104 10004 10213

104-10004-10213 2025 RELEASE UNDER THE PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY ASSASSINATION RECORDS ACT OF 1992

SECRET

YF2-27221 9 July 1964

MEMORANDUM FOR THE RECORD SUBJECT : Discussion with Warren Commission Staff Member REFERENCE: Letter from J. Lee Rankin, General Counsel of the President's Commission, to Mr. Richard Helms dated 3 July 1964

O SRICE DISCUSSION with SLAUSEN & Tily on .girations. Svitt felicy towards design woats HALETICONS ANd CUINT Visa Puccedures, 1. With the approval of C/SR and the DDP, I met with Mr. W. David Slawson of the staff of the President's Commission on the Assassination of President Kennedy at 1400 hours on this date in the Commission's offices at 200 Maryland Avenue, N.E., Washington, D.C. The purpose of this meeting was to discuss apparent inconsistencies in material provided the Commission by CIA and by the Department of State which were called to our attention in a letter from the General Counsel of the Commission to Mr. Helms, dated 3 July 1964.

  1. By way of introduction, Mr. Slawson said that in the portion of the Commission's report that he was writing, he would have to deal with the question of whether or not the OSWALDs' departure from the USSR - and the circumstances (i.e. timing) of that departare were unusual or suspicious in any way. He expressed his belief that they probably were not and cited Soviet relaxation in such matters in the post-Stalin era. However, he wanted to be sure in his own mind that our information was not in conflict with that which the Commission had received from State since all of that information would remain in the records of the Commission.

  2. After stating my belief that there was no real disagreement or inconsistency between the information from CLA and that from State, I expressed the view that the matter resolved itself into three questions:

Document Number 767-864 for FOIA Review on /a. Do the Soviet JUN 1976

CS COPY

SECRET

a. Do the Soviet authorities normally permit Soviet citizens married to foreign nationals to emigrate from the Soviet Union to the homelands of their spouses?

b. Do they normally permit such Soviet citizens to accompany (i.e. depart simultaneously with) their spouses from the Soviet Union?

c. How long does it take such Soviet citizens to get Soviet exit visas for such a purpose (time lapse from application to granting of visas)?

  1. Concerning the first two questions (3a and 3b above) I pointed out. that we had addressed ourselves mainly to the question of Sovie: citizens being allowed to accompany their spouses abroad while State dealt only with the larger question of Soviets married to foreigners being allowed to emigrate without reference to whether or not they left simultaneously with or at another time from their spouses. Mr. Slawson commented that this explanation was most helpful and he reread what both we and State had said in that light.

  2. By way of further explanation, I said that the statements in paragraph 6 of our memorandum of 6 April 1964 concerning Soviets being permitted to accompany their foreign spouses abroad were based on a review of 26 cases, of which 10 involved Americans. In only four of these cases did a Soviet wife leave the USSR in the company of her foreign husband; in 14 of the cases the foreign spouse departed alone; and in the remaining seven cases insufficient details are known to permit us to categorize them. I added that although State's information began by citing the issuance of 724 quota and non-quota immigrant visas by the American Embassy in Moscow during the period FY 1954 to December 1963, it did not indicate how many of these visas were for Soviet citizens who had married U.S. nationals. Actually State provided detailed information for only sixteen cases and did not indicate in many of these whether or not the Soviet was permitted to accompany the foreign spouse.

  3. In response to

-2-

  1. In response to a question from Mr. Slawson I stated that most of the 26 cases upon which we based our statements involved foreign students, exchange teachers and other relatively transient persons, and while a number of cases have certain points in common, they bear little similarity to the OSWALD case in that none involved a defector who married prior to repatriating. I noted that paragraph 6 of our 6 April 1964 memorandum to the Commission had pointed this out. Mr. Slawson indicated that he was now satisfied on this matter.

  2. Concerning the length of time taken by Soviet authorities to process exit visas for Soviet citizens married to foreign nationals (question 3c above), I stated that, in my opinion, the information provided by State (in the third enclosure to Mr. Meeker's letter) substantially corresponded to the views expressed in paragraphs 6 and 7 of our memorandum to the Commission dated 6 April 1964. Mr. Slawson asked if it would be possible to elaborate paragraph 7 of our memorandum of 6 April by providing a statistical breakdown of the cases on which our statements were based. I indicated that this could be done.

  3. At this point Mr. Slawson stated that as a result of our discussion he felt that the question of possible inconsistencies bad been resolved. However, he asked that we send a brief written reply to the Commission's letter of 3 July 1964 embodying the substance of what I had said concerning the basis for statements included in our 6 April 1964 memorandum. (This would include the gist of the draft reply to the Commission which I showed to C/SR on 8 July plus an elaboration of our statements concerning Soviet visa applications.]

  4. Mr. Slawson indicated that he would be sending parts of his report dealing with the Soviet intelligence services to CIA for checking as to their accuracy. He did not say when this would occur.

  5. After concluding the meeting with Mr. Slawson, I read Volume 52 of the transcript of testimony before the Commission. This included the reinterview of Marina OSWALD.

-3-

Lee H. Wigren C/SR/CI/Research

@Do. sors normally permit Sov. cityens married to for natla to engrate pom Sll to homeland of sprise ? • State says you - cites 724 visa applicationم (perbably minority Spouse's; mij belatives ite ast mijint) - We cite absence of law; do not say.

2 arimally ② Do Sros permit sou. cits menit to fon marks to accompany (ie depont simultanernely co.) spouses from Sele to homelandes of spouses - State does not say se cite evidence that they do not We ليه

③ How long does it take Soveits to gel. Sevivians at to homelan Ss of fou Spouses? to junge at -Our #7 and State's inse فه Cases inhuid. it ikurus ajrec

Notes, Hedin Co CS-COPY

dil Ite XAA2-27221

Le 7 with) friin sprστασις Based on in de la 26 Cail fre till out c/ SU. (10 US)

-Safe left line oftenband - 4 - - - - - 7- !

② Irifi in fu 47 1-2 fine taken by for allite bisa apple of Sor Spencer of fin substant illy agrees is lite o infe نر 4. on Juice taken by Sri-st. poreias veda aggelies of Sou woofcitis (1)

Gust of State is w life cancion y bar, tibi of tense to her bij de citthoritie 1. bun cits in Sel life in the poor / 740 li inquest for norme of all 1152 ت :/ cits vitus ricerit'd in Cast 2: 10 quo cesta Collis len, the of fine betinien intrs of aggler. l. He apport by God auth 2 יני

Aun cat 0063

② Date of appplectenfor os doit reser Ion dedures, in 14 12

" [10dayo-194] Promplit all itthees -10 line to 14 yeю - Cant till bord