Francesco/who-killed-jfk huggingface dataset:
[180-10147-10176.pdf — page 7]
then the weed to assist perens working inside the Sorid thaion (Ibid.)The 6 Branch also relied upon the LIA's Contacts Bursion andthe FBT as sources of this type of information, as well as collecting information from the State Department and the press concer Americans in the Soviet Union. (Ibid., p.4)Awing this interview (Casasia) resection of the dission rectioned in the 25 November 1963 nemo was that it took place (Ibid., p.4).during the last days of his traile with the 6 Brat his would have preced the discussion sometime in July 1962. He stated that the date sted for the discussion in the mens must have deer erroneous as de was thevelling with his family between veget in the summer of 1960 and did not begin his assignment withthe 6. Branch, until September of that your (Ibid., pp. 4-5).(Casasia) stated that at the time the Oswall use wes discussed, de assured that Oswald must have been sent not of the Soviet Union by the KBB. Therefore exercising caution, he did not attempt.8
[180-10147-10176.pdf — page 8]
to debrief Oswald that suggested that Oswald be debriefed by(*KUTLAMP*)which represented the office of Operations as office which debriefedpersons through, its Contacts Division or "other suitable channels"by which, the meant the FBI or the Immigration and Naturalization(Ibid., pp.4-5)Service. He did not believe that this had been done atthat time because this type of information would have been routinelypassed in to the CIA and to this section of such a debriefing des-(Ibid., p. 5)occurred if whatever information he had on Oswald at the time was inthe form of State Department dispatches. (Ibid.)In the memorandum, (*Casasia*) states that he told his subordinatessomething to the effect of "Don't push too hard to get the information(*CIA FOIA Document # 435-173-A*).we need, because this individual looks odd. He explained in theinterview that this statement reflected the CIA's assessment ofOswald based on the unusual facts that Oswald was permitted bythe Soviets to remain in the USSR and was further permitted to marrya Soviet citizen (*HSCA Staff Interview of CIA Employee, 8/17/78, p.5*).
[180-10147-10176.pdf — page 9]
(Lurawis) stated that dis interest in Oswald as expressed in the memorandum was just a lead and that it was not unusual that there (Ibid., p. 9) led [sic] as follow-up regarding a debriefing of Oswald. He wrote no memo at the time of the discussion as it was not customary to write memos regarding leads that were discussed and subsequently dismissed as being unimportant. (Ibid.)
[180-10147-10176.pdf — page 10]
(Walter P. Haitegen), the person to whom (assassin) 25 November 1963. letter was written was the employed by the CIA as chief of (HSLA Staff Interview of CIA Employee, 6/13178 p.1) (Haitigen's recollection was in the Soviet section of the (Paris station) for some. It is addressed in asinterview with HSCA staff members that because of the nature of(assassin) position under (non-official) cover. (assassin) frequentlywrote informal memos such as the one in FOIA #435-173-A whichwere then passed on through the use of cut-outs to the (Paris station). (Ibid.)These memoranda would then be forwarded to CIA Headquarters.generally by (Hattigan) however, in this particular instance, Robert L.(Kempell), who served under (Hattigan) received and forwardedthe memorandum to Headquarters (as (Hattigan) was in the hospital(Ibid.)INFORMATION(Hattigan) expressed the general Agency opinion that had the CIAwished to contact a returning defector, it would have done so through-15-
[180-10147-10176.pdf — page 11]
the Contacts Division of theHeffoffice of Operations but that it was not standard operatingreturning defectorsprocedure to interview because this job fell within the FBI'sjurisdiction. (Ibid., p.2).
[180-10147-10176.pdf — page 12]
T. (Homes) also told the HSCH.G. Leasasen/ stated that the CIA had a specific interest in Minsk.As it was known that the city contained some type of special design plants.That may have involved aviation, nuclear energy or bacteriological warfare. (Interview of CIA employee, pp.5-6). (Cassais) think, although she did not believe that LHO was involved.He believed that working in any type of security facility, anyone would have been in the area of those plants would have been of interest to the agency. (Ibid., p.4).However, even with the presence of the design plants, Minsk was not identified as a security or military priority area. (Ibid.).(Cassais) believed that the CIA maintained a large volume of information on the Minsk radio factory in which Oswald worked. (Ibid.).Information was stored in the office of research and reporting. This fact was corroborated by another CIA employee. Another former CIA employee, (Donald Deneslys) who worked in the Foreign Documents Division in the Soviet Branch of the Directorate of Intelligence in 1962.
