BOWERS. This was the whole, pardon the language, scam that Frank had been putting down to Bouchard since February, that he was, that he had available an aircraft which would be suitable for transporting a large quantity of narcotics and that Frank was a vehicle for introducing these narcotics into the North American Continent.

MANUEL. But why specifically at that time was Bouchard or Bouchard's associate asking pointed questions about this particular plane?

BOWERS. I don't know.

MANUEL. Did they have some immediate plan in mind that this plane was going to be used for, to your knowledge?

BOWERS. Not to my knowledge. Just a plan that they had been discussing for six months.

MANUEL. To your knowledge, did this plane have anything whatever to do with Peroff going to Costa Rica?

BOWERS. At that point, I hadn't heard of Costa Rica. MANUEL. To your knowledge, did Peroff have any discussions with Mr. Bouchard during his trip to Montreal concerning the possible involvement of Vesco and LeBlanc in the narcotics case?

BOWERS. No. To my knowledge, I don't know (pp. 798800).

Bowers' testimony also conflicted with Peroff's. Peroff said he gave Bowers details about the proposed trip to Costa Rica (p. 88). Bowers denied knowing anything at that time about the Costa Rica plan (p. 799).

Bowers said Peroff left Montreal Monday, July 30 because the Mounties had agreed to pay his expenses for three days and on the 30th the three days were up (pp. 801, 802).

Bowers said he could not remember all the details of Peroff's departure from Montreal but he did recall that RCMP Corporal Claude Savoie notified him that Peroff would "be on the 1:30 shuttle or something." (Pp. 802, 803.)

Senator Huddleston asked Bowers why he was never told by DEA New York that there was a Costa Rica angle to the Bouchard case. Bowers said that as DEA representative in Montreal he was in almost daily contact with the Mounties but, at the time, he also encouraged New York agents like Richard Dos Santos and others to deal directly with the RCMP (pp. 805, 806).

In light of that reply, Senator Huddleston asked Bowers if the RCMP and the New York DEA agents were, in fact, communicating about the Costa Rica angle yet "felt no need to keep you advised." Bowers answered, "Literally advised? Oftentimes not every contact, no." (P. 806.)

Senator Huddleston made this observation:

It seems like that was a major feature of this whole case, a matter of going to Costa Rica and the method of going and it would have been something in a daily conversation of the case [that] ought to surface.

Bowers replied:

I guess you are right, Senator. All I can say is that there were a lot of other things going at the time. We were expecting 10 kilos to come in any moment. I was in a brouhaha with the region about handling the informants on one thing (p. 806).

BOWERS' REPORT DOES NOT MENTION JET DESCRIPTION

Nowhere in Sidney Bowers' report was there mention of the fact Dos Santos had relayed to Peroff, via the RCMP, the description of a Lear jet, the aircraft so essential to Bouchard's smuggling plan. O'Neill defended this omission from Bowers' report. O'Neill said the description of the Lear jet-and the fact that it had been given to Peroff to give Bouchard-did not constitute information relevant to a report of the inquiry. O'Neill made the observation in this discussion:

MANUEL. Is this the cover story that was supposed to be used for the plane which Mr. Peroff was going to use to fly to Costa Rica? Was that Mr. Bouchard's belief?

O'NEILL. You would have to ask Bouchard. I would presume that if Sauve got together with Peroff on this, yes. The answer is yes.

MANUEL. To your knowledge, did Mr. Peroff relay that information to Mr. Bouchard?

O'NEILL. I know he spoke about it. The information was yes, that he did speak to him about it.

MANUEL. He did relay that information to Mr. Bouchard and that information specifically was in relationship to the possible furtherance of the investigation of Vesco and LeBlanc and the trip to Costa Rica; is that correct?

O'NEILL. That is correct.

MANUEL. That is correct. Now, in light of that I wonder if you can explain to the Subcommittee why none of that information that Peroff had a cover story for a plane, that he relayed to Mr. Bouchard, that this information was in furtherance of the Vesco-LeBlanc information, does not appear anywhere in Mr. Bowers' report of Peroff's trip to Montreal. Why is that?

O'NEILL. Because you would only in reports of investigation write the relevant high points of the thing. Sitting down and saying, sitting down and going into minute detail about what, it is a white, with gold and the number of it, that would

not

MANUEL. None of it appears [in Bowers' report], not even the fact that there is a cover story, not much less the details of it, not even

O'NEILL. Mr. Manuel, you think that this is something that is not done every day. This is something that is done every

single day of the week by every agent that has ever done anything, by every informant. You go in and you don't repeat everything to specific, narrative detail. I then turned around, you know. This isn't done.

MANUEL. Are you saying that the information that we just discussed... [was] not relevant to Mr. Peroff's trip to Montreal? Is that what you are saying?

O'NEILL. I am saying that it would not be reported in a report of investigation.

MANUEL. Why not?

O'NEILL. Because it is not relevant to that report of investigation.

MANUEL. Why not?

O'NEILL. A typical thing, you are talking about the way an informant goes into-there was an hour and 45 minute conversation. The whole conversation is not reduced to a, you know, "Peroff, Bouchard, Peroff, Bouchard." It is not reduced to a transcript. The general high points of the investigation, the things we are aiming to, that is what is reported. MANUEL. Weren't you aiming at Vesco and LeBlanc?

O'NEILL. We were trying to get Bouchard to move if there was a thing on Vesco and LeBlanc. We wanted either him to say that it was dead, that part of it was dead, or if there was something else, what was dead.

MANUEL. But it is not relevant to mention Vesco and LeBlanc in that context according to you. Is that right?

O'NEILL. He mentioned Vesco once. That was on July 6. Bouchard also gave them in regards to this, Bouchard gave on this whole thing, one hour from 12 o'clock Friday I think to 12 o'clock Monday. He spent all of one hour. His phone was off the hook continuously after that. He was incommunicado or he would not speak to Peroff for the remaining part of that trip.

MANUEL. Is it your information that the names of Vesco and LeBlanc were not mentioned at all?

O'NEILL. I don't know.

MANUEL. You don't know that?

O'NEILL. I was not there. I don't know if they were or weren't. You will have to ask Agent Bowers (pp. 621-624). The Subcommittee did inquire of Agent Bowers if Peroff and Bouchard talked about the Vesco-LeBlanc angle. Bowers replied, "No." But then he added, "To my knowledge, I don't know." (Pp. 799, 800.)

Thus, Sidney C. Bowers, who was on the scene, said he didn't know if Vesco and LeBlanc were mentioned in talks between Peroff and Bouchard. And John J. O'Neill, who was in charge of the investigation, said he didn't know. The only person who said he knew was Frank Peroff. Peroff said the Vesco-LeBlanc connection was being discussed quite a lot. But nothing Frank Peroff reported about that could persuade O'Neill.

43-085-75-12

O'Neill, commenting on the July 27 trip, testified that the "general tenor" of information coming to him about this Peroff visit to Montreal "supported our original conclusion that Bouchard was lying, that he was using this to string Peroff along." (P. 624.)

Manuel asked O'Neill why the effort was made to formulate a cover story on the jet if, first, no one had any confidence in the heroin scheme and, second, Bowers thought the airplane cover story so insignificant he did not bother to mention it in the report he wrote (p. 624). O'Neill replied:

The reason you are very careful in forming a cover story and working with somebody like Conrad Bouchard because if you don't pay attention to detail, Frank Peroff could be killed. So you don't take chances. You don't take any things like that.

You prepare as well as you can. You take care of little details like that to make sure that Frank Peroff's life is going to be protected, that he is not going to be left hanging there by himself sitting there telling a wild story that Bouchard can check on and then call him a liar (pp. 624, 625).

DIFFERING VIEWS ON PURPOSE OF JULY 27 TRIP

As this staff study has demonstrated, there were differing views as to what the purpose was for sending Frank Peroff to Montreal July 27. Nor was it clear just who made the decision to send Peroff to Montreal.

Dos Santos said he worked it out with the RCMP and that he was "pretty sure" he also discussed it with O'Neill. Dos Santos said O'Neill was also carrying on discussions with the Mounties himself but he, Dos Santos, didn't know very much about what they were discussing. Dos Santos said O'Neill was also possibly discussing Peroff's imminent July 27 trip with Ronald Swanson and Jack McCarthy of the DEA Montreal office as well but that again he, Dos Santos, did not have access to these conversations among the three former BNDD agents. Bowers said the Mounties did not want Peroff to come to Montreal and Bowers himself was opposed to the trip. But Bowers did say he and Dos Santos in league with the RCMP handled preparations for the visit. Dos Santos contradicted that. He said Bowers was occupied with something else at the time. Dos Santos said he dealt directly with the RCMP. In fact, Dos Santos said, he didn't know exactly what the DEA office in Montreal knew about the trip since that office was receiving certain of its information not from DEA in New York but from the Mounties.

Reflective of the confusion surrounding the decision-making process regarding the July 27 trip was the testimony of John R. Bartels, Jr., the DEA Administrator. Reading from a prepared statement, Bartels testified that by mid-July of 1973 Group Supervisor John J. O'Neill "no longer had faith in Bouchard's ability to put together a further heroin transaction or in Peroff's ability or desire to cooperate in such an effort." (P. 466.)

But, Bartels went on to say, there was still hope that Peroff could be of some assistance to Canadian authorities so it was decided to have Peroff go back to Montreal. But even the DEA Administrator

was unable or unwilling to specify just who it was who made the decision. In his prepared statement before the Subcommittee, Bartels noted that nobody had much confidence in Peroff anymore. But, he added:

Nevertheless, after checking with the Montreal office [of DEA], who in turn checked with the RCMP, it was decided that a further contact between Peroff and Bouchard could prove useful to Canadian authorities and might develop further narcotics intelligence (p. 466).

Instead of putting in a name-instead of saying who did the checking with the Montreal office-Bartels used the passive "it was decided . . .", so that the individual or individuals who decided to send Peroff to Montreal were never identified.

POSTSCRIPT ON JULY 27 TRIP

William Green, a Customs agent, represented his agency in the joint Customs-DEA inquiry into the Peroff allegations. Green took the sworn interview of Richard Dos Santos in the DEA-Customs inquiry. Green asked Dos Santos if Peroff and Bouchard had talked about the alleged role of Robert Vesco and Norman LeBlanc in the heroin case during the July 27 trip. Dos Santos said he did not know one way or the other.

Dos Santos did say that one of the things Peroff told him when he got off the plane returning him to New York was that the Mounties had ordered him to leave Montreal too soon.

Green asked Dos Santos if after the July 27 trip to Montreal were "the principals mentioned anymore." Dos Santos said he learned that at the same time Peroff was in Montreal on the July 27 visit Robert Vesco was reportedly there too. Dos Santos said the two men being there at the same time was "curious." Dos Santos explained:

Well, a curious thing happened. I was told not to tell Frank this but I was told by the RCMP that a paper had published the story in Montreal that Vesco had come up for a day and gotten a whole lot of money out of a bank.

Dos Santos said his understanding was that while Peroff was in Montreal Vesco had "emptied an account" in a Montreal bank. Green and Dos Santos discussed the matter this way:

GREEN. They [the RCMP] just brought this up, what was the connection of his bringing up Vesco?

Dos Santos. Well, it didn't come up out of the blue. This was in connection with the investigation. I think they generally understood what Peroff's belief was concerning Vesco and along the lines of not telling the informant everything you know. They said, you know, this is just for your information, don't tell anyone Vesco's in town.

GREEN. So people are still conscious of Vesco?

DOS SANTOS. Oh yeah.

GREEN. He was still in people's mind. I mean, you know, if Burt Reynolds was in town, they wouldn't say Burt Reynolds was in town.

DOS SANTOS. Not Burt Reynolds.