The Sixth Batch

by Joseph Backes

---

The National Archives released documents separate from any ARRB activity on November 6, 1995. They were released under the JFK assassination records act. Also acknowledged in the press release were the ARRB releases on October 19 and 26. To quote the November 6, 1995 Press release, “The newly released materials include 36 boxes from the “Segregated Collection” of CIA records pertaining to the assassination. These records consist of documents created by the staff of the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) during its review of CIA records. Among the records are: correspondence between the committee and the CIA: notes taken by HSCA staff during reviews of CIA records and interviews of CIA personnel; transcripts of interviews conducted in Mexico City; and drafts of issue summaries and sections of the Committee’s report. Many of these documents are released with segments postponed.

Also included…are FBI records on Carlos Marcello (4 boxes), anti-Cuban activist Orlando Bosch Avila (8 boxes) and other subjects of interest to the HSCA. Approximately 300 pages of daily shrift reports of the White House Detail from the records of the Secret Service for November 1963 are being opened for the first time.

48 documents from the Department of State’s Passport Office are being released in full.

52 FBI and CIA documents released by the ARRB on October 19th and October 26 are also available for research.”

There has also apparently been an FBI transfer to NARA on November 3, 1995. I do not have a document count or number of boxes released. I will duplicate the page I got from the ARRB as exactly as I can,

FBI TRANSFER TO NARA 11/3/95

HSCA SUBJECTS

Orlando Bosch Avila                   FBIHQ Main Files

Arthur Balletti                       FBIHQ Main Files & Miscellaneous
                                      See References
Welcome Eugene Barnett                FBIHQ Main File & Miscellaneous              
                                      See References                                                                            
                                      

John Buccola                          FBIHQ Main Files

Cuba Libre                            FBIHQ Main Files & Miscellaneous                   
                                      See References

John Heard aka  Hurt                  FBIHQ Main File

Everett Howard Hunt                   FBIHQ Main Files

Lake Ponchartrain                     FBIHQ Main Files

Carlos Marcello                       FBIHQ Main Files & Miscellaneous 'JUNE' 
                                      and See References

Sidney Sieband                        FBIHQ Main File & Miscellaneous
                                      See References

Robert Edward Webster                 FBIHQ Main Files & Miscellaneous  
                                      See References



HSCA Subjects with only FBIHQ Miscellaneous See References

James Jesus Angleton
Anti-Communist International Brigade
Danny Arce
Andrew Armstrong
T.L. Baker
Thomas Edward Beckham
Moris Block
Ronnie Caire
Frank DeLa Barre
Nelson Delgado
Robert E. Edwards  aka Bobby Gene Edwards
Ronald B. Fischer
Martin Fox
Louis Hopkins
Charles Joseph Le Banc
William D. Pawley
QJ/WIN
William K. Stuckey

 

The Fifth Batch

Released October 26, 1995

by Joseph Backes

---

A brief note of explanation: I had received copies of the documents in this batch that were redacted. I believe I got them from John Judge but I cannot remember now. In April of 1996 I took the redacted copies with me to Archives II to check against what was released. So that is why it may seem like I am confused with some of these documents. Things didn’t make sense until I went to the Archives myself and went through the releases slowly and methodically. I still don’t know why there were 44 documents released but better more than less.

The Board voted on September 13, 1995 to release 43 CIA documents. (Why is it 44 documents?)

The CIA documents:

    1.) 104-10004-10257
    2.) 104-10015-10010
    3.) 104-10015-10017
    4.) 104-10015-10026
    5.) 104-10015-10040
    6.) 104-10015-10046
    7.) 104-10015-10050
    8.) 104-10015-10055
    9.) 104-10015-10059
   10.) 104-10015-10060
   11.) 104-10015-10063
   12.) 104-10015-10066
   13.) 104-10015-10067
   14.) 104-10015-10069
   15.) 104-10015-10071
   16.) 104-10015-10072
   17.) 104-10015-10075
   18.) 104-10015-10077
   19.) 104-10015-10078
   20.) 104-10015-10081
   21.) 104-10015-10082
   22.) 104-10015-10086
   23.) 104-10015-10095
   24.) 104-10015-10098
   25.) 104-10015-10099
   26.) 104-10015-10101
   27.) 104-10015-10102
   28.) 104-10015-10104
   29.) 104-10015-10105
   30.) 104-10015-10106
   31.) 104-10015-10109
   32.) 104-10015-10111
   33.) 104-10015-10115
   34.) 104-10015-10117
   35.) 104-10015-10122
   36.) 104-10015-10128
   37.) 104-10015-10132
   38.) 104-10015-10136
   39.) 104-10015-10139
   40.) 104-10015-10141
   41.) 104-10015-10152
   42.) 104-10015-10156
   43.) 104-10015-10161
   44.) 104-10015-10162 

Also included in this September 13 notice of formal determinations are 11 FBI documents. These are not the 11 released on October 19, 1995. These FBI documents were not released at this time. I got these documents in April of 1996.

FBI Documents (Those with an ‘x’ were released October 26, 1995):

    1.) 124-10035-10168x
    2.) 124-10037-10020x
    3.) 124-10076-10024x
    4.) 124-10085-10330  (not released October 26, 1995)
    5.) 124-10085-10333  (not released October 26, 1995)
    6.) 124-10104-10238x
    7.) 124-10157-10384x
    8.) 124-10171-10238x
    9.) 124-10191-10089x
   10.) 124-10242-10180x
   11.) 124-10263-10085x

Now I have the CIA documents but I don’t know if they are the redacted versions or the released versions. I am inclined to believe that theses are the released versions as I know it is impossible to find the redacted versions at the Archives. I do not have the 11 FBI documents. I wonder how I got these documents as I do not have the Formal Determination Notice that should accompany each document released by the Review Board. I believe that John Judge gave me these but neglected to copy the FDN’s.

Okay, on 26-27 April of 1996 I went to the Archives in an attempt to catch up with ARRB document releases. I wanted to start from the October releases after October 19 as that was the last time I had been in Washington. I now understand that I must have received redacted versions of documents from John Judge because I took what I had and compared it to what is available at Archives II.

9 of the 11 FBI documents referred to above were released on October 26, 1995. I do not know why 2 FBI documents have been withheld. Those two are document # 124-10085-10330 and document # 124-10085-10333.

The FBI Documents
Document # 124-10035-10168 is a 7 page cable from SAC Dallas to Director, FBI. It is dated January 25, 1964. For some reason pages 2-5 are missing. This document refers to an article in The Nation January 24, 1964 quoting Dist. Attorney Henry Wade and his assistant William Alexander. This concerns the Lonnie Hudkins report that Lee Harvey Oswald was an informant for the FBI. Page six reports that H. P. White, a prominent defense attorney and member of the Grievance Committee of Dallas Bar Association, advised the FBI that in 1957 and 1958 Mrs. Cuba Lee Glick Alexander came to his office several times to try to handle her divorce from Alexander. Glick married Alexander while Alexander was a Lt. in the Military Police of the U.S. Army. Glick soon realized the Alexander was a “Mental case” and was receiving shock treatments while in the military service. White is of the opinion that Alexander will say or do anything and is totally irresponsible.

Document # 124-10037-10020 is a three page report from SAC Los Angeles to Director, FBI. It is dated December 2, 1963 Agent Kazuo Yakura of the Secret Service called SA Samuel W. North, jr. and requested an appointment to discuss George Lyman Paine jr. Yakura explained that his office had received word from their Washington, D.C. office that one Mike Paine, son of George Lyman Paine jr. of Los Angeles, had been an associate of Lee Harvey Oswald. The elder Paine was also supposed to be a member of a subversive organization. George Lyman Paine, jr. is currently included in the Security Index at the Los Angeles office and is the subject of Bureau file 100-404929 and Los Angeles file 100-43728.

Page two reports that LA 4023-S (this is someone whose identity they are concealing) called North to advise that she recalled Lyman Paine making a statement prior to the summer of 1963 that Mike Paine was going to visit in the coming summer. LA-4023-S nor LA-4024-S had ever seen Mike.

Yakura accompanied by John Larson appeared before SA’s Paul Mack and North. Yakura explained that Secret Service headquarters in Washington advising of the above information and directing that the FBI be contacted. Yakura asked if this office (LA filed office) had any record of Mike Paine’s activities. He was answered in the negative.

I am sure that Yakura really wanted to know if the FBI had any information on Mike or George Lyman Paine not just if the LA field office had any.

Yakura then asked about Lyman Paine’s current activities. He was told that George Lyman Paine jr. was currently a member of the Los Angeles Local Correspondence (LALC) but that both the LALC and Paine had been inactive since about March 1962. Yakura wanted to know if George Lyman Paine had been at work on 11/22/63 and wondered if the FBI would object to the Service interviewing him. The FBI did not object but said they would interview him and pass along the information. The Service agents were told that information on the Paines was highly classified and could be used only pursuant to classification regulations.

Why were the Paines given such special treatment? This isn’t even Ruth.

William J. Spath, Inspection Department, Bank of America, National Trust and Savings Association, 650 South Spring Street, Los Angeles, California informed North that George Lyman Paine was employed as a Draftsman, Continental Service Company, a subsidiary of the Bank of America, 1335 South Grand Avenue, Los Angeles, and was then residing at 2331 Holgate Square, Los Angeles and was at work on 11/22/63. This information was then passed onto the Service.

Document # 124-10076-10024 is an eight page report from SAC Dallas to Director, FBI. It is dated January 25, 1964. It is a copy of document # 124-10035-10168.

Document # 124-10104-10238 is also a copy of document # 124-10035-10168.

Document # 124-10157-10384 is also a copy of document # 124-10035-10168.

Document # 124-10171-10238 is a three page report from SAC Los Angeles to Director, FBI. It is dated 12/2/63. This is a copy of document # 124-10037-10020.

Document # 124-10191-10089 is a four page report from SAC New York to Director, FBI. It is dated 6/19/61. This is an announcement for the Fair Play for Cuba Committee national convention at Hotel Albert, 23 East 10th St., NYC, NY, on 7/1/61. Edwin Fischer, Manager informed the FBI of this.

Document 3 124-10242-10180 is a three page report dated 12/2/63. It is a copy of document # 124-10037-10020.

Document # 124-10263-10085 is a copy of document # 124-10037-10020.

The CIA Documents
Document # 104-10004-10257 is a seven page report from the CIA to the FBI on the telephone intercept of Lee Harvey Oswald’s calls to the Soviet Embassy in Mexico City. It is directed to the attention of Mr. S. J. Papich, who is the FBI liaison to the CIA. It is from the Deputy Director of Plans. The first page of the translated conversation very badly bled through onto the cover letter in the copying process so I enclose the text of the covering letter here. This document is dated November 23, 1963.

“1. Reference is made to CIA out Teletype Number 84915, dated 23 November 1963.

2. Forwarded as Enclosure A is a transcript of the 28 September 1963 telephone call reported in reference teletype and of a 1 October 1963 phone call to the Soviet Embassy by a man who identified himself as Lee Oswald. It is noted that the “North American” who participated in the first call is the same man who identified himself as Lee Oswald in the second.

3. Forwarded as Enclosure B is a transcript of three phone calls made on 27 September 1963, one made on 1 October 1963 and one made on 3 October 1963. Voice comparisons indicated that the “North American” who participated in several of these conversations is probably the person who identified himself as Lee Oswald on 1 October 1963.

4. Our tentative conclusion from reading these transcripts is that Oswald went to the Soviet Embassy hoping to get a visa to go to the Soviet Union and live and that failing that, failing to get it quickly, he tried to get a Cuban transit visa so he could go to Cuba and wait for the granting of the Soviet visa. This is also the conclusion reached by Silvia Duran, the Mexican national employee of the Cuban Embassy who dealt with Oswald.”

“Voice comparisons,” eh? How very interesting.

This was from “Scelso”.

The rest of the document gives the standard official version of the transcripts which we have seen a multitude of times.

Okay, the real released copy of the document is a better copy for page one. Page two is a cable from Mexico City No. 7025 dated November 23, 1963. Substitute language is used everywhere where there was a black ink redaction in the redacted version. And to add to the confusion the redacted version has all 7 pages of the document. The released one copied at Archives II is missing the last three pages.

Document # 104-10015-10010 is a one page document concerning car traces of vehicles issued to Carol J. Soles, Richard J. Aranda and Harry Lee Saffe. It cannot be determined when this document was written. It is copied in “The Eighth Batch” in document # 104-10015-10065. The redacted version had one hand written word redacted. “Fol from KUSODA” is written across the top in the released version. KUSODA was the redacted word.

Document # 104-10015-10017 is a two page report to Director, CIA dated 9/12/61 . Who it is from is blacked out. It is from Mexico city. Big Surprise, huh? This is similar to document # 104-10015-10015 from “The Third Batch” of documents released by the Board. The main redaction that was released is LIFEAT. This deals with a telephone intercept between Ramon Cortes, President of Transcontinental and a man believed to be Lorenzo Saunders, the vice president of the same organization living in Tyler, Texas. Mexican customs is holding the shipment of goods whose ultimate destination was/is Cuba. It is unknown why they are holding the shipment or what the shipment is. Also discussed was the purchase of merchandise in Oklahoma. They were planning to meet in Monterey on Saturday September 9, 1963 and from there drive to some location.

Document # 104-10015-10026 is a one page record and routing sheet from CIRA/RS to IP/AN. It is not really dated at all. I’m guessing it is from the 1970’s, perhaps May 14, 1975 It is titled “Routing and Record sheet concerning chronology of the Investigation relating to Oswald’s stay and contacts in Mexico, Sept. 1963-Feb 1968.”

Was this request made in Feb. 1968? Is Oswald still supposed to be alive in 1968? Or are they still investigating in 1968?

On the routing sheet itself after 1968 it says, “REQUESTED BY [COS Mexico] AFTER RECEIVING REQUEST FROM [LUND] DONE ON THE BASIS OF THE MEXICO STATION FILE, P-8593, NOW CLASSIFIED TO 201-289248.” And underneath that it says, “Analysis of Oswald file of all early contacts up to 4 Feb. 68, requested by [COS Mexico] after receiving letter from [LUND].

Document # 104-10015-10040 is a one page routing and record sheet from SR/CI/P/DL to C/SR/CI/P. It is dated 5/26/61 It is a request for all references on Lee Harvey Oswald. It is dated May 26, 1961. Under comments there is this, “FYI (WP had originally asked me to pull together all refs on this man.) Since then it has been determined that [Betty Egerter] is interested & either holds the 201-289248 or has it restricted to her.

I thought it was Ann Egerter. Under the fourth space on the record and routing sheet Egerter was redacted it is now released CI/SIG/Egerter.

Document # 104-10015-10046 is a one page routing and record sheet. It is from RID/AN to CI/LS. It is dated September 24, 1963. One of the people who signed for this is “Scelso”.

Document # 104-10015-10050 is a one page cable from Mexico City to Director,CIA. It is a request for Oswald photo. It is dated October 15, 1963. LCIMPROVE was the redacted word.

Document # 104-10015-10055 is a one page report. It has an incorrect date on the RIF. The RIF dates the document to November 23, 1968, that should of course be ’63. The released copy is missing the JFK Assassination System Identification Form. These CIA documents do not have RIF’s and are not in the JFK Assassination database.

“Subject : Suggestion that Silvia Duran be arrested and questioned.” “Suggestion that” and “be arrested and questioned” are handwritten in. This document gives, Silvia Duran’s address, her mother’s address, her brother’s address, her license plate number and her phone number. Handwritten on the bottom in the released version and redacted in the other is cc: Litempo / Prod. (50-6-91/4).

Document # 104-10015-10059 is a one page document from C/WH/3, our friend “Mr. Scelso”, although “Scelso” does not appear in the document. It is a memo for record. It is dated November 23, 1963.

The text of the document states, “After receipt of Mexi 7029 at about 1715 on 23 Nov. 1963, saying that Mexi was having the Mexicans arrest Silvia Duran, Mr. Karamessines, ADDP,ordered us to phone Mexi and tell them not to do it. We phoned as ordered, against my wishes, and also wrote a FLASH cable that we did not then send. Winston Scott answered and said it was too late to call off the arrest. He emphasized that the Mexicans had known of the Oswald involvement with Silvia Duran through the same information. He agreed with our request that the arrest be kept secret an that no information be leaked.”

“Winston Scott is actually written in over a blacked out bit and there is another blacked out bit covering a typed name. The signature for Mr. Scelso is redacted but “Scelso” appears over the space.

Document # 104-10015-10060 is a similar one page document as above. It is a memorandum for COS from Lawrence F. Barker. It is dated 11/22/63 It is a suggestion to COS Mexico that police cordon Cuban Embassy.

The text of the document states, “In view of the fact that Mexican authorities closed the U.S.-Mexican border on their own initiative yesterday in an effort to make escape difficult for the Kennedy assassin/s, I think we should give serious consideration to asking the Mexican authorities here in Mexico City to put a police cordon around the Cuban Embassy and require all visitors to identify themselves–entering and exiting.”

There is a similar blacked out bit covering a, I’m guessing now, typed name and signature. It covered LFB ‘s large initials.

Document #104-10015-10063 is a one page cable from Director, CIA to Mexico City. It is a FLASH cable. It is dated 11/24/63. “Assume you are keeping legat attache fully informed on developments Ref.” The origin part is blacked out, as are the signatures over Thomas Karamessines, the releasing officer and whoever is the authenticating officer. The name for all three redactions is B. E. Reichhardt.

Document # 104-10015-10066 is a one page cable from Mexico City to Director, CIA. It is dated 11/22/63. “Lic. Luis Echevarria informed COS at 1800 hrs Mexico time that Silvia Duran and her husband had already been arrested.” This document is duplicated in “The Eighth Batch” as Document # 104-10015-10265.

Document # 104-10015-10067 is a two page report from Mexico City to Director, CIA. It is dated 11/ 24/ 63. It is titled “Conflicting reports re Kostikov’s stated intention to go to trip 22 Nov.” There are four small blacked out bits. Three of them have a 1 typed over them so the Board considers this to be one redaction that repeats. It was not released at all in unredacted form.

Document # 104-10015-10069 is a one page cable from Mexico City to Director, CIA. It is dated November 24, 1963. Information is supplied from U.S. consulate in Nuevo Laredo. “Harvey Oswald Lee entered Mexico at Nuevo Laredo on Sept. 26.” Notice the name. It is a duplicate of document # 104-10015-10268 from “The Eighth Batch”.

Document # 104-10015-10071 is a one page cable from Mexico City to Director, Mexico City. “Advised legal attache at 1915 hours Mexico time of arrest and of headquarters desire for secrecy. Leg att had not heard of arrest although he had talked to Gobernacion contacts several times in last hour. This is good sign of Echevarria control for time being.” It is a duplicate of document # 104-10015-10270 from “The Eighth Batch”.

Document # 104-10015-10072 is a one page cable from Mexico City to Director, CIA. It is dated 11/24/63. RYBAT REDWOOD LCIMPROVE was redacted, as was source: LIMITED and LILYRIC “At 1100 on 23 Nov., a 1955 Green Ford California 1963 plates KVU 191 parked near Soviet Embassy. Male driver approached Main gate but did not enter. Stood looking at Embassy and watching street for minute then walked across street to plant shop where remained until approximately 1145 when left area.” There is an unredacted copy of this in “The Eighth Batch”, document # 104-10015-10271.

Document # 104-10015-10075 is a one page cable from Mexico City to Director, CIA. It is dated 11/24/63. “Echevarria told COS Silvia Duran completely cooperative and gave written statement attesting to two visits by Oswald.” The rest of the report details Oswald’s official activities in Mexico City at the Cuban consulate.

Document # 104-10015-10077 is a one page cable from Mexico City to Director, CIA. It is dated 11/24/63. RE: Sov cultural Officer Svyatoslav Fedorovich Kuznetsov, identified KGB. This document is rather heavily redacted. The unredacted version reads:

“RE STATIONS LIFEAT COVERAGE OF RESIDENCE SOV CULTURAL OFFICER SVYATOSLAV FEDOROVICH KUZNETSOV, IDENTIFIED KGB: NO CALLS WHATEVER 18 NOV. THRU 21 NOV. ONE PERSONAL CALL 22 NOV. BETWEEN HIM AND WIFE, OF NO PERTINENCE. NO CALLS 23 NOV.”

Document # 104-10015-10078 is a one page cable from Mexico City to Director, CIA. It is dated 11/24/63. It is similar to the above referred to document. “Target Sovmilat Aleksandr Georgiyovich Sidorov, of no pertinence.” There are three good size redactions. They are RYBAT REDWOOD LCIMPROVE, LIPAWN-1 and AUDIO PRODUCT.

Document # 104-10015-10081 is a one page cable from Mexico City to Director, CIA. It is dated 11/24/63. There is a duplicate document # 104-10015-10289 without redaction in “The Eighth Batch”.

Document # 104-10015-10082 is a two page cable from Mexico City to Director, CIA. It is dated 11/24/63. Paragraph 3 of the second page which had about two lines worth of redactions now reads, “RE REF B. WITH MEXI7933 HQ HAS FULL TRANSCRIPTS ALL PERTINENT CALLS. REGRET COMPLETE RECHECK SHOWS TAPES FOR THIS PERIOD ALREADY ERASED. STATION FEELING THAT ABOVE IS BEST ANSWER OBTAINABLE TO REF B BUT WILL REQUEST REINTERROGATION DURAN IF HQ STILL DESIRES. There is a duplicate in “The Eighth Batch”, Document # 104-10015-10290 without any redactions.

Document # 104-10015-10086 is a two page cable from JMWAVE to Director, CIA. It is dated November 24, 1963. It states: “1. FYI local FBI contacted WAVE 23 Nov. to advise they received teletype their hqs requesting local office determine veracity, to include sources, of statement made by DRE leader, Jose LLanusa Gobel to effect Fidel Castro had threatened lives U.S. leaders in event U.S. aggression against Cuba.. Llanusa claimed possession this info in recent telecon with Paul Bethel, acting executive secretary, Citizen Committee for Free Cuba in Washington, and attributed above threats to Fidel Castro during reception early Sept. at Brazilian Embassy Hava.

2. Local FBI stated their attempts satisfy above RQM thwarted by Jose Llanusa who used series pretexes when contacted to avoid naming sources and ultimately stated he had to check matter out with WAVE before divulging info. Local FBI then called WAVE for assistance. WAVE checked with Llanusa and Luis Fernandez and determined Foll:

A. DRE sources for above info were articles which appeared Miami Herald and Voice of Cuba (informes Sobre Cuba) 9 and 13 Sept respectively. It later determined Voice of Cuba had taken its info from Miami Herald article.
B. DRE somewhat amateurishly attempted dodge local FBI query order protect fact their info stemmed from newspaper article.

3. WAVE passed info para 2A above to local FBI and it appeared satisfy their query.

4. DRE has been most active answering press queries Re: Oswald etc. due fact most news media have questioned DRE on their New Orleans TV debate with Oswald. Having obtained media attention DRE trying capitalize on this by making dramatic statements which imply tie-in between Oswald and GOC. WAVE has instructed DRE not dramatize facts or attempt slant news but DRE continues pursue course of action which in their judgement best suited propagandize U.S. re Cuban issue. Hope FBI query may inhibit future DRE spokesmen from making slanted or dramatic statements.”

This is a very interesting document. All references to the FBI are handwritten in over blacked out bits. The fact that the DRE re AM/SPELL is out of control is evident here. Remember John Newman’s presentation at A.S.K. ’94 where he showed a document that AM/SPELL had documents on Lee Harvey Oswald and was not sharing them with the FBI, Secret Service or the State Dept. because they wanted to hold a press conference? John showed this document again at MIT on October 1, 1995. This document is in a similar vein. Ray and Mary La Fontaine discuss the DRE in their book “Oswald Talked”.

Document # 104-10015-10095 is a one page letter to J.C. King. It may be from “John Scelso”. It is dated November 22, 1963 It is titled “Letter informing WH Division of transmittal of photos which where (sic. It is supposed to say were. These RIF’s can be such fun sometimes.) thought to be of Oswald.

It states, “Reference is made to our conversation of 22 November in which I requested permission to give the Legal Attache copies of photographs of a certain person who is known to you.” Well, what the hell is that supposed to mean? The rest of the document talks about the Legal Attache officer (Eldun Rudd) flying up to Dallas with the photos. It is signed by Win Scott.

Document # 104-10015-10098 is a one page dispatch from Mexico City COS to Chief, WH Division. It is dated 11/22/63. “Attached are the only photographs obtained from [LIEMPTY] on 1 October 1963, which appeared to be an American. The same man visited the Soviet Embassy on 4 October 1963.”

Copies were given to Ambassador Mann and FBI Chief Mexico City. It is signed Willard C. Curtis. Photographs dated October 15 were inserted after typing of the dispatch. These photos were later identified as not being Lee Harvey Oswald. There is a space in the document marked Dispatch symbol and number. HMMA-22533 was blacked out. Also, RYBAT was blacked out in other parts of the document.

Document # 104-10015-10099 is a small one page note, like a Post-it Note. It is a memorandum for SR division. The photographs of the man taken by [LIEMPTY] turned out to be not those of the Subject: Lee Oswald.” O/CWH/3 It is not signed or dated. There is then a poor quality xerox of the photo of the guy the CIA told the Warren Commission was Lee Harvey Oswald. It includes the background. Hand written below is 4 October 1963.

Document # 104-10015-10101 is a one page document from Mexico City (though it has a line crossing it out) to Director, CIA. It is a request for a priority pouch photo so that station can check all recent [LIEMPTY] coverage for identification.

Document # 104-10015-10102 is a one page cable from Mexico City to Director, CIA. I love this document. Check it out, “Complete recheck photos all visitors to Cuban Emb August thru first half Nov against good press photos shows no evidence Oswald visit. Similar blank against all Sovemb photos from 1 Sept.”

CASE CLOSED!

There is another odd statement, “Note only visit we know he made was Cuban Embassy 28 Sept, Saturday on which Emb closed and we have not had coverage.” How do they “know” he made a visit? What is this about not photographing the Emb on the weekends? Oswald did just about everything on a Saturday.

There is sizable deletion that is at least a line and a half long after the last line I quoted. It states, “IN FUTURE WILL REQUIRE AT LEAST HALF DAY PHOTO COVERAGE BOTH SOV AND CUBAN EMBASSIES.” Paragraph two is about a check of airlines. They request a check of border airports.

Document # 104-10015-10104 is a one page cable from Director, CIA to Mexico City. It is dated 11/22/63. “Trust you will be able [to] use all your facilities to follow and report Soviet Embassy activity and reaction during these hours. Please cable full summaries.” This seems to originate with “Scelso”. He, “Scelso” signed off as the authenticating officer. There is a blacked out bit above C/WH/3. Yes, it’s “Scelso”.

Document # 104-10015-10105 is withheld, postponed in full. “Substitute language” tells us, “This document relates to a trade fair held in Mexico city and was included in the JFK collection solely because it was created on the day of the assassination. Its substance contributes nothing to the public knowledge of the assassination.”

Document # 104-10015-10106 is a one page cable from Mexico City to Director, CIA. It is dated 11/22/63. This is a request for a photo of Lee H. Oswald to be pouched to Mexico City so that they can compare with photo coverage of Soviet Embassy. LIEMPTY was a redacted word.

All indications from the limited amount of documents I have seen seem to indicate that this request was not granted. I believe that the CIA took the position that the newspapers around the world would carry the accused assassin’s photograph so they didn’t bother. I also believe there is a bigger story here.

Document # 104-10015-10109 is a one page telegram. I believe it is from Ambassador Thomas Mann to “John Scelso”. It looks like “Scelso” signed this. The Mexican Foreign Minister ordered the border between U.S. and Mexico to be closed.

Document # 104-10015-10111 is a one page cable from Director, CIA to Mexico City, dated 11/23/63. They say to Mexi that there is no need to send a staffer with photos as they have asked Navy for photos. Mexi can see Oswald’s pictures sooner on the press wire. There are three blacked out bits. I believe that all refer to “John Scelso”. Yes, they do.

Document # 104-10015-10115 is a one page cable from Director to Mexico City, dated 11/23/63. “FBI says that Photos of man entering Soviet Embassy which Mexi sent to Dallas were not of Lee Oswald. There are three blacked out bits similar to above referred to document. Two of which must refer to “Scelso” and the third is for whomever signed off for WH/COPS, who turns out to be William P. Hood.

Document 104-10015-10117 is a two page cable from CIA to FBI. It is dated 11/23/63. It originated with “Scelso”. “Information from a sensitive source in Mexico City reveals significant facts about the activities of a “North American”, who may be identical with Lee J. Oswald, (Notice the J.) who visited both the Soviet and Cuban Embassies in Mexico City on 28 September 1963.”

Lee J. Oswald?? J. -???

Another document testifying to Oswald being at BOTH the Soviet and Cuban Embassies. I can still hear John Newman pounding his foot into the stage at A.S.K.’94 to emphasize that. Remember, the “official” story is that the CIA didn’t know that Oswald was in the Cuban Consulate until after the assassination.

Document # 104-10015-10122 is a one page cable from Mexico City to Director, CIA. It is dated 11/23/63. “Following persons flew Mexi to U.S. who might be identical with Lee Henry Oswald.” Notice the Henry.

A. Lee Martin. B. Wilford Oswalt C. William Oswald.

This is a duplicate of document # 104-10015-10323 from “The Eighth Batch”.

Document # 104-10015-10128 is a one page cable from Mexico City to Director, CIA. It is dated 11/22/63. It is a request that HQS provide info and dates of Oswald’s activities and most recent stay thru 22 Nov. in U.S. RYBAT REDWOOD LCIMPROVE were words that were redacted.

Document # 104-10015-10132 is a one page cable from Director, CIA to Mexico City. It is dated 11/25/63. It originates with “Scelso”. It is a request that the Mexican government check all their records since June 1962 to see if Oswald entered or left Mexico at any other time than 26 Sept to October 3, 1963. CIA does not know what if anything Oswald told his interrogators about travel to Mexico. They also want to know who traveled with him and what vehicle he used. CIA also wants to know what other possible tourist cards Oswald might have had. J. C. King signs off as the releasing officer C/WHD. “Scelso” probably signs off as the authenticating officer, C/WH/3 but it is, naturally blacked out. It is a duplicate of Document # 104-10015-10291 from “The Eighth Batch”.

Document # 104-10015-10136 is a one page cable from Mexico City to Director, CIA. It is dated 11/25/63. The Mexican newspaper “Excelsior” of 25 Nov. is now implying (it is running or has run its) own investigation (kind of like our own media) a story describing Oswald’s trip to Mexico 26 Sept. through October 3. The Mexi station is saying that this information is not our leak but might be from Gobernacion.

There is then a rather sneaky white redaction of one line of text. Sometimes they don’t use black ink, sometimes they use a piece of white paper to remove a line or word in the copying process. They then quote the Fidel Castro line of “promising to answer in kind”. Document # 104-10015-10139 is a one page cable from Mexico City to Director, CIA. It is dated 11/25/63. It is a duplicate of document # 104-10015-10295, from “The Eighth Batch”.

Document # 104-10015-10141 is a duplicate of Document # 104-10015-10296 from “The Eighth Batch”. It is dated 11/25/63.

Document # 104-10015-10152 is a one page routing and record sheet. It is dated 11/26/63. It is from RID/AN to CI/LS. I have no idea what this refers to. People are reading some kind of Oswald file.

Document # 104-10015-10156 is a one page cable from Director, CIA to Mexico City. It is dated 11/26/63. It contains some information on Alverado Ugarte. There are six blacked out bits. I am sure that three at least refer to “John Scelso”. The first redaction is from the originator who is B. E. Reichhardt. It went to Managua, as well as Mexico City. Managua was blacked out. William Hood signed for J.C. King. The other signature is “Scelso”.

Document # 104-10015-10161 is a two page cable, dated 11/26/63. It concerns an intercepted telephone conversation between Cuban President Dorticos and Joaquin Hernandez Armas. It is a summation of the call. It originated with Reichhardt. “Scelso” signs for Helms and himself.

Document # 104-10015-10162 is a three page cable, dated 11/27/63. These are suggestions of Ambassador Thomas Mann, shared by “Scelso” and the FBI resident officer. Paragraph 1 begins, “THIS MESSAGE REPRESENTS COMBINED SUGGESTIONS OF MYSELF, [CIA STATION CHIEF] AND FBI RESIDENT AGENT. CIA station chief was blacked out. They are still concerned about Alverado Ugarte. They want Silvia Duran rearrested. “Confront Silvia Duran again with Nicaraguan and have Nicaraguan inform her of details of his statement to U.S., who know full story and hence she in same position as Oswald prior to his assassination: her only chance for survival is to come clean with whole story and to cooperate completely with Mexican government in return for Mexican government protection.”

Wow.

They suggest going all out to break Silvia Duran because they want corroboration of Ugarte’s story. They feel that since Dorticos concentrated on the money angle of Ugarte’s story that that was some kind of corroboration. They justify her rearrest as a safeguard of her possibly disappearing or being killed by others. I have three copies of the last page for some reason.

On October 5, 1995 the ARRB voted to release 71 CIA and FBI documents. The Board voted to release 61 documents, 56 in full and 5 in part. The Board also voted to release 10 FBI documents (including duplicates) which relate to Jack Ruby’s shooting of Oswald and the Communist Party, U.S.A.’s reaction to the assassination. These FBI documents were originally voted by the Board on July 17 to be released in full. The FBI appealed that decision and the informant symbol numbers were withheld and may be released by October 2017. The FBI documents were not released at this time. See “The Sixth Release” for those FBI documents. These CIA documents whne released become “The Seventh Batch”.

The CIA Documents

    1.) 104-10015-10016
    2.) 104-10015-10041
    3.) 104-10015-10042
    4.) 104-10015-10044
    5.) 104-10015-10051
    6.) 104-10015-10053
    7.) 104-10015-10054
    8.) 104-10015-10062
    9.) 104-10015-10073
   10.) 104-10015-10076
   11.) 104-10015-10079
   12.) 104-10015-10094
   13.) 104-10015-10103
   14.) 104-10015-10108
   15.) 104-10015-10112
   16.) 104-10015-10113
   17.) 104-10015-10137
   18.) 104-10015-10140
   19.) 104-10015-10145
   20.) 104-10015-10146
   21.) 104-10015-10166
   22.) 104-10015-10167
   23.) 104-10015-10169
   24.) 104-10015-10170
   25.) 104-10015-10172
   26.) 104-10015-10175
   27.) 104-10015-10179
   28.) 104-10005-10180
   29.) 104-10015-10182
   30.) 104-10015-10183
   31.) 104-10015-10184
   32.) 104-10015-10185
   33.) 104-10015-10186
   34.) 104-10015-10187
   35.) 104-10015-10189
   36.) 104-10015-10190
   37.) 104-10015-10191
   38.) 104-10015-10193
   39.) 104-10015-10194
   40.) 104-10015-10195
   41.) 104-10015-10198
   42.) 104-10015-10199
   43.) 104-10015-10200
   44.) 104-10015-10201
   45.) 104-10015-10203
   46.) 104-10015-10204
   47.) 104-10015-10205
   48.) 104-10015-10206
   49.) 104-10015-10208
   50.) 104-10015-10209
   51.) 104-10015-10210
   52.) 104-10015-10211
   53.) 104-10015-10232
   54.) 104-10015-10235
   55.) 104-10015-10239
   56.) 104-10015-10241
   57.) 104-10015-10242
   58.) 104-10015-10244
   59.) 104-10015-10245
   60.) 104-10015-10247
   61.) 104-10015-10249

The FBI documents

    1.) 124-10006-10342
    2.) 124-10035-10065
    3.) 124-10070-10354
    4.) 124-10108-10142
    5.) 124-10119-10078
    6.) 124-10170-10064
    7.) 124-10184-10256
    8.) 124-10232-10345
    9.) 124-10243-10367
   10.) 124-10244-10077

 

The Fourth Batch

Released October 19, 1995

by Joseph Backes

---

On October 19, 1995 the Review Board released 11 of the 16 FBI documents that the FBI was fighting against releasing. Originally the Review Board voted on July 17 and 18, 1995 to release them in their entirety. The Board reconsidered and agreed to sustain the FBI’s objection and did not release the numerical portion of the informant symbol number.

The 11 FBI documents relate to Jack Ruby’s shooting of Lee Harvey Oswald, the Communist Party U.S.A.’s reaction to the assassination of President Kennedy, and Oswald’s trip to Mexico City before the assassination.

Document # 124-10006-1342 is a three page document. It is a report from the SAC in Cincinnati, Ohio, dated December 13, 1963. It refers you to FBI 105-82555-648. Copies were given to Dallas, New York, Cleveland and Pittsburgh. Two CI’s advised SA Emil E. Hopkins that Arnold Johnson, Public Relations Director, CP USA presided at CP meeting at the home of Gene Kuhn, Chairman, Lower Ohio Valley section CP. Wheeling Island, West Virginia, on December 8, 1963. They talked about the assassination of President Kennedy. Arnold Johnson was asking people whether people were blaming assassination on Marxism or right wing activity. At first, Marxism but after Ruby shot Oswald, right wing activity and southern civil rights groups (supposedly those opposed to civil rights). Johnson stated several times that Marxists were not to blame as assassination did not follow Marxist philosophy. Johnson said Oswald was agent of someone. Johnson said Oswald had written to the party and that he, Johnson answered them. He does not recollect the particular letters. Johnson also said he does not sign his letters “Yours Truly” but on a more personal basis.

Is this a clue to more forgery of Oswald documents?

Johnson said that Soviet Russia turned over its files on Oswald but that he does not know what is in these files. Informants believed that Johnson was trying to get over the point that Oswald was someone’s agent when he went to Russia. Johnson said Oswald first tried to train men to fight in Cuba and then turned around and became involved in Fair Play for Cuba organization. Johnson discredited Oswald as a Marxist.

Please see my article on the ARRB at the OAH in Chicago for some interesting information on this document.

Document # 124-10035-10065 is a copy of the above.

Document 3 124-10070-10354 is a two page report CI (confidential informant), had a phone conversation with Mary Ann McCall, hostess of The Batchelor-S Club in Dallas on November 25, 1963. She is reported to be a “fixer” and “pay-off” contact between the Dallas Police and Criminal element. CI asked her if shooting of Oswald was an accident. McCall responded, “No, I don’t think so.” Asked to elaborate McCall responded, “You know how it works.” CI will again contact McCall on Nov. 27 or 28. Houston will follow and report results of contact.

“Informant states McCall will not cooperate with Bureau and will deny any knowledge of incident.” What incident? Is this phone call an incident?

Document # 124-10108-10142 is a copy of the above.

Document # 124-10119-10078 is a one page memorandum from SA’s Charles T. Brown and Arthur E. Carter to SAC, Dallas.

During an interview with Carl A. “Pappy” Dolsen, 3930 Shorecrest Drive, Dallas, Texas, on 11/24/63 Dolsen advised on this date he received a long-distance telephone call from the manager of the King’s Club in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, whom he did not identify, in which call he was advised that Hubert Gibson, described by Dolsen as an outstanding attorney, in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, wants to represent Ruby in his forthcoming trial for the murder of Lee Harvey Oswald, free of charge. Dolsen was requested to contact relatives of Ruby and advise them of this offer of Gibson’s services in representing Ruby.

Document # 124-10170-10064 is a copy of document # 124-10006-1342.

Document # 124-10184-10256 has 6 pages. It has 9 postponements, all informant symbol numbers. The first part is a two page airtel. It is from SAC, Cincinnati to SAC’s Dallas, New York, Cleveland and Pittsburgh. It says it encloses 8 copies for the Bureau and for the field offices 2 copies each of an LHM covering visits of Arnold Johnson to the Ohio Valley Area. The field offices will be provided with the informants’ reports. This airtell tells us there were three informants.

On December 2, 1963 informant advised that on November 20, 1963 Gene Kuhn, stated that Anthony Krchmarek, head of the CP in Ohio and an Arnold, last name not given, [presumably Johnson] had recently visited her.

This makes no sense. Gene Kuhn is telling the source that people visited her?

This is what the document says when you remove a lot of commas. Is Kuhn trying to get an alibi for his friends, “Hey, source, if anybody asks Krchmarek and ‘last name not given’ if they were at your place last night say okay, okay?”, or is the writer of this report an idiot?

“She did not give the date of this visit.” Well, how could she if had to be told what happened in her house by Kuhn?

She stated that Krchmarek and Arnold, last name not given, spoke to a group of students at Bethany College and that after the meeting they were invited to a cocktail party where Socialism was discussed until the small hours of the morning.

Also on December 2, 1963 another source dated the Bethany College event as occurring on November 15, 1963. Johnson and Krchmarek had stopped in Steubenville, Ohio, again on November 18, 1963 to arrange for a meeting “down the river” on December 8, 1963 and to postpone a meeting scheduled for November 22, 1963 to December 13, 1963.

The report then repeats the information from document # 124-10006-1342.

Additionally the report states that Arnold Johnson gave an opinion of President Johnson, that LBJ would follow Kennedy’s policies but insert many of his own. Also that LBJ would replace many in the cabinet.

What a completely useless document. Didn’t we learn a lot about the assassination from it?

Document # 124-10232-10345 is a copy of document # 124-10006-1342.

Document # 124-10243-10367 is another copy of document # 124-10006-1342.

Document # 124-10244-10077 is another copy of document # 124-10006-1342.

Document # 124-10230-10425 is a one page document. from M.D. Crawford Jr. Actually, it is received by him. It is a cover sheet for an informant report. The actual report is not included. It is received from Mexi-118.

The date of the report is 11/6/63. It states, “No INFO LOCATED RE LEE HARVEY OSWALD-Gobernacion.” Under remarks there is listed “1 – 105-3702 L H Oswald (PECK)”. I do not know what that means.

---

 

 

ARRB Document Releasing History

Batch Three

Copyright © 1996 by Joseph Backes

---

Well, the Board finally got the 5 documents that they voted to release on July 17 and 18, 1995 released. These five documents, together with two CIA documents in “The Third Batch” complete the release of “The Second Batch”. These five documents are listed below. The FBI appealed the Board’s decision to release these documents because they would reveal a connection with a Swiss police official and the FBI. The name of the Swiss official has been withheld and any code or numerical identification of the person was withheld pursuant to a vote the Board took on December 13. These documents were released December 28, 1995 and sent to me by the Board on January 10, 1996. I am calling this, “The Ninth Release.”

While I greatly admire the Board’s tenacity in getting these documents released I am appalled at how much of the Board’s time was chewed up in doing so. I worry about future appeals and if the Board will be around to see the issue resolved and the documents released.

1. 124-10023-10234

2. 124-10023-10235

3. 124-10023-10236

4. 124-10023-10237

5. 124-10023-10238

Chairman Tunheim believes that these pre-assassination FBI records on Lee Harvey Oswald are important. They are supposed to reveal what steps the U.S. government took to determine what Lee Harvey Oswald was doing after he left the United States in 1959 and if someone was impersonating him. He praised the Swiss government for allowing their release.

The Board gave out the previously redacted version and the new and improved version without as much black ink. In fact, Chairman Tunheim used one of these documents, #124-10023-10235, the previously heavily redacted, and the new and improved version, as a kind of show and tell at the American Historical Association annual conference in Atlanta.

This particular document details an effort to find the Albert Schweitzer College in Switzerland. It was located in Churchwalden. I had previously thought Churchwalden was in Finland. I regret the error.

Document # 124-10023-10236 continues the investigation of the Albert Schweitzer College in trying to locate Oswald. He has not shown up yet. The Swiss Federal Police think it is unlikely that Oswald is there registered under a different name. There is also no record of a person possibly identical with the subject who has registered. I find that very interesting. Someone else did too as these passages are underlined.

Document # 124-10023-10238 is interesting. Dated July 28, 1961 the legat (legal attache) in Paris advised the Director, “The Swiss Federal Police were advised as to the subject’s present status in view of their previous investigation to locate him.” Well, what was Oswald’s present status? Note, this doesn’t say we told the Swiss where Lee Harvey Oswald is. I think there is a story here with this document.

Document #124-10010-10011 is a letter Director Hoover wrote to the Office of Security at the State Department dated June 3, 1960 asking for any current information the Department of State may have on Oswald. It was enclosed by the Board for reference with these five documents. Hoover believed that someone may be using Oswald’s Birth Certificate to impersonate him. Of note is Hoover’s description that though Oswald was released from active duty in the Marine Corps, “he has obligated service until 12/8/62.” Does this mean that Lee was still under contract until December 8, 1962?

On September 20, 1995 the Board released 39 CIA documents. 2 CIA documents were from the July 17 and 18th, 1995 Board vote to release and the 37 others were from a vote taken on August 17, 1995. The August 17, 1995 press release announced that the Board voted to release 16 CIA documents in full and 21 in part. The Board sustained the CIA’s objection that some information relating to sensitive intelligence sources and methods should not be publicly released at this time. In some instances the Board proposed and used substitute language which gives some relevant information in place of the redactions, while not revealing the sensitive intelligence information.

Chairman Tunheim explained, “The members of the Board are exercising careful independent judgement with all of the sensitive information we are seeing, just as the Congress had envisioned when it created this independent agency…our job is to balance the need to protect still sensitive government information versus the public’s right to know. The vast majority of the time we have voted in favor of public disclosure. However, there will be instances when fulfilling the mandate of the law means continuing to protect certain information.”

In an accompanying letter the Board explained that in 13 documents the information requested to be postponed reveals the true name of CIA officials. So, pseudonyms were given instead. The Review Board will review these 13 records again in December of 1995 after the CIA has had an opportunity to gather evidence about whether any of the individuals named therein might be endangered if their names were disclosed. If the CIA is unable to provide such evidence by December the Review Board will presumably open up these records in their entirety. More on this in a moment.

While any continuing secrecy is of course a concern to the research community I think everyone would agree with Chairman Tunheim when he stated, “We are aware of no comparable effort in American history to disclose so much information that goes to the heart of the intelligence community’s records.”

The 39 CIA Documents are listed below. Those with a star are to be reviewed again in December. For some reason I counted 14, not 13 documents. I will ask the Board about this.

1. 104-10004-10195*

2. 104-10004-10199*

3. 104-10015-10013

4. 104-10015-10014

5. 104-10015-10015

6. 104-10015-10019

7. 104-10015-10027

8. 104-10015-10047

9. 104-10015-10048*

10. 104-10015-10061

11. 104-10015-10070

12. 104-10015-10074

13. 104-10015-10080

14. 104-10015-10091*

15. 104-10015-10092*

16. 104-10015-10114*

17. 104-10015-10118*

18. 104-10015-10157*

19. 104-10015-10173

20. 104-10015-10176*

21. 104-10015-10177

22. 104-10015-10188

23. 104-10015-10212

24. 104-10015-10304

25. 104-10015-10359

26. 104-10018-10040

27. 104-10018-10064*

28. 104-10018-10103*

29. 104-10052-10056

30. 104-10062-10001

31. 104-10086-10002

32. 104-10086-10003

33. 104-10086-10005

34. 104-10095-10001*

35. 104-10096-10001

36. 104-10125-10001*

37. 104-10125-10002*

38. 104-10007-10152

39. 104-10008-10116

John Newman spoke at The Massachusetts Institute of Technology on October 1, 1995. He gave a presentation that incorporates recent releases, the major thesis of his book “Oswald and the CIA”, and some of the material just recently released including information in these 39 CIA documents. I include some of it here to highlight and give added insight to the very important work being done by the ARRB.

Mr. Newman was struck by the fact that never before has a government had to legislate itself to tell the truth about something and appoint private citizens to supervise that process. He commented upon the recent dispute between the FBI and the ARRB. John explained that he released the Gayton Carver document and got some publicity on it to place pressure upon the FBI and President Clinton to release documents. The FBI appealed the Review Board decision to release FBI documents.1 This Carver document was a sworn statement by FBI agent Gayton Carver who says that James P. Hosty said Oswald was a PSI (Potential Security Informant) for the FBI. He, Carver changed his story, not in a sworn statement, three years later. So, there is some confusion about this.

However, since the FBI’s appeal was to protect informants, the FBI did not want any information about any informants released, which in this case turned out to be a Swiss police official in the above referred to documents, a person still being protected by the way, and since there was no movement by President Clinton by the 29th day of the 30 days the statute gave him John released the Carver document to make the point that yes, there are issues to be resolved involving informants and the FBI.

No, sir, I do not bite my thumb at you, sir; but I bite my thumb, sir. – Sampson, Romeo and Juliet , Act 1 Scene 1

John gave a brief summary of Oswald’s past. John pointed out that everywhere Lee Harvey Oswald was stationed as a Marine there was a U-2. He lied to get out of the Marines to help his mother. He spent about a day and a half with her then made a bee-line to Moscow. This is a U. S. Marine at the height of the Cold War and he threatened in front of our own Consular officers to give military secrets to the Russians. This is where “Oswald and the CIA” begins. John told the audience that he is going to show the lies, cover-ups, and deceptions that are provable in the documents.

There are three principle conclusions in John’s book:

A. There were an awful lot of people in the CIA who were OPERATIONALLY interested in Lee Harvey Oswald from the time he defected to the murder of President Kennedy.

B. They used their most sensitive sources and methods to monitor him and gain intelligence on him.

C. They used him. He became involved in CIA operations. Notice John said used and became involved. Oswald was not 007. John did not say he became an agent.

According to John Newman, in the CIA a large number of organizations paid attention to Oswald. The Soviet Russia Division/Clandestine Services, about 9 different branches were watching him. In the Counter Intelligence arena, James Jesus Angleton, was very interested in him. His staff had a file on him, his operations element had a file on him, and his mole hunters, headed by Birch O’Neal, had their own file on him. In the Security Office, two different branches, the SRS, (Security Research Service) in which Mr. McCord (from Watergate fame) was working, had files on him. The Cuban Affairs Staff, three different offices had files on him, principally from the summer of ’63 to the assassination. The FBI, in the headquarters element alone, they had files in the Intelligence Division, the Espionage Branch had their own separate files on him, the Nationality Branch had a file on him because he married Marina. At least 5 different FBI Field Offices, had files on Oswald, including Dallas, Newark, New Orleans, Washington, D.C.; there were others. 3 different Naval Intelligence offices had files on Oswald. Air Force; OSI began their files on Lee Harvey Oswald in early 1960. The 112th Army Intelligence Unit had a branch in New Orleans that was interested in Lee Harvey Oswald.

John made an analogy to the O.J. Simpson trial. Everyone who had files on O.J. and touched those files, they all wound up on T.V. and everything about how they operated was there for the world to see. This is what the intelligence community was afraid of after Nov. 22nd, 1963. All these people with their files headed for the shredder. This raises the point of well, wouldn’t all the good stuff be destroyed?

John’s answer to that is if you ever worked in the government you know how hard it is to do that. The reason is because the more sensitive a document is, especially if it says, “Do Not Reproduce”, they bring that puppy right over to the Xerox machine and reproduce it and put it in their worker’s desk drawer. The CIA calls these “soft files”. And hundreds of thousands of Oswald documents come from these “soft files”. Oswald’s original 201 file was reconstructed from these “soft files”. John emphasized that it is very, very difficult to destroy government documents. That is why they play the withholding/postponement game, or put in false documents. John ran into a lot of false documents while researching his book JFK and Vietnam.

On November 9, 1959, Lee Harvey Oswald was placed on the HT/LINGUAL, illegal mail opening list. “Project” is a code name for HT/LINGUAL in CIA documents. Around the globe there were only 300 people who had the CIA open their mail for them. This is an example of one of the most sensitive sources and methods used by the CIA to keep track of and gain intelligence on Oswald.

John pointed out that of all the lies and cover-ups the world has been exposed to and treated to about Oswald have usually been casually dismissed as post assassination cover-up to benignly protect sensitive sources and methods and ongoing covert operations, etc. Despite this being blatant obstruction of justice this seems to be acceptable to some in government and the media. This was the case for Newsweek Magazine’s November 22, 1993 issue. However, if it can be shown in Oswald files prior to November 22nd, 1963, then you cannot apply that rationale. It has to be operational. John is about to show deception both before and after the assassination that are directly related.

When Lee went down to Mexico City on Sept. 27, 1963, the CIA reported this to headquarters in a cable dated October 9, 1963. He is there Sept 27-Oct. 2, and leaves on the morning of October 3rd, 1963.

I, Joe Backes, want to emphasize that Lee Harvey Oswald left Mexico City on the morning of October 3, 1963. This fact is very important, remember it.

On October 10, 1963, CIA HQS sent two cables, one to Mexico City, the other to the FBI, Navy and the State Dept. notifying them that they found out that Oswald had been in Mexico City.2

Note the description of Oswald in the one to the Washington agencies, “approximately 35 years old, athletic build, 6 feet tall with receding hairline”. The cable to Mexico City describes Oswald as, “5 feet 10 inches, 165 pounds, light brown wavy hair, blue eyes”. The same person wrote both 10 October cables. The CIA told that to the HSCA. The Review Board just released this cable, the one to the Mexico City station, in its entirety.3

John Newman asked, “Now what is this, is this mind cramp? Is this administrative error? Is this post assassination panic? No, its 10 October 1963; the same person [wrote both cables].”

There was a golden silence as the audience took this is in.

These cables were sent out minutes apart. “It’s just a mistake, right?” John does not have an answer for this. He pointed out he doesn’t have to explain or guess. We have a law now. They have to explain. This is deception. This is operational.

John drew the audience’s attention to paragraph three in the Oct 10 cable to Mexico City. “Latest headquarters information is an ODACID (that’s State Dept.) report dated May 1962.” This sentence is missing in the cable sent on the same day to the Washington agencies. The CIA would like its own Mexico City station to believe that they have had no information on Oswald from May 1962 until after the assassination. This is despite the fact that Oswald has been back home, his arrival was in the papers, he formed a one man Fair Play for Cuba Committee in New Orleans, got into a street brawl, got arrested, demanded to talk to an FBI agent while in jail, which he did, agent John J. Quigley, he was on radio, television, the FBI had sent numerous reports on Oswald to the CIA.

“Do you realize that Oswald hadn’t even left Russia in May 1962?”, John emphasizes. John continued, “Is this administrative error? Is this post assassination panic? No, this is a lie, a deception. It’s not true. It’s secret. This is a deception at the secret level inside the CIA from headquarters to it’s subordinate station in Mexico City.”

John pointed out that “John Scelso” is really the one in charge here. I want to point out that “John Scelso” appears a lot in the documents released by the Review Board and that “Scelso” is a fictitious name. John Newman did not point that out in his presentation, though it is in his book on page 402.

John then offers the counter-argument that well, maybe these people did not know what was coming into the CIA, maybe the left hand did not know what the right hand was doing. Well, that doesn’t work because we now have record and routing sheets. These tell us who read these files and when they read them. They are an internal audit trail. The HSCA asked for these and the CIA said no. John Newman then went on to show that a large number of people were reading Oswald files. Many of the files were FBI files that are dated and that came into the CIA after May ‘62.1 A lot of CIA people are reading files they don’t have.

John found and asked Jane Roman, whose name appears on the bottom of the CIA 10 October cable to Mexico City why people were coordinating on messages that were not true. Jane Roman said, “I am signing off on something that I know is not true. It was not my operation. It was something very closely held on a need to know basis. It was the Cuban Affairs Staff operation.”

John phrases the question, “Well, if we take out those 18 months of Lee Harvey Oswald’s life what is missing? His Cuban escapades.”

John then played a section of the recording from the WDSU radio program “Conversation Carte Blanche”2 . John explained, “I just wanted you to know that all of those people, Stuckey, Butler, and Bringuier were FBI and CIA assets. All of them. And in fact, Mr. Bringuier, the CIA asset, was the local AM/SPELL delegate.”

AM/SPELL is the CIA crypt for the Cuban Student Directorate, also known as the DRE. They were a propaganda tool of the CIA. John then showed a document he showed at A.S.K. ’94 in Dallas.3 It is a cable from the JM/WAVE station to CIA HQS. The CIA has information, has files on Oswald and is not passing them on to the FBI, Secret Service and the State Department because a Cuban emigre group, AM/SPELL, re: Carlos Bringuier, wants to hold a press conference. This document is written a few short hours after the assassination.

These are AM/SPELL files on Lee Harvey Oswald that are still being withheld.

John then shows a document that states that CIA did not know that Lee Harvey Oswald was inside the Cuban consulate until after the assassination. He then showed a document that states that it was because Oswald was at both the Soviet and the Cuban consulates that caused them to report it in the first place.4 It is not the Soviet consulate that they are protecting, it is the Cuban consulate. He then showed a document from the then head of CIA Counterintelligence that there were several Mexico City cables in October 1963 concerned with Oswald’s visits in Mexico City to both the Soviet and Cuban consulates. He then showed another document, “Every piece of information concerning Lee Harvey Oswald was reported immediately after it was received to U. S. Ambassador Thomas Mann by memorandum, the FBI chief in Mexico by memorandum, and to my headquarters by cable.” That was written by Mexico City CIA Chief of Station, Winston Scott.

John Newman, holding the audience enraptured explained, “I call this the dream team, the CIA Director, Counterintelligence Chief and Station Chief. This is an operation. This is a cover story designed to cover up something.”

John went to Dick Helms and asked him, “Does this mean that you knew that he was in the Cuban consulate?”

“Yes, of course it does”, Helms said.

John explained, “I would not be in your office, sir, unless there was a problem with this.”

“Yes, what’s your problem?”

“Well the problem is the agency has never admitted to knowing this until after the assassination.”

John said Helms did the good thing and told the truth. Unfortunately, John did not further elaborate on exactly what Helms said in response. John hinted at it in the videotape of essentially the same presentation from A.S.K. ‘94.5 Helms confirmed John’s conclusions and admitted they, the CIA, lied for more than 30 years, to protect sources and methods.

John then briefly went into the other element of the Mexico City story and that is that Lee Oswald, while in the Soviet Embassy talked to Valery Kostikov, a KGB agent in charge of assassinations in the Western Hemisphere, known as Department 13. The cover story here by the CIA is that we, the CIA, didn’t know that until after the assassination. In other words, we had files on Kostikov, we just didn’t read them. Then Kennedy gets shot, Oswald is the suspect, we look into Oswald’s stuff some more, then Oh my god! he talked to an assassinations guy. That’s the official story. John thinks, cannot prove it yet, that this too is a cover story.

John then talked about his book where he proves that Oswald did not make any of the calls into the Soviet or Cuban consulates. John believes that a CIA agent impersonated Lee Harvey Oswald’s voice. Silvia Duran, was also likewise impersonated.

John then talked about Eldon Hensen, a Texan cattle rancher. This is a story which details the importance of the telephone taps. He, Hensen, wanted to hustle the Cubans for a buck.6 He called the Cuban embassy but he didn’t want to meet there because the CIA might see him. He wanted to meet in a restaurant. A Cuban embassy officer agreed and met him. This would be called “Operation: Laredo”.

The Cuban officer, really a CIA agent, continued to pose as a Cuban embassy officer to Hensen and warned Hensen never to call the embassy again because it is full of CIA spies.

As John Newman describes it the CIA entered Hensen’s reality to see what he was up to and to use him to their own purposes. Anyone who called the Cuban Embassy was an opportunity to do this.

Begin to see something now?

The CIA did this routinely. We were preparing to invade Cuba. We were going to assassinate Castro. There were many black operations being run through that consulate. This consulate is a portal to the outside world for Cuba. It still is today.

This makes me think that this is the reason for much of the secrecy and cover-up because many of the same anti-Castro operations, I repeat the same anti-Castro operations, not new ones, may be or are still going on, like tapping the telephones into the Cuban embassy.

John thinks that at the least Oswald became involved in a phone impersonation CIA operation, maybe something more. There may also have been an attempt to discredit the F.P.C.C. John describes it further in chapter 18 of his book. He says it is not overwhelming, it is not even convincing, but it looks like they sent him down there for something.

John then went into the importance of the phone conversations. We now have a large amount of data, from the Russians, Cubans and Mexicans, and CIA surveillance. The transcripts do match the personal recollections of the people who were there for the first day and a half. John elaborates, “What they say happened is in fact in the transcripts. However, at one point in time, beginning Saturday morning, none of the CIA transcripts have anything to do with what the people who were there recall having happened. They say Oswald never came back. No phone calls, no visits, after 10 AM Saturday morning, nothing. And yet the fun was just beginning. The transcripts go on, that day and the following week, several of them. And if I’m right it is not Oswald’s voice on that tape.”

John then shows a part of a transcript of a conversation between new President Lyndon Johnson and FBI director, J. Edgar Hoover. This can be seen on page 520 of “Oswald and the CIA”. This is the morning after the assassination. LBJ asks, “Have you established any more about the visit to the Soviet embassy in Mexico in September?” John finds it odd that Johnson asks this question this early. Hoover responds, “No, that’s one angle that’s very confusing for this reason. We have up here the tape…”

Cover story number 3 by the CIA is that we erased the tape before the assassination. So, if anyone wants to investigate this they can say sorry we don’t have any tape.

Yet, Hoover says, “We have up here the tape..”. Hoover continued, “…and the photograph of the man that was at the Soviet Embassy, using Oswald’s name. That picture and the tape do not correspond to this man’s voice, nor to his appearance. In other words, it appears that there is a second person who was at the Soviet Embassy down there.”

John then showed an FBI memorandum from Hoover to the head of the Secret Service the morning after the assassination that special agents of this Bureau who have spoken with Oswald (Hosty and Fain) have listened to the tape. It wasn’t Oswald on the tape.

John then showed another FBI memorandum from Belmont to Tolson. This again is the morning after the assassination. Dallas agents listened to the tape, from the Cuban Embassy to the Soviet Embassy. This conversation is different than the Oct 1 conversation. This taped conversation occurs on Saturday, October 5, 1963 at about 11AM. Now we have two tapes, two different conversations This is not Oswald’s voice either. Remember, Oswald left Mexico City October 3, 1963

The FBI changed its story a few days later to say oops, we never listened to any tape. John thinks this too is a deception, a cover story.

John then referred to a document released by the Review Board, “Now in this stack of documents there is a much better version of Mr. Feinglass’ name, who is described as a transcriber, I actually believe that that is a pseudonym, it is probably Mr. Parasol (sic?) would be his real name, and we know that from various sources as a transcriber. But I would like to draw your attention to the marginalia in this newspaper article, you can see it in the lower left hand portion of the page. It says here, ‘the caller from the Cuban Embassy was unidentified until headquarters sent traces on Oswald and…’ do you see what it says after that, ‘voices compared.’!7

How do you compare voices from a transcript? No, you need a tape, you need the intercept. You need the intercept to compare the voices. You can compare statements from transcripts. This document here tells me, and this is actually a October ’64 article; although I do believe that this marginalia would pertain to the time frame of the assassination, I do not beleive it was before the assassination because why in the hell would you be comparing Oswald’s voice before Kennedy is murdered, that doesn’t make any sense, but I may be wrong.”

John then showed yet another document from the CIA written the morning after the assassinaiton. It says, “As soon as our Mexico City Station realized that Lee Harvey Oswald was the prime suspect, it began rescreening all the written telephone transcripts in its files covering the Soviet Embassy for the pertenant period, the actual tapes were also reviewed but many of them were erased.” 8

John pointed out it said “many”, not “all”, “And if our FBI memorandum are correct at least two of them were not erased.” John then displayed the final document. This was from the Review Board. John descriped it as very near and dear to his heart. This is another CIA document written very shortly after the assassination about Oswald’s visit to Mexico City. John continued, “In the center of this page you will notice a very large, what we call a redaction, or postponement. In plain English, the withholding of information from the public. And the Review Board has now gone to an extraordinary measure, it is something that I have never seen before in all of my years. Either you let it loose or you don’t. Well, now we have a new tactic called substitute language. So, the Review Board has decided that it is going to sustain the CIA’s request to keep this stuff classified but they really want you and I to know something about what’s in here. So, they have come up with some substitute language. Here’s what they said, of course the reason for the redaction is that it discusses sources and methods, ‘the redacted information refers to the 1 October intercept on Lee Oswald’, well we knew that , ‘and the possible existence of another copy of the intercept that was discovered after the assassination.” See, “Assassination Record Review Board Final Determination Notice” for document 104-10004-10199, postponement # 5.

John asked, “Well what does that mean, ‘another copy of the intercept’. In my professional opinion, that’s a tape, I may be wrong. If I am right it may still exist and the Review Board seems to think so and is trying to find it.”

So, there is hope for some amazing things to come out in the near future with this Review Board. Stay tuned.

The following is my review of the 39 documents.

Document # 104-10004-10195 has three postponements each using substitute language. This document concerns inaccuracies and errors noted in a draft of an Oswald report. I believe this Oswald report, that had the errors, is reproduced on p. 513 of John Newman’s “Oswald and the CIA”. This document was recently released in its entirety. It is basically Document # 104-10015-10048. The postponed information is [GP/FLOOR] and [Scelso]. Now [GP/FLOOR] is, I believe, a CIA cryptonym for Lee Harvey Oswald. On page 402 of “Oswald and the CIA” John Newman refers to John Scelso and believes that the name is a pseudonym. Well, I think we can now take it as proven that Scelso is indeed a pseudonym. John Newman points out, “Scelso was the first line supervisor above the Mexico City desk responsible for both the cables (See p. 512-513). He might even have been the drafter.”9 He was also Chief of Western Hemisphere Division 3. Mr. Scelso wrote this one page document. Hopefully, we will know very soon exactly who Mr. Scelso is.

Document # 104-10004-10199 has 6 postponements. This is a 23 page report from “Mr. Scelso” to the Chief of Counterintelligence. Scelso informs the C/CI/SI that this is the complete unexpurgated version of the report on [GP/FLOOR] covering Oswald’s stay in Mexico and including summaries [of the telephone intercepts]. It begins with “We Discover Lee Oswald in Mexico City”. Sounds like the introduction to a scene from a play doesn’t it? The document discusses the intercept of the October 1, 1963 phone call Lee Oswald made to the Soviet Embassy in Mexico City. There are two sizable redactions right off. In mentioning where the information came from the document says, “This piece of information was received from,” then it goes blank for a line and a half, “It is highly secret”, then a blank for three lines. This has to be about the source and method of how the phone call was intercepted, for the next readable line is, “which are transcribed and reviewed by our small staff in Mexico City.”

The document states that by October 9 the October 1 intercept had been transcribed and a summary cabled to Washington. On October 10 CIA HQ sent a cable on this to the FBI, the Department of State, and the Navy department. A copy was also delivered by hand to INS as CIA had no cable system to that agency. Also on October 10, 1963 a long cable went out to Mexico City on this. There is something very important on the Mexico City October 10 cable that is not on the one sent to the FBI, State, and Navy.10

The report mentions that a very sensitive method of surveillance allowed the CIA Mexico City Station to photograph people going in and out of the Soviet Embassy. They took a picture of someone they thought might be Lee Oswald.11 They asked the Navy for a photo of Oswald from his Marine days to compare on October 24, 1963. They did not receive a reply before the assassination.

This report which “Scelso” tentatively dates to December 13, 1963 states that they knew, by Dec. 13, that the man photographed was not Oswald. Also, that none of the photographic surveillance points took one identifiable picture of Lee Oswald. The report also states that information on U.S. citizens trying to contact Soviet bloc embassies is always passed onto the Deputy Director for Plans, or his assistant and permission must be obtained to pass such information onto other government agencies. Only in absolute emergencies is the Mexico City Station authorized to pass such information directly to the FBI offices in the U. S. Embassy. CIA HQ surmised that the FBI investigated to see if Lee Oswald was actually in Mexico City on October 1. Well, that’s interesting. However, almost gloating, the report acknowledges that the FBI would have had to start checking after October 10, and Lee left Mexico City on October 3, 1963. There are then 4 lines left blank.

Oddly, Mrs. Anne Egerter is referred to as Betty on the next page. Supposedly, 27 cables went out on Oswald from the Mexico city station in the week following the assassination. There is repeated mention of the intercepts made, “Oswald’s name was not actually mentioned in these additional calls, but similarity of speech and various plain points of content link them to him.”

This document also talks of the arrest of Sylvia Duran. This is a very important document.

Document #104-10015-10013 concerns requested name traces and results. This is in sections. The first part is a hand written note from R to Jack. There is no date, although the top of the page says 0100 HRS. At the very bottom of the page the number 59 appears as though this is page 59. This document appears to be page 59 to 68 of something. Page 59-61 is a three page handwritten note as described. Papich thinks some information is too sensitive to pass onto the Bureau (FBI). Mr. Sam J. Papich is an FBI man who handled liaison with the CIA.12

Traces were run on Aleksander Kosterski, aka Alexander Ivanov with the Polish desk, negative results. SR/CE traces on Kosterski and Beznos also negative. RI traces on same also negative. This is page 62.

Another section is a letter to Jane (Roman?) Someone reviewed the attached cards [WSSA-2110] on LEMBKE. LEMBKE’s name appears as follows George Folke Vallentin LEMBKE, 14, February 1909. Apparently a trace was also done on Albrecht and the FBI and the Navy have no record of subject. This is page 63.

A trace was done on Celia SANCHEZ Manduley. She was Castro’s private secretary and lover. She is a powerful figure in the 26th of July Movement. All intelligence agents report to her. She apparently has a 201 file, 201-290165. This is page 64.

A trace was done on (Fnu) Saavedra. They found eight people with that last name. These are pages 65-67.

Lastly, a trace was done on Ramon B. Cortes (Cortez?). He is apparently the president of the Transcontinental company.

Document #104-10015-10014 is a cable from the Director of CIA to the JM?WAVE station. It is hard to read as the typeset is a bit blurry. “HQS HIGHLY INTERESTED POSSIBLE AMkirk/1 VISIT MEXI. SUGGEST LICOOKY/1 ANSWER LETTER AND ENCOURAGE [A/1] MAKE TRIP.” The document also suggest that L/1 would assist in living expenses.

Of note is a signature that looks like Holman signing for C/WH/3 who is supposed to be “John Scelso”. Now did someone sign for “Scelso” or is Holman “Scelso”?

Document # 104-10015-10015 is a one page cable from the Director CIA to Mexico City requesting information on a shipment of U.S. goods to Cuba through Mexico. LIFEAT heard a conversation between Ramon Cortes and a man in Tyler, Texas believed to be Lorenzo Saunders, V.P. of Transcontinental.

Again, signing next to C/WH/3 is Holman, W.P. Holman as the authenticating officer. It looks to me like Holman is “Scelso”. If so, that was very easy to figure out. And is hard to imagine why all the secrecy. You see they are still protecting this secret.

Document #104-10015-10019 is an information report on Transcontinental as per the request in the previous document. This information is dated from February 2-9 1962. A lot of CIA sections were interested in this company. I count 16. I do not understand why this is an assassination record. The Cubans accused the company of selling them used parts as new. Holy shades of Iran/Contra, Batman!

Well, this sounds like a covert operation then but I still don’t see how it’s an assassination record. (A document in “The Eight Batch” Document 104-10015-10018 refers to this as an operation called AM/CONCERT.)

Document #104-10015-10027 is a one page letter from CIA, Thomas W. Lund to Willard (first name) on Sylvia Duran. Someone wants to check and see who were all the people who were with Oswald when he first met Silvia Duran. He met her at this party. For some reason I have two copies of the same page.

Document # 104-10015-10047 is a one page cable from Director to Mexico City. There is a near exact duplicate of this document on p.509 of “Oswald and the CIA”. The LI/ crypts have been released. Under DIR CITE MEXI 6453 is LC/IMPROVE.

Paragraph 1 begins, “ACC [LI/ENVOY] 1 Oct 63, AMERICAN MALE WHO SPOKE BROKEN RUSSIAN SAID HIS NAME LEE OSWALD (PHONETIC), STATED HE AT SOVEMB ON 28 SEPT WHEN SPOKE WITH CONSUL WHOM HE BELIEVED BE ALERIY VLADIMIPOVICH KOSTIKOV. SUBJ ASKED SOV GUARD IVAN OBYEDKOV WHO ANSWERED, IF THERE ANYTHING NEW RE TELEGRAM TO WASHINGTON. OBYEDKOV UPON CHECKING SAID NOTHING RECEIVED YET, BUT REQUEST HAD BEEN SENT.”

Paragraph 2 begins, “HAVE PHOTO MALE APPEARS BE AMERICAN ENTERING SOVEMB 1216 HOURS, LEAVING 1222 ON 1 OCT. APPARENT AGE 35, ATHLETIC BUILD, CIRCA 6 FEET, RECEDING HAIRLINE, BALDING TOP, WORE KHAKIS AND SPORT SHIRT. SOURCE [LIEMPTY]

They request a pouched photo of Oswald.

Document # 104-10015-10048 is Mexi cable 6453 referred to in the above document. It is a three page document. The first two pages are reprinted on p. 512 of “Oswald and the CIA”. [ODACID] is CIA language for the State Department. On the third page is a lot of bracketed information.

“Scelso” appears in brackets signing off for C/WH/3, so we are back to protecting him again.

Document # 104-10015-10061 is a one page document of which I have two copies of again. It is quite hard to read. Supposedly dated November 23, 1963. It is a memorandum for, then it is gone, worn out as this is probably a multigenerational copy far removed from the original. Support activities this date re [GPIDEAL] assassination for Mexico City station personnel.

Almost all of the document is handwritten in where original type is too far gone to be read.

Document # 104-10015-10070 mentions that Kostikov is under Mexican Secret Service physical surveillance so LIEMBRACE (the Mexico City Station surveillance team) was called off. They are protecting this source and method even though we know what LI/EMBRACE is.

Document # 104-10015-10074 is a cable from Mexico City to the Director. It is three pages summarizing of local contacts with Ivan Gabrilovich Alferiev.

Document # 104-10015-10080 is a cable from Mexico City to director on contacts of Kostikov per request in above cable.

Document # 104-10015-10091 is a cable from Mexico City to director with a routing sheet. It is postponed in part. “Scelso” appears on the routing sheet. The cable states that photos sent to Dallas are not identical to Lee Oswald shown on television. Paragraph 3 orders arrest of Silvia Duran. A very important document.

Document # 104-10015-10092 asks for check on license plates of two cars with Texas licenses that were at the Cuban Embassy in Mexico on October 21 and 24, 1963. “Although no known connection suggest above be called attention officer handling Lee Oswald case.”

Document # 104-10015-10114 Director CIA requests Mexico City to review all LI/ENVOY tapes and transcripts since September 27 to locate all material relating to Oswald, although Oswald is not mentioned in the text. Director asks, “are all tapes available?”

“Scelso” is the WH/3 authenticating officer again.

Document # 104-10015-10118 is a cable from Director to Mexico City requesting that arrest of Sylvia Duran be kept secret and not spread to leftist or disloyal elements in the Mexican government.

“Scelso” is the authenticating officer again.

Document #104-10015-10157 is a cable from the CIA to the White House attn: McGeorge Bundy, the FBI, and the Department of State attn: U. Alexis Johnson on the Gilberto Alverado story. He is referred to as “D” in the Schweiker-Hart report. Also, see 3rd paragraph on p. 306 of “Photographic Whitewash”.

“Scelso” is the coordinating officer.

Document # 104-10015-10173 is a cable concerning lack of meetings double agents have had with Soviets since assassination.

Document # 104-10015-10176 is a cable from CIA to presumably the Mexico City station. It requests that double agents not initiate discussion on the assassination but to be alert and report any comments on the assassination.

Document # 104-10015-10177 is a two page document concerning Alverado wherein Alverado admits to fabricating his story solely because he wanted action taken against Castro.

Document # 104-10015-10188 is a cable from CIA to Mexico City. CIA is concerned about a Dept. of Justice report that might contain LI/CRYPT information. Someone is basically trying to protect the LI/CRYPT operation.

Document # 104-10015-10212 is a memorandum from Win Scott to Clark D. Anderson, legal attache. It is titled Lee Harvey Oswald with alias. They are the transcripts of the phone intercepts.

Document # 104-10015-10304 is reproduced on page 509 of “Oswald and the CIA”.

Document # 104-10015-10359 is a 5 page document titled “Summary of Relevant Information on Lee Harvey Oswald at 0700 24 November 63. It includes a routing slip. There is one lie, (oops! how serendipitous, I meant to type line but I like lie too.) line in here that I really love, “Since our agency is not supposed to investigate U. S. citizens abroad without special request, we did nothing further on the case.” (after disseminating the October 10, 1963 cables). Of note is paragraph five where the CIA believes that Lee Harvey Oswald entered Mexico apparently by car from Neuvo Laredo, Texas on September 26, 1963 claiming he was a photographer, living in New Orleans and headed for Mexico City.

Page 4 paragraph 9 has a deletion, “on 23 November 1963, Mexican authorities, [deletion] and who noticed the name of Lee Oswald in it, arrested Silvia Duran and her husband. Well, what was the it that Mexican authorities found?

Another deletion is in paragraph 11 on the same page, “Mexican President Lopez Mateos is aware of this case [deletion], however they did include the period, so it looks like this .] Oh goody! punctuation marks are not protected by “National Security”.

Document # 104-10018-10040 is titled “Summary of Oswald Case Prepared For Briefing Purposes Given 10 Dec 63 Concerning The Discovery of Oswald In Mexico City”. It is 20 pages. It is very similar to document #104-10015-10199

Document # 104-10018-10064 is a one page cable from the Director of CIA to Mexico City titled Re: Plan of Passing Info to Warren Commission. The plan is to eliminate mention of the telephone taps.

Again, “Scelso” appears as the authenticating officer.

Document # 104-10018-10103 is a two page document with a one page routing sheet. It is a memorandum from “Scelso” to the Deputy Director for Plans (Richard Helms). It is titled “Plans for the [GPFLOOR] Investigation” GPFLOOR is Oswald, or the Oswald case. There is concern that the FBI report, Commission Document 1, will be published and that such publication would jeopardize the telephone tap operation.

Interestingly, “Scelso” asks to be relieved of his job as C/WH/3 in order to handle the [GPFLOOR] case. C/WH/3 has 45 people at CIA HQS and well over 100 in seven Central American countries. So, I think we can infer that the Oswald case, after the assassination of President Kennedy, had to be large and pretty damn important.

Document # 104-10052-10056 is the operational monthly report from the Mexico City station to CIA, specifically Chief, KURIOT. This report gives highly technical details of how photographic surveillance was carried out.

Document 104-10062-10001 is a two page dispatch from Chief of Station, Mexico City to CIA. All I can understand is something is being sent to AMSPOON.

Document # 104-10086-10002 is a one page document with information on Silvia Duran.

Document # 104-10086-10003 is a one page cable on the arrival of David Atlee Philips in Mexico City. The typeset is quite blurry and makes the document nearly illegible. I believe he arrived October 7, 1963. I think this is a very important document.

Document # 104-10086-10005 is a cable from Mexico City to CIA HQS. Subjects arrived April 8, 1964. Again, someone wants to protect the telephone tap operation from appearing in Mexican and FBI reports. Also includes a routing sheet.

Document #104-10095-10001 is a six page report of an interview of Charlotte Bustos-Videla. Mrs. Bustos is listed on the October 10, 1963 cables. She is, “CIA officer in charge of headquarters support to liaison and support operations in Mexico City.”1 This document contains numerous postponements. Some of the postponements contain substitute language, some are to be reviewed again this past December, others in 2017. It is from Scott D. Breckinridge, OLC. A memorandum for record. It is dated December 3, 1976. This looks like the CIA got to her before the HSCA could. Mrs. Bustos recommended that they, John Leader, Ted Anderson, and Scott Breckinridge, talk to Anne Goodpasture who was the case officer in the station. According to Bustos, Goodpasture “ran [deletion]”, she handled sensitive things for the COS and was involved in the investigation of the Duran aspect of the matter. There was another person mentioned but substitute language is used [Employee]. Mrs. Bustos revealed that the Cuban tap was active at the time Oswald visited the Cuban Embassy which apparently is contrary to what the guys writing this report were told. She, Mrs. Bustos, did the name trace on Oswald. There are three handwritten pages of notes included in this document.

Document 3 104-10096-10001 is a report commenting on Ronald Kessler’s article in The Washington Post of November 26, 1976, entitled “CIA withheld details of Oswald’s call.”

Kessler comments that Oswald called the Soviet Embassy in Mexico City in late September 1963 and tried to make a deal.

The CIA’s response, to itself, is to acknowledge the intercept but that voice comparisons could not be made because they erased the tape. There is no indication that Oswald tried to make a deal.

Kessler comments that “in exchange for unspecified information, he (Oswald) wanted a free trip to Russia”. CIA responds that that statement is not substantiated in their files.

Kessler writes that the CIA intercepted the call and did not hand the tape over to the FBI or the Warren Commission. The CIA responded that information regarding the October 1, 1963 contact with the Soviet Embassy was disseminated on October 10, 1963 to the State Dept., FBI, Navy and INS, and their representatives in Mexico City. A copy of one of the October 10, 1963 cables was delivered to the Warren Commission on March 24, 1964. In April Warren Commission counselors Coleman, Slawson and Willens reviewed “the ‘take’ from the telephone tap operation”. Well, what does that mean? Does that mean they listened to a tape recording? This response does not address what happened to the tape and the contradiction of people listening to it after the CIA said it was destroyed. Supposedly, FBI agents Fain and Hosty listened to it and reported that it is not Oswald on the tape.

Kessler writes that the CIA told the Warren Commission that it learned of most of Oswald’s Mexico City activities after the assassination. The fact is they monitored Oswald’s activities before Kennedy’s assassination.

The CIA responds that in no way was Oswald under investigation prior to November 22, 1963. None of the facts of his defection, return, and the period 1959-1962 were known to the Mexico City station before October 10, 1963. The intercept is usually not analyzed in real time but afterward. What usually speeds this up is the mention of a name which occurred on October 1, 1963. Had Oswald done what Kessler says he did it would have triggered an immediate reaction.

I do not believe that Oswald did what Kessler states. However, the CIA is playing semantics. It is not the Mexico City station’s job to have all the information about Oswald. The CIA knew all about Oswald, far more than they ever admitted to as John Newman proved in “Oswald and the CIA”. The idea that latest HQ info on Oswald is a report dated May 1962 is a lie. That they did not know that he was in the Soviet and Cuban embassies until after the assassination is a lie.

Paragraph 8 quotes the Kessler article. “It was the CIA’s belief that the two embassies were heavily involved in the spy business and that, specifically, they were operational bases for intelligence activities directed at the United States. So with the full cooperation of the Mexican government, CIA wiretaps were installed on telephone lines going into both embassies. Thus, when Oswald showed up in Mexico City in late September, and telephoned the Russian embassy, his conversation was picked up from the wiretap. A transcript was made and circulated in the CIA offices in the American embassy in Mexico City. The station chief at that time was the late Winston M. Scott , who personally reviewed all transcripts emanating from wiretaps on Soviet bloc installations. The Oswald transcript, according to a CIA translator who worked with Scott, aroused a lot of interest.”

The CIA’s response? “No comment”. Isn’t that hysterical? Isn’t that glorious?

Document # 104-10125-10001 is a Washington Post (?) article dated October 21, 1964 titled “CIA withheld vital intelligence from Warren Commission” by Robert S. Allen and Paul Scott. This concerns a National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) warning that it is Kremlin policy to remove from public office by assassination Western officials who oppose Soviet policy. This also has vital marginalia about comparing Oswald’s voice.

Document # 104-10125-10002 is a memorandum for the record. Breckinridge, et. al visit Ann Goodpasture. She was asked what did the HSCA want. She was asked if she talked with agency personnel prior to giving her deposition to the HSCA. The HSCA boys were interested in the photographic surveillance and if there were any photos of Oswald. “She told them there was no photography of Oswald. They went past that to why it no longer exists which she couldn’t explain. She said it had been maintained intact so long as she had a responsibility for it. Subsequent to Win Scott’s retirement, she understands, the new chief didn’t want so many records. She says the file room was unbelievably crowded, full of “unnecessary records” She understands that [deletion, substitute language used, “employee”] (who had custody) and Charlotte Bustos (who had to approve what happened), under Charlie Rivera’s authorization, represent the ones who cleared out files and would have been the ones most likely to have destroyed them. Bustos says they weren’t destroyed, which Goodpasture doubts is correct.

Goodpasture described an “unidentified Man” being photographed by LILYRIC and that that is the file that no longer exists. She protested sending in the photograph and that it was done over her objections. She believes her memos of objection were removed for some ulterior purpose. The CIA interviewers were concerned that the HSCA would take this as proof that files were destroyed to cover something up.

She stated that Win Scott’s manuscript was in error. Oswald did not spell his name nor give it in full. She stated that whatever Scott saw she saw first so she is positive on this.

Document # 104-10007-10152 is a cable from Chief of Western Hemisphere division to Chief of Mexico City with an attached tape recording. Well, not exactly. There is a xerox of a box. No, it is not related to the Oswald telephone taps. It is a tape of the phone call described in the document below.

Document # 104-10008-10116 is a cable from CIA to Mexico City. LIENVOY reported 15 June 65 that an unidentified woman speaking French called Cuban Ambassador Hernandez Armas from Chicago on behalf of a Mr. Gan. She wanted to know if Silvia Duran was a friend of Lee Oswald’s.

Well, there are some documents in here that I do not understand why they were released or why they are assassination records. There are also several assassination records that are very important and I am glad for their release.

Obviously, “Scelso” is an important piece of the Mexico City puzzle.

I’ll write on the 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th and 9th batches soon.

---

 

Footnotes

1.) See Joseph Backes “ARRB Document Releasing History: Batch One and Batch Two” The Assassination Chronicles, Volume 1, Number 4, December 1995 pgs. 20-23, also Backes, “ARRB Document Releases: A Review and Commentary,” Fair Play Issue #8

2.) John Newman, Oswald and the CIA (New York: Carroll and Graff 1995) p. 512-513 (Updated and expanded edition, 2008)

3.) Document # 104-100015-10048.

4.) See Oswald and the CIA, pps. 501,502,504,505.

5.) See Harold Weisberg, Oswald In New Orleans (Canyon Books: New York City 1967) p. 131-2

6.) See “Assassination Symposium on John F. Kennedy, 1994, Newly Released Information” videotape. Available from A/V Presentation 7477 Airport Freeway, Fort Worth, Texas 76118. Phone (817) 589-2159

7.) Oswald and the CIA, p. 514

8.) See “Assassination Symposium on John F. Kennedy, 1994, Newly Released Information” videotape. Available from A/V Presentation 7477 Airport Freeway, Fort Worth, Texas 76118. Phone (817) 589-2159

9.) Oswald and the CIA, p. 362

10.) Document # 104-10125-10001

11.) Document # 104-10004-10199

12.) Oswald and the CIA, p. 402

13.) For an important analysis of the two October cables See Oswald and the CIA. Also, A.S.K. 1994 Newly Released Information videotape wherein John Newman explains the importance of these two cables and other documents.

14.) See CE 237. Also, J. Gary Shaw and Larry Ray Harris Cover-Up (Austin, Texas: Collector’s Editions: An Imprint of Thomas Publications, Inc.1992 ) p. 106 for photo.

15.) Oswald and the CIA, p. 20

16.) Philip Agee, Inside the Company: CIA Diary (New York: Stonehill Publishing Co. 1975) p. 604

The ARRB’s Document Releasing History

Batch One and Batch Two

Copyright © by Joseph Backes

---

Well, the Assassination Records Review Board has started to release documents. However, only the first release went off without a hitch. All subsequent releases have either been appealed or have some kind of postponement in them which has delayed the release, even when the ARRB initially voted for full release. I have, therefore, decided to review where we are now and what is expected.

The ARRB voted on June 7th, 1995 to release in full 16 CIA documents. The Board must inform the Federal Register within 14 days of its decision, document by document. The originating agencies have 30 days to appeal the Board’s decision. This is not a loophole in the law, as Mr. John Newman suggested. The President has the power to postpone release of a document or portions in a document. If there is no appeal and if the President of the United States agrees with the Board’s decision then the documents are released.

Now another key point to understand is that 30 days after the Board’s decision is placed in the Federal Register, and if there are no appeals by the originating agencies or any objections by the President, the documents will be released. However, that 30 days can become 44 days before release because the Board may take all of those 14 days before they make their decision known to the Federal Register.

Thus is was on July 21, 1995 that the ARRB announced the release of the 16 CIA documents. Does everyone see that June 7, plus 14 days, plus 30 days, equals July 21?

Okay, now we move onto the second batch of documents the Board voted to release. The Board met on July 17 and 18, 1995 to review documents. They voted to release 16 FBI documents and 2 CIA documents. They voted for full release. Now something strange happened here. The Board seemed to be releasing already released information. I personally know this to be true of some of the documents. I learned of the Board’s decision to release documents and got the information on the specific documents with their numbers at the August 3rd ARRB open meeting. I then went to the National Archives. I found only 9 FBI documents. The other 6 were in boxes that were already charged out. I could not find the 2 CIA documents because they are part of the “segregated collection” and do not have RIF’s, Reader Identification Forms.

RIF’s are documents created by the Archives for all documents that were closed prior to the creation of the JFK database on December 26, 1992. The JFK Act required the Archives to create a database under statute 5(d). The Archives was required to create the JFK collection in late December 60 days after the passage of the Act. Statute 5 (d)(1)(A) Identification Aids says,”Not later than 45 days after the date of enactment of the Act, the Archivist, in consultation with the appropriate Governmental offices, shall prepare and make available to all governmental offices a standard form of identification or finding aid for use with each assassination record subject to review under this Act.” Statute 5(d)(1)(B)(2) states, “Upon completion of an identification aid, a Government office shall-(A)attach a printed copy to the record it describes.” and “5(d)(1)(B)(2)(C) attach a printed copy to each assassination record it describes when it is transmitted to the Archivist.”

Only under the following condition is an assassination record not required to have an identification record, 5(d)(1)(B)(3) “Assassination records which are in the possession of the National Archives on the date of enactment of this Act, and which have been publicly available in their entirety without redaction, shall be made available in the Collection without any additional review by the Review Board or another authorized office under this Act, and shall not be required to have such an identification aid unless required by the Archivist.”

The CIA records were transferred in August, 1994. They therefore avoided having a RIF attached to each document. If they were released after October 26, then they would have a RIF attached to each one.

However, I believe there is a clause that says they had to have been publicly available in their entirety without redaction. This is not the case for the entirety of the “segregated collection”. Therefore, I believe that these documents should have RIF’s and be placed in the database. This is an issue I bring before the National Archives and the Review Board time and time again.

Now when I found these 9 FBI documents I brought them over to John Judge, the Executive Secretary for the Coalition on Political Assassinations. John and I have become friends. I am fortunate enough to stay with him when I drive down to Washington from Albany to attend Review Board meetings. We were amazed to discover that there was repetition of documents and that the information was, largely, already released.

The nine FBI documents that I got were:

1.) Document #124-10070-103542.) Document #124-10108-10142

3.) Document # 124-10119-10078

4.) Document # 124-10230-10425

5.) Document # 124-10243-10367

6.) Document # 124-10006-10342

7.) Document # 124-10170-10064

8.) Document # 124-10244-10077

9.) Document # 124-10232-10345

Documents 5,6,7, and 8 were the same document from different FBI field offices, all redacted differently. This was a three page document on the FBI’s investigation of the Communist Party, U.S.A.’s reaction to the assassination of President Kennedy. The names or codes for two informants who provided the information provided in the report were redacted in all copies. Page two and page three of the report were heavily redacted in all but one copy of the report, the New York Field Office. The New York copy had no redaction on page two or three. However, the same document from the Cleveland Field Office had half of page one, all of page two and some of page three redacted. The Dallas Field Office file had half of page one, all of page two, and some of page three redacted. The Cincinnati field office copy had half of page one, all of page two, and had the most redaction of all copies for page three. The Pittsburgh Field Office won the prize for redactions. It had some of page one and most of page three redacted but page two was withheld in its entirety! This was because of subsection two of “The John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992.” , a clause that protects a living person who provided confidential information and subsection four, a clause that protects a cooperating individual or a foreign government.

Remember, page two and three are completely open in the New York field office copy.

You did not have to be a rocket scientist to figure this out. Every copy mentioned that copies were given to Headquarters, Dallas, New York and Cleveland. The report originated from the Cincinnati office. Page three tells us that an additional copy was given to Pittsburgh. Comparing and contrasting all copies of the report gives you the whole document.

The FBI appealed the decision of the Review Board to release these documents.

The only part of these documents dealing with Arnold Johnson and the Communist Party’s reaction to the assassination of President Kennedy that was not already released were the true names of the informants and their code numbers.

These 5 documents were 5 of the 11 documents the FBI fought against releasing.

Document 1 and 2 from my list of 9 were duplicates. So really, of my 9 we are only talking about 4 documents.

Now there was swift reaction to the FBI’s appeal.

COPA issued a press release on August 21 1995. To quote from it, “The FBI sent an appeal of the Review Board’s decision to President Clinton, arguing that disclosure of these records would create immediate harm or risk to informants, but the FBI failed to search their own files to discover whether the informants are still living.” John Newman was quoted in the press release as saying, “The purpose of the JFK Records Act is to ensure immediate and complete disclosure of all records relating to this tragic event in our history. The public’s right to know about the death of their president outweighs the unsupported demands for secrecy by the FBI.”

This was the first time the ARRB dealt with FBI records and it was the first appeal of a Review Board decision by a government agency. COPA also put out an action alert. This was posted on the Internet.

The FBI sent a formal reply to the Board’s decision to release these documents on August 9. This letter is classified.

According to an article John Newman wrote on August 21 entitled, “Public Release of JFK Records Imperiled”, AP reporter Melissa Robinson called the ARRB to find out how the release process was going and she found out about the FBI’s appeal.

This article states, “The FBI claims it is protecting its informants but, in an 11 August counter-appeal to the President, Chairman Tunheim charged that the FBI ‘failed to provide clear and convincing evidence required by the JFK Act’ to support its position. Furthermore Tunheim argued, much of the information the Bureau now wishes to redact [withhold] has already been officially released by the bureau.’ (True.) In other words, in selecting the first FBI package, the Review Board purposely included material the FBI had itself released. This tactic was undoubtedly to test the sincerity of the Bureau in complying with the letter and spirit of the Records Act.” (Misleading.)

I believe that John Newman is off the mark here. Yes, information in these documents is already, or has already been released. However, not all of it has. The true names and/or code names/numbers were not released. We were not dealing with completely unredacted, open in full, documents, portions were deleted. The portions deleted were the informant information. This is what the FBI argued against releasing.

In the meantime, the Board voted to release 37 additional CIA records (the Third Batch). This too met with resistance.

On September 1, 1995 Dan Alcorn faxed me a memo he wrote. Sarah McClendon spoke to a White House press assistant and was told that the President had sent the disputed records back to the ARRB and the FBI to negotiate further on their differences. Dan then spoke with Mr. Thomas Samoluk of the ARRB. Samoluk said that the FBI and the Review Board jointly agreed that more time was needed on the 9 FBI documents and they (the Review Board) agreed to give the FBI 30 more days to submit additional material to the Board. Samoluk also mentioned that the State Department would become involved because there was some foreign policy issues.

Alcorn skeptically and insightfully writes, “Samoluk was spinning that these are good developments because ‘we got people’s attention both at the agencies and at the White House.’ Also, the Board ‘didn’t want to lose’ on the first issue, and this avoids a loss.”

One problem, there is no legal authority for what the President, the FBI, and the ARRB have agreed to do. But, it is not expressly forbidden either. These are uncharted waters. This would be more of a loophole than the FBI’s appeal.

Alcorn inquired how these additional 30 days would be given. Samoluk said that the Board is withdrawing its submission to the White House, giving the FBI 30 days to submit information to the Board on its arguments, then the Board would decide to resubmit to the President and start a new 30 day clock.

Alcorn also asked if Samoluk had heard any reaction to the public campaign COPA ran for people to protest what the FBI was doing. “Yes, very much so.” Samoluk said the White House told him that they had received many communications on the matter, in fact a surprisingly large number. This was the reason the White House decided against upholding the FBI objections.

At the September 21, 1995 ARRB open meeting I find out that the ARRB held a special “Emergency Meeting” on August 30th. The notice for this was published on page 46147 of the Federal Register, Tuesday, September 5, 1995. “On August 30, 1995 at 2:45 p.m., the Assassination Records Review Board determined that it would need to hold an emergency meeting for the afternoon of the same day. The Review Board determined that it needed to take immediate action to withdraw from Presidential consideration its recommendations regarding the release of certain Federal Bureau of Investigations documents. The Review Board determined that discussion of and voting on the issue could not be delayed for seven days in order to give the public seven days notice of the meeting pursuant to the government in the Sunshine Act. ”

Well, isn’t that special? Why was “immediate action” necessary? All this talk of 30 days but an “open” emergency meeting of the ARRB on the matter had to be held in virtual secrecy. There was no notice to anyone about this “open” meeting.

Dr. Hall, Dr. Nelson and Dr. Graff were on the phone for this meeting, not actually present at the ARRB offices. Generally, the Board believed that more information would be gained by taking the steps they did. The problem of the FBI’s protectiveness of informants being used to deny access to countless documents may have been overcome by this Board action. If so, it is a great victory for the research community and the American people. We will have to wait and see if this is the case.

Meanwhile, the documents the FBI did not object to being released have not been released in their unredacted from.

1.) Document # 124-10023-102342.) Document # 124-10023-10235

3.) Document # 124-10023-10236

4.) Document # 124-10023-10237

5.) Document # 124-10023-10238

Document 1-4 in the above list are different copies of the same document. Document 5 in the above list is a routing slip. Document 1-3 are redacted similarly. Document 4, which is only redacted as to the source of the information, is largely unredacted. This document is about the $25 dollar enrollment fee Lee Harvey Oswald paid to attend the Albert Schweitzer College in Churwalden, which I believe is in Finland. These are the documents that had a foreign policy issue. The information in them came from the American Embassy in Paris, France. I don’t see how there could be a foreign policy issue. Supposedly, this has something to do with the American spying on Lee Harvey Oswald while in Russia and that is the foreign policy issue.

Now this could be very interesting. The official story is that no one knew where Lee Harvey Oswald was for a long time while in Russia. Could it be, like the Mexico city story that, in reality, American Intelligence knew immediately that Lee Harvey Oswald went to both the Soviet and Cuban consulates but just lied about it, similarly, American Intelligence knew where Lee Harvey Oswald was, every minute of every day while he was behind the Iron Curtain? Could this Review Board tell us exactly how American Intelligence knew by releasing the pertinent documents?

Now if we could spy on Lee Harvey Oswald and know where he was all the time he was behind the Iron Curtain, who else were we spying on?

The 11 documents from the 16 that the FBI appealed the release of were released on Thursday, October 19, 1995. The Review Board is still awaiting additional information on the other 5.

Now when the 11 FBI documents were released they were not released in their entirety despite the Board’s original vote that they be released in their entirety.

To quote from the October 19, 1995 ARRB press release, “The Review Board originally voted on July 17, 1995 to open 10 of these FBI documents (including duplicates) in full. Upon reconsideration, after receiving additional information from the FBI, the Board voted again to open the entire documents, except for the numerical portion of informant symbol numbers. The Board’s position is that the release of the numerical portion of the informant symbol numbers would provide little, if any, useful information related to the assassination of President Kennedy. The Board voted to open the 11th document in full and the FBI did not challenge that action.”

This sounds like the FBI won. The FBI gets to protect their informants which was the basis for the whole appeal in the first place. However, some information that was previously redacted was released.

Document # 124-10070-10354 is postponed in part.Document # 124-10108-10142 is postponed in part.

These are two copies of the same two page document. They have one postponement, the informant number, per document. They concern an alleged incident wherein Mary Ann McCall, hostess of the Batchelor-s club in Dallas did not think that the shooting of Oswald was an accident. An informant believed that McCall was a fixer and pay-off contact between the Dallas police and the mob. The new information is McCall’s name. Keep in mind that she is not the informant and the incident may not have happened at all.

Document # 124-10119-10078 is open in full. It is a one page document. It concerns an interview by SA’s Charles T. Brown, jr. and Arthur E. Carter of Carl A. “Pappy” Dolsen. Mr. Dolsen received a phone call from the manager of the King’s club in Oklahoma. A message was conveyed from this manager to Dolsen that a Mr. Hubert Gibson wants to represent Ruby at his (Ruby’s) forthcoming trial for free.

Document # 124-10184-10256 is postponed in part. It has 9 postponements. All postponements relate to the informant symbol number. It is a six page document concerning Arnold Johnson and the Communist Party, U.S.A.’s reaction to President Kennedy’s assassination.

Document # 124-10006-10342, Document # 124-10035-10065, Document #124-10170-10064, Document # 124-10232-10345, Document #124-10244-10077 and Document #124-10243-10367 are all different copies of the same three page document on Arnold Johnson and the Communist Party’s reaction to the assassination. All have two postponements per document relating to the informant symbol number. Document # 124-10230-10425 is a one page document, open in full. Someone asked for information on Lee Harvey Oswald and was told that there wasn’t any. I do not know when the request was made or by whom. I believe the request for information is made while Oswald is in Mexico.

I spoke with Mr. Harold Weisberg immediately after the COPA conference and he asked me are these “assassination records”. I had to say no. They do not deal with the assassination in any direct way whatsoever. Who gives a damn what the Communist Party, U.S.A. thought about the assassination? It has no relevance.

We all know what the ARRB should be prying loose from the FBI and it certainly is not this meaningless collection. Unlike Mr. Weisberg, I have had and continue to have high hopes that this Review Board will do the right thing. Time will tell.

I will write on the third batch and fourth batch soon.

Copyright © by Joseph Backes