THOMAS :msl_ ivr Sluntz i ‘| ‘. ASSASSINATION OF JOHN F. KENNEDY Wednesday, August 9, 1978 - | < ~ | Us S. House of Representatives, | 6 John F. Kennedy Subcommittee of ’ 3 | Washington, D. C. { : 9 |, Deposition of roy RICHARD MCGARRAH HELMS i | Ju called for examination by staff counsel for the subcommittee, | pursuant to notice, in Room:304,:Cannon House:.0ffice Building, 1 | beginning at 4:00 p.m., when present on behalf of the respec- i} | | | Select Committee on Assassinations, | | | | | | I { | ! | tive parties: | 1§ For the Subcommittee: 16 MICHAEL GOLDSMITH, ESQ., Staff Counsel : 17 | FOR THE DEPONENT: | ia | GREGORY’ B. CRAIG;’ ESQ., Attorney At Law, | | Washington, D. C. 19 | ; } : ag | | 20 | | . zi | at 32 Of e | ! we 3 ! Ane a Docld: 32263410 Page 153 TRY SECoCT 7 |
in DoclId: 322763410 - Mr. Goldsmith. And you also understand that you havea ivr BVCUAL I Mr. Goldsmith. It should be noted that this is a continu- ation of a hearing that was conducted today, which started at to allow the Committee to take his statement under oath in the | ; : | approximately 9:30 and ended at 3:30. Mr. Helms has consented | | form of a deposition rather than at a hearing. This arrange- | Thereare a few preliminary matters that I need to dispose ment is acceptable to the Committee. of. Essentially, they are as follows. Mr. Helms, do you under | stand that your statement to me at this deposition is completely voluntary. : Whereupon, | RICHARD MCGARRAH HELMS | | having presviously been sworn by the Honorable Richardson : | Preyer, Chairman of the Subcommittee on the assassination of | John F. Kenney, was examined and testified as follows: Mr. Helms. I do. | right to counsel? | Mr. Helms. Thank you. | | Mr. Goldsmith. And you have counsel here today? : Mr. Helms. I do. | Mr. Goldsmith. Now, normally, a witness has a right to receive a copy of his deposition statement. By that, I mean he'! ' has the right actually to receive the transcript itself. That f is not the case with executive session testimony. In the case i , i 1 i 4 | \ 1 } i bage 154 Th SECRET
da » DoclId: 322763410 woe ee ere tr = = en a ee we eee ees see ee lbage 155 TAP SECRET ‘governing the executive sessions as to the release of informa- fur SLuilZi | of executive session testimony you have a right to review the transcript but not to recieve it. The Agency has asked us to request of present and former Agency employees and associates to waive the right actually to receive a copy of the transcript ! | | | because the transcript will contain a lot of classified infor-~ mation. So what I am asking you now is whether you are willing to waive your <tight:actually to receive a copy of the tran-- script, with the understanding that you,would of course be given an opportunity to review it for accuracy? Mr. Helms. I:understand. Mr. Goldsmith. And you are willing to waive that right? Mr. Helms. I guess so. Mr. Craig. Could I inquire as to whether or not the rules tion only by vote of the full Committee will apply to this testimony? The Prior testimony today could only be released | by vote of the full Committee or used in public session because it was held in executive session. Mr. Goldsmith. That is right. at all possible. Mr. Goldsmith. That is a reasonable request and we will ! | ! i Mr. Craig. We would request that for this, too, if it is | | { | i act on this deposition as though the rules of executive session govern. Mr. Helms. Thank you. I am glad to waive my right to
da DoclId: 322763410 to the basics now. be a 201 file... — ssi I2i A a ee ee ee a ee We Ce ee Oe 3 ib age 156 Ur BELVAE I receive the documents. Mr. Goldsmith. Fine. Finally, I should note for the record the court reporter will be asked to certify this as a true and accurate transcrip- tion of the testimony that is going to be given here today. Mr. Ambassador, what is a 201 file. Mr. Helms. My recollection is that a 201 file is a file . opened in the registry of the Clandestine Services on an individual. In other words, the Michael Goldsmith file would Mr. Goldsmith. “What would be the criteria for the opening of such a file; generally? Mr. Helms. That there was information available on Michael Goldsmith and it was determined to keep. it and, there- fore, a file would be opened. Mr. Goldsmith. And that information would be relevant to some legitmate purpose of the Agency, I-take it? Mr. Helms. That is the assumption. Mr. Goldsmith. Would a 201 file normally be opened on someone who was perceived to be a counterintelligence threat? Mr. Helms. I am awfully rusty on this stuff, it has been | a long, long time since I was involved in these details, but I thought that counterintelligence cases -- well, maybe they THD SECRET We are getting back | | | | | | | | : | would involve a 201 file, too, even though they would have been! t
da DoclId: 322763410 included in the counterintelligence file. A card, at least, would be there referring to the file. I think 201 just applies to the fact there is a file on an individual in the Agency regardless of what category of individual it is. Is that correct? I-ahave forgotten all this. Mr. Goldsmith. I am in the posture here where I have to ask the question, so I am afraid I can't -- Mr. Helms. I am doing the best I can and that is my recollection. | Mr. Goldsmith. Is a 201 file a presonality file? Mr. Helms. I thought so. As I say, it has been long years since I have really dealt with these details. Mr. Goldsmith. And if the file:were opened on Oswald, for example, would that reflect the fact that Oswald was per- | | | | | | ) | | | | | | | ceived at the time to be a potential counterintelligence threat? Mr. Helms. I would have thought that if a 201 file was | opened on Oswald it was because Oswald has come to the Agency's | attention and they wanted to maintain the papers on him, so | they would have. opened a file. | Mr. Goldsmith. And would it have been in the context of | Oswald posing a counterintelligence threat? | Mr. Helms. Not necessarily. : Mr. Goldsmith. Could you give another example of how a file might have come to be opened on Oswald? DAS Sm ae a ane me nT sane ie apa cao nares Mr. Helms. We might have, I don't know, if we got = BS ase mS Page 157 TOHP SECRET 7
33 24 ac ard DoclId: 322763410 Ao Se a ee Ee eo ee eee 2. tur ocbarl 6 information, as yeu have cdecees out, that we did from those | + too telephone taps on a man named Lee Oswald they would have imme- diately opened a file on him. Mr. Goldsmith. Well, in those telephone taps, if the individual was simply expressing an interest in going to the Soviet Union, that would have been sufficient to have opened a 201 file?.-. Mr. Helms. An‘American citizen, yes, I would have thought SO. Mr. Goldsmith. Let me show you CIA number 796. This is a State Department telegram dated October 31, 1959, and I would ask you to read it, please. Mr. Helms. Lee Harvey Oswald. All right, I have read it. Mr. Goldsmith. Would the information contained in this telegram normally lead to the opening of a 201 file? Mr. Helms. I would have thought so, an:‘American who was defecting to the Soviet Union would be of counterintelligence interest and that would have been quite sufficient to have caused the Agency tc open a file. | | | j i | | | | | | | | ! | Mr. Goldsmith. Now, if someone is an agent or operational { . t i source for the Agency, would operational information concerning him be located in this 201 file? | Mr. Helms. I would have thought not. Mr. Goldsmith. Where would that information be? i t 1 i | i ‘page 156 THD CEPRET
ivr elviili 7 i | Mr. Helms. Operational information was usually kept in. -- BY most cases, but I said in a case where there was a file, that | the individual divisions or branches where the agent was being | 3 | handled. | . ; @ 4 | Mr. Goldsmith. Would that be kept in a projects file or | i o operational file? | Mr. Helms. Probably. | "| Mr. Goldsmith. If a = person were connected with the : 8 | Agency either as an agent or as a source of information, would \ { { t | | he always have a 201 file.? ! ! 0 | Mr. Helms. Not necessarily. I am not sure how that was | "| done. If you will forgive me, my recollection is that when an } i2 || individual was aniagent of the Agency that all the papers on | i | 7 e i3 him were taken over by the division that was handling him, and | \ | | Ta | there was nothing available in the central records to idéntify i 1s | him as an agent. Now, there obviously would be exceptions to 18 | that but in the case where there were exceptions, I think all ! 17] that would be in the file, the central file, would be a card 13 | saying to the FE Division or something. 1g | Mr. Goldsmith. Well, wouldn't that then be a dead give- | | | ag | away, if all you had in a file were a card, which referred °° 29 | 31 the researcher to a particular division, that would automatically L, 29 | indicate that the person was an agent. It seems to me that | -@ "4 | would be contrary -- ! 2 | Mr. Helms. It was my impression this was not the case in | | t | | 4 | DoclId: 322763410 Page 159 THD QEPRET
a an “ Docld: 322763410 a ee nn en a Se ee ee a ee. i SS ee ee = tt Mt ‘ ! i ‘ | ivr Bou i might be the way they would try to handle it. My impression was, the original impression, all the papers were kept in the Division that was handling the agent. Mr. Goldsmith. So if someone was an agent he would have his papers kept with the division, but you don't know whether or not those papers would simulteneously be kept in the 201 file? | Mr. Helms. They would not be. In fact, I am sure they would not be simultaneously kept in the 201 file except under certain maybe unusual circumstances, I am just leaving room for an exception. Mr. Goldsmith. I understand that. YOu have been very clear on the fact operational information would not. Mr. Helms. “For the reason you yourself have cited, this would be kind of a giveaway. Mr. Goldsmith. Right. Now, if someone were an agent, would he in most cases have a 201 file? Mr. Helms. Well, I don't know whether you would call it a 201 file. He certainly would have a file. It would be in the possesion of the division. Whether you call them 201 files I don't know anymore. Mr. Goldsmith. Would an ordinatry name trace always refer to an agent's or source's 201 file? Mr. Helms. I don't remember anymore how this dilemma was resolved about running traces, and on a fellow who was already bage 160 TAP REPQET
UF wlundei i) | | an agent and how we dealt with the problem of protecting that fact, I don't remember, I don't recall anymore. | | ship with the Agency would always be noted in the 201 file? aa Mr. Goldsmith. Do you know whether the fact of a relationr : | cf Mr. Helms. I don't know. It isn't only 15 years, it is 6} fr don't know how:-many years since I actually was in a division ; | handling these matters and that is why I am so rusty on that. | g | Mr. Goldsmith. When, if ever, is it permissible to remove| 9 | a document from a 201 file? | 10 Mr. Helms. I'am just trying to think. I don't believe ! i ; i " that documents are removed from the 201 files except under a | | , 2 | destruction mechanism for dead files, in other words, files ck ! -@ ig | where clearly the individual has died or something of that ! oO 14 | kind. So I don't think that papers were removed from files, at | 1S | least legally removed from files, or properly removed from | 16 files. I don't think that was permitted. | a7 | Mr. Goldsmith. Let's take a recess to check on -that-noise! 1a | next door. | 1g ! (A short recess was taken) | 20 | Mr. Goldsmith. When a document is removed from a 201 : a1 | file is any record required to be kept noting that fact? _- 2 | Mr. Helms. Yes sir, my recollection is that if you have | -@ 33 ! to remove a document from a basic file of the Agency then you ! | 24 | leaveva nottation in there as to where the document is. | Mr. Goldsmith. Does the Agency maintain a dual system of | DoclId: 322763410 Page 161 | THhp QEPOLT ¢
“sa Oo 33 24 as an DoclId: 322763410 tUP SLUALI 10 of 201 files? Mr. Helms. A dual sytem? Mr. Goldsmith. By that I mean are there situations where an individual might have one 201 file which contains primarily biographical information and another 201 file containing either more sensitive biographical information or information of an operational significance? Do you mean to ask during the period of time or -- Mr. Goldsmith. Thank you, Iappreciate that. Let's go Mr. Craig. You asked whether the Agency presently does? | } { { | back to the period between 1959 and 1964. Mr. Helms. My recollection is that there was one 201 file. That is basically, I believe, a biographical file. | There were also operational files but they weren't called 201 | files, as I recall. Mr. Goldsmith. So while the files would contain different’ SS See ee en en a ee eS a a a ee ee ee types of information, they would also go by different names? Mx. Helms. Yes, I think so. Mr. Goldsmith. Mr. Ambassador, do you know whether during the period 1960 through 1964 there were categories of opera. : tional files, in other words, is thete a difference between a projects file and an operations file or production file? | Mr. Helms. You see, we did different kinds of operations. ! There were positive intelligence operations, there were counter+ t \ t i | t i i | i i] I i t | { i i H \ ' { i i = intelligence operations, there were covert action operations , | ibage 162 TNS Q&PSeT
tur BLUM i W . | there were paramilitary operations; and my recollection is that ND the files were somewhat different in these various categories because of the requirements of the case. In other words, they contain different kinds of things. py possible but also nobody was interested in encouraging people | | 5 But, as I say, I am so long away from all of that.I am | 6 not very helpful to you, I am sorry to say. | | | The whole point of this operation here was to maintain a | S| maximum of security and, therefore, a file might contain all ! a of Michael Goldsmith's biographical information, and all of 1 the operational cables about the use of Micahel Goldsmith might n | be in different files, they might be in the same safe or they | | ‘ 2 | might be in different safes. a ® i3 Mr. Goldsmith. Are operations or project files ever ! eee it Maintained on a covert basis, in other words, there might be | as! one official file, and then one file that contains other more ! 6 | sensitive information? | 7 |e. seine. 3 would not. say that had never happened. I ! 13 | wouldn't be surprised if there were occasional cases where the | 9 | thing was so sensitive that somebody made a separate file | 20 | in order to protect a certain category of information. But, | | that would always be known to somebody, it would be known to the ao 2 | case officer, the branch chief, the division chief, this was | ; @ 33 | the case because the system was designed to be as secure as | | ry as aw to be so secretive you could never get hold of the information. t t | | t t | | i DoclId: 322763410 lage 163 | THp QE CeET
Vr BLeAe i 12 So, if a man maintained a file in his office or a private safe | w or something because he was handling something so sensitive that | | | | 3 | the didn't.want it played around with by any of his associates, | : : @ 4 | at least one would know he was responsible for that. 5 | Mr. Goldsmith. Can you cite an example of where that migh 6 | have taken place? | 7 Mr. Helms. Well, there were a couple of Soviet cases chat 8 | at various times were terribly sensitive and I think that the | 3 | material was very closely restricted and handled. Whether it | 10 : was just by one man or two men I just honestly don't recall and : if I can't come up with actual names of the esses. But I think that, 12 if I understand the thrust of the discussion, there was no | .. r 13 leniency about any officer who hid information from his superiors a Is | about these things, in other words, in the Gase of an agent, | 1s unidentified, who was extremely sensitive, there would never be | 16 | any question that anybody checked around to find out who that | 17 | agent was, if the Director wanted to know if that agent was on : 13 3 the payroll, which he seldom ever did, Directors liked to distante 19 | themselves from the identify of agents -~ if some person in ! 20 | authority wanted to know about this, that fellow had absolutely | . . | no right to say that he didn't know anything about it. He vould . 3 | get fired for that. | @ 93 | | Mr. Goldsmith. So under the way the system operated, gome. a4 | individual with authority would have to have known about a file s¢ ibeing maintained on a covert type basis? = nanan i : age 164 THE CEPatT DoclId: 322763410
