ALO G-0 3 fia ~  :6-February 197 MEMORANDUM FOR: | owiliam Sturbitts, DDO/LA Jack Sullivan, OS Richard Rapinger, ¢ OGC Russ Holmes “FROM . 8: S. D. Breckinridge ‘Principal Coordinator, HSCA, “SUBJECT ~  : Draft Replies to G. Robert Blakey — de Forwarded herewith are draft letters to G. Robert Blakey making comments on each of the three packages that we have received _ and reviewed together. . ; 2. These drafts are ‘at least subject to revision if the Director supports the:view of the DDO that there should be no direct references ‘or some euphemism in referring to CIA personnel in Mexico Station. - 3.. It is requested that you review these drafts and let me have your comments. I would propose to write a separate letter on each section so it would appear that we are making progress, rather - than holding up everything for those sections that are still subject to resolution of the references to overseas Stations. 4. You have copies of the Draft Staff Study and it would be appreciated if I could have your comments on the attached by COB ‘Wednesday. -§. BD. Breckinridge _ Attachments UNCLASSIFIED WHEN: SEPARATED. 7” -FROM ATTACHMENTS Soe IC . A Fenn an remem Pe a ee a Te a Sar i ra! we Wat ee
14-00000_ tui t Mr. G. Robert. Blakey Chief Counsel and Director Select Committee on Assassinations House of Representatives — Washington, D.C. 20515 Dear Mr. Blakey: ‘Forwarded herewith are comments on the draft reports forwarded by you recently. _ The first of these is designated J Issue A - #2, Opening of Lee Harvey Oswald's 201 file. It.was received by us marked Top Secret. ‘It is our understanding that you do not intend to publish this in unclassified. form, and-wish only our comments for accuracy. We would “consider the classification of Secret more appropriate than Top Secret and ™ so handle it. (s) Page 2000570. Line 9. The statement appears that there are two naval documents listed as in the file that were not found there (presumably by the’ HSCA investigators). _ Both documents are there, but being Third ‘Agency records, were enveloped: and marked by their identifying numbers, - which may. not’have been recognized by. ‘the investigators. (vu) © ‘Same: page. It is noted that the Deputy Director for Operations is -a person, his command being the. ‘Directorate of Operations. Shorthand usage. gives the colloquial usage of | "poo". for Directorate of Operations , but it | “Ts literally incorrect. You may wish ‘to 0 modify this where ‘it | appears ing): syour dvaft. (0) 7 Page 2000571. “Russ Hotmes dia prepare an informal explanation, a -copy of which was. transmitted ‘to your of Fices for retention in the CIA work a rea f ae mow oa BLS REEMA eEY IIOE ute
14-00000 | area on 28 November 1978. “It .should*be available there; it.still is at CIA headquarters.. Ce) . Page 2000574. Not having seen Larson's testimony, we don't know what he actually said. -The fact. is that the Office of Security does. not open 201 Files, ever. That Office is under the Deputy Director for Administration, while 201 Files in CIA exist only: in the Directorate of Operations. (<) Page 2000575. The statement to the effect that information would have “warranted: opening of a 201 File on ‘Oswald is correct, but at is incomptete. While it would have warranted it, had it been decided to do so, it would not necessarily have ‘caused the opening of a file. _ This is commented on ‘further below. Co) Page 2000579. The -penorandim tn’ question igs quoted accurately, but . the memorandum is not accurate. The Oswald file was opened as the result of work arising out of a request from the Department of State dated 25 October 7960. The testimony given by the person opening the file is correct | on this point. Om a . . a | Page 2000580. ‘Again, the memorandum is quoted correctly, but it is incorrect. | Oswald's letter to. the U.S. Embassy in Moscow was dated 5 February 1961, being received 13 February. That was the first news of his intention to return to the U.S., and his file had been opened already, in December 1960, as a result of the earlier State Department request. Cu)’ Page 2000584. It is probably incorrect to say that: Mrs. Egerter "claims". ‘to have done something. She. gave her: best memory of what she did rand why, which was ‘probably broadly correct, although with some errors in detail. The point is that what. she says is the best description on the opening. 8) ted 5
14-00000 Page 2000587 on Martin and.Mitchell, "...whose defection to the Soviet Union in September 1960 was .of concern because of their previous access to classified information." Cu) | | Pages 2000589-2000590. References to "a thirteen month delay" and — that it (the Clandestine Service) “failed to act...by initiating the opening of a 201 file," indicates a misunderstanding of the procedure and standards: for * opening 201 files. (o) . First, there are certain criteria ‘that must be met before a file may be opened. The administrative objective is to hold down the number of 201 Files. There is not, and was not, a. positive . requirement to open a file. Rather, it was up to the judgment of the officer in question whether. to do so or not, if it met the criteria: Cc) There was no requirement to open a file on a person such ‘as Oswald. There being no requirement there could be no "failure," | if it wasn't done. Nor would there: have been a "delay." Oswald's later role in history may make him seem more significant today than “he was when the first papers. brought him to CIA's attention, but professional hindsight supports the absence of such action at the time. Further, it was ‘stil a Judgment. call when the file was actually opened; at would have been entirely appropriate to not. have opened the File | | “then, oun - 7 we coe | In any event, the opening of the file does not affect the records: in. “the system on the ‘Person in, question; it only serves to consolidate | | copies “of records into a single working file. oe
14-00000° Page 2000591. To whom:did. it. seem an “abnormal occurrence” to not “have. opened the file,. and ‘what. ‘as: ‘the word. “purported” intended ‘to convey? Cu) Issue A - #3, - Photo of Lee Harvey Oswald in Minsk At is understood ‘that this: is not. intended for unclassified “publication, and that our review: for: accuracy is all that is requested. We have given the paper an overall classification of Confidential. G ) _Page.1. The citation. of 12 H 212. ‘and 213 should be W H 212 ‘and 213. CW) Page 10. It would. be correct for Mrs. Vance to say she was never contacted by anyone with CIA, in “connection with Oswald's photograph. CIA would not have been responsible for doing so. Co) . Page 12. The shorthand reference to the DDO should be changed to Directorate of Operations; ‘the 000, Uiterany, is the Deputy Director for = Operations. Cv). | ~ Book Ill, Séction VIII, D. 8 (Oswald Soviet Correspondence) It is. understood that this is not intended for unclassified publication and that our review is aly that is requested. We have given non the paper an overall classification of Confidential. CO). oe w ‘Page 1 and 2.. The "pre- ~assassination file" did not contain the letters Cited because the Department of State--which had these--did not provide ron them until after the. assassination. Cw) 6-Juty—tsee=page-6-of -dra ft Fo |
14-00000 Section Noted as "A 6, a Wisgel taneous taste ~ Lee Harve “Oswald! Ss. od ‘Mr. G. Robert: Blakey. Chief Counsel and Director - Select. Committee on Assassinations House of Representatives . Washington , D.C. -20515 Dear Mr. Blakey: I am submitting herewith informal comments on : the drafts submitted recently. It will be something of a mish- mash of. factual correction ‘and comment, as well as making security observations where appropriate, (v) Tt is my understanding that you intend for only one or two ‘of these sections to be unclassified ‘for publication. Cv 5 Section Noted as "A 5, L Miscellaneous Issues - HTLINGUAL Index Cards It is our understanding that this is not intended for unclassified publication. . tn its ‘present form we have given it an overall classification of Confidential. “It is understood we are to comment for accuracy only. ‘We have no points to make on-this. Co) 20] Opening Sheet - "AG It is our understanding that this is not intended for unclassified publication. In its: Present form we have: given it an | overall classification of Secret. at is understood we are to comment . for accuracy only. Cu). AS a matter, of observation, -it. is noted that had the investigators made inquiry of those individuals who had working familiarity with the _computer symbols on 201 opening-sheets, the answer was readily available. : nee yo 7 -
14-00000 of the: ‘investigators to make a forma ‘inquiry about it. - g™ im ase Ta — It is interesting that the-officer “interviewed, noted at page. 3.0f “this draft, was being asked ‘to'rely on his memory some fifteen years old (as good as his memory is, it betrayed him on this point). The record is quite clear that the symbol "AG" was in existence prior to the _assassination of Lee Harvey Oswald, This really was a non-issue From the beginning, and ‘simply. required so much time because of the failure Co) Section Noted as "A’7,"- ‘Miscellaneous Issues’ - = Lee’ Harvey ‘Oswald's 01 Opening Shéet™ = AG" This appears to be entirely dup! icatory of the section designated as A-6 above; and. the comments ‘inmediately above apply equally ¢ to this. ) Section Noted as ay 8,"'- ZRRIFLE oo re 7 - It is our understanding that this is not intended for unclassified publication. ..In its present form we have given it an overall classification ‘of Confidential. It ¥s understood we ‘are to comment for accuracy only. Cu) The assertion of Harvey" s “known antagonism" and his "known hatred” Of “the Kennedy's" is a bit hyperbolic, as presented, and seeks to establish a premise ‘that is highly dubjous. Co It is correct to say that. he: “disagreed wi with the Administration’ S ‘approach to Cuban operations, and told the Attorney General just that - kos in quite candid terms. He was essentially a tough and blunt man, and had no illusions as to what he was.doing. The act probably led to his “reassignment. It is safe to assume that he held some personal resentment for the Attorney General, but extension of that, in malevolent form, to the President is a bit much. ‘Further, it is unlikely that the Committee
14-00000_. has any competent evidence that would provide a. basis for imputing a malevolent attitude. to. him; he: was..a man ‘to: keep his ‘own counsel and it is doubtful that many really knew his private thoughts (vu ) "Additionally, it seems that ZRRIFLE never reached a stage that could be. represented as the ‘capability to act in the United States, as implied in the draft under the characterization of "means" in the formula of "motive, means and opportunity." Infact, the way in which ZRRIFLE developed in Harvey's mind, in the course of his plans against Castro, make the separation fairly clear; he related the two only loosely in his mind, because of what inight be described as generic similarity ‘of subject matter, but beyond that there was no relation. (wo) | - ZRRIFLE did not fit the design this, draft would give it, so far - as. the discussion ‘is concerned. Harvey! s view of ZRRIFLE is Set out in some detail in the 1967 report. by ‘the Inspector General, and there is no contrary evidence. If the - premise is the reason for discussing this, then the entire ‘section fails because of the invalidity of the premise. Cs) “section Noted as "A 9," - HELSINKI . It is: our understanding: that. this TS. not intended for unclassified publication. In its present form we have given it an overall classification. of Confidential. It is understood. that we are to comment for accuracy only. Factually, we have no comments. Cc) ‘Section Noted as "A 10," hich deals with non- interviewing of Oswald It is our: understanding ‘that™ ‘this ’ is not, ‘intended: for: unclassified publication. In its present form we have given it an overall classification ARE SA OYE AT BE
