DEPOSITION OF MELBOURNE PAUL HARTMAN
Agency: HSCA
Originator: HSCA
From: HARTMAN, MELBOURNE PAUL
Document date: 10/10/78
Document type: TRANSCRIPT

## Page 1

JFK Assassination System

Identification Form

Agency Information

Date:

10/19/20

AGENCY: HSCA

RECORD NUMBER: 180-10110-10003

RECORD SERIES: SECURITY CLASSIFIED TESTIMONY

AGENCY FILE NUMBER: 014717

Released under the John

F. Kennedy

Assassination Records

Collection Act of 1992

i44 USC 2107 Note).

case#:NW 54756 Date:

10-31-2017

Document Information

ORIGINATOR: HSCA

FROM:

[Restricted]

TO:

TITLE:

[Restricted]

DATE:

10/10/1978

PAGES:

85

SUBJECTS :

CIA, FILES

Restricted]

OSWALD, LEE, RUSSIAN PERIOD

CIA, METHODOLOGY

DOCUMENT TYPE: TRANSCRIPT

CLASSIFICATION: Unclassified

RESTRICTIONS: 3

CURRENT STATUS:

Redact

DATE OF LAST REVIEW: 01/01/2003

OPENING CRITERIA:

COMMENTS :

Two duplicates enclosed.Box 1.

v9.1

54756

DocId: 32263408

Page 1

---

## Page 2

CARR/srs

EXECUTIVE SESSION

ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY

1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 10, 1978

House of Representatives,

Select Committee on Assassinations,

Washington, D.C.

The parties to the deposition met at 2:35 p.m., in Room

3370, House Office Building Annex No. 2, Second and D Streets,

Washington, D.C.

Present: Robert W. Genzman, Staff Counsel; Charles M.

Berk, Staff Counsel; Betsy Wolf, Researcher.

Deponent: Melbourne Paul Hartman.

---

The deponent, Melbourne Paul Hartman, was sworn by Shirley

B. Dempsey, a Notary Public in and for the District of Columbia.

Mr. Genzman. My name is Robert Genzman, I am staff

counsel to the House Select Committee on Assassinations.

have been designated counsel empowered to take statements under

oath pursuant to House

Resolution 222 and Select Committee Rule

4.

Mr. Hartman, would you state your full name for the record?

Mr. Hartman. My full name is Melbourne, M-e-1-b-o-u-r-n-e,

Paul Hartman, H-a-r-t-m-a-n.

EXECUTIVE SESSION

NN 51756 DocId:37263408 Page 2

---

## Page 3

2

a copy of the Select

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Mr. Genzman. Have you been given

Committee's rules and pertinent House resolutions?

Mr. Hartman. Yes, I have.

Mr. Genzman.

Have you read Committee Rule 4?

Mr. Hartman.

Yes, I have.

Mr. Genzman.

Do you understand it?

Mr. Hartman. I believe so.

Mr. Genzman. Is it true that you are not under subpoena

for this deposition?

Mr. Hartman. Correct.

Mr. Genzman. Are you testifying voluntarily?

Mr. Hartman.

Of course.

Mr. Genzman. Do you understand you have the right to have

counsel present?

Mr. Hartman.

Yes.

Mr. Genzman. Do you desire to have counsel present?

Mr. Hartman.

No.

Mr. Genzman. Mr. Hartman, a copy of the transcript of this

deposition will be sent to you to sign and verify. If, when you

receive a copy to sign and verify you desire to make any changes

for any

reasons, you should contact me and I will make the

necessary arrangements to have you make any changes you desire

to make.

According to Select Committee rules, a witness is entitled

to a copy of the corrected transcript; however, because this

N# 54756 DocId: 32263408

Page 3

---

## Page 4

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

3

deposition will involve classified information, it has been

our policy to ask the witness

to waive his right to a copy.

Would you agree to that?

Mr. Hartman. No problem.

Mr. Genzman. Mr. Hartman, have you ever worked for the

Central Intelligence Agency?

Mr. Hartman. Yes.

Mr. Genzman. Would you give the dates of your employment?

Mr. Hartman. 1951 - 1976.

Mr. Genzman. In connection with your employment with the

CIA, have you ever executed a secrecy oath or secrecy agreement

with the Agency?

Mr. Hartman. Yes, I have. All employees do.

Mr. Genzman. At this time I would like to give you a copy

of a document marked as JFK Exhibit No. 94, which is a letter

from Mr. Frank Carlucci, Acting Director of the CIA, to the

Chairman of the House Select Committee on Assassinations, dated

March 23, 1978, and dealing with secrecy arrangements with the

Agency •

Have you read this letter?

Mr. Hartman. Yes, I have.

Mr. Genzman. Do you understand it?

Mr. Hartman. Yes, I understand it. I have one problem

with it: I do not know who of the people whom I might mention

is under cover or has retired under cover; therefore, I would

have a problem in that respect, but I presume that you gentlemen

WH 51756 DocId: 32263108 Page 4

---

## Page 5

4

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

can work that out with the people at the Agency.

Mr. Genzman. That is correct, and if you have any problems

or any questions about any of our questions, we can go off the

record and discuss it.

Mr. Hartman. That would be fine. I just want to be sure

that you understand that I don't know who retired under cover

and who is still working under cover, and I wouldn't want to

jeopardize anybody who has a cover situation.

Mr. Genzman. Please understand that the deposition will

be

classified and that declassification is something that will

have to be worked out with the Agency.

Mr. Hartman. Right.

Mr. Genzman. Mr. Hartman, what was your position in 1963

and 1964?

Mr. Hartman. I was an operations officer in the Counter-

intelligence Staff.

Mr. Genzman. Whom did you work under?

Mr. Hartman. My immediate boss was Raymond G. Rocca,

R-o-c-c-a.

Mr. Genzman. Did you have any expertise in records and

filing?

Mr. Hartman. Well, yes, records.

Mr. Genzman. What specific component did you work in?

Mr. Hartman. Within the staff, you mean?

Mr. Genzman. Yes.

NH 54756 DocId: 30263408 Page 5

---

## Page 6

5

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Mr. Hartman.

The Research and Analysis Group.

Mr. Genzman.

Would you explain the functions of that group?

Mr. Hartman. The functions of the group were very broad

and I don't really know because of compartmentization exactly

what everybody did; but I did know my functions, of course, and

some of my colleagues, but I had no way of knowing all of the

functions of all the people.

Mr. Genzman. Would you classify yourself as a records

expert?

Mr.

Hartman. Well, let's put it a little differently: I

think I would be considered an expert to a degree in the Agency's

clandestine service records system. I am not an overall

records expert and never have claimed to be.

Mr. Genzman. In the course of your duties with the CIA.

did you ever do any work in conjunction with the investigation

of the Kennedy assassination?

Mr. Hartman. Yes, such as the Agency was doing.

Mr. Genzman. Would you briefly explain your duties and

functions?

Mr. Hartman.

Well, you could break it down into two

general periods: One period was during the time immediately

following the assassination through the period of the existence

of the Warren Commission.

The second period - again, this will be a general term --

would be following the dissolution of the Warren Commission and

NH 51756 DocId: 2263408 Page 6

---

## Page 7

6

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

•19

20

21

22

23

24

25

until I left the Agency.

During the first period I did ad hoc chores; whatever was

given to me, I dia..

I was also given a very general chore of keeping -- well,'

let's change that -- of making certain that the file was being

kept in as good an order as we could under the circumstances.

The second period, however, during the second period I was

in effect the custodian of the file, made sure that the paper

flowed into it, whatever paper came to us, and, that the file was

generally in good order.

This does not mean -- I want to insert -- this does not

mean that I personally did the filing and all of the computer

work that was entailed. As I said, I was mainly charged with

making certain that the file

was kept in that order, but I

didn't do the direct work.

Mr. Genzman. How

long were you in charge of maintaining

the file?

Mr. Hartman.

Until I left the Agency.

Mr. Genzman. Which was in 1975?

Mr. Hartman. 1976.

Mr. Genzman. Excuse me.

Who took over your position when you left with regard to

the file?

Mr. Hartman. I was told that it was a fellow named Russ

Holmes, but I wasn't certain of that. I think there was

IN 54756 DocId:32263408

Page 7

---

## Page 8

7

question about transition and exactly who would take over and

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

so on.

MI. Genzman. Thank you.

At this time, Mr. Hartman, I would like to ask you questions

with regard to several documents which we will now show you.

The first document is labeled "JFK Exhibit F-534." It is

a cable dated October 31, 1959, from the U.S. Embassy in

Moscow to the Department of State, which discusses. Lee Harvey

Oswald's desire to defect.

Would you please read this cable at this time?

Mr. Hartman. Let's go off for a second.

(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. Hartman. I have read it.

Mr. Genzman. Which component at CIA Headquarters would

have received this information?

Mr. Hartman. 'I honestly don't know, because I had no

connection with the case at that time. I really don't know.

I

presume that it would have been SIG of the CI staff.. "If che

CI staff at all received it, I presume it would have been the

SIG Section, because this man was an American and SIG primarily

dealt with counterintelligence problems concerning Americans.

Mr. Genzman. Did SIG deal with American defectors and

similar cases?

Mr. Hartman. It was within their general responsibility,

yes.

NW 54756 DocId: 37263408 Page 8

---

## Page 9

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

20

21

22

23

24

25

8

Mr. Genzman. Do you know why SIG had this particular

responsibility?

Mr. Hartman. That's the way the staff was set up.

Primarily, of course, when the staff was set up, someone had to

be concerned with the problem of Americans who were

dealing with

or playing footsy with the Bloc outside of the u.s.

In the U.S., the Bureau did it; outside the U.S. it was the

Agency's responsibility, in coordination with the FBI.

But we have never had an American Desk, so to speak.

In

other words, we have had branches covering the world except the

United States, and so it had to be placed somewhere, and

inasmuch as a defector becomes a counterintelligence concern, I

presume that's why SIG was

given that chore.

Mr. Genzman. Thank you.

I would next like to show you a document which is labeled

according to a CIA page number --

MI. Hartman. May I insert something?

The Office of Security also, of course, dealt with

questions concerning Americans, and in particular if Americans

were applying for employment, but also other cases, cranks and

all

sorts of weirdos and that type of thing; so it is not

inconceivable tht the Office of Security within the Agency might

have come into play here. I don't know.

Mr. Genzman. I would

next like to show you a document

labeled, "CIA page 788."

That is a 201 file opening form used

1H. 54756 DocId: 30263408 Page 9

---

## Page 10

9

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

to open the file on Lee Harvey Oswald?

Mr. Hartman. Right.

Mr. Genzman. Have you seen this page before?

Mr. Hartman. Oh, many times.

Mr. Genzman. Why was the file opened by CI/SIG?.

Mr. Hartman. I really cannot give you a factual answer,:

but I can make a supposition based on the way things were

operating at the time.

Inasmuch as SIG had the responsibility concerning Americans,

they would have received traffic concerning Oswald, and I know

that as a result of the postassassination period that they

received traffic before the assassination. I did not. know it

at the time, of course; and having received documents concerning

person, when you begin to accumulate several, instead

just keeping them loosely somewhere, you can and are permitted

to open a 201 file in order to have an orderly, structured

situation; also in order to permit the indexing of that

person's name, that would then lead a searcher to that file.

Mr. Genzman. Do you know why the file was opened by Ann

Egerter?

Mr. Hartman. Well, she was one of the employees

in SIG, one

of the senior analysts, and a very learned lady; and she at that

time, I presume, and I know now as a result of postassassination

information, that she had some cables and some papers concerning

Oswald; therefore, she would have opened the file.

IN 54756 DocId:32263408 Page 10

---

## Page 11

10

Mr. Genzman. Do you know whether she handled other defector

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

cases?

Mr. Hartman. Yes, I know that she handled other names of

Americans who had defected. There were quite a few of them, as

I remember, but, again, this is as a result of my knowledge after

the

assassination and not my knowledge before then.

Mr. Genzman. Do you know why there was such a lengthy

period between the time when the Agency received the Department

of State cable dated October 31, 19.39, and the date of the

operning of the 201 file on Oswald, which was 9 December 1960?

