MISSING IN ACTION- PEOPLE AND POLICIES 1948 - 1973 VOLUME 1

• Document Type: FOIA
• Collection: FOIA Collection
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): 03111003
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: U
• Document Page Count: 242
• Document Creation Date: July 13, 2023
• Document Release Date: December 16, 2022
• Case Number: F-2023-00034
• Publication Date: January 1, 1974

Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
CIA Internal Internal Use Only
Access Controlled by
CIA History Staff
and DDA
MISSING IN ACTION - PEOPLE AND POLICIES
1948 - 1973
VOLUME I
by
James J. White
Seeret
DDA OP 13
December 1974
PERMANENT HISTORICAL DOCUMENT
DO NOT DESTROY
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
WARNING
This document contains information affecting the national
defense of the United States, within the meaning of Title
18, sections 793 and 794, of the US Code, as amended.
Its transmission or revelation of its contents to or re-
ceipt by an unauthorized person is prohibited by law.
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
Access Controlled by CIA History Staff and DDA
MISSING IN ACTION - PEOPLE AND POLICIES
1948 - 1973
VOLUME
by
James J. White
Approved:
(b)(6)
(b)(3)
Fred W. M. Jan1.9.,/
Director of Personnel
Directorate of
Administration
Copies:
#1 - CIA-HS
#2 DDA
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
-tretak�L-1.
Foreword
Missing in Action is a legal category defined by
Federal statute to be, "any person who is in active
service, and who is officially determined to be absent
in a status of missing, missing in action, interned in
a neutral country, captured by an enemy, beleaguered or
besieged." Although work on this history was begun in
the fall of 1971, the present author did not participate
until March 1973, just prior to the release of John
Downey by the Chinese Communists 12 March 1973
The avalanche of publicity resulting
from the Downey release created a diversion of sizeable
proportions since most of the background and feature
-
SECRET
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
.L
stories proved to be highly inaccurate, repeating every
misconception, distortion, and conjecture that had oc-
curred over the years.
Another consequence was that the return and de-
briefing of the prisoners created the rare opportunity to
write history in reverse, a temptation which, in the
author's view, had to be resisted lest the purpose of
writing the history be subverted; namely, to state the
events and describe the actions taken, or not taken, on
the basis of information in the hands of the decision
makers at the time
The author was able to make much use of the docu-
mentary research
Among those interviewed were
and Ben DeFelice, OP; Paul F. Gaynor, OS:
- iv -
-SECRET
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
1%. .L
(b)(3)
formerly TSD. Unfortunately,
Harlan Westrell, OS,
had retired and was not available for interview.
in DDO/East Asia Division*
the 1970's, contributed an operational view of the
in
(b)(1)
(b)(3)
Downey and Fecteau cases to the Oral History tapes.
Many others from the operational side of the Agency,
members of the ad hoc committee, and employees of the
various components are mentioned throughout the history.
Perhaps they will accept the naming in this foreword of
William E. Nelson, currently Deputy Director for Operations,
as representative of their concern and attention to the
plight of the prisoners.
At all times the human drama of the MIAs and their
families overshadowed the administrative aspects of the
cases recorded in this history.
Those whose stories
* Prior to 1973, DDP/FE Division.
- V -
(b)(3)
(b)(3)
(b)(1)
(b)(3)
CFJ2TtET
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
appear in this history are listed below with their
respective dates of capture and release:
(b)(1)
(b)(3)
Richard G. Fecteau
John T. Downey
Francis Gary Powers
David L. Christ
Thornton J. Anderson
Walter E. Szuminski
29 November 1952
29 November 1952
1 May 1960
15 September 1960
15 September 1960
15 September 1960
13 December 1971
12 March 1973
10 February 1962
22 April 1963
22 April 1963
22 April 1963
(b)(1)
(b)(3)
Outside the scope of this study, but of equal im-
portance, are the cases of employees killed in action,
and the large number of people who were accounted Missing
in Action or Killed in the course of their duties with
Agency proprietaries such as Civil Air Transport Air
America, and others. Their sacrifices have been without
recognition and our debt to them all the greater because
of that fact.
--SEERE-T-
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
Contents
VOLUME I
Page
Foreword iii
I. Events of the 1950's and Earlier 1
The OSS Experience in Summary
World and Organization Climate of the
Early 1950's
1
5
STAROMA Mission, 29 November 1952 8
Downey and Fecteau Declared Missing in
Action, 18 December 1952 12
Declared Dead, 4 December 1953 15
Victims Personal Circumstances,
December 1953 18
Bombshells: September and November 1954. 21
The Ad Hoc Committee in the 1950's 32
Official Efforts to Gain Release,
1954-1959 34
Unofficial Efforts 53
Personnel Administration of the MIAs in
the 1950's ......... � � � � � . 59
Travel to China, 1958-1959 68
Liaison with the Families 75
-vii -
SESI(ET
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
Page
II. The MIAs in the 1960's 79
The 1960 May Day Incident: The Gary
Powers Shootdown 79
15 September 1960, Three More MIAs --
The Castro Captives 99
The FE Cases in the 1960's 111
Release E for
(Downey, Fecteau,
in the 1960's 116 (b)(1)
(b)(3)
Personnel Administration in the
1960's. .
End
of the Second Decade, the
� �
III.
The 1970's:
Homecomings
Changed Diplomatic Climate of the
1970's.
The Fecteau Case in the 1970's:
129
139
144
150
His Release on 13 December 1971,
and His Debriefing 151
The Downey Case in the 1970's:
His Release on 12 March 1973,
and His Debriefing
Awards and Decorations
Postscript to an Era
Index
viii
168
187
190
197
204
(b)(1)
(b)(3)
(b)(1)
(b)(3)
SECRET
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
Approved for Release:7. 2022/12/13 C03111003
-C7Lr.E, J.
VOLUME II
Appendices
Page
Appendix A Source References 231
Appendix B Chronology 1951 - 1973 248
Appendix D Finding of Death of Missing
Person John T. Downey 273
Approved for for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
J.
Page
Appendix I Dates and Topics of Fecteau
Debriefing Reports 14 Jan -
16 Feb 1972 310
Dates and Topics of Downey
Debriefing Reports
4 - 20 Apr 1973 313
Appendix J OP Oral History Project
(Selected) Tape Transcripts. . � 319
Appendix K Weekly Visit La Cabana Fortress
Prison 456
Appendix L Figure
Figure No. 2 Fecteau with DCI. . � �
Figure No. 3
No. 1 Downey with DCI . . ^ 461
462
(b)(1)
463 (b)(3)
Figure No. 4 Fecteaut DeFelice,
Downey 464
1,1
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
Missing in Action - People and Policies
1948 - 1973
Volume I
I. Events of the 1950's and Earlier
The OSS Experience in Summary
Casualty reporting was very chaotic in the
Office of Strategic Services (OSS) until General Order
54, 12 June 1944, specified procedures for field mission
reports to Headquarters branch chiefs. The Washington
Secretariat in the Director's office* received copies
of casualty reports and, when possible, sent letters to
the families or transmitted letters from the field to
the families, describing the circumstances of the death
or capture. Most OSS overseas personnel enjoyed, if
that is the term, either genuine or ostensible military
status. If unfortunate enough to be killed or captured,
their cases would be channeled through OSS Headquarters
service detachments to the Adjutant General of the Army
* Lt. Gen. William J. Donovan was the founder and Director
of the World War II Office of Strategic Services, prede-
cessor of the Central Intelligence Agency.
SE ET
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
bIlyra,
or the Chief of Naval Personnel for military processing
and notification of next of kin. The few civilian cases
were handled by the Special Funds Branch for the un-
vouchered and by the Civilian Personnel Branch for the
vouchered. When necessary, the provisions of the Missing
Persons Act of 1942 1/* were invoked to continue pay and
allowances. A 1973 review of OSS records showed some 300
casualties to American personnel, of whom approximately
100 were killed in action (KIA) or missing in action (MIA)
and later declared dead. Italy, France, Czechoslovakia,
Burma, and Indo China were the main locales for OSS
casualties. 2/
- 2 -
SE911ET
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
-1...,,..J 7.1.14..12J J.
�3
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
4
ONO
-SEekkr-
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
�0-L'Airt. .U4 1.
World and Organization Climate of the Early 1950's
Relationships between the United States and
Communist China were at a peak of bitterness and re-
crimination in the early 1950's.** The Communists had
seized power on the mainland in 1949 and driven Chiang
Kai-shek and the Nationalists across the straits of
Formosa, with the US Seventh Fleet interposed between
them by President Truman in 1950. By 1952 the Com-
munists had consolidated their position by destroying
** US Senate, Committee on Foreign Relations, The Ques-
tion of Rapprochement and Recognition, Jan 73 (93rd Con-
gress, First Session), explores in some depth the state
of relations between the two nations after the fall of
China to the Communists.
- 5 -
FrE9dET
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
the opposition on the mainland, had dispatched forces
to the aid of the North Koreans, and were vigorously
claiming Formosa. Korean truce negotiations had dragged
on for two years before an armistice iaas signed on
27 July 1953 with prisoner exchange one of the stumbling
blocks. In the United States, the Eisenhower-Nixon
Administration took office in January 1953 with the
commitment to end the Korean War forthwith. John Foster
Dulles was named Secretary of State, and Allen W. Dulles
became Director of Central Intelligence.*
Senator Joseph McCarthy was trying to convince the
public that the State Department had "lost China" and
that both State and CIA had been infiltrated by Communists
and their sympathizers; and Senator Mike Mansfield
wanted a joint Congressional watch-dog committee for the
Agency. The atomic spies, Julius and Ethel Rosenberg,
were executed in Sing Sing Prison on 19 July 1953.
* Dulles was Director of Central Intelligence from
February 1953 to November 1961.
-6
SECRET
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
These were the factors
-- international, national, and organizational -- which
formed the background for the human drama involving
two young and relatively inexperienced paramilitary
officers, John Downey and Richard Fecteau.
* Gen. Walter Bedell Smith was Director of Central
Intelligence from August 1950 to January 1953.
** George E. Meloon, under several titles and superiors,
was in charge of the central Personnel Office from July
1951 to March 1955.
*** Matthew Baird, Director of Training from 1951 until
his retirement in 1966, was assigned responsibility for
developing a career corps. He was also Acting Assistant
Director for Personnel (AD/P) for four months in 1952.
PIM
7
SETT
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
STAROMA Mission, 29 November 1952
The case which later was to cause world-wide
ramifications began as a minor incident of the Korean
conflict. On 29 November 1952, a C-47 aircraft of the
Civil Air Transport (CAT), piloted by American civilians
Norman Schwartz and Robert Snoddy, became overdue on a
flight from Korea. A five-day search of the accessible
land and sea area by the Far East Air Force proved
fruitless and was abandoned on 5 December 1952. A very
discreet statement was coordinated at Headquarters and in
the field to the effect that a military contract plane
was reported missing on a flight between Korea and Japan
on 3 December 1952 with two CAT pilots and two Depart-
ment of Army civilians. This simple cover story was
maintained through thick'and thin for 20 years.
Actually, the disappearance caused considerable
consternation within the CIA. The flight was an ex-
filtration operation set up in response to a call for
help from a valued agent on the mainland of China. The
Department of Army civilians (DACs) were actually Agency
staff employees: John T. Downey* of New Britain,
* John Thomas Downey: entered
Agency as a GS-5 Intelligence Assistant, Paramilitary,
in June 1951; (footnote continued on next page)
- 8 -
SEciET
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
vr-ii.-11%�rd 1
Connecticut, and Richard G. Fecteau* of Lynn, Massachu-
setts, were two young "gung ho" paramilitary officers
who had been assigned to the aircraft in place of two
CAT employees originally named to fly the mission.
The background of the flight had begun on 14 July
1952 when a team of five Chinese Nationalist agents was
airdropped into Kirin Province, some 50 miles north of'
the Yalu River. Their mission was to collect operational
intelligence and, also, determine the extent of, and
organize, resistance activity.
trained at CIA installations
and dispatched from
* Richard George Fecteau:
entered the Agency as a GS-4 Intelli
military, in November 1951
The team had been
(b)(1)
(b)(3)
ence Asst., Para-
(b)(1)
(b)(3)
(b)(3)
9
(b)(3)
(b)(3)
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
6.CA.....1t..U, J.
On 11 November 1952, a radio message from the team
leader, STAROMA/6, stated that he had returned safely
from a trip to Linchiang and that he had been successful
in obtaining official credentials and other needed opera-
tional documents. However he also reported that ex-
filtration routes through Korea were blocked and it
would be impossible to carry the documents out through
Hong Kong. The agent requested that he be exfiltrated
by air, and that supplies be dropped to the rest of the
team to carry them through the winter.* Everything seemed
* Subsequently, the New China
of 23 Nov. 1954 identified the
had been airdropped into Kirin
and subversive activities....
News Agency (NCNA) release
agent as Lin Chun-ying who
Province to conduct liaison
NCNA further explained:
The nine special agents of the Chinese Nationality
who had been airdropped by Downey into Kirin and
Liaoning Provinces are all former officers of the
Chiang Kai-Shek gang. They were taken up in 1951
by the "Free China Movement," a US espionage organi-
zation in Hong Kong, and given espionage training.
They had later undergone further secret training
directly under Downey. Their task was to establish
"bases" for armed agents; set up safety points for
sheltering agents; build "parachuting grounds" to
receive airdropped supplies and agents; establish
secret communication (continued on next page)
- 10 -
SECRET
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
in order order so
made arrangements to
carry out the requests. The operation was mounted
using a sterile aircraft equipped with snatch gear en-
abling the aircraft to make the pick-up without landing.
The original plan called for two men from CAT to operate
the pick-up gear making it an all-CAT operation,* but
(continued from previous page) lines connecting
the bases with Mukden; collect information about
defense works [in China], [the location of] in-
dustrial areas, and meteorological conditions;
rescue invading American airmen who were shot
down; and rally Chiang Kai-shek's remnant bandits
for armed riots.
Four of the Chinese tried with Downey and Fecteau re-
ceived death sentences. The man to be picked up, Lin
Chun-ying, was given life imprisonment, according to NCNA.
* Lloyd George and Al Cox writing in 1969 made these ob-
servations on the change:
There are a couple of' points affecting the air
support aspect of the operation that might be
noted: First, the late change of assignment in
the rear of the aircraft meant two Agency employees,
knowledgeable of many aspects of Agency opera-
tions, including locations and personnel, were ex-
posed to possible capture and risk of being forced
to divulge such information to the ChiComs. Lewis
and Stewart [the original CAT personnel assigned
to the rear of the aircraft] were very good
personal friends of the writer [Al Cox] but from
a purely realistic Agency point of view, they of-
fered much less of a security risk for the Agency
than did Downey and Fecteau. 3/
- 11 �
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
bt,y.K..b I
(b)(1)
(b)(3)
a few days before the mission was to take-off,
wary of the two CAT men not having
the proper clearances, requested Jack Downey to make the
flight assisted by Dick Fecteau.* The aircraft left
Seoul on the night of 29 November 1952 on schedule with
the two CIA men on board and the two CAT pilots at the
controls. On the morning of 30 November,
notified Headquarters that the aircraft was overdue; 4/
and the public statement was issued with the fate of the
mission unknown.
Downey and Fecteau Declared Missing in Action,
18 December 1952
On 18 December 1952, the Personnel Director, George
E. Meloon, basing his action on FE information, declared
(b)(1)
(b)(3)
* Contrary to still persistent rumors in the corridors
of the Agency, Fecteau and Downey were not on a joyride.
As noted here, their assignment was at the direction of
the EA/Div, stated in an (WO)
interview for the Oral History on 26 November 1973 that (b)(3)
his study of the files also confirmed the official na-
ture of the flight. (See Appendix J Tape Transcript'No.36)
In August 1952 Downey had made a previous over-flight
with -- to use Downey's terms from the Oral History in-
terview -- "a certain unofficial authorization." At that (W(1)
time, his immediate auperior in the field, (b)(3)
/had complained that he had
only one jumpmaster for the mission. Downey's offer to
fly the mission was accepted with the admonition, "if you
are caught by our bosses, you have got to say that it was
unauthorized. You just wanted to go along for the ride
for fun and games." 5/ However, the November flight was
fully authorized, and the ban on the use of staff employees
on oven-flights did not come until after the loss of this
mission.
- 12 -
Approved for for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
0.by.K.1.., J.
Downey and Fecteau officially "Missing in Action." In
a memorandum to the Comptroller, 6/ Meloon requested
that their pay and allowance be continued under the
authority of the Missing Persons Act as amended, in-
cluding field allowances as authorized by
the Confidential Funds Regulations. The employment
status of the two CAT pilots, Norman Schwartz and Robert
Snoddy, was judged not to be within the purview of the
Missing Persons Act or of Agency regulations. Arrange-
ments for them were left to the proprietary company. 7/*
* In the aftermath of the Downey release in March 1973,
the Washington Evening Star-News reported on the two
pilots. "The Snoddys received a series of insurance
payments over a period of two years; $30,000 on two poli-
cies taken out by CAT with American International Under-
writers, $15,000 on the two policies written by Standard
Insurance, and a $10,000 national service policy admin-
istered by the Veterans Administration." Similar docu-
mentation, said the Star, is lacking in the Schwartz case
but in a telephone interview with a brother, Melvin
Schwartz, the reporter found out that payments totaling
about $25,000 had been received by the parents, now de-
ceased. In a 6 March 1973 interview,
stated:
There was some feeling about the decision. Some
persons, I being one, were of the opinion that, if
the true facts of the relationship of Snoddy and
Schwartz and the airline to the Agency had been
presented to the Bureau of Employee Compensation,
these men also might have been entitled to benefits
under the Federal Employee Compensation Act. 8/
As this account is being written immediately following
Downey's release in 1973, Senator Mark Hatfield (R., Ore.)
and Rep. John Dellenback (R. Ore.) are querying Secre-
tary of State, William P. Rogers, on this very point on
behalf of the pilots' survivors.
