wf - . Classification: (This form is to be -used for material extracted ce from ClA—controlled documepte Maacch arta Commission representatives at FAG TIPS 5 with CIA officials, including Richard Helms,. concerned At, NEM, Silvia Duran's arrest and interrogation by the Mexican Federal Police. (Slawson Memorandum of ERR, April 22, 1964, pp. 3, 19, 45-46) Helms responded to the Commission's request for access, stating that he would attempt to arrange for the Warren Commission's representatives to review this material. (Slawson Memorandum of March 12, 1964, p. 6) Another Slawson memorandum, dated March 25, 1964 concerned Oswald's trip to Mexico. In that memo “OS, NRA | “GHA. Slawson wrote that the tentative conclusions he had reached concerning Oswald's Mexico trip, were derived from CIA memoranda of January 31, 1964 NGA. and February 19, 1964; (Slawson Memor andun of “March 25, 1964, p. 20) and, in addition, a Mexican federal -?  *s.) Slawson wrote: A large part of it (the summary report) © is simply a summation of what the Mexican : ? police learned when they interrogated Mrs. Silvia.Duran, an employee of the Cuban Consulate in Mexico City, and is there- & -fore only as accurate as Mrs. Duran's = testimony to the police. (Ibid.) ?
Classification: (This form is to be used for material extracted > from ClA—controlled documents.) These comments indicate that Slawson placed qualified reliance upon the Mexican police summary. Moreover, there is no indication that _Slawson had been provided the Durainf telephonic. intercépt] tran-. scripts. In fact, by virtue of Slawson's comments concerning the Mexican police report, it would appear that the Warren Commission, as of March 25, had been provided-little substantive information pertaining to Silvia Duran. As Slawson reveals, the Commission had been forced to rely upon the two memoranda that did not make reference to the surveil- lance operations, and a summary report issued by the Mexican Federal Police. Thus, the Agency had Ms _—s oe. Rretndea sa oF for over three months: Zor. exposing the surveillance operations tc theAreview of the | concerned Warren Commission staff members. As was 3 gle Stated in the~cIa cable of December 20, 196£ to its ¢ Mexico City Station: oe PB Our present plan in passing information to the Warren Commission is to eliminate mention of [telephone taps, in order to protect your continuing operations. Will ON rely instead on statements of Silvia aa . Duran and on contents of. t cOmsular a> we file which Soviets gaye conczD ere. a fo (CIA Doc. FOIA #420-757;=pEC- 1 1964,3 x? CLA pie 2bAAs DIR 90466) FE olt . | a —™ tue! So ay de 8, Classification: 2653 | ow Nuit, a aN NON be, Ee, "NUR. RD. a Ay NR i RAM. ih He ee SA, |
LF LF oT  Sttner Classification: (This form is to be used for material extracted from ClA—<ontrolled documents.) The Committee's belief that Slawson had felephenic inktrce et 7] not been given access to ‘the Duran‘transcripts is YAP n further supported by reference to his memorandum ates of March 27, 1964 tep=$55 wherein he states his conclusion that Oswald had visited the Cuban o Embassy orf three oceasions. (Ibid, p. 2) This | WES, ' RE . again . conclusion, he wrote,was based upon an analysis of Silvia. Duran's testimony before the Mexican police. This memorandum bears no indication that he had reviewed any of the Duran Sesneseletes emer i ccess to thes. transcrjpts ave been unCorporated | into Mis ana and accordingly noted for this | pipose, AA His ae hina the fact NUR. UE, ara an ath of his review either by its, an a or “ — Fe criticism of” the above cited Mexican police summary report. 7 Logically, acces to the[c ‘s teleph  gXesurveillance Toductiion would hafe clarified some B® ¢ os Ae ambiguitigs. For: ‘example, ro) September#27, at 4: (05) p.m.
