COMMENTS ON HSCA DRAFT REPORTS CLASSIFIED TOP SECRET.
Originator: CIA
Document date: 01/25/1979
Document type: PAPER - TEXTUAL DOCUMENT

## Page 1

14-00000

104-10146-10077

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

(

CONFIOLINTIAL

•*.

OLC 79-0113/6

25 January 1979

SUBJECT: Comments

on HSCA Draft Reports Classified Top Secret

:......,..

This particular package seems to consist of two drafts, one

of which is numbered pages 2000566 through 2000592. It appears

to have some redundancy with an earlier draft having to do with

the opening of the Oswald File. The second paper consists of pages

1-14. (U)

I. Oswald File

As a matter of form, one does not refer to the "Deputy Directorate

of Operations" but to the Directorate of Operations.

The Ddo, literally,

is the person of the Deputy Director and it is only in shorthand that

the acronym DDO is used to refer to the Directorate of Operations.

This comment applies to pages 2000570-2000571. (U)

On page 2000572, the last three lines of the first paragraph

might be edited to read as follows: "

...to determine who the writer was,

who opened the file, and when it was done."

(U)

On the same page, did the CIA reply say that disseminations

inside CIA "has always" been based on written requirements? There

are bound to have been ad hoc disseminations. (U)

At pages 2000574, 2000575, and 2000577, references are made

to William Lawson and William Larson, apparently different spellings of

the same name. Is this the name of an Agency employee? Should it be

removed? (C)

Is the references to "persons associated with the Deputy Director

of Operations" mean literally such a personal association or does it refer

to people in the Directorate? In the same sentence the statement is

rather categorical about a document warranting the opening of a 201 file;

rather than the word "would" it would be more appropriate to use the word

"could."

such an action was a judgment call and would not necessarily

have meant that a 201 file would or would not have been opened. (U)

RETURN TO CIA

22481

Background Use Only

Do Not Reproduce

DERIVATIVE CL BY 1.3120

CONFIDENTAL

O DECL O-REVW ON

4:21155

DERIVED FROM

---

## Page 2

4-00000

CONFIDENTAL

The draft report makes a point on page 2000580.. Obviously,

documents post-dating the opening date would not have been in the

file at the time it was opened. (U)

It is noted that Mrs. Egerter's name appears on pages

2000581, 2000582, 2000584, 2000585, 2000588, and 2000599

The HSCA editor has noted this suggesting that her position be cited

in some instances, and we would suggest that the name be deleted. (C)

On page 2000584, in the full paragraph in the middle of the page,

the statement is made that "Mrs. Egerter claims to have prepared" papers

in response to a State Department request.

She doesn't "claim," she simply

stated that is the way she recalled it.

We interviewed her and the story

is quite simple.

On page 2000586, the statement appears at the top of

the page that "CI/SIG was cited as the 'source document.' "

Since CI/SIG

is an organization, it is not a

source document per se.

Is the draft

report correct and is the citation someone's shorthand reference of

authority rather than its source? (C)

Page 2000590 makes the statement that a CS component "failed

to act...by initiating the opening of a 201 file on a person who posed

a potential counter-intelligence threat."

That represents an operational

judgment as to what consitutes a possible subject of counter-intelligence

interest and what action should stem from it; there is no one that we

saw on the Committee staff who has any competence to make such a judgment,

particularly in the present case.

It would have been a judgment call.

then, and today still seems correct. (U)

II. Oswald Photo in Minsk

The names of DCD sources Monica Kramer] and Rita Naman appear

throughout this section; at pages 1-3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10 and 12.

Are these

names revealed in the Warren Commission already, and should they be

deleted and referenced by general descriptions? (C)

In addition, the name of alLo retta Hyde appears at page 4.

Lee Wigren appears at pages 5, 6, and 11. The name of Mrs. Voellmy

(subsequently reported as Voellmy Vance) appears at pages 8 and 10.

Shirley Stetson appears at pages 7, 10, 11 and 12. These should all

be removed.

• Presumably we ought not object to describing how the photographs

were obtained, although it says something about a method of collection. (U)

2

CONFIDENTIAL

31gA

---

## Page 3

4-00000

CONFIDENTIAL C

III. Oswald Correspondence During his Soviet Residence

At the top of page 2 we can smile at the HSCA's description of

its perception of something as "unusual," which is a reflection of

its frequently impressionistic approach to the matters of intelligence.

However, I am not inclined to make issue with it. (U)

It was my impress on that there we are frette swatererate correspondence

in HTLINGUAL, but the use of the word "volume" conveys an impression

of size that is not warranted. Question: Were there four file folders

with a few pieces of paper, or were there large volumes of materials

es or materialers

in which there were a few scraps of paper relating to Oswald? If my

impression is correct, a comment on this would be an appropriate assist

in contributing to the precision with which the Committee discusses the

matter. (U)

3

CONFIDENTIAL

---