[180-10147-10176.pdf — page 13]
told the HSCA that she specifically recalled collecting intelligenceregarding the Minsk Radio Plant. (HSCA Interview of CIA Employee, 9/26/78, p.1.).In fact, (Sereye) claims that, during the summer of 1962, he revieweda contact report from representatives of the CIA's New York fieldoffice who interviewed a former Marine who had worked at theMinsk Radio Plant following his defection to the USSR. (Ibid.) Thisperson, who (Sereye) believes may have seen Oswald, had been livingwith his family in Minsk. (Ibid. (Sereye) advised the Committee thatthe contact report was filed in a volume concerning the Minsk Radio Plantwhich should be retrievable from the Industrial Registry Branch, that wasthen a component of the Office of Central Reference. (As of 1962.)The HSCA requested that the CIA provide the Committee with the above-described contact report and the volume of materials concerning the MinskRadio Plant. (HSCAa review of the documents in the volume onthe Minsk Radio Plant revealed that no such contact report existed in that file.(Cable from CIA to HSCA of 10/17/78,ARK Doc. #012.023).14
[180-10147-10176.pdf — page 14]
the file review did indicate that in 1975, Daniel Schorr had made a similar request and was informed by the CIA that no such report existed. (Ibid.)
[180-10147-10176.pdf — page 15]
The Select Committee on Asrassinations requested that the centralSatelligence Agency provide a written statement indicating whetherwhether, from 1958-1963, interviewed or debriefed returning Americandefectors to the Soviet Union as a matter of standard operating(HSCA letter to CIA, 4/5/78).procedure of The Agency was also requested to indicate the circum-stances under which an interview would be initiated if such inter-views were not conducted as standard operating procedure (Ibid.)The Agency's response indicated that the Counterintelligence Staffreviewed the files of 117 persons who had "defected" to the USSRbetween 1958 and 1963 and who had subsequently returned to the United(CIA Memorandum B. Hugh Tovar to Special Assistant to ELO for External Oversight, 4/20/78)States. This review revealed that only ten of the 117 individuals hadbeen contacted by any component within the CIAbeen contacted, and that the CIA had no procedure for the systematicdebriefing of such persons. Instead, the contacts that were initiated ap-peared to be based on "opportunity and circumstance" (Ibid.).Another memorandum explained that the CIA had no standardoperating procedure with suspect to debriefing returning American defectors.
[180-10147-10176.pdf — page 16]
6161as the Agency relied upon the FBI for reporting the results of interviews.It may have conducted in connection with its responsibility for internal (CIA Memorandum, Tovar to Special Asst. to RH6 for External Oversight, 5/25/78).security matters. The agency further stated that there were no manuals or regulations for the period of 1958-1963 which specifically address the subject of American defectors. (Ibid.)In fact, the ten persons with whom the CIA admitted having had contact did not strictly meet the specific requirements as requested in the H.SCA's request. Several of the ten individuals had not actually defected to the USSR during the period 1958-1963, but had resided (CIA Memo from Tovar, 4/20/75)there for at least ten years prior to 1958. Three of the ten individuals (Ibid.) returned to the United States and were subsequently debriefed after 1963.The CIA employee who conducted the research in preparation for the Agency's response told the HSCA that the requirements he had utilized in arriving at his conclusions had been somewhat broader than those requested in order to include all those persons regarded as defectors who were residing in the Soviet Union during the time period in question, rather than just those who actually defected at that time. (HSCA Staff Interview of CIA Employee, 7/26/78).17
[180-10147-10176.pdf — page 17]
The House Select Committee on Assassinations conducted on a review of defectors' files in order to determine whether defectors other than Oswald were routinely debriefed upon their return to the United States. The Committee requested that the CIA provide a list of persons travelling to the Soviet Union during the period from 1958 to 1963, including both visitors and those persons considered by the Agency to be "defectors".In response, the CIA provided a computer listing of 380 individuals entitled "U.S. Persons Who Have or May Have Defected to the USSR Between 1958-1963".(Attachment to 27 January 75 memo, E. Hugh Tovar to S.A. KAHLE) The Agency stated that this listing represented U.S. persons, including some non-U.S. citizens who owed some measure of allegiance to the United States, who had either defected or shown some intention of defecting to the USSR within for the requested time period. (27 January 75 memo E. Hugh Tovar to S.A. KAHLE)As this list was compiled from a more detailed computer program18
[180-10147-10176.pdf — page 18]
on American defectors, a more detailed description concerning theseindividuals was requested and provided in an expanded version ofto Higical dist. This mackice listing included the following infor-matise when relevant or available for each individual: name, date and placeKailof Winth, 201 file number, arrival in Soviet Union, departure.M. Soviet Union, employment in Soviet Union, most current address,and other miscellaneous information compiled from the individuals201 file and for third agency documents, regarding this individual.("Expandile Compile hat of U.S. Person...")The Committee compiled a list of persons who appeared fromthe information available in the Agency's uspended text, to be U.S.citizens born in the United States, who defected or attempted to defectto the Soviet Union between the years of 1958 and 1963 and who re-In addition,turned to the United States within the same period of time. Thereon -the Committee included.Waded in to that were individuals from an October 1960 Staterequest forDepartment information from the CIA regarding these person whomthey considered to be defectors to the Soviet Union or Soviet bloc countries.
[180-10147-10176.pdf — page 19]
The HSCA requested files on twenty-nine individuals who fit the above-described criteria and the CIA provided files on twenty-eight individuals in whom they maintained records. These 201 files were reviewed as well as any existing Domestic Contact Division files regarding these persons.The HSCA file review revealed that, in the case of six of the individuals, there is no indication that they were returned to the United States. In some of these cases, the files contained a report from a source who observed or spoke with the subject and then reported the contact to the CIA, but there is no indica-of direct contact with any of these persons on the part of the CIA.In regard to the other twenty-two defectors, the file review shows that there is no record of CIA contact with eighteen of them. Again, four of those files contain a report by a source who advised the agency of their contact.One file regarding a former military person contains a report of a briefing conducted by military intelligence.The circumstances of the CIA's contact with the four remaining defectors differed in each case. The file of one individual reflects that he had.20
[180-10147-10176.pdf — page 20]
actually been during in the USSR since 1933 and returned to the United States in 1962. He was debriefed in 1964 by a CIA officer using (Department of)(Defense) Power after applying for employment in response to a newspaper advertisement. (Rev. of Irving). Another returning defector, Harold Coryell, was rewriteingly interviewed by a CIA (in the American embassy) officer.leges upon his departure from the Soviet Union in route to the United States.While Coryell's file indicates that the Agency considered it desirable that a full and controlled debriefing by the CIA and FBI be conductedand Regleton wrote to the FBI suggesting a joint debriefing, there is no evidence in Coryell's 201 file nor in any OCD documents which suggest further contact on the part of the CIA.More extensive debriefings were conducted of the other two defectors, Robert E.Webster, a plastics expert with the Reed Development Corporation whose defection to the Soviet Union in 1959 was highly publicized, returned to the United States in June of 1962. Webster had been employed in the Soviet Union at the Leningrad Scientific Institute of Plastic Machines.21![image of the number 2 with the letters BR underneath]
[180-10147-10176.pdf — page 21]
Shortly after his return to the United States, Webster was debriefed in this area territory by representatives from the CIA's office of Operations and in conjunction with representativesSR/16 applying the air force. It was decided that a more extensive debriefing over in radio and Webster was subsequently brought to the WashingtonD.C. area where he was debriefed for a period of two weeks. The debriefing reports include a chronology of Webster's life and the CIA's assessment oflived as well as a large body of information regarding life in the SovietUnion, Webster's work, the and biographical information on persons hehad met during his residence there.Likewise, (Sichius Kucasibelli) who had lived in the Soviet Union fornearly four years, was contacted for purposes of debriefing shortly afterhis return to the United States, after June of 1963. His initial debriefing included such subjects as the motivation to defect to the USSR as wellas well as activities engaged in during his Moscow stay, relocationfrom Moscow to Kiev, and general aspects of life such as residence controlsand costs. While the CIA felt it was inferable to debrief Kucasibelli.22
[180-10147-10176.pdf — page 22]
more thoroughly due to this current status of attempting to regain U.S. citizenship, the Agency expressed in interest in eliciting more information on such topics as cost of living, medical care, consumer goods, highways, transportation and restrictions upon travel within Kiev.It becomes clear from the review of files on those defectors that debriefing by the CIA of defectors was, in fact, somewhat of a random occurrence. However, in the instances in which the Agency did choose to debrief returning American defectors, the Agency appeared to be interested in topics of general interest regarding life in certain areas of the Soviet Union. In this regard, the persons who were debriefed were similar to Oswald in that they defected and returned within the same general time period and also spent his time in the Soviet Union in areas of interest to the CIA.
[180-10147-10176.pdf — page 23]
It appears from an examination of all available materials, that Lee Harvey Oswald was not interviewed by the CIA following his return to the United States from the Soviet Union although persons in a branch of the Soviet Russia Division expressed an interest in interviewing Oswald, they never followed up on this interest. There is also no indication that the Collection Division of the office of Operations interviewed Oswald.While the CIA did conduct interviews of some tourists who visited the Soviet Union during the period 1959-1963 as well as some American citizens who defected to the Soviet Union and then returned to the United States, there was no standard policy to interview all persons in either category. Thus, the fact that Oswald was not interviewed was more the rule than the exception according to procedures followed by the CIA at that point in time.HSCA was advised that at the time of Oswald's return, there were many Soviet citizens leaving USSR and the debriefing program probably concentrated on them.
[180-10147-10257.pdf — page 0]
# Assassination Records Review Board## Final Determination NotificationAGENCY : HSCARECORD NUMBER : 180-10147-10257RECORD SERIES : STAFF PAYROLL RECORDSAGENCY FILE NUMBER :December 8, 1995Status of Document: Postponed in PartNumber of releases of previously postponed information: 5Reason for Board Action: The Review Board's decision was premised on several factors including: (a) the significant historical interest in the document in question; (b) the absence of evidence that the release of the information would cause harm to the United States or to any individual.Number of Postponements: 2Postponements: All the postponements in this document represent Social Security numbers.Reason for Board Action: The text is redacted because the public disclosure of the redaction could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, and that invasion of privacy would be so substantial that it outweighs the public interest.Substitute Language: SSNDate of Next Review: 2017Board Review Completed: 10/24/95Released under the John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992 (44 USC 2107 Note). Case#: NW 88326 Date: 2025NW 88326 Docld:32277338 Page 1
[180-10147-10257.pdf — page 1]
# JFK ASSASSINATION SYSTEMIDENTIFICATION FORMAGENCY INFORMATIONAGENCY : HSCARECORD NUMBER : 180-10147-10257RECORDS SERIES : STAFF PAYROLL RECORDSAGENCY FILE NUMBER :DOCUMENT INFORMATIONORIGINATOR : HSCAFROM :TO :TITLE :DATE : 08/01/77PAGES : 5SUBJECTS : REEVES, FLOYD L.DOCUMENT TYPE : PRINTED FORMCLASSIFICATION: UNCLASSIFIEDRESTRICTIONS : 3CURRENT STATUS : RELEASED WITH DELETIONSDATE OF LAST REVIEW : 10/26/95OPENING CRITERIA :COMMENTS: Box 3[R] - ITEM IS RESTRICTEDDate: 07/08/95Page : 1
[180-10147-10257.pdf — page 3]
# PAYROLL AUTHORIZATION FORM(Please Use Typewriter or Ballpoint Pen) U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Washington, D.C. 20515 (Any erasures, corrections, or changes on this form must be initialed by the authorizing official.)To the Clerk of the House of Representatives:I hereby authorize the following payroll action:| Employee Name (First-Middle-Last)          | Effective Date || ------------------------------------------ | -------------- || Floyd L. Reeves                            | 7/15/78        || Employee Social Security Number            | Type of Action || 254-66-1801                                |                || Employing Office or Committee/Subcommittee |                || Assassinations                             |                |* Appointment* Salary Adjustment* Title Change* Termination (At close of business on effective date)* Leave without pay (Beginning with effective date above and ending close of business__________Specify Date __________)(If type of action is an Appointment, Salary Adjustment, or Title Change, complete appropriate information below.)| Position Title | Gross Annual Salary* || -------------- | -------------------- |* If employee is a civil service annuitant (includes U.S. House of Representatives), the gross annual salary shown should include the annuity received by the employee plus the salary received from the employing office.