Suject: FA Op CIV

,Ln147.ISBERG v. tr:i/TED STATES DEPKP.73-1= ysTxcn, tr.s.n.c., n. c.), ACTIM

Date: No

To: Dni Zia

Att

1 - Mr. Cochran Attn: Mr. Kilty Mr. Decker vttn: Mr. Lenehan Attn: Mr. Schweickhardt

1 - Mr. Mintz

xlbf!r- 22, 19'n 1 - Mr. Blake

ed States Attorney rict of Colur-bia

ration: AAsiatant 'United States Attorney John - R. Dugan

rrc,n; Ass stant Director - Lega/ Counsel Fed ref BUreau of Inwstigation

ru. uant to the Noverer 19, 197, telep!-:one converaation f Assistant Vnited rtates AtterT,ey' ()%.) John Dur4an and Special Arent (CA) Parle of our Legal ounse'l T'ivision, enclosed tlerewitn.are to sets of .1..es of tloc-,:-.!-.ents, one of tehich is to be furnished by r. Ducan to plaintiff in co7:7-.1iancc-- with plaintiff's re,:iuest for the °three bolzcs of inicer" referred to in ay. Octol'er 22, 19C9, letter fror the District Att rney Generalp.Shelby County, -".-crInesseo, to the Deput, Assistant Attorney General of the Unite4 States Depart- -.tint of Justice Civil Rights Division • (plaintiff's Exhibit W).

°Index to 3a, and *2 of 2,' of the FBI, plaintiff's Is?eartIzent al.,atracts co evidence and Cealing with of Dr. Marti in Fr.' docti. nar,,e of an i.., .evidence and colraphical t3741 regardi

boxes of abstracts rarked, respectively, Earl Ray File, Patsy Cesell, 1 of 2'

vere recently located by a representativ'e fter an extensive seare, in response to equest, in possession of the Unite' States justice Civil Riqhts Division. These twin brief descriptions of iterla of or the, contents of original'4ocur-ents the rrr investigation into the assassination • Lurther ling, Jr. (abbreviated *17-AYI::* nts). Each abstract is heae,c_v.e, by the livival or the dcracription of an item of since there is an alphabetical and breakdown - es ve1I-as a nu-ieriCal n the evince al,stracts - there is

PTB:rn1 (9)

SEE NOTE, PAGES FOUR AND FIVE 6 j37

United States District of C

Attorney Iumbia

uplication. Fowever, every one of the 4500 abstracts, no ?setter how many rs in the boxes, is being furnished the exception of two or three which, s (further explained below) were wade, utely meaningless.

considerable approsimately tines it appe herewith, wi after deletio would be abso

Al

It prepared eigh for the assis

, Tennessee Sta imeediate acc investigation

! accuracy or not been in tl-e sole possession of the rpi throegh-

' out their exi tence.

ouch these abstracts were apparently years ago by FBI clerical personnel

ance of the Department of Justice, e Prosecutors and the MI in having ss to a sunnarization of the basic conducted, we cannot attest to theit

lateness since the e&Stracts have

Vec were raade pur (b) (7) (D) of In nany cases, very lirited whether the r invasion of confidential, approach had identifiable expected when were drawn ar docunents whi interview of determined wh the (b)(7),(C) cases it can is already p personal nat. Individuals' individuals w known to be p

ssazy excisions from these abstracts uant to exemetions (b) (7) (C) and e Preedom of ieformetion Act (MIA). it is not possible to tell frog; the nfornation contained in the abstract lease of a naee would be an unwarranted rsonal privacy or would identify a ource. In these instances a conservative o be utilized in excising the names and nfornation. A fuller release can be the documents from which the abstracts prOcessed. Only from the original h contain, for examnie, the cor'plete e potential witness can it be ther the information fails within or (b) (7) (D) exemptions. In many hen be ascertained that the material lic knowledge or is not of such a e that it cannot be released. All anes and information furnished by these re left in the abstracts where it is lic knowledge.

- 2

Attorney lunbia

urthor explanation as to ho..= these processed and to erp/ain what is

3.,arvative approach which can lead to e release upon exa.77.ination of the ,ents, the following eaaple is

he typical abstract which hypothetically Smith•furnishedinfomation concerning abstract rceiVed by plaintiff after

t would read, • • furnished infor- ing . ."

t this tic, plaintiff received the th and Jane Doe, upon gUbsequent the original docur,ent fro?-_ w1:ich the awn, any pereonal.infornation conce-rnit7

✓ Doe would have to be wlthhele parsuant (b)(7)(0. By withholding Srith and -

initially, urn review of the original cor'plete release can be roue, as the

fttion, - no Icetter how sensitive, ahoy -als could be released as long as their t known. If the inforN.ation contained 1 docunent is not of a hie:hlv personal he identities of the individuals and n about then can be released.

sate exarple applies for oonfie!ential ohn Srith'o nane is-initially releasJad is and upon review of the original

docur>ent it is dcterldned he it a confidential source, then any inf 7.ation he furnished would have to ha withheld pursuant to exemption (b)(7)(D). Nowever, by withholding Spith's tan ,e initially, when t1,e original doc rent is processed all inforpation which would - not tend to identify Srith can be released.

PI intiff's POIA rec7uest of April 15, 1975, concerring..w ich 'the Court has ruled the attached

Unitee States District of

abstracts ver reant by a oo a sore comrAe .original d furnishedt

/n states, "John Jane Doe,' th we processee. natic.r. 00171C

If nanes'John Sr exa74nation o astract was either Smith to exer;.ption Doe's identi docunent a mo personal Info these individ i-c!entity la n in the origin nature, both the infornati

The sources. If in the abstra

• ;4• ••••

I - Xlsigtant Attorney C41,7era1 Cnne.) Civil r,.! oion .Attzl

It:al:AA 4- •

• : -

•

_ .•

• • ..

• ,

- • .

•

Ca

v 'MO

Attorneir - Watrict of 1127bia

abstrtIctA a. relevant ar_Z thus r;ublect to e4ao-ovetry eize-c-tee.. taw-. the od6quacy of the PtI reaponse to ths, 2c-ecuest, askeZ øy for ot,rtain11.37.1t.a5 as?ec-t2 of the W 7111 investic-atio4, primarily ro4ults of 7.aboratory e a7instions anC pSotographs. The ahstracta attached hereto, ho,.-?mr, cover all facets *f the - Y's73= -invetication; Li tha Interest of full disclosur artd to bring litisation to Its logical conclusion., ct11 ab4tracts art 'being Ournished re-sardlaas of10-kethwr ----.

Dot•thay re/ato to plaintifra April IS roquest. For-the asona: -the 731 is waivins all applicahla.sa rch reprodction faevr, for thoite al.istrac7t L.b do:7,ot aslata to t bct of.plaintiff° FOIA roqzeta. _ .

ve will. prey tail tha dc

this blaconpas litigation.

itiscusse! by Nr. Vtar and SA WrAa, e an alifidavit justifyinc in qra-ater otions m'ada these at4i-tracts if ocessary in the future coure of this

Eclo-utreg 4