Deputy Executive Secretary   marion Boggs, who nonvall took   the notes and prepared a frist draft   of the official NSC minutes sulfect   tto nus review and revision for   ciculation to the NSC members for   approval.6. If extremely sensitive mattus   were discussed at are NSC meetings   it was sometimes the practice that the   official NSC minutes would reconf   Only the general subject discussed   without identifying the specially   sensitive subject or the discussion.   Jau liighly scusitive cases, no reference   to the subject would he made in the2NW 50955 DocId: 32423566 Page 48
[157-10014-10178.pdf — page 48]
NSC minutes,7. After having her; Baron read to me the following portion of the memorandum of the NSC meeting of September 21, 1960, I still do not recollect the substance of the discussion that took place at that meeting: (Quotation)
[157-10014-10178.pdf — page 49]
STATEMENT BY "ROBERT MARANA"TO FREDERICK BARON ON NOVEMBER 14, 1975I am a current employee of the Central Intelligence Agency. My current address is c/o Review Staff, Central Intelligence Agency, Langley, Virginia.1. In 1960, I was employed by the CIA and one of my responsibilities in the course of my employment was to serve as the case officer at Headquarters for an agent who operated under the cryptonym "WIROGUE." I read most of the cable traffic relating to WIROGUE until the point of the termination of his relationship with the Agency.2. To the best of my knowledge, I participated in all training that WIROGUE received in preparation for his assignment to the Congo in 1960.3. WIROGUE was not trained in medical immunization in my presence. I am not aware that he was provided with any such training.4. I have no knowledge of any CIA plot to assassinate Patrice Lumumba. I have no knowledge that WIROGUE was ever connected to a plot to assassinate Lumumba, nor have I heard any hint or suggestion of such a connection.5. I hereby affirm that "Robert Marana" is an alias which is registered at the CIA along with my true identity. My true signature is affixed to this affidavit. The Senate Select
[157-10014-10178.pdf — page 50]
-2-Committee will receive a copy of this affidavit from whichmy true signature will be deleted. This statement will remainon file at the CIA and will be available for verification purposesfor not less than five years.![signature of Frederick D. Baron]Frederick D. BaronFrederick D. Baron, Special Assistantto the Chief Counsel, Senate SelectCommittee to Study GovernmentalOperations With Respect to IntelligenceActivitiesNW 50955 DocId: 32423566 Page 51
[157-10014-10178.pdf — page 51]
MEMORANDUM FOR THE FILESFrom: Gregory TrevertonINVENTORIED:ON 3/31/77August 29, 1975Subject: Kennedy Library Tape Recording of March 13, 1963National Security Council MeetingOn this date, I listened to a portion of the tapeof the March 13, 1963 meeting of the National SecurityCouncil (President present). I listened to it severaltimes in order to check it against the Library trans-cript of that meeting.The relevant portion of the statement by John McConereads as follows:"With respect to Cuba, the thinking in the Agency is...we have to first get rid of the Soviets...troops, andas stated ((several words garbled)) and use every resource wehave available--political, diplomatic, otherwise--to accom-plish that. Once that is done, then we believe that themonolithic structure of the Castro regime can be broken up.Maybe we'll have to catalyze it a little bit. But we thinkthat there are enough indicators of distress within themilitary and within his political organization so thatonce the Soviets are out some...military coup can be..will be brought about which will remove the Castrogovernment, and with a strong possibility of replacingthat government with a government more favorable to ourinterests in the Western Hemisphere. Now, this is...there's a lot of ifs connected with that, but it seemsto use, after having thought about this a good deal, thatsome such action as that is a more probably course ofaction that would be successful than to try to out..toenvisage an uprising on the part of the population in theabsence of the military...With the military and securityforces on behalf of Castro, they can very easily frustrateand defeat any civilian uprising. I think, as time goeson, that our principal problem is going to be dealingwith the future of Cuba and the future of Latin America.I think the problems of the Bay of Pigs and the Octoberincident and the missiles will disappear, and more andmore attention is going to be brought on the part of thepeople on the Hill...is going to be...is how we're goingto dispose of this problem."Then the President speaks.
[157-10014-10178.pdf — page 52]
TOP SECRETORIGINALVol.1 OF 3NATIONAL SECURITY INFORMATIONUnauthorized Disclosure Subjectto Criminal SanctionsThe United States Senate R1018Report of ProceedingsINVENTORIEQON 3/1/77EGHearing held beforeSenate Select Committee to Study GovernmentalOperations With Respect to Intelligence ActivitiesTuesday, September 2, 1975Washington, D. C.(Stenotype Tape and Waste turned overto the Committee for destruction)WARD & PAUL410 FIRST STREET, S. E.WASHINGTON, D. C. 20003(202) 544-6000TOP SECRET