JFK Assassination System. Identification Form ‘Date: 3/23/201 Agency Information AGENCY: HSCA RECORD NUMBER: 180-10142-10485 RECORD SERIES: CIA SEGREGATED COLLECTION AGENCY FILENUMBER: 25-40-01 Document Information ORIGINATOR: HSCA FROM: CIA TO: Peleased under the John TITLE: NOVEMBER 22, 1963 CUBANA FLIGHT Kennedy , Assassination Records Ollection Act of 1992 (44 USC 2107 Nate). DATE: 03/27/1979 ase#: NW S3080 Date: (6-01-2017 PAGES: 5 , SUBJECTS : CUBANA AIRLINES CIA, METHODOLOGY DOCUMENT TYPE: REPORT CLASSIFICATION: — Unclassified RESTRICTIONS: 1A; 1B CURRENT STATUS: — Redact DATE OF LASTREVIEW: 08/09/1995 OPENING CRITERIA : COMMENTS : Box 16; HSCA #15047 mR v9.1 HW 53080 Dodcld: 322771769 Page 1
HW 53060 - NOVEMBER 22, 1963 CUBANA FLICHT e A 3 é 4 é Book V of the Senate Intelligence Committee Report refers to a reported five-hour delay (6:00PM EST to 11:00 PM EST) of a Cubana flight from Mexico to Havana the evening of President Kennedy's assas- Sination, November 22, 1963. (Senate Intelligence Committee Report, April 23,1976, p.30) The most intriguing aspect of the report was that the alleged delay was to await arrival at 10:30 PM EST of a pri- vate twin-engined aircraft, which deposited an uni- dentified passenger who boarded the Cubana aircraft without customs clearance and traveled to Havana in the pilot's cabin. (ibid ps. 60 -61) The Senate Intelligence Committee wrote that the Central, In- telligence Agency "had no information indicating that a followup investigation was conducted to deter- mine the identity of the passenger and had no fur- ther information on the passenger, and no explan- ation for why a followup investigation was not con- ducted." (ibid p.61) The Senate Intelligence Committee Report raises four major Questions: a)Did the Central Intelligence Agency write the Senate Intelligence Committee that no investigation of the November 22, 1963 Cubana flight was conducted? DoclIda: 322771789 Page 2?
HW 53060 b) Did the Central Intelligence Agency further inves- tigate the allegation? c) What were the results of the Central Intelligence Agency investigation? d) Were the results of the Central Intelligence Agency investigation forwarded to the Senate Intel- ligence Committee? In an attempt to answer the questions raised by the Senate Intelligence Committee Report, the House Select Committee on Assassinations has done the following: | a)Conducted an extensive review of the Central Intel- ligence Agency files that pertain to the November 22, 1963 Cubana flights. b) Reviewed Tab B of the 1977 Cia Staff Report which included a section on the November 22, 1963 Cubana flights. c) Reviewed the February 4, 1976 Central Intelligence Agency letter to the Senate Intelligence Committee. DID THE CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY WRITE THE SENATE INTELLIGENCE ‘COMMITTEE THAT NO INVESTIGATION . OF THE NOVEMBER 22, 1963 CUBANA FLIGHT WAS CONDUCTED? After a careful review of the February 4, 1976 Central Intelligence Agency letter to the DoclId: 322771789 Page 3 p- 2
HW 53060 Senate Intelligence Committee 1 the House Select Committee on Assassinations has determined that the Senate Intelligence's interpretation of the letter is misleading. The Central Intelligence Agency wrote the Senate Intelligence Committee that the Mexican authorities were asked about the reported flight delay, although there was no recorded response. (CIA letter to Senate Intelligence Committee, 2/4/76) DID THE CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY FURTHER INVESTIGATE THE ALLEGATION? The Central Intelligence Agency conducted regular surveillance of Cubana, flights, filing cable reports to Headquarters. (1977 CIA Staff Report, Tab B, p. 11) There was one unilateral CIA surveillance team ' that observed. arrivals and departures of Cubana flights, reporting any unusual incidents and providing copies of flight manifests. (ibid, p.11) ‘The Mexican authorities also had a surveillance team of its own at the airport which provided the CIA with photo- ‘graphs of passports and copies of passenger lists. (ibid p.11) Additionally, a telephone tap operation (LIENVOY) against the Cuban Embassy provided trans- cripts of conversations with the Cubana office and the Mexican Airport Control office. DoclIda: 322771789 Page 4
WHAT WERE THE RESULTS OF THE CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY INVESTIGATION? The LIENVOY transcripts record a series of discussions about the status of the November 22, 1963 Cubana flight-- when it arrived and when it departed. The transcripts show that the flight arrived at the airport at 1620 hours (All times used will be Mexico City time to avoid confusion) Mexico City time. (HSCA Staff Review of November 22, 1963 LIENVOY transcripts) Prior..to the arrival of the aircraft, one person :: stated that the aircraft was due at 1630 hours and "it will go" at 1730, suggesting a quick turnaround that would have reduced unloading and loading time, as well as servicing to a relatively short period. (ibid) However, the key report on the departure of the aircraft was a statement at 2040 hours that the aircraft had departed for Cuba five minutes | earlier, i.e., 2035 hours. (ibid) DIFFERENCE SENATE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE AND HOUSE SELECT COMMITTEE .ON ASSASSINATIONS FINDINGS The House Select Committee on Assassinations findings differ from those of the Senate Intelligence Committee in the following manner: a) The Cubana flight was on.the ground in Mexico City for a total of four hours and about. ten minutes. It was not delayed five hours as reported in Book V. HW 53080 Docld:32271789 Page 5
b) The Cubana flight departed at 2035 hours Mexico City time, 55 minutes ahead of the alleged arrival at 2130 of a private flight with a secret passenger.. c)The 2035 departure also contrasts further with the Senate Intelligence Committee Report that the’Cubana flight departed at 2200. No record of a November 22, 1963 twin-engine aircraft carrying a lone passenger exists. In addition, no record exists of a passenger traveling to Havana in the pilot's cabin .? In. view: of the surveillance coverage of the Cubana flight, it is doubtful that the alleged activity involving the private twin- | engined aircraft and passenger would have gone unno- ticed or unreported had it occurred. < WERE THE RESULTS OF THE CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE . AGENCY FORWARDED TO THE SENATE INTELLIGENCE ; _ COMMITTEE ne ? The central Intelligence Agency gave the Senate Intelligence Committee only the informant allegations. The Senate Intelligence Committee did not review the LIFIRE or LIENVOY records. Relying solely on the informant's allegations, the Senate Intelligence Committee could not have reported the story any differently. HY 53080 Docld: 32271789 Page 6