Originator: HSCA
From: [RESTRICTED]
Document date: 05/19/1978
Document type: TRANSCRIPT

## Page 1

180-10131-10338

2023 RELEASE UNDER THE PRESIDEN ASSAS On SyStEmY ASSASSINATION RECORDS ACT OF 199/19/20

Identification Form

Agency Information

AGENCY: HSCA

RECORD NUMBER :

180-10131-10338

RECORD SERIES:

SECURITY CLASSIFIED TESTIMONY

AGENCY FILE NUMBER: 014737

Document Information

ORIGINATOR: HSCA

FROM:

[Restricted]

TO :

TITLE:

DATE: 05/19/1978

PAGES:

71

SUBJECTS:

CIA, FILES

CIA, METHODOLOGY

[Restricted]

OSWALD. LEE, POST RUSSIAN PERIOD, TRAVEL, TRIP TO

MEXICO

OSWALD, LEE, RUSSIAN PERIOD, RETURN TO US

DOCUMENT TYPE: TRANSCRIPT

CLASSIFICATION: Unclassified

RESTRICTIONS: 1A

CURRENT STATUS: Redact

DATE OF LAST REVIEW: 06/13/1997

OPENING CRITERIA :

COMMENTS :

Box 8

y9.1

NH 50955

DocId: 32277223

Page 1

---

## Page 2

Stenographic Transcript 0f

HEARINGS

Before The

John F. Kennedy Subcommittee

of the

SELECT COMMITTEE ON ASSASSINATIONS

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

DEPOSITION OF ELSIE I. SCALETTI

Washington,D.C.

May 19, 1978

Alderson Reporting Company, Inc.

Official Reporters

300 Seventh St., S. W. Washington, D. C.

554-2345

HW 50955

DooId: 32277223

Page 2

---

## Page 3

2

3

TESTIMONY OF:

Elsie I. Scaletti

PAGE

2

5

3

10

13

5

18

19

20

₴ 1

22

24

25

001709

HW 50955

DocId: 32277223 Page 3

Pages TOP SECRET

---

## Page 4

1

LAF RANCE: ms1

ASSASSINATION OF JOHN E. KENNEY

2

3

Friday, May 19, 1978

5

6

U. S. House of Representatives,

John F. Kennedy Subcommittee of

Select Committee on Assassinations,

Washington, D. C.

?

10

11

12

13

Deposition of:

15

15

ELSIE I. SCALETTI

called for examination bt staff counsel for the subcommittee,

pursuant to notice, in the offices of House Annex II,

Room 3370

Second and D Streets, S. W., Washington, D. C., beginning at

1:15 o'clock p.m., before Albert Joseph LaFrance,

a. Notary

Public in and for the District of Columbia, when were present

on behalf of the respective parties:

For the Subcommittee:

MICHAEL GOLDSMITH, ESQ., Staff Counsel

18

19

20

21

22

For the Deponent:

(There was no representation by counsel)

25

001710

NW 50955 DocId: 32277223 Page 4

TOP

---

## Page 5

2

Whereupon,

3

5

10

11

12

13

14

ió

17

13

19

20

21

N

is

24

ELSIE I. SCALETTI,

having first been duly sworn, was examined and testified as

follows:

Mr. Goldsmith. Would you please state your name and

occupation for the record?

Mrs. Scaletti. My name is Elsie I. Scaletti and I am

presently a housewife.

Mr. Goldsmith. Is the name Scaletti your true name?

Mrs. Scaletti. No, it is not. It is a registered

pseudonym.

Mr. Goldsmith. With whom is it registered?

Mrs. Scaletti.. With the Central Intelligence Agency.

Mr. Goldsmith. In what state do you live?

Mrs. Scaletti. Virginia.

Mr. Goldsmith. Are you here testifying today voluntarily?

MrS. Scaletti. Yes.

Mr. Goldsmith.

You are testifying without subpoena?

Mrs. Scaletti.

Right.

Mr. Goldsmith. Have you received a copy of the Committee

Rules and the supporting resolution?

Mrs. Scaletti.

Yes, I have.

Mr. Goldsmith.

Have you had an opportunity to read Rule

Number 4?

001711

WW 50955 DocId: 32277223 Page 5

TOP

---

## Page 6

1UT OLENE

3

2

3

5

6

?

3

?

10

11

12

15

--

17

13

19

20

21

22

21

25

==:

Mrs. Scaletti. Yes.

Mr. Goldsmith. Do you understand Rule Number 4?

Mrs. Scaletti. Yes.

Mr. Goldsmith. Do you understand you have a right to

counsel?

Mrs. Scaletti. Yes.

Mr: Goldsmith. Do you waive that right?

Mrs. Scaletti. At this meeting I waive that right.

Mr. Goldsmith. If at any time you decide you should like

to have counsel, please indicate that.

Mrs. Scaletti. Right.

MI. Goldsmith. Under the Committee Rules you have a right

to receive a copy of the transcript of the deposition statement

that you are going to be giving today. However, by virtue of

the agreement that has been worked out between the Committee and

the Central Intelligence Agency, the Agency has asked us to

request witnesses who were formerly employed with the Agency

or presently employed with the Agency to waive the right

actually to receive the transcript.

We would naturally be willing to give you an opportunity

to review the transcript for accuracy. However, in terms of

actually giving you the transcript to keep we would like to ask

you to waive that right.

Mrs. Scaletti. I waive my right to keep t acopy. I would

like to review a final transcript.

001712

we 30955 Docka: 4227223 Page 6 TOP SEGRE

T

---

## Page 7

3

5

3

10

: 11

12

13

16

17

13

19

20

21

22

24

25

1UT

4

Mr. Goldsmith. No problem and you will be notified when

the transcript has been prepared. Have you had a chance to

review the letter dated March 25, 1978 from the Acting Director

of Central Intelligence Carlucci to the Chairman of this

Committee?

Mrs. Scaletti. I have.

Mr. Goldsmith. Do you understand that letter?

Mrs. Scaletti. I do.

Mr. Goldsmith. For the record that correspondence with

JFK Exhibit 94 at the JFK hearings.

My name is Michael Goldsmith. I am staff counsel with

the Committee and I am authorized by the Committee to take your

statement for this deposition. For backgroun purposes I would

like to tell you what the mandate of the Committee is and that

is to investigate the assassination of President Kennedy,

specifically who did it, was there

a conspiracy, and also to

evaluate the performance of the investigative agencies includ-

ing the FBI and the CIA.

Finally, another aspect of the mandate of the Committee

is to evaluate the work done by the Warren Commission. Do you

understand that?

Mrs. Scaletti. I do.

Mr. Goldsmith. Prior to coming here today have you had

any discussion with any present or former employee of the CIA

concerning your testimony that you are about to give today?

001713

ET

---

## Page 8

IUT OLUMEI

5

2

6

8

?

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

*3

24.

25

Mrs. Scaletti. I went to the Agency, to the office of

General Counsel to find out what my rights were, what restric-

tions were placed on me. They told me I had no restrictions

placed on me and I could have counsel with me today if I

wanted to.

Mr. Goldsmith. Did anyone in the Agency discuss the

substance of the testimony with you?

Mrs. Scaletti. No. I discussed with him only -- they

did not discuss with me what I should say or in any way I could

say it.

Mr. Goldsmith. Have you spoken to ant present or former

Agency employee about testimony or statements which those

persons have given to the Committee in the past?

Mrs. Scaletti. No, I have not.

Mr. Goldsmith. Is it fair to say that other than the

interview you had previously with staff members of this Commit-

tee you have not discussed the substance of this case with any-

one?

Mrs. Scaletti.

No.

Just OGC and OLC about my rights

and procedures, et cetera.

Mr. Goldsmith. Mrs. Scaletti, for how many years were

you employed by the CIA?

Mrs. Scaletti. Twenty-six plus.

Mr. Goldsmith.

What years were you working for the

Agency?

NW 50955

DocId: 32277223 Page 8

TOP

001714

EG

---

## Page 9

2

3

1UT

GN

6

Mrs. Scaletti. 1951 to -- I retired December 1977.

Mr. Goldsmith. Would you give us a brief summary of the

positions that you held during that 26 years?

Mrs. Scaletti. I started as a typist and I retired as a

Branch Chief. I went all the positions in between, reports,

5

6

7

IA.

10

12

Mr. Goldsmith. IA stands for what?

Mrs. Scaletti. Intelligence Assistant officer, Chief of

Station, Branch Chief, Deputy Branch Chief.

Mr. Goldsmith. Where were you Cheif of Station?

Mrs. Scaletti. Portiof Spain, Trinidad.

Mr. Goldsmith. When you retired you re Chief of which

14

15

16

17

13

19

20

21

22

?3

24

25

branch?

Mrs. Scaletti: It was over Venezuela, Colombia, Equador.

Mr. Goldsmith. One of the branches in the Western

Hemisphere?

Mrs. Scaletti. A Western Hemisphere Branch.

Mr. Goldsmith. Did you ever have any experience as a case

officer dealing with agents in the field?

Mrs. Scaletti. Yes.

Mr. Goldsmith.

In 1963 where were you assigned?

Mrs. Scaletti.

Washington.

Mr. Goldsmith.

What was your responsibility at that time?

Mrs. Scaletti..

I was on the Mexican desk or branch.

Mr. Goldsmith.

My understanding is that a desk would be

001715

HW 50955

DocId: 32277223 Page 9

TOP

SEG

ET

---

## Page 10

7

2

3

5

6

3

10

11

12

13

14

16

18

19

20

21

22

a subunit of a branch, is that correct?

Mrs. Scaletti. Right.

MI. Goldsmith. So if you were assigned to the Mexican

desk that would be one of the desks in the Western Hemisphere,

in a particular Western Hemisphere Branch?

Mrs. Scaletti. Right, unless it became a branch all by

itself. This is just internal organization, reo-ganization.

It does not mean anything.

Mr. Goldsmith. In 1963 how many years had you been work-

ing on the Mexican Desk?

Mrs. Scaletti. I don't remember unless I get my chron-

ology but I would say at least, to be honest, I don't remember

but I think it is at least three or four. I just don't remember..

Mr. Goldsmith. How many years did you stay at the Mexican

Disk before going on to your next assignment?

Mrs. Scaletti. From there I went to Mexico in 1967.

Mr. Goldsmith. In 1967 you actually went to Mexico?

Mrs. Scaletti. Yes.

Mr. Goldsmith. As a case officer?

Mrs. Scaletti. No, as an IA.

Mr. Goldsmith. During that time did you work under Win

Scott?

24

23

Mrs. Scaletti. In Mexico?

Mr. Goldsmith. Yes.

MrS •

Scaletti. In Mexico, yes.

001716

NW 50955 DocId: 32277223 Page 10

TOP

SFARFT

---

## Page 11

: 8

2

3

5

?

10

11

12

i3

15

16

17

13

19

20

21

22

"3

24

25

•-..

Mr. Goldsmith.

While in Mexico did you ever work with

Ann Goodpasture?

Mrs.

Scaletti.

We worked with everybody in the station.

So, indirectly but not directly under her.

Mr. Goldsmith. Do you know what here responsibilities

were at the station?

Mrs. Scaletti. Broadly.

She assisted Mr. Scott and

handled some of his cases.

Ireally don't know what she had full

responsibility for.

I know she assisted him on some of the

things that he handled.

Mr. Goldsmith. Is it fair to say she was his right hand

person?

Mrs. Scaletti. Not exactly because his right hand person

would häve been the Deputy Chief of Station.

Mr. Goldsmith. As a formal matter that would certainly

have been the case.

Informally did he rely on her a great deal?

