to in Angleton's memo was A-1. was quite close in time to A-l's defection. communication regarding A-l. SECRET Classification: (This form is to be. used for material. extracted . fram, ClA-—controlled, documeats. unadibrediy Sa aes source referred fe com based in part upon the date of this memo which addition, Rocca's staff prepared prior to DCI McCone's appearance before the Warren a "Brief Commission for Presentation to the Warren Commission outlining various positions adopted by the CIA vis a vis its investigative efforts and assistance to the Commission. (CIA Doc. FOIA 695-302-A, 5/14/64) At Tab E of this brief it states: Within the past week, significant infor- Mation has been developed by the CIA re- garding the relationship with Oswald of certain Cuban intelligence personnel in Mexico City and the reaction in Havana within the Cuban Intelligence Service to the news of the assassination of President Kennedy. The Commission Staff is in the course of being briefed on the Cuban asspect. (Ibid., Tab E) This conclusion is In "w On May 15, 1964, the day of McCone's interview, 5/15/64) However, the Agency did not at that time identify A-l by his real name or cryptonym nor did SECA iri Classification: the Warren Commission received its first formal * e (CIA Doc FOIA 697-294, ¢ the Agency indicate that the source of this information ; “Sith “Gi. “SSG  “N@hh. | HS. “UR. Fe cos Re Classified by deriv 0 6 ry 9 .
is re Sroaktiaars CRETE Classification: (“= S ES RET (This form is to be used for material extracted from ClA—controlled documents.) was a defector then residing under secure conditions in the Washington, D.c. area. (Ibid.) The May 15 | communication did . state that the Agency had established contact “with a well-placed invidivual who has been in Close and prolonged contact with ranking officers of the Cuban Direccion General de Intelligencia." (Ibid.) Attached to the May 15 communication was a copy of Langosch's above referenced memorandum of May 5, 1964 regarding knowledge of Oswald's pro~ bable ‘contact with ‘the DGI in Mexico City. The attachment made no reference to the source's status as a defector from the DGI. (Ibid., attachment) As set forth in the section of this report. concerning Luisa Calderon, on June 18, 1964, Howard Willens of the Warren Commission reviewed Langosch's May 5 memo and the questions upon which the informa- tion set forth in the memo was elicited. NeitherMthes fs questions nor the memo shown to Willens made | reference to the source's status as a defector col-~ laborating with the CIA. (CIA Doc FOIA 739-319, 6/19/ 64). J eT “ws twi | , gw Classification: 099199 Classified by derivation: ae a a a a a 4 “Sa. &
Mi 79 - (mpage) Classification: 2ET (This form is to be used for See SE ec from ClA—controlled documenits.) ‘ui, ‘Based upon review of the Langosch memoranda, the Committee has determined that significant BN information regarding Luisa Calderon , Specifically of Nov. 22 vw details of her her conversation and~4ssociation with Cuban Intelligence ~ were withheld from the Warren Commission. This information. as described above, was derived from oo. However, debriefings of A-l. from the Committee’ Ss review NG, «= “NHGTAL of the A-l file provided by the CIA, the Committee RE, has not found any credible evidence indicating that other information provided by A-l to the CIA was GRR, relevant to the work of the Warren Commission. However, in its review the Committee has determined that a as ; specific document referenced in the A-1l file is | NE, not present in that file. The. missing itemis of considerable concern to sasscs “SER, 4 the Committee. tt is a debriefing report of A-1 ay entitled "The Oswald Case." (CIA Doc Dispatch| | é 5035, 3/23/65) On March 23, 1965, a CIA dispatch™® e ‘ * 3 records the transmittal of the report, along with é eleven other A-1 debriefing reports. (Ibid.) Next to 3 the listing of the "Oswald Case" debriefing report . is the handwritten notation "ST." A CIA employee ; who has worked extensively with the Agency files ay we 6 ge e car he ee) Classification: SEo ek Classified by derivation 0 104 “aR.
Glassificatign: —sexet__ SECRET, This form is tg be used for motsrial satrasted om Gla—ssntralled documents) ~BRQ=— system told a Committee staff member that this notation was the symbol for the CIA component known as Special Intelligence. Other CIA representatives believed the notation was a reference to the Counterintelligence component CI/SIG. IN a CIA memorandum dated September 27, 1978, the CIA has adopted the position that Gebriefing Report No. 40 is a duplication of the original Langosch memorandum of May 5, 1964 concerning AMMUG's knowledge of Lee Harvey hap te afer) Oswald! s possible contact with the Dvt.* erecthal LS Kas nef ¢ Esatoud ts (TS Poti ptemienesh eh r Feariebins ae a mPlic Sian st + x, Tes, tg ass cnern erandctn. é oe BPS EM ASstd w e Committeé has questione eo a j @>5, = officers regarding additional information that A-1l may fi have supplied about Oswald. Joseph Langosch, when : interviewed by the Committee, stated that he did not Cc have contact with the Warren Commission and does not know what information derived from A-1l's de- briefings was supplied to the Warren Commission. Staff Interview of Joseph. Langosch, 8/21/78: Cite also bs) e ° Fo (HSCA “Bawr tl roe “— 2k Interviews of Hildago & piceole) He also stated that . & an ioe t = he does not: “gecall that at_A=l-provided any other information | Glassificstion: | eases, ice 000102: yation: vari ton:
z Glassificciign: Secret (ih form is 19 be ysed for material sateested irom GlAc=cenraiied sesuments)) ~80a- *The CIA memorandum states in part as follows: When CI Staff learned of AMMUG=-1's defection and considered the possibility that he might have some knowledge of the Oswald case, CI Staff submitted a list of questions to WH (Western Hemisphere) for debriefing AMMUG-1...WH desk records reflect that AMMUG-1 was debriefed on 4 May 64 regarding this questionnaire.../B/ecause the debriefing on the Oswald case was handled as a sensitive matter, it was dictated directly to a CI (Counterintelligence) stenographer on 5 May 1964. /Note: A-1 was debriefed on several subjects on 4 May 64. ‘The procedure was to assign each subject discussed a debriefing number and they were written up in contact report form by the WH case officer. The instructions from CI staff were to handle the Oswald case debriefing very closely and not to keep any copies in WH Division/. The "Oswald Case" was logged in the WH notebook log as debriefing report number 40, but the report itself was dictated by the WH Case Officer directly to a CI staff stenographer. There would be no reason to include the number 40 on the report of this special debriefing for CI staff, since it was their only debriefing report. We are certain it is the debriefing report (#40) because the date is the same; it is the only debriefing report on Oswald PS > * listed in AMMUG-1 records; and it it (sic) the only AMMUG-1 debriefing report in Oswald's 201 file. (CIA Doc., Memorandum for the Record, Regarding AMMUG-1 Debriefing Report on the Oswald Case, 27 September, 1978, p. 1) | Chests Wy Senvaten. Glgssificatign: SECRET  — pnniea § SES 0 Eee. ERE te