14-00000 -only. ‘request to cIA, but CIA. does not submit affidavits ‘in response to press of Secret. It vis understood ‘that.we are to comment for accuracy As an editorial observation, on ‘the ‘first page, the third sentence. _ described CIA's "claim that 1 no records. existed" concerning: a debriefing of Oswald as stimulating speculation of: ‘some connection between Oswald and the Agency. ‘The reverse: was the case. ‘CIA's Statement, in affidavit “form to the Warren. Commission, was ine ‘response to such: allegations. Its response ‘was not "instigated by z a newspaper article." ‘It may be that the Warren Commission reacted to such an article, which led to its. stories. “Simply stated, CIA “responded to a Warren Commission request. At is noted that,: among other reasons, for ‘Oswald's not .. being interviewed (and there were a. nunber), is the consideration -- given HSCA in interviews at conducted ve that at the time the Soviet Union was releasing a- large. ‘number of its. citizens, who had been held: from migration, and the machinery was ‘also occupied with more likely sources. Ce) ‘Section, Noted as "A 11," - ALVARADO Cc)" : It is our understanding that this section is intended. for unclassified publication. ‘In its present form \ we have assigned an overall classification of Secret. It is also understood that a. review for accuracy is desired. This draft provides an opportunity to sanitize the paper, letting the -basic story to be told while protecting points of security concern to CIA. ‘Some of the comments will -be detailed. (Ce ) 6.
14-00000 “that the literary presentation simple mention "CIA officers: assigned By way of preface, we would. prefer that the concealment of Alvarado! $ name and. national ity: ‘be continued, employing the "D" used by the Warren Committee and the Church Committee. His naming would: permit identification of his: nationality. ‘Describing. his relationship with his . ‘Nicaraguan: case officer also reveals operational relationships of the Agency. Reference to his origins in another Latin American nation ‘should meet the needs of description. Cc) Further, reference to the Mexico City Station, or its officers, also presents problems with which you are familiar. It is suggested ‘that you use a general euphemism that permits the story to be told while avoiding. specific. reference to the Station, as such. We suggest in Mexico to investigate the assassination. " Although literally true it avoids specifying that they were a group of officers already | at the Agency installation who- were assigned to that work. . References “to communications From Mexico City could: simple refer to cables and dispatches from the "CIA representatives assigned to ‘the Mexico 7 nvestigati on.” "(S) The. statement: cat the bottom of the 2nd" page, 2001160, says “the Alvarado allegation stands: as” ‘the: only. specific substantive investigation a by v. S. authorities in Mexico city of possible Cuban ‘complicity. in: so “President Kennedy’ s assassination. a That Mr... Mann ‘thought, so ‘doesn’ t change _ “the fact. ‘It is. untrue, as. the records of this Agency “amply demonstrate. os ‘Tt may be the only Firm alTegation that was “made: that ‘could be investigated. 7
14-00000 There were, of course, considerable other Cuban inquiries. (C) — On the fourth page, 2001162, the document cited as MEXI 1180 is not.a CIA document. It probably was a State cable or dispatch.C< ) - Same page, document cited as MEXI 7069 should appear as IN 68376. Ce) Same page, document at bottom cited as (CIA out Teletype No. 85089 ‘should appear as DIR 85089. Cu) On the sixth page, 2001165, ‘the document cited as s Teletype | No. 85089 should show as IN 68376. Cu) | | | Same page, ‘the document that is cited as MEXT 7069 should show as iw 68376. (C) oe oo Same. page, bottom of page,. the document that is cited as 5 MEXT 1182 ig a State Department 1182. (cc). | | | “On the seventh page, 2001166, the ‘document, cited as MEXI 7068 should ‘show as IN 68328. Cy) | — : - : _ On ‘the seventh page, 2001166, reference is ‘made to: an “intercepted, taped and transcribed conversation between President Dorticos and Ambassador Armas . As you. are. aware, this sort of description would ; have to be modified to meet our objections. We suggest something as: “follows: G). o a | a | | cy sensitive. ‘and | ‘extremely: reliable | source reported Z | - that on 26 November Cuban President Dorticos spoke with Cuban Anbassador Hernandez- “Armas ‘in Mexico. During the | | 7 conversation Dorticos inquired af Silvia. Duran, in her interrogation by Mexican authorities, had been asked if the. Cubans had offered: | “Oswald. money. Armas” said more than. once that no. such question had . been asked." CS, geese Ce ote aby Oo welou vlog Y. .
14-00000 c a, wm “ ‘ : Eighth page, 2001167, _ Vine. As cited -as NEXI -7072m should be IN 68406. (c) Same page, line 8, cited as NEXI "7084. should be IN 68496.CC )- ~ Same pages line ll, MEXI 7092 should be IN 68542 Cc) - © Same page, ‘Birch O'Neal, whose-nane appears twice, :should be replaced by. description of "C] Staff Officer. His name appears again on pages 9 ‘and 16, where it should be treated similarly. ‘G )— ‘The ninth page, 2001168, ‘Vine 2. ‘The correct quotation is that the Anbassador "went" nuts. Ow) | 7 | Same page, MEX 7093 cite seems wrong. “Does not support preceding sentence. (C om | | 7 ~ Same page, MEXI 7098 should show as IN 69127. (c) _ Tenth page, 2001169. The Ibid citation seems to refer to IN 69127, which mades no reference to the tall Cuban sitting at Azcue's desk. -IN 68376 does refer to an unknown person sitting at Azcue's desk, but that ‘is all. It is not clear that’ the person seated at Azcue's desk, as stated’ in the report, was the one alleged to have handed money to the -red- haired negro. (u ~ Same page, NEXT 7097 should show as IN 69010. Ce) _. Same page, MEXI 7104 should show as IN. 69225. Ce ) - Eleventh page, 2001170. “The following quotations are correct: m5, ee Washington “should urgently consider feasibility. | of requesting Mexican authorities to arrest for interrogation: - Eusebio AZCUE; Luisa CALDERON and Alfredo NIRABAL. .. They may all quickly: be returned to Havana in order to. ‘eliminate, any possibility _ . that Mexican Governnent could use them as witnesses, 12 pes enerean Newent eye eee a e
14-00000 The discussion omits any reference to the rather extensive documentation as of CIA's understanding ¢ oF the New Orleans question. The quotation from ~~ “arte ot gh "3, ve. there distinct feeling here in all three agencies (FBI, CIA, .and State) that Ambassador. is pushing this case too hard....and that-we could well create flap with Cubans which could have serious repercussions. Understand from Mr. Johnson that he sent (State) channels to Ambassador this | afternoon. attempting to give him better perspective on this whole problem..." _ (CIA Doc DIR-85469, 11/27/63) Cu) Twelfth page, 2001171, beginning of second paragraph, states that _ the record discloses that: Mann! s efforts to investigate Cuban complicity in the assassination. “were being restrained. " The entire issue was how to handle ‘the Alvarado allegation, as distinguished from "Cuban complicity." wa a to why. there were reservations. about Alvarado, nor does it seem to consider that it was_ not so much a case of restraining Hann! s desire. to look into. the matter, as. it was’ to: not. accept F his Predetermined « conclusions. (cy Thirteenth vu sai Wa dnt wpmetiy wines Aivarado with Oswald. Cc} ce So Same page. DIR 85258, followed by DIR 85653, offers a better surmary = the ‘latter’ follows: . "1. (FBI) says their follow- “up investigation of Oswald’ s activities has produced 'reliable indications’ that he was in. New Orleans on 19 September 1963..... This, coupled with | earlier evidence that he was in New Orleans applying for. unemployment ; - insurance on 17. September 1963, means Oswald would have had to fly to Mexico and back. between 17 and 18 September in order to be at the Cuban Embassy getting his pay off, as Alvarado claims, on 18 3 September.’ iu Lc) |
14-00000 city re! ob aly This statement makes it pretty clear aswel gives not in. Hexi co on the 18th- of ‘September. @w) | Same page. NEXI 7107 should show’ “as IN 69310. Cc ). Same page. Delete "Jerez" and "Nicaraguan. " Ce) , ‘Nineteenth page, 2001178. . MEXT 1213 is a State Department document. (<. so from Fourteenth page, 2001173. MEXI 7113 should show as IN 69620. Ce) Seventeenth: page, 2001176. | EXT 7120 should show as IN 69670. Cc ) ‘Same page, MEXI 7156 should show as IN 70530. Ce\ Same page, MEXI 7127 should show as IN 70145. Ce) Same page, MEXI 7168 should show as IN 70860. Cc) Same page, delete "Jerez. "Ce )- | _ Eighteenth page, 2001177. “Win Scott should be deleted. Cc) Same page, correct citation should be: CIA Document, Yiemorandum R. Helms. to J. Lee Rankin, 6/1/64, Attachment F, p.4. Cu) Twentyfirst page, 2001189. ‘Delete "Jerez. " (Cc) _ Same page. MEXI 7203 should show as IN 72684. (c) Twentythird page, 2001182. The draft states that "the record is ainclear whether the maximum. maneuvering room' to be given the pol ygraph operator implied (sic) that Alvarado! S polygraph examination was designed to prove. his story. a’ fabri cation.” The answer to this speculative observation ‘is provided by the statement preceding it in the draft. As stated in the sdraft, the operator was to ensure that ‘Alvarado was to be "well-fed, rested, sand not in: fear. of bodily. harm. W dn order words, he was.to be in as good shape as possible to ensure reliable responses. (c )
