Francesco/who-killed-jfk huggingface dataset:
[180-10110-10484.pdf — page 154]
Classification:(This form is to be used for material extracted from CIA-controlled documents.)- 143 -  A: As I recall that is what I thought made it very significant.Q: Can you explain why?A: Any American who had tried to renounce his U.S. citizenship in the Soviet Union, now having again a relationship with the Soviet Embassy would lead one to wonder why he had tried to renounce his citi- zenship in the first place, and why he was still in contact with the Soviets, whether there was a possiblity he really was working for the Soviets or what. 569/Ms. Egerter remembers that the cable from Mexico City caused a lot of excitement. She was shown the 10/9 cable.Q: Is this the cable hat cause the excitement?A: Yes, one of them.Q: Why was excitement caused by this cable?A: "Contact with Kostikov."Q: What is the significance of the contact with Kostikov?A: I think we considered him a KGB man.Q: Any other reason for the excitement?A: He had to be up to something bad to be so an- xious to go to the Soviet Union. At least that is the way I felt. 570/After reviewing Oswald's 201, which CI/SIG loaned to the Mexican Desk where it reamined until the time of the assassination, Ms. Scaleti drafted a response toClassification:
[180-10110-10484.pdf — page 155]
Classification: TOP SECRET(This form is to be used for material extracted from CIA-controlled documents.)- 144 -the Mexico City 10/9 cable and also disseminated in-formation about Oswald to other branches of the Ameri-can intelligence community. [^1] These two documentswere drafted at the same time and were sent within severalhours of each other. [^2] Several aspects of thesetwo documents are interesting and illustrate variouspoints, as well as raise serious questions..The cable which Ms. Scaleti sent to Mexico says, in full:1.  Lee Harvey Oswald who called Sovemb 1 Oct probably identical Lee Henry Oswald (201-289248) born 18 October 1939, New Orleans, Louisiana, former radar operator in United States Marines who defected to USSR in Octy 1959. Oswald is five feet ten inches, one hundred sixty five pounds, light brown wavy hair, blue eyes.2.  On 31 Oct 1959 he attempted to renounce his United States citizenship to the United States Embassy in Moscow, indicating he had appliec for Soviet citizenship. On 13 Feb the US emb Moscow received an undated letter from Oswald postmarked Minsk on Feb 1961 in which subj indicated he desired return of his US ppt as wisted to return to USA if "we could come to some agreement concerning the dropping of any legal proceedings against me." On & July on his own initiative he appeared at the Emb with his wife to see about his return to the States. Sub stated that he actually had never applied for Soviet citizenship and that hisClassification: TOP SECRETClassified by derivation:[^1]: 71/[^2]: 572/
[180-10110-10484.pdf — page 156]
Classification:(This form is to be used for material extracted from CIA-controlled documents.)- 14 -application at that time had been to remain in USSR and for temporary extension of his Tourist visa pending outcome of his request. This application, according to Oswald, contained no ref to Soviet citizenship. Oswald stated that he had been employed since 13 Jan 1960 in Belorussian Radio and TV Factory in Minsk where worked as metal worker in research shop. Oswald was married on 30 April 1961 to Marina Nikolaevna Pusakova, a dental technician born July 1941 USSR. No HDQS traces. He attemped arrange for wife to join him in Moscow so she could appear at Emb for visa interview. His American ppt was returned to him. US Emb Moscow stated twenty months of realities of life in Soviet Union had clearly had maturing effect on Oswald.3. Latest HDQS info was (State Department) report dated May 1962 saving (State) had determined Oswald is still US citizen and both he and his Soviet wife have exit permits and Dept State had given approval for their travel with their infant child to USA.4. Station should pass info ref and para one to (U.S. Embassy, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Navy, and Inmigration and Naturalization) locally. Info paras two and three originates with (State).5. Ref and possible identification being dissemi- nated to HDQS of (FBI, State, Navy and I&NS). Pls keep HDQS advised on any further contacts or positive identification of Oswald. 573/Ms. Scaleti wrote this cable. 574/ Ms. Egerter was one of the people who reviewed the cable for accuracy. 575/The cable was released by the Assistant Deputy DirectorClassification:
[180-10110-10484.pdf — page 157]