Classification: ___ all Silvia Duran. teherhoned the f9P YntitericP BRASS ie and from a Cl me iteoll documents.) er as pre Stated that ntly at th Cuban me requesting an if-transit vigit to Cuba. Th is Amer#ican was 1 ter determined by cry analysts September 29, at ll: iste m. . o G H a) tJ tt @ po) @ aN t) Pu ft < ~ fete @ ct OQ 8) 2 a G fi a oO nn ct a) ct rad 4 aq 0 mh NGM, ? £ an American, subseq#ently a by @IA analysts as Oswald was at hoe Cuban Embassy. (Yhia. $. 4) f / Colo teroticg Wolds visits/retta Crkoan Rmbdass | Had this’ information‘ been ndde available to/Slawson, HDs his ly an of Oswald's activities in Mexico é City would Have been mor firmly established than 7 ep eblieced in WES. mema tandunn they were as‘*of March 27, 1964. g The record supports the Committee's finding ad that as of April 2, 1964 the Warren Commission had é Stat not peer given access to ma a penced + - en isteradd serieslof{velephonic intercepZ] ~~ memorandum of , that date by.Coleman and Slawson, posed one § question to the CIA and. made two. requests for information - from the Agency. (Slawson - Coleman Memorandum Of eto. & April 2, 1964, Subj: Questions Raised by the Ambassador 7 Mann File) Coleman and Slawson wrote: & 1) What is the information source referred > to in the November 28 telegram that . Classification: 000055 3 Classified by derivation: >
ee Oem eR 6 die ; : Classification: SECRer— (Guwddra isn teandadecd-dorsestetial axigactety £ from ClA—<controlled documents.) > Odessa; 2) We would like to see copies of the é transcripts [ot the -intercepts] translated 7 if possible, in all cases where the [intercepts] refer to the assassination. : or related subjects; é 3) We would especially like to ‘see the b [intercept] in which the allegation that a money was passed at the Cuban Embassy - is discussed (Ibid.) The question initially posed by (Item I) in the above-referenced memorandum of April 2 concerns the[.CIA telephonic intercepd ; of September: 27, 1963 ¢ vel. - xe cy at 10: 37 a.m. (Slawson Memorandum of April 21, FA 1964, p. 1) Obviously, Lf S lawson found it necessary i to request the source of the information, he had C3 Co s: 65 not as yet been provided access to the original |(“" ; material by the CIA. -¢ as | a ; = Item Number T of the above-Listing tends to show a that the Commission had not beén giving _aécess to the[intercepl) soncerning(ve assassination . ye 2 Classification: inna 009656 5 Classified by derivation:
i gy e (This form is to be used for material extracted from ClA—controlled documents.) Item number three of the above listing reveals that the Entercept]5¢ Jene borticos-Armas conversation of November 22, 1964, in which the passing of monies was discussed had not as of April 2 been provided to the Commission. The Commission had specifically requested the Dorticos~-Armas transcripts at @ March 12, 1964 meeting between Commission representatives and Agency representatives. (Slawson memorandum, March 12, 1964, Subj: Conference with CIA on March 12, 1964) On April 3, 1964, Coleman and Slawson exprassed NG “ME ABD NT their concern for receiving complete access to all materials relevant to Oswald's Mexico City trip: NE, NS The most. probable final result of the entire investigation of Oswald's activities in Mexico is a conclusion that he went | | there for the purpose of trying to reach Cuba and that no bribes, conspiracies, re etc. took place. -.-In order to make such a judgment (that: all reasonable lines of investigation that might have uncovered other motivations or el TS SANE SG OtNeT MOciVetions or Classification: Classified by derivation: NGS. & © Nee, EE, “SHE. Nainveh.