14-00000 “ss In any event, we object..to detailed discussion of CIA's involvement in polygraphing of a foreign ‘national in Mexico City. We would prefer that it merely be noted that. he was polygraphed, without operational details. (c) Twentyfourth page,2001183. MEXI 7256 should show as IN 74273. (c) Same page. “Objection to discussion. of operational details of use of polygraph continue to this page. (c) | As an‘ interesting note, IN 74273 does not say that Alvarado | was polygraphed in a CIA safehouge. That communication was dated December, and he was not polygraphed until, 6 Decenber.(C ) Same page.. MEXI 7267 should show-as IN 74696.CC 0 Same page: °MEXT. 7289 should show as IN 75588. — The. "honest mistake" : “statement was in this cable, as follows" Ce) Be "3. We concluded interrogation with subject admitting that he must have made honest mistake in relating original story in his identification of Oswald." (uv) _ Same page, footnote. Operational details unnecessary to’ story.  Twentyfifth page, 2001184. MEXI 7289 should show as IN 75588, _ “in text and footnote. (c \. | | | | HSCA conclusions, twentysixth page, 2001185. The reference to "suspect conversations" apparently refers to “intercept conversations," which we wish . ~changed to "reported conversations. " CS) Twentyeighth page, - 2001187. The draft. conclusion that the investigation was “colored” by beliefs is hot. supported by the evidence. . The converse “conclusion is that their reservations, based. ‘on documents not cited, were born out by the investigation. bo )
14-00000 . 7 Twentyninth page, 2001188. CIA and the FBI worked together while the “jurisdictional matter -was sstratghtened- out. The record. stipports no other view. ©) wr Te ate
14-00000 © case should: be’ employed. and liaison sources and activities. wy apd : Mr. G. Robert Blakey: Chief Counsel and Director Select Committee on Assassinations - House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515 Dear Mr.. _ Blakey: "Forwarded herewith are comments on draft reports forwarded by you recently. Co) These first of. those covered in this letter is entitled Cuban- American. It is is understood that this As ‘intended. for unclassified publication. Our ‘comments will indicate Sanitization modifications in ‘the text, as- well as corrections of fact. Co) | So . n Similar euphemisms as are suggested - ‘in the draft on 1 the Alvarado Similarly, reference to LITEMPO should be deleted where it appears.” ‘The ‘LIFIRE. reference should also be deleted, ‘as it represents a unilateral operational capability of CIA; a general reference to a ‘sensitive source should suffice. ©) The name of the subject of. the discussion, Lopez; “should. .be deleted, and a general reference to the Cuban-American should suffice. (¢ ) ' Page 3. Agree with the indicated. deletions referring to operational | Reference to photography of the Cuban- American should be deleted; it comes from a liaison source, which zkiaison would recognize: in ‘the draft (page 4, as well). tc) an Page 4. Agree with indicated deletions, in addition to ‘those “noted above. Cu }
14-00000 i nied a fla’ om do Page 6. References to Nonterrey "station" (on ¢ this page) and » -- source. References to Lopez ‘and- Ruiz. should be changed. (c) “Same page. Tt. is noted. that. a cable by the DCOS in Mexico is cited without. recording that it is in error. The point is relevant to- subsequent observations in the draft. (ec ) Same page. ‘The reference: to LANE ‘should be. changed to “pesponsible.' re ) Page 6. Discussion of the 1975 review of the 201 file. The draft seems not to understand vinat the. review was. . The form was entitled "Review — ‘of 201 file on U. S. Citizen," being a form employed in a review conducted in 1975 of all 201 files involving U.S... citizens to determine whether they should be destroyed: or whether they could be retained because of = ‘counter-intelligence interests. This file was categorized for retention because he was‘a subject of possible interest in the assassination investigation. The date 1975, apparently questioned by the editor, is correct. (oo) | oO | same page, at bottom and comnencing over to next page. The ‘reference to FBI activities re Lopez’ does not change the reservations about - _publishing his name. ‘That the FBI did conduct an extensive | “investigation of the man's background in the. U. S. is quite clear, even if the reporting basis for an investigation was dubious. Cu), 7 _ Page 7. The name of Lopez’ s- cousin should ‘be deleted. Listing it would permit eventual identification of.; Lopez. Ceo ).
14-00000 Page 10. - The--comment -at the. -bottom. of this page, describing: as “egregious” CIA's not reporting the.manto the Warren’ Commission, "represents a misunderstanding of the handling of reports, as well as the relationships during the. investigation. The report that might be seen by some as suggesting that the man-had some significance was; on its face, a very poor report. - It was inaccurate in néarly every significant Fact. It is customary for intelligence analysts to evaluate reports on a continuing basis, and the downplaying of this one was--and_ remains-~- a proper professional judgment. In this case, the report routinely was ‘Forwarded to the FBI, with its primary responsibility for conducting the field ‘investigation. The Bureau did’ just that. However, the judgment of ‘the Committee is for ‘it to express, “however overstated and’ however weakly based Page le ‘The draft report errs in relating the treatment in.the CIA Task Force Report in 1977. That. study pointed out the errors in the Monterrey “report about Lopez,.- and. the bearing that this: had on the valuation placed o on the report. The Senate report never did focus on these basic Flaws, and. “selected those elements of it that Fit the: working thesis of the staff. The critical evaluation of the Monterrey: report seems valid to this date. The present. Committee draft accepts: the undiscriminating and ‘imprecise treatment. of. Book y- of ‘the Senate. report,’ without: undertaking consideration of all the: information | available. The selected quotation in the Task Force Report should be. read in its entire, context. Ce ) {
14-00000 . 4&3 ? wach : Page 13. Reference to a Mexican police source should be deleted. (Cc) Page 13. The HSCA may feel there are sinister implications on this matter, but that ‘is: based: [On ‘the: Interpretations of the Committee ahd hot on the facts. 4 uy Same page. Observations about "documented instances where the CIA decided to. forego passing information... -out of a desire to not. lay bare extremely sensitive sources of intel igence...." reflect an attitude on the part of the staff investigators 1 that may be shared by the Committee. ’ However, it is doubted that. a good case can be made for this. For instance, an attempt was made to SO describe reporting on telephone conversations, 7 based ona memorandum by. Mr. Slawson in April 1964. It was clear that the substance was reported, if the source--as distinguished from the information-- :. was not. disclosed on the record. We provided you with information showing “> “that Mr. Helms discussed ‘this with: Mr. Rankin in mid- January 1964. and that the basic information was: provided a couple of weeks later, still in January. A perusal of that correspondence indicates that Mr.. Rankin knew the source ‘as well as the information: in it. The erroneous Slawson memorandum appears ‘to be the main "documentation" for the statement in the draft. In any event -it is customary in intelligence reporting to provide the information with a _ Source evaluation, without, specifying the surcd, (5) in the present case, the Monterrey report 1 was a very suspect, on its face. It. was passed to the | ‘FBI for ‘inquiry, which seems to. have ‘concluded. in demonstrating just that. co
14-00000 _ What the ‘draft indicates is . "plausible" to the author, about the Bureau! Ss not reporting it, RS ‘speculation-and not fact. Had these been a real problem, it would have been worked out. That the Bureau did not complete its investigation until too late in the scheme of things ‘to report to. the Warren Commission can mean no more than that. It did the ‘Investigation and that cleared up the matter for purposes . of responsible and mature evaluation. (ec) ! _ Footnotes. Corrections. are below:. 3/ Classified CIA Document IN 72615, 3.Dec 63° 5/ Classified CIA Document IN 72829, 3 Dec 63 6/ Classified CIA Document DIR-86761, 4 Dec 63 9/ Classified CIA Document IN 74227, 12/5/63 : WV Classified CIA Dispatch No. 22579, 12/5/63. _ 14/ Classified CIA Document DIR-87188, 5 Dec 63 | 16/ Classified CIA Document IN 43194, 19 Mar 64 22/ Classified CIA Document IN 43940, 20 Mar 64 23/ Classified CIA Document, Personality File Action Request, 16 Dec 63 a KY ‘Oswald, Was He or. Was He Not, A CIA Agent? It is understood that this is intended for unclassified publication, SO comments will relate . to security and accuracy. Page 2. The HSCA investigators did. not review “the "CIA's 144-volume - Oswald file." They did read (68 volumes of the cI Staff Oswald file, but o they did not read@8-others. “There were another” 87 so-called. "bulky" files | _ not read at CIA, in the CI Staff Oswald file. OF the seven volumes herd by ‘the Office of Security, four were: ‘reviewed, and part of a fifth. lf FOIA” 7 materials released. by the. Agency were read elsewhere, it still would not 4