(If Committee Employee, complete appropriate item below.)1. Standing Committee: Staff Clerical or Professional.2. Special (Investigative staff of Standing Committee) or Select Committee: Authority—H. Res. 956 of 95th Congress.3. Joint Committee.(If Employee of an Officer of the House, complete item below.)Position Number______ If applicable, Level________ Step________I certify that this authorization is not in violation of 5 U.S.C. 3110(b), prohibiting the employment of relatives.Date July 7, 1978(If appropriate, signature of Subcommittee Chairman or Ranking Minority Member) LOUIS STOKES, CHAIRMAN(Type or print name and title of above official) (Type or print name of Authorizing Official)(Title - If Member, District and State)All appointments and salary adjustments for employees under the House Classification Act and for Committee employees, except those of the Committee on Appropriations, the Committee on the Budget, and the Joint Committees, must be approved by the Committee on House Administration.APPROVED:Chairman, Committee on House Administration| Office of Finance use only:                 |                   || ------------------------------------------- | ----------------- || Office Code__________                       | ID_________       || Monthly Annuity $________.00 as of ________ | Benefits_________ ||                                             | Payroll________   |Copy for Initiating Office or Committee(Revised: August 1, 1977)NW 88326 Docld:32277338 Page 4
[180-10147-10257.pdf — page 4]
# PAYROLL AUTHORIZATION FORM(Please Use Typewriter or Ballpoint Pen) U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Washington, D.C. 20515 (Any erasures, corrections, or changes on this form must be initialed by the authorizing official.)To the Clerk of the House of Representatives:I hereby authorize the following payroll action:| Employee Name (First-Middle-Last) | Effective Date || --------------------------------- | -------------- || Floyd L. Reeves                   | 8/1/77         || Employee Social Security Number | Type of Action                                         || ------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------ || 254-66 1801-                    | ☑ Appointment                                          ||                                 | ☐ Salary Adjustment                                    ||                                 | ☐ Termination (At close of business on effective date) |Employing Office or CommitteeAssassinations(If type of action is an Appointment or Salary Adjustment, complete the following information.)| Position Title     | Gross Annual Salary || ------------------ | ------------------- || Staff Investigator | $24,000             |(If Committee Employee, complete appropriate item below.)1. ☐ Standing Committee: Staff- ☐ Clerical or ☐ Professional.2. ☑ Special or Select Committee: Authority-H. Res. 465 of 95th Congress.3. ☐ Joint Committee.(If Employee of an Officer of the House, complete item below.)Position Number__________If applicable, Level_______Step_______I certify that this authorization is not in violation of 5 U.S.C. 3110(b), prohibiting the employment of relatives.Date August 1 1977Louis Stokes(Type or print name of Authorizing Official)Chairman(Title-If Member, District and State)All appointments and salary adjustments for employees under the House Classification Act and for Committee-employees, except those of the Committee on Appropriations, the Committee on the Budget, and the Joint Committees, must be approved by the Committee on House Administration.APPROVED:Chairman, Committee on House AdministrationOffice of Finance use only:Office Code__________Monthly Annuity $___________.00Copy for Initiating Office or CommitteeNW 88326 Docld:32277338 Page 5
[180-10147-10257.pdf — page 5]
MEMORANDUMTO: Mr. BlakeyFROM: Edward M. Evans, Chief InvestigatorDATE: July 28, 1977SUBJECT: Floyd Reeves - InvestigatorMr. Reeves has agreed to take a position with us as Staff Investigator assigned to the Martin Luther King, Jr. Task Force. After an initial period here reviewing the case, he will be assigned to the Atlanta area.He will start on August 1, 1977 at $24,000.EME: ekNW 88326 Docld:32277338 Page 6