Mr. Hartman. Again, I don't have factual knowledge on that,

but I can tell you this much: That is not an unusual thing to

have happened; it happened all the time. You don't need to

open -- as a matter of fact, the Records Handbook stated that

you shouldn't open a 201 file necessarily because you received

one piece of paper. A 201 file was generally opened after the

receipt of several pieces of paper, not one piece, and there

was no rule that required the opening of the 201 file at all; it

a matter of proper and

good housekeeping of records and

procedure that permitted you to operate in an orderly fashion

regarding your records; but there was no rule ever that you

must open the file the day you receive it or one week after you

receive it.

My presumption in this case is that Betty Egerter probably

received the first piece of paper and held on to it and then

WH 54756 DocId:37263408 Page 11

---

## Page 12

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

11

eventually received another piece and possibly months later

a third piece, and ancther piece, and in due course then she

decided, "Well, I've got several pieces of paper; it is about

time I put them all into one convenient file," and that's the

201 file.

Mr. Genzman. But isn't the information which was contained

in the cable from the Department of State dated October 31,

1959, to the effect that a U.S. Marine was defecting to the

Soviet Union, the type of information which would have caused

the 201 file to be opened?

Mr. Hartman. Not at all. On the contrary, our Records

Handbook did not even provide for the opening of a file or

indexing of an American defector. We never even thought that

an American would ever defect when we wrote the rules, which

was in -- I would say - the mid-1950s or so. It was an

unthinkable thing for us. I presume that that's why it was

never included. You can bet your life that that ruling that we

may open 201 files and index American defectors was inserted

into the Records Handbook, which, incidentally, is the book of

rules on records in the Agency, sometime after the assassi-

nation, quite some time after the assassination, because we

suddenly came to the realization then that we had no provisions

for indexing of Americans who defected.

So it is not at all unusual.

Mr. Genzman. At the bottom of the 201 opening form, why

HH 54756 DocId: 37263408 Page 12

---

## Page 13

12

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

is the file marked, "Restricted"?

Mr. Hartman. Again, I can only tell you how the records

systems operated, rather than why Betty Egerter operated that way.

SIG, by its very name, Special Investigators Group, handled

sensitive cases, and certainly cases involving Americans are

sensitive because you don't want to bandy the names about and

you want to keep them closely held so that no injustices are

done by revealing information, could conceivably happen that

a person who is mentioned in the cable has a brother or sister

or some relative employed right in the Agency, so you want to

hold it fairly tightly; and by having the file at her desk and

restricted to her, meant that anyone wanting to see information

in that file would have to come to the SIG section and, more

particularly, to her, unless, of course, she weren't available,

then they would have to go to the chief of SIG.i.r

Also, if the file were lodged in the file section, in

other words, presuming that at one point here that Betty Egerter

would have been through with the file and would have sent it to

the file room, the restriction indicated that anyone wanting

access to that file would have to first get clearance for such

access from Betty Egerter or from the person and section that

restricted it.

Mr. Genzman.

Do you know why the 201 opening form contains

an incorrected middle name, "Henry", for Lee Harvey Oswald?

Mr. Hartman. I cannot tell you, except that human errors

HH 54756

DocId: 30263108 Page 13

---

## Page 14

13

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

are made and that is why we have erasures on pencils. That

is

my only explanation. I don't know.

I think all I can tell you is my hypothesis, that, as I recall,

Betty had a slug full of names of Americans in the cable and

she

probably had a number of documents in all of them, and one fine

day she decided that she was going to open 201 files on all,

and

she might have even gotten the clerk to help her fill out the

form, for that matter, and whether she or someone else, some helper

put "Henry" down instead of "Harvey", getting confused with all

these names, I don't know.. Is it possible that one of the other

defectors -- I think there were something like 17 or 19 others;

I don't know, - is it possible that one of their first names or

middle names was "Henry" so that in glancing quickly and copying

the names she could have made an error? I think it is strictly

an unfortuante human error.

If you are interested, I want to explain one thing to you.

Often we would open 201 files if we have paper and

legitimate

reason

to open it on people who don't even have a first name.

Our system required that as you became aware of additional infor-

mation on the person, that would go onto the format of an index

card and this essentially is that same format, drawn from that

same format, that you ought to insert additional information,

make corrections as appropriate.

Now, all of us were very busy and we didn't have much time,

believe me, and we were all handling countless cases, countless

HH 54756

DocId: 32463408 Page 14

---

## Page 15

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

14

projects of one sort or another, and it is not inconceivable

that Betty, under the pressure of handling a lot of work, made

the error or somebody who was helping her made the error, and

nobody went back and corrected it; and even though, as you can

see, Mr. Rocca even - they are his initials -- made a notation

that it's Harvey and not Henry, but he made it on this form

after the assassination, some years after, and never gave anybody

any instructions to correct the record and have the correct

index card.

But I believe that that correction was made way before then.

I think somebody else had spotted it, and it might have been me.

It might have been someone else who then made sure that this was

corrected on the index card but didn't show the correction on

here.

•I also note something that we are no doubt going to get

into later -- we later became aware of aliases that he used,

that is, you know, his own concocted phony names that he

used,

and these concocted names are not on here, on this form, and

yet, technically, they should be; but they were put onto the

index card, not on this form, so we tried to update these things;

but, you know, pressure of work and so on doesn't always make

the world go as right as we would like it to be.

Mr. Genzman. Thank you.

What does the notation "A.G." mean?

Mr. Hartman. That's as it says here, occupational -- no,

HH 54756 DocId: 37263408 Page 15

---

## Page 16

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

9

10

11

12

•13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

15

I'm sorry -- it's an occupational and intelligence code that

we

used. By "code" I mean a code used for computers. In order

to

be able to recover from the computer a listing, say, of all

persons who were, let's say, just as an example, Communist

influence agents, on whom we have 201 files, of course, we could

go to the computer and ask for such a listing as a

result, or

with the aid of, this code.

Now, the code is

always in two letters and stands for either

•an occupation grouping or an intelligence affiliation, as I

recall. We had to be very careful with such codes and one

of

the provisions in this code, I recall very clearly, was that we

would not ever put down an employee of the Agency or someone

used by the Agency because we were always fearful that someone

could pull out of the computer a listing of our employees or of

our contacts or of our connections, so we wanted to make

absolutely certain that no such inclusions were had.

Therefore, this is strictly based on occupation or intel-

ligence affiliation of other countries.

Now, I cannot remember honestly -- this is just too much

time go by - what the two letters stand for; but you folks

told me that the other day that this stands for American

defector to Communism; that's what the AG stands for.

Now, I can only hypothesize, but you can get somebody in

the records system today or in the olden days, some knowledgeable

person, who can tell you exactly what it stands for.

HH 51756 DocId: 37263408 Page 16

---

## Page 17

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

16

I hypothesize that the letter "A", the first letter, must

have meant "Communism" and that the second letter would then be

a categorization of within the Communism structure, for example,

"A.A." might be "Communist influence agent"; "A.B." might be

"Communist Party official"; "A.C." might be anything, you name

it, Communist something or other. I can't even come up with

anything; and I would presume that by the time that we reached

this code we had only gone to A.F.

Now, this code, "A.G." the "G" was not in existence at the

time of the

assassination at all, because, again, what I said a

little bit ago,, the Handbook gave us no provisions for indexing

American defectors. At the same time we never thought that an

American could ever defect to Communism; therefore,

I remember

very clearly when it suddenly hit us somewhere within the center

of the Warren Commission period that, holy smoke, we wouldn't

even have had the authority to index Oswald, really, or an

American defector, anytime, nor did we have a code, an

occuaptional code, for that. So we went to the records system

in two stages: First, we did the correction of the Handbook,

and that takes some time to do. You know, you have to explain

what it is that is required and then at the next update a

revision of the Handbook that was done. And the same applies

here: We went to the machine system, the part of the system

that deals with the computers and machines, and we asked them to

give us a code, you know, that would be for an American defector

NW 54756 DocId:37263408 Page 17

---

## Page 18

17

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

to Communism, so my presumption is that at the time of the

assassination we had reached the "A.F." period and the "G" --

the "A.G." was assigned sometime during the Warren Commission

period because we had no code for "American defector" until then.

I remember the officer in the CI staff who was charged with

the responsibility of the counterintelligence use of computers.

He went absolutely nuts when he found out, when we realized that

we didn't even have an occupational code for an American

defector, just as we didn't have any provisions for indexing an

American defector. But who would have ever thought that an

American could ever defect?

Mr. Genzman. When was the notation "A.G." added to the

201 opening form for Oswald?

Mr. Hartman. I cannot tell you. I don't know.

Mr. Genzman. Can you give an approximation?

Mr. Hartman. Sometime, I presume, after the revision, you

know, after the addition of this code. I don't know when it was

added.

As a matter of

fact, you know, we don't know when these

things were added. The original opening action might well have

not had all of this information and that was only added later.

The Handbook specifically calls for these kinds of additions

and corrections and updating the form and updating of the index

cards so that our records are always as reflective as we

possibly can make them.

But stress of work and so on, who knows?

But I don't know.

I would presume that it was added sometime

NH 54756 DocId:3$263408 Page 18

---

## Page 19

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

• 23

24

25

18

the first third of the Warren Commission's existence, toward

the halfway mark of its existence, somewhere around that time.

Let me just hypothesize: I don't remember when we realized

this shortcoming was in our records and possibly we made that

correction at the time that. the Warren Commission came over,

so that we could -- I don't know that this is true; is is only

hypothesis -- that we would simply tell the Warren Commission,

"Look, we didn't have criteria for indexing American defectors

at the time. We are assigning these of codes to them, but we

have made that correction." It is a plausible thing, but I

don't know that we did then. Maybe it was even later, after

they had come.

Mr. Genzman. Do you know whether the Warren Commission

was specifically apprised of any additions which had been made

to the 201 opening form or to any other documents in Oswald's

201 file?

Mr. Hartman. Documents we would have; the opening form is

nothing but an administrative devise that has no meaning and

certainly no substantive value to the case whatsoever.

Mr. Genzman. Are you sure that as of the time of the open-

ing of the 201 file for Oswald that the notation "A.G." had

never been used by the Agency?

Mr. Hartman. As I said before, I cannot tell you with

certainty, but I remember very clearly that we did not have a

code at the time. When we suddenly realized that, which was

If 51756 DocId: 32263408

Page 19

---

## Page 20

1

2

3

4

5

6

7.

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

19

some months after the assassination, we requested a code, and

that was the code that was given us, "American defector to

Communism," and therefore it could not have been at the time

that the 201 was opened, but when it was added, I don't know.

Mr. Genzman. Thank you. I would now like to show you

CIA page no. 787, which contains three index cards for lee

Harvey Oswald. Can you explain what the star after Oswald's

201 number indicates?

Mr. Hartman. Yes. The asterisk following a 201 number

means that the person named on the card is the subject of that

201 file. I want to explain, because possibly those people who

might read the transcript may not understand, one document

might

have the names of ten people in it. The principal person,

however, is the one into whose 201 file the document goes.

The other persons, if they meet our indexing standards, would be

indexed and that 201 number would be shown; but that would not

have an asterisk behind it, meaning that that person is only

named in the document and

is not the subject of that entire file.

Mr. Genzman. I would next like to have you examine CIA

page numbers 943 and 944.

Mr. Hartman. Off the record.

(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. Genzman. Page 943 contains three index cards and page

944 contains one index card.

Mr. Hartman, can you explain what "HILINGUAL" means?

I 54756 DocId:30263408 Page 20

---

## Page 21

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

20

Mr. Hartman. Yes, I can now, but I didn't know it at the

time. I didn't know the cryptonym. I know that "HTLINGUAL"

even just from newspapers, was

a mail intercept program that was

conducted by the CI staff in an extremely sensitive manner,

with great compartmentalization because most everyone in the

staff had no knowledge of it.

Mr. Genzman. Which CIA component ran "HTLINGUAL"?

Mr. Hartman. A component known as the CI Project.

Mr. Genzman. Was this component also referred to as

"Special Projects"?

Mr. Hartman. No, not that I know, and I think it was under

the general direction -- no, that is not correct. I was going

to

say under the general direction of SIG, but that is not

correct. It had its

own chief and everybody just called it

"The Project."

Mr. Genzman. On the top card, on page 943, what does

CI/PROJECT/RE" mean?

Mr. Hartman.. I don't know exactly what it means, but my

hypothesis is that "Re" would stand for the person who did the

translation of certain foreign language documents.