Mrs. Scaletti. Yes, but I wouldn't say that she was his

really right hand person. He did depend upon her but not for

everything.

Mr. Goldsmith. Do you know whether she had any responsi

bility for the surveillance operations in Mexico City?

Mrs. Scaletti. That I can't remember. There was a lot

of coordination. She would do some of the work but I don't

think she ran them and I don't remember she had the responsi

bility for them.

001717

NW 50955 DocId: 32277223 Page 11

TOP

---

## Page 12

HUT OLUME

9

2

3

5

8

10

11

12

13

15

16

17

13

19

20

21

22

"3

24

25

Mr. Goldsmith. Turning back to 1963 again, what were

the general responsibilities of the Mexican Desk?

Mrs. Scaletti. To support the Mexico City station and

to handle things at headquarters concerning Mexico and the

Mexico City station.

Mr. Goldsmith. Were the responsibilities of the Mexican

Desk solely administrative and procedureal in nature?

Mrs. Scaletti. The Mexican Desk was handled like any

other desk. If you say administrative and procedural includes

budget work, name traces, handling reguests

from Congress

and

that is administrative and procedureal. But in my terminology

administrative. can mean

support and administration, which is

a completely different thing, like personnel or logistics, no.

Procedural, if you mean day to day answering of cables,

yes. If you would like to elaborate on administrative or

procedural I might be able to --

Mr. Goldsmith. Could you give me a brief laundry list

of the types of work that the Mexican Desk did when it gave

support to the Mexico City station?

Mrs. Scaletti. In intelligence reporting it would

process the report, positive intelligence reports. It would

do the counterintelligence dissemination, if it were required,

to the FBI, et cetera. It would handle budget and submit

projects requesting money in support of the station's opera

tions. It would do name traces. It would handle requests from

NW 50955 DocId: 32277223

Page 12

TOP

ET

001718

---

## Page 13

10

2

3

4

5

Congress, requests from other government agencies. We would

write any memo that was required in response to a request from

anybody, from the next echelon all the way up to the Director.

We would be responsible for replying to matters having to do

with Mexico per se or operations in Mexico. Does that clarify

it?

10

72

13

14

15

16

.17

18

20

21

22

"3

24

Mr. Goldsmith. Yes, that is helpful.

Did the work involve at any time substantive analytical

work?: In other words, you would get information from the

Mexico City station and you would then have to analyze that

information and perhaps make a policy decision on it?

Mrs. Scaletti. No. At that time we are not analysts,

we only process raw material. Occasionally they might ask you

for a memo, like if there is an election, but we do not do

analytical work. We only put down

facts that havedbeen

reported. We do not do analysis. We do correlation. That is

a much better word.

Mr. Goldsmith. What about actualy decisions? If Mexico

City station communicated with the Mexican Desk and asked for

a decision to be made, would the Mexican Desk make the decision!

or would someone else in the Branch make the decision?

Mrs. Scaletti. I think we misunderstood each other.

When

you say policy, analytical, or intelligence, no, we did not

analyze intelligence. We only correlated. By policy you mean

operational policy?

001719

NW 50955 DocId: 32277223

Page 13

TOP

---

## Page 14

11

3

5

?

10

=

12

13

Mr. Goldsmith..

Yes.

Mrs. Scaletti. On operations a lot is left to the

station to have a certain amount of autonomy. We had almost

no authority to make final decisions.

We could prepare a message with a recommendation and

then it would go for release of signature and at the time it

was released of the memo signed, that person would be making

the policy. Is that clear?

Mr. Goldsmith.

Yes.

That person would be someone higher

up above the Mexican Desk?

Mrs. Scaletti. Yes.

Mr. Goldsmith.

How many people worked on the Mexican

Desk?

15

16

.17

18

19

20

21

22

is

24

25

Mrs. Scaletti. I cannot remember. I have been trying

to think. I cannot recall. I cannot remember where we were

sitting.

Mr. Goldsmith. It was not just you?

Mrs. Scaletti. I would say two of more, between two and

15.

il

Mr. Goldsmith. when you say two of more are you thinking!

in terms of case officers only of ae you thinking in terms of

case officers, secretarial help, administrative help?

Mrs. Scaletti. Yes. I know where were at least two of

us because if I wasn't there, there had to be somebody else

there.

001720

NH 50955 DooId: 32277223

Page 14

TOP

---

## Page 15

14 GLURE

12

2

3

Mr. Goldsmith. You say two or more, you are not making

any distinction between case officer and other --

Mrs. Scaletti. Don't stick me with the two. I know I

was there and

somebody else must have been there. But how

many people were there - there are tables of organization

available.

Honestly, I cannot remember. If I could visualize

what room

. I was

sitting in then maybe I could try to think who

sat where but I cannot visualize where I was sitting at that

time.

10

11

12

13

Mr. Goldsmith. How many years did you work at the

Mexican Desk?

Mrs. Scaletti.

We worked all over. Your table of

organization changes every four months or six months.

understand?

You said at that time? YOu said 1963?

DO YOU

Mr. Goldsmith. Yes.

Mrs. Scaletti. I can remember at times temperararily

when there were 15 and I can remember times when Iwas practically

alone.

15

15

17

13

19

20

21

22

:3

21

Mr. Goldsmith.

Who would have been your immediate

supervisor in 1963?

Mrs. Scaletti. I cannot remember who the Desk Chief was.

Mr. Goldsmith. Would the Desk Chief have been someone

different from the Branch Chief?

Mrs. Scaletti. Yes, unless there was no Desk Chief.

I

mean; if there was a vacancy.

001721

HH 50955 DocId: 32277223

Page 15

TOP

FT

---

## Page 16

- Un

13

2

3

5

3

?

10

11

12

13

15

17

18

19

20

21

22

21

25

Mr. Goldsmith. Did you ever work with Hack Whitten?

Mrs. Scaletti. Yes.

Mx. Goldsmith. Do you recall when you worked with him?

Mrs. Scaletti. The Years I don't remember. Itwas a

matter of a couple of years I believe.

Mr. Goldsmith. Do you think that you worked with Whitten

in 1963?

Mrs. Scaletti. I know I did because I saw a message.

Mr. Goldsmith. In other words, you saw a cable of some

kind that had his name on it?

Mrs. Scaletti. It was mine.

Mr. Goldsmith. As a case officer working on the Mexican

Desk would you have been aware in 1963 of the various surveil-

lance operations that were in effect in Mexico City, being

conducted by the Mexico City station?

Mrs. Scaletti. Not the surveillances but the team.

Mr. Goldsmith. Could you elaborate a bit on that?

Mrs. Scaletti. I mean from the budget standpoint and from

the clearance of agents, I knew that there were so many teams

with about so many people, or basically what they did. But we

were not privy necessarily to what those people did every day:

Mr. Goldsmith. Did you know that there was a wire tap

operation against the Cuban and Soviet Embassies and Consulates?

Mrs. Scaletti. Right.

Mr. Goldsmith. Did you also know there was a photo

001722

NH 50955 DocId: 32277223

Page 16

TOP SEGRE

---

## Page 17

14

2

3

10

18

19

21

22

*3

24

25

surveillance operation against the Cuban Embassy and Consulate

and Soviet Embassy and Consulate?

Mrs. Scaletti. Right.

Mr. Goldsmith. If we can just clarify your last answer,

you were aware of the fact of these surveillance operations.

Could you explain to me again what you were not aware of?

Mrs. Scaletti. You know from your budget preparations

and from your handling of veryday traffic that you have certain

operations. Like, you know you have a surveillance team. That

is a project. You need so much money... You have so many people.

You have so many cars because they come in and request permis

sion to buy a car or to sell a car. Or you know you have a

clearance fro so many people of this man quit, you know,

personnel.

1/0561

You know basically from the quarterly reporting or the

reporting that is required under the regulations, the general

target, because you have to get higher approval

to hire a team

to do such and such.

But I do not know that on Monday, June 2nd, two cars went

to this house and looked at this window and Thursday - do you

understand?

Mr. Goldsmith. Yes. You would not be aware of the

operational information being picked up by the surveillance

operation?

NW 50955 DocId:32277223 Page 17

Deta: 92723 are a TOP ACCRET

Mrs. Scaletti. Unless the field bothered to tell you,

001723

A paint

---

## Page 18

15.

because they wanted to find something out or check something

2

3

out.

Mr. Goldsmith. How often would the field contact you

with regard to this types of situation?

5

Mrs. Scaletti. You could go a month of two without

6

having any, or longer.

7

Mr. Goldsmith. Would your answer to that question be

that you did not frequently get information from the Mexico

?

City station pertaining to the operational aspects of the

10

surveillance teams' work?

11

Mrs. Scaletti. Correct.

12

Mr. Goldsmith. When you did get this kind of information!

13

would it come to headquarters from the Mexico City station by

14

means of a dispatch or cable?

15

Mrs. Scaletti. Either one.

16

Mr. Goldsmith. How would it be determined which form

17

of communication would be used to contact headguarters?

Mrs. Scaletti. The priority and if a reply was requested,

because if you need an answer in order to do some more investi-

20

==

gation you had better send a cable or you are never going to

21

hear. If it is a dispatch it could take maybe a month by the

22

time you got to the desk and by the time you answer it it would

take a month.

21

Mr. Goldsmith. During the summer months, and I am talking

25

generally not just 1963, but during the summer months, at least

NW 50955 DocId: 32277223 Page 18

Docta: 3227723 Page l TOP RECRET

001724

---

## Page 19

16

3

4

5

6

10

11

12

13

15

17

18

19

20

21

22

24

25

of the years you were at the Mexico Desk, do you recall

whether there were frequent communications from the Mexico

City station reporting the fact of Americans visiting the

Embassy or Consulate of a communist country?

Mrs. Scaletti. I don't recall any difference between

summer months and any other months.

Mr. Goldsmith.

When did Lee Harvey Oswald first come

to your attention?

Mrs. Scaletti. When the station sent a cable asking

for a name trace, a routine name trace.

MI. Goldsmith. At that time how important was the fact

of Oswald's contract considered?

Mrs. Scaletti. It was a routine name trace.

Mr. Goldsmith. So at that time it was not considered at

all unusual. Is that what you are saying?

Mrs. Scaletti. Yes. We handled it as any normal --

because we would have gotten similar name traces on other

Americans who might have been identified as going to the soviets.

It was a routine way of handling that for the Bureau.

Mr. Goldsmith. So even though the fact that Americans

did not frequently contact the

Soviet Embassy of the Cuban

Embassy, when they did and Mexico City station communicated with

headquarters the fact of that contact, was supposed to be

considered routine?

Mrs. Scaletti.

Right. It was still handled in a routine

001725

so sosss sourd. 321723 pages I OF

SEGR

---

## Page 20

17

2

3

5

6

?

10

11

12

13

15

16

.17

18

19

20

21

22

manner.

Mr. Goldsmith. Would the fact that a cable had bee nused

to communicate with headquarters indicate that the contact was

considered to be important?

Mrs. Scaletti. No.

As I told you previously, and I will

repeat, you generally would use a cable for a name trace for

the expediency so that you could get a reply back within a

reasonable working period.

Mr. Goldsmith. Let us take a look at that cable now.

would like to show you what has been marked CIA Number 177,

and when I refer to these numbers, I am referring to the

red numbers at the bottom of the page. The Agency has been

kind enough to make these documents available to the Committee

at our officese. For purposes of allowing athe Agency to make

sure that each document is properly returned to it, the Agency

has numbered each piece of paper. I use those numbers for

the purpose of the deposition for our record. Would you

please examine CIA Number 177?

Mrs. Scaletti. Is that the cable that first brought Lee

Oswald to your attention?

Mrs. Scaletti. I presume so.

