104-10337-10008 fF & — - [g<F : fo aE : “1 COLLECTIONS Be A 11 March 1993 NOTE FOR: irector for Operations eter Earnest Chief, Media Relations FROM: SUBJECT: WASHINGTON POST Request to Talk to an Agency te MO f- Specialist on the Kennedy Assassination The WASHINGTON POST is preparing a series of articles on LO the occasion of the 30th anniversary of the Kennedy : . assassination. With the help of CIC, we recently arranged for George Lardner and Walter Pincus of the WASHINGTON POST to interview a former KGB officer Yuri Nosenko about his knowledge of Lee Harvey Oswald during the time Oswald lived in the Soviet Union. To ensure that Nosenko's resettlement identity and location would remain protected, I made the arrangements for Nosenko to come to Washington for the interview. The POST reimbursed Nosenko for expenses and paid him a $250 consulting fee. The interview was done on Wednesday, 3 March, at the POST offices downtown. I did not remain for it. Lardner and Pincus also hosted a lunch for Nosenko which was attended by Ben Bradlee. Lardner and Pincus were very pleased with their session with Nosenko and appreciative of ‘our making it possible. I also spoke afterwards with Nosenko who said he was satisfied with how the interview was conducted and with the financial arrangements. Shortly after the interview, Lardner faxed me a list of the questions that he and Pincus had prepared for themselves to use in checking out Nosenko's information. They asked if there was anyone at the Agency they could talk to about the individuals named. I told them that developing information in response to: their questions would probably take a good deal of research arid. that I doubted the Agency would be able to take on such a task at this time for the POST. However, I said I would take it up with the appropriate offices. Although I told the POST that I do not believe anyone would be willing to undertake research on their questions, I'm wondering if there is anyone around who might be knowledgeable of Nosenko's information who would be willing to talk with Lardner and Pincus on background based on his/her existing knowledge. I think Lardner and Pincus would be grateful for making such a person available even if
all their questions aren't answered. Considering that they are trying to do serious research on the Kennedy assassination, I think any effort on our part to help them would be seen as a gesture of good will. \ N Petes Earnest Attachment: AS stated —_______Agree to having a specialist talk to them on background about the Nosenko information if an appropriate person is available. No, do not want anyone from the DO talking about the 13-00000 & SUBJECT: WASHINGTON POST Request | , Nosenko information. |
13-00000 ' SUBJECT: WASHINGTON POST Request to Talk to an Agency specialist in the Kennedy Assassination DCI/PAI/Earnest :ncbx37758 (11 March 1993) Distribution: Original Addressee ADDO SA/DDO dO Registry D/PAI D/DO/CIC C/DO/NROC C/DO/CE c/CsI C/History Staff Fad fd fd fed fad fad fed at at
13-00000 | ¢ Names of Russians we should try to track down about Lec Harvey Oswald, Yuri Nosenko and the JeK assassination: 1. General Olea M. Gribanor, head of the Second Chicf Disectorate of the KGB in the early 1960s where Oe Neck ee Primarily against American tourists, as deputy chief of the Seventh Department. Noseuko described ‘himself as sort of favored by Gribanov and he said Gribanov in- structed him, after the JFK assassination, to retrieve the Oswald file from the Minsk KGB right _2hnatly Koralenko, deputy chief of the Second Chief Directorate or one of its departments, at time _aesaseination- Nosenko said when the file arrived from Minaki, he and Korelenko were going over the all-important first volume-and finding KGB had nothing to do with Oawald~when a KGE officer from the Fint Department came in and picked it up on Gribanov’s orders, to review it and write a summary of ft. 3. The officer who picked it up was Col. Ma ere, deputy chief thnk) of Firet(or American) De- partment, Second Chief Directorate. Unhave firs 4. Chief of this First Department was Col.. edoseyev or Fedoseev and presumably he would have had hand in or supervised preparation iu the “apravka” or summary. . §. Gribanov and more than 40 other KGB officers were kicked out because of Nosenko’s | defection, scconding to Noeeako. That right? Wher a2 Eastrusin. Was in 1959 a senior case \ ficer i in KGB responsible for Intourist mat- was Rastrusin who told him about Oswald and how he wanted to stay in ; @ Baye Soviet Union. Nosenko said Rastrusin said. Oswald “docsn’t present interest” to KGB and Nosenko checked out with his superiors. Word came back not to bother with Oswald. Nosenko was told to tell Rastrusin to tell Entourist to deal with him. 7. Rusteusin re returned next day and said we got a a problem. Oswald trod to Kil sel, ete. KGB washed hands of him, decided to let Intourist deal with him. Intourist then part of Ministry of For- eign Trade. Nosenko said he believes question of what to do with Oswald was run to top of that min- istry and beyond, to Khruschev or one of his deputies. In any case, decision was made to let Oswald stay in Minsk. Ent ot Meverto 3 KGB. &. In the fall co. Service No. 2(counterintelligence in fo reign countries), First Chet Directorate, told Nosenko oat that Mexico City station had just sent a cable about a request by Oswald for a visa to re-enter Soviet Union. What should be done? Nosenko said he said, ‘wait a second. How come he’s back in America?’ At that point, Nosenko said ‘he hadn’t know Oswald had gone back. ‘ 9 Nosenko sald he sald let’s go to chief of department who he identified as a Col. Chetnekov or Chelnenko(but later seemed to say his timing might be off and somebody else may have Noeenko’s department at the time). In any case, Nosenko quoted chief as saying, in effact, I remem- ber this crazy nut. No. No. No. Tell them we don’t have any interest.’ Cable back to Mexico City advising KGB there get rid of Oswald by telling him to go back to his OT ee and aoply for a visa at Soviet Embassy in Washington, etc., etc. Col. Gruzdey, was chief of tlie‘KGB department in Minsk that was responsible for foreigners 11. Olex Nechivorenko, one of three KGB officers stationed in Mexico City who reportedly inter- rogated or dealt d on his visit to Embassy there. Now living in Moscow area. Other two Mexico City officers, both still alive m Russia: Valeri tikoy and Pavel Yatzkov.
13-00000 a > * Center for the Study of Intelligence 28 June 1994 Mr. Anthony Summers Still Point Dromore Aglish, Cappoquin Co. Waterford Ireland x Dear Mr. Summers: This is in response to your letter of 25 May 1994 to David Gries regarding the possible existence of tape recordings of Oswald's conversations with the Cuban and Soviet embassies in Mexico City until at least April 1964. As evidence of this possibility you cite FBI Director Hoover's statement the day after the assassination that his agents had listened to the tapes. You also state that Messrs. Coleman and Slawson recalled that Winston Scott arranged for them to listen to a tape recording of Oswald's conversations during their visit to Mexico City in April 1964 and that a senior CIA officer provided the tape to them. In its review of CIA files on Oswald and the’ assasSination of President Kennedy, the CIA Historical Review Group (HRG) found no tape recordings of Oswald's conversations with the Soviet or Cuban embassies. We did find transcriptions of such conversations and a number of documents stating that the tapes themselves had been routinely erased prior to the assassination. Nor has any tape been found in the FBI files. ' The inconsistency. you point out flows from a number of misstatements and errors made in documents immediately after the assassination. While these were corrected, the original errors continue to raise questions regarding the tapes. The following excerpts illustrate this point: 1. FBI Dallas To FBI HQ, 23 November 1963: “Inasmuch as the Dallas Agents who listened to the tape of conversation allegedly of Oswald from the Cuban Embassy to the Russian Embassy in Mexico and examined the photographs Central Intelligence Agency Washington, D.C. 20505 (703) 351-2698 Fax (703) 243-8343
13-00000 of the visitor and were of the opinion that neither the tape nor the photograph pertained to Oswald,..." 2. -FBI Director to the President, 23 November 1963: “Special Agents of this Bureau... have observed photographs of the individual referred to above and have listened to a recording of his voice. These Special Agents are of the opinion that the above-referred to individual was not Lee ' Harvey Oswald." 3. FBI SAC, Dallas, 23 November 1963 Cable to FBI Director: " It should be noted that the actual tape from which this transcript [of Oswald's call] was made has been erased." - 4. Legal Attaché (FBI), Mexico City, Cable to FBI Headquarters, 25 November 1963: “Tapes obtained by CIA... here erased after two weeks, following making of typewritten transcripts of contents of these tapes. There appears to be some confusion in that no tapes were taken to Dallas but only typewritten transcripts supplied by CIA, the tapes not being available because they had been erased." 5. FBI Memorandum to U:S. Senate Select Committee, 27 February 1976: “Delivered herewith is material responsive to that letter pertaining to a voice recording referred to on page five of an FBI report to the President of the United States dated November 23, 1963. As was discussed... on ' February 24, 1976, the recording in question was never in the possession of the FBI and was not listened to by FBI Agents.* With respect to Coleman's and Slawson's recollections, the CIA file contains a number of internal Warren Commission documents on their trip to Mexico City. In a report on their visit, they state that in their meeting with Scott, they were shown original transcripts and translations of Oswald's telephone conversations. In a subsequent meeting with Scott and his deputy, arrangements were made for them to go through all the transcripts to use them as a basis for reconstructing Oswald's Mexico City activities concerning the two embassies. Slawson then spent considerable time reviewing and taking notes from the transcripts. None of these records mentions the existence of tapes of Oswald's calls or “listening to taped conversations." The CIA/HRG review did turn up tapes of Oswald's radio debate in New Orleans and of a telephone conversation on 26 November between Cuban President Dorticos and Cuban Ambassador to Mexico Hernandez Armas. Scott discussed the latter tape with Coleman and Slawson, noting that the connection between the two speakers was very bad, that the tape was in CIA Headquarters and, that the Warren Commission might want to have it re-translated.
13-00000 I hope that this information helps clarify the events surrounding the tapes. All of the documents quoted are available in the National Archives. Yours truly, y ly Lf. (herpes ohn F. Pereira Historical Review Group
13-00000 25 May 1994 Memorandum for the Record SUBJECT: Telephone Call from Anthony Summers re Oswald in Mexico City i. Summers, author of Conspiracy, called long-distance from Ireland. After expressing pleasure in the amount and historic value of the JFK materials released by the Agency, he said that the specific reason for his call was a remaining ambiguity about the tapes of Oswald's calls to the Soviet Embassy in Mexico City. 2. The Agency, he said, told investigators that the tapes had been g¢ased. Summers said that he understood erasure as a normal procedure, with no sinister overtones. However, when he talked with former Warren Commission assistant counsels William Coleman and David Slawson, who visited the Mexico City Station in April 1964, they told him that they heard the tapes while in the Station and noted that they were of relatively poor quality. Also, Summers said that a former Agency employee with whom he spoke (whose name he said he could furnish, but not over the phone) said that he had heard the tapes. 3. Considering the 1964 date of the Slawson/Coleman trip and what Summers stated was the high credibility of the individuals who said they heard the tapes, Summers asked if our review had turned up the tapes or any documentation reflecting anything other than standard erasure procedure that could explain the apparent conflict between the timing of the Headquarters instruction to the field after the assassination not to destroy any file material, the date of the Slawson/Coleman visit and theabsence of the tapes from the file. 4. I said that, to my knowledge, no one here had found the tapes nor had they encountered anything that would affect the conclusion that the tapes had been routinely erased. I said that no one reviewer here saw every document in the many archival boxes, but that had someone found anything to conflict with the previous testimony, it would have surfaced. e 5. I got the impression that, in addition to continuing to review the material as it is released to NARA, Summers may seek a formal response to the question he asked me. Coady DS apy — ( we Tp
13-00000 * PHONE; STILL POINT, *  353-Gireland) - 24(Youghal) - 96210 ANTHONY SUMMERS DROMORE, FAX: AGLISH, 353 (ireland) - 24 (Youghal) - 96467 CAPPOQUIN, = CO. WATERFORD, IRELAND. aa Mr. John F,Pereira, Chief, llistorical Review Group, Center for Study of Intelligence, Central Intelligence Agency, CIA SPECIAL COLLECTIONS RELEASE IN FULL a Washington D.C. 20505 6 July 10¢4 Dear “Mr. Periera, Thanks for your letter of June 20, regarding the Kennedy assassination case, and the matter of tape recordings. I was aware of virtually all the points you raise, since I recently took the trouble to visit Washington to peruse all available released material on the subject. It does not, however, resolve the problem. While one might accept that human temory might fail in the case of one person, or even of two, it is surely astonishing that two former Warren Commission counsel say firmly for the record that in April 1964 they listened to tapes of Oswald contacts with one or more of the Communist ivissions, courtesy of the local CIA station chief, and that -— in addition - a former senior station officer confirms that such tapes were played for thei precisely as they describe. What should the serious scholar of the case conclude, that all three of these gentlemen have hopeless memories or are offering false information? Or could it be that the written record is wrong? Can we be certain that the CIA was not holding such tapes in 1°64, and has not destroyed such tapes since? And can we be certain the CIA no longer has sucn tapes in its possession? I look forward with interest to your reply. Sincerely,
13-00000 we a a EEL CURE Ee Gj IONS 24 Februa NS eek ry 1995 RELEASE IN FULL To: C/ERS 7999 Subject: Morley's request The 10 October 1963 cable (Dir 74830) is a response to the Station's 9 October 1963 cable (Mexi 6453) which describes Oswald's contact with the Consul at the Soviet Embassy. The information on Oswald in the 10 October cable (para. 1 - 3) deals with Oswald citizenship and current status and is based on State reporting. The cable is not a complete report on Oswald based on all information available. The comment in Para. 3 re “latest HDQS information” appears to relate to citizenship issue, i.e., as of May 1962 State had confirmed Oswald's US citizenship. The statement is written in “cablese” and poorly worded, however, I don't believe it was meant to imply that there was no other information available on Oswald. gona su stqnreSd En Karamessines signed as “releasing officer” and,J.C. King wes o-S the’ authentication officer’ The cable would have been drafted by another officer, probably someone responding to a request on Oswald citizenship status. Background (FYI Only): The “Pre-Assassination” 201 file as released to NARA had at least one FBI document dated after May 1962 (DBA 20883 dated 30 August 1962/ received in the Agency 19 September 1962). There is also a 10 September 1963 FBI document that was . received by the Agency on 19 September 1963. Given the handling of FBI documents (indexing and microfilming prior to dissemination), I doubt that this document had reached the 201 file by 10 October 1963. There are no May 1962 documents/reports in the Pre- Assassination 201 File. Since Oswald left the USSR on 4 June 1962, there are numerous State documents dated May 1962 in the “JFK collection”, however, no way to determined when there were received by the Agency. The May 1962 “State report” may refer to a phone call to State or documents that were available but not in the 201 file. ,
13-00000 The cable referred to in your letter appears to focus only on the status of Oswald's citizenship. As such, it draws on information available from the State Department that bears on the question of citizenship. The cable is not regarded. as an attempt to summarize all the information in CIA files on Oswald at the time.
13-00000 . + PEB-23-"95 THU 13:35 1D:WASH POST - OUT LOOK TEL NO:2Q2-354-Se60 ss 9@2 PED | wt 23 February 1995 to: David Christian, Central Intelligence Agency from: Jefferson Morley, Washington Post In the next few days, The Washington Post plane to publish a sews article -about recently-declassified records from the CIA's Directorate of Plans concerning accused presidential assassin Lee Harvey Oswald. We would like to give you, or a designated Agency spokeamsan, the opportunity to | comment on these records. ' Routing slips on these documents show that in August 1962, Septem- ber 1963 and October 1963, numerous offices in the Directorate of Plans received FB! reparts on Oswald's personal, political and work activities. Another recently-released document shows that on October 10, 1963 deputy director of plans Thomas Karamessines sent a cable to the Mexico City station stating that Headquarters’ “latest HQ info" on Oswald was 3 State Department report dated May 1962. Our question: - Does the Agency know why Mr. Karamessines told the Mexico City sta- tion on October 10, 1963 that the CIA had no information on Oswald since May 1962 when the Agency's records show that it had received three FBI reports on Oswald between May 1962 and Octeber 1963? Our deadline is Friday, Feb. 24 at 5 p I dept at 202/334-6053 Gax sx 202/334-5660). Thank you for your . Jeff M . WasKagty
13-00000 yar LImOV 18 °Sf Lei Wem PUBLIC HErHLR> §=6QUTLOUK 2¢2 334 bono The Washington Post 3150 15th St, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20071-5530 7 November 1997 To: George Tenet, Director of Central . From: Jefferson Morley, Washington Post I write to request a briefing about the status of certain CIA records -~Telated to the Kennedy assassination. These records were produced by an Agency employee known as “Howard” who served as the case officer for a _ anti-Castro organization called the Revolutionary Student Directorate, DRE, from December 5, 1962 to mid-April 1964, In CIA files, the DRE was known by the cryptoaym AMSPELL. On November 22, 1963,"“Howard” new or shotld have nova about the pro-Castro activities of accused assassin Lee Harvey Oswald in 1963. “Howard” was also in a position to evaluate public allegations of a Castroite assassination conspiracy made by his agents in the leadership of | the DRE with whom he had extensive contact. He was obliged to report on , the activities of these agents. Yet virtually all records related to “Howard’s” activitiés in 1962-64 are missing from the National Archives. Inquiries to the JFK Assassination Records Review Board about these records have been unavailing. Under the teraas of the JFK Assassination Records Ast, the director of _ > the. Agency's archival depository is required to give “expedited review for public disclosure of assassination records” in the Agency’s possession. Because the CIA has otherwise shown (in the words of the JFK Assassination Records Review Board) “a high level of cooperation” and. “undertaken significant efforts” to satisfy the standards of the JFK Records Act, the apparent withholding of records by.and about “Howard” isan - anomaly that should be clarified and corrected.
13-00000 a we ae rs . 40% 18,’ 2e. 12:87PM PUBLIC. AFFAIRS  OQUTLOOK 2@2 334 S66Q - P.4 P32 Background: On November 13, 1962, Deputy Director of Plans '- Richard Helms with two leaders.of the DRE at CIA headquarters, Helms, according to minutes of the meeting, expressed a “personal interest” in - developing a “reasonable collaboration” with the DRE. He assigned the group a new case officer whom he said would “be responsibleto him - _— [Helms] for the relationship.”' According to other CIA records, this case officer used the name “Howard” in connection with DRE activities. As of . April 1963, the DRE was receiving an.average of $51,000 per month from the Agency’, the most of any single Cuban exile organization. “Howard” s” handling of the group casts new light on.an old story: the ‘Warren Commission’s report that in August 1963, anti-Castro.Cubans_ mounted a series of public confrontations with Lee Harvey Oswald. At the _ time, the ex-Marine wrote in a “political resume” that he was trying to harass and “infiltrate” the DRE chapter in New Orleans. When Oswald handed out pamphlets for the pro-Castro Fair Play for Cuba Committeeon' August 9, 1963, the DRE’s New Orleans delegate Carlos Bringuier and other - DRE members got into a fight with him. Bringuier notified the group’s national leaders in Miami about the street altercation with Oswald, With the ‘approval of DRE leaders in Miami, he then put Oswald under surveillance, ” He and a fellow anti-Castro activist also challenged Oswald to a debate on a local radio station, The DRE delegation taped the radio program and sent a ~ copy to DRE headquarters in Miami. Finally, Bringuier, irconsultation with Mens Mismt also put out a press release denouncing Oswald as 8 f ' . . . "At the time; “Howard” was meeting regularly with DRE leaders in Miami and assisting their propaganda activities. One former leader of the / DRE says that he is certain that “Howard” was informed of the group” = contacts with Oswald at the time; another says that “Howard” was — “probably” informed. These statements ate in potential conflict with the ‘ Agency’s longstanding position that none of its employees were knowledgeable of Oswald's s activities in New Orleans in August 1963.. 1 * See Memorandum for the Record, “Mr. Helms’ conversation with Rocha and Joss Maria Lasa of the DRE reganting their i Oxgantaone Resp with th Ags.” 13 November: 1962, . JFK Collection, National Archi 2 gee “Financial Payments Made by the Ceniral lutellipeace Agency t t Cin ue Oxpsztoas” meme frém Desmond Firrgyrald te Sterling Courell, April 1963, in Joha F. Kennetly
on Fo Rae tae 0 — "97 12:88PM PUBLIC AEFAIRS OUTLOOK 2a2 334, Se6u PeD> ea. . _- Inany case, there is no doubt that “Howard” was working with the DRE in the second half of 1963 to combat pro-Castro forces in the United States. In September 1963, “Howard” advanced four DRE leaders $660 to travel to:New York City and disrupt a canference of pro-Castro students, an apparent violation of the ban on CIA activities on U'S. soil. While reporting regilarly to “Howard” in the fall of 1963, the DRE leaders were stepping up their efforts to obtain weapons and money for an imminent military effort to liberate Cuba. In October 1963, DRE leader Juan : Manual Salvat traveled, in violation of an administrative order confining him . to Miami, to Dallas. There, FBI documents show that Salvat assigned two DRE members to negotiate for the purchase of weapons from a Dallas gun dealer, John Thomas Masen, According to a March 1964 FBI canvas of: . Dallas area gun dealers, Masen was one of two who sold the type of ‘Mannlicher-Carcano bullets that siruck President Kennedy. | After President Kennedy was killed, a DRE leader sent “Howard” a. copy of a recording of the August 1963 radio debate with Oswald. The group published a special issue of “Trinchera,” its CLA-funded publication, _ detatling Bringuier’s contacts with Oswald and allegmg that the accused assassin had acted at the behest of Fidel Castro.. The group also launched a campaign by its Agency-fynded delegations in Latin America to blame Kennedy's murder on the Cuban goverument. Co “Howard's” reaction to the DRE’s use of CLA fonding to promote its ; JEK assassination conspiracy theory is unknown. It is known that “Howard” did riot immediately inform his CIA colleagues investigating Oswald that his agents in the DRE had previously exposed the accused assassin as a sympathizer with the Cuban revolution. “Oswald’s involvement with the pro-Castro movement was not at all surface[d] to us in the first weeks of the investigation,” said “John Scelso,” the CLA official in ohare of the ‘Agency’ s inquiry into Oswald.’ The Agency, in compliance with the JFK Records Act, has already . disclosed most aspects of its relationship with the DRE, including the real - names of two case officers who handled the group (David Phillips and Ross _ 2 Sed deposition of “oa Selo” Hause Select Comune ox Assacnadons, 16 May 1978, 166..
» LIWWOV 16 "97 12:@8PM PUBLIC AEFAIRS OUTLOOK 282 334 5660 (CO i) Crozier). The Agency has released the redacted 201 file of principal - AMSPELL agent, Juan Manual Salvat Roque (201-286051). It has also released monthly “Operational Progress” reports on AMSPELL/DRE’s — activities in September and October © 1962-she months right before “Howard” became the Agency’s contact with the group--and on AMSPELL/DRE activities in May, June, July, August, September and October 1964—the months right after “Howard” was relieved of the DRE assignment. The anomaly in the CLA records is this: if “Howard” reported on the "group 'in the same fashion that his predecessor and successor did, he would . have generated 17 monthly opérational progress reports on AMSPELL/DRE activities between December 1962 and April 196 1964. Yet the National ~~ . Archives has no such AMSPELL/DRE reports in that period: Nor have such ’ reports been made available to the Review Board. Yet it is precisely these reports that are most likely to contain information relevant to the Kennedy assassination story. Specifically, “Howard’s” reports on AMSPELL/DRE activities in August and November 1963, if they exist, demonstrably fit the legal definition of “assacsination-related records” and thus have the | presumption of “immediate disclosure” according to statute. . Among the questions I would like to discuss with knowledgeable = representatives of the Agency are: 1) Did “Howard” report appropriately through the IMWAVE station , . in Miami about his activities oa behalf of the CLA concerning the DRE in the period 1962 to 1964? ‘ 2) If so, was “Gioward's” reperting on the DRE made available tb | “John Scelso” for the Agency’ s investigation of Oswald in 1963- 647. ar) Were these records made available to the House Select Committee ' ‘on Assassinations in 1977-78 i in connection with its review Of DRE - activities? 4) Does “Howard? s” reporting on DRE activities in August and November 1963 exist today?
13-00000 NUV se ura 887, %, ade" FUERA, EE HaN OUTLOOK 2a2 334 B6sa ree pg. 5) Ifso, svtuen will the Agency make these recards available to the "Review Board as mandated by law? 6) f thes records no longer eit, what was the dean he reason ‘for their disposition? | 0 Dos te CTA have any cintion ote pubiton of Howard’ real name? | Tat tht owes repesnavs of he Agen willbe she | ~ to clarify these issues for readers ofthe Washington Post - - Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.
13-00000 - NOV, 14.1997 6:18PM CIA PUBLIC AFFAIRS STAFF NO. 1818 Pt PUBLIC AFFAIRS STAFF TO: NAME: Sohn P. [| “Barry L/ TEL: __ ee rax: _ (Gl - 3063 _/ FROM : Phone: 703 482-7677 Fax: 703 482-6736 NUMBER OF PAGES: (w/Cover Sheet) REMARKS _ Soha / Barry, Llere's on copy of ous heads up Messe COnCERA ING the “read requend forth SFk backgrounder We said na basedon -he Fact thet +k eviews (S ongoing, Ge Provided mo Addi liwas " Appeat" OU deersien, bape < wapluved Youre brieling ia Q wobv “Tom
13-00000 * NOV. 14.1997 6:19PM CIA PUBLIC AFFAIRS STAFF NO, 1818 P. 2 4 A 14 November 1997 Mote for: OCI From. Bill Harlow Director of Public Affairs Re: Possible Washington Post “Outlook” piece on “Anomalies” in the CIA’s JFK Assassination Document Review Jafferson Morley of che Washington Post is planning to write a story for the “Outloox” section on the governumenct-wide JFK assassination documene review. Morley requested a background briefing with members of the CIA/CSI review panel to discuss what he believes are “anomalias* in our disclosures to date. Specifically, Morley claims that CIA records relating to the Agency’s relationship with an anti-Cascro group called the Revolutionary Student Directorate (DRE) are missing from the National Archives. In addition, Morley claims that previously released JFK documents which reference a CIA case officer named “Howard,” who Morley claims was the Agency’s contact with the DRE, are also missing or incomplete. After consulcing with John Pereira, Chief, CSI/Historical Review Group, and Barry Harrelson, Chief, JFK Assassination Review, PAS informed Morley that it would not be appropriate to conduct a background briefing on the subject at this time because the Agency’s JFK assassination documenc review is still ongoing. We emphasized to Morley that the CIA maintains an excellent Working relationship with the Presidential review board and has been responsive to all inquires and concerns the board has raised. Background: At the request of the Presidential JFK Assassination Records Review Board, CSI is currently conducting a thorough re-review of all DRE related document to ascertain if “Howard” existed and to determine if documents are missing. To date mo records containing the name “Howard” have been identified and CSI has not determined if there are any missing DRE documents. CSI believes the Agency’s relationship with the Presidential board could be jeopardized, or damaged, if Morley were to receive a CIA briefing on the very questions the board has instructed CSI to investigate. Attached is a copy of Morley’ S request for the background briefing. Dissem: DDCI, DCI/CoS, DCI/EA, Counsel/DCI, SXDIR, D/EXDIR, DDO, DDA, B/OCA, GC, B/CST
13-00000 (LIA TUDLIL APTALK® OIAKY 299 334 Se6a P.2 JAN, 0.19904 4.400% $468 1$™ STREET, MW. ; _. WASHINGTON, ac 20071-8630 , : the tMoshington Post oN To: George Tenet, Director Central Intelligence From: Jefferson Morley Shortly after the assassination of President Kennedy on Nov. 22, 1963, a CLA case officer learned that his agents in a Miami-based anti- Castro organization had been im contact with Lee Harvey Oswald, then in custody as a suspect in the President’s murder. I would like to request an unclassified briefing « on the activities and professional performance of this officer. This officer was, according to former colleagues, a senior intelligence officer. He was the CLA’s contact with the Revolutionary Student Directorate (DRE) from December 1962.until April 1964. He used the name - “Howard” in his dealings with the Cuban students, The DRE is identified in CIA files by the cryptonym AMSPELL; the principle agent in the AMSPELL operation was Juan Manual Salvat. The Washington Post has learned that the AMSPELL propaganda operation, funded by the CIA, had a ' decisive effect on media coverage of the Kennedy assassination. Among the questions, I seek to clarify are: —Did “Howard” report on the activities of the DRE/AMSPELL in August and November of 19637 | —Did “Howard” report on contacts between the DRE and Oswald in a timely fashion after the assassination? ” —When will copies of “Howard’s” reporting on DRE/AMSPELL be made available to the JFK Records Review Board?
