Witten's report on Oswald in Mexico just released

[George Sawtelle]

All US government employes have a 201 file. The personnel office that hires you starts a 201 file on you that contains all your personal info, your medical plan selection, life insurance selected by you, references, police record, your awards, promotion citations, performance ratings etc, etc, etc. It's just a file that contains all the info on you during the time you work for the government agency. When you retire or leave the file is sent to St Louis where it is stored forever. If the CIA did not destroy it, Oswald's 201 file is probably stored in the St. Louis facility. 

So since Oswald had a CIA 201 file, it can only mean that he worked for the CIA.

How many times do I have to inform you. A 201 file is not a spy file, it's a personnel file. 

Edited November 21, 2017 by George Sawtelle

[Paul Brancato]

Bill Simpich, on this forum, said he was 'agnostic' on the question of whether Oswald was in MC or not.

[W. Tracy Parnell]

Here are the facts on 201 files. While they can indicate an individual is a CIA employee or asset that is not necessarily the case.

The HSCA looked into the issue. According to Bugliosi's Reclaiming History:

The HSCA went on to say that “the existence of a 201 file does not necessarily connote any actual relationship or contact with the CIA.” Though not automatic, such a file is normally opened by the CIA when “a person is considered to be of potential intelligence or counterintelligence significance.” Oswald’s 201 file, the HSCA said, “contained no indication that he had ever had a relationship with the CIA.”

How about a couple of CT oriented sources? John Newman has studied Oswald extensively and certainly does not make the claim that a 201 file automatically denotes a CIA employee or asset. He also quotes from the CIA Clandestine Services Handbook to outline the criteria for opening a 201 file [beginning of Chapter 4, Kindle Edition]:

According to the February 1960 Agency Clandestine Services Handbook, 201 files were then opened on persons “of active operational interest at any given point in time.”2 Operational interest is a broad phrase, and the Handbook spelled out three specific types it intended for 201 files: “subjects of extensive reporting and CI [counterintelligence] investigation, prospective agents and sources, and members of groups and organizations of continuing interest.” In addition, the Handbook added a fourth category of individual: "It has become apparent that the 201 machine listings should include the identities of persons of operational interest because of their connection with a target group or organization even though there may not be sufficient information or specific interest to warrant opening a file."

 

The 1974 version of the handbook can be found at:

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=17997#relPageId=2

Finally, our own Jim DiEugenio says this about a 201 file on page 143 of Destiny Betrayed [Kindle Edition]:

According to the CIA, a 201 file is one of the most common files the Agency has. It is an information file on any person of interest to the Agency. This could be of operational interest, prospective operational interest, or of counterintelligence reporting.

Edited November 21, 2017 by W. Tracy Parnell

[Sandy Larsen]

Tracy, you aren't paying attention.

Ann Egerter testified that the ONLY reason a 201 file would be opened IN THE CI/SIG DIVISION was if a CIA employee was under suspicion.

She wasn't talking about 201s opened in other divisions when she said that.

As much as you hate it and deny it, those are the facts.

Read the testimony yourselves, published in Douglass's JFK and the Unspeakable beginning on page 145:

https://books.google.com/books?id=KS-6XrdalGkC&pg=PA144&lpg=PA144&dq=ann+egerter+201+file+oswald+jim+douglass&source=bl&ots=1hVb9RuUCx&sig=QIV9b-9cr8Tgi24xInEX53giVzA&hl=en&sa=X&ei=GQGPUrekGsLPrQHPwIDgDg&ved=0CDYQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=the office that spied on spies&f=false

 

 

Edited November 21, 2017 by Sandy Larsen

[W. Tracy Parnell]

1 minute ago, Sandy Larsen said:

You guys aren't paying attention.

Ann Egerter testified that the ONLY reason a 201 file would be opened IN THE CI/SIG DIVISION was if a CIA employee was under suspicion.

She wasn't talking about 201s opened in other divisions when she said that.

As much as you guys hate it and deny it, those are the facts.

Read the testimony yourselves, published in Douglass's JFK and the Unspeakable beginning on page 145:

https://books.google.com/books?id=KS-6XrdalGkC&pg=PA144&lpg=PA144&dq=ann+egerter+201+file+oswald+jim+douglass&source=bl&ots=1hVb9RuUCx&sig=QIV9b-9cr8Tgi24xInEX53giVzA&hl=en&sa=X&ei=GQGPUrekGsLPrQHPwIDgDg&ved=0CDYQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=the office that spied on spies&f=false

 

 

I have to keep reminding you that just because someone says something that does not make it a fact and Egerter was just mistaken. What evidence do you have besides her statement?

[Jim Hargrove]

Sandy answered just before I logged on.

Is Mr. Parnell deliberately missing the point?  The woman who opened the 201 file on “Lee Henry Oswald” worked in J.J. Angleton’s CI/SIG department which, she said, “was charged with the investigation of Agency personnel who were suspected in one way or another.”  She clearly suggested there was no other reason for CI/SIG to open a 201 file.

This isn’t that complicated, Tracy.  She worked in CI/SIG.  She created the 201 file.  You know better?

 

Edited November 21, 2017 by Jim Hargrove

[Sandy Larsen]

4 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

I have to keep reminding you that just because someone says something that does not make it a fact and Egerter was just mistaken. What evidence do you have besides her statement?

And so I'm supposed to believe you over the person who actually opened the 201 file in CI/SIG for Oswald?

(Oops, I see that Jim just made the same point.)

 

Edited November 21, 2017 by Sandy Larsen

[W. Tracy Parnell]

38 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

And so I'm supposed to believe you over the person who actually opened the 201 file in CI/SIG for Oswald?

(Oops, I see that Jim just made the same point.)

 

I had not read Egerter’s full testimony, but I just did and as usual, Jim & Sandy are cherry picking to make their point. They (and apparently Douglass) make it sound like Egerter is talking about the reasons she would open a 201 file. But she is not. What Egerter said is in the context of defining the functions of CI/SIG not in defining the reason she would open a 201 file.

Goldsmith: Let us go over slowly the functions of CI/SIG. One function that you have just stated is that CI/SIG would work with the Office of Security in reviewing or evaluating agency employees. Is that correct?

Egerter: You mean evaluating agency employees?

Goldsmith: For security clearance.

Egerter: I don’t think so. Only those who were under suspicion for some reason.

They were clearly discussing the functions of CI/SIG here, not the reasons that Egerter opened 201 files. Later in her testimony, Egerter did indeed talk about 201 files.

Goldsmith: What is a 201 file?

Egerter: It is a personality file on an individual.

Goldsmith: For what purpose is it used?

Egerter: Well the 201 file is opened very generally on people on whom there are several documents. Inasmuch as anytime there were several documents on an individual, why that person would have been of interest to whatever office opened the 201 file.

Goldsmith: So a 201 file is a file that is used when several documents on an individual have accumulated. Rather than having the documents located separately all over the agency files you want to put them in one place and you put them in a 201 file.

Egerter: That is correct.

Goldsmith: When a 201 file is opened does that mean that whoever opens the file has either an intelligence interest in the individual or, if not an intelligence interest, he thinks that the individual may present a counterintelligence risk?

Egerter: Well, in general I would say that would be correct.

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=146600&search=egerter#relPageId=14&tab=page

Of course, after his defection, LHO present a risk that the CIA needed to monitor. Notice that Ergert's definition of a 201 file is almost word for word what my other sources say-it is a personality file on an individual opened after a number of documents have been produced. Nowhere does she say that she opened 201 files only when a known CIA employee was suspected of something. That is merely the interpretation (I can think of other words) of Jim and Sandy.

 

[W. Tracy Parnell]

Here is additional information on reasons for opening a 201 file:

Goldsmith: Could you give other examples of situations which would prompt you to open a 201 file?

Egerter: We received requests from outside agencies for information on an individual. If that request was sent to “SIG” -usually the assignment was made by the CI Liaison Office and traces were prepared and returned to the agency that requested the information. That would be another case for opening up the file. That might not have been an Agency employee. It might have just been an individual that another agency was interested in but once you pulled the information together it was SOP to open a 201 file.

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=146600&search=egerter#relPageId=23&tab=page

[Jim Hargrove]

3 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

The H&L crowd is again spreading misinformation. According to the CIA’s Clandestine Services Handbook, a 201 file was opened on “subjects of extensive reporting and CI (counterintelligence) investigation, prospective agents and sources, and members of groups and organizations of continuing interest.” So, it was simply someone they had an interest in. For example according to Helms, all defectors had a 201 file opened on them.

Really, Mr. Parnell?  Why then are we presenting sworn testimony from CIA personnel while you are simply making excuses and offering irrelevant explanations?  Who is really "spreading misinformation?"  Your charge is not only wrong, it is probably a violation of forum rules.

[Jim Hargrove]

The additional quotes Mr. Parnell offers from Ms. Egerter are her descriptions of 201 files in general.   Many 201 files are opened for many different reasons in general.  But 201 files opened in CI/SIG are, as she said, for investigating Agency employees.  Read her words carefully.

[W. Tracy Parnell]

Just now, Jim Hargrove said:

Really, Mr. Parnell?  Why then are we presenting sworn testimony from CIA personnel while you are simply making excuses and offering irrelevant explanations?  Who is really "spreading misinformation?"  Your charge is not only wrong, it is probably a violation of forum rules.

I'm violating forum rules? Call Dr. Norwood! Seriously, I am quoting the sworn testimony and it does not say what you say it does. In one section she is talking about the functions of SIG. In another section she is talking about reasons for opening a 201 file. You are trying to conflate the two and turn it into a "fact" when it is not a fact. Now to be fair, Sandy at least said that he read this in Douglass' book and if his book says that it is wrong. So he could just be guilty of believing Douglass. I invite readers to go to the links provided above and read Egreter's testimony and decide for themselves.

[W. Tracy Parnell]

Just now, Jim Hargrove said:

The additional quotes Mr. Parnell offers from Ms. Egerter are her descriptions of 201 files in general.   Many 201 files are opened for many different reasons in general.  But 201 files opened in CI/SIG are, as she said, for investigating Agency employees.  Read her words carefully.

She never said that 201 files opened in CI/SIG are for investigating employees. Please post it here if it exists.

[Sandy Larsen]

49 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

I had not read Egerter’s full testimony, but I just did and as usual, Jim & Sandy are cherry picking to make their point. They (and apparently Douglass) make it sound like Egerter is talking about the reasons she would open a 201 file. But she is not. What Egerter said is in the context of defining the functions of CI/SIG not in defining the reason she would open a 201 file.

You are the one who is cherry picking, Tracy. Why didn't you quote this part of her testimony:

Q. I hope you understand my questions are directed toward trying to find out what the purpose of the CI/SIG Office was and under what circumstances was the opening up of the 201 file. I am given the impression that the purpose of CI/SIG was very limited, primarily to investigate AGENCY EMPLOYEES who for one reason or another might be under suspicion of getting espionage against the United States. Is that an accurate statement of the purpose of CI/SIG?

A. Well, it is employees and also penetration, which is the same thing, of the Agency.

The answer is in the affirmative.

 

Edited November 22, 2017 by Sandy Larsen

[Sandy Larsen]

I also found this:

In his book Justice be Done, on page 81, William Davy cites a CIA memorandum dated May 23, 1968 (part of the JFK Collection at the National Archives). In it Ann Egerter says that the purpose of the CI/SIG division was to "spy on spies."

Unfortunately I don't have the book; the book has no preview pages in Google Books; and I don't know how to find the cited memo.