oa {fe craks No cSIECTK DECLASSIFICATION AN (This form is to be used for material extracted RELEASE OF THIS NOS iE frorn ClA—conitrolled docuiments.) ; The CIA policy of eliminating reference to Agency sensitive sources and methods is further revealed by examination of an Agency cable, dated January 29, go 1964, sent from CIA Headquarters to the CIA Mesx+teo eis OLSEN. sar na ae aH EL SON ee mane _ City Beattor: {(CTA Doc. FOIA 2398-204, 1/29/6 . DIR 97829) _.This cable indicated that knowledge of Agency sources“and techniques was still being with- held from the Warren Commission, and stated that.on Saturday, February 1, 1964, the CIA was to present a report on Oswald's Mexico City activities to the Warren Commission which would be in a form (Footnote cont'd from pg. 23.) 1) Your Bureau not disseminate information re- ceived from this Agency without prior concur rence oO 2) In instances in which this Agency has provided information to your Bureau and you consider that information is pertinent to the Commission's interest, and/or complfments (sic) or otherwise C. is pertinent to information developed or received by your Bureau througn other sources and is being provided by you to the Commission, you refer the Commission to this Agency. In such cases it will be appreciated if you will advise us of such referral in order that we May ~» | .- anticpyate ne ossible 4)fpture interest of the Joie Commidsds £or? ote eis ia -aparatery steps to “Classified by derivation: DBDG 1 Brey ens rayevy
(This form is to be used for materia! extracted _&s ee from: CIA==co ntrolled. documents.) - a Telephone Taps . OO Mr. Helms offered testimony regarding the “CIAL reticence to inform the Warren Commission, at leant. during, the initial stage of the Commission's work, of the CIA's tetephonic-and~photo~survettrance opesatdons=in Mexico City.. The reason for the sensitivity of these teLephone~taps—and—sumveildance—was not only becyase it was sensitive from the Agency's standpoint, but the +etephone ‘teps were-running-dn-conjurction” ‘with the-~hiésican.authonitdies and therefore, ae, if this had become public knowledge, f it would have.caused very bad feelings pero SF between Mexico and the Uni 2d SHALES po (SF Ts and_that..was_the reason (Exec. Sess: ee @st. of Richard Helms, S1- 52)" a emcee nar 8/9/78, pp. taal pe caretin Nag a BRIM alll area TheCIa's pani pinaness to inform the Warren Com osstlon 36 tng ot » stages of igs-Tnvestigation che dboves described surveil Liéice opseations is of a. arce -6f concern to_ tht Ls committee. It. as a“ x“ inaxeteave “Of an. Agéncy poliéy aesigned “to skew ra in its“favor , we form, iia substanée of {nformation a Sk a ene ons fi uncomfortable, providing the Warren “ ‘ CommiSsion. (HSCA class, Wépo. of J Kn “scelso, 5/6/78, p- 158) Thi aoht 11 pave proces g we ve “ ' hampered the Commission's ability to proceed in Classification: : | OaRG47 Classified by derivation:
MT A LY LF LF LF a SECRET Classification:. rm is to teri extracted its inves fla gen Syl fds hen s.) cts ‘be fore it. As noted previously, on January 31, 1964, 33 the CIA provided the Warren Commission with a vai Cc ? memorandum that chronicled Lee Harvey Oswal apes ost eg Mexico City visit-during Spte 4 ( (CIA Doe. FOIA #509-803 1/31/64 oF Pete Gel A | October 3, 1963. at _nenccandumzsto—T0° ment ionen> Ds pockets fereai¢ . . . ff gop that Oswald's various conversations with the.Cuban 9+ eg and Soviet Embassy/Consulates had been tapped and by the Agericy's Mexico City” Station subsequently transcribed. Furthermore, that memo- “randum did not mention that the CIA had tapped and transcribed conversations between Cuban Embassy employee: Sylvia Duran and Soviet officials at the .~ enition made F Mgatete an provident. pérticos - - Soviet Embassy/Consulate Gor WAS the conversations betwee oa ee wa ambassador =) Mexico armas’ which the CIA’ \ had. also tapped ana tratScribed.) ee ai gle On February. hy “1964, Helms appeared before the ona "Commission and Rekery discussed the Memorandum of . & go " January.31, 1964,_/ (cix’Doc. FOIA #498- 204, 1/28/64, a a 2p ( eee February 107" 196%; hee~Rankin wrote 0 nregard to the CIA memorandum of January 31. ‘ERA, (JER Doc. No. 387% A review of Rankin's letter . Classification: Classified by derivation:
(This form is to be used -for material extracted from ClA—controlled documents.) | indicates that as of his writing, the Warren nfs fre oko Nn Ser Cre tt nr ~ th e Commission had no substenttre a& brie pants ebby : or the peoduction mode ae. On. Dives mE ge ° a Rankin inquired in the February 10, 1964 letter > whether Oswald's direct communication with employees of the Soviet Embassy (as stated in Paragraph 1 of January 34 memorandum) had been facilitated by AE eS, 5 ‘Gelephone > ox -intervieu. Manifestly, had: ‘the Warren die ER EB. A owed t Commission been informed of the sTept per Bi Pn suiveiiiunceoperatin -and—ite-suecess—in zapping (Gswekd this 3 inguiry. by Rankin would not have been made. _ Raymond Rocca's testimony tends to Support ‘this conclusion. It was ‘Rocca! s recollection that & between the time. period of January 1964 ~ April 1964, Warren Commission's representatives had visited the CIA's headquarters in Langley, Virginia ‘and had A@packl SG been shgwn various _ Samserapes resulting from the 7a : petdchenceOverations in: Sg 5 City. ‘(HSCA Class. Depo. of - Raymond Rocca, 7/1 (7B, a / p. $9) owever, Mr. Rocca. ‘did not “personally make Classification: "~~ | | § i ° Classified by 0059 0 2 a
© o& briesiigh sia & | Warren Commission Knowledge ct CIA t y AT LT LF LF 4 4 - 28 - Classification: __ SFe> =~ aR ae (This form is to be used for material extracted from ClA—controlled documents.) this material available to Commission representa- tives and was not able to state under oath precisely the point in time at which the Warren gt/ Commission first learned of these operations. (Tbid, Doan On February 19, 1964 the” CIA, responded “to” mee. wank A . Cc P B84, Fa AWe. 5S 8-808 Rankin's inquiry of February It: AG OR fren cee response dia indicate that Oswald had phoned the Soviet Consulate and was also interviewed at the ene cal. rh! ak ret Consulate. However, the Agency | the source of this information ,in—its—respense—to the-Commission, nor~indicated—that—this—seurce. — would_be-xevealed-by—other -means—tergs—by-oral. During. the period of March =. April 1964, David Slawson drafted a series of memoranda which among other issues concerned Warren Commission know- ledge of and access to the production material derived from the cIA-telephonic-curveltiance-operations— Nee. -in Mexico City. A review of these memoranda tends to support the Committee's belief that the Warren NE. Commission, through Mssrs. Slawson, Coleman, and re | 4 Rea - Classification: 000050 | Classified by derivation: