This is yet another note on the Jan 92 CIA doc checklist I discussed here and here. Be sure to read those earlier notes first, or this one will make no sense. The ultra-short summary of this final note: I’ve changed my mind about the value of the Jan 92 checklist. Don’t use it.

The checklist that was not found

One question remains unanswered about the checklist of HSCA-CIA boxes and folders that appeared in the recent MLK doc release. Why was this checklist NOT incorporated in the ARC? It should have been, of course, and the answer is surely something like “I didn’t see it under the book pile”, or “I put it in the wrong filing cabinet.” This is not proven by any document, but it’s the only answer that makes sense.

The checklist’s trail after it was misplaced can only be guessed. The CIA doesn’t lightly throw stuff away, so perhaps it sat there in the wrong place until it was rearranged, then maybe scanned into a text database which produced a hit when searched for the name “Martin Luther King” or “MLK”, at which point it was retrieved and packed off to NARA.

One box list that was found

Was the checklist totally forgotten at the time the ARC was being assembled? Well, no. The checklist was mentioned in a list of finding aids and indexes for HSCA-CIA docs, as I pointed out in my first post on this subject.

But the checklist itself was not in the Collection. Or was it? Enter ARC 104-10074-10298:

Here we have a list for box 16 that must have been done by Ken McDonald’s guys. Interesting.

Also interesting to compare this to the box 16 list that appears in the 105 page checklist from the MLK release:

Aha! It’s different. In fact, this was one of the few box lists that was not initialed in the MLK release. As we can see, however, the one in the ARC IS initialed, by our friend GKH. The ARC list is clearly more complete. For example, under “FOIA request pending”, the MLK release just has a dash, whereas the ARC copy says “No”. The “provenance” space is blank in the MLK release, whereas the ARC copy says “FBI, CIA, HSCA”. And of course, the subject section is much longer in the ARC version.

Remember, these subject sections were incorporated into Annex B in Ken McDonald’s long memo on the HSCA-CIA segregated collection (104-10037-10006, available here).

What description do we see for Box 16 in Annex B? “Copies of 201 files, interviews and transcripts relating to Mexico City activities of Oswald and the Mafia”.

What do we see in the MLK release? “Copies of 201 files, interviews spanish language, LITAMIL asset Cuban embassy Mexico city, Mafia.”

Now what do we see in 104-10074-10298? “Cuban prisoner exchange, Mafia, Cuban exiles spanish language documents interviews, CIA Information Reports from Mexico, cables, intercepts, mail opening.”

This leaves us with some questions, of course.

The real box 16

The description in 104-10074-10298 looks like a different box. So look at what documents were actually in hard copy Box 16, as recorded in the RIF sheet comments field. (You need to read the earlier posts to understand this, people!)

I’ve now finished doing that (and it was a fair amount of work.)

Which version of these Box 16 descriptions do the docs marked as “Box 16” look like? The answer is — none of the above. According to the RIF sheet comments, Box 16 had 88 folders. These held documents on various people, retrieved in response to HSCA requests. They were arranged by the names of the request subjects. This, at least, matches what both versions of the box 16 list state. Did you miss it? Under “arrangement”, both versions say “by folder, alphabetically by name.” Jeez.

But instead of being a decent Joe, listing the names of the people who are the subjects of all 88 folders, and telling us what kind of material is in the folders, GKH has summarized the subjects of a totally random selection of documents in the folders. Such box lists are worse than useless. They totally mislead people who use them.

I will post a list of the real subjects of the 88 folders that were in box 16 later this week.

Post mortem

1) Why wasn’t the box 16 sheet in 104-10074-10298 used in the Jan 1992 checklist, instead of the early, less complete Box 16 list that appears there? We can only speculate (again). Perhaps it was revised too late for insertion into the main checklist. Or maybe it was under another pile of books that was fortuitously cleared off in time for inclusion in the ARC, but not in time for inclusion in McDonald’s summary.

2) I realized, and intended to point out, the difference between the description in the MLK box 16 list and the McDonald box 16 description:

• McDonald: “Copies of 201 files, interviews and transcripts relating to Mexico City activities of Oswald and the Mafia”.
• MLK: “Copies of 201 files, interviews spanish language, LITAMIL asset Cuban embassy Mexico city, Mafia.”

So McDonald elided the cryptonym LITAMIL and the description of who LITAMIL was. Of course this was to avoid broadcasting the name to everyone who received his memo. In doing so, however, he created the odd impression that Oswald and the Mafia were interacting in Mexico city. His bad for a poor revision.

3) How is it that the early version and later version of the box 16 description are so totally difference if they are descriptions of the same box?

Because GHK arbitrarily chose different document subjects for his two descriptions. I am reasonably sure that all of the subjects in the two descriptions appear somewhere in the folders of box 16. For the earlier description, he picked one subject set. For the later description, he dropped some items in his earlier description and added some items he found later.

This is NOT a valid way to describe box contents, and completely undermines any confidence I had in the usefulness of the list.

My two cents

My conclusion is simple. Don’t pay any attention to these box lists. They are not necessarily representative of the actual content of ANY box. Use the box and folder numbers printed in the RIF sheets for each doc. These give a clear and true picture of what each box MUST have been like.