- 13 -
Approved for for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
azpn../..,
(b)(1)
(b)(3)
Continuing
responsibility for these cases was lodged in FE Division
but liaison with the families on the myriad personal prob-
lems that arose from these incidents devolved on the
Offices of Security (OS) and Personnel (OP) and on the
(W(1)
Legal Counsel. Harlan A. Westrell (OS) (b)(3)
** the Downey-Fecteau case;
(b)(1)
(b)(3)
** assignment in 1952 was to the Per- (b)(3)
sonnel Office where he was charged with developing a com-
pensation and casualty program, and with handling retire-
ment cases. He is currently the Assistant Legislative
Counsel for the Agency. A possible explanation for the
divided handling of Missing in Action cases was given by (b)(3)
(b)(1)
(b)(3)
- 14 -
SETAtTT
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
and
represented the Legal Counsel. (b)(3)
The problems encountered in the handling of these cases
caused the Office of Personnel to conduct a study which
resulted in the Confidential Fund Regulation (CFR) and
the issuance of a more comprehensive guide
handling of MIA cases.
Allowances for Missing Persons, was issued
1953.
to the
Pay and (b)(3)
on 8 October
Declared Dead, 4 December 1953
From the very outset of the Downey-Fecteau dis-
appearance, there was a strong feeling in the FE Divi-
sion that both CIA men, as well as the two pilots,
were dead. Reports received in late January and early
February 1953 from agents who had visited the site im-
mediately after the crash undoubtedly contributed to the
impression in both field and Headquarters that all four
men had perished, although the agents were unable to
identify either the burned-out aircraft or the body
remains they found in the forward part of the plane. 11/* (W(1)
(b)(3)
(b)(3)
* A cable noted that Chou En-lai had protested (b)(3)
a US air violation and then went on to state that "This
strengthened in our view fact team reports
finding plane described to closely resemble our craft."
A cable of stated: "Report of agent from
team
on the investigation of downed aircraft found
(b)(1)
at DB
47
05
70 (footnote continued on next page)
(b)(3)
- 15 -
(b)(1)
(b)(3)
SECRET
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
1.4l...)&C..G 1.
the liaison officer for the Per-
sonnel Director, was not privy to operational cables
under the policies prevailing at the time. In 1973
he stated another reason for the finding of death:
The feeling of the China experts was that the
Chinese certainly would have made whatever
propaganda play they could. Therefore, there
was initially a feeling that the men must have
been killed in the crash or that they had been
killed by the Chinese. There was very little
possibility of their being alive. The at-
titude increased with the passage of time...
on the basis of the considered judgment of
all parties, a presumptive finding of death
was made in November 1953 or at the expiration
of the year's time (called for in the Missing
Persons Act)...again with the very firm
feeling on the part of the operational people
that the Chinese would have given these cases
some attention in the press...and in the ab-
sence of any indication of that sort, the men
were dead. 12/
Accordingly, on 2 December 1953, Chief FE, George
Aurelladdressed the fateful memo to the Personnel
Director: 13/
After thorough investigation both in Field
and Headquarters, the Far East Division has
reluctantly come to the conclusion that the
two CIA staff employees, Mr. John Downey and
Mr. Richard Fecteau, who have been carried
in an MIA status are dead....It is therefore
(footnote continued from previous page) Army Grid Map.
Reported they found bodies in forward part of plane.
Plane broken up quite badly. No marks or identifica-
tion on bodies or plane, other than made in USA on
parts."
- 16 -
SEC,RET
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
5.K..C,
recommended that under the provisions of
Public Law 490, 77th Congress, as amended,
and Section of the CF Regulations of
this Agency, the necessary steps be taken
to have the referenced subjects declared
dead.*
The Office of Personnel was assigned the task of
preparing appropriate declarations of death and letters
to survivors** and assisting the Comptroller and
General Counsel Offices in the preparation of the per-
tinent documents for the General Accounting Office, the
Civil Service Commission, the Bureau of Employment Com-
pensation, the Social Security Administration, and the
private insurance companies. The finding of death
presumably ended the security risk to the two men and,
accordingly, the declaration and letters were prepared
in the name of the Central Intelligence Agency, their
official employer, and signed by the Acting Director
* The procedure by which the Chief/FE originated
the request for personnel action was determined by the
informal group called together by the Personnel Director.
It became normal procedure in the MIA cases. This group
included: Robert Bannerman, Deputy Director of Security;
FE Division; , C/Emp-
ServDiv/OP; Ins/Claims Br/OP; and
/Acting Personnel Director, who presided.
**
See Appendix D Finding of Death of Missing Person.
- 17 -
-SEref(ET
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
of Personnel,
of the administration burden, FE
blessing to the assumption by
and
* Happy to be relieved
Division gave its full
OP,
OGC, of the responsibility
for the preparation and delivery of documents to Govern-
ment and private agencies and for the contact with
families, lawyers,and banks.
Victims Personal Circumstances, December 1953
The
Fecteau,
came of prime
families and personal affairs of Downey,
be-
importance to the Agency in December 1953
from a security, legal, and humanitarian standpoint.
(b)(3)
(b)(1)
(b)(3)
(b)(3)
a long-time personnel official of the Agency, (b)(3)
was Executive Officer of Office of Personnel from February
1954 to February 1957.
** The Agency, as well as the US Government, was to hear
In no uncertain terms from this indomitable woman as she
waged, well within security limits, a 15-year struggle
for her son's releate. The struggle involved four Presi-
dents, several Secretaries of State, Senators, Congress-
men, the Catholic Church, and the United Nations. As
this account is being written, Mrs. Mary Downey's grave
illness and stroke, together with President Nixon's per-
sonal intervention with Premier Chou En-lai, has brought
her son's release. (footnote continued on next page)
- 18 -
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
(b)(3)
It was to these people and
(footnote continued from previous page) Under these sad
circumstances, Mrs. Downey was reunited with her son on
12 March 1973. Unfortunately it is not possible in an
administrative history to do justice to her story or that
of the other parents and relatives of Agency employees who
had to suffer in silence under particularly grueling and
cruel conditions.
* The initials WAEPA now (1973) stand for World Wide
Assurance for Employees of Government Agencies. In 1953,
they stood for War Agencies Employees Protective Associa-
tion.
* *
stated on 6 March 1973: (b)(3)
The Fecteaus were simple, wonderful family
people, who lived on a low income. Mr. Fec-
teau had worked for the General Electric
Company in Lynn. He felt that What' hisYboy
was doing was important to US security, that
he (Mr. Fecteau) would do nothing to jeopardize
the relationship, that the best thing to do was
to keep their mouths shut and follow instructions.
had the impression that Dick Fecteau had fairly well
schooled his parents (footnote continued on next page)
(b)(3)
- 19 -
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
bE)61(.12,
these companies, in addition to the Government agencies
mentioned, that the declarations and letters carrying the
CIA legend were directed.
"liaison with the Downey-Fecteau families
had several purposes: the necessity of opening a channel
of communication between the Agency and the families,
the humanitarian purpose of assisting the families in
obtaining every lawful benefit to which they were entitled,
(footnote continued from ,previous page) that he was in
sensitive work, that this was something that he was doing
because he wanted to do it, and that they should accept
it on those terms. 14/
� 20 �
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
brylt..1.:, 1
and to establish a measure of control in the interest
of the security of the Agency.
Bombshells: September and November 1954
The demanding task of notification and liaison
following the presumptive findings of death of Downey
and Fecteau stretched well into 1954 with the insurance
settlements the major problem as described by
One of the main reasons for the issuance of the
findings of death in these cases was to effect
settlement of the various benefits, princi-
pally the insurance policies on the two men's
lives...the cases were rather novel as far as
payments for persons who were not in a military
status.... The insurance companies had some
experience in military cases but very little
if any with civilians. Several were reluctant
to act (but did so) on the initiative of/
which was the first to decide to go
ahead and make payment. Throughout we felt
that our actions and decisions in these cases
were proper, were good decisions based on the
considered judgment of people who had good know-
ledge of the Chinese approach, their philosophy
and so forth. 15/
- 21 -
SECT
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
uty.m.E, i
(b)(1)
(b)(3)
- 22 -
SECRET
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
On 23 November 1954, one year after they had been
declared dead by the Agency and two years after capture,
Peking really "pulled the plug" on the US Government by
� announcing to the world that Downey and Fecteau were in
custody, having been tried, convicted, and sentenced
for espionage. Downey received life imprisonment and
Fecteau was sentenced to twenty years. Announced simul-
taneously was the sentencing of eleven airmen, the
officers and crew of a Far East Air Force (FEAF) B-29
reconnaissance aircraft, shot down over China some
weeks after Downey and Fecteau.*
The press release stated in part:
11�11
saki
mai
The other espionage case involved John
Thomas Downey (alias Jack Donovan), 24, born in
Connecticut, and Richard George Fecteau, 27,
born in Massachusetts, both special agents of
the Central Intelligence Agency, a US espionage
organization.
Downey and Fecteau worked with the Atsuki,
[sic] Japan, espionage organization of the US
Central Intelligence Agency. In the spring of
1952, Downey selected special agents of Chinese
nationality and organized them into two teams
-- "Team Wen" and "Team Shen" -- which were
* The airmen, also referred to as the Arnold Group, in-
cluded Col. John K. Arnold, Jr., USAF, who received a 10-
year sentence; William Hurl Baumer, eight years; Capt.
Eugene John Vaadi, six years; Elmer Fred Llewellyn and
Wallace� Lamer Brown, five years; John Woodrow Burck,
Howard William Brown, Steven Edward Kiba, Harry Martin
Benjamin, Jr., John Walker Thompson, and Daniel Chris
Schmidt, four years.
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
ormi
CIO
1=1
later airdropped in Kirin and Liaoning
Provinces in China. In October 1952
Downey had Li Chun-ying, another agent,
airdropped into Kirin Province to conduct
liaison and subversive activities, and
in August 1952 him himself [sic] stole
into China to drop supplies for "Team
Wen."
Downey and Fecteau were both captured
on the night of November 29, 1952, when they
entered Northeast China in a US plane, made
contact with and provided supplies to air-
dropped agents and attempted to pick up Li
Chun-ying who was to report. Their plane
was shot down.
The sentences passed by the Military
Tribunal of the Supreme Peoples Court on
the American spies are as follows: John
Thomas Downey, life imprisonment; Richard
George Fecteau, 20 years imprisonment.* 18/
* According to
view previously cited:
in the 6 March 1973 inter- (b)(3)
The apparent reason for the difference in the
sentences of these two men was that Downey had
been an instructor and very much involved in the
training of indigenous teams and this information
must have come out either through information ex-
tracted from Downey during the course of his in-
terrogation or information which the Chinese may
have picked up from other sources. In any event,
the Chinese were aware of the fact that Downey was
a much more involved and influential person in the
situation than Fecteau was.
who handled the cases for EA/Div in
the 1970's, confirmed this interpretation of the different
sentences in the 26 November 1973 interview for the Oral
History. ---r� o --- tfurther stated that there is no substance
whatsoever e persistent rumor around the Agency that
Fecteau had gotten a lesser sentence because he had talked!
(1-.33.aote continued on next page)
- 24 -
(b)(3)
(b)(3)
ET
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
The Peking announcement came like a bombshell to
the Agency and the families.* There were many urgent
tasks to perform and decisions to be made if the news-
cast from Peking was valid. In 1954 the propaganda
battle between the two nations was at a peak with the
Communists accusing the United States of germ warfare
and showing posters of bugs crawling around Korea,
supposedly dropped by US aircraft. Most of the exchange
was crude and not very creditable, given the attitude of
suspicion and distrust that prevailed at that time. In
this instance, however, facts in the announcement that
could only have been learned from the individuals and
the feeling that the "ChiComs," as they were then called,
(b)(3)
(footnote continued from previous page) The author's
personal interviews with both Fecteau and Downey support
the views of Messrs. and (See Appendix J for
all tape transcripts referenced in this note.)
* The Agency learned the news from an FBIS intercept of
a Peking New China News Agency Broadcast in English Morse
to Southeast Asia, Europe, and North America, 1640 hours,
23 November 1954. In 1971 The New Britain Herald, Downey's
hometown newspaper, claimed that it had picked up the
story and broken the news to the public:
By this time (23 Nov 1954) even the Associated
Press had lost track of the name Downey. But it
was spotted by the Herald city desk and a re-
porter (Henry Keezing) was sent to Mrs. Downey's
home to ask about it. The terms of the imprison-
ment became known at that time. 12/
- 25 -
SE ET
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
OEL,
would not have opened this matter to world view unless
they could produce live bodies led to the decision by
a Headquarters group, convened by Richard M. Bissell,
Jr.,* that continued insistence that Downey and Fecteau
were dead would be futile. Accordingly, the legal status
of Downey and Fecteau was changed to "Missing in Action,"
which had the effect of canceling the former finding but
did not involve the Agency in affirming that they were
alive. The cover story would be continued as being in
the best interests of the individuals and the US Govern-
ment. For 20 years there would be no deviation from
that story.**
* Bissell subsequently became Special Assistant to the
DCI for Planning and Development in April 1958 and served
as Deputy Director for Plans (DDP) from 1958 to 1962, re-
signing as of 17 February 1962. The Bissell group consisted
of the General Counsel (Houston), AD/Pers (Reynolds), Dir/
Sec (Edwards), Chief/FE (Aurell), and for
Central Cover.
(b)(3)
** The first official acknowledgment that Downey was a
CIA employee was made by President Nixon at the very last
minute of a press conference on 31 January 1973. Some
people outside the government, including Jerome A. Cohen,
Downey's Yale classmate who became a scholar of Chinese
law, have suggested that, had the US Government acknow-
ledged culpability and apologized, Downey might have been
released earlier; and, indeed, this approach was suggested
some years later by :/FE/2. On the other (b)(3)
hand, acknowledgment early in the game might have caused
the execution of the two men, or at least led to a propa-
ganda bonanza and extreme embarrassment to the United
States without helping the two individuals. In any event,
the Agency and the USG held the line for two decades.
- 26 -
SEegET
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
W,Li
Having made the decision, a first essential was to
backstop with the Department of Defense the cover story
that Downey and Fecteau were Department of Army civilians
traveling as passengers on the flight of a military
contract aircraft between Korea and Japan, since it was
DOD that would catch the heat from the US press.* Simul-
taneously, it was necessary to begin unwinding the many
personnel administrative actions with respect to other
Government agencies, the insurance companies, banks, and
families that had consumed most of 1954. Complicating
both courses of action was the previous release of in-
formation in the name of the Central Intelligence Agency
such as the Declarations of Death which bore the sig-
nature of Agency officials and the letters of condolence
from the Director of Central Intelligence to the next of
kin. At least eighteen persons outside the Government
were aware of the connection of Downey and/or Fecteau
with the Agency. In addition to the families, the
eighteen included top officials of three insurance
companies and two banks, several lawyers, and in one case
raik0
- 27 -
SE ET
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
the executor of an estate. Each was in a position to
furnish confirmation of the Communist news release.
As an indication of how seriously Americans regarded
security considerations at the time, no leak of informa-
tion corroborating the true status of Downey and Fecteau
occurred during the ensuing years, although the insurance
companies were allowed to retain the Declaration of
Death in their files and some of the DCI's letters of
condolence never were recovered.
From the standpoint of security and finances, the
most immediate concern was the life insurance claims
that had been paid by the private insurance companies
-- Equitable (WAEPA), New York Life, and Metropolitan
Life -- to survivors. Under heavy time pressure, a
policy statement was developed by the Bissell Group and
approved by the DCI on 3 December 1954. 20/
Beneficiaries should be advised that, since
the declaration of death has been reversed, they
have no equitable basis for retaining death
benefits received under insurance policies and
should be encouraged to offer some sort of settle-
ment within the limits of their means to the in-
surance companies. Nevertheless, the Agency
should not attempt to bring pressure on them,
especially where hardship would result, since
it is the responsibility of the insurance
company to determine what action, if any, it
will take regarding recovery.* In thus pursuing
� 28 �
SEC\lt,ET
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
a relatively neutral course, the Agency
would be following the precedent set by
the Armed Forces. 21/
The Assistant Director for Personnel, Harrison
G. Reynolds, was assigned the responsibility for con-
tacting the insurance companies and Government agencies
and, in effect, retracing the steps taken in the notifi-
cation of death the previous year. The Office of the
General Counsel (OGC) was to assist OP in its approach
to the private and public agencies. The initial ob-
jective as described in 1973 by
was to ascertain the position of the insurance companies,
to impress on them the sensitivity of the cases in view
of the US Government position that the men were Depart-
ment of the Army civilians on a legitimate flight from
Korea to Japan, and to dissuade them from any action
which would involve publicity, pending the Agency's
negotiations with the beneficiaries.
