Francesco/who-killed-jfk huggingface dataset:
[180-10110-10484.pdf — page 137]
Classification:(This form is to be used for material extracted from CIA-controlled documents.)- 126 -Consulate as Lee Oswald came to the attention of a monitor in the electronic surveillance base-house. 507/ The monitor immediately notified the American technician who then listened to the tape. 508/ The technician had instructions "to alert the Station immediately if a U.S. citizen or English speaking person tries to contact any of the target installations" 509/ The technician called Ann Goodpasture and a meeting was arranged. 510/ The technician marked the tape "Urgent," specifying where the conversation occured on the reel, put it in a box, and delivered it to Ms. Goodpasture within fifteen minutes of the telephone call to Ms. Goodpasture. 511/ The tape was delivered to Boris Tarasoff who transcribed it and returned it to the Station on that same day. 512/As soon as the Station learned that an American had contacted the Soviet Embassy (Ms. Goodpasture began to screen the photographs from the Soviet Surveillance operations. 513/ The photographs from the coverage of the Soviet Embassy, however, were not delivered as prompty as the transcripts. The photographs from October 1, 1963, were not removed from the camera until 3 or 4 October. 514/ Hence, they would not have been received until 4 (Friday) or 7 (Monday) October by the Station. 515/Classification:Classified by derivation:
[180-10110-10484.pdf — page 138]
Classification:(This form is to be used for material extracted from CIA-controlled documents.)- 127 -A cable reporting Lee Oswald's contact with the Soviet Embassy was written and sent to Headquarters by Ms. Manell on 10/8/63. Various reasons have been advanced to explain the seven day delay in sending this cable. David Phillips explained the delay by saying that Mr. Manell was too busy to be bothered by something of such a routine nature. 516/ Phillips stated:Mr. Manell was a busy man, sometimes procrastinating. His wife was working for him, and on one or two occasions I spoke to Mr. Manell kiddingly saying, hey, where is the cable about this fellow, or something like that, or maybe to his wife. I am not sure. In any event, what happened a few days passed and Mrs. Maneli prepared a message--she was working for her husband, and as I recall it she typed it herself, but I am not positive on that point, but in any event, she prepared the cable and took it to Mr. Manell at which time he signed off on it. During that process, it did come to me, also to sign off because it spoke about Cuban matters, and then went 517 to the Chief of Station and was released. 577/A blind CIA memorandum entitled "Delay in sending the first cable about Oswald" was located in a soft file on the Unidentified Man photograph. This memorandum asserts that Dave Phillips "d dn't know what he was talking about." The memorandum's assertion is correct. Mr. Manel did not sign off on the cabe reporting Oswald's contactClassification:
[180-10110-10484.pdf — page 139]
Classification: TOP SECRET(This form is to be used for material extracted from CIA-controlled documents.)- 128 -with the Soviet Embassy. 518/ Mr. Phillips did not sign off on that cable. 519/ The cable did not mention anything about the Cuban Consulate or Oswald's contact with it. 520/ Mr. Phillips never discussed the cable with according to their testimony the Manells 521/ In fact, Mr. Phillips was on a temporary duty assignment in Washington, D.C., and Miami, Florida, from at least late September to October 9, 1963. 522/The blind memorandum referred to above regarding the delay offers another explanation for the seven day lapse before sending the cable. After explaining that the photoproduction would not have arrived at the Station until Monday, 7 October, the memorandum says:A name trace could have been requested on the basis of the name alone but that wasn't the way Win Scott ran that Station. He wanted the photographic coverage tied in with the telephone coverage...sometimes there was a U.S. automobile license number. It was also part of the "numbers game" of justifying a project by the number of dispatches, cables or reports produced. 523/In all likelihood the delay in sending this initial cable was due to a combination of factors. Mr. Manell testified that, in fact, he was not too concerned with the task and left it to his wife. He stated:Classification: TOP SECRETClassified by derivation:
[180-10110-10484.pdf — page 140]
