22 rs “ ae oh { ’ tll it wt it ! i BY 509455 BDocld: 32277220 Page 50 7 OP SECRET legal attache, because thé légal“attache is: the noriiai-"" ‘case. So it boils down to my- question as to why T&S got -a TOP SECRET Mr. Goldsmith. Iss. I can tell you which ones were -- Mr. Manell. O.D. Urge? Mr. Goldsmith. 1 think T know. how we can solve this. Let us look at No. 187. No. 187 is the memo that was sent - by Mexico’ City station to the ambassador. At the bottom of the page it lists the various agencies who received it locally. . | Mr. Manell. correct. Okay. Mr. Goldsmith.”. Was that an’ unusbally wide d@issemina- tion? | 7 4 Mr. Manell. The only question I have would be that of - why T&S got it? Otherwise, Naval Attache, because this Ye was a former Marine. There is that’ connection there, the recipient of this kind of information., Sometimes we-did it to the embassy, depending on the — copy of thisor why headquarters ‘asked us to send them a copy. That is my only query about this. | Mr. Goldsmith. “When was the ‘cable received; -the llth? ‘Mr’ Manell. was’ that “a ‘weekend that followed? ~*~ Mrs Goldsmith. The ist of October was a ruesday, Mr. Manell. .I am talking’ about the lith and the 16th. Mr. Hardway. That would have been a Friday. Mr. Manell. There again, you see it did not become 01626 48:
1 | something of great significance that we would have imne-" ao 2 diately felt we had to do it fast. oe _ 7 | 3 - Mr. Goldsmith. Turning to CIA No, 181, which is the ge v7 headquarters copy of-.a cable that was sent, it indicates a that Thomas Karamessines, was the releasing officer. . 6 Mr. Manell. ves. 7 | Mr. Goldsmith. Was it unusual for someone as high up 8 in the organization as Karamessines .to be the reléasing 9 | officer for a cable of this kind? : . . . 19 | ‘Mr: Manell. Yes, except that there might have been | B | some reason. that could easily explain hee For example, while i - 12 | the information is not necessarily significant, yet there. was . e 13 | anctner sisnstica piece of information that people at the os 1d | desk might have wanted the DDO to see. tt could be as. simple 18 an explanation as that. - | 16 | Me.‘ Goldsmith. bid you. know, receiving a cable at 1 Mexico ‘City, who the releasing officer was? | "| Mr. Manel. Not at all. “we don't have any‘ indication - . Wy at Mexico City who rites the Gables or who releases cables. ‘20 | Who wrote this cable? © | oe ee OS fe | ae | Mr. coldsmith. “Charlotte Bustof, oa . 22°) Mr. Manell, Tt*was “norital’ for @ person who was an ® | 73 | analyst or a desk officer, as she was. for the Mexico: City” " | branch, to prepare a terse reply. Tt was. certainly normal, CS 2s ' t would think, to“ halve elements of the counterintelligence | a z — os . ae HW 50955 Docld: 32277220 Page 51_ oo - _ : a ,
59 TOP SECRET — 1 | staff coordinate the cable. It was normal, certainly,. for | eer eee eee ete rrnte cence ek al A EN A EE et En i sr A at soon pene erent ciate ats mt -_ 2 ) member of the counterintelligence section of the Soviet (3 division to coordinate a cable. | & 4 Mr. Goldsmith. One question about paragraphs. Ie 5 ‘believe it requests that any further contact for purposes of 6- “identification should be indicated to headquarters. © 7 Mr. Manell. . Right. 8 Mr. Goldsmith. In light of that, does that help you. 3 | sn any way as to whether anything was ever communicated to | 10 ! headquarters? ao | Mr. Manell. No. 12 | Let us go' further to address oursélvés ‘to the guestion. S 13 | about Mr. karamessiries”and chy, he released the cable. I — id | can't really explain that.” Otherwise, we see: that it was. 1s | sent out ‘as a routine cable. | ae Bet o 16 | Mr. Goldsmith.’ How do you know that? v| Mr. Manell. Because otherwise, you would have seen the "| precedence of either priority or immediate. Certainly you 19 “don't see any restrictive indicators’on the handling of this . | cable. It doesn't even indicate ‘that it is a counter- 1] snierigence matter in the heading, and it doesn't give the ae a0 22 | restrictive indicator of an important counterintelligence ® . “3 | case, such as Rybat, or that eryptonym is a restrictive. 24 | indicator for any type ‘of. cable, if you need to restrict the Ld aa information, and ‘that is not. on here, either. | | Top ceerey 082? HY 50955 Docld:32277220 Page 452
TOP SECRET 7 The. reason I am going into. this at length is apparently any way, but do you have any possible explanation? - 2 you find it extraordinary that Mr. Karamessines signed off 3 on this cable. I can't explain it, but I want to go further & 4 to say that the preparation and transmission of this cable 5 indicates that there was no urgency or, undue significance 6 attached to the information. 7H Mr. Goldsmith. At any time that you are looking at: 8 | these documents, feel free, as I see you do feel free, to: | 9 give us any clarifying information. | yc ying 10 i Again, for purposes of clarification, prior to the | n | assassination was any action taken by the Mexico City station 12 | in reference to the Oswald matter other than sending the cabl & 13 to headquarters’ on October 8th and the dissemination that 14 | was instructed? | | . , ap TSS Mr. Manell. Nothing, to my knowledge. j : M6 iH Mr. Goldsmith. Getting back for a moment to the VW | matter of the photograph, if Oswald, in fact, had gone to the | 2 | embassy a total of five times -- for purposes of argument: ~- 19) ana making the assumption he did go back when he said he'was | | : ! g . 20 | going back, does it strike you as unusual for the photo’ | Co ; | wi a . C oe . . { 7 people. to have missed him five times? | . ‘ t . 22 Il | ! a non Mr. Manell. Yes. | : Ne 7 Mr. Goldsmith. Do you have any explanation for that? | 24 | tee - ; oo. I realize the photo operation was not under your control in 4m i ! | | t 01022 HW 50955 BDogld: 32277220 Page 53 TOP SECRET
24 vee sasuorone vee TOP SECRET. 808828. HW 50955 Docld:32277220 Page 54 - TOP SECRET | © 52 | | a Mr. Manell. Yes; I do. The Mexicans who manned the _ could conceivably not be performing their work as they were required to perform it. To me, that is the most straight-- forward explanation for the fact that we didn't receive a ~ photo of Oswald: entering the Soviet Embassy. Mr. Goldsmith. Do ‘you know if. any of them were dis- missed as a result of the failure to obtain a picture? Fe 4 photo facility and did it day after day, year after year,~ ! Mr. Manell. No, I have no’ knowledge of that. Mr. Goldsmith. . Please refer to CIA No. 188. This is * cable dated November 22nd. The third paragraph. indicates, among other things, "Forwarding soonest copies of-only visitor ec Soviet Embassy 20 October who ‘could be identical to — Oswald." Do you know whether. the date 20 October is correct or. | re Mr. Manell. Probably a mistake: I think I wrote this cable. I am not sure. There is'a correction on the following, right here. I wrote this cable. Obviously it was a mistake on my part, trying to get this information out as fast as I could. | I did, as you see, put in an immediate precedence on. the transmission of this cable. -As I said before, I linked. the name Oswald that we heard over the .radio with the ‘Oswald ” iwho had contacted the Soviet Embassy; and therefore, T sent | . H
this cable out as fast as I could on the. 22nd of November. Mr. Goldsmith. On the 22nd of November, . you read that one Oswald-contact? °- ns “Mr..Manell.— Yes, I did. © Mr. Goldsmith. Mr. Manell, CIA Mo. 183, the headquarter ‘cable, contains a description of Oswald in.paragraph 1. Mr. Manell. Yes. . yo Ly Mr. Goldsmith. After réceiving this cable, were you : aware that the photograph to which reference had been made © ‘in the cable of October 8th. was not a photograph of Oswald? time... ’ | | Mr. Manell. I can't recollect what I mune ee Mr. Goldsmith. As of the day of; the assassination, .you. thought that there was still a possibilitv that there was a photograph of Oswald? Mr. Manell. Indeed. As I recall, we tried to get that photograph ‘to headquarters as fast as we could. As'it.’turned .é ca a a . out, it wasn't necessary’ to send it.’ But that’ was our intention. . . ” oa ya nr 7, oa ra was a cable from headquarters dated November 23rd. “The first ie Hy 22 ‘paragraph, instructs you to review tapes and transcripts | since the .27th of September. a . : - a _o : em neve, we snes sseeeuan ene ae ee revetment agen OAC a CT ern pepe a AT CA et na rennin rote n> 24 ‘Mr. Manell. Correct. “ 25 fi oo a tw a — mA “~ Mr. Goldsmith... Does that indicate that headquarters r] jeer, Lee att are Bt by q. | Mr. Goldsmith. Let us look at CIA No. 184. This |. . | on a . | i | 1 | | | | | { ao ¢ tb eodee | HY 4S0954 Docld: 32277220 Page 55
HW 50955 22 24 Docld: 32277220 Page 56 . | TOP SECKET | | ; uri: re TOP SECRET was in some way aware of Oswald's contact with the embassy on September 37th? © Mr. Manell. It certainly does. Mr. Goldsmith. Do you know! how they would have been made aware of that? — The reason’ I ask is because we have reviewed cable - traffic and have not seen any cable traffic informing them of that content. Mr. Manel. Now There is: something I can't explain, and Tam trying somehow to. get an explanation for it in my mind. a | | As I. told you before; normaly’ the” station aia not, forward raw transcripts to headquarters. That would have been one way for them to know the 27th of September contact. “You say there is no other traffic? “Mr. Goldsmith. ‘Based on our ‘review of the file. Mr. Manell. Or visit or contact by Oswald earlier than the tst of October .to the Soviet Embassy? This leaves me certainly at-a loss for an’ explanation. Mr. Goldsmith. Is it possible ‘that that would havé- been done telephonically? - Mr. Manell. Not ‘likely. Mr. Goldsmith. Why not? “Mr. Manell. You don't telephone classified informa- tion to headquarters, normally. rr re rr ate eae tena arnt Et arene ene te ARAN aR © AACE + SRE APE Anshan sttrfite innate EEN eRe En A NRE FEET AES ee EE
22 24 HW 509455 BDacld: 32277220 Bage 457 TOP SECRET — 5s Mr. Goldsmith. Is it possible ~- and I do not want to put words in your mouth -- that headquarters knew about the contact of September 28th and that they instructed’ ~ you to refer to the conversation, the contact of the ‘27th, just for purposes of extra insurance? . ee LE teeth NET AIR me Mr. Manell. I can't comment.on that. Mr. Goldsmith. Please refer to CIA No. 197,-speci- fically paragraph 3. - Mr. Manell. Wht date is this cable: the 23rd of November? | | | | | Mr. Goldsmith. It is’a cable dated November 23, 1963. ° Address your attention to paragraph No, 3. Let me ask you whether this cable corrects the date that you had incorrectly reported in the earlier cable. | | | Mr. Manell. Yes, it does, to l october. Who wrote this cable? Mr. Goldsmith. I believe the author of this cable’ was Ann Goodpasture; is that correct? | Mr. Manell. That is correct. | | Mr. Goldsmith. Please read the second paragraph of | CIA No. 198, which is the Mexico City copy of that cable. | Mr. Manell. Yes. | Mr. Goldsmith. The language in that paragraph sndicates that the station could not compare the voice of Oswald because | the first tape of his voice or his .conversation had been TOP SECRET 001824
erased prior to the receipt of the second contact. our. Manell. Correct. Mr. Goldsmith. The’ way that is phrased suggest, however, that ‘at that.time, November 23rd, there was still one tape. in existence. In other words, it. does not say all tapes reporting Oswald contacts had’ been erased, ‘It+says one tape was erased prior to the receipt of, the next one. Mr..Manell. I would not’ give that importance or make the. assumption you are making. “it is’not completely ‘phrased in the cable. It merely says station unable compare voice as first tape erased prior receipt second-call." That is... all it Says. — r don't see how you can “conclude ‘the way you conclude. Mr. Goldsmith. “Please don't misunderstand me. I am not intending: to offer any conclusions. Mr. Maneil. No, but you are indicating that a second tape was kept and not erased. | | Mr. Goldsmith. What I want to ao is ask whether the language there suggests that in fact that was the case. - Mr. Mahell. 1 ain saying “it was not the case; probably -not the case. 22 Mr: Goldsmith. I would like you ‘to understand, 33 Mr. Manell, that we are conducting a thorough review of 24 the files and the cable traffic and we are obliged to address he mn S41) = every question that arises based oh that review. HW 50955 sonra, sornooe ane so | TOP SECRET | 7 ; O0L028
] oad - 22 73 24 ae — - TOP SECRET - ~ $4025 HW 50955 Docld: 32277220 Page. 59 a . | | | =e. ae an a ne a ane ATS TOP SECRET 57 | Mr. Manell. ‘Iam sorry, but I felt you were drawing a |. conclusion. Mr. Goldsmith. I understand your position. I just wanted you to understand mine, that is all. Mrs Manell . Right. ot wonder Lf 1 might 3 make a short, statement at this bin. Mr. Goldsmith. Certainly. “Mr. Manell. From the questioning by you, Iam led to believe that. you may have the guspidion, certainly the con- cern, that there was a separate communication sent to the io | | | | | nen | i station by headquarters about Oswald of which you have no record. . 3 ; fo “To the very, very, best of: my. wiobleage, there was no . | separate communication seit to the station with regara to qo Oswald.. Certainly if there was a separate communication, 1 Po never had any knowledge of it.: ar 4 Mr. Goldsmith. Fine. What about the reverse of chat; separate: communication from the México City station to headquarters? Mr. Manell. Firstiy,+1 doubt ‘that’ there was, because in some ‘fashion I would have becomé privy to it. “Second, once again, I certainly know of no separate communication not appearing in the record here that wais sent by Mexico City station to Washington. ~ Is that. perfectly clear, that there was no side “ ne eo
_ | conmunication, to my knowledge, from either headquarters on. 22 ‘to the station or from the station to headquarters? 7 3 Mr. Goldsmith. I certainly. understand your answer, aE | yes. a 8 . Turning back for a, moment to: the question’ of the " oy erasure of the first Oswald tape prior to the receipt of the . 7 second. My understanding ~- and we ‘can check the appropriate 8 cable for confirmation of this -- is that the normal time © lag for the erasure ‘of. tapés was two weeks. I£-that is # correct, it would seem that the normal lag period did not | an oS = ms ne - Uy : apply in regard to ‘the Oswald’ contact.: oP) In other words, the first contact was September 27th - . 4g | or September’ 28th. The next’ contact ‘was October ist, and O | | “tas | id the first contact tape was erased well before the two-week as period had elapsed, if.in fact thé cable is accurate in what | 16 | it reports that the first tape was erased prior to the receipt of the second one. .Mr. Manell. You are correct in assuming that there would have: been, just for mechanical’ réasons, the ‘existence of the. first tape in its original form prior. to receipt of the | : 1 | secon one, because the transcription process couldn't have | | | 4 22 | been completed,, since it involved the Russian language, @ . 33 until after the second call was made. | you are cokrect there, , 24 1 would just suggest here that perhaps in the heat of iy 25 writing an immediate cable on the 23rd. of November, the 7 oo Oe cE  0OTG8E HW 50955 Docld:332772290 Page 60 , TOP SECRET
BW 50955 wad a iy da Gd KR oh oo 22 43 24 ? t Docld: 322377220 Page 61 | | mn WW TOP SECRET language by Miss Goodpasture wasn't absolutely. clear. I think that the only thing she wanted to conver’ here, reading into this, ls that no voice ‘comparison was made because we don't have certainly on the 23rd of November either’ tape available. Mr. Goldsmith. In fact, she wasn't necessarily -being ‘completely accurate when she said the first tape was erased prior to the receipt of the second. Mr. Manell. I would say that the sentence does not convey her intention. Mr. Goldsmith.- To your knowledge, do you know of any ‘action on the part of anyone at the Mexico City station indicating that that person withheld information from the ‘authorities at CIA headquarters concerning Oswald's visit .to Mexico City? Mr. Manell. No. Mr. Goldsmith. I have nothing further, Mr. Manell.. I would like to thank you very much for being here. - I also would like to say I am sorry if we inconvenienced you today. | Mr. Manell. It wasn't your fault. Mr. Goldsmith. Now, customarily when we call someone to a hearing, a person is given five minutes at the end of a hearing to make a statement. We have called you here for a deposition in Lieu of a hearing. If you,would like an TOP SECRET
-60 | opportunity: to make a statement on the record, please feel.. — a _ persone eerie reer sateen tet ~ 2 free to do so. | - . 43 Mr. Manell. Your questioning leads me ‘to tivo assinp— @ | 4 tions. One,’ that either at headquarters’ or at the | | . 5 station there was a ‘communication that’ is not part of the 6 record that you have, Td: the very best’ Of my Imowledge, rT 7 believe you are incorrect. in having that assumption because, 8: firstly, I know, that 1 have: no direct’ specific ‘knowledge to 9 | support that assumption. — -10 | Secondly, I believe that in some ‘fashion I would have JV | become. privy to that fact if it indeed existed. | The second point I would like to.make does not bear on | what you asked me today, but what you asked during. the |. interview. I was led to believe that you had suspicion that "one agency of the government knew that! another: had more matter of record and that perhaps another agency was covering that up. - oo a oe o: ee Here again, I certainly have no information’ to heaz out: ‘that assumption. But in this case, I wouldn't necessarily have. had the means to become’ privy to that kind of informa- | ! | | 16 | contact with Oswald prior to the assassination than is a | | 22 | | i yO tion. Net “3 I think that you place emphasis on the fact that an Mr. Karamessines signed off on the name trace cable from ad “ H headquarters to the station on the llth of October. That, I | bev spy d  gy sy at | O01 O86 i HY 509455 Bocld: 32277220 Bage 62 TOP SECRET , ;
' find strange, but then again, I think that by. thorough investigation on your part, you could easily determine -. ‘ A 7 ya ssn coc a OnPOnannneh TOTO O SNOT a a é ry re i rrr ge AR AOR A EE EY AC hep «nt re serene eeneenttrennentternennninm man et events the reason for it. ee ms day So, rather than have “it become “an. important: concein or reservation on your part, I think that you could nail. that: down one way or the other with a minimum of investigation. That is it. That is the end of my statement. Mr. Goldsmith. Thank you ‘very: much. . | _ (thereupon, at 3:05, p.m., the deposition was concluded.)!. I have read the foregoing pages contain’ a, correct transcript of the answers made by me to the questions: therein recorded.. 0, (Signature! issubject to, co wad on tn. aa Neeeees ere cee pee ences yr. as imme ern ee a a a erm tom ae ‘ corrections. © rai a" - aa “Herbert Manell 4 . 24 WD 2 + 7 cal =. HW 50955 DBocld:32277220 Page 63 . : OP SECRET an
10 “ay &h “43 24 TOP SECRET ‘CERTIFICATE OF NOTARY PUBLIC _ oT, Albert Joseph LaFrance, the officer béfore whom | a the foregoing deposition was taken, do hereby certify that the witness whose testimony appears in’ the foregoing déposi- tion’was duly sworn by me; that the testimony of said - witness was taken Albert Joseph LaFrance, shorthand reporter, and thereafter reduced to typewriting under my ditection; | “that I am neither counsel “for; rélated to, nor employed by any of the parties to the.action in‘which this deposition was taken, and further, that I am not a relative or ‘employee the action. nor financially or “Notary P My commission expires: November 14, 1980 BW 50955 Baocld:is2277220 Page 64 ‘TOP SECRET Yo’ and for the District of Columbia . Of any attorney: or counsel “employed ‘by the parties thereto, otherwise interested in the outcome of HOLGR4