Classification:(This form is to be used for material extracted from CIA-controlled documents.)- 146 -of Plans, Thomas Karamessine:. 576/The teltype which Ms.Scaleti wrote was sent to the Department of State, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Department of the Navy. 577/ This teletype says:1.  On 1 October 1963 a reliable and sensitive source in Mexico reported that an American male, who identified himself as Lee Oswald, contacted the Soviet Embassy in Mexico City inquiring whether the Embassy had received any news concerning a telegram which had been sent to Washington. The American was described as approximately 35 years old, with an atheletic build, about six feet tall, with a receding hairline.2.  It is believed that Oswald may be identical to Lee Henry Oswald, born on 18 October 1939 in New Orlears, Lousiana, a former U.S. Marine who defected to the Soviet Union in October 1959 and ater made arrangements through the United States Embassy in Moscow to return to the United States with his Russian wife, Marina Nikolaevna Pusakova, and their child.3.  The information in Paragraph One is being disseminated to your representative in Mexico City. Any furthe information received is being made available to the Immigration and Naturalization Service. 578/The first substantive conflict between these two documents are the dissimilar descriptions of Oswald. The response sent to Mexico gave a fairly accurate description of Oswald while the dissemination to other governmentClassification:NW 48327 DocId: 32263889 Page 158
[180-10110-10484.pdf — page 158]
Classification: TOP SECRET(This form is to be used for material extracted from CIA-controlled documents.)- 147 -agencies gave the description that had mistakenly been connected to Oswald by the 0/9 cable from Mexico City. 579/Ms. Egerter testified that he could not explain why the description discrepancies occurred. 580/ When Ms. Scaleti was asked why this occurred she first responded taht there was a rule that prevented the Agency from dissem-inating any information obtained from a third agency of the government. 581/ Hence, the accurate desdiprtion of Oswald which was from information furnished to the Agency by the State Department could not be included in the dissemination. 582/ It was pointed out to Ms. Scaleti that the information in the second paragraph of the teletype was from the State Department sources and that the Mexico City Station had been instructed to dis-seminate the description locally which she claimed could not be disseminated due to a third agency rule. She was asked the question again and the following exchange occurred:A. Let us start over again. The actual physical description on Lee Henry Oswald from (the 10/10 cable) was sent to the Station to assist them in further investi-gation to see if they knew of anybody or had anybody down there that really fitted what we thought was an accurate physical description of the Oswald that we had aClassification: DClassified by derivation:
[180-10110-10484.pdf — page 159]
Classification:(This form is to be used for material extracted from CIA-controlled documents.)- 118 -file on... When we came to...the teletype to State, FBI and Navy, we did not, and I would not normally even today, provide those investigative agencies with the physical description of Lee Henry Oswald as we thought it to be then.We provided them only with our intelligence, not with State Department intelligence which gave the stuff out about the audio and the possible physical description. The wording here in paragraph 1 on our teletype...is worded that the American was described. As I told your man from your Committee earlier, it possibly would have been better, although it did not occur to me at the time and this is the way those things were written in those times, to say that an American described as this could possibly be identifiable and qualified but the normal procedure in 1963 was to provide to the other government agencies information and intelligence from our sources.xxQ: Were you aware when you sent out the cable and the teletype that you were giving different descriptions?A: Yes. I assume I was. I don't remember now. This is some time ago.Q: Was there any intention of your part to deceive any other agencies by giving a description contained in that paragraph in the teletype?A: None at all. 583/Ms. Scaleti was interviewed by Committee staff members on 3/30/78. She was questioned, as she indicates in the above quote at that time about the descriptionClassification:
[180-10110-10484.pdf — page 160]
Classification: TOD CEONET(This form is to be used for material extracted from CIA-controlled documents.)- 149 -discrepancy. When Ms. Scalei was shown the 10/9 cable on that occasion she seated that she would not have taken the description of the individual in paragraph two to be a description of Oswald. 584/ The description discrepancy was specifically pointed out to Ms. Bustos and she was specifically questioned on that point. The report of that interview says:We next pointed out to Ms. Scaletti the fact that the response to Mexico had a correct description of Oswald and the dis- semination had an incorrect one. She said that the info in the first paragraph of the dissemination came from MEXI 6453 and that explained the incorrect description. We pointed out to her the fact that she had the correct description and that had already told us that she did not associate the de- scription in 6453 with Oswald, and that she had said that the cable and teletype had been prepared simultaneously by three knowledgable people. She said, first, that the correct description would not have been put in the dissemination because it came from the file review. I pointed out that all of the infor- mation in the second paragraph of the dissemina- tion was from the file review. She responded that they had not been sure that the "Lee Os- wald" referred to in 6453 was the same as "Lee Henry Oswald" on whom they had a file, hence they would not have had included a description from 6453 that she did not think was connected to Oswald. She said that it had obviously been a mistake that coesn't matter now, but if she had it to do over again, she would not put any description in the dissemination be- cause she was not sure that either applied toClassification: FOR OPOOPS
[180-10110-10484.pdf — page 161]
Classification: TOP SECRET(This form is to be used for material extracted from CIA-controlled documents.)- 150 -the man who identified himself as Lee Oswald at the Embassy in Mexico. 585/The second point of interest that is illustrated by the 10/10 cable and teletype is the inference that can be made from reviewing paragraph 3 of the teletype, paragraph 5 of the cable, and Thomas Karamessines signing off on the cable, that the CIA was asking for, and promising, a further investigation of Oswald without a specific request from any other government agency who might have had, as the '77 IGR says, "investigative responsibility."Herbert Granell,the Chief of the Soviet Section in Mexico City recognized such a routine investigative responsibility as part of the normal course of his duties. He stated:One of our responsibilities was to assist the FBI in identifying people who might become Soviet agents, particularly in America. 586/As a matter of fact, the Chief of the Branch of the CIA responsible for the Mexican operations at Headquarters thought this was one of the Mexico City Station's strongest and most successful areas of endeavor.They (Americans) were detected enough so that J. Edgar Hoover used to glow every time that he thought of the Mexico City Station. This was one of our outstanding areas of cooperation with the FBI. 587/Classification:Classified by derivation:
[180-10110-10484.pdf — page 162]
Classification:(This form is to be used for material extracted from CIA-controlled documents.)- 151 -The request for further investigation and dissemination contained in paragraph 5 of the 10/10 cable to Mexico was the reason that the cable was sent to the Assistant Deputy Director of Plans for release. 588/The Chief of the Mexico Branch was questioned extensively on this point:A: Well, it went up to Mr. Karamessines because it involved disseminating information on an American citizen to the U.S. government agencies, you see. At that time--probably still--the CIA dic not investigate or pass around informatior on American citizens unless it were requested to by another government agency, either in that particular case or by some standard operating procedure. In other words, the CIA, seeing an American abroad, observing an American abroad, observing an American abroad engaging in some skullduggery, wou'd inform the responsible U.S. agency here and sit and wait for instructions before doing anything further. In this case, we were passing on information to other U.S. government agencies in Mexico City and this probably went to other places in Washington as well.Q: This particular information was disseminated to other agencies without a request of any such agency. Is chat correct?A: Yes.Q: This fit into the other category of cases where disseminations were made?A: Disseminations would be made to other interested agencies, and any information we came across had action taken to follow up to take investi-Classification:
[180-10110-10484.pdf — page 163]
Classification:(This form is to be used for material extracted from CIA-controlled documents.)- 152 -gative steps. Dissemination would only be taken if another agency requested it, either specifically in that case, or unless it were a part of standard operating procedure, which would have been agreed upon with another agency.Q: Was any follow-up action contemplated by (the 10/10) cable?..A: Yes. "Please keep Headquarters advised of any further contacts or for positive identification of Oswald."Q: That would be considered follow-up?A: Yes. They were instructed to stay alert and report any further evidence of this man's presence. Therefore, Mr. Karamessines had to sign off on it.Q: Mr. Karamessines had to sign off on it because follow-up action was contemplated?A: With regard to a U.S. citizen abroad.Q: For purposes of clarification, I think you said that there were two situations where Mr. Karamessines would have to sign off. One would be where another agency requested the dissemination?A: Yes. No--not the question of the dissemination. It is a question of operational action being taken.Q: A request for operational action. What is the second example?A: Well--Q: Would the Agency itself decide to take operational action?A: Ordinarily, operational action in an ordinary case would not require Mr. Karamessines approval at all. It was only because an American citizen was involved. That interest in an American citizen might come about because of a specific statement of interest aboutClassification:
[180-10110-10484.pdf — page 164]
Classification:(This form is to be used for material extracted from CIA-controlled clocuments.)- 153 -this individual from another U.S. government agency or it might come about because of a standard operating procedure.For example, we had an agreement with the FBI that we would follow up leads on any American citizen in Mexico City who appeared around the Soviet Embassies, and so on, or anybody who was down there appearing to defect, which we might learn through our telephone intercepts.We could just as well have sent this cable out without Mr. Karmessines releasing it. I do not know why we did it.Q: In fact, you pcinted to something which I was going to ask ycu about. I was wondering why somebody as high up in the Agency as Mr. Karamessines was the releasing officer.A: I would have been because of the U.S. citizen aspect, because so many other U.S. Government agencies were involved, State Department, FBI and the Navy. I suppose one of these things is the Navy. (ine of them could be the Immigration and Naturalization Service.Q: Let me attempt to summarize again. Karamessines would be responsible for signing off on this because operat onal action pertaining to an American was taken?A: Yes.Q: Either pursuan; to the request of another government agency or pursuant to some standard operating procedure of the Agency itself.A: Yes.Q: Any other reason that you can think of?A: No..Q: I believe you indicated that there was an arrangement,Classification:
[180-10110-10484.pdf — page 165]
Classification: TOP SECRET(This form is to be used for material extracted from CIA-controlled ciocuments.)- 154 -or an agreement, with the FBI that any activities by Americans around the Soviet or Cuban Embassy would be reported and followed up on by the Agency. Was that agreement in writing?A: I do not know. It probably was in writing some- where. It antedated my tenure, and the agreement was not in the files. It would have been in the files of the DDP or of the CI Staff. 589/The Chief of the Mexico Branch hence believes that further investigation of Oswald was requested by CIA Headquarters without the prior expression of interest from another government agercy with "investigative respon- sibility." This request for "operational activity" concern- ing an American abroad is advanced as the reason for the Assistant Deputy Director of Plans signing off on the cable. Even though the cable was brought to Karamessines' attention and he did sign off on it, Mr. Scelso told this Committee that that was not necessary due to a standing agreement with the FBI under which the CIA had agreed to investigate Americans in Mexico in contact with the Soviet Embassy without any specific request from another agency. 590/This recollection is corroborated by other testimony and documents. 591/ Elsie Scaleti also recalled that it would not have been necessary, in 1963, to bring such a request for operational action to the ADDP's attention. 592/ She suggested that the reason for bringing it to the ADDP'sClassification:Classified by derivation:
[180-10110-10484.pdf — page 166]
Classification:(This form is to be used for material extracted from CIA-controlled cocuments.)- 155 -attention did not have to do with the request for operational action, but because Oswald's contact was considered important enough to merit his attention:Q: Why would someone as high up in the organization as Karamessines ask to be the releasing officer of this particular cable?A: I can only surmise now that I might have thought or what several of us might have thought at the time, that since it involved somebody of this nature who had tried to renounce his citizenship, who was in the Soviet Union, married to a Soviet wife presumably, which is very strange, and now the contact with the Soviets, we could have a security, a major security problem. This was one way of informing him and getting attention at the higher level. 593/Even though the CIA denies such an agreement (if it was in writing) that covered the CIA's investigation of American citizens in Mexico, this Committee is certain, on the basis of the above detailed evidence, that such an agreement existed, either formally or informally. 594/Hence, the assertion in the 1977 IG report that "Oswald was not an investigative responsibility of the CIA" 595/ is seemingly inaccurate and misleading.This Committee has attempted to determine what actions, if any, were taken by the CIA's Mexico City Station after Headquarters responded to the initial report of Oswald's contacts with the Soviet Embassy. In thisClassification:
[180-10110-10484.pdf — page 167]
Classification: TOP SECRET(This form is to be used for material extracted from CIA-controlled documents.)- 156 -In this respect, two assertions of the '77 IGR are important:1) that it was not discovered that Oswald was seeking a visa to Russia and that he hid also been in contact with the Cuban Embassy until November 22, 1963; and 2) that the Station did "nothing other than ask Headquarters on 15 October for a photograph of Oswald" because no other government agency had made an official request for further information. 596/ It has already been shown that the "official request" that the Agency claims was not forthcoming was, in fact, not necessary and that, as a matter of fairly routine operating procedure, the CIA Headquarters requested a follow-up on the information already reported about Oswali. It has also been shown that the Oswald matter, after the name trace, was done at Headquarters, was considered to be fairly significant by the Headquarters officials involved. In this regard, it should be pointed out that Headquarters communicated its concern to Mexico by requesting in paragraph 5 of DIR 74830 more information on Oswald. It should also be noted that the CIA Headquarters also, by notifying the interested government agencies that "Any further information received on this subject will be furnished to you" 597/ belied the necessity of one of the agenciesClassification: TOP SECRET
[180-10110-10484.pdf — page 168]
Classification:(This form is to be used for material extracted from CIA-controlled documents.)- 157 -making an official request for further action. Hence, the excuse offered for the c'aimed lack of action by the Mexico Station is invalid and the question becomes 1) whether or not that Station did any follow-up; 2) whether they did discover additional information about Oswald prior to the assassination; 3) whether that information, if any, was reported in an accurate and expeditious manner; and 4) if it was not reported, what was the reason for the failure to report.The Mexico City Station received DIR 74830 on 11 October 1963. The Mexico City copy of this cable is in Lee Harvey Oswald's Mexico City "P" file along with the Station routing slip. There are several interesting aspects to this copy of the cable and there is evidence that provides indications of the Stations' actions and the timing of those actions.There are several marginal notations on this document. Perhaps the most interesting is the notation "Sic" with an arrow drawn to the 'Henry" in the name "Lee Harvey Oswald." That notation was made by Win Scott when he read the cable on the day it was received in Mexico. 598/This notation struck Commitee investigators as very strange because it was a possible indication that. WinClassification:
[180-10110-10484.pdf — page 169]
Classification:(This form is to be used for material extracted from CIA-controlled documents.)- 158 -Scott knew, at the time the cable was received, that Lee Oswald's middle name was not "Henry." David Phillips was questioned about that possibility:Q: Do you have any reason to believe that when this cable was received in October of 1963 Mr. Scott knew that cable's reference to Lee Harvey Oswald was incorrect?A: No, I don't recall that, but reading this obviously at whatever time he wrote that "sic" on there he felt it was incorrect or he would not have spotlighted it that way. But I don't have any recollection. I don't have any recollection that we know before this cable came back down that it was Lee Harvey Oswald. 599/The explanation most often advanced was that Mr. Scott often used the symbols "Sic" and "aka" interchangeably and that all he was indicating here was that the "Lee Oswald" from the taps was also to be indexed and filed under the additional name "Lee Henry Oswald."600/ Mr. Phillips was also asked about this explanation:> [Figure: A handwritten signature of 'Win Scott']Q: Was he the kind of individual that would have interchanged or used interchangeably the words, the letters "aka" and "sic" interchangeably as having the same meaning? Do you appreciate that?A: Yes. I don't think so. He was an intellectual. His great secret was that he wrote poetry. He didn't want anyone else to know that. He was very well educated, extremely well read, and no, he is not the kind of man--Q: He would appreciate the distinction?Classification:Classified by derivation