— - JFK assassination: 1. General Oleg M. Gribanoy, Department. Nosenko Names of Russians we should try to track down about Lee Harvey Oswald, Yuri Nosenko and the a head of the Second Chief Directorate of the KGB in the early 19608 where Nosenko says he worked, primarily against American tourists, a8 deputy chief of the Seventh 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 away. 2. Anatoly Koralenko, deputy chief of the Second Chief Directorate or time of assassination. Nosenko said when the file ing over the all-important first volume--and finding KGB had no gomg c KGB officer from fir and write a summary of it. artment came in and picked it up on Grib 3. The officer who picked it up was Col. Matveev, deputy chief{(I think) 4. Chief of this First Department was Col. Sergei edoseyey or Fe one of its departments, at arrived from Minski, he and Koralenko were thing to do with Oswald—when s anov’s orders, to review it of First(or American) De- Chief Directorate. Unhave first name. doseey and presumably he tion of the “spravka” or summary. would have had a hand in or supervised prepara 5. Gribanov and more than 40 other KGB officers were kicked out because of Nosenko’s defection, according to Nosenko. That right? What fay, 6. Mal. Georgi Rastrusin. Was in 1959 a senior case officer in KGB responsible for Intourist mat- ters Nosenko says that it was Rastrusin who told him about Oswald and how he wanted to stay in Soviet Union. Nosenko said Rastrusin said Oswald “docsn’t present interest” to KGB and Noeenko Rastrusin to tell Intourist to deal with him. 7. Rastrusin returned next day checked out with his superiors. Word came back not to bother with Oswald. Nosenko was told to tell and said we got a problem. Oswald tried to kill self, etc. 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 stay in Minsk. But not, Nosenko says, 8. In the fall of 1963, a KGB co about a request by Oswald for a  Nosenko said he said, ‘wait a second. he hadn’t know Oswald had gone back. \ 9. Nosenko said he sald let’s Noeenko’s department at the time). In any case, his deputies. In any case, decision was made to let Oswald GB. gue,h in, Service No. 2(counterintelligence in foreign countries), First Chief Directorate, told Nosenko orally that Mexico City station had just sent a cable visa to re-enter Soviet Union. What should be done? How come he’s back in America?’ At that point, Nosenko said 4 go to chief of department who he identified a8 a Col. Chetnekov or Chelnenko(but later seemed to say his timing might be off and somebody else may have been chief of ber this crary 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 own country and spply for a-visa at Soviet Embassy 10. Col. Gruzdey, was chief o f the KGB department in Minsk that was there. 11. Oleg Nechiporenko. one of three KGB officers stationed in Mexico rogatad or dealt wi don his visit to Embassy there. Now living in Other two Mexico City officers, HW 55157 DBocld:32404522 Page 10 ) t Nosenko quoted chief as saying, in effect, ‘I remem- in Washington, etc., etc. responsible for foreigners City who reportedly inter- Moscow area. both still alive in Russia: Valeriy Kostikov_ and Pavel Yatzkov.
3 March 1994 Memo to: C/HRG Subject: Mangold Litigation . a Today I alerted occ[ tat the JFK collections contains a significant number of documents on Nosenko (5-6000 pages) which may impact on the~ Mangold litigation. As I understand it, the Mangold | Litigation is over the Angelton files and is several years old. According to JFK reviewers at'the FBI, documents on Nosenko's defection and treatment are part of case. I talked with[—————sédwhoo is thee para-legal handling the litigation, however, she.was not familiar with the” documents involved. She will consult with[]the. lawyer on the case, and get back to me: I consider the ball in OGC's sourt. I propose that we continue to review the Nosenko files. If there are Mangold or other consideration to address, we can do so after the HRG review is complete. os \ Barry “SEK Act 6 (1) (A) JFK Act 6 (1) (B) oe HW 55157 DBocld:32404522 Page 11
“| “Cnelaseone pict on oe Coxe ¥f Z, Fes bot F ) Gt) aa lt hn Andere. otliened ew MEK <hr 2 6A-~FG | &) | OR es /— ~ Qowentho “(was Ste : I BhEL, | iboeeg ie +) y | Men SLOG eMHeb be aa 7 Oe TS Ke y Sha ‘ | baléct FEB LUALY | $6 oe . irate cou ORS SBN bo 2 SR —F0S 9) s4-oT? Boma. Le vn “EW 55157 Docta: 32404522° Page 12 ven
HW 55157 JFK Act 6 (1) (A) “ JEK Act 6 (1) (B) INTERNAL USE ONLY a va 23 March 1994 Memorandum For: C/HRG Subject: Nosenko and the Mangold Litigation I received a call from[ occ, this morning concerning the Nosenko files in the JFK files. I described the files again (about 4000+ pages that include transcripts of all his interrogations and numerous studies on his bona fides and treatment by the Agency including the Solie and Hart reports and an 835 page comprehensive study) . Since Nosenko is an important figure in the JFK assassination story and the files are part of the sequestered collection, HRG is reviewing the files under the JFK Assassination Records Collections Act. However, we were aware that some of the documents were part. of the Mangold litigation and wanted to make sure that they were properly coordinated. said that the Mangold litigation should not be a factor in HRG's review. If the files were subject to the JFK Records Act, they should be processed under that Act. When the review is complete, a list of the documents released should be provide so that OGC can treat them the same in the Mangold case. I also talked with Kathy Stricker (yesterday) to get some background on the handling of Nosenko files and;what were the "secrets" given what we know is publicly available. She ~- said for years the agency "glomared" Nosenko except for the Oswald information: however, once Golitsyn became public that ended. Today, the battle over his bona fides and how he was treated are public knowledge. The Agency up until a couple years ago had not released some of the studies (she mention Solie) but she was not sure that this was still the case or if it was possible to continue to deny them. DO has protected the information provided by Nosenko on other Soviet sources and leads for possible recruitment. This type of information should continue to be protected. Kathy Stricker's comments are consistent with HRG's handling of the Nosenko.files. We are considering all, of the files as related; his bona fides is a key element of the story and there was'a large amount of information including parts of the-studies on him in both the Oswald 201 and the JFK hard copy collection. We have deleted information provided on other sources and operations not related to the JFK story. We ate also recommending release of the rest of the studies. Although they contain potentially embarrassing information for the Agency (as did the IG report on the Castro plots), there doesn't appear to be grounds for denying under the JFK Act. -DoclId: 327404522 Page 13
HW 55157 —SECRET- CEA -ENTERNAL_USE-ONDS e 4 Restrictions on Declassifying Material on Yuriy Ivanovich 5 | 4 NOSENKO The following should be used as guidelines in declassifying material files pertaining to the career and "bona fides" of Yuriy Ivanovich NOSENKO 1. CIA Knowledge of Russian intelligence tradecraft. Specific information in the files about KGB targetting of. American citizens could reveal to the Russian Intelligence | service our knowledge of their tradecraft. Since the Russian services continue to target Americans, this information should continue to be protected. 2. To protect a CIA asset. Yuriy Ivanovich. NOSENKO remains an asset of this agency, and is under contract... Moreover, the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service ‘((SVRR) . remains ‘interested in NOSENKO's whereabouts and activities. Russian intelligence services since the Second World War have tried to track their defectors. There are indications that the Russian services remain interested in the NOSENKO case. o At the time of his arrest, i Hin his possession. The US “Counterintelligence Communit is _unsu this. material was passed --Following NOSENKO's brother and ‘nother! s visit to the United States, both were questionned by the Russian service about NOSENKO's activity and. place and residence. JFK Act 6 (1) (A) JFK -Act 6 (1) (B) ~ , Lact \ eos ba Docld:32404522 Page 14
_ SEP 16 794 _@9:5@AM P.a4 “JFK Act 6 (1) (A) JFK Act 6 (1) (B) Dear Bob, It was very good to meet with you again in Washington on June 12. I am writing to confirm our recent convergation about the CIA's release of documents about me ta the National Archives. As I explained to you at cur meeting, I am very displeased that this was done without my knowled- ge and especially since my photograph was officially released by. the : Agency fer the first time in thirty years. As you know, it has come to my attention that the CIA released these many hundreds of pages to the public without consulting mwe.or. telling me that this was going to be done. I have already ‘Been copies | of. two of these reports totalling more than 700 pages. One is the October 1968 ‘report supporting me by Bruce Solie; the other was a February 1968 re- port by the CI Steff which attacked my credibility. (This latter report contains a cory of my photo from the late 1950s. I consider this a breach of my personal security.) I also consider many of the details in both of these reports to be of a very personal nature. Other pagea deal with with some very sensitive cases which I gave the Agency about other people. Te information in these rerorts was given freely and accurately by me to the CIA officers in the 196Cs under terms of strict confidentiality. Although it is very difficult for me to say this, qt feel that my trust in the Agency has now been seriously damaged. , This release particularly troubles me because for the past thirty years I have remaineé very loyal to the Agency and considerate of its wishes. Fer instance, despite many requests, I have only, spoken toa few jours nalists, and only when the Agency advised me ta&So. I have never sought HW 55157 Docld:32404522 Page 15
. @ a] Jy SEP 16 '94 @9:S1AM Met P aad | cn my own te publish my story in an article or took. But now, the CIA has not returned thie courtesy. Insteed, it has released sensitive information to the public without speaking to me first. a Under the circumstances, I would like to respectfully request the follewing: 7 1. That you show this letter to DDO Ted Price, Directer James Woolsey, vs and the current heads of the CIA's Freedom of Information Office and — Bistoricel Review steff -- so that they ere eware cf what has happened. " i ¢, I would like te receive, in writing, an explansticn from. these res- ponsible.ef why this release was done. 3. I would like te receive a list ef the majer reperts about ne whick nave already been released. Aside from the twe reports that I already have seen, I would like to receive copies ef any other major studies that nave been released. (For instance, if there are reports released by Peter Bagley, Newton Miler, James Angleton, the CI Steff end John Hart, then I would like te see them es well.) 4. I would like te be given the Agency's written assurance that further releases will not ocour witheut consulting me first. Bad, you should know that before I wrete this letter I have speken abeut this matter with ny gead friend George Kalaris. He too was troub- led by what I teld him, and he advised me that I sheuld ask the Agency for an explanation. . Beb, I apolegize fer troubling you with this matter, but I have no one elee to turn to fer assistance. ; - Please let me know if there ia any regpense as seen as possible. Respectfully yeurs, Hi 55157 ° Docid: 3240452 P.4/4 oT
SEP 16 94 @9:5@AM «e £ Dear ’ The Director has asked me to respond to your letter ‘expressing concern that US Government declassification of material could compromise your privacy and security. In regard to your question about the documents that have already been released, rest assured that I have directed officers responsible for FOIA requests to take special care in reviewing information concerning you in light of your -.  . special circumstances. We will make full use of all . eNep poséiblé exceptions to FOIA-mandated declassification An « ‘ order to protect your privacy. ae eG As you know, in 1992 Congress passed the JFK Assassination /,,yer7pe 6 ote the. Records Collection Act, which required all US Government agencies to release any records related to the¥assassinatior of President Kennedy. As Deputy Director. for Operations, I an of course committed to fully supporting the DCI in meeting this requirement, but I also appreciate your concern about the files. on you that are related to the assassination. I have therefore directed a senior officer n the DO to meet with the officials in the Agency's —. 1—stea who are involved in the declassification program. This officer has had extensive discussions with _igbers of the "Gram and has worked closely with them to 4-{dentify those portions of the files that include personal ‘ and operational information. pahled speora Se te pocetere ae As a result of this effort, we have {postponed~release~of ~any, Seas ett information touching on your private life or on operational information pertaining to your debriefings. Under the JFK. law, a Presidential Review Board will make the’ final decision on the disposition of the material. This Agency values the sacrifices you have made for our country, and we will present the Board with the strongest possible case for protecting information that could affect your privacy and security. Best wishes, HW 55157 DBocld:32404522 Page 17 cos
UNCLASSIFIED 17 April 1997 “SA/CIC, gave to Gary Brenneman to give to Barny Harrelson, Historical Review Group, X31825, 2 soft files entitled: a“ é 1. “WARREN COMMISSION/OSWALD" 2. “DOCUMENTS YURI Ivanovich NOSENKO/OSWALD" found > nn the vault. UNCLASSIFIED HW 55157 DBocld:32404522 Page 18
30 April 1997 Note To: ARRB Staff Subject: CIC Soft files: 1. Warren Commission/Oswald 2. Documents Yuri Ivanovich NOSENKO/Oswald The attached files were located in CIC. They are soft (or working) files containing information ou Nosenko, Warren Commission and Oswald. It is not clear if the files. date. from the Warren Commission period, or were created in ° 1975/76 (latest date of documents) in response to a request! or investigation. ~Most of the documents are in the sequestered collection (OGC folders). The other documents may be in the Norsenko material put aside for discussion with the ARRB or in the Microfilm part of the sequestered material (the Microfilm is “not indexed document by document) . Administrative -="HRG"Triternat“vuse.Onhy . HWo55157 Docld:32404522 Page 19
HW 55157 UO SEK Bet 6 (1) (A) JFK Act 6 (1) (B) series . | 30 April 1997 ‘Note for the Record subject: CIc Oswald/Nosenko related soft: ‘files: 1. Warren Commission/Oswald : 2. Documents -Yuri Ivanovich NOSENKO/Oswald 1. $I advised{_____—_—sa/crc, that most of the documents in the two folders are duplicates of documents .in the CIA JFK Collection sequestered by the HSCA. The other documents are related to Nosenko, but do not mention Oswald. These documents are probably duplicated in the Nosenko material set aside for discussion with the ARRB. I ” recommended that we make the folders available to the ARRB staff. She concurred. 2. Documents will be made available to Michelle Combs, ARRB staff, on her next visit. - Barry series , 4 1 DoclId: 32404522 Page 270