13-00000 JAN, v. 19901 4:43rm — gCLA PUBLIC AFFAIRS STAFF 299 334 seeo NU. 2U84 PS =x P.3 __ Ido not seek access to any classified information or documents. I seek the informed perspective of Agency employees familiar with Cuba operations in 1963 and Agency records already made public by the CLA related to DRE/AMSPELL and “Howard.” The spirit of full disclosure, embodied im the JFK Assassination Records Act, gives the CLA the opportunity to dispel misconceptions about the Agency and the circumstances leading to Kennedy’s death. J hope that you will act in the spirit of that law and authorize knowledgeable persons at the CLA to clarify the story of the CLA propaganda operation known as AMSPELL for readers of the Washington Post. Thohk aes peration. - no | , wiiiaw sae orley Assi Editor Outlook Section
piS=1ael 258 BF “GSPMRUBLIC OFFRIRS QUTLODK 222 334 Seeu P a 7) ++ 1150 15th St, NW. —— a ' ‘Washington, D.C. 20071-5530 «16 Sauay, 1998 ° To: Tom Crispell: Bo oe _ From: Teferson Morley" me, ; ae os | Re request for cassie briefing DearTom, | Thisis to follow up on my focto Director Tenet of7 famuary 1998. ‘T would lice to know ifthe Agency will be réaponsive to my request. Ifthe Agency _. will not be able to provide an unclassified briefing on the DRE/AMSPELL documents that SAE eT dee a eee ae eae ae Gepumrasion? Tam handing in the story nest week and need to include the Agency's response, ; Thariks for your attention to this matter. Jefferson Morley Assistant Editor Outlook Section of ee
13-00000 20 January 1998 Memorandum For: T. Jeremy Guna Executive Director. "rs Assas®ination zecords Review Board . From: J. Barry Harrelson Senior Reviewer - JFK: Project . Subject: CIA-IR-21, Monthly operational Reports Por the DRE ‘1. Reference is made to your request for subject - information as further refined in your 18 December 1997 letter to Chief, Historical Review Group. Specifically, you asked about missing DRE monthly operational reports and the identity of “Howard,” the name to which the DRE appears to have sent correspondence. 2. The Agency has searched appropriate data bases and files for the “missing” reports. In addition, the responsible offices have’ researched the questions contained within your request. Based on these rather extensive efforts, we can advise you as follows. 3. i - (The searches conducted by the. Agency failed to locate any of the reporcs that appear to be “missing” =-- December 1962 through April 1964, in general, and those for August and November 1963 ina particular. It should be noted that during the period in question, major palicy differences between the Agency and DRE developed. This was particularly true of the latter years of association because the DRE would not take directions or instructions about a number of operational matters, insisting on engaging in activities the Agency did: not sanction. These differences caused the Agency -to reduce the level of funding forg;the DRE. It also replaced the officer designated to deal with the DRE. Then, about the same time, the monthly opexational reports trailed off. It seems probable these events are linked and that reporting in the form of such monthly reports simply stopped. The DRE files we did find are also within the sequestered JFK collection and they have previously been made available to ARRB staff member Manuel Legaspi. 4. The identity of “Howard.” With reference to your reques= for information on *Howard,* we, like you, have no clear understanding abouc the use of this particular name on
13-00000 sae wee wees we ema as ~~ ag Rie ait Seb h A Ef A bale Cem te Sn tw AE ES ED rues 618 3219 : P, Se) DRE messages. The phrase, ‘sT9 Howard’ was used as the ie addressee of several DRE prepared memoranda. We first attempted to identify if, in fact, “foward” was an actual person. The name was not found to be a pseudonym. It also was not found to be a registered alias. It also is not the true name of any case officer associated with the DRE opexation at the time the DRE documents were written. ‘Following review of those data bases, knowledgeable case officers were queried suggested that_the use of “To Howard- might have been nothing more than a-routing indicator to ensure that the documents got to the correct CIA office/officer or that the sender was someone known to the recipient. S. ‘Ie you have any further questions in this regard, please advise.
13-00000 ‘ FOR-OFFICIAL USE ONLY 18 January 1998 MEMORANDUM FOR: John Pereira @ DCI C PA ¢ ex se 3" Fred Wickham @ 00 EEE COOL LEOTIONS . FR Ps FROM: J. Barry Harrelson JFK Project Officer OFFICE: : IMO/HAP * SUBJECT: FYI - Jeff Morlay's Requests re DRE REFERENCE: Morley's letters (2) to DCI . Last week Tom Crispell, Public Affairs, call me about a second letter to the OC! from Jeff Morley, Washington Post, re the DRE (Revolutionary Student Directorate), an anti-Castro organization that figures in the JFK assassination story. Again Morley ask for an unclassified briefing on the documents that have been made public, and clarification of the AMSPELL (DRE) operation and its “case officer” Howard. | told Tom that HRG continued to recommend against a briefing and/or doing research for Morley. However, we are in the process of preparing a response to the ARRB on the DRE that will answer some of Morley's questions. Tem and | discussed the possibility of providing Morley a copy of our response te the JFK Board (ARAB) or referring him to the board. { told Tom! would have to discuss with C/HRG, the DO and board staff. The DO (Bill McNair and Fred Wickham) are opposed to giving Morley any information. The ARRB Ex Dir. has no objection to the Agency providing Morley the same information we are giving the ARRB, however, they would not provide Morley a copy of our response. The ARRB considers this an open request and does not want te give incomplete information. [f Morley is referred to the ARRB, he will be told that their records would be open to the public when the project is completed: Gunn did request that we make the DRE files in the sequestered collection a pricrity in the re-review and ask if we could re-review those docurnents mentioned in Morley’s requests as soon as possible. , { passed the 00 and ARRB respenses to Tom. On Friday ( 16 Jan) Tom received a shert note from Morley asking if the Agency was going to respond to his request; his deadline for the story is next week and needs to include the Agency's response. After further discussion, Tom said he would talk with Mansfield and recommend that Morley be given the same response as before: no briefing or written response to specific questions; additional information on the DRE will be made public through the ARRB and NARA as part of the review of JFK records. For your information, the DO can find no record of a case office named “Howard”. {t appears that “Howard” may have been a routing indicator. Ce: Ed Cohen @ DA Seat on 18 January 1998 at 09:50:46 AM FOR-BFHEIAC USE ORLY
13-00000 ADMINISTRATIVE - INTERNAL USE ONLY From the Desk of J. Barry Harrelson ROTE FOR: Thomas G. Crispell FROM: J. Barry Harrelson OFFICE: OIM/HRP DATE: 01/28/98 04:06:28 PM SUBJECT: Jeff Morley Request 1. In response to Jeff Morley's request re “Howard” and the DRE in his recent letter to the DCI, OIM/ HRP proposes the following oral response: , With reference to your request for information on "Howard", we have attempted to identify who he was and if, in fact, he was an actual person. The phrase, "To Howard" was used as the addressee of several DRE prepared memoranda. A comprehensive search of appropriate files was made. The name was not found to be a pseudonym or a registered alias. it also is not the true name of any case officer associated with the DRE operation at the time the DRE documents were written. Knowledgeable officers have suggested that the use of "To Howard" might have been a routing indicator to ensure that the documents got to the correct CIA officejofficer. 2. The above response has been coordinated with Lee Strickland and the DO/IRO's office | if you have any questions, please call me 0n/31825! Barry cc: John F. Pereira Lee S. Strickland @ DA 00 Sent on 28 January 1998 at 04:06:28 PM ADMINISTRATIVE - INTERNAL USE ONLY
_ AM LL 1999 0s care VIA FUBLIL AKFAIKS STARE NO.4203 P MEMORANDUM March 3, 1998 To: Jeremy Gunn coe anh Executive Director Ye qn he cc Bob Skwirot " CLA Team Leader ‘From: Michelle Combs willle aw ia Special Assistant for Research and Review Subject: CIA-IR-21 DRE Case Officer for December 1962 - April 1964 ‘ In response to ARRB’s informal request fot additional information and records, _ -CIA-IR-21, CIA provided access to the Office of Personnel file for Mr. George E. Joanriides, I have examined the personnel file for Mr. Joannides for the period 1961-64 and 1978-79. Mr. Joannides appears in documents in the CIA Sequestered Collection under his pseudonym Walter D. Newby. - . During the period December 1962 to April 1964, , Mr. Joannides was assigned a as acovert . action officer at JMWAVE, serving as deputy and then chief of the station’s covert action branch. During this time perlod, Mr. Joannides was the case officer for the -. ‘Cuban exile group Directorio Revolucionario Estudiantil (DRE). The descriptions of his duties and accomplishments in the personnel file are very. general and’contain no’ “ specific reference to his relationship with the DRE. ‘There is no mention of the © assassination of President John F. Kennedy in the file and no information relevant to the _ assassination in the file. There is also no indication that Mr. Joannides may have used _or been known by the name “Howard” during his contacts with the DRE, although | personnel files typically would not reveal this information one way or another. During the period mid-May: 1978 January 1979, Mr. Joannides was assigned. to work for . Scott Breckinridge, the CIA’s principal coordinator to the House Select Committee on _ Assassination (HSCA) as a focal person to keep track of the status of HSCA requests, ‘particularly to the Directorate of Operations. In this role, Mr. Joannides developed and ‘maintained a log and records of HSCA requests and CIA responses and handled the day-to-day follow up to HSCA requests. ‘Several performance evaluation reports from the 1962-64 time period and a memoranda from Scott Breckinridge on Mr. Joannides’ duties during the 1978-1979 time frame were designated assassination records and are being processed for release. e:\combs\cia-ir2l.wpd File 4.20.1 and 4.20.4 GED Gre ey ene Gente
13-00000 ADMINISTRATHEINTERNALUSEONLY NOTE FOR: James R. Oliver@DA FROM: — I OFFICE: OIM/R DATE: 09/29/98 03:46:26 PM SUBJECT: Public Affairs/JFK Per our conversation yesterday, | talked to Lee regarding about not providing a number to Public Affairs with respect to the ABC inquiry regarding the cost for deciassifying JFK. He still wants to give the 35 FTE statement. Unfortunately, this has made its way to Ed who disagrees with both solutions. Ed has requested that we provide an overall FTE figure for the entire processing (6 years.) | tried my best to make this a simple project, but unfortunately was not successful. | now need your assistance (or Barry) to provide the FTE estimate. The Public Affairs Point of Contact is or.37758,} | apologize _ for the inconvienance, but | tried. Thanks -[Rusty, } cc: Sent on 29 September 1998 at 03:46:26 PM ADMINISTRATIVE - INTERNAL USE ONLY
13-00000 | Weta Hurleg | olor eek J CLA SPEC CIAL CO! OLLECTIO RAFT | THiS pyc —? profley. dec MEMORANDUM FOR: FROM: J. Barry Harrelson Senior Reviewer, HRP/OIM SUBJECT: Material For Response to 11 Dec 98 Ltr From Morley The following information may be helpful in drafting a response to subject letter from Washington Post reporter, Jefferson Morely. 2. Basie Facts: (S) a. On 5 December 1962, Walter D. NEWBY, George Joannides, was introduced to a DRE leader as the new responsible case officer for the AMSPELL project, replacing Harold R. NOEMAYR. Dispatch UFGA-6891, 10 Dec 62 (S) b. In “the middle of April” 1964, NEWBY was replaced by Keith T. BONGRINO (P), as the case officer on project AMSPELL. Dispatch UFGA 16,168, 8 June 64 (U) c. Thus, NEWBY’S responsibility for the DRE/AMSPELL project was for the approximate period - 5 December 1962 - mid-April 1964. (U) d. The DRE Monthly Operational Reports that can be found end with the one for November 1962 (the month preceding NEWBY assuming responsibility for the project) and commence again with one for May 1964 (the month after NEWBY left the Project). (U) «. NEWBY’S fitness reports for the periods in question state that his tasks, among other things, were: - Case officer for student project involving political action, propaganda, intelligence collection and hemisphere-wide apparatus. 1 Jan 62 - 31 Dec 62Fitness Report, did 19 Jan 63. ; ~ Case officer for student project involving political action, propaganda, intelligence collection and a hemisphere-wide apparatus. 1 Jan 63- 31 Jul 63 Fitness Report, dtd 31 Jul 63. - Serves as senior case officer for a student project which involves distribution of printed propaganda, production of radio programs, and the development of political action programs. 1 Apr 63 - 31 March 64 Fitness Report, dtd 15 May 64. (U) f. In all three Fitness Reports, he received a “Strong” for his efforts on the above described DRE/AMSPELL Project.
13-00000 (S) g. Via WAVE-1064, dtd 7 November 1962 — the month of the last Operational Report before the gap and just a few weeks before NEWBY took over as the case officer, JMWAVE had recommended for a number of reasons that the AMSPELL project be terminated. (S) h. The 10 December 1962 Dispatch UFGA-6891 (the last Operational Report before the gap commenced) is illustrative of the confusion surrounding the project both from the way the “Subject” of the dispatch is styled and the comments within the dispatch. For example: The “subject box has two lines. On line one it states, “Operational /GYROSE/KU WOLFI/ AMSPELL.” On the second line it states, “AMSPELL Status” which is a clear reference to the problems and uncertainties with the project which are then set out within the report. The report first notes the station’s November recommendation to terminate AMSPELL but then advises while it would continue to fund salaries and operational expenses, no new AMSPELL activities would be undertaken pending HQ’s response to the proposal to terminate. Further, within the body of the report was the statement that “AMSPELL membership was being instructed to go out and seek other employment as a part of a plan for a ‘transition’ in the event of a rupture in relations with KUBARK.” It is not clear if this instruction was being made by Station officers or by AMSPELL leadership. , 4. Morley’s Allegations: Turning to subject letter, Morley is more than a littie disingenuous when he claims HRP responded to the ARRB “with inaccurate information: to wit, that no ‘actual person’ was handling contacts with the DRE in 1963.” He alleges in the next paragraph, “(Dhese statements are now shown to be false and misleading....” HRP’s 20 January 1998 memorandum to the ARRB plainly does not say what Morley alleges. We know who the case officer was before and after NEWBY and that NEWBY was the case officer in 1963. The Harrelson memorandum simply says that because of policy differences between the Agency and the DRE during the period in question, the Agency reduced its level of funding and also replaced the officer designated to deal with the DRE. The memorandum does not say the Agency withdrew the officer or suggest the absence of a case officer responsible for the project. 5. With respect to Morley’s claim that a representative of “CIA’s public information office” told him “no ‘actual person’ was handling contacts with the DRE in 1963,...” HRP’s record of that proposed conversation reflects a different story. The HRP record states that the Agency Public Affairs officer would recommend: a) that no briefing or written response to specific questions be given to Morely; and, b) that he be told additional information on the DRE would be made public through the ARRB and NARA as part of the review of JFK records.. 6. Further, the Agency did not “fail to accurately disclose the activities of one of its case officers in 1963” to the ARRB as Morely claims. Indeed, Michelle Combs’ 3 March 1998 memorandum clearly demonstrates: a)she had access to Joannides’ personnel file; b) she was clearly aware he was NEWBY; and, c) she knew that he was the case officer for the DRE from December 1962 to April 1964. She knew these things because the Agency provided her full access to his personnel file and all other relevant materials. Her statement that “(he descriptions of his duties and in the personnel file are very general and contain no specific refrence to his relationship with the DRE,” is technically correct. The DRE is not mentioned by name within the file. However, the three quoted duties or tasks set-out above from the three Fitness Reports adequately demonstrate that the project for which he was a case officer was the DRE. 7. Where there ever DRE Operational Reports for the months December 1962 through April 1964. The answer to that question has not been found so far as HRP knows. All evidence and comment
13-00000 received from the DO during our search on behalf of the ARRB suggests that the reports never existed. The coincidences of dates between NEWBY’S arrival and departure strongly suggest the confusion about the go/no-go status of the DRE with Agency sponsorship precipitated some decision to suspend the reports. Whether that decision was made by NEWBY or senior JMWAVE personnel is not known. We have already answered the question about “Howard.” Morely states “there is abundant evidence in CIA and DRE records that Joannides, using the pseudonym “Howard,”...etc. HRP’s 20 January 1998 memorandum advised the Executive Director of the ARRB that we did not know who “Howard” was or if, in act, there was a person using the name “Howard.” Further, according to the DO, the name was not found to be a pseudonym or the true name of an officer the DRE operation at the time the DRE documents were written. J. Barry Harrelson Senior Reviewer, JFK Project
13-00000. DRAFT LETTER TO MORLEY [CIA LETTERHEAD] THS 2 Atv, - joc Mr. Jefferson Morley Staff Writer The Washington Post 1150 15™ Street, NW. Washington, D.C. 20071 Dear Mr. Morely: This is in response to your letter of 3 December concerning the DRE, the DRE case officer and the identity of “Howard.” It appears that there is some confusion about what the Agency has said and not said about the above subjects. I hope the following facts will clarify matters for you. First, the Agency has never said there was no case officer for the DRE during 1963. We know the identify of the case officer before NEWBY/Joannides; we know the case officer following Joannides; and, we know that Joannides was the DRE case officer for the period 5 December 1962 to mid April 1964. The 20 January 1998 memorandum to the ARRB simply says that differences between the Agency and the DRE caused the Agency to replace “the officer designated to deal with the DRE.” Second, the gap in DRE/AMSPELL operational reports for the months December 1962 through April 1963 (the so-called “missing reports”) coincides almost exactly with NEWBY’S/Joannides’ tenure as the DRE case officer. We do not know if the reports ever existed. We do know that the differences mentioned above caused JMWAVE to propose to Headquarters in November 1962 that the project be terminated. This was the month before NEWB Y/Joannides assumed responsibility for the DRE and the last month an Operational Report was written before the gap. We like you can only speculate about why no reports exist - whether NEWBY/Joannides decided on his own they were no longer necessary, whether he was told by a superior to stop them, or whether they were in fact written and cannot be found. We do not know. Third, I turn to the identity/existence of “Howard.” As you note, “To Howard” was used by the DRE as the apparent addressee on certain correspondence. We refer to our 20 January 1998 letter. “Howard” could not be found as a registered pseudonym or alias. We have no evidence to suggest “Howard” was an identity for Joannides. Lastly, so far as we can determine, “Howard” is not the true name of any officer associated with the DRE at the time the DRE documents were written. The Agency has not made false or misleading statements to the ARRB about these matters. In fact, ARRB staff members thoroughly reviewed all of the materials on the DRE, NEWBY/Joannides, the “Howard” issue and, the question of the gap in the DRE operational reports. Sincerely, XXKXKXXKK
13-00000 JAN, 11, 1999 _ Dear Mr. Snider. ~ pee 2. €érM VIA FUDLIU APFAINKS OLAPE NU, 42U5 ry, 3 INSPECTOR GENERAL 1S 3 December 1998 Mr. L. Britt Snider General Counsel Central Intelligence Agency ; Washington, DC 20505 By way of introduction, x my name is- Jefferson Morley. | am a reporter for the. Washington Post. Our mutual friend Scott Armstrong suggested that | write to you for clarification of certain issues related to CIA compliance with the JFK Assassination Records Act. AS you know, the mandate of the Act was for “immediate disclosure" of all documents related to the murder of President Kennedy, The purpose of the law was to re-establish the credibility of government institutions.in the face of widespread public doubt and confusion about the. events of November 1963. As you also know, the number three official at the agency, In compliance with the Act; submitted.a swom | "statement that the Agency has made available all assassination-related records for review by the JFK Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB). The attached exchange of memoranda ralses questions about the accuracy: Of | . the CIA's responses to the ARRB on-a potentially important question. At issue are the seporting and performance of George f..Joannides, a CIA case officer stationed in Miami:in 1963 with responsibilities for a once-prominent Cuban exile _ group known as the Revolutionary Student Directorate or DRE. The DRE was an anti- - Castro group whose members had a series of encounters with Lee Harvey.Oswald 12 - ‘weeks before the Kennedy assassination. The DRE leaders were the very first peopleto issue public statements after the assassination about Oswald's pro-Castro activities and political convictions. A senlor official of the Castro government alleged in 1995 that the DRE was involved in a conspiracy to kill President Kennedy. . The exchange of memoranda demonstrates that when.th ARRB Inquired last winter about the identity of the CIA contact for the DRE, the Historical Review office fof when fesponded with inaccurate information: fo- wit; that j no “actual person" was: ‘handling ° we said , contacts with the DRE in 1963. When I posed the same question on behalf of the Washington Post to Tom Crispell of the CiA's public Information office, | was also told. a, ae that the CIA had no records as to the identity of the DRE's case officer. yf A) Bot! _ These statements are now. shown to:be false. and. misleading,in effect, ifmot “Jim ghia 2 intent. As Ms. Combs' memo ‘demonstrates, the DRE did have a case officer and that the fact was recorded in Mr. Joannides’ Office of Personnel file. Both the DRE and Mr. Joannides were well known at JM/WAVE. The DRE, known by the cryptonym , . AMI/SPELL, was receiving $51,000 a month from the agency and Mr. Joannides was - reporting to Ted Shackley among others. — The agency's inaccurate statement about Mr. Joannides logically raises questions about the agency's statement that it cannot locate any written reports generated by him. Obviously “knowledgeable officers” who did not know of Mr. Joannides’ relationship with the DRE would not be well positioned to know of his reporting on that relationship. Former colleagues tell me that Mr. Joannides' professional duties on the AM/SPELL account would have included preparing contact - reports on his meetings with DRE leaders and filing monthly reports to his superiors. Since Joannides had a reputation as a competent officer and since there is abundant
