aay GP gLbRe: | the cable to Mexico City contained a relatively accurate | description of Oswald whereas the teletype to the government a “agencies does not contain an accurate description of Oswald? de nd -Mrs. Scaletti. What do you mean by accurate? sy Mr. Goldsmith. Let us go over it. oh Mr. Scaletti. It is just a synopsis. Number one, you are not going to send the Department of State information. to o> Puree wom the FBI and the Navy. That is number one. So all that detaile *.O information we sent to Mexico City station we did not tell them to pass it locally and we are not going to pass it locally Mr. Goldsmith. I am not talking now about the detailed information regarding Oswald's background. I am talking now cee ee ne te arin gt meer nen erect about the description of his physical characteristics. - oe : : | Paragraph 1 of the cable to Mexico City. contains a | 13 | general description of Oswald that is moreorless accurate. : 19 Mrs. Scaletti. Paragraph l of the cable to Mexico City i vl gives the physical description of Lee Henry Oswald who is the ! 1a | subject of 201, 289, 248. Paragraph 1 of the teletype did | ‘ not include -- gave the bio but not physical description, 20 | which.is more important really, and what we gave the Navy was : | the information from our sources on’ the person we thought could’ | | 2) nave been Oswald, but we did not repeat for them what would be | oe 3 a physical description: It would not have been normal-unless ; & 24 the Navy had come back and said “look,, we have a file on | ae Oswald. Now, do you have such and. such a description?. : | | 901743 HW 50955 Docld:
roo we a ae aye oe mg ge = pune a This is strictly for the investigative use of the station. ce) Mr. Goldsmith. When you say this you are now referring | 2 “to paragraph 1 of CIA number 179? in Mrs. Scaletti. Right. Let us start over again. The actual physical description on Lee Henry Oswald from your cable: numbered 179 was sent to the station to assist them in further ree investigation to see if they knew of anybody or had anybody +O down there that really fitted what we thought was an.accurate 1 physical description of the Oswald thatwe had a file on. r. Goldsmith. I understand that. s. Scaletti. When we came to document number 785, the teletype. to State, FBI and Navy, we did not, and I. would _t ce not normally even today, provide those investigative agencies with the physical description of Lee Henry Oswald as we thought it to be then. We provided them only with our intelligence, not with 131 State Department intelligence. which gave the stuff out of the ‘9 || audio and the possible physical description. The wording here in paragraph 1 on out teletype shown in document 785 is worded that the American was déscribed. As I told your man from your Committee earlier, Lee ce °3 | possibly would have been better, although it did not occur to ! & 4 i me at the time and this is the way those things were written in: -_ 25 i those times, to say that an American described as this could | NW 50955 Docld: 32277223 Page 38 Te r arp q J . ee
ae fae A” 4 . TP SEGKE ¢ t possibly be identifiable and qualified but the normal procedure 5 4 4 i in 1963 was to provide to the other government agencies infor- a3 mation and intelligence from our sources. Mr. Goldsmith. Whereas the information contained in aan ira | > TR Tg TE mene ec ee ete abe centr man Seat atin paragraph 1 of CIA document number 179 was not from your source? possibly Oswald or this was possibly his description? =. 7 Mrs. Scaletti. Was not our source, was not our informa- : i | tion. | 7 ‘Mr. Goldsmith. Now, paragraph 1 of CIA number 785 does | 7 not contain any language or qualification indicating that? 6 Mrs. Scaletti. I agree with that. oH | Mr. Goldsmith. It is only an indication that it was : -Mrs..Scaletti. ‘Or possibly not. -I agree with that. cor) Mr. Goldsmith. Why wouldn't the teletype indicate that | i i 1 ! ‘the description that you gave was not consistent with the 001745 { TA a a 4, 2 ra 4 HW 30955 Docld: 32277225 Page 39 aon a3 tos 43 aa i ; | Hy i] i i i 6 i) description that you had in your files from these other vy agencies? - . ; | - 13 i Mrs. Scarletti. I don't know why. : | 1S : . { a ¥ Mr. Goldsmith. Were you aware when you sent out the 4 t I 20 | cable and the teletype that you were giving different descrip- | an tions? | t a _ 22 Mrs. Scarletti. Yes. I assume I was. I don't remember | La! “3 now. This is some time. @ 24 Mr. Goldsmith. By the manner in which the language is | 4 i ce 4 : a ne displayed in the first paragraph in document 785 does that | t 4 i f il
37 to , B tw ‘ di os suggest to you that in fact when you received the cable fromi: ‘ out, this tation did not even ask for a trace but as sson.as | Mexico City you did link the photograph referred to in that 3 ; i cable to Lee Harvey Oswald? | aq i Mrs. Scarletti. It would appear that I did. | i Mr. Goldsmith. Was there any intention on your part to | , 6 | deceive any.other agencies by giving a description contained , | in that paragraph in the teletype? | ° Mrs. Scarletti. None at all. The point is that we . : considered the basic information to be taking placé at birth, | ie | hot a physical description which can change. As a matter of a | gact, we tried to go overboard. As you already have pointed 12 | we. got. this we immediately sent it out hoping to get a response. We gave it to the field. JI can honestly say there was cer- de | : 1s , tainly no. intention to keep anything or to hide anything. We | 16 were trying to put something forth and see what the other — | a7 agencies could do. | '3 | Mr. Goldsmith. Did you ever get any response from the | i ; . i ‘9 | other agencies regarding Oswald? ) 20 | Mrs. Scaletti. Not that I recall. What was the date | | t 2] of our teletype out to the other gov ernment agencies?. ! Mr. Goldsmith. 10 October 1963. bp to | | 23 tab nN me | Mrs. Scaletti. So there was certainly no delay on our | a | kart in getting that material out. | 2. an Mr. Goldsmith. That is correct. The information contained i . : “4 | _ . _ 001746 Z 1D OrAarr ees HW 50955 Docld:32277223 Page 40 § | t a4 i 1, ae A eam
HW 50955 Docld: 32277223 Page 41 i aa io °~<O #- ‘ i | i 4 } i i i ' | | | | i i i ! i t i 5 : i 1 I 1 t j i t i ! i t i t t ; i fH i i i | | | | | ! | i | i : | | | | | | | 7 1 | | 44g AB a Re id uJ a Way ak 38 Pa (ee in paragraph 2 of the teletype would also seem to have been obtained from another agency. Therefore, why didn't the third agency rule preclue you from communicating that information? Mrs. Scaletti. You can put a few Sentences: like te gave to the field to giv e to the other government agencies. This was sent to the Department of state. Mr. Goldsmith. It was sent to the FBI, too? Mrs. Scaletti. I don't know. This would have been cleared with the CIA Staff which is responsible for the third agency rule. You can see it is only aifive line synopsis with no detail. Mr. Goldsmith. It sitll owuld have been obtained from third agency sources? Mrs. Scaletti. Right. Just like we gave one sentence to Mexico City to alert other government. agencies without passing the document. I am sure this must have. been in dis- cussion with the CI°Staff as to how much we thought we should pass out. We cannot give nothing because how are you going to identify to the Department of State or Navy, here is somebody who might be identifiable with somebody in your records? You don't want to say just look at your records. You find that unfortunately if you tell the Navy that if you want any more information on Oswald go to the Department of State, then you have to say if you go to the Department of State you had better ask for records on Lee Henry Oswald who was born on. | 00174 7 ; t i { q
HW 450955 aa i} i xe "Oo f. 3 ut nN? Be 42 a Bocld: Aap APE Be : sy Wa vain, & 39 such and such a date in such and such a place, otherwise they don't know how to ask for that. | | t | | Mr. Goldsmith. Incidentally, you have been referring ta | Oswald as Lee Henry Oswald and the cable refers to him as Lee | Henry Oswald. In fact the 201 file refers to him as Lee Henry | Osald.. be you know why the file would have been referring to him as Lee Henry Oswald instead of Lee Harvy Oswald? | Mrs. Scaletti. .If I mentioned Lee Harvey it is because | I am brain washed with all the events. But the Lee Henry, we | generally will put in a cable the name as the 201 is opened. So, my only guess is that the basic documents from the Depart~- | nent of State or from somebody inathat 201 file probably said | nis name was Lee Henry .Oswald. | Until you find a. cause or reason to change the name you leave a file in whatever name it is opened. Then you would later on amend it and correct the file. Mr. Goldsmith. Before we refer to these documents from | Oswald's 201 file, let me. ask you this general question. If you were to run a name trace on Lee Harvey Oswald in the CIA | | : the State Department that apparently led to the opening of | | indices -- | te i Mrs. Scaletti. Today? | Mr. Goldsmith. If you had run one in 1963 on Lee Harvey { | Oswald, would you have received a reference to a file on Lee —_ Henry Oswald? 001748 y vee peas rs A Cra rin BE ; 277223 Page 42