Because of a typographical error in Tuesday's Washington Post, it was incorrectly stated that the manuals concerning the KHll spy satellite were printed in 1967. They were printed in 1876.
The spy trial of former Central Intelligence Agency officer William Kampiles opened here yesterday with the government's acknowledgement that at least 13 other copies of the secret handbook on spy satellites he allegedly sold the Soviet Union are missing.
The Justice Department also admitted in pretrial documents filed yesterday morning that it had not made an inventory of the outstanding copies of the manual until after Kampiles arrest here in mid-August.
Appearing calm in court and casually dressed in a youthfully tailored sports jacket, Kampiles, 23, stands accused of espionage assertedly for handing the Soviets one of the CIA's numbered copies of a top secret manual describing the capabilities of the sophistcated KH11 spy satellite.
According to the government, Kampiles, a former CIA watch officer, did "injury" to the United States by delivering the manual to a Soviet agent named Michael for $3,000 during a trip last winter to Athens, Greece.
U.S. District Judge Phil McNagny began the trial at the federal court-house here with quick questioning of more than 40 prospective jurors. A panel of eight women and four men - backed up by three alternates - was chosen by mid-afternoon.
Kampiles' chief defense counsel, Michael D. Monico, told reporters that the government had just informed them 13 copies of the KH11 manual "cannot be accounted for at this time."
One of the themes of Kampiles' defense has been to suggest that he may have been a setup for some unknown master spy or "mole" in a key position at the CIA or another strategically placed government agency. U.S. attorney David T. Ready has insisted in pretrial pleading that the government has no information "regarding the possibility that the Soviet Union gained its knowledge of the KH11 satellite from a source other than the defendant."
Ready admitted that "other suspects were developed in this investigation" but he said that the investigation of those suspects proved fruitless. He refused to give the defense any further information concerning that aspect of the investigation on grounds of privacy and potential compromise of "sensitive national security information."