13-00000 evidence in CIA and DRE records that Joannides, using the pseudonym "Howard,” received written communications from and about the DRE, the most reasonable assumption (absent further explanation) is that he memorialized his activities in 1962- 1964. If the CIA can find no such records in its files, the question of the disposition of | We (ua) these records arises. If DRE-AM/SPELL files were destroyed according to procedure, she there should be a record of it. If they were not destroyed according to procedure, thelr pa dispositionneeds to be accounted for under thé Spirit, if not the letter, of th the JFK pe - Records Act, { My questions are as follows: . 1) Why did the CIA make inaccurate statements last January to the ARRB and ~ We (uae) the Washington Post about the DRE's case officer? What are the names of the hb wet “knowledgeable officers" who informed J. Barry Harrelson that the man known to the «@.—. DRE as “Howard” (i.e. George Joannides) was not an “actual person” but merely “a routing indicator? 2) What is the CIA's explanation for the complete absence of reporting onthe we CH@e) DRE and Oswald from its extant files on the AM/SPELL operation? After the DRE made hav< bo public statements about Lee Harvey Oswald on November 22, 1963, what were Mr. on plantrn Joannides' reporting obligations, if any, under the procedures and practices of the Operations Directorate? Did Mr. Joannides, in the view of the Agency today, fulfill those obligations in all respects? 3) Will the CIA provide a background briefing to me and a colleague to clarify these and other questions arising from the documentation of the CIA's relationship with the DRE in 1962-64 and from Mr. Joannides’ role in the Agency's response to the HSCA investigation in 1978-797 The apparent fallure of the CIA to accurately disclose the activities of one of Its case officers in November 1963 to the JFK records review board is noteworthy. Public confidence in the CIA's sworn statements about Its compliance with the JFK Records Act depends on verification of those statements. If the Historical Review Office was misinformed about Mr. Joannides and passed that inaccurate information to the public, it behooves the agency to correct the error quickly and clarify all questions arising from its ofiginal misstatements of fact. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Jeftersqn Morley - Staff Writer Washington Post . 0) 202/334-6863 f) 202/334-6138 Enclosure: ce: Rick Atkinson Scott Armstrong
13-00000 NU 42Us FP, vith 2UUhIV ArEALAD OLArl Inspector General we td Hh (703) 874-2553 IG 1998-1532 11 December 1998 Mr. Jefferson Morley Staff writer. The Washington Post 1150 15™ Street, N.W. Washington, D.c. 20071 Dear Mr. Morley: this will. acknowledge receipt of your letter dated - 3 December 1998, which posed several questions regarding the CIA's handling of information under the JFK Assassination Records ‘Act. "Inasmuch. as this Office does not have the information you are seeking, I am taking the liberty of sending a copy. of your letter to the Office of Public Affairs as well as the Office of Information Management. for response. Please give my regards to Scott Axmstrong when you see him. Sincerely, OT B y . | | _L. Britt Snider Distribution: Orig.- Addressee 1 - OPA 1 - OIM 1 - IG Chrono d
13-00000 oe JAN. 11.1999 5:22PM CIA PUBLIC AFFAIRS STAFF NO.4203 PJ ao PUBLIC AFFAIRS STAFF Phone: 703 482-7677 Fax: 703 482-G7390 WUMS=ER OF PAGES: | = (w/Caver Sheet) REMOARSS : {ores me or ley sau) 3 Ip sknr Som our Odeo hun . |
13-00000 28 January 1999 MEMORANDUM FOR THE RECORD FROM: J. Barry Harrelson ‘ Senior Reviewer, HRP/OIM SUBJECT: Material For Response to 11 Dec 98 Ltr From Morley The following background information addresses the questions and accusations made by Washington Post reporter, Jefferson Morley in his letter to of 11 December 1998 to Britt Snider. It has been coordinated with the DO JFK Team and DOMRO , 2. Basic Facts: a. On 5 December 1962, Walter D. NEWBY, George Joannides, was introduced to a DRE leader as the new responsible case officer for the AMSPELL project, replacing Harold R. NOEMAYR. Dispatch UFGA-6891, 10-Dec 62 b. In “the middle of April” 1964, NEWBY was replaced by Keith T. BONGRINO (P), as the case officer on project AMSPELL. Dispatch UFGA 16,168, 8 June 64. c. .Thus, NEWBY’S responsibility for the DRE/AMSPELL project was for the approximate period - § December 1962 - mid-April 1964. d. The DRE Monthly Operational Reports that can be found end with the one for November 1962 (the month preceding NEWBY assuming responsibility for the project) and commence again _ with one for May 1964 (the month after NEWBY left the project). e. NEWBY’S fitness reports for the periods in question state that his tasks, among other things, were: - Case officer for student project involving political action, propaganda, intelligence collection and hemisphere-wide apparatus. 1 Jan 62 - 31 Dec 62Fitness Report, dtd 19 Jan 63. - Case officer for student project involving political action, propaganda, intelligence collection and a hemisphere-wide apparatus. 1 Jan 63- 31 Jul 63 Fitness Report, dtd 31 Jul 63. - Serves as senior case officer for a®student project which involves distribution of printed propaganda, production of radio programs, and the development of political action programs. 1 Apr 63 - 31 March 64 Fitness Report, dtd 15 May 64. f. In all three Fitness Reports, he received a Strong" for his efforts on the above described DRE/AMSPELL Project.
13-00000 Administrative} LUse-Oal g. Via WAVE-1064, dtd 7 November 1962 — the month of the last Operational Report before the gap and just a few weeks before NEWBY took over as the case officer, JMWAVE had recommended for a number of reasons that the AMSPELL project be terminated. h. The 10 December 1962 Dispatch UFGA-6891 (the last Operational Report before the gap commenced) is illustrative of the confusion surrounding the project both from the way the “Subject” of the dispatch is styled and the comments within the dispatch. For example: The “subject box has two lines. On line one it states, “Operational (GYROSE/KUWOLF/ AMSPELL.” On the second line it states, “AMSPELL Status” which is a clear reference to the problems and uncertainties with the project which are then set out within the report. The report first notes the station’s November recommefidation to terminate AMSPELL but then advises while it would continue to fund salaries and operational expenses, no new AMSPELL activities would be undertaken pending HQ’s response to the proposal te terminate. Further, within the body of the report was the statement that “AMSPELL membership was being instructed to go out and seek other employment as a part of a plan for a ‘transition’ in the event of a rupture in relations with KUBARK.” It is not clear if this instruction was being made by Station officers or by AMSPELL leadership. 4. Morley’s Allegations: Turning to subject letter, Morley is more than a little disingenuous when he claims HRP responded to the ARRB “with inaccurate information: to wit, that no ‘actual person’ was handling contacts with the DRE in 1963.” He alleges in the next paragraph, “(t)hese statements are now shown to be false and misleading....” HRP’s 20 January 1998 memorandum to the ARRB plainly does not say what Morley alleges. We know who the case officer was before and after NEWBY and that NEWBY was the case officer in 1963. The Harrelson memorandum simply says that because of policy differences between the Agency and the DRE during the period in question, the Agency reduced its level of funding and also replaced the officer designated to deal with the DRE. The memorandum does not say the Agency withdrew the officer or suggest the absence of a case officer responsible for the project. 5. With respect to Morley’s claim that a representative of “CIA’s public information office” told him “no ‘actual person’ was handling contacts with the DRE in 1963,...” HRP’s record of that proposed conversation reflects a different story. The HRP record states that the Agency Public Affairs officer would recommend: a) that no briefing or written response to specific questions be given to Morley; and, b) that he be told additional information on the DRE would be made public through the ARRB and NARA as part of the review of JFK records.. 6. Further, the Agency did not “fail to accurately disclose the activities of one of its case officers in 1963” to the ARRB as Morley claims. Indee@, Michelle Combs’ 3 March 1998 memorandum clearly demonstrates: a)she had access to Joannides’ personnel file; b) she was clearly aware he was NEWBY; and, c) she knew that he was the case officer for the DRE from December 1962 to April 1964. She knew these things because the Agency provided her full access to his personnel file and all other relevant materials. Her statement that “(t)he descriptions of his duties in the personnel file are very general and contain no specific reference to his relationship with the DRE,” is technically correct. The DRE is not mentioned by name within the file. However, the three quoted duties or tasks set-out above from the three Fitness Reports adequately demonstrate that the project for which he was a case officer was the DRE. 7. Were there ever DRE Operational Reports for the months December 1962 through April 1964. The answer to that question has not been found so far as HRP knows. All evidence and comment received from the DO during our search on behalf of the ARRB suggests that the reports never Administeative—I
13-00000 teainisteative 1 LUse-Ont existed. The coincidences of dates between NEWBY '’S arrival and departure strongly suggest the confusion about the go/no-go status of the DRE with Agency sponsorship precipitated some decision to suspend the reports. Whether that decision was made by NEWBY or senior JMWAVE personnel is not known. We have already answered the question about “Howard.” Morley states “there is abundant evidence in CIA and DRE records that Joannides, using the pseudonym “Howard,”...etc. HRP’s 20 January 1998 memorandum advised the Executive Director of the ARRB that we did not know who “Howard” was or if, in fact, there was a person using the name “Howard.” Further, according to the DO, the name was not found to be a pseudonym or the true name of an officer the DRE operation at the time the DRE documents were written. « J. Barry Harrelson Senior Reviewer, JFK Project
13-00000 Central Intelligence Agency moLEASS IN PULL ’ 20002 Fig 18, 1949 Mr. Jefferson Morley Staff Writer The Washington Post 1150 15° Street, Nae CIA SPECIAL COLLECTIONS on, D.C. “JD Aer ¥ 9 RELEASE ASNWRYYORD 1 Fiat Dear Mr. Morley: 2600 This responds to your letter of 3 December 1998 to Mr. Britt Snider concerning certain records released under the JFK Assassination Records Act and our representations to the JFK Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB). I believe that a careful review of the actual documents you cite (i.e., our 20 January 1998 letter to the ARRB and the 3 March 1998 internal ARRB memorandum) will answer your concerns. Accordingly, we have addressed your three principal questions below in this context. First, you assert that in an exchange with the ARRB (presumably the 20 January 1998 letter), “.. the Historical Review office responded with inaccurate information: to wit, that no ‘actual person’ was handling contacts with the DRE in 1963...” I believe it is abundantly clear that the 20 January 1998 letter says just the opposite. For example, paragraph 3 states that “.. [the Agency]... replaced the officer designated to deal with the DRE. Then, about the ‘same time, the monthly operational reports trailed off ...” Moreover, and far from contradicting our 20 January 1998 ‘letter, the 3 March 1998 ARRB memorandum actually confirms the veracity of the earlier Agency statement. Second, you assert that “The Agency’s inaccurate statement about Mr. Joannidesalogically raises questions about the agency’s statement that it cannot locate any written reports generated by him.” Here, neither the precondition for the statement, nor the statement itself, is accurate. Again, our 20 January letter provides the most logical explanation for the absence of any written reports on Mr. Joannides (i.e., AM/SPELL) and that is (a) the Agency reduced funding for the DRE during this period and (b) monthly reporting on the project “simply stopped” because of this reduced involvement.