14-00000 as stated it is incorrect. (v) _have been because they could not be found in response to the Jess than effective way in which some materials were requested. . In any event, before . necessary for the HSCA investigators to have read all the materials made available to them. ‘They did not. | The amount of unread material-is estimated ‘the so-called Oswald file). () constitute the same thing because of sanitization. Whatever was read, Page 4. ‘The statement “nor was: ‘there always an independent means of verification that all materials requested by the Agency were » in fact, . : provided, "leaves the gratuitous inference that- there may have ‘been some | withholding. If files in the Agency were not made available, it simply would the above statenent in the draft, can honestly be made, it would have been variously from one quarter to one third | (see above comment as it applies to Page 5.. The reference to “institutional obstacles," must be stated in the context ‘of. security standards. Once the Committee accepted the 7 Agency! s standards the only. remaining problen was one of relevance (under the agreement between Chairman Stokes and the DCI), and the ability of the HSCA investigators. to ‘explain ‘what they wanted. Cu )- Same page. It would be appreciated if the report did: not state that. "the vast majority of CIA files made available -+-were reviewed in unsanitized form." While. the majority of the files made available were - reviewed, and the great majority of these were unsanitized, we would prefer not to have it _ advertised, even if 4t contributed to the: credibility of the Committee’ s report. (c Page 8. Footnote. One officer "claims to. believe," as distinguished from "acknowledges" the possibility of a."vest pocket" operation known to no 1 one. That such an operation could be run, known to but a few, would be possible - & : ert
14-00000 - only if not in behalf of the Agency. The HSCA investigators have had it ‘explained to them ° in: ‘80 many ‘ways: ‘that: a variety. of cross checks. and Controls, | administrative, Financial and operational, work against such a development. Cy \ Page 9.. Not all. persons in the Tegal. traveler were col lege graduates. Cc) "NOTE: Although the legal traveler. program is inactive at | present, it would be preferred that no mention be made to it, as it may be reinstituted. at. some point in the ‘future. It is ‘an operational technique that. should not be publicized. It would: be preferred if it were simply stated that none of those going. to the, Soviet Union, “whose cooperation was requested, made contact with Oswald. Co ) | | Page 10, ff. It seems that Wilcott hardly merits the space devoted . “to his allegations... The man essentially is discredited, and to satisfy his propaganda aims ‘is questionable. . In “any event, his location in Japan reveals ar post that has not ‘been acknowledged by the U.S. or the Japanese governments. It provides the opportunity to have Nilcott speak with apparent authority . sand credibility as to his work, even having "+ "unknowingly. disbursed — ‘payments for Oswald's project using that cryptonym." How he could have, in the first place, having arrived after Oswald left Japan, is dubious (a fact hot noted in the draft). -But the allegation of operational disbursements ‘there could prove troublesome in, a number of. ways. (J Lee Harvey Oswald’ s CIA File (page 15 ff. ) Page 7. -.The file- was. opened "purportedly" because of. counterintelligence consideration. This has been: belabored elsewhere. in the drafts. “Yes, he . did meet the criteria for constituting a possible ( cI threat, soit was
14-00000 -permisstble to open.a file on-him if it-appeared desirable. ~ rr ee ere The Committee has been advised of the essentially administrative reasons that joined con- ‘siderations which led. to the actual opening of the file. Cy ) . “Why was the file opened. ..a year after his attempt to defect? Reiterating explanations given elsewhere, there was no requirement to open a file. The Judgment of: the officer in question controlled. (uv) Page 1. _ Top of page. “While the. cable could provide a proper | basis for opening a file, if, there was reason for doing so, in “the absence . of a requirement to do so, it. was also quite proper to have decided not to -do so. It tends ‘to become a matter of a ‘proper judgment then, against what a novitiate might think 20 years later, when the subject had killed the President. ‘The basic consideration is that there was no requirement. to. “Open files; the administrative objective, is. to hold down. ‘the number of 201 | files. There had to be a. reason. as well, as. there being. information : ‘meeting the criteria that constituted a threshhold for whether one was’ even _ permitted to: open such. a file. - (See, comments on draft at pages 2000589-2000590, . Issue A - #2, Opening of Lee Harvey Oswald’ s file. ) Cu) | Page 20. At the time mentioned, the organization was the Directorate of Plans, not the "pp0." coon Page oF. The opening form showed ‘only a place for citing a. "source document." It. was customary: to. refer: to an organization, when. the opening action was taken there. | This, has been explained often enough to not be misunderstood, whether believed: or not. (U \ Page 23. A "seemingly long delay" would: seem ‘long only ‘to those: not familiar with the procedure for opening 201 files. Perhaps the HSCA
