Francesco/who-killed-jfk huggingface dataset:
[180-10110-10484.pdf — page 170]
Classification:(This form is to be used for material extracted from CIA-controlled documents.)- 159 -A: He would appreciate the distinction between the two. 601/If Mr. Scott did in fact make this notation prior to the assassination of John Kennedy, this Committee has not been able to determine why "sic" was used. 602/The description of Oswald is marked on this cable with a double black line, a check mark and the notation "24 years old" in Ann Goodpasture's hand-writing. 603/ At*At what point - give date*this point at least Ms. Goodpasture and Allan White, the DCOS, realized that the photograph they had described in MEXI 6453 was not of Oswald. 604/ But this realization was evidently not shared by all the officers in the station. Ms. Goodpasture remembers that there was some controversy in the station about whether the man described in the 10/11 cable was the same man who had been picked up by the Station's photographic surveillance. Ms. Goodpasture remembers that she believed, based on the cable, that the photograph reported in MEXI 6453 was not of Oswald. She said that she argued over the identification with Win Scott and that he said, "Oh, that may be incorrect and so forth. But there was some quibbling over it." 605/The routing slip on the 10/11 cable indicates some ofClassification:
[180-10110-10484.pdf — page 171]
Classification(This form is to be used for material extracted from CIA-controlled documents.)- 160 -the dates when subsequent Mexico City Station actions occurred. Ms. Goodpasture noted that "We should ask HQ for photo. No?" Barbara Manell noted that the dissemination requested by Paragraph 4 of the cable was done on 15 October 1963. Win Scott wrote, "Please set up "P" file on Lee Henry OSWALD and put all data we have into it. Photos?" 606/ The document was sent to the files on 15 October 1963. 607/ Hence, we know that Oswald's Mexico "P" file was opened on or about 15 October 1963 and that Win Scott asked that "all" informa- tion be included in the file. There is substantial reason to believe that most, if not all, of the information available to the Station was incorporated into the file at that time. 608/The 10/11 cable greatly increased the significance of Oswald's contact with the Soviet Embassy in the eyes of the Mexico City Station just as the name trace results reported by that cable had made the matter more signifi- cant to the officers involved at Headquarters. 609/This cable aroused the Station's operational interest in Oswald.Q: To your knowledge did that (the 10/11 cable) in any way enhance the importance of Oswald'sClassification:
[180-10110-10484.pdf — page 172]
Classification: TOP SECRET(This form is to be used for material extracted from CIA-controlled documents.)- 161 -contact with the Soviet Embassy?A: Oh, yes, sure, it did. The fact that he had that kind of background. Sure, he became someone of considerable operational interest. Again, there was nothing other than operational interest.Q: In all liklihood that cable would have prompted the people at the station to go back and look at the earlier transcripts?A: Yes, I would think so. [^610]This Committee believes that Station personnel did, between October 11 and October 15, go back and recheck the transcripts and connect the important substantive calls to Oswald. Under normal operating procedures a tape of Oswald's calls to the Soviet Embassy should not have been erased until 16 October, 4 to 5 days after the case took on added significance. [^611] The one transcript of the call on 10/1/63 that had definitely been linked to Oswald prior to receipt of the 10/11 cable bore a reference to an earlier conversation by a man who spoke broken Russian, the text of the 10/1 call allowed that the prior call had probably occurred on September 28, 1963. [^612] It should have been possible at that point to compare the tapes to see if they were in fact the same caller. Indeed, a notation made by Ann Goodpasture on a newspaper article in 1964 suggests that this was the case.Classification: TOP SECRETClassified by derivation:NW 48327 DocId:32263889 Page 173[^610]: [^611]:[^612]:
[180-10110-10484.pdf — page 173]
Classification:(This form is to be used for material extracted from CIA-controlled documents.)- 162 -The notes says.:The caller from the Cuban Embassy was unidentified until HQ sent traces on Oswald and voices compared by (Tarasoff.)[^1]The cable traffic after the assassination confuses this point rather than clarifies it. This will be dealt with in more detail in a subsequent section. An examination of documents in Lee Harvey Oswald's Mexico City Station P file and the cable traffic from Mexico City to Headquarters after the assassination, raised a possibility that at least one tape of Cswald's voice existed as late as 16 October 1963. [^2]Assuming that the 10/1/63 call in which an individual identifies himself as "Lee Oswald" was handled in an expedited manner, the tape ard the transcript would have been in the Station by the following day at the latest. [^3]If the tape had been held for the normal two-week retention period, it would have been erased on or about 16 October. The tape from the: 9/28/63 conversation would have probably been in the station by the first or second of October at the latest. [^4] Moreover, it would not have normally been erased until on or about 16 October also. It seems clear that the tapes, under normal procedures would have been retained until at least the middle ofClassification:---[^1]: 613/[^2]: 614/[^3]: 615/[^4]: 616/
[180-10110-10484.pdf — page 174]
Classification: TOP SECRET(This form is to be used for material extracted from CIA-controlled documents.)- 163 -October. An examination of the documents does not clarify this question but rather adds confusion to the issue.Several documents and cables deal with the tapes and a voice comparison of the recorded conversations. In Oswald's "P" file there is a newspaper clipping of an article from the 21 October 1964 Washington Post. The article, by Robert S. Allen and Paul Scott, is entitled "CIA Withheld Vital Intelligence from Warren Commission."One paragraph from that article says:The investigators also are trying to determine why the CIA in its preassassination report to the State Department on Oswald's trip to Mexico City gave details only of the defector's visit to the Russian Embassy and not the Cuban Embassy. The CIA did not report the latter visit until after Kennedy's assassination in Dallas.Next to that paragraph Ann Goodpasture wrote:The caller from the Cuban Embassy was unidentified until HQ sent traces on Oswald and voices compared by (Tarasoff). 617/That statement is very clear in saying that a voice comparison was made. The cable traffic that went from Mexico to CIA Headquarters after the assassination is not so clear.Classification:Classified by derivation:NW 48327 DocId: 32263889 Page 175
[180-10110-10484.pdf — page 175]
Classification:(This form is to be used for material extracted from CIA-controlled documents.)- 164 -On 23 November, the CIA Headquarters asked the Mexico City Station to send the full transcripts of Oswald's conversations and "original tapes if available" to Headquarters as soon as possible by a special courier. 618/On that same day, Ann Goodpasture sent a cable to Headquarters reporting the 9/28/53 conversation. That cable said, in part, "Station unable compare voice as first tape erased prior receipt second call." 619/ Later that same day Ms. Goodpasture wrote another cable which said:(Tarasoff) who did transcriptions says Oswald identical with person para one speaking broken Russian who called from Cuban Embassy 28 September to Soviet Embassy. 620/The next day the Mexico City Station informed Headquarters that it had been unable to locate any tape of Oswald's voice. "Regret complete recheck shows tapes for this period already erased." 621/The statement in MEXI 7023 that a voice comparison was not possible because of the first tape being erased prior to the second tape being received is inconsistent with the statements made in testimony and in other cables 622/ and with the procedure then in effect at the station at that time. 623/ It is, therefore, considered highlyClassification:
[180-10110-10484.pdf — page 176]
Classification: TOP SECRET(This form is to be used for material extracted from CIA-controlled documents.)- 155 -unlikely that a tape would be held only one or two days, the situation that is implied by the statement in MEXI 7023. The other statements by Ms. Goodpasture in the cables and on the newspaper article; clearly indicate that a voice comparison was made. Ms. Goodpasture was questioned about this:Q: To your knowledge, was a voice comparison ever made between the tapes to determine whether the same person was speaking in each one?A: I do not know. I did not make one. I do not know whether someone else made one or not. There is a transcript, a cable here, in which the transcriber of the Soviet tape says that it is the same voice, which would lead one to believe that he made a voice comparison, but it just may have been that he, from his memory, came to that conclusion. 624/Q: On the lower righthard corner of the newspaper article that is contained there, marked off with a dark line is a paragraph. Kindly read that paragraph, starting with the words "The investigators.."(Pause.)A: This would suggest--Q: One moment.A: --Tarasoff compared the voices on a tape of October.Q: Whose handwriting appears?A: That is mine.Classification:Classified by derivation:
[180-10110-10484.pdf — page 177]
Classification:(This form is to be used for material extracted from CIA-controlled clocuments.)- 165 -Q: That indicates that the caller--could you please read that to us. Read what you wrote that day.A: "The caller from the Cuban Embassy was unidentified until Headquarters sent traces on Oswald." Now, that would have been in answer to the cable that was dated 8th October. I believe their cable was 18 October, "and voices compared by Feinglass." Feinglass was the pesudonym used by Tarasoff.Q: In fact, that indicates--A: He compared the Cuban Embassy voices with the others, with Oswald's call, in which he used his name.Q: When would that have happened?A: I said 18 October because I thought that was the date of the cable. 10 October. [^625]Boris Tarasoff testified that he had not been queried at all about Oswald in 1963 and that he had not done a voice comparison. [^626] Herbert Manell testified that Tarasoff did not do a voice comparison but connected the two conversations in his marginal comments in the transcripts on the basis of memory. [^627]Whether or not Mr. Tarasoff or someone else did a voice comparison of the tapes, it is likely that the tapes did exist until at least the 16th of October and would have been available for such a comparison. It is possible that the connection between the 10/1/63 call and the 9/28/63 call was made on the basis of Mr. Tarasoff'sClassification:
[180-10110-10484.pdf — page 178]
Classification:(This form is to be ved for material extracted from CIA-controlled documents.)- 16' -In any event the record clearly indicates that the tapes should have been available, and probably were available, as late as 16 October 1963. 628/ This is significant because it was after receipt of the 10/10 cable from Headquarters that the Oswald case took on a more than routine coloring.The increased significance that the Oswald visit took on during the period from October 11 to October 16, 1963, could have provided the station with reason to retain the Oswald tapes. 629/Ms. Goodpasture was asked what became of the Oswald tapesQ: What happened to that tape containing Oswald's voice?A: What happened?Q: What happened to that tape?A: I do not know.Q: Do those tapes exist today?A: What?Q: Do those tapes exist today?A: If they do, I do not know where they are.Classification:
[180-10110-10484.pdf — page 179]
Classification:(This form is to be used for material extracted from CIA-controlled documents.)- 161-Q: Are you aware of the fact that, after the as- sassination, it has been alleged that some tapes were given to the FBI to listen to and that it was said that these tapes contained Oswald's voice on them!A: Someone asked me about that, but I do not think that I had those tapes. I do not remember if I did, and I was not aware that we gave any to the FBI. I do not know whether Mr. Manell got tapes from Mr. Tarasof and passed them to the FBI, or if the Chief of Station or Deputy passed anything to the FBI. I just do not know. 630/On the whole most CIA off cers who testified stated that, if a tape of Oswald's voice existed at the time of the assassination, they did not know anything at all about it. 631/ One CIA officer, the Chief of the Branch respon- sible for Mexico, testified that he believed the tapes did exist at the time of the assassination:Q: Were they able to locate the original tapes?A: I think so.Q: Do you recall what was done with those tapes?A: No..Q: Did you ever--A: I never heard them.A: You never heard them!A: No.Q: On what basis do you say the original tapes were found?Classification:
[180-10110-10484.pdf — page 180]
Classification(This form is to be ued for material extracted from CIA-controlled documents.)- 169 -A: I had the impression chat after the assassination they did a lot of transcribing. I may be wrong.Q: Let us look at (MEXI '025.) Paragarph four there, which indicate that the person who did the transcript and says, "Oswald is identical with the person in an earlier paragraph who spoke broken Russian and called on 28 September." That indicates that some sort of a voice compari- son was made.A: Yes. Tapes were probably still in existence. 632/The Tarasoffs do not remember ever doing, or being asked to do, a voice comparison of the Oswald tapes. 633/But the evidence, albeit circumstantial, seems to indi- cate that the tapes were in existence and that the voices were compared by someone. 634/ Herbert Manell suggested that Tarasoff may have confirmed the fact that the two calls were made by the same person by memory after re- ceipt of the 10/11 cable. 63!/However, the Station made the connections, whether by voice comparison and/or by comparison of the substantive information in the 10/11 cable to the substantive informa- tion in the transcripts, the conversations were linked to Oswald prior to the assassination and probably by the time that the "P" file was opened on or about 16 October 1963. 636/ Ms. Goodpasture vas also asked about this:Q: On October 1st, you found out that Oswald had been at the Russian Embassy the precedingClassification:
[180-10110-10484.pdf — page 181]
Classification:(This form is to be used for material extracted from CIA-controlled documents.)- 170 -Saturday. Was any effort made to check your materials from the surveillance opera- tion, the photographic surveillance opera- tion, or from the telephonic surveillance operation to get additional information on this?A: I do not know whether I checked it immediately or not at this stage. I do know that they were checked thoroughly after the assassination. In fact, I think they were checked thoroughly after the information came back from Washington iden- tifying a Lee Oswald. 637/On October 15, 1963, a 'P" file was opened on Oswald. 638/ That same day the CIA Mexico City Station requested that Headquarters send them a photograph of Oswald. 639/ On that date also Ms. Manell drafted a local dissemination memo regarding Oswald's contact with the Soviet Embassy. 640/ By this date at least the 10/1/ 10:45 call, the 9/28/11:51 call, the 9/27/4:05 call, and the 9/27/4:26 call had been linked to Oswald. 641/On 16 October 1963 the memorandum drafted by Ms. Manell was circualted at the U. S. Embassy. It said:1.  The following information was received from a usually reliable and extremely sensitive source: On 1 October 1963, an American male contacted the Soviet Embassy and identified himself as Lee OSWALD. This officer (sic) determined that OSWALD had been at the Soviet Embassy on 28 September 1963 and had talked with Valeriy Valdimirivoch KOSTIKOV, a mem- ber of the Consular Section, in order to learn if the Soviet Embassy had received a reply from Washington concerning his request. WeClassification:
[180-10110-10484.pdf — page 182]
Classification: TOP SECRET(This form is to be used for material extracted from CIA-controlled documents.)- 171 -have no clarifying information with regard to this request.2. Our Headquarters has informed us that the OSWALD above is probaly identical with Lee Henry OSWALD, born on 18 October 1939, in New Orleans, Louisiant, a former radar operator in the U. S. Marine Corps who defected to the Soviet Union in October 1959.3. This office will advise you if additional information on this matter is received. [^642]When Ms. Manell was asked why she had stated that it had been "determined" that Oswald had been in contact with the Soviet Embassy on 2.3 September she said that it must have been because she had rechecked the transcripts by this time as otherwise she would not have used such certain language. [^643] When asked why the 10/16 memo said that there was no clarifying information on Oswald's "request" when it was known by this time that he was seeking a visa, Ms. Minell said that "They had no need to know all those other details" [^644]There are no indications that any other actions were taken by the Mexico City Stacion prior to the assassination. [^645]Even though the Station's actions after the 10/11 cable were not highly extensive, it is inaccurate and misleading to say that those actions were limited to re-Classification:NW 48327 DocId: 32263889 Page 183[^642][^643][^644][^645]
[180-10110-10484.pdf — page 183]
Classification:(This form is to be used for material extracted from CIA-controlled cocuments.)- 172 -questing a photograph of Oswald from Headquarters. 0-ther actions included rechecking the transcripts and discovering the substantive ones that concerned Oswald and reporting the information in MEXI 6453 and DIR 74830 to various components in the U. S. Embassy in Mexico City in a misleading manner. Hence, the fact that Oswald was seeking a visa and had been in contact with the Cubans as well as the Russians was known prior to the assassination, and the Station's actions prior to the assassination were more comprehensive than merely requesting a photograph; although if any action other than a file check was taken, no record of that action has been made available to this Committee.It is unlikely, but possible, that this information that was developed by the Mexico City Station after 10/11/63 was reported to Headquarters. Elsie Scaleti pointed out that a report of this additional information on Oswald's activities in Mexico "would have been expected."646/ Ms. Scaleti's belief that the information should have been reported to Headquarters is shared for identical reasons by her superior at Headquarters. 647/The testimony from the people involved, both at head-Classification:
[180-10110-10484.pdf — page 184]
Classification:(This form is to be used for material extracted from CIA-controlled documents.)- 173 -quarters and in Mexico, while often uncertain, is, generally, that they do not remember that such a cable was sent. Ms. Scaleti said that she could not recall that Mexico had sent any other information to Headquarters prior to the assassination, but added, I "could not swear to that."[^648] The head of the Mexico Branch at Headquarters was certain that this information was reported but he could not recall the form of the report or whether it occurred before or after the assassination.[^649]Robert Shaw first testified that, to his knowledge, the information was not reported prior to the assassination and then added "but I would have no way of knowing."[^650] The Deputy Chief of Station in Mexico, Mr. Allan White, was also unsure on this point:Q: Did they ever indicate to Headquarters that Oswald had been to the Cuban Embassy as well as to the Soviet Embassy and that he wanted a visa?A: I would have to assume that they did. I realize that "assume" is a bad word.Q: You don't have personal knowledge one way or another?A: No, prior to the assassination I would not.[^651]Ann Goodpasture was also unsure of her recollection in this area:Classification:NW 48327 DocId:32263889 Page 185[^648]: [^649]:[^650]: [^651]:
[180-10110-10484.pdf — page 185]
Classification:(This form is to be used for material extracted from CIA-controlled documents.)- 174 -Q: But Headquarters was never appraised of that voice comparison?A: I think they were in a cable.A: Prior to the assassination?A: No, I do not think they were prior to the assas- sination.xxxQ: It is determined that the same person was talking on each tape and there is no follow-up to head- quarters, even though Headquarters clearly consi- dered this to be significant?A: The follow-up was made by disseminating this information from the traces locally and trying to identify Oswald, trying to locate the man. That is the way the follow-up was made. We thought that he may still be in Mexico.Q: The point is, however, that upon the making of a voice comparion, if, in fact, that was done, that information' was not communicated to anyone.A: I do not know if it was or not. You would have to check the file completely, the cable traffic, to see if it was. To the best of my knowledge, it was not until after the assassination.xxQ: In fact, headquarters did not know that he had also been to the Cuban Embassy?A: At that point, no.Q: At least, according to your recollection, it was not until after the assassination that Headquarters was informed of that fact?A: That is probably right. 52/Only one person who was interviewed by this Committee was certain of her recollection. Ms. Barbara Manell wasClassification:
[180-10110-10484.pdf — page 186]
Classification: TOP SECRET(This form is to be used for material extracted from CIA-controlled documents.)- 175 -certain that a second cable reporting Oswald's contacts with the Cuban Embassy had been sent to Headquarters prior to the assassination.Q: It does not strike you as more significant that the American contacts the Soviet Embassy and he also contacts the Cuban Embassy? To me that would make him seem more significant and therefore, if you found out about this after the time the (first) cable was sent you would have sent another cable.A: I did not send another cable but I know another cable was sent. I didn't send it.Q: Another cable concerning Oswald was sent?A: I think so. Where is the whole file? Wasn't there a cable saying he was in touch with the Cuban Embassy?Q: We have not seen one.A: I am pretty such there was.Q: Did you send that cable?A: No, I did not send the cable. When I found out about it I remember this, I said how come?Q: Who did? Do you know"A: I don't know who sent it. I think Ann (Goodpasture) might have. She might have sent a follow-up one with this information 653/The staff of this Committee suggested that Mr. Phillip's clear recollection of involvement in reporting Oswald's visit to the Cuban Embassy and that he was seekingClassification: TOP SECRET