Those would

be his or her initials, so that they could come back to the

person who did the translation if there were a question.

Mr. Genzman. Whom does "RE" refer to?

Mr. Hartman. Specifically, and here again I want to be

sure that I am not bothering anybody's cover, my supposition is

WW 54756 DocId:3$263108 Page 21

---

## Page 22

21

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

22

23

24

25

it is Reuben Efron, R-e-u-b-e-n E-f-r-o-n.

Mr. Genzman. What does "N/R-RI" mean?

Mr. Hartman. That would mean no record RI; which stands for

the Record Integration Division, Records Integration Division.

Mr. Genzman. On the middle card on page 943, what does

"Watch List" mean?

Mr. Hartman. I don't know what it means, but my presumption

is that it might have means the State Department Watch List:

State had a very good watch list and it might have been that he

appeared on the State Departments' watch list, but I really

don't know.

Mr. Genzman.

Why would Egerter's name be on this card?

Mr. Hartman. Because she might have asked that her name be

put on there, so that any information on this person that was

received would be brought to her attention. That's my

supposition. I don't know for certain. I really wasn't ever

familiar at all with The Project's activities and my only know-

ledge is supposition and presumption.

Mr. Genzman. What does "Deleted 28 May '62" mean?

Mr. Hartman. I don't know. Is it possible that it means

that he was deleted, his name was deleted from the watch list

in '62, 28 May, or that the requirement for mail regarding him

be deleted, but that doesn't make sense, really, because the

next card is '63, and they are still watching his mail, so I

presume, having entered the U.S., his name might have been

HH 54756

DocId: 32963408 Page 22

---

## Page 23

22.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

deleted from the watch list. I don't know.

This is all

hypothesis.

Mr. Genzman. On the cards, on page

944, what does "CI/

Project/PH" mean?

Mr. Hartman. Again going on the presumption. that this

would be the initials of a translator, there was a lady who

worked in that section, in the Projects Section, at that time,

and her name was Pauline Harvey, and I presume that those are

her initials.

Mr. Genzman. I would now like to show you a document which

has been marked as "JFK Exhibit F-516", which is a cable from

CIA Headquarters to Mexico City, dated October 10, 1963, and

labeled, "IR74830." Why does this cable make reference to Lee

Henry Oswald as opposed to Lee Harvey Oswald?

Mr. Hartman. I'm trying to find it here.

Mr. Genzman. It's in the first paragraph.

Mr. Hartman. Well, I simply presume that someone must have

taken the data right off of the 201 opening action. I just

presume; I don't know.

Mr. Genzman. Does the physical description contained in

this cable fit Lee Harvey Oswald?

Mr. Hartman.

Well, yes, from what I recall of photos in

the papers and so on; it sounds about right.

Mr. Genzman. Does

the cable reflect the fact that it was

sent to Mexico City at 0900 Zed time?

1H 54756 DocId: 32963408. Page 23

---

## Page 24

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

23

Mr. Hartman. I presume you know what time.

Yes, there is

a time indicator, although the copy is very, very bad.

Mr. Genzman. Do you know what Zed

time means?

Mr. Hartman. Zebra time.

Mr. Genzman. Do you know what Zebra times means?

Mr. Hartman. That's the basic time that is established

for traffic throughout the world by the signal center people,

the

message center people who handle all cables. I think it's

also in the military, if I recall correctly. It is a pretty

standard identification of time.

Mr. Genzman. I would next like to show you a document

labeled "JFK Exhibit F-517" which is a dissemination cable

dated October 10, 1963, from CIA Headquarters to various agencies.

It is labeled, "IR64673." Does the description contained in

this cable correspond to the description contained in the

previous cable?

Mr. Hartman. It does not.

Mr. Genzman: I am referring to the description of Lee

Harvey Oswald.

Mr. Hartman. Yes.

This description, of course -- well,

he has been known variously as the "Mystery Man" and we used to

call him at times the "Ape Man."

Mr. Genzman. Are you referring to the unidentified male

who was photographed in Mexico City?

MI.

Hartman. That is correct, right.

HH 54756

DocId: 37263108 Page 21

---

## Page 25

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

24

Mr. Genzman. In the second paragraph does this cable also

contain the middle name of "Henry" for Lee Harvey Oswald?

Mr. Hartman. It does indeed.

Mr. Genzman. And does this cable indicate that it was sent

at 1200 Zed time?

Mr. Hartman. Yes.

Mr. Genzman. Off the record.

(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. Genzman•

How did you explain the fact that this cable

records an incorrect description for Lee Harvey Oswald, whereas

the cable which is labeled "JFK Exhibit No. F-516" which was

sent three

hours earlier at 0900 zed time, contains a correct

description of Lee Harvey Oswald?

Mr. Hartman. Well, I have no answer for you that is based

on

fact, but, again, I have to hypothesize because I didn't

write the cables and I wasn't even there when they were written.

First of all, let's get the time element squared away. Just

because these cables were sent three hours apart does not

necessarily mean that the lady who wrote them did the work within

those three hours; she might have started on one cable three

days before and began her draft, or four days before, and on the

second cable at some later time. For that matter, the second

cable or one cable or the other, or conceivably even both, might

have been done by an assistant. In other words, both cables need

not even have been written by the same person, but they might

HH 54756 DocId:37263408 Page 25

---

## Page 26

25

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12.

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

well have been.

The originator's name would be the person who is responsible

for having written the cable, but need not necessarily be the

very person who did the work.

Now, I can picture how something like this occurs: First,

she would have written one cable and she would have taken the

information off of possibly the 201 file, for that matter --

I don't know -- or from a Bureau report, conceivably. The

Bureau notoriously used to put down on the last page of the

initial document on a case, and often even on subsequent

documents, the man's full name, all his particulars

and

so on,

and she might have been -- I have done this myself, trying to

work four files at one time or four pieces of paper and.

holding up pages and flipping them -- she might have flipped

the page open here and copied the information for that.

When she went back to the next cable, or whoever did the

next cable if she didn't, they might have copied that right

off of a different document that was sent in from Mexico

or however, because it is said in this cable -- you see in the

second one -- it said, "It is believed that Oswald may be

identical "with or to," so and so; then there is another phrase

"The American was described as approximately 35 years old" et

cetera. This gives me the impression that she took this

information from another secondary or even tertiary reporting

source, whereas, this, the preceding cable, is straightforward

HW 54756 DocId:37263408 Page 26

---

## Page 27

26

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

23

24

25

and says that"Lee Henry Oswald, born 18 October

' 39, New

Orleans" and so on. This is factual. So it could conceivably

be that she was sending this to -- let's see, this was going

where; it isn't clear here-- I presume to Mexico.

Yes.

This

must be going to Mexico City, and --

Mr. Genzman. You are speaking of the 10/10/63 cable

labeled as "JFK Exhibit F-516"?

Mr. Hartman. Yes.

Mr. Genzman. From CIA Headquarters to Mexico City?

Mr. Hartman. To Mexico City. She might have just been

copying the information from a Bureau report and was

straight-

forward and rolled it in, you know, assuming the Bureau had

the right data, and she didn't say anybody, you know, it is said

to be, or anything like that.

On the next cable here she might be taking Mexico City

information and passing it on to other Government agencies and

therefore the very qualified statement, "The American was

described as" and then "It is believed that" -- these two

statements would indicate to me that she was just copying them,

you know, from some other document.

Mr. Genzman. But does that explanation actually explain why

the cable which was sent out later contains the incorrect

information?

Mr. Hartman. Well, I can only give you what I said before;

it's hypothesis. I have no way of knowing; I wasn't there.

I

NW 54756 DocId:32263408 Paye 27

---

## Page 28

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

=

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

27

think the person who would know is the lady who wrote the cables

and she ought to be asked, and also, of course, her supervisor,

who had to sign off on these cables; and you had authentication

officers, you had releasing officers, you had coordinating

officers. All these people, when they put their initials on

there, are really responsible; however, I know that when you have

a stack of cables to coordinate on or to release that number

in the 50s or so, that you can't really read very carefully each

and every passage; so you have to allow for human beings being

what they are.

Mr. Genzman. Thank you.

In 1963 did the CIA's Mexico City station engage: in

surveillance operations against the Soviet and Cuban Embassies

in Mexico City?

Mr. Hartman. I know that now. I did not at the time know

it. I had no direct knowledge of it. It was not part of my

business, my activity, my responsibility, to know it. I must

say that if someone had asked me before the assassination

whether we were conducting such activity in Mexico City, I would

have hypothesized that we were, but I had no factual knowledge.

Mr. Genzman. What kinds of surveillance were in operation

at that time?

Mr. Hartman. Well, only from what I know afterward, there

was photo coverage and there was also telephone taps.

Mr.

Genzman.

At each embassy, Soviet and Cuban?

AN 54756

DocId: 32263108 Page 28

---

## Page 29

Browning

fols at

3:30 р. т. 6

1

2

3

4

5

7

28

Mr. Hartman. I don't know whether we had it at each or not.

I am not certain of that. I don't know what coverage was where.

Mr. Genzman. Off the record.

(Discussion off the record.

9

10

1

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

HH 54756

DocId: 34763408 Page

29

---

## Page 30

3:30

browning

fls carr

1

29

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Mr. Genzman. At this time please refer to a document which

discusses a former CIA employee's recollection of Lee Harvey

Oswald's trip to Mexico City.

Mr. Hartman. Okay.

Mr. Genzman. Have you ever seen this document before?

Mr. Hartman. No, not until today.

Mr. Genzman. Does this document accurately reflect the

CIA's photographic surveillance with respect to Lee Harvey

Oswald's activity in Mexico City?

Mr. Hartman. I presume the person who's writing should

know above all.

Mr. Genzman. Do you know whether photographs of Lee Harvey

Oswald were taken in Mexico City by the CIA surveillance opera-

tions?

Mr. Hartman. I don't know that for certain.

Mr. Genzman. Have you ever been told that photographs of

Oswald were not taken in Mexico City by the CIA surveillance

operations?

Mr. Hartman. No, I was told neither way and I really know a

very limited

amount of the activities in Mexico City. I was not

actually concerned or partially concerned about those except for

whatever paper, records, might have come into the file.

Mr. Genzman. Do you know whether Lee Harvey Oswald's voice

was recorded by the CIA surveillance operations during his stay

in Mexico City?

HH 54756 DocId:32263108 Page 30

---

## Page 31

30

2

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Mr. Hartman. I have been told that it was.

Mr. Genzman. How do you know?

Mr. Hartman. I have been told; I was told. I was also

told that whatever record

was made was transcribed, then

translated.

Mr. Genzman. Do you recall who told you about the voice

recordings of Oswald?

Mr. Hartman. No, I think that was common knowledge among

us who worked on this case and I can't specifically say. I

think the fact that is mentioned in the cable is ample.

Mr. Genzman. Did you ever receive tape recordings of voice

recordings of Lee Harvey Oswald taken during his stay in Mexico

City?

Mr. Hartman. I received at one time a package of tapes.

Now I can't answer these were Oswald's voice or that they were

some of the other tapes of some of the other taps, but I know

that I received a package of tapes concerning the Oswald case

sometime a number of years after the assassination. I don't

know whose tapes they were or of whom they were but I know they

were tapes. It was a packet of tapes maybe -- I never opened

the packet because there was no need for it. It must have been

a packet 3 to 4 inches thick. It looked like several of those

reel-to-reel boxes

, Of tapes. These came to me -- I'm almost

certain, from the Mexico branch, but it might have been from

RID, but I can't swear to whether it came from there or where.

NW 54756 DocId:34263408 Page 31

---

## Page 32

3

31

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

I'm really not sure. But I know they did arrive because you

know, you can't put a box like this (indicating) into a file.

It just doesn't work.

So, our normal procedure was to put the transmittal sheet,

the dispatch that transmitted these tapes into the file and then

make the box a so-called bulky attachment to that document.

That would be written on the document, bulky number so-and-so,

and whenever you wanted it you could go down and get it and

that way the file was always complete and intact.

Mr. Genzman. When did you receive these tapes?

Mr. Hartman. A long time after the assassination. It is

may guess it may have been as far as in the latter '60s, even.

Mr. Genzman. Was this packet of tapes labeled in any way?

Mr. Hartman. It had the dispatch number under which

it

vas transmitted and the dispatch then explained these were tapes

concerning the Oswald case or something like that.

Mr. Genzman. Was there any information which told you

these were tapes of Oswald, as opposed to tapes of someone else?

Mr. Hartman. No. I don't recall. I don't think it said

anything, but these are the tapes associated with the Oswald

case. It was a one-line statement, you know, these transmittals

are forms or these transmittal dispatches

are not very informa-

tive. I never even opened. the package. Possibly each box might

have had an explanation. I don't know. But we presumed -- this

was

so much after the fact, that all those tapes had been

HH 54756 DocId:32263108 Page 32

---

## Page 33

32

4

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

transcribed and translated, that there was really no sense in

opening them.

Mr. Genzman. Again, how did you receive them?

Mr. Hartman. By means of this dispatch which was sent to

me because at that point in the latter '60s I was in custody of

the file, the file was in my custody, I should say; and they

were sent to me either by the Mexico desk or by the RID element

which would have received the tapes. Judging by the nature of

it, they sent it up to us because we were holding the file.

Mr. Genzman. Did you testify you put

the tapes in a bulky

attachment to the Oswald file?

Mr. Hartman. Yes, I just did. Whenever you have a bulky

package that doesn't lend itself to be filed into a file folder,

you make it into a separate attachment, that is the record

system

people do, and they assign a bulky number to it and

record that and register it so it can be located at any time.

Then the actual transmittal sheet goes into the file stating

the bulky number where it is located, et cetera.

Mr. Genzman. Did these tapes remain in this bulky folder

throughout your period of control and maintenance of the Oswald

file?

Mr. Hartman. I have no knowledge of that. You see, once a

bulky attachment is created, that is, once something is relegated

to a bulky and the number assigned to it, it is held elsewhere in

the record system. Unless the need arises, you never call for

HH 54756 DocId: 30263408 Page 33

---

## Page 34

33

5

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

it. There is no need to have it right with the file wherever

the file goes. .

It is available to anyone having legitimate

need. So I couldn't swear that

bulky attachment number so-and-so

was sitting right there where it was supposed to be in one of

the record storage areas, but I presume it was, because this is

the way the system operates.

Whenever you need a bulky that

goes with a file you just call for it. I never had reason to

call for it, let's put it that way.

Mr. Genzman. When did you last see the tapes?

Mr. Hartman. Oh, heavens. I had them for quite some

time

before I got a chance to get them made into a bulky and have the

transmittal sheet placed in the file itself, and then send

these

down to wherever they store the bulkies. It was a good while.

I would guess -- but please don't hold me to it, it's memory in

this case -- I would say somewhere around 1970, maybe, I sup-:

pose. I really don't know.

Mr. Genzman. Who else would have seen or had control of

these tapes either during the time you had control and mainten-

ance of the Oswald file or after you left the Agency?

Mr. Hartman. I don't know about after I left the Agency.

Whoever took over the file, he or she would know if there was

any need to call for the bulky. Otherwise it's just another

document in the file. I

assume it still reposes there now.

At the time the only fellow who was really concerned sub-

stantively with the file at that point was Arthur Dooley. He

WW 51756 DocId: 30263408 Page 34

---

## Page 35

34

6

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

knew of our receipt of these tapes. There might have been

others but I really don't know. Maybe even Mr. Rocca did.

Mr. Genzman. Would these tapes have been located in

another section containing other bulkies relating to the Oswald

file?

Mr. Hartman. Let's put it this way: the bulkies are not

kept by file. They are kept by number. If a bulky comes in or

a package comes in, then is given a bulky number, let's put

that way, it's given a bulky number, then that would be the next

number in succession and although I don't remember any other

bulky that was with the Oswald file, I think this was the only

one, if there had been others, let's say one came in in 1974,

one might have come in in 1964 and been given one number and

the next one might have come in in 1967 and been given a totally

different number.

The bulkies were not kept by case. They were kept as

individually numbered packages in the record storage system,

wherever that was, and were referred to by that number within the

file.

Mr. Genzman. Would you explain how one would go to a 201

file on Oswald, to each of the bulkies attached to that file?

Mr. Hartman. As I said, I only remember one bulky. I

don't believe there were others. There was only this one.

There were no others that I can recall. I would have even liked

to have made this a part of the file because it was such an

HW. 54756 DocId: 32263408 Page 35

---

## Page 36

35

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

important file, but there is no way to take a box about 4 inches

in a square cube, 4 inches, you know, you just can't put it in.

It's very easy, all you do is call the people concerned

with record storage and tell them you want bulky number so-and-

so which is an attachment to dispatch number such-and-such dated

so-and-so and there's no problem there at all.

Mr. Genzman. Was there a document in the 201 file which

nade reference to this bulky?

Mr. Hartman. Oh, yes, I said so.

Mr. Genzman. Excuse me, I did not hear you.

Mr. Hartman. You can't send something to Mexico City to

headquarters without a transmittal document. The transmittal

letter came into headquarters and it said something about

attached are the tapes concerning the Oswald case or something

like that. This dispatch is part of the 201 file. It's

registered in the 201 file, it's there and available, and on

that dispatch would be written then, after it had arrived at

headquarters, that there is a bulky attachment so-and-so.

Mr. Genzman.

Did you testify earlier that you had main-

tenance of the Oswald file from 1964 to 1976?

Mr. Hartman. Roughly that period, I would say, yes.

Mr. Genzman. Did you also testify that during this time,

you recall only one bulky which you had to deal with?

Mr. Hartman. Yes, that's correct.

Mr. Genzman. And which you attached to the Oswald file?

HH 54756

DocId: 72263408 Page 36

---

## Page 37

36

8

1

2

3

4

5

6.

7

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

• 16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Mr. Hartman. Which carried the number which was recorded

within the file on that dispatch that transmitted these

bulkies to us or this bulky to us.

Mr. Genzman. Again, when do you think you received this

bulky, the tapes?

Mr. Hartman. Quite some time later, some years after the

assassination.

I would say the latter '60s. My presumption at

the time was although I am not certain of it, that someone

cleaned out a safe and

sent it to me to put in the file. It

would have been either the chief of station in Mexico who might

have had it there and sent it in, or it might have been sent to

the Mexico desk at an earlier time and the Mexico desk then --

the fellow who ran the desk retired and he sent it down to me.

He might have kept it in his safe. I really don't know.

Mr. Genzman. At the time you received the tapes, is it

your testimony that you didn't receive any other material re-

lating to the Oswald case, for instance any documents or photo-

graphs?

Mr. Hartman. No. No. No, no, no.

I received them as a package, and that was it. 'I don't

know if maybe 3 days later I might have received some document

be placed in the file, but my recollection tells me that was

a unique item because I had to wrestle with it. You have a

package here and it doesn't fit within two sides of a folder.

Mr. Genzman. And is it your testimony that you have never

I 54756 DocId: 34963408 Page 37

---

## Page 38

37

9

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

'25

seen a photograph of Oswald or photographs taken in Mexico City

of Oswald, taken by the CIA surveillance operations?

Mr. Hartman. That is correct.

Mr. Genzman. I would now like to have you look at a

document labeled JFK F- dated November 23, 1963, from J.

Edgar Hoover to James G. Rowley, Chief of the Secret Service.

Please read the bottom paragraph beginning on the bottom of

page 4 and continuing to page 5.

Is this paragraph accurate?

Mr. Hartman. I can't tell you. I don't know.

Mr. Genzman. Do you know whether tapes of Oswald's voice :

were ever sent to Dallas after the assassination of President

Kennedy?

Mr. Hartman. No, I don't.

Mr. Genzman. Do you know if FBI agents ever listened to

tapes of Oswald's voice from Mexico City?

Mr. Hartman. I have no knowledge of that.

I do know that crazy photograph of that unknown man was

brought from Mexico City to Dallas, but I know of no other

things that were brought that way. I have no idea about this

paragraph at all.

Mr. Genzman. Thank you.

I would now like to show you a document labeled CIA page

197, a cable dated November 23, 1963, from the Mexico City

station to CIA headquarters.

NW 54756 DocId: 37263408 Page 38

---

## Page 39

38

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

• 13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Would you please read that document:

Have you ever seen this document before?

Mr. Hartman. I must have, but only casually, because I put

it in the file, I suppose, or somehow had the file, and it was

in it, I presume. But specifically no.. As I have said before,

I had no substantive concern with the Cuban side of.

life at all.

Mr. Genzman. Directing your attention to the second

paragraph, was a voice comparison ever done with regard to the

surveillance tapes obtained from the Mexico City station on Lee

Harvey Oswald?

Mr. Hartman. I have no idea. I don't know.

Mr. Genzman. Do you know whether any tapes of the voice of

Lee Harvey Oswald were destroyed?

Mr. Hartman. Well, it says here that first the tape was

erased prior to receipt of second call. Other than that, I

don't know.

Mr. Genzman. Do you know whether any tapes were ever

recovered? The document makes reference to the possibility of

recovering one or more tapes.

Mr. Hartman. I don't see that.

Mr. Genzman. My last question made reference to CIA

page number 201: Would you please read that page.

I will now repeat the question: Do you know whether any

tapes of Lee Harvey Oswald's voice obtained in Mexico City were

ever recovered?

HH

51756 DocId: 34263408 Page 39

---

## Page 40

39

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Mr. Hartman.

No, I don't. The sentence here on this page

says, "However, rechecking all unerased tapes LIENVOY -- "

I don't know if they recovered any of not. I don't know.

Mr. Genzman. For purposes of the record, page 201 is a

cable dated November 23, 1963, from the Mexico City station to

CIA headquarters dealing with surveillance operations in

Mexico City.

Have you ever seen this cable before, page 201?

Mr. Hartman. I couldn't tell you. I don't know -- sure,

I have seen it, but I have no substantive knowledge, because I

even desensitized it.

Mr. Genzman. You are referring now to CIA page 200?

Mr. Hartman. Right.

Mr. Genzman. Returning again to page 201, in paragraph 8,

does it appear that tapes were erased?

Mr. Hartman.

well, it says that it's probable the tapes

were erased.

Now, let me explain something: Oswald at that time was

no

great shakes. I mean he was just another person, someone about

who we knew nothing anyway, to speak of, and you can't forever

keep tapes, particularly in the field. Where are you going to

store them? If you have a 24-hour surveillance and you are

recording constantly on tape, you've got to get rid of the tape

whenever practical.

The field stations to my knowledge were conducting these

HH 54756

DocId: 30263408 Page 40

---

## Page 41

40

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

activities, transcribed the tapes, then erased them.

If there

was a particularly significant tape, sometimes they might have

held onto it, but this was not a significant matter at that

time.

Mr. Genzman. Please refer again to the document discussing

a former CIA agent's knowledge of Lee Harvey Oswald's trip to

Mexico City.

Is this document consistent with your appraisal of Oswald's

relative significance at the time he was under surveillance in

Mexico City?

Mr. Hartman. No. Not at all. I think it's way overstated

and stated in light of post-assassination knowledge. I don't

think I would have treated it with that great a flourish at the

time.

And what the writer says here about Lee Harvey Oswald is

that he was observed on his visits to the Communist embassies

and his conversations were studied in detail. This situation

would apply to anyone under these circumstances who was visiting

Communist embassies, who was talking with them, and we would

have recorded them in one way or the other either photographical-

Iy or on tape or both, and I don't think it's of any great

significance than of any other creep who went there.

Mr. Genzman. Directing your attention again to the tapes

which you received and which you put into a bulky, do you know

whether these tapes came from a safe of Win Scott, who had been

the CIA station chief in Mexico City?

N 54756 DocId: 30263408 Page 41

---

## Page 42

41

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Mr. Hartman. I would have no way of knowing who was

holding them at the time and who forwarded them to me at

headquarters. I couldn't even begin to guess.

Mr. Genzman. At this time I would like to show you a

document with CIA page numbers 3368 and 3369, which is a

memorandum from Thomas B. Casasin dated December 25, 1963.

Would you please read these two pages.

(Pause in proceedings as witness reads same.)

Mr. Hartman. This is interesting; I hadn't noted it i

before.

Mr. Genzman. Have you ever seen this memorandum previous-

ly?

Mr. Hartman. No.

Mr. Genzman. Does this memorandum contemplate the

debriefing of Lee Harvey Oswald?

Mr. Hartman. No.

Mr. Genzman. I was referring to the debriefing of Lee

Harvey Oswald by the CIA.

Mr. Hartman. No, it doesn't.

Mr. Genzman. Didn't it discuss the possibility of the

laying on of interviews with Oswald by the CIA?

Mr. Hartman. No. This is chatter to me. We were hoping

at one time we could interview Khrushchev and we talked about

it at great length and we were hoping we could interview other

people. This is daily-type talk. I don't think it ever went

NH 54756 DocId: 39263408 Page 42

---

## Page 43

42

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

anywhere. I don't think that Cassin even knew what he was

talking about or remembering about because he did not even have

the name correct. At the bottom he says we showed operational

interest in the Harvey story. Now who in heaven's name is

"Harvey."

Mr. Genzman. Do you know to whom this sentence refers?

Mr. Hartman. I have no idea. I presume he was referring

to Lee Harvey Oswald, but I don't know. I think this is just

something that brought some cases to his mind --

Mr. Genzman. Doesn't the sentence imply that it's a

separate incident and not synonymous with the Lee Harvey Oswald

case?

Mr. Hartman. I don't know. I can't make it out. It

doesn't imply that to me at all. I think the fellow writing

this got himself all painted into his own corner. I don't think

he knew what he was talking about.

Mr. Genzman. Was Oswald ever debriefed by a representative

of the CIA?

Mr. Hartman. Never.

Mr. Genzman. Have you ever spoken to Mr. Casasin about.

this memorandum?

Mr. Hartman. No. :

Mr. Genzman. Have you ever spoken with any of the persons

referred to in this memorandum?

Mr. Hartman. No.

HH 54756

DocId: 32263408 Page 43

---

## Page 44

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

43

But let me point out one thing, you just don't get into

your car and drive somewhere and talk to someone in the Agency.

There are procedures and steps that you must go through.

One of the key procedures is if you are going to talk to

someone in the United States, you must get FBI approval to do

so.

There would have been a record that the FBI would have had.

Also, debriefings of such people were customarily not done

by the personnel in the operational component known at that time

as DDP, but rather that a request for such a debriefing as

implied or stated in this paper would have been sent to the

Domestic Contacts Division who would have done the interview as

they constantly did.

Mr. Genzman. Does the Domestic Contacts Division obtain FBI

approval before they interview Americans?

Mr. Hartman. Yes, they do. As a matter of fact, they often

dealt with immigration people. There would have been records of

such

activities. Also, of course, the Domestic Contacts Division

itself would have had to have had a record and they, too, would

have had to have gotten a clearance as would the very people who

were apparently talking about this in that memo that we just

mentioned.

These procedures are basic to the intelligence business.

want to explain this because I think it is extremely important

to understand.

During World War II when we were novices in this game and

IW 54756 DocId: 30263408 Page 11

---

## Page 45

44

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

when the Soviet Union had some 30 years or so on us, we were

burned

a number of times because we weren't checking. It doesn't

take long for directives then to establish that you must do your

basic groundwork before you go and talk to a person. You can't

just run off and say "Hello, how are you? Give me information."

You must do this in an established fashion. Apparently.

from what I know and from what I can speak about factually,

these people who discussed this possibility didn't fold up on

It. It was wistful thinking, possibly, and we often did that,

but that is about the only thing I can say about it.

Mr. Genzman. Thank you.

I would like to show you a document JFK Exhibit F-524,

which is a memorandum dated 20 February 1964, discussing docu-

ments available in Lee Harvey Oswald's 201 file.

Have you ever seen this document before?

Mr. Hartman. Yes, indeed. I wrote it.

Mr. Genzman. At whose instructions was this document

written?

Mr. Hartman. It was probably a verbal request for

information which I then put down in this way in this format.

Mr. Genzman. Do you know at whose request you wrote this?

Mr. Hartman. Most likely my boss', because it is addressed

to him.

Mr. Genzman. And who was your boss?

Mr. Hartman. Mr. Rocca.

MH 54756 DocId:39263408 Page 15

---

## Page 46

45

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Mr. Genzman. Were the 37 documents described in the

memorandum as not being available in Oswald's 201 file actually

missing?

Mr. Hartman. No, indeed, they were not. They were

available, but not in the 201 file at that time.

Mr. Genzman. Where were these documents?

Mr. Hartman. We had and I presume we still have a

procedure which requires, demands, in effect, that if a document

is sensitive that it be kept in a separate folder and not in

the actual file. This no doubt is what happened here. As a

matter of fact, I remember distinctly that was the case.

At that point in time, the sensitive

documents, those

carrying a sensitivity indicator, were held at the Mexico

station -- at the Mexico City branch, because they

dealt with

sensitive matters such as taps and surveillance. That is the

reason for the majority of these documents not being there.

Other documents at that time were being worked on and were

being read at any one time and they were held by the person

working on it, it could have been my own boss, who had one of

the FBI memoranda at that time.

The point is, all our files at that time and ever since

then and even before then were computer-controlled. That is,

when a document was placed in a file, it was recorded as being

placed there. The document need not necessarily have gone into

the file at that moment or might have even been taken out at

HW 54756 DocId:30263408 Page 46

---

## Page 47

46

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

another time, but the machine run providing the contents of

that file was available at any one time to anyone who needed it

and would have reflected all documents which were officially

registered by the computer as being in that file.

Mr. Genzman. Thank you.

In the lower left-hand corner of the memorandum the hand-.

written words appear "Please keep loosely in the last volume of

Oswald's 201."

Who wrote this?

Mr. Hartman. I did.

Mr. Genzman. Why?

Mr. Hartman. Because I had to have someplace to place

administrative paper and that's all this is; it'

s a housekeeping

item and I have written many similar ones over the period of my

custodianship of the file. Most of them I threw away because

they had no pertinence -- no substantive pertinence to the case

itself. I had a habit of doing this. I would put it loosely in

the file at the end. This was an instruction to the secretary

and eventually I would pull it out and tear it up because it had

no meaning. You see I had made such runs and checked the

content constantly, at least, I would say, during the custodian-

ship of the file that I had, maybe as much as 75 to

100 times I

requested the machine run of the content, then would compare.

until it

got too bulky that I can't handle it anymore, but I

would check it and make sure it was in proper order, then I

HH 51756 DocId:34263408 Page 17

---

## Page 48

47

1

2

3

would destroy it.

Mr.

Genzman.

During these runs, did you ever discover any

documents were missing?

Mx. Hartman. Never. I know of many instances where the

document or a document or more than one were not physically in

the file, but they were not missing. They were simply charged

to someone, and the record reflected they were in the file, that

they were relegated to that file.

carr fls

4:30

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15.

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

54756

DocId: 30263408

Page 48

---

## Page 49

4:30 p.m.

Carr fols

Browning 1

1

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

48

Mr. Genzman. Paragraphs 1 makes reference to an attachment

What happened to the attachment which was a machine listing

of documents officially recorded

as being in Oswald's 201 file?

Mr. Hartman. I have no idea. I probably tore it up and in

the normal course of events I probably would have torn up this

memo

too, probably forgot it.

The point is, as I said before, that I made continuous

requests for machine listings of the contents that I could

observe the flow of paper and make sure that it was done in

proper order and so on.

This was strictly a housekeeping matter.

Mr. Genzman. Would you now please refer to the document

marked as "CIA pages 2105 through 2108" which is a memorandum

dated 18 September 1975, Subject: Allegations of Lee Harvey

Oswald's Connection with the Agency"?

Do you recognize this document?

Mr. Hartman. Oh, yes, indeed, I do. I wrote it.

Mr. Genzman. Would you read it, if necessary, to refresh

your memory?

Mr. Hartman. Yes; fine.

Mr. Genzman. Paragraph 2a makes reference to a date. How

did you remember the exact date?

Mr. Hartman. Well, I came back to the basic time elements

that were at play then, and the things that I knew I had to do

then and after the assassination occurred on a Friday. I was at

the building on Saturday and on Sunday, and I had, I recall,

MN 54756 DocId:32763408 Page 49

---

## Page 50

2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9.

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

49

certain obligations concerning other items, so that I could

not get to doing this until that point. It is strictly an

interpretation of what I knew to have been the things that I

did during that time.

Mr. Genzman. Paragraph 2b makes reference to the main

index.

Why did you check the main index on the night of the

assassination?

Mr. Hartman. I went down to the main index to see if this

character had a 201 file, and indeed he did, so I went to ask

for the 201 file and I was told it was held by SIG; they had

already picked it up or had kept it or held it before.

Mr. Genzman. Are you sure that the SIG office had the 201

file as opposed to the LA Division?

Mr. Hartman. Oh, absolutely, because I then went back to

my boss and I told him, "You know, there's a 201 file on this

character and SIG has

it." These were practically my words

verbatim, only I used stronger language than "character."

Mr. Genzman. Who instructed you to recheck the main index?

Mr. Hartman. No one.

Mr. Genzman. Why did you recheck the main index?

MI. Hartman. Well, Well, that's standard procedure for me.

It always was. I was never satisfied with just one check or

superficial check. You know, I wanted to be sure.

Mr. Genzman. What items were integrated into the records

system after the assassination?

NW 54756 DocId:32063408 Paue

50

---

## Page 51

3

50

1

3

4

5

6

7

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Mr. Hartman. All documents concerning the case.

Mr. Genzman. Can you give an example?

Mr. Hartman. If an FBI memo came in, it went into the

201 file and was recorded as such in the records system.

Any

document, anything we receive from the field, Erom Mexico City,

would all be registered as being in the 201 file.

Mr. Genzman. Cable traffic,

for instance?

Mr. Hartman. Of course.

Mr. Genzman. DCD information, for instance?

Mr. Hartman. If DCD sent a memo to us, to the DDP people,

we would place it into the records system. I can conceive of

nothing that would pertain to this file that would not be placed

in the records system providing the DDP organization had it.

Mr. Genzman. Did you at any time check with those who were

running the HTLINGUAL program?

Mr. Hartman. No.

Mr. Genzman. Why not?

Mr. Hartman.. I had no knowledge what the HTLINGUAL program

was.

Mr. Genzman. Were any HTLINGUAL materials in the main

index record?

Mr. Hartman. No, they wouldn't be, just as no additional

material would be in the main index. If a person has a 201 file

and he is the subject of that 201 file, all material concerning

him would go into his file and would be recorded in the machine

WN 54756 DocId: 32263408 Page 51

---

## Page 52

4

51

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

system as being in that file..

Mr. Genzman. Didn't the HTLINGUAL system contain infor-

mation concerning Oswald?

Mr. Hartman. Yes.

Mr. Genzman. Shouldn't that information have been in his

file?

Mr. Hartman. I can't tell you that because I don't know

under what instructions they vere operating. I had no knowledge

of anything of this nature at that time. I know now differently,

but at that time I had no knowledge. I know now that they had

their own way of doing things because they didn't want their work

or information about their work to be widely known. It was a

very sensitive activity; therefore, they made it very close to

the chest, as they should have. The fact that, judging by these

cards, that the HTLINGUAL people made, they made their own

index cards; and the fact

that Betty Egeter knew that they had

information, sufficed as far as I am concerned because she had

the 201 file, she had knowledge of the person, and she knew what

the HTLINGUAL people had on him, and at that point all of the

information runs together.

Mr. Genzman. When did you discover that substantive infor-

mation concerning Oswald, namely, the HTLINGUAL material, was

not in Oswald's file?

Mr. Hartman. Well, I'll answer that in a second, but

first let me say I don't consider it substantive because it has

HH 54756 DocId:37263408 Page 52

---

## Page 53

5

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

52

no substantive bearing on the assassination whatsoever, really;

it is some personal stuff and that's

about all, but you can have

your opinion, and I can have mine. I discovered that in 1975,

mid-'75 or possibly a little before then, after the revelations

were made in Congress about the

Agency and this HTLINGUAL program.

It was then that I began to learn of its nature and specifics

and details, and I was then told -- I don't remember by whom --

that there had been information in the HTLINGUAL file about

Oswald.

Mr. Genzman. Were you bothered when you discovered that

there was information on Oswald in the CIA's possession which

was not in his file?

Mr. Hartman. I was when I first heard it; then when I saw

it, I wasn't bothered at all.

Mr. Genzman. Do you know of any other instances in which

the CIA possessed information on Oswald which was not in his file?

Mr. Hartman. No.

Mr. Genzman. Directing your attention to paragraph 2d, why

did you check with Division D?

Mr. Hartman.

It is conceivable, or it was conceivable,

that NSA might have picked up something concerning Oswald in

their operations.

Mr. Genzman. Are you referring to the National Security

Agency?

Mr.

Hartman. That's correct.

WH 54756 DocId: 34263408 Paue 53

---

## Page 54

6

53

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Mr. Genzman. What is Division D?

Mr. Hartman. Division D handled the liaison with NSA and

dealt with matters concerning their type of work, and so I

wanted to be sure that there was nothing that they might have

been told at the time concerning him.

Mr. Genzman. What is an informal desk record as referred

to in paragraph 2d?

Mr. Hartman. Our records system provided that any officer

at any desk could keep an

informal record until -- or while the

case was under initial development, initial structuring. For

example--this is a good example -- Betty Egerter's receipt of

one of the cables-- "Should I open a 201 file or shouldn't I?"

"Is there going to be more paper or isn't there?" You can

temporarily, for the time being, if the person does not meet

inclusion standards, standards for official inclusion in the

records system, you can put paper, hold it in a package at your

desk or put it in an informal folder. You know, it is not

formal record at this point. It could have newspaper clippings.

While you are looking at something and considering whether

it is something worthwhile to handle, you hold it somewhere in

an informal file, and because of the Mexico City involvement --

I mean the Cuban involvement -- I thought, heck, it wouldn't

hurt me to check with the, whether they might not have something

informal or might have had something informal.

Mr. Genzman. Directing your attention to paragraph 2e, how

WH 54756 DocId:37263108 Page 54

---

## Page 55

7

54

1

2

3

4

5

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

did you determine that there was no Office of Security file on

Oswald?

Mr. Hartman. I was told that. I was told that by the

chief of the Security Research Section who had been established

as my contact for any checks of Office of Security records.

Mr. Genzman. Did you check any index to make that determi-

nation?

Mr. Hartman. No, I did not check their index because I

had no access to it. The index check was done at the Office of

security by an index clerk, I presume, and was reported by that

clerk to the Office of Security official through whom I dealt

or with whom I dealt.

Mr. Genzman. Since the time that you wrote this memorandum,

have you ever discovered whether the Office of Security did main-

tain preassassination material on Oswald?

Mr. Hartman. Well, I was told by your colleague that they

did have a file. The question I have is, of course, when that

file was opened. Cou must keep in mind that even if you put

into a file material of 1920 you can open the file in 1970.

The opening date of a file is not necessarily coincidental with

the date of the earliest document. I really was shocked when

he told me that the Office of Security did have a file.

Mr. Genzman. Why were you shocked?

Mr. Hartman. Because the man who did the checking for me

was -- he is dead now -- was an extremely. efficient person and

IN 54756 DocId:30263108 Page 55

---

## Page 56

8

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

55

he would have been sure to have notified me if there had been

a file. I thought for a while after your colleague had mentioned

this that conceivably at that point the Office of Security was

regearing itself in preparation for mechanizing their records

from manual system to computer system, but I don't know the

timing element for sure; so I can't really comment on that. I

don't know.

It's possible that in such a situation that people cannot

check that easily and mischeck checking.

Mr. Genzman. Directing your attention to paragraph 2f,

what is "CRS"? i

Mr. Hartman. CRS was the Reference Service; it actually

had the so-called biographic register.

Mr. Genzman. What do the initials stand for?

Mr. Hartman. "C" -- what did it stand for?

Mr. Genzman. Would it be "Central Reference Service"?

Mr. Hartman. Yes, of course, Central Reference Service.

Mr. Genzman.

• Was CRS in the DDI?

Mr. Hartman.

Yes, it was, a separate directorate from

the DDP.

Mr. Genzman.

Why did you check CRS?

Mr. Hartman. On the off chance that Oswald's name might

be included there. I couldn't just let it go by. The CRS

people in the Biographic Register Section -- this is the only

place you could check names -- held only names on foreigners and

NH 54756 DocId:30263408 Page 56

---

## Page 57

9

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

56

they were broken down by nationality. In other words, if you.

wanted to find something on the soviets, you went to the soviet

Section, on the Mexicans you want to the Mexican Section; but

they had no breakdown for Americans because that was not our

business nor theirs; but on the off chance, because this guy

had been in the USSR and had been to Mexico and had been involved

with Cubans and so on, I figured I'll check it anyway; and so I

checked, as

I say here, those three segments of the Biographic

Register, and found nothing.

Mr. Genzman.

was there any other source in the DDI which

you could have

checked besides the CRS?

Mr. Hartman. No.

Mr. Genzman. Did you ever check variations of the name,

"Lee Harvey Oswald"?

Mr. Hartman. Yes, I did.

Mr. Genzman.

Which variations did you check; do you

recall?

Mr. Hartman. Oh, yes. Let me explain: Whenever I did a

check of a name -- and I did hundreds of them in my career in

the Agency -- I wrote down the pertinent information, and the

Agency had a system for our official index cards. This system

was developed

after some years of study, and the system followed

certain pattern,

a name, date and place of birth, aliases,

address, profession/occupation, maybe not necessarily in that

order, but this is the type of information that would have been

HW 54756 DocId: 30263408 Page 57

---

## Page 58

10

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

-25

57

there; and, speaking a number of languages, I am very cognizant

of the fact you can get names all garbled up from one language

into another and into a third, so, for example, I recall that

just to be sure that we didn't get somewhere the name "Harvey"

spelled in the Russian "Garvey" because they don't have the .:

letter "H", I would have made sure that it was checked under

"G" as well as under. "H". this type of thing.

Also, of course, I know that people -- and particularly

this character -- manipulated names, so I would have checked

whatever aliases I could come up with at that time. I would

have written them down because they were overtly available as

a matter. of fact. I remember so clearly the name "Hydell",

H-y-d-e-1-1 or H-i-d-e-1-1, an Alex Hydell. This had all come

out at that time. So I followed the pattern of the index card

and then whomever I called or checked or however I went, I would

have replayed it that way right off that card I wrote out for

myself or paper.

I don't know if it was a cardboard card or piece of paper

at that point.

Mr. Genzman. Directing your attention to paragraph 2j, what

was the purpose of checking with the CI staff's operational

approval group?

Mr. Hartman. Whenever anyone used a person in the Agency,

they had to get approval to do so, that is, approval from a

counterintelligence point of view, which in effect meant that a

HH 54756 DocId:37263408 Page 58

---

## Page 59

11

58

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11.

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

name check would be conducted on the person, a name check

primarily in other Government agencies. Within the Agency,

an officer could do his öwn checks and was required to do so,

but he couldn't go outside the Agency. He had to go through one

of the other element, either through the Office of security or

through CI/OA, the Operational Approval Group.

If you had any intention of using a person in one way or

another, you had to get clearance to use him, and that is the

group that dealt with the clearance procedures and issued the

approvals.

Mr. Genzman. Directing your attention to paragraph 2k,

how were you able to determine that you completed your checks

on a certain date, December 4, 1963?

Mr. Hartman. Well, again, I consulted a calendar that I

kept and had made some notations concerning some other things

that I did and squeezed this in with the last item that I had

down. Working backward from one of the dates up to the next

point, the next point and the next point, I could come up with

it. I can't do it anymore because I destroyed the little slips

of paper with little scribblings that I have had here and there;

but these dates are as accurate as I could conceivably have made

them.

Mr. Genzman. What happened to the brief, informal note

which you sent to Raymond Rocca to inform him about the results

of your checks?

IN 54756 DocId: 32263408 Page 59

---

## Page 60

12

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

59

Mr. Hartman.

I never saw it again. I presume it went up

to the DDP himself -- this would have been Mr. Helms at that

time -- and with a note from MI. Rocca, and that it might have

been a part of the categoric statement that the Director made

at the time to the Warren Commission that we had never used

oswald in any way, shape or form, or had any connection with

him..

The other segment of that categoric statement might have

been -- and I had nothing to do with it -- the check that

all divisions made of their stations and bases -- because I was

told that this was done and I presume that on the basis of

these two elements, if not others, the statement was made

categorically by the Director to the Warren Commission.

Mr. Genzman. Directing your attention to the last sentence

of paragraph 2k, how did you know that the results were communi

cated to the Warren Commission?

Mr. Hartman. Oh, Mr. Rocca told me, and I think I saw

some paper later on that said that they had been. I don't

have direct knowledge, but I was told, or saw a paper.

Mr. Genzman. Was your note to Raymond Rocca the basis for

these communicated results, or were there other

bases?

Mr. Hartman. Well, as I said, either that or it probably

was that plus the checks made of bases and stations.

Mr. Genzman. Directing your attention to paragraph 3,

who told you that similar checks were made with foreign

IN 54756 DocId:39263408 Page 60

---

## Page 61

13

60

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19.

20

21

22

23

24

25

divisions?

Mr. Hartman. Mr. Rocca did, and some other people in those

divisions mentioned it to me.

Mr. Genzman. Did he tellyou that the results were negative?

Mr. Hartman. Yes, I was told that. I can't tell you who

told me that, but several people did.

Mr. Genzman. Directing your attention to paragraph

4, why

was Oswald not debriefed by the CIA?

Mr. Hartman. Well, as I explained in this paragraph, in the

early '50s, even the late '40s, we had a great deal of difficulty

finding people who had first-hand knowledge about the

Soviet

Union and the Bloc itself. There just weren't any people coming

out and whenever one showed up, it was a big event, and we went

whole hog. and tried to get all the information from such a

person; however, President Eisenhower initiated the thaw and

things began to warm up between us and the Soviet Union and

some

of the other Communist countries and all of a sudden we were

getting lots of people coming out. As a matter of fact, by the

very early 1960s, I would say, by 1960, as a matter of fact,

'60, '61, the flow of such people, both here as well as abroad,

who were coming out from denied areas, who had been there and had

come back, was so great that we couldn't under any circumstances

talk to all of them. It was just a physical impossibility to do

so.

We had also targeting

information, that is, we knew -- by

HH 54756

DocId: 37263408 Page 61

---

## Page 62

2

3

.4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

61

"we" I mean the Agency, and particularly DCD, the Domestic

Contacts Division, which was involved in the debriefing of the

people in the States -- knew what requirements for information

had been levied upon us, and these were constantly updated and

changed, and things were deleted and added from the services,

from other Government agencies -- from the military services,

I mean -- so that we began in the late

'50s or mid-!50s, even

when the thaw occurred, to become

more and more selective.

We had to.

Instead of talking to anyone coming out who had information

about a small plant somewhere, we would much prefer to talk to,

let's say, the director of that plant, or with an American

professor who had talked with the director of that particular

plant. That's only as an example. We were getting very, very

selective because the flow was so great. We couldn't conceivably

cover all the people. It jusas impossible.

As an illustration, I might add, that whereas in the very

early '50s, the late '405, we were debriefing displaced persons,

persons who were displaced.from their homes in the Soviet

Union and other areas during World War II, they had been

displaced and had come to Germany and eventually then, in '49,

'50, '51, emigrated as refugees to the States.

Now, their information was in many instances as old as ten

years, yet we were debriefing them then because we had very

little information on the soviet union

at that time and these

HN 54756

DocId: 34263408 Page 62

---

## Page 63

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Browning 8

fols at

5 p.m.

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

62

people were available and

we were doing somewhat a systematic

debriefing because we had nobody else

to speak of. So when

this

great influx occurred, we couldn't handle it, and so we

became very

selective, and Lee Harvey Oswald at that time wouldi

have hardly raised an eyebrow if I had been an officer whose

chore was to debrief people who had information concerning

targets of interest to the intelligence community.

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

HH 54756

DocId: 31263408 Page 63

---

## Page 64

browning

5:05 p.m.

fls carr

63

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Mr. Genzman. Let's take the case of Oswald. We know that

he was

a marine who had knowledge about radar systems and the

like, who defected to the Soviet Union and who must have had

contacts with the KGB. Assuming they were interested in finding

out if he was a bona fide defector and he was visited in Minsk,

would Oswald not have been of interest to the CIA?

Mr. Hartman. There are a number of fallacies in your

statement. There were thousands of Americans who visited Minsk.

As a matter of fact, there is a photograph furnished to the

Warren Commission in which Oswald is pictured with a lady who

was an American tourist there. Minsk is not a denied or re-

stricted area. There are plenty of tourists there. As for

radar, that hardly raises an eyebrow, because you can buy on the

open literature market more than Oswald could

ever have learned,

which means knob-twirling. Even if he had certain knowledge in

depth there has been no

secret knowledge of radar since the end

of World War II. So, this is no great shakes.

Mr. Genzman. Let me rephrase the question. Basically the

allegation has been made that Oswald had very sensitive informa-

tion concerning U-2 flights which he allegedly gained through

his service at the Marine Corps base at Atsugi, Japan. In

addition he was in Minsk for a period of over 2-1/2 years.

Therefore, he was not a tourist passing through Minsk. Moreover,

it has been alleged that he was closely watched by the KGB,

interviewed by KGB representatives because they were suspicious

54756 DocId: 34263408 Page 64

---

## Page 65

64

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

of him.

Let me pose the same question to you, based on these factors

would not he have been of interest to the CIA?

Mr. Hartman. The thing to determine about Minsk is whether

there were any targets which had been levied against us for

information about Minsk. Obviously there must not have been,

otherwise CIC would have hopped

on him.

As to the KGB's concern, he might have. I don't know

whether he did or not. A lot of people are hit by the KGB, and

they may not even know someone from the KGB. My concern with

Oswald regarding any KGB relationship was not whether somebody

spoke to him but whether they debriefed him and whether they

recruited him or made a pitch to him for recruitment.

If I had been on the other side I wouldn't have touched the

idiot with a 10-foot pole because how can you deal with an

unstable person who slashes his wrist and tries to commit

suicide. Such irrational acts you are looking for trouble.

For this reason I don't personally believe the KGB had any

interest in him after possibly an initial look-see to see who

the hell is this guy.

Let me say one other thing. As to the U-2 knowledge, as

far as his knowledge of the U-2 is concerned, I am not at all

certain. As a matter of fact I am quite certain that he didn't

know about the U-2. I am not at all certain that what has been

alleged that he knew has been accurate. I don't think he knew

MH 54756 DocId:34263408 Page 65

---

## Page 66

65

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

a cotton-picking thing.

I did some work on that side of the case. It was another

one of my ad hoc assignments. We had an officer who dealt with

the U-2 problem after the Soviets had shot it down with Gary

Powers and the whole involvement there, and he called me in one

day, through my boss, that is, and asked me whether I could check

for him what Oswald had, any substantive knowledge concerning

the U-2, because he had been at the Atsugi base. We had a

session in our

organization which dealt specifically with the

U-2. We also had a section which liaised with the military,

with the Air Force in this case, and I went to them and I

asked them to do a very thorough check. They came back and

said they had checked very thoroughly and that there was no way

in the world that Oswald could have known about the U-2.

I wrote that into a memo which was transmitted

to the

Warren Commission, I don't know under whose signature, but I

wrote the memo and it's on. the record that he had absolutely no

knowledge of the U-2.

I might add a personal note that from what I heard later,

much. later, the Soviets knew infinitely more about the U-2 than

Oswald could ever have provided them or that even knowledgeable

people about the U-2 could have provided them, such as passing,

exact height of passing, and things of that kind, but I don't

think it was Oswald who gave them information on the U-2.

Mr. Genzman.. According to State Department representatives

WH 51756 DocId: 37263408 Page 66

---

## Page 67

66

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

at the United States Embassy in Moscow, Oswald stated that he

had offered to give the Soviets information which he had gained

as a Marine Corps radar, operator. Do you know whether this

would have led the KGB to have become interested in him and to

have debriefed him?

Mr. Hartman. Possibly so. I wouldn't deny it at all,

except as I have said, I wouldn't have bothered or dealt with

an unstable character as this one was.: I don't think so.

Mr. Genzman. Directing your attention to paragraph 5, what

is the Interagency Source Register?

Mr. Hartman. Let's call it ISR, Interagency Source

Register, it will be easier for the record. That is a section

in the DDP, now the DDO, which handles requests from the ser-:

vices, basically the services, for registering of a person whom

the services are using or are contemplating to use as a source

or agent, if you will. That is the basic function of the

Interagency Source Register.

Mr. Genzman. Did you ever check the ISR with regard to

Oswald?

Mr. Hartman. Yes, I did. Although there was no need for

it, and hence I did not say so in my memo.

Mr. Genzman. What was your determination?

Mr. Hartman. Well, let me correct that. I do say in my

memo here, It should be added that my above-described search

produced no record or indication that any other U.S. Government

KH 54756 DocId:34263408 Page 67

---

## Page 68

67

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24.

25

agency had used him as a source of considered him for recruit-

ment."

Mr. Genzman. Are you reading from the bottom of page 2107?

Mr. Hartman. That is corxect, paragraph 5, the last

statement on that page.

That statement is based on my checking the ISR, although I

did not say so specifically.

Mr. Genzman. And what were the results of your check?

Mr. Hartman. Negative. Totally negative.

Mr. Genzman. Are you convinced that Oswald was never a

source or agent for any other American Government agency?

Mr. Hartman. Yes, I am.

Mr. Genzman. Did

you ever check directly with other

agencies to determine whether Oswald had ever been an agent for

them?

Mr. Hartman.

No. That was not my function. I don't know

whether the liaison element ever checked. I can't tell you

that. But I know that ISR is a part of the liaison element and

therefore, that would have been the only way they would have

checked, too, I suppose.

Mr. Genzman. Would a direct check with other agencies have

been helpful?

Mr. Hartman. I don't think so.

Let me explain why I say that. It might sound kind of

offhand, but it isn't. You

see the services.-- that is, the

WW 54756 DocId: 32263408 Page 68

---

## Page 69

68

1

..2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

military services -- were very interested in making certain that

source of theirs or a potential source of theirs wouldn't be

used by another agency.. Let's put it in much plainer words. If

the military attache somewhere had an agent who was reporting to

him, he did not want the naval attache to use that agent or for

that matter

he did not want that agent to be picked up by CIA

and taken away from him. That was the function of the ISR, to

register the person as a source of such-and-such an agency so

that another agency couldn't use him.

Another function was -- and I want to be sure that's also

in the record -- was 'to make certain that you don't get taken

by fabricators or paper mills, people who go from one agency to

another selling information. Those are the two basic functions

of the ISR.

Now, in the military's desire to make certain that they

keep their agent of their source, they often sent us lists of

people who were potential sources. They hadn't even contacted

them yet, but so they had their hooks into them - that is, so

the army had its hooks into this

person, rather than the air

force

- getting ahold of him or her -- they registered him with us

that way, they had first call. So, it is most unlikely, I can't

conceive of one of the services not registering a person with

the ISR because they were so anxious, always, to make sure they

retained this person as theirs.

Mr. Genzman. Can you conceive of a situation where the

MH 54756 DocId:30263108 Paye 69

---

## Page 70

69

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Agency would be running such a

sensitive operation they would

avoid registering an agent with the ISR?

Mr. Hartman. You are mistaken in how the ISR functions.

The Agency didn't register anyone with the ISR. It was

only other agencies.

Mr. Genzman. I was speaking of other agencies in my

question.

Mr. Hartman. I'm sorry, I thought you meant the Agency as

CIA.

Mr. Genzman. I was speaking of any operation which might

have had an operation so sensitive they decided against

registering their agent with IS.

Mr. Hartman. Not in a million years; it's inconceivable.

They would be harming themselves so badly. They were running a

double risk one was being sucked in by a paper mill or fabricator

and the other risk, while they were working a guy, someone else,

possibly the CIA, could come along and take him right away from

them by offering him more money. So I can't conceive of that.

At first when the ISR idea was first established many, many

years back there had been some question when they were talking

about establishing, what about the sensitivity. For this

reason, there was this very separate section that held the 201s

of people who were used as sources for other agencies and so on

and they were

given all the assurances, and over the years it

had proven itself out that they didn't need to be afraid.

HH 54756

DocId: 30263408 Page 70

---

## Page 71

70

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

• 23

24

25

Another thing we might add, and we are talking essentially

about the military services using the ISR, you might keep in

mind that although all sources are sensitive, the name of every

agent used by any intelligence service is always considered

sensitive. His life is on the line in many instances. Although

this is the case, the services were not running strategic cases.

Their cases were more tactical. That is the army, for example,

in Europe, they would pick up a fellow, let's say in Germany,

he could cross the border back and forth before the Wall, and

what they were interested in was which military unit was

stationed where and where was the airfield and who was in

command; tactical type of information. When you compare that to

a possible penetration of, say, like Oleg Penkovsky, when you

consider this kind of penetration when we recruited Penkovsky,

who knew about missiles and who was a colonel in the Soviet

Union in the stream of information, when you stop and think

about that as strategic, that is so much more sensitive than the

type of persons that the military would normally have recorded

as their sources.

I don't think there was any question in the minds of the

services that their sources were being protected.

Mr. Genzman. Directing your attention to 2108, paragraph 6,

why hadn't the Mexican information been included in Oswald's

201 file before the day of the assassination?

Mr. Hartman. As I had mentioned earlier, information

WH 51756 DocId:30263408 Page 71

---

## Page 72

71

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

concerning telephone taps, photographic surveillance and that

type of thing done by the United States in a foreign country is

an

extremely sensitive matter, particularly done with a foreign

neighboring country such as Mexico, in this case.

The rules called for us to hold sensitive papers apart

from the file itself so that people in the records system where

the file might be reposing wouldn't become privy to it.

Mr. Genzman. Are you saying that the Mexico City informa-

tion was kept in separate records?

Mr. Hartman. No. What I am saying is that at the Mexico

desk, they had a file in which they kept the papers slugged

"sensitive."

However, the fact those papers were a part of the 201 was

recorded in the computer.

Mr. Genzman. Isn't it true soon after the assassination

these papers were

included in the 201 file?

Mr. Hartman. They were always a part of the 201 file, but

were not physically held in the file before the assassination.

After the assassination the file was pulled up from the

file room and held at the desk at SIG by Betty Egerter. Again,

this is a component handling very sensitive information, so I

don't know whether those documents went into the file physically

from the Mexico desk or not, but they could very well have done

SO.

It would have been at the discretion of the Mexico desk

whether they would permit that particular section, SIG, to have

HH 54756 DocId: /263408 Page 72

---

## Page 73

72

5:30

ca

fls

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

those documents.

Mr. Genzman. Isn't it true that the data obtained from

Mexico City had been disseminated to other agencies before the

assassination of President Kennedy?

Mr. Hartman. That could very well have been the fact, but

it was never said how the data were obtained. We never revealed

the fact that we had taps of photographic coverage, and that's

the key in it. The information itself is not sensitive. The

method of operating is.

Mr. Genzman. How do you know the Mexico City cables were

made available to the Warren Commission?

Mr. Hartman. I can't say for certain that they were.

Let me come back on that one. I know that the information

in those cables was made available to the Warren Commission and

if my memory serves me, the Warren Commission even got direct

transcripts. I am

not certain on that point. However, as far

as the file itself is concerned, I believe, if I recall correctly,

what the Warren Commission asked of us was to see the file that

we had as it existed up until the assassination, and I don't know

in what form the Mexico City information was passed. I believe

they got copies of the transcripts. I can't swear to it.

IN 54756 DocId: 30263408 Page 73

---

## Page 74

Carr fols

Browning

at 5:30 p.m.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

73

Mr. Genzman. Do you know whether the Warren Commission

received any tapes of

Oswald's voice from Mexico City?

Mr. Hartman. I don't know that exactly. All I can tell

you is -- or all I can do is refer you to my previous statement

concerning that packet of tapes; whether there were any tapes

there with Oswald's voice on them or whether they were tapes

of a case, some other tapes, Duran or whoever, what have you,

I don't know.

Mr. Genzman. Are you sure that these tapes were not labeled

in such a way that it was

apparent that they were tapes of

Oswald's voice?

Mr. Hartman. No, no, no; they were

simply tapes concern-

ing the Oswald case.

Mr. Genzman. Did you at any time feel that these were

tapes of Oswald's voice?

Mr. Hartman. I have no feelings one way or the other.

I wasn't too concerned about that, as a matter of fact, when

they came in. It was old hat; the case was over with and I

was certain that all the information that had been gleaned

from this operation that is, the tapes, had been made available

not only to the Warren Commission but also certainly to the FBI

whose basic responsibility for the investigation is known.

Mr. Genzman. Directing your attention to paragraph 7, were

you present when the Warren Commission reviewed Oswald's 201

file?

MH 51756 DocId: 32763408 Page 74

---

## Page 75

2

74

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Mr. Hartman. No, I was not personally present.

Mr. Genzman. Do you know who was present?

Mr. Hartman. I believe Mr. Rocca was. I know Mr. Helms

himself would have been, and I believe the Director was.

Mr. Genzman. I would now like to ask you a few questions

concerning Jack Ruby.

Did the CIA obtaina the names of anyone other than Lewis

McWillie whom Jack Ruby saw or talked with in Cuba?

Mr. Hartman. I don't remember the name "Jack McWillie."

I don't remember.

Mr. Genzman. It is Lewis McWillie.

Mr. Hartman. Whatever it is; I don't remember that name at

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

all.

Mr. Genzman. Do you recall the names of anyone else whom

Jack Ruby saw or talked with in Cuba?

Mr. Hartman.. No.

Mr. Genzman. Do you know why the CIA response to the

Warren Commission's request for information on Jack Ruby took as

long as it did?

Mr. Hartman. Oh, yes, indeed, I do. I know very well.

given the responsibility of checking his name and I was

involved in a large number of cases at that time, nothing to do

wth the assassination matter at all, and I did a very thorough

check on Ruby, just as I tried to do on Oswald; and it took

time.. I had to review many, many records. I had not realized

HH 54756

DocId: 34263408 Page 75

---

## Page 76

3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

-19

20

21

22

23

24

25

75

at the time how common a name "Ruby" was, and there were all

kinds of references to J. Ruby, and Ruby without a first

name,

and all of these had to be checked. I recall that most all of

them were before the early '50s. I think a large number of them

were in the '40s; therefore, these records in many instances

were held in the archival repositories and they had to be ob-

tained. All of this took time. I had to study all of them,

each item individually, and it took me literally several months

to do this work, because I was so involved in items that were

of

greater importance.

I remember at one point my boss came in furious and

raised Cain with me because it hadn't been done yet. He had

received a note from the Warren Commission saying that this is

still pending. It was a mild note; it wasn't a very harsh note.

And so I got as busy as I could and I finally got the

thing out, but it had taken a great deal of time; but there is

nothing ominous about that; it was simply that we were all work-

ing very hard and these were chores in addition to our other

duties, our normal duties.

Mr. Genzman. After the CIA responded to the Warren Com-

mission inquiry concerning Ruby, did the CIA learn anything else

about Jack Ruby from CIA files, sources or otherwise?

Mr. Hartman. Not to my knowledge.

Mr. Genzman. Does the CIA have any information linking

Jack Ruby or his associates, especially Lewis MCWillie, to the

CIA Mafia plots against Castro or to any other plots against

HH 54756

DocId: 3/263408 Page 76

---

## Page 77

4

76

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Castro?

Mr. Hartman. If there is any such information, I certainly

don't know it, and I wouldn't have known it at the time, and to

the best of my belief there isn't. I never found any such.

Mr. Genzman. Pursuant to the Warren Commission's inquiry

concerning Jack Ruby, did you review CIA information for possible

links between Ruby and/or his associates with the CIA-Mafia

plots?

Mr. Hartman. No; whatever information there was on Ruby

at the time that I did check, I reported and recorded in the

memo to the Warren Commission; but there was no such information

there.

Mr. Genzman. Were there any problems associated with the

CIA's response to the Warren Commission inquiry concerning Ruby?

Mr. Hartman. No.

Mr. Genzman. With regard to the allegation that Oswald had

some connection with the CIA, were any investigative reports

generated by the investigations of this allegation?

Mr. Hartman.

well, I explained that before. We had only two

ways to determine whether he was or not, two general ways: One

was by checking locally within Headquarters and within the United

States, as I did, and, two, checking overseas. Both of these,

to the best of my knowledge, produced absolutely negative results.

There was no contact nor even the remotest connection between

Oswald and CIA.

NN 54756

DocId: 30263408 Page 77

---

## Page 78

5

77

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Mr. Genzman. Earlier

we dealt with your memorandum of

18 September 1975 contained on CIA pages 2105 through 2108.

My question is whether there

is any other written documen-

tation which may have been made during the Warren Commission's

tenure dealing with allegations of a connection between Oswald

and the CIA?

Mr. Hartman. Let's hear that one back again.

Mr. Genzman. Could we go off the record?

(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. Hartman. No, there is none that I know at the moment.

I must, however, say that I must have written countless notes

and memos of this nature, most of them having very little sub-

stantive connection with the

assassination, notes concerning

who is holding this particular document at this moment or all

sorts of questions that arose at the time that I would try to

find the answer for; but most of these I destroyed. As a

matter of fact, this memo is an old one. I would have normally

destroyed that one too because it says really nothing; it says

that at one point there were 37 documents which were not

physically in the file but were recorded as being there.

The same might have applied at any one point after the

assassination when people were studying the case and I could have

made other such notes. There might have been 50 documents that

could

have been missing at one point, or even more, physically

out of the file, but they have no bearing on the fact that they

HH 54756

DocId: 39263408 Page 78

---

## Page 79

6

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

78

were not in the file. They

were registered as being in the

file. I constantly had a machine run telling me exactly what was

in the file, so where the document file physically was located,

someone was studying it and so on, is a secondary point.

Mr. Genzman. When CIA Director John McCone sent an affi-

davit to the Warren Commission denying that Oswald was ever a

CIA agent, was he relying on any investigative reports, or would

you say he was relying on oral reports by his subordinates?

Mr. Hartman. Well, as I said before, I don't know really

what he was relying on, but I assume that he relied on the only

two basic channels that he had: One was the checks that I had

made at Headquarters and in the U.S. and,. on the other hand,

the foreign checks that were made by the divisions. I don't

know of any other way that we could have gotten him any more

information for his statement.

Mr. Genzman.

My question concerned the way this informa-

tion was presented to him.

Mr. Hartman. I don't know that.

Mr. Genzman. Thank you.

Do you know anyone who has ever used the name "Maurice

Bishop"?

Mr. Hartman. No.

Mr. Genzman. Before your testimony here today, did you

talk with any one at the CIA concerning your testimony?

Mr. Hartman. I told them that I would be coming here.

H₩ 54756 DocId: 30263108 Page 79

---

## Page 80

7

79

Mr. Genzman. Did you talk about any substance of the testi-

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

'9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

mony?

Mr. Hartman. No.

Mr. Genzman. Did

you talk to anyone concerning the sub-

stance of the interview you had with staff counsel Charles

Berk?

Mr. Hartman. Yes, after the interview.

Mr. Genzman. I have no further questions.

It is a policy of the Select Committee to allow each

witness five minutes of time to expand on his previous answers

or to clarify any of his previous answers or to offer any

additional information which he feels is relevant to the mandate

of the Select Committee.

At this time I would like to give you five minutes to

make whatever points you think are appropriate.

Mr. Hartman. Well, the one question, or my answer to it,

rather, bothers me a little. I did speak to others about coming

here. Of course, I told my wife and I mentioned it to Mr.

Rocca, who is going into the hospital. As I said, I also told

the fellows at the Agency whom you deal with

about it; but I

think the inference of your question is, was I coached and,

well, if not, I'm sorry, but I want to make it clear for the

record that I was not coached in any manner or form, that the

answers I have given are mine, and I will stand by them, that

what I have said is correct and truthful to the best of my

NW 51756 DocId:30263408 Page 80

---

## Page 81

8

80

2

3

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

recollection.

Memories are notoriously faulty and I'll be the first to

concede if I am wrong.

I want to make one final statement in regard to this case

in the over-all. We have heard allegations concerning Oswald

and that he worked for CIA from the day following the assassi-

nation. Principally, I think the initial allegation was raised

by his mother in a distraught fashion, and I can appreciate

her concern at the time. Her son was

killed and dead and

accused of assassinating the President.

I have actually tried to find any possible link between

Oswald and the Agency and I never could. I was very, very much

alert to this problem. I found it also at first very unusual

that the military didn't talk to him or that the

Bureau didn't

talk to him. I didn't have tht problem with the Agency itself

not talking with him for reasons I explained. We had so many

people that we could talk to that he was only a low level

character.

I cannot explain why the FBI or the services didn't talk

to him. I think I have nothing else that I can add.

Mr. Genzman. For the record, I want to state that I was not

trying to make the inference that you were coached concerning

your testimony today.

Mr.

Hartman. Okay.

Mr. Genzman. I am glad that you clarified this point in

HH 54756

DocId: 1P263408 Page 81

---

## Page 82

9

81

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

your statement. I have one additional question:

•Based on your study of the records and files and indices

of the CIA, are you convinced that there is no way that Oswald

could have had some connection or relationship with the CIA

which could have been kept secret from you by some means?

Mr. Hartman. There just isn't any way that it could have

been done. I would like to expand a little on that.

If you use a person as a

source, you've got to have money.

You've got to pay your source. In order to pay someone you

have to have records. You have to have an operational approval

to use a person. There are procedures that are entailed here

and no one, to my knowledge, has ever been able to use a person,

that is, no one in the CIA, has ever been able to use a person

as an agent or

a source without a number of people down the

line knowing it. You can't operate in a vacuum in an agency

such

as the CIA, not, I think, in any intelligence agency.

There are approvals; there is a chain of command, and

somewhere in this chain there must be a record. I even checked,

as my memo says, the Medical Office, because you cannot use some-

one in CIA unless you get a medical on him. That's basic

policy; that's why I went there.

The Operational Approval Section would have to grant

approval to use someone. It just cannot be. If the services

had used him, they would have registered him. We checked there.

I checked every conceivable facet and came up with

HH 54756

DocId: 2263408 Page 82

---

## Page 83

10

82

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

absolutely nothing; and I am today as convinced as: I was then

that Oswald had no connection whatsoever with CIA.

Mr. Genzman. I would like to ask one further question, if

I may:

Do you have. any opinion as to whether Oswald was ever

developed as an agent or a source or an asset by any foreign

intelligence agency, : specifically the KGB, or the Cuban

intelligence agency, DGI?

Mr. Hartman. That's a very difficult question to answer.:

because you are tyring to delve into the minds and feelings

and records of another government, and you have no access. All

anybody can do is hypothesize, and that's what we have all been

doing concerning that.

I have my doubts about the KGB because, as I said, he was

unstable and they knew it and I think he was causing them more

problems than he was worth. He was constantly in their hair, it

seems, even to the point where the niece of a KGB officer, I

think he was her uncle, was being badgered by this guy and he

eventually married her.

As far as the DGI is concerned, I don't see how they could

have ever operated him or manipulated him. You have to have

time with a person; you have to have access to him; and I don'+

think the Cubans were

that well organized at that time that

they could have spent hours debriefing him and talking with him

and recruiting him and that type of thing.

IN 54756 DocId: 37263408 Page 83

---

## Page 84

11

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

83

Certainly the KGB had the opportunity, but, as I said,

I cannot visualize in my narrow experience that they have used

him.

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

MI . .

Genzman. I would now like to offer you any additional

time which you feel is necessary to expand or clarify any of your

previous statements.

Mr. Hartman. I can only say one other thing, and that

would be in regard to the last statement: If the Soviets ever

used him and, in effect, if we can speculate that they got him

to kill our President, they are smart enough to reälize that

they can't gain anything from that, that there would be an

immediate replacement who might even be tougher with them or

through whom they might achieve a lot less than they did with

Kennedy. That type of thing about assassinating the top man

in the nation or the top two or three people, in my estimation,

that's basically not the job that an intelligence organization

does or is created to do. Possibly in dictatorships, fighting

each other and so on, in South American countries, where

somebody is always after the top man, that is another story; but

by and large I cannot see what the KGB or the Soviet Union would

have gained by assassinating President Kennedy if they really

had

a hand in it.

Mr. Genzman. On behalf of the House Select Committee on

Assassinations, I would like to thank you very much for

testifying here today.

IN 54756 DocId:3$263408 Page 84

---

## Page 85

12

84

1

2

3

4

Mr. Hartman. It's been my pleasure.

(Whereupon, at 6:00 p.m., the deposition was concluded.)

5

6

7

9

10

1

12

13

14

15

16

1

7

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

I 54756

DocId: 32463408 Page 85

---