180-10131-10338 AGENCY : RECORD NUMBER : RECORD SERIES : AGENCY FILE NUMBER : ORIGINATOR : FROM: TO: TITLE: . DATE: PAGES: SUBJECTS : DOCUMENT TYPE: CLASSIFICATION : RESTRICTIONS : CURRENT STATUS : DATE OF LAST REVIEW : OPENING CRITERIA : COMMENTS : v9.1 HW 50955  Docld: 322377223 JFK Assassination System Date: 10/19/20 Identification Form Agency Information HSCA 180-1013 1-10338 SECURITY CLASSIFIED TESTIMONY 014737 Document Information HSCA [Restricted] 05/19/1978 71 CIA, FILES CIA, METHODOLOGY [Restricted] . OSWALD. LEE, POST RUSSIAN PERIOD, TRAVEL, TRIP TO MEXICO OSWALD, LEE, RUSSIAN PERIOD, RETURN TO US TRANSCRIPT Unclassified 1A Redact 06/13/1997 Box 8 Page i
3 ty 4 uf Bikey plate, ey J ad - *e io vas He nent Mr. Goldsmith. No problem and you will be notified when the transcript has been prepared. Have you had a chance to : ie) review the letter dated March 25, 1978 from the Acting Director aa of Central Intelligence Carlucci to the Chairman of this an the Committee and I am authorized by the Committee to take your! statement for this deposition. For backgroun purposes I would like to tell you what the mandate of the Committee is and that Committee?. 5 i . aI Mrs. Scaletti. I have. ,| Mr. Goldsmith. Do you understand that letter? ° | Mrs. Scaletti. I do. : | Mr..Goldsmith. For the record that correspondence with t : iq ; | aa JFK Exhibit 94 at the JFK hearings. on My name is Michael Goldsmith. I am staff counsel with i . 12 | If i i | is to investigate the assassination of President Kennedy, i a specifically who did it, was there a conspiracy, and also to | | - | . ‘ 7 evaluate the performance of the investigative agencies includ= | } . . 8 | ing the FBI and the CIA. / i aan Finally, another aspect of the mandate of the Committee | 20 | is to evaluate the work done by the Warren Commission. Do yous 21 || understand that? | @. 22 H Mrs. Scaletti. I do. a, | Mr. Goldsmith. Prior to coming here today have you had | & “4 | any discussion with any present or former employee of the CIA |; ” ac fh concerning your testimony that you are about to give today? orparT | | 001713 : HW 50955 Docld: 32277223 Page 7 i
Mrs. Scaletti. I went to the Agency, to the office of | | | - ‘ | General Counsel to find out what my rights were, what restric- *| tions were placed on me. They told me I had no restrictions | ° | placed on me and I could have counsel with me today if f | ; | wanted to. . . | 6 Mr. Goldsmith. Did anyone in the Agency discuss the i ; substance of the testimony with you? : 8 Mrs. Scaletti. No. I discussed with him only -- they | i ? did not discuss with me what I should say or in any way I could 0 say it. ou | Mr. Goldsmith. Have you spoken to ant present or former 3 i 2 Agency employee about testimony or statements which those | -@ 13 persons have given to the Committee in the past? 7 is “Mrs. Scaletti. No, I have not. | . * Mr. Goldsmith. Is it fair to say that other than the | 16 interview you had previously with staff members of this Commits, WV | tee you have not discussed the substance of this case with any- 13 one? 7 "9 | Mrs. Scaletti. No. Just OGC and OLC about my rights 20 and procedures, et cetera. OO OO ! a1 | Mr. Goldsmith. Mrs. Scaletti, for how many years were | 22 you employed by the CIA? | | ve 73 | Mrs. Scaletti. Twenty-six plus. ! wl Mr. Goldsmith. What years were you working for the : aa , na Agency? oe, o017414- remem css ey wes) ‘oe a’) ey ny cual HW 50955 Boclda: 32277223 Page 6
Mrs. Scaletti. 1951 to -- I retired December 1977. Mr. Goldsmith. Would you give us a brief summary of the f | 3 | positions that you held during that 26 years? “| Mrs. Scaletti. “I started as a typist and t retired as a : 3 Branch Chief. I went all the positions in between, reports, | 6 IA. | | , Mr. Goldsmith. .IA stands for what? 3 . Mrs. Scaletti. Intelligence Assistant officer, Chief of | 9 Station, Branch Chief, Deputy Branch Chief. . | 16 rf Mr. Goldsmith. Where were you Cheif of Station? : a Mrs. Scaletti. | . : v2 Mr. Goldsmith. When you retired youvere Chief of which | ra Lo branch? Mrs. Scaletti. It was over | | re) Mr. Goldsmith. My understanding is that a desk would be 001715 1st Mr. Goldsmith. One of the branches in the Western | . \ I 16 4} Hemisphere?. 7 Mrs. Scaletti. A Western Hemisphere Branch. i | il : 13 | Mr. Goldsmith. Did you ever have any experience as a case i 19 | officer dealing with agents in the field? ” | ! | 20 | Mrs. Scaletti. Yes. am Mr. Goldsmith. In 1963 where were you assigned? H | | 22 Mrs. Scaletti. Washington. - 73 Mr. Goldsmith. What was your responsibility at that time | | | , 24 Mrs. Scaletti. I was on the Mexican desk or branch. i ors a it i | i t | i se ee ee ae oo a. HW 50955 Docld: wma mes TOP SEGRE co §
7 a subunit of a branch, is that correct? - 2 Mrs. Scaletti. Right. . Mr. Goldsmith. So if you were assigned to the Mexican 3 | desk that would be one of the desks in the Western Hemisphere, | 3 in a particular Western Hemisphere Branch? | ) Mrs. Scaletti. Right, unless it became a branch all by | | itself. This is just internal organization, reo-ganization. a, It does not mean anything. : 9 | Mr. Goldsmith. In 1963 how many years had you been work- 10 ing: onthe: Mexican Desk?» iP | Mrs. Scaletti. I don't remember unless I get=my chron- 12 : but I think it is at least three or four. I just don't remembe FOE 5, { | | | | | ology but I would say at least, to be honest, I don't remember | | Mr. Goldsmith. How many years did you stay at the Mexica | 1g | Disk. before going on to your next assignment? | a Mrs. Scaletti. From there I went to Mexico in 1967. : | Mr. Goldsmith. In 1967 you actually went to Mexico? : ‘a | Mrs. Scaletti.. Yes. | Mr. Goldsmith. As a case officer? | 0 Mrs. Scaletti. No, as an IA, : 2 Mr. Goldsmith. During that time did you work under Win ; c a 23 Scott? | 3 i . 7 Mrs. Scaletti. -In Mexico? | Bee 1 Mr. Goldsmith. Yes. 25 : Mrs. Scaletti. In Mexico, yes. - | 2 , | 001716 | OD oraarr | | HW 50955 Docld: 32277223 Page i160 T |
aa fae ao : a oe HW 450955 Dactld wor maces i i t ‘ id i | | 1329277293 Page 11 Spchor 5 a etahd ME: a we y fe iA f : s yj 3 3 &b Ce an genx ped Be Save R ee © 23 Mr.. Goldsmith. While in Mexico did you ever work with Ann Goodpasture? Mrs. Scaletti. We worked with everybody in the station. So, indirectly but not directly under her. Mr. Goldsmith. Do you know what here responsibilities were at the station? Mrs. Scaletti. Broadly. She assisted Mr. Scott and | : handled some of his cases. Ireally don't know what she had full responsibility for. I know she assisted him on some of the things that he handled. | } Mr. Goldsmith. Is it fair to say she was his right hand | . | person? t t Mrs. Scaletti. Not exactly because his right hand person would have been the Deputy Chief of Station. t t Mr. Goldsmith. As a formal matter that would certainly . have been the case. Informally did he rely on her a great deal? Mrs. Scaletti. Yes, but I wouldn't say that she was his | really right hand person. He did depend upon her but not for everything. i ! Mr. Goldsmith. Do you know whether she had any responsi-; bility for the surveillance operations in Mexico City? Mrs. Scaletti. That I can't remember. There was a lot | of coordination. She would do some of the work but I don't think she ran them and I don't remember she had the responsi- bility for them. t i is j i 001717
ty g Bou Ths A 9 mee kl Mr. Goldsmith. Turning back to 1963 again, what were ey the general responsibilities of the Mexican. Desk? Ley) Mrs. Scaletti. To support the Mexico City station and. aa to handle things at headquarters concerning Mexico and the ‘~ un Mexico City station. Mr. Goldsmith. Were the responsibilities of the Mexican |; Desk solely administrative and procedureal in nature? xe Mrs. Scaletti. The Méxican Desk was handled like any other desk. If you say administrative and procedural includes ‘budget work, name traces, handling requests from Congress and that is administrative and procedureal. But in my terminology administrative. can.mean support and administration, which is a completely different thing, like personnel or logistics, no. fn Procedural, L£ you=mean day to day answering of cables, is | yes. If you would like to elaborate on administrative or | rocedurat I might be able to -- Mr. Goldsmith. Could you give me a brief laundry list | | 14) of the types of work that the Mexican Desk did when it gave | support to the Mexico City station? 20 | Mrs. Scaletti. In intelligence reporting it would © | 2 | process the report, positive intelligence reports. It would | 2 do the counterintelligence dissemination, if it were required, > 3 | te the FBI, et cetera. It would handle budget and submit : zs | projects requesting money in support of the station's opera= | ! ; ‘ { 25 tions. It would do name traces. Itwuld handle requests from EP we re om eg a 95 qa “4 ; 001718 HW 30955 pocld: 32277293 Page 12 i a ad c i 5 F i .
HW 450955 aa aa aed css aye “oO Bocld: | Congress, requests from other government agencies. We would | write any memo that was required in response to a request from anybody, from the next echelon all the way up to the Director. We would be responsible for replying to matters having to do with Mexico per se.or operations in Mexico. Does that clarify Mr. Goldsmith. Yes, that is helpful. i Did the work involve at any time substantive analytical work? -In other words, you would get information from the | || Mexico City station and you would then have to analyze that ; information and perhaps make a policy decision on it? Mrs. Scaletti. No. At that time we are not analysts, for a memo, like if there is an election, but we do not do I | t { . | analytical work. We only put down facts that havecbeen | reported. We do not do analysis. We do correlation. That is | a much better word. i Mr. Goldsmith. What about actualy decisions? If Mexico City station communicated with the Mexican Desk and. asked for ; 2 decision to be made, would the Mexican Desk make the decision or would someone else in the Branch make the decision? you say policy, analytical, or intelligence, no, we did not analyze intelligence. We only correlated. By policy you mean A 1 operational policy? 4 : I 32277223 Page 13 a & a) i ad 44 be j 7 ! 001719 j q y | | we only process raw material. Occasionally they might ask you ; Mrs. Scaletti. I think we misunderstood each other. Wher iMe QVhuig a. Lo
eo da 37) axy "2 HW 50955 Docld: 32277223 Page 14 Mrs. Scaletti. Yes. Mr. Goldsmith. How many people worked on the Mexican | Desk? | Mrs. Scaletti. I cannot.remember. I have been itrying | to think. I cannot recall. I cannot remember where we were sitting. | fla 7a a, ite 3 § Fg “yg on are Mr. Goldsmith. Yes. Mrs. Scaletti. On operations a lot is left to the station to have a certain amount of autonomy. We had almost no authority co make final decisions. We could prepare a meassage with a recommendation and then it would go for release or signature and at the time it was released or: thecmemoc signed, that person would be making the policy. Is that clear? Mr. Goldsmith. Yes. i That person would be someone higher up above the Mexican Desk? Mr. Goldsmith. It was not just you? I would say two or more, between two and Mrs. Scaletti. i5. Mr. Goldsmith. When you say two or more are you thinking! in terms of case officers only or xe you thinking in terms of } case officers, secretarial help, administrative help? | Mrs. Scaletti. Yes. I know where were at least two of us because if I wasn't there, there had to be somebody else there. 001720 gna i i { | ' t { { i i i | | | eng ey fr Py A
3 we Uy gia 4. 12 i Mr. Goldsmith. You say two or more, you are not making | i ©) | any distinction between case officer and other -- . i aa was there and somebody else must have been there. But how tn t | } | | Mrs. Scaletti. Don't stick me with the two. I-.know I | i ] i | many people were there -~ there are tables of organization ‘| available. Honestly, I cannot remember. If I could visualize | what room Ivas sitting in then maybe I could try to think who an Sat-where but I cannot visualize where I was sitting at that | | Fame. | aaa r..Goldsmith.. How many years did you work at. the | | Mexican Desk? ! 2 .Mrs.-Scaletti. We worked all over. Your table of | a s organization changes every four months or six months. Do you | 3 | understana? You said at that time? YOu said .1963? : is | Mr. Goldsmith. Yes. : a Mrs. Scaletti. I can remember at times temperararily | ; . - | A when there were 15 and I can remember times when Iwas practically i alone. " Mr. Goldsmith. Who would have been your immediate | H oa supervisor in 1963? | | | an Mrs. Scaletti. I cannot remember who the Desk Chief was.| a 22 Mr. Goldsmith. Would the Desk Chief have been someone | - 3 | different from the Branch Chief? | 2 | Mrs. Scaletti. Yes, unless there was no Desk Chief. I | if i | ’ mean, if there was a vacancy. | ‘rap orpert po1721 HW 450955 poota:32277293 Page i5 | Ui 0 a 4g BE e i , i i j i H : at
14a NPE Re Ss Mr. Goldsmith. Did you ever work with Hack Whitten? i) Mrs. Scaletti. Yes. . | : 4 i Mr. Goldsmith. Do you recall when you worked with him? da . . matter of a couple of years I believe. ase , Mrs. Scaletti. The Years I don't remember. Itws a Mr. Goldsmith. As a case officer working on the Mexican ° i Mr. Goldsmith. Do you think that you worked with Whitten ; in 1963? | ! 3 Mrs. Scaletti. I know I did because I saw a message. | ? I Mr. Goldsmith. In other words, you saw a cable of some | 0 | kind that had his name on it? : a Mrs. Scaletti. It was mine. | ! Desk would you have been aware in 1963 of the various surveil- lance operations that were in effect in Mexico City, being conducted by the Mexico City station? operation against the Cuban and Soviet Embassies and Consulates? i 1 hm? ke Mrs. Scaletti. Right. | | | | 18 Mrs. Scaletti. Not the surveillances but the team. - |. WV | Mr. Goldsmith. Could you elaborate asbit on that? | 18 | Mrs. Scaletti.: I mean from the budget standpoint and from | . | : i 19 | ¢he clearance of agents, I knew that there were so many teams | i 20 | with about so many people, or basically what they did. But we ; | . | 2] were not privy necessarily to what those people did every day. | : i . . i i G oo 22 7 Mr. Goldsmith. Did you know that there was a wire tap | | > 743 | | i * 2 in Mr. Goldsmith. Did you also know there was a photo i i i Z ) iD OTARET HW 50955 Docld:32277223 Page 16 t a c Ag i g i | | | 001722 fang a
