INTERVIEW WITH A STAFF MEMBER OF THE SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE.
Originator: CIA
From: CHIEF, LA/NARC
To: CHIEF, REVIEW BOARD
Document date: 08/04/1975
Document type: PAPER - TEXTUAL DOCUMENT

## Page 1

AAA

104-10310-100

2022 RELEASE UNDER THE PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY ASSASSINATION RECORDS ACT OF 1992

35c

03

TUTE HOME (MURRAY, William)

LA Division

William R. Marshall

ALIAS

DATE OF APPEARANCE

LOCATION OF APPEARANCE

AUNTENCE

4 August 1975

On the Hill

SSC Staffer (Mr Dobort Katty) Jogeph do Genova

GENERAL SURJECT

CUBA (CASTRO)

Cross

Neference

4 - AUG 1975

(ilias)

Date

---

## Page 2

13-00000

SECRET

8 August 1975

MEMORANDUM FOR : Chief, Review

Board

ATTENTION

SUBJECT

:

Mr. Seymour

R. Bolten

Interview with a Staff Member of the

Senate Select Committee

Attached herewith is a Memorandum of Conversation cover-

ing my meeting

with Mr. Joseph E. Di Genova, Staff Investigator

on Senator Church's Senate Select Committee of 4 August 1975.

Chief, LA/ NARC

SECRET EZ IMPDEI CL BY 006098

---

## Page 3

13-00000

SECRET

MEMORANDUM OF CONVERSATION

SUBJECT : Interview with Mr. Joseph E. Di Genova,

Staff

Investigator for

the Senate Select Committee

1.

This meeting took place on 4 August 1975 and lasted

from 1355 hours to 1515.

The writer initially met with

Mr. Robert Kelly in the Dirksen Senate Building and was

then

introduced to Mr. Di Genova.

Mr. Kelly signed a document

receipt in duplicate for an

enlarged copy of DIRECTOR 40923

dated 21 July 1975. Subsequently, these receipts were turned

over to MI. William Sturbitts, LA/FOI.

Mr. Di Genova asked the writer to accompany him to

an unoccupied office in the building directly opposite the

Dirksen Senate Building.

Mr. Di Genova said

that this room-

610 - was clean and had been used

in the past for interviews

in connection with Senator Church's investigation.

MI. Di Genova

explained that I would not be testifying under oath and that

the use of an alias would not be necessary.

He said

the

purpose of this interview was

to review the writer's memorandum

of 17 January 1975 to the Inspector General concerning question-

able activities.

He said he would ask

questions, take

notes

etc. and that after he had written up his notes we would have

the writer review them for accuracy.

Mr. Di Genova explained

that in spite of what some people thought, the committee/staff

was trying to put the events being investigated into proper

perspective vis a vis the circumstances, the attitudes and

Mr. Di Genova added

that he was proud of the record

so far - no leaks - the only leaks he knew of had come from.

the witnesses themselves.

3. After the introductions etc. were completed,

Mr. Di Genova asked the writer to provide a short resume of

his employment history with this Agency including his overseas

assignments. He also requested

that I provide him with my

home address and my office telephone number.

I complied but

suggested

that it would be more appropriate

if he directed

further requests through Mr. Bolten's office.

He agreed

said his only reason for requesting the address and phone

number was if an emergency occured or if he couldn't reach

---

## Page 4

13-00000

.?..

SECRET

MI. Bolten.

I advised Mr.

• Di Genova that. I was under cover

in

the Washington area and that neither my relatives nor my

neighbors

were witting of my place of employment. He said he

understood. (He did not ask me any questions about my cover.)

4.

Mr. Di Genova asked

me to comment on the situation as

it was in Cuba when I was on assignment there (January 1960 to

January 1961).

He wanted to know how the people felt, what

were some of

the attitudes concerning Castro, what about the

revolution .etc.. I briefly outlined the various attitudes and

positions taken by people at that time which ranged all the way

from pro to antí Castro.

I said that many people initially

supported the revolution and believed that Castro was doing

the right thing in getting rid of the corruption which existed

at that time.

These people easily rationalized when neighbors

and friends were arrested or had their businesses intervened.

However, when the

revolution directly affected

them they felt

that their own honesty had been betrayed.

At this point these

people began thinking that friends and neighbors had been

unjustly accused and punished and were not guilty of the charges

against

them.

The concept that this was a Communist Revolution

and not just another Latin Revolution began to dawn on these

people who in most part were businessmen, professionals and

the like.

This type individual quickly turned their efforts to

either fleeing Cuba or working in opposition to Castro.

I said

that it was unusually easy to meet and develop Cubans during

this period since many Cubans were anxious to help the U.S.

In anyway possible to achieve freedom for themselves and

Cuba.

I described these times as troubled and emotional.

5.

At this point Mr. Di Genova said he thought the best

way

to proceed

was to review the memorandum I had written to

Inspector General and review the cables referenced in that

memorandum.

He opened the classified envelope I had brought

with me and removed the blown up copies of DIRECTOR 40923 -

writings and signatures

appearing at top and bottom of the cable were legible in the

blow-ups. During the initial review of my memorandum he

turned to the attached cables and asked specifically what

information was contained in HAVA-5381 (IN 27213) and HAVA-5390

(IN 27260). I explained that the first one provided information

to Headquarters that the Cuban pilot I was in contact with was

expecting to pilot a Charter Flight to Prague to pick up Raul

Castro and requested

requirements etc.

The second cable advised

Headquarters that the flight was scheduled to leave on 21 July.

Mr. Di Genova asked me to describe how I met the Cuban

pilot and the type of relationship.

I confined myself to

briefly recounting that I had been introduced to the pilot by

SECRET

---

## Page 5

13-00000

SECRET

his cousin and explained that family relationships and such

personal recommendations were very important to Cubans as

individuals.

I provided a brief explanation of what were the

subject's motives in establishing this relationship. I told

the interviewer that the Cuban pilot was anxious to explain

to an official of the U.S.. Government. why he still was in Cuba

and why he appeared to be pro-Castro.

In

essence, the subject

offered to cooperate and provide intelligence in exchange for

assurance that the U.S. Government would not tag him as a

pro-Castro Cubanand thus prejudice

his chances to enter the

U.S.

At that time the Cuban pilot's wife, 2 children and his

elderly parents_ were still living in Havana.

The interviewer

asked me if in the initial and subsequent development period

whether or not the subject of assassination had been brought

up either by the subject or the writer.

I told the interviewer

that at no time had this

matter been discussed with the subject

prior to the events described in my memorandum.

7. The interviewer spent some time in establishing

the

time sequence of the cables pertinent to this investigation.

He reviewed

with the writer

the time of receipt in Havana of

the first cable (DIRECTOR 40923) and the follow up cable calling

off the operation (DIRECTOR 40965). He commented that the

'irst cable appeared to be written, authenticated and released

sy one person - Mr. Eduard H. Hinkle:

I agreed with his

conclusion based on what appeared on

the cables in front of

He asked me if I had ever made any follow up queries on the

circumstances and

events which transpired that day. He asked

specifically if J.C. King had ever discussed the cable with me

after I returned to Headquarters.

I told him no.5 He.

if J. C..

King discussed this cable with Mr. James Noel) then

COS Havana.

on this matter. He asked me if Mr.

the cable with me - again I answered that after the receipt of

the second cable that was the last conversation we had on the

subject matter.

8.

The interviewer asked me what were my personal feelings -

what were my reactions when I received the first cable. (Prior

to this the interviewer had

established that the cable would

have come to the attention of the COS first and that he subsequently

called me in to his office to instruct me to establish emergency

contact with the Cuban pilot for the purposes of carrying out

the instructions in DIRECTOR 409237.)

I replied to the inter-

viewer's question by saying that as

best as I could remember,

I was surprised and realized that the instructions from Headquarters

were extremely sensitive and a departure from the conventional

₴/рУ

SFC.RFT

---

## Page 6

13-00000

SECRET

orientation and direction of our objectives. I said that at the

time the instructions were received that it was my personal

opinion that the Cuban pilot could not possibly accomplish such an

objective given the circumstances, other people involved etc.

The interviewer responded that in other words it appeared to you

pejorative impossibility. I told the interviewer, that

in discussing the subject matter with the Cuban pilot that to

the best of my recollection I had avoided using such words as

murder, killing or assassination and merely referred to the matter

of neutralizing Raul Castro

and his influence by preventing his

return to Cuba.

9. During the Interview Mr. Di Genova asked me if anyone

else in the Station would have any information of this subject

matter. The interviewer volunteered the information that he had

talked with Mr. Arthur Avignon last week and expected to interview

• Mr. Noel either in San Diego or here in Washington before he

completed his investigation.

He said he also planned to contact

and interview Mr. Ed Hinkle.

Mr. Di Genova told me

that

Mr. Avignon could not remember the specifics concerning the Cuban

pilot but that he had recalled that one of the Station case officers

was handling a Cuban pilot

and that the pilot had provided good

hard intelligence.

He said

that Mr. Avignon thought I was the

officer handling the Cuban pilot but was not absolutely certain.

10.

The interviewer specifically asked

me if I had ever

been

involved in any previous plans or discussions concerning assassina-

tion. I told him

no. He questioned me more than once on what

prompted

me to write the memo to the Inspector General and asked

if I had written in response to a general request made by Mi. Colby.

I told him that I had written the memo in response to that request.

Later he rephrased the same question about why I had written the

memorandum.

I explained that the event appeared to me to fall

within the category that Mr. Colby was interested in learning

about and I felt obliged to respond since I had no way of knowing

whether or not this event itself was already a matter of record

or if by chance it had been overlooked and not evaluated.. I said

that I would have been

remiss if I had not written the memo since

I felt that top management should be knowledgeable of all possible.

areas of embarrassment.

At another time in rephrasing the same

question the interviewer commented

that the event must have made

a significant impression on me to remember it. I acknowledged

that the one cable did surprise me and was far from routine.

He

asked me if I knew of any precedent for this or if the subject.

matter had ever been discussed with me before. He asked if the

Cuban pilot had ever discussed the possibility of assassination

before or after - and I replied no to all these questions.

At

one point in discussing the significance of this cable.I

said

that I was not unaware of the judgements at the Nurenburg Trials

SECRET

---

## Page 7

13-00000

ULUMEI

but did not believe this situation went that far. Mr. Di Genova

said that he was not questioning the actions of the people in the

field who were just doing their job but his purpose was to discover,

if possible, just how such instructions originated - who discussed

them - who agreed that such action was necessary - and how such

instructions came to be authorized.

11.

Mr. Di Genova asked me if I had ever been involved in this

type activity before. He wanted to know if I had ever heard it

discussed before.

He wanted to know what I thought of the coordi-

nation process

at Headquarters and my interpretation of how the

cable had been

written.

At this juncture I replied that. I was

unaware of the

who or whys of the coordination on this cable since

I was

in the field and could only presume that appropriate

coordination had been accomplished prior to the dispatch of the

cable.

I explained that I had never seen the file copies of the

one fort of the

DIRECTOR cables until January 1975 when I obtained copies to attach

to the memorandum.

12.

Mr. Di Genova asked me if I was involved in any arms or

materiel drops in Cuba.

I replied in the affirmative and he asked

me for the circumstances.

I explained that I had temporily replaced

another case officer and at Mr. Di Genova's request identified the

case officer I replaced by true name (MI. David Morales). He did

not ask any detailed questions on the two drops but wanted to know

if any telescopic rifles were in the drop loads.

I told him I did

not know.

He asked me if I knew of anyone at the Station at that

time involved in receiving telescopic rifles - again I answered no.

13.

Mr. Di Genova said that he had been given a list of names

by other members of the staff and wanted

to know if I knew any of

these people:

Howard Hunt; Robert Maheu; Rosselli; Santos Trafficante

Tony Varona; Jim O'Connell;

and, Willíam

Harvey.

I replied that

I recognized most of the names because of current media publicity.

I said Trafficante's name was familiar since he was still reportedly

involved in narcotics but that this knowledge was based on my

present job and that his name was unknown to me when I was in

The interviewer questioned me closely whether I knew or

with any gamblers or people of this ilk while in Havana.

I said no.

He asked if I knew if any other Station officers had

this type of contact.

I said I did not know. I replied in the

affirmative to his question on Tony Varona and said that Varona

once come to my residence in Havana in company with three other

people. He asked me the purpose of that meeting and I told him

that an old contact (I did not identify the old contact and I was

not asked to identify him) had brought Tony to my home and introduced

SECRET

---

## Page 8

13-00000

SECRET

him as a thoroughly reliable

and trustworthy person. My old

contact explained that he

and Tony were deeply involved in anti-

Castro activities and he wanted Tony to have contact with a

reliable U.S. official. I told the interviewer that I reported

this meeting to the COS who said that Tony already had one contact

and did not need

another.

Mr. Di Genova asked me who was Tony's

contact and

I replied that while I coud speculate I was not

absolutely certain and suggested that Mr Noel, the COS at that

time, would probably be the best person to provide a definitive and

knowledgable answer. He asked me why Tony would seek another contact

if he already had one - didn't Tony trust his first contact?

I

replied that from personal observation it seemed that many Cubans

at that time were anxious to have more than one point of access

and contact - that it was sort of like having enough insurance to

cover all contingencies. Mr. Di Genova said he understood.

He

asked

me if I had ever seen Tony again.

I said that I vaguely

recalled that I met him once in Miami but was not absolutely

certain - that I just did not remember.

(I think it was-Tony that

I talked with to get his okay to use a boat belonging to one of

his "people."

The ship's captain was in contact with a PM'er in

the Miami Station but would

not go out on a mission for this Agency

without the approval of his "padrino" who as I recall was Tony.

I was asked by the Station to meet the "padrino" and

explain

the

need for the boat.

As a result of this meeting the "padrino"

approved the use of

this boat for a

special mission in April 1961.)

14. On completion of this series of questions MI. Di Genova

said he thought that he had covered all the essential points and

did not belleve there would be any need to call me back.. He

thanked me for my cooperation and again expressed appreciation for

the blow-ups of the DIRECTOR cable.

William J. Murray

Chief, LA/NARC

SECRET.

---