I can't remember that far

back.

24

25

Mr. Goldsmith. What is the date of that cable?

Mrs. Scaletti. 19 October 1963.

Mr. Goldsmith. Is it 19 or 9?

NW 50955 DocId: 32277223 Page 20

Dood: 3227223 Page 2 TO FEARE

001726

---

## Page 21

18

Mrs. Scaletti.

19 October 1963.

That is the way I read

it.

3

5

6

?

10

11

12

13

"15

16

.17

18

19

20

22

24

23

Mr. Goldsmith. Let us take a look at CIA Number 178.

Mrs. Scaletti.. It could be 9. That is not really that

pertinent, is it? Here it is 9 because here is the zulu time.

So that is 9.

Mr. Goldsmith. What time?

Mrs. Scaletti. Zulu time.

Mr. Goldsmith. What is zulu time?

Mrs. Scaletti. Greenwich. I believe that is what it is.

Zero nine zero four three would be the 9th of 043 zed.

Mr. Goldsmith. What is zed?

Mrs. Scaletti.

Z.

Mr. Goldsmith. • That refers to Greenwich time?

Mrs. Scaletti.. I believe. But you can check the date

with that.

Mr. Goldsmith. I was

going to say if we take a look at

CIA Number 178, that is the Mexico City station copy of that

telegram -

Mrs. Scaletti. I am

I sorry, what number?

Mr. Goldsmith. Number 178. That indicates that 'the

cable was sent on 8 October, so it is likely that headquarters

would have received it bythe 9th.

Mrs. Scaletti. Right. What am I supposed to do with

this one?

001727

NW 50955 DocId:32277223 Page 21

Dood: 1227223 Page 2 TOP SEGRET

---

## Page 22

111

:19

3

10

11

12

15

16

17

13

19

20

21

22

24

25

Mr. Goldsmith. Just wait for me to ask you a question.

Would you please read that cable?

Mrs. Scaletti. Yes.

Mr. Goldsmith. My first question is does that cable

contain a request for a name trace?

Mrs. Scaletti. No, unless I really goofed reading.

Mr. Goldsmith.

Please reread it.

Mrs. Scaletti. No, it requests no specific name trace.

Mr. Goldsmith. Now, in the basence of a name trace hwat

significance would you attach to the cable in light of the fact

that it was sent by means of cable instead of dispatch?

Mrs. Scaletti. That they

were informing headguarters of

a possible American, because even though it says American male,.

when you check them out it is not an American male. They

alerted headquarters to the fact that a possible American had

contacted the Soviet Embassy.

Mr. Goldsmith. I understand that is what they are inform-

ing headquarters about. My question is, does the fact that

they used the cable suggest that Mexico City station considered

this to be a priority item?

Mrs. Scaletti. I really cannot read into their thinking.!

As a spot thing like this I probably would have reported it

by cable. I can't really comment on that.

Mr. Goldsmith. I understand. The reason I asked the

question is because earlier, my recollection of the statement

* 0955 Daurd: $277228 Page 22 TO

SEG

001728

---

## Page 23

2

3

5

6

10

11

12

13

15

16

18

19

20

21

72

24

75

1Ur

L6N

20

was that you said a cable would be used for something that was

priority item or if there was

a request for a name trace.

There was no request for a name trace there. I am wondering

ifi

this fits into the other category, a priority item?

Mrs. Scaletti. Not necessarily. We did an awful lot

of cabling out of Mexico of these spot things instead of writing

full dispatches. This is a lot quicker and really less expen-

sive to do than in a cable. A lot of this is just how you react

and how you handle things.

There is no regulation which says what has to be done

by cable and what has to be done by dispatch. It is up to the

Co or the individual.

Mr. Goldsmith. Are there no written regulations govern-

ing when dispatches are to be used as opposed to cable?

Mrs. Scaletti.

Sometimes.

Mr. Goldsmith.

So there are regulations governing the

instances?

Mrs. Scaletti. Right.

Mr. Goldsmith. Does

this cable contain a description of

Lee Harvey Oswald?

Mrs. Scaletti. It provides a description of a male that

looked to be an American who entered the Soviet Embassy.

Mr. Goldsmith. Is the answer yes or no.

Mrs. Scaletti. I can't tell.

Mr. Goldsmith. Read the description contained in the

NW 50955

Docta: 32277223 Page 23 TO P

001729

---

## Page 24

21

2

3

5

?

10

11

12

13

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

24

25

second paragraph.

Mrs. Scaletti. Correct.

Mr. Goldsmith.. The first paragraph mentions Oswald?

Mrs. Scaletti. The first paragraph mentions Oswald.

Mr. Goldsmith. The second paragraph also refers to a

photograph and then it describes the person who appears in the

photograph, is that correct?

Mrs. Scaletti. That is correct.

Mr. Goldsmith.: Is this photograph linked to Oswald?

Mrs. Scaletti. In this cable it is not directly linked

to Oswald.

Mr. Goldsmith. Is it indirectly linked to Oswald?

Mrs. Scaletti.: In this cable it is not indirectly linked

either. I might say, to clarify, that in many instances

we

would receive cables like this and it would be the same person.

Rather than put a lot of wordage in they put this down, what

they heard and this is what they have

seen, and maybe without

putting all the language there may be or may not be indentifiable

or this could possible be the same person:

We were very careful

to do this when we go out to third

agencies.

MI. Goldsmith.. Certainly the Mexico City station would

not send up a cable containing simply the information reflected

in paragraph number 2?

Mrs: Scaletti..

No, because: it was worth nothing.

NW 50955 DocId: 32277223 Page 24

TOP

SEG

001730

---

## Page 25

22

2

3

5

10

11

12

• 13

15

17

13

9

20

21

22

24

25

Mr. Goldsmith. So you are saying you believe, and you

may correct me if I am wrong, that the cable would not put in

all of the extra verbage such as saying "this may be Oswald"

Instead they would give you the information on Oswald in

paragraph 1. In paragraph 2 they report the fact of a photo-

graph and the fact that they report the particular photograph

simply means this may or may not be Oswald?

Mrs. Scaletti. Yes. What they have done is obvious to

me now and I would assume this might have been the way I

interpreted it at the time, that they got the phone call.

station went

and said "now, look, can we identify him" and.

The

they went to the photograph.

The only photographs they saw which could have been -

you know, in case this man had walked in around that time, may-

be this is the one they think it is, so let us give them the

description, it might help Washington.

Mr. Goldsmith. So, the significance of that second

paragraph is that this might be Oswald?

Mrs. Scaletti. This is the way I interpret it now.

probably interpreted it at the time but I can't remember my

exact though processes so many years ago. I would not now

have gone back to the station and said "why did you send me

paragraph 2?"

Mr. Goldsmith. I understand that paragraph 2

does not

say "Have photograph of Oswald."

001731

NW 50955 DocId: 32277223

Page 25

TOP

---

## Page 26

23

2

3

10

12

13

15.

16

i7

18

19

20

21

22

.?3

2.4

25

Mrs. Scaletti. Right.

Mr. Goldsmith. I just wanted to clarify that your answer

was that paragraph 2 meant this may be Oswald even though that

lenguage was not expressly used.

Mrs. Scaletti: Right.

Mr. Goldsmith. Do you know, and I realize you just gave

an opinion as to what may have happened, do you know how the

people in Mexico City station went about the process of obtain-

ing that photograph and suggesting that that photograph may

be Oswald?

Mrs.

Scaletti. I have no knowledge of how the station

did this. I could only guess what the process of a person in

the station would be.

Mr. Goldsmith. You

never talked to anyone from the

station about this?

Mrs. Scaletti.

No. I never have talked to Mrs. Minelli.

I only talked to Annie Goodpasture when she was doing some

research on where she could find some photos, you know, that

might have been retired in Washington. That is all.

Mr. Goldsmith. Did she give you any indication of what

she did, if anything, to pick out this particular photograph?

Mrs. Scaletti. It is my understanding she didn't have

anything to do with picking out the photograph.

Mr. Goldsmith. I am not suggesting she did.

Mr. Scaletti. No, she did not mention anything about

NW 50955

Docka: 3227223 Page 26 TOP SECRET

001732

---

## Page 27

AUT DEUN

24

that.

2

3

5

6

7

10

11

12

13

15

16

17

13

19

20

21

22

:?3

24

25

Mr. Goldsmith. Did you ever see the photograph that is

referred to in paragraph number 2?

Mrs. Scaletti. I think I might have seen it.

I don't

remember. I could have seen it when Ann was up here about a

year ago trying to find the photographs but I don't think she

ev er showed it to me.

But I can't swear one way or the other

because I was not involved in the case.

Mr. Goldsmith. Now, the first paragraph of that cable

refers, I believe, to a statement by the person who identified

himself as Osald, to the effect that Oswald had been in contact

with Kostikov,

does it not?

Mrs. Scaletti. Whom he believed to be Kostikov.

Mr. Goldsmith. Yes. Do you recall whethere the fact of

the reference to Kostikov may have enhanced the importance of

this particular cable?

In other words, not only do we have

an American who contacted the Soviet Embassy but he also was

in contact with Kostikov?

Mrs. Scaletti. I sort of doubt it. I don't remember

that it did but I don't think it did.

Mr. Goldsmith. Even though Kostikov was known by the

KGB?

Mrs. Scaletti. Almost 50 percent are KGB OF GRU.

Mr. Goldsmith. What is GRU?'

Mrs. Scaletti. Military Intelligence.

001733

NW 50955 DocId:32277223 Page 27

TOP

Healt

---

## Page 28

2

5

10

11

12

13

.15

13

19

20

21

22

?3

21

25

JUT DEUN

25

Mr. Goldsmith. Kostikov in particular, however, was

working out of this unit of the KGB that was involved in

sabotage and assassination operations?

Mrs. Scaletti. I probably didn't even know that because

all the matters on the Soviets would be kept up in the Soviet

Branch. I would have known possibly if I had looked hard

enough that he was KGB but that would not really have made

any difference in my name tracing.

Mr. Goldsmith. Now, CIA Number 177 has some numbers

written on the left hand side of the page.

Mrs. Scaletti. Yes.

Mr. Goldsmith. Can you identify what those numbers refer

to?

Mrs. Scaletti. This is a file number.

Mr. Goldsmith. 200-5-41?

Mrs. Scaletti. The 200 is always the general series and

I believe that 200 stands for something international.: The

second number is the more specific category and I believe 5

has something to do with politics. 41 is just the title of

the folder that is next in line. It starts out with "D"

colon. I don't know what that means but I guess it means cross

filing or something or duplicate maybe.

Mr. Goldsmith. Would you now refer to CIA Number 179

and read that document in full?

Mrs. Scaletti. Okay.

Rostes

001734

---

## Page 29

1UT DIUM

26

3

5

5

₴

?

10

11

12

13

15

15

17

13

19

20

21

22

24

25

Mr. Goldsmith. Before we discuss this document in !

detail, after receiving the cable from Mexico City station,

the cable dated October

9, what action, if any, did you take

in response?

Mrs. Scaletti. I took the normal procedure for a name

trace.

You would submit a form and you would ger a reply from

the main registry and what documents and things might be

available in the Agency on the person whom you are searching.

MI. Goldsmith. Did you receive a reference to a 201

number?

Mrs. Scaletti. I believe so. Unless I see my name trace

reply I couldn't tell what I got.

Mr. Goldsmith..

Why would you make a name trace if the

cable didn't regest one?

Mrs. Scaletti. I was over eager, I guess.

You are not

limited to a name trace only if somebody asks for it. But if

you feel it is appropriate.you can do it. I was being a little

facetious. Actually it would be the normal thing to do.

If you found an American in touch with the Soviets you

normally see if there was any problem there.

Mr. Goldsmith. After doing the name trace did you

receive access to Lee Oswald's 201 file?

Mrs. Scaletti. I received access to a file. I don't

know whether it was the 201 file or not.

Ms. Goldsmith. What other files would there have been?

001735

We 50955 Docta:sarz23 Paso 2 TOP SEGRET

---

## Page 30

3

5

?

10

12

13

15

16

.17

18

19

20

21

22

24

HUT O3UME

27:

Mrs. Scaletti. I just don't know. Sometimes you have

a document that references a document or soft folder or some

thing. I am trying to be honest. I don't want to say I saw

a 201 file if it were not a 201 file which is a very specific

type folder.

Mr. Goldsmith. Let us take a look at CIA Number 179.

Did you send this cable to Mexico City station?

Mrs. Scaletti. Yes.

Mr. Goldsmith. Turning to CIA Number 179, that document

in the first paragraph refers to Oswald's 201 file.

Mrs. Scaletti. Oh, then there would have been a 201

file probably.

Mr. Goldsmith. Then you were the author of that cable?

Mrs. Scaletti. Right. I am not trying to be difficult.

It is just that I am trying to be accurate.

Mr. Goldsmith. I understand that.. I should indicate

to you at the same time that we have been told by other wit-

nesses before. the Committee that you were known for having an

excellent memory. Your reputation before this Committee is

very good one.

Mrs. Scaletti. Thank you very much.

Mr. Goldsmith. The description contained in the second

paragraph of that cable, where would that have been obtained?

Mrs. Scaletti.. From the 201 probably. As much as I can

recall it would have been in the 201 file.

001736

EG

---

## Page 31

10T OLU

28

Mr. Goldsmith. I said the second paragraph. . I really

2

3

5

6

7

3

?

10

11

12

i3:

14

15

17

13

19

20

21

22

=3

24

25

meant

Mrs. Scaletti. The remainder. All paragraph 2. Para-

graph 3 could have been in the 201.. It could have been in

other miscellaneous documents. Under the current system and

ever since the early sixties not all materials is necessarily

in a 201 because it is just too time consuming. You find an

occasional documents which are not in the 201 which could have

been the source.

It is up to you to get it in the 201.

Mr. Goldsmith. What about the information in the first

paragraph, the description of Oswald?

Mrs. Scaletti. That would have come from the 201.

sanitized that. That is fairly sterile thing that could be

passed out to government agencies.

The third rule precluded the rest of it from being passed.

That is why it is separate.

Mr. Goldsmith. What do you mean by the third agency rule

precludes other information --

Mrs. Scaletti. Because the last paragraph, paragraph

4, says station should pass the info in paragraph I to the

Embassy, to the Navy, to the FBI and to ISNS locally.

The info in paragraphs 2 and 3 originated with the State

Department. Since it originated with the State Department you

cannot give it to the other government agencies. You have to

refer them to the Department of State to get it themselves.

T

001737

---

## Page 32

1a 1

29

Ms. Goldsmith. What about the information in paragraph

1?

6

3

?

10

11

12

i3

14

15

15

17

18

19

20

21

22

24

25

Mrs. Scaletti. That was just a very basic sentence so

thatwe could identify them. We took the liberty of passing

that but not the sensitive information from the State Department.

Mr. Goldsmith. Now, once the information in paragraph 2

had been obtained by you did that in any way increase the

significance of Oswald's contact with the Soviet Embassy?

Mrs. Scaletti. As I recall that is what I thought made

it very significant.

Mr. Goldsmith. Can you explain why?

Mrs. Scaletti. Any American who had tried to renounce

his US citizenship in the Soviet Union, now having again

relationship with the Soviet Embassy would lead one to wonder

why he had tried to renounce his citizenship in the first

place, and why he was still in contact with the Soviets,

whether there was a possibility he really was working for the

soviets or what.

Mr. Goldsmith. Paragraph 5 I believe regyusts Mexico

City station to send any additional information either relevant

to further contact by the individual or positive identification.

Is that true?

Mrs. Scaletti. Yes, it is.

Mr. Goldsmith. Did Mexico City station prior to the

assassination send any additional information about Oswald

001738

SEGR

---

## Page 33

30

3

to headguarters?

Mrs. Scaletti.

Not that I recall but I could not swear

to that.

Mr. Goldsmith.

Does Karamessines appear anywhere on that

5

cable?

Mrs. Scaletti. His signature appears as the ADDP

releasing officer.

Mr. Goldsmith. What is the function of a releasing

3

?

10

=

12

13

officer?

Mrs. Scaletti. He takes full responsibility for the

cable.

15

16

13

19

20

21

22

??.

24

Mr. Goldsmith. Why would someone as high up in the organ-

ization as Karamessines ask to be the releasing officer of this

particular cable?

Mrs. Scaletti. I can only surmise now what I might have

thought or what several of us might have thought at the time,

that since itinvolved somebody of this nature who had tried

to renounce his citizenship, who was in the Soviet Union,

married to a Soviet, got out with a Soviet wife presumably,

which is very strange, and now the contact with the soviets,

we could have a security, a major security problem.

This was one way of informing him and getting attention

at the higher level.

Mr. Goldsmith. I am asking you now to speculate a bit.

Had the 201 file not contained the information about --

001739

HH 50955

DocId: 32277223 Page 33

TOP SEGRET

---

## Page 34

1UT OLUN

31

2

3

7

?

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

18

19

20

21

22

"3

21

25

Mrs. Scaletti.

Not in paragraph 2?

Mr. Goldsmith. Had not the information contained in

paragraph 2, would you have gone to Karamessines?

Mrs. Scaletti. Probably not..

Mr. Goldsmith. Would Karamessines be apprised of every

situation where the CIA was taking action with regard to an

American abroad?

Mrs. Scaletti. No, probably not.

Mr. Goldsmith. It would not be standard operating

procedure to notify someone such as Karamessines in cases where

the Agency was going to take further action in regard to an

American abroad?

Mrs. Scaletti. In 1963?

Mr. Goldsmith. 1963?

Mrs. Scaletti. In 1963 I don't believe so.

Mr. Goldsmith. How many people actually worked on the

cable that appears in CIA Number 179? In other words, you

wrote it but how many people were actually involved?

Mrs. Scaletti. One in what is now "SB" Division, Soviet

Branch.

One in CIA Staff, two in CIA Staff and a Branch Chief.

These people have the right to change a cable.

Mr. Goldsmith. By "these people" you are referring to

the initiating officer?

Mrs. Scaletti. Yes, and authenticating officer. If

they had changed the message they would have changed it and

001740

I 50933 Doota.s8221223 Base a TUP SEGR

---

## Page 35

32

3

5

6

10

11

12

i3

i7

they initial on the side. If there is a major revision at

either of these levels it can be sent back for a complete

retyping.

Mr. Goldsmith.

How many of these people were actually

involved in the substance of writing the cable?

Mrs. Scaletti. Probably myself and Mrs. Egeter and

possibly Rowe in SB Division. Since there is very little to

do about the Soviets here, there is not a lot of bio on the

soviet, my feeling is

that SR, this is counterintelligence

section, they probably had some role in assessing whether this

could possibly be a serious matter or not.

Mr. Goldsmith.

Was it common for that many people to be

involved in the writing and reviewing of a cable?.:

Mrs. Scaletti.

Yes.

Sometimes you have many more.

The

rule of thumb is anybody who has any interest in any cable

gets their name on it.

Mr. Goldsmith. Would you now please read CIA Number

785?

19

20

12

73

25

Mrs. Scaletti. All right.

Mr. Goldsmith.

would you identify that document?

Mrs. Scaletti. I have just read Directive 7467 --

I can't read it. It is 3 I believe. Your code is Number 785.

Your document.

Mr. Goldsmith.

when I asked you to identify it, what is

that cable?

001741

NW 50955 DocId:32277223 Page 35

TOP SECRET

---

## Page 36

HUT DLUM

T267

33

2

?

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

13

19

20

21

22

24

Mrs. Scaletti. This is nto a cable. This is an out

teletype to the Department of State, the FBI, and Navy which

sends electrically to those three other government agencies

basic information received from Mexico in our name trace on

Oswald..

Mr. Goldsmith. What was the purpose of sending the

teletype?

Mrs. Scaletti. The purpose of the teletype was to notify

basically the FBI because it is an American, it is a CI case:

The Navy and State Department because here you have an ex-Navy

man I believe and soembody whom the Department has

reported.

This man is of interest to the Navy and State Department and

the

FBI just for the security of the United States it is

important to notify all those government agencies.

Mr. Goldsmith. Who wrote this particular teletype?

Mrs. Scarletti. I did.

Mr. Goldsmith. This was done after having reviewed Oswald's

201 file, is that correct?

Mrs: Scarletti. It would have been written at the same

time the cable to Mexico was written in all likelihood.

Mr. Goldsmith. In light of the fact that the cable to

Mexico City and this dissemination teletype to the other

government agencies were both written at the same time, I think

if we refer to the time on these documents it would indicate

that they

were moreorless simultaneous, can you explain why

001742

we 50955 Dota dazza Pago a6 TOP SECRET

---

## Page 37

1UT DEUME

34

3

5

5

?

10

12

13

15

17

13

19

20

21

22

25

the cable to Mexico City contained a relatively accurate

description of Oswald whereas the teletype to the government

agencies does not contain an accurate description of Oswald?

Mrs. Scaletti. What do you mean by accurate?

Mr. Goldsmith. Let us go over it.

Mr. Scaletti. It is just a synopsis. Number one, you

are not going to send the Department of State information to

the FBI and the Navy. That is number one.

So all that detailed

information we sent to Mexico City station we did not tell

them to pass it locally and we are not going

to pass it locally

Mr. Goldsmith. I am not talking now about the detailed

information regarding Oswald's background. I am talking now

about the description of his physical characteristics.

Paragraph 1 of the cable to Mexico City contains

general description of Oswald that is moreorless accurate.

Mrs. Scaletti. Paragraph 1 of the cable to Mexico City

gives the physical description of Lee Henry Oswald who is the

subject of 201, 289, 248. Paragraph l of the teletype did

not include - gave the bio but not physical description,

which is more important really, and what we gave the Navy was

the information from our sources on the person we thought could

have been Oswald, but we did not repeat for them what would be

a physical description. It would not have been normal unless

the Navy had come back

and said "look, we

have a file on

Oswald. Now, do you have such and such a description?::

001743

AN 50955 Doc1d: 32277223 Page 37

TOP

SECR

. n..

---

## Page 38

35

This is strictly for the investigative use of the

2

3

6

3

10-

11

12

13

15

16

17

13

19

20

21

22

"3

21

25

station.

Mr. Goldsmith. When you say this you are now referring

to paragraph 1 of CIA number 179?

Mrs. Scaletti. Right. Let us start over again. The

actual physical description on Lee Henry Oswald from your cable:

numbered 179 was sent to the station to assist them in further

investigation to see if they knew of anybody or had anybody

down there that really fitted what we thought was an accurate

physical description of the Oswald thatwe had a file on.

Mr. Goldsmith. I understand that.

Mrs. Scaletti. When we came to document

number 785,

the teletype. to State, FBI and Navy, we did not, and I would

not normally even today, provide those investigative agencies

with the physical description of Lee Henry Oswald as we thought

it to be then.

We provided them only with our intelligence, not with

State Department intelligence. which gave the stuff out of the

audio and the possible physical description. The wording here

in paragraph 1 on out teletype shown in document 785 is worded

that the American was described.

As I told your man from your Committee earlier, its

possibly would have been better, although it did not occur to

me at the time and. this is the way those things were written in

those times, to say that an American described as this could

NW 50955 DocId: 32277223 Page 38

Doct. 277233 Page a TOP SECRET

001744

---

## Page 39

36

2

3

5

possibly be identifiable and qualified but the normal procedure

in 1963 was to provide to the other government agencies infor-

mation and intelligence from our sources.

Mr. Goldsmith.

Whereas the information contained in

paragraph 1 of CIA document number 179 was not from your source?

Mrs. Scaletti.

Was not our source, was not our informa-

tion.

$

?

10

11

12

15

17

18

19

20

21

22

Mr. Goldsmith. Now, paragraph 1 of CIA number 785 does

not contain any language of qualification indicating that?

Mrs. Scaletti. I agree with that.

Mr. Goldsmith. It is only an indication that it was

possibly Oswald or this was possibly his description?

Mrs. Scaletti. Or possibly not. I agree with that.

Mr. Goldsmith. Why wouldn't the teletype indicate that

the description that you gave was not consistent with the

description that you had in your files from these other

agencies?

Mrs. Scarletti. I don't know why.

Mr. Goldsmith. Were you aware when you sent out the

cable and the teletype that you were giving different descrip-

tions?

21

25

Mrs. Scarletti. Yes. I assume I was. I don't remember

now.

This is some time.

Mr. Goldsmith. By the manner in which the language is

displayed in the first paragraph in document 785 does that

HH 50955 DocId: 32277223 Page 39

Decza.27232 Pare a TOP SECRET

001745

---

## Page 40

NOT DEUNE

37

5

6

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

21

25

suggest to you that in fact when you received the cable from.

Mexico City you did link the photograph referred to in that

cable to Lee Harvey Oswald?

Mrs. Scarletti. It would appear that I did.

Mr. Goldsmith. Was there any intention on your part to

deceive any other agencies by giving a description contained

in that paragraph in the teletype?

Mrs. Scarletti. None at all. The point is that we

considered the basic information to be taking place at birth,

not a physical description which can change. As a matter of

fact, we tried to go overboard. As you already have pointed

out, this tation did not even ask for a trace but as sson as

we got this we immediätely sent it out hoping to get a response.

We gave it to the field. I can honestly say there was cer-

tainly no intention to keep anything or to hide anything.

We

were trying to put something forth and see what the other

agencies could do.

MI. Goldsmith. Did you ever get any response from the

other agencies regarding Oswald?

Mrs. Scaletti. Not that I recall. What was the date

of our teletype out to the other gov ernment agencies?.

Mr. Goldsmith. 10 October 1963.

Mrs. Scaletti. So there was certainly no delay on our

kart in getting that material out.

Mr. Goldsmith. That is correct. The information contained

001746

1W 50955 DocId: 32277223

Page 40

TOP

SEG

---

## Page 41

1UT DRUN

seas

38

2

3

5

6

10

12

15

16

.17

1a

19

20

il

22

21

25

in paragraph 2 of the teletype would also seem to have been

obtained from another agency.

Therefore, why didn't the third

agency rule preclue you from communicating that information?

Mrs. Scaletti. You can put a few sentences like e gave

to the field to give to the other government agencies.

This was sent to the Department of State.

Mr. Goldsmith. It was sent to the FBI, too?

Mrs. Scaletti. I don't know. This would have been

cleared with the CIA Staff which is responsible for the third

agency rule. You can see it is only a five line synopsis with

no detail.

Mr. Goldsmith. It sitll owuld have been obtained from

third agency sources?

Mrs. Scaletti. Right. Just like we gave one sentence

to Mexico City to alert other government agencies without

passing the document. I am sure this must have been in dis-

cussion with the CI Staff as to how much te thought we should

pass out. We cannot give nothing because how are you going to

identify to the Department of State or Navy, here is somebody

who might be identifiable with somebody in your records?

You don't want to say just look at your records. You

find that unfortunately if you tell the Navy that if you want

any more information on Oswald go to the Department of State,

then you have to say if you go to the department of State you

had better ask for records on Lee Henry Oswald who was born on

00174%

NW 50955 DocId:32277223 Page 41

TOP SEGRET

---

## Page 42

1UT OLE

39

1

2

3

5

3

10

=

12

15

17

13

19

20

21

22

25

such and such a date in such and such a place, otherwise they

don't know how to ask for that.

Mr. Goldsmith. Incidentally, you have been referring to

Oswald as Lee Henry Oswald and the cable refers to him as Lee

Henry Oswald. In fact the 201 file refers to him as Lee Henry

Osald. Do you know why the file would have been referring to

him as Lee Henry Oswald instead of Lee Harvy Oswald?

Mrs. Scaletti. If I mentioned Lee Harvey it is because

am brain washed with all the events. But the lee Henry, we

generally will put in a cable the name as the 201 is opened.

So, my only guess is that the basic documents from the Depart-

ment of State or from somebody in that 201 file probably said

his name was Lee Henry Oswald.

Until you find a cause or reason to change the name you

leave a file in whatever name it is opened. Then you would

later on amend it and correct the file.

Mr. Goldsmith. Before we refer to these documents from

the State Department that apparently led to the opening of

Oswald's 201 file, let me ask you this general question. If

you were to run a name trace on Lee Harvey Oswald in the CIA

indices --

Mrs. Scaletti. Today?

MI. Goldsmith. If you had run one in 1963 on Lee Harvey

Oswald, would you have received a reference to a file on Lee

Henry Oswald?

001748

I 50355 Dookasabar123 Page a TOP SEGR

---

## Page 43

1U

40

2

3

5

6

3

10

11

12

13

15

16

18

19

.20

21

22

"3

24

25

Mrs. Scaletti. Very possibly. They are pretty good about

that.

But in 1963 I think we had to do our own. I might even

have done some of that searching myself. Today it is auto-

matic, you are not allowed to do your own name traces. In.

1963 sometimes you would do your own name trace. It was upt

to you to look far enough.

Mr. Goldsmith. It is possible in 1963 if you looked up

Oswald, Lee Harvey, you might miss Lee Henry?

Mrs. Scaletti. Right. I would look enough to the Lee

Oswald. If you saw Henry and you saw Harvey and they both had

the same birth date you would pick it out and see that there

was a mistake.

Mr. Goldsmith. What I meant was if you did a name trace

on Lee Harvey and you saw Lee Henry and didn't check, it would

be possible for you to miss it entirely?

Mrs. Scaletti. It would be possible. With your good

checker, especially if there is some identifying data on the

card, you would pull -- lots of times you pull many variations.

Mr. Goldsmith. The reason I ask the question is fairly

obviously. The suggestion has certainly been made by virtue of

this information being released to the public, the suggestion

has been made that by opening the file in the name of Lee Henry

Oswald if someone wanted to do a name trace on Lee Harvey

Oswald they would miss that person and for some reason they may

have had the tendency to have that name Lee Harvey Oswald over-

001749

NW 50955 DocId:32277223 Page 43

Dota: 3227223 Ray 43 TOP REGRET

---

## Page 44

1UT DEUN

41

3

5

6

?

10

12

i3

....

16

17

13

19

20

21

22

^3

21

25

looked for whatever reason.

Mrs. Scaletti. The only thing I can say is that it is

standard procedure to open up a file and register it in the

first name that tecomes available. I am not saying what was

done in the case of Mr. Lee Harvey Oswald. This is the normal

procedure. The normal procedure is as other names, which are

a vareity of that, come up cross reference cards are placed

in the system.

So that possibly until it is determined for

sure that Lee Harvey is correct that might appear in the file as

a cross reference alias to Lee Henry, in which case under Lee

Henry you would have a cross index card listing the alias,

"see also Lee Harvey", which would mean that you would have to

do name traces under Lee Harvey.

Mr. Goldsmith. I would like to show you CIA number 822

which is a list of American defectors which had been provided

to the Agency by the State Department. On the list is Lee

Harvey Oswald. According to testimony received by the Committee:

that letter and the attached list is what led to the opening

of Oswald's. 201 file. It refers to him by his name in the

correct manner, Lee Harvey Oswald, and not Lee Henry Oswald.

That is why there is a question as to why the file was opened

in the name of Lee Henry Oswald.

Mrs. Scaletti. I would have no idea about that. The

only thing I can point out and put in the record is that unless

one has worked with name trace indices one has no comprehension

001750

AT 50955

Dooza: 5227223 Page de TOP SEGR

E

---

## Page 45

42

2

3

5

10

11

12

13

15

17

13

19

20

21

22

?3

24

25

of the variety of the way names app-ar and are spelled and are

taken off records. It just boggles the mind on how anybody

finds anything sometimes.

Mr. Goldsmith. The issue I am concerned with is whether

by opening the file under Lee Henry Oswald it would have been

possible to in effect hide the information that the Agency has

on Lee Harvey Oswald.

Mrs. Scaletti. I would say there was no idea of any

birth date or there was an eroneous birth date which would makei

you look at

the card and say "this could not be the same

because this man is older than this person." A good name

tracer prob doly would come up with all the references.

Mr. Goldsmith.

If the Mexico City station was aware of

the fact that Oswald had also contacted the Cuban Embassy and

that he was requesting a visa, should that information have been

communicated?

Mrs. Scaletti. Could you repeat that?

Mr. Goldsmith. If Mexico City station was aware that

Oswald in addition to contacting the Soviet Embassy had also

contacted the Cuban Embassy and that with regard to his contacts

at each Embassy was requesting a visa, should that information

have been passed along to the Mexican Desk as requested by the

cable from headquarters to Mexico City station?

Mrs. Scaletti. It probably should have but it probably

not necessarily would have been because the same poeple do not

n

NW 50955 DocId: 32277223 Page 45

12373

001751

rogue

---

## Page 46

43

2

3

5

8

10

11

12

13

int

15

17

18

20

21

22

24

25

read that traffic. In other words, the people who listen to

the cuban things would not have known anything about the Soviet

traffic. They would not have known anything about Lee Harvey

Oswald.

Mr. Goldsmith. Assuming that the people at the Mexico

City station knew of these contacts at

the Cuban Embassy and

of the fact that Oswald was requesting a visa, in other words,

assuming that the person who sent the original cable to head-

quarters reporting Oswald's contact with the Soviet Embassy,

assuming that person very shortly afterwards found out about

the contact with the Cuban Embassy and about Iswald's request

for a visa,

should that person have sent that information to

heacquarters in cimpliance with the request in the headguarters

cable for further information on Oswald?

Mrs: Scaletti. I think that would be expected.

Mr. Goldsmith. What would you have done had you received

that information?

Mrs. Scaletti. I probably would have jogged our memory

again andve might have gone back out to the Department of

State or FBI and said "Look, here is this man again, he is

showing up. Now let us know what you have.".

Mr. Goldsmith. The FBI and the State Department would

have been notified?

Mrs. Scaletti.

Yes. We would have gone back and referred

to our original out message and also maybe there would have been

WW 50955 DocId: 32277223 Page 46

TOP

FT

001752

---

## Page 47

44

5

7

10

11

12

i3

14

15

13

19

20

21

22

24

25

additional information coming in on the contact with the

Dubans

whichwould have made us feel that either the physical

description was not right of we might have more bio, or whatever.

Mr. Goldsmith.: When was the next time after you sent a

cable to Mexico City station and you teletyped these other

agencies, when was the next time you heard of Lee Harvey

Oswald?

Mrs. Scaletti. I don't remember. The only thing I can

say is that based on what is in the file that I must have heard

about it when the

station came in and asked -- well, if there

was nothing else in the file the name popped up again, I just

don't remember about the assassination or whenever.

Mr. Goldsmith. Would the testimony be that to the best

of your recollection the next time you heard the name was when

you heard about the assassination?

Mrs. Scaletti. Probably.

Mr. Goldsmith. At that time did the name Oswald ring a

bell? Did you remember the earlier cable traffic about him?

Mrs. Scaletti. I just don't know. When he was assassi-

nated, I don't even remember how long it was before they go the

name of Oswald.

Mr. Goldsmith. Oswald was picked up within two hours.

after the assassination and the name was made public.

Mrs. Scaletti.

Immediately?

Mr; Goldsmith.

Yes.

001753

NW 50955 DocId:32277223 Page 47

Dood: 327723 Pa & TOP SECRET

---

## Page 48

3

9

10

11

12

13

15

16

17

18

19

20

22

21

25

1U

45

Mrs. Scaletti. If I were in the office unless I had the

radio on -- we didn't have a radio in the office neceesarily

-- I would not have heard the name Oswald until the next day

probably. I would assume this was a little bit unusual, I

might have tied it in. I am sure the first thing they would

have done is make a name trace when they came up with that

name and they would come up with a 201 file all over again.

Mr. Goldsmith. Do you recall.

where you were on Friday,

November 22, 1963?

Mrs. Scaletti. The only thing I remember about it is

going home and finding my husband sitting in front of the TV

and talking about it. I probably was at the office but I

don't remember anything. I blanked out. I must have been at

the office.

Mr. Goldsmith. Do you remember bringing Jack Whitten the

Oswald file on that day?

Mrs. Scaletti. I wouldn't remember that. If he had

asked for it I probably did.: It would have been natural for

me

to if I dia. I just don't know.

Mr. Goldsmith. Did you ever find a photograph of Lee

Harvey Oswald at CIA headquarters?

Mrs. Scaletti. I don't remember ever finding an Oswald

photograph.

Mr. Goldsmith.

Right around the time of the assassination?

Mrs. Scaletti. I don't remember it.

001754

W 5095s Docta: 3277223 Page a8 TOF

• TOP SEARET

---

## Page 49

3

5

8

10

11

12

15

17

18

19

20

21

22

24

25

101

SLUN

46

+1

MI. Goldsmith. Did you find a photograph of someone

whom you thought to be lee Harvey Oswald?

Mrs. Scaletti. I don't remember that either.

Mr. Goldsmith.

Do you know Phillip Agee?

Mrs. Scäletti.

Yes.

Mr. Goldsmith.

What is your opinion of his reputation

for veracity?

Mrs. Scaletti:

You mean in the book or just in person?

Mr. Goldsmith. As a person.

Mrs. Scaletti. I think Phil had lots of problems. I

certainly think he is capable of exaggerating. I certainly

think he is capable - talking about the book or as a person,

I think he plunges into things, thinks they will be great and

then he is disillusioned and things never turned out the way

he thinks they are going to and he is dissatisfied.. I am talk-

ing about personal setbacks. I don't think he is quite capable

of handling things.

Mr. Goldsmith. In terms of telling the truth do you think

he generally tells the truth of not?

Mrs. Scaletti., I would probably say that sometimes he

thinks he does but I don't think he necessarily always does.

Mr. Goldsmith.

Did you ever know a CIA employee named

Joseph Smith?

Mrs. Scaletti.

Yes.

Mr. Goldsmith.

What is your opinion of his reputation?

001755

NW 50955 DocId:32277223 Page 49

Dota: 327223 are do TOP SECRET

---

## Page 50

2

3

5

ó

10

?!

12

13

14

15

16

18

8

21

22

21

25

16K

47

3

Mrs. Scaletti. I didn't know. Joe as much as I knew Phil.

I might guess possibly that Joe might have his feet more soundly

on the ground than Phil. This is just off the top of my head.

I only knew him in the office and very superficially, Joe

Smith.

Mr. Goldsmith. Did you ever tell Joe Smith or Phillip

Agee that you had found a photograph of Oswald or someone you

thought to be Oswald?

Mrs. Scaletti. I did not know Joseph Smith in Mexico

City. I had never seen Joe except at the station in Mexico

City and Phil I only, saw when I was in Mexico. I would have

no

reason to.say. that.

Mr. Goldsmith. So your answer to the question is no?

Mrs. Scaletti. I don't recall it and I don't see that I

would have any reason.

Mr. Goldsmith. I guess for the purpose of clarification

I would like to ask the question one more time. Did you ever

tell Phillip Agee of Joseph Smith that you found a picture of

Oswald or someone whom you thought to be Oswald?

Mrs. Scaletti. Not that I an recall.

Mr. Goldsmith. After the assassination of the President

did you have any responsibility with regard to the Oswald file?

Mrs. Scaletti. I don't believe so.

Mr. Goldsmith. Did you work with Jacke Whitten at all on

i the investigation of the assassination?

001756

NW 50955 DocId:32277223 Page 50

TOP SEGRET

2A72

---

## Page 51

2

3

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

15

16

13

20

21

22

"3

21

25

108 066ML

48

Mrs. Scaletti. No. Not that I recall. I think that

was taken away from the branch immediately.

Mr. Goldsmith. Will you please read CIA number 246?

Mrs. Scaletti. Right. I wrote that.

Mr. Goldsmith. What is the date of that?

Mrs. Scaletti. 18 May 1967.

MI. Goldsmith. That pertains to Oswald?

Mrs. Scaletti. I wrote a dispatch on 18 May 1967

requesting the station to forward any photographs that they

have. I don't remember this.

Mr. Goldsmith. Would the fact that you wrote that help

refresh your recollection at all as to whether you worked on

the Oswald case after the assassination?

Mrs. Scaletti. The only thing I can remember is that I

was not a member of any task force. Somebody could hfve said

"Charlotte,write this," and I could have written it.

Mr. Goldsmith. In terms of responsibility for the Oswald

file did you have any responsibility for that after the assassi

nation?.

Mrs. Scaletti. I would say that the desk might have had

responsibility until it was turned over to a task force, not

necessarily myself.

Mr. Goldsmith. At the time of the assassination the file

was at the Mexico Desk, is that right?

Mrs. Scaletti. It may not have been.

It could have been

001757

WW. 50955 DocId: 32277223 Page 51

TOP SECRET

---

## Page 52

3

4

8

9

1C

11

12

13

15

16

17

13

20

21

22

21

L6M:

49

returned to where it was where I got it from. We do not keep

all the files like that, necessarily. I could have kept the

file pending a reply or further investigation but that is not

necessarily normal. I generally keep a copy of my cables just

until I get further --

Mr. Goldsmith. In fact, according to the Agency's records

the file was on the Mexico Desk at the time of the assassination.

Mrs. Scaletti. It was just waiting then for a reply.

Mr. Goldsmith. Was there anything unusual about its

being at the: Mexico Desk at that time?

Mrs. Scaletti. No, because we had written correspondence

on it. Iether we can hold the file until anything else comes

in or we can send it back and when we get material

we can send

it on. There is nothing unusual about that. In those days

we were more apt to keep files than we are in these days.

They try to keep them down in the central repository.

Mr. Goldsmith. Do you know whether the Mexico City i

station. ever obtained a photograph of Oswald?

Mrs. Scaletti. No, I do not.

Mr. Goldsmith. Do you know whether they ever obtained

tape recording of his

voice? Let me rephrase.that. At the

time of the assassination do you know whether they had a tape

recording.of his voice?.

MIs. Scaletti. I don't know and they would have if they

kept the tapes but they normally do not keep those tapes on

001758

NH 50955 DocId: 32277223

Page 52

TOP

TE SOAKY

---

## Page 53

50

30%

tap.

3

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

15

i6

17

18

19

20

21

22

*3

24

25

il

Mr. Goldsmith. What is done with the tapes?

Mrs. Scaletti. They are erased.

Mr. Goldsmith. Why are they erased?

Mrs. Scaletti. They erase them because

they need them.

They extract from them what they feel is pertinent and then

they are kept a certain -- at that time they were kept a

certain amount of time, I don't know how much it was, a week or

two weeks, in case somebody decided they wanted to keep on

for the record. But they had to resue these tapes.

Mr. Goldsmith. As a matter of routine?

Mrs. Scaletti. As a matter of routine.

Mr. Goldsmith. This dispatch con-ained in CIA number

246 with regard to the photograph of the man who had been seen

leaving the Embassy, was the agency concerned about the par-

ticular photograph?

Mrs. Scaletti.

Yes,

because you can tell from the way it

was written.

Mri. Goldsmith. Do you know why the Agency was concerned

about these photographs?

Mrs. Scaletti. To see if they could clarify whether it

was Oswald or was not who had gone in.

Mr. Goldsmith. This is 1967. By then they should have

clarified that issue, I would think. Was there any other reason

why the Agency would have been concerned about that?

001759

WW 50955 DocId: 32277223 Page 53

TOP

Porter

---

## Page 54

51

3

5

8

9

10

17

12

13

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

33

24

25

Mrs. Scaletti. Somebody must have said, "Look, we never

got an answer to that," or "let us see what they have", of

something. Somebody must have been doing a file review or

something. It says here "The recent reopening of publicity

regarding Oswald and Agency evidence, headguarters would like

to determine::.÷ Apparently somebody did a name trace.

They

were asked to look something up and they could not find it.

We had to go to the station to see if the station still had

negatives. Most of this information was held at the station

and was never sent to washington.

This is a dispatch going out to Mexico asking if they

have something in their files,

Mr. Goldsmith. Let us look at CIA number 197: Will you

please read the second paragraph? It is to the Director from

Mexico City.

Mrs. Scaletti. Okay, I have read paragraph 2 of 197.

Mr. Goldsmith. Does that paragraph suggest to you that at

the time of the assassination the Mexico City station still had

at least one tape of Oswald's voice? In other words, the

paragraph does not say that both tapes had been erased.

It

says one was erased.

Mrs. Scaletti. This was 23 November.

When was the

assassination?

Mr. Goldsmith. 22 November.

Mrs. Scaletti. This was the day after the assassination.

WW 50955 DocId: 32277223 Page 54

TOP

tost

001760/

paring

---

## Page 55

2

3

5

ó

7

3

10

11

12

i3

14

15

.17

18

19

20

21

22

*3

21

25

10F OE6R

52

It says "station unable to confirm first tape erased prior to

second call." The second call was 28 September. No, it does

not necessarily mean that they had the second tape in hand

23 November. They were only saying that before 28 Sepetmber

telephone call they had erased the tape from the first call.

Mr. Goldsmith. The sequence of the calls was one on

September 22, one on September 28 and one on October 1.

Mrs. Scaletti. The first tape was erased before the

second tape came in. That is why they didn't compare those

two voices. It does not say they had a tape in hand.

Mr. Goldsmith. Really it

does not say that but a person

sending a cable --

Mrs. Scaletti. I would not interpret it that way.

Mr. Goldsmith. I am not suggesting we are necessarily

giving. it that interpretation. It gives rise to the possi-

bility of that interpretation because the person sending the

cable did not say all tapes are erased.. It says "Unable to make

voice comparison as first tape erased prior to receipt of

second call."

Mrs. Scaletti. I was taking at face value the person

is saying that we did not compare the voices because when we

got the call on the second one we didn't have the first one to

compare it of the transcriber did not have the first one.

Mr. Goldsmith. Could you look at CIA number 208?

Would you read the fourth paragraph?

001761

NV 50955 DocId: 32277223 Page 55

Docka: 32277223 Page S5 TADAFARIT

---

## Page 56

1U BEGN

53

2

3

5

6

3

9

10

11

12

15

15

.17

18

21

22

25

Mrs. Scaletti. That indicates that the transcriber

believed that the two people were identical.

Mr. Goldsmith. Does that suggest to you that after the

assassination the transcriber made a voice comparison?

Mrs. Scaletti. No.

Mr. Goldsmith. How could he make that determination?

Mrs. Scaletti. When you work with these transcribers,

in no matter what language, to get this they replay and replay

some of these conversations. They know the people who talk all

the time, they can tell by their voice. They have an exceed-

ingly good ear. This happens quite frequently, this is not

infrequent, where a transcriber will say "look, the person I

heard today I know is the same person who called in last week"

or

something like that. This is what they do. They train theif

ears and they live by their ability to identify voices, accents.

Mr. Goldsmith. After the assassination would all the

Mexico City files pertaining to Oswald have been sent to head-

quarters?

Mrs.

Scaletti. No.

MI. Goldsmith. Headquarters would not as

a matter of

routine have requested all that information?

Mrs. Scaletti. I don't know what they did. You don't

ask for the entire file. They were working with the file there.

They would have been doing the investigation. what would be

normal I would think would be for the station to review its

001762

NW 50955 DocId: 32277223 Page 56

0P

3

---

## Page 57

54

2

3

4

7.

8

10

13

12

i3

14

files to see if there was anything pertinent that had not been

sent to headquarters but I do not think it would be logical for

them to send the file. This is my own impression and this is

what I would feel would be the case.

But if they sent the file they would have nothing left

on which to base further investigation. .

Mr. Goldsmith. Well, after the investigation had been

completed would the file have been sent to headquarters?

Mrs. Scaletti. Probably not.. They probably would have

just - as things occurred the pertinent matters would have come

by cable or dispatch to Washington. I believe it was sent

subsequently because I was in the field, we did a purging of

the files because the files were voluminous, and I believe we

sent Oswald's file to Washington.

Mr. Goldsmith. This is when you were in Mexico City?

Mrs: Scaletti. Yes.

Mr. Goldsmith. During what years were you in Mexico

City?

19

20

21

22

*3

Mrs. Scaletti. '67 to '72. I could be wrong but I

believe it was at that time we sent the file up.

Mr. Goldsmith. Turning back for a moment to the surveil-

lance operations in Mexico City, do you know how many telephones

were under electronic surveillance at the Cuban compound in

1963?

Mrs. Scaletti. I would have known'in 1963. I can give

001763

HN 50955 DocId:32277223 Page 57

Doza: 3127223 Pae 5 TOP SEGRET

---

## Page 58

2

3

5

8

9

10

: 11

12

13

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

1UT BLUN

55

you a ball park guess like three to five.

Mr. Goldsmith.. Do you know specifically whether the

Cuban Conulate's phone was tapped?

Mrs. Scaletti. I would say in all likelihood.

Mr. Goldsmith. A moment ago you mentioned the purging of

files. I certainly do not mean to take that out of context.

understand what you are saying, they are voluminous files in

Mexico City, particularly I imagine in Mr. Win Scott's station,

and you were cleaning out the files as a matter of routine pro-

cedure. Do you know whether in your experience with the CIA

files were ever purged, removed or doctored out of the ordinary

course of business?

Mrs. Scaletti. No, I do not.

Mr. Goldsmith. In other words, for deception purposes?

Mrs. Scaletti. As a matter of

fact, we were extremely

careful to make sure that every document was looked at and

cross references were made or abstracts were made. We did not

throwaway complete things without processing every papger to

make sure it was of value or not.

Mr. Goldsmith. To your knowledge there was never any

incidents of purging of files in the ordinary course of

business?

Mrs. Scaletti.

No.

Mr. Goldsmith. Do you know what the term CI/SIG stands

24

25

for?

001764

HH 50955 DocId: 32277223

Page 58

TOP

---

## Page 59

UGun

MIs. Scaletti.

It is a special office within the CI

56

Staff.

3

5

ó

Mr. Goldsmith.

Do you know what function of the group

is?

Mrs. Scaletti. Was that Mrs. Egeter?

Mr. Goldsmith. Yes, it was.

Mrs. Scaletti.

It is a secret group.

We never knew what

went on down there.

Mr. Goldsmith. How many units were there in the CI

10

13

15

16-

17

13

9

20

22

"3

24

NW 50955 DocId:32277223 Page 59

Staff ?

Mrs. Scaletti. I don't remember how many there were.

can tell you the ones I knew were there.

Mr. Goldsmith. Can you tell me which ones were there?

Mrs. Scaletti. CI OA, the place where we got our

clearances. We had CI R&A which did some research.

Mr. Goldsmith. That was research and analysis?

Mrs. Scaletti. Yes.

Mr. Goldsmith. Can you tell me what each one was involved

in doing?

Mrs. Scaletti. CI R&A. CI/SIG, CI liaison.

Mr. Goldsmith.

What about CI: -- did you say IO?

Mrs. Scaletti.

No.

Mr. Golsmith. What was the first one you mentioned with

regard to getting your clearance?

Mrs. Scaletti.

CI OA.

TOP

001765

ET

---

## Page 60

2

3

5

7

3

10

11

12

13

.!÷

15

16

i7

13

19

20

21

22

21

1UT OLONE

57

Mr. Goldsmith. What does the OA stand for?

MIS.

Scaletti. Operational Approval I believe. But this;

is what I remember because the names change and the number of

offices changed.

Mr. Goldsmith.: Did you ever work for CI/SIG?

Mrs. Scaletti. Never.

Mr. Goldsmith.. Do you know whether CI/SIG would ever

have been involved in opening up the 201 files?

Mrs. Scaletti. They could have. Probably did.

Mr. Goldsmith. Would you say that CI/SIG was a parti-

cularly secretive unit of the CI Staff?

Mrs. Scaletti. I don't know. All I know is that they

had special files down there. If you would go down there a

lot of times they would not want to give them to you, they would

let you read certain things. We never asked that many questions

of them. We didn't have much contact at all.

Mr. Goldsmith. I would like to show you CIA Number 788.

Will you please examine that document?

Mrs. Scaletti. I see it. 788 is a normal routine file

opening form.

Mr. Goldsmith.

Whos is the subject of this particular

opening?

Mrs. Scaletti.

The subject of the opening is Lee Henry

Oswald.

Mr. Goldsmith.

On the upper left hand corner of the page:

,HN 50955 DocId:32277223 Page 60

TOP

001766

52 223)

---

## Page 61

58

2

3

5

6

7

9

10

11

12

it says "to headquarters, RI".

Do you know what the RI would

have stood for?

Mrs. Scaletti. That is the main file room.

That is

preprinted form.

Mr. Goldsmith. In the middle of the page where it

indicates other identification it is written in --

Mrs. Scaletti. Here or this part?

Mr. Goldsmith.

Here. It indicates other identification.

It is written in "AG". Do you know what AG would stand for?

Mrs. Scaletti. No. There is a whole pamphlet either on

the back of this of regulations which tells you how to fill

out all these. It is very complicated. They assign certain

I symbols that mean certain things. If you don't remember you

hope somebody else does.

Mr. Goldsmith. Does your handwriting appear anywhere on

this page?

Mrs. Scaletti. My handwriting does not appear on 788.

Mr. Goldsmith. Could you now read Commission Exhibit

15

16•

17

18

19

20

21

22

*3

21

25

197?

Mrs. Scaletti.

I read this document. I have looked at

this document.

Mr. Goldsmith. Would the information contained in that

document normally have led to the opening of the 201 file?

Mrs. Scaletti. I cannot tell. This was not my responsi-

bility. I wouldn't have found it necessary because I had

001767

11".

---

## Page 62

2

6

9

10

11

12

13

15

16

.17

18

19

20

22

"3

/ 21

1Ur

59

ista

nothing to do with US citizens.

Mr. Goldsmith. I understand that.. I am not suggesting

at all that that document with the information contained in it

was your responsibility.. I am asking now, based on your

experience of over 25 years with the Agency, would the informa-

tion contained in that file normally as a matter of routine

operating procedure have led to the opening of the 201 file?

Mrs. Scaletti. I would say no. It might have been

indexed.

Mr. Goldsmith. Why would you say no?

Mrs. Scaletti. Because there is hardly anything here.

Mr. Goldsmith.. It indicates that someone is defecting

and is oging to offer miliary or has offered military informa-

tion to the Soviets.

Mrs. Scaletti. Yes. But you can retrieve it with an

index card. Why open a folder?. You open a file if you are

going to gether material on it. Now, this would be the basis

for opening a 201 file. If you did a name trace in central

registry and you found 10 or 15 other documents on this same

man. Then you would open the 201 with this document and put

copies of the other document in there and there you would have

folder on this man. If there was nothing, just by itself

with no other reason, if you were interested in US citizens

who were going to renounce their US citizenship the most I

would do would be to index it.

001768

NW 50955

Doota: 3277223 Page 62 TO P

F

KIDS

---

## Page 63

132022423-4

60

2

3

10

11

i3

15

16

.17

13

19

20

21

22

?3

24

25

Mr. Goldsmith. If I were to go to the Agency today and

ask them how many documents they had, if any, on Oswald, when

this particular cable came in, would they have that kind of

information?

Mrs. Scaletti. No, I don't think so because the documents

they would have by date but they would not know what date they

might have received it. Now, I asm sure they received a lot

on Oswald dated way back but they don't necessarily date time

stamp them in.. Even one of those name trace forms would not

necessarily -- I mean that is what they would tell you from

registry if that is what came in. I don't see what they could

tell you what they had available.

Everything is now on the computer. You would have to ask

I computer expert in registry. I think you would be barking up

the wrong tree.

Mr. Goldsmith. If someone were working as an agent, asset

or source at the CIA would there be any indication to that fr

effect in the person's 201 file?

Mrs. Scaletti. You mean if he were an agent of ours?

Mr. Goldsmith. An agent, source, asset?

Mrs. Scaletti.

Yes.

Mr. Goldsmith.

would that always be indicated?

Mrs. Scaletti. The only time it may not be the case, if

a person were a casual informant of a chief of station or a case

officer overseas but that would not be a real agent relationship.

001769

HW 50955 DocId: 32277223 Page 63

Docka: 3227223 Page 63 RECRET

---

## Page 64

61

Mr. Goldsmith. As a matter of normal procedure a 201

file would indicate that a person was an agent, an asset of

3

ó

8

10

11

12

13

15

1ó

.17

13

20

21

24

25

Mrs. Scaletti. You are not supposed to use anybody as

an agent without getting clearance which reguires form after

form and they all go into a folder.

MI. Goldsmith. That goes to the Security office?

•Mrs. Scaletti. No, it goes into the 201 file. You mean

what we call an agent or what the press calls an agent?

Mr. Goldsmith. I think the press would refer to a

case

officer as an agent. I do not use that terminology.

Mrs. Scaletti. I am responding the way you -

Mr. Goldsmith. The case officer gets an agent out in the

field.

Mrs. Scaletti. His 201 file has

copies of all those

documents. You have to request a 201. You have to get your

clearance.

You have to do your name traces. Thereae a lot

of things involved. Copies of all that go into the :201

Mr. Goldsmith. The file, fore example, would have an

indication that operational approval had been granted?

Mrs. Scaletti. Or requested and denied.

Mr. Goldsmith.: In normal cases then the 201 file if the

person was

an agent would indicate that?

Mrs.

Scaletti. Yes.

Mr. Goldsmith. " Would there necessarily be a 201 file on

NW 50955 DocId: 32277223

Page 64

PRE

1201042

001770

---

## Page 65

1UT DEG

62

2

3

5

9

10

11

12

13

15

is

17

18

19

20

21

22

?3

24

25

a person who was an agent?

Mrs. Scaletti. I would say I have nev er known anybody

who was an agent who did not have a 201 file. I will put it

that way.

Mr. Goldsmith. Would the

201 file contain information

pertaining to the individual's operational activity?

Mrs. Scaletti. Not necessarily.

Mr. Goldsmith. Where would that information be contained?

Mrs. Scaletti. In the project.."

Mr. Goldsmith.'"In the project file?

Mrs. Scaletti. Yes.

MI. Goldsmith. If you wanted to find out all the projects

that a particular individual had been involved in, assuming you

had a need to know, you are the Director.

Mrs. Scaletti. If I were the Director you would turn that

place over, you would have thousands and thousands of man year.

Mr. Goldsmith. You could not, for example, just get out

of the file of that individual a list of all his projects?

Mrs.

Scaletti. No. Some people are very careful and

they keep all this in a file. Some people don't. All the

budgeting and reporting on activities comes in by project,

not

by man.

Now, you could possibly do research by getting the first

time he requested and try to get a cryptonum. Then you can

track this, track that but I tell you -

001771

NW 50955 DocId: 32277223 Page 65

Dood: 3227223 Page 6 TOP PEGRET

---

## Page 66

63

3

5

7

10

11

12

13

15

16

17

13

19

20

21

22

=3

24

25

Mr. Goldsmith. If you had the cryptonum would that not

refer you to all the person's projects?

Mrs. Scaletti. No, because you could use an old crypto-

nym and keep it on even though he is on different projects

that don't have a cryptonym.

Mr. Goldsmith. Do you have any reason to believe that

Oswald may have been a KGB agent?

Mrs. Scaletti. That is what probably came to my mind

when I read the information that he was in the Soviet Union

and came out with a wife and then he was in contact with the

Soviets in Mexico because that would be standard operating

procedure for the Soviets to meet someone in Mexico. That is

the only reason I would have believed so.

Mr. Goldsmith. Do you have any reason. to believe that

Oswald had any type of relationship with the Central Intelli-

gence Agency?

Mrs. Scaletti. No, none whatsoever.

Mr. Goldsmith. When you had access to Oswald's 201

file you saw no indication in there that he had any type of

relationship with the Agency as an agent, source, asset, et

cetera?

Mrs. Scaletti. No, none whatsoev er. There certainly

would not have gone out all this cable traffic if anybody along

the way had known he was an asset. You would not have gone out

with traces and things.

001772

N 50955 DocId: 32277223 Page 66

Doct. 5271223 Pare 66 TOP SECRET

---

## Page 67

3

5

6

9

10

11

12

13

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

is

24

25

1UT

64

Mr. Goldsmith. If he was an agent would you have noti-

fied the Mexico City station?

Mrs. Scaletti. Yes.

Mr. Goldsmith.

would that normally be done as a matter

of standard operating procedure?

Mrs. Scaletti. Yes. Then somebody would be very upset

that it was an agent in Mexico without telling the Chief of

Station because the Chief of Station is responsible for all

operational activities in his area.

Mr. Goldsmith. Do you know whether the Mexico City

station was ev er criticized for failing to obtain a photograph

of Oswald during his stay there?

Mrs. Scaletti. No, I don't.

Mr. Goldsmith. Do you think it is unusual that Oswald

after having made five or six visits to the Soviet and Cuban

compounds managed to avoid being photographed?

Mrs. Scaletti. I don't know whether you can say he

managed to avoid being photographed. What you can say is that

we have not found a photograph or we don't believe we have.

found a photograph. Also, the photographic IPs are not 24

hour a day operations. Sometime the person maybe goes to the

bathroom or they miss something of the person comes in early

or a person comes in late or you just get a shot, it is the

back.

Mr. Goldsmith. I understand that. We have a situation

001773

NW 50955 DocId:32277223 Page 67

---

## Page 68

3

5

10

11

12

13

144

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

24

25

108 0L0hLd

65

where Oswald made five or six vistis at least. Apparently

he was never photographed.

Mrs. Scaletti. Then if he was not photographed, he was

not photographed.

Mr. Goldsmith. I understand. Do you think that it is

unusual that the Agency station would have gone on for so. long

with regard to MI. Oswald?

Mrs. Scaletti. I don't know.. I would say I would have

thought the likelihood - if I had gotten all the take from all

the people, because the photographic LPs sometimes did not

give you all the photographs that were taken, they would give

you what they got - but if you got every negative from every

..... ..

shot from every camera during those times I would have thought

you would have had a photograph. What you might have had were

shots that were blurrred or backs of heads of something that

you could not identify.

Mr. Goldsmith. Do you know whether Owsald was ever

debriefed by the CIA when he returned from the Soviet Union?

Mrs. Scaletti. I have no way of knowing that. I have

no reason

to think he was.

Mr. Goldsmith. Would it have been standard operating

procedure to have interviewed him, debriefed him?

Mrs. Scaletti. That hs nothing to do with the DDo. What

section would do that I have no idea. Besides, that would be

the Soviet Branch. We wouldn't have had anything to do with

it.

001774

NW 50955 DOCId: 32277223 Page 68

---

## Page 69

66

3

5

8

10

11

12

13

14

15

17

13

19

29

21

22

?3

24

25

Mr. Goldsmith. I am talking about based on your experi

ence at the Agency. Apparently he would have been someone of

interest.

He worked at a radio factory while he was in Russia.

Mrs. Scaletti. I don't know how much about how the

Soviet Branch handled it. What they were interested in.

I

really cannot answer that.

Mr. Goldsmith. Do you know the name of Alexis Davison?

Mrs. Scaletti. Alexis?

Mr. Goldsmith. Alexis.

Mrs. Scaletti: No.

Mr. Goldsmith. William Gorday?

Mr. Scaletti. No.

Mr. Goldsmith. Precilla Johnson McMillan?

Mrs. Scaletti.

NO.

Mr. Goldsmith.

'Richard E. Snider?

Mrs. Scaletti.

NO.

Mr. Goldsmith.

George DeMoreschild?

Mrs: Scaletti.

NO.

Mr. Goldsmith. J. Walton Moore?

Mrs. Scaletti.

NO.

Mr. Goldsmith.

Morris Bishop?

Mrs. Scaletti.

NO.

Mr. Goldsmith. Do you know whether David Phillops

ever

used the name of Morris Bishop as an operational alias?

Mrs. Scaletti. I have no way of knowing:

001775

NW 50955 DooId: 32277223

Page 69

TOP SEGRE

---

## Page 70

1UF

67

3

5

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

15

17

18

19

20

21

22

21

25

Mr. Goldsmith.

Have you ever used any operational

aliases?

Mcs. Scaletti. I guess so. Not a regular one with any

particular person.

Mr. Goldsmith. Let me ask you this then, again based

on your general experience with the Agency. Is it customary

for someone over the years to use many different operational

aliases,

as many as a 100, for example?

Mrs. Scaletti. A 100 sounds like an awful lot. Some

people could change. It depends on the sensitivity of the place

or how small it is. You could use the same operational alias

with three or four people or you could change operational

aliaes with every single person.

Mr. Goldsmith. If you changed it for every single person

you would have a tough time remembering which one you used for

which particular individual.

Mrs. Scaletti. No, you really wouldn't because, don't

forget, it is like handling members of your family. If it is

a surveillance team of course you would use one name with ten

or 15 people, whoev er is on the team. Say you handle ten

people with an alias. That is just like talking to ten of

your children. You are not going to forget that.

A lot of times it is only a first name alias. Then when

you move to a different city or different station either you

can use the same alia all over again with different people or

001776

NW 50955 DocId: 32277223 Page 70

DP

SFAR

---

## Page 71

68

2

3

5

6

7

10

11

12

13

15

16

17

13

19

20

21

22

"3

21

25

you can

use a new alias. These are people you are talking

to every single day. It is not like remembering "gee, what did

call myself four months ago when I talked to so and

so."

Mr. Goldsmith. I have no furhter questions. I would

like to thank you very much for giving us this interview time.

We have gone over the hour that I originally anticipated.

As I said at the outset the Committee at a hearing

mally gives the witness five minutes to make a statement.

This!

is not a hearing but if you would like an opportunity to make

a statement at this time, please feel free to do so.

Mrs. Scaletti. The only think I wrote down when I .

thought you were a little confused, not confused but I didn't

think you had a real fine appreciation for, was the organiza-

tion of the Agency and how we move around..: Why can't I remember

where I

sat

and who worked with me in '63 versus"65 unless

there is something that happened, like I know maybe where I

sat when I got married or things like that.

You can be working on a desk one day and that morning you

are asked to go to another desk ör that morning you lose four

people and then you are without somebody and within the last

year when I was back from overseas I sat at the same desk but

I had a couple of different bosses.

The desk under me rotated

twice.

At one point I only had three people working under me.

Another time I had 20. So it is very, very volatile. It is

001779

HW 50955 DocId: 32277223 Page 71

TOP SEGRET

---

## Page 72

69

2

3

5

7

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

not a set pattern. You may have a slot there but you don't

have the people or then you have the people plus you have

IDY's coming in and out. It is a constantly changing thing.

It is not an easy thing unless somebody has been overseas at

a station which is pretty steady, but at the headquarters jobs

there is an awful lot of movement and a lot of changing.. You

are pulled out to go and do a special assignment or you are

asked to write this or somebody down the hall isn't there and

they will drop a file on your desk and say "look, we have to

get a meassage out on this and please do this."

You do it and forget it the next day because you have

handled it-because there was a crisis and somebody wanted

something done. It is not a set pattern, it doesn't change for

six months or one year or something like, that: There is an

awful lot of change.

Mr. Goldsmith. Thank you very much.

I would like to add that the entire record of this

deposition will be transcribed and you will be given an oppor-

tunity to sign it and to verify it.. Our office will notify you

through the Office of the Legislative Counsel at the CIA and

I would like to state for the record that the court reporter

is to certify that the transcript is

a complete, accurate and

true record of all the testimony given here today.

(Whereupon, at 3:20 p.m., the deposition was concluded)

21

25

001778

NW 50955 DocId: 32277223

Page 72

TOP SECRET

---

## Page 73

70

2

3

5

10

11

12

13

CERTIFICAT OF NOTARY PUBLIC

I, Alfred Joseph Lafrance, the officer before whom the

foregoing deposition has taken, do hereby certify that the

witness whose testimony appears in the foregoing deposition was

duly sworn by me; that the testimony of said witness was

taken

by me in shorthand and to the best of my ability and thereafter

reduced in typewriting under my direction, that said deposition

is a true record of the

testimony given by said witness; that

I am neither counsel for, related to, nor employed by any of the

parties to the action in which this deposition was taken;

and

further that I am not a relative or employee of any attorney

or counsel employed by the parties thereto, nor financially or

otherwise interested in the outcome of the action.

• 15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

?3

24

25

Notary Public in and

for

the District of Columbia

My Commission expires November 14, 1980.

001779

NT 50955

DooId: 32277223

Page 7311

19 049

---

## Page 74

71

2

3

5

6

8

CERTIFICAT OF NOTARY PUBLIC

I

, the officer before whom the

foregoing

deposition was taken, do hereby certify that the

witness whose testimony appears to the foreoging deposition was

duly sworn by me; that the testimony of said witness was taken

by

, shorthand reporter, and there-

after reduced to typewriting by him or under his direction:

that I am neither counsel

for, related to, nor employed by any

of the parties to the action in which this deposition was taken,

and further that I am not a relative or employee of any

attorney or counsel employed by the parties thereto, nor

financially or otherwise interested in the outcome of the action.

10

11

12

13

14

15

15

17

13

19

20

21

22

:3

Noyary Public

25

0N1780

NW 50955 DocId:32277223 Page

Deta. 327228 age 2 TOP SEGRET

---