CIA COMMENTS ON A DRAFT REPORT ENTITLED 'CUBAN AMERICAN'.
Originator: CIA
From: BRECKINRIDGE, S.D. (CIA)
To: BLAKEY, G. ROBERT (HSCA DIRECTOR)
Document date: 02/13/1979
Document type: PAPER - TEXTUAL DOCUMENT

## Page 1

nassa

1104-10067-10248

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

RETURN TO CIA

Background Use Only

• Do Not Reproduce

Legislative Counsel

THE DIRECTOR OF CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20505

OLC 79-0113/c

13 February 1979

Mr. G. Robert Blakey

Chief Counsel

and Director

Select Committee on Assassinations

House of Representatives

Washington, D.C.

20515

Dear Mr. Blakey:

Forwarded herewith are comments on draft reports forwarded by

you recently.

The section titled Cuban-American presents

questions that require more detailed review and will be the subject

of later comments.

If comments we make are adopted, we agree with

unclassified publication. (U)

Oswald, Was He or Was He Not, a CIA Agent?

It is understood that this is intended for unclassified publication,

comments will relate to security and accuracy. (U)

Page 2.: The HSCA investigators did not review the "CIA's

144-volume Oswald File."

They did read 19 volumes of the CI Staff

57-volume Oswald file.

There were another 87 so-called "bulky" files

in the CI Staff Oswald file, of which 16 have been reviewed.

seven volumes held by the Office of Security, four were reviewed and

part of a fifth.

If FOIA materials released

by the Agency were read

elsewhere, it still would not constitute the

same thing

because of

sanitization, in addition to which the organization of the files would

be missed. Whatever was read, as

stated it is incorrect.

The statement "nor was there always an independent

means of verification that all materials requested by the Agency were,

in fact, provided," leaves the gratuitous inference that there may have

been some withholding.

If there were files in the Agency that were not

made available,

it simply would have been because they could not be found

in response to the less than effective manner in which some materials

were requested. In any event, before the above statement in the draft

can honestly be made, it would have been necessary for the HSCA

investigators to have read all the materials made available to them.

They did not.

It is estimated that some 20% of the files made available

for HSCA investigators were not reviewed; some of those are very

voluminous. (U)

DERIVATIVEOLBY I

1. DECL 21231WC0.2121

006402

---

## Page 2

14-00000

MAxi

The reference to "institutional obstacles," must be

stated in the context of security standards.

Once the Committee

accepted the Agency's standards

the only remaining problem was one

of relevance (under first sentence of the agreement between Chairman

Stokes and the DCI dated 19 August 1977), and the ability of the

HSCA investigators to explain what they wanted. (U)

Same page.

It would be appreciated if the report did not state that

'the vast majority of CIA files made available...were reviewed

insanitized form.

While a majority of the files made available were

reviewed, and the great majority of these were unsanitized, we would

prefer not to have it advertised, even if it contributed to the credibility

of the Committee's report. (C)

Page 7, continuing

to middle of page 8. New phraseology to

remove operational detail: (U)

"To investigate this matter further, the Committee

interviewed those officers who had been chiefs and/or

deputy chiefs of units within the Soviet Russian Division

during 1959-61, and who had been responsible for clandestine

activities.

The heads of the clandestine activity section

stated that, because of his obvious instability, Oswald would

never have met the Agency's standards for use in this field." (U)

Page 8..

First footnote. This discussion should be deleted

because of its explicit reference to details of the legal traveler

However, if some reference is necessary, the following

language is suggested: (U)

"The practice at that time of seeking cooperation of

selected foreign visitors to the USSR for limited purposes,

involved approaching them prior to their trip.

As Oswald

were checked by the Conmittee."

went to the Soviet Union in 1959, onty the years 1959-62

Second footnote.

Suggested correction of phrasing.

"claims to believe,

as distinguished from

"acknowledges" the

possibility of a "vest pocket" operation known to no one.

That such

an operation might be conducted, known to but one or two, would be possible

only if not in behalf of the Agency.

The HSCA investigators have had

explained to them,

in extenso, the variety of cross checks and controls,

administrative, financial and operational, that work against such a secret

operation.

If someone--as could any member of the HSCA staff, for that

matter--wishes to conduct a private operation of some sort, one would

have to accept in theory the possibility.

But it would be

no more of

2

---

## Page 3

14-00000

VORREZACAL

a CIA operation, in one instance than the other.

cited as the basis for the suspicion of HSCA investigators 1s citec

selectively and out of

There is substantial significance.

expecially in the present context, that the activity they have in

mind was not run the way that they depict it.

At some point one would assume that supporting evidence would have

presented,

or theorized remote possibilities must be dropped or

severely qualified. (U)

Page 9. Top two lines should be rephrased as follows to avoid

specific reference to the legal traveler program: (C)

•..Soviet Russia Division's section which sought the

cooperation of visitors to the Soviet Union...."

(U)

First complete sentence, stating "(t)hese Agency

officials...." should be deleted.

It could serve to focus Soviet

operational attention on "clean-cut college graduates," who might visit

the USSR from the U.S.

In any event, it is incorrect; undergraduates

as well as graduates agreed to cooperate when this program was in effect,

as well as non-college types.

Reference by Agency witnesses probably

were made as illustrative rather than in the literal sense

• by HSCA investigators. (C)

Page 10, ff. It seems that Wilcott hardly merits the space devoted

to his allegations.

The Committee itself has discredited his testimony

and to further serve his propaganda aims is questionable.

In any event,

his location in dapan.dreveals a post that has not been acknowledged by

the U.s. or the Japanese governments, and further publicity

could have

political repercussions. It provides the opportunity

to have Wilcott

speak with apparent authority and credibility as to his work.

includes his claim to having

"unknowingly disbursed payments for Oswald's

protect urine after stand ella he is haves a the not pled in

the draft). But the allegation of other oparational disbursements there

could prove troublesome in a number of ways.

It serves no purpose and we

believe should be deleted. (C)

If some reference seems necessary, it is suggested that naming of

Wilcott be replaced by reference to an unnamed former employee who served

at an unnamed foreign post.

This would, of course, necessitate other

deletions.

Lee Harvey Oswald's CIA File

Page 15. Bottom line.

The phrase "...bringing all of the CIA's

information pertaining to that...

is incorrect.

Not all papers will

be in such a file; some will be held elsewhere on occasion.

The phrase

---

## Page 4

14-00000

should read "

that....

" (ui' Consolidating certain CIA information pertaining to

Page 16: Top line.

In line with the foregoing

correction, this

... individual into one folder belonging

to the Directorate

of Operations,...." (U)

Third line, second paragraph. The file was opened

"purportedly" because of counterintelligence consideration.

been belabored elsewhere in the drafts. Yes, he did meet the criteria

for constituting a possible CI threat, so it was permissible to open

a file on him if it appeared desirable.

The Committee has been advised

of the primarily administrative reasons that, joined with other

considerations, led to the actual opening of the file.

Further, the Com-

mittee is aware of only one--not "at least" one--instance where concealed

files were contemplated (is the phrase "forged documents" literally correct?).

In any event, the fact remains,

the thought was not implemented (1) because

minimum records were all

that were necessary in that case (although

records were kept), and (2) an official agency operation requires some

basic documentation, as noted elsewhere. (U)

Page 17.

Footnote.

The cited missing document (Third Agency--

naval--documents) are in the file, and were there when reviewed by HSCA

investigators. This is detailed elsewhere.

Why was the file opened...a year after his attempt to defect?

Reiterating explanations given elsewhere, there

was no requirement

to open a file. The judgment of the officer in question controlled.

(U)

Page 18.

Top of page.

While the cable could provide a proper basis

for opening a file, if there was reason for doing so in the absence of a

reguirement to do so, it was also quite proper to have decided against

doing so.

It tends to boil down to a matter of proper judgment then,

against what a novitiate might think 20 years later, because Oswald killed

the President.

The basic consideration is that there was no requirement

to open files; the administrative objective is to hold down the number of

201 files.

There had to be a reason as well as there being information

meeting the criteria that constituted a threshhold for whether one was

even permitted to open such a file.

(See comments on draft

2000589-2000590, Issua A - #2, Opening of Lee Harvey Oswald's file.) (U)

Page 19.

At the time mentioned, the organization was the Directorate

of Plans, not the "DDO."

4

006402

---

## Page 5

14-00000

Suggest the sentence end with the date of opening of

the file, 9 December 1960.

The immediate cause of opening the file on

Oswald was the administrative action arising from a State Department

That preceded his queries about "reentry into the United

inquiry, While the memorandum is quoted correctly, the memorandum is

incorrect. (U)

Page 20. The opening form provided only a space for citing a

"source document."

It was customary to refer to an organization, when the

opening action was taken on its authority, as in this case. (U)

Page 21. Presumably the reference meant to say "State Department

files."

Page 22. A "seemingly long delay" would seem so only to those not

familiar with the procedure for opening 201 files.

Perhaps the HSCA

investigators feel in some way that there should have been a requirement,

but there was not, and there should not be.

The implicit criticism

reflects a continued failure to grasp this operation. (U)

Has the draft erred in using the name

"Lee Henry Oswald"

at the end of the first paragraph?

Did the author not mean that had

records on Oswald been sought in his correct name,

Lee Harvey Oswald,

it still would have been found although indexed under Lee Henry Oswald? (U)

The letters-"AG" on the opening sheet of the Oswald 201 file

Page 25 ff. The draft emphasizes the memory of the witness (a man

with quite a good memory on many things).

Unfortunately, his memory

betrays him on the timing of the institution of the

"AG" symbol.

Agency

records show that it was in use prior to the assassination of President

Kennedy.

Perhaps the witness recalls it coming to his attention during

the investigation and now believes that it was developed then, but the

records show his present recollection on this detail to be in

Part of the problem with this write-up is that the investigators sought

the answers from people years after the fact rather than asking officially;

when an official request finally was made, the answer was readily available.

The effect of that lost time is reflected in the long treatment of a

non-issue.

(U)

Page 26.

Rather than referring to "its records handbook," it would

be preferred if the phrase "a records manual" were substituted. (U)

Was there a dual filing system on Oswald?

Page 29. Second paragraph. The words "changed" and "change" should

be "charged" and "charge.

The meaning is significantly varied by this

error. The basic operation has to do with the practice of desk or case

5

---

## Page 6

14-00000

officers to hold some files. Their possession of the file is recorded

centrally, i.e.,

it is "charged" to them.

This records accountability

procedure is one of the considerations central to an understanding why

fake" files are

not possible on an official Agency operation.

not understanding

it might consider the central

"charge" record to be

an indication of

"duplicate" files.

In any event, there would always

be the indexed

(but not consolidated) general files, but

"duplicate files"

in the sense of

concealment is. an incorrect

characterization; such a

characterization would,

again, reflect basic misunderstandings.

hypothetical premise is in error.

Were 37 documents missing....?

Page 30-31.

Delete sentence at bottom of page 30 and top of page

31.

It refers to a classified document. (C)

Bottom of page.

The statement of what the Committee

aware of from its outset" about a dual filing system, betrays a

preconception rather than a fact.

"This awareness (sic) was heightened

into concern" by the rough notes when the ZRRIFLE program was in its first

planning stage.

That someone considered such a thing--and clearly did not

employ it--demonstrates only that such a thing was considered

It does not mean that it could have been done successfully.

A reference file has to be held in the central filing system, and it will

tell where the full file is (see above comments). There can be no official

operation without a record file.

The key consideration, if evidence is

of any concern to the Committee, is not that Harvey thought about it, but

that he did not do it.

Why? Because he could not. A lot is draped

the unimplemented ZRRIFLE notes,

and extrapolative speculation covers the

lack of supporting evidence.

This was commented on in a previous letter

to you from me dated 27 September 1978. (U)

Page 33.

Top of page.

There seems to be an editorial error, in

reference is made to

"an Agency relationship with the CIA."

context is not clear enough to reveal what is intended. (U)

Page 38.

Footnote*.

There were not "50" communications in the

folder. There were 30, and some of these were not relevant to Oswald. (U)

It is not at all clear why reference to Oswald

file would "raise a

sort of CI project „question of whether he was, in fact, involved in some

Perhaps because the reviewer did not understand.

Having asked the question, it appears that there is a compulsion to write

about it. (U)

Page 42. Delete reference to retired employee as "under cover."

(C)

6

---

## Page 7

14-00000

Page 43.

Please describe Mrs. Egerter by position in lieu of using

her name.

"The CI Staff officer who opened the Oswald 201 file."

(C)

Request omit specific reference to "legal travelers

While the program is inactive at present, it may be activated

It is an intelligence method, and publicity

on the concept would jeopardize those who may particate in the future.

Page 48.

The reference to "the CIA's New York field office"

should

be changed to "a CIA field office." (C)

Page 59. Request that the last sentence in the paragraph ending in

the middle of the page end after "Joint Press Reading Service," and

that the rest of the sentence be deleted. It represents a working

relationship with liaison services. (C)

Same page.

Request that second sentence, next paragraph, "is Solely

"(t)he application was withdrawn," the next sentence starting

acknowledged being debriefed by an Agency employee, etc. etc.

should be no reference to her being denied a security clearance. (C)

Footnote.

Delete reference to "Donald Jameson or James

MacDonald" and the two places where

"Mr. Jameson" appear elsewhere in

the same footnote.

This can be handled by ending the first sentence

with "C.I.A. employee," deleting the remainder of that sentence, and

substituting the phrase "the person interviewing her," where the name

"Mr. Jameson" appears.

(C)

Page 61. The legal traveler phraseology problem noted earlier.

The last sentence in

the first paragraph ending on that page might be

better phrased as follows: (U)

"An interview with the former Agency official

responsible for seeking cooperation of selected visitors to the

soviet Union during the years 1958-1961, confirmed that Ms.

McMillan had not been used by the CIA."

Page 65. Delete "at Harvard University," and change next line

to read "of his access to others who might be going to the...

merely tells the story while generalizing the specific operational

activity.

(C)

Page 66.

The two complete sentences at the top of the page

should be rewritten to avoid mention of cover arrangements, per se,

with the Department of Stater The following language is suggested: (C)

32

7

006 402

---

## Page 8

14-00000

"Moreover, he added that Snyder went to

the State

Department as a bona fide employee.

This information was

confirmed by a former State Department official

familiar with

procedures for State Department relationships with CIA employees. " (U)

Following

the statement about Dr. Davison's expulsion

from the USSR, end the sentence with a period after

...from the Soviet

Union."

The next sentence would commence,

"(a)fter the assassination

" This refers to a specific operation that retains certain CI

considerations. (C)

Pages 69-71.

Request deletion of all paragraph starting or

page 70 with

"Davison admitted his involvement,

as well as the

paragraph starting the next page with "(a)ccording to his instructions..."

and the paragraph starting

on page 72 with "Davison denied participating in

any other intelligence activity....

The last paragraph on page 72

could stand as written, with deletion for editorial purposes of

"(a)ccordingly."

Page 72 ff.

George de Mohrenschildt.

Request J. Walton Moore's

name be replaced by description.

"CIA local representative."

Page 77 ff. William D. Gaudet. Mr. Gaudet's name should not be

revealed.

The summary quoted on page 80 reveals personal details and

reference to financial loans and should be deleted.

(C)

Page 77. • Footnote.

As it did not involve a CIA employee, suggest

deletion in third line of statement "and a CIA."

Page 81.24 swald in Helsinki en route to USSR. At page 85 reference

o the clA the en soviet consul should ge

deleted, as should the

eference toliCIA Dispatches from Helsink showing the existence of cl

operations in a sensitive location).

On page 86 reference toda CIA <4

dispatch should be deleted; it should suffice if it was simply stated

to a TA dispath from page El should be deleted (c)

dated 9 October 1959....

The reference

to (@ CIA dispatch on page 87.

Page 89.

The absence of a reference to the origin of the communication

conceals the location, and there is no objection to this form.

Very truly yours,

7.2 Bukil

S. D. Breckinridge

Distribution:

orig

- Adse

- SA/DDCI (Touhy)

1 - LA/DDO (Sturbitts)

1 - oGc (Rininger)

1 - 05 (Sullivan)

1 - Holmes

1 - OLC/Subj

1 - OLC/Chrono

OLC/SDB/ksn (12 Feb 79)

8

3/R0

006402

---