This note provides the documentation I promised in my last post (available here). Better read that first, or the following won’t make much sense.

A folder list for box 16

As I mentioned in my last post, I checked RIF comments for records from box 16 (you have to read the last note to understand this!), and then looked to see how many different folders the box had. I found 88 folders for the box (plus a couple of docs in folder “zero”).

It turns out, however, that there is already a folder list for box 16 present in the ARC. This list is available on the MFF website here. This list, called “Inventory – Box 16” also lists 88 folders, confirming the accuracy of the box and folder numbers in the RIF comments.

There are many such folder lists in the 63 HSCA-CIA record boxes, and it’s worth thinking about where these came from. These were most likely done when the boxes were first packed up after the close of the HSCA. Perhaps some were compiled when the boxes were opened in the early 1980s after Mark Allen filed his FOIA suit. (Read the previous comment!)

We know many/most of these folder lists were already present when Ken McDonald’s researchers began surveying the HSCA-CIA boxes in January 1992. Why? Because they mention finding some. These are thus secure evidence of the original content of the boxes. They were not created as part of a conspiracy by McDonald to mislead people about the contents of the boxes. The conspiratorial claims now being made about McDonald’s survey of the HSCA-CIA docs bumps up against many such obstacles.

Folder subjects

In my last note, I noted that there were two different summaries of box 16’s contents, both apparently by the same researcher. (See my previous note!) One was preserved in Annex B of McDonald’s long 1992-02-10 memo, and one was in a separate ARC record.

Subjects listed in the first of these included the Mafia, copies of 201 files, and interviews and transcripts relating to Mexico City activities of Oswald. Subjects listed in the second of these included Cuban prisoner exchange, Mafia, Cuban exiles spanish language documents interviews, CIA Information Reports from Mexico, cables, intercepts, mail opening

Looking at the folder list we have found, we can see that there must be many Mafia related docs in folders 16 (Jimmy Hoffa), 44 (Meyer Lansky), and 80 (Santo Trafficante).

Copies of 201 files abound. You have to get in and look for most of them, but right on the folder list it tells us it has Vols 2 and 3 of Luisa Proenza’s 201 (folders 69 and 70. These include spanish language documents and interviews, CIA information Reports from Mexico, cables, and intercepts. Some of these are related to MC activities of Oswald.

Furthermore, volume 3 of Proenza’s 201 also contains the separate ARC record with a box sheet from McDonald’s survey. I wondered in my last note why this was in the ARC while other box sheets from the survey were not. Judging from it’s location here, it was accidentally left in Proenza’s 201 file!

Folders on Cuban exiles also abound in box 16, including Manuel De Varona (=Tony Varona) in folder 19, Eloy Gutierrez Menoyo (32), Luis Posada (65), Manolo Ray (75), etc, etc.

Folders mentioning Cuban prisoner exchanges (after the Bay of Pigs) include Gutierrez above and a folder on William Morgan (58).

Finally, for mail opening, folder 49 contain Priscilla Johnson McMillan’s mail opened under HTLINGUAL auspices (over 30 letters).

So the guess in my last note was correct; all the subjects in BOTH box description do indeed appear. Why did one description ignore prisoner exchanges, and McMillan’s purloined letters, while the other ignored all the copies of 201 files? No reason, the researcher was just giving random examples of subjects he found in the boxes.

My two cents

I mentioned above the complete overlap between the folder list and the box and folder numbers in the RIF comments as evidence of the reliability of the RIF comments. What if a box list and the RIF comments differed? Based on what I’ve seen so far, I would pick the RIF comments every time. Even these may have some discrepancies of course. That’s the way bibliographies are. No divine inspiration or guidance for JFK record keepers.