13-00000 And third, you raise the issue of the identity or ‘existence of “Howard.” As you note, “To Howard,” was used aS an apparent addressee on certain correspondence. However, as specifically addressed in the 20 January 1998 memorandum, the name “Howard” could not be found in our listings of registered pseudonyms or aliases and there is no other evidence to suggest that “Howard” was an identity for Joannides. Moreover, so far as we can determine, “Howard” ‘is not the true name of any officer associated with the DRE at the time the DRE documents were written. In no way did the 20 January letter say categorically, as you suggest in your letter, that “.. ‘knowledgeable officers’ .. informed J. Barry Harrelson that the man known to DRE as ‘Howard’ (i.e., George Joannides) was not an ‘actual person’ but merely ‘a routing indicator.’” In sum, the one fact that remains today is that we have insufficient evidence as to who or what the word “Howard” represented and that is exactly what the 20 January letter says. In sum, a careful review of the correspondence cited in your letter does not support an allegation that the Agency has made “false or misleading statements to the ARRB about these matters.” In fact, the records on these issues establish quite clearly that the Agency was candid and truthful, that the ARRB staff members had access to and thoroughly reviewed all relevant information on the issues you raised, and that the ARRB was satisfied with their detailed review. I trust that this information satisfies your concerns. Sincerely, M] Ons, L Cb James! R. Oliver Chief, Historical Review Program cc: Mr. Britt Snider
13-00000 C/HRP/IRG/J. Oliver:blo/31287 (16 Feb 1999) Irg/fo/general/lss/morely response.doc Distribution: Orig - a ' Addressee Britt Snider (IG) 2X30 NHB Tom Crispell PAO) 7C25 OHB C/HRP D/OIM DD/OIM HRP B. Harrelson
13-00000 UNCLASSIFIED ADMINSTRATIVE_INTERNAL_USE_ONLY From the Desk of James R. Oliver NOTE FOR: Thomas G. Crispell@DCl FROM: James R. Oliver OFFICE: OIM DATE: 10/26/99 05:09:50 PM | SUBJECT: . ALERT: Call from Morley, Washington Post Tom, This is to confirm our telephone conversation of this afternoon. We have been advised that Jefferson Morley, a staff writer for the Washington Post, phoned Michelle Combs (an industrial contractor for OIM’s 25 Year Declassification program) this morning, to discuss a Memo for the Record that Ms. Combs had written when she was a staff officer with the JFK Assassination Records Review Board. Mr. Morley told Ms. Combs that he was writing an article for the Post (and possibly for The New Yorker) that involved George Joannides, who was a case officer with JMMVAVE assigned to work with a Cuban exile group, Revolutionary Student Directorate (DRE) in the 1961-64 time frame. Ms. Combs responded that she no longer worked for the Board and was currently employed in private industry. (We do not know if Mr. Morley knows that her contractor is working for the Agency's 25 year program). Mr. Morley offered to send her a draft of the article for her review. She said she would get back to him after Wednesday afternoon to respond to his proposal and she then reported the phone call to us. We have indicated to her that she should gracefully decline the offer to critique the article. She agreed to this. You will recall that Mr. Morley wrote to Britt Snider last December asking several questions about Mr. Joannides and the DRE and asserting that CIA was less than responsive to the Board's requests for information. He cited two memoranda that had been released by the Board: @ a20 January 1998 memo from Barry Harrelson to the Board explaining: (a) why there were no DRE monthly operational reports in the Agency's files and (b) the unexplained references to an addressee, "Howard," in agency cables; and @ a3March 1998 MFR from Ms Combs referencing information on Joannides. Mr. Morley alleged “inaccurate statements* by CIA to the ARRB and the Post and asked for a briefing on “the CIA's relationship with the DRE." Our response, which was coordinated with O/Public Affairs, was provided to Mr. Morley on 18 February 1999 and addressed each of the major "inaccuracies" he alleged (basicly, he had misread the documents). We did not offer a briefing. _ As of this time we do not know what the theme of Mr. Morley’s article(s) will be. Jim O. ce: Richard J. Warshaw @ DA __ __}DA ' J. Barry Harrelson@DA Sent on 26 Octoher 1999 at 05:09:50 PM UNCLASSIFIED
13-00000 ti ‘FF does the those be ut oat fpr * | ras ale
13-00000 NYO029Y fF oc Pe Pace) agaa 4 CIA SPEC] AL COLL ECTIONS RELEY SEIN BULL 2000 TO: Tom Crispell, Mark Mansfield FROM: Jefferson Morley (202) 334-6863 December 10,1999 At the suggestion of John ‘Pereira, I would like to have an on-the-record briefing ot JFK assassination-related documents concerning the. late George Joannides, an Agency employee from 1951 to 1979. Bob Blakey has also expressed an Se . interest in such a briefing. i While I have no objection to taking portions ef our conversation off the record, I would hope to at least get@®rom this briefing three attributable statements in response to these questions. @ Fabian Escalante, a retixed Cuban intelligence official, has said that members of the Revolutionary Student Directorate (DRE) were involved in a conspiracy to kill President Kennedy. At the time of Kennedy's ‘death, this group received funding. from the CIA. Does the CIA have any comment on Escalante’ s allegation? Wild the’ CIA make public all - records referenced in answering this
ve whew question? a will the Agency: immediately account for and make public its xecords pertaining to George Jgannides and his actions with regard to.the DRE, in 1963? Will it immediately account for and make public all records kept by Joannides during his work with the HSCA in 19782 G@ Nora Slatkin, executive director of the CIA, affirmed in Sept. 1998 under oath that the Agency had made public all of its assassination-related records... Was Ms. Slatkin aware of the story of George Joannides at the time of her affadavit? I look forward to hearing. from you at your. earliest convenience.
13-00000 NST NE a From the Desk of J. Barry Harrelson NOTE FOR: Thomas G. Crispell@DCi FROM: J. Barry Harrelson OFFICE: OIM/HRP DATE: 12/15/99 05:59:18 PM SUBJECT: Jeif Morley’s request re Joannides | talked with John Pereira; he did not suggest the Morley seek a briefing. Pereira will also give Mark Mansfield a call. My recommendation is that we not give Morley a briefing. | suspect that he will not be happy with our responses to his questions regardless of how presented. We are pulling the JFK files on Joannides for reference purposes, however, the question on Joannides and the HSCA will require some research. | will be out of the office on Thursday p.m. and Friday. If you have questions, please call Jim Oliver (31805). Cc: DA James R. Oliver@DA William H. McNair@DO- Sent on 15 December 1999 at 05:59:18 PM UNCLASSIFIED
13-00000 From the Desk of J. Barry Harrelson i) NOTE FOR: pames B. Olver DA DA FROM: J. Barry Harrelson OFFICE: OIM/HRP DATE: 12/16/99 11:21:29 AM + SUBJECT: Morley requests A few points re Morley’s questions - ok to share with Tom Crispell with caveat that | would like to do some follow-up research before we prepare an official written response: 1. Fabian Excalante - | assume we would not comment on Escalante’s statement as a matter of policy. As for the DRE, the documents including DO files are available at NARA; most documents released in full [Frank or Horace can give you specific re type files and number of document - - remember JFK is full of duplicates documents, so number of hits will be greater than unique documents]. CIA funding is acknowledged; no records on a "conspiracy to kill Kennedy" were located. 2. George Joannides - a. all documents pertaining to Joannides and the DRE that were located in the JFK sequestered collection and in our special searches were released; at the request of the ARRB four of Joannides’ performance appraisals covering 1962-64 were also released. b. Joannides served as an assistant to Scott Breckinridge, the Agency's Principal Coordinator for the HSCA investigation in 1978. A Memorandum on Joannides performance in that role was released at the request of the ARRB. | am not aware of any records "kept by Joannides". It is unlikely, given his position, that he would have kept a separate set of records. The ARRB staff had full access to the HSCA and Breckinridge material that we located; no additional “Joannides" documents were identified. [Note: Michelle Combs, formerly with the ARRB now a Raytheon contractor with the 25 year program, is the expect on Joannides. Morley has contacted her in the past but may not be aware that we now works on Agency projects) 3. Nora Slatkin: Slatkin was not executive director in September 1998. | assume Morley is referring to the ExDir’s declaration of September 1998. The ExDir would not have been personally aware of the Joannides records, however, he was correct in his statement that the HSCA sequestered collection and all other documents determined by the ARRB to be assassination-related records were released. ce: | |@DA Sent on 16 December 1999 at 11:21:29 AM UNCLASSIFIED
“within your Fequest.. Based on these rather.extensive.__ 20 January 1998 Memorandum For: T. Jeremy Guna Executive Director. AssdsBination. Records Review Board Nee ee em h Be . From: J. Barry Harrelson Senior Reviewer - JFK: Project . Subject: CIA-IR-21, Monthly Operational Reports For the DRE ‘1. Reference is made te your request for subjecc . -infozrmation as further refined in your 18 December 1997 letter to Chief, Historical Review Group. Specifically, you asked about missing DRE monthly operational reports and the identity of “Howard,” the name to which the DRE appears to have sent correspondence. 2. The Agency has searched appropriate data bases and files for the “missing” reports. In addition, the responsible offices have’ researched the questions contained efforts, wa can advise you as follows. 3. Missing operational monthly reports. The searches conducted by the. Agency failed to locate any of the reporcs that appear to be “missing” =- December 1962 through April . 1964, in general, and those for August and November 1963 in particular. It should be noted that during the period in question, major pqlicy differences between the Agency and DRE developed. This was particularly true of the latter years of association because the DRE would not take directions or instructions about a number of operational mattexs, insisting. on engaging in activities the Agency did not sanction. These differences caused the Agency to reduce the level of funding for, the DRE. It also replaced the ‘officer designated to deal with the DRE. Then, about the same time, the monthly operational reports trailed off. It seems probable these events are linked and that reporting in the form of such monthly reports simply stopped. The DRE files we @id find are also within the sequestered JFK collection and they have previously been made available to ARRB staff member Manuel Legaspi. . 4. The identity of “Howard.” With reference to your request for information on “Howard,” we, like you, have no clear understanding abouc the use of this particular name on
13-00000 rer paies tua iboady TUR wees Bee Fee HO OO Saami tclad Rem A BT BE # Sta tem thw Kip wuriasin : Pes 616 S219 . Pp, efit) DRE messages. The phrase, ‘To Howard” was used as the ie addressee of several DRE prepared memoranda. We first attempted to identify if, in fact, “foward” was an actual person. The name was not found to be a pseudonym. It alse was not found to be a registered alias. It also is not the true name of any case officer associated with the DRE operation at the time the DRE documents were written. ‘Following review of those dara bases. knowledgeable case officers were queried suggested that_the use of “fo Howard- might have been nothing more than a-routing indicator to ensure that the documents got to the correct CIA office/officer or that the sender was someone known to the — recipient. Ss. If you have any further questions in this regard, please advise.