Classification: “ : (This form is to be used for material extracted from ClA—controlled documents.) possible conspiracies have been followed through with negative results), we must become familiar with the details of what ee wan ene Getaiis of what “SAVARD, both the American and Mexican investi- er ican and Mexican investi: gatory agencies there have done. This means reading their reports, after trans- lation, if necessary, and in some cases talking with the investigators themselves. aa Et vescigators themselves. (Slawson and Coleman Memorandum, April Cd off 73: -1964, Subj: Additional lines of Investigation in Mexico Which May Prove 2rr phasis Worthwhile, p. il.) da (C60 A 4rAC Ae SASL» WAR Meee", af Mansfestty, Coleman’ s and Stawson' s s desire é for a thorough investigation | 7 by SF. rex Sure LOG Subjects ri sha E Na rtabions - | po std*the | CIA's concern Fest its sources and methods, é & however relevant to the Commission's investigation, Pa bewexposed. Considering the-gravity and signi- - ficance of the Warren Commission's investigation Pay ; Z - . the ° Agency ' sawitholding of Material from the x Meg have Mnpeded it 4 ant , [1 7e Hack, Commission staff was elearlyimpeeper. acer otel{, peason cd Conclasgan ge wrth receect te OS wela’s Activt ¢§ while (a Mexica Cite. bobble Z \ [vs i. —< = 7 008038 Classified by derivation: \
Classification: (This form is to be used for material extracted from ClA—contraljed documents.) On April 8, David Slawson, Howard Willens, and William Coleman flew to Mexico City, Mexico to meet with the representatives of the State Department, FBI, CIA, and the Government of Mexico. (Slawson Memorandum, April 22, 1964, Subj: Trip- to Mexico City, p. 1) Prior to their departure, they met with Thomas Mann, the U.S. Ambassador to. Mexico during Oswald's visit to Mexico City and at the time of President Kennedy's assassination. (Ibid.) Ambassador Mann told the Warren. Commission representa-_ tives that the CIA's Mexico city Station was actively engaged in photogurveillance operations against the | Soviet and Cuban Embassy /consakavestIbid., p. 3) Upon the group's arrival in Mexico City, they were met by U.S. Ambassador Freeman, Claire Boonstra of the State Department, Clarke Anderson of the FBI, and winston Scott of the CIA (Ibid. pp. 9-10) NN eee That same day, during a meeting between. the Be og. Commission representatives and. Win Scott, Scott made available to the group actual. transeripts{ot the CIA's ™, telephonic surveillancd-operations Jeccompanied ith Engli'sh—translations. of the. transcripts. In addition, Classification: 909059 Classified by derivation: NASER, NR. “ERED. RH. oe a Neh, NGO, “RAG. Qa, alas “ina
.- 38 - Classification: s_—<=———— <n 1 . he provided" the ut stg bs iff 18 for eo stesig! siete’ apns Tas conteolled ocuments.) for the time period covered by OSwaldts visit that had resulted fron | photosurveillance’ of the me bb j 4. Cuban and Soviet Embassy entrances dave Slawson wrote: oN, “,..Mr. Scott stated at the beginning | of his nHarrative that he intended to make a complete disclosure of all facts, including the sources of his information, and that he understood that all three of us had been cleared for TOP SECRET and that we would not disclose beyond the confines of the Commission and its immediate staff the information we obtain- ed through him without’ first clearing it with his superiors in Washington. We agreed to this." . (Ibid.) ssh Mr. Scott described to the Commission repre- . _ . At Ceckly _ sentatives the CIA's course of action i: =m urte following the assassination, indicating that his staff immediately began to compile dossiers on Oswald, Duran, and everyone else throughout Mexico whom the CIA knew had had some contact with Oswale intelligence agents had “qurckly been put under surveillance following the assassination. Slawson concluded: a , “Scott's narrative \plus the material we ‘| were shown disclosed immediately how “incorrect our previous information had Deen_dn osyat abeys contacts with the Soviet and Mexica assies. Apparently the ~~ ay = Classification: The pehertnce G Kowth bate Cuban “ Classified by AGRO50 (Ibid.) Scott revealed that all known Cuban and Russian, ~ a e *' Ale 8%, “We EN (UT, “Ra, NSA, Neprinaedhs Sahin
Classification: a (This form is to be used for material extracted distorx tionsoaniedticsadans to which our information had been subjected had entered some place in Washington, because the CIA~information that we were shown by (Scott\ was unambiguous on almost all theSerucial points. We had previously planned to show Scott, Slawson's reconstruction of Oswald's ‘probable. ~ activities at the embassies to get Scott! opinion, but once we saw how badly distofted ~~ our information was we realized that this would be useless. Therefore, instead, we .decided to take as close notes as possible from the original source materials at some ay Pn “GRAS, SHS IN : . toe ke . ; * later time during our visit. (Ibid, |p. 24) 4 A separate Slawson memorandum of April 21, 1964 records ¢ ty tee we ae the results of the notetaking from original source NEPAL “materials that he dia following Scott's disclosures. ‘These notes dealt exclusively with the[ telephonic ¥ intercepts] pertaining to the Duran and Oswald conver- . sations for the period Sept. 27 - Oct. lL, 1963. 2 (Slawson Memorandum, April 21, 1964 Subj :[ Intercepts] . from the Soviet and Cuban Embassies in “Mexico City. 7s a It is evident from Slawson's record that the 7 é igi source materials, i . . € ‘ $ i ? It/ meant that ,As of April, GO, 1964, £ id 000064 Classified by derivation: |
NN 0 ore cetacean le toe Classification: (This form is to be used for material extracted _ from ClA—controlled documents.) nearing the halfwa | point of the Warren Commission Cc os rh FE pecessar-if investigation, vi ommission was—forced:to retrace .~ the factual path by which it had structured Gswald's activities in Mexico City. Lf further revealed that the Agency had provided amb #guous information to the fh. on when, in faét “on almost afl the i signific: pec more precise materials. gs" crucial volo Commission. (Ibid.) the- Agency | S early policy gy | INGA Sauce of not/ providing. aad Commission with We S day retevant ver (Eaeptlin in derive / ancsdsevin ~Ser sitive -sources Bafta cs WB rn Per en . Ff . . : and.-methods* ha ' ebioub iy endommiaga the investigation f could haye been me ane for analysis by the andy Poss2Ply forgclosed lines of pnvestigation @.g., Fi) : Cuban involvenest, that might nage been more Seriously “Ray ‘considered nad ‘this material been “expeditiously - provided. ee ce eta Lee, ne ~~ Mekico Cy +y S tation “Pho qosucyeilane Arak FAM, + pe we TET | Hesbve sity Mystery Man Phat ia graph oe dthe doy Agger eat << Adi g Wa On November 23, 1963, FBI Special Agent Odum showed Marguerite Oswald a photograph of a man bearing no physical resemblance to her son (Warren Pa feat Classification: + Classified by derivatidl, 0 0 Gj 9 a a a a A. ‘Se Ns, |
Classification: commission Thien | ig, 103 Bey usedifoc mth gehettes aa ‘been - Ro ae va from ClA—<controitéd documents. -) was Supplied-to-the=EBi on November 22 by the CIA's Lik iT Lo 6 WA \ aodes te Mexico. City Statio n)after Agency representatives ? . had--searched their files in an effort to locate , Ibid. d Ok information on Oswald: (CIA Doc. DDP4-1555, 3/JB/645— 4 O» i Warren Commission Doc. 67) 72 this photograph, ‘which was-ione »~ i in a series resulting from the CIA's photosurveillance a al opecaeions against the Soviet and Cuban Embassy demoaieteny 4, { Prior’ to the” ‘assassination, ; had been linked by eect, ea “ the“Mexico City Station to Lee Harvey Oswald. (Ibid.) Richard-Helmis, in a sworn affidavit before the Warren Commission, stated that the photograph shown to our sche af€ fe on tt: PR 2) <i, Marguerite Oswald had been: taken en—October 471963 DO att Staktt Co pattine dey rhe PSI isd “J in Mexico-City and Wistekenly linked ak thae—time to (13 +o No rember 23,7953 Oswait (Warten Commission ‘agfidavit of Richard delns : , ot WollerComnisf' x 7ar: 1458  {O , 8/7/64, Vol. XI, pp. 469-470) ~ On February 10, 1964, Marguerite Oswald testifiee before the Warren Commission and recounted the cir- cumstances under which she was shown the photograph. e ? (Warren Commission Report Vol Hpiss)urs. Oswald testified | that she believed this photograph to have been of Jack Ruby. (Ibid. )*- q vo te coe rapes psc ly 030063 NG. RG. 2 Ngati, heed ee Bie ate. “Oa
) 8 Classification: | (This form is to be used for material extracted from ClA—<ontrolled documents.) Thereafter, on February 12, 1964, 3. Lee Rankin wrote to Thomas Karramesines, Assistant DDP requesting both the identity of the individual depicted in the photograph and an explanation of the circumstances by which this photograph was obtained by the Central Intelligence Agency. (Letter of J. Lee Rankin, Feb. 12, 1964, JFK Doc. \ #3872) FolA s43- 233A On that same day, ina separate letter, Rankin wrote to DCI McCone regarding materials that the CIA had disseminated Since November 22, 1963 to the Secret Service but not to the Warren Commission. Rankin requested copies of these materials which included three CIA cables. The cables concerned the photograph subsequently shown by the FBI to Oswald's mother of the individual originally identified by the Mexico City Station as Lee Harvey Oswald. (Letter of J. Lee Rankin . paid Feb. 12, 1964, JFK Doc. #3872) SY (- 25a Among the materials disseminated by the CIA de Host 5 Goh, (REE CA . : : QcGcére ervice waS a November 26 dissemination. to WM (CIA Doc DIR 85177, 11/26/64) That cable concerned FoafA (06-251 Classification: 000054 Classified by derivation: SED RIA Bs, Nava. NAT.
~ G3 — Classification: (This form is to be used for material—extracte the DorticHgnamas ofrake usher 274 disdfosea~the existence cetera telephonic’ Surveillance]gperations} WH in “Mexico city, bt the time om the assassination a nant and Oswald’ ‘s earlier visi (B5 a result the CIA was “eatin, reluctant to make the material disseminated to UB, the Secret Service available to the Warren Commission for in so doing the Agency would have necessarily exposed [its.4 NERA, [telephonic surveillance operations}to the Commission. ~ - John Scelso testified regarding the circumstances surrounding the eventual explanation given to the GPR. Commission .recounting the origiéa of the photograph in question. Scelso stated: “GEA, “We did not initially disclose to the Warren Commission all of our technical. operations. --In other words, we did not initially disclose to them that we had photosurveillance because the November photo we had ° (of MMM) was not of Oswald. Therefore it did not mean anything, you see?"S HCA Class Depe of John. Seeésa , 5/16/73 pisé Mr. Goldsmith: ..-SO the Agency was making a unilateral decision that this was not relevant to the Warren q Pty ey srs ONY “a eelg,. Commission .cfind = . . . ; . ba) e ¢ © Fa Scelso: Right, we were not authorized, at first, ; to reveal all our technical operations. (HB S78, & In summary the records shows that - By February 12, 1964 the Warren Commission had inadvertantly requested access to [telephonic] surveillance ES production, a cause for concern within the Reprod, 7 a fe e ‘ <a Classification: z : J00065 7 Classified by derivation:
1h, Classification: BABES te assification: (This form is to be used for material extracted A Bs ¥ tidia Cpsm—iordeobied eelrhentapterial extracted | from ClA—controlled documents.) . —~44-— due to the sensitivity of Agency sources and methods... Similarly, the possible disclosure of the photosurveillan co — “aes operations to the Warren Commission had also” begun to cause concern within the Agency. EE oll. On March 5, 1967, Raymond Rocca wrote in an Nin internal memorandum to Richard Helms that “we have Rocca a problem here for your determination." outlined Angleton's desire not to respond directly to Rankin's request of February 12 regarding the CIA ‘ Material forwarded to the Secret Service since fe A November 23, 19642" Rocca then stated: prefer to wait out the Commission on the matter covered by paragraph 2 (of the above-referenced February 12 letter to McCone requesting access to CIA reports provided i 2% 7éemthe Secret Service after November 22, 1963, i — JFK DoG> 3962). If they come back on this ; Wy point he feéls that you, or someone from i here, should be prepared to go over to show al the Commission the material rather than pass® j ‘then to them in copy. Incidentally, none j of these items are of new substantive | “Unless you feel otherwise, Jim would | t I interest. We have either passed the material in substance to the Commission in response to earlier levies or the items refer to aborted leads, for example, the famou six photographs / which are not of _Oswald. IA Doc. POTA@ 4579-250, 3/5/64) 9500 also HSCA Classified ~ __ Deposition of James Angleton, 10/5/78, pp.;3i-!s=— Classified ty dletication: Cc. Berk
Classification: _Secree—— Classification: (This form is to be used for material extracted {fidtis Chkm—contoolled cedinientsjaterial extracted from ClA—controlled documents.) ~44a~ RAS B4 wherein he states that the only reason ‘ for not providing the Warren Commission with — access to CIA surveillance materials was due to the Agency's concern for protection of its sources and methods) “ie ta tA AN ce) poate O00657 Gi aston: