From: "Dave Yandell" Subject: On the CIA False Defector program and the 11 assets in Garrison's Date: Thursday, July 23, 2009 10:00 PM I took the liberty of contacting Professor Joan Mellen myself. She was kind enough to offer a prompt and helpful reply. Regarding the claim about CIA infiltration in Garrison's office, Martin is misremembering. Professor Mellen informs me that the document listing the 11 assets is *only at CIA headquarters*. Her information came from HSCA staff (including L. J. Delsa residing in the NOLA area) who reported having seen it at CIA but were not allowed to copy it or take notes. This is why only a few of the names were given. Professor Mellen herself *has not seen*, let alone possessed this document. Regarding Robert Webster, Martin seems again to have seriously misunderstood or misremembered. Professor Mellen's case for the false defector claim is cumulative. There is no document in which the CIA acknowledges him as being in a false defector program. As Professor Mellen said in her note to me, "If you want CIA to spell out that he was a false defector, etc. you won't, I don't believe[,] find that. WHy should they create such a document[?]" Professor Mellen identified the document in question as a memo summarizing an interview, found in Webster's CIA file, conducted by Eleanor Reed from the CIA's NYC office, who Mellen believes also debriefed Oswald after his return from the USSR. After reading the document, I am uncertain that it indicates involvement in a false defector program rather than Reed interviewing a returned former defector for the Contact Division to gather whatever information they can get. Obviously, one needs further context established to come to a conclusion. She referred me to a recent article of hers in which she cites this document in whole. The following are excerpts from that very interesting article, including the whole of Reed's interview summary memo. Best, Dave From Joan Mellen, “Who Was Lee Harvey Oswald”, posted at http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Essay_-_Who_Was_Lee_Harvey_Oswald The paper was originally presented on October 5, 2008. Its publication history is given at the web link posted. Oswald’s appearance in the Soviet Union was as a participant in the Agency’s “false defector” program, in which he was joined by several other young men, whose files can be found at the National Archives. There is no document that names a “false defector program,” but that does not mean such a program did not exist, and there are copious files about various of the participants. James Angleton ran that program. By putting the lie to the possibility that the Soviet Union had sponsored the assassination, Nosenko’s statements implicitly threatened to expose for whom Oswald was acting. Nosenko’s life became a living hell after that. … The “Anderson” [DY: discovered to be a code name for Eleanor Reed by Professor Mellen] who debriefed Oswald was, strictly speaking not working directly for Robert T. Crowley, who headed up the CIA Contact Division, Support Branch, the primary function of which was Counter Intelligence. But she may have acted on his behalf in the debriefing. I recount this information in my new little book, the prequel to “A Farewell To Justice,” which I called “Jim Garrison: His Life and Times.” (It was published by jfklancer). … Further corroboration that the CIA Soviet Russia Division, Soviet Realities, SR6, in the person of Eleanor Reed, debriefed false defectors, is contained in a document I have just discovered and that CIA released "as sanitized" in 1998. The document resides in Robert Webster's file, is dated 17 August 1962, and is telling for several reasons; the cases of Oswald and Webster are so similar that we can await, with some expectation, that the parallel document of Oswald's debriefing by Reed (with perhaps her frequent debriefing partner Rudy ("Valentino") Balaban), may well surface. This document demonstrates beyond doubt Reed ("Anderson") was an SR6 debriefer; I copy it here in full [ed. note: see 104-10182-10074]: TO: Eleanor Reed FROM: [03] IR/CR SUBJECT: Appraisal of Interrogation 1. The eagerness of the subject to help and his repeated expressions of regret for having neglected opportunities for more detailed observations left me with mixed reactions. In my opinion this attitude detracted from his otherwise seemingly genuine manner and at least for me it “watered down” his attempt to generate a repentant impression. 2. The subject readily answered questions and was extremely friendly during both periods of interrogation. Plottings and data, however, by the subject on a blank town plan left him for homework later proved disoriented. [sic]. The subject discovered his error during our second meeting and volunteered corrections. 3. As far as substantive intelligence gained is concerned, the interrogation provided data on a plant previously described as possibly in the electronics business as a probable radar storage and repair area. A hitherto unknown naval installation was also identified and located in an area other than the one previously assumed. 4. It can be said that if the subject’s bona fides are definitely established, positive intelligence gathered from him is of real value. [03] GROUP 1 Excluded from automatic downgrading and declassification.