LETTER TO MITCHELL ROGOVIN FROM DAVID RUDOVSKY RE THE OLSON FAMILY, AND THEIR COUNCEL, ARE NOT SATISFIED THAT THE DOCUMENTS PROVIDED ADEQUATELY DECRIBED OR EXPLAIN THE DEATH OF FRANK OLSON

• Document Type: SPECIALCOLLECTION
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): 00313385
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: U
• Document Page Count: 4
• Document Creation Date: January 23, 2025
• Document Release Date: February 18, 2000
• Publication Date: August 8, 1975

142.7 vim...Nur
� PHI LAO r-rLPH IA, PCNNSYLVANtA 1 02
D;W1 0 KAI RYS
OAVO Fill 00VSKY
HOLLY MAG U !GAN
JAYMA AS000. LEcm.. WoRxER
Mitchell Rogovin
Special Counsel to the Director
Central Intelligence Agency
Washington, D.C. 20505.
Dear Mitch:
.( 1 5 t...0 3.a
8 'August 1973 �
.1
11
.4104040
In our phone conversation . yesterday, I set out our thoughts
after examining the documents provided to us by-the CIA.
We have here put some of those thoughts in written form.
The Olson family ancl.we, as their counsel, are not satisfied
that the documents provided adeauitely describe or 'explain
the death of Frank Olson or constitute the entire CIA file
.on this matter. Obvious area of vital concern are not even
touched upon; .inconsistencies abound; secrecy and ambiguity
: are.rampant, while attempts to arrive at the truth, and the
-persons responsible for this atrocity,seem' only incidental. .
The following are some-of the Major areas where we find tfie
�
documents wholly inadequate:
-1: There is no complete discussion of whether or not
�the application of LSD Was involuntary_ Usually; it is referred
to'as "unwitting," and that is obviously the consistent con�
clusion reached. However, there are vague references to a �
meeting where "experts" agreed in principle to an experiment
involving unwitting application.. Since Frank Olson had no
expertise concerning LSD or similar drugs, presumably he.was
not at that meeting, and there is nothing in the documents
that indicates otherwise. .(If the Rockefeller Commission had
only the documents and information provided to us, it clearly
fabricated the statement, at page 227 of its Report, that the
"subject had participated in discussions where the testing
of such substances on unsuspecting subjects was agreed to in
principle.") But how could the investigators (in. 1953 and
in
0 0 1 2 5 8
� ApptOVOd iOT ReleaSe .
Date __�j
CU 93f
b(1) b(3)
thereafter) and the Director fail to .even inquire about which
"experts" were at that meeting. and, specifically, whether
Dr. Olson was there? How could it have been seen as 'a Scje
.tificlly valuable test of reactions to an unwitting applica-
tion i.f the subjects knew and agreed to it in advance? Whe',-.e
: are interviews with the other seven subjects of the "experi-
ment" concerning, at least, whether they knew. in advance or
. agreed "in principle"? In this regard, Vincent Ruwet, who was
drugged at the same time Frank Olson was, has told us.that his
participation was wholly unwitting, involving no agreement
."in principle" or in any other way. Yet, his statement .does
....not even discuss the issue, and it does not appear that he or
anyone else was asked.to discuss it.
. �
2. There is nothing that describes or explains this
-"experiment." It is consistently referred to as "the experim,.nt,
but no details are-discussed. Was there no written proposal
br memo setting' out the reasons for this experiment and. the
knowledge to be gained? Who proposed it? Did Dr. Harold .
Abramson participate from the star? How and by whom were
the subjects chosen? How and by whom was the dosage determined?
If.iet was an experiment, why was there no observation of: the .
subjects and their mental and physical states? Why were the-re
no medical personnel as pbservors and 'for treatment in case.
of adverse effects? If knowledge was to be gained, why were
the subjects sent home so soon, which meant they'wbUld not.
be .observed? If one of the purposes was to see the effect .
on the Meetings held after the drug was, applied, where are
the reports on these meetings? Where are the results of the
"experiment," the feedback, which is the goal of any experi-
ment?
3. There is no independent psychiatra4)1 W6A on
Frank Olson_ Dr. Harold Abramson, who is not a psychiatrist,
gave three inconsistent statements. The final statement was
apparently dictated to Abramson by Robert Lashbrook. How
could the investigators and the Director fail to obtain inde-
pendent psychiatric and medical opinions and evaluations?
�
4. It is not completely clear that the death of
Frank Olson was an accidental suicide. We do not mean by this
statement to suggest that we believe he was intentionally
'We do not know exactly what happened, but in light
of what we do know, about this matter and other CIA activities,
we are not prepared to.dismiss this possibility.
The documents indicate. that the overriding concern of CIA Per
sonnel throughout this matter was secrecy and security, not
the health or well-being of Frank Olson. We know. that Dr.
Olson had thought of resigning before this experiment and had
told at least one person at Dietrich about the possibility of
*his resigning. Once he was drugged, he was delusional and
out of. control, even throwing away his wallet and secret
identification papers l He did not trust the CIA or Army per-
sonnel charged with his care and perceived a plot against him
(understandably, as a usual reaction to LSD, and as a.reality-_
they had plotted against him).
*Did these CIA personnel perceive Frank Olson as a security risk? �
This is not discussed. But why was he sent to Dr. Abramson,
a CIA drug experimeter who had "clearance," rather than to a
qualified.psychiatrist for.treatment? Dr. Abramson's statements
seem .to indicate that his function was to evaluate, not treat,
.Dr.. Olson, and he told us explicitly that he was "not treating"'
�Ftank on What was he doing?: Why did he wait so long to ..;
�
instituticnaliZe
(o.r' get' any ieatMent)
did he allow Dr. Olson to be hous-edon the. tenth floor of a�
hotel (and visit him there) and fail to provide any medical or
: psychiatric personnel even after his own notes indicate that
heshould have perceived the possibility of suicide? 'Why: didn't
Ikuwet,' Sr. Olson's friend, accompany.him back to New .York
inst'ead"of'justqa'shbro6X? Whir-were' La.shbrook and-Abramson
meeting together and dictating Abramsonis.report?:: Is it not .
clear that at least someone was suspicious of them from the fact
that they were surveilled while doing this?
We realize that some documents may have been destroyed by
Sidney Gottlieb in 173 or may be otherwise unavailable.
However, our discovery of two quite important documents pro--
vided to the Justice Department that were not provided to
us (which is discussed in our letter. of July 29, 1975), leads.
us to believe that the CIA may have additional materials
and information. Furthermore, the documents provided indicate
that there were several separate files, some of which would not
seem to be available to Sidney Gottlieb. The General Counsel
apparently had a complete file, based upon which he reached
the conclusion that there was "culpable negligence" by CIA
� personnel_ The Inspector General and the Division of Security
� also had files and conducted investigations that would not
seem' to be available for destruction by Sidney Gottlieb:
I.
Director Colby and you have indicated that you would try to �
answer any questions we have and,where possible, make persoa,
available for us to interview. In our letter of July 29, 19,,
following our discovery of the additional documents in the .
Justice Department file, we requested, among other things,
an affidavit executed by Director Colby stating that we have
received all materials and information available to the CIA_
1,7