STATE OF VIRGINIA SS. COUNTY OF FAIRFAX

• Document Type: FOIA
• Collection: FOIA Collection
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): 01482419
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: U
• Document Page Count: 5
• Document Creation Date: December 28, 2022
• Document Release Date: August 7, 2017
• Case Number: F-2007-00094
• Publication Date: May 25, 1973

--Approved for Release: 2017/01/18 C01482419�
(b)(3)
n
AFFIDAVIT
STATE OF VIRGINIA
SS.
COUNTY OF FAIRFAX )
I, JOHN W. COFFEY, being first duly sworn, depose and say:
1. I was assigned as Deputy Director of Support, Central
Intelligence Agency, from 1 January 1971 to 17 March 1973.
2. The purpose of this statement is to record my knowledge
and recollections on the matter of the psychiatric studies on Dr.
Daniel Ellsberg prepared by the Agency's Office of Medical Services in
the latter part of 1971. My direct recollections of the events from.
August to November 1971 have been refreshed, supplemented and
corrected by reference to statements of Dr. John R. Tietjen.,
n d Mr. Howard J. Osborn, to certain diary and
informal notes of mine which I located and to copies of cover i'leets and
routing papers forwarding the ultimate documents to Mr. Helms. I
have added a few notes which relate to or might relate to security reviews
after the Pentagon papers were released.
3. I was infoililed, I believe intially brDrs. Tietjen and
of a White House requirement, conveyed by Mr. David Young,
for a psychiatric study on Dr. Daniel Ellsberg, which after careful
consideration was approved by the Director of Central Intelligence. The
initial document which was seen by the Director prior to transmittal to
Mr. Young was not considered adequate and an expanded requirement
was then stated by Mr. Young. (Dr. Tietjen believes I was infor led
of the requirement and shown the first document on 10 August 1971;
I have no recollection or notes on this incident. I know I returned from
leave on 2 August.)
Approved for Release: 2017/01/18 C01482419
Approved for Release: 2017/01/18 C01482419
4. On 20 August 1971 Drs. Tietjen and
me the expanded requirement and we agreed that
discussed with
should
see Mr. Young and explain the difficulties and problems involved in
attempting to meet his request. We hoped that the requirement would
be withdrawn. On 26 August 1971 Dr. Tietjen advised me that
had seen Mr. Young and Mr. Hunt; I do not have details on
the substance of the discussion.
5. My next recollection and informal record indicate that On
15 October I again met with Drs. Tietjen and
brought me up to date on contacts with Mr. Young and Mr. Hunt in the
interim including a call from Mr. Young late in September. More
material had been provided by Mr. Hunt.
the paper would be forthcoming. We agreed that
was asked when
'should
again see Mr. Young to explain the continuing problems and deficiencies
in trying to satisfy the requirement. On 28 October
met with me.
reported on his meeting the previous .
day with Mr. Young, Mr. Hunt and Mr. Liddy also being present. He
was pressed to produce the study within a week and they specified that
the paper was to bear no signature, no waterrrra.rk and no subject's name.
Interest was expressed in the subject's sexual proclivities and in. how he
might be manipulated. Mr. Young also made it known that he had talked
earlier with the DC1 and Mr. Young inferred to
that the
Agency was to provide anything upon his (Mr. Young's) request. Later
on 28 October 1971 in the course of a luncheon meeting with Mr. Helms
I mentioned the continuing pressure on
believe I told him that
from Mr. Young.
had been requested to prepare a
second paper subject to review and possible discussion with Mr. Helms.
-2-
Approved for Release: 2017/01/18 C01482419
Approved for Release: 2017/01/18 C01482419
From other records it would appear that shortly thereafter I passed
to Dr. Tietjen the DCI's views and his desire that after the paper
was completed I should make an appointment for 3.n.d rue
to see him (Mr. Helms).
6. On 8 November 1971 I met again with Drs. Tietjen and
who reported that Mr. Young was pressing for the paper.
Evidently they had the study and we discussed getting it to Mr. Helms.
By informal memorandum dated 9 November 1971 I forwarded to
Mr. Helms both the studies which had been prepared with comments
and suggestions as to handling. From notes I have reconstructed what
I believe subsequently happened. The Director telephoned me to say
he had read the papers and that the expanded study should be delivered.
He was returning the papers to me to accomplish this. He had also
decided to send a letter to Mr. Young which he asked that I draft.
Mr. Helms changed my draft and sent the revised letter to Mr. Young.
Meanwhile I passed the papers returned by Mr. Helms to Dr. Tietjen
asking that
deliver the second study to Mr. Young but only
after we knew that Mr. Helms' letter to Mr. Young had been signed
and was en route. I do not recall when I receiyed word that the letter
had been sent but I believe it was 9 November. On 17 November 1971
Dr. Tietjen advised me that
had delivered the study to
Mr. Young. Mr. Young had had further questions but it was still hoped
that the matter was closed. I passed this to Mr. Helms on. 18 November.
7. I did not see the material on which either study was based ,
and I had no knowledge of the sources of the materials provided by the
White House staff members.
-3-
Approved for Release: 2017/01/18 C01482419
Approved for Release: 2017/01/18 C01482419
8. To the best of my knowledge I have never seen. Mr. Hunt,
Mr. Liddy or Mr. Krogh. I saw Mr. Young on one occasion when
I attended a large meeting at the National Archives at which he was
introduced in connection with his role in the revision of the Executive
Order on security classifications.
9. I do not have the recollection or feeling of having been
charged directly with satisfying this White House requirement. To the
�;"
best of my knowledge I received no instructions in the matter prior to
my raising the subject with the DCI On 28 October. Until that final
phase it was more that I was being kept informed about and discussing
plans and actions on an OMS activity on which the basic DCI "go"
decision had been made outside nolmal command channels, a process
not unusual especially in matter of great sensitivity. There is no
question but that throughout the entire period all concerned were very
uncomfortable and uneasy about this task and strongly desired and
preferred to have the Agency relieved of responsibility for meeting it.'
10. My informal notes include the following items not directly
concerning the psychiatric studies but of possible interest in the Pentagon
Papers aLniosphere at the time:
a. On 1 July 1971 we initiated an urgent review of
On. 2 July
the Director of Logistics advised that DOD was to pick
up all classified material from
On 7 July I was advised that
security officer assigned to the
would also go to
Agency
There were various
other reports on this subject on subsequent days.
-4-
Approved for Release: 2017/01/18 C01482419 -
--Approved for Release: 2017/01/18 C01482419
b. On. 6 July Mr. Osborn informed me of
a request from Mr. Latimer at the White House
for the clearance status of a number of named
members of the former administration. I subse-
quently got approval from the Executive Director
to provide a strictly factual response.
c. n 7 July Mr. Osborn advised that
General Cushman had received a telephone call
from Mr. Ehrlichman advising that Mr. Howard
Hunt had been appointed a security consultant
at the White House.
Affiant.
SUBSCRIBED and SWORN to before
me this ;257-- th day of , 1973
A Notary Public in and for the County of Fairfax, Virginia.
.�My Commission Expires:
-5-
Approved for Release: 2017/01/18 C01482419