When word of China's action in announcing
that Downey and Fecteau were alive and had
- 29 -
SkRET
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
owl
INIMPI
been sentenced was received, our first
reaction was to get to the people who
were in possession of the certificates
of death to button up these cases to avoid
any publicity about their CIA status, or
confirmation of that status which had
been revealed by the Chinese.
of OGC and I immediately paid visits to
the insurance companies, in some cases
speaking with the general counsel, in some
cases speaking with the vice-presidents in
charge of claims asking that they take the
records and all files of papers on the
cases and put them in their direct custody
in locked safes to assure that confirma-
tion of the Agency employment of these two
men would not be made public. I must say
in this connection that certainly it was
an encouraging and rather heart warming
experience to find these people outside the
stream of official Washington being totally
cooperative even to the point of placing
their own reputations in some jeopardy if
the situation became difficult in their own
company. As far as I am aware these files are
still kept in locked safes in the insurance
companies and in several banks that were
involved with the accounts of these men. 22/
It was decided that the Agency would make no offer
or gesture toward the assumption of responsibility for
repayment of funds to the companies. If, when the views
of both parties -- that is, family and company -- had
been ascertained and it appeared that a beneficiary re-
-' fused or was unable to offer a settlement which the in-
surance company was willing to accept, then the Agency
(1D)(1
would consider making up the difference (b)(3)
These were the procedures on which the liaison
with the private agencies, the Bureau of Employment
- 30 -
SECRET
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
=NCX, .1.
Compensation, and the Civil Service Commission were
subsequently conducted. They proved to be entirely
successful from a security standpoint and eventually
from a financial standpoint.
What about the families? The whipsawing of emotions
caused by the Communist announcement was very severe.*
Despite the frenzied activity behind the scenes in
Washington and the field, there was no visible sign that
the Agency was doing anything. It was a tense situation
from a security as well as an administrative standpoint.
Security risks both to the government and to the men
made it imperative that there be no breach between the
families and the Agency; an emotional explosion could
negate the cover story and other arrangements and had
to be avoided at all costs. That this did not occur is
a tribute first and foremost to the parents, their forti-
tude and devotion to sons and country; and secondarily
to the thoughtful, patient liaison conducted by Agency
representatives with the families during the ensuing years.
- 31 -
SktET
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
Other administrative actions taken in early
December 1954 included the establishment of a Table of
Organization , grade and
salary undetermined, to be administered by the Office
of Personnel and to which the Comptroller would allot
such funds as required for the period during which the
individuals were carried in an MIA status. 24/
(b)(1)
(b)(3)
/ The change of status for Downey and Fecteau from
(b)(1)
(b)(3)
dead to missing was made effective as of 5 December
1953, the day following the date of the previous declara-
tion of death. Allotments in effect at that time and
such other allotments as deemed necessary by the Assistant
Director of Personnel (AD/P) were authorized and the AD/P
assumed the fiduciary responsibility for the prisoners.
The Ad Hoc Committee in the 1950's
As early as June 1953, the FE Division requested
the Director to name,a representative, preferably from
Personnel or Security, to handle support aspects of the
Downey-Fecteau case while it continued liaison, with the
State Department and the Pentagon and handled the
- 32 -
8 ET
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
EA.1\1�..C.J 1
operational aspects. The suggestion was not accepted.
Instead the FE/Div was told to name a committee to
coordinate prisoner affairs, and the ad hoc committee
came into existence consisting of representatives of
FE, Security, Personnel and Technical Services Staff
(TSS).* After the 1954 announcement that Downey and
Fecteau were alive and imprisoned, the ad hoc committee
function became one of preparing plans for the evacua-
tion and evaluation of the men, should they be released.
mod This activity was accelerated in 1955 after the United
States and China had made an Agreed Announcement on
000
civilian prisoners of the Korean war, which unfortu-
nately did not affect Downey and Fecteau.
and concentrated on release efforts, promotions, re-
lations with the families, visits to China,and mail.
VIM
11010
* William E. Nelson,
later Chief/FE, and currently, Deputy Director of Opera-
tions, was the first chairman. Other early members were
Harlan Westrell, OS; , OP; (b)(3)
OGC; FE; FE; and
TSS. Ben DeFelice joined the com-
mittee in 1957 and became chairman in 1958. (For
further activity of this committee, see p. 44, below.)
- 33 -
SEGET
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
In 1958 the Director approved the recommendation of the
DDP that the responsibility for CIA-connected Americans
in jail in Communist China be turned over to the Director
of Personnel. 25/
Official Efforts to Gain Release, 1954-1959
The Chinese Communists in their 23 November 1954
announcement made no distinction between the 11 military
personnel and the two civilians, labeling all of them
spies convicted of the serious crime of jeopardizing
the security of China. The first reaction in the US
Government was instinctive and angry. Various retalia-
tory measures of a military nature, including naval
blockade of China, were considered and soon rejected, in
some measure because of the doubtful legal position of
the United States with respect to the prisoners and to
the difficulty of unilateral action by US Forces serving
under the United Nations Command.* Attention turned
almost immediately to other methods of obtaining the
prisoners' release, with the most obvious course leading
to the United Nations. The decision to take the case to
(W(1 )
CINCPAC had recommended (b)(3)
against retaliatory action, including blbckade, since
"ChiComs may have good case in international court
against some of these people." 26/
- 34 -
SE ET
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
.1.
the UN led to the separation of the uniformed personnel,
for whom prisoner-of-war status could possibly be es-
tablished, from the civilians -- a Hobson's choice if
ever there was one. Before it was made at higher
levels in the US Government, there were serious dif-
ferences between the Agency and the Department of De-
fense and, to a lesser degree, the Department of State,
at least at the second-echelon level. The separation
led to great personal bitterness on the part of the
Downey family who felt, rightly or wrongly, that it
cost their son his freedom, a sentiment that was shared
by many people in the Agency. Congressman (later Senator)
Dodd of Connecticut wrote the DCI about it.
I am disturbed and distressed by official
statements from Washington concerning the
release of eleven members of the military
establishment. Mrs. Downey came to my
house in a very upset condition to find
out the reason for this distinction between
her son and the boys who are in uniform. 27/
Frank Wisner,* the Deputy Director for Plans (DDP),
felt very strongly that release efforts should include
* Wisner was Assistant Director for Policy Coordina-
tion (AD/PC) from September 1948 until that Office was
absorbed by the DDP in 1951. He was designated DDP in
July 1951 and served in the post until December 1958.
After extended sick leave, he returned to the Agency in
a special capacity until his resignation in August 1962.
He died in October 1965.
� 35 �
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
difficulties:
both uniformed and civilian personnel on the grounds
that all US personnel in a military theater were the
responsibility of the US military commander. 28/ At
the civilian policy level in the DOD especially
among the "new" people -- there were qualms about the
whole subject of unconventional warfare on the China
mainland, which, said Wisner, had the effect of jet-
tisoning
ative
our civilians. 29/ The Agency Senior Represent-
(b)(1)
who had very properly notified and (b)(3)
cleared the STAROMA mission with the Commander, US Far
East Air Force (General Smart), also took the position that
the status of the CIA men was no different than that of
the military. He was informed by cable of some of the
(b)(1)
(b)(3)
26 November 1954: ,Senior Representative
from Director: Consequence of Chi Corn sentencing
of 13 viewed with extreme seriousness and various
retaliatory actions considered including blockade.
Problem complicated by somewhat different legal
status of Downey and Fecteau from uniformed
personnel in Air Force plane. So far no distinc-
tion made in any authorized press statement.
* The post of Senior Representative was established in
1950 by General Bedell Smith when he was DCI. The con-
cept was that since the DDP headquarters and field or-
ganization was based on geographical divisions and par-
alleled State Department's organization, the Senior Rep-
resentative's jurisdiction would correspond to that of
the US theater Commander. He reported directly to the
DCI in Washington.'
- 36 -
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
Whether it will prove wise and practical
to maintain this position is not yet
clear. 30/
On 29 November 1954 the DCI in a briefing at the
White House described the STAROMA mission in some detail,
stating in part:
It is clear from the Peiping Radio that the
survivors of both this flight and of the
Arnold flight/
/nave disclosed substantially
complete information regarding the respec-
tive flights, their previous training and
affiliations. The stories attributed to them
have, of course, overtones of Communist propa-
ganda, but many of the details attributed to
the occupants of these two planes are ac-
curate.... The stories attributed to Downey
and Fecteau are particularly accurate since
in view of the nature of their mission, this
fitted in with Communist propaganda objec-
tives. In the case of the Arnold mission,
the Peiping Radio has added many touches
which are not accurate to give it an
espionage angle and to tie this flight with
CIA...the practice,of using American per-
sonnel on overflights of hostile territory
was discontinued by CIA about two years ago,
shortly after this incident. 31/
On 4 December 1954 the United States protested in
the General Assembly of the UN the detention and sentencing
of the officers and crew of the B-29 aircraft of the US
Far East Air Force while engaged in a UN Command mission.32/
The decision to take the military cases directly to the UN
had the effect of separating the status of Downey and
- 37 -
(b)(1)
(b)(3)
S&�14.ET
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
(b)(1)
(b)(3)
Fecteau from that of the flyers.* The rationale was
cabled to the Sen/Rep
Director:
on the same date by the
Problems of holding line regarding common
action in respect to Downey-Fecteau and
uniformed fliers presented many serious
difficulties particularly as it became
necessary to raise issue at UN level. If
same line adopted for uniformed and
civilian personnel then was real likeli-
hood that net result would be only to
prejudice prisoner of war status of former
without helping our boys. 33/
After 4 December 1954, release efforts focused
on the civilian status of Downey and Fecteau with the
DOD assuming no responsibility for the CIA men who were
ostensibly under Army cover. The Agency was largely
on its own in the Councils of Government as shown in
the correspondence and cable excerpts.
6 December 1954: In a memo to the DCI, the
DDP stated very strongly that all prisoners
held by the Chinese Communists should be
considered together. "There is no reason
to feel," Wisner said, "that the eleven air-
men were different to Downey and Fecteau.
All US personnel in a military theater are
* The facts in the case, and the thrust of the 29 No-
vember 1954 White House briefing probably made the out-
come inevitable, although the actual decision was made
at the highest levels in the US Government. Acting Per-
sonnel Director told Mrs. Downey that
President Eisenhower had decided to place the case of
the eleven military flyers before the UN. 34/
(b)(3)
- 38 -
SE)SRET
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
(El
subject to military authority and the De-
partment of Defense has an obligation to
so act." 35/
7 December 1954: Director from Senior/Rep
While realizing necessity for sepa-
ration, it is essential that USG coincident
with the separation of civilian from mili-
tary make strongest appropriate statement
from highest level on behalf of the civilians
possibly pursuing line grouping D-F with large
list of other civilians either imprisoned or
unable to achieve exit. Course indicated
necessary to offset increased pressure on
D-F if success achieved in freeing military
personnel. 36/
10 December 1954: Memo from the DDP to the
Chief/FE describing change of position of
Russians at UN. That the 11 airmen were not
spies but only dropping agents. The DDP felt
the same case could be made for Downey and
Fecteau. 37/
On 10 December, the UN Assembly by resolution
condemned the detention of the US airmen and instructed
Secretary General Dag Hammarskjold to seek their release.
Within the US Government, the DDP pressed on with his
efforts in behalf of Downey and Fecteau directing them
now to State and maintaining vigorously that even as
civilians both men were subject to the US theater com-
mander,* and were on a mission in support of the UN
Command. 38/
What if the cases had not been separated? There
were those in the Agency who believed that the linking
* Commander in Chief, Pacific (CINCPAC).
SE ET
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
(b)(1)
(b)(3)
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
of the CIA men to the far stronger legal case of the
uniformed airmen would have forced the hand of the
Chinese Communists. 39/ On the other hand it is
entirely possible that the cases would have been sepa-
rated anyway by the Chinese Communist leaders despite
their contention that all of the men were spies sub-
ject to Chinese criminal law rather than prisoners of
war under international law. In any event, it was very
convenient to have the Americans separate the cases for
them, and no one will ever know what might have been
the outcome had another course of action been taken by
the US Government or what political concession the
Chinese Communists would have exacted for their release.
INNV
At the time, all they wanted was the US Seventh Fleet
withdrawn from the Formosa Straits, US withdrawal from
Korea, the withdrawl of US support for the Nationalist
China group on Taiwan, and diplomatic recognition of the
People's Republic of China (PRC) by the United States.
On 14 December 1954 Assistant Secretary of State
Walter P. McConaughy prepared, with the assistance of
Messrs. Wisner of CIA and Godell of DOD, a document
entitled "Suggested Paragraph for Inclusion in Briefing�
Book of Secretary General Hammarskjold." 40/* The
* The suggested (footnote continued on next page)
SE ET
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
(b)(1)
(b)(3)
document was conveyed to the Secretary General
/ In it the position was taken by the
US Government that the civilians were entitled to release
under the terms of the Korean Armistice Agreement. 41/
On 17 December 1954, Dag Hammarskjold was invited
by Chou En-lai to come to China for a discussion
(footnote continued from previous page) paragraph for
inclusion in Dag Hammarskjold's briefing book was
originally prepared in the Agency and summarized the
publicly released cover story, noting that the Chinese
Communists linked the case with those of the 11 airmen
whose sentences were announced at the same time, although
the airmen were on a separate mission and were shot down
several weeks after the civilians. The airmen were on
a confidential mission in support of the UN Command, dir
rectly related to the UN defense against the Chinese
Communists aggression in Korea. Their operations were
important to this purpose and were made necessary by the
Chinese Communists breach of international peace and
security. The Korean Armistice Agreement contemplated
the return of civilians whose detention resulted from
the hostilities in Korea and a number of civilians had
been returned thereunder. Downey and Fecteau came
within this category and their continued detention by
the Chinese Communists could not be justified. The
Government of the United States maintained that these
American civilians should be given their freedom
forthwith.
The complete paragraph was routed within the Agency
to C/Ops, A/DD/P, C/FE, SA/DCl/P by C/FE/1, William E.
Nelson. There was also a routing slip to ,Lawrence R.
Houston, General Counsel, on which Nelson stated
that "attached paragraph inserted in Secretary
General's book. He is reported to have read it without
comment." Presumably the paragraph was inserted by
the USUN Ambassador or a member of his staff.
- 41 -
SkRET
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
of problems. On two subsequent occasions, 31 December
1954 and 2 January 1955, the Chinese Communists broad-
cast a description of "US Spy" Downey's air pick-up
mission in China, possibly in anticipation of the Sec-
retary General's visit and appeal for release. The
broadcasts were carefully analyzed in the FE Division
and the information found to be substantially correct
and to give an accurate account of the mission. Chief/FE
concluded that it was probable that the STAROMA team
had been doubled immediately after their launching or
that the Chinese Communists had obtained text of mes-
sages from the team operator or other team members by
interrogation after capture. 42/
The Secretary General was in Peking from 5 - 10 Jan-
uary 1955 and had four formal meetings with the Premier-
Foreign Minister for a total of 13 hours, 90 percent of
which, according to the UN, was spent on the prisoner.
issue. 43/ There were at this point, 17 Americans*
of some degree of association with the UN Command in
* In addition to the 11 B-29 airmen and the two civilians,
four jet pilots who had wandered into China's air space
on separate occasions after the 1953 armistice had been
shot down and were jailed. Their status was not in
contention and they were freed after short periods
of captivity.
- 42 -
SE ET
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
6.11,0,14...B
Chinese jails although Hammarskjold's instructions
from the UN General Assembly Resolution of 10 December
1954 applied only to the 11 B-29 airmen.* Upon Ham-
marskjold's return, the United Nations announced
publicly that Premier Chou En-lai had agreed to
permit relatives to visit the Americans held in Chinese
jails. Privately the Secretary General reported to
UN Ambassador Lodge that the Chinese were extremely
suspicious of the 11 airmen and the two civilians for
a number of reasons. Downey and Fecteau were caught
red handed. The 581st (the B-29 Unit) was obviously on
more than a UN mission because of the number of personnel,
radios, and such. Downey and Fecteau were not on the
lists presented at Geneva. 44/
* Edgar Snow, American expatriate journalist and
author, quotes Chou En-lai as saying in a personal
interview with him: "There are two United States
nationals in Chinese prisons of another category --
a very special one. They are airborne secret agents
sent by the United States to China, namely, the very
famous Downey and Fecteau. Allen Dulles of the United
States Central Intelligence Agency could give you all
the details, but perhaps he would not want to give
the information in such detail as we would. In early
1955, when Hammarskjold came to Peking to discuss
the question of the United States nationals in Chinese
prisons, even he found it inconvenient to bring up
their case for discussion. These two were in no way
related to the Korean war, but were on a mission of
pure espionage and secret agent activity." 45/
- 43 -
SE ET
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
Despite the somewhat discouraging feedback from
the UN, hopes were high throughout the first six
months of 1955 that the prisoners would be released or
that their sentences would be commuted. The special
committee* was revitalized on 7 July 1955 under the
Chief/FE to focus on an evacuation plan in case Downey
and Fecteau were released. 46/ Chaired by William Nelson,
Chief,
and composed of representatives of
OS, OP, Fl, PP, and TSS, the committee was to have the
doubtful distinction of being the longest lived ad hoc
committee in Agency history. An immediate task, in ad-
dition to the evacuation plan, was the preparation of the
background briefing for Ambassador Alexis Johnson, who
was selected to represent the United States in am-
bassadorial-level talks scheduled for Geneva in August
1955. 47/
On 4 August 1955 the Communists released the 11 air-
men, preceded by an announcement that made no mention
of the two civilians.
Eleven US spies (named) were formally
sentenced for various terms of imprisonment
by the Military Tribunal of the Supreme People's
* See p. 32, above.
- 44 -
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
.1.2,\LX.J12.,
Court of China for having sneaked into
the territorial air space of China by
plane to conduct espionage activities
with the aim of jeopardizing the security
of China.
During the period in which these 11
criminals served their sentences, they
observed discipline and behaved them-
selves fairly well. The authorities in
charge so reported to the Military Tri-
bunal of the Supreme People's Court and
asked leniency for them.
The Tribunal decided on July 31,* ac-
cording to law, to release these 11
criminals before the completion of their
terms. 48/
The release of the uniformed personnel, while
welcomed, occasioned some long second thoughts on the
part of Agency people, thoughts of the lost bureaucratic
battle to make common cause for all 13 prisoners.
* Edgar Snow, previousli, cited in footnote'p. 43, puts
a different slant on the release quoting Chou En-lai:
"In order to create a favorable atmosphere, China re-
leased, before the talks began (at Geneva), eleven so-
called prisoners of war following the mediation of
Krishna Menon and UN Secretary General Dag Hammar-
skjold's visit to Peking. Why are they referred to as
"so-called" prisoners of war? Because they were not
captured on the Korean battlefield...(they) were on a
United States plane which intruded into China's air
space, and were captured after their plane was hit.
Both China and the United States had declared that the
Korean war was restricted to Korea and did not extend
to China. This plane was shot down in China, so China
did not recognize them as prisoners of war. Nevertheless,
China released them -- to create a favorable atmosphere
for the ambassadorial talks at Geneva and that was the
end of the so-called prisoner of war issue." According
to Snow, Chou then went on to describe another category,
a very special one; namely, Downey and Fecteau. 12/
- 45 -
SE ET-
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
The effect of the failure to join their cases with
the case of the Arnold crew on the individuals most
concerned has been set forth by John Downey in a
recent (26 April 1974) interview With the author of
this history. Downey noted that within about two weeks
of the Chinese announcement of the formal sentencing
(23 November 1954) of all the Americans, he and Fecteau
were put into the same cell corridor with the Arnold
crew. Of the subsequent events Downey stated:
After three weeks living with the Arnold
crew during which I was sort of living on the
edge of my chair every instant fearing that
this was too good to be true, and being re-
assured by them that we were all on our way,
that they (the Chinese) would not have put
us together if we weren't going out together,
the axe fell. The interpreters came in for a
normal daily meeting, a briefing kind of a
session, and just casually announced that,
"well, we felt it was a little crowded in here
and perhaps a couple of you ought to live on
another corridor." It would relieve the
crowding (they thought). Then questions were
asked, does that mean they, Downey-Fecteau,
are separate? Can they come back every day
and talk and read and exercise together?
"Oh, yeah," they said, "you can play together
and come back and live together." Well, much
to the chagrin of the Chinese, two of the Air
Force guys volunteered to move out of the cor-
ridor and live together. The Chinese got quite
confused and said, "well, we were thinking since
Downey and Fecteau are not part of the crew
probably it would be better if they lived
separately, and the crew kept together." So then
they (the Chinese) were asked, "Can they come
back?" "Oh, yeah," was the answer, "they can
come back every day and everything. It's just
- 46 -
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
%._Nk..E. .1.
for sleeping purposes." Well, I knew
right then that the axe fell; and I
just felt that I had been hit over the
head with a sledge hammer. I knew this
was the end of the line.
The interpreter gave us all this spiel.
The crew foxed him by volunteering to live
off the corridor and that threw his whole
plan out of kilter so he had to come and
say, "Well, we think Downey and Fecteau
ought to live together." Well, I was
practically in tears and my head just
dropped to my chest and I knew that was
the end of the line, and I foresaw a long
haul for us and that these gurs (the Arnold
crew) were going to get out. For once in my
life I was pretty accurate in my grasp of
things. So we picked up our stuff, the Air
Force guys were trying their best to cheer
us up - and kidding us and everything. I
remember Benjamin, one of the enlisted men,
saying, "Well, listen don't forget when you
get home, send us a postcard." It made me
laugh though I was practically ready to cry.
So Dick and I were taken out and we were put
in another corridor in a cell and we were
both pretty agitated, at least I certainly
was, and we were talking there and saying,
"Jesus, thank Christ we are together, at
least we got that much, no more solitary;"
and the door swings open and (the voice
saying), "Fecteau, will you step out," and
that is the last I saw of him. There I was
back in solitary. That was a very miserable
day. I remember that was really a jolt be-
cause I never believed it was really too
good to be true, that we would get on the
Arnold group's coattails, but you always
have that wild hope and now!
Perhaps it was only coincidental, but at the time
that Downey and Fecteau were separated from the Arnold
crew -- despite the efforts of the USAF crewmen to pre-
vent this -- Hammarskjold was about to begin (5 - 10 January
- 47 -
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
OJAL.L .L
1955) negotiations with the Chinese leaders for the
release of the 11 man crew of the downed B-29. What
might have happened had Hammarskjold's list included the
two Agency employees poses an uneasy and unanswerable
question.
At least the returning airmen brought out first-
hand reports on Downey and Fecteau. 50/
Cable, Director from
5 Aug 55: (3:7�Report of debriefing
airmen. Downey and Fecteau arrived in
Peking during April 1953. Previously held
in Mukden. Housed same jail April 1953
through 28 December 1954. Downey housed
with officers. Fecteau housed with en-
listed men. Between 7-28 December oc-
cupied same cell. Prior to 7 December
1954, Fecteau observed in cell chained
hand and foot. Fecteau believed to have
resisted indoctrination.
(b)(1)
(b)(3)
(b)(1)
Cable, Director from 9 Aug (b)(3)
55: (1) Downey told all he knew -- Fecteau
held out. (2) Para 4 D/F informed airmen
they were certain operations in which they
were captured was Chi Corn trap.
From this point forward, official efforts to ob-
tain the release of Downey and Fecteau were tied to the
general release of all US citizens detained by China,
although the occasion or concession considered necessary
by the Communist Chinese for release of the CIA men was
not to occur for 16 years and they were to be the last
prisoners out of China. The US position was presented
- 48 -
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
Jr,t.xtciL 1
by Ambassador Alexis Johnson at Geneva and resulted in
a bilateral statement by the two countries issued on
10 September 1955. The Agreed
bassadors of the United States
People's Republic of China set
Announcement of the Am-
of America and the
up the requirement that
each country take appropriate measures so that American
and Chinese nationals desiring to return to their re-
spective countries could exercise their right to do
so. 51/ This effort came to naught in the ensuing
months due in part at least to the unwillingness of
the Chinese who were living in the United States to
return to Communist China,* but the Agreed Announcement
served as a point of diplomatic reference for the US
Government for the next 15 years.
* The United States instituted a press, television, and
radio publicity campaign announcing the right of any
Chinese in the United States to return to Communist
China unhindered. Notices containing the text of the
Agreed Announcement were placed in 35,000 post offices,
throughout the country. There was not a single response.
Furthermore, neither the Indian Embassy in the United
States, which had been authorized to make representa-
tions on behalf of any such Chinese, nor the British
Charge d'Affaires in.China, representing any American in
the country, brought a single case to the attention of the
US Government. 52/ The Geneva TAlks (subsequently War-
saw Talks) whicH�followed this meeting and were con-
tinued for thirteen years are described in the foot-
note on p. 150.
- 49 -
SE ET
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
The finish to this set of official efforts to free
the prisoners came on 29 January 1957 when the Depart-
ment of State issued a paper entitled, "The Facts Con-
cerning the Chinese Failure to Release Imprisoned
Americans," which reflected the level of frustration,
rhetoric, and distrust.
Communist spokesmen and media have
intensified in recent weeks their efforts
to mislead the World concerning the con-
tinued imprisonment in Communist China of
six American civilians.* These Americans
are held in cynical disregard for an un-
qualified Chinese Communist pledge on
September 10, 1955, to take measures for
their release "expeditiously."
After having used other excuses to
explain away or divert attention from their
failure to keep their word, the Chinese
Communists have now fallen back on the
specious allegation that the United States
had failed to keep its own commitment with
respect to Chinesenationals in this
country. 53/
* The six American civilians included two Maryknoll
priests Their
sentences and places of confinement were noted by C/FE:
The Rev. Joseph P. McCormack, Shanghai, five years
(expires Jun 1958)
The Rev. John P. Wagner, Shanghai, five years,
(expires June 1958)
John T. Downey, Peking, life
Richard G. Fecteau, Peking, 20 years
Hugh F. Redmond, Shanghai, life
Robert R. McCann, Tientsin, 15 years.W
- 50 -
ET
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
6.12,%K.1.!,
The official position taken by State and adhered
to persistently from then on was to maintain the policy
of no bargaining, of standing upon the Chinese Communist
statement of 10 September 1955 and of doing nothing that
could be taken as recognition of the Chinese Communist
Government. 55/
The 1957 State Department paper drew no response,
and gradually the plight of the prisoners faded from
public view.* The ad hoc committee**remained in touch
* When interviewed for the Oral History in April 1974,
John Downey thought they would have been better off with-
out the official efforts to free them. The somewhat sanc-
timonious approach of the United States only infuriated
the Chinese Communists in the 1950's and the 1960's.
It was not until the announcement of President Nixon's
visit in February 1972 that he noticed any change in
the climate of hostility between the two countries.
For full statement see Appendix J Tape Transcript No. 39.
** Liaison with State was mainly an FE/Div responsibility
throughout the 1950's. (b)(3)
FE for CIA, and Edwin W. Martin and Robert Aylward,
China Affairs for State, carried on the release efforts
in the late fifties. C/FE also retained the chairman-
ship of the ad hoc committee for a short time after the (b)(3)
prisoner affairs were turned over to the Director of Per-
sonnel in September 1959. An attempt was then made to
distinguish between operational, which presumably meant
release efforts, and administrative responsibility.
The distinction was blurred and eventually FE was con-
tent to let Personnel handle the entire range of
prisoner affairs, including chairmanship of the ad hoc
committee, although FE retained membership on the
committee.
- 51 -
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
OIL NIT127-1-
with the Office of China Affairs at State and various
suggestions, such as asking the Russians for help and
the suggestion that the prisoner release be made a
condition to the resumption of the interrupted ambassae�
dorial talks at Geneva in 1958, were not acted on for
one reason or another. In the Agency's opinion the
stumbling block was, of course, the fact that the
Communist Chinese wanted a political concession from
the United States and would not release the prisoners
until they got it; and the United States was not about
to give any such concession. 56/ State did take up
'with General Alfred Gruenther of the American Red Cross
the idea of using the organization as an intermediary
to obtain the release of the prisoners, but the Chinese
parried this attempt by limiting Red Cross activity to
visits and packages. In September 1959 the prisoner
issue was included on the agenda for President Eisen-
hower's meeting with Premier Krushchev at Camp David.
It was hoped that the Chinese Communists might consider
releasing the prisoners as part of an act of amnesty
announced on the 10th anniversary of the founding of the
People's Republic of China -- said amnesty was supposed
to include non-Chinese. Publicly the White House would
only say that "Premier Krushchev might find it possible
- 52 -
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
as a friendly gesture...to bring up the matter of our
five prisoners* when he got to Peiping (on 29 Septem-
ber 1959)." 57/ This gesture by Krushchev, if made,
was no more successful than other attempts to free the
CIA prisoners.**
Unofficial Efforts
The burden of misery and frustration suffered by
the families led to independent efforts outside the
channels established by the Agency. Mrs. Downey in
* By 1959, Downey, Fecteau, Redmond,
and McCann, with Bishop Walsh of Maryknoll, arrested in
1958, constituted the roster of imprisoned Americans.
The two Maryknoll priests, named on the 1957 list, were
released at the completion of their sentences in 1958.
** A possible opportunity to gain the release of the
prisoners is described by the British author E. H. Cook-
ridge (pen name), in Spy Trade, New York, Walker & Co.,
1971, p. 86. "Allen Dulles, who had a rational and prag-
matic approach to the game he had played all his life,
eventually favored Abel's [Colonel Abel, the so-called
Soviet master spy arrested in 1957 and eventually traded
for Gary Powers in February 1962] exchange for American
prisoners held behind both Iron and Bamboo Curtains. Al-
ready in 1958, when Abel first suggested it to Donovan
[American attorney and later intermediary in the Powers
exchange], the possibility was broached of exchanging
him in return for Americans imprisoned in China. Abel
said that Pandit Nehru, the Prime Minister of India, or
the Government of another neutral country, might be wil-
ling to mediate such an exchange. If Allen Dulles was
willing to consider it, his brother, John Foster Dulles,
the Secretary of State, frowned at even the hint of such
a transaction. He wanted no truck with Moscow or Peking,
which would have left the Communists the winners both in
the value of the commodity gained and in obtaining
political prestige in the eyes of the world." (continued)
- 53 -
SkRET
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
.L
MEI
mei
WEI
NSW
VIM
particular displayed indomitable determination in
carrying the struggle for her son's release to higher
authority.* Refusing to believe that the most powerful
government in the world could do nothing, she managed
through her own efforts to see four Presidents,
(footnote continued from previous page) The Agency ad
hoc committee did bring up with the General Counsel the
idea of using James Donovan's services, particularly his
"in" with Castro on behalf of the FE prisoners but this
was in January 1963, 18 months after the Powers-Abel PWP"
change. (b)(3)
* In March 1973 liaison officer
with the family until 1957, described Mrs. Downey's
efforts:
After the Chinese announcement that Downey
and Fecteau were alive and had been sentenced, Mrs.
Downey maintained her adamant stand, her insist-
ence on various positions that she took about the
cases. I know she saw Jack Kennedy, she saw
Eisenhower, she made contact either in person or
in writing with each President who took office
during the period of Jack's imprisonment. She
had also been in touch with President Nixon
about the cases. She was in touch with several
government officials, some UN officials, the
Secretary of State. She came to Washington and
had several meetings with Allen Dulles. She did
everything she possibly could to keep Jack�
Downey's case in the minds of any government official
who might have any possible effect on Jack's re-
lease. For this she can't be criticized really.
Having gone through what she had gone through, the
loss of her husband, and seeing her son in this
situation, it is hard to criticize her. Mrs.
Downey made overtures to the Chinese authorities,
wrote letters to Chou En-lai and subsequently got
permission for herself and Mrs. Fecteau to visit
the two boys in China and they traveled there, I
believe, in 1957. 58/
- 54 -
8E8ET
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
etrANtk.r. I
beginning with President Eisenhower in 1957; one Sec-
retary of State, Herter in 1958; two DCIs, Dulles and
McCone; two UN Ambassadors, Henry Cabot Lodge of the
United States and Krishna Menon of India; and several
Senators and Representatives. Each visit caused at
least a temporary flurry in the bureaucracy as papers
were staffed up the line explaining the mission, the
cover arrangements, and prior steps taken in behalf of
the prisoners. Mrs. Downey's unrelenting efforts
probably helped to keep the diplomatic mill grinding.
At least they kept new administrations informed at the
highest levels of the plight of the American prisoners
as they faded from view in the press* and in the mind
of the public.
Following a visit to China in July 1959 a private
attempt, ostensibly by his brother William,** was made
(W(1)
(b)(3)
* The hometown newspapers,
the New Britain Herald for Downey, and
the Boston Globe for Fecteau, remained alert to devel-
opments in the cases and, while careful to avoid state-
ments that would damage the prisoners' cause with the
super-sensitive Chinese, gave the men their strong
support.
** William Downey had resigned his position with a New
York bank and moved to Hong Kong to devote full time to
his brother's release. originated
the plan to use Percy Chen.
- 55 -
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
aL4.E.1.
(b)(1)
(b)(3)
to gain John Downey's release. Impetus for that opera-
tion had begun in 1957 in Bangkok when an American
lawyer, Albert Lyman, made the suggestion to the US
Embassy that he be allowed to draw up an appeal on
humanitarian grounds within the framework of Chinese
law. A. Hong Kong lawyer, Percy Chen, who had contacts
with the Chinese Communists, would then go to the main-
land with the appeal and plead the case on the basis of
clemency. The price, in addition to Lyman's fee, would
be an interview for Chen with President Eisenhower�
during which Chen would plead the cause of world peace.
advised against the pro-
posal, describing Albert Lyman as an unscrupulous op-
portunist and Chen as a man who would use this matter
to further his own aims. 59/ The concept was saved for
a better occasion and a'more reputable proponent.
Both developed two years later, immediately after
the 13 - 19 July 1959 visit of William Downey to his
brother. As advised, William had pleaded for his brother's
release on the basis of clemency, citing the 10th anni-
versary of the founding of the People's
Upon his return to Hong Kong,
Republic of China.
(b)(1)
put William (b)(3)
in touch with a reputable British attorney, George E. S.
Stevenson, of the firm of Stewart and Company. Stevenson
- 56 -
SE13tRET
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
b.B04(11
then sought Percy Chen's services as intermediary.
Chen at first welcomed the opportunity to get back into
the case, but within hours turned it down saying John
Downey was a spy and an imperialist crook. 60/ The
loss of the Communist contact was a serious blow, but
Stevenson proceeded to draw up the petition dated 1 Oc-
tober 1959 for the release of John Downey, based on
general amnesty being given to Chinese prisoners in
connection with the 10th anniversary celebration. The
sem petition was forwarded directly to the Supreme Court
of the People's Republic of China early in October 1959.
Little hope was held for it in view of the shift in
Percy Chen's position which could only have come after
consulting with his Communist superiors. Two and a half
years later, in March 1962, a supplemental petition was
presented to the Court by Solicitor Stevenson, reflec-
ting Mrs. Downey's fears that she would not live to see
her son released, but this, too, drew a negative response.*
Excerpt from State message of 13 July 1962:
INN
In fact, one indication that an early, release of
John Downey is not in the offing, is the answer
given to the Downeys concerning their 1959 peti-
tion for clemency... [when they] were informed
through the Chinese Red Cross intermediaries that
the petition was worthless because it was not
drafted by a mainland licensed lawyer...nor would
it do any good to have another appeal drafted. 61/
- 57 -
S&RET
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
IMILI
From time to time, grass roots efforts sprang up
in the home towns of the prisoners. Family participa-
tion was usually discouraged by the Agency for many
reasons. There were fears as to the effect of unguarded
remarks and unwise actions on the Chinese Communists.
There was a reluctance to give opportunists a publicity
rim
field day.
Usi
Mit
� 58 �
SEZET
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
i(Li.
(b)(1)
(b)(3)
Personnel Administration of the MIAs in the 1950's
After recovering from the administrative
disaster attendant upon declaring Downey and Fecteau
alive a year after having declared them dead, personnel
administration of the MIAs followed a pattern involving
six major areas: pay and allowances allotment,
promotions, maintenance of accrued funds due to the
employee, travel of families, and personal communication
and contact with the families. The personnel process
had, however, a very distinct abnormality -- the indi-
viduals were missing from the scene and could not be
consulted, so the Office of Personnel had to make
decisions for them.
Pay accounts had been reestablished in 1955, at
which time it was determined that the men were entitled,
ironically as it seems, to separation allowance,** and
(b)(1)
(b)(3)
** Separation allowance (footnote continued on next page)
- 59 -
� GU.ET
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
EtJkli..1, 1
to post differential.* The Office of Finance, which
did a great deal of work on these accounts down through
the years, proceeded to keep the accounts in a current
status so that immediate and accurate payment of ac-
crued funds could be made at any time upon release. The
procedure was based on memoranda from the Director of
Personnel to the Comptroller citing the
Act of 7 March 1942 as amended, and
Pay and Allowances of Missing Persons,
on 17 May 1956, replaced the familiar
Confidential Funds Regulations.** Since these
Missing Persons
which,
of the (b)(3)
individ-
uals were not in a position to pay their income taxes,
these were deducted from their pay when due and placed .
in escrow until such time as payment to the Internal
(footnote continued from previous page) is one granted
to an employee who is compelled by reason of dangerous,
notably unhealthy, or excessively adverse living condi-
tions at his post in a foreign area, to meet the ad-
ditional expense of maintaining any or all of his de-
pendents elsewhere than at such post or assignment.
* Post differential is established at a post in an area
where the environment differs so substantially from that
of Washington as to warrant additional compensation. See
(b)(3)
(b)(3)
(b)(3)
** The Plans Staff of the Office of Personnel -- in this
case the analyst was -- developed the corn- (b)(3)
prehensive regulation which incorporated the experience
gained in the MIA cases. (footnote continued on next page)
- 60 -
SE13..ET
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
bJ4cJ. 1-
iMY
Wei
Revenue Service could be made by the individual. In
1959 an equalization allowance* of $700 a year, designed
to cover the cost of the "care" packages the families
had been sending for three years, was authorized by the
Director of Personnel on a retroactive basis, as recom-
mended by DeFelice.** The allowance was continued for
the duration of captivity. Passed along to the families
by increase in allotments, it served in some degree to
relieve the financial burden on the parents without
depleting the men's accrued funds. Personnel's actions
on pay and allowances were described by DeFelice in May
1973:
We not only saw to it that they had everything
the law authorized them to have, but we also
responded to new financial needs imposed on
the families by creating other allowances.
Example -- when we found out that the families
were using personal funds to send packages to
(footnote continued from previous page) Personnel also
commented on the revisions made in the "Missing Persons
Act" and participated in the development of a "Code of
Conduct for Agency Employees Subject to Capture by an
Enemy," which was approved by the DCI on 28 April 1956. 62/
* Equalization allowance is
personnel, career agents, and
on a formula which takes into
living at Flip nnst nr Area of
ton, D.C.
granted to staff and detailed
contract employees.. based
account the excess cost of
duty as compared to Washing-
** For clarification of DeFelice's position, see p. 33,
above, and p. 64, below.
- 61 -
SE ET
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
orici!, J.
Downey, and Fecteau, the Director of
Personnel did what he could to establish what
he referred to as an "Equalization Allowance"
which approximated the cost of the packages
sent by Mrs. Downey to her son and the Fecteaus
to theirs.
(b)(1)
(b)(3)
Originally, allotments could be based on the in-
structions which each individual had made a matter of
record before going overseas. The fact that Downey was
single simplified the handling of his affairs.
* By the 1960's, maintenance of the prisoners'
accrued funds had become a major investment problem
as described in Chapter II.
- 62 -
G.LtET
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
0.1....�\..m.L, I
Fecteau's affairs were more complicated.
- 63 -
SIGET
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
of his affairs became
example, the question
teau's children had to be faced as
As his children grew up and his parents
the administration
increasingly complicated. For
of increased allotments to Fec-
early as 1955-1956,
requiring a basic judgment as to the standard of living
he would have established for his family. In his 1973
Oral History interview, DeFelice* described the allot-
ment difficulties as follows: 65/
We used a standard for allotments that we have
maintained throughout the years in handling
the finances of our prisoner cases. We con-
sider ourselves as fiduciaries charged with
the highest of trust in disbursing the funds
of Agency prisoners.... The case that had
the most complications was the Fecteau case.
As the children approached their
teen years, especially with the need for
(b)(3)
* Upon the transfer of , to the Of-
fice of the General Counsel late in 1957, Ben DeFelice,
who had been assistant, took over as Chief of the
Casualty Affairs Branch, OP. He personally handled the
Downey and Fecteau cases for the next 16 years during
which time he advanced to the position of Deputy Direc-
tor of Personnel for Special Programs. He was a GS-9
Insurance and Claims Assistant in November 1953 when he
first encountered the case.
OS hierarchy to the Deputy Director level.
- 64 -
4PGET-
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
education facing them, the Director of
Personnel approved a formula by which
funds from Mr. Fecteau's accrued pay
and allowances were used to pay for
educational expenses.
Another complication that became apparent in 1957,
somewhat belatedly as it happened, was the matter of
promotions. By then it was clear that the prospects for
- 65 -
S IkET
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
LiJL4ti1 L�
MIN
owl
IMO
MEV
immediate release were slim, and at an 11 December 1957
meeting the Committee on CIA Connected Americans Im-
prisoned in China* reached an agreement that the
prisoners warranted promotions and these should be
sought at certain specified grade levels.** On 19 Decem-
ber, by memorandum to the Director of Personnel,***
the Chief, FE Division recommended
Richard G. Fecteau be promoted from GS-7 to the third
step, GS-11; that John T. Downey be promoted from GS-7
to the fourth step, GS-11; such promotions to be ef-
fected in a graduated retroactive manner. 67/
A schedule was accordingly worked out by the Of-
fice of Personnel and presented to the DCI 70/ on
* The Committee on CIA Connected Americans was a new
(and soon discarded) title for the ad hoc committee. It
was responsible for all aspects of the prisoners and in
August 1957 consisted of Chief, FE2, William V. Broe,
chairman, who had lust succeeded William E. Nelson;
Chief, Paul Gaynor of the Security
Research Staff of OS; Chief Casualty Affairs Branch/0P,
Chie TSS, Dr.
68/
** The initiative for the promotion action came from the
Office of Personnel. It was agreed in the committee that
the formal request would come from Chief/FE to D/Pers. 69/
*** Gordon M. Stewart was Director of Personnel and
Alfred C. Ulmer, Jr., Chief, FE Division.
- 66
(b)(1)
(b)(3)
(b)(3)
(b)(3)
(b)(3)
(b)(3)
CE ET
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
El...\(1_,
9 January. Dulles, on 3 February 1958, approved the
schedule and the pay accounts were adjusted to reflect
the changes.* From that point forward, promotions were
made periodically when people of similar background
were promoted, as determined jointly by the Director of
Personnel and the appropriate officials in the DDP, such
as the Chief, FE Division, and the chairman, DDP Per-
sonnel Management Committee, and described by DeFelice:
Once we had brought the men fairly current
and up-to-date with their contemporaries by
a series of retroactive promotions, our
standard was to be sure that they kept a
pace with their colleagues. Throughout the
years we would run a survey of the PM class
colleagues, of both Fecteau and Downey, and
would try to establish where these men would
be had they not been taken prisoner. Even-
tually they were promoted to GS-13's and the
Director of Personnel then wrote a piece of
paper to the Deputy Director of Plans estab-
lishing that prisoners generally should be
brought during the period of imprisonment
to the journeyman level.
he established this journeyman
level at GS-13. He then felt that one means
of compensating these men for the hardships of
prison life was to add one grade to the
journeyman level and consequently fixed the
terminal level of GS-14 for all prisoner cases.
Each was promoted
to GS-14. 71/
* See Appendix E, Promotion and pay schedule, 1951-
1957,
- 67 -
S.kRET
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
Travel to China, 1958-1959
Permission for the relatives to visit the im-
prisoned Americans was one of the major accomplish-
ments of the January 1955 Hammarskjold visit to Peking.
Three years were to pass before the promise became a
reality, years during which the diplomatic efforts to
gain release continued at the ambassadorial talks in
Warsaw, and years during which most of the imprisoned
Americans served out their terms and returned home.
There were several reasons on both sides for the delay.
From 1949 on the US Government banned travel by its
citizens to China, finally yielding to pressure from
American journalists and authors. In 1957 State told
the Agency that permission had been granted to a few
newspapermen to go to China, but emphasized that it was
done with the greatest reluctance and had nothing whatso-
ever to do with either diplomatic recognition or with
the prisoners. State's position was that the Department
could do nothing to suggest or encourage the relatives'
visits, but on the contrary it had to discourage and op-
pose such visits. 72/
Peking, having indicated in 1955 that permission
to travel was up to the United States Government and
that the visits were a private matter to be arranged by
- 68 -
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
the parties concerned through the Chinese Red Cross,
proceeded to throw every official obstacle they could
devise in the way of the travel. There was for example
at one point extensive diplomatic wrangling over the
so-called "insulting wording" carried on American pass-
ports. The reference was to the restriction on travel
"to thoseportions of China held by the Communists,"
Peking being more concerned with the terminology than
with the restriction, and the United States being very
careful to avoid even the appearance of recognition
by carrying the title of "People's Republic of China"
on official documents. 73/ It was not until 1958 that
the Agency was informed that all the necessary clearances
awl
had been obtained and the relatives were ready to travel.
The procedures and the implications of the visits were
described by DeFelice for the Oral History:
EMI
11111011
One recurring development throughout the
period of imprisonment of Downey and Fecteau
was the matter of the trips of their families.
I can't recall completely all of the activities
that were associated with the first trip the
families made in 1958. Involved, of course,
was a general routine. The families themselves
would first cable out to Peking for permission
to travel. Generally there was no quick re-
sponse. They would cable again. Again
generally there would be no answer to that
and eventually the family would turn to the
Red Cross here. Our Red Cross would cable
to the Chinese Red Cross and as a general
statement approval of the trip would follow
- 69 -
SE ET
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
soon thereafter. With the first trip
and then with subsequent trips it became
important to brief each of the travelers
and I remember visiting the Fecteaus
and Mrs. Downey with funds as well as
briefing material. The thrust of the
briefing was that they should not get
involved in political discussions or a
questioning of why their sons were jailed
or imprisoned or question of their sen-
tences. The thrust of their whole
presence in Communist China was that they
were there to visit their sons and give them
assurance of their interest in their wel-
fare and merely to have a mother-son visit.
The families understood this and under-
stood the necessity for avoiding any kind
of a political discussion or haranguing
because this could well jeopardize future
trips. 74/
The first visit came in January 1958 and was made
by
Mrs. Fecteau,
and Mrs. Downey, accompanied by William Downey, John's
brother. Naturally enough, the initial visit was a
source of considerable worry and concern for the Agency.
The families knew of their sons' affiliation with CIA,
but the nature of the sons' activities and such cir-
cumstances as were known of their capture and imprison-
ment had not been divulged. The first prerequisite was
a briefing for the families in the course of which the
Agency representatives, Westrell and DeFelice, endeav-
ored to prepare the travelers for what they might en-
counter both in terms of their sons' attitudes and from
- 70 -
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
Chinese Communist attempts to use the visitors for
propaganda and intelligence purposes. 75/ Second in
importance was the matter of financing the travel be-
cause the expenses were considerably beyond the means
of the relatives.* Financial assistance was extended
in a carefully guarded way so as to protect thE
Agency relationship between the Agency and the prisoners.
The visit was rigidly controlled by the Chinese Com-
munist Government, with the visitors constantly ac-
companied by a Chinese Red Cross representative. An
interpreter was always present at the actual meetings
with the prisoners so that it was impossible to evade
prison regulations which forbade any discussion of the
prisoner's case or his treatment. 77/** A sorrowful
event, the trip to China.was never repeated by Mrs. Fecteau.
(b)(1)
(b)(3)
* Fourteen thousand dollars for the travel of
Mrs. Downey and Mrs. Fecteau and Willaim Downey was
approved by the DCI for the initial visit, accounting to
be made upon return. The precedent was established for the
payment of travel expenses which totaled some $35,252 be-
tween 1958-1971 when the last trip was made by Mrs. Downey
accompanied by son and wife, Mr. and Mrs. William Downey, the
latter a registered nurse who assisted the, mother, by that
time in her seventieg. 76/ See footnote p. 131 for a recap
of the China visits.
** This information is derived from a Foreign Service Dis-
patch which, while referring specifically to William Dow-
ney's 13 - 19 July 1959 visit, gives a detailed and char-
acteristic description of what happened inside China on
these visits.
(b)(3)
- 71 -
EG,,gET
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
DeFelice described the different reactions of
the families:
Shortly after their return,
Downey, William Downey,
on 17 February 1958, Mrs.
(W(1)
met with the (b)(3)
DCI for a discussion of the prisoners. This was fol-
lowed by a widely publicized meeting with the new Sec-
retary of State, Christian Herter, shortly after he took
office in 1959, 79/ during which the Secretary was ad-
monished by Mrs. Downey, according to DeFelice:
After the first trip, I remember that all o (W(1)
the families (b)(3)
met with the Secretary
of State and pictures were taken which were
published. I recall also that it was during
this visit with Secretary of State Herter that
Mrs. Downey demonstrated her strong will and
actually pointed her finger in his face de-
manding that more attention be given to the
cases by the United States Government. 80/
- 72 -
SE ET
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
A second visit by William Downey in July 1959 led
to a plea of clemency in connection with the 10th anni-
versary celebration of the founding of the People's
Republic of China, the so-called Stevenson petition as
previously described.* Both these and subsequent visits
caused some nervousness among concerned Agency officials
who feared the visits might jeopardize the prisoners'
cause. Chinese Communist sensibilities were easily
and unpredictably aroused. For example, the Chinese
Communists cut off all letters from the prisoners for
almost a year after the first visit for undetermined
reasons thought to be involved with prisoner indoctrina-
tion. 1/ So circumspect was the behavior of both pris-
oners and families during the initial and subsequent
visits that there were no untoward incidents that could
be exploited by the Communist propaganda apparatus.
John Downey, who had more numerous visits from his
family than did Dick Fecteau, found that he had mixed
reactions to these contacts. In his interview with the
author of this history in April 1974, Downey stated:
* See pp. 56-57, above.
- 73 -
SE ET
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
012. VS...\-1.2,
I had very mixed feelings about the
visits, and this is rather peculiar. They
were for me a period of great tension,
particularly the first and second visits,
I had fears for the well being of my
family members while there. I had no idea
particularly in the early days - in the
later years, no - but at first I had no
idea of what the Chinese were like. I had
this enormous tension at first figuring
they were going to soak it for all the
propaganda they could get. I also felt
that it was somewhat degrading for my
mother, for her to have to go over and
beg these bastards for her son. The inter-
views, of course, were strictly monitored
and I felt it was nonsense that you could
say nothing you really wanted to say. I am
somewhat reticent about expressing my deeper
feelings and certainly not in front of a
bunch of hostile strangers. For practical
reasons, since I got all kinds of chow and
reading material and the prison regime was
much more comfortable and pleasant at that
time, everything was excellent. I noticed
that during and after the visits, I felt
much better. I have all these objections
to it but the net result was, at least for
a while,a temporary boost in my morale.
Had I been consulted at any time I'd have
told them, don't come, but none the less
when they did come, and it cost me a lot in
terms of worry about this, that, and the
other things, still it did boost my morale.
Sometimes I thought it is better not even to
come in contact with the outside world and
home. You have made your peace with the
present situation, it can be painful to open
the door and see the sunlight, better stay
back in your hole.*
* For the full transcript of Downey's comments, see
Appendix J, Tape Transcripts Nos. 39-40.
- 74 -
Approved for for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
Or, k.12, 1
rood
din
IMO
Liaison with the Families
Liaison with the families was an important part of
Personnel's responsibility for the MIA cases, although
shared with the Office of Security. The purpose was to
provide the families with a channel of communication at
any hour of the day or night on anything that might
be bothering them and to furnish a trusted intermediary
to assist them with release efforts, finances, letters,
packages, printed materials, and, starting in 1958,
visits to China. In terms of workload, if that is the
proper term to use in this delicate matter, there were
literally thousands of telephone calls, hundreds of
letters, and dozens of visits to the families, none of
which were ever put into the impersonal context of of-
fice hours or the cold formality of a casualty desk.
An insight into the human side of this responsibility
was given by Ben DeFelice in the Oral History:
These observations are based on approximately
15 or 16 years of rather extensive contact
with the families.... Mrs. Downey before her
recent illness was an absolute, dynamic, and
powerful woman determined to do everything
possible to secure the release of her son
and to allow no one or nothing to get in her
way....
As the years passed I obtained her
confidence and eventually we became very close.*
In a July 1973 letter (continued on following page)
Ind
75
SEEf-
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
0.E.C.
It even got to the point where she would
defend the Agency and me personally during
conversations with her son William/
1 Mrs. Downey and I had literally
thousands of telephone conversations over
the years. She never hesitated to call at
any hour day or night. Conversations would
range anywhere from ten minutes to three
hours, at Agency expense of course. The
peak would always be associated with some-
thing key that was happening. For example,
when she was first trying to ge-t a visa to
go to China our contacts were intensive.
Whenever she perceived from the press that
something was happening in US relationships
to China, she would call.... Most of our
conversations consisted of Mrs. Downey
talking and my reacting and giving her as-
surances and whatever comfort I could. Her
contact with me was so frequent for so long
that in recent years when it began to diminish
and months would go by before she would call
it got me to the point of being concerned....
I then took the initiative of calling her on
a regular basis. 82/
The Fecteaus* were really a very different
kind of family. They were very modest in
circumstances, lived in a modest home very
solid people generally; this family,
were always satisfied that
the United States Government was doing every-
thing it was possible to do and that there was
little that they could do to stimulate the
Government into action. The t
(footnote continued from previous page) to William
Downey after Jack's return, DeFelice wrote, "Your mother
is the single most outstanding and inspiring human being
that I have ever met."
* At this writing (August 1973) Mr. and Mrs. Fecteau are
alive and in good to fair health, still residing in their
home in Lynn, Massachusetts.
- 76 -
Sit�Ea.�
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
J.
were content to hear from me regularly
on what we were doing, and to receive
assurances that the Government was in
fact doing everything that it could
possibly do. 83/
In the absence of diplomatic channels, even the
mechanics of communication with prisoners were very
cumbersome, giving rise to numerous frustrations for
the families in their attempts to send mail, food, and
book packages and adding to the Agency's liaison burden
as the families sought help with their problems. State
had primary responsibility for all US prisoners in China
but was inhibited by the lack of diplomatic channels.
A Department of State memorandum in 1957 described the
logistics of these supply efforts:
The first transfer of 44 Red Cross parcels
were [sic] turned over at the Hong Kong border
to a Chinese Red Cross representative on May
30, 1955. These parcels of one kilogram each
were increased to parcels of five kilograms
each on July 15, 1955 transfer. Beginning
with the June 15 transfer, the Red Cross
- 77 -
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
Or.
representative likewise turned over
parcels from the families. The American
Government has made available, to the
Red Cross, Department of Air Force planes
and personnel for the delivery of both
Red Cross parcels and family parcels
from the States to Hong Kong. It has
also provided transportation to Hong
Kong from Clark Field or Tokyo for the
American Red Cross representative who
twice a month turns over the parcels at
the Hong Kong border to the Chinese rep-
resentative. The Department has also
made every effort to facilitate the
delivery of reading material from the
families to Hong Kong where the packages
are mailed. This effort involving co-
ordination of Red Cross and US Govern-
ment personnel and facilities permits
the saving of large sums in postage as
well as eliminating long delays in
mailing. 85/
The effort was very worthwhile. There was no
question but that the food packages from the families
and from the Red Cross contributed significantly to
the physical well being of the prisoners just as the
printed material, books, and magazines contributed to
their mental equilibrium.
- 78 -
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
wow+
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
w:,t30.12,
.eas
IMO
Mat
II. The MIAs in the 1960's
The 1960 May Day Incident: The Gary
The administrative experiences
handling of the Downey, Fecteau,
the fifties were
Powers Shoot-down
gained in the
(W(1)
cases of (b)(3)
called into play at the very start of
the sixties. In rapid succession the Agency's popula-
tion in Communist prisons doubled when the Soviets
captured one, and the Castro Cubans three Agency
employees.
On 1 May 1960, Francis Gary Powers "went missing"
while piloting his U-2 reconnaissance aircraft on an
overflight of the Soviet Union somewhere between Pesha-
war in Pakistan where the flight originated and Bodo
in Norway. News of his shoot-down and capture near
Sverdlosk was delayed by the Soviets for seven days
during which the US Government put out cover stories
concerning the loss of a NACA* weather research plane
near Turkey. On 7 May 1960, Premier Krushchev announced
* National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics, prede-
cessor to the National Aeronautics and Space Adminis-
tration, NASA.
- 79 -
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
b1 JJl
to the great embarrassment of the United States* that
the Soviets had both pilot and plane in their custody.
President Eisenhower's decision to accept responsibility
for authorizing the flight led to a grave diplomatic
crisis between the two nations and adjournment of the
Summit meeting of the Big Four which had convened in
Paris on 16 May 1960. The President's visit to the
Soviet Union in June 1960, a return visit to that which
Khrushchev had made in 1959, was also cancelled.**
* Lyman B. Kirkpatrick, former Inspector General, de-
scribed the situation as, "one of the most momentous
flaps that I witnessed during my time in the Government." 86/
* *
Allen Dulles wrote in 1965:
And while I am discussing myths and misconceptions,
I might tilt at another myth connected with the U-2,
namely that Khrushchev was shocked and surprised at
it all. As a matter of fact, he had known for years
about the flights, though his information in the
early period was not accurate in all respects. Dip-
lomatic notes were exchanged and published well be-
fore I May 1960, the date of the U-2 failure when
Khrushchev's tracking techniques had become more ac-
curate. Still, since he had been unable to do any-
thing about the U-2, he did not wish to advertise
the fact of his impotence to his own people, and he
stopped sending protests.
His rage at. the Paris Conference was feigned for
a purpose. At the time he saw no prospect for suc-
cess at the conference on the subject of Berlin. He
was then in deep trouble with the Chinese Communists.
Following his visit to President Eisenhower in the
fall of 1959, he had been unable to placate Mao during
his stop in (footnote continued on following page)
- 80 -
SE ET
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
Powers was put on trial for his life in a Moscow
"spectacular" in August 1960 but, considering the espio-
nage charge, received a relatively mild 10-year sentence.
He was freed after one year and nine months in a well-
publicized exchange for the Soviet agent, Colonel
Rudolf Abel. New York attorney and Agency consultant,
James Donovan, an alumnus of the Office of Strategic
Services, who had been assigned as Colonel Abel's court-
appointed defense attorney in the 1957 trials, served
as intermediary. 87/
Although a component of the DDP, the Develop-
mental Projects Division (DPD) which ran the highly
classified U-2 project,* was completely compartmented
from the rest of the Agency, having its own support
components including seci4rity and personnel. The
Powers case, however, was much too important to be
contained within the confines of either DPD or CIA.
(footnote continued from previous page) Peking en route
back from the US. Furthermore, he was apprehensive that
the Soviet people would react too favorably to President
Eisenhower's planned trip to the USSR in the summer of
1960. Influenced by all these consideratiOns, he decided
to use the U-2 as a good excuse for torpedoing both the
trip and the conference. 88/
* Richard M. Bissell, who had been the prime Agency mover
in the development of the U-2 project as a Special Assist-
ant to the DCI (footnote continued on following page)
- 81 -
mid
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
am,
401
11E11
Sell
�=1.
Diplomatic and release efforts were conducted at the
very highest levels in the White House,* the State De-
partment, and the Agency.
On the administrative level DPD pulled together
an informal group consisting of support personnel
assigned to the project and of representatives of the
central personnel and security offices.** The most
pressing administrative task was to determine Powers'
status, and on 10 May 1960 the Director of Personnel
(footnote continued from previous page) was at this time
the Deputy Director of Plans (DDP), a post which he held
from 1 January 1959 until his resignation in December 1961.
* At one meeting on the incident, for example, were
Dulles, Bissell, and Gen. Cabell from the CIA, Assistant
Secretary of State Charles Bohlen for the State Depart-
ment, and Gen. Goodpaster for the President. 89/
** John McMahon, Personnel Officer of the DPD, was the
focal point. Ben DeFelice reDresented the Personnel Di-
rector, and r the General Counsel.
A major role was played by Paul Gaynor as chairman of the
Damage Assessment Committee and by John Mertz of the CI
Staff and by Security officers detailed to DPD including
Gaynor
headed up the group of OS people, including
and who handled Barbara Powers prob-
lems and received and d briefed Powers. Joseph E. Murphy,
the security officer.at who identified Powers at
the time of the exchange(See p. 96) was added to this
group. assisted Gaynor in the Powers case
UPI and also participated in the work of the ad hoc committee
handling the FE prisoner cases.
(W(1)
(b)(3)
- 82 -
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
J12.1...A..12, 1
411111
smi
awl
MI.
qualified him for the benefits of the Missing Persons
Act (Public Law 490, 77th Congress), authorized con-
tinuance of pay and allowances, 90/ and assumed finan-
cial control, through Chief/Benefits and Services
Division (Ben DeFelice), of Powers' accrued funds and
allotment disbursements. Powers was an appointed con-
tract employee of the Agency. His contract, originally
written in May 1956, had been renewed for the second
time on 1 November 1959, through 31 October 1960. It
called for remuneration as follows:
When in General Duty Status - $1,000 per month
Operational Duty Status in the US - $1,500 per month
Operational Duty Status Overseas - $1,500 per month
In addition to the above amounts of compensation...
$500 per month for each month of service in an
Operational Duty Status overseas.
In addition to all other amounts specified, there
will be payable upon termination of the appoint-
ment an amount of $500 per month for each month
of satisfactory service in an Operational Duty
Status in the United States or overseas - pro-
vided your services are not terminated for cause
based on misconduct or abandonment of your
obligations hereunder. 91/
The contract was, of course, a classified document
retained in Agency custody. Ignorance of its terms gave
rise to public controversy over whether or not Powers
should be paid. Some members of Congress and the press
- 83 -
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C031 11003
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
were very critical of Powers. Public attitudes in the
early 1960's inclined towards severity in judging
prisoner-of-war behavior. Powers was faulted for
failing to destroy the aircraft -- and by some for not
destroying himself. His confession at the Moscow trials
that he was deeply repentant and profoundly sorry left
the public with the impression that he had served his
country badly. Much of the criticism focused on the
amount of pay that Powers was drawing and whether the
Government should pay the large sum which accrued during
his captivity. "Our recommendation would be no,"
Newsday magazine editorialized, "he was hired to do a
job and he flopped at that job. He left his U-2 behind,
substantially undamaged, so the Reds could copy and im-
prove upon it. Under the circumstances, back pay would
be laughable." 92/
The press appraisal was completely wide of the
mark as can be gathered from Paul Gaynor's 1973 state-
ment in the Oral History:
Mertz [of CI Staff] and I spent two months of
the summer of 1960 conducting interviews, at-
tempting to come up with an estimate of things
Powers could have known. For example, at this
time there was a follow-on [to the U-2] project,
to wit, a bigger and better aircraft. We
learned that there was considerable speculation
among the pilots of the U-2 project about the
possibility of technological unemployment,
- 84 -
SAS4ET
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
about retraining to meet the challenge
of a faster, higher-flying aircraft. We
had to assume that this was the kind of
thing that Powers could be forced to
reveal.* Powers also had been in �the
program from the beginning and he knew a
great many of the personalities involved,
not only the pilots, but the back-up
people, logistics, security, all the sup-
port elements.... Our debriefing of Powers
(in May 1962) ran about two weeks. He also
had some polygraph testing during this
period by one of our senior polygraph
operators. We were totally satisfied with
the results. In fact, we in the debriefing
team were satisfied all the way through with
Powers' behavior. There had been General
Order Number 6 published not long before his
last flight by the U-2 project. DPD author-
ized the pilots if they went down in hostile
territory to acknowledge their true employ-
ment. That I recall very vividly because
when I first went on the Damage Assessment
Team at DPD HQS in the 1700 block of H Street,
one of the first questions I asked [was] who
released Powers from his obligation under the
Agency Risk of Capture Regulation. Then I
was shown the DPD General Order.... In ad-
dition (to the Board of Inquiry), Mr. McCone,
who was then the DCI, had an Air Force Group
headed by General Blanchard, the Inspector
General, as a separate Board of Experts who ad-
dressed themselves to Powers' statements of
facts as to how the U-2 broke up. Subse-
quently, after the Board of Inquiry and its
favorable findings, Powers had to make an
appearance before the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee. He told his story in his own words
as to the way it happened with a very minimum
' of questioning end received the thanks
* What bothered Powers most, he later told Gaynor, was
what he knew from pilot scuttlebutt about the replacement
for the U-2. Strangely enough the usually efficient
Soviet interrogators never asked.
- 85 -
sgrbkvE4
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
or,%\i-vr, 1
MIN
and appreciation from practically the
total committee membership. Senator
Goldwater, in fact, wrote him a note
which he handed to Powers across the
hearing table, congratulating him for
his performance. 93/
All doubts on the pay issue were removed by a
Board of Inquiry convened at Headquarters with retired
Federal Appeals Court Judge E. Barrett Prettyman pre-
siding. The Board completely cleared Powers of any
misconduct and sustained Powers' contention that he had
followed preflight instructions -- to acknowledge CIA
affiliation and tell the Russians, in effect, only what
they already knew. The Board issued a public statement
in March 1962 which said, "accordingly the amount due
Mr. Powers under the terms of his contract will be paid
to him." 94/* DeFelice further clarified the actual
payments due Powers:
About Gary Powers' employment status: In those
days contract employees were not eligible for
the Federal Employees Group Life Insurance
program (FEGLI) so the OSA U-2 pilots were
given a special insurance commitment authorized
by the DCI. So that we (in Personnel) could
develop insurance policies that would add up
mu to the insurance commitment, the U-2 pilots
were employed on a special employment arrange-
which made it possible for them to be eligible
.0�46
* This 11-page statement released by the Board of Inquiry
describes the instructions given to pilots in case of cap-
ture. It also contains a detailed account of the shoot-
down and Powers' efforts to free himself from the wingless
fuselage as it fell toward earth, a struggle which prevented
him from activating the destruct mechanism.
- 86 -
SERET
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
OrAt.icLi
mil
for FEGLI and UBLIC as well as hospitali-
zation. It was this appointment that made
it possible for Powers to be placed in a
Missing in Action status. By law, this
authorized the Director, whose authority
was delegated to the Director of Personnel,
to continue Powers' pay and allowances as
they were when he was captured, and this
was precisely what was done during the
years of his imprisonment. Upon his re-
lease, however, a question came up about
one aspect of his contract, namely the
five hundred dollars that would be paid
him for each month of satisfactory service
in an operational duty status. It was this
five hundred dollars that had been accruing
over the years that became the subject for
discussion in terms of whether the Board of
inquiry would find Powers' conduct satis-
factory during his imprisonment. It was
this aspect which led to some conjecture
in the outside world as to whether any of this
salary would be paid to him. Actually, there
was no question about his salary payment at
the level it was when he was captured. The
only question had to do with the five hun-
dred dollars [per month] over and above for
satisfactory service. When the Board of
inquiry finished its work and Powers was
given a clean bill of health, this amount
was then released to him along with his other
funds. 95/
On 10 February 1962 Powers' "Missing in Action" status
was cancelled, a first for the Agency; and on 5 March
1962, his contract was reinstated and he was placed in
mod
the general duty status with compensation ,of $1,000
a month.
wool
After the Senate Hearings in March 1962 and a spell
in Georgetown Hospital, Powers was assigned to the Office of
- 87 -
SE ET
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
brA.V..r, 1
Training until his resignation on 15 October 1962. The
Air Force refused to reinstate Powers on the active duty
list, an action which Powers felt was a breach of the
agreement by which he came to the Agency. He became a
test pilot with Lockheed under Clarence L. (Kelly)
Johnson, vice president of Lockheed's Advanced Develop-
ment Projects, who had designed and built the U-2.
Even the subject of awards was misinterpreted in
the Powers case. Approved for the Intelligence Star in
April 1963, Powers did not receive it until 1965, some
two years after the award ceremony for his contemporaries
in the famous 10-10 squadron. 96/ Understandably, Powers
took a rather dim view of this exercise, as noted in his
book:
Compared to the broken promise regarding my
Air Force service it was decidedly minor...
yet, indicative of a pattern. On April 20,
1963, at a secret ceremony which took place
in the Los Angeles area, a number of pilots
who had participated in the U-2 program were
awarded the Intelligence Star, one of the
CIA's highest decorations. There was one
exception. Francis Gary Powers had not been
invited.... It wasn't too difficult to de-
duce the reasoning behind it...the public
is already down on Powers because they
think he told more than he should. We
can't divulge what he withheld. Since
he's already been made the scapegoat, why
not leave it at that?... In April 1965
I was asked to come back to Washington
- 88 -
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
to be awarded the Star. My first
reaction quite frankly and bluntly,
was to tell them to shove it.* 97/
In its human aspects, the Powers case differed
materially from the previous Missing in Action cases.
Powers came from a large closely knit family that was
precipitated almost overnight from the obscurity of a
Virginia mountain community into the world spotlight,
including attendance at the Moscow trial. It was the
father who took the lead in pressing for his son's re-
lease. Oliver Powers was an ex-coalminer, soldier, and
farmer, who, in may 1960, had his own shoe repair business
in Norton, Virginia. He was convinced that if only he
* The Washington Post of 5 May 1965 finished up its ac-
count of the award in these words, "At least two mysteries
remain. Why CIA wanted to bestow an award on its most
famous employee -- one who brought the Agency under public
scrutiny -- and, second, why CIA waited five years to do so."
However, Col. Robert Gaynor, long-time Recorder of the Agency's
Honor Awards Board, in a telephone conversation with the
author on 26 June 1973 stated:
The delay was without significance. This is a
self-pitying thing on the part of Powers. He
wasn't around in 1963 when everybody [in the
squadron] was approved for the Star. General
Carter led a delegation out to Los Angeles for
the presentation. There were three different
levels of awards, a whole suitcase full, in fact.
The men were not allowed to retain the awards but
had to give them back after the ceremony. At the
ceremony, Kelly Johnson asked General Carter,
"Shouldn't Powers have one of these?" to which
General Carter responded, "I think that's a
(footnote continued on following page)
- 89 -
SE CET
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
could get to talk with Khrushchev as one farmer to an-
other, he could win his son's release. Spurred on by
journalists (Life magazine paid all his expenses) and
by local friends, including a lawyer named Carl A.
McAfee and Sol Curry, a Norton, Virginia, department
store owner, the
Premier and sent
that an exchange
father addressed appeals to the Soviet
a letter to Colonel Abel suggesting
be initiated.
He would have nothing
to do with the two lawyers, Alexander W. Parker and
Frank W. Rogers, named by the Virginia Bar Association
at the request of the State Department to defend his
son, or with the US Government. He never quite under-
stood the subtleties of his son's relationship to the
CIA so that his actions were more of a problem to the
State Department than they were to the Agency until
Gary Powers managed somehow -- and at sometime during
the Moscow trial -- to get the word to his father to lay
off the journalistic enterprise. 98/
(footnote continued from previous page) great
idea." The decision to award the Star was
made there but the presentation deferred until
Powers could keep the award. There was no mass
or simultaneous release of decorations; in fact,
I (GaynorI can remember having them in my safe
for years. Col. Gregory, the commanding officer
of the squadron, was maze the last to get the
medal, although awarded in 1963.
- 90 -
SE ET
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
-6=7XX/ I.
It was a different story with Power's wife, Barbara.
Witting of her husband's employment, she became more and
NMI
Mill
ENO
Mil
more of a
to the Agency as her
under the stress and strain of
publicity, her husband's captivity, and her own ill-ad-
vised actions. Powers had left no allotment instructions
of any kind since his wife was residing overseas with
(b)(1)
him at the base at the time of the (b)(3)
fateful flight. Armed with a power of attorney, Mrs.
Powers, who was childless and without family obligations
of any kind, set out to secure most of her husband's
accrued salary and allowances for her own purposes. This
aspect of the case became a major headache to the Direc-
tor of Personnel as the Government administrator under
the Missing Persons Act., Ben DeFelice, the OP represen-
tative in the negotiations with Mrs. Powers, described
the situation as follows;
On I May 1960 I was called to a meeting at
the Matomic Building (I recall it being at
17th and H Streets in town) which was then
the headquarters for the OSA predecessor
organization. I learned then that Francis
Gary Powers was missing in an overflight of
Soviet Russia. In the coming weeks 'I was
invited to join the team to go down to the
Greenbrier Hotel in West Virginia. Mrs.
Powers was to meet us there for a discus-
sion of the various aspects of her husband's
imprisonment. My responsibility was to dis-
cuss allotment needs with her. I can recall
- 91 -
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
today as clearly as then how she would be
so pleasant when we talked about every-
thing excepting money
got to the money, how unpleasant she
In effect, her position was that
she wanted all of her husband's pay and
that we had no right to decide what portion
of it should be withheld and what portion
should be given to her. In advance of this
meeting and based on some early assessment
that we would have a difficult time with
them, I had discussed the range of our al-
lotment with the Director of Personnel,
Gordon Stewart, who authorized me to go up
to $500 a month. I also met With Larry
Houston, the General Counsel, to cover
specifically the fact that Mrs. Powers had
in her possession a power of attorney that
would require the Agency to give all of
Powers' money to Mrs. Powers. Mr. Houston
informed me that if she took us to court
on this power of attorney that we would
probably lose because the powers specifi-
cally covered the circumstances of his
being in prison or captured or otherwise
in the missing status. Nonetheless, Houston
said he would support us in trying to pre-
serve Powers' pay and allowance file and in
trying to give her,a specific amount. We
were at Greenbrier several days and each
time we would talk money, the very same
thing would happen. Barbara Powers insisted
on getting all the money, otherwise she would
sue us using her power of attorney as the basis
for her claim that she was entitled to all of
her husband's money. On the way back from the'
Greenbrier, we were then in a four-seater air-
craft, Mrs. Powers wrote a letter note on a
piece of paper and handed it to me. The note
said $500 is all right. When I came back, the
Director of Personnel then authorized an al-
lotment of $500.* In the coming months
* In a 14 March 1962 memorandum of meeting with Powers,
DeFelice said that (footnote continued on next page)
- 92 -
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
St .1:S I
and years, the relationship with Barbara
Powers, at least from the financial point
of view, wasn't all that bad but she did
for the
Office of Security. 99/
The difficulties of the financial negotiations
with Mrs. Powers pale in comparison to the problems she
presented to the Agency's security officers. One of
the senior OS professionals, Paul Gaynor, has recorded
this Faulkneresque tale:
We also had various and sundry problems in
the handling of Powers' Wife, who was returned
to her home town of Milledgeville, Georgia,
after Powers was shot down.... We were
fortunate in being able to establish a rela-
tionship with her'
/a very dedicated man. He had fought
in WWII as a paratrooper in the 82nd Air-
borne Division, a platoon leader, and had
after the war, and
tried to keep
Barbara as much as they could.
involved in a whole series
around the ...probably in the
period of her husband's Incarceration she
She became
(footnote continued from previous page)Powers told him
privately that he wished the Agency had not given his
wife any allotment although he appreciated the predica-
ment caused by the Power of attorney. 100/ The Powers
were divorced in Januar 1963. Powers married
laudia (Sue) Edwards Downey in
October and is currently living with his second wife
and children in Los Angeles.
- 93 -
SECLIZET
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
We also had in this period, through our
security field representatives, the total
support of the!
land in the one episode that occurred
It [Powers' loss] was not the basic cause.
Powers was a good
old country boy, a fairly simple modest, re-
tiring type of person, although technically
considered the best pilot in the program.
This
The
assignment was part-time for me but I had
two officers, and
who spent a good deal of
the case. There was another officer,
who was from Milledgeville and
was affiliated with the U-2 project, and he
was As to
where Barnara is now ii-/ii, rne lasr I knew
was that she was working at a clerical job
at a Marine Corps Supply Depot in Albany,
Georgia, which was where she was living
when she first met Powers.... She contracted
a couple of marriages after Powers, the first
one to aet herself out from under the legal
time on
My connection lWith the Powers] largely
terminated until his wife came back here and
* Agency insurance also took care o
fees and travel expenses
incurred by Mrs. Powers and her mother were also paid
by the Government.
- 94 -
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
--ert-C4LVE, I
they had an apartment in Alexandria. He
called me at four o'clock in the morning,
Barbara was in Alexandria Hospital, she
had She
woke up [her husband] to show him/
Fortunately for all concerned, including the Agency,
the Powers case for all its intensity was mercifully brief.
His imprisonment, which began with the shoot-down on 1 May
1960, ended with the celebrated exchange for KGB Colonel
Abel on Glienicker Bridge between West and East Berlin
on 10 February 1962. The release efforts took place at
high levels in the two Governments with attorney James
Donovan, who was later to serve a similar function with
Castro for the Bay of Pigs prisoners, as intermediary. 102/
Paul Gaynor described his own role in the proceedings:
[Gaynor] played a role in the negotiations
prior to Powers' exchange. There had been
various diplomatic feelers and somewhere
along the line it had become apparent to
the powers that be that the Russians were
really anxious ,to get Colonel Abel back,
out of prison and back to Russia. That
became the subject of a trade. Our side,
I think, was a little better because there
was also released another American who had
been imprisoned in Russia, and an American
student who was a prisoner in East Germany.
The student had wandered over the demarcation
- 95 -
_as.r6)&11-ET--
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
line. He had absolutely no connection with
the Agency. I participated in meetings here
in the Agency and then, along with John Mertz,
had meetings at the Department of State where
we met with Chip Bohlen, former Ambassador to
Russia who was then Assistant Secretary of
State, Dick Davis, the head of the Eastern
European desk, and Carl Rowan who was then the
public relations officer for State. The head
of the Federal Bureau of Prisons and his
deputy were rather hard nosed. They were not
at all happy about letting Abel go and the FBI
was not happy about lettimg him go because
they felt if they could keep him a while
longer they might just break him, and he
would talk. You see, Abel never talked and
they were attempting to keep the pressure
on him to talk about his whole operation in
the States. The decision was probably made
at Presidential level. In any event, they
(the US authorities) acquiesced. The subject
of one of our meetings had to do with where
the exchange would take place. I suggested
a body of water in Berlin that straddles the
Wall and making the transfer from boat to
boat but they finally settled on Glienicker
Bridge. We were very dubious about what we
might get back, that we would pass Abel over
and get back someone who looked like Powers
but would not be Powers, so we had a security
officer, who was an assignee in the U-2
project in Turkey at the time Powers was there
and knew him well. The security officer,
Joseph E. Murphy, was actually on the bridge
when the exchange took place and before we
quite let Abel loose, the security officer
was able to say, "This is Gary Powers." 103/
Once the exchange was made, events moved very
rapidly. Powers was evacuated by military aircraft
directly to the
he was moved
United States. During the next two weeks
(W(1)
while undergoing(b)(3)
formal debriefing. This portion of the Powers case
- 96 -
SE ET
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
�5=\k"--E
Mit
was largely an Office of Security operation* with Paul
Gaynor and his men successful in thwarting the hordes
of reporters by a series of moves and countermoves, in-
cluding auto chases on snowy roads and diversion of
owl aircraft from original destination having all the
trappings of a television serial. 104/** There was,
IMP
IMO
* Quoting DeFelice in the Oral History, the distribu-
tion of effort in the Powers case went something like
this:
(W(1)
Unlike the Downey, and Fecteau cases, (b)(3)
responsibility for the various aspects of the
Powers case was divided.... Powers never came
in the purview of the ad hoc committee. His
case was so serious in terms of the national
scene and the international complications were
such as to require high-level attention. We
in Personnel had the responsibility for the
financial arrangements and for responding to
the various kinds of problems that Barbara
Powers herself created. The Office of Secu-
rity had the responsibility for obtaining in-
formation on what Mrs. Powers was doing. The
operational aspects and eventually all the work
that was associated with the Powers-Abel ex-
change was divided between the project itself
and the Office of the General Counsel. In a
meeting held in Jack Maury's office -- Jack
was then Chief of the Soviet Bloc Division --
it was agreed that Larry Houston, the General
Counsel, would be the focal point because of his
ready access to the Director and because this
case, unlike some of the others, continued to
carry high international implications. Houston
and Mike Miskovsky of OGC carried the principal
effort on the Powers-Abel exchange. Paul Gaynor,
of OS handled Powers'
return to the US, his relocation to
and the Mrs. Powers problem. 105/
** Gaynor's full statement on this aspect of the Powers
case is contained in Appendix J Tape Transcripts.
- 97 -
SE ET
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
brA.T...c,
in time, an administrative meeting arranged with Powers
at which DeFelice gave an account of his stewardship as
follows:
Eventually when Powers was released, I met
with him to discuss our handling of his pay
and allowance file, I showed him all of the
monies he had accrued and all the monies that
had been disbursed. I remember Powers saying
to me that sitting where I was the allotment
of $500 to his wife was a fair one. He did
comment, however, that he wished it had been
significantly less. The records show, of
course, that Mrs. Powers didj
/Our
judgment not to give her all of Powers' money
was vindicated. 106/
The gross amount due Powers was $52,500 plus
low
interest minus the $10,500 allotment total which had
been paid Mrs. Barbara Powers and minus other disburse-
ments -- car payments and the like -- which offset the
interest. Powers claimed in his book that he was left,
after taxes, with about $22,000. 107/
On 12 July 1962, five months after his release,
Powers signed a Statement of Financial Accounting in
which he attested:
Nei
Please accept this memorandum as my acceptance
of and satisfaction with the accounting which has
been rendered for the period of my imprisonment --
a period which, under Agency regulations, was under
the jurisdiction of the Director of Personnel. 108/
It had been anticipated, by Personnel at least,
that the Powers-Abel exchange and the world-wide publicity
- 98 -
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
that it received would cause bitterness and demoraliza-
tion among the families of the other CIA prisoners. 109/
Such was not the case and a good deal of the credit for
their acceptance of the Powers release was undoubtedly
due to the excellent rapport that had been built up
over the years by the Personnel and Security represen-
..., tatives.
A. deserved postscript to the Powers case came in
March 1964 at a dinner of the Lockheed management club,
at which Allen Dulles was the principal speaker. Powers
was in the audience and Dulles preceded his prepared
speech with an impromptu statement:
I want to say, too, as I start, that I am
gratified to be here for another reason, be-
cause I would like to say to all of you as I
have said from time to time when the oppor-
tunity presented itself, that I think one of
your number -- Francis Gary Powers -- deserves
well of his country. He performed his duty in
a very dangerous mission and he performed it
well, and I think I know more about that than
some of his detractors and critics know, and I
am glad to say that to him tonight. 110/
15 September 1960, Three More MIAs -- The Castro Captives
Quietly, amidst the hullabaloo of the Powers case,
three CIA staff employees were apprehended by the Castro
G-2 on 15 September 1960. �They had been assigned to an
audio surveillance project
and sent to Havana on temporary duty, supposedly of
- 99 -
Approved for for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
ten-days duration. David L. Christ, GS-15, chief, Audio
Support Branch, TSD; Thornton J. Anderson, GS-14, chief,
Section III, Engineering Branch, TSD; and Walter E.
Szuminski, GS-9, audio support specialist,
were placed in a
Missing in Action status on 3 October 1960. 111/ On
17 December 1960 a Cuban military court completed the
trial of the three men on charges of "crimes against
the stability of the state," specifically the setting of
wire taps in the New China News Agency offices in Havana,
supposedly to learn about a trade treaty and the estab-
lishment of diplomatic relations between Havana and
Peking. 112/
- 100 -
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
The pattern of stress and suffering placed on wives
and parents by the detention of their men was repeated
in these cases, although the period of detention
vald
(b)(1)
(b)(3)
mod
Until diplomatic relations were broken off on
wed
3 January 1961, overt contact with the prisoners was
- 101 -
-SkGREIL-
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
W4reic-1
(b)(1)
(b)(3)
maintained by the US Consular Officer, Hugh D. Kessler,
in Havana. 114/ After that, release efforts and com-
munication with the prisoners were carried on
through the efforts of the CI Staff/DDP,
with John Mertz of that staff as the focal point.
the security officer assigned
as Technical Services
handled the very complex relation-
Division (TSD
ships with the families, starting with the briefing of
the wives on the actual status and duties of their hus-
bands, which took place immediately after the 15 Septem-
ber 1960 capture. In a June 1973 conversation on the
stated:
case,'
His initial contact with the cases was the
day after the arrest (15 September 1960) when
Cornelius Roosevelt, then Chief, TSD, called
and asked him to inform the families
then living in the Washington area about the
arrests.
ad retired earlier in 1973 and was privately
employed when interviewed. He did not want to be taped.
Interviewswere written up in a Memorandum of Conversation,
and it is included in Appendix J Tape Transcripts. The
excerpts throughout this section are from the Memoran-
dum of Conversation.
- 102 -
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
�..4174e1.--L-F-1- �
Throughout the period of captivity, which lasted
until April 1963
�Drepared the high level officials by
means of briefing papers and personal
- 103 -
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
The very real danger that Castro might turn the men
over to the Soviet or Chinese authorities was the ultimate
argument
- 104 -
Ste.,RET
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
� 105 �
SE ET
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
-b-71=1-
(b)(3)
In contrast to the Downey-Fecteau cases, the Di-
rector of Personnel and his representative, Ben DeFelice,
played a minor role in the TSD detentions. D/Pers was,
of course, the responsible office in placing the men in
MIA status, which continued their pay and allowances, and
for administering their financial affairs. DeFelice re-
called that:
(b)(1)
(b)(3)
(b)(3)
- 106 -
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
These administrative occurrences were peripheral
to the courage and spirit shown by the men and by their
families during the three-year ordeal and did not detract
from the care and concern shown by the Agency for their
- 107 -
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
INN
ftel
welfare.
Their accounts were kept in current condition so
that prompt accounting could be made to the men upon
their return, enabling them to resume the conduct of
their own affairs without delay. Anderson, a captain
in the Marine CorpsReserve, was very worried about his
ready reserve standing. When
(b)(3)
of the (b)(3)
Agency's Military Personnel Division, presented the
problem to the Chief of Staff of the Marine Corps, Lt.
General Wallace M. Greene saw to it that Anderson's
active status was preserved intact throughout the
period of his captivity.** 123/
* See p. 104.
** "1 am happy to report," said General Greene, "that it
has been possible to take all the actions that you have
recommended (retroactive award of retirement credits,
preservation of reserve status, etc.)." As of this
writing (1973) Anderson is a colonel in the Marine Corps
Reserve.
- 108 -
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
The release efforts undertaken at high levels in
the US Government with James Donovan serving as inter-
mediary began to take effect in December 1962 when the
first group of Bay of Pigs prisoners was released in
return for what Castro called "indemnification" and
what the US Government called "ransom."* These efforts
were later successful in "springing" the CIA men.
22 April 1963 was the happy day when the contingency
plan for their evacuation was put into effect. The men
were flown by military aircraft
families for two weeks.
and then released to their
(b)(1)
(b)(3)
the men were returned to full
duty status, Anderson and Szuminski on 2 September 1963
and Christ on 9 September 1963.
- 109 -
SE ET
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
� 110 �
SE4ET
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
bli,04(.12,
The FE Cases in the 1960's
� 111 �
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
OrNI%..c. I
(b)(1)
(b)(3)
� 112 �
S1cRET
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
J24 r.JL
� 113 �
S RET
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
(b)(1
(b)(3
� 114 �
SE&ET
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
1
(b)(1)
(b)(3)
- 115 -
SERET
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
NMI
NMI
Mel
NNW
Release Efforts (Downey, Fecteau
in the 1960's
DeFelice, who had assumed the chairmanship about a year
after the ad hoc committee was turned over to the Di-
rector of Personnel in September 1958, was faced with a
difficult situation in trying to generate Agency release
efforts:
Our committee met infrequently in early part
of the 1960's. Eventually through sheer
frustration, I visited the Chief, FE, then
Bill Nelson, and requested that he commit FE
fully to efforts to secure the release of our
prisoners, [so that] we could satisfy our own
conscience that we were meeting and talking and
doing the best we could about our prisoner
cases. The visit had its pay off. Soon there-
after our committee became very active and
started to work very diligently on efforts to
secure the release of the men. I must add,
however, that our work was somewhat hollow
because we did not believe that there was
anything we could conceive of that would ac-
tually result in their release. 136/
At least one channel was available. On the diplo-
matic front, the two countries were still in contact
through means of the ambassadorial-level-talks in
Warsaw. For 15 years the prisoner issue had been
(b)(1)
(b)(3)
(b)(1)
(b)(3)
- 116 -
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
1
a prominent and quickly-passed-over agenda item
- 117 -
SENET
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
bL 1
111111N
ONE
*ON
awl
MIN
The appointment of a new DCI, John McCone, caused
some stirrings at high levels in anticipation of his
taking office on 29 November 1961. Attention was called
to the prisoners as can be seen in the following diary
note of L. K. White.*
Larry Houston buzzed to say that in connection
with Mr. McCone's reception he thought that
Mr. McCone might be briefed on the number of
people in captivity and what is being done
about their release. He also suggested that
we might set up a permanent committee to meet
periodically to see whether anything could be
done about their release. We are inclined to
do quite a lot on the Powers case, the Pope**
case, and others and to more or less resign
ourselves to the unhappy fact that people
like Downey and Fecteau will never be re-
leased. I told him that I thought his point
was well taken and that it would be good to
come forth with such a recommendation. 138/
The indefatigable Mrs. Downey was quick to request
an interview with the neW Director and their 4 March 1962
meeting was preceded by the usual flurry of staff activity
Col. White was Deputy Director for Support in 1961.
** Allen L. Pope, Civil Air Transport pilot on loan to
Air America, was shot down while attacking Indonesian
shipping in May 1958.
- 118 -
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
DEAN-Li 1
in the organization 139/ and accompanied by a revival
of interest in the case.
� 119 �
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
Spirits had recovered enough by April 1962 to make
it a highwater month for the sixties, the efforts to
free the prisoners
� 120 �
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
NNW
Ale
Ewa
rod
mai
Also in April of 1962 the 1959 petition* ostensibly
originated by the British attorney, G. E. S. Stevenson,
in Hong Kong was revived in the form of a supplemental
petition 143/ for the release of John Downey.
Unfortu-
nately, the supplemental petition fared no better than
the original.
* See p. 56, above.
smi
- 121 -
SE ET
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
biLLAI�.12,1.
� 122 �
SECRET
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
b1iIJS 1
The flurry of activity and the bright hopes for
release of the prisoners soon faded as it became evident
that the new and vigorous Kennedy Administration would
accomplish no more than previous administrations vis-a-
- vis China. Throughout the 1960's the two nations re-
mained mutually distrustful, and the prisoner issue was
one stumbling block to any easing of the tension as
evidenced in the Warsaw talks.
(b)(1)
(b)(3)
imu
- 123 -
SE ET
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
at.A...N.
� 124 �
Approved for for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
1.,��
In all the litany of sorrow and suffering endured
by the women in their lives
(b)(1)
(b)(3)
the indomitable will and heroic voyages of the widowed
Mrs. Mary Downey,* the quiet pride and resignation of the
Fecteaus, in this case both father and mother
In June 1968 the State Department, in a letter to
the Chinese Charge in Warsaw, inquired officially about
the survival of airmen shot down in China
* DeFelice reported before the 1960 visit, "Tearfully she
(Mrs. Downey) said that the trip would be well worth it if
for just a short while she brought some hope and cheerful-
ness to her son. Her motive in going is simply to re-
lieve Jack's prison life for those few hours that she might
spend with him." 150/
- 125 -
SE ET
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
b_LL.1.11 J.
in Chinese custody, i.e., Bishop Walsh, of Maryknoll, John
Downey, and Richard Fecteau be released and allowed to
return home.
(b)(1)
(b)(3)
- 126 -
Approved for for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
Or.;CS1�r1
� 127 �
Approved for for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
.1.
� 128 �
skis;tt.r7
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
aL,1/4xi�..12, 1
� 129 �
SE ET
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
The Missing Persons Act of 1942, as amended --
and Agency experience contributed to the amending pro-
cess 156/ -- formed the legal base for the actions
taken by the five different Directors of Personnel*
who served as Government administrators for the pris-
oners' affairs.
- 130 -
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
sei
� 131 �
SEET
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
0JCLIN.12) .L.
� 132 �
SE ET
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
C001.1.1.000 Cl./Z1./ZZOZ :aseaia JOI pancuddV
�134948-
- EET �
T r;TNT ra-C
COO [ [ [COO E [iZ 1./ZZOZ :aseaia JOI pancuddV
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
� 134 -
SftET
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
3m, i
� 135 �
SE ET
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
1
� 136 �
SEbUT
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
011 1
� 137 �
SECT
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
u_LUsikr, 1
� 138 �
SEbRZT
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
L.JJ-,�,3\1�._U
� 139 �
Approved for for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
011 N1X_IL .1
� 140 �
SIQRET
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
0 �1-=-1-
- 141 �
SE ET
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
J.11Sl.-71S...Q
- 142 -
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
(b
(b
- 143 -
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
� 144 -
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
%
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
It.U. 1
� 145 �
-Ghe,..RE-fr
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
(b)(1)
(b)(3)
� 146 �
SECT
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
-arc....i.m.c, 1
(b)(1)
(b)(3)
- 147 -
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
o.u,l\ltr,
� 148 �
SEMET
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
.IL NI-IL 1.
� 149 �
&e.kET
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
Changed Diplomatic Climate of the 1970's
For whatever reasons -- strained relations between
Communist China and the USSR, United States desire to
wind down the Vietnam war, or whatever -- there was a
marked change in relationships between the United States
and Communist China in the early 1970's. The Warsaw
talks were resumed on 20 January 1970 after a two-year
lapse and, although the Cambodian invasion of May 1970
caused their cancellation, both public and secret moves
were taken to ease the tension.* In April 1971 came
the now famous table tennis invitation to the United
States, and in that same year a selected number of US
journalists were admitted. The United States, for its
part, lifted travel and trade restrictions. From 9 to
11 July 1971, Dr. Henry Kissinger made his secret visit
* The Warsaw talks, which followed the Geneva talks, are
described by veteran Foreign Service Officer Kenneth T.
Young in his book, Negotiating with the Chinese (New York
1968) as the longest established permanent floating diplo-
matic game in modern history. Young also referred to them
as a meeting of men, not minds. PRC Amb. Wang Ping-nan
had the longest tenure, serving for nine years and 120
meetings. He was succeeded by Amb. Wang.Juo-chuan. Four
Americans served: U. Alexis Johnson from 1955-57, 73
meetings; Jacob Beam 1958-61, 33 meetings; John Moors
Cabot 1961-65, 21 meetings; former Postmaster General John
Gronouski 1965 tntil suspension of the talks in 1968.
- 150 -
SECRT
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
0 1
to Peking as a Presidential emissary for talks with
Chou En-lai. On 25 October 1971, the People's Repub-
lic of China (PRC) was seated in the United Nations,
taking over Nationalist China's seats in both the
General Assembly and the Security Council. In February
1972 President Nixon made his historic "Journey for
Peace" which was followed in September by the PRC's
purchase of 10 Boeing 707's for $150 million and the
purchase of $50 million worth of American grain. The
breach, while still wide, had commenced to heal at the
edges.
The Fecteau Case in the 1970's: His Release on 13 December
1971 and His Debriefing
It seemed that these large events would have a
direct effect on the Fecteau-Downey cases and by 1971
hopes were raised, evacuation plans were dusted off, and
staff papers prepared to insure that the plight of the
CIA men was well understood at high levels.
- 151 -
SECRET
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
(b)(1)
(b)(3)
On 30 November 1971, Fecteau was
promoted to GS-14, following a recommendation by the
(b)(1)
(b)(3)
- 152 -
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
Director of Personnel. 192/ Then on 10 December 1971,
DeFelice set out on a routine visit to the Fecteau
parents with results that were described by him in a
September 1973 interview for the Oral History:
* This distinction had an important (footnote continued
on following page)
- 153 -
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
(b)(3)
- 154 -
SE ET
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
�
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
� 155 �
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
� 156 �
SENkET
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
(b)(1)
(b)(3)
(b)(3)
- 157 -
SECRET
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
� 158 �
Approved for for Release: 2022/.12/13 C03111003
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
� 159 �
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
� 160 �
SECRET
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
� 161 �
S ET
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
0.11�TIL2e 1
Assignment to the Mission: Dick Fecteau EOD'd
with the A enc November 1951.
From September until the end of Oc-
tober he was in Washington, awaiting
- 162 -
SEtET
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
1
assignment, doing clerical work for
logistics and supply.
Dick left the United States on [sic]
end of October and arrived at
28 October 1952. Here he spent
the
Japan,
ree weeks
On the
evening of 22 November,/
told Dick that he was to go to Seoul, Korea,
the next morning. There he would observe
two personnel from CAT who would be train-
ing in the operation of a device installed
in a C-47 for picking up personnel from the
ground. On 23 November he left/
/with two CAT employees and went
to Seoul.... On Monday the 24th, Tuesday the
25th, and Wednesday the 26th he flew as an
observer on practice pick-ups which were
(WO)
conducted on the river bank at Seoul.* On
Wednesday, (1D)(3
and John Downey, accompanied by two CAT pilots,
Norm Swartz and Bob Snoddy, arrived in Seoul from
About three hours later Jack Downey
told Fecteau that the two of them would take
the place of the two CAT employees while the
two CAT pilots would replace the Air Force
pilots as planned. On the 27th Jack Downey
and Dick Fecteau did spend the day practicing
with the two CAT pilots who performed the
mission extremely well. The mission began
about 2200 on Saturday night the 29th of
November. 204/
Shoot-down:
they took off at about 2200 And the trip
to the drop zone area was completely uneventful.
* These runs were flown by USAF pilots.
- 163 -
SE&ET
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
0.1.!,U\LC.IL
There was almost no talking between Downey
and Fecteau. Fecteau broke out his survival
kit and looked through it and found a 32
caliber pistol with no ammunition. Jack
and Dick kidded each other a little about
that and that was about the only conversation
they had.
They arrived at the DZ about 2400. They re-
ceived the proper flashlight signal and made
a pass dropping the bundle. Snow could be
seen on the ground and some trees and a
clearing but they were flying at a fairly
good altitude and nothing else could be
seen.... The plane then flew away for about
30 minutes to give the men on the ground time
to set up the pickup apparatus. At the end
of this time the plane returned and got an-
other flashlight signal from the ground in-
dicating that preparations had been made for
the pickup. The aircraft then made one low
"dry run" pass over the pickup apparatus.
Dick was kneeling in the door and could see
a man sitting on the ground in the pickup
harness plus a couple of men on each side of
the poles. He saw perhaps four or five men
in all. They then came for their final run.
Dick was kneeling in the door with his head
out and just as they came up to the poles
and at the point where the pilot was to pull
up sharply, Dick saw a white sheet pulled away
displaying a 50 caliber AA Machine Gun. This
gun and one on the other side immediately
opened up firing directly at the pilots. At
the same time he could see a great number of
men spring up perhaps 50 yards in back of the
gun in the woods.
The plane started up sharply, climbing perhaps
150 feet. As it climbed the machine guns swung,
the bullets hitting into the cockpit and then
the forward section of the cargo area, and then
swung again, now hitting the wings. Tracers
ricocheted around the inside of the cargo area
and a great deal of fluid from cut hydraulic
lines was spraying over Downey and Fecteau.
- 164 -
Approved for for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
At about 150 feet, as the tracers hit the wings,
the plane caught fire. The engines stopped and
the aircraft started down. It went perhaps 150
yards and hit fairly flat with both wings burn-
ing very severely. As they came down pieces
of the wings flew past the door. There was a
good belly landing with a large jolt, a bounce,
and then the plane hit a second time and came
to a very abrupt stop. 205/
Capture: Dick had been tied by a rope [actually
buckled into a safety harness] to a rib on the
opposite side of the door of the aircraft. He
was thrown sharply forward and the rope [har-
ness] broke, absorbing a great deal of his for-
ward impact with the bulkhead. He was stunned
but conscious. Jack Downey had slid the length
of the floor and hit into a pile of sleeping
bags. He too was stunned but conscious. Both
Jack and Dick were saved from injury to a certain
degree by the many layers of heavy cold weather
flight gear that they were wearing.
There was a moment of silence as Dick became
aware of a great deal of smoke and a lot of debris
piled on top of him he spotted light coming in
the door and stood to move toward it but fell.
He stood and fell again and then crawled toward
the light. He got outside and walked along the
outside of the aircraft to look into the pilot's
compartment. The windows, however, were too
high for him to see. He walked back to the door
just as Downey staggered out. He remembers at
this point that they both made somb very despond-
ent comments to the effect that they were in a
hell of a mess. They both were mouthing rather
despairing curses.
At the same time they could hear the Chinese
whooping and hollering. Downey's safety rope
[harness] was still tied [fastened] and Dick
[entered the aircraft and] unhooked him. Downey
shouted to the pilots repeatedly while standing
in the open door. He repeated their first names
over and over again and there was never any
answer.... The Chinese then started firing some
shots and both Jack and Dick moved away from
- 165 -
-SECRET
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
oriols,..Ci 1
the plane. They went about 30 yards when
the Chinese surrounded them and they were
immediately captured. [After some rough
handling by their captors they were taken
to a small village.] They were confronted
at this point by an obviously senior in-
dividual wearing a leather jacket who said
in English, "Who is Jack Downey?" 206/
In addition to providing details of the abortive
STAROMk mission
the Fecteau debriefing clearly reveals the strength of
character that made possible his survival both mental
and physical.
** Portions of Fecteau's experiences as narrated in the
debriefing had a strong resemblance to those described
by Solzhenitsyn in A,Day in The Life of Ivan Deniso-
vitch. The Chinese Communists were less physical and
more subtle. A book published in 1973, Prisoner of Mao,
by Bao Ruo-Want (Jean Pasqualini), a French national who
was a prisoner in Communist China from 1957 to 1964,
confirms and expands on Fecteau's account of life in a
Chinese prison.
- 166 -
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
� 167 �
SEORET
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
The Downey Case in the 1970's: His Release on 12 March
1973 and His Debriefila �
At the time of Dick Fecteau's release on 12 De-
cember 1971, the Chinese Communists announced that John
Downey's sentence had been reduced from life imprison-
ment to five years from that date.
- 168 -
SET
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
** Dr. Henry Kissinger was then National Security Advisor
to the President and architect of the detente with Peking
and Moscow. He is now (Oct. 1973) Secretary of State.
- 169 -
IZT
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
OrA_ANI.:* J.
� 170 �
SEC T
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
During 1972, the visit of President Nixon
to Peking also served to revive hopes that had been
dashed so often in the course of 20 years
Dr.
Jerome Cohen, Jack's Yale classmate, Harvard Law School
professor and acknowledged authority on the Chinese Com-
munist Criminal Law, appeared before the Fullbright (Sen-
ate Foreign Relations) Committee in June 1971, testifying
at some length on his thesis that it was the US Govern-
ment that was �at fault, and that if our Government would
acknowledge (footnote continued on following page)
� 171 �
Approved for for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
O.Lik 14.r,1
A break came on 1 February 1973, possibly as a
slip, more likely as a deliberate acknowledgment,* at
a Presidential news conference approximately one year
after the celebrated "Journey for Peace." It was re-
ported by the UPI as follows:
President Nixon Wednesday publicly identified
the only civilian American known to be in a
Chinese prison as an agent of the Central
Intelligence Agency....
During questioning at a news conference,
Nixon said the Downey case "Involves a CIA
agent."...
"We have no assurance that any change of
action, other than the commutation of sen-
tence, will take place," Nixon said, but
- 172 -
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
�
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
0.12,NIN-12. 1
At a later press conference on 22 February 1973,
the White House spokesman announced that Flynn and Smith,*'
two US military flyers imprisoned in China, would be
released within two weeks and the John Downey case re-
viewed in the second half of 1973.
Amidst all the diplomatic maneuvering and inter-
national power politics, it was in the end Jack's long-
suffering mother, Mary Downey, who accomplished her son's
release but in a tragic way. On Wednesday 7 March 1973,
Mrs. Downey suffered a serious stroke
Son
William was immediately in touch with the Agency and the
subsequent events were described by Ben DeFelice in the
6 September interview:
(b)(1)
(b)(3)
* LCDR Robert J. Flynn (USN), shot down on 21 August 1967,
and Major Phillip Smith (USAF), shot down. in September 1965,
both of whom had been imprisoned/
(b)(1)
(b)(3,)
� 173 �
(b)(1)
(b)(3)
(b)(6)
SEetgET
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 b03111003
� 174 �
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
� 175 �
SECRET
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
br, .u. I
- 176 -
SES,RET
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
� 177 �
SA5RET
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003
Approved for Release: 2022/12/13 C03111003