ivr SfbKe i 13 Mr. Helms. That is right. ~— : : | | | | | Mr. Goldsmith. Are you familiar with the cryptonym 4%. | 3 | Rifle? | i ) ; | Mr. Helms. I became familiar with it during the Church ! a Committee hearings and I didn't become too familiar with it. | 6 In other words, I never got back into all of the details about | | it, but my recollection is that it applied to a project that | - was set up by Bissell, in his time, whereby some individual whose = | nationality I have now forgotten, was hired as a professional | 0 | antes or assassin or something, and I believe he was maintained H : | | on the payroll for a time. | 12 The 4.R. Rifle project as such, when I became Deputy | _. @ 13 | Director, in other words, the killing or assassin aspect of that ! oO td | vas just put on the shelf. I said we weren't going to have any 1s [of that stuff, and since we had the fellow on our hands, the : 6 [ease officer, as best I recall, found something more useful for 17 | hun to do. . | | Mr. Goldsmith. Was the program itsel#.continued, other i oO , 1¢ | than the’ assassination. aspe@ct?.. i } i i . 99 | omm-.Mr. Helms....I don't know. whether the name Z...R. Rifle was | . 4 \ 4 ; ; ; . Lt 41 | continued but I believe the individual was continued for sometime . 22 il after that in an effort to find some gainful way of employing o @ "9 | him. I believe he was released later on becuase the project 24 | never worked out in any respect. He apparently didn't have any - 2s fuse, as I recall -- I am trying to think about him. He was an |; ! Doctld: 322763410 bage 165 TAR QtroarrT
or aLbazi 14 Austrian. Mr. Goldsmith. Belgian. According to two memos . that we have here, CIA number 3319 and 3320, one of them dated 19 February 1962, and the other is 6 March, 1963, indicates that you gave authorization for this project to continue. Mr. Helms. The project so it could be funded, but my distinct recollection is that I told the case officer who was incolved with this that this was to be changed in its concept, i in other words, there was absolutely no point in having a | professional killer on the payroll as such, and that he was to try and find something else for him to do. Mr. Goldsmith. Was the Warren Commission told about this Mr. Helms. I don't know. 16 Mr. Goldsmith. ‘Did you ever tell the Warren Commission? WV Mr. Helms. I nver did. 13 Mr. Goldsmith. Was the case officer who handled this project named William Harvey? Mr. Helms. I thought it was Justin O'Connell. Maybe 31 |Harvey started it and O'Donnell teok it over later. Maybe that iis what happened. “3 | Mr. Goldsmith. Did you know William Harvey? 44 Mr. Helms. Yes, sure. How could I have missed him? I : | ae Mr. Goldsmith. What is your assessment of his capability? | | i | t it Docld:32263410 Plage 166 TAD Or eCotT .
id DoclId: 322763410 15 Mr. Helms. Well, that is a hat full. Harvey came to the Agency back in I guess the late forties or early fifties, after Bentley case, among others. He was considered to be a very | | Many years with the FBI, in which he handled the Elizabeth Capable FBI agent and he had a lot of important jobs in the | Agency, but toward the end of his career he became an sreorenss or very close to it, and had to be put on the bench; then he had to be let go. Mr. Goldsmith. So in the end Harvy was let go? Mr. Helms.. Yes. Mr. Goldsmith. How much control was exercised over Harvey Mr. Helms. I don't know. He was working for Bissell in | those days and I didn't have anything to do with it. In fact, | | | | | | | when he was running the %Z.R. Rifle program? | | | | ie didn't even know about it. | | Mr. Goldsmith. Do you know whether the Y.R. Rifle project used. fake or cover 201 files? | Mr. Helms. No, I don't. I don't know what was done. I would like to refer to CIA number 3307, which I: am about to t i | Mr. Goldsmith. Let's review some documents. At this point | | i . CEA number 3307 consists of handwritten notes that run i 4 | | | | | hana you. | ! | several pages. My impression is that these notes were attribute | to Mr. Harvey and I would.ask you to refer specifically to CIA hoes 3311, paragraph number 9. age 167 THD QEPORIT
Wr wens i 16 an Mr. Helms. “Should have phoney 201 in RI. To backstop i) this, all documents therein forged and backdated. Should look like a CE file." MrsGoldsmith. Now, would you examine CIA number 3314 and i san | | | 3314? ) | Mr. Helms. Okay. I have 3314. 7 | Mr. Goldsmith.’ And does that make reference to the use of, € | RIS cover caution? 9 | Mr. Helms. ‘Which part of that page am I to read here? 10 | Mr. Goldsmith. Look at the top of the page. Mi | Mr. Helms. Magic button, Narcotics Bureau, RIS 201 cover. 12 caution bankruptcy, no star, eyes, Jim A, Contradestruck, -@ 13 not ATSD problem, Doodle, from you to -- arrow down, apply °°. | a 14 | brakes. 1§ : Mr. Goldsmith. Maybe we can expedite this by my pointing 16 | out the sepcific part. A7 Mr. Helms. Please do. Mr. Goldsmith. The upper right hand corner of the page, 19 | does it refer to RIS 201 cover? | : Mr. Helms. Yes sir. a Mx. Goldsmith. In the next line caution. a 2 | Mr. Helms. Yes sir. If I were to make a guess, inciden- @ 73 tally -- I am contributing something here -- if I were to». 24 | guess I would say this was Harvey's writing and this was not. ze i Mr. Craig. Referring to 3311? Docild: 32263410 tage 166 THD QEPOLT
da DoclId: 322763410 a ————————————————————————eo—————————— fe nee nee wees ————— Aine Se 2] 17 | Mr. Goldsmith. So the writing in 3311 you would say is nd Harvey's? | Mr. Helms. Yes. | Mr. Goldsmith. And the writing in 3314? : Mr. Helms. Are part of what I would say was. : Mr. Goldsmith. Now, at the bottom of 3314 there is a : reference to the term never mention’: the word assassination. | Mr. Helms. Never mention word assassination, yes. | Mr. Goldsmith. Let's take a Look at 3315, paragraph 7. | Mr. Helms. Right. No project or papers except for -- | Mr. Goldsmith. Cover? | | Mr. Helms. I guess that is cover. I can't read it. | Mr. Goldsmith. And paragraph number 12? | Mr. Helms. Cover file from RIS or what is that -- I sn know. - | Mr. Goldsmith. Well -- : Mr. Helms. Or did it, it looks like. | Mr. Goldsmith. In any event, whoudl youagree that here is a case where, at the very least, agency personnel were contem- plating the use of a fake 201 file and possibly a fake opera- tional file. Mr. Helms. YEs, it looks like that. But then his boss would have known about this. He would have had to get permis- Sion to do that. Somebody would have known about it. Mr. age 169 Goldsmith. Again for the purposes of clarification, TAD CLeOrT t
ac aw DoclId: 322763410 4UP Sibi | \ when a file is faked in the manner suggested by the author | of these particular papers, how many people would know about ie Mr. Helms. Well, the person who instructed it be done, I assume his boss, the person who would do it, and whether anybody in the RI or the Regestry would know about it is = problamatic,they probably would not. | | | | i] | | Mr. Goldsmith. Do you know what the cryptonym S. R. | Taffy refers to? Let me show you CIA 3577 which contains no | substantial’ information in -it but may refresh your memory. | Mr. Helms. 4. R. Taffy? | | Mr. Goldsmith. That..is a dispatch which I believe was | sent to you? i Mr. Helms. I must confess it is very familiar to me, the name 4. R. Taffy, but what it referred to, I don't know. | { Mr. Goldsmith. Would it have necessarily related to Be Re | Rigie? , | Mr. Helms. ft would have thought not. | Mr. Goldsmith. Even though the same diagraph -- Mr. Helms. I don't know what category of diagraph that | came from. But Z. R., no, I associate Z. R. Taffy with nothing of %. R. Rifle type at all. | . | | Let me see if I can possibly come up with what 4. R. Taffy, | } referred to. I don't know. Mr. Goldsmith. Mr. Ambassador, do you know what a black ; tape 201 file is? | Bage 170 TAD QTPOCT
ior ocvdll 19 | Mr. Helms. Black tape 201? No, never heard the expression 2 | before today, to my knowledge. | Mr. Goldsmith. Is it possible this kind of file is a 201 { file which has been designated to be extremely sensitive? aa 5 Mr. Helms. I don't know. I honestly don't know. I have most of those trade expressions I have heard at one time. 3 I never remember hearing that. Z%. R. Taffy certainly I heard | 6 || never heard the expression, to the best of my recollection, and | | t \ 2 and am sorry I can't remember that because that has kicked | around for a long time, it seems to me. | al Mr. Goldsmith. Do you recall an incident where the Mexicol 2 City station sent headquarters information pertaining to an | i individual, an*American, who had provided the Soviets with if id military secrets, military handbooks? : Mr. Helms. An American? : { t | | | 16 Mr. Goldsmith. That may in some way be related to the . | 17 | 4.R. Taffy project. | . i3 | Mr. Helms. Yes. Was this an FBI case which we were try- | | 1g | ing to do some work on for them? | 20 | Mr. Goldsmith. Yes. ! 3] Mr. Helms. Yes, I do vaguely recall this. I do vaguely | | 59 | recall this. | .@ 33 Mr. Goldsmith. Thse handbooks were passed in October of | 44 | 1963 in Mexico. ! \ I a5 | Mr. Helms. To the Russian Embassy? | poora:32263410 Hage 171 TAD CrP orT 7 ys Ss
20 Mr. Goldsmith. Right. Mr. Helms. I am wondering whether 4%. R. Taffy was simply an indicator that permitted material to be sent directly to me “bypassing the division. Is that possible? Mr. Goldsmith. Yes, I would say that is a possibility. Mr. Helms. That maybe, which is why it is so familiar to me, becuase it would keep showing up in various places, some- body was trying to send me something. Mr. Helms. Where would such a procedure be used, Mr. Mr. Helms. It would be used, because the way we operated in the Clandestine Services, there were certain things which I wanted to maintain control over myself from time to time. | | | | | | ! Ambassador? | ! | | , 15 | where a station chief ought to have a right to deal directly 16 : with the fellow in charge of the operation rather than through 47 | the division or through a subordinate, and there were tneteatory 13 | set up for that purpose, just like things in the military. 19 : Theoreticaily,, when a field commander reports back to ! 20 | neadquarters his report goes through various staff echelons, | “1 | but he should have a direct appeal to the commanding general. | . a | Mr. Gold smith. What does the term CI/SIG refer to within, eo “3 | the CI staff? | ! oad | uw Mr. Helms. Let me see. Was that back in the same era of | DocId: 32263410 dage 172 THD Qrpocy There were disciplinary matters, thwere were a variety of things”
21 Mr. Goldsmith. We are talking about in the period from 1959 through 1964. Mr. Helms. SIG? Mr. Goldsmith. Would it refer to Counterintelligence Special Investigations. Group or Special Investigatory Group? Mr. Helms. What I am trying to wrack my brain about. was that inside the staffs there was a group that was known by various names at various times and various indicators, which was a group the purpose of which was to attempt to get codes and ciphers in foreign countries and there was a special unit whose sole focus in life was to try and accomplish this objec- tive, and this had a team of breakin artists and all kinds of things. | | | 1 { | | | ! | | | \ | { | I am just trying to remember whether SIG was that unit or | | t { whether it was one that dealt more specifically with NSA or jus i what it was. | | Vv | Mr. Goldsmith. I believe SIG was a unit that was headed ! 3 | by Burch O'Neill. Does that refresh your merory?.: | 19 Let me give you more background and tell me if this agrees| 29 with your impression of the purpose of that anit. CI/SIG I am | 3 told, refers to Counter Intelligence/ Special Investigative | , 22 Group, and the purpose of that unit was to determine whether : ee 43 | any agency employees had been penetrated by a foreign intelli- | 24 | gence service. The unit work-d closely with the Office of 2 Security. 2 n = DoclId: 322763410 plage 173 TAD EPastyT
22 73 24 DoclId: 322763410 =. fis 22 Does that sound familiar to you? Mr. Helms. It doesn't sound right. It doesn't sound righ It sounds to me like a unit that had another purpose. That may have been one of its purposes. But it seems to me that was the unit that was a highly secret, highly sensitive one. Do you all have clearances for communications intelligence Does the reporter have all those clearances? This is one of those problems I thinkw have gotten into here. Mr. Goldsmith. Would you identify the problem, Mr. Ambassador, andwe will see how we can possibly resolve it -- not today. _ Mr. Helms. In order to identify the problem I have to tell you what the problem is and, therefore, I have to breach security. Mr. Goldsmith. No, I understand the problem and I am just..asking--- Mr. Helms. This has to do with codes and ciphers. In other words, that category of material is largely dealt with by NSA. Mr. Goldsmith. By this now you are referring to -- Mr. Helms. SIG, I think, if I am correct about it. Mr. Goldsmith. Let's refer at this time to CIA number 788 Can you indentify this form? Mr. Helms. I have looked at the page here. age 174 | THE CEeatyT i na ne aa a PL ae ee | | FE | 2
Be} 24 ao DoclId: 322763410 ac: SS SS nants ———————— = Ur scbaci 28 Mr. Goldsmith. What is that form? | | | Mr. Helms. It says it is a file request for information | coming from a 201 file itself to headquarters RI from CI/SIG | and Egerter. | Mr. Goldsmith. Is that the basic form that is used to : request the opening of a 201 file? | Mr. Helms. I guess it is. It looks like it to me. | Mr. Goldsmith. What does the term RI stand for? . Mr. Helms. Records Integration. In other words, that was a name given to what in normal parlance would be called an intelligence registry. : | : Mr. Goldsmith. The second line of this document says from CI/SIG Egerter, and?then down here, where it says soruce docu | ment, the term CI/SIG“is’used’ again. Does: that: help you in | anyway towards resolving: the... qestion what the term CI/SIG | refers-to?:-- ! Mr. Helms. I think I know what it refers to. | Mr. Goldsmith. This is the topic we were unable to discuss?’ Mr. Helms. If I am wrong about it, which I apologize for, you have asked me to do the best I can..and I am doing the best I can. Mr. Goldsmith. I might indicate for the record what we will attempt to do is find someone in our staff with the ~. appropriate clearance -- I believethe Chief Counsel has it -- age 175 TRAD GrARQtT
DoclId: 322763410 correct? a age 176 TAD QTPOET hur SiudLi 24 to pursue this issue. . Mr, Helms. I think you ought to go out to the Agency and | go into this matter out there because I don’t think it is going to help your investigation, particularly if I may suggest it, to come back to me on that. He ought to make up his own mind whether it is important to the,investigation:.or not, and if it is, then he has got a real hell of a problem about the tran~ script and so forth. Mr. Goldsmith. I agree with you. What we intend to do is contact the Agency and have someone with an appropriate clearance take care of that, and if there is need to get back | to you on it we will. I understand the problem you are refer- ring to. Mr. Helms. Right. Mr. Goldsmith. According to this document, aaction was taken on Oswald's 201 file on 9 December, 1960. Was that -: Mr. Helms. That is what I would think, yes. Mr. Goldsmith. Earlier we saw a document that was a cable which had been received on 10/31/50, a State:.Department cable. woos Mr. Helms. The one you. showed me a few minutes ago? Mr. Goldsmith. Which made reference to Oswald intending to defect and give military information to the Soviets. Why did it take more than one year to open a 201 file on Oswald?
ie OLuaci 25 1 I might add, this is an issue which is somewhat controversial | : | in this case. | a Mr. Helms. I can't imagine why it would have taken an . @ 4 | entire year. I am amazed. Defect to the USSR October 1959. 5 This is December 1960. There wasn't a 201 file already in | 6 | existence, I am amazed. Are you sure there wasn't? | | Mr. Goldsmith. The opening of the file, according to the | a record, is 9 December 1960. | i s| Mr. Helms. Yes, I understand that by Miss Egerter, but ! 10 | the SI Division, had they not opened a file alot earlier? ! i Mr. Goldsmith. According to the record that the committed 2 has seen the first opening of any file on Oswald was 9 | I a . 3 | December '60. — i | © Id Mr. Helms. I can't explain that. 18 Mr. Goldsmith. Do you know why the Oswald file was opened 16 | up in the name Lee Henry Oswald? : “| Mr. Helms. I have no idea, | 13 | Mr. Goldsmith. Was anyone ever questioned about this? | 19 | Mr. Helms. There was controversy at the time, it seems | 50 | to me, as to why it was wrong. It was wrong in the dissemina- | 3] that went out? | - 23 Mr, Goldsmith. Yes, we looked at this morning. | : \ i -@ =3 | Mr. Helms. I am sure that there was an intense precocupa-| 24 | tion at the time as to how this mistake had been made but I | ag ; recall no longer whether it was resolved or whether it wasn't. 4 Docld: 322763410 bage 177? . TAD errerr
DoclId: 322763410 =a eee Hlage 178 TRAD CCPaCT iby dobiei | wasn't: resolved or whose fault-it was. I notice, interestingly enough, that this notation was made in 1975. } Mr. Goldsmith. Right; the notation you ge referring to is | one that was made by Mr. Raymond Rocca and it - refers to -- | there is an arrow drawn to the middle name Henry, a circle is | | SO at thestime the correction: was-made. I might add, Mr. drawn around the name Henry, and Mr. Rocca wrote down NB :Harvey| | q | Rocca has given testimony to that effect. | { Would a » routine file check or name trace for Lee Harvey Oswald have resulted in a reference to this file which was opened under the name Lee Henry Oswald? Mr. Helms. I think I can safely say yes. When traces } of Oswald they could think of. That is one of the reasons that! were run they would run Lee Oswald and every other modification keeping files at the Agency was so difficult. It was particu- larly difficult with the word Johnson, which is spelled so many different ways. Mr. Goldsmith. Now, in the middle of the page there is a box marked for identification by the number 1, and within that box the letters AG have been inserted. Do you know what the letters AG are referring to? Mr. Helms. No, I don't. I have no idea. No idea. That must run along here. Here is his birth date and country of birth and then the city or town, then there is radio operator and all that stuff. But I have never seen the initials AG and
wr what 37 is | | they obviously refer to some idntification of Oswald, but I have I | 2 no idea what that would refer to. a | Mr. Goldsmith. According to this document, at the bottom ‘@ 4 | of the page, it indicates that-the file was a restricted file. 7 Do you know why this file would have been restricted? a Mr. Helms. At that time? | | ‘ Mr. Goldsmith. Yes sir. ‘ | 8 Mr. Helms. -Only because of this identification SIG, I | 9 | would assume. With SIG I would assume: . ! 10 | Mr..* Goldsmith.-:Thankyouss 02.0 ¥~ | 1 | At this time I would like to refer to CIA number 943. | { 12 | CIA number 943 is a xerox copy of three file cards. I | . a wouldask you to refer to the top file card on. that page. | ® ld | Mr. Helms. The one that says recent defector USSR, fornez 18 : Marine? | 16 ! Mr. Goldsmith. Yes. Looking at the upper right hand © = #) corner of that card, what is the CI project/RI referring to? | Mr. Helms. I don't know. I guess I did once but I don't 1g || Know now. | Mr. Goldsmith. Well, was Oswald involved in any CI staff | project? Mr. Helms. Not that I heard of. | i | | i | | { | | | i ! @ 73 Mr. Goldsmith. Was he the subject of any CI project? . - - . { | Mr. Helms. No, I don't know of any. I didn't know he had, any identification with the AGency at all. I have testified > nv = age 179 Th2 SFRRET | | | i] DoclId: 322763410 hg Ss
MUP Sevaci 28 it seems. to me to the Warren Commission that the Agency never used Lee Harvey Oswald. That is what I believe to be true to this day. I don't know what the RE refers to. Down here it has see SIG Egerter. I don't know. Has anybody been able to identify what RE stands for? Mr. Goldsmith. We have had people give some explanations. Mr. Helms. You obviously have talked to the right people. I don't know what it means. Mr. Goldsmith. Would you refer at this time to CIA 784 an read that document. It should be in the same volume. Mr. Helms. 784? Mr. Goldsmith. Yes sir. Mr. Helms. Yes. Here, I see that. ‘Mr. Goldsmith. Have you had a chance to read that docu- Mr. Helms. Yes, I have. Mr. Goldsmith. This document makes reference to some, I believe, 37 items that were missing from Oswald's 201 file.. Mr. Helms. Right. Mr. Goldsmith. Was this documeent ever brought to your 5] attention previously? Mr. Helms. Not that I ever heard of. I have never seen | (the document before, to the best of my knowledge. If it was } 12 us 4, | Drought tomy. attention I don't recall it today. i - 28 | Mr. Goldsmith. Were you ever informed that at least Doclda:32263410 Plage 180 . TRAD StTeCoQlT | | | | | | t | | | | | | | | i | | } | t t | ' {
ivr O2uaci 29 | | sometime there were 37 documents missing from Oswald's 201 file? forth. That would be a good reason for not putting them in | | 2 Mr. Helms. No, I have no recollection of this. What is 3 | the signifiztance of it?- Carelessness or where:were the . ‘ © 4 | documents? S| Mr. Goldsmith. We are trying to determine the significance | of it. ' Is there anything unusual ox improper about documents, 8 in particular, 37 documents missing from Oswald's 201 file? 7 Mr. Helms. I noticed 25 of those are cables. Maybe they 10 | were cables considered to be sensitive and were being held in 7 the W. H. Division rather than sent to the 201 file and the | 12 | registry, because they had to do with telephone taps and so | | | { \ | the 201 file. | Mr. Goldsmith. In fact, today those cables, at least the 1S 16 | cables pertaining to the surveillance operations, are in the ‘7 201 file, so it is not clear whether those cables refer to the 1a Mexico City ones or some other ones, but this document, at least from the face of it; gives rise to the possibility tha a ee em 20 | there were documents missing from Oswald's 201 file. \ 1 a Mr. Helms. Well, I have given you the best explanation | ! I can or likely assumption as. to why the cables might have been i 5 t ’ ‘ i | | 43 | Missing. | Mr. Goldsmith. Now, a minute ago when we examined the card | ; \ ae | that made reference to the CI/ER, or CI/project RE, does that in your mind give rise to the possibility that Oswald in some 1 | DocId: 32263410 tage 181 TADS CTPotry | i} |