Classification: TOP SECRET(This form is to be used for material extracted from CIA-controlled documents.)- 129 -The only action I took was the action my wife took, was to send the cable to Washington summarizing the information we had on Oswald and his contact with the Embassy... We also asked our headquarters for a trace of an American. That was routine. 524/The delay could also have been partially due to the wait for the photo-production. Ms. Goodpasture did check the photographs and did add a paragraph to the cable concerning a photogarph. 525/Another reason that the cable was delayed was that there was some question within the Station about who had the responsibility to report Oswald's contact with the Soviet Embassy. [Nick introduction to gustatis]Q: What action did you take after seeing this transcript (from the 10/1 conversation)?A: I think I was the third or beyond person who saw it. It was brought to my attention by the chief, the Head of the Soviet Section, and by Ann Goodpasture who was discussing this and who was going to notify headquarters and whose responsibility it was. As I recall, I was told to write it up. [do the nenorandu I think there was a bit of discussion about]Q: Why was there discussion about whose responsibility it was?A: I think because when it was an American it sort of fell between whether we should have to do it, whether it was our responsibility to send this up because it had toClassification: TOP SECRETClassified by derivation:
[180-10110-10484.pdf — page 141]
Classification:(This form is to be used for material extracted from CIA-controlled documents.)- 130 -be accompanied by a memo and it took time, or whether it was Ann's responsibility. It was just a little, not argument, but a discussion about, well, "you do it, I don't want to do it, you handle it," and I had to do it. 526/The reason that the responsibility would have lain with the Soviet Section is obviously because the American was in contact with the Soviet Embassy. Ms. Goodpasture also had a potential basis for responsibility because she was responsible for liaison functions with the Legal Attache, Army, Navy and Air Force on routine couter-espionage cases. 527/ She also assisted the Chief of Station and Deputy Chief of Station on these cases as they occurred. 528,The primary reason for the delay was most likely a combination of the responsibility dispute and the routine nature of the case as perceived by the CIA-of-Barbara Manell stated:(Ann Goodpasture) probably came in--it was really a matter of here is another one of those things again and we were having a little gabble abou: who would send it up because it was pain to do these. I probably, I think I handled it as soon as I got it but I think there was a discussion, as I say maybe a half a day, about who was going to do it. It was done because it was required but it was considered unimportant. 529/Classification:Classified by derivation:NW 48327 DocId:32263889 Page 142
[180-10110-10484.pdf — page 142]
Classification: TOP SECRET(This form is to be used for material extracted from CIA-controlled documents.)- 131 -Important or significant information was usually sent to Headquarters by cable as opposed to the slower dispatch which was sent to Headquarters by diplomatic courier.Cables were sent if the information was of such a nature that it had to be acted on within a day or a day and half or two days. Dispatches took so long that you really could not take any kind of operational action predicated on dispatch. 530/Mr. Manell, the Chief of the Soviet Section in Mexico City recalled that the criterion for a cable as opposed to a dispatch was the perishability of the information being transmitted:The normal criterion would be the urgency attached to that information, the perishability of the information, not its importance necessarily. The perishability was the criterion... If it was something that concerned an event that was going to happen in the two or three days you did not want to use a medium which was going to take a week to get to Washington. 531/Hence, it is possible that Oswald's contact was reported by cable because it was considered significant by the Mexico Station; but this interpretation is not supported by the weight of the testimony.Two other criteria for reporting by cable were pointed out: information concerning Soviets, Cubans and Americans. Generally, "everything Soviet was of highClassification: TOP SECRETClassified by derivationNW 48327 DocId: 32263889 Page 143
[180-10110-10484.pdf — page 143]
Classification:(This form is to be used for material extracted from CIA-controlled documents.)- 13: -priority. Cuban Operations, a lot of cables were sent." 532/And, in the case of Oswald:...[I]nIn this specific case, a cable was used to send this information to Headquarters only because it concerned an American, not because it concerned a matter was considered to be of importance. 333/The tesimony of forme CIA Mexico City officers consistently supports the position that Oswald's initial contact with the Soviet Embassy was considered fairly routine. 534/ The testimony indicates that the routine procedure of the Station was to report such a contact by cable whether it was considered routine or not. 535/ The Station had instructions to report Americans in contact with the Bloc Embassies to Headquarters. because it was of interest to the FBI. 536/ The following quotes illustrate these points. Allan White said:Q: Was Oswald's contact at the Embassies in Mexico considered to be important?A: At the time it first occurred?Q: Yes.A: I would have to conclude that it wasn't recognized as anything extraordinary at the time it first occurred.Q: Why do you conclude that?Classification: TOP SECRETClassified by derivation:NW 48327 DocId: 32263889 Page 144
[180-10110-10484.pdf — page 144]
Classification: TOP SECRET(This form is to be used for material extracted from CIA-controlled documents.)- 133 -A: Because had it beer, it would have been pulled out and sent to Washington either with a complete transcription, a complete excerpt out of the transcription, or the entire tape and transcript would have been sent to Washington by the first available pouch, probably by special courier.Q: Does the fact that Mexico City Station sent to Headquarters a cable reporting Oswald's contact suggest that the station considered the contact to be important?A: You are asking what is the significance of the cable?Q: Yes.A: Well, operational, that is all. Here is an American citizen, at least a man who appeared to be an American citizen, speaking broken Russian and in contact with the Embassy. This is of operational interest. This is the kind of information that we were directed among others, to get back to Washington because they passed that kind of thing to the BureaQ: Were contacts by Americans with the Soviet Embassy considered to be unusual?A: Well, we were 1963 then. They were considered worthy of note, let me put it that way. Of course, from an operational point of view we were looking for any way we could exploit a contact with the Soviet Embassy.Q: Were such contacts by Americans frequent?A: Not terribly frequent. Not terribly frequent. There were members of the exileClassification: TOP SECRET
[180-10110-10484.pdf — page 145]
Classification:(This form is to be used for material extracted from CIA-controlled documents.)- 134 -colony in Mexico City who were in kind of routine contact with the Soviets, usu- ally on cultural matters. No, I would say they were relatively infrequent. That is why--Q: The cable was sentA: Yes. 537/The Chief of the Soviet Section testified on this point also:Q: Was this particular contact considered to be unusual or routine?A: Routine.Q: Why is that?A: During the summer period, particularly, or toward the end of the summer period, a relatively large number of Americans, for various reasors, made contact with the Soviet Embassy. This appeared to me, when I had the information reported, to be just another case of an American contacting the Embassy, for no signifi- cant reasons….Q: In each case that an American contacted the Embassy, would a cable be sent to Washington?A: Yes, indeed. 538/Mrs. Manell, the person who actually handled the reporting, also considered the case to be routine:Q: Was the Oswald contact with the Soviet Embassy considered to be unusual?A: No.Classification
[180-10110-10484.pdf — page 146]
Classification:(This form is to be used for material extracted from CIA-controlled documents.)- 135 -Q: Why not?A: Well, there were cases of other Americans who contacted the Embassy for various reasons. We were only obliged to report the contact of any American with the Soviet Embassy.Q: So in Oswald's case it was just a routine contact by an American as far as you were concerned?A: Yes.Q: If that is the case, then why was the cable sent concerning Oswald?A: That is why I asked you earlier, because in the case of Americans we were required to send it by cable and not by dispatch.Q: Was that a written regulation?A: I don't know if it was written but it was understood at our Station that any Americans who were in touch with the Soviet Embassy [sic] that that fact hac to be known to Headquarters by cable. It was always sent that way, whether we considered it very unimportant or routine or not. So there must have been a regulation but I am not aware of it. 539/The reader should be reminded here that the only conversation that had been linked to Oswald at that point in time was the one that occurred on 1 October.. 540/ The other transcripts had passec over the Manells' and Goodpasture's desk 541/ but had not been linked to Oswald because his name was not mertioned in them. Mrs. ManellClassification:
[180-10110-10484.pdf — page 147]
Classification:(This form is to be used for material extracted from CIA-controlled documents.)- 136 -did not recheck the earlier ranscripts, but did check the Station's index system to see if it had any record of a Lee Oswald, which it did not. 542/Q: A(H)ere it says in prackets, comment by the translator, "the same who phoned a day or so ago and spoke in broken Russian."A: Right.Q: Despite this indication here I believe your tesimony is that you did not go back to check the transcript because by virtue of your memory you knew that Oswald's name had not come up in any ear-lier.conversation, is that correct?A: Yes. 543/So, Ms. Manell drafted the first paragraph of the 10/8 cable on the basis of the 10/1/10:45 conversation alone even though the other information was available. 544/That paragraph of the cable provided an accurate summary of the intercepted conversation. It said:Acc (Soviet wiretap) 1 Oct 63, American male who spoke broker Russian said his name Lee Oswald (Phoretic), stated he at Sovem on 28 Sept when spoke with Consul whom he believed to be Valeriy Vladimiro-vich Kostikov. Sujb asked Sov Guard Ivan Obyedkov who answered, if there is anything new re telegram to Washington. Obyedkov upon checking said nothing received yet, but request had been sent. 545/Ann Goodpasture added a second paragraph to theClassification:
[180-10110-10484.pdf — page 148]
Classification:(This form is to be used for material extracted from CIA-controlled documents.)- 137 -cable. 546/This paragraph concerned a photograph that she had found in the production from one of the photosuveillance bases that covered the Soviet Embassy. 547/ This paragraph said:Have photos male appears be American entering Sovem 1216 hours, leaving 1222 on 1 Oct. Apparent age 35, atheletic build, circa 6 feet, receding hairline, balding top. wore Khakis and sport shirt. Source: LIMITED 548/ALIEMPTY.The explanation for mistakenly linking this photograph to Oswald advanced by the CIA officers in Mexico who had knowledge of the circumstances is that this was the only photograph taken or October 1, the day that the conversation occurred, that appeared to be of a non-Latin, and, hence, possibly an American. 549/Q: Do you know how that photograph was linked to the person mentioned?A: By date. It was taken entering the Soviet Embassy and leaving on the same date this conversation took place. I remember that proceding because we were combing through the takes for that day to determine any person who looked like an American male. I believe this was the only one. 550/The testimony also corroborates that the photographs would have been checked for several days prior to the date ofClassification:
[180-10110-10484.pdf — page 149]
Classification: TOP SECRET(This form is to be used for material extracted from CIA-controlled documents.)- 138 -the conversation.Q: You checked the photosurveillance materials for approximately a four or five day period, is that correct?A: Yes, I think it is.Q: During that four cr five day period... this man was the only non-Latin appearing man whose photograph you found, is that correct?A: I think it was the only non-Latin appearing person's photograph that we found that we could not identify as somebody else. A lot of the people who went to the Soviet Embassy all the time, we came to know who they were. After they had been identified, they made frequent visits there. 551/The review of the photoproduction from LIMITED, the one base that has been made available to this Committee, makes the explanation of the mistake about the identity of the individual due to his being the only non-Latin implausible. The record reflects that unidentified American males were listed on the log sheet as "U A M" after the time was given. The photograph that was linked to Oswald was the only "U A M" that appeared on 2 October 1963. But on September 27, 1963 another "U A M" had appeared. The Committee has concluded from a review of a note that Ann Goodpasture wrote on the log sheet that this individual had not been identified by the time thatClassification: TOP SECRETClassified by derivation:NW 48327 DocId: 32263889 Page 150
[180-10110-10484.pdf — page 150]
Classification: TOP SECRET(This form is to be used for material extracted from CIA-controlled documents.)- 139 -the 10/8 cable was written. The note says: "This is a Mexican named Gutierrez--license plate changed in Feb 64 to Mexican."[^552]This Committee cannot be certain that other "U A M"s did not turn up on the production from the LILYRIC base because that production has not been made available for review.Ms. Goodpasture was asked about this and explained that the man, Gutierrez, was known in the station and that the base house agent vas mistaken in identifying him as an American. [^553]This Committee finds the above quoted explanation hard to accept for other reasons. The October 1 transcript does not indicate that Oswald visited the Embassy on that day, however, it does indicate a visit on the pre- vious Saturday. [^554] Even if he did visit the Embassy on the first of October, the photograph referred to in the cable was not taken until the second of October, 1963. [^555]The photographs from the one surveillance base for 1, 2 and 3 October were on one roll of film and one log sheet was prepared by the base. The text ofClassification: TOP SECRETClassified by derivation:[^552]: [^553]:[^554]: [^555]:NW 48327 DocId: 32263889 Page 151