14 surveillance operation against the Cuban Embassy and Consulate Bw and Soviet Embassy and Consulate? ta Mrs. Scaletti. Right. a ‘Mr. Goldsmith. If we can just clarify your last answer, | das | you were aware of the fact of these surveillance operations. Could you explain to me again what you were not aware of? Mrs. Scaletti. You know from your budget preparations and from your handling of veryday traffic that you have certain. | operations. Like,vyou know you have a surveillance team. That, 2 | is a project. You rieed so much money... You have so many people, “You have so many cars because they come in and request vermis- | if gion to buy a car or to sell a car. Or you know you have a Cc ads clearance fro so-many. people or this. man quit, you know; "personnel. - neers You know basically from the quarterly reporting or the i : reporting that is required under the regulations, the general target, because you have to get higher approval to hire a team to do such and such. | But I do not know that on Monday, June 2nd, two cars went: 1 to this house and looked at this window and Thursday -~- do you an understand? 22 ! Mr. Goldsmith. Yes. You would not be aware of the i | operational information being picked up by the surveillance 24 : operation? ss fo Mrs. Sealetti. Unless the field bothered to tell you, 001723 HW 50955 Docld:32277223 Page 17
aan ha Lm prs . cu ; is, | because they wanted to find something out or check something | 2 | | | out. 3 | . . Mr. Goldsmith. How often would the field contact you | with regard to this types of situation? ~ i “Mrs.S¢aletti. You could go a month or two without . i | aa having any, or longer. a , ! ' Mr. Goldsmith. Would your answer to that question be | = i that you did not frequently get information from the Mexico i 7 | city station pertaining to the operational aspects of the } : i 10 § surveillance teams' work? ; a a Mrs. Scaletti. Correct. 12 Mr. Goldsmith. When you did get this kind of information! would it come to headquarters from the Mexico City station by | | means of a dispatch or cable? Mrs. Scaletti. Either one. | l { Mr. Goldsmith. How would it be determined which form of communication would be used to contact headquarters? Mrs. Scaletti. The priority and if a reply was requested, as .t t gation you had better send a cable or you are never going to i i i | [ 19 : because if you neéd an answer in order to do some more investi- | | hear. If it is a dispatch it could take maybe a month by the : time you got to the desk and by the time you answer it it would i ! i t ' 73 take a month. qc (24 | Mr. Goldsmith. During the summer months, and I am talking generally not just 1963, but during the summer months, at least : ff me em en 001724 é HW 50955 DocId:32277223 Page 18 ( f ie Se i ai ; . 3
ak ds ape? Hn * Pad it 4 é 3 £ is 5 fo ke 5) 16 of the years you were at the Mexico Desk, do you recall whether there were frequent communincations from the Mexico pee) City station reporting the fact of Americans visiting the ~~ da Embassy or Consulate of a communist country? Mrs. Scaletti. JI don't recall any difference between din 4 of Oswald's contract considered? Mrs. Scaletti. It was a routine name trace. a i summer months and any other months. | 7 Mr. Goldsmith... When did Lee Harvey Oswald first come | a to yaur attention? | 7 Mrs. Scaletti. When the station sent a cable asking. | ; i 10 | for a name trace, a routine name trace. | n | Mr. Goldsmith. At that time how important was the fact | | | | Mr. Goldsmith. So at that time it was not considered at all unusual. Is that what you are saying? Mrs. Scaletti.. Yes. .We handled it as any normal -- | 7 17) because we would have gotten similar name traces on other | ° 13 i Americans who might have been identified as going to the soviets. 9 It was a routine way of handling that for the Bureau. 20 | Mr. Goldsmith. So even though the fact that Americans : | . 21 did not frequently contact the Soviet Embassy or the Cuban | & so 23 Embassy, when they did and Mexico City station communicated wit ch 2 73 headquarters the fact of that contact, was supposed to be | fo ; | it a4 | considered routine? : i ; - 25 Mrs. Scaletti. Right. It was still handled in a routine | DF | 001725 HW 50955 Docld: 40277223 Page id T ( roa ee f - ; 4 fe
17 Eas ce ro mee ~) Hewes ors he a pera Yi areal ad oy manner. Mr. Goldsmith. Would the fact that a cable had bee nused to communicate with headquarters indicate that the contact was da BRS considered to be important? \ Mrs. Scaletti. No. As I told you previously, and I will | { ! i | | i i i ! ta repeat, you generally would use a cable for a name trace for | the expediency so that you could get a reply back within a reasonable working period. | | | Mr. Goldsmith. Let us take a look at that cable now. I -would like to show you what has been marked CIA Number 177, Ni | and when «It refer to these numbers, I am referring to the | red numbers at the bottom of the page. The Agency. has been kind enough to make these documents available to the Committee | t at our officese. For purposes of allowing athe Agency to make | 1S | sure that each document is properly returned to it, the Agency 1s | has numbered each piece of paper. I use those numbers for : vl the purpose of the deposition for our record. Would you : 3 | please examine CIA Number 177? . | 9 | Mrs. Scaletti. Is that the cable that first brought Lee: 20 | Oswald to your attention? ; 7 Mrs. Scaletti. I presume so. I can't remember that far, ff = 22.1 back. : | 73 Mrs. Scaletti. 19 October 1963. nD B Mr. Goldsmith. Is it 19 or 9? dn | Mr. Goldsmith. What is the date of that cable? WW HW 50955 Docld:32277223 Page 20 T if ~ 8 Qe F ee a tT O01 22 &
in da on aus bo SS nD? §., ye tat HW 50955 Docld t H t | | | j i i | | i | | | in t : | i i ian Seah AGG ARB Re SG eee VLU | 18 Mrs. Scaletti. (i9 October 1963. That is the way I read it. Mr. Goldsmith. Let us take a look at CIA Number 178. Mrs. Scaletti. It could be 9. That is not really that pertinent, is it? Here it is 9 because here is the zulu time. ‘So that is 9. | Mr. Goldsmith. What time? Mrs. Scaletti. Zulu time. Mr. Goldsmith. What is zulu. time? Mrs. Scaletti. Greenwich. I believe that is what it is. Zero nine zero four three would be the 9th of 043 zed. Mr. Goldsmith. What is zed? Mrs. Scaletti. a. Mr. Goldsmith.- That refers to Greenwich time? Mrs. Scaletti. I believe. But you can check the date with that. Mr. Goldsmith. ‘I was going to say if we take a look at CIA Number 178, that is the Mexico City station copy of that telegram -- - Mrs. sScaletti. I am sorry, what number ?. Mr. Goldsmith. Number 178. That indicates that ‘the cable was sent on 8 October, so it is likely that headquarters would have received it bythe 9th. Mrs. Scaletti. Right. What am I supposed to do with. this one? 001727 Se 2277223 Page 21 i Ti
HW 50955 RO a) aa ia on ays Bocld: BLA So {Us Ohi WHE : 21g Mr. Goldsmith. Just wait for me to ask you a question. Would you please read that cable? Mrs. Scaletti. Yes. Mr. Goldsmith. My first question is does that cable contain a request for a name trace? Mrs. Scaletti. No, unless I really goofed reading. Mr. Goldsmith. ‘Please reread it. Mrs. Scaletti. No, it requests no specific name trace. Mr. Goldsmith. Now, in the basence of a name trace hwat that it was sent by means of cable instead of dispatch? Mrs. Scaletti. That they were informing headquarters of when you check them out it is not an American male. They alerted headquarters to the fact that a possible American had contacted the Soviet Embassy. ing headquarters about. “My question is, does the fact that they used the cable suggest that Mexico City station considered this to be a priority item? Mrs. Scaletti. I really cannot read into their thinking. As a spot thing like this I probably would have reported it by cable. I can't really comment on that. Mr. Goldsmith. I understand. The reason I asked the question is because earlier, my recollection of the statement 2277223 Page 22 i ay fr Ti significance would you attach to. the cable in light of the fact) a possible American, because even though it says American male, Mrs Goldsmith. I understand that is what they are inform | j ee a en Enter ‘
19g Lm gee — . 24g ab hase: 20 3s tw a we Soo fe dd be A was that you said a cable would be used for something that was | 42 2 priority item or if there was a request for a name trace. “ | ; | There was no request for a name trace there. I.am wondering ie ; this fits into the other category, a priority item? 7 Mrs. Scaletti- Not nrecessarily. We did an awful lot 4 | of cabling out of Mexico of these spot things instead of writing | full dispatches. This is a lot quicker and really less expen- | 5 sive to do than in a cable. A lot of this is just how you react 9 | and how you handle things. 10 There is no regulation which says what has to be done il | by cable and what has “to be done by dispatch. It is up to the i2 |.CO or the individual. Mr. Goldsmith. Are there no written regulations govern- Wa.IDSot So a ee eh Se SE CR Le cere ni ern eee ere ing when dispatches are to be used as opposed to cable? | | 4 | | I | i i ' | { | i | i | i ! ; i | \ 1s Mrs. Scaletti. Sometimes. 16 | '.Mr. Goldsmith. So there are regulations governing the A? | instances? 13 Mrs. Scaletti. Right. , i 19 | Mr. Goldsmith. Does this cable contain a description of 20 | Lee Harvey Oswald? | 21 Mrs. Scaletti. It provides a description of a male that looked to be an American who entered the Soviet Embassy. 3 as Mr. Goldsmith. Is the answer yes or no. ot red pe Mrs. Scaletti. I can't tell. 3 in Mr. Goldsmith. Read the description contained in the t 001729. pend Saf : to HW 450955 Docld: $2277223 Page 23
H ae second paragraph. © 3 Mrs. Scaletti. Correct. . Goldsmith. The first paragraph mentions Oswald? | Mrs. Scaletti. The first paragraph mentions Oswald. ase Mr. Goldsmith. The second paragraph also refers to a da photograph and then it describes the person who appears in the photograph, is that correct? Mrs. Scaletti. That is correct. i | | | iH | Mr. Goldsmith. Is this photograph linked to Oswald? | 4 9 10 4 Mrs. Scaletti. In this cable it is not directly linked | il to Oswald. 4 it i2 Mr..Goldsmith. Is it indirectly linked to Oswald? } Mrs. Scaletti. In this cable it is not indirectly linked: Pan either. I might say, to. clarify, that in many instances we would receive cables like this and it would be the same person. Mrs. Scaletti. No, becauses it was worth nothing. 16 \ Rather than put a Tot of wordage in they put this down, what 17 ! they heard and this is what they have seen, and maybe without | ia putting all the language there may be or -may not be indentifiable 1g : or this could possible be the same. person. | 20 We were very careful to do this when we go out to third 21 agencies. | J a 22 Mr. Goldsmith. Certainly the Mexico City station would : vo a not send up a cable containing simply the information reflected ; a4 | in paragraph number 2? | i i I t t i 1 i i 1 4 if HW 50955 Bocld: 32277223 Page 24 iL y - | 001730 a GA sy a