iWwer yhuHas § 30 way was connected with the Agency? > Mr. Helms. No, I don't. I don't know what RE stands for. | \ | | | 3 But, you know, this is 1978. If there was a confusion. on. the | 4 @ 4 part of anybody that Oswald had ever worked for CIA, except for| 5 some newspapermen who are always asking these questions, it | 6 should have been wsolved long before now. | | 7 As I say, I have’ testified to the fact he didn't work for g || the CIA. I don't know anybody that alleges in the CI that he .': did work for them. Even Epstein in his book of 40 questions for - | JQ | Admiral Turner doesn't raise that allegation. | Mr. Goldsmith. Is the information contained in the document particularly sensitive? Mr. Helms. This document here? 1d Mr. Goldsmith. Yes, the one you have just been examining, 1g || number 784? 16 Mr. Helms. The exact words here are not sensitive, no. 7 . Mr. Goldsmith. Then why would the document be marked i3 | secret for eyes only? | a | Mr. Helms. There was a lot of overclassifying inside the ! " agency. Whoever wrote this document obviously didn't want it | 21 | to go all over the place, he wanted it to go the the chief crea, Cy 2 | There ‘were lots of documents marked eyes only I think in | 2 | ' @ 34 ! retrospect that really didn't need to be eyes only and it : = as wouldn't have been. - : , . | 28 Mr. Goldsmith. Should that document be of concern to the | ‘Committee because of the fact it suggests there were materials oora:az263410 dlage 182 Th QEPOrT _ |
as a DoclId: 322763410 31 iG? SEUAE I missing from Oswald's 201 file? I might add this is a. document that was not released undey | FOIA for some reason. | Mr. Helms. Having no explanation except:the one I gave. | you for why they are not in the 201 file, you know this file : was opened in 1960, wasntt it? Along come these results of a | \ very sensitive operation in Mexico City. I can understand the! | Division not sending those down to the 201 file. I see nothing sinister about that at all. \ Mr. Goldsmith. In fact, I should say for the record at thetime of the assassination the 201 file was inthe possession of the Western Hemisphere Branch. I can't say for sure whether or not the tables were in the file at that time. But it would | appear that cable was in the 201 file, as I say, mainly because the file was in the possession of the Western Hemisphere |: | Branch. | | . i You have been shown what has been marked as CIA 3572, | paragraph.(b) of which makes reference to the cable of October | 10 from the Mexico City station, and a Warren Commission ! ; staffer named A. Stern, who wrote this memo, indicates that thel October 10 cable was one of the documents that he examined. | | \ This document was, according to Stern's memo, located in | |. . | Oswald's 201 file, so apparently these materials were in the i file. | | age 183 TAH CLARET |
PVF villi 32 | | Mr. Helms. I thought the Warren Commission requested it. i Mr. Goldsmith. Does the affidavit also represent the | | _ | I would like to ask you to examine Warren Commission 2 | | Exhibit number 870, which was the affidavit that was prepared | 3 | | | by Mr. McCone. | - @ . | Mr. Helms. I have read it. | 5 | Mr. Goldsmith. Do you know at whose request, if anyone, | 6 | | | this affidavit was prepared? | Mr. Helms. I have a vague recollection it was prepared |; g | | | | for the Warren Commission. 9 \ | I Mr. Goldsmith. Was it prepared because the Warren | 10 | ! Commission requested it or because Mr. McCone thought it would | Wi | be a good idea? : | | | | 1 | | Agency's position at that time that youvere DCI? 2 | Mr. Helms. Yes, as far as I know. \ ey Mr. Goldsmith. Do you recall when the allegation was first uv | made that Oswald was connected in some way with the CIA? | 3 | Mr. Helms. I thought that there were these allegations | ’ ! " | kicking around right at the time, right after the President's | aan assassination. I don't know where they started but it seemed | at to me they were kicking around. FBI was charged with having - 22 | 7 @ | used him too, I believe. | oe 3 | Mr. Goldsmith. I would like you to read CIA number 1912 | x | through 1913. Let me indicate for the record that this is part, ac of i | t + i : i 4 Docld: 32263410 page 164 THAD CrroryT
Doctid: 32263410 iV? Sebael 33 of the brief that had been prepared for Mr. McCone's presenta- tion to the Warren Commission. Mr. Helms. Do you want me to read the next page? Mr. Goldsmith. 1912 and 1913, please. Mr. Helms. All right. | | : i Mr. Goldsmith. You may hold on to that. | Mr. Helms. All right. | Mr. Goldsmith. On page number 1913, the first full para- | , | | graph, it indicates we have traced the sponsorship of that campaign, meaning the campaign to link Oswald to the Agency, | { | directly to individuals and components within the Soviet Police State apparatus. Are you able to state which individuals and components within the Soviet Police State-apparatus ‘were ‘responsible for initiating the campaign that Oswald was a CIA agent? Mr. Helms. I am not. Mr. Goldsmith. Was any report ever done specifically | | | | } focusing on this issue? | ] Mr. Helms. I don't recall. I don't recall. I would have thought that a statement like this would be based on FBI inter-! cepts and things of that kind showing that this had been a propaganda broadcast from the Soviet Union, Black radio broad- duals and components it just follows like night the day if a t | | casts, things of that kind. I think when the man says indivi- | | Soviet broadcast says something then the Soviet Government is | ! 1 age 185 TAD Creecy
| i | | | | | 8) 10 ; + ~s wD nD o 4 4 | @ | Ne 13 24 | ago t | { | t —— ad 1 DoclId: 322763410 phye 136 TAD QE POT ~ | in 1963 or '64 pertaining to this issue? iPr eLbiill 34 behind it. | Mr. Goldsmith. In any event, did you ever see any written reports dealing with this issue? Mr. Helms. Not that I remember, no. Mr. Goldsmith. Did the Agency ever conduct an investiga- ion-to determine whether Oswald in fact had ever been connected | | | | | with the CIA? | Mr. Helms. On, certainly. | Mr. Goldsmith. And would you indicate for the record : when that investigation was conducted and by whom? | Mr. Helms. I think right after the assassination every- : body checked around to find out if there had been any contact : | { with him. This could have happenéd very quickly and I think it! would have been very easy to ascertain there had been no contacts. | | The Agency would not have put its Director in the position | McCone was put in the affidavit had been morally certain after | careful. examination that this was the fact. | Mr. Goldsmith. 'Do you recall who was involved in this ! investigative effort, specifically who was charged with it? : Mr. Helms. No. | Mr. Goldsmith. Was any investigative report generated | Mr. Helms. I don't remember. Certainly we were all }pterested to find out the truth of this matter and we all came
Doctid: ata 35 down with the sensation that this was an accurate statement | | that Mr. McCone was being asked to make. After all, it would | i have been our jobs if this had been wrong. Mr. Goldsmith. Do you recall what the AGency's investiga- tion involved? Was it simply checking files, talking to individuals? Mr. Helms. We would have checked with files, checked with individuals, checked with variaus parts of the Agency to find | | | out if they had any contacts. They would have consulted: their records. | Mr. Goldsmith. Would a mere file check definitely resolve the question of whether Oswald was connected in any way with | the Agency? hos. Mr. Helms. No, I think this went further than a file | check. People were physically asked, I think the Domestic | Contact Division was .asked if they had any record of this man.; am _ certain that people would have been gone to and said have 322763410 | | | | | | | you ever heard of this fellow, has everybody identified with | | us? We checked the file, we checked people's memory, we would | have been careful about this. | Mr. Goldsmith. Is it possible that your investigation ij would have been hampered in some way by the problems of fake | | | | files? Mr. Helms. I can't imagine that it would have. i Mr. Goldsmith. Would you explain why not? Page 197 FAD SECReT
as pod DoclId: 322763410 | | | { Mr. Goldsmith. Well, my point is if Oswald was an agent UP eLbaLi — 36 Mr. Helms. Simply because I can't imagine why you would have wanted to have a fake file on a man like Lee Harvy Oswald. What would have been the purpose of it? that it is possible for someone to have a fake file and con- cealed the fact of that Agency relationship. | Mr. Helms. I suppose anything is possible in the world but it didn't happen anyway. Mr. Goldsmith. Did the Agency ever have an operational interest in Oswald? Mr. Helms. Not that I know of. But that is not to say fellow Oswald, why don't we see this, that or the other about | | | | | ! | | | | him, but no record was everestablished that contact was in fact! that somebody might not have thought why don't we double that t { | made with him for these purposes, and if there is anybody who | made such a contact my statement is wrong, I have never heard suggests at the very least a contact with Oswald was contem- | | | t { | i { / | about it. | | Mr. Goldsmith. I would like to show you a document that | | | | | | plated. | | | Mr. Helms. I think Epstein says this in his book, doesn't} he? | i | . Mx. Goldsmith. I will show you CIA document number 3367. | Make that CIA number 3369. Please read this. | | f Mr. Helms. It looks plausible enough. i | ! 1 1 { | | { i Page 186 PE CLE QrearT
16 M7 18 19 20 21 2d 25 Docld: 32263410 So a ee ee SS m3 Ds taste re rd Jage 109 TAD SECRET POF wibais i 37 Mr. Goldsmith. Now, incidentially, that document makes reference to a Harvey story. Do you know which Harvey: story that would be referring to, which Harvey that would be referrin to? For example, is it possible that it is referring to William. Harvey? Mr. Helms. I have no idea. No idea what it refers to. Mr. Goldsmith. Fine. Mr. Ambassador, at the very least, wouldn't the Agency have had an interest in debriefing Oswald upon his return form the USSR, in order to attempt to obtain information on his experience there? also would have thought that we would have relied on the Marin Corps or Navy Intelligence to do that job, since he was a | | | | | ] | | | | Mr. Helms. I would have thought that that were so but . | Marine. | | Mr. Goldsmith. Was there any working relationship between the Agency and DOD which would have ensured that either DOD or CIA would have debriefed Oswald? ‘Mr. Helms. Certainly I don't think there is any question | but it would have been fully expected that the Navy would have interrogated him, if not also the FBI. But normally the Agency didn't interrogate other agencies of. the government personnel when they came back. We interrogated other people who didn't have any government affiliations but not usually other govern- ment agencies, unless there was some particular reason for it. | | | | | | | | | | | | Mr. Goldsmith. Even though Oswald may have positive | t
DoctlId: 322763410 oa es a -- + -- ————— en ee eas evidence indicative of Oswald having had connection with the ase 190 «TNR ereReyT ir oivAci 38 information by virtue of his employment in the radio factor’ in Minsk, you don't think that the Agency would have had an interest in him? Mr. Helms. I think they might have had. This fellow indicates that he had an interest for quite a different reason, but I would have thought that it would have been left to the Navy to debrief him and if he had anything of particular interest it would have been passéd to us and we might want to follow up at some point. There is no evidence any follow up | | | | } | | if | | | was ever made even though there might have been interest there.| It is the facts we are dealing with, not the supposition that. you might have done it or not done it. It is the facts we are dealing with. Mr. Goldsmith. Mr. Ambassador, the following factors have been cited by the Warren Commission critics as circumstantial American intelligence community. I would like to read to you briefly the list and have you comment upon it. The First one, the absence of any commercially available aircraft transportation for Oswald to have traveled from Englan to Helsinki at the time that he did. Secondly, the ease with which Oswald received his discharg from the military. | | | | | | | : | | | a | | i | Third, the ease and speed with which Oswald received his visa into the USSR.
ND 73 24 as nw DoclId: 322763410 Ur otbAri 39 Fourth, the ease and speed with which Oswald was reissued the USSR. And fifth, the relativeiease with which Oswald was permit to return to the United States by US officials after his stay in the USSR. re a passport in 1963, despite his earlier attempt to defect to These factors taken: in conjunction with questions that have been raised by th- Oswald file, for example, the delayed opening of the file, the CI/SIG unit initiating the opening of the file, the absence of any record indicating that Oswald had | been debriefed by the Agency, have been advanced, as I said, as circumstancial evidence that Oswald did have connections with | the intelligence community. | 1 | What weight, if any, should be given to these factors in evaluating whether Oswald was an agent, source or emnployee of | any American intelligence agency? of any American intelligence agency, therefore, the weight that | | | | | | Mr. Helms. My understanding is that he was not an employee | one gives these conjectures should be determined by the individual who is doing the weighing. Mr. Goldsmith. Talking hypotehtically now, if you | | | 4 approached these factors without the advance knowledge as to | | | | j What the result is in this case, what weight would you give these factors? fi Mr. Helms. I wouldn't give very much weight to them. Bage 191 THD CrIPosctt
bur ofbuzi Aa oO They are just casual comments -- the speed with which, the ease | with which. What the hell does that mean? ee QE. Mr. Goldsmith. I would be glad to go into detail for you, if you would like me to. aa 5 Mr. Helms. In other words, it was six days instead of é six weeks, or it was this, that or the other thing. What have 7 you found out? The more interesting things, why were these 3 things done, why did he get his passport back so quickly” fxom_ 5 the State Department, what do the State Department people, say? . Mr. Goldsmith. I am sorry that I am not able to respond to your questions. The Committee Rules prohibit me fron responding. Would you care to make any comment upon these factors that f circumstantial evidence of intelligence association by Oswald? ee: Se 7 as I say, have been advanced by Warren: Commission critics as Mr. Helms. My only comment is the United States is a nation of Monday morning quarterbacks. Mr. Goldsmith. What factors, Mr. Ambassador, would you } | i 6. emphasize in attempting to resolve this issue? | 29 | Mr. Helms. Resolve which issue? é : Mr. Goldsmith. The issue of whether Oswald was an agent or source of information for the CIA. Mr. Helms. I just told you that he wasn't and I am morally certain that he was not and I don't want to get into any more Y t } | hypothetical discussion of this because I have never seen any | t | Le = epoca Docld: 32263410 age 192 TRE QtPoart
nN ty Bre) DoclId: 322763410 So rs = Sit See a ee wir eet evidence that he was. I have never: talked to anybody that talked to him. I have never discussed this matter in any context which indicated to me that he had worked for CIA and, therefore, these conjectures are conjectures. Mr. Goldsmith. You wouldn't consider these factors as circumstantial evidence then? Mr. Helms. They con't bother me any.. Mr. Goldsmith. Mr. Ambassador, during the time that you were both DCI and earlier DDP, in any event, during that time period, were your.telephone conversations either tape recorded or transcribed by a stenographer as a matter of routine? Mr. Helms. When I was DDP from time to time a note or two may have been taken by my secretary depending on whether I asked her to or not. It was not routine. There was usually a record kept of who had called or who I:had called. When I was Director, I had the capacity to tape the telephone con- yersations I had if I wanted to, but 99 percent of the time I didn't do it. Mr. Goldsmith. What type of information goes-into the executive registry? | | Mr. Helms. The mail that comes to the director's office and the deputy director's office. That was simply a device four routing and holding and disseminating the director's mail, or the mail of the director and the deputy. director's office. Mr. Goldsmith. Were these personal files or would the page 193 TARP SrearT 41
44 Il DoclId: 322763410 22 | 33 Myr Ohuiie i 42 executive regestry contain personal letters, for example? Mr. Helms. Yes. Mr. Goldsmith. You mentioned earlier today LBJ was told in 1967 about the effort to get rid of Castro? Mr. Helms. Yes. Mr. Goldsmith. Do you recall whether Mr. Johnson was given a copy of the 1967 IGR or whether anyone from his staff was given a copy of this '67 IGR? Mr. Helms. Whose staff? Mr. Goldsmith. I will rephrase the question. .DO you recall whether either President Johnson or any member of his staff was permitted to read the 1967 Inspector General's Report? Mr. Helms. Certainly no member of the staff. I took the report with me when I went to see President Johnson and he aske me to tell him what was in it and I did. Mr. Goldsmith. Mr. Ambassador, are you familiar with the case of a defector named Minktenbaugh, who defected from the US to the Soviet Union in 1959, and came back to the United States in 1963, approximately ,-with a Soviet woman? Mr. Helms. It is an unusual name and it certainly is familiar to me, but these facts that you are citing here about when he defected and coming back, I didn't know anything about this woman and I am not even sure that I focused particularly on when he came back. Jage 194 ThHS SECRIT
Pier bull J 43 ~ _ oe we Sa ee Mr. Goldsmith. The next point I was about to make was Minktenbaugh and his woman companion were KGE. Once Minktenbaugh foe had gone. to the Soviet Union the KGB contacted him and attempte to solicit his assistance. When he came back to the United States his effort toasist the KGB was discovered and he was convicted, I imagine, of espionage. - Now, the facts of this case are somewhat similar to Oswald's case. Oswald defected to the Soviet Union and came back with a Soviet wife. There is a question as to whether Marina may have had KGB connections, but we will leave that for another day. Do the parallels in that case that I have just described i a have any significance, in your opinion, with regard to Oswald's case? = Se Mr. Helms. The intelligence parallels are useful but they —4 oar - we ee eee don't prove anything. There is so many circumstantial things that go on in intelligence work that you have to have some 1g | to be the same. Obviously the great hole in this whole case is what the Soviets had to say to Lee Harvey Oswald whenshe was a3 oa | | | | independent way of checking whether it is the same or justseens| | | t t =] in the Soviet Union during all those months, and we don't really ; 29 | know that. | — * } -@ 23. Mr. Goldsmith. I just have one final question. There have ae” * | been allegations made through the years that former agency wee en ee ie ee eee * employee Howard Hunt was involved in the assassination of the x Jage 195 TAD CEPRrT ae DoclId: 322763410
iG" otuaLi 44 of the President. Do you have any information that would shed | ; | 2 light upon that allegation? 3 | Mr. Helms. No, I can't shed any light upon it except chai a | 4 | I don't believe it. | 5 Mr. Goldsmith. Do you know whether Mr. Hunt was in Dallas ‘| on November 22, 1963? | | \ 7 Mr. Helms. I believe it has been ascertained he was not. | Mr. Goldsmith. ‘Do you have any personal knowledge one way 7 or the other? ! 10 | Mr. Helms. I don't have any personal knowledge one way on = the other. I remember this coming up in some connection, maybe| 12 it was in connection with the Church Committee hearings. | 9 | 13 : ; _ Mr. Goldsmith. (Or Rockefeller Commission? | 1a Mr. Helms. ‘Yes, or Rockefeller Commission. I have | 7 testified so many times it is now all a blur, I mean before so | 16 many different groups. | ‘WV | Mr. Goldsmith. Mr. Ambassador, I would like to thank you | 1g | you this morning, under the Committee Rules you do have an 33 24 : to to ac as Docld: 32263410 FP for testifying here today. As Chairman Preyer indicated to 32 Soe Oe eee = opportunity to make a statement on the record. If you wouldic: like to make some statement at this time, please feel free to do-so,. Mr. Helms. Thank you very much. I don't think I have anything to add to what I have said. I appreciate the courtesy with which you have dealt with me and I appreciate very much lage 196 | THs Story
Pr wLbilsid | 45 "| your making an extra effort to finish the hearings today. I | 2 don't have any substantive comments to make in addition to what | 3 | I have testified to here, except to say that I think that you | “@ 4 | are in charge of a very difficult investigation, particularly | . 5 one taking place so much later than the events themselves, | and that it seems to me you have gone at:it with great thorough- 6 | g r ness and care. I think that does it. t s | Mr. Goldsmith. Thank you very much. } : | (Whereupon, at 5:10 p.m., the deposition was concluded.) to | | , . , Wj 12 | | : qe | : , re oo! —~ $n | | | | | | Od ~ _ Qa se) ao we nn > —_ 7) ey ta to 5 ee See ee “4 i re DoclId: 322763410 age 197 TRD CECory
aw wevaid 46 CERTIFICATE OF STENOTYPE REPORTER I, Robert 5. Thomas, stenotype reporter, do hereby certif that the testimony of the witness which appears in the fore- So : @ 4 going deposition was taken by me in stenotype and thereafter 5 | reduced to typewriting under my direction; that said depositio | is a true record of the testimony given by said witness; that 7 | I am neither counsel for, related,to, nor employed by any of the \ 3 | parties to the action in which this deposition was taken, and | § | further, that I am not a relative or employeed of any | if Io | attorney or counsel employed by the parties thereto, or finan- I yi | cially or other wise interested inthe outcome of the action. . 7 [LEB i Stenotype Reporter iz | | 24 | ! i | ae fi ~~ " i} - jt | ‘ ff i 7 SERRET Docld: 322763410 Page 198 TH: wei await