Ciassification: Sone (This form is to be used for material extracted from ClA—controlled documents.) On May 8 Langosch further disclosed AMMUG's knowledge of the Oswald case. 4 (Ibid, attach. 5) Langosch paraphrased AMMUG's. knowledge of Calderon as. follows: I thought that Luisa Calderon might have- had contact with Oswald because 1 learned about 17 March 1964, shortly before I made a trip to Mexico, that she had been involved with an American in Mexico. The information to which I refer was told to me by a DGI case officer... I. had commented . to (him) that it seemed strange that Luisa Calderon was receiving a salary from the DGI although she apparently did not do any work for the Service. (The case officer) told me that hers was a peculiar case and that he himself believed that she had been recruited in. Mexico by the Central Intelligence Agency although Manuel Pineiro, the Head of the DGI, did not agree. As I recall, (the case officer) had investigated Luisa Calderon. This was because, during the time she was in Mexico, the DGI had intercepted a letter to her by an American who signed his name OWER (phonetic) or something Similar. As you know, the pronunciation of Anglo-Saxon names is difficult in Spanish_so I am not sure of how the name “mentioned by Hefnandézi should be spelled. It could have“been-"Howard" or something Pe different. As I understand the matter, * the letter from the American was a love letter but indicated that there was a clandestine professional relationship between the writer and Luisa Calderon. I also understand from (the case officer) that after the interception of the letter she had been followed and seen in the company of an American. I do not know if this could have been Cswald...(Ibid.) Classification: oh emt rm mm et >a a7 on a Classified by derivation: “EYB.. SUR. AR. “U. “GSO. “Ah. cs & ¥ 000683 NSE, UA, GDA “aRaip.
Classification: _ -SECR 5 ‘(This form is to be used for material extracted from ClA—controlled documents.) On May 11, Raymond Rocca wrote a memorandum =) Seenéoh Pia elicited from AMMUG (CIA Doc. FOIA 687-2957; fase re Richard Helms regarding the information 5/11/64, Rocca Memorandum) Rocca proposed that "the DDP in person or via a designee, perferably the former, discuss the AMMUG~1 situation on a very restricted basis with Mr. Rankin at his earliest convenience either at the Agency or at the Commission headquarters. Until this takes place, it is not desirable to put anything in writing. (Ibid. p. 2) on May 15, 1964, Helms wrote Rankin regarding AMMUG 's information about the per, indicating its sensitivity and Operational significance. (CIA Doc. FOIA 697-294, 5/15/64, Helms Memorandum) Attached to Helms’ communication was a paraphrased accounting of Langosch's May 5 memorandum. (Ibid.) In that attachment the intelligence associations of Manuel Vega Perez and Rogelio Rodriguez Lopez were set fotth? However, that attachment made no reference whatsoever to Luisa Calderon. Howard Willens of the Warren Commission requested as a follow-up’'to the May 15 memorandum, sl tie a ee ad Classification: 009034 : " Classified by derivation: Ae. EAB, NE, = YEA, ER, a NAGE, = NUR, Qi, “Ne P enter f a
-~ 63 - : Classification: S (This form is to be used for material extracted from ClA—<controlled documents.) access to the questions used ain Langosch's a e ra ‘ interrogation of AMUG. (cra. Doc. ‘Fora 739- 316, Memorandum) On June 18, 1964 Arthur Dooley of 6/19/64, Rocca!s Gounterintelligence fasearch and Analysis Group took the questions and AMMUG's responses to the Warren Commission's offices for Willen's review. ed Willens saw Langosch's May 5 memorandum. The only mention of Calderon was as follows: “The precise. relationship of Luisa Calderon to the DGI is not clear. She spent about six months in Mexico from which she returned to Cuba early in 1964." (Ibid.) However, Willens was not shown Langosch's memorands, of May 7 and May 8, 1964 which contained much more detailed information on Luisa Calderon, including her possible association with Lee Harvey Oswald and/or Anierican intelligence >. (ibd bid ae ™~ epee, "The Warren Commission as of June 19, 1964, had little if no reason to pursue the Luisa Caldesn lead. It had effectively been denied significant * It should be noted that these memoranda of May 5S, 7, 8, Ill and June 19 with attachments, are not referenced in the Calderon 2091 file. (See CIA Computer printout of Calderon 201 file) Their existence was determined by the Committee's independ@hassifidetion: other acency files. SECREF Classified by derivation: cE, EKER. Wii. YA. UR,
Classification: ~~ ‘toa, hte wen dg (This form is to be used for material extracted from ClA—<ontrolled documents.) background information. This denial may have impeded or prevented the Commission's pursuit of Calderon's povéntial relationship to Oswald. and the assassination of President Kennedy. But even if the Warren Commission had learned of Calderon's background. and possible contact with Oswald it still had been denied the one significant piece of information that might have raised its” interest in Calderon to a more serious level. The Warren Commission was.never told about Calderon's conversation of November 22, 1964. Classification: " ~ "* = ee Classified by derivatio t } Q 3 6 hr NG EM. * BRA. EM. NO HKD.. “ea.
Classification: ee Aon ia (This form is to be. ne maierial ave from ClA—controlled documents.) . . . : \ reference to the conversation nor does it indicate - that it was ever made known to or provided the. Warren Commission for its analysis. (CIA Comput --print-out of Calderon 201 file) In an effort to determine the manner in which the treated the Calderon conversation this Committee posed the following questions to the CIA: 1. Was the Warren Commission or any Warren Commission staff member ever given access to the transcript of a telephone conversa- tion, dated November 22, 1963, between a female employee of the Cuban Embassy/ Consulate in Mexico City, identified as Luisa, and an unidentified male spea ing from outside the Cuban Embassy/Con- — sulate? If so, please indicate when this transcript was provided to the Warren Commission or its staff, which CIA official provided it, and which Warren Commission members or staff reviewed it. 2..Was the Warren Commission or any member of the Warren Commission or any Warren Commission staff member ever informed ; or ae = 7 Classification: ’ Classified. by derivation: Ro, A i I. NE, 000087 NOR, i. "NGA, “ERE. ete