[180-10110-10484.pdf — page 151]
Classification:(This form is to be used for material extracted from CIA-controlled documents.)- 140 -the log sheet is in black type. The separate days cover-age is set off by a row of red typed percentage (%)marks. 556/Ms. Goodpasture attempted to explain this mistake.Q: Looking at the log, can you now ex- plain to the Committee why the cable referred to a photograph taken on October 1st when actually it was taken on another day?A: If you look at the log here you see at the top--it was just an oversight on the part of the person who was writing that cable. It looks as though the date is 1 October, but if you read it very closely you see there are only two frames that were shot on 1 October and 2 October, it starts up with fram number 3, et cetera, et cetera, and there the shots occur. That is the only explanation I can give.Q: Is your explanation that whomever refer- red to the log simply looked at the date at the top of the page, the date being October 1st, and did not see any reference to the date October 2nd?A: Right. 557/This Committee finds it implausible that Ann Good- pasture, who had the specific duty of "processing for operational leads all. Station photosurveillance info per- taining to the Soviet targe:" since 1960 and had received a rating of outstanding on her annual fitness reports,Classification:Classified by derivation:NW 48327 DocId: 32263889 Page 152
[180-10110-10484.pdf — page 152]
Classifications(This form is to be used for material extracted from CIA-controlled documents.)- 141 -would make such an oversight mistake and not discover it until 1976. 558/ This Committee thinks that the fact that the mistaken date of the photograph was not dis- covered for so long is especially suspect in light of the fact that on the day after the assassination CIA Headquarters sent a cable to Mexico which said:"(FBI) says that photos of man entering Soviet Embassy which MEXI sent to Dallas were not of Oswald. Presume MEXI has double-checked dates of these photos and is also checking all pertinent other photos for possible shots of Oswald. 559/Headquarter's preseumption was evidently mistaken. No record exists that would indicate a reply to this cable by the Mexico City Station.The likelihood that a photograph of Oswald was indeed obtained makes the "explanation," proferred by Goodpasture, et al., even more implausible. 560/ At this time the Committee can not conclude why the original mistake was made even though it does find the explanation offered by Goodpasture, et al., to be highly implausable.Regardless of why the mistake was made, Oswald's contact with the Soviet Embassy and the mistaken photo- graphic identification of him were reported to Headquarters.The 10/8 cable was received at Headquarters on 9 OctoberClassification:Classified by derivation,NW 48327 DocId: 32263889 Page 153
[180-10110-10484.pdf — page 153]
Classification: TOP SECRET(This form is to be used for material extracted from CIA-controlled documents.)- 142 -1963. 561/ The cable, as was routine, went to the Mexico Desk for action. 562/ The person who handled the case for the Mexico Desk was Elsie Scaleti. 563/      Ms. Scaleti initially considered the information routine. 564/ She took the routine steps of requesting a name trace. 565/ From the name trace she learned that there was a 201 file on a Lee Henry Oswald but that it was restricted to a branch of the Agency known as "CI/SIG." 566/ The custodian of Oswald's file, in October 1963, was Ann Elizabeth Goldsborough Egerter of the Counter-Intelligence/Special Investigations Group. This group's purpose and interest in Oswald is detailed in another section of ths final report dealing with whether or not Lee Oswald was an agent or asset of the Central Intelligence Agency. 567/      Ms. Scaleti went to Ms. Egerter and asked to see Lee Oswald's file which was provided to her by Ms. Egerter. 568/ Once the information from the Oswald 201 and the information in the cable from Mexico City was combined, the Oswald contact took on more significance:Q: Now, once the information...had been obtained by you, did that in any way increase the significance of Oswald's contact with the Soviet Embassy?Classification: TOP SECRETClassified by derivation: