FINAL REVIEW OF HSCA DRAFT REPORTS.
Originator: CIA
From: BRECKINRIDGE, S.D.
To: BLAKEY, G. ROBERT
Document date: 2000-01-01 00:00:00
Document type: PAPER - TEXTUAL DOCUMENT

# DOCID-32369812

## Page 1

JFK ASSASSINATION SYSTEM

IDENTIFICATION FORM

AGENCY INFORMATION

AGENCY : CIA

RECORD NUMBER: 104-10146-10093

RECORD SERIES : JFK

AGENCY FILE NUMBER : 80T01357A

DOCUMENT INFORMATION

AGENCY ORIGINATOR : CIA

FROM : BRECKINRIDGE, S.D.

TO : BLAKEY, G. ROBERT

TITLE : FINAL REVIEW OF HSCA DRAFT REPORTS.

DATE : 01/01/1900

PAGES

: 7

SUBJECTS : DRAFT REPORT

HSCA DRAFT

CIA COMMENTS

REPORT REVIEW

FINAL COMMENTS

DOCUMENT TYPE

: PAPER

CLASSIFICATION : SECRET

RESTRICTIONS :

CURRENT STATUS

: RELEASED IN PART PUBLIC - RELEASED WITH DELETIONS

DATE OF LAST REVIEW

: 08/09/93

COMMENTS

:JFK59 : F15: 1993.08.09.17:20:56:960028

Heleased under the John F. Kennedy

Assassination Records Collection Act of

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

55924 Diate: 10-26-2021

[R] - ITEM IS RESTRICTED

104-10146-10093

NW 65924 Docld:32369812 Page 1

---

## Page 2

DRAFT SECRET

Mr. G. Robert Blakey

Chief Counsel and Director

Select Committee on Assassinations

House of Representatives

Washington, D. C.

20515

Dear Bob,

This will complete our review of the drafts provided by you,-also

completing comments on the package covered in other respects in my

letter to you of 13 February.. This treats the section entitled 'Cuban-

American.

In its present form the draft on the "Cuban-American"

contains a variety of classified matters that should remain classified;

in this form we have classified the draft SECRET and request that it be

handled accordingly. (C)

It is understood that this paper is intended for unclassified

publication. Comments here are intended to advance ways in which the

story can be told in unclassified form. (U)

First, as a generalization, you are familiar with the current extra

sensitivity on publicity of CIA activities and presence in Mexico.

Sensitive political relations between Mexico and the U.S. are real

considerations, and a rather highly orchestrated campaign against CIA

in Mexico at this time adds to the concern. I have mentioned in my

letter of 26 February the desirability of a formula that lets you make

your general references and comments, without further advertising a CIA

presence. The suggestion was to indicate that CIA personnel there were

something in the nature of visitors for the investigation; the formula

suggested was somewhat as follows - "CIA personnel assigned in Mexico for the

investigation." I have identified references to the Mexico City Station

on pages 2-6 and 12, and the Monterrey Base at 5, 6, and 11. I believe we

can develop a formula that will be mutually acceptable on this. (S)

I believe that earlier we furnished you an "errata sheet" on detailed

corrections you would wish to make. The comments in this letter will

address other items of interest. (U)

SECRET •

22490

NW 65924 Docld:32369812 Page 2

---

## Page 3

SECRET

Page 2. As a matter of interest, on this page and those following?

repeated reference to messages as being "classified;" this seems odd to

us. As you are aware there is very little, if any, traffic between the

field and headquarters that is not classified. Both the means of communi-

cation and the content are classified. Persons unfamiliar with the use

of classifications may be impressed with it; but?is not substantively

significant at all. (C)

Page 2-4. The following rewrite is offered, as a way to avoid

unnecessary reference to the Mexico City Station: (S)

The first information on the travel of the Cuban-American

appeared in early December 1963.

At that time CIA headquarters

received a message relaying a request for "urgent traces on

Lopez was reported as arriving

in Mexico on November 23 en route to Havana and that Lopez had

disappeared with no record of his trip to Havana. According to

the message, Lopez had a tourist card, carrying number 24553,

which he obtained in Tampa on November 20, 1963 and his passport

number was 310162. The report stated that Lopez left Mexico for

Havana on November 27 via Cubana (Airline). There was no back-

ground information on Lopez in Mexico and headquarters was

requested to provide such information as it had. (U)

In another message the same date, the FBI office in Mexico

was reported as having been advised by Mexican authorities that

Lopez had entered Mexico on November 27 at Nuevo Laredo. (U).

On December 5, 1963 CIA Headquarters received a report that

Gilberto Lopez had crossed the Mexican border at Laredo, Texas

on November 23, 1963, and had registered in the Roosevelt Hotel

in Mexico City on November 25 at 1600 in Room 203. Lopez was

reported as departing on a Cubana flight for Havana on November 27:

The report stated that a good photograph had been obtained of

Lopez. (U)

A dispatch the following day forwarded copies of the

photograph to CIA Headquarters, stating when the photograph

was taken. The photograph of Lopez, contained in his 201 file

at CIA; is dated 27 November 1963, and shows him wearing dark

glasses; the background is dark and indistinguishable. (U)

The dispatch forwarding the photograph contained previously

reported information on the number of Lopez's passport and

tourist card, and on his entry into Mexico. It contained

additional information--that he was the only passenger on

Cubana Flight #465 on November 27, 1963

to Havana; that the

SECRET

2

NW 65924 Docld:32369812 Page 3

---

## Page 4

D.RA F.T

SECRET

flight had a crew of nine Cubans; that Lopez used a U.S.

passport and a Cuban courtesy visa.

The dispatch contained

the following statement:

"Source states the timing and

circumstances surrounding subject's travel through Mexico and

departure for Havana are suspicious."

The dispatch "urgently"

requested all available data on Lopez. (U)

This treatment is intended to be suggestive as to how the story can be

told in its essentials, at the same time preserving the Agency's activities

from unnecessary exposure. For instance, it omits reference to LITEMPO

and LIFIRE as well as some of the more explicit statements. I would

suggest that you should check with the FBI to see if there is any

objection to the reference to information being received by it from

Mexican authorities. (C)

Page.5. Suggest following for first paragraph: (U)

On December 5, 1963 CIA headquarters cabled the field

that this Cuban-American was Gilberto Policarpo Lopez, who

was born on January 26, 1940.

It alsostated that Lopez was

born on January 26, 7940. It also stated that Lopez was not

identical with a Gilberto Lopez who had been identified as

active in pro-Castro groups in Los Angeles. (U)

Page.5. Second paragraph. The indicated deletions (Monterrey Station,

Enrique Ruiz Montalvo, and reference, to the Mexican police dealing with

CIA) are appropriate. Thereafter, where Ruiz's name appears, it should

be "source," instead of the named person. (C)

Page 6. Agree with deletion of reference to Monterrey Base. (C)

Page 6. The cable is cited without comment; the portion selected for

quotation was in error as the information did not "jibe" with what was

already known. (U)

Page 6. The discussion of the 201 file indicates a misunderstanding

on the part of the author. In 1975 CIA conducted a review of all 201 files

involving U.s. citizens, to determine whether the files should be

destroyed, or whether they should be retained because of some counter-

intelligence interest. The administrative procedure for doing this

involved a form titled "Review of 201 file on U.S. Citizen." The file of

Lopez was categorized for retention because he was a subject of possible

3

SECRET

NW 65924 Docld:32369812 Page 4

---

## Page 5

D. R•AFT

SECRET

interest in the assassination investigation. The date 1975, apparently

questioned by the editor, is correct. (U)

Page 6. In lieu of reference to LAM/FI, it might improve readability

to substitute the word "responsible." Also delete the name of "Barry

Gibson." (C)

Page 11-13. The HSCA draft labors at preserving the basis for a

criticism of CIA in the handling of a badly flawed report from Monterrey,

some four months after the assassination of the President. (C)

The report erred in so many ways that it clearly was misinformed

extensively. The DCOS did not recognize these errors at the time of its

receipt, which does not alter the basic flawed nature of the report; his

statements that it "jibed" with other information does not make it so. (U)

It is quite a familiar thing in the world of intelligence for reporting

to be evaluated, and discarded when it does not pass tests of reliability.

In the case of the Monterrey report, it erred in just about every detail,

on top of which it offers an opinion of the reporting source - unsupported

by any of the facts offered -- that there was something "suspicious" about

the man. Not only was the report. in error in just about every point. It

was some four months after the assassination, when pressures for information

were high, and reliable, -timely, first-hand observation obviously was not

a part of the source's information. To characterize it as "cryptic and

impressionistic" is polite -- it was essentially a worthless bit of

reporting. (U)

It not only was correct to discount the report; it still seems that

it should have been discarded. That it appeals to the sanguine

imaginations of a critically oriented staff investigator does not give it

merit. The HSCA draft is badly exaggerated and labored on this point. (U)

It was a simple statement of fact that CIA could not investigate Lopez.

And that report was, in any event, not a valid basis for taking anything

"more seriously." To give it some quality beyond its objective merit

must be judged as unprofessional. CIA did report to the primary investigative

authority, the FBI, which appears to have conducted a thorough inquiry. (U)

4

SECRET

NW 65924 Docld:32369812 Page 5

---

## Page 6

DRAFT

Other items in this section:

SECRET

Page 11. Lopez was not "surveilled" in Mexico. That

phrasing may give it an adventuresome quality, but the report

was some four months after Lopez departed Mexico.

"It

obviously not only did not come from an informed source,

but there could have been no first-hand observation of the

man. (U)

Page 11. Agree with deletions at bottom of page. (U)

Page 12. Delete reference to DCOS and Mexican police

source. (C)

Page 14. The alleged "sinister appearing events," represent an HSCA

staff opinion, without supporting evidence. A man flew to Cuba, and no

one knows much about him. His only significance, if any, exists in a

coincidence in time. The FBI investigated him and reported to the

Warren Commission, judging from statements in the Church Committee report

and the HSCA drafts. (U)

Page 14. The Committee has no instances, documented or otherwise,

of CIA deciding "to forego passing information to the Warren Commission

out of a desire to not lay bare extremely sensitive sources and methods

of intelligence." I have tried to think what the HSCA staff may feel

constitutes material nonreporting, and have come up with the following: (U)

a. Anti-Castro plotting. As your own draft final report

convincingly demonstrates, the concept of any relevance for

that to the assassination investigation was not perceived

until the later 1960s, subsequent to the Warren Commission.

Failure to perceive, perhaps. To protect sources, etc.,

not shown. (U)

b. Failure to report on allegations of Calderon's DGI

ties and her contact with Oswald during his visit to Mexico.

. Contrary to the HSCA staff investigator, it was in fact

reported. (U)

c. Failure to report a suspicion of a DGI defector

that Calderon. was a CIA or American agent. Every uninformed

5

SECRET

NW 65924 Docld:32369812 Page 6

---

## Page 7

DRA SECRED

suspicion is not reportable, especially when it is known to

be false, as was the case here. Nothing to report, and

nothing to protect. (U)

d. Calderon's single remark, out of the context of the

conversation in which she made it. First, it is based on a

mistranslation, kept alive and unchanged even after having

been corrected. And she, herself, made it clear that this

isn't what it meant, if anyone has taken the time to read

it in context. . (C)

e.

Failure to report until April 1964 about Oswald's

contacts with Soviet and Cuban Consulates in Mexico City.

This is based on an error of a Warren Commission investigation.

First, Mr. Helms told Mr. Rankin at least some of the story

in mid-January 1964. The extensively detailed substance

of that information was provided the Warren Commission later

in January. This was reinforced by the Duran debriefings.

That the Warren Commission investigator understood the

uncontradicted information in the Commission's possession

cannot be explained today, except that he erred. (U)

The staff investigators may have developed an interesting, however unfounded,

thesis that protective reflexes prevented reporting. The cases don't

support the thesis. Further, no one has told them that such was the case,

and nothing anywhere records such a view. It comes out of the imagination

of the investigators, uninhibited by objective facts. (U)

It is customary practice in intelligence reporting procedures to report

information, protecting at the same time the source or method by which it.

was obtained. That may be difficult for someone outside the intelligence

world to grasp or retain, but procedures are well established for ensuring

reporting of such useful and valid information as is available, at the same

time protecting its origins.. (U)

The presentation is contrary to well recognized practice, as well as

being unsupported by fact. If the basic statements of the draft are

inapplicable, it certainly follows that their logical extension (reduction

6

SECRET

NW 65924 Docld:32369812 Page 7

---

## Page 8

SECRET

ad absurdum) does not contribute plausibility to the unsupported statement

that the FBI withheld out of deference to CIA. (U)

I have proposed the following security changes:

1. New formula for referring to CIA in Mexico, in

the various places it occurs in the draft.

2. Rephrasing of pages 2-4, with suggested text.

3. New phrasing on page 5.

4. Deletion of Ruiz's name on page! 5.

5. Deletion reference to Monterrey Base on page 6.

6. Deletion of "Barry Gibson" on page 6.

7. Deletions on page 11.

8. Deletions on page 12.

9. Delete LIFIRE.

()

Footnotes. Corrections are below:

3/ Classified CIA Document IN 72615, 3 Dec 63.

5/ Classified CIA Document IN 72829, 3 Dec 63.

6/ Classified CIA Document DIR-86761, 4 Dec 63.

9/ Classified CIA Document IN 74227: 12/5/63.

11/ Classified CIA Dispatch No. 24579, 12/5/63.

14/ Classified CIA Document DIR-87188, 5 Dec 63.

16/ Classified CIA Document IN 43194, 19 Mar 64.

22/ Classified CIA Document IN 43940: 20 Mar 64.

23/ Classified CIA Document, Personality File Action Request. (U)

After you have received these, I am ready to discuss their application,

where you encounter problems, with you, Gary Cornwell, or Mickey Goldsmith.

In any event, it would be useful for us to get together soon. I realize

you are very busy, but some personal exchanges may save time later. (

Sincerely,

SDB

SECRET

7

NW 65924 Docld:32369812 Page 8

---