224. Telegram From the Department of State to the Embassy in Chile1
235980. Subject: Letelier/Moffitt Assassination: Further Cooperation Between USG and GOC on Investigation.
1. Under provisions of Silbert/Montero agreement of April 7, 19782 we made commitment to convey information obtained through Letelier investigation to GOC to be used by its investigators for possible prosecutions. By diplomatic note dated August 2, 1978,3 Chilean Embassy requested information so far obtained in case, in accord with April 7 agreement.
2. Extradition package to be presented to GOC on September 20 contains much of the information requested, and can be considered a form of response to the GOC request and compliance with our commitment to provide information. However, Justice and State recognize that further steps should be taken both to fulfill our commitment and to obtain ancillary benefits.
3. It is proposed at same time extradition papers are submitted to invite Generals Orozco and Mena to meet with Justice team (Propper, Barcella, Cornick and Scherrer) to review information contained in extradition package and certain other material not included in the package. This would serve three ends: A) would fulfill our commitment and respond to specific request contained in GOC note of August 2; B) would maintain lines of communication between Orozco/Mena and prosecutors/investigators on our side; C) would help to maintain influence with key officials on Chilean side whose role may be vital both in GOC decision to extradite and execution of that decision if made.
4. Arrangements for such consultations—always assuming that Orozco/Mena desire them—could proceed in alternative paths. Invitations to come secretly or to meet in a third country (Propper and Uarcella do not consider it feasible to visit Chile given likely publicity and Chilean reaction) could be extended informally by Embassy or through FBI channels to Orozco/Mena, thus preserving secrecy of their movements and activities which would probably be their preference. We recognize however that secrecy is unlikely to be preserved for long [Page 664] and Chilean Supreme Court might react negatively to what it could see as infringement on its jurisdiction over the extradition case. Elements both for and against the Pinochet regime might attempt to exploit such contacts by charging that a secret deal was being worked out, by passing the judicial authorities in spite of both USG and GOC public and repeated assurances that case is exclusively in judicial channels.
5. Alternatively, we could arm our Attorney Etcheberry with a letter, a draft of which is included below, to take to the appropriate representative of the Supreme Court on or about the time of presentation of the extradition package. The letter makes clear to the court our intentions, makes an appropriate bow to its authority, provides opportunity for Court to object if it so desires, and forestalls charges of secret deals. Substance of letter or letter itself could be made formally or informally public if that should be believed useful. If the court had no objections, private arrangements could proceed to consult with appropriate GOC officials, with the details of participation and site restricted if the Chilean officials prefer.
Following is proposed text of letter which could be provided to Etcheberry:
Begin quote:
Mr. Alfred Etcheberry, Esquire
c/o United States Embassy
Santiago, Chile
Dear Mr. Etcheberry:
In April of 1978, the United States and Chile each agreed to cooperate with the other with respect to the investigation into the murders of Orlando Letelier and Ronni Moffitt. As you are aware, we have now submitted our formal request for the extradition of Juan Manuel Contreras Sepulveda, Pedro Espinoza Bravo and Armando Fernandez Larios to the Supreme Court of Chile. Having done this, the United States Department of Justice would now like to brief appropriate officials of the Government of Chile on the results of our investigation. We want to do this because of our agreement and, additionally, we hope it will assist the Government of Chile in its own internal investigation.
In order to insure that we do not impinge on any of the Supreme Court’s prerogatives, we would like to bring our proposal to the court to insure that the court has no problem with it. If it does not, we will make plans to meet with appropriate officials of the government. We want to reiterate, however, that we are doing that in the spirit of mutual cooperation and to assist the government’s investigation; it is not in any way meant to detract from our effort to extradite the above-named persons.
Sincerely,
[Page 665]Earl J. Silbert
United States Attorney
Eugene M. Propper
Assistant United States Attorney
E. Lawrence Barcella, Jr.
Assistant United States Attorney
End quote
7. Action requested: Ambassador is requested to consult with Etcheberry and to provide comments and recommendations on this proposal.
- Source: National Archives, RG 59, Central Foreign Policy File, D780378-0450. Secret; Immediate; Stadis; Exdis. Drafted by Steven; cleared in S/S-O and in substance by Propper and Willis; approved by McNeil.↩
- A reference to the agreement under which Chile agreed to expel Townley to the United States. See Document 212.↩
- Not found.↩