Originator: HSCA
From: CIA
Document date: 1978-08-07 00:00:00
Document type: SUMMARY

# DOCID-32271380

## Page 1

JFK Assassination System

Identification Form

Agency Information

Date:

2/8/2016

AGENCY: HSCA

RECORD NUMBER:

180-10142-10076

• RECORD SERIES: CIA SEGREGATED COLLECTION

AGENCY FILE NUMBER : 23-03-01

Document Information

ORIGINATOR:

HSCA

FROM:

CIA

TO :

TITLE :

Released under the John F. Kennedy

Assassination Flecords Collection Act of

1992 (44 USC 2107 Note]. Case#:NW

56000 Date: 11-04-2021

DATE:

08/07/1978

PAGES:

12

SUBJECTS :

AMMUG

MEXICO CITY STATION

HIDALGO, BARNEY

DOCUMENT TYPE : SUMMARY

CLASSIPICATION : Unclassified

RESTRICTIONS: 1A; 1B

CURRENT STATUS :

Redact

DATE OF LAST REVIEW :

01/01/2003

OPENING CRITERIA:

COMMENIS :

Box 11

NW 66000 Docld:32271380 Page 1

---

## Page 2

7 August 1978

Sunmary of HSCA Interview of Balmes Nieves (Barney) Hidalgo at CIA

Headquarters, 28 July 1978, 10:00 A.M. Charles Berk and Dan

Hardway representing the HSCA.

On 28 July 1978 at 10:00 A.M. Charles Berk and Dan Hardway of the

House Select Committee on Assassinations conducted a three hour interview

at CIA Headquarters with Barney Nieves Hidalgo, Junior. Mr. Hidalgo was

provided with a copy of the CIA omnibus release letter prior to the

beginning of the interview. Upon reading the release letter, Mr. Hidalgo

stated that whatever Admiral Turner may seem to permit by the release letter's

wording, the letter did not release Mr. Hidalgo from his self-imposed

secrecy Standards. Mr. Hidalgo further stated that he had heard of such

a release letter in the press although he had not seen this specific release

letter prior to the interview.

Mr. Berk explained to Mr. Hidalgo that whatever was discussed during

the interview would be treated as confidential information. Nevertheless,

Mr. Hidalgo replied that he might not respond to the questions asked of

him. At this point Mr. Hidalgo was asked if he had discussed this inter-

view session with anyone prior to the beginning of the interview. Mr.

Hidalgo said that he had not discussed the interview with anyone other

than the CIA's contacting him in order to arrange a time and aplace for the

interziew.

Mr. Hidalgo stated that he has no present connection with the CIA

haveing retired from the Agency in 1970.

When queried whether he is

presently employed, Mr. Hidalgo would not respond to the question. He

also would not provide his current address when requested to do so by :

Mr. Berk.

NW 66000 Docld:32271380 Page 2

---

## Page 3

page 2--Hidalgo interview.

Mr. Hidalgo indicated that at the time of President Kennedy's

assassination, he was a CIA case officer working at Agency Headquarters

on Cuba related matters. When asked to identify his specific responsi-

bilities as a case officer, Mr. Hidalgo responded that he had no specific

responsibilities. Rather, he said that he was assigned to various Agency

components on a day to day basis, traveling at the discretion of his

supervisors. He related that he had been of use to Agency components

concerned with foreign intelligence, counter-intelligence, and propoganda

and psychological warfare. Moreover, Mr. Hidalgo did indicate that his

work had taken him to Mexico during the years 1963-1964. Mr. Hidalgo

refused to be more specific about his activities in Mexico.

Mr. Hidalgo explained that he had worked at times specifically on

Cuba-related matters. In this regard, Mr. Hidalgo declared that he had

been involved in the Bay of Pigs operation as the counter-intelligence

officer for the Brigade He stated that his work was both in the field

and at Headquarters. He stated that he had been indirectly responsible

for Brigade 2506. He stated the 2506 designation represented the sixth

person he had interrogated and cleared for operational use in the Brigade.

2506 had subsequently met an unexpected death resulting in his operational

designation being adopted by the Brigade as its name. It was Mr. Hidalgo's

belief that the Castro government had effected one penetration against

the Brigade. However, though once known to him, he could not recall the

name of the penetration agent. Mr. Hidalgo said that the invasion site

was changed because this agent had found out the information about the

original site.

Mr. Hidalgo stated that in his work for the Agency, he had traveled

to both New Orleans and Miami. He stated that he often used New Orleans

NW 66000 Docld:32271380 Page 3

---

## Page 4

page 3--Hidalgo interview.

as a transfer point. However, he said this work had little to do with

the Bay of Pigs activities. Rather, these trips involved the handling of

a CIA agent who had been in the Cuban Intelligence Service (DGI) .

Mr. Hidalgo recalled that during his CIA career he had succesfully

developed expertises in a number of operational procedures. When asked

if his expertise included interrogation and surreptitious entry, Mr. Hidalgo

would not give a direct response. He explained that he would not answer

a question if he believed his answer would threaten the lives of otheres

or: would endanger the national security.

When asked to define what made him successful at his various CIA

endeavors Mr. Hidalgo replied that his success was measured by the fact that

he was never caught. He further remarked that if we thought Espionage is

a gentleman's game we are wrong; it is not a gentleman's game.

Mr. Hidalgo was queried whether he recalled the CIA cryptonym "AMMUG/1" .

He stated that the cryptonym was familiar to him. He further stated that

he recalled AMMUG/1 defected from the DGI to the CIA in April 1964. At

this time Mr. Hidalgo was shown DIR 16369, 23 April 1964, a CIA cable

describing AMMUG/1's defection in Canada while enroute to Prague, Czech-

oslovakia. This cable indicated that AMMUG/1 was knowledgeable of DGI

operations and personnel. After reviewing this cable, Mr. Hidalgo was

asked to assess the significance of AMMÜG/1's defection to the CIA. Mr.

Hidalgo refused to answer this question. (Iwo hours later in the inter-

view, this qusetion was again posed to Mr. Hidalgo. He then responded

that AMMUG/1's defection was of great significance to the Agéncy. How-

ever; he would not further elaborate.)

Mr. Hidalgo did state that he

was not sent to Canada to bring AMMUG/1 back to the United States. That

NW 66000 Docld:32271380 Page 4

---

## Page 5

•

page 4.--Hidalgo Interview.

task was handled by Harold Swenson, Chief WH/SA/CI, Hidalgo's immediate

superior.

Mr. Hidalgo refused to provide any information about Mr. Swenson's

present whereabouts to the HSCA staffers.

Mr. Hidalgo was asked to describe Mr. Swenson's relationship with

AMMUG/1. He responded that it would be best to ask Mr. Swenson that

question. Mr. Hidalgo was also asked to describe the relationships of

Daniel Flores and Joseph Piccolo (both CIA case officers who handled

AMMUG/ 1) to AMMUG/1. Once again, Mr. Hidalgo deferred to Swenson for an

answer to this question.

Mr. Hidalgo was next asked what specific information AMMUG/1 provided

the CIA concerning Lee Harvey Oswald.j Mr. Hidalgo replied that he would

rather not answer that question. Mr. Hidalgo was then asked if he knew

whether Mi. Swenson had tape recorded his debriefing sessions of AMMUG/1

while in Canada. Mr. Hidalgo stated that this would have been standard

operating procedure in a case of this kind. However, he said that he

could not recall whether he had listened to the above referenced tape

recordings or had read the transcripts of the debriefing sessions.

Mr. Hidalgo was next queried about when he first learned of AMMUG/1's

deffection.

He indicated that he first became aware of AMMUG/1's defec-

tion when he read the cable which described the defection on 23 April

1964 was circulated through the CIA Headquarters. Mr. Hidalgo said that

hsi first personal contact with AMMUG/1 took place after AMMUG/1 was

transported to Washington, D.C. during the last week of April 1964.

Mr. Hidalgo stated that he debriefed AMMUG/1 (Hereinafter "A-1".) during

A-I's residence in Washington which he believed to have been for approx-

imately six months.

NW 66000 Docld:32271380 Page 5

---

## Page 6

page 5--Hidaldo interview.

Mr. Hidalgo refused to describe the operational uses to which A-1

was put by the CIA. Mr. Hidalgo also pointed out that as of November 2,

1964, he no longer maintained operational contact with A-l.

Mr. Hidalgo was asked to examine OTTA IN 68894, 24 April 1964, a

CIA cable from the Ottawa, Canada, station which provided additional

information on A-1 and his knowledge of the DGI. This cable identified

certain DGI officers stationed at the Cuban Embassy and Consulate in

Mexico City. Mr. Hidalgo stated that he had reviewed the above-referenced

cable upon its receipt at CIA headquarters. Mr. Hidalgo refused to identify

the cable's author nor would he provide any information on the DGI officers

named on page 2, paragraph E, of the cable. Mr. Hidalgo declared he "just

knew what the Agency knew at the time." He stated that he had no personal

knowledge of the persons cited therein. At this point Mr. Hidalgo weakend

his previous position as to his knowledge by stating that he was aware in

1964 of the DGI status of the two persons referred to, Alfredo Mirabal

and Manuel Vega. He stated that he probably knew what their specific

responsibilities were when the cable was disseminated but that he could not

presently recall this information.

Mr. Hidalgo was then referred to page 3, paragraph 6, of the Ottawa

cable wherein it states that A-1 had brought out DGI documents from Cuba

upon his defection. Mr. Hidalgo was asked if any of thes DGI documents

referred to or concerned Lee Harvey Oswald or the JFK assassination. H

responded that he had not reviewed all these documents but that those he

did review did not refer to Lee Harvey Oswald or the JFK assassination.

He did indicate, however, that the subject matter of these documents may

hve been of interest to Oswald's case or the JFK assassination. Mr. Hi-

dalgo once again deferred to Mr. Swenson when asked to elaborate on this point.

NW 66000 Docld:32271380 Page 6

---

## Page 7

page 6--Hidalgo interview.

Mr. Hidalgo next examined an 8 May 1964 CIA Memorandum entitled:

"AMMUG/1 Debriefing Report # 65", which detailed DGI responsibility for

issuance of visas to persons seeking entry into Cuba. Mr. Hidalgo did

confirm that Mr. Swenson had written the above-referenced memo and that

the memo was an accurate sunmary of then available information.

In reference to the DGI visa issuance procedure, Mr. Hidalgo stated

that a would be traveler to Cuba when seeking a visa at the Cuban Consulate

would not necessarily have been in personal contact with a DGI officer.

The GI officer, however, would have been made aware of the traveler's

presence due to GI interest in all travelers to Cuba. He further stated

that a DGI officer would have reviewed all visa applications.

Mr. Hidalgo could not recall if any specific word such as "Mauricio"

was used in Mexico by visa applicants to indicate their affiliation with

Cuban Intelligence.

When askedtA-1 had reported which DGI officer Lee Harvey Oswald

had dealt with in Mexico City, Mr. Hidalgo would not answer. Mr. Hidalgo

also would not answer if he had been stationed in Mexico. He did

state that he had been in Mexico prior to 1965, probably during 1963, but

not during September or October of that year.

M. Hidalgod was asked whether while in Mexico he knew either win

Scott or David Phillips. He responded in the negative and stated that

Win Scott may in fact have been unaware of Mr. Hidalgo's presence in

Mexico City because MI. Hidalgo never went near an American installation

in that city. He further stated that he did know Scott and Phillips and

had been involved in operations with them. Mr. Hidalgo explained that

he had contact with the Cuban Embassy in Mexico City but not to their

NW 66000 Docld:32271380 Page 7

---

## Page 8

page 7--Hidalgo interview.

knowledge. When asked if this meant that he was running penetration

agents into the Cuban Embassy Hidalgo refused to answer. When asked if

this meant that he had done a surreptitous entry into the Cuban Embassy

he also refused to answer. Mr. Hidalgo did state that while in Mexico

he had been in contact with the Mexican federal police on one occassion.

Mr. Hidalgo was asked whether he knew Maurice Bishop. He responded

affirmatively but indicated he did not know him as well as either win

Scott or David Phillips. Mr. Hidalgo said he became acquainted with Mr.

Bishop at CIA headquarters.

He stated that he did not know Mr. Bishop's

Agency responsibilities nor had he worked with Mr. Bishop.) Rather, he

explained that he knew Mr. Bishop as just another person who worked at

CIA Headquarters.

Mr. Hidalgo indicated that he knew Mr. E. Howard Hunt

in much the same manner as he knew Mr. Bishop. However, when Mr. Hardway

continued to question Mr. Hidalgo about Mr. Hunt, Mr. Hidalgo countered

by asking why the subject of Mr. Hunt Rud been brought up. He declared

that the HSCA was "spinning its wheels" if it was investigating Mr. Hunt.

At this point Mr. Hardway queried Mr. Hidalgo on his knowledge of the

following persons:

1) The true name of Daniel Carswell--He said he knew Mr. Carswell but

would not discuss him;

2) Silvia Duran--Mr. Hidalgo said "sure do (know her) but I sure don't

want to discuss it". He did state that he had had indirect contact with

Ms. Duran but doesn't recall when this indirect contact occured. He

explained that he had received information concerning Silvia Duran from

a CIA agent in Mexico.

Mr, Hidalgo said he put this information into report

form. The CIA agent was a woman who maintained direct contact with the

NW 66000 Docld:32271380 Page 8

---

## Page 9

page 8--Hidalgo interview.

Mexican Conmunist Party. Mr. Hidalgo stated that it was his understanding

that this woman regularly reported on Duran. This woman, Mr. Hidalgo stated,

was a close associate of Silvia Duran's. It was his belief that this

agent had not worked in the Cuban Embassy in Mexico City. When asked to

reveal the agent's name, Mr. Hidalgo responed that he could not recall the

name. He did remember that the agent's Mexico City Station case officer

had a hair lip and spoke with a lisp. When asked if this person was

Robert Shaw, Mr. Hidalgo responded that it might have been Mr. Shaw;

3) William Harvey--Mr. Hidalgo stated that he was acquainted with Mr.

Harvey. Mr. Hidalgo stated that he had been involved in operations with

Harvey, but that he had never heard of "ZR" or "ZRRIFLE". The details of

the operational cover of "ZRRIFLE" were sketched for Mr. Hidalgo by Mr.

Hardway. When asked if he had ever been involved in anything of that

nature Mr. Hidalgo responded that there was no way that he would talk

about something like that;

4) Exank Sturgis--Mr. Hidalgo knew of Mr. Sturgis, but had no personal

contact with him;

5) Tony Varona--Mr. Hidalgo knew of MI. Varona as the result of past oper-

ational contact.

Mr. Hidalgo was next asked to examine an A-1 CIA debriefing report

of 30 April 1964. This debriefing report identifies Alfredo Mirabal,

Manuel Vega, and Ricardo Concepcion as DGI officers at he Cuban Embassy

and Consulate in Mexico City. After examining the report, Mr. Hidalgo

reiterated that he had no personal knowledge of these persons. He did

state that he had previously seen the debriefing report, a verbatim trans-

lation from Spanish which Mr. Hidalgo had himself translated.

Mr. Hidalgo was questioned concerning a polygraph test administered

NW 66000 Docld:32271380 Page 9

---

## Page 10

page 9--Hidalgo Interview.

to A-1 on or about 11 May 1964. Mr. Hidalgo said that he was not

present during administration of the polygraph but that Mr. Swenson

and the polygraph operator were present. Mr. Hidalgo did recall reading

the results of the polygraph but did not recall whether Lee Harvey Oswald

was discussed. It was his belief, however, that Oswald would have been

discussed because of the length of the polygraph session. Mr. Hidalgo

also stated that he believes John Whitten, C/WH/3, would have been given

access to the polygraph results on a need to know basis.

Mr. Hidalgo was again asked to describe the information which A-1

provided concerning Lee Harvey Oswald. Mr. Hidalgo again deferred to Mr.

Swenson for such information. In an effort to refresh his recollection,

Mr. Hidalgo was asked to examine a 5 May 1964 CIA blind memo prepared

by Mr. Swenson. This memorandum in summary fashion set forth A-l's

knowledge about Lee Harvey Oswald and the JFK assassination. Mr. Hidalgo

remarked that he may have seen the memorandum previously. He stated that

he did not know who wrote. the memorandum but was confident of its accuracy.

He stated that he did not recall reading any other reports similar to

this one and did not know if any other reports of thsi kind had been

prepared. (In fact, such reports were subsequently prepared.)

Mr. Hidalgo was next shown a CIA dispatch, OCOA 7763, I May 1964,

indicating that twenty-two reels of tape recorded debriefing sessions

of A-1 while in Canada were being forwarded to Chief, Special Affairs

Staff, from the Chief of Station, Ottaw. Mr. Hidalgo indicated that he

had seen some of these reels. However, he said he did not know the

Agency filing procedures for such tape recordings. He further stated

he did not recall seeing the English translations of these reels.

NW 66000 Docld:32271380 Page 10

---

## Page 11

page 10--Hidalgo interview.

Mr. Hidalgo was next shown a 17 July 1964 CIA contact report of a

meeting with A-1, written by Joseph Piccolo. The report identified Mr.

Hidalgo as being present at the meeting along with another CIA agent,

AMNIP/1. The report reveals that AMMUG/1 and AMNIP/1 had been shown

a "Cuban mugbook" in order to identify various Cuban Intelligence Service

officers

and diplomats. Mr. Hidalgo stated that the report was accurate.

When asked to identify AMNIP/1 Mr. Hidalgo refused. He explained that

AMNIP/1 was also a DGI officer but that he had died at age 28 of an

apparent heart attack. AMNIP/I had no history of heart disease, however,

and Mr. Hidalgo evidenced the belief that AMNIP/l's death was fashioned

by sinister hands.

Mr. Hidalgo further related that he could not recall whether a

photograph of a red-haired negro had been shown to either AMMUG/1 or AMNIP/1

during the session. He also said that he did not know how such a report

would have been filed. He did not deal with filing procedure. When he

could show that he needed a certain file a girl brought it to him. That's

all he knows about filing.

Mr. Hidalgo was next shown a 9 April 1971 CIA contact report from

Eustace D. Kloock indicating that AMMUG/1 had again been shown the "Cuban

mugbook" and had identified various Cuban personalities. At p. 3, the 8th

name from the top of the referenced contact report, Mr. Hidalgo was asked

if the name Andre Nicolas Aroma Ramos was familiar to him. He replied

in the negative. He did recall, however, hearing the pseudonym "Ernesto"

used in relation to DGI personnel in Mexico City.

In response to the question of whether he had known AMIASH/1 or ever

acted as AMIASH/1's case officer, Mr. Hidalgo replied in the negative.

When asked the same questions about AMROD his response was the same.

NW 66000 Docld:32271380 Page 11

---

## Page 12

page 11--Hidalgo interview.

When asked his opinion of the DGI he characterized them as sinister,

capable of any action, and stated that he knows that Castro had CIA agents

executed.

Mr. Hidalgo implied that AMNIP/l's death had been at the hands

of Castro!'s agents.

Mr. Hidalgo was next shown a CIA document entitled "Information from

AMMUG/1 on Agents", 21 August 1964, unsigned. The document discusses

use of foreign organizations by the Cuban Intelligence Sevice for recruit-

ment of agents. Mr. Hidalgo was asked whether the FPCC had ever been a

front organization for the DGI. Mr. Hidalgo said he believed this to be i!

the case but this. was only a belief on his part.

Mr. Hidalgo was next asked about his knowledge of Gilberto Policarpo

Lopez. Mr. Hidalgo responded that he recognized the name but had no other

memory of the man.

He stated he did not know whether Policarpo was ever

associated with the Agency.

Mr. Hidalgo was also asked if he knew Antonio Veciana. The response

was negative. He was asked if the name was at all familiar. His response

again was negative. Mr. Higalgo did say that the name "Sam Kail" was

familiar but he did not have any other memory associated with it.

Mr. Hidalgo was next shown a CIA report # EE390, 28 June 1963 written

by Carlos Blanco. Mr. Hidalgo could not identify Blanco. Blanco's report

made reverence to Teresa Proenza. Hidalgo commented that he name "rings

a bell" but he could recall nothing more. He also stated that the name

Luisa Calderon, cited .on p. 3 of the above-referenced report, was familiar

to him but he knew no more about her than indicated by the short description

set forth therein. Mr. Hidalgo was then asked if he could identify what

a "Black Tape" 201 file is. Mr. Hidalgo said he could not recall that

type of file.

NW 66000 Docld:32271380 Page 12

---

## Page 13

page 12--Hidalgo interview.

Mr. Hidalgo was next shown a CIA Memo for the Record, LX-2467,

11 March 1965, providing information on Luisa Rodriguez Calderon, and

based on a debreifing of A-l. Mr. Hidalgo stated he was not familiar

with the document. He further stated that he had never seen the

transcript of Calderon's 22 November 1963 conversation intercepted by

the CIA in Mexico City. He explained that when this report was written

he was no longer working on Cuba-related assignments.

Mr. Hidalgo was next shown CIA dispatch EGOW-4675, 15 June 1966,

which indicates that A-1 debriefing information was being forwarded by

a "split transmittal". Mr. Hidalgo could provide no information on the

meaning or routing of this dispatch.

Finally Mr. Hidalgo was asked about his knowledge of June Cobb,

an alleged CIA and FBI informant in Mexico City circa 1963. Mr. Hidalgo

stated that Cobb's CIA case officer was a woman he could describe but

he prefered not to. The interview was concluded at 1:00 P.M.

Hidalgo was asked whether he would consent to be interviewed again

by HSCA staff. He responded affirmatively but indicated that his position

in answering HSCA questions would remain unchanged.

---

NW 66000 Docld:32271380 Page 13

---