The 2025 release of CIA document 206-10001-10010 reveals a deeper problem inside the early post-assassination investigation: multiple U.S. intelligence agencies received versions of Lee Harvey Oswald’s Soviet-era behavioral profile - and they didn’t match.
Two summaries, reportedly copied from the same source material, contain contradictory language and divergent security assessments. One warned of risk.
The other called him a non-threat. Both were filed within a week of each other.
🗂️ One Man Two Threat Levels
The memo describes a cross-check conducted in December 1963 between CIA’s Soviet Division and the U.S. Navy’s Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI), which had tracked Oswald since his defection in 1959.
“CIA behavioral file dated March 1962 refers to [Oswald] as a ‘disciplined ideologue with potential for mobilization under hostile direction.’”
“ONI summary from same month refers to [Oswald] as ‘psychologically unsteady, politically erratic, lacks group discipline or cohesion.’”
How could two agencies reading the same trip report from the U.S. Embassy in Moscow come to opposite conclusions?
🕵️♂️ Copying Error - Or Sanitization?
The memo points to inconsistent phrasing in the reports. While both summaries claim to be based on a debrief sent by the Moscow embassy, the original cable couldn’t be located in either file.
One analyst writes:
“Suspect one report was reconstructed post facto, possibly from memory or oral relay. If so, final copy reflects editorialized conclusions.”
Another possibility? One version was deliberately cleaned up.
The more lenient version was circulated to the Warren Commission staff in early 1964.
The harsher one wasn’t shared until internal CIA historians rediscovered it in 1976.
🧾 The Missing Source File
The memo includes this line, which might be the most telling:
“Original 3/62 Moscow Embassy debrief not in cable or microfilm archive. Query whether record was withdrawn for field review.”
There’s no proof it was destroyed.
But if two agencies can’t even agree on what a document said - and the original is missing - how can we trust the conclusions that shaped the investigation?
🧩 The Assessment That Fit The Narrative Was The One They Used
The more lenient ONI version was handed to Congressional investigators.
It downplayed Oswald’s time in Russia, his discipline, and his potential risk.
But the CIA version - the one that labeled him “mobilization-ready” - was not submitted with that batch.
“No evidence suggests intentional suppression,” the memo adds.
But:
📌 The harsher version was not cataloged
📌 The timeline makes it suspicious
📌 And no one can explain where the original memo went
🧨 They Lost The One Document That Would Have Settled It
And in its place?
Two profiles.
Two narratives.
Only one of them made it into the record.