----_----------------

AGENCY : RECORD NUMBER : RECORD SERIES :

AGENCY FILE NUMBER : -------------------__

ORIGINATOR FROM

TO TITLE

DATE PAGES

SUBJECTS

DOCUMENT TYPE CLASSIFICATION

RESTRICTIONS CURRENT STATUS

DATE OF LAST REVIEW OPENING CRITERIA

COMMENTS

--

--

Date: 01/13/99 Page: 1

JFK ASSASSINATION SYSTEM IDENTIFICATION FORM

------------------------------------------------~~~~~~~ AGENCY INFORMATION

CIA 104-10429-10069 JFK RUSS HOLMES WORK FILE -------------------------------L--------------------------

DOCUMENT INFORMATION

CIA LAWRENCE R. HOUSTON, GEN COUNSEL DIRECTOR OF CIA CLAY L. SHAW'S TRIAL AND THE CENTRAL INTELLGENCE AGENCY. 09/29/67 20 CLAY SHAW/CIA

PAPER, TEXTUAL DOCUMENT SECRET OPEN IN FULL OPEN 12/13/98

JFK-RH17:F04 1998.12.13.08:33:03:733107: 4 COPIES OF 5-PAGE MEMO, 2 PREVIOUSLY SANITIZED.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[R] - ITEM IS RESTRICTED

l ’

( I’ c. OGC 67-1577

CIA HISTORICAL RDJlfjy pR${$$em'bcr 19" 4 WASEIN FULL 1998

MEMORANDUM.FOR: Director of Central Intelligence

SUBJECT: Clay L. Shawls Trial and the Central Intelligence Agency

1. This memorandum is for information.

2. The investigation of District Attorney Garrison of New Orleans into the assassination of President Kennedy, and his attack on the Warren Commission r’eport, now focuses on one facet--the trial of Clay L. Shaw, who has been indicted for conspiracy to assassinate the President. In his public announce- ments Garrison has been careful not to reveal his theory of the trial. Technically, he could restrict himself to an attempt to prove a conspiracy among Shaw, Oswald, the pilot Ferrie, and possibly others without involving CLA at all. As we understand Louisiana law, Garrison will have to prove at least one overt act in pursuance of the conspiracy, and with Oswald and Ferrie both dead, we do not at the moment know of such an act which he could prove.

3. We speculate, therefore, that he will try to involve others and bring out testimony that they were involved in such things as the movement of arms and money in pursuance of the conspiracy. Again, conceivably this could be done without involving CIA. Indeed, in his most recent pronouncements, Garrison has been concentrating on an unidentified group of Dallas oil men of the extreme right-wing type, who he says were the instigators, backers, and real controllers of the conspiracy. He plays the recurring theme, however, that those who actually carried out the assassination were people who had been associated with CIA and that CIA had set up Oswald as the ‘patsy” to’detract

,--

“ .

:

.’ . . . .

h . a

.‘.

. (i * .

r\rc assassins. 11~ dso rqrryS tht 2x4 * ‘*

is a pz rt of 3 giA:,t conL;pisacy on the 1)art of “the cst.?bli!,I,,lncl~t” and the Dallas oil men to concc’al the t~*u,c facts. It \:;ould SCL:I-n .

p~obabl~e, thercforc, that Garrison would attempt to involve CJA in the Shaw trial, and from what WC know, hc should bc able to produsc’witncsscs v;ho cz.n . testify nt Icast to some pcriph‘crnl connection \j.ith l,is i;jse. Dcspitc the f:ict th.3t Garrison’s thcorics ax-e basically ;ind prcpostcrously false, t!>crcforc, he m3y \\*c11 be zblc to involve CL4 in tllc Sh.T\v trial.

4. Garrison has thrown out so ln;~ny thcorics, uamcs, .

and efforts in differcat contexts that it is diffictllt to construct a ’ clciir scenario, but the following speculations will serve to illustrate the problclns with \\*hich WC will bc faced if Garrison pursues this coui-se:

;

. .

. .

.

. - .-

a. A witness, Carlos Quiroga, i-night testify that Ferric \VJS a friend of Scrgio Arcacha Smith, kho \~*as associated with the Cuban Democratic Revolutionary Front (CDRF) until .T>nuary or February 196% and that Fcrri e and -4rc;icha Smith wore involved in a cache of arms in 1961. Garrison attcmptcd to cstraditc Arcacha Slnith from Tcsas to testify bcforc the Grand Jury but b-as not successful. The CDRF \\*;ls funded by CIA in Mialni, and ,%rcncha Smith \vc?s \vith the Xcw Orleans branch. . . d

“‘b. 4. l\,ldolph Ric’ardo Davis Inight testify about a training c amy across the lake fsom New Orlczns, possibly at Lr\colnbe, Louisiani, r\ln by a Cuban csilc , group (h4DC) not affiliated with CL4, and that conncctcd with this camp were Victor Pancquc and Fernando .

. Fcrnandez. . Davis c!aims hc met Oswald in the fall of 1963 in connection with .anti-Castro activities.

. . . .

P.11’1 c qu c U’ 3 s :xlso identified by Quiroga, the possible . .

witness rncntioncd above, as having been in ch;irgc .*

of the trziniag c ;?mp at Lacoon>hc, which Garrison falsely asserts \\‘a~ run by (3L4. 011r X,fi;lmi Station \vas intcrcstcd in Pancquc in .‘\ug\lst 1964 and rcqucstcd a provisiol:;rl clearance, b\lt a report of 5 October l?GS stated that l’.w~q~c would bc dwi~pcd ;\t the end of rh.\t llionth for lack of any imlmccli.7fc opcr.31innal use for l>iln, .

2 .

. . . . . . *- .a_. . . l ,

. . :.’ . . . .

8’ * . .- . .

. * * ‘. .

. . . . \ . ** .’

_. ._.. ‘.- .._ . - ., . * . . . . . _.-...-. . . -_

.

. .

.

<’

. .

c, Garrison has questioned a Cuban ;:.‘IrJ-.cd San’ana,

aftcr’\vI>ich Garrison i;>fc;-red that Santana o\\vncd a riffle like Os\~.lld’s. Garrison .~llc~es that S;:~!an.a w;!s in

’ Dcnly l’laza at the time of ihc assassination on orders of the alleged conspirators Shaw, Os\\*;?ld, Fcrrie, and Arcacha Smith. In June 1964 Santa!>a listed CIA as his employer on a loan spplic4tion for purchrlsc of a car. In fact, he was recruited by the Miami Station in October 1962 as a guide for an infiltration opcr;ltion in Cuba \vhich w*as carried out in May 1963. 13~ \vas

dropgcc.3 by the Miami Station on 15 October 1963. ITe

knew some CJA staff mcmbcrs and ;igcnts by their true . .

namrs. . . . . .*

d. Garr2‘son’s office has qucstioncd a Carlos Bringuier, \vho denied any CTA contact. Dut, .accorl?iug to reports, Garrison \vill try to int:odllcc c\*id<:nce that Bringuier had knowlcdgc of XII allcgcd affiliation of Os\vald with CL4. Also, according to the \\‘arrcn Com- missio;l report, there 1~3s an altercation a;~d fight bct\\‘ccn Oslvald and Bringuier in lZug:\lst 1963 and a radio dsbate bctivccn them on 21 August 1963 when Oswald idcntificd himself as a Marxist. Bringuier had sornc contact with the Domestic Contact-.Scrvicc’s Ntw Orleans office and

. ‘1

.

; .

others, robbed a munitions bunker at Hollma, ( 9 * ‘I Louisiana at the instigation of CLA. Garrison may claim that this robbery was one of the overt octr of the conspiracy. Actually, Novel ham never at any time had any association with the Agency nor has his lawyer, S:cphen Plotkin.

f. Donald P. Norton has been questioned at length by Garrison, and Norton hcs f&lsely claimed in a nev:spap,er article that he worked for CLA from 1957 to 1966, and that in 1962 Clay Shaw gave him $5O,OOfl, which he took to Monterrey, Mexico and gave to Oswald, Here again Garrison may claim that this is the overt act in the conspiracy. There is no truth in Norton’s story in any respect.

5. We could continue to speculate about some of the other names involved, but the foregoing is sufficient to illustrate the potential problem. Certainly, the story of CIA’s connections and interrelationships would be enough to at least confuse a jury thoroughly. Shawls lawyers have no way of refuting these stories except by attacking the credibility of the witnesses or introducing other witnesses to impeach their stories. They have so far no Government information which they can use for this purpose. The Government, and particularly CIA, is placed in a quandary. If it were to deny the Norton and Novel stories, which are wholly untrue, it would have to make some partial admissions at least in connection with Laborde, Santana, and possibly Paneque, Bringuier , and others. Shaw himself was a contact of the Domestic Contact Service’s New Orleans office from 1948 to 1956 and introduced General Cabell, then Deputy Director of Central Intelligence, when he addressed the New Orleans Foreign Policy Association in May 1961. In view of this dilemma, the Department of Justice ‘has so far taken the position that if any effort is made by either . the prosectuion or defense to involve CIA in’ the trial, the Govern- ment will claim executive privilege. This, too, can be turned by Garrison into a claim that it is part of the whole cover up by the establishment and particularly by CLA. No alternative to the claim of privilege appears to be available, however, To protect _ the Government’s position on privilege, it would appear that the Government cannot take any action publicly to refute Garrison’s

.

- - . . 4 .

. .

_. - -

I -

.

_-- .-

e _ *

. . . .

- . . .

‘. m--.--- . - . - . . --.- -- . . . - _. . . . . . . --. .

.

-.,

- ” - -.-I- -- .._ -. -.- .---. -- . . .._. _

‘. . _

‘.

:.

. . . -

1 . . .

claims and the testimony of his witnesses, as the Louikiana .

judge would almost certainly take the position that any such public statement would negate the privilege.

6. At the preseilt time, therefore, there is no action we can r&commend for the Director or the Agency to ta’ke. If during the trial it appears that Shaw may be convicted on information that could be refuted by CLA, we may be in for some difficult dicisions. Tr.ere is one positive aspect at the present time, which is that outside of Louisiana the U. S. press and public opinion a??car to be extremely skeptical if not scornful of Garrison’s allegations. We can only wait and see whether the trial will influence this attitude either way.

LAWRENCE R. HOUSTON General Counsel

0GC:LFW:jeb cc: DDCI

ExDir -Camp DDP DDS Asst to DCI-Mr. Goodwin IG D/Security c/c1 staff

,O b4k

C-Ah. O’Neill C chrono

sub’ect Kennedy Assassination-Garrison

‘Dl-~cc lJr% . /

-.-. - . - -.- . . .__.-_ - --_ - _. . -. -- . --. .-- . t

:. .

- _ . . - - - . - . - .e’ - . - . e . - -__

. .

.

.

.

XIA HISTORICAL R@f~~PROGRAM . RELEASE IN FULL 1998

29 septether 1967

?.!E)vlORANDUM FOR: Director of Central Intelligence

SILBJECT: Clay L. Saw’6 Trial and the Central Intelligence Agency

I. This memorandum is for information.

2. The investigation o. 4 District Attorr,ey Garrison 0: xew Orleans into the assassir,ation of President Kenr.edy, an2 his attack on the Warren Commission report, now focuses on one facet--the trial of Clay L. Shaw, who has been indicted for

conspiracy to assassinate the President. In his public announce-

ments Garrison has been careful not to reveal his theory of the trial. Technically, he could restrict himself to an attempt to prove a conspiracy among Shaw, Oswald, the pilot Ferrie, and possibly others without involving CIA at all. As we understand Louisiana law, Garrison will have to prove at least one overt act in pursudnce of the conspiracy, and with Oswald and Ferric

both dead, we do not at the moment knou- of such an act which . he could prove.

3. We speculate, therefore, that he will try to involve

others and bring out testimony that the\- were involved ir. such things as the movement o. * arms and money in pursuance of the conspiracy. Again, conceivably this could be done without i5solsing CL4. Indeed, i, his most recent proEozncemer,ts, Garrison has been conceztratlng 03 a?. ur.ilr-ntified group a! Dzllas oil men of the extreme right-u*ir,; ty?e. who he says were the instigators, backers, and real controllers of the conspiracy. He plays the recurring theme, however, that those who actually .chrried out the assassination were people who had been aseociated ueith CIA and that CIA had set up Oswald as the “patsy” to detract

attention from the true assassins. He also says t),at CY, is a part of a giant conspiracy on the part of “the establishment” L.-d the Dallas oil men to conceal the true facts. It would seem grotable, therefore, that Garrison, would attempt to involve CM in t.k,e Shaw trial, snd from what we know, he ihould be able to produce witnesses who can testify at least to some peripheral connection with his case. Despite the fact that Garrison’s t;,eorieE are basically and preposterously false, therefore, be may well be able to involve CIA in the Shaw trial.

4. Garrison has thrown out so many theories, names, &qd efiorts in different contexts that it is difficult to construct a clear scenario, but the following speculations will serve to illustrate the problems with which we will be faced if Garrison pursues this course:

a. A witness, Carlos Quiroga, might te s tif? t.k,at Ferrie was a friend of Sergio Arcac.., 3LLL: u-as associated with the Cuban Democratic RevvluL Front (CDRF) until January or February 1962 and tha; Ferrie and Arcacha Smith were involved in a cache o! arms ir. 1961. Gar ris or. attempted to extradite Arcacha

- Smith from ?exas to testify before tbe was not successful.

b. Rudolph Ricardo Davis might testify about a training camp across the la-ice from New Orleans, possibly at tacombe, Louisiana, run by a Cuban exile group (MDC) not affiliated with CLk, a3d that connected with this camp were Victor Paneque and Fernando Fernandez. Davis claims be met Oswald in the fall of 1963 in connection with ar.:i-Castro activities. Paneque was also identified by Quiroga, the possible witness mentioned a‘Dovt, as having been in charge of the trzinina, cam’;, a: Lzcombe.

. .

C. Garrison has questioned a Cuban named SLntana, after which Garrison inferred that Santana owned a rifle like Osu-ald’s. Garrison alleges that Santana was in Dealy Plaza at the time of the assassination on orders

of the alleged conspirators Sbaw. Oswald. Ferric, and

d. Garrison’s office has questioned a Carlos Bringuier, who denied any CIA contact. But, according to reports, Garrison will try to introduce evidence that Bringuier had knowledge of an alleged affiliation of Oswald with CIA. Also, according to the Warren Com- mission report, there was an altercation and fight between Oswald and Bringuier in August 1963 and a radio debate bemeen them on 21 August 1963 when Oswald identified himself as a Marxist. Bringuier had some contact with

e. Garrison has falsely szirc< ihat Gordon D. Kovel was a CIA agent and that one oT his lawyers, Stephen Plotkin, was paid by CU. Garrison says he can prove that Novel, along wiLk. ,krc;lcha Smith and

others, robbed a munitions bunker at Houma, Louisiana at the instigation of CIA. Garrison may claim that this robbery was one of the overt acts o! the conspiracy. Actually, h’ovel has

nevct at any time had any ceboclation with the Agency nor has his lau*yer, Ste?hcn Plotkin.

f. Donalc P. Xortor, has been questioned at length by Garrison, and Sorton has falsely claimed in a newspaper article that he worked for CIA from 1957 to 1966, and that in 1962 Clay Shaw gave him 550,000, which be took to Monterrey, Mexico and gave to Oswald. Eere again Garrison may claim that this is the overt act in the conspiracy. There is no truth in l’iorton’s story in any respect.

5. We could continue to speculate about some of the other r,ames involved, but the foregoing is sufficient to illustrate ti,e potential problem. Certainly, the story of CIA’s cor,nections and interrelationships would be enough to at least confuse a jury thoroughly. Shaw’s lawyers have no way of refuting these stories except by attacking the credibility 0. c the witnesses or introducing other witnesses to impeach their stories. They have so far no Government information which they can use for this purpose. The Government, and particularly CLA, is placed in a quandary. If it were to deny the Xortor and Kovel stories, which are wholly untrue, it would have to make some partial admissions at least in connection with Laborde, Sar.tana, and possibly Par.eque, BringGer, and other6. Shaw himself was a contact of the Domestic Contact Service’s New Orleans office from 1946 to 1956 and introducel General Cabell, then Deputy Director of Central Intelligence, when he addressed the New Orleans Foreign Policy Association in May 1961. In view of this dilemma, the Department of Justice has so far taken the position that if any efiort is made by either the prosectuion or defense to involve CL4 in the trial, the Govern- men? \\*ill claim txecutive privilege. Tfii~, too, car. be tcrne2 by Ckrrisor. into a claim that it is part of t.?,e \vhole coirtr up by the establishment ant particularly by CL4. XO alternatiVe to the .

claim of privilege appears to be available, however, To protect the Government’s position or. privilege, it would appear that the Government cannot take any action publicly to refute Garrison'6

4

cl;ims and the testimony of his witnesser, as the tiuiriana judge would almost certainly take the position that any such public statement would negate the privilege.

6. At the present time, therefore, there is no.actioa WC can recommend for the Director or the Agency to take. If during the trial-it appears that Shaw may be convicted on

information that could be refuted by CIA, we may be in for some difficult decisions. There is one positive aspect at the present time, which is that outside of Louisiana the U. S. press and public opinion appear to be extremely 6keptical if not scornful of Garrison’s allegations. We can only wait and see wheth,er the trial will influence this attitude either way.

i’r ! h-v---- _ - rw ..-‘-y

L 1 , - . . . . . -..w- .._ ..* - -.-..

L-41’--REECE R. FiOUSTO?; General Counsel

cc: DDCI ExDir -Camp DDP DDS

DfSecurit)

-s -

CIA HISTORICALRNIEW PROGRAM RELEASEIN FUU1998. ,-

.’ .I

* , , ( ,

.

: .

SUBJECT: Clay I,. !3aw's Trial ‘and the Ccn!ral

.

1. ‘l-his memorandum is’ for infor mat ion.

Agency

2. The investigation of District Attorney Garrison of New Orleans into the assassination of Prcsidcnt Kcnncdy, and his attack on the \Varrcn Commission r’cport, I~o\\* focuses on one

’ facet--the trial of Clay I,. Sh;\w, who has been i;,dictcd for conspiracy to ass sssinate the Prcsidcnt. In his p\lblic annoll:>cc-

ments Garrison has been carcf\ll l>ot to rcvcal his theory of the trial. Technically, he could restrict hin:self to an attempt to prove a conspiracy among Shaw, Os\\*ald, the pilot Fcrxie, and possibly others wi:hout involving CIA at all. -4s \VC \il)dcrsta.nd Louisiana law, Garrison will hAvc to PiOVC at Icast one overt

act in pursuance of the conspiracy, and with Osw*;\ld and Ferrie both dead, WC do not at the molncnt know of such an act which he could prove.

.

3. \Vc speculate, thercforc, that he \\*ill try to invalve o’thers and bring out testimony th.-\t they wcrc involvcdir. such . things ;is the movement of arms ;\nd money in pursuance of the conspiracy. Again, conceivably this could be done without involving CIA. Indeed, in his most rcccnt prnl~o\lnccInc;lts, Garrison h;ls been concentrating on an unidcntificd grou? of Dallas oil men of the cstrcmc right-;xring type, \\*ho he says \\‘cl-e

. the instigators, backers, and rc.71 eontrollcrs of the conspir.xcy. He plays the rccilrring thcmc, ho\\mcvcr, that tllosc \V?IO actually

.

:,- .

. * ‘.

.

.

.

. .

.’

.

.

.

. . . . .

: . : . - . -

. - .

.

.

. I

. _- _ l \ \ \:. .’ ” . . . . . ‘8 .; ..,. ‘,; :: -- .:I 1

.

! , . .

The Fernandez mentioned by Davis was also ide+fied . . by one Michael W. Laborde as being the head of the Cuban organization for which Laborde’s father, Lawrence J. Laborde, had workcci. Fcrxrndcz was a contact of the Miami SC&Con from Dcccmbcr 1560 through January 1966. I%wrt?ncc Labordc! was a c,>:At.tsct opthe Warni Statior, in 1961 trick 1962 and SC;--.‘c’cI zs an officer on a ship used for CLA Cuban oper&tions.

c.‘- Garrison has questioned a Cuban Earned Santana, after which Garrison inferred that Santana owned a rice like Oswald’s. Garrison alleges that SLxtana was in Dealy Plaza at the time of the assassination on orders of the alleged conspir&tors Shaw, Oswald, Ferrie, and Arcacha Smith. In June 1964 Santana listed CIA as his employer on a loan application for purchase of a car. In fact, he was recruited by the Miami Station in October 1962 as a guide for ,an infiltration operation in Cuba which was carried out in May 1963. He was dropped by the Miami Station on 15 October 1963. He knew some CJA staff members and agents by their true names. , .

d. Garrison’s office has questioned a Carlos Bringuier, who denied any CIA contact. But, according to reports, Garrison will try to introduce evidence that Bringuier had knowledge of an alleged affiliation of Oswald with CIA. Also, according to the Warren Com-

\ mission report, there was an altercation and fight between Oswald and Bringuier in August 1963 and a radio debate behrveen them on 21 August 1963 when Oswald identified himself as a Marxist. Bringuier had some contact with

e the Domestic Contact Service’s New Orleans office and . was formerly the’ New Orleans leader of the Student TRevolutionary Directorate, which was an anti-Castro

organization conceived, created, and funded by CIA.

e. Garrison has falsely stated that Gordon D. Novel was a CIA agent and that one of his lawyers, Stephen Plotkin, was paid by CLA. Garrison says he can prove that Novel, along with Arcacha Smith and

l , - - - - . -

L

: . - . ‘.A., : .

I - -

‘. -

_. .

9. .

. : --- - -. -.- - - _-. -. .

.

i

, . _.. _.

. .

..;:.. ‘. . .: ;. :. , ,.. . . .’ : ,.,_ ; ’ . . * * . . .*. ’ “I - !“I) *‘. * * ( c, . :.

o:hi:rs, robl>ccj & 17>;;:3itions. b~111kcr ati !lorrl>5a, t \’ . . ‘:

Louisiana at the instigation of CJA. Garrison , ’ may clailn tl1at’this robbery WTIS 0116 of thc’ovcrt * .

acts of t!lc conkpirncy. Actually, Nov<:l has . ncvcr at any time had zny association \\*ith the -L.gCl7cy nor has his la\vyer, Sti-phc*i l’lotkin. ” . . *

.

f. Donald P. Norton has been questioned

at Icnzth by Garrison, and Norton has f;-.lscly

clajr~lcd in a nc\‘:spapcr article that hc worked for . CL\ from 1357 to 1066, and that in 1362 Clay Shaw . *

gzvc hiln $50,000, u.hich hc took to hlontcrrcy, .

Meslco and gave to Oswald. IIcrc again Garrison . may claim that ‘UI~S is the overt act in the conspiracy.

There is no truth in Norton’s story in any respect. -

5. JYe could continue to speculate about some of the other names involved, but thc’foregoing is sufficient to illustrate ‘the * potential problem. Certainly, the story of CIA’s connections and interrelationships would be enough to at lcast confuse a jury .

thoroughly. . Shaw’s lawye‘rs have no \\‘ay of refuting these stories esccpt by attacking the credibility of tha c witnesses or introducing other witnesses to impeach their stories. They have so far no Government information \s*hich they can use for this purpose. The Government, and particularly CIA, is placed in a quandary. If it were to deny the Norton and Novel stories, which are Lvholly untrue, it would have to make some partial admissions at least in connection with Laborde, Santana, and possibly Pancque, . Bringuier, and others. Shaw himself was a contact of the Domestic ’ Contact Service’s New Orleans office fro111 19-1s to 1956 and introduced

; General CabelI, then Deputy Director of CcntrAl Intelligence, when he addressed the New Orleans Foreign Policy Association in

- May 1961. In view of this dilemma, the Department of justice ” . - . . .

has so far taken the position that-if any effort is made by either . . . . . -

the proscctuion or defense to involve CIA in’thc trial, the Gove.r’n- ’ ’ merit will claim executive privilege. This, too, can bc turned by Garrison into a claim that it is part of the whole cover up by the

.

establishment and particularly by CIA. No alternative to the claim of privilege appears to bc available, ho\vc\tcr, Td protect the Government’s position on privilege, it \\*o\\ld nppcar that the -

.

Government cannot take any action p\lblicly to refute Garrison’s . . . - - . .

. *_ . - . 4’ * . ...I .,,.. .:, . . * . . . . . . . --c- . . . L It\/ , \ (/w . - mt-*

. l . fj - - \ . . . . . . 1’.

. . . - l * . - .

. . . . .

. : . . . .

- .

. . :

. . * * . . 1 . . :.

-. . . A?” . ---. * - -. . -. 1 . _. . _ . ._... _. :... . -.-.- . . . . . . .- . ..- . . . . -. .:,

. --. . . -.. -. .

* . .

. 6, At the prcsc;>t til;lc, thcrcforc, thcrc is no action

\xf.e cam r&colnn7Cnd for t?lc Director 01 the Agency to take. ’

Lf during the trial it c>pcirs that S~I~W II>FI~ bc convicted on

infornlation thxt, could be rcfulcd by CTA, \VC n~>y bc in for

some diffic\llt decisions. There is one positive aspcct’at the

present tiin’c,. Lvhich is that outside of J2011isiana the U. S.

press and public ‘opinion a??car to SC cstrcn~cly s!<cptic;ll . *

if not scornful of Gzrzison’s allegations. IVc can only \x*ait

and set whcthcr the trial will influcncc this attitude cithcr v:;ly.

.

LAWRENCE R. HOUSTON . General Counsel

0GC:LKH:jcb cc: DDCI ’

.

ExDir -Conlp .

DDP . .*

DDS .

Asst to DCX-Mr. Goodwin ’

IG

.D/Scturity * c/c1 Staff

, OLC-b<r. -‘O’Neill

r4 GC,&hrono 3

; sub’cct Kennedy Assassination--Garrison

73[~~-ci rue . / .

. .

.

.* .

. . .

. \

._ .-. ..-----.. .-_ ,- -_--__

* . . . . . .

. .

. i .

,

.

*. .

. .

. : *. .

* . a. . .

:

. . . . . . .

. . . * .

. - . . . * ..* * . .

5. .. -.. . . . . .

.a

I .c ---

’ -. -. . . 7 4

” .

l . . \ : : .

. .

- .

. . ’

. .

* . .

. . .

- . . . a _ . . . . _ . . - . . ._ _ . . . . . . - . . . . _ . ._ _ . . _ T 0 . . - . - . . . . - - . - -

. \ . *

. ,. .

cl/i H~ST~RlCAL RNINJ PROGRAM .:

REL& IN~&e,.g~g;~~.-~ .‘..,. ..: _ :...: -:. .- ..: l . ..-... -. __.,.._: ..:.-:.:.s:. :... ..:. ‘: : .: ::

._,.‘L .:.. -- .-:. .’ .- _. _... “d .-.

..,. _‘.,. . .

/ . . ‘, . -a

-- l a .

(

__ _. ._- . .-‘-Y . 7 _... ! . . ) .,...

d f’ j_;;;.:<; :,’ .i:;.: : / .-. --‘- :‘l

( \< <-, c i r - ! 5 ‘I 7 - * . . .

. . . . . _ -_. -- . .;. ._ . 3

.’

.

attention from the true assassins. He also says that CL4 . .

is a part of a giant conspiracy on the part of “the establishment” and the Dallas oil men to conceal the true facts. It would seem probable, therefore, that Garrison would attempt to involve CIA in the Shaw trial, and from what WC know, he should be able to produce”witnesses who can testify at least to some peripi,eral connection with his case. Despite the fact that Garrison’s theories are ba$.ically and preposterously false, therefore, he may well be able to involve CIA in the Shav: trial.

4. Garrison has thrown out so many theories, names, and efforts in different contexts that it is difficult to construct a clear scenario, but the following speculations will serve to illustrate the problems with which we will be faced if Garrison pursues this course:

a. A witness, Carlos Quiroga, might testify that Ferrie was a friend of Sergio Arcacha Smith, who was associated with the Cuban Democratic Revolutionary Front (CDRF) until January or February 1962 and that Ferrie and Arcacha Smith were involved in a cache of arms in 1961. Garrison attempted to extradite Arcacha Smith from Texas to testify before the Grand Jury but was not successful. The CDRF was funded by CLA in Miami, and Arcacha Smith was with the New Orleans branch.

b. Rudolph Ricardo Davis might testify about a training camp across the lake from New Orleans, possibly at Lacombe, Louisiana, run by a Cuban exile group (MDC) not affiliated with CIA, and that connected with this camp were Victor Paneque and Fernando ’ Fernandez. Davis claims he met Oswald in the fall of 1963 in connection with anti-Castro activities. Paneque was also identified by Quiroga, the possible witness mentioned above, as having been in charge of the training camp at Lacombe, which Garrison falsely asserts was run by CLA. Our Miami Station was interested in Pancque in August 1964 and requested a provisional clearance, but a report of 5 October 1965 stated that Paneque would be dropped at the end of that month for lack of any immediate operational use for him. . .

-2 -2.. I -.

r’ , ..; . . -’ l - . ‘ - . . . .

1 .

,.’ . * .

.’ _. .

. . _d_ _ . . _- . _ . - . . -L -e- . - - * - - - - * . . - . . d . . .

.

- . - I .

.

. c.-

I ..,.

-,. . _

. . \’ . . * *

.

,

*

.

l .

.

L’

:

.

. .’ . . -

- , - . -

- . . . I-’ , . - - . - . - - - I - . , . - . . . . _ _ ‘.’ - ‘-

‘.- +...a_ -_-_ : __. . . - : ‘.. . . - . :

.’

. . . . - . . : . _ . ,

. !‘“* .

.

f

.

. - *

i. ‘- . . -

. .

*

.

*- . . .

‘. .

, \

.’ \ , . . . ,

\ ‘-

: l

,‘* : . . .

. -

. . .1’ - .

‘. . . . , :

- . . .

.

. . . . ,

. , . . - . ‘-.

__.. _._. - . - - ‘.-‘: .

___ __.___. . - . . .-- ’ - - - . - . - . - . . . _ . , _ , -__ . . . - - - . - - - . , . .

- ._

’ . * .

. 2’. - .

!’ -’

. .

(

- \

. . . s

.

.

. . . i . . . . :.;.:. ._

l . .

. .

.:. a* . _ -. - . . . \ ;. *. .. *- . -.. :

. .:- : .‘* .

- . .t:.‘-.~;‘~.;.: ’ ,

. - - . .

‘,._ -. :.- - ;: . . -. *.. . . . . . ..W..’ . . f

. . .- . ’ - . -. 8.8* ,

. : . . . : . _. l . . ‘ I . : /

, I

. a-

*, . ’

-1

: .

. I

. :

* .

I .

I . .

i .

* i

, *

. :

a’ .

. .

.’

.- .

. .

.

.

.

I

. ’

, -.

. .

. .

I’.

* .

* .

’

,