14-00000 eget? ‘investigators’ believe: ‘there:should shave. been a 1 requirement, but there | was” “not, and. should not be. “The. implicit: criticism reflects, a failure to grasp _ this operation. Co) > . Page’ 25. ‘Has | the: draft erred ‘in using the name "Lee Henry: Oswald" at "the end of the first paragraph? Did ‘the author not mean that. had records ‘on Oswald been sought in his. correct, name, Lee H Harvey Oswald, it still would | have. been found although “indexed under Lee Henry Oswald? Co). The letters nag" on the opening sheet of the Oswald 201 file | Page 26° ff. The. draft emphasizes the memory of the witness fa man with | quite a good memory on some things). Unfortunately, his memory plays him tricks on the institution of the "AG" symbols. Agency records show that it was ‘in use prior to the assassination of President Kennedy. Perhaps the witness. recalls learning of it during the investigation and now believes that it was ‘developed then, but the records show him to be in error. The problem with ‘this subject is that the investigators sought answers from people years after ‘the fact rather than asking officially; when they. finally did the answer WAS readily available. The Tost time is recorded in the long treatment of a non-issue. Ce) | | | “Page 27. Rather than referring to “its records handbook, "at would “be. preferred if the: phrase "a records manual" were substituted. ad. Cu) Was There a Dual Filing System on 1 Oswald d2 i | Page 33. What: the’ Committee: “was aware of from its. outset" about. a oe “dual Filing system, betrays a. preconception rather than a fact. "This awareness: (sic) 1 was heightened | into concern" by | the rough notes when ‘the os
14-00000 thing--and clearly did not: employ it--only suggests that such ‘a thing was considered and not carried out. ‘It does not mean that it could have been done successfully. A reference file has ‘to be held. ain the central official operation without a “record file. The key consideration, if - “covers the lack of supporting evidence. This has been. the subject of a previous “menorandun From | me dated 27 September 1978. wy >” r 5 oa ZRRIFLE. program was in a planning. stage. That someone considered such a | filing system, Bd it will tell where ‘the full file is. There can be no evidence is of any concern to the Committee, is not. that Harvey thought about, but that he did nat do it. oWhy? Probably because he could not. A lot. is draped over this unexecuted . study, and extrapolative speculation Le 4 Page» 34. Top of page. There is an editorial. error, in which reference As. made to “an Agency relationship with. the CIA. " “The context is. not ‘clear ugh to reveal what is intended, Co) Page C It is not at all clear why reference to. someone in a CIA file would "raise a question of: whether Lee Harvey Oswatd was , in a oo fact, involved in. some sort of CI project." "Depends on who is looking at 4 files they don! t understand. Having asked the question, one must: assume there isa compulsion to write about it. CG) Page ane » Please describe Mrs. Egerter by position in 1 View of ‘using ‘her name, "The CT ‘Staff. officer ‘who opened ‘the Oswald 201 file." o Page 48. Request omit specific. reference to "legal ‘travelers program." | While the Program is. inactive at. Present, it may be activated at some time in “10,
14-00000 | "The application: was: withdrawn,” the next sentence starting "She acknoiledged ‘reference to her being denied a security. clearance. Cc) “of his access to others who might | be going to the...." This merely tells “the story while generalizing the specific operational ‘activity. Cc) “sthe USSR, end the ‘Sentence with a period after "Oe «from the Soviet Union. " ‘The next sentence would commence, "After the assassination Of... 7 the future. It is an intelligence method, ‘and | publicity on the concept would jeopardize those. ‘who. cmay.- participate: in the. ‘future. Cc) ns, . . Page 60. Request that the: last sentence in the paragraph ending in. the . middie of the ‘page: end after “Joint Press Reading Service," and that the rest of the Sentence be deleted. . “Tt represents a working relationship. with Tiaison services. Ce). Same page. " Request that. second sentence, next paragraph, be solely | . being debriefed by an Agency employee, etc. etc." There should be no . f tows Page 6B. Delete.."at Harvard University," and change next line to. read tee Page 67,, “Following the statement about Dr. Davison's expulsion from This refers toa specific operation that retains certain cr considerations. (c) Pages 70-72. Requestion deletion of all Paragraph starting on "page 70 with "Davison admitted his. involvement, fas well as the paragraph. starting the next page with "Aécording to his instructions. . -" and the paragraph starting < on page Te with "Davison denied participating in ‘any other 7 intel ligence activity.. The Tast paragraph. on page 72 could stand as written, with deletion for purpose. of the word “accordingly. * » CI | Page 73 ff. George de MohrenschiTdt. Request J. ‘Walton Moore’ 'S name “be replaced by description. "DCD. local ‘epresentative." Cc). oan ay
14-00000 AAO tt ener eh ee a Page 78, ff. William D. Gaudet. Mr. Gaudet's name should not be revealed. The summary quoted on page 80 reveals personal details and reference to financial loans and should be deleted. C¢ ) Page 82. Oswald in Helsinki en route to USSR. At page 86 reference to the CIA file on Soviet Consul should be deleted, as should the | reference to(CIA Dispatches (showing the existence of CIA operations in a sensitive location). On page 87 reference to a (CIA_} should be deleted; it should suffice if it was simply stated that "a dispatch from the Embassy, dated 9 October 1959...." The reference to a (CIA dispatch] on page 88 should be deleted. C<) Page 90. The absence of a reference to the origin of the communication conceals the location, and there is no objection in this form. Cu) MER taseranst iB SEL SRS liek 066 407