iye whut i | . 1=50 1 | Volume 3. | - 3 | Mr. Helms. Fine. 3] 2144? | | “ny e 4 . : Mr. Goldsmith. . Yes, sir. 5 Mr. Helms. Right. I have got it. 7 Mr. Goldsmith. Please read the first paragraph. 7 (Pause) | 3 For the record, this is a cable dated 20 December 1963 to 9 | Mexico City from the Directors Mr. Helms. All right. a _— pap ee Mx. Goldsmith. Paragraph 1 makes reference to the Agency's intention to eliminate mention of the telephone taps in dealing with the Warren Commission. Do you recall how long the Agency' = to éliminate mention of these taps in communicating | 1s 1s with the Warren Commission remained in effect? 16 My. Helms. I have no idea. V7 Iam sorry: I have no information whatever. 3 | Mr. Goldsmith. Are you certain, however, that the Warren : 9 | Commission was told specifically about the telephone operations? no Mr. Helms. No, I am not. I just assumed that it was at [fone point. zl | Mr. Goldsmith. Again, to what extent, if any, did the Agency's concern for protecting under the law sensitive sources and methods interfere with the information that was being given | to the Warren Commission?
1-51 | | Mr. Helms. I am sorry. I cannot answer the question. 2 I have been doing the best I can. It was.my impression at ; 7) the time that one way or another staff members of the Commis- . @ + sion were informed of the fact of the way the information had 5 been acquired because it was rather central to the investiga- 5 | tion. ? | If this is not correct, then I am wrong. It was my g | impression that at some time or other this was made clear 9 | to them, I assume off the record. 10 Mr. Goldsmith. Mr. Ambassador ; I want to clarify, for i | purposes. Of this record, that I have shown you just one cable 12 | dated December 20th. ‘subsequently, the Warren Commission was ! _. @ i3 | given information. Oe ts | I do not want to suggest to you that the information was is ! not given and the specific sources were not made available 16 to the Warren Commission. | 17 The Committee, at thispoint, is concerned with what 134 appears to be an early plan not to make reference of these AS sources and methods, but I do not want you to. think that you as aes ~—— Doclda: 32263410 Phge 452 t | | \ 20 | are being shown exhibits out of context. | Mr. Helms. d Committee has been made aware of the fact that the reason for ) the sensitivity of these telephone taps. and the surveillance was not only because it was sensitive from the Agency's stand- point, but the telephone taps were running in conjunction with I do not know whether it has been made, the TOP SECRET
e 2” 33 i 24 ac as | _ probably it did. I do not know for sure. tur weil 1-52 the Mexican authorities and therefore, if this had become public knowledge, it would have caused very bad feelings between Mexico and the United States, and that was the reason. | - Mr. Goldsmith. At this time; I would ask that you refer to CIA No. 177 which appears in Volume 1. For the record, that is a cable dated October 9, 1963 to the Director from the Mexico City station. Mr. Helms. Do you want me to read the cable? _ Mr. Goldsmith. Please read it to yourself, sir. " (Pause) : Mr. Helms. I have read it. ee ee A EN el NR Mr. Goldsmith. In the first paragraph of this cable, it refers to LIENVOY. Is that a reference to the telephonic surveillance operation? Mr. Helms. I do not recall anymore anything about these | eryptonyms. My assumption in reading this would be that Mr. Goldsmith. From the context of the second paragraph | —— Emery which makes reference to the source being LIANPY, would you t | | say that that, in all likelihood, refers to the photo operations \ gmery Lo Mr. Helms. LIANPY? Mr. Goldsmith. ‘Yes. | ! | Mr. Helms. I assume so. [I do not recall any more. Mr. Goldsmith. Does paragraph 2 contain a description of
i] “WI oO 33 24 DoclId: 322763410 1-53 someone that the Mexico City Station thought was Oswald? Mr. Helms. I guess it was. That is the only assumption I can make based on the context of the telegram. ; | Mr. Goldsmith. The description of the individual involved is not an accurate description of Oswald, is it? Mr. Helms. Not based on what I have learned about Oswald since. | Mr. Goldsmith. Do you know how this individual mistakenly | was linked to Oswald? | | Mr. Helms. No, I do not. | Mr. Goldsmith. Was the Mexico City Station ever asked | to explain why it thought that the individual referred to in paragraph 2 was, in fact, Lee Harvey Oswald? Mr. Helms. I have a general impression that there was a great effort made to clarify who this man was. Is this the fellow they have never identified? This photograph has been kicking around for years. ‘to refresh your memory. For the record, this corresponds with Exhibit No. 1 of the Warren Commission. Mr. Helms. “thank you, Mr. Goldstein. That is the photograph I recollect. as being the one that every effort was being made to find out who that man was. Has he ever been | | ! | | | : i Mr. Goldsmith. Yes. Let me show you that photograph re | 4 | | { | | | | j identified? | | | | age 54 TAP SEPRET
nN q@ tn an a — i) . 22 Il e * | | ae ff | | - — oe ee ee ivr wheal 1-54 Mr. Goldsmith. Mr. Helms, that was my next question. Was the Agency ever able to identify this individual? Mr. Helms. Not to the best of my knowledge. . Mr. Goldsmith. Did the Mexico City Station ever explain to Headquarters how this individual was linked to Oswald? Mr. Helms. If they did, I was never made privy to it. I think it was obviously a mistake of some sort. All I recall is that a valiant effort was made to find out who this fellow was. Mr. Goldsmith. Was consideration ever given to the Mr. Helms. I do not know. I do not recall the circum- stances anymore. Ir am sorry. ~~ Mr. Goldsmith. Mr. Ambassador, it seems to me that the question of whether this individual was an Oswald imposter presents a significant issue. By virtue of you not being able to recall whether or not. this was examined, is it fair to say. that it probably was not considered? | | In other words, I am suggesting that, because the issue is a significant one, had it been considered, you would remembe it. Mr. Helms. You see, Mr. Goldsmith, I can see the signi- ficance of the issue, but if we dow not know who the man was, we do not know where he Was. How were we going to investigate this, If I may submit, in fairness, we did not have access to Docld:32263410 Page 55 THD errory - possibility that this. person may have been an Oswald imposter? | | l | | | : | | : | |
WN) D , end DoclId: 322763410 Ve WWE I 1-55 the Cuban authorities to go to their embassy and say, who is this fellow seen coming out of your embassy. .We did not have it with the Russians either. Where were we to go to investi- gate this matter? | Mr. Goldsmith. In any event, you do not recall. whether this issue was investigated? Mr. Helms. No, I do not, but I do not know how it would have been investigated. Mr. Goldsmith. When was the Warren Commission told about the picture to which reference is made in paragraph 3 of this cable? a oe 7 Oo Mr. Helms. I have no idea. Mr. Goldsmith. Was the Warren Commission ever told about the specific connection between the picture and the cable reporting Oswald's contact with the Embassy? Mr. Helms. I would have imagined that the Agency did everything that it could to work with the Warren Commission ; staff in trying to find out who this man was, what his signi- ficance might be. I cannot imagine that this was not thoroughly gone into. If there were any evidence not thoroughly gone into, I would not understand it. | | | Mr. Goldsmith. ‘Here is an example of a situation where I felt the Warren Commission, by virtue of not having known of this picture or of the cable perhaps did not ask the Agency Page 36 TOP SECRET
aa DoclId: 322763410 along to anyone who was interested. she had seen that purported to show Jack Ruby. BUT BLA i 1-56 about it and therefore may not have been apprised of this photograph. Mr. Helms. Is my recollection not accurate that we had the FBI working with us to try to locate this man? It seers: to me that everybody we might find who might have conceivably think we were making any secret of it, that we could not iden- tify him. We were trying tp get some help to do it. I do not think this is one of these closely-guarded secrets, nor did the Agency have any motive for passing that - Mr. Goldsmith. For the purpose of attempting to refresh your memory on this issue, the way that the Warren Commission, at least in the record, was apprised of this photograph was as follows: in February; 1964, Marguerite Oswald testified before the Commission and made reference to a photograph that The photograph she was referring to was one of the individuals who appears in the picture we just told you, Dede Exhibit No. l. That, at least in the record, is the first time that the Warren Commission was told about this particular photograph. | Is that consistent with your recollection? Mr. Helms. How did Marguerite Oswald find out about the photograph? Had she been shown the photograph? ase 57 TOP SECRET a had some means of identifying him was asked about it. I do not
UF VLA I any official criticism. They may have said something to — | | 2 | members of the staff, or a member of the staff may have said | | 3 | something to a member of the Agency about it. I do not have ' a @ 4 | any personal recollection of it. a , | 3 : Mr. Goldsmith. not ES nent No. 2221, which mt 6 | in Volume 3. if : Mr. Helms. Volume 3, 2221? 8 | Mr. Goldsmith. Yes, sir. 9 | For the record, that is a memorandum prepared by William 10 Coleman on March 26, 1964. MN | Mr. Helms. 1 I am having trouble finding it. I am sorry. 12 lx am moving as fast as I can here. 2221? Mr. Goldsmith. Yes. Mr. Helms. I have it. Do you want me to read that? ! | i | | | to | | \ ! | | | 1s | Mr. Goldsmith. Please. | , | | | | | i. | i | Lo | |. | | | | | x 18 | (Pause) | 7 | Mr. Helms.:°. All right. I have read it now. a | Mr. Goldsmith. Focusing your attention on the second to 19 | last paragraph in CIA 2222, that seems to suggest, does it | : ; 20 | not, that at least Mr. Coleman, who was the senior staff 21 | counsel» with the Warren Commission, was not satisfied with the eo , 22 | explanation that had been given to him by the Agency concerné - 33 | ing that photograph? 24 Mr. Helms. That does seem to be what he is implying. . i : 2s i Mr. Goldsmith. Does that refresh your memory as to whethe ‘ , t |
iUr weiual i 1-59 | this photograph created any controversy between the Commission | . : and the Agency? t { Mr. Helms. I am sorry. It does not. fa Mr. Goldsmith. Is there any reason why the Commission would not have been toldsabout this photograph as early as Mr. Helms. I do not have any idea why. It was later @ | { ! { é _— when it was initially formed? — than that. The photograph was brought to the Commission's | attention. I have no recollection of this whatsoever. My recollection is confined almost entirely to the efforts made | | a sone point. I do not even know exactly what period this was to try to find out who the man was. | Mr. Goldsmith. At this point, would you please refer to CIA 2139. | : Mr. Craig. Is that also Volume 3? 16 Mr. Goldsmith. Yes. \7 | Mr.. Helms. I an zeroing in on it. I have got it, 2139. 13 | Mr. Goldsmith. For. the record, that is an internal note 19 | dated 5 March 1964 from Raymond’ Rocca to Dick -~ I assume that 20 | is Richard Helms: : | | 21 | | Mr. Helms. ‘You assume it is who? - @ - 2 Mr. Goldsmith. Richard Helms, yourself. If my assump- - om | tion is incorrect, please clarify the record. 24 (Pause): . - | ; 25 Mr. Helms. I have read it. DoclId: 322763410 bage 60 THD CrrarT 1 i a ee ce A EE RS A A I OR AA A RE ES, EY at ARES . ~ 1 :
ws Whwasid i Mr. Goldsmith. The reason I assumed the memo was addressed to you was that someone wrote in in parentheses “ay | DDP immediately above the name Dick. Mr. Helms. I see that. . 5 Mr. Goldsmith. Do you recall ever receiving this memo? fe) Mr. Helms. ‘No, I do not. : 7 | Mr, Goldsmith. Drawing your attention to the second | 8 paragraph of the memo, does it make reference to the famous | $ | six photographs that were not of Oswald? : : 10 : Mr. Helms. It does. It says, for example, the famous’ " | six photographs that were not of Oswald. I did not realize 12 | there were six photographs. | | : : .. r’ i3 : Mr. Goldsmith. For the record, I should indicate they | id eventually located as many as twelve photographs of this 15 individual. | 16 Drawing your attention to the second paragraph, why 17 | was there a preference on the part of at least some of your 13 : staff to wait out the Warren Commission with respect to, 19 | among other things, these photographs? _ 20 | 7 Mr. Helms. I do not know. I assume it has to do with 21 the way they were taken. Is that nota reasonable inference, . 22 | that it was a question about. wanting to put on the public iad 13, so the fact that we were photographing people going in and 24 out of these embassies. I . f it Mr. Goldsmith. The issue here is not putting anything in . .
&) co 0) DoclId: 322763410 ————S—— Se eE————— BY hg giving the Warren Commission all of the information that the Contact was reported to Headquarters by cable, I believe the ivr weLuadi i 1-61 | the public record. The issue is explaining what happened to the Warren Commission. Mr. Helms. I do not know if it was something else. I do not have any idea what it is any longer, put I assume you have had an opportunity to speak to Mr. Rocca or:Mr. Angleton or | somebody. Maybe they have a better recollection than I. I do not recall it I got this memorandum what I did about it. Mr. Goldsmith. I this case involving the photograph an example of a situation where the Agency's concern for protecting sourcesand methods under the law prevented it from Commission was asking for? Mr, Helms. It may be they were not getting it promptly in the form in which they wanted it, It seems to me that the entire thrust of this memorandum was that they were getting the information, in any event, in some form or ancther, by some means or other. | - Mr. Goldsmith. The Oswald contact with the Soviet. Embassy turning to another issue not dealing with this document, that cable Wecited earlier. Why would a cable be used to report this contact as opposed to some other way of communicating the information? i ee RE A a . _ Mr.°Helms;:. I°..think that since this was an American, since they thought it was an American who had gone to a Soviet see oe TAP SerRET
Docld: 322763410 Page 63 yr wail i 1-62 Embassy, that they would report it by cable. That was a reasonably routine way of doing it. Mr. Goldsmith. Does that suggest that the contact at the time you weukd considerto be important? Mr. Helms. It does not suggest to me anything like that. The pouch usually took a long time. They would have thought since this was an American they ought to report on it promptly. Mr. Goldsmith, At the time of Oswald's contact with the soviet Embassy, was any importance attached to that contact? Mr. Helms. -Not that I am aware of. I would have thought that the evidence would have indicated to the contrary. The PBI apparently paid no attention to the report. | Mr. Goldsmith. At this time, I would ask you to refer to CIA No. 179 that appears in Volume 1; for the record, that is a cable dated 10-10-63 consisting of Headquarters’ response to the earlier Mexico City station cable. I would ask you to read through CIA 179 to 181. (Pause) Mr. Helms. I have read it. Mr. Goldsmith. This cable contains information reporting that Oswald had defected to the Soviet Union. Once this fact had been realized did this in any way escalate the significance | of his contact with the Soviet Embassy? Mr. Helms. This information? Yes. I would have thought TOP SECRET | | | : | | | | | | | { | } |. { i | L i t | |
iy m — foe) : i rm m3 $e 33 24 Docld: 32263410 a i a ee en es oe poe eee ee ees = iV BEALE it would have escalated it quite considerably. Mr. Goldsmith. Would some sort of response have been expected on the part of the Mexico City station, had they additional information on Oswald? | Mr. Helms. Yes. I would have thought that the Chief of the Mexico City Station, having received this telegram, if he did get additional information on Oswald he would desire to pass it very quickly back to Headquarters. Mr. Goldsmith. For example, if: thHe-Mexico' City Station had information in its possession and that information had already been processed to the effect that Oswald had also to Headquarters? Mr. Helms. I would have thought so. I do not know whether it was or not, but I would have thought it should have been. . Mr. Goldsmith. The first paragraph of this cable contains . a correct description of Oswald, at least a description that is more accurate than the one that is contained in the Mexico City Station cable. a Upon receiving this description, aid the Mexico City station ever respond with respect to the discrepancy in the | two descriptions? Mr. Helms. I do not know. Mr. Goldsmith. This cable also refers to Oswald as Lee age 64 TOP SECRET - a ener ee ee ne ae ene NE RA AT IR RRS, contacted the Cuban Embassy, should that have been communicated | | | Hl | 4 | } | | | | ' | ! |
da ve ize] | e 33 24 | DoclId: 32263410 base ss TAR SECRET writing of such a report. — iUPr SLUR I 1-64 Henry Oswald. I believe earlier you made reference to the fact that there had been some confusion over the middle name. Do you know how the name Lee Henry Oswald got into the Agency's records instead of Lee Harvey Oswald? Mr. Helms. 'I do not know. Mr. Goldsmith. Was that ever a source of concern to you? Mr. Helms. I believe there was an effort to ascertain what had caused the mistake, but I do.not know-whether any satisfactory explanation was ever found. Mr. Goldsmith. Do you know whether any report was written reflecting that effort? Mr, Helms. I would have assumed that someone would have written up the work they had done in an effort to clear up the discrepancy, but I do not recall the report, and I cannot say from firsthand knowledge that one existed. I would have assumed that = form would have required the Mr. Goldsmith. Referring to CIA No. 181, the lower left- hand corner of the page, it indicates that Thomas Karamessinas was the releasing officer of this cable. Mr. Helms. Yes. Mr. Goldsmith. Why would someone as high up in the “Agency as Mr. Karamessinas have been the releasing officer for a cable like this? Mr. Helms. I do not think -- if I may suggest it, with ’
toed tape 2a DoclId: 322763410 Swi DWhUIls i due Geference, that is not really the way I would have described what was happening here. You see, this cable originates in the Western Hemisphere Division because, not only through the Western Hemisphere Division, but it also goes to various elements of the cI staff. Frequently in the procedures that we used in the Agency when > you had both staff and various partsof the staff and the division and so forth, these frequently went to the so-called front office for relief, either to Karamessinas or myself. Since I notice in the cable here questions of policy as to where this information was going to be disseminated and things of that kind, I would have found this quite a normal procedure. Mr. Goldsmith. Would you, at this time, refer to CIA No. 2140, Volume No. 3. Mr. Preyer. We have another vote on. It is final passage on the defense bill. We will recess for ten minutes. - (A brief recess was taken.) . Mr. Goldsmith. Mr, Ambassador, would you refer to 2140? Mr. Helms. ‘Yves. Do you want me to read it? Mr. Goldsmith. Yes, please. (Pause) . . Mr. Goldsmith. For the record, that is a. 10-10-63 dissemination cable sent by Headquarters to various Federal agencies. eecs §~=—Sst«<«é«szS OP SECRET ;
Ur BLU 2 Mr. Helms. Yes, I have read it. | - | Mr. Goldsmith. Mr. Ambassador, this cable in particular ! | | | nN) has sparked some controversy because it also contains an indirect description‘of Oswald. The question I have ’for you ‘ aa is why, especially in light of the earlier cable which you incorrect description went out in this particular cable. mith, Mr. Helms. I do not have a clue, Mr. Goldstein. | 6 | just examined which contained a correct description, this m Mr. Goldsmith. Was that issue ever raised by the Warren Commission? ‘Mr. Helms. I have no recollection any longer. I assume & it must have been raised. I would assume this would have been | gone aver and picked at and repicked at and.every effort made to find out what had. happened and what had gone wrong. But | : 1S that is 15 years ago and I do not have any recollection of the | chain of events. 7 |. Mr. Goldsmith. Was the Warren Commission ever shown these] - 13 || specific cables? 19 | Mr. Helms. I do not know. I would have thought they 20 | might have been shown this dissemination. I.do not think 2 there would have been any reluctance to show them that. @ 2 -_. Mr. Goldsmith. Did the CIA's Mexico City Station -ever 73 | obtain a tape-recording of Oswald's voice? Mr; Helms. I would have assumed when.this telephone 2s § call -- is that what you are referring to by tape recording? sootarsmesare. bee TOP SFeReT tt;
ivr SLM i Mr. Goldsmith. Yes. Helms. Those telephone calls were taped. Goldsmith. Do you know how many tape recordings of \ w ny > feed ROR e e Oswald's voice the station managed to obtain? ot da Mr. Helms. No. 5 6 | Mr. Goldsmith. Were these tape recordings in existence at 7 | the time of the assassination? | 8 Mr. Helms. I can only assume that they were. How 190; do not know. I do not know anything about those procedures a 1} | anymore, if I-ever did. 12 Mr. Goldsmith. Do you know whether the tapes were made 3 frequently they were cleaned up after they were transcribed, I available to the Warren Commission? Q Mr. Helms. Whether they were made available? ~~ Mr. Goldsmith. Yes. in Mr. Helms. I do not. Ov + a | Mr; Goldsmith. ‘Do you know how many tape recordings there ! | were? | | 9 Mr. Helms. Of Oswald's voice? 20 | Mr, Goldsmith. Yes. | a | . Mr. Helms. No, I do not.. eo. | Mr. Goldsmith. Would it have been unusual for the ad . ag | Agency not to have had tape recordings in existence in Novembe 2 | of ‘63, at the President's assassination? oe 46 7 Mr. Helms. I do not know how long they kept those tapes, DoclId: 322763410 age 63 | TAD CCPRIT
un in = ot . 20 Zi DoclId: 322763410 base 69 ~—6cTAR CEARFT ‘Ambassador be given JFK Exhibit 128, and. I would like to have tUF BEuie i 1-68 whether they simply transcribed what was on them and cleaned them up and used them again, or whether they held them. I do not know what they did with them. Mr. Goldsmith. At this time, I would ask that the Exhibit 128 introduced in the record. It is a letter from Mr. Hoover to Mr. Reilly of the Secret Service dated November 23, 1963. Mr. Chairman, I request that this item be admitted as an Exhibit. Mrs. Burke. co ordered, without objection. (The document referred to was | marked JFK Exhibit No. 128 for identification.) Mr. Goldsmith. I would ask you to read starting on page 4 of the last paragraph on the page. Mr. .Helms.. Yes; have read that document or that paragraph of the document. _ | Mr. Goldsmith. Mr. Hoover is referring to a tape record- ing that his agent listened to. Do you know which tape recording he is referring to? Mr. Helms. I have no idea. I am sorry. Mr. Goldsmith. Was any issue ever raised in 1963 concern- ing a tape recording that had been made available which purpor- ted to contain Oswald's voice, which in the end did not?
UF etubatl io) | fo) oO Mr. Helms. I am sorry, I cannot help you. May I ask, not out of curiosity, but simply by way of attempting to be helpful, is it possible that what Mr. Hoover ba Nd eo ee is referring to, that some FBI agent assigned to the Embassy, 3 the American Embassy in Mexico City, might have been who 6 | listened to this tape recording? 7 | The FBI had a large station in Mexico City. I just 8 | thought that might be what he is referring to. | Mr. Goldsmith. Do you recall whether the question of the 10 | existence of Oswald's tapes was important in 1963? For example, I raised this with you because the question —4 ho has arisen as to whether the person.who showed up at the Embassies in Mexico City was not Oswald. If you had a tape oa rm “+ ga recording of his voice, that could obviously be tested to corroborate whether that was Oswald. SS a a ee. Do you recall whether this was an issue in 1963? Mr. Helms. If it was, I do not know how it was handled. _ I do not recall it as an issue. As I say here today, I do not ever recall anybody ever 20 | having said to me that it was not Lee Harvey Oswald who called 21 the Embassy. _ SS a) Mr. Goldsmith. .Did the CIA's Mexico City Station ever ebtain a photograph of Oswald as a result of its photo surveil- lance operation against the Soviet and Cuban Embassies and c nN) w > n nn consulates? DoclId: 322763410 page 7o THhP SeCorT