1 | me ue Sita oy a “, iC bai. peat! < tc Mr. Goldsmith. So you are saying you believe, and you may correct me if I am wrong, that the cable would not put in a all of the extra verbage such as saying “this may be Oswald". da Instead they would give you the information on Oswald in £7) paragraph 1. In paragraph 2 they report the fact of a photo- graph and the fact that they report the particular photograph simply means this may or may not be Oswald? ty) Mrs. Scaletti.. Yes. What they have done is obvious to “\O “me now and I would assume this might have been the way I ied interpreted it at the time, that they got the phone call. The station went and said "now, look, can we identify him" and. they went to the photograph. The only photographs they saw which could have been -- i) } ' I i you know, in case this man had walked in around that time, may- re pe this is the one they chink it is, so let us give them the —" in | | description, it might help Washington. | Mr. Goldsmith. So, the significance of that second Mrs. Scaletti. This is the way I interpret it now. I probably interpreted it at the time but I can't remember my exact though processes so many years ago. I would not now | t k | | 12 paragraph is that this might be Oswald? | | CO | have gone back to the station and said “why did you send me | paragraph 2?" ze | - Mr. Goldsmith. I understand that paragraph 2 does not say "Have. photograph of Oswald.” HW 509545 Docld: 32277223 Page 25 | | a Vi ta ' - 7 004731
pm a) da on ow HW 50955 Docld IOP Seung: °° Mrs. Scaletti. Right. Mr. Goldsmith. I just wanted to clarify that your answer Was that paragraph 2 ieant this may be Oswald even though that lenguage was not expressly used. Mrs. Scaletti. Right. Mr. Goldsmith. Do you know, and I realize you just gave an opinion as to what may have happened, do you know how the ' people in Mexico City station went about the process of obtain-: ing that photograph and suggesting that that photograph may be Oswald? Mrs. Scaletti. I have no knowledge of how the station did this. .I could only guess what the process of a person in the station would be. > Mr. Goldsmith. You never talked to anyone from the station about this? Mrs. Scaletti. No. I never have talked to Mrs. Minelli. I only talked to Annie Goodpasture when she was doing some “research on where she could find some photos, you know, that might have been retired in Washington. That is all. Mr. Goldsmith. Did she give you any indication of what she did, if anything, to pick out this particular photograph? Mrs. Scaletti. It is my understanding she didn't have anything to do with picking out the photograph. Mr. Goldsmith. I am not suggesting she did. Mr. Scaletti. No, she did not mention anything about | ran ATARI T | 901732 22772253 Page cur SEGRE 4 ~ ,
«© § UP OLE RE a 24 that. i) Mr. Goldsmith. Did you ever see the photograph that is referred to in paragraph number 2? Mrs. Scaletti. I think I might have seen it. I don't du ee | yemember. I could have seen it when Ann was up here about a on year ago trying to find the photographs but I don't think she | | | | ev ex showed it to me. But I can't swear one way or the other a3 because I was not involved in the case. | | ? | xr. Goldsmith. Now, the first paragraph of that cable i 1G | refers, I believe, to a statement by the person who identified | f - | Wi | himself as Osald, to the effect that Oswald had been in contact 12 | with Kostikov, does it not? . Mrs. Scaletti. Whom he believed to be Kostikov. i i i i “Mr. Goldsmith. Yes. Do you recall whethere:the fact of | | t. ! I : | fl Spake : : HW 50955 DBocld: 32277223 Page 27 oe aq Ha # : i: i the reference to Kostikov may have enhanced the importance of | 16 this particular cable? In other words, not only do we have | i7 an American who contacted the Soviet Embassy but he also was : 13 in contact with Kostikov? | 19 | Mrs. Scaletti. I sort of doubt it. I don't remember = 20 | that it did but I don't think it dia. ¥ | , Mr. Goldsmith. Even though Kostikov was known by the | e 2 : KGB? | | | > 73 i: Mrs. Scaletti. Aimost 50 percent are KGB or GRU. : 24 | Mr. Goldsmith. What is GRU?’ i e 25 Mrs. Scaletti. Military Intelligence. | i. | 001733 i pos yeu tense aid ae |
Ager API, Ae aw a VouAL SE 25 i | Mr. Goldsmith. Kostikov in particular, however, was | working out of this unit of the KGB that was involved in a sabotage and assassination operations? ao Mrs. Scaletti. I probably didn't even know that because re all the matters on the Soviets would be kept up in the Soviet 8 Branch. I would have known possibly Lf I had locked hard ; | enough that he was KGB but that would not really have made | | any difference in my name tracing. | ; Mr. Goldsmith. Now, CIA Number 177 has some numbers | ; | 0 | written on the left hand side of the page. | M Mrs. Scaletti. Yes. | me | ‘ an | Mr. Goldsmith. Can you identify what those numbers refer) oe 7 id Mrs. Scaletti. This is a file number. | a Mr. Goldsmith. 200-5-41? 7 | 7 Mrs. Scaletti. The 200 is always the general series and | 7 I believe that 200 stands for something international. - The : a second number is the more specific category and I believe 5 ! 19 has something to do with politics. 41 is just the title of ! | the folder that is next in Line, It starts out with "pb" | 21 | colon. I don't know what that means but I guess it means cross oe filing or something or duplicate maybe. | - 3 | Mr. Goldsmith. Would you now refer to CIA Number 179 | 4 | and read that document in full? : Mrs. Scaletti. Okay. - . ar | | HW 50955 DocId: 32977223 Page 28 T ( 2 ot + Ce aac a 0.0 1734
HW 450955 BR da tn cn 1 he Bocld: eros whl Tae fancy QLy br re pre e - pena pase, eRe 26 Mr. Goldsmith. Before we discuss this document in detail, after receiving the cable from Mexico City station, the cable dated October 9, what action, if any, did you take i in response? Mrs. Scaletti. I took the normal procedure for a name trace. You would submit a form and you would ger a reply from the main registry and what documents and things might -be. available in the Agency on the person whom you are searching. Mr. Goldsmith. Did you receive a reference to a 201. number? Mrs. Scaletti. I believe so. Unless I see my name trace reply I couldn't tell what I got. Mr. Goldsmith. Why would you make a name trace if the cable didn't regest one? Mrs. Scaletti. I was over eager, I guess. You are not limited to a name trace only if somebody asks for it. But Lf | you feel it is appropriate. you can do it. I was being a little: facetious. Actually it would be the normal thing to do. If you found an American in touch with the Soviets you normally see if there was any problem there. Mr. Goldsmith. After doing the name trace did you receive access to Lee Oswald's 201 file? Mrs. Scaletti. -I received access to a file. I don't know whether it was the 201 file or not. ac Mr. Goldsmith. What other files would there have been? tome vw» TOF CPA RET 90173! se ngyyp one
aka ur jf, ke 27 ) i Mrs. Scaletti. I just don't know. Sometimes you have a document that references a document or soft folder or some- as. a 201 file if it were not a 201 file which is a very specific | : thing. I am trying to be honest. I don't want to say I saw | | { | BR. ; ‘| type folder. | . | ° Mr. Goldsmith. Let us take a look at CIA Number 179. 4 Did you send this cable to Mexico City station? a Mrs. Scaletti. Yes. 9: to te i ‘4 Mr. Goldsmith. Turning to CIA Number 179, that document | to in the first paragraph refers to Oswald's 201 file. Mrs. Scaletti. Oh, then there would have been a 201 > file probably. and Mr. Goldsmith. Then.you were the author of that cable? | i) g~ Mrs. Scaletti.. Right. I am not trying to be difficult. ; It is just that I am trying to be accurate. Mr. Goldsmith. I understand that.. I should indicate to you at the same time that we have been told by other wit- nesses. before the Committee that you were known for having an 20 | very good one. : 21 | Mes. Scaletti. Thank you very much. : a 7 22 : Mr. Goldsmith. The description contained in the second | . 7 : paragraph of that cable, where would that have been obtained? ' Mrs. Scaletti.. From the 201 probably. As much as I can ; ‘ [ i | 17 1d iS | excellent memory. Your reputation before this Committee is a j | | | | | yaa: tr “as recall it would have been in the 201 file. 001736 2077223 Page 3 TOP SECRET a | HW 50955 Docld:
a i7 a : aig 28 t Mr. Goldsmith. I said the second paragraph. I really meant -- . RD “ Mrs. Scaletti. The remainder. All paragraph 2. Para- graph 3 could have been in the 201. It could have been in un other miscellaneous documents. Under the current system and ever since the early sixties not all materials is necessarily in a 20] because it is just too time consuming. You find an cae) ‘occasional documents which are not in the 201 which could have | been the source. It is up to you to get it in the 201. 1 ! i \ i Mr. Goldsmith. What about the information in the first | — paragraph, the description of Oswald? Mrs. Scaletti. That would have come from the 201. We | i sanitized that. That is fairly sterile thing that could be . ‘ & passed out to government agencies. IELTS 2 SE SL Eh Ay The third rule precluded the rest of it from being passed. i { . } 5 That is why it is separate. i WV | Mr. Goldsmith, © What do you mean by the third agency rule. 13) precludes other information -- ie Mrs. Scaletti. Because the last paragraph, paragraph 20 4, Says station should pass the info in paragraph 1 to the | Embassy, to the Navy, to the FBI and to I&NS locally. The info in paragraphs 2 and 3 originated with the State | 1b Ss Department. Since it originated with the State Department you cannot give it to the other government agencies. You have to , Gc 7 4 nm refer them to the Department | of State to get it themselves. / 2277223 Page 31 | i , K bE 4 ig eed fio 23 HWY 50955 Docld: g
es pn one. 29 Mr. Goldsmith.. What about the information in paragraph i) eseceaecoteene seen rt eae 1? 3 Mrs. Scaletti. 'That was just a very basic sentence so ; | thatwe could identify them. “We took the liberty of passing ; | that. but not the sensitive information from the State Department ‘| Mr. Goldsmith. Now, once the information in paragraph 2 , had been obtained by you did that in any way increase the 3 | significance of Oswald's contact with the Soviet Embassy? i : 7 Mrs. Scaletti. As I recall that is what I thought. made ! 10 it very significant. JW i Mr. Goldsmith. Can you explain why? - i2 | Mrs. Scaletti. Any American who had tried to renounce his US citizenship in the Soviet Union,. now having again a &} relationship with the Soviet Embassy would lead one to wonder why he had tried to renounce his citizenship in the first to further contact by the individual or positive identification! i ! 14 | place, and why he was still in contact with the Soviets, V7 | whether there was a possibility he really. was working for the 13 | Soviets or what. 9 | Mr. Goldsmith. Paragraph 5 I believe reqyusts Mexico | 20 | City station. to send any “additional “information either relevant \ { i Is that true? Mrs. Scaletti. Yes, it is. Mr. Goldsmith. Did Mexico City station prior to the a 3 a assassination send any additional information about Oswald ft t oe - a - 001738 “HW 50955 Docld: 42977223 Page 32 | cee 43 325 oe “
no rs On tad ce gl WW 50955 Bactld: | | | | i i | | = i y : i | | i i S22772235 Page 33 to that. Oo : | ization as Karamessines ask to be the releasing officer of this married to a Soviet, got out with a Soviet wife presumably, | Selo Ap ees rr Lie & oe BA jrindh ae ve By 30 un to headquarters? Mrs. Scaletti. Not that I recall but I could not swear i | Mr. Goldsmith. Does Karamessines appear anywhere on that; i | cable? | Mrs. Scaletti. His signature appears as the ADDP fi t t releasing officer. | Mr. Goldsmith. What is the function of a releasing officer? | Mrs. Scaletti. He takes full responsibility for the | 7 cable. “Mr. Goldsmith. Why would someone as high up in the organ | particular cable? Mrs. Scaletti. I can only surmise now what I might have f \ i ' 1 ' \ H thought or what several of us might have thought at the time, that since iteinvolved somebody of this nature who had tried to renounce his citizenship, who was in the Soviet’.Union, which is very strange, and now the contact with the Soviets, we could have a security, a major security problem. This was one way of informing him and getting attention { at the higher level. | Mr. Goldsmith. Iam asking you now to speculate a bit. Had the 201 file not contained the information about -~- ~ ' 901739
Aagqe 3 a Pe ewe VAD | 31 Mrs. Scaletti. Not in paragraph 2? : Mr. Goldsmith. Had not the information contained in i paragraph 2, would you have gone to Karamessines? . 4 i i hey Mrs. Scaletti. Proabably not.. dee Mr. Goldsmith. Would Karamessines be apprised of every | ; Situation where the CIA was taking action with regard to an | American abroad? i i 5 t \ «a? Mrs. Scaletti. No, probably not. i | 9 ; . . oy Mr. Goldsmith. It would not be standard operating i ~ | procedure to notify someone such as Karamessines in. cases where| 4 : im the Agency was going to take further action in regard to an | | American abroad? os -@ 7 3 Mrs. Scaletti. In 1963? | - a “Mr. Goldsmith. | 1963? ne ul Mrs. Scaletti. In 1963 I don't believe so. | 7 Mr. Goldsmith. How many people actually worked on the WV cable that appears in CIA Number 179? In other words, you i3 | wrote it but how many people were actually involved? ; Mrs. Scaletti. One in what is now "SB" Division, Soviet 29] Branch. One in CIA Staff, two in CIA Staff and a Branch Chief. | i) shes people have the right to change a cable. | a : 22 : Mr. Goldsmith. By ‘these people" you are referring to | - 2 | the initiating officer? _ 3 & 24 Mrs. Scaletti. Yes, and authenticating officer. If | 7 25 they had changed the message they would have changed it and ; i | ; 001740 | rf OR ArPAaAnrr HW 50955 pocld: 32277223 Page 34 T ( ; rf) EC k if 4 i ; Se
oe U7 OLu 8: Ho 32 they initial on the side. If there is a major revision at n Soy 1 | either of these levels it can be sent back for a complete | retyping. da Mr. Goldsmith. How many of these people were actually . te ; involved in the substance of writing the cable? | Mrs. Scaletti. Probably myself and Mrs. Egeter and possibly Rowe in SB Division. Since there is very little to a. do about the Soviets here, there is not a lot of bio on the *O Soviet, my feeling is that SR, this is counterintelligence On > section, they probably had some role in assessing whether this | could possibly be aserious matter or not. Mr. Goldsmith. Was it common for that many people to be = - '~ involved in the writing and reviewing of a cable?:. a is Mrs. Scaletti. Yes. Sometimes you have many more. The | 1S rule of thumb is anybody who has any interest in any cable gets their name on it. | a7 Mr. Goldsmith. Would you now please read CIA Number ai 785? Mrs. Scaletti. All right. 20 Mr. Goldsmith. Would you identify that document? | Mrs. Scaletti. I have just read Directive 7467 -- i @ 7 22 I can't read it. Tt is 3 I believe. Your code is Number 785. _ 3 | Your document. x2 | Mr. Goldsmith. When I asked you to identify it, what is” : paaemnes that cable? 001741 py « a) ey 03 z a Fy bs ey HW 50955 DBocld:32277223 Page 35 TGF
“at * ig? tay 33 if‘ Be pe B's Lore Mrs. Scaletti. This is nto a cable. This is an out nD? teletype to the Department of State, the FBI, and Navy which de (os) “sends electrically to those three other government agencies basic information received from Mexico in our name trace on un Oswald. TaN Mr. Goldsmith. What was the purpose of sending the teletype? i t ! : Or Mrs. Scaletti. The purpose of the teletype was to notify! | . 9 | basically the FBI because it is an American, it is a'CI case. 0 : The Navy and State Department because here you have an ex-Navy | iA | man I believe and soembody whom the Department has reported. : 12 ! This man is of interest to the Navy and State Department and | the FBI just.for the security of the United States it is be | important to notify all those government agencies. Mrs. Scarletti. I did. | | | | AS _. Mr. Goldsmith. Who wrote this particular teletype? | | | | | | Mr. Goldsmith. This was done after having reviewed Oswald! i 4 i Mrs. Scarletti. It would have been written at the-.same | 1 | if we refer.to the time on these documents it would indicate RD oe 13 | 201 file, is that correct? 1g | 20 | time the cable to Mexico was. written in all likelihood. a Mr.. Goldsmith. ‘In light of the fact that the cable: to 22 Mexico City and this dissemination teletype to the other v4 _ 73 | government agencies were both written at the same time, I think’ | | > yo ra that they were moreorless simultaneous, can you explain why i | | a 001742// ‘ . | if a ee ‘ore aa ae { HW 30955 Docld: 42277223 Page 36 | u a a} r k Le} an psy boas Bey -