March 3, 1998 To: Jeremy Gunn Executive Director cc: Bob Skwirot CIA Team Leader From: Michelle Combs wMihlle Cook Special Assistant for Research and Review Subject: CIA-IR-21 DRE Case Officer for December 1962 - » April 1964 In response to ARRB‘s informal request for additional information and records, CIA-IR-21, CIA provided access to the Office of Personnel file for Mr. George E. Joanrides. I have examined the personnel file for Mr. Joannides for the period 1961-64 and 1978-79. Mr. Joannides appears in documents in the CLA Sequestered Collection under his pseudonym Walter D. Newby. . During the period December 1962 to A April 1964, Mr. Joannides was assigned a as a covert action officer at JMWAVE, serving as deputy and then chief of the station’s covert action branch. During this time period, Mr. Joannides was the case officer for the" -- ‘Cuban exile group Directorio Revolucionario Estudiantil (DRE). The deseriptions of of his duties and accomplishments in the personnel file are very general and’contain no’ ° specific reference to his relationship with the DRE. There is no mention of the - assassination of President John F. Kennedy in the file and no information relevant to the - assassination in the file. There is also no indication that Mr. Joannides may have used or been known by the name “Howard” during his contacts with the DRE, although personnel files typically would not reveal this information one way or another. During the period mid-May 1978-January 1979, Mr. Joannides was assigned to work for . Scott Breckinridge, the CIA’s principal coordinator to the House Select Comumittee on Assassination (HSCA) as a focal person to keep track of the status of HSCA requests, ‘particularly to the Directorate of Operations. In this role, Mr. Joannides developed and maintained a log and records of HSCA requests and CIA responses and-handled the day-to-day follow up to HSCA requests. ‘Several performance evaluation reports from the 1962-64 time period and a memoranda from Scott Breckinridge on Mr. Joannides’ duties during the 1978-1979 time frame were desigriated assassination records and are being processed for release. e:\combs\cia-ir2l.wpd File 4.20.1 and 4.20.4
13-00000 sie SERA IN Marre eC RUN Ct He as a WY, Shue tec’ [a if. L399 Je GEaim Vin AVYeude ALIEN VAATe ; Inspector General (703) 874-2583 IG 1998-1532 | 11 December .1998 Mr. Jefferson Morley . Staff writer. - The Washington Post So : 1150 15™ Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20071 Dear Mr. Morley: This will acknowledge receipt of your letter dated 3 December 1998, which posed several questions regarding the CIA's handling of information under the JFK Assassination Records Act. Inasmuch as this Office does. not have the information you are seeking, I am taking the liberty of sending a copy . of your letter to the Office of Public Affairs: as well as =~" poems the Office of Information. Management. for response. — Please give my regards to Scott Armstrong when you see him. Sincerely, L. Britt Snider Distribution: @. Orig - Addressee 1 - OPA 1 - OIM 1 - IG Chrono
wt be hb A Wes 2 Wd aw db a ode ee Hw AER ath, Ta ww ae wo INSPECTOR GENERAL ~1S 3 3 December 1898 : Mr. L. Britt Snider General Counsel Central Intelligence Agency Washington, DC 20505 Dear Mr. Snider.- ~~ - So oes mon _ By way of introduction, n my name is Jefferson Morley. la ama reporter for the Washington Post. Our mutual friend Scott Armstrong suggested that | write to you for clarification of certain issues related to CIA compliance with the JFK Assassination Records Act. As you know, the mandate of the Act was for “immediate disclosure" of all documents related to the murder of President Kennedy, The purpose of the law was to re-establish the credibility of government Institutions in the face of widespread public doubt and confusion about the events of November 1963. As you also know, the number three official at the agency, In compliance with the Act, submitted a swom statement that the Agency has made available all assassination-related records for review by the JFK Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB). The attached exchange of memoranda ralses questions about the accuracy of _ the CIA's responses to the ARRB on a potentially important question. At issue are the reporting and performance of George E. Joannides, a CIA case officer stationed in Miaml-In 1963 with responsibilities for a once-prominent Cuban exile group known as the Revolutionary Student Directorate or DRE. The DRE was an anti- Castro group-whose members hada series of encounters with Lee Harvey: Oswald. 12- - weeks before the Kennedy assassination. The DRE leaders were the very first people: to. issue public statements after the assassination about Oswald's pro-Castro activities and "political convictions. A senior official of the Castro government alleged in 1995. that the DRE was involved in a conspiracy to kill President Kennedy. The exchange of memoranda demonstrates that when the ARRB inquired fast winter about the identity of the CIA contact for the DRE, the Historical Review office responded with inaccurate information: to wit, that no “actual person" was handling contacts with the DRE in 1963. When [ posed the same question on behalf of the Washington Post to Tom Crispell of the CIA's public information office, | was also told . that the CIA had no records as to the identity of the DRE's case officer. These statements are now shown to be false and misleading, in effect, if not intent. As Ms. Combs' memo demonstrates, the DRE did have a case officer and that: the fact was recorded in Mr. Joannidés’ Office of Personnel file. Both the DRE and Mr. Joannides were well known at JM/WAVE. The DRE, known by the cryptonym =, AMI/SPELL, was receiving $51,000 a month from the agency and Mr. Joannides was reporting to Ted Shackley among others. _. The agency's inaccurate statement about Mr. Joannides logically raises questions about the agency's statement that it cannot locate any written reports generated by him. Obviously “knowledgeable officers” who did not know of Mr. Joannides’ relationship with the DRE would not be well positioned to know of his ' reporting on that relationship. Former colleagues tell me that Mr. Joannides' professional duties on the AM/SPELL account would have included preparing contact reports on his meetings with DRE leaders and filing monthly reports to his superiors. Since Joannides had a reputation as a competent officer and since there Is abundant
13-00000 - evidence in CIA and DRE records that Joannides, using the pseudonym “Howard,” received written communications from and about the DRE, the most reasonable assumption (absent further explanation) i is that he memorialized his activities in 1962- 1964. if the CIA can find no such records in its files, the question of the disposition of | these records arises. if DRE-AM/SPELL files were destroyed according to procedure, there should be a record of it. If they were not destroyed according té procedure, thelr__ disposition needs to be accounted for under the Spirit, If not the letter, of th the JFK Records Act, My questions are as follows: 1) Why did the CIA make Inaccurate statements last January to the ARRB and — the Washington Post about the ORE's case officer? What are the names of the “knowledgeable officers" who informed J. Barry Harrelson that the man ‘known to the DRE as “Howard" (i.e. George Joannides) was not an “actual person” but merely * a routing indicator?” 2) What is the CIA's explanation for the complete absence of reporting on the DRE and Oswald from its extant files on the AM/SPELL operation? After the DRE made public statements about Lee Harvey Oswald on November 22, 1963, what were Mr. Joannides’ reporting obligations, if any, under the procedures and practices of the Operations Directorate? Did Mr. Joannides, in the view of the Agency today, fulfill those obligations in all respects? 3) Will the CIA provide a background briefing to me and a colleague to clarify these and other questions arising from the documentation of the CIA's relationship with the DRE in 1962-64 and from Mr. Joannides’ role in the Agency's response to the 2 HSCA —_ Investigation in 1978-797. The apparent fallure of the cA to accurately disclose the ‘activities of one e of its case officers in November 1963 to the JFK records review board is noteworthy. Public confidence in the CIA's swom statements about its compliance with the JFK Records Act depends on verification of those statements. If the Historical Review Office was misinformed about Mr. Joannides and passed that inaccurate information to the public, it behooves the agency to correct the error quickly and clarify all questions arising from its . Ofiginal misstatements of fact. Thank you for your attention to this matter. ; Jeftersdn Marley - Staff Writer Washington Post 0) 202/334-6863 f) 202/334-6138 Enclosure: ce: Rick Atkinson Scott Armstrong ©