CIA MATTERS - PRESS, MEDIA INQUIRIES CORRESPONDENCE
Originator: CIA
From: PETER EARNEST
To: DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS
Document date: 03/11/1993
Document type: PAPER - TEXTUAL DOCUMENT

## Page 1

1104-10337-1000

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

CIA SPECTAL COLLECTIONS

cle:

RhiASE IN FULL

2000

11 March 1993

NOTE FOR: Deputy Director for Operations

FROM:

SUBJECT:

Peter Earnest

Chief. Media Relations

WASHINGTON POST Request to Talk to an Agency

Specialist on the Kennedy Assassination

cuculatión en

the occasion of the 30th anniversary of the Kennedy

The WASHINGTON POST is preparing a series of articles onl

assassination.

with the help of CIC, we recently arranged for George

Lardner and Walter Pincus

of the WASHINGTON POST to interview

former KGB officer Yuri Nosenko about his knowledge of Lee

Harvey Oswald during the time Oswald lived in the Soviet

Union.

To ensure that Nosenko's resettlement identity and

location would remain protected, I made the arrangements for

Nosenko to come to Washington for the interview.

The POST reimbursed Nosenko for expenses and paid him a

$250 consulting fee.

The interview was done on Wednesday,

3 March, at the POST offices downtown.

I did not remain for

it. Lardner and Pincus also hosted a

lunch for Nosenko which

was attended by Ben Bradlee.

Lardner and Pincus were very

pleased with their session with Nosenko and appreciative of

our making it possible.

I also spoke afterwards with Nosenko

who said he was satisfied with how the interview was

conducted and with the financial arrangements.

Shortly after the interview, Lardner faxed me a list of

the questions that he and Pincus had prepared for themselves

to use in checking out Nosenko's information. They asked if

there was anyone at the Agency they could talk to about the

individuals named.

I told them that developing information

in response to-their questions would probably take a good

deal of research and that I doubted the Agency would be able

to take on such a task at this time for the POST. However. I

said I would take it up with the appropriate offices.

Although I told the POST that I do not believe anyone

would be willing to undertake research on their questions,

I'm wondering if there is anyone around who might be

knowledgeable of Nosenko's information who would be willing

to talk with Lardner and Pincus on background based on

his/her existing knowledge.

I think Lardner and Pincus would

be grateful for making such a person available even if

---

## Page 2

1,3-00000

SUBJECT:

WASHINGTON POST Request

all their questions aren't answered. Considering that they

are trying to do serious research on the Kennedy

assassination, I think any effort on our part to help them

would be seen as a gesture of good will.

Earnèst

Attachment:

As stated

Agree to having a specialist talk to them on background

about the Nosenko information if an appropriate person is

available.

Nosenko informat want anyone from the Do talking about the

---

## Page 3

13-00000

SUBJECT:

WASHINGTON POST Request to Talk to an Agency

specialist in the Kennedy Assassination

DCI/PAI/Earnest:ncbx37758 (11 March 1993)

Distribution:

Original

1

1

Addressee

ADDO

SA/ DDO

DO Registry

D/PAI

D/DO/CIC

C/DO/NROC

C/DO/CE

C/CSI

C/History Staff

.•

---

## Page 4

13-00000

Names of Russians we should try to track down about Lee Harrey Oswald, Yuri Nosenko and the

JFK zezasxination:

1. General Oleg M. Gribanor, head of the Second Chief Directorate of the KGB in the early 19608

where Nosenko says he worked, primarily against American tourists, as deputy chief of the Serenth

Department. Nozento described himself as sort of favored by Gribanov and he said Gribanor in-

structed him, wiver the JFK assassination, to retrieve the Oswald file from the Mink KGB right

aww.

2. Anatoliy Koralenko, deputy chief of the Second Chief Directorate or one of its departments, at

time of JFK aesassination. Nosenko said when the file arrived from Minski, be and Koralenko tere

going over the allimportant first volume-and finding KGB had sothing to do with Oswald-when a

KGB offcer from the Firat Department came in and picked it up on Gribanor's ordere, to review it

and write a summary of it.

3. The offcer who picked it up was Col. Matreer, deputy chief! think) of First(or American) De-

partment, sacond Chei Directorate. Unhave first same.

4. Chief of this First Department was Col Sergei M. Fedoseyer or Fedoseey and presumably he

would have had a hand in or supervised preparation of the "apravka" of summary.

5. Gribanor and more than 40 other KGB officers were kicked out because of Nosenko's defection,

accoring to Noreako. That right? Whet harpened?

Gown. beark kastrusin. Was in 1959 a senior case oficer in KGB responsible for Intourist mat.

ters. Nosenko says that it was Rastrusin who told him about Ostrald and how he wanted to stay in

Soviet Unlon. Nosenko said Rastrusin said. Oswald "doesn't present interest" to KGB and Nosenko

checked out with his superiors. Word came back not to bother with Oswald. Nosenko was told to tell

Rastrusin to tell Intourist to deal with him.

%. lastrusin retursed next day and said me got a problem. Oswald tried to kill self, etc AGB

washed anus al 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 wras run to top of that min.

istry and beyond, to Khruschet or one of his deputies. In any case, decision was made to let Oswald

sty in Minsk, But not, Nosenko says, by KGB.

8. In the fall of 1963, a XGB colleague, Mol. Turalin, Service No. 2 (counterintelligence in foreign

countries), First Chief Directorate, told Nosenko orally that Mexico City station had just sent a cable

about a request by Oswald for a visa to re-enter Soviet Union. What should be done?

Nosenko said he said, "Trait a second. How come he's back in America"' At thät point, Nosenko said

he hsdn't know Oswald had gone back.

' 9. Nosenko said be said let's go to chief of department who he identilied as a Cal. Chelnekov or

Chelenko (but Later seemed to say his timing might be off and somebody else may baye been chief of

Nosenko's department at the time). In any case, Nosenko quoted chief as saying, in effect, Tremem-

ber this crary nut. No. No. No. Tell them we don't have any interest.'

Cable back to Mexico City adrising KGB there get rid of Oswald by telling him to go back to his

ova country and apply for & visa at Soviet Embassy in Washington, etc., etc.

10. Col, Grunder, was chief of the KGB department in Mins that was responsible for foreigners

there.

11. Oler Nechiporenko, one of three KGB officers stationed in Mexico City who reportedly inter-

rogated or desit will Oswald on his visit to Embassy there. Now living in Moscow area.

Other toro Mexico City officers, both still alive in Russia: Valeriy Kostikor and Pavel Yarzkor.

---

## Page 5

13-00000

Center for the Study of Intelligence

28 June 1994

Mr. Anthony Summers

Still Point

Dromore

Aglish, Cappoguin

Co. Waterford

Ireland

Dear MI. Summers:

This is in response to your letter of 25 May 1994 to

David Gries regarding

the possible existence of tape

recordings of Oswald's conversations with the Cuban and

Soviet embassies in Mexico City until at least April 1964.

As evidence of this possibility you cite FBI Director

Hoover's statement the day after the assassination that his

agents had listened to the tapes.

You also state that

Messrs. Coleman and Slawson recalled that Winston Scott

arranged for them to listen to a tape recording of Oswald's

conversations during their visit to Mexico City in April

1964 and that a senior CIA officer provided the tape to

them.

In its review of CIA files on Oswald and the

assassination of President Kennedy, the CIA Historical

Review Group (HRG) found no tape recordings of Oswald's

conversations with the Soviet or Cuban embassies.

We did

find transcriptions of such conversations and a number of

documents

stating that the tapes themselves had been

routinely erased prior to the assassination. Nor has any

tape been found in the FBI files.

The inconsistency you point out flows from a number of

misstatements and errors made in documents immediately after

the assassination.

While these were corrected, the original

errors continue to raise questions regarding the tapes.

following excerpts illustrate this point:

The

FBI Dallas To FBI HQ, 23 November 1963: "Inasmuch

Dallas Agents who listened to the tape of

conversation allegedly of Oswald from the Cuban Embassy to

the Russian Embassy in Mexico and examined the photographs

Central Intelligence Agency

Washington, D.C. 20505

(703) 351-2698 Fax (703) 243-8343

---

## Page 6

13-00000

of the visitor and were of the opinion that neither the tape

nor the photograph pertained to Oswald, ..."

2. FBI Director to the President, 23 November 1963:

"Special Agents of this Bureau... have observed photographs

of the individual referred to above and have listened to a

recording of his voice.

These Special Agents are of the

opinion that the above-referred to individual was not Lee

Harvey Oswald."

3. FBI SAC, Dallas, 23 November 1963 Cable to FBI

Director:

" It should be noted that the actual tape from

which this transcript [of Oswald's call] was made has been

erased."

Legal Attaché (FBI), Mexico City, Cable to FBI

Headquarters, 25 November 1963:

"Tapes obtained by CIA..

here erased after two weeks, following making of typewritten

transcripts of contents of these tapes.

There appears to be

some confusion in that no tapes were taken to Dallas but

only typewritten transcripts supplied by CIA, the tapes not

being available because they had been erased."

5. FBI Memorandum to U:S. Senate Select Committee, 27

February 1976:

"Delivered herewith is material responsive

to that letter pertaining to a voice recording referred to

on page five of an FBI report to the President of the United

States dated November 23, 1963.

As was discussed... on

February 24, 1976, the recording in question was never in

the possession of

Agents."

the FBI and was not listened to by FBI

With respect to Coleman's and Slawson's recollections,

the CIA file contains a number of internal Warren Commission

documents on their trip to Mexico City.

their visit, they state that in their meeting with Scott,

they were shown original transcripts and translations of

Oswald's telephone conversations.

In a subsequent meeting

with Scott and his deputy, arrangements were made for them

to go through all the transcripts to use them as a basis for

reconstructing Oswald's Mexico City activities concerning

the two embassies.

Slawson then spent considerable time

reviewing and taking notes from the transcripts. None of

these records mentions the existence of tapes of Oswald's

calls or "listening

to taped conversations."

The CIA/HRG review did turn up tapes of Oswald's radio

debate in New Orleans and of a telephone

conversation on

26 November between Cuban President Dorticos and Cuban

Ambassador to Mexico Hernandez Armas. Scott discussed

the

latter tape with Coleman and Slawson, noting that the

connection between the two speakers was very bad, that the

tape was in CIA Headquarters and, that the Warren Commission

might want to have it re-translated.

---

## Page 7

13-00000

I hope that this information helps clarify the events

surrounding the tapes.

All of the documents quoted

available in the National Archives.

Yours truly,

John F. Pereira

Chief, Historical Review Group

---

## Page 8

13-00000

=

25 May 1994

Memorandum for the Record

SUBJECT: Telephone Call from Anthony Summers re Oswald in

Mexico City

1. Summers, author of Conspiracy, called long-distance

he dare chat poetic Reason to sia at ane genty.

remaining ambiguity about the tapes of Oswald's calls to the

ставу л око сір

2. The Agency, he said, told investigators that the

tapes had been erased. Summers said that he understood

erasure as a normal procedure, with no sinister overtones.

However, when he talked with former Warren Commission

assistant counsels William Coleman and David Slawson, who

visited the Mexico City Station in April 1964, they told him

that they heard the tapes while in the Station and noted

that they were of relatively poor quality. Also, Summers

ne be relatively

said that a former Agency employee with whom he spoke (whose

name he said he could furnish, but not over the phone) said

that he had heard the tapes.

3. Considering the 1964 date of the Slawson/Coleman

trip and what Summers stated was the high credibility of the

individuals who said they heard the tapes, Summers asked if

our review had turned up the tapes or any documentation

reflecting anything other than standard erasure procedure

that could explain the apparent conflict between the timing

of the Headquarters instruction to the field after the

assassination not to destroy any file material, the date of

the Slawson/Coleman visit and theabsence of the tapes from

the file.

4. I said that, to my knowledge, no one here had found

the tapes nor had they encountered anything that would

affect the conclusion that the tapes had been routinely

erased. I said that no one reviewer here saw every document

in the many archival boxes, but that had someone found

anything to conflict with the previous testimony, it would

have surfaced.

5. I got the impression that, in addition to continuing

to review the material as it is released to NARA, Summers

may seek a formal response to the question he asked me.

---

## Page 9

13-00000

PHONE;"

353. (Ireland) - 24(Youghal) - 96210

FAX:

353 (Ireland) - 24 (Youghal) - 96467

ANTHONY SUMMERS

STILL POINT,

DROMORE,

AGLISH,

CAPPOQUIN,

CO. WATERFORD,

IRELAND.

sir. John F.Pereira,

Chief, Historical Review Group,

Center for Study of Intelligence,

Central Intelligence Agency,

Washington D.C. 20505

CIA SPECIAL COLLECTIONS

RELEASE IN FULL

6 July 1994

Dear Mr. Periera,

Thanks for your letter of June 25, regarding the Kennedy

assassination case, and the matter of tape recordings. I was

aware of virtually all the points you raise, since I recently

took the trouble to visit Washington to peruse all available

released material on the subject.

It does not, however, resolve the problem. while one might

accept that human memory might fail in the case of one person,

or even of two, it is surely astonishing thät two former Warren

Conmission counsel say firmly for the record that in April

1964 they listened to tapes of Oswald contacts with one or

more of the Conmunist missions, courtesy of the local CIA

station chief, and that - in addition - a former senior station

officer confirms that such tapes were played for thei

precisely as they describe. What should the serious scholar

of the case conclude, that all three of these gentlemen have

hopeless memories or are offering false information? Or could

it be that the written record is wrong? Can we be certain

that the CIA was not holding such tapes in 1964, and has not

destroyed such tapes since? And can we be certain the CIA

no longer has such tapes in its possession? I look forward

with interest to your reply.

Sincerely,

---

## Page 10

13-00000

INTERNA

L 6SE ONET

CIA SPECIAL COLLECTIONS

RELEASE IN FULL

24 February 1995

To:

C/HRG 2000

Subject: Morley's request

The 10 October 1963 cable (Dir 74830) is a response to the

Station's 9 October 1963 cable (Mexi 6453) which describes

Oswald's contact with the Consul at the Soviet Embassy.

DRAFT

The information on Oswald in the 10 October cable (para. 1 -

3) deals with Oswald citizenship and current status and is

based on State reporting.

The cable is not a complete

report on Oswald based on all information available.

The comment in Para. 3 re "latest HDQS information" appears

to relate to citizenship issue, i.e., as of May 1962 State

had confirmed Oswald's US citizenship.

The statement is

written in "cablese" and poorly worded, however, I don't

believe it was meant to imply that there was no other

information available on Oswald.

Karamessines signed as "releasing officer" and,J.C. King was as

the" authentication officer!

The cable would have been

drafted by another officer, probably someone responding to a

request on Oswald citizenship status.

Background (FYI Only) :

The "Pre-Assassination" 201 file as released to NARA had at

least one FBI document dated after May 1962 (DBA 20883 dated

30 August 1962/ received in the Agency 19 September 1962) .

There is also a 10 September 1963 FBI document that was

received by the Agency on 19 September 1963. Given the

handling of FBI documents (indexing and microfilming prior

to dissemination), I doubt that this document had reached

the 201 file by 10 October 1963.

There are no May 1962 documents reports in the Pre-

Assassination 201 File.

in the "JFK collection"

, however, no way to determined when

there were received by the Agency.

The May 1962 "State report" may refer to a phone call to

State or documents

that were available but not in the 201

file.

INTERA

ONLY

---

## Page 11

13-00000

The cable referred to in your letter appears to focus

only on the status of Oswald's citizenship.

As such, it

draws on information available from the State Department

that bears on the question of citizenship.

The cable is not

regarded as an attempt to summarize all the information in

CIA files on Oswald at

the time.

---

## Page 12

13-00000

"EB-23-'95 THU 13:35 ID: WASH PEST - OUT LOOK TEL NO: 282-331-5660

N9O2 POZ

....

-..

23 February 1995

co: David Christian, Central Intelligence Agency

from: Jefferaon Morley, Washington Post

In the next few days. The Washlngton Post plans to publiah a news article

• •about recently declassuied records from the CLA's Directorato of Plana

concerning accused presidential assassin Lee Harvey Oswald. We would

like to give you, or a denignated Agency spokesman, the opportunity to

comment on tuese recorus.

Routing slips on these documents show that in August 1962, Septem-

ber 1963 and October 1953, numerous officer in the Directorate of Plans

received FBI reporte on Oswald's personal, political and work activities.

Another recently released document shows that on October 10, 1968

deputy director of plans Thomas Karamessines seat a cable to the Mexico

City station stating that Headquarters' "latest HQ info" on Oawald was s

State Department report dated May 1962.

Our question:

Does the Agency know why Mr. Karamessines told the Mexico City sta-

tion on October 10, 1963 that the CIA had no information on Onwald sinee

May 1962 when the Agency's records show that it'had received three FBI

reports on Oswald between May 1962 and October 1983?

Our deadlino is Friday, Feb, 24 at 5 p.ra.

I canoe reached at 202/334-6053 fax 202/334-5650) Thank you sor

---

## Page 13

13-00000

11-NOV. 10'97 120IM PUBLIL HETHERS OUTLOUK 202 SSA BObO

r. C

The Washington flost

1150.15m St,, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20071-5530

Jefferzon Money'

Outlook section

7 November 1997

To: George Tenet, Director of Central Intelligence:

From: Jefferson Morley, Washiagton Post

I write to request a briefing about the status of certain CIA records

related to the Kennedy assassination. These records were produced by an

Agency employee known as "Howard" who served as the case officer for a

anti-Castro organization called the Revolutionary Student Directorate, DRE,

From December 5, 1962 to mid-April 1964. In CIA files, the DRE was

known by the cryptonym AMSPELL.

On November 22, 1963; "Howard" knew or should have known

about the pro-Castro activities of accused assassin Lee Harvey Oswald in

1963. "Howard" was also in à position to evaluate public allegations of a

Castroite assassination conspiracy made by his agents in the leadership of

the DRE with whom he had extensive contact. He was obliged to report on

the activities of these agents. Yet virtually all records related to "Howard's"

activities, in 1962-64 are missing from the National Archives. Inquiries to the

JFK Assassination Records Review Board about these records have been

unavailing.

Under the terms of the JFK Assassination Records Act, the director of

the. Agency's archival depository is required to give "expedited review. for

public disclosure of assassination records" in the Agency's possession.

Because the CLA has otherwise shown (in the words of the JFK

Assassination Records Review Board) "a high level of cooperation" and.

"undertaken significant efforts" to satisfy the standards of the JFK Records

Act, the apparent withholding of records by. and about "Howard" is an

anomaly that sbould be clarified and corrected..

---

## Page 14

13-00000

1-N0V19: 93 12:07PM PUBLIC DEFAIRS, OUTLOOK 202 334 5660

P.4 P.3

Background: On November 13, 1962, Deputy Director of Plans

Richard Helms with two leaders.of the DRE at CIA beadquarters. Helms,

according to minutes of the meeting, expressed a "personal interest" in.

developing a "reasonable collaboration" with the DRE. He assigned the

group a new case officet whom he said would "be responsible to him

(Helms) for the relationship:»' According to otber CIA records, this case

officer used the name "Howard" in connection with DRE activities. As of

April 1963, the DRE was receiving an average of $51,000 per month from

the Agency, the most of suy single Cuban exile organization.

"Howard's" handling of the group casts new light on. an old story: the

Warren Commission's report that in August 1963, anti-Castro Cubans

mounted a series of public confrontations with Lee Harvey Oswald. At the

time, the ex-Marine wrote in a "political resume" that he was trying to

harass and "infiltrate" the DRE chapter in New Orleans. When Oswald

handed out pamphlets for the pro-Castro Fair Play for Cuba Committee on

August 9, 1963, the DRE's New Orleams delegate Carlos Bringuier and other

DRE members got into a fight with him. Bringuier notified the group's

national leaders in Miami about the street altercation with Oswald, With the

approval of DRE leaders in Miami, he then put Oswald nder surveillance.

He and a fellow anti-Castro activist also challenged Oswald to a debate on a

local radio station, The DRE delegation taped the radio program and sent a

copy to DRE headquarters in Miami. Finally, Bringuier, in consultation with

DRE leaders in Miami, also put out a press release denouncing Oswald as a

Marxist.

At the time; "Howard" was meeting regularly with DRE leaders in

Miami and assisting their propaganda activities. One former leader of the

DRE says that he is certain that "Howard" was informed of the group's

contacts with Oswald at the time; another says that "Howard" was

"probably" informed. These statements are in potential conflict with the

Agency's longstanding position that none of its employees were

knowledgeable of Oswald's activities in New Orleans in August 1963..

' See Memorandum for the Recond, "Mr. Fielms' conversation with Lein Fernandez Roch and Joss,

Laria Lasa of the DRE regarding their Organizations Relarionship with the Ageasy." 13 November: 196

FK •Collaction, National Archives.

Ses "Finmeal Paymens Made by the Central Intelligeace Ageasy lo Cuban Exlle Orguizatious," mem

com Desmond Fizgerald lo steding Corell, 'Agal 1963, in John F. Kenedy Library

---

## Page 15

13-00000

11-dOY.10.'97 _12:08PM PUBLIC AEFAIRS OUTLOOK 282 334. 5660

r.s

In any case, there is no doubt that "Howard" was working with the

DRE in the second balf of 1963 to combat pro-Castro forces in the United

States. la September 1963, "Howard" advanced four DRE leaders S660 to

travel to New York City and disrupt a conference of pro-Castro students, an

apparent violation of the ban on CIA activities on U.S. soil.

While reporting regularly to "Howard" in the fall of 1963, the DRE

leaders were stepping up their efforts to obtain weapons and money for an

imminent military effort to liberate Cuba. In October 1963, DRE leader Juan

Manual Salvat traveled, in violation of an administrative order confining him

to Miami; to Dallas. There, FBI documents show that Salvat assigned two

DRE members to negotiate for the purchase of weapons from a Dallas gun

dealer, John Thomas Masen, According to, a March 1964 FBI canvas of

Dallas area gun dealers; Masen was otie of two who soid the type of

Mannlicher-Carcano bullets that struck President Kennedy.

After President Kennedy was killed, & DRE leader sent "Howard" a

copy of a recording of the August 1963 radio debate with Oswald. The

group published a special issue of "Trinchera," its CLA-funded publication,

detailing. Bringuier's contacts with Oswald and alleging that the accused

assassin had acted at the behest of Fidel Castro. The group also launched a

campaign by its Agency-funded delegations in Latin America to blame

Kennedy's murder on the Cuban goverument.

"Howard's" reaction to the DRE's use of CIA funding to promote its

JFK assassination conspiracy theory is unknown, It is known that "Howard"

did riot immediately inform his CLA colleagues investigating Oswald that his

agents in the DRE had previously exposed the acoused assassin as a

sympathizer with the Cuban revolution. "Oswald's involvement with the

pro-Castro movement was not at all surface[dj to us in the first weeks of the

investigation," said "John Scelso," the CIA official in charge of the

Agency's inquiry into Oswald'

The Agency, in compliance with the JFK Records Act, has already

disclosed most aspects of its relationship with the DRE, including the real

names of two case officers who handled the group. (David Phillips and Ross

* See deposition e "Joha Scelso," House Selee Committee ori Assassins

ons, 16 May 1978, p. 166.

---

## Page 16

13-00000

• 12-NOV,18 18'97 12:08PM PUBLIC AEFAIRS. OUTLOOK 202 334 5660

P.6 p.5

Crozier). The Agency has released the redacted 201 file of principal

AMSPELL agent, Juan Manual Salvat Roque (201-286051). It has also

released monthly "Operational Progress" reports on AMSPELL/DRE's

activities in September and October 1962-the months right before

"Howard" became the Agency's contact with the group-and'on

AMSPELL/DRE activities in May, June, July, August, September and

October 1964-the months right after "Howard" was relieved of the DRE

assigument.

The nomaly in the CIA records is this: If "Howard"' reported on, the

group in the same fashion that his predecessor and successor did, he would

have generated 17 monthly operational progress reports on AMSPELL/DRE

activities between December 1962 and April 1964. Yet the National

Archives has no such AMSPELL/DRE reports in that period; Nor have such

reports been made available to the Review Board. Yet it is precisely these

reports that are most likely to contain information relevant to the Kennedy

assassination story. Specifically, "Howard"s" reports on AMSPELL/DRE

activities in August and November 1963, if they exist, demonstrably fit the

legal definition of "assassination related records" and thus have the

presumption of "immediste disclosure" according to statute.

Among the questions I would like to discuss with knowledgeable

representatives of the Agency are:

1) Did "Howard" report appropriately through the JMWAVE station

in Miami about his activities on behalf of the CIA concerning the

DRE in the period 1962 to 1964?

3) Were these records made available to the House Select Committee

on Assassinations in 1977-78 in connection with its review of DRE

activities?

4) Does "Howard's" reporting on DRE activities in August and

November 1963 exist today?

---

## Page 17

13-00000

"WETAdE FWCHWASTEUST OUTLOOK 282 334 5668

P. 6.

S). If so, when will the Agency make these records available to the

Review Board as mandated by law?

6) If these records no longer exist, what was the date and the reason

for their disposition?

7) Does the CIA. have any objection to the publication of "Howard's"

real game?

• I trust that knowledgeable representatives of the Agency will be able

to clarify these issues for readers of the Washington Post

Thank you for your time and attention to this matter:

Yely

Jefferson Morley

Outlook section

---

## Page 18

13-00000

• NOV. 14. 1997

6:18PM

CIA PUBLIC AFFAIRS STAFF

NO. 1818

P.

S CENTRAL

GENTRAL INTEL

3::

1947 50 199,

>

TO:

PUBLIC AFFAIRS STAFF

MANE: JOIN P. / BArry H.

TEL:

FAX:

613-3063

FROM:

Phone:

Fax:

703 482-7677

703 482-6790

NUMBER OF PAGES:.

_(w/Cover Sheet)

REMARKS:

JohN/ BARRY,

Here's a copy of our heads up Mana coNceRning the Post

request for the jfk backgrounder, We said no basedow the

Fact that the Review is ongoing. we provided No AdditionAl

Reasons oR background info. Marley was not pleased and will

"Appeal" ourdecision. Hope I captured your brieting in the note Tom

---

## Page 19

13-00000

• NOV. 14..1997 6:19PM

CIA PUBLIC AFFAIRS STAFF

NO. 1818 P. 2

14 November 1997

Note for: DCI

From:

Re:

Bill Haslon

Director of Public Affairs

Poonal at the 205 0 2s Pacon Document

Jefferson Morley of che Washingeon Post is planning to write

a story for the "Outlook" seccion on che goverment-wide JFK

assassination document reviaw. Morley requested a background

briefing wich members of che CIA/CSI review panel to discuss what

he believes are "anomalies" in our disclosures to date.

Specifically, Morley clains that CIA records relating to the

Agency's relationship wich an anti-Cascro group called the

Revolutionary Student Directorate (DRE) are missing from the

National Archives.

In addition, Morley clains that previously

released JFK documents which reference a CIA case officer named

"Howard," who Morley claims was the Agency's contact with the

DRE, are also missing or incomplete.

After consulcing with John Pereira, Chief, CSI/Historical

Review Group, and Barly Harrelson, Chief, JFK Assassination

Review, PAS informed Morley that it would not be appropriate to

conduct a background briefing on che subject at this time because

the Agency's JFK assassination docunent review is still ongoing.

We emphasized to Morley that the CIA maintains an excellent

working relationship wich the Presidential review board and has

been responsive to all inquires and concerns the board has

raised.

Background: At the request of the Presidential JFK

Assassination Records Review Board, CSI is currently conducting a

thorough re-review of all DRE related document to ascertain if

"Howard" existed and to determine if documents are missing. To

date no records containing the name

"Howard" have been identified

and CSI has not determined if there are any missing DRE

documents.

CSI believas the Agency's relationship with the

Presidential board could be jeopardized, or damaged, if MorleY

were to receive a CIA briefing on the very questions the board

has instructed CSI co investigate.

Attached is a copy of Morley's request for the background

briefing.

Billon

Dissem: DDCI, DCI/COS, DCI/EA, Counsel/DCI, EXDIR, D/EXDIR, DDO,

DDA, D/OCA, GC, D/CSI

---

## Page 20

13-00000

JAIV,

0.199014.49514

pLIA UBLIC ArMAIKO SATT 202 334 5660

Av. ZU84 P. L P.2

The Washington post

1150 1ST STREET, N.W.

WASHINGTON. D. C: 20071-5530

T 00 34000

To: George Tenes, Director Central Intelligence

From: Jefferson Morley

Shortly after the assassination of President Kennedy on Nov. 22,

1963, a CLA case officer learned that his agents in a Miami-based anti-

Castro organization had been in contact with Lee Harvey Oswald, then in

custody as a suspect in the President's murder.

I would like to request an unclassified briefing on the activities and

professional performance of this officer.

This officer was, according to former colleagues, a senior intelligence

officer. He was the CLA's contact with the Revolutionary Student

Directorate (DRE) from December 1962 until April 1964. He used the name

"Howard" in his dealings with the Cuban students. The DRE is identified in

CIA files by the cryptonym AMSPELL; the principle agent in the

AMSPELL operation was Juan Manual Salvat. The Washington Post has

learned that the AMSPELL propaganda operation, funded by the CIA, had a

decisive effect on media coverage of the Kennedy assassination.

Among the questions, I seek to clarify are:

-Did "Howard" report on the activities of the DRE/AMSPELL in

August and November of 1963?

-Did "Howard" report on contacts between the DRE and Oswald in a

timely fashion after the assassination?

- When will copies of "Howard's" reporting on DRE/AMSPELL be

made available to the JFK Records Review Board?

---

## Page 21

13-00000

• LAN.

8. 1998 1 4:437M

ELlA PUBLIC AFFAIRS STAFF 202 331 5668

NU. ZU84

P. 3

I do not seek access to any classified information or documents. I seek

the informed perspective of Agency employees familiar with Cuba

operations in 1963 and Agency records already made public by the CIA

related to DRE/AMSPELL and "Howard."

The spirit of full disclosure, embodied in the JFK Assassination

Records Act, gives the CIA the opportunity to dispel misconceptions about

..-...

the Agency and the circumstances leading to Kennedy's death. I hope that

you will act in the spirit of that law and authorize knowledgeable persons at

the CIA to clarify the story of the CIA propaganda operation known as

AMSPELL for readers of the Washington Post.

your doperation

Assistant Editor

Outlook Section

---

## Page 22

13-00000

1G 281 PUR TE FEIRS OUTLOOK 282 334 5666

r.C..=

The Washington post

1150 15d St., N.W.

Wasbingioa, D.C. 20071-5530

restoreson Morto,

•Outlook Section

16 January 1998

To: Tom Crispell:

From: Jefferson Moriey

Re: request for unclassified briefing

• Dear.Tom,

This is to follow up on my fax to Director Teaet Of 7 January 1998.

I would like to know if the Agency will be responsive 10 my request, If the Agency

will not be able to provide an unclassified briefing on the DRE/AMSPELI documents that

have been made public, could you rotify me in writing with ai explanation? I am handing

in the story nest week and need to include the Agency's response

Tharks for your attention to this matter.

Jefierson Morley

Assistant Editor

Outlook Section

---

## Page 23

13-00000

CLAT

20 January 1998

ANJU

Memorandum For:

---

• From:

subject:

T. Jeremy Gunn

Executive Director.

Assassination Records Review Board

J. Barry Harrelson

Senior Reviewer

JFK •Project

CIA-IR-21, Monthly Operational Reports

For the DRE

•1.

letter to Chief, Historical Review Group.

Specifically, you

asked about missing DRE monthly operational reports and the

identity of "Howard," the name to which the DRE appears to

have sent correspondence.

files for the missing" reports.

The Agency has searched appropriate data bases and

In addition, the.

responsible offices have researched the questions contained

within your request:

Based on these rather extensive

efforts, we can advise you as follows.

Missing operational monthly reports.

the searches

conducted by the. Agency failed to locate any of the reports

that appear to be "missing" - Decenber 1962 through April

1964, in general, and those for August and November 1963 in

particular.

It should be noted that during the period in

question, major palicy differences between the Agency and

DRE developed.

This was particularly true of the latter

years of association because the Dre would not take

directions or instructions about a number of operational

matters,

insisting. on engaging in activities the Agency did

not sanction.

These differences caused the Agency to reduce

the level of funding for, the DrE.

It also replaced the

officer designated to deal with the DrE.

Then,

about the

sane time, the monthly operational reports trailed off.

It

seems probable these events are linked and that reporting in

the form of such monthly reports simply stoppea.

The DRE

files we did find are also within the sequestered JFK

collection and they have previously been nade available to

ARRB staff member Manuel Legasoi.

with reference to your

like you, have no

---

## Page 24

13-00000

-.

LUNDO

B1B 5219

DRe messages. The phrase.

"To Howald" was used as the

addressee of several DRE prepared memoranda. We first

attempted to identify if, in fact, "Howard"

was an actual

person.

The name was not found to be a pseudonym.

It also

was not found to be a registered alias.

true name of any case officer associated with the DRe

operation at the time the DRE documencs were written.

•Following review of those data bases, knowledgeable case

officers were queried suggested that the use of "To Howard'

night have been nothing more than a routing indicator t

ensure that the documents got to the correct cIA

office/officer or that the sender was someone known to the

recipient.

If you have any further questions in this regard,

please advise.

P.

---

## Page 25

13-00000

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

18 January 1998

MEMORANDUM FOR:

John Pereira @ DCI

Fred Wickham @ DO

CIA SPSCIAL COLLECTIONS

RELEASE IN FULL

FROM:

J. Barry Harrelson

2000

JFK Project Officer

OFFICE:

IMO/HRP

SUBJECT:

FYI - Jeff Morley's Requests re DRE

REFERENCE:

Morley's letters (2) to DCI

Last week Tom Crispell, Public Affairs, call me about a second letter to the DCI from Jeff Morley, Washington Post, re the

DRE (Revolutionary Student Directorate), an anti-Castro organization that figures in the JFK assassination story. Again Morley ask for

an unclassified briefing on the documents that have been made public, and clarification of the AMSPELL (DRE) operation and its "case

officer" Howard.

I told Tom that HRG continued to recommend against a briefing and/or doing research for Morley. However, we are in the

process of preparing a response to the ARRB on the DRE that will answer some of Morley's questions. Tom and I discussed the

possibility of providing Morley a copy of our response to the JFK Board (ARRB) or referring him to the board. I told Tom I would have to

discuss with C/HRG, the DO and board staff.

The DO (Bill McNair and Fred Wickham) are opposed to giving Morley any information. The ARRB Ex Dir. has no objection to

the Agency providing morley the same intormation we are giving the ARRB, however, they would not provide Morley a copy of our

response. The ARRB considers this an open request and does not want to give incomplete information. If Morley is referred to the

ARRB, he will be told that their records would be open to the public when the project is completed: Gunn did request that we make the

DRE files in the sequestered collection a priority in the re-review and ask if we could re-review those documents mentioned in Morley's

requests as soon as possible.

I passed the DO and ARRB responses to Tom. On Friday (16 Jan) Tom received a short note from Morley asking if the Agency

was going to respond to his request; his deadline for the story is next week and needs to include the Agency's response. After further

discussion, Tom said he would talk with Mansfield and recommend that Morley be given the same response as before: no briefing or

written response to specific questions; additional information on the DRE will be made public through the ARRB and NARA as part of the

review of JFK records.

For your information, the DO can find no record of a case office named "Howard". It appears that "Howard" may have been a

routing indicator.

CC:

Ed Cohen @ DA

Sent on 18 January 1998 at 09:50:46 AM

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONtY

---

## Page 26

13-00000

ADMINISTRATIVE • INTERNAL USE ONLY

From the Desk of J. Barry Harrelson

NOTE FOR:

Thomas G. Crispell

FROM:

J. Barry Harrelson

OFFICE:

DATE:

OIM/HRP

01/28/98 04:06:28 PM

SUBJECT:

Jeff Morley Request

1. In response to Jeff Morley's request re "Howard" and the DRE in his recent letter to the DCI, OIM/ HRP proposes the

following oral response:

With reference to your request for information on "Howard", we have attempted to identify who he was and if, in fact, he was

an actual person. The phrase, "To Howard" was used as the addressee of several DRE prepared memoranda. A comprehensive search of

appropriate files was made. The name was not found to be a pseudonym or a registered alias. It also is not the true name of any case

officer associated with the DRE operation at the time the DRE documents were written. Knowledgeable officers have suggested that the

use of "To Howard" might have been a routing indicator to ensure that the documents got to the correct CIA office/officer.

2. The above response has been coordinated with Lee Strickland and the DO|IRO's office (Gloria Boyd). If you have any

questions, please call me on 31825!

Barry

CE:

John F. Pereira

Lee S. Strickland @ DA

Sent on 28 January 1998 at 04:06:28 PM

ADMINISTRATIVE • INTERNAL USE ONLY

---

## Page 27

13-00000

Morely questions:.

Ia- Why die we lie? We didn'

In reply

In - Ahe

oficers said Wo said

That Howars/ baundes Howrrel

didul oxil?

1S implice: Joannide

was known as

No answer

Howard

report on the

DRE stetementi

atout Oswald

2 c

shouldul he

heive reprted?

36.

Can I have

a broiy ?

CIA SPECIAL COLLECTIONS

No laky?)

RELEASK

IN EULL

---

## Page 28

13-00000

•АД. ЛІ. ЛУУУ. 0:L4ГМ

GIA FUDLIU AMMAIKO SIAN

N0. 4203 P. 7

MEMORANDUM

March 3, 1998

To:

Jeremy Gunn

Executive Director

CC:

From:

Bob Skwirot

CIA Team Leader

Michelle Combs Michelle Combs

Special Assistant for Research and Review

Subject. CIA-IR-21 DRE Case Officer for December 1962 - April 1964

In response to ARRB's informal request for additional information and records,

CIA-IR-21, CiA provided access to the Office of Personnel file for Mr. George E.

Joannides: I have examined the personnel file for Mr. Joannides for the period 1961-64

and 1978-79. Mr. Joannides appears in documents in the CIA Sequestered Collection

under his pseudonym Walter D. Nesby.

During the period December 1962 to April 1964, Mr. Joannides was assigned as a covert

action officer at IMWAVE, serving as deputy and then chief of the station's covert

action branch. During this time period, Mr. Joannides was the case officer for the

•Cuban exile group Directorio Revolucionario Estudiantil (DRE). The descriptions of his

duties and accomplishments in the personnel file are very general and' contain no

specific reference to his relationship with the DRE, There is no mention of the

assassination of President John F. Kennedy in the file and no information relevant to the

assassination in the file. There is also no indication that Mr. Joannides may have used

or been known by the name "Howard" during his contacts with the DRE, although

persornel files typically would not reveal this information one way or another.

During the period mid-May 1978-January 1979, Mr. Joannides was assigned to work for

Scott Breckinridge, the CIA's principal coordinator to the House Select Committee on

Assassination (HSCA) as a focal person to keep track of the status of HSCA requests,

particularly to the Directorate of Operations. In this role, Mr. Joannides developed and

maintained a log and records of HSCA requests and CIA responses and-handled the

day-to-day follow up to HSCA requests:

Several performance evaluation reports from the 1962-64 time period and a memoranda

from Scott Breckünridge on Mr. Joannides duties during the 1978-1979 time frame were

designated assassination records and are being processed for release.

e:\combs\cia-ir21.wpd

File 4.20.1 and 4.20.4

---

## Page 29

13-00000

ARMINISTBATIVE - INTERNAL USE ONLY

NOTE FOR:

James R. Oliver@DA

FROM:

[Glenn B. Jacobs)

OFFICE:

OIM/IRG

DATE:

09/29/98 03:46:26 PM

SUBJECT: Public Affairs/JFK

Per our conversation yesterday, I talked to Lee regarding about not providing a number to Public Affairs

with respect to the ABC inquiry regarding the cost for declassifying JFK. He still wants to give the 35 FTE

statement. Unfortunately, this has made its way to Ed who disagrees with both solutions. Ed has

requested that we provide an overall FTE figure for the entire processing (6 years.) I tried my best to

make this a simple project, but unfortunately was not successful. I now need your assistance (or Barry) to

provide the FTE estimate. The Public Affairs Point of Contact is Anya C. Guilsher on. 37758) I apologize

for the inconvienance, but I tried. Thanks - Rusty/

CC:

Sent on 29 September 1998 at 03:46:26 PM

ADMINISTRATIVE - INTERNAL USE ONLY

---

## Page 30

13-00000

CIA SPECIAL COLLECTIONS

RILLASE IN FULL

2900

DRAFT

THis pur

→ morley. doc

MEMORANDUM FOR:

FROM:

SUBJECT:

J. Barry Harrelson

Senior Reviewer, HR/OIM

Material For Response to 11 Dec 98 Ltr From Morley

The following information may be helpful in drafting a response to subject letter from Washington Post

reporter, Jefferson Morely.

2. Basic Facts:

(S) a. On 5 December 1962, Walter D. NEWBY, George Joannides, was introduced to a DRE

leader as the new responsible case officer for the AMSPELL project, replacing Harold R.

NOEMAYR. Dispatch UFGA-6891, 10 Dec 62

(S) b. In "the middle of April" 1964, NEWBY was replaced by Keith T. BONGRINO (P),

as the case officer on project AMSPELL. Dispatch UFGA 16,168, 8 June 64

(U) c. Thus, NEWBY'S responsibility for the DRE/AMSPELL project was for the approximate

period - 5 December 1962 - mid-April 1964.

(U) d. The DRE Monthly Operational Reports that can be found end with the one for November

1962 (the month preceding NEWBY assuming responsibility for the project) and commence

again with one for May 1964 (the month after NEWBY left the project).

(U) e. NEWBY'S fitness reports for the periods in question state that his tasks, among other

things, were:

- Case officer for student project involving political action, propaganda, intelligence

collection and hemisphere-wide apparatus. 1 Jan 62 - 31 Dec 62Fitness Report, dtd

19 Jan 63.

- Case officer for student project involving political action, propaganda, intelligence

collection and a hemisphere-wide apparatus. 1 Jan 63- 31 Jul 63 Fitness Report, dto

31 Jul 63.

- Serves as senior case officer for a student project which involves distribution of

printed propaganda, production of radio programs, and the development of political

action programs. I Apr 63 - 31 March 64 Fitness Report, dtd 15 May 64.

(U) f. In all three Fitness Reports, he received a "Strong" for his efforts on the above described

DRE/AMSPELL Project.

---

## Page 31

13-00000

(S) g. Via WAVE-1064, dtd 7 November 1962 - the month of the last Operational Report before the

gap and just a few weeks before NEWBY took over as the case officer, JMWAVE had

recommended for a number of reasons that the AMSPELL project be terminated.

(S) h. The 10 December 1962 Dispatch UFGA-6891 (the last Operational Report before the gap

commenced) is illustrative of the confusion surrounding the project both from the way the

"Subject" of the dispatch is styled and the comments within the dispatch. For example:

The "subject box has two lines. On line one it states, "Operational /GYROSE/KUWOLF/

AMSPELL." On the second line it states, "AMSPELL Status" which is a clear reference to

the problems and uncertainties with the project which are then set out within the report.

The report first notes the station's November recommendation to terminate AMSPELL but

then advises while it would continue to fund salaries and operational expenses, no new

AMSPELL activities would be undertaken pending HQ's response to the proposal to

terminate.

Further, within the body of the report was the statement that "AMSPELL membership was

being instructed to go out and seek other employment as a part of a plan for a 'transition' in

the event of a rupture in relations with KUBARK." It is not clear if this instruction was

being made by Station officers or by AMSPELL leadership.

4. Morley's Allegations: Turning to subject letter, Morley is more than a little disingenuous when he

claims HRP responded to the ARRB "with inaccurate information: to wit, that no 'actual person'

was handling contacts with the DRE in 1963." He alleges in the next paragraph, "(t)hese

statements are now shown to be false and misleading...." HRP's 20 January 1998 memorandum to

the ARRB plainly does not say what Morley alleges. We know who the case officer was before and

after NEWBY and that NEWBY was the case officer in 1963. The Harrelson memorandum simply

says that because of policy differences between the Agency and the DRE during the period in

question, the Agency reduced its level of funding and also replaced the officer designated to deal

with the DRE. The memorandum does not say the Agency withdrew the officer or suggest the

absence of a case officer responsible for the project.

5.

6.

With respect to Morley's claim that a representative of "CIA's public information office" told

him "no 'actual person' was handling contacts with the DRE in 1963,..." HRP's record of that

proposed conversation reflects a different story. The HRP record states that the Agency Public

Affairs officer would recommend: a) that no briefing or written response to specific questions be

given to Morely; and, b) that he be told additional information on the DRE would be made public

through the ARRB and NARA as part of the review of JFK records..

Further, the Agency did not "fail to accurately disclose the activities of one of its case officers in

1963" to the ARRB as Morely claims. Indeed, Michelle Combs' 3 March 1998 memorandum

clearly demonstrates: a)she had access to Joannides' personnel file; b) she was clearly aware he

was NEWBY; and, c) she knew that he was the case officer for the DRE from December 1962 to

April 1964. She knew these things because the Agency provided her full access to his personnel

file and all other relevant materials. Her statement that "(t)he descriptions of his duties and in the

personnel file are very general and contain no specific refrence to his relationship with the DRE," i.

technically correct. The DRE is not mentioned by name within the file. However, the three quoted

duties or tasks set-out above from the three Fitness Reports adequately demonstrate that the project

for which he was a case officer was the DRE.

7.

Where there ever DRE Operational Reports for the months December 1962 through April 1964.

The answer to that question has not been found so far as HRP knows. All evidence and comment

---

## Page 32

13-00000

. .

received from the DO during our search on behalf of the ARRB suggests that the reports never

existed. The coincidences of dates between NEWBY'S arrival and departure strongly suggest the

confusion about the go/no-go status of the DRE with Agency sponsorship precipitated some

decision to suspend the reports. Whether that decision was made by NEWBY or senior JMWAVE

personnel is not known.

8.

We have already answered the question about "Howard." Morely states "there is abundant

evidence in CIA and DRE records that Joannides, using the pseudonym "Howard," ...etc. HRP's

20 January 1998 memorandum advised the Executive Director of the ARRB that we did not know

who "Howard" was or if, in act, there was a person using the name "Howard." Further, according

to the DO, the name was not found to be a pseudonym or the true name of an officer the DRE

operation at the time the DRE documents were written.

J. Barry Harrelson

Senior Reviewer, JFK Project

---

## Page 33

13-00000

DRAFT

DRAFT LETTER TO MORLEY

(CIA LETTERHEAD]

THIS

DUL

Mr. Jefferson Morley

Staff Writer

The Washington Post

1150 15* Street, NW.

Washington, D.C. 20071

Dear Mr. Morely:

identity of "Howard."

This is in response to your letter of 3 December concerning the DRE, the DRE case officer and the

It appears that there is some confusion about what the Agency has said and not said about the above

subjects. I hope the following facts will clarify matters for you.

First, the Agency has never said there was no case officer for the DRE during 1963. We know the

identify of the case officer before NEWBY/Joannides; we know the case officer following Joannides; and,

we know that Joannides was the DRE case officer for the period 5 December 1962 to mid April 1964. The

20 January 1998 memorandum to the ARRB simply says that differences between the Agency and the

DRE caused the Agency to replace "the officer designated to deal with the DRE."

Second, the gap in DRE/AMSPELL operational reports for the months December 1962 through April

1963 (the so-called "missing reports") coincides almost exactly with NEWBY'S/Joannides' tenure as the

DRE case officer. We do not know if the reports ever existed. We do know that the differences

mentioned above caused JMWAVE to propose to Headquarters in November 1962 that the project be

terminated. This was the month before NEWBY/Joannides assumed responsibility for the DRE and the

last month an Operational Report was written before the gap. We like you can only speculate about why

no reports exist - whether NEWBY/Joannides decided on his own they were no longer necessary, whether

he was told by a superior to stop them, or whether they were in fact written and cannot be found. We do

not know.

Third, I turn to the identity/existence of "Howard." As you note, "To Howard" was used by the DRE

as the apparent addressee on certain correspondence. We refer to our 20 January 1998 letter. "Howard"

could not be found as a registered pseudonym or alias. We have no evidence to suggest "Howard" was ar

identity for Joannides. Lastly, so far as we can determine, "Howard" is not the true name of any officer

associated with the DRE at the time the DRE documents were written.

The Agency has not made false or misleading statements to the ARRB about these matters. In fact,

ARRB staff members thoroughly reviewed all of the materials on the DRE, NEWBY/Joannides, the

"Howard" issue and, the question of the gap in the DRE operational reports.

Sincerely,

XXXXXXXXX

---

## Page 34

13-00000

JAN, IJ. 1YYY DILLIM

VIA FUDLIU ARCAIKO DIANT

NU. 4LUS F. J

INSPECTOR GENERAL

1998-1531

UFGA6891

di's 1620862

"on s sea Newky

''NOEMAYE"

4

By Kill

3 December 1998

Mr. L. Britt Snider

General Counsel

Central Intelligence Agency

Washington, DC 20505

Dear Mr. Snider.

By way of introduction, my name is Jefferson Morley. I am a reporter for the

Washington Post. Our mutual friend Scott Armstrong suggested that I write to you for

clarification of certain issues related to CIA compliance with the JFK Assassination

Records Act.

As you know, the mandate of the Act was for "immediate disclosure" of all

documents related to the murder of President Kennedy, The purpose of the law was to

re-establish the credibility of govemment institutions in the face of widespread public

doubt and confusion about the events of November 1963. As you also know, the

number three official at the agency, in compliance with the Act, submitted a swom

statement that the Agency has made available all assassination-related records for

review by the JFK Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB).

The attached exchange of memoranda raises questions about the accuracy.of

the ClA's responses to the ARRB on a potentially important question.

At issue are the reporting and performance of George E. Joannides, a ClA case

officer stationed in Miami in 1963 with responsibilities for a once-prominent Cuban exile

group known as the Revolutionary Student Directorate or DRE. The DRE was an anti-

•Castro group whose members had a series of encounters with Lee Harvey Oswald 12

weeks before the Kennedy assassination. The DRE leaders were the very first people to

issue public statements after the assassination about Oswald's pro-Castro activities and

political convictions. A senior official of the Castro government alleged in 1995 that the

DRE was involved in a conspiracy to kill President Kennedy.

The exchange of memoranda demonstrates that when the ARRB inquired last

winter about the identity of the CIA contact for the DRE, the Historical Review office

responded with inaccurate information: to wit, that no "actual person" was handling

Wet what

we.

said.

contacts with the DRE in 1963. When I posed the same question on behalf of the

Washington Post to Tom Crispell of the ClA's public Information office, I was also told

• DID WE

that the CIA had no records as to the identity of the DRE's case officer.

*CHRA) tell

These statements are now shown to be false and misleading, In effect, if not

him this?

intent. As Ms. Combs' memo demonstrates, the DRE did have a case officer and that

the fact was recorded in Mr. Joannides Office of Personnel file. Both the DRE and Mr.

Joannides were well known at JM/WAVE. The DRE, known by the cryptonym

AM/SPELL, was receiving $51,000 a month from the agency and Mr. Joannides was

reporting to Ted Shackley among others.

The agency's inaccurate statement about Mr. Joannides logically raises

questions about the agency's statement that it cannot locate any written reports

generated by him. Obviously "knowledgeable officers" who did not know of Mr.

Joannides' relationship with the DRE would not be well positioned to know of his

reporting on that relationship. Former colleagues tell me that Mr. Joannides'

professional duties on the AM/SPELL account would have included preparing contact.

reports on his meetings with DRE leaders and filing monthly reports to his superiors.

Since Joannides had a reputation as a competent officer and since there is abundant

---

## Page 35

13-00000

evidence in CIA and DRE records that Joannides, using the pseudonym "Howard,"

received written communications from and about the DRE, the most reasonable

assumption (absent further explanation) is that he memorialized his activities in 1962-

1964.

If the CIA can find no such records in its files, the question of the disposition of

these records arises. If DRE-AM/SPELL tiles were destroyed according to procedure.

there should be a record of it. If they were not destroyed according to procedure, their _

disposition needs to be accounted for under the spirit, if not the letter, of the JFK

Records Act,

We (HAP)

have ho

Kustly.

i plus.

My questions are as follows:

1) Why did the ClA make inaccurate statements last January to the ARRB and - We (HAP)

the Washington Post about the DRE's case officer? What are the names of the

did not

"knowledgeable officers" who informed J. Barry Harrelson that the man known to the a

DRE as "Howard" (i.e. George Joannides) was not an "actual person" but merely "a

routing indicator?"

2) What is the ClA's explanation for the complete absence of reporting on the

We (HRA)

DRE and Oswald from He estant les on the ASPELL operation? Ater the DRE made hear

public statements about Lee Harvey Oswald on November 22, 1963, What were Mr.

Joannides reporting obligations, if any, under the procedures and practices of the

Operations Directorate? Did Mr. Joannides, in the view of the Agency today, fulfili those

obligations in all respects?

3) Will the ClA provide a background briefing to me and a colleague to clarity

these and other questions arising from the documentation of the ClA's relationship with

the DRE in 1962-64 and from Mr. Joannides' role in the Agency's response to the HSCA

investigation in 1978-79?

The apparent fallure of the ClA to accurately disclose the activities of one of its

case officers in November 1963 to the JFK records review board is noteworthy. Public

confidence in the ClA's sworn statements about its compliance with the JFK Records

Act depends on verification of those statements. If the Historical Review Office was

misinformed about Mr. Joannides and passed that inaccurate information to the public, it

behooves the agency to correct the error quickly and clarify all questions arising from its

original misstatements of fact.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

leffersan Morle:

Washington Post

0) 202/334-6863

t) 202/334 6138

Enclosure:

cc: Rick Atkinson

Scott Armstrong

---

## Page 36

13-00000

duuu

U.LL111

VIA LUULLU NIINIAO

Inspector General

NU. AZUS

r. L

(703) 874-2553

IG 1998-1532

11 December 1998

-

MI. Jefferson Morley

Staff Writer

The Washington Post

1150 15* Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20071

Dear MI. Morley:

This will acknowledge receipt of your letter dated

3 December 1998, which posed several questions regarding the

CIA's handling of information under the JFK Assassination

Records Act.

Inasnuch as this Office does not have the information

you are seeking, I am taking the liberty of sending a copy

of your letter to the Office of Public Affairs as well as

the Office of Information Management for response.

Please give my regards. to Scott Armstrong when you see

him.

Sincerely,

Butt Sir

Britt Snider

Distribution:

orig

• Addressee

- OPA

1 - 01M

1 - IG Chrono

---

## Page 37

13-00000

JAN. 11. 1999

5:22PM

CIA PUBLIC AFFAIRS STAFF

NO. 4203

P. 1

PUBLIC ATLERS STAFF

TO :

om.

FaI:

16013-3063

Phoze:

Fax:

703 482-7677

703 482-5790

NUMBER DE PAGES:.

_(#/Core- saeet)

ROARIS:

Here's the Morley Stuff

a leites from ou 16 to him.

---

## Page 38

13-00000

. i

Administrative - Internat Use Only

28 January 1999

MEMORANDUM FOR THE RECORD

FROM:

SUBJECT:

J. Barry Harrelson

Senior Reviewer, HRP/OIM

Material For Response to 11 Dec 98 Lt From Morley

The following background information addresses the questions and accusations made by Washington

Post reporter, Jefferson Morley in his letter to of 11 December 1998 to Britt Snider. It has been

coordinated with the DO JFK Team and DO/IRO (Gloria Boyd).

2. Basic Facts:

a. On 5 December 1962, Walter D. NEWBY, George Joannides, was introduced to a DRE leader

as the new responsible case officer for the AMSPELL project, replacing Harold R.

NOEMAYR. Dispatch UFGA-6891, 10 Dec 62

b. In "the middle of April" 1964, NEWBY was replaced by Keith T. BONGRINO (P),

as the case officer on project AMSPELL. Dispatch UFGA 16,168, 8 June 64.

c. Thus, NEWBY'S responsibility for the DRE/AMSPELL project was for the approximate period

- 5 December 1962 - mid-April 1964.

d. The DRE Monthly Operational Reports that can be found end with the one for November 1962

(the month preceding NEWBY assuming responsibility for the project) and commence again

with one for May 1964 (the month after NEWBY left the project).

e. NEWBY'S fitness reports for the periods in question state that his tasks, among other things,

were:

- Case officer for student project involving political action, propaganda, intelligence

collection and hemisphere-wide apparatus. 1 Jan 62 - 31 Dec 62Fitness Report, dtd

19 Jan 63.

- Case officer for student project involving political action, propaganda, intelligence

collection and a hemisphere-wide apparatus. 1 Jan 63- 31 Jul 63 Fitness Report, did

31 Jul 63.

- Serves as senior case officer for a student project which involves distribution of

arion propaganda, production racio progress pot, de vel Maent of political

f. In all three Fitness Reports, he received a "Strong" for his efforts on the above described

DRE/AMSPELL Project.

Administrative - Internat Use Only

---

## Page 39

13-00000

Administrative Internal Use-Onty

g. Via WAVE-1064, did 7 November 1962 - the month of the last Operational Report before the gap

and just a few weeks before NEWBY took over as the case officer, JMWAVE had recommended for a

number of reasons that the AMSPELL project be terminated.

h. The 10 December 1962 Dispatch UFGA-6891 (the last Operational Report before the gap

commenced) is illustrative of the confusion surrounding the project both from the way the

"Subject" of the dispatch is styled and the comments within the dispatch. For example:

The "subject box has two lines. On line one it states, "Operational /GYROSE/KUWOLF/

AMSPELL." On the second line it states, "AMSPELL Status" which is a clear reference to

the problems and uncertainties with the project which are then set out within the report.

The report first notes the station's November recommeidation to terminate AMSPELL but

then advises while it would continue to fund salaries and operational expenses, no new

AMSPELL activities would be undertaken pending HQ's response to the proposal ic

terminate.

Further, within the body of the report was the statement that "AMSPELL membership was

being instructed to go out and seek other employment as a part of a plan for a 'transition' in

the event of a rupture in relations with KUBARK." It is not clear if this instruction was

being made by Station officers or by AMSPELL leadership.

4. Morley's Allegations: Turning to subject letter, Morley is more than a little disingenuous when he

claims HRP responded to the ARRB "with inaccurate information: to wit, that no 'actual person'

was handling contacts with the DRE in 1963." He alleges in the next paragraph, "(t)hese

statements are now shown to be false and misleading...." HRP's 20 January 1998 memorandum to

the ARRB plainly does not say what Morley alleges. We know who the case officer was before and

after NEWBY and that NEWBY was the case officer in 1963. The Harrelson memorandum simply

says that because of policy differences between the Agency and the DRE during the period in

question, the Agency reduced its level of funding and also replaced the officer designated to deal

with the DRE. The memorandum does not say the Agency withdrew the officer or suggest the

absence of a case officer responsible for the project.

5.

6.

With respect to Morley's claim that a representative of "CIA's public information office" told

him "no 'actual person' was handling contacts with the DRE in 1963,..." HRP's record of that

proposed conversation reflects a different story. The HRP record states that the Agency Public

Affairs officer would recommend: a) that no briefing or written response to specific questions be

given to Morley; and, b) that he be told additional information on the DRE would be made public

through the ARRB and NARA as part of the review of JFK records..

1963" to the ARRB as Morley claims. Indeed, Michelle Combs' 3 March 1998 memorandurr

learly demonstrates: a)she had access to Joannides' personnel file; b) she was clearly aware he

7.

for which he was a case officer was the DRE.

Were there ever DRE Operational Reports for the months December 1962 through April 1964.

The answer to that question has not been found so far as HRP knows. All evidence and comment

received from the DO during our search on behalf of the ARRB suggests that the reports never

Administrative Internal Use Only

---

## Page 40

13-00000

Administrative- Internal Use Omty

existed. The coincidences of dates between NEWBY'S arrival and departure strongly suggest the

confusion about the go/no-go status of the DRE with Agency sponsorship precipitated some

decision to suspend the reports. Whether that decision was made by NEWBY or senior JMWAVE

personnel is not known.

We have already answered the question about "Howard." Morley states "there is abundant

evidence in CIA and DRE records that Joannides, using the pseudonym "Howard,"...etc. HRP's

20 January 1998 memorandum advised the Executive Director of the ARRB that we did not know

ho "Howard" was or if, in fact, there was a person using the name "Howard." Further, accordin

o the DO, the name was not found to be a pseudonym or the true name of an officer the DRI

operation at the time the DRE documents were written.

J. Barry Harrelson

Senior Reviewer, JFK Project

Laministrative- Internal Use Only

---

## Page 41

13-00000

Central Intelligence Agency

CIA SPECSAR, COLLECTIONS

RALSASE IN FULL

2000

Mr. Jefferson Morley

Staff Writer

The Washington Post

1150 15th Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C.

20071

Washington, DC. 20SOS

Fil 18, 1949

CIA SPECIAL COLLECTIONS

RELEASE AWA WINE IN FILL

Dear Mr. Morley:

2000

This responds to your letter of 3 December 1998 to

Mr. Britt Snider concerning certain records released under

the JFK Assassination Records Act and our representations to

the JFK Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB).

I

believe that a careful review of the actual documents you

cite fi.e.. our 20 January 1998 letter to the ARRB and the

3 March 1998 internal ARRB memorandum) will answer your

concerns. Accordingly, we have addressed your three

principal questions below in this context.

First, you assert that in an exchange with the ARRB

(presumably the 20 January 1998 letter),

"... the Historical

Review office responded with inaccurate information: to wit,

that no 'actual person' was handling contacts with the DRE

in 1963 ..." I believe it is abundantly clear that the

20 January 1998 letter says just the opposite.

For example,

paragraph 3 states that "... [the Agency]... replaced the

officer designated to deal with the DRE. Then, about the

same time, the monthly operational reports trailed off ..."

Moreover, and far from contradicting our 20 January 1998

letter, the 3 March 1998 ARRB memorandum actually confirms

the veracity of the earlier Agency statement.

Second, you assert that "The Agency"s inaccurate

statement about Mr. Joannides logically raises questions

about the agency's statement that it cannot locate any

written reports generated by him." Here, neither the

precondition for

the statement, nor the statement itself, is

accurate. Again, our 20 January letter provides the most

logical explanation for the absence of any written reports

on Mi. Joannides (i.e., AM/SPELL) and that is (a) the Agency

reduced funding for the DRE during this period and (b)

monthly reporting on the project "simply stopped" because of

this reduced involvement.

---

## Page 42

13-00000

And third, you raise the issue of the identity of

existence of "Howard."

As you note, "To Howard," was used

as an apparent addressee on certain

correspondence.

However, as specifically addressed in the 20 January 1998

memorandum, the name "Howard" could not be found in our

listings of registered pseudonyms or aliases and there is no

other evidence to suggest that "Howard" was an identity for

Joannides.

Moreover, so far as we can determine, "Howard"

is not the true name of any officer associated with the DRE

at the time the DRE documents were written. In no way did

J. Barry Harrelson that the man known to DRE as 'Howard'

George Joannides) was not an 'actual person' but

merely 'a routing indicator.'"

In sum, the one fact that

remains today is that we have insufficient evidence as to

who or what the word "Howard" represented and that is

exactly what the 20 January letter says.

In sum, a careful review of the correspondence cited in

your letter does not support an allegation that the Agency

has made "false or misleading statements to the ARRB about

these matters."

In fact, the records on these issues

establish quite clearly that the Agency was candid and

truthful, that the ARRB staff members had access to and

thoroughly reviewed all relevant information on the issues

you raised, and that the ARRB was satisfied with their

detailed review.

I trust that this information satisfies your concerns.

Sincerely,

James Rider

James R. Oliver

Chief, Historical

Review

Program

CC :

Mr. Britt Snider

---

## Page 43

13-00000

C/HRP/IRG/J. Oliver:blo/31287 (16 Feb 1999)

Irg/fo/general/lss/morely response.doc

Distribution:

Orig - Addressee

1 - Britt Snider (IG) 2X30 NHB

1 - Tom Crispell

PAO)

7C25 OHB

1

- C/HRP

1 - D/OIM

1 - DD/OIM

1

- HRP B. Harrelson

---

## Page 44

13-00000

UNCLASSIFIED

ADMINSTRATIVE_INTERNAL_USE_ONLY

From the Desk of James R. Oliver

Historical Review Program

(318057

NOTE FOR:

FROM:

Thomas G. Crispell@DCI

James R. Oliver

OFFICE:

DATE:

OIM

10/26/99 05:09:50 PM

SUBJECT: . ALERT: Call from Moriey, Washington Post

Tom, This is to confirm our telephone conversation of this afternoon.

We have been advised that Jefferson Morley, a staff writer for the Washington Post, phoned Michelle

Combs (an industrial contractor for OlM's 25 Year Declassification program) this morning, to discuss a

Memo for the Record that Ms. Combs had written when she was a staff officer with the JFK Assassination

Records Review Board.

Mr. Morley told Ms. Combs that he was writing an article for the Post (and

possibly for The New Yorker) that involved George Joannides, who was a case officer with JM/WAVE

assigned to work with a Cuban exile group, Revolutionary Student Directorate (DRE) in the 1961-64 time

frame. Ms. Combs responded that she no longer worked for the Board and was currently employed in

private industry. (We do not know if Mr. Morley knows that her contractor is working for the Agency's 25

year program). Mr. Morley offered to send her a draft of the article for her review. She said she would

get back to him after Wednesday afternoon to respond to his proposal and she then reported the phone

call to us.

We have indicated to her that she should gracefully decline the offer to critique the article.

She agreed to this.

You will recall that Mr. Morley wrote to Britt Snider last December asking several questions about Mr.

Joannides and the DRE and asserting that CIA was less than responsive to the Board's requests for

information. He cited two memoranda that had been released by the Board:

• a 20 January 1998 memo from Barry Harrelson to the Board explaining: (a) why there were no DRE

monthly operational reports in the Agency's files and (b) the unexplained references to an addressee,

•

a 3 March 1998 MFR from Ms Combs referencing information on Joannides. Mr. Morley alleged

"inaccurate statements" by CIA to the ARRB and the Post and asked for a briefing on "the CIA's

relationship with the DRE."

Our response, which was coordinated with O/Public Affairs, was provided to Mr. Morley on 18 February

1999 and addressed each of the major "inaccuracies" he alleged (basicly, he had misread the documents).

We did not offer a briefing.

As of this time we do not know what the theme of Mr. Morley's article(s) will be.

Jim O.

CC:

Richard J. Warshaw@DA

/ Gregory L: Moulton@DA

J. Barry Harrelson@DA

Sent on 26 October 1999 at 05:09:50 PM

UNCLASSIFIED

---

## Page 45

13-00000

12.1-99

O Why does he thunde his

got "false" infineatin?

Renin facts azan -

what one they; are me

wrong?

"marley"

---

## Page 46

13-00000

MU. OLJU

CIA SPECIAL COLLECTIONS

RELESB IN FULL

2000

TO: Tom Crispell, Mark Mansfield

FROM: Jefferson Morley (202) 334-6863

December 10,1999

At the suggestion of John Peredra, I would

like to have an on-the-record briefing on JFK

assassination-related documents concerning the.

late George Joannides, an Agengy employee fron

1951 to 1979. Bob Blakey has also expressed an

interest in such a briefing.

While I have no objection to taking portions

of our conversation off the record, I would hope

to at least geterom this briefing three

attributable statements in responge to these

questions.

•Fabian Escalante, a retired Cuban

intelligence official, has said that

members of the Revolutionary Student

Directorate (DRE) were involved in a

conspiracy to kill President Kennedy. At

the time of Kennedy's death, this group

received funding from the CIA. Does the

CIA have any comment on Escalante's

allegation? Will the CIA make public all

records referenced in answering this

---

## Page 47

13-00000

... Ge

question?

Will the Agency immediately account for

and make public its records pertaining to

George Joannides.and his actions with

regard to.the DRE, in 1963? Will it

innediately account for and make public

all records kept by Joannides during his

work with the HSCA in 1978?

• Nora Slatkin, executive director of the

CIA, affirmed in Sept. 1998 under oath

that the Agency had made public all of

Its assassination-related records.. Was

Ms. Slatkin aware of the story of George

Joannides at the time of her affadavit?

I look forward to hearing from you at your

earliest convenience.

•

---

## Page 48

13-00000

ADMINSTRATNELINESBIAL _USE_ONLY

From the Desk of J. Barry Harrelson

NOTE FOR:

Thomas G. Crispell@DCI

FROM:

J. Barry Harrelson

OFFICE:

OIM/HRP

DATE:

12/15/99 05:59:18 PM

SUBJECT:

Jeff Morley's request re Joannides

I talked with John Pereira; he did not suggest the Morley seek a briefing. Pereira will also give

Mark Mansfield a call. My recommendation is that we not give Morley a briefing. I suspect that he will not

be happy with our responses to his questions regardless of how presented. We are pulling the JFK files

on Joannides for reference purposes, however, the question on Joannides and the HSCA will require

some research. I will be out of the office on Thursday p.m. and Friday. If you have questions, please call

Sim Oliver (31805).

CC:

Gregory L. Moulion® DA

James R. Oliver@DA

William H. McNair@DO

Sent on 15 December 1999 at 05:59:18 PM

UNCLASSIFIED

---

## Page 49

13-00000

* ADMINSTRAENSLASHRIAL USE-ONLY

From the Desk of J. Barry Harrelson

NOTE FOR:

FROM:

OFFICE:

DATE:

SUBJECT:

James R. Oliver@DA

Eileen Wukitch@DA

J. Barry Harrelson

OIM/HRP

12/16/99 11:21:29 AM

Morley requests

A few points re Morley's questions - ok to share with Tom Crispell with caveat that I would like to

do some follow-up research before we prepare an official written response:

1. Fabian Excalante - I assume we would not comment on Escalante's statement as a matter of policy.

As for the DRE, the documents including DO files are available at NARA; most documents released in full

[Frank or Horace can give you specific re type files and number of document - - remember JFK is full of

duplicates documents, so number of hits will be greater than unique documents]. CIA funding is

acknowledged; no records on a "conspiracy to kill Kennedy" were located.

2. George Joannides -

a. all documents pertaining to Joannides and the DRE that were located in the JFK sequestered collection

and in our special searches were released; at the request of the ARRB four of Joannides' performance

appraisals covering 1962-64 were also released.

b. Joannides served as an assistant to Scott Breckinridge, the Agency's Principal Coordinator for the

HSCA investigation in 1978. A Memorandum on Joannides performance in that role was released at the

request of the ARRB. I am not aware of any records "kept by Joannides". It is unlikely, given his position,

that he would have kept a separate set of records. The ARRB staff had full access to the HSCA and

Breckinridge material that we located; no additional "Joannides" documents were identified.

[Note: Michelle Combs, formerly with the ARRB now a Raytheon contractor with the 25 year program, is

the expect on Joannides. Morley has contacted her in the past but may not be aware that we now works

on Agency projects]

all other documents determined by the ARRB to be assassination-related records were released.

CC:

{Gregory La: Moulton@DA

Sent on 16 December 1999 at 11:21:29 AM

UNCLASSIFIED

---

## Page 50

13-00000m

..sadded thortletphilairin.

CIA SPECIAL CO.

ECTIONS

RELEASE IN FULL

2000

20 January 1998

Memorandun FOI:

T. Jeremy Gunn

Executive DireCtOI.

=z=

Assassination Records Review Board

• From:

J. Barry Harrelson

Senior Reviewer

JFK• Project.

subject:

CIA-IR-21, Monthly Operational Reports

For the DRE

Reference is made to your request for subject

-infornation

further refined in your 18 December 1997

letter to Chief, Historical Review Group.

specifically, you

asked about missing DRE monthly operational reports and

identity of "Howard," the name to which the DRE appears to

have sent correspondence.

2.

The Agency has searched appropriate data bases and

"missing" reports.

In addition, the.

responsible offices have researched the questions contained

within your request. Based on these rather extensive.

efforts, we can advise you as follows.

Massing operational monthly repofts.

The searche"

conducted by the. Agency failed to locate any of the reporis

that appear to be "missing" - December 1962 through April

1964, In general, and those for august and November 1963 in

particud.ar.

It should be noted that during the period in

question, major palicy aifferences between the Agency and

DRE developed.

This was particularly true of the latter

years of association because the DRe would not take

directions or instructions about a number of operational

matters, insisting. on engaging in activities the Agency did

not sanction.

These differences caused the Agency •to reduce

the level of funding for, the DrE..

It also replaced the

officer designated to deal with the DrE.

sane time, the monthly operational reports trailed oft

about the

It

seems probable these events are linked and chat

reporting in

the form of such monthly reports simply stopped.

The DRE

files we did find are also within the sequestered JFK

collection and they have previously been made available co

ARRB staff member Manuel Legaspi.

1.

the identicy of "Howard.

with reference to your

reques: for information on "Howard," we, like you,

have no

clear understanding abour the use of this particular name on

---

## Page 51

13-00000

Lunas

{03

3219

DRe messages.

The phrase.

"To Howard" was used as the

addressee of several DRE prepared memoranda. We first

attempted to identify, 1f.

in fact, "Howard"

was an actual

person:

The name was not found to be a pseudonym.

It also

was not found to be a registered alias.

It also is nor the

true name of any case officer associated with the DRE

operation at the time the drE documents were written.

•Following review of those data bases. Knowledgeable case

officers were queried suggested that the use of "To Howard-

might have been nothing more than a routing indicator to

ensure that the documents got to the correct CIA

office/officer or that the sender was someone known to the

recipient.

If you have any further questions in this regard.

please advise.

P.

---

## Page 52

13-00000

uner,, 11.

isoo

JOLEA14

MEMORANDUM

March 3, 1998

To:

Jeremy Gunn

Executive Director

CIA HAS NO CRUBORION TO

GAITON

DECLASSI

RELEASE CU 0

IN THIS DOCUMENT

Cc:

From:

Bob Skwirot

CLA Tearn Leader

Michelle Combs Michelle Conta

Special Assistant for Research and Review

Subject:

CIA-IR-21 DRE Case Officer for December 1962 - April 1964

In response to ARRB's informal request for additional information and records,

CIA-IR-21, CIA provided access to the Office of Personnel file for Mr. George E.

Joannides. I have examined the personnel file for Mr. Joannides for the period 1961-64

and 1978-79. Mr. Joannides appears in documents in the CLA Sequestered Collection

under his pseudonym Walter D. Newby.

During the period December 1952 to April 1964, Mr. Joannides was assigned as a covert

action officer at JMWAVE, serving as deputy and then chief of the station's covert

action branch. During this time period; Mr. Joannides was the case officer for the

.. Cuban exile group Directorio Revolucionario Estudiantil (DRE). The descriptions of his

duties and accomplishments in the personnel file are very general and'contain no ..

specific reference to his relationship with the DRE. There is no mention of the

assassination of President John F. Kennedy in the file and no information relevant to the

assassination in the file. There is also no indication that Mr. Joannides may have used

or been known by the name "Howard" during his contacts with the DRE, although

personnel files typically would not reveal this information one way or another.

During the period mid-May 1978-January 1979, Mr. Joannides was assigned to work for

Scott Breckinridge, the CIA's principal coordinator to the House Select Committee on

Assassination (HSCA) as a focal person do keep track of the status of HSCA requests,

particularly to the Directorate of Operations. In this role, Mr. Joannides developed and

maintained a log and records of HISCA requests and CIA responses and handled the

day-to-day follow up to HSCA requests.

Several performance evaluation reports from the 1962-64 time period and a memoranda

from Scott Breckinridge on Mr. Joannides' duties during the 1978-1979 time frame were

designated assassination records and are being processed for release.

e: \combs \cia-ir21.wpd

File 4.20.1 and 4.20.4

---

## Page 53

13-00000

:3.wPcw..00636868300s0360..dss.ooot0xss/cxzW16aast2sakoa.dmasixhibth52k0533As2312

11.1JJJ

J. LLA188

Inspector General

(703) 874-2553

CIA SPECIAL COLLECTIONS

RELEASE IN FULL

2000

IG 1998-1532

11 December 1998

Mr. Jefferson Morley

Staff Writer.

The Washington Post

1150 15* Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C.

20071

Dear MI. Morley:

This will acknowledge receipt of your letter dated

3 December 1998, which posed several questions regarding the

CIA's handling of information under the JFK Assassination

Records Act.

Inasmuch as this Office does not have the information

you are seeking, I am taking the liberty of sending a copy

of your letter to the Office of Public Affairs as well' as

the office of Information Management for response.

Please give my regards to Scott Armstrong when you see

him.

Sincerely,

Butt Sir

Britt Snider

Distribution:

orig - oparessee

- OPA

1 - OIM

1 - IG Chrono

---

## Page 54

13-00000

LILLIA

1.4..

INSPECTOR GENERAL

1998-1531

3 December 1998

Mr. L. Britt Snider

General Counsel

Central Intelligence Agency

Washington, DC 20505

Dear Mr. Snider.

By way of introduction, my name is Jefferson Morley. I am a reporter for the

Washington Post. Our mutual friend Scott Armstrong suggested that I write to you for

clarification of certain issues related to ClA compliance with the JFK Assassination

Records Act.

As you know, the mandate of the Act was for "immediate disclosure" of all

documents related to the murder of President Kennedy, The purpose of the law was to

re-establish the credibility of goverment institutions in the face of widespread public

doubt and confusion about the events of November 1963. As you also know, the

number three official at the agency, in compliance with the Act, submitted a swom

statement that the Agency has made avallable all assassination-related records for

review by the JFK Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB).

The attached exchange of memoranda raises questions about the accuracy. of

the ClA's responses to the ARRB on a potentially important question.

At issue are the reporting and performance of George E. Joannides, a ClA case

officer stationed in Miaml In 1963 with responsibilities for a once-prominent Cuban exile

group known as the Revolutionary Student Directorate or DRE. The DRE was an anti-

Castro group whose members had a series of encounters with Lee Harvey Oswald 12

weeks before the Kennedy assassination. The DRE leaders were the very first people to

issue public statements after the assassination about Oswald's pro-Castro activities and

political convictions. A senlor official of the Castro govemment alleged in 1995 that the

DRE was involved in a conspiracy to kill President Kennedy.

The exchange of memoranda demonstrates that when the ARRB inquired last

winter about the identity of the CIA contact for the DRE, the Historical Review office

responded with inaccurate information: to wit, that no "actual person" was handling

contacts with the DRE in 1963. When I posed the same question on behalf of the

Washington Post to Tom Crispell of the ClA's public information office, I was also told

that the ClA had no records as to the identity of the DRE's case officer.

These statements are now shown to be false and misleading, in effect, if not

intent. As Ms. Combs' memo demonstrates, the DRE did have a case officer and that

the fact was recorded in Mr. Joannides' Office of Personnel file. Both the DRE and Mr.

Joannides were well known at JM/WAVE. The DRE, known by the cryptonym

AM/SPELL, was receiving $51,000 a month from the agency and Mr. Joannides was

reporting to Ted Shackley among others.

The agency's inaccurate statement about Mr. Joannides logically raises

questions about the agency's statement that it cannot locate any written reports

generated by him. Obviously "knowledgeable officers" who did not know of Mr.

Joannides' relationship with the DRE would not be well positioned to know of his

reporting on that relationship. Former colleagues tell me that Mir. Joannides'

professional duties on the AM/SPELL account would have included preparing contact

reports on his meetings with DRE leaders and filing monthly reports to his superiors.

Since Joannides had a reputation as a competent officer and since there is abundant

---

## Page 55

13-00000

evidence in CIA and DRE records that Joannides, using the pseudonym "Howard,"

received written communications from and about the DRE, the most reasonable

assumption (absent further explanation) is that he memorialized his activities in 1962-

1964.

If the ClA can find no such records in its files, the question of the disposition of

these records arises. If DRE-AM/SPELL files were destroyed according to procedure.

there should be a record of it. If they were not destroyed according to procedure, their

disposition needs to be accounted for under the spirit, if nof the leffer, of the JFK

Records Act.

My questions are as follows:

1) Why did the ClA make inaccurate statements last January to the ARRB and

the Washington Post about the DRE's case officer? What are the names of the

"knowledgeable officers" who informed J. Barry Harrelson that the man known to the

DRE as "Howard" (i.e. George Joannides) was not an "actual person" but merely *a

routing indicator?"

2) What is the ClA's explanation for the complete absence of reporting on the

DRE and Oswald from its extant files on the AM/SPELL operation? After the DRE made

public statements about Lee Harvey Oswald on November 22, 1963, what were Mr.

Joannides reporting obligations, if any, under the procedures and practices of the

Operations Directorate? Did Mir. Joannides, in the view of the Agency today, fulfill those

obligations in all respects?

3) Will the CIA provide a background briefing to me and a colleague to clarity

these and other questions arising from the documentation of the ClA's relationship with

the DRE in 1962-64 and from Mr. Joannides' role in the Agency's response to the HSCA

investigation in 1978-797

=•"=

The apparent fallure of the ClA to accurately disclose the activities of one of its

case officers in November 1963 to the JFK records review board is noteworthy. Public

confidence in the ClA's swor statements about its compliance with the JFK Records

Act depends on verification of those statements. If the Historical Review Office was

misinformed about Mir. Joannides and passed that inaccurate information to the public, it

behooves the agency to correct the error quickly and clarify all questions arising from its

original misstatements of fact.

I hank you for your attention to this matter.

Staff Writer

Washington Post

0) 202/334-6863

f) 202/3346138

Enclosure:

cc: Rick Atkinson

Scott Armstrong

---