diff options
Diffstat (limited to '44005-0.txt')
| -rw-r--r-- | 44005-0.txt | 58519 |
1 files changed, 58519 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/44005-0.txt b/44005-0.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..59765d7 --- /dev/null +++ b/44005-0.txt @@ -0,0 +1,58519 @@ +*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK 44005 *** + + INVESTIGATION OF + + THE ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY + + HEARINGS + Before the President's Commission + on the Assassination + of President Kennedy + +PURSUANT TO EXECUTIVE ORDER 11130, an Executive order creating a +Commission to ascertain, evaluate, and report upon the facts relating +to the assassination of the late President John F. Kennedy and the +subsequent violent death of the man charged with the assassination and +S.J. RES. 137, 88TH CONGRESS, a concurrent resolution conferring upon +the Commission the power to administer oaths and affirmations, examine +witnesses, receive evidence, and issue subpenas + +_Volume_ V + + +UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE + +WASHINGTON, D.C. + + +U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON: 1964 + +For sale in complete sets by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. +Government Printing Office Washington, D.C., 20402 + + + + + PRESIDENT'S COMMISSION + ON THE + ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT KENNEDY + + + CHIEF JUSTICE EARL WARREN, _Chairman_ + + SENATOR RICHARD B. RUSSELL + SENATOR JOHN SHERMAN COOPER + REPRESENTATIVE HALE BOGGS + REPRESENTATIVE GERALD R. FORD + MR. ALLEN W. DULLES + MR. JOHN J. McCLOY + + + J. LEE RANKIN, _General Counsel_ + + + _Assistant Counsel_ + + FRANCIS W. H. ADAMS + JOSEPH A. BALL + DAVID W. BELIN + WILLIAM T. COLEMAN, Jr. + MELVIN ARON EISENBERG + BURT W. GRIFFIN + LEON D. HUBERT, Jr. + ALBERT E. JENNER, Jr. + WESLEY J. LIEBELER + NORMAN REDLICH + W. DAVID SLAWSON + ARLEN SPECTER + SAMUEL A. STERN + HOWARD P. WILLENS[A] + +[A] Mr. Willens also acted as liaison between the Commission and the +Department of Justice. + + + _Staff Members_ + + PHILLIP BARSON + EDWARD A. CONROY + JOHN HART ELY + ALFRED GOLDBERG + MURRAY J. LAULICHT + ARTHUR MARMOR + RICHARD M. MOSK + JOHN J. O'BRIEN + STUART POLLAK + ALFREDDA SCOBEY + CHARLES N. SHAFFER, Jr. + + +Biographical information on the Commissioners and the staff can be found +in the Commission's _Report_. + + + + +Preface + + +The testimony of the following witnesses is contained in volume V: +Alan H. Belmont, assistant to the Director of the Federal Bureau of +Investigation; Jack Revill and V. J. Brian of the Dallas police, who +testified concerning conversations Revill had with James Patrick Hosty, +Jr., a special agent of the FBI; Robert A. Frazier, a firearms expert +with the FBI; Drs. Alfred Olivier, Arthur Dziemian, and Frederick W. +Light, Jr., wound ballistics experts with the U.S. Army laboratories +at Edgewood Arsenal, Md.; J. Edgar Hoover, Director of the Federal +Bureau of Investigation; John A. McCone, Director of the Central +Intelligence Agency; Richard M. Helms, Deputy Director for Plans of the +Central Intelligence Agency; Thomas J. Kelley, Leo J. Gauthier, and +Lyndal L. Shaneyfelt, who testified concerning efforts to reconstruct +the facts of the assassination; Mrs. John F. Kennedy; Jack Ruby; +Henry Wade, district attorney of Dallas; Sgt. Patrick T. Dean, of the +Dallas police, who testified concerning a conversation with Ruby; +Waggoner Carr, attorney general of Texas; Richard Edward Snyder, John +A. McVickar, Abram Chayes, Bernice Waterman, and Frances G. Knight, of +the U.S. Department of State; Secretary of State Dean Rusk; Mrs. Lee +Harvey Oswald; Harris Coulter, an interpreter with the Department of +State; Robert Alan Surrey, a Dallas citizen who testified regarding his +relationship with General Walker; James J. Rowley, Chief of the U.S. +Secret Service; Robert Carswell, special assistant to the Secretary +of the Treasury; Bernard William Weissman, who testified concerning +an advertisement signed by him which appeared in the Dallas Morning +News on November 22, 1963; Robert G. Klause, a Dallas citizen who +testified regarding a "Wanted For Treason" handbill; Mark Lane, a New +York attorney; President Lyndon B. Johnson and Mrs. Lyndon B. Johnson; +Llewellyn E. Thompson, former U.S. Ambassador to the Soviet Union, and +Secretary of the Treasury C. Douglas Dillon. + + + + +Contents + + + Page + Preface v + + Testimony of-- + Alan H. Belmont. 1 + Jack Revill 33 + V. J. Brian 47 + Robert A. Frazier 58, 165 + Alfred Olivier 74 + Arthur J. Dziemian 90 + Frederick W. Light, Jr 94 + J. Edgar Hoover 97 + John A. McCone and Richard M. Helms 120 + Thomas J. Kelley 129, 175 + Leo J. Gauthier 135 + Lyndal L. Shaneyfelt 138, 176 + Mrs. John F. Kennedy 178 + Jack Ruby 181 + Henry Wade 213 + Patrick T. Dean 254 + Waggoner Carr 258 + Richard Edward Snyder 260 + John A. McVickar 299, 318 + Abram Chayes 307, 327 + Bernice Waterman 346 + Hon. Dean Rusk 363 + Frances G. Knight 371 + Mrs. Lee Harvey Oswald (resumed) 387, 410 + Harris Coulter 408 + Robert Alan Surrey 420 + James J. Rowley 449 + Robert Carswell 486 + Bernard William Weissman, accompanied by + Thomas A. Flannery, Esq 487 + Robert G. Klause 535 + Mark Lane (resumed) 546 + President Lyndon B. Johnson 561 + Mrs. Lyndon B. Johnson 564 + Llewellyn E. Thompson 567 + C. Douglas Dillon 573 + + +COMMISSION EXHIBITS INTRODUCED + + Exhibit No.: Page + 825 16 + 833 10 + 834 14 + 835 15 + 836 32 + 837 32 + 838 47 + 839 58 + 840 66 + 841 69 + 842 72 + 843 73 + 844 88 + 845 88 + 846 88 + 847 88 + 848 88 + 849 88 + 850 88 + 851 88 + 852 88 + 853 88 + 854 88 + 855 88 + 856 88 + 857 88 + 858 88 + 859 88 + 860 88 + 861 89 + 862 89 + 863 111 + 864 115 + 865 115 + 866 120 + 867 120 + 868 123 + 869 123 + 870 121 + 871 130 + 872 131 + 873 131 + 874 131 + 875 134 + 876 135 + 877 135 + 878 136 + 879 136 + 880 136 + 881 136 + 882 137 + 883 137 + 884 138 + 885 171 + 886 171 + 887 171 + 888 171 + 889 171 + 890 171 + 891 171 + 892 171 + 893 171 + 894 171 + 895 171 + 896 171 + 897 171 + 898 171 + 899 171 + 900 171 + 901 171 + 902 171 + 903 171 + 904 178 + 905 178 + 906 178 + 907 178 + 908 299 + 909 299 + 910 299 + 911 325 + 912 299 + 913 299 + 914 299 + 915 299 + 916 299 + 917 299 + 918 299 + 919 299 + 920 299 + 921 299 + 922 299 + 923 299 + 924 299 + 925 299 + 926 299 + 927 299 + 928 299 + 929 299 + 930 299 + 931 299 + 932 299 + 933 299 + 934 299 + 935 299 + 936 299 + 937 299 + 938 299 + 939 299 + 940 299 + 941 325 + 942 325 + 943 326 + 944 326 + 945 326 + 946 299 + 947 299 + 948 346 + 949 346 + 950 346 + 951 336 + 952 335 + 953 346 + 954 345 + 955 343 + 956 345 + 957 362 + 958 326 + 959 326 + 960 340 + 961 362 + 962 362 + 963 362 + 964 362 + 965 362 + 966 362 + 967 362 + 968 362 + 969 362 + 970 362 + 971 362 + 973 362 + 974 362 + 975 362 + 976 362 + 977 362 + 978 362 + 979 362 + 980 362 + 981 362 + 982 362 + 983 362 + 984 371 + 985 371 + 986 371 + 987 404 + 988 404 + 989 371 + 990 403 + 991 403 + 992 404 + 993 410 + 994 413 + 995 421 + 996 448 + 997 448 + 998 448 + 999 448 + 1000 448 + 1002 448 + 1003 448 + 1004 448 + 1005 448 + 1006 448 + 1007 448 + 1008 448 + 1009 448 + 1010 448 + 1011 448 + 1012 448 + 1013 448 + 1014 448 + 1015 448 + 1016 448 + 1017 448 + 1018 454 + 1019 461 + 1020 462 + 1021 463 + 1022 463 + 1023 465 + 1024 469 + 1025 469 + 1026 471 + 1027 471 + 1028 476 + 1029 483 + 1030 483 + 1031 532 + 1032 532 + 1033 532 + 1033-A 532 + 1034 532 + 1035 532 + 1036 532 + 1036-A 532 + 1037 532 + 1037-A 532 + 1037-B 532 + 1038 532 + 1038-A 532 + 1039 532 + 1040 532 + 1041 532 + 1042 532 + 1043 532 + 1044 532 + 1045 532 + 1046 532 + 1047 532 + 1048 532 + 1049 532 + 1050 532 + 1051 532 + 1052 532 + 1053-A 576 + 1053-B 577 + 1053-C 582 + 1053-D 583 + 1053-E 585 + + + + +Hearings Before the President's Commission + +on the + +Assassination of President Kennedy + + + + +_Wednesday, May 6, 1964_ + +TESTIMONY OF ALAN H. BELMONT + +The President's Commission met at 9:25 a.m. on May 6, 1964, at 200 +Maryland Avenue NE., Washington, D.C. + +Present were Chief Justice Earl Warren, Chairman; Representative Gerald +R. Ford, John J. McCloy, and Allen W. Dulles, members. + +Also present were J. Lee Rankin, General Counsel; David W. Belin, +assistant counsel; Norman Redlich, assistant counsel; Samuel A. Stern, +assistant counsel; and Charles Murray, observer. + + +The CHAIRMAN. Well, gentlemen, the Commission will come to order. + +Mr. Belin, you had something you wanted the record to show in +connection with our testimony yesterday. + +Mr. BELIN. Yes, sir. + +The CHAIRMAN. Would you present it to the Commission now, please. + +Mr. BELIN. Yes, sir. We have a report from an FBI document that states +that Roy Truly when interviewed on November 22, advised that "it is +possible Oswald did see him with a rifle in his hands within the past +few days," that is as of November 22, "as a Mr. Warren Caster, employed +by Southwestern Publishing Co., which company has an office in the same +building, had come to his office with two rifles, one was a .22 caliber +rifle which Caster said he had purchased for his son, and the other +a larger more high-powered rifle which Caster said he had purchased +with which to go deer hunting if he got a chance," and Truly said that +he examined the high-powered rifle and raised it to his shoulder and +sighted over it and then returned it to Caster and Caster left with +both rifles. + +Then Truly went on to state that he does not own a rifle and has had +no other rifle in his hands or in his possession for a long period of +time. Now because of the problem that did arise, I believe the staff +will promptly go down to Dallas to take the deposition of both Mr. +Truly and Mr. Caster to fully get this in deposition form and find out +where these rifles were as of November 22. + +The CHAIRMAN. And their caliber, and so forth. + +Mr. BELIN. Yes, sir. + +The CHAIRMAN. Yes, sir; I think that is desirable. You ought to do that. + +Mr. Belmont, the purpose of today's hearing is to take your testimony +concerning the general procedures of the FBI and explain their +relationship to the case of Lee Harvey Oswald. + +Would you please rise and raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear +the testimony you are about to give before this Commission will be the +truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God? + +Mr. BELMONT. I do. + +The CHAIRMAN. Will you be seated, please. + +Mr. STERN, will you conduct the examination, please? + +Mr. STERN. Thank you, sir. Would you state your full name for the +record, please? + +Mr. BELMONT. Alan H. Belmont. + +Mr. STERN. And your address, Mr. Belmont? + +Mr. BELMONT. 2711 North Yucatan Street, Arlington, Va. + +Mr. STERN. Mr. Belmont, what was your education at the college level? + +Mr. BELMONT. Graduate of Stanford University in California, with an +A.B. degree, majoring in accounting. + +Mr. STERN. What year? + +Mr. BELMONT. 1931. + +Mr. STERN. What was your employment briefly before joining the Federal +Bureau of Investigation? + +Mr. BELMONT. I joined the Bureau, the FBI, in 1936, and in the interim +I worked for public accountants and as a public accountant myself in +California. + +Mr. STERN. Would you describe, please, for the Commission briefly your +experience in the Federal Bureau of Investigation since 1936? + +Mr. BELMONT. I entered the FBI November 30, 1936, and after the period +of training, was assigned to Birmingham, Ala., as my first office. +I transferred to Chicago in about August 1937, and remained there +until the summer of 1938 when I was transferred to Washington, D.C., +headquarters. + +In January of 1941 I was transferred to New York as supervisor of +applicant and criminal investigative matters, remained there until +the fall of 1942, when I was made assistant agent in charge of our +Chicago office. In January of 1943 I was made agent in charge of our +Cincinnati office and remained there until the summer of 1944 when I +was transferred to New York as assistant agent in charge of criminal +matters in New York. + +Subsequently, I was placed in charge of all security work in New York +for a number of years and was transferred to Washington in charge of +the domestic intelligence division in February 1950. I headed that +division until about June of 1961 when I was made assistant to the +director in charge of all investigative work of the FBI and that is my +present position. + +Mr. STERN. Could you describe the organization of the FBI with two +purposes in mind: First, to fix your position in the organization. +Second, to provide a framework for describing the investigation of the +case of Lee Harvey Oswald. + +Mr. BELMONT. The headquarters of the FBI is, of course, or the FBI is +headed by Mr. J. Edgar Hoover as Director. Directly under him is Mr. +Clyde Tolson, Associate Director. There are 10 divisions broken down in +particular types of administration. + +Mr. DULLES. May I say if any of this is classified, highly classified, +you had better let us know because then we could go off the record. + +Mr. BELMONT. There is nothing classified here. + +Mr. DULLES. Right. I know that you would have that in mind. + +Mr. BELMONT. Thank you. + +Basically, the division of the 10 divisions at headquarters is +between administrative and investigative. The 10th division is the +inspection division and reports directly to Mr. Hoover. I am in charge +of the investigative divisions which are comprised of the general +investigative divisions handling general criminal work, the special +investigative division handling special inquiries of applicant nature, +and our aggressive approach to organized crime. + +The laboratory division handles all examinations of a scientific +nature, and the domestic intelligence division handles all types of +security work. I am in charge of those four divisions, and thus am in +charge and responsible for our investigative work. + +Our field offices, numbering 55, are geographically located in +accordance with the amount of work in a particular area. Each division +in the field is headed by a special agent in charge, assisted by an +assistant special agent in charge. They are responsible for the proper +conduct of the work within their divisions. They are answerable to Mr. +Hoover. They are also supervised, of course, in the particular area of +the work concerned by the division at headquarters. + +Depending on---- + +Mr. DULLES. May I ask is that 55 in the United States? + +Mr. BELMONT. United States and its possessions. + +Mr. DULLES. And Puerto Rico? + +Mr. BELMONT. Yes. + +Mr. DULLES. It doesn't include your legal---- + +Mr. BELMONT. Legal attachés abroad? + +Mr. DULLES. Yes. + +Mr. BELMONT. No; they are under the direct supervision of our +headquarters. + +Depending on the size of the division in the field, we will have a +supervisory staff in order to properly supervise the work of the agents +in the field. + +Mr. STERN. Can you describe the establishment of a typical case, +indicating the meaning of the terms office of origin and auxiliary +office? + +Mr. BELMONT. A case is opened by the FBI upon the receipt of +information indicating a matter within the jurisdiction of the FBI. +We restrict our investigations to those matters which are within our +jurisdiction. + +The office of origin is the office where the major part of the work +is to be done. Thus it should be the controlling office of the +investigation. + +Normally, if an individual is under investigation, it will be the +office where he resides. There will be in many cases investigation to +be conducted by other offices. Those offices that have investigations +in that case are considered auxiliary offices, and will cover the +investigation sent to it, sent to them, by the office of origin or +by another auxiliary office if a lead develops within that area that +requires attention elsewhere. + +I may say that the office of origin can be changed and is changed if +during the investigation it becomes apparent that the focus of the +investigation has shifted to another area. + +It is logical, therefore, that that office which bears the brunt of the +investigation should be in possession of all the material pertinent +to the investigation and should be charged with the supervision and +running of the investigation and the direction of it. + +In the event the office of origin is changed at any given time, the +previous office of origin will forward to the new office of origin all +material pertaining to the case so that it will have a complete file +and the necessary knowledge to run the case. + +Mr. STERN. Can you tell us a bit more about how information is +maintained and how it flows through the system from headquarters to +office of origin, to the auxiliary office or in the other directions +that are possible? + +Mr. BELMONT. Since the information is maintained in a standard and +uniform filing system in both our field offices and our headquarters +so that there is complete uniformity in the handling of information, +our main filing system is at headquarters. Consequently, we need here +all pertinent information in any case. Consequently, the reports and +information developed during a case are sent to our headquarters for +filing. + +It is pertinent to observe that we conduct close to 2 million name +checks a year for other agencies and departments of the Federal +Government. Consequently, we must have here all pertinent information +so that a name check will reflect the information in possession of the +Bureau. + +When a report is prepared in our field office--an investigation, and +there are leads or investigation to be performed in another office, +copies of this report are designated for that office, together with +the lead or the investigation to be covered. Upon receipt of that the +office gathers the background information from the report and proceeds +with the investigation. + +Mr. STERN. This is the auxiliary office? + +Mr. BELMONT. The auxiliary office. + +If there is a matter of urgency rather than wait for an investigative +report, the information will be transmitted by more rapid means, such +as teletype. All of our offices have teletypes; radio, our offices have +a radio system; telephone. + +Mr. DULLES. Is that teletype from the office to Washington only, or is +there some interoffice teletypes? + +Mr. BELMONT. Each office is connected with each other office by +teletype. + +Mr. DULLES. It is; all over the country? + +Mr. BELMONT. Yes, sir; permitting rapid communication. + +Mr. DULLES. That is, New Orleans and Dallas would have teletype between +these two offices? + +Mr. BELMONT. Yes. + +The CHAIRMAN. What kind of radio communication, Mr. Belmont, did you +say? + +Mr. BELMONT. We have an emergency radio communication so that both for +normal use, in the matter of expense, to reduce expenses, and for an +emergency, our offices can communicate with headquarters and with each +other. + +The CHAIRMAN. On your own transmission system? + +Mr. BELMONT. Yes, sir; that is correct. We feel that in any type of an +emergency we must, because of our heavy responsibilities---- + +The CHAIRMAN. Yes. + +Mr. BELMONT. Be able to communicate. As a matter of fact, during the +recent disaster in Alaska, one of the few means of communication with +the mainland was our radio system. + +The CHAIRMAN. Is that so? + +Mr. BELMONT. And we assisted in passing messages down from Alaska. + +We have a communication called AIRTEL which is simply a communication +in letter form on a particular form which upon receipt is regarded as a +matter of urgency and requires special handling. + +So that you will understand that, in an effort to cut expenses, we +determined that a matter which could not wait for a report or a letter +was normally sent by teletype, which is a relatively expensive means of +communication. + +By sending an AIRTEL which would be recognized for special handling, +the office could receive the same information by mail with a delay of +perhaps 12 hours and it would still receive the urgent handling that we +require for that particular thing. That is the purpose of the AIRTEL. + +Mr. STERN. I think we might turn now to a description of your role +in the investigation of Lee Harvey Oswald, both before and after the +assassination. + +Mr. BELMONT. As the individual in charge of all investigative +operations, the Lee Harvey Oswald investigation is my responsibility, +the same as any other investigative case in the Bureau. + +Mr. STERN. Did you have any particular involvement that you can recall +in the investigation of his case before November 22--personally? + +Mr. BELMONT. No; this case was not of the importance or urgency that it +was considered necessary to call to my personal attention for personal +direction. You must bear in mind that during the fiscal year 1963 the +FBI handled something in the nature of 636,000 investigative matters. +Necessarily, then, those matters which would be called to my personal +attention for personal handling would have to be on a selective basis. + +Mr. STERN. Have you been personally involved in the investigation since +the assassination? + +Mr. BELMONT. I have indeed. + +Mr. McCLOY. Before we get to this, how many cases of defections to the +Soviet Union would you be investigating in the course of a fiscal year? + +Mr. BELMONT. I couldn't give you an exact figure on that. It is our +system to investigate any individual where there is information or +evidence that indicates a necessity for investigation within our +jurisdiction. I do know that we have investigated, and currently are +investigating, defectors not only to the Soviet Union but in other +areas of the world. + +Mr. McCLOY. They also would not come per se to your attention, your +personal attention? + +Mr. BELMONT. Depending on the case. If there is a matter which has some +urgency or there is a question of policy, it would and does come to my +attention, and indeed comes to the attention of Mr. Hoover. + +I would not seek to give you any impression that I am not advised of +many cases, I am. I am kept daily advised, as is Mr. Hoover, of all +matters of policy or urgency or where there is a question of procedure. +That is inherent in our system of close supervision. + +Mr. McCLOY. What I am getting at is, I think, is the matter of +defection just out of its own character of such significance that it +becomes a matter of out of the ordinary importance to the Bureau when +you learn of it. + +Mr. BELMONT. Again, Mr. McCloy, I have no way of knowing the extent to +which those particular cases would be called to my attention. + +As shown in the Oswald case itself, we do take cognizance of these. +Immediately upon the publicity on Oswald, there was a case opened. I +do know that I see many such cases and where there is an indication +of possible damage to the country through the leak of information, +classified or in some other instance where there is a question of +policy or urgency it is immediately called to my attention. I can only +say in general I do see many such cases. + +Mr. McCLOY. Well, we had testimony here yesterday that in a +preassassination investigation of Oswald that they learned he was a +defector, they had interviews with him, and then they marked the case +closed. + +At one stage it was reopened and then it was closed again because, as I +gather it, there was no indication other than his defection that would +lead to their, to the agents, feeling that this man was capable of +violence or that he was a dangerous character in any sense. + +I gather that whether or not he was thought to be a dangerous character +or whether he was capable of violence would be settled by the man in +the field office, in the office that had charge, the man who was in +charge of the office that was dealing with that case locally, is that +right? + +Mr. BELMONT. That is a judgment that he would render, but that judgment +would be passed on by our headquarters staff. + +Mr. McCLOY. Passed on by Washington? + +Mr. BELMONT. Yes, indeed. In this instance by the domestic intelligence +division. + +Mr. McCLOY. In this case then the decision to close that case, I am +talking always about the preassassination business, was approved or +tacitly approved by the Washington staff. + +Mr. BELMONT. Not tacitly approved. Approved. + +Mr. McCLOY. Approved. Well, you mark the paper approved or you just +accept it, accept the file with a notation "return for closing." + +Mr. BELMONT. When the closing report comes to our headquarters, it is +reviewed by our supervisory staff, and if we do not agree with the +action then the field office is notified to continue the investigation. +That is a decision of substance. + +Mr. McCLOY. Well, I can understand that but I gather when the report +comes in you simply let the report lie unless you feel from your +examination of it that it justified further action. You don't notify +the field office, do you, that the closing of the case is approved? + +Mr. BELMONT. No, Mr. McCloy. With the volume of work that we have that +would be an unnecessary move. + +Mr. McCLOY. I can understand that. + +Mr. BELMONT. It is, however, thoroughly understood through our service, +through the system that we follow, that if that report comes in and +it is reviewed and it is filed here, if there is disagreement as to +the handling of the closing of the case or any other matter pertaining +to the investigation, the seat of government will then go out with +instructions to the field. + +Mr. McCLOY. All right. + +Mr. DULLES. Could I ask one question further on that point? + +The CHAIRMAN. Yes, indeed. + +Mr. DULLES. As I recall from the testimony of your people yesterday, +with regard to the situation in Dallas and later in New Orleans, that +after the case was marked closed in Dallas, there was this incident in +New Orleans of the distribution of the Fair Play for Cuba pamphlets, +and then a case there, a live case, an open case was started. + +Now, it wasn't quite clear to me yesterday from all the testimony, I +missed a bit of it, unfortunately, as to whether the opening of a new +case in New Orleans, because of the new incident, would operate to +reopen it or change the closed status of the case in Dallas, and the +case was then transferred from New Orleans to Dallas later. If you +could clear that up for us I think it would be helpful. + +Mr. BELMONT. The agent, Fain at the time, who handled the case, closed +the case after two interviews with Oswald, arriving at the conclusion +that the purpose of our investigation of Oswald which was to determine +whether he had been given an assignment by Soviet intelligence, had +been served. He closed the case, as he felt there was no further action +to be taken. The purpose had been satisfied. Headquarters agreed. + +In March 1963 Agent Hosty received information in Dallas to the effect +that Oswald had been in communication with The Worker, the east coast +Communist newspaper. He therefore reinstituted the case, and sent out a +lead to check Oswald's employment. He also received information, as I +recall it, that Oswald had been in communication with the Fair Play for +Cuba Committee, so there were two incidents that aroused his interest. + +In June 1963 our New Orleans office likewise received information that +Oswald had communicated with The Worker or was on a subscription list +for The Worker. So that the case was revived in Dallas by Hosty. + +Mr. DULLES. That was even before what we call the New Orleans incident? + +Mr. BELMONT. Correct. + +Mr. DULLES. Yes. + +Mr. BELMONT. And he learned that Oswald had left Dallas, the residence +was then picked up in New Orleans, and the case was revived. So that +actually there was a joint revival of the case. + +Then on August 9, 1963, Oswald was arrested by the New Orleans police +in connection with a disturbance of the peace in passing out these +pamphlets, which further aroused our interest. So that the reopening +of the case after the closing was due to these incidents that I have +mentioned. + +Mr. DULLES. Thank you. So that at the time of the assassination, this +was an open and not a closed case as regards the Dallas office. + +Mr. BELMONT. That is correct. At the time that Oswald was found to be +living in New Orleans, and this was definitely established that he +was actually residing there, the Dallas office in accordance with the +procedure that I mentioned, transferred the case to New Orleans as +office of origin. + +Subsequently, the case was again transferred back to Dallas when it was +determined that Oswald was again residing in the Dallas area. + +The CHAIRMAN. All right, Mr. Stern. + +Mr. STERN. We were getting, Mr. Belmont, to the question of whether +you had been personally involved in the investigation since the +assassination. + +Mr. BELMONT. I said I have indeed. + +Mr. STERN. Yes. As a part of that you have reviewed in detail the +investigation made prior to the assassination? + +Mr. BELMONT. Yes. + +Mr. STERN. Have you participated in or supervised the preparation of +reports and other correspondence to the Commission in response to +questions from the Commission? + +Mr. BELMONT. Yes. + +Mr. STERN. I show you a letter with attached memorandum which has been +marked for identification Commission Exhibit No. 833. Can you identify +this document, Mr. Belmont? + +(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 833 for +identification.) + +Mr. BELMONT. This is a letter transmitted on April 6, 1964, to Mr. +Rankin by the FBI with enclosure answering a number of questions which +the Commission posed to the FBI. + +Mr. STERN. Did you supervise the preparation of this letter? + +Mr. BELMONT. Yes. + +Mr. STERN. And you have reviewed it and are familiar with it? + +Mr. BELMONT. Yes. + +Mr. STERN. We have covered in your answers to Mr. Dulles and Mr. McCloy +a good deal of the material in here. + +I would like briefly to touch upon several of the questions, the more +important questions, regarding the nature of the FBI's interest in +Lee Harvey Oswald at various times, and I would like you to refer to +each question that I indicate but not read your answer. Paraphrase +it. I think we have had a good deal of the specific detail but what +I am interested in is a description from your examination of the +investigation as it was carried on, of the nature of the FBI interest +in Oswald. + +I would like to turn to the first question in which we asked---- + +The CHAIRMAN. You mean by that that you could get, we could get, a +better idea from paraphrasing the answer than we could get from the +exact answer itself? + +Mr. STERN. I think he might be able to highlight the answer. We have +the exact answer on the record, and I thought it might---- + +The CHAIRMAN. Well, highlight it, if there is anything in addition I +would think that would be relevant and pertinent. But to ask him to +paraphrase that which he has done with great meticulousness would seem +to me to be abortive and would take a lot of our time, and I don't see +what it would prove. If you have anything in addition that you want to +ask him, if you want to ask him if there is anything in addition he has +not put in there, that is all right. But to just ask him to paraphrase +answers that have been done with great care would seem to me to be +confusing the record, and serve no purpose. + +Mr. STERN. I might ask, Mr. Belmont, whether there is anything you +would like to add or amplify in these questions? + +Mr. BELMONT. I believe the answers speak for themselves, although in +view of Mr. McCloy's questions a little while ago, I would be very +happy to make clear our approach to this matter. For example, the +fact that our interest in defectors, in this case, is shown by the +fact that in early November 1959 we opened a file on Oswald based on +the newspaper publicity as to his defection. And the fact that he had +applied to renounce his citizenship. We checked our files then to see +was this a man we had a record on, and found that we had a fingerprint +record solely based on his enlistment in the Marines. + +We had no other record on him but we placed a stop or a flash notice +in our fingerprint files, at that time so that if he should come back +into the country unbeknownst to us and get into some sort of trouble +we would be immediately notified. That is our opening interest in the +case with the thought in mind that should he come back to the country +we would want to know from him whether he had been enlisted by Soviet +intelligence in some manner. + +That is our procedure because of our experience that these things have +happened, and we consider it our responsibility to settle that issue +whenever we can. + +Mr. STERN. Could you explain, Mr. Belmont, this procedure of placing a +stop in the files that you just referred to? + +Mr. BELMONT. We merely notify our identification division to place what +we call a flash notice in the man's fingerprint file, which means that +should he be arrested and the fingerprints be sent to the FBI, that the +appropriate division, in this case the domestic intelligence division, +would be notified that the man had been arrested, for what and where he +was arrested, thus enabling us to center our attention on him. + +Our next interest in this man arose as a result of the fact that his +mother had sent, I believe, $25 to him in Moscow, so we went to her in +April 1960 and we talked to her. At that time she told us that he had +told her that he would possibly attend the Albert Schweitzer College in +Switzerland. + +So as a followup, we had our legal attache in Paris make inquiry to see +whether he had enrolled in this college. The resultant check showed +that while they had expected him and a deposit had been placed that he +did not show up at the college. + +Mr. STERN. I think that is all covered in quite adequate detail in the +answer to the first question. + +Mr. DULLES. I have one question I would like to put to you on the first +question and answer in your letter of April 6, in Exhibit 833--the +Bureau's letter of April 6. You refer, first, to the fact that the +first news you got about Oswald was from a news service item, and then +later on at the bottom of the second full paragraph you state, "A file +concerning Oswald was prepared and as communications were received from +other U.S. Government agencies those communications were placed in his +file." + +The record may show the other communications, I guess our record does +show, but do you feel that you adequately were advised by the State +Department as this case developed or by the CIA or other agencies that +might have known about it? + +Mr. BELMONT. Yes. We received a number of communications from other +agencies, and we set up a procedure whereby we periodically checked the +State Department passport file to be kept advised of his activities or +his dealings with the Embassy in Moscow so that on a periodic basis we +were sure we had all information in the State Department file. + +We received communications from the Navy, and from other agencies. + +Mr. DULLES. Is there any general procedure with respect to Americans +abroad who get into trouble. Do you get informed so in case they come +back you can take adequate precautionary measures? Is that established +SOP? + +Mr. BELMONT. Yes, Mr. Dulles. We do receive such information, and if we +pick up the information initially as we did here, from press reports or +otherwise, we go to the other agencies and ask them whether they have +any information and establish an interest there so that if they have +not voluntarily furnished us the information they will do so upon our +request. + +Mr. DULLES. Thank you. + +Mr. STERN. On page 3, Mr. Belmont, in the answer to question No. 3, the +second paragraph, could you tell us why the FBI preferred to interview +Oswald after he had established residence and why it was not preferable +to interview him upon his arrival in New York? + +Mr. BELMONT. This is a matter of experience. Generally speaking when +an individual such as Oswald arrives back in the country and the +press is there, there is an unusual interest in him. Immigration and +Naturalization Service has a function to perform, and we prefer, unless +there is a matter of urgency, to let the individual become settled in +residence. It is a much better atmosphere to conduct the interview, and +to get the information that we seek. If it is a matter of urgency, we +will interview him immediately upon arrival. + +Mr. STERN. On page 4, Mr. Belmont, in your answer to question No. 6, +was it ordinary procedure for Agent Fain to re-interview Oswald so soon +after his first interview under the circumstances? Is there anything +unusual about that? + +Mr. BELMONT. There is nothing unusual whatsoever. Agent Fain +interviewed Oswald on June 26, 1963--1962, I believe it was, was it not? + +The CHAIRMAN. Yes; 1962. + +Mr. BELMONT. And was not satisfied that he had received all the +information he wanted nor that it was a matter that should be closed at +that time. + +Therefore, he set out a lead to re-interview Oswald, and after an +appropriate period he went back and re-interviewed him. This is within +the prerogative of the investigative agent, and certainly if he was not +satisfied with the first interview it was his duty and responsibility +to pursue the matter until he was satisfied. + +Mr. STERN. In your answer to question No. 5, does the response of +Oswald to the question why he went to Russia seem typical to you of the +returned defector, or unusual? + +Mr. BELMONT. There is no such thing as a typical response. Each case is +an individual case, and is decided on its merits and on the background +of the individual, and the circumstances surrounding it. + +Mr. STERN. Would it be usual for the defector to agree to advise you if +he got a contact? Are they generally that cooperative? + +Mr. BELMONT. We ask them because we want to know, and the purpose of +our interview with him was to determine whether he had been recruited +by the Soviet intelligence, and we asked him whether he would tell us +if he was contacted here in this country. He replied he would. Whether +he meant it is a question. However, you must bear in mind that this +man, I believe it was when he was interviewed in July of 1961 in the +American Embassy, the interviewing official there said it was apparent +that he had learned his lesson the hard way, and that he had a new +concept of the American way of life, and apparently had decided that +Russia was not for him. + +When we interviewed him likewise he told us that he had not enjoyed +his stay in Russia. He likewise commented that he had not enjoyed his +stay in the Marines. So that in direct answer to your question, it is +customary for us in such a case as this, to ask the man if he will +report a contact, and it is customary for him to say yes, because +frankly, he would be putting himself in a rather bad light if he didn't +say yes. + +Mr. STERN. Turning to---- + +Mr. DULLES. Could I ask a question there: Do I correctly read your +report and those of your agents to the general effect that you had no +evidence that there was any attempt to recruit Oswald in the United +States? + +Mr. BELMONT. No evidence whatsoever. + +Mr. STERN. Question 8, Mr. Belmont, on page 5, sets out the information +from a report by Agent Hosty regarding alleged Fair Play for Cuba +Committee activity by Oswald while he was still residing in Dallas. +Have you found that an investigation was conducted to determine whether +that was accurate and do you think it should have been investigated? + +Mr. BELMONT. As to whether he was active with the Fair Play for Cuba +Committee in Dallas? We did check. We have rather excellent coverage +of such activities. There is no evidence whatsoever to indicate that +he was active with the Fair Play for Cuba Committee in Dallas. And, +as a matter of fact, I can go a step further and say that following +his dissemination of pamphlets and his activities in New Orleans, our +inquiry of our sources who are competent to tell us what is going on in +the organizations such as Fair Play for Cuba Committee, advised that +he was not known to them in New Orleans. So that his activities in New +Orleans were of his own making, and not as a part of the organized +activities of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee. + +Mr. McCLOY. On that point, Mr. Belmont, where did he get his material, +the printed material that he was distributing? Must he not have gotten +that from some headquarters? + +Mr. BELMONT. It is my recollection that he had that printed up himself. + +The CHAIRMAN. That is right. + +Mr. McCLOY. All of it, so far as you know, was self-induced, so to +speak? + +Mr. BELMONT. Correct. + +Mr. STERN. Does your answer imply, Mr. Belmont, that there were Fair +Play for Cuba activities in Dallas and New Orleans that you knew about? + +Mr. BELMONT. No; we do not have information of Fair Play for Cuba +activities in Dallas nor any organized activity in New Orleans. So that +this letter that you refer to, which was undated, was, as in so many +things that Oswald wrote, not based on fact. + +Mr. STERN. On page 7 in the answer to question 12, you refer to the +inconsistencies and contradictions between the information Oswald gave +to Agent Quigley when he interviewed him in the New Orleans jail and +the facts as they were known to the FBI before that, and say that "in +the event the investigation of Oswald warranted a further interview, +these discrepancies would have been discussed with him." + +Can you explain why the fact of these inconsistencies and +contradictions and perhaps outright lies to Agent Quigley was not +itself reason for a further interview? + +Mr. BELMONT. Let me turn this just a little bit and say why should we +re-interview him? + +Our interest in this man at this point was to determine whether his +activities constituted a threat to the internal security of the +country. It was apparent that he had made a self-serving statement to +Agent Quigley. It became a matter of record in our files as a part of +the case, and if we determined that the course of the investigation +required us to clarify or face him down with this information, we would +do it at the appropriate time. + +In other words, he committed no violation of the law by telling +us something that wasn't true, and unless this required further +investigation at that time, we would handle it in due course, in accord +with the whole context of the investigation. + +Mr. STERN. Do you know whether the fact of these contradictions was +called to the attention of the Dallas office at the time of Oswald's +return to Dallas? + +Mr. BELMONT. The entire file, of course, or the pertinent serials were +sent to Dallas at the time that the case was transferred back to Dallas +so they would have that information. + +Mr. STERN. I gather what you are saying is they would note the +contradictions from the reports? + +Mr. BELMONT. Yes. + +Mr. STERN. In the answer to question 14 on page 8, again in connection +with these inconsistencies, the letter reads "These inconsistencies +were considered in subsequent investigation." + +Can you expand on that and tell us how they were considered? + +Mr. BELMONT. That is right along the line of my previous explanation +to you, namely, that they were recorded in the file. In the event it +was desired to talk to him further at a future date, they would be +considered as to whether we desired to have him further explain. + +Mr. STERN. On page 12, in response to question 22, which asked for +an explanation of the reason for the investigation to ascertain his +whereabouts, the letter reads, "In view of Oswald's background and +activities the FBI had a continuing interest in him." + +What was the nature of that continuing interest at that time? + +Mr. BELMONT. On August 21, 1963, because of his activities in +distributing these pamphlets, and his arrest in New Orleans, +headquarters here in Washington sent a letter to the New Orleans and +Dallas offices instructing them to pursue the investigation. In other +words, in evaluating this information we felt it desirable that we +further explore his activities to determine whether they were inimical +to the internal security of the country. So that we had this continuing +interest based on our evaluation, and so instructed our field offices. + +Mr. STERN. Mr. Chairman, I believe the answers to the other questions +give us a complete enough record. + +The CHAIRMAN. Very well. + +Mr. STERN. May this exhibit which has been marked 833 for +identification be admitted? + +The CHAIRMAN. It may be admitted in evidence under that number. + +(The document referred to, previously marked Commission Exhibit No. 833 +for identification, was received in evidence.) + +Mr. McCLOY. Is there anything else, Mr. Belmont, that you may want to +add? You have already been asked this question as you went through all +these questions and answers, but is there anything else you would like +to add in view of your answers this morning in further elaboration of +the answers that have been given? + +Mr. BELMONT. No, sir; unless the Commission has further questions at +this point, I believe that the questions are answered properly and +sufficiently. + +Mr. McCLOY. You think that if you are interviewing a defector which is +something that provokes your interest, and I guess the mere fact of +defection and return to the United States would do so, and if you found +that defector was lying to you, you think that without something in +addition to that there would be no further necessity of examining him. +Is that a fair question? Let me put it another way. + +Mr. BELMONT. I have just a little difficulty following you. + +Mr. McCLOY. Here is my point. Here was a defector who comes within the +category of interesting cases naturally. + +Mr. BELMONT. Yes, sir. + +Mr. McCLOY. And you question him and you find he is lying to you. At +that stage, as I understand your testimony, you say without something +more you don't necessarily go any further, is that right? + +Mr. BELMONT. No; that is not correct. We had talked to this man twice +in detail concerning the question of possible recruitment by Soviet +intelligence. We had checked his activities. He was settling down. He +had a wife and a child. He had, according to what he had told us, in +our interview with him, he had not enjoyed his stay in Russia. The +State Department evaluation of him in Moscow was that he had learned +his lesson and, as a matter of fact, he had made some statement to the +effect that he now recognized the value of the American way of life, +along those lines. + +So that we had pretty well settled that issue. At the time that we +interviewed him in the jail in New Orleans, we had again been following +his activities because of his communications, his contacts with The +Worker and the Fair Play for Cuba Committee and our interest there was +to determine whether he was a dangerous subversive. The interview in +the jail was very apparently a self-serving interview in an attempt +to explain his activities in the New Orleans area, and if I recall +correctly, he took the position that the policy as directed against +Cuba was not correct, and that the Fair Play for Cuba Committee was +merely addressing itself to the complaints of Cuba, and was not in +effect a subversive organization. + +If, Mr. McCloy, during those first two interviews where we were +pursuing this matter of him being a defector and his recruitment, he +had lied to us, and the agent was not satisfied we would have pursued +it to the bitter end. Or if during any other time information came to +our attention which indicated a necessity to pursue that further we +would have pursued it to the bitter end. + +Mr. McCLOY. You speak of this as a self-serving interview. Do you think +that he sought the interview with you, with Mr. Quigley eventually, +because he had known of the prior contacts that he had had with the +FBI, and he simply wanted to keep out of trouble? + +Mr. BELMONT. I don't know why he asked to see an agent. I simply do not +know why. + +Mr. McCLOY. I think that is all. + +Mr. STERN. Mr. Belmont, I show you a letter marked for identification +Commission Exhibit No. 834. Can you identify that for the Commission, +please? + +(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 834 for +identification.) + +Mr. BELMONT. This is a letter dated May 4, 1964, addressed to the +Commission which sets forth in summary the contents of the headquarters +file on Oswald prior to the assassination. + +Mr. STERN. Do you have that file with you? + +Mr. BELMONT. Yes, sir. + +Mr. STERN. Would you explain generally to the Commission what materials +there are in that file that for security reasons you would prefer not +to disclose? + +Mr. BELMONT. The file contains the identity of some of our informants +in subversive movements. It contains information as to some of the +investigative techniques whereby we were able to receive some of the +information which has been made available to the Commission. + +Mr. STERN. I think that is enough, Mr. Belmont, on that. + +Mr. McCLOY. You didn't have anything further to add to that, did you? + +Mr. BELMONT. No. + +The CHAIRMAN. I think as to those things if it is agreeable to the +other members of the Commission, we will not pursue any questioning +that will call for an answer that would divulge those matters that you +have just spoken of. + +Mr. BELMONT. I would like to make it clear, Mr. Chairman, that--I think +that is very kind of you--I would like to make it clear that Mr. Hoover +has expressed a desire to be of the utmost help to the Commission, +and to make any information available that will be helpful to the +Commission. I think your observation is very much worthwhile. + +Mr. STERN. Mr. Belmont, have you reviewed the actual file and this +letter of May 4 which summarizes each document in the file? + +Mr. BELMONT. Yes, sir. + +Mr. STERN. And to your knowledge, is this an accurate summary of each +piece of information in the file? + +Mr. BELMONT. Yes, sir. + +Mr. STERN. The file is available to the Commission? + +Mr. BELMONT. Yes, sir. + +Mr. STERN. If they want to look at any item in it? + +Mr. BELMONT. Yes, sir. + +The CHAIRMAN. The file does not include that security matter that you +mentioned, or does it? + +Mr. BELMONT. This file is as it is maintained at the Bureau with all +information in it. + +The CHAIRMAN. With all information in it? + +Mr. BELMONT. Yes, sir; this is the actual file. + +The CHAIRMAN. I see. + +Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Belmont, are you willing to leave the file a reasonable +time in case any of the Commissioners desire to examine it personally? + +Mr. BELMONT. Yes, sir. + +Mr. RANKIN. We will return it. + +The CHAIRMAN. I wonder if we do want it on those conditions. If we want +to get anything from it don't you think, Mr. Rankin, that we ought +to make it known here while the witness is here. I personally don't +care to have this information that involves our security unless it is +necessary, and I don't want to have documents in my possession where it +could be assumed that I had gotten that information and used it, so I +would rather, I would rather myself confine our questions to this file +to the testimony of Mr. Belmont. Then if we want it, if we want any of +those things, it then becomes a matter to discuss here in the open, and +not just in privacy. + +Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Chairman, I felt it made a better record if the file is +available only to the Commissioners in case they do want to examine it, +and then it will be taken back and the staff will not examine it. + +The CHAIRMAN. I think he has stated that the file will be made +available to us whenever we want it. + +Mr. RANKIN. Yes. + +The CHAIRMAN. If we do want it to read it that is one thing. For +myself, I think we can get what we want from examining the witness, +and then if there is any portion of it that comes into play why we can +determine the question here, but I really would prefer not to have a +secret file, I mean a file that contains matters of that kind in our +possession. + +Mr. RANKIN. There is one factor that I wanted to get before the +Commission and in the record, and that is that you had all the +information that the FBI had in regard to this matter, and I thought +that was important to your proceedings, so that we would not retain +such a file, and we had an accurate summary but that it is available +so that the Commission can be satisfied that nothing was withheld from +it in regard to this particular question. That was the purpose of the +inquiry. + +Mr. DULLES. I assume, Mr. Belmont, if later other testimony arises that +would make us desire to refer to this file we could consult it in your +offices or you would make it available to us? + +Mr. BELMONT. Yes, sir. + +The CHAIRMAN. I think I would personally rather have it done on that +basis. What do you think, Mr. McCloy? + +Mr. McCLOY. I was just glancing at the file, and it seems to have the +regular, the usual type of reports that we have seen. But there is a +good bit of elaboration in those, in that file of the summary which +is here. This summary I don't think can purport to be a complete +description of the documents that are in here, as I glance through them +here. + +I just happened to see a good bit of detail in here which doesn't have +anything to do with the security problem we talked about, but I would +think that probably it would be wise for some member of the Commission +or members of the Commission as a whole, to run through that file in +order to be sure that we have seen the material elements of the file +that we would not perhaps, might not, be able to get from this letter +of May 4. + +The CHAIRMAN. Well, there are so many of these questions in here that +are obviously matters that we would have no more concern with than just +to know about them. + +Start from the very beginning, a news clipping from the Corpus Christi +Times, dated October 2, 1959. Now if that excites any interest on the +part of any member, why we could say, "Well, could you show us that?" +Then the next is the United Press release, dated October 31 at Moscow, +and a great many of these. + +Now, I wonder if it wouldn't be better for us to look over all of these +various things, items that are in the file, and then if there are any +that happen to excite our interest, we can ask Mr. Belmont about it. +If it is a matter that involves security, we could then discuss it and +make our determination as to whether we wanted to see it. I would think +that when we are dealing with things that are as sensitive as the FBI +has to deal with in that respect, that that would be adequate; that is +my opinion of it. + +But if the rest of the Commission feel that they want to see it +notwithstanding the security measure, I would, of course, have no +objection. + +Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Chief Justice, what I was trying to deal with was a +claim by someone that the Commission never saw all there was in the +hands of the FBI about Lee Harvey Oswald, and we recognize that some +of these items should not be considered important by anyone, as we look +at the matter, but we wanted you to be able to satisfy the public and +the country that whatever there was that the FBI had, the Commission +had it, and we didn't think that in light of the security problems +the whole file should be a part of the files of the Commission. And +we tried to present here a summary, even of items that did not seem +important, but we did want the record in such condition that the +Commission could say in its report, "We have seen everything that they +have." I think it is important to the case. + +Mr. McCLOY. I notice, Mr. Belmont, in running through this file, a note +here that symbols are used in instances where the identities of the +sources must be concealed. + +Mr. BELMONT. That is correct, sir. + +Mr. McCLOY. If that is so---- + +Mr. BELMONT. In some instances. + +Mr. McCLOY. Only in some instances. There are other cases where that is +not the case. + +Mr. BELMONT. Yes; that is right. + +Mr. McCLOY. There is a great deal of narrative in here about Oswald and +his relations with the Embassy. Maybe it is elsewhere in the record. + +Mr. BELMONT. I would presume that you have received that from the other +agencies. Those are copies of communications that the other agencies +sent to us. + +The CHAIRMAN. Well, why couldn't we go over this list and see what +items we would be interested in and then we can determine, can we not, +whether we want---- + +Mr. McCLOY. I am not so sure, you can look through this yourself, I am +not so sure if from reading just that short summary you get the full +impact of all the narrative that is in the various reports. There is a +good bit here. For example, one page I have here about this business of +beating his wife and the drinking. There is a good bit of detail. + +Mr. BELMONT. Mr. McCloy, you have that record. + +The CHAIRMAN. We have the record, I have read the records myself. + +Mr. McCLOY. Maybe we have that one. + +Mr. BELMONT. Any investigative report you have. + +Mr. McCLOY. Is there any investigative report in here that we have not +got? + +Mr. BELMONT. No, sir. + +Mr. RANKIN. We are trying to develop, Mr. Chief Justice and +Commissioners, that you have everything that the FBI had, this is their +total file in regard to this matter of Lee Harvey Oswald so that there +is nothing withheld from you as far as the FBI is concerned. That is +part of what we are trying to develop this morning, in addition to the +items themselves. + +Mr. DULLES. I wonder if the staff, Mr. Rankin, could not go over this +and check over those items we have from other sources and what the FBI +has already furnished us so what we deal with with respect to this file +are only items that are not in the Commission's records, already. That +would cut this down by half, I would imagine or more. + +Mr. RANKIN. Yes; we could do that for you. + +Mr. DULLES. Then we could have this available possibly at a later date +just to check over the other items against your files to see if there +is any information there that we really need. + +The CHAIRMAN. You could come back, couldn't you, Mr. Belmont? + +Mr. BELMONT. I am at your disposal. + +The CHAIRMAN. I think that would be better. I think, Mr. Rankin, your +purpose is entirely laudable here, but I think we do have to use some +discretion in the matter, and you say that you want it so we can say we +have seen everything. Well, the same people who would demand that we +see everything of this kind would also demand that they be entitled to +see it, and if it is security matters we can't let them see it. It has +to go back to the FBI without their scrutiny. + +So unless, I would say, unless there is something that we think +here is vital to this situation, that it isn't necessary for us to +see the whole file, particularly in view of the fact that we have +practically--we have all the reports, he says we have all the reports +that are in that file, and it just seems like thrashing old straw to go +over it and over it again. + +Mr. McCLOY. Do we have copies of all these telegrams that are in here +from the Embassy? + +Mr. BELMONT. You are looking at---- + +Mr. McCLOY. Not Embassy; here is one from Mexico. Do we have that? We +don't have these in our files, for example. + +Mr. BELMONT. This is subsequent to the assassination. You see your area +of interest at this point is information, all information we had prior +to the assassination. I did not remove from this file the items that +started to come in subsequent to the assassination, you see. + +Mr. McCLOY. My feeling is that somebody on the Commission should +examine that file. I can't come to any other conclusion after reading +it all, because I don't know what is in it, what is in our record, +and what is in that file. There is a good bit of material there that +is narrative, which I think would be relevant. Certainly, I don't +believe we can be possibly criticized for deleting or not producing +a file which contains the type of information that you are speaking +of. We are just as interested in protecting the security of your +investigative processes as you are. But I don't think that when it is +on the record that we have this file, that may contain material that +was not in our files, and we are given the opportunity to examine it, +without disclosing these confidential matters that we ought not to have +somebody go through it. + +Mr. DULLES. I agree with that but I think we could save time if we +checked off first what we have already and that would cut out about +half of that file probably. + +Mr. McCLOY. I think in a rapid glance through it, I think just about +half of it. + +The CHAIRMAN. Well, suppose you do that then, get those and let's see. +All right, proceed, Mr. Stern. + +Mr. STERN. I think perhaps we ought to leave the entire matter of the +file then until we can give you the information. + +The CHAIRMAN. That is right. + +Mr. STERN. May we admit for the purposes of the record this list at +this time, Mr. Chief Justice, which has been marked No. 834? + +The CHAIRMAN. Yes. There are no security matters in this? + +Mr. BELMONT. No, sir. + +The CHAIRMAN. It may be admitted as Exhibit No. 834. + +(The document referred to, previously marked Commission Exhibit No. 834 +for identification, was received in evidence.) + +Mr. STERN. Mr. Belmont, can you identify this letter dated February 6 +with an attached affidavit which has been marked for identification as +Commission Exhibit No. 835? + +(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 835, for +identification.) + +Mr. BELMONT. Yes; this is a letter dated February 6, 1964, to the +Commission from the FBI to which is attached an affidavit by Director +J. Edgar Hoover. + +Mr. STERN. What is the subject? + +Mr. BELMONT. Stating flatly that Lee Harvey Oswald was never an +informant of the FBI. + +Mr. DULLES. Would you define informant. Obviously in the sense he knew +some information as previously indicated from the previous interviews. +I mean for the record, would you just define what you mean by an +informant in this sense? + +Mr. BELMONT. An informant in this sense is an individual who has agreed +to cooperate with the FBI and to furnish information to the FBI either +for or without payment. + +Mr. STERN. Thank you. + +Mr. BELMONT. This would not, of course, include the cooperative citizen +to whom we go, and who frequently and frankly discloses any information +in his possession, but rather someone who joins an organization or +seeks out information at the direction and instance of the FBI relative +to subversive or criminal matters. In other words, I want to make it +clear we do not regard patriotic citizens as informants. + +Mr. STERN. I take it you also would not have regarded Lee Oswald as an +informant from the contacts with him that you have told us about and +the other agents have told us about? + +Mr. BELMONT. Indeed not; in no way could he be considered an informant; +in no way. + +Mr. STERN. Did you supervise or assist in the preparation of the +information contained here? + +Mr. BELMONT. Yes, sir. + +Mr. STERN. And you are familiar with it? + +Mr. BELMONT. Yes; I am. + +Mr. STERN. And to your knowledge, does it accurately and completely +state the Bureau's practice in recruiting a prospective informant? + +Mr. BELMONT. That is correct. + +Mr. STERN. Is there anything you would like to add to the information +covered in there with respect to your practices regarding informants? + +Mr. BELMONT. No; only in my personal knowledge this is a correct +statement and Lee Harvey Oswald was not an informant of the FBI. + +Mr. STERN. Did you ever use the term "agent" to apply to anyone other +than an employee, a special agent employee of the FBI? + +Mr. BELMONT. No; we do not. + +Mr. DULLES. Could I ask you, Mr. Belmont, whether Mr. Fain's separation +from the FBI had anything whatever to do with the Oswald case or in his +handling of the Oswald case? + +Mr. BELMONT. No; indeed not. Mr. Fain came to the retirement age and +decided he wanted to retire, which is his privilege, and he retired and +is presently working in Texas and very happy, I understand. + +Mr. DULLES. Thank you. + +Mr. BELMONT. He retired in good graces, good standing, so far as the +FBI is concerned. + +The CHAIRMAN. And a year before the assassination. + +Mr. BELMONT. Frankly, I don't recall. + +The CHAIRMAN. Yes; it was August 1962, he testified. + +Mr. STERN. You have already covered this, Mr. Belmont, but just so that +the record is completely clear on this point, was Lee Oswald ever an +agent of the FBI? + +Mr. BELMONT. Lee Oswald was never an agent of the FBI. + +Mr. STERN. The letter of February 6, 1964, from Mr. Hoover, alludes to +testimony furnished the Commission by District Attorney Wade. Have you +subsequently been advised that Mr. Wade had not testified before the +Commission? + +Mr. BELMONT. Yes; we received a letter from the Commission advising us +that the incident referred to was an informal discussion rather than +actual testimony before the Commission. + +Mr. STERN. And also to complete the record, have you been advised that +Mr. Wade was not suggesting that he believed the rumor about Oswald +as an informant, but felt obliged to call it to the attention of the +Commission? + +Mr. BELMONT. The Commission's letter so advised us. + +Mr. STERN. Mr. Chairman, may this be admitted with No. 835? + +The CHAIRMAN. It may be admitted under that number. + +(The document referred to, previously marked Commission Exhibit No. 835 +for identification, was received in evidence.) + +Mr. STERN. Mr. Belmont, I show you a letter dated February 12, 1964, +a number of affidavits by special agents, attached to it. It was +identified yesterday, parts of it were identified yesterday and it +therefore carries the number for identification 825. Can you identify +this letter for us? + +Mr. BELMONT. In order to be sure--I beg your pardon. This is a letter +dated February 12, 1964, to the Commission from the FBI, to which is +attached affidavits of FBI personnel who had reason to contact Lee +Harvey Oswald and who were in a supervisory capacity over the agents +who contacted Oswald. + +Mr. STERN. Did you supervise the preparation of this material? + +Mr. BELMONT. These affidavits were prepared, of course, by the men +themselves. I have read the affidavits, and they were compiled as an +enclosure and sent over with this letter. + +Mr. STERN. You have reviewed them in preparation for your testimony +before the Commission? + +Mr. BELMONT. Yes, sir. + +Mr. STERN. To your knowledge, are they accurate? + +Mr. BELMONT. They are accurate, to my knowledge, yes. + +Mr. STERN. Are they complete? + +Mr. BELMONT. Yes. + +Mr. STERN. They do not omit any significant fact you know of? + +Mr. BELMONT. No. + +Mr. STERN. In connection with the material they cover? + +Mr. BELMONT. No. + +Mr. STERN. Unless there are any questions on that, Mr. Chairman, I +suggest we admit this document. + +The CHAIRMAN. It may be admitted as No. 825. + +(The document referred to, previously marked Commission Exhibit No. 825 +for identification, was received in evidence.) + +Mr. STERN. Mr. Belmont, I show you a letter dated March 31, 1964, from +Director Hoover to Mr. Rankin, the General Counsel of the Commission, +with a series of attachments. Can you identify this which has been +marked for identification as No. 836. Can you identify this for the +Commission? + +(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 836 for +identification.) + +Mr. BELMONT. This is a letter dated March 31, 1964, to the Commission +from the FBI to which is attached the instructions contained in our +manuals as to the type of information which should be disseminated to +Secret Service and our relations or liaison with Secret Service. + +Mr. STERN. It was prepared in response to a request from the Commission? + +Mr. BELMONT. That is correct. + +Mr. STERN. Did you supervise or assist in the preparation? + +Mr. BELMONT. I did. + +Mr. STERN. Have you reviewed it recently? + +Mr. BELMONT. Yes. + +Mr. STERN. Is it complete with respect to the matters covered? + +Mr. BELMONT. Yes; it is. + +Mr. STERN. Is there anything you would like to add to it with respect +to the matters covered? + +Mr. BELMONT. Well---- + +Mr. DULLES. May I just interrupt here a moment. Is this inquiry +directed to the question of whether it is now adequate or whether this +is complete as of the time of the assassination? I think we have two +questions there to consider. + +Mr. BELMONT. Mr. Dulles, this letter outlines our relations with Secret +Service and the material that is attached covers both the instructions +to our agents prior to the assassination and the current instructions. + +Mr. DULLES. Subsequent to the assassination? + +Mr. BELMONT. Yes, sir. + +Mr. DULLES. Yes. + +Mr. STERN. What were the criteria you employed and instructed your +agents to employ before the assassination in determining what +information should be reported to the Secret Service regarding threats +against the President, members of his family, the President-elect, and +the Vice President? + +Mr. BELMONT. These are contained in detail in the attachments which +represent sections of our manual of instructions which are available to +all of our personnel in the field as well as the seat of Government, +and also in the FBI handbook which is in possession of the individual +agent in the field. These instructions require that any information +indicating the possibility of an attempt against the person or safety +of the persons mentioned by you must be referred immediately by the +most expeditious means of communications to the nearest office of the +Secret Service. Further, that our headquarters in Washington must be +advised by teletype of the information and the fact that it has been +furnished to Secret Service. + +Mr. STERN. Specifically, the kind of information you were interested +in, that is before the assassination? + +Mr. BELMONT. Yes. Specifically the kind? + +Mr. STERN. Yes. + +Mr. BELMONT. Any information indicating the possibility of a threat +against the President and Vice President and members of the family. + +Mr. STERN. Have you broadened---- + +Mr. BELMONT. I may say, sir---- + +Mr. STERN. Yes. + +Mr. BELMONT. That this practice was assiduously followed, and you will +find that the files of the Secret Service are loaded with information +over the years that we have furnished them. That was a practice +religiously followed and a practice voluntarily followed without +request. In other words, we do not have a written request for this type +of information but rather considered it our responsibility and duty to +furnish this information. + +Mr. STERN. Did you ever participate in or do you know of any discussion +with the Secret Service before the assassination regarding the kind of +information they were interested in? + +Mr. BELMONT. We had close liaison with Secret Service, and I have no +doubt that in oral discussions that the question came up. I wasn't +present but I would assume it has come up, particularly as we were +constantly furnishing information. We have no written criteria, you +might say, as to what should be furnished. + +Mr. STERN. That is, established by the Secret Service. + +Mr. BELMONT. That is correct. + +Mr. STERN. And you yourself never participated in any discussion of---- + +Mr. BELMONT. No; I did not. + +Mr. STERN. This liaison function. + +Mr. BELMONT. This is something we have done for years on the basis that +we consider it our responsibility not only as far as the President +goes. As you know, Mr. Chairman, we have also followed the same policy +relative to other high officials when it appears desirable. + +Mr. STERN. Have you subsequent to the assassination augmented your +instructions to special agents in this respect? + +Mr. BELMONT. Yes. On December 26, 1963, we prepared additional +instructions reiterating those already in effect, and adding other +dissemination to Secret Service concerning the security of the +President. + +The CHAIRMAN. Where do those new ones appear in the exhibit, Mr. +Belmont? + +Mr. BELMONT. They appear as an attachment--working from the back, I +think, Mr. Chairman, I can help you most. + +The CHAIRMAN. Yes. + +Mr. BELMONT. Eight pages from the back it starts, it reads, "Manual of +Instructions Section 83." + +The CHAIRMAN. Yes; I have it. + +Mr. BELMONT. The first page is the same information that we previously +furnished to Secret Service involving threats. + +The CHAIRMAN. The first page is intact, as it was before. + +Mr. BELMONT. There may be some slight changes in wording but +essentially it is the same dealing with possible threats. + +The CHAIRMAN. Yes. + +Mr. DULLES. Mr. Belmont, I wonder if it would be possible for the +Commission's convenience to date each one of these papers as of a +certain date. It is quite difficult going through it now without +referring to the letter in each case to determine whether the +instructions are as of the date of the assassination or as of the +present date? + +Mr. BELMONT. We can do that without any difficulty. I would be glad to +do it with the staff, or can I help you here? + +Mr. DULLES. Well, I think we can do that later but I think it would +be useful when this goes into the record for our later reference in +studying this to have those dates available to us on each one of the +attachments. + +Mr. BELMONT. Very good. + +Mr. DULLES. Thank you. + +Mr. BELMONT. Coming back to this item you inquired about, sir, +the other dissemination to Secret Service concerning the security +of the President is set forth on pages 2 and 3 of this inclusion +in our manual, and it extends the dissemination to "subversives, +ultrarightists, racists, and fascists, (_a_) possessing emotional +instability or irrational behavior, (_b_) who have made threats of +bodily harm against officials or employees of Federal, State or local +government or officials of a foreign government, (_c_) who express +or have expressed strong or violent anti-U.S. sentiments and who +have been involved in bombing or bomb-making or whose past conduct +indicates tendencies toward violence, and (_d_) whose prior acts or +statements depict propensity for violence and hatred against organized +government." That was prepared in an effort to provide additional, and +a voluntary effort, without request, to provide additional information +that might be helpful to avoid such an incident as happened November +22, 1963. + +Mr. STERN. This did not come about, this change did not come about, +through any request from the Secret Service or discussion with the +Secret Service? + +Mr. BELMONT. No. We made these changes, as I say, in an effort to +provide any additional information in the light of what happened that +might be of assistance to Secret Service and might assist in protecting +the President. + +Mr. DULLES. I wonder, Mr. Belmont, whether you would consider possibly +changing in section (_d_) the word "and" to "or" whose prior acts or +statements depict propensity for violence" and then it now reads "and +hatred against organized government". There have been cases, I believe, +where the propensity for violence had not been previously noted but the +hatred of organized government has. + +Mr. BELMONT. We will be happy to change that. + +Mr. DULLES. I just suggest for your consideration, I don't wish to +rewrite it. + +Mr. BELMONT. We would be happy to change it, Mr. Dulles. + +Mr. STERN. Following Mr. Dulles' thought, in the line above that, Mr +Belmont, should that "and" before (_d_) be "and" or "or"? Do you mean +these---- + +Mr. BELMONT. We do not mean that all of these items must be coupled +together if that is your thought. + +Mr. STERN. That is right. + +Mr. BELMONT. We will be happy to change the "and" before (d) to an "or". + +Mr. STERN. This means any of the broad classifications of people, +subversives, ultrarightists, racists or fascists who meet any of these +four tests. + +Mr. BELMONT. That is correct. + +Mr. STERN. Can you give the Commission some notion of the increase in +volume which the broadening of your criteria has brought about? By +volume, I mean the volume of your references to the Secret Service. + +Mr. BELMONT. I do not have an exact figure, however, I do know that +more than 5,000 additional names have gone over to Secret Service under +these criteria. + +The CHAIRMAN. In what period of time? + +Mr. BELMONT. Since we put them out. + +The CHAIRMAN. I see. + +Mr. BELMONT. Which was December 26. + +The CHAIRMAN. Yes. + +Mr. McCLOY. Have you included defectors in this list? + +Mr. BELMONT. Yes, sir; we do include defectors. + +Mr. STERN. You mean as of December 26, 1963? + +Mr. BELMONT. Correct. + +Mr. STERN. Has the expansion of your criteria led to any problem or +difficulty for you or for individuals or do you anticipate any problem +or difficulty under the expanded criteria? + +Mr. BELMONT. It seems to me that there is a necessity to balance +security against freedom of the individual. This is a country of laws +and a government of law, and not a government of men. Inevitably the +increase in security means an increase in the control of the individual +and a diminishment, therefore, of his individual liberties. It is +a simple matter to increase security. But every time you increase +security you diminish the area of the rights of the individual. In +some countries the problem of a visiting dignitary is met without much +difficulty. Persons who are suspect or may be considered dangerous +are immediately rounded up and detained while the individual is in the +country. The authorities have no problem because in those countries +there is not a free society such as we enjoy, and the people who are +detained have no redress. The FBI approaches this whole field of +security--I am not boring you with this, am I? + +The CHAIRMAN. No, indeed. This is tremendously important. + +Mr. BELMONT. The FBI approaches this whole field of security and its +tremendous responsibilities to protect the internal security of the +country as a sacred trust. In carrying out our investigations and our +work in the security field, we do it in such a manner under the law +that we strengthen rather than weaken the free society that we enjoy. +It is for that reason that our men are trained carefully, thoroughly, +and supervised carefully, to insure that their approach to the entire +security field, which inevitably touches on control of thought, is +handled with extreme care. Our activities are directed to meet the +terrific responsibility we have for the internal security of the +country, but to meet it under the law. We feel that to place security +as such above the rights of the individual or to increase these +controls beyond what is absolutely essential is the first step toward +the destruction of this free society that we enjoy. + +We have been asked many times why we don't pick up and jail all +Communists. The very people who ask those questions don't realize that +if action, unrestrained action, is taken against a particular group +of people, a precedent is set which can be seized on in the future by +power-hungry or unscrupulous authorities as a precedent, and which +inevitably will gnaw away at this free society we have, and sooner or +later will be applied to the very individuals who are seeking this +action. Up until the time of the assassination we religiously and +carefully and expeditiously furnished to Secret Service immediately +on a local basis as well as on a national basis, headquarters basis, +any and all information that in any way was indicated to be a possible +threat against the President. This permitted Secret Service to take +such action as was required against these individuals who had by +their action set the stage for appropriate restraint or observation +based on something they did. Therefore, they were not in a position +to complain legitimately because they had by some word or deed set +in motion a threat against the President of the United States. Since +the assassination, as I have testified, we have broadened the area of +dissemination in an effort to be helpful. It stands without question +that we could have said, "No; we won't go any further." But we felt +that it was our responsibility to do whatever we could do and, hence, +we have broadened these criteria, and we have distributed thousands of +pieces of information on individuals to Secret Service. + +(At this point in the proceedings, Representative Ford enters the +hearing room.) + +We are not entirely comfortable about this, because under these +broadened criteria after all we are furnishing names of people who have +not made a threat against the President, people who have expressed +beliefs, who have belonged or do belong to organizations which believe +in violent revolution or taking things into their own hands. Unless +such information is handled with judgment and care, it can be dangerous. + +For example, we know that in one city when the President recently +visited, the police went to these people and told them, "You stay in +the house while the President is here or if you go out, we will go with +you." We know that these people have threatened to consult attorneys, +have threatened to make a public issue of the matter on the theory that +this is restraint that is not justified as they have made no threats +against the President. Now, when you examine this a bit further, we +give these names to Secret Service. Secret Service must do something +with those names, and Secret Service solicits the assistance of the +police, quite properly. But I don't need, I think, to paint this +picture any further, that when you get away from a specific act or deed +of threats against the President, and you go into the broader area of +what, perhaps, a man is thinking and, therefore, he may be a threat, +and you take action against the man on the basis of that, there is a +danger. + +That is why, despite the fact that we have given this additional +information and will continue to do so, we are uneasy. Again, if I +may be permitted to continue, this is inherent in the entire approach +of the FBI to the security field. We go as far in our investigations +as is necessary. But we go no further. We do not harass people. +We do not conduct an investigation of a man for what he may be +thinking. We attempt to the very best of our ability to carry out +this responsibility for internal security without adopting tactics +of harassment or unwarranted investigation, and we will not pursue +a security matter beyond that which is essential to carry out our +responsibilities. Now, I say that because that is the broad field of +our policy, and I say it with complete sincerity, because I know. I +have been in this work with the FBI both in the actual investigative +field and in the policymaking and supervisory field for 27 years, and +I know the policies and the procedures that are followed, and the care +with which this problem is approached, and I agree with it fully. + +Mr. McCLOY. You are going to impose a pretty heavy burden on the Secret +Service when you dump them with the 5,000 more names than they have +been used to having. + +Mr. BELMONT. It will be more than 5,000, sir. This will continue. + +Mr. McCLOY. From your knowledge of the situation, do you feel that +the Secret Service is equipped to cope with this added burden? Is it +something that you feel---- + +Mr. BELMONT. The Secret Service, as it has in the past, is required +to call on the police for assistance in this field when the President +visits a city. I do not know the exact complement of personnel of +Secret Service, but they are a relatively small organization. + +Mr. McCLOY. It may be they will have to reorganize some of their +procedures to cope with this, won't they? + +Mr. BELMONT. I do not know. + +Mr. McCLOY. You have got a pretty broad classification here. "All +investigative personnel should be alert for the identification of +subversives, ultrarightists, racists, and Fascists (_a_) possessing +emotional instability or irrational behavior." That may include a +good many people in the United States and maybe some members of this +Commission--I am speaking for myself. There is irrational behavior that +I have been guilty of many times. [Laughter.] This doesn't mean you +are going to send everybody over there, but the names that--all those +under your classification, all of those in your opinion come under that +classification unless you feel they have some, there is some, reason +behind it. In other words, you are selective in this list. You purport +to be selective in the numbers that you are going to convey to, the +names you are going to convey to, the Secret Service. + +Mr. BELMONT. We endeavor to use good judgment, sir. Now, as you +indicate there are what, 190 million people in this country, and who +knows when someone may adopt abnormal behavior. + +You cannot tell tomorrow who will pose a risk. This is an effort to be +as helpful as possible and, as we have in the past, we will use our +best judgment. But this will broaden considerably the type of people +and the number of people who go to the Secret Service. + +Mr. McCLOY. That is what I am getting at really, Mr. Belmont. You are +not saying that all those people that you characterize here under +this paragraph 2 will ipso facto be sent over to the Secret Service +every time the President makes a move. This simply says that all +investigative personnel should be alert in that situation; am I right +in that? + +Mr. BELMONT. No, sir. If you will follow in the next paragraph, we say, +"If cases are developed falling within the above categories, promptly +furnish Secret Service locally a letterhead memorandum" with the +information. + +Mr. McCLOY. So without any further ado all the people in your list who +are in that category will be transferred over to the Secret Service +when there is an occasion, when the President travels? + +Mr. BELMONT. No. This is a continuing procedure. In other words, during +our investigations we come across someone who is in this area or +category, and this is a requirement that that man's name go to Secret +Service with a brief description of him, and Secret Service then has +that filed and is in a position to know that that individual has been +referred to them. + +Mr. McCLOY. Well, that brings up again the comment that I originally +made. This does put a big burden of investigation and judgment on +the Secret Service, one which they have not heretofore presumably had +placed on their shoulders. + +Mr. BELMONT. I think you are correct. + +Mr. McCLOY. The reason I am asking these questions is because by +implication, at least, one of our directives is to look into this +situation for the future protection of the President, and we want to +see that we have got something that is practical as well as cautious. + +Mr. DULLES. Do the memoranda attached, Mr. Belmont, to this exhibit +indicate what classes were so identified for investigation under the +procedures existing at the time of the assassination and what change +has been made, how it has been extended? + +Mr. BELMONT. Yes, sir. If you---- + +Mr. DULLES. By the definitions under paragraph 2 of the Manual of +Instructions. + +Mr. BELMONT. The previous page and the paragraph right above No. 2 sets +forth the same information that we acted on prior to the assassination. + +Mr. DULLES. That is paragraph 1? + +Mr. BELMONT. Yes, sir. + +Mr. DULLES. The Manual of Instructions, section 83. + +Mr. BELMONT. Yes, sir. + +Mr. DULLES. What are the various categories given now at the top of +page 2 of this exhibit which have been added? + +Mr. BELMONT. At the top of page 2, sir, that is the information that +should be included in the notification to headquarters as to who the +individual is and the background information that was furnished to +Secret Service so that we, too, can disseminate to Secret Service here. + +Representative FORD. Under the new criteria would Oswald's name have +gone to the Secret Service automatically? + +Mr. BELMONT. Well, Congressman, right now we are including all +defectors automatically. + +Now, the question whether Oswald meets these criteria here as set +forth is a question of judgment. As I say, right now we do furnish all +defectors. + +Representative FORD. Defectors are for the time being at least a +special category other than what is set forth here unless for some +other reason they would fall into one of these categories. + +Mr. BELMONT. Yes. + +Mr. McCLOY. Do you under that category send forward all Communists? + +Mr. BELMONT. Yes. + +Mr. McCLOY. All Communists, yes. + +Mr. DULLES. Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether or not it would be wise +for the record at this point to read into the record, in view of the +importance of this, this paragraph which we are now discussing and +which, as I understand it, contains the new definition of investigative +cases? + +The CHAIRMAN. Yes; we can put it into the record. + +Mr. DULLES. Mr. Belmont, as I understand it, the new criteria are set +forth in paragraph 2 on page 2 of the Manual of Instructions, section +83; is that correct? + +Mr. BELMONT. That is correct. + +Mr. McCLOY. Which, as I counted, is the 12th page of the Commission's +Exhibit No. 836; is that right, Mr. Stern? + +Mr. STERN. That is right number of the exhibit. + +Mr. McCLOY. 836, and I think it is the 12th page. + +Mr. DULLES. For convenient reference I suggest that when this be +included that we add the dates and the page numbers. + +Mr. STERN. I think the witness can do this immediately. + +The CHAIRMAN. We will give a copy of it to the reporter and he may copy +it and incorporate it later in the record. + +(Paragraph 2 reads as follows:) + +"Other dissemination to Secret Service concerning security of the +President. All investigative personnel should be alert for the +identification of subversives, ultrarightists, racists, and Fascists +(_a_) possessing emotional instability or irrational behavior, (_b_) +who have made threats of bodily harm against officials or employees +of Federal, State, or local government or officials of a foreign +government, (_c_) who express or have expressed strong or violent +anti-U.S. sentiments and who have been involved in bombing or bomb +making or whose past conduct indicates tendencies toward violence, and +(_d_) whose prior acts or statements depict propensity for violence and +hatred against organized government." + +Mr. DULLES. Do I understand you, Mr. Belmont, to say, as drafted +you would not consider that defectors automatically fell under this +paragraph 2, but it is your practice to notify the Secret Service about +defectors? + +Mr. BELMONT. We do notify Secret Service of any defectors coming to our +attention. + +Mr. DULLES. And by defectors, I guess we mean here maybe a redefector, +meaning those who have gone to Russia and have come back or maybe those +who have gone and not come back. + +Mr. BELMONT. If they haven't come back---- + +Mr. DULLES. They are not a danger. + +Mr. BELMONT. They are not within our cognizance and we don't notify +Secret Service. + +Mr. DULLES. These would be defectors who have gone to the Soviet Union +and who then come back to the United States and tried to defect while +they were over there. + +Mr. McCLOY. Not necessarily, not exclusively the Soviet Union, of +course. + +Mr. DULLES. Communist countries, I would say. + +Representative FORD. Just to get an order of magnitude, how many are +there? Is this a sizable number? + +Mr. BELMONT. I don't have a figure, Mr. Ford. You have had defectors in +Korea from the military. You have had defectors---- + +Mr. McCLOY. Germany. + +Mr. BELMONT. Berlin. When these are military personnel they are within +the cognizance of the military, so that it is very difficult for me to +give you a figure. + +When we become interested is when they return to this country and +warrant action by us from an internal security standpoint. + +As in the Oswald case, we started our action based on newspaper +publicity that he had attempted to or indicated his intention to, +renounce his citizenship in Moscow. But I do not have a figure because +many of these people are members of the armed services and I would +hesitate to give you an estimate. + +Mr. STERN. Mr. Belmont, do these terms "subversives, ultrarightists, +racists, and Fascists" have a particular meaning of art in FBI +parlance? Can you tell us how you use these terms in this regulation or +what these mean to you and to your agents. + +Mr. BELMONT. I will have to refer you to the dictionary, I think, Mr. +Stern. A subversive is an individual who is active in the Communist +Party or front groups associated with it or one of the other groups +that we term subversive, such as the Socialist Workers Party. + +The ultrarightists---- + +Mr. DULLES. Socialist Workers Party is a Trotskyite Party, is it not? + +Mr. BELMONT. Yes, sir. + +The ultrarightists, I believe here we attempt to spell out those people +who are so far to the right that they do not consider themselves +subject to the law and the proper procedures, and take things into +their own hands. + +The racists, I think, are--that speaks for itself, individuals who will +go beyond the bounds of propriety in seeking their goals, and who adopt +violence. + +The Fascists---- + +Mr. McCLOY. I was wondering how you were going to define that one. + +Mr. BELMONT. Is to give you the opposite end of the spectrum of +subversives. + +Mr. DULLES. Do we have anarchists in this country at the present time? +There used to be an old anarchist society in the old days. + +Mr. BELMONT. That used to be, but it is dissolved. There is no +organization. I venture to say we have individual anarchists at this +time. + +Mr. DULLES. No organized anarchist organization. + +Mr. BELMONT. No. + +Mr. STERN. Mr. Belmont, in view of the quite important considerations +you mentioned before, the danger of interfering with individual +liberty, would it be possible within your organization to have the +agents recommend to headquarters here and have someone at a higher +level examine the recommendation before it is made to the Secret +Service? This is, as I understand it, a continuing program and not one +that comes into effect only when the President schedules a trip. This +would operate without respect to scheduled trips by the President. +Would that be possible? Would it fit your operation? Do you think it +might help any? + +Mr. BELMONT. Well, what is your thought behind that, Mr. Stern? In +other words, so that names of persons won't indiscriminately be sent on +a local level? + +Mr. STERN. Precisely. These categories are, after all, fairly gross. +They use large terms which can mean different things to different +people. The considerations you mention, I think, are quite real and +important. Would it help any to do something of the sort? + +Mr. BELMONT. I think we will find that our agents are using good +judgment in this matter. The danger involved in referring these matters +to headquarters for a decision as to dissemination is the delay in +time and, you will note, we stress the time element that when such +information comes into the possession of our agents, immediate steps +must be taken to transmit this information to Secret Service by the +most expeditious means possible. + +This might be of assistance to you. This information which we send to +Secret Service in the field is placed in a control file, a separate +file in the field, and is subject, under instructions, to inspection +by our inspectors as they visit our field offices to insure that this +requirement is being carried out properly; and they will examine the +type of material that is being sent over. + +Each field office is thoroughly inspected about once a year, and that +is one of the requirements that they go through this to make sure this +instruction is being properly carried out. + +Mr. McCLOY. I have no further questions. I have some general questions +I would like to get to at the end, but I have to leave early this +afternoon. + +Mr. RANKIN. I have one question I wanted to interject, Mr. Chairman, +and that is as to statements, Mr. Belmont, about subversives, including +persons who are members of Communist front groups. You mean to say that +that includes any person who is a member of a Communist front group +because, as you know, many leading citizens have been members of such +groups. + +Mr. BELMONT. Now, Mr. Rankin, I wouldn't carry it by any means that +far. It would be dependent upon the front group, the extent of activity +in it, and the activities of the individual. By no means would we +classify someone as a subversive who was connected with a front group +by name or---- + +Mr. DULLES. By front groups you mean those on the Attorney General's +list; you are taking that as a criterion of a front group? + +Mr. BELMONT. No, sir; not necessarily that, sir. There are other groups +that we consider front groups. + +Mr. DULLES. I see. + +Mr. BELMONT. I am glad you raised that because each case would have to +be considered on its own individual merits as to what is the extent of +the activity and the purpose and intent of the activity. + +Mr. RANKIN. You recognize in the work in this field that there are many +Americans who are interested in certain causes and purposes and front +groups in connection with them who are loyal Americans, don't you? + +Mr. BELMONT. I have no doubt of that whatsoever. + +Mr. RANKIN. I just wanted to get that in the record. + +Mr. BELMONT. I also know many loyal Americans, unfortunately, who +don't look behind some of these groups to determine their intents +and purposes, and allow their names to be used where they would not +otherwise do so if they took the time and trouble to check into what +the organization was. + +Mr. RANKIN. So you don't lump them all under the term "subversive," +that is what I was trying to get at. + +Mr. BELMONT. Right. + +The CHAIRMAN. I suppose some join before an organization is +infiltrated, too. + +Mr. BELMONT. That is correct, sir. + +The CHAIRMAN. They find themselves in a mousetrap then. + +Mr. BELMONT. That is correct, sir; that is right. + +Mr. McCLOY. In other words, you would expect your agents to exert some +selection before they would send these names over to the Secret Service. + +Mr. BELMONT. Our agents use judgment in the pursuance of this work, and +they would continue to use judgment in the selection of people who meet +this criterion. Otherwise if you carried this to the extreme you would +get out of hand completely. So that there is judgment applied here and +our agents are capable of applying the judgment. + +Representative FORD. What has been the reaction of the Secret Service +to this greater flow of information that they have received? + +Mr. BELMONT. They have taken it. There has been no official reaction, +to my knowledge. + +Representative FORD. Have they objected to the greater burden? + +Mr. BELMONT. No, sir; I would like to say, I don't know whether you +are going to cover this, Mr. Stern, that our relations with the Secret +Service are excellent. We work closely together. + +As a matter of fact, since the assassination, at the request of +Mr. Rowley, we have furnished agents to assist on occasion in the +protection of the President, which is primarily a function of Secret +Service, but as a cooperative gesture we have on a number of occasions +made agents available at the request of Mr. Rowley. I think the figure +runs to something like 139 agents--yes, 139 agents that we have made +available. + +We do have a very close liaison with Secret Service both at the seat +of Government and in our field offices. We have a supervisor here at +the seat of Government whose duty it is to stay directly in touch +with Secret Service, to cut redtape and produce results both for +Secret Service and for the FBI; to see that the problems are handled +immediately. He has direct access to Mr. Rowley, and we have on a +number of occasions at the request of Secret Service, sent one of our +agents with the Secret Service when the President travels abroad, +particularly where we have a representative in the countries being +visited, because our relations with the law enforcement officials in +those countries have been built up over the years, and we are thus +in a position to assist Secret Service in establishing the necessary +security measures and the flow of information to serve their purpose. + +In addition, when the President travels abroad we alert all of our +offices to advise us of any information which may pertain to the travel +of the President, and we set up a supervisor back here to receive +that information and cable it or get it immediately to our man who is +accompanying the President when he makes this trip. + +This is done, this agent going with Secret Service is done, at the +invitation and request of Secret Service. + +Representative FORD. 169 agents of the FBI who have assisted since the +assassination. Did Secret Service make a specific request for their +help in these instances? + +Mr. BELMONT. Yes; Mr. Rowley advised that he needed help, it was +offered to him by Mr. Hoover, and when the President is going to visit +a city and Secret Service does not have sufficient personnel in that +particular city to cover what they consider is necessary, they need +specialized help from us, they will make the request to us and we will +authorize our local agent in charge to make those men, the designated +number, available to the Secret Service representative, who then uses +their services while the President is there. + +Representative FORD. I gather that prior to the assassination such +requests, specific requests, had not come from Secret Service to the +Bureau. + +Mr. BELMONT. No. There were never any such requests before. + +Mr. STERN. At the level at which the requests have been made so far, +have they proved to be a difficult burden for the FBI? + +Mr. BELMONT. Mr. Stern, any time that we have a pending caseload of +something like 115,000 investigative matters, which is what we have, +and our agents are assigned about 20 to 25 cases apiece across the +country, ranging from matters of immediate urgency to matters which +can be handled in due time, and whenever our agents are putting in an +average of over 2 hours overtime a day voluntarily, the loan of 139 men +will be felt. + +Representative FORD. 169. + +Mr. BELMONT. I believe it was 139, sir. I think the letter says 139. + +Mr. STERN. 139 on 16 separate occasions. + +Mr. BELMONT. Yes. I do not wish to overplay this. We are not +complaining. + +We do feel that at such time as Secret Service is able to increase +its personnel or meet this problem within the organization that it is +properly their problem. But meanwhile we are following this procedure +and we are not complaining. + +Mr. DULLES. I had hoped, Mr. Chairman, that at some time while Mr. +Belmont was here, we could ask him to just briefly define for us, going +back to the assassination day, a clear definition of the respective +functions of the FBI and the Secret Service prior to and immediately +after the assassination. There seemed to have been at one time a little +confusion there. Naturally in a situation of this kind it always +happens, but I am not absolutely clear in my mind as to---- + +Mr. BELMONT. At the time of the assassination? + +Mr. DULLES. Yes. Just before, I mean what your responsibilities were +just before the assassination, and just after as contrasted with the +functions of the Secret Service. + +Mr. BELMONT. The Secret Service has the responsibility for protecting +the President and his family, and the Vice President and so on. That is +a basic responsibility. + +Mr. DULLES. And you have no auxiliary function to that---- + +Mr. BELMONT. No, sir. + +Mr. DULLES. Except to furnish names and suspects, as you have indicated. + +Mr. BELMONT. That is correct. We have no function there. That is a +primary responsibility and function of Secret Service. + +Now, we do have what we have considered our responsibility, to furnish +to Secret Service any indication of a threat to the President, and that +we have done religiously. + +After the assassination the President ordered us into an investigation +of the assassination which changed the picture as far as this +particular case was concerned. + +Mr. DULLES. You mean President Johnson, immediately after the +assassination? + +Mr. BELMONT. Yes, sir. + +Mr. DULLES. And there was a period there, there was a period though, +after the assassination and before President Johnson took the oath of +office--did this order come to you during that period or after he had +taken the oath of office? + +Mr. BELMONT. It was very rapid, probably within a day. + +Mr. DULLES. I see. It wasn't immediately after. + +Mr. BELMONT. No. + +Mr. DULLES. It wasn't this period I am speaking of. + +Mr. BELMONT. You see, Mr. Dulles, the Federal Government still has no +jurisdiction over the assassination of the President. That was a murder +and was within the province of the local police who immediately took +hold of it and started the investigation. + +Mr. DULLES. I realize that. + +Mr. BELMONT. And started the investigation and it was theirs. + +Mr. DULLES. You were only in there by courtesy. What you did was by +courtesy of the local authorities. + +Mr. BELMONT. Yes, sir; we went to the Dallas Police Department and +immediately went into action because of what had happened, and there +was no time for us to stand on priorities. But we felt we should be +of the utmost assistance, and we sent men to the police department to +assist in the interview and do anything else we could. This wasn't a +time, of course, to sit back and say, "This isn't our job." + +Mr. DULLES. I understand. + +Mr. BELMONT. Yes. + +The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Belmont, just one question. Do you know of any +legislation in recent years that might have been introduced in the +Congress to make an attack upon the President a Federal offense? + +Mr. BELMONT. I do know that there is legislation presently pending. + +The CHAIRMAN. Since the assassination? + +Mr. BELMONT. Since the assassination. + +The CHAIRMAN. Yes. But had it been considered in recent years? I know +it had at the time of other assassinations, but so far as you know were +there any recent legislation to that effect? + +Mr. BELMONT. Mr. Chairman, I must plead ignorance. I haven't done +research on it, and I just don't know. + +The CHAIRMAN. Yes. Well, we can find that out very easily. + +Representative FORD. Mr. Chairman, just the other day in the House of +Representatives a bill was approved giving Federal officials the right +to take certain action when a chief of state from a foreign country was +within the United States; a broadening of their authority when they had +a suspicion or they had some reason to believe that an attack was being +made on a foreign dignitary. + +At the time it went through the House I thought of the same question +you just raised, and I wondered whether there were any specific +legislative matters pending before any committee on this particular +point. + +Mr. BELMONT. I am sure there is a pending bill because my recollection +is that it was called to our attention--I cannot pinpoint it for +you--but I think there is pending legislation now in this matter. + +Mr. McCLOY. I noticed in some Law Review article recently reference to +the fact that previous bills had been introduced but had gone into the +wastebasket. + +The CHAIRMAN. That is true. + +Mr. McCLOY. In respect of other incidents. + +The CHAIRMAN. When the emotion died down. + +Mr. McCLOY. When the emotion died down, that is true. + +I have some further questions. + +The CHAIRMAN. Have you finished, Mr. Stern? + +Mr. STERN. I want to get one thing established that came up yesterday. +Mr. Belmont, yesterday the Commission was interested in determining, if +possible, when Agent Hosty recorded the interviews that he had taken on +October 29, November 1, and November 5. He wasn't certain, except that +he thought it had been done after the assassination. Have you caused a +check to be made on that? + +Mr. BELMONT. Yes; we checked with our Dallas office, and they do not +have a specific record of when that information was recorded. + +Mr. STERN. Was it recorded in substantially the same form in some +contemporaneous communication? + +Mr. BELMONT. Yes; within a day or two, I think on November 4, if I +recall correctly, the fact that Hosty had talked to the neighbor of +Mrs. Paine and had located Marina Oswald, was sent in by AIRTEL. + +Mr. STERN. You might refer to Commission Exhibit 834, page 9, items 64 +and 67, just so the record is straight. + +Mr. BELMONT. Item 64 is an AIRTEL from the Dallas office to the +headquarters dated October 30, wherein Hosty reported this interview +that he had had with the neighbor of Mrs. Paine. + +On November 4 the Dallas office reported by AIRTEL the results of his +contact with Mrs. Paine on November 1, so that the results of his +interviews were incorporated at that time, October 30, November 4, +but the actual insert for the report was not prepared until some time +later. To the best of Hosty's recollection it was after the 22d and +prior to December 2, but he was already on record by these AIRTELS. + +Mr. STERN. Thank you, Mr. Belmont. + +I have no further questions. + +The CHAIRMAN. Mr. McCloy. + +Mr. McCLOY. I have one or two questions. + +Mr. Belmont, you do know the charge has been made by some that Oswald +was what is called a secret agent. Do you have any information whatever +that would cause you to believe that Oswald was or could have been an +agent or an informant of the FBI? + +Mr. BELMONT. I have covered that in some considerable detail, Mr. +McCloy, and I will make a positive statement that Oswald was not, never +was, an agent or an informant of the FBI. + +Mr. McCLOY. In the course of your investigation do you have any reason +to make you believe that he was an agent of any other country? + +Mr. BELMONT. No, sir; we have no reason to believe that he was an agent +of any other country. + +Mr. McCLOY. Or any other agency of the United States? + +Mr. BELMONT. Or any other agency of the United States. + +Mr. McCLOY. You said this morning, I believe, or at least I guess Mr. +Hosty said, that the assassination of the President and any leads in +connection with it are still of constant concern to the FBI. + +Do you feel there are any areas as of the present time that you feel at +the present time require or justify further investigation other than +routine checkups that have not already been undertaken? + +Mr. BELMONT. No, sir; frankly, I don't. I will say that from the +requests we have received from the Commission, you have explored +this most thoroughly. We do not have any unexplored areas in this +investigation that should be explored. There are some pending requests +that you have made, and we are running them out as rapidly as we can. + +Mr. McCLOY. Maybe this isn't a fair question to ask you, but, after +all, you have had a long record of criminal investigation, and you have +had a long exposure to investigation in this case. + +As a result of your investigation do you feel that there is any +credible evidence thus far which would support a conclusion or an +opinion that the death of the President was the result of a conspiracy +or anything other than the act of a single individual? + +Mr. BELMONT. No, sir; we have no evidence, and I could support no +conclusion that this was other than an act of Oswald. + +Mr. McCLOY. Now, the investigation does lead you to the conclusion that +he was the President's assassin? + +Mr. BELMONT. Yes, sir. + +Mr. McCLOY. Did you ever at any time have any connection whatever--you +or the agency--have anything to do with the Walker, General Walker, +case? + +Mr. BELMONT. No, sir; that was a matter handled by the Dallas police. I +am drawing on my recollection of it now, but, as I recall it, after the +incident, we offered to examine the bullets that were recovered---- + +Mr. McCLOY. Bullets. + +Mr. BELMONT. And the police apparently wanted to retain them, so that +we did not conduct the examination of the bullets until subsequent to +the assassination itself. + +Mr. McCLOY. Until recently. + +Mr. BELMONT. No; we had no connection with it, with that investigation. + +Mr. McCLOY. In your investigation of the President's assassination, did +you have occasion, after the event, to make an investigation of Ruby's +background or Ruby's relationship to Oswald? + +Mr. BELMONT. Yes, sir; we went into that very thoroughly. + +Mr. McCLOY. Have we got all your reports on that? + +Mr. BELMONT. Yes, sir. + +Mr. McCLOY. Have you come to any conclusions or opinions in regard to +Ruby and his connection with Oswald, if any? + +Mr. BELMONT. The reports, of course, speak for themselves. But in +summation, we did not come up with anything of a solid nature, that is +anything that would stand up to indicate that there was any association +between Ruby and Oswald. We had numerous allegations which we ran out +extensively and carefully, but there is nothing, no information, that +would stand up to show there was an association between them. + +Mr. McCLOY. Maybe this is in the record, but do you--by reason of your +very close association with this investigation, I venture to ask this +question--do you, from your knowledge of the investigation find--was +there any evidence in regard to Ruby's propensity for violence before +this shooting took place in the police headquarters in Dallas? + +Mr. BELMONT. Did we have any information of that character and of that +nature? + +Mr. McCLOY. Yes; I am not talking before it happened, but as a result +of your investigation did you turn up any other indications of any +violence on the part of Ruby? + +Mr. BELMONT. I hesitate to attempt to evaluate the information that we +gathered from hundreds and hundreds of people that we talked to during +the investigation of Ruby after the assassination. I just don't feel +that I am in a position to render a judgment as to his character or his +impulsiveness, the degree of impulsiveness, whether he was capable---- + +Mr. McCLOY. Whether he was prone to violent action. + +Mr. BELMONT. I just don't feel really competent. I have no doubt that +a conclusion can be drawn from reports; of course, that was one of the +basic issues at the trial. + +Representative FORD. Was there any evidence that the FBI found to the +effect that Ruby was a Communist? + +Mr. BELMONT. No, sir. + +Representative FORD. None whatsoever? + +Mr. BELMONT. No, sir. + +Representative FORD. Was there any evidence found by the FBI to the +effect that Ruby was connected with in any way whatsoever so-called +rightist groups? + +Mr. BELMONT. No, sir; I do not recall anything of that nature. + +Mr. McCLOY. No association that you know of as a result of the +investigation of Ruby with any foreign government or agency of a +foreign government? + +Mr. BELMONT. No, sir; you understand, you are asking me questions, and +I am replying on the basis of my best recollection, but I am giving you +an answer from my knowledge of the case. + +Mr. McCLOY. That is what we were seeking, no more than that, because +your impressions would be valuable. + +Mr. BELMONT. The reason I say that there may be someone we interviewed +who made a statement about Ruby and it was run out, and it was found to +be false. Congressman Ford, you asked me if he was a Communist. I would +say we have no evidence of that. + +Mr. McCLOY. Do you feel that in view of the evidence that Oswald was +a defector, that he engaged in this Fair Play for Cuba business, that +he lied in his communications with the FBI, that Mr. Hosty should have +been alerted by locating Oswald in the School Book Depository early +in November, that he should have been alerted to informing the Secret +Service of that? + +Mr. BELMONT. No, sir; I do not. You must take this matter in its proper +context. I pointed out to you previously that this man came back from +Russia; he indicated that he had learned his lesson, was disenchanted +with Russia, and had a renewed concept--I am paraphrasing, a renewed +concept--of the American free society. + +We talked to him twice. He likewise indicated he was disenchanted with +Russia. We satisfied ourselves that we had met our requirement, namely +to find out whether he had been recruited by Soviet intelligence. The +case was closed. + +We again exhibited interest on the basis of these contacts with +The Worker, Fair Play for Cuba Committee, which are relatively +inconsequential. + +His activities for the Fair Play for Cuba Committee in New Orleans, we +knew, were not of real consequence as he was not connected with any +organized activity there. + +The interview with him in jail is not significant from the standpoint +of whether he had a propensity for violence. + +Mr. McCLOY. That is the Quigley interview you are talking about? + +Mr. BELMONT. Yes; it was a self-serving interview. + +The visits with the Soviet Embassy were evidently for the purpose of +securing a visa, and he had told us during one of the interviews that +he would probably take his wife back to Soviet Russia some time in the +future. He had come back to Dallas. Hosty had established that he had +a job, he was working, and had told Mrs. Paine that when he got the +money he was going to take an apartment when the baby was old enough, +he was going to take an apartment, and the family would live together. + +He gave evidence of settling down. Nowhere during the course of this +investigation or the information that came to us from other agencies +was there any indication of a potential for violence on his part. + +Consequently, there was no basis for Hosty to go to Secret Service and +advise them of Oswald's presence. Hosty was alert, as was the Dallas +office, to furnish information to Secret Service on the occasion of the +President's visit. + +It is my recollection that Hosty actually participated in delivering +some material to Secret Service himself, and helped prepare a +memorandum on another matter that was sent over there. So that most +certainly the office was alert. The agent in charge had alerted his +agents, even on the morning of the visit, as he had previously done a +week or 10 days before the visit. + +So that, in answer to your question, I cannot even through the process +of going back and seeking to apply this against what happened, +justifiably say that Hosty should have given this information under the +existing conditions and with the history of this matter, that he was in +a position to give it to the Secret Service. Now, most certainly---- + +Mr. McCLOY. We wish he had. + +Mr. BELMONT. Of course. + +Representative FORD. Mr. Chairman, I have a call from the floor of the +House. I wonder if I could ask Mr. Belmont a question. + +The CHAIRMAN. Yes, indeed. + +Representative FORD. In response to a question by Mr. McCloy, you +categorically said that Federal Bureau of Investigation under no +circumstances had employed Oswald as an informant, as an agent or in +any other way whatsoever. + +Mr. BELMONT. Yes, sir. + +Representative FORD. You would be in a position to know specifically +that information? + +Mr. BELMONT. Yes, sir. + +Representative FORD. You also said, as I recall, that you had found no +credible information or evidence thus far that Oswald was connected in +any way whatsoever with another country as an agent. Is that about what +you said or do you wish to reaffirm it in another way? + +Mr. BELMONT. I will affirm what you said. + +Representative FORD. There is a difference, however, between your +knowledge as to whether the FBI had hired Oswald, you can be very +categorical about that. + +Mr. BELMONT. That is correct. + +Representative FORD. You can only---- + +Mr. BELMONT. Say based on the evidence that we have or which developed +or all information that we received, there was no indication that +Oswald was in any way connected or within the service of a foreign +government. + +Representative FORD. But there is a difference in the way you can +answer those two questions. + +Mr. BELMONT. There is a difference, yes; there is a difference +because in the one case we know, in the other case we rely on all the +information and evidence available. + +Representative FORD. But as far as a foreign government is concerned, +you only know what you have been able to find out? + +Mr. BELMONT. That is correct, sir. + +Representative FORD. There is always the possibility in the second +case, involving a foreign government, that something might come up at +some other time. + +Mr. BELMONT. There is always the possibility. We have no indication of +it. There is always the possibility; yes, sir. + +Representative FORD. But you cannot be as categorical about the future +in the second case as you were in the first case. + +Mr. BELMONT. Yes, sir; you are right. + +The CHAIRMAN. Are there any other questions? + +Mr. DULLES. Do you have some more? + +Mr. McCLOY. I think I have got all the questions I wanted to ask. + +(At this point in the proceedings, Representative Ford leaves the +hearing room.) + +Mr. DULLES. I have two or three questions. + +As you know, Mr. Belmont, there have been a wide variety of rumors +that have been spread abroad very particularly with regard to the +assassination. + +I have before me, just received last night, a book just being published +in England, it is coming out in the next day or 2, called "Who Killed +Kennedy," by Thomas G. Buchanan, published in London by Secker and +Warburg. I have not had an opportunity yet to read the book. I have +read a good deal of the background material on which it is based. + +I would like to ask though when this book is available to you, and we +will make a copy available to you and see that you get one promptly, +whether you would have the Bureau read this, an appropriate person in +the Bureau familiar with the case or yourself, and possibly give us +your views with regard to certain of the allegations here within your +particular competence. + +Mr. BELMONT. As I understand it, Mr. Dulles, this is probably a +compilation of the articles that he wrote in the French press. + +Mr. DULLES. Express; yes. + +Mr. BELMONT. Which, I believe, we sent over to the Commission as we +received them. + +Mr. DULLES. That is correct. + +Mr. BELMONT. And from my recollection of perusing those articles, they +are filled with false statements, innuendoes, incorrect conclusions, +misinformation, and certainly what I would term false journalism. In +other words, he has stated as fact or as a correct conclusion many +things which the Commission's investigation has disproved completely. + +We will be glad to read the book and to furnish you with a general +comment on it. But to take down each statement in there and go into it +would probably result in a critique of 500 pages. + +Mr. DULLES. We do not want that. I don't think we need that. + +Mr. BELMONT. Where actually many of these allegations have already been +resolved by the Commission, I am sure. We will be glad to read it and +give you a---- + +Mr. DULLES. I think that would be useful for the Commission to have, +Mr. Chairman. Do you agree? + +The CHAIRMAN. Very well; yes. If you find any factual matters in there +that contradict your findings, we would expect you to call it to our +attention. + +Mr. BELMONT. Most certainly, sir. + +The CHAIRMAN. But otherwise I don't think we want a review of the book. +That is your idea, is it? + +Mr. DULLES. Not a review of the book, but if there are allegations +there, any evidence you can factually deny, that would be helpful to +have it. + +Mr. McCLOY. Do you have any record of Buchanan? Do you know anything +about Buchanan's background? + +Mr. BELMONT. No, sir; I do not recall. + +Mr. DULLES. I wish you would check. + +Mr. BELMONT. We can send you a letter. + +The CHAIRMAN. We have the record. + +Mr. McCLOY. He seems to be very much Ivy League, Lawrenceville School +and Yale. + +Mr. DULLES. He was at one time, I believe, he admitted to being a +Communist at one time. He was at one time employed by the Washington +Star, I am advised, and I believe, according to the information I have, +that he was terminated by the Star some years ago. + +Mr. BELMONT. I thought he had been in touch with the Commission. + +The CHAIRMAN. He came in, he did come in here, and made a statement +which we have recorded. His testimony wasn't taken. He just walked in +off the street. + +Mr. DULLES. I have one or two more questions, Mr. Chairman. + +I believe, Mr. Belmont, that you probably have furnished us already +with information with regard to any contacts that Oswald might have +had, individuals whom he knew, persons who might have been accused of +being accomplices of his, but if there is anybody there or any persons +in your file whom Oswald knew who have not been communicated to us, we +would certainly like to have them to be sure we have looked into that +field exhaustively, anybody who, according to your records, Oswald knew. + +Mr. BELMONT. I am sure we have explored that fully, and we have +reported it to the Commission fully. + +Mr. DULLES. All right; good. + +Mr. BELMONT. Yes, sir. + +Mr. DULLES. In view of your deep study of the case, have you reached +any views of your own or are there any views of the Bureau, as to +Oswald's motivation in the act that he committed? + +Mr. BELMONT. Again I don't feel competent to give you an answer. There +is an indication from the exploration of his background that he wanted +to be somebody. He wanted to be known as someone. Whether this caused +him to do this terrible thing I don't know. I think if it were possible +to peer into Oswald's mind, that would really be the only way you could +get your question answered. + +Mr. DULLES. Have you and the Bureau made any comparative study of the +various assassination attempts and assassinations of other Presidents +and people in high authority in this Government to see whether any +pattern at all runs through these various attempts other than attempts +where there is clearly a plot, as in the case of the attack on +President Truman, and probably also in the case of President Lincoln? I +am thinking chiefly of the assassination of President McKinley and the +attempted assassination of President-elect Roosevelt in 1933. + +Mr. BELMONT. No, sir; we have not made a study of that nature. I would +imagine that Secret Service has made a study. + +Mr. DULLES. They have made a study. I didn't know whether you had made +one also. + +Mr. BELMONT. No, sir; we have not. + +Mr. DULLES. That is all I have, Mr. Chairman. + +The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Belmont, I have here in my hand a sheet that appeared +on the newsstands over the weekend. It is supposed to be the National +Enquirer. I believe it is out of New York, and it contains a page and +a third about the assassination of the President and certain actions +of the FBI, and so forth, and for the record I should like to read a +portion of it and merely ask you if, in your opinion---- + +Mr. BELMONT. All right, sir. + +The CHAIRMAN. And with your knowledge there is any truth to any part of +it. You, of course, are acquainted with that paper. + +Mr. BELMONT. No, sir; I am not. In fact, someone told me it was, it +came from, the Philadelphia Inquirer, and I was shocked that something +like that would be in that paper. I found it was not the Philadelphia +Inquirer. + +(Discussion off the record.) + +The CHAIRMAN. I think, in view of the relationship you have had in this +whole matter, I would like to have your testimony in the record on it. + +Mr. BELMONT. Very good, sir. + +The CHAIRMAN. There is no date on this paper, and I am told it appeared +in three different days in three different formats with different +headlines, but the same item. It is said to be by John Henshaw, +Enquirer Washington Bureau Chief. + +"Washington--The hottest story making the rounds here is that the U.S. +Justice Department prevented the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald and Jack +Ruby BEFORE the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. Oswald and +the man who killed him, Ruby, were suspected of being partners in crime +7 months before the President's death. + +"The incredible details of the story are so explosive that officials +won't even answer 'no comment' when queried about it. But the story +being discussed by top-level Government officials reveals: + +"1. That the Justice Department deliberately kept Oswald and Ruby out +of jail before the assassination. + +"2. That Dallas cops suspected Oswald of being the gunman and Ruby +the paymaster in a plot to murder former Maj. Gen. Edwin A. Walker--7 +months before the President was assassinated. + +"3. That the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency was using Ruby to recruit +commandoes for raids against Castro's Cuba. To prevent this explosive +information from being disclosed, the CIA asked the Justice Department +to step in and stop the Dallas police from arresting Jack Ruby, as well +as Oswald. + +"A top-secret document--a letter signed by a high official of the +Justice Department--was sent in April 1963 from the Dallas Police +Department to Dallas Chief of Police Jesse E. Curry requesting the +Dallas police NOT to arrest Oswald and Ruby in connection with the +attempted slaying of General Walker. + +"After a sniper shot at, but missed, General Walker in Dallas, April +10, 1963, Dallas police suspected that Oswald was the sniper and Ruby +the payoff man. + +"The cops were set to arrest the pair. But they never got the +chance because of the heavy pressure brought to bear by the Justice +Department. And so Oswald and Ruby were allowed to remain free. And 7 +months later, on last November 22 in Dallas, Oswald was able to kill +the President of the United States. + +"The top-secret document--a copy of it is reportedly in the hands of +the Presidential Commission investigating the assassination--bares a +web of intrigue that involves the Federal Bureau of Investigation, +along with the Justice Department and the Central Intelligence Agency. + +"It is so politically explosive that the Presidential Commission, +headed by Supreme Court Chief Justice Earl Warren, has even withheld it +from one of its own members, Senator Richard Russell (D., Ga.). + +"It is feared that Senator Russell, who leads the South in the fight +against the civil rights bill, might use the document as a weapon +against the Justice Department and its chief, Attorney General Robert +Kennedy, a leader in the fight for civil rights. + +"The document--requesting the cops not to arrest Ruby and +Oswald--contradicts the FBI report on the assassination and the +subsequent murder of Oswald." + +My question is, do you have any information that would lead you to +believe that any of those allegations are true? + +Mr. BELMONT. My answer, sir, is that that is utter fantastic nonsense, +and I have no information to indicate that any of the allegations are +true. + +The CHAIRMAN. I think we had better mark this and introduce it in +evidence. There is much more to the article, but it is explanatory of +this, but I thought that was sufficiently a direct allegation that we +ought to note it in the testimony. So will you give that a number, Mr. +Stern. + +Mr. STERN. It will be numbered 837. + +The CHAIRMAN. 837. It is introduced in evidence as No. 837. + +Mr. STERN. May we also have admitted, Mr. Chief Justice, Exhibit No. +836, the letter of March 31, 1964, which Mr. Belmont has identified. + +The CHAIRMAN. It may be admitted under that number. + +(The documents referred to were marked for identification as Commission +Exhibits Nos. 836 and 837 and were received in evidence.) + +The CHAIRMAN. Is there anything further, gentlemen? + +Mr. McCLOY. May I suggest that we get a copy of the paper which does +have the date on it. I forget what date it was. + +Mr. BELMONT. Mr. Rankin, I understand you have sent it over to us, so +we will be glad to answer your letter. + +The CHAIRMAN. Well, Mr. Belmont, we appreciate your cooperation, and we +thank you for your courtesy. + +(Whereupon, at 12:40 p.m., the President's Commission recessed.) + + + + +_Wednesday, May 13, 1964_ + +TESTIMONY OF LT. JACK REVILL + +The President's Commission met at 10 a.m. on May 13, 1964, at 200 +Maryland Avenue NE., Washington, D.C. + +Present were Chief Justice Earl Warren, Chairman; Representative Gerald +R. Ford; and Allen W. Dulles, members. + +Also present were J. Lee Rankin, General Counsel; Norman Redlich, +assistant counsel; Arlen Specter, assistant counsel; and Charles +Murray, observer. + + +The CHAIRMAN. Lieutenant Revill, the purpose of today's hearing is to +hear your testimony and that of Detective V. J. Brian with particular +regard to alleged conversation with Special Agent James P. Hosty, Jr., +of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, claimed to have occurred on +November 22, 1963, in the afternoon, and also concerning the facts +surrounding the discussion of Commission Exhibits 710 and 711. + +What are those--those are the affidavits? + +Mr. RANKIN. That is his affidavit and Detective Brian's. + +The CHAIRMAN. Those are the affidavits that you made in that regard. + +Would you please rise and raise your right hand and be sworn? + +Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to give before +this Commission shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but +the truth so help you God? + +Lieutenant REVILL. I do, sir. + +The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Rankin will conduct the examination. + +Mr. RANKIN. Lieutenant Revill, will you state your name and place of +residence for the record, please? + +Mr. REVILL. My name is Jack Revill. I reside at 5617 Madowics, Dallas, +Tex. + +Mr. RANKIN. Do you have an official connection with the police +department of Dallas? + +Mr. REVILL. Yes, sir; I do. + +Mr. RANKIN. What is that? + +Mr. REVILL. I am presently a lieutenant of police of the Dallas Police +Department. + +Mr. RANKIN. How long have you occupied that position? + +Mr. REVILL. I was promoted to lieutenant June 26, 1958. + +Mr. RANKIN. Do you have any particular area of responsibility? + +Mr. REVILL. Yes, sir; I am presently in charge of the criminal +intelligence section. + +Mr. RANKIN. Have you been in charge of that section since November 22 +of 1963? + +Mr. REVILL. Yes, sir; I have. + +Mr. RANKIN. What are the functions of your work in that job? + +Mr. REVILL. My unit--our primary responsibility is to investigate +crimes of an organized nature, subversive activities, racial matters, +labor racketeering, and to do anything that the chief might desire. We +work for the chief of police. I report to a captain who is in charge of +the special service bureau. + +Mr. RANKIN. Who is that? + +Mr. REVILL. Capt. Pat Gannaway. + +Mr. RANKIN. How long have you reported to him? + +Mr. REVILL. In my present capacity? + +Mr. RANKIN. Yes. + +Mr. REVILL. Since I have been assigned to the criminal intelligence +section. + +Mr. RANKIN. So that was for all times since and on November 22, 1963? + +Mr. REVILL. Yes, sir; this is true. + +Mr. RANKIN. Do you know James P. Hosty, Jr.? + +Mr. REVILL. Yes, sir; I do. + +Mr. RANKIN. How long have you known him? + +Mr. REVILL. I have known Jim, Mr. Hosty, since 1959, when I took over +the intelligence section. + +Mr. RANKIN. Did you see him on November 22? + +Mr. REVILL. Yes, sir; I did. + +Mr. RANKIN. Where. + +Mr. REVILL. In the basement of the city hall. + +Mr. RANKIN. Just before you saw Special Agent Hosty, where had you been? + +Mr. REVILL. I had been at the Texas School Book Depository. + +Mr. RANKIN. What did you do there? + +Mr. REVILL. We conducted a systematic search of the building, evacuated +the people working in the building, and took names, addresses, and +phone numbers of all of these people before they were permitted to +leave. + +Mr. RANKIN. Was anyone working with you there? + +Mr. REVILL. Yes, sir. + +Mr. RANKIN. Who? + +Mr. REVILL. Numerous people. + +Mr. RANKIN. I see. Was Detective Brian with you there? + +Mr. REVILL. Yes, sir. I had taken Detective Brian with me from the +Trade Mart, Dallas Trade Mart, upon hearing of the shots being fired at +Mr. Kennedy. I took Detective Brian and two other officers assigned to +my unit, Detective R. W. Westphal and Detective Tarver, O. J. Tarver. + +Mr. RANKIN. How did you come back to the police department? + +Mr. REVILL. By automobile. + +Mr. RANKIN. By car? + +Mr. REVILL. Yes, sir. + +Mr. RANKIN. Was anyone with you? + +Mr. REVILL. Yes, sir, I had Detectives Brian, Tarver, and Westphal. + +Mr. RANKIN. They were all in the car with you? + +Mr. REVILL. Yes, sir. + +Mr. RANKIN. And which way did you enter the building? + +Mr. REVILL. The Main Street ramp into the basement of the city hall. + +Mr. RANKIN. About what time of the day? + +Mr. REVILL. It must have been about 2:45, 2:50. + +Mr. RANKIN. All of these officers were with you? + +Mr. REVILL. Yes, sir. + +Mr. RANKIN. Where did you see Special Agent Hosty? + +Mr. REVILL. If I might explain that, I followed Mr. Hosty into the +basement of the city hall. He drove into the basement, parked his car, +I did the same, and Mr. Hosty departed from his car, ran over to where +I was standing, Detective Brian and I. + +The other two officers, Westphal and Tarver, as well as I recall, had +remained in the rear talking to some other officers. I don't know who +they were. At that time everything was mass confusion, and we were all +upset. + +Mr. RANKIN. Will you explain to the Commission where you parked the car +with reference to the point where you saw Agent Hosty? + +Mr. REVILL. I got out of my car, and we have two attendants assigned to +the basement, two Negro attendants, and one of these individuals parked +my vehicle for me, I don't know where he parked it. But as I got out of +the car, Mr. Hosty ran toward me---- + +Mr. RANKIN. Now, about the parking, excuse me. + +Mr. REVILL. Yes, sir. + +Mr. RANKIN. Is that a part of the basement area of the police +department? + +Mr. REVILL. Yes, sir; it is. + +Mr. RANKIN. All right; proceed. + +Mr. REVILL. And Mr. Hosty ran over to me and he says, "Jack"--now as I +recall these words--"a Communist killed President Kennedy." + +I said, "What?" + +He said, "Lee Oswald killed President Kennedy." + +I said, "Who is Lee Oswald?" + +He said, "He is in our Communist file. We knew he was here in Dallas." +At that time Hosty and I started walking off, and Brian, as well as +I recall, sort of stayed back, and as we got onto the elevator or +just prior to getting on the elevator Mr. Hosty related that they had +information that this man was capable of this, and at this I blew up at +him, and I said, "Jim"---- + +Mr. RANKIN. What did he say in regard to his being capable? + +Mr. REVILL. This was it. They had--"We had information that this man +was capable"---- + +Mr. RANKIN. Of what? + +Mr. REVILL. Of committing this assassination. This is what I understood +him to say. + +Mr. RANKIN. Are those his exact words? + +Mr. REVILL. As well as I recall. Give him the benefit of the doubt; I +might have misunderstood him. But I don't believe I did, because the +part about him being in Dallas, and the fact that he was a suspected +Communist, I understand by the rules of the Attorney General they +cannot tell us this, but the information about him being capable, +I felt that we had taken a part in the security measures for Mr. +Kennedy, and if such, if such information was available to another law +enforcement agency, I felt they should have made it known to all of us, +and I asked Hosty where he was going at that time. By this time we were +on the elevator and he said he was going up to homicide and robbery to +tell Captain Fritz the same thing. I said, "Do you know Captain Fritz?" +and he said he had never met him. I said, "All right, I will take you +up and introduce you to Captain Fritz." So Detective Brian and I and +Hosty went to the third floor of the city hall and went to Captain +Fritz' office, the homicide and robbery bureau. We didn't see Captain +Fritz, he may or may not have been there. His office door was closed. + +Mr. DULLES. What time of the day, could you give me the approximate +time? + +Mr. REVILL. Between 2:30 and 3 o'clock, and I have the reason for +saying this because of the typing of this report here. Our secretary +got off at 4 o'clock. + +Mr. DULLES. And Chief Curry had not yet returned, had he? + +Mr. REVILL. I don't know where he was. + +Mr. DULLES. You didn't know about that? + +Mr. REVILL. No, sir. + +Mr. RANKIN. Did you say anything about this to Captain Fritz? + +Mr. REVILL. I did not talk to Captain Fritz, as I said, I didn't see +him. I introduced Mr. Hosty to Lieutenant Ted Wells, who is one of +the lieutenants assigned to the homicide and robbery bureau and also +present at that time was another special agent, Mr. Bookhout, and +Hosty, there was confusion within this office, so Brian and I, after +introducing Mr. Hosty to Wells, left and went back to the special +service bureau office. + +Mr. RANKIN. And you didn't say anything to the inspector about it? + +Mr. REVILL. The inspector? + +Mr. RANKIN. Lieutenant Wells. + +Mr. REVILL. No, sir; I did not. + +Mr. RANKIN. You didn't tell him this important information? + +Mr. REVILL. Hosty was going up to tell him the same thing. + +Mr. RANKIN. Did he tell you that? + +Mr. REVILL. Yes, sir; he told me that. + +Mr. RANKIN. And Hosty told you then that he was going up to tell him +that they knew he was capable of being the assassin? + +Mr. REVILL. Yes, sir; being at that time I was out of touch with +everything, being in the building, I had put no connection between the +shooting of Tippit and the President. + +Mr. RANKIN. Did you know that Oswald had been arrested? + +Mr. REVILL. No, sir; at that time I did not. + +Mr. RANKIN. You just knew about the someone by the name of Lee, didn't +you? + +Mr. REVILL. Yes, sir; Lee. And this was told to me by a colored +employee of the School Book Depository. Myself and Lieutenant Frank +Dyson took charge of the search of the building and we must have had +75 or 80 men in the building assisting in this search. I talked to a +Negro---- + +Mr. DULLES. Were you in charge of that? + +Mr. REVILL. Yes, sir; I was in charge of that phase of the search. +I talked to a Negro by the name of Givens, and we had handled this +person in the past for marijuana violations and I recognized him and in +talking to him I asked him if he had been on the sixth floor, and as +well as I recall, and Detective Brian was present at this same time he +said, yes, that he had observed Mr. Lee, over by this window. Well, +I asked him who Mr. Lee was, he said, "It is a white boy." He didn't +know his full name. So, I turned this Givens individual over to one +of our Negro detectives and told him to take him to Captain Fritz for +interrogation, and while going to the city hall, or the police station +I passed this detective and Givens, and they came into the homicide +and robbery bureau shortly after Hosty and I did, so I am sure Captain +Fritz did talk to Mr. Givens. + +Mr. RANKIN. When did you learn that Oswald had been arrested? + +Mr. REVILL. I really don't know, sir. Because time, we were all shocked +that this thing had happened in our city and I personally felt that +maybe a sense of responsibility, maybe we could have done more to +prevent this thing. I just don't know when I heard that he had been +arrested. + +Mr. RANKIN. Did you know it by the time you went to Lieutenant Wells' +office? + +Mr. REVILL. No, sir; I did not. He may have been in the office at that +time. + +Mr. RANKIN. You didn't know that Oswald was already in the police +department? + +Mr. REVILL. No, sir; I did not. I had been in this building since word +came of the shots being fired until about 2:30, 2:35, and at that time +I decided that my unit could possibly do more at our office where we +kept all of our files, cataloging these people, the suspects that were +running through my mind at that time. So, I was, I put out a call for +all of the intelligence unit personnel to meet me at the office and I +got no reply to this because they were all up in the special service +bureau. We had been assigned to the Trade Mart, and two or three of my +officers had taken into custody four or five of these picket carriers, +and we did this more for protection than anything else because after +the word came of the assassination, well, I am afraid they would have +been mobbed, and they were all up in the special service bureau booking +these prisoners at the time, and I decided we would stop by the special +service bureau office, to report back to my captain and see if there +was something we could do there. And as I pulled into the basement this +conversation took place with Mr. Hosty. + +Mr. RANKIN. And the particular words about Oswald being capable of +being an assassin those were told you by Agent Hosty in the elevator? + +Mr. REVILL. No, sir; either just outside the elevator and as we got on. +He never mentioned this again because I guess I lost my temper at him +for withholding this type of information. + +Mr. RANKIN. I see. Did you do anything about losing your temper, did +you say anything? + +Mr. REVILL. No; Jim Hosty and I are friends, and this has hurt me that +I have involved Hosty into this thing, because he is a good agent, he +is one of the agents there that we can work with; that has been most +cooperative in the past, and I worked with him just like he is one of +us. + +Mr. RANKIN. You went to the third floor on the elevator? + +Mr. REVILL. Yes, sir. + +Mr. RANKIN. Who else went with you? + +Mr. REVILL. Detective Brian and Hosty, the elevator was--had several +people on it. I don't recall who they were. + +Mr. RANKIN. Was Detective Brian on that elevator? + +Mr. REVILL. Yes, sir; he was. + +Mr. RANKIN. At that same time? + +Mr. REVILL. He went to the third floor with me. + +Mr. RANKIN. And you are sure Agent Hosty was on the elevator with you? + +Mr. REVILL. Yes, sir; he was. + +Mr. RANKIN. And you are sure you were on the elevator? + +Mr. REVILL. Yes, sir. + +Mr. RANKIN. Now, will you tell us exactly what you said to Hosty and +also what he said to you? + +Mr. REVILL. After hearing about the information that they were +purported to have had---- + +Mr. RANKIN. Have you told us all the information that Hosty told you? + +Mr. REVILL. As well as I recall; yes, sir. + +Mr. RANKIN. Now, did you say anything to him about it? + +Mr. REVILL. Yes, sir. + +Mr. RANKIN. What? + +Mr. REVILL. I asked him why he had not told us this, and the best, my +recollection is that he said he couldn't. Now, what he meant by that I +don't know. Because in the past our relations had been such that this +type of information, it surprised me they had not, if they had such +information he had not brought it or hadn't made it available to us. + +Mr. RANKIN. And you are certain you went up there on the elevator +together? + +Mr. REVILL. Yes, sir; took him to the third floor and introduced him to +Lieutenant Wells. + +Mr. RANKIN. Are you sure you didn't go up the stairs together. + +Mr. REVILL. No, sir; we went to the third floor on the elevator. + +Mr. RANKIN. You are positive? + +Mr. REVILL. Yes, sir; because we caught the elevator in the basement, +and there would have been no reason to walk up the stairs. + +Mr. RANKIN. If Agent Hosty said you went up the stairs rapidly +together, that would be untrue? + +Mr. REVILL. Yes, sir; this would be untrue. + +Mr. DULLES. Did you go in that same driveway that the car went in that +was to take Oswald out? + +Mr. REVILL. Yes, sir. + +Mr. DULLES. That driveway; and you took that elevator right to the left +as you went in there? + +Mr. REVILL. No, sir; we go straight into the doors into the elevator +that goes up to the third floor. + +Mr. DULLES. Yes. + +Mr. REVILL. Third and fourth floor. + +Representative FORD. May I ask a question to reconstruct this a bit? +Both Detective Brian and yourself came in one car? + +Mr. REVILL. Yes, sir. + +Representative FORD. And you had two other officers with you? + +Mr. REVILL. Yes, sir. + +Representative FORD. More or less the same time Mr. Hosty came in? + +Mr. REVILL. We followed Mr. Hosty into the basement. + +Mr. DULLES. Each in a car? + +Mr. REVILL. Yes, sir; he was in a car and we were in mine. + +Representative FORD. Your first contact with Mr. Hosty was in the +basement there? + +Mr. REVILL. Yes, sir. + +Representative FORD. What did he say there? + +Mr. REVILL. He come running up to me, and he said, "Jack, a Communist +killed President Kennedy." I said, "What? What are you talking about?" +He said, "Lee Harvey Oswald killed President Kennedy," and at that I +said "Who is Lee Harvey Oswald?" And then he told me about him having +him in their security files, and then that, "We had information that he +was capable of this." By "we" I assumed he meant the Federal Bureau of +Investigation. + +Representative FORD. Then Brian, Hosty, and yourself walked to the +elevator? + +Mr. REVILL. Yes, sir. + +Representative FORD. And the three of you took the elevator up to the +third floor? + +Mr. REVILL. Yes, sir. + +Mr. DULLES. It is about 10 feet as I remember it. + +Mr. REVILL. No, sir; it is more than that. + +Mr. DULLES. It is a different elevator. It is not the one that take +prisoners down? + +Mr. REVILL. No, sir; it is the swinging doors, you go through the +swinging doors. + +Mr. DULLES. It is another elevator? + +Mr. REVILL. Yes, sir. + +Representative FORD. At what point in the sequence did you blow up, as +you say? + +Mr. REVILL. When he told me about the capability. By blowing up---- + +Representative FORD. Was that standing in the basement near the car or +was it over toward the elevator? + +Mr. REVILL. We were walking over toward the elevator during this +conversation and as far as blowing up, this is semantics. I wanted to +know why they had not given us this information. + +Representative FORD. What is his reaction to that? + +Mr. REVILL. "We couldn't." I do not know what he meant by that. + +Representative FORD. When you use words like "We couldn't" that "Oswald +was a Communist" this is what I am trying to find out. You mean these +are the precise words he said or are these your interpretations of what +he said? + +Mr. REVILL. The time involved it could be my interpretation, to give +him the benefit of the doubt, because as I said Hosty is a friend of +mine, and the last thing I wanted to do was to cause this man any +trouble, because of our relations in the past. + +Representative FORD. Have you ever had any doubt in the interval +between that time and now that what your recollection is is accurate or +inaccurate, fair or unfair? + +Mr. REVILL. As far as I am concerned I have; this report is honest, +and it was made within an hour after he made the thing. And since this +assassination I have gone over in my mind could I have misunderstood +him. I sometimes wish or hoped that I have. But this is in essence what +he said to me. It might not be exactly the "we's" the "I's" but in +essence it is what Mr. Hosty said. + +Representative FORD. At one point as I recall your testimony, you +said Hosty said that Oswald was a Communist. A few minutes after that +testimony I think you said that Hosty suspected he was a Communist. +Now, did you say that deliberately or did you just---- + +Mr. REVILL. No, sir; if I said that I was wrong. + +Representative FORD. Was that just confusion? + +Mr. REVILL. As I mentioned earlier he come hurrying up to me and he +said, "Jack, a Communist killed the President." I said, "What?" He +said, "Lee Harvey Oswald, a Communist killed the President," and then +he went into the fact that they had known he was there, and then at +the conclusion of our, not the conclusion because we continued to +discuss this thing going up on the elevator, he made the statement that +they had information that he was capable of this. He might have said +probably or possibly capable of it, I don't recall, because in Dallas +that day, the town died, and I know I was sick that this thing happened +in my city, and I felt that maybe we could have done something else to +prevent it. + +Mr. DULLES. You stress the word "capable", that sticks in your mind, +does it? + +Mr. REVILL. Yes, sir. + +Mr. DULLES. He didn't say might have done it? + +Mr. REVILL. No, sir; capable. + +Mr. DULLES. Normally would information of this kind have passed to you +directly from the FBI or through the Secret Service in the event--of +course, there hadn't been other Presidential visits, I guess, so there +was no precedent but I was wondering in the case of a Presidential +visit would it normally have come to you directly from the Secret +Service rather than directly from the FBI? + +Mr. REVILL. Well, in the past Mr. Kennedy had visited Mr. Rayburn +there and this information had never been made known to us and usually +the information we got from the FBI and you have got to realize the +relations are good, was on a personal basis, working with Mr. Hosty and +the other agent assigned to their security section and men assigned to +their criminal section, it was a share and share alike thing because +I have 11 men, and we just augmented their force really with the +information we gathered. + +Mr. DULLES. Had you had a meeting with the FBI, a general meeting, to +go over security problems prior to this time, prior to the President's +visit? + +Mr. REVILL. No, sir; I personally had taken part in no meetings. + +Mr. DULLES. With the FBI? + +Mr. REVILL. With the FBI. + +Mr. DULLES. Or Secret Service? + +Mr. REVILL. Or Secret Service. + +Mr. DULLES. Why was this? + +Mr. REVILL. This I do not know. This was handled at a higher level. +It is my understanding meetings were held and my captain who is my +immediate supervisor was involved in these meetings but---- + +Mr. DULLES. You were not present at these meetings? + +Mr. REVILL. No, sir; I was not. + +Mr. DULLES. But the meetings you think were held? + +Mr. REVILL. This is my understanding; yes, sir. + +Mr. RANKIN. Lieutenant Revill, have you seen the original of that +Exhibit 709? + +Mr. REVILL. Yes, sir; I have. + +Mr. RANKIN. Is that the report that you referred to when you were +answering questions? + +Mr. REVILL. Yes, sir; I brought a copy. + +Mr. RANKIN. And Congressman Ford? + +Mr. REVILL. Yes, sir; there was just one copy made of this and this is +the copy I retained. The original went to Chief Curry. And on this, +Chief Curry called me and he would like me to swear that this was a +true and correct statement, and this I did. + +Mr. RANKIN. By that you are referring to the statement sworn to and +subscribed before me this 7th day of April 1964? + +Mr. REVILL. Yes, sir. + +Mr. RANKIN. Now, will you tell us how you happened to make this report, +Exhibit 709? + +Mr. REVILL. Why I made the report? + +Mr. RANKIN. How did it happen that you made it? + +Mr. REVILL. After Mr. Hosty had related these circumstances to me, and +after taking him to the third floor, I reported this incident to my +captain, Captain Gannaway. + +Mr. RANKIN. When was this? + +Mr. REVILL. Within minutes after I left Mr. Hosty at the homicide and +robbery bureau. + +Mr. RANKIN. What did you say to him? + +Mr. REVILL. I told him what had happened, what had transpired. + +Mr. RANKIN. Just describe what you said to him. + +Mr. REVILL. About meeting Mr. Hosty in the basement? + +Mr. RANKIN. Just tell us what you said. + +Mr. REVILL. About Mr. Hosty, following Mr. Hosty in the basement, that +he came up to me, and stated that a Communist had killed the President, +and that a Lee Harvey Oswald, they had him in their security files, and +that they knew he was in Dallas, and that he was capable, that they had +information he was capable of this. To this---- + +Mr. RANKIN. Did you say anything about what you have said? + +Mr. REVILL. No, sir; I don't recall. I might have. + +Mr. RANKIN. You don't recall that at all? + +Mr. REVILL. No, sir; I don't. + +Mr. RANKIN. Did your captain ask you whether you said anything about +that? + +Mr. REVILL. I don't recall him asking me that; no, sir. + +Mr. RANKIN. Did he say anything to you about it? + +Mr. REVILL. Yes, sir; he did. He told me to put this on paper. + +Mr. RANKIN. That is all he said? + +Mr. REVILL. Yes, sir; and to which I told him that I hated to do that +because of Mr. Hosty, that he might have been stating a personal +opinion. He said, "You put it on paper and give it to me and I will +take it to Chief Curry," and this I did. + +Within 30 minutes to an hour after the thing happened. + +Mr. RANKIN. Neither one of you said anything about this being strange +that Agent Hosty would say anything like this? + +Mr. REVILL. I do not recall, sir. + +Mr. RANKIN. You didn't say anything like that? + +Mr. REVILL. I don't recall making such a statement. + +Mr. RANKIN. And he didn't say anything like that to you that you +recalled? + +Mr. REVILL. No, sir. + +Representative FORD. Did you write this out in longhand? + +Mr. REVILL. Yes, sir; and then I dictated it to one of the stenos in +the office. And she was to, this is what I mentioned earlier the time +element, she was to, she got off at 4 o'clock and this was before she +went home for the day. + +Mr. DULLES. This is on November 22 you are talking about? + +Mr. REVILL. Yes, sir. + +Mr. DULLES. Did you sign it on November 22 or at a later date? + +Mr. REVILL. The same time. + +Mr. DULLES. But you swore to it on the 7th day of April 1964? + +Mr. REVILL. Yes, sir. + +Mr. DULLES. You swore that was your signature? + +Mr. REVILL. Yes, sir; at the time I was hoping it would never come up. + +Mr. RANKIN. Why? + +Mr. REVILL. Because of the relations that we had with the Bureau. + +Mr. RANKIN. You thought this was a bad thing for the Bureau? + +Mr. REVILL. Yes, sir; I did. + +Mr. RANKIN. For them to admit to you that they knew---- + +Mr. REVILL. Not the admitting but to withhold it. + +Mr. RANKIN. To withhold the information? + +Mr. REVILL. Yes. + +Mr. RANKIN. They thought this man was capable of being an assassin? + +Mr. REVILL. Yes, sir. + +Mr. RANKIN. And yet you say that Agent Hosty just blurted that out? + +Mr. REVILL. Yes, sir; he did. + +Mr. RANKIN. Have you told us all that you remember about it? + +Mr. REVILL. Yes, sir; all that I remember. + +Mr. RANKIN. Did you make this---- + +Mr. DULLES. Could I ask a question that comes right along with that? +Did he say anything to you about his having been in Russia and +redefected? + +Mr. REVILL. No, sir. + +Mr. DULLES. That did not come up in this conversation? + +Mr. REVILL. No, sir. + +Mr. RANKIN. Did you ask him how he knew he was a Communist? + +Mr. REVILL. No, sir; I did not. + +Mr. DULLES. Why not? + +Mr. REVILL. I don't know. + +Representative FORD. In the statement that you gave on November 22 +which you have signed, you say? + +Mr. REVILL. Yes, sir. + +Representative FORD. "The subject was arrested for the murder of J. +D. Tippit and is a prime suspect in the assassination of President +Kennedy." + +Mr. REVILL. This I found out after reporting to my office, I didn't +know what time this happened. + +Representative FORD. In other words, you learned this subsequent to +going with Hosty? + +Mr. REVILL. Yes, sir. + +Representative FORD. And then coming back to your own office? + +Mr. REVILL. Yes, sir; some of the officers assigned to the Special +Service Bureau on--were involved in the arrest, Detectives Carroll and +I talked to Agent Bob Barrett, I ran into him in the hall and he had +told me about the arrest of Oswald. I think he was present at the time. + +Representative FORD. That is how you learned about this? + +Mr. REVILL. Yes, sir. + +Mr. DULLES. At what time of day did you make this actual statement and +sign it approximately? + +Mr. REVILL. Approximately 3:30, 3:35. + +Mr. DULLES. 3:35 on the 22d of November? + +Mr. REVILL. Yes, sir. + +Mr. DULLES. This is the actual statement that you then signed and then +you swore to it, and the notary's signature was put on on the 22d of +April? + +Mr. REVILL. No, sir; the notary's was on April 7, I believe. + +Mr. DULLES. 7th day of April, I mean, 7th day of April. + +Mr. REVILL. Yes, sir; but this is the report that I signed on the 22d. + +Mr. DULLES. This is the actual report that you signed on the 22d? + +Mr. REVILL. On the 22d. This is a copy, I believe. + +Mr. DULLES. Yes; this is a copy I have in my hand. + +Mr. REVILL. Yes, sir. + +Mr. DULLES. The original of this was made on November 22? + +Mr. REVILL. Yes, sir. + +Mr. DULLES. And signed on November 22d? + +Mr. REVILL. Yes, sir; it was. + +Mr. DULLES. And later sworn to on April 7? + +Mr. REVILL. Yes, sir; this is correct. + +Mr. DULLES. April 7, 1964. + +Mr. RANKIN. Is all the information on 709 given by you? + +Mr. REVILL. Is this 709? + +Mr. RANKIN. Yes. + +Mr. REVILL. All of the information, what do you mean by this, sir? + +Mr. RANKIN. All of the language and everything on that exhibit, did you +give that to some stenographer to write? + +Mr. REVILL. Yes, sir; I wrote it out. My stenographer, she is a clerk +typist, and--I roughed it out and then she typed it for me. + +Mr. RANKIN. Now, the words "subject" Lee Harvey Oswald. + +Mr. REVILL. Yes, sir. + +Mr. RANKIN. Was that given by you on the slip of paper you wrote out? + +Mr. REVILL. Yes, sir; I wrote it out in longhand. + +Mr. RANKIN. And the words 605 Elsbeth Street, was that given by you? + +Mr. REVILL. Yes, sir; this is the address we were given or I was given +by some of the officers involved in the arrest. + +Mr. RANKIN. Who gave that to you? + +Mr. REVILL. I believe Detective Carroll, Carroll or Detective Taylor, +they were both there. + +Mr. RANKIN. And was that at the time you made this out that you were +given that information? + +Mr. REVILL. Shortly before I made this out. + +Mr. RANKIN. You didn't even know where he lived then? + +Mr. REVILL. No, sir; I did not. I had never heard of him. + +Mr. RANKIN. You know that is wrong, don't you? + +Mr. REVILL. The 605? + +Mr. RANKIN. Yes. + +Mr. REVILL. I don't know. + +Mr. RANKIN. Is it wrong? + +Mr. REVILL. Yes; it is. + +Mr. DULLES. As of the time. + +Mr. REVILL. That is what they gave me. + +Mr. RANKIN. You found that out? + +Mr. DULLES. This is an address he once lived at. + +Mr. RANKIN. Do you know that? + +Mr. DULLES. This is correct. I want to find out what he knows about it. + +Mr. REVILL. Is this a--is this an incorrect address on Mr. Oswald where +he was living at the time? + +Mr. RANKIN. If you check it up I think you will find--it is an +incorrect address at the time. I think you will also find that 602 +Elsbeth Street is where he lived at one time. + +Mr. REVILL. Now, where they got this address---- + +Mr. RANKIN. You never checked that? + +Mr. REVILL. I personally have not checked it but I am sure it has been +checked. + +Mr. RANKIN. I see. + +Mr. REVILL. But this is the address I was given. + +Mr. RANKIN. Now, you say here that you were told that the subject was a +member of the Communist Party. Is that right? + +Mr. REVILL. This might be my interpretation of Mr. Hosty saying a +Communist killed the President and we had him in our security files. + +Mr. RANKIN. You are an expert in this field, aren't you? You are +working in the subversive field? + +Mr. REVILL. Yes, sir; but as far as an expert, I wouldn't say I am an +expert. + +Mr. RANKIN. You know the difference between membership and a person +being a Communist, don't you? + +Mr. REVILL. Yes, sir. + +Mr. RANKIN. And you know it is a very real difference? + +Mr. REVILL. Yes, sir; there is a difference. + +Mr. RANKIN. Do you know which Mr. Hosty told you? + +Mr. REVILL. He did not say that he was a member. This was my +connotation of what he said that a Communist, that "We had him in our +security files." + +Mr. DULLES. Could I ask a question? Where did you get this address that +you put on of 605 Elsbeth Street, do you recall? + +Mr. REVILL. Yes, sir; from Detective E. B. Carroll or Detective Taylor. + +Mr. DULLES. Are they subordinates? + +Mr. REVILL. No; they are detectives assigned to the special service +bureau. One of them works the narcotics squad and one of them is +assigned to the vice unit. + +Mr. DULLES. You never ascertained where they got it? + +Mr. REVILL. No, sir; this might be the address that they got from +Oswald, I do not know. I never even thought about it until you brought +up the point that this is not the address. + +Mr. DULLES. Can you find out where they got this address? + +Mr. REVILL. Yes, sir; I can. + +Mr. DULLES. I think that would be useful. I would like to know that. I +would like to know where they got this address also. + +Mr. REVILL. It would have been the same day because this was made +within an hour---- + +Mr. RANKIN. You didn't put down on this statement anything about what +you said, did you? + +Mr. REVILL. No, sir; I did not. + +Mr. RANKIN. Why didn't you? + +Mr. REVILL. All I was doing was reporting what Mr. Hosty said to me. + +Mr. RANKIN. Is that the way you make all your reports just one side? + +Mr. REVILL. Yes, sir; yes, sir. + +Mr. RANKIN. You never say what you said? + +Mr. REVILL. No, sir; I do not put our opinions or our interpretation in +the report. + +Mr. RANKIN. You don't even say what you asked? + +Mr. REVILL. No, sir. + +Mr. RANKIN. You just put the answer down? + +Mr. REVILL. Put what was given to me; yes, sir. + +Mr. RANKIN. And that is the way all the police department reports are +made? + +Mr. REVILL. No, sir; I don't know whether this is the way they are all +made. This is the way we do it in our unit. + +Mr. RANKIN. After you made this report, do you know what happened to it? + +Mr. REVILL. I gave it to the captain, my captain, Captain Gannaway. + +Mr. RANKIN. Do you know whether it was given to the Commission when the +police reports were furnished to the Commission? + +Mr. REVILL. This I do not know, sir. + +Mr. RANKIN. I will tell you that it was not given to the Commission. Do +you know any reason why it was withheld? + +Mr. REVILL. No, sir; I do not. + +Mr. RANKIN. Do you know any reason why it should have been withheld +until Chief Curry came here? + +Mr. REVILL. No, sir; I do not. + +Mr. RANKIN. Did you have anything to do with that being withheld? + +Mr. REVILL. No, sir; I gave it to my superior, and what he did with it, +I do not know. + +Mr. RANKIN. Did you ever have any discussions about withholding it? + +Mr. REVILL. No, sir. + +Mr. RANKIN. You did want to protect Agent Hosty, you say? + +Mr. REVILL. Yes, sir. + +Mr. RANKIN. And you hoped the information would not get out? + +Mr. REVILL. By hoping---- + +The CHAIRMAN. He didn't say exactly that, Mr. Rankin. He said he hoped +he wouldn't have to use it against Hosty as I understood him to say. + +Mr. REVILL. Yes, sir; my opinion, and this was my personal opinion that +it would not serve any purpose. In your scope of the investigation, +yes, I can see where it would, but I hated to get involved in a +controversy with the FBI, because of our past relations. + +Mr. RANKIN. Did you recently have a conversation with Lieutenant +Hopkins of Fort Worth? + +Mr. REVILL. Yes, sir. + +Mr. RANKIN. Where was that? + +Mr. REVILL. Lieutenant Hopkins and I went to Sacramento, Calif., to a +law enforcement intelligence unit conference and shared a room. + +Mr. RANKIN. Did you discuss this matter with him? + +Mr. REVILL. Yes, sir; it broke in the papers while we were there. + +Mr. RANKIN. What did you say to him about it? + +Mr. REVILL. About the report? About this report? + +Mr. RANKIN. Yes. + +Mr. REVILL. I told him about the conversation with Mr. Hosty and +about according to the news release, the news stories, this thing +was released, and the newspaper reporters and television people in +Sacramento made it impossible for me to remain at the conference so I +returned to Dallas. I was there for 1 day and returned the next, the +next evening. + +Mr. RANKIN. Did you say anything about the report being inaccurate? + +Mr. REVILL. Inaccurate? + +Mr. RANKIN. Yes. + +Mr. REVILL. No, sir. + +Representative FORD. What was the date of this conference in Sacramento? + +Mr. REVILL. April 22, 23, and 24, I believe. It was on a Thursday, +Friday, and Saturday. It could have been the 23d, 24th, and 25th but I +returned on Friday evening. + +Mr. RANKIN. Did you examine the newspaper report of your report, +Exhibit 709? + +Mr. REVILL. Did I examine it? Yes, sir; I read several newspaper +reports of it. + +Mr. RANKIN. Did you give the reports to the newspapers? + +Mr. REVILL. No, sir; I did not. + +Mr. RANKIN. Did you have anything to do with giving it to the +newspapers? + +Mr. REVILL. No, sir; this would have been the last thing I would have +done. + +Mr. RANKIN. Do you know who did? + +Mr. REVILL. No, sir; I do not. + +Representative FORD. What prompted you to discuss this information with +the other officer from Fort Worth? + +Mr. REVILL. I started getting long-distance telephone calls on the +evening, it must have been the 23d, it was Thursday night, I got two +long-distance phone calls, and Lieutenant Hopkins and I were sharing a +double room and, of course---- + +The CHAIRMAN. Lieutenant who? + +Mr. REVILL. Lieutenant Hopkins of the Fort Worth Police Department. H. +F. Hopkins. + +The CHAIRMAN. Yes. + +Mr. REVILL. And I discussed it with him. + +Representative FORD. Who was calling you long distance, what relevance +does that have to it? + +Mr. REVILL. To my discussing it with him? + +Representative FORD. Yes. + +Mr. REVILL. The long-distance phone calls were about this report, the +Associated Press and the United Press. + +Representative FORD. I see. They had heard about it, they called you +long distance and you discussed it with Hopkins who was in the room +with you? + +Mr. REVILL. Yes, sir. + +Mr. RANKIN. That is all that I have, Mr. Chief Justice. + +The CHAIRMAN. Have you anything further, or you? + +Mr. DULLES. Tippit was not under your jurisdiction, was he? + +Mr. REVILL. No, sir; he was not. + +The CHAIRMAN. Lieutenant, I am not familiar with the newspaper report +that you are speaking of. What, in substance, did it say? + +Mr. REVILL. There were several articles written. The Dallas papers +carried articles on it and the Sacramento, Calif., paper carried an +article on it. In essence it had to do with this conversation that +Hosty and I had and about this report and somewhere, someplace some +newspaper reporter must have seen a copy of this because he knew how +many paragraphs they had in it and he quoted, I believe, the last +paragraph of the report verbatim, and this is what concerned me, that a +report such as this would fall into their hands. + +Now, who the reporter is, there were several reporters that were +curious about the thing, and I don't even recall which newspaper +carried the verbatim paragraph about Agent Hosty's conversation. + +The CHAIRMAN. And that is what caused you and Lieutenant Hopkins to +have a discussion? + +Mr. REVILL. Yes, sir. + +The CHAIRMAN. Did he bring the matter up to you or did you bring it up +to him? + +Mr. REVILL. I might have brought it up to him because I was concerned +that this thing had been released. + +The CHAIRMAN. What was your conversation concerning that? + +Mr. REVILL. That I had received these calls, the first one must have +been around 2 o'clock in the morning, California time, from the +Associated Press. It was a lady writer, and she asked about this and +I told her that any statement would have to be made by Chief Curry, +and she trapped me really. She made a false statement that Hosty was +supposed to have said something else and I said no, that is not so. He +did not make a statement, and then there was my comment. From that it +looked like I had written them out a press release. + +The CHAIRMAN. Looks like what? + +Mr. REVILL. It appears as if I had written out a press release from the +comment in the newspapers but that was the only statement I made that +Hosty had not made such statement, it was a fabrication, he knew he was +capable, but he did not make such a statement. Hosty did not make such +a statement. + +The CHAIRMAN. Then you discussed that with Mr. Hopkins? + +Mr. REVILL. Yes, sir. + +The CHAIRMAN. Do you recall just what Mr. Hopkins asked you and what +you told him about this report? + +Mr. REVILL. Well, when I received the first call, I was in the coffee +shop, it was 2 o'clock in the morning, we had been out with two of +the Sacramento County Sheriff's officers and I got the call and after +getting the call I went to the room and Hopkins had been awakened by +this phone call, and I told him about the call, and then from there on, +I had numerous long-distance calls, and I answered the one with the +UPI, and then I decided I would not talk to people. Because I couldn't +see where it would help anything. + +The CHAIRMAN. Did he ask you if the substance of this report was true, +I am speaking now of Exhibit 709, the one we have been talking about. + +Mr. REVILL. Mr. Hopkins had never seen this report. I just told him +what had transpired between Hosty and I and told him that a report had +been made, and this is what they were calling on. + +The CHAIRMAN. Did you at any time in talking to him repudiate anything +that was in this report? + +Mr. REVILL. No, sir. The only thing I repudiated was the fact that this +reporter had said that Hosty had made a statement and I said no, this +is not true, about them not believing that he would do it, and I think +I told Hopkins that. + +The CHAIRMAN. Yes. Anything more? + +Mr. DULLES. I have nothing more. + +The CHAIRMAN. Lieutenant, thank you very much, sir, for your help here. + +Mr. REVILL. Thank you, sir. I am just sorry it happened. + +The CHAIRMAN. You have told us what the truth of the situation is, you +could do no more and no less. + +Mr. REVILL. Yes, sir. + +(Discussion off the record.) + +The CHAIRMAN. Lieutenant, just a question or two, we forgot to ask, Mr. +Rankin, would you ask them, please? + +Mr. RANKIN. You said you made some handwritten notes about this 709 +exhibit. + +Mr. REVILL. Yes, sir. + +Mr. RANKIN. When you gave them to the typist--do you know what happened +to those notes? + +Mr. REVILL. They were destroyed, I am sure. + +Mr. RANKIN. Do you know what her name is who typed 709? + +Mr. REVILL. Mary Jane Robertson. + +Mr. RANKIN. Is she still with the police department? + +Mr. REVILL. Yes, sir. + +Mr. RANKIN. What position is she in now? + +Mr. REVILL. She is a clerk-typist in the special service bureau. + +Mr. RANKIN. Do you know where the original of 709 is? + +Mr. REVILL. With Chief Curry, I assume. Well, let's see. You have a +copy; I would assume he has got it. + +Mr. DULLES. Wasn't a copy made at the time? + +Mr. REVILL. Yes, sir; I have it. + +Mr. DULLES. The actual copy, you have? + +Mr. REVILL. Yes, sir; it is in my little briefcase. + +Mr. RANKIN. So that original would be available to us? + +Mr. DULLES. You have it here now? + +Mr. REVILL. I have a copy. + +Mr. DULLES. A carbon copy? + +Mr. REVILL. Yes, sir. + +The CHAIRMAN. He showed us a copy of his testimony. + +Representative FORD. Do you know how many copies were made? + +Mr. REVILL. Yes, sir; one and one; an original and one. + +Representative FORD. And you kept one copy and one went to Captain +Gannaway? + +Mr. REVILL. No; both copies went to Captain Gannaway who is my +immediate superior and he later gave me back the carbon and the +original went to Chief Curry. + +Representative FORD. And you have had the one copy in your possession +since how long? + +Mr. REVILL. Probably a week or two after this thing happened, and I +have had it in the Lee Harvey Oswald file. + +Representative FORD. You have had this copy in your files in the police +department? + +Mr. REVILL. Yes, sir. + +Representative FORD. Since about December 1 or thereabouts? + +Mr. REVILL. Yes, sir; thereabouts. + +The CHAIRMAN. Do you number those items in the file? + +Mr. REVILL. Yes, sir. + +The CHAIRMAN. And the order in which they come in? + +Mr. REVILL. Yes, sir. Now, this particular report was put in the Lee +Harvey Oswald file, and he was given an intelligence number, A & T, if +I may get this copy I will explain to you---- + +The CHAIRMAN. Yes; would you do so, please? + +Mr. REVILL. Excuse me just a moment. You see, he was given A & T 2965, +page 34, as it appears in his file. This is indexed with a card with +this file number and page number. + +The CHAIRMAN. May I ask, would the next item in that file be numbered +35? + +Mr. REVILL. Yes, sir; it would. + +The CHAIRMAN. And the one directly preceding it would be 33? + +Mr. REVILL. Thirty-three; yes, sir. + +The CHAIRMAN. I see, and you have the rest of your file which would +indicate that? + +Mr. REVILL. Yes, sir; I don't have it with me. + +The CHAIRMAN. No; but you have it in your records. + +Mr. REVILL. Yes, sir. + +The CHAIRMAN. And that could be produced if we wanted it? + +Mr. REVILL. Yes, sir; it is the complete file we have now on Lee Harvey +Oswald. + +The CHAIRMAN. Yes. + +Mr. RANKIN. May we have---- + +Mr. DULLES. Could I just see that? + +Mr. RANKIN. Could we make a copy of that? + +Mr. REVILL. Yes, sir; I put another piece in there because it is on +onion skin. + +Mr. RANKIN. We could make a photostatic copy quickly and return this to +you. + +Mr. REVILL. Yes, sir. + +Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Chief Justice, I would like to number this in the next +order of exhibits and offer it in evidence, if I may, this copy, the +photostatic copy. + +The CHAIRMAN. Yes. + +Mr. DULLES. Just as a security matter, would you kindly look in the +file and see if by any chance your original longhand notes could have +been put in the file, at this place in the file? + +Mr. REVILL. Yes, sir; I can, but I am sure they were not, because this +was not made at my office. You see, we are removed physically from the +police department, the intelligence unit, and this was made at the +special service bureau office. + +Mr. DULLES. I see, not in your own office. + +Mr. REVILL. No, sir; we are an integral part of the special service +bureau office but our files are maintained elsewhere, and this was made +at the special service bureau office. + +Representative FORD. When you sat down to write out this statement, +just describe where you did it and how you did it, what kind of paper +you used and so forth. + +Mr. REVILL. Well, we use the white pads like this, and I wrote it out +on the pad, and in the special service bureau office and it was made in +Lieutenant Dyson's office, he was out, and I used his desk, and then I +took it to Mrs. Robertson, and she typed it. + +Representative FORD. Did you consult with Detective Brian? + +Mr. REVILL. No, sir. + +Representative FORD. During the time you were preparing it? + +Mr. REVILL. No, sir. + +Representative FORD. Or subsequent to its preparation? + +Mr. REVILL. No, sir; I did not. At the time I couldn't have told you +who was with me or who overheard this thing because there was so much +confusion in the elevator and going to the elevator. + +Representative FORD. But Brian was with you on the elevator? + +Mr. REVILL. Yes, sir; he was with me in the automobile and on the +elevator. + +Representative FORD. Was he up in Gannaway's office with you, too? + +Mr. REVILL. Yes, sir; he works for me. + +Representative FORD. He was with you at the time you went to Gannaway's +office? + +Mr. REVILL. The special service bureau office; yes, sir. + +Representative FORD. But he didn't see this at anytime? + +Mr. REVILL. No, sir; I say he didn't, I don't know whether he ever saw +it or not. He might have seen it when I was working on it and I gave +both of the copies to the captain. + +The CHAIRMAN. Lieutenant, did that entire Oswald file that you have +just told us about come to the Commission, do you know? + +Mr. REVILL. I don't know. Now what we did, we made up several large +books, and it is my understanding that a copy of one of these was given +to the Attorney General Waggoner and he was in turn to furnish it to +this Commission, this I was told by Captain Gannaway. + +Mr. RANKIN. When was that? + +Mr. REVILL. This was a month or two ago. + +Mr. RANKIN. Yes; but not when you first gave the files. + +Mr. REVILL. No, sir; because this happened on the same day. + +The CHAIRMAN. Should that file have included this? + +Mr. REVILL. No, sir; it didn't. There were only two pieces made of it, +one copy and the original made of this. + +The CHAIRMAN. I see. What I am getting at, when the department sent +their reports to us, did they send copies of this file that Exhibit 709 +is in? + +Mr. REVILL. The Lee Harvey Oswald file? + +The CHAIRMAN. Yes. + +Mr. REVILL. I don't believe they did, because much of this is, pertains +to newspaper articles, and information that we picked up such as leads +where Ruby and Oswald were seen together, we ran all these things down, +and then we would make a report of the lead, or the findings, and a +copy of it would go in their files. + +The CHAIRMAN. I see. + +Mr. REVILL. But this one here, was not placed in that book? + +Mr. DULLES. In the original of Commission Exhibit No. 709 that you have +just given us prior to the notary public's inscription, subscription to +it, there is red ink underlining of Lee Harvey Oswald and James Hosty. +When was that put on this copy? + +Mr. REVILL. I don't know, sir. Captain Gannaway must have done that +because he had the thing and then later gave it to me. Now, the reason +for it being underlined, I don't know. On the original--yes; I do. + +Mr. DULLES. Would that be for filing purposes? + +Mr. REVILL. Yes, sir; I do. Normally we retain the original copy of +every report for our file copy, but I did not have the file copy or the +original report so our clerk in indexing this underscored the name and +the address and she made cards for the index files. + +Mr. DULLES. That was a card, also, under the file of James Hosty? + +Mr. REVILL. Yes, sir. + +Mr. DULLES. His name is also underlined in red? + +Mr. REVILL. His name indexed; yes, sir. + +Mr. DULLES. In your original copy of Exhibit 709? + +Mr. REVILL. No, sir; not the original copy, because the original---- + +Mr. DULLES. The carbon copy, excuse me, the carbon copy of 709. + +Mr. REVILL. Yes, sir. + +Mr. DULLES. And I assume that Commission's Exhibit No. 709 which is a +photostat is a photostat of the original rather than of the carbon copy? + +Mr. REVILL. Yes, sir; and I don't know who made the photostat, I did +not. I assume Chief Curry had it made. + +Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Reporter, we are giving the number 838 to the carbon +copy of Exhibit 709 that Lieutenant Revill has just produced. + +The CHAIRMAN. You propose to take a photostat of this and return this +report to the lieutenant? + +Mr. RANKIN. If we may, Mr. Chief Justice, this is the only copy that I +have. + +The CHAIRMAN. You should have it back. + +Mr. REVILL. That is fine. + +The CHAIRMAN. We will take a photostat and return this to you then. + +Mr. REVILL. I appreciate that. + +The CHAIRMAN. It may be admitted in that manner. + +(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 838 for +identification, and received in evidence.) + +The CHAIRMAN. I think that is all. Thank you, again, lieutenant. + +Mr. REVILL. I will attempt to find out on that address, and I shall let +Mr. Sorrels know, with Secret Service. + +Mr. RANKIN. Yes; that will be fine. + +The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. + + +TESTIMONY OF V. J. BRIAN + +The CHAIRMAN. Come right in, sir. Detective Brian, the purpose of +today's hearing is to hear the testimony of Lieutenant Revill and +yourself with particular regard to an alleged conversation with Special +Agent James P. Hosty, Jr. of the Federal Bureau of Investigation +claimed to have occurred on November 22, 1963, in the afternoon and +also concerning the facts surrounding the discussion of Commission +Exhibits Nos. 709 and 711. 709 is the affidavit of Lieutenant Revill, +and 711 is the affidavit that you made concerning that matter. + +Mr. BRIAN. Yes, sir. + +The CHAIRMAN. Would you raise your right hand and be sworn, please? + +Do you solemnly swear the testimony you are about to give before this +Commission shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the +truth, so help you God? + +Mr. BRIAN. Yes, sir; I do. + +The CHAIRMAN. Please be seated. + +Mr. Rankin will conduct the examination. + +Mr. BRIAN. My name is Brian. + +Mr. RANKIN. Where do you live? + +Mr. BRIAN. In Dallas, Tex. + +Mr. RANKIN. Do you have some connection with the police department in +Dallas? + +Mr. BRIAN. Yes, sir; I am a detective in the criminal intelligence +section. + +Mr. RANKIN. How long have you occupied that position? + +Mr. BRIAN. Since June of 1955. + +Mr. RANKIN. What is your function as a detective for the criminal +intelligence section? + +Mr. BRIAN. To gain, obtain information and keep records and files, and +usually when an important Government official comes to town we guard +them or help assist guard them, and furnish information for other +agencies outside of the Dallas Police Department and have liaison, and +general criminal investigation work. + +Mr. RANKIN. Did you have anything to do with the Lee Harvey Oswald case? + +Mr. BRIAN. Yes, sir. + +Mr. RANKIN. When was the first time that you had anything to do with +that matter? + +Mr. BRIAN. Well, we started interrogating people and talking to people +immediately after the assassination. + +Mr. RANKIN. About what time of the day? + +Mr. BRIAN. In the middle of the afternoon, probably---- + +Mr. RANKIN. November 22, 1963? + +Mr. BRIAN. Yes, sir. The first thing that we done, I was, I personally +that day was, assigned at the Dallas Trade Mart where the President was +to speak, I was on the side of the speaker stand when he was to come +in, and they came in and got us and told us that he had been shot, and +the President of the United States had been shot, and that a man in the +Book Depository down there and told us to go down there and see if we +could get him out, and four of us detectives down there got in a car +and we went to the Book Depository and we arrived there a short time, I +don't know what time it was, a short time after the shooting occurred. + +Mr. RANKIN. Who were the four you are describing now? + +Mr. BRIAN. Lieutenant Revill, myself, a detective, O. J. Tarver, and a +detective, Roy W. Westphal. + +Mr. RANKIN. What did you do there? + +Mr. BRIAN. We searched the Book Depository for a couple of hours. We +spent about 2 hours, I would guess, approximately 2 hours down there +searching the Depository. + +Mr. RANKIN. Did you find anything at that time? + +Mr. BRIAN. No, sir. I was there on the floor when the man found shells +over in a corner when--where the assassin was hidden at. But other than +that, I wasn't present when anything was found. + +Mr. RANKIN. Will you just describe that event when you saw those shells? + +Mr. BRIAN. Well, a police sergeant, Jerry Hill, hollered, I was on the +opposite side of the sixth floor, hollered that he had, this is where +he shot from, and shells were laying there, and I walked from where I +was at over to the other corner of the building and looked, and that +is about the extent of my investigation there because they called the +crime laboratory and everybody else to get down there and they got an +officer to guard the place and not let nobody get around and we went on +searching the building. + +Mr. RANKIN. What did you see, how many shells did you see? + +Mr. BRIAN. I am going to guess. + +Mr. RANKIN. We don't want you to guess. If you can tell us your +recollection, that is all. + +Mr. BRIAN. Well, the first time I went over there, I believe I saw two, +but I am not sure, but I went back again later and there were three +shells there. + +Mr. RANKIN. Now after that, did you leave the Depository Building? + +Mr. BRIAN. Yes, sir; after we spent considerable time, we went from the +top floor down to the bottom floor, back up, going through it, and we +finally wound up on the second floor taking all the acoustic tile out +of the ceiling looking up to see if anybody was hidden up there, and I +believe that was the last thing we did in the building. By that time, +there were a number of people in the building. + +Mr. RANKIN. You were making a complete search of each floor, were you? + +Mr. BRIAN. Yes, sir; I was with, I mean there were a number of officers +there. I didn't do it by myself, there were a number of us there and we +were searching it. + +Mr. RANKIN. Then you left the building? + +Mr. BRIAN. Yes, sir. + +Mr. RANKIN. Did you leave with some other officers? + +Mr. BRIAN. Yes, sir; Lieutenant Revill, myself, and Tarver and Westphal +all went back to the car and left to go to city hall. + +Mr. RANKIN. Then you got back to the city hall. What did you do? + +Mr. BRIAN. We drove into the basement and parked. + +Mr. RANKIN. What time of the day was that, can you tell us? + +Mr. BRIAN. Probably around 2 o'clock or somewhere in that. I don't +really know to be truthful because I didn't pay any attention to the +time but it was around 2 o'clock, I would guess. + +Mr. RANKIN. And the four of you were together at that time? + +Mr. BRIAN. Yes, sir. + +Mr. RANKIN. What happened at that point? + +Mr. BRIAN. We got out of the car, and as we got out of the car---- + +Mr. DULLES. Was the car already inside the building or in the driveway +there? + +Mr. BRIAN. Yes, sir. + +Let me explain. City hall basement, as some of you all know---- + +Mr. DULLES. I was just there so I want to know. + +Mr. BRIAN. We came around the ramp and we parked in the basement. We +were parked in the basement, and we got out, and started around, there +is a railing there, we started around the railing and at that time Jim +Hosty was coming across the basement, at a fast trot, or moving fairly +fast---- + +Mr. RANKIN. Special Agent Hosty of the Bureau? + +Mr. BRIAN. Yes, sir. + +And he came across there and I know him, and I had known him for a good +while to speak to him. + +Mr. RANKIN. Where were you with reference to Lieutenant Revill at that +point? + +Mr. BRIAN. I think I was on his, probably his right-hand side. + +Mr. RANKIN. Close to him? + +Mr. BRIAN. Fairly close; yes, sir. + +And so we walked over to meet, kind of cornered, you cross paths and we +walked up there to meet Jim, and he said, he came up there and he said, +that Lee Oswald, a Communist, killed the President, and then Revill +said, "What?" He said, Lee Oswald, a Communist, killed the President. + +He was in--nervous--in a hurry, and was just talking. + +And then he said, he said that he knew that he was a Communist and he +knew he worked in the Book Depository, and then Lieutenant Revill said +something else to him, I am not--I don't know what he said, and they +walked off in front of me going in around and in through the door over +to the elevator to go up, and then we accompanied Agent Hosty up to +Captain Fritz' office which is on the---- + +Mr. DULLES. Was the elevator there at the basement floor when you took +it or did you have to wait? + +Mr. BRIAN. We had to wait just a very short time on it. It wasn't +standing open waiting; no, sir. + +We had to wait on it just a very short time, I believe, and we went up +to the third floor, and Hosty and Lieutenant Revill went in there and +talked. I went to the door and just stepped inside and waited and then +we went back downstairs to our office which is on two, right underneath +Captain Fritz' office. + +Mr. DULLES. You accompanied them to the third floor and then you came +down? + +Mr. BRIAN. Yes, sir. + +Mr. DULLES. In the elevator? + +Mr. BRIAN. That I am not sure. + +Mr. DULLES. Or did you get out and come down the stairs? + +Mr. BRIAN. I am not sure. + +Mr. DULLES. But you weren't with Lieutenant Revill any further? + +Mr. BRIAN. When we came back down to our office, we came back down, I +am not sure whether we rode the elevator or not. It is a short trip +down and I am--I would be afraid to say whether we walked, rode, or +how we got down, but we went into Captain Gannaway's office and Revill +told, Lieutenant Revill told the Captain what Hosty had said, so he +said, "Write a report." + +Mr. RANKIN. What did he say at that time? What did he tell the Captain +that Agent Hosty had said? + +Mr. BRIAN. He told him, short and very quick, that they knew that +Oswald was a Communist and that he was in the Book Depository, and he +said, "Write a report and get it back to me right now." + +And he went right back and wrote a report. + +I forgot about the whole incident, I didn't think it would be important +and I didn't--well, in fact, I didn't have time to because when I got +back there they had a list of names they were going to start checking +out and they handed me six of them and says, "Start going and checking +here and here and here and checking these people." + +So I never did dwell on it again. + +Mr. RANKIN. In this conversation down in the basement, have you told us +all that Agent Hosty said that you recall? + +Mr. BRIAN. Yes, sir. + +Mr. RANKIN. And have you told us all that Lieutenant Revill said that +you recall? + +Mr. BRIAN. Yes, sir. + +Mr. RANKIN. Have you told us all that Lieutenant Revill told to Captain +Gannaway that you recall? + +Mr. BRIAN. Well, let's see. I believe that I have, yes, sir. +When--Captain Gannaway's office, as you go in the door and turn right +and his office is in there and if I recall correctly I didn't go all +the way in his office, he did and I stood in the door, and I really +didn't make a mental note of what happened and things were moving at a +rather fast pace, and I believe that I did; yes, sir. + +Mr. RANKIN. You have made an affidavit about this, have you not? + +Mr. BRIAN. Yes, sir; I made a report to Chief Curry. + +Mr. RANKIN. And you swore to that? + +Mr. BRIAN. Yes, sir. + +Mr. RANKIN. Is Exhibit 711 a photostatic copy of your report that you +made that you have just described? + +Mr. BRIAN. Yes, sir. + +Mr. RANKIN. Did you swear to that report on the date that it bears? + +Mr. BRIAN. Yes, sir. + +Mr. RANKIN. April 20, 1964? + +Mr. BRIAN. Yes, sir. + +Mr. RANKIN. You read the Exhibit 711 right now, didn't you? + +Mr. BRIAN. Yes, sir. + +Mr. RANKIN. Is it correct? + +Mr. BRIAN. Yes, sir. + +Mr. RANKIN. Are there any additions or corrections that you wish to +make to it? + +Mr. BRIAN. No, sir. + +The CHAIRMAN. I was just going to ask if you fixed the date on which he +dictated that or wrote it, whichever he did. + +Mr. RANKIN. I haven't, but I will. + +Will you tell us on what date you wrote or dictated Exhibit 711? + +Mr. BRIAN. Yes, sir; the day before, I believe it was the day before, +Chief Curry came up here. It was either a day or 2 days before April +20th is what it says on there. That is the date that I made the report, +the day or 2 days before Chief Curry came up here. + +Will you tell us on what date you wrote or dictated Exhibit 711? + +Mr. BRIAN. I didn't think--well, Captain Gannaway told Lieutenant +Revill to write a report about the thing the date it happened, and he +did, or I assumed he did, and I guess that he did. I haven't---- + +Mr. RANKIN. Have you ever seen that report? + +Mr. BRIAN. I have seen it, but I haven't read it. That is unusual but I +haven't. I didn't think the incident was really important, that is the +reason why I didn't dwell on it, and I am sure it is now or I wouldn't +be up here. + +But they, a few days before Chief Curry was to come up here they said +they wanted a report, you know, to what I had heard in the basement +and this and that and the other, and I said, "Well, I better write one +then." + +I just assumed it was all taken care of, and so I wrote one on the +20th, I wrote that report on the 20th and swore to it and turned it in +and he brought it up here. + +Mr. DULLES. You made no contemporaneous memoranda, that is on November +22 you made no notes or memoranda of this? + +Mr. BRIAN. No, sir. + +Mr. DULLES. So the report of April 20 you dictated on or about April 20 +is based on your memory? + +Mr. BRIAN. Yes, sir. + +Mr. RANKIN. Exhibit 711, your report, was that written out in longhand +or dictated to a girl? + +Mr. BRIAN. No, sir; I typed it myself on the typewriter. We don't have +a stenographer in our office to dictate to. + +Mr. RANKIN. You did type the part about the notary and so forth on the +bottom? + +Mr. BRIAN. No, sir. + +Mr. RANKIN. Do you know who did that? + +Mr. BRIAN. I believe Bill Biggio. + +Mr. RANKIN. Who is he? + +Mr. BRIAN. He is a detective who works the desk there, who is a notary +who notarized it. + +Mr. RANKIN. Now, before you made Exhibit 711 did anyone give you +Lieutenant Revill's report to examine? + +Mr. BRIAN. No, sir. + +Mr. RANKIN. Compare your report with? + +Mr. BRIAN. No, sir. + +Mr. RANKIN. And you have never read that? + +Mr. BRIAN. I don't recall reading it; no, sir. I sure don't. I probably +looked at it but as far as sitting down and reading it, I have never +read the report, I don't believe. + +Mr. RANKIN. So if there is any differences between your report and his +you are not familiar with them? + +Mr. BRIAN. No, sir. + +Representative FORD. Subsequent to November 22 and prior to April 20, +when you prepared this Exhibit 711, did you ever talk to Lieutenant +Revill about the incident? + +Mr. BRIAN. Yes, sir; I sure did. He couldn't remember who was with him +down in the basement, and it rocked on there and had rocked on there, +and somewhere it came out that somebody said he was lying about it and +he was telling us, he said, "I am telling you the truth". "You don't +have to tell me, I know you are; I was standing there with you." + +And he said, "You were the one who was with me?" + +And I said, "Yes, I was with you." + +And I assumed he knew that I was with him. That is when he talked to +Chief Curry and Chief Curry come back and said he needed the report +from me, too. + +Representative FORD. When did this conversation take place? + +Mr. BRIAN. The date I don't have any idea. Probably 2 or 3 weeks, I +will tell you---- + +Mr. DULLES. 2 or 3 weeks what? After November 22? + +Mr. BRIAN. No, sir; before the date I wrote the report, because I +messed around there for another couple of weeks and then I walked in +the office one day and he said, "Chief Curry wants it today," and I +said, "All right, I will write it," and I sat down and wrote it, and +I believe the next day or the day after that he brought it, came up +here, and all this come out in the paper about making a statement and +me backing the statement up in Dallas, I don't know whether it came up +here or not. + +Representative FORD. Who prompted this conversation that you have been +describing? + +Mr. BRIAN. In our office that day? + +Representative FORD. Yes. + +Mr. BRIAN. I am trying to think what brought it on. Somebody, there was +a statement in the paper or something that said that--anyway, somewhere +down the line it came out, it said it wasn't right what Lieutenant +Revill had said. + +And I said, "I know it is right, I was standing there," and that was +about the extent of that. + +And then he said, "Well, I will need"--he talked to Chief Curry, I +guess, and they decided they needed a report from me on it, and then +I finally wrote the report and he brought it up here. I guess it was +just in the course of a conversation more than anything. I don't think +anybody prompted it, really. + +Representative FORD. In this Commission 711 you actually typed it out +yourself? + +Mr. BRIAN. Yes, sir. + +Representative FORD. Are you a fairly accomplished typist? + +Mr. BRIAN. No, sir. I can type fairly well. I am not a touch typist. I +can't copy, but I can type fairly well typing something I don't have +to copy off of a sheet of paper. In other words, I have to look at the +keys to type it. + +Representative FORD. Did you have to rewrite this a second time on the +typewriter? + +Mr. BRIAN. Yes, sir. I made several strikeovers and some other stuff, +and typed it, I had to type it over again. + +Representative FORD. In other words, you typed it out once, and then +retyped it yourself? + +Mr. BRIAN. Yes, sir; I typed it twice. The first time everything wasn't +right in there and the spelling and the strikeovers and stuff, and not +being an accomplished typist I still don't like to throw things out, +you know, that don't look too bad so I typed it over again. + +Representative FORD. But after you typed it over the first time did you +show it to somebody else? + +Mr. BRIAN. I believe Lieutenant Revill looked at it and called a bunch +of mistakes to my attention. + +Representative FORD. What kind of mistakes? + +Mr. BRIAN. Well, I don't know. There were some strikeovers and some, a +couple of misspelled words, I believe, and I don't have a copy of the +one that I copied from so I couldn't say, but I did have to type the +report over. + +Representative FORD. But these mistakes that were pointed out by +Lieutenant Revill, were they mistakes of substance or just mistakes +involving spelling and the like? + +Mr. BRIAN. Well, what do you mean by substance now? + +Representative FORD. Well, I mean as to the precise things that you +said as to what transpired? + +Mr. BRIAN. I don't believe there were. I am trying to recall what I had +to add that took place there, and---- + +Representative FORD. It is important whether or not any statements of +facts were altered or whether the changes were simply typographical +errors or otherwise. + +Mr. BRIAN. I will tell you one thing that I recall he called to my +attention was 2:05 p.m., I believe, and I told him, I said I can't put +that in there because I don't know what time it was, and I don't. I +don't have any idea of what time it was, and he said, "Well, all right, +leave that out," but I think the substance was probably the same in +both reports. In fact, I am sure the substance was probably the same, +because it was, the grammar was changed in some places, some spelling +was changed, and some strikeovers were changed, and I think probably +the second report was copied, that one was copied partially from the +first one and then I made some changes. + +Representative FORD. While you were in the process of discussing this +with Lieutenant Revill he didn't show you his report, Exhibit 709? + +Mr. BRIAN. I don't know whether he did or not. I don't believe that he +did. I don't believe he did. + +Representative FORD. Had you seen it before? + +Mr. BRIAN. I have seen the report. + +Representative FORD. Did you see it before you typed this up? + +Mr. BRIAN. I don't recall seeing it. I may have, but I don't recall it. + +Now, he has got something in there that I don't have in mine, I know +about him saying that Hosty knew that Oswald, I believe, was capable of +assassinating the President, but I didn't hear Hosty say that. + +Representative FORD. When did you learn that that statement was in +Revill's statement? + +Mr. BRIAN. Just to be truthful, I don't know. + +Mr. RANKIN. Did Lieutenant Revill ask you to include in your statement +that Hosty had said that Oswald was known to be capable of being an +assassin? + +Mr. BRIAN. No, sir; he asked me if I heard him say it and I told him +no, but I don't believe he asked me to include that in the report. + +Mr. DULLES. You told him, no. + +Mr. RANKIN. When was that? + +Mr. BRIAN. Probably the day--now, this all happened in the course of a +week's time and the conversations are hard to put on a day or time, I +mean when you don't think--I didn't think all this was real important, +and so I didn't try to backlog it to where--it was probably the day, +probably about April 20, along in there. + +Mr. RANKIN. Before or after you wrote your report? + +Mr. BRIAN. In between the first report and the second report I imagine. + +Mr. RANKIN. I am not quite clear about how you happened to make this +report in that I understood you to say that there were some newspaper +accounts about it, and the lieutenant said, well, he had said what was +true and something like that. Can you tell us what happened? + +Mr. BRIAN. Well, now, to go back. We were in the office talking and I +don't know how long this was because it may have been 2 days, 3 days, +2 weeks or 3 weeks, before I wrote that report, we were sitting in the +office, and I don't recall whether it was a newspaper account or what +it was, but anywhere somewhere down the line he got--somebody said that +it wasn't the truth and he was lying or something and he was sitting +out there talking and he said, he said he wasn't lying about it and I +told him, I said "I know you are not lying because I stood there and +heard you." + +And he said, "Oh, you are the one who was with me?" And I said, "Yes." + +But I assumed that his report, up until that time I had not seen his +report, and I have seen it since then and I haven't read it from one +end to the other until the other day, and he said, "Well, I am glad +to know you are the one who was there then," and evidently he had +forgotten I was there, too. + +So, he said, "Well, make me a report on what you heard," and I said, +"All right, I will," and he talked to Chief Curry and evidently before +he told me that it was a matter of days or time differential in there +and I said, "All right," and I just did not get around to it until +finally one day I came in the office and he said, "I've got to have +that report today," and I said, "All right," and I sat down and wrote +it and I had to write it over again, that happened on the day the +report is dated. + +Mr. RANKIN. All of that happened, though, before any news accounts of +it, didn't it? + +Mr. BRIAN. Well, I don't remember when they started putting it in the +newspapers. There had been something about it to make him, somewhere to +make him say, he was trying to convince me he was telling the truth and +I said, "Well, I know you are." + +I don't know what brought it on, I don't know whether it was a +newspaper report or something, but anyway there was some--maybe +Chief Curry was on him about it, I don't know. But he said that he +was telling the truth and I told him I knew he was telling the truth +because I had heard it. + +Mr. RANKIN. You said you were there with him? + +Mr. BRIAN. Yes, sir. + +Mr. RANKIN. How close were you to him when he was talking to Hosty? + +Mr. BRIAN. Right next to him when we were talking with him. We talked +around there and how you meet, you know, you walk up together and meet +and went on with him. + +Mr. DULLES. You were walking toward the elevator at that time, weren't +you? + +Mr. BRIAN. Let me draw you a little picture of how that is down there. + +Mr. DULLES. I have been in the basement so I know something about it. + +Mr. BRIAN. Yes, sir. But the ramp goes up here, this is why it would be +easier to draw a picture and it would be easier than I can explain. He +came down the ramp. + +Mr. DULLES. In the car? + +Mr. BRIAN. Yes, sir. + +Mr. DULLES. And you parked in the basement? + +Mr. BRIAN. And we parked the car, and Hosty had parked over here. You +know the ramp is wide here and the other side goes up here, he had +parked over in here and he was coming across this way and we coming +across this way and we met. + +Mr. DULLES. Where is the elevator which takes prisoners up where Oswald +was shot? + +Mr. BRIAN. Right through here, right in here somewhere is where Ruby +shot Oswald and this is a ramp from the Main Street side and this is +the ramp to the Commerce side. And this is the elevator. + +Mr. DULLES. Where is the elevator? + +Mr. BRIAN. The elevator is right there. + +The CHAIRMAN. That is the prisoners' elevator? + +Mr. BRIAN. No, sir. + +The CHAIRMAN. Or the freight elevator? + +Mr. BRIAN. No, sir; that is the elevator going up---- + +The CHAIRMAN. Which one did you take? + +Mr. BRIAN. We took the elevator inside the city hall basement. + +The CHAIRMAN. I see. + +Mr. DULLES. Is there only one elevator there? + +Mr. BRIAN. No, sir; there are two side by side. Back on this side of +the basement there are two elevators over here and one freight elevator +right back on in here. But this is to the city hall this direction and +this is the ramp coming in from Main Street and the ramp going up to +Commerce Street. We drove in this ramp one way going in this way and +one way going out. + +Mr. DULLES. Where are the stairs? + +Mr. BRIAN. In the basement? + +Mr. DULLES. You don't know? + +Mr. BRIAN. There are no stairs in the basement. I mean out here where +the cars are parked. Right here is the ramp, there is a walkway going +up but it is not a stairway and then it levels off and you go by +through here, and the jail is right here, do you recall the jail being +here, on the right by the doors as you go in. + +Mr. DULLES. I only saw the jail on top side. + +Mr. BRIAN. Well, the jail office is right there at the head of this +ramp, the jail office where they book the prisoners through. + +Mr. DULLES. I didn't go in there. + +Mr. BRIAN. That is the door they brought Lee Oswald out of when he was +shot, going into the jail office right there. + +Mr. RANKIN. There are no stairs from the basement to the third floor? + +Mr. BRIAN. There are stairs inside of the basement but there are none +out here, inside of the basement of city hall but none out here in the +parking area. + +Mr. RANKIN. Where are the stairs from the place where the elevators are +that you took. Are there any stairs? + +Mr. BRIAN. I didn't take any stairs. + +Mr. RANKIN. No. You say you took elevators. + +Mr. BRIAN. Yes, sir. + +Mr. RANKIN. Were there stairs near the elevators? + +Mr. BRIAN. Back right over--let me get a pencil and draw the whole +thing for you. That is about the way it is situated right there. + +Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Brian, we will call that Exhibit 839. Will you just +briefly tell the Commission what you have done in making that exhibit +now? + +Mr. BRIAN. All right, sir. I am not an artist. But we came down the +ramp on Main Street, came around here to the parking area. Mr. Hosty +was parked over here. There is a bunch of poles out there and I won't +try to draw them in here. + +Mr. RANKIN. Mark that "A" where Mr. Hosty was parked as you just +indicated. + +Mr. BRIAN. All right. And he was coming this way and we were coming +this way. We met him about in the middle of this ramp out here, and +talked, and---- + +Mr. RANKIN. You were right alongside of Lieutenant Revill? + +Mr. BRIAN. Yes, sir; and they walked on off and I came back behind +through here to these elevators and off here we caught the elevators +and went on up. + +Mr. RANKIN. How close were you when you came behind them? + +Mr. BRIAN. Just--I didn't keep a constant pace with them, but as far +as--I don't recall exactly---- + +Mr. RANKIN. You were close to them, were you? + +Mr. BRIAN. Here is the stairway in the basement, there is one narrow +stairway going up to the first floor, and you pass it and you go by the +phone booth and a jail office and you pass the stairway, it is right +over here in the basement of city hall. + +Mr. RANKIN. And you were close to them as you went across there to take +the elevator? + +Mr. BRIAN. I was behind them and they were going away from me and I was +fairly close, yes, sir. + +Mr. RANKIN. About how far? + +Mr. BRIAN. Probably 6 or 7 feet or 8 feet behind. When we got to the +elevator and we all stopped there together and caught the elevator. + +Mr. DULLES. Where did the conversation take place, in front of the +elevators there? + +Mr. BRIAN. That I heard? + +Mr. DULLES. Yes. + +Mr. BRIAN. Right out here, because Mr. Hosty started blurting it out +just as soon as he started across here. + +Mr. DULLES. And you walked from this point here? + +Mr. BRIAN. Over to here, to the elevators. + +Mr. DULLES. Mark that point "B." + +Mr. RANKIN. Where you met? + +Mr. DULLES. Where you met Hosty. + +Mr. BRIAN. OK. + +Mr. DULLES. And you walked along, make a mark there, if you would, +along there to the elevators where you walked. + +Mr. BRIAN. That is not exactly that way, this is offset, you have to +come over here to go up, it is not drawn exactly right, we walked +across here to the elevators straight through. + +Mr. DULLES. How far is that, a hundred feet--no, less than that. + +Mr. BRIAN. It is much less than a hundred feet. + +Mr. DULLES. Fifty feet, something like that. + +Mr. BRIAN. Probably 60, 70 feet. + +Mr. DULLES. Yes, sir. + +Mr. BRIAN. Something like that. + +Mr. DULLES. Where is this, where does that stairway go? + +Mr. BRIAN. Up to the first floor. Back in the hallway. + +Mr. DULLES. And you are quite clear you didn't go up that stairway? + +Mr. BRIAN. We didn't go up a stairway, no; not that stairway here. + +Mr. DULLES. Or any other stairway? + +Mr. BRIAN. Going up? + +Mr. DULLES. Yes. + +Mr. BRIAN. No, sir; we didn't go up the stairway going up. + +The CHAIRMAN. When you got up to the first floor by that stairway, are +there other stairs leading up to the floors above that connect with +this? + +Mr. BRIAN. Yes, sir; you have to go around. This is just a narrow +stairway going from the basement, it is probably, well, just a regular +narrow staircase that goes up, straight up. After you get to the first +floor the stairways widen out probably as wide as that window and go up +half a floor and meet another landing and then go up to the third floor +that way. They widen out. + +Representative FORD. Was anybody with Mr. Hosty? + +Mr. BRIAN. Not when we met him there; no, sir. + +Representative FORD. When you got on the elevator, who was on the +elevator? + +Mr. BRIAN. It was full. + +Mr. DULLES. Were there a lot of pressmen down there, no television---- + +Mr. BRIAN. I don't recall seeing any but there may have been some. I +don't recall seeing any but there may have been. + +The CHAIRMAN. You say the elevator was full? + +Mr. BRIAN. Yes, sir. + +The CHAIRMAN. About how many people would it carry approximately? + +Mr. BRIAN. Probably 10 or 12. + +Representative FORD. Did Revill and Hosty and yourself get on the +elevator? + +Mr. BRIAN. Yes, sir. + +Representative FORD. Anybody else get on at that point that you recall? + +Mr. BRIAN. As I recall there was a little interchange of people, some +got off and some got on, I believe. I believe there was a little +interchange of people. + +Mr. DULLES. At the bottom, that is the bottom story for the elevator? + +Mr. BRIAN. Yes, sir; in the basement. + +Representative FORD. As you got on the elevator and as you rode up, did +you hear Hosty and Revill converse at all? + +Mr. BRIAN. No, sir. + +Representative FORD. There was no further conversation on this problem? + +Mr. BRIAN. No, sir. + +Representative FORD. When you got off the elevator where did you go? + +Mr. BRIAN. Right on around. You get off the elevator and you come +straight out---- + +Mr. DULLES. What floor--three? + +Mr. BRIAN. Three. Went around to the left to Captain Fritz' office and +turned right in Captain Fritz' office and I stopped right there at the +door and he took him over and introduced him, talked to, I believe, +Lieutenant Wells. + +Mr. DULLES. Captain Fritz wasn't there at that time? + +Mr. BRIAN. I don't recall seeing him in there. But Captain Fritz has +got him a little office in the side and you have got to walk up in +front and see if he is in there because he stays in there all the time. + +Representative FORD. What did Revill and you do? + +Mr. BRIAN. Went back down to our office. + +Representative FORD. Gannaway's--is that Gannaway's office? + +Mr. BRIAN. Gannaway's; yes, sir. + +Representative FORD. As you drove---- + +Mr. DULLES. What floor is that on? + +Mr. BRIAN. Captain Gannaway's is on the second floor. + +Representative FORD. As you drove from the Texas School Depository +Building after making a check of the facilities who was in the car? + +Mr. BRIAN. Our car? + +Representative FORD. Yes. + +Mr. BRIAN. Let me see, Lieutenant Revill, myself, Westphal, Tarver, +and we gave a man a lift, and I don't remember whether he was a CID, I +don't know the man, I don't remember whether he was a CIC agent or a +CID or OSI, he was some type of, as I recall, Army intelligence man. + +Mr. DULLES. Army, Air Force, or something? + +Mr. BRIAN. He was connected with the service and we let him out a +couple of blocks, if I recall, up about Field Street, somewhere along +in there. Lieutenant Revill knew him, who he was, and he rode up there +with us. + +Representative FORD. Who drove the car? + +Mr. BRIAN. Lieutenant Revill. It was his car. + +Representative FORD. Did you sit in the front or back seat? + +Mr. BRIAN. Sat in the back seat on the left-hand side. + +Representative FORD. Who sat in the front seat. + +Mr. BRIAN. I don't recall. + +Mr. DULLES. You were right behind Lieutenant Revill? + +Mr. BRIAN. I believe I was right behind Lieutenant Revill. Yes, sir; +that is, I believe I sat in the back seat. + +Representative FORD. When you got into the building and got out of the +car, what happened to the other occupants of the car? + +Mr. BRIAN. I don't know. They went on about, probably went up to +Captain Gannaway, but I don't recall seeing them after we started +talking to Hosty and went on, somewhere in the shuffle they didn't stay +with us and went on. + +Representative FORD. They didn't accompany you up the elevator? + +Mr. BRIAN. No, sir; and I don't know where they went. + +Mr. DULLES. That is they weren't among the possibly 10 men of the +police who were in the elevator, as far as you remember, I mean? + +Mr. BRIAN. As far as I remember; no. + +Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Brian, I call your attention to Exhibit 857A and the +fact that is a newspaper account and ask you to examine and state +whether or not you recall having seen that before. I want to correct +the record, that is Commission 857A which is attached to Exhibit 831. + +Mr. BRIAN. Yes, sir; I read this in the Dallas paper, I believe. + +Mr. RANKIN. Did you have anything to do with giving that to the paper? + +Mr. BRIAN. No, sir. + +Mr. RANKIN. Did you talk to any newspaper people about it? + +Mr. BRIAN. No, sir; haven't talked to any since it happened. + +Mr. RANKIN. All you know about it is that you just saw it in the paper? + +Mr. BRIAN. Yes, sir. + +Mr. RANKIN. Then---- + +Mr. BRIAN. I know the next--it was supposed to come out on Friday +because on Saturday they started calling my house and I left. + +Mr. RANKIN. You never answered any of the calls? + +Mr. BRIAN. No, sir; I never talked to any reporters about it. + +Mr. RANKIN. That is all I have, Mr. Chief Justice. + +The CHAIRMAN. Congressman, do you have anything? + +Representative FORD. I don't believe so, Mr. Chief Justice. + +The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Dulles? + +Mr. DULLES. Give me just 1 minute, Mr. Chief Justice. In the second +paragraph of your letter, Commission Exhibit 711, you say "Upon +entering the basement of city hall," he, Agent Hosty, that you +explained, who had already parked his car, he also parked his car in +the basement of the city hall building? + +Mr. BRIAN. Yes, sir; over here where you told me to put "A" he was or +in that area over there and was out of his car walking towards us. + +Mr. DULLES. And you go on to say "and was walking very fast toward the +entrance of the city hall from the parking area." + +Mr. BRIAN. Yes, sir; that is this entrance over here. + +Mr. DULLES. What is that marked? Is there a mark on that? + +Mr. BRIAN. No, sir. You didn't tell me to mark "A" and "B" where we met. + +Mr. DULLES. You might mark that "C," I think we have "A" and "B." + +Mr. BRIAN. O.K., "C" would be the entrance by the jail office. + +Mr. DULLES. That is right. + +"At this time Hosty made the statement that Lee Oswald had killed the +President, and that Oswald was a Communist." + +Now, at this time, that is walking toward point "C" you have just +marked on exhibit---- + +Mr. BRIAN. No, sir; we stopped here for a pause just for a short time, +it would be hard to say how long but it wasn't because--it wasn't long +because it don't take long to make a statement. + +Representative FORD. That is point "B." + +Mr. BRIAN. Yes, sir. + +Mr. DULLES. Near point "B" is where this conversation took place. + +Mr. BRIAN. Yes, sir. + +Mr. DULLES. And you did not hear the content of any further +conversations? + +Mr. BRIAN. No, sir; other than that he said he knew he was a Communist +and knew he was working in the Book Depository. + +Mr. DULLES. Did further conversations take place between Lieutenant +Revill and Agent Hosty after that? + +Mr. BRIAN. Yes, sir; they walked on talking. + +Mr. DULLES. But you did not hear what they said at that time? + +Mr. BRIAN. I was behind them and Lieutenant Revill got in a hurry when +that happened and they got on and I was behind them, and it is pretty +hard to hear what people are saying in front of you when they have got +their back turned to you and you are behind them. + +Mr. DULLES. You have indicated that in paragraph 3 of Exhibit 7. You +say, "While we were in the basement Hosty also said several things to +Lieutenant Revill that I could not hear," because of the excitement and +commotion, that is what you had reference to? + +Mr. BRIAN. Yes, sir; they were conversing as they walked on and I +couldn't hear them and I didn't hear what they said, I was behind them. +I didn't pay a whole lot of attention to the whole thing because like +I say I didn't think it would matter any. It was just--and things were +happening pretty fast, and along about that time. + +Mr. DULLES. That is all I have, Mr. Chairman. + +Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to offer the diagram, Exhibit +839, if I may. + +The CHAIRMAN. Yes, all right; it may be admitted under that number. +Thank you very much. + +(At this point Representative Ford left the hearing room.) + +(Commission Exhibit No. 839 was marked for identification and received +in evidence.) + +Mr. DULLES. That is the original before the notary public put his +endorsement on it. + +Mr. BRIAN. Yes, sir; that went forward. + +The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. + +Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Chief Justice, Mr. Specter is going to examine these +people about the velocity and so forth and I want to speak on--speak to +him just a minute about the matter we talked about. + +The CHAIRMAN. We will take a break now. + +(Recess.) + + +TESTIMONY OF ROBERT A. FRAZIER + +The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Specter, you may proceed. + +You have been sworn and you are still under oath, as you understand? + +Mr. FRAZIER. Yes. + +Mr. SPECTER. Will you state your name again for the record, please? + +Mr. FRAZIER. Robert A. Frazier. + +Mr. SPECTER. Mr. Frazier, you have appeared heretofore to testify +about certain tests which you have conducted, but at this phase of the +record, will you state briefly your occupation and your specialty, +please? + +Mr. FRAZIER. I am a special agent assigned to the FBI laboratory, +the firearms identification unit in Washington, D.C., where I make +examinations of bullets, cartridges, gunpowder tests, bullet holes, +examinations of clothing, and other similar types of examinations. + +Mr. SPECTER. In the course of your duties have you had an occasion +to examine the clothing which was purportedly worn by President John +Kennedy on November 22, 1963? + +Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir; I have. + +Mr. SPECTER. And do you have that clothing with you at the present +time, sir? + +Mr. FRAZIER. I have certain parts of it. I have the coat, shirt, tie, +and the bandages and support belt which he allegedly was wearing that +day. + +Mr. SPECTER. Would you refer at this time to the coat, if you please, +which, may the record show, has heretofore been marked as Commission +Exhibit 393. + +And by referring to that coat will you describe what, if anything, you +observed on the rear side of the coat? + +Mr. FRAZIER. There was located on the rear of the coat 5-3/8 inches +below the top of the collar, a hole, further located as 1-3/4 inches to +the right of the midline or the seam down the center of the coat; all +of these being as you look at the back of the coat. + +Mr. SPECTER. What characteristics did you note, if any, on the nature +of that hole? + +Mr. FRAZIER. I noticed that the hole penetrated both the outer and +lining areas of the coat, that it was roughly circular in shape. When +I first examined it it was approximately one-fourth of an inch in +diameter, and the cloth fibers around the margins of the hole were +pushed inward at the time I first examined it in the laboratory. + +Mr. SPECTER. Did any tests conducted on the coat disclose any metallic +substance on that area of that hole? + +Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir. I had a spectrographer run an analysis of a +portion of the hole which accounts for its being slightly enlarged at +the present time. He took a sample of cloth and made an analysis of it. +I don't know actually whether I am expected to give the results of his +analysis or not. + +Mr. SPECTER. Yes; would you please, or let me ask you first of all, +were those tests run by the Federal Bureau of Investigation in the +regular course of its testing procedures? + +Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir; they were. + +Mr. SPECTER. And have those results been made available to you through +the regular recordkeeping procedures of the FBI? + +Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir. + +Mr. SPECTER. Would you then please tell us what those tests disclose? + +Mr. FRAZIER. Traces of copper were found around the margins of the hole +in the back of the coat, and as a control, a very small section under +the collar was taken, and no copper being found there, it was concluded +that the copper was foreign to the coat itself. + +Mr. SPECTER. Have you now described all of the characteristics of +that hole, which you consider to be important for the Commission's +consideration? + +Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir. + +Mr. SPECTER. Assuming that those clothes, that jacket, specifically, +at this juncture, was worn by President Kennedy, and was in the same +condition when that hole was made as it is now, and at the time when +you made your examination, do you have a professional opinion as to +what caused that hole in the back of the jacket? + +Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir; I would say that it was an entrance hole for a +bullet. + +Mr. SPECTER. And what is the reason for that conclusion, please? + +Mr. FRAZIER. It has all the physical appearance characteristics which +are considered when examining holes, such as its shape, its size, and +in particular the fact that the fibers around the margins of the hole +were all pushed inward where the cloth was torn by the object which +passed through, and the fibers were unraveled as they were pushed +inward, which is characteristic of a entrance-type bullet hole. + +Mr. SPECTER. Is the presence of the metallic substance relevant in your +conclusion that it was a bullet hole? + +Mr. FRAZIER. Not necessarily. It is a factor which corroborates that +opinion but even without it, it would still have been my opinion that +it was a bullet entrance hole. + +Mr. SPECTER. Can you tell the size of the bullet from the hole in the +jacket? + +Mr. FRAZIER. The hole in the jacket is approximately a quarter of an +inch in diameter. + +Mr. SPECTER. Would that hole be consistent with a hole which would be +caused by a 6.5 millimeter bullet? + +Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir; the actual bullet which makes a hole cannot be +determined because the cloth in one instance may stretch more than +it does in another instance causing either a larger or smaller hole +even for the same caliber, but it is consistent for a bullet of 6.5 +millimeters in diameter to make a hole of approximately this size. + +Mr. SPECTER. Were there any holes indicative of being bullet holes +found on the front part of the President's jacket? + +Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir. + +Mr. SPECTER. Did you have further occasion to examine the President's +shirt? + +Mr. FRAZIER. I did. + +Mr. SPECTER. May the record show that the shirt has heretofore been +identified as Commission Exhibit 394? + +The CHAIRMAN. Yes; it may be. + +Mr. SPECTER. What, if anything, did you observe then on the back side +of the shirt, Mr. Frazier? + +Mr. FRAZIER. I found on the back of the shirt a hole, 5-3/4 inches +below the top of the collar, and as you look at the back of the shirt +1-1/8 inch to the right of the midline of the shirt, which is this hole +I am indicating. + +Mr. SPECTER. May the record show the witness is examining the shirt, as +he has the coat, to indicate the hole to the Commission. + +The CHAIRMAN. The record may show that. + +Mr. FRAZIER. In connection with this hole, I made the same examination +as I did on the coat, Exhibit 393. I found the same situation to +prevail, that is the hole was approximately circular in shape, about +one-fourth inch in diameter, and again the physical shape of it is +characteristic of a bullet hole, that is the edges are frayed, and +there are slight radial tears in the cloth, which is characteristic +of a bullet having passed through the cloth, and further, the fibers +around the margin of the hole were--had been pressed inward, and +assuming that, when I first examined the shirt it was in the same +condition as it was at the time the hole was made, it is my opinion +that this hole, in addition, was caused by a bullet entering the shirt +from the back at that point. + +Mr. SPECTER. Is that hole consistent with having been caused by a 6.5 +millimeter bullet? + +Mr. FRAZIER. Yes; it is. + +Mr. SPECTER. With respect to the front side of the shirt, what, if any, +hole did you find there? + +Mr. FRAZIER. Only one hole. + +Mr. DULLES. May I ask one question there? + +Mr. FRAZIER. Yes; certainly. + +Mr. DULLES. Is the hole in the shirt and the hole in the coat you have +just described in a position that indicates that the same instrument, +whatever it was, or the same bullet, made the two? + +Mr. FRAZIER. Yes; they are. They are both--the coat hole is 5-3/8 +inches below the top of the collar. The shirt hole is 5-3/4 inches, +which could be accounted for by a portion of the collar sticking up +above the coat about a half inch. + +Mr. DULLES. I see. + +Mr. FRAZIER. And they are both located approximately the same distance +to the right of the midline of both garments. + +Now, on the front of the shirt, I found what amounts to one hole. +Actually, it is a hole through both the button line of the shirt and +the buttonhole line which overlap down the front of the shirt when it +is buttoned. + +Mr. SPECTER. Proceed. + +Mr. FRAZIER. This hole is located immediately below the button being +centered seven-eighths of an inch below the button on the shirt, and +similarly seven-eighths of an inch below the buttonhole on the opposite +side. + +The CHAIRMAN. You are speaking of the collar button itself, aren't you? + +Mr. FRAZIER. The collar button. + +The CHAIRMAN. Yes. + +Mr. FRAZIER. In each instance for these holes, the one through the +button line and the one through the buttonhole line, the hole amounts +to a ragged slit approximately one-half inch in height. It is oriented +vertically, and the fibers of the cloth are protruding outward, +that is, have been pushed from the inside out. I could not actually +determine from the characteristics of the hole whether or not it +was caused by a bullet. However, I can say that it was caused by a +projectile of some type which exited from the shirt at that point and +that is again assuming that when I first examined the shirt it was--it +had not been altered from the condition it was in at the time the hole +was made. + +Mr. SPECTER. What characteristics differ between the hole in the rear +of the shirt and the holes in the front of the shirt which lead you to +conclude that the hole in the rear of the shirt was caused by a bullet +but which are absent as to the holes in the front of the shirt? + +Mr. FRAZIER. The hole in the front of the shirt does not have the round +characteristic shape caused by a round bullet entering cloth. It is an +irregular slit. It could have been caused by a round bullet, however, +since the cloth could have torn in a long slitlike way as the bullet +passed through it. But that is not specifically characteristic of a +bullethole to the extent that you could say it was to the exclusion of +being a piece of bone or some other type of projectile. + +Mr. SPECTER. Have you now described all of the characteristics of the +front of the shirt holes which you consider to be important? + +Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir. + +Mr. DULLES. Could I ask one question there. If the bullet, after +entering, hit something that made it tumble or change, would that +account for this change in the appearance of the exit through the shirt? + +Mr. FRAZIER. I think not. In my opinion it would not have been +necessary, if I may put it that way, for the bullet to have turned +sideways or partially sideways in order to make an elongated hole. + +Mr. DULLES. I see. + +Mr. FRAZIER. I think the effect in the front of the shirt is due more +to the strength of the material being more in the horizontal rather +than the vertical direction which caused the cloth to tear vertically +rather than due to a change in the shape or size of the bullet or +projectile. + +Mr. DULLES. Or possibly the velocity of the bullet at that place, would +that have anything to do with it? + +Mr. FRAZIER. I think the hole would not have been affected unless it +was a very large change in velocity. + +The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Frazier, I notice that the front of the shirt +immediately around the hole you have just been describing and in fact +on much of the front of the shirt is bloodsoaked. Would that, with the +other evidences you have seen there indicate to you as an expert that +this was the exit of the bullet that had entered in the back of the +coat as you have described it? + +Mr. FRAZIER. The presence of the blood would have in my opinion no +value for determining which was entrance or exit, because I have seen +entrance wounds which bleed extensively and exit wounds which bleed not +at all and vice versa. It depends entirely on the type of bullet which +strikes, whether or not it mutilates itself in the body, and probably +more importantly it depends on the position of the person who is shot +after the shooting occurs as to where the blood will be located on the +garments. + +The CHAIRMAN. May I put it this way, probably a little better. Do the +evidences that you see on this shirt indicate to you that this hole in +the front of the shirt that you have just described was made by the +bullet which entered in the rear. + +Mr. FRAZIER. I can say that this hole in the collar area could have +been made by this bullet but I cannot say that the bullet which entered +the back actually came out here or at some other place because I am not +aware of the autopsy information as to the path of the bullet through +the body. + +The CHAIRMAN. I see. + +Mr. FRAZIER. But if the path of the bullet was such that it came +through the body at the right angle, then one bullet could have caused +both holes. + +The CHAIRMAN. Could have caused both holes. + +Mr. FRAZIER. Yes. + +The CHAIRMAN. That is sufficient. + +Mr. DULLES. Is it correct that the blood on the shirt might well have +been occasioned by the second wound rather than exclusively by the +first wound? + +Mr. FRAZIER. Yes; it could have come from any other wound on the body +as well as this one. + +Mr. SPECTER. When you refer to any other wound, Mr. Frazier, are +you referring to the head wound which is widely known to have been +inflicted on the President at the time of the assassination? + +Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir. + +Mr. SPECTER. Did you have occasion to examine the President's tie or +the tie purportedly worn by the President on November 22, 1963? + +Mr. FRAZIER. Yes; I did. + +Mr. SPECTER. May the record show at this juncture that that tie has +heretofore been marked as Commission Exhibit 395? + +The CHAIRMAN. Yes; it may show that. + +Mr. SPECTER. What did you note, if anything, with respect to the tie, +Mr. Frazier? + +Mr. FRAZIER. When the tie was examined by me in the laboratory I noted +that the neck portion had been cut from one side of the knot. However, +the knot remained in apparently its original condition. The only damage +to the tie other than the fact that it had been cut, was a crease or +nick in the left side of the tie when you consider the tie as being +worn on a body. As you view the front of the tie it would be on the +right side. This nick would be located in a corresponding area to the +area in the shirt collar just below the button. + +Mr. SPECTER. As you now indicate on your own tie, you are indicating on +the portion of the tie to your right? + +Mr. FRAZIER. If it was on my tie it would be on the left side of the +tie. + +Mr. SPECTER. Your left side. + +Mr. FRAZIER. The left side of my tie. There is a nick on the left side +of the tie if you consider it as left and right according to the person +wearing the tie. + +Mr. SPECTER. Does the nick in the tie provide any indication of the +direction of the missile? + +Mr. FRAZIER. The nick is elongated horizontally, indicating a possible +horizontal direction but it does not indicate that the projectile which +caused it was exiting or entering at that point. The fibers were not +disturbed in a characteristic manner which would permit any conclusion +in that connection. + +Mr. SPECTER. Is the nick consistent with an exiting path? + +Mr. FRAZIER. Oh, yes. + +Mr. SPECTER. Is there any indication from the nature of the nick as to +the nature of the projectile itself? + +Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir. + +Mr. SPECTER. Is the nick consistent with a 6.5 millimeter bullet having +caused the nick? + +Mr. FRAZIER. Yes. Any projectile could have caused the nick. In this +connection there was no metallic residue found on the tie, and for that +matter there was no metallic residue found on the shirt at the holes in +the front. However, there was in the back. + +Mr. SPECTER. Did any of the other---- + +Mr. DULLES. Excuse me, on the back of the coat? + +Mr. FRAZIER. The shirt. + +Mr. DULLES. Back of the coat and on the shirt? + +Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir. + +Mr. SPECTER. Did any of the other items of President Kennedy's clothing +which you have heretofore referred to contain any indications at all of +any bullet holes or any other type of holes? + +Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir. + +Mr. SPECTER. Mr. Frazier, did you have occasion to examine the clothing +which has heretofore been identified in prior Commission proceedings +as that worn by Governor Connally on November 22, 1963? + +Mr. FRAZIER. Yes; I did. + +Mr. SPECTER. I now hand you what purports to be the Governor's coat, +and may the record show that has been heretofore marked as Commission +Exhibit No. 683? + +(At this point the Chairman left the hearing room.) + +Mr. DULLES [presiding]. The record may so show. + +Mr. SPECTER. Have you had opportunity heretofore to examine that coat? + +Mr. FRAZIER. Yes; I have. + +Mr. SPECTER. What did your examination reveal with respect to the back +side of the coat? + +Mr. FRAZIER. There was found on the coat by me when I first examined +it, near the right sleeve 1-1/8 inches from the seam where the sleeve +attaches to the coat, and 7-1/4 inches to the right of the midline +when you view the back of the coat, a hole which is elongated in a +horizontal direction to the length of approximately five-eights of an +inch, and which had an approximate one-quarter inch height. + +Mr. SPECTER. Were you able to determine from your examination of the +Governor's clothing whether or not they had been cleaned and pressed +prior to the time you saw them? + +Mr. FRAZIER. Yes; they had. + +Mr. SPECTER. Is that different from or the same as the condition of the +President's clothing which you have just described this morning? + +Mr. FRAZIER. It is different in that the President's clothing had not +been cleaned. It had only been dried. The blood was dried. However, the +Governor's garments had been cleaned and pressed. + +Mr. SPECTER. Had the President's clothing been pressed then? + +Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir. + +Mr. SPECTER. Will you proceed to describe any other characteristics---- + +Mr. DULLES. Had been dried artificially or let nature take its course? + +Mr. FRAZIER. It appeared to be air dried. + +Mr. DULLES. Air dried, artificially? + +Mr. FRAZIER. I couldn't say whether any outside heat had been applied +but it did not appear that any heat had been applied to the blood. + +Mr. SPECTER. Proceed. + +Mr. FRAZIER. On the hole on the back of the coat although it had the +general appearance and could have been a bullet hole, possibly because +of the cleaning and pressing of the garment. I cannot state that it +actually is a bullet hole nor the direction of the path of the bullet, +if it were a bullet hole. + +Mr. SPECTER. Is the nature of the opening consistent with being a +bullet hole? + +Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir; it is. + +Mr. SPECTER. And is it consistent with a bullet hole caused by a +missile traveling from the back to the front of the wearer of the +garment? + +Mr. FRAZIER. I could not determine that. + +Mr. SPECTER. You couldn't determine that it was, but could it have been? + +Mr. FRAZIER. It could have been, yes; either way. + +Mr. SPECTER. All right. Will you now turn to the front side of the coat +and state what, if any, damage you observed on the body of the garment? + +Mr. FRAZIER. When considered from the wearer's standpoint, on the right +chest area of the coat there is a hole through the lining and the outer +layer of the coat which is located 6-1/2 inches from the right side +seam line and also 6-1/2 inches from the armpit which places this hole +approximately 5 inches to the right of the front right edge of the coat. + +This hole was approximately circular in shape, three-eights of an inch +in diameter, and again possibly because of the cleaning and pressing +of the garment, I could not determine whether it actually was a bullet +hole or whether or not it entered or exited if it were a bullet hole. + +Mr. SPECTER. Was the hole consistent with being an exit bullet hole? +That is to say, could it have been caused by an exiting bullet? + +Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir. + +Mr. SPECTER. Did you find any damage on the right sleeve of the jacket? + +Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir; on more or less the top portion of the right +sleeve very near the end of the sleeve there is a very rough hole which +penetrates both the outside layer, the lining and the inside layer of +the sleeve. + +Mr. SPECTER. Were you able to observe sufficient characteristics to +formulate any conclusion as to the cause of that tear? + +Mr. FRAZIER. This also did not indicate direction from the condition of +the fibers, possibly due to the cleaning and pressing of the garment. + +However, it could have been a bullet which struck the garment at an +angle to the surface which caused a slight elongation. The hole was +approximately five-eights of an inch in length, and three-eights of +an inch in width. The elongation could also have been the result of a +mutilated bullet having struck the garment or it could have been caused +by a fold in the garment at the time the object or bullet struck. + +Mr. SPECTER. Did you have occasion to examine the shirt, which was +purportedly worn by Governor Connally, and which has heretofore been +identified by the Governor in Commission proceedings, as that worn by +him on November 22, 1963? + +Mr. FRAZIER. Yes; I did. + +Mr. SPECTER. May the record show at this point that Mr. Frazier is +examining the shirt heretofore identified on the back side with a +photograph marked Commission Exhibit 685 and on the front side with a +photograph marked Commission Exhibit 686. + +Now, referring to that shirt, Mr. Frazier, what, if anything, did you +observe on the rear side by way of an imperfection, hole or defect? + +Mr. FRAZIER. I found a hole which is very ragged. An L-shaped tear +actually is what it amounted to in the back of the shirt near the right +sleeve, 2 inches from the seam line where the sleeve attaches to the +shirt, and 7-1/2 inches to the right of the midline of the shirt, the +right side being as you look at the back of the shirt. + +This tear amounted to a five-eights of an inch long horizontal and +approximately one-half inch long vertical break in the cloth, with a +very small tear located immediately to its right, as you look at the +back of the shirt, which was approximately three-sixteenths of an inch +in length. + +This hole corresponds in position to the hole in the back of the coat, +Governor Connally's coat, identified as Commission No. 683. + +Mr. SPECTER. Were there sufficient characteristics observable to +formulate a conclusion as to the cause and direction of that hole? + +Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir; there were no characteristics on which you could +base a conclusion as to what caused it, whether or not it was a bullet +and if it had been, what the direction of the projectile was. + +Mr. SPECTER. Could it have been caused by a 6.5-mm. bullet coming from +the rear of the wearer toward his front? + +Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir. + +Mr. SPECTER. Referring now to the front side of the Governor's shirt, +what, if anything, did you observe with respect to a tear or a hole +thereon, as to the body of the shirt? + +Mr. FRAZIER, I found in the right chest area of the shirt, considering +the shirt when it is being worn, a very irregular tear more or less +in the form of an "H," of the letter "H." This tear was approximately +1-1/2 inches in height, with the crossbar tear being approximately 1 +inch in width, which caused a very irregularly shaped and enlarged +hole in the front of the shirt. The hole is located 5 inches from the +right-side seam, and 9 inches below the top of the right sleeve. The +9-inch figure is from the top of the right shoulder where the sleeve +adjoins the yoke of the shirt. + +Mr. SPECTER. Had that garment been cleaned and pressed, Mr. Frazier, +prior to the time you examined it? + +Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir. + +Mr. SPECTER. Were there sufficient characteristics then remaining on +the hole on the front side to enable you to formulate an opinion as to +the cause of the hole? + +Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir. + +Mr. SPECTER. Could it have been caused by a 6.5 millimeter bullet +exiting from the chest of the Governor? + +Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, it could. + +Mr. SPECTER. Now what, if anything---- + +Mr. DULLES. Could I ask there, would the size and character of this +hole indicate the condition of the bullet, I mean as to whether it was +tumbling or whether it was a mutilated bullet or anything of that kind? + +Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir; it would not. + +Mr. DULLES. Even a bullet in full flight, full velocity could have made +this kind of a hole in the shirt? + +Mr. FRAZIER. It could have, particularly if the shirt had been wrinkled +at the time it passed through, and particularly because the material in +this shirt tore rather severely at the time the object passed through, +indicating a very weak structure of the cotton fiber, so that it would +tear out of all proportion to a stronger fabric. + +And for that reason, the shape of the hole could be affected by the +condition of the material as well as any folds in the material or, as +you say, by a mutilated bullet or a passage of a bullet through the +cloth at an angle to the surface or the passing of a bullet partially +sideways through the cloth. + +(Discussion off the record.) + +Mr. DULLES. Will you proceed? + +Mr. SPECTER. Mr. Frazier, what, if any, defect or hole did you observe +on the right sleeve of the Governor's shirt? + +Mr. FRAZIER. I found in the cuff of the shirt which is a French cuff, +through both the outer and inner layers of the cuff, a hole which is +ragged in contour, irregularly shaped, and which had more or less +star-shaped tears extending outward from the hole into the material, +located 1-1/2 inches up from the end of the sleeve, and 5-1/2 inches +from the outside cuff link hole, through both, as I said, through both +layers of the cuff, and the hole was in such a condition, possibly +due to the washing of the material, that I could not determine what +actually caused it or if it had been caused by a bullet, the direction +of the path of the bullet with reference to entrance and exit. + +Mr. SPECTER. Could those holes have been caused by a bullet passing +through the Governor's wrist from the dorsal or upper portion to the +volar or palmar side? + +Mr. FRAZIER. Yes; they could. + +Mr. SPECTER. Did you have occasion to examine the trousers which have +been heretofore identified in Commission hearings as those worn by +Governor Connally on November 22, 1963? + +Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, I did. + +Mr. SPECTER. May the record show that Mr. Frazier has taken and is +observing the trousers which have been identified in the record, +through a picture of the front side, bearing Commission Exhibit No. 687 +and a picture of the rear side bearing Commission Exhibit No. 688. + +Now, referring to those trousers, what if anything did you observe in +the nature of a defect or hole, Mr. Frazier? + +Mr. FRAZIER. In the area which would be the left-knee area of the +person wearing the trousers, there was a hole which is roughly circular +in shape, and approximately one-quarter of an inch in diameter with +some possible expansion of the hole due to slight tearing of the cloth +at the outer margins of the hole. + +Mr. SPECTER. Had the trousers been cleaned and pressed prior to your +examination? + +Mr. SPECTER. Yes, sir. + +Mr. SPECTER. Were there sufficient characteristics available for you to +formulate any conclusion as to the cause of that hole? + +Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir; I can say that it had the general appearance of a +bullet hole but I could not determine the direction of the bullet if, +in fact, it had been caused by a bullet. + +Mr. SPECTER. What are the characteristics which led you to believe that +it had the characteristics of a bullet hole? + +Mr. FRAZIER. It has the roughly circular shape with slight tearing away +from the edges of the material. + +Mr. SPECTER. Is there any other hole on the trousers which could be a +hole of exit? + +Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir. + +Mr. SPECTER. Mr. Frazier, did you have occasion to examine an +automobile which was the vehicle used customarily by the President of +the United States in parades? + +Mr. FRAZIER. Yes; I did. + +Mr. SPECTER. When did that examination occur? + +Mr. FRAZIER. In the early morning hours of November 23, 1963, at the +Secret Service garage here in Washington, D.C. + +Mr. SPECTER. I now hand you a photograph previously identified for the +record as Commission Exhibit No. 344 and ask you if that depicts the +car which you examined? + +Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir; it is. + +Mr. SPECTER. I hand you a subsequent exhibit of the Commission, No. +346, showing the interior view of the automobile and ask you if that +depicts the automobile which you examined? + +Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir; however, it wasn't in this condition. It wasn't +as clean as it is in Exhibit 346. + +Mr. SPECTER. What was the condition with respect to cleanliness? + +Mr. FRAZIER. There were blood and particles of flesh scattered all over +the hood, the windshield, in the front seat and all over the rear floor +rugs, the jump seats, and over the rear seat, and down both sides of +the side rails or tops of the doors of the car. + +Mr. SPECTER. Is that condition depicted by Commission Exhibits 352 and +353 to the extent that they show the interior of the automobile? + +Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir. + +Mr. SPECTER. What was the purpose of the examination which you made of +the car at that time and place? + +Mr. FRAZIER. I examined the car to determine whether or not there were +any bullet fragments present in it, embedded in the upholstery of the +back of the front seat, or whether there were any impact areas which +indicated that bullets or bullet fragments struck the inside of the car. + +Mr. SPECTER. With respect to the fragments first, what did your +examination disclose? + +Mr. FRAZIER. We found three small lead particles lying on the rug in +the rear seat area. These particles were located underneath or in the +area which would be underneath the left jump seat. + +Mr. SPECTER. Have those particles been identified during the course of +your prior testimony? + +Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir; they have not? + +Mr. SPECTER. Will you produce them at this time then, please? May we +assign to this group of particles Commission Exhibit No. 840? + +Mr. DULLES. These have not been discussed before, have they? + +Mr. SPECTER. They have not. + +Mr. DULLES. It shall be admitted as Commission Exhibit No. 840. + +(Commission Exhibit No. 840 was marked for identification and received +in evidence.) + +Mr. SPECTER. I move formally for their admission, then, into evidence +at this time. + +Mr. DULLES. They shall be admitted. + +Mr. SPECTER. Will you describe the three pieces of metal which are +contained within this vial, please? + +Mr. FRAZIER. The three pieces of metal are lead. They were weighed +immediately upon recovery and were found to weigh nine-tenths of +a grain, seven-tenths of a grain, and seven-tenths of a grain, +respectively. Since that time small portions have been removed for +spectrographic analysis and comparison with other bullets and bullet +fragments. + +Mr. SPECTER. Has that comparison been made with a whole bullet +heretofore identified as Commission Exhibit 399 which in other +proceedings has been identified as the bullet from the Connally +stretcher? + +Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir; the comparison was made by comparing Exhibit +399 with a bullet fragment found in the front seat of the Presidential +limousine and then comparing that fragment with these fragments from +the rear seat of the automobile. + +Mr. SPECTER. For identification purposes, has that fragment from the +front seat been heretofore identified during your prior testimony? + +Mr. FRAZIER. Yes; it has. It bears Commission No. 567. + +Mr. SPECTER. Now, what did the comparative examination then disclose as +among Commission Exhibits 399, 567, and 840? + +Mr. FRAZIER. That examination was performed by a spectrographer, John +F. Gallagher, and I do not have the results of his examinations here, +although I did ascertain that it was determined that the lead fragments +were similar in composition. + +Mr. SPECTER. So that they could have come from, so that the fragments +designated 840 could have come from the same bullet as fragment +designated 567? + +Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir. + +Mr. SPECTER. Were the tests sufficient to indicate conclusively whether +fragments 840 did come from the fragment designated as 567? + +Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir. + +Mr. SPECTER. Did you personally find any other fragments in the +President's car during the course of your examination? + +Mr. FRAZIER. No; I did not. + +Mr. SPECTER. Now, where, according to information provided to you then, +was the fragment designated Commission Exhibit 567 found? + +Mr. FRAZIER. That was found by the Secret Service upon their +examination of the limousine here in Washington when it first arrived +from Dallas, and Commission No. 567 was delivered by Deputy Chief +Paul Paterni and by a White House detail chief, Floyd M. Boring, to a +liaison agent of the FBI, Orrin Bartlett, who delivered them to me in +the laboratory at 11:50 p.m., on November 22, 1963. + +Mr. SPECTER. Does that constitute the total chain of possession then +from the finder with the Secret Service into your hands, as reflected +on the records of the FBI? + +Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir. + +Mr. SPECTER. Was there another fragment, was there any other fragment +found in the front seat of the car? + +Mr. FRAZIER. Yes. Alongside the right side of the front seat, +Commission Exhibit No. 569, which is the base portion of the jacket of +a bullet, was found, and handled in identical manner to the Exhibit 567. + +Mr. DULLES. And the front seat is the seat which would be the driver's +seat? + +Mr. FRAZIER. Yes. + +Mr. DULLES. And the Secret Service man on his right, I believe? + +Mr. SPECTER. Mr. Kellerman. + +Mr. DULLES. That was the seat from which this came? + +Mr. FRAZIER. Commission Exhibit 567 was found on the seat right beside +the driver, and Exhibit 569 was found on the floor beside the right +side of the front seat. + +Mr. SPECTER. The right side of the front seat, Mr. Dulles, as the +prior testimony shows was occupied by Roy Kellerman and the driver was +William Greer. + +Mr. DULLES. Right. Thank you. + +Mr. SPECTER. Would you state what the chain of possession was from +the time of discovery of Exhibit 569 until the time it came into your +possession, based on the records of the FBI, please, if you have those +records available? + +Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir. It was delivered by Secret Service Deputy Chief +Paul Paterni, and SAC of the White House detail Floyd M. Boring of the +Secret Service again, to Special Agent Orrin Bartlett of the FBI who +delivered it to me at 11:50 p.m. on November 22, 1963. + +Mr. SPECTER. Are the records which you have just referred to relating +to the chain of possession of Exhibits 567 and 569 maintained by you in +the normal course of your duties as an examiner of those items? + +Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir. + +Mr. SPECTER. Mr. Frazier, is it possible for the fragments identified +in Commission Exhibit 840 to have come from the whole bullet heretofore +identified as Commission Exhibit 399? + +Mr. FRAZIER. I would say that based on weight it would be highly +improbable that that much weight could have come from the base of that +bullet since its present weight is--its weight when I first received it +was 158.6 grains. + +Mr. SPECTER. Referring now to 399. + +Mr. FRAZIER. Exhibit 399, and its original normal weight would be 160 +to 161 grains, and those three metal fragments had a total of 2.1 +grains as I recall--2.3 grains. So it is possible but not likely since +there is only a very small part of the core of the bullet 399 missing. + +Mr. SPECTER. Have you now described all of the bullet fragments which +you found in the President's automobile? + +Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir. + +Mr. SPECTER. Was it your job to analyze all of the bullets or bullet +fragments which were found in the President's car? + +Mr. FRAZIER. Yes; it was, except for the spectrographic analysis of the +composition. + +Mr. SPECTER. Have you now described all of the bullet fragments which +were brought to you by anyone else and identified as having been found +in the President's car? + +Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir; not this morning but at previous times during my +testimony I have; yes. + +Mr. SPECTER. But then there is on the record now all of the +identification of the metallic or bullet fragments found in connection +with your examination of the President's car or which were examined by +you after having been found by someone else? + +Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir. There is one other, it is not a metal particle +but it is a residue of metal on the inside of the windshield. + +Mr. SPECTER. Aside from that residue of the windshield which I am going +to come to now, have we placed on the record a description of all of +the bullets or bullet fragments? + +Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir. + +Mr. SPECTER. Now---- + +Mr. DULLES. Just one moment. You mean bullet fragments related to the +car or bullet fragments found anywhere? + +Mr. SPECTER. Related to the President's automobile. + +Mr. FRAZIER. Yes; you have. + +Mr. SPECTER. Did you have occasion then to examine the windshield of +the Presidential limousine? + +Mr. FRAZIER. Yes; I did. + +Mr. SPECTER. What did that examination disclose? + +Mr. FRAZIER. On the inside surface of the windshield there was a +deposit of lead. This deposit was located when you look at the inside +surface of the windshield, 13-1/2 inches down from the top, 23 inches +from the left-hand side or driver's side of the windshield, and was +immediately in front of a small pattern of star-shaped cracks which +appeared in the outer layer of the laminated windshield. + +Mr. DULLES. What do you mean by the "outer layer of the laminated +windshield"? + +Mr. FRAZIER. The windshield is composed of two layers with a very thin +layer of plastic in between which bonds them together in the form of +safety glass. The inside layer of the glass was not broken, but the +outside layer immediately on the outside of the lead residue had a very +small pattern of cracks and there was a very minute particle of glass +missing from the outside surface. + +Mr. DULLES. And the outside surface was the surface away from where the +occupants were sitting? + +Mr. FRAZIER. That is correct; yes. + +Mr. DULLES. And the inside surface was the surface nearest the +occupants? + +Mr. FRAZIER. Yes. + +Mr. SPECTER. What do those characteristics indicate as to which side of +the windshield was struck? + +Mr. FRAZIER. It indicates that it could only have been struck on the +inside surface. It could not have been struck on the outside surface +because of the manner in which the glass broke and further because of +the lead residue on the inside surface. The cracks appear in the outer +layer of the glass because the glass is bent outward at the time of +impact which stretches the outer layer of the glass to the point where +these small radial or wagon spoke-wagon wheel spoke-type cracks appear +on the outer surface. + +Mr. DULLES. So the pressure must have come from the inside and not from +the outside against the glass? + +Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir; that is correct. + +Mr. DULLES. As far as the car is concerned from the back to the front? + +Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir. + +Mr. DULLES. Not from outside against the glass--from the front against +the glass. + +Mr. FRAZIER. That is right. + +Mr. SPECTER. Was a comparison made of the lead residues on the inside +of the windshield with any of the bullet fragments recovered about +which you have heretofore testified? + +Mr. FRAZIER. Yes. They were compared with the bullet fragment found on +the front seat, which in turn was compared with Commission 399. The +lead was found to be similar in composition. However, that examination +in detail was made by a spectrographer, Special Agent John F. Gallagher. + +Mr. SPECTER. Was that examination made in the regular course of +examining procedures by the FBI? + +Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir. + +Mr. SPECTER. And was that information made available to you through the +normal conference procedures among FBI examiners? + +Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir. He submitted his report to me and I prepared the +formal report of the entire examination. + +Mr. SPECTER. Are his report and your formal report a part of the +permanent record of the FBI then? + +Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir. + +Mr. SPECTER. I now show you Commission Exhibit No. 350 which has +heretofore been identified as a picture of the windshield of the +Presidential limousine and I ask you if that is the crack about which +you have just testified? + +Mr. FRAZIER. Yes; it is. This Exhibit 350 is a photograph which I took +on the 23d of November, showing a view from the front toward the rear +of the Presidential limousine and showing the crack in the glass and +the lead residue on the inside surface. + +Mr. SPECTER. Would you produce at this time the lead residue obtained +by you from that inside surface, please? May it please the Commission, +I would like to mark this as Commission Exhibit 841 and move for its +admission into evidence at this time. + +Mr. DULLES. It shall be admitted into evidence. + +(Commission Exhibit No. 841 was marked for identification and received +in evidence.) + +Mr. DULLES. May I just ask a question of you, Mr. Specter, and possibly +of the witness. + +I assume that the windshield we are now discussing is the windshield +that was exhibited to the Commission several weeks ago and which +members of the Commission examined? + +Mr. SPECTER. It was, Mr. Dulles, and we can establish that, of record, +through another Commission Exhibit which is 351, which was the number +given to the windshield and we have a reproduction here through the +photograph. + +Mr. DULLES. You don't have the windshield here today, though? + +Mr. SPECTER. No, we do not. + +Mr. DULLES. It would be the same windshield that the Commission saw. + +Mr. SPECTER. We can establish it through the witness, too. + +Mr. Frazier, for that purpose can you identify what is depicted in a +photograph heretofore identified as Commission Exhibit 351? + +Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir; this is a photograph of the very small pattern +of cracks in the windshield which was on the Presidential limousine +at the time I examined it, and which I also later examined in the FBI +laboratory. + +(Discussion off the record.) + +Mr. SPECTER. Mr. Frazier, have you now described all of your findings +on the windshield of the Presidential limousine? + +Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir; that is concerning the glass itself and not the +molding around the windshield. + +Mr. SPECTER. Will you then move to the molding around the windshield +and state what, if anything, you found there? + +Mr. FRAZIER. On the strip of chrome which goes across the top of the +windshield and again on the passenger side of the windshield or the +inside surface, I found a dent in the chrome which had been caused by +some projectile which struck the chrome on the inside surface. + +Mr. SPECTER. Was there one dent or more than one dent or what? + +Mr. FRAZIER. One dent. + +Mr. SPECTER. Will you identify what is depicted by a photograph +heretofore marked as Commission Exhibit 349? + +Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir; this is a photograph which I took of this dent +at that time, showing the damaged chrome, just to the right of the +rearview mirror support at the top of the windshield. + +Mr. SPECTER. Did your examination of the President's limousine disclose +any other holes or markings which could have conceivably been caused by +a bullet striking the automobile or any part of the automobile? + +Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir. + +Mr. DULLES. I wonder if I could go back just a moment to the +indentation in the chrome around the windshield at the top of the +windshield, but on the inside, could that have been caused by a +fragment of a bullet? + +Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, it very easily could have. It would not have been +caused, for instance, by a bullet which was traveling at its full +velocity from a rifle, but merely from a fragment traveling at fairly +high velocity which struck the inside surface of the chrome. + +Mr. DULLES. Could that have been caused by any of the fragments that +you have identified as having been found on the front seat or near the +front seat of the car? + +Mr. FRAZIER. Yes; I believe it could have by either, in fact, of the +two fragments of rifle bullets found in the front seat. + +Mr. DULLES. Thank you. + +Mr. SPECTER. Mr. Frazier, assume certain facts to be true for +purposes of expressing an opinion on a hypothetical situation, to +wit: that President Kennedy was struck by a 6.5 millimeter bullet +which passed through his body entering on the rear portion of his +neck 14 centimeters to the left of his right acromion process and 14 +centimeters below his mastoid process, with a striking velocity of +approximately 1,904 feet per second, and exited after passing through +a fascia channel in his body, through the lower anterior third of his +neck with an exit velocity of approximately 1,772 to 1,779 feet per +second; and that bullet had then traveled from the point where it +exited from his neck and struck the front windshield in some manner. +What effect would that have had on the front windshield and the +subsequent flight of the missile? + +Mr. FRAZIER. It would have shattered the front windshield. It would +have caused a very large, relatively large hole, approximately +three-eighths to an inch in diameter with radiating cracks extending +outward into the glass for several inches, even to the side of the +glass. + +Mr. DULLES. It would have penetrated the windshield? + +Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir. + +Mr. SPECTER. Would the missile then have proceeded in a forward +direction? + +Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir; it would. + +Mr. SPECTER. Do you have an opinion as to how far it would have gone? + +Mr. FRAZIER. Until it struck some other object in the area of +approximately a mile. + +Mr. SPECTER. Now assume the same sequence with respect to exit velocity +from the point of the President's neck at the same rate of 1,772 +to 1,798 feet per second, and assume still further that the bullet +had, the whole bullet had, struck the metal framing which you have +heretofore described and identified. What effect would that have had on +the metal framing? + +Mr. FRAZIER. It would have torn a hole in the chrome, penetrated the +framing both inside and outside of the car. I can only assume, since +I haven't tested the metal of that particular car, I would assume +that the bullet would completely penetrate both the chrome, the metal +supporting the chrome, on the inside, and the body metal on the outside +which supports the windshield of the car. + +Mr. SPECTER. Now, assume the same set of factors as to the exit +velocity from the President's neck. What effect would that bullet have +had on any other portion of the automobile which it might have struck +in the continuation of its flight? + +Mr. FRAZIER. In my opinion it would have penetrated any other metal +surface and, of course, any upholstery surface depending on the +nature of the material as to how deep it would penetrate or how many +successive layers it may have penetrated. + +Mr. SPECTER. Was there any evidence in any portion of the car that the +automobile was struck by a bullet which exited from the President's +neck under the circumstances which I have just asked you to assume? + +Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir; there was not. + +Mr. SPECTER. And had there been any such evidence would your +examination of the automobile have uncovered such an indication or such +evidence? + +Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir; I feel that it would have. + +Mr. SPECTER. Was your examination a thorough examination of all aspects +of the interior of the automobile? + +Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir; for our purpose. However, we did not tear out +all of the rugs on the floor, for instance. We examined the rugs +carefully for holes, for bullet furroughs, for fragments. We examined +the nap of the rug, in the actual nap of the rug, for fragments and +bullet holes. We pulled the rug back as far as we could turn it back +and even tore the glue or adhesive material loose around the cracks +at the edges of the rug so we could observe the cracks to see whether +they had been enlarged, and we examined all of the upholstery covering, +on the back of the front seat, on the doors, and in the rear seat +compartment, the jump seats, the actual rear seat, the back of the rear +seat, and we examined the front seat in a similar manner, and we found +no bullet holes or other bullet impact areas, other than the one on the +inside of the windshield and the dent inside the windshield chrome. + +Mr. SPECTER. Had any of those portions of the automobile been struck by +the bullet exiting from the President's neck, which I have described +hypothetically for you, would you have found some evidence of striking? + +Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir. + +Mr. DULLES. When was this examination made? + +Mr. FRAZIER. Between 2 and 4:30 a.m. on November 23, 1963. + +Mr. DULLES. That was about 10 hours, 12 hours after the assassination? + +Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir; 14 to 16 hours. + +Mr. DULLES. Fourteen to sixteen hours. + +Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir. + +Mr. DULLES. May I ask, do you know in whose custody the automobile was +prior to your examination from the time it was shipped on the airplane? + +Mr. FRAZIER. When I arrived there were two Secret Service men present +but I do not recall their names. They were introduced to me, and they +were there during the entire examination but I don't recall their +actual names. The car was under guard in the Secret Service garage in +Washington, D.C. + +Other than that I do not know. + +Mr. DULLES. Was this a joint examination by you and by the Secret +Service or was the examination made by the FBI? + +Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir; by the FBI at the request of the Secret Service +who had already examined the interior of the car for personal effects +and other items. + +Mr. DULLES. Did they certify to you or advise you that the car had been +under their custody during this 14-to 16-hour period? + +Mr. FRAZIER. I don't recall whether they actually stated that. What +they stated was that the car had immediately been flown to Washington +and placed in this garage and kept under surveillance the entire time. + +Mr. DULLES. Thank you. + +Mr. SPECTER. Was a fragment of metal brought to you which was +identified as coming from the wrist of Governor Connally? + +Mr. FRAZIER. It was identified to me as having come from the arm of +Governor Connally. + +Mr. SPECTER. Will you produce that fragment at this time, please? + +Mr. FRAZIER. This one does not have a Commission number as yet. + +Mr. SPECTER. May it please the Commission, I would like to have this +fragment marked as Commission Exhibit 842. + +(Commission Exhibit No. 842 was marked for identification and received +in evidence.) + +Mr. SPECTER. Now, referring to a fragment heretofore marked as Q9 for +FBI record purposes, and now marked as Commission Exhibit No. 842, will +you describe that fragment for us, please? + +Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir; this is a small fragment of metal which weighed +one-half a grain when I first examined it in the laboratory. It is a +piece of lead, and could have been a part of a bullet or a core of a +bullet. + +However, it lacks any physical characteristics which would permit +stating whether or not it actually originated from a bullet. + +Mr. SPECTER. Are its physical characteristics consistent with having +come from Commission Exhibit 399? + +Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir; it could have. + +Mr. SPECTER. Are they consistent with that fragment identified as +Commission Exhibit No. 842, as having come from fragment identified as +Commission Exhibit 567? + +Mr. FRAZIER. Which is 567? + +Mr. SPECTER. 567 is the one which was found on the front seat. + +Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir; it could have. + +Mr. SPECTER. Were the characteristics of the fragment identified as +Commission Exhibit 842 consistent with having come from the fragment +heretofore identified as Commission Exhibit 569? + +Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir. + +Mr. SPECTER. Would you set forth from the records of the FBI, if +you have those before you, the chain of possession of the fragment +identified as Commission Exhibit 842, please? + +Mr. FRAZIER. Commission Exhibit 842, that is the one from Governor +Connally's arm, was delivered to me in the FBI laboratory on November +23, 1963, by Special Agent Vincent E. Drain of the Dallas Office of the +FBI, who stated he had secured this item from Capt. Will Fritz of the +Dallas Police Department. + +I do not know where Captain Fritz obtained it. + +Mr. SPECTER. Referring back for just a moment to the coat identified as +that worn by Governor Connally, Mr. Frazier, was there any observable +angle of elevation or declination from the back side of the Governor's +coat to the front side of the Governor's coat? + +Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir; there was, approximately a 35-degree downward +angle. + +Mr. SPECTER. Measuring from---- + +Mr. FRAZIER. That is---- + +Mr. SPECTER. Back to front or front to back? + +Mr. FRAZIER. From back towards the front. + +Mr. SPECTER. How about the same question as to the Governor's shirt? + +Mr. FRAZIER. I would say it was approximately the same angle or +slightly less. I think we measured approximately 30 degrees. + +Mr. SPECTER. Was that from the front to back or from the back to front +of the Governor's shirt? + +Mr. FRAZIER. That would be from the back towards the front. Downward +from back towards the front. + +Mr. SPECTER. Mr. Dulles, those questions complete the ones which we +have to ask, sir. + +Mr. Frazier, one additional question: Do you have any knowledge through +any source whatsoever of any bullets or bullet fragments found anywhere +in the vicinity of the assassination other than those which you have +already testified to, which were in the car, or the whole bullet from +the Connally stretcher or the fragments from Governor Connally's wrist? + +Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir; I have never heard of any nor have any been +submitted to me. + +Mr. SPECTER. During the regular processing of the FBI examination in +this case, would all such bullets or bullet fragments be brought to +you for examination in accordance with your assignment to this matter +generally? + +Mr. FRAZIER. Yes; they would. + +Mr. SPECTER. Were any metallic fragments brought to you which were +purported to have been found in the head of President Kennedy? + +Mr. DULLES. Or body? + +Mr. SPECTER. Or body of President Kennedy? + +Mr. FRAZIER. Yes; they were. + +On November 23, 1963, at 1:35 a.m., the two metal fragments in this +container were delivered to me in the FBI laboratory by Special Agent +James W. Sibert, and Special Agent Francis O'Neill of the Baltimore +office of the FBI who stated they had obtained these in the autopsy +room at the Naval Hospital near Washington, D.C., where they were +present when they were removed from the head of President Kennedy. + +Mr. SPECTER. Is there any specification as to the portion of the +President's head from which they were removed? + +Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir; they told me that there had been numerous +particles in the head but only these two had been removed, the others +being very small. + +Mr. SPECTER. May it please the Commission I would like to have those +marked and admitted into evidence as Commission Exhibit No. 843. + +Mr. DULLES. It shall be so marked and admitted under those numbers. + +(Commission Exhibit No. 843 was marked for identification and received +in evidence.) + +Mr. SPECTER. In the event we have not already had 842 admitted into +evidence, I move, Mr. Dulles, for the admission into evidence of 842 +which was the fragment from Governor Connally's arm. + +Mr. DULLES. That shall be admitted. + +Mr. SPECTER. Moving back to 843 will you describe those fragments +indicating their weight and general composition? + +Mr. FRAZIER. These fragments consisted of two pieces of lead, one +weighed 1.65 grains. The other weighed .15 grain. They were examined +spectrographically so their present weight would be somewhat less since +a very small amount would be needed for spectrographic analysis. + +Mr. SPECTER. Was a comparison made between or among these two fragments +with the other metal from the bullets heretofore identified as +Commission Exhibits 399, 567, 569, 840, and 842? + +Mr. FRAZIER. Yes; they were. + +Mr. SPECTER. What did that examination disclose? + +Mr. FRAZIER. Possibly my numbers do not agree with those you have. +These two particles from the President's head were compared with the +lead of Exhibit 842. + +Mr. SPECTER. Which is the fragment from the arm of Governor Connally? + +Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir; they were compared with the lead scraping from +the inside of the windshield. + +Mr. SPECTER. Which is Exhibit 841. + +Mr. FRAZIER. And with the three lead fragments found on the rear +floorboard carpet of the limousine. + +Mr. SPECTER. Which is Exhibit 840. + +Mr. FRAZIER. And they were found to be similar in metallic composition. + +Mr. SPECTER. Can you state with any more certainty---- + +Mr. FRAZIER. Excuse me, one thing. These, as a group, were compared +with the bullet fragment, Commission Exhibit 567, which was found on +the front seat of the automobile, which also was found to be similar in +metallic composition. + +Mr. SPECTER. Is it possible to state with any more certainty whether or +not any of those fragments came from the same bullet? + +Mr. FRAZIER. Not definitely, no; only that they are of similar lead +composition. + +Mr. SPECTER. Have you now described fully all of the relevant +characteristics of the fragments identified as Commission Exhibit 843? + +Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir. + +Mr. SPECTER. Are there any other bullets or bullet fragment or metallic +substances of any sort connected with this case in any way which you +have examined which you have not already testified to here today or on +your prior appearance? + +Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir; that is all of them. + +Mr. DULLES. Is there anything further? + +Mr. SPECTER. No. + +Mr. DULLES. Thank you very much, Mr. Frazier. + +The Commission will reconvene at 2:30. + +(Whereupon, at 1:30 p.m., the President's Commission recessed.) + + + + +Afternoon Session + +TESTIMONY OF DR. ALFRED G. OLIVIER + + +The President's Commission reconvened at 3 p.m. + +The CHAIRMAN. The Commission will come to order. + +Mr. Specter, has the doctor been sworn yet? + +Mr. SPECTER. No, sir; he has not. + +The CHAIRMAN. Doctor, would you raise your right hand and be sworn, +please? Do you solemnly swear the testimony you are about to give in +the matter before this Commission will be the truth, the whole truth, +and nothing but the truth, so help you God? + +Dr. OLIVIER. Yes, sir. + +The CHAIRMAN. You may be seated. + +Mr. SPECTER. State your full name for the record. + +Dr. OLIVIER. Dr. Alfred G. Olivier. + +Mr. SPECTER. What is your occupation or profession? + +Dr. OLIVIER. A supervisory research veterinarian and I work for the +Department of the Army at Edgewood Arsenal, Md. + +Mr. SPECTER. Would you describe the nature of your duties at that +arsenal, please? + +Dr. OLIVIER. Investigating the wound ballistics of various bullets and +other military missiles. + +Mr. SPECTER. Would you describe the general nature of the tests which +are carried on at Edgewood Arsenal? + +Dr. OLIVIER. For example, with a bullet we run tissue studies getting +the retardation of the bullet through the tissues, the penetration, +various characteristics of it. We use as good tissue simulant 20 +percent gelatin. This has a drag coefficient of muscle tissue and makes +an excellent homogenous medium to study the action of the bullet. +We also use animal parts and parts of cadavers where necessary to +determine the characteristics of these things. + +Mr. SPECTER. Would you set forth your educational background briefly, +please? + +Dr. OLIVIER. Yes; I did 2 years of preveterinary work at the University +of New Hampshire and 4 years of veterinary school at the University of +Pennsylvania, and I hold a degree doctor of veterinary medicine at the +University of Pennsylvania. + +Mr. SPECTER. In what year did you complete your educational work? + +Dr. OLIVIER. 1953. + +Mr. SPECTER. Would you outline your experience in the field subsequent +to 1953? + +Dr. OLIVIER. In this field? + +Mr. SPECTER. Yes, sir. + +Dr. OLIVIER. I came to Edgewood Arsenal, then the Army Chemical Center, +in 1957, and originally to work, take charge of the animal colonies but +immediately I got interested in the research and started working in +the field of wound ballistics and have been in it ever since, and am +presently Chief of the Wound Ballistics Branch. + +Mr. SPECTER. Have you been in charge of a series of tests performed +to determine certain wound ballistics on circumstances analogous to +the underlying facts on wounds inflicted upon President Kennedy and +Governor Connally on November 22, 1963? + +Dr. OLIVIER. Yes; I have. + +Mr. SPECTER. And in the course of those tests what weapon was used? + +Dr. OLIVIER. It was identified as Commission Exhibit 139. It was a 6.5 +mm. Mannlicher-Carcano rifle. + +Mr. SPECTER. Did the designation, Commission Exhibit No. 139, appear on +the body of that rifle? + +Dr. OLIVIER. Yes; it did. + +Mr. SPECTER. What type of bullets were used in the tests which you +performed? + +Dr. OLIVIER. We used the Western ammunition, Western being a division +of Olin Industries, Winchester Western, it was lot 6,000 to 6.5 mm. +round. Has a muzzle velocity of approximately 2,160 feet per second. + +Mr. SPECTER. And were those bullets obtained by you upon information +provided to you by the Commission's staff as to the identity of the +bullets which were believed to have been used during the assassination? + +Dr. OLIVIER. Yes; I first got the identity from the people at Aberdeen +Proving Grounds and then I further checked with the Commission to see +if that was right before ordering this type of ammunition. + +Mr. SPECTER. And where were those bullets obtained from? + +Dr. OLIVIER. I obtained 100 rounds from Remington at Bridgeport. +Conn., and Dr. Dziemian obtained another 160 rounds, I believe, from +Winchester in New Haven. + +Mr. SPECTER. Did you perform certain tests to determine the wound +ballistics and include in that the penetration power of the +Mannlicher-Carcano rifle, which you referred to, firing the Western +Cartridge Co. bullet by comparison with other types of bullets? + +Dr. OLIVIER. We didn't fire any of the others at the same time. These +had been fired previously. We have all these records for comparison. + +Mr. SPECTER. Was the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle then fired for comparison +purposes with the other bullets where you already had your experience? + +Dr. OLIVIER. No; it was fired for the purposes for which--to try to +shed some light on say the factors leading to the assassination and +all, not for comparison with the other bullets. + +Mr. SPECTER. I now show you a photograph which is marked as Commission +Exhibit No. 844, may it please the Commission, and ask you if this +photograph was prepared by you in conjunction with the study on the +Mannlicher-Carcano and the Western Cartridge Co. bullet? + +Dr. OLIVIER. Yes; it was. + +Mr. SPECTER. Would you explain to the Commission what that photograph +depicts? + +Dr. OLIVIER. Actually, the bullet passed through two gelatin blocks. +This was done as part of an energy study to see the amount of energy +imparted to the block of gelatin taking a high-speed motion picture. +These blocks show a record of the permanent cavity left in the gelatin. +This is not necessarily the total penetration. This bullet when it +comes out of the second block still has quite a bit of penetrating +power. Quite a few of these bullets would go into a dirt bank and imbed +themselves so deeply that they couldn't be recovered. + +Mr. SPECTER. I now show you Commission Exhibit No. 845 which is a +photograph, and ask you to state for the record what that photograph +represents? + +Dr. OLIVIER. This has been adopted as standard military ammunition of +the U.S. Army. It is known as the NATO round. It is M-80 ball fired +in the M-14 rifle. It has a different--it is a full jacketed military +bullet but has a different point, what they call a no jag point, a +sharp point. It has tumbling characteristics. When it goes in a certain +block it tumbles and does the same in the body. It is more efficient in +producing wounds than the bullet under study. + +Mr. SPECTER. How do the impact, penetration, and other characteristics +of the bullet depicted in 845 compare with the Western Cartridge Co. +bullet fired from the Mannlicher-Carcano in 844? + +Dr. OLIVIER. It has better wounding potential due to the quicker +tumbling but it would not have as good penetrating ability, when it +starts tumbling and releasing all that energy doing all that damage it +comes to a stop in a shorter distance. + +Mr. SPECTER. Would the Western bullet be characterized as having the +qualities of a more stable bullet? + +Dr. OLIVIER. Yes; it would. You mean in the target? + +Mr. SPECTER. Yes, sir. + +Dr. OLIVIER. Yes. + +Mr. SPECTER. The stability in the air would be the same for any +missile, would it not? + +Dr. OLIVIER. To be a good bullet they should be stable in air in order +to hit what you are aiming at, yes. + +Mr. SPECTER. Then would the characteristics of stability in the air be +the same for either of the two bullets you have heretofore referred to? + +Dr. OLIVIER. Essentially so. + +Mr. SPECTER. I now hand you photograph marked as Commission Exhibit No. +846 and ask you to state what that depicts? + +Dr. OLIVIER. This is a 257 Winchester Roberts soft nose hunting bullet. +This one pictured fired from right to left instead of left to right +and the bullet didn't even go out of the block. It deforms almost +immediately on entering the block and releases its energy rather +rapidly. This type of ammunition is illegal for military use. We are +just studying the wounding characteristics of various bullets, but this +is not a military bullet. + +Mr. SPECTER. How does it compare with the Western bullet? + +Dr. OLIVIER. It would be better for wounding, better for hunting +purposes. But as I said, it isn't acceptable as a military bullet. + +Mr. SPECTER. How does it compare with respect to penetration power? + +Dr. OLIVIER. Much less than the Mannlicher-Carcano. + +Mr. SPECTER. In the normal course of the work that you perform for +the U.S. Army at Edgewood Arsenal, do you have occasion to simulate +substances for testing purposes on determining the path of a bullet +through the human body? + +Dr. OLIVIER. Yes; we do use animal tissues or gelatin as simulants for +tissues of the human body. + +Mr. SPECTER. Has the autopsy report on President John F. Kennedy been +made available to you for your review? + +Dr. OLIVIER. Yes; it has. + +Mr. SPECTER. And subsequent to your review of that report, did you +make an effort to simulate the body tissue through which the bullet is +reported to have passed through the President in accordance with the +report of the autopsy surgeon; entering on the rear of his neck, 14 cm. +below the mastoid process and 14 cm. to the left of the right acromion +process, passing through a fascia channel, striking the trachea and +exiting through the lower anterior of the neck? + +Dr. OLIVIER. Yes; I did. + +Mr. SPECTER. What substance did you prepare to simulate that portion of +the President's body? + +Dr. OLIVIER. We determined the distance on various people by locating +this anatomical region and using people of various sizes we found that +regardless of general body build, the distance penetrated was around +13-1/2 to 14-1/2 cm. + +As a consequence, I used gelatin blocks 20 percent gelatin cut at +13-1/2 cm. lengths and also used horsemeat and goatmeat placed in a +box so that--this was a little harder to get the exact length but that +varied between 13-1/2 and 14-1/2 cm. of muscle tissue. + +Mr. SPECTER. Did that simulate, then, the portion of the President's +body through which the bullet is reported to have passed, as closely as +you could for your testing purposes? + +Dr. OLIVIER. As closely as we could for these test purposes; yes. + +Mr. SPECTER. I now hand you a photograph marked as Commission Exhibit +No. 847 and ask you to testify as to what that depicts? + +Dr. OLIVIER. This is a box containing--I couldn't say looking at +it whether it is the horsemeat or the goatmeat but one of the two. +The distance traveled through that meat would be 13-1/2 to 14-1/2 +centimeters. It is also covered with clothing and clipped goatskin +on the entrance and exit sides, and behind that are the screens for +measuring the exit velocity. We had already determined the striking +velocity by firing I believe it was--I have it right here if you +want---- + +Mr. SPECTER. Before you proceed to that, describe the type of screens +which are shown in the picture which were used to measure exit +velocity, if you please? + +Dr. OLIVIER. Yes. These screens are known as the break-type screen. +They are silver imprinted on paper and when the bullet passes through +it breaks the current. When it passes through the first screen it +breaks the current activating a chronograph, counting chronograph. When +it passes through the second screen it stops. This is over a known +distance, and so the time that it took to pass between the first and +the second will give you the average velocity halfway between the two +screens. + +Mr. SPECTER. I now hand you a photograph marked Commission Exhibit 848 +and ask you to describe what that shows? + +Dr. OLIVIER. This was a similar setup used for firing through gelatin. +It had clothing and skin over the entrance side only. If it had been +placed on the other side it would have just flown off. + +Mr. SPECTER. And that is similar to that depicted in 846? + +Dr. OLIVIER. Essentially; yes. + +Mr. SPECTER. Except that it is---- + +Dr. OLIVIER. Gelatin instead of the tissues. + +Mr. SPECTER. Now at what range was the firing performed on the gelatin, +goatmeat and horsemeat? + +Dr. OLIVIER. This firing was done at a 60-yard range. + +Mr. SPECTER. And what gun was used? + +Dr. OLIVIER. The 6.5 Mannlicher-Carcano that was marked Commission +Exhibit 139. + +Mr. SPECTER. And what bullets were used? + +Dr. OLIVIER. The Western ammunition lot 6,000, 6.5 Mannlicher-Carcano. + +Mr. SPECTER. And was there any substance placed over the gelatin, +horsemeat and goatmeat? + +Dr. OLIVIER. Yes; over the gelatin we had clothing; had a suit, shirt +and undershirt, and underneath that a clipped goatskin. The same thing +was over the meat, and on the other side of the meat was also clipped +goatskin. + +Mr. SPECTER. Would there be any significant difference to the test by +leaving out the undershirt if the President had not worn an undershirt? + +Dr. OLIVIER. No. + +Mr. SPECTER. So that the circumstance was simulated with the actual +type clothing and a protective skin over the substance just as +realistically as you could make it? + +Dr. OLIVIER. Yes. + +Mr. SPECTER. What measurement was obtained as to the entrance velocity +of the bullet at the distance of 60 yards which you described? + +Dr. OLIVIER. The striking velocity at an average of three shots was +1,904 feet per second. + +Mr. SPECTER. And what was the average exit velocity on each of the +substances used? + +Dr. OLIVIER. For the gelatin the average exit velocity was 1,779 feet +per second. The horsemeat, the average exit velocity was 1,798 feet +per second. And the goatmeat the average exit velocity was 1,772 feet +per second. + +Mr. SPECTER. I now hand you a photograph marked Commission Exhibit 849 +and ask you what that picture represents? + +Dr. OLIVIER. This is one of the gelatin blocks used in that test. It +shows the type of track left by the bullet passing through it. That +bullet is very stable. Passing through the body and muscle, it would +make a similar type wound. Of course, you couldn't observe it that +nicely. + +Mr. SPECTER. Would you describe that as being a straight line? + +Dr. OLIVIER. Yes. + +Mr. SPECTER. I now hand you a picture marked Commission Exhibit No. 850 +and ask you what that represents? + +Dr. OLIVIER. These are pieces of clipped goatskin, clipped very +shortly. There is still some hair on it. These were placed, these +particular ones were placed over the tissues. This would be placed over +the entrance side of the animal. + +Mr. SPECTER. When you say "this," you are referring to a piece of +goatskin which is marked "enter"? + +Dr. OLIVIER. Marked "enter." The one marked "exit" was placed on the far +side of the tissues and the bullet passed through that after it came +out of the tissues. + +Mr. SPECTER. For the record, will you describe the characteristics, +which are shown on the goatskin at the point of entry, please? + +Dr. OLIVIER. At the point of entry the wound holes through the skin +are for all purposes round. On the exit side they are more elongated, +two of them in particular are a little more elongated. The bullet had +started to become slightly unstable coming out. + +Mr. SPECTER. And how about the third or lower bullet on the skin +designated exit? + +Dr. OLIVIER. That hole appears as more stable than the other two. In +all three cases the bullet is still pretty stable. The gelatin blocks, +there were gelatin blocks placed behind these things too, and for all +practical purposes, the tracks through them still indicated a stable +bullet. + +Mr. SPECTER. Are there any other conclusions which you would care to +add to those which you have already indicated, resulting from the tests +you have heretofore described? + +Dr. OLIVIER. Well, it means that the bullet that passed through the +President's neck had lost very little of its wounding potential and +was capable of doing a great deal of damage in penetrating. I might +mention one thing showing how great its penetrating ability was. That +say on one of the gelatin shots, it went through a total, counting the +gelatin block, it went through plus the backing up blocks of gelatin, +it went through a total of 72-1/2 centimeters of gelatin, was still +traveling and buried itself in a mound of earth so it has terrific +penetrating ability. This means that had the bullet that passed through +the President's neck hit in the car or anywhere you would have seen +evidence, a good deal of evidence. + +Mr. SPECTER. Dr. Olivier, in the regular course of your work for the +U.S. Army, do you have occasion to perform tests on animal materials +where the characteristics of those animals materials are sufficiently +similar to human bodies to make a determination of the effect of the +bullet wounds in human bodies? + +Dr. OLIVIER. Yes; I do. + +Mr. SPECTER. And did you have occasion to make a test on goat material +in connection with the experiments which you ran? + +Dr. OLIVIER. Yes. + +Mr. SPECTER. Are you familiar with the wounds inflicted on Governor +Connally on November 22, 1963? + +Dr. OLIVIER. Yes; from reading the surgeon's report and also from +talking to Dr. Gregory and Dr. Shaw. + +Mr. SPECTER. Did you have access to the medical reports of Parkland +Hospital concerning the wounds of Governor Connally in all respects? + +Dr. OLIVIER. Yes. + +Mr. SPECTER. And did you have occasion to discuss those wounds in +great detail with Dr. Shaw and Dr. Gregory when they were present in +Washington, D.C. on April 21, 1964, preparatory to their testifying +before this Commission? + +Dr. OLIVIER. Yes; I did. + +Mr. SPECTER. What was the nature of the wound on Governor Connally's +back? + +Dr. OLIVIER. The surgeon's report described it as about 3 centimeters +long, its longest dimension, and it is hard for me to remember reading +it or discussing it with him but I did both. Apparently it was a jagged +wound. He said a wound like this consists of two things, usually a +defect in the epidermis and a central hole which is small, and he could +put his finger in it so it was a fairly large wound. + +Mr. SPECTER. What was the path of the bullet in a general way, based on +the information provided to you concerning Governor Connally's wound in +the back? + +Dr. OLIVIER. Apparently it passed along the rib. I don't recall which +rib it was but passed the fifth rib, passed along this rib causing a +fracture that I believe removed about 10 centimeters of the rib through +fragments through the pleura, lacerating the lung. I asked Dr. Shaw +directly whether he thought the bullet had gone through the pleural +cavity and he said he didn't believe that it had, that the damage was +done by the rib fragments. Then the bullet exited as described somewhat +below the right nipple. + +Mr. SPECTER. Did you perform a test on goat substance to endeavor to +measure the reduction in velocity of a missile similar to the one which +passed through Governor Connally? + +Dr. OLIVIER. Yes; I did. + +Mr. SPECTER. Why was goat substance selected for that purpose in the +testing procedure? + +Dr. OLIVIER. We usually use this in our work so we are familiar with +it. I am not saying it is the only substance that could be used, but we +were not using any unknown procedures or any procedures that we hadn't +used already. + +Mr. SPECTER. Does it closely simulate the nature of a wound in the +human body? + +Dr. OLIVIER. In this particular instance it did. + +Mr. SPECTER. Was the wound inflicted on the goat, then, subjected to +X-ray analysis for the purpose of determining the precise nature of the +wound and for comparison purposes with that wound---- + +Dr. OLIVIER. Yes; it was. + +Mr. SPECTER. Inflicted on Connally? + +Dr. OLIVIER. Yes; it was. + +Mr. SPECTER. I now hand you an X-ray marked Commission Exhibit 851 and +ask you to state what that shows? + +Dr. OLIVIER. It shows a fractured rib. From this you wouldn't be able +to--well, if you were a better radiologist than I was, you might be +able to tell which one, but it was the eighth left rib. It shows a +comminuted fracture extending some distance along the rib. + +Mr. SPECTER. I now hand you Commission Exhibit No. 852, which is a +photograph, and ask you to testify as to what that depicts, please? + +Dr. OLIVIER. This is a photograph taken from the same X-ray again +showing the comminuted fracture of the eighth left rib. + +Mr. SPECTER. And is that a photograph then of the X-ray designated +Commission Exhibit 851? + +Dr. OLIVIER. Yes; it is. + +Mr. SPECTER. Did you have an opportunity to observe personally the +X-rays showing the wound on Governor Connally's rib? + +Dr. OLIVIER. Yes; I did. + +Mr. SPECTER. And how do those X-rays compare with the wound inflicted +as depicted in Exhibits 851 and 852? + +Dr. OLIVIER. They are very similar. + +Mr. SPECTER. When the wounds were inflicted, as depicted in 851 and +852, what weapon was used? + +Dr. OLIVIER. This was again the 6.5 millimeter Mannlicher-Carcano +rifle. + +Mr. SPECTER. And what bullets were used? + +Dr. OLIVIER. The 6.5 millimeter Western ammunition lot 6,000. + +Mr. SPECTER. And what distance was utilized? + +Dr. OLIVIER. On the goat the distance was 70 yards. + +Mr. SPECTER. And was there any covering over the goat? + +Dr. OLIVIER. Yes. There was a suit, shirt, and undershirt. + +Mr. SPECTER. What was the entrance velocity of the bullet? + +Dr. OLIVIER. Striking velocity for an average of 11 shots was 1,929 +feet per second. + +Mr. SPECTER. And what was the exit velocity? + +Dr. OLIVIER. The exit velocity was 1,664 feet per second. + +Mr. SPECTER. I now hand you a box containing a bullet, which has been +marked as Commission Exhibit No. 853, and ask you if you have ever seen +that bullet before? + +Dr. OLIVIER. Yes; I have. + +Mr. SPECTER. And under what circumstances have you previously seen that +bullet? + +Dr. OLIVIER. This was the bullet that was fired through the goat. It +went through the velocity screens into some cotton waste, dropped out +of the bottom of that and was lying on the floor. It was picked up +immediately afterwards still warm, so we knew it was the bullet that +had fired that particular shot. + +Mr. SPECTER. Was that fired through the goat depicted in the +photographs and X-ray, 851 and 852? + +Dr. OLIVIER. Yes; that was the goat. + +Mr. SPECTER. Would you describe for the record, verbally please, the +characteristics of that bullet? + +Dr. OLIVIER. The bullet has been quite flattened. The lead core is +extruding somewhat from the rear. We weighed the bullet. It weighs +158.8 grains. + +Mr. SPECTER. I now hand you Commission Exhibit 399, which has been +heretofore in Commission proceedings identified as the bullet found +on the stretcher of Governor Connally, and ask if you have had an +opportunity to compare 399 with 853? + +Dr. OLIVIER. Yes; I have. + +Mr. SPECTER. And what did you find on that comparison? + +Dr. OLIVIER. The bullet recovered on the stretcher has not been +flattened as much, but there is a suggestion of flattening there from +a somewhat similar occurrence. Also, the lead core has extruded from +the rear in the same fashion, and it appears that some of it has even +broken from the rear. + +Mr. SPECTER. Is there some flattening on both of those bullets in +approximately the same areas toward the rear of the missiles? + +Dr. OLIVIER. In the bullet, our particular bullet is flattened the +whole length, but you say towards the rear? + +Mr. SPECTER. You say our bullet; you mean 853? + +Dr. OLIVIER. Yes, 853 is flattened. No. 399 is flattened more towards +the rear. + +Mr. SPECTER. Are there any other conclusions which you have to add to +the tests performed on the goat? + +Dr. OLIVIER. Well, again in this test it demonstrates that the bullet +that was stable when it struck in this fashion again lost very little +velocity in going through that much goat tissue. + +Incidentally, the amount of goat tissue it traversed was probably +somewhat less than the Governor, but in any case it indicates the +bullet would have had a lot of remaining velocity and could have done a +lot of damage. + +Another thing that hasn't been brought up is the velocity screen +immediately behind the goat, the imprint of the bullet left on it was +almost the length of the bullet. + +Mr. SPECTER. What does that indicate? + +Dr. OLIVIER. This indicates that the bullet was now no longer traveling +straight but either traveling sideways or tumbling end over end at the +time it hit the screen. + +Mr. SPECTER. And that was after the point of exit from the goat? + +Dr. OLIVIER. Yes. + +Mr. SPECTER. Are there any other conclusions which you found from the +studies on the goat? + +Dr. OLIVIER. No, I believe that is all I can think of right at this +moment. + +Mr. SPECTER. In the regular course of your work for the U.S. Army, +do you have occasion to perform tests on parts of human cadavers to +determine the effects of bullets on human beings? + +Dr. OLIVIER. Yes, I do. + +Mr. SPECTER. And was a series of tests performed under your supervision +on the portions of human cadavers simulated to the wound inflicted on +the wrist of Governor Connally? + +Dr. OLIVIER. Yes. + +Mr. SPECTER. Were you familiar with the nature of the wound on Governor +Connally's wrist prior to performing those tests? + +Dr. OLIVIER. Yes, I was. + +Mr. SPECTER. What was the source of your information on those wounds? + +Dr. OLIVIER. I had read the surgeon's report, also talked with Dr. +Gregory, the surgeon who had done the surgery, and had looked at the +X-rays. + +Mr. SPECTER. Had you had an opportunity to discuss the wounds with Dr. +Gregory and view the X-rays taken at Parkland Hospital, here in the +Commission headquarters? + +Dr. OLIVIER. Yes; I did. + +Mr. SPECTER. On April 21, 1964? + +Dr. OLIVIER. Yes. + +Mr. SPECTER. I now hand you an X-ray marked as Commission Exhibit 854, +and ask you what that depicts? + +Dr. OLIVIER. This is a comminuted fracture of the distal end of the +radius of a human arm. + +Mr. SPECTER. And in what manner was that wound caused? + +Dr. OLIVIER. It was caused by a bullet from the Commission Exhibit 139. +This was again the 6.5-millimeter Mannlicher-Carcano Western ammunition +lot 6,000. + +Mr. SPECTER. Fired at what distance? + +Dr. OLIVIER. Fired at a distance of 70 yards. + +Mr. SPECTER. And was there anything protecting the wrist at the time of +impact? + +Dr. OLIVIER. Not protection but there was again clothing, this time +suit material or suit lining, at least suit material and shirt. I am +not sure about the lining. I can tell you. I have it right here. Suit +material, suit lining material, and shirt material. + +Mr. SPECTER. I now hand you a photograph marked as Commission Exhibit +855 and ask you what that represents? + +Dr. OLIVIER. This is a photograph taken from the X-ray, Commission +Exhibit 854. + +Mr. SPECTER. Will you describe for the record the details of the +injuries shown on 854 and 855, please? + +Dr. OLIVIER. This is a comminuted fracture of the distal end of the +radius. It was struck directly by the bullet. It passed through, not +directly through but through at an oblique angle so that it entered +more proximal on the dorsal side of the wrist and distal on the volar +aspect. + +Mr. SPECTER. How does the entry and exit compare with the wound on +Governor Connally which you observed on the X-rays? + +Dr. OLIVIER. In this particular instance to the best of my memory from +looking at the X-rays, it is very close. It is about one of the best +ones that we obtained. + +Mr. SPECTER. Is there any definable difference at all? + +Dr. OLIVIER. I couldn't determine any. + +Mr. SPECTER. It is close, you say? + +Dr. OLIVIER. Yes. If I had both X-rays in front of me if there was a +difference I could determine it, but from memory I would say it was for +all purposes identical. + +Mr. SPECTER. I now hand you a bullet in a case marked Commission +Exhibit 856 and ask if you have ever seen that before? + +Dr. OLIVIER. Yes. This is the bullet that caused the damage shown in +Commission Exhibits Nos. 854 and 855. + +Mr. SPECTER. Would you describe that bullet for the record, please? + +Dr. OLIVIER. The nose of the bullet is quite flattened from striking +the radius. + +Mr. SPECTER. How does it compare, for example, with Commission Exhibit +399? + +Dr. OLIVIER. It is not like it at all. I mean, Commission Exhibit 399 +is not flattened on the end. This one is very severely flattened on the +end. + +Mr. SPECTER. What was the velocity of the missile at the time it struck +the wrist depicted in 854 and 855? + +Dr. OLIVIER. The average striking velocity was 1,858 feet per second. + +Mr. SPECTER. Do you have the precise striking velocity of that one? + +Dr. OLIVIER. No; I don't. We could not put velocity screen in front of +the individual shots because it would have interfered with the gunner's +view. So we took five shots and got an average striking velocity. + +Mr. SPECTER. When you say five shots with an average striking velocity, +those were at the delineated distance without striking anything on +those particular shots? + +Dr. OLIVIER. Right, and after establishing that velocity, then we went +on to shoot the various arms. + +Mr. SPECTER. And what was the exit velocity? + +Dr. OLIVIER. On this particular one? + +Mr. SPECTER. If you have it? + +Dr. OLIVIER. Yes. Well, I don't know if I have that or not. We didn't +get them in all because some of these things deflect. No, I have no +exit velocity on this particular one. + +Mr. SPECTER. What exit velocity did you get on the average? + +Dr. OLIVIER. Average exit velocity was 1,776 feet per second. This was +for an average of seven. We did 10. We obtained velocity on seven. + +Mr. SPECTER. Would the average reduction be approximately the same, +in your professional opinion, as to the bullet exiting from the wrist +depicted in 854 and 855? + +Dr. OLIVIER. Somewhat. Let me give you the extremes of our velocities. +The highest one was 1,866 and the lowest was 1,664, so there was a +202-feet-per-second difference in the thing. Some of the cases bone was +missed, in other cases glancing blows. But I would say it is a close +approximation to what the exit velocity was on that particular one. + +Mr. SPECTER. And what would the close approximation be, the average? + +Dr. OLIVIER. The average. + +Mr. SPECTER. Would you compare the damage, which was done to Governor +Connally's wrist, as contrasted with the damage to the wrist depicted +in 854 and 855? + +Dr. OLIVIER. The damage in the wrist that you see in the X-ray on 854 +and 855, the damage is greater than was done to the Governor's wrist. +There is more severe comminution here. + +Mr. SPECTER. How much more severe is the comminution? + +Dr. OLIVIER. Considerably more. If I remember correctly in the +X-rays of the Governor's wrist, I think there were only two or three +fragments, if that many. Here we have many, many small fragments. + +Mr. SPECTER. In your opinion, based on the tests which you have +performed, was the damage inflicted on Governor Connally's wrist caused +by a pristine bullet, a bullet fired from the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle +6.5 missile which did not hit anything before it struck the Governor's +wrist? + +Dr. OLIVIER. I don't believe so. I don't believe his wrist was struck +by a pristine bullet. + +Mr. SPECTER. What is the reason for your conclusion on that? + +Dr. OLIVIER. In this case I go by the size of the entrance wound and +exit wound on the Governor's wrist. The entrance wound was on the +dorsal surface, it was described by the surgeon as being much larger +than the exit wound. He said he almost overlooked that on the volar +aspect of the wrist. + +In every instance we had a larger exit wound than an entrance wound +firing with a pristine bullet apparently at the same angle at which it +entered and exited the Governor's wrist. + +Also, and I don't believe they were mixed up on which was entrance and +exit. For one thing the clothing, you know, the surgeon found pieces +of clothing and the other thing the human anatomy is such that I don't +believe it would enter through the volar aspect and out the top. + +So I am pretty sure that the Governor's wrist was not hit by a pristine +or a stable bullet. + +Mr. SPECTER. What is there, in and of the nature of the smaller wound +of exit and larger wound of entrance in the Governor's wrist as +contrasted with a smaller wound of entrance and larger wound of exit in +854 and 855, which leads you to conclude that the Governor's wrist was +not struck by a pristine bullet? + +Dr. OLIVIER. Do you want to repeat that question again? + +Mr. SPECTER. What is there about the wound of entry or exit which led +you to think that the Governor's wrist wasn't struck by a pristine +bullet? + +Dr. OLIVIER. Well, he would have had a larger exit wound than entrance +wound, which he did not. + +Mr. SPECTER. And if the velocity of the missile is decreased, how does +that effect the nature of the wounds of entry and exit? + +Dr. OLIVIER. If the velocity is decreased, if the bullet is still +stable, he still should have a larger exit wound than an entrance. + +Now, on the other hand, to get a larger entrance wound and a smaller +exit wound, this indicates the bullet probably hit with very much of a +yaw. I mean, as this hole appeared in the velocity screen the bullet +either tumbling or striking sideways, this would have made a larger +entrance wound, lose considerable of its velocity in fracturing the +bone, and coming out at a very low velocity, made a smaller hole. + +Mr. SPECTER. So the crucial factor would be the analysis that the +bullet was characterized with yaw at the time it struck? + +Dr. OLIVIER. Yes. + +Mr. SPECTER. Causing a larger wound of entry and a smaller wound of +exit? + +Dr. OLIVIER. Yes. + +Mr. SPECTER. Now is there anything in the---- + +Dr. OLIVIER. Also at a reduced velocity because if it struck at +considerable yaw at a high velocity as it could do if it hit something +and deflected, it would have, it could make a larger wound of exit but +it would have been even a more severe wound than we had here. It would +have been very severe, could even amputate the wrist hitting at high +velocity sideways. We have to say this bullet was characterized by an +extreme amount of yaw and reduced velocity. How much reduced, I don't +know, but considerably reduced. + +Mr. SPECTER. Does the greater damage, inflicted on the wrist in 854 and +855 than that which was inflicted on Governor Connally's wrist, have +any value as indicating whether Governor Connally's wrist was struck by +a pristine bullet? + +Dr. OLIVIER. No; because holding the velocity the same or similar the +damage would be greater with a tumbling bullet than a pristine. + +I think it reflects both instability and reduced velocity. You have +to show the two. I mean, the size of the entrance and exit are very +important. This shows that the thing was used when it struck. The +fact that there was no more damage than was done by a tumbling bullet +indicates the bullet at a reduced velocity. You have to put these two +things together. + +Mr. SPECTER. Had Governor Connally's wrist been struck with a pristine +bullet without yaw, would more damage have been inflicted---- + +Dr. OLIVIER. Yes. + +Mr. SPECTER. Than was inflicted on the Governor's wrist? + +Dr. OLIVIER. Yes. + +Mr. SPECTER. So then the lesser damage on the Governor's wrist in and +of itself indicates in your opinion---- + +Dr. OLIVIER. That it wasn't struck by a pristine bullet; yes. + +Mr. SPECTER. Are there any other conclusions which flow from the +experiments which you conducted on the wrist? + +Dr. OLIVIER. We concluded that it wasn't struck by a pristine bullet. +Also drew the conclusion that it was struck by an unstable bullet, a +bullet at a much reduced velocity. The question that it brings up +in my mind is if the same bullet that struck the wrist had passed +through the Governor's chest, if the bullet that struck the Governor's +chest had not hit anything else would it have been reduced low enough +to do this, and I wonder, based on our work--it brings to mind the +possibility the same bullet that struck the President striking the +Governor would account for this more readily. I don't know, I don't +think you can ever say this, but it is a very good possibility, I think +more possible, more probable than not. + +The CHAIRMAN. What is more probable than not, Doctor? + +Dr. OLIVIER. In my mind at least, and I don't know the angles at which +the things went or anything, it seems to me more probable that the +bullet that hit the Governor's chest had already been slowed down +somewhat, in order to lose enough velocity to strike his wrist and do +no more damage than it did. I don't know how you would ever determine +it exactly. I think the best approach is to find out the angles of +flight, whether it is possible. But I have a feeling that it might have +been. + +The CHAIRMAN. It might have been? + +Dr. OLIVIER. Yes. + +The CHAIRMAN. The one that went through his chest went through his hand +also. + +Dr. OLIVIER. Yes; and also through the President. + +The CHAIRMAN. The first shot? + +Dr. OLIVIER. Well, I don't know whether the first or second. The first +one could have missed. It could have been the second that hit both. + +The CHAIRMAN. The one that went through his back and came out his +trachea? + +Dr. OLIVIER. It could have hit the Governor in the chest and went +through because it had so little velocity after coming out of the wrist +that it barely penetrated the thigh. + +The CHAIRMAN. May I ask one more question? Would you think, that the +same bullet could have done all three of those things? + +Dr. OLIVIER. That same bullet was capable. + +The CHAIRMAN. Gone through the President's back as it did, gone through +Governor Connally's chest as it did, and then through his hand as it +did? + +Dr. OLIVIER. It was certainly capable of doing all that. + +The CHAIRMAN. It was capable? + +Dr. OLIVIER. Yes. + +The CHAIRMAN. The one shot? + +Dr. OLIVIER. Yes. + +Mr. SPECTER. Doctor Olivier, based on the descriptions of the wound on +the Governor's back, what in your opinion was the characteristic of the +bullet at the time it struck the Governor's back with respect to the +course of its flight? + +Dr. OLIVIER. Let's say from the size of the wound as described by the +surgeon, it could have been tipped somewhat when it struck because that +is a fairly large wound. Another thing that could have done it is the +angle at which it hit. On the goat some of the wounds were larger than +others. On the goat material some of the wounds were larger than others +because of the angle at which it hit this material. The same thing +could happen on the Governor's back. + +Mr. SPECTER. And how was that wound described with respect to its size? + +Dr. OLIVIER. The Governor's wound? + +Mr. SPECTER. On the Governor's back? + +Dr. OLIVIER. About 3 centimeters at its largest dimension. + +Mr. SPECTER. And would you have any view as to which factor was more +probable, as to whether it was a tangential strike on the Governor's +back, or whether there was yaw in the bullet at the time it struck the +Governor's back? + +Dr. OLIVIER. I couldn't as far as being tangential. I couldn't answer +that, not knowing the position of the Governor. But it could have been +caused by a bullet yawing. I mean it would have made a larger wound, as +that was. + +Mr. SPECTER. Is there any other cause which could account for that type +of a large wound on the Governor's back other than with the bullet +yawing? + +Dr. OLIVIER. With this particular bullet those would be the two +probable causes of this wound of this size. + +Mr. SPECTER. And those two probable causes are what? + +Dr. OLIVIER. One, the bullet hitting not perpendicular to the surface +of the Governor, in other words, hitting tangential at a slight angle +on his back so that it came in cutting the skin. Another, the bullet +hitting that wasn't perpendicular to the surface as it hit. The bullet +did go along, the surgeon described the path as tangential but he is +speaking of along the rib. It isn't clear it was, as it struck, whether +it was a tangential shot or actually perpendicular to the Governor's +back. + +Mr. SPECTER. Permit me to add one additional factor which Dr. Shaw +testified to during the course of the proceeding after he measured the +angle of decline through the Governor; and Dr. Shaw testified that +there was a 25° to 27° angle of declination measuring from front to +back on the Governor, taking into account the position of the wound on +the Governor's back and the position of the wound on the Governor's +chest below the right nipple. + +Now with that factor, added to those which you already know, would +that enable you to form a conclusion as to whether the nature of the +wound on the Governor's back was caused by yaw of the bullet or by a +tangential strike? + +Dr. OLIVIER. I don't think I would want to say. If I could have seen +the Governor's wound, this would have been a help. + +Mr. SPECTER. Would the damage done to the Governor's wrist indicate +that a bullet which was fired approximately 160 to 250 feet away with +the muzzle velocity of approximately 2,000 feet per second, would it +indicate that the bullet was slowed up only by the passage through the +Governor's body, in the way which you know, or would it indicate that +there was some other factor which slowed up the bullet in addition? + +Dr. OLIVIER. It would indicate there was some other factor that had +slowed up the bullet in addition. + +Mr. SPECTER. What is your reason for that conclusion, sir? + +Dr. OLIVIER. The amount of damage alone; striking that end it would have +caused more severe comminution as we found. You know--if it hadn't been +slowed up in some other fashion. At that range it still had a striking +velocity of 1,858 or in the vicinity of 1,800 feet per second, which is +capable of doing more damage than was done to the Governor's wrist. + +Mr. SPECTER. Had the same bullet which passed through the President, in +the way heretofore described for the record, then struck the Governor +as well, what effect would there have been in reducing its velocity as +a result of that course? + +Dr. OLIVIER. You say the bullet first struck the President. In coming +out of the President's body it would have had a tendency to be slightly +unstable. In striking the Governor it would have lost more velocity in +his chest than if it had been a pristine bullet striking the Governor's +chest, so it would have exited from the Governor's chest I would say +at a considerably reduced velocity, probably with a good amount of yaw +or tumbling, and this would account for the type of wound that the +Governor did have in his wrist. + +Mr. SPECTER. The approximate reduction in velocity on passage through +the goat was what, Doctor? + +Dr. OLIVIER. The average velocity loss in the seven cases we did was 82 +feet per second. + +Mr. SPECTER. If the bullet had passed through the President prior to +the time it passed through the Governor, would you expect a larger loss +than 82 feet per second resulting from the passage through the body of +the Governor? + +Dr. OLIVIER. I am not sure if I heard you correctly. This is if it hit +the Governor without hitting the President or hitting the President +first? + +Mr. SPECTER. Let me rephrase it for you, Dr. Olivier. + +Dr. OLIVIER. Yes; please. + +Mr. SPECTER. You testified that the bullet lost 82 feet per second when +it passed through the goat. + +Dr. OLIVIER. Yes. + +Mr. SPECTER. Now what would your expectations be as to the reduction in +velocity on a bullet which passed through the Governor, assuming that +it struck nothing first? + +Dr. OLIVIER. It would be greater; the distance through the Governor's +chest would have been greater. + +Mr. SPECTER. Would that be an appreciable or approximately the same? + +Dr. OLIVIER. Can I bring in any other figures? Dr. Dziemian has +computed approximately what he thought it would have lost. + +Mr. SPECTER. Yes, of course, if you have any other figure which would +be helpful. + +Dr. DZIEMIAN. I believe you misunderstood Mr. Specter. I think you +gave the figure for the loss of velocity through the Governor's wrist +instead of through his chest. + +Dr. OLIVIER. I am sorry. We were on the wrist; okay. + +Mr. SPECTER. Let me start again then. In an effort to draw some +conclusion about the reduction in velocity through the Governor's +chest, I am now going back and asking you what was the reduction in +velocity of the bullet which passed through the goat? + +Dr. OLIVIER. Yes; I did misunderstand you. I am sorry. The loss in +velocity passing through the goat was 265 feet per second. + +Mr. SPECTER. Now, would that be the approximate loss in velocity of a +pristine bullet passing through the Governor? + +Dr. OLIVIER. The loss would be somewhat greater. + +Mr. SPECTER. How much greater in your opinion? + +Dr. OLIVIER. Do you have that figure, Dr. Dziemian? + +Dr. DZIEMIAN. I would say a pristine bullet of the Governor was about +half again thicker. It would be about half again as great velocity, +somewhere around 400. + +Mr. SPECTER. Had the bullet passed through only the Governor, losing +velocity of 400 feet per second, would you have expected that the +damage inflicted on the Governor's wrist would have been about the same +as that inflicted on Governor Connally or greater? + +Dr. OLIVIER. My feeling is it would have been greater. + +Mr. SPECTER. Had the bullet passed through the President and then +struck Governor Connally, would it have lost velocity of 400 feet per +second in passing through Governor Connally or more? + +Dr. OLIVIER. It would have lost more. + +Mr. SPECTER. What is the reason for that? + +Dr. OLIVIER. The bullet after passing through, say a dense medium, then +through air and then through another dense medium tends to be more +unstable, based on our past work. It appears to be that it would have +tumbled more readily and lost energy more rapidly. How much velocity it +would have lost, I couldn't say, but it would have lost more. + +Mr. SPECTER. Are there any indications from the internal wounds on +Governor Connally as to whether or not the bullet which entered his +body was an unstable bullet? + +Dr. OLIVIER. The only thing that might give you an indication would be +the skin wound of entrance, the type of rib fracture and all that I +think could be accounted for by either type, because in our experiment +we simulated, although not to as great a degree, the damage wasn't as +severe, but I think it would be hard to say that. + +One thing comes to my mind right now that might indicate it. There was +a greater flattening of the bullet in our experiments than there was +going through the Governor, which might indicate that it struck the rib +which did the flattening at a lower velocity. This is only a thought. + +Mr. SPECTER. It struck the rib of the Governor? + +Dr. OLIVIER. It struck the rib of the Governor at a lower velocity +because that bullet was less flattened than the bullet through the goat +material. + +Mr. SPECTER. Based on the nature of the wound inflicted on the +Governor's wrist, and on the tests which you have conducted then, do +you have an opinion as to which is more probable on whether the bullet +passed through only the Governor's chest before striking his wrist, or +passed through the President first and then the Governor's chest before +striking the Governor's wrist? + +Dr. OLIVIER. Will you say that again to make sure I have it? + +Mr. SPECTER. [To the reporter.] Could you repeat that question, please? + +(The question was read by the reporter.) + +Dr. OLIVIER. You couldn't say exactly at all. My feeling is that it +would be more probable that it passed through the President first. At +least I think it is important to establish line of flight to try to +determine it. + +Mr. SPECTER. Aside from the lines of flight, based on the factors which +were known to you from the medical point of view and from the tests +which you conducted, what would be the reason for the feeling which you +just expressed? + +Dr. OLIVIER. Because I believe you would need that, I mean to account +for the damage to the wrist. I don't think you would have gotten a low +enough velocity upon reaching the wrist unless you had gone through the +President's body first. + +Mr. SPECTER. The President's body as well as the Governor's body? + +Dr. OLIVIER. As well as the Governor's. + +Mr. SPECTER. Does the nature of the wound which was inflicted on +Governor Connally's thigh shed any light on this subject? + +Dr. OLIVIER. This, to my mind, at least, merely indicates the bullet +at this time was about spent. In talking with doctor, I believe it was +Gregory, I don't think he did the operation on the thigh but at least +he saw the wound, and he said it was about the size of an eraser on a +lead pencil. This could be accounted for--and there was also this small +fragment of bullet in this thigh wound--this, to me, indicates that +this was a spent bullet that had gone through the wrist as the Governor +was sitting there, went through the wrist into his thigh, just partly +imbedded and then fell out and I believe this was the bullet that was +found on the stretcher. + +Mr. SPECTER. Would you have any opinion as to the velocity of that +bullet at the time it struck the Governor's thigh? + +Dr. OLIVIER. No. We didn't do any work to simulate this, but it would +have been at a very low velocity just to have gone in that far and drop +out again. + +Mr. SPECTER. Dr. Olivier, in the regular course of your work for the +U.S. Army, do you have occasion to perform tests on reconstructed human +skulls to determine the effects of bullets on skulls? + +Dr. OLIVIER. Yes; I do. + +Mr. SPECTER. And did you have occasion to conduct such a test in +connection with the series which you are now describing? + +Dr. OLIVIER. Yes; I did. + +Mr. SPECTER. And would you outline briefly the procedures for +simulating the human skull? + +Dr. OLIVIER. Human skulls, we take these human skulls and they are +imbedded and filled with 20 percent gelatin. As I mentioned before, 20 +percent gelatin is a pretty good simulant for body tissues. + +They are in the moisture content. When I say 20 percent, it is 20 +percent weight of the dry gelatin, 80 percent moisture. + +The skull, the cranial cavity, is filled with this and the surface is +coated with a gelatin and then it is trimmed down to approximate the +thickness of the tissues overlying the skull, the soft tissues of the +head. + +Mr. SPECTER. And at what distance were these tests performed? + +Dr. OLIVIER. These tests were performed at a distance of 90 yards. + +Mr. SPECTER. And what gun was used? + +Dr. OLIVIER. It was a 6.5 Mannlicher-Carcano that was marked Commission +Exhibit 139. + +Mr. SPECTER. What bullets were used? + +Dr. OLIVIER. It was the 6.5 millimeter Mannlicher-Carcano Western +ammunition lot 6,000. + +Mr. SPECTER. What did that examination or test, rather, disclose? + +Dr. OLIVIER. It disclosed that the type of head wounds that the +President received could be done by this type of bullet. This surprised +me very much, because this type of a stable bullet I didn't think +would cause a massive head wound, I thought it would go through making +a small entrance and exit, but the bones of the skull are enough to +deform the end of this bullet causing it to expend a lot of energy and +blowing out the side of the skull or blowing out fragments of the skull. + +Mr. SPECTER. I now hand you a case containing bullet fragments marked +Commission Exhibit 857 and ask if you have ever seen those fragments +before. + +Dr. OLIVIER. Yes, I have. + +Mr. SPECTER. And under what circumstances have you viewed those before, +please? + +Dr. OLIVIER. There were, the two larger fragments were recovered +outside of the skull in the cotton waste we were using to catch the +fragments without deforming them. There are some smaller fragments in +here that were obtained from the gelatin within the cranial cavity +after the experiment. We melted the gelatin out and recovered the +smallest fragments from within the cranial cavity. + +Mr. SPECTER. Now, I show you two fragments designated as Commission +Exhibits 567 and 579 heretofore identified as having been found on the +front seat of the President's car on November 22, 1963, and ask you if +you have had an opportunity to examine those before. + +Dr. OLIVIER. Yes, I have. + +Mr. SPECTER. And have you had an opportunity to compare those to the +two fragments identified as Commission Exhibit 857? + +Dr. OLIVIER. Yes, I have. + +Mr. SPECTER. And what did that comparison show? + +Dr. OLIVIER. They are quite similar. These two fragments on, what is +the number? + +Mr. SPECTER. 857. + +Dr. OLIVIER. On 857 there isn't as much of the front part in this one, +but in other respects they are very similar. + +Mr. SPECTER. I now hand you a photograph marked Commission Exhibit 858 +and ask you what that depicts. + +Mr. DULLES. Could I see that other exhibit? + +Dr. OLIVIER. These are the same fragments as marked 857. + +Mr. SPECTER. That is a photograph of the fragments marked 857? + +Dr. OLIVIER. 857. + +Mr. SPECTER. I now hand you a photograph marked Commission Exhibit 859 +and ask you what that depicts? + +Dr. OLIVIER. These are the smaller fragments that have been labeled, +also, Exhibit 857. This picture or some of the fragments labeled 857, +these are the smaller fragments contained in the same box. + +Mr. SPECTER. Are all of the fragments on 859 contained within 857? + +Dr. OLIVIER. They are supposed to be, photographed and placed in the +box. If they dropped out they are supposed to be all there. + +(Discussion off the record.) + +Mr. DULLES. Back on the record. + +Mr. SPECTER. At what point on the skull did the bullet, which +fragmented into Commission Exhibit 857, strike? + +Dr. OLIVIER. I would have to see the picture. I mean I can't remember +exactly what point. I can tell you the point we were aiming at and +approximately where it hit. + +Mr. SPECTER. Permit me to make available a photograph to you, then, for +purposes of refreshing your recollection, and in testifying as to the +point which was struck, for that purpose. + +Dr. OLIVIER. We did 10 skulls so I can't remember offhand where +everyone struck. + +Mr. SPECTER. For that purpose I hand you Commission Exhibit 860 and ask +you if that is designated in any way to identify it. + +Mr. DULLES. This is the test we are talking about now, is it? + +Mr. SPECTER. Yes, sir; where the bullet fragmented into pieces in 857. + +Mr. DULLES. Are you introducing that into evidence? + +Mr. SPECTER. Yes, sir. + +Mr. DULLES. Have you already introduced it in the record? + +Mr. SPECTER. May I at this point move for the admission into evidence +of Commission Exhibits 844 through 860, and they have been identified +in sequence as being the photographs, X-rays, and other tangible +exhibits used in connection with these tests. + +Mr. DULLES. They shall be admitted. + +(The documents heretofore marked for identification as Commission +Exhibits Nos. 844 through 860 were received in evidence.) + +Dr. OLIVIER. This photograph is the skull that was shot with the +bullet, the fragments which are marked 857. + +Mr. SPECTER. At what point on the skull did the bullet strike? + +Dr. OLIVIER. From this I couldn't tell you exactly the point. We were +aiming, as described in the autopsy report if I remember correctly the +point 2 centimeters to the right of the external occipital protuberance +and slightly above it. We placed a mark on the skull at that point, +according to the autopsy the bullet emerged through the superorbital +process, so we drew a line to give us the line of flight, put unclipped +goat hair over the back to simulate the scalp and put a mark on the +area which we wished to shoot. + +Now, every shot didn't strike exactly where we wanted, but they all +struck in the back of the skull in the vicinity of our aiming point, +some maybe slightly above the external occipital protuberance. In some +cases very close to our aiming spot. + +This particular skull blew out the right side in a manner very similar +to the wounds of the President, and if I remember correctly, it was +very close to the point at which we aimed. + +In other words, a couple centimeters to the right. + +Mr. SPECTER. Do you have any record which would be more specific on the +point of entrance? + +Dr. OLIVIER. Our notebook has all---- + +Mr. SPECTER. Will you refer to your notes, then? + +Dr. OLIVIER. The notebook is in the safe in there in the briefcase. + +Mr. SPECTER. Would you get the notebook and refer to it so we can be as +specific as possible on this point. + +Dr. OLIVIER. I have the location of that wound. + +Mr. SPECTER. Would you give us then the precise location of the wound +caused by bullet identified as 857? + +Dr. OLIVIER. The entrance wound is 2.9 centimeters to the right and +almost horizontal to the occipital protuberance. This is almost exactly +where we were aiming. We were aiming 2 centimeters to the right. + +Mr. SPECTER. I now hand you a photograph marked as Commission Exhibit +861, move its admission into evidence, and ask you to state what that +depicts. + +Dr. OLIVIER. This is the skull in question, the same one from which the +fragments marked Exhibit 857 were recovered. + +Mr. SPECTER. And what does that show as to damage done to the skull? + +Dr. OLIVIER. It blew the whole side of the cranial cavity away. + +Mr. SPECTER. How does that compare, then, with the damage inflicted on +President Kennedy? + +Dr. OLIVIER. Very similar. I think they stated the length of the +defect, the missing skull was 13 centimeters if I remember correctly. +This in this case it is greater, but you don't have the limiting scalp +holding the pieces in so you would expect it to fly a little more but +it is essentially a similar type wound. + +Mr. SPECTER. Does the human scalp work to hold in the human skull in +such circumstances to a greater extent than the simulated matters used? + +Dr. OLIVIER. Yes; we take this into account. + +Mr. SPECTER. I hand you Commission Exhibit 862, move its admission into +evidence, and ask you what that depicts? + +Dr. OLIVIER. This is the same skull. This is just looking at it +from the front. You are looking at the exit. You can't see it here +because the bone has been blown away, but the bullet exited somewhere +around--we reconstructed the skull. In other words, it exited very +close to the superorbital ridge, possibly below it. + +Mr. SPECTER. Did you formulate any other conclusions or opinions based +on the tests on firing at the skull? + +Dr. OLIVIER. Well, let's see. We found that this bullet could do +exactly--could make the type of wound that the President received. + +Also, that the recovered fragments were very similar to the ones +recovered on the front seat and on the floor of the car. + +This, to me, indicates that those fragments did come from the bullet +that wounded the President in the head. + +Mr. SPECTER. And how do the two major fragments in 857 compare, then, +with the fragments heretofore identified as 567 and 569? + +Dr. OLIVIER. They are quite similar. + +Mr. SPECTER. Do you have an opinion as to whether the wound on the +Governor's wrist could have been caused by a fragment of a bullet +coming off of the President's head? + +Dr. OLIVIER. I don't believe so. Frankly, I don't know, but I don't +believe so, because it expended so much energy in blowing the head +apart and took a lot of energy that I doubt if they could have +fractured the radius. The radius is a very strong, hard bone and I +don't believe they could have done that much damage. I believe they +could have caused a superficial laceration on someone or a mark on the +windshield, but I don't believe they could have done that damage to the +wrist. + +Mr. DULLES. And it couldn't have then gone through the wrist into the +thigh? + +Dr. OLIVIER. I don't believe so. + +Mr. SPECTER. Have you had an opportunity to examine a fragment +identified as Commission Exhibit 842 which is the fragment taken from +Governor Connally's wrist? + +Dr. OLIVIER. Yes, I have. + +Mr. SPECTER. Could that fragment have come from the bullet designated +as Commission Exhibit 399? + +Dr. OLIVIER. Yes, I believe it would have, I will add further I believe +it could have because the core of the bullet extrudes through the back +and would allow part of it to break off very readily. + +Mr. SPECTER. Do you have an opinion as to whether, in fact, bullet +399 did cause the wound on the Governor's wrist, assuming if you will +that it was the missile found on the Governor's stretcher at Parkland +Hospital? + +Dr. OLIVIER. I believe that it was. That is my feeling. + +Mr. SPECTER. To be certain that the record is complete on the skull +tests, would you again state the distance at which those tests were +performed? + +Dr. OLIVIER. Yes, the skulls--it was fired at the skulls at a range of +90 yards. + +Mr. SPECTER. With what gun? + +Dr. OLIVIER. The 6.5 mm. Carcano which was marked Commission Exhibit +139 and using Western ammunition lot 6,000, again the 6.5 mm. +Mannlicher-Carcano. + +Mr. SPECTER. Going to the results of the test on the cadavers, what was +the average exit velocity? + +Dr. OLIVIER. The average exit velocity on the wrist was 1,776 feet per +second. + +Mr. SPECTER. Had Governor Connally's wrist been struck with a pristine +bullet and the bullet exited at that speed, what damage would have been +inflicted had it then struck the area of the thigh which was struck on +the Governor according to the Parkland Hospital records which you have +said you have examined? + +Dr. OLIVIER. It would have made a very severe wound. + +Mr. SPECTER. Would it have been more severe than the one which was +inflicted? + +Dr. OLIVIER. Much more so. + +Mr. SPECTER. Do you have anything to add, Dr. Olivier, which you think +would be helpful to the Commission in any way? + +Dr. OLIVIER. No; I don't believe so. + +Mr. DULLES. I have no further questions. + +Mr. SPECTER. That completes my questions, Mr. Dulles. + +Mr. DULLES. Thank you very much. We appreciate very much your coming. + +(Discussion off the record.) + + +TESTIMONY OF DR. ARTHUR J. DZIEMIAN + +Mr. SPECTER. Dr. Dziemian. + +Mr. DULLES. Doctor, will you raise your right hand, please? Do you +solemnly swear the testimony you give in this proceeding is the truth, +the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? + +Dr. DZIEMIAN. Yes, sir. + +Mr. SPECTER. Dr. Dziemian, as you know, the purpose of the proceeding +is to question you concerning the experiments which were performed at +Edgewood Arsenal which may shed light on the assassination of President +Kennedy. With that brief statement of purpose, will you state your full +name for the record, please? + +Dr. DZIEMIAN. Arthur J. Dziemian. + +Mr. SPECTER. What is your profession or occupation, sir? + +Dr. DZIEMIAN. I am a physiologist at the U.S. Army Chemical Research +and Development Laboratories, and am chief of the Biophysics Division. + +Mr. SPECTER. Would you outline your educational background briefly, +please? + +Dr. DZIEMIAN. Yes; A.B. and Ph. D. from Princeton, Ph. D. in 1939. I +was national research fellow at the University of Pennsylvania in the +physiology department of the medical school and fellow in anatomy at +Johns Hopkins University Medical School. + +Mr. SPECTER. In a general way, what have your professional activities +been since 1939? + +Dr. DZIEMIAN. Since 1939? + +Well, these fellowships that I had. Then I went to Edgewood Arsenal, +was there for a few months and then went into the Army, was in the Army +for 3 years, in the sanitary corps, officer in the sanitary corps, and +then I returned to Edgewood Arsenal in 1947 and in 1947 I went into +wound ballistics work and have been in it since 1947. + +Mr. SPECTER. And how long have you been chief of the Biophysics +Division? + +Dr. DZIEMIAN. Since November of 1959. + +Mr. DULLES. Where is this Biophysics Division? + +Dr. DZIEMIAN. U.S. Army Chemical Research and Development Laboratories, +Edgewood Arsenal, Md. + +Mr. SPECTER. Would you describe in a general way the tests which are +performed at the Edgewood Arsenal, please? + +Dr. DZIEMIAN. Yes; well, our mission, the division's mission is to +study the antipersonnel effects of munitions, including kinetic energy +munitions, incendiary, and some chemical munitions. + +Mr. SPECTER. Is it the regular function of your unit then to test the +effects of bullet wounds on various parts of the human body? + +Dr. DZIEMIAN. Yes; it is. + +Mr. SPECTER. And does Dr. Olivier function under your direction in his +capacity as chief of the Wounds Ballistics Branch? + +Dr. DZIEMIAN. Yes; his branch is one of the branches of the Biophysics +Division. + +Mr. SPECTER. Have you been present today to hear the full testimony of +Dr. Olivier? + +Dr. DZIEMIAN. Yes; I have. + +Mr. SPECTER. Were the tests which he described, performed under your +general supervision and direction as his superior? + +Dr. DZIEMIAN. Yes; they were. + +Mr. SPECTER. As to the underlying facts which those tests disclosed, +do you have any details to add as to results which you think would be +helpful or significant for the Commission to know? + +Dr. DZIEMIAN. Well, I think that Dr. Olivier described them pretty well +on the whole, got all the details in. + +Mr. SPECTER. Do you agree with the recitation of the detailed findings, +then, as described by Dr. Olivier? + +Dr. DZIEMIAN. I do, yes. + +Mr. SPECTER. Then moving to the general topic of reconstructing the +events in terms of what professional opinion you may have as to what +actually occurred at Dallas, permit me to ask you some questions in +terms of the known medical facts, and in the light of the results of +this series of tests which you have performed. First of all, have you +had access to the autopsy report on President Kennedy? + +Dr. DZIEMIAN. Yes, I have. + +Mr. SPECTER. And have you had access to the same general information +described by Dr. Olivier on the wounds inflicted on Governor Connally? + +Dr. DZIEMIAN. Yes, I have. I did not speak to the surgeons. I was not +here at that time. My information on Dr. Connally's wounds---- + +Mr. DULLES. Governor Connally. + +Dr. DZIEMIAN. Governor Connally, are from the reports and from +discussions with Dr. Light or Dr. Olivier. + +Mr. SPECTER. So that all of the information available to Dr. Light and +Dr. Olivier obtained through consultations with Governor Connally's +doctors, Dr. Shaw and Dr. Gregory, have been passed on to you? In +addition, you have had access to the records of Parkland Hospital on +Governor Connally's treatment there? + +Dr. DZIEMIAN. That is right. + +Mr. SPECTER. And have you had an opportunity to observe certain films +known as the Zapruder films showing the assassination? + +Dr. DZIEMIAN. No; I did not see those. + +Mr. SPECTER. Have you had, then, brought to your attention the +approximate distances involved from the situation here, to wit; +that the shots were fired from a 6th floor window at a distance of +approximately 160 to 250 feet at a moving vehicle, striking the +Governor and the President at angles estimated from 25 to 45 degrees, +the angle of impact on President Kennedy being given by the autopsy +surgeon as a 45-degree angle of declination, and the angle on Governor +Connally being described as 25 to 27 degrees? + +Dr. DZIEMIAN. Yes, I did---- + +Mr. DULLES. You are speaking now of the first two wounds, aren't you? + +Mr. SPECTER. Yes. + +Mr. DULLES. You are not speaking now of the brain wound at all, are you? + +Mr. SPECTER. Correct, Mr. Dulles. The wound that I am referring to +on the President is the wound which entered the back of his neck and +exited from the front part of his neck in accordance with the prior +testimony of the doctors in the case. + +Now, based on the tests which have been performed, and the other +factors which I will ask you to assume, since you weren't present; for +purposes of expressing an opinion, what is your opinion as to whether +all of the wounds on Governor Connally were inflicted by one bullet? + +Dr. DZIEMIAN. My opinion is that it is most probably so, that one +bullet produced all the wounds on Governor Connally. + +Mr. SPECTER. And what is your opinion as to whether the wound through +President Kennedy's neck and all of the wounds on Governor Connally +were produced by one bullet? + +Dr. DZIEMIAN. I think the probability is very good that it is, that all +the wounds were caused by one bullet. + +Mr. SPECTER. When you say all the wounds, are you excluding from that +the head wound on President Kennedy? + +Dr. DZIEMIAN. I am excluding the head wound, yes. + +Mr. SPECTER. And what is the reasoning behind your conclusion that one +bullet caused the neck wound on President Kennedy and all of the other +wounds on Governor Connally? + +Dr. DZIEMIAN. I am saying that the probability is high that that was so. + +Mr. SPECTER. What is the reason for your assessment of that high +probability? + +Dr. DZIEMIAN. The same reasons that Dr. Olivier gave, based on the +same information, that especially the wound to the wrist. That higher +velocity strike on the wrist would be caused by the bullet slowing down +by going through all this tissue would cause more damage to the wrist +and also more damage to the thigh. + +Mr. SPECTER. Had the bullet only gone through Governor Connally's chest +then, what is your opinion as to whether or not there would have been +greater damage to the Governor's wrist? + +Dr. DZIEMIAN. I think there would have been greater damage to the +Governor's wrist, and also to the thigh from the information, from the +experiments obtained by Dr. Olivier's group. + +Mr. DULLES. Could I ask a question here? Does that take into account +any evidence as to the angle of fire and the relative positions of the +two men, or excluding that? + +Dr. DZIEMIAN. Excluding that. I do not know enough details about that +to make an opinion on that. This is just on the basis of the velocities +of the bullets. + +Mr. SPECTER. Would the nature of the wounds on the Governor's wrist +and thigh, then, be explained by the hypothesis that the bullet passed +through the President first, then went through the Governor's chest +before striking the wrist and in turn the thigh? + +Dr. DZIEMIAN. I think that could be a good explanation. + +Mr. SPECTER. What is your opinion as to whether or not a fragment of +a bullet striking the President's head could have caused the wound to +Governor Connally's wrist? + +Dr. DZIEMIAN. I think it is unlikely. + +Mr. SPECTER. What is your opinion as to whether or not Governor +Connally's wrist wound could have been caused by a pristine bullet? + +Dr. DZIEMIAN. That is unlikely, too. Our results with pristine bullets +were very different from the wound that the Governor had. + +Mr. SPECTER. Based on the description provided to you of the nature of +the wound in the Governor's back, what is your opinion as to whether, +or not, that was a pristine bullet or had yaw in it, just on the basis +of the nature of the wound on the Governor's back? + +Dr. DZIEMIAN. It could very well have yaw in it because of the rather +large wound that was produced in the Governor's back. The wound from a +nonyawing bullet could be considerably smaller. + +Mr. SPECTER. For the record, would you define in lay terms what yaw +means? + +Dr. DZIEMIAN. It is the procession of the bullet. The bullet is +wobbling on its axis, so that as it wobbles, it presents different +presented areas to the target or to the air, and this changes the drag +coefficient of the bullet. It will slow down the bullet more both in +the air and in tissues, in the yawing. + +Mr. SPECTER. What is the course of a bullet, then, which is a pristine +bullet or the nature of the bullet immediately after coming out of the +muzzle of a rifle before it strikes anything? + +Dr. DZIEMIAN. A pristine bullet is normally stable. It does not +wobble in the air. It presents the same presented area along most of +its trajectory until it slows down, so that the drag coefficient in +air or in the tissue of this type of bullet is less than the drag +coefficient---- + +Mr. SPECTER. What do you mean by drag coefficient? + +Dr. DZIEMIAN. It is a measurement of the resistance of the target +material or the air to the bullet. The greater the drag coefficient, +the more the resistance to the bullet, the more the bullet slows down +within a given time. + +Mr. SPECTER. So would a bullet with yaw cause a greater or lesser hole +on the surface which it strikes than a bullet without yaw? + +Dr. DZIEMIAN. It would normally cause a greater hole. It usually would +have more presented area, that is more the surface of the bullet would +hit the skin. + +Mr. SPECTER. And would a bullet with yaw decrease in velocity to a +greater, lesser, or the same extent as a bullet without yaw? + +Dr. DZIEMIAN. It would decrease in velocity to a greater extent. + +Mr. SPECTER. Whether it passed through air or---- + +Dr. DZIEMIAN. Or through tissue, and the important thing in tissue is +that it transfers more energy to the target than would a nonyawing +bullet. + +Mr. SPECTER. Dr. Dziemian, Governor Connally testified that he +experienced the sensation of a striking blow on his back which he +described as being similar to a hard punch received from a doubled-up +fist. Do you have an opinion as to whether that sensation would +necessarily occur immediately upon impact of a wound such as that +received by Governor Connally, or could there be a delayed reaction in +sensing that feeling? + +Dr. DZIEMIAN. I don't have too much of an opinion on that. All I can +say is that some people are struck by bullets and do not even know they +are hit. This happens in wartime. But I don't know about that. + +Mr. SPECTER. So that it is possible in some situations there is some +delay in reaction? + +Dr. DZIEMIAN. I couldn't say. + +Mr. SPECTER. Is it a highly individual matter as to the reaction of an +individual on that subject? + +Dr. DZIEMIAN. I don't know. + +Mr. DULLES. But take a wound like the wrist wound of Governor Connally. +He couldn't get that without knowing it, could he? + +Dr. DZIEMIAN. I think he said that he didn't know he had a wrist wound +until much later. + +(Discussion off the record.) + +Mr. SPECTER. I have no further questions of Dr. Dziemian, Commissioner +Dulles. + +Mr. DULLES. Thank you very much. + + +TESTIMONY OF DR. FREDERICK W. LIGHT, JR. + +Mr. DULLES. Doctor, would you give your full name? + +Dr. LIGHT. Frederick W. Light, Jr. + +Mr. DULLES. Would you raise your right hand? Do you swear that the +testimony that you will give before this Commission is the truth, the +whole truth, so help you God? + +Dr. LIGHT. I do. + +Mr. SPECTER. Dr. Light, the purpose of asking you to appear today is +to question you concerning the results of tests taken at the Edgewood +Arsenal. With that brief statement of purpose, I will ask you to state +your full name for the record, please. + +Dr. LIGHT. Frederick W. Light, Jr. + +Mr. SPECTER. What is your business or profession, sir? + +Dr. LIGHT. I am a physician specializing in pathology. + +Mr. SPECTER. What is your educational background? + +Dr. LIGHT. I have an A.B. from Lafayette in 1926, M.D. from Johns +Hopkins Medical School in 1930, and Ph. D. from Hopkins in 1948. + +Mr. SPECTER. Would you outline your experience since 1933 in a very +general way, please? + +Dr. LIGHT. Well, in 1933 I was still at the Reading Hospital, resident +in pathology. Between then and 1940 I was pathologist in Clarksburg, W. +Va., and later in Springfield, Ill. In 1940 I returned to Johns Hopkins +University to study mathematics for awhile. + +Mr. DULLES. To study mathematics? + +Dr. LIGHT. Yes. And then in 1952, or 1951, excuse me, I began working +at Edgewood Arsenal where I am at the present time. + +Mr. SPECTER. What have your duties consisted of while working at +Edgewood Arsenal? + +Dr. LIGHT. Primarily the study of pathology of wounding. + +Mr. SPECTER. What is your formal title there now, Dr. Light? + +Dr. LIGHT. I am chief of the Wound Assessment Branch and assistant +chief of the Biophysics Division. + +Mr. SPECTER. And what is your relationship to Dr. Olivier and Dr. +Dziemian? + +Dr. LIGHT. Dr. Dziemian is the chief of the division. Dr. Olivier +is chief of one of the branches, and I am chief of one of the other +branches. + +Mr. SPECTER. Have you been present here today to hear the full +testimony of Dr. Olivier? + +Dr. LIGHT. Yes. + +Mr. SPECTER. And were the tests which he described conducted under your +joint supervision with Dr. Olivier? + +Dr. LIGHT. Only a very general way. I wouldn't want to say I supervised +him at all. We discussed what he was going to do. + +Mr. SPECTER. Would it be more accurate to state that you coordinated +with him in the tests which were under his general supervision? + +Dr. LIGHT. Yes; that might be stretching it a bit even. + +Mr. SPECTER. How would you characterize your participation? + +Dr. LIGHT. Largely--originally Dr. Dziemian, as I recall, was ill, and +by the time we began to do these specific tests that you mention, +Dr. Dziemian was back on the job again. So he took over whatever +supervision was needed. + +Mr. SPECTER. Were the tests which Dr. Olivier described made at the +request of the President's Commission on the Assassination of President +Kennedy? + +Dr. LIGHT. Yes; they were. + +Mr. SPECTER. Do you have anything to add by way of any detail to the +findings reported by Dr. Olivier in his testimony here earlier today? + +Dr. LIGHT. No; I think he covered it very thoroughly. + +Mr. SPECTER. And as to the conclusions and opinions which he expressed, +do you agree or disagree, to some extent, on his conclusions? + +Dr. LIGHT. I agree in general at least. I am not quite so certain about +some of the things, but generally I certainly agree with what he said. + +Mr. DULLES. What are the things on which you are not quite so certain? + +Dr. LIGHT. For example, I am not quite as sure in my mind as I believe +he is that the bullet that struck the Governor was almost certainly one +which had hit something else first. I believe it could have produced +that wound even though it hadn't hit the President or any other person +or object first. + +Mr. DULLES. That is the wound, then, in the thigh? + +Dr. LIGHT. No; in the chest. + +Mr. DULLES. I was thinking that the wound in the thigh--let me start +again. As I understand the previous testimony, Dr. Olivier would have +expected the wound in the thigh to be more serious if it had not hit +some object. + +Dr. LIGHT. Yes. + +Mr. DULLES. Prior to entering Governor Connally's body, but you feel +that the wound in the thigh might be consistent? + +Dr. LIGHT. The wound in the thigh is the terminal end, is the far end +of the whole track. I don't believe that in passing through the tissue +which was simulated by what Dr. Olivier described first, 13 or 14 +centimeters of gelatin, I don't believe that the change in velocity +introduced by the passage through that much tissue can be relied upon +to make such a definite difference in the effect. + +Mr. SPECTER. Do you believe that if the Governor had been struck by a +pristine bullet which had gone through his chest, that it would have +caused no more damage than which appeared on the Governor's chest? + +Dr. LIGHT. I think that is possible; yes. I might say I think perhaps +the best, the most likely thing is what everyone else has said so far, +that the bullet did go through the President's neck and then through +the chest and then through the wrist and then into the thigh. + +Mr. SPECTER. You think that is the most likely possibility? + +Dr. LIGHT. I think that is probably the most likely, but I base +that not entirely on the anatomical findings but as much on the +circumstances. + +Mr. SPECTER. What are the circumstances which lead you to that +conclusion? + +Dr. LIGHT. The relative positions in the automobile of the President +and the Governor. + +Mr. SPECTER. Are there any other circumstances which contribute to that +conclusion, other than the anatomical findings? + +Dr. LIGHT. And the appearance of the bullet that was found and the +place it was found, presumably, the bullet was the one which wounded +the Governor. + +Mr. SPECTER. The whole bullet? + +Dr. LIGHT. The whole bullet. + +Mr. SPECTER. Identified as Commission Exhibit No. 399? + +Dr. LIGHT. Yes. + +Mr. SPECTER. And what about that whole bullet leads you to believe that +the one bullet caused the President's neck wound and all of the wounds +on Governor Connally? + +Dr. LIGHT. Nothing about that bullet. Mainly the position in which they +are seated in the automobile. + +Mr. SPECTER. So in addition to the---- + +Dr. LIGHT. And the fact that the bullet that passed through the +President's body lost very little velocity since it passed through +soft tissue, so that it would strike the Governor, if it did, with a +velocity only, what was it, 100 feet per second, very little lower than +it would have if it hadn't struck anything else first. I am not sure, +I didn't see, of course, none of us saw the wounds in the Governor in +the fresh state or any other time, and I am not too convinced from +the measurements and the descriptions that were given in the surgical +reports and so on that the actual holes through the skin were unusually +large. + +Mr. SPECTER. Have you had access to the autopsy records? + +Dr. LIGHT. Yes. + +Mr. SPECTER. And have you had access to the reports of Parkland +Hospital on the Governor's operations there? + +Dr. LIGHT. Yes. + +Mr. SPECTER. All three of them? + +Dr. LIGHT. Yes. + +Mr. SPECTER. And have you had an opportunity to view the films of the +assassination commonly known as the Zapruder films? + +Dr. LIGHT. Yes. + +Mr. SPECTER. And the slides? + +Dr. LIGHT. Yes. + +Mr. SPECTER. And have you had an opportunity to talk to Dr. Shaw and +Dr. Gregory who performed the thoracic and wrist operations on Governor +Connally? + +Dr. LIGHT. Yes. + +Mr. SPECTER. And you heard Governor Connally's version yourself? + +Dr. LIGHT. Yes; but not in---- + +Mr. SPECTER. Not in the Commission? + +Dr. LIGHT. Not in the Commission session. + +Mr. SPECTER. But at the time when the films were viewed by the Governor? + +Dr. LIGHT. Yes; I did. + +Mr. SPECTER. At the VFW building on the first floor? + +Dr. LIGHT. Yes. + +Mr. SPECTER. Focusing on a few of the specific considerations, do you +believe that there would have been the same amount of damage done to +the Governor's wrist had the pristine bullet only passed through the +Governor's body without striking the President first? + +Dr. LIGHT. I think that is possible; yes. It won't happen the same way +twice in any case, so you have got a fairly wide range of things that +can happen if a person is shot in more or less this way. + +Mr. SPECTER. Do you think it is as likely that the damage would have +been inflicted on the Governor's wrist as it was, with the bullet +passing only through the Governor's chest as opposed to passing through +the President's neck and the Governor's chest? + +Dr. LIGHT. I think the difference in likelihood is negligible on that +basis alone. + +Mr. SPECTER. So the damage on the Governor's wrist would be equally +consistent---- + +Dr. LIGHT. Equally consistent; yes. + +Mr. SPECTER. With (_A_) passing only through the Governor's chest, or +(_B_) passing through the President's neck and the Governor's chest? + +Dr. LIGHT. Yes. + +Mr. SPECTER. Now, as to the damage on the thigh, would the nature of +that wound again be equally consistent with either going through (_A_) +the President's neck, the Governor's chest, the Governor's wrist, and +then into the thigh, or (_B_) only through the Governor's chest, the +Governor's wrist and into the thigh? + +Dr. LIGHT. I'd say equally consistent; yes. + +Mr. SPECTER. And based on the descriptions which have been provided to +you about the nature of the wound on the Governor's back, do you have +an opinion as to whether the bullet was yawing or not at the time it +struck the Governor's back? + +Mr. LIGHT. No; I don't. That is really one of the points---- + +Mr. SPECTER. It would be either way? + +Dr. LIGHT. Yes; I don't feel too certain that it was yawing. The +measurements were not particularly precise as far as I could tell. +You wouldn't expect them to be in an operating room. So I think it is +difficult to be sure there that the missile wasn't presenting nose on. +It undoubtedly struck not at normal instance, that is to say it was a +certain obliquity, just in the nature of the way the shoulder is built. + +Mr. SPECTER. Then do you think based on only the anatomical findings +and the results of the tests which Dr. Olivier has performed that the +scales are in equipoise as to whether the bullet passed through the +President first and then through the Governor or passed only through +the Governor? + +Dr. LIGHT. Yes; I would say I don't feel justified in drawing a +conclusion one way or the other on that basis alone. + +Mr. SPECTER. Do you have any preference of any sort? + +Dr. LIGHT. Yes; I do, for other reasons. + +Mr. SPECTER. But only for the other reasons? + +Dr. LIGHT. As I mentioned, their positions in the automobile, the +fact that if it wasn't the way--if one bullet didn't produce all +of the wounds in both of the individuals, then that bullet ought +to be somewhere, and hasn't been found. But those are not based on +Dr. Olivier's tests nor are they based on the autopsy report or the +surgeon's findings in my mind. + +(Discussion off the record.) + +Mr. DULLES. On the record. + +Mr. SPECTER. Dr. Light, do you have an opinion as to whether or not the +wound inflicted on Governor Connally's wrist could have been caused by +a fragment which struck the President's head? + +Dr. LIGHT. It is barely conceivable but I do not believe that that is +the case. + +Mr. SPECTER. You say barely? + +Dr. LIGHT. Barely conceivable. I mean a fragment probably had enough +velocity, it couldn't have produced that wound, in my mind, but it +can't be ruled out with complete certainty. + +Mr. SPECTER. Do you have anything to add which you think would be +helpful to the Commission in any way? + +Dr. LIGHT. I don't believe I do. + +Mr. SPECTER. Those are all the questions I have, Commissioner Dulles. + +Mr. DULLES. Thank you very much indeed. I express our appreciation. +I didn't realize these tests were being carried out. I am very glad +they have been. It is a very useful thing to do and very helpful to +the Commission. Thank you very much. I want to thank all three of you +doctors for having so fully cooperated in this matter, and I think that +these tests that you have run have made a real contribution to the +Commission's work. + +(Whereupon, at 5:10 p.m., the President's Commission recessed.) + + + + +_Thursday, May 14, 1964_ + +TESTIMONY OF J. EDGAR HOOVER, JOHN A. McCONE, AND RICHARD M. HELMS + +The President's Commission met at 9:15 a.m., on May 14, 1964, at 200 +Maryland Avenue NE., Washington, D.C. + +Present were Chief Justice Earl Warren, Chairman; Senator John Sherman +Cooper, Representative Hale Boggs, Representative Gerald R. Ford, and +Allen W. Dulles, members. + +Also present were J. Lee Rankin, General Counsel; Norman Redlich, +assistant counsel; Charles Murray and Walter Craig, observers; and +Waggoner Carr, attorney general of Texas. + + +TESTIMONY OF J. EDGAR HOOVER + +The CHAIRMAN. The Commission will be in order. + +Director Hoover, will you please raise your right hand to be sworn, +please. You solemnly swear the testimony you are about to give before +the Commission will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the +truth, so help you God? + +Mr. HOOVER. I do. + +The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Rankin will carry on the examination, Mr. Director. + +Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Chief Justice, do you want to tell him briefly what our +purpose is? + +The CHAIRMAN. Oh, yes; it is our practice to make a brief statement +before the testimony of each witness, and I will do it now. + +Mr. Hoover will be asked to testify in regard to whether Lee H. Oswald +was ever an agent, directly or indirectly, or an informer or acting on +behalf of the Federal Bureau of Investigation in any capacity at any +time, and whether he knows of any credible evidence of any conspiracy, +either domestic or foreign, involved in the assassination of President +Kennedy. + +What he has to say about an article in the National Enquirer, +Commission Exhibit No. 837, and concerning the failure to include +the name and information concerning special agent Hosty in the +initial report of the Oswald address book and any suggestions and +recommendations he may have concerning improvements or changes in +provisions for the protection of the President of the United States. +Now, Mr. Rankin, you may proceed. + +Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Hoover, will you state for the record your name and +position? + +Mr. HOOVER. J. Edgar Hoover, Director of the Federal Bureau of +Investigation of the Department of Justice. + +Mr. RANKIN. Where do you live, Mr. Hoover? + +Mr. HOOVER. I live at 4936 30th Place, Northwest, Washington, D.C. + +Mr. RANKIN. And you have been Director of the Bureau for some 40 years +according to the newspapers? + +Mr. HOOVER. That is correct; since 1924. + +Mr. RANKIN. You have furnished us a considerable amount of information, +Mr. Hoover, about whether or not Lee Harvey Oswald was ever an agent or +acting for the Bureau in any capacity as informer or otherwise at any +time. Are those statements correct? + +Mr. HOOVER. They are correct. I can most emphatically say that at no +time was he ever an employee of the Bureau in any capacity, either as +an agent or as a special employee, or as an informant. + +Mr. RANKIN. I call your particular attention to Exhibit 835, and +suggest that you will find that that is your letter, together with +your affidavit about this subject matter, and other matters that you +furnished to us concerning this particular subject. + +Mr. HOOVER. That is correct. + +Mr. RANKIN. Do you wish to add anything? + +Mr. HOOVER. No; there is nothing that I desire to add to what appears +in this letter and my affidavit which accompanied it to the Commission. + +Mr. RANKIN. You have provided many things to us in assisting the +Commission in connection with this investigation and I assume, at +least in a general way, you are familiar with the investigation of the +assassination of President Kennedy, is that correct? + +Mr. HOOVER. That is correct. When President Johnson returned to +Washington he communicated with me within the first 24 hours, and +asked the Bureau to pick up the investigation of the assassination +because as you are aware, there is no Federal jurisdiction for such +an investigation. It is not a Federal crime to kill or attack the +President or the Vice President or any of the continuity of officers +who would succeed to the Presidency. + +However, the President has a right to request the Bureau to make +special investigations, and in this instance he asked that this +investigation be made. I immediately assigned a special force headed +by the special agent in charge at Dallas, Tex., to initiate the +investigation, and to get all details and facts concerning it, which we +obtained, and then prepared a report which we submitted to the Attorney +General for transmission to the President. + +Mr. RANKIN. From your study of this entire matter of the assassination +and work in connection with it, do you know of any credible evidence +that has ever come to your attention that there was a conspiracy either +foreign or domestic involved in the assassination? + +Mr. HOOVER. I know of no substantial evidence of any type that would +support any contention of that character. I have read all of the +requests that have come to the Bureau from this Commission, and I have +read and signed all the replies that have come to the Commission. + +In addition, I have read many of the reports that our agents have made +and I have been unable to find any scintilla of evidence showing any +foreign conspiracy or any domestic conspiracy that culminated in the +assassination of President Kennedy. + +Representative FORD. May I ask this, Mr. Hoover. As I understand your +testimony, it is based on the evidence that has been accumulated thus +far? + +Mr. HOOVER. That is correct, sir. + +Representative FORD. Is the Federal Bureau of Investigation continuing +its investigation of all possible ramifications of this assassination? + +Mr. HOOVER. That is correct. We are receiving and we, I expect, will +continue to receive for days or weeks to come, letters from individuals +that normally would probably be in the category of what we would +call crank letters in which various weird allegations are made or in +which people have reported psychic vibrations. We are still running +out letters of that character and in turn making a report to this +Commission upon it, notwithstanding the fact that on the face of it the +allegation is without any foundation. Individuals who could not have +known any of the facts have made some very strange statements. There +have been publications and books written, the contents of which have +been absurd and without a scintilla of foundation of fact. I feel, from +my experience in the Bureau, where we are in constant receipt over the +years of these so-called crank letters, that such allegations will be +going on possibly for some years to come. + +I, personally, feel that any finding of the Commission will not be +accepted by everybody, because there are bound to be some extremists +who have very pronounced views, without any foundation for them, who +will disagree violently with whatever findings the Commission makes. +But I think it is essential that the FBI investigate the allegations +that are received in the future so it can't be said that we had ignored +them or that the case is closed and forgotten. + +Representative FORD. Could you give us some idea of how many agents are +currently working to one degree or another on any aspects of this case? + +Mr. HOOVER. I would estimate, Congressman Ford, that there are at the +present time at least 50 or 60 men giving their entire time to various +aspects of the investigation, because while Dallas is the office of +origin, investigation is required in auxiliary offices such as Los +Angeles or San Francisco, and even in some foreign countries like +Mexico. We have representatives in Mexico City. + +At the outset of the investigation, following the assassination, it was +the desire of the President to have this report completed by the Bureau +just as quickly as possible, and as thoroughly as possible, and I would +say we had about 150 men at that time working on the report in the +field, and at Washington, DC. + +Now, all the reports that come in from the field are, of course, +reviewed at Washington by the supervisor in charge of the case, and +then in turn by the assistant director of the division, and then in +turn by Mr. Belmont, who is the assistant to the Director. + +Reports in which there is a controversial issue or where statements +have been made of the existence of some particular thing that we have +never heard of before, I myself, go over these to see that we haven't +missed anything or haven't had any gap in the investigation so it can +be tied down. + +Recently the National Enquirer had a fantastic article in it as to the +existence of a letter that had been written or a request that had been +made by the Department of Justice to Chief Curry of the Dallas Police +Department, to withhold arresting Rubinstein, or Ruby, and Oswald after +the Oswald attempt on General Walker's life. + +First, I had the agent in charge at Dallas interview Chief Curry and +I have sent to the Commission a letter as to what Chief Curry had to +say. He branded it as an entire lie--that he had never received any +request of that kind. I had our files searched to be certain we had +not written any such letter as that and found we had not. I requested +the Department of Justice to advise me whether they had written any +such letter and Mr. Katzenbach advises there is no reference in the +Department files to the alleged letter from any Department of Justice +official to Chief Curry nor any reference that an FBI official was +asked to request the Dallas police not to arrest Oswald or Ruby. +A letter is being sent to the Commission today setting forth this +information. + +Representative FORD. The point that I think ought to be made is that +despite the magnitude of the effort that has been made by the FBI +and by other agencies, and despite the tremendous effort that has +been made, I believe, by the Commission to help and assist and to +consolidate all of the evidence that we possibly could, that there is +always the possibility at some future date that some evidence might +come to the surface. + +Mr. HOOVER. That is, of course, possible; yes. + +Representative FORD. I want just to be sure that no leads, no evidence +regardless of its credibility will be ignored, that it will be pursued +by the Bureau or any other agency to make certain that it is good, bad +or of no value. + +Mr. HOOVER. Well, I can assure you so far as the FBI is concerned, +the case will be continued in an open classification for all time. +That is, any information coming to us or any report coming to us from +any source will be thoroughly investigated, so that we will be able +to either prove or disprove the allegation. We found in the course of +our investigations that individuals have made statements. Yet, when we +investigate they will frankly admit that the statement is an entire +falsehood, or that they don't know why they wrote the letter or why +they made the statement. But, nevertheless, we have the record and +generally in those instances we try to get a signed statement from that +individual so it can be made a part of the record. + +Representative FORD. Under your authority from the President, the +authority which gave you the FBI, the responsibility to conduct this +investigation it is not an authority with a terminal point. It is an +authority that goes on indefinitely? + +Mr. HOOVER. Very definitely so. The President wanted a full and +thorough investigation made of this matter, and we have tried to do +so. As I have stated, I think we will continue to receive allegations. +I think this will be a matter of controversy for years to come, +just like the Lincoln assassination. There will be questions raised +by individuals, either for publicity purposes or otherwise, that +will raise some new angle or new aspect of it. I think we must, and +certainly we intend in the FBI to continue to run down any such +allegations or reports of that kind. + +Representative BOGGS. Mr. Chairman. + +The CHAIRMAN. Yes, Congressman Boggs. + +Representative BOGGS. Mr. Hoover, I don't want any cover--to cover any +ground which has been covered but I just have one or two questions. +First, let me say that you and the Bureau have been very cooperative +with this Commission. + +Mr. HOOVER. Thank you. + +Representative BOGGS. And tremendously helpful. I have been concerned +about some of these wild press reports and concerned about what impact +it may have ultimately on the history of this thing. For instance there +is a man named Buchanan who has written a series of articles. + +Mr. DULLES. A book now. A book is out; yes. + +Representative BOGGS. A book now. I understand they have been widely +circulated in the European press, and this man came here and was, as +I got it from some other sources, he took in some people here, some +American journalists, and I am told that this man has a Communist +background, and in addition to that is a most unreliable person. He has +made these allegations that the Dallas police force was involved in the +assassination and so on. + +Would you have any suggestions on how this Commission should deal with +this sort of thing? + +Mr. HOOVER. We have received a request from the Commission to review +that book and to make a report upon any portions of it that can be +contradicted or substantiated by actual facts or documents. I know +Buchanan's background. He worked on the Washington Star and he was +dismissed from the Washington Star because he was a member of the +Communist Party. He spent much of his time in recent years in France +writing for French newspapers. I have followed the articles that +he has written about this matter and they are what I would call +"journalistic garbage." There is not a scintilla of truth to most of +the things he has written in these articles and in his book which I +have had a chance to scan but haven't actually reviewed yet. It is +being reviewed by my research section. Some of the allegations are +utterly fantastic. I often wonder where some of these individuals get +such ideas and why they make such statements without foundation. + +Now, he makes many wild charges there, and to read it, a person not +knowing him, or his views, or his background, would be inclined to +wonder. I think you are going to have that problem, as I say, for years +to come. I don't know how you can handle individuals like him other +than to have the record clear upon the facts of the case, and either +substantiate or disprove his statements. I don't think too much time +should be given to these individuals who have such unsavory backgrounds +as Buchanan has and who makes statements that have been proved to be +untrue. But, at the same time I think when a book like that comes out +or an article of that type comes out that deals with the assassination +of the late President, I think it should be gone into from an +investigative point of view. We should then submit to this Commission, +even after it has concluded its hearings, for record purposes, what we +have found in each particular instance. + +Representative BOGGS. Now, on the other side of the fence---- + +Mr. DULLES. May I add one other thing just to interrupt. I wish you +would add to your list a book called "The Red Roses of Dallas" by a man +named Gun. He is a more reliable correspondent. + +Mr. HOOVER. He is a Philadelphia correspondent. + +Mr. DULLES. He has been living in this country since 1946. I have met +him over here. Let's see, he was at Dallas at the time. He was then +reporting, I think, for the Italian newspaper Epoca. + +Mr. HOOVER. That is not the same one. + +Mr. DULLES. He might have been lying. This book is full of lies. But I +think it is a book that ought to be added, too, and I will see that a +copy is sent to the Bureau. + +Mr. HOOVER. I would appreciate that. + +Representative BOGGS. On the other side of the spectrum some professor +out at the University of Illinois wrote a piece in which he alleged +the President was a Communist agent, President Kennedy, and Buchanan's +allegations are that the extreme right assassinated the President and +this fellow's allegations are that the Communists assassinated the +President. Would you care to comment? Have you read that piece? + +Mr. HOOVER. I have read that piece. My comment on it is this in +general: I think the extreme right is just as much a danger to the +freedom of this country as the extreme left. There are groups, +organizations, and individuals on the extreme right who make these +very violent statements, allegations that General Eisenhower was a +Communist, disparaging references to the Chief Justice and at the other +end of the spectrum you have these leftists who make wild statements +charging almost anybody with being a Fascist or belonging to some +of these so-called extreme right societies. Now, I have felt, and I +have said publicly in speeches, that they are just as much a danger, +at either end of the spectrum. They don't deal with facts. Anybody +who will allege that General Eisenhower was a Communist agent, has +something wrong with him. + +A lot of people read such allegations because I get some of the +weirdest letters wanting to know whether we have inquired to find out +whether that is true. I have known General Eisenhower quite well myself +and I have found him to be a sound, level-headed man. + +In New York City there is a woman by the name of Kraus who must be +mentally deranged as she stands on a Broadway corner there handing out +leaflets in which she charges me with being in the conspiracy with the +Communists to overthrow this Government and so forth. + +Well now, if any person has fought communism, I certainly have fought +it. We have tried to fight it and expose it in democratic ways I think +that is the thing we have to very definitely keep in mind in this whole +problem in the security of the President and the successor to office. +Just how far you are going to go for his protection and his security. I +don't think you can get absolute security without almost establishing a +police state, and we don't want that. You can't put security in a black +groove or a white groove. It is in a gray groove, and certain chances +have to be taken. You are dealing with a human being when you are +dealing with the President of the United States. President Johnson is a +very down to earth human being, and it makes the security problem all +the more difficult, but you can't bar him from the people. + +There are certain things that can be done, and I submitted a memorandum +to the Secret Service, and to the White House on certain security +steps that might be taken and tightened up. But you are dealing with +the general public and that is what has given me great concern in the +recent expansion, of the criteria for dissemination that we adopted +after the assassination. + +Prior to that time we reported to the Secret Service all information +that dealt with individuals who were potential killers or by whom +acts of violence might be anticipated. The Secret Service would take +that information and would do with it as they saw fit. I gave great +consideration to it because I am not very happy with the criteria +expansion, but I felt we had to include subversives of various +character, and extremists. We have, in turn, furnished their names to +the Secret Service. I think 5,000 names up to the present time already +have been submitted and there are at least three or four thousand more +that will be submitted within the next few months. + +Then you come to the problem of what you are going to do when the +Secret Service gets those names. They have to call upon the local +authorities. Just recently, in the city of Chicago, when the President +was there, the local authorities were asked to give assistance as they +usually do to the Secret Service and they went to the homes of some of +these people, and it resulted really almost in a house arrest. + +Now, I don't think there is any place in this country for that +kind of thing, but these people who belonged to extreme subversive +organizations or organizations that advocated the overthrow of +government by force and violence were told that they couldn't leave +their house or if they did they would be accompanied by a police +officer. That gives me great concern because in New York City alone, +you run into maybe three or four thousand such individuals who would be +members of subversive organizations, and then you get into the twilight +zone of subversive fronts. + +Now, there again, merely because a man belongs to a subversive front +organization, in my estimation doesn't mean that he is blacklisted and +is a menace to the country for life. If he belongs to 20 of them, it +certainly shows either one of two things, he is either very gullible +and dumb or he is a menace. That has been my attitude in regard to +Government service where you find a Government employee who belonged to +one or two, maybe in his early days. I don't believe this necessarily +makes him a security risk. Rather, this would be dependent on the +degree of his activity in the front group and his purpose and intent in +associating himself with it. But where he has belonged to 15, 18, 20 of +them, I don't think he has enough good judgment to be in the Government. + +Some ministers get drawn into organizations, some of which are under +the domination of the Communist Party. Now, those ministers don't know +that. They are just as loyal and patriotic as you and I are, but they +happen to belong. Now, that is where the question of human judgment +has to be used. We try to use it in selecting these names. But I was +startled when I learned of the incident in Chicago because there you +come pretty close to a house arrest and we don't want that. We don't +want a gestapo. We have to, I think, maintain an even balance. + +I think it was very well expressed-- + +Mr. DULLES. May I ask you, Mr. Hoover, was this house arrest based on +names you had furnished the Secret Service and they furnished the local +authorities? + +Mr. HOOVER. Yes, sir. + +Representative BOGGS. That brings me back to the question I think I +heard Congressman Ford ask you as I came into the room, because I +think this is the crux of our investigation. + +I read the FBI report very carefully and the whole implication of the +report is that, number one, Oswald shot the President; number two, +that he was not connected with any conspiracy of any kind, nature or +description. + +Mr. HOOVER. Correct. + +Representative BOGGS. Do you still subscribe to that? + +Mr. HOOVER. I subscribe to it even more strongly today than I did at +the time that the report was written. You see, the original idea was +that there would be an investigation by the FBI and a report would be +prepared in such form that it could be released to the public. + +Representative BOGGS. Surely. + +Mr. HOOVER. Then a few days later, after further consideration, +the President decided to form a commission, which I think was very +wise, because I feel that the report of any agency of Government +investigating what might be some shortcomings on the part of other +agencies of Government ought to be reviewed by an impartial group such +as this Commission. And the more I have read these reports, the more I +am convinced that Oswald was the man who fired the gun; and he fired +three times, killed the President, and wounded Governor Connally. + +And I also am further convinced that there is absolutely no association +between Oswald or Ruby. There was no such evidence ever established. + +Mr. DULLES. Or Oswald and anybody else? Would you go that far? + +Mr. HOOVER. Anybody else who might be---- + +Mr. DULLES. In connection with the assassination? + +Mr. HOOVER. Yes; I would certainly go that far. There was suspicion at +first this might be a Castro act. + +Representative BOGGS. Right. + +Mr. HOOVER. We had information that had been obtained in Mexico City +by another intelligence agency indicating there was a man who had seen +a certain amount of money passed to Oswald at the Cuban Consulate. I +think it was $6,000 that was passed. We went into that very thoroughly. +The man later retracted his statement and stated it was not true. He +was asked whether he would take a lie detector test, and he did. The +lie detector test showed that he was telling a lie. + +As to the lie detector, I do want to make this comment on it. I have +always held to the opinion that it is not a perfect piece of machinery. +It is an interpretation made by human beings of what the machine, the +polygraph, shows. I would never want to convict or to send to the +penitentiary any person solely on the evidence of the lie detector. It +is a contribution in an investigation, a more or less psychological +contribution. + +But I have seen individuals who have failed the lie detector test and +who were just as innocent as they could be. That particular lead in +Mexico City was completely disproved; there was no foundation for it. + +We found no associations between Oswald and Ruby. There has been a +story printed that Ruby and Oswald worked together and were close +friends. + +There was no evidence, there was never any indication that we could +find that Oswald had ever been in Ruby's nightclub or had had any +association with him. + +Ruby comes from Chicago, he was on the fringe of what you might call +the elements of the underworld there. He came to Dallas, opened up +the nightclub and it was a place where, certainly not the better +class of people went, but it wasn't any so-called "joint," to use the +vernacular. It was just another nightclub. So far as we have been able +to establish there was no relationship or contact between Oswald and +Ruby or anyone else allegedly involved in this assassination. + +Representative BOGGS. The FBI interviewed practically everybody who +ever associated with Oswald? + +Mr. HOOVER. It did. + +Representative BOGGS. You didn't find any indication of why anyone +should even suspect that Oswald would do this, did you? + +Mr. HOOVER. We found no indication at all that Oswald was a man +addicted to violence. The first indication of an act of violence came +after he, Oswald, had been killed, and Mrs. Oswald told us about the +attempt on General Walker's life by Oswald. No one had known a thing +about that. + +I think in the Enquirer article there is reference to the fact that the +Dallas Police knew or suspected Oswald of possibly being a party to the +shooting into the house of General Walker. Chief Curry specifically +denies that. There was no connection of that kind and there was no +evidence that Oswald had any streak of violence. + +We went back into his Marine Corps record. He was a "loner." He didn't +have many friends. He kept to himself, and when he went abroad, he +defected to Russia. The first evidence we had of him in our file was +a statement to the press in Moscow. And then later, about 22 months +later, he returned to the Embassy there and according to the report of +the Embassy we have and which the Commission has been furnished, the +Embassy gave him a clean bill. He had seen the error of his ways and +disliked the Soviet atmosphere, et cetera, and they, therefore, cleared +him, paid his way and paid his wife's way to come back to this country. + +At no time, other than the so-called street disturbance in New Orleans, +was there any indication that he might be a fighter. Well, in that +particular instance he was handing out leaflets that he printed for +the Fair Play for Cuba Committee, and some of the anti-Castro forces, +we have several thousand of them in New Orleans alone, happened to see +him and they moved in on him and immediately the police moved in and +arrested him. I believe they fined him $10 for disorderly conduct. +There was no evidence in the place where he was employed in Dallas of +acts of violence or temper or anything of that kind on his part. + +Representative BOGGS. You have spent your life studying criminology and +violence and subversion. Would you care to speculate on what may have +motivated the man? I know it would be just speculation. + +Mr. HOOVER. My speculation, Mr. Boggs, is that this man was no doubt a +dedicated Communist. He prefers to call himself a Marxist, but there +you get into the field of semantics. He was a Communist, he sympathized +thoroughly with the Communist cause. + +I don't believe now, as I look back on it, that he ever changed his +views when he asked to come back to this country. I personally feel +that when he went to the American Embassy in Moscow originally to +renounce his citizenship he should have been able right then and there +to sign the renouncement. He never could have gotten back here. I think +that should apply to almost all defectors who want to defect and become +a part of a system of government that is entirely foreign to ours. If +they have that desire, they have that right, but if they indicate a +desire for it, let them renounce their citizenship at once. + +That was not done. He stayed in Moscow awhile and he went to Minsk +where he worked. There was no indication of any difficulty, personally +on his part there, but I haven't the slightest doubt that he was a +dedicated Communist. + +There has been some question raised which cannot be resolved, because +Oswald is dead, as to whether he was trying to kill the President or +trying to kill the Governor. He had had some correspondence with the +Governor as to the form of his discharge from the Marine Corps. It was +not a dishonorable discharge, but a discharge less than honorable after +he defected. + +Governor Connally had left the Navy Department, and was back in Texas +as Governor. Oswald may have had his anger or his animosity against +the Governor, but no one can say definitely--that is mere speculation, +no one can tell that, because the gun and the sighting of the gun was +directed at the car. + +Now, first, it was thought that the President had been shot through the +throat that is what the doctors at the Parkland Hospital felt when he +was brought in. + +If that had been true, the shot would have had to come from the +overpass. But as soon as the body arrived in Washington, the doctors +at Bethesda Hospital performed the autopsy and it was then determined +definitely from their point of view that he had been shot from the +rear, and that portions of the skull had been practically shot off. +There was no question but that the gun and the telescopic lens could +pinpoint the President perfectly. The car was moving slowly. It wasn't +going at a high rate of speed, so that he had perfect opportunity to do +it. + +Now, some people have raised the question: Why didn't he shoot the +President as the car came toward the storehouse where he was working? + +The reason for that is, I think, the fact there were some trees between +his window on the sixth floor and the cars as they turned and went +through the park. So he waited until the car got out from under the +trees, and the limbs, and then he had a perfectly clear view of the +occupants of the car, and I think he took aim, either on the President +or Connally, and I personally believe it was the President in view of +the twisted mentality the man had. + +But he had given no indication of that--we had interviewed him, I +think, three times. Of course, our interviews were predicated to find +out whether he had been recruited by the Russian intelligence service, +because they frequently do that. + +Representative BOGGS. And had he been? + +Mr. HOOVER. He had not been, so he said, and we have no proof that +he was. He had been over there long enough but they never gave him +citizenship in Russia at all. I think they probably looked upon him +more as a kind of a queer sort of individual and they didn't trust him +too strongly. + +But just the day before yesterday information came to me indicating +that there is an espionage training school outside of Minsk--I don't +know whether it is true--and that he was trained at that school to +come back to this country to become what they call a "sleeper," that +is a man who will remain dormant for 3 or 4 years and in case of +international hostilities rise up and be used. + +I don't know of any espionage school at Minsk or near Minsk, and I +don't know how you could find out if there ever was one because the +Russians won't tell you if you asked them. + +They do have espionage and sabotage schools in Russia and they do have +an assassination squad that is used by them but there is no indication +he had any association with anything of that kind. + +Representative BOGGS. Now we have some people, including this man's +mother, talk about Oswald having been an agent of the Government of the +United States. I think his mother mentioned the CIA; she has made these +statements publicly for money, apparently. + +Mr. HOOVER. Yes; she has. + +Representative BOGGS. Just for the purpose of the record, I think it +would be well if you would comment on that, Mr. Director. + +Mr. HOOVER. Of course, we have interviewed his mother and his wife, and +all his relatives, and everybody that he is known to have associated +with. His mother I would put in a category of being emotionally +unstable. She has been around the country making speeches, and the +first indication of her emotional instability was the retaining of a +lawyer that anyone would not have retained if they really were serious +in trying to get down to the facts. But she has been in New York City; +she has been in Chicago; I think other parts of the country, always +speaking for money. + +Now, that kind of an individual is the type we have seen over the +years, who will say almost anything to draw a crowd. Just to be able to +say something sensational. Many times we have gone out to such people +and asked them specifically, "Now, what is your basis for this?" And +they will say, "Well, I just had a feeling that that was true, so I +said it." + +She has never made that statement to us, but we have many other +instances where that kind of statement is made. They don't have the +legal evidence that you must have if you are going to take any positive +action. I would put very little credence in anything that his mother +said. + +I think his wife was a far more reliable person in statements that she +made, so far as we were able to ascertain, than his mother. I think the +mother had in mind, naturally, the fact she wanted to clear her son's +name, which was a natural instinct, but more importantly she was going +to see how much money she could make, and I believe she has made a +substantial sum. + +Representative BOGGS. And the allegations she has made about this man +being an agent either of the CIA or the FBI are false? + +Mr. HOOVER. Well, I can certainly speak for the FBI that it is false, +and I have discussed the matter, naturally, with Mr. McCone, the +Director of CIA, and he, of course, will no doubt appear himself, +but there is no indication at all that he was employed by them. We +frequently get that kind of a story from individuals who, when they get +into some kind of difficulty, will claim they were working for the CIA +or they were working for the FBI. + +Representative BOGGS. Surely. + +Mr. HOOVER. Now, no one can work for the FBI without the approval being +given at Washington and a record kept of it, even of the confidential +informants. That is very tightly controlled. We have no so-called lump +sum that we can use to hire people. So there has to be a voucher and +specific details of payment. And I know at no time was he an informant +or agent or a special employee or working in any capacity for the FBI. + +As to the interviews we had with him in which he gave us some +information, some of it was not the truth, but this was not +particularly significant. The interviews we had with him I would not +term as talking with an informant. He was interviewed while under +arrest by the New Orleans police, and then after he had committed this +act of assassination we interviewed him in police headquarters in +Dallas. But they were the only contacts we had, I think four contacts +altogether, and he received no money of any kind, no promise of any +kind, and there was no indication that he was rendering assistance +to the U.S. Government. We looked upon him as a criminal after the +assassination, of course, and prior to that time we looked upon him +as an individual who we suspected might become an agent of the Soviet +government. There was no proof of that, and we checked him carefully. + +We knew of his contact with the Soviet Embassy here at Washington, his +contact with the Fair Play for Cuba Committee in New York, and his +contact with the Worker publication in New York. And none of those +contacts gave any indication of any tendency to commit violence. + +There are many people who read the Daily Worker, or what is now the +Worker, and you certainly can't brand them as hazards to the security +of the country or as potential assassins. It is in that area that I +am particularly concerned that we don't become hysterical and go too +far in restricting the citizens of our country from exercising their +civil and constitutional rights. The mere fact a person disagrees with +you in a matter on communism doesn't mean he should be arrested. Many +Communists make very violent speeches, and we know them, but I don't +feel that the time has come that they should be arrested. If they have +violated the laws of the United States, we will, then, proceed with +prosecution, and the cases can then go through the courts. Such cases +last for years before they get to the Supreme Court, and even then such +cases often start over on some legal angle. But, all in all, I think +that the enforcement of security and the enforcement of laws dealing +with subversion ought to be handled in the American manner. + +I am criticized by the extreme right for that. They put me in the +category, I guess, along with General Eisenhower. But the extreme +left criticizes me, saying I believe that any person who has on a +red necktie may be addicted to communism, and, therefore, is a great +danger. That is why I say the extremists at both ends are bad, and I +have repeated that several times publicly. + +Representative BOGGS. No doubt about the problem being a difficult one. +I remember some years back when these fanatics started shooting up the +House of Representatives. + +Mr. HOOVER. I recall that. + +Representative BOGGS. I happened to be there on the occasion and there +were many suggestions that we build a bulletproof glass enclosure +around the Members of Congress and so on. Of course, all of us +rejected those ideas because it would be totally incompatible with our +democratic institutions and this, obviously, becomes a problem in the +security of the President; that is what you are telling us, isn't it? + +Mr. HOOVER. That is the great problem. We have participated in the +protection of the President since the assassination. The Secret +Service indicates how many agents it needs when the President is +traveling somewhere or going somewhere in Washington, and then I assign +that number of agents to the Secret Service. They are not under my +direction. They are under the direction of the Secret Service because +under law they are charged with the protection of the President. We +have never done that before, but I felt that it was something we must +do if the Secret Service desired it. Sometimes, such as at the funeral +of the late President Kennedy, the procession walked up Connecticut +Avenue, which created a very, very grave security problem because they +were walking with these tall building on either side. As I recall, +we had the responsibility for the Cathedral, and we had 43 agents in +the Cathedral during the services. I was more concerned about these +tall buildings, because all the small buildings have been torn down +along Connecticut Avenue, and there were about six or seven blocks to +walk. Not only the high officials of this Government, including the +President, but the Queen of Greece, General de Gaulle, Emperor Haile +Selassie, and many Prime Ministers were present. They were a perfect +target for someone in some window. + +Now, you can't empty these buildings. It is impossible to do that, +because you can't go to the Mayflower Hotel and say all front rooms +must be vacated. Other office buildings are there, even taller than +the Mayflower, and you can't make them keep everybody out of the front +offices because then you get into a police state. + +The Secret Service does try to check to find out who have these various +offices. We also check so if there is anything in our files on those +individuals the Secret Service is at once advised. When the President +goes to a banquet or a social occasion, all of the employees in the +hotel, the cooks, waiters, and busboys, and so forth, are all checked +by Secret Service to be certain there is no one with a background +that would indicate a hazard to the President. But that is as far as +I think you can go. You can't put in a whole new staff of waiters and +you can't make people move out. People going to a Presidential function +are generally invited by card or by list, and that is very carefully +checked at the entrance by the Secret Service. + +We suggested a few more things that possibly could be done, and some of +which I have doubts about. You speak about this matter of glass around +the galleries in the House. One of the suggestions that we made was +that there be bulletproof glass in front of the President's lectern. In +my own mind, I question whether that is wise. Knowing this President as +this President is, he wants to get close to the audience; he wants to +reach over and shake hands with people. That concerns me because you +never know when an emotionally unstable person may be in that crowd. +As you noted, he has frequently brought groups into the White House +gardens and walked around with people he didn't know. I know the Secret +Service people are concerned about it. I am concerned about it. + +President Truman last week expressed his concern that the President was +taking unnecessary chances. + +But the governmental agency having the responsibility for guarding him, +the Secret Service, has a natural hesitancy to say, "You can't do this." + +Representative BOGGS. Of course, for the record, President Kennedy had +the same difficulty. + +Mr. HOOVER. That is right. It was best expressed at Parkland Hospital. +One of President Kennedy's staff made the statement that the whole +fault in this matter was that, in the choice between politics and +security, politics was chosen. That is exactly what happened. It was an +open car. I am thoroughly opposed to the President riding in an open +car. + +They did not have any armored car in the Secret Service at that time. I +have now sent one of our armored cars over for the President, but it is +a closed limousine. But on occasion, such as at Gettysburg and Atlanta +the other day, the President got out of the armored car which had been +flown there for his use, and commandeered the car of the Secret Service +which is wide open, so he could wave and see the people. Now, that is +a great hazard. I think he should always be in an armored car that is +closed, that can't have the top put down. But as you recall, President +Kennedy had the bubble top off of the car that he was in. It was not +armored and the bubble top was made of plastic so a bullet could have +gone through it very easily. + +Representative FORD. Mr. Hoover, you have categorically testified that +the FBI never at any time had Oswald as an agent, as an informant, or +in any other way. + +Mr. HOOVER. That is correct. I couldn't make it more emphatic. + +Representative FORD. And Mr. Belmont testified to the same last week +when he was before us. + +Mr. HOOVER. Yes, sir. + +Representative FORD. Both you and he would be fully familiar with all +of the records of the FBI in this regard? + +Mr. HOOVER. We would, and we would not only be fully familiar with it +because while Mr. Belmont is in charge of the Investigative Branch of +the Bureau--we have two assistants to the Director, one in charge of +administrative work and the other in charge of investigative work--we +have also checked the administrative records where vouchers or payments +would have been made and there is no indication that any money was +ever paid to Oswald. We have obtained, and they are on file with the +Commission, the affidavits of the agents, who at various times were +in contact with Oswald, to the effect that he was not an informant; +that they had never paid him anything; that he was being questioned as +to possible recruitment by the Soviet intelligence; so there was no +evidence at any time indicating employment by the FBI. + +Representative FORD. And you were not under any limitation or +restriction from any other authority in this regard? + +Mr. HOOVER. Absolutely not. I have the entire control of whether a +man shall be an informant or shall not be an informant. That comes +under my chain of command from the local office which has the matter +at hand. They can't just put on an informant without our approval. The +recommendation on security informants comes to the Bureau; it goes +through the Assistant Director of the Domestic Intelligence Division, +and, in significant cases, goes to Mr. Belmont, and then to my desk for +my specific approval. So I, or my seat-of-government staff, have to +approve every one of those who are used as informants in all classes +of cases, not only in intelligence cases but in white-slave cases, +automobile thefts, and all of these cases. + +Representative FORD. There is no limitation on what you can tell us +about this situation? + +Mr. HOOVER. None whatsoever. + +Representative FORD. No limitation; no restrictions? + +Mr. HOOVER. No restriction. So far as the record of vouchers in +the Bureau are concerned, they are open to the inspection of this +Commission at any time going back as far as you may want to go. + +Senator COOPER. May I ask just one question there? I think you have +answered it, but in your examination of this aspect as to whether or +not Oswald was an informer or employee or held any relationship to +the FBI, you, yourself, have looked into all of the means you have of +determining that fact when you make the statement to us? + +Mr. HOOVER. I have personally looked into that for two reasons: Because +the President asked me personally to take charge of this investigation +and to direct it, and I knew that the report ultimately would be made +to him. For that reason I became familiar with every step and every +action that was taken. Then when the allegation was made by someone--I +think it was the mother of Oswald first, if I recall correctly--that +he was employed by some Government agency, the CIA, or FBI, and maybe +both, I insisted upon a check being made and any record showing any +indication of that being brought to me. When they could find none, I +then asked for affidavits from the field force that had dealt with +Oswald as to whether they had hired him or paid him anything or given +him anything, and the affidavits are on file here that they had not. + +Senator COOPER. I think you have said there is no sum available to the +FBI which would enable these men, these agents, to employ him out of +any funds that are made available to them. + +Mr. HOOVER. Oh, no; it must be done by voucher, and those vouchers are +examined by the General Accounting Office every year or so. We have +no lump sum in the field offices for employment of informants as such +which is not supported by vouchers. + +Senator COOPER. I have just about two questions, I may have to go in a +few minutes to the Senate. I would like to direct your attention to +that period of time when Oswald was a defector, beginning when he left +the United States and when he returned. + +Mr. HOOVER. Yes, sir. + +Senator COOPER. During that period, did the FBI have any jurisdiction +over intelligence regarding him, or any capacity to know? + +Mr. HOOVER. While he was in Russia? + +Senator COOPER. Yes. + +Mr. HOOVER. No; we did not. We were interested in knowing what he might +say in Russia that appeared in the press. That was our first intimation +that this man had defected, when we read it in a newspaper article. We +were, of course, interested in knowing when he would return or if he +would return. We had no jurisdiction as to what he was doing in Russia +after he had gone there. + +Senator COOPER. As I understand it, you had no capacity at that time to +follow his activities? + +Mr. HOOVER. That is true. We have no agents in Russia. Foreign +intelligence is handled by the Central Intelligence Agency, and our +responsibility is domestic. We work very closely together. + +Senator COOPER. Have you had the jurisdiction since the assassination +or the occasion to examine persons connected with the State Department +concerning the activities of Oswald in Russia? + +Mr. HOOVER. Well---- + +Senator COOPER. Would that be a matter for some other agency? + +Mr. HOOVER. That could be a matter for CIA or for us after Oswald had +returned here. + +Senator COOPER. Yes. + +Mr. HOOVER. Then he becomes a civilian in the country here. Now, +there is what we call a delimitation agreement among the Government +intelligence agencies. For instance, the military branches of the +Government have their own intelligence services and they handle all +military deviations in regard to espionage or things of that kind. If +they want our assistance and ask for it we, of course, will always +cooperate. In regard to CIA, there are many cases which CIA and the +FBI work jointly on, of individuals that may have been recruited over +in Europe by the CIA, not by us, because we don't have authority to do +that abroad, but when that man comes to this country, the best ends of +intelligence are served by having the two agencies work very closely +together, conduct joint interviews, and exchange information very, +very freely. That has been going on ever since I can recall CIA being +existence. + +Mr. DULLES. I would like to testify to the fact that that cooperation +existed during the whole period I was Director, and I am sure it has +continued now with great cooperation on both sides. + +Mr. HOOVER. It is a very necessary thing, because the intelligence +agency of many of these foreign countries will cover the whole world +and the country itself. Whereas in this country you have separate +agencies covering espionage activities. CIA covers the foreign +activity, and the FBI the domestic activities, and they must be +interlocking. An espionage agent of the Soviet Government can arrive +in New York today by plane from Paris and he can be in Mexico City +tomorrow. Then, CIA would pick him up there. We would not pick him up +there. We would watch him while in this country, but as soon as he +takes that plane and leaves the United States CIA moves in on him. If +he comes back to the United States, we move in on him. Therefore, we +have a very close liaison. + +As a matter of fact, what we have done in government agencies is +to have a liaison agent in our Bureau assigned to contact CIA, the +Pentagon, State Department, and various other agencies to cut out +the red tape of writing letters back and forth. In order to orally +relay information which has come to his attention, our representative +can immediately phone it over to the FBI, and if there is need, for +instance, to meet a plane coming in to New York or a boat that is +docking at New York, it is all accomplished within a matter of 45 +minutes or an hour. + +If you went through this letter-writing process and the paper war that +goes on so often in the Government it might take a week or 10 days. + +The FBI does have 10 legal attaches attached to 10 embassies abroad. +Their purpose is not operational. They don't investigate in those +countries any matters that have to be investigated. That, if it is to +be done, is handled by CIA. Our purpose in being there is to maintain +liaison with our opposite number such as the Surete Nationale in +France and with the national police in the Philippines, to exchange +information that is vital to our internal security, and also vital to +the internal security of the other country. + +Senator COOPER. May I ask one other question? + +Is there any, considering the number of defectors in the United States +to Communist countries, which cannot be large, I would assume---- + +Mr. HOOVER. I think there are about 36. + +Senator COOPER. Which would indicate, I would think either a lack of +reliability on their part and stability or beyond that a dedicated +purpose to become Communists, then upon their return, wouldn't it seem +to you they should be given some special attention? + +Mr. HOOVER. We have now---- + +Senator COOPER. To determine whether they are a risk to become Soviet +or Communist espionage agents or in fact become dangerous? + +Mr. HOOVER. We have taken steps to plug that gap. + +Prior to the assassination of the President, a defector, before he came +back was always cleared for return by a representative of the State +Department or the military abroad. When he came back we immediately +interviewed him if he was a civilian. It had to be done promptly to +determine whether he could be a potential intelligence agent. + +Now, in December of last year, following the assassination, we expanded +the criteria of what should be furnished to the Secret Service, and all +defectors automatically go on the list to be furnished to the Secret +Service. + +There are 36 defectors that we know of in this country who have been +under investigation. Some of those men may have changed their views +sincerely. Some of them may not have. But as a matter of general +precaution, as a result of the Oswald situation, we are seeing that all +go to the Secret Service. + +Mr. DULLES. That includes military defectors, does it not? + +Mr. HOOVER. Military defectors and defectors from any private agency, +after they return to the U.S. and become civilians. Some have defected +to China, to the satellite nations and to Russia. + +Senator COOPER. Just one other question, because I have to go. + +In the course of this investigation, as you know so well, there +have been a number identified who were very close, at least to Mrs. +Oswald, and a few, I can't say that were close to Oswald yet they had +association with him, such as the man who drove him back and forth, +Mrs. Paine, with whom Mrs. Oswald lived, and others, has there been +any credible, I won't say credible because if you had you would have +presented it to us in your report, has there been any claims by persons +that these people are in any way related to the Communist Party? + +Mr. HOOVER. We have had no credible evidence that they have been +related to the Communist Party in this country. + +Now, as to Mrs. Oswald, the wife of Oswald, there is no way of knowing +whether she belonged to the Russian Communist Party in Russia. She +is a rather intelligent woman, and notwithstanding that you have to +talk with her through an interpreter, we have had no indication of her +association with Communists in this country, nor have any of her close +friends or relatives. + +As to his mother, we found no indication she is associated or closely +associated with the Communists. She is the only one of the group that +we have come in contact with that I would say is somewhat emotionally +unstable. Our agents have interviewed her. She sometimes gets very +angry and she won't answer questions. As to the rest of the group who +had been friends of his, or worked with him in the Texas School Book +Depository, none of them have indicated any Communist associations of +any kind. + +Senator COOPER. Thank you. + +Mr. HOOVER. Thank you. + +Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Hoover, I hand you Exhibit 863 and ask you to examine +that and state whether or not that is the letter that you referred +to in which you answered questions of the Commission concerning the +National Enquirer magazine or newspaper? + +Mr. HOOVER. This letter of May 8 addressed to the Commission is +the letter that dealt with our interview with Chief Curry and was +predicated upon the article which appeared in the National Enquirer of +May 17, 1964. + +Mr. RANKIN. I ask you if you would care to add anything to that letter +except what you have already testified to? + +Mr. HOOVER. No; I have nothing to add to that. Chief Curry was very +specific, I am told by my agent in charge at Dallas, that this article +is an absolute lie; that none of these things set forth in the article +occurred; that he received no phone call or any request of any kind +oral or by phone or in writing from the Department of Justice or from +the FBI. As I stated earlier, the report from the Department of Justice +indicated that they made no request. + +Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Chairman, I offer in evidence Exhibit 863, being the +letter just referred to. + +The CHAIRMAN. It may be admitted. + +(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 863 for +identification and received in evidence.) + +Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Hoover, is Exhibit 837 the article that you referred to +in the National Enquirer? + +Mr. HOOVER. Yes; that is the one. + +Mr. RANKIN. I call your attention to Exhibit 836 and ask you if that +is the letter that you referred to which describes the criteria in the +handling of the security of the President that you have described in +your testimony. + +Mr. HOOVER. This is the letter. It sets forth the criteria which were +adopted, originally about 1942 and later incorporated in the manual +of instructions in 1954. It also includes the amended instructions to +our field offices, prepared in December of 1963, which extended the +criteria. + +Mr. RANKIN. Does that Exhibit correctly set forth the information you +had in regard to those matters? + +Mr. HOOVER. It does. + +Mr. RANKIN. Do you care to add anything to it? + +Mr. HOOVER. No; I have nothing to add to it at all. + +Mr. RANKIN. Now, in light of what happened. Mr. Hoover, I think the +Commission would desire to have your comments or whatever you care +to tell them, concerning the reasons why you did not furnish the +information you had concerning Lee Harvey Oswald to the Secret Service +prior to the time of the President's assassination. + +Mr. HOOVER. Well, I have gone into that very thoroughly because that +was obviously one of the questions that I had in my mind when the +tragedy occurred in Dallas. + +In going back over the record, and I have read each one of the reports +dealing with that and the reports of Mr. Hosty who had dealt with +the Oswald situation largely in Dallas, we had the matter that I +have previously referred to, the report of the State Department that +indicated this man was a thoroughly safe risk, he had changed his +views, he was a loyal man now and had seen the light of day, so to +speak. + +How intensive or how extensive that interview in Moscow was, I don't +know. But, nevertheless, it was in a State Department document that was +furnished to us. + +Now, we interviewed Oswald a few days after he arrived. We did not +interview him on arrival at the port of entry because that is always +undesirable by reason of the fact it is heavily covered by press, and +any relatives generally are there, so we prefer to do it after the man +has settled down for two or three days and become composed. We do it +in the privacy of our office or wherever he may be, or in his own home +or apartment. We interviewed him twice in regard to that angle that we +were looking for. We had no indication at this time of anything other +than his so-called Marxist leanings, Marxist beliefs. + +We wanted to know whether he had been recruited by the Soviet +government as an intelligence agent, which is a frequent and constant +practice. There is not a year goes by but that individuals and groups +of individuals, sometimes on these cultural exchanges, go through +Russia and recruits are enlisted by the Russian intelligence, usually +through blackmail. The individual is threatened that if he doesn't come +back to this country and work for them they will expose the fact that +he is a homosexual or a degenerate or has been indiscrete. + +Pictures are usually taken of individuals who become implicated in that +sort of thing, so the individual is really desperate. Such blackmail +has occurred year after year for some time. + +In Oswald's case we had no suspicion that any pressure like that had +been brought to bear on him because he had gone voluntarily and had +obviously wanted to live in Russia and had married a Russian woman. + +After those interviews had been completed, the next incident was the +difficulty he had at New Orleans. We were concerned there as to whether +he was functioning officially for the Fair Play for Cuba Committee +which was financed and supported by Castro and Castro's government, and +if he was, where he obtained money and with whom he had dealt. + +He apparently had the leaflets printed himself on plain ordinary paper. +There was no reason for us, then, to have any suspicion that he had any +element of danger in him. + +However, we did not ignore or forget the fact that he was still in the +country. We kept track of him when he went from New Orleans to Dallas, +and that was one of the reasons why Hosty went to the home of Mrs. +Paine. She told us where Oswald was working, at the Texas book house. +Hosty gave her his telephone number and his name so that if there was +any information or any contact she wanted to make she could phone him +at the Dallas office. + +Mrs. Oswald, the wife, took down the license number of Hosty's car +which was incorrect only in one digit. The name, the telephone number, +and the automobile license were later found in Oswald's memorandum book. + +However, that in itself was not significant because many times we will +go to see a person and tell him now, "If you think of anything you want +to tell us or you have any information you want to give us, here are my +name and address, telephone number, and call me," and that is what was +done with Mrs. Paine because Hosty wasn't there at the time. He was at +work. + +Incidentally, those items in Oswald's notebook requiring investigative +attention were first set out in an investigative report of our Dallas +Office dated December 23, 1963. This report was not prepared for this +Commission but rather for investigative purposes of the FBI and, +therefore, the information concerning Hosty's name, telephone number +and license number was not included in the report as the circumstances +under which Hosty's name, et cetera, appeared in Oswald's notebook were +fully known to the FBI. + +After our investigative report of December 23, 1963, was furnished to +the Commission, we noted that Agent Hosty's name did not appear in the +report. In order that there would be a complete reporting of all items +in Oswald's notebook, this information was incorporated in another +investigative report of our Dallas Office, dated February 11, 1964. +Both of the above-mentioned reports were furnished to the Commission +prior to any inquiry concerning this matter by the President's +Commission. + +There was nothing up to the time of the assassination that gave any +indication that this man was a dangerous character who might do harm to +the President or to the Vice President. Up to that time, as has been +indicated. + +Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Hoover, may I interrupt, you said Hosty was not there +at the time, he was at work--did you mean Mr. Oswald? + +Mr. HOOVER. That was my mistake. I meant Mr. Oswald. Hosty talked with +Mrs. Paine and Mrs. Oswald. Mrs. Paine speaks Russian and she could +interpret for her. + +Oswald was at the Texas Book Co., and then, as I say, Hosty left his +telephone number and name, and Mrs. Oswald for some reason took down +the license number. I don't know whether she was convinced this was an +agent of the FBI, or why she did it. + +But, anyway, that was in the book that was later found, and which +contained many other things that Oswald had entered in the book. + +Now, as I say, up to that time, there had been no information that +would have warranted our reporting him as a potential danger or hazard +to the security or the safety of the President or the Vice President, +so his name was not furnished at the time to Secret Service. + +Under the new criteria which we have now put into force and effect, +it would have been furnished because we now include all defectors. As +to the original criteria, which we felt were sound and sufficient and +which we felt no one, not even the most extreme civil rights proponent +could take exception to, we limited the furnishing of names to S.S. +to persons potentially dangerous to the physical well being of the +President. We included emotionally unstable people who had threatened +the President or Vice President. + +At my office during the course of a week there are sometimes three or +four callers who have to be taken to a Hospital because of their mental +condition. They claim they are being persecuted by radio beams and they +want to see me or the President to have those beams stopped. Now you +never know what tangent they are going to take. If such a person is +living in some part of the country where the President may be going his +name would be furnished to the Secret Service. + +One car last year, I think, crashed through the gates of the White +House; the person driving wanted to see the President. The guard +wouldn't let him in and so the car crashed through and got within 20 +feet of the first door. The guards, by that time, had their revolvers +out and took him into custody. + +Last year a gentleman drove all the way from Arizona to see me. He +drove up the marble steps of the Department of Justice, and by that +time the guards had come out and took him into custody. I think he was +incarcerated in Arizona. + +People of this type are among those we would have furnished to the +Secret Service. They have the potential to harm somebody. + +We get names from members of Congress, of people who come to the +Capitol and try to threaten them or harass them. They let us know about +it, and we make the investigation or advise the police. If we can get +the family to have the person put into an institution, we try to do so. +If they don't, we may take steps to have him incarcerated through other +legal means. + +Mr. DULLES. How many names, Mr. Director, in general, could the Secret +Service process? Aren't their facilities limited as to dealing with +vast numbers of names because of their limited personnel? + +Mr. HOOVER. I think they are extremely limited. The Secret Service is a +very small organization and that is why we are fortifying them, so to +speak, or supplementing them by assigning agents of our Bureau which +is, of course, quite a burden on us. Our agents are assigned about 24 +to 25 cases per agent and cover such involved matters as bankruptcy and +antitrust cases. + +Now, the Secret Service has a very small group and I would estimate +that the names we have sent over number some 5,000. I would guess there +are about another 4,000 that will go over in the next month to them. +Frankly, I don't see how they can go out and recheck those names. We +keep the records up to date; if additional information comes in on +these names we furnish it to the Secret Service. They will have to call +upon the local authorities, unless the Secret Service force is enlarged +considerably so that they can handle it entirely on their own. I think +the Secret Service is entirely too small a force today to handle the +duties that they are handling. The great crowds that are at the White +House all the time, around the gates, that go to church where the +President goes, all of those things, of course, have to be checked over +by them. They always check in advance and just recently, a few Sundays +ago, they found some individuals in the basement of St. Mark's church +in Washington, where he was going to attend on Sunday morning. His +arrival was held up until they could ascertain who they were. They were +deaf mutes whose identity had not been cleared with the Secret Service. + +Now, the Presidential party was delayed about 5 or 10 minutes in +reaching the church by reason of the radio call to the White House to +hold it up. + +We are giving to Secret Service more and more names. The total, in +addition to the names they already had, will reach 10,000. I don't see +how they are going to be able to handle the situation as they would +want to handle it. They have to depend upon local police organizations. +Many local police departments are capable and efficient; some are +not. Many have good judgment and some have not. Wherever you have a +police department of 10,000, 15,000, 20,000 men you are bound to find +a few who will just barge in and do something which better judgment +would dictate should not be done, as in the incident which occurred in +the Midwest where they placed people practically under house arrest. +I think it was very bad judgment and should not have been done but +the Secret Service, of course, turned the names over to the local +authorities, and the local authorities do what they think is right. + +Now, I guess their attitude with all justice to them is. "Well, we +will resolve the risk in our favor. If we keep these people under +surveillance and keep them in the house until the President gets out +of town nothing can happen from them." That is what you would call +totalitarian security. I don't think you can have that kind of security +in this country without having a great wave of criticism against it. +There is a great tendency for people to expect the intelligence forces +and the law enforcement agencies to be able to go out and arrest +people and bring them in and hold them endlessly and talk to them. We +can't arrest a person, without probable cause, or unless he commits a +crime in our presence. We have to arraign him promptly and if not done +promptly, the confession that he may have made generally cannot be used +against him. + +Just as a collateral matter we faced that problem in California in the +case of the kidnapping of Frank Sinatra, Jr. One of the kidnappers we +arrested near San Diego confessed but we didn't arraign him because +the other kidnappers would have left California and it would have been +difficult to find them. However, the next day after arraignment he made +changes in the confession and signed it so the court held that it was +admissible. + +The Secret Service, of course, is faced with the same problem. They +just can't arrest people because they may not like their looks. They +have to have facts justifying detention but the public conception is +that you have a full right to go out and do these things. We have +stressed in the FBI that there must be full compliance with the laws of +this country and with the decisions of the Supreme Court. That is the +law of the country. Now, whether a person likes it or not and there are +some groups that are very violent against the decisions of the court +while others are very much in favor of them, it is not for the FBI to +take sides. We have a job to do and we do it under the rulings of the +courts and we have been able to do it effectively. + +I know when the ruling came down on the prompt arraignment, there +was great shouting and some strong editorials claiming that it was +going to wreck law enforcement. It hasn't wrecked us. It has made it +more difficult but I think we have to face up to the fact that law +enforcement in a free country must abide by the laws of that country +irrespective of how difficult it is. Some persons talk about putting +handcuffs on the law enforcement officers and taking them off the +criminals. That is a nice catch phrase to use in a speech or article +but operating within the law has not interfered with our work. + +Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Hoover, I ask you about Exhibit 825 which is first a +letter and then encloses certain affidavits of your agents. + +Mr. HOOVER. Yes, sir. + +Mr. RANKIN. You are familiar with that? + +Mr. HOOVER. I am familiar with that. I read all of that and signed it. + +Mr. RANKIN. You know those are the affidavits in regard to whether Lee +Harvey Oswald was an agent or connected in anyway with the Bureau that +you have just testified to? + +Mr. HOOVER. That is correct; and the affidavits of all agents, who had +any contact with him. + +Mr. RANKIN. I call your attention to Exhibits 864 and 865, and ask you +if you have seen those before or, you have seen the original of 864 and +865 is a photostatic copy of your letter to us in answer to 864, is +that correct? + +Mr. HOOVER. That is correct; yes. I recall very distinctly. + +Mr. RANKIN. Do you recall those letters involved an inquiry as to any +connections of Lee Harvey Oswald with Communists or any criminal groups +or others that might be conspiratorial? + +Mr. HOOVER. That is correct; and my letter of April 30 states the facts +as they are in our files. + +Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Chairman, we offer in evidence Exhibits 864 and 865. + +The CHAIRMAN. They may be admitted. + +(Commission Exhibit Nos. 864 and 865 were marked for identification and +received in evidence.) + +Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Hoover, do you have any suggestions that you would +like to tell the Commission about of your ideas that might improve +the security of the President, and you might comment upon information +the Commission has received. You have a special appropriation that is +related to that area. + +Mr. HOOVER. Well, I, at the request of---- + +The CHAIRMAN. Director, before you get into that question, and may +I ask something that I would like to hear you discuss in this same +connection? + +Mr. HOOVER. Yes. + +The CHAIRMAN. You have told us that you had no jurisdiction down there +in Dallas over this crime. + +Mr. HOOVER. That is correct. + +The CHAIRMAN. Because there is no Federal crime committed. And I assume +that that caused you some embarrassment and some confusion in doing +your work? + +Mr. HOOVER. It most certainly did. + +The CHAIRMAN. Because of the likelihood of your being in conflict with +other authorities. Do you believe there should be a Federal law? + +Mr. HOOVER. I am very strongly in favor of that. + +The CHAIRMAN. Against an attempt to assassinate the President? + +Mr. HOOVER. I am very strongly in favor of legislation being enacted +and enacted promptly that will make a Federal crime of attempts upon +the life of the President and the Vice President, and possibly the next +two persons in succession, the Speaker and the President pro tempore +of the Senate. In the Oswald case, we could not take custody of him. +If we had had jurisdiction we would have taken custody of him and I +do not believe he would have been killed by Rubenstein. The failure +to have jurisdiction was extremely embarrassing. I think the killing +of Oswald has created a great fog of speculation that will go on for +years, because of the things that Oswald might have been able to tell +which would have been of assistance in pinning down various phases of +this matter. This must be done now by collecting evidence from third +parties, and not from Oswald himself. + +Now, as to the publicity that took place in Dallas, I was very +much concerned with that. We have in the FBI a crime laboratory +that furnishes free service to all law enforcement agencies of the +country. Any law enforcement agency can send to our laboratory here +in Washington any evidence--blood, dirt, dust, guns, anything of +that kind--and our laboratory examines it and then reports back to +the contributing police department. This was being done in the early +stages of the Oswald case, and almost as soon as the report would +reach the Dallas Police Department, the chief of police or one of the +representatives of the department would go on TV or radio and relate +findings of the FBI, giving information such as the identification of +the gun and other items of physical evidence. + +Now, that concerned me for several reasons. In the first place, I don't +think cases should be tried in the newspapers. I think a short and +simple statement can be made when a person is arrested, but the details +of the evidence should be retained until you go into court to try the +case. Secondly, it creates a great deal of speculation on the part of +the press. There was very aggressive press coverage at Dallas. I was +so concerned that I asked my agent in charge at Dallas, Mr. Shanklin, +to personally go to Chief Curry and tell him that I insisted that he +not go on the air any more until this case was resolved. Until all +the evidence had been examined, I did not want any statements made +concerning the progress of the investigation. Because of the fact the +President had asked me to take charge of the case I insisted that he +and all members of his department refrain from public statements. + +There was an officer in his department who was constantly on the +radio or giving out interviews. The chief concurred in my request and +thereafter refrained from further comment but of course by that time +the identification of the gun was known, the caliber of the gun, where +it had come from, where it had been bought and the information we had +run down in Chicago and had furnished to the Dallas Police Department. + +If the case had been in the hands of the FBI none of that information +would have been given out. Because of the publicity you had to face the +charge that the prejudice of the community would require a change of +venue. With the publicity, I don't know where you could have changed +the venue to, since newspapers all over the State covered it. I think +a Houston reporter was the first one who wrote that Oswald was an +informant of the FBI. We went to the newspaper reporter. He refused to +tell us his source. He said he had also heard it from other persons. +We asked him the names of these persons and we interviewed them but +none of them would provide the source. In other words, I was trying +to nail down where this lie started. That, of course, is always the +result where you are daily giving out press interviews because the +press wants stories desperately. We have always adopted the policy in +the Bureau of no comment until we have the warrant and make the arrest. +Then a release is prepared briefly stating what the facts are, what +the written complaint says, the fact. The complaint was filed with the +Commissioner, and that ends it. We don't try to run it out for a week +or 10 days. It is up to the U.S. attorney thereafter and the court to +try the case. + +I was concerned about the demand for change of venue, because all the +evidence was being given out. At that time, of course, we didn't know +that Oswald was going to be killed, and there was a possibility that +he might be confronted with some of this evidence. If it had been kept +secret and used in the interrogation of him, just confronting him +with what was found, such as his picture with the gun might have been +helpful. + +A small thing can often make a man break and come forward with a full +confession. If he knows in advance that you have certain evidence he +will be on guard against answering questions. Of course, he is always +advised of his rights and that he can have an attorney. We always +make a point of this. We generally have a reputable physician of +the community present in our office while the prisoner is there, to +administer to him and be able to testify that he has not been subjected +to third degree methods. He is examined when he comes in and he is +examined before we take him to the commissioner. Taking him before the +commissioner in a case like Oswald's would probably have been done +within 4 or 5 hours. Generally we try to arraign a prisoner within an +hour. + +That makes it more difficult; you have to work faster. But again I say +I am in favor of having the procedures of law enforcement officers as +tightly bound down as we can, with due respect for the interests of +society. + +Of course, there must be an equal balance. For years we have had a rule +against third degree methods, but years ago many police departments +used the third degree. I think very few of them use it now because if +they use it they violate the civil rights statutes and we investigate +them for having brutally handled a prisoner. Many allegations are made +unfairly against police officers that they have used third degree +methods and we are able to prove they haven't in our investigations. +That is particularly true where civil rights matters are involved. We +have such cases in many areas where civil rights agitation is going on. + +Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Hoover, to remind you of my question, any suggestions +that you may have concerning the protection of the President, and +the information that the Commission has that you have a special +appropriation in that connection for the Bureau? + +Mr. HOOVER. We do not have a special appropriation for the +protection of the President. The Secret Service, of course, has that +responsibility. On December 2, I prepared this memorandum for the +President, and for the chief of the Secret Service at the request of +the President, outlining suggestions that I felt should be considered +to tighten up on the security of the President. If the Commission +desires I will be glad to leave this or I will be glad to read it to +the Commission. + +Representative BOGGS. Why don't you ask the Director just to summarize +it. + +Mr. RANKIN. Will you summarize it? + +Mr. DULLES. Can we have a copy of it? + +Mr. HOOVER. Oh, yes. + +Representative FORD. Could the copy be put in the record as an exhibit? + +Mr. HOOVER. Yes, sir; that is all right with me. I have no objection to +it. + +Regarding travel, first, advise the Secret Service as far in advance as +possible of the President's travel plans and proposed itinerary. The +reason for that is there have been Presidents who suddenly decide they +are going somewhere and the Secret Service does not have the chance +always to cover the area and check the neighborhood and check the hotel +or place where it may be. + +Representative BOGGS. You have one like that right now, Mr. Director. + +Mr. HOOVER. I know from experience. + +Second, avoid publicizing exact routes of travel as long as possible. +Again, it has been the practice in the past to announce the President +is going along a certain route and, therefore, great crowds will gather +along that route. And, therefore, I thought that was something that +should not be given out and the President should be taken along some +routes which are not announced. At the present time, he goes to cities +and he wants to see people and the crowd wants to see him. In Dallas, +the route was publicized at least 24 hours before so everybody knew +where he would be driving. + +Third, use a specially armored car with bulletproof glass and have such +cars readily available in locations frequently visited. The President, +as I observed earlier in my testimony, had no armored car. He has one +now which I supplied to Secret Service and they will have one made no +doubt in due time for the President's use. But if it had been armored, +I believe President Kennedy would be alive today. + +Fourth, avoid setting a specific pattern of travel or other activity +such as visiting the same church at the same time each Sunday. + +Regarding public appearances. First, use maximum feasible screening of +persons in attendance including use of detection devices sensitive to +the amount of metal required in a firearm or grenade. + +Second, use a bulletproof shield in front of the entire rostrum in +public appearances such as the swearing in ceremony at the Capitol on +inauguration day, the presidential reviewing stand in front of the +White House on the same day and on the rear of trains. + +Third, keep to a minimum the President's movements within crowds, +remain on the rostrum after the public addresses rather than mingling +with the audience. Again, there is great difficulty in that field. + +Fourth, in appearances at public sporting events such as football +games, remain in one place rather than changing sides during half-time +ceremonies. + +(Discussion off the record.) + +Mr. DULLES. About the armored car you said if Kennedy had an armored +car that might have saved him. Would the back of the armored car have +some protection to protect his head? + +Mr. HOOVER. Oh, yes. + +Mr. DULLES. Because if the armored car had been open---- + +Mr. HOOVER. He must never ride in an open car; that has been my +recommendation. + +Mr. DULLES. The back never comes down? + +Mr. HOOVER. The back never comes down, and it is bulletproof. The top, +sides, and underpart are all of bulletproof construction. So that +except by opening a window and waving through the window the occupant +is safe. A person can shoot through the window if the glass window is +lowered. + +Fifth, limit public appearances by use of television whenever possible. + +Sixth, avoid walking in public except when absolutely necessary. + +Now, on legislation. First, I recommended that the President and the +Vice President be added to the list of Federal officers set out in +section 1114, title 18 of the U.S. Code which deals with assaults which +are punishable under Federal law. + +Mr. RANKIN. You would add to that I understood from your prior remarks, +the Speaker and the President Pro Tempore? + +Mr. HOOVER. In view of the situation which prevails at the present time +the Speaker and President pro tempore, in other words, the line of +succession under the Constitution but not below that. + +(Discussion off the record.) + +Mr. HOOVER. Second, furnish the Secret Service authority to request +assistance and cooperation from other U.S. agencies including the +military, particularly in connection with foreign travel. + +Now, my reason for that is that sometimes requests for assistance have +to clear through red-tape channels here at Washington through some +high official of Government. If an emergency arises abroad, or even in +this country, it may be of such character that you do not have time to +telephone back to Washington or to telephone back to the Pentagon. Aid +ought to be immediately available by calling on the local authorities +and the nearest military authority. + +Third, improve control of the sale of firearms requiring as a +minimum registration of every firearm sold together with adequate +identification of the purchaser. The problem of firearms control is +under extensive debate, in both the House and Senate at the present +time. + +The gun that Oswald used was bought by mail order from a mail-order +house in Chicago, no license for it, no permit for it, no checkup on +it. The only way we were able to trace it was to find out where in this +country that Italian-made gun was sold. We found the company in Chicago +and later the mail-order slip that had been sent by Oswald to Chicago +to get the gun. Now, there are arguments, of course---- + +Mr. DULLES. In a false name. + +Mr. HOOVER. In a false name. + +There is argument, of course, that by passing firearms legislation you +are going to take the privilege of hunting away from the sportsmen of +the country. I don't share that view with any great degree of sympathy +because you have to get a license to drive an automobile and you have +to get a license to have a dog, and I see no reason why a man shouldn't +be willing, if he is a law-abiding citizen, to have a license to get a +firearm whether it be a rifle or revolver or other firearm. + +It is not going to curtail his exercise of shooting for sport because +the police make a check of his background. If he is a man who is +entitled to a gun, a law-abiding citizen, a permit will be granted. + +Of course, today firearms control is practically negligible, and I +think some steps should be taken along that line. + +Fourth, a ban on picketing within the vicinity of the White House as is +now done at the U.S. Capitol and Supreme Court. Some of these pickets +are well-meaning and law-abiding individuals, some are for peace and +some are more or less dedicated Communists. + +Representative BOGGS. It is illegal to picket a Federal court now, Mr. +Director, I happen to be the author of that law. + +Mr. HOOVER. Yes; I am glad you had that law passed. Of course, they +picket public buildings, they march around the Department of Justice +Building, now and then, but the principal places they prefer to go are +the Supreme Court Building, the Capitol and its grounds and the White +House. + +I think such picketing at the White House, of large or small groups, +should be forbidden. I think at the White House they tried to get +the pickets to walk across the street along Lafayette Park. That at +least takes them away from being close to the gates at the White +House. I think there ought to be some control. Picketing, of course, +is legitimate if it is orderly. Many times it doesn't continue to be +orderly, and sometimes pickets, as in this city, have thrown themselves +on the pavement and the police have to come and pick them up or drag +them away. Then, of course, the charge is made of brutality right away. + +Delegations of colored groups have visited me and asked why I don't +arrest a police officer for hitting some Negro whom he is arresting in +a sit-in strike, lay-in strike or demonstration in some southern cities. + +We have no authority to make an arrest of that kind. Under the +authority the Bureau has we have to submit those complaints to the +Department of Justice and if they authorize us to make an arrest we +will do it. + +Those in general are the recommendations I made and I will furnish the +committee with a copy of this memorandum. + +Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Hoover, I would like to ask you in regard to your +recommendations, do you think you have adequately taken into account +that the President is not only the Chief Executive but also necessarily +a politician under our system? + +Mr. HOOVER. I have taken that into account, and I would like to say +this off the record. + +(Discussion off the record.) + +Mr. RANKIN. That is all I have, Mr. Chairman. + +The CHAIRMAN. Any other questions, gentlemen? + +Representative BOGGS. I would just like to thank the Director again for +all the help he has given us. + +Mr. HOOVER. I am happy to. + +The CHAIRMAN. I would, too, on behalf of the Commission, Mr. Director, +I would not only like to thank you for your testimony but for your +cooperation that your people have given us throughout this entire +investigation. + +Mr. HOOVER. Thank you very much. + +The CHAIRMAN. I also want to add one other thing, having in mind the +testimony you gave that this is still an open investigation, that +should anything come to your attention that you believe this Commission +has either overlooked or should look into you feel free to ask us to do +it. + +Mr. HOOVER. I would most certainly do that. + +The CHAIRMAN. You do it. + +Mr. HOOVER. I want to give all the cooperation I can to this most +difficult task you have. + +Representative FORD. One question. The other day when we had the State, +Justice, Judiciary Appropriation bill before the full Committee on +Appropriations---- + +Mr. HOOVER. Yes. + +Representative FORD. And I am not a member of that subcommittee, I +noticed a provision in the bill, as I recall, to the effect funds +for or something of that content, of FBI responsibilities for the +protection of the President. + +Mr. HOOVER. There is a provision for funds that we can use for the +apprehension of a man who has been declared a fugitive from justice, +that is where a man has committed a crime, a warrant is out for him and +he has fled or where he has escaped from a penitentiary. I don't recall +offhand any specific appropriation for the protection of the President. +I will look at the appropriation bill. I may be wrong there but I am +quite certain that is so. + +Representative FORD. It was my recollection as I was looking at the +bill in committee there was a phrase to this effect in the language of +the bill. I think it might be helpful for the record to get whatever +the history is of that if it is still a matter of the bill or the law. + +Mr. HOOVER. I remember that at the time Mr. Curtis was Vice President, +he was Senator and then Vice President, at that time he insisted that +he wanted FBI agents with him and nobody else. When Mr. Nixon took +office as Vice President he was protected by the Secret Service and +with Mr. Johnson, it was the same thing. + +Secret Service asked us to let them have additional manpower, as a +matter of assistance, and we have done so. + +Representative FORD. I think it would be helpful if you would have a +memorandum prepared. + +Mr. HOOVER. I will be glad to. + +Representative FORD. Showing the history of this provision from its +inception and whether or not it is in the bill or the proposed law for +fiscal 1965. + +Mr. HOOVER. Yes, sir. + +Representative FORD. And the justification you have indicated. + +Mr. HOOVER. That was not taken up, I know, in the testimony before the +Appropriations Committee. I gave the testimony before the committee in +January, and the testimony wasn't released until 2 weeks ago when the +bill was reported out. It was not discussed in the hearings. + +Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Chairman, in order to complete the record, may I ask +to have the number 866 assigned to the memo that Mr. Hoover is going +to send about protection of the President, and have it admitted to this +record under that number. + +The CHAIRMAN. Yes; it may be. + +Representative FORD. Also a number for this letter Mr. Hoover is going +to submit. + +Mr. RANKIN. May I assign 867? + +The CHAIRMAN. Yes. + +(Commission Exhibit Nos. 866 and 867 were marked for identification and +received in evidence.) + + +TESTIMONY OF JOHN A. McCONE AND RICHARD M. HELMS + +The CHAIRMAN. The Commission will be in order. + +Director McCone, it is customary for the Chairman to make a short +statement to the witness as to the testimony that is expected to be +given. I will read it at this time. + +Mr. McCone will be asked to testify on whether Lee Harvey Oswald was +ever an agent, directly or indirectly, or an informer or acting on +behalf of the Central Intelligence Agency in any capacity at any time, +and whether he knows of any credible evidence or of any conspiracy +either domestic or foreign involved in the assassination of President +Kennedy, also with regard to any suggestions and recommendations he +may have concerning improvements or changes in provisions for the +protection of the President of the United States. + +Would you please rise and be sworn? Do you solemnly swear the testimony +you are about to give before this Commission shall be the truth, the +whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? + +Mr. McCONE. I do. + +The CHAIRMAN. Will you be seated, please? Mr. Rankin will conduct the +examination. + +Mr. RANKIN. Mr. McCone, will you state your name? + +Mr. McCONE. My name is John Alex McCone. + +Mr. RANKIN. Do you have an official position with the U.S. Government? + +Mr. McCONE. Yes, sir; I am Director of Central Intelligence. + +Mr. RANKIN. Have you been Director for some time? + +Mr. McCONE. Yes; a little over 2-1/2 years. + +Mr. RANKIN. Where do you live, Mr. McCone? + +Mr. McCONE. I live at 3025 Whitehaven Street in Washington. + +Mr. RANKIN. Are you familiar with the records and how they are kept by +the Central Intelligence Agency as to whether a man is acting as an +informer, agent, employee, or in any other capacity for that Agency? + +Mr. McCONE. Yes; I am generally familiar with the procedures and the +records that are maintained by the Central Intelligence Agency. Quite +naturally, I am not familiar with all of the records because they are +very extensive. + +Mr. RANKIN. Have you determined whether or not Lee Harvey Oswald, the +suspect in connection with the assassination of President Kennedy, +had any connection with the Central Intelligence Agency, informer or +indirectly as an employee, or any other capacity? + +Mr. McCONE. Yes; I have determined to my satisfaction that he had no +such connection, and I would like to read for the record---- + +Mr. RANKIN. Will you tell us briefly the extent of your inquiry? + +Mr. McCONE. In a form of affidavit, I have gone into the matter in +considerable detail personally, in my inquiry with the appropriate +people within the Agency, examined all records in our files relating to +Lee Harvey Oswald. We had knowledge of him, of course, because of his +having gone to the Soviet Union, as he did, putting him in a situation +where his name would appear in our name file. However, my examination +has resulted in the conclusion that Lee Harvey Oswald was not an agent, +employee, or informant of the Central Intelligence Agency. The Agency +never contacted him, interviewed him, talked with him, or received or +solicited any reports or information from him, or communicated with +him directly or in any other manner. The Agency never furnished him +with any funds or money or compensated him directly or indirectly in +any fashion, and Lee Harvey Oswald was never associated or connected +directly or indirectly in any way whatsoever with the Agency. When +I use the term "Agency," I mean the Central Intelligence Agency, of +course. + +Representative FORD. Does that include whether or not he was in the +United States, in the Soviet Union, or anyplace? + +Mr. McCONE. Anyplace; the United States, Soviet Union, or anyplace. + +Mr. RANKIN. Mr. McCone, is that the affidavit you are going to supply +the Commission in connection with our request for it? + +Mr. McCONE. Yes; this is the substance of the affidavit which I will +supply to you. + +Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Chairman, I ask leave to mark that Exhibit 870 and have +it introduced in evidence as soon as we receive it from Mr. McCone as a +part of this record. + +The CHAIRMAN. It may be admitted. + +(Commission Exhibit No. 870 was marked for identification and received +in evidence.) + +Mr. RANKIN. Would you tell us about your procedures in regard to having +an agent or informer or any person acting in that type of capacity? +Does that have to pass through your hands or come to your attention in +the Agency? + +Mr. McCONE. No; it does not have to come through my personal hands. + +Mr. RANKIN. Without disclosing something that might be a security +matter, could you tell us how that is handled in a general way in the +Agency? + +Mr. McCONE. Mr. Helms, who is directly responsible for that division of +the Agency's activities as a Deputy Director, might explain. Would that +be permissible? + +Mr. RANKIN. Could we have him sworn then? + +The CHAIRMAN. Yes. + +The CHAIRMAN. Would you raise your right hand and be sworn. Do you +solemnly swear the testimony you are about to give before this +Commission shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the +truth, so help you God? + +Mr. HELMS. I do. + +Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Helms, you heard the inquiry just directed to Mr. +McCone. Could you answer the question directly? + +Mr. HELMS. Yes; we have a specific procedure which we follow in all +cases where the Agency is in contact, for the purposes of acquiring +intelligence or whatever the case may be, with an individual. We not +only have a record of the individual's name, but we also usually get +information of a biographical nature. We then check this individual's +name against our record. At that point we make a determination as to +whether we desire to use this man or not to use him. It varies from +case to case as to how many officers may be involved in approving a +specific recruitment. May I go off the record? + +(Discussion off the record.) + +Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Helms, did you have anything to do on behalf of your +Agency with determining whether or not Lee Harvey Oswald was acting in +any of the capacities I have described in my questions to Mr. McCone? + +Mr. HELMS. Yes; I did. + +Mr. RANKIN. Will you tell us what you did in that regard? + +Mr. HELMS. On Mr. McCone's behalf, I had all of our records searched +to see if there had been any contacts at any time prior to President +Kennedy's assassination by anyone in the Central Intelligence Agency +with Lee Harvey Oswald. We checked our card files and our personnel +files and all our records. + +Now, this check turned out to be negative. In addition I got in touch +with those officers who were in positions of responsibility at the +times in question to see if anybody had any recollection of any contact +having even been suggested with this man. This also turned out to be +negative, so there is no material in the Central Intelligence Agency, +either in the records or in the mind of any of the individuals, that +there was any contact had or even contemplated with him. + +Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Helms---- + +Mr. DULLES. Could I ask one question there? Do you recall or do you +know at what time the name of Lee Harvey Oswald was carded, first came +to your attention so it became a matter of record, in the Agency? + +Mr. HELMS. Sir, I would want to consult the record to be absolutely +accurate, but it is my impression that the first time that his name +showed up on any Agency records was when he went to the Soviet Union. + +Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Helms, in connection with your work you have supplied +information to the Commission and we have requested many things from +your Agency. Can you tell the Commission as to whether or not you have +supplied us all the information the Agency has, at least in substance, +in regard to Lee Harvey Oswald? + +Mr. HELMS. We have; all. + +Representative FORD. Has a member of the Commission staff had full +access to your files on Lee Harvey Oswald? + +Mr. HELMS. He has, sir. + +Representative FORD. They have had the opportunity to personally look +at the entire file? + +Mr. HELMS. We invited them to come out to our building in Langley and +actually put the file on the table so that they could examine it. + +The CHAIRMAN. I was personally out there, too, and was offered the same +opportunity. I did not avail myself of it because of the time element, +but I was offered the same opportunity. + +Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Helms, can you explain, according to the limitations of +security, the reasons why we examined materials but did not always take +them, in a general way? + +Mr. HELMS. Yes; I can. + +In our communications between individuals working overseas and in +Washington, we for security reasons have a method of hiding the +identities of individuals in telegrams and dispatches by the use of +pseudonyms and cryptonyms. For this reason, we never allow the original +documents to leave our premises. However, on the occasion when the +representatives of the Commission staff looked at these files, we sat +there and identified these pseudonyms and cryptonyms and related them +to the proper names of the individuals concerned, so that they would +know exactly what the correspondence said. + +Mr. RANKIN. By that you mean the representatives of the Commission were +able to satisfy themselves that they had all of the information for the +benefit of the Commission without disclosing matters that would be a +threat to security; is that right? + +Mr. HELMS. It is my understanding that they were satisfied. + +Representative FORD. Mr. McCone, do you have full authority from higher +authority to make full disclosure to this Commission of any information +in the files of the Central Intelligence Agency? + +Mr. McCONE. That is right. It is my understanding that it is the desire +of higher authority that this Commission shall have access to all +information of every nature in our files or in the minds of employees +of Central Intelligence Agency. + +Representative FORD. On the basis of that authority, you or the Agency +have made a full disclosure? + +Mr. McCONE. That is correct. + +Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Helms, I have handed you Exhibits 868 and 869 directed +to you acting for the Agency, the first one being from the Commission +to you and the second one, 869, being your answer in regard to your +full and complete disclosure in regard to your records; isn't that +correct? + +Mr. HELMS. That is correct. May I say, Mr. Rankin, that any +information, though, subsequent to this correspondence which we may +obtain we will certainly continue to forward to the Commission. + +Mr. RANKIN. Thank you. Mr. Chief Justice, I ask leave to have those two +exhibits, 868 and 869, received in evidence at this time. + +The CHAIRMAN. They may be admitted under those numbers. + +(Commission Exhibits Nos. 868 and 869 were marked for identification +and received in evidence.) + +Mr. RANKIN. Mr. McCone, if I may return to you, I will now ask you if +you have any credible information that you know of or evidence causing +you to believe that there is any or was any conspiracy either domestic +or foreign in connection with the assassination of President Kennedy? + +Mr. McCONE. No; I have no information, Mr. Rankin, that would lead me +to believe or conclude that a conspiracy existed. + +Representative FORD. Did the CIA make an investigation of this aspect +of the assassination? + +Mr. McCONE. We made an investigation of all developments after the +assassination which came to our attention which might possibly have +indicated a conspiracy, and we determined after these investigations, +which were made promptly and immediately, that we had no evidence to +support such an assumption. + +Representative FORD. Did the Central Intelligence Agency have any +contact with Oswald during the period of his life in the Soviet Union? + +Mr. McCONE. No; not to my knowledge, nor to the knowledge of those who +would have been in a position to have made such contact, nor according +to any record we have. + +Representative FORD. Did the Central Intelligence Agency have any +personal contact with Oswald subsequent to his return to the United +States? + +Mr. McCONE. No. + +Mr. RANKIN. Mr. McCone, your Agency made a particular investigation in +connection with any allegations about a conspiracy involving the Soviet +Union or people connected with Cuba, did you not? + +Mr. McCONE. Yes, we did. We made a thorough, a very thorough, +investigation of information that came to us concerning an alleged +trip that Oswald made to Mexico City during which time he made contact +with the Cuban Embassy in Mexico City in an attempt to gain transit +privileges from Mexico City to the Soviet Union via Havana. We +investigated that thoroughly. + +Mr. RANKIN. Do you also include in your statement that you found no +evidence of conspiracy in all of that investigation? + +Mr. McCONE. That is correct. + +Mr. RANKIN. And also the investigation you made of the period that Lee +Harvey Oswald was in the Soviet Union? + +Mr. McCONE. That is right. + +Mr. RANKIN. Mr. McCone---- + +Mr. DULLES. Could I ask one question there? Does your answer, Mr. +McCone, include a negation of any belief that Oswald was working for or +on behalf of the Soviet Union at any time when you were in contact with +him or knew about his activities? + +Mr. McCONE. As I have already stated, we were never in contact with +Oswald. We have no evidence that he was working for or on behalf of the +Soviet Union at any time. According to his diary, Oswald did receive a +subsidy from the Soviet Red Cross which we assume had the approval of +the authorities. Such a payment does not indicate to us that he even +worked for the Soviet intelligence services. Furthermore, we have no +other evidence that he ever worked for Soviet intelligence. + +Representative FORD. Is the Central Intelligence Agency continuing any +investigation into this area? + +Mr. McCONE. No, because, at the present time, we have no information in +our files that we have not exhaustively investigated and disposed of to +our satisfaction. Naturally, any new information that might come into +our hands would be investigated promptly. + +Mr. HELMS. I simply wanted to add that we obviously are interested in +anything we can pick up applying to this case, and anything we get will +be immediately sent to the Commission, so that we haven't stopped our +inquiries or the picking up of any information we can from people who +might have it. This is on a continuing basis. + +Representative FORD. In other words, the case isn't closed. + +Mr. HELMS. It is not closed as far as we are concerned. + +Mr. RANKIN. Would that be true, Mr. Helms, even after the Commission +completed its report, you would keep the matter open if there was +anything new that developed in the future that could be properly +presented to the authorities? + +Mr. HELMS. Yes. I would assume the case will never be closed. + +Mr. RANKIN. Mr. McCone, do you have any ideas about improving the +security provisions for the President that you would like to relate to +the Commission? + +Mr. McCONE. Well, this is, in my opinion, a very important question +which I am sure this Commission will--has and will--devote a +considerable amount of thought to, and undoubtedly have some +recommendations as part of its report. + +Mr. RANKIN. Your Agency does have an important function in some aspects. + +Mr. McCONE. We have a very important function in connection with the +foreign travels of the President, and I would like to inform the +Commission as to how we discharge that responsibility by quickly +reviewing the chronology of the Central Intelligence Agency's support +of President Kennedy's visit to Mexico City from the 29th of June to +the 2d of July 1962. + +Mr. RANKIN. Will you please do that. + +The CHAIRMAN. Director, is that a security matter? + +Mr. McCONE. No. I think I can handle this for the record. + +The CHAIRMAN. Very well. + +Mr. McCONE. If I have to make a remark or two off the record I will ask +that privilege. + +That visit, as I said, started on the 29th of June. On the 28th of +April, in anticipation of the visit, instructions were transmitted to +Mexico for the Ambassador to coordinate planning and informational +guidance for the advance party of the Secret Service. + +We asked that the Secret Service be given information on local groups +and persons who would cause disturbances, embarrassments or physical +harm, an estimate of the determination and ability of the Mexican +government to prevent incidents, and preparation for special briefings +to the Embassy officials and the Secret Service, and such additional +support and communications personnel that might be required. + +These instructions were given two months before the trip. + +On the 15th of May, we received confirmed information that the +President would visit Mexico on the specific dates. On the 1st of June +the Secret Service was supplied by the Agency with the detailed survey +of Mexican security forces that would be called upon to protect the +President. + +Friendly and allied governments were informed of the visit and their +cooperation and pertinent informational support was solicited. From +this date through the 2d of July daily information reports were +furnished to the State Department, the Secret Service, the FBI and the +military services. + +That is from the 1st of June to the 2d of July, a period of 31, +32 days. On the 8th of June the Secret Service advance party was +briefed in detail by a group of officers of the Agency on the Mexican +government's plans for the protection of the President, including +current information on the size, strength and capabilities of potential +troublemakers. + +Hazardous locations and times in the planned itinerary were identified, +political and economic issues that might be invoked by hostile elements +for demonstrations were specified. + +On the 11th of June, the Secret Service advance party left for Mexico +supported by additional security personnel to assist in coordinating an +informational report and the followup activity required. + +Especially prepared national intelligence estimates on the current +security conditions in Mexico was approved by the United States +Intelligence Board on the 13th of June. + +On the 15th of June arrangements were completed to reenforce +communications facilities. On the 24th of June a conference at the +State Department was held at the request of the President for reviewing +security measures, and this meeting I attended personally, and reported +to the State Department on the essence of all that had gone before. + +Emergency contingency plans were discussed and a consensus was reached +that the President should make the visit as scheduled. + +On the 27th of June, a final updated special national intelligence +estimate was prepared, and this indicated no basic changes in the +security assessment that Mexican government was prepared to cope with +foreseeable security contingencies. + +On the 28th of June, a final briefing report was prepared for the +Director's use which indicated the security precautions of the Mexican +government had effectively forestalled major organized incidents, and +our informed estimate was that the President would receive a great +welcome. + +The report was presented to the President personally by the Director at +noon in a final meeting prior to departure on this trip. + +From the 29th of June to the 2d of July in Washington headquarters, +headquarters components remained on a 24-hour alert for close support +of the embassy and the Secret Service. + +So, not only was the Central Intelligence Agency and its various +components involved in this for a period of 2 months in close +collaboration with the Secret Service, but by bringing in the United +States Intelligence Board we brought in all of the intelligence assets +of the United States Government in connection with this particular +trip. I thought this procedure which is followed regularly on all trips +that the President makes out of the country would be of interest to the +Commission. + +The CHAIRMAN. That is the normal format of your procedures? + +Mr. McCONE. Yes. + +The CHAIRMAN. When the President goes abroad? + +Mr. McCONE. Yes, I selected this one. The same was true of his trip to +Caracas or Paris or elsewhere. + +Mr. RANKIN. Mr. McCone, in your investigation of the Oswald matter +did you use the same approach or a comparable approach to a liaison +with the other intelligence agencies of government to try to discover +anything that might involve your jurisdiction. + +Mr. McCONE. Yes. We were in very close touch with the Federal Bureau +of Investigation and with the Secret Service on a 24-hour basis at all +points, both domestic and foreign, where information had been received +which might have a bearing on this problem. + +Mr. RANKIN. Assassination? + +Mr. McCONE. Assassination. + +Mr. RANKIN. Do you have an opinion, Mr. McCone, as to whether or not +the liaison between the intelligence agencies of the United States +Government might be improved if they had better mechanical, computer or +other facilities of that type, and also some other ideas or methods of +dealing with each other? + +Mr. McCONE. There is a great deal of improvement of information that +might be of importance in a matter of this kind through the use of +computers and mechanical means of handling files, and you, Mr. Chief +Justice, saw some of our installations and that was only a beginning of +what really can be done. + +The CHAIRMAN. Yes; I did. + +Mr. McCONE. I would certainly urge that all departments of government +that are involved in this area adopt the most modern methods of +automatic data processing with respect to the personnel files and other +files relating to individuals. This would be helpful. + +But I emphasize that a computer will not replace the man, and +therefore, we must have at all levels a complete exchange of +information and cooperation between agencies where they share this +responsibility, and in going through this chronology, it points out the +type of exchange and cooperation that the Central Intelligence Agency +tries to afford both the Secret Service and the Federal Bureau of +Investigation in matters where we have a common responsibility. + +I would like to emphasize the very great importance of this exchange, +which is not always easily accomplished because it is cumbersome. + +Sometimes it becomes involved in distracting people from other duties, +and so on and so forth. + +I have given a good deal of thought to the matter of some incentives to +bring out informers, thinking about the old informer statutes in which +some of them are still on the books, in which people were rewarded for +informing when others conducted themselves in a damaging way. + +Mr. DULLES. Smuggling cases? + +Mr. McCONE. Smuggling cases. But I believe that something could be +done. I call to the attention of this Commission one of the laws +relating to atomic energy, namely the Atomic Weapons Reward Act of 15 +July 1955 wherein a substantial reward is offered for the apprehension +of persons responsible for the clandestine introduction or manufacture +in the United States of such nuclear material or atomic weapons. It +is suggested that the Commission may wish to recommend that original +but similar legislation be enacted which would induce individuals to +furnish information bearing on Presidential security by offering a +substantial reward and preferential treatment. Substantial reward could +represent a significant inducement even to staff officers and personnel +of secret associations and state security organs abroad who are +charged with assassination and sabotage. We have information that such +personnel and police state apparatuses have expressed and, in certain +cases, acted upon their repugnance for such work and for the political +system which requires such duties to be performed. + +Mr RANKIN. Is it your belief, Mr. McCone, that the methods for exchange +of information between intelligence agencies of the Government could be +materially improved. + +Mr. McCONE. I think the exchange between the Central Intelligence +Agency and the Federal Bureau of Investigation or the Secret Service +is quite adequate. I am not informed as to whether the exchanges +between the Secret Service and the FBI are equally adequate. I have not +gone into that. I would have no means to know. Certainly it is most +important that it be done. + +Mr. DULLES. Looking back now that you have the full record, do you feel +that you received from the State Department adequate information at the +time that they were aware of Oswald's defection and later activities +in the Soviet Union, did you get at the time full information from the +State Department on those particular subjects? + +Mr. McCONE. Well, I am not sure that we got full information, Mr. +Dulles. The fact is we had very little information in our files. + +Mr. HELMS. It was probably minimal. + +Representative FORD. Why did that happen? + +Mr. HELMS. I am not sure, Mr. Ford. I can only assume that the State +Department had a limited amount. Interestingly enough, it is far enough +back now so that it's very hard to find people who were in the Moscow +Embassy at the time familiar with the case, so in trying to run this +down one comes to a lot of dead ends and I, therefore, would not like +to hazard any guess. + +Representative FORD. Whose responsibility is it; is it CIA's +responsibility to obtain the information or State Department's +responsibility to supply it to Central Intelligence and to others. + +Mr. McCONE. With respect to a U.S. citizen who goes abroad, it is the +responsibility of the State Department through its various echelons, +consular service and embassies and so forth. + +For a foreigner coming into the United States, who might be of +suspicious character, coming here for espionage, subversion, +assassination and other acts of violence, we would, and we do exchange +this information immediately with the FBI. + +Representative FORD. But in this particular case, Oswald in the Soviet +Union, whose responsibility was it to transmit the information, +whatever it was, to the Central Intelligence Agency? + +Mr. McCONE. Well, it would be the State Department's responsibility +to do that. Whether there really exists an order or orders that +information on an American citizen returning from a foreign country be +transmitted to CIA, I don't believe there are such regulations which +exist. + +Mr. HELMS. I don't believe they do, either. + +Mr. McCONE. I am not sure they should. + +Representative FORD. It wouldn't be your recommendation that you, the +head of Central Intelligence Agency, should have that information? + +Mr. DULLES. In a case of an American defecting to a Communist country, +shouldn't you have it? + +Mr. McCONE. Certainly certain types of information. What we ought to +be careful of here, would be to rather clearly define the type of +information which should be transmitted, because after all, there are +hundreds of thousands or millions of Americans going back and forth +every year, and those records are the records of the Immigration +Service, the Passport Division. + +Mr. DULLES. I was thinking of a person who having defected might, of +course, have become an agent and then reinserted into the United States +and if you were informed of the first steps to that you might help to +prevent the second step. + +Mr. McCONE. Well, certainly information on defectors or possible +recruitments should be, and I have no question is being, transmitted. + +Representative FORD. What I was getting at was whether the procedures +were adequate or inadequate, whether the administration was proper +or improper in this particular case, and if some files you have that +started when he attempted to defect are inadequate why we ought to +know, and we ought to know whether the basic regulations were right or +wrong, whether the administration was proper or improper, that is what +I am trying to find out. + +I would like your comment on it. + +Mr. McCONE. Well, I think the basic regulations should be examined +very carefully to be sure that they are copper-riveted down and +absolutely tight. What I am saying, however, is because of the vast +number of Americans who go abroad and stay in foreign countries for +indefinite periods of time, it would be an impossible task to transmit +all information available in the State Department and Immigration +Service as files to the Central Intelligence Agency. It would not be a +productive exercise. What must be transmitted and is being transmitted, +while I cannot recite the exact regulations is information that is, +becomes, known to the various embassies of suspicious Americans that +might have been recruited and defected, and then returned so that they +would be agents in place. + +Representative FORD. In this case, Oswald attempted to defect, he did +not, he subsequently sought the right to return to the United States, +he had contact with the Embassy. Was the Central Intelligence Agency +informed of these steps, step by step, by the Department of State? + +Mr. McCONE. You might answer that. + +Mr. HELMS. Mr. Ford, in order to answer this question precisely I +would have to have the file in front of me. I have not looked at it +in some time so I don't have it all that clearly in mind. But it is +my impression that we were not informed step by step. When I say that +there is no requirement that I am aware of that the State Department +should inform us and when I said a moment ago that we had minimal +information from them, this was not in any sense a critical comment but +a statement of fact. + +But an American going to the American Embassy would be handled by +the Embassy officials, either consular or otherwise. This would be a +matter well within the purview of the State Department to keep all +the way through, because we do not have responsibility in the Central +Intelligence Agency for the conduct or behavior or anything else of +American citizens when they are abroad unless there is some special +consideration applying to an individual, or someone in higher authority +requests assistance from us. So that the State Department, I think, +quite properly would regard this matter as well within their purview +to handle themselves within the Embassy or from the Embassy back to +the Department of State without involving the Agency in it while these +events were occurring. + +Representative FORD. I think it could be argued, however, that the +uniqueness of this individual case was such that the Department of +State might well have contacted the Central Intelligence Agency to +keep them abreast of the developments as they transpired. This is +not--and when I say this, I mean the Oswald case--is not an ordinary +run-of-the-mill-type of case. It is far from it. Even back in the time, +well, from the time he went, and particularly as time progressed, and +he made application to return, there is nothing ordinary about the +whole situation. + +Mr. McCONE. That is quite correct; there is no question about that. + +Representative FORD. And I am only suggesting that if the regulations +were not adequate at the time and are not now, maybe something ought to +be done about it. + +Mr. RANKIN. Mr. McCone, when you said that supplying all of the +information about U.S. citizens who went abroad and came back to +the country would not be a profitable exercise, did that comment +include the thought that such an intrusion upon all citizens would be +questionable? + +Mr. McCONE. Such an intrusion? + +Mr. RANKIN. Upon their right to travel. + +Mr. McCONE. Well, I think this would have a bearing on it. I did +not have that particular matter in mind when I made that statement, +however. I was just thinking of the---- + +Mr. RANKIN. Burden? + +Mr. McCONE. Of the burden of vast numbers involved. + +Mr. RANKIN. Do you you have any thought in regard to whether it would +be an intrusion upon their rights? + +Mr. McCONE. Well, that would be a matter of how it was handled. +Certainly, if it was handled in a way that the counterpart of providing +the information was to impose restrictions on them, then it would be an +intrusion on their rights. + +Mr. RANKIN. Yes. + +Senator COOPER. May I inquire? + +The CHAIRMAN. Senator Cooper. + +Senator COOPER. I missed the first part of Mr. McCone's testimony; I +went to answer a quorum call. Perhaps the question has been asked. + +It has been brought into evidence that a number of people in the +Embassy talked to Oswald when he first defected, and the various +communications with the Embassy and, of course, when he left to come +back to the United States. Have we been able to ascertain the names of +officials in the Embassy or employees with whom Oswald talked on these +various occasions? + +Mr. McCONE. I am not familiar with them; no. + +Mr. HELMS. Neither am I, sir. + +Mr. McCONE. I presume that the Department's inquiries have covered it. + +Senator COOPER. Is it possible to ascertain the names of those +employees? + +Mr. RANKIN. Senator Cooper, I can answer that. We have inquired of +the State Department for that information, and are in the process of +obtaining it all. + +Senator COOPER. Taking into consideration your answers to the previous +question, would it have been possible in your judgment to have secured +more comprehensive information about the activities of Oswald in Russia? + +Mr. McCONE. It would not have been possible for the Central +Intelligence Agency to have secured such information because we do not +have the resources to gain such information. + +The CHAIRMAN. Anything more? Congressman Ford? + +Representative FORD. Did the Central Intelligence Agency investigate +any aspects of Oswald's trip to Mexico? + +Mr. McCONE. Yes; we did. + +Representative FORD. Can you give us any information on that? + +Mr. McCONE. Yes; we were aware that Oswald did make a trip to Mexico +City and it was our judgment that he was there in the interest of +insuring transit privileges and that he made contact with the Cuban +Embassy while he was there. + +We do not know the precise results of his effort, but we assumed, +because he returned to the United States, he was unsuccessful. We have +examined to every extent we can, and using all resources available to +us every aspect of his activity and we could not verify that he was +there for any other purpose or that his trip to Mexico was in any way +related to his later action in assassinating President Kennedy. + +Representative FORD. Did the Central Intelligence Agency make any +investigation of any alleged connection between Oswald and the Castro +government? + +Mr. McCONE. Yes; we investigated that in considerable detail, because +information came to us through a third party that he had carried on +a rather odd discussion with Cuban officials in the Cuban Embassy in +Mexico City. The allegation was that he had received under rather odd +circumstances a substantial amount of money in the Cuban Embassy, and +the statement was made by one who claimed to have seen this transaction +take place. After a very thorough and detailed examination of the +informer, it finally turned out by the informer's own admission that +the information was entirely erroneous, and was made for the purpose +of advancing the informer's own standing with the Central Intelligence +Agency and the U.S. Government and it was subsequently retracted by the +informer in its entirety. + +Representative FORD. Was there any other evidence or alleged +evidence---- + +Mr. McCONE. Parenthetically, I might add a word for the record that +the date that the informer gave as to the date in time of this +alleged transaction was impossible because through other, from other, +information we determined that Oswald was in the United States at that +particular time. + +Representative FORD. Did the Central Intelligence Agency ever make an +investigation or did it ever check on Mr. Ruby's trip to Cuba or any +connections he might have had with the Castro government? + +Mr. McCONE. Not to my knowledge. + +Mr. HELMS. We had no information. + +Mr. McCONE. We had no information. + +Representative FORD. Central Intelligence Agency has no information of +any connections of Ruby to the Castro government? + +Mr. McCONE. That is right. + +Representative FORD. Did you ever make a check of that? + +Mr. HELMS. We checked our records to see if we had information and +found we did not. + +Representative FORD. What would that indicate, the fact that you +checked your records? + +Mr. HELMS. That would indicate that if we had received information +from our own resources, that the Cubans were involved with Mr. Ruby in +something which would be regarded as subversive, we would then have +it in our files. But we received no such information, and I don't, +by saying this, mean that he did not. I simply say we don't have any +record of this. + +Representative FORD. That is all. + +The CHAIRMAN. Director, thank you very much, sir, for coming and being +with us and we appreciate the help your department has given to us. + +(Whereupon, at 12:30 p.m., the President's Commission recessed.) + + + + +_Thursday, June 4, 1964_ + +TESTIMONY OF THOMAS J. KELLEY, LEO J. GAUTHIER, LYNDAL L. SHANEYFELT, +AND ROBERT A. FRAZIER + +The President's Commission met at 2:10 p.m., on June 4, 1964, at 200 +Maryland Avenue NE., Washington, D.C. + +Present were Chief Justice Earl Warren. Chairman; Senator John Sherman +Cooper, Representative Gerald R. Ford, Allen W. Dulles, and John J. +McCloy, members. + +Also present were J. Lee Rankin, general counsel; Norman Redlich, +assistant counsel; Arlen Specter, assistant counsel; Waggoner Carr, +attorney general of Texas; and Charles Murray, observer. + + +TESTIMONY OF THOMAS J. KELLEY + +(Members present at this point: The Chairman, Representative Ford, Mr. +Dulles, and Mr. McCloy.) + +Mr. SPECTER. Mr. Chief Justice, we have witnesses today who are Thomas +J. Kelley of the Secret Service; Leo J. Gauthier, Lyndal L. Shaneyfelt, +and Robert A. Frazier of the FBI. They are going to testify concerning +certain onsite tests made in Dallas at the scene of the assassination, +and of preliminary studies which were made prior to the onsite tests at +Dallas. + +May we have them sworn in as a group? + +The CHAIRMAN. Yes. Will you rise and raise your right hands, please? + +Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to give before +this Commission shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but +the truth, so help you God? + +Mr. KELLEY. I do. + +Mr. GAUTHIER. I do. + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. I do. + +Mr. FRAZIER. I do. + +The CHAIRMAN. You may be seated, gentlemen. Mr. Kelley, will you take +the witness chair, please? Mr. Specter will conduct the examination. + +Mr. SPECTER. Will you state your full name for the record, please? + +Mr. KELLEY. Thomas J. Kelley. + +Mr. SPECTER. By whom are you employed? + +Mr. KELLEY. I am employed by the U.S. Secret Service. + +Mr. SPECTER. In what capacity? + +Mr. KELLEY. I am an inspector. + +Mr. SPECTER. In a general way, of what do your duties consist, Mr. +Kelley? + +Mr. KELLEY. As an inspector, I am part of the chief's headquarters +staff. I conduct office inspections of our field and protective +installations, and report on their actions to the chief. + +Mr. SPECTER. How long have you been with the Secret Service? + +Mr. KELLEY. Twenty-two years. + +Mr. SPECTER. Did you participate in the planning of the onsite tests at +Dallas, Tex.? + +Mr. KELLEY. I did. + +Mr. SPECTER. And did you participate in the making of those tests? + +Mr. KELLEY. Yes, sir. + +Mr. SPECTER. On what date was the onsite testing made? + +Mr. KELLEY. It was a week ago Sunday. + +Mr. SPECTER. That would be May 24, 1964? + +Mr. KELLEY. Yes, sir. + +Mr. SPECTER. What car was used for testing purposes? + +Mr. KELLEY. The car that was used was a 1956 specially built Cadillac, +open, a convertible, seven-passenger Cadillac. It has a termination +of 679-X, the Secret Service calls it. It is a car that is used as a +followup car to the President's car when he is in a motorcade. + +Mr. SPECTER. Was that car actually in the motorcade on November 22, +1963, in Dallas? + +Mr. KELLEY. Yes; it was. + +Mr. SPECTER. Was there any special reason why the car in which the +President rode on November 22 was not used? + +Mr. KELLEY. Yes; the car in which the President rode has been modified +by a body builder in Cincinnati, the Hess & Eisenhardt Co. of +Cincinnati. + +Mr. SPECTER. And do you have a diagram showing the dimensions of the +Secret Service followup car which was used during the onsite tests? + +Mr. KELLEY. I have. It was felt that the best simulation of the test +could be presented by having a car that was similar to the car in which +the President was riding, which was also an open Lincoln convertible. + +Mr. SPECTER. May it please the Commission, I would like to mark the +diagram of the followup car as Commission Exhibit No. 871 and move its +admission into evidence. + +The CHAIRMAN. It may be admitted. + +(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 871 for +identification, and received in evidence.) + +Mr. SPECTER. Do you have diagrams showing the dimensions of the +Presidential car? + +Mr. KELLEY. I have. + +Mr. SPECTER. I would like to have that marked as Commission Exhibit No. +872 and move for its admission into evidence. + +The CHAIRMAN. It may be admitted. + +(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 872 for +identification, and received in evidence.) + +Mr. SPECTER. Without specifying all of the details, Inspector Kelley, +are the followup car and the Presidential car generally similar in +dimensions? + +Mr. KELLEY. Yes; they are. There are very few, of course, +seven-passenger convertible cars in existence, and these are +specially--these cars are specially built for us by the Lincoln--the +Ford Motor Co. and the followup car by the General Motors Co. + +Mr. SPECTER. Would you describe what seating arrangements are present +in each of those cars in between the permanent front seat and the +permanent rear seat? + +Mr. KELLEY. There are two jump seats that can be opened up for riders +in each of the cars. In the Presidential followup car, these jump seats +are usually occupied by Secret Service agents. + +In the President's car, they are occupied by the President's guests. + +On the day of the assassination, of course, the jump seats were +occupied by Mrs. Connally and Governor Connally. + +Mr. SPECTER. Mr. Kelley, have you brought with you two photographs +depicting the interior of the President's car? + +Mr. KELLEY. I have. These are photographs of the interior of the +President's car which is known to us as 100-X. + +Mr. SPECTER. May it please the Commission, I would like to mark one of +these photographs as Commission Exhibit No. 873, and move its admission +into evidence. + +The CHAIRMAN. It may be admitted. + +(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 873 for +identification, and received in evidence.) + +Mr. SPECTER. I would like to mark the second photograph as Commission +Exhibit No. 874 and move, also, its admission into evidence. + +The CHAIRMAN. It may be admitted. + +(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 874 for +identification, and received in evidence.) + +Mr. SPECTER. Would you describe briefly what Exhibit No. 873 depicts, +please? + +Mr. KELLEY. Exhibit No. 873 is a photograph of the interior of the +rear section of the 100-X, the President's car, showing the seating +arrangement in the car and the jump seats are in an open position. + +Mr. McCLOY. As of what time were these photographs taken? + +Mr. KELLEY. I am sorry, Commissioner. I don't know just when those +photographs were taken. They were taken some time in the last 2 years. + +Mr. SPECTER. As to Exhibits Nos. 873 and 874, do they accurately depict +the condition of the President's car as of November 22, 1963? + +Mr. KELLEY. They do, sir. + +Mr. SPECTER. Would you describe briefly what Exhibit No. 874 shows? + +Mr. KELLEY. Exhibit No. 874 is another photograph of the car taken from +the rear, and it shows the relative positions of the jump seats in an +open position as they relate to the back seat of the car. + +Mr. SPECTER. So that the record may be clear, which Commission number +has been given to the diagram of the President's car? + +Mr. KELLEY. The President's car is Exhibit No. 872. + +Mr. SPECTER. And the followup car diagram is what? + +Mr. KELLEY. Exhibit No. 871. + +Mr. McCLOY. Do you know whether these photographs were taken before or +after the assassination? + +Mr. KELLEY. Before the assassination. + +Mr. DULLES. Did the car that you used for this test--did that car have +the seat lifting capacity that I understand the President's car had? + +Mr. KELLEY. No; it did not, sir. I might say that there is in the +Commission's records photographs of the President's car after the +assassination, showing the condition of it after the assassination, at +the garage. + +Mr. SPECTER. On the President's car itself, what is the distance on the +right edge of the right jump seat, that is to say from the right edge +of the right jump seat to the door on the right side? + +Mr. KELLEY. There is 6 inches of clearance between the jump seat and +the door. + +Mr. SPECTER. And what is the relative position of the jump seat to the +rear seat on the Presidential automobile? + +Mr. KELLEY. There is 8-1/2 inches between the back of the jump seat and +the front of the back seat of the President's car, the rear seat. + +Mr. SPECTER. And what is the relative height of the jump seat and the +rear seat? + +Mr. KELLEY. The jump seat is 3 inches lower than the back seat in its +bottom position. That is, the back seat of the President's car had a +mechanism which would raise it 10-1/2 inches. But at the time of the +assassination, the seat was in its lowest position. + +Mr. SPECTER. And what is the differential between the jump seats and +the rear seat on the Secret Service followup car? + +Mr. KELLEY. The jump seat of the Secret Service car is a little closer +to the right door. + +However, the seating arrangement is not exactly the same in these cars, +in that there is a portion of a padding that comes around on the rear +seat. + +But relatively, when two persons are seated in this car, one in the +rear seat and one in the jump seat, they are in the same alinement as +they were in the President's car. + +Mr. DULLES. Could I ask one question in response to your statement +that the back seat was in its lowest position at the time of the +assassination? How do you know that? + +Mr. KELLEY. That is a result of questioning of the people who took the +car, the driver who took the car from the hospital to the plane. This +was one of the drivers of the Presidential car. There was nobody who +touched the car until it got back to the White House garage. It was in +his custody all the time. And he did not move it. + +When it was in the White House garage, it was at its lowest point. + +Mr. DULLES. And there would be no opportunity to lower it from the time +the President was shot? + +Mr. KELLEY. No, sir. The President, of course, operates that thing +himself. But when it was examined, at the time it was examined, and it +was in the custody of this man all the time, it had not been touched. + +Mr. SPECTER. What was the height of President Kennedy? + +Mr. KELLEY. He was 72-1/2 inches. + +Mr. SPECTER. And were you present when a man was placed in the same +position in the Secret Service followup car as that in which President +Kennedy sat in the Presidential car when the tests were simulated on +May 24th of this year? + +Mr. KELLEY. I was. + +Mr. SPECTER. Do you know the name of that individual? + +Mr. KELLEY. He was an FBI agent by the name of James W. Anderton. + +Mr. SPECTER. And what was the height of Mr. Anderton? + +Mr. KELLEY. He was 72-1/2 inches. + +Mr. SPECTER. Do you know the height of Governor Connally? + +Mr. KELLEY. Governor Connally was 6 foot 4. + +Mr. SPECTER. Was that the height of the Governor himself or the +Governor's stand-in? + +Mr. KELLEY. It was my understanding that Governor Connally was--6 foot +2, I guess. The Governor's stand-in, Mr. Doyle Williams, was 6 foot 4. + +Mr. SPECTER. Were you present when those two individuals were seated in +the Secret Service followup car? + +Mr. KELLEY. Yes, sir. + +Mr. SPECTER. And what adjustment was made, if any, so that the relative +positions of those two men were the same as the positioning of +President Kennedy and Governor Connally on November 22, 1963? + +Mr. KELLEY. The officials at Hess Eisenhardt, who have the original +plans of the President's car, conducted a test to ascertain how high +from the ground a person 72-1/2 inches would be seated in this car +before its modification. And it was ascertained that the person would +be 52.78 inches from the ground--that is, taking into consideration the +flexion of the tires, the flexion of the cushions that were on the car +at the time. + +Mr. SPECTER. When you say 52.78 inches, which individual would that be? + +Mr. KELLEY. That would be the President. + +Mr. SPECTER. And what part of his body? + +Mr. KELLEY. The top of the head would be 52.78 inches from the ground. + +When Mr. Anderton was placed in the followup car, it was found that the +top of his head was 62 inches from the ground. There was an adjustment +made so that there would be--the stand-in for Governor Connally would +be in relatively the same position, taking into consideration the +3-inch difference in the jump seat and the 2-inch difference in his +height. + +Mr. SPECTER. Considering the 3-inch difference in the jump seat--and +I believe it would be an inch and a half difference in height between +President Kennedy and Governor Connally--how much higher, then, +approximately, was President Kennedy sitting than the Governor on +November 22? + +Mr. KELLEY. I am not---- + +Mr. SPECTER. Would the President have been about an inch and half +higher than the Governor on the day of the assassination? + +Mr. KELLEY. The day of the assassination, yes. + +Mr. SPECTER. And were---- + +The CHAIRMAN. Wouldn't the height of these men depend upon the length +of their torso? + +Mr. KELLEY. Well,---- + +The CHAIRMAN. You have some people who are shortwaisted, some people +who are longwaisted. I don't know which either of these men were who +were of the same height. But I know there is a lot of difference in +men. We sometimes see the--a man who looks large sitting down, when he +stands up he is small, because he has a long torso, and vice versa. + +Mr. KELLEY. Of course the relative positions are apparent from the +films that were taken at the time of the assassination. It would be, of +course, that judgment--and it would have to be a judgment. But I think +the films indicate there was just about that much difference in their +height when both were seated. + +Mr. SPECTER. Inspector Kelley, I hand you a photograph marked as +Commission Exhibit No. 697, which has heretofore been admitted into +evidence, and identified by Governor Connally as depicting the +President and the Governor as they rode in the motorcade on the day of +the assassination, and I ask you if the stand-ins for the President and +the Governor were seated in approximately the same relative positions +on the reconstruction on May 24. + +Mr. KELLEY. Yes, sir; in my judgment that is very close. + +Mr. SPECTER. What marking, if any, was placed on the back of President +Kennedy--the stand-in for President Kennedy? + +Mr. KELLEY. There was a chalk mark placed on his coat, in this area +here. + +Mr. SPECTER. And what did that chalk mark represent? + +Mr. KELLEY. That represented the entry point of the shot which wounded +the President. + +Mr. SPECTER. And how was the location for that mark fixed or determined? + +Mr. KELLEY. That was fixed from the photographs of a medical drawing +that was made by the physicians and the people at Parkland and an +examination of the coat which the President was wearing at the time. + +Mr. SPECTER. As to the drawing, was that not the drawing made by the +autopsy surgeons from Bethesda Naval Hospital? + +Mr. KELLEY. Bethesda Naval. + +Mr. McCLOY. Not Parkland, as I understand it? + +Mr. SPECTER. No, sir; not Parkland, because as the record will show, +the President was not turned over at Parkland. + +Mr. KELLEY. I was shown a drawing of--that was prepared by some medical +technicians indicating the point of entry. + +Mr. SPECTER. Permit me to show you Commission Exhibit No. 386, which +has heretofore been marked and introduced into evidence, and I ask you +if that is the drawing that you were shown as the basis for the marking +of the wound on the back of the President's neck. + +Mr. KELLEY. Yes. + +Mr. SPECTER. And the record will show, may it please the Commission, +that this was made by the autopsy surgeons at Bethesda. + +And was there any marking placed on the back of Governor Connally? + +Mr. KELLEY. Yes; there was a marking placed on the back of his coat +in the area where the medical testimony had indicated the bullet had +entered Governor Connally. + +Mr. SPECTER. And what coat was worn by the stand-in for Governor +Connally? + +Mr. KELLEY. It was the coat that Governor Connally was wearing at the +time he was injured. + +Mr. SPECTER. And was the chalk circle placed around the hole which +appeared on the back of that coat garment? + +Mr. KELLEY. It was. + +Mr. SPECTER. Were certain tests made by the Secret Service shortly +after the day of the assassination? + +Mr. KELLEY. Yes. + +Mr. SPECTER. And were those tests reduced to photographs which were +compiled in an album? + +Mr. KELLEY. Yes; in Commission Document No. 88, we took some +photographs of the scene of the assassination on December 5, 1963, from +the window of the Texas Book Depository, and from the street. + +Mr. SPECTER. The number which you refer to bears Commission No. 88, +which is an index number which was given for internal Commission +document filing, but it has not been marked as a Commission exhibit. + +I would now like to mark it Commission Exhibit No. 875 and move for its +admission into evidence. + +The CHAIRMAN. It may be admitted. + +(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 875 for +identification, and received in evidence.) + +Mr. SPECTER. Does a photograph in that group show the condition of the +foliage of the trees in the vicinity where the assassination occurred? + +Mr. KELLEY. Yes. + +Mr. SPECTER. And is there---- + +Mr. DULLES. One question. This photograph was taken, though, several +weeks later, wasn't it? + +Mr. KELLEY. On December 5. + +Mr. DULLES. That was 2 weeks later. + +Mr. KELLEY. Two weeks later; yes, sir. + +Mr. DULLES. So the foliage would presumably be somewhat less in that +picture, would it not, than it was on November 22? + +Mr. KELLEY. No; actually, the foliage hadn't changed very much even in +the latest tests we are making. + +The CHAIRMAN. It was an evergreen? + +Mr. KELLEY. It was an oak tree, Mr. Chief Justice, I have been told the +foliage doesn't change much during the year. They call it pine oak. +Some people call it a life oak. But the people down there I talked to +said it was called a pine oak. + +Mr. SPECTER. And did you observe the foliage on the tree on May 24? + +Mr. KELLEY. I did, sir. + +Mr. SPECTER. And would you state the relative condition of that +foliage, as contrasted with the photographs you have before you taken +on December 5? + +Mr. KELLEY. It was very similar, practically the same. + +Mr. SPECTER. And the description which you have just given applies to +a large oak tree which intervened between a point on the sixth floor +of the Texas School Book Depository Building and any automobile which +would have been driven down the center lane of Elm Street in a westerly +direction? + +Mr. KELLEY. Yes, sir. + +Mr. SPECTER. Mr. Chief Justice, the purpose of having Inspector Kelley +testify was just to set the scene. That completes our questioning of +him. + +The CHAIRMAN. Very well. Thank you, Inspector Kelley. + +Mr. SPECTER. The next witness will be Inspector Gauthier. + + +TESTIMONY OF LEO J. GAUTHIER + +Mr. SPECTER. Would you state your full name for the record, please? + +Mr. GAUTHIER. Leo J. Gauthier. + +Mr. SPECTER. And by whom are you employed, sir? + +Mr. GAUTHIER. The Federal Bureau of Investigation. + +Mr. SPECTER. And what is your rank with the Federal Bureau of +Investigation? + +Mr. GAUTHIER. Inspector. I am in charge of the Bureau's exhibit +section, where we prepare investigative aids, consisting of diagrams, +charts, maps, three-dimensional exhibits, in connection with the +presentation of cases in court. + +Mr. SPECTER. How long have you been employed by the Federal Bureau of +Investigation? + +Mr. GAUTHIER. Twenty-nine years. + +Mr. SPECTER. Did you have occasion to reconstruct certain models to +scale in connection with the investigation on the assassination of +President Kennedy? + +Mr. GAUTHIER. Yes; I did. + +Mr. SPECTER. And what model reproduction, if any, did you make of the +scene of the assassination itself? + +Mr. GAUTHIER. The data, concerning the scene of the assassination, +was developed by the Bureau's Exhibits Section, including myself, at +the site on December 2, 3, and 4, of 1963. From this data we built +a three-dimensional exhibit, one-quarter of an inch to the foot. It +contained the pertinent details of the site, including street lights, +catch basin, concrete structures in the area, including buildings, +grades, scale models of the cars that comprised the motorcade, +consisting of the police lead car, the Presidential car, the followup +car, the Lincoln open car that the Vice President was riding in, and +the followup car behind the Vice-Presidential car. + +Mr. SPECTER. On the model of the scene itself, Mr. Gauthier, did you +reproduce a portion of the scene which is depicted in Commission +Exhibit No. 876? + +Mr. GAUTHIER. Yes; I did. + +Mr. SPECTER. Handing you that Commission Exhibit No. 876, I will ask +you to describe what it represents in toto. + +Mr. GAUTHIER. This is an aerial view of the site known as Dealey Plaza, +in Dallas, Tex. + +It indicates the large buildings that surround this area. They are +numbered 1 through 11. It indicates the main streets--Commerce, Main, +and Elm Streets, and the roadways through the plaza, including the +triple underpass. + +Mr. SPECTER. I now hand you a document which has been marked as +Commission Exhibit No. 877 and ask you if that document was obtained by +you in connection with the survey for the model which you prepared. + +Mr. GAUTHIER. Yes; this is a description of Dealey Plaza stating the +historical background and the physical description. + +Mr. SPECTER. I move at this time for the admission into evidence of +Commission Exhibits Nos. 876 and 877. + +The CHAIRMAN. They may be admitted. + +(The documents referred to were marked Commission Exhibits Nos. 876 and +877 for identification, and received in evidence.) + +Mr. SPECTER. Inspector, I now hand you two photographs marked as +Commission Exhibits Nos. 878 and 879 and ask you to state what those +depict. + +(The documents referred to were marked Commission Exhibits Nos. 878 and +879 for identification.) + +Mr. GAUTHIER. Commission Exhibit No. 878 is a view of the scale model +looking toward the northeast with the Texas School Book Depository +Building in the background, together with the Daltex Building, and a +portion of the Dallas County Courthouse. It includes the pergola to the +left, and the pericycle structure on the right with the reflecting pool +in the immediate background. + +It also shows the roadway through the plaza, which is an extension of +Elm Street, upon which appears miniature scale models of the vehicles +in the motorcade. + +Mr. DULLES. What motorcade is this? + +Mr. GAUTHIER. We are depicting the Presidential motorcade at the time +of the assassination, the motorcade that passed that area. + +Mr. DULLES. And this was done on what day? + +Mr. GAUTHIER. Our data to build this were compiled on December 2, 3, +and 4. It took about 5 weeks to prepare this exhibit in Washington. + +Mr. SPECTER. Would you now describe what is shown on the photograph? + +Mr. GAUTHIER. Commission Exhibit No. 879 is a view of the scale model +looking toward the southwest, in the direction of the Triple Underpass, +from a position on the sixth floor in the southeast corner window. + +Mr. SPECTER. I now hand you two additional photographs marked as +Commission Exhibits Nos. 880 and 881, and ask you to state what they +represent. + +(The documents referred to were marked Commission Exhibits Nos. 880 and +881 for identification.) + +Mr. GAUTHIER. Commission Exhibit No. 880 is a scale dimension view of +the sixth floor looking toward the southeast corner of the Texas School +Book Depository Building. + +Mr. SPECTER. And in the corner of that photograph is the area depicted +which has been described as the possible site of the rifleman? + +Mr. GAUTHIER. That is correct. + +Mr. SPECTER. Will you now describe what Exhibit No. 881 shows? + +Mr. GAUTHIER. Commission Exhibit No. 881 is a three-dimensional view of +leading down from Main Street and Commerce Street. Positioned on the +ramps are scale models of an armored van and two police squad cars. +There are also miniature mockups of individuals--representing position +of people in this area of the basement garage. + +Mr. SPECTER. And what event is depicted in that model, if any? + +Mr. GAUTHIER. This represents the arrangement, physical arrangement, in +the basement at the time Lee Harvey Oswald walked out from the elevator +through the jail office onto the basement ramp. + +Mr. SPECTER. And where have these models been maintained since the time +they were prepared by the FBI? + +Mr. GAUTHIER. The models were delivered to the Commission's building +and installed in the exhibits room on the first floor, on January 20, +1964. + +Mr. SPECTER. Mr. Chief Justice, I now move for the admission into +evidence of the photographs 878, 879, 880, and 881. + +The CHAIRMAN. They may be admitted. + +(The documents heretofore marked for identification as Commission +Exhibits Nos. 878, 879, 880, and 881, were received in evidence.) + +Mr. SPECTER. Did you participate in the onsite tests made in Dallas? + +Mr. GAUTHIER. I did. + +Mr. SPECTER. Was a survey made of the scene used to record some of the +results of that onsite testing? + +Mr. GAUTHIER. Yes. + +Mr. SPECTER. And by whom was the survey made? + +Mr. GAUTHIER. The survey was made on May 24, 1964, by Robert H. West, +county surveyor, a licensed State land surveyor, located at 160 County +Courthouse, Dallas, Tex. + +Mr. SPECTER. Have you brought the tracing of that survey with you today? + +Mr. GAUTHIER. I have; yes. + +Mr. SPECTER. And have you brought a cardboard reproduction of that? + +Mr. GAUTHIER. A copy made from the tracing; yes. + +Mr. SPECTER. Would you produce the cardboard copy made from the tracing +for the inspection of the Commission at this time, please? + +Mr. GAUTHIER. Yes. + +Mr. SPECTER. Would you produce the tracing at this time, please? + +Mr. GAUTHIER. Yes; the tracing is wrapped, and sealed in this container. + +Mr. SPECTER. Without breaking the seal, I will ask you if the cardboard +which has been set up here--may the record show it is a large +cardboard. I will ask you for the dimensions in just a minute. + +Does the printing on the cardboard represent an exact duplication of +the tracing which you have in your hand? + +Mr. GAUTHIER. Yes. + +Mr. SPECTER. May it please the Commission, we will mark the tracing +Commission Exhibit No. 882, and not take it out, since the cardboard +represents it, and place Commission Exhibit No. 883 on the cardboard +drawing itself, and I would like to move for the admission into +evidence of both Exhibits Nos. 882 and 883. + +The CHAIRMAN. They may be admitted. + +(The documents referred to were marked Commission Exhibits Nos. 882 and +883 for identification, and received in evidence.) + +Mr. SPECTER. Will you now describe what Exhibit No. 883 is, Inspector +Gauthier, indicating, first of all, the approximate size of the +cardboard? + +Mr. GAUTHIER. This is a copy of the tracing measuring 40 inches in +width, 72 inches in length. It is made to a scale of 1 inch equals 10 +feet. + +From the data compiled on that day by the surveyor, this tracing was +prepared. + +The area is bounded on the north by the Texas School Book Depository +Building, and on further here by railroad property. + +Mr. SPECTER. Indicating a general westerly direction from the School +Book Depository Building? + +Mr. GAUTHIER. Yes; I am pointing towards the west. + +On the east it is bounded by Houston Street. + +On the south by Main, which is a roadway going through Dealey Plaza. + +And on the west by the triple underpass. + +Located on this plat map are street lights accurately located, a +catch basin, certain trees, location of trees, the delineation of the +concrete pergola, which you see here on the photograph, the outer +boundaries of the pericycle, and the reflecting pool--locating exactly +the window in the Texas School Book Depository Building, in the +southeast corner, and also a tabulation of the measurements and angles +that the surveyor has compiled from certain positions identified for +him on the street by an observation from this window, an observation +from the position of Mr. Zapruder---- + +Mr. SPECTER. When you say this window, which window did you mean? + +Mr. GAUTHIER. The window on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book +Depository Building, the one in the southeast corner, the farthest +window. + +Mr. SPECTER. And when you identify the Zapruder position, what did you +mean by that? + +Mr. GAUTHIER. This is a concrete abutment of the pergola, located in +the area upon which Zapruder was standing at the time the movies were +made. + +(At this point, Senator Cooper entered the hearing room.) + +(At this point, Representative Ford withdrew from the hearing room.) + +Mr. SPECTER. Are there any other positions noted on the diagram that +you have been describing showing where other movies were made? + +Mr. GAUTHIER. Yes. + +(At this point, Chief Justice Warren withdrew from the hearing room.) + +Mr. GAUTHIER. We also locate the position of Mr. Nix, who also made +movies of the motorcade at certain points on the roadway. + +Mr. SPECTER. On what street was Mr. Nix standing? + +Mr. GAUTHIER. I am pointing now to the south side of Main Street, +approximately in front of the concrete pylon of the south pericycle +structure. That is a short distance from the intersection of Main and +Houston. + +Mr. SPECTER. A short distance west of the intersection? + +Mr. GAUTHIER. West. + +Mr. SPECTER. And what other position is shown of the situs of a movie +photographer? + +Mr. GAUTHIER. We have another position here by Mrs. Mary Muchmore, who +made movies of the motorcade movement along the Elm Street roadway on +November 22, 1963. + +Mr. SPECTER. I now hand you a schedule which I have marked as +Commission Exhibit No. 884 and ask you what figures are contained +thereon. + +(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 884 for +identification.) + +Mr. GAUTHIER. This is a copy of a tabulation which appears on the +plat map. It contains certain positions marked as frame numbers. It +indicates elevations and a column dealing with angle of sight from the +frame positions to the window and to a horizontal line. + +It also contains angels of sight the degree of sight and distances from +these positions to a point on the top of the bridge, handrail height. + +Mr. SPECTER. May it please the Commission, that concludes the +description of the general setting. + +I would like to move now at this time for the admission into evidence +of Exhibit No. 884, which completes all of the exhibits used heretofore. + +Mr. McCLOY. It may be admitted. + +(The document heretofore marked for identification as Commission +Exhibit No. 884, was received in evidence.) + +Mr. SPECTER. May it please the Commission, that completes the testimony +of Inspector Gauthier. + +I would like to call Mr. Shaneyfelt. + +Mr. McCLOY. Mr Shaneyfelt? + + +TESTIMONY OF LYNDAL L. SHANEYFELT + +Mr. SPECTER. Would you state your full name for the record, please? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; Lyndal L. Shaneyfelt. + +Mr. SPECTER. By whom are you employed? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. I am employed as a special agent of the Federal Bureau +of Investigation. + +Mr. SPECTER. And how long have you been so employed? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. Fourteen years. + +Mr. SPECTER. What are your duties, in a general way? + +Mr SHANEYFELT. I am assigned to the FBI Laboratory, as a document +examiner, and photographic expert. + +Mr. SPECTER. During the course of those duties, have you had occasion +to make an analysis of certain movies which purport to have been taken +of the assassination? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; I have. + +Mr. SPECTER. What movies have you examined? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. I have examined a roll of 8-mm. motion pictures made by +Mr. Abraham Zapruder of Dallas, Tex., that he took on November 22, of +the assassination of President Kennedy. + +Mr. SPECTER. Can you outline in a general way how the movies taken by +Mr. Zapruder came into your possession? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; Mr. Zapruder, on realizing what he had in his +photographs, took them immediately to a local Dallas processing plant, +had them processed, and had three copies made. He turned two copies of +those movies over to representatives of the Secret Service. + +The original and other copy he sold to Life magazine. + +The FBI was given one of the copies by the Secret Service. The Secret +Service loaned a copy to us long enough for us to make a copy for our +use, which we did, and this copy is the one that I have been examining. + +Mr. SPECTER. At any time in the course of the examination of the +Zapruder film, was the original of that movie obtained? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; it was. On February 25, Mr. Herbert Orth, who +is the assistant chief of the Life magazine photographic laboratory, +provided the original of the Zapruder film for review by the Commission +representatives and representatives of the FBI and Secret Service here +in the Commission building. + +Mr. SPECTER. And what was the reason for his making that original +available? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. Life magazine was reluctant to release the original +because of the value. So he brought it down personally and projected +it for us and allowed us to run through it several times, studying the +original. + +Mr. SPECTER. Was that because the copies were not distinct on certain +important particulars? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct. The original had considerably more +detail and more there to study than any of the copies, since in the +photographic process each time you copy you lose some detail. + +Mr. SPECTER. And subsequently, were slides made from the original of +the Zapruder film? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes. Since it was not practical to stop the projector +when using the original of the Zapruder film, because of the +possibility of damage to the film, Mr. Orth volunteered to prepare +35-mm. color slides directly from the original movie of all of the +pertinent frames of the assassination which were determined to be +frames 171 through 434. + +Mr. SPECTER. Would you outline what you mean by frames, please? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes. In motion picture films, the actual motion +picture film consists of consecutive pictures that are made in rapid +succession, each one being a separate exposure. And as the camera runs, +it films these, and they are projected fast enough on the screen when +you do not have the sensation of them being individual pictures, but +you have the sensation of seeing the movement--even though they are +individual little pictures on the film. So each one of those little +pictures on the film is called a frame. + +Mr. SPECTER. And how did you number the frames? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. I numbered the frames on the Zapruder film beginning +with No. 1 at the assassination portion of his film. + +He did have on his film some photographs of a personal nature that we +disregarded, and started at the first frame of his motion picture that +was made there on Elm Street of the assassination. + +Mr. SPECTER. And what was happening at the time of frame 1? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. At the time of frame 1, the police motorcycle lead +portion of the parade is in view, and that goes for several frames. +Then he stopped his camera, feeling that it might be some time before +the Presidential car came into view. Then when the Presidential car +rounded the corner and came into view, he started his camera again, and +kept it running throughout the route down Elm Street until the car went +out of sight on his right. + +Mr. SPECTER. What other movies have been examined by you in the course +of this analysis? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. An amateur 8-mm. motion picture film made by a Mr. +Orville Nix of Dallas, Tex., has been examined. Mr. Nix was standing on +the corner of Houston and Main Streets, photographing the motorcade as +it came down Main Street and turned right into Houston Street. + +Mr. SPECTER. Would you explain briefly how you ascertained the location +of Mr. Nix when he took those movies? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes. At the time Mr. Nix took his movies of the +motorcade coming down Main Street, he was standing on the corner, and +photographed them turning the corner and going down Houston Street. + +Mr. SPECTER. You are now indicating the southwest corner of Houston and +Main? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; southwest corner. After he heard the shots, he +hurried down along the curb of Main Street, but did not remember +exactly where he was standing. On the basis of his motion pictures, we +were able to analyze the pictures using his camera, and on the 23d of +May of this year, during the survey, preparatory to the reenactment, +we reestablished this point by viewing pictures taken from his motion +picture camera, at varying angles across here, in order to reestablish +the point where he was standing, based on the relationship of this +street light to other items in the background of the photograph. + +Mr. SPECTER. When you say this point, you mean the point of the Nix +position? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes. + +Mr. SPECTER. And when you say this street light, you are referring to a +street lamp on the opposite side of Main Street? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct. + +Mr. SPECTER. Would you outline in a general way how you obtained the +copy of the Nix film? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes. + +The Nix film was obtained as a result of a notice that the FBI gave to +processing plants in the Dallas area, that the FBI would be interested +in obtaining or knowing about any film they processed, that had +anything on it, relating to the assassination. + +And, as a result of this, we learned of the Nix film and arranged to +obtain a copy of it. + +Mr. SPECTER. Did you analyze any other film in connection with this +inquiry? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes. I analyzed a film that was 8-mm. motion picture +film taken by Mrs. Mary Muchmore of Dallas, Tex. + +Mr. SPECTER. How did you obtain a copy of that film? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. Our first knowledge of this came as a result of a +review of the book "Four Days" which covers the assassination period, +in which representatives of the FBI noted a colored picture taken from +a motion picture film that did not match either the Nix film or the +Zapruder film. + +Once we established that, then we investigated and learned that it was +made by Mrs. Mary Muchmore, and was at that time in the possession of +United Press International in New York, and made arrangements for them +to furnish us with a copy of the Muchmore film. That is the copy that I +used for examination. + +Mr. SPECTER. Where was Mrs. Muchmore standing at the time she took +those movies? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. Mrs. Muchmore was standing along Houston Street, +close to the corner of Main, on the west side of Houston Street, and +photographed the motorcade as it came down Main, turned into Houston, +and proceeded down Houston. She says that when she heard the shots, she +panicked, and did not take any further pictures. But a review of her +film shows pictures of the assassination route, the motorcade going +down Elm Street, beginning just before the shot that hit the President +in the head, and continuing a short period after that. + +Since she did not remember taking the pictures, we then, in the same +manner we established Mr. Nix's position, by checking the photograph in +relation to objects in the background, established her position along +this structure that is marked on the map and found that she had come +from the curb over to this point---- + +Mr. SPECTER. Indicating a position on Exhibit No. 883 marked "Muchmore +Position." + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct. + +And this we established as her position when she photographed a portion +of the assassination--motorcade. + +Mr. SPECTER. Would you elaborate just a bit more on how you ascertained +that position from fixed points in the background of the movie? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; we took a frame of the motion picture that is +close to the beginning and a picture that is close to the end, and made +a still photograph of those. We then establish a position and try to +line up the relationship of objects close to where we are standing with +objects in the background, so that they are in relation to each other +as they are in the picture. + +Then we take the other picture from farther along the motion picture +film, and do the same thing, and where those two lines intersect is +where she had to be standing. + +Mr. SPECTER. You draw two straight lines through two objects that you +line up on each of those pictures, and the intersection point of those +two lines is the calculated position of the camera. + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct. + +Mr. SPECTER. And was that same system used to ascertain the position of +Mr. Nix? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct. + +Mr. SPECTER. And how did you ascertain the position of Mr. Zapruder? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. Mr. Zapruder's position was known, as he was on the top +of the abutment along Elm Street--he stated that he was standing on the +abutment. And there is relatively no room to move around there, other +than to stand there. It is about 2 feet wide by 3 to 4 feet deep. + +(At this point, Representative Ford entered the hearing room.) + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. And aside from that, we checked that position against +his photographs and determined that that was in fact correct. + +Mr. SPECTER. Was the position of Mr. Zapruder confirmed through the use +of any other film? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; in Mr. Nix's motion picture films you can see Mr. +Zapruder standing on the abutment. + +Senator COOPER. May I ask a question there? + +After you had made those calculations to establish the position of +Mrs. Muchmore and Mr. Nix and Mr. Zapruder, did you then identify +those positions to the three and ask them whether or not it +corresponded--your findings corresponded with their recollection as to +where they were standing? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. We did not do that; no. Mr. Nix, I might say, did state +that he went down along this side--the south side of Main Street, along +the curb, and it generally conforms to where he stated he went, but he +could not place the exact position. We did, by this study. + +Senator COOPER. Mr. Zapruder's position was established by another +photograph? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct. + +Mr. DULLES. Do I understand you correctly that Mrs. Muchmore didn't +realize she had taken the later pictures that appear? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. According to her statement, she said after hearing the +shots, she panicked, and didn't take any more pictures. + +Mr. DULLES. You think she did? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. On the film there are pictures. + +Mr. SPECTER. Was the position of Mrs. Muchmore and Mr. Nix ascertained +through a geometric calculation, lining up various points as you have +just described? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. Well, it is actually a geometric calculation, although +no strings were drawn or no lines were drawn. It is a matter of +standing in a position out there with Mr. Nix's camera, and viewing the +two different photographs we had selected, until we arrived at a point +that matched. + +Mr. SPECTER. Was there reasonable mathematical certainty in that +alinement, within the limits of your observations of their pictures? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes. + +Mr. SPECTER. Did Mr. Zapruder himself point out his location on the +abutment as depicted on Exhibit No. 883? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct. + +Mr. SPECTER. Now, how many occasions were you a participant in an +analysis of these various films which you have just described? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. Seven. + +Mr. SPECTER. And when was the first time that you were a participant in +such an analysis? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. On January 27, 1964. + +Mr. SPECTER. And who else has been with you at the time you analyzed +those films--just stating in in a general way without identifying each +person present on each of the occasions? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. On most occasions, Mr. Gauthier of the FBI was present, +I was present, Mr. Malley of the FBI was present. Inspector Kelley from +Secret Service, and Mr. John Howlett from Secret Service. + +Representatives of the Commission were always present--normally Mr. +Redlich, Mr. Specter, or Mr. Eisenberg were present. + +On several occasions Mr. Ball and Mr. Belin were present. Mr. Rankin +was present on some occasions. + +I believe Mr. McCloy was present on one occasion. + +Various representatives of the Commission were present. + +Mr. SPECTER. And how long did those analysis sessions ordinarily last? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. They would normally last most of the day, about all +day. + +Mr. SPECTER. And what would be done during the course of those +analytical sessions? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. In each case we would take the film and run it through +regular speed, slow motion, we would stop it on individual frames and +study it frame by frame, trying to see in the photographs anything that +would give any indication of a shot hitting its mark, a reaction of the +President, a reaction of Mr. Connally or Mrs. Connally, reaction of the +Secret Service agents, reaction of people in the crowd, relating it to +all the facts that we felt were important. + +When we obtained the slides from Life magazine, we went through those +very thoroughly, because they gave so much more detail and were so +much clearer and analyzed again all these things about the reaction +of the President and Mr. Connally, trying to ascertain where he was +reacting--whether either one was reacting to being hit. + +Of course the only shot that is readily apparent in any of the films, +and it appears in the Zapruder, the Nix, and the Muchmore films, is the +shot that hit the President in the head. + +Mr. SPECTER. Why do you say that is readily apparent? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. Because on the film there is practically an explosion +of his head and this is obviously the shot that hit the President in +the head. It is very apparent from the photograph. + +Mr. SPECTER. Now, were any others present at any time, such as +witnesses who appeared before the Commission, during the analysis +sessions on these films and slides? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes. + +On April 14, representatives of the Commission, FBI, and doctors--Dr. +Hume of the Navy, who is at Bethesda, Commander Boswell from the U.S. +Navy Medical School at Bethesda, Colonel Finck, Chief of the Wound +Ballistics Pathology of the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology. + +Mr. SPECTER. Are those the autopsy surgeons? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; that is my understanding. Dr. Olivier, from +Edgewood Arsenal, Dr. Light, from Edgewood Arsenal, were present also +with Dr. Humes and the others, on April 14. + +Mr. SPECTER. Did any individuals who were present at the motorcade +itself ever have an opportunity to view the films and slides? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; on April 21, films were again viewed by +representatives of the Commission and the FBI, and at that time Drs. +Gregory and Shaw, from Parkland Hospital in Dallas, were available, +Drs. Light and Olivier, and a Dr. Dolce, and Governor and Mrs. Connally +were present. + +And at all of the viewings, they were again reviewed frame by frame, +studied by the doctors to tie it in with their findings, studied by the +Parkland doctors, and studied by the Connallys, to try to tie in where +the shots occurred along the film. + +Mr. SPECTER. I now hand you an album which has been marked as +Commission Exhibit No. 885. + +(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 885 for +identification.) + +Mr. SPECTER. I ask you to state what that album depicts. + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. This is an album that I prepared of black and white +photographs made of the majority of the frames in the Zapruder film---- + +Mr. SPECTER. Starting with what frame number? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. Starting with frame 171, going through frame 334. + +Mr. SPECTER. And why did you start with frame 171? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. This is the frame that the slides start from. This was +an arbitrary frame number that was decided on as being far enough back +to include the area that we wanted to study. + +Mr. SPECTER. Is that a frame where President Kennedy comes into full +view after the motorcade turns left off of Houston onto Elm Street? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes, yes. + +Mr. SPECTER. And how was the ending point of that frame sequence, being +No. 334, fixed? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. It was fixed as several frames past the shot that hit +the President in the head. Frame 313 is the frame showing the shot to +the President's head, and it ends at 334. + +Mr. SPECTER. Are there any other photographs in that album in addition +to the Zapruder frames? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; there are. There are six photographs selected +at random from the Nix film, including frame 24, which is a frame +depicting the shot to the head of the President, and there are three +photographs picked at random from the Muchmore film, including frame +42, which is the frame depicting the head shot. These are the pictures +that were used in establishing the location of the Nix and Muchmore +cameras on location in Dallas. Frame 10, which is the first one of the +Nix series, is the one showing Mr. Zapruder standing on the projection. + +Mr. SPECTER. And where was the viewing of the films and slides +undertaken? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. They have been viewed here at the Commission--all those +in addition to the ones I have made personally in the FBI Laboratory. + +Mr. SPECTER. And was that down on the first floor of the VFW Building +here? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct. + +Mr. SPECTER. And was there any model available adjacent to the area +where the films were shown, for use in re-creating or reconstructing +the assassination events? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; the model was available and used. + +Mr. SPECTER. Is that the model which has been described earlier this +afternoon by Inspector Gauthier? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct. + +Mr. SPECTER. Were you present on May 24 in Dallas, Tex.? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes. + +Mr. SPECTER. And what, if anything, was done at the site of the +assassination on that date? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. On May 24, 1964, representatives of the Commission, +Secret Service, and FBI reenacted the assassination, relocated specific +locations of the car on the street based on the motion pictures, and in +general staged a reenactment. + +Mr. SPECTER. Who was present at that time representing the Commission? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. The Commission was represented by Mr. Rankin, Mr. +Specter, and Mr. Redlich. + +Mr. SPECTER. And who was present at that time from the FBI? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. I was present, Inspector Gauthier was present, +Inspector J. R. Malley was present, Special Agent R. A. Frazier was +present, with some aids, assistants. + +Mr. SPECTER. Other aids from the FBI were also present? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; in addition, there were several agents from the +Dallas office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation who assisted. + +Mr. SPECTER. And were there representatives of the Secret Service +participating in that onsite testing? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; there were. Inspector Kelley was present, Agent +John Howlett was present, the driver of the car, or the Secret Service +agent whose name I do not recall---- + +Mr. SPECTER. George Hickey? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct. + +Mr. SPECTER. And at what time did the onsite test start? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. They started at 6 o'clock Sunday morning. + +Mr. SPECTER. Why was that time selected? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. The time was selected because of the traffic in the +area. The Dallas Police Department recommended that that would be the +most logical time to do it, causing the least problem with traffic. + +Mr. SPECTER. At what time did the onsite tests conclude? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. They concluded about 1 o'clock, 12:45 to 1 o'clock. + +Mr. SPECTER. Was there any subsequent testing done in Dallas on that +day? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; there was. + +Mr. SPECTER. And where was that testing undertaken? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. There was some testing done in a railway express agency +garage nearby the assassination site. + +Mr. SPECTER. At what time did that start? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. That started at 3 p.m., and lasted until 5:30 p.m. + +Mr. SPECTER. Where were the various individuals positioned who +participated in these onsite tests at the outset, at, say, 6 a.m., on +the 24th of May? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. At the very beginning, at 6 a.m., Mr. Rankin and +Mr. Specter were in the sixth floor window of the Texas School Book +Depository Building, which is the southeast corner of the building, +sixth floor window, which was referred to as our control point, and +where we had the master radio control for the other units. + +Mr. Redlich was on the street with the car. At the car on the street +were the occupants of the car, the Secret Service driver, Mr. Hickey, +an agent from the FBI, who handled radio contact with control, Agents +Anderton and Williams in the President's and Connally's seats, Mr. +Gauthier and his aids, a surveyor, and I, were all on the ground in the +vicinity of the car. + +Agent Frazier was in the window of the Book Building at the control +point with the rifle that was found at the window following the +assassination. + +Mr. SPECTER. Now, was that rifle found at the window or in another +location on the sixth floor? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. In another location on the sixth floor. + +Mr. SPECTER. And that is the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle which was +heretofore identified as Commission Exhibit No. 139? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct. + +Mr. SPECTER. And where were you positioned on most of the occasions at +the time of the onsite tests? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. For the first portion of them, I was at the car in the +street, and at the position of Mr. Zapruder, the position from which he +took his pictures. + +Mr. SPECTER. What communications were available, if any, among the +participants at the various locations heretofore described? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. We had radio contact between all points. + +Mr. SPECTER. What was the starting position of the car at the most +easterly position on Elm Street, immediately after turning off Houston +Street? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. The first position we established that morning was +frame 161. + +Mr. SPECTER. Was there not a position established prior in sequence to +frame 161, specifically that designated as position A? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. That was actually established later. But the first one +to be actually located was 161. And we went back later and positioned +point A. + +Mr. SPECTER. Well, let's start with the position which is the most +easterly point on Elm Street, which I believe would be position A, +would it not? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes. + +Mr. SPECTER. Have you a photographic exhibit depicting that position? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; in each of the positions that we established, +we used, insofar as possible, the Zapruder pictures to establish the +position, or we established it from the window, and made photographs +from the position Mr. Zapruder was standing in. + +Mr. SPECTER. This chart has been marked as Commission Exhibit No. 886. + +(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 886 for +identification.) + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. This shows the photograph that was made from the point +where Zapruder was standing looking toward the car, and is a point that +we have designated as position A because it is in a position that did +not appear on the Zapruder film. + +The Zapruder film does not start until the car gets farther down Elm +Street. + +Mr. SPECTER. What is that exhibit number? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. Exhibit No. 886. + +Mr. SPECTER. And why was that location selected for the position of the +car? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. This location was selected as the first point at which +a person in the sixth floor window of the Book Building at our control +point could have gotten a shot at the President after the car had +rounded the corner from Houston to Elm. + +Mr. SPECTER. And what position is station C? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. Station C is on a line drawn along the west curb line +of Houston Street in a direct line, and station C is at a point along +that line that is in line with where the car would have turned coming +around that corner. It is on a line which is an extension of the west +curb line of Houston Street. + +Mr. DULLES. Where is position A on that chart? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. Position A is here. + +Mr. McCLOY. That is before you get to the tree? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; he isn't under the tree yet. + +Mr. SPECTER. And what occupant, if any, in the car is position A +sighted on for measuring purposes? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. All of the photographs made through the rifle sight +that are shown on the exhibit in the lower left-hand corner were +sighted on the spot that was simulating the spot where the President +was wounded in the neck. The chalk mark is on the back of the coat. + +Mr. SPECTER. When you say that position A is the first position at +which President Kennedy was in view of the marksman from the southeast +window on the sixth floor of the School Book Depository Building, you +mean by that the first position where the marksman saw the rear of the +President's stand-in? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct. + +Mr. SPECTER. So that would be the first position where the marksman +could focus in on the circled point where the point of entry on the +President was marked? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct. + +Mr. SPECTER. Could the marksman then have taken a shot at the President +at any prior position and have struck him with the point of entry on +that spot, on the base of the President's neck? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. I don't quite understand the question. + +Mr. SPECTER. Was there any prior position, that is a position before +position A, where the marksman from the sixth floor could have fired +the weapon and have struck the President at the known point of entry at +the base of the back of his neck? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. No; because as the car moves back, you lose sight of +the chalk mark on the back of his coat. + +Mr. SPECTER. And what is the distance between that point on the +President and station C? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is 44 feet from station C--91.6 feet to the rifle +in the window from the actual chalk mark on the coat. All measurements +were made to the chalk mark on the coat. + +Mr. SPECTER. On the coat of the President? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct. + +Mr. SPECTER. The President's stand-in? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. Right. The angle to the rifle in the window was 40°10´. + +Mr. SPECTER. And what is the other data? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. The distance to the overpass was 447 feet, and +the angle to the overpass was minus O°27´; that is, 27´ below the +horizontal. + +Senator COOPER. May I ask a question there? How did you establish the +location of the rifle in making those calculations? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. The location of the rifle was established on the basis +of other testimony and information furnished to us by the Commission, +photographs taken by the Dallas Police Department immediately after the +assassination, and the known opening of the window. + +It was an estimation of where the rifle most likely was based on the +knowledge that the Commission has through testimony. + +Mr. SPECTER. Senator Cooper, Mr. Frazier is present and has been sworn, +and he is going to identify that. He could do it at this time, to +pinpoint that issue. + +Senator COOPER. I think we can just make a note of that, and go ahead +with this witness. + +Mr. SPECTER. Fine. We will proceed then with this witness and Mr. +Frazier will testify in due course. + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. I might say that this position was determined by Mr. +Frazier in the window. We moved the car around until he told us from +the window, viewing through the rifle, the point where he wanted the +car to stop. And he was the one in the window that told us where the +point A was. Once we established that, we then photographed it. + +Mr. DULLES. Could he see the mark on the back of the coat from the +window? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; through the rifle scope, he could see the mark. + +Mr. SPECTER. Does the picture designated "photograph through rifle +scope" depict the actual view of the rifleman through the actual +Mannlicher-Carcano weapon? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct. At point A. + +Senator COOPER. When Mr. Frazier testifies, then, will he correlate +this photograph with a frame from photographs taken of the actual +motorcade at the time of the assassination? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. No; we cannot correlate this with a frame from the +motion picture because Mr. Zapruder didn't start taking pictures until +the car had passed this point. + +So we, therefore, on this frame and for the next two or three points, +have no picture from Mr. Zapruder, since he wasn't taking pictures at +that time. + +Mr. DULLES. Off the record. + +(Discussion off the record.) + +Mr. DULLES. Back on the record. + +Do I understand that you are not suggesting that a shot was necessarily +fired at this point A, but this was the first point where this +particular vision of the President's back could have been obtained? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct. It is only an arbitrary point showing +the first possible shot that could have entered the President's coat at +this chalk mark. + +Representative FORD. What criteria did you use for determining that you +could see the chalk mark? Was the criteria a part or the whole of the +chalk mark? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. The actual manner in which it was set up--let me see if +this answers your question. As we moved the car around, Mr. Frazier was +in the window looking through the actual scope of the rifle, and could +see very clearly the President or the man taking the President's place, +as the car moved around. + +And the instant that he could first see that chalk mark is the point +where he radioed to us to stop the car, and is the first point at which +a shot could be fired that would go in where the chalk mark is located. + +Mr. DULLES. And that is point A? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is point A. Does that answer your question? + +Representative FORD. I think it does. Is that picture in the lower +left-hand corner of Exhibit No. 886 an actual photograph taken through +the sight of the weapon that was allegedly used in the assassination? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct. + +Representative FORD. And the chalk mark we see there is through that +sight? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct. And that is exactly what an individual +looking through the sight would see. + +Mr. SPECTER. Then at point A, could the rifleman see the entire back +of the President's stand-in as well as the specific chalk mark, as +depicted on the exhibit? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. He could see only a portion of the back. + +Mr. SPECTER. And the portion, which he could not see, is that which is +below the seat level? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes. + +Mr. DULLES. You didn't say the President's stand-in, did you? + +Mr. SPECTER. Yes; stand-in. + +Mr. Shaneyfelt, for purposes of illustration would you produce the +photograph at this time showing the mounting of the motion picture +camera on the weapon found on the sixth floor? + +I now hand you a photograph which is being marked as Commission Exhibit +No. 887 and ask you to state for the record who that is a picture of, +and what else is in the photograph. + +(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 887 for +identification.) + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. Commission Exhibit No. 887 is a picture of me that was +taken on May 24, 1964. My location was at the sixth floor window of the +Texas School Book Depository that we have designated as our control +point. I have the rifle that is the assassination rifle mounted on a +tripod, and on the rifle is mounted an Arriflex 16-mm. motion picture +camera, that is alined to take photographs through the telescopic sight. + +This Arriflex motion picture camera is commonly known as a reflex +camera in that as you view through the viewfinder a prism allows +you to view directly through the lens system as you are taking your +photographs so that as I took the photographs looking into the +viewfinder I was also looking through the scope and seeing the actual +image that was being recorded on the film. + +Mr. SPECTER. Was the view recorded on the film as shown on Exhibit No. +886 the actual view which would have been seen had you been looking +through the telescopic sight of the Mannlicher-Carcano itself? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes. + +Mr. SPECTER. How did you determine the level and angle at which to hold +the rifle? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. I placed the rifle in the approximate position based +on prior knowledge of where the boxes were stacked and the elevation +of the window and other information that was furnished to me by +representatives of the Commission. + +Mr. DULLES. You used the same boxes, did you, that the assassin had +used? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. No; I did not. + +Mr. SPECTER. Were those boxes used by Mr. Frazier. + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. They were used by Mr. Frazier and used in making the +measurements. I had to use a tripod because of the weight of the camera +and placed the elevation of the rifle at an approximate height in a +position as though the boxes were there. + +Mr. SPECTER. Was Mr. Frazier present at the time you positioned the +rifle on the tripod? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; he was. + +Mr. SPECTER. Did he assist in describing for you or did you have +an opportunity to observe the way he held a rifle to ascertain the +approximate position of the rifle at that time? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct. + +Mr. SPECTER. May it please the Commission, we will, with Mr. +Frazier, indicate, the reasons he held the rifle in the way he did +to approximate the way we believe it was held at the time of the +assassination. + +What is the next position which has been depicted on one of your +exhibits, please. + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. The next position that we established during the +reenactment is frame 161 of the Zapruder motion picture film. + +Mr. SPECTER. Permit me to mark that if you would as Commission Exhibit +No. 888. + +(Commission Exhibit No. 888 was marked for identification.) + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. This position which has been designated by us as frame +161 and as Commission Exhibit No. 888, was established as the last +position that the car could be in where the rifleman in the window +could get a clear shot of the President in the car before the car went +under the covering of the tree. + +Mr. SPECTER. How was that position located, from the ground or from the +sixth floor? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. This was positioned by Mr. Frazier in the sixth floor +window. In addition we knew from the Zapruder photographs the relative +position of the car in the street as related to the curb and the +guidelines or the lane lines. + +Following those lane lines we then moved the car down to a point where +Mr. Frazier radioed to us that it was the last point at which he could +get a clear shot and we stopped the car there. + +Mr. SPECTER. How did you then select the appropriate frame from the +Zapruder film? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. After Mr. Frazier had stationed the car at this +point, I then went to the position of Mr. Zapruder. Based on his +motion pictures, a comparison of the photograph that we made with the +photograph from the film, I was able to state that because of the +relative position of the car in the street and in relation to other +objects in the background, it corresponded to frame 161 of the motion +picture. + +Mr. SPECTER. Do you have on Exhibit No. 888 a reproduction of frame 161? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; the upper left-hand corner is a reproduction of +the frame 161 of the Zapruder motion picture. The picture on the upper +right is a photograph that I made with a speed graphic camera from +Zapruder's position of the car reestablished in that location. The +photograph in the lower left-hand corner, is a photograph of the view +through the rifle scope that Mr. Frazier saw at the time he positioned +the car there. This is the view that you would obtain from looking +through the rifle scope from the sixth floor window. + +Mr. SPECTER. Was the automobile in exactly the same position at the +time of the taking of the "photograph through rifle scope" and the +"photograph from reenactment"? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; approximately the same. We went through all +stations with Mr. Frazier in the window and I took photographs from Mr. +Zapruder's position, and once establishing a frame position, we marked +it clearly in the street. After we had taken all of the photographs +from Zapruder's position, we then took the car back, and went to the +sixth floor window and mounted the motion picture camera on the rifle. +These photographs were made by rolling the car in the same position +based on the marks we had in the street so it was as accurate as could +be done in the same position. + +Mr. DULLES. There is no one sitting in that right-hand corner of the +rear seat, is there in that picture? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; the person taking President Kennedy's place is +sitting in the back seat. + +Mr. DULLES. Yes; I see it. It is rather hard to see through the trees. + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; we moved it up to a point where the chalk mark was +just about to disappear on the street. + +Mr. DULLES. I don't think I see the chalk mark maybe someone else can. + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. It may be covered by the crosshair of the rifle scope. + +Representative FORD. In that picture photographed through the rifle +scope on Exhibit No. 888 a man standing in for Governor Connally is +also in the car, is he not? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct. He is mostly hidden by the tree. + +Mr. DULLES. Yes; I see. + +Mr. SPECTER. Was there any difference between the position of President +Kennedy's stand-in and the position of President Kennedy on the day of +the assassination by virtue of any difference in the automobiles in +which each rode? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; because of the difference in the automobiles there +was a variation of 10 inches, a vertical distance of 10 inches that +had to be considered. The stand-in for President Kennedy was sitting +10 inches higher and the stand-in for Governor Connally was sitting 10 +inches higher than the President and Governor Connally were sitting and +we took this into account in our calculations. + +Mr. SPECTER. Was any allowance then made in the photographing of the +first point or rather last point at which the spot was visible on the +back of the coat of President Kennedy's stand-in before passing under +the oak tree? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; there was. After establishing this position, +represented by frame 161, where the chalk mark was about to disappear +under the tree, we established a point 10 inches below that as the +actual point where President Kennedy would have had a chalk mark on his +back or where the wound would have been if the car was 10 inches lower. +And we rolled the car then sufficiently forward to reestablish the +position that the chalk mark would be in at its last clear shot before +going under the tree, based on this 10 inches, and this gave us frame +166 of the Zapruder film. + +Mr. SPECTER. What Commission Exhibit number has been affixed to that? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. This is Commission Exhibit No. 889. + +(Commission Exhibit No. 889 was marked for identification.) + +Mr. DULLES. Is that 10 inches difference due to the difference in the +two cars? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct. + +Mr. DULLES. That is the President's--the car the President was in and +the car you had to use for this particular test? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct. + +Mr. SPECTER. On Exhibit No. 889, is the car in the same position on +the "photograph through rifle scope" as it is on "photograph from +reenactment"? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct, the same position. + +Mr. SPECTER. And what is the comparison between the photograph +from Zapruder film on that Exhibit No. 889 and the photograph from +reenactment? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. The car is in the same position relative to the +surrounding area in both the reenactment photograph and the Zapruder +photograph. + +Incidentally, the position that was used throughout all of the +positioning of the car was the President's. His placement in the +photograph, and this will be clearer in some of the later photographs, +if the President's head was directly under a stop sign or a street sign +or whatever, in the background, this was then the way we positioned the +car with the person standing in for the President directly below or +slightly to the side or directly below the stop sign and so on; so all +of the calculations were based upon the position of the President. + +Mr. SPECTER. Before leaving frame 161, finally, would you recite the +distances which appear from the various points on that exhibit? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes. + +At the position that has been designated as frame 161, and appears +on Commission Exhibit No. 888, the distance from the wound mark on a +stand-in for President Kennedy to station C was 94.7 feet. + +The distance to the rifle in the window was 137.4 feet, the angle to +the window was 26°58' based on the horizontal line, the distance to the +overpass was 392.4 feet, and the angle to the overpass was minus 0°7´. + +Mr. SPECTER. Are all angles calculated thereon based on the horizontal? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes. + +Mr. SPECTER. Was there any street angle taken into consideration in the +calculations here? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; there is a 3° street grade that has to be deducted +from the angle to the window to determine the actual angle from the +street to the window as opposed to the horizon. + +Mr. SPECTER. Will you now---- + +Mr. DULLES. Frame 161 is 3° on 161? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. Three degrees all along Elm Street. + +Mr. DULLES. All along. That applies to all of these different pictures, +is that correct? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct. + +Mr. SPECTER. Would you now read the same statistical data from frame +166 on Exhibit No. 889, please? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes. + +From the chalk mark on the back of the stand-in for President Kennedy, +to station C is 95.6 feet, the distance to rifle in window, 138.2 feet, +the angle to rifle in window based on the horizontal, is minus 26°52´. + +Distance to overpass is 391.5 feet. The angle to the overpass is 0°7´. + +Mr. SPECTER. Did the back of President Kennedy ever come into view at +any time while he was passing through the foliage of the oak tree? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes. + +Mr. SPECTER. What frame number was ascertained with respect to that +position? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. This was determined to be frame 185. There is a slight +opening in the tree, where the car passed under the tree, where a shot +could have been fired that would have passed through this opening in +the tree. This again was positioned on the basis of Mr. Frazier in the +window looking through the rifle scope and telling us on the street +where to stop the car at the point where he could get a shot through +the trees. + +Mr. SPECTER. What Commission Exhibit number has been assigned to frame +185? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. This is Commission Exhibit No. 890, frame 185. + +Mr. SPECTER. Is the "photograph through rifle scope" taken with the +position of the car at the same place as "photograph from reenactment"? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct. + +Mr. SPECTER. And is the "photograph from reenactment" in the same +position, as close as you could make it to the "photograph from +Zapruder's film"? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct. + +Mr. SPECTER. Will you read the statistical data from frame 185? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; from the point of the chalk on the back of the +stand-in for the President at position 185 to station C is 114.8 feet, +the distance to rifle on window is 154.9 feet. + +The angle to rifle in window based on horizontal is 24°14´, distance +to overpass is 372.5 feet. The angle to the overpass is 0°3´ above +horizontal. + +Mr. SPECTER. Was there any adjustment made for the difference in +the height of the automobiles on the location where the back of the +President's stand-in was visible through the tree? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; there was an adjustment made for the 10 inch +differential in the heights because of the different cars, and this was +established as frame 186. + +Mr. SPECTER. What Commission Exhibit number is affixed to frame 186? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. Commission Exhibit No. 891. + +Mr. SPECTER. On Exhibit No. 891 is the car in the same position in +"photograph through rifle scope" and "photograph from reenactment"? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct. + +Mr. SPECTER. Are the cars on those two pictures in the same positions +on all of the frames which you are going to show this afternoon? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct. + +Mr. SPECTER. In the "photograph from Zapruder film", does that +"photograph from Zapruder film" show the Presidential automobile to be +in the same position or as close to the same position as you could make +it as is the replica car in the "photograph from reenactment"? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct. + +Mr. SPECTER. Will you read the statistical data from frame 186, please? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes. + +At frame 186 position the distance from the chalk mark on the back of +the stand-in for the President was 116.3 feet from the station C. It +was 156.3 feet to the rifle in the window. + +The angle to the rifle in the window was 24°3' based on the horizontal. +Distance to the overpass was 371.7 feet. The angle to the overpass is +0°3´. + +Mr. SPECTER. Was that position ascertained where the chalk spot on the +back of President Kennedy's coat was first visible from the sixth floor +window through the telescopic sight? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct. + +Mr. DULLES. This is after passing the tree. + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes. + +Mr. SPECTER. After passing out from under the oak tree. + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes. + +Mr. SPECTER. What frame did that turn out to be? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. That was frame 207. + +Mr. SPECTER. Do you have an exhibit depicting the same photographic +sequence on frame 207? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; I do. + +Mr. SPECTER. What Commission Exhibit number has been affixed to that +frame? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. Commission Exhibit No. 892. + +Mr. SPECTER. Is the car in the same position on "photograph through +rifle scope" and "photograph from reenactment" on that exhibit? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes. + +Mr. SPECTER. Is the car in the same position, as closely as you could +make it, on the "photograph from reenactment" and "photograph from +Zapruder film"? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct. + +Mr. SPECTER. Will you now read the statistical data from that exhibit? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes. Distance from the chalk mark on the back of the +stand-in for the President to the station C is 136.6 feet. + +Distance to rifle in the window is 174.9 feet. The angle to the rifle +in the window based on the horizontal is 21°50'. The distance to the +overpass is 350.9 feet, and the angle to the overpass is 0°12'. + +This is on frame 207, Commission Exhibit No. 892. + +Mr. SPECTER. Was an adjustment made on that position for the heights of +the automobiles? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes. + +Mr. SPECTER. What was the adjusted frame for the first view that the +marksman had of the President's stand-in coming out from under the tree? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is frame 210 and has been marked as Commission +Exhibit No. 893 and represents the 10-inch adjustment for the +difference in the height of the car as compared with frame 207. + +Mr. SPECTER. Is the layout of frame 210 exactly the same as that for +frames 207 and 185 that you have already testified about? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct. + +Mr. SPECTER. In viewing the films on the frames preceding 210, what was +President Kennedy doing? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. He is waving to the crowd, and in some frames it is +obvious that he is smiling, you can actually see a happy expression on +his face and his hand---- + +Mr. DULLES. Which way is he turning, to the left or to the right? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. He is looking toward the crowd to his right during most +of that area, he is looking slightly to his right. His arm is up on +the side of the car and his hand is in a wave, in approximately this +position and he appears to be smiling. + +Mr. SPECTER. What is the latest frame count where, to your eye, it +appears that he is showing no reaction to any possible shot? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. Approximately--I would like to explain a little bit, +that at frames in the vicinity of 200 to 210 he is obviously still +waving, and there is no marked change. + +In the area from approximately 200 to 205 he is still, his hand is +still in a waving position, he is still turned slightly toward the +crowd, and there has been no change in his position that would signify +anything occurring unusual. I see nothing in the frames to arouse my +suspicion about his movements, up through in the areas from 200 on and +as he disappears behind the signboard, there is no change. + +Now, 205 is the last frame, 205 and 206 are the last frames where we +see any of his, where we see the cuff of his coat showing above the +signboard indicating his hand is still up generally in a wave. + +From there on the frames are too blurry as his head disappears you +can't really see any expression on his face. You can't see any change. +It is all consistent as he moves in behind the signboard. + +Mr. SPECTER. When you say "signboard" what do you mean by that, Mr. +Shaneyfelt? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. I refer to the sign that is between the photographer, +Mr. Zapruder, and the Presidential car. + +Representative FORD. Not any sign post between the rifleman and the +President? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. No; this is a sign between the cameraman and the +President. So that we are unable to see his reaction, if any. + +Mr. SPECTER. What is the frame at which Governor Connally first emerges +from behind the sign you just described? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is frame 222. + +Mr. SPECTER. Have you prepared a model demonstration on frame 222? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; I have. + +Mr. SPECTER. What Commission Exhibit number has just been affixed on +that frame? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. Frame 222 has been given Commission Exhibit No. 894. + +Mr. SPECTER. Was the location of the automobile fixed from the window +or from the street on frame 222? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. On frame 222, the position of the automobile was fixed +from the street, based on the photograph from the Zapruder film. + +Mr. SPECTER. Are the various photographs on that frame and the various +distances the same in terms of general layout as the prior exhibit you +testified to? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct. + +Mr. SPECTER. What is the first frame at which President Kennedy is +visible coming out from behind that sign? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. This is frame 225. + +Mr. SPECTER. What Commission Exhibit has been affixed to frame 225? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. Frame 225 has been assigned Commission Exhibit No. 895. + +Mr. SPECTER. What, if anything, is detectable from a view of the +Zapruder film frame 225 as to the positions or reaction of President +Kennedy? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. Frame 225 there appears to be a reaction on the part of +the President. This is---- + +Mr. SPECTER. Describe specifically what movement he is making in that +picture or what his position is? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. At frame 225 his hand is down, his right hand that was +waving is down, and has been brought down as though it were reaching +for his lapel or his throat. The other hand, his left hand is on his +lapel but rather high, as though it were coming up, and he is beginning +to go into a hunched position. + +Mr. SPECTER. When you say beginning to go into a hunched position is +that apparent to you from viewing the motion picture and slides from +the frames which succeed frame 225? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is primarily apparent from the motion picture +because of the two or three or four frames that show as he emerges +from the sign; that is, in the motion picture, you see the President +reaching for his coat lapels and going into a hunched position, leaning +forward and lowering his head. + +Mr. McCLOY. That doesn't exist in frame 225 yet, does it? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. It is just beginning in frame 225. That is frame 225 is +the first view we have of the President. + +Mr. McCLOY. Out past the sign. + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. As he comes out from behind the sign that obstructs the +cameraman from the President. + +Mr. DULLES. But there is no obstruction from the sixth floor window? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT, No; no obstruction at this point. There is no +obstruction from the sixth floor window from the time they leave the +tree until they disappear down toward the triple overpass. + +Mr. SPECTER. Do the photographs on frame 225 depict the same +circumstances as those depicted on the prior exhibits? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct. + +Mr. SPECTER. And do the measurements on frame 225 cover the same +subjects as those covered on prior exhibits? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct. + +Mr. SPECTER. What is the angle from the rifle to the spot on the +President's back on frame 210, please? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. On frame 210, the angle from the rifle to the window, +based on the horizon is 21°34´. + +Mr. SPECTER. That is from the rifle to what, Mr. Shaneyfelt. + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. From the rifle to the chalk mark on the back of the +stand-in for the President. + +Mr. SPECTER. What is the same angle at frame 225? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. It is 20°11´. + +Mr. SPECTER. Those angles are computed to the horizontal? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct. + +Mr. SPECTER. What is the range of distance from the position of the car +in frame 210 to the position of the car in frame 225? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is 14.9 feet between frame 210 and frame 225. + +Mr. SPECTER. What is the position of President Kennedy at frame 210 +with respect to position C. + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. President Kennedy is 138.9 feet from station C at frame +210. + +Mr. SPECTER. Station C. + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; station C to President Kennedy on frame 210 is +138.9 feet. + +Mr. SPECTER. What is the distance between station C and President +Kennedy at frame 225? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is 153.8 feet. + +Mr. SPECTER. Was the car further positioned at frame 231? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; it was. + +Mr. SPECTER. What Commission exhibit number are we affixing to that? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is Commission Exhibit No. 896. + +Mr. SPECTER. Are the photographs and measurements on 896 the same +layout as those affixed to prior exhibits? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct. + +Mr. SPECTER. Was the automobile stopped at frame 235 and similar +photographs and measurements taken? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct. + +Mr. SPECTER. What Commission exhibit number is affixed to frame 235. + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. Exhibit No. 897. + +Mr. SPECTER. Was the automobile again stopped at frame 240 with +measurements and photographs taken similar to those in prior exhibits? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; it was. That is correct. + +Mr. SPECTER. What Commission exhibit number is affixed to that frame? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. Exhibit No. 898. + +Mr. SPECTER. Was the automobile again stopped at frame 249 with similar +photographs and measurements taken? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct. + +Mr. SPECTER. And what Commission exhibit number is given to those +calculations and photographs on frame 249? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. Commission Exhibit 899. + +Mr. SPECTER. Now, as to frame 249, that is how many frames beyond the +first point at which the spot on President Kennedy's back was visible +after he passed out from under the oak tree? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is 249? + +Mr. SPECTER. Yes. + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. It is 42 frames. + +Mr. SPECTER. And does a 42-frame count have any significance with +respect to the firing time on the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; we have established that the Zapruder motion +picture camera operates at an average speed of 18.3 frames per second. +And we have been advised that the minimum time for firing the rifle in +successive shots is approximately two and a quarter seconds. So this +gives us then a figure of two and a quarter seconds of frames; at 18.3, +this gives us this figure of 41 to 42 frames. + +Representative FORD. Would you repeat that again, please? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. The camera operates at a speed of 18.3 frames per +second. So that in two and a quarter seconds it would run through about +42--41 to 42 frames. + +Representative FORD. Then the firing of the rifle, repeat that again? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. As to the firing of the rifle--we have been advised +that the minimum time for getting off two successive well-aimed shots +on the rifle is approximately two and a quarter seconds. That is the +basis for using this 41 to 42 frames to establish two points in the +film where two successive quick shots could have been fired. + +Representative FORD. That is with one shot and then the firing. + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. Work the bolt and fire another one. + +Mr. SPECTER. At frame 249 was Governor Connally in a position where +he could have taken a shot with the bullet entering at the point +immediately to the left under his right armpit with the bullet then +going through and exiting at a point immediately under his right nipple? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. No; Governor Connally has begun to turn in his seat +around in this manner, in such a way, turn to his right so that his +body is in a position that a shot fired from the sixth floor window +could not have passed through the path that it reportedly took through +his body, if the bullet followed a straight, undeflected path. + +Mr. DULLES. I don't quite get that. You mean because of his having +turned this way, the shot that was then--had then been fired and +apparently had hit the President could not have gone through him at +that point? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct under the stated conditions. Even a +shot, independent of the shot that hit the President, could not have +gone through in that manner, coming from the sixth floor window, +because the window was almost directly behind the automobile at that +time and the Governor was in a position where the bullet couldn't have +gone through his body in the manner that it reportedly did. + +It would have come in through his shoulder and out through the other +shoulder, in the way that he was lined up with the window. + +Mr. SPECTER. So you say it could have gone through him, but it could +not have passed through him with the angle of entry as disclosed in the +Parkland Hospital records and described by Dr. Shaw? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct, if it followed a straight path. + +Mr. SPECTER. And exiting immediately under his right nipple, again as +described in the hospital records at Parkland and by Dr. Shaw. + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct. + +Mr. SPECTER. Have those points of entry and exit been made available to +you in your analysis of this situation? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; they have. + +Mr. SPECTER. Could you elaborate just a little further on the +observations and reasoning which you have undertaken to come to the +conclusion which you have just expressed? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. We are speaking of frame 249, are we? + +Mr. SPECTER. Yes, sir, frame 249. + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. Could I see that exhibit? The photograph in the lower +left corner of Commission Exhibit No. 899 is the photograph taken +through the scope of the rifle on the sixth floor window when the car +was stationed in this frame number position. It is noted from this +photograph that the rifle is not quite directly behind the car but very +nearly directly behind the car. + +Governor Connally's body is turned. We have duplicated the position in +the Zapruder photographs of Governor Connally and the President in the +reenactment photograph, as nearly as possible, duplicated the same body +position, and from the sixth floor window then you can see from the +photograph that the Governor's body is turned to the Governor's right +in such a fashion that an undeflected shot would not go through in the +path as described by the Parkland doctors. + +Mr. McCLOY. I don't quite follow that yet. The President has been shot +at frame 249, according to your theory. + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes. + +Mr. McCLOY. Might he not also have been shot at some earlier frames +in--the indications are the reactions are shown considerably ahead of +that frame. + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct. + +Mr. McCLOY. So, for example, at frame 237 and at frame 237 Governor +Connolly hasn't turned to the right. + +Mr. DULLES. But a shot has been fired at this time. + +Mr. McCLOY. But a shot has been fired at that time. + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes. + +Mr. McCLOY. So at that point he could have been hit; Governor Connally +could have been hit. + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; Governor Connally could have been hit by frame 238. + +Mr. McCLOY. But your point is when he gets farther along, he couldn't +have been hit, let's say at frame 249 in the same spot where he was hit. + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct. + +Mr. McCLOY. Yes. + +Mr. DULLES. He made the turn later than those frames you have been +discussing at the time apparently of the first shot at the President. + +Mr. McCLOY. Yes; the first shot, but according to these frames, the +first shot hit the President considerably before this. + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes, sir. + +Mr. McCLOY. And at a time again when Governor Connally's back was +square to the window. + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. Well, not exactly square. I believe he was turned +slightly to the right as he went behind the sign. + +Mr. McCLOY. Take frame 231. + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes. + +Mr. McCLOY. There the President has got his hands up as you put it to +his throat. + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes. + +Mr. McCLOY. And here is Connally facing to the front. + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes. + +Mr. McCLOY. So at that point a bullet coming through the President's +throat could have hit Connally in the spot where it did hit Connally. + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. I am going to defer that question to Mr. Frazier who is +in the window with the rifle scope and made a more thorough study of +the possible path of the bullet. But he is straight in the car in frame +231. + +Mr. McCLOY. But your testimony is in frame 248--frame 249 Connally +couldn't have been hit from this window in the position where he was +sitting. + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct, on the basis stated. + +Mr. DULLES. But, you would have then the problem you would think if +Connally had been hit at the same time, would have reacted in the same +way, and not reacted much later as these pictures show. + +Mr. McCLOY. That is right. + +Mr. DULLES. Because the wounds would have been inflicted. + +Mr. McCLOY. That is what puzzles me. + +Mr. DULLES. That is what puzzles me. + +Senator COOPER. Would you identify the frame in which Governor Connally +started turning to the right? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. I might say that as--in the motion picture--as the car +comes out from behind the signboard, the Governor is turned slightly to +his right in this manner. This would be in the first frame, in frame +222, he is turned just slightly to his right, and from there on he +turns almost square, straight on with the car momentarily, and there is +a jerking motion there at one point in the film about there, at which +time he starts to turn this way and continues to turn. + +Mr. DULLES. Jerky motion in Connally in the film. + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. There is--it may be merely where he stopped turning and +started turning this way. It is hard to analyze. + +Mr. DULLES. What I wanted to get at--whether it was Connally who made +the jerky motion or there was something in the film that was jerky. You +can't tell. + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. You can't tell that. + +Mr. McCLOY. Certainly the film is jerky at that point. I mean there is +a big blur. + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. He does turn. + +Mr. McCLOY. Just before and after that. + +Representative FORD. But isn't it apparent in those pictures that after +a slight hesitation Governor Connally's body turns more violently than +the President's body? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes. + +Representative FORD. The President's only reaction is a motion to his +throat or to his neck with his hands. + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct. + +Representative FORD. Whereas Governor Connally actually turns his body +rather sharply? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; he turns as they go behind the signboard, he turns +this way and he is turning a little bit this way and as he comes out of +the signboard he is facing slightly to the right, comes around straight +on and then he turns to his left straight on, and then he turns to his +right, continues to turn around and falls over in Mrs. Connally's lap. + +But in the motion picture it is a continuous movement as he goes around +and falls. + +Senator COOPER. Will you again answer my question which I asked and +hasn't been answered and I say with all respect, in what frame did +Governor Connally begin to turn to the right after he had placed his +position straightforward as you have testified. + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. I am sorry. That starts approximately at frames 233 to +234. + +Senator COOPER. In what frame does the photograph show or in what frame +is it shown that President Kennedy had moved his hands to his throat? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. That shows on frame--it is clearer on frame 226, 225 is +the frame where you first see him, and frame 226. + +Mr. DULLES. How many frames between those two? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. From 26 to 33, eight. That would be a fraction of a +second in time. + +That is less than half second. + +Representative FORD. It can be contended that based on these +photographs of films that the first shot apparently was fired in frames +220 to 224, in that area. + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; I think you have to go back even to 210 because of +reaction times; we don't know reaction times. But I would say between +210 and 225 because at 225 we have the President reacting. + +So, in that 15 frames there it is behind the signboard, we can't see +what is happening. + +Mr. DULLES. What frame first shows him with his hands at his throat? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. 225, 226. + +Mr. McCLOY. 225, it is not too clear. It is much more pronounced in the +next frame is where he puts his both hands to his throat, such as that. + +Mr. DULLES. And Mrs. Kennedy has apparently turned around and looking +at him. + +Mr. McCLOY. One hand may be coming down from waving in 225. + +Mr. DULLES. That is his left hand there--no; it is his right hand, your +right. His right hand. + +Representative FORD. Then based on the mathematics of how quickly +a second shot could be fired, the second shot would be fired in +approximately what frame? + +If you assume it, the first shot is from 210 to 224. + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. It would be 252 to 266, down in there. + +Representative FORD. That would be the elapsed time of what? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. Two and a quarter seconds. + +Representative FORD. Two and a quarter seconds. + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is the very quickest. + +Mr. SPECTER. On fixing the range from frames 210 to 225, where the +President was first struck, did you take frame 210 because that was the +first point after the President had passed out from under the oak tree? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; that is the first point from this, and although we +are able to see in the films that there is no apparent reaction from +the President from 203 to 210, and as he disappears from behind the +signboard, we cannot estimate the reaction time. + +Mr. SPECTER. When you say reaction time you mean? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. Of the President? + +Mr. SPECTER. Reaction time from 205---- + +Representative FORD. To 210? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes. + +Representative FORD. But there at frame 210, that is the first point at +which the marksman had a clear shot after the President passed out from +under the tree. + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct. + +Representative FORM. Then you select frame 225 as the outside limit of +the shot which struck the President because that is where you first +observe a reaction by the President when he comes out from behind the +sign. + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct. + +Mr. DULLES. What frames are blanked out because of the sign? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. The President, the last we get any scene of him at all, +and this is just the very top of his head is 210. + +Mr. DULLES. 210 to what is blanked out? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. 225. + +Mr. DULLES. To 225 is blanked out? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes, that is 15 frames. + +Mr. McCLOY. 224 he just begins to appear. + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes. + +Mr. McCLOY. I don't think if you assume the President was hit at 225 +and I don't think that is clear at all. I think it begins to get clear +about 227 that he had been hit, that the reaction really develops. But +I think that 225 it may very well be that he has not been hit because +his hand isn't at his throat, he may be just moving from the position +of waving. + +Mr. DULLES. But that is about a tenth of a second. + +Mr. McCLOY. Yes; it is a very short time entirely, but I don't think +the frame unequivocally shows the reaction to the bullet at 225. I +think it does unequivocally show it at 226 and 227. + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct. + +Mr. SPECTER. Perhaps an additional question on the clarity of the slide +itself as a point of reaction would be in order for Mr. Shaneyfelt, and +then, may I say parenthetically, we want to have the Commission see +these slides this afternoon. + +We have prepared them to show to you so that you can observe for +yourself what we are bringing to you through the witness to give you a +frame of reference and an orientation. + +Mr. Shaneyfelt, then what was your impression by frame 225, as you +viewed it most recently this morning, with respect to a possible +reaction on that frame made from the original Zapruder film? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. It is my feeling that at frames 225, 226 and 227 you +are having a reaction. You have a split second there, and at 225 the +reaction is barely discernible, more discernible on the film and the +slides than the reproduction you have here but it has to be considered +in the light of the motion picture you see as he starts this reaction, +and the reaction is by frame--in either the slides or pictures--is +clearly apparent in 226, and barely apparent in 225. + +Mr. SPECTER. Now, was frame 249 selected as a situs for calculations +on the possible construction that President Kennedy was struck in the +back at the first point unadjusted at which he emerged from the tree, +to wit: frame 207, with an additional calculation of 42 frames giving +the approximately two and a quarter seconds for the firing of a second +shot to determine through this one means whether there was time for the +rifleman to have operated the bolt, assuming he made a shot at 207, and +to have made another shot at the earliest possible time at 249. + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. That was the basis for the selection of frame 249, yes. + +Mr. SPECTER. Now, going back just a moment, was frame 231 selected as +a basis for analysis as the first frame after 225 because Governor +Connally expressed the opinion when he viewed the frames that he +thought he was hit by or at frame 231. + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct. + +Mr. SPECTER. And was frame 235 selected as a basis of analysis because +that was one point at which a number of the viewers, including staff +and agents of the FBI and Secret Service thought that might be the last +frame at which Governor Connally had turned enough to the right to +still take a shot and have the bullet pass through his body from the +sixth floor window at the angle described in the medical reports and by +his doctors. + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct on the basis of an undeflected path. +That is the frame that the doctors selected as the frame beyond which +he could not have received this shot and have it travel in the path +that it reportedly traveled. + +Mr. SPECTER. Was frame 240 selected for analysis as being the +absolutely last time, based on the observations of those whom you have +described as seeing the films, that the Governor could have conceivably +taken a shot from the sixth floor window and have it pass through the +body of the Governor in the way described in the medical reports and by +the Governor's doctors? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct. + +Mr. SPECTER. Was the analysis, made on the ability of the Governor to +take the shot at each of the positions, based on the position he had +at that particular frame in accordance with the amount of turn to the +right which he had made at that particular time? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes. + +Mr. SPECTER. Was there a still photograph known as AP photograph, +which was taken at the time of the assassination or a view seconds +thereafter, studied by you and others in connection with the analysis +that you have been describing? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; there was. + +Mr. SPECTER. Was the simulated automobile placed in the same position +that the Presidential automobile was in when the photograph was made by +the AP photographer, as closely as it could be positioned at the time +of the reenactment? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct. + +Mr. SPECTER. What Commission exhibit number is attached to the +photographs of that AP shot and the reenactment picture? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is Commission Exhibit No. 900. + +Mr. SPECTER. Would you describe what photographs appear then on +Commission Exhibit No. 900? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. On Commission Exhibit No. 900, the top photograph is a +photograph purportedly made by an AP photographer shortly after one of +the shots. It depicts the side of the Governor's head, the left side of +the Governor's head, his ear is visible, he has turned considerably. It +depicts the President's hand touching his lapels, and a portion of the +President's face. + +Secret Service agents on the followup car are seen also. The Texas +School Book Building in the background. + +The reenactment photograph was made after positioning the car by +looking at the photograph, based on the position of the car as related +to the lane line in the street, as related to the position of the +building, the column of the building and so on to reestablish the +location. + +We also reestablish in reenactment the position of the agent taking +Governor Connally's position in the car used in the reenactment and +the position of President Kennedy to closely approximate the actual +photograph made by the AP, Associated Press. This was then studied, the +car in this position was then studied, from the Zapruder position, and +was determined to be frame 255. + +Mr. SPECTER. Was an exhibit prepared then on frame 255? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct. + +Mr. SPECTER. What Commission exhibit number is affixed to frame 255? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. Exhibit No. 901. + +Mr. SPECTER. Does that have the same layout of photographs and +measurements as on frames 225, 222 and those which preceded them. + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; it has. It has the Zapruder photographs, the +matching reenactment photograph, and the photograph through the rifle +scope along with the measurements and the angles. + +Mr. SPECTER. On the AP photograph shown on Commission Exhibit No. 900, +what reaction, if any, do you observe by the Secret Service agents on +the followup car? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. The Secret Service agents on the right-hand side of +the followup car are looking back and to their right. The one to the +front on the left-hand side of the car is looking generally toward the +President. + +The one in back of him on the left fender is looking slightly to his +right. + +Representative FORD. What is the distance on frame 255 between the +President and the rifle? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. The distance to the rifle in the window is 218 feet. +This is frame 255, which is well past the signboard, well past 249 +which is the last frame we considered. + +Mr. McCLOY. Well past the first evidence of reaction? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes. + +Mr. McCLOY. On the part of the President to a shot. + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. Well past, and past the point in the film where +Governor Connally states he has been hit. + +Mr. SPECTER. Was that simulated car placed in any other position to +duplicate still a subsequent frame? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; the frame No. 313, which is the frame that records +the shot to the President's head, was recorded as frame 313 and was +reestablished during reenactment. + +Mr. SPECTER. What Commission number has been affixed to frame 313? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. Commission Exhibit No. 902. + +Mr. SPECTER. Is this exhibit organized in a somewhat different fashion +from the prior frame exhibits? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct. + +Mr. SPECTER. Will you start with the photograph in the upper left-hand +corner and describe for the Commissioners, please, each photograph or +picture which appears thereon and what it represents? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; I might state first that all of the other +photographs were reestablished on the basis of the Zapruder film using +reference points in the background of the pictures. + +As is apparent here from the photograph of the Zapruder frame 313 there +are no reference points. There is just a grassy plot. So there is no +reference point on which we can reestablish the position of the car in +the roadway. + +For this reason it was necessary to use the Nix film of the head shot +and the Muchmore film of the head shot to establish this position in +the road. + +The right-hand photograph represents frame 24 from the Nix film, and is +the frame that depicts the shot to the head. We used Mr. Nix's camera +and a print of this picture and stood in the previously determined +position of Mr. Nix when he took his photographs, and had them roll the +car down to a position so that the President's head was directly under +the point where Mr. Zapruder is standing on the projection. + +Mr. SPECTER. You are describing the photograph on which side---- + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. On the--- + +Mr. SPECTER. Of the viewer. + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. On the upper left-hand side. + +Mr. McCLOY. I think you said right. + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. The upper left-hand photograph is the photograph from +the--taken from the frame 24 of the Nix film. + +The photograph on the right, upper right, is the photograph taken at +the reenactment from the position where Mr. Nix was standing. We then +proceeded over to the point that we had established as the position +of Mrs. Muchmore, and using frame 42, which is a frame in her film +depicting the shot to the head, and using the steps and their relation +to the President and the objects in the background in relation to the +President as shown in this lower left-hand photograph, which is the +Muchmore frame 42, we reestablished, we checked the position we had +placed the car in, based on the Nix photographs, and found that it +conformed and checked out as being in a closely accurate position. + +This is the basis used for establishing the position of the car. After +we had established that, through the Nix and Muchmore films, we then +checked it against the Zapruder photograph, which is the second from +the top on the left of Commission Exhibit No. 902, frame 313, which +shows the explosion from the top of the President's head. Just to the +right of that second picture down from the right, is the photograph +made at the reenactment from Zapruder's position. + +We know from studying the films that just two or three frames before +frame 313 we can see a little bit of yellow along the curb, and this +checks out because along this area of the photograph from the Zapruder +position of the reenactment is a yellow strip. + +Mr. SPECTER. When you say this area you are referring to the yellow +area which appears on the left-hand curb immediately to the rear of the +simulated car? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct, and this, therefore, checks out this +as being a fairly accurate position for the car in frame 313. + +This photograph then, the third down on the left, is a photograph +through the telescope of the rifle of the car positioned in frame 313. + +Mr. McCLOY. Would you read off those dimensions from that? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. The dimensions from the surveyor on frame 313 of the +distance from the wound mark on the President's stand-in to station C +is 230.8 feet. + +Distance to the rifle in the window is 265.3 feet. The angle to rifle +in window is 15°21´ and this is based on the horizontal. + +Distance to the overpass is 260.6 feet, the angle to the overpass is +1°28´. + +Mr. SPECTER. What would the angle be considering the adjustment on the +angle of the street? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. It would be less 3° or 12°21´, approximately. + +Mr. SPECTER. When you say approximately is that because the adjustment +is somewhat greater than 3°? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes. + +Mr. SPECTER. How much is it exactly, if you know? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. It is 3.9. It is almost 4. + +Mr. SPECTER. Three degrees nine minutes? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. Three degrees nine minutes, I am sorry. + +Mr. DULLES. Would you have to make a similar adjustment to the overpass? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; because the angle to the overpass is based on the +horizontal. The overpass, you would have to add the 3°9´. + +Mr. DULLES. From the overpass, is this an angle up or angle down? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. This is an angle down. + +Mr. DULLES. So it is an angle down in both cases? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct. + +Mr. SPECTER. When you say that you are reducing the angle of 15°21´ by +3°9´ to an angle of 12°12´, is that as the shot passes through the body +of the President? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct. It is at that point. + +Mr. SPECTER. How was the speed of the camera ascertained, Mr. +Shaneyfelt? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. We obtained from Mr. Zapruder, Mr. Nix, Mrs. Muchmore; +their cameras for examination, and in the FBI laboratory exposed film +in all three cameras, aiming, focusing the camera on a clock with +a large sweep-second hand. We then ran the camera at the speed and +conditions as described by the people who used the cameras. We ran +through several tests of film, and then after the film was developed it +was studied under magnification, and frames were counted for a period +of 2 to 3 seconds or for the full running time, and averages were taken. + +Mr. Zapruder has stated that his camera was fully wound. Most of the +others have stated their cameras were fully wound, so we were able to +more or less eliminate the very slow time that occurs when the cameras +are approximately run down, and all of these things were taken into +consideration and were averaged. + +The Zapruder camera was found to run at an average speed of 18.3 frames +per second. + +The Nix and Muchmore cameras were both found around 18.5 frames per +second. + +Mr. SPECTER. Were you able to ascertain the speed of the Presidential +limousine at the time of the assassination? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; because we were able to determine the speed of the +camera, and thereby accurately determine the length of time it takes +for a specific number of frames to run through the camera at this 18.3 +frames per second, and having located these frame positions in the +street, we took the farthest distance point we had in the Zapruder film +which was frame 161 through frame 313. + +This was found to run elapsed time from the film standpoint which runs +at 18.3 frames a second, runs for a total of 8.3 seconds. + +This distance is 136.1 feet, and this can be calculated then to 11.2 +miles per hour. + +Mr. SPECTER. Is that a constant average speed or does that speed +reflect any variations in the movement of the car? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is the overall average from 161 to 313. It does +not mean that it was traveling constantly at 11.2, because it was more +than likely going faster in some areas and slightly slower in some +areas. It is only an average speed over the entire run. + +Mr. DULLES. Over the entire run between what points? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. Between frame 161 and 313. + +Mr. DULLES. Yes; but where, could you place that on that chart, for +example? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes. + +Mr. DULLES. And describe the points? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. This is frame 161 which is the frame where they have +just gone under the tree, to frame 313 which is the shot to the head. +So that it is that distance there which is 136.1 feet. + +Mr. SPECTER. In referring to those points, will you specify what +exhibit number you are referring to there? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is---- + +Mr. DULLES. I wonder if we could mark those points on that exhibit? + +Mr. SPECTER. Of course, Mr. Dulles. + +That is Commission Exhibit No. 883, is it not, Mr. Shaneyfelt? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes. + +Mr. SPECTER. Will you take the first point Mr. Dulles has referred +to and mark it as point X. I think we already have some letter +designations in the early part of the alphabet. + +Mr. McCLOY. Where is that point? What significance is that point? The +first point? + +Mr. SPECTER. This frame 161---- + +Mr. McCLOY. Yes. + +Mr. SPECTER. Is the first frame we have on the Zapruder film. + +Mr. DULLES. It is only to get the speed and distance here. + +Mr. McCLOY. It has no relation to any shots. + +Mr. DULLES. No relation to shots. Speed and distance. + +Mr. SPECTER. It is the first frame we have where the marksman has his +last clear shot of the back of the President's neck before it passes +under the tree without adjustment. Is that correct, Mr. Shaneyfelt? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct. What letter designations did you want? + +Mr. SPECTER. Mark 161, frame 161, with the letter designation X, if you +will, please. + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. And 313? + +Mr. SPECTER. With the letter designation Y. + +Mr. McCLOY. The record ought to show the two points are the point which +you merely calculated the speed at which the car is going, isn't that +right? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct. + +Mr. McCLOY. Yes. + +Mr. DULLES. Between those two points the car went at an average speed +of 11.2 miles an hour? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct. Between point X and Y on Exhibit No. +883 the speed of the car was determined to be an average speed of 11.2 +miles per hour. + +Mr. DULLES. How long did the car take to go that distance, do you know, +translated into time? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. 8.3 seconds. + +Mr. DULLES. 8.3 seconds. + +Mr. SPECTER. What motion pictures, if any, were taken during the +reenactment? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. During the reenactment the black-and-white photographs +were made from Zapruder's position with a Speedgraphic camera and we +also took motion pictures with Mr. Zapruder's camera from Zapruder's +position with the car in the fixed locations as they were established +with the car just stationary in those locations. + +After establishing all those points and making these film records +of it, we then had the car proceed along that Elm Street route at +approximately 11 miles per hour, and filmed it with Mr. Zapruder's +camera loaded with color film from Mr. Zapruder's position and +simultaneously photographed it with Mr. Nix's camera from Mr. Nix's +position, and Mrs. Muchmore's camera from Mrs. Muchmore's position, and +this was done twice. + +(Off the record.) + +Mr. SPECTER. The last question was about what movies and stills you +took? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. We haven't discussed them all yet. + +Mr. SPECTER. Were any other movies taken or photographs taken in +addition to those which you heretofore described? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; after positioning the car in the street at the +specific locations and making the movies with the Zapruder, Nix, and +Muchmore cameras with the car running at 11 miles an hour on the route, +I then went to the sixth-floor window and mounted the camera on the +rifle, and photographs were made with black and white film motion +pictures of the car in the fixed positions from frame 161 through frame +positions 313. The car was stopped at each position. The individuals +and the car were positioned by Mr. Gauthier on the street using the +Zapruder pictures to reposition the individuals in the car, and motion +pictures were made of the car sitting in those various positions. +After this the car was driven at 11 miles an hour along the route and +photographs were made through the rifle scope with a 16-mm. motion +picture camera following the car as a target, as the car drove down the +assassination route. + +Following this, there were three runs made on black and white film. +Then color film was loaded in the camera and it was again photographed +on color film, 16 mm. with the car traveling at 11 miles an hour and +the scope of the rifle following the car as the target. + +This completed all the photographs that were made at the assassination +site. + +Mr. SPECTER. Was a subsequent photograph taken in the garage which you +previously identified as the railway express garage? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct. + +Mr. SPECTER. Will you repeat, even though you have heretofore mentioned +them, the angles between the spot on the back of President Kennedy's +neck which was marked with a white chalk mark and the muzzle of the +rifle when the car was positioned at frame 210? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. The angle, based on the horizontal at frame 210, to the +rifle in the window was 21°34´. + +Mr. SPECTER. What was the comparable angle at frame 225? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. 20°11´. + +Mr. SPECTER. So what would be the average angle then between those two +points? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. The average angle, allowing for the 3°9´ street +grade results in an average angle between frame 210 and frame 225 of +17°43´30´´. + +Mr. SPECTER. And that is the average angle from the muzzle to President +Kennedy as he sat in the car or President Kennedy's stand-in as he sat +in the car? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct. To the wound entrance. + +Mr. SPECTER. Is the average angle of 17°43´30´´ measured from the +muzzle to the President's body as the President would be seated in the +car? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is out on the street in those frame positions, +yes. It is measured to the point of the wound on the back of the +President. + +Mr. SPECTER. I now hand you a photograph which has been marked as +Commission Exhibit No. 903 and ask you if you know who the photographer +was? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; I took this photograph. + +Mr. SPECTER. When was that photograph taken? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. It was taken Sunday afternoon, May 24, 1964. + +Mr. SPECTER. Is there a white string which is apparent in the +background of that photograph? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct. + +Mr. SPECTER. What is the angle of declination of that string? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. That string was placed along the wall by the surveyor +at an angle of 17°43´30´´. + +Mr. SPECTER. Did the surveyor make that placement in your presence? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. He did. + +Mr. SPECTER. Were the stand-ins for President Kennedy and Governor +Connally positioned in the same relative positions as those occupied by +President Kennedy and Governor Connally depicted in the Zapruder films? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; these positions were approximately the position of +the President and Governor Connally in the Zapruder films in the area +around frame 225 as they go behind the signboard and as they emerge +from the signboard. + +Mr. SPECTER. Was the rod which is held in that photograph positioned +at an angle as closely parallel to the white string as it could be +positioned? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes. + +Mr. SPECTER. And through what positions did that rod pass? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. The rod passed through a position on the back of +the stand-in for the President at a point approximating that of the +entrance wound, exited along about the knot of the tie or the button of +the coat or button of the shirt, and the end of the rod was inserted +in the entrance hole on the back of Governor Connally's coat which was +being worn by the stand-in for Governor Connally. + +Mr. SPECTER. And was Governor Connally's stand-in seated in the +position where the point of exit would have been below the right nipple +at the approximate point described by Governor Connally's doctors? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct. + +Senator COOPER. May I ask a couple of questions? + +Am I correct in assuming that you have made these determinations about +the degree of the angle of the trajectory of the bullet at the time the +President was struck, locating the position of the President in the car +on the one hand, and the location of the rifle at the time the shots +were fired? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. The location of the wound, you mean the angle of the +wound? + +Senator COOPER. Yes. + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. The angle---- + +Senator COOPER. You had to establish the position of the President at +the time the bullet struck him and the position of the rifle to make a +determination about the degree of the angle of the direction? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct. The positions in the car, their +positions in the car, were based on the Zapruder film. + +Senator COOPER. And you were able to determine what you think very +accurately the position of the President in the car by the films that +you have examined? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes. + +Senator COOPER. Then the factor then, which is not determinate, +exactly, then is the location of the rifle, is that correct? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct. + +Senator COOPER. Upon what did you determine the location of the +rifle--upon what factors? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. The rifle was positioned in the sixth floor window of +the Book Building where the cartridges were found, and was determined +from information furnished by representatives of the Commission. + +Senator COOPER. Did you have information about the location of certain +boxes that were seen--were found--at the window after the shooting +occurred? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct. Yes; we had photographs of the boxes +and we were advised, of the approximate position in the window and how +far down the window was, the fact that some observers noted the rifle +sticking out the window. + +Senator COOPER. I want to ask you--you did have information from the +testimony of witnesses who said they saw the rifle protruding from the +window? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. We had this information furnished to us by the +Commission. + +Senator COOPER. And those facts, those locations were made known to +you, and upon that evidence did you locate the rifle, in making these +calculations? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. That was the basis for the location of the rifle in all +of our calculations. + +Senator COOPER. Just one other question. Assuming that there might have +been some variation in the location of the rifle, length of the window, +the breadth of the window, or that the rifle you used was held higher +than the rifle might have been, would it have made--how much variation +would it have made, in your judgement, in these calculations you made? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. I don't believe that any movement of the rifle in +that specific window would alter our calculations to any appreciable +degree if you stay within that window, because our reenactment and our +repositioning of the bodies in the car based on the photographs is +subject to some variation, too, so we have variations throughout. + +And the variations from the position of the rifle at that particular +window, I feel would be negligible. + +Senator COOPER. At every point where you made it, hypothetically, at +least, made the determination that at a particular point the President +was struck by a bullet, at that point the car and the President could +be seen from the window? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct. + +Senator COOPER. That is all I want to ask. + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. Even under the tree you still could see the car and the +President through the tree. + +Mr. SPECTER. Mr. Shaneyfelt, did the surveyors calculate the angle and +distance from each position where the simulated car was stopped from +the President to the triple underpass? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct. + +Mr. SPECTER. And are those figures reproduced in terms of distance to +overpass, and angle to overpass on every one of the exhibits which also +depict distance to window, referring to the sixth floor window, and +angle to rifle in window? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; they do. They are on all the exhibits. + +Mr. SPECTER. Now; is there any point on the overpass where the angle +to the President's car or the angle to the President's stand-in seated +in the simulated car, would permit a shot to be fired and to create +the wound in the President's neck, which has an angle of decline of +approximately 17°, based on the information furnished to you by the +medical evidence, which we have asked you to assume, where that wound +could be inflicted on the President's neck without regard to the point +of entry? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. No; none of the angles from the overpass are anywhere +near 17°. They range from frame 161 at a minus 7´, from horizontal, to +frame 313 which is 1°28´. None of them are even close to 17°. + +Senator COOPER. From the exhibit that has been introduced, showing +the position of the car and the President at the time of the first +shot--what was the distance from that point to the overpass? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. The approximate location of the first shot---- + +Senator COOPER. Frame what? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. Well, the exact frame has not been established, but +it would be in the range from frames 207 to 225. At frame 207, the +distance to the handrail on a line of sight vision to the wound on the +President is 350.9 feet. + +At frame 225 the line of sight distance from the handrail of the +overpass to the wound on the President is 334 feet. + +Senator COOPER. What is the distance at those points to the window in +the Texas School Book Depository? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. Frame 207 line of sight distance from the wound to the +window is 174.9 feet. This distance to the overpass from there is 350.9. + +On frame 225, line of sight to the window is 190.8 feet as opposed to +the distance to the handrail on the overpass of 334.0 feet. + +Senator COOPER. Did you yourself stand at the handrail of the overpass? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. Did I? + +Senator COOPER. Yes. + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. No; I did not. + +Mr. SPECTER. What do you mean, Mr. Shaneyfelt, by line of sight? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. Straight line distance. + +Representative FORD. Is that what is calculated by the surveyor? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct; by Mr. West. + +Mr. SPECTER. Were there members of the testing teams that did go to the +handrail at the triple underpass to make observations? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; there were. + +Mr. SPECTER. Who were they? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. I am not real sure. + +Mr. SPECTER. Mr. Chairman, those conclude my questions for Mr. +Shaneyfelt. If it please the Commission, I would like to call Mr. +Frazier at this time. + +Mr. McCLOY. Thank you very much, Mr. Shaneyfelt. + + +TESTIMONY OF ROBERT A. FRAZIER RESUMED + +Mr. SPECTER. Would you state your full name for the record, please? + +Mr. FRAZIER. Robert A. Frazier. + +Mr. SPECTER. Mr. Frazier, you have appeared before to testify, but will +you at this juncture again give us the outline of your occupation and +experience? + +Mr. FRAZIER. Yes; I am a special agent of the Federal Bureau of +Investigation assigned to the FBI Laboratory, Washington, D.C. + +I work in the firearms identification unit in the laboratory, +making examinations of firearms, bullets, the effects of bullets, +trajectories, firing tests, powder pattern tests, and various other +types of examinations. + +(At this point Senator Cooper left the hearing room.) + +Mr. SPECTER. Have you appeared heretofore before the Commission to +testify about examinations which you have conducted of the clothing +worn by President Kennedy, the clothing worn by Governor Connally, +the examination of the Presidential limousine and certain ballistics +information? + +Mr. FRAZIER. Yes; I have. + +Mr. SPECTER. Did you participate in the onsite tests at Dallas on May +24, 1964? + +Mr. FRAZIER. Yes. + +Mr. SPECTER. What was your position during most of the time of those +onsite tests? + +Mr. FRAZIER. I was stationed at the window on the sixth floor of the +Texas School Book Depository Building at the southeast corner of the +building. + +Mr. SPECTER. How far was that window open at the time the tests were +being conducted? + +Mr. FRAZIER. I estimated it as approximately one-third. It was somewhat +less than halfway open. + +Mr. SPECTER. Is that the distance depicted on Commission Exhibit No. +492, which has heretofore been introduced in evidence? + +Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir. + +Mr. SPECTER. Is the distance open on that window about the same as that +which you had it open at the time these tests were run? + +Mr. FRAZIER. Yes; I would say that this is very close. The window was +placed according to information already furnished to the Commission as +to how much it had been opened at that time. + +Mr. SPECTER. Did you handle the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle during the +course of the onsite tests? + +Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir. + +Mr. SPECTER. The rifle previously identified as Commission Exhibit No. +139? + +Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir; I did. + +Mr. SPECTER. At what position--what was the basis for your positioning +of that rifle during those tests? + +Mr. FRAZIER. To position the rifle, we selected boxes of the same +size and contour as boxes shown in a photograph or rather in two +photographs, reportedly taken by the police department at Dallas +shortly after the assassination. + +We placed these boxes in their relative position in front of the window +spacing them from left to right, according to the photographs which +were furnished to us, and also placing them up against the window, +with one of them resting on the window ledge as it was shown in the +photographs. + +Mr. SPECTER. In addition to the placement of the boxes, were there any +other guides which you had for reconstructing the position of the rifle +to the way which you believed it to have been held on November 22, 1963? + +Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir; there was one physical obstruction in the +building which could not be moved consisting of two vertical pipes +located just at the left side of the sixth floor window. These +prevented me or anyone who was shooting from that window from moving +any further to the left. + +The position of the rifle, of course, had to be such that it could be +sighted out through the window, using the telescopic sight high enough +above the window ledge so that the muzzle of the weapon would clear +the window ledge, and low enough in position so that the bottom of +the window, which was only partially raised, would not interfere with +a view through the telescopic sight, which is approximately 2 inches +higher than the actual bore of the weapon. + +Mr. SPECTER. Did you position the rifle further, based on information +provided to you concerning the testimony of certain eyewitnesses at the +assassination scene concerning what they observed? + +Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir; we attempted to put the muzzle of the weapon +sufficiently far out the window so it would have been visible from +below. + +Mr. SPECTER. Mr. Frazier, referring to Commission Exhibit No. 886, did +you view through the sight that depicted in "photograph through rifle +scope" on the positioning of the Presidential limousine or the car to +simulate the limousine at position A? + +Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir; this would be the first position that an +individual in that sixth floor window could sight at the car due to the +interference of the window ledge of the building and the fact that the +angle downward is limited by the partially lowered window. + +Mr. SPECTER. I now hand you Commission Exhibit No. 888 and ask you if +you had the view depicted on the "photograph through the rifle scope" +shown on that exhibit? + +Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir; this Exhibit No. 888 is frame 161, and is +the position at which I had the car stopped just before the spot, +indicating the entrance wound on the back of the President's stand-in, +passed into the foliage of the tree. + +Mr. SPECTER. I now hand you Exhibits Nos. 889, 890, and 891, and ask +you if you had the view on each of those depicted in the "photograph +through rifle scope"? + +Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir; Commission No. 889 represented by frame 166 is +the adjusted position to account for the fact that the Presidential +stand-in on May 24 was actually 10 inches higher in the air above the +street than the President would have been in the Presidential limousine. + +Mr. DULLES. Would you explain to us simply how you made those +adjustments? + +Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir. + +Mr. DULLES. I mean how did you get him down 10 inches as a practical +matter. + +Mr. FRAZIER. They had marked on the back of the President's coat the +location of the wound, according to the distance from the top of his +head down to the hole in his back as shown in the autopsy figures. They +then held a ruler, a tape measure up against that, both the back of +the Presidential stand-in-and the back of the Governor's stand-in, and +looking through the scope you could estimate the 10-inch distance down +on the automobile. + +You could not actually see it on the President's back. But could +locate that 10-inch distance as a point which we marked with tape on +the automobile itself, both for the Presidential and the Governor's +stand-in. + +Mr. DULLES. Thank you. + +Mr. FRAZIER. Continuing with Commission Exhibit No. 890, represented by +frame---- + +Mr. McCLOY. Hold that around so I can see it. + +Mr. FRAZIER. Represented by frame 185, this is the first or rather the +only position through the foliage of the tree at which a person from +the sixth floor could get a clear shot at the back of the President, +and I had the car stopped at this position and then we determined that +this was frame 185 from the Zapruder films. + +Mr. DULLES. There are no heavy limbs in there of any kind, are there---- + +Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir. + +Mr. DULLES. That would obstruct a bullet? + +Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir. The tree--it is a live oak tree which retains its +leaves all year around and the limbs at that point are relatively small. + +Mr. DULLES. All right. + +Mr. SPECTER. Did you compare the appearance of the foliage on the +pictures taken by the Secret Service, about which Inspector Kelley +earlier testified, with the appearance of the foliage on May 24? + +Mr. FRAZIER. Yes; I did. + +Mr. SPECTER. What was that comparison? + +Mr. FRAZIER. They are so nearly identical that you could not really +pick out any difference between the foliage and the photograph taken +previously in November. + +In Commission Exhibit No. 891, which is marked frame 186, this is the +adjusted position to which the car was moved to accommodate the 10-inch +distance at which the actual wound in the President would have been +located had the car been the actual Presidential limousine rather than +the stand-in car. + +Mr. SPECTER. Were you standing, seated, or kneeling at the time when +these photographs were taken and the sighting of the rifle was made by +you. + +Mr. FRAZIER. I was actually sitting on a carton with my left elbow +resting on the boxes stacked in front of the window. + +Mr. SPECTER. Did that position represent to you the most likely +position which the rifleman assumed on November 22, 1963, based upon +the positioning of the various boxes? + +Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir. + +Mr. SPECTER. And the eyewitness accounts as to how far the rifle +protruded? + +Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir; it was. + +Mr. SPECTER. Now, in all of the frames that you have described up to +now, did you position the automobile on the street or give instructions +over the radio as to where the automobile ought to be stopped for those +various sightings? + +Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir. + +Mr. SPECTER. I now hand you Commission Exhibits Nos. 892 and 893, and +ask you if you observed the views depicted in the "photograph through +rifle scope" on each of those exhibits? + +Mr. FRAZIER. On Commission Exhibit No. 892, also marked frame No. 207, +the car was moved forward under the tree to the point where the spot +on the Presidential stand-in's back just became visible beyond the +foliage of the tree. I had the car stopped at that point so that this +photograph could be made there. + +On Commission Exhibit No. 893, also marked frame 210, we have the +photograph made at the adjusted position to accommodate the 10-inch +difference in height between the stand-in and the actual position of +the wound above the street and on the President's body. + +Mr. SPECTER. What was the alinement of President Kennedy's stand-in +with Governor Connally's stand-in at frames 207 and 210? + +Mr. FRAZIER. They both are in direct alinement with the telescopic +sight at the window. The Governor is immediately behind the President +in the field of view. Was that your question? + +Mr. SPECTER. Yes. + +Mr. FRAZIER. Alinement of people? + +Mr. SPECTER. Yes, sir. + +Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir. + +Mr. SPECTER. Could Governor Connally have taken a shot in the range of +frames 207 to 210 which would have traversed his body with the entry +and exit points being approximately what they were shown to be through +the medical records? + +Preliminarily, let me ask you if, for the record, you had seen or had +made available to you the contents of the medical records showing the +point of entry on the back of the Governor and the point of exit on the +front side of his chest? + +Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir; I don't recall having seen the medical testimony. +However, information has been furnished to me by Commission members as +to the relative positions on the back and the front of the Governor. + +Mr. SPECTER. Have you in addition had an opportunity to examine +personally the clothing worn by the Governor consisting of his jacket +and shirt? + +Mr. FRAZIER. Yes; I have. + +Mr. SPECTER. Based on the Governor's position then in frames 207 and +210, was he lined up so that a bullet fired from the sixth floor would +have passed through his body in about the way that the entry and exit +holes were described to you? + +Mr. FRAZIER. Yes; I would say that this could have happened at these +two frames. + +However, this would assume that the path of the bullet through the +Governor's body was the same as the path of the bullet before it +struck, that is, there was no appreciable deflection in the body +itself. Since I have no actual technical evidence available to me that +there was no deflection, I can only say that it is a possibility under +the circumstances as set up in these photographs. + +Mr. SPECTER. You would state that as a possibility based upon the +observations you made and the facts provided to you? + +Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir. + +Mr. SPECTER. All right. + +I now hand you Commission Exhibits Nos. 894 and 895 and ask you if you +saw the photograph as depicted on the "photograph through rifle sight" +on those exhibits? + +Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir. + +Commission Exhibit No. 894 is marked frame 222, and the photograph +through the scope is the same field which I saw looking through the +telescope on May 24, 1964. + +This is similarly true of Commission Exhibit No. 895--895 being frame +No. 225. + +Mr. SPECTER. I now show you Exhibits Nos. 896 and 897 and ask you if +the picture shown on "photograph through rifle scope" is that which you +observed at the times those pictures were taken. + +Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir. This Exhibit No. 896 is also marked frame No. +231, and represents the relative positions of the President's and +Governor's stand-in on May 24. + +Commission Exhibit No. 897, which is marked frame 235, also represents +the positions of the Presidential and Governor's stand-in as I saw it +from the sixth floor on that date. + +Mr. SPECTER. I now hand you Exhibits Nos. 899, 898, and 901 and ask +if you saw the pictures or if your view was the same as "photograph +through rifle scope" depicted on those exhibits? + +Mr. FRAZIER. Yes; they are. In each case Commission Exhibit No. 898, +which is marked frame 240, Commission Exhibit No. 899, which is also +marked frame 249, and Commission Exhibit No. 901, which is also marked +frame 255. + +In the "photographs through the scope" the individuals representing the +President and the Governor are as they were positioned on May 24. + +Mr. SPECTER. Now, assuming certain factors, Mr. Frazier, to wit: That +the President and Governor Connally were seated in an open automobile +in the approximate positions taken by the President's stand-in and +the Governor's stand-in during the onsite tests, that a bullet passed +through President Kennedy entering at a velocity of 1,900 feet per +second striking 14 centimeters below the right mastoid process and 14 +centimeters to the left of the right acromion process which is the tip +of the right shoulder, that the bullet passed through a fascia channel, +hitting no bones, and proceeded in a straight line, exiting through the +lower one-third of his neck, passing out of his shirt at the position +which you observed personally from your inspection of the President's +shirt, nicking the knot on the President's tie in the way you observed +from your examination of that tie; do you have an opinion as to whether +it is probable, based on the fact which I have asked you to assume, +that a bullet could have gone through the President and missed the +interior of the limousine and all of its occupants between frames 207 +and 225? + +Mr. FRAZIER. I can give you my opinion based on this reconstruction, as +I understand your question. + +All of these things refer to the reconstruction and assuming +particularly that the path of the projectile to the President was also +the same path, the same angle as it went through his body and then on, +and in that connection, yes. + +In my opinion the bullet had to strike in the car, either the car +itself or an occupant of the car. + +Mr. SPECTER. And is that a probable opinion of yours based on what you +saw during the tests and the facts I have asked you to assume? + +Mr. FRAZIER. Yes; it is, and in fact, I think it is rather--it is +obvious when you look at the photographs themselves that the crosshair +of the telescopic sight actually would give you the point of impact of +the bullet if the weapon is sighted in and if there is no change in the +line of sight the bullet had to strike the cars shown in each of these +photographs which is frame 225 on this end of this series, and frame +207 on the other end of the series. + +It shows that there would be no chance for the bullet to miss the car +at all if it had no deviation in its--if it had no deflection in its +path. + +Mr. SPECTER. Did you have an opportunity to examine the car shortly +after the assassination? + +Mr. FRAZIER. Yes; I did, on the early morning of November 23, 1963. + +Mr. SPECTER. The record will show you have testified about it +heretofore, but will you again state at this juncture whether or not +you found any indication within the car that the interior of the car +was struck by a missile proceeding at a high velocity such as 1,775 +feet per second? + +Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir; we found none. + +We examined in particular the passenger's section, the rear seat area +of the back of the automobile clear up to the back of the rear seat, +the rear seat itself, the floorboards and the back of the front seat, +the backs primarily of the jump seats, and other areas in the front of +the car, the windshield and the chrome and the front hoods and fenders +and sides of the automobile and we found no evidence of a bullet impact +having those characteristics you mentioned. + +Mr. SPECTER. Did you also examine the windshield of the car, interior +and exterior? + +Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir. + +Mr. SPECTER. And the chrome of the car on the interior and the exterior? + +Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir. + +Mr. SPECTER. Did you also examine the front portion of the Presidential +limousine? + +Mr. FRAZIER. Yes; we did. That portion, the dashboard below the +windshield and the dashboard in the area immediately under that were +particularly examined, because the rest of it would have been shielded +from a shot due to the height of the dashboard and the height of the +back of the front seat. + +Mr. SPECTER. Did any of that area examined disclose any impact of such +a missile? + +Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir; not of a high velocity. Only the lead area +smeared on the inside of the windshield from a relatively light object +which struck the inside, and did not even break the inside surface of +the glass, and then there was a possible bullet impact area at the top +of the chrome to the right of the rearview mirror. This was made by a +projectile not having the weight or velocity of a whole bullet moving +at, in the range of a thousand to 1,500 feet per second or more. + +Mr. SPECTER. Based on the position of Governor Connally as depicted in +the Zapruder slides at frames 222 and 225, could he have taken a shot, +assuming the firing point to have been the sixth floor of the Texas +School Book Depository Building, which entered and exited from his body +in accordance with the known medical evidence? + +Mr. FRAZIER. I have not made a very thorough study of the Zapruder +film which I understand you mentioned in this particular question with +reference to the Zapruder film itself. + +Mr. SPECTER. We will take it with reference to the reconstructed +positions of Governor Connally in frames 222 and 225, which you have +testified you did observe at the time the measurements and photographs +were taken. + +Mr. FRAZIER. I would say, yes, under the conditions that I mentioned +previously, that the reconstruction would represent the Governor as it +was in November, then he could have been struck anywhere in that frame +area of from 207 to 225. + +Mr. SPECTER. How about the same question in frames 231, 235, 240 and +thereafter? + +Mr. FRAZIER. There is only one position beyond frame 225 at which the +Governor could have been struck according to the information furnished +to me and from my examination of his clothing that he was struck near +the right sleeve seam and that the bullet came out through the inside +pocket of his jacket. + +At frame 231 the Governor is, as I saw it from the window on that date, +turned to the front to such an extent that he could not have been hit +at that particular frame. + +Mr. SPECTER. Why not, Mr. Frazier? + +Mr. FRAZIER. The angle through his body, as I measured it on the coat +is approximately 20° from the right toward the left. On May 24 in our +reconstruction I found that the Governor had turned farther to the +front from a position slightly facing the right than he was in at frame +225. He had turned back to the front so that a shot which struck him in +this shoulder in the back---- + +Mr. SPECTER. Indicating the right shoulder? + +Mr. FRAZIER. Indicating the right shoulder near the seam would have +come out much further to his right than the actual exit hole described +to me as being just under the right nipple. + +Mr. SPECTER. How would the bullet have passed through his body based on +his position as shown in frame 235? + +Mr. FRAZIER. In frame 235, which is Commission Exhibit No. 897, the +Governor in our reconstruction, according to the Zapruder film was also +facing too far, too much towards the front. The angle of the bullet +through his body, assuming no deflection, would not have corresponded +to the angle through his clothing or according to the information +furnished from the medical examiners. + +Mr. SPECTER. How about the Governor's position in frame 240? + +Mr. FRAZIER. In frame 240 the Governor again could not have been shot, +assuming no deflection of the bullet prior to its striking his body, +from the window on the sixth floor because he is turned in this case +too far to the right. + +Now, this obviously indicates that the Governor in between frame 235 +and frame 240 has turned from facing completely forward in the car +around to the right to the point that a bullet entering his back on the +right shoulder area would have exited in my opinion somewhere from his +left chest area rather than from his right chest area. + +Mr. SPECTER. How about the Governor's position at frame 249? + +Mr. FRAZIER. In frame 249 a similar situation exists in that the +Governor, as represented by his stand-in in our reconstruction, has +turned too far to the right, even further than frame 240, so that in +frame 249 represented by Commission Exhibit No. 899, he again could not +have been hit by a bullet which came from the window on the sixth floor +and struck him in an undeflected fashion and passed through his body +undeflected. + +Mr. SPECTER. How about frame 255? + +Mr. FRAZIER. On frame 255 which is in Commission Exhibit No. 901 the +Governor is turned again too far to the right, and the same situation +would hold true as to what we saw in frame 249. + +The bullet would have exited too far on his left side, provided there +was no deflection between the window and the point of exit from the +Governor's body. + +Mr. SPECTER. Mr. Frazier, based on the angles, distances, and speeds of +the car and bullet in this situation, what lead would a marksman have +to give to strike the moving target, allowing for all of those factors? + +Mr. FRAZIER. The lead would be approximately the same for all of these +positions represented by your frame or rather your Commission Exhibit +No. 888, which is frame 161, all the way up to frame 313 which I don't +have, the Commission's Exhibit is No. 902 on frame 313, a lead of 6 +inches above the point of impact would be sufficient to account for +the movement of the car during the flight of the bullet. + +The fact that the same lead would be necessary at each place is because +at the closer frame numbers, the lower frame numbers, 161, 166, 185, +and so forth, there is a relatively steep downward angle beginning at +40°, whereas the last shot, the downward angle is approximately 17° or +20°, in that neighborhood. + +Just one thing more, it would require less apparent elevation of the +crosshair over the point of impact at the distant target to allow for a +further movement of the car of approximately 2 feet at the point where +the head shot occurred. + +So the lead would be constant between 5.9 inches above the point of +impact to 6.3 inches above the point of impact. + +Mr. DULLES. Have you asked the witness--I was studying these frame +pictures--at about what frame he thinks the body of Governor Connally +would have been in a position to receive a bullet that would go through +the body with this trajectory? + +Mr. SPECTER. Yes; I believe I did. + +Mr. DULLES. I wasn't quite clear. + +Mr. FRAZIER. I testified that it would have been in position from +anywhere from frames 207 to 225. + +However, I cannot limit it to 207 because at that point the car goes +back under the foliage and you can't actually see clearly enough. + +Mr. DULLES. Between frames 207 and 225? + +Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir; approximately frame 207 to approximately frame +225. + +Mr. DULLES. Thank you. + +Mr. SPECTER. Looking at Exhibit No. 902, frame 313, on the view shown +on the "photograph through rifle scope," is that the way you saw it at +the time of the reconstruction, when the car was in that position as +shown in that exhibit? + +Mr. FRAZIER. Yes; it is. + +Mr. SPECTER. At this time I move for the admission into evidence of +Commission Exhibits Nos. 885 through 903 which constitute all of the +photographs referred to by Mr. Shaneyfelt and Mr. Frazier during their +testimony. + +(Commission Exhibits Nos. 855 through 903 were marked for +identification, and received in evidence.) + +Mr. McCLOY. They may be admitted. + +Mr. SPECTER. That completes the questioning. + +Mr. McCLOY. As I get it, Mr. Frazier, what you are saying is there +is only a certain point at which the bullet could pass through the +President, could have hit Mr. Connally, and that is at a point when he +is not sitting full face forward and at a point when he is not too far +turned around. + +Mr. FRAZIER. That is exactly right. + +Mr. McCLOY. Somewhere when he is turning to the right. + +Mr. FRAZIER. He was placed approximately 20° to the right. + +Mr. McCLOY. To the right. + +Mr. FRAZIER. That is 20° according to my examination of his clothing +but I don't know the exact figures of the angle through his body. + +Mr. SPECTER. I have one additional question. + +Mr. Frazier, assuming the factors which I have asked you to accept as +true for the purposes of expressing an opinion before, as to the flight +of the bullet and the straight line penetration through the President's +body, considering the point of entry and exit, do you have an opinion +as to what probably happened during the interval between frames 207 +and 225 as to whether the bullet which passed through the neck of the +President entered the Governor's back. + +Mr. FRAZIER. There are a lot of probables in that. First, we have to +assume there is absolutely no deflection in the bullet from the time it +left the barrel until the time it exited from the Governor's body. That +assumes that it has gone through the President's body and through the +Governor's body. + +I feel that physically this would have been possible because of the +positions of the Presidential stand-in and the Governor's stand-in, it +would be entirely possible for this to have occurred. + +However, I myself don't have any technical evidence which would permit +me to say one way or the other, in other words, which would support it +as far as my rendering an opinion as an expert. I would certainly say +it was possible but I don't say that it probably occurred because I +don't have the evidence on which to base a statement like that. + +Mr. SPECTER. What evidence is it that you would be missing to assess +the probabilities? + +Mr. FRAZIER. We are dealing with hypothetical situations here of +placing people in cars from photographs which are not absolutely +accurate. They are two dimensional. They don't give you the third +dimension. They are as accurate as you can accurately place the people +but it isn't absolute. + +Secondly, we are dealing with the fact that we don't know whether, I +don't know technically, whether there was any deviation in the bullet +which struck the President in the back, and exited from his front. If +there were a few degrees deviation then it may affect my opinion as to +whether or not it would have struck the Governor. + +We are dealing with an assumed fact that the Governor was in front of +the President in such a position that he could have taken. So when you +say would it probably have occurred, then you are asking me for an +opinion, to base my opinion on a whole series of hypothetical facts +which I can't substantiate. + +Mr. McCLOY. Let me put it to you in another way--from your best +judgment about what you know about this thing, what was the sequence of +the shots, and who was hit, and when in relation to---- + +Mr. FRAZIER. I will say this--I have looked at the film and have seen +evidence of one shot occurring which struck the President in the head. +That was at frame 313. + +Mr. SPECTER. Frame 313? Yes. + +Mr. FRAZIER. Commission Exhibit No. 902. I have seen evidence in the +film of the President with both arms up clutching at his throat, and +having examined his clothing and having seen the hole in his shirt and +his back, I might assume that he is clutching his throat because a +bullet exited from his throat. I don't have the technical knowledge to +substantiate that. There was no metal on this hole in front, and there +is no way for me to say from my own examination that it actually was a +bullet hole. Nowhere else in this film have I seen any indication of a +bullet striking. + +Mr. SPECTER. The President? + +Mr. FRAZIER. Either the President or the Governor. Because I do not +know the reaction time which would exist from the time a bullet struck +until someone made a move. It may be a half second, it may be a full +second. It may be a tenth of a second. It depends upon the intensity of +the pain, and actually what happened. + +And therefore, in looking at the film you can't say a bullet struck +right here because he started to move his hands here. It may have been +a full second, a half second behind that spot. I would say that two +bullets at least struck in the automobile. I cannot say that three +bullets did not strike in the automobile from my examination, but it +appears and due to the reconstruction at Dallas, it appears that if the +one bullet did strike the President, then it landed in the automobile, +and if it landed in the automobile, and we found no evidence of it +having hit the car itself, then I say it is possible that it struck the +Governor. + +Now, as to the sequence of the shots, that one obviously was before the +head shot. If there was a third shot fired, I could not tell you from +anything I know whether it was the first, the second, or the third. + +Mr. McCLOY. It is possible, according to your analysis of it, that the +first shot could have gone through the back of the President and exited +through the front of his neck, and the second shot could have hit +Connally, and the third shot could have hit the President. + +Mr. DULLES. Where would the first shot have gone under that thesis? + +Mr. McCLOY. I just say I don't know where it could have gone. + +Mr. FRAZIER. From what I know from my examination that is true, because +I have seen bullets strike small twigs, small objects, and ricochet for +no apparent reason except they hit and all the pressure is on one side +and it turns the bullet and it goes off at an angle. + +If there was no deviation from the time the bullet left the rifle +barrel until the time it exited from the Governor's body, then the +physical setup exists for it to have gone through the President, and +through the Governor. + +Mr. SPECTER. You mean from the time it exited through the Governor's +body? + +Mr. FRAZIER. That is right. Otherwise, you have nothing to base a +conclusion upon. If you have deviation anywhere along the line then +you both affect the position at which the Governor could have been +shot--for instance--if the bullet entered the Governor's back and +immediately took a 20° leftward angle, then the Governor could have +been shot when he was facing straightforward in the automobile. + +Now, I can't tell that, and therefore I can only say that my opinion +must be based on your assumption that there was not a deviation of the +bullet through the President's body and no deviation of the bullet +through the Governor's body, no deflection. On that basis then you can +say that it is possible for both of them to have been hit with one +bullet. + +Representative FORD. Does that opinion rule out the possibility or cast +doubt on the possibility of a third shot? + +Mr. FRAZIER. It does not rule out the possibility of a third shot. +No, sir; because I can only base my opinion on what I saw and my own +experience, and that is that a bullet could have struck the President, +if it had deflection in the President's body it could have, and he +happened to be in a certain position in the car which would affect the +angle, the bullet may have exited from the automobile. + +Representative FORD. As I understood your assumptions there was no +deviation and no deflection, and I thought I phrased my question based +on your opinion under those facts, it might rule out a third shot. + +Mr. DULLES. Do you mean rule out a third shot entirely or just rule out +a third shot hitting in the car? + +Representative FORD. Rule out a third shot in one instance or establish +the possibility of a third shot that missed everything. + +Mr. FRAZIER. As I understand your question I am now assuming these +various factors to exist, that there was no deviation, no change in the +path of the bullet. + +Representative FORD. The bullet went through the President and through +the Governor. + +Mr. FRAZIER. Yes; then under that premise and the reconstruction +showing the position of the car with reference to the path of the +bullet, then it is entirely possible that these two individuals were +hit with one bullet and that there was not another bullet that struck +in the car other than the one that struck the President in the back of +the head and exited from his head. + +Representative FORD. Under these assumptions there is a possibility +there was not a third shot or there was a third shot that missed +everything. + +Mr. FRAZIER. That missed everything; yes, sir. + +Mr. DULLES. Is there any way of correlating the time of the shot with +the position of the car so as to know whether possibly the first shot +was fired before the car was out from the tree and it might have hit a +branch of the tree and be deflected so it didn't hit the car? If he had +fired too soon. I guess it is impossible. + +Mr. FRAZIER. It is possible, I don't have any evidence to support it +one way or the other. + +Mr. DULLES. Yes. + +Mr. FRAZIER. As to whether or not a limb of the tree may have deflected +one shot. However, I think it should be remembered that the frame +207 is just as he exits under the tree; from there to frame 225 to +where the President shows a reaction is only a matter of 1 second. +He is under the tree in frames 166 until frame 207, which is about 2 +seconds. So somewhere in that 3-second interval there may have been +a shot--which deflected from a limb or for some other reason and was +never discovered. + +Representative FORD. Mr. Chairman, may I return to questions that I was +asking Mr. Frazier? + +Mr. McCLOY. Yes. + +Representative FORD. Again making those same assumptions we made a +moment ago, is there any evidence that a third shot hit the car or any +occupant of the car? + +Mr. FRAZIER. Assuming all those assumptions we had before; no. I would +say that, and again I have not the technical evidence to back this up +one way or the other but you make these assumptions and I would say +under those conditions only two shots hit the occupants of the car +because the one through the President had to cause Connally's wound +otherwise it would have struck somewhere else in the car and it did not +strike somewhere else. + +Therefore, it had to go through Governor Connally. + +And the second shot had to strike the President in the head. + +Mr. McCLOY. How about these shots you spoke of, one of the fragments, +at least, hitting the glass, the windshield and one possibly hitting +the chrome. Was there anything, could it have been any fragmentation +of the first shot which didn't hit, the first shot that hit the +President, let's say, but didn't hit Connally, might that again make +the possibility of three shots, one of them hitting the President and +fragmenting as you indicated, and a second one hitting Connally, and +the third one hitting the President for the lethal shot. + +Mr. FRAZIER. Under that circumstance the bullet exiting from the +President would have had to strike something else in the car to break +it up. + +Mr. McCLOY. Break it up inasmuch as it was broken up? + +Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir; there was no evidence that the bullet which +exited from the President was in any but complete condition, that is +there was only one hole through the shirt, there was only one hole +through his coat or shirt actually and the testimony of the medical +examiners was that it made a relatively straight path through the body. + +Mr. SPECTER. That completes my questions of Mr. Frazier. + +Mr. DULLES. Could I ask just one more question? + +Mr. SPECTER. Yes, sir; Mr. Dulles. + +Mr. DULLES. There has been a certain amount of testimony indicating +there was a longer pause between the report of the first shot or what +is believed to be the report, explosion of the first shot and the +second and third shots, that is not absolutely unanimous but I would +say it is something like 5 to 1 or something of that kind, what would +you say, 2 to 1, 3 to 1? + +(Discussion off the record.) + +Mr. DULLES. Is it possible that the assassin attempted to fire when the +car was behind the tree or going into the tree, that that shot went +astray, and that that accounts for, if there was a longer delay between +one and two, that would account for it, and then the lethal shots were +fired or the wound, the one shot that was fired that hit the two and +then the lethal shot was fired immediately after. It is speculation. + +Mr. McCLOY. I think that must be speculation because there certainly +is conflicting evidence as to the intervals between the first and the +second shot and the second and the third shot. + +Mr. DULLES. I think if you will read the testimony you will find it at +least 2 to 1 except for the people in the car. + +Mr. McCLOY. Maybe, but what weight do you give these, I don't know. I +think that is quite possible that a bullet was deflected by that tree, +but there is no evidence whatever of the bullet landing anywhere in the +street or among the crowd. + +And yet there seems to be no doubt at all that three shots were fired. + +Mr. DULLES. That seems to be the evidence. + +Mr. McCLOY. At least three shots were fired, and probably three shots +were fired because of the three shells that were found. + +Mr. DULLES. Three shells? + +Mr. McCLOY. Yes. + +Mr. DULLES. We probably won't settle that today. + +Mr. FRAZIER. I don't know how to answer that question except possibly +to go back to the frame numbers of the Zapruder film and you will find +they are about equally spaced from frame 161 just before the tree to +frame, say, 220, which is just a few frames after the tree, that is +59 or approximately 60 frames, from that point. But from frame 222 to +the last shot of frame 313 is 78 and 13, 91 frames, so there is more +time between the second and third than the first and second, assuming +that the second one actually occurred and that it occurred at about the +middle of that interval. + +Mr. McCLOY. In the middle of that frame, yes. I think that is pretty +persuasive. + +Mr. DULLES. I didn't quite follow that. + +Mr. McCLOY. There seemed to be more frames between, going backwards, +between the third shot, that is between the time that---- + +Mr. DULLES. The first shot went astray, you don't know whether it was +fired. You have no way of getting at that. + +(Discussion off the record.) + +Mr. McCLOY. Thank you very much, Mr. Frazier. + +Mr. SPECTER. I want to call Inspector Kelley for observations from the +underpass. + +May the record show that Inspector Thomas Kelley has returned to the +witness chair. + + +TESTIMONY OF THOMAS J. KELLEY RESUMED + +Mr. KELLEY. Yes, sir. + +Mr. SPECTER. Before we conclude the testimony, Inspector Kelley, I +want to ask you if on May 24 you had occasion to go over to the triple +underpass and observe the simulated car and occupants drive down Elm +Street from Houston Street? + +Mr. KELLEY. Yes; I accompanied Mr. Redlich and Mr. Specter from the +Commission on the point on the overpass. + +Mr. SPECTER. From the Commission or from where to the overpass--pardon +me. I understand your sequence there. + +What did you observe as to the position of the President's stand-in +concerning whether he could have been struck by a bullet which was +fired from the top of the triple underpass? + +Mr. KELLEY. I observed as the car came down Elm Street that the +President's stand-in was in our view all the time as he was coming +down the street from the right-hand side of the car. As the more you +moved over to the left of the underpass, the longer the stand-in was in +direct view of anybody standing on the overpass. + +Mr. SPECTER. And was the stand-in obstructed by the windshield at +anytime as the car drove down Elm Street? + +Mr. KELLEY. No; he was not. However, never at any time was he in a +position to take a wound in the throat which from the drawings that +have been given me, that I have been shown by the Commission, would +he take a wound in the throat which would have exited higher than the +throat or in the shoulder. + +From the evidence that has been shown previously, the wound in the +throat was lower on the President's body than the wound in the +shoulder, and---- + +Mr. SPECTER. By the wound in the shoulder do you mean the wound in the +back of the President's neck, the base of his neck? + +Mr. KELLEY. Yes. + +Mr. SPECTER. So, could a shot have been fired from the top of the +triple underpass which would have passed through the President's neck, +disregarding the medical evidence on point of entry, which traveled in +an upward direction from the front of his neck upward to the back of +his neck? + +Mr. KELLEY. In my judgment, no. + +Representative FORD. If a person were standing where you have indicated +you were on that triple overpass, on November 22, he would have been in +full view of anybody in the immediate vicinity. + +Mr. KELLEY. Yes; and there were people on the overpass. There was a +policeman on the overpass, there were a number of railroad workmen on +the overpass at that time. + +Representative FORD. There would have been no place where such a person +could have hidden himself and not been detected? + +Mr. KELLEY. Not on the overpass. + +Mr. DULLES. What were the railway workmen doing on the overpass, were +they helping to guard the overpass or just spectators? + +Mr. KELLEY. No; they were working. There are a great many tracks +indicated here. + +Mr. DULLES. Yes; I was up there and I remember it very well. + +Mr. KELLEY. They were doing some repairs on the tracks. + +Mr. DULLES. I see. + +Mr. McCLOY. I had the impression there was more than one policeman also +guarding up there, at least two, but maybe I am wrong. At least there +is some testimony. + +Mr. DULLES. Do you recall, Mr. Specter, what the testimony is on +that--the number of policemen on the overpass? + +Mr. SPECTER. I believe there were two officers on the overpass, who +said that no shots came from that direction. + +Mr. McCLOY. No shots came from that direction. Is that all you wanted? + +Mr. SPECTER. That completes the testimony of Mr. Kelley and all of the +individuals this afternoon. + +Mr. McCLOY. Thank you very much, Mr. Kelley. + +(Whereupon, at 6:40 p.m., the President's Commission recessed to view +the films.) + + +TESTIMONY OF LYNDAL L. SHANEYFELT RESUMED + +(Present were Mr. McCloy, Mr. Dulles, and Representative Ford) + +Mr. SPECTER. May the record now show that the Commission has now +reassembled on the first floor of the VFW Building where a motion +picture projector and slide projector and screen have been set up for +viewing of the films. + +Mr. Shaneyfelt, what are you going to show us first of all? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. The first film will be of the color motion picture made +through the rifle scope as the car drove down the assassination route +at approximately 11 miles an hour. It will give the view the rifleman +had as he aimed the rifle from the sixth floor window of the Book +Building. + +(Film) + +Mr. DULLES. Is that going 11 miles per hour? + +(Discussion off the record.) + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. This film will be the black and white photographs of +the car in the fixed still positions in each of the frame numbers +described in previous testimony. + +In addition the final portion of the film is a run through of the car +at 11 miles an hour on three separate runs filmed as the rifleman would +have seen the car looking through the rifle. + +On the first run of the car going down the assassination route I have +stained frames in the vicinity of frame 222 which is after the first +clear shot after the tree, I have stained the frame at the location of +shot 313, which is the second pink flash you will see. + +I found, in examining the film, that this is a shorter span of time +than in the actual film. It is a span on the reenactment of about three +and a half seconds between 222 and 313. + +The second frame stained is 313 but since it is running at a faster +speed I have also stained a spot that represents 5 seconds which is +what the time lapse was between frame 222 and frame 313 in the actual +assassination films. + +That will be after the car driving scene. + +(Film) + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. This is the last clear shot and this is an adjusted +last clear shot before going under the tree. This is the shot +approximately 185. This is frame 186 which is the adjusted shots which +would account for a 10-inch variance. + +Shot of frame 207, and the adjusted frame which was 210. This is frame +222 and you can see the tree is still in the background. + +This is 225 now. 231. At this point Governor Connally states he has +been hit by now. This is 235. 240--249--255--and the shot to the head +which is 313. + +Mr. SPECTER. What is this? Describe this, Mr. Shaneyfelt. + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. This is the run at 11 miles an hour containing the pink +stain. This is another run at 11 miles an hour. It will give you some +idea of the difficulty of tracking a car with a heavy camera mounted +on the rifle. + +Mr. McCLOY. You have to sight that with a camera? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. Sighting through a camera. + +(Film) + +Mr. REDLICH. Just as a final thing, Mr. McCloy, would you like to see +the Zapruder film? + +Mr. McCLOY. I think we will take the original Zapruder again, I don't +know whether we have anything that is more significant in the black and +whites, I am talking about the particular movies of the frames, we have +not seen those. + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes. + +Mr. McCLOY. I think we have seen all we need to see with regard to +that. What have you got left? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. The original Zapruder film. + +Mr. McCLOY. We will see that. + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. We have the duplication of the Zapruder film +reenactment. The first portion of the reel is the still shots and the +last portion is the run through at 11 miles an hour. + +Mr. SPECTER. I think you would find that worth while to see. + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. Then we have Nix and Muchmore of the same run. + +Mr. McCLOY. Let's do those, too. + +Representative FORD. First is the original Zapruder. + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. Original Zapruder. This is not the original. This is +the first copy. + +(Film) + +Mr. SPECTER. Will you state for the record what film we just saw? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. This film we just viewed is a copy made directly from +the original Zapruder film of the actual assassination. + +Mr. SPECTER. Could you now show us the film which was taken at the +reconstruction from the Zapruder position? + +(Film) + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. These films we made in Dallas have been developed and +left intact and have not been edited in any way so there are a lot of +blank spaces where we run the leader off and turn the film. This is +position 161. This side-to-side jiggle is a camera malfunction. + +Mr. McCLOY. This is 16 mm.? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. No; 8 mm. + +Representative FORD. Is this from his camera? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; taken with his camera. Frame 222, frame 225. This +is frame 231. + +Representative FORD. He has a delayed reaction compared to what the +President did. + +Mr. SPECTER. What frame is this, Mr. Shaneyfelt? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. 313, the head shot. + +Mr. McCLOY. The head shot. + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. This is the position which is not duplicated on the +Zapruder film. This is running the film out to reload it. + +During that run at 11 miles an hour we made no effort to duplicate the +body position because it would have been most difficult to know just +when to turn. The only other films we have are the ones we shot with +the Nix and Muchmore cameras of this same run from their positions. + +Mr. McCLOY. Did Nix, Muchmore get a second shot of the head shot? + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. Mrs. Muchmore got the head shot and Mr. Nix got the +head shot. + +Mr. McCLOY. They both got it. + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. We have both those films. + +Mr. McCLOY. We might take a look at it while we are here. I don't think +I have ever seen those. Those are 88 mm., too. + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes. + +(Film.) + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. This film is the film that was taken by Mr. Orville +Nix of the assassination. This is along Houston street going toward +Elm. There was the head shot. We will roll it back and run it at slow +motion. The head shot shows just a very faint pink. + +Mr. McCLOY. Very soon after this sequence begins. Just as the President +is directly under the white abutment in the background. I will try to +give you a clue about when it is going to happen, there. + +The next film is the film that was exposed in Mr. Nix's camera standing +in the position determined to be his camera position at the reenactment +in Dallas, with the car traveling at approximately 11 miles an hour +along Elm street. + +These films were compared with each other and found to be consistent +in the size of the car in the area of the picture and verified the +position as being that of Mr. Nix. + +(Film) + +Mr. SPECTER. Have you now shown us, Mr. Shaneyfelt, all of the movies +that we saw, we took in Dallas? + +Mr. McCLOY. Mrs. Muchmore. + +Mr. SPECTER. Mrs. Muchmore. + +(Film) + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. This is the motorcade coming down Main and turning into +Houston street. + +Mr. McCLOY. She didn't know she took that. + +Mr. SHANEYFELT. No. + +Mr. SPECTER. Have we now seen all the films from Dallas? That concludes +the films. + +Mr. McCloy, for the record, I would like to have the films marked with +Commission Exhibit No. 904 identifying the Zapruder copy. That is the +copy of the original Zapruder film. + +May I say here, parenthetically, that we do not intend to reproduce +all of this in the published record of the Commission since we have +extracted the key numbers on Exhibit 885 on the album which shows the +frames of the Zapruder film after the President's automobile turns left +off of Houston onto Elm, but for the permanent archives these films +should be made a part of the permanent record. + +I would like to have a copy of the original Nix film marked as +Commission Exhibit No. 905. I would like to have the copy of the +original Muchmore film marked as Commission Exhibit No. 906. I would +like to have all of the movies which we took at Dallas marked in a +group as Commission Exhibit No. 907. + +Mr. McCLOY. That is all the movies that were taken on May 24 in Dallas +by the test team, so to speak. + +Mr. SPECTER. Right, Commissioner McCloy. They are marked as Commission +Exhibit No. 907, and I would like to move formally for the admission +into evidence of Commission Exhibits Nos. 904 through 907 at this time. + +Mr. McCLOY. They may be admitted. + +(Commission Exhibits Nos. 904, 905, 906, and 907 were marked for +identification, and received in evidence.) + +(Whereupon, at 7:20 p.m., the President's Commission recessed.) + + + + +_Friday, June 5, 1964_ + +TESTIMONY OF MRS. JOHN F. KENNEDY + +The President's Commission met, at 4:20 p.m., on Friday, June 5, 1964, +at 3017 N Street NW., Washington, D.C. + +Present was Chief Justice Earl Warren, Chairman. + +Also present were J. Lee Rankin, general counsel; and Robert F. +Kennedy, Attorney General of the United States. + +The CHAIRMAN. The Commission will be in order. + + +Mrs. Kennedy, the Commission would just like to have you say in +your own words, in your own way, what happened at the time of +the assassination of the President. Mr. Rankin will ask you a few +questions, just from the time you left the airport until the time you +started for the hospital. And we want it to be brief. We want it to +be in your own words and want you to say anything that you feel is +appropriate to that occasion. + +Would you be sworn, please, Mrs. Kennedy? + +Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you give before the Commission +will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help +you God? + +Mrs. KENNEDY. I do. + +The CHAIRMAN. Would you be seated. + +Mr. RANKIN. State your name for the record. + +Mrs. KENNEDY. Jacqueline Kennedy. + +Mr. RANKIN. And you are the widow of the former President Kennedy? + +Mrs. KENNEDY. That is right. + +Mr. RANKIN. You live here in Washington? + +Mrs. KENNEDY. Yes. + +Mr. RANKIN. Can you go back to the time that you came to Love Field on +November 22 and describe what happened there after you landed in the +plane? + +Mrs. KENNEDY. We got off the plane. The then Vice President and +Mrs. Johnson were there. They gave us flowers. And then the car was +waiting, but there was a big crowd there, all yelling, with banners and +everything. And we went to shake hands with them. It was a very hot +day. And you went all along a long line. I tried to stay close to my +husband and lots of times you get pushed away, you know, people leaning +over and pulling your hand. They were very friendly. + +And, finally, I don't know how we got back to the car. I think +Congressman Thomas somehow was helping me. There was lots of confusion. + +Mr. RANKIN. Then you did get into the car. And you sat on the left side +of the car, did you, and your husband on your right? + +Mrs. KENNEDY. Yes. + +Mr. RANKIN. And was Mrs. Connally---- + +Mrs. KENNEDY. In front of me. + +Mr. RANKIN. And Governor Connally to your right in the jump seat? + +Mrs. KENNEDY. Yes. + +Mr. RANKIN. And Mrs. Connally was in the jump seat? + +Mrs. KENNEDY. Yes. + +Mr. RANKIN. And then did you start off on the parade route? + +Mrs. KENNEDY. Yes. + +Mr. RANKIN. And were there many people along the route that you waved +to? + +Mrs. KENNEDY. Yes. It was rather scattered going in. + +Once there was a crowd of people with a sign saying something like +"President Kennedy, please get out and shake our hands, our neighbors +said you wouldn't." + +Mr. RANKIN. Did you? + +Mrs. KENNEDY. And he stopped and got out. That was, you know, like a +little suburb and there were not many crowds. But then the crowds got +bigger as you went in. + +Mr. RANKIN. As you got into the main street of Dallas were there very +large crowds on all the streets? + +Mrs. KENNEDY. Yes. + +Mr. RANKIN. And you waved to them and proceeded down the street with +the motorcade? + +Mrs. KENNEDY. Yes. And in the motorcade, you know, I usually would be +waving mostly to the left side and he was waving mostly to the right, +which is one reason you are not looking at each other very much. And it +was terribly hot. Just blinding all of us. + +Mr. RANKIN. Now, do you remember as you turned off of the main street +onto Houston Street? + +Mrs. KENNEDY. I don't know the name of the street. + +Mr. RANKIN. That is that one block before you get to the Depository +Building. + +Mrs. KENNEDY. Well, I remember whenever it was, Mrs. Connally said, "We +will soon be there." We could see a tunnel in front of us. Everything +was really slow then. And I remember thinking it would be so cool under +that tunnel. + +Mr. RANKIN. And then do you remember as you turned off of Houston onto +Elm right by the Depository Building? + +Mrs. KENNEDY. Well, I don't know the names of the streets, but I +suppose right by the Depository is what you are talking about? + +Mr. RANKIN. Yes; that is the street that sort of curves as you go down +under the underpass. + +Mrs. KENNEDY. Yes; well, that is when she said to President Kennedy, +"You certainly can't say that the people of Dallas haven't given you a +nice welcome." + +Mr. RANKIN. What did he say? + +Mrs. KENNEDY. I think he said--I don't know if I remember it or I have +read it, "No, you certainly can't," or something. And you know then the +car was very slow and there weren't very many people around. + +And then--do you want me to tell you what happened? + +Mr. RANKIN. Yes; if you would, please. + +Mrs. KENNEDY. You know, there is always noise in a motorcade and there +are always motorcycles besides us, a lot of them backfiring. So I was +looking to the left. I guess there was a noise, but it didn't seem like +any different noise really because there is so much noise, motorcycles +and things. But then suddenly Governor Connally was yelling, "Oh, no, +no, no." + +Mr. RANKIN. Did he turn toward you? + +Mrs. KENNEDY. No; I was looking this way, to the left, and I heard +these terrible noises. You know. And my husband never made any sound. +So I turned to the right. And all I remember is seeing my husband, he +had this sort of quizzical look on his face, and his hand was up, it +must have been his left hand. And just as I turned and looked at him, I +could see a piece of his skull and I remember it was flesh colored. I +remember thinking he just looked as if he had a slight headache. And I +just remember seeing that. No blood or anything. + +And then he sort of did this [indicating], put his hand to his forehead +and fell in my lap. + +And then I just remember falling on him and saying, "Oh, no, no, no," I +mean, "Oh, my God, they have shot my husband." And "I love you, Jack," +I remember I was shouting. And just being down in the car with his head +in my lap. And it just seemed an eternity. + +You know, then, there were pictures later on of me climbing out the +back. But I don't remember that at all. + +Mr. RANKIN. Do you remember Mr. Hill coming to try to help on the car? + +Mrs. KENNEDY. I don't remember anything. I was just down like that. + +And finally I remember a voice behind me, or something, and then I +remember the people in the front seat, or somebody, finally knew +something was wrong, and a voice yelling, which must have been Mr. +Hill, "Get to the hospital," or maybe it was Mr. Kellerman, in the +front seat. But someone yelling. I was just down and holding him. +[Reference to wounds deleted.] + +Mr. RANKIN. Do you have any recollection of whether there were one or +more shots? + +Mrs. KENNEDY. Well, there must have been two because the one that made +me turn around was Governor Connally yelling. And it used to confuse +me because first I remembered there were three and I used to think my +husband didn't make any sound when he was shot. And Governor Connally +screamed. And then I read the other day that it was the same shot +that hit them both. But I used to think if I only had been looking to +the right I would have seen the first shot hit him, then I could have +pulled him down, and then the second shot would not have hit him. But I +heard Governor Connally yelling and that made me turn around, and as I +turned to the right my husband was doing this [indicating with hand at +neck]. He was receiving a bullet. And those are the only two I remember. + +And I read there was a third shot. But I don't know. + +Just those two. + +Mr. RANKIN. Do you have any recollection generally of the speed that +you were going, not any precise amount. + +Mrs. KENNEDY. We were really slowing turning the corner. And there were +very few people. + +Mr. RANKIN. And did you stop at any time after the shots, or proceed +about the same way? + +Mrs. KENNEDY. I don't know, because--I don't think we stopped. But +there was such confusion. And I was down in the car and everyone was +yelling to get to the hospital and you could hear them on the radio, +and then suddenly I remember a sensation of enormous speed, which must +have been when we took off. + +Mr. RANKIN. And then from there you proceeded as rapidly as possible to +the hospital, is that right? + +Mrs. KENNEDY. Yes. + +Mr. RANKIN. Do you recall anyone saying anything else during the time +of the shooting? + +Mrs. KENNEDY. So; there weren't any words. There was just Governor +Connally's. And then I suppose Mrs. Connally was sort of crying and +covering her husband. But I don't remember any words. + +And there was a big windshield between--you know--I think. Isn't there? + +Mr. RANKIN. Between the seats. + +Mrs. KENNEDY. So you know, those poor men in the front, you couldn't +hear them. + +Mr. RANKIN. Can you think of anything more? + +The CHAIRMAN. No; I think not. I think that is the story and that is +what we came for. + +We thank you very much, Mrs. Kennedy. + +Mr. RANKIN. I would just like to ask if you recall Special Agent +Kellerman saying anything to you as you came down the street after you +turned that corner that you referred to. + +Mrs. KENNEDY. You mean before the shots? + +Mr. RANKIN. Yes. + +Mrs. KENNEDY. Well, I don't, because--you know, it is very hard for +them to talk. But I do not remember, just as I don't recall climbing +out on the back of the car. + +Mr. RANKIN. Yes. You have told us what you remember about the entire +period as far as you can recall, have you? + +Mrs. KENNEDY. Yes. + +The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Mrs. Kennedy. (Whereupon, at 4:30 +p.m., the President's Commission recessed.) + + + + +_Sunday, June 7, 1964_ + +TESTIMONY OF MR. JACK RUBY + +The President's Commission met at 11:45 a.m., on June 7, 1964, in the +interrogation room of the Dallas County Jail, Main and Houston Streets, +Dallas, Tex. + +Present were Chief Justice Earl Warren, Chairman; and Representative +Gerald R. Ford, member. + +Also present were J. Lee Rankin, general counsel; Joseph A. Ball, +assistant counsel; Arlen Specter, assistant counsel; Leon Jaworski and +Robert G. Storey, special counsel to the attorney general of Texas; Jim +Bowie, assistant district attorney; Joe H. Tonahill, attorney for Jack +Ruby; Elmer W. Moore, special agent, U.S. Secret Service; and J. E. +Decker, sheriff of Dallas County. + + +Mr. RUBY. Without a lie detector test on my testimony, my verbal +statements to you, how do you know if I am tell the truth? + +Mr. TONAHILL. Don't worry about that, Jack. + +Mr. RUBY. Just a minute, gentlemen. + +Chief Justice WARREN. You wanted to ask something, did you, Mr. Ruby? + +Mr. RUBY. I would like to be able to get a lie detector test or truth +serum of what motivated me to do what I did at that particular time, +and it seems as you get further into something, even though you know +what you did, it operates against you somehow, brainwashes you, that +you are weak in what you want to tell the truth about and what you want +to say which is the truth. + +Now Mr. Warren, I don't know if you got any confidence in the lie +detector test and the truth serum, and so on. + +Chief Justice WARREN. I can't tell you just how much confidence I have +in it, because it depends so much on who is taking it, and so forth. + +But I will say this to you, that if you and your counsel want any kind +of test, I will arrange it for you. I would be glad to do that, if you +want it. + +I wouldn't suggest a lie detector test to testify the truth, We will +treat you just the same as we do any other witness, but if you want +such a test, I will arrange for it. + +Mr. RUBY. I do want it. Will you agree to that, Joe? + +Mr. TONAHILL. I sure do, Jack. + +Chief Justice WARREN. Any kind of a test you want to verify what you +say, we will be glad to do. + +Mr. RUBY. I want it even if you put me into a sort of drowsiness so you +can question me as to anything pertaining to my involvement in this +particular act. + +Mr. TONAHILL. Jack, you have wanted to do that from the very beginning, +haven't you? + +Mr. RUBY. Yes; and the reason why I am asking for that is--are you +limited for time? + +Chief Justice WARREN. No; we have all the time you want. + +Mr. RUBY. As it started to trial--I don't know if you realize +my reasoning, how I happened to be involved--I was carried away +tremendously emotionally, and all the time I tried to ask Mr. Belli, I +wanted to get up and say the truth regarding the steps that led me to +do what I have got involved in, but since I have a spotty background +in the night club business, I should have been the last person to ever +want to do something that I had been involved in. + +In other words, I was carried away tremendously. + +You want to ask me questions? + +Chief Justice WARREN. You tell us what you want, and then we will ask +you some questions. + +Mr. RANKIN. I think he ought to be sworn. + +Mr. RUBY. Am I boring you? + +Chief Justice WARREN. Go ahead. All right, Mr. Ruby, tell us your story. + +Mr. RUBY. That particular morning--where is Mr. Moore--I had to go down +to the News Building, getting back to this--I don't want to interrupt. + +Chief Justice WARREN. What morning do you mean? + +Mr. RUBY. Friday morning, the starting of the tragedy. + +Mr. Belli evidently did not go into my case thoroughly, +circumstantially. If he had gone into it, he wouldn't have tried to +vindicate me on an insanity plea to relieve me of all responsibility, +because circumstantially everything looks so bad for me. + +It can happen--it happens to many people who happen to be at the wrong +place at the right time. + +Had Mr. Belli spent more time with me, he would have realized not +to try to get me out completely free; at the time we are talking, +technically, how attorneys operate. + +Chief Justice WARREN. I understand. + +Mr. RUBY. Different things came up, flashed back into my mind, that +it dirtied my background, that Mr. Belli and I tell the truth what I +went to say that I wanted to get on the stand and tell the truth what +happened that morning, he said, "Jack, when they get you on the stand, +you are actually speaking of a premeditated crime that you involved +yourself in." + +But I didn't care, because I wanted to tell the truth. + +He said, "When the prosecution gets you on the stand, they will cut you +to ribbons." + +So naturally, I had to retract, and he fought his way to try to +vindicate me out of this particular crime. + +You follow that? + +Chief Justice WARREN. Yes; I do indeed. + +Mr. RUBY. I want you to question me and requestion me on anything you +want, plus the fact I do want the tests when they are available. + +Chief Justice WARREN. Yes. + +Mr. RUBY. On Friday, the morning parade--this goes back to Thursday +night, because it has something to do with it. + +We were having dinner at the Egyptian Restaurant---- + +Chief Justice WARREN. Right now, Mr. Ruby, before we get started taking +your testimony, would you mind being sworn? + +(Chief Justice Warren and Jack Ruby stand and both raise their right +hand.) + +Chief Justice WARREN. Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are +about to give before the Commission will be the truth, the whole truth, +and nothing but the truth, so help you God? + +Mr. RUBY. I do. + +Chief Justice WARREN. Now will you please state whether the things you +have just told us are true under your oath? + +Mr. RUBY. I do so state they are the truth. + +Chief Justice WARREN. Now you complete whatever story you want to tell. + +Mr. RUBY. All right. Thursday night I was having dinner at the Egyptian +Restaurant on Mockingbird Lane, and a fellow comes over to the table. I +was sitting with a guy by the name of Ralph Paul. He tried to invite me +to the club a couple of doors down and I refused, because he had taken +a band away from me that had been engaged for 7 years, and I felt it +was a lost cause, that the club would be failing because of that, and I +sort of excused myself and I refused to go over to the club. + +We finished our dinner, and I went down to the club that I operated, +the Carousel, and this particular master of ceremonies happened to be +there at the time, and we discussed a few things. + +And there is a columnist by the name of Tony Zoppi--and prior to that, +I wrote out a full page copy of this build--I have the copies--as an +emcee, and I brought a picture and brochure, and Tony said, "I will +write a story." + +This was done 2 days prior to this Thursday night. + +So then I went down, so we discussed it and were very much disgusted +with Tony because he only gave us a build of one or two lines. + +Well, I retired that night after closing the club. Then I knew I wanted +to go back to the Morning News Building to get the brochure I left, +and also this complete page of longhand writing describing the various +talents of this Bill DeMar. + +I picked up the brochure that Friday morning, and I also had business +at the News Building on Friday because that is the start of the +weekend, which is very lucrative, the weekend. + +I have ways of making my ads of where they have a way of selling the +product I am producing or putting on on the show. + +So I went down there Friday morning to Tony Zoppi's office, and they +said he went to New Orleans for a couple of days. + +I picked up the brochure. I believe I got downtown there at 10:30 or 11 +o'clock that morning. And I took the brochure and then went into the +main room where we compose our ads. That is the sales room where we +placed our ads. + +And I remained there for a while. I started to write the copy of my ad. + +Now I go back to the same fellow that wanted me to come over to the +club when we were having our dinner on Mockingbird at the Egyptian +Lounge. + +I came to the desk and I wanted to apologize and explain why I didn't +accept his invitation last night. I wanted to explain, and that took +about 20 or 25 minutes. All this is pertaining to everything prior to +the terrible tragedy that happened. + +I started to explain to him why I didn't want to go there, because this +fellow mentioned--Tony, I think--I can't think of his last name--of me +having his band so many years, and I felt at the moment I didn't want +to go over to the club because I didn't care to meet this fellow. + +And he started to apologize, "Jack, I am sorry, I did work for the +fellow and we have been advertising him for that club, and I am +putting out a night club book." + +I remained with him for 20 or 25 minutes talking there. I don't know +whether my ad was completed or not. It was an ad on the Vegas and the +Carousel. + +My ads were completed, I believe, and after finishing my conversation +with him, he left. + +Suddenly the man that completes my ads for me, that helps me with it on +occasion--but I usually make it up myself--but the person that takes +the money for the ads--this is the reason it is so hard for me to meet +a deadline when I get downtown to the News Building. And as a rule, I +have to pay cash for my ads. + +When you are in debt, it is necessary, and they will not put it in +unless you pay cash. + +And consequently, the weekend, I had been to town on that particular +day. All this adds up later on, as I will state why I didn't go to the +parade. + +In the first place, I don't want to go where there is big crowds. I +can't explain it to you. If I was interested, I would have seen it on +television, our beloved President and all the parade that transpired. + +But all that adds up why it is important for me to be in the News +Building. + +I owe the Government quite a bit of money, and it is doing business out +of your pocket, supposedly, in the slang expression. + +Well, John Newnam comes in, and evidently he took it for granted I +finished my ad, and I don't recall if he paid for his ad, and suddenly +there is some milling around. I think it was 12, or 15 minutes after +12, I don't recall what, but John Newnam said someone had been shot. + +And I am sorry, I got carried away. It is the first time I got carried +away, because I had been under pressure. + +And someone else came running over and he said a Secret Service man was +shot, or something to that effect. + +And I am here in the middle with John Newnam, because Newnam isn't +paying any attention to anyone else, and there is a lot of going back +and forth. + +So someone must have made a statement that Governor Connally was shot. +I don't recall what was said. And I was in a state of hysteria, I mean. + +You say, "Oh my God, it can't happen." You carry on crazy sayings. + +There was a little television set in one office not far away from +where I had been sitting at the desk. I ran over there and noticed a +little boy and a little sister say, "I was standing right there when it +happened." I mean, different things you hear on the television. + +Then the phone started ringing off the desk and I heard John Newnam say +people were complaining about the ad, why they accepted this ad. + +(A tray of water and glasses was brought in.) + +Thank you. + +Has every witness been this hesitant in trying to explain their story? + +Chief Justice WARREN. You are doing very well. I can understand why you +have to reflect upon a story of that length. + +Mr. RUBY. The phones were ringing off the desk calling various ads, and +they were having a turmoil in that News Building because of a person by +the name of Bernard Weissman placing that particular ad, a full page +ad. I am sure you are familiar with the ad. + +Chief Justice WARREN. Yes; I am. + +Mr. RUBY. Criticizing a lot of things about our beloved President. Then +John Newnam and I and another gentleman walked over to another part of +the room, and I heard John Newnam say, "I told him not to take that +ad." Something to that effect. + +Then he said, "Well, you have seen him pay part cash and come back and +pay the balance." + +Now everything is very vague to me as to when this transpired; after +they heard the President had been shot, or prior to that. + +You know it's been a long time, and I am under a very bad mental strain +here. + +Chief Justice WARREN. Yes. + +Mr. RUBY. From the time that we were told that the President was shot, +35 minutes later they said he had passed away. In the meantime, I +became very emotional. I called my sister at home. She was carried +away terribly bad. And John Newnam happened to be there, and I know it +is a funny reaction you have, you want other people to feel that you +feel emotionally disturbed the same way as other people, so I let John +listen to the phone that my sister was crying hysterically. + +And I said to John, I said, "John, I will have to leave Dallas." I +don't know why I said that, but it is a funny reaction that you feel; +the city is terribly let down by the tragedy that happened. And I said, +"John, I am not opening up tonight." + +And I don't know what else transpired there. I know people were just +heartbroken. + +I left the room. I may have left out a few things. Mr. Moore remembers +probably more, but you come back and question me and maybe I can answer +those questions. + +I left the building and I went down and I got my car, and I couldn't +stop crying, because naturally when I pulled up to a stoplight and +other people would be adjacent to me, I wouldn't want them to see me +crying, because it looked kind of artificial. + +And I went to the club and I came up, and I may have made a couple of +calls from there. I could have called my colored boy, Andy, down at the +club. I could have--I don't know who else I would have called, but I +could have, because it is so long now since my mind is very much warped +now. + +You think that literally? + +I went up to the club, and I told Andy, I said, "Call everyone and tell +them we are not opening." + +We have a little girl in Fort Worth I wanted to make sure he called her. + +And a fellow by the name of Bell called and wanted to know if we were +open. + +And Kathy Kay called, and I said, "Definitely not." + +And I called Ralph Paul, that owns the Bull Pen. He said, "Jack, +being as everyone else is open"--because he knows I was pressed for +money--and I said, "No, Ralph, I can't open." + +He said, "Okay, if that is why, that is the way it's got to be." + +So in the meantime, I had gone with Alice Nichols for some time, and +I called her on the phone but she wasn't there, but I left the number +on the pay phone for her to return the call, because I didn't want to +keep the business phone tied up. And I hadn't spoken to her in maybe 9 +months or a year. I don't know what I said to her, not many words, but +just what happened. + +I still remained around the club there. I am sure I was crying pretty +bad. I think I made a long-distance call to California. This fellow had +just visited me, and I had known him in the days back in Chicago when +we were very young, in the real tough part of Chicago. His name is Al +Gruber. + +He was a bad kid in those days, but he is quite reformed. He is married +and has a family, and I am sure he makes a very legitimate livelihood +at this time. + +He happened to come through a couple of nights prior to that to try +to interest me, or 4 or 5 days prior to that, to interest me in a new +kind--you follow the story as I tell it? + +Chief Justice WARREN. Yes. + +Mr. RUBY. It is important, very important. It is on a new kind of +machine that washes cars. You pay with tokens. It is a new thing. I +don't know if it faded out or not. He tried to interest my brother, +Sammy, because Sammy sold his washateria. + +And my sister was in the hospital when he first came. I am going back +a little bit. Sammy didn't go to the hospital, and we needed to tell +Sammy about this particular thing, and that is the reason Al Gruber +came into the picture, because he came to try to interest my brother, +Sammy, in this new washateria deal to wash cars. + +He left and went to California, but before he went to California I +promised him my dachshund dog. + +When this thing happened, I called him. He said, "Yes, we are just +watching on television." And I couldn't carry on more conversation. I +said, "Al, I have to hang up." + +Then I must have called my sister, Eileen, in Chicago. + +Then a fellow came over to deliver some merchandise I had ordered over +the phone, or Andy ordered. And we said, "What is the use of purchasing +any merchandise of any kind, we are not interested in business." And I +don't recall what I said, but I told him whatever money he received, to +keep the change. I am not a philanthropist, but nothing bothered me at +the time. I wasn't interested in anything. + +Then I kept calling my sister, Eva, because she wanted me to come be +with her. + +Eva and I have a very complex personality. Very rarely can I be with +her, but on this particular occasion, since she was carrying on so, I +felt that I wanted to be with someone that meant something to me. I +wanted to be with her. + +And I kept calling her back, "I will be there." And so on. But I never +did get there until a couple of hours later. + +I finally left the club. I am sure you gentlemen can brief in all the +things that happened before. A kid by the name of Larry up there, I +think I told him to send the dog they crated, to find out about the +price--very implusive about everything. + +Then I left the club. And I had been dieting, but I felt I wanted some +food. I can't explain it. It would be like getting intoxicated at that +particular time. It is amusing, but it is true. + +I went over to the Ritz Delicatessen a block and a half away. Must have +bought out the store, for about $10 worth of delicacies and so on. Went +out to my sister's and stayed at her apartment. + +Oh, I called from the apartment--my sister knew more of my calls than I +did. I remember I think I called--I can't think of who I called. + +Anyway, I am sure I made some calls of what had happened there. +Somebody will have to piece me together from the time I got to my +sister's apartment where I had partaken of the food. + +Oh yes, I called Andy. This Andy Armstrong called me and said, "Don +Safran wants you to call him." + +This is rare for this gentleman, because he is a columnist for the +Dallas Times Herald, because he never could get out any copy for my +club. And he said, "Don Safran wants me to call him." + +I called him, and he said, "Jack, are you going to be closed tonight?" + +I said, "Yes." + +He said, "Well, the Cabana and the Adolphus, the Century Room, are +going to be closed." + +I said, "Don, I am not asking you about any clubs that are going to be +closed. I know I am going to be closed." + +And he said, "Jack, that is what I want to know." + +And I said, "You don't have to prompt me about who else is going to be +closed." + +I put the receiver down and talked to my sister, and I said, "Eva, what +shall we do?" + +And she said, "Jack, let's close for the 3 days." She said, "We don't +have anything anyway, but we owe it to"--(chokes up). + +So I called Don Safran back immediately and I said, "Don, we decided to +close for Friday, Saturday, and Sunday." + +And he said, "Okay." + +Then I called the Morning News and I wanted to definitely make sure +to change a copy of my ad to "Closed Friday, Saturday, and Sunday," +something to that effect. + +And it was a little late in the afternoon, but he said, "we will try to +get the copy in." + +Then I called Don back again but couldn't get him, and I spoke to one +of his assistants, and I said, I forget what I told him. Anyway, that +is one of the calls I had that had transpired. + +I lie down and take a nap. I wake about 7 or 7:30. In the meantime, I +think I called--the reason this comes back to me, I know I was going to +go to the synagogue. + +I called Coleman Jacobson and asked him what time services are tonight, +and he said he didn't know. + +And I said, "Are there going to be any special services?" + +And he said he didn't know of any. + +And I called the Congregation Shearith Israel and asked the girl, and +she said, "Regular services at 8 o'clock." + +And I said, "Aren't there going to be earlier services like 5:30 or 6? + +And about 7:30 I went to my apartment. I don't know if I went downtown +to the club. I know I went to my apartment--either to the club or to +the apartment. + +And I changed, showered and shaved, and I think I drove--and as I drove +down, there is a certain Thornton Freeway, and I saw the clubs were +still open going full blast, a couple of clubs there. + +Anyway, I went out to the synagogue and I went through the line and +I spoke to Rabbi Silverman, and I thanked him for going to visit my +sister at the hospital. She was in a week prior and had just gotten +out. I don't remember the date. + +Then he had a confirmation--this is the night prior to the +confirmation. They serve little delicacies. So in spite of the fact +of the mood I was in, I strolled into the place, and I think I had a +little glass of punch. Nothing intoxicating, just a little punch they +serve there. I didn't speak to anyone. One girl, Leona, said "Hello, +Jack," and I wasn't in a conversational mood whatsoever. + +I left the club--I left the synagogue and I drove by the Bali-Hai +Restaurant. I noticed they were open. I took recognition of that. + +I drove by another club called the Gay Nineties, and they were closed. + +And I made it my business to drive down Preston Road. In my mind +suddenly it mulled over me that the police department was working +overtime. And this is the craziest thing that ever happened in a +person's life. I have always been very close to the police department, +I don't know why. + +I felt I have always abided by the law--a few little infractions, but +not serious--and I felt we have one of the greatest police forces in +the world here, and I have always been close to them, and I visited in +the office. + +And over the radio I heard they were working overtime. + +I stopped at the delicatessen called Phil's on Oak Lawn Avenue, and +suddenly I decided--I told the clerk there I wanted him to make me some +real good sandwiches, about 10 or 12, and he had already started on the +sandwiches and I got on the phone. + +I called an officer by the name of Sims and I said, "Sims, I hear you +guys are working," and so on. I said, "I want to bring some sandwiches." + +And he said, "Jack, we wound up our work already. We wound up what we +were doing. We are finished what we were doing. I will tell the boys +about your thoughtfulness, and I will thank them for you." + +In the meantime, there is a fellow in town that has been very good to +me named Gordon McLendon. Do you know him, Mr. Warren? + +Chief Justice WARREN. I think I do not. + +Mr. RUBY. He had been giving me a lot of free plugs. And all the while +listening to the radio, I heard about a certain diskjockey, Joe Long, +that is down at the station, giving firsthand information--I want to +describe him--of Oswald. + +Very rarely do I use the name Oswald. I don't know why. I don't know +how to explain it--of the person that committed the act. [Pause to +compose self.] + +So before going down to the police station, I try to call KLIF but +can't get their number. + +I wanted to bring the sandwiches to KLIF so they would have the +sandwiches, since they already started to make them up. + +And I remember Russ Knight, a diskjockey--these names aren't familiar +to you, but I have to mention them in order to refresh my memory. + +His name was Moore, or something, and I tried to get information on the +telephone, but they couldn't give me the phone number of his home. + +I probably thought I could get the phone number, but after 6 p.m., you +cannot get into the premises unless you have a "hot" number that is +right to the diskjockey room. + +So I couldn't get a hold of that. + +But in the meantime, I called Gordon McLendon's home, because I know +he lives near the synagogue out there, and I got a little girl on the +phone, and I knew they had children, and I asked for the number for +KLIF. + +I said, "Anyone home?" + +She said, "No." + +I said, "Is your daddy or mommy home?" I forget what transpired. I +said, "I would like to get the number of the station so I can get in +the building at this time." + +She said she would go and see, and gave me a Riverside exchange. + +Mind you, this is 6 or 7 months back, gentlemen. + +And I asked her name. Her name was Christine, I think. I said, "I +wanted to bring some sandwiches." + +She said, "My mother already brought sandwiches." + +And I said, "I wanted to go there too." And that was the end of this +little girl's conversation with myself. + +I called that number, as I am repeating myself. There was no such +number. It was an obsolete number. + +I go down to the--I drive by--I leave the delicatessen--the clerk +helped me with the sandwiches out to my car, and I thanked him. I told +him, "These were going to KLIF, and I want you to make them real good." + +He helped me with the sandwiches in the car. I got in the car and drove +down toward town. I imagine it is about 4 or 5 miles to the downtown +section from this delicatessen. + +But prior to going into the station, I drove up McKinney Avenue to look +over a couple of clubs to see if they were activating. I knew the club +across from the Phil's Delicatessen and I knew the B. & B. Restaurant +was open. That is a restaurant and I know the necessity for food, but I +can't understand some of the clubs remaining open. It struck me funny +at such a tragic time as that happening. + +I drove down to Commerce and Harwood and parked my car with my +dog--incidentally, I always have my dog with me--on the lot there, +left the sandwiches in the car, went into the building of the police +station, took the elevator up to the second floor, and there was a +police officer there. + +This is the first time I ever entered the building, gentlemen. The +first time of that Friday. This time it must have been about--I +mean the time, the time of my entering the building, I guess, was +approximately 11:15 p.m. + +The officer was there, and I said, "Where is Joe Long?" + +I said, "Can I go and look for him?" + +Evidently I took a little domineering part about me, and I was able +to be admitted. I asked different reporters and various personalities +there, "Are you Joe Long?," and I couldn't locate him. + +I even had a police officer try to page him and he couldn't locate him. + +I recognized a couple of police officers, Cal Jones and a few others, +and I said "hello" to them. + +And I am still looking for Joe Long, but I am carried away with the +excitement of history. + +And one fellow then--I am in the hallway there--there is a narrow +hallway, and I don't recall if Captain Fritz or Chief Curry brings the +prisoner out, and I am standing about 2 or 3 feet away from him, and +there is some reporters that didn't know the various police officers, +and I don't know whether they asked me or I volunteered to tell them, +because I knew they were looking to find out who that was, and I said, +"That was Chief Curry" or "That is Captain Fritz," or whoever it was. + +I don't recall Henry Wade coming out in the hallway. He probably did. I +don't recall what happened. + +(To Joe Tonahill) Is that for me, Joe? + +Then suddenly someone asked, either the Chief or Captain Fritz, "Isn't +there a larger room we can go into?" + +They said, "Well, let's go down to the assembly room downstairs." + +I don't know what transpired in between from the time that I had the +officer page Joe Long up to the time I was standing about 3 feet +away from Oswald. All the things--I don't recall if I am telling you +everything that happened from that time, from the time I entered the +building to the time I went down to the assembly room. + +I went down to the assembly room down in the basement. I felt perfectly +free walking in there. No one asked me or anything. I got up on a +little table there where I knew I wasn't blocking anyone's view, +because there was an abutment sticking out, and I had my back to the +abutment, and I was standing there. + +Then they brought the prisoner out and various questions were being +shouted. + +I noticed there was a chief county judge--Davidson, I can't think of +his name, one of these precinct court judges, and they brought the +prisoner out. + +I don't recall if Chief Fritz, Captain Fritz was there, or Chief Curry. +I know Henry Wade was there. And they started shouting questions and he +said, "Is he the one?" And the question about the gun. + +And they questioned Henry Wade, "what organization did he belong to," +or something. And if I recall, I think Henry Wade answered, "Free Cuba." + +And I corrected Henry Wade, because listening to the radio or KLIF, +it stood out in my mind that it was "Fair Play Cuba." There was a +difference. + +So he said, "Oh yes, Fair Play Cuba," and he corrected that. + +I don't know how long we remained there. There was a lot of questions +thrown back and forth, and this District Attorney Henry Wade was +answering them to the best he could. + +From the way he stated, he let the reporters know that this was the +guilty one that committed the crime. + +He specifically stated that in that room, that he was the one. + +It didn't have any effect in my mind, because whether the person had +come out, whether he come out openly and publicly stated didn't have +any bearing in my mind, because I wasn't interested in anything. All I +knew, they had the prisoner. But the reporters like to know where they +stand, "is he the one?" + +We left out in the hallway, and I saw Henry Wade standing there, and +I went over to him and said, "Henry. I want you to know I was the one +that corrected you." I think it is a childish thing, but I met Henry +Wade sometime back, and I knew he would recognize me. + +By the way, it was "Fair Play Cuba," or something to that effect. + +In the meantime, as I leave Henry Wade, two gentlemen pass by and I +said, "Are you Joe Long?" He said, "No, why do you want Joe Long?" + +And I said, "I got to get into KLIF. I have got some sandwiches." + +And he said, "What about us?" + +And I said, "Some other time." + +And it so happened I found out Jerry Cunkle and Sam Pease, I found out +they were the names, so I did get the number, because these fellows +work for a rival radio station, and he gave me the number of KLIF. + +And in the testimony of John Rutledge, if I recall now--this is the +only time I had ever seen this person. When I went out the railing +where the phone was at, people felt free to walk in. + +In other words, I felt that I was deputized as a reporter momentarily, +you might say. + +So I called one of the boys at KLIF and I said to them, "I have +sandwiches for you. I want to get over there." I said, "By the way, I +see Henry Wade talking on the phone to someone. Do you want me to get +him over here?" + +And he said, "Yes, do that." + +That is when everyone was beckoning Henry Wade, and I called him over +and he talked on the phone to this boy. + +And after he finished; I didn't even tell him what station it was. +I said, "Here is somebody that wants to talk to you." And I felt he +wouldn't turn it down. + +And this fellow was very much elated that I brought him over there. + +And I said, "Now, will you let me in?" + +He said, "I will only leave the door open for 5 minutes." That was +after the conversation was finished with Henry Wade. + +I got ready to leave the building and I got up to the next floor and +there was another diskjockey at KLIF, Russ Knight. He said, "Jack, +where is everything happening?" And he had a tape recorder. + +And I said, "Come on downstairs", and led him downstairs. And there was +Henry Wade sitting there. And I said, "Henry, this is Russ Knight." And +I left him there with Henry Wade, and I went to my car and drove over +to KLIF, which is a block away from there. + +And it was a little chilly that night, as I recall, but by bringing +Russ Knight over to Henry Wade, I delayed too long to get to KLIF, and +I had to wait 15 minutes until Russ Knight came from finishing his +interview with Henry Wade. + +I had the sandwiches with me and some soda pop and various things, and +Russ Knight opened the door and we went upstairs. + +(Mr. Arlen Specter, a staff counsel, entered the room.) + +Chief Justice WARREN. This is another man on my staff, Mr. Specter. +Would you mind if he came in? + +(Chief Justice Warren introduced the men around the room.) + +Mr. RUBY. Is there any way to get me to Washington? + +Chief Justice WARREN. I beg your pardon? + +Mr. RUBY. Is there any way of you getting me to Washington? + +Chief Justice WARREN. I don't know of any. I will be glad to talk to +your counsel about what the situation is, Mr. Ruby, when we get an +opportunity to talk. + +Mr. RUBY. I don't think I will get a fair representation with my +counsel, Joe Tonahill. I don't think so. I would like to request that I +go to Washington and you take all the tests that I have to take. It is +very important. + +Mr. TONAHILL. Jack, will you tell him why you don't think you will get +a fair representation? + +Mr. RUBY. Because I have been over this for the longest time to get the +lie detector test. Somebody has been holding it back from me. + +Chief Justice WARREN. Mr. Ruby, I might say to you that the lateness of +this thing is not due to your counsel. He wrote me, I think, close to +2 months ago and told me that you would be glad to testify and take, I +believe he said, any test. I am not sure of that, but he said you would +be glad to testify before the Commission. + +And I thanked him for the letter. But we have been so busy that this is +the first time we have had an opportunity to do it. + +But there has been no delay, as far as I know, on the part of Mr. +Tonahill in bringing about this meeting. It was our own delay due to +the pressures we had on us at the time. + +Mr. RUBY. What State are you from, Congressman? + +Representative FORD. Michigan. Grand Rapids, Mich. + +Chief Justice WARREN. I will be glad to talk that over, if we can. You +might go right ahead, if you wish, with the rest of your statement. + +Mr. RUBY. All right. I remained at KLIF from that moment on, from the +time I got into the building, with Russ Knight. We talked about various +things. I brought out the thought of this ad that Bernard Weissman had +placed in the newspaper, and I also told Russ the one I admired by +Gordon McLendon. + +He came out with an editorial about the incident with Adlai Stevenson +and all those things. He is one person that will immediately go to bat +if anything is wrong. He will clarify it. + +And I told Russ Knight there were some other things that were occurring +at the time. So I remained there until about 2 a.m., and we all partook +of the sandwiches and had a feast there. + +And they spliced the various comments they got back and forth of Henry +Wade, of Russ Knight's copy--of Russ Knight's items of Henry Wade. + +Chief Justice WARREN. Mr. Ruby, this is the young man, Mr. Specter. He +is a member of our staff, and he comes from Philadelphia. + +(Ruby shakes hands with Mr. Specter.) + +Mr. RUBY. I am at a disadvantage, gentlemen, telling my story. + +Chief Justice WARREN. You were right at the point where you had it +about 2 o'clock in the morning, and you had had your feast, as you +mentioned, and had talked to these men, and so forth. That was the last +that you had told us. + +Mr. RUBY. Well, lots of things occurred up to that. They talked pro and +con about the tragedy. + +At 2 a.m., I left the building. I drove--I was going to go toward the +Times Herald Building, because as a result--I very rarely go there for +my weekend ad, because once I get the ad into the Morning News, which +is the earlier issue, all I have to do is call the newspaper and they +transpire the same ad that I had into the newspaper--into the Morning +News. + +And I promised one of the boys working in the Times Herald Building +there--I was in the act, in the business of a twist-board deal I was +promoting as a sales item by advertisement and mail order, and I had +been evading him, or didn't have time to go out there because it was +very late when I left the club, and I didn't want to stop, but because +this was an early morning, I thought this would be the right time to go +over there, plus the fact of changing my ad I had in the Morning News +to the closing of 3 days, that I would go over there and maybe add a +little more effectiveness to it in the way I wanted the ad placed. + +As I was driving toward the Times Herald with the intention of doing +these things, I heard someone honk a horn very loudly, and I stopped. +There was a police officer sitting in a car. He was sitting with this +young lady that works in my club, Kathy Kay, and they were very much +carried away. + +And I was carried away; and he had a few beers, and it is so bad, about +those places open, and I was a great guy to close; and I remained with +them--did I tell you this part of it? + +Mr. MOORE. I don't recall this part; no. + +Mr. RUBY. I didn't tell you this part because at the time I thought a +lot of Harry Carlson as a police officer, and either it slipped my mind +in telling this, or it was more or less a reason for leaving it out, +because I felt I didn't want to involve them in anything, because it +was supposed to be a secret that he was going with this young lady. He +had marital problems. + +I don't know if that is why I didn't tell you that. Anyway, I did leave +it out. His name is Harry Carlson. Her name is Kathy Kay. + +And they talked and they carried on, and they thought I was the +greatest guy in the world, and he stated they should cut this guy inch +by inch into ribbons, and so on. + +And she said, "Well, if he was in England, they would drag him through +the streets and would have hung him." I forget what she said. + +I left them after a long delay. They kept me from leaving. They were +constantly talking and were in a pretty dramatic mood. They were crying +and carrying on. + +I went to the building of the Times Herald. I went to the Times +Herald--may I read that, Joe? May I please? + +(Joe Tonahill hands paper to Jack Ruby.) + +Mr. TONAHILL. Sam ever get your glasses? + +Mr. RUBY. Not yet. [Reading.] "This is the girl that"--what?--"that +started Jack off." What is this other word? + +Mr. TONAHILL. Culminated? + +Mr. RUBY. That is untrue. That is what I wanted to read. (Throwing pad +on table.) + +Gentlemen, unless you get me to Washington, you can't get a fair shake +out of me. + +If you understand my way of talking, you have got to bring me to +Washington to get the tests. + +Do I sound dramatic? Off the beam? + +Chief Justice WARREN. No; you are speaking very, very rationally, +and I am really surprised that you can remember as much as you have +remembered up to the present time. + +You have given it to us in detail. + +Mr. RUBY. Unless you can get me to Washington, and I am not a crackpot, +I have all my senses--I don't want to evade any crime I am guilty of. +But Mr. Moore, have I spoken this way when we have talked? + +Mr. MOORE. Yes. + +Mr. RUBY. Unless you get me to Washington immediately, I am afraid +after what Mr. Tonahill has written there, which is unfair to me +regarding my testimony here--you all want to hear what he wrote? + +Chief Justice WARREN. Yes; you might read it. If you need glasses +again, try mine this time (handing glasses to Mr. Ruby). + +Mr. RUBY (putting on glasses). "This is the girl"---- + +Mr. TONAHILL. "Thing," isn't it? + +Mr. RUBY. "This is the thing that started Jack in the shooting." + +Mr. TONAHILL. Kathy Kay was talking about Oswald. + +Mr. RUBY. You are lying, Joe Tonahill. You are lying. + +Mr. TONAHILL. No; I am not. + +Mr. RUBY. You are lying, because you know what motivated me. You want +to make it that it was a premeditation. + +Mr. TONAHILL. No. + +Mr. RUBY. Yes; you do. + +Mr. TONAHILL. I don't think there was any premeditation, but you go +ahead and tell it your way. That is what we want you to do. That is +what the Chief Justice wants. + +Mr. RUBY. Not when you specify this. + +You are Senator Rankin? + +Mr. RANKIN. No; I am the general counsel for our Commission, Mr. Ruby. + +Mr. TONAHILL. You go on and keep telling it down to Caroline and the +truth. + +Chief Justice WARREN. Mr. Ruby, may I suggest this, that if we are to +have any tests, either a lie detector or, as you suggest, maybe a truth +serum--I don't know anything about truth serum, but if we are to have +it, we have to have something to check against, and we would like to +have the rest of your story as you started to tell us, because you are +now getting down to the crucial part of it, and it wouldn't be fair to +you to have this much of it and then not have the rest. + +Mr. RUBY. Because the reason why, Joe knows from the time that I told +Attorney Belli, and the story I wanted to tell on the stand, and Mr. +Tonahill knows this isn't the time. The thought never entered my mind. +He knows it. + +Mr. TONAHILL. I didn't say the thought entered your mind. I didn't say +that. + +Mr. RUBY. You are inferring that. + +Mr. TONAHILL. Unconsciously, maybe, is what I meant to say. + +Mr. RUBY. Why go back to Friday, Joe? + +Mr. TONAHILL. You are going to come right down---- + +Mr. RUBY. Why go back to Friday? That set me off. + +Then it is a greater premeditation than you know is true. + +Mr. TONAHILL. I don't say it is premeditation. I never have. I don't +think it is. + +Mr. RUBY. Because it never entered my mind when they talked about, the +officer, cutting him into bits. You would like to have built it up for +my defense, but that is not it. I am here to tell the truth. + +Mr. TONAHILL. The psychiatrist said that to me. + +Mr. RUBY. You want to put that into my thoughts, but it never happened. +I took it with a grain of salt what he said at that particular time. + +Well, it is too bad, Chief Warren, that you didn't get me to your +headquarters 6 months ago. + +Chief Justice WARREN. Well, Mr. Ruby, I will tell you why we didn't. +Because you were then about to be tried and I didn't want to do +anything that would prejudice you in your trial. And for that reason, I +wouldn't even consider asking you to testify until your trial was over. +That is the only reason that we didn't talk to you sooner. + +And I wish we had gotten here a little sooner after your trial was +over, but I know you had other things on your mind, and we had other +work, and it got to this late date. + +But I assure you, there is no desire on our part to let this matter go +to any late date for any ulterior purpose. I assure you of that. + +And as I told you at the beginning, if you want a test of some kind +made, I will undertake to see that it is done. + +Mr. RUBY. You have power to do it, even though the district attorney +objects to me getting the tests? + +Chief Justice WARREN. Yes; I do. + +Mr. RUBY. How soon can it be done? + +Chief Justice WARREN. Well, I am not familiar with those things, but we +will try to do it expeditiously, you may be sure, because we are trying +to wind up the work of this Commission. And I assure you we won't delay +it. + +Mr. RUBY. Are you staying overnight here, Chief Warren? + +Chief Justice WARREN. No; I have to be back, because we have an early +session of the Court tomorrow morning. + +Mr. RUBY. Is there any way of getting a polygraph here? + +Mr. DECKER. May I make a suggestion? + +Jack, listen, you and I have had a lot of dealings. Do you want my +officers removed from the room while you talk to this Commission? + +Mr. RUBY. That wouldn't prove any truth. + +Mr. DECKER. These people came several thousand miles to interview you. +You have wanted to tell me your story and I have refused to let you +tell me. Now be a man with a bunch of men that have come a long way to +give you an opportunity to. + +You asked me for permission to tell your story, and I told you "No." + +This is a supreme investigating committee at this particular time. Now +give them your story and be a man, if you want them to deal with you +and deal fairly with you. + +Mr. RUBY. It is unfair to me unless I get all the facilities to back up +what I say. + +Mr. DECKER. You tell him your story. Nobody is denying it. You tell +this man. He has come a thousand or more miles to listen to you. Now be +a man about it. + +Mr. MOORE. What I suggest--Jack, at one time I was a polygraph +operator, and you would not be able to go through the entire story the +way you have here. + +So, seriously, you should tell the story and the things you want +checked, you can be asked directly. Because you can only answer yes or +no on the polygraph examination. So I think in view of what you want, +you should tell your story first, and then the points that you want +verified, you can be questioned on. + +As the sheriff mentioned, the Commission has come a long way to have +the opportunity to listen to your story, and I am sure that they know +you are telling the truth, in any case. + +Mr. RUBY. I wish the President were right here now. It is a terrible +ordeal, I tell you that. + +Chief Justice WARREN. I am sure it is an ordeal for you, and we want to +make it just as easy as we can. That is the reason that we have let you +tell your story in your own way without being interrupted. + +If you will just proceed with the rest of your statement, I think it +would make it a lot easier for us to verify it in the way that you want +it to be done. + +Mr. RUBY. I don't know how to answer you. + +Chief Justice WARREN. Well, you have told us most of what happened up +to the time of the incident, and you are almost within, you are just +within a few hours of it now. + +Mr. RUBY. There is a Saturday. + +Chief Justice WARREN. Beg your pardon? + +Mr. RUBY. There is a Saturday night. There is a Friday night. This is +still only Friday night, Chief. + +Chief Justice WARREN. Yes; that is true. + +Mr. RUBY. Well, I will go into a certain point, and if I stop, you will +have to understand if I stop to get my bearings together. + +Chief Justice WARREN. Yes. + +Mr. RUBY. I am in the Times Herald Building. I go upstairs, naturally. + +Chief Justice WARREN. This is about what time? + +Mr. RUBY. This, I imagine, is--I left the KLIF at 2 a.m., and I spent +an hour with the officer and his girl friend, so it must have been +about 3:15 approximately. No; it wasn't. When you are not concerned +with time, it could have been 4 o'clock. + +Chief Justice WARREN. It doesn't make any difference. + +Mr. RUBY. Forty-five minutes difference. + +I am up there in the composing room talking to a guy by the name of +Pat Gadash. He was so elated that I brought him this twist board, and +I had it sealed in a polyethylene bag, but he wanted to see how it is +demonstrated, how it was worked. + +It is a board that is on a pivot, a ball bearing, and it has a tendency +to give you certain exercises in twisting your body. So not that I +wanted to get in with the hilarity of frolicking, but he asked me to +show him, and the other men gathered around. + +When you get into the movement of a ball bearing disk, your body is +free to move. I know you look like you are having a gay time, because +naturally if your body is so free of moving, it is going to look that +way. + +I am stating this in that even with my emotional feeling for our +beloved President, even to demonstrate the twist board, I did it +because someone asked me to. + +You follow me, gentlemen, as I describe it? + +Chief Justice WARREN. Yes; I do. + +Mr. RUBY. Then we placed the ad in, and if I recall, I requested from +Pat to put a black border around to show that the ad was in mourning, +or something, because we were, everything was in mourning. + +Bill, will you do that for me that you asked a minute ago? You said you +wanted to leave the room. + +Mr. DECKER. I will have everyone leave the room, including myself, if +you want to talk about it. You name it, and out we will go. + +Mr. RUBY. All right. + +Mr. DECKER. You want all of us outside? + +Mr. RUBY. Yes. + +Mr. DECKER. I will leave Tonahill and Moore. I am not going to have Joe +leave. + +Mr. RUBY. If you are not going to have Joe leave---- + +Mr. DECKER. Moore, his body is responsible to you. His body is +responsible to you. + +Mr. RUBY. Bill, I am not accomplishing anything if they are here, and +Joe Tonahill is here. You asked me anybody I wanted out. + +Mr. DECKER. Jack, this is your attorney. That is your lawyer. + +Mr. RUBY. He is not my lawyer. + +(Sheriff Decker and law enforcement officers left room.) + +Gentleman, if you want to hear any further testimony, you will have to +get me to Washington soon, because it has something to do with you, +Chief Warren. + +Do I sound sober enough to tell you this? + +Chief Justice WARREN. Yes; go right ahead. + +Mr. RUBY. I want to tell the truth, and I can't tell it here. I can't +tell it here. Does that make sense to you? + +Chief Justice WARREN. Well, let's not talk about sense. But I really +can't see why you can't tell this Commission. + +Mr. RUBY. What is your name? + +Mr. BALL. Joe Ball. + +Chief Justice WARREN. Mr. Joe Ball. He is an attorney from Los Angeles +who has been working for me. + +Mr. RUBY. Do you know Belli too? + +Mr. BALL. I know of him. + +Mr. RUBY. Ball was working with him. He knows Belli. You know Melvin +Belli? + +Mr. BALL. I am not acquainted with him. + +Chief Justice WARREN. No association of any kind. + +Mr. BALL. We practice in different cities. + +Chief Justice WARREN. Five hundred miles away. Mr. Ball practices +in Long Beach, and Mr. Belli practices in San Francisco. There is +positively no connection between anybody in this room, as far as I +know, with Mr. Belli. I can assure you of that. + +Mr. RUBY. Where do you stand, Moore? + +Mr. MOORE. Well, I am assigned to the Commission, Jack. + +Mr. RUBY. The President assigned you? + +Mr. MOORE. No; my chief did. And I am not involved in the +investigation. I am more of a security officer. + +Mr. RUBY. Boys, I am in a tough spot, I tell you that. + +Mr. MOORE. You recall when I talked to you, there were certain things +I asked you not to tell me at the time, for certain reasons, that +you were probably going to trial at that time, and I respected your +position on that and asked you not to tell me certain things. + +Mr. RUBY. But this isn't the place for me to tell what I want to tell. + +Mr. MOORE. The Commission is looking into the entire matter, and you +are part of it, should be. + +Mr. RUBY. Chief Warren, your life is in danger in this city, do you +know that? + +Chief Justice WARREN. No; I don't know that. If that is the thing that +you don't want to talk about, you can tell me, if you wish, when this +is all over, just between you and me. + +Mr. RUBY. No; I would like to talk to you in private. + +Chief Justice WARREN. You may do that when you finish your story. You +may tell me that phase of it. + +Mr. RUBY. I bet you haven't had a witness like me in your whole +investigation, is that correct? + +Chief Justice WARREN. There are many witnesses whose memory has not +been as good as yours. I tell you that, honestly. + +Mr. RUBY. My reluctance to talk--you haven't had any witness in telling +the story, in finding so many problems? + +Chief Justice WARREN. You have a greater problem than any witness we +have had. + +Mr. RUBY. I have a lot of reasons for having those problems. + +Chief Justice WARREN. I know that, and we want to respect your rights, +whatever they may be. And I only want to hear what you are willing to +tell us, because I realize that you still have a great problem before +you, and I am not trying to press you. + +I came here because I thought you wanted to tell us the story, and I +think the story should be told for the public, and it will eventually +be made public. If you want to do that, you are entitled to do that, +and if you want to have it verified as the thing can be verified by a +polygraph test, you may have that, too. + +I will undertake to do that for you, but at all events we must first +have the story that we are going to check it against. + +Mr. RUBY. When are you going back to Washington? + +Chief Justice WARREN. I am going back very shortly after we finish this +hearing--I am going to have some lunch. + +Mr. RUBY. Can I make a statement? + +Chief Justice WARREN. Yes. + +Mr. RUBY. If you request me to go back to Washington with you right +now, that couldn't be done, could it? + +Chief Justice WARREN. No; it could not be done. It could not be done. +There are a good many things involved in that, Mr. Ruby. + +Mr. RUBY. What are they? + +Chief Justice WARREN. Well, the public attention that it would attract, +and the people who would be around. We have no place there for you to +be safe when we take you out, and we are not law enforcement officers, +and it isn't our responsibility to go into anything of that kind. + +And certainly it couldn't be done on a moment's notice this way. + +Mr. RUBY. Well, from what I read in the paper, they made certain +precautions for you coming here, but you got here. + +Chief Justice WARREN. There are no precautions taken at all. + +Mr. RUBY. There were some remarks in the paper about some crackpots. + +Chief Justice WARREN. I don't believe everything I read in the paper. + +Mr. MOORE. In that respect, the Chief Justice is in public life. People +in public life are well aware they don't please everyone, and they get +these threats. + +Incidentally, if it is the part about George Senator talking about the +Earl Warren Society, the Chief Justice is aware of that phase, and +I am sure he would like to hear anything that you have to say if it +affects the security. + +Chief Justice WARREN. Before you finish the rest of your statement, may +I ask you this question, and this is one of the questions we came here +to ask you. + +Did you know Lee Harvey Oswald prior to this shooting? + +Mr. RUBY. That is why I want to take the lie detector test. Just saying +no isn't sufficient. + +Chief Justice WARREN. I will afford you that opportunity. + +Mr. RUBY. All right. + +Chief Justice WARREN. I will afford you that opportunity. You can't do +both of them at one time. + +Mr. RUBY. Gentlemen, my life is in danger here. Not with my guilty plea +of execution. + +Do I sound sober enough to you as I say this? + +Chief Justice WARREN. You do. You sound entirely sober. + +Mr. RUBY. From the moment I started my testimony, have I sounded as +though, with the exception of becoming emotional, have I sounded as +though I made sense, what I was speaking about? + +Chief Justice WARREN. You have indeed. I understood everything you have +said. If I haven't, it is my fault. + +Mr. RUBY. Then I follow this up. I may not live tomorrow to give any +further testimony. The reason why I add this to this, since you assure +me that I have been speaking sense by then, I might be speaking sense +by following what I have said, and the only thing I want to get out +to the public, and I can't say it here, is with authenticity, with +sincerity of the truth of everything and why my act was committed, but +it can't be said here. + +It can be said, it's got to be said amongst people of the highest +authority that would give me the benefit of doubt. And following that, +immediately give me the lie detector test after I do make the statement. + +Chairman Warren, if you felt that your life was in danger at the +moment, how would you feel? Wouldn't you be reluctant to go on +speaking, even though you request me to do so? + +Chief Justice WARREN. I think I might have some reluctance if I was in +your position, yes; I think I would. I think I would figure it out very +carefully as to whether it would endanger me or not. + +If you think that anything that I am doing or anything that I am asking +you is endangering you in any way, shape, or form, I want you to feel +absolutely free to say that the interview is over. + +Mr. RUBY. What happens then? I didn't accomplish anything. + +Chief Justice WARREN. No; nothing has been accomplished. + +Mr. RUBY. Well, then you won't follow up with anything further? + +Chief Justice WARREN. There wouldn't be anything to follow up if you +hadn't completed your statement. + +Mr. RUBY. You said you have the power to do what you want to do, is +that correct? + +Chief Justice WARREN. Exactly. + +Mr. RUBY. Without any limitations? + +Chief Justice WARREN. Within the purview of the Executive order which +established the Commission. We have the right to take testimony of +anyone we want in this whole situation, and we have the right, if we so +choose to do it, to verify that statement in any way that we wish to do +it. + +Mr. RUBY. But you don't have a right to take a prisoner back with you +when you want to? + +Chief Justice WARREN. No; we have the power to subpena witnesses to +Washington if we want to do it, but we have taken the testimony of +200 or 300 people, I would imagine, here in Dallas without going to +Washington. + +Mr. RUBY. Yes; but those people aren't Jack Ruby. + +Chief Justice WARREN. No; they weren't. + +Mr. RUBY. They weren't. + +Chief Justice WARREN. Now I want you to feel that we are not here to +take any advantage of you, because I know that you are in a delicate +position, and unless you had indicated not only through your lawyers +but also through your sister, who wrote a letter addressed either +to me or to Mr. Rankin saying that you wanted to testify before the +Commission, unless she had told us that, I wouldn't have bothered you. + +Because I know you do have this case that is not yet finished, and I +wouldn't jeopardize your position by trying to insist that you testify. + +So I want you to feel that you are free to refrain from testifying any +time you wish. + +But I will also be frank with you and say that I don't think it would +be to your advantage to tell us as much as you have and then to stop +and not tell us the rest. I can't see what advantage that would give +you. + +Mr. RUBY. The thing is this, that with your power that you have, Chief +Justice Warren, and all these gentlemen, too much time has gone by for +me to give you any benefit of what I may say now. + +Chief Justice WARREN. No; that isn't a fact, because until we make our +findings for the Commission, and until we make our report on the case, +it is not too late. + +And there are other witnesses we have who are yet to be examined. So +from our standpoint, it is timely. We are not handicapped at all by the +lateness of your examination. + +Mr. RUBY. Well, it is too tragic to talk about. + +Mr. RANKIN. Isn't it true that we waited until very late in our +proceedings to talk to Mrs. Kennedy? + +Chief Justice WARREN. Yes; I might say to you that we didn't take Mrs. +Kennedy's statement until day before yesterday. Mr. Rankin and I took +her testimony then. + +So we are not treating you different from any other witness. + +Mr. RUBY. I tell you, gentlemen, my whole family is in jeopardy. My +sisters, as to their lives. + +Chief Justice WARREN. Yes? + +Mr. RUBY. Naturally, I am a foregone conclusion. My sisters Eva, +Eileen, and Mary, I lost my sisters. + +My brothers Sam, Earl, Hyman, and myself naturally--my in-laws, Harold +Kaminsky, Marge Ruby, the wife of Earl, and Phyllis, the wife of Sam +Ruby, they are in jeopardy of loss of their lives. Yet they have, just +because they are blood related to myself--does that sound serious +enough to you, Chief Justice Warren? + +Chief Justice WARREN. Nothing could be more serious, if that is the +fact. But your sister, I don't know whether it was your sister Eva or +your other sister---- + +Mr. RUBY. Eileen wrote you a letter. + +Chief Justice WARREN. Wrote the letter to me and told us that you would +like to testify, and that is one of the reasons that we came down here. + +Mr. RUBY. But unfortunately, when did you get the letter, Chief Justice +Warren? + +Chief Justice WARREN. It was a long time ago, I admit. I think it was, +let's see, roughly between 2 and 3 months ago. + +Mr. RUBY. Yes. + +Chief Justice WARREN. I think it was; yes. + +Mr. RUBY. At that time when you first got the letter and I was begging +Joe Tonahill and the other lawyers to know the truth about me, certain +things that are happening now wouldn't be happening at this particular +time. + +Chief Justice WARREN. Yes? + +Mr. RUBY. Because then they would have known the truth about Jack Ruby +and his emotional breakdown. + +Chief Justice WARREN. Yes? + +Mr. RUBY. Of why that Sunday morning--that thought never entered my +mind prior to that Sunday morning when I took it upon myself to try to +be a martyr or some screwball, you might say. + +But I felt very emotional and very carried away for Mrs. Kennedy, that +with all the strife she had gone through--I had been following it +pretty well--that someone owed it to our beloved President that she +shouldn't be expected to come back to face trial of this heinous crime. + +And I have never had the chance to tell that, to back it up, to prove +it. + +Consequently, right at this moment I am being victimized as a part of a +plot in the world's worst tragedy and crime at this moment. + +Months back had I been given a chance--I take that back. Sometime back +a police officer of the Dallas Police Department wanted to know how +I got into the building. And I don't know whether I requested a lie +detector test or not, but my attorney wasn't available. + +When you are a defendant in the case, you say "speak to your attorney," +you know. But that was a different time. It was after the trial, +whenever it happened. + +At this moment, Lee Harvey Oswald isn't guilty of committing the crime +of assassinating President Kennedy. Jack Ruby is. + +How can I fight that, Chief Justice Warren? + +Chief Justice WARREN. Well now, I want to say, Mr. Ruby, that as far as +this Commission is concerned, there is no implication of that in what +we are doing. + +Mr. RUBY. All right, there is a certain organization here---- + +Chief Justice WARREN. That I can assure you. + +Mr. RUBY. There is an organization here, Chief Justice Warren, if it +takes my life at this moment to say it, and Bill Decker said be a man +and say it, there is a John Birch Society right now in activity, and +Edwin Walker is one of the top men of this organization--take it for +what it is worth, Chief Justice Warren. + +Unfortunately for me, for me giving the people the opportunity to get +in power, because of the act I committed, has put a lot of people in +jeopardy with their lives. + +Don't register with you, does it? + +Chief Justice WARREN. No; I don't understand that. + +Mr. RUBY. Would you rather I just delete what I said and just pretend +that nothing is going on? + +Chief Justice WARREN. I would not indeed. I am only interested in what +you want to tell this Commission. That is all I am interested in. + +Mr. RUBY. Well, I said my life, I won't be living long now. I know +that. My family's lives will be gone. When I left my apartment that +morning---- + +Chief Justice WARREN. What morning? + +Mr. RUBY. Sunday morning. + +Chief Justice WARREN. Sunday morning. + +Mr. RUBY. Let's go back. Saturday I watched Rabbi Seligman. Any of you +watch it that Saturday morning? + +Chief Justice WARREN. No; I didn't happen to hear it. + +Mr. RUBY. He went ahead and eulogized that here is a man that fought in +every battle, went to every country, and had to come back to his own +country to be shot in the back [starts crying]. + +I must be a great actor, I tell you that. + +Chief Justice WARREN. No. + +Mr. RUBY. That created a tremendous emotional feeling for me, the way +he said that. Prior to all the other times, I was carried away. + +Then that Saturday night, I didn't do anything but visit a little club +over here and had a Coca-Cola, because I was sort of depressed. A +fellow that owns the Pago Club, Bob Norton, and he knew something was +wrong with me in the certain mood I was in. + +And I went home and that weekend, the Sunday morning, and saw a letter +to Caroline, two columns about a 16-inch area. Someone had written a +letter to Caroline. The most heartbreaking letter. I don't remember the +contents. Do you remember that? + +Mr. MOORE. I think I saw it. + +Mr. RUBY. Yes; and alongside that letter on the same sheet of paper was +a small comment in the newspaper that, I don't know how it was stated, +that Mrs. Kennedy may have to come back for the trial of Lee Harvey +Oswald. + +That caused me to go like I did; that caused me to go like I did. + +I don't know, Chief Justice, but I got so carried away. And I remember +prior to that thought, there has never been another thought in my mind; +I was never malicious toward this person. No one else requested me to +do anything. + +I never spoke to anyone about attempting to do anything. No subversive +organization gave me any idea. No underworld person made any effort to +contact me. It all happened that Sunday morning. + +The last thing I read was that Mrs. Kennedy may have to come back to +Dallas for trial for Lee Harvey Oswald, and I don't know what bug got +ahold of me. I don't know what it is, but I am going to tell the truth +word for word. + +I am taking a pill called Preludin. It is a harmless pill, and it is +very easy to get in the drugstore. It isn't a highly prescribed pill. I +use it for dieting. + +I don't partake of that much food. I think that was a stimulus to give +me an emotional feeling that suddenly I felt, which was so stupid, that +I wanted to show my love for our faith, being of the Jewish faith, and +I never used the term and I don't want to go into that--suddenly the +feeling, the emotional feeling came within me that someone owed this +debt to our beloved President to save her the ordeal of coming back. I +don't know why that came through my mind. + +And I drove past Main Street, past the County Building, and there was a +crowd already gathered there. And I guess I thought I knew he was going +to be moved at 10 o'clock, I don't know. I listened to the radio; and I +passed a crowd and it looked--I am repeating myself--and I took it for +granted he had already been moved. + +And I parked my car in the lot across from the Western Union. Prior +to that, I got a call from a little girl--she wanted some money--that +worked for me, and I said, "Can't you wait till payday?" And she said, +"Jack, you are going to be closed." + +So my purpose was to go to the Western Union--my double purpose--but +the thought of doing, committing the act wasn't until I left my +apartment. + +Sending the wire was when I had the phone call--or the money order. + +I drove down Main Street--there was a little incident I left out, that +I started to go down a driveway, but I wanted to go by the wreaths, and +I saw them and started to cry again. + +Then I drove, parked the car across from the Western Union, went into +the Western Union, sent the money order, whatever it was, walked the +distance from the Western Union to the ramp--I didn't sneak in. I +didn't linger in there. + +I didn't crouch or hide behind anyone, unless the television camera can +make it seem that way. + +There was an officer talking--I don't know what rank he had--talking to +a Sam Pease in a car parked up on the curb. + +I walked down those few steps, and there was the person that--I +wouldn't say I saw red--it was a feeling I had for our beloved +President and Mrs. Kennedy, that he was insignificant to what my +purpose was. + +And when I walked down the ramp--I would say there was an 8-foot +clearance--not that I wanted to be a hero, or I didn't realize that +even if the officer would have observed me, the klieg lights, but I +can't take that. + +I did not mingle with the crowd. There was no one near me when I walked +down that ramp, because if you will time the time I sent the money +order, I think it was 10:17 Sunday morning. + +I think the actual act was committed--I take that back--was it 11 +o'clock? You should know this. + +Mr. MOORE. 11:21. + +Mr. RUBY. No; when Oswald was shot. + +Mr. MOORE. I understood it to be 11:22. + +Mr. RUBY. The clock stopped and said 11:21. I was watching on that +thing; yes. Then it must have been 11:17, closer to 18. That is the +timing when I left the Western Union to the time of the bottom of the +ramp. + +You wouldn't have time enough to have any conspiracy, to be +self-saving, to mingle with the crowd, as it was told about me. + +I realize it is a terrible thing I have done, and it was a stupid +thing, but I just was carried away emotionally. Do you follow that? + +Chief Justice WARREN. Yes; I do indeed, every word. + +Mr. RUBY. I had the gun in my right hip pocket, and impulsively, if +that is the correct word here, I saw him, and that is all I can say. +And I didn't care what happened to me. + +I think I used the words, "You killed my President, you rat." The next +thing, I was down on the floor. + +I said, "I am Jack Ruby. You all know me." + +I never used anything malicious, nothing like s.o.b. I never said that +I wanted to get three more off, as they stated. + +The only words, and I was highly emotional; to Ray Hall--he +interrogated more than any other person down there--all I believe I +said to him was, "I didn't want Mrs. Kennedy to come back to trial." + +And I forget what else. And I used a little expression like being of +the Jewish faith, I wanted to show that we love our President, even +though we are not of the same faith. + +And I have a friend of mine--do you mind if it is a slipshod story? + +Chief Justice WARREN. No; you tell us in your own way. + +Mr. RUBY. A fellow whom I sort of idolized is of the Catholic faith, +and a gambler. Naturally in my business you meet people of various +backgrounds. + +And the thought came, we were very close, and I always thought a lot of +him, and I knew that Kennedy, being Catholic, I knew how heartbroken +he was, and even his picture--of this Mr. McWillie--flashed across me, +because I have a great fondness for him. + +All that blended into the thing that, like a screwball, the way it +turned out, that I thought that I would sacrifice myself for the few +moments of saving Mrs. Kennedy the discomfiture of coming back to trial. + +Now all these things of my background, I should have been the last +person in the world to want to be a martyr. It happens, doesn't it, +Chief Warren? + +I mean, for instance, I have been in the night club business, a +burlesque house. It was a means of a livelihood. I knew persons of +notorious backgrounds years ago in Chicago. I was with the union +back in Chicago, and I left the union when I found out the notorious +organization had moved in there. It was in 1940. + +Then recently, I had to make so many numerous calls that I am sure you +know of. Am I right? Because of trying to survive in my business. + +My unfair competition had been running certain shows that we were +restricted to run by regulation of the union, but they violated all the +rules of the union, and I didn't violate it, and consequently I was +becoming insolvent because of it. + +All those calls were made with only, in relation to seeing if they can +help out, with the American Guild of Variety Artists. Does that confirm +a lot of things you have heard? + +Every person I have called, and sometimes you may not even know a +person intimately, you sort of tell them, well, you are stranded down +here and you want some help--if they know of any official of the +American Guild of Variety Artists to help me. Because my competitors +were putting me out of business. + +I even flew to New York to see Joe Glazer, and he called Bobby Faye. He +was the national president. That didn't help. He called Barney Ross and +Joey Adams. All these phone calls were related not in anyway involved +with the underworld, because I have been away from Chicago 17 years +down in Dallas. + +As a matter of fact, I even called a Mr.--hold it before I say +it--headed the American Federation of Labor--I can't think--in the +State of Texas--Miller. + +Chief Justice WARREN. I don't know. + +Mr. RUBY. Is there a Deutsch I. Maylor? I called a Mr. Maylor here in +Texas to see if he could help me out. + +I want to set you gentlemen straight on all the telephone calls I +had. This was a long time prior to what has happened. And the only +association I had with those calls, the only questions that I inquired +about, was if they could help me with the American Guild of Variety +Artists, to see that they abolished it, because it was unfair to +professional talent, abolish them from putting on their shows in +Dallas. That is the only reason I made those calls. Where do we go from +there? + +Chief Justice WARREN. Well, I will go back to the original question +that I asked you. Did you ever know Oswald? + +Mr. RUBY. No; let me add--you are refreshing my mind about a few +things. + +Can I ask one thing? Did you all talk to Mr. McWillie? I am sure you +have. + +VOICE. Yes. + +Mr. RUBY. He always wanted me to come down to Havana, Cuba; invited me +down there, and I didn't want to leave my business because I had to +watch over it. + +He was a key man over the Tropicana down there. That was during our +good times. Was in harmony with our enemy of our present time. + +Chief Justice WARREN. Yes? + +Mr. RUBY. I refused. I couldn't make it. Finally he sent me tickets to +come down, airplane tickets. + +I made the trip down there via New Orleans, and so I stayed at the +Volk's Apartments, and I was with him constantly. + +And I was bored with the gambling, because I don't gamble, and there is +nothing exciting unless you can speak their language, which is Spanish, +I believe. + +And that was the only environment. That was in August of 1959. + +Any thought of ever being close to Havana, Cuba, I called him +frequently because he was down there, and he was the last person to +leave, if I recall, when they had to leave, when he left the casino. + +As a matter of fact, on the plane, if I recall, I had an article he +sent me, and I wanted to get it published because I idolized McWillie. +He is a pretty nice boy, and I happened to be idolizing him. + +When the plane left Havana and landed in the United States, some +schoolteacher remarked that the United States is not treating Castro +right. When they landed in the United States, this Mr. Louis McWillie +slugged this guy for making that comment. + +So I want you to know, as far as him having any subversive thoughts, +and I wanted Tony to put it in the paper here. That is how much I +thought of Mr. McWillie. And that is my only association. + +The only other association with him was, there was a gentleman here +that sells guns. He has a hardware store on Singleton Avenue. + +Have I told this to you gentlemen? It is Ray's Hardware. His name is +Ray Brantley. + +This was--I don't recall when he called me, but he was a little worried +of the new regime coming in, and evidently he wanted some protection. + +He called me or sent me a letter that I should call Ray Brantley. He +wanted some four little Cobra guns--big shipment. + +So me, I should say myself rather, feeling no harm, I didn't realize, +because he wasn't sending them to me, and I thought there was no crime, +the man wanted protection, he is earning a livelihood. + +I called Ray Brantley and I said, "Ray, McWillie called me." I don't +remember if he sent me a letter or he called. He said he wants four +little Cobras, or something like that. + +He said "I know Mac. I have been doing business with him for a long +time." Meaning with reference to when he was living in Texas. He did a +lot of hunting and things like that. + +Chief Justice WARREN. Yes? + +Mr. RUBY. That was the only relationship I had of any mention, outside +of phone calls, to Mr. McWillie, or any person from Havana, Cuba. + +Chief Justice WARREN. When was that? + +Mr. RUBY. Now the guns--am I correct? Did you ever go to check on it? +On Ray Brantley? + +Mr. MOORE. No. + +Mr. RUBY. He denies I ever called. Evidently he feels, maybe he feels +it would be illegal to send guns out of the country. I don't know if +you gentlemen know the law. I don't know the law. + +Chief Justice WARREN. I don't know. + +Mr. RUBY. I kept--did I tell you this, Joe, about this? + +Mr. TONAHILL. Yes; you did. + +Mr. RUBY. That I wanted someone to go to Ray Brantley? + +Mr. TONAHILL. Yes. + +Mr. RUBY. When Phil Burleson came back with a letter signed, an +affidavit that Ray Brantley said he never did receive a call from me, +and the only gun he sent to McWillie was to the Vegas, but it came back +that they didn't pick it up because it was a c.o.d. order. + +This definitely would do me more harm, because if I tell my story that +I called Ray Brantley, and he denies that he ever got a call from me, +definitely that makes it look like I am hiding something. + +Haven't I felt that right along, Joe? + +Mr. TONAHILL. You sure have, Jack. + +Mr. RUBY. Now, the reason I am telling you these things, I never knew +Lee Harvey Oswald. The first time I ever have seen him was the time in +the assembly room when they brought him out, when he had some sort of a +shiner on his eye. + +Chief Justice WARREN. When was that little incident about the Cobras? +About what year? That is all I am interested in. + +Mr. RUBY. Could have been prior to the early part of 1959. + +Chief Justice WARREN. Yes; all right. + +Mr. RUBY. That is the only call I made. And as a matter of fact, I +didn't even follow up to inquire of this Mr. Brantley, whether he +received it or what the recourse was. That is why I tell you, Chief +Justice Warren--who is this new gentleman, may I ask? + +Mr. RANKIN. This is Mr. Storey from your community, a lawyer who is +working with the attorney general, and Mr. Jaworski, in connection with +watching the work of the Commission so that they will be satisfied +as to the quality of the work done insofar as the State of Texas is +concerned. + +(Pause for reporter to change paper, and Ruby asked about one of the +gentlemen, to which Chief Justice Warren replied as follows): + +Chief Justice WARREN (referring to Mr. Specter). He has been working +with us on the Commission since very close to the beginning now. + +Mr. RANKIN. How long did you spend in Cuba on this trip? + +Mr. RUBY. Eight days. A lot of your tourists were there. As a matter of +fact, a lot of group tourists were going down, students of schools. + +I mean, he had a way of purchasing tickets from Havana that I think he +purchased them at a lesser price. He bought them from the travel agent +in the Capri Hotel. + +He bought them--did you meet McWillie? + +Mr. MOORE. I didn't. + +Mr. RANKIN. He was checked by the Commission in connection with this +work. + +Chief Justice WARREN. There was some story in one of the papers that +you had been interested in shipping jeeps down to Cuba. Was there +anything to that at all? + +Mr. RUBY. No; but this was the earlier part, when the first time Castro +had ever invaded Cuba. There was even a Government article that they +would need jeeps. I don't recall what it was, but I never had the +facilities or the capabilities of knowing where to get jeeps. + +But probably in conversation with other persons--you see, it is a new +land, and they have to have a lot of things. As a matter of fact, the +U.S. Government was wanting persons to help them at that particular +time when they threw out the dictator, Batista. + +And one particular time there was a gentleman that smuggled guns to +Castro. I think I told you that, Mr. Moore; I don't remember. + +Mr. MOORE. I don't recall that. + +Mr. RUBY. I think his name was Longley out of Bay--something--Texas, on +the Bayshore. And somehow he was, I read the article about him, that he +was given a jail term for smuggling guns to Castro. This is the early +part of their revolution. + +Chief Justice WARREN. Before the Batista government fell? + +Mr. RUBY. Yes; I think he had a boat, and he lived somewhere in Bay +something, Bayshore, in the center part of Texas. Do you know him, Mr. +Storey? Do you know this man? + +Mr. STOREY. No; I don't know him. + +Mr. RUBY. How can I prove my authenticity of what I have stated here +today? + +Chief Justice WARREN. Well, you have testified under oath, and I don't +even know that there is anything to disprove what you have said. + +Mr. RUBY. No; because I will say this. You don't know if there +is anything to disprove, but at this moment, there is a certain +organization in this area that has been indoctrinated, that I am the +one that was in the plot to assassinate our President. + +Mr. RANKIN. Would you tell us what that is? + +Mr. RUBY. The John Birch Society. + +Mr. RANKIN. Can you tell us what basis you have for that, Mr. Ruby? + +Mr. RUBY. Just a feeling of it. Mr. Warren, you don't recall when +I--Friday night after leaving the Times Herald, I went to my apartment +and very impatiently awakened George Senator. As a matter of fact, used +the words, as I state, "You will have to get up, George. I want you to +go with me." + +And he had been in bed for a couple of hours, which was about, I +imagine, about 4:30 or a quarter to 5 in the morning. + +And I called the club and I asked this kid Larry if he knew how to pack +a Polaroid, and he said "Yes." + +And I said, "Get up." And we went down and picked up Larry. And in the +meantime, I don't recall if I stopped at the post office to find out +his box number of this Bernard Weissman. I think the box number was +1792, or something to that; and then there was, it came to my mind when +I left the Times Herald--I am skipping back--why I had awakened George. + +I recall seeing a sign on a certain billboard "Impeach Earl Warren." +You have heard something about that? + +Chief Justice WARREN. I read something in the paper, yes; that is all. + +Mr. RUBY. And it came from New Bedford, or Massachusetts; I don't +recall what the town was. + +And there was a similar number to that, but I thought at the time it +would be the same number of 1792, but it was 1757. + +That is the reason I went down there to take the Polaroid picture of +it, because of that remaining in the city at the time. + +What happened to the picture, I don't know. I asked Jim Bowie or +Alexander to tell you. + +Mr. RANKIN. Did you know Weissman before that? + +Mr. RUBY. Never knew him. When I said Jim Bowie, no one says a word. + +Mr. BOWIE. We never have seen them. + +Mr. RUBY. They were in my person. + +Mr. BOWIE. But no evidence came? + +Mr. RUBY. No; it did not, never. As a matter of fact, I went to the +post office to check on box 1792. I even inquired with the man in +charge of where you purchase the boxes, and I said to him, "Who bought +this box?" + +And he said, "I can't give you the information. All I know is, it is a +legitimate business box purchase." + +And I checked the various contents of mail there. + +Mr. RANKIN. Did you know Officer Tippit? + +Mr. RUBY. I knew there was three Tippits on the force. The only one +I knew used to work for the special services, and I am certain this +wasn't the Tippit, this wasn't the man. + +Mr. RANKIN. The man that was murdered. There was a story that you were +seen sitting in your Carousel Club with Mr. Weissman, Officer Tippit, +and another who has been called a rich oil man, at one time shortly +before the assassination. Can you tell us anything about that? + +Mr. RUBY. Who was the rich oil man? + +Mr. RANKIN. Can you remember? We haven't been told. We are just trying +to find out anything that you know about him. + +Mr. RUBY. I am the one that made such a big issue of Bernard Weissman's +ad. Maybe you do things to cover up, if you are capable of doing it. + +As a matter of fact, Saturday afternoon we went over to the Turf Bar +lounge, and it was a whole hullabaloo, and I showed the pictures +"Impeach Earl Warren" to Bellocchio, and he saw the pictures and got +very emotional. + +And Bellocchio said, "Why did the newspaper take this ad of Weissman?" + +And Bellocchio said, "I have got to leave Dallas." + +And suddenly after making that statement, I realized it is his +incapability, and suddenly you do things impulsively, and suddenly you +realize if you love the city, you stay here and you make the best of +it. And there were witnesses. + +I said, "The city was good enough for you all before this. Now you feel +that way about it." And that was Bellocchio. + +As far as Tippit, it is not Tippitts, it is not Tippitts it is Tippit. + +Mr. RANKIN. This Weissman and the rich oil man, did you ever have a +conversation with them? + +Mr. RUBY. There was only a few. Bill Rudman from the YMCA, and I +haven't seen him in years. + +And there is a Bill Howard, but he is not a rich oil man. He owns the +Stork Club now. He used to dabble in oil. + +Chief Justice WARREN. This story was given by a lawyer by the name of +Mark Lane, who is representing Mrs. Marguerite Oswald, the mother of +Lee Harvey Oswald, and it was in the paper, so we subpenaed him, and +he testified that someone had given him information to the effect that +a week or two before President Kennedy was assassinated, that in your +Carousel Club you and Weissman and Tippit, Officer Tippit, the one who +was killed, and a rich oil man had an interview or conversation for an +hour or two. + +And we asked him who it was that told him, and he said that it was +confidential and he couldn't tell at the moment, but that he would find +out for us if whether he could be released or not from his confidential +relationship. + +He has never done it, and we have written him several letters asking +him to disclose the name of that person, and he has never complied. + +Mr. RUBY. Isn't that foolish? If a man is patriotic enough in the first +place, who am I to be concerned if he wasn't an informer. + +I am incarcerated, nothing to be worried about anyone hurting me. + +Chief Justice WARREN. Mr. Ruby, I am not questioning your story at all. +I wanted you to know the background of this thing, and to know that it +was with us only hearsay. But I did feel that our record should show +that we would ask you the question and that you would answer it, and +you have answered it. + +Mr. RUBY. How many days prior to the assassination was that? + +Chief Justice WARREN. My recollection is that it was a week or two. Is +that correct? + +Mr. RUBY. Did anyone have any knowledge that their beloved President +was going to visit here prior to that time, or what is the definite +time that they knew he was coming to Dallas? + +Chief Justice WARREN. Well, I don't know just what those dates are. + +Mr. RUBY. I see. + +Chief Justice WARREN. I just don't know. Well, we wanted to ask you +that question, because this man had so testified, and we have been +trying ever since to get him to give the source of his information, but +he will not do it, so we will leave that matter as it is. + +Mr. RUBY. No; I am as innocent regarding any conspiracy as any of +you gentlemen in the room, and I don't want anything to be run over +lightly. I want you to dig into it with any biting, any question that +might embarrass me, or anything that might bring up my background, +which isn't so terribly spotted--I have never been a criminal--I have +never been in jail--I know when you live in the city of Chicago and +you are in the livelihood of selling tickets to sporting events, your +lucrative patrons are some of these people, but you don't mean anything +to those people. You may know them as you get acquainted with them at +the sporting events or the ball park. + +Chief Justice WARREN. The prizefights? + +Mr. RUBY. The prizefights. If that was your means of livelihood, +yet you don't have no other affiliation with them, so when I say I +know them, or what I have read from stories of personalities that +are notorious, that is the extent of my involvement in any criminal +activity. + +I have never been a bookmaker. I have never stolen for a living. I am +not a gangster. I have never used a goon squad for union activities. + +All I was was a representative to sound out applications for the +American Federation of Labor, and if the employees would sign it, we +would accept them as members. + +I never knew what a goon looked like in Chicago, with the exception +when I went to the service. + +I never belonged to any subversive organization. I don't know any +subversive people that are against my beloved country. + +Mr. RANKIN. You have never been connected with the Communist Party? + +Mr. RUBY. Never have. All I have ever done in my life--I had a very +rough start in life, but anything I have done, I at least try to do it +in good taste, whatever I have been active in. + +Mr. RANKIN. There was a story that you had a gun with you during the +showup that you described in the large room there. + +Mr. RUBY. I will be honest with you. I lied about it. It isn't so. I +didn't have a gun. But in order to make my defense more accurate, to +save your life, that is the reason that statement was made. + +Mr. RANKIN. It would be quite helpful to the Commission if you +could--in the first place, I want to get the trip to Cuba. Was that in +1959? + +Mr. RUBY. Yes; because I had to buy a $2 ticket, a pass to get through +Florida. + +Mr. RANKIN. Did you have any other trip to Cuba? + +Mr. RUBY. Never; that is the only one that I made. + +I stayed at the Volk's Apartments with Mr. McWillie, lived in his +apartment. Ate directly in a place called Wolf's, downstairs. Wouldn't +know how to speak their language. I wouldn't know how to communicate +with them. + +I probably had two dates from meeting some young ladies I got to +dancing with, because my dinners were served in the Tropicana. + +One thing I forgot to tell you--you are bringing my mind back to a few +things--the owners, the greatest that have been expelled from Cuba, are +the Fox brothers. They own the Tropicana. + +Mr. RANKIN. Who are the Fox brothers? + +Mr. RUBY. Martin Fox and I can't think of the other name. + +Mr. RANKIN. Do you know where they are located now? + +Mr. RUBY. They are in Miami, Fla. They know everything about McWillie, +I heard; and know the officials. + +I met McWillie because he came to the club, and he came to the club to +look over the show. And you get to talk to people and meet a lot of +different types of people. + +The Fox brothers came to Dallas--I don't know which one it was--to +collect a debt that some man owed the Cotton Gin Co. here. + +Do you know their name, Mr. Bowie? + +Mr. BOWIE. Murray, or something. + +Mr. RUBY. He gave some bad checks on a gambling debt, and they came to +visit me. The lawyer, I think, is Mark Lane. That is the attorney that +was killed in New York? + +Chief Justice WARREN. That is the fellow who represents, or did +represent Mrs. Marguerite Oswald. I think I read in the paper where he +no longer represents her. + +Mr. RANKIN. He is still alive though. + +Chief Justice WARREN. Oh, yes. + +Mr. RUBY. There was one Lane that was killed in a taxicab. I thought he +was an attorney in Dallas. + +Chief Justice WARREN. That was a Dave Lane. + +Mr. RUBY. There is a very prominent attorney in Dallas, McCord. McCord +represents the Fox brothers here. They called me because the Fox +brothers wanted to see me, and I came down to the hotel. + +And Mrs. McWillie--Mr. McWillie was married to her at that time--and if +I recall, I didn't show them off to the airport at that time. + +This is when they were still living in Havana, the Fox brothers. We had +dinner at--how do you pronounce that restaurant at Love Field? Luau? +That serves this Chinese food. + +Dave McCord, I was in his presence, and I was invited out to dinner, +and there was an attorney by the name of Leon. Is he associated with +McCord? + +And there was a McClain. + +Chief Justice WARREN. Alfred was killed in a taxi in New York. + +Mr. RUBY. He was at this dinner meeting I had with McCord. I don't know +if Mrs. McWillie was along. And one of the Fox brothers, because they +had just been awarded the case that this person owns, this Gin Co., +that was compelled to pay off. + +Mr. RANKIN. I think, Mr. Ruby, it would be quite helpful to the +Commission if you could tell, as you recall it, just what you said to +Mr. Sorrels and the others after the shooting of Lee Harvey Oswald. Can +you recall that? + +Mr. RUBY. The only one I recall Mr. Sorrels in, there were some +incorrect statements made at this time. + +Mr. RANKIN. Can you tell us what you said? + +Congressman FORD. First, tell us when this took place. + +Mr. RANKIN. How soon after the shooting occurred? + +Mr. RUBY. Well, Ray Hall was the first one that interrogated me. Wanted +to know my whole background. + +Mr. RANKIN. Can you tell us how soon it was? Within a few minutes after +the shooting? + +Mr. RUBY. No; I waited in a little room there somewhere upstairs in--I +don't know what floor it was. I don't recall. + +Mr. RANKIN. Where did this occur, on the third floor? + +Mr. RUBY. One of those floors. I don't know whether it was the third or +second. If you are up on an elevator---- + +Mr. RANKIN. Can you give us any idea of the time after the shooting? + +Mr. RUBY. I spent an hour with Mr. Hall, Ray Hall. And I was very much, +I was very much broken up emotionally, and I constantly repeated that +I didn't want Mrs. Kennedy to come back to trial, and those were my +words, constantly repeated to Mr. Hall. + +And I heard there was a statement made--now I am skipping--and then I +gave Mr. Hall my complete background about things he wanted to know, +my earlier background going back from the years, and I guess there +was nothing else to say to Hall because as long as I stated why I did +it--it is not like planning a crime and you are confessing something. I +already confessed, and all it took is one sentence why I did it. + +Now what else could I have said that you think I could have said? +Refresh my memory a little bit. + +Mr. RANKIN. There was a conversation with Mr. Sorrels in which you told +him about the matter. Do you remember that? + +Mr. RUBY. The only thing I ever recall I said to Mr. Ray Hall and +Sorrels was, I said, "Being of Jewish faith, I wanted to show my love +for my President and his lovely wife." + +After I said whatever I said, then a statement came out that someone +introduced Mr. Sorrels to me and I said, "What are you, a newsman?" Or +something to that effect. Which is really--what I am trying to say is, +the way it sounded is like I was looking for publicity and inquiring if +you are a newsman, I wanted to see you. + +But I am certain--I don't recall definitely, but I know in my right +mind, because I know my motive for doing it, and certainly to gain +publicity to take a chance of being mortally wounded, as I said before, +and who else could have timed it so perfectly by seconds. + +If it were timed that way, then someone in the police department is +guilty of giving the information as to when Lee Harvey Oswald was +coming down. + +I never made a statement. I never inquired from the television man what +time is Lee Harvey Oswald coming down. Because really, a man in his +right mind would never ask that question. I never made the statement +"I wanted to get three more off. Someone had to do it. You wouldn't do +it." I never made those statements. + +I never called the man by any obscene name, because as I stated +earlier, there was no malice in me. He was insignificant, to my +feelings for my love for Mrs. Kennedy and our beloved President. He was +nothing comparable to them, so I can't explain it. + +I never used any words--as a matter of fact, there were questions at +the hearing with Roy Pryor and a few others--I may have used one word +"a little weasel" or something, but I didn't use it. I don't remember, +because Roy said it. If he said I did, I may have said it. + +I never made the statement to anyone that I intended to get him. I +never used the obscene words that were stated. + +Anything I said was with emotional feeling of I didn't want Mrs. +Kennedy to come back to trial. + +Representative FORD. It has been alleged that you went out to Parkland +Hospital. + +Mr. RUBY. No; I didn't go there. They tried to ask me. My sisters asked +me. Some people told my sister that you were there. I am of sound mind. +I never went there. Everything that transpired during the tragedy, I +was at the Morning News Building. + +Congressman FORD. You didn't go out there subsequent to the +assassination? + +Mr. RUBY. No; in other words, like somebody is trying to make me +something of a martyr in that case. No; I never did. + +Does this conflict with my story and yours in great length? + +Mr. MOORE. Substantially the same, Jack, as well as I remember. + +Mr. RANKIN. Did you say anything about people of your religion have +guts, or something like that? + +Mr. RUBY. I said it. I never said it up there. I said, I could have +said, "Weren't you afraid of getting your head blown off?" I said, +"Well, to be truthful, I have a little nerve." I could have said that. + +Now I could have said to the doctor that was sent to me, Bromberg, +because there is a certain familiarity you have, because it is like you +have an attorney representing you, it is there. I mean, it is there. + +But I did say this. McWillie made a statement about me, something to +the effect that "he is considered a pretty rough guy," this McWillie. +He said, "One thing about Jack Ruby, he runs this club and no one runs +over him." + +And you have a different type of entertainment here than any other part +of the country, our type of entertainment. + +But I don't recall that. I could have said the sentimental feeling that +I may have used. + +Representative FORD. When you flew to Cuba, where did you go from +Dallas en route? What was the step-by-step process by which you arrived +at Havana? + +Mr. RUBY. I think I told Mr. Moore I stopped in New Orleans. Sometime +I stopped in New Orleans, and I don't remember if I stopped in Florida +or New Orleans, but I know I did stop in New Orleans, because I bought +some Carioca rum coming back. + +I know I was to Miami on a stopover. It could have been on the way +back. I only went to Cuba once, so naturally, when I bought the +Carioca rum, there was a couple of fellows that sell tickets for Delta +Airlines, and they know me like I know you, and I am sure you gentlemen +have spoken to them, and they were to tell me where to go in Havana, +and have a ball, and I told them why I was going there, and who I was +going to look up, and everything else. + +Representative FORD. They were Delta Airlines employees in New Orleans +or Dallas? + +Mr. RUBY. No; in New Orleans. Evidently I went out to the Delta +Airlines at Love Field and caught the plane. I may have taken the +flight--here is what could have happened. I could have made a double +stop from Havana on the way back in taking in Miami, and then taking +another plane to New Orleans, I am not certain. + +But I only made one trip to Havana. Yet I know I was in Miami, Fla. and +I was in New Orleans. + +And the next time I went to New Orleans, when I tried to look up some +showgirl by the name of Jada, I stopped in to see the same fellows at +Delta Airlines. + +Mr. RANKIN. Do you recall going up the elevator after the shooting of +Oswald? + +Mr. RUBY. That is so small to remember, I guess it is automatic, you +know. + +Mr. RANKIN. Did you have this gun a long while that you did the +shooting with? + +Mr. RUBY. Yes. + +Mr. RANKIN. You didn't carry it all the time? + +Mr. RUBY. I did. I had it in a little bag with money constantly. I +carry my money. + +Chief Justice WARREN. Congressman, do you have anything further? + +Mr. RUBY. You can get more out of me. Let's not break up too soon. + +Representative FORD. When you got to Havana, who met you in Havana? + +Mr. RUBY. McWillie. Now here is what happened. One of the Fox brothers +came to visit me in Dallas with his wife. They came to the Vegas Club +with Mrs. McWillie, and we had taken some pictures. 8 x 10's. + +Evidently the Foxes were in exile at that time, because when I went to +visit McWillie, when he sent me the plane tickets, they looked through +my luggage and they saw a photograph of Mr. Fox and his wife. They +didn't interrogate, but they went through everything and held me up for +hours. + +Representative FORD. Castro employees? + +Mr. RUBY. Yes; because evidently, in my ignorance, I didn't realize I +was bringing a picture that they knew was a bitter enemy. At that time +they knew that the Fox brothers weren't going to jail, or something was +going to happen. + +Whether it was they were in exile at that time. I don't know. + +But they came to my club, the Vegas Club, and we had taken pictures. + +Mr. McWillie was waiting for me, and he saw me go through the customs +line for a couple of hours, and he said, "Jack, they never did this to +anyone before." Evidently, they had me pretty well lined up as to where +I come in the picture of Mr. Rivera Fox. I can't think of his name. + +Representative FORD. You spent 8 days there in Havana? + +Mr. RUBY. Yes; approximately. + +Representative FORD. And you stayed at the apartment of Mr.---- + +Mr. RUBY. Volk's Apartments. I never used the phone. I wouldn't know +how to use the phone. Probably to call back to Dallas. And the only +time, Mr. McWillie had to be at the club early, so I remained a little +later in town--not often--because I saved money when I rode with him, +because they charge you quite a bit. But I didn't want to get there too +early, because to get there at 7 o'clock wasn't very lively. + +Because I would always be with him for the complete evening. + +We leave the place and stop somewhere to get coffee, a little +dugout--I saw Ava Gardner down there at the time when I was there. She +was visiting there. + +Representative FORD. What prompted you to leave at the end of 8 days? + +Mr. RUBY. I was bored because gambling isn't my profession, and when +you have a business to run, and there weren't many tourists I could get +acquainted with there. + +I went to the Capri rooftop to go swimming, and went to the Nacional to +go swimming once. + +Representative FORD. Did you ever go to Mexico? Have you ever been to +Mexico? + +Mr. RUBY. The only time, 30 or 40 years ago, 1934. + +Representative FORD. This trip to Cuba was the only time you left the +country other than military service? + +Mr. RUBY. Actually I didn't leave in the military. I was stationed +three and a half years here in the States. Let's see, never out of the +United States except at one time to Havana, Cuba. + +Chief Justice WARREN. Now you said there were some other things. Would +you mind telling us anything you have on your mind? + +Mr. RUBY. No; because as I said earlier, you seem to have gotten the +juicy part of the story up to now in the various spasmodic way of my +telling it. + +How valuable am I to you to give you all this information? + +Chief Justice WARREN. Well, how valuable is rather an indefinite term, +but I think it is very helpful to our Commission report. I think the +report would have been deficient if it had not been for this interview +we have had with you. + +So we are interested in anything that you would like to tell us, in +your own language. + +Mr. RUBY. The only thing is this. If I cannot get these tests you give, +it is pretty haphazard to tell you the things I should tell you. + +Mr. Moore, you seem to have known more about my interrogation than +anybody else, right? + +Mr. MOORE. I think you have told us about everything you told me. + +Mr. RANKIN. It isn't entirely clear how you feel that your family +and you yourself are threatened by your telling what you have to the +Commission. + +How do you come to the conclusion that they might be killed? Will you +tell us a little bit more about that, if you can? + +Mr. RUBY. Well, assuming that, as I stated before, some persons are +accusing me falsely of being part of the plot--naturally, in all the +time from over 6 months ago, my family has been so interested in +helping me. + +Mr. RANKIN. By that, you mean a party to the plot of Oswald? + +Mr. RUBY. That I was party to a plot to silence Oswald. + +All right now, when your family believes you and knows your mannerisms +and your thoughts, and knows your sincerity, they have lived with you +all your life and know your emotional feelings and your patriotism--on +the surface, they see me only as the guilty assailant of Oswald, and by +helping me like they have, going all out. + +My brother who has a successful business, I know he is going to be +killed. And I haven't seen him in years. And suddenly he feels that he +wants to help me, because he believes that I couldn't be any further +involved than the actual---- + +When I told him I did it because of Mrs. Kennedy, that is all he had +to hear, because I would never involve my family or involve him in a +conspiracy. + +Everyone haven't let me down. Because they read the newspapers away +from Dallas that stated certain facts about me, but they are untrue, +because they wouldn't come out and put those things in the newspapers +that they should be putting in; and people outside of Dallas read +the Dallas newspapers and are all in sympathy with me, as far as the +country itself. + +That they felt, well, Jack did it. They probably felt they would do the +same thing. + +That sympathy isn't going to help me, because the people that have the +power here, they have a different verdict. They already have me as the +accused assassin of our beloved President. + +Now if I sound screwy telling you this, then I must be screwy. + +Chief Justice WARREN. Mr. Ruby, I think you are entitled to a statement +to this effect, because you have been frank with us and have told us +your story. + +I think I can say to you that there has been no witness before this +Commission out of the hundreds we have questioned who has claimed to +have any personal knowledge that you were a party to any conspiracy to +kill our President. + +Mr. RUBY. Yes; but you don't know this area here. + +Chief Justice WARREN. No; I don't vouch for anything except that I +think I am correct in that, am I not? + +Mr. RANKIN. That is correct. + +Chief Justice WARREN. I just wanted to tell you before our own +Commission, and I might say to you also that we have explored the +situation. + +Mr. RUBY. I know, but I want to say this to you. If certain people have +the means and want to gain something by propagandizing something to +their own use, they will make ways to present certain things that I do +look guilty. + +Chief Justice WARREN. Well. I will make this additional statement to +you, that if any witness should testify before the Commission that you +were, to their knowledge, a party to any conspiracy to assassinate the +President, I assure you that we will give you the opportunity to deny +it and to take any tests that you may desire to so disprove it. + +I don't anticipate that there will be any such testimony, but should +there be, we will give you that opportunity. + +Does that seem fair? + +Mr. RUBY. No; that isn't going to save my family. + +Chief Justice WARREN. Well, we can't do everything at once. + +Mr. RUBY. I am in a tough spot, and I don't know what the solution can +be to save me. + +And I know our wonderful President, Lyndon Johnson, as soon as he was +the President of his country, he appointed you as head of this group. +But through certain falsehoods that have been said about me to other +people, the John Birch Society, I am as good as guilty as the accused +assassin of President Kennedy. + +How can you remedy that, Mr. Warren? Do any of you men have any ways of +remedying that? + +Mr. Bill Decker said be a man and speak up. I am making a statement now +that I may not live the next hour when I walk out of this room. + +Now it is the most fantastic story you have ever heard in a lifetime. +I did something out of the goodness of my heart. Unfortunately, Chief +Earl Warren, had you been around 5 or 6 months ago, and I know your +hands were tied, you couldn't do it, and immediately the President +would have gotten ahold of my true story, or whatever would have been +said about me, a certain organization wouldn't have so completely +formed now, so powerfully, to use me because I am of the Jewish +extraction, Jewish faith, to commit the most dastardly crime that has +ever been committed. + +Can you understand now in visualizing, what happened, what powers, what +momentum has been carried on to create this feeling of mass feeling +against my people, against certain people that were against them prior +to their power? + +That goes over your head, doesn't it? + +Chief Justice WARREN. Well, I don't quite get the full significance of +it, Mr. Ruby. I know what you feel about the John Birch Society. + +Mr. RUBY. Very powerful. + +Chief Justice WARREN. I think it is powerful, yes I do. Of course, I +don't have all the information that you feel you have on that subject. + +Mr. RUBY. Unfortunately, you don't have, because it is too late. And +I wish that our beloved President, Lyndon Johnson, would have delved +deeper into the situation, hear me, not to accept just circumstantial +facts about my guilt or innocence, and would have questioned to find +out the truth about me before he relinquished certain powers to these +certain people. + +Chief Justice WARREN. Well, I am afraid I don't know what power you +believe he relinquished to them. I think that it is difficult to +understand what you have to say. + +Mr. RUBY. I want to say this to you. The Jewish people are being +exterminated at this moment. Consequently, a whole new form of +government is going to take over our country, and I know I won't live +to see you another time. + +Do I sound sort of screwy in telling you these things? + +Chief Justice WARREN. No; I think that is what you believe, or you +wouldn't tell it under your oath. + +Mr. RUBY. But it is a very serious situation. I guess it is too late to +stop it, isn't it? + +All right, I want to ask you this. All you men have been chosen by the +President for this committee, is that correct? + +Chief Justice WARREN. Representative Ford and I are the only members of +the Commission that are here. + +Mr. Rankin of the Commission is employed as our chief counsel. + +Mr. Rankin employed Mr. Specter and Mr. Ball as members of the staff. + +You know who the other gentlemen here are. + +You know that Mr. Moore is a member of the Secret Service, and he has +been a liaison officer with our staff since the Commission was formed. + +Representative FORD. Are there any questions that ought to be asked to +help clarify the situation that you described? + +Mr. RUBY. There is only one thing. If you don't take me back to +Washington tonight to give me a chance to prove to the President that I +am not guilty, then you will see the most tragic thing that will ever +happen. + +And if you don't have the power to take me back, I won't be around to +be able to prove my innocence or guilt. + +Now up to this moment, I have been talking with you for how long? + +Chief Justice WARREN. I would say for the better part of 3 hours. + +Mr. RUBY. All right, wouldn't it be ridiculous for me to speak sensibly +all this time and give you this climactic talk that I have? + +Maybe something can be saved, something can be done. + +What have you got to answer to that, Chief Justice Warren? + +Chief Justice WARREN. Well, I don't know what can be done. Mr. Ruby, +because I don't know what you anticipate we will encounter. + +Representative FORD. Is there anything more you can tell us if you went +back to Washington? + +Mr. RUBY. Yes; are you sincere in wanting to take me back? + +Representative FORD. We are most interested in all the information you +have. + +Mr. RUBY. All I know is maybe something can be saved. Because right +now, I want to tell you this, I am used as a scapegoat, and there is no +greater weapon that you can use to create some falsehood about some of +the Jewish faith, especially at the terrible heinous crime such as the +killing of President Kennedy. + +Now maybe something can be saved. It may not be too late, whatever +happens, if our President, Lyndon Johnson, knew the truth from me. + +But if I am eliminated, there won't be any way of knowing. + +Right now, when I leave your presence now. I am the only one that can +bring out the truth to our President, who believes in righteousness and +justice. + +But he has been told, I am certain, that I was part of a plot to +assassinate the President. + +I know your hands are tied; you are helpless. + +Chief Justice WARREN. Mr. Ruby. I think I can say this to you, that if +he has been told any such thing, there is no indication of any kind +that he believes it. + +Mr. RUBY. I am sorry. Chief Justice Warren. I thought I would be very +effective in telling you what I have said here. But in all fairness to +everyone, maybe all I want to do is beg that if they found out I was +telling the truth, maybe they can succeed in what their motives are, +but maybe my people won't be tortured and mutilated. + +Chief Justice WARREN. Well, you may be sure that the President and his +whole Commission will do anything that is necessary to see that your +people are not tortured. + +Mr. RUBY. No. + +Chief Justice WARREN. You may be sure of that. + +Mr. RUBY. No; the only way you can do it is if he knows the truth, that +I am telling the truth, and why I was down in that basement Sunday +morning, and maybe some sense of decency will come out and they can +still fulfill their plan, as I stated before, without my people going +through torture and mutilation. + +Chief Justice WARREN. The President will know everything that you have +said, everything that you have said. + +Mr. RUBY. But I won't be around, Chief Justice. I won't be around to +verify these things you are going to tell the President. + +Mr. TONAHILL. Who do you think is going to eliminate you, Jack? + +Mr. RUBY. I have been used for a purpose, and there will be a certain +tragic occurrence happening if you don't take my testimony and somehow +vindicate me so my people don't suffer because of what I have done. + +Chief Justice WARREN. But we have taken your testimony. We have it +here. It will be in permanent form for the President of the United +States and for the Congress of the United States, and for the courts of +the United States, and for the people of the entire world. + +It is there. It will be recorded for all to see. That is the purpose of +our coming here today. We feel that you are entitled to have your story +told. + +Mr. RUBY. You have lost me though. You have lost me, Chief Justice +Warren. + +Chief Justice WARREN. Lost you in what sense? + +Mr. RUBY. I won't be around for you to come and question me again. + +Chief Justice WARREN. Well, it is very hard for me to believe that. I +am sure that everybody would want to protect you to the very limit. + +Mr. RUBY. All I want is a lie detector test, and you refuse to give it +to me. + +Because as it stands now--and the truth serum, and any +other--Pentothal--how do you pronounce it, whatever it is. And they +will not give it to me, because I want to tell the truth. + +And then I want to leave this world. But I don't want my people to be +blamed for something that is untrue, that they claim has happened. + +Chief Justice WARREN. Mr. Ruby, I promise you that you will be able to +take such a test. + +Mr. RUBY. When? + +Chief Justice WARREN. You will have to let me see when we can figure +that out. But I assure you, it won't be delayed, because our desire +is to terminate the work of the Commission and make our report to the +public just as soon as possible, so there won't be any misunderstanding +caused by all of these rumors or stories that have been put out that +are not consistent with the evidence in the case. + +But it will not be unnecessarily delayed, and we will do it on behalf +of the Commission, I promise you. + +Mr. RUBY. All I want, and I beg you--when are you going to see the +President? + +Chief Justice WARREN. Well, I have no date with the President. I don't +know just when. But as soon as I do see him, I will be glad to tell him +what you have said. + +Mr. RUBY. All I want is to take a polygraph to tell the truth. That is +all I want to do. + +Chief Justice WARREN. Yes; that, I promise you you can do. + +Mr. RUBY. Because my people are going to suffer about things that will +be said about me. + +Chief Justice WARREN. Yes; well, I promise. + +Mr. RUBY. Hold on another minute. + +Chief Justice WARREN. All right. + +Mr. RUBY. How do you know if the facts I stated about everything I +said, statements with reference to, are the truth or not? + +Chief Justice WARREN. Well, if you want a test made to test those +principal questions, we will work them out so they can be tested. + +As I understand it, you can't use the polygraph to say now this is the +story. + +Mr. RUBY. I know that. + +Chief Justice WARREN. To say you have the story of Jack Ruby. You can't +do that. + +Mr. RUBY. I know that. You can clarify by questioning me when I +conceived the idea and what my answer would naturally be that Sunday +morning. + +Chief Justice WARREN. Maybe I can help the situation this way. Suppose +you list for us, if you can, the questions that you would like to have +asked of you on the polygraph to establish the truth of your testimony. + +What things do you consider vital in it, and what would you like to +have verified? + +Mr. RUBY. Yes; but you are telling me to do these things--these things +are going to be promised, but you see they aren't going to let me do +these things. + +Because when you leave here, I am finished. My family is finished. + +Representative FORD. Isn't it true, Mr. Chief Justice, that the same +maximum protection and security Mr. Ruby has been given in the past +will be continued? + +Mr. RUBY. But now that I have divulged certain information because I +want to be honest, all I want to take is a polygraph test and tell the +truth about things and combat the lies that have been told about me. + +Now maybe certain people don't want to know the truth that may come out +of me. Is that plausible? + +Representative FORD. In other words, the Chief Justice has agreed, and +I on the Commission wholeheartedly concur, that you will be given a +polygraph test as expeditiously as possible. + +And I am sure you can rely on what has been stated here by the Chairman. + +Mr. RUBY. How are we going to communicate and so on? + +Chief Justice WARREN. We will communicate directly with you. + +Mr. RUBY. You have a lost cause, Earl Warren. You don't stand a chance. +They feel about you like they do about me, Chief Justice Warren. + +I shouldn't hurt your feelings in telling you that. + +Chief Justice WARREN. That won't hurt my feelings, because I have had +some evidence of the feeling that some people have concerning me. + +Mr. RUBY. But you are the only one that can save me. I think you can. + +Chief Justice WARREN. Yes? + +Mr. RUBY. But by delaying minutes, you lose the chance. And all I want +to do is tell the truth, and that is all. + +There was no conspiracy. But by you telling them what you are going to +do and how you are going to do it is too late as of this moment. + +Chief Justice WARREN. You take my word for it and the word of +Representative Ford, that we will do this thing at the earliest +possible moment, and that it will be done in time. It will be done in +time. + +Mr. RUBY. Well, you won't ever see me again, I tell you that. And I +have lost my family. + +Chief Justice WARREN. Yes? + +Mr. RUBY. No, no; you don't believe me, do you? + +Chief Justice WARREN. To be frank with you, I believe that you are not +stating now what is the fact. + +I don't say you don't believe it, but I believe that I will be able to +see you again and that we will be able to take this test that you are +speaking of. + +Well, I think we have tired Mr. Ruby. We have had him here for close to +4 hours now, and I am sure our reporter must be equally tired, but we +appreciate your patience and your willingness to testify in this manner +for us. + +Mr. RUBY. All I want to do is tell the truth, and the only way you can +know it is by the polygraph, as that is the only way you can know it. + +Chief Justice WARREN. That we will do for you. + +(Whereupon, at 2:50 p.m., the President's Commission recessed.) + + + + +_Monday, June 8, 1964_ + +TESTIMONY OF HENRY WADE, PATRICK D. DEAN, AND WAGGONER CARR + +The President's Commission met at 9:25 a.m., on June 8, 1964, at 200 +Maryland Avenue NE., Washington, D.C. + +Present were Chief Justice Earl Warren, Chairman; Senator John Sherman +Cooper and Allen W. Dulles, members. + +Also present were J. Lee Rankin, general counsel; Norman Redlich, +assistant counsel; Dr. Alfred Goldberg, historian; Waggoner Carr, +attorney general of Texas, and Charles Murray, observers. + + +TESTIMONY OF HENRY WADE + +Senator COOPER. Will you raise your hand? + +Do you solemnly swear the testimony you are about to give this +Commission will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the +truth, so help you God? + +Mr. WADE. I do. + +Senator COOPER. You are informed about the purposes of this +investigation. + +Mr. WADE. I know it, generally. + +Senator COOPER. Do you desire a lawyer? + +Mr. WADE. No, sir. + +Senator COOPER. Thank you very much. + +Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Wade, we are going to ask you generally about the time +of Mr. Oswald's, Lee Harvey Oswald's, arrest, what you had to do in +connection with the entire matter, and the press being there at the +jail, and the scene and seeing what happened there, and the various +things in regard to Mr. Dean and other witnesses in connection with the +matter. + +Will you state your name? + +Mr. WADE. Henry Wade. + +Mr. RANKIN. Where do you live? + +Mr. WADE. I am district attorney, or criminal district attorney of +Dallas, Tex.; my home is in Dallas. + +Mr. RANKIN. Will you tell us briefly your qualifications for your +position and profession? + +Mr. WADE. Well, I am a graduate of the University of Texas Law School, +1938, with highest honors. I was county attorney at Rock Wall, Tex., +another county for 1 year. I resigned on December 4, 1939, and became +a special agent of the FBI. As a special agent of the FBI--I was there +until August of 1943, these were rough months--when I resigned and +became an apprentice seaman in the Navy. + +Later I became a lieutenant, junior grade, served in the Pacific 2 +years, about 2 years. + +Then after the war I got out of the Navy on the 6th of February 1946, +ran for district attorney in Dallas and was not elected at that +time. I hadn't ever lived in Dallas prior to that. You see there was +another county. I was assistant district attorney and then was Federal +prosecutor from January 1, 1947, up until December 1949, when I +resigned and ran for district attorney. + +I was elected district attorney in 1950 and have been criminal district +attorney of Dallas County since January 1, 1951. + +Mr. RANKIN. Have you handled many of the prosecutions of that county +since that time? + +Mr. WADE. Well, my office or I have handled all of them since that +time. I have had quite a bit of experience myself. I have a staff of +41 lawyers and, of course, I don't try all the cases but I have tried +quite a few, I would say 40, 50 anyhow since I have been district +attorney. + +Mr. RANKIN. Do you have any particular policy about which cases you +would try generally? + +Mr. WADE. Well, it varies according to who my first assistant has been. +It is varied. If I have a first assistant who likes to try cases, I +usually let him try a lot and I do the administrative. At the present +time I have a very fine administrative assistant, Jim Bowie, whom you +met and I try a few more cases. + +I guess I have tried four in the last year probably but two to five a +year are about all the cases I try myself personally. + +Mr. RANKIN. Do you have any policy about capital cases as to whether +you should try them or somebody else? + +Mr. WADE. I don't try all of them. I try all the cases that are very +aggravated and receive probably some publicity to some extent, and +I don't try all the capital cases. I think we have had quite a few +death penalties but I don't imagine I have been in over half of them, +probably half of them. + +Mr. RANKIN. Do you remember where you were at the time you learned of +the assassination of President Kennedy? + +Mr. WADE. Well, they were having a party for President Kennedy at +Market Hall and I was out at Market Hall waiting for the President to +arrive. + +Mr. RANKIN. How did you learn about the assassination? + +Mr. WADE. Well, one of the reporters for one of the newspapers told +me there had been a shooting or something, of course, one of those +things we were getting all kinds of rumors spreading through a crowd +of 3,000-5,000 people, and then they got the radio on and the first +report was they had killed two Secret Service agents, that was on the +radio, and then the press all came running in there and then ran out, +no one knew for sure what was going on until finally they announced +that President had been shot and from the rostrum there the chairman of +the---- + +Mr. DULLES. Who was the chairman of that meeting, do you recall? + +Mr. WADE. Eric Johnson. Eric Johnson. + +Mr. RANKIN. Was he mayor then? + +Mr. WADE. No; he wasn't mayor, he was the president of Texas Industries +and I believe was president of the Dallas Chamber of Commerce. I may +have been wrong on that but he has been president of the chamber +of commerce. He is president of Texas Industries, and this is not +particularly important but he is--that was sort of a bipartisan deal, +in that he is one of the leading Republicans of Dallas and he was +chairman of the meeting. + +Mr. RANKIN. What did you do after you heard of the assassination? + +Mr. WADE. Well, the first thing, we were set up in a bus to go from +there to Austin to another party that night for President Kennedy, a +group of us, 30 or 40. We got on a bus and went. I went back to the +office and sent my wife home, my wife was with me. + +And the first thing that I did was go check the law to see whether it +was a Federal offense or mine. I thought it was a Federal offense when +I first heard about it. We checked the law, and were satisfied that was +no serious Federal offense, or not a capital case, anyhow. + +There might be some lesser offense. I talked to the U.S. attorney. + +Mr. RANKIN. Who was that? + +Mr. WADE. Barefoot Sanders and he was in agreement it was going to be +our case rather than his and he had been doing the same thing. + +Mr. RANKIN. Where did you talk to him? + +Mr. WADE. On the telephone as I recall, in his office from my office. I +am not even sure I talked with him, somebody from my office talked to +him, because I think you can realize things were a little confused and +that took us, say, until 3:30 or 4. + +I let everybody in the office go home, but some of my key personnel who +stayed there. I let the girls or told them they could go home, because +they did close all the offices down there. The next thing I did--do you +want me to tell you? + +Mr. RANKIN. Yes. + +Mr. WADE. I will tell you what I can. + +The next thing I did was to go by the sheriff's office who is next door +to me and talked to Decker, who is the sheriff. Bill Decker, and they +were interviewing witnesses who were on the streets at the time, and I +asked him and he said they have got a good prospect. + +This must have been 3 o'clock roughly. + +Mr. RANKIN. The witnesses that were on the street near the Depository +Building? + +Mr. WADE. Yes, sir; and in the building, I am not sure who they were, +they had two court reporters there taking statements. + +Mr. RANKIN. Did they tell you anything about a suspect at that point? + +Mr. WADE. The Sheriff told me, he said, "Don't say nothing about it, +but they have got a good suspect," talking about the Dallas Police. + +He didn't have him there. John Connally, you know, was shot also--and +he was, he used to be a roommate of mine in the Navy and we were good +friends, and are now--and the first thing I did then was went out to +the hospital to see how he was getting along. + +I must have stayed out there until about 5 o'clock, and in case you all +don't know or understand one thing, it has never been my policy to make +any investigations out of my office of murders or anything else for +that matter. We leave that entirely to the police agency. + +Mr. RANKIN. Do you have a reason for that? + +Mr. WADE. That is the way it is set up down there. We have more than we +can do actually in trying the cases. The only time we investigate them +is after they are filed on, indicted, and then we have investigators +who get them ready for trial and then lawyers. + +Mr. DULLES. Have you any personnel for that? + +Mr. WADE. No, sir; I have in my office 11 investigators but that is +just 1 for each court, and they primarily, or at least about all they +do is line up the witnesses for trial and help with jury picking and +things of that kind. + +Mr. RANKIN. At this point that you are describing, had you learned of +any arrest? + +Mr. WADE. No, sir; Mr. Decker says they have a good suspect. He said +that sometime around 3 o'clock. You see, I didn't have the benefit of +all that was on the air. I didn't even know Oswald had been arrested at +this time. As a matter of fact, I didn't know it at 5 o'clock when I +left the hospital. + +When I left the hospital, I went home, watched television a while, had +dinner, and a couple, some friends of ours came over there. They were +going to Austin with us on the bus, and we had dinner and started out +somewhere but I said we had better go by the police station. + +At that time they kept announcing they had Oswald or I believe they +named a name. + +Mr. RANKIN. Had you learned about the Tippit murder yet? + +Mr. WADE. Yes, sir; of course, it had been on the air that Tippit had +been killed. + +I went by the Dallas police, just to let us see what was kind of going +on. + +Mr. RANKIN. Was that unusual for you to do that? + +Mr. WADE. It was unusual because I hadn't been in the Dallas Police +Department, I won't be there on the average of once a year actually, I +mean on anything. I went by there and I went to Chief Curry's office. + +Mr. RANKIN. How did you happen to do that this time? + +Mr. WADE. Of course, this is not really, this was not an ordinary case, +this was a little bit different, and I mostly wanted to know how he was +coming along on the investigation is the main reason I went by. + +As I went in, and this is roughly 6:30, 7 at night--I said we ate +dinner at home, I believe the couple were out in the car with my wife +were waiting for me to go to dinner with them. + +Mr. DULLES. Did you go down to the airfield when President Johnson left? + +Mr. WADE. No, sir; no, sir. + +Mr. DULLES. You did not. + +Mr. WADE. I didn't go anywhere but to my office, then to Parkland +Hospital and then home, and then I was there a while and then I went by +the police station, mostly to see how they were coming along. Papers +were announcing, the radios, I mean, were announcing, television, that +they had a suspect and was even telling them what some of the evidence +was against him. + +Mr. RANKIN. About what time was this at the police station? + +Mr. WADE. I would say around 7 o'clock. This can vary 30 minutes either +way. + +Mr. RANKIN. Who did you see there? + +Mr. WADE. Chief Curry. + +Mr. RANKIN. Did you talk to him? + +Mr. WADE. I talked to him. + +Mr. RANKIN. What did you say to him and what did he say to you? + +Mr. WADE. Well, it is hard to remember. I know the first thing he did +was pull out a memorandum that you all were interested in, signed by +Jack Revill, and showed it to me and I read it, and said, "What do you +think about that?" + +And I said---- + +Mr. DULLES. I wonder if you would identify this for the record? + +Mr. WADE. You can get it. Let me tell you the story. I read that thing +there hurriedly and I remember it mentioned that Agent Hosty had talked +to Revill---- + +Senator COOPER. Who was that? + +Mr. WADE. Hosty. + +Senator COOPER. Can you identify him as to what he does? + +Mr. WADE. He is a special agent of the FBI, but I don't think I would +know him if he walked in here actually. + +But that is his business. He showed me that, and I read it. Now, as far +as identifying it, I have seen--I have a copy of it in my files. + +You see, when they turned the records over to me and I read it and +looked it over and to the best of my knowledge was the same memorandum +he showed me, although all I did was glance at it and it said generally +they knew something about him and knew he was in town or something like +that. + +Senator COOPER. Who said that? + +Mr. WADE. This memorandum said that. + +Senator COOPER. Who is reported to be quoting the memorandum? + +Mr. WADE. Special Agent Hosty. Now, I have since looked at the +memorandum. So far as I know it is the same memorandum, but like I +say I read it there and I don't know whether it is the--I don't know +whether it said word for word to be the same thing but it appears to me +to my best knowledge to be the same memorandum. + +Mr. RANKIN. Do you know when you first got the memorandum in your files +that you are referring to? + +Mr. WADE. It was a month later. You see the police gave me a record of +everything on the Ruby case, I would say some time about Christmas. + +Mr. RANKIN. I will hand you Commission Exhibit No. 709 and ask you if +that is the memorandum you just referred to? + +Mr. WADE. Yes; to the best of my knowledge that is the memorandum he +showed me there at 7 p.m. on the 22d day of November 1963. + +Jack Revill incidentally, you all have talked with him, but he is one +of the brightest, to my mind, of the young Dallas police officers. + +As a matter of fact, when we got into the Ruby trial, I asked that they +assign Jack Revill to assist us in the investigation and he assisted +with picking of the jury and getting the witnesses all through the Ruby +trial. + +Mr. RANKIN. Would your records show when you received a copy of this +document, Commission Exhibit No. 709? + +Mr. WADE. Well, I am sure it would. It would be the day--you can trace +it back to when the newspapers said he had turned all the files over to +me and it was around Christmas as I recall, and I believe actually it +was after Christmas, but probably 30 days, but you see they turned over +a file that thick to me, I imagine. It was of all of that, the same +thing they turned over to you, everything the police had on Jack Ruby. + +Mr. RANKIN. You put a receipt stamp on anything like that? + +Mr. WADE. I don't think it will show a date or anything like that on it +because they just hauled it in there and laid it on my desk. But this +was--it is in our files, and I am rather sure it is the same time. You +all got the same thing. + +Mr. RANKIN. We didn't receive anything like that until the time that +Chief Curry came to testify, just for your information. + +Mr. WADE. Well, I didn't know that, but now on this, this is the Ruby +matter---- + +Mr. DULLES. Could I ask one question there? + +Mr. WADE. Yes, sir. + +Mr. DULLES. Just to refresh my recollection of your testimony, did you +see this that afternoon around 5 or 6 o'clock? + +Mr. WADE. Around 7 o'clock I would say it was on Chief Curry's desk. + +Mr. DULLES. Of the 22d? + +Mr. WADE. Of the 22d. + +Senator COOPER. I don't want to interrupt too much, but looking at +this exhibit, I note it is written, you have seen this Commission, +Commission Exhibit No. 709 signed by Jack Revill? + +Mr. WADE. Yes; let me see it; yes. + +Senator COOPER. Is your recollection, was the memorandum that was shown +to you by--first, who did show you the memorandum on the 22d? + +Mr. WADE. Chief Curry of the Dallas police. + +Senator COOPER. Was the memorandum shown to you on the 22d by Chief +Curry in this same form? + +Mr. WADE. To the best of my knowledge that was it now. + +Now, like I said I read this memorandum, and I read the memorandum, and +asked the chief what he was going to do with it and he said, "I don't +know." + +And then the next morning I heard on television Chief Curry, I don't +know whether I heard him or not, he made some kind of statement +concerning this memorandum on television, and then later came back and +said that wasn't to his personal knowledge, and I think that was--he +said that what he said about it he retracted it to some extent but I +guess you all have got records of those television broadcasts or at +least can get them. + +Mr. RANKIN. Do you remember whether he said just what was in this +Exhibit No. 709 or something less than that or more or what? + +Mr. WADE. I don't remember. You see, things were moving fast, and it is +hard, there are so many things going on. I will go on to my story. + +Mr. RANKIN. Yes. + +Mr. WADE. I will answer anything, of course. + +Mr. RANKIN. You can tell us the rest that you said to Chief Curry and +he said to you at that time, first. + +Mr. WADE. I asked him how the case was coming along and as a practical +matter he didn't know. You probably have run into this, but there is +really a lack of communication between the chief's office and the +captain of detective's office there in Dallas. + +Mr. RANKIN. You found that to be true. + +Mr. WADE. For every year I have been in the office down there. And +I assume you have taken their depositions. I don't know what the +relations--the relations are better between Curry and Fritz than +between Hanson and Fritz, who was his predecessor. But Fritz runs a +kind of a one-man operation there where nobody else knows what he is +doing. Even me, for instance, he is reluctant to tell me, either, but +I don't mean that disparagingly. I will say Captain Fritz is about as +good a man at solving a crime as I ever saw, to find out who did it +but he is poorest in the getting evidence that I know, and I am more +interested in getting evidence, and there is where our major conflict +comes in. + +I talked to him a minute there and I don't believe I talked to Captain +Fritz. One of my assistants was in Fritz's office. I believe I did walk +down the hall and talk briefly, and they had filed, they had filed on +Oswald for killing Tippit. + +Mr. DULLES. Which assistant was that? + +Mr. WADE. Bill Alexander. There was another one of--another man there, +Jim Allen, who was my former first assistant who is practicing law +there in Dallas and frankly I was a little surprised of seeing him +there, he is a real capable boy but he was there in homicide with +Captain Fritz. They were good friends. + +And I know there is no question about his intentions and everything +was good, but he was just a lawyer there, but he had tried many death +penalty cases with Fritz--of Fritz's cases. + +But he was there. Your FBI was there, your Secret Service were there in +the homicide. + +Mr. RANKIN. Who from the FBI, do you recall? + +Mr. WADE. Well, I saw Vince Drain, a special agent that I knew, +and Jim Bookhout, I believe, and there was Mr. Kelley and Mr. +Sorrels--Inspector Kelley of the Secret Service, Sorrels, Forest +Sorrels. + +I might tell you that also, to give you a proper perspective on this +thing, there were probably 300 people then out in that hall. + +You could hardly walk down the hall. You just had to fight your way +down through the hall, through the press up there. + +Mr. RANKIN. Who were they? + +Mr. WADE. The television and newsmen. I say 300, that was all that +could get into that hall and to get into homicide it was a strain to +get the door open hard enough to get into the office. + +Mr. RANKIN. Did you say anything to Chief Curry about that? + +Mr. WADE. No, sir; I probably mentioned it but I assume you +want--whether I meant he ought to clean them out or not. I didn't tell +him he should or shouldn't because I have absolutely no control over +the police. They are a separate entity. They have a municipality, and +they work under a city manager. + +Mr. RANKIN. Did you say anything to Chief Curry about what should be +told the press about investigation, how it was progressing or anything +of that kind? + +Mr. WADE. Yes; I think that is the brief conversation, that is the last +I talked to Curry that night. I may have talked to--but that is all I +recall. I left thereafter, and went on out to dinner. + +Mr. RANKIN. About what time did you leave? + +Mr. WADE. 7, 7:30, something like that. I got home, say, 9:30 or 10, +after eating dinner, and I believe I talked to the U.S. attorney or at +least I saw it come on the radio that they are going to file on Oswald +as part of an international conspiracy in murdering the U.S. President, +and I think I talked to Barefoot Sanders. He called me or I called him. + +Mr. RANKIN. I wanted to get for the record, Mr. Wade, who would be +trying to file like that. + +Mr. WADE. I don't know. All I know it wasn't me. It was told to me at +one time that the justice of the peace said something about it and +another one, one of my assistants, Alexander had said something about +it and I have talked to both of them since and both of them deny so I +don't know who suggested it or anything but it was on the radio and I +think on television. + +I know I heard it and I am not sure where. + +Mr. RANKIN. Can you tell us whether it was from your office or from a +Federal office that such an idea was developing as far as you know? + +Mr. WADE. Well, on that score it doesn't make any sense at all to me +because there is no such crime in Texas, being part of an international +conspiracy, it is just murder with malice in Texas, and if you allege +anything else in an indictment you have to prove it and it is all +surplusage in an indictment to allege anything, whether a man is a John +Bircher or a Communist or anything, if you allege it you have to prove +it. + +So, when I heard it I went down to the police station and took the +charge on him, just a case of simple murder. + +Mr. DULLES. Is that of Tippit or of the President? + +Mr. WADE. No; of the President, and the radio announced Johnston was +down there, and Alexander, and of course other things, and so I saw +immediately that if somebody was going to take a complaint that he +is part of an international conspiracy it had to be a publicity deal +rather--somebody was interested in something other than the law because +there is no such charge in Texas as part of--I don't care what you +belong to, you don't have to allege that in an indictment. + +Mr. RANKIN. What do you mean by the radio saying that Johnson was +there? Do you mean President Johnson? + +Mr. WADE. No; that is the justice of the peace whose name is Johnston. + +Mr. RANKIN. I see. + +Mr. WADE. Yes; Justice of the Peace David L. Johnston was the justice +of the peace there. + +So, I went down there not knowing--also at that time I had a lengthy +conversation with Captain Fritz and with Jim Alexander who was in the +office, Bill Alexander, Bookhout because another reason I thought maybe +they were going to want to file without the evidence, and then that put +everything on me, you know. + +If they didn't have the evidence and they said, "We file on him, we +have got the assassin" I was afraid somebody might take the complaint +and I went down to be sure they had some evidence on him. + +Mr. RANKIN. Have you told us all that you said to the U.S. attorney +when you talked to him at that time? + +Mr. WADE. So far as I know. I know that concerned that point, you know. + +Mr. RANKIN. Well, did he say anything to you about that point? + +Mr. WADE. Well, I think he asked me was that--I don't think Barefoot +was real conversant, I guess is the word with what the law is in a +murder charge. + +I told him that it had no place in it and he said he had heard it on +the radio and didn't know whether it would be--thought it might because +some--if it was not necessary, he did not think it ought to be done, +something to that effect so I went down there to be sure they didn't. + +I went over the evidence which they--when I saw the evidence, it was +the evidence as told to me by Captain Fritz. + +Mr. RANKIN. This conversation you have described you had when Jim +Alexander was there and the others? + +Mr. WADE. Yes; I first asked Jim Allen, a man whom I have a lot of +confidence in, do they have a case and he said it looks like a case, +you can try. + +Mr. RANKIN. Is that the case about the assassination? + +Mr. WADE. Yes; we are talking entirely about the assassination. + +On the Tippit thing, I didn't take the charge on that and I think they +had some witnesses who had identified him there at the scene, but I was +more worried about the assassination of them filing on somebody that we +couldn't prove was guilty. + +Mr. RANKIN. Did you discuss the evidence that they did have at that +time with Captain Fritz? + +Mr. WADE. Yes, sir. + +Mr. RANKIN. Will you tell us what evidence you recall? + +Mr. WADE. I have made no notes but roughly he gave the story about him +bringing the gun to work, saying it was window rods from the neighbor, +someone who had brought him to work. He also said there were three +employees of the company that left him on the sixth floor. He told +about, the part about, the young officer running in there right after +the assassination and Oswald leaving after the manager said that he was +employed there. Told about his arrest and said that there was a scuffle +there, and that he tried to shoot the officer. + +I don't know--I think I am giving you all this because I think a little +of it may vary from the facts but all I know is what Fritz told me. + +He said the Dallas police had found a palmprint on the underside of the +gun of Oswald. At that time, the FBI was standing by to fly the gun to +the laboratory here in Washington which incidentally, they didn't find, +but I assume the Commission has interviewed Senator--not Senator--Day, +the fingerprint man of the Dallas police but I have learned since that +he probably can't identify the palmprint under there but at that time +they told me they had one on it. + +They said they had a palmprint on the wrapping paper, and on the box, I +believe there by the scene. They did at least put Oswald there at the +scene. + +Mr. RANKIN. Will you clarify the palmprint that you are referring to on +the rifle? + +Was it on the underside of the rifle, was it between the rifle and the +stock or where was it as you recall? + +Mr. WADE. Specifically, I couldn't say because--but he said they had a +palmprint or a fingerprint of Oswald on the underside of the rifle and +I don't know whether it was on the trigger guard or where it was but I +knew that was important, I mean, to put the gun in his possession. + +I thought we had that all the time when I took the complaint on the +thing. + +Let me see what else they had that night. Well, they had a lot of the +things they found in his possession. They had the map, you know, that +marked the route of the parade. They had statements from the bus driver +and the taxicab driver that hauled him somewhere. + +I think they varied a little as to where they picked him up but +generally they had some type of statement from them. + +That is generally what they gave me now. + +Mr. RANKIN. That is all you recall as of that time? + +Mr. WADE. Yes, sir. + +Mr. RANKIN. Did you give any report to the press then about---- + +Mr. WADE. No; I will tell you what happened then. + +Mr. RANKIN. Yes, sir. + +Mr. WADE. As we walked out of the thing they started yelling, I started +home, and they started yelling they wanted to see Oswald, the press. + +And Perry said that he had put him in the showup room downstairs. Of +course, they were yelling all over the world they wanted a picture of +Oswald. And I don't know the mob and everybody ended up in the showup +room. It is three floors below there. + +Mr. RANKIN. Still Friday night? + +Mr. WADE. Yes, sir. + +Mr. RANKIN. About what time? + +Mr. WADE. I would say around midnight roughly. It would--it could be +either way an hour because I went down there around 11 o'clock, 10:30 +or 11, some roughly and I don't know what the time element was but I +would say around midnight. + +So, they started interviewing Fritz and Curry, and I started to leave +and Fritz said, "Well, we will get--" either Fritz or Curry said, "We +will show him up down there," he said, "This is Mr. Wade, the district +attorney." + +He kind of introduced me to the press. I didn't say anything at that +time but down in the basement they started to put Oswald--I went down +there with them. They started to put Oswald in the lineup down there. + +Mr. RANKIN. Will you describe that briefly to the Commission? + +Mr. WADE. Well, I don't know whether you have seen--it is a room larger +than this and you have a glass here on this side. Behind that glass +they have a place out here where they walk prisoners in through there +and you can see through this side but you can't see through that side. +I think that is the way it is set up. + +Senator COOPER. You mean observers can see? + +Mr. WADE. Observers can see, but the defendants or suspects can't see +through or at least can't identify. + +Mr. RANKIN. Do you remember who else besides Lee Harvey Oswald was in +the showup? + +Mr. WADE. No; I am just telling you about the showup room. Now, they +had had showups on him but I wasn't there at any of those, but this +was, the purpose of this, was to let the press see Oswald, if I +understand it. + +And the police were yelling, "Everybody wants to see him, wants a +picture of him." They started in the screened-in portion and a howl +went up that you can't take a picture through that screen. Then they +had a conference with, among some of them, and the next thing I knew +I was just sitting there upon a little, I guess, elevated, you might +say a speaker's stand, although there were 300 people in the room, you +couldn't even actually get out, you know. + +Mr. RANKIN. Did they ask you whether they should do this? + +Mr. WADE. I don't think I said yea or nay to the thing so far as I +know, because it was--and I actually didn't know what they were doing +until, the next thing I knew they said they were going to have to bring +him in there. + +Well, I think I did say, "You'd better get some officers in here or +something for some protection on him." + +I thought a little about, and I got a little worried at that stage. + +So about 12 officers came in and they were standing around Oswald, and +at this time I looked out in the audience and saw a man out there, +later, who turned out to be Jack Ruby. He was there at that scene. + +Mr. RANKIN. How did you happen to pick him out? + +Mr. WADE. Well, I don't know. He had--I had seen the fellow somewhere +before, but I didn't know his name, but he had a pad, and the reason I +remember him mostly---- + +Mr. RANKIN. You mean a scratch pad? + +Mr. WADE. He had some kind of scratch pad. The reason I mentioned +him mostly, I will get into him in a minute and tell you everything +about him. He was out there about 1 minute, I would say, and they took +pictures and everything else and Oswald was here and the cameras were +in a ring around him, and as they left---- + +Mr. RANKIN. Excuse me. Where was Ruby from where you told us where +Oswald was? + +Mr. WADE. Well, he was, I would say, about 12 feet. I am giving a +rough---- + +Mr. RANKIN. When you saw him---- + +Mr. WADE. We went all through this at the trial, and it varied on where +Ruby was, but when I saw him he was about four rows back in the aisle +seat, standing up in the seat. + +Mr. RANKIN. Were there press men around him? + +Mr. WADE. All kinds of press men around him, and also press men 10 deep +between him and Oswald. + +Now, one of their--you mentioned the gun awhile ago--one of their +defenses in the trial was if he had a gun, he had a gun there, he could +have killed him if he wanted to. It is the first I heard him say that +he didn't have a gun that you mentioned awhile ago. So when I got--when +they got through, they started asking him questions, the press. + +Senator COOPER. Wait a minute. How close were the nearest people in the +audience to Oswald? + +Mr. WADE. I would say they were that far from him. + +Senator COOPER. How far is that? + +Mr. WADE. Three feet. + +Senator COOPER. You mean some of the reporters and photographers were +within 3 feet of him? + +Mr. WADE. They were on the ground, they were on the ground, and they +were standing on top of each other, and on top of tables, and I assume +in that room there were 250 people. It was just a mob scene. + +Senator COOPER. I believe I have seen the room. Isn't it correct that +at the end where the showup is held that is an elevated platform? + +Mr. WADE. There is a platform up there where the microphone is. + +Senator COOPER. Was he standing up on the platform? + +Mr. WADE. No, he was not at the platform. + +Senator COOPER. Was he on the floor level? + +Mr. WADE. He was in the floor level in the middle. If I understand, +that was the first or second time I had ever been in the room. + +Senator COOPER. Were there people around him, surrounding him? + +Mr. WADE. People were on the floor in front of those desks. + +Senator COOPER. But I mean, were they, were people on all sides of him? + +Mr. WADE. No; they were all in front of him. They were all in front of +him, and you had a ring of policemen behind him, policemen on all sides +of him. It was just the front where they were, and that is the way I +recall it, but I knew they had a line of policemen behind him, and the +place was full of policemen, because they went up and it turns out +later they got all the police who were on duty that night. They were +plain clothes police, most of them, maybe they had a uniform or two, a +few of them. + +So they started---- + +Senator COOPER. Excuse me one moment. + +Mr. WADE. Yes, sir. + +Senator COOPER. Can I make a statement? I will have to go to my office +for a few minutes. I hope to return in about 20 minutes, and I will ask +Mr. Dulles to preside in my place, and I will return. + +Mr. WADE. Thank you, sir. + +(At this point, Senator Cooper withdrew from the hearing room.) + +Mr. DULLES. Proceed. + +Mr. RANKIN. Will you proceed? + +Mr. WADE. Yes, sir; so they said, "Have you filed on him?" At that +stage, started yelling has he been filed on, and I said yes, and +filed on for murder with malice, and they asked Judge Johnston, is +there--they asked him something. + +Then they started asking me questions everywhere, from all angles. + +Mr. RANKIN. Under your practice, what do you mean by file on him? Is +that something different than an arraignment? + +Mr. WADE. Well, of course, it is according to the terminology and what +you mean by arraignment. In Texas the only arraignment is when you get +ready to try him. Like we arraigned Ruby just before we started putting +on evidence. That is the only arraignment we have, actually. + +Mr. RANKIN. I see. You don't bring him before a magistrate? + +Mr. WADE. Well, that is called--you can have an examining trial before +the magistrate to see whether it is a bailable matter. At that time, I +don't believe he had been brought before the magistrate, because I told +David Johnston as we left there, I said, "You ought to go up before the +jail and have him brought before you and advise him of his rights and +his right to counsel and this and that," which, so far as I know, he +did. + +But at that meeting you had two attorneys from American Civil Liberties +Union. + +Mr. RANKIN. Which meeting? + +Mr. WADE. That Friday night meeting, or Friday night showup we had +better call it, midnight on Friday night. I believe it was Greer Ragio +and Professor Webster from SMU. I saw them there in the hall, and Chief +Curry told me that they had been given an opportunity or had talked +with Oswald. I am not sure. I was under the impression that they had +talked with them but, of course, I didn't see them talking with him. + +Mr. RANKIN. Did you talk to them about it? + +Mr. WADE. Yes; I told them that he is entitled to counsel, that is what +they are interested in on the counsel situation, and anybody, either +them or anybody else could see him that wanted to. + +Mr. RANKIN. What did they say then? + +Mr. WADE. Mr. Rankin, I will tell you what, there was so much going on +I don't remember exactly. The only thing was I got the impression they +had already talked with them somewhere, but I don't know whether they +told me or the chief told me or what. Like I say, it was a mob scene +there, practically, and they were standing in the door when I--they +were in the meeting there. + +Let me get a little further and go back to--I don't know whether I +answered your question and if I don't it is because I can't, because I +don't know--I will tell you what happened the next day. + +Mr. RANKIN. Let's finish with the showup now. + +Mr. WADE. Yes. They asked a bunch of questions there. I think if +you get a record of my interview that you will find that any of the +evidence---- + +Mr. DULLES. Which interview is that? + +Mr. WADE. With the press, midnight, radio, television, and everything +else. I think if you will get a copy of that you will find they asked +me lots of questions about fingerprints and evidence. I refused to +answer them because I said it was evidence in the case. The only thing +that I told them that you might get the impression was evidence but is +really not evidence, I told them that the man's wife said the man had +a gun or something to that effect. The reason, maybe good or bad, but +that isn't admissible in Texas. You see a wife can't testify. It is not +evidence, but it is evidence but it is inadmissible evidence actually +is what it was. So I think if you find anything in that interview that +deals with the evidence you are going to feel that it dealt only with +that piece of testimony of Marina Oswald, which someone had told me she +said about the gun was missing from the house, which I think later was +corroborated. + +Mr. RANKIN. At that time, had you filed on the assassination? + +Mr. WADE. Yes, sir; we had filed upstairs prior to this. He had been +filed on for murder with malice. + +Mr. RANKIN. But he hadn't been brought before the justice of the peace +or magistrate yet on that complaint, had he? + +Mr. WADE. The justice of the peace was there in the office and took it +in the homicide. Oswald was in homicide, also, but he is in a separate +office. + +Like I told you, I never did see Oswald except in that lineup +downstairs. That was the first time I had seen him. + +Mr. RANKIN. Was that when you told the justice of the peace that he +ought to have him before him to tell him his rights and so forth? + +Mr. WADE. Yes; it was some time during that hour, this went on for +about an hour down there, everything. + +Well, during that interview somebody said, and the thing--Oswald +belonged to, was he a Communist, something generally to that effect. + +Mr. RANKIN. They asked you that? + +Mr. WADE. I was asked that. And I said, well, now, I don't know about +that but they found some literature, I understand, some literature +dealing with Free Cuba Movement. Following this--and so I looked up and +Jack Ruby is in the audience and he said, no, it is the Fair Play for +Cuba Committee. Well, he corrected me, you see, to show you why I got +attracted to his attention, why someone in the audience would speak up +and answer a question. + +Mr. DULLES. You hadn't known him before? + +Mr. WADE. I had never known him, to my knowledge. He is a man about +town, and I had seen him before, because when I saw him in there, and I +actually thought he was a part of the press corps at the time. + +Mr. RANKIN. Were any of your assistants or people working for you there +at that showup? + +Mr. WADE. I don't believe there were any of them there now. If there is +any of them, it is Alexander, because he is the only one down there, +but I think he is still up in homicide. + +I will go further on that, some of my assistants know him, but he was +in my office 2 days before this with a hot check or something where he +was trying to collect a hot check or pay someone. I think he was trying +to pay someone else's hot check off, I don't know what it was, I didn't +see him. He talked to my check section. I found this out later. + +Mr. RANKIN. By "he" you mean---- + +Mr. WADE. Ruby, Jack Ruby. + +Mr. RANKIN. Yes. + +Mr. WADE. He was in another office of mine, since this all came out, +he was in there with a bunch of the police, we were trying a case on +pornography, some of my assistants were, and my assistant came in his +office during the noon hour after coming from the court, this was 2 +or 3 days before the assassination and Ruby was sitting there in his +office with five or six Dallas police officers. In fact, he was sitting +in my assistant's desk and he started to sit down and asked who he was +and the officer said, "Well, that is Jacky Ruby who runs the Carousel +Club," so he had been down there. + +I don't know him personally--I mean I didn't know who he was. It was +one of these things I had seen the man, I imagine, but I had no idea +who he was, and I will even go further, after it was over, this didn't +come out in the trial, as they left down there, Ruby ran up to me and +he said, "Hi Henry" he yelled real loud, he yelled. "Hi, Henry," and +put his hand to shake hands with me and I shook hands with him. And +he said, "Don't you know me?" And I am trying to figure out whether I +did or not. And he said, "I am Jack Ruby, I run the Vegas Club." And +I said, "What are you doing in here?" It was in the basement of the +city hall. He said, "I know all these fellows." Just shook his hand and +said, "I know all these fellows." I still didn't know whether he was +talking about the press or police all the time, but he shook his hands +kind of like that and left me and I was trying to get out of the place +which was rather crowded, and if you are familiar with that basement, +and I was trying to get out of that hall. And here I heard someone +call "Henry Wade wanted on the phone," this was about 1 o'clock in the +morning or about 1 o'clock in the morning, and I gradually get around +to the phone there, one of the police phones, and as I get there it is +Jack Ruby, and station KLIF in Dallas on the phone. You see, he had +gone there, this came out in the trial, that he had gone over there +and called KLIF and said Henry Wade is down there, I will get you an +interview with him. + +Mr. RANKIN. Who is this? + +Mr. WADE. KLIF is the name of the radio station. + +You see, I didn't know a thing, and I just picked up the phone and they +said this is so and so at KLIF and started asking questions. + +But that came out in the trial. + +But to show that he was trying to be kind of the type of person who was +wanting to think he was important, you know. + +Mr. RANKIN. Did you give him an interview over the telephone to KLIF? + +Mr. WADE. Ruby? + +Mr. RANKIN. No. + +Mr. WADE. I answered about two questions and hung up, but they had +a man down there who later interviewed me before I got out of the +building. But they just asked me had he been filed and one or two +things. + +Mr. DULLES. It was a KLIF reporter that you gave this to, not Ruby? + +Mr. WADE. Not Ruby. Ruby was not on the phone, he had just gone out +and called him and handed the phone to me. I thought I got a call from +somebody, and picked it up and it was KLIF on the phone. + +Mr. RANKIN. On the pornography charge, was Ruby involved in that? + +Mr. WADE. No, sir; I don't know why he was down there, actually. But +there were six or seven police officers, special services of the Dallas +police were officers in the thing and I don't know whether he was +just interested in it or what he was down there for but he was down +there, and I didn't know him. He has tried to leave the impression +that he had known me a long time but it is one of those things, I have +been in politics and sometimes there are a lot of faces I know that I +don't know actually who they are, but I didn't know who he was and he +actually introduced himself to me that night. + +Well, that is about all I can recall of that night. + +I went home then. + +Mr. RANKIN. You have told us all you remember about the showup? + +Mr. WADE. I told you all, and, of course, all I know about it as far as +my interview with the press. You can get more accurate, actually, by +getting a transcript of it because I don't remember what all was asked, +but I do remember the incident with Ruby and I know I told them that +there would be no evidence given out in the case. + +At that time, most of it had already been given out, however, by +someone. I think by the police. + +Now, the next morning, I don't know of anything else until the next +morning. I went to the office about 9 o'clock. + +Mr. DULLES. Could I ask a question? + +Mr. WADE. Yes, sir. + +(Discussion off the record.) + +Mr. RANKIN. Do you have any particular transcript that you are speaking +about? + +Mr. WADE. No; I don't have anything. The thing about it is this was +taken, this was on television and radio and all the networks. They had +everything there set up and that is the only--that is the first of, I +think, three times I was interviewed, but it was Friday night around +between 12 and 1 o'clock. It was actually Saturday morning between 12 +and 1. + +Mr. RANKIN. So there were a number of networks, possibly, and a number +of the radio stations and television stations from the whole area? + +Mr. WADE. The whole area and it actually wasn't set up for an interview +with me. It was an interview, what I thought, with Fritz and Curry, and +I thought I would stay for it, but when they got into the interviewing, +I don't know what happened to them but they weren't there. They had +left, or I was the one who was answering the questions about things I +didn't know much about, to tell you the truth. + +Has that got it cleared? Can I go to the next morning? + +I will try to go a little and not forget anything. + +The next morning I went to my office, probably, say, 9 o'clock Saturday +morning. Waiting there for me was Robert Oswald, who was the brother of +Lee Harvey Oswald. You probably have met him, but I believe his name is +Robert is his brother. + +I talked to him about an hour. + +Mr. RANKIN. What did you say to him and what did he say to you? + +Mr. WADE. Well, we discussed the history of Lee Harvey Oswald and +the--one of the purposes he came to me, he wanted his mother, Oswald's +mother, and wife and him to see Oswald. + +Mr. RANKIN. Did he say this to you? + +Mr. WADE. Yes; but we had already set it up, somebody, I don't know +whether my office or the police, but he was set up to see him that +morning at 11 o'clock, I believe, or 12 o'clock, some time. + +Mr. RANKIN. Did you do anything about it? + +Mr. WADE. Yes, sir; I checked to see if it was arranged. I called +Captain Fritz and told him that he wanted to see him, and he said they +were going to let him see him. I don't know. I don't know the name, but +it was either 11 o'clock or 12 o'clock Saturday morning. + +I don't know whether he had requested or not, but that was the first +time I had seen him. I don't know why he came to my office, but I used +it to try to go into Lee Harvey Oswald's background some, and I also +told him that there is a lot involved in this thing from a national +point of view, and I said, "You appear to be a good citizen," which +he did appear to me, "and I think you will render your country a +great service if you will go up and tell Oswald to tell us all about +the thing." That was part of the deal of my working for a statement +from Oswald which didn't pan out, of course. Because I was going to +interview Oswald Sunday afternoon when we got him into the county jail +and I was going to attempt to get a statement from him. + +Mr. RANKIN. Did Robert tell you anything about Lee Harvey Oswald's +background at that time? + +Mr. WADE. He told me about in Europe, how in Russia, how they had had +very little correspondence with them and he wrote to them renouncing or +telling them he wanted to renounce his American citizenship and didn't +want to have anything else to do with him. He said later that one of +the letters changed some, I mean back, and then he said he was coming +home, coming back and he had married and kind of his general history +of the thing and he came back and I believe stayed with this Robert in +Fort Worth for 2, 3, or 4 months. Now I say this is from memory, like +I don't have--and they had helped him some, and said that Marina, the +thing that impressed her was most your supermarkets, I think, more than +anything else in this country, your A. & P. and the big, I guess you +call them, supermarkets or whatever they are. + +And he told me something about him going to New Orleans, but I gathered +that they were not too close. I believe he told me this, that he hadn't +seen him in close to a year prior to this, or a good while. + +Now, it seemed to me like it was a year, and he said their families, +they didn't have anything in common much, and he said, of course--I +said "Do you think"--I said, "the evidence is pretty strong against +your brother, what do you think about it?" He said, "Well, he is my +brother, and I hate to think he would do this." He said, "I want to +talk to him and ask him about it." + +Now, I never did see him. Roughly, that is about all I remember from +that conversation. We rambled around for quite a bit. + +I know I was impressed because he got out and walked out the front +of my office and in front of my office there were 15 or 20 press men +wanting to ask him something, and he wouldn't say a word to them, he +just walked off. + +I told him they would be out there, and he said, "I won't have anything +to say." + +Mr. DULLES. Was this the morning after the assassination? + +Mr. WADE. Yes, sir; Saturday morning. + +Mr. DULLES. About what time? + +Mr. WADE. I would say between 9 and 10 is when I talked with him. + +And so the main purpose in the office, we believed, the main purpose +of me and the lawyers in the office were briefing the law on whether +to try Oswald for the murder of the President, whether you could prove +the flight and the killing of Officer Tippit, which we became satisfied +that we could, I mean from an evidentiary point of view. + +Mr. RANKIN. By "we" who do you mean, in your office? + +Mr. WADE. Well, I think I had seven or eight in there, Bowie, and +Alexander, and Dan Ellis, Jim Williamson, but there was a legal point. + +My office was open, but that, with reference to this case, there were +other things going on, but in reference to this case, this is what we +spent our time trying to establish whether that would be admissible or +not. + +Mr. RANKIN. Did you consult with any Federal officers in regard to how +you should handle the case or what you should say about it at any time? + +Mr. WADE. No; I didn't discuss, consult with any of them. I did talk to +some of the FBI boys and I believe there was an inspector. + +Mr. RANKIN. Secret Service? + +Mr. WADE. No. + +Mr. RANKIN. FBI? + +Mr. WADE. There was an inspector of the FBI who called me two or three +times. I don't remember. + +Mr. RANKIN. Did they tell you how to handle the case in any way? + +Mr. WADE. I don't think so. I mean it wasn't really up to them. + +Mr. RANKIN. The only time you ever talked to Barefoot Sanders about it +was in regard to this conspiracy, possibility of, that you have already +described? + +Mr. WADE. Frankly, that is hard to say. I think we talked off and on +every day or two about developments in it, because, you see, well, I +don't know whether we talked any more but before the killing by Ruby, +but we had nearly a daily conversation about the files in the Oswald +case, what we were going to do with them. You see, they were going to +give them all to me, and at that stage we didn't know whether it was +going to be a President's Commission or a congressional investigation +or what. After the President's Commission was set up, I arranged +through him and Miller here in the Justice Department that rather than +give the files to me, to get the police to turn them over to the FBI +and send them to you all, or photostat them and send them to you all. + +Barefoot and I talked frequently, but I don't know of anything +significant of the Oswald angle that we discussed, and we spent the +last 2 months trying to get some of the FBI files to read on the Ruby +trial. I mean we talked a lot but I don't know anything further about +Oswald into it or anything on Ruby of any particular significance. + +Mr. RANKIN. Was Barefoot Sanders suggesting how you should handle the +Oswald case except the time you already related? + +Mr. WADE. I don't recall him doing, suggesting that. + +Mr. RANKIN. Any other Federal officers suggesting anything like that to +you? + +Mr. WADE. The only thing I remember is the inspector of the FBI whom I +don't think I ever met. I was there in the police one time during this +shuffle, and I think it was some time Saturday morning, and he said +they should have nothing, no publicity on the thing, no statements. + +Now, I don't know whether that was after Ruby shot Oswald or before, I +don't know when it was, but I did talk with him and I know his concern +which was that there was too much publicity. + +Mr. RANKIN. And he told you that, did he? + +Mr. WADE. At some stage in it. I am thinking it was Sunday night which +I know I talked with him Sunday night, but we are not that far along +with it yet. But I don't know whether I talked to him previously or not. + +Mr. RANKIN. That is the only conversation of that type that you recall +with any Federal officer? + +Mr. WADE. That is all I recall. I am sure Barefoot and I discussed the +publicity angle on it some, but I don't remember Barefoot suggesting +how we handle it, but neither one of us knew whether it was his offense +or mine, to begin with, for 2 or 3 hours because we had to select it. + +Mr. RANKIN. Do you know what Barefoot said about publicity when you did +discuss it with him? + +Mr. WADE. I don't recall anything. + +Mr. RANKIN. All right. + +What happened next, as you recall? + +Mr. WADE. I was going home. I went by the police station to talk to +Chief Curry. + +Mr. RANKIN. Did you discuss the evidence then? + +Mr. WADE. Well, at that time--you see, Chief Curry knew very little of +the evidence at that stage. He should have known, but he didn't. But I +discussed the thing with him and I told him there was too much evidence +being put out in the case from his department, that I wish he would +talk to Fritz and have no further statements on it. + +Mr. RANKIN. What did he say about that? + +Mr. WADE. He said, "That is fine. I think that is so." + +Mr. RANKIN. Now, going back just a moment, you spoke out about a map +earlier that you had been told they had as evidence, do you recall, of +the parade route. Did you look at the map at the time? + +Mr. WADE. I don't think I ever saw the map. + +Mr. RANKIN. You don't know what it contained in regard to the parade +route? + +Mr. WADE. I was told by Fritz that it had the parade route and it had +an X where the assassination took place and it had an X out on Stemmons +Freeway and an X at Inwood Road and Lemon, is all I know, a circle or +some mark there. + +Mr. RANKIN. But you have never seen the map? + +Mr. WADE. So far as I know, I have never seen the map. I don't know +even where it was found, but I think it was found in his home, +probably. But that is my recollection. But I don't even know that. I +told Chief Curry this. + +Then I walked out, and Tom Pettit of NBC said, "We are all confused on +the law, where we are really on this thing." + +Mr. RANKIN. What did you say? + +Mr. WADE. At that time I said, "Well, I will explain the procedure, +Texas procedure in a criminal case," and I had about a 10-minute +interview there as I was leaving the chief's office, dealing entirely +with the procedure, I mean your examining trial and grand jury and jury +trial. I mean as to what takes place. You see, they had all kinds of +statements and other countries represented and they were all curious to +ask legal questions, when bond would be set and when it would be done. + +Mr. RANKIN. Did you discuss the evidence at that time? + +Mr. WADE. No, sir; I refused. You will find that I refused to answer +questions. They all asked questions on it, but I would tell them that +is evidence and that deals with evidence in the matter. + +Mr. RANKIN. Did you tell them why you wouldn't answer those questions? + +Mr. WADE. I told them we had to try the case, here, and we would have +to try the case and we wouldn't be able to get a jury if they knew all +the evidence in the case. + +You will find that in those interviews most, I think. I haven't seen +them. As a matter of fact, didn't see them myself even. But I went home +that day, and---- + +Mr. DULLES. That day is Saturday? + +Mr. WADE. Saturday; yes, sir. + +Mr. RANKIN. About what time? Do you recall? + +Mr. WADE. I guess I got home 2:30 probably. I must have eaten on the +way home or somewhere. + +Mr. RANKIN. In the afternoon? + +Mr. WADE. Yes, sir; and I know I was amazed as I walked through the +television room there and saw Chief Curry with that gun. You see, +at that time they had not identified the gun as his gun, but he was +telling about the FBI report on it. + +Mr. RANKIN. Will you just describe what you saw there at that time? + +Mr. WADE. Well, I know he was in a crowd, and it seems to me like +he had the gun, but on second thought I am not even sure whether he +had the gun, but he was tracing the history of how that the gun was +bought under the name, under an assumed name from a mail-order house +in Chicago and mailed there to Dallas, and that the serial number +and everything that had been identified, that the FBI had done that, +something else. + +I believe they said they had a post office box here, a blind post +office box that the recipients of that had identified as Oswald as the +guy or something that received it. + +In other words, he went directly over the evidence connecting him with +the gun. + +Mr. RANKIN. You say there was a crowd there. Who was the crowd around +him? + +Mr. WADE. Newsmen. You see, I was at home. I was watching it on +television. + +Mr. RANKIN. I see. Did you do anything about that, then? Did you call +him and ask him to quit that? + +Mr. WADE. No; I felt like nearly it was a hopeless case. I know now why +it happened. That was the first piece of evidence he got his hands on +before Fritz did. + +Mr. RANKIN. Will you explain what you mean by that? + +Mr. WADE. Well, this went to the FBI and came to him rather than to +Captain Fritz, and I feel in my own mind that this was something new, +that he really had been receiving none of the original evidence, that +it was coming through Fritz to him and so this went from him to Fritz, +you know, and I think that is the reason he did it. + +So I stayed home that afternoon. I was trying to think, it seems like I +went back by the police station some time that night, late at night. + +Mr. RANKIN. This way of giving evidence to the press and all of the +news media, is that standard practice in your area? + +Mr. WADE. Yes; it is, unfortunately. I don't think it is good. We have +just, even since this happened we have had a similar incident with the +police giving all the evidence out or giving out an oral confession of +a defendant that is not admissible in court. You know, oral admissions +are not generally admissible in Texas. And they gave all the evidence +out in it. + +Mr. RANKIN. Have you done anything about it, tried to stop it in any +way? + +Mr. WADE. Well, in this actually, in the same story they quoted me as +saying, I mean the news quoted me as saying they shouldn't give the +information out, that is the evidence, we have got to try the case, +we will get a jury, it is improper to do this, or something to that +effect. So far as taking it up with--I have mentioned many times that +they shouldn't give out evidence, in talking to the police officers, I +mean in there in training things, but it is something I have no control +over whatever. It is a separate entity, the city of Dallas is, and I +do a little fussing with the police, but by the same token it is not +a situation where--I think it is one of your major problems that are +going to have to be looked into not only here but it is a sidelight, I +think, to your investigation to some extent, but I think you prejudice +us, the state, more than you do the defense by giving out our testimony. + +You may think that giving out will help you to convict him. I think it +works the other way, your jurors that read, the good type of jurors, +get an opinion one way or another from what they read, and you end +up with poor jurors. If they haven't read or heard anything of the +case--well, not generally the same type of juror. + +The only thing I make a practice of saying is that I reviewed the +evidence in this case in which the State will ask the death penalty, +which may be going too far, but I tell them we plan to ask the death +penalty or plan to ask life or plan to ask maximum jail sentence or +something of that kind. + +Mr. RANKIN. Did you say that at any time about the Oswald case? + +Mr. WADE. Oh, yes, sir; I have said that about both Oswald and Ruby. + +Mr. RANKIN. When did you say it about the Oswald case? + +Mr. WADE. I guess it was Friday night probably. I was asked what +penalty we would ask for. + +Mr. RANKIN. When the police made these releases about the evidence, did +they ever ask you whether they should make them? + +Mr. WADE. No, sir; like I told you. I talked Saturday morning around +between 11 and 12, some time. I told him there was entirely too much +publicity on this thing, that with the pressure going to be on us to +try it and there may not be a place in the United States you can try +it with all the publicity you are getting. Chief Curry said he agreed +with me, but, like I said about 2 hours later, I saw him releasing this +testimony. + +Mr. RANKIN. Did you consult any State officials about how you should +handle either the Oswald or the Ruby case? + +Mr. WADE. I don't know. It seems like I talked to Waggoner Carr that +night, but I don't remember. + +Didn't we talk some time about it? + +I don't know whether it was consulting about how to try it or anything. +But I know I talked to Waggoner's office some time within 2 or 3 days, +but I don't know whether it was before the Ruby assault or not. But he +doesn't actually---- + +Mr. RANKIN. Does the Texas attorney general have any jurisdiction to +tell you how to try such cases? + +Mr. WADE. No sir; I think Waggoner will agree with that. They don't +have any jurisdiction to try criminal cases other than antitrust, but +I assume we would ask for their assistance if we wanted it. We don't +generally, and I don't, the law doesn't contemplate that. + +Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Carr didn't try to tell you in any way how to handle +either case? + +Mr. WADE. Not that I know of. + +Mr. CARR. Off the record. + +(Discussion off the record.) + +Mr. DULLES. May we proceed. + +Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Wade, will you give us the substance of what Mr. Carr +said to you and what you said to him at that time? + +Mr. WADE. All I remember--I don't actually remember or know what night +it was I talked to him but I assume it was that night because he did +mention that the rumor was out that we were getting ready to file a +charge of Oswald being part of an international conspiracy, and I told +him that that was not going to be done. + +It was late at night and I believe that is---- + +Mr. DULLES. It must have been Saturday night, wasn't it? + +Mr. WADE. No; that was Friday night. + +Mr. DULLES. Friday night. + +Mr. WADE. And I told him, and then I got a call, since this happened, I +talked to Jim Bowie, my first assistant who had talked to, somebody had +called him, my phone had been busy and Barefoot Sanders, I talked to +him, and he--they all told that they were concerned about their having +received calls from Washington and somewhere else, and I told them +that there wasn't any such crime in Texas, I didn't know where it came +from, and that is what prompted me to go down and take the complaint, +otherwise I never would have gone down to the police station. + +Mr. RANKIN. Did you say anything about whether you had evidence to +support such a complaint of a conspiracy? + +Mr. WADE. Mr. Rankin, I don't know what evidence we have, we had at +that time and actually don't know yet what all the evidence was. + +I never did see, I was told they had a lot of Fair Play for Cuba +propaganda or correspondence on Oswald, and letters from the Communist +Party, and it was probably exaggerated to me. + +I was told this. I have never seen any of that personally. Never saw +any of it that night. But whether he was a Communist or whether he +wasn't, had nothing to do with solving the problem at hand, the filing +of the charge. + +I also was very, I wasn't sure I was going to take a complaint, and a +justice of the peace will take a complaint lots of times because he +doesn't have to try it. I knew I would have to try this case and that +prompted me to go down and see what kind of evidence they had. + +Mr. RANKIN. Will you tell us what you mean by taking a complaint under +your law. + +Mr. WADE. Well, a complaint is a blank form that you fill out in the +name, by the authority of the State of Texas, and so forth, which I +don't have here, but it charged, it charges a certain person with +committing a crime, and it is filed in the justice court. + +The law permits the district attorney or any of his assistants to swear +the witness to the charge. The only place we sign it is over on the +left, I believe sworn to and subscribed to before me, this is the blank +day of blank, Henry Wade, district attorney. + +Over on the right the complainant signs the complaint. We mean when we +say take or accept a complaint is when we swear the witness and we draw +it up ourselves and word it and take it. + +Mr. RANKIN. Is that what you did in the Oswald-Ruby case? + +Mr. WADE. Yes, sir; we did that. Now, as a practical matter that is not +really filing the complaints. The complaint is not really legally filed +until a justice of the peace takes it and records it on his docket. + +Now, it goes to the justice of the peace court to clear the whole thing +up and his purpose, he has--the law says you shall take him immediately +before a magistrate, which is the justice of the peace. + +The courts have held that it is not necessary in Texas, but there +is a statute that says that, and then he--his purpose is to hold an +examining trial to see whether it is a bailable case or not. + +Then he sends it to the grand jury and the grand jury hears it and +returns an indictment or a no bill and then it is in a certain court +set with a docket number and then it is ours to try. + +Does that answer some of the questions? + +(At this point, Senator Cooper returned to the hearing room.) + +Mr. RANKIN. Which route did you follow in regard to the Oswald case? + +Mr. WADE. The same route. I accepted the complaint on him in the +homicide department, and gave it to David Johnston, the justice of the +peace who was there incidentally, or there in the homicide department. + +But I didn't actually type it up. I don't know who actually typed it +up, somebody typed it up, but we file about a 100 a year, murders "did +with malice aforethought." + +It was a straight murder indictment, murder with malice charge, and +that was the procedure we followed in the Oswald case. + +Mr. RANKIN. Why did you not include in that complaint a charge of an +international conspiracy? + +Mr. WADE. Well, it is just like I said, it is surplusage to begin with. +You don't need it. If you allege it you have to prove it. The U.S. +attorney and the attorney general had called me and said that if it +wasn't absolutely necessary they thought it shouldn't be done, and--- + +Mr. RANKIN. By the "attorney general" who do you mean? + +Mr. WADE. Mr. Carr. And actually it is never done. I mean, you see +that got clear, apparently you had the press writing that up, radio or +whoever was saying that was--had no idea about what murder was. + +Now, to write in there, assume he was, assume we could prove he was, +a Communist, which I wasn't able to prove because all I heard was he +had some literature there on him and had been in Russia, but assume I +knew he was a Communist, can I prove it, I still wouldn't have alleged +it because it is subject actually to be removed from the indictment +because it is surplusage, you know, and all a murder indictment, the +only thing that a murder indictment varies on is the method of what +they used, did kill John Doe by shooting him with a gun or by stabbing +him or by drowning him in water or how, the manner and means is the +only thing that varies in a murder indictment, all other wordage is the +same. Does that clear that up? + +(Discussion off the record.) + +Senator COOPER. As I understand it, under Texas law there is no crime +which is denominated under the term "international conspiracy." + +Mr. WADE. No, sir. + +Senator COOPER. I assume that conspiracy is a crime in Texas, isn't it, +conspiracy to commit a crime? + +Mr. WADE. Conspiracy is a crime. It is a joining together of a group, +your conspiracy where they enter into an agreement to commit a crime, +and that is usually the one is indicted as a conspirator, the one who +doesn't participate in the crime. + +Senator COOPER. My point is, though, that conspiracy is a crime under +Texas law? + +Mr. WADE. Yes, sir; conspiracy to commit murder is a crime. + +Senator COOPER. Yes. + +Let me ask this question. + +Mr. WADE. Yes, sir. + +Senator COOPER. As I understand it then, one of the reasons that no +warrant of indictment was rendered upon, touching upon an international +conspiracy is that there is just no such crime in Texas as an +international conspiracy? + +Mr. WADE. There was no such crime. If it was any such crime it would be +a Federal rather than a State offense. If there is such crime as being +a part of an international conspiracy it would deal with treason rather +than murder, I would think. + +But there is no such thing as being a part of any organization that +makes that it is a crime to commit murder. This was a straight murder +charge. + +If we would have had four or five co-conspirators who conspired with +him, planned the thing and could prove it we would have. That would +have been a conspiracy to, conspiracy to commit murder. + +Senator COOPER. But conspiracy is not essential to the crime, to +describe the person accused as belonging to any organization? + +Mr. WADE. No, sir; it is not necessary and it is entirely what they +call surplusage. + +Senator COOPER. Now the last question, was there any evidence brought +to you or any evidence of which you had knowledge upon which you could +base an indictment or a warrant for conspiracy to commit murder in this +case? + +Mr. WADE. No, sir; you mean parties other than Oswald? + +Senator COOPER. Yes. + +Mr. WADE. No. I might say on that score, to clear that up, I haven't +seen any evidence along that line. I haven't even seen any of the +correspondence that they had, allegedly had with the Communist Party +here in New York or the Fair Play for Cuba, I haven't seen his little +black book where he is supposed to have had the Russian Embassy's +telephone numbers in it which I am sure you all have gone into it. + +I never did see the book, none of that. + +Of course, I have been told by a lot of people and undoubtedly a lot of +it was exaggerated that he was a Communist, and you have had people say +he was a Communist who might say I was a Communist, you know, if they +didn't agree with me on something, so I have absolutely no evidence +that he was a Communist of my own knowledge, I have heard a lot, of +course. + +Mr. DULLES. What you are saying in this last answer relates to the +present time, not only the way your knowledge has---- + +Mr. WADE. At that time and up to the present. + +Mr. DULLES. Rather than the day of assassination. + +Mr. WADE. I have no evidence myself now that he was a Communist, or +ever was a Communist, and I never did see what evidence that they had +on him there gathered on him. I never saw any of the physical evidence +in the Oswald case other than one or two statements, and I think I +saw the gun while they were taking it out of there bringing it to +Washington, because I told them at that stage, they didn't want to take +it out, didn't want to let the FBI have it and I told them I thought +they ought to let them bring it on up here that night and get it back +the next night. + +There was arguing over that. I am getting off, rambling around, but +their argument over that was they were still trying to identify the gun +through a pawn broker or something like that and the police wanted to +keep it but I said, "Let it go up there and they said they would have +it back the next afternoon." + +Mr. RANKIN. Have you ever had any evidence that Oswald was involved +with anyone else in actually shooting the President? + +Mr. WADE. Well, I will answer that the same way. I have absolutely no +evidence myself. + +Now, of course, I might have some type of opinion or some connection +with reference to the Fair Play for Cuba and these letters that they +told me about. If that was so there may have been some connection or +may not, but I have no evidence myself on it. + +Mr. RANKIN. Do you have any evidence as to whether Jack Ruby was +involved with anyone else in the killing of Oswald? + +Mr. WADE. No, sir; I have no evidence on that. We have some and I think +you have them all, some 8 or 10 witnesses who have said they had seen +Ruby and Oswald together at various times. + +Some of them were, I know one of them during the trial was a lawyer +there in Dallas, which I presume you all got his four-page statement, +said he heard them discussing killing Connally a week before then, came +out to my house and that had been sent to the FBI, and that was during +the trial, and I gave him a lie detector which showed that he didn't +have, this was a fanciful thing. + +That, I can't think of his name, some of you all may know it, but he is +a lawyer there in Dallas. + +Mr. RANKIN. You found that was not anything you could rely on. + +Mr. WADE. I didn't use him as a witness and after giving him the +polygraph I was satisfied that he was imagining it. I think he was +sincere, I don't think he was trying--I don't think he was trying to be +a hero or anything. I think he really thought about it so much I think +he thought that it happened, but the polygraph indicated otherwise. + +Mr. DULLES. Did you have any other evidence than the polygraph on this +point that he was not telling the truth or that this was a fiction? + +Mr. WADE. No, but I didn't--but I did see a report where the FBI +interviewed the girl that was allegedly with him in Ruby's place in +October, and she didn't corroborate all of it. I think she did say he +was in there but I am not even sure of that. I didn't interview her but +I just read a report on it. + +I read where they checked with the Department of Public Safety and +they did not, were not able to--he said he reported all this to the +Department of Public Safety, and I don't think they found any record of +him reporting it. It is very difficult to get him to come in to see me. +He didn't just walk in, this went on for a month, I kept hearing that +there was a certain person knew about it and I kept telling him to come +on and talk to me and he finally came out to my house late one night. + +The reason I think he actually must have thought it was so, but--I +wasn't too interested in that theory of the case on this thing because +I had a theory on this Ruby case from the start because I, even before +you are going to get into some of these officers' testimony in a +minute, but when this happened I was going home from church, and my own +mind I said I believe that was Jack Ruby who shot him because from that +Friday night, and from my theory has been from that Friday night, when +he saw him there he made up his mind to kill him if he got a chance and +I have had that--I didn't even know about Dean's testimony which you +are going to hear today, I didn't know about his testimony until the +day before I put him on the stand because I had not been preparing the +evidence, I had been picking a jury for 2 weeks but that was my theory +from the start. + +We had a waitress that I think you are all familiar with that was out +at B&B Cafe at 3 a.m. on the 22d who said she served Ruby and Oswald +there. + +B&B Cafe on Oak Lane, I know you have got that, I have seen it +somewhere. + +I don't think she was ever given a polygraph test. You have about four +homosexuals, I think that is probably the word, that have said they +have seen them together places. There was some indication that Ruby +was either bisexual or homosexual, but at least, I think they testified +to that in the trial, I think by mistake. + +Belli asked the man, meant to ask him another word and says, he meant +to say homicidal tendencies and he said homosexual tendencies and his +one witness said yes, sir. + +That is in the record which you will get of the trial, I guess. + +Mr. RANKIN. I understood you to say when you came home from church, +after the killing of Oswald that you thought it was Ruby before you had +heard that it was Ruby. + +Mr. WADE. You see, they announced Dallas businessman kills him. + +Mr. RANKIN. Yes. + +Mr. WADE. I took my family, I was in church with the family. I took +them on home and on the way down there they kept--they didn't say who +it was but this ran through my mind, a businessman. + +I said that must be Jack Ruby the way he looked. He looked kind of wild +to me down there Friday night the way he was running everywhere, you +know, and I said to myself that must be him. I didn't tell my wife. You +can't prove that. It is one of those things, that was my theory that +he was likely the one. I couldn't, you know, out of a million people I +couldn't say he was the one but when they announced his name I will say +it didn't surprise me. + +Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Chairman, what do you want to do about Mr. Carr? + +Senator COOPER. Mr. Wade, can you name to the Commission the names of +the persons who told you or who stated in your presence that they had +seen Lee Oswald and Jack Ruby together? + +Mr. WADE. Well---- + +Senator COOPER. Start out with the first one, his name. + +Mr. WADE. If anybody would mention the lawyer's name, I know him--he +has run for the legislature a number of times. + +Senator COOPER. A lawyer who lives in Dallas? + +Mr. WADE. A lawyer in Dallas, and he has--we have, he made a four-page +affidavit about this thing, and mailed it to J. Edgar Hoover. + +Senator COOPER. You can supply his name. + +Mr. WADE. We can supply his name and I would supply you with copies of +his affidavit which I think you have. + +Don't you have it, isn't that up here? + +Senator COOPER. Without going into that in a moment, you can refresh +your recollection and supply to the Commission the name of this lawyer. + +Mr. WADE. Yes, sir. + +Senator COOPER. Had he talked to you? + +Mr. WADE. Yes, sir. + +Senator COOPER. What did he say? Did he make a written statement to you +or just talk to you? + +Mr. WADE. He handed me a written statement. He said, "The day after +this happened I made this," it was a copy of a written statement, he +said, "I sent this to J. Edgar Hoover in Washington." I am talking to +him, we will say, the 10th to the 20th of February, the first time I +talked with him. + +He said, "I sent this to the FBI, to J. Edgar Hoover, special delivery +air mail within a day or two after the assassination," and he left that +and as far as I know I have got a copy of that, he left it with me. + +He talked to me at length there at my house, just us, and I would say +at 11 o'clock at night, it was on a Sunday night I know, but what +Sunday night I don't know. It was on a Sunday night in February. I read +that statement over. It is a rather startling thing. It didn't ring +true to me. It all deals with a conversation between Oswald and Ruby +about killing John Connally, the Governor of Texas, over, he says, they +can't get syndicated crime in Texas without they kill the Governor. + +I know enough about the situation, the Governor has practically nothing +to do with syndicated crime. It has to be on a local, your district +attorney and your police are the ones on the firing line on that, and +they discussed at length killing him, how much they are going to pay +him, "He wants five thousand, I believe or half of it now, and half of +it when it is done." + +Don't you have this memorandum? + +Mr. RANKIN. Yes. + +Mr. WADE. There is no use of me trying to give it to you. + +Senator COOPER. I was just personally trying to get your recollection +about it. + +Mr. WADE. He told me this is what happened, and I said, "I can't put +you on the stand without I am satisfied you are telling the truth +because," I said, "We have got a good case here, and if they prove we +are putting a lying witness on the stand, we might hurt us," and I +said, "The only thing I know to do I won't put you on the stand but to +take a polygraph to see if you are telling the truth or not." + +He said, "I would be glad to." And I set it up and I later ran into +him in the lawyers' club there and he handed me another memorandum +which amplified on the other one, which all have been furnished to the +attorney general or if we didn't lose it in the shuffle. + +This was during the trial actually, and then when the man called me he +took a lie detector. There was no truth in it. + +That he was in the place. He was in the place, in Ruby's Carousel, but +that none of this conversation took place. He said he was in one booth +and Ruby was in another booth. + +Senator COOPER. Did anyone else tell you that they had seen Ruby and +Oswald talking together? + +Mr. WADE. No one else personally has told me this. + +Senator COOPER. You mentioned a girl. + +Mr. WADE. No, I never talked to her but we had the Dallas Police take +an affidavit from her and so did the FBI of that which is in all your +files. What her name is, I just know it is a waitress out at the B&B +Cafe. She lived in Mesquite, Tex., and some of my people interviewed +her and she told them the same thing she told the FBI. + +The other information was in your FBI reports of where people or +somebody who claimed he had seen them together in a YMCA, if I recall +correctly, and another one in a store. + +The report indicated these, all these people were homosexuals as I +believe, or there was an indication of that. + +I have an interview, in answering your question, in Lynn's first, but +this is the only one I have talked personally about it. But the rest of +them I got from reading the FBI and police files. + +Senator COOPER. Lynn? + +Mr. WADE. I believe that is his first name, and he is a lawyer there. + +Senator COOPER. He is the lawyer? + +Mr. WADE. That is the lawyer I am thinking about, I am trying to think +of his name while I sit here. + +Senator COOPER. Have you ever talked to anyone or has anyone ever +talked to you or in your presence about Oswald and named any other +person, other than Ruby, who they claimed were connected with Oswald in +the assassination of President Kennedy? + +Mr. WADE. Senator, I don't believe anyone has talked to me. I have +received, I guess 5,000 letters about this thing from all over the +country, which I have down there. I remember somebody wrote me from +West Virginia and said that in West Virginia that Oswald was in a used +car business and Ruby was across the street from him. + +Well, I furnished this information to the investigative agencies but +as far as personally, I don't know of any. I have had a lot of letters +that said they were connected but not based on anything. + +Senator COOPER. But leave Ruby out now for a moment, did anyone ever +tell you that Oswald was connected with persons other than Ruby in the +assassination of President Kennedy? + +Have you heard the names of any other persons who it is claimed had +something to do with the assassination of President Kennedy? + +Mr. WADE. I don't know of any names. Of course, like I said there +was the head of the Fair Play for Cuba, whatever his name was, was +mentioned. Everything I know on that score was from the police. When I +went up there Friday night and again I believe it was Saturday night +or Sunday, they told me that they just talked like he was the biggest +Communist, they had all kinds of evidence that he was a Communist, and +that he was working with other people. + +I believe Captain Fritz told me once that he showed at the time that +Oswald bristled most was when they would talk about Castro. Apparently +he was more friendly to Castro than he was for instance to Khrushchev, +I am using those in broad terms. + +Senator COOPER. Of course, once Oswald was killed, then your duties +were connected with the prosecution of Ruby. + +Mr. WADE. Yes, sir. + +Senator COOPER. And there wasn't any occasion for you then to search +out---- + +Mr. WADE. I had this, Senator. + +Senator COOPER. Other persons. + +Mr. WADE. I had this, Senator, I had this, when he was killed and they +tried to give me the files. I told them no, to give them to the FBI +because we couldn't try him, and I went to work on Ruby and actually +wouldn't know it. + +From what I picked up it appeared to me there was no question that he +received his inspiration on this and maybe other help from somewhere. + +Senator COOPER. That is what I am driving at here. You know there have +been statements made that other persons could have been connected with +Oswald in the assassination of President Kennedy. + +Do you have any facts to give the Commission which would bear upon that +question that any person other than Oswald was in any way connected +with the assassination of President Kennedy? + +Mr. WADE. I have no facts that I can give you on it. It is one of these +things, and the reason I gave you what my opinion on the thing was, I +have read what the U.S. World News and Report said the Commission is +going to say, and also this deal out in Japan, you know, where they +said that he was not instantaneous, impulsive, I believe, killer of the +President, which sounded silly to me. + +I mean he planned the thing. He practiced shooting, and he had his +inspiration from somebody else. Whether he had a--was working with +someone, I don't know. I never did know, it was rumored all over town +that they had an airplane there to carry him out of town. I am sure you +all have checked into that but I never know whether they did or not. + +There seemed to have been something misfired in the thing if there was +anybody tried to get it. I don't think there was anybody with him in +the shooting but what you are getting at is if there was anyone back of +him. + +I always felt that the minimum was an inspiration from some cause, and +the maximum was actual pay, but like you asked for evidence, I don't +have any. + +Senator COOPER. Did you ever hear about any evidence that there was an +airplane stationed any place there? + +Mr. WADE. They ran it in the newspapers that an airplane was supposedly +to pick him up but nobody ever found the airplane, so far as I know. +You have had every kind of rumor, this has been a thing that has been, +that the press has been most inaccurate in a lot of things they have +reported, and it is because of the pressure from their offices to get a +Ruby story. + +We have reporters down there coming down and said, "My office said to +write something on Ruby today, what are we going to write." + +And it has been so very irresponsible. + +Like I said, I have no evidence and the only thing where I get my +impression is reading and hearing people talking but I haven't actually +figured it wasn't any of my business on Oswald, that I had a problem, +a big one of trying Ruby and I have concentrated all of my efforts on +that and when we had anybody of this nature we would refer them to the +FBI or some other agency. + +Senator COOPER. Thank you. + +Mr. DULLES. You referred, Mr. Wade, to some testimony or some evidence +that Oswald was at one time in the Carousel when Ruby was there. + +Was that solely from this lawyer whose testimony you have mentioned? + +Mr. WADE. The only one of my personal knowledge that I talked with +was from the lawyer. He told me he was there with a certain girl, a +stripper, and Ruby and Oswald were in an adjoining booth. There is +lots of other people, I think your master of ceremonies, they had him +on television and said he had seen them there but later on said he +hadn't when they got to interviewing him. But my own personal knowledge +that you are all interested in was that one man who told me that. + +Mr. RANKIN. Was there anyone either from the State or Federal +Government that urged you not to state a crime of international +conspiracy if you found one was present? + +Mr. WADE. No; not in that light. It is like I mentioned to you what +Mr. Carr and Mr. Sanders both inquired, said they had heard on the +radio about this or talked with someone in Washington about it, and +I told them right off that whether it was so or not doesn't make any +difference. It wouldn't be alleged. I mean if I had known he was a +Communist I wouldn't have alleged it. I mean, suppose I knew he was a +Communist, and signed a statement he was a Communist. That was a time +when the press blew up when they had nothing else to talk about at the +time, actually. + +The answer to your question is "No." + +Mr. RANKIN. Was any statement made by you as to whether or not there +was any international conspiracy, conspiracy with Oswald about the +assassination? + +Mr. WADE. No, sir; I don't think there was. I think in one of those +interviews you will find that I said they found some literature or +something from the Fair Play for Cuba at his home, something to that +effect. If I did anything, that was all that was said, in one of those +interviews. + +Mr. RANKIN. Did anybody ask you to say anything one way or another +about that? + +Mr. WADE. If they did I don't remember it. I am sure they asked that, +but I am talking about, I mean in all these interviews, that was the +thing where they were trying to prove a connection or something, you +know, and I told them I knew nothing about it. + +Mr. RANKIN. But no officials asked you to say anything about it +publicly or otherwise? + +Mr. WADE. No, sir; not that I recall. + +Mr. RANKIN. Did anybody ask you at any time not to say that a foreign +government was involved if you found it was or anything about that? + +Mr. WADE. Your FBI man may have. I don't know. I talked to him two or +three times. I wish I could think of his name because I don't think I +ever met him. He was an inspector out of Washington. + +Mr. DULLES. He is not our FBI man, he is the FBI. We are an independent +commission. + +Mr. WADE. I see. But he had talked with me something, I think his +conversation, as I recall, largely dealt with the giving out of +information. He was concerned about it and so was I, and where we had +the longest conversation was, I will run through Sunday, and get me +up to it real fast because I talked to him Sunday night. We haven't +covered one of my television interviews. + +After I went down to the police station and I will take this real fast +if it is all right with you all, they told me that Oswald had been shot +and I was there in the Chief's office when he died, when Oswald died +and the Chief says I have got to go out here and announce it. + +So as he went out for a press conference, I went down the back door, +went home and went to bed because I was tired and disappointed actually +because we got even interested in trying Oswald, and I didn't mean to +have anything else further to say. + +I woke up about 5 o'clock and a national commentator was giving the +Dallas police hell, me hell, and just about everybody hell, and saying +that I had said that the case, there would be nothing further on the +case, it would be closed, in which I had never even had a television +interview, I don't know where they got it. + +Somebody might have said that. I don't know but it wasn't me because I +hadn't talked to anybody. + +And then I went out to dinner and got to thinking, I said, well now, +the Dallas police did have a breakdown in security here, and they +are taking a beating and I am taking a beating, but they did have +the right man according to my thinking, so I went down to the police +station and got all the brass in there but Chief Curry and I said this +stuff, people are saying on there you had the wrong man and you all +were the one who killed him or let him out here to have him killed +intentionally, I said somebody ought to go out in television and lay +out the evidence that you had on Oswald, and tell them everything. + +It had been most of it laid out but not in chronological order. + +Mr. RANKIN. When was this now? + +Mr. WADE. This was 8 o'clock roughly on the 24th. Sunday night. I sat +down with Captain Fritz and took a pencil and pad and listed about +seven pieces of evidence from my own knowledge and I was going to write +it down. They got hold of Chief Curry and he said no, that he had told +this inspector of the FBI that there would be nothing further said +about it. + +I asked Chief Batchelor and Lumpkin, they were all there, I said you +all are the ones who know something about it, I said if you have at +least got the right man in my opinion the American people ought to know. + +This is evidence you can't use actually, because he is dead. You can't +try him. And the upshot of that was the police wouldn't say a word and +refused actually to furnish me any more of the details on this. + +I mean what the seven points. I went on out there in from front of +the cameras and ran them through those points. Actually my purpose +in it was, good or bad was, because the Dallas police were taking a +beating because they had solved the crime and had good evidence and +I told them it was good but I did leave out some things and I was +a little inaccurate in one or two things but it was because of the +communications with the police. + +I didn't have the map, incidentally. I wanted the map at that time but +forgot all about it, and I ran through just what I knew, which probably +was worse than nothing. + +It probably would have been better off without giving anything, because +we didn't give what all we had. + +Mr. DULLES. Do you remember the elements of inaccuracy that got into +this statement of yours? + +Mr. WADE. I think I told them about the palmprint on the bottom of the +gun, that Lane has made a great issue of and I still think I was right +on it but he has made an issue. I think Oswald snapped the pistol over +there in the jail or at least in the theater where they arrested him. +There was a question of whether the gun had been snapped or not and I +was told it was, you all may have seen the gun; I never have seen the +gun. You had--I might have at that stage said what bullets are supposed +to hit whom. That might have been somewhat inaccurate then but that is +all I can think of. + +I don't think there is any basic thing. But my purpose in that, and I +know the minute I got off that television, inspection called me and +said please say nothing further about this case. + +Well, you see, at that stage---- + +Mr. DULLES. Who was it that called you? + +Mr. WADE. The inspector at FBI called me in the police station. He +was the one the police had talked to. He was the man from Dallas down +there. It wasn't Shanklin, Shanklin was in charge of the office. + +But I told him what my purpose was but apparently someone told him. I +gathered since he had delivered a message, apparently someone had told +him to have me quit talking about it. But my purpose on that was, I +never did think that the people or the television were giving the right +facts on the thing and they were making believe that probably they +didn't have the right one, that the Dallas police had him in there to +kill him, they even had commentators saying practically that, don't you +know. + +So, I did that entirely--not anything for me. You may think I wanted to +be on television. I didn't care a thing about being because I don't run +for office in New York and Washington and other places, but I thought +the police needed, because their morale was awfully low and they were +at fault in Ruby killing him. + +There was undoubtedly a breakdown on security there in the basement. + +Mr. RANKIN. On the seven points were any of them that were new that +hadn't already been told to the public? + +Mr. WADE. To tell you the truth, I don't know. I think there were some +of them that hadn't been but I think most of them had. But I couldn't +see at this stage the evidence on this thing, nobody, the situation +where you had an assassination, and a dead person and another case +pending, and it was against my interest actually, to trying Ruby, it +would be a whole lot better trying Ruby if he killed the wrong man +than if he killed the assassin of the President, but I was trying to +establish that this was the assassin of the President. + +And I didn't give all the evidence, and I don't know whether there was +anything new or not because I didn't see much of television during all +this time. I don't actually know everything that was given out, and +there was so much in the papers that I didn't have time to read them, +so I didn't know for sure what all the police had given out. + +Senator COOPER. Substantially then, you were laying out to the public +the facts which had led you to issue a warrant for Oswald as the killer +of President Kennedy? + +Mr. WADE. That was the purpose of that interview. + +You also have to--I don't know where you gentlemen were, but you have +to get a picture of what was going on. You had, of course, there in +Dallas, you had threats on people's lives everywhere. + +As a matter of fact, it ran over the radio that I had been +assassinated, for 2 hours, on Monday morning. I wasn't listening to the +radio. My wife called me up--called me up and I denied it. [Laughter.] + +Mr. WADE. But you had lots of things of that kind. And I thought you +needed some type of, somebody--and your whole thing was wrong with this +whole deal, you had no one in charge of the thing. You had the police, +the FBI, the Secret Service, the Department of Justice, my Department, +Waggoner Carr's department, but no one had any say to offer the rest of +them. + +Mr. RANKIN. Tell us how that affected it. You had the jurisdiction of +the crime itself. + +Mr. WADE. Of the trial of the case. + +Mr. RANKIN. And the police department, what jurisdiction did they have? + +Mr. WADE. They had the jurisdiction, the primary responsibility for the +investigation of the assassination, and--they had the primary job of +finding out who did it and getting the evidence. They were assisted, +the Secret Service, of course, had the job of protecting the President. +The FBI, they have criminal, pretty general, investigation, I am not +sure, but they were in on it, they were all there, and assisting. It +was a deal where nobody had any actual control over another person. + +Mr. RANKIN. Had the State authorities any jurisdiction or effect on the +operation? + +Mr. WADE. You mean the State? + +Mr. RANKIN. Of Texas. + +Mr. WADE. They actually had none. They had no authority. The Governor +has no authority in a situation like this nor the attorney general +other than in a vague sort of way, as the police, I guess they had +the police powers to some extent of maintaining order but you didn't +need the National Guard or anything. I mean this was more dealing with +a situation of information. I think this situation is true in many +States, in practically all of them. + +Mr. RANKIN. Was that confusing, did that make it harder to try to solve +the crime and handle the problems? + +Mr. WADE. It did; very much so. Your press was the most confusing +thing. I mean you couldn't get in the police station. I mean I just +barely could get into the police station myself for stomping over the +press and you had a lot of reporters, not like the reporters we usually +deal with down there. I mean we don't have trouble usually with the +local press, people we pretty well know. + +We would tell them what is going on, and they will go on, but these +people just followed everybody everywhere they went, and they were +throwing policemen on the corner, if he made a statement about he saw +someone running that way dressed maybe like the killer--they ran all +that on. They were just running everybody. There was no control over +your public media. It made it worse since all television networks were +on the assassination all--24 hours, I mean all day. And there was no +central thing from--there was no central person who had any control +of handling the thing that information was given out. You see they +interviewed some of your patrolmen who were giving out evidence, you +know, some of your foot patrolmen on the corner, they were interviewing +anybody. + +Mr. RANKIN. Would it help or hinder the handling of such a crime of the +killing of the President if it was a Federal crime, in your opinion? + +Mr. WADE. Well, offhand, I think probably it would, but---- + +Mr. RANKIN. It would help? + +Mr. WADE. I think it would help, but you are going to have the same +situation. I am thinking if you had, if it is a Federal crime, for +instance, it is still murder in Texas. If Captain Fritz and the Dallas +police had arrested this man, the FBI wouldn't have had him. I don't +care if it was a Federal crime. We have bank robberies where there is +joint jurisdiction. The one that gets him, if it is the State police or +the city police gets them, they file with me and if the FBI gets them +they file with the Federal. + +Mr. RANKIN. You need more control over the police investigation in +order to carry out your duties, is that---- + +Mr. WADE. Of course; my idea if you had it to do over, it is easy to +do that, but I think you need someone where all the information is +channeled through one person. If anything is given out and getting an +intelligent person, not just a police officer, you know. Now, your +city manager of Dallas is a newspaper man, Elgin Crull, he would have +been an ideal person and he was there but I don't think he ever said +anything in any way. He was there in the middle of all that thing. + +Mr. RANKIN. Is the lawyer that you referred to in answer to Senator +Cooper's questions Carroll Jarnegan? + +Mr. WADE. Carroll Jarnegan is his name; yes, sir. Let me mention +another thing for the record here. I don't know whether it is +mentioned. Saturday, most of my day was spent in talking to Dean R. G. +Storey, and the dean of the Harvard Law School, raising, wondering what +the situation was with reference to attorneys for Oswald. + +Mr. RANKIN. What Saturday are you talking about? + +Mr. WADE. Saturday the 23d, 1963; November 23. I told them that, all +of them, we had calls from various people, and most of them was from +people here in the East calling lawyers there in Dallas rather than me, +and them calling me. + +Mr. RANKIN. What were they saying to you about that? + +Mr. WADE. Well, they were very upset, one, in looking at American +justice where the man didn't have an attorney, as apparently, and two, +that too much information was being given to the press too, by the +police and by me, some of them had said, and that is what prompted me +probably to talk to Chief Curry about the thing, because I had received +some of those calls. + +I told them they ought to appoint the president of the bar association +and the president of the Criminal Bar Association to represent him. + +Mr. RANKIN. Who did you tell that to? + +Mr. WADE. Told that to Mr. Paul Carrington and also to Mr. Storey, I +believe. + +I believe they are the two that discussed it more at length with me. + +Mr. RANKIN. Do you know whether anything was done about that? + +Mr. WADE. Yes. + +Mr. RANKIN. What? + +Mr. WADE. They got ahold of Louis Nichols who is the president of +the Dallas Bar Association. They got ahold of the president of the +Criminal Bar Association, but they had started a Tippit fund in the +meantime, and practically every lawyer was scared they were going to be +appointed, you know, and they had gone and subscribed to that fund so +they were having much trouble getting a lawyer appointed. + +Now, I must go a little further and tell you that under Texas law that +is an improper time to appoint them. The only one who can actually +appoint him is the judge after indictment under the Texas law, no one +else has really authority. + +Louis Nichols, I talked to him, the president of the bar, and he was +trying to get some criminal lawyer to go down there with him, and I +said, "Go down there yourself and talk to him because they are raising +just so much cain about it and see what they want and tell him you will +get him a lawyer." + +Senator COOPER. You are speaking now about a lawyer for Oswald? + +Mr. WADE. Yes; for Oswald. + +This was around noon or some time on Saturday, noon, early afternoon. +This went on all day. He called me back and said, "I have talked to +him and told him I would get him a lawyer, that I would represent him +or get him a lawyer." Louis Nichols is a civil lawyer, not actually a +criminal lawyer. + +He says, "He doesn't want but one lawyer, John Abt, in New York." + +Mr. RANKIN. Who is he? + +Mr. WADE. He is an attorney in New York. + +Mr. RANKIN. You said he didn't want any attorney? + +Mr. WADE. Lee Harvey Oswald told Nichols and Nichols told me this. He +said that. Nichols then said he told him, along with the police they +would try to get ahold of Mr. Abt, which they did. I think, I think +maybe the press found him before the lawyers found him. But he says +something that he didn't have time or something, as I understand it. +This was all reported in the press. He had said the second person he +wanted, Lee Harvey Oswald told Nichols the second person he wanted, was +some lawyer out in Chicago with the American Civil Liberties Union, his +name I don't know what it was, but Nichols would know. + +He said, "If I can't get either one of those I will help get a local +lawyer," because that was all done Saturday, with reference to his +obtaining a lawyer. + +I wanted to get that because I think you probably knew it and get it in +the record anyhow. + +Mr. RANKIN. Now going back to this telephone conversation with Mr. Carr +that you referred to, do you remember anything else that Mr. Carr said +to you at that time? + +Mr. WADE. I don't actually even remember, you know, he said that he had +had a call from Washington, I don't actually remember anything about +that. I remember he said that about this charge that this is going. +"This would be a bad situation, if you allege it as part of a Russian, +the Russian conspiracy, and it may affect your international relations, +a lot of things, of the country," and I said it was silly because I +don't know where the rumor started but I will see even if it was so we +could prove it, I wouldn't allege it. Isn't that about it, the way you +recall it, Mr. Carr? + +Senator COOPER. We will call him in a minute. + +Mr. WADE. O.K. + +Mr. RANKIN. Was he during that conversation saying anything to you +about not alleging it if it were true? + +Mr. WADE. No, sir; it was a question of, he had heard we were going to +allege it and he asked me about it and I said it is silly. I had heard +something, I think, about it, about the same time. + +And to no one, if it was part of it, no one said they necessarily +wanted to hush the thing up, but it was a situation where the minute +they mentioned what their problem was, it sounded silly to me, I said +whether he is a member of the Communist Party or not is not important +in this charge. + +Senator COOPER. Was there any official, anyone on your staff or any +persons charged with law enforcement in Dallas, or any U.S. district +attorney in Dallas or anyone connected with his office, to your +knowledge ever suggest that there should be a charge of conspiracy? + +Mr. WADE. None to my knowledge. + +Now, I will say in some of these conversations, like I said, I don't +know whether it was with Waggoner Carr or Barefoot Sanders, they said, +one said, "Well, David Johnston, the J. P. has said this," and the +other one has said, "Bill Alexander, one of your assistants who was up +at the police department said it." + +I asked them both about it and they both denied it. + +Senator COOPER. Did anyone ever say to you in the event there was a +charge of conspiracy who would be named other than Oswald? + +Mr. WADE. No; there is no other names, there is no other name that +I know of that has ever been mentioned to me as being part of the +conspiracy. + +The question we are talking about here, if I understand it, being that +Oswald, as a part of an international conspiracy, did murder John +Fitzgerald Kennedy. And there is no other names of co-conspirators, we +have had lots of leads run down upon it. Somebody at the penitentiary +down there, a colored person, at least the word to us, that he had told +the guard he had hauled Oswald away from there, you all probably got +this, but we interviewed him down there. + +He was just talking and wanting to come back to Dallas. But there had +been lots of things of that kind but to my knowledge none of them have +actually been proven out. + +Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Wade, I don't think you have quite finished the--all of +your--hour-by-hour description of what happened up through the killing +of Mr. Oswald. + +Mr. WADE. I thought I had hit it. The only thing I can't remember now +is the Saturday night. + +It seemed like I was down at the police station Saturday night. Why I +don't know and maybe for a short while and don't recall everything that +happened. That was Saturday, 23d of November, and there is nothing, the +charge had already been taken, and I think probably I was on my way +home and just stopped by to see what was going on. + +At that time there wasn't anything going on and I went home. + +Mr. RANKIN. Did you do anything more about the press and TV and radio +people crowding into the police station than you have already described? + +Mr. WADE. No; you see--I have been in that building probably once every +2 years. + +It is the other end of town from my building. I never go up there +and I don't think it is my business what goes on up there. Maybe it +should be, but I have never been considering it. I think I have enough +problems down at my end of the street. + +Mr. RANKIN. In any event you didn't do anything. + +Mr. WADE. I didn't tell them anything, I could see the confusion they +were getting into but I don't know of anything that I told about, but +what if I did, I had no control over it. It was one of those things I +just figured I was the one who didn't have the say in it. + +Mr. RANKIN. What did you do on Sunday, the 25th? + +Mr. WADE. Well, went to church. + +Mr. RANKIN. The 24th. + +Mr. WADE. I went to church, my family and I went to Dr. W. J. Martin's +nondenominational church. It has 27 different denominations, very +bright fellow, if you are in Dallas you ought to go and hear him. + +And as I walked out somebody said they shot Oswald. So I took--turned +on the radio and took my wife and kids home, and went down to the +police station. + +There were still fragments of the story coming in, and we would still +get every kind of story out of them, and we got down there at I guess +1:30. He died and then like I said, I think all I told the press, they +asked me as I left there, a few of them what we would do on Ruby and I +said we would ask the death penalty on him, and then I left and I went +home and then I followed it that night and giving them what evidence I +had. + +Mr. RANKIN. Did you have anything to do with a lawyer by the name of +Tom Howard in connection with that? + +Mr. WADE. No, sir; Tom Howard had filed some kind of writ of habeas +corpus, assault to murder, and I never did see him. I saw Bob Stinson, +another lawyer on a corner and he said he and Robey were going to +represent him, which, I don't think they did, but they said they were +and so I went on home, and then when he died, we had a murder case, and +we took it to the grand jury the next morning, I believe, on Monday +morning and indicted him, turned it into Judge Joe Brown's court and I +was there, and as the grand jury walked in he said, "When are you going +to hear Ruby?" + +And I said, "I already have got the indictment here," and I said, then +I went right back and asked the judge to transfer it over to Judge +Henry King's court or Frank Wilson's court. + +Mr. RANKIN. Do you know what happened to that habeas corpus of Tom +Howard's? + +Mr. WADE. No. + +Mr. RANKIN. You didn't have anything to do with it? + +Mr. WADE. I understand from hearsay it disappeared or somewhere down +there but we don't have anything to do with writs. But they don't come +through our office. You see that is directed by the judge. I heard or +at least Decker or somebody told me they never could find the writ but +there was some writ for assault to murder originally issued. + +And then, of course, after he died and the murder charge was filed, +well, that would actually be out of date. + +Senator COOPER. Was it a writ of habeas corpus to bring Oswald before a +court? + +Mr. WADE. No. Jack Ruby. + +Senator COOPER. Jack Ruby. + +Mr. WADE. It was actually, they have two kinds of writs, one of them is +where they set a bond on it and another one is what they have called a +dry writ which says, "You file on him or bring him before me at such +and such a time." + +Which one it was I don't know. As a matter of fact, I thought there +was a bond set on it, but I told the chief, I said, "You can hold him, +we don't want to release him until you know whether the person dies or +not because then he wouldn't be a bailable case," assault to murder is +bailable. + +I never saw the writ or anything. I just heard somebody say there is a +writ on him. + +(At this point, Chairman Warren entered the hearing room.) + +Mr. RANKIN. Did you ever help Ruby about any of his troubles of any +kind? + +Mr. WADE. Not that I know of. + +Mr. RANKIN. Prior to this occasion? + +Mr. WADE. No; I think we have had him for a liquor violation or +something, but if we have--like I say, I never knew him. I think that +they have had some charges against him. + +As a matter of fact, they had two pistol charges against him but I +don't think they ever reached my office. + +Mr. RANKIN. Do you know what charges they were about pistols? + +Mr. WADE. Carrying a concealed weapon and if I understand the record I +think we checked it out and they dismissed them up in the police force. + +There was one liquor case that was dismissed in my office by an +assistant who is no longer there which I have read the reports on and +don't have any recollection of it either way. + +Mr. RANKIN. Did you know Eva Grant? + +Mr. WADE. No, sir. + +Mr. RANKIN. Ruby's sister. Do you know Sam Ruby? + +Mr. WADE. I knew none of them, none of the Ruby family, and didn't know +Jack Ruby. I think he claims that he had known me or something or other +but if he had, it is one of those things where you see somebody and I +didn't know his name or anything when I saw him that night or didn't +know who he was. I thought he was a member of the press, actually. + +Mr. RANKIN. Did it come to your attention that there was some claim +that Oswald was an agent of one of the intelligence agencies of +Government? + +Mr. WADE. I heard that talk down there. It was talk some---- + +Mr. RANKIN. Do you know who was talking that? + +Mr. WADE. I don't know. I have been up here once before, and some of +the press were--I don't remember, some of the press mentioned that +they had two voucher numbers in his book there that indicated he was +working for the FBI or the CIA. I know nothing about them, don't think +anybody in my office does. I think maybe Alexander mentioned it some, +but Alexander is not a great lover of the FBI. They fuss all the time +openly, so I don't know. I know nothing about it myself because I never +have seen the book and I don't know whether they have even got any +numbers in there but they were supposed to have two numbers in there as +a voucher number of $200 from some Government agency but like I say, +supposed to. + +I never saw it and heard it, talk, but I am sure you all know more +about it than I do. + +Mr. DULLES. By voucher you mean an entry or something of that kind, +what kind of a voucher? + +Mr. WADE. I think it was called a voucher number, it was voucher 209, +which doesn't make sense. I believe it was a low number. It doesn't +make sense for a government to have a voucher number that low. + +Mr. RANKIN. What book are you referring to? + +Mr. WADE. The little black book that Oswald had in his possession at +the time he was arrested. + +Mr. RANKIN. That was his memorandum book, in which he had a list of +numbers of various people and addresses and so forth, is that what you +referring to? + +Mr. WADE. Yes; and I never have seen the book myself. As a matter of +fact, I am trying to get some photos of it, trying to but I haven't +gotten them yet. + +Mr. RANKIN. Now what agency was it rumored he was a member of? + +Mr. WADE. It was rumored he worked first for the FBI and then for the +CIA. + +Mr. RANKIN. Is that all you have heard? + +Mr. WADE. As a matter of fact, I don't think I had ever heard that +until Waggoner Carr called me and told me--I don't think I ever heard +that. I did check into it a little, and they were talking it some, and +they have actually written it up in the newspapers by rumors or a story +or two--rumors of the thing. + +Mr. RANKIN. Is that the report by the reporter Hudkins? + +Mr. WADE. I believe it is. On the Houston paper, Hudkins. I believe we +got that introduced in the Ruby trial on the change of venue motion. + +Mr. RANKIN. Is there anything more that you know about that matter? + +Mr. WADE. I know absolutely nothing about it. I might say, I was under +the impression, I think when I talked to you and the Chief Justice +before, that, you see I was in the FBI, and I was under the impression +and I think maybe I told you all that we didn't list our informant +by name. The FBI have been kind enough to send down some of my old +vouchers on paying informants back in, down in South America, and I +see that we did list them by name which I--probably may, if I said +otherwise it was just my recollection on the thing but in that case I +was listing informants from South America that we were paying when I +was there. + +Mr. RANKIN. There was one other report by Goulden, reporter of the +Philadelphia Inquirer. Did that ever come to your attention in regard +to this matter? + +Mr. WADE. No; but I know him. He used to be a reporter in Dallas, but I +don't know what it was, if you will tell me about it. + +Mr. RANKIN. Apparently it was the same thing. + +Mr. WADE. Different angle. + +Mr. RANKIN. From Hudkins' report that had been picked up. + +Mr. WADE. He is more reliable than Hudkins but I know absolutely +nothing about that. Like I say, I have heard rumors and conversation +and I will even put it further, I don't think Alexander knows anything +about it, my assistant, although he doesn't fully admit all that. I +think he would like to talk a little about it but I don't think he +knows anything of his own knowledge. + +Mr. RANKIN. Have you inquired of him? + +Mr. WADE. I have asked him about it and he gives me nothing in the way +of evidence. + +Mr. RANKIN. Did you prepare the complaint in regard to Jack Ruby +yourself? + +Mr. WADE. I don't believe I did. I don't believe I had anything to do +with it. If I did, my name will show on it but I don't think I had +anything to do with it. + +Mr. RANKIN. Did you give any information to the press about what you +had in regard to that prosecution, and the nature of the evidence? + +Mr. WADE. No; not that I know of. Of course, they all saw it on +television, you know. We have got in--to bring you through the whole +story, I said practically nothing about this thing for about 3 weeks or +a month, but we had a lawyer on the other side who came into town and +every time he was met at the airport he would make statements. + +Mr. RANKIN. Who was that? + +Mr. WADE. Mr. Melvin Belli, and he had his psychiatrist on the +television, all his witnesses, said what he was going to prove and it +got to a situation where I had to do a little talking in self-defense, +and so we did later on have some statements more or less in answer to +his. It was entirely too much trying of that in the newspapers but a +situation where we couldn't let his psychiatrist go on there and prove +he had been insane on the jury without at least our saying we had some +evidence that he was sane. + +Mr. RANKIN. Did you have anything to do with the preparation of the +case for trial? + +Mr. WADE. Yes, to some extent. You see I had four assistants to assist +me in the trial. + +Mr. RANKIN. Who were they? + +Mr. WADE. Jim Bowie, Frank Watt, and Bill Alexander. I read most of the +reports on it. I mean I had most of what I did was read things on it +because my main job in the trial as we started out was for me to pick +the jury, which I did, I think I have some ability along that line, and +do a great deal of the cross examination and the final argument. That +is what I do in the cases I participate in usually. + +Mr. RANKIN. Yes. + +Mr. WADE. Alexander spent the 2 weeks we were picking a jury in viewing +the witnesses. I never talked to any of the witnesses. After the +first half a day of testimony I was very disappointed in the way the +witnesses were being put on the stand; if this is of interest to you. + +Mr. RANKIN. Tell us what happened. + +Mr WADE. I told him, I said, on this case we are going on this theory, +I want everybody who saw Ruby from the time of the assassination of +President Kennedy down to the time he killed Oswald, I want to prove +where he was every minute of the time that I can and then we will take +it from there and put the films on there and show what happened there +and then afterward. We are going on the theory that he is a glory +seeker and a hero because I was convinced that was the motive of the +killing. + +I put on seven witnesses, and about six of them testified against us, I +think, or made poor witnesses saying if they saw him down in the Dallas +News where he was 2 minutes in a stare that never made any sense. + +Some of them said they thought there was something wrong with him and +none of them were the type of witnesses that I wanted testifying for +the State. + +Mr. RANKIN. Who were they? + +Mr. WADE. Well, you can check the first seven witnesses in the case. +You had three from the Dallas News who testified, and so during that +noon hour, I was convinced, whether right or wrong that Alexander had +been more interested in talking to the press. + +In my office our biggest problem was keeping the press out of the +office, and so I just would have to bar them from my office, I mean +personal property. He wouldn't do it. He liked to talk to them. + +So, I said, "Get all these witnesses in during the noon hour and let me +talk to them." + +I put all the witnesses on the next morning. I talked to all the +officers, I talked to Officers Dean, McMillon, Archer, King never had +talked with them about the case before and I talked with them then and +I put all of them on next morning. + +Mr. RANKIN. Tell us what starting with--which one did you talk to +first, Archer, Dean, or McMillon. + +Mr. WADE. I think I talked to all of them at first in a body. I talked +to---- + +Mr. RANKIN. I see. + +Mr. WADE. I had them all in there and said "Now what do you know about +the case?" because a lot of them I didn't know what they knew. + +Mr. RANKIN. What did they say? + +Mr. WADE. As a matter of fact, I wasn't familiar with Dean's testimony +until he told me right there a day before he testified. Then he showed +me the memorandum that he had made on the thing. I talked with him +there and I put Archer on the next morning and McMillon on, who stayed +all day. They cross-examined him from 11:30 until 5:30. Then I put King +on, and then Dean, I believe the next morning, and we rested. But they +told me just what they testified to in the trial which I don't know +whether I can give all of it but I can tell you roughly that McMillon +and Archer were partners and heard Ruby say some things, "I hope I +killed the sonofabitch." + +Mr. RANKIN. When? + +Mr. WADE. Within about a few seconds after the killing and then +upstairs then, "I meant to shoot three times but you all got me before +I did." + +Incidentally, you may not know it but their psychiatrist corroborated +that statement. + +Mr. RANKIN. Who was that? + +Mr. WADE. Dr. Guttmacher on cross-examination. We asked Dr. Guttmacher, +"Well, didn't Ruby tell you that he meant to shoot three times?" + +He said, "Yes; and he told me that." + +He said, "One time he told me that." He also said at one time he told +him otherwise but he corroborated that portion of it. Then it seemed +like there was something else said. Archer said to him as he got up in +the jail, "I believe he is going to die, Jack." I may be getting these +wrong, but they are roughly--he said something about, "You fellows +couldn't do it," or talking about the police, and, I believe that was +Archer and McMillon. + +Maybe you all being lawyers, in Texas this is not admissible unless +it is part of the res gestae. Mr. Belli sent into McMillon all +conversations in the jail that happened 4 hours later. + +Under our law if one side goes into a conversation we can bring out +anything in the conversation, the rest of the conversation. That is a +rule of law in Texas, I don't know whether it is that way everywhere +else, and so that was the theory that made Dean's testimony admissible +because had been in the jail--time varies from 20 minutes to an hour, +depending on who you are listening to. + +Senator COOPER. I have to go to a quorum call. + +(At this point, Senator Cooper left the hearing room.) + +Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Wade, could you tell us a little more clearly what was +involved in regard to this testimony? Did the defense start introducing +testimony concerning these conversations, is that what you are telling +us? + +Mr. WADE. The defense cross-examined McMillon--you see McMillon and +Archer stayed with Ruby until 4 o'clock that afternoon when he was +turned over to Captain Fritz or roughly. I am giving a rough hour of 4 +o'clock. + +Mr. RANKIN. Where did they stay with him? + +Mr. WADE. In the jail. They were--I don't say both of them were there +but they were assigned there and another person. The three of them or +two of them were there at all times, along with your jailers, they were +inside the jail. + +During this time he went into conversations, for instance he said, +"Didn't I tell you that he left his dog out in the car?" He said, "Yes, +they did," but this is something that happened an hour and a half after +they had been in jail. + +Mr. RANKIN. By "he" there you mean Ruby? + +Mr. WADE. Ruby. + +And they said also, "Didn't he tell you about going to the Western +Union," and he said, "Weren't you there when Sorrels and Dean came up +there, and what was the first thing that Sorrels asked him." + +Mr. RANKIN. Did they say when that was? + +Mr. WADE. Well, you are going to find your time varies from 20 minutes +to an hour, depending on whether it is a defense theory or our theory, +but---- + +Mr. RANKIN. After what? + +Mr. WADE. After the killing of Oswald. + +Mr. RANKIN. Yes. + +Mr. WADE. I think Dean, I would rather you get the record, and you can +get it accurate, but I think he said it was some time before 20 minutes +to 12 or some time before 12. Well, the killing happened at 11:21, I +think. That seems to be the best time, 11:21. + +Mr. RANKIN. Did they describe what the conversation was with Ruby when +Sorrels and Dean were there? + +Mr. WADE. They told, if I recall, what Sorrels asked him and he asked +him "What did you do it for, Jack?" or something; they knew that part +of it but they weren't present during that conversation between--they +were in the room but I may say not within hearing distance. They heard +part of what was said but not all of the conversation. + +Mr. RANKIN. By "they" who do you mean? + +Mr. WADE. I am talking about McMillon and Archer. + +Mr. RANKIN. What did they hear? + +Mr. WADE. Well, that is all I know that was testified to. Now, whether +they heard anything else I don't know. But that is all I know, the +beginning of the conversation. + +They had heard previous to this coming up there the conversation about +Jack, "I think he is going to die," and Jack answered some question, I +believe he said, "You couldn't do it, somebody had to," or something +like that. Jack Ruby, I am referring to. + +Mr. RANKIN. Where did that occur? + +Mr. WADE. That occurred as they arrived on the floor where the jail is, +the fifth floor, I believe, of the jail. + +Mr. RANKIN. Then what else could they testify to? + +Mr. WADE. That was about all we used them for, actually, that was +the last that we put on, but they asked them some questions of what +happened. Didn't he tell Captain Fritz something at 4 o'clock that +afternoon, but our testimony from them actually that amounted to +anything quit when they came on to the floor there of the jail. That is +McMillon and Archer. + +Shortly thereafter, Dean's testimony came on and only--I am kind of +anticipating your questions on this. + +Mr. RANKIN. Where was Dean then? + +Mr. WADE. They were in the jail. Dean---- + +Mr. RANKIN. Who else? + +Mr. WADE. Sorrels, Forest Sorrels. I am not testifying as a fact but +this was all told to me, of course, by Dean and Sorrels. + +Mr. RANKIN. Yes. + +Mr. WADE. The following day during the noon hour I found for the first +time that Sorrels was present in the jail. I told the sheriff there I +would like to talk to Sorrels and he came down there and he and Dean +and I talked in my office. + +Mr. RANKIN. That is the following day? + +Mr. WADE. That is Thursday before we rested the case on Friday. + +Mr. RANKIN. Will you tell us the approximate date that you talked to +him? + +Mr. WADE. It seems like we started on the 17th, and this was 2 weeks---- + +Mr. RANKIN. 17th of what month? + +Mr. WADE. Of February. + +Maybe we started on the 10th, because they ended on the 14th, 17th to +the 14th, I would say this was around the 6th of March roughly, a day +or two either way. + +I sat down there to talk to Dean and Sorrels because we was going to +put--and Sorrels showed me a copy of his report made on that incident +which I didn't keep a copy but I am sure you all have a copy of it or +it will be available to you. + +I read it over, and essentially from what Dean said, and him were the +same with other than the, I think the only variance was the part which +was strong testimony where Dean said that Ruby said, "The first time I +thought of killing him was Friday night or thought about killing him +was Friday night in the lineup." + +Mr. RANKIN. Sorrels didn't have that in his statement, did he? + +Mr. WADE. He didn't have that in his statement, and I, to go back a +little bit, I asked Sorrels how he got up in the jail and he said he +didn't know, and he said he didn't actually know Dean there sitting in +my office. + +I think he finally decided Dean was the one but he didn't know him. I +think it is pretty obvious that Dean, because they went in an unusual +entrance to the jail from the third floor, from the chief's office, and +he says there are two guards standing on each side of him which none of +the others corroborate, unless they are talking about jail guards in +the building, but there was no police in uniform supposed to be up on +that floor but Sorrels said that he saw two police guards on each side +of him. + +But I asked Sorrels, I said, "How can you account for it?" I had +already talked to Dean. I said, "I am getting ready to put him on the +stand." + +I said, "How are you going to--what are you going to say if you go on +the stand on this?" + +He said, "Well, I called my office in Washington and they wanted me +to find out two things: One, whether there was any connection between +Oswald and Ruby from Ruby, and two, whether Ruby had any confederates +or co-conspirators." + +He said, "Those were the two things I went to find out and I dwelled on +those entirely." + +He said, "These other officers were there and when I left they were +still questioning," and he said, "I couldn't say whether that happened, +I don't remember hearing it, I just can't say that I heard it," and so +the defense lawyers talked to Sorrels that night about testifying and +didn't use him. + +Of course, I thought probably they were going to use him on this one +thing, but there were so many other things in the statement that were +the same as what Dean has testified to about, something about being a +hero, Jew hero, or something in the statement, which Sorrels had that +in his statement. + +He had practically everything in the statement, but this is one thing +that he didn't have in there, as I recall. + +I couldn't find it and asked him about it and he said he couldn't say +it. He said there were a lot of things in there but he was interested +in knowing only two things. + +Mr. RANKIN. Did you examine Dean's statement in regard to this matter? + +Mr. WADE. Well, I read it there that day. It is a very short one, you +know. Of course, there is more than one statement. + +Mr. RANKIN. Yes; did you look at his prior statements at that time? + +Mr. WADE. I think I had all of his statements. He was in charge +of security in the basement. All statements, this all came out on +cross-examination, dealt entirely with the matter of security, what was +done to secure the basement. + +Mr. RANKIN. Did he say anything in regard to this premeditation in the +prior statement? + +Mr. WADE. I don't think he did, and I don't think he actually said +anything about how Ruby got in in that prior statement. I may be wrong, +I don't remember even going into the conversation with Ruby. + +Mr. RANKIN. What did Dean tell you at the time that you asked him about +the later statement? + +Mr. WADE. He told me that he had been asked to submit a report dealing +with the security of the basement, and that that first report was the +security problem. + +Mr. RANKIN. What did he say about that, the security? + +Mr. WADE. Well, he said that, he told me, that when he heard the shot +that he thought a policeman had shot him because he didn't think there +was anybody else in the basement. He said he thought a policeman had +shot him, just got mad and the cop shot him for killing Officer Tippit. + +I don't know whether that was in the statement or not but he told me +that. I actually read that, that security, we were not too interested +in that because from our point of view, because there is no question +the security wasn't good. Something happened somewhere. + +Mr. RANKIN. Did you learn from Dean how Ruby got into the basement? + +Mr. WADE. I learned the way he told him he got in. + +Mr. RANKIN. How was that? + +Mr. WADE. On walking in on Main Street, the ramp down on Main Street. +And I was under the impression he told a lot of other people that. But +if he had been in that basement a long time it would have helped us a +lot to know it. It would have shown more premeditation, but I don't +think he actually had been in long from what I know about the case. + +But Ruby told Dean in his statement that he got in by going to the +Western Union and walking there and the cop was helping a car go +out into it. I don't know whether that is Dean, that is somebody's +statement, that he went in that ramp and was there maybe a minute or +two before they brought him out. + +Mr. RANKIN. Did Dean tell you why he left out of his prior statements +the statement about premeditation or prior thinking about killing +Oswald? + +Mr. WADE. Well, he was cross-examined about that, and told me also +that he wasn't asked about it. That that wasn't part of what his +report concerned. I mean, you have to keep in mind Dean is a uniformed +officer. He is sergeant, had nothing to do with the investigation of +the crime. He just happened to be the one who was sent up there to +show Sorrels how to get in the jail and out, you know. He wasn't an +investigative officer. + +Now, McMillon and Archer are detectives, you know, but he is not. He is +a uniformed man. + +Mr. RANKIN. What did McMillon tell you about his statement? + +Mr. WADE. He just told me what his testimony was. I didn't actually +talk to him over 30 minutes, I don't guess, during the noon hour and +I was talking to all of them. I had the various statements he made, +some of what he said was in the statements and some wasn't, so I don't +remember--but the same story was where he was and what he was supposed +to do and one dealt with security and the other dealt with statement +that he had made. Dean and McMillon and any of them didn't think these +statements were admissible while he was in the jail. + +Mr. RANKIN. Did McMillon make a statement about premeditation? + +Mr. WADE. He had in his statement that he meant to shoot three times, +which was premeditation, but I don't think he thought about it Friday +night. + +Mr. RANKIN. What about Archer, did he have anything in his statement +about Friday night in his prior statements? + +Mr. WADE. No, sir; I don't think he did. He did have about the +intending to shoot three times. + +Mr. RANKIN. When Dean was telling you about this statement about +planning to shoot Oswald on Friday night, was he telling you that Ruby +had told him that? + +Mr. WADE. Yes. + +Mr. RANKIN. He didn't tell that to Sorrels? + +Mr. WADE. I think he said he told it to both of them. I think that the +question on that, he said when he saw the snarl on his face he first +thought about killing him. Now the snarl on his face could have been +Friday night or Saturday night. + +Mr. DULLES. That is on Oswald's face? + +Mr. WADE. On Oswald's face. + +And I think that, I am not sure of this, but I think that Sorrels +remembers saying something about the snarl on his face. But I think the +question was whether they were talking before the time of the shooting +of Oswald or whether they was talking about Friday night and it is +Dean's impression that when he saw the snarl on his face is when he +first thought about killing him. + +I don't think he ever testified he planned to kill him or anything. I +think he said that is the first time he thought about killing him. + +Mr. RANKIN. What I wanted to get clear for the Commission was whether +Ruby was telling this in answer to questions from Dean or in answer to +questions from Sorrels? + +Mr. WADE. I think largely Sorrels. I think at the end Dean asked him +one or two questions, mostly about how he got in, I think. I think that +is what Dean was asking him about. But I think actually that this came +out in the conversation while Sorrels was at least taking the lead in +questioning him. + +And I think, my recollection is at the end, as Sorrels got through and +walked on over to the elevator, he asked him how he got in the jail or +something on that score rather than on this subject. + +Now, Dean is under the impression that all this came out while Sorrels +was there. But I don't think Sorrels, at least, didn't have it in his +notes and I don't think he would say it didn't happen but he didn't +remember it, you know. + +Mr. RANKIN. Did you make any further investigation of this addition or +change in the statements of Dean and these other people? + +Mr. WADE. I don't think there is any change in the statement. I think +you are asking a kind of a misleading question. + +I think that first report dealt entirely with the security in the +basement of the thing. + +Mr. RANKIN. You don't think that purported to relate what the +conversation was? + +Mr. WADE. Up in the jail, I don't think, you may have it there, and I +may be wrong. I never questioned him any more because like I said from +the time of the killing of Lee Harvey Oswald I thought that Friday +night was the time, in my own mind, that is what I thought, he had +thought about killing him. I don't say he said he would go arm himself, +but in my own mind I had that feeling all along and I thought it was +the first time he had thought about it, that is where I discounted +all the other theories there was a connection between them because I +saw him there and talked to him, and saw his excited demeanor, and so +you asked me did I question him any more, he finally told me, what I +actually thought were the facts and I do now incidentally. + +Mr. RANKIN. You have already testified that you thought it was Jack +Ruby before you even knew the name. + +Mr. WADE. Well, you may--I may have stressed a little saying thought. +When I was driving down there they said Dallas businessman kills him, +without his name. + +But in my own mind I said it must have been that Jack Ruby that was +down there the night before. I mean I was just talking to myself, there +wasn't nobody there. But like I say, one of those things, I might +be more truthful to say it ran through my mind rather than to say I +thought. + +Mr. DULLES. You didn't say that to your wife? + +Mr. WADE. I didn't say it to a soul. I went down there alone. I took +her home. We don't live four or five blocks and I drove downtown +myself, and it entered my mind and I will say when they announced +it I wasn't too surprised. I mean I had or thought about him as a +possibility. + +Mr. RANKIN. Now, did you get any assistance from the FBI, Secret +Service, and other agencies in the handling of these cases? + +Mr. WADE. Practically none. I never have seen the Secret Service +file. This Sorrels is the only one I talked with and I saw his report +although I never did get a copy of it. The FBI let us examine, I +believe all their files, I am not sure, but we couldn't take possession +of them and we had to send somebody up there to run through them and +dictate on them, and undoubtedly they helped us some in the trial. + +They helped us in this way. If you had a witness on the stand--I was +cross-examining and I would say, well now, you talked to the FBI and he +would say yes, sir, and they really picked up when they knew they had +talked to the FBI and then I would say didn't you tell them this and +they would usually admit it. + +Mr. RANKIN. Do you know whether the files of the--of either of +these agencies or both of them were made available to the police in +connection with the two cases? + +Mr. WADE. It is a one-way deal usually with the FBI, you know. They +don't usually tell you anything about their files but I say they did +show us their files on this, and whether they showed them to the police +I have no idea. + +I will say they turned their files to the U.S. attorney and let me send +somebody up there to look at it, 4,500 pages of it. + +But that was about a week before the trial, and during the picking of +the jury when we were still going through them. + +Mr. RANKIN. Did you learn anything during your investigation of the +Ruby case about the billfold and the ignition case in the car? + +Mr. WADE. Of Ruby's car? + +Mr. RANKIN. Yes. + +Mr. WADE. No. + +Mr. RANKIN. That didn't come to your attention? + +Mr. WADE. You know they found a lot of stuff in his car and a lot of +stuff on his person. I might say this--there are only two pieces of +evidence found on him I wanted to introduce during the trial and until +this day I never have found either one of them. + +I don't know where they are. The police say they gave them to us, and I +know they didn't. One was the receipt from the Western Union which we +never, can't find the original of that or a copy, which I think you all +have a copy of it. + +The second one was he had in his possession a "Lifeline Deal on +Heroism," telling about everybody had to take things into their own +hands and be a hero. + +We later got a copy of that because the night before the killing he +gave that to the Weird Beard up at KLIF, radio station, and told him +that we had to have some heroes, that was the night before the killing. + +We got a copy of what the article was but one of them, two or three +copies were in his possession but I never could find one to introduce. + +I never did know for sure whether to introduce it because there was a +lot of good American patriotism in the thing and, of course, there is a +lot of other that is complete hogwash, you know, and you don't know how +a jury is going to read part of it and like it and the other part not, +but the title of it was "Heroism" and he talked to the Weird Beard, +this was in testimony, that somebody had to be a hero. + +This was the night before the killing. + +This was in before, this was before the jury, and said he gave him an +article, the title of it was "Heroism," that he never did read. + +Mr. RANKIN. Have you supplied to the Commission all the information +that you have or has come to your attention with regard to the +assassination of the President? + +Mr. WADE. I don't know of anything. As far as I know, I have. I never +did get any information on the assassination of the President. I +requested them to send it up here to begin with. + +Mr. RANKIN. And all you have in regard to Jack Ruby, too. + +Mr. WADE. Everything I know of. + +Like I said I let them take those pictures of the physical evidence +last week, and there are supposed to be some things that I don't know +where it is. It is not in my office, I think the police have lost them +actually or at least they are up there and I don't think anybody is +trying to hide anything but it is just a situation there is so much +that it just got lost in the shuffle. + +Mr. RANKIN. So, far as you know it has all been supplied then? + +Mr. WADE. As far as I know it has. I don't know--I know of nothing in +my files that you don't have, and if there is you sure are entitled to +have it. I am not sure about this letter you mentioned from the lawyer, +the affidavit but I am pretty sure you all have that but I know I got +that during the trial and stuck it in my desk somewhere and I don't +even know where it is but it will be available. + +Mr. RANKIN. In any of these press conferences that you have described +did you ever say anything about the type of rifle that was thought to +be involved in the killing of the President? + +Mr. WADE. I think that was one of the inaccuracies that Sunday night on +the thing. + +Mr. RANKIN. What did you say about it? + +Mr. WADE. I think I said I thought it was a Mauser or I thought--was +one of those things I didn't know what it was. It was an Italian gun, I +think and I really thought I was giving them Italian but Mauser is a +German gun, isn't it? + +But I think you have that--it was a situation, I don't contend I +was right on that because it was a situation somebody asked me that +and that is what I thought I was telling them and I never--all my +information came from the police and actually somebody said originally +it was a Mauser but it turned out it was not. + +Mr. RANKIN. You learned it was not. + +Mr. WADE. Oh, yes; there was no question, I am not contending whatever +I said was so on that because I got it all secondhand from someone else. + +Mr. RANKIN. Did you learn that the Mauser-type rifle was similar in the +type of action to the gun that was involved. Did that ever come to your +attention? + +Mr. WADE. I think someone told me that but I am not an expert on guns. +I don't believe I ever saw this gun except from a distance. I think +that Saturday night--Friday night, the 22d when they were taking it to +Washington, I saw somebody take it through homicide and give it to the +FBI and from a distance, I never did examine it. + +Mr. RANKIN. In your testimony you were not entirely sure as to whether +Chief Curry had the gun during the press conference? + +Mr. WADE. No; I am not. I remember seeing some officer wave that gun +around. I was tying it into Chief Curry but it could have been the day +before, because that gun actually should have still been in Washington +on the 23d. + +Mr. RANKIN. Yes. + +Mr. WADE. I am deducting, I think probably that I saw someone else with +the gun, rather than Chief Curry. + +Mr. RANKIN. Did you in any press conference describe anything about +paraffin tests? + +Mr. WADE. I told them they gave him paraffin tests. I believe that--I +am not positive what I told them, but what I was told, they found +paraffin on one hand--powder showed positive on one hand. I don't know +which one, but I remember the police told me the paraffin test was +positive on one hand. I don't know which hand. + +Mr. RANKIN. Did you indicate what that meant in terms of the effect on +crime or its investigation? + +Mr. WADE. Well, of course, it meant that a man had fired a gun if they +find powder on his hands. I assume I have told them that. I think +that was Sunday night when we were laying out the evidence, so far as +I know. I don't think that was prior to his being killed. It was, it +shouldn't have been done, but I think that was Friday night. + +Mr. RANKIN. That is all I have, Mr. Chief Justice. Mr. Dulles has a few +questions. + +The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Dulles, do you have some questions you would like to +ask Mr. Wade? + +Mr. DULLES. Mr. Chief Justice, Mr. Ford, believing I was the only one +going to be here during the interrogation--during the entire session +this morning--gave me a few questions and asked me to tell you he was +very sorry he could not be here today, but he will be here tomorrow. + +The CHAIRMAN. Yes. + +Mr. DULLES. A great many of these questions have already been covered. +I will just run over them briefly. + +You have testified as to a telephone call that the attorney general +received from Washington, what he told you about that. Did you have +anything further to add to that? + +Mr. WADE. No, sir; I believe we have covered that all right. I +was trying to think. In the course of this thing, during all this +investigation, I have talked to Cliff Carter in the White House, or at +least he used to be, but I don't think we talked then on it. I think it +was later, the next day, and then 2 or 3 days later, as I recall, but +I believe right after they got back to Washington, I got a call from +Cliff Carter wondering whether they had the person, or something, but +Cliff was one of President Johnson's aides. + +Mr. DULLES. Yes. + +Mr. WADE. And I have talked with him later, I think, on, I don't know, +I don't think it concerned any of these problems, but I am just talking +out loud with you, but we have covered that fully and, I believe, the +attorney general told you that he had talked to somebody in the White +House about it and called me, I think that is where he told me where he +had---- + +Mr. DULLES. There were no other messages other than these messages that +you mentioned with Cliff Carter, is that right? + +Mr. WADE. Yes; I talked to him, but I don't think it concerned this +problem. I think it was on a--as a matter of fact, I think it was after +Ruby had shot Oswald when I talked to him, but it is one of those +things I can't remember. I hope you don't think I am trying not to tell +you, I don't mind telling you anything, but talking to you that I got +a call every 5 minutes, and so I don't know, mostly the press calling, +you know. + +Mr. DULLES. Was the conduct of the investigation of the assassination +hindered by any possible overlapping of jurisdiction between Federal, +State, and local authorities? You have dealt with that in a general +way. Do you have anything more to say on that point? + +Mr. WADE. Well, I think the investigation of the assassination was +carried on in a rather cooperative manner between all the agencies +concerned. I think this cooperation was more than generally you would +have. It was born out of a feeling that all the agencies were to some +extent on the spot, I think, your FBI, your Secret Service. I think +that bred cooperation rather than antagonism. I don't know of any +antagonism. I think the biggest fault with the investigation was your +press and television. + +I don't think there is any question that you people up here deal with +it. But you take a chief of police, a little chief of police, or a +little district attorney down there who is not used to having all, +everybody, calling you all hours of the night and asking you questions, +and then if you sneeze, write a front page story about what you said, +with no way to deny it, you know, and I think the press was the biggest +thing that caused--I don't think they ever ought to have been in the +police department to begin with. I would have liked to have kept them +out of the courtroom. The judge announced that he was going to have +them in the courtroom, but I was instrumental in keeping them out. + +Mr. DULLES. When we were in Dallas, it was suggested to us that the +press, radio, and news media kind of took possession of city hall +there, and it was a question of throwing them out by force of arms or +leaving them there. Do you have any comment on that? + +Mr. WADE. I don't know how they got in. I don't see how they could +run those big cables right through the chief of police's office there +without somebody giving them permission. However, I have no way of +knowing how they got in. + +Mr. DULLES. It was suggested to us that the chief of police was out at +the airport and did not get back, and found them in there when he got +back at 3 o'clock. + +Mr. WADE. How they got in I have no idea, but the whole mechanics of +the thing--for instance, in the homicide office, the whole office--you +probably have seen it--I don't imagine it is as big as this room. It is +cut up into little offices. + +Mr. DULLES. I was in there; yes. + +Mr. WADE. If you know, when I went into the office, went into that +office there Friday night, you had to push people back to open the door +to get out. You had police having to move the crowd, and they were just +stacked down that corridor, and it was a situation that should not have +developed. + +Of course, you have a situation where the press yell that the American +people have a right to know their President had been assassinated. I +don't say there are not two sides to the situation, but I think when +they get to interfering with the processes of law there is bound to be +a middle ground or some way to work it out. I can't solve it. + +Mr. DULLES. So far as you know, have all documents of any evidence, +of any kind whatsoever, collected by State and local authorities in +Texas been turned over to the Federal authorities and the President's +Commission? + +Mr. WADE. So far as I know they have. We have either sent it to the +Commission or to Mr. Waggoner Carr, and I assume whatever he gets +he sends to you all. I don't know of any documents; I don't know +whether--you don't have a transcript of the trial, but that will be +testimony. + +The CHAIRMAN. How long was the transcript, Mr. Wade? + +Mr. WADE. I don't know how many pages. I don't think--we don't have +our copy of it. We ordered a copy, and so--he filed a pauper's oath, +so I don't have any idea how long it will be. It was about 2 weeks of +testimony, an argument, and also 2 weeks of picking the jury. They took +all that down, all questioning of prospective jurors, so all that will +be in the transcript. + +The CHAIRMAN. Will that all be in the record on appeal? + +Mr. WADE. Yes, sir. + +The CHAIRMAN. Have they made any extra copies, do you know? + +Mr. WADE. I know they are making some extra copies that have been +bought by individuals, I believe Life magazine, some of those magazines +have ordered a copy. + +The CHAIRMAN. I see; yes. + +Mr. WADE. We are having to pay for ours. We are having to pay for ours, +and, of course, we will handle that, we will use that when briefing our +case on appeal. + +The CHAIRMAN. Do you know what it will cost? You don't know that yet? + +Mr. WADE. I think--we think--our copy will be $3,000. I mean I have got +that figure in my mind, because the Commissioners' Court kicked about +us having to pay court reporters who are working for the county, but I +think the court reporters wrote the law, but I have got in mind $3,000, +but that is a copy. The original usually is twice that much, but of +course, a copy is all you would want. But you can write Mr. Jimmy +Muleady. He is the official court reporter of that court. + +Mr. DULLES. You have testified with regard to the Hudkins and Goulden +rumors that the FBI or CIA or some other Federal agency might have +employed Oswald. One or the other of those correspondents indicated +that he got his information from some high official that he refused to +identify--he or they--refused to identify. Do you know anything about +that? + +Mr. WADE. No; Hudkins, as I recall, wrote in his article--I don't know +who the high official is, but I imagine they are basing it on me or +the police or someone--Hudkins put in his article, you know he wrote +all this stuff, he is a wild writer, and he said, "Henry Wade said he +doubted whether it would be public information" or something. + +Well, he came running into me one day there and said, "Now, I have got +all kinds of evidence that he is working for the FBI." + +And I said, "Well, fine, I have none myself," and he said, "What would +you think about it?" + +I said, "Well, you are getting onto a situation that I don't know +whether it ought to be public information or not." I mean, I asked, +suppose he did, I don't know whether it would be something that ought +to be written or not, well, more or less trying to get him not to write +the article, and I said, "Assuming it is so, I don't see you are doing +any good writing it." + +So he quoted from that. That is all the conversation I had with +Hudkins, and you can get that--I haven't seen the Goulden article, and +didn't talk with him. I haven't seen Joe Goulden--I assume it is Joe +Goulden. He left Dallas and went with a Philadelphia paper. So if it is +the situation, if I have seen it I don't remember anything about it, if +he wrote a story. + +But the high official, all I can tell you anything on that, I have +absolutely no evidence myself or any personal knowledge that he worked +for the FBI or any Federal agency, and the only thing I have heard are +rumors on the subject, and none of them that has got anything to base +it on that I know of. + +Does that cover that? + +Mr. DULLES. That covers that. + +You referred to the statement attributed to you made prior to Oswald's +killing that the case against him was closed. I understand you say that +was not correct, you did not make that statement. + +Mr. WADE. That is right. To the best of my knowledge, I never said +that. I mean that is what burned me up more than anything, more than +any other statement on television when I saw it. I had not been on +television. They have written this in the Dallas papers and some woman +wrote in and said she saw me say it on television. But I would like to +see a picture of it because the case never had actually been opened as +far as--I mean, we weren't investigating the case. I think that night +I told them, of course he is dead, there is no way of trying him. But +the purpose, one other purpose in that interview Sunday night was to +point out that I am sure the agencies will go on investigating it for +the benefit of posterity, and I actually, if not in that interview, +the following day, said I agreed with some Congressmen who said they +thought they ought to have a Federal investigation on a national level +of this thing. + +Mr. DULLES. Do you know whether any other Texas officials made any such +statement? + +Mr. WADE. I don't know whether anybody did. They quoted the chief of +police. They quoted Fritz on it, and then they started quoting me on +it, which is all saying that. But so far, to the best of my knowledge, +I never told anybody the case was closed, and I really think that Fritz +must have said something about it, and then people think the captain +of detectives and the district attorney and the chief are all about +the same, and it finally drifted over to me because I left the police +station and never had a word to say until that night when I was on +television. + +Mr. DULLES. Do you know whether there were any official transcripts +made of the various interrogations of Oswald from the time he was +captured to the time of his killing? + +Mr. WADE. If there are any, I have never seen them. I have asked +for them, but you are dealing with a man who not only doesn't make +transcripts, but doesn't even make notes. Captain Fritz is the one who +interrogated him most of the time, and if you--if there is any written +evidence of what he said it must be from the FBI or the Secret Service +or someone who interviewed him. I assume they make a record of what he +said to them. + +Mr. DULLES. If any transcript was made we would have had it, would we +not? So far as you know? + +Mr. WADE. The only thing I know I never have seen one, and I don't have +one of an interview, and I don't know of any--you should have it, but +you are dealing with Fritz there who interviewed Ruby, and Melvin Belli +went right into the conversation with Ruby, and Belli at 4 o'clock that +afternoon made everything admissible, and we couldn't get a thing, +couldn't put Fritz on the stand because he couldn't remember anything +that was helpful. I mean, he could remember Ruby rambling around the +situation, but I don't know of any transcript like that that I have +that you don't have. + +Mr. DULLES. In your talks, going back to your talks, with Mr. Carter at +the White House---- + +Mr. WADE. Carter; yes. + +Mr. DULLES. Carter--did any questions come up in these conversations +about not raising the issue that he was a Communist or that there might +be a conspiracy or something of that kind? + +Mr. WADE. No, sir; that conversation, I'm rather sure sometime Friday +afternoon, and he called me and said, "Are they making any progress on +the case?" You see, Cliff Carter and I are close personal friends. I +have known him, and they were all upset, and I said, "I don't know. I +have heard they have got some pretty good evidence." I think that is +the only conversation I had with him. + +Somebody told me, Mr. Carr, I believe, or Barefoot Sanders, that +they had had some conversations with some Washington officials, and +I have got an impression it was the State Department, but it might +have been--that they--concerning the international conspiracy angle. I +didn't discuss it because it was silly, I mean the whole thing was a +silly deal. + +I mean, if you would prove he was a Communist, suppose he gave a +statement he was a Communist, I wouldn't have put that in a murder +charge because I had to prove it. + +Mr. DULLES. That is all I have, Mr. Chief Justice. + +The CHAIRMAN. I think that is all, Mr. Wade. Thank you very much for +your cooperation. + +Mr. WADE. I appreciate what you all are doing and your problems you +have got up here. I know if I were in your place I would hate to listen +to somebody like me talk 5 hours. + +The CHAIRMAN. All right. We will recess until 2 o'clock. + +(Whereupon, at 12:50 p.m., the President's Commission recessed.) + + +Afternoon Session + +TESTIMONY OF PATRICK T. DEAN + +The President's Commission reconvened at 2 p.m. + +(Chairman Warren presiding and Mr. Dulles present.) + +The CHAIRMAN. All right, gentlemen. + +Do you have a statement? + +Mr. RANKIN. Sergeant Dean asked if he couldn't appear before the +Commission and testify. We took his deposition in Dallas, and he asked, +when he signed his deposition, whether he couldn't appear personally, +so we are permitting him to do this. + +The CHAIRMAN. We are very happy to have you, Sergeant. Will you raise +your right hand and be sworn, please? + +You solemnly swear the testimony you are about to give before the +Commission shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the +truth, so help you God? + +Mr. DEAN. I do. + +The CHAIRMAN. Be seated, please. + +Mr. Rankin, you may examine the witness. + +Mr. RANKIN. Sergeant, will you give us your name, your address, please? + +Mr. DEAN. Patrick T. Dean. I live at 2822 Nicholson Drive in Dallas. + +Mr. RANKIN. Are you connected with the police department in Dallas? + +Mr. DEAN. Yes, sir. + +Mr. RANKIN. What is your position? + +Mr. DEAN. I am a sergeant on patrol. + +Mr. RANKIN. How long have you been an official in the police department? + +Mr. DEAN. Eleven and a half years. + +Mr. RANKIN. Will you tell us briefly any training or experience you +have had? + +Mr. DEAN. Well, I worked as a patrolman for 5 years. Then I was +promoted to sergeant and remained in the patrol division. I have since +been in the patrol division the rest of the time. + +Mr. RANKIN. You have given us your deposition, have you not, Sergeant? + +Mr. DEAN. Yes, sir. + +Mr. RANKIN. And is that correct and true as far as anything you know? + +Mr. DEAN. Yes, sir. + +Mr. RANKIN. Is there any part of it that you want to change or correct +or modify? + +Mr. DEAN. No, sir; I feel the main reason I wanted to appear before +the Commission was about the 20 or 25 minutes that was off the record +that I feel I would like the Commission to have on the record, and this +is between Mr. Griffin and I. He was the original one who started my +deposition. + +Mr. RANKIN. Well, do you want to tell that at this time? + +First, is there anything about what you said on the record that was not +correct? + +Mr. DEAN. No, sir. + +Mr. RANKIN. And the truth? + +Mr. DEAN. No, sir. + +Well, Mr. Griffin had questioned me about 2 hours, or maybe a little +longer. There was no problems at all, no difficulties. And after that +length of time, a little over 2 hours, Mr. Griffin desired to get off +the record, and he advised the court reporter that he would be off the +record and he could go smoke a cigarette or get a Coke, and he would +let him know when he wanted him to get back on the record. + +Well, after the court reporter left, Mr. Griffin started talking to me +in a manner of gaining my confidence in that he would help me and that +he felt I would probably need some help in the future. + +My not knowing what he was building up to, I asked Mr. Griffin to go +ahead and ask me what he was going to ask me. He continued to advise +me that he wanted me to listen to what he had to say before he asked +me whatever question he was going to ask me. I finally told him that +whatever he wanted to ask me he could just ask me, and if I knew I +would tell him the truth or if I didn't know, I would tell him I didn't +know. + +Mr. Griffin took my reports, one dated February 18, the subject of it +was an interview with Jack Ruby, and one dated November 26, which was +my assignment in the basement. + +He said there were things in these statements which were not true and, +in fact, he said both these statements, he said there were particular +things in there that were not true, and I asked him what portions did +he consider not true, and then very dogmatically he said that, "Jack +Ruby didn't tell you that he entered the basement via the Main Street +ramp." + +And, of course, I was shocked at this. This is what I testified to, in +fact, I was cross-examined on this, and he, Mr. Griffin, further said, +"Jack Ruby did not tell you that he had thought or planned to kill +Oswald two nights prior." + +And he said, "Your testimony was false, and these reports to your chief +of police are false." + +So this, of course, all this was off the record. I told Mr. Griffin +then this shocked me, and I told him it shocked me; that I couldn't +imagine what he was getting at or why he would accuse me of this, and I +asked him, and Mr. Griffin replied he didn't or he wasn't at liberty to +discuss that particular part of it with me, and that he wasn't trying +to cross-examine me here, but that under cross-examination he could +prove that my testimony was false, and that is when I told Mr. Griffin +that these are the facts and I can't change them. This is what I know +about it. + +I quoted Ruby just about verbatim, and since he didn't believe me, and +I was saying they were true, we might as well terminate the interview. + +Mr. Griffin then got back on the record, or before he did get back +on the record, he said, "Well now, Sergeant Dean, I respect you as a +witness, I respect you in your profession, but I have offered my help +and assistance, and I again will offer you my assistance, and that I +don't feel you will be subjecting yourself to loss of your job," or +some words to that effect, "If you will go ahead and tell me the truth +about it." + +I again told Mr. Griffin that these were the facts and I couldn't +change them, so with that we got back on the record. + +Mr. RANKIN. Did you ask Mr. Griffin to ever put this part that was off +the record on the record? + +Mr. DEAN. No, sir; I didn't. + +Mr. RANKIN. Why didn't you at that time? + +Mr. DEAN. Well, now the discussion was, I said, "Mr. Griffin, I have +waived my rights for an attorney, of which I don't feel like I need +one." I still don't feel like I need one. + +The CHAIRMAN. And you do not need one either Sergeant. + +Mr. DEAN. True. + +The CHAIRMAN. You will get along all right. + +Mr. DEAN. Thank you. + +I said, "I have come over here with the idea of giving you all the +information that I have." In fact, I had some additional information +that I had gotten the night before, and it was a call that I had +received from some man in Victoria, Canada, who said he had a reel of +movie film that he had taken of the assassination. + +I got this man's name, where he called from, had the police department +in Victoria check to crisscross the number, and I gave him the +name--well, all the information as to where the call had originated +from, his name, also this man's attorney, he had given me his name, and +I told him that the reason the man had called, had called especially +for me at the police department, was that he had a reel of movie film +that he had taken the day of the assassination and that these--or the +camera was on the President at the time of the assassination, and he +described to me the position as to where he was, which was across and +in trajectory of the line of fire, and that he felt that in addition to +the assassination that he had gotten the School Book Depository. + +I told Mr. Griffin at the time that I had told this man--I can't +remember his name, the FBI has gotten it, and at the time I gave it +to Mr. Griffin, I told this man on the telephone from Victoria that +night that he should send these things, this film, that he said wasn't +developed, to the Warren Commission. + +He said, that is when he told me that he had contacted his attorney in +Victoria and that his attorney's name was Batter, and he spelled it +for me, B-a-t-t-e-r, and his attorney had advised him not to send this +information to the Warren Commission but to contact someone in Dallas +and send it to them. + +This man told me that he had read something about my testimony and +that he asked me would it be all right for him to send it to me, and +I told him, "Yes," and I said I was supposed to go back to the Warren +Commission and he could send it to me, and I would make it available +for them. + +This was just additional information that I told Mr. Griffin that I +was--this is an example--I was there to help them in any way I could. + +Mr. RANKIN. Now, the differences in your testimony that Mr. Griffin was +discussing with you off the record, you have gone into that in detail +on the record, haven't you, in your deposition? + +Mr. DEAN. Yes; I believe I have, about how Ruby entered the basement or +how he told me how he entered the basement. Also that he had thought +two nights prior when he saw Lee Oswald on a showup stand with a +sarcastic sneer on his face is when he decided if he got the chance he +would kill him. This was the thing that I testified in court about. I +was cross-examined in court. + +Mr. RANKIN. And you have explained all that in your deposition, haven't +you? + +Mr. DEAN. I believe so; I am not certain. + +Mr. RANKIN. And did he ask you about why you didn't have your--this +information about his planning to shoot Oswald the night before, or on +the Friday---- + +Mr. DEAN. Now, are you asking did Mr. Griffin ask me why I didn't---- + +Mr. RANKIN. Why you didn't put it in your February--in your statement +before the February 18 one? + +Mr. DEAN. Yes, sir; I believe he did, and I explained to him this +wasn't the subject--the subject of that November 26 report was my +assignment. I didn't put any of the conversation as to what Mr. Sorrels +and I talked to Mr. Ruby about. I did put at the closing paragraph, I +think, and I have a copy of it here, that my main concern was how he +got into the basement and how long he had been there because I was in +charge of the security of the basement. + +Mr. RANKIN. So you didn't put it in your prior reports? + +Mr. DEAN. No, sir; this was later on. Chief Curry--I think probably it +was February 18--and I think I probably wrote it that day, called me +to his office and asked me had I heard all the interview of Ruby and +Sorrels, and I told him that I did, and he asked me could I remember +it pretty well, and I said, "Yes, I believe I can remember most all of +it," and that is when Chief Curry told me that, he said, "Well, you are +going to have to testify to it because Mr. Sorrels can't because he +says he didn't warn Mr. Ruby when he was questioning him. + +Well, this was fine with me. I wrote the report. This was February 18. + +Mr. RANKIN. Did you tell Mr. Griffin at that time that you thought it +was unimportant or had some other reason for not including it? + +Mr. DEAN. I believe that I told him that the investigation, the focal +point, was as to how he got into the basement. There was an officer, +and I knew who the officer was, I assigned him there myself, and I +felt this was more of a part of the investigation in which it was +investigated--Officer R. E. Vaughan was investigated as to whether or +not he let Ruby into the basement or saw him in the basement, and, of +course, he was cleared of this. I know of no--the only information +I passed on about that was when Jack Ruby told me how he entered. I +told my superiors and then they carried it on from there as far as the +investigation. + +Mr. RANKIN. And about his planning to shoot him prior to the day +that---- + +Mr. DEAN. Now, this wasn't--the only time that I put that in the report +was February 18. + +Mr. RANKIN. Yes; did you explain to Mr. Griffin in your prior testimony +why you didn't put it in? + +Mr. DEAN. I believe that I did; I am not sure. + +Mr. RANKIN. Do you want to add anything to that, just anything that you +wanted, to the Commission? + +The CHAIRMAN. Do you recall whether you were asked that specific +question or not, Sergeant? May I ask, Mr. Rankin, was he asked that +question, and did he answer it? + +Mr. RANKIN. I have to look at the record to be sure. + +Mr. Chief Justice, in answer to your question, he was asked about what +was the first time that he had given this information and if this was +the date. He was not asked for any explanation as to why he didn't give +it at any earlier time. + +The CHAIRMAN. Then we can't blame him if he didn't answer why. + +Mr. RANKIN. No; I just wanted to find out if he wanted to add anything +at this time that would complete the record. + +The CHAIRMAN. Yes; all right. + +Mr. DEAN. Well, my main concern has been in some way this got out to +the papers. The only thing I told the papers was that I can't give any +statement. I said I have no comment, and I feel that the accusation +started with my denial because I haven't had an opportunity to deny it. +The story came out in the papers and it has been on the radio several +times, and, in fact, several times since the original, some weeks or so +after the paper learned of it of the so-called rift, as they put it. + +They had the one side of it that he accused me of lying. He didn't use +the word "lie," he just said, "These are false statements, and when +you testified in court you testified falsely." He didn't use the word +"lying," and a lot of papers have since then used the word "lying." + +I feel like the accusation is a lot stronger than my denial because +I haven't denied it. I haven't made any statement at all to press or +radio or any news media. I just told them it will have to come from the +Warren Commission or some other source. + +Mr. RANKIN. What I was asking, Sergeant, was whether there is anything +that you would like to tell the Commission or add to your testimony +about why it wasn't in the earlier statement prior to February 18 that +you haven't already told us. + +Mr. DEAN. Well, I don't think I would like--if I could, I would like +to know why Mr. Griffin had accused me of perjury. Of course, this is +something for you people to know, but I just--he wouldn't discuss it +with me. + +The CHAIRMAN. Well, Sergeant, I want to say to you that, of course, +without knowing what your conversation was with Mr. Griffin, I have +never talked to Mr. Griffin about this. I didn't know that you had +this altercation with him, but I want to say this: That so far as +the jurisdiction of this Commission is concerned and its procedures, +no member of our staff has a right to tell any witness that he is +lying or that he is testifying falsely. That is not his business. It +is the business of this Commission to appraise the testimony of all +the witnesses, and, at the time you are talking about, and up to the +present time, this Commission has never appraised your testimony or +fully appraised the testimony of any other witness, and furthermore, I +want to say to you that no member of our staff has any power to help or +injure any witness. + +So, so far as that conversation is concerned, there is nothing that +will be binding upon this Commission. + +Mr. DEAN. Yes, sir. + +The CHAIRMAN. But, as I say, I don't know what your conversation was +with Griffin, but I am just telling you as to what the limitations of +the members of our staff are. + +Mr. DEAN. Yes, sir; thank you. That is about all I had. + +Mr. RANKIN. That is all I have, Mr. Chief Justice. + +The CHAIRMAN. Well, thank you, Sergeant, for coming and feeling as you +do, I am glad you had the frankness to come and talk to the Commission, +and offer to testify concerning it. + +Mr. DEAN. Thank you. I appreciate the opportunity. + +The CHAIRMAN. All right, Sergeant. + +Mr. DEAN. Thank you. It is nice to have met you. + +Mr. RANKIN. Waggoner, do you want to take the stand for a minute about +that conversation? + +The CHAIRMAN. You are going to ask the General about it? + +Have you been sworn? + + +TESTIMONY OF WAGGONER CARR + +Do you solemnly swear the testimony you are about to give before the +Commission shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the +truth, so help you God? + +Mr. CARR. I do. + +The CHAIRMAN. Be seated, please. + +Proceed, Mr. Rankin. + +Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Carr, will you state your name and position for the +record? + +Mr. CARR. I am Waggoner Carr, attorney general of the State of Texas. + +Mr. RANKIN. And you are a practicing lawyer, are you? + +Mr. CARR. Yes, sir; before I was elected, I was practicing law in +Lubbock, Tex. Now, of course, being attorney general, this has taken me +out of the private practice. Prior to that I graduated from law school +at the University of Texas, had my pre-law with a BBA degree from Texas +Tech. I have been an assistant district attorney for the 72nd judicial +district in Texas; county attorney of Lubbock County for 2 years; +served in the Texas House of Representatives for 10 years, the last 4 +of those years being as Speaker of the House, and was elected attorney +general in 1960. + +Mr. RANKIN. You are the same Waggoner Carr who has participated from +time to time in observing these hearings and cooperating with the +Commission regarding its work? + +Mr. CARR. Yes. + +Mr. RANKIN. Insofar as the State of Texas is concerned? + +Mr. CARR. Yes. + +Mr. RANKIN. Were you here when Henry Wade was testifying with regard to +a conversation between himself and yourself, this morning? + +Mr. CARR. Yes, sir. + +Mr. RANKIN. Would you relate to us that conversation as you recall it, +both what you said and what he said? + +Mr. CARR. As I recall, it was around 8 or 9 o'clock at night on +November 22, 1963, when I received a long-distance telephone call from +Washington from someone in the White House. I can't for the life of me +remember who it was. + +A rumor had been heard here that there was going to be an allegation +in the indictment against Oswald connecting the assassination with an +international conspiracy, and the inquiry was made whether I had any +knowledge of it, and I told him I had no knowledge of it. + +As a matter of fact, I hadn't been in Dallas since the assassination +and was not there at the time of the assassination. + +So the request was made of me to contact Mr. Wade to find out if that +allegation was in the indictment. + +I received the definite impression that the concern of the caller was +that because of the emotion or the high tension that existed at that +time that someone might thoughtlessly place in the indictment such an +allegation without having the proof of such a conspiracy. So I did +call Mr. Wade from my home, when I received the call, and he told me +very much what he repeated to you today, as I recall, that he had no +knowledge of anyone desiring to have that or planning to have that +in the indictment; that it would be surplusage, it was not necessary +to allege it, and that it would not be in there, but that he would +doublecheck it to be sure. + +And then I called back, and--as I recall I did--and informed the White +House participant in the conversation of what Mr. Wade had said, and +that was all of it. + +Mr. RANKIN. Was there anything said to you at any time by anybody from +Washington that if there was any evidence that was credible to support +such an international conspiracy it should not be included in the +indictment or complaint or any action? + +Mr. CARR. Oh, no; absolutely not. There was no direct talk or indirect +talk or insinuation that the facts, whatever they might be, should +be suppressed. It was simply that in the tension someone might put +something in an indictment for an advantage here or disadvantage there, +that could not be proved, which would have very serious reaction, which +the local person might not anticipate since he might not have the +entire picture of what the reaction might be. + +Mr. RANKIN. Thank you. That is all I have, Mr. Chief Justice. + +The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Attorney General, I don't know whether you will be +testifying on any other subject before the Commission or not, but +in the event that you do not, and both of us are not here in the +Commission again at the same time, I want to say to you for the record +that from the very beginning of our investigation your cooperation has +been complete, it has been enthusiastic, and it has been most helpful +to the Commission. + +The Commission and I all appreciate it very much indeed. + +Mr. CARR. Well, thank you, sir. I will say this, that it has been a +very pleasant experience for us, and I think set a good example of how +a State government and a Federal Government can cooperate together +where we have common objectives such as this, where we are trying to +determine the facts and nothing else. + +Mr. DULLES. May I add my voice to that, Mr. Chief Justice? + +The CHAIRMAN. Yes; indeed, you may. + +Mr. DULLES. I know that has been true as far as I am personally +concerned, and during our trip to Dallas, Mr. Carr was of great help to +us. + +Could I ask just one question? + +The CHAIRMAN. Yes, indeed. + +Mr. DULLES. Was there any indication in the call from the White House +as to whether this was a leftist, rightist, or any other type of +conspiracy or, as far as you recall, was just the word "conspiracy" +used? + +Mr. CARR. As far as I recall, it was an international conspiracy. This +was the idea, but I don't know whether the word "Communist" was used or +not, Mr. Dulles. It could have been, or maybe I just assumed that if +there was a conspiracy it would only be a Communist conspiracy. I don't +know which it was, but it was a perfectly natural call. + +The circumstances that existed at the time, knowing them as I did, and +the tension and the high emotion that was running rampant there, it was +not inconceivable that something like that could have been done, you +understand, without any thought of harming anyone or any thought of +having to prove it, as long as you didn't know that under our Texas law +you have to prove every allegation made in an indictment. If you didn't +know that, it might seem logical that someone might put something like +that into an indictment, factual or not. + +Mr. DULLES. Thank you very much. + +Mr. CARR. But there was no such thing going on. + +The CHAIRMAN. Well, General, I think that will be all then. Thank you +very much. + +Mr. CARR. Yes, sir. + +The CHAIRMAN. The Commission is adjourned. + +(Whereupon, at 2:50 p.m., the President's Commission recessed.) + + + + +_Tuesday, June 9, 1964_ + +TESTIMONY OF RICHARD EDWARD SNYDER, JOHN A. McVICKAR, AND ABRAM CHAYES + +The President's Commission met at 10 a.m., on June 9, 1964, at 200 +Maryland Avenue NE., Washington, D.C. + +Present were Chief Justice Earl Warren, Chairman; Senator John Sherman +Cooper, Representative Gerald Ford, and Allen W. Dulles, members. + +Also present were William T. Coleman, Jr., assistant counsel; W. David +Slawson, assistant counsel; Charles Murray, observer; and Dean Robert +G. Storey, special counsel to the attorney general of Texas. + + +TESTIMONY OF RICHARD EDWARD SNYDER + +(Members present at this point: Chief Justice Warren, and Mr. Dulles.) + +The CHAIRMAN. Gentlemen, the Commission will come to order. Mr. +Coleman, would you make a statement as to the purpose of the meeting +this morning? + +Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. Chief Justice, the first witness is Mr. Richard E. +Snyder, who is presently first secretary in the American Embassy in +Tokyo, Japan, and was second secretary and consul, American Embassy, +Moscow, U.S.S.R., in 1959, and remained in that post in Moscow through +at least the middle of 1961. + +Mr. Snyder will be asked to testify concerning Lee Harvey Oswald's +actions when he came into the American Embassy in Moscow on October 31, +1959, and stated that he desired to renounce his U.S. citizenship, the +actions which the Embassy took at that time, and the information which +it gave to the State Department. + +Mr. Snyder also handled the interview of Oswald when he appeared at the +Embassy in July of 1961, and had his passport returned to him, and will +be asked to testify about the return of the passport. + +Mr. Snyder will also be asked to identify for the record the various +Embassy dispatches and State Department instructions which were +exchanged concerning Oswald in 1959, 1960, and to the middle of 1961. + +The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Snyder, it is customary for us to read a statement of +that kind to the witness, so you will be apprised of what we are going +to interview you about. + +Will you please rise and raise your right hand and be sworn? + +Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to give before +this Commission shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but +the truth, so help you God? + +Mr. SNYDER. I do, sir. + +The CHAIRMAN. You may be seated. + +Mr. Coleman will conduct the examination. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. Snyder, will you state your name for the record. + +Mr. SNYDER. Richard Edward Snyder. + +Mr. COLEMAN. And what is your present address? + +Mr. SNYDER. 118 Geary Drive, South Plainfield, N.J. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Are you presently employed by the Federal Government? + +Mr. SNYDER. Yes, sir. + +Mr. COLEMAN. In what capacity? + +Mr. SNYDER. As a Foreign Service officer of the Department of State. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Where are you presently stationed? + +Mr. SNYDER. In Tokyo, American Embassy. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Directing your attention to the fall of 1959, were you +employed by the Federal Government at that time? + +Mr. SNYDER. Yes, sir. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Where were you stationed? + +Mr. SNYDER. At the Embassy in Moscow. + +Mr. COLEMAN. What was your title? + +Mr. SNYDER. Second secretary and consul, sir. + +Mr. COLEMAN. I take it that you have had called to your attention a +copy of the joint resolution which was adopted by Congress with respect +to the Commission. + +Mr. SNYDER. Yes, sir. + +Mr. COLEMAN. And I also take it that since you have been back in the +country that you have had an opportunity to look at the various State +Department files dealing with Oswald. + +Mr. SNYDER. Yes, sir. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Calling your attention to the date of October 31---- + +Mr. DULLES. Could I ask one question, Mr. Coleman, about that? What +previous posts had you had before going to Moscow? + +Mr. SNYDER. Well, my first post in the Foreign Service---- + +Mr. DULLES. I am interested as an old Foreign Service officer. + +Mr. SNYDER. I see. I served for a brief time in HICOG in Frankfurt, +Germany and then for about 2 years in Munich, in the consulate general, +which was my first post in the Foreign Service. + +My second post, I spent 1 year in the boondocks of Japan, in Niigata, +on the Sea of Japan, in a one-man cultural center. + +Mr. DULLES. As a Foreign Service officer? + +Mr. SNYDER. As a Foreign Service officer; yes, sir. I was assigned to +this duty at a time when USIS was still part of the State Department, +and when I reached my post it had already been separated, so I was on +loan to them. And then a year and a half in Tokyo. Then a summer and +an academic year at Harvard, in Russian area studies. + +Mr. DULLES. In what school there? + +Mr. SNYDER. In Littauer. + +Mr. DULLES. Did you learn Russian at that time? + +Mr. SNYDER. No; I had had Russian in college before. + +Mr. DULLES. So you speak Russian fairly fluently? + +Mr. SNYDER. Fairly fluently; yes, sir. + +Mr. DULLES. And then Moscow was your next post? + +Mr. SNYDER. And then Moscow for 2 years; yes, sir. + +Mr. DULLES. What 2 years? + +Mr. SNYDER. July of 1959 to July of 1961. I arrived there just before +the Vice President. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Directing your attention, sir, to October 31, 1959, did +you have occasion to see Lee Harvey Oswald on that day? + +Mr. SNYDER. Yes, sir. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Had you ever seen him before? + +Mr. SNYDER. No, sir. + +(At this point, Representative Ford entered the hearing room.) + +Mr. COLEMAN. Had you ever heard about him before? + +Mr. SNYDER. No. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Could you state for the Commission just what happened when +you saw Mr. Oswald on October 31. 1959, indicating the time of day, +what he said, and what you did? + +The CHAIRMAN. Before you answer that question, may I say that this is +Congressman Ford, a member of the Commission. + +This is Mr. Snyder of the State Department now stationed in Tokyo, and +who was stationed at the Embassy in Moscow when Oswald attempted to +defect. + +Representative FORD. Thank you. + +Mr. SNYDER. Well, as for the time of day, I am afraid I draw a blank. +I can make some assumptions as to the time of day, for what they are +worth. + +But since I told Oswald--and you will come to this, I think, a little +later on--that the Embassy was closed theoretically at the time, I +presume this was a Wednesday afternoon or perhaps a Saturday afternoon, +but I just don't recall. + +Mr. COLEMAN. For the record, I think it was a Saturday, sir. + +Mr. SNYDER. Was it a Saturday? + +So, at any rate--if it had been a morning, I could not have used this +particular approach with him. So I presume it was an afternoon. + +Oswald came into the Embassy without prior announcement. He didn't call +or in any other way communicate with us, to the best of my knowledge. + +Mr. DULLES. You had no way of knowing he was in Russia? + +Mr. SNYDER. I had no previous knowledge of his presence; no, sir. + +At any rate, he came in to me cold, so to speak. I was told that an +American wanted to see me, wanted to see the consul. And I am not sure +whether I went out and brought him in or whether he was taken into my +office by someone else. At any rate, this was my first meeting with +Oswald. + +I will be glad to give you such recollections as I have as to his +general demeanor and this sort of thing, if you would like. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Yes, sir. + +Mr. SNYDER. And I might inject at this point something which I +mentioned to Mr. Slawson before our session began, and that is that +I reviewed the files, our own files, on Oswald, enough to refresh my +memory as to the basic facts and the chronology of events and this sort +of thing, but I have attempted not to go too deeply into details with +the thought that what the Commission is interested in, presumably, is +what I honestly remember at the time and not so much what may have been +planted in my mind by reviews since that time. + +As to his general appearance, I do recall that he was neatly and very +presentably dressed. I couldn't say offhand whether he was dressed +in a suit and shirt, though I think probably he was. At any rate, he +presented a nice physical appearance. + +I presume that he was well shaven. Otherwise, I would not have had this +feeling about him--that he, in general, was competent looking. + +He was extremely sure of himself. He seemed to know what his mission +was. He took charge, in a sense, of the conversation right from the +beginning. He told me in effect that he was there to give up his +American citizenship. I believe he put his passport on my desk, but +I am not sure. I may have asked for it. In general, his attitude was +quite arrogant. + +Mr. DULLES. Could I ask one question there? When you say you presume +you asked for it, you mean you asked to see it--you didn't ask to take +it from him? + +Mr. SNYDER. No, I asked to see it. If he didn't put it on the desk, +then I asked for it early in the game--one way or the other. + +He told me, among other things, that he had come to the Soviet Union +to live, that he did not intend to go back to the United States, that +this was a well thought out idea on his part. He said, again in effect, +"Don't bother wasting my time asking me questions or trying to talk me +out of my position." + +He said, "I am well aware"--either he said, "I am well aware" or "I +have been told exactly the kind of thing you will ask me, and I am not +interested, so let's get down to business"--words to that effect. + +Well, he was a very cocksure young man at that time. + +I am not sure that he sat at all throughout the interview, but +certainly in the early part of it he did not. + +I asked him--I recall asking him to take a seat, and he said, no, he +wanted to stand. He may have relented later on. + +At any rate, I did nevertheless probe about and elicited a bit of +information about him which was in my report to the Department of State. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Sir, was anyone else present at the time you were talking +to Mr. Oswald? + +Mr. SNYDER. No; I believe Mr. McVickar was in the next room. But there +was no one in the room with us at that time. + +Mr. COLEMAN. How long did the interview with Mr. Oswald last, +approximately? + +Mr. SNYDER. Well, I would have to pull it out of the air, really. It +would be on the order of magnitude of half an hour. It might have +extended to three-quarters of an hour, something of this sort. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Other than the passport, did he give you any other piece +of paper? + +Mr. SNYDER. Yes, yes; he did. He gave me a written statement saying +something along the line of what I have said he mentioned to me orally. +That is, that he had come to the Soviet Union to live, that he desired +to renounce his citizenship, that he was going to become a citizen of +the Soviet Union, words to that effect. + +Mr. DULLES. We have that written statement, do we not? + +Mr. COLEMAN. I have marked as Commission Exhibit No. 913 a photostatic +copy of a handwritten letter which is signed by Lee H. Oswald, and +ask you whether that is a copy of the letter that Oswald gave you on +October 31, when he appeared at the Embassy? + +(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 913 for +identification.) + +Mr. SNYDER. Yes; I would say it is, sir. + +Mr. COLEMAN. After he gave you the letter and the passport, did he do +anything else? + +Mr. SNYDER. No; after his initial statement of purpose and intent, and +after giving me this statement, the interview was then pretty much in +my hands. He was, I would say, a reluctant interviewee from there on. + +He had announced initially his desire not to discuss the matter with +me, but simply to get on with the business for which he had come and, +therefore, anything else that was to be said was up to me to get said. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Did you at that time go through whatever formalities are +required for a person to renounce his citizenship? + +Mr. SNYDER. No; I did not. + +Mr. COLEMAN. What does an American citizen have to do at the Embassy to +renounce his citizenship? + +Mr. SNYDER. Well, the law requires, in general, that an American +citizen, to renounce his citizenship, must appear before--I am not +sure whether the law confines it to a consular officer--but at any +rate must appear, in the case of the Foreign Service, appear before +a consular officer, and swear to an affidavit in the proper form, +something of this order. In practical terms, it means that the consul +draws up a statement, the content of which--the exact wording of which +is contained in our regulations, and has the person swear to it in his +presence. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Well, did Mr. Oswald ask for such an affidavit? + +Mr. SNYDER. I don't think he asked for such an affidavit in those +terms. I am not sure that he understood that completely, what the +procedure was. But he did ask to renounce his citizenship. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Well, did you provide him with the affidavit? + +Mr. SNYDER. No, sir; I did not. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Why didn't you provide him with the affidavit at that time? + +Mr. SNYDER. Well, as the consul and, of course, the responsible person +at the time, it didn't seem to me the sensible thing to do--in the +sense that--I can't, I suppose, speak for all consuls, but it is sort +of axiomatic, I think, in the consular service that when a man, a +citizen comes in and asks to renounce his citizenship, you don't whip +out a piece of paper and have him sign it. This is a very serious step, +of course, an irrevocable step, really, and if nothing else you attempt +to provide enough time for--to make sure that the person knows what +he is doing. You explain, for one thing, what the meaning of the act +is; and, secondly, again speaking for myself--I cannot speak for the +Foreign Service in this--provide a little breather, if possible make +the man leave your office and come back to it at a later time, just +to make sure--for what value there is in making sure--that the man's +action is not something completely off the top of his head. + +Representative FORD. Mr. Chairman, would it be helpful for the record +to have put in the record at this point whatever the law is in this +regard, and whatever the Department regulations are on this point? + +The CHAIRMAN. That may be done; yes. + +Mr. COLEMAN. I would like to say, sir, at 2 o'clock the Legal Adviser +to the State Department is coming in, and he is going to put it in at +that time. + +Mr. DULLES. May I ask a question at this point? + +Mr. COLEMAN. If you want it in now, we can indicate the sections which +are applicable. + +Representative FORD. I think there ought to be some citation at this +point, because the witness is talking specifically about the process of +the law and the regulations. + +The CHAIRMAN. Do you have the law there, Mr. Snyder--is that the law? + +Mr. SNYDER. I brought nothing with me, myself. + +The CHAIRMAN. I saw a book there that you were looking at, and I +thought that would suffice. + +Mr. SNYDER. Shall I read the section of law, sir? + +This is the Immigration and Nationality Act, section 349(a)(6). + +Section 349(a) states, "From and after the effective date of this Act, +a person who is a national of the United States, whether by birth or +naturalization, shall lose his nationality by"--then section 6 under +that, subsection, states, "making a formal renunciation of nationality +before a diplomatic or consular officer of the United States in a +foreign state in such form as may be prescribed by the Secretary of +State." + +Mr. COLEMAN. Sir, the Secretary of State has promulgated regulations +which are found in 22 Code of Federal Regulations, sections 50.1 and +50.2 and they are also reproduced in 8 Foreign Affairs Manual, section +225.6. + +Basically, as I understand it, those regulations provide the form in +which the citizen is to make the renunciation, and it is to be done in +four copies, and then one copy is to be given to the person who makes +the renunciation. Is that your understanding? + +Mr. SNYDER. This is my understanding; yes, sir. + +Representative FORD. Are those forms available? Are they printed up, or +do you have to draft them? What is the circumstance? + +Mr. SNYDER. They are not printed forms, to my knowledge, Mr. Ford--at +least I have never seen a printed form. The only time that I have used +them in my Foreign Service experience I have had them typed up on the +spot. + +The CHAIRMAN. You may continue, Mr. Coleman. + +Mr. DULLES. We ought to have in the record, Mr. Chief Justice, a copy +of that form--either here or later. + +The CHAIRMAN. As I understood, someone from the State Department is +coming here to testify on the procedures, and the witness did not bring +anything with him, he says. + +Mr. SNYDER. That is right, sir. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. Snyder, when you were talking to Mr. Oswald on October +31, 1959, did he say anything with respect to applying for Soviet +citizenship? + +Mr. SNYDER. Yes; this was contained in his written statement, for one +thing, and I believe that he also stated this to me orally. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Did he say anything with respect to having any information +since he had been in the Marine Corps that he would be willing to make +available to the Soviet Union? + +Mr. SNYDER. Yes; he did. He stated again, in effect, that he would make +available to the Soviet authorities or to the Soviet Union what he had +learned concerning his speciality--he was an electronics specialist of +some sort, a radar technician--at any rate, he would make available to +the Soviet Union such knowledge as he had acquired while in the Marine +Corps concerning his specialty. + +He volunteered this statement. It was rather peculiar. + +Mr. COLEMAN. You say that the interview lasted about a half an hour. I +take it he then left. Did he say he was going to return? + +Mr. SNYDER. No; I don't believe he did. He gave no particular +indication of when he would return, if he would return, or this sort of +thing. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Do you recall just what he said when he left your office? + +Mr. SNYDER. No, sir. + +Mr. COLEMAN. I show you a document---- + +Mr. DULLES. Could I ask one question there? Did he take his passport or +did he leave it? + +Mr. SNYDER. No; I kept it. + +Mr. DULLES. You kept the passport? + +Mr. SNYDER. Yes, sir. + +Mr. COLEMAN. I show you a document which has been marked Commission +Exhibit No. 908, and it is a Foreign Service dispatch dated November +2, 1959. This is from Embassy, Moscow, to the Department of State, +Washington. It is signed by Edward L. Freers, but on the first page +there is an indication it was actually drafted by you. Do you recall +drafting the original of that document? + +Mr. SNYDER. Yes, sir. + +(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 908 for +identification.) + +Mr. COLEMAN. That statement was drafted within a day or two after you +had the interview with Mr. Oswald. I take it it reflects what happened +at that time. + +Mr. SNYDER. Yes, sir. + +Mr. DULLES. Was there any cabled report of this incident? + +Mr. SNYDER. Yes; I cabled a report on the 31st, Mr. Dulles. Commission +Exhibit No. 908 is a somewhat fuller report, 2 days later. + +Mr. COLEMAN. To answer Mr. Dulles' question, I show you a document +which has been marked Commission Exhibit No. 910, which purports to be +a copy of a cable from Moscow to the Secretary of State, and ask you +whether that is the cable which was sent off on October 31, 1959. + +(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 910 for +identification.) + +Mr. SNYDER. Yes, sir. + +Mr. COLEMAN. I also had marked, and I would like to show you, +Commission Exhibit No. 909, which is a copy of a telegram from American +Embassy, Tokyo, to Secretary of State, dated November 27, 1963. This +telegram purports to be an interview which the Ambassador in Tokyo had +with you immediately after the assassination in which you attempted to +recall what happened on October 31, 1959, when Mr. Oswald appeared at +the Embassy. + +(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 909 for +identification.) + +Mr. COLEMAN. I ask you if you can identify that telegram? + +Mr. SNYDER. Might I just inject something? I notice in my reports, on +my first interview with Oswald, that I mention the Petrulli case. You +might at this time or later on wish to refer to the Petrulli case. + +Mr. DULLES. Mr. Chairman, this cable is very short and quite +significant. I wonder if it could not be read into the record at this +point, just for the continuity of the record. + +Mr. SNYDER. There is a slight problem of classification on these, Mr. +Dulles. I don't know how public the records are. + +Mr. DULLES. Maybe you could paraphrase it, then. You mean it is a +question of codes? + +Mr. SNYDER. It is a question of code security; yes, sir. + +The CHAIRMAN. If this is in the record, it will be published. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Off the record. + +(Discussion off the record.) + +The CHAIRMAN. Back on the record. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Would you be kind enough to read Commission Exhibit No. +910 into the record? + +Mr. SNYDER. In paraphrase? + +The CHAIRMAN. Paraphrase, yes; in your own way. + +Representative FORD. Of course keeping the intent of what was said +precisely as it was sent. + +Mr. SNYDER. Yes, sir. + +A person appeared at the Embassy today, October 31, identified himself +as Lee Harvey Oswald, and stated that he had come to renounce his +American citizenship. He was the bearer of U.S. passport No. 1733242, +date of issuance September 10, 1959, which showed him to be unmarried +and gave his age as 20, or which showed him to be 20--it gives his date +of birth. Mr. Oswald stated that he had applied for Soviet citizenship +in Moscow. He stated that he had entered the Soviet Union from +Helsinki, Finland, on October 15. He said that he had contemplated this +action for the previous 2 years. The main reason given was that "I am a +Marxist." He has a mother living at 4936 Collinwood Street, Fort Worth, +Tex., which was also his last address. + +His attitude was arrogant and aggressive. He stated that he had +recently been discharged from the Marine Corps. He also volunteered +the information that he had offered to the Soviet authorities any +information which he had acquired as an enlisted radar operator in the +Marines. + +In view of the Petrulli case, the Embassy proposes to delay completing +the renunciation procedure until the action of the Soviet authorities +on his request for Soviet citizenship is known or the Department +advises. + +A dispatch follows. + +The press has been informed. + +The CHAIRMAN. Would the Commissioners like to see the document itself? + +Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. Snyder, could you tell the Commission what the +Petrulli case was? + +Mr. SNYDER. Yes. The Petrulli case I remember quite well. + +Mr. Petrulli was an American citizen who came into the Embassy some +weeks before, I believe, asking to renounce his American citizenship. +Mr. Petrulli hung around Moscow for quite some time, again a number of +weeks, and perhaps as long as 3 weeks or a month. He had entered the +Soviet Union as a tourist, I believe. + +It is not clear what intent he had when he arrived. + +But, at any rate, he did apply for Soviet citizenship while in Moscow, +and he did come into the Embassy, and was interviewed by me to renounce +his American citizenship. I did not, in accordance with the thinking +which I outlined to you earlier--I did not accept his renunciation +the first time he came in, but did accept it when he subsequently +appeared, and insisted that is what he wanted to do. + +The case had a--I might skip over the minor details, but it had a +rather rapid denouncement, when the Soviet authorities, after having +looked him over for a number of weeks, decided they did not want him +as a citizen or resident of the Soviet Union. And when we subsequently +learned, that is I learned, from my reporting to the Department, and +correspondence with them, that Mr. Petrulli had been discharged from +the Armed Forces some time earlier on, I believe, a 100-percent mental +disability--the Soviet, I think it was the head of the consular section +of the Soviet Foreign Ministry, called me into the Foreign Ministry one +day and said words to the effect that an American citizen Mr. Petrulli, +has overstayed his visa in the Soviet Union, he is living here +illegally, and "We request that you take steps to see that he leaves +the country immediately." + +I told the Soviet official that to the best of my knowledge Mr. +Petrulli was not then an American citizen, he having executed a +renunciation of citizenship before me. + +The Soviet official said in effect, "As far as we are concerned, he +came here on an American passport, and we ask that you get him out of +here." + +Well, again to end what was a long, involved and terribly +time-consuming story at the time, it was determined by the Department +that Mr. Petrulli's renunciation was null and void because he was not +competent, and therefore he was an American citizen, and we shipped him +home. + +The Petrulli case, as I say, was very much in my mind when Mr. Oswald +showed up. + +Mr. COLEMAN. After you sent the telegram, which is Commission Exhibit +No. 910, to the State Department, I take it that the first word that +you received from the State Department is a telegram which I have +marked as Commission Exhibit No. 916. + +(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 916 for +identification.) + +Mr. SNYDER. Yes. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Now, by paraphrasing, could you read the second paragraph +of that telegram into the record? + +Mr. SNYDER. "For your information, in the event that Mr. Oswald insists +on completing a renunciation of his United States citizenship, the +Embassy is precluded by the provisions of section 1999 of the Revised +Statutes from withholding the right to do so without regard to the +status of his application for citizenship which is pending before the +Soviet government and without regard to the Petrulli case." + +Mr. COLEMAN. At the same time that you were notifying the State +Department that Oswald had appeared, someone in the Embassy also sent +a telegram to the Navy Department, didn't he, advising that Oswald, a +former Marine, had appeared at the Embassy and stated that he was a +radar operator in the Marine Corps, and that he had offered to furnish +the Soviets the information he possessed on radar. + +I have marked as Commission Exhibit No. 917 this telegram and ask you +whether that is the telegram that went forth to the Navy Department. + +(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 917 for +identification.) + +Mr. SNYDER. I don't recall that I saw this telegram at the time. But I +would say from the content of it, and the form, that it is clearly a +telegram sent by the naval attaché of the Embassy to his home office. + +Mr. COLEMAN. We also have had marked as Commission Exhibit No. 918 the +telegram which the Navy sent in reply to Commission Exhibit No. 917. + +(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 918 for +identification.) + +Mr. COLEMAN. Have you seen that before and can you identify that? + +Mr. SNYDER. I do not recall having seen this telegram before; no, sir. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Now, sir; the next contact that you had with Oswald was by +a letter dated November 3, 1959, which has been marked as Commission +Exhibit No. 912, is that correct? + +(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 912 for +identification.) + +Mr. SNYDER. Yes--to the best of my knowledge, this was the next thing +that I heard of Oswald--the next thing I heard from Oswald. + +Mr. COLEMAN. How did the original of Commission Exhibit No. 912 come +into your possession? + +Mr. SNYDER. I believe it came through the mail. + +Mr. COLEMAN. And after you received Commission Exhibit No. 912, what +did you do? + +Mr. SNYDER. I wrote Mr. Oswald a reply, I believe, the same day. + +The CHAIRMAN. Exhibit No. 912 was a request to revoke his application +to renounce citizenship, was it not? + +Mr. COLEMAN. No, Mr. Chief Justice; Commission Exhibit No. 912 is a +letter from Mr. Oswald complaining that the Embassy had not permitted +him to renounce. + +The CHAIRMAN. I misread it. Yes; that is right. Excuse me. + +Mr. COLEMAN. You say you wrote Mr. Oswald a letter the same day? + +We have had marked as Commission Exhibit No. 919 a letter from Richard +E. Snyder, to Lee Harvey Oswald, dated November 6, 1959. + +(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 919 for +identification.) + +Mr. COLEMAN. I show it to you and ask you is this a copy of the letter +which you wrote to Mr. Oswald? + +Mr. SNYDER. Yes, sir. + +Representative FORD. Mr. Chairman---- + +Mr. DULLES. Could we have some indication of what that letter is, for +the record. + +The CHAIRMAN. Referring back to Exhibit No. 912, where I was acting +apparently under some misapprehension I read the first three lines and +it said "Nov. 3, 1959. I, Lee Harvey Oswald, do hereby request that my +present United States citizenship be revoked." Well, that is consistent +with what was said. + +Representative FORD. I think that is a pretty categorical statement. + +The CHAIRMAN. Yes; it is. + +Representative FORD. He subsequently, in Exhibit No. 912, makes a +protest about the fact that he was not accorded that right previously. +But I don't see how we could come to any other conclusion but the first +three lines are a specific request for the right to revoke his American +citizenship. + +The CHAIRMAN. Yes; but I had misread that first sentence, and I had +asked if it wasn't a revocation of his original request. I was in error +when I said that. You are correct, absolutely, on your interpretation +of it. + +Mr. COLEMAN. As a result of receiving Commission Exhibit No. 912, you +wrote Mr. Oswald a letter which has been--a copy of which has been +marked and identified as Commission Exhibit No. 919, is that correct? + +Mr. SNYDER. Yes, sir. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Earlier in your testimony, when asked about what a citizen +has to do to renounce his citizenship, you referred to section 349(a) +(6). + +I would like to call your attention to the fact there is also another +provision--section 349(a) (2)--which provides that an American citizen +shall lose his nationality by "taking an oath or making an affirmation +or other formal declaration of allegiance to a foreign state or a +political subdivision thereof." + +Did you consider whether the Oswald letter, marked as Commission +Exhibit No. 912, was such an affirmation or other formal declaration? + +Mr. SNYDER. There is a considerable body of law, I believe, +interpreting this provision of law as to what constitutes an +affirmation or other formal declaration. I believe that I was quite +aware at the time that a mere statement did not constitute a formal +declaration within the meaning of the law. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Did---- + +Mr. DULLES. May I ask one question about Exhibit No. 912? + +In the second paragraph of this letter, Exhibit No. 912, Oswald says, +"I appered [sic] in person at the consulate office of the United States +Embassy, Moscow, on Oct. 31st, for the purpose of signing the formal +papers to this effect. This legal right I was refused at that time." + +Do you know how he learned about his legal rights? Did you tell him his +legal rights in your conversation with him? Or where did he get the +information about his legal rights, if you know about that? + +Mr. SNYDER. Well, to the best of my knowledge, Mr. Dulles, I did +discuss with Oswald both the significance of his act and the legal +basis of it, and so forth. And I believe that in the letter which I +wrote to him---- + +Mr. DULLES. Which was subsequent to Exhibit No. 912, was it not, in +answer to 912? + +Mr. SNYDER. In answer to Exhibit No. 912--in the letter which I wrote, +replying to this, I purposely used the word, I think, "again", or words +to that effect, and I put that word in there at the time, indicating +that he had been told this before, and that I was repeating it to him. + +Mr. COLEMAN. You are talking about Commission Exhibit No. 919, the +third paragraph, is that correct, where you use the word "again"? + +Mr. SNYDER. Yes; that is correct. + +In other words, at the time Oswald was there, the reason which I gave +him for not taking his renunciation at the time was not that he was +not legally entitled to have it, but that the office was closed at the +time. In matter of fact, I don't think I had a secretary there to type +out the form and so forth. But this is really quite beside the point. + +But the reason which I gave him was not that I had any legal right to +refuse him--that is, it wasn't based on a provision of law, as it was +based on simply the fact that the Embassy was closed at the time. + +Mr. COLEMAN. You will recall in Commission Exhibit No. 913, which was +the first letter that Oswald gave you, that the last paragraph states, +"I affirm that my allegiance is to the Union of Soviet Socialist +Republics," and once again I take it that you didn't think that that +was the type of oath or affirmation which is set forth in section +349(a) (2)? + +Mr. SNYDER. Yes, sir; that is right. + +Mr. SLAWSON. Mr. Snyder, in reference to the same document, Commission +Exhibit No. 913, do you think that Mr. Oswald, when he appeared before +you and gave this to you, believed in his mind that this was sufficient +to renounce his citizenship? + +The CHAIRMAN. How could he tell what was in his mind? + +Mr. SNYDER. I really don't know. + +Mr. SLAWSON. Do you believe that if you had given Mr. Oswald the +opportunity to carry through with the procedures, that he would have +renounced his citizenship at that first appearance? + +Mr. SNYDER. Yes; I have every reason to believe he would have. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Sir, I also would like to show you a copy of a passport +issued by the United States, which has been marked as Commission +Exhibit No. 946, and ask you whether that is the passport that Mr. +Oswald gave to you when he came into the Embassy on October 31, 1959. + +Mr. DULLES. May I ask a preliminary question about Exhibit No. 913? + +This is undated. Do we know the date of the receipt of this by the +Embassy? + +Mr. COLEMAN. Yes, Mr. Dulles; the testimony is that when Mr. Oswald +came into the Embassy, sir, he handed this document to Mr. Snyder. + +Mr. DULLES. That is the first time he came in, he handed this document +to you? + +Mr. SNYDER. Yes, sir. + +This is undoubtedly his passport; yes, sir. + +Mr. COLEMAN. After you received Commission Exhibit No. 919, which is +the second letter from Oswald, the letter dated November 3, 1959, you +then prepared and sent to the Secretary of State in Washington an +airgram which the Commission has had marked as Commission Exhibit No. +920. + +(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 920 for +identification.) + +Mr. COLEMAN. I show you the document and ask you whether you prepared +the original thereof and sent it to the State Department? + +Mr. SNYDER. Yes, sir. + +Representative FORD. May I ask a question here? + +When Oswald first came in, and either placed his passport on the desk +or the table, or you asked for it, did you note that he had overstayed +his visa by 5 days? + +Mr. SNYDER. I can't recall that I did or did not, Mr. Ford. + +Representative FORD. Is that something that you would normally examine +and determine under circumstances like this? + +Mr. SNYDER. Oh, I might if there were some reason to look at it--if it +were particularly relevant to something I was thinking at the time or +asking about at the time. + +In terms of Soviet practice, it is not really too relevant. That is, +if the Soviet authorities find it to their interest to keep a person +around, then there is no problem. And if they do not, one does not +overstay one's visa in the Soviet Union. + +Representative FORD. But if it is, for some Soviet reason, a good +reason to keep somebody around beyond the time of their visa, wouldn't +that be of some interest to us--I mean to the United States officials? + +Mr. SNYDER. Oh, yes; but, of course, that assumption was already +strongly made in the Oswald case by other circumstances in this case. +There was no question in my mind that Mr. Oswald was there in Moscow +for the purposes for which he stated he was in Moscow, and that this +was known to the Soviet authorities, for he said he had applied for +Soviet citizenship. + +Representative FORD. Is it the usual thing for them to let an +individual stay beyond their visa termination date? + +Mr. SNYDER. Well, I would say it is not usual. Again, one can never +cite a list of specific instances in these things, but I think that +when you are working as a consul in Moscow for a couple of years, you +have a considerable feel for these things, and that I would say it is +not usual--people simply do not overstay their visas in the Soviet +Union without the knowledge, by and large, of the Soviet authorities. + +And this is because of the nature of the passport registration system +at your hotel, and all of this sort of thing. It simply is not normally +done by oversight or by lapse either on the part of the individual or +on the part of the Soviet State. + +Representative FORD. When he presented the passport, or when you were +given the passport by him, did you examine it? + +Mr. SNYDER. I undoubtedly examined it. + +Representative FORD. Where in the passport would this fact be noted +that he had overstayed his visa by 5 days? + +(At this point, Senator Cooper entered the hearing room.) + +Mr. SNYDER. It may either be on the original visa or on the police +stamp placed in his passport at the time. This is to the best of my +recollection. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Congressman Ford, as I understand it, one of the stamps in +the passport, which would be in Russian, indicates the visa that he got +in Helsinki, and also indicates the length of time he was permitted to +stay. + +Representative FORD. So it is clearly a Soviet document in the passport? + +Mr. COLEMAN. Yes. + +Mr. SNYDER. I could probably find these for you, if you would like. + +Representative FORD. When Oswald came in, did you notice anything +peculiar about his physical appearance--any bruises, any injuries of +any kind? + +Mr. SNYDER. No, no; as I said--you may not have been here, Mr. Ford, at +the time I made my original comments on his appearance. + +He was very neatly dressed, very well composed, and to all outward +appearances a respectable-looking young man. + +Representative FORD. I was there then, and I was interested because +I think we have testimony to the effect, or we have documentation to +the effect, that he had tried to commit suicide prior to his coming to +the American Embassy for the purpose of renouncing his citizenship. In +other words, he had cut his wrist and had been in a Soviet hospital or +medical facility. And I was wondering whether you had noticed that. + +Mr. SNYDER. No, sir; I did not. + +Representative FORD. You did not. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. Snyder, on November 2 you sent forward Commission +Exhibit No. 908, which is the Foreign Service dispatch. You had also +sent forth 2 days earlier a telegram advising them about Oswald. + +And on November 12 you had sent forth Commission Exhibit No. 920. Now, +according to the files that we have, except for Commission Exhibit +No. 916, which is the telegram asking where the dispatch was, we have +no other communication during this period from the Department to the +Embassy giving you advice on what to do in the Oswald case. + +Was there any messages that went back to the Embassy, other than +Commission Exhibit No. 916, during that period? + +Mr. SNYDER. I can't really say, Mr. Coleman, that I have personal +recollection. But I have no reason to believe that there was anything +else came in, other than what is now in our files. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Well, would you expect to get some answers to those +dispatches that you were sending forward to Washington? + +Mr. SNYDER. Not really--not really. The thrust of information in +something like this is from the field to the Department. The Department +really answered the only thing which I asked them. That is, I told +the Department what I intended to do concerning his request for +renunciation, and the Department responded to that. And this was really +all I would have expected from them at the time. + +I would have expected--if the Department had had any information +concerning Oswald in its files--I would have expected them to let me +know if they had indication, for instance, that Oswald was mentally +unbalanced or emotionally unstable or anything else of this sort, +anything which might look like a repeat of the Petrulli pattern, I +would have expected them to let me know this, so I would know how to +handle the case. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Sir, 3 days before Mr. Oswald came into the Embassy, did +you have occasion to write a letter to Mr. Boster in Washington, asking +him how you should handle these matters of attempted renunciation of +American citizenship? + +Mr. SNYDER. Well---- + +Mr. DULLES. Is this the first time he came into the Embassy? + +Mr. COLEMAN. This is 3 days before he came. + +Mr. DULLES. The first time? + +Mr. COLEMAN. Yes, sir. + +Mr. SNYDER. I recall writing. I think probably the letter you have in +mind-- + +Mr. COLEMAN. I show you Commission Exhibit No. 914 which is a letter +dated October 28, 1959, from Mr. Snyder to Mr. Boster, and ask you +whether that is a letter you sent. + +(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 914 for +identification.) + +Mr. COLEMAN. Is that a copy of the letter that you sent to Mr. Boster? + +Mr. SNYDER. Yes, sir. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Doesn't that letter, at the bottom, indicate that you were +attempting to get advice on how to handle an attempted renunciation of +American citizenship? At the bottom of the first page. + +Mr. SNYDER. Yes; this is a letter which I wrote to Gene Boster. This +letter, I might add, did not refer to any particular case, but was a +letter in which I had put down ideas which had been circulating in my +mind for some time, based on my initial handling of cases in Moscow. +And it was by way of putting down, as I say, some general ideas on the +subject, and asking Gene what the Department felt about this general +area of notions. It wasn't directed at any particular case. + +Representative FORD. Do you feel that the regulations then, as well as +now, and the law as well, are archaic in this regard? + +Mr. SNYDER. Oh, no; it is simply that--not the law, and certainly not +the regulations--and certainly not the law, can ever take the place of +the judgment of the officer on the spot. + +Mr. DULLES. Was this motivated by the Petrulli case? + +Mr. SNYDER. No; I don't think it was. The Petrulli case was a clear-cut +case, there was no problem with the Petrulli case, legal or otherwise. + +It was motivated, as best I can recall, by my experience with a few +other cases. Well, let's say--let's go back a little bit further, in +a more general vein. The kind of people, the kind of Americans, and I +suppose not only Americans but Frenchmen, Englishmen, and otherwise, +who occasionally drift into the Soviet Union and state that they want +to roll up their sleeves and go to work for socialism for the rest of +their lives, or something of this sort, are usually quite a peculiar +kind of person. + +In the first place, they are rarely Marxists in any meaningful sense +of the term. That is, they don't really know what it is all about. +They probably don't know two words about Marxist theories, or Marxism, +Leninism, Stalinism, or anything else. Even less do they know anything +about the country that they have chosen to spend their lives in, +theoretically. + +Almost universally they have never been to the country before. They +speak no Russian. And they are rebounding from something--in some +cases, such as the Petrulli case, the man is simply incompetent. In +other cases, as in the Webster case, he appears to have been fleeing +from his wife and the general responsibilities of his prior position, +and finding that he could not escape from them in the Soviet Union +either. + +In the case of Oswald, a man who, for one reason or another, seemed +to have been uncomfortable in his own society, unable to accommodate +himself to it, and hoping he will make out better some place else. + +At any rate, almost universally, the pattern is of a person who is not +acting out of any ideological grounds. He simply doesn't--and I think +this is essentially true probably of Oswald--this was my feeling in +speaking with him--that Oswald really knew nothing about Marxism and +Leninism, that he professed to be modeling his life after. + +Mr. DULLES. Isn't it possible, though, from this discussion--maybe this +should be asked to your legal adviser--that our procedure under law +about renunciation may be in conflict with general international law, +because if he comes into the country with an American passport, as an +American citizen, I gather under ordinary international law we have to +take him back. We are responsible for him. And no renunciation he makes +changes that, as the Petrulli case shows. + +Now, in the Petrulli case you had a situation where he was incompetent, +and you could throw the thing out on the ground he didn't know what he +was doing. But in these other cases, maybe you can't. + +Mr. SNYDER. Well, in the specific instance and circumstances of the +Soviet Union, you obviously have a major problem, there is a major +state problem. + +Mr. DULLES. That might arise in other cases. Isn't that true in any +case--If an American citizen arrives with an American passport, the +country where he arrives doesn't have to keep him, does it? Isn't it +our responsibility to take him back? + +Mr. SNYDER. Well, this is a point---- + +Mr. DULLES. That is a question of law. + +Mr. SNYDER. This is a question of law which I really cannot answer. + +And where we have an extradition treaty, I think there is no great +problem, perhaps, or at least the problem is somewhat different from +where we do not have an extradition treaty, as in the case of the +Soviet Union. + +And I just don't know whether we are in the last analysis required to +take back a person who is no longer one of our citizens, and under +circumstances where we do not have an extradition treaty with the +nation, where that person now resides. + +Representative FORD. Do we have an extradition treaty with the Soviet +Union? + +Mr. SNYDER. No, sir. + +Well, we did not at that time, and I don't think we have subsequently. +But we did not at that time. + +Representative FORD. Do the legal advisers to the Department know +whether we have an extradition treaty now? + +Mr. CHAYES. We do not have an extradition treaty with the Soviet Union. + +The only bilateral treaty we have with the Soviet Union, the Senate has +not yet given advice and consent--but the only bilateral agreement is +the consular agreement. + +But so long as I am on the record here, I don't see how the extradition +treaty has any bearing at all on the requirement of taking back a +former American citizen who may get into trouble in the other country. +That would be a matter governed by general principles of international +law, and also one's own humanitarian outlook on the particular +circumstance, rather than--or there could be treaty provisions perhaps, +commerce and navigation, that might bear on it. But in the usual case, +I think not. + +Senator COOPER. May I ask a question here? It might save time. + +Is there any statutory--any statute bearing on this question of +renunciation? + +The CHAIRMAN. Senator Cooper, we just went through that, and it has +been put in evidence here, and the statute has been read and it is very +simple. All he has to do is go there and renounce before a consul or +State officer to satisfy the regulations and requirements of the State +Department, and he is out. + +Isn't that correct, generally speaking? + +Mr. CHAYES. Yes, sir. + +Senator COOPER. Is there any other statute bearing upon the effect of +that renunciation with respect to any application or petition he might +make later to renew his citizenship in the United States? Is there any? + +Mr. COLEMAN. I would assume, sir, if he has made a valid renunciation, +he is then just like any other non-American that wants to come into the +United States. He has to go through one of the immigration quotas. + +Mr. SNYDER. He must get an immigration visa. + +Senator COOPER. I remember during the war and after the war we had +problems with persons who had become naturalized citizens, and were +returned to their countries, and in effect renounced their citizenship +in various ways. As I remember, under certain circumstances they could +renew their citizenship with the United States. But, as I understand +it, there is no provision of law respecting a citizen of the United +States who actually renounces his citizenship. + +Mr. CHAYES. The issues in all those cases, I believe, were whether the +purported expatriating act was actually an expatriating act. Whether +they had voted voluntarily or served in a foreign army voluntarily, or +something like that. + +Senator COOPER. All this matter, the legal side of it, will be put into +the record? + +Mr. COLEMAN. At 2 o'clock, sir. + +Now, Mr. Snyder, after you wrote that letter to Mr. Boster, which +is Commission Exhibit No. 914, you received a reply to your letter +which was signed by Nathaniel Davis, acting officer in charge, Soviet +affairs, dated December 10, 1959, which has been marked Commission +Exhibit No. 915. + +(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 915 for +identification.) + +Mr. SNYDER. Yes. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Sir, also on December 1, 1959, you sent an airgram to the +State Department indicating that you had been informed that Oswald had +left the hotel at which he had been staying in Moscow, is that correct? + +Mr. SNYDER. Yes, sir. + +Mr. COLEMAN. I show you a document which has been identified as +Commission Exhibit No. 921, and ask you whether that is a copy of the +airgram you sent forward to the Department. + +(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 921 for +identification.) + +Mr. SNYDER. Yes. + +Mr. COLEMAN. In Exhibit No. 921, you stated that you felt that he had +not carried through with his original intent to renounce American +citizenship in order to leave a crack open. Now, what information did +you have which led you to put that in the airgram? + +Mr. SNYDER. I am not sure whether this was my statement or---- + +Mr. COLEMAN. Well, would you look at that, sir? + +Mr. SNYDER. Yes; this was the statement of the correspondent. The +correspondent states that. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Oh, you were informing the Department that the +correspondent told you that she felt that Oswald may have been leaving +a crack open? + +Mr. SNYDER. That is right. This crack part here is part of the sentence +"correspondent states." + +Mr. COLEMAN. Who was the correspondent? + +Mr. SNYDER. This was Priscilla Johnson. + +Mr. COLEMAN. And I take it you were the one that prepared Commission +Exhibit No. 921? + +Mr. SNYDER. Yes, sir. + +Mr. COLEMAN. You also state that no known Soviet publicity on case. I +take it you meant by that there had been no mentioning in the Soviet +press about Oswald. + +Mr. SNYDER. Yes, sir. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Are you saying from the time he came into your Embassy +office until the time you wrote that airgram, that there was nothing in +the Soviet press about Oswald? + +Mr. SNYDER. Not to my knowledge. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Is that usual in these cases, where Americans attempt to +renounce their citizenship? + +Mr. SNYDER. I think if there is a usual pattern--and, again, this is +difficult to use words like "usual" because there are never two cases +alike in this sort of thing--but if there is a usual pattern, it is +that there is some exploitation of the defector in Soviet public +media, usually after the details of his defection have been settled, +particularly the detail as to whether the Soviet Union desires to have +him. + +Up to that point, publicity in the Soviet press probably is not to be +expected. + +Mr. COLEMAN. After you sent the airgram dated December 1, 1959, to the +Department of State, which is Commission Exhibit No. 921, you didn't +have any more contact with Oswald until some time in February 1961, is +that correct? + +Mr. SNYDER. Yes, sir. + +Mr. COLEMAN. In the meantime, however, there was correspondence between +the Embassy in Moscow and the State Department, is that correct? + +Mr. SNYDER. Yes, sir. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Did---- + +Mr. SNYDER. Well, let me see. + +Mr. COLEMAN. I will mark---- + +Mr. SNYDER. I guess there was. There was one or more welfare and +whereabouts inquiries concerning him from his mother, which I think was +the bulk, if not all, of the correspondence which we were engaged in +between those two periods. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Well, one such memorandum which went from the State +Department to Moscow was a memorandum dated March 21, 1960, which +has been marked as Commission Exhibit No. 922, which indicates that +Representative Wright of Texas had made inquiry with respect to the +whereabouts of Oswald. + +(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 922 for +identification.) + +Mr. SNYDER. Yes, sir. + +Mr. COLEMAN. And attached to the operations memorandum which was marked +as Commission Exhibit No. 922 is the letter sent to Congressman Wright, +which has been marked as Exhibit 923. + +(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 923 for +identification.) + +Mr. COLEMAN. And also a letter sent to Mrs. Marguerite Oswald, which +has been marked as Commission Exhibit No. 924. + +(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 924 for +identification.) + +Mr. COLEMAN. In reply to Commission Exhibit No. 922, you prepared and +sent to the Department of State an operations memorandum under date of +March 28, 1960, which we have marked as Commission Exhibit No. 927. + +(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 927 for +identification.) + +Mr. SNYDER. Yes, sir. + +Mr. COLEMAN. In Commission Exhibit No. 927, you make the statement that +the Embassy has no evidence that Oswald has expatriated himself other +than his announced intention to do so "and the Embassy is, therefore, +technically in a position to institute an inquiry concerning his +whereabouts through a note to the Foreign Office." + +Do you recall that statement in the operations memorandum? + +Mr. SNYDER. Yes, sir. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Was it your thought, then, that based upon all the +documents you had and what transpired on October 31, 1959, and the +subsequent letter that Oswald sent, that in your judgment he had not +renounced his American citizenship? + +Mr. SNYDER. The statement which I made in that letter--to be quite +accurate, as to its content--was made not for the--that is, the +statement wasn't directing itself to the question has Oswald lost his +citizenship or not, but rather to the question would we have the right +in Soviet eyes to ask about the whereabouts of this man. The Soviet +authorities took a very strict line that no foreign government had +the right to inquire about any resident of the Soviet Union unless he +was their citizen. So that my statement was merely--was meant there +to support my conclusion that the Embassy, as far as we could see, +would have the right in Soviet eyes to ask about the whereabouts of +Oswald--because we had no reason to believe he was not our citizen, +and, therefore, we had a perfect right to ask about where he might be. + +Representative FORD. In other words, in your own mind, at that point, +he had not renounced his citizenship? + +Mr. SNYDER. There is no question he had not renounced his citizenship; +yes, sir. + +Mr. COLEMAN. You considered that he was still an American citizen as of +March 28---- + +Mr. SNYDER. No evidence to the contrary. + +Mr. DULLES. That is, he hadn't taken the procedures required under the +law to renounce his citizenship? + +Mr. SNYDER. He had not renounced his citizenship, and there was no +evidence that he had acquired Soviet citizenship. These were the two +things under which I think he could possibly have lost his citizenship +at that time. + +So, for lack of evidence to the contrary, he was an American citizen. + +Mr. COLEMAN. On April 5, 1960--you received an operations memorandum +from the Department of State, dated March 28, 1960, which we have had +marked as Commission Exhibit No. 929. Do you recall receiving that? + +Mr. SNYDER. Yes, sir. + +(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 929 for +identification.) + +Mr. COLEMAN. The second paragraph of that memorandum indicates that a +lookout card or file has been opened or prepared. + +Mr. SNYDER. Yes, sir. + +Mr. COLEMAN. What does that mean? + +Mr. SNYDER. Never having worked in this end of the Department of +State, I can say only what it would mean in general terms--when one +says a lookout card has been prepared, it means that an entry has been +made in the file in such fashion that should someone look in the file +for--under this name or this category, that there would be--that their +attention would be flagged by this entry, and their attention would +be called to the fact that there is something that they ought to look +into. In other words, it is kind of a red flag placed--perhaps red flag +is not the word to use here--but it is a flag placed in the file to +attract the attention of anyone looking in the file under that. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Then on May 10, 1960, and again on June 22, 1960, you +received two operations memorandums from the State Department making +inquiries with respect to Mr. Oswald. Can you identify those? + +Mr. SNYDER. Yes, sir. + +Mr. COLEMAN. You remember receiving those? + +Mr. SNYDER. Yes, sir. + +Mr. COLEMAN. The operations memorandum dated May 10, 1960, was given +Commission Exhibit No. 928, and the operations memorandum dated June +22, 1960, has been given Commission Exhibit No. 925. + +(The documents referred to were marked Commission Exhibits Nos. 925 and +928, respectively, for identification.) + +Mr. COLEMAN. In response to those two operations memorandums, you, +then, on July 6, 1960, sent forth an operations memorandum which has +been given Commission Exhibit No. 926, which states that until you get +other instructions, you are not going to make any further inquiry or +do anything further in connection with Oswald, is that correct? + +(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 926 for +identification.) + +Mr. SNYDER. That is correct. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Then, sir, on February 1, 1961, you received a Department +of State instruction which was marked as Commission Exhibit No. 930, +which requested the Embassy to ask the Ministry of Foreign Affairs--to +inform the Ministry of Foreign Affairs that Mr. Oswald's mother was +worried about his personal safety, and was anxious to hear from him. + +(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 930 for +identification.) + +Mr. COLEMAN. Did you ever make such an inquiry of the Ministry of +Foreign Affairs? + +Mr. SNYDER. No, I think I did not. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Do you know just when that Department instruction reached +the Embassy in Moscow? + +Mr. SNYDER. The date should be stamped on the document. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Well, on the copy we have, sir, there is no date. I take +it you have no independent recollection? + +Mr. SNYDER. No; it should have been within a week, though. + +Mr. COLEMAN. I take it, though, you would say that Commission Exhibit +No. 930 went by diplomatic pouch. + +Mr. SNYDER. Yes, sir. + +Mr. COLEMAN. This didn't go by cable? + +Mr. SNYDER. No, that is not a telegraphic form. + +Mr. COLEMAN. On February 13, 1961, you received a letter from Mr. +Oswald, did you not? + +Mr. SNYDER. Yes, sir. + +Mr. COLEMAN. I show you a copy of a letter which has been marked as +Commission Exhibit No. 931, and I ask you whether that is a copy of a +letter you received from Mr. Oswald. + +(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 931 for +identification.) + +Mr. SNYDER. Yes, sir. + +Representative FORD. Mr. Chairman, it would be helpful, I think, if we +would pass these around, or if copies would be available to us at the +time. Otherwise--at least I am not able to know what is transpiring +between the counsel and the witness. + +Are there extra copies of these we could have to examine as the exhibit +is submitted to the witness? + +Mr. SLAWSON. We could have them made up, Mr. Ford. I don't think there +are any extra ones right now. + +The CHAIRMAN. Well, suppose before you pass it to the witness you pass +it to me, and I will pass it to Congressman Ford, and then over to +Commissioner Dulles. + +Mr. SNYDER. This letter is presumably the reason why no action was +taken on the previous operations memorandum. It was overtaken, +presumably, by Oswald's letter. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Could you indicate for the record what Oswald said in his +letter which has been marked as Commission Exhibit No. 931? + +Mr. SNYDER. Perhaps I might just read the letter into the record. + +The letter is dated February, no date. + +"Dear sirs"---- + +Mr. DULLES. What year? + +Mr. SNYDER. 1961. + +"Since I have not received a reply to my letter of December 1960, I am +writing again asking that you consider my request for the return of my +American passport. + +"I desire to return to the United States, that is if we could come to +some agreement concernig [sic] the dropping of any legal proceedings +against me. If so, then I would be free to ask the Russian authorities +to allow me to leave. If I could show them my American passport, I am +of the opinion they would give me an exit visa. + +"They have at no time insisted that I take Russian citizenship. I am +living here with non-permanent type papers for a foreigner. + +"I cannot leave Minsk without permission, therefore I am writing rather +than calling in person. + +"I hope that in recalling the responsibility I have to America that you +remember your's in doing everything you can to help me since I am an +American citizen. + +"Sincerely Lee Harvey Oswald." + +Mr. DULLES. That is addressed to the American Embassy in Moscow? + +Mr. SNYDER. It is simply "Dear sirs:" As near as I can recall, it came +by mail, through the Soviet mail, addressed to the Embassy. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Had you received a letter from Mr. Oswald at a date of +December 1960, the way he mentioned in the first paragraph of his +letter? + +Mr. SNYDER. No, sir; we did not. + +Mr. COLEMAN. This is the first letter you received? + +Mr. SNYDER. This is the first communication since he left Moscow. + +Mr. COLEMAN. I would next like to mark as Commission Exhibit No. 933 +the reply which you made to Mr. Oswald, which is dated February 28, +1961. + +(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 933 for +identification.) + +Mr. DULLES. When you say since he left Moscow, that was in---- + +Mr. SNYDER. November 1959, sir. + +Mr. DULLES. November 1959? + +Mr. SNYDER. This is what we presume was the date. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. Dulles, we have other evidence that he didn't leave +until January 7, 1960. + +Mr. DULLES. The last the Embassy heard from him was in November 1959? + +Mr. SNYDER. Yes, sir. + +Mr. COLEMAN. You have been shown Commission Exhibit No. 933. Is that a +copy of a letter which you sent to Mr. Oswald? + +Mr. SNYDER. Yes, sir. + +Mr. COLEMAN. At the same time did you inform the State Department that +you had received a letter from Mr. Oswald? + +Mr. SNYDER. I presume that I did. + +Mr. COLEMAN. I have had marked as Commission Exhibit No. 932 a Foreign +Service Despatch under date of February 28, 1961, from the Embassy in +Moscow to the State Department in Washington. I would like to ask you +whether this is the despatch which you sent forth to the Department. + +(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 932 for +identification.) + +Representative FORD. Do the records show the date that the letter from +Oswald was written--yes; February 5--and received February 13. This +communication is dated February 28. Is that a long or a short time in +communicating with Washington? + +Mr. SNYDER. I would say it is a long time. + +Representative FORD. Is there any explanation why it is a long time? + +Mr. SNYDER. The only thing I could think of is simply that Moscow is +a very busy office, and Mr. Oswald's case was no longer the top of my +docket. + +Representative FORD. Had there been any communication with the State +Department in Washington concerning the inquiries of the mother, other +than this? + +Mr. SNYDER. I don't know, Mr. Ford. The only knowledge I had at the +time of inquiries is what I was informed of by the Department. I +presume that they informed me of all inquiries--since they could hardly +act upon them themselves. + +Representative FORD. What is the date of the last inquiry by the mother +as to Oswald's---- + +Mr. COLEMAN. Sir, I think the record will show that on January 26, +1961, the mother came to the State Department and as a result of that +visit, that inquiry of February 1, 1961, went forward, making the +inquiry. It has already been put in as an exhibit. + +Representative FORD. This is the trouble not keeping copies available. +It is a little difficult to follow the sequence. + +Mr. COLEMAN. It is Commission Exhibit No. 930. + +Representative FORD. This document, Commission Exhibit No. 930, shows +what, as far as you are concerned, Mr. Snyder? + +Mr. SNYDER. Well, it shows an interest by Oswald's mother in his +whereabouts. + +Representative FORD. As of what date, and where? + +Mr. SNYDER. It says that Mrs. Oswald called at the Department of State +on January 26, 1961; she personally called at the Department to inquire +about her son. + +Representative FORD. And that was communicated to the Embassy in Moscow? + +Mr. SNYDER. Yes, sir. + +Representative FORD. When was it received in the Embassy in Moscow? + +Mr. SNYDER. Well, this doesn't show the date of receipt, but it was +sent on February 1, and was received within a week of that time. + +Representative FORD. And according to the records, the letter written +by Oswald on February 5, 1961, which was received--was received +February 13, 1961. + +Mr. SNYDER. Yes. + +Representative FORD. And this document, Commission Exhibit No. 933, +shows a reply was given February 28, is that correct? + +Mr. SNYDER. I think that is correct, sir. + +Mr. DULLES. Does that mean it took 8 days to go from Minsk to Moscow? + +Mr. SNYDER. Yes, sir. + +Mr. DULLES. Isn't that an unusually long time? + +Mr. SNYDER. Well, not too much of that time is transit time. + +Mr. DULLES. That is what I was getting at. + +Representative FORD. It also shows it took 15 days to get out of the +American Embassy. + +Mr. SNYDER. You must remember that in my eyes, as the officer on the +spot, Mr. Oswald had no claim to prior action from the Embassy among +other cases. And although the consular officer attempts to be as +impersonal as he can about these things, in matter of fact it is very +difficult to be entirely impersonal. + +Mr. Oswald had no claim to any unusual attentions of mine, I must say. + +I think that the letter from Oswald from the Metropole Hotel to the +Embassy took something like 3 days or 4 days. + +Representative FORD. What does that mean to you? Does that mean that +his correspondence was intercepted? + +Mr. SNYDER. There was no question about that, Mr. Ford? + +Representative FORD. Intercepted by Soviet authorities? + +Mr. SNYDER. Oh, yes; this has been known for years. + +Representative FORD. Common practice? + +Mr. SNYDER. Oh, yes; every embassy there knows the system, and operates +within it. All mail from or to a foreign embassy in Moscow goes to a +separate section of the Moscow Post Office, called the international +section, and this is the screening office for all mail to and from any +embassy. + +Representative FORD. As far as you know, is that still the process +today? + +Mr. SNYDER. I am sure it is, sir. The essentials of the Soviet State +haven't changed. + +Senator COOPER. May I ask a few questions? + +I have been examining these exhibits which have been introduced. The +first one I have looked at is Exhibit No. 908, which refers to Lee +Harvey Oswald's call at the Embassy and your interview with him. + +Mr. DULLES. Is that from Moscow to Washington, the State Department? + +Senator COOPER. Yes; it is your interview with Oswald. + +Mr. SNYDER. Yes, sir; that is right. + +Senator COOPER. In this he states that he applied for a Soviet tourist +visa in Helsinki on October 14. He applied for citizenship by letter +to the Supreme Soviet on October 16, in Moscow. And your report to the +State Department said that he appeared at the Embassy on October 31, +and presented his request for renunciation in writing. + +I assume that you have had other cases of this kind, have you not? + +Mr. SNYDER. Well, particularly the Petrulli case, yes; a few weeks +earlier. + +Senator COOPER. Would it be normal in your judgment that this period +of time, from the time he applied to the Soviet for citizenship, the +Supreme Soviet, which was on October 16, as he said, it would not be +acted upon in 2 weeks? + +Mr. SNYDER. I would think it would be highly unusual if it were acted +upon in 2 weeks; yes, sir. + +Senator COOPER. Did others talk to him in the Embassy beside you? + +Mr. SNYDER. Not to my knowledge; no, sir. + +Senator COOPER. Did you know whether or not newspaper people, American +newspaper people were talking to him? + +Mr. SNYDER. I know that Priscilla Johnson talked to him. Whether others +got to him, I don't know. He wasn't terribly communicative. + +Senator COOPER. Did she tell you she talked to him? + +Mr. SNYDER. Oh, yes. + +Senator COOPER. But you do not know whether or not other members of the +Embassy staff talked to him? + +Mr. SNYDER. I have no reason to believe that anyone else talked to him, +other than myself, Senator Cooper. That is, at this time. I mean at a +later time, Mr. McVickar, I presume, talked to Oswald. He talked to his +wife, I am quite sure. I presume that Oswald was with her. But up until +the time that I left Moscow, Oswald was my baby, and I don't think +anyone else talked to him in the Embassy. + +Mr. DULLES. Were there other cases, other than the Petrulli and the +Oswald case, where Americans attempted to or did renounce their +citizenship while you were in Moscow in this period? + +Mr. SNYDER. No, sir. + +Senator COOPER. To whom were you directly responsible in the Embassy? + +Mr. SNYDER. My immediate superior was Mr. Freers, Edward Freers, who +was the Deputy Chief of Mission. + +Senator COOPER. Was he informed about this case? + +Mr. SNYDER. Yes, sir. + +Senator COOPER. Who was the American ambassador at that time? + +Mr. SNYDER. Ambassador Thompson. + +Senator COOPER. Did he know about it? + +Mr. SNYDER. I presume he did. Ambassador Thompson knew everything that +went on in his shop. If through no other means, both the Ambassador and +the DCM, the Deputy Chief of Mission, read the correspondence coming in +and out, and this is their basic line of information. + +Senator COOPER. In your report, Commission Exhibit No. 908, you stated +that he knew the provisions of U.S. law on loss of citizenship, and +declined to have them reviewed by the interviewing officer. Is that +correct? He said he knew how he could renounce his citizenship? + +Mr. SNYDER. Yes; I attempted to explain to him at the time the +seriousness of his move, the meaning of it, the irrevocability of it +and the section of law applying. He was quite curt in his manner, and +apparently among other things, declined to have me read the law to him. + +Senator COOPER. Exhibit No. 920 refers to the letter received by the +Embassy from Lee Oswald, who was residing in the Metropole Hotel. It +does show that it was dated November 3, and received, according to +this, on November 12, no, date sent November 7. + +This could be a speculation. It appears to me, though, it is a very +well written letter. "I, Lee Harvey Oswald, do hereby request that +my present United States citizenship be revoked. I appered [sic] in +person, at the consulate office of the U.S. Embassy, Moscow, on Oct. +31st for the purpose of signing the formal papers to this effect. This +legal right I was refused at that time. I wish to protest against this +action and against the conduct of the official of the United States +consular service who acted on behalf of the United States Government. +My application requesting that I be considered for citizenship in the +Soviet Union is now pending before the Supreme Soviet of the U.S.S.R. +In the event of acceptance, I will request my government to lodge a +formal protest regarding this incident." + +Signed "Lee Harvey Oswald." + +I would assume that the last sentence referred to the Soviet Union. + +Mr. SNYDER. Yes, sir. + +Senator COOPER. From your examination and interview with Lee Harvey +Oswald, your talks with him, does that letter appear to be one which he +had the capacity to write in that language and form? + +Mr. SNYDER. That is a difficult thing to speculate on, Senator Cooper. +I would say this---- + +Senator COOPER. It is a very good letter. + +Mr. SNYDER. At first blush, I would not say that it was beyond his +capacity. He did strike me as an intelligent man. He was certainly +very articulate. Actually still a boy, I suppose, in a sense--he was +20 at the time I saw him. He was a very articulate person, and quite +intelligent. I don't think from what I saw of him that the letter is +beyond his capacity to have written. + +There is also an element of it which is very much Oswaldish, and that +is the last paragraph, the rather strident tones of it. One finds this +in his other correspondence with the Embassy, and in the tone which +he took when he first spoke with me--extremely strident tone. It is +almost comical in a sense, this last paragraph, in its pomposity, its +sonorousness. I am quite prepared to believe that the last part at +least is Oswald's. + +Senator COOPER. One other question. + +In your report you noted that he had made statements about the United +States, derogatory statements. + +Did he ever direct his statements toward any individual in the United +States, any official? + +Mr. SNYDER. No; I have no recollection that he directed his statements +against anyone, Senator Cooper. I think that if he had, I would likely +have reported this matter. As a matter of fact, on the general subject +of the molding of his attitudes, he was not very communicative. + +Mr. DULLES. Was he technically correct there in his statement--I +believe he said that his application was pending before the Supreme +Soviet. Is that technically correct? + +Mr. SNYDER. That is technically correct; yes, sir. + +The CHAIRMAN. You may continue, Mr. Coleman. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Now, Mr. Snyder, on March 24, 1961, you sent a Foreign +Service Despatch to the Department indicating that you had received a +second letter from Mr. Oswald on March 20, 1961, and you said that the +letter was postmarked Minsk, March 5, and Moscow March 17. I would like +to show you a Commission document which has been marked as Commission +Exhibit No. 940, and ask you whether that is a copy of the Foreign +Service Despatch which you sent forth to the Department. + +(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 940 for +identification.) + +Mr. DULLES. Could this be very briefly summarized for the record while +it is being read? + +Mr. COLEMAN. In this despatch, he sets forth the letter which Mr. +Oswald sent, which basically said that it would be hard for him to get +to the Embassy in Moscow, and why can't they send the papers to Minsk? + +Mr. DULLES. These are the papers about his return? + +Mr. COLEMAN. Yes, papers that he would have to fill out to see if he +was entitled to get his passport back. + +Would the witness identify the despatch? Is that the one you sent? + +Mr. SNYDER. Yes; it is. + +Mr. COLEMAN. I take it that the first answer you got from the +Department to your despatch of February 28, 1961, which is marked as +Commission Exhibit No. 932, indicating the first letter you received +from Oswald, and then the second despatch marked Commission Exhibit No. +940, was a State Department instruction dated April 13, 1961, which was +marked as Commission Exhibit No. 934. + +(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 934 for +identification.) + +Mr. COLEMAN. Is that the despatch which you received? + +Mr. SNYDER. Yes, sir. + +Senator COOPER. And then again on May 26, 1961, you sent another +despatch to the State Department indicating that you received another +letter from Oswald, and stating that you thought you would return to +Oswald his passport, and that has been marked as Commission Exhibit No. +936. + +(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 936 for +identification.) + +Mr. DULLES. Mr. Chairman, I note a reference in the margin here, in +Commission Exhibit No. 934. + +Do you know whose handwriting that is in, Mr. Snyder? + +Mr. SNYDER. Yes, sir; that is my handwriting. + +Mr. DULLES. What does that say? + +Mr. SNYDER. It says, "May be necessary give him before he can arrange +depart." + +Mr. COLEMAN. Now, Mr. Snyder, on or about July 10 or 11, 1961, Mr. +Oswald physically appeared at the American Embassy again, did he not? + +Mr. SNYDER. Yes; I saw him once more--I believe once more--possibly +twice. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Actually he came in on a Saturday, did he not, which was +July 8, and then you saw him again on the following Monday, isn't that +correct? Didn't you actually see him twice during that period? + +Mr. SNYDER. I think that I must have. As I say, I think I must have, +because of my review of the record at the time indicates that I think +I saw him on the 8th, and the application was taken on the 10th, which +means, I presumably saw him twice. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Do you recall when he came into the Embassy on the 8th and +what he said, and what you did? + +Mr. SNYDER. No; in fact, I have no recollection of his having come in +at that time, Mr. Coleman. + +Mr. COLEMAN. In the course of these two interviews on the 8th and on +the 10th, he actually filled out an application for renewal of his +passport, did he not? + +Mr. SNYDER. Yes, sir. + +Mr. COLEMAN. And you handled that application? That is correct? + +Mr. SNYDER. Yes, sir. + +Mr. COLEMAN. I next have marked as Commission Exhibit No. 938, a six +page document which purports to be an application for renewal of +passport, together with a questionnaire which was attached thereto, and +ask you whether that is a copy of the application for renewal which you +filled out at that time. + +(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 938 for +identification.) + +Mr. SNYDER. With reference to his visit on the 8th, it is possible that +he telephoned. Again, I don't know quite what our record shows on that. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Well, to help you refresh your recollection, sir, there +has been marked as Commission Exhibit No. 935 a Foreign Service +Despatch dated July 11, 1961, in which you described the meeting with +Oswald. Perhaps you would want to be reading that. + +(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 935 for +identification.) + +Mr. SNYDER. This is the interview which I thought I had on the 10th. + +Representative FORD. What does it mean in this questionnaire +[Commission Exhibit No. 938] where Oswald says, and I quote, "I recived +[sic] a document for residence in the U.S.S.R. but I am described as +being 'Without Citizenship'"? + +Mr. SNYDER. This undoubtedly refers to his so-called internal Soviet +passport, Mr. Ford. Every Soviet citizen living in urban areas, and +also in the border areas, bears an internal passport which identifies +him, has certain other information about him, and bears a notation +of nationality. There are, as I recall, three varieties of this. One +is for Soviet citizens, one is for citizens of foreign countries, I +believe, and another is for stateless persons. + +The CHAIRMAN. What is the last category? + +Mr. SNYDER. Stateless persons. My mind is not clear at this stage as to +whether the passports for foreigners and stateless persons is the same +or not. I don't quite recall. At any rate, there is an entry in there +which asks to state his nationality. No, it is a separate passport. As +I recall the title of it, it is called--it is a separate passport. + +Mr. DULLES. Did the Soviet Union ever indicate to the Embassy, as far +as you know, that they considered Oswald as stateless, or is that +Oswald's own statement? + +Mr. SNYDER. The only indication is the internal passport which he had, +which was made out by local officials, and which may have been based +upon a statement that Oswald himself made to them. He may have regarded +himself as being stateless, I don't know, at the time he applied for +that document. + +Mr. DULLES. And that did not necessarily require, as far as you know, +reference to Moscow? + +Mr. SNYDER. No. + +Mr. DULLES. You think the local authorities could have done that on +their own, and on the information they got from Oswald? + +Mr. SNYDER. Yes; the term "stateless," I might interject here, is used +rather loosely by Soviet authorities, because, in the first place, they +have clearly no authority and no basis upon which to determine whether +a person is a citizen of a foreign state. I mean only the foreign state +can determine that. + +So that the Soviet authorities had no basis on which to determine +whether Oswald was or was not a citizen of the United States or of six +other countries. + +Mr. DULLES. Except the fact that they had seen his passport and knew of +the existence of his American passport. + +Mr. SNYDER. On that basis, they would--well, he was certainly an +American citizen when he entered as far as they were concerned; yes, +sir. + +Representative FORD. Is a person who is stateless the same as a person +who is "without citizenship"? + +Mr. SNYDER. Yes, sir; this distinction is only in translation, Mr. Ford. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. Snyder, in the passport application, at the bottom +there is a place where you have to cross out "have" or "have not" in +connection with four questions. Could you read into the record the +printed part at the bottom of the application? + +Mr. DULLES. Would you just clarify for us what application this is? + +Mr. COLEMAN. This is the application for the passport renewal which +Oswald signed---- + +Mr. DULLES. For the American passport to return to the United States? + +Mr. COLEMAN. Well, this is a renewal of the passport. + +Mr. DULLES. A renewal of the passport to return to the United States? + +Mr. SNYDER. It says, "I have--have not--been naturalized as a citizen +of a foreign state; taken an oath or made an affirmation or other +formal declaration of allegiance to a foreign state; entered or +served in, the armed forces of a foreign state; accepted, served in, +or performed the duties of, any office, post or employment under +the government of a foreign state or political subdivision thereof; +voted in a political election in a foreign state or participated in +an election or plebiscite to determine the sovereignty over foreign +territory; made a formal renunciation of nationality, either in the +United States or before a diplomatic or consular officer of the United +States in a foreign state; been convicted by court martial of deserting +the military, air or naval service of the United States in time of war, +or of committing any act of treason against or of attempting by force +to overthrow, or of bearing arms against the United States; or departed +from or remained outside the jurisdiction of the United States for the +purpose of evading or avoiding training and service in the military, +air or naval forces of the United States. + +"If any of the above-mentioned acts or conditions are applicable to the +applicant's case, or to the case of any other person included in this +application, a supplementary statement under oath should be attached +and made a part hereof." + +Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. Snyder, as I read the application, what you did was to +cross out the "have not" which means that Oswald was stating that he +had done one of those acts which you have read, is that correct? + +Mr. SNYDER. This is what it would mean. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Which one of the various acts that you have read was it +your impression that Oswald was admitting that he had done? + +Mr. SNYDER. Well, there are two possibilities here. One possibility is +that the crossing out of "have not" is a clerical error, and that he +did not intend to do this. + +Mr. COLEMAN. How could that be a possibility. Don't you pretty much +negate that possibility by the fact that you did require him to fill +out the questionnaire which only has to be filled out if he admits that +he has done one of the various acts? + +Mr. SNYDER. No; the questionnaire is filled out routinely in Moscow in +any kind of problem case. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Even though the citizen has done none of the acts which +are set forth in the passport renewal application? + +Mr. SNYDER. Yes; well, I say in a problem case. I don't mean an +American tourist coming in to get his passport renewed, on whom there +is no presumption of any problem at all. But a person who has resided +in the Soviet Union---- + +Mr. COLEMAN. Is it your testimony this is only a typographical error? + +Mr. SNYDER. This is one possibility. The other possibility is that he +may have said, "I have taken an oath or made an affirmation or formal +declaration of allegiance to a foreign state." + +He had, on several occasions, you know, stated that his allegiance was +to the Soviet Union. + +He may have put this down--that is, he may have said "have", having +that act in mind, knowing that I knew it, and that there was no need to +attempt to hide the fact. This is possible. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Do you recall just what you had in mind on July 10 when he +gave you that application filled out in the manner it was? + +Mr. SNYDER. I am sorry, I don't think I understand the question. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Then I will withdraw it and rephrase it. Do you now recall +what reaction you had in mind when you received the application which +had been crossed out in such a way that indicated that he was admitting +that he had done one of the various acts which are set forth on the +form? + +Mr. SNYDER. No; I don't. Of course what I would have been concerned +with at the time in more detail really is the questionnaire, which +is an expansion of this paragraph, and is much more meaningful. So I +would have been concerned both with what he said on the questionnaire +and with the facts of his case--whether he thought he committed one of +these acts is not material to the fact of whether he had committed it +or whether he lost his citizenship thereby. + +At any rate, my attention would have been directed to the expanded +questionnaire in which he had to fill out individual paragraphs +concerning each one of these things, and to a determination of the +facts in the case. + +Mr. DULLES. Do you recall whether or not that striking out was noted at +the time the passport application or extension was considered? + +Mr. SNYDER. I do not, Mr. Dulles; no. + +Representative FORD. Did you have his file out and looking at it, +reading it, studying at the time he was there and this came up? + +Mr. SNYDER. I presume I did, Mr. Ford, but--I am sure his file was +there. But in any event, I was the officer handling his case. Having +written virtually everything in the file from the outgoing point of +view, I was very well familiar with it. + +Mr. COLEMAN. In any event, having received the questionnaire and the +application, you determined that Mr. Oswald was entitled to an American +passport, is that correct? + +Mr. SNYDER. Yes, sir. + +Mr. COLEMAN. And you sent forward the application and the questionnaire +in the Foreign Service Despatch of July 11, 1961, which has been marked +Exhibit No. 935, is that correct? + +Mr. SNYDER. Yes, sir. + +Mr. COLEMAN. And your recommendation was that the passport should +issue--the passport office should issue a new passport, is that correct? + +Mr. SNYDER. I would issue the passport; yes. + +Mr. COLEMAN. And also on the same day, at the end of the interview on +July 10, 1961, you returned to Mr. Oswald the American passport which +he had given you in 1959. Is that correct? + +Mr. SNYDER. Yes. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Didn't you stamp that passport before you returned it +to him? I show you Commission Exhibit No. 946 and ask you would you +indicate to the Commission---- + +Mr. DULLES. Could I ask one question before the witness answers this +question? Was that application and questionnaire considered in the +State Department before the passport was issued, or was the passport +issued on general instructions before they received this application? + +Mr. SNYDER. I will have to correct a word we used before. It is +renewal, and not issuance. + +His passport was good for another 2 years if we renewed, and he was +applying for renewal of his passport, not issuance of a new one. + +In either event, the issuance or renewal would have been done by the +Embassy, by me. + +Mr. COLEMAN. The problem, Mr. Dulles, is the existing passport he had, +by its term, would expire September 1961, is that correct? + +Mr. SNYDER. Yes, sir. + +Mr. COLEMAN. And you felt he would not be able to get out of the Soviet +Union prior to September 1961, and therefore his existing passport +would have to be renewed? + +Mr. SNYDER. I don't recall offhand what the purpose of renewing the +passport at that time was. There was no prospect of his leaving the +Soviet Union at that time, and probably not for quite some time to +come, in my estimation, and based upon my experience with other cases +he would have required his passport, and I presume this is why I was +returning it to him. + +Mr. COLEMAN. On July 10, 1961, you did two things with respect to the +passport. First, you returned to him his old passport, isn't that +correct? + +Mr. SNYDER. I think I did. I might reread my despatch and see. + +Mr. COLEMAN. And, second, you accepted his application for renewal of +the passport. + +Mr. SNYDER. Yes; my mind is clear on that. Yes; I recall now. + +Mr. COLEMAN. When you returned to him his old passport, you first +stamped the old passport. + +Mr. SNYDER. Yes. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Will you indicate for the record how you stamped the old +passport? + +Mr. SNYDER. The passport was marked "This passport is valid only for +direct travel to the United States." (Commission Exhibit No. 946, p. 6.) + +Mr. DULLES. Are you quite clear you returned the passport to him before +he made his final plans to return? + +Mr. SNYDER. I am not entirely---- + +Mr. COLEMAN. Sir, before you answer the question, I suggest if you look +at the Foreign Office Despatch dated July 11, 1961, you will find that +you told the Department what you did at the time. + +Mr. SNYDER. Oh, yes. + +Mr. DULLES. Could that be read into the record--just what he did say +about the handling of the passport at that time--that is July what? + +Mr. SNYDER. July 8, 1961. + +This was July 8. "Oswald intends to institute an application"---- + +Mr. COLEMAN. Pardon me. Wasn't it really July 10? July 8 was the day he +came over to the Embassy just for a few moments. Then he came back on +the 10th. + +Mr. SNYDER. I don't know. It isn't clear from my despatch, I would say. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Would you read---- + +Mr. SNYDER. Actually, if we knew what day of the week the 8th was---- + +Mr. COLEMAN. Subject to check, it was a Saturday. + +Mr. SNYDER. "Oswald intends to institute an application for an exit +visa immediately upon his return to Minsk within the next few days. His +American passport was returned to him for this purpose after having +been amended to be valid for direct travel--for direct return to the +United States only." + +Mr. COLEMAN. In that same Foreign Service Despatch you indicated at the +end that you were sending to the Passport Office in Washington the +application for renewal, isn't that correct? + +Mr. SNYDER. Yes; that is right. + +Representative FORD. May I ask Mr. Snyder--on Commission Exhibit No. +938, where Oswald said, "I have been naturalized as a citizen of a +foreign state," and so forth--if that was the only statement that was +made, what effect would that have had on his application either for a +renewal or a new passport? + +Mr. SNYDER. Well, it would have the effect of flagging the consular +officer to ask some questions, Mr. Ford. + +Representative FORD. Would it have automatically disqualified him for +renewal or the issuance of a new passport? + +Mr. SNYDER. No, sir. + +Representative FORD. Not under the law or the regulations? + +Mr. SNYDER. Not to the best of my knowledge. In other words, what +he says, to my knowledge, is immaterial to a finding of his loss of +nationality. It is the act which counts. + +Mr. COLEMAN. I don't think that is quite the Congressman's question. +His question is if he had actually naturalized himself, could he be +entitled to get an American passport? + +Mr. SNYDER. Oh, no; of course, if he had committed the act of accepting +naturalization in a foreign state, he could not have. He would have +lost his American citizenship. + +Representative FORD. But limiting your knowledge to what he said in +this paragraph, this in and of itself would have precluded either the +issuance of a new passport or renewal? + +Mr. SNYDER. No; I don't think we can say that, Mr. Ford, because no +matter what he says in there, this does not affect his right--does not +affect his American citizenship. It is the determination of facts which +determines it. And the only thing this does, really--well, the first +thing it does is to alert the consular officer to start asking him some +questions. + +The CHAIRMAN. Gentlemen, I have a call from the Court. I must go over +there now. We have the Court conference at 2 o'clock. Will someone be +here to preside at 2 o'clock? + +Representative FORD. Mr. Chairman, I have to leave, too. We have a +quorum call over on the floor of the House. I can be back at 2. But I +do have to leave at the present time. + +The CHAIRMAN. Would you be back at 2 to preside until I return from the +Court? + +Representative FORD. I would be very glad to, Mr. Chairman. + +Senator COOPER. Mr. Chairman, I will be able to be here part of the +time this afternoon. But we are voting this afternoon. I don't know +exactly what time. + +Mr. DULLES. I will be here at 2:30, Mr. Chairman. + +The CHAIRMAN. All right, fine. + +Representative FORD. May I ask how much longer you intend to go on? + +Mr. COLEMAN. I think I can finish in about 4 minutes with Mr. Snyder. + +Representative FORD. Off the record. + +(Discussion off the record.) + +Representative FORD. Back on the record. + +We will recess now until 2 o'clock. + +(Whereupon, at 12:25 p.m., the President's Commission recessed.) + + + + +Afternoon Session + +TESTIMONY OF RICHARD EDWARD SNYDER RESUMED + + +The President's Commission reconvened at 2 p.m. + +Representative FORD. The Commission will come to order. Will you +proceed. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. Snyder, we have marked as Commission Exhibit No. 947, +which is a covering airgram and another copy of the application for +renewal of passport, which is a copy which remained in the Embassy at +Moscow until May 29, 1964, when it was sent to the State Department. + +(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 947 for +identification.) + +Mr. COLEMAN. I show it to you, sir, to call your attention that on this +copy the "X" is over the "have" rather than the "have not." + +Mr. SNYDER. Yes, sir. + +Mr. COLEMAN. I had originally shown you Exhibit No. 938, which was the +other copy of the application for renewal of passport. + +I take it when you compare those two copies, you note that one is not a +direct offset of the other. + +Mr. SNYDER. Yes, sir. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Do you have an explanation of why on July 10, two separate +typings were made of the application for renewal? + +Mr. SNYDER. No, sir; I do not. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Also on or about July 11, 1961, at the same time you were +interviewing Oswald, the State Department was sending instructions, +answering your earlier despatch of May 26, 1961, is that correct? + +I show you Commission Exhibit No. 937. + +(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 937 for +identification.) + +Mr. SNYDER. This communication would have been received after my +departure from Moscow. + +Mr. COLEMAN. You never saw that communication? + +Mr. SNYDER. No, sir. + +Mr. COLEMAN. That communication does indicate, doesn't it, that the +State Department was saying, that based upon its records, that Oswald +had not expatriated himself, or was still technically an American +citizen? + +Mr. SNYDER. Yes; the one operative sentence there in the communications +states, "In any event in the absence of evidence showing that Mr. +Oswald had definitely lost United States citizenship he apparently +maintains that technical status." + +Mr. COLEMAN. But you say you never saw that document? + +Mr. SNYDER. No; this arrived after I departed from the post. + +Mr. COLEMAN. I show you Commission Exhibit No. 939, the State +Department operations memorandum dated August 18, 1961, and ask you if +you saw it? + +Mr. SNYDER. No; it arrived after I left. + +(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 939 for +identification.) + +Mr. COLEMAN. On July 8 and July 10, when Oswald was at the Embassy, did +you see his wife, Marina? + +Mr. SNYDER. Not to the best of my knowledge, Mr. Coleman. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Did you have any knowledge that she was also in Moscow? + +Mr. SNYDER. I don't really know. I can't say whether at that time I had +knowledge that she was or not. I don't ever recall having seen her, no. + +Mr. COLEMAN. When you spoke to Oswald on the 8th or on the 10th of +July, did he indicate that his wife was in Moscow? + +Mr. SNYDER. I am sorry, I don't know. + +Mr. COLEMAN. In connection with the various decisions you have made in +this matter, did you consult with anyone? + +Mr. SNYDER. I think perhaps the word "consult" isn't quite the word. I +kept my superiors informed of what I was doing, and, of course, they +did see my communications, and in most cases countersigned them before +they went out. But in the sense of asking their opinion of what I ought +to do, I don't think so. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Did anyone instruct you as to what particular decision you +should make in connection with any requests made by Mr. Oswald? + +Mr. SNYDER. No; this was my responsibility, really. There was no one +who was presumed to know more about it at the post than I did. I mean +in the sense that I was the officer in charge of that activity. + +Mr. COLEMAN. There is one other question, sir. + +We have some information that Oswald stated that in 1959, when he +was in the hospital, that he was in the same ward with an elderly +American. Do you have any idea who the elderly American could have been? + +Mr. SNYDER. No; I am afraid not. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Would there be any record in the Embassy which would +indicate what Americans were in Moscow at that time, and whether there +was an elderly American who had been hospitalized? + +Mr. SNYDER. We kept an informal file of all information relating to the +presence of Americans any place in the Soviet Union. + +In other words, any time we had a report of any kind, of any level of +credibility, we kept some kind of a record. It was known that there +were Americans in the Soviet Union under various circumstances against +their own will, or persons who might be Americans, or might have had a +claim to American citizenship, who might have been dual nationals--one +doesn't know. But we would get reports occasionally from a state camp, +a labor camp, of a sighting of an American, or a person who claimed to +be an American. This sort of thing. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Would that information be in a special file in the +Embassy, or would it be spread throughout various files? + +Mr. SNYDER. No; it was in, as I recall, a separate informal listing. In +other words, they were also reported to the Department of State. The +chances are that the Department also maintained---- + +Mr. COLEMAN. Have you any idea what that file might be called, if we +were going to ask for it by name--what name we would give so that the +people in Moscow would know what we are trying to take a look at? + +Mr. SNYDER. No; I don't. But it would most likely have been under +"Welfare and Whereabouts." The files in Moscow, I might say, the +classified files are not that extensive. I mean they were one-drawer +files for the most part that we officers worked on ourselves, +physically. + +Mr. COLEMAN. When Oswald came in to see you in 1959, did you have any +feeling that somebody was coaching him, or had instructed him what to +say or do? + +Mr. SNYDER. Well, I think I am accurate in saying at that time I +assumed he had been in contact with some level of Soviet representative +or official and had discussed his intended actions, and perhaps had had +some advice from them as to what to do or how to approach things--in +the sense that his words were somebody else's, I don't think I could +say, because he gave me the impression, the times I saw him, of an +intelligent person who spoke in a manner, and on a level, which seemed +to befit his apparent level of intelligence. + +However, he did say in my first interview with him either "I have been +told what you are going to tell me," or "I am very familiar with the +arguments you are going to use on me," or words to this effect, which +would be the most direct evidence, shall we say, that he had discussed +what he intended to say, and how he intended to handle himself, before +he came in to me. + +But, in any event, I think it is a foregone conclusion, from what I +know of the procedures and things like this, that he was in contact +with a Soviet official, he was under somebody's charge in a sense +during the time he was there. This was certainly the pattern in the +Petrulli case. My whole knowledge of the system and the way it works, +the whole internal consistency of it, would lead me to believe that +this were the case, unless I had firm evidence to believe otherwise. + +Mr. COLEMAN. How about when he reappeared on July 8 and 10, 1961? Did +you feel he was being coached at that time in connection with his +attempt to get his passport returned to him? + +Mr. SNYDER. No; I don't have any direct evidence that he was coached, +I think, in the terms in which you mean. For one thing, his manner of +speech and his general approach to the degree that I recall it was, +well, less stiff, less formal, and certainly less haughty than it +had been on the first occasion. He also didn't use with me the kind +of Marxist sloganeering which I got from him on the first interview, +which also, I think, is in a sense an evidence of his having been well +briefed on his talk with me. + +The second time around this was pretty much absent from his +conversation. + +Mr. COLEMAN. You say you felt he was well briefed on his first +conversation with you in 1959, but not in connection with his second? + +Mr. SNYDER. Well, again, I cannot say that he was well briefed. I just +don't know. But I say, it seemed to me evident at the time that he had +discussed with, presumably, a Soviet person or persons what he intended +to do at the Embassy, and perhaps the line he should take at the +Embassy. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Well, how do you feel or do you think there is any special +significance to the way he entered the Soviet Union from Helsinki in +October of 1959? + +Mr. SNYDER. Well, there is some significance perhaps, but not a great +amount of significance. As most travelers, most tourist travelers +come into the Soviet Union on a prearranged tour--many do come +from Helsinki. Many of them do not come to Moscow. They go only to +Leningrad, spend a day or two, and go back again across the border. +It is the shortest entry onto Soviet territory from non-Communist +territory. + +It was at least one other case, when I was in Moscow, of a person--that +is with possible defecting intent, who came into the Soviet Union +through Helsinki, and who got his visa apparently directly at the +Soviet Embassy, which I think is what Oswald did, although I cannot +be sure. But it was my impression at the time that he did not have a +prepared tourist tour sort of thing. But I cannot be sure on this point. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Do you draw any significance from the fact that he was +able to come from Minsk into Moscow on July 8, apparently without any +difficulty? + +Mr. SNYDER. No; I cannot say that he came without any difficulty. He +may have had considerable difficulty. It was my feeling that he would +have some difficulty in coming to Moscow. + +Representative FORD. Did you make any inquiry about that? Did that +rouse your curiosity, that he was able to come? + +Mr. SNYDER. No; because I expected that he would be able to come, Mr. +Ford. As a matter of fact, the letter which I wrote to him in reply to +the first letter to me which I received was very carefully worded with +this in mind. It was written, for one thing, partly addressed to the +Soviet authorities who would read it. And partly to Oswald--which could +be used by him in a sense should he run up against real difficulties in +getting permission to come to Moscow. + +At any rate, I think it was my feeling at the time that he probably +could come to the Embassy, although it might cost him considerable +difficulty. But I saw no reason to spare him this difficulty. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Is there any other information you have which you think +the Commission would be interested in in connection with its work and +its investigation? + +Mr. SNYDER. I can't really--well, let me say that I don't know of any +other facts pertinent to the investigation, or pertinent to Oswald in +any way which I have not presented, at least not knowingly. + +There may well be--there is much that I could elaborate on, on what I +have said, relating to Oswald. There are a good deal of small things +which perhaps under further questioning might be elicited. + +But I am not aware of anything which I have not mentioned and which is +in any way pertinent, and which ought to be mentioned. + +There are other observations about Oswald and this sort of thing I +suppose I could elaborate on to some extent. + +Representative FORD. Earlier in the interrogation, Mr. Coleman had you +outline what transpired the day that Oswald walked into the Embassy, in +the first instance? + +Mr. SNYDER. Yes, sir. + +Representative FORD. The Commission has in the various papers picked +up following Oswald's apprehension and murder, what purports to be his +observations or his diary during his stay in the Soviet Union. Have you +read any of those? + +Mr. SNYDER. No, sir. + +Representative FORD. He describes in one of these documents his +experience that day he came into the Embassy. Would you in some detail +relate that again, as you understand what transpired? What time of day +it was, where you were, in what office, and so forth. Who was with you, +if anybody. + +Mr. SNYDER. I might begin, I think, as I began originally, by stating +that I don't recall the time of day. But from my knowledge of the facts +of the case, and the fact that I told him the Embassy was closed and so +forth, it had to have been either a Wednesday or a Saturday afternoon, +if not a Sunday. I am told that the date on which he came actually was +a Saturday, so I presume it was a Saturday afternoon that he came. + +Representative FORD. Don't spare of the detail, because it would be +interesting to get your version and his as he purportedly related it in +a document of his own subsequently. + +Mr. SNYDER. I am not sure whether he was brought in to me or whether +I went out and met him at the door and brought him in. I don't recall +whether one of my secretaries might have been on duty that afternoon. +Normally, she would not have been. + +I believe that Mr. McVickar was working in the office adjoining mine. +The offices in Moscow are quite small and the door between our offices +is usually open. And I think that Mr. McVickar told me he was in the +next office. + +There was no one in the office with me at the time I saw him. + +Oswald was well dressed and very neat appearing when he came in. I +don't recall whether he was wearing a suit and shirt and tie. But at +any rate, his appearance impressed me at the time. And I recall that he +looked very presentable. + +He was very curt, very proper. At no time did he insult me or anything +of that sort personally. He was just proper, but extremely curt. + +Representative FORD. Did he just walk in the door and you were seated +at your desk? What was the way in which you first spoke to one another? + +Mr. SNYDER. I don't recall whether he was ushered into my office by the +secretary or one of the employees, or whether I was told that there was +someone waiting for me outside, and I went and got him. It is unlikely +that he walked into the offices, because he would have had to walk +through two other offices to get to mine. + +Well, he stated--he gave me a written statement, which is in the +record, almost immediately upon his arrival, I believe. + +Representative FORD. That is Commission Exhibit No. 913. + +Mr. SNYDER. He stated in effect that he had come to the Soviet Union +to live in the Soviet Union, that he desired to renounce his American +citizenship, though I don't think he used the word "renounce"--I think +he used another word--but that he desired to renounce his American +citizenship. That his allegiance was to the Soviet Union. + +I think initially this was pretty much what his statement was. And +would I please do what was necessary to get this over with. + +Well, during this period of the interview, as far as I recall, he was +standing. And he may have seated himself some time later in it. But I +think for the initial part of the interview, he remained standing and +declined to take a seat. + +When I began to question him, he then rejoined with words to the +effect, "I know what" or "I have been told what you are going to ask +me, you are going to try to talk me out of this, and don't waste your +time, please let's get on with the business." + +I then asked him--I continued to probe and see where I could find a +chink in his armor some place. + +And I think that the initial chink which I found was regarding his +relatives and place of residence in the United States. + +I had his passport. I don't recall whether he handed it to me, though +he probably did, or whether I asked him for it. + +I noted that on the inside of the cover page of his passport his home +address had been crossed out. + +When I asked him where he lived, he declined to tell me. When I asked +him about his relatives--I had noted from his passport that he was 20 +years old. When I asked him about his relatives, he also said this was +none of my business, and would I please get on with the business. + +Well, I told him at that time, or fairly early in the interview, having +found this kind of chink I could work on, I told him that I would have +to know certainly where he lived in the United States in order to do +anything else with his case. + +At that stage, he kind of hemmed and hawed a bit and said--well, I live +at so and so. And from there on it opened the crack a little bit, and I +found his mother also lived at that--that this was the address of his +mother, and probing further I found out about his Marine background, +and that he had been recently discharged. + +I questioned him a bit about where he had applied for his passport, and +how he had come to the Soviet Union, and had he gone home to see his +mother, and things of this sort. + +Some of these questions he answered, and some he didn't. However, he +did not seem quite, as I recall--quite so adamant about refusing this +kind of question as he did about questions closer to the bone. That +is, what knowledge do you have of Marxism, or where did you first come +across this, or did you meet someone in the Marines? + +Representative FORD. Did you go into those questions in your probing +with him? + +Mr. SNYDER. Oh, yes; this sort of question he parried. I won't say he +parried them--he simply refused to answer them. The only thing which he +did say in the interview was "I am a Marxist." And I recall telling him +then in a jocular vein, which evoked no response, that he was going to +be a very lonesome man in the Soviet Union. + +But I found at that point, and from there on, that for all I could +determine he was completely humorless. And this was my impression of +him on the other occasions on which I saw him. He was intense and +humorless. + +Representative FORD. What prompted the breakup of the interview, or the +meeting? + +Mr. SNYDER. Well, the interview finally broke up when I couldn't get +any more out of him. + +Representative FORD. Was he satisfied or dissatisfied with the result +of his conference with you? + +Mr. SNYDER. I think he was dissatisfied, if anything. I think he had +come in there to renounce his citizenship, and had found himself +thwarted. It is quite possible, though, this is reading into it +things which were not necessarily evident to me at the time. It is +quite possible that this was to be his big moment on the stage of +history as far as he was concerned. He may have contemplated this for +some time, as he said--and thus my refusal at that time to complete +his renunciation may have been a hurdle which he had been totally +unprepared for. + +Representative FORD. Did he demand at any time that this was a right he +had to renounce his citizenship, and demand why you would not permit +him to proceed? + +Mr. SNYDER. Well, I cannot really reconstruct our conversations on that +line. But I clearly pointed out to him his right. And he did decline, +as I recall, to have me read the law to him. He said he was familiar +with it, or something, so that I need not read the law to him. So I +pointed out, I believe, at that time he had a right, as any citizen has +a right to give up his citizenship if he so desires. + +That other consideration is that the consul has a certain obligation +towards the individual, and also towards his family, to see that a +person--or that the consul at least does not aid and encourage an +individual, and particularly a 20-year-old individual, to commit an +irrevocable act on the spur of the moment or without adequate thought. + +But I told him in any event that the consulate was closed that +afternoon, that I had no secretary there to prepare the papers, and +that if he would come back during normal business hours I would, of +course, go through with it. + +So I don't think that he left the room happy--if I can use that +term--in his attitude towards me. + +I recall probing a bit on the subject of the formation of his attitudes +towards Marxism. I developed at this time the impression that he really +had no knowledgeable background at all of Marxism. I think I asked him +if he could tell me a little bit about the theory of labor value, or +something like that, and he hadn't the faintest notion of what I was +talking about--I mean something basic to Marxism. And I probed around a +bit as to the sources of his attitudes. And I think the only thing he +told me at the time was that he had been doing some reading, and that +is about as far as I got. On that subject, he simply would not be drawn +out. + +Representative FORD. Did you ask him anything about his knowledge of +the Russian language? Did he volunteer anything? + +Mr. SNYDER. Yes; I did ask him a bit about that. He said he had been +studying Russian. And, again, I had the impression--I don't recall--I +may have spoken some Russian to him--but I at least formed the +impression that he did not know very much Russian. I don't think he +could have gotten along on his own in Russian society. I don't think he +could have done more than buy a piece of bread, maybe. + +Representative FORD. Did he converse with any other member of the staff +at the Embassy, to your knowledge, during the time of this first visit? + +Mr. SNYDER. No, no; at this time he definitely did not. And I don't +think that he did during the time I was there--unless it was simply a +passing word with the receptionist, or something of this sort. + +But as far as I know, he had no knowledgeable conversation with anyone +there. + +Actually, there were only--well, when he first came there were only two +officers, McVickar and myself, and at the time I left, three officers, +with whom he might have talked. And it is inconceivable that either of +the other two officers would have talked to him, knowing my interest in +the case, or if I were not there somebody would have done so without +making a memo for the file and for me of the conversation. + +Representative FORD. In retrospect, assuming the tragic events that +did transpire last year didn't take place, and this circumstance was +presented to you again in the Embassy in Moscow, would you handle the +case any differently? + +Mr. SNYDER. No; I don't think so, Mr. Ford. You mean in terms of would +I have taken his renunciation? No; I think not. + +Representative FORD. In other words, you would have put him off, or +stalled him off, in this first interview, make him come back again? + +Mr. SNYDER. Yes; I would have. + +(At this point, Mr. Dulles entered the hearing room.) + +Mr. SNYDER. Particularly, since he was a minor. Normally, it would have +been, I think, my practice to do this in any event, though. Obviously +no two cases are alike, and the consul must decide. But particularly +in the case of a minor, I could not imagine myself writing out the +renunciation form and having him sign it, on the spot, without making +him leave my office and come back at some other time, even if it is +only a few hours intervening. + +Representative FORD. In one of the despatches I believe you sent to +Washington, you indicated that you had informed the press--I don't +recall what exhibit that is. + +Mr. SNYDER. I think I said, "Press informed." + +Mr. COLEMAN. Commission Exhibit No. 910, sir. + +Representative FORD. You say, "Press informed." Is that the same as +informing the press? + +Mr. SNYDER. No; this simply---- + +Representative FORD. What is the difference? + +Mr. SNYDER. This simply tells the Department that the press is onto +the case, and that they can expect something from Moscow on it. The +Department hates to be caught by surprise, they hate to read something +in the newspapers before they have gotten it back home. And I am simply +telling them that the Moscow press corps is aware of Oswald's presence, +and that there would likely be some dispatches from the press from +Moscow on the case. + +Representative FORD. That doesn't mean the Embassy informed the press? + +Mr. SNYDER. Oh, no. + +Representative FORD. How did you know the press had been informed? + +Mr. SNYDER. Again right at the moment, I cannot say. At what +stage--Priscilla Johnson, I think, was one of the first to be aware of +Oswald. Just how she became aware of him, and just where I became aware +of her knowledge of him, I don't quite know. But this, I think, was +quite early in the game. + +Representative FORD. Was he given much attention by the press in +Moscow? + +Mr. SNYDER. I cannot really speak with great authority on the point. I +don't think so. This is based on several things. + +One, there was very little about Oswald, I think, at the time other +than what was sent in by Priscilla Johnson. + +Secondly, I believe that Oswald himself had declined to talk to some +other press persons of the American press corps. + +Priscilla, as I recall, was the only one who seemed to have an entree +to him. + +Representative FORD. But you did not inform the American press in +Moscow of Oswald? + +Mr. SNYDER. No. + +Representative FORD. Did you ever talk to any of the American press or +any other of the press, about Oswald at this time? + +Mr. SNYDER. No; not that I recall, Mr. Ford. It was my normal practice +not to discuss cases of this kind. They were occurring all the time in +Moscow. If it wasn't one kind it was another. And it was my practice +not to discuss the details of such cases with the press simply because +the cases--each one being different in any event--the cases were always +ticklish. And every little bit helped or hurt in a case of this kind. +And the consul needed, to the extent possible, to minimize the forces +acting on the case, so that--and the press understood this very well. + +Representative FORD. Were you familiar with his interview with Miss +Mosby? + +Mr. SNYDER. I don't recall that I was. I knew that Priscilla Johnson +had seen him and had been seeing him. + +But I don't recall that I was aware that Ellie Mosby had seen him. + +Representative FORD. You were acquainted with Miss Mosby as well as +Priscilla Johnson? + +Mr. SNYDER. Oh, yes; very well. + +Representative FORD. Are any of these stories that these correspondents +write on these defector cases ever checked out with your office, or +people, in corresponding position? + +Mr. SNYDER. Normally not, I would say. + +Representative FORD. Were you at all aware of the 5,000 rubles that +Oswald was given by Soviet authorities or by an agency of the Soviet +Union which is sometimes called, I guess, the Red Cross? Are you at all +aware of that? + +Mr. SNYDER. No. + +Representative FORD. Are you aware of that organization in the Soviet +Union? + +Mr. SNYDER. Oh, yes. + +Representative FORD. Would you describe it for us, as far as you know +what it is? + +Mr. SNYDER. Well---- + +Representative FORD. 5,000 rubles--excuse me. + +Mr. SNYDER. This was the old rubles at that time. No; I don't---- + +Mr DULLES. For the record, what was the date of the change in the value +of the ruble? I think I remember it. It was around 1960--May-June of +1960, I think. + +When it went into effect, I don't remember. + +Mr. SNYDER. I am sorry, I don't either, Mr. Dulles. It was during my +term there. It seemed to me it was in the second half of my tour in +Moscow. But I cannot really recall. + +Mr. DULLES. I think somewhere in the record that ought to appear. I +have an idea it was May of 1960. + +Mr. EHRLICH. January 1, 1961. + +Mr. DULLES. That is when it went into effect? + +Mr. EHRLICH. It was officially revalued. + +Mr. DULLES. January 1, 1961--let the record show that--the ruble was +revalued, so that it took about 10 rubles to make 1 new ruble. + +Representative FORD. So 5,000 rubles in 1959 was not an inconsequential +amount. + +Mr. SNYDER. Oh, no. + +Mr. DULLES. It wasn't very much. + +Mr. SNYDER. No; but 5,000 rubles at that time was probably two-thirds +to three-quarters of the monthly salary of an average Soviet worker. + +Representative FORD. Could you describe---- + +Mr. DULLES. About $500, isn't it, roughly--10 to 1 in those days? + +Mr. SNYDER. Wait a minute; yes. + +Mr. DULLES. It was a considerable sum. + +Representative FORD. It would be more than a month's salary, then. + +Mr. SNYDER. Yes; an average month's salary at the time was about 750 +rubles, something around there. + +Mr. DULLES. I think the legal rate was 20 cents, but the sort of going +rate was around 10, I think. I think you could buy tourist rubles +around 10, as I recall--10 to the dollar. The legal rate, I think, was +5 to the dollar. + +Mr. SNYDER. No; I think the legal rate was 10 to a dollar, Mr. Dulles. + +Mr. CHAYES. In the same letter that states the date, which we supplied +to the Commission at the Commission's request, it states that the legal +rate was 4 to 1 until January 1961. But that was the official rate. + +Mr. DULLES. I understand. + +Mr. SNYDER. There were different rates. The official rate was not the +rate which was used for all things. For instance, we got 10 to 1 for +our rubles. The so-called official rate was used, for instance, in +clearing foreign trade accounts and this sort of thing. + +Representative FORD. Can you tell us your impression of this so-called +Red Cross in the Soviet Union? + +Mr. SNYDER. Well, again, I cannot speak of--about the Soviet Red Cross +with any great personal knowledge. It is not a Red Cross organization +in quite the sense in which we know it. It is clearly an organ of the +State in a totalitarian state, which means it is not an independent +organization, and its policies flow from the policy of the state, and +of the central committee. + +I don't think that the Soviet Red Cross conducts public fund-raising +campaigns, for instance, in the way ours does. + +It also is not an organization to which an individual might turn +routinely for assistance as he might in our society. + +Since the Soviet State does not admit that there is need in the Soviet +Union, that there can be poverty or difficulty for which there are not +organizations already in existence who are fully competent to deal with +such problems, since they don't admit this kind of a situation--they +also do not admit of public welfare organs in a sense such as the Red +Cross. + +Representative FORD. Do you know of any other cases during your period +of service there where there were payments by this organization to +American citizens, or Americans, those who had given up or tried to +give up or failed to give up their citizenship? + +Mr. SNYDER. No, sir; as a matter of fact, the only way in which the +Soviet Red Cross impinged upon my experience in Moscow was that they +were the organ for handling whereabouts inquiries of persons living in +the Soviet Union. If an American citizen wrote to the Embassy asking +our assistance in locating a relative in the Soviet Union, this inquiry +would go from us to the Soviet Red Cross, who was charged under the +Soviet system of things with actually checking into it and letting us +know if they felt that was in their interest. This was the only way in +which the Soviet Red Cross impinged upon us. + +I do recall on a few occasions advising persons who had come into the +Embassy in one way or another and who were in dire need that they go to +the Soviet Red Cross. + +But the reaction of such persons indicated to me that they felt the +Soviet Red Cross was not the place to go. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. Snyder, had you ever heard, while you were in the +Embassy in Moscow, the secret police referred to as the Red Cross? + +Mr. SNYDER. No. + +Mr. COLEMAN. You never heard the MVD, for example, referred to in that +way? + +Mr. SNYDER. No; to my knowledge--I mean there is an organization called +the Soviet Red Cross, which carries on at least in the international +sphere some of the normal activities of international Red Cross +organizations. + +The big point of departure is that they on the one hand are not +independent organizations as they are in free societies, but they are +an organ of the state. And, secondly, I do not think they have the +same role internally that our Red Cross organizations do. + +Mr. DULLES. Have you heard of it being used in other instances for what +might be called extraneous payments--that is, payments not related to +Red Cross work? + +Mr. SNYDER. No, sir. + +Representative FORD. Is there a policy that you were familiar with, as +far as the Soviet Union was concerned, for permitting a person to apply +for and be given Soviet citizenship? + +Mr. SNYDER. Oh, yes; there is a well-defined way of acquiring Soviet +citizenship under Soviet law. + +Representative FORD. Was Oswald familiar with that, as you could tell +from your conversation with him? + +Mr. SNYDER. Well, he obviously was familiar with what one does. That +is, he had made application to the Supreme Soviet, which is what one +does. + +Representative FORD. Did he tell you that? + +Mr. SNYDER. Oh, yes. + +Representative FORD. He did? + +Mr. SNYDER. Yes, sir; this is not something which is common knowledge. +One would have to have inquired and found out, and had someone show you +or give you the proper form on which to make application, and tell you +where to address it, and this sort of thing. + +Representative FORD. What did he tell you had happened when he did that? + +Mr. SNYDER. All he said was that he had made application. + +Representative FORD. He didn't indicate the application had been +processed and approved? + +Mr. SNYDER. No; I cannot recall what our conversation was on that +score. It was quite clear that he had not received Soviet citizenship. + +But, also, I would not have expected him to receive it that early in +the game. I mean, for one thing the Supreme Soviet does not act on +these things on a continuing basis, but acts upon them periodically. + +Representative FORD. En masse, so to speak? + +Mr. SNYDER. That is right. It has them on its calendar. So many times a +year it acts on petitions for Soviet citizenship, presumably. + +Presumably before it is sent to the Supreme Soviet with a favorable +recommendation by the various Government organs, a thorough +investigation is made by MVD and other organs, and various officials +presumably at different levels have got to stick their necks out and +recommend he be accepted--that sort of thing. + +Representative FORD. If you had known that Oswald was in Minsk, what +would your reaction have been? + +Mr. SNYDER. Serves him right. + +Representative FORD. Why do you say that? + +Mr. SNYDER. You have never been in Minsk. + +Well, in the first place, my own feeling is that there is no better +medicine for someone who imagines he likes the Soviet Union than to +live there awhile. + +Representative FORD. In Minsk? + +Mr. SNYDER. Any place. + +Representative FORD. I am more particularly interested in Minsk. + +Mr. SNYDER. But provincial towns in the Soviet Union are a very large +step below the capital, and the capital, believe me, is a fairly +good-sized step down from any American populated place. + +But the difference between large cities and minor cities, and between +minor cities and villages, is a tremendous step backward in time. And +to live in Minsk, or any other provincial city in the Soviet Union, is +a pretty grim experience to someone who has lived in our society--not +necessarily American, but simply in western society. It might be just +the same if he lived in Denmark, or some place. I mean to land up in +Minsk, working in a grubby little factory is quite a comedown. + +Representative FORD. Have you ever been in Minsk? + +Mr. SNYDER. I spent about an hour walking around Minsk, between trains, +one time. + +Representative FORD. Is there anything significant about him being sent +to Minsk, as far as you are concerned? + +Mr. SNYDER. No, no; the only pattern that I would discern is that it is +in all cases to my knowledge--all cases of which I have had knowledge, +the invariable pattern of the Soviets is to send defectors somewhere +outside of the capital city--to settle them in some city other than +Moscow. There have been some minor exceptions to this. + +What is the name--the British defector, and the two foreign office men +Burgess and McLean. McLean lives or did live, until his death, just on +the outskirts of Moscow. + +Mr. DULLES. McLean is still alive. + +Mr. SNYDER. Pardon me--Burgess. Is Burgess the one married to an +American? + +Mr. DULLES. Philby is married to an American. + +Mr. SNYDER. One of the two, Burgess or McLean, is married to an +American. + +Mr. DULLES. McLean is. + +Mr. SNYDER. I had an interview with McLean's mother-in-law at the +Embassy. At any rate, this was one exception. + +Representative FORD. It has been alleged that in Minsk there are +certain training schools for foreigners, or possibly for citizens of +the Soviet Union. Are you at all familiar with that? Is there any +information you have on it? + +Mr. SNYDER. No; I have not, Mr. Ford. + +Representative FORD. Did you ever contact any Soviet officials about +Oswald at the time of this first interview? + +Mr. SNYDER. No. + +Representative FORD. Is that unusual or is that usual? + +Mr. SNYDER. It is usual. + +Representative FORD. In other words, you, in your capacity, would not +normally contact a Soviet official about someone such as Oswald? + +Mr. SNYDER. That is right; yes, sir. In other words, there is nothing +at that stage of the game which--for which I would have any reason to +go to the Soviet authorities. + +Representative FORD. Even the fact that he had a visa 5 days overdue? + +Mr. SNYDER. Well, of course, I am already aware in a sense and +am acting under my awareness that he is living under controlled +circumstances. He is not simply living in a hotel and nobody knows +about it. That he is in contact with Soviet authorities, and is there +with their knowledge and consent. So that---- + +Representative FORD. It is implied consent, even though it may not be +official as far as the documents are concerned? + +Mr. SNYDER. Well, actually, the document itself is quite eloquent on +this subject, I think. There is the very negative fact that his visa is +5 days overdue, and he is still there--that speaks pretty loudly for +the fact that he is living there without a valid visa, at least without +a valid visa in his passport, with the knowledge and consent of the +Soviet authorities. It could hardly be otherwise. + +Representative FORD. Mr. Dulles, we have a quorum call over on the +floor of the House. I will have to leave. Will you take over as +Chairman? I will be back shortly. + +Mr. DULLES. Very gladly. I have one or two questions. + +(At this point, Representative Ford withdrew from the hearing room.) + +Mr. DULLES. Is there any question as to whether a minor can renounce +his nationality? + +Mr. SNYDER. To my knowledge, there is not. To my knowledge---- + +Mr. DULLES. I will withdraw that question and ask Mr. Chayes that when +it comes, because that probably is a matter for him rather than for you. + +Does the Embassy in Moscow have any facility for learning about or +finding out about errant American citizens, or any American citizens +that are wandering around Russia? Do they register at the Embassy? + +Mr. DULLES. They may. + +Mr. DULLES. There is not a requirement? + +Mr. SNYDER. No; as a matter of fact, most do. Most that are in Moscow +do stop in. + +Mr. DULLES. There is a book in the Embassy that they can come in and +sign? + +Mr. SNYDER. Yes. + +Mr. DULLES. Oswald did not sign in the book, I gather. + +Mr. SNYDER. I don't think he would; no. There would be no need for him +to. He came into the Embassy and spoke to an officer, which is a higher +form of registration in a sense. + +Mr. DULLES. For the record, how long was it after his arrival in Moscow +that he reported to the Embassy? + +Mr. COLEMAN. He arrived on October 16, and he didn't go into the +Embassy until October 31. + +Mr. DULLES. That was about the time his visa--his permission to stay +was going to expire? + +Mr. COLEMAN. His permission to stay as designated on his visa had +already expired. + +Mr. DULLES. Was that a 12-day? + +Mr. COLEMAN. He was in the Soviet Union 15 days before he went to the +American Embassy. + +Mr. DULLES. How long was his permit good for? + +Mr. COLEMAN. His permit was good for 6 days. + +Mr. DULLES, Only 6 days? You, of course, get no word from the Soviet +Union when they give visas to Americans to come into the country. + +Mr. SNYDER. Oh, no, no; we get no cooperation from the Soviet +authorities on anything concerning American citizens--excepting in +circumstances where they desire the Embassy's help. A citizen gets sick +while he is traveling in the Soviet Union, and they want the Embassy +assistance in some way or other. But even in such cases, surprisingly +often, we do not hear from the Soviet authorities. We hear from the +traveler himself, somehow, but not from the authorities. + +Mr. DULLES. Am I correct in my understanding that the State Department, +having issued a valid passport for travel abroad, had no way of knowing +whether the owner of that passport is going to the Soviet Union or not? + +Mr. SNYDER. Well, no. + +Mr. DULLES. They have no way of knowing? So they have no way of +informing you about it? + +Mr. SNYDER. No. + +Mr. DULLES. I think there is a misunderstanding by a great many +American people that there are certain countries that are named on the +passport, which at one time I think was the case, but no longer is. As +I recall it now an American passport was only stamped "Not good for +Hungary," as I believe Oswald's passport was stamped. That has been +changed, has it not. + +Mr. SNYDER. These stamps are changed a little from time to time. + +Mr. DULLES. I will ask Mr. Chayes that question. + +Mr. SNYDER. Hungary, North Korea, North Vietnam, and China---- + +Mr. COLEMAN. Now Cuba. + +Mr. DULLES. Could I see that passport for a moment? I think at this +particular time this passport was issued, I thought the only stamp was +Hungary. + +Mr. SNYDER. I think there must have been others, and Hungary was added +after 1946. + +Mr. DULLES. I will just read this. + +"This passport is not valid for travel to the following areas under +the control of authorities with which the United States does not have +diplomatic relations: Albania, Bulgaria, and those portions of China, +Korea, and Vietnam under Communist control." + +Now, that speaks as of--this is a printed notice in the passport, +and that speaks as of the date of issue of the passport, September +10, 1959. And then there is a stamp--I guess that is printed on the +passport--also printed, in a special box, "This passport is not valid +for travel in Hungary." + +Mr. CHAYES. And then that is superimposed with a void stamp when we +took Hungary off the list of restricted areas. + +Mr. DULLES. Right. I don't know whether that void stamp was put on in +1959--but it is not important as far as we are concerned. + +In any event, this passport, as I understand, is perfectly good to +travel to Russia without any notification to the State Department, is +that correct? + +Mr. SNYDER. Oh, yes. + +Mr. COLEMAN. I should state for the record, sir, actually the +application which Oswald filed on September 4, 1959, included Russia as +a place where he intended to visit. + +Mr. CHAYES. On the other hand, the State Department has no mechanism +for notifying posts abroad of ordinary travel to those countries. + +Mr. DULLES. I wonder if it would not be a convenience to you if in +the case, let's say, of the Soviet Union, or possibly other Communist +countries, just as a routine matter they took off this note from the +passport so you would have some record there if anything turned up that +this fellow had said he was going to Russia. Maybe that would involve +administrative work. + +Mr. SNYDER. I can't see what value this would be to a consul. + +Mr. DULLES. Well, if a fellow got into trouble you would turn to his +records alphabetically and you would find Lee Harvey Oswald in his +application said he was going to go to Russia. + +Mr. SNYDER. You mean if he gets in trouble in Russia? + +Mr. DULLES. Yes. + +Mr. SNYDER. If he gets in trouble in Russia, we know he is there. + +Mr. DULLES. You might; you might not. They don't always tell you. You +don't think that would be of any particular value, though? + +Mr. SNYDER. No; I don't, Mr. Dulles. Under any circumstances under +which it was useful to the Embassy to know whether a person had said he +was coming there, we can have the information by cable within 24 hours. +So to attempt--it would seem to me--to attempt to notify embassies +abroad---- + +Mr. DULLES. I am not saying embassies abroad. I am saying the Soviet +Union. + +Mr. SNYDER. But why the Soviet Union and not Poland, Czechoslovakia, +Bulgaria? + +Mr. DULLES. I said the Communist countries, I think, before. I +certainly would not do it for Britain, France, and friendly countries. +There is no point. + +Mr. SNYDER. This would involve a clerical job of major magnitude which +from the Embassy's point of view I don't see that it would serve any +purpose. + +Mr. DULLES. Well, if a young man 20 years old just out of the Marines +says he is going to the Soviet Union, isn't that of some significance? + +Mr. SNYDER. Not necessarily. I mean in terms of the thousands of +people--thousands of Americans who flutter back and forth across the +face of the earth---- + +Mr. DULLES. I am not talking about people floating back and forth +across the earth. I am talking about people going to the Soviet Union. + +Mr. SNYDER. In other words, if I had looked at Oswald's application +at the time he made it, knowing nothing else about it than he had +just gotten out of the Marines, I would not think it was so terribly +unusual, or of great interest to me that this young boy is taking a +trip to a number of western European countries, including the Soviet +Union. Nor would there be anything in such knowledge which would in any +way I think trigger any action on my part. + +Mr. DULLES. Do you have any special instructions other than the ones +that you have referred to about the handling of those that renounce +their citizenship, or have you covered that, do you think, quite +fully? Are there any special instructions that the Embassy in Moscow +prescribed? + +Mr. SNYDER. No. + +Mr. DULLES. There are none? + +Mr. SNYDER. No; there are none; no, sir. This sort of thing is down to +the meat of the consular officer's job. That is, he is out on his own +pretty much on something of this sort. He has got to use his judgment, +and such experience as he has, and such commonsense as he has. + +Mr. DULLES. He has got to know the law, too--he has to know the law and +regulations. + +Mr. SNYDER. Oh, yes; if you don't know, the first thing you do is look +up the regulation and the law and see what your basic requirement is. + +In renunciation cases, it is a fairly simple matter--that is, for the +consular officer, as far as the law is concerned. He doesn't have a +large body of law. He has a specific law which tells him exactly what +the conditions are for renouncing citizenship, and that is it. + +Mr. DULLES. I differ from you a little bit, in the sense that I don't +think if a young fellow 20 years old came in to me and wanted to +renounce his citizenship, and if I were doing consular work, as I was +at one time--I think I would feel that that was a pretty--rather a +tough one to handle. + +Mr. SNYDER. I don't say it is not tough to handle. What I meant to say +was that the legal basis under which the consul, or within which the +consul has to operate---- + +Mr. DULLES. I will talk to Mr. Chayes about the problem of a minor +doing that. + +Mr. SNYDER. From the consular's point of view it is a fairly simple +one. It doesn't require a lot of legal research. + +Mr. CHAYES. Just to have that in the record at this point the statute +provides very clearly on the age problem, section 351(b) of the act +provides that below 18 years the act specified--the citizen shall not +be deemed to have expatriated himself by the commission prior to his +18th birthday of any of the acts specified in paragraphs 2, 3, 4, 5, +and 6. + +Mr. DULLES. That includes renunciation? + +Mr. CHAYES. Yes, 6 is renunciation. But he has to assert--within 6 +months after obtaining the age of 18 years--he has to assert his claim +to U.S. nationality, in order to get this automatically. But I would +think the courts would go further and hold that, especially where +volunteerism is involved, as in renunciation, below 18 years is the +cutoff point--not 21. It used to be 21, but the Congress reduced the +age limit to 18. + +Mr. DULLES. Well, that covers the point here. Was there anything about +the Oswald case in the Soviet press at any time to your knowledge? + +Mr. SNYDER. To my knowledge, there was not, Mr. Dulles. + +Mr. DULLES. And the Soviet authorities have given you no information +about Oswald that hasn't been communicated to us? You have no other +information at all from the Soviet authorities about Oswald? + +Mr. SNYDER. No, sir; I never communicated with the Soviet authorities +about Oswald in any form, nor did they ever ask me anything about him. + +Mr. DULLES. And you don't know any of the other circumstances under +which his case was reconsidered after his attempted cutting of his +wrists and suicide? You don't know what channels that went through in +the Soviet Union? + +Mr. SNYDER. I was not aware of this element of the case. + +Mr. DULLES. You were not aware, of course, at that time of this element +of the case. Do you know what intourist guides were in charge of him? + +Mr. SNYDER. No. + +Mr. DULLES. Do you know any other case during the period when you were +in Moscow of an American who had married a Soviet wife and was given +an exist visa as quickly and as easily as Oswald and Marina were given +theirs? + +Mr. SNYDER. I don't know offhand whether Marina Oswald got her visa, +her exit visa, that quickly and easily. + +Mr. DULLES. Well, I think that is a matter of record--when she applied +and when she got it. + +Mr. COLEMAN. The American visa---- + +Mr. DULLES. This is the Soviet exit visa. + +Mr. COLEMAN. You are talking about the Soviet passport? She applied for +her passport---- + +Mr. DULLES. It is a visa to get out. + +Mr. SNYDER. It is both. She needs a Soviet passport. They are issued at +the same time. + +Mr. DULLES. That is correct. + +Mr. COLEMAN. She applied for her Soviet passport in July 1961, and she +was informed that it would be issued to her approximately on December +25, 1961. + +Mr. DULLES. About 6 months. Do you know of any case where that has been +accomplished in 6 months, other than this case, during your period +there? I don't think I ought to ask you about any period other than +the period you were in the Soviet Union. + +Mr. SNYDER. I think that a review perhaps of a few other of the cases +of American citizens marrying Soviet girls during the time I was there +might show that 6 months is not a terribly short period. There isn't, +again, any standard for things like this. In the first place, so much +depends upon the local officials in the beginning of the thing, and +whether they drag their feet or don't, and how much pressure they put +on the girl to talk her out of it, and all of this sort of business. + +My offhand feeling is that 6 months is not an unusually short period of +time, but it certainly is getting down to about probably the minimum of +our experience with such things. + +Mr. DULLES. That is all I have, Mr. Witness. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. Chairman, at this time I would like to offer for the +record Commission Exhibits 908 through 940 except for Exhibit 911, +which we didn't identify. + +Mr. DULLES. Let me take these one at a time. + +Exhibits Nos. 908 through 940, except for Exhibit No. 911, shall be +admitted. + +(The documents heretofore marked for identification as Commission +Exhibits Nos. 908-910, and 912-940 were received in evidence.) + +Mr. DULLES. Now, for the record, what about these two numbers that are +omitted? + +Mr. COLEMAN. When Mr. McVickar testifies he will be able to identify +the documents. + +Mr. DULLES. You will have these admitted at a later date? + +Mr. COLEMAN. Yes. + +Mr. DULLES. Now, the second category you wanted to have admitted. + +Mr. COLEMAN. I would like to also offer into evidence Commission +Exhibit 946 which is the Oswald passport. + +Mr. DULLES. It shall be admitted. + +(The document referred, to heretofore identified as Commission Exhibit +No. 946 for identification, was admitted into evidence.) + +Mr. COLEMAN. I offer for the record Commission Exhibit No. 947 which +is the second copy of the passport renewal application, which has been +identified after lunch. + +Mr. DULLES. And Exhibit No. 947, the passport application, shall be +admitted. + +(The document referred to, heretofore identified as Commission Exhibit +No. 947 for identification, was admitted into evidence.) + +Mr. COLEMAN. I have no further questions, sir. + +Mr. DULLES. We are just starting with a new witness. Won't you go ahead. + +(Discussion off the record.) + +Mr. DULLES. I want to thank you very much, Mr. Snyder. It has been very +helpful to us. + +Mr. SNYDER. I hope it has. + +(Discussion off the record.) + + +TESTIMONY OF JOHN A. McVICKAR + +Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. John A. McVickar, who is presently principal officer, +American Consulate in Cochabamba, Bolivia, was consul in the American +Embassy in Moscow in 1959, until at least the middle of 1961. + +Mr. McVickar will be asked to testify concerning Oswald's appearance +at the Embassy in October 1959, when Oswald announced his intention to +renounce his American citizenship. + +Mr. McVickar will also be asked to testify concerning his interview +of Marina Oswald when she applied for a visa in July of 1961, and his +actions in connection with securing a waiver of section 243(g) of the +Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, with respect to Marina Oswald. + +Mr. McVickar will also be examined on two memoranda which he has +provided the State Department since the assassination of President +Kennedy. + +At this time I would ask the Chairman to swear Mr. McVickar. + +Representative FORD. Mr. McVickar, will you stand. Do you solemnly +swear that the testimony you are about to give is the truth, the whole +truth, and nothing but the truth. + +Mr. McVICKAR. I do, so help me God. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. McVickar, will you state your full name for the record? + +Mr. McVICKAR. John Anthony McVickar. + +Mr. COLEMAN. That is spelled M-c-V-i-c-k-a-r? + +Mr. McVICKAR. I have given the court reporter here my card. + +Mr. COLEMAN. And what is your present address? + +Mr. McVICKAR. American consulate, Cochabamba, Bolivia. + +Mr. COLEMAN. What was your position with the American Embassy in Moscow +in the fall of 1959? + +Mr. McVICKAR. I was one of two officers in the consular section of the +Embassy. + +Mr. COLEMAN. How long did you remain in Moscow? + +Mr. McVICKAR. I was there from June of 1959, until September of 1961. + +Mr. COLEMAN. I take it you have been shown a copy of the Congressional +resolution with respect to the formation of this Committee? + +Mr. McVICKAR. I am not sure but I think so. With respect to this +Commission? + +Mr. COLEMAN. Yes. + +Mr. McVICKAR. Do you want me to read it now? + +Mr. COLEMAN. No, just generally have it available. + +Directing your attention to the fall of 1959, did you have occasion to +see or to talk to Lee Harvey Oswald? + +Mr. McVICKAR. I had occasion to see him and to talk briefly to him. I +was present in the office at the time he was interviewed by Mr. Snyder. +We had an office about the size of this room with two desks in it, and +Mr. Snyder's desk was at one end and mine was at the other, and we did +our business in effect in the same room separately, but this was an +unusual case, and I recall the man coming in and I recall parts of the +conversation. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Was the day he came in October 31, 1959? + +Mr. McVICKAR. I couldn't say exactly but that sounds just about right. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Was it a Saturday? + +Mr. McVICKAR. I don't know. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Do you recall what time of the day it was? + +Mr. McVICKAR. I don't know. It might have been in the morning but I am +not sure. I don't know for sure. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Did Oswald speak to you at all or was all of his +conversation with Mr. Snyder? + +Mr. McVICKAR. I think all of his conversation, subsequent conversation, +was with Mr. Snyder. As I recall, he said a few words to those of us +who were in the office, myself and the secretary, on his way out of the +office probably, but I don't really remember very much about that, if +he said anything at all. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Could you tell the Commission to the best of your +recollection what he said to Mr. Snyder that you overheard during the +conversation of October 31, 1959? + +Mr. McVICKAR. In an effort to be helpful I have already, in the form of +this memorandum, put everything I could remember down. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Sir, are you referring to the memorandum you prepared on +November 27, 1963? + +Mr. McVICKAR. Yes; the two memoranda, the one of November 27, 1963, +and of April 7, 1964, but, of course, I will try to recall again. As +I recall, he came into the office, and in a rather truculent fashion +gave Mr. Snyder his passport and said that he wanted to renounce his +American citizenship, and he was unusually nasty about it, and he +then--Mr. Snyder talked with him for about I would say maybe an hour, +in an effort to draw him out I think. The reasons that he gave were +that he was very angry at the United States and that he was no longer +under the illusion that we had a good system in the United States. He +had seen capitalism and imperialism in operation, and I think that he +referred to his tour in the Marine Corps, and I think to--possibly he +was stationed in Okinawa. + +I think that he did seem to know something about the renunciation +process, and it was almost as though he was trying to bait the consul +into taking an adverse action against him. + +He mentioned that he knew certain classified things in connection with +having been I think a radar operator in the Marine Corps, and that he +was going to turn this information over to the Soviet authorities. And, +of course, we didn't know how much he knew or anything like that, but +this obviously provoked a rather negative reaction among us Americans +in the consulate section. I don't think I probably can recall anything +more than that for sure. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Sir, I take it at the time that Mr. Oswald was in the +Embassy in 1959 that you did not prepare a memorandum at that time? + +Mr. McVICKAR. No; because it was not my responsibility. I did prepare a +memorandum which I have a copy of here, some time later with respect to +a conversation I had with the correspondent, Priscilla Johnson, who had +been at that time, as of November 17, 1959, in contact with Oswald, and +I think she sought my guidance as to how she should handle her contacts +with him, and also I think to inform the Embassy through me as to these +contacts that she had had. + +Mr. COLEMAN. I take it the memorandum you refer to is dated November +17, 1959? + +Mr. McVICKAR. That is right. + +Mr. COLEMAN. We have marked it Commission Exhibit No. 911. I will ask +you whether that is a copy of the memorandum? + +Mr. McVICKAR. Yes; that is a copy of the memorandum. Is it 911 or +9--excuse me--I would like to call attention to the fact that it seems +to me there is an error in the date there in the second paragraph of +that memorandum. It says "She told me that on Sunday May 15." + +I am almost certain that would have been Sunday, November 15. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Sir, in that memorandum on the second page you have a +P.S., and you state that Priscilla J. told you that Oswald has been +told he will be leaving the hotel at the end of this week. + +Did Miss Johnson tell you that? + +Mr. McVICKAR. I feel sure I wouldn't have written that if she hadn't. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Do you know whether Oswald actually left the hotel the end +of the week? + +Mr. McVICKAR. I am not sure of the time that he left the hotel, but +from what I gather from the record, that must have been about the time +that he did leave the hotel and go to Minsk. As reflected in the other +memorandum it was rather unclear exactly how long Oswald spent in +Moscow, but I think that the record is approximately accurate here, and +that this would have been about the time he would have left the hotel. + +Mr. COLEMAN. According to other information which the Commission has, +which happens to be Oswald's diary so we don't know how accurate it is, +it is stated that he didn't leave Moscow until January 4, 1960. + +Mr. McVICKAR. That is new to me. + +Mr. COLEMAN. You had no such information? + +Mr. McVICKAR. I had no such--this is the first time I heard that. + +Mr. DULLES. He left the hotel, however, for a period, did he not? He +was in the hospital for a period. + +Mr. COLEMAN. No, sir; he was in the hospital before he came into the +Embassy. + +Mr. DULLES. That is correct. + +Mr. COLEMAN. His suicide attempt was before October 31. + +Mr. McVICKAR. Now it says leaving the hotel, but it doesn't say--and I +think that would be all the information that would have been available +at the time that I wrote that, I think the implication was that he was +going to leave town as well, but that doesn't necessarily mean that he +wouldn't have spent the ensuing weeks in some other place in the city +of Moscow. + +Mr. COLEMAN. In the P.S. you also indicated that "he will be trained in +electronics." Did you get that information from Miss Johnson? + +Mr. McVICKAR. Well, yes; I think so, according to this. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Did she say any more than just he would be trained in +electronics? Did she say what type of training he would get? + +Mr. McVICKAR. I am afraid I have no more memory than what is written +here. In fact, I didn't even remember that I had written this +memorandum until I saw it the other day. + +Mr. DULLES. Is the language "he will be trained" or "he had been +trained"? + +Mr. McVICKAR. "He will be," that is what I wrote. + +Mr. DULLES. Is it possible that could have been a reference to past +training during the Marines when he was trained in electronics? + +Mr. McVICKAR. No; I suspect, that what I meant was, that he would be +trained in electronics by the Soviets, but I think that this was a +rather sketchy note of the conversation, and I suspect that what she +would have said, was that he would be trained in or used in the field +of electronics, in such a way probably that they would get the greatest +benefit from his knowledge. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Sir, immediately prior to the time that you had the +conversation with Miss Johnson, you had had occasion, hadn't you, on +November 9, 1959, to attempt to deliver a message from Oswald's half +brother to Oswald? + +Mr. McVICKAR. Yes; there is a note in the file to that effect, and I +don't really remember that incident very well, just very vaguely. I +think that I was given the assignment to attempt to deliver a message. +I think the idea was that we would try to see what we could do to get +this fellow to change his mind and go back to the United States. + +The attitude that we took toward him was, I think, a normal one, as one +might toward a very mixed up young person, probably misinformed, and so +I think this was an effort to put him back in communication with his +family. + +Mr. COLEMAN. I would like to show you a note from the Oswald file dated +November 9, 1959, which has been given Commission Exhibit No. 942, and +a copy of a telegram to Oswald from John E. Pic, which has been given +Commission Exhibit No. 943, and ask you, is that the telegram you +attempted to deliver, and is that the note you wrote at the time when +you were unable to deliver the telegram to Oswald? + +Mr. McVICKAR. Yes; that is the note, and I don't necessarily recollect +this telegram. It may be that it was in a sealed envelope. I cannot say +that I recollect the telegram, but it certainly looks like the probable +telegram that would have been delivered, that I would have attempted to +deliver at that time. + +Mr. COLEMAN. I take it that after October 31 of 1959, until Oswald left +Moscow, that you had no further contact with Oswald? + +Mr. McVICKAR. That is my recollection, yes, that I had no further +contact with Oswald. I must say that a great many things did take place +in that 2 years. + +I, for example, did not recollect, until just the other day when I +saw the file, that I had interviewed his wife. But to the best of my +recollection I never laid eyes on Oswald again. + +Mr. COLEMAN. I think earlier in your testimony you said that you had +prepared a memorandum on November 27, 1963, in which you attempted to +recall what happened when you were in the American Embassy in 1959, +1960, and 1961, is that correct? + +Mr. McVICKAR. Yes. + +Mr. COLEMAN. A copy of the memorandum has been marked Commission +Exhibit No. 941. I want to ask you whether that is a copy of the +memorandum which you prepared, and sent to Mr. Thomas Ehrlich? + +Mr. McVICKAR. Yes; that is a copy of it. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Now in that memorandum, on the last page, page 3, the +second paragraph, you say: "In short, it seemed to me that there was a +possibility that he had been in contact with others before or during +his Marine Corps tour who had guided him and encouraged him in his +actions." + +Could you indicate to the Commission the basis for making that +statement? + +Mr. McVICKAR. Well, I think it is clear here, and if it isn't I should +certainly say, that this last page is in the nature of speculation and +an attempt to be helpful. + +Now in answer to your question, he gave me the impression, and this was +supported by the impressions other people seemed to have at the time +through conversation, that he was a very young person to have so many +ideas in his head, and to have done so much about them, in effect, in +such a relatively short time, and so it occurred to some of us that it +may be that he had had some coaching from somebody; but also, I must +say, he was an unusual person and apparently sort of an ingrown person, +and so it may be that he had conceived and carried out all these things +by himself. + +But I think that that paragraph in a way sums up that same idea, that +it seemed that there was a possibility that he had had some guidance in +carrying out this line of action. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Does that also explain the sentence in the same paragraph +where you say: "On the other hand, there also seemed to me to be the +possibility that he was following a pattern of behavior in which he had +been tutored by person or persons unknown"? + +Mr. McVICKAR. Yes; the same applies. + +Mr. COLEMAN. You had no independent evidence of this at all, did you? + +Mr. McVICKAR. I was asked to explain this attitude I had as best I +could, and I wrote another memorandum dated April 7, 1964, in which I +described to go into this line of thought. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Could we have marked as Commission Exhibit No. 958 a +three-page memorandum from Mr. McVickar to Mr. Ehrlich, dated April 7, +1964? + +(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 958 for +identification.) + +Mr. COLEMAN. Is that the memorandum you just referred to? + +Mr. McVICKAR. Yes; that is the same memorandum. + +Mr. COLEMAN. You say this memorandum, Commission Exhibit No. 958, was +written in April 7, 1964, after you had been asked to explain your +earlier statement concerning following a pattern of behavior in which +he had been tutored by person or persons unknown? + +Mr. McVICKAR. Yes; that is correct. I believe that the Commission asked +for this clarification from the Department of State, and it was relayed +out to me in Bolivia. + +Mr. COLEMAN. In that memorandum you first indicated that you felt that +Oswald probably would not know that Helsinki would be a good place to +go to try to get a visa into Russia. + +Mr. McVICKAR. Yes; I think so. It is a well enough known fact among +people who are working in the Soviet Union and undoubtedly people who +are associated with Soviet matters. + +But I would say that it was not a commonly known fact among the +ordinary run of people in the United States. + +Mr. COLEMAN. You also placed some reliance upon the fact that he didn't +come in under a $30 per day individual tour or he didn't join a group, +is that correct? + +Mr. McVICKAR. Well, now, when you say that he did not do these things, +I don't know that he did not do these things. I was merely discussing +the fact that the particular type of visa that he obtained might have +some significance, and I went into a little bit maybe not in complete +detail and maybe not knowing all of the factors, but I tried to go into +a little bit of the different kinds of possibilities there might have +been. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Well, if it is established that Oswald got a tourist +visa, then I take it that paragraph 2 of your memorandum pretty much +disappears because the assumption is that he didn't get a tourist visa, +is that correct? + +Mr. McVICKAR. No; I don't think entirely so. I think you would have +to take a look at the amount of time that it would take him to get a +tourist visa or any kind of a visa. + +But as I say, I can't be sure that it would be very significant. But I +think it is a point, however. + +Mr. DULLES. How long is the ordinary tourist visa good for? + +Mr. McVICKAR. Tourist visas are usually issued for specific periods of +time, specific tours. That might be a week or might be a month, and +they vary in price with the length of time and where they are going, +and also how many people are in the group. If you are going by yourself +it is very expensive. If you are going with larger and larger groups it +becomes less expensive. + +Mr. COLEMAN. You also indicated in the memorandum in paragraph No. 4 +that according to your experience Oswald's application to remain in the +Soviet Union was relatively quickly accepted by the Soviet authorities? + +Mr. McVICKAR. I think item 4 is more or less canceled out by the fact +that my memory was inaccurate as to how long he had stayed in Moscow. I +think that my paragraph 4 is based on my inaccurate memory that he was +there for only about a week, but if he was there for much longer than +that, I think that is vitiated. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Assuming that he did stay the longer length of time then, +I take it you don't think there is any particular significance in the +fact that he was able to remain in the Soviet Union? + +Mr. McVICKAR. No; I think that the length of time that he apparently +was in Moscow was sufficient for them to make any bureaucratic decision. + +Mr. COLEMAN. And in paragraph No. 5 you indicated that he seemed to +be surprisingly competent and determined about what he was doing, +considering his age and experience. + +Could you indicate for the Commission just what he did which led you to +that conclusion? + +Mr. McVICKAR. Well, that goes back to my comment of a few minutes ago. +I think his bearing and attitude was unusually confident in a very +far away country where the way of doing things is very different from +what it is in the United States, and considering presumably he hadn't +traveled very much before, and he was very young. I think the word +"competent" refers to what seems to be a rather efficiently organized +chain of events which began, as I understand it, when he first applied +for a passport in the United States in Los Angeles, on September 4, +until his apparent appearance in Moscow about October 16, where he +applied for Soviet citizenship. And it seems to me, just offhand I +would say, that is a fairly well organized movement considering also +that apparently he went by ship from New Orleans to Helsinki--that +is what I understand--and was determined, as was very evident in +everything he said when he was in the office, was determined to do what +he was doing. + +Mr. COLEMAN. In paragraph No. 8 of the memorandum you place some +significance in the fact that he was permitted to belong to a rifle +club and practice target shooting while in Minsk. + +First, from where did you get that information? + +Mr. McVICKAR. I apologize for that in a way. That is complete +speculation, and the rifle club was something I read about in the +newspaper. I cannot be very accurate about the rifle club business, and +I point out in that note that it is not related to my contact with him. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Do you think it would be unusual from your knowledge of +life in the Soviet Union that people would belong to a rifle club and +that they could practice target shooting? + +Mr. McVICKAR. Yes; I would say so; yes. + +Representative FORD. In other words, if it was a fact? + +Mr. McVICKAR. If it was a fact. + +Representative FORD. That he belonged to a rifle club and did shooting +it would be unusual? + +Mr. McVICKAR. It would seem to me, yes, particularly for a foreigner, +but unusual in any case, I think. + +Mr. DULLES. But you did not hear that either from Oswald or from his +wife whom you saw later, I believe. + +Mr. McVICKAR. No; I did not. It is unrelated to anything except what +I heard about the case, and I don't know really about this. I just +remember reading about it in the paper, that is all. + +Mr. COLEMAN. After November 17, 1959, you had no more contact with +Oswald until some time in July 1961, is that correct? + +Mr. McVICKAR. Yes; that is right, and I believe that I didn't have any +contact with him in July of 1961. I believe I only had contact with his +wife. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Do you speak Russian? + +Mr. McVICKAR. Yes; or I did. + +Mr. COLEMAN. When did his wife come in in July of 1961? + +Mr. McVICKAR. Well, as I recall, and as I say, my memory here was +completely refreshed by the record, and I see that I have some notes in +the file that are undated, but that they were used evidently to write a +communication to the Department of State which was dated on August 28, +1961, and so I am confident that this interview must have taken place +in say the week before that. + +I departed from the Soviet Union about the 1st of September, and things +were pretty busy, and I can't remember very much more about it than I +can see here in the record. + +I do not really remember this interview, and I can only speak about it +on the basis of the record. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Isn't it possible that you saw her on July 11, 1961? + +Mr. McVICKAR. No; because I think what happened, and I think this is +reflected in the record. I think what happened was that Oswald himself +came into Moscow and was interviewed by Mr. Snyder on July 10, and that +he did not have his wife with him, and that he said that he was going +to try to get his wife to come to Moscow in the next few days, so that +she could be interviewed in connection with the visa, but that in fact +she did not appear until several weeks later, some time in August. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Are you certain about this, sir? + +Mr. McVICKAR. This is the best of my recollection, and I am pretty sure +that I read something in the record yesterday that indicates that she +was not in Moscow at the time he was interviewed by Mr. Snyder in July +of 1961. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Wasn't it possible that Mr. Snyder talked to Mr. Oswald +on July 8, which was a Saturday, and that Mrs. Oswald appeared at the +Embassy with Oswald on July the 10th, or on July 11th, 2 or 3 days +later? + +Mr. McVICKAR. I won't say that it is not possible, and as I say, +I don't remember this. But I very much doubt that I would have +interviewed somebody in the middle of July and have not written to +the State Department about it until the end of August, and I say that +honestly. That was not the way we operated. + +Mr. COLEMAN. You referred to some handwritten notes you saw in the +file. I would like to show you Commission Exhibit No. 945 and ask you +whether that is the copy of the notes that you were referring to? + +Mr. McVICKAR. That is the copy of them. I do not believe they are +dated, and it was with a ballpoint pen. I made this copy for myself +from the copy that is in the file. + +Mr. CHAYES. Would it be appropriate to point out that there seems to be +more on your copy than on his copy? + +Mr. McVICKAR. No, these are my own notes. This is exactly what it is +here. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Sir, I take it that Commission Exhibit No. 945 is some +notes you took at a time when you had an interview with Marina Oswald, +is that correct? + +Mr. McVICKAR. Yes. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Now you have a notation "was not Komsomol." What does that +mean? + +Mr. McVICKAR. That I am confident means that I asked her whether +she was a member of the Komsomol, which is the Communist youth +organization, and this would have been an ordinary question for me to +ask a visa applicant because this had some bearing on her admissibility +to the United States under the immigration law, and I was apparently +satisfied from what she said she was not. There is no other way of +really establishing it under such circumstances. + +Mr. DULLES. Did she say whether she had at anytime been a member of the +Komsomol? + +Mr. McVICKAR. I would have undoubtedly phrased my question in such a +way as to cover that point, I think. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Did you ask her whether she was a member of any particular +Communist organization? + +Mr. McVICKAR. Yes; and I believe that, as I stated in this report to +the Department of State, and I think it appears a little bit in here, +that she was a member of a Profcoes, which is probably a combination of +English and Russian, but this would have been a labor union, and she +apparently was a member of the medical workers labor union when she was +in the technical school, and then later in her work since 1957, it says +here. + +Mr. COLEMAN. When you had this interview wouldn't she then have to +fill out or you would have to fill out a form or some type of petition +to get her classified as an alien eligible for an immigration visa? + +Mr. McVICKAR. This was not the procedure. There is a form of +application for a visa, the number of which I forget. But that, under +the procedure, was filled out by the applicant at a later date. +This initial interview was to obtain in effect the approval of the +Department of State from the security point of view for the issuance of +the visa, and the interview was in connection with preparing a report +covering the points that are of concern to the Department in that +connection, and this report was prepared by me, sent in on August 28, +1961. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Sir, I have marked as Commission Exhibit No. 959 a copy +of a petition to classify status of alien for issuance of immigrant +visa, and it shows it was signed by Lee Harvey Oswald, and that +the beneficiary was Marina N. Oswald, and that it was sworn to and +subscribed before you on July 11, 1961. I ask you, have you seen that +before? + +Mr. McVICKAR. Well, this is something that I did not recall. But I see +that it was also an enclosure to my document which I sent in on August +28, 1961. + +Undoubtedly I must then have taken Mr. Oswald's oath on this document +on the date specified. This would not have required the presence of his +wife, but I am sure then on the basis of what I see here that this must +have occurred, but I did not remember it. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Since you have that document before you, could you then +say that there is a possibility that Commission Exhibit No. 945 was +written on July 10 or July 11, 1961, rather than in August as you +earlier testified? + +Mr. McVICKAR. I would say there is a possibility, but again I doubt it +because for one thing I do recall this item in the record which said +that she was not present when he came in to the Embassy in July, and I +am confident that there would have been no reason to hold up the type +of report made here unless it was that she wasn't available for an +interview. + +But as I say, I couldn't say for sure, but I don't remember, I don't +think of any reason that would have caused a delay of this kind unless +it had been that she didn't come in. I think it is too bad that I +didn't date this note, but I guess I didn't. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Can we infer from Commission Exhibit No. 959 that you must +have seen Mr. Oswald on July 11, 1961? + +Mr. McVICKAR. Yes; I think this would be a safe assumption, but I don't +remember anything about it, and it could have been a very routine thing +you see, because the way the work was arranged was that Consul Snyder +as the officer in charge handled our matters relating to citizenship, +and I handled matters relating to visas, and this was a visa matter and +he could very well have asked that I take Mr. Oswald's oath on this +petition in behalf of his wife, and it might have a very pro forma +thing. But I honestly don't remember this incident; but this sort of +thing is never done unless the person is present, unless both signing +parties are present. + +So it would seem to me that this man must have appeared to me and +signed this thing and said that it was his legal act, and then I +certified to that. + +Mr. DULLES. By both signing parties you only mean Oswald and the notary +or whoever certifies to it? + +Mr. McVICKAR. I being the notary in this case you see. But the +beneficiary, Mrs. Oswald, did not have to be present for this thing. + +Mr. COLEMAN. There is a possibility she was present? + +Mr. McVICKAR. Well, I think it is possible; but I rather doubt it +frankly, and I doubt it on the basis of what I have said before, that I +think I recall seeing in the record that she was not present, and that +I don't see why this whole procedure would't have gone through much +more quickly if she had been, that is all. + +Mr. COLEMAN. You keep on referring to the fact that you recall seeing +this in the record. Could you tell me where you saw it, please? + +Mr. McVICKAR. Well, I can try to find it. I think the best thing would +be if I looked at the Moscow official file. Is that right here? Okay; +well, maybe I can find it. Is that all right if I take a minute to look +through these papers? + +Mr. COLEMAN. Yes. + +(Discussion off the record.) + + +TESTIMONY OF ABRAM CHAYES + +Representative FORD. Mr. Chayes, will you take the following oath. Do +you swear the testimony you are about to give is the truth, the whole +truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? + +Mr. CHAYES. I do. + +Mr. COLEMAN. The Honorable Abram Chayes is the Legal Adviser to +the Department of State. Mr. Chayes will be asked to testify with +respect to the files and other information and documents supplied the +Commission by the Department of State dealing with Mr. Oswald. + +Mr. Chayes will also be asked about the legal correctness of certain +decisions made by various offices of the State Department with regard +to Oswald, including whether Oswald had lost his American citizenship +by his actions in 1959, whether his passport should have been returned +to him in July 1961, whether his passport should have been renewed +based upon the July 10, 1961, application, whether he should have been +issued his 1963 passport, and whether action should have been taken to +revoke it in October 1963 as a result of information received by the +Passport Office, and whether the Department and the Immigration and +Naturalization Service acted properly in connection with section 243(g) +of the Immigration and Nationality Act with respect to Marina. Mr. +Chayes will also be asked about the lookout card system in the Passport +Office. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. Chayes, will you state for the record your full name? + +Mr. CHAYES. My name is Abram Chayes. There is a middle name that I +don't use. It is Joseph. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Where do you presently reside? + +Mr. CHAYES. At 3520 Edmunds Street NW., Washington, D.C. + +Mr. COLEMAN. When did you become Legal Adviser to the State Department? + +Mr. CHAYES. I think I was sworn in on February 7, 1961. + +Mr. COLEMAN. So, therefore, anything that happened with respect to Mr. +Oswald prior to that time you had nothing to do with and knew nothing +about? + +Mr. CHAYES. Well, I should say that I never heard the name Lee Harvey +Oswald until November 22, 1963, so that neither before nor after the +time I became Legal Adviser, before the assassination, did I have any +direct knowledge about Oswald, nor do I believe I passed directly on +any matters in the case, although there may have been some matters that +were considered in my office. I am not sure about that, but I took no +personal action in the case. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Since the assassination your office has had occasion to +review the various files which were in the State Department dealing +with Lee Harvey Oswald, is that correct? + +Mr. CHAYES. Yes; on November 22, Mr. Ball, the Under Secretary of +State, directed me to take in personal charge all the files in the +Department that I could find, and to review those files and be prepared +with a report for the Secretary the following morning on the general +relations of Mr. Oswald and the State Department. + +I did take some files, the basic files into my custody at that time, +and retained them in my custody, I think, until we sent them to the +Commission at the Commission's request. And others than who were +working on the matter in the Department had access to the files but had +to work in my office on them. + +Mr. COLEMAN. On or about May 28, 1964, you had occasion to reassemble +the files and deliver another set to the Commission, is that correct? + +Mr. CHAYES. Yes; from time to time between the first delivery, which +was probably last December sometime, and just last week we have made +other papers available to the Commission as they have come to our own +notice. A file search of this kind in a place like the Department of +State is a pretty elaborate business. + +Only last week we got a whole new shipment from the Moscow Embassy in +which they said, "We have sent you before everything that you didn't +have duplicates of, but here is a whole bunch of duplicates." + +And it turned out that some of them weren't duplicates as appeared just +this morning. We made those available as soon as they came in. + +Mr. COLEMAN. I take it with the covering letter of May 28, 1964, and +the description you made of the file together with the other files that +you delivered to us just yesterday, that they constitute all of the +files that the State Department has? + +Mr. CHAYES. As I say, they constitute all that we have been able to +find, all the documents we have been able to find after a most diligent +search. + +I myself did not personally conduct the search, but we directed +responsible officers in all the various places where documents might +be to give us all the documents they had, and I think we made a very +intensive search, and to my knowledge there are no other documents in +the Department relating to this matter in any way. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Shortly after the Commission was appointed, you had +prepared under your direction, and submitted to the Commission a +document entitled "Report of the Department of State Lee Harvey +Oswald," is that correct? + +Mr. CHAYES. That is correct, sir. + +Mr. COLEMAN. And this document is an examination of the various actions +taken by people in the State Department, and your judgment as to the +legal correctness of the various actions? + +Mr. CHAYES. Well, as you see, the document consists of five subparts. +It is an analysis and summary of the documents in the files. We went +through the files, looked at all the documents, tried to summarize them +for the Commission so as to give the Commission the fullest possible +appreciation of the contacts between Oswald and the Department. Where +it was necessary to elucidate policies or matters of law in order to +give the Commission that appreciation, we have done so, yes. + +Mr. COLEMAN. The Report has been given a number of Commission Document +No. 2. (Commission Exhibit No. 950.) After that you, on May 8, 1964, +sent a letter to the general counsel for the Commission in which you +answered certain questions which had been proposed by the general +counsel? + +Mr. CHAYES. Yes; the general counsel sent us a questionnaire with two +attachments, attachment A and attachment B. Attachment A referred to +matters mostly concerning Russia and the Embassy in Moscow. Attachment +B raised questions about matters within the Department, passport and +visa offices within the Department. Each attachment contained a series +of questions. + +Again I think it is more accurate to state that the responses were +prepared under my supervision and direction. I, of course, reviewed +every response and and none were sent out without my approval. But I +was not the draftsman or didn't do all of the work. + +Mr. COLEMAN. The first question that the Commission would like to know +about and be given some advice on is the question of whether the acts +which Oswald performed in October 1959, and shortly thereafter, would +in your opinion result in his loss of citizenship. + +Mr. CHAYES. In my judgment they would not amount to expatriating acts. +The basic analysis is covered in the third part of Commission Document +No. 2, entitled "Lee Harvey Oswald--Expatriation." + +Representative FORD. On what page is that, Mr. Chayes? + +Mr. CHAYES. Well, I am sorry, each of the parts begin at No. 1, so it +is not very convenient, but it is about halfway through. There is a +memorandum entitled "Memorandum Lee Harvey Oswald--Expatriation." + +Now, in that memorandum we analyze three sections of the act under +which it might be argued that an expatriation took place. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Yes? + +Mr. CHAYES. I say in that memorandum we analyzed the three possible +sections of the act under which it might be argued that an expatriation +took place, and in each case we conclude, and I think properly, that +there was no expatriation. The first section is section---- + +Mr. DULLES. May I ask one question? This is a formal opinion of your +office as Legal Adviser to the State Department? + +Mr. CHAYES. I take responsibility for this as my present opinion, yes, +sir, and it goes out over my signature. We are not quite like the +Attorney General. We don't have opinions that get bound up in volumes. + +Mr. DULLES. I realize that it is not a formalized opinion from that +angle. Was this ever submitted to the Department of Justice for +consideration? + +Mr. CHAYES. No; it was not. + +Mr. EHRLICH. Actually this report did go to the Department of Justice +because it was submitted before the Commission was formed. + +Mr. CHAYES. Yes; but it wasn't submitted to the Department of Justice +for consideration. + +Mr. DULLES. For concurrence or anything of that kind. + +Mr. CHAYES. For concurrence, no. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Now, the first section which I assume you address your +attention to was section 349(a) (1). + +Mr. CHAYES. We could do it that way. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Do you want to start with 349(a) (6)? + +Mr. CHAYES. We started with (a) (6) in the memorandum because there was +likely to be a better case under (a) (6) than almost anything else. +The reason why one might argue more about (a) (6) than anything else, +is that there were written statements by Oswald saying, "I renounce my +citizenship" or words to that effect, and they were made in writing, +and in a way that appeared to be intended as a formal, considered +statement. + +But (a) (6) says that a U.S. national may lose his nationality by +"making a formal renunciation of nationality before a diplomatic or +consular officer of the United States in a foreign state, in such form +as may be prescribed by the Secretary of State." + +Now, even if you resolve every other issue in favor of expatriation, +that is if you say handing a fellow a letter of the kind that Oswald +handed to Mr. Snyder was a formal renunciation of nationality before +a diplomatic or consular officer, it was clearly not on the form +prescribed by the Secretary of State, and the courts have been very +precise on that. + +Representative FORD. Do you have those citations, Mr. Chayes? + +Mr. CHAYES. The form we have here, it is called "Form of Oath of +Renunciation." It is volume 8 of the Foreign Affairs Manual of the +Department of State, and it is an exhibit to section 225.6, and you can +see here that it is a fully prescribed form. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Do you have any case where (a) it was a written statement, +and (b) it was given to a consul and yet because it was not on the form +prescribed by the Secretary of State, a court has held that it was not +a renunciation? + +Mr. CHAYES. No case has been decided under 349(a) (6), but the general +line of cases under 349 is to resolve every doubt in favor of the +citizen, and there are innumerable citations to that effect. I feel +quite confident when the statute itself prescribes that the form should +be one established by the Secretary, and where the Secretary has in +fact prescribed such a form, that one cannot bring himself under (a) +(6) unless he uses the form. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Wouldn't the two letters that Oswald delivered be +considered as making an affirmation or other formal declaration of +allegiance to a foreign state or political subdivision thereof, which +is an act under (a) (2)? + +Mr. CHAYES. That would be (a) (2), and we consider that at page 7 of +the memorandum, subsection C. + +Mr. DULLES. Are we through with all pages up to 7? + +Mr. CHAYES. No; we probably go back to 1. But there we do have cases, +and the cases are clear that the oath or affirmation or formal +declaration under section (a) (2) has to be to an official entitled to +receive it on behalf of the foreign state, and even then the courts +have been very sticky about holding people to that. + +For example, there is one case where a dual national, a Philippine and +U.S. national, made an oath of allegiance to the Philippines in the +usual form in order to get a Philippine passport, and it was asserted +that this was an expatriating act, and the court held no, it wasn't. In +re _Bautista's Petition_, 183 F. Supp. 271 (D.C. Guam, 1960). There is +a case where a man took an oath of allegiance to the British Crown, but +the recipient of the oath was his employer, private employer, and it +was held that that was not the kind of oath that is involved. In _The +Matter of L._ 1 I. & N. Dec. 317 (B.I.A. 1942). + +The courts have said that this is a reciprocal relationship in which in +order to come under this section, the citizen or the U.S. citizen must +offer his allegiance to the foreign state and the foreign state must +accept it. + +Mr. DULLES. There has to be action on both sides. Unilateral action is +not enough if the affirmation is not accepted. + +Mr. CHAYES. That is the way I read the cases. Now, of course, if it +comes before, if the oath is taken before an official of the foreign +state that is authorized to take oaths of allegiance, why then nothing +more is needed than that. But making an oath or statement of allegiance +to another American or to a private party, whatever his nationality, +has been held not to fall within 349 (a)(2). + +Mr. COLEMAN. Do you know whether Oswald had to make any statement or +take any oath when he got employment in the Soviet Union? + +Mr. CHAYES. I don't personally, but it may have been inquired into by +the consul when Oswald came back for a renewal passport. + +I think the record shows that it was concluded that there was no +evidence that he became a naturalized Soviet citizen, and so far as I +know, there is no evidence that he in any other way took an oath of +allegiance of the kind that would bring him under 349(a)(2). + +Even if he had had to do so, for example, in connection with his +employment, there are cases which may say that that is not a voluntary +oath if it is done out of economic necessity and it will not, +therefore, serve to expatriate. See _Insogna_ v. _Dulles_, 116 F. Supp. +473 (D.D.C. 1953); _Stipa_ v. _Dulles_, 233 F. 2d 551 (3d Cir. 1956); +and _Bruni_ v. _Dulles_, 235 F. 2d 855 (D.C. Cir. 1956). In at least +one other case, _Mendelsohn_ v. _Dulles_, 207 F. 2d 37 (D.D.C. 1953), a +court held that the plaintiff had not expatriated himself by residing +abroad for more than 5 years since he had remained abroad to care for +his sick wife, who was too ill to travel. + +Representative FORD. I think it would be helpful wherever you say, Mr. +Chayes, there are cases, that the record show the citation of the cases. + +Mr. CHAYES. I think most of the cases that I am relying on are cited in +the memorandum to which I am referring. But there may be others that I +am recollecting. If I could have a chance to review the transcript, I +will submit exact citations in each case. + +Representative FORD. I think that would be very helpful. Otherwise I +think the record is---- + +Mr. CHAYES. Yes; I agree. + +Representative FORD. Is not clear or not complete, and as far as I am +concerned, and I think the Commission would agree, that you should +review the transcript to supply those citations for those particular +categories of cases. + +Mr. CHAYES. I will be very glad to do so, Mr. Chairman. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Now do you want to address yourself to section 349(a) (1)? + +Mr. CHAYES. Well (a) (1) is obtaining naturalization, and there just +wasn't any indication, there wasn't any evidence at all that he had +become a naturalized Soviet citizen. + +We knew that he applied for naturalization, but even on the basis of +his Soviet documents he had not been given Soviet citizenship. + +Mr. COLEMAN. I take it your testimony is that after reviewing all of +the files, your office has determined that Oswald committed no act +which would justify the Department stating that he had expatriated +himself. + +Mr. CHAYES. I think that is right. I more than think that is right. I +know that is right. We have reached the conclusion, and I personally +have reached the conclusion, that Oswald's actions in the Soviet Union, +although he may very well have wanted to expatriate himself at one time +or another, did not succeed in doing that. + +I think for the record I would like to read here a citation from the +case of _Stipa_ v. _Dulles_ decided by the Court of Appeals for the +Third Circuit--the citation is at 233 F. 2d. 551--which gives some idea +of the general attitude with which the courts approach expatriation +cases. In that case it said: + + The burden of proving expatriation generally is upon the defendant + who affirmatively alleges it [that is the Secretary of State] and + the burden is a heavy one. Factual doubts are to be resolved in + favor of citizenship. The burden of proof on the Government in an + expatriation case is like that in denaturalization. The evidence + must be clear, unequivocal and convincing. The rule prevailing + in denaturalization cases that the facts and the law should be + construed as far as is reasonably possible in favor of the citizen + equally applies to expatriation cases. American citizenship is not + to be lightly taken away. + +This is the dominating attitude of the courts in all of these cases. We +find, for example, that a group of Japanese Americans, who during the +war under the stress of the relocation program, did all of the business +of renouncing their citizenship and did it in the most formal kind of a +way, and it was clear that they had done it and they had meant to do it +and all that sort of thing. When after the war they raised the question +of their citizenship status, the court held well, that the emotional +stress and strain of the relocation and shock under those circumstances +was such that this shouldn't be held against them. _Acheson_ v. +_Murakami_, 176 F. 2d 953 (9th Cir. 1949). + +So the courts have gone very, very far to uphold the notion that +American citizenship is not to be lightly taken away, see e.g., +_Schneiderman_ v. _United States_, 320 U.S. 118 (1943), and that has +affected not only our legal judgment in the particular case, but our +general policy which you have heard explained by Mr. Snyder and Mr. +McVickar. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Could you describe for the record what the policy of the +Department is when a person appears at a foreign embassy and attempts +to expatriate himself? + +Mr. DULLES. Before you answer that question may I ask a question. +In your memorandum here, relating to the paragraph we have been +discussing, there is a footnote that interests me. It says: + +"After the assassination of President Kennedy, an official of the +Soviet Ministry of Foreign Affairs stated to an officer of the American +Embassy in Moscow that Soviet authorities had considered Oswald's +application for Soviet citizenship but had decided not to approve it +because Oswald seemed unstable." + +Mr. Coleman, do we have that in our files? + +Mr. COLEMAN. Yes. + +Mr. CHAYES. Yes; I think also the American Embassy officer was +Ambassador Kohler? + +Mr. COLEMAN. It was Stoessel. + +Mr. CHAYES. Oh, Stoessel, Deputy Chief of Mission. + +Mr. DULLES. The statement was made to him by an official of the Foreign +Office? + +Mr. CHAYES. I think he is identified in the telegram; yes. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Also when the Secretary appears tomorrow I think he will +impart some information on what the Soviet Ambassador told him as to +the reason why they refused Oswald citizenship. + +Mr. DULLES. Yes; I would rather like to put that in the record unless +there is some similar reason to the one we had before. + +Mr. CHAYES. Could I go off the record for just a moment? + +(Discussion off the record.) + +(Mr. Coleman's last question was read back by the reporter.) + +Mr. CHAYES. Well, I think the basic policy of the Department is a +recognition that this is a very grave and serious and irrevocable act +that can affect a person's life and does affect a person's life very +fundamentally. And so the policy of the Department is to make sure that +the person making the renunciation does so with full recognition of the +consequences of his action, of the fact that it is a very grave act, +and in such a way as to make sure that it is a completely voluntary act +in every sense of the word, so that it can be shown not only to be free +of any physical duress or coercion, but mental stress and things of +that kind. + +This is not only true because of the recognition of what it means +to the individual, but also because in order to support the +denaturalization in court. You have got to be able to show those things +under the standards and the general attitude that I have set forth. + +Mr. COLEMAN. I take it your testimony is that you reviewed all of the +files and looked at all of the memorandums or had it done under your +direction, and your judgment is that Oswald had not expatriated himself +in 1959? + +Mr. CHAYES. Yes; on the basis of the record that I have in the file. + +Mr. COLEMAN. And with that determination made, then I take it that when +Oswald appeared at the Embassy in July 1961, and requested that his +passport be returned to him, that Mr. Snyder had no other alternative +but to return his passport to him, is that correct? + +Mr. CHAYES. In the absence of any other disqualifying ground, and there +wasn't any other disqualifying ground either known to the Embassy in +Moscow or available in our own files back home. If Mr. Oswald was a +citizen, and was not disqualified in some other way, he was entitled to +the passport. + +Mr. DULLES. Do you know from studying the records, or otherwise, +whether when that request was made by Lee Harvey Oswald, it was +referred back to the State Department and reconsidered again? + +Mr. CHAYES. Oh, yes; it was. In the first place, the expatriation issue +wasn't decided until that time. That is the expatriation issue was open +until he came back in and applied for the passport. + +The expatriation issue was decided in the first instance by the officer +in the field, and then the tentative decision was reported by him back +to the Passport Office and the expatriation decision was reviewed in +the Passport Office at that time. The file was reviewed for other +possible disqualifications, and an instruction went out with respect to +the return of the passport. + +The field was instructed that when the passport was returned, it should +be marked for travel to the United States only, and then when the +passport was finally renewed some weeks later, that was also pursuant +to a departmental instruction. + +Mr. DULLES. Was that reviewed in your office at that time? + +Mr. CHAYES. No; it wasn't. + +Mr. DULLES. Shouldn't it have been? + +Mr. CHAYES. I don't think so, Mr. Dulles. The Passport Office has to +make nationality determinations on thousands and thousands of people. + +Mr. DULLES. But this is a legal question, isn't it? + +Mr. CHAYES. But they have adjudicators in the Passport Office. + +Mr. DULLES. They have legal officers. + +Mr. CHAYES. Thirty lawyers or something. + +Mr. DULLES. They have? + +Mr. CHAYES. And two lawyers reviewed this case. There are just +thousands of nationality or loss of nationality determinations. + +Mr. DULLES. And those are generally all settled in the Passport Office? + +Mr. CHAYES. In almost every case. + +Mr. DULLES. Some of them may be presented to your office. + +Mr. CHAYES. Where they present especially difficult questions of law or +general policy of administration; yes, sir. + +Mr. DULLES. And this wasn't considered as a case involving particularly +difficult questions of law? + +Mr. CHAYES. No; I don't think it did then or does now. + +Representative FORD. Did the people in Washington who made this review +know that on this one particular form, I don't recall the Commission +Exhibit, that Oswald said, "I have done this, that," one or the other? + +Mr. CHAYES. They would have had that before them. I think that is the +form that was sent back to the Department, the one that had "have +not" crossed out and "have" was left standing. So they made the +determination on the basis of a form---- + +Mr. COLEMAN. Commission Exhibit No. 938, for the record. + +Mr. CHAYES. Commission Exhibit No. 938, in which Oswald indicated +that he had done one of these acts, and then supplied a supplementary +questionnaire explaining in fuller detail what he meant. + +Mr. DULLES. Do you happen to know who the lawyers were who did this in +the Passport Office, and whether they would be available if we should +want to see them? + +Mr. CHAYES. I think they are on the list to testify. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. Chayes, those lawyers didn't review the file in 1961. +They are the two lawyers that reviewed it in October 1963. + +Mr. CHAYES. I see. Well, I can find out if we haven't supplied the +names already. + +Mr. COLEMAN. I don't think any lawyer reviewed the file in 1961. + +Mr. CHAYES. Well, an adjudicator did. + +Mr. COLEMAN. It was Miss Waterman. She is not a lawyer. + +Mr. CHAYES. I see. + +Mr. DULLES. She is coming before us? + +Mr. COLEMAN. Yes. + +Mr. CHAYES. She is a passport adjudicator. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Now, were have marked as Commission Exhibit No. 929 an +Operations Memorandum from the Department of State to the Embassy in +Moscow, dated March 28, 1960, which stated that: + +"An appropriate notice had been placed in the Lookout Card Section +of the Passport Office in the event that Mr. Oswald should apply for +documentation at a point outside the Soviet Union." + +I would like to show you this Commission exhibit and ask you are you +familiar with that memorandum? + +Mr. CHAYES. I have seen this, but only since the assassination in my +general review of the files. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Now, has your office made a check to determine whether a +lookout card was prepared? + +Mr. CHAYES. Yes; Mr. Coleman. In connection with the preparation of +this memorandum, and the responses to the supplemental questions for +the Commission, we did examine the question of whether a lookout card +was prepared. I should say again that the matter of preparation of +lookout cards is not under my jurisdiction, and my knowledge of this is +only from a subsequent investigation. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Your examination revealed that a lookout card actually was +never prepared, is that correct? + +Mr. CHAYES. I think we have to say that our examination does not reveal +that a lookout card was prepared, and that on balance examining all +the relevant considerations, it appears more likely than not that no +lookout card was prepared. + +Representative FORD. But there was none in the file. + +Mr. CHAYES. There was none in the file, but there wouldn't have been +anyway, because this lookout card was ordered prepared because there +was a doubt as to whether Oswald had expatriated himself. Once that +doubt had been removed by an adjudication as it was in July of 1961, +the lookout card based on the possibility of expatriation would have +been removed. + +It might be worth a moment if I could give you some general picture of +the lookout card system. Miss Knight will be able to testify in much +greater detail than I as to the actual operating---- + +Mr. DULLES. So that when 1963 came around and there was a further +application for a passport, there was no lookout card then found in +1963? + +Mr. CHAYES. Nor should there have been. + +Mr. DULLES. That is the issue under your procedure. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Let me refer back to 1961 when you determined or the +Department determined to renew the passport. Now, as I understand it, +there was a search made of the Lookout Card Section, and the records +that we have reveal that no lookout card was found. + +Mr. DULLES. Even in 1961? + +Mr. COLEMAN. In 1961. + +Mr. CHAYES. I don't think that that can be said that categorically. I +think it appears probable that there was no lookout card in 1961 at +that time, yes; that is correct. + +Mr. DULLES. But in 1961 all of these facts with regard to Oswald were +before you, were they not? + +Mr. CHAYES. If I could just give some notion of what this system is +like. + +Mr. DULLES. Yes. + +Mr. CHAYES. The lookout card is an IBM card, an ordinary IBM card, +and it should be prepared on anyone as to whom some evidence of +disqualification for a passport exists in our files. If the system +worked perfectly, anytime there was an unresolved question about the +eligibility of a person for a passport---- + +Representative FORD. Does a defector or an attempted defector fall in +that category? + +Mr. CHAYES. No; the problem here was that this man had attempted to +expatriate himself, and said he was going to naturalize himself as a +Soviet citizen, and if he had done either of those things effectively, +he would have disqualified himself for a passport. + +So there was an unresolved question on the facts known in 1959, or +January 1960, whenever it was. And at that point a lookout card should +have been prepared for him. + +Then in July of 1961, when he came back in in Moscow, and asked for +the renewal of his passport, that question of expatriation was then +determined, both in Moscow and at home, and it was determined in favor +of the applicant. So that the outstanding question was then removed, +and if the procedures had gone right, the lookout card also, if it had +been prepared, would have been taken out of the lookout file and torn +up and thrown away. + +Representative FORD. Don't you keep records of what you put in and what +you take out? + +Mr. CHAYES. Yes, the refusal slip which formed the basis on which this +memorandum that we are talking about was made. There was a refusal slip +which was a direction to the person in the lookout card office to make +a lookout card, and also probably whoever made the refusal slip also +sent this memorandum to Moscow saying that a lookout card had been +prepared. + +If you look at the refusal slip, which is retained in the main passport +file of Oswald, it doesn't have the notations that it would have had or +should have had if a card had been made. So that on the general basis +of the evidence, we conclude that it is probable that no card was made. +But you can't say that for sure because even if one had been made, it +would have been removed when the issue was resolved. + +Representative FORD. If it is probable one wasn't made, but there is +a possibility, remote as it might be, don't you have some means of +recording when a lookout card is removed? + +Mr. CHAYES. That notation also does not appear. + +Representative FORD. So the probability is increased. + +Mr. CHAYES. That is correct. + +Representative FORD. That there was no lookout card ever made and put +into the file. + +Mr. CHAYES. That is correct, sir. All of this is covered in some detail +in our response, our written response to the questionnaire, and comes +to the same conclusion, and all of these points are enumerated. + +Mr. COLEMAN. There is a Commission Exhibit No. 948 where Mr. Chayes +under date of May 8, 1964, addressed himself to these problems. + +Representative FORD. Is this that which I have here? + +Mr. COLEMAN. Yes. + +Representative FORD. And that is to be in the record? + +Mr. CHAYES. Yes. + +Mr. COLEMAN. We will give it an exhibit number. + +(Discussion off the record.) + +Mr. COLEMAN. Back on the record. + +I would like to mark as Commission Exhibit No. 948 a letter from the +Legal Adviser to the Department of State to Mr. Rankin dated May 8, +1964. + +(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 948 for +identification.) + +Mr. COLEMAN. I would like to ask the witness whether this letter was +prepared under his direction together with the attachments. + +Mr. CHAYES. Yes; the letter and attachments are those which were +prepared--I haven't had a chance to examine each right now, but appear +to be those which were prepared in my office and under my personal +supervision in response to the request of the Commission. + +Mr. COLEMAN. In Commission Exhibit No. 948 you explain the lookout card +situation. + +Mr. CHAYES. Yes. + +Mr. COLEMAN. You treat with the question of whether a lookout card was +in the State Department file on Oswald in 1961. + +Mr. CHAYES. Yes, sir; I think it is covered in the answers to questions +12 and 13. In particular the answer to question 13 shows the +evaluation on which we reached the conclusion that it is probable that +a lookout card was not prepared. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Was there any other occasion as a result of acts by Oswald +that you felt that a lookout card should have been prepared? + +Mr. CHAYES. Yes. + +Mr. COLEMAN. What were those? + +Mr. CHAYES. Under the procedures of the Department, once Oswald was +given a repatriation loan, as he was on his return to this country in, +what was it, May of 1962, a lookout card should have been prepared and +should have been maintained in the lookout file during the period when +there was an unpaid balance on his repatriation loan, and in that case +it appears pretty certainly that no card was prepared. We don't even +have in that case a refusal slip indicating a direction to prepare a +card. + +Mr. DULLES. Can you refuse issuance of a passport when there is an +unpaid balance due? + +Mr. CHAYES. I don't know what the courts would say, but a person who +accepts a repatriation loan now signs an agreement that he will not +apply for a passport until he has paid the loan. + +At the time that Oswald got his loan, the form was a little different, +but even then he signed a statement saying that he understood that +passport facilities would not be furnished to him while an outstanding +balance was---- + +Representative FORD. Could we have in the record the form that was in +existence before and that which is now the form? + +Mr. CHAYES. I think you do have it in the report. Again it is in the +answer to question 13, page 3 of that answer, if you see there it says, +"In the promissory note"--it is about the middle of the page--"which +he signed for the loan he stated, section 423.6-5 that 'I further +understand and agree that after my repatriation I will not be furnished +a passport for travel abroad until my obligation to reimburse the +Treasurer of the United States is liquidated.'" + +Mr. COLEMAN. You testified that you made a search of the records or you +had a search made of the records of the Department, and you conclude +that no lookout card was ever prepared. + +Mr. CHAYES. Yes; we can't find any evidence that a lookout card might +have been prepared. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Do you know why one was not prepared? + +Mr. CHAYES. There could have been more than one reason. It could have +been simply a bureaucratic oversight. It could have been that they +didn't have date and place of birth information on Oswald. + +Because of the possibility of identical names, the practice of the +Passport Office is not to prepare a lookout card on any individual on +the basis of his name alone. They need both name and date and place of +birth. + +Now, it may have been either that the Finance Office failed to notify +the Passport Office because it did not have date and place of birth +information, or that it did notify the Passport Office, and because +there was no date and place of birth information, the Passport Office +did not make a card. + +Mr. DULLES. But the Passport Office had that information. + +Mr. CHAYES. The Passport Office had the date and place of birth +information on Lee Harvey Oswald; yes. + +Mr. DULLES. But not on Marina? + +Mr. CHAYES. Marina wouldn't have gotten into the Passport Office at +all. She is an alien. But they didn't know whether the Lee Harvey +Oswald, or they might not have known that the Lee Harvey Oswald that +came down from the Finance Office, if indeed it did come down, was the +same Lee Harvey Oswald as to whom they had date and place of birth +information. + +That is the problem. The problem is avoiding the difficulties that +would arise if duplicated names put you into the lookout card system. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Once the loan had been repaid, would the card have been +taken out? + +Mr. CHAYES. Yes. + +Mr. COLEMAN. So, therefore, by the time he applied for the passport in +June 1963, the loan had been paid so there wouldn't have been a lookout +card in any event. + +Mr. CHAYES. That is correct. The lookout card would have been removed, +had it been made, on January 29, 1963, 6 months before the passport +application, when Oswald finally paid the last of his outstanding loan +balance. + +Mr. DULLES. Can I ask a question there? Is the lookout card then only +prepared in those cases where a passport should be refused irrespective +of the moral turpitude or idiosyncracies or whatever else may be the +case with regard to the individual? + +Mr. CHAYES. There are three cases in which a lookout card is prepared. +One is the case you have just mentioned, where a passport should be +refused or there is evidence that might warrant refusal that you have +to look into further. + +The second is if you are a very important person and your passport is +supposed to be given specially expeditious treatment. + +And the third, if another agency, for example, your old agency or the +FBI or any other agency has asked the Department to inform them in case +of the passport application by a particular individual, a lookout card +will be made. So those are the three categories. + +Now, the first category is by far the biggest. There are 250,000 +lookout cards, and by far the overwhelming majority of those is in the +first category, that is people as to whom there is evidence which would +warrant a determination that they should not be issued a passport. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Does the State Department have any regulations which +set forth the circumstances under which they will refuse a person a +passport? + +Mr. CHAYES. Yes; we have regulations which are set forth, a copy of +which is attached to question 17. They appear in volume 22 of the +Federal Register. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Volume 22, title 22? + +Mr. CHAYES. Yes; title 22, part 51 of the Code of Federal Regulations. + +Mr. COLEMAN. I take it then that in 51.135 you have the regulation +which says that you can deny a passport to a member of a Communist +organization, is that correct? + +Mr. CHAYES. Well, I think you have to be careful how you read that. It +is a member of a Communist organization registered or required to be +registered under section 7 of the Subversive Activities Control Act of +1950, as amended. + +This 51.135 is a regulation which implements section 6 of the +Subversive Activities Control Act, which denies passports to members of +organizations required to register. + +The only such organization so far against which a final order of +registration is outstanding, is the Communist Party of the United +States. So, not only technically but actually, membership in the +Communist Party of the Soviet Union would not bring you within this +paragraph of the regulation. + +Mr. DULLES. Or the Communist Party of any other country. + +Mr. CHAYES. Of any other country. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Is there any other regulation, which the State Department +has, dealing with the circumstances under which they can refuse to +issue a passport? + +Mr. CHAYES. The other regulation covering substantive grounds of +refusal is 51.136. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Could you read into the record the regulation? + +Mr. CHAYES. Yes; the regulation says: + +"In order to promote"---- + +Well, it is entitled "Limitations on Issuance of Passports to Certain +Other Persons." + +It reads: + +"In order to promote and safeguard the interests of the United States, +passport facilities except for direct and immediate return to the +United States shall be refused to a person when it appears to the +satisfaction of the Secretary of State that the person's activities +abroad would (a) violate the laws of the United States, and (b) be +prejudicial to the orderly conduct of foreign relations, or (c) +otherwise be prejudicial to the interests of the United States." + +Mr. COLEMAN. In 1963, on June 24 when Oswald applied for a passport, he +was issued the passport within 24 hours after the application; is that +correct? + +Mr. CHAYES. Yes, sir. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Is there any record in the Department that anyone ever +examined Oswald's file to make a determination of whether he should +have been issued a passport? + +Mr. CHAYES. In 1963? + +Mr. COLEMAN. 1963. + +Mr. CHAYES. In 1963 the passport was issued on the basis of a simple +check of the lookout file under the normal procedures of the Department. + +What happens is that when a field office, in this case it was the New +Orleans field office, get a series of passport applications, they +Telex the names of the applicants and their place and date of birth +to the Department, and the Department makes a name check through the +lookout card file. That is all. And if there isn't a lookout card in +the lookout card file, they authorize the issuance of the passport +by the field agency. The field agency has to make a determination of +citizenship, of course. But no further action is taken in Washington +unless for some reason or other the field agency would wish to send a +particular case forward. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Since there was no lookout card, I take it we can assume +that the June 25, 1963, passport was issued without any---- + +Mr. CHAYES. Without any examination. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Without any consultation of the files on Oswald---- + +Mr. CHAYES. Exactly. + +Mr. COLEMAN. That were in the Department. + +Mr. CHAYES. I am confident that that was the case. + +Mr. DULLES. May I ask whether there are any lookout cards to your +knowledge that are filed under that third section there? + +Mr. CHAYES. "Violate the laws or be prejudical"? + +Mr. DULLES. That is it; yes. + +Mr. CHAYES. Well, I don't know for a fact that there are, but if we +would make such a determination with respect to some person or group, I +suppose lookout cards would be prepared for such a group. + +And I would go further and say that probably the authority, you +don't need authority to do it, but the theory of preparing cards +for defectors which we are now doing under the Schwartz to Knight +memorandum, that we referred to a moment ago, is that it is possible +that a defector, upon examination of his file, will be shown to fall +within one of these categories. + +Mr. DULLES. Would Oswald now be considered a defector, or should he +have been at that time if the regulations that you now have in effect +were then in effect? + +Mr. CHAYES. If we had the instruction in the Schwartz to Knight +memorandum, yes; there would have been a lookout card on Oswald. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. Chayes, assuming on June 25, 1963, a person in the +Passport Office had examined all of the files that the State Department +had on Oswald from 1959 through June 25, 1963, in your opinion could +the Department have refused Oswald a passport based upon section 51.136 +of the regulation? + +Mr. CHAYES. In my opinion, they could not. They could not have refused +a passport based on the information in the Oswald file. + +Representative FORD. If that is true, how could you have a lookout card +now that would have resulted, that would result in a passport being +refused? + +Mr. CHAYES. I don't think we could. What the lookout card would do +would be to refer you to the file. You would look into the file. You +might then want some further investigation as to this fellow. + +You might, having seen that you were dealing with this kind of a +person, want to examine him more fully on his travel plans and so on +and so on. That further investigation might turn up some information +which would warrant a determination under one of these subsections. But +if it turned up nothing but what was in the file, you would have to +issue the passport, in my judgment. + +Mr. DULLES. That is, lookout cards might well be put in in borderline +cases, but when you came to consider the case on all the facts, you +would decide in favor of issuance of the passport rather than refusal? + +Mr. CHAYES. Yes; that is the same thing with the expatriation card +which should have been made out for Oswald in 1960. It should have +been made out because there was a possibility that he had expatriated +himself. But then when he came to apply for the passport, all the +lookout card would do is say, "Investigate this carefully and determine +this issue." + +And as you say, when you got all the facts as in the expatriation +situation, you might determine that he had not expatriated himself. + +Representative FORD. At least in this case if there had been a lookout +card, there would have been a delay. + +Mr. CHAYES. Yes. + +Representative FORD. That is the very least that would have happened. + +Mr. CHAYES. There would have been a delay of a couple of days probably. + +Representative FORD. And in this case time might have been important. + +Mr. CHAYES. No; if you are talking about this case as it actually +happened, time wasn't important at all. He applied for the passport in +June of 1963. He got it in June of 1963, and he made no effort to use +the passport, nor did he have any occasion to use it, until he died. + +Mr. DULLES. It would have been a blessing for us if he had used it, +say, in the sense that the assassination might not have taken place, if +he had taken the passport and gone to China as he may have contemplated. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. Chayes, is it your testimony that when the Department +knows a person went abroad in 1959, attempted to defect to the Soviet +Union, stated that he had information on radar which he was going +to turn over to the Soviet, and the difficulty that we had to get +him back, it is your opinion that it would not be prejudicial to the +interests of the United States for him to be given a passport to go +abroad the second time? + +Mr. CHAYES. Well, I think that is correct without knowing any more +about what he intended to do this time on his travels abroad. + +You have got to remember that the discretion that the Secretary can +exercise under 51.136, is as the Supreme Court said in the Kent case, a +limited discretion, although it is phrased in very broad terms. + +For example, we have people who are going abroad all the time and +making the nastiest kinds of speeches about the United States, or who +go abroad for political activity that is completely at odds with the +policy of the United States, and may be even directed against our +policy. But we could not deny a passport on the grounds of political +activities, political associations, speech, things of that kind. So +the Kent case says, as I read it and as most others do. I think you +have to, in order to apply this section, there are some fairly regular +categories, fugitives from justice. + +Mr. DULLES. Just one question. If there had been a lookout card in, and +then you would reconsider the case in June 1963, when he applied, would +you not then normally have notified the FBI and the CIA that here was a +returned defector? + +Mr. CHAYES. No. + +Mr. DULLES. Who was going abroad again? + +Mr. CHAYES. No; not unless the FBI and the CIA had asked us to notify +them. However, what we might have done would be to use FBI facilities +to make a further investigation of the situation. That is possible. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. Chayes informed us prior to the commencement of his +testimony that he would have to leave at 4 p.m., but would return +tomorrow morning to complete it. He will now be excused. Thank you, sir. + +Mr. DULLES. Thank you very much. + + +TESTIMONY OF JOHN A. McVICKAR RESUMED + +Mr. COLEMAN. Do you recall, Mr. McVickar, we were trying to determine +whether Mrs. Oswald came into the Embassy in July or in August 1961, +and you said that if you had an opportunity to look at the State +Department file that you might find something which would aid you in +recollecting. + +Have you had such opportunity. + +Mr. McVICKAR. Yes; I have. I observe two items in here. There is +a despatch prepared by Mr. Snyder which says that Mrs. Oswald was +expected to come in very shortly. This despatch was prepared I believe +on the same day that Mr. Oswald was in the office. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Is that despatch dated July 11, 1961? + +Mr. McVICKAR. Yes. + +Mr. COLEMAN. The record shows it is Commission Exhibit No. 935. + +Mr. McVICKAR. And the item is on page 2, and it says, "He is attempting +to arrange for his wife to join him in Moscow so she can appear at the +Embassy for a visa interview in the next day or two." + +And then there is a later despatch dated October 12, 1961, which +encloses the text of certain letters addressed to the Embassy by +Oswald, and one of them is a letter dated July 15, 1961. + +Mr. DULLES. Moscow? + +Mr. McVICKAR. No; apparently from Minsk after he had returned. + +Mr. DULLES. Oh, Minsk. + +Mr. McVICKAR. And it says that; "While we were still in Moscow the +foreman at her place of work was notified that she and I went to the +Embassy for the purpose of visas." + +Well now, it seems clear that she did in fact go to the Embassy in +early July, and that this interview that I had with her undoubtedly +took place then approximately the 12th or 13th of July. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Wouldn't you say that it took place, sir, on the 11th of +July? + +Mr. McVICKAR. It probably took place then on the 11th of July, except +that this despatch here, which was dated the 11th, said that she was +coming in, in the next couple of days. + +No, no; this says that he appeared at the Embassy on July 8, and so +this was probably prepared on the 8th of July. + +I would say then it must have taken place on the 11th of July. + +Mr. COLEMAN. It is your testimony, therefore, that Commission Exhibit +No. 959, which is the petition to classify status of alien for issuance +of immigrant visa, was prepared on July 11, 1961? + +Mr. McVICKAR. Oh, yes; that is correct. + +Mr. COLEMAN. That was probably the day that Marina came into the +Embassy? + +Mr. McVICKAR. Probably the day she came into the Embassy, and probably +the day on which I interviewed her. + +Mr. COLEMAN. And, therefore, the notes, Commission Exhibit No. 945, +were apparently made on July 11? + +Mr. McVICKAR. Yes; apparently made then on July 11. They formed the +basis of this later communication of August 28, and I now think that +the reason that this was not done sooner, was because it was not an +urgent matter, because they had not yet received exit visas, and we +were in the process of processing cases that had received exit visas, +and were ready to go, and no one could tell when they might get Soviet +exit visas. + +Mr. DULLES. Which is the chicken and which is the egg here? I mean, do +you get your exit visas before you know whether you are going to get +into the country of destination, or do you get your permission to go to +the United States before you get your exit visa? + +Mr. McVICKAR. In an ordinary country you would apply for your American +visa, and then apply for your exit visa, or permission to depart from +the country, after you had your American visa. + +But in this case, in the Soviet Union, it was reversed because it was +so difficult to get exit visas. + +The American Government never bothered with any of its papers other +than to just take record of the interest of the people, until after +they had received permission to depart from the Soviet Union at which +point we processed their papers expeditiously. + +But usually there was very little done in the American documentation +until after they had received an exit visa from the Soviet Union. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Sir, you then on August 28, 1961, prepared the Operations +Memorandum which has been given Commission Exhibit No. 944; is that +correct? + +Mr. McVICKAR. Yes; that was the date of the memorandum. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Now in that memorandum you indicated that Marina had been +in to see you; is that correct? + +Mr. McVICKAR. The memorandum does not specifically state that. It +merely gives data necessary to the determination by the Department of +State of the legal status of this individual. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Now as the wife of an American citizen, I take it Marina +would have the right to come into the country under a nonquota status? + +Mr. McVICKAR. Yes; that is correct. + +Mr. COLEMAN. What were the sanctions imposed by section 243(g), which +you referred to in the memorandum? + +Mr. McVICKAR. There is a provision 243(g), section 243(g) of the +Immigration and Nationality Act, which provides that countries +which--and I am just taking this from memory now--which do not accept +either at all or readily, I suppose, deportees from the United States +may not be granted, the nationals of those countries may not be granted +immigration visas. + +There is, however, a procedure for waiving these sanctions in +individual cases, and as I recall the regulations, there was a +procedure for waiving these sanctions in the cases of relatives of +American citizens, and in the case of Soviet citizens who wanted to go +to the United States. + +So Soviet citizens who were relatives of American citizens could +receive a waiver of these sanctions. + +Is that clear? + +Mr. COLEMAN. If the sanctions had not been waived, what would be the +effect of refusing to waive the sanctions? + +Mr. McVICKAR. If the sanction was not waived, the effect would be a +denial, in effect, by the Immigration and Naturalization Service of the +Department of Justice, of authority to issue the visa. + +The exact legality of this I am not sure, but I know that we couldn't +issue the immigration visa because she would not be admitted at the +port of entry. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Would that mean that Marina could not have come to the +United States? + +Mr. McVICKAR. It would mean that she could not enter the United States, +but it would not mean that she could not depart from the Soviet Union +if she had a Soviet visa. And, presumably, maybe at some later time +this---- + +Mr. COLEMAN. Couldn't she have gone to say, Brussels, for example, in +Belgium? + +Mr. McVICKAR. And then applied for a visa there? This may be. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Did you have any discussions when you were in the Embassy +as to whether if the sanctions imposed by section 243(g) were not +waived, that you should send her to Brussels and let her get a visa +there? + +Mr. McVICKAR. I think that the record shows that there were such +discussions, but they did not take place during the time I was there. + +Mr. COLEMAN. When did you leave? + +Mr. McVICKAR. I left on September the 1st of 1961. + +Mr. COLEMAN. In this memorandum which is Commission Exhibit No. 944, +you indicated that you thought a favorable advisory opinion and +approval of the petition is recommended, together with a waiver of the +sanctions. + +Mr. McVICKAR. Imposed by section 243(g) of the act, yes. This was a +routine request which would have been made in any similar case using +almost exactly that type of language. + +In short, this was the two actions that we had to receive from +Washington in order to be in a position to issue this visa. + +Mr. COLEMAN. The first action to get the petition granted, that +depended upon whether she was ineligible, because she belonged to a +Communist organization, didn't it? + +Mr. McVICKAR. Yes; that is exactly right. + +Mr. COLEMAN. As to that in your memorandum you indicated that since she +belonged to the Soviet trade union for medical workers, because she +had to belong to that to get a job, that you would recommend that the +membership be considered involuntary. + +Mr. McVICKAR. Yes. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Under section 212(A)(28)(i) of the act? + +Mr. McVICKAR. Yes; that is correct. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Is it the general practice to indicate that such +membership is involuntary when it is connected with employment? + +Mr. McVICKAR. Yes; there are instructions from the Department giving +guidance to officers in general terms, that indicate that membership +in mass organizations, such as a membership in a trade union, in +connection with one's work, that this membership is ordinarily +considered to be involuntary, may be considered involuntary. + +However, the instructions are also that all of these cases must be +referred to Washington with the facts for a determination to be made, +and, of course, it might well be that under some unusual circumstances +if there was some indication of voluntariness, that, you know, such a +membership would render the person excludable. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Now you referred to Department instructions. Are those +instructions found in the confidential appendix, appendix A to the visa +regulations of the Department in 22 CFR 42.91A28 note 3, last issued on +December 9, 1960? + +Mr. McVICKAR. Yes; I believe so. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Would you be kind enough to read into the record the +instruction referred to? + +Mr. McVICKAR. I am reading here from the Department of State's report +to the Commission, and it cites the text of that. Do you wish me to +read it over? + +Mr. COLEMAN. Yes. + +Mr. McVICKAR. All right, it says this looks like it is "Note 3.3. +Membership in mass organizations rank and file membership in proscribed +mass organizations, in Communist and Communist controlled countries +may in general, if police repression or political or economic +discrimination is or was the coercive factor bringing about such +membership, be considered involuntary within the meaning of section +212(a)28I(i) of the act unless the alien actively participated in +the organization's activities or joined or remained connected with +it because of political or ideological conviction. When an alien +is refused a visa because of voluntary membership in a proscribed +organization of this type the report submitted to the Department +pursuant to appendix A22 CFR 42.13 on note 1 should show the +circumstances leading to the decision." + +I should note that the text of that is confidential, as a part of +confidential appendix A. + +Mr. COLEMAN. After you interviewed Marina and took the facts, that you +determined that her membership in the Soviet Trade Union for Medical +Workers was involuntary? + +Mr. McVICKAR. It appeared to be involuntary. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Suppose Marina had told you that she was a member of the +Komsomol, what would you have done then? + +Mr. McVICKAR. That comes under a more complicated type of instruction. +The membership in the Komsomol may be found to be involuntary and is on +occasion found involuntary. But you have to investigate more carefully +under the regulations into the nature of the membership, because +whereas if a person is a member, works in a factory, everybody in the +factory belongs to the trade union. + +But if you are going to the university, not everybody is a member of +the Komsomol, although a high percentage of them are. + +If you are going to say high school, why their membership in the +Komsomol is even more in the nature of a minority, and so I had +experience in this same matter considering visas for a number of +different wives of American citizens, and when the Komsomol was +involved, why the results varied considerably. + +In some cases it was found that membership in the Komsomol was +completely routine and merely because the people really were hoping +to get a decent education and a good job and didn't participate in it +actively. + +In another case I recall, particularly a girl who had been one of the +leaders in the Komsomol, and this was clearly beyond the definition of +involuntary, and this was part of, was a consideration which entered +into the denial of her visa in Washington. + +Representative FORD. In that case, the latter one, there was a denial? + +Mr. McVICKAR. There was a denial, yes, but this was because--and +it is a difficult thing to be in a position to say that somebody's +wife shouldn't go with him to the States, but this was the law and +the question was looked into with a great deal of detail, and based +largely upon this particular other person's statements in a number of +interviews, why it is clear, the facts. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Sir, after the memorandum of August 28, 1961, which is +Commission Exhibit No. 944, did you have anything else to do with Lee +Oswald or his wife Marina? + +Mr. McVICKAR. No; I don't think so, because I left almost immediately +afterward, and I had nothing more to do with the case. + +Mr. COLEMAN. When you made the decision: (1) That Marina's petition for +immigration should be granted, and (2) recommended that there should be +a waiver of the sanction provided by section 243(g), did anyone tell +you or request that you make this decision? + +Mr. McVICKAR. Now one thing. I want to be sure we are accurate on my +function. I was merely recommending these things. I was not making a +decision. I was recommending a favorable advisory opinion from the +security point of view from the Department of State. I was recommending +the approval of the visa petition to grant her the status under the +quota system of the wife of an American citizen, and I was recommending +that the immigration service waive the sanctions imposed by 243(g), +principally because she was the wife of an American citizen. + +But this was my responsibility to make these recommendations, and I +did so of my own free will as the officer-in-charge of this particular +aspect of the case. + +Mr. COLEMAN. No one called you and asked you to do it? + +Mr. McVICKAR. No, no; it was my responsibility to look into the matter +and make the recommendation and I did. + +Mr. COLEMAN. And did you have any other facts in your possession or in +your knowledge other than those which were set forth in the memorandum +dated August 28, 1961, concerning whether Marina was eligible for +admission as a nonquota immigrant? + +Mr. McVICKAR. No; as far as I know the facts are as stated right there, +and these facts were obtained from here on the basis of an interview +with her, a personal interview. + +Mr. COLEMAN. I have no other questions. + +Representative FORD. Mr. McVickar, in your memorandum dated April 7, +1964, in the first paragraph you say: "Although I now regret that I +made no notes on this even then unusual case, the following points seem +to me to lend weight to my suggestion especially considering the youth +and relative inexperience of the subject." + +Was the Oswald case in October of 1959 a then unusual case? + +Mr. McVICKAR. Yes; because we had had only a few people in the category +of defectors, and at that point I think we might have had--this was +the third one that had come up since I had been there, and the other +two were much less aggressive, much less determined, and much less +self-possessed people. + +One of them turned out to be suffering from various mental diseases, +and another one was a very weak individual who had been sort of lead +astray by some Russian female agent, but this was a man who had, you +know, he came directly and walked in, slammed his passport down. It was +an unusual case from the very beginning. + +Representative FORD. In the next paragraph you discuss in this +memorandum the entry of Oswald into the Soviet Union through Helsinki. +Is there any other port of entry into the Soviet Union that is +comparable to Helsinki in the context you are using it here? + +Mr. McVICKAR. Well, yes; there are a number of other ways to get into +the Soviet Union. I would think by far the most used one is to arrive +at the airport in Moscow. And then frequently used by people who have +not very much means, would be to come by rail from Western Europe by +way of Warsaw and the port of entry in that case is Brest. One could +also come by sea into Odessa. It would not be unusual to arrive by air +in Leningrad. + +Representative FORD. But in this memorandum in that paragraph you say, +"He would have to have known the not too obvious fact that Helsinki +is an unusual and relatively uncomplicated point of entry to the +Soviet Union (one that the Soviets might well choose, for example, if +arranging the passage themselves)." + +Mr. McVICKAR. Yes. + +Representative FORD. Is there any other port such as Helsinki, in the +context you are using it? + +Mr. McVICKAR. I am sorry, I hope I haven't confused the record. Of +course, when you are actually talking about a port of entry, Helsinki +is not a port of entry. It is a point of departure for the Soviet +Union, and you could come in and land at the Moscow airport from +Helsinki. + +What I think--what I was referring to is a point of departure for the +Soviet Union which would then be more likely to be Copenhagen, for +example, or Warsaw or Vienna. Helsinki is a frequently used one, but it +is way up north and it is---- + +Mr. DULLES. Wasn't he traveling by boat, however? + +Mr. McVICKAR. He traveled by boat to Helsinki. + +Mr. DULLES. That is where the boat went? + +Mr. McVICKAR. That is right. + +Mr. COLEMAN. No; he traveled by boat to Le Havre, France. He then went +by boat from there to London but then he flew by plane from London to +Helsinki. + +Mr. DULLES. He did? He went by plane? + +Mr. McVICKAR. I didn't realize that. But he flew from London to +Helsinki and then entered the Soviet Union from Helsinki. + +Mr. COLEMAN. By rail? + +Mr. McVICKAR. By rail. + +Representative FORD. What is so unusual and relatively uncomplicated +about Helsinki as a point of entry? + +Mr. McVICKAR. Well, I was thinking of this in the terms of a person who +didn't know the situation and wasn't very familiar with it, and I think +that it might be more logical to try to fly into the Soviet Union from +Copenhagen or directly from London. + +It might be more logical for some people to take the train into the +Soviet Union through Warsaw. + +Mr. DULLES. Where did he get his visa? + +Mr. McVICKAR. He got his visa in Helsinki. + +Mr. DULLES. That is it then. I think that is the answer to the thing. +It is much easier to get a visa right there than go through the mill of +a great place like London or Paris or any of the other places. + +Representative FORD. So it is the ease of getting the visa. + +Mr. DULLES. I would think the ease of getting a visa there. If you +could get it at all, you could get somebody to pay some attention to +you. There, in London, you would have a much bigger problem, I think. + +Mr. McVICKAR. And it may be that the Soviet Embassy in Helsinki is +accustomed to processing unusual cases or something. But my point is +that if a completely ignorant person might well apply for his visa in +Paris or in London, and then go in from there, but you have to know a +little bit about what you are doing if you go straight to Helsinki and +get your visa there. I am afraid this is a rather marginal point, but I +thought it was worth mentioning. + +Mr. DULLES. Had he made any attempt to get a visa or to announce that +he was going to try to pick up a visa in Helsinki? Do you know if he +took any steps at all with the Soviet authorities prior to arriving in +Helsinki? + +Mr. McVICKAR. This I do not know what is known about that. It did seem +to me that he moved very quickly, if he could arrive in Helsinki and +then get his visa and go right into the Soviet Union. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Sir, the fact that he didn't go by ship from New Orleans +to Helsinki but he went to Le Havre by boat and then to London but +then flew to Helsinki, doesn't that change somewhat the thrust of your +paragraph? + +Mr. McVICKAR. Yes; I must say that it explains a little bit more +clearly how he was able to get all this done in such a relatively short +time, because he would have saved himself, oh, at least a week of time, +I should think, if he got off in France and flew from there on. + +Mr. DULLES. Can any ordinary tourist, unknown tourist, just go to +Helsinki and get a visa there and pick it up and get into Russia? + +Mr. McVICKAR. Yes; I think an ordinary tourist can go to any one of +their Embassies and get a visa. + +Mr. DULLES. Do they have authority, do you know, to do that without +referring back to Moscow? + +Mr. McVICKAR. Yes; for tourist visas they do, and in fact they can go +and get their visas at travel agencies. But it still takes a little +time ordinarily to arrange it. + +Representative FORD. On page 3 of your memorandum of April 7, 1964, +paragraph 8, you say: + +"My impression was that in the Soviet Union such a privilege would not +have been usual." + +You are referring, of course, to the allegations made that he had been +a member of a rifle club and did target shooting? + +Mr. McVICKAR. Yes. + +Representative FORD. Why do you have that impression? + +Mr. McVICKAR. Well, I was thinking particularly in terms of his having +been a foreigner, and of course strictly on the assumption that he did +belong to a rifle club, and I don't know that to be a fact. + +Representative FORD. Let's assume the fact that he did. + +Mr. McVICKAR. Yes; and this again is only based on the impression that +I gathered from such contacts as I may have had while I was there, and +I had the impression that sporting activities in the Soviet Union are +organized as a part of the state effort, and that there might have +to be some good purpose to be served by the state for a person to +participate in such a club. + +And that the usual purpose would be international competition, and that +people who are sportsmen in the Soviet Union generally do this, they +are given time off from their work to do this kind of thing. + +I have heard it said that sometimes they are really almost full time +engaged in whatever the sport is, and that they only have another job +to be able to say that they have amateur status. + +Representative FORD. Have you ever been to Minsk? + +Mr. McVICKAR. I have only passed through Minsk on the train several +times going back and forth to Poland. + +Representative FORD. Do you feel from your experiences in the Soviet +Union it was unusual for Oswald to be sent or permitted to go to Minsk? + +Mr. McVICKAR. No; I don't think that is particularly unusual. I have a +feeling that what they were trying to do probably was, at least a part +of what they were trying to do, was to take advantage of his competence +and knowledge in the electronic field, and so they probably sent him to +a place where they would have technicians qualified to learn from him. + +The same thing was done in the case of the immediately previous +defector, Mr. Webster, who was a glass expert--what do they call that +kind of glass, foam glass? + +No, fiber glass. At any rate, he was employed at the fair that we had +in the Soviet Union in the summer of 1959, and he more or less defected +and he was sent to a glass factory, to work at a glass factory in +Leningrad, and it was logical for them to send him there because he +could do that kind of work and he could teach them something about how +it was done in the United States. + +Representative FORD. Do you know of any special kind of schools that +might be in Minsk, any particular schools that they might send a person +like Oswald to? + +Mr. McVICKAR. I only had the impression without being sure of my facts, +that he went to a factory where they manufactured electronic equipment. +I don't know of any particular school that he might have been going to. + +Mr. DULLES. I want to straighten out if I can this question of the +delay in the issuance of an exit visa for Mrs. Oswald. + +Representative FORD. Mr. Dulles, I do have to leave. Would you take +over and preside as chairman. + +Mr. DULLES. I want to raise this question. Now the record here in this +memorandum indicates that the exit visa to Marina was issued at least 2 +months before the State Department gave the entry permit. It seems to +me to be contrary to the testimony we have previously had, because in a +letter dated March 16--what is this exhibit number? + +Mr. COLEMAN. That is Commission Document No. 2. It hasn't been marked +as an exhibit yet. + +Mr. DULLES. Oh, it has not been marked. I don't understand what that +number can be. + +Mr. COLEMAN. That is the number, Commission Document No. 2. + +Mr. DULLES. Commission Document No. 2 prepared by the State Department. +It is stated here that on March 16th the Soviet Affairs Office of the +State Department advised the Visa Office of the Department of State, +and in that it said that the Soviet had already issued an exit visa. So +Marina had the exit visa some time before March 16, 1962. + +Do you know the date when the exit visa was granted? + +Mr. McVICKAR. Well, sir, I left in September of 1961, and so I don't +know the details of this part of the case, but I think it is consistent +because--in fact, I did see in the record that the exit visa was +received by the Embassy on about January the 12th, as I recall it. + +Mr. COLEMAN. 1962? + +Mr. McVICKAR. Of 1962, and that, therefore, the Embassy would then have +proceeded with the documentation and the processing, some of which had +already been initiated to get them out. + +Mr. DULLES. So that 5 months of the delay in their getting out was +American regulations? + +Mr. McVICKAR. Sir, I cannot speak for that part of it because I don't +know about that personally. I think it is possible that it may have had +something to do with Oswald's personal arrangements and that sort of +thing, or maybe the Soviet--I just don't know. I do know that it was +our policy to expedite these operations as quickly as possible after +these exit visas took place. + +Mr. DULLES. I only know that this exhibit that I referred to states, if +I can take your date of January 12, 1962, for the date that the exit +visa was issued to Mrs. Oswald, the Immigration and Naturalization +Service did not agree to the waiver of section 243 (g) until May 9, +1962. + +Mr. McVICKAR. That would have been something that had been going on in +Washington then, and I just don't know. It may be. I don't know what +considerations would have taken place. + +Mr. DULLES. So that if we take the time it took them to get their +exit visas, you have got to subtract really 5 months for American +regulations. + +I am not criticizing the regulations or the study that was given to it +or whether they did or did not grant it. I am just referring to the +question of the time, so that in considering the remarkably short time +it took these two to get out, 5 months were American regulations, or +approximately 5 months, if the January 12 date is correct. No; it would +be 4 months, wouldn't it, February, March, April, May, 4 months were +American regulations. + +Mr. McVICKAR. It does look as though at that time there was a certain +amount of consideration. + +Mr. DULLES. I am not blaming anyone for giving this the fullest +possible consideration. That is all I have. + +Representative FORD. Do you have some exhibits? + +Mr. COLEMAN. For the record, Commission Exhibit No. 911 which is the +McVickar memorandum of November 17, 1959. + +Representative FORD. It may be admitted. + +(The document referred to, previously marked as Commission Exhibit No. +911 for identification, was received in evidence.) + +Mr. COLEMAN. Commission Exhibit No. 941, which is the McVickar +memorandum of November 27, 1963. + +Representative FORD. It may be admitted. + +(The document referred to, previously marked as Commission Exhibit No. +941 for identification, was received in evidence.) + +Mr. COLEMAN. Commission Exhibit No. 942, which is the note which Mr. +McVickar wrote for the Oswald file on November 9, 1959. + +Representative FORD. It may be admitted. + +(The document referred to, previously marked as Commission Exhibit No. +942 for identification, was received in evidence.) + +Mr. COLEMAN. Commission Exhibit No. 943, which is a copy of the +telegram from John E. Pic to Lee Oswald in care of the American Embassy +in Moscow. + +Representative FORD. It may be admitted. + +(The document referred to, previously marked as Commission Exhibit No. +943 for identification, was received in evidence.) + +Mr. COLEMAN. Commission Exhibit No. 944, which is the Operations +Memorandum, dated August 28, 1961. + +Representative FORD. It may be admitted. + +(The document referred to, previously marked as Commission Exhibit No. +944 for identification, was received in evidence.) + +Mr. COLEMAN. Commission Exhibit No. 945, which is a photostatic copy +of the handwritten notes which Mr. McVickar made when he interviewed +Marina Oswald in the Embassy on July 10 or July 11, 1961. + +Representative FORD. It may be admitted. + +(The document referred to, previously marked as Commission Exhibit No. +945 for identification, was received in evidence.) + +Mr. COLEMAN. Commission Exhibit No. 959, which is a copy of the +petition to classify status of alien for issuance of immigrant visa +filled out by Lee Oswald on behalf of Marina Oswald in July 1961. + +Representative FORD. It may be admitted. + +(The document referred to, previously marked as Commission Exhibit No. +959 for identification, was received in evidence.) + +Mr. COLEMAN. And also Commission Exhibit No. 958, which is the +memorandum of Mr. McVickar, dated April 7, 1964. + +Representative FORD. It may be admitted. + +(The document referred to, previously marked as Commission Exhibit No. +958 for identification, was received in evidence.) + +Representative FORD. Are we going to admit as exhibits this State +Department answer? + +Mr. COLEMAN. Yes; I thought when we finished with Mr. Chayes then +we will offer all the exhibits, and during that time I was going +to identify the State Department earlier memorandum and the other +documents. + +Mr. DULLES. All this will then go in. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Oh, yes; that is all going in. + +Representative FORD. I think it is well to get that one document +paraphrased, but I think from what Mr. Chayes said the other one, there +shouldn't be any problem. + +Unless there is something else the Commission will recess until 9 +o'clock tomorrow morning. + +(Whereupon, at 6:20 p.m., the President's Commission recessed.) + + + + +_Wednesday, June 10, 1964_ + +TESTIMONY OF ABRAM CHAYES, BERNICE WATERMAN, HON. DEAN RUSK, SECRETARY +OF STATE, AND FRANCES G. KNIGHT + +The President's Commission met at 9:10 a.m., on June 10, 1964, at 200 +Maryland Avenue NE., Washington, D.C. + +Present were Chief Justice Earl Warren, Chairman; Senator John Sherman +Cooper, Representative Gerald Ford, and Allen W. Dulles, members. + +Also present were J. Lee Rankin, general counsel; William T. Coleman, +Jr., assistant counsel; W. David Slawson, assistant counsel; Thomas +Ehrlich, special assistant, Department of State; Leon Jaworski, special +counsel to the attorney general of Texas; Robert D. Johnson, Legal +Department, Passport Division, Department of State; and Charles Murray, +observer. + + +TESTIMONY OF ABRAM CHAYES RESUMED + +The CHAIRMAN. The Commission will come to order. Mr. Chayes is on the +stand. Mr. Coleman, you may continue the examination. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. Chayes, at the adjournment of your testimony +yesterday, we were talking about section 51.136, State Department +regulations dealing with the issuance of passports. + +Mr. CHAYES. Yes; Mr. Coleman. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Could you tell us the circumstances in which the State +Department feels it can refuse a passport based upon the regulations? + +Mr. CHAYES. Yes; there are some fairly regular categories of refusals +under that section. The first is a violation of a travel restriction. +As you know, the section has from time to time placed certain areas out +of bounds for travel by U.S. citizens without a specially validated +passport. + +I think, yesterday, Mr. Dulles read into the record, from the Oswald +passport, the then applicable area restrictions. And if a person having +a passport violates these restrictions, let's say travels to Communist +China without a specifically validated passport, we regard that as +warranting the withdrawal of the passport under section 51.136. + +Now I have to say that I think in one case, the case of William Worthy, +a withdrawal of a passport under those circumstances was sustained. +However, when he later traveled without a passport, and then reentered +the country without a passport, which is a violation of the passport +laws as they read on the books, he was indicted and prosecuted in the +district court, convicted, and on appeal the conviction was reversed +on the ground that it was unconstitutional to make reentry, without a +passport, an offense. That case has not been appealed to the Supreme +Court. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Is that the case that was in the Fifth Circuit? + +Mr. CHAYES. I think so. + +Mr. COLEMAN. It came up from the Federal District Court in Florida? + +Mr. CHAYES. New Orleans, it came up from New Orleans. + +Mr. DULLES. This applies to American citizens of course? + +Mr. CHAYES. American citizens. Only American citizens can get +passports. When we are dealing with aliens, we are in the visa area. + +Mr. DULLES. Yes. + +Mr. CHAYES. Now the travel restrictions, the area restrictions are +under attack in a number of other cases, that come up in different +procedural ways. But we have in the past, and will continue to do so +until we are told otherwise, withdrawn passports under 51.136 from +people who have violated travel restrictions. + +The next category is fugitives from justice. There if a person is under +indictment or even if there is a warrant for his arrest, certainly if +he has been convicted, we will not issue a passport to him to permit +him to depart. In the Kent case, the Supreme Court recognized this as +one of the well-defined categories in which the Secretary's discretion +to withhold a passport was confirmed by practice and experience. + +As I say, the fugitive from justice category is one that operates on +the whole within the United States. If a man is abroad and is indicted, +we will not ordinarily withdraw his passport abroad or mark his +passport good only for direct return to the United States. We never +articulated the rationale for that, but essentially it doesn't really +fall within our notion of (a), (b), or (c) of 51.136, and our motion +is that the remedy against persons abroad who are charged with crime +is extradition rather than the use of the passport power to get them +returned. + +Now, a third category is passport fraud, where someone has in fact +acted in one way or another to make fraudulent use of the passport +itself. We have withdrawn passports under those circumstances. + +Then there is a miscellaneous category, which doesn't include too many. +For instance, in one case a man was convicted in the Federal Republic +of Germany for attempting to acquire knowledge of state secrets. +Another man had been involved in a number of fraudulent schemes in +various countries, issued worthless checks. He was arrested in +Australia for fraud and subsequently convicted and sentenced to jail +there. + +Another one paid for his passport renewal with a worthless check. That +in itself is perhaps in the passport fraud category. Left the United +States paying for his passage with a worthless check. He represented +himself to be an employee of the U.S. Government on leave and continued +to put out worthless checks, using his passport for identification. We +have summarized these actions under these categories in a letter which +I sent to Mr. Rankin, on June 6. It contains a list of the actions in +these categories in the years 1962-64--through March of 1964. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Can the record note that the original of that letter has +been given Commission Exhibit No. 949? + +Mr. CHAYES. Very good. Now it should be said that there is one category +here that does not appear in the list that we have attached to the +letter, although it is explained in a paragraph, the third paragraph +of the letter, and that is in fact the category that Oswald himself +was in, in 1961, when he wanted to come back. That is where there is +a person abroad who is in some kind of trouble at the time, or who is +anxious to leave where he is and come right back to the United States, +as Oswald did. + +We issue a passport as the regulation says, for direct and immediate +return to the United States. And that action is taken under section +136. But since it is taken abroad, heretofore there has been no central +list of the actions of that kind in the Department's files. As a result +of the Commission's inquiry a list is being maintained from here on +out, but it is not possible without going through a million passport +files, to find when action of that kind was taken in the past. I know +of a number of cases of my own knowledge where this happened. + +For example, one or two, a man and his wife, of the students who went +to Cuba last year went on to Morocco, and got into trouble with the +Moroccan police and so on, and we marked their passport for immediate +return. I am told that the names of those two students are listed under +category (a), in 1963 on the list. Their passports were withdrawn +because they had violated the travel restrictions, but also, for +most of the students we didn't do anything about the passports until +they got back to the United States when we withdrew them, but in +their particular case, because they got in trouble with the Moroccan +authorities and were pretty obstreperous about it, we marked their +passport good only for direct and immediate return. + +Another case that I remember, in my own experience, was a case of +a notorious gun runner in the Congo, who was running guns to the +Katangese rebels during the Congo operation, and he was apprehended +by the Congolese authorities. We didn't want him to be tried, and the +Congolese didn't want to try him if we didn't want him to be tried. On +the other hand they didn't want him around there either. + +So we marked his passport good for direct and immediate return. In +other words, those cases are cases where you can find either some form +of trouble which makes the applicant, the passport holder want to go +directly home, and us want to make him go directly home, or some very +immediate and direct relation to our relations with that particular +country. And as I said yesterday, we have taken the view that it can +never be done solely, because of political activities or political +associations or the exercise of speech. It has to be something beyond +that. + +Mr. COLEMAN. I take it that judgment is effected in part by the holding +of the Supreme Court in the _Kent_ v. _Dulles_ case. + +Mr. CHAYES. Yes; it derives from that. The Kent case said that the +Secretary was not entitled without statutory authorization, at least +as we have read the case, was not entitled in the absence of statute, +to withhold a passport on grounds related to political association and +beliefs. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Yesterday you testified that you had reviewed all of the +State Department files dealing with Oswald, and you paid attention +to those files as they existed as of June 1963, and that it was your +judgment that the Passport Office could not have refused to issue a +passport to Oswald in June 1963. + +Mr. CHAYES. It is my judgment that the passport was properly issued in +June of 1963; yes, sir. + +Mr. COLEMAN. You know that in October 1963, the Passport Office +received information that Mr. Oswald had been at the Russian Embassy in +Mexico. Would that information have changed the result at all, in your +judgment? + +Mr. CHAYES. No, sir; that information by itself could not have affected +the result. As a matter of fact, as you know, the passport application +itself indicated that Oswald wanted to travel to Russia, and the mere +fact that he had gone to the Russian Embassy in Mexico, would not of +itself have been a disqualifying event. + +Representative FORD. Even despite the past history? + +Mr. CHAYES. I think that is correct. In other words, by itself it +doesn't disqualify the applicant because there is no suggestion here +that even--first of all could I review the message that came in on +October 16, to the Department. I think I may have it in my own document +here. + +(Discussion off the record.) + +Mr. CHAYES. All that is suggested here is that he was in the Embassy +and he contacted the Soviet Embassy about a telegram which had been +sent. Now, there is nothing from that, I don't think, that adds +anything or permits us to infer in any way that his travel abroad would +be inimical to the foreign policy of the United States or otherwise +harmful to the national interest, or that he was going abroad to +violate U.S. law. + +I think this can be said, and I don't think it should be said in +criticism of the people who made the decision at the time, because I +think the decision at the time and on the basis of our procedures and +on the basis of our experience was proper. + +Mr. DULLES. May I ask at that point---- + +The CHAIRMAN. May he finish? He hadn't finished that statement. + +Mr. CHAYES. I was going to say looking at it in retrospect and knowing +what we now know, it seems to me it would have been desirable to have +had some means for triggering off a further investigation of this kind, +of a passport applicant, or a passport holder, on the basis of that +kind of information. If the further investigation had turned nothing +else up, it seems to me clear that he was entitled to a passport on the +state of the file as it then existed. + +The only issue is whether the state of the file showed enough to start +or to instigate a further investigation of the purpose and plans for +his travel abroad. What you could have done is hard to speculate about. +You might have called him in and asked him about his travel plans. +You might have made inquiries among friends and relatives about his +plans, and so on, and that might have turned up evidence that would +have suggested that his proposed travel abroad fell within one of these +categories and it would have warranted the withdrawal of his passport. + +Because of our review of these procedures, in the light of what +happened, as we said yesterday, we now have established a defector +category in the lookout card file, and people of this kind who apply +for passports now won't get them routinely, even though the state of +the file as it then exists would warrant the issuance of a passport. +But there will be a review of the file and any necessary further or any +indicated further investigatory steps, if a defector does apply for a +passport. You say why didn't you have those procedures before? + +Why did it take this kind of a thing to do it? To stimulate a new +procedure? The answer is simply that nothing in our past experience +at all suggested anything like this kind of trouble. Of course the +ultimate result, the ultimate assassination wasn't related in any way +to the passport decisions. But it has drawn our attention more closely +to the problem of defectors in this connection. + +I should add one general point, and that is when we talk about +passports in this context, we tend to emphasize the very, very few +bad apples of one kind or another, and they are very few, who are +not entitled to passports. But the fact is that the function of the +Passport Office is not to deny passports to people. It is to get +passports to people. The Passport Office puts out 1 million passports +a year. The great overwhelming majority of those people are ordinary +American citizens who want to get abroad for business or pleasure, +and the ability of the Passport Office to furnish them with passport +facilities, in very short order, is of tremendous service, and +tremendous convenience to them. + +That is the primary function of the Passport Office. It has of course +the duty of administering these denial and withdrawal statutes. But +that is not its primary function. Its primary function is to get +passport facilities to the great bulk of Americans who have legitimate +business abroad. It is dealing with a million or more applications a +year, and millions of bits of information, like this piece we have just +been talking about. I think when you see things in that perspective it +is perhaps easier to evaluate some of the decisions and some of the +actions taken here. + +Representative FORD. But I think you have to turn the coin over. There +are millions of passport applications, or a million plus. But there are +only very few such as Mr. Oswald, or people in the defector category. +So the problem there I don't think is as serious an administrative one +as you would tend to imply. + +Mr. CHAYES. No; I am not suggesting it is, and in fact I think we have +by a relatively simple administrative action taken the steps which will +assure that in the future applications from this kind of person will +receive a more elaborate review. + +All I am saying is that if you ask why that wasn't done before, it is +because the experience didn't indicate that there was a problem, and +that is because that isn't the main business of the Passport Office. +Its main business is not the business of a security agency which goes +around focusing or is supposed to be focusing on security problems. Its +main business is that of a processing agency. + +Representative FORD. But we have vast resources of people in the +Government who are, or who do have security as a main business, and it +seems to me that it is vitally important that those people and those +vast resources somehow tie into the administrative process of denying +or refusing passports under unique circumstances. + +Mr. CHAYES. They do. That is any of those agencies can levy a request +on the Passport Office for notification when a passport is issued to +any person. If the FBI or the CIA or the Secret Service or any other +security or law enforcement agency is interested, or the U.S. court, +the Federal district court or the district attorney's office, any +agency of that kind which is interested in knowing whether a particular +person has applied for passport facilities may levy a request. That +request would be serviced by placing a lookout card in the file which +would then automatically involve notification of that agency when that +person applied for a passport. + +Mr. DULLES. Isn't there a broader point than that though, because the +security agencies don't know in all cases what requirements to levy. +Now if in this case, for example, in the Oswald case, if there had been +this lookout card, and you had notified let's say the FBI and the CIA +that the former defector had applied for a passport and might be going +abroad, then they can put in a card, and then they can be helpful in +following that situation abroad. But they don't know, if they don't +know that Oswald is going to apply, they have no way of putting in +their requirements. + +In certain cases they can. But in a great many cases they cannot. + +Mr. CHAYES. Well, let me make two points. First, now under the new +memorandum as to defectors, the FBI and CIA and other security agencies +will automatically be notified whether they have made a request or not. + +Second, as to most people who have lookout cards, the FBI and the other +security agencies couldn't care less about whether they apply for +passports. Most of the lookout cards relate to loss of nationality, not +security issues at all. So that there is a problem both ways. We can't, +the Department can't--it could notify the security agencies whenever a +lookout card, a person as to whom there was a lookout card applied for +a passport. + +But in 9 out of 10 cases that would be so much waste paper for the +security agency. There has to be a reciprocal effort at cooperation. +There is a reciprocal effort at cooperation, and by and large it works +very well. By and large when the FBI is interested in somebody, it +tells the Passport Office it is interested in them and they want to +know if he comes for a passport. + +By and large the Passport Office knows people whom the FBI is +interested in, and when they apply for a passport or something like +that, there is an exchange of information. It is interesting that this +CIA report got to the Passport Office. It is a matter of routine. All +security reports of this kind that originate in the security agencies, +copies go to the Passport Office and are put in the passport file. So +that there is a great deal of coordination. But in the nature of things +it can't be a perfect system when the two kinds of responsibilities are +differently allocated, the security responsibility in one case and the +other responsibility in another. + +Representative FORD. When did the CIA report of the Mexican trip get +into the passport file? + +Mr. CHAYES. It is not clear to me here. It is probably about 10-11-63 +is what it looks like to me from the date, October 11, 1963. But on the +other hand, note that this report--we pay a great deal of attention +to the fact that it got into the passport file. But the report itself +originated in the CIA. + +Copy of it went to the FBI. In other words, all the security agencies +themselves knew of this fact. As I say, myself, I think it did not +change the character of the file so as to warrant the withdrawal of a +passport from the passport administration point of view. But even if we +had taken steps to withdraw the passport, it is hard to see how it had +any impact on the result at all. + +Representative FORD. Leave aside the tragic result. Under your +current procedures if such a situation developed, would there be an +administrative step taken to try and retrieve the passport? + +Mr. CHAYES. Under current procedures what would have happened in +June, when he first made application, was that there would have +been a lookout card in the file, and before automatically issuing a +passport there would have been a review of the file and some further +investigative steps. Now that investigation would have inquired into +the purpose of travel abroad, and a determination would then have +been made whether the purpose of travel on the basis of the file--and +remember when we do deny a passport we are then subject to hearing, +administrative hearing and judicial review, and we have got to make +the denial and the evidence on which it is based stand up in those +circumstances--but if we determined that there was a basis then for +denial we would have denied it then. So the question wouldn't have +arisen later in October. If at the time in June we had determined after +investigation that there was no basis for denial, then the passport +would have been issued, and if a matter of this kind had come in, there +would have been, I suppose, an administrative determination to decide +whether, in the light of the earlier investigation, whether this new +information warranted any further action or further investigation. + +Representative FORD. Would it be your judgment that the June +determination, using your new criteria, would have resulted in a +refusal of this passport? + +Mr. CHAYES. Not on the basis of the file as then existed. It is hard +to answer your hypothetical question because under our new procedures +there would have been a further investigation that would either have +turned up some additional material, or would have left the file in +its present state. If there was no additional material suggesting the +evil purposes or improper purposes for travel, the decision to give a +passport would have been the same as it was on the file. On the basis +of the file, the decision was properly made. + +Representative FORD. Would you in the June determination have had the +files from the Department of State which showed that on October 31 +Oswald walked into the American Embassy. + +Mr. CHAYES. Oh, yes. + +Representative FORD. And said "I, Lee Harvey Oswald, do hereby request +that my present citizenship in the United States of America be revoked." + +Mr. CHAYES. Oh, yes; the entire file. + +Representative FORD. And would it also have had the one of November 3d +where he said "I, Lee Harvey Oswald, do hereby request that my present +United States citizenship be revoked"? + +Mr. CHAYES. Yes; It would have had all of that. + +Representative FORD. It would have had all of that? + +Mr. CHAYES. Yes. + +Representative FORD. And it would have had the---- + +Mr. CHAYES. But it would also have had the determination that he had +failed to expatriate himself and that he was an American citizen. I, +myself, doubt that an abortive attempt at expatriation would, certainly +without more, warrant the denial of a passport to a person who was in +fact a citizen. + +Representative FORD. And a person who in his application in June of +1963, indicated he wanted to return to the Soviet Union? + +Mr. CHAYES. One of the places he wanted to travel to was Russia. I +think if you add those two together, and all you have is his intention +to travel to Russia, and the fact that he made an abortive attempt +to expatriate himself in Russia sometime before, I don't think you +have the basis for a finding in terms of the regulation that persons, +activities abroad would "violate the laws of the United States, be +prejudicial to the orderly conduct of foreign relations or otherwise be +prejudicial to the interests of the United States." + +I think you have got the basis for a finding that this is not a very +attractive fellow, but I don't see how you can bring him within any of +those categories on the basis of the evidence in the file. + +Mr. DULLES. Is it not correct though that when you were trying to +get the visa for Mrs. Oswald, you made a very strong case that his +continued residence in the Soviet Union was harmful to the foreign +policy of the United States, or words to that effect? + +Mr. CHAYES. Well, we were very anxious to get him back and I think +that is right. In a sense we had him on our hands then. We were in +discussion with him. He was in the Embassy and he was very directly +our responsibility, so that anything that he did or that went wrong +during that period, he was under our protection and we were necessarily +involved. + +If he went back as a tourist and got into some trouble of some kind or +another, we would then have the choice I think to get involved, and +we might or might not. The situation it seems to me is different when +a fellow is already in trouble and you have taken steps to put the +U.S. Embassy in the picture. Then you have a special responsibility +if anything goes off the track and you want to take whatever steps +you can to shorten the time in which you are bearing that special +responsibility. + +Representative FORD. I think, Mr. Chayes, however, you are saying or +you are inferring that it was a clear-cut decision back when it was +determined that he had not given up his United States citizenship. + +Mr. CHAYES. It was in July of 1961, when his passport was renewed. +We couldn't have had a passport renewal if there weren't such a +determination, and in fact there was such a determination. + +Representative FORD. There was such a determination? + +Mr. CHAYES. Yes, sir. + +Representative FORD. That is correct, but it was not a clear-cut case +when you look at the steps that he, Lee Harvey Oswald, tried to take. + +Mr. CHAYES. Well, I don't know---- + +Representative FORD. It was a determination, but it was not one that +was absolutely all black or white. + +Mr. CHAYES. No, but once you make the decision on the basis of whatever +is before you, he is either a citizen or he is not a citizen, and I +think he is a citizen, or was a citizen. + +Representative FORD. But the fact that the matter was administratively +investigated ought to, I would think under your new regulations, +when he applies to go back to the country where he originally sought +citizenship, there ought to be some real investigation, and I am +surprised that you say that under those regulations, under these facts, +he probably would still be given a passport. + +Mr. CHAYES. I agree with the first part of your statement, that +under the new regulations, as we have developed them in the light of +hindsight, there would be a further investigation. + +Representative FORD. But you also said---- + +Mr. CHAYES. And I think there should. + +Representative FORD. He would then be given his passport again despite +the new regulation. + +Mr. CHAYES. But if the investigation turned up no more than what was in +the file with respect to his purposes for travel abroad, if we didn't +have some hard factual evidence to support a finding that his travel +would fall within one of these three categories in 51.136, then the +passport would be issued. We have to start from the proposition that +the Supreme Court has said that the right to travel is a part of the +liberty protected by the fifth amendment, and that the Secretary cannot +withhold a passport arbitrarily. Now we have taken the position, I +think properly so, that in order to justify withholding under one of +these three subsections of 51.136, there has to be a real and concrete +showing that the travel either would violate the laws of the United +States, be prejudicial to the orderly conduct of foreign relations, or +otherwise be prejudicial to the interests of the United States. + +Add to that that you can't make that finding on the basis of, let's +say, political activity abroad. Suppose we could show, for example, +that Oswald was going to the Soviet Union to make a speech before the +Supreme Soviet telling how terrible things were in the United States +and how bad the U.S. policies toward Cuba were, for example. + +Representative FORD. Would that preclude him from getting a passport? + +Mr. CHAYES. No. We have people abroad who are doing that all the time. +We have got Malcolm X traveling across Africa making one speech after +the other about how terrible our policies on the race question are. +And it is perfectly clear to me on the basis of the cases--although we +might get a little more information in the next couple of weeks, we +have a case before the Chief Justice now--but it is clear to me on the +basis of the cases so far that if what is involved is speech, no matter +how hostile it is to our policies or our objectives, you can't deny a +passport for that. + +Representative FORD. What about Oswald's statements to either Mr. +Snyder or Mr. McVickar that he as a former Marine was going to +give information he had acquired as a former Marine to the Soviet +authorities. + +Mr. CHAYES. That is, of course, a more difficult one. Of course we know +he didn't have very much information. + +Representative FORD. No, but he was a Marine and he had been trained +as an electronics radar specialist. He said he was going to give this +information. + +Mr. CHAYES. But the second point is that on the whole these criteria +look to the future. They look to the purpose of this travel. Now if he +had committed an offense against the espionage laws or whatever it was +abroad on his past performance---- + +Representative FORD. This isn't a question of freedom of speech. + +Mr. CHAYES. No; I understand. + +Representative FORD. This is a question of giving away Government +secrets. + +Mr. CHAYES. No, no; I don't equate the two at all. But that kind of +thing I think would have been the subject of investigation under our +new procedures, and might have turned up something. I think if you +could have found, for example, that he did in the past give information +of this kind, you might be in a different position. + +Representative FORD. Was any investigation of that aspect made at the +time? + +Mr. CHAYES. Yes. + +Representative FORD. When he came back and asked for the renewal of his +passport? + +Mr. CHAYES. No; but what happened was when he returned to the United +States--first of all the FBI was kept constantly informed, and as you +know kept looking into the Oswald situation periodically from the time +he came back. + +Mr. COLEMAN. And those reports were in the passport file. + +Mr. CHAYES. They were in the passport file, and immediately after he +came back, he was interviewed very fully by the FBI, and I think as +I recall the file--I haven't reviewed it recently--I think he was +questioned on this very point by the FBI, and he said he hadn't given +any and they weren't very much interested in it. And the FBI apparently +was satisfied with that. They made no further move against him on that +basis. + +So that we did have whatever information there was. + +As I say, although this regulation looks to the purpose of the +forthcoming travel and not to the past travel, nonetheless I think it +is perfectly appropriate to make inferences on the basis of what he +did before. We refused to issue a passport to Worthy when he would not +give us assurances that he would observe the restrictions, because on +the basis of his past conduct, we were prepared to infer that in the +absence of such assurances, he might well disobey the restrictions. + +Mr. Ehrlich points out to me that on May 16, 1962--this is one of +several such memorandums--our security office sent to the FBI with +copies to the other security agencies a memorandum on the subject of +American defectors, and their status in the U.S.S.R., and there is a +summary of that which covers Oswald. This was just before he came home, +I guess. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Will you indicate what file that is by the number? + +Mr. CHAYES. This is the folder II in the numbering that we gave you, +and it is document No. II-6(4), in our number system. + +Mr. DULLES. Could you read or indicate what that says about Oswald? + +Mr. CHAYES. Oh, yes; it just summarizes his status as of that date and +it says: + +"Lee Oswald: It has been determined that Oswald the ex-Marine is still +an American citizen. Both he and his Soviet wife now have exit permits +and the Department has given approval for their travel with their +infant child to the U.S.A. There is a problem with his wife, however, +in that SOV in the Department is trying to get a waiver of 243(g), +which requires that Oswald's wife pick up her visa for entry into the +U.S.A. in Western Europe. As soon as this question has been settled, +they will be free to travel." + +Mr. DULLES. May I clarify one other point? + +Mr. COLEMAN. May I ask him a question about that? In that file Mr. +Chayes isn't there also another FBI report dated August 30, 1962, which +indicates that Lee Harvey Oswald was reinterviewed by the Bureau agents +on August 16, 1962, with respect to contacts he had made at the Soviet +Embassy in Washington? + +Mr. CHAYES. I would have to review the file itself, for the specific +details as to dates and so on. I do remember that the FBI in its +subsequent inquiries talked to him about his contacts with the Soviet +Embassy. He had some, of course, in connection with his wife. They +asked him whether he had had any other contacts with the Soviets and so +on. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. Dulles, you had a question. + +Mr. DULLES. This apparently just went to the Bureau, did it not? Did it +go to the other agencies? + +Mr. CHAYES. I think the---- + +Mr. DULLES. Yes; it went to the CIA. Copy went to the CIA. I would like +to clarify one point. It is not quite clear to me what information +about Oswald was in the passport files as distinct from the Department +files. I didn't realize that there was much about Oswald in the +passport file itself in the absence of, what do you call it, a check---- + +Mr. COLEMAN. A lookout card. + +Mr. DULLES. A lookout card. + +Mr. CHAYES. No; the passport file, I am holding it up. + +Mr. DULLES. It is a big file. + +Mr. CHAYES. It is roman numeral X and it contains in our numbering +system 80 documents or something like that. + +Mr. DULLES. That was in the passport file itself? + +Mr. CHAYES. In the passport file itself. A large amount of the security +material is there, and of course the security file would have been +pulled too whenever the passport file was reviewed. + +Mr. DULLES. Do you know whether that file was reviewed before the +issuance of the passport in June 1930 or not? + +Mr. CHAYES. 1963. + +Mr. DULLES. I mean 1963? + +Mr. CHAYES. It was not. + +Mr. DULLES. It was not? + +Mr. CHAYES. It was not, because what happened then was that the Telex +came in from New Orleans. The only thing that you do is go to the +lookout card file. There was no lookout card. In the absence of a +lookout card, routine approval goes out and the passport was issued +from the New Orleans office. If there had been a lookout card, then +the lookout card would have sent them back to the file. There was no +lookout card because the file as it then stood didn't have anything +in it that warranted the denial of a passport, and under our then +procedures we didn't have a flag for people of this kind to stimulate a +further inquiry or investigation. + +Mr. DULLES. Isn't it usual in issuing a passport though to look, in +addition to the lookout card, to look at the file you have on the +individual? + +Mr. CHAYES. No, sir; unless there is a lookout card, the passport is +issued automatically on the basis of the local agency's determination +of citizenship. There has to be evidence of citizenship. + +Now let me say there are different ways in which this can come up, +because for example a man may apply for a passport before a clerk of +the court and that application would be forwarded to the Department. +But even then the Department adjudicator would first look at the +lookout file. If there is no card in the lookout file, all he would +do is determine whether the application was complete, and whether +satisfactory evidence of citizenship was presented, and whether on the +face of it, you know, the oath was properly taken or any supplementary +questionnaire resolved doubts. + +And then would issue the passport. If there were a supplemental +questionnaire or something like that, then he would probably go to the +file. + +In our agency there are special passport issuing offices. New Orleans +is one of the big ones, we have one in New York, we have some others, +there the system is very routinized. + +Daily, and sometimes more than once daily, the agency will telegraph by +Telex the name, date, and place of birth of its applicants, the people +who have come in that day to make an application. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Could we mark as Exhibit No. 952 the teletype that came in +on Oswald. I think that would help the Commission to indicate how it +comes in. + +(Commission Exhibit No. 952 was marked for identification and received +in evidence.) + +Mr. CHAYES. Yes. + +Mr. COLEMAN. You had better explain the "NO" which is beside Oswald's +name. name. + +Mr. CHAYES. Yes; well here you see the Telex coming in from New +Orleans, and there are 25 names on it with date of birth beside each +name, and it is interesting that opposite Lee Harvey Oswald is capital +letters "NO" which might be rather interesting except that it stands +for New Orleans, and every Telex that comes from New Orleans has that +mark on it. It is covered by our abbreviations manual, and one of your +investigators made, of course with our knowledge in our office, but not +in the Passport Office, a surprise visit to the Passport Office to make +sure that they were, in fact, putting NO on these things, and they are. + +That is the designation of the office. + +What happens is when these 25 names come in, the lookout file is +searched for those names, and if there is no lookout card, then a +responding Telex is sent back. It says here 561, OW561. That is this +one, "All okay." OW is office to Washington. WO is Washington to +office. So the control number of the outgoing from Washington is WO38, +and it says that on your OW561, all the names were okay. + +Now it is interesting, the Telex came in and it is stamped June 24, +4:19 p.m.--June 24, 1963. It went out June 25, 10:57 a.m. and these 25 +people all got the passports. + +Now it is only on the basis of that kind of a system that you can get +out a million passports in a way that really provides first class +service to the American people. Miss Knight in her administration of +the office, which extends back into the previous administration, has +cut down the time from something like 2 weeks to 24 hours in most of +the cases. + +Mr. DULLES. Could the Passport Office itself prepare a lookout card on +its own initiative on the basis let's say of a file like the Oswald +file? + +Mr. CHAYES. It would have prepared a lookout card on any person as to +whom the file suggested that there were grounds for withdrawal, or +denial of the passport. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. Chayes, at this point could we mark as Commission +Exhibit No. 951 the existing standard operating notice which was in +effect on February 28, 1962, of the Department with respect to the +lookout card system? + +(Commission Exhibit No. 951 was marked for identification and received +in evidence.) + +Mr. CHAYES. Yes. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Would you describe Commission Exhibit No. 951? + +Mr. CHAYES. This is the standard operating notice which covers the +categories, and if you look at them they relate each category to a +ground of potential disqualification. + +Mr. DULLES. As of what date does this read? + +Mr. COLEMAN. February 1962. + +Mr. CHAYES. Now we have added by the Schwartz to Knight memorandum +of recent date a defector category which differs slightly from the +others in that in all of the other categories something in the file +already suggests that the person may be ineligible for a passport. The +defector category would simply stimulate further investigation in the +case of application by such a person, and would automatically trigger +notification of the other security agencies. + +Mr. DULLES. How do you define the defector category, do you know? + +Mr. CHAYES. I think we have the---- + +Mr. DULLES. Would that have covered Oswald? That is what I am +interested in. + +Mr. CHAYES. Yes; well, it was in fact designed to cover Oswald, so +that---- + +Mr. DULLES. It probably would have. + +Mr. CHAYES. It would, but defector is not a statutory term or one that +has real technical significance. I have said in my own discussions with +people who have asked for guidance in administering this memorandum and +others that it is not necessarily related to an attempted renunciation +of citizenship or anything else. It involves the kind of thing that if +there were a war on would be treason. + +In other words, it involves something like aid and comfort to the enemy +or attempted aid and comfort to the enemy. The only thing is the enemy +isn't technically an enemy because we are not at war. But that requires +some judgment to decide which ones you put in and which ones you +wouldn't. + +Mr. DULLES. There is a definition we could get though and put it in the +record. + +Mr. CHAYES. No, no. + +Mr. DULLES. There is no definition? + +Mr. CHAYES. If you look at the Schwartz memorandum, it says that the +Oswald case highlights the necessity of maintaining up-to-date lookout +cards in the files of the Passport Office, "for persons who may have +defected to Communist countries or areas or redefected. Subsequent to +the Oswald incident, I requested the Department of Defense to furnish +this office with identifying information on military personnel in this +category. Information with respect to these military personnel has now +been received from all three services and copies are attached. + +"On the basis of the attached information, please bring up to date the +lookout cards of the Passport Office." + +And then it simply lists the names of the people that came over from +the military. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. Chayes, is the document we have marked Exhibit No. +951, the standard operating notice as of February 28, 1962? + +Mr. CHAYES. Yes. + +Mr. COLEMAN. In the attachment in category K you have "Known or +suspected Communists or subversives" as a category on which there +should be a lookout card. + +Mr. CHAYES. Yes. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Wouldn't Mr. Oswald have fallen in that category, based +upon the passport file? + +Mr. CHAYES. I don't think so. There is nothing to indicate that he +had ever been a member of the Communist Party. Maybe you would have +regarded his Fair Play for Cuba activities as falling within the notion +subversive. I have to say that I think K dates from an earlier period +before the Kent Case, in which we were denying passports very broadly +to a category of people who might be called subversive. Rockwell Kent +himself, Brehl, the other defendant, people as to whom there was no +real membership information, but who had generally, what had been +thought of as having subversive views or connections. + +With the Kent and Brehl cases, it may well have been that that category +fell into some desuetude. I think it is worth inquiring of Miss Knight +whether that category was maintained after the Kent case, or whether we +simply took those out. + +Mr. COLEMAN. In the Commission Exhibit No. 951 you also have another +category, category R, which reads: "Individual's actions do not reflect +to credit of U.S. abroad." Would you say that based upon the Oswald +file as it existed in the Passport Office as of June 1963, that he +would not fall in that category? + +Mr. CHAYES. I don't think so when you are thinking about what this +means. I don't think one person in a billion abroad knew Oswald or +had any such experience with him or anything else. This isn't really +a reflection on the United States. I suppose if you construed it that +way, if somebody got drunk on the Champs Elysees he ought to be in that +category. I don't think you can really construe it that broadly. It has +to mean I am sure someone who has a really notorious course of conduct +like the kind of thing that I summarized for you on the three people in +the so-called other category when we were talking to earlier--my letter +of June 6. + +Representative FORD. If you really are equating someone who is +intoxicated in Paris with Oswald---- + +Mr. CHAYES. No; I am not equating them in the quality of their conduct, +but for the purposes of this category "Do not reflect credit on the +United States abroad" I think what that must involve is some very +notorious course of conduct which a lot of people have had a chance +to see, which has somewhat serious consequences of the kind that I +summarized here "convicted for attempting to acquire knowledge of state +secrets in Germany, fraudulent schemes, convicted for fraud," that kind +of thing. + +Here is a fellow who left a trail of bad checks, using his passport as +identification and claiming to be a U.S. employee. All I am saying is +that category R, although it is a catchall category, I would conceive +is construed or should be construed narrowly. + +Let me say further, I probably should not be testifying to this so +much anyway because these categories are guidelines, are operational +guidelines. They don't have legal consequences. And I think you ought +to ask Miss Knight, who has the operational responsibility, whether the +way I conceive this is correct. I may misconceive it, but I think in +essence these categories are related to grounds of disqualification, +and unless the conduct specified comes within the range of being a +ground, a basis for disqualification, I don't think the lookout card +would be made up. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Don't you have a category X, which is called "catch card," +denotes limited lookout validity, not necessarily refusal situation? + +Mr. CHAYES. Yes. + +Mr. COLEMAN. So perhaps Oswald could have been put in there, couldn't +he, in that category, based upon the file? + +Mr. CHAYES. It is possible, and I suppose that is exactly what we are +now doing with defectors. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Do you know what category---- + +Mr. CHAYES. I think you ought to inquire from Miss Knight about that. + +Mr. COLEMAN. I also take it you wouldn't know what goes in categories O +and P, O being "orange card, includes recent master list" and P being +"project Carry." + +Mr. CHAYES. I don't personally know at all. + +(Discussion off the record.) + +Representative FORD. Let me ask you this, Mr. Chayes. Were Oswald's +various applications and various approvals ever handled as a special +case as far as you know? + +Mr. CHAYES. The only applications that were handled as a special +case were the ones made in Russia for the return of his passport in +the first instance, and then the renewal of his passport. Those were +handled as a special case, both in the Embassy and in the Department. + +Although I don't think very high ranking officers passed on them in +the sense of Assistant Secretaries or something like that, nonetheless +they where handled at very responsible levels in the Department. The +political desk was consulted as well as the Bureau of Security and +Consular Affairs, and a very deliberate and special decision was made. + +The subsequent application, the June 1963 application, was handled as a +matter of routine. + +Representative FORD. The application in the Embassy for renewal or +reissuance, was that handled more expeditiously or less expeditiously +than other defector or attempted defector cases? + +Mr. CHAYES. I couldn't say. I couldn't say because I don't have any +experience in it against which to measure it. As I reviewed the file it +seemed to me to be a fairly normal kind of a file for a matter of this +kind. When I say "this kind" I don't mean other defectors because I +have never seen any of that. + +But the reporting seemed full enough, and the response came back +in time. But they didn't seem to be accelerated. There were always +adequate supporting memorandums indicating consultation within the +Department on broad enough basis. + +Representative FORD. How long did it take from the actual time that he +made the application in Moscow until it was finally approved? + +Mr. CHAYES. He made the application on---- + +Mr. COLEMAN. This is the passport? + +Representative FORD. Yes; in Moscow. + +Mr. COLEMAN. He made it July 11, 1961. At that time Mr. Snyder returned +to him his existing passport. The new passport, namely the one he got +to travel back to the United States, was not issued until May 1962. + +Mr. CHAYES. Yes. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Though the instruction that it could be issued was +submitted, sent forward to the Embassy, certainly by the end of 1961. + +Mr. CHAYES. Yes; they were submitted subject to the Embassy being +satisfied on certain points. + +It ought to be stated also that, according to the record at least, the +passport was returned to him, in July, July 11. It was marked at that +time "good for travel only for direct return to the United States." +But the purpose of returning it to him was so that he could apply to +the Soviet authorities for an exit document, because he believed and +our people in Moscow concurred, that he couldn't get an exit document +unless he had a U.S. passport. + +Representative FORD. An exit document for himself? + +Mr. CHAYES. For himself. + +Mr. DULLES. I note in this file, looking at your passport file which +is very complete, that in his passport application of June 1963 he +gives as his approximate date of departure, I assume departure from +the United States, as October-December 1963. Is it the practice of the +Department to issue passports for persons who are not leaving for 3 or +4 months? + +Mr. CHAYES. Oh, yes. + +Mr. DULLES. Anytime? + +Mr. CHAYES. Anytime you want a passport, if you are entitled to one, +you get it. And you keep it even after you return. I mean if he had +used it, gone out of the country and returned, if it is still within +what is it, the 3-year period now, the passport is a valid passport and +he can depart again in the absence of some action taken looking towards +withdrawal. So that these are ambulatory documents, and there are many +people who just automatically--I don't say Oswald did this, obviously +he didn't, but there are many people who automatically renew their +passport when it runs out so that they always have travel documentation. + +Representative FORD. Are there any other defector or attempted defector +cases where the person came back and tried to get his passport? How +long did it take in those cases to go through this process? + +Mr. CHAYES. You mean comparable to the June application? + +Representative FORD. No; I am talking of the Moscow application. + +Mr. CHAYES. I think we did submit a report on that. Well, I am sorry, +we didn't. We did inquire whether there were any defectors who were in +the situation of the June application. We found that there was one, +and he was also issued a passport routinely. But I can supply for the +record the information as to the others. + +Representative FORD. I think it would be helpful. + +Mr. CHAYES. You would like to know the time from application to grant +of passport in the Soviet Union for defectors or attempted defectors +who were trying to get back then to the United States? + +Representative FORD. Yes; if we could have that for the record. + +Mr. CHAYES. We will be very glad to submit it. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. Chayes, turning your attention to the question of +the admission of Marina Oswald to the United States as a nonquota +immigrant, I take it that since she was the wife of an American +citizen, she would be entitled to nonquota immigrant status unless she +was disqualified because she was a member of a Communist organization, +is that correct? + +Mr. CHAYES. Yes; unless she was subject to one of those +disqualifications in 212(a)(28). + +Mr. COLEMAN. Now the first decision that was made by the Embassy was +that her membership in the particular trade union was involuntary, and +therefore she was not disqualified? + +Mr. CHAYES. That is correct. + +Mr. COLEMAN. I take it you reviewed the record and you concur in that +judgment? + +Mr. CHAYES. That is correct. It would also be made, and be made +automatically in the case of persons belonging to trade unions not in +leadership positions in the trade union, and where there is no external +evidence of active participation, because membership in the union is a +condition of employment in those places in the Soviet Union, and our +regulations cover the point precisely. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Now the other decision that was made was that the +Department and the Immigration and Naturalization Service would waive +the provisions of section 243(g) of the Immigration and Nationality +Act which provision says that a visa could not be issued from Moscow +because the Attorney General in 1953 had placed Russia among those +countries that refused to accept Russian citizens that we wanted to +send back to Russia. + +Mr. CHAYES. Yes; 243(g) is a sanction which the act provides against +countries, not against people. It is not a disqualification for a +person. If 243(g) had not been waived, Mrs. Oswald would simply have +gone to Rotterdam and gotten the same visa from our consulate in +Rotterdam. It is a sanction against the country which is levied when, +as you say, the Attorney General determines that the country refuses to +accept people whom we deport who are their nationals. It gets back a +little to the point you were making yesterday about what obligation one +has to accept his own nationals back from another country. + +Mr. DULLES. That is a general rule of international law, isn't it, you +are supposed to do it. + +Mr. CHAYES. Yes; as a general rule of international law I suppose +one should accept his own nationals, but people who have expatriated +themselves wouldn't be nationals and therefore we wouldn't have to take +them back. + +In any event--that is a little digression--but this sanction is a +sanction designed to penalize a country which has refused to receive +back its own nationals when they are deported from the United States. +That sanction was brought into play by the determination of the +Attorney General made on May 26, 1953. + +Mr. DULLES. I wonder whether in addition to the information that Mr. +Ford has requested, you could give us information, oh, say covering the +last 5 or 10 years---- + +Mr. CHAYES. I think we have already. + +Mr. DULLES. I haven't said what I want it on. With regard to the time +that has elapsed between the application of a Soviet woman married to +an American citizen, the time that is taken from her application to the +time that that application has been favorably acted upon by the Soviet +Union. In this case as far as I understand it, the Soviet Union gave +permission for Mrs. Oswald to come either in December 1961 or January +1962, and that because of this particular sanction you have just been +discussing, it wasn't really cleared up until May. And therefore that +the delay was in part a delay due to American regulations rather than +to Soviet regulations. + +Mr. CHAYES. Well, her processing in the Soviet Union from the time she +first started to try to get back---- + +Mr. DULLES. That is it. + +Mr. CHAYES. Until she got an exit visa was about 6 months. It was just +under 6 months. + +Mr. DULLES. Yes. + +Mr. CHAYES. We have answered in our answers to your---- + +Mr. COLEMAN. It is a Commission Exhibit No. 960 which was just marked, +where Mr. Chayes, under date of May 26, 1964, answered various +questions which were asked, to determine whether there was anything +unusual in the way that Marina and the Oswald applications were handled +by the Soviet Union and we will make that part of the record. + +(Commission Exhibit No. 960 was marked for identification and received +in evidence.) + +Mr. DULLES. Does that cover this particular point? + +Mr. COLEMAN. It covers the point not for 10 years but for 3 or 4 years. + +Mr. CHAYES. If I can read into the record this answer, it says---- + +Mr. DULLES. Which answer is that? + +Mr. CHAYES. Question 3, attachment A. + +The relevant part is "In the immediate post-war period there were about +15 marriages in which the wife had been waiting for many years for a +Soviet exit permit. After the death of Stalin the Soviet Government +showed a disposition to settle these cases. In the summer of 1953 +permission was given for all of this group of Soviet citizen wives +to accompany their American citizen husbands to the United States. +Since this group was given permission to leave the Soviet Union, there +have been from time to time marriages in the Soviet Union of American +citizens and Soviet citizens. + +"With one exception it is our understanding that all of the Soviet +citizens involved have been given permission to immigrate to the United +States after waiting periods which were in some cases from 3 to 6 +months and in others much longer." + +So that I think what Mr. Snyder said yesterday was that 6 months was +par for the course. It wasn't an unusual delay, and it was fairly +low as those things went, but not something that would give you any +surprise. There were a number of other 6-month ones and there were some +less. + +Mr. DULLES. For our records I wonder if it would be possible to be a +little more specific, I mean to furnish us information that would be a +little more specific on this point, because it is very hard for us to +tell of the numbers how many had less than 6 months and how many had +more than 6 months. + +That is the point that has been raised often you know in the press, +and the charge has been made that this is very suspicious, that this +was done so soon. I think our records ought to show a good deal of +specification what that record is. I mean this is very helpful in a +general way but it is not very specific. + +Mr. CHAYES. We can do that. The further answer farther down on the next +page, page 2, says for example that "In a most recent case of this type +a Soviet woman married an American citizen in December of 1963 and +received an exit visa about 2 months later." + +Mr. DULLES. That is very helpful. + +Mr. CHAYES. But we will get a detailed account for the Commission. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. Chayes, as I understand it, section 243(g) itself says +nothing about the power of the State Department or Immigration and +Naturalization Service to waive its provisions. + +Mr. CHAYES. The State Department doesn't waive the provisions. I should +start by saying that 243(g) is a section administered by the Justice +Department and the Attorney General has primary responsibility for +interpretation and administration. The Attorney General has from the +beginning interpreted 243(g) as involving waiver power. I had never had +occasion to examine the question at all until this matter came up, and +I have made only a cursory examination, but I think the judgment is +sound that there is waiver power under 243(g). + +Mr. DULLES. May I just ask one question there. Our file that I have +before me, and your very helpful paper---- + +Mr. COLEMAN. Commission Document No. 2. + +Mr. DULLES. Commission Document No. 2 doesn't indicate really the basis +on which the Texas authorities were holding up the visa. Does that +appear anywhere in the record? + +Mr. CHAYES. I don't know. It may appear in our attachment B answers. In +essence it was that they thought this fellow had behaved pretty badly +and he wasn't entitled to any special consideration. + +Mr. COLEMAN. That is why at this time I would like to read into the +record part of the regulation under which they will waive. It says: + +"If substantial adverse security information related to the petitioner +is developed, the visa petition shall be processed on its merits and +certified to the regional commissioner for determination whether the +sanction should be waived. + +"The assistant commissioner shall endorse the petition to show +whether the waiver is granted or denied and forward it and notify the +appropriate field officer of the action taken." + +In other words, that since some derogatory information was in the file, +and since Oswald was the petitioner, the initial decision made by the +field officer of the Immigration Service was that the waiver should not +be granted. + +Mr. CHAYES. That is correct. + +Mr. DULLES. I assume that that was motivated probably in one of the +letters from the Texas immigration office to the Department of Justice +or the Immigration Service here. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Yes; well what happened, the record was referred to the +immigration field officer in Texas, and the record was the history +of the fact that Oswald had defected or attempted to defect, and the +statements he had made. So they, therefore, made the determination on +the field level that they would not waive the sanction. + +Mr. CHAYES. That is right. The sanction was waived only after urging +from the Department. + +Mr. DULLES. Yes, that appears in this Commission Exhibit, this document +that I have referred to. But we do not have in our files the letter of +the Texas immigration authorities first refusing as far as I know. + +Mr. COLEMAN. We will have that. That testimony will be put in through +Miss James and Miss Waterman. + +Mr. DULLES. They have that. All right, if they supply that, that will +be adequate. + +Mr. COLEMAN. So I take it that, in your judgment after reviewing the +file, you think that the waiver should have been granted? + +Mr. CHAYES. Well, I think there that it was not an improper exercise of +discretion. That is correct. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Just one other question. Is there any policy in the +Department to delay the acceptance of attempted renunciation of +citizenship? + +Mr. CHAYES. Well, delay, I don't know that there is a stated policy +that you put the person off. The general policy of the Department is +first I think to discourage renunciations, to make it clear that the +person has a right to renounce, but nonetheless to discourage them. + +Secondly, the policy is that the consular officer should assure himself +that the person seeking to renounce his citizenship is acting soberly, +rationally, and with full awareness of the meaning and consequences of +his act. And for that purpose the consular officer can use any means +within his judgment. He can talk to the person. He could invoke a +cooling-off period or ask a person to sleep on it or something of that +kind. It seems to me how the policy is implemented is something for the +particular case. If somebody came up in England and had just married an +earl or something like that and said "I want to be an English citizen +now" and was in full possession of her faculties apparently there +probably wouldn't be much worry about it, although even then the consul +would go through a routine of trying to assure that the person knew and +understood fully what she was doing. + +Mr. DULLES. Is that routine prescribed, should it be prescribed do you +think now in the light of hindsight in this situation? + +Mr. CHAYES. No; I think in each case it will depend so much on the +situation with the particular person. If a person comes in and he is +very agitated or something of that kind, it might dictate a totally +different approach than a different kind of thing. + +Mr. DULLES. Wouldn't it be useful though to give--I don't want to +suggest what the Secretary of State should do in this, but in the +light of this experience, would there not be some benefit possibly in +giving people in the field the result of the experience gained in this +particular case? + +Mr. CHAYES. Well, the general approach, and other matters related to +it, are touched on in orientation courses for consular officers and so +on. I think as I look on Consul Snyder's actions, that he behaved very +much like a responsible Foreign Service officer. + +That happened long before I was in the Department, so I can say that +without any involvement. But it seemed to me that he did just what he +should have done, despite the unfortunate aftermath. And it shows to +me, at least, that the training and orientation that these people are +getting is right, is serviceable, and they are able to handle these +situations as they come in. + +Mr. DULLES. I realize that you ought not to prescribe hard and fast +rules, that there is a broad range of discretion that should be +exercised here. But I just raise the question as to whether a good deal +of experience hasn't been gained in this case in that very field. + +Mr. CHAYES. Well, it may very well be that more attention to that +particular aspect should be given in the orientation courses and so on. +Those things tend to reflect what is hot at the moment you know, and if +you haven't had trouble with something for a pretty long time, it tends +maybe not to get mentioned. + +Representative FORD. If Oswald had persisted that day, October 31, in +demanding the form that is a prerequisite under your definition for +renunciation, would Snyder have been required to give it to him and +permit him to sign it? + +Mr. CHAYES. I think if it had been in ordinary office hours when the +consulate was open for business, and if Snyder was satisfied that he +was competent, that Oswald was competent, he would have to give him the +form, yes, sir. + +Representative FORD. Does Snyder have the authority to make a +determination of competency? + +Mr. CHAYES. No; he doesn't have the authority to make a determination +of competence, and I suppose it is possible at some point to get the +issue tried in court. But I think a consular officer would probably +be acting within his discretion if he saw somebody who was drunk or +raving or something and just said, "Well, I am not going to give you +this until I am sure that your action is your act." After all, when the +consul accepts the oath, he is certifying that it is the act of the +person in a meaningful sense, and so if he thought that the person was +incompetent, I think he would have discretion not to give the oath. But +I put that far aside because in the particular case here, Mr. Snyder +made it perfectly clear that he had no reason to doubt that Oswald was +fully competent. + +And so if Oswald had been there at a time when the office was open, or +had returned at a time when the office was open, and had persisted in +his demand, I think Snyder would have been under an obligation to give +him the form. + +Representative FORD. The only technical reason or basis upon which +Snyder could have denied Oswald the right that day was the fact that it +was on a Saturday, a non-working-hour period of the Embassy. + +Mr. CHAYES. Yes; I think he had every right to try to dissuade him, +or persuade him not to act or persuade him to think it over and come +back the next day. But if after all of that Oswald still had said "But +I want to do it now" and if the office was open for business, then I +think he would have had to do it. + +Mr. DULLES. I think it might be useful if it has not been done to +introduce at this point as an exhibit the form of oath of renunciation. +Here is the formalized oath and I think it would be well to have this +in our records unless it is already in our records. + +Representative FORD. I agree. + +Mr. COLEMAN. No; it isn't. Could we say it will be marked as Commission +Exhibit No. 955 and place this sticker on that page, photostat it and +then just send it back? + +(Commission Exhibit No. 955 was marked for identification and received +in evidence.) + +Representative FORD. When Oswald came back on November 3, I believe, +which was a regular working day---- + +Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. Commissioner, he did not come back on November 3. He +merely wrote a letter. + +Mr. CHAYES. Wrote a letter. He never came back. + +Representative FORD. Are all of the employees, Mr. Snyder, Mr. +McVickar, and the others who had any firsthand contact with the Oswald +case in this area, were they State Department employees? + +Mr. CHAYES. Yes, sir; these two men who were the only ones who did see +him directly, I think the secretary, their secretary also saw him, but +had nothing to do with him except as a receptionist. These two men were +Foreign Service officers and are now Foreign Service officers. + +Representative FORD. In the strictest term. + +Mr. CHAYES. Yes, sir; members of the Foreign Service, appointed by the +President with the advice and consent of the Senate. + +Representative FORD. Could you tell us in a bit more detail the process +that you followed or the procedure that you carried out when you first +got into the Oswald case. + +You mentioned yesterday you got a call or you were directed by I +believe the Secretary of State or by somebody in higher authority to +take certain steps. Will you tell us who called you, what you did in +the first 3 or 4 days? + +Mr. CHAYES. It was the evening of the day, perhaps about 5 o'clock +on the day of the assassination. It may have been somewhat earlier, +because I think I remember I went home for an hour and then came back +to carry out this assignment. Mr. Ball, once it became known that +Oswald had some history as a defector---- + +Mr. DULLES. Ball is the Under Secretary of State. + +Mr. CHAYES. He was then the Acting Secretary because the Secretary of +State as you recall was on a plane over the Pacific. So he was the +Acting Secretary. But even if he had been the Under Secretary he is my +client. + +Representative FORD. He still had some authority. + +Mr. CHAYES. Yes; he directed me to gather together the files in the +Department on Oswald, and to prepare a report to be available for him +the first thing in the morning covering as best we could within that +time span the contacts that Oswald had with the Department. + +We got the passport file. We got the security office file. We got the +special consular services file which covered Mrs. Oswald's visa and the +repatriation loan. I think those three files were the ones that we had. +It may have been there was a smaller fourth file, but I think those +three were the ones. + +Representative FORD. What would that smaller fourth file be? + +Mr. CHAYES. I can't remember. It was duplicates if it was anything. Oh, +that is right, we had a visa file and an SCS file so those were the +four. The SCS file, that is Special Consular Services in the office, in +the Bureau of Security and Consular Affairs. + +Representative FORD. You got this order on or about 5 o'clock the 22d +of November? + +Mr. CHAYES. The 22d; yes, sir. + +Representative FORD. And you issued orders to have these files brought +in, or did you go and get them yourself? + +Mr. CHAYES. No. + +Representative FORD. Or what happened? + +Mr. CHAYES. I issued orders to have them brought in. I called--I am +trying to think how we got them. [Turning to Mr. Ehrlich.] Did you go +down and get them? Mr. Ehrlich and Mr. Lowenfeld, another of my people, +we worked through the night on this, the three of us all together and +it may be that the two of them went down to get them. I don't think we +just called over the telephone and asked them to be brought up. + +(Discussion off the record.) + +Mr. CHAYES. It is my recollection that one of these two gentlemen, +either Mr. Ehrlich or Mr. Lowenfeld acting for me, went down to pick +up the file. Mr. Ehrlich thinks he recalls that one of the files was +already being examined by the Secret Service or the FBI, the passport +file. My own recollection, which I am sure of, is that later on in the +evening, about 8 o'clock or 9 o'clock, we established contact with the +FBI and they came over and read the files in our office at the same +time we were reading them. Now actually there was nothing in any of the +files that wasn't duplicated in the others in essence. I mean much of +our files consisted of FBI or CIA reports. + +Much of their files consisted of these letters and documents that you +have seen that we had come into possession of when Oswald attempted to +renounce. + +We worked, as I say, through the night. One thing that we did other +than go through the files was to go down to the lookout card file to +see whether there was a lookout card for Oswald. We got Mr. Johnson, +who is the General Counsel of the Passport Office, to open up the +lookout card file which is a large room that has a combination lock on +the door, and is also plugged into a general alarm system, got into the +room and examined the lookout card file and found that there was no +card for Oswald. + +This was the first experience I had ever had with the lookout card +file, and I said all the things that you have said here, why wasn't +there a card. But we were very careful in doing that to record, Mr. +Lowenfeld, Mr. Ehrlich and I and Mr. Johnson and Mr. Schwartz all went +in and we all mutually recorded what steps we took. I think there are +notes of that, if anybody is interested in them, but I don't think +there is any need to see them. + +Nothing of significance happened. We did find---- + +Mr. DULLES. May I ask is the passport office under you as Assistant +Secretary and Legal Adviser? + +Mr. CHAYES. No, sir; the passport office is under Mr. Schwartz. + +Mr. DULLES. Under Mr. Schwartz? + +Mr. CHAYES. It is Bureau of Security and Consular Affairs. + +Mr. DULLES. And he is directly under the Secretary of State. + +Mr. CHAYES. Yes; he is Assistant Secretary. His chain of command goes +through the Deputy Under Secretary for Administration, but he like I +has the rank of Assistant Secretary and he operates a bureau just as I +do. The Legal Adviser's office is a separate bureau. + +We did prepare a 10- or 12-page document by dawn the next day which in +fact is the basis of this report, the Commission Document No. 2. + +Mr. COLEMAN. We will give that Commission Exhibit No. 950, your first +report. + +Mr. CHAYES. The one we did overnight? + +Mr. COLEMAN. No; the one that you sent us. It is Commission Exhibit No. +950. It has been given a number. + +Mr. DULLES. I wonder if the witness would identify this and verify the +circumstances under which it was prepared? + +Mr. CHAYES. This report, Commission Exhibit No. 950, is not the one +that we prepared overnight. This is the report we prepared for the +Department of Justice before the Commission was appointed when the +Department of Justice itself was looking into the matter. + +What I say is that Commission Exhibit No. 950 is essentially an +expansion and elaboration of the document that we prepared that night. + +Representative FORD. There have been fears expressed by some that +somehow we don't have before the Commission all of the documents +that are in the hands of the Department of State or any other agency +pertaining to Oswald. You can only testify as to the Department of +State. Do you testify that we have been given everything that was at +any time in the files of Lee Harvey Oswald? + +Mr. CHAYES. To my knowledge that is the case. However, let me say again +what I said at the beginning of the testimony. We have constantly and +persistently gone around to all the places in the Department, and that +has been done under my supervision, and we have made very aggressive +efforts to assure that every office or subdivision of the Department +that might have documents pertaining to Oswald should give them to the +Commission, through me to the Commission. + +I think there was one stage where perhaps that wasn't understood, but +we got that corrected. Then later on, as I say, there was the Moscow +Embassy just sent us a whole load of documents. They said "We think you +have got duplicates of all of these so we didn't send them in earlier" +and it turned out that some of them we didn't have duplicates of. I +now think--as I say, it is very hard to prove a negative, but we have +made all the efforts that I think are humanly possible to get these +documents out of the files, and I think you have them all, with the +exception of some documents originating in other agencies where by +arrangement with the staff they are getting those documents from the +originating agency. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. Chayes, at this point could we mark as Commission +Exhibit No. 956, a letter from you to Mr. Rankin under date of May +28, 1964, in which you sent us a complete copy of the files, and in +which you numbered each one of the files from file I through XII, +and then within each file, each document was numbered and there was +also indicated the number of pages which would be in each particular +document? Will you identify that? + +(Commission Exhibit No. 956 was marked for identification and received +in evidence.) + +Mr. CHAYES. Yes; we sent that letter, a copy of which is Commission +Exhibit No. 956, in response to the request of the staff in order that +we would be able exactly to answer this kind of question. + +I should add that I think we sent some additional documents since then, +those that came back from Moscow in response to our last request. + +Mr. COLEMAN. I would next like to mark as Commission Exhibit No. 954, +a letter from Mr. Chayes to Mr. Rankin under date of June 4, 1964, in +which you sent us the file which you recently received from the Moscow +Embassy and indicated that that file would be marked file XIII. + +(Commission Exhibit No. 954 was marked for identification and received +in evidence.) + +Mr. CHAYES. Yes; that is the letter and it contains also the text of +the Moscow telegram explaining that they thought all the documents they +were pouching were duplicates. + +Mr. COLEMAN. With the files you gave us or sent us along with +Commission Exhibits Nos. 956 and 954, as far as you know you have sent +the Commission every file which the State Department has, referring to +Oswald? + +Mr. CHAYES. That is correct. + +Mr. DULLES. Were you in general charge, under the Secretary, of +the correspondence which has been carried on with the Soviet Union +inquiring as to Oswald and to obtain such information as we could from +the Soviet Union with respect to the Oswald case? + +Mr. CHAYES. Well, I talked with the Secretary about the Commission's +interest in making an approach to the Soviet Union, and then he made +the decision that the Department was willing to proceed with that +approach. I participated in the drafting of the documents, and I +participated in the transmissions to the Commission. But the approach +was made by the Secretary himself, and I did not observe the approach. + +Mr. DULLES. Was that made orally as well as in writing or should we ask +that of the Secretary of State? + +Mr. CHAYES. You can ask it of the Secretary and I think you would get +a fuller answer from him, but he did make an oral presentation at the +time that he handed the note, and the Chief Justice's letter, to the +Russian Ambassador. + +Mr. DULLES. In view of your knowledge of this situation, do you think +that we have got all we can get from the Soviet Union or is there any +other way in which we could get anything additional? + +Mr. CHAYES. Well, I think probably, the best respondent to that +question would also be the Secretary. I think it probably has to be +recognized that the decision to give what documents were given was a +carefully considered decision, probably made at very high levels within +the Soviet Government, and not done lightly or without an examination +of alternatives, and therefore, it seems to me unlikely that one would +be able to change any such decision. + +But again I say I am really not the best man to ask that. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. Chayes, just two other documents I would like you to +identify for the record. One is your letter of May 8, 1964, which has +been marked Commission Exhibit No. 948, which answers certain questions +directed to you by Mr. Rankin, and it is the document that you referred +to several times in your testimony. + +Mr. CHAYES. Yes; this is my letter, Commission Exhibit No. 948. It +contains the answers to the questions which were in attachment B to +Mr. Rankin's letter, and concern essentially matters within the United +States and within the State Department here. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Your answers to attachment A were in Commission Exhibit +No. 960. We have already identified that in the record. + +Mr. CHAYES. Yes; that is correct. There was a delay between the two +letters because attachment A involved questions about activities in +Russia, and some questions about the Soviet Union, and although we +prepared the answers in the first instance in the United States in +the Department, we wanted to send the replies to the Soviet Union +for review by our Embassy there. And that accounted for the time +discrepancy in the answer to the two attachments. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Then in the attachment A we also asked you a question in +reference to a memorandum from Mr. McVickar and you under date of April +24, 1964, sent us Mr. McVickar's memorandum which has been marked as +Commission Exhibit No. 958. But I would like to mark as Commission +Exhibit No. 953 your covering letter. + +(Commission Exhibit No. 953 was marked for identification and received +in evidence.) + +Mr. CHAYES. Yes; this is my letter. It is dated April 24, 1964, and +it is marked Commission Exhibit No. 953, and it clears up a factual +question that was left at large in Mr. McVickar's memorandum. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. Chairman, at this time I would like to offer for +admission into evidence Commission Exhibits Nos. 948, 950, and 949. +I would also like to note that the attachment to Commission Exhibit +No. 952 was marked as Commission Exhibit No. 958 and has already been +admitted into evidence. + +Mr. DULLES. They shall be admitted. + +(Commission Exhibits Nos. 948, 950, and 949 were marked for +identification and received in evidence.) + +Mr. DULLES. May I ask this question? Have all of these been previously +identified in the testimony. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Yes, sir; they have been identified and marked. + +(Discussion off the record.) + +Mr. COLEMAN. Back on the record. That is all the examination I have +of Mr. Chayes. I do want to express my appreciation and thanks for +the detail in which he gave us information and the method in which he +answered all the questions. + +Representative FORD. I have no further questions. + +Mr. DULLES. I have no further questions. Thank you very much. You have +been very full, very frank, very helpful. + +Mr. CHAYES. I am glad to do what I can. + + +TESTIMONY OF BERNICE WATERMAN + +Mr. DULLES. Would you kindly rise and raise your right hand. + +Do you swear the testimony you will give before this Commission is the +truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth so help you God? + +Miss WATERMAN. I do. + +Mr. DULLES. Would you please advise Miss Waterman of the general +purpose of the testimony we will ask of her. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Miss Waterman was with the Department of State until 1962, +at which time she retired. Miss Waterman was the adjudicator in the +Oswald case, and she is being called to testify with respect to certain +memorandums and actions she took in connection with Lee Harvey Oswald. +These actions dealt with the question whether he had expatriated +himself, and whether a passport should be reissued to him in 1961. And +also she has some information concerning the waiver for Marina under +243(g). + +Mr. DULLES. Miss Waterman, I wonder if you would just give us a brief +outline of your experience with the State Department. + +Miss WATERMAN. Well, I entered the Passport Office in March of 1926, +and I was there until I retired in February 1962, and during that time +I progressed from the position of typist to working on citizenship +cases, and became an adjudicator. + +Mr. DULLES. Can you hear? + +Miss WATERMAN. Then I became in charge of a section adjudicating +citizenship cases from certain places. I continued in citizenship work +until I retired. + +Mr. DULLES. Would you proceed, Mr. Coleman. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Miss Waterman, I have had marked 25 documents beginning +with Commission Exhibit No. 957 and going through Commission Exhibit +No. 982, and just before you came in, I showed you a set of those +files. Have you had opportunity to review those files? + +Miss WATERMAN. Yes; I did look over the State Department file. I don't +mean State Department files, I mean Passport Office files on Oswald. + +Mr. COLEMAN. And I take it that you would agree that every one of the +documents I showed you was a document which you prepared, or was a +document which was sent to you and you had occasion to read it prior to +the time I gave it to you today? + +Miss WATERMAN. I believe so. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Now would you tell the Commission the first time, to the +best of your knowledge, that you heard the name Oswald and in what +connection? + +Miss WATERMAN. Well it was rather seeing it in connection with the---- + +Mr. COLEMAN. I call your attention to Commission Document No. 961, +which is the second document in the folder I gave you, a telegram dated +November 2, 1959. + +Miss WATERMAN. The telegram--this is a reply. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Yes; I am talking about the telegram dated November 2, +1959. + +Miss WATERMAN. Yes; I recall from examination of the file that on +November 2, 1959, I saw the telegram from the Embassy at Moscow +reporting that Mr. Oswald had called there, and that was sent for +reply. Sent to me for reply. + +Mr. COLEMAN. I show you Commission Exhibit No. 910, which is a copy of +a telegram from Moscow to the Secretary of State, dated October 31, +1959, and I ask you whether that is the telegram you saw on November +the 2d? + +Miss WATERMAN. Yes; this is the telegram, and this is the telegram to +which I prepared an interim reply on the same day received, November 2, +1959. + +Mr. COLEMAN. And the reply that you prepared is Commission Exhibit No. +961. That is the telegram of November 2? It is the second document in +the file before you. + +Miss WATERMAN. Yes. + +Mr. COLEMAN. And that telegram indicated that it was prepared---- + +Mr. DULLES. Miss Waterman's file doesn't have the exhibit numbers on it +so you will have to identify it in some other way. + +Miss WATERMAN. Yes. + +Mr. COLEMAN. That telegram shows that it was prepared by you because +your name appears in the lower left hand corner, is that right? + +Miss WATERMAN. That is right. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Now below that you indicate "Clearances EE: SOV: V. James +in substance paraphrased by telephone." Will you indicate to the +Commission what that notation means? + +Miss WATERMAN. This is a telegram, isn't it? + +Mr. COLEMAN. Yes. + +Miss WATERMAN. Well, as I recall all telegrams which we dispatch to +Embassies or offices within the Iron Curtain countries were sent at +least with the lowest classification, official use only, and we had +previously received instructions that the telegrams which we prepared +on any subjects going to the offices in the Iron Curtain countries +should be cleared with the desk officers of the appropriate divisions, +that is EE and so on. + +Mr. DULLES. Geographical divisions? + +Miss WATERMAN. Geographical divisions, yes. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Could you identify for the record who Miss V. James is? + +Miss WATERMAN. Well, Virginia James, an officer in EE. + +Mr. COLEMAN. EE means? + +Miss WATERMAN. Eastern Europe. + +Mr. COLEMAN. And SOV? + +Miss WATERMAN. SOV, Soviet Division. + +Mr. COLEMAN. So the Commission Exhibit No. 961, which is a telegram---- + +Miss WATERMAN. Yes. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Indicates that the telegram was at least communicated to +and cleared by the Soviet desk in Washington before it was sent out? + +Miss WATERMAN. Well yes; I think that one reason that it was always +cleared was that the geographic divisions were particularly interested +in the wording of our replies. I think they just wanted the general +idea of whether or not we were using the proper classification. + +Mr. COLEMAN. And in that telegram of November 2, 1959, you advised +the Embassy in Moscow that if Oswald insisted on renouncing U.S. +citizenship, that the statute precludes the Embassy from withholding +his right to do so regardless of his application pending with the +Soviet Government, is that correct? + +Miss WATERMAN. Yes. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Now thereafter did you have anything else to do with the +Oswald matter prior to March 1960? To help you, Miss Waterman, March +1960 was the time in which you prepared the refusal card. + +Miss WATERMAN. Yes--refusal sheet. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Between sending this telegram on November 2, 1959, and +March 1960, did you personally have any knowledge or anything else that +was going on as far as Oswald was concerned? + +Miss WATERMAN. Well, not certainly unless it is in the file. I would +think that in the meantime we received some kind of further report from +the Embassy, but I am not---- + +Mr. COLEMAN. Well, we have had marked and put in the record the various +reports that were received, and you say that as all the reports came in +that you had opportunity to read them? + +Miss WATERMAN. Yes; of course that isn't too long from the latter part +of 1959 to 1960. Quite often in cases of this nature, the appropriate +Embassy might submit reports which didn't need replies, just +information submitted. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Well, there was a report submitted by the Embassy on +November 2, 1959, which has already been identified as Commission +Exhibit No. 908. + +Miss WATERMAN. Yes. + +Mr. COLEMAN. And I assume that you received a copy or saw that report? + +Miss WATERMAN. Yes; I did. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Then on or about March 25, 1960, you had occasion to +prepare a card which has as its head the name or the word "Refusal." + +Miss WATERMAN. That is not a card. That is a sheet. + +Mr. COLEMAN. That is a sheet which is marked as Commission Exhibit No. +962. Now will you indicate to the Commission the circumstances under +which you prepared that card and why you prepared that card? + +Miss WATERMAN. This was prepared after the receipt, I believe, of +further correspondence from the Embassy, which indicated that Oswald +was--that it would be possible that he might want to return to the +United States. And it was customary to make this red refusal sheet in +our office. + +Mr. COLEMAN. What was your office? + +Miss WATERMAN. In the adjudication part of the office, to put a flag on +the case for future reference. + +Mr. COLEMAN. After you made the refusal card which has been marked---- + +Miss WATERMAN. Not a card. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Pardon me, refusal sheet---- + +Miss WATERMAN. Refusal sheet. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Has been marked as Commission Exhibit No. 962, what would +be the next step in the system to make sure that Mr. Oswald could +not use his passport or come back to the United States without the +Department having notice? + +Miss WATERMAN. Well, in the case of this being a classified file, the +file would have been returned to the Classified File Section as I +recall, and there would be a note on there to please index the refusal +sheet, and then if there were any other instructions, for instance, +another office might want the file or ask for it, if no one wanted it, +we would ordinarily ask to have the refusal sheet carded and the case +filed. + +Mr. COLEMAN. As a result of the preparation of the refusal sheet, would +someone else or you have a responsibility to prepare something which is +called a lookout card? + +Miss WATERMAN. At that time, at least--I don't know what the procedure +is now, I have no idea; at that time, at least, the refusal card as +I call it, or lookout card would have been prepared in the Records +Section of the Passport Office. In other words, a part of the section +which handled the files. + +Mr. COLEMAN. After you prepared the refusal sheet which is Commission +Exhibit No. 962---- + +Miss WATERMAN. Yes; I wrote that myself. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Would you then give--how would the records section know +that a lookout card should be prepared? + +Miss WATERMAN. Well, for one thing the refusal sheet would be placed +on top of the file, and I am sure there would be a note to flag the +attention of the records people that a refusal was there to be carded. + +But in any event, it would be on top of the file, and there would have +been nothing on the right hand margin. There would have been no name. +There would have been nothing put on there in our particular office. + +Mr. COLEMAN. In other words, you say---- + +Miss WATERMAN. In our adjudication part. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Are you saying that Oswald, Lee Harvey, would not have +been---- + +Miss WATERMAN. No, no; the sheet was completely blank as to the margin. +At no time would anything have been entered there, in our adjudication +part. + +Mr. COLEMAN. In Commission Exhibit No. 962, you then say when you +physically prepared the refusal sheet, the only thing that was prepared +is the typewritten material, is that correct? + +Miss WATERMAN. The typewritten red sheet. If you have the file, it is +right here. + +Mr. COLEMAN. You say that after you prepared that, you would physically +place that red sheet on the top of the passport file, is that correct? + +Miss WATERMAN. Well, now this was placed--I think there was a +communication which went out at the same time. + +Mr. COLEMAN. You are talking about the Operations Memorandum dated +March 28, 1960? + +Miss WATERMAN. I am talking about the Operations Memorandum, yes. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Which has been marked as Commission Exhibit No. 963? + +Miss WATERMAN. Now that would have gone to file, to the file with this +Operations Memorandum, and the Refusal Sheet. + +Mr. COLEMAN. You prepared the Operations Memorandum also? + +Miss WATERMAN. Yes; now I see that was mailed 3 days after it was +prepared. In the meantime someone else was looking at it. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Was it your responsibility actually to see that the +lookout card was prepared? + +Miss WATERMAN. No; I wouldn't think so, no. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Who would have that responsibility? + +Miss WATERMAN. Well, in the first place the cases were examined by +the records people before being filed, and no one would certainly be +supposed to file a Refusal Sheet without an indication that he had had +a card made. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Would the indication that the card was made be put on the +refusal sheet? + +Miss WATERMAN. Yes. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Would you look at the original of the State Department +records? + +Miss WATERMAN. Yes; I am looking at it. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Was it put on the refusal sheet? + +Miss WATERMAN. Well, it looks to me as if someone started to handle +this for the refusal card, or lookout card as you call it, because the +name was typed on. + +Mr. COLEMAN. It was written on. + +Miss WATERMAN. Written on, yes. I believe that to complete that +operation, the designation of the citizenship designation of the +Department of State at that time at least, 130, should have been placed +on there. + +Mr. COLEMAN. What does 130 mean? + +Miss WATERMAN. That is the Department's classification of citizenship. + +Mr. COLEMAN. By looking at that file, is there anything else that you +can examine to be able to tell the Commission whether in your judgment +the actual lookout card was ever prepared? + +Miss WATERMAN. No; I wouldn't be able to say. I do notice here that the +case was called for from the files a few days after it went to file, +and that apparently was occasioned by a new communication coming in +from our Embassy at Moscow. + +Mr. DULLES. Who called for it, can you tell from that? + +Miss WATERMAN. Apparently we received--this was called for from--here +is a call slip right here. I am looking at it. Which means that +something new had been received and we wanted the file again. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Could you tell me the number that is on that call sheet? +You are looking at file X. It is file X she is looking at? + +Mr. EHRLICH. Yes. + +Miss WATERMAN. X-64. + +Mr. COLEMAN. X-64. + +Miss WATERMAN. I might say that in the meantime during the time from +November 1959 up into 1960, beginning about early in February 1960, I +was replaced in this section or branch by an attorney and a member of +the bar, and at this time I was then the assistant of the section, and +not the head of it. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Well, was the attorney that replaced you G. W. Masterton? + +Miss WATERMAN. Yes. + +Mr. COLEMAN. I would like to ask you to identify Commission Exhibit No. +983. + +Is that a copy of the sheet you referred to, to indicate the file had +been called for? + +Miss WATERMAN. That is right. A new report had been received and our +control clerk, we call her, our person looking after the records in our +particular section had made that call slip for the file. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Is there anything else in the original file which you +could look at to try to advise us whether you think in your judgment a +lookout card was ever prepared? + +Miss WATERMAN. Well, I wouldn't be able to know. All I could say is +it is very surprising, because it seems to me that we had--well, I +could not say how many lookout cards and refusal cards on all kinds +of subjects. And I can only guess that this file was caught up in +some large number of files that were on hand to have refusal cards or +lookout cards made, or something of that nature, or that the process of +having the card made was interrupted by the receipt of the new material +from our Embassy at Moscow. + +Mr. COLEMAN. But---- + +Mr. DULLES. Could I ask one question? + +Who would make out lookout cards in the normal process? Would it be +quite a number of people, or one particular office? + +Miss WATERMAN. I am not sure about that, Mr. Dulles. That was +completely another area, and I don't know. + +Mr. DULLES. Outside of the Passport Department entirely, was it? + +Miss WATERMAN. Oh, no. + +Mr. DULLES. In the Passport Department? + +Miss WATERMAN. Oh, yes. + +Mr. DULLES. Miss Knight could tell us that. + +Miss WATERMAN. In the records part of the Passport Office. + +Now, at one time I know that the cards were made in a certain area. +Then I know that later on, and probably prior to this time, we had +been requested not to forward any kind of classified files to the +usual place for having these cards made--we should forward them to the +Classified Files Section, which would take it up from there, and give +them to the proper person to have a card made. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Miss Waterman, it is your testimony that based upon +the red refusal sheet that you prepared, and also the operations +memorandums which have been marked respectively Commission Exhibit No. +962 and Commission Exhibit No. 963, that you had done all you were +supposed to do, and that the file then should have been passed over to +somebody else, and a lookout card should have been prepared? + +Miss WATERMAN. Yes, yes; that was our procedure at that time at least. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Now, after March 28, 1960, and prior to February 1961, +in that period, did your department, or did you take other actions in +connection with the Oswald case, with the hope that you would finally +be able to reach a decision on Oswald, as to whether he had expatriated +himself or not? + +Miss WATERMAN. I don't think there was too much going on in the file in +1960. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Well, I would like to call your attention to---- + +Miss WATERMAN. But in 1961---- + +Mr. COLEMAN. Before we get to 1961, I would like to call your attention +to the memorandum from Mr. White to Mr. Hazelton, dated July 20, 1960, +and the next document, which is a handwritten piece of paper, dated +2-15-61. + +Do you have that? Your number should be X-49. + +I show you the document which is marked in your file X-49, and it has +been given Commission Exhibit No. 965. + +Now, is that your handwriting on that document? + +Mr. EHRLICH. Might I interject at this time? In looking at the +originals of these I notice that X-49 is actually two memorandums. They +were photostated as one, and thus probably you cannot actually read +either one. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Well, I am referring to the one on top. Is that your +writing "took initial action, action"---- + +Miss WATERMAN. No; that is Mr. Masterton--the memorandum on the little +larger size below was a memorandum, informal memorandum, which I sent +to my section chief, Mr. Masterton. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Could you indicate what you said in your memorandum? + +Miss WATERMAN. Yes; I said, "Mr. Masterton, SCS, is writing to mother +on welfare aspect of Lee Harvey Oswald. Last two paragraphs of Moscow +dispatch 585, 2-8-61 appeared to be for PPT reply." + +I believe that was a letter which had been prepared in SCS--you know +what that is. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Yes. + +Miss WATERMAN. And had been forwarded to our office for clearance, for +our initial, before it was mailed, to reply to some inquiry of the +mother. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Now, on top of that memorandum you read, that you +prepared, there is another memorandum, isn't there? + +Miss WATERMAN. Yes. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Now, could you read that into the record? + +Miss WATERMAN. Yes; "SCS. Took initial action on action copy, case of +split action. Copy our action to go to SCS." + +Mr. COLEMAN. Do you know or do you have any knowledge what they meant +about case is split action? + +Miss WATERMAN. Well, it has been a long time since I have seen the +material. But I believe that the mother, Mrs. Oswald, in writing to the +Department, to the Secretary, probably brought up various questions +about her son. Now--questions which related to his welfare or physical +repatriation, or something of that type, which would come under the +jurisdiction of the Special Consular Services, should be answered +there. Any inquiries which were about his citizenship or his passport, +anything that came within the purview of the Passport Office, should +have a reply drafted by Miss Knight's office, or elsewhere in the +office. + +Mr. COLEMAN. In other words, you are saying that the phrase, split +action, on Commission Exhibit No. 965, doesn't mean that---- + +Miss WATERMAN. The decision was split; no. + +Mr. COLEMAN. It just means that different offices in the Department +would have to make different decisions, or take different action? + +Miss WATERMAN. Yes; and I think that most of Mrs. Oswald's letters were +quite involved, and brought up several questions. + +(At this point, Mr. Dulles withdrew from the hearing room.) + +Mr. COLEMAN. Then the next document which I want to ask you questions +about is your X-55. + +Miss WATERMAN. Yes. + +Mr. COLEMAN. That we have marked as Commission Exhibit No. 966. + +Now, this letter, though signed by Miss Knight, was prepared by you? + +Miss WATERMAN. Yes. + +Mr. COLEMAN. And it was a reply to an inquiry made by Congressman +Wright? + +Miss WATERMAN. Yes. + +Mr. COLEMAN. With respect to the Oswald case. + +Miss WATERMAN. Yes; this was--we probably either received a memorandum +from SCS or telephone call, something of that sort. + +Mr. COLEMAN. The next contact you had with the Oswald case was as +a result of the Embassy Despatch dated February 28, 1961, which is +X-42(2). + +Miss WATERMAN. Are you talking about the Department's Despatch? + +(At this point, Mr. Dulles reentered the hearing room.) + +Mr. COLEMAN. Yes; despatch. The Foreign Service Despatch. + +Miss WATERMAN. Yes; our despatch to the Embassy. + +Mr. COLEMAN. I beg your pardon. It is a despatch from the Embassy to +you. + +Miss WATERMAN. Yes; that is right. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Which we have marked as Commission Exhibit No. 967. + +Miss WATERMAN. Yes. + +Mr. COLEMAN. When that was received in Washington, you got a copy of +it, did you not? + +Miss WATERMAN. Well, I think--we seem to have the original in our file. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Yes; you saw the document? + +Miss WATERMAN. Yes. + +Mr. COLEMAN. And then as a result of seeing the document on March 27, +1961, you prepared a draft of the instruction which should go to Moscow +in response, is that correct? + +Miss WATERMAN. Yes. + +Mr. COLEMAN. And that is in the file as X-46, and we have marked it +as Commission Exhibit No. 968. And the draft that you prepared which +was attached to Commission Exhibit No. 968 is the next document, which +is X-47, which we have marked as Commission Exhibit No. 969, is that +correct? + +Miss WATERMAN. You mean the copy of the---- + +Mr. COLEMAN. The proposed State Department instruction. + +Miss WATERMAN. Yes; I see that. + +Mr. COLEMAN. And it indicates on the copy that the original was not +sent, is that correct? + +Miss WATERMAN. That is right. Nothing was sent. + +Mr. DULLES. Can I get this clear now? I am not sure--which was the +document that was not sent? + +Mr. COLEMAN. That is X-47 (Commission Exhibit No. 969). + +Mr. DULLES. Could you identify that for the record--because just +reference to documents in our record would be meaningless to the +reader. I think we ought to identify each document as we can, because I +am lost completely. + +Mr. COLEMAN. It is Commission Exhibit No. 969, which is a draft of the +State Department instruction to be sent to the Embassy in Moscow, as a +result of the Embassy's dispatch of February 28. + +Mr. DULLES. And this was drafted on March 27, was it? + +Mr. COLEMAN. Yes. + +Miss WATERMAN. Yes. + +Mr. DULLES. And you, I gather, Miss Waterman, drafted this? + +Miss WATERMAN. I drafted this, and then apparently we had--everyone had +second thoughts on some of the statements in there, and I believe that +it was at this time--wait a minute. + +We sent this to Miss Knight's office for the special attention of Mr. +Hickey. + +Mr. COLEMAN. And is that the memorandum dated March 31, 1961? + +Miss WATERMAN. Yes; that is right. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Which has been given Commission Exhibit No. 970. + +Miss WATERMAN. Yes. + +Mr. COLEMAN. And from that memorandum, you indicate that your proposed +instructions were that, one, that the passport should be mailed back to +Mr. Oswald only under proper safeguards---- + +Miss WATERMAN. Now, are you talking about what wasn't sent or what +finally was? + +Mr. COLEMAN. The memorandum of March 31, 1961. + +Miss WATERMAN. Yes; these memorandums were prepared by my superiors. In +other words, this looked a little different and more important by that +time. + +Representative FORD. In other words, the State Department document No. +X-42 came back to you from higher authority? + +Miss WATERMAN. No; I prepared the instruction, and I sent it to Mr. +Kupiec, who by that time was in charge of our section--Mr. Masterton +having been given other duties. And this went into the office of the +Chief of our Division, of the Foreign Adjudications Division. And Mr. +Cacciatore, who was the Assistant Chief of the Division, drafted a +memorandum in Mr. White's name to go to Miss Knight's office, and that +is a memorandum of March 31, 1961. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Well, that has been given Commission Exhibit No. 970. + +It is in your files as X-42. + +Miss WATERMAN. Right. + +Mr. COLEMAN. And you had no part in connection with the drafting of +that memorandum? + +Miss WATERMAN. No, no; our branch had sent the case to our Division +Chief, either to comment or authorize the mailing of the instruction +which I had prepared. + +Mr. COLEMAN. And then after this memorandum of March 31, 1961, was +drafted, a decision was finally reached in the Department as to the +form of the State Department instruction which is in your file as X-38? + +Miss WATERMAN. Yes. + +Mr. COLEMAN. And we have marked it as Commission Exhibit No. 971. + +Miss WATERMAN. Yes + +Mr. COLEMAN. And that is the instruction that was actually sent to the +Embassy? + +Miss WATERMAN. Sent to the Embassy; yes. That was a replacement of +the instruction which I had originally drafted, and I redrafted that +according to the dictates of the memorandums which had been exchanged +with our office and Miss Knight's office. + +Representative FORD. May I ask a question here, Mr. Coleman? + +On the memo of March 31, 1961, Commission Exhibit No. 970, the last +sentence reads as follows: "For the best interests of the United +States, therefore, and as the possession of a passport might facilitate +his obtention of an exit visa it is believed that we should do +everything within our power to facilitate Oswald's entry into the +United States." + +Who would have prepared the March 31, 1961 memo that contained that +quotation? + +Miss WATERMAN. That was prepared by Mr. Cacciatore, who was the +Assistant Chief of the Foreign Operations Division, in which I worked. +And Mr. John White was his superior, and Mr. White initialed the memo +going to Miss Knight's office, to Mr. Hickey. + +Mr. DULLES. Who is Mr. Hickey? + +Miss WATERMAN. Who is he? + +Mr. DULLES. I meant at this time what was his position? + +Miss WATERMAN. Well, I believe at that time his title was--I wouldn't +like to say definitely--I believe he was the Deputy Chief of the +Passport Office. + +Mr. DULLES. Under Miss Knight? + +Miss WATERMAN. Under Miss Knight, yes. + +Mr. DULLES. I would like to ask one question about X-38(2). + +Mr. COLEMAN. That is Commission Exhibit No. 971. + +Mr. DULLES. That is the cable sent--cable of instructions sent on +the Lee Harvey Oswald matter to the American Embassy in Moscow. This +relates to---- + +Miss WATERMAN. Now, you are talking about the State Department +instruction? + +Mr. DULLES. That is correct. In paragraph 2 there is reference to the +circumstances under which his passport can be returned, and there is +this phrase: "His passport may be delivered to him on a personal basis +only." + +What does that mean? + +Miss WATERMAN. I think it meant deliver it to him in person. + +Mr. DULLES. I see--deliver it to him in person. + +Miss WATERMAN. Yes; I think those are the words of Mr. Hickey. I +believe that somewhere in the file there is a memorandum which Mr. +Hickey returned to Mr. White's division, giving his views. + +Mr. DULLES. And that may be qualified by the last sentence here, +suggesting that it would not be wise to send it through the mails? + +Miss WATERMAN. Yes; in other words, the memorandum which Mr. Hickey +returned to us, with our proposed instruction, was used as a basis for +our action. + +Mr. DULLES. It was to be given to him personally, and not transmitted +through the mails. + +Miss WATERMAN. I think that is what it means. + +Mr. COLEMAN. And, also, the State Department instructions were that +he was to get the passport only after the Embassy had thoroughly +questioned Oswald regarding the circumstances of his residence in +the Soviet Union, and his possible commitment of an act or acts of +expatriation? + +Miss WATERMAN. Yes. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Miss Waterman, I note on the side of the State Department +instruction a notation that CIA furnished copy "on case by me, 10-5-61." + +Do you know who wrote that, and what that means? + +Miss WATERMAN. Well, I think the person has initialed it who wrote it. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Who is CHS? + +Miss WATERMAN. I think that is Mr. Seeley--Mr. Carroll Seeley. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Carroll H. Seeley, Jr.? + +Miss WATERMAN. If that is the way his name is listed in the book. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Is he an attorney in the Passport Office? + +Miss WATERMAN. I don't know what he is now. So far as I know, he was an +attorney at that time. He was in--in the Legal Division of the Passport +Office. + +Mr. COLEMAN. I also note in the next paper which is attached to +Commission Exhibit No. 971 we have marked as Commission Exhibit 972, +there is a reference sheet---- + +Mr. DULLES. What is that paper? + +Mr. COLEMAN. It is physically attached. + +Mr. DULLES. You see, exhibit numbers won't appear---- + +Mr. COLEMAN. Well, it is a reference sheet dated 10-5-61, which +indicates that a Thermofax copy of the Department of State Instruction +No. A-173, dated April 13, 1961, was sent to the CIA. + +Is that correct? + +Miss WATERMAN. I know nothing about that. That is something that was +entirely outside of our Adjudication Division, our Foreign Operations +Division. + +Mr. COLEMAN. But the reference indicates that it was prepared by Robert +D. Johnson, Chief Counsel, Passport Office, under date of 10-5-61, is +that correct? + +Miss WATERMAN. I am looking at it. Yes. But that was nothing that +emanated from our part of the Passport Office. + +Mr. COLEMAN. After you prepared and had sent forward the Department +of State instruction dated April 13, 1961, you then, on or about May +26, 1961, received the Embassy Foreign Despatch of that date, is that +correct? + +Miss WATERMAN. Yes, yes. + +Mr. COLEMAN. And that despatch, which is your No. X-34, has been given +Commission Exhibit No. 973, states that the Embassy had received +another letter from Oswald, is that correct? + +Miss WATERMAN. Yes; I am looking at a copy. + +Mr. COLEMAN. And also the despatch---- + +Mr. DULLES. Would you identify that a little bit? + +Mr. COLEMAN. The despatch is from the Embassy to the Department of +State, and it is Commission Exhibit No. 973, written by Mr. Snyder on +May 26, 1961, and it indicates, one, that the Embassy has received +another letter from Mr. Oswald, and it also indicates that Oswald was +married to a Russian woman, and it indicates that Oswald has informed +the Embassy that he had an internal Soviet passport in which he was +designated as "without citizenship." + +And the Embassy Despatch actually has as a copy the letter which Mr. +Oswald sent to the Embassy in May 1961. + +Miss WATERMAN. Yes. + +Mr. COLEMAN. And you received that in Washington some time shortly +after March 26, 1961. + +Miss WATERMAN. We received it in our particular office on June 12. + +Mr. COLEMAN. As a result of receiving---- + +Mr. DULLES. Just one second. + +June---- + +Miss WATERMAN. I am going by our automatic clock stamps on the reverse +of the original. + +Mr. DULLES. You received it on June 12? + +Miss WATERMAN. Yes; we received it in our action office June 12, 1961. + +Mr. COLEMAN. After you received it, you then considered whether the +Embassy should return to Mr. Oswald his passport. And your decision as +finally made is reflected in the State Department instruction dated +July 11, 1961, which is your X-31, which has been marked Commission +Exhibit No. 975, is that correct? + +Miss WATERMAN. Yes; I am looking at a copy. + +Mr. COLEMAN. In those instructions, you said that Mr. Oswald could be +given his passport, is that correct? + +Miss WATERMAN. Well, yes--because we are in effect agreeing with the +suggestion of the Embassy. We are telling the Embassy that we---- + +Mr. COLEMAN. You are agreeing with their despatch of May 26, 1961, +which has been identified for the record as Commission Exhibit No. 973. + +Miss WATERMAN. What is this word? + +Oh--"seek." + +Mr. COLEMAN. Is that correct? + +Miss WATERMAN. What was your question again now? + +Mr. COLEMAN. I am saying what you were agreeing to was the proposed +action of the Embassy as set forth in its Foreign Service Despatch +dated May 26, 1961? + +Miss WATERMAN. Yes; but I see we also note that the Embassy intended +to contact the Department again before granting any documentation to +Oswald. + +Mr. DULLES. Off the record. + +(Discussion off the record.) + +Mr. DULLES. Back on the record. + +Mr. COLEMAN. I note on Commission Exhibit No. 975, which is your X-31, +that on the side there is written "Pink copy of this sent to EE:SOV +Miss James, BW7-17-61." + +Miss WATERMAN. Yes; I am looking at that. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Do you recall whether Miss James asked you to send her a +copy, or did you just send her a copy without being requested? + +Miss WATERMAN. No; I would not recall, really. We tried to keep--since +there were many interests involved here, we did try to keep the +geographic division up to date on what we were doing, so that they +would have more or less a complete picture of the case. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Then I would like to next call your attention to your +document which is X-28. + +Miss WATERMAN. Yes. + +Mr. COLEMAN. That is a memorandum which you prepared, Commission +Exhibit No. 978, in which you state that Miss James called and said +that she wanted to know what reply had you made to the Moscow despatch +29, July 11, 1961, in the case of Oswald. And you stated that the draft +reply was in preparation, and you also said that Miss James said that +the communication should be cleared with the SOV, and then you make a +comment that you never heard that the Passport Section's citizenship +decisions should be routed to SOV for clearance. + +Miss WATERMAN. That is right. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Nevertheless, you indicated in the memorandum that you +would indicate that the SOV had a special interest in the reply to the +despatch, is that correct? + +Miss WATERMAN. Yes; that is right. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Did you discuss with anybody in the Department Miss James' +request? + +Miss WATERMAN. Well, I don't recall. I don't know. I wouldn't recall +right now. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Well, is this the only time, to your knowledge, where the +SOV had made a request in connection with a passport? + +Miss WATERMAN. Oh, no; I would not say that. I don't think so; no. I +think probably a great many of our communications went out as office +memoranda, and they received copies of them in the Division anyhow. + +But I think this was probably more to avoid confusion in having +classified files be traveling around the different areas of the +Department. We could send a copy of an "OM" without trouble. But +handing the files around was another matter. And we didn't put them +around any more than we had to. + +Mr. COLEMAN. The next document in the sheaf of papers I gave you is the +Operations Memorandum dated August 18, 1961, prepared by you---- + +Miss WATERMAN. Yes. + +Mr. COLEMAN. And we have given it Commission Exhibit No. 979. + +Miss WATERMAN. Yes. + +Mr. COLEMAN. In that you indicate that you concur in the conclusion of +the Embassy that there is available no information and/or evidence to +show that Mr. Oswald has expatriated himself under the pertinent laws +of the United States. + +Miss WATERMAN. That is right. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Did you review the entire files which you had in the +Passport Office on Oswald before you wrote this memorandum? + +Miss WATERMAN. Yes; our file was all together. + +Mr. COLEMAN. And you also had the benefit of the various Embassy +Despatches which were sent prior to August 18, 1961? + +Miss WATERMAN. Oh, yes. + +Well, the part that concerned his citizenship, certainly, was with our +file. + +Mr. COLEMAN. And reviewing the whole file, you, as the adjudicator, +determined on August 18, 1961, that there was nothing in the file which +would show that Mr. Oswald had expatriated himself? + +Miss WATERMAN. That is correct. + +Representative FORD. When you say "no information and/or evidence to +show that Mr. Oswald"---- + +Miss WATERMAN. No information or evidence. + +Well, that is the way I worded it. No information or evidence. We would +have to have evidence to hold up any action on him. And, in addition to +having no evidence, we also had no information. + +Representative FORD. Did you have the information that he had come in +and presented a statement to Mr. Snyder that he wanted to renounce his +citizenship? + +Miss WATERMAN. Yes; but he hasn't done so. There was no place that he +could have done so, except at the Embassy, under a specified form, and +upon specified documents. + +Representative FORD. In other words, you were relying upon the need for +this particular document? + +Miss WATERMAN. Well, in the first place, when he came in--as I believe +Mr. Snyder said, or whoever reported from the Embassy--and threw down +his passport, he apparently was a disgruntled young man--and that +is not the first time a passport has been thrown down on a consular +officer's desk. And I think that we had--no--in other words, it looked +as if he were already regretting his first action. He was weakening a +little bit because he was not being accorded any kind of recognition in +the Soviet Union. + +In other words, he was---- + +Representative FORD. But the subsequent evidence, where you say he +was changing his mind, came about 2 years later. On the other hand, +there was some evidence, when he first went to the Soviet Union, +October 31, 1959, that he at least had an intention to renounce his +American citizenship. He simply had not signed the actual form that is +prescribed by the regulations. + +Miss WATERMAN. That is right. He had not. + +And there was no indication that actually he intended to do that. He +apparently derived some kind of satisfaction from his appearing at the +Embassy with an ambiguous statement. But there was nothing there to +show that he actually had an intention of renouncing his citizenship +under the law. + +Representative FORD. I must differ with you. That first statement that +he submitted was not very ambiguous. + +Miss WATERMAN. Well, I think probably he made several. But, in any +event--he---- + +Representative FORD. I do think I ought to read what he said on October +31. + +Miss WATERMAN. Yes; I believe I recall that. + +Representative FORD. Here is a letter or a statement in Lee Harvey +Oswald's handwriting, which says: + +"I, Lee Harvey Oswald, do hereby request that my present citizenship in +the United States of America be revoked. + +"I have entered the Soviet Union for the express purpose of +applying for citizenship in the Soviet Union, through the means of +naturalization. + +"My request for citizenship is now pending before the Supreme Soviet of +the U.S.S.R. + +"I take these steps for political reasons. My request for the revoking +of my American citizenship is made only after the longest and most +serious considerations. + +"I affirm that my allegiance is to the Union of Soviet Socialist +Republics." + +Signed, "Lee Harvey Oswald." + +I don't think that is very ambiguous. + +Miss WATERMAN. Well, perhaps not. But the procedure was explained to +him, and he, as I recall, took no interest in completing any forms to +make his renunciation of American citizenship official. + +Representative FORD. The only question that I raise, Miss Waterman, is +in light of this evidence, your statement that there is available no +information and/or evidence to show that Mr. Oswald has expatriated +himself under the pertinent laws of the United States---- + +Miss WATERMAN. I think that is correct. I think the statement is +correct. + +Representative FORD. That is a very technical response, or technical +statement. I think there was evidence that he had placed before +Government officials his desire to renounce his citizenship. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Did anyone advise you or instruct you that you should make +the adjudication that you made as reflected in the August 18, 1961, +memorandum, or is this a decision that you made after you had reviewed +the file? + +Miss WATERMAN. Well, I made the decision and prepared the communication +which went through my superiors, and they apparently agreed with me. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Can you, by looking at the file, particularly the document +marked X-27, which is the Operations Memorandum dated August 18, 1961, +tell us what superior reviewed the memorandum before it went forth to +the Embassy? + +Miss WATERMAN. Yes; the initials there, HFK, are Mr. Kupiec, who was my +area chief, and I believe that up at the top, on the second line of the +Operations Memorandum, opposite "Department of State" I believe that +those were the initials of Mr. White, who was in charge of the Foreign +Operations Division. And then this was also cleared in our Legal +Division. + +Now, that would not be for citizenship purposes, but it would be there +for reference. + +Mr. COLEMAN. And who was CHS? + +Miss WATERMAN. That is the same person you mentioned awhile ago, Mr. +Seeley. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Then as a result of determining that there was no evidence +or information showing that Mr. Oswald had expatriated himself, you +then indicated that the passport of Mr. Oswald could be renewed, is +that correct? + +Miss WATERMAN. Yes. + +Representative FORD. May I ask a question here, Mr. Coleman? + +Referring again to the memorandum of August 18, 1961, the first +paragraph, where you say, "We concur in the conclusion of the Embassy +that there is available no information and/or evidence to show that Mr. +Oswald has expatriated himself under the pertinent laws of the United +States"--where is their documentation, if any, that the Embassy has +come to that conclusion? + +Mr. COLEMAN. Sir, I think she is referring to the despatch of July 11, +1961, which is identified as Commission Exhibit No. 935. + +Representative FORD. Do you come to that conclusion based on the total +content of the July 11, 1961, memo from the Embassy in Moscow, or +something specifically set forth in that memorandum? + +Miss WATERMAN. Well, I think all of the material together. In other +words, Oswald was not documented as a Soviet citizen. Apparently he +didn't expect to be. The Embassy had questioned him. And, in addition +to their knowing that during his visits to the Embassy itself he had +not expatriated himself, they received no information from him in what +questioning they could do that he had performed any act at all to +expatriate himself under U.S. laws. + +Representative FORD. Mr. Coleman, do you have that paper we had +yesterday, where the cross-out was present? + +Mr. COLEMAN. Yes, sir; here it is. + +Representative FORD. On Commission Exhibit No. 938, Oswald crossed out +"have not"---- + +Mr. DULLES. What is the date of that, Mr. Ford? + +Representative FORD. It is dated---- + +Mr. COLEMAN. July 11, 1961, and it is Oswald's application for renewal +of passport. + +Mr. DULLES. I remember the paper. That is subsequent to this document +here that we are discussing now. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Done at the same time. The State Department document +shows--I mean the Embassy document shows that one of the covering +material sent to the State Department was the application for renewal +of passport executed by Oswald July 10, 1961. + +Mr. DULLES. And this was sent with their dispatch of July 11, 1961, +which we are now discussing. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Yes, sir. + +Representative FORD. Did you have that document at the time you wrote +the statement, "We concur," and so forth? + +Mr. COLEMAN. Which is Commission Exhibit No. 979. + +Miss WATERMAN. What is the date? + +Mr. COLEMAN. It is your X-27. + +Miss WATERMAN. Yes; I think we had that. Because we referred to it. + +Representative FORD. Well, does that statement, the way it is set forth +there, raise any questions about whether there was any information or +evidence about his expatriation? + +Miss WATERMAN. His questionnaire discloses no information. + +Representative FORD. But what about the statement on the first page? + +Will you read it, for the record--the printed part? + +Miss WATERMAN. Yes; "I have been naturalized as a citizen of a foreign +state." Well, of course, that would be prepared by the Embassy. I think +they just crossed out the wrong one. + +Representative FORD. But all we can go by is what we see. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Would you examine the original in the State Department +file, and see what was crossed out there? + +Miss WATERMAN. Yes--"I have not." I think that was an Embassy error. + +Representative FORD. That is a fairly important error, though. + +Miss WATERMAN. Yes; it is. + +Representative FORD. Will you read the full text of what is shown there +as it is shown on the original? + +Miss WATERMAN. "I have been naturalized as a citizen of a foreign +state; taken an oath or made an affirmation or other formal declaration +of allegiance to a foreign state; entered or served in the armed forces +of a foreign state; accepted, served in or performed the duties of any +office, post or employment under the government of a foreign state, +or political subdivision thereof; voted in a political election in a +foreign state or participated in an election or plebiscite to determine +the sovereignty over foreign territory; made a formal renunciation +of nationality, either in the United States or before a diplomatic +or consular officer of the United States in a foreign state; been +convicted by court martial of deserting the military, air or naval +service of the United States in time of war; or of committing any act +of treason against or of attempting by force to overthrow or of bearing +arms against the United States; or departed from or remained outside +the jurisdiction of the United States for the purpose of evading or +avoiding training and service in the military, air, or naval forces of +the United States. If any of the above mentioned acts or conditions are +applicable in the applicant's case, or to the case of any other person +included in this application, a supplementary statement under oath +should be attached and made a part hereof." + +Representative FORD. That is signed by Lee Harvey Oswald. + +Miss WATERMAN. That is signed by Lee Harvey Oswald. And his statement +here indicates and shows the performance of no such act as is described +on the first page of the application. + +Representative FORD. Any one of those conditions, however, in that +statement would indicate that he had renounced his citizenship? + +Miss WATERMAN. It could. But, in other words, he now says---- + +Representative FORD. He says some place in there he is without +nationality. Did you have that at the time---- + +Miss WATERMAN. "I am described as being without citizenship." That is +right. In other words, it is questionable whether the Embassy should +have crossed out "have not." In other words, he might have said I have +done this, but his explanation---- + +Representative FORD. That is what the document shows. + +Miss WATERMAN. But his explanation clearly shows that he had not. + +Mr. DULLES. Do you know whether that was noted at the time, or deemed +to be a clerical error, or how did you interpret that crossing out of +that particular line there? + +Miss WATERMAN. Well, in any event--I actually cannot recall, Mr. +Dulles. But the questionnaire, which was also under oath, at the +Embassy, would be the material part here. And there is no information +in here to show that he had been naturalized. He said he was not known +as a Soviet citizen, he did not have a Soviet passport. And as for the +other items of possible expatriation, I don't see how they could have +applied to him, in any event. + +Representative FORD. Mr. Coleman, I suggest that, to make the record +complete as to what the evidence was in the file, that we have +reprinted in the record at this point Commission Exhibit No. 912, +because it was a followup statement by Oswald on the status as he saw +it of his citizenship at that time. + +Mr. COLEMAN. You want the reporter to print physically in the record +Commission Exhibits Nos. 912 and 913, the two Oswald letters? + +Mr. DULLES. Just one question. I note here this is typed out. The line +I saw had been marked out. I think it is a fair inference that this was +typed out, since the typing was probably done in the American Embassy. +He had no typewriter. There is a fair inference that might have been a +mistake. + +Representative FORD. All we can go by is what the record shows. + +Mr. DULLES. I think we ought to clarify that through the record in +Moscow, because the record is not good at this point. + +Mr. EHRLICH. There is another copy, as you know, that came in from the +Embassy that we sent to you that showed in fact--it was not a carbon, +it was a separate one, in which the "have" was---- + +Mr. COLEMAN. That is Commission Exhibit No. 947. + +Mr. EHRLICH. That was in the Embassy. It was not in the Department. + +Mr. DULLES. There the "X's" were above everything, but probably were +intended to mark out the "have." + +Representative FORD. Is Commission Exhibit No. 938 the original? + +Representative FORD. This is a photostat of the original? + +Miss WATERMAN. The original is in the Department's file. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Congressman Ford, the original document is right +physically in front of you. + +Representative FORD. That one is crossing out his "have not." It is +very clear. + +Mr. DULLES. And on this one, which is the copy in the Embassy files, +the crossed out is above all three. It apparently was intended to be +crossed out, the "have." + +(At this point, Representative Ford withdrew from the hearing room.) + +Mr. COLEMAN. We just thought the record should--you recall we asked Mr. +Snyder a question about this, and he said he didn't know whether it was +a typographical error, or just what the reason for it was. + +Miss Waterman, would you be kind enough to look at the document in your +file which is X-30, and could you look at the original, in the original +State Department file? + +Now, we have marked it as Commission Exhibit No. 977. + +Now, the second page of the document that we have has inserted a +sheet of paper called a passport office lookout file. Is that stamped +physically on the back of the first page? + +Miss WATERMAN. Yes. + +Mr. COLEMAN. That indicates that the document was received on July 19, +is that correct? There is a stamp on there? + +Miss WATERMAN. Yes; July 19. + +Mr. COLEMAN. There is another stamp on there, August 3, 1961. + +Miss WATERMAN. Yes; I see that. + +Mr. COLEMAN. You also have the lookout file on the Passport Office, is +checked under "No Lookout (refusal) File Record." + +Do you see that? + +Miss WATERMAN. Yes; I see it. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Does this mean that when someone ordered a search of the +lookout record file in July or August, 1961, that there was no lookout +file record on Lee Harvey Oswald? + +Miss WATERMAN. Apparently so. That was probably done automatically. The +records people probably did that. + +Mr. COLEMAN. This was prior to the time when you had made your decision +there had been no expatriation, is that correct? + +Miss WATERMAN. I will have to look at this. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Your recommendation wasn't made until August 18, 1961. + +Miss WATERMAN. That is what we were replying to. That is one of the +communications that we were acknowledging, yes, that is right. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Well, should there have been a lookout card when the +search was made in July 1961, on Lee Harvey Oswald? + +Miss WATERMAN. Well, I would say that if one were made, it would have +been in there. + +Now, I don't know that I always would have examined the reverse of +every dispatch. If I had examined the reverse of that despatch, I +probably would have noted it. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Well, what I am saying, as a result of the refusal sheet +that you prepared in 1960, when the lookout section made the search on +August 3, 1961, should there not have been a lookout file at that time +on Lee Harvey Oswald? + +Miss WATERMAN. Are you talking about a lookout card? + +Mr. COLEMAN. A lookout card, yes. + +Miss WATERMAN. A lookout card would only have referred to this file. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Yes. + +Miss WATERMAN. Which we already had, and which we already determined +had no evidence of expatriation. + +Mr. COLEMAN. I am suggesting that you did not make that determination +until August 18, 1961. + +Miss WATERMAN. Well, Mr. Coleman, the card itself would have been +totally immaterial to the decision we made here, inasmuch as we had the +entire file, and also our refusal--the refusal sheet would be in here. + +As I said, that was not for expatriation. It was just to flag an +adverse--possible adverse interest in the case. + +Mr. DULLES. But there has been testimony given here before, Miss +Waterman, that when the question came up later of the issuance of a +passport, since there was no lookout card, this file was not consulted. + +Miss WATERMAN. Well, that could be. That was, I believe--I believe that +was after I had anything to do with the file. + +Mr. DULLES. Yes; I know. You cannot testify as to that. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Now, Miss Waterman, would you be kind enough to turn over +to the next document which you have before you, after the August 18, +1961, memorandum? + +Miss WATERMAN. Yes. + +Mr. COLEMAN. And that is in the file--your file as 1X-24. It has been +given Commission Exhibit No. 980. + +Miss WATERMAN. Yes. + +Mr. COLEMAN. And will you note that there is some typewritten material +that appears on the first page which says, "Attached report is a +summation of Subject's background and case since he renounced U.S. +citizenship and sought Soviet citizenship in the fall of 1959. As his +citizenship status does not appear to be resolved, copies of the report +are furnished to both PPT and VO." + +And the attachment is an FBI report. + +Miss WATERMAN. Yes. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Written on the side in your handwriting, I assume, is the +word "incorrect." + +Miss WATERMAN. That is correct. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Do you recall when you wrote that on that paper? + +Miss WATERMAN. Well, probably when I saw it. I would not recall when I +wrote it, but it would be--the statement--my inference there that the +statement in this memorandum is what you might call a misnomer would +have been correct at any date. + +Mr. DULLES. Who wrote this memorandum which you indicated was incorrect? + +Miss WATERMAN. I have a line there "renounced U.S. citizenship." In +other words, somebody who had nothing to do with the adjudication +of the case or citizenship had made a statement in there that this +person had renounced, and that is a rather poor thing to have in the +file which is going around to various places in the Department or +possibly elsewhere. And I did write that on, with reference only to his +renunciation. + +Mr. DULLES. With reference to that one statement? + +Miss WATERMAN. That is right. + +Mr. COLEMAN. And then on December 28, 1961, you drafted a memorandum +which purports to be from Miss Knight to Robert F. Hale, in which you +indicated that any inference in the memorandum of July 27, 1961, which +is the document I have just asked you about---- + +Miss WATERMAN. Yes. + +Mr. COLEMAN. That Oswald was not a citizen of the United States is +incorrect. + +Miss WATERMAN. That is right. + +Mr. COLEMAN. And you prepared---- + +Miss WATERMAN. In other words, this memorandum which I did make the +notation on was sent to other parts of the Department, and we wanted to +correct that impression, that there was any evidence of expatriation by +Oswald, by renunciation of U.S. citizenship, or any other way. + +Mr. COLEMAN. That has been marked as Commission Exhibit No. 981, which +is the memorandum of December 28, 1961, in which you made the statement +that any inference that Mr. Oswald had--was not a citizen of the United +States was incorrect. + +Mr. WATERMAN. Well, yes; well, that is self-explanatory. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Then on the same day you drafted an operations memorandum +to be sent to the Embassy in Moscow in which you said that the Passport +Office approves the manner of the Embassy's replies to Mr. Oswald with +respect to passport facilities for him in the future. Is that correct? +That you drafted that memorandum? + +Miss WATERMAN. Yes; I drafted that. + +Mr. COLEMAN. That has been given Commission Exhibit No. 982. + +That is December 28, 1961. It is the last document. + +Now, after December 28, 1961, did you have anything else to do as far +as the Oswald matter was concerned? + +Miss WATERMAN. I don't think so, except perhaps sending a copy of some +document or letter to our files--because I had only about a month's +work in the Department. I left work on February 2, 1962, and that was +the last day I had with any kind of performance of duties. + +I might have marked some paper or something of that sort. + +But I don't recall any action. If the file shows it, I took it. But, +otherwise, I don't remember. + +Mr. COLEMAN. When you took the various actions we have discussed this +morning with respect to Mr. Oswald, were you acting under instructions +of anyone that this was the decision you would have to make because +someone else in the Department wanted you to resolve the question this +way? + +Miss WATERMAN. What do you mean? + +Do you mean outside of the Passport Office? + +Mr. COLEMAN. Yes. + +Miss WATERMAN. Outside the Passport Office? + +Mr. COLEMAN. Yes; I am just asking you for the record. + +Miss WATERMAN. I know. But you mentioned--such as who? + +Mr. COLEMAN. Did anyone call you up and say, "Miss Waterman, this is +the way you have to resolve this case"? + +Miss WATERMAN. Oh, no. Oh, no. + +Mr. COLEMAN. And you made the decisions you made based upon the record +and your judgment as to what you thought the law was and what the facts +were? + +Miss WATERMAN. Certainly. + +Mr. DULLES. Did you consult anyone in connection with reaching that +decision in the Oswald case? + +Miss WATERMAN. Well, Mr. Dulles, in preparing this correspondence, as +I have told you, the correspondence was prepared for the signature of +my superiors, and if they didn't agree with what I wrote, that was all +right with me. But that was my impression, and I believed there had +been discussion among persons in our immediate office. And while---- + +Mr. DULLES. Your decision, then, is not final. It is subject to review +by your superiors in matters of this kind? + +Miss WATERMAN. That is right. + +But in no event--I don't know of any--as I say, my connection with the +case closed, and I never heard in the press or any other place that +indicated that Oswald expatriated himself and that he wasn't entitled +to a passport. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Your decision wasn't in any way influenced by the fact +that Miss James told you that this was a decision that would have to be +made or anything like that? + +Miss WATERMAN. Certainly not. They have absolutely nothing to do with +citizenship--nothing. + +Mr. COLEMAN. I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman. + +Mr. DULLES. Off the record. + +(Discussion off the record.) + +Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. Chairman, before we close the testimony of Miss +Waterman, I would like to move for the admission of Commission Exhibits +No. 957 through Commission Exhibit No. 983, which were the documents +that we marked. + +Mr. DULLES. They shall be admitted. + +(The documents heretofore marked for identification as Commission +Exhibits Nos. 957-983, were received in evidence.) + +Mr. COLEMAN. I would like to thank Miss Waterman for coming in. + +Mr. DULLES. We thank you very much, Miss Waterman. + +(Whereupon, at 12:50 p.m., the President's Commission recessed.) + + + + +Afternoon Session + +TESTIMONY OF THE HON. DEAN RUSK, SECRETARY OF STATE + + +The President's Commission reconvened at 3:30 p.m. + +The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Secretary Dean Rusk, we wanted to ask you a few +questions about this matter in any particular detail you wanted to +answer. Mr. Rankin would you inform the Secretary the areas we intend +to cover before we ask the questions. + +Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Chief Justice, I think the particular area that we +would be interested in with the Secretary is just as to whether, or his +knowledge of whether there was any foreign political interest in the +assassination of President Kennedy? + +We have been getting the information in regard to other matters +concerning the State Department from other of his associates and +colleagues and employees of the Department, and we are going to +complete that and it has been helpful to us and I think we can rather +limit the inquiry to that area. + +The CHAIRMAN. Yes; very well. + +Mr. Secretary, would you rise and be sworn, please. Do you solemnly +swear the testimony you are about to give before this Commission shall +be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you +God? + +Secretary RUSK. I do. + +The CHAIRMAN. Will you be seated, please, and Mr. Rankin will ask you +the questions, Mr. Secretary. + +Secretary RUSK. Mr. Chief Justice, may I ask one question? + +The CHAIRMAN. Yes, indeed. + +Secretary RUSK. I would like to be just as helpful as possible to +the Commission. I am not quite clear of testimony in terms of future +publication. There may be certain points that arise where it might +be helpful to the Commission for me to comment on certain points but +there--it would be a very grave difficulty about publication, so I +wonder what the Commission's view on that is. + +The CHAIRMAN. Well, Mr. Secretary, our purpose is to have available +for the public all of the evidence that is given here. If there is any +phase of it that you think might jeopardize the security of the Nation, +have no hesitation in asking us to go off the record for a moment, and +you can tell us what you wish. + +Secretary RUSK. Thank you, sir, I am at your disposal. + +Mr. DULLES. Mr. Chief Justice, could I make a suggestion in that +connection? + +The CHAIRMAN. Yes. + +Mr. DULLES. Would it be feasible to have a discussion here of the +points that are vital from the point of view of our record, and so +forth, and maybe a little informal conversation afterward to cover the +other points. + +The CHAIRMAN. We will have a recess for a few moments then. + +Mr. DULLES. I thought between the two wouldn't that be easier than put +the two together. + +(Discussion off the record.) + +The CHAIRMAN. Back on the record. + +Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Secretary, will you give us your name and address, +please? + +Secretary RUSK. Dean Rusk, 4980 Quebec Street, Washington, D.C. + +Mr. RANKIN. And you are the Secretary of State for the United States? + +Secretary RUSK. That is correct. + +Mr. RANKIN. You have occupied that position for some time? + +Secretary RUSK. Since January 22, 1961. + +Mr. RANKIN. In that position you have become familiar with our foreign +relations and the attitude and interest in some degree of other +countries that we deal with? + +Secretary RUSK. Yes; within the limitations of the possibilities, it is +at least my task to be as familiar as possible with those things. + +Mr. RANKIN. In your opinion, was there any substantial interest or +interests of the Soviet Union which would have been advanced by the +assassination of President Kennedy? + +Secretary RUSK. I would first have to say on a question of that sort +that it is important to follow the evidence. It is very difficult to +look into the minds of someone else, and know what is in someone else's +mind. + +I have seen no evidence that would indicate to me that the Soviet Union +considered that it had an interest in the removal of President Kennedy +or that it was in any way involved in the removal of President Kennedy. +If I may elaborate just a moment. + +Mr. RANKIN. If you will, please. + +Secretary RUSK. As the Commission may remember, I was with several +colleagues in a plane on the way to Japan at the time the assassination +occurred. When we got the news we immediately turned back. After my +mind was able to grasp the fact that this event had in fact occurred, +which was the first necessity, and not an easy one, I then, on the +plane, began to go over the dozens and dozens of implications and +ramifications of this event as it affects our foreign relations all +over the world. + +I landed briefly in Hawaii on the way back to Washington, and gave some +instructions to the Department about a number of these matters, and +learned what the Department was already doing. But one of the great +questions in my mind at that time was just that question, could some +foreign government somehow be involved in such an episode. + +I realized that were this so this would raise the gravest issues of +war and peace, but that nevertheless it was important to try to get at +the truth--to the answer to that question--wherever that truth might +lead; and so when I got back to Washington I put myself immediately in +touch with the processes of inquiry on that point, and as Secretary of +State had the deepest possible interest in what the truthful answer to +those questions would be, because it would be hard to think of anything +more pregnant for our foreign relations than the correct answer to that +question. + +I have not seen or heard of any scrap of evidence indicating that the +Soviet Union had any desire to eliminate President Kennedy nor in any +way participated in any such event. + +Now, standing back and trying to look at that question objectively +despite the ideological differences between our two great systems, I +can't see how it could be to the interest of the Soviet Union to make +any such effort. + +Since I have become Secretary of State I have seen no evidence of any +policy of assassination of leaders of the free world on the part of the +Soviets, and our intelligence community has not been able to furnish +any evidence pointing in that direction. + +I am sure that I would have known about such bits of evidence had they +existed but I also made inquiry myself to see whether there was such +evidence, and received a negative reply. + +I do think that the Soviet Union, again objectively considered, +has an interest in the correctness of state relations. This would +be particularly true among the great powers, with which the major +interests of the Soviet Union are directly engaged. + +Mr. RANKIN. Could you expand on that a little bit so that others than +those who deal in that area might understand fully what you mean? + +Secretary RUSK. Yes; I think that although there are grave differences +between the Communist world and the free world, between the Soviet +Union and other major powers, that even from their point of view there +needs to be some shape and form to international relations, that it +is not in their interest to have this world structure dissolve into +complete anarchy, that great states and particularly nuclear powers +have to be in a position to deal with each other, to transact business +with each other, to try to meet problems with each other, and that +requires the maintenance of correct relations and access to the +leadership on all sides. + +I think also that although there had been grave differences between +Chairman Khrushchev and President Kennedy, I think there were evidences +of a certain mutual respect that had developed over some of the +experiences, both good and bad, through which these two men had lived. + +I think both of them were aware of the fact that any Chairman of the +Soviet Union and any President of the United States necessarily bear +somewhat special responsibility for the general peace of the world. + +Indeed without exaggeration, one could almost say the existence of the +Northern Hemisphere in this nuclear age. + +So that it would be an act of rashness and madness for Soviet leaders +to undertake such an action as an active policy. Because everything +would have been put in jeopardy or at stake in connection with such an +act. + +It has not been our impression that madness has characterized the +actions of the Soviet leadership in recent years. + +I think also that it is relevant that people behind the Iron Curtain, +including people in the Soviet Union and including officials in the +Soviet Union, seemed to be deeply affected by the death of President +Kennedy. + +Their reactions were prompt, and I think genuine, of regret and sorrow. +Mr. Khrushchev was the first to come to the Embassy to sign the book of +condolences. There were tears in the streets of Moscow. Moscow Radio +spent a great deal of attention to these matters. + +Now they did come to premature conclusions, in my judgment, about +what this event was and what it meant in terms of who might have been +responsible for it--and ideological effect has crept into that. + +But I had the impression that the regret was genuine and that the +ordinary Soviet citizen joined with ordinary people in other parts of +the world in feeling the loss of the President in a very genuine sense. + +Mr. RANKIN. There has been some suggestion that possibly the leadership +of the Soviet Union would not have been politically interested in the +death of the President but possibly a distant wing of the Party might +have been so involved. + +Can you give us any light on that, Mr. Secretary. + +The CHAIRMAN. By suggestion you mean rumor? + +Mr. RANKIN. In the newspapers, and things of that kind, rumor. + +Secretary RUSK. I haven't been able to put a rational structure behind +that possibility. If there are dissident elements their primary problem +is within the Soviet Union. + +If these dissident elements were aiming to change the present +Government of the Soviet Union or its leadership or to return to an +early range of policy by the elimination of present leadership or +seizure of control, I don't quite see how the elimination of the +President of the United States could contribute to that purpose. + +I would also suppose that in their kind of system such elements would +be under pretty close supervision and surveillance and they would have +limited opportunities for the kind of action that would be organized in +a way in this direction, although that is a matter of some speculation. + +But, I would doubt very much that such dissident elements would have a +motive or very much of an opportunity. Again, I have seen no evidence +pointing in that direction. + +Mr. RANKIN. How could you tell us in regard to Cuba in the same general +way, your opinion and knowledge of any information or credible evidence? + +Secretary RUSK. Well, I would again repeat that the overriding +consideration is to make every possible effort to find evidence and +follow the evidence to wherever it leads. + +I think it is, at least for me, more difficult to try to enter into +the minds of the present leadership in Cuba than, perhaps, even of the +present leadership of the Soviet Union. We have had very few contacts, +as the Commission knows, with the present Government of Cuba. + +But again, I have seen no evidence that seems to point in that +direction. + +There were some exchanges, with which the Commission is familiar, +that seemed to be--seemed to come to another conclusion. But I would +think that objective considerations would mean that it would be even +greater madness for Castro or his government to be involved in any such +enterprise than almost for anyone else, because literally the issue of +war and peace would mean the issue of the existence of his regime and +perhaps of his country might have been involved in that question. + +We were under the impression that there was very considerable concern +in Cuba as to whether they would be held responsible and what the +effect of that might be on their own position and their own safety. + +But I have seen no evidence that points to involvement by them, and +I don't see objective facts which would seem to make it in their +interests to remove Mr. Kennedy. + +You see, this embarks upon, in any event it would embark upon, an +unpredictable trail for them to go down this path, but I would think +again the Commission would wish to examine the evidence as it has been +doing with meticulous care and follow the evidence in these matters. + +Mr. RANKIN. After the assassination, did you have direct communications +with Ambassador Thomas Mann while he was still Ambassador at Mexico? + +Secretary RUSK. Yes; we had a number of exchanges with Ambassador Mann +connected with the presence in Mexico of Mr. Oswald. + +I say those messages, and over a period of some days had daily +consultations about them with our Deputy Under Secretary for +Political Affairs, Mr. U. Alexis Johnson. Mr. Johnson is my principal +representative in our dealings with the various intelligence and +security agencies of the government and with the Pentagon, and he has +an office very near mine on the seventh floor of the Department of +State. + +These exchanges raised questions of the most far-reaching character +involving the possibility of the implications of another government, +and so I had a very deep personal interest in that at the time. + +Our principal concern was to be sure that the FBI and the CIA who were +the principal agencies investigating this matter would have every +possible facility at their disposal, and would--and that our Ambassador +would be given the fullest support from us in facilitating the +investigation at the Mexican end. + +So I was for a period, until this particular trail ran its course, very +much involved in those exchanges. + +Mr. RANKIN. Do you have any commentary that you want to make about +those exchanges other than what you have given us? + +Secretary RUSK. I think not, sir. I think that the materials, the +information developed in those exchanges are before the Commission, and +I believe the Commission has had a chance to inquire into them both as +I understand both here and in Mexico with the appropriate agencies and +I would think that the Commission's conclusions on that would be more +valuable than mine because I have not put together all the pieces to +draw finished conclusions from them. + +Mr. RANKIN. One of the Commissioners saw a newspaper story shortly +after the assassination saying "The Voice of America beaming its +message into Russia immediately blamed the reactionary rightwing +movements after Kennedy's death." + +Do you know anything about that matter or what the source of it might +have been? + +Secretary RUSK. No; I have not anticipated that question so that I +could have a chance to investigate it, but I will, if I may, Mr. Chief +Justice, file a report with the Commission on that point. + +I can say now that there was never any policy guidance from the +Department of State or from the leadership of the Voice of America +suggesting that any broadcasters take that line. + +It is possible, and this is purely speculative at the moment, that +the Voice of America in repeating a great many news accounts, as it +frequently does in its overseas broadcasts, may have repeated some +news accounts from this country, among which might have been a story +to that effect from one source or another, but I would like if I may, +sir, an opportunity to investigate that point and make a report to the +Commission. + +The CHAIRMAN. You may do that, Mr. Secretary. + +Representative FORD. May I ask a question? Have we received in the +Commission all of the Voice of America broadcasts that were made over a +period of 2 to 7 days involved in this incident? + +Mr. RANKIN. I don't know of any. + +Representative FORD. I think the Commission ought to have them for our +own analysis as well as the analysis of the Secretary of State. + +Mr. RANKIN. Is that under your jurisdiction? + +Secretary RUSK. Yes; indeed I could provide that. + +Mr. RANKIN. If you will, please. + +Secretary RUSK. The Commission might also be interested in either +digests or the fuller materials on world reactions to the President's +assassination. + +I have here, for example, a daily summary of the 26th of November +1963, on foreign radio and press reaction which gives some interesting +treatment about this behind the Iron Curtain. + +I would be happy to furnish the Commission with any material of that +sort which you might wish. + +Mr. RANKIN. We would appreciate having that. + +The CHAIRMAN. Very well, thank you, Mr. Secretary. + +Representative FORD. Would that include the Voice of Moscow or whatever +they call it over there? + +Secretary RUSK. Yes, sir. + +Representative FORD. From the outset of the events that took place? + +Secretary RUSK. Yes, sir; you might just wish to look at the first two +or three paragraphs here to get a sample of the kind of summary that +that involves. + +Mr. DULLES. Was that prepared in the Department or by the Foreign +Broadcast Information Service? + +Secretary RUSK. This particular one is from the Foreign Broadcast +Information Service. We also have another one. We also have another one +from within the Department which is also available in terms. + +Representative FORD. I think it would be useful to have both for a +period of about a week or so. I realize this is a summary covering +several days. I think I saw that at the time. + +Mr. RANKIN. There was another statement in the paper apparently +purporting to be official that one of the Commissioners asked me to +ask about and that was the Washington Post, Sunday, November 24, 1963, +which was quoted by the Commissioner as, "Today in Washington State +Department officials said they have no evidence indicating involvement +of any foreign power in the assassination." + +Do you know anything about that or can you give us any information? + +Secretary RUSK. That was the view which we took at the time in +consultation with the investigative agencies. We did not then have +evidence of that sort nor do we now, and the implications of suggesting +evidence in the absence of evidence would have been enormous. + +Representative FORD. I don't understand that. + +Secretary RUSK. Well, for us to leave the impression that we had +evidence that we could not describe or discuss, when in fact we didn't +have the evidence on a matter of such overriding importance could have +created a very dangerous situation in terms of---- + +Representative FORD. Wouldn't it have been just as effective to say no +comment? + +Secretary RUSK. Well, unfortunately, under the practices of the press, +no comment would have been taken to confirm that there was evidence. I +mean, that would have been the interpretation that many would have put +upon no comment. + +But, Mr. Ford, I think the key thing is that at the time that statement +was made we did not have such evidence. I mean, this was a factual +statement at that time. + +Representative FORD. But, at that time, this was 2 days after the +assassination, you really didn't have much time to evaluate all of the +evidence. + +Secretary RUSK. Well, that is correct. But if the evidence or the known +facts had changed certainly that type of statement would have changed. + +In other words, such statements are based upon the situation as known +at the time the statements are made. + +Representative FORD. This statement then appeared in the Sunday +morning, November 24 issue or edition of the Washington Post. That was +a statement issued certainly on the 23d of November because it had to +be in order to get in the Sunday edition of the Post. So, that is 24 +hours after the assassination. + +Secretary RUSK. That is correct, sir, and this statement was made on +the basis of such information as was available to us in the first 24 +hours. + +Mr. RANKIN. I was also asked to inquire whether that was an official +statement if under your responsibility or if you could tell me who +would be responsible for it? + +Secretary RUSK. Well, I would have to check the actual source of the +statement. But I would have no present doubt that it was an officer of +the Department who was authorized to make that and for which I would be +fully responsible. + +Mr. RANKIN. That is all I have. + +Mr. DULLES. Could I ask a question in connection with that? + +The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Dulles. + +Mr. DULLES. There was some evidence presented here quite recently when +the district attorney of Dallas was here with regard to a message +from Washington, from the White House to the attorney general of +Texas, who was also here the other day before the Commission, on this +point: A rumor had reached Washington that in preparing the indictment +there, they were going to put in some reference to an international +conspiracy. As a matter of fact, when that was run down it was not +a correct rumor. But when that reached Washington, the reaction was +rather strong and I think entirely understandable, and word went +back to Dallas from high quarters that that should not, hoped that +that would not be included in the legal proceedings and papers that +were filed in connection with the assassination of the President and +charging---- + +Mr. RANKIN. Unless there was evidence to support it. + +Mr. DULLES. Unless there was evidence to support it. And the district +attorney, who was here, testified that he had never considered adding +that into it, putting that in the proceedings because if you put it in +you had to prove it, and it is not necessary at all. All you need to do +is allege a murder with intent, and so forth, and so on. So that that +was all pretty well cleared up. + +Mr. DULLES. Did that ever reach your attention, did you know anything +about that? + +Secretary RUSK. I don't personally recall that particular message. I do +recall---- + +Mr. DULLES. That took place, I think before you got back, because that +took place on the evening of the 22d. + +Secretary RUSK. I didn't arrive until---- + +Mr. DULLES. You didn't get back until the 23d? + +Secretary RUSK. Until the early morning of the 23d. + +Mr. DULLES. Yes. + +Secretary RUSK. I do recall being concerned if several different +authorities and agencies undertook investigations that would cut across +each other's bow or make it difficult to elicit the cooperation of +people outside the United States whose cooperation we might need in +matters of that sort, I felt myself at that time there ought to be a +complete and absolutely thorough investigation by the most responsible +authorities and I was glad to see that brought into some order at the +time but I don't remember the particular message you are talking about. + +Representative FORD. Could you check to see if somebody in the +Department of State made such a call or made such a contact? + +Secretary RUSK. Yes; I will be be glad to. + +Representative FORD. And if so so report it for the proceedings? + +Secretary RUSK. Yes, indeed; I will be glad to. + +Mr. CHAYES. I may be able to supply some information to the Commission +on this point because during the night of the 22d when we were +examining the data in my office, the files, I did receive a call from +Mr. Katzenbach who said that they had heard at the Justice Department, +that there was a possibility that this kind of an element would get +into the indictment, and said that--I can't remember the exact words +that he used--but he conveyed to me that he regarded this as not very +good, in the absence of evidence to support it, and said that he was +seeking to have Mr. Saunders, who is the U.S. attorney in Dallas, +admitted to the councils of the State officials there so that they +could discuss these matters as time went on. And that he would try to, +I don't know exactly again what he said, but that he would try to see +that in the absence of evidence no such allegation was made in the +indictment. + +I didn't in any sense authorize, and I certainly couldn't direct him +to do anything of this kind but my recollection of my reaction is +that I acquiesced fully in what he was proposing to do, and raised no +objection to it. + +I think at sometime during that evening I reported this conversation to +Mr. Ball. I am less clear about this part of the recollection, but I +think I did report the conversation to Mr. Ball, much in the same way +as I am reporting it to you, and he saw no objection either. + +I think that is the entire State Department side of that particular +transaction. + +Representative FORD. Would you check, however, Mr. Secretary, to see if +there is anything further in this regard? + +Secretary RUSK. Yes; I will. + +Representative FORD. Do I understand that you or somebody for you is +to summarize the USIA Voice of America broadcast that went out for the +first 3 or 4 days subsequent to the assassination and that would be +submitted for the record? + +Secretary RUSK. Yes, indeed. And we can, of course, have available +to the Commission such tapes or transcripts as we have of all those +broadcasts in full, but I think we can start with the summary and then +you can have the other materials if you wish to follow up particular +points. + +Representative FORD. Would they be voluminous, the originals? + +Secretary RUSK. I would think they would be fairly voluminous, but not +unmanageably so. + +Representative FORD. I would say for at least the first 24 hours it +might be well to have the full text of the USIA Voice of America +material that was sent out. + +Secretary RUSK. Right. + +Representative FORD. Do I also understand for the record that we are +to have this or others like it showing what the press reaction was +throughout the world? + +Secretary RUSK. Yes, sir. + +Now, the Foreign Broadcast Information Service material would be much +more voluminous because there we are receiving broadcasts in the clear +from most broadcasting countries. But we will be in touch with your +staff to show them everything that we have, and they can have any +part of it they wish or we will be glad to give any help in terms of +digesting or summarizing. + +Mr. RANKIN. We have been furnished some information, considerable +information, about the attitude of the foreign press as it was recited +and has come to the attention of the people from time to time, but I +don't believe we have right close, the Voice of America we don't have +right close to the date of the assassination. + +The CHAIRMAN. I read a sizable file on that that came from the State +Department and very early in the life of the Commission that seemed to +encompass all of the statements that were made around the world at that +time. + +Secretary RUSK. Yes. + +Representative FORD. This document which you handed me, Mr. Secretary, +is for Tuesday, 26 November 1963. Are these done on a daily basis? + +Secretary RUSK. I think that one was a summary of the first 2 or 3 +days, but I would---- + +Mr. DULLES. Summaries are done from time to time and there are daily +reports from Foreign Broadcasting Information Service covering the +Soviet Union and the satellites and another volume covering China and +southeast Asia, and so forth and so on. + +Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Secretary, could you give us a brief description of +that, we have been calling it this and these. + +Secretary RUSK. Yes; this is a daily report or rather a supplement to +the daily report put out by the Foreign Broadcast Information Service +in what is called its world reaction series. + +This apparently is a supplement to the foreign radio and press reaction +to the death of President Kennedy, and the accession of President +Johnson, prepared on 26 November 1963. + +This is a daily report, the subject matter of which varies from day +to day, but I will be glad to draw together not only such digests as +we have, but also to see what we have retained in terms of the actual +broadcasts from other countries so that although it may be voluminous +it might have some material of interest to the Commission or its staff. + +Representative FORD. I think it would be particularly pertinent as far +as the Soviet Union or any of the bloc countries or Cuba, anything in +this area that could be pulled together and included in the record, +which I think would be very helpful. + +Secretary RUSK. All right, sir. + +Representative FORD. I have the recollection that some people have +alleged that Castro either prior to or subsequent to the assassination, +made some very inflamatory speech involving President Kennedy. + +Do you have any recollection of that? + +Secretary RUSK. I don't have a recollection of a speech specially +related to time. He has made more than his share of inflamatory +speeches about this country and its leaders. But I will be glad to +furnish the Commission a schedule of his speeches, and the character of +these speeches and the texts if we have them during this period. + +Representative FORD. There was one that I vaguely recall, either prior +to or subsequent to the assassination that some people construed to be +directed specifically at President Kennedy, and I think if there was +such a speech that the Commission ought to have it and it ought to be +analyzed by the staff and by the Commission. + +Secretary RUSK. We will be very glad to look into that and furnish you +with speeches made during this period or during a substantial part of +the period on both sides of the November 22 date. + +I gather the Commission has Mr. Danielle's interview with Mr. Castro on +the subject. You have the published report of that. + +Mr. DULLES. Was that the long interview with Castro? + +Secretary RUSK. Yes; that was as close to any reflection of a thing +that he might have said personally about this that went beyond the kind +of broadcast speeches you referred to that I have seen, but---- + +Mr. DULLES. Do you have that available? + +Secretary RUSK. We certainly can get it. + +Mr. DULLES. It was in the press I guess at the time. Maybe you have a +fuller copy than we have. + +Secretary RUSK. Yes; it was a rather extensive interview. + +Mr. CHAYES. I think the staff has it already. + +Secretary RUSK. I see. + +Mr. RANKIN. I think Commissioner Ford is referring to that speech of +Mr. Castro which is sometimes called the slip-of-the-tongue speech that +referred in a way that may have some implications in it. I think that +might help you to identify it, Mr. Secretary. + +Secretary RUSK. It might be well for me, just to complete the sense of +the atmosphere, to accompany that with the timing and the nature of +statements and speeches that were being made on our side as a part of +this continuing rather acrimonious discourse with Cuban leadership. But +I will provide full information on this. + +Mr. RANKIN. We would appreciate it so it would give a complete picture. + +Secretary RUSK. Yes. + +Representative FORD. Do I understand now, Mr. Rankin, that what the +Secretary provides will be put in the record as exhibits? + +Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to offer to do that if that is +satisfactory, as a part of this record. + +The CHAIRMAN. Yes, sir; it might be admitted. + +Representative FORD. There is one question that I think ought to be +cleared up, you mentioned Mr. Mann who was our Ambassador at Mexico +at that time. The way the record stands now it could be construed by +somebody who wanted to so construe it that the country in which he +served us was involved in what he was reporting. I think it ought to be +made clear that is not the case. + +Secretary RUSK. That is absolutely correct, sir. We never had the +slightest view that Mexico was involved in this. The problem, the +question arose because Mr. Oswald had been in Mexico, and was known to +have been in touch with some Cubans at the Cuban Embassy in Mexico. +But the Mexican authorities gave us complete and the most helpful +cooperation in full investigation of this matter. + +The CHAIRMAN. Are there any further questions? Mr. Dulles. + +Mr. DULLES. Had you finished? + +Mr. RANKIN. Yes; I have. + +(Discussion off the record.) + +The CHAIRMAN. Are we ready to go back on the record? + +All right, the Commission will be in order. + +Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Chief Justice, I should like to offer in evidence at +this point Commission Exhibit No. 984 being the communication from +yourself as Chairman of the Commission to the Secretary of State, dated +March 11, 1964, and the Note Verbale in regard to the inquiries of the +Soviet Union. + +And Commission Exhibit No. 985 being the responses of the Soviet Union, +including all of the medical as well as all other responses together +with the transmittal letters from the Soviet Union and from the State +Department. + +The CHAIRMAN. They may be admitted under those numbers. + +(Commission Exhibits Nos. 984 and 985 were marked for identification +and received in evidence.) + +Mr. RANKIN. I would like to assign, Mr. Chief Justice, Commission +Exhibit No. 986, if I may, to those prior communications from the files +of the Soviet Embassy in Washington that were furnished to us by the +State Department. + +The CHAIRMAN. They may be admitted under that number. + +(Commission Exhibit No. 986 was marked for identification and received +in evidence.) + +Mr. RANKIN. Commission Exhibit No. 986 will be the copies of the +records from the Soviet Embassy in Washington that were supplied to the +Commission earlier by the State Department as a part of the records +that were furnished to us by the State Department. + +The CHAIRMAN. Those were the ones that were voluntarily offered by the +Russians before any request was made of them? + +Mr. RANKIN. Yes, Mr. Chairman. + +The CHAIRMAN. They may be admitted under that number. + +Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Secretary, will you tell us whether you know of +any credible evidence to show or establish or tending to show any +conspiracy either domestic or foreign involved in the assassination of +President Kennedy? + +Secretary RUSK. No; I have no evidence that would point in that +direction or to lead me to a conclusion that such a conspiracy existed. + +Mr. RANKIN. That is all I have. + +The CHAIRMAN. Are there any further questions, gentlemen? + +If not, thank you very much, Mr. Secretary. + +Secretary RUSK. Thank you very much, Mr. Chief Justice and gentlemen. + + +TESTIMONY OF FRANCES G. KNIGHT + +The CHAIRMAN. The Commission will be in order. + +Mr. Coleman, will you state to Miss Knight, please, the reason we asked +her to come here today? + +Mr. COLEMAN. Miss Frances G. Knight is the head of the Passport Office +of the State Department. + +Miss KNIGHT. Yes, sir. + +Mr. COLEMAN. We want to ask her concerning the standard operating +notice with respect to the lookout card system which was in effect as +of November--as of February 28, 1962, and we also wanted to ask her +concerning the decision of the Passport Office that Mr. Oswald had not +expatriated himself and, therefore, he should be reissued his passport. + +Miss KNIGHT. Yes, sir. + +The CHAIRMAN. Would you raise your right hand and be sworn, Miss Knight? + +Do you solemnly swear the testimony you are about to give before the +Commission shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the +truth, so help you God? + +Miss KNIGHT. I do. + +The CHAIRMAN. Be seated. Mr. Coleman will ask you the questions. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Miss Knight, will you state your name for the record? + +Miss KNIGHT. Frances G. Knight. + +Mr. COLEMAN. What is your present address? + +Miss KNIGHT. Home address? + +Mr. COLEMAN. Yes. + +Miss KNIGHT. 2445 Wyoming Avenue NW. + +Mr. COLEMAN. What is your present position? + +Miss KNIGHT. I am Director of the Passport Office in the Department of +State. + +Mr. COLEMAN. How long have you occupied that position? + +Miss KNIGHT. Since May 1, 1955. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Do you have any independent recollection of having ever +looked at any files dealing with Lee Harvey Oswald prior to the time of +the assassination? + +Miss KNIGHT. No, sir. + +Mr. COLEMAN. I would like to mark as Commission Exhibit No. 989 a +memorandum from Frances G. Knight to Mr. William O. Boswell, which +bears the date of December 26, 1961, and is found among the State +Department file No. XI, document No. 12 and ask you whether you have +seen the original of that document? (Commission Exhibit No. 989 was +received in evidence.) + +Miss KNIGHT. Sir, you want to know whether I personally saw this before +it went out? + +Mr. COLEMAN. Yes. + +Miss KNIGHT. This is a little difficult to answer. There are a great +many communications that go out over my name particularly a memo of +this sort, which would be prepared in the Passport Office, and I +would--I might sign it or if I were not in the office at the time my +deputy might sign it for me. + +But these communications usually go out over my name. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Well, Miss Knight, does that document---- + +Miss KNIGHT. This one looks as though it was initialed by me because it +has the type of a "K" that I make. + +Mr. COLEMAN. That document indicates that it was prepared by Miss B. +Waterman, is that correct? + +Miss KNIGHT. There is no indication here, sir. It was prepared in the +foreign division of the Passport Office, but there is no indication on +this communication as to the individual who prepared it. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Would you be kind enough to read what is on the memorandum +into the record, please? + +Miss KNIGHT. Yes, sir; the memorandum is addressed to "SY," Mr. William +O. Boswell from PPT--Frances G. Knight, subject "Lee Harvey Oswald." + +"We refer to the Office Memorandum of July 27, 1961, from SY which +stated that the subject 'renounced United States citizenship'. Mr. +Oswald attempted to renounce United States citizenship but did not, +in fact, renounce United States citizenship. Our determination on the +basis of the information and evidence presently of record is that Mr. +Oswald did not expatriate himself, and remains a citizen of the United +States." + +The blue file copy would indicate who prepared this memorandum in the +Passport Office and who signed it. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Do you have the file copy? + +Miss KNIGHT. I don't think we have it with us, do we? [Note: The file +copy was shown to Miss Knight.] The memorandum was prepared by Mr. H. +F. Kupiec, who is in the Foreign Operations Division of the Passport +Office. It was signed for me by Mr. Hickey, who is the deputy. + +Mr. COLEMAN. You have no independent recollection of ever having seen +that document prior to the assassination? + +Miss KNIGHT. No, sir. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Did you ever participate or make any decision as to +whether Lee Harvey Oswald lost his citizenship? + +Miss KNIGHT. No. + +Mr. COLEMAN. In 1959? + +Miss KNIGHT. No. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Did you ever make any personal decision or participate in +any decision as to whether he should be reissued a passport in July +1961? + +Miss KNIGHT. No. + +Mr. COLEMAN. I, therefore, take it you personally had nothing or you +can't recall anything that you had to do with Lee Harvey Oswald up to +the time of the assassination? + +Miss KNIGHT. No; I had nothing to do with the papers that were involved +at that time. + +Mr. COLEMAN. But the decision that he had not renounced his citizenship +was made in your department? + +Miss KNIGHT. It was made in the Passport Office by the citizenship +lawyers. The two persons who were primarily involved were members of +the staff, of long-standing service and with a great deal of experience +in citizenship law and in expatriation. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Could you state the names, their names for the record? + +Miss KNIGHT. Yes; Miss Bernice Waterman, and Mr. John T. White. + +Both of those employees have now retired from the Passport Office. + +Mr. COLEMAN. You said both were lawyers? + +Miss KNIGHT. Miss Waterman was not a lawyer but she worked directly +under Mr. John T. White who was a lawyer in charge of the Foreign +Operations Division. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Well, since the assassination of President Kennedy, have +you had occasion to review the passport file. + +Miss KNIGHT. Well, the first time that I actually had an opportunity to +look through the passport file was last Saturday. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Did you get a chance to read each document in the file? + +Miss KNIGHT. I read through the file; yes. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Did you have occasion to form any judgment whether based +upon the information that was in the file you would have reached the +same decision as Waterman and White did with respect to Oswald? + +Miss KNIGHT. Yes; I certainly did. From that standpoint, I did go +through the papers carefully. I am convinced that insofar as any +expatriative act is concerned that we made the only decision that we +could. The same decision was reached by the consul who interviewed Mr. +Oswald in Moscow, at the Embassy, and I think, with all the facts on +record, we had to come to the conclusion that Oswald did not perform +any expatriative act. + +(At this point, the Chief Justice left the hearing room.) + +Miss KNIGHT (continuing). May I ask one question, please? + +Mr. COLEMAN. Yes. + +Miss KNIGHT. I have a statement here, some notes that I prepared this +morning which are based on the information I read in the file. These +are some comments I would make and I think they may be helpful to you. +Could I refer to them or possibly read them to you? + +Would that be all right? + +Mr. COLEMAN. That would be fine. + +Miss KNIGHT. After reading the file---- + +Mr. COLEMAN. And by "file" you mean the passport file? + +Miss KNIGHT. The passport file of Lee Harvey Oswald, I would say the +handling of the case would break down into three separate actions: One, +the adjudication of his citizenship; two, the documentation of his +repatriation loan, and, three, the issuance of a passport to Oswald on +June 25, 1963. + +As I understand it, the Commission has been furnished with detailed +information covering all these actions, and in addition we have +supplied replies which were prepared in the Passport Office by our +staff to the specific questions that were posed by the Commission. + +My comments on the citizenship and expatriation phase of the Oswald +case are these: Insofar as the Oswald citizenship status is concerned, +it is my firm belief that Lee Harvey Oswald, despite his statement to +the U.S. consul in Moscow, that he wished to divest himself of U.S. +citizenship, did not do so. + +At no time did he sign the required documents which were available to +him for that purpose. Oswald was a 20-year-old ex-Marine, and the U.S. +consul made it quite clear in his despatches to the Department, that +Oswald was arrogant and aggressive, and angry and unstable. + +I had not had the opportunity to read the file until last Saturday, +because it was taken out of the Passport Office on November 23, 1963. +However, I do not recall---- + +Mr. DULLES. By whom? + +Miss KNIGHT. It was asked for and sent to the Administrator of the +Bureau of Security and Consular Affairs, Mr. Abba Schwartz. I want to +make a correction on that date. It was on November 22 that the file was +taken out of the Passport Office. Late at night, I believe. + +I do not recall that the file, the passport folder, contained any +information that would tag Oswald as a U.S. Communist, or a Communist +sympathizer prior to his visit to the U.S. Embassy in Moscow, and there +is no record that he engaged in any public denunciation of the United +States. + +During the time Oswald's citizenship status was in question, that is +from the time he had advised the U.S. consul in Moscow that he wished +to renounce his citizenship, to the time it was determined he had not +committed an expatriative act, a period of almost 2 years, his file was +flagged and according to our records a lookout card was ordered for the +lookout file. + +On March 28, 1960, the Passport Office advised the U.S. Embassy in +Moscow that "An appropriate notice has been placed in the lookout card +section of the Passport Office in the event that Mr. Oswald should +apply for documentation at a post outside the Soviet Union." + +Mr. COLEMAN. We will note for the record that document you are +referring to--I think it is the Operations Memorandum of May 23, +1960--has been given Commission Exhibit No. 963. + +Miss KNIGHT. In view of the volume of our work it would be impossible +at this late date for a clerk in the Passport Office to remember +whether a card was actually made or not made. Apparently no card was +found in the 1961 search of the lookout file, but again it is possible +that such a card was misfiled. It is also possible if a card was made +it was destroyed in error, but whether there was a card made or not has +no bearing on the final outcome of the decision regarding the Oswald +citizenship. + +Mr. DULLES. May I ask a question there. Would you prefer to read this +entire document first? + +Miss KNIGHT. No; it is easier---- + +Mr. DULLES. Is it conceivable that the lookout card could have been +removed in 1961 when his passport was extended to return to the United +States? + +Under your procedure would that have been done? + +Miss KNIGHT. Under our procedure when he was issued the passport that +card would have been removed; yes. So that in 1961 there would not have +been a card in the file. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Even though the passport was issued specifically saying it +was only good for return to the United States and only good for 1 month. + +Miss KNIGHT. That is right. + +The passport was limited and could not be used beyond the time it was +limited for. + +Mr. DULLES. Would that have caused the card to be removed? + +Miss KNIGHT. Yes. + +Mr. DULLES. Issuance of that passport, even a limited passport would +have resulted in the card being withdrawn? + +Miss KNIGHT. The card would have been withdrawn at the time that his +citizenship was adjudicated, and when it was found that he had not +expatriated himself. The card which was put in the file related only to +his citizenship status. + +Mr. DULLES. That is what--somewhat earlier, that is several months +before the passport was extended? + +Miss KNIGHT. Oh, yes. + +Mr. COLEMAN. That would mean when he came back into the United States +and he then reapplied 2 days later for another passport it would have +gone through routinely and you would not have picked up the fact that +it was Oswald the defector that was now going to go back out of the +United States? + +Miss KNIGHT. Well, that would be possible, I think; yes. + +The experienced citizenship attorneys in the Passport Office, as well +as the U.S. consul in Moscow determined individually that Oswald had +not expatriated himself. His passport was renewed in May 1962, and +limited for return to the United States. + +In the adjudication of his citizenship, we can only deal with the +facts on record. The fact is that Oswald did not avail himself of the +prescribed procedure to renounce his U.S. nationality. + +In applying for his passport renewal, he stated under oath that he had +not committed an expatriative act. He denied an earlier statement that +he had applied for Soviet citizenship, and produced some evidence that +he had never been declared a Soviet citizen. + +Now, as far as the repatriation loan is concerned, the recording of +such a loan in the Passport office is a very routine procedure. + +Apparently there is some question as to whether a lookout card was +inserted in the lookout file at the time that the repatriation loan +was made to Oswald. The Passport Office must depend on the Office of +Finance to inform it with regard to repatriation loans. We require +certain information such as the name of the individual, the place and +date of birth, and other information which will identify the individual +in our files. + +It is very important that this information be complete and accurate +to guard against embarrassing situations which could develop from +misidentification. + +The criteria for the procedure were developed over several years by the +Office of Finance in cooperation with the Passport Office. Memorandum +between the Passport Office and the Office of Finance have been +provided to the Commission. + +The important one is dated January 16, 1962, and spells out the +criteria that we established by mutual consent. The Passport Office was +and is directly concerned with only two actions in repatriation cases. + +The insertion of an accurate and identifiable card in the lookout file +and the prompt removal of such a card when the loan has been repaid. + +Between August 1961 and December 1962 there was a purge of our lookout +file because the cards were so shoddy and unreadable that they had to +be refreshed. + +We call them cards. But they actually were not cards, merely slips of +pink paper 3 by 5 inches which were very badly worn and torn. + +More than 1 million applications are cleared over this file annually, +and it was imperative for us to find a system which would provide fast +and accurate clearances. + +During the renovation of this lookout file we found over 3,000 cards +relating to repatriation loans which were unidentifiable. They had been +in the file for decades, and they were of no value. They failed to give +us any leads to either the passport or security files. The individuals +involved may long since have passed to their reward. We did not know +what had happened to them so we took these cards out of the files. + +The record indicates that the Finance Office did not have Oswald's +place and date of birth, and did not advise the Passport Office of the +repatriation loan. + +There may have been efforts to obtain the information necessary to +make up a lookout card and this may have been suspended because Oswald +started a series of payments within 10 weeks of the loan. + +In any case, the Passport Office was notified when the loan was +fully paid about 6 months later, which was January 1963. Had a card +been placed in the lookout file it would have been removed upon such +notification. + +In other words, there would have been no card in the files relating to +the repatriation loan at the time Oswald made his application for a +passport at the New Orleans Passport Agency on June 24, 1963. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Miss Knight, when Oswald was issued the June 1963 +passport, I take it that there was no reference made to his passport +file, is that correct? + +Miss KNIGHT. No reference was made to his passport file. When he made +his application at the New Orleans agency it was handled in a routine +manner which I believe has been described to the Commission in some +documents we prepared for you. Oswald's name was included in a list +of applicants sent by teletype from New Orleans to Washington for +clearance over the lookout file. + +It was cleared within a day. There was no card relating to the +repatriation loan because Oswald had made his final payment on the loan +6 months prior to his application for the passport. + +There was no lookout card relating to loss of nationality because it +had been determined by that time he had committed no expatriative act +and therefore did not lose his citizenship. There was no lookout card +on Oswald indicating that he was under indictment or wanted by an +investigative agency or by the police. There was no fraud committed, +and there was no evidence that he was a member of the Communist Party +or active in it. In other words, there was nothing on record in our +files in June 1963 which would have given the Passport Office any +reason for delaying or denying Lee Harvey Oswald a passport. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Is it your testimony that if when the teletype had come in +from New Orleans, and someone in your office had gone and looked at the +passport file, and found out that Oswald attempted to defect in 1959 +and had made the statements that he made at the Embassy in 1959, that +nevertheless you feel that under the existing regulations you would +have to issue him a passport? + +Miss KNIGHT. Yes; we would. We wouldn't have had a lookout card based +on that at the time of his application for a passport because all the +situations we mentioned were resolved by that time. + +Mr. COLEMAN. I would like to show you a Commission document which has +already been marked as Exhibit No. 951, which is the standard operating +notice of the passport office, dated February 28, 1962, and ask you are +you familiar with this document? + +Miss KNIGHT. Excuse me for a second, please. There is one subsequent to +this. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Yes; but that is the one that was in effect as of June +1963, isn't it? + +Miss KNIGHT. Yes. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Attached thereto is a list which indicates the various +categories for the lookout card. + +Miss KNIGHT. That is right. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Would you look at category K, and I would like to ask you +whether the information which was in the file on Mr. Oswald, including +the FBI reports, which were in the file of June 1963, should have +caused Oswald to be put in category K? + +Miss KNIGHT. No; I don't think so. + +Mr. COLEMAN. How about category R? + +Mr. DULLES. Could you read category K? + +Miss KNIGHT. Yes; certainly. "K" is "Known or suspected Communist or +subversive". And "does not include those falling within categories O +and P". + +Mr. COLEMAN. Would you tell me what "O" and "P" categories are? + +Miss KNIGHT. "O" is a category of cards in which the FBI has special +interest. And "P" is also a project of the same sort. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Has the FBI ever put defectors in that category? + +Miss KNIGHT. Yes; we are given the names and we put a lookout card in +the file. But we are not told the reason why. We simply advise the +agency involved. + +Mr. COLEMAN. In other words, if the FBI merely sends you a report on a +particular person, that wouldn't cause you to put someone in "O" and +"P"? It is only when the FBI says put the person in "O" or "P"? + +Miss KNIGHT. Only when a request is specific. + +Mr. COLEMAN. How about category "R", if you will put that in the record. + +Representative FORD. May I ask a question first, what is the criteria +for the determination as to whether or not a person is a Communist? + +Miss KNIGHT. Well, the criteria are based on the information that +we get from the investigative agencies regarding his activities and +membership in the Communist Party. + +I think that it would help you very much if, for instance, I would +spell out what the lookout file actually is and how it operates in the +Passport Office and just what the categories mean to us. This would +only take a minute and I think this would clarify things. + +Mr. COLEMAN. I have picked out the categories that I think you would +have to consider, and that is the reason I put the question to you. + +Miss KNIGHT. The purpose of the file is rather important because it +is twofold. Its principal role is to identify the applications which +require other than routine adjudication in determining an applicant's +eligibility for passport services. The second role of the file is to +identify certain incoming applications and to insure expeditious action +on them. + +As background, I think it is important to know, that prior to 1955 the +lookout file was part of a master index comprising 20 million 3 by 5 +inch cards. + +Mr. DULLES. 20 million? + +Miss KNIGHT. 20 million. Within this voluminous file were 600,000 pink +slips. Now these were known in those days as "catch cards," and these +were withdrawn in 1958 to establish the nucleus of the present lookout +file. + +The reason for doing so was quite obvious. It was impossible and +totally impracticable to clear every passport application across a 20 +million card file which was expanding at the rate of 1 million cards a +year. + +Cards at that time were being made for every applicant and his +relatives who were listed on the passport application. Every individual +whose name appeared in any investigative report which was sent to the +Passport Office, whether or not the individual applied for a passport; +every individual who appeared before an investigative committee of +Congress, whether or not he applied for a passport; as well as persons +whose names appeared in such situations as gambling raids, lottery +winners, and so forth. These were all in the passport file, and part of +the master index. + +File experts from the General Services Administration estimated at that +time that 30 percent of this master index was misfiled. + +By a program of refinement in 1959 and 1960, the lookout file +was reduced to 415,000 cards. We felt we were reasonably safe in +disregarding catch cards on persons who were a hundred years old or +over. So these were eliminated from the files. + +From the standpoint of accuracy in identification, the cards that +remained still left much to be desired in the file. + +Now again I would say these were not "cards" in any sense that they had +physical substance. They were 3 by 5 inch slips of tissue-thin pink +paper. They were very mutilated and many of them were totally illegible. + +Many of them were of no significance since they contained no +identifying data, such as place or date of birth, no full names, no +reason for the inclusion in the file. As far as we could determine they +were not related to anything in the Passport Office. + +So further culling and screening reduced this basic file to the present +size of 250,000 cards. + +This project was very---- + +Mr. DULLES. Is that two or four? + +Miss KNIGHT. 250 now. + +Mr. DULLES. 250. It is different. + +Miss KNIGHT. We had reduced it to 450,000 and we culled it some more +and it is now 250,000. + +Mr. DULLES. That is a reduction from the earlier 450,000? + +Miss KNIGHT. That is right. This project was very time-consuming and +tedious but it had to be done, and it was completed in 1962, at which +time we transferred all the data on the cards we considered active onto +a permanent IBM key punch card system which was coded and legible. + +To relate this file, this tremendous file, to the Oswald case, I think +it should be remembered that the Passport Office is not a police +organization, nor is it an investigative agency. We must depend on +other sources in and out of the Government to supply us with the +information which we must adjudicate under the criteria of the passport +regulations. + +When we issued a passport to Oswald in June 1963 we felt that he had +not expatriated himself and that determination was made. + +Mr. COLEMAN. In 1963 you didn't make any judgment at all. He just +wasn't in the lookout file so you just issued it. You didn't make any +independent judgment at that time in 1963, did you? + +Miss KNIGHT. If we had thought he had expatriated himself we would have +had a card in his file. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Yes; but in 1963 no decision was made. + +Miss KNIGHT. There was no question raised. There was never a question +at that time. + +Mr. COLEMAN. It was never a question because your Office never looked +at the file. + +Miss KNIGHT. Not at the file, but his application was checked over the +lookout cards. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Yes. + +Miss KNIGHT. Oswald didn't owe money to the Government, and he was not +involved in fraud or criminal activity. So, in retrospect, I feel that +Oswald could have had a catch card inserted in the lookout file under +a very broad and undefined category which is right here, as number "R" +and that is, "Individuals whose actions do not reflect credit to the +United States abroad," but for practical reasons this category is very +narrowly construed in view of the hundreds of U.S. citizen bad-check +artists, the drunks, the con men, the psychotics who travel worldwide, +and so forth. + +My office is deluged with requests from irate U.S. citizens returning +from abroad asking us to do something about some of the people they +find traveling overseas. + +We have no such authority, and we are not in a position to determine +the good or bad behavior of U.S. citizens here or abroad. + +(At this point, Senator Cooper entered the hearing room.) + +I think it is a debatable question as to whether Oswald fell into this +broad category of "R" and finally there was no request in the file from +any Government agency or any area of the Government for a lookout card +on Oswald for this reason or any other reason at the time that his 1963 +passport was issued. + +Mr. DULLES. Who finally determines whether a lookout card should be +made? Would you determine that or in your office? + +Miss KNIGHT. That would be determined within our domestic operation +division, our foreign operation or our legal division. An adjudicator, +for instance, is the first person to make a decision. + +Mr. DULLES. If the FBI or CIA asked you to put in a card you would do +it? + +Miss KNIGHT. Yes, sir; and this is part of "O" and "P" project. + +Mr. DULLES. Would you read again that paragraph about Communist or +Communist sympathizer? + +Miss KNIGHT. Category K is, "Known or suspected Communist or +subversive." + +Mr. DULLES. And you interpret that pretty narrowly? + +Miss KNIGHT. Yes. + +Representative FORD. Why do you interpret it narrowly? + +Mr. DULLES. Well, this goes back to a question of passport regulations +and the decision, the Supreme Court decision in the Kent-Briehl case +and passport denials. I believe we sent you the regulations currently +in effect. + +Mr. COLEMAN. The record will note that it is attached to Commission +Exhibit No. 948, which is the letter from Mr. Chayes. + +Miss KNIGHT. Would you like an extra copy of it? + +Mr. DULLES. May I ask a further question there? When you issue a +passport limited solely to returning to the United States, isn't that +some indication that you don't want the fellow traveling around abroad? + +Miss KNIGHT. There would be some indication, yes, but there may be many +reasons for it. It may be a general indication that he should not be +traveling around abroad. + +Mr. DULLES. So that normally you wouldn't issue a passport with that +limitation and then let him come right into the Passport Office and +reissue a passport to go abroad. + +Miss KNIGHT. Well, if it is a case which merits a stop card we wouldn't +do it. But in this case of Oswald---- + +Mr. DULLES. In this case would there be a stop card? + +Miss KNIGHT. In the case of Oswald? + +Mr. DULLES. No; I mean in the case of anybody who is abroad and you +issue him a passport only to travel back to the United States, to get +him back to the United States, if then in the next week he went into +the Passport Office and wanted a passport to travel back to Europe, +which means Russia if he wants to go to Russia, would you issue him a +passport or would you not? + +Miss KNIGHT. I think that depends very much on the record that we would +have on him. + +The issuance of passports is pretty well defined in the new +regulations. I would say that a decade ago a passport application +for Oswald would have been denied, or at least it would have been +substantially delayed. + +But this was prior to the Supreme Court decision of June 16, 1958. +Prior to that there was very little challenge to the Secretary's +discretionary authority in the issuance of passports. + +But I think it is important to realize that the Supreme Court in +its decision held that there was no legislative authority for the +Secretary's regulations in denying a passport to persons supporting +the world Communist movement. The Court stated in that decision that +the freedom of travel is indeed an important aspect of the citizen's +liberty. + +Since that time Congress has made numerous attempts to provide +legislation to curb the travel of U.S. Communists, and those citizens +whose travel abroad is not in the best interests of the United States, +but for one reason or another Congress has failed to pass any such +legislation. + +On January 12, 1962, the Secretary of State promulgated passport +regulations which provide for the confrontation and full discovery in +all cases involving the curtailment of passport privileges. + +So, as a result, the Department's decisions in all passport cases have +to be based on an open record. + +It is quite evident that these regulations make it virtually impossible +to deny passports to U.S. Communists because the source and record and +details of their nefarious activities are not an open record, as you +well know, and quite obviously they cannot be made an open record by +the Government. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Don't you have a specific statute and a specific +regulation which says that if a person is a member of the Communist +Party after it has been required to register that you have to deny him +a passport? + +Miss KNIGHT. This is true, but with these regulations, we are directed +to issue passports to active members of the Communist Party despite the +fact that section 6 of the Internal Security Act prohibits the issuance +of passports to those individuals whom we have reason to believe or +know are members of the Communist Party. + +Mr. COLEMAN. What regulation requires you to issue them a passport? + +Miss KNIGHT. Well, the Department's regulations are very specific on +this point. They state and I quote, "In making its decision"---- + +Senator COOPER. Could you identify the regulation? + +Miss KNIGHT. Yes, sir; it is 51.138(b). + +Would you like me to read that section? + +Mr. COLEMAN. Yes. + +Miss KNIGHT. All right. + +"(b) The applicant shall, upon request by the hearing officer, confirm +his oral statements in an affidavit for the record. After the applicant +has presented his case, the Passport Office shall review the record +and advise the applicant of its decision. In making its decision, the +Passport Office shall not take into consideration confidential security +information that is not made available to the applicant in accordance +with paragraph (a) of this section. If the decision is adverse to the +applicant, he shall be notified in writing, and the notification shall +state the reasons for the decision. Such notification shall also inform +the applicant of his right to appeal to the Board of Passport Appeals +under section 51.139." + +Mr. COLEMAN. What in there says you have to issue a passport to a +person that you know is a member of the Communist Party after there has +been a decision that the Communist Party has to register under the 1950 +act? + +Miss KNIGHT. In accordance with these regulations we cannot consider +information in the passport file if that information is confidential +and can't be used in open court or in an open hearing. The information +on persons who are involved in the Communist activities is, for the +most part, confidential information and cannot be revealed in open +court. + +Mr. COLEMAN. You say, if you have an FBI report which says that "Mr. So +and So" is a member of the Communist Party, and that is in your record, +and if he applies for a passport, you have to issue him that passport? + +Miss KNIGHT. Under the regulations of the Department we would have to +issue him a passport if the information in the FBI report cannot be +made public. + +Representative FORD. There has to be information which is confidential, +however? + +Miss KNIGHT. Well, the information in the report and the determination +as to whether that information can be made public and can be used in +court is made by the investigative agency that provides it. + +Representative FORD. Well, if the agency, the security agency has +a card issued by the Communist Party to this individual, and that +information is given to the applicant, you can still deny this passport +under section 51.135, can't you? + +Miss KNIGHT. You mean if the FBI, let's say an FBI report, gave us +information that the person is an active member of the Communist Party? + +Representative FORD. That he has actually, just for illustrative +purposes, a card issued by the Communist Party and the Department gives +this information to the applicant, it is not confidential, it is given +to the applicant, can't you deny a passport under section 51.135? + +Miss KNIGHT. Yes; yes. + +Representative FORD. Well, then, I think the answer is that you do have +authority to deny passports to Communists where the information---- + +Miss KNIGHT. Is made available. + +Representative FORD. Is made available. + +Miss KNIGHT. Yes; where the information is made available and can be +used in an open hearing. + +But from a practical operation, this is very difficult to do because +most of the information in the FBI reports is confidential and by +bringing forth their informers they certainly destroy their security. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Miss Knight, the same regulation that is in effect today +was also the regulation in effect in 1963, isn't it? + +Miss KNIGHT. Yes. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Now, as of March 14, 1964, didn't the Department establish +another category for lookout cards, namely for defectors? + +Miss KNIGHT. Yes; we have that. I think that was provided to the +Commission. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Yes. + +Miss KNIGHT. Yes. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Now, you do that under whatever authority that you had as +of 1963, don't you? You haven't been given any additional congressional +authority, have you? + +Miss KNIGHT. No; but we haven't denied passports to any of them, either. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Does that mean that despite this memorandum from Mr. +Schwartz to you under date of March 14, 1964, if a known defector came +in and asked for a passport, you would issue him one today? + +Miss KNIGHT. No; we wouldn't issue. A card would be put in the lookout +file to indicate that this person was a defector, and in such a case +the file would go to Mr. Johnson's office, our legal counsel. It would +be referred to his security branch, and be adjudicated. However, I +don't believe that a passport could be denied to them on the basis of +that. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Now, you know that in October 1963 the Passport Office +received information that Mr. Oswald had been down to the Russian +Embassy in Mexico? + +Miss KNIGHT. That is correct. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Would that fact cause the Department to attempt to revoke +a passport which had already been issued? + +Miss KNIGHT. No, sir; because there are many U.S. citizens who go to +Soviet Embassies, and the fact he went there may have been for the +purpose of getting information; it certainly was not a reason to deny a +passport. + +Representative FORD. There aren't many people like Lee Harvey Oswald, +with a record of that background. It would seem to me that that, the +availability of that information, ought to have flagged some interest +some place in the State Department or the Passport Office. + +Miss KNIGHT. Well, in my opinion, passports are being issued today to +individuals whose activities and past record of behavior are patently +more detrimental to the security and best interests of the United +States than any report or any record that we had in the file of Lee +Harvey Oswald. + +Representative FORD. That may be true, and I might agree with you, but +we can only deal with the specific case, and it concerns me that this +information which was made available, somehow didn't get some attention +in the Passport Division. + +Miss KNIGHT. I think my answer to that is that there was attention +given to it but there was no action that could be taken on it. + +The fact that we gave attention to it is beside the point. + +If we had had a lookout card in the file, and under different +circumstances, there may have been some reason for seeking further +information. I do know that the FBI was reviewing his file at regular +intervals, and I think the file shows that. + +To get the full import of our action one would have to read the +security files and the records of certain individuals to whom we have +been forced to give passports, and put them beside the Oswald file. The +comparison would be very interesting. + +Senator COOPER. Might I ask just a few questions? + +First, let me say I missed part of the testimony because I was in the +Senate and could not come here until after we had voted. + +I am now looking at Federal Register, Title 22--Foreign Relations, +Chapter 1: Department of State, part 51, dealing with passports. This +title refers to the issuing officer. + +Who is the issuing officer? Does that mean you or those who are under +you, who are responsible to you? + +Miss KNIGHT. Well, this is a question. Up until recently, I think the +director of the Passport Office was considered the issuing officer. +However, passports are issued in the name of the Secretary of State, +who has the authority and the responsibility on passports. + +Senator COOPER. And you are responsible to the Secretary of State? + +Miss KNIGHT. Through the echelons. + +Senator COOPER. Yes. + +Now, Representative Ford and Mr. Dulles have gone into this, as well as +counsel, but I would like to pursue it just a little bit. + +Section 51.135, entitled "Denial of passports to members of Communist +organizations," states, "A passport shall not be issued to, or renewed +for, any individual who the issuing officer knows or has reason to +believe is a member of a Communist organization registered or required +to be registered under section 7 of the Subversive Activities Control +Act of 1950, as amended." + +Was there any evidence in the files of Lee Harvey Oswald which could +give to the issuing officer either the knowledge that he was a member +of a Communist organization or such evidence as would lead the issuing +officer to believe that he was? + +Miss KNIGHT. No, sir. + +Senator COOPER. Why do you say that? + +Miss KNIGHT. Because, there was nothing in the passport file or +in the reports that we received from investigative agencies that +would indicate that he had any Communist leanings or any Communist +affiliations prior to his sojourn in the Soviet Union. + +Senator COOPER. There wasn't anything in his file from the reports of +the State Department concerning his defection to Russia and his return +which indicated that he was a member of the Communist Party? + +Miss KNIGHT. No, sir. + +Senator COOPER. Or a Communist organization? + +Miss KNIGHT. No, sir. + +Senator COOPER. Was there anything in the files from the FBI or any +other security agency which would give you that information? + +Miss KNIGHT. None that I saw; no, sir. I do know that there were two +recent intelligence reports from the FBI, and they were dated October +31, 1963, and October 25, 1963, and these were logged into the Passport +Office on November 20, 1963, and on November 22, 1963, respectively. + +Senator COOPER. They were then, of course, would have been, received in +the office after the time. + +Miss KNIGHT. That was the date of the assassination. + +Senator COOPER. After the time that the passport had been renewed. + +Mr. COLEMAN. That included the information that he was active in the +Fair Play for Cuba Committee. + +Miss KNIGHT. That is correct, and these were referred to us by the +Office of Security, and then on 5:30 a.m. on November 23, 1963, these +reports were called for on an urgent basis by the Administrator of the +Bureau of Security and Consular Affairs and we delivered them to him at +approximately 7:30 that morning. + +I never saw these reports and no one in the Passport Office had an +opportunity to read them or see them. + +Senator COOPER. The point I am making is, am I correct or are you +correct, when you say at the time Oswald's passport was either issued +or renewed to make the trip to Mexico City, that there was no evidence +in his files of any kind which would indicate that he was a member of a +Communist organization? + +Miss KNIGHT. No, sir; there was nothing in the file. + +Senator COOPER. What weight would you give to the fact that he had +defected and had returned to the United States, and had claimed once +that he wanted to renounce American citizenship? Would that be a fact +to which you would give weight in determining whether or not you +believed he was a member of the Communist organization? + +Miss KNIGHT. Yes, sir; I understand your question. I did not adjudicate +the Oswald citizenship case. But I would say that the adjudicators must +have taken into consideration his instability which was reported in the +dispatches, his attitude, his age, he was 20 years old at the time, +and the fact that when he finally made his appeal to come back to the +United States, he denied that he had asked for Soviet citizenship, that +he was considered a Soviet citizen, and he further denied that he had +offered anybody information. + +He denied practically everything that he, in very bad temper, had told +the consul that he was going to do. This, I think, is fairly well +established in the document he signed, and which was sent to us when +his passport was renewed and limited for return to the United States. + +Senator COOPER. I am first directing my attention to the issuance or +renewal of the passport which enabled him to go to Mexico City. I want +to keep on that for a moment. + +Miss KNIGHT. He didn't have a passport for Mexico City. + +Senator COOPER. Not a passport for Mexico City. + +Mr. COLEMAN. He had the passport in June 1963. + +Senator COOPER. Yes; to go over to Cuba and different places. + +Miss KNIGHT. We did not know, and there was nothing, I think I am right +about this, there is nothing in our files to indicate that he went to +Cuba or that he went to the Cuban Embassy in Mexico City. I understand +this was brought out. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Yes; that is true. + +Miss KNIGHT. Is that right? + +Mr. DULLES. Not until October 1963. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Even then, Mr. Dulles, they didn't know. The notice they +got from Mexico only stated that he had been at the Soviet Embassy and +not that he had been over to the Cuban Embassy. + +Mr. DULLES. Is that correct? + +Mr. COLEMAN. Yes. + +Senator COOPER. The point I am trying to develop at some point in 1963 +prior to the assassination he went to the office in New Orleans. + +Miss KNIGHT. That is right, the New Orleans Passport Agency. + +Senator COOPER. And he secured a passport there. + +Miss KNIGHT. He applied for a passport. + +Senator COOPER. To travel, applied for a passport, to travel in a +number of countries. + +Miss KNIGHT. That is right. + +Senator COOPER. And that was issued to him. + +Miss KNIGHT. That is right. + +Senator COOPER. On the following day? + +Miss KNIGHT. That is right. + +Senator COOPER. At that time, of course, the issuing officer was under +the restrictions of the regulations here that we have been talking +about. What would the officer--would the officer in New Orleans have +any information available to him? + +Miss KNIGHT. No, sir. + +Senator COOPER. About Oswald? + +Miss KNIGHT. No, sir; the operation works like this: New Orleans is one +of eight passport agencies in the United States. They are connected +with the main office by teletype. Oswald made an application for a +passport at the New Orleans agency, and they TWX'd to us, his name and +identification--that is, date and place of birth, and so on. His name +was one on a list of names. There may have been 15 or 20 of them. + +Mr. COLEMAN. The record shows there were 25. + +Miss KNIGHT. 25. + +These names were then checked over the lookout file which I have +explained here. + +Senator COOPER. Here in Washington? + +Miss KNIGHT. Yes; and if there is no card in the lookout file, it is +presumed that he is clear, because if we had information that he was an +active Communist, or that we had reason to believe that there should +be further check on him, this would have been reflected in the lookout +file. There was no such card in the file. + +Senator COOPER. All right. At that time, then, when he had made his +application and the information was sent to your office, there was no +lookout card? + +Miss KNIGHT. No, sir. + +Senator COOPER. Which would indicate that he was a Communist or a +member of a Communist organization, registered, and so forth. And did +you have such a system then? + +Miss KNIGHT. Yes, sir. + +Senator COOPER. Of lookout cards? + +Miss KNIGHT. Yes, sir; we have had that system for a long time. + +Senator COOPER. Was your reason for not having a lookout card for +Oswald, that there wasn't anything in his file to indicate that he was +a member of a Communist organization? + +Miss KNIGHT. That is correct. + +Senator COOPER. Is that the reason? + +Miss KNIGHT. That is correct. Because the FBI reports which had come +to the Passport Office during his sojourn in the Soviet Union and +after, did not indicate that he was a Communist. As a matter of fact, +they were concerned with several other things, his mother's concern +regarding his whereabouts, the fact that he had made a declaration that +he wished to become a Soviet citizen; and the question of expatriation. +But there was nothing in the files to indicate that he had had any +contact or any active part in the Communist Party. + +Senator COOPER. The fact that he had married a Russian girl and brought +her to the United States have any significance in the determination +that the issuing officer would have to make? + +Miss KNIGHT. No. + +Senator COOPER. You are sure that the FBI nor any other security agency +had placed any information in that file which would fall within the +scope of this first section dealing with, applicable to passports? + +Miss KNIGHT. I am sure of that; yes, sir. + +Senator COOPER. Have you yourself examined those files? + +Miss KNIGHT. I examined the file last Saturday for the first time. + +Senator COOPER. And do you know who had charge of the file? + +Miss KNIGHT. The file was in the Passport Office up until November 22, +the day of the assassination. + +Senator COOPER. Where did it go then? + +Miss KNIGHT. It went to the Bureau of Security and Consular Affairs, to +Mr. Schwartz. + +Senator COOPER. Who is in charge there? + +Miss KNIGHT. Mr. Schwartz. He is the Administrator. + +Mr. EHRLICH. I might add he turned them over immediately, he turned +them over to Mr. Chayes who was authorized to take charge of all files +and they were maintained in the Office of the Legal Adviser. + +And anyone in the Department who wanted to review them was free to do +so but we kept them all in one place. + +Senator COOPER. Have you been testifying? + +Mr. EHRLICH. I have broken in. + +Senator COOPER. Just for the purpose of the record identify yourself. + +Mr. EHRLICH. I have not been sworn in. My name is Thomas Ehrlich, I am +Special Assistant to the Legal Adviser to the Department of State. + +Mr. DULLES. I might add Mr. Chayes testified in some detail that +he was asked by Mr. Ball, Acting Secretary of State, on the night, +afternoon, late afternoon and late evening of the assassination, to +get all the files regarding Oswald together and to prepare for him and +the Secretary of State, who was returning the next morning, a detailed +report on the whole Oswald case, and I assume that the file went from +you to Mr. Schwartz, to Mr. Chayes. + +And from there Mr. Chayes collected reports from other sources. + +Miss KNIGHT. That is right. + +Senator COOPER. I am not questioning any fact that these people +testified to but I think for the record it is important to know where +the file was and whether or not it is the same file, with the same +papers in it that were in existence on November 22, which you turned +over to your superior. + +Miss KNIGHT. Well, of course, we presume all the papers are in there. +The file was pretty thick, and, of course, it takes time to go over the +papers. We had not time to look at the file or to check it, and there +is no way of knowing whether any papers were taken in or out. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Senator Cooper, we have the files and we also have letters +from Mr. Chayes that to the best of his knowledge and ability every +piece of paper which the State Department had which in any way bore on +Oswald has now been turned over to the Commission and those letters +were marked today. + +Senator COOPER. I go a little further. + +Look at 51.136, "Limitations on issuance of passports to certain other +persons. + +"In order to promote and safeguard the interests of the United States, +passport facilities, except for direct and immediate return to the +United States, shall be refused to a person when it appears to the +satisfaction of the Secretary of State that the person's activities +abroad would: (a) Violate the laws of the United States; (b) be +prejudicial to the orderly conduct of foreign relations; or (c) +otherwise be prejudicial to the interests of the United States." + +Now, at the time this passport was issued to Oswald in New Orleans, was +there any information in his passport file about his conduct in New +Orleans in connection with the Fair Play for Cuba Committee? + +Miss KNIGHT. There was nothing in the passport file on that. It is my +understanding that there were two FBI reports that had come in and they +were logged into the Passport Office on November 20 and November 22. + +Senator COOPER. I know, but I am thinking of June 24, 1963. This +decision to issue a passport to Oswald to go to Mexico and various +other countries was made on when? + +Mr. COLEMAN. June 24, 1963. + +Senator COOPER. Was there any information in his file relative to his +participation in the Fair Play for Cuba Committee in New Orleans? + +Miss KNIGHT. No, sir. + +Senator COOPER. The first information that came to the office came in +November? + +Miss KNIGHT. November 20 and 22. + +Senator COOPER. And November 22. + +Miss KNIGHT. And I think, Senator, you would be interested to know that +these FBI reports are sent to us by the Office of Security. + +A large volume of these reports come to us in the Passport Office on a +very routine basis. + +The last 6 months of 1963 over 3,000 such reports were received, that +is 500 security reports a month, and in order to be effective and +to render the ultimate in security these reports should be read by +individuals who are knowledgeable; who are trained to spot information +of security significance. + +The staff that is assigned to this task is very limited, and it is +heavily overburdened with many assignments, some of which take priority +to the reading of reports, and it is physically impossible for the +present staff of our legal division, which is headed by Mr. Johnson, to +read and analyze the information in these reports as promptly and as +thoroughly as should be done. + +The eternal question that we are faced with is a matter of diminishing +returns. It is almost impossible to staff the Passport Office 100 +percent for security and with knowledgeability of everything that goes +on, and in the course of the year the Passport Office puts in thousands +of hours of overtime, uncompensated overtime, trying to catch up with +this work and believe me, this makes little or no impression on the +vast amount of paperwork, the reading, the reporting and the analyzing +of reports which come in to us. + +Senator COOPER. I can see your problem. + +But now, assuming that this report from the FBI about Oswald's +activities in New Orleans with the Fair Play for Cuba Committee in +which he was distributing material, and had been arrested, and was +operating under assumed names, had been known, had been in the file +at the time the application for a passport to go to Mexico and other +countries had been made, would that have been of any significance? + +Miss KNIGHT. Oh, yes, sir. + +Senator COOPER. In determining whether or not a passport should be +issued? + +Miss KNIGHT. Yes, sir; very definitely. If those reports had reached us +prior to the passport application we certainly would have put a card in +the file. + +As a matter of fact, it seems to me that if they had come to the +Passport Office we would have advised the Bureau of Security and +Consular Affairs that this had become a Cuban case. These are handled +by Mr. Schwartz personally. + +Senator COOPER. Do you know when the report from the FBI concerning +Oswald's activities in New Orleans in the Fair Play for Cuba Committee +reached the State Department rather than the Passport Division? + +Miss KNIGHT. When it reached the Department, I don't know. I think +maybe Mr. Ehrlich might know. + +Mr. EHRLICH. I will look to see if I have it. + +Miss KNIGHT. I have the dates of them. + +Senator COOPER. Will you give the date? + +Miss KNIGHT. The date of the reports? + +Senator COOPER. The date when it was sent, when it was received. + +Miss KNIGHT. The reports were dated October 31, 1963, and October 25, +1963, and they were logged into the Passport Office on November 20, +1963, and November 22, 1963. + +Senator COOPER. All of those dates are after the date of the issuance +of the passport? + +Miss KNIGHT. Yes, sir. + +Senator COOPER. I have just one more thing I want to inquire about. + +Are you familiar with the--were you the Chief of the Passport Division +at the time Oswald returned from Russia to the United States? + +Miss KNIGHT. Yes, sir. + +Senator COOPER. Who was empowered to issue passports in Moscow to +Oswald? + +Miss KNIGHT. Well, it was the consul, but he would not issue a passport +or, in this particular case even limit the passport for return to the +United States, without clearance from our office. + +Senator COOPER. Then when Oswald made his application to return to the +United States and to secure a passport to return to the United States, +that application had to be cleared by the division, your division, in +Washington? + +Miss KNIGHT. Yes. + +Senator COOPER. Did you make the determination as to whether the +passport should be issued to him? + +Miss KNIGHT. I personally did not. This was made by experienced +citizenship lawyers. + +Senator COOPER. By whom? + +Miss KNIGHT. The decision was made by experienced citizenship lawyers +in the Foreign Operations Division of the Passport Office. It was +determined that Oswald had not expatriated himself. He had signed the +necessary papers and he answered the required questionnaire under oath, +and to the satisfaction of the Passport Office. Both the consul, who +had an opportunity to talk to Oswald, and the citizenship lawyers, who +handled the case in the Passport Office, were in agreement that he had +not expatriated himself. + +Mr. DULLES. Those details are in the file in considerable extent. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Senator Cooper, for the record let me note we have +Oswald's passport which is Commission Exhibit No. 946 and it states on +page 15 thereof that the passport was renewed on May 24, 1962, and it +expired on June 24, 1962, and it also stated when Mr. Oswald came into +the United States on June 13, 1962. + +Senator COOPER. I have just two more questions then. + +One, at the time you issued the passport that Oswald was issued in +New Orleans to go to Mexico and the other countries there was no +requirement at that time that a lookout card be fixed to his file as a +defector? + +Miss KNIGHT. No, sir. + +Senator COOPER. Whatever decision has been made on that has come since +that time? + +Miss KNIGHT. When you say "defector," the answer to that is in the +questionnaire. + +Senator COOPER. When I say "defector," was there any regulation, I mean +in the Department, which required any special attention to be given to +a defector---- + +Miss KNIGHT. No, sir. + +Senator COOPER. With regard to the issuance of passports? + +Miss KNIGHT. No, sir; and we cannot deny them passports. + +Senator COOPER. My last question is, is it your statement that at the +time you issued the passport in Moscow for his return to the United +States, at the time the passport was issued in New Orleans, 1963, for +his trip to Mexico and other countries, that there was nothing in the +regulations relevant and nothing in the files which precluded you from +issuing a passport to him? + +Miss KNIGHT. This is my opinion; yes, sir. + +Mr. COLEMAN. I have no other questions. + +Mr. DULLES. I have no further questions. + +Mr. COLEMAN. Thank you, Miss Knight. We appreciate your coming in. + +(Whereupon, at 6:35 p.m., the President's Commission recessed.) + + + + +_Thursday, June 11, 1964_ + +TESTIMONY OF MRS. LEE HARVEY OSWALD AND HARRIS COULTER + +The President's Commission met at 9:45 a.m., on June 11, 1964, at 200 +Maryland Avenue NE., Washington, DC. + +Present were Chief Justice Earl Warren, Chairman; Senator John Sherman +Cooper, Representative Gerald Ford, and Allen W. Dulles, members. + +Also present were J. Lee Rankin, general counsel; Norman Redlich, +assistant counsel; Harris Coulter, interpreter; Leon Jaworski, special +counsel to the attorney general of Texas; William McKenzie, attorney +for Mrs. Lee Harvey Oswald; and Charles Murray, observer. + + +TESTIMONY OF MRS. LEE HARVEY OSWALD RESUMED + +The CHAIRMAN. The Commission will be in order. + +Shall we reswear Mrs. Oswald? + +Mr. RANKIN. I would think her former swearing would be sufficient, Mr. +Chief Justice. + +The CHAIRMAN. Very well. You consider yourself under oath, do you, Mrs. +Oswald? + +Mrs. OSWALD. Yes. + +Mr. RANKIN. Mrs. Oswald, we would like to have you tell about the +incident in regard to Mr. Nixon that you have told about since we had +your last examination. Could you tell us what you know about that +incident, first, when it happened insofar as you can recall? + +Mrs. OSWALD. I am very sorry I didn't mention this before. I prefer +that you ask me the questions and that will help me to remember what +there is. + +Mr. RANKIN. Can you tell us what Mr. Nixon it is, was it Richard Nixon, +the former Vice President of the United States that you were referring +to? + +Mrs. OSWALD. I only know one Nixon and I think it was Richard Nixon +which it was all about. + +Mr. RANKIN. Can you fix the date when this occurrence did happen? +Approximately? + +Mrs. OSWALD. It was a weekend before he went to New Orleans and after +the Walker business I think. But I might be mistaken as to whether or +not this was a weekend because I am basing this on the fact that my +husband was home and he wasn't--wasn't always employed and he was at +home weekdays as well sometimes, so I can't be entirely sure that it +was a weekend. + +Mr. RANKIN. Can you place the place of the various homes you had that +this happened? + +Mrs. OSWALD. Neely Street. + +Mr. RANKIN. At the Neely Street house. Do you know what time of day it +occurred? + +Mrs. OSWALD. This was in the morning. + +Mr. RANKIN. Who was there? + +Mrs. OSWALD. Just my husband and me. + +Mr. RANKIN. Now, will you describe in detail just what happened. Mrs. +Oswald, when you are answering the questions will you try to break up +your answers, and let the interpreter try to translate; I think it +will be helpful in not having the interpreter have to try to remember +everything of a long answer. Do you understand me? + +Mr. DULLES. May I suggest also, Mr. Rankin, that I think it would +be preferable that the record be in the first person, that is, the +interpreter translate just as she said it. + +I was looking over the earlier record and that is the way it was over +the earlier record and it went quite well. + +Mrs. OSWALD. It was early in the morning and my husband went out to get +a newspaper, then he came in and sat reading the newspaper. I didn't +pay any attention to him because I was occupied with the housework. + +Then he got dressed and put on a good suit. I saw that he took a +pistol. I asked him where he was going, and why he was getting +dressed. He answered, "Nixon is coming. I want to go and have a look." +I said, "I know how you look," or rather, "I know how you customarily +look, how you customarily take a look," because I saw he was taking the +pistol with him rather than I know how you look in the sense that you +are dressed, how you look at things is what I mean. + +Mr. RANKIN. Had it come to your attention, Mrs. Oswald, that Mr. Nixon +was going to be in Dallas prior to that time? + +Mrs. OSWALD. No; it did not. + +Mr. RANKIN. Had you seen anything in the newspapers or heard anything +over the radio or television? + +Mrs. OSWALD. No; we didn't have TV. I didn't see this in the newspaper. + +Mr. DULLES. Do you know what newspaper it was in which your husband +read this report? + +Mrs. OSWALD. No; Dallas Morning News maybe. It was a morning paper. + +Mr. RANKIN. Do you know whether there was any information at all in the +papers about Mr. Nixon planning to come to Dallas about that time? + +Mrs. OSWALD. I didn't ever read the newspaper and I did not know; +therefore, didn't know whether there was any information in the +newspapers prior to this time about Vice President Nixon's arrival in +Dallas. + +Representative FORD. Could we establish the date more precisely, either +by the newspapers or by testimony from Mrs. Oswald? + +(At this point, the Chief Justice left the hearing room.) + +Mr. RANKIN. Mrs. Oswald, can you help us by telling how many days it +was before you went to New Orleans that this incident occurred? + +Mrs. OSWALD. What day did I go to New Orleans? + +Mr. RANKIN. Do you recall that your husband went to New Orleans on +April 24? + +Mrs. OSWALD. April 24? My husband? + +Mr. RANKIN. Yes; and you went at a later date with Mrs. Paine, do you +remember that? + +Mrs. OSWALD. I remember it was about 2 weeks before. + +Mr. RANKIN. Two weeks before April 24? + +Mrs. OSWALD. Yes; but when was the incident with Walker? + +Mr. RANKIN. April 10 was the Walker incident. Does that help you? + +Mrs. OSWALD. This is a short distance, you know, I think maybe---- + +Mr. RANKIN. So you think it had to be sometime between April 10 and +April 24? + +Mrs. OSWALD. This may be 10 days or more. I think it was closer to the +time when my husband left for New Orleans than it was to the incident +of General Walker. I think it was less than a week before my husband +left for New Orleans. I did not think up this incident with Nixon +myself. + +Mr. RANKIN. What do you mean by that, Mrs. Oswald? + +Mrs. OSWALD. I had forgotten entirely about the incident with Vice +President Nixon when I was here the first time. When you asked me the +questions about it, then I remembered it. I wasn't trying to deceive +you the first time. + +Mr. RANKIN. What did your husband say that day about Richard Nixon, +when he got this gun and dressed up. Did he tell you anything about him? + +Mrs. OSWALD. No; I just didn't know what to do, you know. + +Mr. RANKIN. How did you know he was interested in doing something about +Mr. Nixon at that time? + +Mrs. OSWALD. My husband just said that Nixon is coming to Dallas. + +Mr. RANKIN. Then what did you do? + +Mrs. OSWALD. First I didn't know what to do. I wanted to prevent him +from going out. + +Mr. RANKIN. Did you say anything to him? + +Mrs. OSWALD. I called him into the bathroom and I closed the door and I +wanted to prevent him and then I started to cry. And I told him that he +shouldn't do this, that he had promised me. + +Mr. RANKIN. Are you referring to his promise to you that you described +in your prior testimony after the Walker incident? + +Mrs. OSWALD. Yes; that was the promise. + +Mr. RANKIN. Do you recall the bathroom, how the door closes? Does it +close into the bathroom on Neely Street or from the outside in? + +Mrs. OSWALD. I don't remember now. I don't remember. I only remember +that it was something to do with the bathroom. + +Mr. RANKIN. Did you lock him into the bathroom? + +Mrs. OSWALD. I can't remember precisely. + +Mr. RANKIN. Do you recall how the locks were on the bathroom door there? + +Mrs. OSWALD. I can't recall. We had several apartments and I might be +confusing one apartment with the other. + +Mr. RANKIN. Is it your testimony that you made it impossible for him to +get out if he wanted to? + +Mrs. OSWALD. I don't remember. + +Representative FORD. Did he try to get out of the bathroom? + +Mrs. OSWALD. I remember that I held him. We actually struggled for +several minutes and then he quieted down. I remember that I told him +that if he goes out it would be better for him to kill me than to go +out. + +Mr. DULLES. He is quite a big man and you are a small woman. + +Mrs. OSWALD. No; he is not a big man. He is not strong. + +Mr. DULLES. Well, he was 5 feet 9, and you are how tall? + +Mrs. OSWALD. When he is very upset, my husband is very upset he is not +strong and when I want to and when I collect all my forces and want to +do something very badly I am stronger than he is. + +Mr. DULLES. You meant mentally or physically? + +Mrs. OSWALD. I am not strong but, you know, there is a certain balance +of forces between us. + +Mr. DULLES. Do you think it was persuasion, your persuasion of him or +the physical force or both that prevented him from going? + +Mrs. OSWALD. I don't think it was physically, physical prevention +because if he--I couldn't keep him from going out if he really wanted +to. It might have been that he was just trying to test me. He was the +kind of person who could try and wound somebody in that way. Possibly +he didn't want to go out at all but was just doing this all as a sort +of joke, not really as a joke but rather to simply wound me, to make me +feel bad. + +Mr. McKENZIE. Mr. Rankin, if I may interpose here for a moment. Mrs. +Oswald has been interrogated at length by the FBI in connection with +this particular incident--the Nixon incident. I feel confident that the +FBI has made a written report insofar as her testimony is concerned in +their interrogation, but for purposes of the record I have no objection +whatsoever for the FBI report to be included in the record as part of +the record. + +Mr. RANKIN. Thank you, Mr. McKenzie. We will incorporate those reports +as a part of the record in regard to this incident, if that is +agreeable to the Commission. + +Mr. McKENZIE. The reason I say that is because of the fact that those +interrogations were conducted at an earlier date and closer to the +actual incident, the state of time to the actual incidents than her +interrogation here today, and insofar as dates are concerned I think +that her mind would be clearer on those dates, and I likewise know that +at that time a Russian interpreter was there. + +Mr. RANKIN. Mr. McKenzie, I think with the members of the Commission +here that I want to ask a number of questions about this incident +because of its importance so they can observe the witness as well as +have the benefit of her testimony. + +Mr. McKENZIE. Mr. Rankin, in no way am I suggesting otherwise but if it +would help the Commission in evaluating her testimony and evaluating +the evidence that it has had heretofore in prior testimony we have no +objection to those reports being a part of the record in any way. + +Mr. RANKIN. Thank you. + +Mrs. OSWALD. I might be mistaken about some of the details of this +incident but it is very definite he got dressed, took a gun, and then +didn't go out. The reason why there might be some confusion in my mind +about the details because it happened in other apartments in which we +lived that we quarreled and then I would shut him in the bathroom, and +in this particular case it may not have happened quite that way, but +there is no doubt that he got dressed and had a gun. + +Mr. RANKIN. Do you remember what you said to him and what he said to +you at that time? + +Mrs. OSWALD. I don't remember now but I told the FBI precisely. + +Mr. RANKIN. And were your reports to the FBI in regard to this incident +accurate, truthful, and correct? + +Mrs. OSWALD. They were correct as far as I could remember. The only +detail as far as my memory served me--the only detail which might be +confused is the one with the bathroom. + +Mr. RANKIN. Had your husband said anything before or did he say +anything at that time in regard to Mr. Nixon showing any hostility, +friendship, or anything else? + +Mrs. OSWALD. Showing any hostility or friendship toward Mr. Nixon? + +Mr. RANKIN. Yes; toward Nixon. + +Mrs. OSWALD. I don't remember him saying anything--I don't remember but +he didn't tell me. I don't remember him saying anything of that sort. I +only remember the next day he told me that Nixon did not come. Excuse +me. + +Mr. RANKIN. Yes. + +Mrs. OSWALD. The FBI suggested that possibly I was confused between +Johnson and Nixon but there is no question that in this incident it was +a question of Mr. Nixon. I remember distinctly the name Nixon because +I read from the presidential elections that there was a choice between +President Kennedy and Mr. Nixon. + +Representative FORD. Where did your husband get the pistol that +morning; do you remember? + +Mrs. OSWALD. What, where? + +Representative FORD. Where. + +Mrs. OSWALD. My husband had a small room where he kept all that sort of +thing. It is a little larger than a closet. + +Representative FORD. Did you see him go in and get the pistol? + +Mrs. OSWALD. I didn't see him go into the room. I only saw him standing +before the open door and putting the pistol in his pocket. + +Representative FORD. Do you recall which pocket he put the pistol in? + +Mrs. OSWALD. It was not in a pocket. He put it in his belt. + +(Discussion off the record.) + +Mr. DULLES. Had you and your husband ever discussed Mr. Nixon at a +previous, at any previous time? + +Mrs. OSWALD. No. No. + +Mr. RANKIN. What else happened about this incident beyond what you have +told us? + +Mrs. OSWALD. He took off his suit and stayed home all day reading a +book. He gave me the pistol and I hid it under the mattress. + +Mr. RANKIN. Did you say anything more than you have told us to him +about this matter at that time? + +Mrs. OSWALD. I closed the front door to the building that day and when +we were quarreling about--when we were struggling over the question of +whether or not he should go out I said a great deal to him. + +Mr. RANKIN. What did you say to him then? + +Mrs. OSWALD. I don't remember. + +Mr. RANKIN. Just tell us in substance? + +Mrs. OSWALD. I really don't remember now. I only remember that I told +him that I am sorry of all these pranks of his and especially after the +one with General Walker, and he had promised me, I told him that he had +promised me---- + +Mr. RANKIN. Did he say anything in answer to that? + +Mrs. OSWALD. I don't remember. + +Mr. DULLES. As I recall, in your previous testimony there was some +indication that you had said that if he did the Walker type of thing +again you would notify the authorities. Did that conversation come up +at this time with your husband? + +Mrs. OSWALD. Yes; I said that. But he didn't go at that time and after +all he was my husband. + +Mr. DULLES. Does--do you mean you said it again at the time of the +Nixon incident? + +Mrs. OSWALD. Yes; I told him that but you must understand that I don't +speak English very well, and for that reason I used to keep a piece of +paper with me, and I had it, you know, what piece of paper I am talking +about. At that time I didn't know how to go in police station: I don't +know where it was. + +Mr. McKENZIE. Was that the passport? + +Mrs. OSWALD. No. After the incident with Walker---- + +Mr. RANKIN. Was that paper the Walker incident note that you have +described in your testimony? + +Mrs. OSWALD. Yes. + +Representative FORD. When you put the pistol under the mattress, what +happened to the pistol from then on? + +Mrs. OSWALD. That evening he asked for it and said that nothing was +going to happen, and that he said he wouldn't do anything and took the +pistol back. And put it into his room. + +Mr. DULLES. Did you keep the, what you call, the Walker note with you +all the time or did you have it in a particular place where you could +go and get it and show it to him? + +Mrs. OSWALD. I had it all the time. I kept it in a certain place +initially and then I put it in the pages of a book. + +Senator COOPER. Mr. Rankin, would you ask the witness to state again +what Lee Oswald's promise was to her that he had made at the time of +the Walker incident? + +Mr. RANKIN. Will you relate the promise that your husband made to you +right after the discovery of the Walker incident by you? + +Mrs. OSWALD. This wasn't a written promise. + +Mr. RANKIN. No. + +Mrs. OSWALD. But in words it was more or less that I told him that +he was very lucky that he hadn't killed--it very good that he hadn't +killed General Walker. I said it was fate that--it was fated that +General Walker not be killed and therefore he shouldn't try such a +thing again. + +Mr. RANKIN. What did he say in answer to that? + +Mrs. OSWALD. He said perhaps I am right. I myself didn't believe what +I was saying because I didn't believe that he was fated. I was just +trying to find some way of dissuading my husband to do such a thing +again. Do you understand what I mean? + +Mr. RANKIN. Yes. Did he say that he would or would not do that again, +that is what I want to know. + +Mrs. OSWALD. At the time I did definitely convince him that I was +right, and at the time he said that he would not do such a thing again. + +Mr. RANKIN. Now, when you talked to him about the Nixon incident and +persuaded him not to go out and do anything to Mr. Nixon, did you say +anything about your pregnancy in trying to persuade him? + +Mrs. OSWALD. Yes. + +Mr. RANKIN. What did you say about that? + +Mrs. OSWALD. Yes; I told him that I was pregnant. + +Mr. RANKIN. Did you observe his action at the time of this Nixon +incident, how he acted? + +Mrs. OSWALD. How he reacted to this? + +Mr. RANKIN. How he reacted to your interfering with him. + +Mrs. OSWALD. At first he was extremely angry, and he said, "You are +always getting in my way." But then rather quickly he gave in, which +was rather unusual for him. At the time I didn't give this any thought, +but now I think it was just rather a kind of nasty joke he was playing +with me. Sometimes Lee was--he had a sadistic--my husband had a +sadistic streak in him and he got pleasure out of harming people, and +out of harming me, not physically but emotionally and mentally. + +Mr. RANKIN. Have you told us substantially all that happened about this +Nixon incident? + +Mrs. OSWALD. That is all I can remember. + +Representative FORD. Can you tell us why you didn't mention this +incident to the Commission when you appeared before? + +Mrs. OSWALD. There were an awful lot of questions at that time, and +I was very tired and felt that I had told everything and I don't +remember, I can't understand why I didn't mention this. It would have +been better for me to mention it the first time than to make you all do +more work on it. + +Mr. DULLES. At the time of this incident did you threaten to go to the +authorities in case your husband did not desist in his intention? + +Mrs. OSWALD. Yes; I said that. + +Senator COOPER. I may have to go--could I ask a few questions? Mrs. +Oswald, will you repeat what your husband said that morning when he +dressed and got the pistol? + +Mrs. OSWALD. I asked him where he was going and why he was getting +dressed. He answered. "Today Nixon is coming and I want to go out and +have a look at him." + +I answered, "I know how you look," and I had in mind the fact that he +was taking a pistol with him. + +Senator COOPER. Did he say anything about what he intended to do with +the pistol? + +Mrs. OSWALD. No. + +Senator COOPER. Did you ask him if he intended to use the pistol +against Mr. Nixon? + +Mrs. OSWALD. I told him that, "You have already promised me not to play +any more with that thing." Not really play, but, you know--I didn't +mean, of course, just playing but using the pistol. Then he said, +"I am going to go out and find out if there will be an appropriate +opportunity and if there is I will use the pistol." I just remembered +this and maybe I didn't say this in my first testimony and now it just +has occurred to me that he said this. + +Senator COOPER. Did your husband say why he wanted to use the pistol +against Mr. Nixon? + +Mrs. OSWALD. No. + +Senator COOPER. Did he say where he intended to see Mr. Nixon? + +Mrs. OSWALD. He didn't say. He just said in Dallas, and since Nixon was +coming to Dallas. + +Senator COOPER. When he was talking to you about seeing Mr. Nixon and +using the pistol, what was his attitude? Was he angry or---- + +Mrs. OSWALD. He wasn't angry. He looked more preoccupied and had sort +of a concentrated look. + +Senator COOPER. Now, from the beginning, from the time that he first +told you that he was going to use the pistol, until the time that you +say he became quieted, did he again make any statement about using the +pistol against Mr. Nixon? + +Mrs. OSWALD. I told him that I didn't want him to use his gun any more. +He said, "I will go out and have a look and perhaps I won't use my +gun, but if there is a convenient opportunity perhaps I will." Strike +"perhaps" please from that last sentence. I didn't have a lot of time +to think of what we were actually saying. All I was trying to do was to +prevent him from going out. + +Senator COOPER. How much time elapsed, if you can remember, from the +time he first told you that he was going out and when he finally became +pacified? + +Mrs. OSWALD. This was maybe 30 minutes. The whole incident took maybe +20 minutes. It was about 10 minutes I took--15 minutes maybe. 15 +minutes, it took maybe 10 minutes for him to be prepared to go out and +then the incident in the bathroom took maybe 5 minutes until he quieted +down. It doesn't mean I held him in the bathroom for 5 minutes because +I couldn't do that but the general discussion in the bathroom. + +Senator COOPER. You said he stayed at the house the remainder of the +day. During the remainder of the day did you discuss again with him the +incident? + +Mrs. OSWALD. No; no. + +Senator COOPER. Did he say anything more that day? + +Mrs. OSWALD. No. He read a book. + +Mr. DULLES. Do you know what book it was, by chance? + +Mrs. OSWALD. I don't remember. It was some kind of book from the public +library. He had a two-volume history of the United States. This is not +from the library, this was his own book. + +Mr. DULLES. The incident occurred, you said just a few days after he +had told you he shot at General Walker? + +Mrs. OSWALD. It was about 10 or 12 days after the incident with General +Walker, perhaps about 3 days before we left for the departure for New +Orleans. This didn't happen right after the incident with General +Walker. It happened rather closer to a time when we departed for New +Orleans. + +Mr. DULLES. The General Walker incident made a very strong impression +on you, didn't it? + +Mrs. OSWALD. Of course. I never thought that Lee had a gun in order to +use it to shoot at somebody with. + +Mr. DULLES. Didn't this statement that he made about Vice President +Nixon make a strong impression on you also? + +Mrs. OSWALD. I don't know. I was pregnant at the time. I had a lot of +other things to worry about. I was getting pretty well tired of all of +these escapades of his. + +Mr. DULLES. Was there any reason why you didn't tell the Commission +about this when you testified before? + +Mrs. OSWALD. I had no--there is no particular reason. I just forgot. +Very likely this incident didn't make a very great impression on me at +that time. + +Mr. DULLES. Now, before the death of President Kennedy, of course, you +knew that your husband had purchased a rifle? + +Mrs. OSWALD. Yes. + +Mr. DULLES. You knew that he had purchased a pistol? + +Mrs. OSWALD. Yes. + +Mr. DULLES. And a knife? + +Mrs. OSWALD. No; what kind of knife? + +Mr. DULLES. Did he have a knife? + +Mrs. OSWALD. He had a little pocket knife; I think. + +Mr. DULLES. You knew that he had told you that he had tried to kill +General Walker? + +Mrs. OSWALD. Yes. + +Mr. DULLES. And, of course, as you said you heard him make a threat +against Nixon. + +Mrs. OSWALD. Yes. + +Mr. DULLES. Did you have some fear that he would use these weapons +against someone else? + +Mrs. OSWALD. Of course; I was afraid. + +Mr. DULLES. What? + +Mrs. OSWALD. Of course; I was afraid. + +Mr. DULLES. You thought that he might use his weapons against someone? + +Mrs. OSWALD. After the incident with Nixon I stopped believing him. + +Mr. DULLES. You what? + +Mrs. OSWALD. I stopped believing him. + +Mr. DULLES. Why? + +Mrs. OSWALD. Because he wasn't obeying me any longer, because he +promised and then he broke his promise. + +Mr. DULLES. Would you repeat that? + +Mrs. OSWALD. Because he wasn't obeying me any more. He promised and, he +made a promise and then he broke it. + +Mr. DULLES. That is my question. Having been told that--isn't it +correct he told you that he shot at General Walker? He made a promise +to you that he wouldn't do anything like that again, you heard him +threaten Vice President Nixon, didn't it occur to you then that there +was danger that he would use these weapons against someone else in the +future? + +Mrs. OSWALD. After the incident with Walker, I believed him when he +told me that he wouldn't use the weapons any longer. + +Mr. DULLES. I remember you testified before and I asked you if you had +heard him threaten any official or other person and your answer was no. + +Mrs. OSWALD. Because I forgot at that time about the incident with +Nixon. + +Mr. DULLES. I want to ask you again: In view of the fact that you +knew--in view of the fact that he had threatened Walker by shooting +at him, and he threatened Vice President Nixon can you not tell this +Commission whether after that he threatened to hurt, harm any other +person? + +Mrs. OSWALD. Nobody else. Perhaps I should be punished for not having +said anything about all this, but I was just a wife and I was trying to +keep the family together, at that time. I mean to say. I am talking, of +course, of the time before President Kennedy's death. And if I forget +to say anything now, I am not doing it on purpose. + +Mr. DULLES. I am just asking questions. Will you say here that he never +did make any statement against President Kennedy? + +Mrs. OSWALD. Never. + +Mr. DULLES. Did he ever make any statement about him of any kind? + +Mrs. OSWALD. He used to read and translate articles from the newspaper +about Kennedy to me and from magazines, favorable articles about +Kennedy. He never commented on them and he never discussed them in any +way but because of his translations and his reading to me he always +had a favorable feeling about President Kennedy because he always read +these favorably inclined articles to me. He never said that these +articles never were true that he was a bad President or anything like +that. + +Mr. DULLES. I didn't catch the last. + +Mrs. OSWALD. He never said these articles were not true or that +President Kennedy was a bad President or anything like that. + +Senator COOPER. I think you testified before that he made statements +showing his dislike of our system of government and its economic system. + +Mrs. OSWALD. He used to complain about the educational difficulties and +about the unemployment in the United States and about the high cost of +medical care. + +Mr. McKENZIE. Right there, please, may I, Mr. Dulles when did he +complain of those things, was this in Russia or was it in the United +States after you returned from Russia? + +Mrs. OSWALD. After our return from Russia. When we were living in New +Orleans after returning from Russia. + +Mr. McKENZIE. Did he likewise make such complaints about the American +system while you were living in Russia after you were married? + +Mrs. OSWALD. He used to tell me that it was difficult to find a job and +to get work in the United States but nonetheless we would be better +there than we were in Russia. Excuse me. He was the kind of person who +was never able to get along anywhere he was and when he was in Russia +he used to say good things about the United States and when he was in +the United States he used to talk well about Russia. + +Senator COOPER. You knew, of course, because of the incidents in New +Orleans that he did not like American policy respecting Cuba. + +Mrs. OSWALD. He was definitely a supporter of Cuba. This was something +which remained with him from Russia. + +Senator COOPER. Did he ever say to you who was responsible or who had +some responsibility for our policy toward Cuba? + +Mrs. OSWALD. No. + +Senator COOPER. Had he ever mentioned President Kennedy in connection +with our Cuban policy? + +Mrs. OSWALD. Never to me. + +Mr. DULLES. Did he ever say anything---- + +Mrs. OSWALD. He might have discussed this with Paine. + +Senator COOPER. With who? + +Mrs. OSWALD. Mr. Paine, husband of Ruth Paine. + +Senator COOPER. He might have done what now? + +Mrs. OSWALD. With the husband of Ruth Paine. + +Senator COOPER. Why do you say that, did you ever hear him talking +about it? + +Mrs. OSWALD. He used to talk politics with Mr. Paine. I don't know +what they were talking about because at that time I didn't understand +English. + +Senator COOPER. Did you mean, though, to say that you believed he might +have discussed the Cuban policy with Mr. Paine. + +Mrs. OSWALD. Yes; especially after we returned from New Orleans. + +Senator COOPER. Why? Why do you make that statement? + +Mrs. OSWALD. Because we only saw Mr. Paine once or twice before we went +to New Orleans. And there was more opportunity to see Mr. Paine after +we came back. + +Senator COOPER. But my question is what makes you think he might have +talked to Mr. Paine about Cuba? + +Mrs. OSWALD. I think, sir; because after returning from New Orleans +this was his favorite subject, Cuba, and he was quite--a little bit +cracked about it, crazy about Cuba. + +Senator COOPER. You mean he talked to you a great deal about it after +you came from New Orleans? + +Mrs. OSWALD. Well, in New Orleans he used to talk to me endlessly about +Cuba, but after we came back he didn't talk to me about it any longer +because I was just sick and tired of this. + +Mr. DULLES. "He" in this case is your husband? + +Mrs. OSWALD. That is right. I really don't know about what he talked +with Mr. Paine. I think that they were talking about politics, that is +to say my husband with Mr. Paine because my husband used to tell me +afterwards, "Well, he doesn't understand anything about politics." "He +is not too strong on politics." + +And, therefore, I think they were probably talking with the American +political system and the Russian political system and comparisons +between them. I think that Mr. Paine could probably tell you more about +this than I can. + +Senator COOPER. That is all I want to ask for the time being. + +Mrs. OSWALD. I think that Mr. Paine knows more about my husband's +political attitudes toward the United States than I do. + +Mr. RANKIN. You said the FBI asked you whether you could have been +mistaken about it being Mr. Nixon that your husband was interested in +going and seeing and maybe doing something to with his gun. + +Do you know what Mr. Johnson you were asking about? + +Let me rephrase the question. + +You said the FBI asked you whether you might have been mistaken about +Mr. Nixon and whether it might have been Mr. Johnson instead of Mr. +Nixon that your husband was interested in doing something to with his +gun. + +Do you know what Mr. Johnson was being referred to? + +Mrs. OSWALD. No; I didn't know who Johnson was. I am ashamed but I +never knew his name. I am ashamed myself but I didn't know who Johnson +was. + +Mr. RANKIN. You didn't know that the FBI was asking about the then Vice +President and now President Johnson? + +Mrs. OSWALD. No; I never heard of Johnson before he became President. + +Mr. DULLES. And you are quite sure---- + +Mrs. OSWALD. Maybe I am stupid, I don't know. + +Mr. DULLES. And you are quite sure that your husband mentioned the name +of Nixon to you---- + +Mrs. OSWALD. Yes; I am sure it was Nixon. + +Mr. DULLES. That morning? + +Mr. RANKIN. Do you know whether this Nixon incident occurred the day +before your husband went to New Orleans? + +Mrs. OSWALD. It wasn't the day before. Perhaps 3 days before. + +Mr. McKENZIE. Mr. Rankin, may I ask a question? + +Mr. RANKIN. Yes. + +Mr. McKENZIE. Mrs. Oswald, you say or you said a few minutes ago that +Mr. Paine knew or knows more about your husband's attitude about the +United States than you do. Why did you say that? + +Mrs. OSWALD. Because my husband's favorite topic of discussion was +politics, and whoever he was with he talked to them politics and Mr. +Paine was with him a fair amount and I am not sure they talked about +politics. They went to meetings of some kind together, I don't know +what kind of meetings. + +Mr. McKENZIE. Do you know where the meetings were? + +Mrs. OSWALD. In Dallas. After they came back from some meeting my +husband said to me something about Walker being at this meeting, and +he said, "Paine knows that I shot him." + +I don't know whether this was the truth or not. I don't know whether it +was true or not but this is what he told me. + +Mr. McKENZIE. Would they go in Mr. Paine's automobile? + +Mrs. OSWALD. Yes; it was about 2 days after this incident with +Stevenson or the next day, or maybe it was the same place, or the next +day that a meeting was held where General Walker appeared. + +Mr. McKENZIE. It was the day before. + +Mrs. OSWALD. The day before? The day after. I think there was 1 day's +difference between them, either it was the day before or the day after. + +Mr. RANKIN. Did you say that there were a number of political +meetings---- + +Mrs. OSWALD. Excuse me; but I think this was on Friday. I think that +Lee was at this meeting on a Friday. + +Mr. RANKIN. Did you say there were a number of political meetings that +your husband went to---- + +Mrs. OSWALD. Excuse me; this was October 24. + +Mr. RANKIN. With Mr. Paine? + +Mrs. OSWALD. A week after his birthday--this was Friday. I think it was +a week after my husband's birthday about October 24 or something like +that or the 25th. + +Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Reporter, can you give her the question that I asked? + +Mrs. OSWALD. Excuse me, please. + +(The question was read by the reporter.) + +Mrs. OSWALD. I only know about this one. + +Mr. RANKIN. Did the FBI tell you that the reason they were asking about +whether there was a mistake as to whether it was Mr. Nixon or Vice +President Johnson was because there was a report in Dallas papers about +Vice President Johnson going to Dallas around the 23d of April? + +Mrs. OSWALD. Yes; they did tell me this. They said that at this time +there was only one announcement in the newspapers of anyone coming and +that was Vice President Johnson. + +Mr. RANKIN. But you still are certain it was Mr. Nixon and not Vice +President Johnson? + +Mrs. OSWALD. Yes, no. I am getting a little confused with so many +questions. I was absolutely convinced it was Nixon and now after all +these questions I wonder if I am right in my mind. + +Mr. RANKIN. Did your husband---- + +Mrs. OSWALD. I never heard about Johnson. I never heard about Johnson. +I never knew anything about Johnson. I just don't think it was Johnson. +I didn't know his name. + +Mr. RANKIN. Did you husband during the Nixon incident say Mr. Nixon's +name several times or how many times. + +Mrs. OSWALD. Only once. + +Mr. RANKIN. Now, you said that your husband went to get the pistol in +the room. Will you tell us what room that was that he went to get the +pistol? + +Mrs. OSWALD. It was a small sort of storeroom. Just to the left off the +balcony as you come in; it is just on the left from the balcony. + +Mr. RANKIN. Was it out, was the pistol out in the room or was it in a +closet? + +Mrs. OSWALD. This room contained only a table and some shelves, and the +pistol was not on the table. It was hidden somewhere on a shelf. + +Representative FORD. Was the rifle in that room, too? + +Mrs. OSWALD. Yes. + +Mr. RANKIN. Where was the rifle in the room? + +Mrs. OSWALD. Sometimes it was in the corner, sometimes it was up on a +shelf. Lee didn't like me to go into this room. That is why he kept it +closed all the time and told me not to go into it. Sometimes he went in +there and sat by himself for long periods of time. + +Mr. DULLES. By closed, do you mean locked? + +Mrs. OSWALD. He used to close it from the inside. I don't remember what +kind of lock it was. Possibly it was just a--some kind of a tongue---- + +Mr. McKENZIE. Latch. + +Mrs. OSWALD. Latch or something like that. + +Mr. DULLES. How could he close it from the inside and then get out? + +Mrs. OSWALD. When he was inside he could close it from the inside so +that I couldn't come in. + +Mr. DULLES. But when he came out could he close it from the outside so +that you could not get in? + +Mrs. OSWALD. No; from the outside it couldn't be locked. + +Representative FORD. When you went to New Orleans and packed for the +trip to New Orleans, did you help to pack the pistol or the rifle? + +Mrs. OSWALD. No, no; Lee never let me pack things when we went for +trips. He always did it himself. + +Representative FORD. Did you see him pack the pistol or the rifle? + +Mrs. OSWALD. No. + +Representative FORD. Did you know the pistol and the rifle were in the +luggage going to New Orleans? + +Mrs. OSWALD. I stayed for some time with Ruth Paine after he left for +New Orleans and I don't know whether they were in his things or they +were in the stuff which was left with me. + +Representative FORD. At the time Mrs. Paine picked you up to go to the +bus station, did you intend to go by bus to New Orleans at that time? + +Mrs. OSWALD. No. + +Representative FORD. While you were living on Neely Street you didn't +tell us before of any extensive rifle shooting at Love Field or rifle +practice at Love Field. Can you tell us more about it now? + +Mrs. OSWALD. Lee didn't tell me when he was going out to practice. I +only remember one time distinctly that he went out because he took the +bus. I don't know if he went to Love Field at that time. I don't--after +all this testimony, after all this testimony, when I was asked did he +clean his gun a lot, and I answered yes, I came to the conclusion that +he was practicing with his gun because he was cleaning it afterwards. + +Representative FORD. Did he take the rifle and the pistol to Love Field +or at the time he went on the bus? + +Mrs. OSWALD. Only the rifle. + +Mr. McKENZIE. Just a minute. Let me ask her a question. May I ask a +question? + +Representative FORD. Yes, sir. + +Mr. McKENZIE. Representative Ford, I wasn't here as you know when Mrs. +Oswald testified before. I have been with her when she was interrogated +by the FBI relative to practicing the rifle shooting. This is the first +time that I have heard the use of the words "Love Field." Has there +been prior testimony by Mrs. Oswald here that he was practicing at Love +Field, because the reason I ask this is because she has steadfastly +in the past told me and the FBI that she didn't know where he went to +practice and that is the reason I wanted to know. + +Mr. RANKIN. The record is---- + +Mrs. OSWALD. I don't know where he practiced. I just think that the bus +goes to, went to Love Field. + +Mr. RANKIN. Her testimony before was that the bus that he took, that +she knows about when he went, was a bus that went to Love Field, and +she thought he went to some place in that area to do his practicing. + +Mr. McKENZIE. The reason I ask the question, Mr. Rankin, is because +I don't believe there is any practice area at Love Field for rifle +practicing. + +Mr. RANKIN. Well, the investigation that the Commission has made shows +that there is a place near Love Field where people do shooting and +practicing. + +Mr. McKENZIE. Not at Love Field. + +Mr. RANKIN. It is right adjacent, in the neighborhood. + +Mrs. OSWALD. Once we went out with Kathy Ford with the children to +watch airplanes landing and these airplanes made a tremendous noise +and for that reason I thought that maybe my husband was practicing +somewhere in that area because you couldn't hear the sound of shots. +I don't know if there is any place near there where one can practice +shooting, though. This idea just came to me a little while ago when we +were out there, watching the airplanes because it was a couple of weeks +ago that this happened. Just sort of a guess of mine. + +Mr. DULLES. How did he pack the gun or conceal the gun when he went out +on the bus toward Love Field? + +Mrs. OSWALD. Are you talking about the gun or the rifle? + +Mr. DULLES. I am talking about the rifle. + +Mrs. OSWALD. He used to wrap it up in his overcoat, raincoat. + +Mr. RANKIN. So that the record will be clear on this, Mr. McKenzie, the +prior testimony did not purport to indicate that Mrs. Oswald thought +he was practicing right on Love Field where the airplanes were landing +or anything like that. It was that he took that bus and took the rifle +and came back with the rifle and that the bus went to Love Field and +the investigation has shown that there is at least one place in that +immediate neighborhood where there is gun practice carried on. + +Mr. DULLES. Is there testimony, Mr. Rankin, as to more than one trip or +should we get that from the witness? + +Mr. RANKIN. She testified right now she only knew of this one although +she knew of his cleaning his guns a number of times. She just testified +to that. Do you want more than that? + +Mr. DULLES. I thought the record was a little fuzzy. Maybe you should +clarify it. + +Mr. McKENZIE. I think you should ask the question. + +Mr. RANKIN. Will you tell us, Mrs. Oswald, how you thought your husband +might have been practicing in the area near Love Field or how you +concluded that he might have been practicing with the rifle in the area +near Love Field. + +Mrs. OSWALD. Only because that is the bus, only because that is where +the bus goes. He never told me where. + +Mr. RANKIN. And you don't know whether he was practicing at a place +near Love Field or some place between where he got on the bus near your +home and Love Field; is that right? + +Mrs. OSWALD. No; I don't know, even now I don't know where it is. + +Senator COOPER. Can I just ask a question? Do you know how many times +he took the rifle from your home? + +Mrs. OSWALD. Well---- + +Mr. DULLES. You are speaking of Neely Street. + +Mrs. OSWALD. I only saw---- + +Senator COOPER. When you were living on Neely Street--strike that. You +have told about his taking the rifle from the house on Neely Street and +then later cleaning the rifle. Do you know how many times that occurred? + +Mrs. OSWALD. I saw him take the rifle only once when we were living +on Neely Street but he cleaned the rifle perhaps three or four times, +perhaps three times--three times. + +Senator COOPER. Did he ever tell you that he was practicing with a +rifle? + +Mrs. OSWALD. Only after I saw him take the gun that one time. + +Senator COOPER. Did you ask him if he had been practicing with the +rifle? + +Mrs. OSWALD. Yes, I asked him. + +Senator COOPER. What did he say? + +Mrs. OSWALD. He said yes. + +Senator COOPER. Did he ever give any reason why he was practicing with +the rifle to you? + +Mrs. OSWALD. He didn't give me a reason. He just said that for a man it +is an interesting thing to have a rifle. I considered this some kind of +a sport for him. I didn't think he was planning to employ it. I didn't +take it seriously. + +(At this point, Senator Cooper left the hearing room.) + +Mr. RANKIN. At the time of the Nixon incident did you know who Mr. +Nixon was? + +Mrs. OSWALD. I didn't know what position he held. I thought he was Vice +President. + +Mr. RANKIN. Did you ever check to see whether Mr. Nixon was in fact in +Dallas anytime around that date? + +Mrs. OSWALD. No. + +Mr. RANKIN. After the day of the Nixon incident did you ever discuss +that incident again with your husband? + +Mrs. OSWALD. No. + +Mr. RANKIN. Did the Nixon incident have anything to do with your +decision to go to New Orleans to live? + +Mrs. OSWALD. After the incident with Walker it became clear to me that +it would be a good idea to go away from Dallas and after the incident +with Nixon insisted--I insisted on it. + +Mr. RANKIN. After the Nixon incident did you ever discuss that Nixon +incident again with your husband? + +Mrs. OSWALD. No. I don't know why. Perhaps it didn't make a very strong +impression on me and that is why I didn't mention it in my first +testimony. Perhaps it is because the first incident with Walker made +such a strong impression that what happened afterward was somewhat +effaced by it. I was so much upset by this incident with General Walker +that I only just wanted to get away from Dallas as fast as possible. + +Mr. RANKIN. Did you discuss the Nixon incident with anyone other than +your husband before the assassination of President Kennedy? + +Mrs. OSWALD. No. + +Mr. RANKIN. Did you ever consider telling the police about the Walker +and Nixon incidents? + +Mrs. OSWALD. I thought of this but then Lee was the only person who was +supporting me in the United States, you see. I didn't have any friends, +I didn't speak any English and I couldn't work and I didn't know what +would happen if they locked him up and I didn't know what would happen +to us. Of course, my reason told me that I should do it but because of +circumstances I couldn't do it. + +Mr. RANKIN. When did you first tell something about the Nixon incident? + +Mrs. OSWALD. It was after the assassination; we were in Martin's house +and I think Robert was there also. That is when I first mentioned that. +I don't remember whether I told them both at the same time or told +Martin first and Robert second or Robert first and Martin second. + +Mr. RANKIN. Do you know about when that was with reference to the time +you moved in with the Martins? + +Mrs. OSWALD. I think it was in the first month. I don't remember which +day it was, though. + +Mr. RANKIN. Do you recall whether you first told Robert about it some +time in January of this year? + +Mrs. OSWALD. I think it was earlier than that, early in December. +Perhaps in the beginning of January, but I think it was before New +Year's. + +Mr. RANKIN. If Robert has stated that it was on a Sunday, January 12 of +this year, do you think he is in error then? + +Mrs. OSWALD. I don't think that Robert would make a mistake. I might +make a mistake myself but I don't think he would make a mistake because +he doesn't have quite as many, because he has not been in contact +with quite as many of these events and doesn't have quite as much to +remember as I have. And in general, I have a bad memory for figures. + +Mr. RANKIN. Did you discuss the Nixon incident at anytime with Mr. +Thorne or Mr. Martin, your agent? + +Mrs. OSWALD. I told Martin about it but I don't think I told Thorne +about it, and if Thorne learned about it it must have been from Martin. + +Mr. RANKIN. You just related how you told Mr. Martin about it and the +occasion in your testimony a moment ago; is that right? + +Mrs. OSWALD. I am certain that these were the circumstances in which I +told Martin about this. Whether or not the--it's possible I was just +talking with Martin and his wife about Lee and it just came into my +mind and I don't remember whether Robert was there or not, or whether I +told Robert later. + +Mr. RANKIN. Did anyone at anytime advise you or tell you not to tell +the Commission about this incident? + +Mrs. OSWALD. Martin told me that it is not necessary to mention this. +But when they were asking me here in the Commission whether I had +anything to add to my testimony, I really forgot about it. When Martin +and I were talking about it he said, "Well, try not to think about +these things too much." + +Mr. RANKIN. Did he say anything about why it wasn't necessary to tell +about this incident? + +Mrs. OSWALD. I don't remember. I don't think he told me why. Maybe +he told me and I just didn't understand because I didn't understand +English very well. + +Mr. RANKIN. When you were telling about the Nixon incident you referred +to your husband's sadistic streak. Do you recall that? + +Mrs. OSWALD. Yes. + +Mr. RANKIN. Can you tell us a little more about that, how it showed? + +Mrs. OSWALD. Anytime I did something which didn't please him he would +make me sit down at a table and write letters to the Russian Embassy +stating that I wanted to go back to Russia. He liked to tease me and +torment me in this way. He knew that this--he just liked to torment +me and upset me and hurt me, and he used to do this especially if I +interfered in any of his political affairs, in any of his political +discussions. He made me several times write such letters. + +Mr. DULLES. I have just one question: What did you or your husband do +with these letters that you wrote? Did any of them get mailed or did +they all get destroyed? + +Mrs. OSWALD. He kept carbons of these letters but he sent the letters +off himself. + +Mr. DULLES. To the Russian Embassy? + +Mrs. OSWALD. Yes; he didn't give me any money to buy stamps. I never +had any pocket money of my own. + +Mr. RANKIN. But the letters to the Embassy you are referring to are +actual letters and requested--requests--they weren't practice letters +or anything of that kind to punish you, were they? + +Mrs. OSWALD. Yes; they were real letters. I mean if my husband didn't +want me to live with him any longer and wanted me to go back, I would +go back, not because I wanted to go back but I didn't have any choice. + +Mr. RANKIN. I misunderstood you then because I thought you were +describing the fact that he made you write letters as a part of this +sadistic streak that would never be sent but what he actually did was +have you prepare the letters and then he proceeded to send them, is +that your testimony? + +Mrs. OSWALD. He did send them and he really wanted this. He knew that +this hurt me. + +Mr. RANKIN. Those are the letters to the Russian Embassy we have +introduced in evidence in connection with your testimony; is that right? + +Mrs. OSWALD. Yes; those are the letters. + +Representative FORD. Did he ever show you replies to those letters? + +Mrs. OSWALD. At first--yes; there were. At first I didn't believe that +he was sending off those letters. + +Representative FORD. But you did see the replies? + +Mrs. OSWALD. I received answers from the embassy. + +Mr. RANKIN. Now, I will turn to another subject, Mrs. Oswald. + +Mr. DULLES. Would you like to have a 5-minute recess? We will proceed. + +Mr. RANKIN. Now, Mrs. Oswald, I would like to ask you about the Irving +Gun Shop in Dallas. + +Mrs. OSWALD. The what? I don't know anything about this at all. + +Mr. RANKIN. Your counsel tells me I should correct that, that Irving +is not a part of Dallas. It is the city of Irving. A witness has said +that you and your two children and your husband came into a furniture +shop asking the location of a gunshop in that area in Irving, and after +appearing there that you and your husband, with your husband driving +the car, along with your two children, got in the car and went up the +street in the direction of where the gunshop was. Did you recall any +incident of that kind? + +Mrs. OSWALD. This is just a complete fabrication. Lee never drove a car +with me. Only Ruth Paine drove a car with me. And I never took my baby +with me. + +Mr. RANKIN. Did you ever go into such a furniture store in Irving? + +Mrs. OSWALD. Never. + +Mr. RANKIN. That you recall? + +Mrs. OSWALD. I was only twice in a store in Irving where they sell, +like a cafe, where you can buy something to eat and where they sell +toys and clothes and things like that; a little bit like a Woolworths, +a one-story shop but without any furniture in it. + +Mr. RANKIN. Do you know a Mrs. Whitworth who works in a furniture store +in Irving? + +Mrs. OSWALD. I was never in Irving in any furniture store. + +Mr. RANKIN. Do you know a Mrs. Whitworth? + +Mrs. OSWALD. It is the first time I have ever heard that name. + +Mr. RANKIN. Do you know a Mrs. Hunter, a friend of Mrs. Whitworth? + +Mrs. OSWALD. No. + +Mr. RANKIN. Did you ever go on a trip with your husband to have a +telescopic lens mounted on a gun at a gunshop? + +Mrs. OSWALD. Never. No; this is all not true. In the first place, +my husband couldn't drive, and I was never alone with him in a car. +Anytime we went in a car it was with Ruth Paine, and there was +never--we never went to any gun store and never had any telescopic lens +mounted. + +Mr. RANKIN. Did the four of you, that is, your husband, you, and your +two children, ever go alone any place in Irving? + +Mrs. OSWALD. In Irving the baby was only 1 month old. I never took her +out anywhere. + +Representative FORD. Did you ever go anytime---- + +Mrs. OSWALD. Just to doctor, you know. + +Representative FORD. Did you ever go anytime with your husband in a car +with the rifle? + +Mrs. OSWALD. I was never at anytime in a car with my husband and with +a rifle. Not only with the rifle, not even with a pistol. Even without +anything I was never with my husband in a car under circumstances where +he was driving a car. + +Representative FORD. Did you go in a car with somebody else driving +where your husband had the pistol or the rifle? + +Mrs. OSWALD. Never. I don't know what to think about this. + +Mr. RANKIN. Mrs. Oswald, I will hand you Commission's Exhibit No. 819 +and ask you particularly about the signature at the bottom. + +Mrs. OSWALD. That is Lee's handwriting, and this is mine. + +Mr. RANKIN. Were the words "A. J. Hidell, Chapter President" on +Commission Exhibit No. 819 are in your handwriting? + +Mrs. OSWALD. Yes. + +Mr. RANKIN. Would you tell the Commission how you happened to sign that? + +Mrs. OSWALD. Lee wrote this down on a piece of paper and told me to +sign it on this card, and said that he would beat me if I didn't sign +that name on the card. + +Mr. RANKIN. Did you have any other discussion about your signing that +name? + +Mrs. OSWALD. Yes. + +Mr. RANKIN. What discussion did you have? + +Mrs. OSWALD. I said that this sounded like Fidel. I said, "You have +selected this name because it sounds like Fidel" and he blushed and +said, "Shut up, it is none of your business." + +Mr. RANKIN. Was there any discussion about who Hidell, as signed on the +bottom of that card, was? + +Mrs. OSWALD. He said that it was his own name and a there is no Hidell +in existence, and I asked him, "You just have two names," and he said, +"Yes." + +Mr. RANKIN. Was anything else said about that matter at any time? + +Mrs. OSWALD. I taunted him about this and teased about this and said +how shameful it is that a person who has his own perfectly good name +should take another name and he said, "It is none of your business, +I would have to do it this way, people will think I have a big +organization" and so forth. + +Mr. RANKIN. Did you ask him why he needed to have the other name in +your handwriting rather than his own? + +Mrs. OSWALD. I did ask him that and he would answer that in order that +people will think it is two people involved and not just one. + +Mr. DULLES. Did you ever sign any more such cards with the name +"Hidell"? + +Mrs. OSWALD. Only this one. + +Mr. DULLES. And you never signed the name "Hidell" on any other paper +at any time? + +Mrs. OSWALD. Only once. + +Representative FORD. Where did this actual signing take place, Mrs. +Oswald? + +Mrs. OSWALD. In New Orleans. + +Representative FORD. Where in New Orleans? + +Mrs. OSWALD. In what is the name of the street where we lived, in an +apartment house. + +Representative FORD. In your apartment house? + +Mrs. OSWALD. Yes; in our apartment house. + +Representative FORD. What time of day, do you recall? + +Mrs. OSWALD. It might have been 8 or 9 o'clock in the evening. + +Mr. DULLES. Had you ever heard the name "Hidell" before? + +Mrs. OSWALD. I don't remember whether this was before or after Lee +spoke on the radio. I think it was after. + +Mr. DULLES. Did he use the name Hidell on the radio? + +Mrs. OSWALD. I think that he might have when he was talking on the +radio said that Hidell is the President of his organization but, of +course, I don't understand English well and I don't know. He spoke on +the radio using his own name but might have mentioned the name Hidell. +This is what he told me. When I tried to find out what he said on the +radio. + +Mr. DULLES. This might have been on television also? + +Mrs. OSWALD. It was on the radio, not on television. He told me that +someone had taken movies of him for to be shown later on television but +I don't know if they ever were. + +Mr. DULLES. Did you ever sign the name Hidell at any subsequent time to +any document? + +Mr. McKENZIE. If you recall signing it. Do you recall signing his name +to any other document? + +Mrs. OSWALD. I only remember this one occasion. + +Mr. RANKIN. Was the way you signed on this Commission's Exhibit No. 819 +your usual way of writing English? + +Mrs. OSWALD. My English handwriting changes every day, and my Russian +handwriting, too. But that is more or less my usual style. + +Mr. RANKIN. You weren't trying to conceal the way you sign anything? + +Mrs. OSWALD. I tried to do it, I just tried to write it as nicely as +possible. + +Mr. DULLES. Did you make some practice runs of writing this name before +you actually put it on the card? + +Mrs. OSWALD. Yes; because it was difficult for me to write English +properly. + +Mr. DULLES. So you mean you wrote it several times on another sheet of +paper and then put it on this card? + +Mrs. OSWALD. Yes. + +Representative FORD. Was there anybody else present at the time of this +incident? + +Mrs. OSWALD. No; only Lee. + +Representative FORD. Did he have you sign only one card? + +Mrs. OSWALD. This was the only time when I--when Lee asked me to do +this and I did it. I might have signed two or--cards and not just one +but there weren't a great many. + +Representative FORD. Did the other cards have someone else's name +besides Lee Harvey Oswald on it? + +Mrs. OSWALD. No; only Lee Oswald. + +Representative FORD. But you think you might have signed more than one +such card? + +Mrs. OSWALD. Maybe two, three. This is just 1 day when I was signing +this. It just happened on one occasion. + +Mr. RANKIN. Mrs. Oswald, turning to another subject, I would like to +ask you about some correspondence with the Dallas Civil Liberties +Union. + +Do you recall that they inquired as to whether you were being kept from +seeing and speaking to people against your will? + +Mrs. OSWALD. This letter was translated by Ruth Paine and I answered on +the basis of the translation. + +Mr. McKENZIE. May I see those letters, Mr. Rankin? + +Mr. RANKIN. Yes. + +Mrs. OSWALD. I didn't want to answer this letter. It was simply a +matter of courtesy on my part. + +Mr. RANKIN. Now, you received a letter from the local chapter of the +Civil Liberties union in Russian, did you not? + +Mrs. OSWALD. There was a letter that was in English and there was a +translation which came with it, and it was stated that the translation +was done by Ruth Paine. + +Mr. RANKIN. What did you do with the translation or the--I will ask you +the translation first. Did you keep that? + +Mrs. OSWALD. I don't remember what I did with it. + +Mr. RANKIN. Do you know what you did with the part that was in Russian? + +Mrs. OSWALD. Perhaps it is somewhere among my papers but I didn't pay +any special attention to it. + +Mr. RANKIN. I will hand you Commission Exhibit No. 331 and ask you if +that is the letter in English that you referred to? + +Mrs. OSWALD. Yes; it is the letter. + +Mr. RANKIN. I call the Commission's attention to the fact that that has +already been received in evidence. + +Mr. McKENZIE. Mr. Rankin, did you write Mr. Olds about this? This +appears to be a letter in reply to a letter from you. + +Mr. RANKIN. That is right. I asked for it. + +Mrs. Oswald, will you examine Commission Exhibits Nos. 990 and 991 and +state whether you know the handwriting in these exhibits? + +Mrs. OSWALD. This is all mine, my handwriting. This is the answer to +that letter. + +Mr. RANKIN. And the letter, Exhibit No. 990, and the envelope, Exhibit +No. 991, in your handwriting were your response to the inquiry of the +Dallas Civil Liberties Union on the Exhibit No. 331? + +Mrs. OSWALD. Yes; this was my answer to this letter, Exhibit No. 331. + +Mr. RANKIN. I offer in evidence Commission Exhibits Nos. 990 and 991. + +Mr. DULLES. You want them admitted at this time? + +Mr. RANKIN. Yes; Mr. Chairman. + +Mr. DULLES. They shall be admitted. + +(Commission Exhibits Nos. 990 and 991 were marked for identification +and received in evidence.) + +Mr. RANKIN. Mrs. Oswald, I will ask you to examine Exhibit No. 988 and +with the help of the interpreter, advise us whether or not it is a +reasonably correct translation of your letter, Exhibit No. 990. + +Mrs. OSWALD. This is not an accurate translation. + +Mr. RANKIN. Mrs. Oswald, can you tell us what errors were made, where +the corrections should be to make it a correct translation? + +Mrs. OSWALD. There is one place here in which it refers to the third +sentence of the English text which states: "What you read in the papers +is correct." + +Mr. RANKIN. How would you correct that? + +Mrs. OSWALD. This is incorrect. A better, a proper translation, +although unofficial of this passage, and the Russian text of my letter +would read, "Your concern is quite unnecessary although it is quite +understandable if one is to judge from what is written in the papers." + +Mr. RANKIN. Now, will you proceed with any other corrections? + +Mrs. OSWALD. This, the letter, the spirit of the letter reflects my own +spirit in my own Russian text--although the translation is somewhat +inaccurate and tends to shorten my own text somewhat. + +There is another inaccuracy which is more important than the others--it +is not more important, the first one is more important--there is +another which should be called to the Commission's attention. + +The last sentence of the English text reads: "Please let Mrs. Ruth +Paine know I owe to her much and think of her as one of my best +friends." + +Whereas the letter only states that: "Of course, consider her my +friend." + +Mr. RANKIN. Mrs. Oswald, I call your attention to Commission Exhibit +No. 990 and ask you to note the date which appears to be December 7, +1964. + +The Dallas Civil Liberties Union letter, you will note, was dated +January 6, 1964 which I will hand you so you can examine it. Could you +explain that discrepancy? You might wish to examine them. + +Mrs. OSWALD. It can't possibly be the 7th of December 1964 because it +hasn't even come yet. + +Mr. RANKIN. You might wish to examine the envelope, Exhibit No. 991, +that may help you as to the correct date. + +Mrs. OSWALD. January 8. I wrote this January 7. It was just my mistake. +I wrote it on January 7 and mailed it on the 8th. I just out of habit +still writing December. + +Mr. McKENZIE. Mr. Rankin, may I ask the Commission, on Commission +Exhibit No. 988, which purports to be a translation of Mrs. Oswald's +letter to the Dallas Civil Liberties Union, do you know who translated +this letter or could you tell us who translated the letter? + +Mr. RANKIN. Mr. McKenzie---- + +Mrs. OSWALD. They wrote me that I can answer them in Russian, and which +I did but I haven't any idea who translated my answer. + +Mr. RANKIN. The Commission Exhibit No. 987 which I will now offer +states that the translation was handled by Mrs. Ford and later seen by +Mrs. Paine. + +The translation of the exhibit that you now have in your hand, what is +the number of that? + +Mr. McKENZIE. This is Commission Exhibit No. 988 in English which +purports to be a translation of Mrs. Oswald's letter to the Dallas +Civil Liberties Union and I am asking does the Commission know who +translated the letter? + +Mr. RANKIN. We were informed by the Dallas Civil Liberties Union in +Exhibit No. 987 that the translation was made by Mrs. Ford and later +seen by Mrs. Paine, and I now offer all exhibits together with Exhibit +No. 987 as part of the testimony of this witness. + +Mr. DULLES. The exhibits shall be admitted. Have we the numbers of all +of these exhibits? + +Mr. RANKIN. Yes; the reporter has them. + +(Commission Exhibit No. 987 was marked for identification and received +in evidence.) + +Mr. RANKIN. Mrs. Oswald, I will hand you the cameras of your---- + +Mr. DULLES. I wonder before we finish this---- + +Mr. McKENZIE. I would prefer, Mr. Rankin, for the purposes of the +record so that the record will be complete, to have a correct English +translation of Mrs. Oswald's letter in the record in lieu of Commission +Exhibit No. 988. + +Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Chairman, if it is agreeable to the Commission, I would +like to ask counsel to furnish such a translation and we will then make +it the next number, Exhibit No. 992, as a part of this record. + +Mr. DULLES. That shall be admitted then as Exhibit No. 992, the other +already being in the record I think, probably has to stay there +particularly in view of all this discussion of it. + +Mr. RANKIN. If you will furnish it. + +Mr. McKENZIE. You are putting the onus or burden back on me, Mr. +Rankin, when the Commission has a fully qualified, I presume, Russian +interpreter here, and if the Commission would not mind going to the +further expense of having the interpretation of the letter made, I +think it would expedite the Commission's report. + +Mr. RANKIN. If it is satisfactory to Mr. McKenzie, then, Mr. Chairman, +I would like to ask Mr. Coulter if he would make a translation and +submit it to Mr. McKenzie for submission to his client for approval, +and then we will have that marked the Exhibit No. 992 and made part of +this record. + +Mr. DULLES. Excellent, that will be admitted as such, Commission +Exhibit No. 992. + +Mr. McKENZIE. Thank you, Mr. Rankin and thank you Mr. Chairman. + +(Commission Exhibit No. 992 was marked for identification and received +in evidence.) + +Mr. RANKIN. Mrs. Oswald, will you examine the cameras of your husband +and tell us which one took the pictures that showed your husband with +the rifle and the pistol, as you will recall? + +The pictures I am asking you about are Exhibits Nos. 133-A and 133-B +which you recall are the ones that you said in your prior testimony you +took yourself. + +Mrs. OSWALD. Yes. + +Mr. RANKIN. With one of these cameras. + +Mrs. OSWALD. This is the first and last time in my life I ever took a +photograph and it was done with this gray camera. + +Mr. REDLICH. Mr. Rankin, the Commission exhibit numbers of the two +cameras, one is Commission Exhibit No. 136 and one is Commission +Exhibit No. 750. + +Mr. McKENZIE. And the gray camera she is referring to, Mr. Rankin, for +the purpose of the record is Commission Exhibit No. 750, isn't that +right, Mrs. Oswald? + +Mrs. OSWALD. Yes. + +Mr. RANKIN. That is the gray camera you just said you took pictures +with, is that correct? + +Mrs. OSWALD. Yes. The other camera also belonged to Lee but I don't use +it. + +Mr. RANKIN. Turning to another subject now, Mrs. Oswald, while you and +Lee Harvey Oswald were at Minsk in the Soviet Union, can you tell us +how Lee Harvey Oswald spent his leisure time while he was there? + +Mrs. OSWALD. I don't know how he spent his time before we were married +but afterwards he was a great lover of classical music and used to go +to concerts a lot, and theaters, and movies, symphony concerts, and we +used to go out on the lakes around Minsk. There are some lakes in the +confines of Minsk and outside where we used to go. + +Mr. RANKIN. While there did he read much? + +Mrs. OSWALD. He didn't read very much because there wasn't a very great +choice of books in English except the ones on Marxism. + +Mr. DULLES. He could, however, read books in Russian, could he not, at +this time? + +Mrs. OSWALD. Yes; but it was a lot of work for him and he really didn't +enjoy it very much. But he did go to Russian films and understood them. + +Mr. RANKIN. Did he go to the rifle club there? + +Mrs. OSWALD. He belonged to a hunters--a club of hunters and had a +rifle but he never went to the practice meetings of this club. He only +paid his membership dues, and I think that he joined this club in order +to be able to acquire a rifle because only apparently members of such +hunting clubs have the right in the Soviet Union to own a rifle. Only +once did he go out with a group of some of my friends and take his +rifle and try and shoot some game but he didn't catch anything. + +Representative FORD. Did he buy the rifle or was it given to him? + +Mrs. OSWALD. He bought it. + +Representative FORD. What did you do with it when you went to the +United States? + +Mrs. OSWALD. I think he sold it. + +Representative FORD. Was it a rifle of--much like the one that was used +in the assassination? + +Mrs. OSWALD. All rifles look alike to me. + +Mr. McKENZIE. Did it have a telescopic sight on it, Marina? + +Mrs. OSWALD. No. + +Mr. McKENZIE. But it was similar to the same rifle that he had in the +United States? + +Mrs. OSWALD. No. It wasn't identical but it might have been similar, +seeing as how they are both single barrel rifles. I don't understand +anything about rifles at all and I really am not qualified to talk +about them. + +Mr. RANKIN. You mentioned that he went to the rifle club on one +occasion or the hunting club on one occasion with some friends to hunt +squirrels or rabbits or things of that sort. Did he go to the hunting +club on other occasions to practice to shoot? + +Mrs. OSWALD. When I first saw the rifle here in the United States I +didn't pay much attention to it because I thought this was the rifle he +had brought from Russia. + +Mr. RANKIN. Did he practice shooting the rifle in Russia? + +Mrs. OSWALD. No. + +Mr. RANKIN. Did you see him or observe him cleaning the rifle in Russia? + +Mrs. OSWALD. Yes. + +Mr. RANKIN. And would he clean the rifle, did he clean it on several +occasions? + +Mrs. OSWALD. Yes, several times. + +Mr. RANKIN. The hunting club that he belonged to, did it have an +instructor in shooting the rifle? + +Mrs. OSWALD. I don't know but there should have been one. + +Mr. RANKIN. Now, he had to have a permit to purchase the rifle in +Russia. + +Mrs. OSWALD. Yes; you can't possess a rifle without a--permission in +the Soviet Union. + +Mr. RANKIN. Did he purchase the rifle from a government agency? + +Mrs. OSWALD. You buy these rifles in special stores, but to buy them +you have to have a paper from the hunting club stating that you have +the right to buy a rifle. + +Mr. RANKIN. And the authorized government official gave him authority +to buy the gun through the hunting club? + +Mrs. OSWALD. The hunting club issues this permit. He used to clean the +rifle but he never used it. It always hung on the wall. + +Mr. RANKIN. Mrs. Oswald, will you describe what you were saying off the +record in regard to his going out to use the rifle in the country as +distinguished from using it in the club? + +Mrs. OSWALD. We all went out together in a group of boys and girls in +order to get--to swim a little and to get a suntan. It was a lake which +is just on the edge of town not far from Minsk, and the men had guns, +and they all went out to try to shoot some kind of rabbit or bird or +something like that, and the men went off together and I heard several +shots and they came back and they hadn't caught anything so we laughed +at it. + +Mr. RANKIN. Did that happen more than once? + +Mrs. OSWALD. Only one such trip. And even that time he didn't want to +take the gun with him. He took it only because one of my friends was +laughing at him and said, "You have a gun hanging here and you never +use it. Why don't you bring it along and see if you can use it." + +Mr. RANKIN. Did you and your husband have any friends other than +Russians while you were at Minsk? + +Mrs. OSWALD. There were friends. We had some friends from Argentina but +they didn't come on this excursion with us. + +Mr. RANKIN. Did you have any friends there who were from Cuba? + +Mrs. OSWALD. There were Cuban students studying in Minsk, and this +Argentinian girl had a Cuban boyfriend and possibly Lee met this +boyfriend, this Cuban student, but I never met him. + +Mr. DULLES. Do you know where the Cuban students were studying, what +particular school? + +Mrs. OSWALD. They study in various educational institutions in Minsk, +some are in the medical institute, others are in the agricultural and +others are in the polytechnical institute. + +Mr. DULLES. Could you tell us a little more about these Argentinians, +were they there for educational reasons or what was the reason they +were there? + +Mrs. OSWALD. Excuse me; I am mixed up with Cubans. You talk about +Argentinians? + +Mr. DULLES. I asked about Argentinians but I would be glad to have you +add the Cubans to it, too. + +Mrs. OSWALD. There is agreement between the Cuban Government and the +Russian Government; and the Cuban Government under this agreement sends +Cuban students to study in the Soviet Union. + +From what I could tell from what Lee said, many of these Cuban +students were not satisfied with life in the Soviet Union, and this +Argentinian girl told me the same thing. Many of them thought that, +they were not satisfied with conditions in the Soviet Union and thought +if Castro were to be in power that the conditions in Cuba would become +similar to those in the Soviet Union and they were not satisfied with +this. They said it wasn't worth while carrying out a revolution just to +have the kind of life that these people in the Soviet Union had. + +Representative FORD. Would you have any idea how many Cubans were in +school in Minsk? + +Mrs. OSWALD. I heard the figure of 300 but I never knew even a single +one. + +Representative FORD. Could you be more helpful in the kind of schools +they went to, what were the schools? + +Mrs. OSWALD. Most of them were in agricultural institutes. Some were +in the institute of foreign languages where they spent a year studying +Russian in order subsequently to go on into some other institute +where they could study some more formal subject or some more formal +discipline. + +Representative FORD. About how old were these students? + +Mrs. OSWALD. About between 17 and 21. + +Mr. DULLES. Was your husband absent from you during any protracted +period after your marriage, and during your stay in Minsk other than +the trip I think he took one trip to Moscow without you. + +Mrs. OSWALD. Once I went to Kharkov, and he stayed in Minsk. Other than +that there were no absences on his part, except, of course, for the +trip to Moscow. Do you want to talk about the Argentinian students? + +Mr. DULLES. Yes; if you have more to say about that. + +Mrs. OSWALD. These are people who left Poland about 30 years previously +for Argentina. Then after the second World War the part of Poland where +they had been living became part of the Soviet Union and the father of +this family was an engineer and worked in the same factory where Lee +worked, his name was Zieger. + +They had two daughters born in Argentina, and the wife was very +homesick for her native country, so they came back and the Soviet +Government gave them Soviet citizenship before they got on the boat to +come back. Then she told us what she had been reading in the newspapers +was just propaganda and they thought the life was a little better than +what they found out what it was when they arrived. Now, they have been +there 7 or 8 years and they would prefer to go back to Argentina but +they can't. + +Mr. DULLES. In connection with your husband's work in the factory +did he have any indoctrination courses as a part of that in Marxism, +Leninism, or in anything of that kind in connection with his work in +the factory? + +Mrs. OSWALD. I think there are such courses in the factory for party +members and for people who want to become party members but Lee never +went to them. When he was in Russia he didn't like Russian Communists. +He thought they were all bureaucrats. I don't actually know what he +liked except himself. + +Mr. DULLES. Do you know whether your husband received any special pay +or special funds through the Russian Red Cross or through any other +channel in addition to his regular pay in the factory? + +Mrs. OSWALD. Before we were married he apparently--he told me he was +getting some assistance from the Government, but he told me this after +we were married, and I don't know from whom or in what way he got it. + +Representative FORD. Did you have any idea how much extra he was +getting over his wages? + +Mrs. OSWALD. I don't know how much it was but he had quite a lot of +money in the beginning. Maybe he wrote about this in his diary. + +Representative FORD. Did you know how much he was earning each week +while he was employed? + +Mrs. OSWALD. In Russia they don't pay for every week. Eighty rubles a +month. + +Representative FORD. Eighty rubles a month? + +Mrs. OSWALD. Yes. + +Mr. DULLES. Those are the new rubles? + +Mrs. OSWALD. New rubles. + +Mr. DULLES. Those were the new rubles, revalued rubles, that is about +$90; is it not? + +Mrs. OSWALD. $90 or $80. + +Representative FORD. While you were married did you know of any extra +money he was getting? + +Mrs. OSWALD. He didn't receive any--he didn't receive any extra money +while we were married, he had a little bit left over from what he was +getting before, that is all. + +Representative FORD. Did he handle all of the money that he received or +did he give you some while you were in the Soviet Union? + +Mrs. OSWALD. I was working at the same time, and I gave him my salary +and he in turn would give me some money every now and then to buy +groceries with and that sort of thing, but I didn't ever get any money +from his salary. + +Representative FORD. So the only income that you know about was the +money you earned and the money that he earned? + +Mrs. OSWALD. Yes. + +Representative FORD. And how much did you earn? + +Mrs. OSWALD. 45. + +Representative FORD. 45 rubles a month? + +Mrs. OSWALD. A month. + +Representative FORD. There were no other funds, to your knowledge, that +he received after you were married? + +Mrs. OSWALD. No. + +Representative FORD. He paid all the bills? + +Mrs. OSWALD. Yes. You didn't have too much bills in Russia. + +Mr. DULLES. Did he take your money, too? What was your rent, do you +recall at that time, rent of the apartment? + +Mrs. OSWALD. Seven rubles and 50 cents, kopeks. + +Mr. DULLES. Was it 7 rubles and 50 kopeks? A week? + +Mrs. OSWALD. A month; the rent in Russia are usually about 10 percent +of wages a month. + +Mr. McKENZIE. Wages are low, too. + +Mrs. OSWALD. Of course, people who get more, higher wages have bigger +apartments. + +Mr. DULLES. Mr. Rankin, I think, is it all right to adjourn at this +point? + +We will reconvene at 2 o'clock. + +(Whereupon, at 12:50 p.m., the President's Commission recessed.) + + + + +Afternoon Session + +TESTIMONY OF HARRIS COULTER + + +The President's Commission reconvened at 2 p.m. + +(Members present at this point: Chief Justice Warren and Representative +Ford.) + +The CHAIRMAN. The Commission will come to order. You may proceed, Mr. +Rankin. + +Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Chief Justice. Mr. McKenzie has asked that we develop +in the record a little bit about the qualifications of Mr. Coulter as +an interpreter, so it would be clear that he is able to translate back +and forth. + +The CHAIRMAN. Very well. + +Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Coulter, I think you should be sworn for this. + +The CHAIRMAN. Would you rise and be sworn, please? Do you solemnly +swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so +help you God? + +Mr. COULTER. I do. + +Mr. RANKIN. Will you please state your full name? + +Mr. COULTER. Harris Livermore Coulter. + +Mr. RANKIN. Where do you live? + +Mr. COULTER. Glen Echo Heights, Md. + +Mr. RANKIN. Do you have a position in the Government at the present +time? + +Mr. COULTER. Yes; I am an interpreter with the State Department. + +Mr. RANKIN. How long have you been in that capacity? + +Mr. COULTER. About 3 months. + +Mr. RANKIN. Do you have any special field of foreign languages that you +are working in? + +Mr. COULTER. Russian is my best foreign language. I also work in French +and in Yugoslavian. + +Mr. RANKIN. What training have you had for interpreting or translating +Russian? + +Mr. COULTER. Russian language and area studies was my major subject +at Yale University when I was an undergraduate. I also took 4 years +of graduate work at Columbia University in Soviet area studies. In +addition to that, I studied at the University of Moscow for 6 months. +And I have been studying Russian since 1950. + +Mr. RANKIN. Can you tell us what period of time you studied at the +University of Moscow? + +Mr. COULTER. I was there from December 19--excuse me--from September +1962 until January 1963. + +Mr. RANKIN. Have you been acting as an official interpreter in +Government work? + +Mr. COULTER. Yes; for the last 3 months I have been. + +Mr. RANKIN. And will you describe the nature of that activity? + +Mr. COULTER. I have been escorting delegations from Yugoslavia both +around the United States and in Washington. I have been working with +French delegations here in the State Department. I would have been +working with Russians if there had been any. There just haven't been +any yet. + +In July I will be going to Geneva to be an interpreter at the +disarmament negotiations between the United States and the Soviet Union. + +I worked 3 years as simultaneous interpreter at the United Nations, in +Russian and French. + +Mr. RANKIN. And have all these various activities since you have been +employed by the Government been as a part of your Government work? + +Mr. COULTER. Yes. + +Mr. RANKIN. Do you have facility in the reading of the Russian language? + +Mr. COULTER. Yes; I read it fluently. + +Mr. RANKIN. Have you had any difficulty understanding Mrs. Oswald? + +Mr. COULTER. Not in the slightest; no. + +Mr. RANKIN. I will ask you to ask her if she has had any difficulty +understanding you. + +Mrs. OSWALD. In the Russian language? + +Mr. RANKIN. Yes. + +Mrs. OSWALD. No. + +Mr. RANKIN. Mr. McKenzie, do you have anything else? + +Mr. McKENZIE. I would like to ask a couple of questions. Mr. Coulter, +prior to your service with the State Department which commenced some 3 +months ago, where were you employed? + +Mr. COULTER. I was unemployed from June 1963 until March 1964. I was in +the process of being cleared for a Government job at the time. + +I terminated my employment with the United Nations in June 1963. + +Mr. McKENZIE. And you have been cleared for Government security +purposes? + +Mr. COULTER. That is right. The clearance began about August. I had +some part-time jobs, freelance work, between the dates, but nothing +permanent. + +Mr. McKENZIE. But for a number of years you were an interpreter at the +United Nations? + +Mr. COULTER. About 3 years. + +Mr. McKENZIE. And then you started getting a security clearance, and +for the past 3 months you have been employed by the State Department as +an interpreter? + +Mr. COULTER. Yes. + +Mr. McKENZIE. You were the interpreter present this morning when Mrs. +Oswald commenced her testimony on this occasion? + +Mr. COULTER. I was. + +Mr. McKENZIE. And all the above and foregoing testimony previously +testified to from the beginning of this session this morning up through +now, you have interpreted; have you not? + +Mr. COULTER. I have. + +Mrs. OSWALD. I appreciate Mr. Coulter helping me. + +Mr. McKENZIE. Mr. Rankin, the purpose and reason behind my asking +you to show his qualifications, the interpreter's qualifications, is +that the record will reflect that Mrs. Oswald was asked questions in +English, and they were interpreted into Russian, and she has answered +in Russian--and so that the record will show she was not answering in +English. + + +TESTIMONY OF MRS. LEE HARVEY OSWALD RESUMED + +Mr. RANKIN. Mrs. Oswald, I would like to turn now to the pictures of +your husband that I asked you about earlier, when you identified the +gray camera as the one that was used in taking the pictures. And I +called your attention to Commission Exhibits Nos. 133-A and 133-B. I +now wish to ask you specifically whether you used that camera that you +saw identified for the taking of both of these pictures. And in so +doing, I wish to call your attention to the fact that there were two +different positions in the exhibits. + +Mrs. OSWALD. I took both these pictures at the same time, and with the +same camera. + +Mr. RANKIN. And in giving that answer, you have examined the pictures, +and you know they are different positions--that is, your husband +has the rifle in different positions and the newspaper in different +positions in the two pictures--do you? + +Mrs. OSWALD. I am aware of that. + +Mr. RANKIN. Mrs. Oswald, did you ever have a discussion with your +husband about when he decided that he would like to become a citizen of +the Soviet Union? + +Mrs. OSWALD. We discussed this and he said that the Soviet Government +wanted him to become a Soviet citizen and furnished him the necessary +papers, but he apparently refused. But the way it appears in his diary, +of course, is quite different--in fact, the exact opposite. + +Mr. RANKIN. By the exact opposite, you mean that it shows in his diary +that he was the one that wanted to be a Soviet citizen, and the Soviet +Union refused to allow that; is that right? + +Mrs. OSWALD. That is correct. + +Representative FORD. When did this conversation on this subject take +place, Mrs. Oswald? + +Mrs. OSWALD. About 3 months after we were married. + +Representative FORD. While you were living in Minsk? + +Mrs. OSWALD. Yes. + +Representative FORD. Do you remember how the discussion came up? + +Mrs. OSWALD. When Lee wrote the American Embassy requesting return to +the United States and requesting an American passport, he told me that +it was very lucky that he hadn't become a Soviet citizen, and that his +passport was still in the American Embassy. And that if he had become a +Soviet citizen, it would have been difficult if not impossible to leave. + +Before I found out about his diary, I didn't realize that the Soviet +Government had refused to grant him citizenship, because he never +talked about this, never mentioned it. + +Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Chief Justice, that is the end of the questioning that +I planned to examine Mrs. Oswald about. I understand that Congressman +Ford has some. + +I would like before closing to make an offer of what has been marked +now as Commission Exhibit No. 993, which is the story that Mrs. Oswald +developed in Russian that was furnished to us, and I want to inform the +Commission that it was furnished to us for the purpose of trying to +examine Mrs. Oswald the first time, and that counsel at that time and +present counsel wanted to make it very clear that they didn't want to +lose any property interest in that document. And all rights that they +might have to publish it and use it commercially and any other way that +she might have, and that it was merely furnished to the Commission for +official purposes and very strictly limited in that manner. But I would +like to offer it and the Commission may want to reserve its decision as +to whether it should be made a part of the record and published. But I +think it should at this time be offered for your consideration in that +manner. + +The CHAIRMAN. Yes. Does counsel wish to add anything to that? + +Mr. McKENZIE. Yes, Mr. Chairman; I would, if I may, sir. + +The CHAIRMAN. Yes. + +Mr. McKENZIE. I appreciate Mr. Rankin's remarks in connection with the +offering of Mrs. Oswald's memoirs, or manuscript of her memoirs, which, +I understand, is Commission Exhibit No. 993. The manuscript prepared +by Mrs. Oswald was heretofore voluntarily presented for the sole and +exclusive purpose of assisting the Commission in its official duties +for the Commission's use and benefit and to help the Commission in +evaluating Mrs. Oswald's testimony as well as the testimony of others +in arriving at a report setting forth its findings and conclusions to +the President and the American people. + +Mrs. Oswald and her two minor children have property rights that are +private to her and to them in the publishing and use of the memoirs +set forth in her manuscript, which was written solely for her use +in writing a book for commercial purposes. She does object to the +inclusion of the manuscript in the record, or the publishing of same, +and she does not waive or relinquish or in anyway legally or otherwise +give away her proprietary rights in this regard, to the manuscript. + +She respectfully requests that the Commission honor her request in +what has heretofore been deemed and what she now deems to be her +assistance to the Commission--and I will say this--that she has told +me repeatedly that she has sought to assist the Commission in every +possible and conceivable way. But in light of that, she does respect +the Commission's indulgence in not publishing this manuscript, and asks +that this only be used as it was presented for the purpose of assisting +the Commission in its official duties, in evaluating the evidence. + +The CHAIRMAN. Do you have any suggestions as to how we might use it and +at the same time not permanently deprive the public of an opportunity +to see it? + +Before you answer that, I want to say this. I am sure no member of the +Commission wants to--has any desire to in anyway interfere with the +property rights of Mrs. Oswald. She did cooperate with us in bringing +this. We feel grateful that she did do it. On the other hand, we do +want eventually to have this in the record so the public will know +that they are getting everything that the Commission has. I am just +wondering if perhaps while you are contemplating writing something on +the subject, and protecting her property rights, if we could seal this +with a notation that it was not to be opened for public view until that +has been done. And you could let us know when that day has passed. +Would that protect her rights? + +Mr. McKENZIE. Well, Mr. Chief Justice, I would be the last one in the +world to suggest anything either to yourself or to the Commission +insofar as the way this matter should be handled. I do have, or feel, +that the manuscript was given to the Commission, the Commission has +had more than adequate opportunity to interrogate Mrs. Oswald. She is +willing to stay here now as long as the Commission desires, and will do +so voluntarily without the issuance of a subpena or any other way. + +I think through the interrogation that Mr. Rankin has conducted--I +might remark, most ably--that certainly the matters covered in the +manuscript have already been covered in direct sworn testimony. And +with that thought in mind, it was my feeling, and it is my feeling +that the Commission and its staff, through the help and assistance +of the manuscript and Mrs. Oswald, have had the benefit of all the +matters previously written down by Mrs. Oswald, and that if there +are any questions that have not been covered that are covered in the +manuscript, I am sure that counsel for the Commission could adequately +cover those questions. The manuscript was prepared by Mrs. Oswald +in the form of memoirs. And was not prepared for the use of the +Commission. And I think without the Commission's knowledge--it was +prepared beforehand. And she brought it so the Commission could have +the effect of it and the use of it. Now, if the Commission feels that +it should be finally published as part of the Commission's report, I +would certainly hope that the Commission would honor her request and +withhold the publishing of the manuscript until such time as she has +had the opportunity to conclude any negotiations which she might have +or might possibly have for the publishing of a book. + +I ask this not so much for Mrs. Oswald herself, but more for her two +minor children. + +The CHAIRMAN. Well, we will do at least that. We will take the matter +under consideration and having in mind her rights and our desire not +to interfere with them we will try to work out a solution that will be +satisfactory to you and to her. + +Mr. McKENZIE. I thank you very much, Mr. Chief Justice. And I might +also add that the Chief Justice and all members of this Commission and +its staff know full well, or at least I feel would know full well that +just as soon as this report is published and distributed to the public, +or distributed to the press, regardless of what property rights she +may have now or may have then, it will be extremely difficult for Mrs. +Oswald to protect those rights--if not impossible. + +The CHAIRMAN. I would like to say, also, for the record that there is +nothing sensational or nothing of a secretive nature in the document. +It is something that, as you say, was written for publication, and we +assume that it will be some day published, probably, and that if it is +not given to the public, it will not be because there is anything of a +secret nature in there. It would only be a question of whether it could +be done consistent with the rights of the witness. And we will bear +those in mind, you may be sure. + +Mr. McKENZIE. I thank you, Mr. Chief Justice. + +And if I may add one other thing. I have heretofore made a request on +Mr. Rankin in connection with a diary which was presented by Robert +Oswald at the time of his testimony to the Commission, that Robert +Oswald had prepared shortly after November 22, and which not only +has he furnished the diary to the Commission, but has also narrated +that diary by reading same on dictaphone tapes, and I have, in turn, +furnished it to Mr. Jenner, a member of the Commission's staff. + +I have requested the Commission not to print Robert Oswald's diary +for the same reasons that I have heretofore outlined in connection +with Mrs. Oswald's manuscript. And I would hope that the Commission +could consider Robert Oswald's diary in the same light that you +would consider this manuscript. I am not saying that either have any +commercial value, but if they do I would hope that they would inure to +the benefit of Mrs. Oswald's family and the benefit of Robert Oswald's +family. + +The CHAIRMAN. Yes. We will consider that, also. But there are some +portions of the diary of Mr. Oswald that are in the record already +as a result of his examination, as there are things involved in this +document of Mrs. Oswald's that are in the record by question and answer. + +Mr. McKENZIE. There is one other thing, and then I will close on this +particular subject. Mrs. Oswald does not have a copy of the manuscript +of her memoirs. Her former attorney, Mr. Thorne, or her former +so-called business manager, Mr. James Martin, reportedly to me has +such a copy. But at the present time she does not have a copy of this +manuscript nor do I have a copy of the manuscript. + +The CHAIRMAN. You may have one immediately. + +Mr. McKENZIE. Fine, sir--I would like to say at the Commission's +expense. + +The CHAIRMAN. Yes; of course, we will see you have one. + +Mr. McKENZIE. At the time that Robert Oswald gave his testimony to +the Commission, Mr. Jenner and Mr. Liebler followed the practice of +taking originals and photostating them or Xerox copying them and giving +the originals back. Before we do close today, I would like to make a +request on the record to have all the articles that Marina has brought +up here in the way of letters and things of that sort returned to her, +with, of course, adequate copies for the Commission and its use. And I +don't know whether you have any or not. + +Mr. RANKIN. You have made your request. + +The CHAIRMAN. We will consider that along with the other things. Mr. +Rankin, will you continue now? + +Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Coulter, could you state for the record whether you +have related this colloquy to Mrs. Oswald, so that she is informed of +it? + +Mr. COULTER. I gave it to her in general terms, that they were +discussing the question of the rights to her manuscript and the rights +to the originals of the various objects in her possession, which she +had made available to the Commission. + +Mr. RANKIN. Thank you. + +(At this point, Mr. Dulles entered the hearing room.) + +Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Chief Justice, I have one other offer to make, and +I would like to offer it under Exhibit No. 994, and that would be a +translation of this document, that would present the same problems. + +We have a translation that was made by Mr. Gopadze, the Secret Service +agent, who is quite familiar with the Russian language. But we earlier +today had a letter that Mrs. Oswald wrote to the Civil Liberties Union +of Dallas, and she questioned some of the translation from Russian into +English, which was not done by any of our people, of course. And we are +not so sure about Mr. Gopadze's translation. So we would like to follow +what was suggested at that time, that Mr. Coulter make a translation +of this, which we would submit to counsel for Mrs. Oswald, and Mrs. +Oswald, for them to be satisfied it is a correct translation, and then +make that translation a part of the record, subject to your deciding +later whether it should be. + +The CHAIRMAN. Well, instead of referring it to Mr. Coulter, we will +refer it to Mrs. Oswald's attorney, and he can have prepared any +translation that he wishes, and then we will have it for comparison +with the other. + +Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Chief Justice, I thought we would save them the expense. + +The CHAIRMAN. I would rather deal directly with the counsel, and then +we are not in any cross purposes. He can have it done any way he wants. + +Mr. McKENZIE. Mr. Chief Justice, with your kind indulgence, sir, and +the Commission's kind indulgence, Mr. Coulter's translation of this +document would be more than satisfactory with Mrs. Oswald and with +myself. And, quite frankly, the funds which she has available to her +for such a purpose are so extremely limited that it would be an extreme +hardship on her to employ an interpreter to translate it. + +The CHAIRMAN. That is perfectly all right, that Mr. Coulter should do +it. I have no objection at all to Mr. Coulter. Only when we are dealing +with a client of a lawyer, we like to deal directly with him, and he +can deal with the translator if he wishes. + +Mr. McKENZIE. I think we are both trying to serve the same purpose. +But Mr. Rankin and I, I think, are in full agreement on Mr. Coulter's +interpretation of this manuscript--if that is satisfactory with the +Commission. + +The CHAIRMAN. Yes; if it is satisfactory with you, it is satisfactory +with me. There is no question about that. + +Mrs. OSWALD. Maybe in this manuscript many details are lacking which +have been developed in my testimony, because I wrote it mainly for +public consumption. + +Mr. RANKIN. We understand, Mrs. Oswald. I am sure the Commissioners +all understand that the manuscript is something that was referred to +in order to inquire from you during your giving of testimony, and that +your testimony, together with the manuscript, should be considered if +there is any question, because you do not purport to cover everything +in the manuscript. Is that what you are saying? + +Mrs. OSWALD. I am very ashamed that there is so much unnecessary +information in this manuscript and that it caused the interpreter so +much difficulty in translating it. + +Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Chief Justice, I then offer under Exhibit No. 994, and +I make, without repeating them, the same suggestions I did about the +Russian document, Exhibit No. 993, and ask that we follow the procedure +of getting the translation, and then make it a part of this record, +subject to the Commission's determining that it should be. + +The CHAIRMAN. It may be done in that manner. + +Mr. RANKIN. That is all. + +The CHAIRMAN. Congressman Ford, do you have some matters? + +Mrs. OSWALD. I would like to know if the Commission wants me to make +some comment on any differences in substance between the manuscript +and the testimony which I have given, or between the manuscript or the +translation, whichever translation may be accepted, or both. + +The CHAIRMAN. The Commission will ask the questions, if there is +anything of that nature. Now, Congressman Ford, do you have some +questions? + +Representative FORD. Yes, Mr. Chief Justice, I have a few questions. In +the Soviet Union, when a marriage application is applied for, what are +the steps that you take? + +Mrs. OSWALD. There are certain applications which have to be filled out +by the boy and girl. + +Representative FORD. Do you have to go down together to make the +application? + +Mrs. OSWALD. It is necessary for both to appear with their passports +and fill out this application. + +Representative FORD. In other words, Lee Harvey Oswald had to take +his passport down to--at the time that he applied for a marriage +application? + +Mrs. OSWALD. Lee Oswald did not have his passport at the time since it +was in the American Embassy. He went with his residence permission to +the office. But our marriage was entered into his American passport +after we were married and before we left the Soviet Union for the +United States. + +Representative FORD. So it is not the passport in the sense that we +think of a passport, that we get to travel to a foreign country? + +Mrs. OSWALD. Since most marriages are concluded between Soviet +citizens, they only present their internal passports to the marriage +license bureau. But if there is a marriage between a Soviet citizen +and a foreigner, he presents his residence permission and his foreign +passport, also, if he has one. If he doesn't have it, the residence +permission is enough. + +Representative FORD. Do we have the document that he presented at the +time he applied for marriage? + +Mrs. OSWALD. I don't know. I think he had to turn that in before he +left the Soviet Union. + +Mr. McKENZIE. Are you referring to his American passport? + +Representative FORD. No; I am referring to the document that he +presented at the time he applied for marriage. + +Mr. McKENZIE. Which would be a Russian instrument? + +Representative FORD. Right. + +Mrs. OSWALD. I don't know if it is available. I think he had to turn it +in before he left the Soviet Union. + +Representative FORD. In other words, both you and Lee Harvey Oswald +signed the necessary documents for marriage? + +Mrs. OSWALD. Yes. + +Representative FORD. During your period in Minsk, following your +marriage, did you and Lee Harvey Oswald have any marital difficulties, +any problems between the two of you? + +Mrs. OSWALD. We had some difficulties in connection with the fact that +I told my uncle and aunt that we were going to leave for the United +States. Lee did not want me to tell anybody that we were preparing to +leave for the United States. + +Representative FORD. That was the only difficulty you had? + +Mrs. OSWALD. Yes. + +Representative FORD. Was your vacation trip to Kharkov--was that a +vacation, or did that result from any marital difficulty? + +Mrs. OSWALD. My aunt invited me to Kharkov, and that is why I went. It +was not the result of any marital difficulties. + +Representative FORD. You testified a few minutes ago, Mrs. Oswald, that +there was a difference in the historic diary and what Lee Oswald told +you concerning the status of his application for Soviet citizenship. +You have read the historic diary? + +Mrs. OSWALD. I have only read what the FBI agents translated, those +parts of the diary which were translated into Russian by the FBI. + +Representative FORD. Was that much of it or a small part of it? + +Mrs. OSWALD. It was the part about his attempt at suicide. + +Representative FORD. And also the part concerning the status of his +Soviet citizenship? + +Mrs. OSWALD. I think that that is the part which deals with his +application for Soviet citizenship. I don't know of any other parts of +the diary in which this would be set forth. + +Representative FORD. You have no idea of when he wrote the historic +diary? + +Mrs. OSWALD. I don't know when he began, but I know that after we were +married he spent the evenings writing his diary. I think that is the +reason why he didn't want me to study English while we were still in +Russia, because he didn't want me to be able to read his diary. + +Representative FORD. He never read you the diary in Russian? + +Mrs. OSWALD. No. + +Representative FORD. On the trip back to the United States, Lee Oswald +wrote on the Holland-American Line paper some additional comments. Did +you see him write this on the trip? + +Mrs. OSWALD. I saw him writing this when we were in the cabin on the +ship. I thought they were just letters, though, and I didn't read them. +He didn't write these when I was around. + +Representative FORD. He didn't write them while you were present? + +Mrs. OSWALD. No. + +Mr. REDLICH. I might mention for the record that this document has +already been introduced as Commission Exhibit No. 25. + +Representative FORD. If you didn't see him write it in the cabin how +did you know he wrote it? + +Mrs. OSWALD. In the first place, because the paper was from the +Holland-American Line, and then I think--in the second place, because I +saw these pages covered with writing in the cabin, and I think that he +must have gone some place else on the ship, such as the library, to do +the actual writing. + +Representative FORD. Have you read that which he wrote on the ship? + +Mrs. OSWALD. No; I have not read them, because I don't understand +English. + +Representative FORD. He never read it to you in Russian? + +Mrs. OSWALD. No. + +Representative FORD. At any time on the trip back, from the time you +started to leave the Soviet Union until you arrived in the United +States, did you have any trouble at the border of the Soviet Union or +any other country? + +Mrs. OSWALD. We had no difficulty with the authorities of any kind +on any border. I think that my husband may have had some financial +difficulties in New York, when he arrived. + +Representative FORD. You left the Soviet Union by what means, now? + +Mrs. OSWALD. Train and boat. + +Representative FORD. You went from the Soviet Union to Poland by train? + +Mrs. OSWALD. We took a train from Moscow to Amsterdam, through Poland +and Germany. + +Representative FORD. You had no difficulty going into Poland, going +through Germany? + +Mrs. OSWALD. No. + +Representative FORD. Or into Holland? + +Mrs. OSWALD. No. And there were no difficulties in our entering the +United States, either. + +Representative FORD. When you were living at Elsbeth Street, did you +and Lee have any domestic trouble? + +Mrs. OSWALD. Yes. + +Representative FORD. Could you relate how frequently and how serious +they were? + +Mrs. OSWALD. The first difficulty we had was at Elsbeth Street when I +told the landlady that I was from Russia. My husband had told her that +I was from Czechoslovakia, and he became very angry with me for telling +her I was from Russia, and said that I talked too much. + +Representative FORD. That was the first incident? + +Mrs. OSWALD. Yes. + +Representative FORD. Were there others? + +Mrs. OSWALD. Then we had difficulties because I had a number of Russian +friends in Elsbeth Street, around there, in Dallas, and he was jealous +of me, and didn't want me to see them. + +Representative FORD. During this time, did he physically abuse you? Did +he hit you? + +Mrs. OSWALD. Yes. + +Representative FORD. Did Mr. De Mohrenschildt reprimand Lee for his +abuse to you? + +Mrs. OSWALD. I don't know. He didn't support this. He didn't favor this +conduct of my husband's. But I don't think he ever said anything to him +about it, or told him that he shouldn't do it. + +Representative FORD. Mr. De Mohrenschildt didn't say anything to Lee +Oswald in your presence about his abuse towards you? + +Mrs. OSWALD. No; not in my presence. + +Representative FORD. Did Mr. De Mohrenschildt take you to Mellers, was +it? + +Mrs. OSWALD. Anna Meller--no; he did not. + +Representative FORD. Mr. De Mohrenschildt did not take you there? + +Mrs. OSWALD. No; we had a quarrel, and I took the child and took a +taxi, and went by myself there. + +Representative FORD. Did you have money to pay for a taxi? + +Mrs. OSWALD. Anna Meller paid for the taxi. + +Representative FORD. When you got to Anna Meller's? + +Mrs. OSWALD. Yes. + +Representative FORD. I believe that is all, Mr. Chairman. + +The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Dulles, do you have any questions? + +Mr. DULLES. A couple, Mr. Chief Justice. + +You have described this morning briefly the manner of your life in +Minsk. I wonder if you would also now discuss that in the United +States. What did you do with your leisure time, how did Oswald handle +his leisure time when he wasn't working? + +I am speaking of your stays in Dallas, Fort Worth, and New Orleans. + +Mrs. OSWALD. My life in the United States was not quite as carefree +as it had been in the Soviet Union. I was occupied all the time with +housework, and I couldn't go anywhere. Lee spent a good deal of time +reading. + +Mr. DULLES. Were you together most of the time? + +Mrs. OSWALD. Yes. + +Mr. DULLES. So that you knew where Lee was. Lee wasn't away on trips +much of the time, except for his trip to Mexico, and when he was absent +in New Orleans? + +Mrs. OSWALD. That is correct. We were together. + +Mr. DULLES. Do you know what he was reading in those days? + +Mrs. OSWALD. He read nonfiction almost entirely and mainly historical +works. + +Mr. DULLES. Was he reading Russian books or mostly English books? + +Mrs. OSWALD. He could read Russian, but he read only English works. + +Mr. DULLES. Was he doing much writing in this period, during the +American stay? + +Mrs. OSWALD. When we were living on Elsbeth Street, he wrote something, +and also on Neely Street, I think it was in connection with the Walker, +General Walker incident. + +Mr. DULLES. Do you know what happened to that particular writing? + +Mrs. OSWALD. I know that he destroyed this after the Walker business. + +He had a map of Dallas, and he used to go off by himself and think +about the map, and work on it. I think you have this map in among the +materials of the Commission. He used to work on it, and the least +disturbance used to upset him very much when he was working on this map. + +Mr. DULLES. When you say he used to go away, do you mean go away in the +house or outside the house with the map? + +Mrs. OSWALD. In the house, in the kitchen, and would tell me not to +come in, not to make any noise at all. + +Mr. DULLES. Could you specify as to time and date, as to about when he +acquired this map and began this study of the map? + +Mrs. OSWALD. Could I ask the Commission just when we were living on +Elsbeth Street, since I have forgotten? + +Mr. REDLICH. November 1962 to March 1963. November 3, 1962 to March 2, +1963. + +Mrs. OSWALD. I think it was at the end of January, it was after New +Years. I think he had a map all the time, but he started becoming +particularly occupied with it at the end of January 1963. + +Mr. DULLES. 1963? + +Mrs. OSWALD. Yes. + +Mr. DULLES. Did Oswald, to your knowledge, have friends, associates, +other men whom he saw, in addition to the considerable number whom +you have described as your friends in Dallas and Fort Worth, whom you +have already described? Did he have any business friends or any other +friends you can think of that used to come to the house? + +Mrs. OSWALD. No one, except for my friends whom I have already told you +about. + +Mr. DULLES. That is all I have, Mr. Chief Justice. + +The CHAIRMAN. Congressman, did you have any more? + +Mr. DULLES. I was speaking of the United States. + +Mrs. OSWALD. Yes; he told me that he was working on this map in +connection with the bus schedules. He had a kind of bus schedule, +and--a paper with bus schedules on it, and he was somehow comparing +them or working on them, or doing something with these two documents. + +The CHAIRMAN. Congressman Ford? + +Representative FORD. When you left the Soviet Union, Lee borrowed money +from the U.S. Government to pay for your transportation back to the +United States. Did you have any other money of your own at that time? + +Mrs. OSWALD. We had--it is permissible to exchange a certain amount of +Soviet rubles into American dollars in such cases, and we did exchange +some Soviet rubles--I think about $180 worth--when we left. But that +wasn't enough to pay the whole trip. + +Representative FORD. Lee had borrowed from the Government approximately +$600? + +Mr. RANKIN. $450, and then the exchange made a total of $600 and +something. + +Representative FORD. This $180 was used with the State Department money +for the transportation and the funds for the trip? + +Mrs. OSWALD. I don't know, since my husband took care of that whole +matter. He never talked about money with me. + +Representative FORD. Would you describe one of the border crossings? +What did the Government officials do when you went from Poland into +Germany, for example? Tell us what actually happened. + +Mrs. OSWALD. The train stopped and people come in and check your +documents. + +On the Russian border, of course, people come in and look at your +bags--that is to say, they don't rifle through everything, but they +pick things at random and look at them. + +Representative FORD. Did Lee carry all the documents? + +Mrs. OSWALD. He carried all the documents, since I had the baby to look +after. + +Representative FORD. At the Polish-German border, did they actually +examine the documents? + +Mrs. OSWALD. More carefully between Russia and Poland than between +Poland and Germany. + +Representative FORD. Did Lee make any acquaintances on the train and +the boat? + +Mrs. OSWALD. No. + +Representative FORD. Did---- + +Mrs. OSWALD. On the boat there were two Rumanian girls we talked with, +since I had studied a little bit of Moldavian before, which is similar +to Russian, and could speak a little. And on that basis we met and +talked a little. + +Representative FORD. Did George De Mohrenschildt at any time take you +any place from the Elsbeth Street residence? + +Mrs. OSWALD. Only to his house. + +Representative FORD. Did Lee accompany you at that time? + +Mrs. OSWALD. Yes; once he took us both home to see his daughter. He +took us--took me to see his daughter, at a time when I was living in +Fort Worth, and Lee was living in Dallas. I might be confused about +just who went, and when. + +Representative FORD. But he only took you once from one place to his +house? + +Mrs. OSWALD. No; we went several times to his house. Maybe two or three +times. + +Representative FORD. Did Lee accompany you on any of these occasions? + +Mrs. OSWALD. Mr. De Mohrenschildt took us once to the Ford's house. It +was on New Year's, I think, Katya Ford's house. It was either Christmas +or New Year's. I don't think that Mr. De Mohrenschildt is as dangerous +as he sounds. This is my personal opinion. + +Representative FORD. I wasn't implying that he was dangerous. I was +just trying to---- + +Mrs. OSWALD. He talks all the time. Did he appear before the Commission +or not? + +Mr. RANKIN. We have his testimony. + +Representative FORD. I have nothing further. + +The CHAIRMAN. I think that is all, Mrs. Oswald. Thank you very much. + +Mr. McKENZIE. I have some questions, if I may. + +The CHAIRMAN. Yes; Mr. McKenzie. + +Mr. McKENZIE. You mentioned earlier, in response to some question, that +your husband had stated that the Soviet Government wanted him to become +a Soviet citizen, but that his diary says the opposite. + +When did you first learn that the Soviet Government wanted Lee Harvey +Oswald to become a Soviet citizen? + +Mrs. OSWALD. I heard this 3 months after we were married, from Lee. + +Mr. McKENZIE. Did any Soviet---- + +Mr. DULLES. Who did you hear it from? + +Mrs. OSWALD. From Lee. + +Mr. McKENZIE. Did any Soviet Government official come to see you or Lee +after you were married, and visit with you? + +Mrs. OSWALD. No. + +Mr. McKENZIE. Did Lee, from time to time, have to report to any Soviet +Government agency after you were married? + +Mrs. OSWALD. Yes. + +Mr. McKENZIE. And how often did he make a report to a government +official or to a government agency? + +Mrs. OSWALD. He had to go every month or every 3 months. I don't +remember how often. It was either every month or every 2 or 3 and get a +stamp in his residence permit. + +Mr. McKENZIE. And how long would he be gone on those occasions from +home, or from work? + +Mrs. OSWALD. About half an hour. + +Mr. McKENZIE. You have mentioned that he had Cuban friends and friends +from the Argentine in Minsk. Did he ever have any Mexican friends in +Minsk? + +Mrs. OSWALD. No. + +Mr. McKENZIE. Did he ever mention to you anyone that he knew in Mexico, +either from Cuba or from the Soviet Union or from any other place, any +name of anyone? + +Mrs. OSWALD. He might have had some, but I don't know anything about +any of them. He never mentioned it. + +Mr. McKENZIE. It has been reported that--in the papers--that at the +time you left New Orleans, or at the time that Lee Harvey Oswald left +New Orleans, that he had two books on Marxism and a fiction book +written by Ian Fleming called "To Russia With Love." Do you recall +seeing that book there in the apartment? + +Mrs. OSWALD. I only knew about the two books on Marxism and Leninism. I +don't know anything about this third one. + +Mr. McKENZIE. And those books you know about, were they books from the +public library in New Orleans? + +Mrs. OSWALD. I think these were his own private possession. I think he +had even a book in English when he was in Russia on Marxism. + +Mr. McKENZIE. After your arrival in the United States, and after you +had left Fort Worth, and had moved into your own apartment, did your +husband have any money? + +Mrs. OSWALD. When he left Dallas for Fort Worth? + +Mr. McKENZIE. Yes. + +Mrs. OSWALD. I think he had some money saved up. He always was saving +money for a rainy day. + +(At this point, Representative Ford withdrew from the hearing room.) + +Mr. McKENZIE. From what source did he save that money? Where did the +money come from? + +Mrs. OSWALD. Only from his salary, from his wages. + +Mr. McKENZIE. When he was not working, did he have any other source of +money, or did he have money? + +Mrs. OSWALD. When he wasn't working, he got some unemployment +compensation from the place where he had been working. + +Mr. McKENZIE. Did he ever receive money to your knowledge from any +other sources, other than from the Government or from his work? + +Mrs. OSWALD. The only sources I know of were the companies where he +worked. + +Mr. McKENZIE. Who did your husband consider as good friends of his in +Dallas, Tex.? + +Mrs. OSWALD. He was most friendly with George De Mohrenschildt. +However, this is not a very nice thing to say for Mr. De +Mohrenschildt's reputation. This has been--had a harmful effect on Mr. +De Mohrenschildt's reputation as a result of the assassination, the +fact that he was friendly with my husband. + +Mr. McKENZIE. Did your husband have any other good friends? For +example, did he consider Michael Paine a good friend of his? + +Mrs. OSWALD. No; he didn't like Michael Paine. Therefore, I was +surprised when they went to this meeting together. Perhaps they became +friends after this. But it didn't seem so to me. He didn't show it to +me. + +Mr. McKENZIE. Did your husband ever give you money or did you ever +handle money in caring for the household, or did he take care of the +money? + +Mrs. OSWALD. He never gave me any money. We would go shopping together, +and he would make all the payments. + +Mr. McKENZIE. Were there not times when you didn't have enough money +and food in the house, and friends had to help you? + +Mrs. OSWALD. It never happened that there was no food in the house and +that friends had to help us. The only time when this might have been +the case was immediately after our arrival in the United States, when +I gave some Russian lessons to Mr. Gregory and his son, and he paid +me for it. And once after we arrived Mr. George Bouhe saw that I was +rather thin and took us to a grocery store and bought us a lot of stuff. + +Mr. McKENZIE. And did Mr. George Bouhe or Mrs. Ford have to take you to +the hospital at one time or another? + +Mrs. OSWALD. No. + +Mr. McKENZIE. For June? + +Mrs. OSWALD. Not Mrs. Ford and not Mr. Bouhe. + +Mr. McKENZIE. Who was it? + +Mrs. OSWALD. Lydia Dymitruk took me to the hospital. + +Mr. McKENZIE. That is all I have, Mr. Chief Justice. + +The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mrs. Oswald, I think that will be all. + +Mr. McKENZIE. Mr. Chief Justice, before we close for the day I do have +one request I would like to make of the Commission on the record. + +The CHAIRMAN. Yes. + +Mr. McKENZIE. On behalf of Mrs. Oswald, I would like to have returned +to her the original or original copies of all letters which she has +previously furnished to the Commission, diaries, pictures, or any +personal property of Lee Harvey Oswald that was presented to the +Commission, including his personal effects and his diary, in particular +his wedding ring, a watch, belt buckles, or any personal effects +belonging to either Lee Harvey Oswald or Mrs. Oswald that have been +presented as original exhibits to the Commission. + +The CHAIRMAN. The Commission will consider that in connection with all +the other things that you asked for in connection with her writings. + +Mr. McKENZIE. And may I respectfully ask this. In the Commission's +consideration of our request, in connection with the original +instruments or documents, or whatever it may be, do you at this time +have any idea how long it would be before the Commission would decide? + +The CHAIRMAN. Well, I think---- + +Mr. McKENZIE. Mind you, I ask that as respectfully as I possibly can. + +The CHAIRMAN. Well, I answer you as well as I can. We are driving to +conclude the work of the Commission, and we believe that it will be +completed in the next month--we hope so, anyway. + +Mr. McKENZIE. Of course she has no objection whatsoever for the +Commission to have the documents which it now has as long as the +originals are returned to her. + +The CHAIRMAN. We will give consideration to that, because there are +some things that are evidence here, that belonged to him, that perhaps +will have to remain evidence. I can't make any analysis of all of those +things at the present time. But, for instance, let us say, the gun. + +Mr. McKENZIE. We want that, too. + +The CHAIRMAN. I say, we will give consideration to that. But I cannot +give you any assurance of it at this time. + +Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Chief Justice, I would like to have the record show at +this point--we have no objection to what you propose and say we should +do about supplying new copies of material, but I don't want the record +to indicate we took their copies away from them, because we understand +their manager and former counsel kept the copies or the originals, and +have them. So that we are not just taking them for ourselves. I don't +want the record to appear---- + +Mr. McKENZIE. Mr. Rankin, I would not have the record reflect that, +either. And I say that at all times that they were voluntarily given +to the Commission. And the only thing I am asking for is a return of +everything Mrs. Oswald has previously furnished the Commission, with +the understanding that the Commission has the copies of them--she wants +the originals back. In particular, there is a wedding ring that I would +like to ask the Commission to return at this time. + +The CHAIRMAN. Well, these things will have to be considered, all +of them, by the whole Commission, Counsel. But we will give them +consideration. We won't be turning anything back today, because we want +the whole Commission to see what is essential. + +Mr. McKENZIE. Thank you, sir. + +The CHAIRMAN. All right. I think that will be all. The Commission will +adjourn. + +(Whereupon, at 3:35 p.m., the President's Commission recessed.) + + + + +_Tuesday, June 16, 1964_ + +TESTIMONY OF ROBERT ALAN SURREY + +The President's Commission met at 10:15 a.m., on June 16, 1964, at 200 +Maryland Avenue NE., Washington, D.C. + +Present were Chief Justice Earl Warren, Chairman; Senator John Sherman +Cooper, and Representative Hale Boggs, members. + +Also present were J. Lee Rankin, general counsel; and Albert E. Jenner, +Jr., assistant counsel. + +(Members present: Chief Justice Warren, Senator Cooper, and +Representative Boggs.) + + +The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Surrey, we have asked you to come here to testify +concerning two things. The first is we want to ask you concerning the +printing of a publication entitled, "Wanted for Treason" that appeared +on the streets November 22, 1963, in Dallas. And then we propose to ask +you also some questions about the home of General Walker, in connection +with an attempt that was made on his life some time before the 22d of +November. You are prepared to testify, are you? + +Mr. SURREY. I talked to Mr. Jenner. I am prepared to testify as +concerns the Walker episode. I do not wish to testify as concerns the +wanted poster, or the "Wanted for Treason." + +The CHAIRMAN. For what reason--what reason do you assign for not +wanting to? It is not a question of whether a witness wants to testify +here. He is subpenaed to testify, and he must testify unless he has a +privilege. + +Mr. SURREY. I believe that my answers would tend to incriminate me +under the fifth amendment. + +The CHAIRMAN. Very well. You are entitled to raise that question. +And, if you do, that privilege will be respected. But we will ask you +a question concerning it, and if you claim your privilege it will be +respected. And then if you want to testify--are willing to testify +about the other matters, you may do so. + +Would you rise and raise your right hand and be sworn? You solemnly +swear that the testimony you are about to give before this Commission +will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help +you God? + +Mr. SURREY. I do. + +Representative BOGGS. Mr. Chairman, I would suppose that we would not +be limited to one question. If he wants to plead the fifth amendment, +of course that is his privilege. But I would hope that we could ask +him several questions, and if he wants to plead he can plead on each +question. + +The CHAIRMAN. Well, on any phase of it that you wish to ask him a +question, of course it is all right. + +Mr. Jenner will conduct the examination. + +Mr. SURREY. Is it my understanding that if I do invoke the fifth +amendment to begin with, then I do not have the privilege of later on +invoking it, is that correct? + +The CHAIRMAN. Well, I believe it is a fact that on any phase of your +testimony, if you testify in part about that phase, you can be required +to testify fully concerning it. But if there is one phase of your +testimony that you want to claim the privilege on, and are willing +to testify as to other matters not connected with it, you can do so +without waiving your privilege. Does that answer your question? + +Mr. SURREY. Yes, sir. + +The CHAIRMAN. Very well. Mr. Jenner? + +Mr. JENNER. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice. + +Mr. Chief Justice, I offer in evidence as Commission Exhibit No. 995 +the original of the subpena served upon Mr. Surrey. + +The CHAIRMAN. Yes. A subpena was served on you, was it, Mr. Surrey? + +Mr. SURREY. Yes; it was. + +The CHAIRMAN. Very well, it may be admitted. + +(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 995 for +identification, and received in evidence.) + +Mr. JENNER. You are appearing in response to the subpena? + +Mr. SURREY. Yes; I am. + +Mr. JENNER. Were you furnished with copies of the Senate joint +resolution, or legislation which created--authorized the creation of +the Commission? + +Mr. SURREY. At a previous time; yes. + +Mr. JENNER. And President Johnson's Executive order, and the rules and +regulations of the Commission as to taking of testimony? + +Mr. SURREY. Yes; I was. It was hard to read them. + +Mr. JENNER. Yes; they are a little bit difficult to read. + +In order that you may exercise the rights that you have indicated to +the Chief Justice, I will question you first about the pamphlet, after +asking you the preliminary questions as to your name. + +Mr. SURREY. Robert Alan Surrey. + +Mr. JENNER. And what is your address? + +Mr. SURREY. 3506 Lindenwood, Dallas, Tex. + +Mr. JENNER. How long have you resided there? + +Mr. SURREY. Eight years. + +Mr. JENNER. And what is your age? + +Mr. SURREY. Thirty-eight. + +Mr. JENNER. Where were you born? + +Mr. SURREY. Oak Park, Ill. + +Mr. JENNER. When did you move to Texas? + +Mr. SURREY. First moved there in 1948, and then left for 2 years, from +1951 to 1953, and then moved back to Texas. + +Mr. JENNER. You are a college graduate; are you not? + +Mr. SURREY. Yes; I am. + +Mr. JENNER. What university or college? + +Mr. SURREY. Northwestern. + +Mr. JENNER. In Evanston, Ill? + +Mr. SURREY. Yes. + +Mr. JENNER. When did you receive your degree? + +Mr. SURREY. 1948. + +Mr. JENNER. You are married? + +Mr. SURREY. Yes; I am. + +Mr. JENNER. Is Mrs. Surrey a native born American? + +Mr. SURREY. Yes; she is a Dallasite. + +Mr. JENNER. She is a Dallas girl? + +Mr. SURREY. Yes. + +Mr. JENNER. What is your business, occupation, or profession? + +Mr. SURREY. I am a printing salesman. + +Mr. JENNER. For what company? + +Mr. SURREY. For Johnson Printing Co. + +Mr. JENNER. Is that located at 2700 North Haskell, in Dallas? + +Mr. SURREY. Yes; it is. + +Mr. JENNER. How long have you been employed by Johnson Printing Co.? + +Mr. SURREY. Seven years. + +Mr. JENNER. Would you tell us in a general way what Johnson Printing +Co. does? I appreciate the name in the title of the company indicates +printing, but what kind? + +Mr. SURREY. Commercial printing, advertising printing, house +organs--just general commercial work. + +Mr. JENNER. Did you have some military service? + +Mr. SURREY. Yes; I did. + +Mr. JENNER. Would you state what it was? + +Mr. SURREY. I was 4 years in the Navy, in World War II. + +Mr. JENNER. Are you also the president of a book publishing company +located in Dallas? + +Mr. SURREY. The American Eagle Publishing Co? + +Mr. JENNER. Yes, sir. + +Mr. SURREY. Yes; I am. + +Mr. JENNER. The only volume I have seen--there was a publication of +reprints of newspaper stories. + +Mr. SURREY. Called the Assassination Story, yes, sir. + +Mr. JENNER. And your name appeared, I think, in that as the president +of the company. + +Mr. SURREY. A cover letter that was on the back cover. + +Mr. JENNER. And---- + +Mr. SURREY. This was not our only publication. We have done many +publications before that. + +Representative BOGGS. Do we have a copy of this publication? + +Mr. JENNER. Of this particular one? + +Mr. SURREY. Mr. Alger's office came to me and requested two copies for +the Warren Commission, which I furnished to him. + +Representative BOGGS. Whose office? + +Mr. SURREY. Congressman Bruce Alger's office. + +Representative BOGGS. Did we make such a request through Congressman +Alger? + +Mr. JENNER. I am not advised as to whether we did or not. + +Mr. RANKIN. I am quite sure we did not. + +The CHAIRMAN. Did we receive any such copies? + +Mr. JENNER. There is none among our exhibits in the exhibit room. + +Mr. SURREY. His secretary called, and they came out to the house and +got two copies of it. + +Representative BOGGS. How long ago was this? + +Mr. SURREY. Oh, I would say 3 weeks. + +Representative BOGGS. When did you publish this book? + +Mr. SURREY. I believe it was finally ready on January 1, right after +January 1--January 1, 2, or 3, right in that area. + +Representative BOGGS. What does the book allege? + +Mr. SURREY. We took the 10-day period following the assassination from +both Dallas papers, the Dallas Morning News, and Dallas Times Herald, +and just all the clippings pertaining to it were in chronological +order, and just shot them cold, and published them. + +Representative BOGGS. Nothing else--just newspaper clippings? + +Mr. SURREY. Just newspaper clippings. + +Representative BOGGS. No editorial comment of any kind? + +Mr. SURREY. Outside of the letter on the back; no. + +Representative BOGGS. And what is the letter on the back? + +Mr. SURREY. It said--this is just to the best of my knowledge, I +don't recall exactly--"This is the local report of what happened when +President Kennedy was assassinated. It is difficult to muzzle a local +reporter in his own local paper. And we feel that some of the news that +might not get out would be included in this book. We do not guarantee +the accuracy of the information, but it will pose some questions, a +few perhaps that the Warren Commission will not see fit to answer," I +believe was in there. + +Representative BOGGS. Not see fit to what? + +Mr. SURREY. To answer. + +Representative BOGGS. What was the implication of that? + +Mr. SURREY. The implication being, as I see it, in Dallas--a local +reporter--this is, for example. A local reporter from the Times +Herald went down to the Western Union office several days after the +assassination, and was told by the people in the Western Union office +that, yes, they remembered Oswald, he had been in, he had gotten money +orders, either the day before or just recently he had sent a wire to +somebody, and they recalled his Swahili handwriting, and so forth. +Well, I feel that surely Western Union knows who sent Oswald money, and +so forth. Now, I don't know if this will come out of this Commission or +not. + +Representative BOGGS. The implication was that this Commission would +not investigate these allegations? + +Mr. SURREY. No--perhaps. + +Representative BOGGS. Well, what did you mean by the word "muzzle"? + +Mr. SURREY. Of the press? + +Representative BOGGS. You used "muzzle" in this letter--written. I +don't have the letter before me. I would like to have it. + +Mr. SURREY. I don't, either. I would like to know what the exact +wording was on it, sir. + +Representative BOGGS. Did you write it? + +Mr. SURREY. Yes. + +Representative BOGGS. And the implication was that this Commission +would not seek out the entire truth of the incidences arising---- + +Mr. SURREY. Oh, no, sir; this was not the implication of the muzzling. +This was not the implication. + +Representative BOGGS. What was the implication of the statement you +made a moment ago, about questions that would not be asked by this +Commission? + +Mr. SURREY. News happens in an area, and after it has been up to the +national news system, and then comes back through, and analyzed and so +forth, I don't put full credit any longer. + +Representative BOGGS. Your theory is that in a matter as significant as +the assassination of the President of the United States, that the news +as reported outside of Dallas would be untruthful? + +Mr. SURREY. Possibly. + +Representative BOGGS. Is that the substance of the book? + +Mr. SURREY. No. No; the substance of the book is strictly newspaper +clippings. + +Representative BOGGS. Plus a letter. + +Mr. SURREY. The letter is on the back cover of the book, just a cover +letter. + +Representative BOGGS. Tell me more about what the letter says. + +Mr. SURREY. I would much rather have the letter. I don't recall exactly +what it does say, sir. + +The CHAIRMAN. Did you write it yourself, or did somebody write it for +you? + +Mr. SURREY. I wrote it myself. + +The CHAIRMAN. You don't remember what you wrote? + +Mr. SURREY. No; not as per specific words, I do not. + +Representative BOGGS. Well, not specific words. The sense. + +Mr. SURREY. You picked the specific word "muzzling" out of it. + +Representative BOGGS. You used that word; I didn't use it. "Muzzle" +when you refer to a bipartisan Commission, established by the President +of the United States, with a mandate to obtain the truth, is a rather +serious word. I didn't use it--you used it. + +Mr. SURREY. Based on some past experience that I have had--I was in +Oxford, Miss., with General Walker. Based on past experience of the +newspaper reports I heard coming out of national news media on that +incident, which I saw with my own eyes, I could not believe any longer +things which I read in the newspaper. + +Now, the local paper there--and I was not privileged to read the local +papers at the time--may have had some of the truth that went on there. +But there certainly wasn't a good deal of it coming out in the national +news media. + +Senator COOPER. Did you select the clippings that were in the book? + +Mr. SURREY. Pardon? + +Senator COOPER. Did you select the newspaper clippings? + +Mr. SURREY. No; I did not. + +Senator COOPER. Who selected them? + +Mr. SURREY. A couple named Osburn that lived in Dallas. + +Senator COOPER. Who are they? + +Mr. SURREY. Just some people that live in Dallas. + +Senator COOPER. Do you know their names? + +Mr. SURREY. Just Osburn. + +Senator COOPER. Do you know their address? + +Mr. SURREY. No; I do not. + +The CHAIRMAN. How did you happen to be associated with them? + +Mr SURREY. Mrs. Osburn works at Walker's offce. + +The CHAIRMAN. You are speaking of General Walker? + +Mr. SURREY. Yes. + +Representative BOGGS. Well, now, go ahead. I would request, Mr. +Chairman, that this book and this letter be made a part of the record +of this Commission. + +The CHAIRMAN. Will you supply us with a copy of the book? + +Mr. SURREY. If I have one, sir. They are out of print. And I don't +know---- + +The CHAIRMAN. Are they all sold? + +Mr. SURREY. Well, we were going into reprint, right at that particular +time the attorney from the Times Herald called and put a cease and +desist on them. + +The CHAIRMAN. How many copies did you have printed? + +Mr. SURREY. 3,000. + +The CHAIRMAN. Were they sold? + +Mr. SURREY. Some of them were; yes, sir. + +The CHAIRMAN. How many were sold? + +Mr. SURREY. I would say about 900 to a thousand. + +The CHAIRMAN. What became of the rest of them? + +Mr. SURREY. They were sent to our presubscriber list, and given away. + +The CHAIRMAN. Is this company that published them a corporation? + +Mr. SURREY. No; it is a partnership. + +The CHAIRMAN. Who are the partners? + +Mr. SURREY. Myself and General Walker. + +The CHAIRMAN. And General Walker? + +Representative BOGGS. Was this pamphlet that you printed included in +the book? + +Mr. JENNER. Excuse me. That is---- + +Representative BOGGS. "Wanted for Treason"? + +Mr. JENNER. Commission Exhibit No. 996. + +Mr. SURREY. No. + +Representative BOGGS. That was not included? + +Mr. SURREY. No. + +Representative BOGGS. You didn't make that a part of the record of the +events surrounding the assassination of President Kennedy? + +Mr. SURREY. I did not make it a part of the record? + +Representative BOGGS. In this record that you published. + +Mr. SURREY. I had nothing to do with making it a part of the record. + +Representative BOGGS. You published the book, didn't you? + +Mr. SURREY. Yes; but these were newspaper reprints. + +Representative BOGGS. You published this, too, didn't you? + +Mr. SURREY. No, sir. + +Representative BOGGS. You didn't publish it? + +Mr. SURREY. No, sir. + +The CHAIRMAN. You are speaking of the book now? + +Representative BOGGS. I am talking about your printing company. + +Mr. SURREY. You are talking about my printing company? + +Representative BOGGS. The company you work for. + +Mr. SURREY. Yes, Johnson Printing Co. + +Representative BOGGS. Didn't you publish this? + +Mr. SURREY. No. + +Representative BOGGS. Who printed it? + +Mr. SURREY. I decline to answer on the grounds it may tend to +incriminate me. + +Representative BOGGS. Mr. Chairman, I, of course, fully appreciate +the right of the witness to plead the fifth amendment. But I would +simply like to make the observation that this is the only witness out +of hundreds who has pled the fifth amendment, and that obviously if +each witness had done this, then the charge of being muzzled would be +something that we would really be confronted with. I would simply like +to make that observation. + +The CHAIRMAN. You may proceed, Mr. Jenner. + +Mr. JENNER. Thank you. Does the American Eagle Publishing Co. have a +bookstore subsidiary or outlet? + +Mr. SURREY. No; we do not. + +Mr. JENNER. What is the American Eagle Book Store? + +Mr. SURREY. There is no American Eagle Book Store. + +The CHAIRMAN. Do you have a headquarters? + +Mr. SURREY. No, sir. + +The CHAIRMAN. Do you have a telephone? + +Mr. SURREY. No, sir. + +The CHAIRMAN. Are you listed with the local authorities under a +fictitious or assumed name? + +Mr. SURREY. Yes--doing business as? + +The CHAIRMAN. Doing business as, yes. + +Mr. SURREY. Yes. + +The CHAIRMAN. And the names given are yourself and General Walker? + +Mr. SURREY. Yes, sir. + +The CHAIRMAN. Where is that filed--with your county clerk? + +Mr. SURREY. County clerk in Dallas. + +Mr. JENNER. We have talked about General Walker. That is General Edwin +A. Walker, now resigned? + +Mr. SURREY. Yes, sir. + +Mr. JENNER. And do you know a Robert G. Krause? + +Mr. SURREY. I refuse to answer on the grounds the answer may tend to +incriminate me. + +Mr. JENNER. Was he not formerly employed by Johnson Printing Co.? + +Mr. SURREY. I refuse to answer for the same reason. + +Representative BOGGS. Excuse me. Mr. Chief Justice--we will have +testimony from Mr. Krause, I presume? + +Mr. JENNER. Yes; do you know of a company, a printing company, +Lettercraft Printing Co.? + +Mr. SURREY. I refuse to answer--same reason. + +The CHAIRMAN. For the reason it would tend to incriminate you? + +Mr. SURREY. Yes, sir. + +Mr. JENNER. Did you not prepare the copy for Commission Exhibit No. 996? + +Mr. SURREY. I decline to answer on the same reason; that it would tend +to incriminate me. + +Mr. JENNER. And, in turn, turn that copy over to Robert G. Krause, of +the Lettercraft Printing Co. for reproduction? + +Mr. SURREY. I decline to answer, same reason. + +(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 996 for +identification.) + +Mr. JENNER. Exhibiting again Exhibit No.--Commission Exhibit No. 996 to +you, you will notice a front and profile view of President Kennedy. Did +you bring to Robert Krause photographs of which this is a reproduction? + +Mr. SURREY. I decline to answer on the grounds it may incriminate me. + +Mr. JENNER. In fact, did you not bring to Robert G. Krause two slick +paper magazine photographs of President Kennedy and request and engage +him to make photographs of the slick paper magazine photos for the +purpose of reproduction? + +Mr. SURREY. I decline to answer; same reason. + +Mr. JENNER. And did you not pay Robert G. Krause and his wife for +printing some 5,000 to 10,000 of these handbills, of which Commission +Exhibit No. 996 is a copy? + +Mr. SURREY. I decline to answer on the grounds it may incriminate me. + +Mr. JENNER. Did you thereafter--did you not in fact thereafter, +yourself--well, I will ask you first--yourself, distribute duplicates +of Exhibit No. 996 in and about the streets of Dallas, Tex., on +November 22 and days preceding? + +Mr. SURREY. Point of order. Can I ask a question? If I now answer one +or two in through here, does this---- + +The CHAIRMAN. Well, this is connected with the entire situation--the +publication, the distribution of it is one and the same subject matter, +I would think. + +Mr. SURREY. I decline to answer on the grounds it may incriminate me. + +Mr. JENNER. Mr. Chief Justice, I might bring this out. Having received +the rules and regulations of the Commission with respect to the taking +of testimony, you are aware of the fact that you are entitled to have +counsel present? + +Mr. SURREY. Yes; I am, sir. + +Mr. JENNER. And you appear without counsel? + +Mr. SURREY. I cannot afford to bring counsel. + +Mr. JENNER. But you do appear without counsel? + +Mr. SURREY. Yes; I do. + +Representative BOGGS. I think, Mr. Chief Justice, the record should +show if this man requested counsel he would be entitled to counsel, +would he not? + +Mr. JENNER. He certainly would. And he has not requested it. + +Representative BOGGS. I just want the record to show that. + +The CHAIRMAN. Yes. + +Senator COOPER. Did you request counsel? + +Mr. SURREY. From whom, sir? + +Senator COOPER. Did you request the Commission to appoint counsel for +you? + +Mr. SURREY. No; I did not. I did not know this was available. + +Representative BOGGS. I might say it is still available. + +Mr. SURREY. Would this be a court-appointed? + +The CHAIRMAN. Beg pardon? + +Mr. SURREY. Would this be a court-appointed attorney? + +The CHAIRMAN. No; it would be an attorney appointed by the Commission. + +Mr. SURREY. Thank you. + +The CHAIRMAN. Proceed, Mr. Jenner. + +Representative BOGGS. You prefer not to have an attorney appointed by +the Commission? + +Mr. SURREY. Yes, sir. + +Representative BOGGS. We might let the record show at this point, also, +that the American Bar Association has been closely associated with the +Commission. + +Mr. SURREY. What does that mean? I mean what is the purpose of that +remark? + +Representative BOGGS. To show that the attorneys appointed are +completely objective. + +Mr. SURREY. I did not imply they were not, sir. + +Mr. JENNER. Do you know Mrs. Clifford Mercer, Dorothy Mercer? + +Mr. SURREY. I decline to answer on the grounds it may incriminate me. + +Mr. JENNER. Do you know Mr. Clifford Mercer? + +Mr. SURREY. I decline to answer; same reason. + +Mr. JENNER. Do you know of a photoengraving company in Dallas, 2027 +Young Street, Monks Bros.? + +Mr. SURREY. I decline to answer on the grounds it may incriminate me. + +Mr. JENNER. Do you know J. T. Monk or J. T. Monk, Jr.? + +Mr. SURREY. I decline to answer, same grounds. + +Mr. JENNER. Did you have one of the workmen, printing workmen, at +Johnson Printing Co., set type for the copy which appears on Commission +Exhibit No. 996? + +Mr. SURREY. I decline to answer on the grounds it may tend to +incriminate me. + +Mr. JENNER. And thereafter, after that type was set, have photographs +made of that type? + +Mr. SURREY. I decline to answer; same reason. + +Mr. JENNER. Do you know Mr. Bernard Weissman? + +Mr. SURREY. No. We are in another field now, I gather. + +Mr. JENNER. Well, I don't want to represent to you that it is. + +Mr. SURREY. I decline to answer on the ground it may tend to +incriminate me. + +Mr. JENNER. Have you had any business relations with a man by the name +of Bernard Weissman? + +Mr. SURREY. If this is in your opinion still part of the +other--concerning these leaflets, then I will plead the fifth amendment. + +Mr. JENNER. Mr. Chief Justice, with the policy of the Commission to be +fully fair to all witnesses, may I respond to the witness and say to +him there is that possibility. + +The CHAIRMAN. There is that possibility; yes--that is a sufficient +statement. + +Mr. JENNER. And being that possibility, do you wish to decline to +answer the question on the ground an answer may tend to incriminate you? + +Mr. SURREY. Yes, sir. + +Mr. JENNER. Mr. Chief Justice, unless you or other members of the +Commission have some questions on this line of examination, I will not +ask further questions with respect to it--unless you gentlemen desire +to ask questions. + +The CHAIRMAN. Any further questions, Congressman Boggs? + +Representative BOGGS. Was anyone associated with you in the publication +of this leaflet? + +Mr. SURREY. I decline to answer on the ground it may tend to +incriminate me. + +The CHAIRMAN. Did General Walker have anything to do with it? + +Mr. SURREY. I decline to answer on the ground it may tend to +incriminate me--but, no. + +The CHAIRMAN. What? Now you have opened that up, sir--if you say--was +your answer no, or is your answer that you claim the privilege? + +Mr. SURREY. My answer is that I claim the privilege, sir. + +The CHAIRMAN. That is different. + +Senator COOPER. May I just ask one question? To return for a moment +to this book that you printed with newspaper clippings--what was your +purpose in printing it? + +Mr. SURREY. As a memento, primarily. + +Senator COOPER. You had no other purpose? + +Mr. SURREY. No, sir. + +Senator COOPER. Didn't you really have the purpose of impugning the +work of this Commission and giving the implication that it would not go +fully and thoroughly into all questions? + +Mr. SURREY. No, sir. This was not the intent; no. + +Representative BOGGS. What was the allegation in the cease and desist +order which was issued against you by the Dallas newspaper? + +Mr. SURREY. That this would be in competition to a book which they +were going to promote--I believe the AP. At the time--the Osburns had +this, and they were gathering it together, and they brought it over +one day, and it looked like a real good idea. Other people had stacks +and stacks of papers. And this was a compilation of clippings of the +paper. And everybody thought it was such a good idea that we thought we +would publish it. So I got it into brownline form, which is a proof, a +preliminary proof--silver prints, you may call them in Washington. + +The CHAIRMAN. For how much did you sell these books a copy? + +Mr. SURREY. We gave them free to our presubscriber list. + +The CHAIRMAN. I didn't ask you that. + +Mr. SURREY. They were $5 per copy. + +The CHAIRMAN. And how many did you say you sold? + +Mr. SURREY. About 900 to a 1,000. + +The CHAIRMAN. What happened to the money? + +Mr. SURREY. It was put into the American Eagle Publishing Co. account. + +The CHAIRMAN. Do you have a regular bookkeeping system? + +Mr. SURREY. Yes, sir. + +The CHAIRMAN. And those figures would be available, showing how many +you had sold, would they? + +Mr. SURREY. Yes, sir. + +The CHAIRMAN. In your books? + +Mr. SURREY. Yes, sir. + +Representative BOGGS. Is the American Eagle Publishing Co. an +incorporated company? + +Mr. SURREY. No. + +Representative BOGGS. What is it? + +Mr. SURREY. Partnership, sir. + +Representative BOGGS. Who are the partners? + +Mr. SURREY. Myself and General Walker. + +Representative BOGGS. And this presubscription list, how many people on +that? + +Mr. SURREY. I would say 700, 800. + +Representative BOGGS. You publish a newspaper? + +Mr. SURREY. No; we don't. + +Representative BOGGS. What do you publish besides this book? + +Mr. SURREY. Pamphlets--pamphlets. + +Mr. JENNER. You receive part of your income from the American Eagle +Publishing Co.? + +Mr. SURREY. No; I do not. + +Mr. JENNER. You serve as president, but you receive no compensation for +that? + +Mr. SURREY. That is true. + +Mr. JENNER. Would you tell us, please, the address of the American +Eagle Publishing Co.? + +Mr. SURREY. P.O. Box 750, Dallas 21. + +Mr. JENNER. It has no physical office itself--just the post office +address? + +Mr. SURREY. That is correct. That mail comes to my desk at Johnson +Printing Co. That is the same post office box as Johnson Printing Co. + +Mr. JENNER. I see. And where do you keep--where does American +Publishing Co. warehouse or keep or store its pamphlets and books? + +Mr. SURREY. 4011 Turtle Creek Boulevard, Mr. Walker's residence. I have +a room. + +Mr. JENNER. That is General Walker's residence? + +Mr. SURREY. Yes. + +The CHAIRMAN. That is General Walker's residence? + +Mr. SURREY. Yes; it is. + +The CHAIRMAN. Who owns the Johnson Printing Co.? + +Mr. SURREY. It is--the stock is split, four or five different people. + +The CHAIRMAN. A corporation? + +Mr. SURREY. Yes; it is. + +The CHAIRMAN. Who are they? + +Mr. SURREY. Mr. Bryan Snyder is chairman of the board. Mr. Emil Borak +is president, and Mr. Lewis C. Owens is treasurer. I believe some stock +is held by Oliver Snyder, and I have some stock. And Mr. Fallon Snyder. + +The CHAIRMAN. It is a commercial company? + +Mr. SURREY. Yes; it is. + +The CHAIRMAN. Is General Walker connected with it? + +Mr. SURREY. No; he is not. + +The CHAIRMAN. Or with the other people, as far as you know? + +Mr. SURREY. No, sir. + +Mr. JENNER. Is Mr. Borak the general manager of the plant itself? + +Mr. SURREY. No; he is president of the company. + +Mr. JENNER. I see. Who is the general manager of the plant? + +Mr. SURREY. Mr. Owens. + +Mr. JENNER. Mr. Owens. + +Did you acquaint Mr. Owens or Mr. Borak, either of them, with the fact +that you had Commission Exhibit No. 996 printed at the Lettercraft +Printing Co.? + +Mr. SURREY. I decline to answer on the ground it may tend to +incriminate me. + +Mr. JENNER. Did you make either or both of them aware of the fact that +some of the copy or all of the copy with respect to Commission Exhibit +No. 996 was prepared by way of printing at Johnson Printing Co.? + +Mr. SURREY. I decline to answer on the ground it may tend to +incriminate me. + +Mr. JENNER. How many printers do you have at Johnson Printing Co.? + +Mr. SURREY. How many employees? + +Mr. JENNER. No--that operate linotypes or operate these machines that +produce these slugs--what is the name of that kind of machine? + +Mr. SURREY. Well, it would be a monotype or a linotype or a Ludlow. + +Mr. JENNER. Are these lines on Exhibit No. 996 Ludlow productions? + +Mr. SURREY. I decline to answer on the ground it may tend to +incriminate me. + +Mr. JENNER. Who are the Ludlow machine operators at Johnson Printing +Co.? + +Mr. SURREY. Oh, I would say there are probably 10 or 15 that operate +the Ludlow machine. + +Mr. JENNER. Does your recollection serve you to name those who operated +the Ludlow machines any time during the first 22 days of November 1963? +If so, name them. + +Mr. SURREY. I decline to answer on the ground it may tend to +incriminate me. + +Mr. JENNER. Are you able to name any of the linotype operators who were +employed during the first 22 days of November 1963? + +Mr. SURREY. Who were employed at Johnson Printing Co.? + +Mr. JENNER. Yes, sir. + +Mr. SURREY. Well, I gather this has nothing to do with this. So may I +answer? + +Mr. JENNER. I don't want to lead you to believe it doesn't, sir. + +Mr. SURREY. I decline to answer on the ground it may incriminate me. + +Mr. JENNER. From whom was the paper purchased on which appears the +imprinting on the exhibit identified here as Commission Exhibit No. 996. + +Mr. SURREY. I decline to answer on the same grounds. + +Mr. JENNER. Did you see another reproduction of Commission Exhibit No. +996 at any time from the 1st of November 1963 to and including the 22d +of November 1963? + +Mr. SURREY. I decline to answer on the grounds it may incriminate me. + +Mr. JENNER. Mr. Chief Justice, I will now depart from this particular +phase, if that is permissible. + +The CHAIRMAN. Very well. + +Mr. JENNER. I am now going to turn, Mr. Surrey, to the attempt on the +life of General Walker. + +First I would like to have you examine a series of photographs which +purport to be photographs of the area of the Walker house. + +Mr. Chief Justice, may I approach the witness for this purpose? + +The CHAIRMAN. Yes. + +Mr. JENNER. I show the witness Commission Exhibit No. 2, Item No. 7, +and subdivision item No. P-2. Do you see that, sir? + +Mr. SURREY. Yes; I do. + +Mr. JENNER. Examining the subitem, P-2, is the area depicted in that +photograph familiar to you? + +Mr. SURREY. Yes; it is. It is the alley in behind Mr. Walker's +residence, looking west. + +Mr. JENNER. Looking west? + +Mr. SURREY. Yes. + +Mr. JENNER. Would you be able to help us as to an estimate, perhaps +from the nature of the foliage, and your familiarity with the Walker +premises, as to when that photograph might have been taken, as to +season of the year? + +Mr. SURREY. I would say late fall. + +Mr. JENNER. Could it have been the early spring, mid-March, for +example? 1st of March, along in there? + +Mr. SURREY. It could have been; yes. + +Mr. JENNER. Either in the fall, when there is a deleafing or lack of +foliage on trees, or the early spring? + +Mr. SURREY. Yes, sir. + +Mr. JENNER. I show you what purports to be the same thing, also +marked--it is a larger photograph--Commission Exhibit No. 2, Item +No. 7. Directing your attention to the subdivision P-2 you have just +testified about, are they photographs---- + +Mr. SURREY. Basically the same thing. It looks like this one was taken +a little closer to the ground. + +Mr. JENNER. When you say this one, you mean the larger of the two? + +Mr. SURREY. Yes. + +Mr. JENNER. On Commission Exhibit No. 3, Item 14, subitem P-1, +directing your attention to that, you recognize that? + +Mr. SURREY. That is a picture of the back of the residence of 4011 +Turtle Creek. + +Mr. JENNER. General Edwin Walker's home? + +Mr. SURREY. Yes. + +Mr. JENNER. I perhaps should have asked you this: You are familiar with +the area surrounding General Walker's home? + +Mr. SURREY. Yes, I am. + +Mr. JENNER. You have been there a good many times, have you? + +Mr. SURREY. Yes, I have. + +Mr. JENNER. On all sides of the home? + +Mr. SURREY. Yes. + +Mr. JENNER. And are you familiar with the inside of the home? + +Mr. SURREY. Yes; I am. + +Mr. JENNER. And have you worked there from time to time over the years? + +Mr. SURREY. Yes. + +Mr. JENNER. How long have you been associated with General Walker? + +Mr. SURREY. Since the beginning of his campaign, when that was--I think +the spring--about 3 years now. + +The CHAIRMAN. What campaign is that? + +Mr. SURREY. When he ran for Governor of Texas. + +Mr. JENNER. That initiated your association with him? + +Mr. SURREY. Yes, sir. + +Mr. JENNER. And what are your duties in your association with General +Walker? + +Mr. SURREY. I am just a volunteer helper, whatever he needed, volunteer +help in doing, I would help. + +Mr. JENNER. Are you compensated? + +Mr. SURREY. No; I am not. + +Mr. JENNER. You have never received any compensation? + +Mr. SURREY. No; I haven't. + +Mr. JENNER. You have never received any compensation from the +publishing company we have identified that published that book? + +Mr. SURREY. No, sir. + +The CHAIRMAN. Do you handle any funds for General Walker? + +Mr. SURREY. Of General Walker's fund? + +The CHAIRMAN. Yes. + +Mr. SURREY. No, sir. + +The CHAIRMAN. Or any funds---- + +Mr. SURREY. Except what---- + +The CHAIRMAN. Or any funds that come to General Walker? + +Mr. SURREY. No; only that comes to American Eagle Co., which is in +fact, I guess, technically his funds. + +The CHAIRMAN. Well, what funds do come to American Eagle Co.? + +Mr. SURREY. Funds for purchasing of materials, and some donations. That +is it. + +The CHAIRMAN. Outside of donations, how do you get your funds for +publishing? + +Mr. SURREY. From the sale of materials. + +The CHAIRMAN. And the rest of it is all donations? + +Mr. SURREY. Donations are extremely small, as a matter of fact, yes. We +operate on the sale of materials. + +The CHAIRMAN. How much in the aggregate of donations have you had? + +Mr. SURREY. To American Eagle Publishing Co.? + +The CHAIRMAN. Yes. + +Mr. SURREY. I would say a hundred dollars. + +The CHAIRMAN. A hundred dollars? + +Mr. SURREY. Over 2 years or 2-1/2 years. + +The CHAIRMAN. Where did you get the money to publish your book? + +Mr. SURREY. At the beginning of American Eagle Publishing Co., we +started with a backlog of books which had been used in the campaign. +This was Mr. Walker's contribution to the American Eagle Publishing Co. + +The CHAIRMAN. Did General Walker sell his campaign books? + +Mr. SURREY. I don't know if he did or not. + +The CHAIRMAN. Well, you don't pay publishing funds with books, do you? + +Mr. SURREY. From the sale of the books which were turned over to +American Eagle Co. at its inception, from the sale of those books, we +have accumulated funds to go on with others. + +The CHAIRMAN. At its inception, where did you get the money to publish? + +Mr. SURREY. I don't understand your question, sir. + +The CHAIRMAN. Well---- + +Mr. SURREY. At its inception we didn't have any money. + +The CHAIRMAN. When you publish books, you have to have some capital of +some kind. + +Mr. SURREY. The capital was raised from the sale of a book called +"Walker Speaks Unmuzzled" which sells for 35 cents. We started with +that. + +The CHAIRMAN. You published that first? + +Mr. SURREY. No, sir. + +The CHAIRMAN. Who published that? + +Mr. SURREY. I believe General Walker did. + +The CHAIRMAN. And how much money came from the sale of those books? + +Mr. SURREY. I do not know offhand, sir. + +The CHAIRMAN. Approximately. + +Mr. SURREY. We are still selling them. + +The CHAIRMAN. Beg pardon? + +Mr. SURREY. We are still selling them. + +The CHAIRMAN. But you handle the funds, don't you, for the company? + +Mr. SURREY. Yes; but I don't know specific items. + +The CHAIRMAN. Well, I am not asking you for specific items. But I would +like to know approximately how much money. + +Let me put it this way: How much money have you handled for that +company in the last--since it has been established? + +Mr. SURREY. Oh, as a rough estimate, $10,000 to $15,000. + +The CHAIRMAN. And only a hundred dollars of that was contributions from +outsiders? + +Mr. SURREY. I would say that would be it. + +The CHAIRMAN. And was there any of that $10,000 or $15,000 that came +from any individual other than from people who purchased the hooks? + +Mr. SURREY. Yes; at one time the General put some more money into the +company. + +The CHAIRMAN. How much money did he put into it? + +Mr. SURREY. I believe a thousand dollars. + +The CHAIRMAN. That is all? + +Mr. SURREY. Yes. + +The CHAIRMAN. Anybody else put any money into it? + +Mr. SURREY. No, sir. + +The CHAIRMAN. Did you? + +Mr. SURREY. No, sir. + +The CHAIRMAN. Very well. + +Mr. JENNER. Mr. Chief Justice, may I revert to the other subject +matter? I have an additional question I would like to ask. And I warn +the witness in advance I am returning to the pamphlet. + +The CHAIRMAN. Yes. + +Mr. JENNER. Your questions have stimulated me to ask another question. + +The CHAIRMAN. Yes. + +Mr. JENNER. Were any of the funds that reached Eagle Publishing Co. by +way of contributions or proceeds of sale of materials employed or used +to pay for the leaflet, Commission Exhibit No. 996? + +Mr. SURREY. Now, I understand that if I answer that question, it opens +up the whole thing again. So I decline to answer on the grounds it may +incriminate me. + +The CHAIRMAN. Gentlemen, I have asked our Chief Counsel, Mr. Rankin, to +have a search of our files made and our telephone calls to see if we +have received anything from Congressman Alger concerning this book. And +Mr. Rankin, will you report to us what your finding is, please? + +Mr. RANKIN. I had a search made of our files, and any incoming calls +from the Congressman to see if we had received any such material, and +such a search showed that we had not received any such material. I +then called Congressman Alger's office to ask there if there had been +any communication from them, and was informed that they had not sent +anything to us, but that one of the booklets had been given away by +Congressman Alger, and they had one left, and I have sent for that one +to have for our records. + +Representative BOGGS. I would like to see it when it gets here. You +expect it pretty soon? + +Mr. RANKIN. I sent him on the run. + +Representative BOGGS. Good. + +Mr. JENNER. Mr. Surrey, I will return to the General Walker incident +now. + +I would like you particularly to examine the next photograph, which +appears in Commission Exhibit No. 4, Item 6, as subletter P-5. + +This depicts, Mr. Chairman, and gentlemen, a railroad track--in the far +distance a tall building. Is that area at all familiar to you? + +That is undoubtedly the MKT line, or some spur line. + +You are familiar with the MKT line, are you not? + +Mr. SURREY. This I do not recognize the area. + +Mr. JENNER. I will ask you this. Is there a railroad near General +Walker's home? + +Mr. SURREY. Facing out of the house, facing Turtle Creek, across the +creek, and then another half block or so, there is a railroad. + +Mr. JENNER. Within a half a block? + +Mr. SURREY. Well, it would be a full city block to the railroad. +Perhaps even more. I have never been in that area, as a matter of fact. + +Mr. JENNER. Having that in mind, I show you a photograph, aerial view +photograph, which we have marked Commission Exhibit No. 998. + +Mr. Chief Justice, that is a copy of the exhibit. + +That purports to be an aerial photograph taken of the vicinity of +General Walker's residence. And you will notice there is an encircled +building and the designation "A." + +First, do you recognize that general area? + +Mr. SURREY. Yes; I do. + +(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit 998 for +identification.) + +Mr. JENNER. And does the encirclment of the home there appear to be +General Walker's home? + +Mr. SURREY. Yes, sir; it does. I don't see a house that should be in +the corner. + +Mr. JENNER. You say corner--you mean---- + +Mr. SURREY. Right there. + +Mr. JENNER. To the left? + +Mr. SURREY. Yes; there is a house there between Walker's residence and +the next house, and the street here, which is Avondale, I believe. + +Mr. JENNER. And you are talking about the street here--you are pointing +to a street that runs obliquely from left to right towards the upper +corner of the picture? + +Mr. SURREY. Yes. + +Mr. JENNER. To the left of the house encircled as General Walker's +house? + +Mr. SURREY. Yes. Oh, I see, I am sorry. It is much further back from +the street. That is the house. + +Mr. JENNER. Now, the house you say that is next is the one immediately +to the left of the one encircled? + +Mr. SURREY. Yes; I was looking in this area for the houses. That is +correct. That is General Walker's residence, as depicted in the picture. + +Mr. JENNER. And the house to the left is the house you thought at first +was not shown, but in fact it is shown? + +Mr. SURREY. It is. + +Mr. JENNER. And who is the owner of that home? + +Mr. SURREY. I do not know. A doctor. + +Mr. JENNER. A lady doctor? + +Mr. SURREY. Yes; it is a woman, runs the household. + +Mr. JENNER. Dr. Ruth Jackson? + +Mr. SURREY. It sounds familiar, but I do not know. + +Mr. JENNER. Does she have a dog that is sometimes obstreperous, does a +lot of barking? + +Mr. SURREY. Yes; she does. + +Mr. JENNER. You are quite familiar with that fact, are you? + +Mr. SURREY. Yes, sir; I am. + +Mr. JENNER. How and why did you become familiar with that fact? + +Mr. SURREY. Anyone approaching the house, generally her house or +General Walker's house, would be barked at, in the middle of the night +noises. + +Mr. JENNER. And you have approached General Walker's house, I assume, +at night, have you? + +Mr. SURREY. Yes. + +Mr. JENNER. If the dog is out in Dr. Jackson's yard, the dog is alerted +and barks? + +Mr. SURREY. Not so much any more. Evidently he knows who I am now. + +Mr. JENNER. I see. But before the dog became familiar with you, he did +bark? + +Mr. SURREY. Yes, sir. + +Mr. JENNER. What kind of a dog is it, by the way? + +Mr. SURREY. A small Collie, I guess--shaggy, brownish dog. + +Mr. JENNER. Do you recall whether or not at or about the time of the +attempt on General Walker's life that dog became or was ill. + +Mr. SURREY. Yes; it was. This was reported to me. I do not know of +firsthand knowledge. + +Mr. JENNER. I would prefer not to have your hearsay. You have no +knowledge firsthand, however? + +Mr. SURREY. No; I do not. + +Mr. JENNER. Unless, Mr. Chairman, you desire to pursue the hearsay---- + +The CHAIRMAN. No, no. + +Mr. JENNER. Continuing with Exhibit No. 998, and looking at the +footnotes, would you tell us whether that footnoting is accurate--A +through G? + +Mr. SURREY. I am not familiar with Gilbert Street. + +Mr. JENNER. Which is designated as G? + +Mr. SURREY. It very well could be Gilbert Street. I just don't know the +names of those streets. + +Yes; to the best of my knowledge that is accurate. + +Mr. JENNER. There is a tall building to the left, rather nice-looking. +Are you familiar with that building? + +Mr. SURREY. No; there are several new ones going right up in that area. +I think that is the Spa, or something. + +Mr. JENNER. I am referring, Mr. Chief Justice, to the tall building +with a lattice design immediately to the right of the letter "A". + +What did you think that was? + +Mr. SURREY. A new development in there called 21 Turtle Creek, the Spa, +or something. I only know it from newspaper ads. + +Mr. JENNER. I see. Was that building in that condition or being erected +in the spring of 1963? + +Mr. SURREY. If that is the building I think of, it has just been +finished a month or so now. + +Mr. JENNER. How long has it been under construction? + +Mr. SURREY. Possibly a year, a year and a half. + +Mr. JENNER. Does that photograph fairly depict and represent the area +it shows as that area existed in the spring of 1963? + +Mr. SURREY. No; you are missing a Jesuit high school which was here. + +Mr. JENNER. When you say was here, I have to identify the spot to which +you are pointing. And the spot to which you are pointing is the open +field area that is shown immediately to the right of the building we +have identified, near which the letter "A" appears? + +Mr. SURREY. Yes. + +Mr. JENNER. Tell us about that. + +Mr. SURREY. That was the old Jesuit high school, which has been torn +down just recently. I believe just recently finished tearing it down. + +Mr. JENNER. All right. I will identify these other photographs rather +quickly. In each instance, will you look at the photograph and tell us +whether the sub-lettering is correct. + +I have now handed the witness Commission Exhibit No. 999. + +(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 999 for +identification.) + +Mr. SURREY. I believe that to be generally correct. This area of +Walker's residence here is difficult---- + +Mr. JENNER. It is some distance away, and the area of Walker's +residence to which the witness referred is a circle to which the letter +"A" is affixed? + +Mr. SURREY. Yes. + +Mr. JENNER. Otherwise, this is an accurate representation of that area +and as it existed in the spring of 1963? + +Mr. SURREY. Again, the high school is--I don't believe that that Jesuit +high school was to the ground as it shows here, in the spring of 1963. + +Mr. JENNER. I now call your attention to the building that appears +immediately to the right of the circle. + +Mr. SURREY. That is, I believe, the same building that shows in the +previous exhibit. + +Mr. JENNER. Thank you. That is just exactly what I was going to ask +you. All right. Now, would you look at Commission Exhibit No. 1000. + +(The documents referred to were marked Commission Exhibits Nos. 1000 +and 1002 for identification.) + +Mr. JENNER. Are those footnotings correct? + +Mr. SURREY. Yes, sir; I believe they are. + +Mr. JENNER. Would you look at 1002. + +Mr. SURREY. Yes, sir; I believe they are substantially correct. + +Mr. JENNER. All right. For the purposes of the record, Mr. Reporter, +Commission Exhibit No. 1000 also has a sticker on it marked Commission +Exhibit No. 1001. Would you please note in the record we will not be +using Commission Exhibit 1001. It got on there by mistake. Now, you +just covered Exhibit No. 1002. Now, Exhibits Nos. 1003, 1004. + +(The documents referred to were marked Commission Exhibits No. 1003 and +1004, respectively, for identification.) + +Mr. SURREY. Yes; that street previously mentioned was Avondale. That is +the street immediately to the west. + +Mr. JENNER. And it appears on Commission Exhibit No. 1003? + +Mr. SURREY. That is correct. + +Mr. JENNER. Have you yet examined Commission Exhibit No. 1004? + +Mr. SURREY. No; I have not. + +Mr. JENNER. The witness is now examining Commission Exhibit No. 1004. + +The CHAIRMAN. Very well. + +Mr. SURREY. I believe that is correct, sir. + +Mr. JENNER. All right. I will ask you a general question to be sure we +have covered all of these. + +Calling your attention to Commission Exhibits Nos. 998, 999, 1000, +1002, 1003, and 1004, which are aerial photographs--are they aerial +photographs of the vicinity of General Walker's house? + +Mr. SURREY. Yes; they are. + +Mr. JENNER. And do they, except for the high school matter which you +have pointed out to us--do they represent fairly the area as it was in +the spring of 1963? + +Mr. SURREY. Yes, I would say that is generally correct. + +Mr. JENNER. All right, sir. Now, the Commission is interested, Mr. +Surrey, in whether there are some open areas or fields near General +Walker's house in which an object such as a firearm or rifle could be +buried. + +Mr. SURREY. Directly across from in front of the house--of course, +Turtle Creek Boulevard, and across from Turtle Creek Boulevard is +Turtle Creek itself, with a lawn area coming up to the street of 20 to +30 yards in some places. + +Mr. JENNER. Using the blank sheet of paper I hand you, would you just +give us a diagram--a rough diagram of the area of General Walker's +house, so that I can locate the field about which you now speak? + +Mr. SURREY. It is not actually a field. + +Mr. JENNER. And we will mark that as Commission Exhibit No. 1005. + +(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 1005 for +identification.) + +Mr. SURREY. This is Turtle Creek. [Witness draws.] + +Mr. JENNER. Now, is Turtle Creek a street? + +Mr. SURREY. Yes; it is a street, a boulevard. + +Mr. JENNER. All right. + +Mr. SURREY. Mr. Walker's residence is here. [Witness draws.] + +Mr. JENNER. Is the top of this sheet north or south, west or east? When +I say that I refer to Commission Exhibit No. 1005. + +Mr. SURREY. This is north. + +Mr. JENNER. All right. Put an arrow and the letter "N" at that point. +Now, would you put south on the other side, and then east and west +where they belong? + +Mr. SURREY. These are not exact. They are several points off. But +generally. + +Mr. JENNER. You are just making a rough sketch, sir, for the purpose +of helping with your testimony. You have now drawn in General Walker's +house. Would you put in the word "Walker"? + +Now, having done that, you have now described an area--told us of an +area where a firearm--a field where a firearm might be buried that is +in the vicinity of General Walker's home. Would you indicate where that +would be? + +Mr. SURREY. Here is Turtle Creek. [Witness draws.] + +Mr. JENNER. You are now drawing a wavy line. Would you write in there +"Turtle Creek." And that is a stream, is it? + +Mr. SURREY. Yes. + +Mr. JENNER. Does it always have water in it? + +Mr. SURREY. To my knowledge; yes, sir. + +Mr. JENNER. All right. + +Mr. SURREY. Now, this area across Turtle Creek Boulevard. + +Mr. JENNER. That is to the south of General Walker's house. + +Mr. SURREY. And going down to the creek is a grassy, leafed, brushed, +tree area. + +Mr. JENNER. It is not an open field? + +Mr. SURREY. No. + +Mr. JENNER. But it is an area in which a firearm could be buried? + +Mr. SURREY. It is down near the creek--there are rocks. + +(At this point, Representative Boggs withdrew from the hearing room.) + +Mr. SURREY. In addition to that--here is Avondale, here is the doctor's +residence. [Witness draws.] + +Mr. JENNER. This is Dr. Jackson's residence you have now drawn? + +Mr. SURREY. Yes. + +Mr. JENNER. Would you please---- + +Mr. SURREY. And this entire block here is---- + +Mr. JENNER. You are pointing to the west? + +Mr. SURREY. Yes. + +Mr. JENNER. Along Turtle Creek Drive? + +Mr. SURREY. Yes. + +Mr. JENNER. Would you put the word "drive" there. + +Mr. SURREY. It is boulevard. + +Mr. JENNER. All right. Would you repeat your testimony in that +connection? + +Mr. SURREY. Another block of residences---- + +Mr. JENNER. To the west? + +Mr. SURREY. To the west. And then you come to that field where the new +building is going up and the Jesuit high school was. + +Mr. JENNER. And that is the new building you identified in one of the +earlier exhibits, and the high school has now been torn down? + +Mr. SURREY. Yes. + +Mr. JENNER. All right. And there was--in the spring of 1963, was there +a field there? + +Mr. SURREY. Yes; there still is. + +Mr. JENNER. Where a firearm could have been buried? + +Mr. SURREY. Yes, sir. + +Mr. JENNER. We understand there is a church, a church house, near the +Walker home. Am I correct? + +Mr. SURREY. That is correct. + +Mr. JENNER. Would you locate it, please? + +Mr. SURREY. Yes; directly to the east. [Witness draws.] Their driveway +comes up between the Walker house, into their parking lot [witness +draws], and here is that back alley you showed me a picture of earlier. +[Witness draws.] + +Mr. JENNER. Excuse me. For the purpose of the record, the witness has +now drawn in what looks like a parking lot area, is that correct? + +Mr. SURREY. Yes. + +Mr. JENNER. Is that the church parking lot? + +Mr. SURREY. Yes; it is. + +Mr. JENNER. And where is the church house itself located? + +Mr. SURREY. This entire area. I don't know about the shape of it. But +it is in this area. + +Mr. JENNER. Write the word "church" in there. [Witness does so.] What +church is that? + +Mr. SURREY. It is a Mormon church. + +Mr. JENNER. And about how far distant from the Walker house is the +Mormon church? + +Mr. SURREY. It is on the next lot--I would say 400 feet, maybe. + +Mr. JENNER. What is there intervening, if anything, between the Mormon +church buildings and General Walker's home? + +Mr. SURREY. In the way of a fence, you mean? + +Mr. JENNER. Well, first; are there any buildings? + +Mr. SURREY. No. + +Mr. JENNER. Or any sheds or anything of that character? + +Mr. SURREY. No. + +Mr. JENNER. Are there any trees? + +Mr. SURREY. Yes; there are trees. + +Mr. JENNER. Is it heavily or lightly wooded? + +Mr. SURREY. Lightly. + +Mr. JENNER. There is a fence? + +Mr. SURREY. Yes. + +Mr. JENNER. A wooden fence? + +Mr. SURREY. A wooden fence--about 5-foot tall. + +Mr. JENNER. I see. Is that a lattice fence or a solid fence? + +Mr. SURREY. Along this side here it is a solid fence. + +Mr. JENNER. When you say this side, you are pointing to the driveway +leading to Turtle Creek Boulevard? + +Mr. SURREY. Yes; the fence actually is here. [Witness draws.] + +Mr. JENNER. You have now put--he is indicating the fence. And that is a +lattice or slat fence? + +Mr. SURREY. That is a solid fence there. And then it is latticed along +the alley. + +Mr. JENNER. Which way does the front of General Walker's house face--on +Turtle Creek Boulevard? + +Mr. SURREY. On Turtle Creek. + +Mr. JENNER. All right. That will be helpful to us. We will just set +that exhibit aside for the moment. + +Some of these photographs I am now about to show you--I now show you a +photograph, Commission Exhibit No. 5, Item No. 369. Do you recognize +that? + +Mr. SURREY. Yes, I do. It is a photo of the back of General Walker's +home. + +Mr. JENNER. All right. Now, returning to your plat, Commission Exhibit +No. 1005, is that the side of General Walker's house that faces the +church? + +Mr. SURREY. No. + +Mr. JENNER. It is the side--is it the side that faces Dr. Jackson's +home? + +Mr. SURREY. No. + +Mr. JENNER. Is it the side that faces onto or toward Turtle Creek +Boulevard? + +Mr. SURREY. No; it is not. + +Mr. JENNER. Is it the side that faces toward the alley which you have +drawn on Commission Exhibit No. 1005? + +Mr. SURREY. Yes; it is. + +Mr. JENNER. Fine. Now, you will notice in that photograph an +automobile, but no license plate, and there appears to be obliterated +an area in which a license plate might have appeared on that car. + +Now, first, you do see the automobile? + +Mr. SURREY. Yes; I have seen this photo before. Mr. Barrett of the FBI +in Dallas brought this to my attention. + +Mr. JENNER. Do you recognize the automobile? + +Mr. SURREY. Not positively, but I think it belongs to Mr. Charles Klihr. + +Mr. JENNER. And who is Mr. Charles Klihr? + +Mr. SURREY. He is a volunteer worker of Mr. Walker's, also. + +Mr. JENNER. Are you sufficiently familiar with Mr. Charles Klihr's +automobile--you already identified it---- + +Mr. SURREY. No; I did not identify it. I cannot do that, sir. + +Mr. JENNER. To the best of your ability is all I am suggesting, sir. + +Mr. SURREY. Yes. + +Mr. JENNER. Do you have a recollection as to whether there was a +license plate or license plate fixture in or about the area in which +the black spot on the automobile appears? + +Mr. SURREY. I have seen Mr. Klihr's automobile many times. I have not +seen it without a license plate, which I think I would note if it were +not there. + +Mr. JENNER. Yes; but located at or about in the vicinity of that black +spot? + +Mr. SURREY. I would say to the best of my knowledge; yes, sir. + +Mr. JENNER. Thank you, sir. Were you at General Walker's home the +evening of the attempted assassination, or attempt on his life? + +Mr. SURREY. Yes, I was. After the shot. I was not there at the time. + +Mr. JENNER. How soon after the shot were you there? + +Mr. SURREY. About 15 minutes. + +Mr. JENNER. How did you become aware that there had been an attempt on +his life? + +Mr. SURREY. He called me on the telephone at my home. + +Mr. JENNER. And how far did you live from General Walker's home? + +Mr. SURREY. About 2 miles. + +Mr. JENNER. And you immediately drove over there? + +Mr. SURREY. Yes. + +Mr. JENNER. What kind of an automobile do you own and drive? + +Mr. SURREY. A 1961 Ford convertible. + +Mr. JENNER. And did you arrive at his home in that convertible? + +Mr. SURREY. Yes, I did. + +Mr. JENNER. What time of the day or night was this? + +Mr. SURREY. This was about 9 to 9:30 in the evening. + +Mr. JENNER. What day? I mean date. + +Mr. SURREY. April 10th. + +Mr. JENNER. What year? + +Mr. SURREY. 1963. + +Excuse me. This is 1964, isn't it. + +Mr. JENNER. Yes, sir. + +Mr. SURREY. So this would---- + +Mr. JENNER. Was this a year ago? + +Mr. SURREY. It would be 1963, yes. + +Mr. JENNER. I have marked a series of photographs as Commission +Exhibits Nos. 1006 through 1012. + +(The photographs referred to were marked Commission Exhibits Nos. 1006 +through 1012, respectively, for identification.) + +Mr. JENNER. These purport to be photographs of portions and places +in--both inside and outside General Walker's home relating to the +incident in question. + +Would you be good enough to take them seriatim, identify them by +exhibit number---- + +Mr. SURREY. Take them how? + +Mr. JENNER. Seriatim, in series--commencing with Commission Exhibit +1006. And tell us if you are familiar with the photograph and whether +it depicts a portion of General Walker's home, and, if so, what portion. + +Mr. SURREY. I don't know what this is here in the back yard, but +outside of that it looks like a picture of the window facing towards +the alley which the shot came through. + +Mr. JENNER. From the direction the shot came? + +Mr. SURREY. Yes. + +Mr. JENNER. And the marring on the molding of the window is the point +of the screen and the window through which the bullet came? + +Mr. SURREY. Yes. + +Mr. JENNER. Did you examine that that evening? + +Mr. SURREY. Yes; I did. + +Mr. JENNER. Did you see the breach in the casement which is depicted on +Commission Exhibit No. 1006? + +Mr. SURREY. Yes; I did. What is this in the back? Do you happen to know? + +Mr. JENNER. No; I don't. But I think I can bring it out. These +photographs, I think, were taken fairly recently. + +Have you been at General Walker's house in the last couple of weeks? + +Mr. SURREY. Yes; I have. + +Mr. JENNER. And have you had occasion to notice whether or not any +repair whatsoever has been made or was made with respect to the marring +of the molding? + +Mr. SURREY. I don't believe it has. + +That looks like a stack of cardboard back there. I am not familiar with +it. + +Mr. JENNER. Yes; it looks like heavy asbestos, or some wood out in the +yard. + +Mr. SURREY. I am not familiar with that. + +Mr. JENNER. Now, look at Exhibit No. 1007. + +Excuse me--the photograph Exhibit No. 1006 represents that casement in +its present condition? + +Mr. SURREY. Yes, sir; to the best of my knowledge. + +Mr. JENNER. And also as it was when you saw it that night, April 10? + +Mr. SURREY. No; the window was closed when I saw it that night. + +Mr. JENNER. But the breach in the molding is the same on this +photograph as it was when you saw it that night? + +Mr. SURREY. Yes, sir. + +Mr. JENNER. All right. Now, the next photograph is Exhibit No. 1007, +and purports to be a photograph taken from the outside of General +Walker's home with the camera pointed into his home. + +Mr. SURREY. That is correct. + +Mr. JENNER. And---- + +Mr. SURREY. It shows the same breach allegedly caused by a bullet---- + +Mr. JENNER. That is shown on Exhibit 1006? + +Mr. SURREY. Yes. + +Mr. JENNER. And in the case of Exhibit No. 1006, that photograph +represents the present condition of that casement and that window and +that screen, as well as it was when you saw it on the evening of April +10, 1963? Insofar as the breach is concerned? + +Mr. SURREY. Yes; I seem to recall more cobwebbing effect than it shows +in the photograph. + +Mr. JENNER. Exhibit No. 1008 purports to be a room in General Walker's +home, and a wall with a bullet hole shown in it. + +Mr. SURREY. Yes, sir. + +Mr. JENNER. Do you recognize that room? + +Mr. SURREY. Yes; I do. + +Mr. JENNER. And is that a picture of one of the rooms in General +Walker's home? + +Mr. SURREY. Yes; it is. + +Mr. JENNER. Where is it with respect to the room shown in Commission +Exhibit No. 1007? + +Mr. SURREY. It is the same room. + +Mr. JENNER. The same room? + +Mr. SURREY. Yes; all this material has been turned around, from that +night. + +Mr. JENNER. You are referring in your last comment to Commission +Exhibit No. 1007, some pamphlet materials you see shown in that +photograph? + +Mr. SURREY. Yes. + +Mr. JENNER. Now, turning your attention to Commission Exhibit No. 1008, +does the wall that is shown on that exhibit face the casement window +shown on Exhibit No. 1007, or is that the reverse side? + +Mr. SURREY. It is the other wall, the other side of the room from the +window. + +Mr. JENNER. Is that the wall in which the bullet entered, or the wall, +the side of the wall from which the bullet exited? + +Mr. SURREY. That is the side of the wall that it entered. + +Mr. JENNER. All right. Then I show you Commission Exhibit No. 1009. + +Mr. SURREY. Yes; this is the next room now where the bullet exited. + +Mr. JENNER. Now, taking Exhibits Nos. 1008 and 1009, am I correct, +sir, that Exhibit No. 1008 shows the wall on the entry side of the +bullet, and Exhibit No. 1009 is the reverse side of the wall shown on +Commission Exhibit No. 1008? + +Mr. SURREY. That is correct. + +Mr. JENNER. In other words, the side of the wall that the bullet exited? + +Mr. SURREY. That is correct. + +Now, this picture was taken at the time, or soon thereafter, because +this material was in this position. + +(At this point, Senator Cooper withdrew from the hearing room.) + +Mr. JENNER. All right, sir. + +You are able to say, from your familiarity with the condition of +matters on the evening of April 10, 1963, that both Commission +exhibits---- + +Mr. SURREY. No; that one I don't know. + +Mr. JENNER. That Commission Exhibit No. 1009 depicts the condition of +that room, which is the room to the reverse side of Commission Exhibit +No. 1008, as it was the evening of April 10, 1963. + +Mr. SURREY. Substantially the same; yes. + +Mr. JENNER. And even including the boxes and packages of material? + +Mr. SURREY. That is correct. + +Mr. JENNER. You will notice in substantially the center of that exhibit +a rupture appears to be in the wall. Was that in fact a rupture? + +Mr. SURREY. Yes; it was. That is where the bullet came out of the wall, +and when the police came they found the bullet on top of these packages. + +Mr. JENNER. On top of the packages shown on Commission Exhibit No. +1009. I show you Exhibit No. 1011, which appears to be a photograph of +a fence, lattice fence. Are you familiar with that? + +Mr. SURREY. I believe it is the same type of thing as is in back of +Walker's home, in the alleyway. + +Mr. JENNER. Is it not in fact a picture of the fence that is--surrounds +to the rear General Walker's home? + +Mr. SURREY. I don't know. It is the same type, it looks the same. + +Mr. JENNER. It looks the same to you? + +Mr. SURREY. Yes. + +Mr. JENNER. When you made your diagram, Exhibit No. 1005, you drew a +wavy line along the alley, and I think you said that was a lattice +fence. + +Mr. SURREY. Yes; I drew it too far. This is Jackson's back yard. + +Mr. JENNER. Well, that is all right. The lattice fence you +identified---- + +Mr. SURREY. Is of the same type and construction. + +Mr. JENNER. As shown on Exhibit No. 1011? + +Mr. SURREY. Yes. + +Mr. JENNER. All right, sir. Thank you. Is the area depicted on +Commission Exhibit No. 1012 familiar to you? + +Mr. SURREY. It looks like a picture taken from the top of that lattice +fence towards the back of Walker's home. + +Mr. JENNER. Next is Commission Exhibit No. 1010, which is a photograph +of a tire imprint. On the evening of April 10 or the next day, April +11, when it was light, did you tour around General Walker's home with +him or without him? There was a search made to see---- + +Mr. SURREY. Yes; there was. + +Mr. JENNER. To find some identification in the way of automobile tire +impressions? + +Mr. SURREY. It is my impression that the police were looking primarily +for a casing from a shell. I did not see them take any---- + +Mr. JENNER. So that the particular portion of the Walker vicinity shown +on Commission Exhibit No. 1010 is not familiar to you? + +Mr. SURREY. I wouldn't know where it was in the area. + +Mr. JENNER. Yes, sir. + +The CHAIRMAN. Those have all been formally introduced, Mr. Jenner? + +Mr. JENNER. No; they have not, Mr. Chief Justice. If it suits your +convenience I was going to offer all exhibits at once, so I don't +overlook any. + +The CHAIRMAN. Yes; very well. + +Mr. JENNER. Thank you. Some of the exhibits the witness has identified +have already been introduced. They were exhibited to Marina Oswald. + +The CHAIRMAN. Yes; I recall. + +Mr. JENNER. Would you help us, also--I hand you a map of Dallas, which +we will mark Commission Exhibit No. 1013--or I should correct myself--I +hand you what purports to be a map of Dallas. + +There is indicated by brush pencil a cross in the center of that map as +representing the area of the residence of Maj. Gen. Edwin A. Walker, +resigned, at 4011 Turtle Creek Boulevard in Dallas. + +(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 1013 for +identification.) + +Mr. SURREY. Yes; that is correct. That is the area. + +Mr. JENNER. That is a scale map of Dallas that appears to have been +obtained from the Dallas Transit Co. in Dallas, Tex. + +Mr. SURREY. Yes. + +Mr. JENNER. Now, you received a telephone call from General Walker? + +Mr. SURREY. Yes, sir. + +Mr. JENNER. The evening of April 10. It was about 9 o'clock? Please try +to fix that time as accurately as you can. + +Mr. SURREY. I would say it was closer to 9:15. + +Mr. JENNER. And you arrived 15 minutes later? + +Mr. SURREY. 10 to 15 minutes later. + +Mr. JENNER. Now, would you very carefully, calling on your most +accurate recollection, recite for us--you came to the door, you +entered, what did you see, who was there, and what was said to you by +anyone, if anyone was there--just the course of events as best you are +able to recall them that evening. And I will try not to interrupt you. + +Mr. SURREY. When I pulled--I pulled up in front on Turtle Creek, got +out of my car. A police car was there. + +Mr. JENNER. Was there anything in addition to a police car? + +Mr. SURREY. No. + +Mr. JENNER. You pulled your car up on Turtle Creek Boulevard? + +Mr. SURREY. Behind the police car. + +Mr. JENNER. Would you be good enough, when you refer to Turtle Creek +Boulevard, to say boulevard, because we have talked about Turtle Creek, +a stream. + +Mr. SURREY. Turtle Creek Boulevard. + +Mr. JENNER. There was one squad car there at that time? + +Mr. SURREY. Yes; just as I was getting out of the car, another squad +car came up. + +Mr. JENNER. Turning to your plat, would you put an "X" with a circle +where you drove up? The witness has now done that. All right. Now, you +are on Turtle Creek Boulevard. Then what did you do? You parked? + +Mr. SURREY. I parked and got out of my automobile, and walked up the +front walkway into the house. + +Mr. JENNER. I see. All right. + +Mr. SURREY. There were several policemen in the house, just arriving. +Mr. Walker was sitting at his desk in this back room. + +Mr. JENNER. All right. + +Now it will be helpful to the Commission--let's take this blank sheet +of paper--you draw us a floor plan, will you please, of General +Walker's home, and we will mark that Commission Exhibit No. 1014, so as +to assist you in telling us what you did. + +(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 1014 for +identification.) + +Mr. SURREY. This is the ground floor. + +Mr. JENNER. All right. Now, first let's locate the house. It is a +rectangle that you have drawn. Is the rectangle facing the same as the +rectangle marked "Walker" on Commission Exhibit No. 1005? + +Mr. SURREY. Yes; it is. + +Mr. JENNER. So that the lower portion is east? + +Mr. SURREY. Do we need these directions exactly, because that Turtle +Creek Boulevard winds all around. + +Mr. JENNER. All I want to do is tie it up with Commission Exhibit No. +1005. + +Mr. SURREY. Yes; it is the same direction. + +Mr. JENNER. Realizing that you have that problem of obliqueness, +but relating it solely to Commission Exhibit No. 1005, the foot of +Commission Exhibit No. 1014 represents an easterly direction, correct? + +Mr. SURREY. Yes. + +Mr. JENNER. And the top a westerly direction. And the right, northerly, +and the left, southerly. All right. Now, we have it located. + +Which is the doorway into General Walker's home? + +Mr. SURREY. This is the--this is the front door. [Witness draws.] + +Mr. JENNER. You have now put two oblique lines on the line facing +southerly. + +Mr. SURREY. That is correct. + +Mr. JENNER. And then as you enter, there is a long hallway. + +Mr. SURREY. Yes. + +Mr. JENNER. And which is the rear of the house towards the alley? + +Mr. SURREY. Toward the north. + +Mr. JENNER. All right. Now, in what room, if any of those rooms on the +first floor, was General Walker the night of April 10, 1963, when this +incident occurred, as you learned when you reached there? + +Mr. SURREY. His desk was positioned right there. + +Mr. JENNER. You have now drawn a small but rather elongated rectangle, +which appears to be opposite two lines you have drawn which I take it +represents a window. + +Mr. SURREY. Yes, sir. + +Mr. JENNER. And from what you learned from General Walker on that +occasion in the presence of the policemen, was he seated at the desk? + +Mr. SURREY. He was seated at his desk. + +Mr. JENNER. His back to the window you have drawn, or facing the window? + +Mr. SURREY. To the window. + +Mr. JENNER. So he was facing to the window? + +Mr. SURREY. No; his back was to the window. + +Mr. JENNER. He was facing away from the window? + +Mr. SURREY. Yes, sir. + +Mr. JENNER. And you have drawn a little circle by the figure +representing a desk, indicating where General Walker was seated? + +Mr. SURREY. Yes. + +Mr. JENNER. And facing westerly? + +Mr. SURREY. Yes. + +Mr. JENNER. Now, locate for us, put a circle with a cross, the wall, +the side of the wall indicated by Commission Exhibit No. 1008. + +Mr. SURREY. It is right here, sir. [Witness draws.] + +Mr. JENNER. All right. Now, that is shown, for the purpose of the +record, to the left of the blank circle which the witness drew to show +General Walker sitting at his desk. And that area that is shown on--the +wall shown on Commission Exhibit No. 1009, I take it, is precisely the +other side. + +Mr. SURREY. The other side. + +Mr. JENNER. You have done that by showing an area? + +Mr. SURREY. Yes, sir. + +Mr. JENNER. All right. Then we have that located. + +Did General Walker in your presence relate what occurred? + +Mr. SURREY. Yes. + +Mr. JENNER. Tell us what he said about how it occurred, when he became +aware of it? + +Mr. SURREY. I walked in the front door, and there were several +policemen standing around in various areas. I walked in through here. + +Mr. JENNER. When you say "through here" [witness draws two lines to +represent door.]---- + +Mr. SURREY. Through the front---- + +Mr. JENNER. You came in from the south, the front, and you went down +the hallway? + +Mr. SURREY. It is not really a hallway. It is mostly glass doors here. +And I walked through those glass doors. + +Mr. JENNER. You have put three strikes on your sketch. What is that? + +Mr. SURREY. Those are glass doors. + +Mr. JENNER. You walked through the glass doorway. You walked into +the room, the wall of which is shown on Commission Exhibit No. 1009. +Correct? + +Mr. SURREY. That is right. + +Mr. JENNER. All right. + +Mr. SURREY. And I went right through this room. + +Mr. JENNER. Into the room in which General Walker's desk is located? + +Mr. SURREY. Yes. + +Mr. JENNER. The wall of which on that side appears shown on Commission +Exhibit No. 1008? + +Mr. SURREY. That is correct. + +Mr. JENNER. All right. + +Mr. SURREY. The General was sitting at his desk. + +Mr. JENNER. When you arrived? + +Mr. SURREY. When I arrived. + +Mr. JENNER. Was he facing---- + +Mr. SURREY. He was---- + +Mr. JENNER. Westerly? + +Mr. SURREY. Yes, talking to a policeman in uniform. And I walked in and +I said, "What happened? What's going on?" And he pointed to this hole +in the wall. + +Mr. JENNER. Shown on Commission Exhibit No. 1008? + +Mr. SURREY. Yes. And I facetiously said, "Oh, you found a bug." + +Mr. JENNER. Would you explain your facetious remark? I don't get the +fact that it is facetious. + +Mr. SURREY. Well, actually, it may not be. It is a common joke around +the General's house that there may be microphones. + +Mr. JENNER. That kind of a bug? + +Mr. SURREY. Yes. + +Mr. JENNER. That is, you saw the hole in the wall and you remarked +facetiously that he had discovered the house had been bugged by an +electronic device? + +Mr. SURREY. Yes; and, therefore, had chopped a hole in the wall. + +And he said, "No; I have been shot at." And he pointed to the hole in +the window. + +Mr. JENNER. Which is shown on Commission Exhibits Nos. 1007 and 1006? + +Mr. SURREY. That is correct. Except the window was closed at this +time--both casements were together. + +Mr. JENNER. Yes; and there is a screen on that window? + +Mr. SURREY. I believe there is. + +Mr. JENNER. All right. + +Mr. SURREY. And then---- + +Mr. JENNER. Excuse me, sir. That would be the window which is the lower +of the two sets of strikes appearing on the northerly line of your +Exhibit No. 1014. + +Mr. SURREY. Yes. I will mark it with an "A" and a circle. + +Mr. JENNER. Good. + +Mr. SURREY. And then a policeman asked him a question, and I noticed +that his arm was bleeding. + +Mr. JENNER. General Walker's arm? + +Mr. SURREY. General Walker's arm, was bleeding in four or five places. + +Mr. JENNER. How was he dressed? + +Mr. SURREY. In a dress shirt of a color, as I recall, but it was not a +sport shirt--and slacks. + +Mr. JENNER. It was not a uniform of any character? + +Mr. SURREY. No; and without a tie. + +Mr. JENNER. Short sleeved or long sleeved? + +Mr. SURREY. Long sleeved, rolled up. + +Mr. JENNER. And his right arm, was it? + +Mr. SURREY. His right arm, yes; on his forearm. And---- + +Mr. JENNER. Was he bleeding profusely? + +Mr. SURREY. No. And he said "The jacket of the bullet must have come +apart when it went through the window." And he brushed plaster--I +assume it came from this wall--out of his hair, which was in his hair, +also. + +Mr. JENNER. What color hair does General Walker have? + +Mr. SURREY. Brown; a dark brown. + +Mr. JENNER. He has a fairly full head of hair, does he? + +Mr. SURREY. Yes. + +Mr. JENNER. And plaster and that sort of thing would be quite apparent, +would it, to anyone who saw it in his hair? + +Mr. SURREY. Yes. + +Mr. JENNER. And you noticed it? + +Mr. SURREY. Yes. + +Mr. JENNER. And you noticed him brushing plaster out of his hair? + +Mr. SURREY. Yes. + +Mr. JENNER. Now, that leads me to ask you this, Mr. Surrey: That bullet +hole is how high from the floor? I am showing you now Commission +Exhibit No. 1009. + +Mr. SURREY. You mean how high is the hole---- + +Mr. JENNER. From the floor. + +Mr. SURREY. From the floor? Well, the police went into the next room +and so did I, and sighted through the hole in the wall to the window. + +Mr. JENNER. Yes, sir. + +Mr. SURREY. And when Walker sat down at his desk, it went right through +his head. + +Mr. JENNER. So he was seated on a chair substantially the height of the +one you are seated on? + +Mr. SURREY. Yes, and he is approximately a little taller than I am. + +Mr. JENNER. He is a little taller than you are. So that would be about +4, 4-1/2 feet. + +Tell the Commission the distance from the wall, the point at which +you have marked an "X" with a circle, and the place at which General +Walker's chair was located. + +Mr. SURREY. I would say 18 inches. + +Mr. JENNER. He was that close? + +Mr. SURREY. To the wall there; yes, sir. + +Mr. JENNER. So that the representation you have made on Commission +Exhibit No. 1014 is distorted? + +Mr. SURREY. Yes; it is. The desk was right up against the wall, and he +was seated in the middle of the desk. + +Mr. JENNER. His chair was much closer to the wall than would appear to +have been as you have roughly diagramed on Exhibit No. 1014? + +Mr. SURREY. That is correct. + +Mr. JENNER. All right. In other words, he was close enough to the wall +when seated at that chair so that when a bullet penetrating the plaster +wall could have splattered plaster into his hair? + +Mr. SURREY. Yes, sir. + +Mr. JENNER. All right. Proceed, sir. + +Mr. SURREY. So I went over and looked at his arm, and there was a piece +of metal in one particular spot in his arm, that I noticed, in addition +to the other scratches, and I went looking for some first aid equipment +and found tweezers upstairs, and came back downstairs and picked that +piece of metal and two others out of his right forearm. + +Mr. JENNER. And what was done with those pieces of metal? + +Mr. SURREY. They were--I believe the police took them. + +Mr. JENNER. But you recall that you, in fact, yourself took the pieces +of metal from General Walker's right forearm? + +Mr. SURREY. Yes, sir. + +Mr. JENNER. And--all right. Go ahead, sir. + +Mr. SURREY. Well, then it became just a matter of the police +questioning the general and myself. I don't recall which detective or +which policemen and myself went out in the back and looked in the back +area. + +Mr. JENNER. Is that what you did next, after you took the metal out of +General Walker's forearm? + +Mr. SURREY. Yes. + +Mr. JENNER. You immediately went out of the house---- + +Mr. SURREY. Not immediately; no. We talked. I would say within 2 or 3 +minutes. + +Mr. JENNER. But you did not go into any other room? That is what I am +getting at first. You went outside first? + +Mr. SURREY. I don't recall if we went in the other room then or later +on. + +Mr. JENNER. When you say the other room, it is the room opposite the +one and to the left of the one shown on your diagram---- + +Mr. SURREY. As I recall, I merely looked around the separation here +when they said that the bullet came clear through into the other room. + +Mr. JENNER. Who said that? + +Mr. SURREY. One of the policemen. + +Mr. JENNER. And did you go around and look then? + +Mr. SURREY. I just looked around the doorway; yes. + +Mr. JENNER. What did you find when you looked around--what did you see? + +Mr. SURREY. I saw these books stacked, as shown in this picture. + +Mr. JENNER. Identify the picture, please. + +Mr. SURREY. Exhibit No. 1009. + +Mr. JENNER. Had--you mentioned a bullet as having been found. + +Mr. SURREY. Yes, the policeman said he had found that bullet, on top of +the packages. + +Mr. JENNER. Shown in Exhibit No. 1009? + +Mr. SURREY. Yes. + +Mr. JENNER. Was that portion of the bullet exhibited to you on that +occasion? + +Mr. SURREY. No. + +Mr. JENNER. You did not see it? + +Mr. SURREY. No. + +Mr. JENNER. Was the statement that the bullet had been found on the +opposite side of that wall made in the presence of General Walker? + +Mr. SURREY. Yes. + +Mr. JENNER. What did General Walker say when that statement was made in +his presence, if anything? + +Mr. SURREY. I don't recall that he made any statement. + +Mr. JENNER. Did he say anything about where the spent bullet had been +found? + +Mr. SURREY. Not at that time, no. Not to me. + +Mr. JENNER. Well, did he say it to an officer in your presence? + +Mr. SURREY. Not that I recall. + +Mr. JENNER. Was it uttered by him at all in your presence on that +evening? + +Mr. SURREY. Not that I recall. + +Mr. JENNER. That is, that the spent bullet had been found on the +opposite side of the wall next to which he had been sitting? + +Mr. SURREY. No; I think the policeman said it, and that is all that was +said. + +Mr. JENNER. But it was said in General Walker's presence? + +Mr. SURREY. Yes; it was. + +Mr. JENNER. What did the policeman say? + +Mr. SURREY. He said the bullet went clean through the wall and they +found it laying on the packages in the other room. + +Mr. JENNER. Did he say they found it or "I found it"? + +Mr. SURREY. He said, "I found it" as I recall. + +Mr. JENNER. Proceed in your chronology, please. + +Mr. SURREY. That is all there was to it. Then he started getting calls +from newsmen, and newsmen coming to the door. + +Mr. JENNER. First, you went out and looked around the premises. + +Mr. SURREY. Yes; but it was quite dark at this time, and they said, "We +will come back in the morning." + +Mr. JENNER. I should have asked you this. Perhaps I just assumed it. +Was it dark when you arrived at General Walker's home? + +Mr. SURREY. Yes; it was. + +Mr. JENNER. When does it get dark in Dallas, Tex., in this area in the +spring? + +Mr. SURREY. I would say 7. + +Mr. JENNER. Do you have daylight saving time in Dallas? + +Mr. SURREY. No; we don't. + +Mr. JENNER. And you are on what time? + +Mr. SURREY. Central standard. + +Mr. JENNER. Central standard time? + +Mr. SURREY. Yes. + +Mr. JENNER. Well---- + +Mr. SURREY. It is 2 hours from here. + +The CHAIRMAN. Two hours from here when we have daylight savings. + +Mr. SURREY. You have daylight saving now? + +The CHAIRMAN. Yes. + +Mr. JENNER. Only 1 hour then. + +Mr. SURREY. Yes, sir. + +Mr. JENNER. After looking around, you say newspapermen began to come. + +Mr. SURREY. That is right. + +Mr. JENNER. And interview General Walker? + +Mr. SURREY. Yes. + +Mr. JENNER. In your presence? + +Mr. SURREY. Yes. + +Mr. JENNER. And in the presence of the policemen? + +Mr. SURREY. Yes. + +Mr. JENNER. When did you leave General Walker's home that night? + +Mr. SURREY. I stayed that night. + +Mr. JENNER. Did you hear General Walker being interviewed? + +Mr. SURREY. Yes. + +Mr. JENNER. What did he say about what had occurred, if anything? + +Mr. SURREY. He said, "Somebody took a shot at me." This is the general +tenor of the interviews as to what happened, and he said, "Somebody +took a shot at me." I guess--"That is the closest I have ever been +missed in 30 years of military service." + +Mr. JENNER. Did he say anything about whether he was seated--whether he +had been moving about? + +Mr. SURREY. No; he said he had been seated at his desk when it +happened. Working on his income tax. + +Mr. JENNER. Now, Mr. Surrey, was there an occasion preceding +October--April 10, 1963, that you noticed an automobile and some people +in the automobile in and about General Walker's premises? + +Mr. SURREY. Yes; that was 2 nights before, on Monday evening. + +Mr. JENNER. That would be April 10? + +Mr. SURREY. Yes. + +Mr. JENNER. I mean April 8, I am sorry. + +Mr. SURREY. April 8; yes, sir. + +Mr. JENNER. What time? + +Mr. SURREY. About 8:30 to 9. I am not sure about what time it was. + +Mr. JENNER. I take it, then, it was dark? + +Mr. SURREY. Yes; it was. + +Mr. JENNER. And tell the Commission what led up to that, what you said, +and what you did. This incident that you have in mind. + +Mr. SURREY. I was coming from my home, came down Turtle Creek +Boulevard, passed in front of the general's house, and took a +right-hand turn on Avondale, to come up to the alley. + +Mr. JENNER. Have we put Avondale into your plat? You are now turning to +Commission Exhibit No. 1005. [Witness draws.] + +Mr. SURREY. The normal route into the parking lot behind the general's +house---- + +Mr. JENNER. He does have a parking lot? + +Mr. SURREY. Yes; this is the parking area back in here. + +Mr. JENNER. Now, would you crossline that, so we know it is the parking +lot? [Witness draws.] + +That is fine. + +Mr. SURREY. I came up Turtle Creek Boulevard and turned right on +Avondale prior to turning again up the alleyway, to go into the parking +lot in back of General Walker's house. And I noticed a car parked 30 +feet--about 20 yards actually---- + +Mr. JENNER. You have now drawn a rectangle on the edge of the sheet of +paper, Exhibit No. 1005, marked with the letter "N." Would you write +the word "car" in there? + +The CHAIRMAN. What is this designed to establish, Mr. Jenner? We are +getting a little afield, it seems to me. + +Mr. JENNER. Mr. Surrey, Mr. Chief Justice, was interviewed and related +this particular incident, and we want to dissipate any possibility--I +don't want to put it this way---- + +The CHAIRMAN. If it has some relevancy, all right. But let's don't take +too long, because it is getting to be quite collateral. Go right ahead. + +Mr. SURREY. Well, the gist of the matter is that two nights before +the assassination attempt, I saw two men around the house peeking in +windows and so forth, and reported this to the general the following +morning, and he, in turn, reported it to the police on Tuesday, and it +was Wednesday night that he was shot at. So that is really the gist of +the whole thing. + +The CHAIRMAN. All right. + +Mr. JENNER. I show you an exhibit marked Garner Exhibit No. 1. At +anytime prior to April 10, 1963, were you familiar with the person who +is shown on Garner Exhibit No. 1? + +Mr. SURREY. No. + +Mr. JENNER. When I say familiar, I mean did you know of or had you seen +consciously a person with that physiognomy and physical appearance? + +Mr. SURREY. No; I have not. + +Mr. JENNER. That is a side view. + +I show you Commission Exhibit No. 520. The man in the center--had you +prior to April 10, 1963, ever seen a man with that physiognomy, facial +showing, and body? + +Mr. SURREY. No. + +Mr. JENNER. All right, sir. I take it, then--I ask you this question. +Neither of the two men that you saw in that automobile on the 8th of +April 1963, at least to your present recollection, was the man shown on +Garner Exhibit No. 1, and Commission Exhibit No. 520? + +Mr. SURREY. I don't believe either of them was. + +Mr. JENNER. All right. + +The CHAIRMAN. May I ask--is this what you spoke of as the book? + +Mr. SURREY. Yes, sir. + +The CHAIRMAN. I notice on here that there is no price of any kind. You +say you sold this for $5? + +Mr. SURREY. That was an afterthought. The original intent was not a +sale. + +The CHAIRMAN. Was it ever advertised to the public as for sale from $5? + +Mr. SURREY. Yes. + +The CHAIRMAN. Where was it advertised? + +Mr. SURREY. In just a flier that we included with some materials we +were mailing out. + +The CHAIRMAN. I see. I would like to ask you if you were present +when--at the time that they had--that there was the demonstration +against Ambassador Adlai Stevenson? + +Mr. SURREY. No; I was not. + +The CHAIRMAN. Did you have anything to do with that demonstration? + +Mr. SURREY. No, sir. + +The CHAIRMAN. Were you present when the demonstration was against then +Vice President Johnson in Dallas? + +Mr. SURREY. No, sir. + +The CHAIRMAN. Did you have anything to do with that? + +Mr. SURREY. No, sir. + +Mr. JENNER. Mr. Chief Justice, we have marked the book as Commission +Exhibit No. 1015. + +(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 1015 for +identification.) + +Mr. JENNER. Would you please examine it? You need no more than just +to look at it, so you will be able to testify that that is a true and +correct copy of the book you have testified about, published by Eagle +Publishing Co., which contains on its reverse cover side the letter to +which you made reference. + +Mr. SURREY. Yes, sir; it is. + +The CHAIRMAN. What did it cost you to publish that? + +Mr. SURREY. It came to $2.50 and some cents. In a limited +quantity--3,000. + +The CHAIRMAN. Do you now propose to offer all of the exhibits? + +Mr. JENNER. Yes; I have three more FBI photos, and then I will have +completed. + +The CHAIRMAN. Very well. + +Mr. JENNER. Mr. Surrey, I show you three more photographs which are +identified first as Commission Exhibit No. 997. Would you read the +material that appears on the reverse side of that first, please? + +(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 997 for +identification.) + +Mr. JENNER. Looking now at the face of the photograph, Commission +Exhibit No. 997, does--do the inscriptions on the reverse side +correctly describe that area of General Walker's home and the Mormon +church references? + +Mr. SURREY. Yes; they do. + +Mr. JENNER. You are familiar with that area? + +Mr. SURREY. Yes; I am. + +JENNER. And its physical appearance, except for the foliage on the +trees, is as that area looked on the night of April 10, 1963? Is that +correct? + +Mr. SURREY. That is correct. + +Mr. JENNER. I hand you Commission Exhibit No. 1016. + +(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 1016 for +identification.) + +Mr. JENNER. Read the inscription on the reverse side, please. You are +familiar with that area shown on the photograph? + +Mr. SURREY. Yes; I am. + +Mr. JENNER. Do the descriptions on the reverse side of the photograph +correctly describe that area? + +Mr. SURREY. With the exception that I do not know these cars and so +forth. + +Mr. JENNER. I am talking about the area. + +Mr. SURREY. The physical area; yes, they do. + +Mr. JENNER. And that area looks the same today as it did on the evening +of April 10, or the day of April 10, 1963? + +Mr. SURREY. Yes, sir. + +Mr. JENNER. I now hand you the last of these, Commission Exhibit No. +1017, and ask you first to read the inscription and then examine the +photograph. + +(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 1017 for +identification.) + +Mr. SURREY. Yes, sir; these are substantially correct. + +Mr. JENNER. As of today, as well as as of April 10, 1963? + +Mr. SURREY. Yes, sir. + +Mr. JENNER. All right. + +Now, Mr. Chief Justice, I offer in evidence the various exhibits which +we have identified in the record with the exhibit numbers, and ask that +the exhibits take the exhibit numbers I recited in each instance as to +each exhibit, being Exhibits Nos. 996 through 1000 and 1002 through +1017. + +The CHAIRMAN. They may all be admitted under those numbers. + +(The documents heretofore marked Commission Exhibits Nos. 996 through +1000 and 1002 through 1017 were received in evidence.) + +Mr. JENNER. That includes, Mr. Chief Justice, the diagrams which the +witness has prepared for us. + +The CHAIRMAN. Yes. + +Mr. JENNER. As I reported to you, Mr. Chief Justice, the file on the +Walker incident reached us about 20 minutes before we opened this +morning. I think I have covered everything. Could I have the privilege +of 5 minutes to take a look? + +The CHAIRMAN. Yes. + +Mr. JENNER. I will do it very quickly. + +The CHAIRMAN. Yes. + +Mr. JENNER. Who is Mr. Coleman? Do you know a man by that name? + +Mr. SURREY. Not personally. + +Mr. JENNER. Walker Kirk Coleman. + +Mr. SURREY. As I just read on the back of your exhibit, he is the +boy that reported seeing several automobiles at the time of the +assassination. + +Mr. JENNER. That is immaterial to this issue. + +You have never seen either of the two men you have mentioned before or +since the occasion you saw that automobile with the two men in it on +the evening of April 8, 1963? + +Mr. SURREY. Not to my knowledge. I never was very close to them. + +Mr. JENNER. Were you able to--what kind of an automobile was it, do you +know? + +Mr. SURREY. It was a Ford, a new Ford at that time. + +Mr. JENNER. Sedan? + +Mr. SURREY. Four-door sedan. + +Mr. JENNER. And it was new? + +Mr. SURREY. Yes. + +Mr. JENNER. To your knowledge, have you ever seen that automobile +before or since? + +Mr. SURREY. No, sir. + +Mr. JENNER. What color was it, if you noticed? + +Mr. SURREY. It was either a dark brown or a maroon. + +Mr. JENNER. You followed it awhile and then gave up the chase? + +Mr. SURREY. That is correct. Actually, they made a turn which--I +am familiar with downtown Dallas--and they made a turn which would +indicate they were doubling back or not going in a straight direction. +And I thought perhaps I had been spotted in my convertible. So I left +them there. + +Mr. JENNER. I will close, Mr. Chief Justice, by asking the witness--was +the Mormon church in session? Had there been---- + +Mr. SURREY. There had been services. + +Mr. JENNER. The evening of April 10? + +Mr. SURREY. They were still dispersing. + +Mr. JENNER. When you arrived at approximately 9:30 in the evening of +April 10, were people still leaving the Mormon church? + +Mr. SURREY. Yes; they were. + +Mr. JENNER. I have no more questions. + +The CHAIRMAN. That will be all, Mr. Surrey. You may be excused now. + +The Commission is adjourned. + +(Whereupon, at 12:20 p.m., the President's Commission recessed.) + + + + +_Thursday, June 18, 1964_ + +TESTIMONY OF JAMES J. ROWLEY AND ROBERT CARSWELL + +The President's Commission met at 9 a.m., on June 18, 1964, at 200 +Maryland Avenue NE., Washington, D.C. + +Present were Chief Justice Earl Warren, Chairman; Senator John Sherman +Cooper, Representative Hale Boggs, Representative Gerald R. Ford, and +Allen W. Dulles, members. + +Also present were J. Lee Rankin, general counsel; and Samuel A. Stern, +assistant counsel. + + +TESTIMONY OF JAMES J. ROWLEY + +(Members present at this point: Chief Justice Earl Warren.) + +The CHAIRMAN. The Commission will come to order. + +Chief, it is our procedure to read a little statement as to the purpose +of the meeting, for the benefit of the witness. + +Chief Rowley will be asked to testify with respect to the protective +measures taken by the Secret Service in Dallas, changes in such +measures made as a result of the Dallas experience, and with regard to +the investigation of the assassination and any information he may have +respecting the assassination of the President. + +Would you raise your right hand and be sworn? + +You solemnly swear the testimony you are about to give before the +Commission will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the +truth, so help you God? + +Mr. ROWLEY. I do. + +The CHAIRMAN. Will you be seated, please. Mr. Rankin will conduct the +examination. + +Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Chief Justice, before starting the examination, I would +like to make a brief statement for your benefit and for the benefit of +the Commission, of the problems that are probably going to develop in +this area with regard to the security of the country, and a suggestion +about how we might handle them as we proceed with the witness. + +I have suggested to Chief Rowley that as he moves along in his +testimony he might have various matters that he would think should +not be on the record because of the security of the country, and +if he would just suggest that, when he came to that point, and say +specifically that it did involve the security of the country, then +we would proceed to go off the record, if it was satisfactory to the +Commission, and consider those questions off the record. And then +return to the record as soon as we had completed those security matters. + +Would that be satisfactory? + +The CHAIRMAN. I think that is an appropriate way to proceed. + +Mr. RANKIN. Chief Rowley, will you state your name and address for the +record, please? + +Mr. ROWLEY. James J. Rowley, 3501 Rittenhouse Street NW., Washington, +D.C. + +Mr. RANKIN. Do you have an official position with the Government? + +Mr. ROWLEY. I have, as Chief of the U.S. Secret Service. + +Mr. RANKIN. How long have you occupied that position? + +Mr. ROWLEY. Since September 1, 1961. + +Mr. RANKIN. What is the nature of the duties of that position? + +Mr. ROWLEY. The nature of the duties is the general overall supervision +of the activities of the Secret Service. + +Mr. RANKIN. And, in a general way, what is the official responsibility +under the statutes of the United States of the Secret Service? + +Mr. ROWLEY. Well, we are responsible under title 18, section 3056, +to investigate all violations that affect the currency, securities, +and coinage of the United States. That involves Government bonds, +Government checks, and such other functions and duties as are +authorized by law, subject to the direction of the Secretary of the +Treasury. + +In addition, we have the responsibility of the protection of the +President, members of his immediate family, the Vice President, +President-elect, Vice President-elect, and the former President for a +reasonable period of time as he leaves office. + +Mr. RANKIN. Will you please tell us what experience you had with the +Secret Service prior to the time that you became chief. + +Mr. ROWLEY. I was in charge of the White House detail from 1946 to 1961. + +Mr. RANKIN. Now, will you tell us briefly the training that you had in +regard to Government Service? + +Mr. ROWLEY. I first entered the Government as a member of the FBI +in 1937, and spent a year with the FBI, after which I went back to +New York for a period of 9 months. I entered the Secret Service on +September 12, 1938. I spent time in criminal investigation in the New +York City office, and the Utica office of Secret Service and in April +of 1939, I was assigned to Washington, eventually to the White House +detail. + +(At this point, Mr. Dulles entered the hearing room.) + +Mr. ROWLEY. I served as a member of the White House detail, as an agent +on a shift, as an assistant agent in charge, agent in charge of the +shift, and advance man, in preparing for Presidential visits, both +domestically and abroad. + +Mr. RANKIN. What educational training did you have? + +Mr. ROWLEY. I had 2 years of college toward a B.S., then I was +graduated from law school, and secured a master's degree in law. + +Mr. RANKIN. Was one of the duties of your position as chief of the +Service to have general supervision over the trip of President Kennedy +and Vice President Johnson to Dallas around November 22, 1963? + +Mr. ROWLEY. Well, that would be part of my job--the general supervision +of the trip. The actual direct supervision would have been under the +jurisdiction of Mr. Behn, who was in charge of the White House detail. + +Mr. RANKIN. Could you describe briefly the nature of Mr. Behn's +responsibilities in that work? + +Mr. ROWLEY. Well, it would have been, as mine was in the period I was +there, that he was responsible for developing all arrangements with +the members of the White House staff, designating the members of the +detail to develop advance work, assigning agents to the various shifts, +directing their training as it applied to the White House detail, +and participating in any event that he thought would be necessary in +connection with his work at the White House. + +Mr. RANKIN. Did you become familiar with what did happen on that trip, +in your position as chief? + +Mr. ROWLEY. Yes; I was first informed while addressing a graduating +class of our Secret Service school on that day. I was summoned by Mr. +Behn to the White House, at which time he told me that the President +had been shot. He was then at the hospital, and subsequently we were +notified that the President had died; that the Vice President would +take the oath of office in the airplane at Love Field. + +In the meantime, I asked my deputy, who was in his office while I +was at the White House, to arrange with the Immigration Service to +close the border, Texas being in close proximity to the border. There +might have been a conspiracy or something, we didn't want to take +any chances. And then I immediately dispatched an inspector from my +staff to the Capitol to protect the Speaker, and directed the other +activities as we got the information from Dallas. + +Mr. RANKIN. Did you learn in connection with the trip when the +assassination occurred that certain of the Secret Service agents had +been in the press club and what is called the Cellar, at Fort Worth, +the night before? + +Mr. ROWLEY. Well, that came to my attention through a broadcast that +Mr. Pearson made, that the agents were inebriated the night before at +the Fort Worth Press Club. I immediately dispatched Inspector McCann to +Fort Worth to investigate the report, and to interview the agents. + +Mr. RANKIN. What did you learn? + +Mr. ROWLEY. I learned that there were nine agents involved at the Press +Club. And I might say this--the agents on duty throughout that day +had no opportunity to eat. When they arrived at Fort Worth, they were +informed that there was a buffet to be served at the Fort Worth Club. +This is what I ascertained in personal interviews. Upon going over +there, they learned there was no buffet, and some of them stayed for +a drink. Three, I think, had one Scotch, and others had two or three +beers. They were in and out--from the time they arrived, I would say +roughly around 12:30, until the place closed at 2 o'clock. + +Now, after that some of them went to the Cellar. This is a place that +does not serve alcoholic beverages. They went there primarily, I think, +out of curiosity, because this was some kind of a beatnik place where +someone gets up and recites, or plays the guitar. + +Mr. RANKIN. Did you learn whether or not there were any violations of +the regulations of the Secret Service by these men? + +Mr. ROWLEY. Yes; there was a violation. At that time there was a +section in our manual in effect that said that during---- + +Mr. RANKIN. Will you give us first the number? + +Mr. ROWLEY. Section 10. + +Mr. RANKIN. Is that chapter 1, page 7? + +Mr. ROWLEY. Chapter 1, page 7; yes, sir. + +Mr. RANKIN. Now, will you tell the Commission about what the regulation +was? + +Mr. ROWLEY. "The use of liquor. Employees are strictly enjoined to +refrain from the use of intoxicating liquor during the hours they are +officially employed at their post of duty or when they may reasonably +expect that they may be called upon to perform an official duty." + +The one that applies here--"However, all members of the White House +detail and special agents cooperating with them on presidential and +similar protective assignments are considered to be subject to call for +official duty at any time while in travel status. Therefore, the use of +intoxicating liquor of any kind, including beer and wine, by members +of the White House detail and special agents cooperating with them or +by special agents on similar assignments, while they are in a travel +status, is prohibited." + +Mr. RANKIN. Can you tell the Commission how many men were involved in +these trips to the Press Club and the Cellar, where these things were +done? + +Mr. ROWLEY. There were 9 men involved at the Press Club, and there were +10 men involved at the Cellar. + +Mr. RANKIN. Now, how many men, of those 10 men, were in the +Presidential motorcade on the day of the assassination? + +Mr. ROWLEY. Four--four men were in the followup car. + +The CHAIRMAN. Who were they? + +Mr. RANKIN. Do you know their names? + +Mr. ROWLEY. Yes; Landis, Hill, Ready, and Bennett. + +Mr. RANKIN. Did you make any investigation to determine whether or not +their violation of the Secret Service regulations had anything to do +with the assassination of the President? + +Mr. ROWLEY. Yes. They performed their duties from the time they +departed in the followup car from Love Field until the point of the +tragedy in a most satisfactory manner. There was nothing deficient in +their actions or their alertness. They went through the heaviest part +of downtown Dallas, through the crowds, and performed in an exemplary +manner. + +Mr. RANKIN. How do you know that? + +Mr. ROWLEY. From the reports that I got from their superiors. + +Mr. RANKIN. In the work that you did with the White House detail before +you became Chief of the Secret Service, did you know the various +responsibilities of the members of the White House detail? + +Mr. ROWLEY. Yes, sir. + +Mr. RANKIN. Did you ever participate in such motorcades yourself? + +Mr. ROWLEY. I have; yes, sir. + +Mr. RANKIN. How much? + +Mr. ROWLEY. Well, I have participated, in rough numbers, over a period +of 22 years--roughly, maybe, a thousand or more. + +Mr. RANKIN. Will you briefly describe the functions of the Secret +Service agents in connection with the President's car? + +The CHAIRMAN. Have you finished this other matter? + +Mr. RANKIN. No; I just wanted to---- + +The CHAIRMAN. All right. Go right ahead. + +Mr. ROWLEY. When the President's car leaves the airport or a railroad +station or any other location, the agents accompany him to the car and +stand to the right and left, in the same order as their designated +positions on the followup car, and screen him. And then the car moves +out, slowly, because the rest of the cars have to have an opportunity +to follow in the motorcade, so that none lingers behind, or is left +behind. And then the agent in the lead car determines that the +motorcade is intact and is moving, then he steps up his speed, which is +a cue to the Presidential driver to step up his speed, and then they go +at a speed consistent with the crowd that is there, and so forth. + +Now, upon leaving the airport, if there is a huge crowd there, the +men are still on the ground running on the right and left side of the +President, both rear and front of the vehicle. After they get out of +the crowd, then the men in the front beside the Presidential vehicle +drop back and take their positions in the followup car. + +This is so that they are not in the way of the men running on the right +and left rear. They move back last and have a clear opportunity to jump +onboard the followup car in the event the speed of the motorcade is +stepped up. + +When the motorcade comes to intersections or turns which are always +vulnerable points, in that if you make a right turn, that is the +closest point for someone to come out, the agents on the right side +before reaching that point, will jump off, to be available alongside +the President's car in the event someone darts out with some malicious +plan. + +There have also been times when, innocently, ladies and young people +will come out to throw a bouquet of flowers. And then if there is a +crowd that is sparse, they return to their position in the followup car. + +Now, when they come into a big crowd, they take it on foot, and at a +little jog, if necessary. + +In some instances, if the crowd continues for a prolonged distance, +the agents work together. In other words, there are rear steps on the +right and left rear of the Presidential car with handrails. These have +two purposes. One, for agents to ride on and to screen the President +from anything from above; the second, in a situation like this, to keep +an additional man available in case of trouble, and also to alternate +with the men to the right rear of the President, who are jogging along +warding off the crowd. + +Mr. RANKIN. Now, what positions did the four men that you referred to +that were involved in the press club and the Cellar matter occupy on +the day of the assassination? + +Mr. ROWLEY. Well, Mr. Ready occupied the right front, Mr. Landis to his +rear---- + +Mr. RANKIN. What do you mean by right front? + +Mr. ROWLEY. Right front running board position of the followup car. It +was his responsibility or duty to jump off in crowds and to take the +position at the right rear of the President's car. + +Mr. Landis, if necessary, to jump off if the occasion demanded and take +the right front of the President's car. + +Mr. Hill was on the left front running board of the followup car, and +his responsibility was at the rear of the President's car. His position +was assigned there because he was in charge of the First Lady's detail, +and she was seated on the left side. + +And Mr. McIntyre was to his rear on the left running board. So his +assignment would have been up to the left front of the President's car. +Mr. Bennett was in the rear seat of the followup car. + +Mr. RANKIN. Now, how can you tell that the fact that they were out as +they were the night before and violated the regulations, had nothing to +do with the assassination? + +Mr. ROWLEY. Well, based on the reports of my investigating agents and +the facts as to how they performed at the time of the tragedy. Mr. +Hill, who was on the left side, responded immediately--as he looked +toward the Presidential car, being on the left side, he scanned from +left to right, and when he saw there was something happening to the +President following a noise, he immediately jumped from his position to +get aboard from his side. + +Mr. Ready scanned to the right so he was looking away from the +President, because he was looking around from the right side. As a +consequence, he wasn't aware of what was happening in the front. The +car was also going on a turn at that time. + +Mr. RANKIN. What about the other two? + +Mr. ROWLEY. The other two were watching--they reacted normally--the man +on the left side looked to his left rear, and the man, Landis, looked +to his right rear. + +Mr. RANKIN. Have you done anything to discipline these men for +violation of the regulations of the Secret Service? + +Mr. ROWLEY. Well, I did consider what type of punishment would be +provided. + +Then I also considered the fact that these men in no way had--their +conduct had no bearing on the assassination. And, therefore, I thought +that in the light of history, to place a stigma on them by punishing +them at that time, from which inevitably the public would conclude that +they were responsible for the assassination of the President--I didn't +think this was fair, and that they did not deserve that, with their +family and children. + +(At this point, Representative Ford entered the hearing room.) + +Mr. DULLES. May I ask one question there? + +You described the assignment of the four men with respect to the +followup car and the President's car. Do they have different +assignments with regard to watching what is happening around them, or +does that depend on the circumstances in which they are? + +Mr. ROWLEY. Both. When they start off they have a certain area that +they have to watch. Like the man in the right front would naturally +watch slightly to the right and in front of him. The fellow on the +side, behind him, will watch to the right and rear. In other words, +as they are going by a building, he should scan the building. In the +meantime, he picks up where the man in the front has finished. In other +words, the scan of the man in the front will cover the building to his +front and side; the fellow behind will scan alongside from rear to +forward. Their scanning joins. This is the way they are accustomed to +doing it. + +Mr. DULLES. Who would cover straight ahead? + +Mr. ROWLEY. The man in the front seat has that responsibility. + +Mr. RANKIN. Chief Rowley, how do you construe subparagraph (c) of your +regulation 10 regarding the use of alcoholic liquors? + +The CHAIRMAN. Will you read it for the record? + +Mr. RANKIN. Will you kindly read it? + +Mr. ROWLEY. "Violation or slight disregard of the above paragraphs +or the excessive or improper use of intoxicating liquor at any time +will be cause for removal from the service. In interpreting the words +'excessive' and 'improper,' slight evidence tending to indicate +unusual or questionable conduct will be considered proof that the use +of liquor has been improper or excessive. Association with others who +drink to excess will be considered as an indication of using more +than a moderate amount of liquor. The excuse that liquor was used for +medicinal purposes will not be accepted." + +Mr. RANKIN. How do you construe and apply that? + +Mr. ROWLEY. Well, in this instance, it was wrong. + +Mr. RANKIN. Now, were these men under this regulation considered to be +on travel status, so that they should not be using intoxicating liquor? + +Mr. ROWLEY. Yes, sir. + +Mr. RANKIN. And there is no question about that in your mind? + +Mr. ROWLEY. No, sir. + +Mr. RANKIN. Has anything been done to reprimand and cause them to +realize that this is a violation of your regulations? + +Mr. ROWLEY. They were interviewed by the inspector at the time. The +seriousness of the matter was impressed upon them. And I think they +recognize the seriousness of their acts. + +The men we recruit are men that are college graduates and mature, +and we screen them very carefully, particularly before we assign +them to the White House detail. They know and we know that they are +in a fishbowl 24 hours a day, and that, therefore, their conduct +is always subject to scrutiny, and so forth, and that they are +responsible individuals. Their records have indicated that they have +been performing in a high degree. They have worked endless hours of +overtime. They are dedicated. And if they were not, they would not be +on the detail. + +They realize the seriousness of the violation, and I went over it with +my special agent in charge. He understands it. And I am quite sure that +they all understand it at this time. + +Mr. RANKIN. I would like to have you examine Commission Exhibit No. +1018, Chief Rowley, and see if that is the regulation of the Secret +Service that you have been referring to. + +Mr. ROWLEY. Yes; that is what I have been reading here, sir. + +Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Chief Justice, I would like to offer as a part of the +record the regulation, Commission Exhibit No. 1018. + +The CHAIRMAN. It may he admitted. + +(The document was marked for identification as Commission Exhibit No. +1018, and received in evidence.) + +Mr. RANKIN. Chief Rowley, have you had any other complaints similar +to this in regard to the conduct of the Secret Service agents on the +Presidential or White House detail? + +Mr. ROWLEY. We had one in the last month. We had charges leveled at us +by an agent of the Secret Service---- + +Mr. RANKIN. Will you tell us about that? + +Mr. ROWLEY. Who is currently under indictment, and who will be brought +to trial on criminal charges on the 29th of June. And, for that reason, +while I have no reluctance to discuss it, I think we should go off the +record, because I don't want to in any way prejudice the case. + +The CHAIRMAN. There is no reason to discuss that case here, Chief. + +Is there anything in particular that would affect this situation you +wanted to know about, Mr. Rankin? + +Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Chief Justice, the only thing would be the +investigation as to whether or not there was comparable conduct. +I didn't know whether the Commission would like to know what that +investigation was and what the results of it were. + +The CHAIRMAN. Well, I suppose there is no objection to the Chief +telling us what this complaint was, but not insofar as it bears on the +crime that he is charged with. + +Mr. ROWLEY. Well, it ties in with the crime, because he said he was +framed. + +Now, he said he was framed because he was prepared to go before your +Commission, sir, to testify about this thing that happened 3 years +ago, and in the charges he said he advised me, as well as others, and +nothing was done. He said he was framed for this reason. + +The CHAIRMAN. Had he ever made any complaint to you before? + +Mr. ROWLEY. He had never made any complaint to me. It came as a +complete surprise. + +Representative FORD. The complaint to you came subsequent to the filing +of criminal charges against him? + +Mr. ROWLEY. He said he had made the charges at the time the alleged +incidents occurred, Mr. Congressman, that he notified me, before he +left an assignment 3 years ago. + +Let me give you the background, so there is no misunderstanding. We +have what we call an orientation program. The men we recruit from the +colleges, and the type of men that we want, we cannot always get off +the civil service roster. Therefore, we have an understanding with +Civil Service that we can take men under schedule A. Within a period of +2 years, they will have to be assigned to the White House or dropped +from the Service. + +Now, in order to determine their ability and fitness for assignment, +since some people are better criminal investigators than they are in +protection work, we have an orientation program which includes duty +on the White House detail. Mr. Bolden was one of the men selected to +come in the summer of 1961. He was also a replacement for some regular +agent on the detail who was on leave. It was a 30-day assignment. This +afforded us an opportunity to observe him, determine whether he was +equipped and so forth. + +And he was on the White House detail for this short period of time. The +time that he describes was a 5-day weekend up in Hyannis Port. + +Mr. RANKIN. I don't think that quite answers---- + +Mr. ROWLEY. I am giving the background. + +Mr. RANKIN. I think the question is as to when you got the complaint. + +Mr. ROWLEY. Well--excuse me. [Continuing.] Before he left his detail +assignment, you see, he alleges that he told me about the condition +that was going on up in Hyannis. + +Representative FORD. Before he left on this 30-day assignment? + +Mr. ROWLEY. When he left to return to his office in Chicago. + +Mr. RANKIN. And what is the fact in that regard? + +Mr. ROWLEY. The fact is he never informed me. He never informed any of +his supervisors or anyone on the detail. + +Mr. RANKIN. I think the record should show, Mr. Chairman, that we +were never advised that he wanted to testify, nor had we any inquiry +or anything about the matter, until after we learned about it in the +newspapers. And, even then, he didn't ask to testify. And we asked the +FBI to check into it, and he had counsel, and they refused to tell +anything about the matter at that time. + +Mr. DULLES. Could I ask a question? + +Did I understand you to say that the Civil Service prescribes that +certain men must be assigned to the White House for a certain detail? + +Mr. ROWLEY. No, Mr. Dulles; we have an arrangement with the Civil +Service that they will permit us to recruit these men, not from +the register, but under what they call schedule A. They give us an +opportunity, 2 years, to train these men, with the understanding that +within 2 years' time they will have to be assigned to the White House +detail or we will not be able to retain them in the Service. + +However, during that 2 years, we urge them to take the civil service +examination, so that they get on the register. And then when they +do--quite frequently this occurs--they are selected from the register, +and once they become permanent, if they are not interested in the White +House detail, then they continue their work as a criminal investigator +in the field. + +Mr. DULLES. But if they do not take that special examination, then--and +become a part of the civil service, then they have to be assigned to +the White House, to stay on? + +Mr. ROWLEY. Yes. + +Mr. DULLES. I was a little worried when you said certain people had +to be assigned to the White House, that you were under compulsion to +assign certain people to the White House in order to retain them. + +Mr. ROWLEY. No; anyone who works in the White House, whether he is +an electrician, a painter, or anything, for a period of 2 years, he +automatically becomes eligible for permanent civil service status. + +Representative FORD. Is that by law or by regulation? + +Mr. ROWLEY. That I cannot say. I would always interpret it as under +law. I may be wrong on that, Mr. Ford, but this is what happens. When +our men spend 2 years on the detail at the White House, they come +within that classification. + +Mr. RANKIN. Chief, can you clarify Commissioner Dulles' inquiry? The +Civil Service does not direct that you put certain people in the White +House? + +Mr. ROWLEY. Oh, no; we do that in order to--I see your point, sir. We +do that in order to give them the permanency that they should have to +continue their employment with the Secret Service. + +Mr. RANKIN. But that is the choice of the Secret Service rather than +anybody else? + +Mr. ROWLEY. Yes, sir. + +Mr. DULLES. I gather the Civil Service prescribed if they did not do +this, they could not be retained. Is that correct? + +Mr. ROWLEY. That is right. In other words---- + +Mr. DULLES. There is some pressure, I should think. + +Mr. ROWLEY. There is no pressure, because we voluntarily entered into +an agreement with them, sir, for this arrangement, explaining that we +frequently don't get from the register the type of men that we want, +and that, therefore, we want the opportunity to recruit the men from +the universities or colleges. Once they have served on the White House +detail for a period of 2 years, then they would get this permanent +status. However, during the 2 years, they have an opportunity and they +are encouraged to take the civil service examination, so they get +career status. But there is no pressure from the Civil Service. It is a +convenience or agreement that they have arranged with us. + +Mr. RANKIN. Maybe I can help, Chief. Schedule A is an exemption from +the regular civil service roster, is it not? + +Mr. ROWLEY. That is correct. + +Mr. RANKIN. And the register is a list of employees from which you have +to otherwise select Government employees if they are not exempt by +reason of their positions, is that correct? + +Mr. ROWLEY. That is right. + +Representative FORD. In other words, Civil Service Commission has set +up for the White House detail all inclusive---- + +Mr. ROWLEY. Not necessarily for the White House detail, Mr. Ford. For +the Secret Service--to allow us to get the type of individuals that we +want for both criminal investigation and protective work. Because if +you say exclusively for the White House detail, the fellow might not be +equipped for the White House detail. + +Representative FORD. In other words, every person recruited by Secret +Service for any capacity is recruited in the first instance under +schedule A. + +Mr. ROWLEY. Yes; if he hasn't--if he is not on the register for +civil service. We first go to the Civil Service, when we want to +select somebody, to see if there is anyone on there that meets our +qualifications. And then, if not, then we hire them under schedule A, +which is sort of a blanket exemption. + +Representative FORD. But I gather from what you have said, or I think +you are intimating that most of your recruiting actually is from +colleges, and they are under schedule A. + +Mr. ROWLEY. That is right; yes, sir. Most of them from your State, +sir--Michigan State University. + +Representative FORD. It is a fine school. + +Mr. ROWLEY. That is where it started, actually. They were the first +ones. Now we also recruit on the west coast, in California, they have +terrific schools out there. + +Mr. RANKIN. Chief Rowley, I don't think you covered the Bolden matter +as to whether you had an investigation made. Did you? + +Mr. ROWLEY. Yes; I did, sir. + +Mr. RANKIN. Did you find out anything about the conduct of your agents? + +Mr. ROWLEY. I found out there was no truth to the charges of +misconduct. There were 11 charges lodged against us. + +One charge, the ninth charge, a part of it was true. The boys did +contribute for food. In other words, up there in Hyannis, when they are +up there for a week, or a weekend, they would be assigned to a house, +which economically was beneficial to them. One shift, and some of the +drivers would be in this house. This house was in a remote area from +the shopping area and so forth. So they agreed when they arrived there +to contribute, to buy food for breakfast, it being an 8 to 4 shift. +Eight to four meant they would have breakfast there and dinner. + +Mr. RANKIN. What do you mean by that, Chief? Did they get a certain +house and were able to live together there to reduce their expenses? + +Mr. ROWLEY. That is correct. + +Mr. RANKIN. And then they each contributed to that common expense? + +Mr. ROWLEY. That is correct. + +Mr. RANKIN. And did someone cook for them? + +Mr. ROWLEY. One of the agents who enjoyed it as a hobby cooked the +meals for them, while the others took care of the dishes. + +Mr. RANKIN. They did contribute to supporting that? + +Mr. ROWLEY. They contributed to supporting that, sir. + +Mr. RANKIN. Was there criticism of that action? + +Mr. ROWLEY. There was criticism of the action to this extent: That when +they went shopping they bought two or three cases of beer which they +had available in the icebox when the men came off duty in the evening. + +Mr. RANKIN. Now, were they on a travel status or subject to---- + +Mr. ROWLEY. Not on travel status under our regulations. They could +be there a week, and they would be working their 8 hours. They were +not working any longer than their 8 hours. It was comparable to their +assignment here in Washington. + +Mr. RANKIN. So it was really a summer White House position? + +Mr. ROWLEY. Summer White House is what we called it. + +Mr. RANKIN. And did you investigate the charges to see whether they +were valid? + +Mr. ROWLEY. I investigated. This portion was correct. There was some +substance to that portion. + +He also said he was left on post for a period of 2 hours and wasn't +relieved. That an agent had used this time to take care of his private +car. We established there was no agent up there who had a private car. + +Further, we established that he was left on post because according +to our arrangements it was routine that whenever the President went +out for a cruise, the agents on the outer perimeter at the time would +remain on duty, and the agents in the inner perimeter would accompany +the President on the cruise in the followup boat. Naturally, when they +were out on the boat, there was no one available to start what we +call the push, to rotate the men from one post to another. In other +words, in the White House or any place where we establish posts, every +half hour one man starts from the office and starts making the push. +The first man is relieved and he relieves the next one, so there is +no monotony on their jobs. They each have a different area. They are +conversant or acquainted with each and every phase of the physical +area. But because he was on one post, and not relieved, he complained. + +So the next day, to bend over backwards, and show there was not any +prejudice, the agent in charge took him on the cruise, so he would not +feel he was being ignored. + +Mr. RANKIN. Now, from your investigation, did you find any violation at +Hyannis of the regulations of the Secret Service? + +Mr. ROWLEY. No, sir. + +Mr. RANKIN. Have you been informed of any other claims that Secret +Service agents had been violating the regulations while on duty? + +Mr. ROWLEY. No, sir; I haven't been informed of any others. And it +seems in the last few days or few weeks we have been getting complaints +that we haven't had in many years. And I think, as I mentioned earlier, +because of the fact that we are very careful with the type of men we +screen, their record has been above reproach over the years. They have +conducted themselves in an exemplary manner. My files are replete with +commendations on behalf of the agents wherever they have traveled and +worked with committees and individuals in connection with Presidential +travels, both here and abroad, which testifies to the impression that +they have made. + +Mr. RANKIN. Have you ever had a Secret Service agent indicted or a +complaint filed against him, a criminal complaint, prior to this time? + +Mr. ROWLEY. This is the first time I remember anything like this +happening since I have been with the Secret Service. + +Representative FORD. Mr. Rankin, I don't recall Chief Rowley saying +precisely what the reprimands were specifically for these violations of +the regulations in this one instance. + +You spoke highly of their background, and you spoke very high in their +praise. But I did not hear what reprimand, if any, had actually been +lodged against them. + +Mr. ROWLEY. There was no reprimand. You are talking about the current +thing? + +Representative FORD. I am talking about the Dallas trip. + +Mr. ROWLEY. I stated in considering what would be an appropriate +punishment at the time, I felt that these men, by their conduct, had +no bearing on the assassination of the President in Dallas. That to +institute formal punishment or disciplinary action would inevitably +lead the public to conclude that they were responsible for the +assassination of President Kennedy. I did not think in the light of +history that they should be stigmatized with something like that, or +their families or children. And, for that reason, I took the position +that I did. + +Representative FORD. So there was no official reprimand or disciplinary +action? + +Mr. ROWLEY. No, sir. + +Mr. RANKIN. Did you talk to the agents, to indicate and make it plain +to them that this was a violation of the regulations? + +Mr. ROWLEY. I talked to some of the agents, as did my inspector at the +time, who interviewed each and every one of them. + +Mr. RANKIN. And I think the Commission would be interested in whether +you can be assured, or assure them that the action you took was +sufficient so that this would not happen again. + +Mr. ROWLEY. Well, I am confident that it would not happen again, Mr. +Rankin. + +Mr. RANKIN. Can you tell us why you think so? + +Mr. ROWLEY. Because they realize the seriousness of their action. + +Initially I can understand the situation--they thought they were going +for a dinner, buffet, and they got into the place and it wasn't there. + +I talked personally with the agents there, and they just thought while +they were there they would have a drink. It was one of those situations. + +The important thing was that it was pointed out to them this was wrong, +this was a violation. These men are young men with futures, they +realize the true situation, innocent as they may have seemed to think +it was. + +But I am quite confident that we will not have a repetition of that. + +And in talking to Mr. Behn--I am confident, too, in him--I know that he +will see to it that they are well supervised. + +Mr. RANKIN. When they are out on a trip of this kind, Chief Rowley, +as I understand your regulations, it is understood by the regulations +and by the Secret Service that they are on duty all the time--that is, +subject to call? + +Mr. ROWLEY. Yes, sir. + +Mr. RANKIN. And even though it is late in the evening or they had gone +to bed in the early hours of the morning, they could be called to go on +duty and perform their responsibility of taking care of the President +or the Vice President, or whoever they are charged with; is that right? + +Mr. ROWLEY. That is right. + +Mr. RANKIN. So that do they understand that when they are out on that +kind of duty, they are subject to call at all times, and anything they +do contrary to regulations is a violation, because they are subject to +the call and must be ready at any moment to perform their duties. + +Mr. ROWLEY. They certainly do, because there have been situations, +whether or not they have had it with the Kennedy administration I don't +know--but I know there have been situations where we have moved fast, +all hours of the night. I remember one instance, that has never been +disclosed--as Mr. Dulles knows, you never advertise your successes, you +just get the other things--that I would like to give you as an example +off the record, to answer your question, if I may. + +The CHAIRMAN. Off the record. + +(Discussion off the record.) + +The CHAIRMAN. Back on the record. + +Chief, it seems to me that on an assignment of that kind, to be alert +at all times is one of the necessities of the situation. And I just +wonder if you believe that men who did what these men did, being out +until early morning hours, doing a little--even a small amount of +drinking--would be as alert the next day as men should be when they are +charged with the tremendous responsibility of protecting the President. + +Mr. ROWLEY. Well, we checked on that, Mr. Chief Justice, and the agent +in charge reported that they were in good physical condition. I don't +condone these late hours; no. This is not a rule. This case is an +exception. However, because of the activities of any travel such as the +Presidents today make from one place to another, to maybe seven States +in a weekend, there is constant going. + +I don't condone this at all. But these men are young. They are of such +age that I think that they responded in this instance adequately and +sufficiently as anyone could under the circumstances. + +The CHAIRMAN. Well, I am thinking of this. As you go along in the +motorcade, you have men who are scanning the buildings along the way, +don't you? + +Mr. ROWLEY. Yes, sir. + +The CHAIRMAN. And they have submachineguns in one of the cars. + +Mr. ROWLEY. No; for security reasons, I would like to--we don't have +machine-guns now, sir. + +The CHAIRMAN. I just thought I heard that from the record here, that +they had some kind of guns. + +Mr. ROWLEY. They had a weapon, a new weapon; yes, sir. + +Mr. CHAIRMAN. Well, whatever it is. + +Now, other people, as they went along there, even some people in the +crowds, saw a man with a rifle up in this building from which the +President was shot. Now, don't you think that if a man went to bed +reasonably early, and hadn't been drinking the night before, would be +more alert to see those things as a Secret Service agent, than if they +stayed up until 3, 4, or 5 o'clock in the morning, going to beatnik +joints and doing some drinking along the way? + +Mr. ROWLEY. If I remember that witness' testimony--and that was one of +the first statements that he made--that witness was with his wife, and +he happened to look up there, and I think he said, "There is a man with +a rifle, it is a Secret Service man," and let it go at that. He didn't +inform any of the authorities. + +The CHAIRMAN. No; nobody did. But I say wouldn't an alert Secret +Service man in this motorcade, who is supposed to observe such things, +be more likely to observe something of that kind if he was free from +any of the results of liquor or lack of sleep than he would otherwise? + +Mr. ROWLEY. Well, yes; he would be. But then, on the other hand, Mr. +Chief Justice, in some instances the men come in from a trip at 1:30 in +the morning, which there have been cases on travels that I have made, +and have to be up at 3:30 or 4 o'clock, and out in time for a 5 o'clock +departure. Then you go all that day until 1 or 2 o'clock the next +morning. This is what has happened in the past. + +The CHAIRMAN. I am not talking about the past. We are talking about +nine men here who were out until rather unusual hours of the morning. + +Mr. ROWLEY. Yes, sir. + +The CHAIRMAN. They were to be on duty the next day. + +The next day--or if not sooner. + +The next day they were supposed to be alert to anything that might +occur along the line of march. Don't you think that they would have +been much more alert, sharper, had they not been doing these things? + +Mr. ROWLEY. Yes, sir; but I don't believe they could have prevented the +assassination. + +The CHAIRMAN. Isn't it a substantial violation of these rules to do a +thing of that kind? + +Mr. ROWLEY. Yes, sir--on the basis of this section here. + +The CHAIRMAN. Yes. + +Now, Chief I noticed, also, in reading some of the reports that three +of these men whom you speak of, were actually on night duty, protecting +the life of the President. And around 4 o'clock in the morning, when +they were protecting him at the Texas Hotel, they said that they had a +coffee break, and they went from the hotel over to the beatnik joint. +Now, is that consistent with your regulations? + +Mr. ROWLEY. In this case, I talked to these three agents. They were +relieved at different times--because their posts are in the corridor of +a stuffy hotel---- + +The CHAIRMAN. Of the what? + +Mr. ROWLEY. The corridor that they were on post outside the President's +suite was a stuffy one, and they went downstairs to get a breath of +fresh air. And they walked--it was a block--and out of curiosity they +went into this place. One fellow looked in and left, he didn't buy +any coffee. Another fellow went in and felt, I suppose, when he went +in that he would buy a cup of coffee. But they were on what we call +reliefs, the same as we relieve them around the White House. There are +only so many posts, but you have a group of men in one of the rooms +of the hotel where they are available, like an alert squad, and they +relieve everyone on post every half hour. It is a part of the rotation +of positions we have. + +The CHAIRMAN. Do you have any regulations concerning where they shall +remain when they are relieved for this short period of time? + +Mr. ROWLEY. No, sir. + +The CHAIRMAN. They can go any place they want? + +Mr. ROWLEY. No; not any place. They usually stay within the immediate +confines. That is understood. The hotel or the residence. + +The CHAIRMAN. Well, they didn't do that here, did they? + +Mr. ROWLEY. No, sir. + +The CHAIRMAN. They went to the beatnik joint. + +Mr. ROWLEY. Yes, sir. + +The CHAIRMAN. Now, is that consistent with their duty? + +Mr. ROWLEY. No; it is not consistent or inconsistent with their duty. +But as they explained to me, they wanted to get a breath of fresh air. +If they are at a residence in a remote place, and they want to walk +around the area, they might walk maybe a city block or so, which is +what they do on a lot of these assignments--particularly in hotels. +This was not an air-conditioned hotel. + +The CHAIRMAN. It would seem to me that a beatnik joint is a place +where queer people of all kinds gather anyway, and that the mere fact +that these men did leave their post of duty might be an indication to +someone that the President was not being protected, and might leave an +opening for them to go there and try to do something. + +Mr. ROWLEY. They were relieved, Mr. Chief Justice. They didn't leave +their post of duty. They would not leave their post of duty until they +were relieved by someone. + +The CHAIRMAN. As I understood the report, they said they left for a +coffee break. + +Mr. ROWLEY. Well, it is an expression. They left to have coffee, sir. + +The CHAIRMAN. Was there any place for coffee in the hotel? + +Mr. ROWLEY. I think there was a coffee shop in the hotel; yes, sir. + +The CHAIRMAN. That was the only place in town, as I understood, from +the reports, outside of the beatnik place they could. But they went +down to the beatnik place. Did they do that by prearrangement with the +other agents? + +Mr. ROWLEY. No, sir; it was curiosity on their part. They hadn't seen +the other agents. There was no arrangement of any nature at all, sir. + +The CHAIRMAN. But they did there meet other agents? + +Mr. ROWLEY. They saw other agents--those that were in the place at the +time they looked in. I think they came in after most had left, though. + +Mr. DULLES. Were these men off duty for the night or were they going +back on duty immediately after this break? + +Mr. ROWLEY. No; they were on duty. They were the midnight shift, Mr. +Dulles, from 12 to 8 a.m. + +Mr. DULLES. They were going back on duty? + +Mr. ROWLEY. They were going back on duty; yes, sir; in 10 minutes, 15 +minutes. + +Mr. DULLES. I see. + +Representative FORD. And they did go back on duty and relieve somebody +subsequent to this? + +Mr. ROWLEY. That is right; yes, sir. + +Mr. RANKIN. Chief Rowley, did you give the Commission a letter as of +May 5 of this year in regard to this Dallas matter concerning the Press +Club and the Cellar? + +Mr. ROWLEY. Yes, sir. + +Mr. RANKIN. And is that letter correct in regard to what happened as +far as you know? + +Mr. ROWLEY. Yes, sir. + +Mr. RANKIN. And did you make available to the Commission the statements +of each agent signed by the agent? + +Mr. ROWLEY. Yes, sir. + +Mr. DULLES. I think you said Dallas. Did you not mean Fort Worth? + +Mr. RANKIN. Yes--it should be Fort Worth, I am sorry. Thank you. + +I hand you Commission Exhibit No. 1019 and ask you if that is your +letter of May 5 that we have just referred to. + +(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 1019 for +identification.) + +Mr. ROWLEY. Yes, sir. + +Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Chairman, I offer in evidence Commission Exhibit No. +1019. + +The CHAIRMAN. It may be admitted. + +(The document heretofore marked for identification as Commission +Exhibit No. 1019, was received in evidence.) + +The CHAIRMAN. Chief, I notice in the report that was made that while +your inspector found that no one--no member of the Secret Service was +intoxicated at the club--but that there was someone connected with the +group who was intoxicated. + +Mr. ROWLEY. Yes, sir. + +The CHAIRMAN. I wonder if that also wasn't a violation of that portion +of the rule which says, "In interpreting the words 'excessive' and +'improper' slight evidence tending to indicate unusual or questionable +conduct will be considered proof that the use of liquor has been +improper or excessive. Association with others who drink to excess will +be considered as an indication of using more than a moderate amount of +liquor." + +Did you call that to the attention of your people? + +Mr. ROWLEY. Yes, sir. They ran into that individual as they were +entering--two agents ran into this individual as they were entering the +Fort Worth Club. + +The CHAIRMAN. Go ahead. + +Mr. RANKIN. Chief Rowley, I hand you Commission Exhibit No. 1020, and +ask you if that is a document that you had prepared for the Commission. + +(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 1020 for +identification.) + +Mr. ROWLEY. Yes, sir. + +Mr. RANKIN. And that includes, under capital letter A, the transmittal +from Inspector McCann; B, the report of the investigation by Inspector +McCann; C, the Drew Pearson article? + +Mr. ROWLEY. Yes, sir. + +Mr. RANKIN. D, the statements of the supervisors; and, E, the +statements of the special agents; F, the statements of witnesses; and, +G, the memorandum of May 19, 1964, by Agent Sorrels, is that right? + +Mr. ROWLEY. That is right. + +Mr. RANKIN. And are those various documents a part of the official +report by the Secret Service to the Commission of this matter? + +Mr. ROWLEY. Yes, sir. + +Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Chairman, I offer in evidence Commission Exhibit No. +1020. + +The CHAIRMAN. It may be so admitted. + +(The document heretofore marked for identification as Commission +Exhibit No. 1020, was received in evidence.) + +Mr. DULLES. Off the record, may I ask a question? + +The CHAIRMAN. Yes. + +(Discussion off the record.) + +The CHAIRMAN. Back on the record. + +Chief, I notice--I have read this report. At any place in here, did any +of your investigators, Inspector McCann, or your special agents, or +anybody else, indicate that there had been any violation of any kind on +the part of your people, or particularly any violation of this section +10, chapter 1, page 7 of the Secret Service manual? + +Mr. ROWLEY. I think what happened in this instance, we responded +to the broadcast of Mr. Pearson and his charge that the men were +inebriated. We were primarily concerned with that at that time. And to +get the statements from the men. But I do know that in the course of +his interviewing of these individuals at the time, and taking their +statements, he impressed upon them the fact that there was a violation. + +The CHAIRMAN. Has there been any report made to the Commission to the +effect that there was any violation of---- + +Mr. ROWLEY. No, sir; unless it is contained in this document here, sir. + +The CHAIRMAN. I have not seen anything in there. It seems to me they +were all given a complete bill of health. And I just wonder if that is +quite consistent with the facts that the Commission should have. + +Mr. ROWLEY. No, sir; as I said earlier, we don't condone their actions, +nor do we try to belittle the violation. But in the circumstances, I +took the decision that I thought right in view of the tragedy and so +forth. In any other circumstance it would have been entirely different. +But as I said earlier, I don't think that these people should be blamed +for the tragedy that happened at that time, and that any attempt to +assess formal punishment would in the light of history stigmatize them +for the rest of their life, as well as their families. + +Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Chairman, I plan to leave that subject now--unless +there is some further question. + +The CHAIRMAN. Any further questions? + +Very well. + +Mr. RANKIN. Chief Rowley, will you tell us whether you learned anything +about the preparations in Dallas for the visit of the President on +November 22? + +Mr. ROWLEY. Yes; I read the report of Special Agent Lawson, who was +designated as the advance agent for that visit. + +Mr. RANKIN. And do you know that that report has been furnished to us? + +Mr. ROWLEY. Yes, sir. + +Mr. RANKIN. A copy of it. + +And have you examined it to determine whether it is accurate, as far as +you can determine? + +Mr. ROWLEY. It is accurate; yes, sir. + +Mr. RANKIN. Do you have any additions or corrections? + +Mr. ROWLEY. No; I have no corrections to make, sir. + +Mr. RANKIN. Were you--are you satisfied, now examining that report, +with the manner in which the advance preparations for the trip of the +President were handled? + +Mr. ROWLEY. Yes, sir. + +The report follows the standard procedure that we have exercised +over the years, and in many of the trips we had taken with the late +President. He covered everything with the police and all that we have +normally covered on such visits. + +Mr. RANKIN. Did you have enough agents at that time to perform the +required duties in connection with this trip for both Dallas and the +other cities in Texas to be visited? + +Mr. ROWLEY. Well, we never have enough agents for the activities that +the President today is engaged in. We draw from the field to supplement +or augment the agents from the White House detail. We move the agents +from one point to another where we can--particularly in the area of the +advance men. + +But in Dallas we had sufficient agents with prior experience in +Presidential protection who assisted Mr. Lawson in the advance +preparations. + +Mr. RANKIN. Did you furnish to the Commission a statement of the +preparations that were made for the trip? + +Mr. ROWLEY. Yes, sir. + +Mr. RANKIN. And that included the various protective activities, did it? + +Mr. ROWLEY. Yes, sir. + +Mr. RANKIN. I hand you Commission Exhibit No. 1021, and ask you if that +is the report you made in regard to the trip. + +Mr. ROWLEY. Yes, sir. + +(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 1021 for +identification.) + +Mr. RANKIN. Do you have any corrections or additions that you care to +make to it? + +Mr. ROWLEY. No, sir. + +Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Chairman, I offer in evidence Commission Exhibit No. +1021. + +The CHAIRMAN. It may be admitted. + +(The document heretofore marked for identification as Commission +Exhibit No. 1021, was received in evidence.) + +The CHAIRMAN. Chief, I have wondered about this question. Some months +before Ambassador Adlai Stevenson had been handled very roughly in +Dallas. Did you make--did your people make any investigation as to that +group that caused that disturbance for him, to see if there might be +some possibility of the same thing happening to the President? + +Mr. ROWLEY. Not immediately at the time of the incident that occurred +to Mr. Stevenson, but when the advance man came down, that was one of +the things that we assigned a local agent to inquire into, to ascertain +the hard core of that group, if you will, that were responsible for +stimulating that activity. And he contacted an informant, and with the +local police, who are members of a special squad that are involved in +this kind of activity, they went and identified through pictures, which +they saw in the newsreel, the principal members. They had photographs +made, and they issued them to the agents on their visit there, to be on +the lookout for these men as potential troublemakers. + +(At this point, Representative Boggs entered the hearing room.) + +The CHAIRMAN. Did they do the same thing concerning the incident that +Vice President Johnson had a year or so before that? + +Mr. ROWLEY. No, sir; not at that time. That was more or less in the +heat of a political campaign. I don't think that was a similar type of +activity. + +The CHAIRMAN. I see. + +But you did do it with the Stevenson matter? + +Mr. ROWLEY. That is right. + +Mr. RANKIN. Chief Rowley, did you make a report to the Commission with +regard to the publicity concerning the trip of the President? + +Mr. ROWLEY. Yes, sir. + +Mr. RANKIN. And is Commission Exhibit No. 1022 that report? + +Mr. ROWLEY. Yes, sir. + +(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 1022 for +identification.) + +Mr. RANKIN. Do you wish to make any additions or corrections of that +letter? + +Mr. ROWLEY. Of that letter? No. + +Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Chairman, I offer in evidence Commission Exhibit No. +1022. + +The CHAIRMAN. It may be admitted. + +(The document heretofore marked for identification as Commission +Exhibit No. 1022, was received in evidence.) + +Mr. RANKIN. Chief Rowley, could you inform the Commission about the +advance publicity concerning trips of the President to various parts of +the country? There has been the question raised as to whether that is a +threat to the President, and might make the work of the Secret Service +and others who are doing protective work more difficult. + +Mr. ROWLEY. Well, we have found that it is. And we always consider it +as a potential threat in that it might give someone the opportunity +who had any plans, whether it be an individual as in this case, or a +group, to select an area, if they knew what the route was, or conduct +a reconnaissance, if you will. I have always been opposed to it, and I +have always tried to prevail upon the staff of the various Presidents +who might be responsible for the release, not to release it too far in +advance. + +Mr. RANKIN. Could you tell the Commission what the problem is in that +regard? + +Mr. ROWLEY. Well, in this regard, it is a political thing, and the +President cannot be contained in a vacuum. If he wants to go out and +meet the people under our form of government, he will in his own +way. Each and every President has his own thoughts and methods as it +pertains to these visits, and the need for publicity. This trip in +Dallas was an opportunity for the people to see the President, as are +the trips of any President. I remember well when President Truman +started his trip across the country in June 1948, the purpose being to +get the feel of the people and let the people see him at the time. + +And it was then, as a result of that trip, that he determined he would +run for reelection. That I know of my own personal knowledge. + +But these are the things that are hard in security, as far as +developing a close screen on the President. + +Mr. RANKIN. Is the Protective Research Section of the Secret Service +under your direction, too? + +Mr. ROWLEY. Yes, sir; that is part of the White House area, sir. + +Mr. RANKIN. Are you familiar with the testimony of Robert Bouck +concerning that Section? + +Mr. ROWLEY. Yes, sir. + +Mr. RANKIN. Do you know whether that accurately describes the conduct +of that Section? + +Mr. ROWLEY. Well, at that time. The Section was established by us +some 20 years ago, and primarily to process threats, obscene letters +and suicide notes. Over the years, and particularly during the last 9 +years, the work has evolved to a point where we find that it requires +further expansion. + +It had a broad and general concept in the criteria of what it needed +for Presidential protection in knowing what risks were about the +country. + +Mr. RANKIN. Did the Secret Service have a written communication to +other intelligence agencies as to the criteria for information that +they sought? + +Mr. ROWLEY. At that time? + +Mr. RANKIN. Yes; at that time. + +Mr. ROWLEY. No; it was more or less of an informal arrangement that we +had with the agencies, as we developed the Section. + +Mr. RANKIN. Will you tell the Commission what the standard was that you +told the agencies you would like to have information concerning? + +Mr. ROWLEY. Well, if there were any threats to the President, we were +interested in being informed about it. We were in touch with the FBI, +the CIA and others. + +In the basic schools of the Treasury, and through coordination, our +agents in charge of the areas, in coordination meetings, would inform +representatives of other agencies of the type that we were interested +in, the nature of the threats that we asked that they refer to us. + +Mr. RANKIN. Did you know that this standard only developed about 400 +names from all over the country? + +Mr. ROWLEY. Yes, sir. + +Mr. RANKIN. And that it produced none in the immediate Dallas vicinity? + +Mr. ROWLEY. That is right. + +Mr. RANKIN. Now, have you done anything about that standard since the +assassination? + +Mr. ROWLEY. Well, we have had a complete reexamination of the +Protective Research Section. + +Mr. RANKIN. Can you describe---- + +Mr. ROWLEY. We infused new blood. We have asked the Rand Corp., +the Research Analysis Corp., the President's Scientific Advisor, +and the medical people for a study of this, and we are in constant +consultation. We have brought in experienced agents who now are +processing, evaluating, and analyzing all reports we receive, and +indexing the information as we receive it from the various agencies. We +have more recently issued and forwarded to the intelligence community +in Washington our criteria at the present time regarding what we would +ask them in a more formal manner. This is the beginning of what we hope +to be a more thorough and practical approach to this problem. + +Mr. RANKIN. Chief, I will hand you Commission Exhibit No. 1023, dated +June 17, 1964, and ask you if that is a communication from you to the +Commission describing the new criteria. + +Mr. ROWLEY. Yes, sir. + +(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 1023 for +identification.) + +Mr. RANKIN. Does it accurately state that criteria? + +Mr. ROWLEY. Yes, sir; it does. + +Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Chairman, I offer in evidence Commission Exhibit No. +1023. + +The CHAIRMAN. It may be admitted. + +(The document heretofore marked for identification as Commission +Exhibit No. 1023, was received in evidence.) + +Mr. ROWLEY. If I may read---- + +Mr. RANKIN. Would you tell us the gist of the new criteria, and what +the difference is as you conceive it from the old standard? + +Mr. ROWLEY. Well, if I may do this. We have sent this criteria to the +intelligence agencies that we think would be of help to us, with a +covering letter in which we say that studies are now underway, "by +which we hope to develop more detailed criteria. Our experience with +the attached guidelines will also be carefully evaluated with a view +towards amendments if required. We will appreciate your cooperation +and suggestions concerning these guidelines, so that the person of the +President will be protected to the best of our combined abilities and +resources." + +Another thing today now that we have to concern ourselves with, is that +we get an expanding file of information. + +Mr. RANKIN. Has that happened since the assassination? + +Mr. ROWLEY. Well yes; we have gotten some 9,000 reports on the members +of the Communist Party from the FBI. At this time we have read and +evaluated and catalogued them and indexed them. There has been a small +percentage that have been to date of interest to us. But this is the +beginning. And except for the indexes, we are more or less current as a +result of that. This is through the long hours and hard work by the new +group that I brought in to develop this department. + +Mr. RANKIN. Now, how is the standard described in Exhibit No. 1023 +different from the prior standard? + +Mr. ROWLEY. Well, we have always had the basic standard. The other +standard was the threat to harm or embarrass the President, however, +this time we added three factors. + +Mr. RANKIN. And these are in addition to the threat of harm to the +President? + +Mr. ROWLEY. That is correct. + +Mr. RANKIN. All right, proceed. + +Mr. ROWLEY. The interest of the individual or the organization, +capabilities of the individual or the organization, and the activities +of the individual or organization. The interests of the individual or +organization is the prime factor to be considered in the criteria, but +must be coupled with the capability and activity of the individual or +organization in any determination for referral to the Secret Service. + +"The interest must be towards the President, or others named, or other +high Government official in the nature of a complaint, coupled with an +expressed or implied determination to use a means other than legal or +peaceful to satisfy any grievance, real or imagined. After the interest +phase of the criteria is met, then the activity which encompass +previous history, that is, mental instability, history of violence and +the capability of the individual or organization for furthering this +interest will dictate whether the case should be referred to the Secret +Service. In making referrals to the Secret Service, it is requested +that the agency furnish all pertinent background information relating +to each of the three factor criteria." + +Mr. RANKIN. Now, is the Secret Service operating under the standard or +criteria described in Exhibit No. 1023 at the present time? + +Mr. ROWLEY. At the present time, it is, sir. + +Mr. RANKIN. And when did that become effective? + +Mr. ROWLEY. That became effective in the last 3 weeks as we developed +and explored and examined the many reports that we were receiving. + +Mr. RANKIN. Now, the language that you read into the record, where you +invited comment and suggestions from the various other agencies to whom +you sent communication, what did you mean by that? Is that asking them +for their ideas so that you may further change the criteria? + +Mr. ROWLEY. Where we may get in a position later on to break it down +into categories. In other words, if every agency forwards and inundates +us with many reports--say we expand to 3 million, obviously, the whole +intelligence family could not cope with that. You have to get it down +to a workable number. On the other hand, if you try to restrict the +categories too much, then you find yourself in a position that you may +miss another Oswald, and then the utilities of your file are of no +consequence. So you have to try to reach the level in between there +where it is going to be practical for us to react or develop the type +of risks that we think should be covered by our organization in the +protection of the President of the United States. + +Mr. RANKIN. Are you doing anything about the use of equipment that +might help you to secure information about any particular locality the +President was going to travel to more readily? + +Mr. ROWLEY. In connection with the PRS? + +Mr. RANKIN. Yes. + +Mr. ROWLEY. Well, we have conferred with the IBM. Can I go off the +record on this? + +The CHAIRMAN. Yes. + +(Discussion off the record.) + +The CHAIRMAN. Back on the record. + +Mr. RANKIN. Chief Rowley, you have described off the record certain +matters that involve the security of the country and cannot be made +public. But can you tell us whether you have done anything in the past +to try to improve your methods in testimony that can be made public? + +Mr. ROWLEY. Well, I have tried to secure in the appropriations funds to +enable us to procure the equipment and personnel that we thought would +be necessary. + +With the approval of the Congress, we were able 2 years ago to secure +funds to enable us, in our check forgeries program, to try to adapt the +characteristics of handwriting to an ADP processing program. We are +hopeful this will work out. And we have used the Bureau of Standards to +assist us in this program. We have prints out and have programmed part +of the operation. + +Now, it was my thought that if we succeeded in that area, we could also +apply it to PRS. So we are working quite hard on this other area. And I +knew the need would be eventually for us to get into the PRS stage on +the electronic machine situation. + +Mr. RANKIN. Now, did you know that we had asked Mr. Bouck when he +testified if he could inform us at a later date about people who were +in institutions or otherwise might be dangerous, and with regard to +whom you asked that the Secret Service be notified, so that they could +make adequate protection for the President? + +Mr. ROWLEY. Yes, sir. + +Mr. RANKIN. Do you know how many such cases you now have? + +Mr. ROWLEY. Approximately a thousand. + +Mr. RANKIN. Would you tell the Commission what your practice was for +the Secret Service concerning the route of the motorcade at the time +of the assassination--that is, whether you made inspection of adjacent +buildings? + +Mr. ROWLEY. At that time, and prior to that time, except for the +inaugurations in Washington, and other parades, involving the visit of +foreign dignitaries in Washington, in which the President would ride +in the motorcade with the head of state, where we had ample time to +make these surveys, we had never conducted on trips out of Washington +surveys of this nature. I have here a statement of the conditions that +prevailed in Dallas as well as other areas--if I may read this. + +Mr. RANKIN. Yes. + +Mr. ROWLEY. "Except for inauguration or other parades involving +foreign dignitaries accompanied by the President in Washington, it +has not been the practice of the Secret Service to make surveys or +checks of buildings along the route of a Presidential motorcade. For +the inauguration and certain other parades in Washington where the +traditional route is known to the public long in advance of the event, +buildings along the route can be checked by teams of law enforcement +officers, and armed guards are posted along the route as appropriate. +But on out-of-town trips where the route is decided on and made public +only a few days in advance, buildings are not checked either by Secret +Service agents or by any other law enforcement officers at the request +of the Secret Service. With the number of men available to the Secret +Service and the time available, surveys of hundreds of buildings and +thousands of windows is not practical. + +"In Dallas the route selected necessarily involved passing through +the principal downtown section between tall buildings. While certain +streets thought to be too narrow could be avoided and other choices +made, it was not practical to select a route where the President could +not be seen from roofs or windows of buildings. At the two places in +Dallas where the President would remain for a period of time, Love +Field and the Trade Mart, arrangements were made for building and +roof security by posting police officers where appropriate. Similar +arrangements for a motorcade of 10 miles, including many blocks of +tall commercial buildings, is not practical. Nor is it practical to +prevent people from entering such buildings or to limit access in every +building to those employed or having business there. Even if it were +possible with a vastly larger force of security officers to do so, many +observers have felt that such a procedure would not be consistent with +the nature and purpose of the motorcade to let the people see their +President and to welcome him to their city. + +"In accordance with its regular procedures, no survey or other check +was made by the Secret Service, or by any other law enforcement agency +at its request, of the Texas School Book Depository Building or those +employed there prior to the time the President was shot." + +Mr. RANKIN. Chief Rowley, I will ask you not to describe any procedure, +because of security considerations, but I would like to have you tell +on the record, as I think it is proper, whether there has been a change +in this regard in the procedures of the Secret Service? + +Mr. ROWLEY. There has been a change in this regard. + +Mr. RANKIN. I will not make an inquiry about that, unless the +Commission wishes to go into it off the record. + +Representative FORD. Is it my understanding that the Commission has +such documents that we could analyze ourselves as to these changes? + +Mr. RANKIN. I don't think we have any report of this. + +Representative BOGGS. Why can't we get it off the record? + +The CHAIRMAN. All right. + +(Discussion off the record.) + +The CHAIRMAN. Back on the record. + +Mr. RANKIN. Chief Rowley, did you give us---- + +Mr. DULLES. Could I ask one question with regard to Exhibit No. 1023? + +This, as I understand it, is the new specifications with regard to +persons with respect to whom you wish to have alert information. + +Mr. ROWLEY. Yes, sir. + +Mr. DULLES. It is called, "U.S. Secret Service Protective Information +Guidelines." The top of page 2 of this exhibit is a paragraph that +reads, "The interest"--and that is the interest of the suspect, I +assume---- + +Mr. ROWLEY. Yes, sir. + +Mr. DULLES. "The interest must be towards the President, or others +named, or other high Government officials in the nature of a complaint +coupled with an expressed or implied determination to use a means other +than legal or peaceful to satisfy any grievance real or imagined." + +I wonder if you could explain that a little more? I ask this question +because I have been studying the previous assassinations a good +deal. And in many of these cases, it seems to me this definition +would not have covered the assassin. That is, there has been in some +cases opposition to government, opposition to people in authority, +but there has been no expressed hatred toward or animus against a +particular President. And I was wondering whether this went too far on +a definition to meet your purposes. + +Mr. ROWLEY. This is a beginning, as I indicated to you here. We hope to +improve it. But this is one of the things where we want to include the +Oswald-type individual. + +Now, Oswald wrote to the Governor intimating that he would use whatever +means was necessary to obtain the change of his undesirable, or as he +called it, dishonorable discharge. All legal means had been used in +his case, where the Navy Review Board had examined it and came to a +decision. + +And this is an example of what we were trying to include in the area of +this type of individual. Now, the other people---- + +Mr. DULLES. But that was not a threat directed against the President. +That was directed against the Secretary of the Navy. + +Mr. ROWLEY. That is right; but then, on the other hand, they transfer +the threats. I am quite sure that the Congressmen here get many +threats, and that sometimes they may not come off. But these people are +obsessed. + +You take the individual that attempted the assassination of the late +President Roosevelt in Miami that time. His original purpose was to +shoot President Hoover. But then when he heard Roosevelt was there, he +transferred. + +Now, I remember a situation involving a member of Truman's staff, where +a fellow stalked this man at his home. And finally we got into the case +on his request. We satisfied ourselves that he wasn't a real threat to +him--but we picked up the paper a year later and found out he shot at +an assemblyman in Staten Island. So if they make a threat or something +like this, even though it is against the Government as a group, or have +some grievance, they transfer it--particularly, to the President. They +use that father complex, as indicated in the research work that these +different agencies have submitted to us. + +Representative FORD. Under these criteria, which you are now following, +Oswald would have been designated? Is that your judgment? + +Mr. ROWLEY. That is correct; yes, sir. + +Mr. DULLES. I had some questions about that in reading it. That did +not occur to me, because Oswald had never expressed any antagonism +toward the President, as far as I know, up to this time--the President +personally, or even afterward. + +Mr. ROWLEY. That is right; but under this criteria he would. Namely, he +had the interest because of the letter he wrote to Governor Connally. +The activity, because he was a defector, and he demonstrated for the +Fair Play for Cuba Committee. The capability, because he traveled, and +he had knowledge of firearms. + +Mr. DULLES. Yes; but those do not come, it seems to me, within this +definition. Maybe I interpret it differently than you. The last +interest Oswald showed was directed toward General Walker. It wasn't +against--of course, that wasn't known. + +Mr. ROWLEY. No; it wasn't known but the first interest of this type was +the letter to Governor Connally as Secretary of the Navy, in which he +said he would use whatever means he could to correct that discharge, +inferring, of course, that he would apply illegal means if he could. + +Representative FORD. If we only had the letter that he wrote to +Governor Connally, and no other information, how would that threat, or +that course of action, become known to the Secret Service? + +Mr. ROWLEY. It would not, unless it was furnished by the Navy +Department or Secretary of the Navy's office. + +Just like you gentlemen get letters that never come to our attention. +But you might pick up a paper some day and read that this fellow hit +somebody, and he was in to see you or wrote you letters. + +Representative FORD. Would this criteria be circulated among the +50 Governors, for example, or their staffs, so that if threats are +received against a Governor, then the Governor's staff in that +particular State would so notify the Secret Service? + +Mr. ROWLEY. It could. In this case it would be a help. But they refer +all their complaints to the FBI. Threats of this kind. + +Representative FORD. The State? + +Mr. ROWLEY. The Governors do in most cases. So that the FBI under this +system would bring it to our attention. + +Mr. DULLES. I would think, Mr. Rowley, this might be subject to +misinterpretation as being rather narrower than you suggest. + +Mr. ROWLEY. Well, this is something--actually, we have to develop +something, and we have to, if you will, have a crash program; we are +working constantly to develop the categories and breakdowns as I +indicated earlier. + +(At this point, Senator Cooper entered the hearing room.) + +Mr. RANKIN. Chief Rowley, did you supply to us the statements of the +Secret Service agents who were informed about the assassination in +Dallas? You gave us written statements, did you? + +Mr. ROWLEY. Yes. + +Mr. RANKIN. I hand you Commission Exhibit No. 1024, and ask you if that +is the letter of transmittal, together with the attached statements +that you have just described from the various agents about the events +at Dallas. + +Mr. ROWLEY. Yes, sir. + +(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 1024 for +identification.) + +(At this point, Mr. Dulles withdrew from the hearing room.) + +Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Chairman, I offer in evidence Commission Exhibit No. +1024. + +The CHAIRMAN. It may be admitted. + +(The document heretofore marked for identification as Commission +Exhibit No. 1024, was received in evidence.) + +Mr. RANKIN. I would like to inform the Commission that these are copies +of the statements you already have in connection with the Secret +Service report, but we wanted to make it part of the record. + +The CHAIRMAN. Very well. + +Mr. RANKIN. Chief, did you write me a letter for the Commission on +April 22, in which you enclosed the statements of five of your agents +in regard to President Kennedy's views about agents riding on the back +of the car? + +Mr. ROWLEY. Yes, sir. + +Mr. RANKIN. I will hand you Commission Exhibit No. 1025, and ask you if +that is your transmittal letter with the statements attached. + +(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 1025 for +identification.) + +Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Chairman, I offer in evidence Commission Exhibit No. +1025. + +The CHAIRMAN. It may be admitted. + +(The document heretofore marked for identification as Commission +Exhibit No. 1025, was received in evidence.) + +Mr. RANKIN. Chief Rowley, I should like to have you state for the +record, for the Commission, whether the action of President Kennedy in +making these statements was understood by you or properly could have +been understood by the agents as relieving them of any responsibility +about the protection of the President. + +Mr. ROWLEY. No; I would not so construe that, Mr. Rankin. The agents +would respond regardless of what the President said if the situation +indicated a potential danger. The facilities were available to them. +They had the rear steps, they would be there as a part of the screen. +And immediately in the event of any emergency they would have used them. + +Mr. RANKIN. Do you know why there was no one riding on the rear step at +the time of the assassination? + +Mr. ROWLEY. From normal practice, based on my own experience over the +years, I know that the agent in charge in the front or any experienced +agent, who is either on the right front or the left front of the +followup car, without being told, will react immediately. If he +determines there is a situation here, there is a big crowd, and so +forth, he will immediately leave that followup car. + +Now, the running board on the followup car has an important place in +the setup. It is a much better place to be than on the rear step if you +see a situation, and you want to move fast. Suppose someone is coming +toward the President's car--you would be surprised how fast you are +propelled by jumping off that car, and you are in motion fast, where +you can either tackle somebody, or block him or anything like that. So +this is an important part. You cannot do that from the rear step of the +President's car. + +Now, when the agents are in a heavy crowd, as we have been abroad, in +places where we had to run, say, for 10 miles alongside the car, agents +could stand on the rear steps and screen the President. In addition, +there would be agents on the side, protecting him on his right side. +The crowd is surging close to him, you are bouncing off the car, and +the people, trying to ward them off from touching the President. + +After a period of time you are weary. But with the aid of this step, +you can be replaced by the agent there, and he takes your place until +you revive yourself, and you are acting as a screen. + +Now, if the thing gets too sticky, you put the agent right in the back +seat, which I have done many times with past Presidents. + +When you come out of a big crowd like that, and the crowd is sparse, +and it doesn't look like there is a potential danger, you return to the +followup car to be ready for any emergency in the event somebody darts +across. + +In this instance, when the Presidential car was coming toward the +freeway and the people were sparse, the men at some point came back to +this car. This is one of the automatic operations, if you will, that +the agents respond to. So it wasn't until the first shot was fired +that, as I said earlier, Hill had the opportunity to scan from his left +to his right, that he saw the President--the action of the President. +Then he responded immediately. That is why he got up to the President's +car. + +Mr. RANKIN. Has it ever been the practice of the Secret Service to have +an agent ride all of the time on the back step? + +Mr. ROWLEY. No; it hasn't. Because there are times when you pick up +your speed, for instance on a freeway. And when you pick up your speed, +it is the most difficult thing on a step maybe 10 to 12 inches wide, +and a grip, to stand up. And you would not be a very good screen going +that fast, because you would have to bend down. That has happened to +me, because I have been caught on it. + +Now, I was in Costa Rica and worked the followup car. Whenever I was +on a trip abroad, I would work the followup car to see how the agents +work, and work myself, because it wasn't what you might refer to as a +routine trip. + +But the followup car conked out. The crowds were surging around the +President's car. We had two men next to the President's car. I left the +followup car immediately, from my experience, and jumped on the step, +to the right rear of the President, and held onto the handgrip, and +was there. And then when the man came back, I relieved him and took my +position on the side--until, for a distance of a mile or two, until +such time as the followup car got underway, and the other people came +up. But you had to stay with the President under those circumstances. + +So those are the different things that occur in a given situation. + +The CHAIRMAN. Chief, as I understand this, President Kennedy did not +give any general instructions to the agents never to ride on his car. +It was only in specific circumstances where for one reason or another +he did not want them on there at that particular time. + +Mr. ROWLEY. No President will tell the Secret Service what they can or +cannot do. + +(At this point, Representative Boggs withdrew from the hearing room.) + +Mr. ROWLEY. Sometimes it might be as a political man or individual he +might think this might not look good in a given situation. But that +does not mean per se that he doesn't want you on there. And I don't +think anyone with commonsense interprets it as such. + +The CHAIRMAN. Yes. + +Mr. ROWLEY. I think there are certain things that you have to allow the +man who is operating as a politician, and not as head of state. I mean +this makes a difference in your operation. + +Mr. RANKIN. Chief Rowley, did you give us a report of the activities in +protecting the President at and around Parkland Hospital? + +Mr. ROWLEY. Yes, sir. + +Mr. RANKIN. And is that Commission Exhibit No. 1026? + +Mr. ROWLEY. Yes, sir. + +(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 1026 for +identification.) + +Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Chairman, I offer in evidence Commission Exhibit No. +1026. + +The CHAIRMAN. It may be admitted. + +(The document heretofore marked for identification as Commission +Exhibit No. 1026, was received in evidence.) + +Mr. RANKIN. Do you have any additions or corrections you care to make +in that exhibit? + +Mr. ROWLEY. No, sir. + +Mr. RANKIN. Chief Rowley, did you give us a report about protective +activity subsequent to Dallas on behalf of the Secret Service? + +Mr. ROWLEY. Yes, sir. + +Mr. RANKIN. I will hand you Commission Exhibit No. 1027 and ask you if +that is the report that you have just referred to. + +(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 1027 for +identification.) + +Mr. ROWLEY. Yes, sir. + +Mr. RANKIN. Chief Rowley, I ask you, are there any problems with regard +to Commission Exhibit No. 1027 concerning security, and whether that +should be--that document should be made public? You just take your time +if you want to glance over it. + +Mr. ROWLEY. No; as I read it, it is general enough, sir, that it can be +included. + +(At this point, Mr. Dulles entered the hearing room.) + +Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Chairman, I offer in evidence Commission Exhibit No. +1027. + +The CHAIRMAN. It may be admitted. + +(The document heretofore marked for identification as Commission +Exhibit No. 1027, was received in evidence.) + +(At this point, Representative Boggs entered the hearing room.) + +Mr. RANKIN. Are there any of the various answers that you give in the +answers to the questions attached to Commission Exhibit No. 1027 that +you care to elaborate on at this time? + +I am not asking you or urging you to do it, because I assume that you +answered them with care at the time. I just wanted to give you that +opportunity. + +Mr. ROWLEY. No; not at this time. + +Mr. DULLES. May I ask a question there? + +You consider that the criteria as now furnished by you to the FBI and +other investigative agencies would cover a case like Oswald's? + +Mr. ROWLEY. Yes, sir. + +Mr. DULLES. You think they would? + +Mr. ROWLEY. Yes, sir. + +Mr. DULLES. You think they understand that? + +Mr. ROWLEY. Well, as we stated in the covering letter when we sent this +out--we haven't gotten any reaction--we asked for their cooperation and +suggestions in connection with such guidelines. + +Mr. DULLES. Defectors are not specifically covered, are they, by your +criteria? + +Mr. ROWLEY. Well, they are given to us now. We are being furnished the +names of defectors, and they are being investigated, so that their +background and history will be furnished to us, and we will be in a +position now to determine whether they represent a risk or not. + +Mr. RANKIN. Chief Rowley---- + +Representative BOGGS. May I ask a question there? + +Would you have any notion as to why names of defectors were not +provided to you prior to November 22? + +Mr. ROWLEY. Yes; under the broad picture, Mr. Congressman, there was +no indication that they had made any threat toward the President +or members of his family. Whenever there was a threat made, we were +furnished promptly by the different agencies the information on the +individual's name. And this was done in voluminous reports by the FBI, +and the other agencies. When they got any information, they would +notify the local office, notify their liaison, who notified us by +telephone, and confirmed by memorandum. The same obtained with respect +to the CIA. + +Representative BOGGS. This fellow was interviewed by the FBI several +times--he was interviewed in New Orleans when he allegedly had his +Fair Play Committee. If my memory serves me correctly, Mrs. Paine was +interviewed about him shortly before the visit of the President, after +he had gone to work at the Texas School Book Depository. I agree that +there had been no indication of a threat on the President's life. But, +obviously he was a person in the FBI files who was under some degree of +surveillance. It would seem to me strange that the FBI did not transmit +this information to the Secret Service. + +Mr. ROWLEY. The FBI, Mr. Congressman, are concerned with internal +security. And I think their approach was internal security as it +related to this individual, whether or not he was a potential recruit +for espionage, intelligence, or something like that. + +Their concern was talking to him in this vein, in the course of which +there was no indication that he bore any malice toward anyone, and +particularly to the President of the United States. If someone said +that Henry Smith didn't like the President, and we got his file, we +would get to the point where you have 3 million names in the file. How +effective are you going to be then? + +Representative BOGGS. Well, that is right. + +Mr. ROWLEY. And then you get in the area of civil rights and all, if +you start going into individuals---- + +Representative BOGGS. And if I remember correctly, there has never +been--we have had no testimony from anyone that Oswald ever threatened +the President of the United States. Is that correct? + +Mr. RANKIN. That is correct. + +Representative BOGGS. That was the only question I had. + +Mr. DULLES. Along that line, I just raise the question as to whether +maybe too much emphasis is not put on the threat angle, because a +clever fellow, if he is going to assassinate the President, the last +thing he is going to do is go around and talk about it and threaten it. + +Mr. ROWLEY. That is right. Well, this has been so with loners, too. + +As you say, you read the assassinations. Some of them just kept to +themselves, and traveled, and the next thing you know they confronted +their victim. Sometimes they were successful, other times they were not. + +Mr. DULLES. I recognize the difficulty of working out adequate +criteria. But I just think you ought to do some more seeking, and there +is more work to be done on that. + +Mr. ROWLEY. Yes, sir. + +Senator COOPER. May I ask this question: It hasn't been clear to me. +Is it correct that now a defector does come within the scope of your +Service? + +Mr. ROWLEY. Yes, sir; we are furnished the names of defectors by the +FBI. And they investigate these people. And then in their report, if it +shows that the individual has emotional instability or propensity for +violence, we pick it up from there. But all the reports on the known +defectors in this country are submitted to us, and then we evaluate +from the case history of the report whether or not he would be a risk +for us subject to investigation. + +Senator COOPER. I understood that was the procedure before. But my +question is now, is the defector per se classed as one of those against +whom you would take protective measures? + +Mr. ROWLEY. No, no, sir; not unless we had---- + +Senator COOPER. Since the assassination? + +Mr. ROWLEY. Not unless we had these three categories of factors we just +enunciated. + +Senator COOPER. I would suggest--first, I understand there are not many +defectors who have returned to the United States. + +Secondly, it seems to me a man who has defected from the United +States to go to Russia or a Communist country indicates that he has +pretty strong convictions against the United States, or else there is +something questionable about his mental processes. + +I would think that fact alone would make it important to watch his +activities when he came back. + +Mr. ROWLEY. It would. And I think the FBI properly conducts the +investigations, from the standpoint of internal security, and furnishes +us a report. And then if there is something in the report that +indicates he could be a risk to the President or the Vice President, we +could take it from there. + +Representative BOGGS. Mr. Rankin. I have to go to a meeting in 2 or 3 +minutes. There is just one question I would like to ask before leaving. + +Is it not a fact that probably the greatest deterrent that you have is +the very fact that the public knows that there is a Secret Service? + +Mr. ROWLEY. Yes, sir. + +Representative BOGGS. That you do guard the life of the President. And +that the chances of an assassin escaping with his own life are pretty +remote. So this psychological weapon is one of the things you rely on? + +Mr. ROWLEY. That is correct. + +Representative BOGGS. And you must necessarily keep a degree of secrecy +about the methods you employ. + +Mr. ROWLEY. Yes, sir; otherwise they could develop countermethods, to +thwart anything we might set up. + +Representative BOGGS. Exactly. Thank you very much. + +Mr. RANKIN. Chief Rowley, do you in the Secret Service obtain the +benefit of cooperation with other governmental agencies in the +protection of the President? + +Mr. ROWLEY. We receive cooperation from every agency. If I may name a +few--we were scheduled to visit Puerto Rico in 1948 or 1947--I am not +quite certain--with President Truman, who was then vacationing at Key +West. We had no office in Puerto Rico at the time. We did not know the +situation other than that it could be sticky because of the Nationalist +Party of Puerto Rico. + +(At this point, Representative Boggs withdrew from the hearing room.) + +Mr. ROWLEY. Our advance man called me and asked me if I would not +talk to Mr. Hoover to see whether or not we could have the assistance +of some of their agents who were down there in an office established +there. And I communicated then with the Assistant Director, who said, +"I will get back to you" and got the approval. That was an example of +the beginning of the cooperation, when I was at the White House, with +the FBI. + +Now, in the years subsequent to World War II, anytime we were abroad, +I made personal contact with Mr. Dulles, and I think for national +security we should go off the record on this, because this is something +that pertains today. + +(Discussion off the record.) + +The CHAIRMAN. Back on the record. + +Mr. RANKIN. Now, Chief Rowley, are you familiar with the provisions +in the appropriation act with regard to the FBI concerning their +protection of the person of the President? + +Mr. ROWLEY. Yes. + +Mr. RANKIN. You know of that, do you? + +Mr. ROWLEY. Yes; I do. Historically, that was first passed in 1910. It +stated that because of the limited number of Secret Service men at that +time, that appropriation--a certain given figure--was to be used by the +U.S. marshals to assist the Secret Service. + +Mr. RANKIN. Was the Secret Service opposed to that provision in the +appropriation act for the FBI? + +Mr. ROWLEY. No; it has never opposed that provision over the years. I +started to say, Mr. Rankin--subsequently, after the founding of the +FBI, this was transferred, apparently, from the marshals to the FBI, +and it has been in the appropriations as long as I can remember. We +have never objected to that appropriation. + +Mr. RANKIN. Now, there is some language in H.R. 4158, I understand, +which deals with the permanent organization of the Government that you +are objecting to; is that right? + +Mr. ROWLEY. Yes; that has to do with the codification, wherein +it states that the Attorney General will appoint--I think, in +substance--officials for the protection of the President of the United +States. And this is a feature in the codification of the law we object +to, because the Secretary of the Treasury authorizes and directs the +protection of the President. + +Representative FORD. Is that a bill, Mr. Rankin, that is before the +House Committee on the Judiciary and the Senate Judiciary Committee? + +Mr. ROWLEY. They are preparing it, and they asked for our opinions. It +must be now. This is a month or so ago, Mr. Ford. + +Mr. RANKIN. I think I can give the Commission the exact language. It +is chapter 33 of the House rule that I have just described, and it is +under section 534, and the words are: "The Attorney General may appoint +officials"--and then in quotes below that, in (2) "to protect the +person of the President" and--and then it deals with other matters. + +Now, will you tell why you have an objection to that? Just briefly +summarize it. + +Mr. ROWLEY. Because of the long history of Presidential protection we +have been directed--it has been under the jurisdiction of the Treasury +Department, authorized by the Secretary of the Treasury. But this would +confuse and be a conflict in jurisdiction. Conflicts would naturally +arise in the future as to who had jurisdiction. + +If anything happened like Dallas, we would get into an Alphonse and +Gaston pantomine. + +Mr. RANKIN. You would get into a jurisdictional dispute? + +Mr. ROWLEY. That is right. + +Mr. RANKIN. And that is why you object? + +Mr. ROWLEY. That is right. + +Mr. RANKIN. But as far as any provision that has been made historically +for the FBI to have funds so they can supplement and assist you, you +have no objection to that? + +Mr. ROWLEY. No objection at all. + +Representative FORD. Do you know how much in the way of funds have been +utilized through that provision? + +Mr. ROWLEY. No; I would not know of my own knowledge, Congressman, +because that would be under the jurisdiction of the FBI and the Budget +Bureau. + +Representative FORD. In other words, they don't take money that they +get through their appropriation bill, and transfer it to the Secret +Service? + +Mr. ROWLEY. No. + +Representative FORD. This is simply a provision which authorizes them +to use whatever funds they get for this purpose? + +Mr. ROWLEY. That is correct. + +Mr. RANKIN. Chief Rowley, I understand that regarding H.R. 4158, the +Treasury and the Justice Department have agreed that the language may +be changed so that it will read "Assist", is that right? + +Mr. ROWLEY. That is correct. + +Mr. RANKIN. And that is satisfactory? + +Mr. ROWLEY. That is right. That is what we worked out. + +Mr. RANKIN. Now, in connection with your protection of the President, +have you drawn upon various people in the Government and consultants to +assist you in regard to scientific problems? + +Mr. ROWLEY. Yes; some 8 or 9 years ago, we evolved a relationship +with the Defense Department--I think more specifically in the last 4 +years--a relationship with the President's Scientific Advisor. + +This is off the record. + +Mr. RANKIN. Why, Chief? + +Mr. ROWLEY. That has to do with national security. + +(Discussion off the record.) + +The CHAIRMAN. Back on the record. + +Mr. RANKIN. Chief Rowley, do you find in work of the Secret Service +that you have need for scientific advice and consultation concerning +problems that develop regarding the protection of the President, so +that if you had some arrangement whereby you could have the assistance +of either the President's Scientific Advisor or consultation with +independent consultants, it would assist and in fact be necessary to +your work? + +Mr. ROWLEY. I think it would be a great help, and it is necessary +today, because under the crash program that we are endeavoring to +undertake, I think it is important that we know, in Presidential +protection, what the current devices are that are available and are +efficient in connection with countermeasures against eavesdropping and +other things that we have been researching over the years. But this is +not necessary on a day-to-day basis, and it could be on an informal +basis with other agencies. I think it is necessary to have somebody of +that type, who is conversant with the subject, a trained expert, who +knows precisely where to go. + +We might spend a lot of time going around the paths, but by having an +expert, he knows precisely the organization, the contracting company, +what they have, whether it is suitable, whether it is efficient for our +purposes. + +Representative FORD. Mr. Rankin, is the letter of April 22, 1964, from +Mr. Rowley to you with the enclosures a Commission exhibit? + +Mr. RANKIN. Yes; that has been offered. That is Commission Exhibit No. +1027. + +Representative FORD. In this enclosure, Chief Rowley, on page 4, +under subheading (c), the following is stated: "The Secret Service +has no funds for research and very limited funds for the acquisition +of protective devices. In the fiscal year 1964 budget, the Service +requested $23,057 for two positions for technical specialists. The +Congress did not make any appropriation covering this request, and it +was repeated in the 1965 budget request, and has been included in the +appropriation passed by the House several weeks ago." + +Could you define more particularly what you had in mind for these +so-called technical specialists? + +Mr. ROWLEY. Yes, sir; this was someone that knew something about +electronics or electronic engineering for the sweeping of different +places. We felt that to date we were utilizing the services of agents +who primarily came with us on the basis of criminal investigation, and +that, therefore, it was my feeling that we should have this type of +expert. + +As I said earlier, I realize the shortcomings and the requirements +which we are operating under--and I was endeavoring to get the funds +from Congress, the personnel that I thought were necessary, as well +as the equipment I thought we should have, primarily to have this +operation under control for us. + +Now, I might say that the CIA has been most helpful. The equipment +we used in the early days were from that organization and the State +Department. + +But now they have gotten so busy, as you well know, that they haven't +got much time to assist us. + +So that we feel we want to have our own equipment, our own experts, and +people that know our work, and devote their time to it. + +Representative FORD. When you talk about technical specialists here, +you are referring to electronics specialists? + +Mr. ROWLEY. Yes, sir. + +Representative FORD. You are not referring to a general research and +development program, however? + +Mr. ROWLEY. No, sir; this confusion is why it was refused a year ago. + +Representative FORD. Let me ask this, then, Chief Rowley. Would +these technical experts, or technical specialists, have been on duty +in Dallas on this particular trip if you had had the funds and had +employed them? + +Mr. ROWLEY. Yes; but they would have been employed in something +entirely different. + +Representative FORD. They wouldn't have had any relationship to the +motorcade? + +Mr. ROWLEY. No, sir. If I may go off the record. + +Mr. RANKIN. Will you tell us why you are going off the record? + +Mr. ROWLEY. Because it involves national security. + +(Discussion off the record.) + +The CHAIRMAN. Back on the record. + +Representative FORD. As I understand it, then, the deletion of these +funds for these technical specialists in fiscal year 1964 did not +in any way handicap your operation in Dallas at the time of the +assassination? + +Mr. ROWLEY. No; we have never said that. We are just saying that if +we had the equipment--in other words, what I am trying to do, Mr. +Congressman, is to move forward. And the only way I know, after a +period of years, is to ask for a sum of money, but then my experience +is that sometimes the Congress becomes alarmed. But this is a need that +we have. And this is what I am trying to explain. This is an example of +what we are trying to do, in equipment and manpower. + +Representative FORD. Mr. Chairman, or Mr. Rankin, I have to go shortly +over to a session of the House. And since we are in the budget area, I +think it might be well for the record to develop some facts concerning +your budget--what they have in the past and what you are suggesting +they might be in the future. + +Mr. ROWLEY. Well, I have here a summary of the appropriation +allocations as it applies to manpower and equipment, and the number of +persons on the roll. + +Representative FORD. Do you receive your appropriations in a lump sum +or how do you receive Secret Service appropriations? + +Mr. ROWLEY. I guess it is on a warrant. When the warrant is signed---- + +Representative FORD. Your budget is included as a part of the Treasury +Department budget? + +Mr. ROWLEY. Yes, sir. + +Representative FORD. Now, do you have it in a separate part of the +Treasury Department budget? + +Mr. ROWLEY. Yes, sir. + +Representative FORD. Is it specifically earmarked for the Secret +Service? + +Mr. ROWLEY. It is; yes, sir. + +Representative FORD. It is a lump sum for the Secret Service? + +Mr. ROWLEY. Yes, sir. + +Mr. DULLES. That is a public appropriation, it is made public? + +Mr. ROWLEY. That is correct; yes, sir. + +Mr. RANKIN. Congressman Ford, if I may interrupt just a minute, I can +ask Chief Rowley if Commission Exhibit No. 1028 is the one he just +referred to in answer to your question about the budget. + +Mr. ROWLEY. Yes, sir. + +(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 1028 for +identification.) + +Mr. RANKIN. I then offer in evidence Commission Exhibit No. 1028. + +The CHAIRMAN. It may be admitted. + +(The document heretofore marked for identification as Commission +Exhibit No. 1028, was received in evidence.) + +Mr. RANKIN. Exhibit No. 1028, Chief Rowley, does include in this--so it +will be understandable to the Commission, the figures for your proposed +budget of 1966, doesn't it? + +Mr. ROWLEY. Yes, sir. + +Mr. RANKIN. And those are shown in that manner on the exhibit? + +Mr. ROWLEY. Yes, sir. + +Representative FORD. Is the figure we see here---- + +Mr. ROWLEY. This is what we call a tentative budget. + +Mr. RANKIN. That has been presented to the Budget Bureau? + +Mr. ROWLEY. It has not been presented to the Budget Office of the +Treasury, which is the first step. Then it goes to the Budget Bureau, +and then subsequently to the House and Senate. + +Mr. RANKIN. You said it has not been. + +Mr. ROWLEY. No; this is a tentative proposal that we have made. + +Mr. RANKIN. At this stage, so we get the record clear--that is a +consideration of what you think you should have, but it hasn't gone +through the steps you have just described, is that right? + +Mr. ROWLEY. That is right. But it does not include--necessarily, until +we complete our thorough examination--what our requirements will be +under the new revisions of our organization. Particularly as it relates +to manpower, we want to be sure that we have the proper justification. +And so we hope by October or November to have a good estimate at that +time. + +Representative FORD. Well, the figure that is shown here for fiscal +year 1965 is $7,550,000. + +Mr. ROWLEY. Yes, sir. + +Representative FORD. Is that the budget submission to the Congress? + +Mr. ROWLEY. To the Congress; yes, sir. + +Representative FORD. And do you recall what the House approved in its +version of the bill? + +Mr. ROWLEY. $7,500,000. They cut $50,000. + +Representative FORD. Do you recall what the reduction was predicated on? + +Mr. ROWLEY. No; I don't. I think it was just cut to a round figure. + +Representative FORD. What is the footnote here which is entitled +"Pending action by the Senate"? Is that a $669,000 increase? + +Mr. ROWLEY. That is right. + +Representative FORD. Is that a supplemental? + +Mr. ROWLEY. No, no; we are just showing the increase--this has nothing +to do with the $669,000. We show--this was passed by the House, but it +is now pending in the Senate for approval. In other words, you have +your markup or something, and then it hasn't been submitted to the +House for a--to the Senate for approval. + +Representative FORD. But there is an asterisk there. + +Mr. ROWLEY. Yes; this is the 1965 budget. This figure that was reduced +by $50,000, by the House. Now, it goes before--for a markup--it will be +placed before the Senate for approval. + +Mr. RANKIN. Chief Rowley, when you say "this" it doesn't show on the +record what you are talking about. So if you can tell what item on that +Exhibit No. 1028. + +Representative FORD. On the same line with the language, "Pending +action by Senate," on the right-hand side is $669,000, which is labeled +as an increase. That increase relates to what? + +Mr. ROWLEY. It relates to the difference--the increase between 1965 +and our proposed budget of 1966. The asterisk here relates to the 586 +positions. + +Mr. RANKIN. Is there any connection between those two? Chief Rowley, +is there any connection between the asterisk, and the wording "Pending +before the Senate," and the item on the right-hand column of the +increase? + +Mr. ROWLEY. Yes; it represents the increase that we are asking for in +the 1966 budget. + +Senator COOPER. You are not asking the Senate, though, to increase the +House figure of $7,500,000, by $669,000. + +Mr. ROWLEY. No, no; there is no connection between these increases. +This should have been down here, where you explain what the asterisk +is, where we have 586. Maybe it was put in the wrong position there. +In other words, it is like a footnote. This is pending action--meaning +that the House has passed the 1965 budget, but the Senate has yet to +pass it. + +Mr. RANKIN. But to clarify, there is no connection between the +increased figure and the fact that it is pending before the Senate? + +Mr. ROWLEY. That is right. It happens to be on the same line. + +Mr. RANKIN. But there is no connection? + +Mr. ROWLEY. No, sir. + +Senator COOPER. What you mean is the House has passed an appropriation +of $7,500,000, and the Senate has not yet acted upon it. + +Mr. ROWLEY. That is correct. + +Senator COOPER. The $669,000 is an increase that you hope will be voted +in the next fiscal year. + +Mr. ROWLEY. That is correct. + +Mr. DULLES. Do you present the budget yourself, or does the Secretary +of the Treasury, or someone else in the Treasury Department--present +and defend it? + +Mr. ROWLEY. The Secretary presents the overall Treasury budget, but +then in detail, we appear before the appropriations subcommittee +ourselves to justify our request. + +Mr. DULLES. The Secret Service justifies its own request in the overall +budget of the Department of the Treasury? + +Mr. ROWLEY. Yes, sir. + +Representative FORD. Chief Rowley, on page 5 of Exhibit No. 1027, +the statement is made, "In the fiscal year 1965, the Secret Service +has requested funds for an additional 25 positions. The House of +Representatives has included the requested funds in the Treasury-Post +Office appropriation bill which passed several weeks ago. These funds +will not be sufficient to take the additional measures which we +believe are required. However, since the 1965 budget figures had to be +submitted in November 1963, it was not possible to make specific and +properly justified requests at that time. We should be in a position to +do so in the fiscal year 1966 budget submission." + +You are not saying that you won't have whatever additional personnel +you need now, or from now until the beginning of fiscal year 1966, for +the protection of the President? + +Mr. ROWLEY. No; we are not saying that. We are saying that in view of +the circumstances of what happened in November, that this budget of 25 +positions had already been submitted, and there was nothing you could +do to take it back. + +The 1966 budget was also prepared and submitted. But, as I explain +later, in all consideration, we cannot at this time helter skelter +say we need so many men, taking advantage of the tragedy. We want to +experiment and develop what we need in protective research in the way +of manpower and equipment, and what we need in the field, because +necessarily we will have to have special agents added to the field to +conduct any investigations on risks that may be forwarded to them. + +Representative FORD. But if in the process of your analysis of +your needs, you develop that you need more personnel, you need new +devices, you need equipment of any sort whatsoever--you won't delay +the submission of that request just because of the fiscal year budget +coming up for fiscal 1966? + +Mr. ROWLEY. No, sir. + +Representative FORD. Because we do have, as you well know, supplemental +and deficiency appropriation bills. + +Mr. ROWLEY. That is right. + +Representative FORD. So if you need something, you can request it +of the Bureau of the Budget, and if it can be justified, it can be +submitted to the Congress in one of the other forms besides the regular +appropriation bills. + +Mr. ROWLEY. That is right. Because now as I understand it the same +committee handles the supplemental. + +Representative FORD. That is correct. + +Mr. ROWLEY. We are aware of that. That is what we would do when we +arrive at what our requirements would be. + +Representative FORD. We can have your assurance that if you come +up with requirements, you won't wait for fiscal 1966 to make your +submission. + +Mr. ROWLEY. That is right. + +Mr. RANKIN. Chief Rowley, you are in the process of trying to arrive at +your estimates of what you need in additional personnel and equipment +and other assistance to make the protective services and the Secret +Service in its work of protecting the President as efficient as +possible, are you? + +Mr. ROWLEY. Yes, sir. + +Mr. RANKIN. And you are seeking the help and advice of people that you +have named, such as the Rand Corp., and others? + +Mr. ROWLEY. Yes, sir. + +Mr. RANKIN. And do you have any estimate now that you can give the +Commission as to when you might have your estimates in that regard? + +Mr. ROWLEY. Well, I think, No. 1, with regard to the protective +research, I think we need some expert there to assist us in developing +our requirements, particularly in the criteria, on a full-time basis. +We have assigned what we thought were sufficient men at this time to +cope with the volume of work and reports that we have been receiving, +which are now being received from the various organizations of +approximately a hundred reports a day. So that we have cut down to a +considerable point. + +Now, following the evaluation and the processing of these reports, we +will determine just what we actually need in the way of manpower. + +Mr. RANKIN. You also have the problem of being able to get that +material out once you have it, don't you? + +Mr. ROWLEY. That is right. And this is the point that we have to +develop with IBM, or, as I said initially, with the CIA. + +Now, they have facilities that would be available to us, if it works. + +Mr. RANKIN. And you are also inquiring into the question of the +sufficiency of the number of agents you have for this area as well as +other Secret Service tasks? + +Mr. ROWLEY. Yes, sir. + +Mr. RANKIN. And you are going to present that to the Congress as soon +as you have something definite that you can support? + +Mr. ROWLEY. That is right--in response to Congressman Ford's inquiry. + +Mr. RANKIN. Now, I think the Commission would be interested in the +requirements or standards that you have for agents. Do you require a +college education now? + +Mr. ROWLEY. Yes, sir. + +Mr. RANKIN. And are there any other conditions or standards that you +would like to describe? + +Mr. DULLES. May I inquire for one point? Is that a college education +for the White House detail? + +Mr. ROWLEY. No; that is for all the agents that we recruit for our +work, for both criminal and protective, Mr. Dulles. We require a +minimum academic achievement of 4 years of college or university, and +preferably those who attend police administrative schools, where they +have in their curricula subjects on science, criminology, and law. We +find that these people are better adapted, they have an inclination, +and they are interested. + +But we do take people with B.A.'s and B.S.'s, because they, too, have +been most satisfactory. But we find when we need to recruit the men, +we go to these colleges with special courses. As I mentioned earlier +we first started recruiting them from Michigan State, because that was +one of the first universities with a police administration curriculum. +And we found each and every one of them have been most satisfactory and +have excellent records. + +As a matter of fact, a good portion of them are agents in charge of our +65 offices throughout the country. + +Mr. RANKIN. What do you do as a matter of procedure in assigning your +agents? Do you keep them in Presidential protection, or do you shift +them from that to other functions in the Secret Service? + +Mr. ROWLEY. Well, when they are first sworn into duty, we assign them to +an office, so during the period, the first 6 months, you would call it +inservice training, because we are not in the position that the FBI is +where they take in, say, a given number of agents--let's set a figure +at 30--and then they can start them immediately with their school of +12 weeks. We are not in a position to hire that many at a time. We are +in a position to hire 10. So that after 6 months, 10 now, after the +character investigations are completed, and then we may get 10 more +later. + +Then we send them to what we call the Treasury Basic School, after +which we try to send them as soon as practical to our Secret Service +School. + +Now, sometimes a new man might be a year in the Secret Service, and +during that period he is on probation, after which we determine through +the agent in charge whether his service is satisfactory, and whether he +will develop into an agent. + +Mr. DULLES. Is the FBI School open to any of your respective recruits? + +Mr. ROWLEY. Well---- + +Mr. DULLES. FBI Academy. + +Mr. ROWLEY. The Police Academy would be if we had occasion to send them +there, if there was something they could benefit from. We do send the +White House Police to the FBI Police Academy, because that is more in +connection with their police function. + +Mr. RANKIN. How does your agent get into the Presidential protection? + +Mr. ROWLEY. Well, some of the agents have indicated in their personal +history questionnaires submitted each year whether they wish to select +an office of duty preference, and there are three offices listed. If an +agent wants for one reason or another after a period of 3 years on the +White House detail to make a request for a transfer, we consider which +of the three offices he selected has a vacancy, and we assign him to +that office. Then we bring in one of the new men from the field service +to replace him. We then train him in the protective work. + +Necessarily, you have to have a nucleus. So there are also a number of +men in supervisory positions who have been on the White House detail +for 20 or more years. + +Mr. RANKIN. But your theory is that they should be able to be trained +so that they could be shifted to any part of the service? + +Mr. ROWLEY. That is right. And it has this advantage: Once they are +trained in Presidential protection, if for some reason the White +House detail gets instructions that the President is going to fly to +one of the cities, or some hamlet across the country, and we do not +have time to get an agent aboard a plane and send him there, or maybe +the Air Force has no plane available to transport him there, we pick +up the phone and call an agent at the nearest place--and here is an +agent that has been trained, he knows the mechanics of the operation, +and the procedure, and he goes to work, and effectively lays out the +arrangements. + +Representative FORD. Mr. Chairman, this Commission Exhibit No. 1028, +which shows the budget and the positions, I think is helpful. But in +the submission of the budget by the Secret Service to the Congress, +they have a greater breakdown of their personnel setup. + +I think it might be wise to include what they submitted to the +Congress, or something comparable to it, because I think it is far more +complete than this. + +Mr. ROWLEY. That is correct. + +Representative FORD. And I think it might be helpful for the record. + +Mr. ROWLEY. We do not disclose the number of men on Presidential +protection. + +Representative FORD. I understand that. But you are familiar with +the presentation you might submit for your overall budget, including +personnel? + +Mr. ROWLEY. Right. + +Representative FORD. Can that not be submitted for our record, just as +it is submitted to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations? + +Mr. ROWLEY. It is a matter of public record. But whether or not the +tentative one, the 1966 can be, before the Budget Bureau sees it, is +something else again. + +Representative FORD. I would not expect that it would. + +Mr. ROWLEY. No; but the others can be. + +Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask leave to secure a copy of +that and insert it in the record. + +The CHAIRMAN. It may be admitted when you obtain it. + +Representative FORD. May I ask one other question, and then I have to +leave? + +In listening to the testimony, Chief Rowley, sometime ago, I was a +little concerned--more than a little, I should say--with the process +by which the man in charge of a Presidential trip undertakes his +relationship with the local law enforcement agencies. + +As I recall the testimony, the man in charge has contact with the local +police and the sheriff's department and any other local law enforcement +agency. But the impression that I gained was that there was no clear +delineation of responsibility. They sat around, they talked about what +this local law enforcement agency would do and what another one would +do. + +But it seems to me that a more precise checklist, a clear +understanding, would be wholesome and better. + +What is your reaction on that? + +Mr. ROWLEY. Well, No. 1, in our revised Manual on Presidential +Protection, this is part of the thing. + +Now, I would hesitate to prepare a checklist for everybody, because you +may be embarrassed to find it in the press some day, because of the +activity of reporters around the police. + +I do not want to downgrade any police department, but this is what +happens through no fault of theirs. There are variations in different +cities. + +Now, I think what you are referring to, Mr. Congressman, is that they +complained they did not have a sufficient notice of the route and +so forth, so they could make the proper preparations. That is true. +Neither did we have sufficient notice. Because they were going back and +forth trying to establish--until they were told they had 45 minutes +allotted to them for this route, and first our man had to go, which is +a natural operation, to look over the route to see whether or not it +could be negotiated within that particular period of time. + +Once establishing that it could, and the thing looked safe, then they +notified the police and went over it with the police. And then with the +police they indicated what they would like done here at intersections +and so forth, and other features. + +Now, it is true in most cases we ourselves like to get sufficient +advance information, we like to send our men out in advance so they +do not have to cope with these fast operations, because when a police +department has sufficient notice of the route and so forth, then +they have adequate time to get out instructions to their own police +department--whether by precinct or by group commanders, and so forth. +And this is what I think in this instance that they are complaining +about. + +Representative FORD. As I understand it, however, at the present time, +and for the future, there will be a more precise procedure for the +relationships of the Secret Service on the one hand and local law +enforcement agencies on the other. + +Mr. ROWLEY. Yes, sir. + +Representative FORD. That is set forth in your manual as presently +revised? + +Mr. ROWLEY. In our present revised manual. + +Representative FORD. So that when your agent-in-charge goes to city X, +he now has the procedures set forth for many to follow on, so there are +no uncertainties, if that is possible? + +Mr. ROWLEY. That is right. And you have to necessarily do that, because +you have agents, as I said--as I cited an example where an agent had +been trained in the White House, but you have to utilize his services, +because you cannot get a regular White House man out there. He has this +information, and he follows it accordingly. It is a check for him as +well as for the police. + +Representative FORD. Other countries have protection problems of their +chief executive. + +I am sure in recent months the French have had considerable problems in +this regard. + +Do you ever have an exchange of methods with other governments for your +benefit or their benefit? + +Mr. ROWLEY. We have been approached, Mr. Congressman, for instructions +on security and so forth, but we, for reasons--for national security +reasons, I would like to go off the record. + +(Off the record.) + +(At this point, Representative Ford left the hearing room.) + +The CHAIRMAN. Back on the record. + +Mr. DULLES. You have referred to the dry runs which you made in Dallas, +and you usually make, I understand, to establish a route. + +First I think you said you did this yourself, and then with the local +police. + +Mr. ROWLEY. Yes, sir. + +Mr. DULLES. Do you have any reason to believe that those dry runs were +observed by the President or known to the President, or received any +publicity? + +Mr. ROWLEY. No; they did not receive any publicity. + +The CHAIRMAN. Chief, you were referring a little while ago to the +revised rules. + +When did the last revision take place? Has it been since the +assassination? + +Mr. ROWLEY. No. + +The overall revision of the Manual of the Secret Service, was +undertaken before I took office, and because it was delayed, I took it +upon myself to assign a man to sit down 7 days a week, to bring this +manual up to date. The overall manual has been completed. Now we have +almost completed the revised advance manual. + +The CHAIRMAN. And--but there has been--as yet there has been no +revision since the assassination? + +Mr. ROWLEY. No, sir; It is in the process. + +The CHAIRMAN. It is in the process of being done? Very well. + +Senator COOPER. I would like to ask a question. I think you stated +that you took part in the procedures and methods for the protection of +President Kennedy when he was--prior to his visit to Dallas. + +Mr. ROWLEY. No, sir. + +Senator COOPER. I thought you said that you participated in a dry run. + +Mr. ROWLEY. Oh, no; I was describing what the advance agents do. + +Senator COOPER. Anyway--you know what the agents of the Secret Service +did in preparing for the visit, of President Kennedy to Dallas? + +Mr. ROWLEY. Yes, sir. + +Senator COOPER. And you know what procedures they followed during the +actual route of the motorcade on that day? + +Mr. ROWLEY. Yes, sir. + +Senator COOPER. Now, reviewing those, is there any failure that you +know about on the part of the Secret Service in those procedures or in +the methods which they used on the day of the assassination? + +Mr. ROWLEY. No, sir. + +Mr. RANKIN. Chief Rowley, would you tell us the salary scale for your +agents for the first 2 years? + +Mr. ROWLEY. Yes; we recruit an agent at grade GS-7, at $5,795. + +Mr. RANKIN. How does that compare with the starting salary for the FBI? + +Mr. ROWLEY. I think it is a difference of three grades. As I +understand, the lowest FBI grade is GS-10. + +Mr. RANKIN. $10,000. + +Mr. ROWLEY. Grade 10. + +Mr. RANKIN. What salary would that be? + +Mr. ROWLEY. It might be--for example, GS-11 is $8,410. Now, it could be +somewhere between $7,500 and $8,000. + +Mr. RANKIN. Are you able to get at that salary the quality of men that +you should for this kind of work? + +Mr. ROWLEY. Yes; we have found to date that we have been able--we +have been selective. And, of course, the fact that we have only +appropriations for a limited number of men. + +For example, today we have well over 40 men waiting to be accepted, +with completed investigations, some a year or more. Sometimes when we +put in requests for a given number of men, we want to put those men on +at the beginning of the fiscal year, so we undertake to recruit them +and complete their investigation, so that everything--the character and +the physical is up to date--and we can put them on, if we get the funds +precisely at the beginning of the fiscal year. + +Mr. RANKIN. You recognize that your starting salary is not favorable in +comparison with some police forces, do you not? + +Mr. ROWLEY. I recognize that. But at the same time, we are guided by +the Treasury law enforcement examinations, and the other Treasury +investigative standards. But we are below some of the west coast police +organizations, for example. They are well-paid and great organizations. + +Mr. RANKIN. Now, what kind of a workload do your agents have on an +average? + +Mr. ROWLEY. Well, at the present time we have a caseload of 110.1 cases +per man. + +Mr. RANKIN. How does that compare with other intelligence agencies? + +Mr. ROWLEY. Well, I think--a satisfactory caseload per man per month is +from 14 to 15 cases. + +Now, I am quite certain that in other agencies it is a little more than +that. But whether or not it is as high as ours at the present time, I +have no way of knowing at this time. + +Mr. RANKIN. Do you thing that is a handicap to your operation? + +Mr. ROWLEY. Well, it is a handicap. But I think it is testimony to the +dedication and the industry of our men, that we are not complaining. We +are conducting ourselves and performing our services for the Government +to the point that even though we are understaffed, nevertheless we are +not quitters, and we are carrying on the work within the responsibility +entrusted to us. + +Mr. RANKIN. Did you write the Commission a letter telling the history +of the early development and growth of the Secret Service operation +over the years? + +Mr. ROWLEY. Yes, sir. + +Mr. RANKIN. Is Commission Exhibit No. 1029 that information that you +gave us? + +Mr. ROWLEY. Yes, sir; this also included the White House police. + +Mr. RANKIN. Will you examine Commission Exhibit No. 1029, and inform us +as to whether or not any of that should not be included on the public +record in light of the national security problem? + +Mr. ROWLEY. I have no objections, because in the years past--this is +part of the public record. So I would not see any objection at this +time. + +(At this point, Senator Cooper left the hearing room.) + +Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Chairman, I offer in evidence Commission Exhibit No. +1029. + +The CHAIRMAN. It may be admitted. + +(The document was marked for identification as Commission Exhibit No. +1029, and received in evidence.) + +Mr. RANKIN. Chief Rowley, did you write us a letter with regard to +proposed legislation, dated June 11? + +Mr. ROWLEY. Yes, sir. + +Mr. RANKIN. And is Commission Exhibit No. 1030 that letter that you +wrote us with an attachment telling about possible legislative changes +that you thought might be desirable? + +Mr. ROWLEY. Yes, sir. + +(The document was marked for identification as Commission Exhibit No. +1030.) + +Mr. RANKIN. I offer in evidence Commission Exhibit No. 1030. + +The CHAIRMAN. It may be admitted. + +(The document heretofore marked for identification as Commission +Exhibit No. 1030, was received in evidence.) + +Mr. RANKIN. Can you briefly state the contents of the attachment to +that exhibit, Chief Rowley? + +You recall that it is a commentary on the suggestion of legislation +about the assassination of the President? + +Mr. ROWLEY. Yes; it is a recommendation on the bills being proposed, +that the assassination of a President or Vice President or possible +successors to the Presidency be made a Federal crime. + +(At this point, Senator Cooper reentered the hearing room.) + +Mr. ROWLEY. Currently there is such a law whereby when people of lesser +rank in the Government are murdered, that is investigated by Federal +agencies. + +Mr. RANKIN. Would you tell the Commission briefly what your idea is as +to whether or not it would be helpful to have such a statute? + +Mr. ROWLEY. I think today it would be helpful, because it would be +a continuation of the present law, and it would be under Federal +jurisdiction--because this is a Federal employee. And I think it +properly should be under Federal statute. There would then be an +opportunity particularly today in the case of the President or Vice +President, for the investigation to be pursued immediately, and the +assassin or groups of defendants to be interrogated as promptly as +possible to develop and ascertain whether or not there is a conspiracy, +and not wait as we have to do under the present law because of the +State statute. + +Mr. RANKIN. Do you have any suggestions in your proposal about who +would have jurisdiction to investigate and report in regard to any +violation of that law? + +Mr. ROWLEY. Currently the Federal enforcement agencies--namely, the +FBI--have the responsibility of conducting investigations, on most of +the Federal laws in the country, and therefore it might properly be +their responsibility in a situation like this. + +However, we do have a reservation with respect to an attempt or threat +on the President, because we would like to work out an agreement +whereby we would jointly conduct an investigation because the threat +phase of it has been under our jurisdiction, under section 3056, for +many years. It ties in with our responsibility for protection of the +President. + +Mr. RANKIN. In connection with the investigation of the assassination +of President Kennedy, have you personally participated in working with +regard to that, in supervision of that investigation? + +Mr. ROWLEY. In the early stages when we assigned our men to inquire +into the background of Oswald and all. But then eventually, when the +President authorized the FBI to conduct the investigation, we pulled +out and only continued and finished up those reports that we initiated. + +Mr. RANKIN. And since that time, after the FBI was given the authority +to proceed with the investigation, you have cooperated with the +Commission through the staff, your staff, in helping with various items +of information from time to time. Is that right? + +Mr. ROWLEY. That is correct. + +Mr. RANKIN. Now, do you have any information of a credible nature that +would suggest to you that Oswald was or could have been an agent or +informant of any Federal agency? + +Mr. ROWLEY. I have no credible information of that kind; no, sir. + +Mr. RANKIN. Was he an agent or informant or directly or indirectly +connected with the Secret Service in anyway? + +Mr. ROWLEY. Not in any way. We did not know of him until the event. + +Mr. RANKIN. From the way that the Secret Service employment is +arranged, and the records are kept, and the payments are made, if he +had ever been placed in any such capacity with the Secret Service, +would it have come to your attention? + +Mr. ROWLEY. It would; yes, sir. + +Mr. RANKIN. And you are certain that he never was hired directly or +indirectly or acted in that capacity. + +Mr. ROWLEY. He was never hired directly or indirectly in any capacity. + +Mr. RANKIN. Do you have any credible information that would cause you +to believe that Lee Harvey Oswald was an agent of any foreign country. + +Mr. ROWLEY. I have no such credible information. + +Mr. RANKIN. Do you have any credible information to cause you to +believe that he was involved in any conspiracy in connection with the +assassination, either domestic or foreign? + +Mr. ROWLEY. I have no credible information on any of those. + +Mr. RANKIN. Are there any areas of the investigation of the Commission +that you would suggest that further work should be done, as far as you +know the work of the Commission? + +Mr. ROWLEY. I do not. + +Mr. RANKIN. From your knowledge of the investigation, do you have any +opinion as to whether Lee Harvey Oswald was involved in the killing of +the President? + +Mr. ROWLEY. From what reports I have read, I would say that he was +involved in the killing of the President, but I do not have complete +knowledge of it. + +Mr. RANKIN. Do you have any opinion from your knowledge of the +investigation as to whether Mr. Ruby was associated with anyone else +directly or indirectly in the killing of Lee Harvey Oswald? + +Mr. ROWLEY. I have incomplete knowledge with respect to Ruby. +Consequently, I could not say, other than what I saw on television or +read in the newspapers, whether he had any connections. + +Mr. RANKIN. Is there anything in connection with the work of the +Commission or what you know about our inquiry here that you would like +to add to or suggest that the Commission do beyond what you know of it? + +Mr. ROWLEY. No, sir. + +Senator COOPER. May I ask a question? + +Mr. Rankin asked you several questions. He asked you if you had +credible information, which I think was a proper question. But may I +ask if you have any information based upon any facts that you know or +based upon any information given to you by persons who claim to have +personal knowledge, that there were persons engaged in a conspiracy to +kill President Kennedy? + +Mr. ROWLEY. I have no such facts, sir. + +Senator COOPER. I address the same question as to whether you have any +information that the killing of President Kennedy had any connection +with any foreign power? + +Mr. ROWLEY. I have no such information. + +The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Dulles, any questions? + +Mr. DULLES. Yes, sir; I have one general question. + +From the testimony, and from my own study, it would seem to me that it +was likely that there would be parallel, somewhat parallel structures +to develop the investigative capabilities with regard to possible +suspects in the area of Presidential protection. And my question is +as to whether, in order to avoid that undue expense, you think there +would be any advantage in putting the responsibility of that within the +FBI, who would then be responsible for advising you as to potential +suspects and possibly following up on that, rather than putting that +responsibility now to a certain extent on the Secret Service--whether +there is not a division of responsibility in this field which is +unfortunate and may possibly lead to greater expense, personnel doing +somewhat duplicative work? + +Mr. ROWLEY. As it applies to this law now? + +Mr. DULLES. As it applies to the situation today, without the law which +is recommended in your memorandum, and might apply also after that, +because the investigation would be required in either case to turn up +possible suspects. + +My question is, where should that responsibility be primarily centered +in order to avoid undue duplication and expense, and yet accomplish our +objective? + +Mr. ROWLEY. Well, when you mention duplication, I do not think there +has been much duplication in this case, when the President directed the +FBI to conduct the investigation to determine whether or not there was +a conspiracy. + +Mr. DULLES. I am not talking about now. I am talking about +investigation prior to, say, the President's visit to city X in the +United States. + +Mr. ROWLEY. I see. + +Mr. DULLES. Or abroad--where you have the problem of the Secret Service +and the CIA. + +Mr. ROWLEY. Well, I think you want to keep the concept of Presidential +protection by a small, closely knit group, because of the intimate +relationship. But if you want to expand it and give it to another +group, to take the long-range view, you do not know what may develop +from something like that--whether a police organization could lead to +a police state or a military state--if you want to delegate it to some +organization like that. + +The CHAIRMAN. I suppose also, Chief Rowley, that if your people were +not doing the spadework on this thing, and keeping their minds steeped +in this protection matter, but were obliged to rely on the written +records of someone else presented to you, that they would not be in the +proper state of mind, would they, to be alert to it? + +Mr. ROWLEY. That is right. There would be a tendency to relax and say +John Jones is taking care of it. This is always the possibility that +you might encounter something like that. + +The CHAIRMAN. And in law enforcement, you have to have the feel of the +situation, do you not? + +You have to do the spadework in order to be aware of every possibility +that might develop? + +Mr. ROWLEY. That is true. Because you see in this, Mr. Dulles, on the +Presidential detail, it is a unique detail. This is something that they +think 24 hours a day. They do it 24 hours a day. They are not otherwise +involved. For example, they have the principle of screening the +President and being always ready to make a quick exit. They do not have +to stop to investigate or identify any person, whoever the assailant +might be. Their responsibility is only to protect the President at all +times. + +Mr. DULLES. But they have to know against whom to protect him. + +Mr. ROWLEY. That is right. But they are ready for anything under the +present close screening. + +But if I understand your question, Mr. Dulles, you also want to know +whether or not in the screening or the investigation of certain +groups, like the Communist group, and so forth, since it is their +responsibility and not ours, because they have the internal security of +the United States, this is something that we have to develop. + +Mr. DULLES. Is "they" the FBI? + +Mr. ROWLEY. The FBI. + +That is something that we have to have a formal arrangement about, +because it enters the realm of internal security. We do not want to +conflict with them, if that is what is uppermost in your mind. We have +to be most correct about that, in any of the agencies, as you know. + +Mr. DULLES. How much larger staff do you think you are going to have to +have to cover that situation in the future? + +Mr. ROWLEY. Well, I would not know until we see the volume of reports +that we get that we have to refer to the field for investigation. Since +we are processing them now, we have to wait to make that determination. + +Mr. DULLES. Should you do field investigations as contrasted with the +FBI--the FBI have a large number of people in a large number of cities +throughout the United States. You do not have that? + +Mr. ROWLEY. No; but on the basis of the criteria we discussed earlier, +the FBI would give us the information, and if in our evaluation we +determined that it should be referred to the field for investigation, +particularly in the case of individuals, we would conduct our +investigation, to determine whether this individual is a high risk to +the President. + +Now, where it comes to the group, this is something for the FBI to do, +because it ties in with their responsibility for internal security. + +Now, if there is a close connection between the two, then we would have +to have a formal agreement. But because of our responsibility, and the +fact that this is part of the work that we have to undertake, then +we would conduct our own investigation, because we know what we are +looking for. + +Mr. DULLES. If the name of Lee Harvey Oswald had been submitted to you +by the FBI, what would you, in the normal course, have done? + +Would you have referred that back to them for investigation, or would +you have carried on an independent investigation? + +I am talking now if that name had been referred to you when you knew +you were going to go to Dallas. + +Mr. ROWLEY. If we knew we were going to go to Dallas and we had this +present criteria, then we would investigate him. + +Mr. DULLES. You would carry on the investigation? + +Mr. ROWLEY. Yes, sir. + +Mr. DULLES. Thank you. + +Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Chief Justice, I am through with Chief Rowley +now--except I would like to ask him to supply a copy of the information +about their appropriation request, and insert it with Commission +Exhibit No. 1028. [The information subsequently furnished by the Secret +Service was inserted in the record as a part of Commission Exhibit No. +1028.] + +We have Mr. Carswell here. As you recall, there was some difficulty +at one meeting about the testimony about what the Secret Service was +doing in regard to the Speaker. And while he is here, I would like to +straighten that record out. + +The CHAIRMAN. Very well. + +Mr. RANKIN. It will be very brief. + +The CHAIRMAN. Chief, I want to take this opportunity to thank you and +the members of your Secret Service for the cooperation you have given +to this Commission. They have been very diligent, very helpful, as you +personally have been. And we appreciate it. + +Mr. ROWLEY. Thank you, sir. + + +TESTIMONY OF ROBERT CARSWELL + +The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Carswell, you have been sworn, have you not? + +Mr. CARSWELL. Yes, sir. + +The CHAIRMAN. Very well. You may proceed. + +Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Chief Justice, if the Commission will bear with me +just a minute, I would like to tell about my own conversation with +the Speaker about this matter prior to his answering in regard to +correction of the record. + +The CHAIRMAN. Very well. You may proceed. + +Mr. RANKIN. After the matter came up before the Commission, I was asked +by one of the Commissioners to see the Speaker, Mr. McCormack, and I +did that at his office. And he informed me that the Secret Service +and also the FBI had undertaken to try to give him protection because +of his position in the line of succession, and that because of the +interference that he felt and his wife felt with their relationship +over the years in being alone and together in their family life, he +did not like to have that interference, and he asked them not to +participate any more in furnishing that protection for him. He said it +was his own responsibility in taking that action, and he wanted that to +be clear, and that he thought that as far as any protection he needed, +he had plenty of protection with the kind of protection that the +Congress had around him in the performance of his duty. + +It came to Mr. Carswell's attention, right immediately after he had +testified, that his statements in that regard were inaccurate because +of the change that had occurred that had not come to his attention. He +called me and he said he would like to correct the record. + +Mr. Carswell, will you tell us now what the facts are as you have +learned? + +Mr. CARSWELL. When I testified here before I was asked, I believe, what +protection the Secret Service was providing the Speaker. I said that we +were providing protection comparable to that previously provided to the +Vice President. I did that on the basis of checking with Chief Rowley +immediately after the assassination of President Kennedy, and he told +me at that time such protection was being provided to the Speaker. + +I understood that that was the case the next day--because at that time +we were not certain what was going on. I had not heard anything about +it after that. And I assumed that the situation continued as it was +immediately after the assassination. But that was not the case. + +As Mr. Rankin has stated, the Speaker requested the Secret Service to +discontinue assigning agents to him for protection, and we did what he +requested. That is the present situation. + +Mr. RANKIN. That is all I have. + +The CHAIRMAN. Very well. + +Thank you, Mr. Carswell. + +Well, gentlemen, I think that will be all today. The Commission will +adjourn now. + +(Whereupon, at 12:35 p.m., the President's Commission recessed.) + + + + +_Tuesday, June 23, 1964_ + +TESTIMONY OF BERNARD WILLIAM WEISSMAN AND ROBERT G. KLAUSE + +The President's Commission met at 10:30 a.m., on June 23, 1964, at 200 +Maryland Avenue NE., Washington, D.C. + +Present were Chief Justice Earl Warren, Chairman; Senator John Sherman +Cooper, Representative Hale Boggs, Representative Gerald R. Ford, and +Allen W. Dulles, members. + +Also present were J. Lee Rankin, general counsel; and Albert E. Jenner, +Jr., assistant counsel. + + +TESTIMONY OF BERNARD WILLIAM WEISSMAN, ACCOMPANIED BY THOMAS A. +FLANNERY, ESQ. + +(Members present: Chief Justice Warren, Representative Ford, and Mr. +Dulles.) + +The CHAIRMAN. The Commission will be in order. Mr. Flannery, you are +here representing Mr. Weissman? + +Mr. FLANNERY. Yes; Your Honor. + +The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Jenner, would you mind making a brief statement of +the testimony we expect to develop here? + +Mr. JENNER. Yes; Mr. Chief Justice. + +Mr. Bernard William Weissman, who is the witness today, played some +part in the preparation of and the publication of the advertisement +in the Dallas Morning News on the 22d of November 1963, and we will +seek to develop the facts with respect to that. It has been marked as +Commission Exhibit No. 1031, entitled "Welcome, Mr. Kennedy." + +The CHAIRMAN. Yes. + +(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 1031 for +identification.) + +Mr. JENNER. Mr. Weissman's deposition was taken in part. He was not +then represented by counsel, and he had some qualms about it and raised +the issue, and as soon as it was raised we suspended the deposition. He +appears this morning with Mr. Flannery as his counsel. + +Mr. Flannery, would you be good enough to state your full name? + +Mr. FLANNERY. Thomas A. Flannery. + +The CHAIRMAN. And you are a practitioner in Washington? + +Mr. FLANNERY. Yes; Your Honor, I am a partner in the firm of Hamilton +and Hamilton. + +The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Weissman; will you raise your right hand and be sworn? + +Do you solemnly swear the testimony you shall give will be the truth, +the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. I do. + +The CHAIRMAN. Will you be seated? Mr. Jenner will question. + +Mr. JENNER. Your full name is Bernard William Weissman? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. That is right. + +Mr. JENNER. And you now reside in New York City, do you not? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Mount Vernon, N.Y. + +Mr. JENNER. Would you give your address? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. 439 South Columbus Avenue, Mount Vernon, N.Y. + +Mr. JENNER. You were born November 1, 1937? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. That is right. + +Mr. JENNER. You are almost 27 years old? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes, sir. + +Mr. JENNER. All right. I would like some vital statistics, if I may, +Mr. Weissman. Are you presently employed? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes, sir. + +Mr. JENNER. And where are you employed presently? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Carpet Corp. of America, 655 Clinton Avenue, Newark, N.J. + +Mr. JENNER. I see. Is that connected in any fashion with the Carpet Co. +by which you were employed in Dallas, Tex., last fall? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. None whatsoever. + +Mr. JENNER. You are a native born American? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes, sir. + +Mr. JENNER. And your folks are as well? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Excuse me? + +Mr. JENNER. Your folks are as well, mother and father? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes. + +Mr. JENNER. And you have two brothers? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes; I do. + +Mr. JENNER. And they likewise are native born Americans? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes, sir. + +Mr. JENNER. What is your marital status at the present time? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Separated. + +Mr. JENNER. You were married or are married to Jane Byrnes Weissman? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes, sir. + +Mr. JENNER. She is a native born American, also? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes. + +Mr. JENNER. You have been separated since when? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. May 16, 1963. + +Mr. JENNER. So you became separated from her before you went to Dallas +in the fall of 1963? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. I was in the service at the time. + +(At this point, Senator Cooper entered the hearing room.) + +Mr. JENNER. Now, are you acquainted with a gentleman by the name of +Larrie Schmidt? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes; I am. + +Mr. JENNER. When did you first meet him? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. In Munich, Germany, about July or August of 1962. + +Mr. JENNER. His middle name is Henry. Are you aware of that? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. No; I am not aware of that. + +Mr. JENNER. Where does he reside? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Well, he was in Dallas. I understand he has dropped from +sight. I don't know where he is now. + +Mr. JENNER. Was he residing in Dallas in the fall of 1963 when you were +there? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes. + +Mr. JENNER. When did you arrive in Dallas? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. In Dallas, on the 4th of November 1963. + +Mr. JENNER. And was Mr. Schmidt aware that you were about to come to +Dallas? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes. + +Mr. JENNER. And what was the purpose of your coming to Dallas? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. I will be as brief as possible. It was simply to follow +through on plans that we had made in Germany, in order to develop a +conservative organization in Dallas, under our leadership. + +Mr. JENNER. Did that conservative organization, or your purpose in +going to Dallas, as well, have any business context in addition to +politics? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. I would say 50 percent of the purpose was business and +the other 50 percent politics. We figured that only rich men can +indulge full time in politics, so first we had to make some money +before we could devote ourselves to the political end completely. + +Mr. JENNER. In short compass; would you tell the Commission your +background up to the time that you entered military service, and give +us the date of the entry of military service? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Do you mean as far as my schooling and where I lived +before then? Before I went into the service? + +Mr. JENNER. Let's take it from high school. + +Mr. WEISSMAN. I graduated from Edison Technical High School in Mount +Vernon in June of 1956, went to work for the Nuclear Development Corp. +as an experimental machinist in July of that year and left them in +August of 1957. I then went on the road with my brother, Joe, and +his wife, working as demonstrators or pitchmen, you might say, in +department stores, selling some patent medicines and the like. Did this +for about--oh, that was from the 18th of November 1957 up until about +April or May of 1958. + +Mr. JENNER. Your brother Joe is a little bit older than you? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. He is 20 months older, yes. + +Mr. JENNER. And his given name is Joe, and not Joseph? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Joseph. Then--let's see--I went to work for the American +Schools of Music, which my brother founded in Jersey. + +Mr. JENNER. Which brother? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. My brother Joe--in New Jersey. And I stayed with him as +his sales manager for a little over a year. + +Then I went to work for Encyclopedia Americana, Harvard Classics +Division, as a district sales manager. I was with them about a +year--until 19--I believe it was September of 1960. + +I was starving, so I went to work for Underwood Olivetti, in Newark, +N.J., and I sold typewriters and calculators up until May of 1961, at +which time I quit, tried to go into business for myself in costume +jewelry, formed a corporation known as Jane Williams Co., Inc., and in +August of 1961, I was drafted into the Army. That was on August 5, 1961. + +Mr. JENNER. You were honorably discharged from the Army in August 1963? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. August 5; yes, sir. + +Mr. JENNER. What has been your father's occupation? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Well, for about 20 years he was plant superintendent for +University Loudspeakers in White Plains, N.Y. They moved to some place +out west. He quit and went back to work with Local 3 in New York City, +IBW. + +Mr. JENNER. Your father's name is Harry? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Harry Weissman; yes, sir. + +Mr. JENNER. Do you reside with him now at 439 South Columbus Avenue in +Mount Vernon? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes. + +Mr. JENNER. You were discharged from the Army honorably? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes. + +Mr. JENNER. You were married when, sir? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. November 7, 1958. + +Mr. JENNER. A New York girl? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Yonkers, N.Y. + +Mr. JENNER. And you have some children? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. No. + +Mr. JENNER. You separated, as you have indicated. Now, would you start +from the Army? + +Before I get to that, you met Larrie Schmidt in the Army? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes; I did. + +Mr. JENNER. What other buddies did you have in the Army with whom you +again renewed your acquaintance when you were discharged from the Army +and went to Dallas? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Only one beside Larrie. That was Bill Burley. William +Burley. + +Mr. JENNER. What contact did you have with Mr. Larrie Schmidt and Mr. +Burley after you left the Army, which eventually brought you to Dallas? +State it in your own words and chronologically, please. + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Well, I got out of service on the 5th, and I spent the +month of August looking for a job. During this time, I had been in +contact with Larrie. I had telephoned him once during August. Things +were pretty bad. I didn't have any money. As far as I could ascertain +he was broke himself. There wasn't any percentage in going to Dallas +and not accomplishing anything. As a matter of fact, I had lost a good +deal of confidence in Larrie in the year that he left Munich and was in +Dallas, and the letters I got from him--he seemed to have deviated from +our original plan. I wasn't too hot about going. He didn't seem to be +accomplishing anything, except where it benefited him. + +Mr. JENNER. You say he deviated from the original plan. What was the +original plan? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Well, the original plan was to stay away from various +organizations and societies that were, let's call them, radical, and +had a reputation as being such. + +Mr. JENNER. When you say radical, what do you mean? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. I mean radical right. And I considered myself more of an +idealist than a politician. Larrie was more of a politician than an +idealist. He went with the wind--which is good for him, I guess, and +bad for me. + +In any case Larrie wrote me easily a dozen letters imploring me to come +down, telling me in one that he doesn't need me down there, but he +would love to have my help because he can't accomplish anything without +me, and in the next one saying, "Forget it, I don't need you," and so +forth. As the letters came, they went with the wind, depending on what +he was doing personally. And along about the end of October, I had been +in contact with Bill--he was in Baltimore, Md., selling hearing aids. +He wasn't getting anywhere. He was making a living. + +Mr. JENNER. Up to this point each of you was barely making a living? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Right. + +Mr. JENNER. And you had no capital? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. No. + +Mr. JENNER. No funds of your own? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. None at all. And I got in touch with Bill. Actually, I +forgot how it was. He wrote me a letter and I wrote him a letter. In +any case, it came about that I invited Bill up to Mount Vernon, because +he figured if there was any money to be made it would be made in New +York, because this is a salesman's paradise. I invited Bill to Mount +Vernon. He came up about the last week of August. + +I am sorry--October of 1963. And we set up about looking for work and +trying to find him work, that is--I was working for the Encyclopedia +Britannica, Great Books Division, as a district manager in Westchester +County. So I more or less supported Bill the best I could. I fed him +and gave him a room to sleep in and so forth. + +In the meantime, Larrie had up to a point--hadn't accomplished anything +in the way that we could use gainfully or to our purposes in Dallas. So +there was really no reason to go down there--up until about, I guess, +the 26th or 28th of October. + +Mr. JENNER. Excuse me. Why were you thinking of Dallas at this time? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Well, I kept getting these letters from Larrie. I tried +to forget about it, and he constantly reminded me. Once or twice a week +I would get a letter. And it was a question--I was almost obligated to +go, because I had promised I would be there. And still having somewhat +of a close relationship with Larrie, through my promises, I sort of +felt morally obligated to go down there. + +And, at the same time, it was new, different, exciting, it had a lot of +promise for the future if it worked out. + +So Adlai Stevenson was down there in the latter part of October. + +(At this point, Representative Boggs entered the hearing room.) + +Mr. WEISSMAN. And I didn't pay too much attention to this--until the +evening of Stevenson's speech at the Dallas Auditorium. And I got a +long distance telephone call from Larrie, and he explained what had +happened--that Stevenson had been struck by several individuals down +there. + +Mr. JENNER. Please call on your best recollection and tell us what he +said to you. You recall that he made that telephone call? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes. + +Mr. JENNER. You recognized his voice? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes. + +Mr. JENNER. You are clear it was Larrie Schmidt? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. That is right. + +Mr. JENNER. What did he say? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. He said that big things are happening, and he went--this +is before it hit the papers. He told me what had happened with Adlai +Stevenson. + +Mr. JENNER. What did he say? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Something like, "I think we are" he always speaks I this +and I that. "I have made it, I have done it for us," something to this +effect. In other words, this is not exactly his words. I don't recall +his exact words. But this is essentially it. And that---- + +Mr. JENNER. Did you say to him, "What do you mean you have made it for +us?" + +Mr. WEISSMAN. When he said, "I have made it for us," meaning Larrie +Schmidt--meaning me and Bill and whoever else was going to come down +here---- + +Mr. JENNER. That was---- + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Bill Burley. + +Mr. JENNER. What did you say when he made that remark? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. I said "Great." + +Mr. JENNER. What did it mean to you, sir? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. What did it mean to me? + +Mr. JENNER. It is a generalization. + +Mr. WEISSMAN. That is it. In other words, I didn't really know what to +think. I had to go along with him, because I didn't know anything about +it, aside from what he told me. + +And he said, "If we are going to take advantage of the situation, or if +you are," meaning me, "you better hurry down here and take advantage +of the publicity, and at least become known among these various +rightwingers, because this is the chance we have been looking for to +infiltrate some of these organizations and become known," in other +words, go along with the philosophy we had developed in Munich. + +Mr. JENNER. Could I go back a little bit, please. You received a +telephone call from Mr. Schmidt. + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes. + +Mr. JENNER. At that moment, you knew nothing about the Adlai Stevenson +incident, is that correct? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. I had received a letter from him several weeks before +saying that--if you will wait just a minute, I think I might have the +letter with me. + +Mr. JENNER. All right. While you are looking, what was your rank when +you were discharged? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Pfc. + +Mr. JENNER. Did you reach any higher rank when you were in the service? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. No; this is a letter I received on October 1, 1963. + +Mr. JENNER. For purposes of identification, we will mark that as +Commission Exhibit No. 1033. + +(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 1033 for +identification.) + +Mr. JENNER. May I approach the witness, Mr. Chief Justice? + +The CHAIRMAN. Yes; go right ahead. + +Mr. JENNER. That is marked only for identification for the moment. + +Mr. FLANNERY. The record will reflect it is a three-page letter. + +Mr. JENNER. Thank you. + +Marked Commission Exhibit No. 1033, is that not correct? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes; that is correct. Now, in Exhibit No. 1033, the +letter I received from Larrie on October 1--that was typed on October +1, 1963, and mailed on 7 October 1963. + +Mr. JENNER. You are looking at the envelope in which the letter was +enclosed when you received it? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. That is correct. And he states in the last paragraph of +his letter in a postscript, "My brother has begun working as an aide +to General Walker. He is being paid full time, et cetera. Watch your +newspaper for news of huge demonstrations here in Dallas on October +3 and 4 in connection with U.N.-day and Adlai Stevenson speech here. +Plans already made, strategy being carried out." + +This was the only advance notice I had of this. And I didn't give it +too much thought, because he had said many things like it before, just +to build something up, and nothing ever came of it. + +Mr. JENNER. Is that document signed? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. No; it is not. + +Mr. JENNER. Does it bear a typed signature? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes. + +Mr. JENNER. Did you have occasion to speak with Mr. Schmidt respecting +the contents of that letter at any time subsequent to your receiving it? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. I don't recall. + +Mr. JENNER. Did you ever talk with him about having received that +particular letter, that he acknowledged having sent to you? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes; as a matter of fact, I was pretty worried about his +brother becoming involved with General Walker, and I thought it might +give us a black eye. + +Mr. JENNER. And what did you do--call Mr. Schmidt or talk with him on +that subject? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. I don't recall if I spoke with him, or if I wrote it to +him in a letter. I don't recall. + +Mr. JENNER. But you had occasion to confirm the fact that the letter +now identified as Commission Exhibit No. 1033 was written by Mr. +Schmidt and mailed to you in an envelope, which we will mark as +Commission Exhibit No. 1033-A? + +(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 1033-A for +identification.) + +Mr. JENNER. Did you hear my question? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Repeat it, please. + +(The question, as recorded, was read by the reporter.) + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes. + +Mr. JENNER. So that when you had your telephone conversation which you +were in the course of relating, with Mr. Schmidt, you were aware when +he made the exclamation which you have described, of that to which he +was then referring--that is, the Stevenson incident? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes. + +Mr. JENNER. Was there anything else in Mr. Schmidt's letter that +disturbed you? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. I received so many. + +Would it be permissible to--excuse me. + +Mr. Jenner, would it be permissible to read this letter into the record? + +Mr. JENNER. My trouble is, Mr. Weissman, and Mr. Flannery--I haven't +seen the letter. + +Mr. Chief Justice---- + +The CHAIRMAN. I suppose Mr. Jenner could see the letter for a moment, +couldn't he? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Definitely; yes, sir. + +Mr. JENNER. Mr. Flannery, would you be good enough to pass it up? + +(At this point, Representative Ford withdrew from the hearing room.) + +Mr. WEISSMAN. You see, up to the point of that letter--excuse me. + +Mr. JENNER. Mr. Chief Justice, it is quite apparent to me, from +glancing through the letter, that this is a letter that we--in +connection with Mr. Weissman's testimony, that we would like to offer +in evidence in due course. + +And, with that in mind, Mr. Weissman, it will not be necessary for +you to read paragraphs from the letter, unless in the course of your +testimony you feel it will round out your testimony and serve to +refresh your recollection as to events you might wish to relate. + +Mr. WEISSMAN. I would like to take a look at it now. + +(At this point, Representative Ford reentered the hearing room.) + +Mr. JENNER. Ready? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes. + +Mr. JENNER. Mr. Reporter, would you be good enough to read, let us say, +the last question and answer of the witness? + +(The question and answer, as recorded, was read by the reporter.) + +Mr. JENNER. The point I was making, Mr. Weissman, was that when you +received the telephone call about which you were testifying, in which +Mr. Schmidt exclaimed, "I have made it for us," or words to that +effect, you were then aware of that to which he was referring, at least +in general? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes. + +Mr. JENNER. So that was the reason why you didn't ask him to elaborate +upon what he meant by, "I have made it for us"? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Right. That is right. + +Mr. JENNER. And that was the fact that he, as you understood it, am I +correct in saying, had had something to do with the organization of the +picketing or other demonstrations at the time that Mr. Stevenson made +his visit to Dallas? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Well, at the time I was almost--Larrie led me to believe +that he had organized the whole thing. And it transpired when I got to +Dallas that I found that he had led a group of 11 University of Dallas +students in quiet picketing near the entrance to the auditorium, and +didn't engage in any physical violence of any sort. + +Mr. JENNER. But up to the time that you arrived in Dallas, you were +under the impression that he had had a more extensive part? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. This is what he led me to believe. In other words, he +was trying to--he wanted to get me to Dallas in the worst way. And he +wanted it to look like he was on the hot seat and he would be there +unless I came down to help him. In other words, he is throwing my +obligation at me. And trying to convince me in various ways, as I +mentioned, to come down there, so we can get moving on what we had +planned in Munich. + +Mr. JENNER. Did you receive a letter from him dated October 29, 1963, +a copy of which I have marked as Commission Exhibit No. 1032, and I +tender to you. You may have the original among your papers. + +(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 1032 for +identification.) + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes; I did receive this letter, Exhibit No. 1032, from +Larrie, about the 29th of October. + +Mr. JENNER. And, gentlemen of the Commission, this is a letter dated, +as the witness has stated--it is addressed to, "Dear Bernie and Bill," +and I assume Bill is---- + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Bill Burley. + +Mr. JENNER. He was then staying with you in New York? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Right. + +Mr. JENNER. And it is signed Larrie. By the way, do you have the +original of this letter with you? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. I don't think so. Let me see. No; as a matter of fact, +I believe the situation was when I gave the letter to the FBI, they +asked me if I needed it back right away, and I said no--I didn't see +any value in it, frankly. And then I spoke with Mr. Reedy, the agent +who had conducted the investigation at the FBI headquarters in New +York, and he said, "Do you want the letter?" And I said, "I don't +particularly need it," and I don't recall if I ever got it back. + +Mr. JENNER. All right. But the document which has been marked with an +exhibit number is a true and correct copy of the letter you received +from Larrie Schmidt? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. It seems to be; yes, sir. + +Mr. JENNER. Now, in that letter, there is a reference to CUSA in +capital letters. What is CUSA, what was CUSA? What was its genesis? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Well, CUSA, the letters stand for Conservatism USA, for +lack of a better name. Larrie had originally founded this himself--as +far as I know he had originally founded this himself in Munich some +time in 1961. + +Mr. JENNER. You mean it was a concept of his? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. I don't know if it was his. But I was led to believe the +concept was his; and when I became associated with him, almost a year +after he had started to develop this organization---- + +Mr. JENNER. And while you were still in the Army? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. While I was still in the Army; right. + +Representative BOGGS. What was your rank in the Army? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Private, first class. + +Representative BOGGS. That is when you completed your service? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes; at the time I was pfc, also. + +Representative BOGGS. How long were you in the Army? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Two years. + +Representative BOGGS. When you were separated you were private, first +class? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. That is right. Here is how it came about. I had been in +the field on an Army training test. And I had been discussing just +political views, foreign policy especially. + +Mr. DULLES. Is this Germany, now? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes; this is Germany. + +Mr. JENNER. Who was the overall commander in Germany at that time? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. The overall commander? + +Mr. JENNER. Was General Walker one of the commanders at that time? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. No; he had been removed at that time. In any case, he +would have been about 60 or 70 miles--he was based in Landshut, Germany. + +In any case, I was on this army training test with my company, MP +Company, and I was talking to the company clerk--he had a book. We just +got onto a discussion of politics, just generally. And I expounded some +views on foreign policy, and where I agreed or disagreed. And I went +into some great detail. And he said, "Gee, if I didn't know better I +would say it is Larrie speaking." + +And I said, "What do you mean?" + +And he went into this CUSA organization. He was at that time a partner +in CUSA. It was set up as a business. + +Representative BOGGS. What does CUSA mean? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Conservatism USA. + +Representative BOGGS. What was Mr. Schmidt's rank? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. He was specialist fourth class, SP-4, and he was in +charge of public relations for Armed Forces Recreation Centers. + +Mr. JENNER. How old a man is he? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Larrie is 26 or 27. + +Mr. JENNER. About the same age as yours? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes. + +Mr. JENNER. And Mr. Burley? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Twenty-nine now, I believe. + +Mr. JENNER. A little older--about 2 years older than you and Mr. +Schmidt. + +Mr. WEISSMAN. In there. A year and a half, 2 years, yes. + +Mr. JENNER. Excuse me. What was his rank? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Corporal. At the time that I met Bill he was a pfc. In +fact, Bill Burley didn't become really involved in this until, I would +say, 2 or 3 months before we left Germany. We left there about the +same time, we were discharged about the same time; and, anyway, I was +talking to the company clerk, Norman Baker, who was a partner in CUSA. +I didn't know this at the time; but he just said he wanted to introduce +me to somebody. + +Mr. JENNER. What was the rank of the company clerk? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. At that time--I think he was the only corporal company +clerk in the army. And he introduced me to Larrie several weeks later +after we had returned from the field. + +They tried to pull a big snow job, saying public relations and so on +and so forth, just to sort of impress me, and they did. They worked +very well together; and, in any case, I became involved in it. + +I don't recollect the step-by-step involvement--just that I jumped in +with both feet, because I liked the idea. + +Mr. JENNER. This was Conservatism USA, and it consisted of an idea at +this particular time? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Right. + +Mr. JENNER. And associated with that idea were these people, Larrie +Schmidt, yourself, was Burley---- + +Mr. WEISSMAN. At that time, I don't think so. + +Mr. JENNER. But he did become? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Later. + +Mr. JENNER. And the company clerk--what was his name? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Norman Baker. + +Mr. JENNER. And yourself--what was that--five? Were there any others? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. There were others, but it was the sort of thing where +they were involved but not involved. They were just sort of going along +for the ride, because it was interesting, and you might say a little +diverse from the humdrum army life. + +Mr. JENNER. Was CUSA ever organized formally in the sense of corporate +organization or drafting of partnership papers and registration under +the Assumed Name Act in Texas? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. In Texas; no. + +Mr. JENNER. I take it it was organized? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes; it was. + +Mr. JENNER. As a corporation or partnership? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. As a partnership. + +Mr. JENNER. In what state? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. In Munich, Germany. + +Mr. JENNER. I see. And that was a sort of declaration among you? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. It was a written declaration; yes. + +Mr. JENNER. Who drafted that? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. We did--that is, we called ourselves--the hangers-on were +identified as the outer circle, and the partners were the inner circle. +This was just for ease of identification. This, I think, would be the +easiest way to really express it. + +And the partners, the five partners, were the inner circle, the leaders +of this organization; and---- + +The CHAIRMAN. Gentlemen, may I interrupt for just a minute? I have an +appointment I must keep at the court. + +Congressman Ford, will you preside, please? + +Representative FORD. Surely. + +(At this point, Chief Justice Warren withdrew from the hearing room.) + +Representative FORD. Will you proceed, please, Mr. Jenner. + +Mr. JENNER. Thank you. In short compass, tell us the objectives of CUSA. + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Well, the objectives of CUSA were substantially to set +up a political business organization. We used a rough comparison with +Ford and the Ford Foundation as an example. The Ford Foundation would +be CUSA, Conservatism USA, and the Ford would be AMBUS, or American +business. + +Mr. JENNER. What was AMBUS? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. American business. This was the business half of the +political organization. + +Mr. JENNER. This was to be a combination of business and politics? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Right. We were going to use the business end---- + +Mr. JENNER. Which you called AMBUS? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. That is right. + +Mr. JENNER. That would be---- + +Mr. WEISSMAN. American business, or American businesses. + +Mr. JENNER. I don't get the initials. A-B-U-S? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. A-M-B-U-S--American business. + +Mr. JENNER. All right. + +Mr. WEISSMAN. And we were trying to develop, in our own minds, without +actually doing it at the time, ways to build up various businesses that +would support us and at the same time support our political activities. + +Mr. JENNER. All right. Could I characterize it this way--that a +material objective of this group or partnership was ultimately a +self-interest in business? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. No. + +Mr. JENNER. Coupled with a political arm which was to aid or assist in +the business, and each was to feed the other? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. The business arm was to be developed mainly to feed the +political arm. + +(At this point, Representative Ford withdrew from the hearing room.) + +Mr. WEISSMAN. We were mainly interested in the political end. At least +this is my feeling on it. Mainly interested in the political end. And +the business end, while, of course, we hoped it would succeed, in my +mind was merely to support us politically. + +(At this point, Representative Ford reentered the hearing room.) + +Mr. JENNER. All right. Now, as of this moment, Mr. Weissman, there +were the five of you only. There were no others who were part of the +combination business-political group? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. We left out one man, one of the original men. His name +was James Moseley. + +Mr. JENNER. Was he a GI with you? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. No; he was an American civilian. His father was a +major--is a major in the Army. + +Mr. JENNER. And was he an acquaintance of yours? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes. + +Mr. JENNER. Prior to this time? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Not prior to this. I met him when I went into the +organization. + +Mr. JENNER. I see. Was he an acquaintance of Mr. Schmidt's? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes. + +Mr. JENNER. How did he get in, is what I am getting at? How did he get +into this little group here? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. They all hung around the same bar. + +Mr. JENNER. What bar? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. The Gastatte Lukullus. + +Representative BOGGS. How far was that from the bar where Hitler used +to gather? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. A couple of miles, I think. + +Mr. JENNER. It is a bar in Munich? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes. It is a GI guest house. + +Mr. JENNER. This man you have now mentioned, Moseley, was a civilian in +Germany? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. He was a civilian; yes. + +Mr. JENNER. How did he come to be in Munich? Was his father stationed +there? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. His father was stationed there. But he was also employed +by Rambler--he was selling Ramblers. + +Mr. JENNER. What is Mr. Moseley's hometown? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes. + +Mr. JENNER. What is Mr. Mosley's hometown? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. I believe it is New York. I am not sure. + +Mr. JENNER. How old a man is he? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. He is a pretty young fellow. He is about 21. + +Mr. JENNER. Now, have you named all of you who were the nucleus of this +group? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. To my recollection, yes. + +Mr. JENNER. Had you finished your statement as to the general--the +general statement as to the purpose of this organization which +consisted of the two arms? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Not completely. I think what might bear directly is we +had planned while in Munich that in order to accomplish our goals, to +try to do it from scratch would be almost impossible, because it would +be years before we could even get the funds to develop a powerful +organization. So we had planned to infiltrate various rightwing +organizations and by our own efforts become involved in the hierarchy +of these various organizations and eventually get ourselves elected +or appointed to various higher offices in these organizations, and by +doing this bring in some of our own people, and eventually take over +the leadership of these organizations, and at that time having our +people in these various organizations, we would then, you might say, +call a conference and have them unite, and while no one knew of the +existence of CUSA aside from us, we would then bring them all together, +unite them, and arrange to have it called CUSA. + +Mr. JENNER. You never accomplished this, did you? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Almost. Here is how far we did get. + +Larrie had--and this was according to plan--the first organization we +planned to infiltrate was the NIC, National Indignation Convention, +headed by Frank McGee in Dallas. About a week or so after Larrie got to +Dallas he got himself a job with the NIC, as one of the very few paid +men. + +This didn't last too long, because a few weeks after that the NIC went +under. And we had also--in other words, we had planned to use these +organizations as vehicles to accomplish---- + +Mr. JENNER. Keep going on those details of your infiltration. + +Mr. WEISSMAN. All right. We had planned to infiltrate these various +rightwing organizations. + +Mr. JENNER. You mentioned one. + +Mr. WEISSMAN. The NIC. The Young Americans for Freedom. We succeeded +there. + +Mr JENNER. What organization is that? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. The Young Americans for Freedom? This was an organization +essentially of conservative youths, college students, and if I recall +I think the most they ever accomplished was running around burning +baskets from Yugoslavia. + +Mr. JENNER. Where was it based? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. This is southwest. Regional headquarters was in Dallas, +Tex., Box 2364. + +Mr. JENNER. And the earlier organization, the organization you +mentioned a moment ago, NIC--where was that based? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Dallas. + +Mr. JENNER. All right. What is the next one? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. We had also discussed getting some people in with General +Walker, getting some people into the John Birch Society. + +Mr. JENNER. Stick with General Walker for a moment. To what extent were +you able to infiltrate, as you call it, General Walker's group? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Well, this was rather a fiasco. Larrie's brother, as I +mentioned in the letter--Larrie's brother went to work for General +Walker. + +Mr. JENNER. What was his name? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. I don't know his first name. But Larrie led me to believe +his brother was some guy. His brother is about 29. And the only +thing I ever heard from Larrie about his brother was good; and when +he mentioned that his brother had joined the Walker organization, I +figured this is another step in the right direction. In other words, he +was solidifying his argument as to why I should come to Dallas. + +Mr. JENNER. And this is what he told you? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Right. So when I got to Dallas, I found that Larrie's +brother drank too much, and he had--well, I considered him a moron. He +didn't have any sense at all. He was very happy with $35 a week and +room and board that General Walker was giving him as his chauffeur and +general aide. And so I tossed that out the window that we would never +get into the Walker organization this way. + +Mr. JENNER. This man's name, by any chance, was not Volkmar? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. This name is entirely unfamiliar to me. Never heard it +before. + +Senator COOPER. Could you identify the Walker organization? You keep +speaking of the Walker organization. + +Mr. WEISSMAN. General Edwin Walker. + +Mr. JENNER. General Edwin A. Walker? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes. + +Mr. JENNER. Did you ever meet him? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. No; I never have. + +Representative FORD. How did you infiltrate the Young Americans for +Freedom, and what led you to believe you had been successful? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Well, Larrie had been named executive secretary of +the Dallas chapter of the Young Americans for Freedom. And another +man--his name is in one of these letters somewhere--I don't recall it +offhand--who was brought into CUSA by Larrie, was named chairman or +vice chairman--vice chairman. And the only other move that we had to +make in order to take control of Dallas Young Americans for Freedom +would have been to get rid of the chairman, who was anti-Larrie +Schmidt. He was absolutely no help to us. And this was on its way to +accomplishment. But for some reason or another, there was some sort of +an argument. I am still not clear on what happened. I wasn't there. I +just can take it secondhand from Larrie. + +A friend of Larrie's had come to Dallas--this was Larry Jones, another +partner in---- + +Mr. JENNER. He is mentioned in some of these interviews. Did you meet +Larry Jones? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. I didn't meet him in Dallas; no. He was gone before I +got there. But Larry had come to Dallas, he had stayed a few weeks, +had made friends with these people, and I had advocated many and many +a time--I saw through Larry the first time I met him--is to get rid of +this guy, because he was not going to do us any good. + +Mr. JENNER. You did meet Jones? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. In the Army; yes. + +Mr. JENNER. You met Larry Jones in the Army? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes. We were all on the same post. + +Mr. JENNER. Mr. Chairman, if you will permit, I would like to go back +to that at this moment. + +Representative FORD. Surely. + +Mr. JENNER. This was another man. You hadn't mentioned him before. + +Mr. WEISSMAN. I didn't? I thought I did. + +Mr. JENNER. What rank was he? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. SP-4, Specialist-4. + +Mr. JENNER. That wasn't the company clerk? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. No. Larry worked for headquarters. He was in +communications--the scramblers and so forth. + +Mr. JENNER. Seeking to scramble broadcasts? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. No. In other words, they would send out the secret +messages and so forth from commander to commander and so on. + +Mr. DULLES. These were military messages? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes. + +Mr. JENNER. How old a man was Larry Jones? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Larry--he looked 30. I think he is 21. + +Mr. JENNER. Do you have the charter or partnership agreement of CUSA +with you? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes; I do. + +Mr. JENNER. I wonder if I could see that. + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Sure. + +Mr. JENNER. Mr. Chairman; the document consists of two pages +which have been identified as Commission Exhibit No. 1034. It is +entitled "Corporate Structure of American Business, Inc.," naming as +incorporators or partners, Larrie H. Schmidt, Larry C. Jones, Bernie +Weissman, James L. Moseley, Norman F. Baker. It purports to be signed +in those names as well on the second page. + +(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 1034 for +identification.) + +Mr. JENNER. I notice on the first page that after each of those names +there appear to be some initials. Are those the initials of those +respective men? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. That is right. + +Mr. JENNER. And were those initials placed on there in your presence? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes; they were. + +Mr. JENNER. The signatures that appear under each of those names or +above each of those names on the second page, those are the signatures +of those men, including your own? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. That is right. + +Mr. JENNER. Were they placed on there in your presence? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes, they were. + +Representative FORD. Do you want that admitted at this time, Mr. Jenner? + +Mr. JENNER. I was going to offer these documents in sequence, if it +suits the convenience of the Chairman. If we may return now, Mr. +Weissman, please, to your efforts to infiltrate various conservative +groups---- + +Senator COOPER. May I ask a question there? I may have to leave in a +few minutes. Was there any time when your organization drew up a list +of organizations, of other organizations, that it wanted to infiltrate? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes. + +Mr. JENNER. Do you have that list with you? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. I don't know. I have lost an awful lot of it. I might. + +Mr. JENNER. Would you look, please? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. No; I don't have it. + +Senator COOPER. May I ask, then--can he name from memory the +organizations? + +Mr. JENNER. Using your recollection, sir, and it appears to be very +good, if I may compliment you---- + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Thank you. + +Mr. JENNER. Would you do your best to respond to Senator Cooper's +question by naming those various groups? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes. One was the NIC. + +Mr. JENNER. When you use initials, will you spell out what the initials +mean? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. National Indignation Convention, headed by Frank McGee, +in Dallas, Tex. + +Young Americans for Freedom, which encompassed the southwest. The +initials are YAF. + +Mr. JENNER. Located in Dallas? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Regional headquarters in Dallas. John Birch Society. + +Mr. JENNER. Where was the John Birch--was there a chapter or +headquarters in Dallas? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. There are several chapters in Dallas; yes. And as far as +I can recollect, that is as far as we went. + +Representative BOGGS. What did you hope to accomplish by this +infiltration, as you call it? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Well, I will be very blunt. + +Representative BOGGS. That is what I would like for you to be. + +Mr. WEISSMAN. We were, you might say--at least I personally--this is +my reason--I was sick and tired of seeing America as a weak sister +all the time. And this is especially in the field of foreign affairs, +where it seemed that our administration, whether it is the Eisenhower +or the Kennedy administration, both of them, had no set, stable foreign +policy. We were constantly losing ground all over the world. We were +going to conference tables with everything to lose and nothing to gain, +and coming away by losing. + +And we hoped by developing a powerful political organization we could +exert some influence on the government and eventually even put, you +might say, our man in the White House, let's say, in order to obtain a +stable policy--because we felt that the Communists were gaining ground +all over the place, we were doing nothing but losing. + +Representative BOGGS. Did you have a candidate for the Presidency? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Excuse me? + +Representative BOGGS. Did you have a candidate--you said your man. + +Mr. WEISSMAN. I wouldn't say we had a candidate. We had looked to +Barry Goldwater as personifying Mr. Conservative. And we had stated in +writing, though, that we would support him for the Presidency, but we +were not obligated to support him or any other individual. + +Representative BOGGS. Are you still in this business? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. No. + +Representative BOGGS. What are you doing now? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. I am a salesman, I sell carpets. + +Representative BOGGS. You have given up this goal? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Well, if I had money I didn't know what to do with, I +would get back into it--only I would do it myself, because I found that +in order to accomplish these aims--I mentioned before I considered +myself an idealist. I found in order to accomplish these goals I had to +against my will prostitute my ideals in order to further the general +cause of the organization. + +Representative BOGGS. What ideals did you find you had to prostitute? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. I personally didn't want to associate with the John Birch +Society. + +Representative BOGGS. You did not want to? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. No; I did not. + +Representative BOGGS. Why didn't you? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Well; they are rather extreme, I thought. I didn't like +some of the things they were doing. For example, I didn't want to spend +my days and nights sneaking into bathrooms around the country, pasting +up "Impeach Earl Warren" stickers. + +Representative BOGGS. Is that what they do? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. This is part of their program. And I can't see any use in +it, frankly. In other words, it is just little things like this. Plus +the fact that after I got to Dallas, I found that most of the people +who are professing anti-communism, they were, they were definitely +anti-Communists. But, at the same time, it seemed to me to be nothing +but a conglomeration of racists, and bigots and so forth. + +Representative BOGGS. What do you mean by that--bigots? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. They are anti-everything, it seems. + +Representative BOGGS. Are you Jewish? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes; I am. + +Representative BOGGS. Were they anti-Jewish? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Too many of them, yes. It was requested at one time that +I change my name. + +Representative BOGGS. Is that right? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. That is right. + +Representative BOGGS. What did you tell them? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Excuse me? + +Representative BOGGS. What did you tell them? Did you change your name? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. No, sir. + +Representative BOGGS. Well, did you find this request unusual? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes; I did, as a matter of fact, I got pretty mad. + +Representative BOGGS. When you were in Germany, did you find sometimes, +particularly in Munich, as long as you opened this line of replies, +that some of the Nazi-alleged anticommunism was also associated with +their racist policies? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. In what vein are you using Nazi? + +Representative BOGGS. Well, of course, you know they exterminated quite +a few members of your religion in Germany. + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes. + +Representative BOGGS. That is a fact; is it not? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes; it is. + +Representative BOGGS. I am using Nazi in the normal term of state +dictatorship, with all that it implies. I am sure you have worked on +foreign policy, you understand what I mean. + +Mr. WEISSMAN. I think you are giving me a little too much credit. But I +think I can answer your question. + +Representative BOGGS. I would like for you to. + +Mr. WEISSMAN. At no time did I, and to my knowledge, in Germany, did we +consider ourselves fascists or Nazis. As a matter of fact, in my every +conversation, and everything I had written---- + +Representative BOGGS. I didn't ask you whether you had considered +yourself as a fascist---- + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Or any of my associates, sir. + +Representative BOGGS. Or any of your associates. I asked you if in +your study of events in Germany, having been stationed there, that you +didn't soon associate, or that you didn't see some association in your +mind of the alleged so-called extreme right with naziism. + +Mr. WEISSMAN. No. In fact, I never thought--I thought of the extremists +as superpatriots. I had never really defined the term fascist or Nazi +in my own mind---- + +Representative BOGGS. Of course, you realize that members of your +religion in Germany were described as traitors, treasonable, and +Communists. And I presume that on the other side of the coin those +making the accusation classified themselves as superpatriots. + +Mr. WEISSMAN. This is quite true. But you are getting into a field +right now that at the time---- + +Representative BOGGS. Were you surprised when you discovered this +anti-Jewish feeling? You must have been somewhat, shall I say, +disappointed when one of your associates asked you to change your name. +I would think that was right insulting. + +Mr. WEISSMAN. It was downright insulting, as a matter of fact. No, I +wasn't surprised. Now---- + +Mr. DULLES. Did you have something on this in your letter? I noticed +you looking through that letter a minute ago. I thought maybe you had +something on this very point in your letter. + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes. I received a letter from Larrie, while I was in +Germany. + +Mr. JENNER. Is this another document to which no reference has been +made? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. I am not sure whether this is the one I want to read +from. But this letter is an answer that I wrote Larrie. + +Mr. JENNER. Excuse me, sir. I want to put an exhibit number on that. + +This will be exhibit--Commission Exhibit No. 1035. + +(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 1035 for +identification.) + +Representative BOGGS. I would like for a moment to pursue this a +bit. This gentleman is telling us something that I think is very +significant. You have a letter there about changing your name? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. This is my answer. I would like to read just this one +paragraph. + +Representative BOGGS. Who was this addressed to? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. This was addressed to Larrie Schmidt. + +Representative BOGGS. Did he ask you to change your name? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes. + +Representative BOGGS. He was your associate? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. He didn't ask me directly. He had written a letter to +Larry Jones, and Larry Jones gave me the letter. + +Mr. JENNER. Where was Larry Jones at this time? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. In Germany. + +Mr. JENNER. You are now reading from Commission Exhibit No.---- + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Exhibit No. 1035. This is dated Munich, Germany, January +7, 1963. + +(At this point, Senator Cooper withdrew from the hearing room.) + +Mr. JENNER. It is addressed to whom? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Larrie Schmidt. + +Mr. JENNER. And I take it it is your letter to Larrie Schmidt. + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes, sir. + +Mr. JENNER. Did you dispatch the letter? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes; I did. + +Mr. JENNER. And is that a true and correct copy of the original that +you did dispatch to Larrie Schmidt? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Erasures and all; yes, sir. + +Mr. JENNER. And did you become aware of the fact subsequently to your +mailing that letter that he received it? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes. + +Mr. JENNER. You had occasion to discuss it with him? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. He sent me a letter. + +Mr. JENNER. He responded? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes; he did. + +Mr. JENNER. All right. Do you have his response? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. I don't know. I have his response. I don't know if it is +with me. + +Representative BOGGS. Let's first have what he said. + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Paragraph 2 on the second page, "Larrie, as relates to +the political goals of CUSA and the methods of achieving them, I (not +alone)"--meaning Bill Burley--"do not wholly support your ideas as +concerning the NIC and related or affiliated organizations. It seems to +us that this type of organization smacks of hypocrisy. I feel that any +type of organization that we choose to support or begin to take support +from should be free from the racism and prejudice in general that +is rampant among the high officers of the NIC. It should be obvious +to you that once we associate ourselves with these people, we may +acquire a personal reputation that can never be lived down. I am sure +you have considered this yourself, because I remember we had talked +of it several times. Larrie, let me remind you that my zeal has not +slackened, but that I did not want to compromise myself or my ideals +for the sake of accomplishing our goals a year ahead of time. I know +and you know that we can do a fantastic job once we get together again +with or without these organizations." + +Representative BOGGS. What do you say about your name, though? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. About my name? + +Representative BOGGS. Yes. Changing your name. + +Mr. WEISSMAN. I didn't refer to it directly. In other words, in the +letter I received from Larrie, he said--he mentioned that the NIC, the +leadership, Frank McGee, was anti-Jewish, and it might be best if I +changed my name in order to bring myself down to where I can associate +with these people. + +(At this point, Senator Cooper reentered the hearing room.) + +Representative BOGGS. Do you have a copy of that letter? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Let me take a look here. With your permission, I would +like to read into the record a paragraph---- + +Mr. JENNER. To what are you referring now, sir? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. This is a letter sent by Larrie Schmidt to Larry Jones. + +Mr. JENNER. And it is in longhand, is it? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes; it is. + +Mr. JENNER. And do you recognize the handwriting? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. It is Larrie's. + +Mr. JENNER. It consists of seven pages, which we will mark Commission +Exhibit No. 1036. + +(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 1036 for +identification.) + +Mr. JENNER. Before you read from the letter, how did you come into +possession of the letter? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Larry Jones gave it to me. + +Mr. JENNER. Over in Germany? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Over in Germany; yes, sir. + +Mr. JENNER. And the envelope which I now have in my hand, from which +you extracted the letter, is postmarked Dallas, Tex., November 5. + +Representative BOGGS. What year? + +Mr. JENNER. 1962. Is that the envelope in which the letter, Commission +Exhibit No. 1036, was received by Mr. Jones? I notice the letter is +addressed to Mr. Jones, SP-4 Larry Jones. + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes, sir. + +Mr. JENNER. We will mark that as Commission Exhibit No. 1036-A--that +is, the envelope. + +(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 1036-A for +identification.) + +Mr. WEISSMAN. On the third page, last paragraph, he has marked "One +bad thing, though. Frank gives me the impression of being rather +anti-Semetic. He is Catholic. Suggest Bernie convert to Christianity, +and I mean it." + +"We must all return to church. These people here are religious bugs. +Also no liberal talk whatsoever--none." Larrie had a flare for the +dramatic. + +Mr. DULLES. When he mentions "these people" who does he mean? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. The NIC. And at this point I was ready to drop out of +the organization completely, but thought better of it, because I am a +perennial optimist. I felt once I got down there--it is like changing +your wife after you marry her. You figure everything will work out. + +Representative FORD. This CUSA organization in Munich--did it have any +local Munich affiliation at all? I mean German affiliation? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. No; none whatsoever. Strictly an American proposition. + +Representative FORD. All among GI's, with the one exception of---- + +Mr. WEISSMAN. GI's or, one or two hangers-on, American civilians over +there. + +Senator COOPER. May I ask a question, Mr. Chairman? + +You stated at one point in your testimony that you did not care to +become associated with some of the organizations you had discussed. You +named the John Birch--you thought it was too extreme. Yet you stated +earlier that it was your intention to infiltrate these organizations. +How do you explain this inconsistency? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. It is difficult to explain. The situation being as fluid +as it was--you find that without anything solid to go on, you have got +to change your stand a little bit in order to just get started. + +Senator COOPER. Let me ask you something else. You said that you all +had thought that to be able to fully pursue your political objectives, +you needed to have a certain financial independence, is that correct? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes. + +Senator COOPER. Did you intend to get some financial support from these +organizations, in addition to political support? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. No; not directly. We felt that after we had accomplished +our goal--this is assuming we would accomplish our goal--any treasury +that they had through membership dues or what-have-you would then be a +common treasury, a CUSA treasury. + +Senator COOPER. You had the idea that you could infiltrate and get +control of these organizations, then you would have a source of revenue +through their treasury, or through whatever treasury you were able to +build up? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes. + +Senator COOPER. Did you think, also, in terms of contributions to these +organizations from individuals? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. It had been discussed--never very completely. It had just +been brought up. But we didn't know exactly what we were going to do, +really. + +Senator COOPER. Was there any discussion about the support of these +organizations--about the financial support of these organizations, +that they might be a source of funds? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. You mean from individuals who would contribute? + +Senator COOPER. Yes. + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes. + +Senator COOPER. Was there any discussions as to what individuals were +supporting these organizations? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Just those that we had occasionally read about in Life or +Look or Time--people like Hunt, H. L. Hunt. + +Mr. JENNER. Of Dallas, Tex.? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Of Dallas, Tex.--the oilman. In other words, people +who are known to be conservative, sympathized with the conservative +philosophy. And we didn't know at the time--in fact, I still don't know +personally whether or not they do contribute. I just know it is said +they do. But whether they do or not, I have no idea. + +Representative BOGGS. It has been established, I presume, who paid for +this newspaper advertisement. + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Well, this is something else. I am still not sure of who +paid for it. + +Mr. JENNER. The newspaper advertisement is Commission Exhibit No. 1031. + +Representative BOGGS. Did you bring the money in to pay for it? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes; I did. + +Representative BOGGS. Do you know where you got it? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. I know where I got it. But I don't know where he got it +from. I got it from Joe Grinnan. + +Mr. JENNER. Joseph P. Grinnan, Room 811, Wilson Building, Dallas, Tex., +independent oil operator in Dallas. + +Representative BOGGS. How did you happen to get it from him? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Well, Joe was the volunteer coordinator for the John +Birch Society. + +Representative BOGGS. And how did he hand it to you--in a check or cash? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. In cash. + +Representative BOGGS. How much was it? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. It was a total of $1,462, I believe. We had 10 $100 bills +one day, and the balance the following day. Now, as far as I know, Joe +didn't put any of this money up personally, because I know it took him +2 days to collect it. + +Representative BOGGS. Do you think you know where he got it from? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. I don't know. I really don't know. + +Representative BOGGS. He didn't tell you where he got it from? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. No; he didn't. + +Representative BOGGS. But you are convinced in your own mind that it +wasn't his money? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes; because he seemed to be--he didn't seem to be too +solvent. + +Representative BOGGS. Did you solicit him for this money? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. No; I didn't. + +Representative BOGGS. Who did? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. I believe--well, I believe Larrie did. I think the idea +for the ad originated with Larrie and Joe. + +Representative BOGGS. And Larrie solicited the money? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. No; I don't think so. I think it was Joe who originally +broached the subject. + +Representative BOGGS. How did you happen to end up with the money? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. This was an expression of confidence, you might say, that +Joe Grinnan had in me. + +Representative BOGGS. Did you write the copy? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. I helped. + +Representative BOGGS. Who else? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Larrie. + +Representative BOGGS. So Joe Grinnan gave you the money, and you and +Larrie wrote the copy? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. We wrote the copy before that. + +Representative BOGGS. And then you paid for it. What was this +committee? Are you the chairman of that committee? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Well, this is an ad hoc committee. I think we finally +thought of the name--as a matter of fact, we decided on it the same +morning I went down to place the original proof of the ad. + +Representative BOGGS. What do you mean an ad hoc committee? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. It was formed strictly for the purpose of having a name +to put in the paper. + +Representative BOGGS. Did you have many of these ad hoc committees? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. This is the only one that I was involved in; that I know +of. + +Representative BOGGS. Were there others? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Not that I know of. + +Representative BOGGS. Did you ever ask Joe where this money came from? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. No; Joe was pretty secretive. I frankly didn't want to +know. I was interested, but not that interested. And it didn't--it +would have been a breach of etiquette to start questioning him, it +seemed. + +Representative BOGGS. Have you ever heard of H. R. Bright, independent +oil operator? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. No. + +Representative BOGGS. Did you ever hear of Edgar Crissey? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. No. + +Representative BOGGS. Did you ever hear of Nelson Bunker Hunt? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes; that is H. L. Hunt's son. I knew that he had gotten +it from three or four different people, because he told me he had to +get $300 here and $400 there, but he did not say where. + +Mr. JENNER. The "he" is Mr. Grinnan? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Grinnan; right. + +Representative BOGGS. That is all, Mr. Chairman. + +Mr. DULLES. Did you suggest that this advertisement had been drafted +before he collected the money? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes. + +Mr. DULLES. And you used this advertisement as the basis for the +collection of the money, or was it used for this purpose, as far as you +know? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. As far as I know; yes. + +(At this point, Representative Boggs withdrew from the hearing room.) + +Mr. WEISSMAN. May I see the ad for a moment? There are a few things I +would like to point out in this. + +Mr. JENNER. Give the exhibit number, please. + +Mr. WEISSMAN. It is Exhibit No. 1031. + +Mr. JENNER. Tell us the genesis of the advertisement, the black border, +the context, the text, the part which Mr. Grinnan played, you played, +and Mr. Schmidt played in drafting it, how it came about, what you did, +in your own words. How the idea arose in the first place--and then just +go forward. + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Well, after the Stevenson incident, it was felt that +a demonstration would be entirely out of order, because we didn't +want anything to happen in the way of physical violence to President +Kennedy when he came to Dallas. But we thought that the conservatives +in Dallas--I was told--were a pretty downtrodden lot after that, +because they were being oppressed by the local liberals, because of +the Stevenson incident. We felt we had to do something to build up the +morale of the conservative element, in Dallas. So we hit upon the idea +of the ad. + +Mr. JENNER. Would you please tell us who you mean? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Me and Larrie, Larrie and Joe, and then all of us +together. + +Mr. JENNER. All right. + +Mr. WEISSMAN. And I originally--well, I took the copy of the ad to the +Dallas Morning News. + +Mr. JENNER. Please, sir--we wanted the genesis from the beginning. How +it came about, who participated in drafting it. + +Mr. WEISSMAN. About a week or so before placing the ad, Larrie and I +got together at his house. + +Mr. JENNER. The ad was placed when? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. The first payment was made on the 19th or 20th of +November. + +Representative FORD. Was this after the announcement of the President's +visit? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes. + +Representative FORD. You knew that President Kennedy was to be in +Dallas on November 22? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes. + +Mr. JENNER. A week before that? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Right; we had started working on the ad. Larrie and I +got together. And I said, "What are we going to put in it?"; because +I didn't have the vaguest idea. And Larrie brought out a list of +questions, 50 questions, that were made up for some conservative--I +think it might possibly have been one of Goldwater's aides had just +listed 50 questions of chinks in our foreign policy, you might say, +weak points. And we just picked some that we thought might apply to +President Kennedy and his foreign policy. Because the 50 questions went +back quite aways. And all of the questions except for two I had a part +in saying okay to. The two that I had no part in was---- + +Mr. JENNER. Read them, please. + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Was the 11th question---- + +Mr. JENNER. Are those questions numbered? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. No; but I will read it to you. It says "Why has the +foreign policy of the United States degenerated to the point that the +CIA is arranging coups and having stanch anti-Communist allies of the +U.S. bloodily exterminated?" + +This was handed in at the last minute by one of the contributors. He +would not contribute. + +Mr. JENNER. By whom? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. I have no idea. But he would not contribute the money. + +Mr. JENNER. Was this one of the men who gave money to Mr. Grinnan? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes; this is my understanding. + +Mr. JENNER. And did Mr. Grinnan tell you this? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes; he said "This has to go in." + +Mr. JENNER. He said that to you in the presence of whom? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. I believe Bill Burley was there, and Larrie Schmidt. + +Mr. JENNER. Where was this? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. In Joe Grinnan's office. + +Mr. JENNER. In Dallas? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. In Dallas; yes. + +Mr. JENNER. That is room 811 of the Wilson Building? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes; and I was against this particular question, because +I frankly agreed with the coup. But it is a question of having all or +nothing. + +Another question that was put in here--I forget exactly when--which I +wasn't in favor of, which we put in after the proof was submitted to +Joe Grinnan for his approval, is "Why have you ordered or permitted +your brother Bobby, the Attorney General, to go soft on Communists, +fellow travelers, and ultra-leftists in America, while permitting him +to criticize loyal Americans, who criticize you, your administration, +and your leadership?" + +Now, this struck me as being a States rights plea, and as far as our +domestic policy goes, I am a pretty liberal guy. So I didn't agree with +that. + +Mr. JENNER. Who suggested that question? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. I don't remember. I just remember that it came up--I +didn't like it. But the fact was that it had to be in there. + +Mr. JENNER. I would like to keep you on that for a moment. Was it a +suggestion that had come from a contributor, or did it originate in +your group? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. I really don't recall. + +Mr. JENNER. Or Mr. Grinnan? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. I don't recall if it originated with Larrie or Mr. +Grinnan or with someone else. I really don't know. + +Mr. JENNER. How old a man is Mr. Grinnan? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. I would say in his very early thirties. + +Representative FORD. That suggestion, the last one, didn't come from +you, however? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Which? + +Representative FORD. The one you just read. + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Oh, no. + +Representative FORD. Because of your own liberal domestic philosophy? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Right. The only question in here that is entirely my own +is the last one, and this is because I was pretty steamed up over the +fiasco in Cuba and the lack of followup by the administration. + +"Why have you scrapped the Monroe Doctrine in favor of the spirit of +Moscow?" I will still stand by that question. + +As far as the copy at the top of the letter, appearing before the +questions, as far as I know, this was written by Larrie Schmidt. He +showed it to me. I said, "It is a little rough, but if we are going to +get our money's worth out of the ad, I guess it has to be." + +Mr. JENNER. Mr. Chairman, may I stand over near the witness? + +Representative FORD. Surely. + +Mr. JENNER. Thank you. + +When you say the copy at the top of the ad, does that include the +banner, "Welcome, Mr. Kennedy, to Dallas."? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes. + +Mr. JENNER. And you are referring to all that portion of the ad which +is Commission Exhibit No. 1031, down to the first question? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes. The idea of the black border was mine. + +Mr. JENNER. Yes. I was going to ask you that. Why did you suggest the +black border? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Well, I saw a proof of the ad--drew a mockup, the +advertising man at the newspaper office drew a mockup, and it was the +sort of thing that you just turned the page and pass it by, unless you +had something to bring it out. And I suggested a black border. He put a +one-eighth inch black border around. I said try a little heavier one. +He went to a quarter inch black border and I said, "That looks okay," +and we had the black border. + +Mr. JENNER. I take it from your present statement that you worked with +a copywriter or advertising composer at the Dallas Morning News. + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes. His name was Dick Houston. + +Mr. JENNER. How many editions did this ad run for the $1,463? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. One edition. It came out on the evening edition, on the +21st, and the morning of the 22d. + +Mr. JENNER. Just one paper? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. One edition, one paper. + +Mr. JENNER. That is only the Dallas Morning News? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. That is right. + +Mr. JENNER. It was not in the other Dallas papers? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. No. + +Mr. JENNER. The Times Herald? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. No. We felt--we didn't even go to the Times Herald. We +felt they would not even print it, because they are a very liberal +paper, and we felt it would be a waste of time. We were convinced that +the Morning News was conservative enough to print it. And they did. + +Mr. JENNER. So the Dallas Morning News people were quite aware of the +composition of the ad, and worked with you in putting it in final shape? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes; as a matter of fact, I had asked to show it to a +Mr. Gray, who was the head of the advertising department, and they +said no, that wouldn't be necessary, they just have to submit it to a +judge something or other, a retired judge who was their legal advisor, +and who would look at the ad to see if there was anything libelous in +it, so to speak, or anything that the Morning News could be sued for. +And I assume they did this, because they didn't let me know right away +whether or not they could print it. + +When I came back that afternoon, or the following morning--I don't +recall which--and they said everything was okay, that it would go. + +Mr. DULLES. When you spoke of the head of the advertising department, +that is the advertising department of the News? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Of the Dallas Morning News; yes, sir. + +Mr. JENNER. Mr. Weissman, you have read two questions with which you +disagreed. + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes, sir. + +Mr. JENNER. You have read a question, which is the last in the +advertisement. + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes. + +Mr. JENNER. Of which you are the author, and you said you would still +stand by that particular one. + +Mr. WEISSMAN. A hundred percent; yes, sir. + +Mr. JENNER. Now, are there any others with which you had a measure of +disagreement, or any other which you now would not wish to support or, +as you put it, stand back of? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. There was one other that I thought was being a little +rough on the President, but which I didn't particularly agree with a +hundred percent. + +Mr. JENNER. Identify it, please. + +Mr. WEISSMAN. It was in the question that read, "Why has Gus Hall, head +of the U.S. Communist Party, praised almost every one of your policies +and announced that the party will endorse and support your reelection +in 1964? + +I personally thought that the selection of this particular question +tended to put President Kennedy in a light where he is voluntarily +accepting this support--in other words, sort of calling him a +Communist, which I felt he was not. And, at the same time, though, I +had a reservation about making a big furor over it, because of the +fact, if nothing else, if the President did read it, he might realize +something, and he just might do something about it, in foresaking the +support. So I let it go at that. + +Mr. DULLES. When you spoke, then, of selection from a list--was that +the list to which you referred before, which I believe you said came +from the Birch Society? + +Mr. JENNER. A list of 50 questions. + +Mr. WEISSMAN. No; as far as I know it didn't come from the Birch +Society. It was just some political material that Larrie had collected +rafts of--he had books and folders. It was something he pulled out and +said, "Maybe we can use this." And we went through the 50 questions. We +were in a hurry, and this seemed to be the easiest way out, as far as +getting some text, some composition for the ad. + +Representative FORD. So the final selection rested with Larrie, Mr. +Grinnan, and yourself, with the exception of this one contributor who +insisted on one? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Well, let's put it like this. I signed my name to the ad. +But you might say the final selection rested with the contributors. I +had to go along with them, because if I said I won't go along with it, +or I won't sign my name, there would have been an ad anyway--the ad +would have been printed anyway. Larrie would have put his name to it. + +Now, let me tell you this. It will be a very short story. + +Bill and I had decided about a week after we got to Dallas that Larrie +was full of hooey, that we could not go along with this guy. + +Representative FORD. What do you mean by that? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Well, everything he is doing he is doing for himself, and +if we happen to fit in, it was fine. And he was getting an awful lot +of recognition and publicity. We felt if this guy got any stronger, +he would be able to move us out, or control us. So when the idea for +the ad came up I said, "Okay, I will put my name to it," because I +felt any recognition that came would then be in my favor, and if we +took advantage of this, and because these organizations would have to +back me personally as representing them, I could then denounce the +anti-Semitism, the anti-Catholic, anti-Negro, and they would have +to back me up, or else I would just tell the whole story about this +thing. And I felt that this was going to be my move to get back to the +original philosophy of a completely democratic type of organization. + +And I had discussed--Bill and I, I might say, were a partnership unto +ourselves. We had decided one way or the other we were either going to +get out of Dallas or run the thing ourselves, because we didn't like +the way it was going. + +Mr. DULLES. Did Larrie object to your being the one to sign the +advertisement? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. No; in fact, Larrie was sort of afraid to sign it, +because when he came out and said he was part of the Stevenson +demonstration, his life had been threatened, and he had all sorts of +harrassing phone calls and so on. And he wanted to avoid this. But if +it was a question of printing an ad or not printing it, he would have +signed it. + +Representative FORD. But as far as any organization of any kind being +responsible for this ad, it was not true. There was no organization +that backed this ad? There were four or five of you that really +promoted it and finally raised the money for it and put it in the +newspaper? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. That is not quite accurate. You might say when you get +right down to it, in the final tale, the John Birch Society printed +that ad, not CUSA. + +Mr. JENNER. Tell us why, now. Please expand on that. + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Well, in order to get anywhere in Dallas, at least in +the area of conservative politics that we were in, you had to, you +might say, cotton to the John Birch Society, because they were a pretty +strong group, and still are, down there. And---- + +Mr. JENNER. Who is the head of that now? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. The Birch Society? + +Mr. JENNER. Yes. + +Mr. WEISSMAN. I never met the fellow. They had a paid coordinator. I +don't recall his name offhand. But, anyway---- + +Mr. JENNER. Were you in his offices? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. No; Joe Grinnan, as a matter of fact, is the only man in +the hierarchy of the Birch Society in Dallas that I met. + +Larrie was a member of the JBS, and Bill and I didn't like it, but we +saw that he was out for himself as much as anything, and this was a way +to help himself along anyway, both politically and financially. And he +convinced us of the method to his madness. But as I said we wanted to +move Larrie out when we found he was more JBS than he was CUSA, and he +was willing to go along with them completely, and forget about the CUSA +goals. + +Representative FORD. Your allegiance was to CUSA? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Right. In other words, I would have used the John Birch +Society as a vehicle, as planned. But I would never have gone up on a +soapbox to support them. + +Mr. DULLES. Who were the members of the American Fact-Finding +Committee, if any? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Well, the members would be myself, Bill Burley, Larrie +Schmidt, Joe Grinnan--just the people immediately involved. + +Mr. JENNER. That was a name and solely a name? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Solely a name. + +Mr. JENNER. There was no such organization? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. None whatsoever. + +Mr. JENNER. And you used it for convenience on this advertisement? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. That is right. As a matter of fact, when I went to place +the ad, I could not remember the name. I had it written down on a piece +of paper. I had to refer to a piece of paper for the name. + +Mr. JENNER. Had you ever used that name before? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Never. + +Mr. JENNER. Did your group ever use it thereafter? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Not as far as I know. + +Mr. JENNER. Have you now named all of the people who played any part +in, to the best of your recollection--in the idea for the publication +of, the actual drafting of the ad, and its ultimate running in that +edition of the Dallas Morning News? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. There is only one other individual that I could name. He +was there at the reading of the final proof, before the ad was printed. +That was Joe Grinnan's brother, Robert P. Grinnan. + +Mr. JENNER. Is he an older or younger brother? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. I believe he is an older brother. + +Mr. JENNER. What business is he engaged in? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Oil and real estate. + +Mr. DULLES. Who took out the post office box 1792, Dallas 21, Tex., +that appears under your name here on this advertisement? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Bill, Larrie, and I went to the post office together. I +signed for the box. + +Representative FORD. Do you recall the date? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. It was the same--the morning--the same morning I +originally went to get the ad laid out at the Morning News. + +Representative FORD. Has it been discontinued? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. The box? Yes; I received a communication from Larrie. He +said the box time had run out. They had extended it for 3 months after +that, and then it was--as far as I know, it is nonexistent now. + +Senator COOPER. May I ask this question: Would you state now to this +Commission the idea of printing this ad was conceived by you and Larry +Jones--what is the other's name? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Larrie Schmidt. + +Senator COOPER. Alone, and there was no stimulation from any outside +group or organization. Do you state that under oath? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. There was stimulation. + +Senator COOPER. From whom? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. I assume from the Birch Society. In other words, I +think the idea for the ad, for the something to do on the occasion of +President Kennedy's visit--I think the idea for the something to do +came from the Birch Society--whether Mr. Joe Grinnan or someone else, I +don't know. + +Senator COOPER. Was it communicated as an idea to you? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Larrie communicated the idea to me, said what do you +think. I said, why not? + +Senator COOPER. Which one of this group did the idea come to? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. I don't know. + +Senator COOPER. It didn't come to you? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. No; it didn't come to me personally originally, no. + +Mr. DULLES. What is the basis of your evidence of saying this was the +Birch Society? How did you know that? Where did you get that? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Well, it came to a point where everything we were doing +we had to go talk to Joe--big brother. And that is just the way it +worked out. + +Mr. JENNER. This is Joe Grinnan? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes. They were getting a grip on us, and Bill and I felt +that we had to bust this grip somehow. + +Mr. DULLES. Was he prominent in the Birch Society? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes; he was known. + +Mr. DULLES. Joe Grinnan? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes; he was known as a coordinator. + +Representative FORD. This one question that was inserted at the +insistence of one of the contributors, which reads as follows: "Why has +the foreign policy of the United States degenerated to the point the +C.I.A. is arranging coups and having staunch anti-Communist allies of +the U.S. bloodily exterminated"--to what does that refer? Do you have +any specific information? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. I know it specifically refers to the Vietnam thing, with +the overthrow of Diem, and the subsequent murder of the Diem people. + +Representative FORD. Was that said to you at the time? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. This was not said to me at the time. But I had +mentioned it various times, and this was definitely, as far as I am +concerned--this was definitely the reason for placing that. As a matter +of fact, this had occurred not too long after that, I believe. + +Mr. DULLES. Who was it that insisted on the insertion of that? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Well, Joe Grinnan handed me this piece of paper. It was +written on a piece of scrap paper. I could hardly decipher it, myself. +And he said, "This has to be in. Go back and have them change the ad." + +So I had to run back to the Morning News, with this other insertion. +This is just the way it happened. + +(At this point, Senator Cooper withdrew from the hearing room.) + +Representative FORD. I understand that you made a downpayment on the ad. + +Mr. WEISSMAN. That is right. + +Representative FORD. And then went back and paid the rest in full? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. A thousand dollars the first day, and $400-odd on the +second day. + +Mr. DULLES. Were both payments made before publication? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes. + +Mr. JENNER. Mr. Dulles called attention to the post office box number. + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes. + +Mr. JENNER. That stimulates me to ask you this: Did you receive any +responses to the advertisement? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Oh, did I? Yes, sir. + +Mr. JENNER. Now, tell us about that and also, before you start, do you +have any of those responses? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Not with me. All that I received I have at home. + +Mr. JENNER. And indicate to us the volume that you have at home. + +Mr. WEISSMAN. I have approximately 50 or 60 letters; about one-third +of which were favorable, and the rest, two-thirds, unfavorable. The +favorable responses, all but one came before--they were postmarked, the +envelopes were postmarked before the President was assassinated. And +the threatening letters and the nasty letters came afterward. + +Mr. JENNER. Did you receive any contributions? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. I still have a check to the American Fact-Finding +Committee in the amount of $20. Since we never opened a bank account, +I just sort of kept the check as a souvenir. There was one $2 +contribution---- + +Mr. JENNER. Cash? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Right--from a retired train engineer, or something. + +Mr. JENNER. And that is---- + +Mr. WEISSMAN. For the Wabash Railroad. + +Mr. JENNER. Were those the only contributions? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. To my knowledge; yes, sir. + +Mr. JENNER. At least that you know anything about? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. That is right. In all the letters I received the first +time we went to the box. I only went to the box once, that was, I +believe, the Sunday morning following the assassination. + +Mr. JENNER. The 25th of November? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. About; yes, sir. + +Mr. DULLES. Did anybody have the key to the box in addition to yourself? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Up to that point, only I had the key. After that, I left +Dallas on Wednesday, I believe---- + +Mr. JENNER. I misspoke--it was the 24th of November rather than the +25th. + +Mr. WEISSMAN. I left Dallas on the following Wednesday. And at that +time I didn't see Larrie personally--he couldn't get to the apartment +that Bill and I were staying at for some reason or another. And I left +all the dishes and things he had given us to use while we were there, +and in one of these dishes I left the key to the box. + +Since that time, communications I received from Larrie, he says +the tenor of the letters had changed, they are more favorable than +unfavorable in the ensuing weeks and months. Of these letters--he +sent me one that called me all sorts of names, a lot of anti-Semitic +remarks, and he sent another, and he gave excerpts in one of his +personal letters, of letters that he received in support of the +position of the ad. + +Mr. DULLES. Do I understand that you got all the letters that came in +up to Wednesday after the assassination, and that your associates have +the rest, or Larrie, I presume, has the rest? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. I don't know who has the rest. I don't know if it is +Larrie or Joe. + +Mr. DULLES. Larrie had the key. + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes. I left him the key--I left him access to the +key. I received the letters written during the 2 days following +the assassination--the Friday afternoon and Saturday following the +assassination--because I picked the mail up the following Sunday +morning. + +Mr. JENNER. Having in mind all your testimony up to the moment, I would +like to take you back to the telephone conversation that you had with +Larrie Schmidt, in which he made the reference to Stevenson, following +which, that is following this conversation, you eventually came to +Dallas. + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes, sir. + +Mr. JENNER. And this conversation, as I recall it, the telephone call, +was in the month of October 1963? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes. It was the evening of the Stevenson demonstration. +According to the letter I think it was the 24th of October. + +(At this point, Mr. Dulles withdrew from the hearing room.) + +Mr. JENNER. Now, one of the members of the Commission is interested +in having you repeat that conversation in full, to the best of your +recollection. + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Since it is recollection, it is going to change somewhat +in words, but in tenor it will be the same. + +Mr. JENNER. You do your best. + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Larrie called me on the telephone and he was very +excited, and he had described what had transpired in Dallas---- + +Mr. JENNER. Tell us what he said, please. That is what we are +interested in. + +Mr. WEISSMAN. He just said---- + +Mr. JENNER. And his part in it, if any. + +Mr. WEISSMAN. He said that he had helped organize this demonstration +and it went off beautifully, there is going to be national publicity, +the newspapers were all over the place, he had given statements to the +news media, to the television. He said he was on TV and radio, and had +given out statements, and that he was--it seemed that he was going to +be heading for, not trouble, but a good deal of difficulty because it +seems that he was the only one that came out as one of the organizers +of the demonstration, who openly came out and said so. + +Mr. JENNER. And identified himself with the demonstration? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes, sir. He said he had--what did he say--something to +the effect that he had a bunch of his people down there, the University +of Dallas students. + +Mr. JENNER. Did he identify them as students? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. I don't recall. I met the students several weeks later +when I got to Dallas. + +Mr. JENNER. The students he had employed? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. That had participated in the demonstration; yes. + +Mr. JENNER. Did he describe what the demonstration was insofar as his +part and his group's part in it was? + +(At this point, Mr. Dulles reentered the hearing room.) + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Well, just to the effect they had picketed and carried +signs and made some noises inside the auditorium. Not he and his +group, but that the picketers had raised quite a hullabaloo inside the +auditorium. + +Mr. JENNER. Were they his picketers? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. I don't know. This he didn't specify. I had assumed---- + +Mr. JENNER. What impression did you get in that respect? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. I had assumed his picketers were part of it. + +(At this point, Representative Ford withdrew from the hearing room.) + +Mr. JENNER. You were repeating to the best of your recollection that +telephone conversation. + +Mr. WEISSMAN. The gist of the conversation; yes. + +Mr. JENNER. As best you are able to recall. + +Mr. WEISSMAN. That is right. I really cannot swear to its 100 percent +accuracy, but I would say it is 75 percent accurate anyway. + +Mr. JENNER. Have you now exhausted your recollection as to all that was +said, in substance? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. In substance; yes. + +Mr. JENNER. In the course of that conversation. + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes. + +Mr. JENNER. I take it he urged you to come to Dallas? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. He did. + +Mr. JENNER. That this Stevenson incident had stimulated things to +the point that CUSA--you members of CUSA should come to Dallas, and +everything was ripe? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. He said we can pick up the ball and start running. + +Mr. JENNER. Now, you and Mr. Burley then went to Dallas, did you? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. That is right. We left on the 2d of November. + +Mr. JENNER. And that would have been following the receipt of the +letter of October 29, which we have identified as---- + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Commission Exhibit No. 1032. + +Mr. JENNER. How did you get there? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. I drove in my car. + +Mr. JENNER. Did Mr. Burley accompany you? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes. + +Mr. JENNER. Did you stop off anywhere on the way? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. We stopped at his mother's house in South Carolina for +about 4 or 5 hours. + +Mr. JENNER. And when you reached Dallas, did you find a room, or what +did you do? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. That night we stayed at Larrie's house. We got there +about 5 o'clock in the afternoon. + +Mr. JENNER. Where does he live? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. At that time he was living at the Eden Roc Apartments, in +Dallas. + +Mr. JENNER. Is he a married man? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. He was. + +Mr. JENNER. I take it he was separated from his wife at that time? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. No, no. He has been divorced since. + +Mr. JENNER. But he was living with his wife at that time? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes, sir. + +Mr. JENNER. By the way, is Mr. Burley a married man, also? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. I spoke with him just the other day. His divorce will be +final in about 6 weeks, he thinks. + +Mr. JENNER. He was married at that time? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes; separated. + +Mr. JENNER. Where was his wife living? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. In West Virginia, I believe. + +Mr. JENNER. He had a family, did he not, several children? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Four or five children. + +Mr. JENNER. You stayed with him at the Eden Roc Apartments? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. That is right. + +Mr. JENNER. That is, with Mr. Schmidt? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes. + +Mr. JENNER. And then you and Mr. Burley arranged a room somewhere, did +you? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. We rented an apartment. I think we stayed with Larrie for +2 days, 2 or 3 days. Then we rented an apartment in Dallas. + +Mr. JENNER. Where was that? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. I don't recall the address offhand. + +Mr. JENNER. All right. Now, approximately where are we now, as a matter +of time in this period? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. This is---- + +Mr. JENNER. That you rented the apartment. + +Mr. WEISSMAN. About the middle of the first week after we arrived in +Dallas. + +Mr. JENNER. Which should be approximately what date? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. About the 7th or so of November. + +Mr. JENNER. What did you do thereafter in the way of furthering the +business of CUSA? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Well, we were thinking of buying a fourplex, a +four-family apartment house. + +Mr. JENNER. Where were you going to get the money? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. We could have gotten a loan, we hoped, with no +downpayment, because of the fact we are GI's, through the FHA, or VA, +and we were counting on that. So we were looking around. We had also +planned to take over a private club, manage a private club, with an +option to buy it. + +Mr. JENNER. What club was that? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. That was the Ducharme Club. + +Mr. JENNER. That was in Dallas? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. In Dallas; yes. + +Mr. JENNER. Where did you become acquainted with that possible business +opportunity? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Well, this had been broached by Larrie. This was one of +the big disappointments. We had been promised by Larrie we wouldn't +have any trouble making a living, that he had jobs and everything set +up for us. That is one of the reasons I chucked my job in New York. I +figured we would be able to survive down there. + +We got to the Ducharme Club, after a day or two, and it was a miserable +hole in the wall that you could not really do anything with. But we +were still dickering with the owner on the potentials. + +Mr. DULLES. What did this club purport to do? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. It was a private club. They sold liquor and beer over the +bar to members. + +Mr. DULLES. Entertainment? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. They had a dance floor and jukebox. + +Mr. JENNER. Who--do you recall the names of any of the people +interested in the Ducharme Club? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. The owners? + +Mr. JENNER. Yes. + +Mr. WEISSMAN. The only one I know of is Leon Ducharme, the owner. + +Mr. JENNER. Did Jack Ruby or Jack Rubenstein have any interest in this +club? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. No; not as far as I know. + +Mr. JENNER. Did you ever meet Jack Ruby or Jack Rubenstein? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Never. + +Mr. JENNER. Did you become acquainted with the Carousel Club when you +were in Dallas? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. I was never in it, and I still don't know where it is. + +Mr. JENNER. You were never in it; you don't know where it is. Did you +hear of it when you were there? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Never. As a matter of fact, in the entire 3-1/2 weeks or +so that Bill and I were in Dallas, we didn't go to the movies at all. +The only two clubs that I can recall that we went into was the Lavender +Lounge---- + +Mr. JENNER. Where is that located? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. That is in Dallas. + +Mr. JENNER. Where? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. I don't recall the street. + +Mr. JENNER. It is downtown, is it? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. No; it is not downtown. This is--it was about two blocks +from our apartment. And it is about, I guess, a good 30-minute walk to +downtown from there. And the only other club would be the Ducharme Club. + +Mr. JENNER. Where was that located? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. That was on Haskell Avenue, in Dallas. + +Mr. JENNER. How far from the downtown area, if at all? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Well, to make it conveniently, you should take a bus. +Otherwise, about a 20-minute walk. + +Mr. JENNER. From the Ducharme Club to the downtown area of Dallas? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes, sir; and the reason we went to the Ducharme Club +after the fact we decided we were not going to take it, was that that +was a place we could get credit for beer. Larrie had a charge account +there. And that was the extent of our association with that place. + +Mr. JENNER. Now---- + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Now, in the Lavender Lounge, the reason we went there, is +we were dickering with the owners of the Lavender Lounge---- + +Mr. JENNER. Name him. + +Mr. WEISSMAN. L. S. Brotherton. We wanted to lease a club that he had +that was closed down, called the Beachcomber, in a suburb of Dallas. +And we had been in there several times and had talked to him about +leasing this. In other words, we were looking for something that would +give us an income so we could operate a little bit. And that never +worked out. He wanted too much money, and we didn't have it. + +Mr. JENNER. In any of these negotiations that were carried on by you or +your associates, was the name Jack Ruby ever mentioned as having any +possible interest whatsoever in any of those groups? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Never. + +Mr. JENNER. Did you hear of the name Jack Ruby or Jack Rubenstein up +to--at anytime prior to November 24, 1963? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. No; never. + +Mr. JENNER. And do you have any information or any knowledge or any +notion or feeling that Larrie Schmidt or any of your associates knew +of or had any association with Jack Ruby or otherwise known as Jack +Rubenstein? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. I think I can state pretty emphatically no. + +Mr. JENNER. Were there any communications of any kind or character, +written notes, telephone calls, or otherwise, that you know about or +knew about then to or from Jack Ruby? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Never. + +Mr. JENNER. When did you first hear of the name Jack Ruby? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. I think he shot Oswald some time in the afternoon +or the morning--since Bill and I had neither a radio or TV in the +apartment--we were in the apartment all day. + +Mr. JENNER. All day that Sunday? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes; we had heard about it that night. + +Mr. JENNER. That is the 24th of November 1963? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. If that is when Oswald was shot. + +Mr. JENNER. And you first became aware of Oswald being shot the night +or evening of the 24th? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes. + +Mr. JENNER. That Sunday? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes. I don't recall exactly how. I think Larrie +telephoned us, and told us that. + +Mr. JENNER. This is the first time we have mentioned the name Oswald. +Had you ever heard the name Lee Harvey Oswald prior to your going to +Dallas? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. No. + +Mr. JENNER. Did you hear of the name Lee Harvey Oswald at any time +prior to November 22, 1963? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. No. + +Mr. JENNER. Was the name ever mentioned in your presence? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. No. + +Mr. JENNER. I take it from what you have said that you did not know a +man by the name of Lee Harvey Oswald. + +Mr. WEISSMAN. No. + +Mr. JENNER. When did you first hear the name Lee Harvey Oswald? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. We were sitting in a bar, right after President Kennedy's +assassination. + +Mr. JENNER. This was the 22d of November 1963? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes; it was Bill Burley, myself, and Larrie. We had +made--we were to meet Larrie and Joe Grinnan at the Ducharme Club. + +Mr. JENNER. For what meal? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. For luncheon. We were supposed to meet him at 12:30 or +1 o'clock, I forget which--about 1 o'clock. And I had a 12:30 on the +button, as a matter of fact--I had an appointment to sell a carpet out +in the Garland section of Texas--it was a 2:30 appointment. And I was +in a hurry to get to meet Larrie and finish the lunch, and whatever +business they wanted to talk about I didn't know. So I looked at my +watch. I remember specifically it was 12:30, because at that time +Bill had been driving my car. He had quit the carpet company and was +looking for another job. He had looked at a franchise arrangement for +insecticides. He picked me up. He was waiting for me from 10 after 12 +to 12:30. We got into the car. I am a great news bug. So I turned the +radio on, looking for a news station. And they had--at that time, as I +turned the radio on, the announcer said, "There has been a rumor that +President Kennedy has been shot." So we didn't believe it. It was just +a little too far out to believe. + +And after several minutes, it began to take on some substance about +the President's sedan speeding away, somebody hearing shots and +people laying on the ground. In other words, the way the reporters +were covering it. I don't recall exactly what they said. And, at this +time--we were going to go to the Ducharme Club through downtown Dallas. +We were heading for the area about two blocks adjacent to the Houston +Street viaduct. And then we heard about the police pulling all sorts of +people--somebody said they saw somebody and gave a description. And the +police were pulling people off the street and so forth. So Bill and I +didn't want to get involved in this. So we took a roundabout route. We +got lost for a while. Anyway, we finally wound up at the other side of +Dallas, and we were at the Ducharme Club. + +Mr. JENNER. When you arrived there, was Mr. Schmidt there? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. He was waiting for me. But Joe Grinnan wasn't there. +He had heard this thing and took off. I guess he wanted to hide or +something. + +Mr. JENNER. Why? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Well, because the way it was right away, the announcers, +even before it was ascertained that President Kennedy was dead, or that +he had really been shot, that it was a rightwing plot and so forth. And +he had every reason to be frightened. + +Mr. JENNER. Why did he have every reason to be frightened? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Because, let's face it, the public feeling would suddenly +be very antirightwing, and no telling what would happen if a mob got +together and discovered him. They would tear him apart. + +Bill and I were frightened to the point because I knew about the +ad. And I knew exactly what--at least I felt in my own mind I knew +what people would believe. They would read the ad and so forth, and +associate you with this thing, somehow, one way or another. So we went +to another bar--I don't remember the name of it--the Ducharme Club was +closed, by the way, that afternoon. + +Mr. JENNER. When you reached the Ducharme Club, it was closed, but you +found Mr. Schmidt there? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Larrie was waiting on the corner. He got in the car. We +sat and talked for a few minutes. We went to another bar a few blocks +away. We drank beer and watched television. And we had been in the bar, +I guess, about an hour when it come over that this patrolman Tippit had +been shot, and they trapped some guy in a movie theater. And maybe half +an hour, an hour later, it came out this fellow's name was Lee Harvey +Oswald. This is the first time I ever heard the name. + +Mr. JENNER. What was said at that time? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. By us? + +Mr. JENNER. Yes. When it was announced it was Lee Harvey Oswald. + +Mr. WEISSMAN. We were relieved. + +Mr. JENNER. Anything said about it? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. I don't recall. First, what was said, like, I hope he is +not a member of the Walker group--something like that--I hope he is +not one of Walker's boys. Because it is like a clique, and it is guilt +by association from thereafter. So it came over later this guy was a +Marxist. This was the same afternoon, I believe. It was found out this +fellow was a Marxist. And then the announcers--they left the rightwing +for a little while, and started going to the left, and I breathed a +sigh of relief. After 4 hours in the bar, Bill and I went back to the +apartment, and Larrie went to the Ducharme Club. He was afraid to go +home. + +Mr. JENNER. I thought the Ducharme Club was closed. + +Mr. WEISSMAN. It was open at that time. We drove by. It was open. +Larrie went in. We dropped him off there. And Bill and I went back to +our apartment. We just waited. We knew we were going to get involved in +this thing because of the ad. And we figured that if anybody at all in +Dallas was on the ball, they know who we were and where we were. So we +waited. Nothing happened. We waited there until we left. We barely left +that house. As a matter of fact---- + +Mr. JENNER. You remained in the house all that evening, did you--the +apartment? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. I think the--yes; late that evening Larrie came home. + +Mr. DULLES. That is Friday evening, November 22? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes; I think Larrie went home late that evening, and Bill +and I met him there. + +Mr. JENNER. You went to Larrie's home? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. To Larrie's apartment; yes. And I said what are we going +to do? And Larrie said, "Well"--he had talked to Joe Grinnan, and Joe +said don't say anything, don't do anything, don't get any more involved +than you have to, lay low, keep out of it, it is going to be pretty +bad. And it was. Thereafter, a day or so later-- + +Mr. JENNER. What did you mean by that--it is going to be pretty bad? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. In other words--this is just exactly the way it worked +out. For example---- + +Mr. JENNER. You are now explaining what you mean by "and it was"? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Right. Stanley Marcus, who was a Dallas businessman, +financier---- + +Mr. JENNER. Nieman Marcus? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Of the Nieman Marcus group, yes, and he was a well-known +and rather very rabid liberal. And sure enough, even though the +following day it was then established that Oswald was a Marxist and +so forth, and there was some question as to whether or not it was a +Communist plot, pros and cons, and Marcus put his 2 cents in in the +Dallas Times Herald, and he starts blaming the rightwing for the +trouble. And I was told--I didn't see this---- + +Mr. JENNER. This was on the 23d now? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. This was on the following day; yes, sir. And, in other +words, he and friends of his, I guess, did everything they could +to solidify their position as being always in the right, and throw +the blame, even though Oswald is obviously a Marxist--they tried to +transfer the blame to the rightwing. They had us on the run and they +were going to keep it that way. + +Mr. JENNER. How did this come to your attention? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Just by reading the newspapers. + +Mr. JENNER. The Dallas Times Herald and the Dallas Morning News? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. There was very little in the Morning News about the +rightwing, that was antirightwing, and the Dallas Times Herald was full +of it. + +Mr. JENNER. Would you please delineate what you mean by "us" who were +on the run? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. I mean any conservative in Dallas at that time was +keeping quiet. + +Mr. JENNER. Including yourself and the other men you mentioned? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Including myself and everybody I was associated with; +yes, sir. And a day or so after that, I think it was Sunday or Monday, +I had suggested to Larrie, and I spoke to Joe Grinnan on the phone, +that maybe I should call the FBI and give them the story on this ad. + +And he said, "Now, look, if they want you, they will find you. They +know where you are, probably. So if they want you, they will find you." +So I waited. And several times I was going to make that phone call, and +I did not. Then finally we just ran out of money. + +Mr. JENNER. You are probably a few days beyond the 23d now? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Right; I am. I am going now--everything was rather +stable, static up until the Wednesday, the following Wednesday, when I +left Dallas. + +Mr. JENNER. I want to complete your whole day of the 23d before you +move beyond that. Did you or Bill leave your apartment on the 23d? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes; we were over at Larrie's house. I don't remember +exactly the times. We had been to Larrie's place several times. + +Mr. JENNER. Were you in the Dallas downtown business district at +anytime on the 23d? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. I don't think so--no--no, as a matter of fact. In fact, I +didn't get around to the business district until--yes. We went into the +outer edge of the downtown area to get to the post office, to pick up +the letters. + +Mr. JENNER. That is right. On the 23d you went to the post office box +and picked up the 60-odd letters that you have at home in New York. + +Mr. WEISSMAN. That is right. And then we went directly back to the +apartment, and opened these letters. + +Mr. JENNER. That is all you did in the downtown area? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes; so far as I can recollect. + +Mr. JENNER. Approximately what time of the day was that? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. That was in the morning. That was early in the +morning--about 8 or 9 o'clock, I guess, in the morning. + +Mr. JENNER. Did you receive any telephone calls at your apartment that +day? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. I received--Larrie called us, I know. I don't recall what +was said. It was just like, "What is happening--everything okay?" + +On Monday I received a letter---- + +Mr. JENNER. Excuse me. Have we now accounted from the time you got up +Saturday morning until the time you went to bed that evening? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. I don't recall. Bill and I might have gone out for a +hamburger a couple of blocks away. We didn't go anywhere near downtown. +We might have gone to Larrie's apartment that night. I am not sure. + +Mr. JENNER. The 22d--we picked you up in your car with Mr. Burley +around 12:30. Now, what happened that morning? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. That morning? + +Mr. JENNER. Yes--the 22d. Where were you the morning of the 22d, up to +12:30 o'clock in the afternoon? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Let's see. I left the apartment at about--I guess it was +a little after 9. We had a 10 or 10:30 sales meeting scheduled, or +9:30. Anyway, I got there on time for the sales meeting. + +Mr. JENNER. That was the carpet company by which you were employed? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Exactly. + +Mr. JENNER. Name it. + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Carpet Engineers. + +Mr. JENNER. And you had obtained that job when? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. About a week after arriving in Dallas. + +Mr. JENNER. And that was located where? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. 1002 South Beckley, in the Oak Cliff section of Dallas. + +Mr. JENNER. In the Oak Cliff section? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. That is right. + +Mr. JENNER. On Beckley? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. On Beckley. + +Mr. JENNER. What was the address? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. 1002. I know what you are getting at. Oswald also had a +room on Beckley, but he was on the opposite extreme. I think he was on +North Beckley. I was on South Beckley. + +Mr. JENNER. Give us the distance approximately between the location +of the carpet company by which you were employed which is on South +Beckley, and Oswald's address on North Beckley. + +Mr. WEISSMAN. At least a few miles. I don't know. I had never been on +North Beckley. + +Mr. JENNER. At no time while you were in Dallas were you ever on North +Beckley? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Not as far as I know, unless I got lost and didn't know +where I was. But as far as I know, I have never been there. + +Mr. JENNER. And you were a salesman of carpeting? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. That is right. + +Mr. JENNER. Did you ever sell any carpeting? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Not a one. + +Mr. JENNER. Did you make any effort? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. I made a lot of effort. This is where most of my money +went--for gas and things like that. + +Mr. JENNER. Your associate, Mr. Burley, was he a salesman for this +company also? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. He quit about 2 weeks--about several days before the 22d. +And he was looking--of course, one of us had to make money. We both +were blanking out with the carpets. + +Mr. JENNER. I take it, however, he had been employed by the same carpet +company? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes, sir. + +Mr. JENNER. You made application together, did you? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes, sir. + +Mr. JENNER. And you were both employed at approximately the same time? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. That is right. + +Mr. JENNER. But he left the carpet company before you did? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. That is right. + +Mr. JENNER. And I understand you attended a sales meeting at the carpet +company the morning of the 22d. + +Mr. WEISSMAN. That is right. + +Mr. JENNER. When did that sales meeting break up? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. 12:30 for me. It was still going when I left. I left at +12:30 because I had this afternoon appointment, and also this meeting +with Larrie. I had talked to the sales manager after that. I had---- + +Mr. JENNER. What was his name? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Frank Demaria. And I had asked him if he had been +questioned at all by the FBI. He said yes, they had been around. And I +said, "What did you tell them?" And he mentioned at that time, he says, +"We thought you had left about 12 o'clock." And I said, "What are you +trying to do?" + +And, anyway, this is the way it went. But I know I left at 12:30. They +were embroiled in a big discussion, and they were not cognizant of the +time. I was. + +Mr. JENNER. All right. Now, would you tell us what you did on the 24th? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Went to pick up the mail in the morning, went back to the +apartment. + +Mr. JENNER. You picked up mail in the morning on Sunday? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. That is right, the post office was open Sunday morning. + +Mr. JENNER. You went to the post office on the 23d, which is Saturday, +and you also returned---- + +Mr. WEISSMAN. No; I didn't go to the post office on Saturday the 23d. + +Mr. JENNER. I misunderstood you, then. + +Mr. WEISSMAN. No; I am almost positive it was Sunday morning. I know it +wasn't Saturday. I am positive--almost positive it was Sunday morning. + +Mr. DULLES. That is when you picked up the 50-odd letters you referred +to? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Right. + +Mr. JENNER. It was the day that you heard that Ruby had shot Oswald, +was it? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. I am getting a little confused now. I think I might be 1 +day---- + +Mr. JENNER. See if we can orient you. The assassination of the +President occurred on the 22d of November 1963, which is a Friday. + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Right. + +Mr. JENNER. Then there was Saturday. Then on Sunday the 24th occurred +the shooting of Lee Harvey Oswald by Jack Ruby. + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes. + +Mr. JENNER. Now, with those events in mind, when did you go to the post +office box? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Well, now, I know it was not Monday. Now, I am back in +perspective. I am almost definitely sure it was Sunday morning. + +Mr. JENNER. You said earlier that it was Saturday. You said it was the +day after the ad appeared, that night, and you went the next day. + +Mr. WEISSMAN. No; couldn't have. + +Mr. JENNER. That was an error? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. That was an error; yes. It was Sunday. + +Mr. JENNER. All right. Now, on further reflection, your recollection is +reasonably firm now that you did go to the post office box on Sunday +rather than Saturday? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. I am almost positive it was Sunday morning. + +Mr. JENNER. You are equally positive it was not Monday? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. It might either be--I remembered there was an awful lot +of traffic. And I don't know if the traffic was because everybody was +driving through downtown to go around the Houston viaduct to see the +scene of the assassination or what. And this is what is confusing me +now. That is why I am not sure if it was Sunday morning--it might have +been Monday morning. I doubt it. But it might have been. + +Mr. JENNER. But it was early? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes. + +Mr. JENNER. Around 8 o'clock? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Eight, nine o'clock; yes. + +Mr. JENNER. I was asking you to account for your comings and goings and +your whereabouts on Sunday the 24th. And in the course of doing that, +in referring to the morning, you mentioned that you had gone to the +post office box. Now, what did you do thereafter? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Went right back to the apartment. + +Mr. JENNER. Did Mr. Burley accompany you? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes; and another fellow. Ken--Kenneth Glazbrook. + +Mr. JENNER. Who is he? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. This is a fellow associated with CUSA, but never really. +He came in, as a matter of fact--yes; I had forgotten about him. +President Kennedy was assassinated on a Friday. Ken Glazbrook arrived +in town by bus on Friday night. We went down to the bus station to pick +him up. + +Mr. JENNER. You knew he was coming? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes. He---- + +Mr. JENNER. Please identify him. + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Ken Glazbrook. + +Mr. JENNER. Yes; who was he? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Ken is what you might call a world traveler. This is a +guy--he is a political science--he has a masters in political science +from UCLA, I believe. And we had hoped to bring him in as our political +analyst. + +Mr. JENNER. Had you met him in the service? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. In Germany; yes. Larrie met him at one time originally. +Ken was passing through Munich, and he had stopped off at our favorite +bar, and gotten into a discussion with Larrie. And he had been through +Munich after that two or three times, at one occasion which I met him. +And he had also said, "I will meet you in Dallas." + +But he came and he went. He stayed with Bill and I for a couple of days +at our apartment, because he was on his way home to California. From +what I understand now, he is back in Europe. He could not take it here. + +Mr. JENNER. I am still accounting for Sunday. You went to the post +office box, you think. You went to the bus station to pick up---- + +Mr. WEISSMAN. I am not sure whether this was--I am pretty sure it was +Friday night we picked him up at the bus station. It might have been +Saturday night. But I am more sure in my mind--my inclination goes more +toward Friday night. + +Mr. JENNER. You saw him on Sunday? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Ken? + +Mr. JENNER. Did you see this man on Sunday? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. He was in the apartment with us. + +Mr. JENNER. He came to stay with you? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes; he brought a pitcher and a knapsack. + +Mr. JENNER. Did he go down to the post office box with you? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes. + +Mr. JENNER. And he returned to your apartment? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes. + +Mr. JENNER. What did you do then? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. We went through the letters. We were going pro and con, +and reading them. We were very pleased at first because a lot of it +was favorable, and then we got to the later postmarks, and those were +terrible. We just discussed the letters for a while. And a girl came +over. What was her name? Lynn something--I don't know her last name. +And she sat around and talked for a while. We discussed the letters +with her. Then Larrie came over that afternoon also. He was wearing a +turtle-neck sweater. And we stayed around for a few hours. Then Larrie +and Lynn took off to the Ducharme Club. And thereafter I don't know +what happened to them. I did not hear from them at all. And--that is +about it for Sunday. + +Mr. JENNER. When did you first hear about the Ruby-Oswald incident? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. I think Larrie called me up. Yes, he was watching +television at the Ducharme Club, I believe. I believe this was the +occasion. I think he was with Lynn. And he telephoned me at the +apartment. And that was the story. + +Mr. JENNER. You have testified you were never in the Carousel Club. + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Never. + +Mr. JENNER. What if any acquaintance did you have with Officer Tippit? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. None. + +Mr. JENNER. What if any acquaintance did any of your associates have to +your knowledge with Officer Tippit? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Absolutely none. + +Mr. JENNER. Had you ever heard of the name Officer Tippit? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Never. + +Mr. JENNER. Up to or any time during the day of November 22, 1963? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. None at all. The first I ever heard of this name was +after Oswald shot him, and it came over the TV, that a policeman had +been shot near a movie theater. That was the first I had heard that +name. + +Mr. JENNER. Do you know whether any of your associates, Schmidt or +Burley or Jones, or any persons you have mentioned, knew Officer Tippit? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. To the best of my knowledge, no. + +Mr. JENNER. Did anything occur during all the time you were in Dallas +to lead you to believe any of these people, including Mr. Grinnan, for +example, had had any connection with or association or knowledge of or +acquaintance with Tippit? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Not as far as I know. I don't know too much about Joe +Grinnan. + +Mr. JENNER. Did you at anytime while you were in Dallas ever have a +meeting with or sit in the Carousel Club with Officer Tippit? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. No. + +Mr. JENNER. Do you know or do you have any information as to whether +any of the associates you have mentioned ever had a meeting with +Officer Tippit in the Carousel Club? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. None whatsoever. + +Mr. JENNER. Or whether or not, irrespective of whether it was a formal +meeting or even an informal one, that they were with Officer Tippit at +anytime in the Carousel Club. + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Absolutely not. + +Mr. JENNER. And you were never in the Carousel Club at all; and you +never were with Officer Tippit. + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Right. + +Mr. JENNER. Any place. + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Any place. + +Mr. JENNER. Mr. Weissman, it has been asserted that a meeting took +place on November 14, 1963, in the Carousel Club between Officer Tippit +and yourself--and I take it from your testimony that you vigorously +deny that that ever took place. + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Very definitely. May I say something in relation to this? + +Mr. JENNER. Is it pertinent to this? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. I believe so. I believe that this is a statement made +by Mark Lane, who claimed to be attorney for the deceased Oswald. It +was originally made at the Town Hall in New York, and later that same +evening, I do not recall the date exactly, on a radio program Contact +WINS New York, at about midnight of that same day. + +At that time I telephoned the radio station and spoke to Mark Lane. +This is the first I had heard of the allegation at all. + +Mr. JENNER. You telephoned the radio station? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Right. + +Mr. JENNER. And you asked for Mr. Lane. + +Mr. WEISSMAN. That's right. + +Mr. JENNER. Did the man for whom you asked come to the phone? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes; he did. + +Mr. JENNER. Had you known Mr. Lane prior to this time? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Never heard of him before. + +Mr. JENNER. You had never spoken to him? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Never. + +Mr. JENNER. Did you ask--when there was an answer on the phone, did you +ask who it was that was on the phone? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. I said something to the effect of "Hello, Mr. Lane?" + +Mr. JENNER. What did the voice on the other end of the phone say? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. He said yes--yes something. + +Mr. JENNER. Did you identify yourself? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes; I did. + +Mr. JENNER. Did you identify yourself before or after you asked whether +the voice was that of Mr. Lane? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. I identified myself--I called the radio station and it +was a telephone thing that was broadcast over the air, question and +answer--you telephone in a question and he answers. So I telephoned, +and just by luck I happened to get through on the first ring. And +somebody said, "Who is calling?" I said, "I would like to speak with +Mr. Lane. This is Bernard Weissman calling, chairman of the American +Fact-Finding Committee." And so I got him on the phone, because they +could not pass this up. And I told him, I identified him that "You are +the attorney for the assassin Oswald"--this is just what I said to him. + +Mr. JENNER. What did he say? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. And he said--he murmured in agreement. He did not say +emphatically "Yes; I am." But he said, "Um-hum," something to that +effect. And I said, "I know what you are trying to do. I think you are +hunting for headlines. But you had been talking to some liar in Dallas +who has been feeding you all this baloney about me. You are making all +these allegations at the Town Hall and now on radio. And you have never +taken the trouble to contact me. My name has been in the paper. It is +very well known where I live. I am in the phone book. You could have +at least tried to contact me." And I pinned him up against the wall +verbally. And he agreed at that time---- + +Mr. JENNER. What did he say? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. He said that he had no definite proof, that he would have +to check on it. + +Mr. JENNER. Proof of what? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Proof of the allegations. + +Mr. JENNER. Did you mention what the allegation was when you talked +with him on the telephone? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes; I did. + +Mr. JENNER. What did you say? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. I said, "You are alleging that I had a meeting with +Patrolman Tippit in Jack Ruby's bar with some unidentified third person +about a week before the assassination." I said, "You are going strictly +on the story of some liar in Dallas." I said, "If you had any courage +or commonsense or really wanted to get at the facts, you would have +called and asked me, too." And he agreed, yes, he should have talked to +me. + +Mr. JENNER. Did he say yes he should have talked to you? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes; and that he would also recheck his facts in Dallas. +And that ended the essence of the conversation. + +Mr. JENNER. Have you exhausted your recollection as to that +conversation? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. As to that particular conversation; yes. + +Mr. JENNER. When you adverted to his assertion in the Town Hall +meeting, that you had been present in the Carousel Club in a meeting +with Officer Tippit, did you say that you denied that you were ever in +the Carousel Club? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. I denied that; yes. + +Mr. JENNER. That was what you said. + +Mr. WEISSMAN. I said, "I did not know Lee Harvey Oswald. I did not know +Jack Ruby. I have never been in the Carousel Club." + +Mr. JENNER. And you said that to him over the telephone on that +occasion---- + +Mr. WEISSMAN. That's right. + +Mr. JENNER. What was his response to that? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. This is when he came up with he would have to recheck +his facts and he would have to check into it. Subsequently, I had +talked to him later that same evening--the show went off at 1 a.m. in +the morning. And I had been given a private number to call at the radio +station. I talked to him on the telephone. + +Mr. JENNER. How did you get that number? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. The announcer gave it over the air. And he said, "If you +want to speak with Mr. Lane"--because I was getting pretty hot. + +Mr. JENNER. You mean angry? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Angry; yes. And he said, "If you want to talk to Mr. Lane +call him after the show is over, about 5 after 1." I forget the number +of the station. And I telephoned him. + +Mr. JENNER. You called the same number again. + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes. + +Mr. JENNER. You asked for Mr. Lane. + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes; I did. + +Mr. JENNER. And somebody responded? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Mr. Lane got on the wire. + +Mr. JENNER. Was it the same voice? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes. + +Mr. JENNER. What did he say in the way of acknowledging that it was Mr. +Lane? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. I went into it again. + +Mr. JENNER. Did you say, "Mr. Lane"? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes. + +Mr. JENNER. And the voice's response was what? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. I said, "Hello, Mr. Lane." And he said--I said, "Hello, +Mr. Lane." And he said, "Yes." + +"This is Bernie Weissman" or Mr. Weissman. And he said "Yes." And +then I reiterated what I had said, and that he had better check his +facts--and "I am going to get a hold of some friends in Dallas to check +on your witness and find out who he is." + +Mr. JENNER. Please identify these people. + +Mr. WEISSMAN. I was saying this to Mark Lane. And Mark Lane repeated +again---- + +Mr. JENNER. Please say again what you said to Mr. Lane, and then what +his response was, because with the rapidity with which you speak, it is +difficult to sort out his words from your words. + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Well---- + +Mr. JENNER. It might be well if you started over again. You called the +station. You asked for Mr. Lane and a voice responded. + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes. + +Mr. JENNER. You then said, "Mark Lane"? And he responded? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes. + +Mr. JENNER. All right. Now, carry on from there. + +Mr. WEISSMAN. I told him that he had better check his facts, that he is +off on a tangent, that there is absolutely no factual background. + +Mr. JENNER. For what? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. For him saying, his allegations, that I had had this +meeting with Tippit in Ruby's bar. + +Mr. JENNER. Did you repeat that again? Did you repeat again that you +had not been in the Carousel Club at anytime? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. I don't know if I repeated it at that time. I just made +a point of saying that he had better check his facts and talk with me +also, and get both sides of the story here, before he got himself in +trouble. By trouble, I had assumed he knew what I meant--I meant a +lawsuit. And I would have sued him, but I could not find a lawyer to +handle the case. They said any publicity that comes out of it would be +only bad. So I dropped it. Several days later---- + +Mr. JENNER. Have you finished the conversation? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. I have finished the conversation with him. Several days +later I got ahold of his office number. + +Mr. JENNER. Would you fix the time of this Town Hall meeting broadcast, +as best you can. + +Mr. WEISSMAN. I am pretty sure it was on the 28th or the morning of the +29th--on the Town Hall thing? That was the afternoon of the 28th of +April, I believe. I believe it was April. It was prior to his coming +to a hearing here at the Commission. And in any case, I telephoned him +several days after our radio and telephone conversation--I telephoned +him at his office in Manhattan and got him on the line again. And I +said, "Well, what has happened?" I was very curious as to what he had +done about this. + +Mr. JENNER. Where did you reach him? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. At his office in Manhattan. I do not know the address. I +had first contacted a law firm he was associated with previously, and +they gave me his office number in lower Manhattan. And I telephoned him +at his office. The secretary answered, then he got on the line. And he +said this time--I don't recall exactly what was said before or after +this particular part of the conversation. But I said that I want to +meet this guy in Dallas, the one who told him this story and call him +a liar to his face, and that I wanted it to be a public meeting, and +Mark Lane said he would arrange for a public meeting, he would pay my +transportation to Dallas to see this guy as soon as he could arrange a +meeting. And I have not heard from him since. + +Mr. JENNER. To check that date you gave us again. Mr. Weissman--Mr. +Lane appeared before the Commission on Wednesday, March 4, 1964. + +Mr. WEISSMAN. March 4? March? I did not think it was that long ago. If +he appeared March 4, then the conversation--well, I stand corrected. I +am not positive of the month. + +Mr. JENNER. It might have been February 28? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. It might have been. If it was March 4 he appeared here, +it might have been February 28, because there seemed to be several +weeks lapse between his coming here---- + +Mr. JENNER. Are you certain, however, that your telephone conversation +with him the evening of the broadcast following the Town Hall meeting +was before he appeared before the Commission? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Unless he appeared twice, I am a 100 percent positive. + +Mr. JENNER. And from what source did your information come that he had +appeared before the Commission? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Newspapers. + +Mr. JENNER. I think we can close this. I show you Garner Exhibit No. 1. +Did you ever see the person who is shown on that photograph? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. No. + +Mr. JENNER. I show you Commission Exhibit No. 520 and direct your +attention to the man in the white tee shirt between the two policemen. +Did you ever see him before? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. No. + +Mr. JENNER. Prior to November 22, 1963, had you ever seen him? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Never. + +Mr. JENNER. And except for these photographs, and whatever newspaper +clippings or photos you have seen since November 22, or television +shows on or after November 22, have you ever seen that person in the +flesh? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Never. + +Mr. JENNER. Did you ever have any contact with him of any kind? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Never. + +Mr. JENNER. Telephone calls, letters, memoranda of any kind or +character? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Never. + +Mr. JENNER. Mr. Chairman, there is correspondence that Mr. Weissman +has, and I wonder if it would be convenient with the Commission if we +could return at 2:30. In the meantime I will be able to look at some of +the material he has to see if any of it is relevant and helpful to the +Commission. + +Mr. DULLES. I would like to adjourn at this time if we can, because I +have a luncheon appointment. + +Mr. JENNER. That is what I am suggesting, sir. + +Mr. DULLES. Good. + +We will adjourn until 2:30. + +(Whereupon, at 1:05 p.m., the President's Commission recessed.) + + + + +Afternoon Session + +TESTIMONY OF BERNARD WILLIAM WEISSMAN RESUMED + + +The President's Commission reconvened at 2:45 p.m. + +(The Chairman and Mr. Dulles being present.) + +The CHAIRMAN. The Commission will be in order. You may proceed. + +Mr. JENNER. Thank you. Mr. Chief Justice. + +Whereupon, Bernard Weissman was recalled as a witness and having been +previously duly sworn, testified further as follows: + +Mr. JENNER. Mr. Chief Justice, during the luncheon hour Mr. Weissman +has afforded us an opportunity to examine some of this correspondence, +to which he made reference this morning. I have selected a few of these +pieces of correspondence as rounding out the genesis of CUSA and its +affiliate, AMBUS, and the infiltration of the rightist organizations in +Dallas that the witness described. + +I will identify these without reading from them, as some of them are +rather lengthy. + +The CHAIRMAN. Very well. + +Mr. JENNER. First, Mr. Weissman, I have a letter on the letterhead +of National Indignation Convention, the top of which has scrawled in +ink longhand "Top Secret." It is a five-page longhand letter. At the +bottom of each is written the word "Destroy." I have marked an envelope +postmarked Dallas, Tex., on November 5, 1962 as Commission Exhibit No. +1048, the first exhibit being identified as Commission Exhibit No. 1047. + +(The documents referred to were marked respectively Commission Exhibits +Nos. 1047 and 1048 for identification.) + +Mr. JENNER. The envelope is addressed to SP-4 Larry Jones, APO Station +407, New York, N.Y. + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes, sir. + +Mr. JENNER. Do you recognize the handwriting on the envelope? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes; that is Larrie's. + +Mr. JENNER. And the Larry Jones is the man to whom you made reference +in your testimony? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes, sir. + +Mr. JENNER. The document Commission Exhibit No. 1047, do you recognize +that handwriting? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. It appears to be Larrie's. + +Mr. JENNER. Do you recognize it? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes. + +Mr. JENNER. And was document Commission Exhibit No. 1047, enclosed in +the envelope marked Commission Exhibit No. 1048? + +Mr. DULLES. Is there any signature on those documents? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. This page should be last. + +Mr. JENNER. On the page which is marked with a circle 7, there appears +to be a signature L-a-r-r-i-e. Do you recognize that signature? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. That is Larrie Schmidt's signature. + +Mr. JENNER. How did you come into possession of the documents now +identified, one of which was addressed to Larry Jones rather than you? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Larry Jones gave it to me. + +Mr. JENNER. Where? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. In Munich, Germany. + +Mr. JENNER. And when he handed the document to you was Exhibit No. 1047 +enclosed in Exhibit No. 1048? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes, sir. + +Mr. JENNER. Next is a three-page letter dated Dallas, Tex., January 4, +1963, typewritten, addressed to "Dear Bernie." Is that you? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes. + +Mr. JENNER. Marked as Commission Exhibit No. 1040. + +(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 1040 for +identification.) + +Mr. JENNER. It is signed in typing "Larrie." + +A document of five pages marked Commission Exhibit No. 1041 on the +first page of which appears the signature Larrie H. Schmidt. + +(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 1041 for +identification.) + +Mr. JENNER. Do you recognize that signature? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes, sir. + +Mr. JENNER. Whose is it? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Larrie Schmidt's. + +Mr. JENNER. The last of this series of letter-sized papers is +a five-page document titled "A Code of Conduct for Members of +Conservatism U.S.A." which has been marked Commission Exhibit No. 1042. + +(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 1042 for +identification.) + +Mr. JENNER. I understand that these three documents that I have +now identified were enclosed in an envelope which has been marked +Commission Exhibit No. 1043, in the upper left-hand corner, L. H. +Schmidt, 5417b Lewis Street, Dallas 6, Tex., addressed to Private First +Class Bernie Weissman. Is that you? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. That is me. + +(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 1043 for +identification.) + +Mr. JENNER. That is postmarked Dallas, January 4, 1963. + +Did you receive the documents, now identified as Commission Exhibits +Nos. 1040, 1041, 1042, and 1043? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes, I did. + +Mr. JENNER. Were the first of those three--were the first three of +those exhibits I have named enclosed in the document identified as +Commission Exhibit No. 1043? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes. + +Mr. JENNER. I have already identified the signature. + +These documents relate to the development of and plans for CUSA, do +they not? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. They do. + +Mr. JENNER. And the conduct of CUSA? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes, sir. + +Mr. JENNER. The next two documents, a three-page letter typed on the +top "Headquarters Conservatism U.S.A.," dated February 2, 1963, at +Dallas, Tex., 5417b Lewis Street, which I have marked as Commission +Exhibit No. 1049. + +(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 1049 for +identification.) + +Mr. JENNER. This is addressed "To All Members." It is signed in typing +"Sincerely, Larrie." Have you seen that document before? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes; I have. + +Mr. JENNER. And was it enclosed in an envelope? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. It was. + +Mr. JENNER. Was it sent to you? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes; it was. + +Mr. JENNER. Is that document the envelope Commission Exhibit No. 1050? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. That is right. + +(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 1050 for +identification.) + +Mr. JENNER. There is handwriting on the face of Exhibit No. 1050. Whose +handwriting is that? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. That is mine. + +Mr. JENNER. Read it. + +Mr. WEISSMAN. "Meeting with Bob Morris. Infiltration of YAF by CUSA." + +Mr. JENNER. Mr. Chief Justice and members of the Commission, the +three-page document relates to a meeting held in the home of Dr. +Morris. Is that Dr. Robert Morris? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. That is right, of Dallas, Tex. + +Mr. JENNER. Which recounts the plans for infiltration of conservative +groups in Dallas, Tex., upon which the witness has somewhat expanded +in his testimony this morning. + +Mr. DULLES. Has the witness indicated who Mr. Bob Morris was? I don't +recall that. + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Bob Morris at that time was president of the Defenders of +American Liberties in Dallas, Tex., and recently was a candidate for +political office in Dallas. + +Mr. DULLES. What office? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. I believe he was running in the primary for Senator. + +Mr. JENNER. U.S. Senate. + +Mr. WEISSMAN. U.S. Senator. + +Mr. JENNER. I just want to be sure I have covered this. You received +both of the documents now marked Commission Exhibits Nos. 1050 and 1049 +in due course through the U.S. mail at your station in Munich, Germany? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes, sir; I did. + +Mr. JENNER. The next series is--consists of a two-page letter which has +been marked Commission Exhibit No. 1044, addressed to "Dear Bernie" at +Dallas, Tex., on June 13, 1963, also signed in typing "Best, Larrie." +That is again Larrie Schmidt, is it? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes. + +(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 1044 for +identification.) + +Mr. JENNER. That document was enclosed in what? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. In this envelope here. + +Mr. JENNER. And the envelope is marked Commission Exhibit No. 1046? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. That's right. + +(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 1046 for +identification.) + +Mr. JENNER. For the purposes of the record, Commission Exhibit No. +1046 is an envelope postmarked at Dallas, Tex., on June 14, 1963. +The envelope is imprinted with "Young Americans for Freedom. Inc., +Southwestern U.S. Regional Headquarters, P.O. Box 2364, Dallas 21, +Texas," and addressed to Pfc. Bernie Weissman. That is you? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes. + +Mr. JENNER. Was there anything else enclosed in an envelope? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. I believe it was this. + +Mr. JENNER. A newspaper clipping from the Dallas Morning News which +has been marked and identified as Commission Exhibit No. 1045. Is that +right? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. That's right. + +(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 1045 for +identification.) + +Mr. JENNER. The caption of this reads "Panel Reports Birch Society +Dedicated But Not Dangerous." + +Those three documents were received by you from Larrie Schmidt? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. That is right. + +Mr. JENNER. The third from the last of this series, a letter dated at +Dallas, Tex., June 2, 1963, addressed to "Dear Bernie," Commission +Exhibit No. 1037. Also in typing "Larrie." Who is that? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Larrie Schmidt. + +(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 1037 for +identification.) + +Mr. JENNER. There is some handwriting at the bottom of that letter--do +you recognize it? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes; that is Larrie Schmidt's. + +Mr. JENNER. Did you receive that document? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. I did. + +Mr. JENNER. And was the handwriting on the document when you received +it? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes; it was. + +Mr. JENNER. Was it enclosed in an envelope? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes; it was. + +Mr. JENNER. You received the mail, then. + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes. + +Mr. JENNER. In the envelope I now show you marked Commission Exhibit +No. 1037-A? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes. + +(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 1037-A for +identification.) + +Mr. JENNER. Addressed to you. Was there something further enclosed with +those? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. I think this piece. + +Mr. JENNER. Which is Commission Exhibit No. 1037-B. + +(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 1037-B for +identification.) + +Mr. JENNER. This is a handbill of Young Americans For Freedom, Inc. + +Mr. WEISSMAN. That's right. + +Mr. JENNER. You received all three documents I have now identified as +Commission Exhibits Nos. 1037, 1037-A, and 1037-B in due course through +the U.S. mail. + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes; I did. + +Mr. JENNER. Next to the last of this series is a letter, single page +marked Commission Exhibit No. 1038, dated June 26, 1963, at Dallas, +Tex., addressed to "Dear Bernie" signed again in typewriting as +"Larrie." Have you seen that document before? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes; I have. + +Mr. JENNER. When did you first see it? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. When I received it in the mail. + +Mr. JENNER. I show you an envelope marked Commission Exhibit No. 1038-A. + +(The document was marked Commission Exhibit No. 1038-A for +identification.) + +Mr. JENNER. Is that envelope the envelope in which Commission Exhibit +No. 1038 was enclosed? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes; and as a reference, the handwriting on the outside +of these envelopes on this and the other exhibits that refer to the +contents were put on by me about a week ago, so I could identify it. + +Mr. JENNER. Please read what you have written on the face of Commission +Exhibit No. 1038-A. + +Mr. WEISSMAN. "Ready to take over YAF. Jones in Dallas. Ducharme Club." + +Mr. JENNER. And that Ducharme Club is the club, the private club, +semi-private club in Dallas that you mentioned in your testimony this +morning. + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes. + +Mr. JENNER. Lastly, a single-page exhibit, Commission Exhibit No. 1039, +dated at Munich, Germany, on July 31, 1963. + +(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 1039 for +identification.) + +Mr. JENNER. This purports to be a copy of a letter apparently from you +to Larrie Schmidt, is that correct, sir? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. That's right. + +Mr. JENNER. And this is a carbon copy of the actual letter? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. That's right. + +Mr. JENNER. Did you mail the original of this? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. I did. + +Mr. JENNER. To whom? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Larrie Schmidt. + +Mr. JENNER. On or about the date this letter bears? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. That's right. + +Mr. DULLES. What date is that? + +Mr. JENNER. July 21, 1963. + +On Commission Exhibit No. 1043, which is the envelope which enclosed +several other exhibits, there is some handwriting. It that yours? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes. + +Mr. JENNER. Would you read it. + +Mr. WEISSMAN. "Membership List 1962. Code of Conduct and Introduction +to CUSA. Ultimatum." + +Mr. JENNER. And that is a shorthand description or summary of the +contents of the envelope? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes. + +Mr. JENNER. On Commission Exhibit No. 1048, which is also an envelope, +there appears to be written on the face "NIC Infiltration." Whose +handwriting it that? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. That's mine. + +Mr. JENNER. And you put it on there under the circumstances you have +now related? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes, sir. + +Mr. JENNER. Mr. Weissman, I will show you Commission Exhibit No. 996. +Have you ever seen a counterpart of that exhibit which is entitled +"Wanted for Treason"? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Never directly. + +Mr. JENNER. Tell us about your first acquaintance with that, with the +circumstances, if you know, of how it came into existence, and who had +anything to do with it. + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Well, I can only go by hearsay on this--what I have seen +and what I have heard from other individuals. + +Mr. JENNER. Did this come to your attention before November 22, 1963, +or after? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. After. + +Mr. JENNER. Tell what you know, please. + +Mr. WEISSMAN. I had heard that these handbills were distributed +somewhere in North Dallas, I believe, on the university campus I +believe it was, the University of Dallas campus. + +Mr. JENNER. From what source did you hear this? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Now, I think it was--I am not sure--I think it might have +been Larrie or his brother Bob. I am not sure. Larrie declaimed any +knowledge of this. I know he had nothing to do with this particular +handbill. + +Mr. JENNER. How do you know that? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. He would have told me. + +Mr. JENNER. That's the basis for your supposition? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes; and I saw this handbill, or something similar to +it, in the back of a station wagon used by Larrie's brother Bob in +transporting---- + +Mr. JENNER. When? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. This was several days after the assassination. There +was one crumpled up in the back. And I happened to look through the +window and see it. This was in front of the Ducharme Club, as a +matter of fact. It was one night. And I saw this. And I saw something +"Treason"--I had heard about the handbills. + +Mr. JENNER. From whom? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Excuse me? + +Mr. JENNER. From whom, sir? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. I think it was Larrie. I cannot be hundred percent sure. +I did not take too much interest in it at the time. But in any case, +I did see something resembling this, only it seemed to be a larger +picture of President Kennedy. But in any case, it was in the back of +a station wagon owned by General Walker, Edwin Walker, or by what--if +incorporated, by the corporation he is with, chairman of. + +Mr. JENNER. How did you know that? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Well, I know that Bob was General Walker's chauffeur, +and by seeing this crumpled up in the back, behind the front seat on +the floor of the car, I naturally assumed that it had something to do +with General Walker. Exactly what or how, or if he had distributed it, +I have no idea. I do not have the faintest idea. I did not go into it +any further, because I felt that everything was past, and I was leaving +Dallas anyway. I had made up my mind. + +(At this point, Senator Cooper entered the hearing room.) + +Mr. JENNER. When you say you had heard about this matter, that is the +handbill, or handbill similar to it, had you heard about that before +November 22, 1963? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Not to my recollection, no. + +Mr. JENNER. Shortly after that? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes. + +Mr. JENNER. And before you left Dallas? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes. + +Mr. JENNER. Did you have anything to do with the bringing into +existence of this or similar handbills? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. None; none whatsoever. + +Mr. JENNER. Other than the possibility of Bob Schmidt having something +to do with them under the circumstances you have related, did any +others of your group have anything to do with creating this type of +literature and distribution of handbills? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. None that I know of. + +The CHAIRMAN. How about the names of those people who were in on it? + +Mr. JENNER. On the handbill? + +The CHAIRMAN. Yes. + +Mr. JENNER. Did you become acquainted at any time with Robert A. Surrey? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. No. + +Mr. JENNER. With Robert G. Klause? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. No. + +Mr. JENNER. With J. T. Monk? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. No. + +Mr. JENNER. Did you become acquainted at any time with the Johnson +Printing Co.? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. No. + +Mr. JENNER. Did you have any materials printed--and when I say you, I +mean you or your group--while you were in Dallas? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Not that I know of. I personally have no knowledge of +anything being printed. + +Mr. JENNER. Did you ever hear of the Lettercraft Printing Co.? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. No; I have not. + +Mr. JENNER. Did you ever hear of Ashland Frederick Birchwell? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. No. + +Mr. JENNER. Or have any contact with him? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Not that I know of. I guess I must have met two or three +dozen people. For example, when we went up to Joe Grinnan's office at +various times, we would come down and eat in the cafeteria, and there +would be somebody sitting with him, and there would be introductions. I +never remembered their names, because it was just in passing. I never +had any personal contact, really. + +Mr. JENNER. Did you meet General Walker at any time while you were in +Dallas? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Never did. + +Mr. JENNER. Did you meet anybody or know anybody by the name of Mercer? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. No. + +Mr. JENNER. While you were in Dallas--Mrs. Clifford or Dorothy Mercer? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. No. + +Mr. JENNER. Or Mr. Clifford Mercer? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Definitely not. + +Mr. JENNER. Among the exhibits we have identified this afternoon is a +list of members. Those were the members of CUSA as of that particular +time? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes. + +Mr. JENNER. And the changes in membership you have recounted in your +testimony this morning, is that correct, sir? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes; I am sorry--I knew I had left something out of +one of those. I do not know which exhibit is. But it is the one that +says---- + +Mr. JENNER. I will hand them back to you, and you can tell me. + +You now have in your hand a sheet of paper. + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes. + +Mr. JENNER. I take it that sheet of paper came from one of the +envelopes we have already marked? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. This one here. + +Mr. JENNER. The answer is yes? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes. + +Mr. JENNER. I will mark this sheet as Commission Exhibit No. 1051. + +(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 1051 for +identification.) + +Mr. JENNER. Would you tell us in what envelope Commission Exhibit No. +1051 was enclosed? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Commission Exhibit No. 1043. + +Mr. JENNER. And what is Commission Exhibit No. 1051? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Commission Exhibit No. 1051 was a current membership list +as of about January 4, 1963. If you like, I can go over this and tell +you who was in no way really associated with it at the time or active. + +Mr. DULLES. Membership in CUSA? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. In CUSA, yes. It lists Larrie Schmidt, Larry C. Jones, +Bernie Weissman, Norman Baker, James Moseley as partners. Members as +Ken Glazbrook, Bob Weiss, who was not active after about--at about the +time this was printed--these men dropped from the active list. Herb +Starr was not active. Chuck McLain was not active. Richard Harsch was +not active. Hank Tanaro was not active. Sheila McDonald was not active. +And the rest of the list were active in one form or another--some to a +much lesser degree than the others. + +Mr. JENNER. Now, the 50-odd responses that you received to Commission +Exhibit No. 1031, when you went to the post office box on the following +Sunday, the 24th of November 1963, did you recognize the names of any +of the persons who responded? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. None--none at all. + +Mr. JENNER. Was there any response from Jack Ruby? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Not under his name. + +Mr. JENNER. And you say about a third of those responses were favorable +and two-thirds unfavorable. + +Mr. WEISSMAN. That's right. + +Mr. JENNER. Insofar as the questions asked on Exhibit--Commission +Exhibit No. 1031 are concerned? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes. + +The CHAIRMAN. When you said there was no letter in the box under the +name of Jack Ruby does that infer that there was one by any other name? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Well, to put it very exact, if I did receive a letter +from Jack Ruby, I have no knowledge of it. + +The CHAIRMAN. That is what I wanted to know. + +Mr. JENNER. And apart from--I asked you also the general question +whether you recognized any names. I would like to add to that--did +you recognize in reading over any of those letters or responses any +persons, regardless of what name was signed to the document? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. None whatsoever. + +Mr. JENNER. During the noon recess I have had the witness read through +an interview with him by the FBI on the 5th of December 1963. You have +read that? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes; I have. + +Mr. JENNER. Does that accurately reflect the interview which the FBI +had with you on that day? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. It does. The only variance you might find is that at the +time I had the interview with the FBI, I did not develop the CUSA story +with them. And they did not press the issue, and I did not go into it. + +Mr. JENNER. But it does accurately reflect what took place during the +course of that interview. + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Exactly. + +Mr. JENNER. What you said--it reports it accurately. + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes; very accurately. + +Mr. JENNER. Mr. Chief Justice, I was using this method in order to +shorten the balance of Mr. Weissman's testimony. There are many details +here that I wanted to spare the Commission. + +I will mark that with the next exhibit number, Commission Exhibit No. +1052. + +(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 1052 for +identification.) + +Mr. JENNER. Mr. Chief Justice, I offer in evidence the exhibits which +have been identified--I will read the exhibit numbers. Commission +Exhibits Nos. 1031 through 1052, both inclusive, with some of the +envelopes designated with subletters A, and one of the other documents +designated with the subletter B. I ask that those exhibits be admitted +in evidence with the exhibit numbers which appear on them, each of +which has been recited in the record. + +The CHAIRMAN. They may be admitted under those numbers. + +(The documents referred to, heretofore marked for identification as +Commission Exhibits Nos. 1031 through 1052 inclusive, were received in +evidence.) + +Mr. JENNER. I have no further questions of the witness. Mr. Flannery, +do you have anything? + +The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Dulles, do you have any questions you would like to +ask? + +Mr. DULLES. Just one general question. From the questions which have +been addressed to you, Mr. Weissman, you have a general idea of what +the Commission, the area of search of the Commission is so far as you +are concerned. + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes. + +Mr. DULLES. Did anything occur to you of any significance which you +could add or would like to add to the answers you have made to the +questions you have already given? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Excuse me, please. There is just one thing but it is a +question of--it is not a positive identification or anything like that. +But on the day I went to the post office to pick up the mail there was +a gentleman waiting, observing the box, the post office box in the +Dallas post office. Now, Bill Burley was waiting in my car outside, +driving around the block because the traffic was quite heavy. I went +in with Ken Glazbrook, who had just come to Dallas about a day or so +before by bus from the East Coast. He got off a freighter from Sweden. +And this individual seemed to be about--I would put him at about 60 +years old. And I thought about it since. And I said that might have +been Jack Ruby, because he was short enough to be. But my recollection +of the individual that followed me, when we subsequently lost in the +crowd, and jumped into the car and took off, was that one time not more +than 3 feet away from me--though I did not stare into his face, because +I did not know if this fellow was going to shoot me or say something. + +Mr. JENNER. You were then frightened; were you not? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes, sir. And we went across through traffic and up a +street and down a street and lost this individual and jumped into the +car and took off back to the apartment. And to this day I do not know +whether it was Ruby--because frankly my recollection of the individual +on the pictures I have seen of Ruby in the newspapers, they do not seem +to jibe--just the size. This fellow was about 5 foot 6 or so. He was +wearing tan clothing with a Stetson hat, a tan Stetson hat. + +Mr. JENNER. A typical Texas western hat, sometimes called a 10-gallon +hat? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. That's right. And this is about the only thing else I +have to add. + +Mr. JENNER. Did he follow you? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. He followed us from the box down the steps of the post +office to the traffic light. We crossed the street, he walked up the +other side of the street adjacent to the post office, directly opposite +us. And we were going halfway up and he started to cross the corner. We +quickly ran back to the corner, across which we came. At that time Bill +had come around the corner in the car, he knew nothing about it, we +jumped in, sat down low and went in a straight line, made the turn and +went back to the apartment. And I have never seen the individual since. + +Mr. DULLES. This post office box from which you were taking the mail, +was that box the one that was advertised in the paper? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes. + +Mr. DULLES. So that the number of that box was known. + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes; it was. This individual was obviously waiting for +me. I did not see him. Ken pointed him out to me. We expected possibly +some sort of trouble there. And Ken was walking about 6 feet to the +right of me, on another side of the post office tables that are in the +middle of the aisle. So if I got in any difficulty he would be there to +help. And he noticed this individual and pointed him out to me. And +this fellow just followed us right out, and that was that. + +Mr. DULLES. As I recall, you fixed the time when you went to the mail +box as probably sometime Sunday morning. + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes, sir. + +Mr. DULLES. Can you be any more definite as to the time Sunday morning +when you were there? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. I am almost 100 percent sure it was between 8 and 9 +o'clock. + +Mr. DULLES. In the morning? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes, sir. + +Mr. DULLES. I have no further questions. + +The CHAIRMAN. Senator Cooper, have you any questions? + +Senator COOPER. What age did the man seem to be? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. About 60. + +Senator COOPER. I have two or three other questions. + +Did your organization, CUSA, ever consider violence as a means to +reaching its objectives? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. This had been--I don't remember exactly. It had been +hashed over in skull sessions, so many things come up, and you talk +about it and throw it away. These things did come up over the year +or so that I was involved in it in Munich, and thrown out. No. In +schedules that we had made up, we figured probable political happenings +over a period of years, and we took into account there might be a war +for example in 1968 or 1970 or 1972, and what would happen before or +after, or who would probably be President at that time, and the type of +action America would take. But it had never gone any further than a lot +of supposition. + +Senator COOPER. Did you consider the advertisements in the paper there +as possibly inciting to violence under the circumstances? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Definitely not. + +Senator COOPER. Was that considered at all? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Definitely not. At least not by me. And nobody ever +mentioned it. + +Senator COOPER. This group of men that you have named, of which you +were one, who formed this CUSA with objectives, both political and +business you said? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes, sir. + +Senator COOPER. Was there any background of writings or theory of any +kind upon which you depended? Where did it come from? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Let's see. You are putting me in sort of a box but I +will answer you. We read, for example--for example, I did not know I +was a conservative until I got to Germany. I just knew how I felt. But +I never identified myself with any particular political leaning. I +thought I was a Democrat, an independent voter and independent thinker. +For example, I voted for Kennedy in 1960 and I would have voted against +him in 1964. But this is neither here nor there. + +We were asked--not asked--we had a list of required reading. In +other words, if you are going to expound the conservative philosophy +we figured you should know something about it, a little bit of the +background, aside from your own personal feelings. So we read, for +example--I didn't--I never did find the time to do it--some of the +fellows read "Conscience of a Conservative" by Barry Goldwater, one or +two books that Barry Goldwater had written, and "Atlas Shrugged" by Ayn +Rand, which I did not read. + +Mr. JENNER. Did the others read them? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. I guess Larrie read them, because he suggested these. +There were many times when I said yes--I yessed him to death, and did +as I pleased. And this is one of the cases. + +Senator COOPER. That was about the extent of your reading background? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Not completely. In other words, I cannot point to any +specific volumes that I read for the specific purpose of giving me a +certain background. In other words, I am motivated personally by my own +feelings in the situation, and the particular dogma that you might read +in a book does not interest me too much. + +Senator COOPER. As one of your aims, did you have the purpose of making +some money out of this movement? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Out of the movement itself, no. Out of the business, yes. +Because I think it would be foolish to go on the premise that if we +would devote ourselves a hundred percent to politics that we could make +money at it, because there are laws against it, and in order to survive +while you are in politics, you have to have a business interest, +managed by yourself part time or by others full time, that can support +you while you devote yourself to politics. + +Senator COOPER. Was this business interest to be these organizations +which you were going to infiltrate and whose treasuries you might +capture? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. No. + +Senator COOPER. Or was it to be--you hoped to develop businesses +because of your political influence; is that it? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes; to put it straight on the record, we had discussed +this, and what we would do if we came into any of the treasuries +of these organizations. We felt that you can incur a lot of legal +problems if you are caught taking funds, tax-free funds, and using it +for personal gain and so forth. I am sure there are laws against it. +Exactly which ones, I do not know. I am sure there are laws against it. + +And so we felt there is nothing wrong, and it is done occasionally in +government, where occasionally you would use--you would meet someone +politically--because generally these are more affluent individuals, +people in politics. By dint of their drive they have acquired property +or moneys, et cetera. And these individuals might be willing to invest +some of their capital in some up-and-coming young businessmen, young +politicians. And we had hoped to get some money this way. Plus the +fact, by using our heads, by setting up businesses on our own that +would support us in the political goal. + +Senator COOPER. Did you study methods of propaganda? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Study methods of propaganda? No; we had discussed ways +of bringing about recruitment and so forth, in the way of pamphlets, +or things of that nature, but this never got out of the talking stage +itself. As a matter of fact---- + +Senator COOPER. You felt the way to move into political life quickly +was to get into these extreme organizations which do use a great deal +of propaganda, and are against things? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes; in general, we thought these organizations because +they grew so quickly, would be relatively unorganized and easy to +infiltrate, and this proves to be quite true. They were more or less +autonomous within their own regions, and they did not have a national +director keeping tabs on everything they did. + +I have something here that was made up. It is just a list. I just +happened to remember. Publicity tactics, for example--rallies, +hangings--these are effigies, I would imagine--demonstrations, +picketing, sit-downs, stickers, billboards, boycotts, lectures, +songfests, talkathons, telephone campaigns, door-to-door campaigns. +Publicity--letters, brochures, pamphlets, booklets, stationery, flags, +songs, emblems on blazers, stickers, match covers, billboards, radio, +TV, newspapers, magazines, streetcars, taxicabs. Fund-raising would be +personal solicitation, get firms to do things free for us, parties, +teas, bridges, lectures, assessments, dues, sale of books, pins, +buttons, stationery, flags, emblems, match covers, brochures, and +pamphlets. That is it. + +Mr. JENNER. That was your program? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. This was our advertising program; yes, sir. + +Senator COOPER. Some of these activities are certainly activities +carried on by political parties. But did it ever occur to you that some +of the activities which you planned, in fact which you undertook, such +as infiltration into an organization, to try to seize control of it, +and these methods that you used--do you consider that as in the regular +spirit of our system of government? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. I would say this, sir. + +Senator COOPER. Democratic system you spoke of? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. It was a question of doing something like that, or +absolutely nothing at all, never getting off the ground. And while my +belief would say no, of course not, this is not the way you do it, this +is not the way it should be done, but it was expedient at the time +to do this. And plus the fact that you certainly could not make these +organizations any worse than they were. And as far as I felt, if we +could bring them around to our way of thinking or my way of thinking, +we could have brought them around to where they were more beneficial to +the country rather than detrimental. + +Senator COOPER. That is all I want to ask. + +The CHAIRMAN. I noticed on the list that you had there of techniques +was hangings. Now, you said--you added to that, I think, that that +meant hanging in effigy, you assumed. Is that right? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. I am 100 percent sure, Your Honor, that that is what it +meant. In other words, this was just ways to attract attention, and the +college students are doing it all the time. It was just sort of tossing +it all in a pot and then putting it down on paper. + +The CHAIRMAN. Is that not provocative to violence? + +Mr. WEISSMAN. No; I think in the context that we meant it, that it was +just another way of getting possibly some publicity--like if students +in a university do not like their professor, for example, or if they +win a football game, they will hang the opposing team in effigy, or +the captain, or what have you. And it attracts a certain amount of +publicity and talk. + +We had to gain recognition in order to accomplish some of the goals +that I had stated previously. And this is just another way. In this +case, you have to consider us as young men, and effigy hanging, you +know, is just part of a young idea. + +The CHAIRMAN. I think that is all. Thank you very much, Mr. Weissman. +You may be excused. And Mr. Flannery, thank you very much for your +cooperation. + +If there are any questions you would like to ask, you may feel free to +do so now. + +Mr. FLANNERY. I have nothing. + +The CHAIRMAN. Very well. + +(At this point in the hearing, Chairman Warren left the hearing room +and the witness Robert G. Klause entered.) + + +TESTIMONY OF ROBERT G. KLAUSE + +Mr. DULLES. Would you kindly raise your right hand? + +Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to give will be +the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? + +Mr. KLAUSE. Yes, sir. + +Mr. JENNER. You are Robert G. Klause? + +Mr. KLAUSE. Yes, sir. + +Mr. JENNER. And you appear here voluntarily today? + +Mr. KLAUSE. Yes, sir. + +Mr. JENNER. I may say, Mr. Chairman, I reached Mr. Klause in Dallas +yesterday afternoon. He had just returned from a 2-week vacation. +He volunteered to come. The Secret Service got him on a plane with +but minutes to spare, and no baggage. This he did to accommodate the +Commission. + +Mr. Klause is here to testify with respect to the genesis and +dissemination of the "Wanted For Treason" handbill, Commission Exhibit +No. 996. + +Mr. DULLES. Proceed, please. + +Mr. JENNER. Your age, please? + +Mr. KLAUSE. 32. + +Mr. JENNER. You are a married man? + +Mr. KLAUSE. Yes, sir. + +Mr. JENNER. You were born and reared in this country? + +Mr. KLAUSE. Yes, sir. + +Mr. JENNER. Likewise your wife? + +Mr. KLAUSE. Yes, sir. + +Mr. JENNER. And your parents? + +Mr. KLAUSE. Yes, sir. + +Mr. JENNER. And you reside in Texas? + +Mr. KLAUSE. Yes, sir. + +Mr. JENNER. Where? + +Mr. KLAUSE. Dallas. + +Mr. JENNER. What address? + +Mr. KLAUSE. 1126 South Waverly. + +Mr. JENNER. And what is the name of your mother? + +Mr. KLAUSE. Dorothy Anna Mercer. + +Mr. JENNER. And is she engaged in a printing business in Dallas? + +Mr. KLAUSE. Yes, sir. + +Mr. JENNER. She and her husband? + +Mr. KLAUSE. Yes, sir. + +Mr. JENNER. What is her husband's first name? Clifford? + +Mr. KLAUSE. Clifford; yes, sir. + +Mr. JENNER. Are you employed in their business? + +Mr. KLAUSE. Yes, sir. + +Mr. JENNER. Is that the Lettercraft Printing Co.? + +Mr. KLAUSE. Yes, sir. + +Mr. JENNER. And that is located where? + +Mr. KLAUSE. 2615 Oak Lawn, Dallas. + +Mr. JENNER. And how long have you been employed in the Lettercraft +Printing Co.? + +Mr. KLAUSE. I would say approximately about a year and a half. I think +we have been open about a year and a half, it might be going on 2 years. + +Mr. JENNER. And tell us what the nature of that printing company is. + +Mr. KLAUSE. Offset lithography, letterheads, statements, envelopes, +things like that. + +Mr. JENNER. Is it a small house? + +Mr. KLAUSE. Yes, sir. + +Mr. JENNER. Were you employed theretofore by a different printing +company? + +Mr. KLAUSE. Sir? + +Mr. JENNER. Were you formerly employed by another printing company in +Dallas? + +Mr. KLAUSE. Yes, sir. + +Mr. JENNER. And that was Johnson Printing Co.? + +Mr. KLAUSE. Johnson Printing Co.; yes, sir. With several other +companies in town. + +Mr. JENNER. I see. And where is Johnson Printing Co. located? + +Mr. KLAUSE. I think it is the 2700 block of Haskell in Dallas. + +Mr. JENNER. Did you become acquainted with Robert A. Surrey while you +were employed at Johnson Printing Co.? + +Mr. KLAUSE. Yes, sir. + +Mr. JENNER. Had you known him before that? + +Mr. KLAUSE. No, sir. + +Mr. JENNER. I show you a document which has been identified and +admitted in evidence as Commission Exhibit No. 996. The particular +document I show you is a Xerox reproduction of the original exhibit. + +Did you play some part in producing the original, the original copy and +materials from which the Exhibit No. 996 I show you was prepared? + +Mr. KLAUSE. I am not too sure what you mean but as far as +laying--laying the job out, no, sir. Now, like I said, I ran the job. I +shot the negatives. + +Mr. JENNER. Perhaps we can get at it this way, sir. When first did you +have any connection with this matter? + +Mr. KLAUSE. Approximately, I would say, a month before President +Kennedy came to town. + +Mr. JENNER. How did that arise? + +Mr. KLAUSE. Mr. Surrey called on me and asked me if I would run a job. + +Mr. JENNER. You say he called on you. Where were you when he called on +you? + +Mr. KLAUSE. I believe I was at the shop. In fact, I know I was at the +shop. He must have called me at the shop. + +Mr. JENNER. When you say shop, you mean the Lettercraft Printing Co.? + +Mr. KLAUSE. Yes, sir. + +Mr. JENNER. He came to Lettercraft Printing Co.? + +Mr. KLAUSE. No, sir; he called. + +Mr. JENNER. What did he say? + +Mr. KLAUSE. He said that he had a little job he would like to have run, +and would I run it myself? + +Mr. JENNER. And you responded? + +Mr. KLAUSE. I said yes, sir. + +Mr. JENNER. Did he come over to your shop? + +Mr. KLAUSE. Mr. Jenner, to be honest with you, really I do not remember +now. I might have gone out, or he might have come over. To be perfectly +honest, right at the present time I do not remember. + +Mr. JENNER. Did I understand you to say that you said to him you would +run it yourself? + +Mr. KLAUSE. Yes, sir. + +Mr. JENNER. You mean by that something distinct from or having +Lettercraft Printing Co. run it? + +Mr. KLAUSE. He asked me if I was interested in doing a little job on +the side, and I said yes, sir. + +Mr. JENNER. By "on the side," does that mean that you were going to +do some reproduction printing for him, other than as a job for the +Lettercraft Printing Co.? + +Mr. KLAUSE. Yes, sir. You see, I have my own shop. + +Mr. JENNER. You do? + +Mr. KLAUSE. Yes, sir. + +Mr. JENNER. Where is that located? + +Mr. KLAUSE. Actually, I operate out of my house. But I have always had +my own shop. I mean I have two or three little insert accounts that +I do, and a couple of beauty suppliers. They will come in and want +500 letterheads. For a long time, when I was out of work, I went out +and solicited work door to door. Then I would job them out to other +printers. And then when I could get my hands on a press, I would run +them myself. + +Mr. JENNER. Was Mr. Surrey aware of this practice? + +Mr. KLAUSE. Yes, sir; I am sure he was. + +Mr. JENNER. And he proposed to you at the outset that you do it "on the +side"? + +Mr. KLAUSE. Yes, sir. + +Mr. JENNER. Now, you met with Mr. Surrey after this telephone call? + +Mr. KLAUSE. Yes, sir. + +Mr. JENNER. Do you recall whether it was at your home or whether it was +at the Lettercraft Co. or some other place? + +Mr. KLAUSE. Actually, like I say, Mr. Jenner, I am not real sure. I +do not know whether it was out at--I am pretty sure it was not at the +shop. And Mr. Surrey has never been to my house. And so it must have +been out. + +Mr. JENNER. Now, there are two reproductions of President Kennedy, a +profile and a front view. Did you prepare the plates from which those +profiles were made? + +Mr. KLAUSE. By preparing the plates--the only thing that I actually did +is--either it was two newspaper clippings or magazine clippings. + +Mr. JENNER. From whom did you receive the magazine clippings? + +Mr. KLAUSE. From Mr. Surrey. + +Mr. JENNER. They were slick paper magazine clippings? + +Mr. KLAUSE. Something on a slick paper basis; yes, sir. + +Mr. JENNER. That contained the front and profile of President Kennedy, +which is reproduced on Commission Exhibit No. 996? + +Mr. KLAUSE. Yes, sir. + +Mr. JENNER. Now, what did you do with those two slick magazine +reproductions of President Kennedy's head? + +Mr. KLAUSE. Well, I tried to shoot them, and I could not shoot them. We +have our own camera. We take a picture of it--reproduce it. + +Mr. JENNER. You must assume that none of us is experienced in the +printing business. And when you say "shoot"---- + +Mr. KLAUSE. I will explain myself more carefully. When they were +brought to me---- + +Mr. JENNER. By Mr. Surrey? + +Mr. KLAUSE. Yes, sir. Then I tried to make negatives of them---- + +Mr. JENNER. Negatives on film? + +Mr. KLAUSE. Yes, sir; on film. + +Mr. JENNER. Yes. + +Mr. KLAUSE. I could not do it. When I take a picture of copy, on most +of your offset or lithography work, you have dot patterns. And when +I would try to use my camera, the dot patterns would kind of blur, +and you could not see what it was. It was just a big blur. So I sent +the negatives of the two pictures downtown, down to Monk Brothers +Lithography Service downtown, which shoots nothing but negatives. + +Mr. JENNER. That is J. T. Monk? + +Mr. KLAUSE. Tommy Monk, of Monk Bros. + +Mr. JENNER. J. T. Monk is the father, and Tommy Monk, or J. T. Monk, +Jr., is the son. + +Mr. KLAUSE. The only person I know down there is Tommy. + +Mr. JENNER. He is a young man? + +Mr. KLAUSE. No, sir; Tommy I have known 12 or 13 years. He is somewhere +around 50, 55, probably. + +Mr. JENNER. Is he the apparent owner or manager at least of this---- + +Mr. KLAUSE. Yes, sir. + +Mr. JENNER. Is it a lithography company? + +Mr. KLAUSE. Well, it is a negative service. In other words, what +they do is supply the printers with blanks, and ink, and ink knives, +different fountain solutions, things like that, for the press, and also +they have their own cameras. They have probably two $15,000 or $20,000 +cameras there. And, of course, they can produce work from their cameras +I cannot touch on my little camera, or our camera at the shop. + +Mr. JENNER. So you took the two magazine pictures of President Kennedy +to Monk Bros.? + +Mr. KLAUSE. Yes, sir. + +Mr. JENNER. For the purpose of having Monk Bros. make negatives, film +negatives of them? + +Mr. KLAUSE. Yes, sir. + +Mr. JENNER. Which in turn were to be employed to do what? + +Mr. KLAUSE. To be employed to be run on this job. I mean it was part of +this piece right here. + +Mr. JENNER. And do you recall what the charge was by Monk Bros. for +that service? + +Mr. KLAUSE. No, sir; I think it was around three and a half, four and a +half, something like that. + +Mr. JENNER. Did you pay in cash? + +Mr. KLAUSE. Yes, sir. + +Mr. JENNER. And you paid in cash because you did not want it charged to +Lettercraft Printing Co.? + +Mr. KLAUSE. No, sir; I originally had a charge account at Monk Bros. +But I still owe a little on my bill down there; and at the time I just +rather had paid for it. Not knowing what the job was then anyway--I +mean when I go down there and buy supplies for myself, since--I owe the +man money, I try whatever I can to pay for, because I have got a pretty +nice little bill down there now, and I do not want to run it up any +higher. + +Mr. JENNER. When you received the negatives, then what did you do with +the negatives? + +Mr. KLAUSE. Well, the bottom part was shot, or picture was made with +the camera at our shop; and then I stripped the negative in. In other +words, I put the two top pieces, the picture and the bottom part +together. And then made a plate on it. + +Mr. JENNER. Made a plate from those negatives? + +Mr. KLAUSE. Yes, sir. + +Mr. JENNER. In turn to be employed in printing the handbill? + +Mr. KLAUSE. Yes, sir. + +Mr. JENNER. When you received those negatives, did you again +communicate with Mr. Surrey? + +Mr. KLAUSE. I do not believe I understand what you mean, Mr. Jenner. + +Mr. JENNER. After you obtained usable negatives from Monk Bros., did +you advise Mr. Surrey that you now had obtained those usable negatives +and would be able to proceed with the job? + +Mr. KLAUSE. No, sir. + +Mr. JENNER. Had Mr. Surrey advised you as to how many he wished of +these handbills? + +Mr. KLAUSE. Approximately--he said approximately 6,000, 7,000. + +Mr. JENNER. You made a plate from which the front and profile of +President Kennedy as appears on Exhibit No. 996 was made? + +Mr. KLAUSE. Yes, sir. + +Mr. JENNER. Now, there is copy below the profile and front view, as you +will notice on the exhibit before you. From what source did you receive +that copy? + +Mr. KLAUSE. That copy came, sir; as was--just approximately about the +way it is here. I do not know whether it was typed on--I do not know +that much about a Varitypewriter. Or it might have been letterpress. +Somebody might have set it up letterpress or Linotype, and ran a press +proof; I do not know. + +Mr. JENNER. From whom did you receive that press-proof copy? + +Mr. KLAUSE. I received all the copy from Mr. Surrey. + +Mr. JENNER. And the copy, then, as you received it from Mr. Surrey, +which is in turn reflected on Commission Exhibit No. 996, was in the +form at that time, when you received it from Mr. Surrey, that it now +appears in on Commission Exhibit No. 996? + +Mr. KLAUSE. Yes, sir. + +Mr. JENNER. How did you reproduce it onto the handbill? + +Mr. KLAUSE. Well, this was run offset, like I said, all of it was put +on film. Then it was burnt into what we call a metal plate, which we +expose to light. It is a light-sensitive plate, and any time light hits +it, where you have clear spots on your film, that image of the light +will burn into your plate. When you process the plate out, you come up +with a developer, which brings the image out. Then once you put that +plate on the press, that image will pick up type. + +Mr. JENNER. When did Mr. Surrey bring you that copy with respect to the +time when he brought the two slick magazine reproductions of President +Kennedy's profile and front views? + +Mr. KLAUSE. I believe it was all at the same time. This was--the +pictures were the only thing I even took out of the envelope at one +time. The rest of it I did not even bother to look at. + +Mr. JENNER. Who, if anybody, assisted you in printing up the handbills? + +Mr. KLAUSE. Nobody. + +Mr. JENNER. Mrs. Klause did not help you? + +Mr. KLAUSE. She was in front of the shop. In fact, I do not even think +she ever came back. + +Mr. JENNER. When you say shop are you talking now of your own shop in +your home or the shop at Lettercraft? + +Mr. KLAUSE. Lettercraft. + +Mr. JENNER. So the handbills were actually printed by you in the +Lettercraft Printing Co. shop? + +Mr. KLAUSE. Yes, sir; after hours. + +Mr. JENNER. After you had--how many did you print, if you recall? + +Mr. KLAUSE. I would say, Mr. Jenner, approximately 5,000--5,200, 5,300. + +Mr. JENNER. What did you do with them after you printed them? + +Mr. KLAUSE. I put them in a box. In fact, I did not even wrap them. I +just stuck them in a box. And I contacted Mr. Surrey the next day. + +Mr. JENNER. And now, give us your recollection as to when you made +contact with Mr. Surrey--with particular reference to November 22, 1963. + +Mr. KLAUSE. I would say, sir; it was approximately 2 or 2-1/2 weeks +before Mr. Kennedy was in Dallas. + +Mr. JENNER. That would be the early part of November 1963? + +Mr. KLAUSE. Yes, sir; as close as I can remember right now. + +Mr. JENNER. Did you deliver the 5,000 plus handbills personally to Mr. +Surrey? + +Mr. KLAUSE. Yes, sir. + +Mr. JENNER. And where did that delivery take place? + +Mr. KLAUSE. Now, that I do remember. That was about 5 blocks +approximately from the shop. It was--from Lettercraft. It was a little +cafe there which we call the Waffle Shop. It is the Pal's Waffle Shop. + +Mr. JENNER. Did you make--I take it then you made arrangements with Mr. +Surrey to meet him at Pal's Waffle Shop, rather than he come to the +Lettercraft Printing Co. + +Mr. KLAUSE. I called him and told him that they were ready, and he +said, "Where can I meet you?" and I was getting ready to go to lunch at +the time anyway. I believe it was lunch or coffee. I said, "I'm getting +ready to go out for coffee. I am going to go up about 5 blocks up the +street to the Waffle Shop." He said, "I'll meet you there, then." + +Mr. JENNER. Did Mrs. Klause accompany you? + +Mr. KLAUSE. No, sir; she was at work. + +Mr. JENNER. Anybody accompany you? + +Mr. KLAUSE. No, sir. + +Mr. JENNER. You met Mr. Surrey at the Pal's Waffle Shop? + +Mr. KLAUSE. Yes, sir. + +Mr. JENNER. You delivered him all of the handbills you had printed up? + +Mr. KLAUSE. Yes, sir. + +Mr. JENNER. What color were those? + +Mr. KLAUSE. The handbills were run on what we call assorted dodger +stock--green and orange and blue and yellow. It is a cheap colored +newspaper print is what it is. + +Mr. JENNER. From where did you obtain the assorted dodger stock? + +Mr. KLAUSE. Olmstead Kirk Paper Co. + +Mr. JENNER. Did you make it as an individual purchase or was that a +purchase on behalf of the Lettercraft Printing Co.? + +Mr. KLAUSE. No; that was my own purchase. + +Mr. JENNER. You purchased that and paid for it in cash? + +Mr. KLAUSE. Yes, sir. + +Mr. JENNER. Now, were you paid for this work you did for Mr. Surrey? + +Mr. KLAUSE. Yes, sir. + +Mr. JENNER. And what did he pay you? + +Mr. KLAUSE. I think it was $40, Mr. Jenner. In fact, I am almost +positive. + +Mr. JENNER. Was it in cash? + +Mr. KLAUSE. Yes, sir. + +Mr. JENNER. When next did you see Mr. Surrey after you had delivered +the handbills to him? + +Mr. KLAUSE. I would say approximately 2 or 3 weeks after Mr. Kennedy +was assassinated in Dallas. + +Mr. JENNER. So I take it then you had no contact with Mr. Surrey of any +kind or character from the day you delivered the 5,000 plus handbills +to him in Pal's Waffle Shop until some 2 weeks after President +Kennedy's assassination on November 22, 1963. + +Mr. KLAUSE. Yes, sir; that is correct. + +Mr. JENNER. That whole time span was a month to 5 weeks? + +Mr. KLAUSE. Yes, sir; and then at that time I called Mr. Surrey myself +personally. + +Mr. JENNER. Why? + +Mr. KLAUSE. Like I said, I have two or three accounts, and I had one +job that I could not run, it was a big job. A lot of printers will work +with other printers in jobbing out work. I took this job and jobbed it +out--Mr. Surrey jobbed it out to Johnson, and let Johnson run it. And I +in turn paid Bob for the job, when the people paid me, and I delivered +the job, and I made a commission off of it. + +Mr. JENNER. On that occasion when you saw Mr. Surrey, did you have a +conversation--did you have any conversation with him with respect to +the dodger or handbill, Commission Exhibit No. 996? + +Mr. KLAUSE. Yes, sir; I imagine there was. I cannot exactly say what +it is now. But I imagine there was something said--because I was quite +upset about it at the time. + +Mr. JENNER. The FBI interviewed you about this incident, did they not? + +Mr. KLAUSE. The Secret Service did; yes, sir. + +Mr. JENNER. And when you were first interviewed, you did not disclose +to the Secret Service the facts with respect to Mr. Surrey delivering +this material to you and your having printed it for him, delivered it +to him, and he paying you? + +Mr. KLAUSE. No, sir; nothing at all. + +Mr. JENNER. What led you to do that, Mr. Klause? + +Mr. KLAUSE. Well, I started thinking about it, and then the folks were +getting real upset about it, because I had put them in a jam, which it +was my own fault. + +Mr. JENNER. When you say folks, you mean your mother and stepfather? + +Mr. KLAUSE. Yes, sir; and I mean I like to help friends as much as I +can, and be good to people as much as I can. But people in my family +are going to come closer than my friends are. + +Mr. JENNER. You finally decided to reveal the full facts respecting +this handbill? + +Mr. KLAUSE. Yes, sir. + +Mr. JENNER. And you did so to the Secret Service? + +Mr. KLAUSE. Yes, sir. + +Mr. JENNER. Did Mr. Surrey approach you at any time to suggest to you +that you should not reveal the source of this handbill? + +Mr. KLAUSE. No, sir; I talked to him--I believe it was probably a +couple of days after the Secret Service was out. And I told him those +people were wanting to know things--I mean doing their job, that they +wanted to find something out. + +I said this is strictly out of my territory--I did not know what I was +supposed to do. And he said, well, I could either get myself a lawyer +or just not say anything at all. + +Mr. JENNER. Did you ever tell him you made up your mind you were going +to tell the full facts about this matter? + +Mr. KLAUSE. No, sir; not really. I think in so many words he might have +understood that I was. + +Mr. JENNER. Did he ever make a remark to you, "Well, that is the way +the ball bounces." + +Mr. KLAUSE. It sounds like--it seems to ring a bell, but I cannot place +it. + +Mr. JENNER. Was that not in fact said by him in connection with your +telling him that you had reached the conclusion that you had to tell +the full facts about this matter? + +Mr. KLAUSE. Yes, sir; I believe so. + +Mr. JENNER. Does that refresh your recollection? + +Mr. KLAUSE. The ball bounces--yes, sir--that rings a bell now. + +Mr. JENNER. Up to November 22, 1963, had you ever heard the name Lee +Harvey Oswald? + +Mr. KLAUSE. No, sir. + +Mr. JENNER. Had you ever seen anybody up to that day who purported to +be or whom you were advised was Lee Harvey Oswald? + +Mr. KLAUSE. No, sir. + +Mr. JENNER. I show you Garner Exhibit No. 1. Did you ever see that man +prior to November 22, 1963? + +Mr. KLAUSE. No, sir. The only time I seen this man was on television +and in the paper. + +Mr. JENNER. You mean on or after November 22, 1963? + +Mr. KLAUSE. Yes, sir. + +Mr. JENNER. I hand you Commission Exhibit No. 520, and direct your +attention to the center figure appearing on that photograph. Did you +ever see that man prior to November 22, 1963? + +Mr. KLAUSE. No, sir. + +Mr. JENNER. Did you have a conversation with Mr. Surrey as to the +purpose for which the handbill was to be put? + +Mr. KLAUSE. No, sir. + +Mr. JENNER. When you read this copy, did that not alarm you or upset +you? It is rather provocative, is it not, and it has a title "Wanted +for Treason." + +Mr. KLAUSE. Actually, Mr. Jenner, I did not even pay any attention to +the copy at all. It was late at night at the time I ran it. I did not +pay any attention to it at all--which I should have done, I admit now. +But I did not. + +Mr. JENNER. You were running it at night because you were doing this on +the side? + +Mr. KLAUSE. Yes, sir. + +Mr. JENNER. You do have some printing equipment in your own apartment +or home? + +Mr. KLAUSE. No, sir. Not at my house; no, sir. + +Mr. JENNER. You used the equipment of the Lettercraft Printing Co., did +you? + +Mr. KLAUSE. Yes, sir. + +Mr. JENNER. And you did this at night because you were doing it on the +side with the Lettercraft Printing Co. equipment? + +Mr. KLAUSE. Yes, sir. + +Mr. JENNER. Did you advise your mother or your stepfather you were +doing this? + +Mr. KLAUSE. Now, let me explain this to you. When they opened the +shop up I started to work for approximately $35 a week, and what few +accounts I had, I turned over to the shop, and there was a couple of +little accounts, like friends of mine that I ran around with, rode +motorcycles with and things like that, that I kept for myself. And I +mean that was my spending money. And they made the understanding--we +made the understanding, when the shop was opened, that whatever little +jobs like that that I had, I could do on the side at night--as long as +it did not interfere with work during the day. + +Mr. JENNER. Did you tell your mother or stepfather that you had done +this work? + +Mr. KLAUSE. No, sir. + +Mr. JENNER. Did you tell them eventually? + +Mr. KLAUSE. Yes, sir. + +Mr. JENNER. They found out about it eventually? + +Mr. KLAUSE. Yes, sir. + +Mr. JENNER. You kept the money, did you? + +Mr. KLAUSE. Yes, sir. + +Mr. JENNER. Do you know General Edwin A. Walker, resigned? + +Mr. KLAUSE. No, sir. + +Mr. JENNER. Have you ever heard of him? + +Mr. KLAUSE. I have heard of him. + +Mr. JENNER. Did you ever have any contact with him? + +Mr. KLAUSE. No, sir. + +Mr. JENNER. Were you aware that Robert A. Surrey was associated with +General Edwin A. Walker at the time you made up these handbills? + +Mr. KLAUSE. No, sir. + +Mr. JENNER. Did you have any acquaintance with Robert A. Surrey other +than as a fellow employee at Johnson Printing Co.? + +Mr. KLAUSE. No, sir. + +Mr. JENNER. And this incident about which you have testified? + +Mr. KLAUSE. No, sir. + +Senator COOPER. May I ask a question there? Did Surrey ever tell you +what he intended to do with these throwaways, or posters, or make any +remarks about them at all? + +Mr. KLAUSE. No, sir. He just asked me to do the job--said he had a +customer that wanted it done. And that is all that was ever said about +it. + +Senator COOPER. He did not tell you what the customer wanted to do with +them? + +Mr. KLAUSE. No, sir. + +Mr. JENNER. But at the very outset he asked you to do this on the side? + +Mr. KLAUSE. Yes, sir. + +Senator COOPER. Mr. Chairman, I think I am going to have to leave now. +I have no further questions. + +(At this point, Senator Cooper left the hearing room.) + +Mr. JENNER. Have you ever heard of the American Eagle Publishing Co.? + +Mr. KLAUSE. Yes, sir. It takes a minute to ring a bell, but it rings a +bell. + +Mr. JENNER. Did you ever do any work for the American Eagle Publishing +Co.? + +Mr. KLAUSE. No, sir. + +Mr. JENNER. That is a company with which Mr. Surrey is associated? + +Mr. KLAUSE. Yes, sir; I believe so. That is why I heard that mentioned. + +Mr. JENNER. How did you become acquainted with that fact? And when? + +Mr. KLAUSE. I believe there was a discussion one day that sometimes on +jobs--I think this was done, we talked about this at Johnson at the +time. + +Mr. JENNER. At the time you were employed at Johnson? + +Mr. KLAUSE. Yes, sir. That jobs would come in that he would send +through--might not be too much commission in it or something, or might +not be a big job, where he would job through this place, which in turn +then would job back through Johnson. Then he would get probably a +markup plus a commission. How it is worked, I do not know, sir. + +Mr. JENNER. You were aware of the fact that Mr. Surrey and General +Walker were the two partners in American Eagle Publishing Co.? + +Mr. KLAUSE. No, sir. + +Mr. JENNER. But you knew he had some connection with the company--Mr. +Surrey? + +Mr. KLAUSE. Yes, sir. Like I said, he had mentioned it. + +Mr. JENNER. Mr. Surrey had mentioned it to you. Did he tell you he was +an officer of that company? + +Mr. KLAUSE. Well, as far as I knew, he was sole owner. + +Mr. JENNER. I see. + +Mr. KLAUSE. It is what I thought was an assumed name, like myself. I +do not know how the laws are here, but in Texas when you open up in +business, you have got to file an assumed name certificate--if it is +under an assumed name or your name or whatever the name is, you have to +file that business. + +Mr. JENNER. Do you have an assumed name certificate for your private +business? + +Mr. KLAUSE. Yes, sir. + +Mr. JENNER. What is it? + +Mr. KLAUSE. Klause Printing. + +Mr. JENNER. Were you not aware of the fact that Mr. Surrey had some +connection with General Edwin A. Walker? + +Mr. KLAUSE. No, sir. + +Mr. JENNER. At no time? + +Mr. KLAUSE. No, sir. + +Mr. JENNER. Did you ever see that tall yellow covered book published +almost like a pamphlet, published by the American Eagle Publishing Co., +which contained reprints of various news stories of the assassination? + +Mr. KLAUSE. Yes, sir; this might be hard to believe. I saw the book. In +fact, I think I have a copy of it. But to this day, I have yet to crack +the cover on it. I have never even opened it. + +Mr. JENNER. What I want to question you about--did you look at the back +of the book, the back cover of the book? + +Mr. KLAUSE. No, sir; I noticed the front, and put it in the car. I +carried it in the car for about a week, with a bunch of my scratch pads +I hand out to my customers. And one night I went home to unload the +car, and I unloaded everything out of the car and put it in the house. +And since then I never looked at it. + +Mr. JENNER. You never noticed that Surrey appears on the backside of +the back cover as the president of the American Eagle Publishing Co. + +Mr. KLAUSE. No, sir. + +Mr. JENNER. Have you ever heard of the Carousel Club in Dallas? + +Mr. KLAUSE. Yes, sir; I have heard of it. + +Mr. JENNER. Do you know where it is located? + +Mr. KLAUSE. All I can tell you, sir, it is downtown. I have never been +there. + +Mr. JENNER. You have never been there? + +Mr. KLAUSE. No, sir. + +Mr. JENNER. Did you ever meet Jack Ruby? + +Mr. KLAUSE. No, sir. + +Mr. JENNER. Did you ever see Jack Ruby prior to the 24th of November +1963? + +Mr. KLAUSE. No, sir; I have never seen him and have never met him. + +Mr. JENNER. You've never seen him before or since or on that day? + +Mr. KLAUSE. No, sir. + +Mr. JENNER. Did you ever have any business with him of any kind or +character? + +Mr. KLAUSE. No, sir; as soon as he was put in jail, from what I +understand, the biggest part of his property went up for sale, and the +people--some people that bought some of his property, or bought his +business, called on us to do a job. + +Mr. JENNER. This was after the assassination? + +Mr. KLAUSE. Yes, sir; this was after--in fact, I imagine sometime +after his trial. And I called on those people. We printed I think +500 letterheads and 500 envelopes, something like that, plus 2,000 +circulars about open from 7 until 2 in the morning, and then the dance +band who was there. In fact, they still owe the bill at the shop. In +fact from what I understand, that place is closed up again now. + +Mr. JENNER. Did Lettercraft Printing Co. ever do any work for Jack +Ruby, to your knowledge? + +Mr. KLAUSE. No, sir. + +Mr. JENNER. Did Johnson Printing Co. ever do any work for Jack Ruby, to +your knowledge? + +Mr. KLAUSE. No, sir; not to my knowledge. And I can assure you that +Lettercraft didn't, because if it had, it would have crossed my desk. + +Mr. JENNER. Were you generally aware of the jobs that went through +Johnson Printing? + +Mr. KLAUSE. That came to my press, yes sir. Now, Johnson--I don't know +whether you know it--it is a pretty good sized shop. It is one of the +biggest in Dallas. In fact, you could put my whole shop in just one +room over there. + +Mr. JENNER. When you talk about your shop you are talking about +Lettercraft? + +Mr. KLAUSE. Yes, sir; now, on the press that I was working on, nothing +ever came in; no, sir. + +Mr. JENNER. I think that will be all. May I look at my notes, Mr. +Chairman. + +Mr. DULLES. Have you told us in detail all your conversations with Mr. +Surrey, from the time that this particular job started until it was +concluded? + +Mr. KLAUSE. Yes, sir. + +Mr. DULLES. Did he tell you at all what his purpose was? + +Mr. KLAUSE. No, sir; the only thing I mentioned--he said he had a +customer that wanted it. + +Mr. JENNER. He did not identify the customer? + +Mr. KLAUSE. No, sir. + +Mr. DULLES. But he indicated he was doing this for a customer? + +Mr. KLAUSE. Yes, sir. + +Mr. DULLES. Do you recall whether at the time Mr. Surrey first spoke +with you about this job, it was publicly known that President Kennedy +was to visit Dallas? + +Mr. KLAUSE. It might have been; but not to my knowledge, sir. + +Mr. DULLES. You did not know at that time that President Kennedy was +going to visit Dallas? + +Mr. KLAUSE. No, sir. + +Mr. DULLES. And I think you have testified that your first contact with +Mr. Surrey about this was some 3 weeks before the visit? + +Mr. KLAUSE. Yes, sir. + +Mr. DULLES. Around the first of November that would be? + +Mr. KLAUSE. Yes, sir; now, it might have came out in the paper that +Mr. Kennedy was coming to Dallas, but we don't take the paper. And +usually by the time we get home and feed the kids, we don't have time +to read the paper anyway. We might watch the late movie on television. +We don't keep up with the news, which we should, but we don't. And +that is probably the way it got in without me knowing it. But I had no +knowledge at all. + +Mr. JENNER. Mrs. Klause works, does she? + +Mr. KLAUSE. Yes, sir. + +Mr. JENNER. And you both get home about the same time do you? + +Mr. KLAUSE. Yes, sir--the biggest part of the time we do. + +Mr. JENNER. How many children do you have? + +Mr. KLAUSE. We have three. + +Mr. JENNER. I exhibit to you another handbill which we will mark as +Commission Exhibit No. 1053. + +(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 1053 for +identification.) + +Mr. JENNER. For the purpose of the record, this is entitled "Wanted for +Murder," and it had a front view and profile of Mr. Khrushchev. It is +signed "Minutemen" in printing, with quotations. + +Have you ever seen that document before or one like it? + +Mr. KLAUSE. No, sir. + +Mr. JENNER. Do you see any form of type there that is the kind of type +that is reproduced in Lettercraft Printing? + +Mr. KLAUSE. No, sir. + +Mr. JENNER. Does that appear to be any type font or printing with which +you became familiar at Johnson Printing Co.? + +Mr. KLAUSE. No, sir; actually from a printer's viewpoint--just looking +at it from this angle here--that could be done off of a typewriter. +That looks more like a typewriter than it does off a Linotype machine. + +Mr. JENNER. And after its having been typed, then reproduced in the +fashion in which Commission Exhibit No. 996 was reproduced? + +Mr. KLAUSE. Yes, sir. + +Mr. JENNER. The mechanical processes you have described. You called it +a blanket? + +Mr. KLAUSE. Plate. + +Mr. JENNER. Make up a plate of the whole sheet--you photograph the +sheet, then make a plate, and reproduce from the plate? + +Mr. KLAUSE. Yes, sir. + +Now why I say it doesn't look like Linotype--in Linotype most of your +columns or your paragraphs are butted up straight. In other words, you +got straight edges on both sides. Whereas on a typewriter you cannot +flush. It takes somebody exceptionally skilled with a typewriter to +flush the corners. These edges here are not flush. + +Mr. JENNER. You are talking about the right-hand margin? + +Mr. KLAUSE. Yes, sir; you see your left hand is flush. Now on a +Linotype those on the right can be flushed. + +Mr. JENNER. Now, directing your attention to Commission Exhibit No. +996, are the right-hand margins of that material flushed as you call it? + +Mr. KLAUSE. These I would say were pretty close to being flush. It +would be more of a Linotype than this Exhibit No. 1053 here. + +Mr. JENNER. That would lead you to believe, then, that the copy on +Commission Exhibit No. 996 was produced in the first instance on a +Linotype machine? + +Mr. KLAUSE. Linotype or---- + +Mr. JENNER. A Ludlow? + +Mr. KLAUSE. Possibly. I was getting ready to Varitype. Varitype would +come up close to flushing it. + +Mr. JENNER. But Commission Exhibit No. 1053 does not stimulate your +recollection in any respect whatsoever? + +Mr. KLAUSE. No, sir. + +Mr. JENNER. You never heard about that handbill? + +Mr. KLAUSE. No, sir. + +Mr. JENNER. Wholly apart from never having seen it? + +Mr. KLAUSE. No, sir. + +Mr. JENNER. My handing it to you a moment ago was the first time you +ever knew of the existence of a handbill of that type? + +Mr. KLAUSE. Yes, Sir. + +Mr. JENNER. You never heard any discussion of it heretofore? + +Mr. KLAUSE. No, Sir. + +Mr. JENNER. Mr. Chairman, I have covered all of the details with Mr. +Klause. I have no further questions of him. + +Mr. DULLES. I have no more questions. We thank you very much, Mr. +Klause, for coming. We appreciate your testimony. + +Mr. KLAUSE. I am glad I can do what I can do. I would like to get this +straightened out. I feel real guilty about it. + +Mr. JENNER. Is there anything you would like to add, Mr. Klause? + +Mr. KLAUSE. No, sir; except that it is a mess, and that I am just a +poor country boy, I guess you would say, that got caught up in the +mess, and I strictly learned my lesson on this. + +I have hurt a bunch of people, especially my folks, and I have caused +a lot of trouble. I just feel real bad about it. That is all. If I had +taken time to have read the thing actually I don't think I would ever +have done it. + +But like I said, it was late at night, and I was in a hurry, and I +wanted to get it on and off. + +Mr. JENNER. And you needed the money. + +Mr. KLAUSE. And I needed the money; yes, sir. + +Mr. DULLES. What did you net on this? + +Mr. KLAUSE. $40. Actually, I think the stock was somewhere around $20. +I paid for the stock, and he in turn paid for the stock. + +Mr. DULLES. $40 was your profit on this? + +Mr. KLAUSE. Yes, sir. + +Mr. JENNER. $40 was the full profit to you? + +Mr. KLAUSE. Yes, sir. + +Mr. DULLES. Have you anything further, Mr. Jenner? + +Mr. JENNER. No; I have not. + +Mr. DULLES. The Commission will stand adjourned. + +(Whereupon, at 4:15 p.m., the President's Commission recessed.) + + + + +_Thursday, July 2, 1964_ + +TESTIMONY OF MARK LANE RESUMED + +The President's Commission met at 2 p.m., on July 2, 1964, at 200 +Maryland Avenue NE., Washington, D.C. + +Present were: Chief Justice Earl Warren, Chairman; and Representative +Gerald R. Ford, member. + +Also present were J. Lee Rankin, general counsel; and Norman Redlich, +assistant counsel. + + +The CHAIRMAN. The Commission will be in order. + +Mr. Lane, the last time you were here, we excused you as a witness. You +should be sworn again as a witness. + +Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you shall give before this +Commission will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the +truth, so help you God? + +Mr. LANE. I do. + +The CHAIRMAN. You may be seated, please. Mr. Rankin will ask you some +questions that were not entirely cleared up when you were here last +time. Would you proceed? + +Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Lane, you testified before the Commission the last time +on March 4, did you? + +Mr. LANE. Yes; I did. + +Mr. RANKIN. And you recall your testimony at that time? + +Mr. LANE. Well, it was rather long testimony. I recall portions of it; +yes, sir. + +Mr. RANKIN. Yes. Do you recall that you were asked about an interview +with Helen Markham? + +Mr. LANE. I recall testifying to that; yes. I don't know if I was asked +about it specifically, but I do recall testifying in reference to that +interview. + +Mr. RANKIN. If you would care to refer to your testimony at any time, +you are free to do so. + +Mr. LANE. Thank you. + +Mr. RANKIN. Do you have any writing from Mrs. Markham in connection +with the interview that you referred to in your testimony? + +Mr. LANE. Any document which Mrs. Markham wrote? Is that the question? + +Mr. RANKIN. Either that or anything that she signed which purports to +be her statement or affidavit or other recording. + +Mr. LANE. I have nothing that she signed or that she wrote. + +Mr. RANKIN. Do you have anything that you made up yourself from any +interview with her? + +Mr. LANE. Yes; I do. + +Mr. RANKIN. Do you have that with you? + +Mr. LANE. No; I do not. + +Mr. RANKIN. Will you describe that document? Is it a paper or a tape +recording, or what form does it have? + +Mr. LANE. It is a tape recording and a transcript of the tape recording +in writing. + +Mr. RANKIN. Was the tape recording made by you? + +Mr. LANE. I think we are now moving into an area where I would prefer +not to answer questions, quite frankly. I have given to the Commission +the results of my investigation, and I think that the Commission are +aware of the fact that I have an attorney-client relationship existing. +The Commission is now asking for working papers of an attorney. The +Supreme Court has been quite plain, I think, on the question of the +sanctity of working documents of attorneys. And I think, therefore, +that the questions are no longer in a proper area. + +I might also indicate to the Commission that when I was retained by +Marguerite Oswald to represent the interests of her son before this +Commission, and the Commission declined to permit me to so represent +Lee Oswald, it made it impossible for me to conduct the kind of +cross-examination before this Commission of witnesses that I would have +ordinarily conducted, and that entire conversation would have been in +the presence of the Commission, obviously, had I been permitted to +function as counsel for my client. + +Mr. RANKIN. Will you describe to the Commission the attorney and client +relationship that you claim to exist? + +Mr. LANE. Yes. I should think the Commission would be well aware +of that since I wrote to the Commission on the very day that I was +retained and sent, as I recall, an affidavit from my client, detailing +the purpose, the purpose of my being retained. I think that was during +the very early days of this year. + +Mr. RANKIN. Who was the client? + +Mr. LANE. Marguerite Oswald retained me to conduct an investigation in +reference to the charges that were made against her son, then deceased, +and to represent his interests before this Commission. + +Mr. RANKIN. And do you claim that that attorney-client relationship is +one that exists now? + +Mr. LANE. It does exist at the present time in relationship to a matter +peripheral to this investigation. It certainly did exist at the time of +my discussion with Mrs. Markham, and my discussion with Mrs. Markham +took place solely because of the existence of that relationship and to +further that relationship. + +Mr. RANKIN. Will you state what the peripheral matter is that you +referred to? + +Mr. LANE. It is the matter that Mrs. Oswald called you and spoke with +you on the telephone about yesterday, sir. + +Mr. RANKIN. What is that? + +Mr. LANE. It is in reference to a matter regarding the son of Mrs. +Markham. + +Mr. RANKIN. Will you tell whatever else there is in regard to that? + +Mr. LANE. Mrs. Oswald has specifically requested that--in fact, has +specifically directed me not to discuss that matter publicly--inasmuch +as you have that information--because she talked with me only after she +spoke with you, Mr. Rankin. And when she did speak with me, she told +me what she had told you precisely early in the day she had told me. I +think that the Commission does have that information. + +Mr. RANKIN. Are you refusing to disclose it, then? + +Mr. LANE. I have a specific direction from Mrs. Oswald, who retained me +in this peripheral matter just yesterday, not to discuss this matter +publicly, sir. She is presently herself involved in investigating this +matter, and told me specifically that any publicity in reference to +this matter would be harmful to her investigation. I would otherwise +be very happy to discuss the matter with you, as I have discussed +everything else quite publicly. + +Mr. RANKIN. And that is your reason for not disclosing it at this time? + +Mr. LANE. Yes; coupled with the fact that the Commission has this +information, because I assume that Mrs. Oswald did speak with you +yesterday. She told me that she did, and she gave you all the +information she had in this regard. I believe she gave you more +information than she gave to me, as a matter of fact, judging from what +she said to me. + +Mr. RANKIN. Do you claim to be acting for Mrs. Oswald on any other +matter than that in connection with her son? That is Helen Markham's +son? + +Mr. LANE. At the present time? + +Mr. RANKIN. At the present time. + +Mr. LANE. No; I am not. + +Mr. RANKIN. When did that relationship terminate? + +Mr. LANE. I don't recall the exact date, but it was sometime after my +testimony here, which was, I believe, on the 4th of March of this year. + +Mr. RANKIN. Can you fix it more precisely? + +Mr. LANE. I believe it was within 2 weeks after that date. I did +not bring with me the letter that I wrote to Mrs. Oswald explaining +that I could not function before the Commission as counsel because +the Commission would not permit me to function as counsel, and that +I agreed to serve on a citizen's committee which would conduct an +independent inquiry. And, therefore, since it seemed that there +was nothing further I could do on behalf of the original purpose +of our retainer, that we should probably conclude our professional +relationship as of that time had ended. I believe that is the substance +of the letter that I sent to Mrs. Oswald. And that is within 2 weeks of +March 4. + +Representative FORD. Mr. Rankin, may I raise a question about the +language which Mr. Lane uses to the effect that the Commission declined +to permit Mr. Lane to represent Mrs. Oswald? + +I think the record before the Commission on this matter will speak for +itself. I think to have the record clear, we ought to have that part of +the Commission proceedings inserted in the record at this point. + +Mr. LANE. I would like to correct a mistake that you made, Congressman. +I did not say that I was not permitted to serve as counsel for Mrs. +Oswald before the Commission. I said, I thought quite precisely, that +I had not been permitted by the Commission to serve as counsel to +represent the interests of Lee Harvey Oswald at the request of his +mother, Marguerite Oswald. + +Representative FORD. I think we should let the record speak for itself +at the time that this matter was raised before the Commission. + +The CHAIRMAN. That portion of the record may be incorporated in this +record at this particular time. + + Mr. LANE. I would just like to conclude on this note. + + I hope the Commission will give consideration to my request, which + the Commission has answered, but which again I would like at this + time to renew. That is, that I be permitted, at the request of Mrs. + Oswald, the mother of the accused, defendant, really, before this + Commission's hearing, to represent his interests here, to have + access to the material which you have access to, and the right to + present witnesses. + + It is not usual for an attorney representing a party to be given + an opportunity to testify, which is quite unusual--but rather to + be given the opportunity to present witnesses and to cross-examine + them. It has generally been my role in criminal cases. Never before + have I testified in behalf of a client. + + If it is the Commissioners' position that this is not a trial in + any respect, and therefore Oswald is not entitled to counsel, that + is the position with which I would like to respectfully offer a + dissent. + + The fact that Oswald is not going to have a real trial flows only + from his death, and he is not responsible with that having taken + place. Every right belonging to an American citizen charged with a + crime was taken from him up to and including his life. + + I think now that that episode is completed, hopefully never to + reappear ever again in our history, or anything close to it--I + think it would be proper to permit him to have counsel before the + Commission, counsel who can function on his behalf in terms of + cross-examining evidence and presenting witnesses. If it is the + Commission's position now that he is entitled to counsel, and the + Commission will appoint counsel, then I ask the Commission to + consider that the constitutional right to counsel involves the + right to counsel of one's choice, or in the event of the death of + a party, to counsel of the choice of the surviving members of the + family. + + If Marina Oswald, the widow, sought to have counsel represent + her husband I would think--here--I would think that would cause + a conflict and a problem, if the widow and also the mother made + the same request. But as I understand it no request has been made + by the widow, who has indicated to the press that she believes + her husband is guilty, and through her former business agent, Mr. + Martin, who I am told was secured for her by the Secret Service + as a business agent, she indicated that even a trial which might + prove he was innocent, she would still be sure he was guilty, and + has indicated since that time no desire to my knowledge to secure + counsel for her husband, her late husband, before the Commission. + + I think, then, the mother would, in almost any jurisdiction, be the + next person to make a decision in this area, and the mother has + made a decision, as you know. She has retained me to represent the + rights and interests of her son. + + I think under those circumstances it would be proper for the + Commission to permit me to participate. + + This, of course, is not a jury trial. With all due respect to the + integrity and background of each of the members of the Commission, + I suggest that it is not the function of the trying body to appoint + counsel, or the jury to appoint counsel, but in our society it + is just the reverse; it is the function of defense counsel to + participate in determining who the jury should be. + + Many criminal lawyers, very noted counsel, would probably seek to + excuse certain--and again no disrespect at all is meant to the + background of members of this Commission--but defense counsel + generally seeks to excuse as jurors those who are in any way + associated with the Government in a criminal case. And here we + have the Government appointing the jury, and then the jury picking + counsel, who also is Government connected at this time. I in no + way wish to raise the question of the integrity of any of the + members of the Commission or counsel or anyone else, or their + ability. But that truism about equality has some meaning in terms + of impartiality--everyone is impartial to some people, and more + impartial to other people. And counsel, in order to function, I + believe, must be totally independent and totally committed to the + responsibility of representing his client. + + But above all, he must be secured by someone who has the ability to + speak for the deceased, in this case his mother and his wife. And + under those circumstances, I renew my request that I be permitted + to, at the request of Lee Oswald's mother, who survives him--to + function before this Commission as counsel on his behalf. + + The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Lane, I must advise you that the Commission, as + you already know, has considered your request and has denied it. It + does not consider you as the attorney for Lee Oswald. Now, this is + not for any discussion. We are not going to argue it. You have had + your say, and I will just answer. + + Lee Oswald left a widow. She is his legal representative. She is + represented by counsel. This Commission is cooperating with her + in any way she may request. If anyone else wants to present any + evidence to the Commission, they may do so. But it is the view and + the wish--the will of the Commission--that no one else shall be + entitled to participate in the work and the deliberations of the + Commission. + + We asked you to come here today because we understood that you + did have evidence. We are happy to receive it. We want every bit + of evidence that you have. You may present anything that you wish + to us. But you are not to be a participant in the work of the + Commission. I assume you have some questions you would like to ask + Mr. Lane, Mr. Rankin? + +Mr. LANE. Well, then I ask also, Mr. Chief Justice, at this point the +letters, exchange of letters between Mr. Rankin and myself, where I +made the request to appear as counsel for the interests of Lee Harvey +Oswald, and where counsel for this Commission said that, Oswald was not +entitled to counsel, or that I could not represent him---- + +The CHAIRMAN. Let the record speak for itself in that respect, too. The +exchange of letters will be in the record. [See Commission Exhibit No. +1053.] + +Mr. LANE. Thank you, sir. + +Mr. RANKIN. Now, Mr. Lane, regarding this tape recording of Helen +Markham, and your interview with her, will you tell the Commission when +you made this? + +Mr. LANE. I had a conversation with Mrs. Markham on the 2d day of March +of this year. + +Mr. RANKIN. Where was that? + +Mr. LANE. I have given the Commission the results of that investigation +to the best of my ability. I think that, again, Mr. Rankin, your +question delves into the functioning of an attorney on behalf of a +client, and, therefore, is not proper, and, therefore, I decline to +answer it. + +Mr. RANKIN. Will you tell the Commission when you made the tape +recording that you referred to? + +Mr. LANE. I just answered that question, Mr. Rankin. + +Mr. RANKIN. And do you refuse to tell, then, anything about that +interview with Helen Markham, how you recorded it? + +Mr. LANE. I beg your pardon? + +Mr. RANKIN. And how you recorded it? + +Mr. LANE. I should think that since this Commission has been appointed +by the President of the United States to secure all of the information +regarding the assassination of President Kennedy and other matters +peripheral to that, the questions asked of me should be related to +information which can be of assistance to the Commission, and should +not be the kind of questions, Mr. Rankin, that you have put to me. + +I am happy to tell you every bit of information that I have been able +to secure as a private citizen in trying to discover what took place on +November 22 and the days that followed November 22, but I think that +the very questions that you are putting to me indicates that you are +not interested solely in securing that information, but in placing me, +Mr. Rankin, in a position which is not a good one. And I see this quite +frankly as part of many things that have happened to me since November +22--not November 22, but since I expressed some interest in this case. + +Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Lane, could you tell us whether there was anyone else +present at this interview with Helen Markham that you recorded? + +Mr. LANE. I don't believe that I said I recorded it. I believe I said +it was recorded. + +Mr. RANKIN. Was it recorded by someone else? + +Mr. LANE. I decline to answer any questions, because the questions you +are asking clearly are not for the purpose for which this Commission +has been established. And I tell you that I am amazed, quite frankly, +Mr. Rankin, that the kind of harassment to which I have been subjected +since I became involved in this case continues here in this room--I am +amazed by that. + +As you know, and I don't know if this has been placed on the record by +the Commission--in the letter that I wrote to you on May 18, 1964, I +told you that I had been accosted by two agents of the Federal Bureau +of Investigation in front of my own house, and ordered to give to them, +by them--their names being William E. Folkner, his serial number being +5954, and John P. Dimarchi, his serial number being 4256--and ordered +to give to those gentlemen documents in my possession, relating to my +testimony before this Commission. + +Mr. RANKIN. Did you do that? + +Mr. LANE. I did not give them those documents; no. + +Mr. RANKIN. Why not? + +Mr. LANE. Does your tone and your question indicate you think I should +have given those documents to agents of the FBI? + +Mr. RANKIN. I would like to have you answer the question, if you would. + +Mr. LANE. You decline to answer my question? + +Mr. RANKIN. Yes; I am examining you. + +Mr. LANE. Of course, I did not give them any documents in my +possession. When I deal with any agencies of the Government, I expect +that they will write to me, and if they wish to secure information from +me they will do that in a dignified manner. I am an attorney with an +office in New York. I don't expect to be accosted in front of my house +by agents of the police, Federal, State, or local authorities. Those +are the actions not of a democratic society, but of a police state, +and I decline to believe for one moment that we live in a society +where that behavior is going to be countenanced by any members of this +Commission or by counsel to this Commission. + +Mr. RANKIN. Did you offer to furnish them copies if they would write to +you in the manner you suggested? + +Mr. LANE. I suggested to those two agents that someone in the office of +the Federal Bureau of Investigation might write to me and that I would +respond courteously, and make available whatever information I could. I +told them, also, as I told you, since I wrote a letter to you covering +this entire matter on May 18th--I told them also that I had testified +fully before this Commission. If they wanted to secure any information +I had, they might contact the Commission. They indicated they were not +interested in the Warren Commission. + +Mr. RANKIN. Now, to return to the tape recording---- + +Mr. LANE. I would like to add one more point, if I may. It is a matter +which I discussed with you on the telephone 2 days ago. + +Mr. RANKIN. Is that in regard to the tape recording? + +Mr. LANE. No; it is not. + +Mr. RANKIN. Can we confine ourselves to that for a bit, until we +complete that. Can you tell us who else was present at the time of this +tape recording of Helen Markham that you describe? + +Mr. LANE. I would like to make this quite clear to you, Mr. Rankin. + +I am not going to discuss any working papers in my possession. Those +papers came into my possession as a result of an attorney-client +relationship. The Supreme Court has written decisions regarding the +sanctity of those documents. I think it is improper of you to ask +questions which delve into relationship of that nature. And I think you +know that the questions you are asking are improper. + +Mr. RANKIN. And if other people were present at the time of any such +matters and disclosures, does that make any difference under the law, +do you think? + +Mr. LANE. Present where? + +Mr. RANKIN. At the time of the tape recording and the interview. That +is what I am asking you. + +Mr. LANE. No one else was present. + +Mr. RANKIN. And who did the tape recording? + +Mr. LANE. Again you are delving into an area which is an improper one +for you to delve into. + +Representative FORD. Did you know about the tape recording being made? + +Mr. LANE. I beg your pardon? + +Representative FORD. Did you know about the tape recording being made? + +Mr. LANE. I decline to answer that question. + +Am I a defendant before this Commission, or is the Commission trying to +find out who assassinated the President? + +Representative FORD. We are trying to find out information about a +witness before this Commission---- + +Mr. LANE. Well, then, call the witness before the Commission and ask +the witness questions. And if the Commission--if the witness has +testified contrary to what I say the witness has said, then I would +suggest you do what I invited the Commission to do when this matter +arose. Submit my testimony and Mrs. Markham's testimony to the U.S. +attorney's office, and bring an action against both of us for perjury. +And then at that trial I will present documents in my possession, and +we will see who is convicted. + +Representative FORD. Do you believe Mrs. Markham is an important +witness in this overall matter? + +Mr. LANE. I would think so. + +Representative FORD. I am sure you know what she has told you. + +Mr. LANE. I know what she has told me, that is correct. + +Representative FORD. If there is any difference between what she told +you and told this Commission, is that important? + +Mr. LANE. Of course, it is important. And if there was someone +representing the interests of Oswald before this Commission, there +could be cross-examination, you sitting as judges could then base your +decision upon the cross-examination. But you have decided instead +to sit as judges and jurors and defense attorneys and prosecuting +attorneys, and you are faced with a dilemma. I cannot solve that +dilemma for you. + +Representative FORD. In order for us to evaluate the testimony she +has given us and what you allege she has given you, we must see the +information which you have at your disposal. + +Mr. LANE. I have told you precisely under oath what Mrs. Markham has +said to me. + +Mr. RANKIN. Are you unwilling to verify that with the tape recording +that you claim to have? + +Mr. LANE. I am unable to verify that because of an existing +attorney-client relationship, and you know that it would be improper +and unethical for me to give the answers to the questions which you +are asking. And that is why I am amazed that you persist in asking +questions which you know are improper and which would be unethical for +me to answer. + +Mr. RANKIN. And where was this tape recording made? + +Mr. LANE. You have my answer to questions about that already, Mr. +Rankin. + +Mr. RANKIN. Did you, yourself, have any conversation with Helen Markham +at anytime? + +Mr. LANE. Yes; I testified to that on March 4, and again today. + +Representative FORD. Is this tape recording of that conversation? + +Mr. LANE. Precisely. + +Mr. RANKIN. Can you tell us where the tape recording was made? + +Mr. LANE. I can tell you, but I will not tell you. + +Mr. RANKIN. Do you have any other reasons for not disclosing this +information to the Commission except your statement about the attorney +and client relationship that you describe? + +Mr. LANE. And the sanctity of working documents of an attorney. I have +no other reason whatsoever. + +Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Lane, the Commission has asked you a number of times to +disclose to it the name of the informant that you said told you about +having seen certain persons in the Carousel Club. Are you ready to +disclose the name of that informant now? + +Mr. LANE. I am ready, but as I told you when I gave you that +information at the outset, I gave my word of honor to that person +that I would not disclose his name unless he gave me permission to. I +have gone to Dallas on two separate occasions to try to secure that +permission. I have not been able to secure that permission. Nothing +would make me happier than giving you the name of that person; but I +have given my word of honor and, therefore, I am unable to give you +that name. + +Mr. RANKIN. Do you claim any attorney and client relationship with +regard to the name of that informant? + +Mr. LANE. I think there clearly exists an attorney-client relationship, +but that is not the motivating factor in my telling you that I will not +disclose the name. + +Mr. RANKIN. Is that the basis for your refusal to disclose the name? + +Mr. LANE. Obviously if I say yes, you cannot pursue this, but I must +tell you honestly that is not the reason. + +Mr. RANKIN. Then I ask you to disclose the name of the informant. + +Mr. LANE. I cannot. I have given my word to that person that I would +not disclose his name. + +Mr. RANKIN. You know that is no legal justification, do you not? + +Mr. LANE. I know that is true. There is no legal justification. I know +that I am not here under subpena. I know that you wrote to me while I +was in Europe, although you have the power of subpena--you do not have +the power to subpena me while I was in Europe. I know the Commission +will complete its work very likely within the next 2 weeks. I could +have easily remained in Europe until the Commission had completed its +work. + +I knew you were calling me here today in reference to that specific +matter because you said so in your letter to me. So I have come here +voluntarily to cooperate with the Commission to the very best of my +ability, and not to rely upon any legal superstructure to protect my +answers. + +I told this Commission at the outset that I had given my word to this +person, and I would not reveal his name. The Commission led me to +believe at that time that it would honor that understanding, and the +record, I think, so reveals that. If the Commission is prepared---- + +Mr. RANKIN. You base that upon the record at that time? You base your +claim that the Commission indicated that it would honor any such +understanding on the record that was made on March 4, do you? + +Mr. LANE. Yes; I think there is language there which indicates this. I +was not pressed at that time. We discussed the matter at that time. If +the Commission is at this point about to reverse its position, despite +an indication that it would honor that understanding, I am myself not +ready to break my honor, my commitment to that individual. I have not +done that ever in the past, and I will not do that now. + +Mr. RANKIN. The Commission has a number of times asked you by +correspondence to disclose the name of that informant, and it now +asks you in this proceeding, while you are under oath, to make that +disclosure. + +Mr. LANE. I will not do so, Mr. Rankin. + +Mr. RANKIN. Do you realize that the information you gave in closed +session could have an unfavorable effect upon your country's interests +in connection with this assassination and your failure to disclose the +name of your informant would do further injury? + +Mr. LANE. Mr. Rankin. I am astonished to hear that statement from you. +There are 180 million Americans in this country. I am perhaps the +only one who is a private citizen who has taken off the last 6 months +to devote all of his efforts to securing whatever information can be +found, and to making that known to this Commission, and publicly to +the people of this country at great personal cost in terms of the +harassment that I have suffered, in terms of the terrible financial +losses that I have suffered. And to sit here today, after 6 months of +this work, which I have given all to this Commission, voluntarily, +and again have come here again today voluntarily to give you this +information, and to hear you say that I am not cooperating with the +Commission, and I am going to do harm to the country by not making +information available to you astonishes me. + +You have hundreds of agents of the FBI running all over the Dallas +area--agents of the Secret Service, Dallas policemen. Are you telling +me that in one trip to Dallas where I spent something like 2 days, I +uncovered information which the whole police force of this Nation has +not yet in 6 months been able to secure? I cannot believe that is a +valid assessment of this situation. I cannot, Mr. Rankin. + +The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Lane, may I say to you that until you give us the +corroboration that you say you have, namely, that someone told you that +that was a fact, we have every reason to doubt the truthfulness of what +you have heretofore told us. And your refusal to answer at this time +lends further strength to that belief. If you can tell us, and if you +will tell us, who gave you that information, so that we may test their +veracity, then you have performed a service to this Commission. But +until you do, you have done nothing but handicap us. + +Mr. LANE. I have handicapped you by working for 6 months and making +all of the information which I have had available to you? I understand +very fully your position, Mr. Chief Justice. + +Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Lane, what did you come down to tell us or inform +the Commission about? You say you came here of your own volition in +order to help us, and to give us information. Now, what information +in light of the fact that I wrote you and asked you for two specific +things--whatever information you had in any recorded form concerning +your interview with Helen Markham, and secondly, the name of the +informant, neither of which you are willing to disclose or have said +anything to help the Commission on. + +Mr. LANE. I came here at your request that I interrupt my trip in +Europe to come back and testify before you. And I have done that. + +The CHAIRMAN. By denying--by refusing to answer either question. + +Mr. LANE. I think that--well. I have given you the reasons why I cannot +answer the question. With reference to Mrs. Markham, I should tell you +this, that I am hopeful that in the very near future I will be able +to make that document available to you by securing permission from my +client. But she has informed me at the present time that she is herself +involved in securing some information relative to this whole matter, +which you are familiar with, Mr. Rankin, and that she wishes there to +be no discussion at all at this point about this matter. + +Frankly, quite frankly, matters which have been given to this +Commission in utmost confidence have appeared in the daily newspapers, +and one cannot feel with great security that giving information to this +Commission, even at secret hearings, means that the information will +not be broadcast, and this is the problem which confronts us at the +present time. + +The CHAIRMAN. You know, do you not, that you and other witnesses have +been free to discuss their testimony before the Commission with the +public, and you, yourself, have done that, and that is one of the +reasons that things that were said before the Commission have been +divulged. You, yourself, have discussed fully your testimony before the +press and the radio and the television. + +Mr. LANE. Yes; I have. + +The CHAIRMAN. Other witnesses have done the same thing. No witness is +under compulsion to keep his testimony secret. Naturally, some things +would come out. + +Mr. LANE. Well, it seems to me that when the transcript of my--the +transcript of my testimony was sent to me, dealing with the portion in +executive session, every page had been marked "Top Secret." In fact, +it bore a legend across it saying that my testimony, which consisted +almost solely at the outset of my request that the hearings be open to +the public, was in fact related to the national defense of the United +States and it was a violation of the espionage laws for me to discuss +those matters publicly. + +The CHAIRMAN. Well, Mr. Lane, you know that you came right down from +your testimony, and I think in this very room, or at least on this +floor of this same building, discussed your testimony with the press +and the radio and the television. + +Mr. LANE. Oh, I most certainly did. My testimony was open to the +public. My testimony was unlike the rest of the testimony before the +Commission. + +The CHAIRMAN. Well, now, that is your judgment. Every witness knows +that he is under no compulsion to keep his testimony secret. They have +not done it. And many of them have come down here after their testimony +upstairs and have appeared on radio and television and have discussed +matters with the press. + +Mr. LANE. Yes; I know that that may very well be so, Mr. Chief Justice. +I was only making reference to matters such as the diary which has been +marked Top Secret, which has been published, and the press conferences +in which members of the Commission reported to the press the testimony +before them. + +Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Lane, when I wrote you, do you recall that I offered to +have the Commission pay your expenses to come back from Europe in order +to testify before the Commission at this time? + +Mr. LANE. Yes; you did. + +Mr. RANKIN. Are you asking that you be paid those expenses? + +Mr. LANE. I would expect that since you made that offer that is a +commitment you should keep. I would have remained in Europe; yes. + +Mr. RANKIN. And you did not tell me in any correspondence that you were +going to take the position that you could not make this disclosure +because of an attorney-client relationship, and that you were not going +to give us any information about the informant at this time? + +Mr. LANE. Mr. Rankin---- + +Mr. RANKIN. Did you? + +Mr. LANE. Yes; of course I told you that. I told you that on March 4, +and I have told you that in every letter which you have written to +me on these questions. I cannot understand how you can pretend to be +surprised or plead surprise at this point based upon my position before +the Commission which today, in July, is consistently the same position +I took in March, and consistently the same position I took in the +intervening months when I wrote to you, we exchanged correspondence, in +relationship to my position. + +Mr. RANKIN. And you did not in answer to my letter, when I offered +to pay your expenses, say that the only thing you could testify to +was that there was an attorney-client relationship and you would not +produce any of the records in regard to Helen Markham because of that, +or you did not say that you would not give us the name of the informant +because you had refused to disclose it, in answer to my letter, +offering to pay your expenses. You said nothing about anything of that +kind, did you? + +Mr. LANE. I never received your letter. You wrote it to my New York +address. I was in Europe traveling at the time. I received a phone call +from my office 3 days ago stating that you had asked that I return to +the United States to testify, and I immediately booked passage the +next morning, which was the first plane, in order to return, and to +be here before July 1, which was what your letter said. When I came +back, I received a phone call from you indicating that I was not needed +yesterday, but that today at 2 o'clock would be the appropriate time, +and so I came here today. And I am willing to---- + +Mr. RANKIN. Is that your answer? + +Mr. LANE. Yes; of course, it is my answer. I will give you all of the +information in my possession in reference to everything I have been +able to discover in order to assist this Commission. But what you are +asking at this point are sources. You are not asking for information. +You are asking for sources. And you know that it is improper to ask for +those sources. + +The CHAIRMAN. Even where there is no relationship of attorney and +client? + +Mr. LANE. It is not improper because there is a relationship in that +case. It is improper because I gave that testimony to you voluntarily +on March 4, explaining to the members of this Commission that I had +given my word of honor to this person not to disclose his name. + +Mr. RANKIN. Do you have anything else that you wish to disclose in +addition to such disclosures as you now have made to the Commission in +regard to the assassination of President Kennedy? + +Mr. LANE. There are three additional matters which have come to my +attention, which I am not at this point able to disclose because an +investigation is still being conducted in Dallas. But by Monday, +this coming Monday, I will be in a position to make that information +available to you. In addition to that---- + +Mr. RANKIN. Will this be in written form, signed statements and +affidavits, or what will you have for this? + +Mr. LANE. I don't understand your question, Mr. Rankin. + +Mr. RANKIN. Will you have it in any kind of a written form; the +additional testimony or evidence that you refer to? + +Mr. LANE. I cannot tell you that until Monday. In addition to that, as +I told you when we spoke on the phone 2 days ago, and you suggested +that I raise this matter before the Commission, I am deeply concerned +about the fact that since I have become involved in this matter, +and since I testified before this Commission, the U.S. Department +of Immigration has placed my name in their immigration book, on the +proscribed list, and that when I returned to this country, in response +to your invitation to come here and testify before this Commission, I +was halted by the immigration authorities because my name appeared in +that proscribed list. + +Mr. RANKIN. And I told you at that time on the telephone, didn't I, +that the Commission had nothing to do with that? Is that right? + +Mr. LANE. You did tell me that, and I ask you if you would be good +enough to find out, since I did not accuse the Commission of having +my name listed there, of course--to find out if my name was listed in +relationship to the inquiry which I have conducted, and the testimony +that I have given to this Commission. + +The CHAIRMAN. Were you prevented from entering the United States? + +Mr. LANE. No; I am here now, Mr. Chief Justice, but I was stopped. + +The CHAIRMAN. How long were you detained? Were you detained? + +Mr. LANE. Oh, just for a few minutes. + +The CHAIRMAN. How many minutes? + +Mr. LANE. Oh, perhaps 5. My objection is not to the period of time. + +The CHAIRMAN. What was the question asked of you? + +Mr. LANE. Just to wait. + +Mr. RANKIN. Wasn't there something else asked of you? + +Mr. LANE. Well, perhaps I should, then, tell you what happened. + +Mr. RANKIN. All right. You better answer that question of the Chief +Justice. + +The CHAIRMAN. That is a part of my question. I asked you: What did they +say to you? + +Mr. LANE. Well, there were three different persons. The first person +was at the desk, whose name I do not recall, but as an immigration +inspector said, "Kindly wait," and he returned within 5 minutes and +gave me back my passport and said, "You can pass through now." So not +a single question was asked of me by the immigration inspector who +discovered that my name was in the proscribed book. + +I, however, asked him if he could tell me why my name was in the book, +and he said that it was confidential material which he could not reveal +to me, and I asked him if he would be good enough to tell me the name +of his superior officer so that I might discuss the matter with him. He +referred me to Mr. J. J. Daley, also an immigration inspector, and Mr. +Daley asked me if perhaps I had gone to Cuba, and I said to him I had +never been to Cuba; I had only been out of the country where a passport +was required twice in my life, both within the last 6 months. The only +time prior to then I had left the country was when I was a soldier in +the U.S. Army, and I was sent to Europe--not to Cuba at that time. + +He said, "Well, then, I can't understand it." And I asked if I could +see his superior officer. And he referred me to W. T. McArnity, who +was the officer in charge. He told me that perhaps there was just some +mistake made, but could give me no further information. He referred +me to Mr. Espardy, who is the district director, I believe, of the +Immigration Department, and Mr. Espardy said merely, "I am not going to +tell you a thing." That is where the entire matter rested, and where it +rests now. + +Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Lane, when you asked your informant if you could +disclose the information that we have asked you about--and we have +asked you the name of the informer--did you tell him that the +Commission had indicated to you that his name would not be publicly +revealed if he would allow you to disclose it to the Commission? + +Mr. LANE. I most certainly did. + +Mr. RANKIN. And what was his response? + +Mr. LANE. He wondered whether that meant his name might not be revealed +anywhere--if not by the members of the Commission, perhaps somehow it +might be revealed. + +Mr. RANKIN. Is that what he said? + +Mr. LANE. That is precisely what he said. + +Representative FORD. When did he tell you that? + +Mr. LANE. When I spoke with him; I think it was during March or April +of this year, after I testified before the Commission. + +Representative FORD. Have you made any further inquiry in that regard? + +Mr. LANE. Have I? + +Representative FORD. Yes. + +Mr. LANE. I spoke with him one more time. + +Representative FORD. Since your return from Europe? + +Mr. LANE. No; I just arrived 2 days ago. + +Mr. RANKIN. When was the last time you spoke to him about disclosing +his name? + +Mr. LANE. I would think it was during April of this year. + +Mr. RANKIN. When in April? + +Mr. LANE. I don't recall the exact date. When I was last in Dallas. + +Mr. RANKIN. Can you give us a closer approximation than that? + +Mr. LANE. I really cannot. I believe it was in April; perhaps toward +the middle of April, but I am not certain. + +Representative FORD. Was it by telephone? + +Mr. LANE. No; I saw him in person. I went down to see him. + +Representative FORD. You saw him in Dallas? + +Mr. LANE. Yes; well, near Dallas. + +Mr. RANKIN. Do you consider, Mr. Lane, that you have cooperated with +the Commission as much as you can in regard to both of these matters, +Helen Markham and this informant? + +Mr. LANE. Yes; I think there is no question but that I have. Frankly, +when I returned to the country, I had thought that it would be not +difficult for me to make available to you all the documents regarding +Mrs. Markham. I had planned to do that. + +(At this point, Representative Ford withdrew from the hearing room.) + +Mr. LANE. I felt that I would be able to be released from the +attorney-client stricture so that I could do that. It was not until +after I returned that I received a phone call from Mrs. Oswald, after +she called you, related this new development in relationship to the +Markhams, which has at this point handicapped my being able to secure +permission to release that information. I had intended to do that. + +I am hopeful that in the next few days it will be possible to give you +that information, as I said earlier. + +The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Lane, you told us what your attorney relationship +was, but, really, I did not understand it very clearly. Will you tell +us what your present attorney relationship is that causes you to rely +upon it in refusing to tell us about this recording that was made at +the time of the conversation between you and Helen Markham? + +Mr. LANE. I don't have a present attorney-client relationship in +relation to that particular matter. I, at that time, had been retained +by Marguerite Oswald to investigate the charges against her son and +peripheral matters, and, in conformity and in furtherance of that +retainer, I conducted an interview with Mrs. Markham. + +The CHAIRMAN. And---- + +Mr. LANE. And that is one of the working documents in my possession. + +The CHAIRMAN. How does that become a peripheral matter--the +conversation that you had with Mrs. Markham? What does that have to do +with Mrs. Oswald? + +Mr. LANE. I secured that information on behalf of an attorney-client +relationship when I was serving my client, Mrs. Oswald. + +The CHAIRMAN. But, Mr. Lane, you at that very time, when you claimed to +be, and when you were, the attorney for Mrs. Oswald, you did come here +and testify concerning that conversation with Mrs. Markham. + +Mr. LANE. Yes. + +The CHAIRMAN. NOW, if you testified concerning it then, why can't +you now tell us all the circumstances surrounding that? Why is your +privilege any different now than it was then? + +Mr. LANE. I explained to Mrs. Oswald that I had been called to testify +before the Commission as a witness, and that the information which I +had secured I had secured on her behalf, and discussed with her what +it is I was going to tell the Commission, and she agreed and gave me +permission to testify before the Commission as I did. + +The CHAIRMAN. And since that time she instructed you not to testify? + +Mr. LANE. Since that time, just actually 2 days ago--or perhaps it +was yesterday--she instructed me not to discuss the entire Markham +situation at all, quite specifically, and quite strongly, and +insistently, over my objection. + +Mr. RANKIN. Is it your position, then, that you have a right to +disclose part of the information about the Helen Markham matter to the +Commission and you don't have a duty to disclose all of it? + +Mr. LANE. I think that when one has a client, one has the right, if +one secures the permission of the client, to release the results +of investigation while retaining the sanctity of working documents +belonging to an attorney; yes. + +I think there is a clear distinction. + +Mr. RANKIN. It is your contention you can hold back part of it so that +the Commission then is not able to verify what you do tell, the part +you do tell? + +Mr. LANE. Well, of course---- + +Mr. RANKIN. Is that your position? + +Mr. LANE. No, and I haven't said anything, I think, even comparable to +that. I said one can testify if one has permission of the client in +terms of the result of an investigation conducted by a client. + +Mr. RANKIN. Your conclusion about the testimony? Is that what you mean? + +Mr. LANE. Not my conclusion. The result of the investigation, the +result of inquiry. But at the same time it does not mean that an +attorney's working documents are no longer sanctified documents. + +Mr. RANKIN. About the same matter; is that right? + +Mr. LANE. Of course, about the same matter. Yes. + +Mr. RANKIN. Do you know of any law to support that position? + +Mr. LANE. That an attorney's working documents---- + +Mr. RANKIN. Can be withheld about a matter that he purports to give +testimony concerning? + +Mr. LANE. I have not researched the question; no. Do you have law +indicating that is inaccurate? + +Mr. RANKIN. I think it is quite inaccurate. If you come before any +body, the Commission or any court, and purport to disclose part of a +matter, I know of no law that permits you to withhold the rest. + +Mr. LANE. Well, it is not a question of disclosing part of a matter. +There is a conclusion of an investigation. For example, I assume +that this Commission will report its conclusions, but they may not +necessarily report every portion of the working documents before this +Commission, because these are two separate areas. One is a conclusion, +and one is the working documents. I have reported the conclusion, +but that does not mean, in my view, that the working documents of an +attorney, therefore, are no longer privileged. + +Mr. RANKIN. What you purported to report was what you said was her +testimony in regard to these incidents, was it not? + +Mr. LANE. It was not her testimony. It was a statement that she made to +me. + +Mr. RANKIN. Her statement she made to you? + +Mr. LANE. Yes. + +Mr. RANKIN. You purported to give that to the Commission. + +Mr. LANE. I did give it to the Commission. + +Mr. RANKIN. And then you said you had a recording of it; is that right? + +Mr. LANE. That is correct. + +Mr. RANKIN. And you are not---- + +Mr. LANE. I don't think I ever said that to the Commission. + +Mr. RANKIN. You are saying it now, are you not? + +Mr. LANE. Yes; I am saying it now. + +Mr. RANKIN. And you are not willing to have the Commission have the +recording to check the accuracy of your report about what the testimony +or statement was, is that right? + +Mr. LANE. I am not in a position to give you that document. I have said +that several times; yes, sir. I don't understand why it is not possible +to call Mrs. Markham and to call me and to have us confront each other. +I think clearly the Commission would then secure the facts. I would be +happy to participate in such a confrontation. It seems to me to be the +order---- + +The CHAIRMAN. Wouldn't you then be violating your attorney-client +privilege just the same? + +Mr. LANE. No; I don't have such a privilege--a relationship at the +present time. That relationship terminated, as I said, in March. + +The CHAIRMAN. Well, you would freely discuss, though, the things that +occurred while the attorney-client privilege did prevail, or did exist? + +Mr. LANE. No; I would merely ask Mrs. Markham a series of questions. + +The CHAIRMAN. Oh, yes; you would like to make the inquisition your own, +but you are unwilling to testify before this Commission. + +Mr. LANE. I don't think that an effort to represent a man who is +being tried in absentia, after he was killed in the custody of +police officers, is the same as asking for permission to conduct an +inquisition, with all due respect to you, Mr. Chief Justice. + +The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Lane, you have manifested a great interest in Lee +Harvey Oswald and his relationship to this entire affair. According to +you, Mrs. Markham made a statement that would bear upon the probability +of his guilt or innocence in connection with the assassination. Mrs +Markham has definitely contradicted what you have said, and do you +not believe that it is in your own interest and in the interests of +this country for you to give whatever corroboration you have to this +Commission so that we may determine whether you or she is telling the +truth? + +Mr. LANE. I have given you all the information that I am permitted to +give to you and to members of the Commission. I understand from Mr. +Rankin that Mrs. Markham denies that she ever talked with me. Is that +correct? + +The CHAIRMAN. You needn't ask Mr. Rankin any questions. You won't +answer the questions of this Commission, and he is not under +examination by you at the present time. + +Mr. LANE. I have answered questions. I spoke for about 85 pages, +without a single question being put to me, because I was anxious to +give to this Commission all the information in my possession. + +The CHAIRMAN. Yes, but you did not give us all the information. You did +not tell us that you had a recording of what Mrs. Markham said to you. +Now, we ask you for verification of that conversation, because she has +contradicted you. You say that you have a recording, but you refuse to +give it to this Commission. + +Mr. LANE. I am not in a position to give you that recording. I have +made that quite plain. Because of a matter which has arisen in the last +3 or 4 days, which I was made aware of yesterday for the first time, I +am not in a position to do that. Hopefully, I will be in a day or two. + +The CHAIRMAN. We heard that when you were here in March--hopefully you +would be able to tell us who this informant of yours was in Dallas +concerning the so-called meeting between Jack Ruby and others in his +nightclub. And we have been pursuing you ever since with letters and +entreaties to give us that information so that we might verify what +you have said, if it is a fact, or disproving it if it is not a fact. +Here we pay your expenses from Europe, bring you over here, and without +telling us at all that you won't answer that question, you come before +the Commission and refuse to testify. Do you consider that cooperation? + +Mr. LANE. Mr. Chief Justice, I believe I am the only citizen in this +country who has devoted 6 months to securing information at his own +expense. You talk about what it cost to go to Europe. I have gone to +Europe twice, and I have paid for those trips myself. I have traveled +all over this country. I have gone to Dallas five times. I have paid +for those trips myself, and I am not in a position financially to do +that, but I have done that to give you this information. + +The CHAIRMAN. Were you getting evidence over in Europe? + +Mr. LANE. No; I was discussing this case, because of the suppression +in this country of the facts. I felt it important that somehow the +American people be informed about what is taking place, and I found +that practically the only way to inform the American people is to speak +in Europe. + +The CHAIRMAN. Have you charged admission for any of your speaking? + +Mr. LANE. Have I charged admission? + +The CHAIRMAN. Yes. + +Mr. LANE. No; I have not charged admission. + +The CHAIRMAN. Do you collect any money in this country at the speeches +that you made? + +Mr. LANE. Did I, personally, collect any money? + +The CHAIRMAN. Did you have money collected? + +Mr. LANE. I collected no money. + +The CHAIRMAN. Did you have any money collected? + +Mr. LANE. I did not. + +The CHAIRMAN. Was there money collected at that meeting--at those +meetings that you had? + +Mr. LANE. I spoke at probably 40 different college campuses throughout +the United States. + +The CHAIRMAN. Was money collected at those places? + +Mr. LANE. To my knowledge, at none of those meetings was money +collected. At one or two or perhaps three other meetings, funds have +been collected for the purpose of paying the salary of the secretary of +this citizens committee of inquiry, and to pay the rent. + +The CHAIRMAN. Who got the money? + +Mr. LANE. The citizens committee of inquiry. + +The CHAIRMAN. Who is the head of that? + +Mr. LANE. I am the chairman of that. + +The CHAIRMAN. Who else belongs to it? + +Mr. LANE. Among others, Jessica Mitford, who is the author who wrote +"The American Way of Death," a best-selling book; Sterling Hayden, who +is an actor; a number of attorneys, some in California, some in New +York; and a number of others. I did not know that I was going to be +questioned about the makeup of the citizens committee. Otherwise, I +would have brought the entire membership list. + +The CHAIRMAN. I didn't intend to ask you, but we are trying to get +information about these different things that you considered vital +in the assassination of the President. And it is a matter of great +concern to the Commission that you are unwilling to tell us about those +things that you considered bear upon the guilt or innocence of Lee +Harvey Oswald. And it handicaps us greatly in what we are trying to +do, because of the things that you do say when you are away from the +Commission, and then when you refuse to testify before us as to those +very things that you discuss in public. + +Mr. LANE. I have not said anything in public, Mr. Chief Justice, that I +have not said first before this Commission, or at one time before this +Commission. + +The CHAIRMAN. But, before your audiences, do you not claim to be +telling the truth and to be verifying the things that you tell them, +and then when you come here you refuse to give us the verification? + +Mr. LANE. When I speak before an audience, I do hold myself out to be +telling the truth, just as when I have testified before this Commission +I have also told the truth. + +Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Lane, you expressed a desire in your telegram to +examine the rifle. We have that here for you to see. Let the record +show that at this time the Commission is giving Mr. Lane an opportunity +to examine the rifle known as Commission Exhibit No. 139. + +Mr. LANE. Thank you. May I comment upon the examination? + +The CHAIRMAN. Yes; you may; if you saw anything of any significance +there, you may state it. + +Mr. LANE. Yes. I would like to call to the attention of the Commission +the affidavit signed by a police officer, Seymour Weitzman, dated the +23d day of November 1963, the original of which was at one time in the +office of the district attorney of Dallas. In that document, Officer +Weitzman states he found, along with another person--a deputy sheriff, +I believe, or a deputy of some sort--the alleged murder weapon, on the +22d day of November 1963, on the sixth floor of the Book Depository +Building. + +And in that affidavit Mr. Weitzman--Officer Weitzman--swears that the +murder weapon which he found, or the weapon which he found on that +floor, was a Mauser 7.65 millimeters. A Mauser, of course, is a German +weapon. The rifle which is before the Commission, and which is, I +assume, allegedly now the murder weapon, is, of course, not a German +Mauser 7.65 millimeters, but is an Italian carbine, 6.5 millimeters. + +Although I am personally not a rifle expert, I was able to determine +that it was an Italian carbine because printed indelibly upon it +are the words "Made Italy" and "caliber 6.5." I suggest it is very +difficult for a police officer to pick up a weapon which has printed +upon it clearly in English "Made Italy, Cal 6.5," and then the next day +draft an affidavit stating that that was in fact a German Mauser, 7.65 +millimeters. + +The CHAIRMAN. Very well. Anything further? We will take a short recess, +then. + +(Brief recess.) + +The CHAIRMAN. Gentlemen, the Commission will come to order. There is +nothing further at this time. The meeting is adjourned. + +(Whereupon, at 3:20 p.m., the President's Commission recessed.) + + + + +STATEMENT OF PRESIDENT LYNDON B. JOHNSON + + + THE WHITE HOUSE, + _Washington, July 10, 1964_. + + The Honorable EARL WARREN, + _The Chief Justice of the United States, + Washington, D.C._ + +MY DEAR MR. CHIEF JUSTICE: I have attempted, in the enclosed +statement, to set forth my recollection of the tragic events of +November 22, 1963. I am conscious of the limitations of my narrative. +I had no opportunity, in the difficult and critical days following +the assassination of President Kennedy, to record my impressions. +Recollection at this late date is necessarily incomplete. + +However, I fully realize the great importance of your task, and I have +endeavored, as best I can, to set forth the events and my impressions +as they remain in my mind at this time. Although I fear that they will +be of little specific use to you, I hope that they may be of some +interest. + +I hope that you and the members of your Commission, as well as the +devoted members of the staff who have worked so long and diligently on +this undertaking, will accept my thanks and good wishes. + + Sincerely, + + LYNDON B. JOHNSON. + +[Enclosure.] + + * * * * * + +[Statement of the President, Lyndon Baines Johnson, concerning the +events of November 22, 1963] + +Friday morning, November 22, began with a reception in the Longhorn +Room of the Hotel Texas, Fort Worth. President and Mrs. Kennedy and +Mrs. Johnson and I had spent the night in that hotel. Then, President +Kennedy and I went to a parking lot across from the hotel where a +speaker's stand had been set up and we addressed a crowd that was +gathered there. We then returned to the hotel and had breakfast. + +After that, at about 10:30 a.m., we motored to the Fort Worth airfield. +Mrs. Johnson and I then went aboard _Air Force II_ for the trip to +Dallas. + +We arrived at Love Field in Dallas, as I remember, just shortly after +11:30 a.m. + +Agents Youngblood and Johns and two other agents were with us. + +We disembarked from the plane promptly after it came to a stop at Love +Field. We were met by a committee of local officials and citizens. +After greeting them, Mrs. Johnson and I, together with the special +agents, walked over to the area where President and Mrs. Kennedy would +disembark. We were followed by the reception committee. + +President Kennedy's plane arrived about 5 or 10 minutes after _Air +Force II_. The President and Mrs. Kennedy disembarked and they greeted +us and the people in the reception committee. + +Then the President and Mrs. Kennedy walked along the fence, shaking +hands with people in the crowd that had assembled. Mrs. Johnson and I +followed along the fence, greeting people and shaking hands. This took +5 or 10 minutes, as I recall. + +Mrs. Johnson, Senator Ralph Yarborough, and I then entered the car +which had been provided for us in the motorcade. It was a Lincoln +Continental convertible. I think that our car was the fourth in the +motorcade. We were the second car behind the President's automobile. + +The driver of the car in which Mrs. Johnson and I were riding was +Hurchel Jacks, who is a member of the Texas State Highway Patrol. Agent +Youngblood was sitting next to him in the front seat. + +I was sitting behind Agent Youngblood; Mrs. Johnson was next to me; +and Senator Yarborough was on the left of the rear seat--that is, just +behind the driver. + +At first, as we left Love Field and proceeded through the +less-populated areas, the crowds were thin. I recall, however, that +Mrs. Johnson and I and Senator Yarborough commented upon the good +spirit and obvious good wishes of the crowd. As we drove closer to +town, the crowds became quite large. + +We made several stops as a result of stops by the automobiles ahead of +us. I did not get out of the car, but on occasion a few people broke +from the crowd and ran over, and I shook hands with several people on +these occasions. + +The motorcade proceeded down Main Street and then turned right on +Houston. It then turned into Elm, which is a block, I believe, beyond +the intersection of Main and Houston. The crowd on Elm Street was +smaller. + +As the motorcade proceeded down Elm Street to the point where the +assassination occurred, it was traveling at a speed which I should +estimate at 12 or 15 miles and hour. + +After we had proceeded a short way down Elm Street, I heard a sharp +report. The crowd at this point had become somewhat spotty. + +The Vice-Presidential car was then about three car lengths behind +President Kennedy's car, with the Presidential followup car intervening. + +I was startled by the sharp report or explosion, but I had no time to +speculate as to its origin because Agent Youngblood turned in a flash, +immediately after the first explosion, hitting me on the shoulder, and +shouted to all of us in the back seat to get down. I was pushed down by +Agent Youngblood. Almost in the same moment in which he hit or pushed +me, he vaulted over the back seat and sat on me. I was bent over under +the weight of Agent Youngblood's body, toward Mrs. Johnson and Senator +Yarborough. + +I remember attempting to turn my head to make sure that Mrs. Johnson +had bent down. Both she and Senator Yarborough had crouched down at +Agent Youngblood's command. + +At some time in this sequence of events, I heard other explosions. It +was impossible for me to tell the direction from which the explosions +came. + +I felt the automobile sharply accelerate, and in a moment or so Agent +Youngblood released me. I ascertained that Mrs. Johnson and Senator +Yarborough were all right. I heard Agent Youngblood speaking over his +radio transmitter. I asked him what had happened. He said that he was +not sure but that he had learned that the motorcade was going to the +hospital. + +I did not see anything that was going on in and around the President's +automobile. + +When we arrived at the hospital; Agent Youngblood told me to get out of +the car, go into the building, not to stop, and to stay close to him +and the other agents. When the car came to a stop, a cordon of agents +formed around me, and we walked rapidly into the hospital and then we +went into a room there. + +Because of the method which Agent Youngblood directed for leaving the +car and entering the hospital, I did not see the Presidential car or +any of the persons in it. + +In the hospital room to which Mrs. Johnson and I were taken, the shades +were drawn--I think by Agent Youngblood. In addition to him, two or +three other agents were there. + +As I remember, we got our first specific report from Emory Roberts, one +of the agents from the White House detail. He told us that President +Kennedy had been very badly injured and that his condition was quite +poor. He said that he thought we should make plans to get back to +Washington immediately. + +I asked about Governor Connally and was told that he, too, had been +shot, but that his wound was not serious. I was told that Mrs. Kennedy +and Mrs. Connally were uninjured and that no one else had been hurt. + +Mrs. Johnson and I asked if we could see Mrs. Kennedy and Mrs. +Connally. Agent Youngblood told me that I could not leave the room, and +I followed his direction. + +Mrs. Johnson was allowed to leave for this purpose. + +At some time during these events, Kenneth O'Donnell, Congressman Jack +Brooks, Congressman Homer Thornberry, and Cliff Carter came into the +room. + +It was Ken O'Donnell who, at about 1:20 p.m., told us that the +President had died. I think his precise words were, "He's gone." +O'Donnell said that we should return to Washington and that we should +take the President's plane for this purpose. + +I found it hard to believe that this had happened. The whole thing +seemed unreal--unbelievable. A few hours earlier, I had breakfast with +John Kennedy; he was alive, strong, vigorous. I could not believe now +that he was dead. I was shocked and sickened. + +When Mr. O'Donnell told us to get on the plane and go back to +Washington, I asked about Mrs. Kennedy. O'Donnell told me that Mrs. +Kennedy would not leave the hospital without the President's body, and +urged again that we go ahead and and take _Air Force I_ and return to +Washington. + +I did not want to go and leave Mrs. Kennedy in this situation. I said +so, but I agreed that we would board the airplane and wait until Mrs. +Kennedy and the President's body were brought aboard the plane. + +It is, of course, difficult to convey an accurate impression of the +period of time that we were in the hospital room. We were all stunned. +I suppose we were in a state of shock and there was no time for the +shock to wear off sufficiently so that the magnitude of our personal +loss of this great man and good friend could express itself in words or +in surface feelings. + +I suppose, actually, that the only outlet for the grief that shock had +submerged was our sharp, painful, and bitter concern and solicitude for +Mrs. Kennedy. + +Despite my awareness of the reasons for Mr. O'Donnell's insistence--in +which I think he was joined by one or more of the Secret Service +agents--that we board the airplane, leave Dallas, and go to Washington +without delay, I was determined that we would not return until Mrs. +Kennedy was ready, and that we would carry the President's body back +with us if she wanted. + +We left the room and were ushered by a cordon of agents to cars which +were awaiting us. At Agent Youngblood's insistence, I entered one car +and Mrs. Johnson another. Agent Youngblood and I were sitting in the +back seat and Congressman Thornberry was in the front seat. + +As we started away from the hospital, Congressman Albert Thomas came up +to the car. He saw Congressman Thornberry--I don't think he saw me--and +he asked the Congressman to wait for him. At my direction, the car +stopped and picked him up and he sat in the front seat with Congressman +Thornberry. I am sure this didn't take as much as minute. Congressman +Thornberry then climbed over and got into the back seat with us. + +When we got to the airport, we proceeded to drive to the ramp leading +into the plane, and we entered the plane. + +We were ushered into the private quarters of the President's plane. It +didn't seem right for John Kennedy not to be there. I told someone that +we preferred for Mrs. Kennedy to use these quarters. + +Shortly after we boarded the plane, I called Robert Kennedy, the +President's brother and the Attorney General. I knew how grief-stricken +he was, and I wanted to say something that would comfort him. Despite +his shock, he discussed the practical problems at hand--problems of +special urgency because we did not at that time have any information as +to the motivation of the assassination or its possible implications. +The Attorney General said that he would like to look into the matter of +whether the oath of office as President should be administered to me +immediately or after we returned to Washington, and that he would call +back. + +I thereafter talked with McGeorge Bundy and Walter Jenkins, both of +whom urged that the return to Washington should not be delayed. I told +them I was waiting for Mrs. Kennedy and for the President's body to be +placed on the plane, and would not return prior to that time. + +As I remember, our conversation was interrupted to allow the Attorney +General to come back on the line. He said that the oath should be +administered to me immediately, before taking off for Washington, +and that it should be administered by a judicial officer of the +United States. Shortly thereafter, the Deputy Attorney General, Mr. +Katzenbach, dictated the form of oath to one of the secretaries aboard +the plane. + +I thought of Sarah Hughes, an old friend who is judge of the U.S. +district court in Dallas. We telephoned Judge Hughes' office. She was +not there, but she returned the call in a few minutes and said she +would be at the airplane in 10 minutes. I asked that arrangements be +made to permit her to have access to the airplane. + +A few minutes later Mrs. Kennedy and the President's coffin arrived. +Mrs. Johnson and I spoke to her. We tried to comfort her, but our words +seemed inadequate. She went into the private quarters of the plane. I +estimate that Mrs. Kennedy and the coffin arrived about a half hour +after we entered the plane--just after 2 o'clock. + +About a half hour later, I asked someone to find out if Mrs. Kennedy +would stand with us during the administration of the oath. Mrs. Johnson +went back to be with her. Mrs. Kennedy came and stood with us during +the moments that the oath was being administered. + +I shall never forget her bravery, nobility, and dignity. + +I'm told that the oath was administered at 2:40 p.m. Mrs. Johnson and +Mrs. Kennedy were at my side as Judge Hughes administered the oath of +office. + +The plane took off promptly after the swearing-in ceremonies. I +then called President Kennedy's mother, Mrs. Rose Kennedy. She had +previously been advised of the assassination. I told her of our grief +and of our sorrow for her. I gave the telephone to Mrs. Johnson, who +also tried to bring a word of comfort to the President's mother. I +then called Nellie Connally, the Governor's wife, and told her of our +concern for her and John, and tried to give her some comfort. + +I then asked General Clifton, the military aide to the President, to +call McGeorge Bundy in Washington to instruct him to ask the Cabinet +members who were on their way to Japan to return immediately. + +When we landed at the Andrews Air Force Base, I made a short statement +for the press, radio, and television. In my heart, I asked for God's +help that I should not prove unworthy of the responsibility which fate +had thrust upon me. + + LYNDON B. JOHNSON. + + + + +STATEMENT OF MRS. LYNDON B. JOHNSON + + + THE WHITE HOUSE, + _Washington, July 16, 1964_. + + The Honorable EARL WARREN, + _The Chief Justice of the United States, + Washington, D.C_. + +MY DEAR MR. CHIEF JUSTICE: Mr. Lee Rankin, chief counsel to the +President's Commission on the Assassination of President Kennedy, has +advised me that the Commission would be interested to have a statement +from me concerning my recollection of the events of November 22, 1963. + +Beginning on November 30, and as I found time on the following 2 days, +I dictated my recollection of that fateful and dreadful day on a small +tape recorder which I had at The Elms, where we were then living. I +did this primarily as a form of therapy--to help me over the shock and +horror of the experience of President Kennedy's assassination. I did +not intend that the tape should be used. + +The quality of the tape recording is very poor, but upon considering +your Commission's request, I decided to ask that the tape relating to +November 22 be transcribed. I am sending the transcription to you with +only a few, minor corrections. Perhaps it will serve your purposes. I +hope so. In any event, it is a more faithful record of my recollection +and impressions than I could produce at this late date. + +Please accept, for yourself and the members of the Commission and its +staff, my thanks and best wishes for the important task which you +have undertaken and to which all of you have so generously dedicated +yourselves. + + Sincerely, + (S) Lady Bird Johnson, + Mrs. LYNDON B. JOHNSON. + +[Enclosure.] + + * * * * * + +[Transcript from Mrs. Johnson's tapes relating to November 22, 1963] + +It all began so beautifully. After a drizzle in the morning, the sun +came out bright and beautiful. We were going into Dallas. In the lead +car, President and Mrs. Kennedy, John and Nellie, and then a Secret +Service car full of men, and then our car--Lyndon and me and Senator +Yarborough. The streets were lined with people--lots and lots of +people--the children all smiling; placards, confetti; people waving +from windows. One last happy moment I had was looking up and seeing +Mary Griffith leaning out of a window waving at me. Mary for many years +had been in charge of altering the clothes which I purchased at a +Dallas store. + +Then almost at the edge of town, on our way to the Trade Mart where we +were going to have the luncheon, we were rounding a curve, going down +a hill, and suddenly there was a sharp loud report--a shot. It seemed +to me to come from the right, above my shoulder, from a building. Then +a moment and then two more shots in rapid succession. There had been +such a gala air that I thought it must be firecrackers or some sort +of celebration. Then, in the lead car, the Secret Service men were +suddenly down. I heard over the radio system, "Let's get out of here," +and our Secret Service man who was with us, Ruf Youngblood, I believe +it was, vaulted over the front seat on top of Lyndon, threw him to the +floor, and said, "Get down." + +Senator Yarborough and I ducked our heads. The car accelerated +terrifically fast--faster and faster. Then suddenly they put on the +brakes so hard that I wondered if they were going to make it as we +wheeled left and went around the corner. We pulled up to a building. I +looked up and saw it said "Hospital." Only then did I believe that this +might be what it was. Yarborough kept on saying in an excited voice, +"Have they shot the President?" I said something like, "No; it can't +be." + +As we ground to a halt--we were still the third car--Secret Service men +began to pull, lead, guide, and hustle us out. I cast one last look +over my shoulder and saw, in the President's car, a bundle of pink, +just like a drift of blossoms, lying on the back seat. I think it was +Mrs. Kennedy lying over the President's body. They led us to the right, +the left, and onward into a quiet room in the hospital--a very small +room. It was lined with white sheets, I believe. + +People came and went--Kenny O'Donnell, Congressman Thornberry, +Congressman Jack Brooks. Always there was Ruf right there, Emory +Roberts, Jerry Kivett, Lem Johns, and Woody Taylor. There was talk +about where we would go--back to Washington, to the plane, to our +house. People spoke of how widespread this may be. Through it all, +Lyndon was remarkably calm and quiet. Every face that came in, you +searched for the answers you must know. I think the face I kept seeing +it on was the face of Kenny O'Donnell, who loved him so much. + +It was Lyndon as usual who thought of it first, although I wasn't going +to leave without doing it. He said, "You had better try to see if you +can see Jackie and Nellie." We didn't know what had happened to John. +I asked the Secret Service men if I could be taken to them. They began +to lead me up one corridor, back stairs, and down another. Suddenly I +found myself face to face with Jackie in a small hall. I think it was +right outside the operating room. You always think of her--or someone +like her--as being insulated, protected; she was quite alone. I don't +think I ever saw anyone so much alone in my life. I went up to her, +put my arms around her, and said something to her. I'm sure it was +something like, "God, help us all," because my feelings for her were +too tumultuous to put into words. + +And then I went in to see Nellie. There it was different because Nellie +and I have gone through so many things together since 1938. I hugged +her tight and we both cried and I said, "Nellie, it's going to be all +right." And Nellie said, "Yes; John's going to be all right." Among her +many other fine qualities, she is also tough. + +Then I turned and went back to the small white room where Lyndon was. +Mr. Kilduff and Kenny O'Donnell were coming and going. I think it was +from Kenny's face and Kenny's voice that I first heard the words, +"The President is dead." Mr. Kilduff entered and said to Lyndon, "Mr. +President." + +It was decided that we would go immediately to the airport. Quick plans +were made about how to get to the car, who to ride in what. It was +Lyndon who said we should go to the plane in unmarked cars. Getting out +of the hospital into the cars was one of the swiftest walks I have ever +made. We got in. Lyndon said to stop the sirens. We drove along as fast +as we could. I looked up at a building and there already was a flag at +half-mast. I think that is when the enormity of what had happened first +struck me. + +When we got to the airplane, we entered airplane No. 1 for the first +time. There was a TV set on, and the commentator was saying, "Lyndon +B. Johnson, now President of the United States." They were saying they +had a suspect. They were not sure he was the assassin. The President +had been shot with a 30-30 rifle. On the plane, all the shades were +lowered. Lyndon said that we were going to wait for Mrs. Kennedy and +the coffin. There was discussion about when Lyndon should be sworn in +as President. There was a telephone call to Washington--I believe to +the Attorney General. It was decided that he should be sworn in in +Dallas as quickly as possible because of international implications, +and because we did not know how widespread this incident was as to +intended victims. Judge Sarah Hughes, a Federal judge in Dallas--and I +am glad it was she--was called to come in a hurry. + +Mrs. Kennedy had arrived by this time and the coffin, and there--in the +very narrow confines of the plane with Jackie on his left with her hair +falling in her face, but very composed, and then Lyndon, and I was on +his right, Judge Hughes with the Bible in front of her and a cluster +of Secret Service people and Congressmen we had known for a long +time--Lyndon took the oath of office. + +It's odd at a time like that the little things that come to your mind +and a moment of deep compassion you have for people who are really not +at the center of the tragedy. I heard a Secret Service man say in the +most desolate voice and I hurt for him, "We never lost a President in +the Service," and then Police Chief Curry, of Dallas, came on the plane +and said to Mrs. Kennedy, "Mrs. Kennedy, believe me, we did everything +we possibly could." + +We all sat around the plane. We had at first been ushered into the main +private Presidential cabin on the plane--but Lyndon quickly said, "No, +no" and immediately led us out of there; we felt that is where Mrs. +Kennedy should be. The casket was in the hall. I went in to see Mrs. +Kennedy and, though it was a very hard thing to do, she made it as easy +as possible. She said things like, "Oh, Lady Bird, it's good that we've +always liked you two so much." She said, "Oh, what if I had not been +there? I'm so glad I was there." I looked at her. Mrs. Kennedy's dress +was stained with blood. Her right glove was caked--that immaculate +woman--it was caked with blood, her husband's blood. She always wore +gloves like she was used to them. I never could. Somehow that was one +of the most poignant sights--exquisitely dressed and caked in blood. +I asked her if I couldn't get someone in to help her change, and she +said, "Oh, no. Perhaps later I'll ask Mary Gallagher, but not right +now." + +She said a lot of other things, like, "What if I had not been there? +Oh, I'm so glad I was there," and a lot of other things that made it +so much easier for us. "Oh, Lady Bird, we've always liked you both +so much." I tried to express something of how we felt. I said, "Oh, +Mrs. Kennedy, you know we never even wanted to be Vice President and +now, dear God, it's come to this." I would have done anything to help +her, but there was nothing I could do to help her, so rather quickly I +left and went back to the main part of the airplane where everyone was +seated. + +The ride to Washington was silent, strained--each with his own +thoughts. One of mine was something I had said about Lyndon a long time +ago--that he's a good man in a tight spot. I even remember one little +thing he said in that hospital room, "Tell the children to get a Secret +Service man with them." + +Finally, we got to Washington, with a cluster of people watching. Many +bright lights. The casket went off first; then Mrs. Kennedy. The family +had come to join them, and then we followed. Lyndon made a very simple, +very brief, and--I think--strong, talk to the folks there. Only about +four sentences, I think. We got in cars; we dropped him off at the +White House, and I came home. + + + + +_Tuesday, July 28, 1964_ + +TESTIMONY OF AMBASSADOR LLEWELLYN E. THOMPSON + +The President's Commission met at 3 p.m., on July 28, 1964, at 200 +Maryland Avenue NE., Washington, D.C. + +Present were Senator John Sherman Cooper (presiding), and Allen W. +Dulles, members. + +Also present were J. Lee Rankin, general counsel; W. David Slawson, +assistant counsel; and Richard A. Frank, attorney, Office of the Legal +Adviser, Department of State. + + +Senator COOPER. The Commission will be in order. + +Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to give before +this Commission is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the +truth, so help you God? + +Ambassador THOMPSON. I do. + +Mr. SLAWSON. Mr. Ambassador, could you please state for the record your +full name and address? + +Ambassador THOMPSON. My name is Llewellyn E. Thompson. I reside at 1913 +23d Street NW., Washington. + +Mr. SLAWSON. And could you state your present position with the U.S. +Government and the positions you have held since late 1959? + +Ambassador THOMPSON. In 1959 I was Ambassador in Moscow, and then I was +transferred to the State Department as Ambassador at Large, and have +been that since that time. In addition, I am now Acting Deputy Under +Secretary of State. + +Mr SLAWSON. Thank you. Ambassador Thompson has been asked to testify +today on any contacts he may have had with Lee Harvey Oswald while the +Ambassador was in his post with the American Embassy in Moscow and on +any knowledge he may have on pertinent Soviet practices or American +practices at that time which might relate to the treatment of Mr. +Oswald. + +Ambassador Thompson, could you state all of the times and describe them +when you heard about Lee Harvey Oswald's dealings with your Embassy at +Moscow while he was in Russia, either in late 1959 or thereafter? + +Ambassador THOMPSON. Yes; the only recollection I have is that when I +returned from a trip to the United States in November 1959, or some +time after that, the consul informed me about the case, and said this +man had asked to renounce his citizenship. I recall asking him---- + +Mr. DULLES. Was that Consul Richard E. Snyder? + +Ambassador THOMPSON. Yes; I am almost certain of that. I recall asking +him why he didn't accept the renunciation, and he explained that +in cases of this kind he normally waited to make sure the man was +serious, and also in order to normally consult the State Department. + +I believe he told me at that time that the man had not come back again. +And I believe that is the only recollection I have of the case at all +at the time I was in Moscow. + +Mr. SLAWSON. And that includes any other time thereafter, including +through 1962? + +Ambassador THOMPSON. Yes; of course I read the press and was aware of +the case when it came up in the Department. There was some discussion +of it. But no knowledge that I think would bear on the case. + +I recall, I think, being in Germany at the time I read in the press +that he was leaving the country--leaving Moscow, that is. But I don't +recall having been consulted about his application to leave. + +Mr. SLAWSON. Did you have any personal dealings or any knowledge of +your subordinates' dealings with Marina Oswald, Lee Oswald's wife, when +she applied to accompany him back to the United States in early 1961 +and frequently thereafter? + +Ambassador THOMPSON. None that I recall. + +Mr. SLAWSON. Mr. Ambassador, I wonder if you could make any comments +you would like to make on the policy which Consul Snyder and others +testifying for the Department of State have described in their +treatment of Americans who sought to renounce their citizenship when +they came to Moscow, and how these Americans were handled? + +Ambassador THOMPSON. Well, I am aware that we have had cases where +someone would say they wanted to renounce their citizenship and then +after a few days in the Soviet Union change their minds. And while I +don't recall any specific cases, I do know we have had cases of that +sort. + +Mr. SLAWSON. Was there any particular time in your career when this +sort of thing was more frequent than other times--any groups of people +where it might have occurred? + +Ambassador THOMPSON. Well, I know that prior to my arrival in Moscow +in 1941, when I was Secretary in the Embassy, that there had been a +great influx from the United States, particularly of people of Finnish +origin, who had returned to the Soviet Union. I think that some of +those people at least had not renounced their citizenship; they had +come over there under the impression that they would receive very good +treatment, and a great many of them applied subsequently to return to +the United States. But many of them were unable to get exit visas. + +Mr. SLAWSON. Were those that did not give up their American citizenship +usually able to return to the United States if they changed their mind? + +Ambassador THOMPSON. I believe so. I know of one case of a man of +Finnish origin who worked for the Embassy, and he did return to the +United States. It is the one case I know of personally. I am quite sure +there were some others who did get out. + +Mr. SLAWSON. Shifting now to the Soviet treatment of American +defectors, or would-be defectors, are there any cases in your +experience where you could comment on the Soviet treatment of such +persons, how quickly the Russian Government made up its mind whether it +wanted them for permanent residence in Russia and so on? + +Ambassador THOMPSON. I think that in recent times, at least, my +impression is that the Soviets, because of bad experience they have +had with some people who came there to reside, and renounced their +citizenship, have looked these people over and let them know that they +could not remain. I think there was a case since I left the Soviet +Union of that sort. I don't recall the exact particulars. But I do have +the impression that they now don't automatically accept people who +come and say they want to renounce their citizenship and would like to +reside there. + +Mr. SLAWSON. Can you give the Commission any estimate on the time +periods that sometimes are involved in the Soviet authorities making up +their mind? + +Ambassador THOMPSON. I think that there has been at least a case or two +during the time I was there where it was pretty obvious that the person +concerned was unstable and that the Soviets very quickly let the person +know that he could not reside. But since I did not handle these cases, +I do not--I could not cite any specific cases. + +Mr. SLAWSON. Mr. Ambassador, I have a name of an American citizen, Mr. +William Edgerton Morehouse, Jr., who, according to the records of the +Department of State, was hospitalized in a hospital in Moscow in the +fall of 1959. + +According to records furnished us by the Russian Government, and +according to the personal diary kept by Lee Harvey Oswald, he, too, +was hospitalized in the latter part of October, and commented--Oswald +commented in his diary--that in his ward with him was what he described +as an elderly American. We are trying to locate that American. We think +that possibly this Mr. Morehouse was that person. I wonder if you had +ever heard of Mr. Morehouse before, or know who he might be? + +Ambassador THOMPSON. I have no recollection of having heard of this man +before. + +Mr. SLAWSON. Do you have any recollection of any other American that +might fit this description? + +Ambassador THOMPSON. No; I do recall that there have been American +tourists who have been in the hospital in Moscow. But I don't recall at +that particular date whether there were any. + +Mr. SLAWSON. Mr. Ambassador, can you comment on how Americans were +ordinarily given medical treatment in the Botkinskaya Hospital in +Moscow, which was the hospital in which Oswald was treated, to the best +of your knowledge? + +Ambassador THOMPSON. The Botkinskaya Hospital has a section which +is reserved for the members of the diplomatic corps, and in case of +prominent Americans, particularly if the illness were serious, they +were often treated there. + +Mr. SLAWSON. You say the Americans normally were treated in a special +ward in that hospital, or a special section of it? + +Ambassador THOMPSON. Yes; it was a completely separate building, I +believe. + +Mr. SLAWSON. Was this the invariable method of treatment, or would +there be a reasonable chance that an American might have gone into a +normal Soviet ward which would have treated his type of illness? + +Ambassador THOMPSON. I would think that the ward which was reserved for +the diplomatic corps would probably only have been used for important +visitors, but it is quite a large hospital, with a large number of +separate buildings. It is quite possible for Americans to have been in +one or the other. And obviously, if there were an infectious disease, +they would be separated, and not in the regular section. + +Mr. SLAWSON. If an ordinary American tourist or businessman in Moscow +were to receive an injury in, say, an automobile accident or some other +normal method, would he normally be put into the same ward as Embassy +people were placed, or would he receive treatment right along with +normal Soviet citizens? + +Ambassador THOMPSON. I think that there is an emergency hospital type +where he probably would normally be taken, rather than Botkinskaya. I +cannot be sure of this. But we had an American doctor in the Embassy +who would normally be called in on cases of this kind, and if he felt +the case required it he would probably apply to have him taken to +Botkinskaya. + +Mr. SLAWSON. Do you recollect who this doctor was in the fall of 1959? + +Ambassador THOMPSON. I believe at that time it was an Air Force +officer. It sometimes rotated among the services. But I am almost +certain it was an Air Force officer. I could get the name, but I don't +recall it at the moment. I just don't recall the name. + +Senator COOPER. I suggest that the Secretary can supply the name for +the Commission. + +Mr. SLAWSON. Mr. Ambassador, do you think it would be usual of the +Soviet Government to permit someone in Oswald's circumstances, that is +a would-be defector from his own government, to be treated in the same +ward as other Americans, or particularly as Americans who might come +under the category of this important person or Embassy official ward +you were speaking of? + +Ambassador THOMPSON. I would think it is probably somewhat unusual. +This doctor could give you expert testimony on this, because he has +been involved in almost all cases. + +Mr. DULLES. Do you happen to know whether that doctor is in the United +States at the present time? + +Ambassador THOMPSON. He was in Texas the last I heard. I draw a blank +on his name at the moment, although I know him quite well. + +Mr. SLAWSON. I think with the lead you have given us, we shouldn't have +any difficulty in finding his name. I have no other questions. Does +anyone else present care to place a question? + +Senator COOPER. It appears from the testimony that we have heard that +Lee Oswald appeared at the Embassy on October 31, 1959, and stated he +wished to renounce his American citizenship. As I understand, at that +time you were out of the Soviet Union. + +Ambassador THOMPSON. That is correct. + +Senator COOPER. Was Edward L. Freers, Chargé d'Affaire? + +Ambassador THOMPSON. Yes, sir. + +Senator COOPER. Was there a consulate in Moscow? + +Ambassador THOMPSON. There is a consular section of the Embassy, but +not a separate consulate. + +Senator COOPER. Who had charge of the consulate section of the Embassy? + +Ambassador THOMPSON. At that time I believe it was Mr. Richard Snyder. + +Senator COOPER. And was he the one who advised you on your return to +Moscow that Oswald had applied to the Embassy and stated that he wished +to renounce his citizenship? + +Ambassador THOMPSON. I believe that is correct. I think the counselor +was also present at the time. I think both of them informed me. + +Senator COOPER. We have had in evidence dispatches from the Embassy +at Moscow upon this question, and the matter was referred to the +Department of State as to what steps should be taken towards his +renunciation. Was that the normal way of the Embassy handling such +applications for renunciation of citizenship? + +Ambassador THOMPSON. Yes, sir; I believe that would be done in every +case. + +Senator COOPER. Did the State Department have any policy, other +than reference to the State Department, as to the approval of such +applications? + +Ambassador THOMPSON. I believe our practice is that whenever we are +convinced that the man is serious, and knows what he is doing, that +this is allowed to take place--the renunciation is accepted. + +Senator COOPER. Is there a policy or practice of attempting to +determine whether the person is serious, or whether the person might +change his or her mind after the original renunciation application? + +Ambassador THOMPSON. Yes; that is correct. Because, as I said earlier, +there have been cases where people have changed their minds in a very +few days. Also, there is always the possibility that someone might be +temporarily of unsound mind or some other reason, why it would need to +be ascertained that they were aware of what they were doing. + +Senator COOPER. There is also in evidence a letter, or a dispatch from +the Embassy to the Department of State, dated May 26, 1961, signed for +the Ambassador by Edward L. Freers, minister counselor. This dispatch +deals with the application of Oswald to secure a renewal of his +passport. Were you out of Moscow at that time? + +Ambassador THOMPSON. What was the date, sir? + +Senator COOPER. May 26, 1961. + +Ambassador THOMPSON. I believe I was in Moscow at that time. I took a +trip within the Soviet Union from May 10 to 14, 1961, but I believe I +was there on May 9. + +Senator COOPER. Then these dispatches, they were sent in your name, or +by someone for the Ambassador? + +Ambassador THOMPSON. Yes; but I don't recall having been shown them. + +Mr. SLAWSON. For the record, Senator Cooper, could I state that the +dispatch of May 26, 1961, you referred to is Commission Exhibit No. +936, and the memorandum you are also reading from is Commission Exhibit +No. 935. + +Mr. DULLES. How were those signed, Mr. Slawson? + +Mr. SLAWSON. Commission Exhibit No. 935 is signed for the Ambassador +by Boris H. Klosson, counselor for political affairs. And Commission +Exhibit No. 936 is signed for the Ambassador by Edward L. Freers, +minister counselor. + +Senator COOPER. I might also refer to the earlier dispatch November 2, +1959, Commission Exhibit No. 908. + +Now, were the procedures followed with respect to his request for +renewal of his passport--that is in reference to the Department of +State, for decision--was that the normal procedure followed when +persons who had attempted to renounce or had renounced, claimed or +desired to secure renewal of their passport--to refer it to the +Department of State? + +Ambassador THOMPSON. Yes, sir; I think in every case that would be done. + +Senator COOPER. Now, between the time of Oswald's entrance into the +Soviet Union and his exit, did you ever see Oswald yourself? + +Ambassador THOMPSON. No, sir; I never saw him that I knew of. + +Senator COOPER. Did you hear anything about him during his stay in the +Soviet Union? + +Ambassador THOMPSON. My only recollection is of this first briefing. I +don't recall hearing anything else about him. + +Senator COOPER. In evidence it has appeared that not too long after he +came to Moscow, he went to Minsk and secured a job there. + +From your experience as Ambassador, our Ambassador in Russia, and also +in other positions in the Embassy, would you consider that unusual, +that Oswald should be able to secure a job in a Russian factory while +he was there? + +Ambassador THOMPSON. No, sir; I think that once they had agreed to let +him stay in the Soviet Union, they would have assisted him in obtaining +employment, because they believe that everyone that is able to in the +country should work, and since he was obviously not staying just as a +tourist, I think they would normally have provided employment for him. + +Senator COOPER. Also in evidence it indicates he was provided by the +Soviet officials with a passport or document which described him as a +stateless person. + +From your experience would you be able to say whether or not that was a +normal procedure for the Soviets to follow with respect to an American +tourist? + +Ambassador THOMPSON. I think that as long as they agreed to let him +stay beyond the normal time of a tourist, that is a month or at the +most 2 months, that they would then provide him with documentation so +he could identify himself to the police. The police would not normally +be able to read an American passport. In the Soviet Union, if you +travel at all, you have to produce documentation--to stay in a hotel, +very often to obtain transportation. So I think it would be normal that +they would provide him with documentation. + +Senator COOPER. Would you say that in late 1959, or 1960 or 1961 that +the provision by the Soviet Union officials to a tourist of a document +like this, saying he is a stateless person, and allowing him to stay +beyond the usual time, for a tourist, was ordinary or usual? Would that +indicate anything unusual to you, from your experience in the Embassy +in Moscow? + +Ambassador THOMPSON. No; I think not. I think that in cases of this +kind that this would be normal. + +Senator COOPER. Would it indicate in any way that they might be +considering further his application to become a citizen of the Soviet +Union or, in another way, that they were considering whether or not he +might be used as an agent of the Soviet Union? + +Ambassador THOMPSON. Well, I think there have been a good many cases +of people who have come to the Soviet Union from abroad, and I believe +that a number of them have not formally renounced citizenship. I recall +that in 1941, when Germany attacked the Soviet Union, that there were a +number of people who turned up that we had not known were in the Soviet +Union, had never been near the Embassy, and had never, as far as we +know renounced their citizenship. But they had been living there all +this time. + +Senator COOPER. You would not have any reason to think, then, that +these circumstances might indicate that the Soviets were--could +consider using him as an agent at some future time? + +Ambassador THOMPSON. I would not have much on which to base a judgment +on that, other than that it seems to me, of course, possible, in this +or any other case in which a foreigner has come in to reside. But as I +say there have been a great many cases. + +For example, there are many people of Armenian origin who have returned +to the Soviet Union and have been encouraged to do so by the Soviet +Government. And in view of the very large numbers, I would think that +the intention to use any of them as an agent would be very rare. + +As far as I can understand, they encouraged them to come back because +they wanted their skills available. + +Senator COOPER. When he applied for a renewal of his passport, his +wife, Marina, made application for a passport. And I believe it was +said that that was a prerequisite to securing an exit visa from the +Soviet Union. + +From your experience as Ambassador and in other posts in the American +Embassy, do you consider the time in which she was able to secure an +exit visa from Russia, within so short time, as unusual? + +Ambassador THOMPSON. Well, if it was a short time--and I am not aware +of the exact time, myself--but if it were a short time, I would say it +is unusual, because we have had cases that drag out over years, and in +many cases, of course, they never get an exit visa. + +Senator COOPER. Well, perhaps without reference to time, from your +experience, have you found that--do you know whether it was difficult +for a Soviet citizen, such as Marina Oswald, even though she might be +married to an American--that it is difficult for them to secure an exit +visa from the Soviet Union? + +Ambassador THOMPSON. Yes; it is very difficult. + +Senator COOPER. Do you know the basis for that? Is it that they do not +want to permit the exit of any Soviet citizen? + +Ambassador THOMPSON. I think that except in the cases of rather elderly +people, they have not wanted any of their people to leave permanently. +They let them go on tourist trips abroad, but not for permanent +residence. As you possibly know, leaving the Soviet Union without +permission is one of the most severely punished crimes you can commit +in the Soviet Union. + +Senator COOPER. What was that? + +Ambassador THOMPSON. Leaving without permission. + +Senator COOPER. Would the fact that there was a child born to Lee +Oswald and Marina Oswald have altered this practice of the Soviet +Union, as far as any experience that you have had or any knowledge you +have had about such cases? + +Ambassador THOMPSON. I think the existence of a child born in the +Soviet Union would normally make it more difficult for a person to +secure an exit visa. + +Mr. SLAWSON. Mr. Ambassador, in the facts of the Oswald case they +applied to leave the Soviet Union, of course, well before their first +child was born, and in fact probably received Soviet permission to +leave in late December 1961, and the child, I believe, was born in +February 1962--although the Oswalds in fact did not leave until very +early June 1962. + +They nevertheless had received Soviet permission to do so before the +child was born. + +In light of that fact, could you comment further upon the perhaps +greater difficulty of leaving when you have a child? + +Ambassador THOMPSON. Well, I think probably having once processed the +case and agreed to let the husband and wife leave, that they would have +been more inclined then to let the child leave than if the case had +been considered after the child was born. + +Senator COOPER. I take it the policy of the United States would be +the reverse--that is, because Marina was the wife of Lee Oswald, and +because the baby had been born, the practice of the United States would +be to grant a passport to Marina for the child. + +Ambassador THOMPSON. I believe that is right, on compassionate grounds. + +Senator COOPER. Are you familiar with the testimony about a loan that +was made to the Oswalds in order to help them get back to the United +States? + +Ambassador THOMPSON. I have read in the press that they had received +the normal loan. + +Senator COOPER. Can you say anything about that as a practice of the +American Government? + +Ambassador THOMPSON. I only know that in general where a citizen wishes +to return to the United States and doesn't have the means to do so, +that we frequently do assist them. This goes back many years. But I +haven't been myself concerned in this for probably 25 years, or even +more. + +Senator COOPER. But is it the practice that if a determination has been +made that the individual is an American citizen, therefore entitled to +what protections are given to American citizens, if necessary, loans +will be made to assist them to return to the United States? Is that +about the basis of the policy? + +Ambassador THOMPSON. That is correct; yes, sir. + +Senator COOPER. I think that is all I have. + +Mr. DULLES. Did you have any conversations at any time while you were +Ambassador or after you returned to the United States with any Soviet +official with regard to the Oswald case? + +Ambassador THOMPSON. I discussed with the Soviet Ambassador the desire +of the Commission to receive any documentation that they might have +available, but I did not in any way discuss the case itself, nor did +the Soviet official with whom I talked. + +Mr. DULLES. And do you know of any conversations of that nature that +any other official of the Department had in connection with the Oswald +case? + +Ambassador THOMPSON. I do not myself know of any. + +Mr. DULLES. You probably would, would you not, if that had taken +place--of any importance? + +Ambassador THOMPSON. Off the record. + +(Discussion off the record.) + +Mr. DULLES. Your testimony is you have no knowledge of any other +conversations other than that of the Secretary of State, in connection +with communications to and from the Soviet Government on this case? + +Ambassador THOMPSON. That is correct. I know of no other cases where it +was discussed with Soviet officials. + +Mr. DULLES. That is all I have. + +Mr. SLAWSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Ambassador. + +(Whereupon, at 3:40 p.m., the President's Commission adjourned.) + + + + +_Wednesday, September 2, 1964_ + +TESTIMONY OF C. DOUGLAS DILLON + +The President's Commission met at 12:05 p. m., on September 2, 1964, at +200 Maryland Avenue NE., Washington, D.C. + +Present were Chief Justice Earl Warren, Chairman; Senator Richard B. +Russell, Senator John Sherman Cooper, Representative Gerald R. Ford, +Allen W. Dulles, and John J. McCloy, members. + +Also present was J. Lee Rankin, general counsel. + + +The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Secretary, would you please rise and follow me. + +Do you solemnly swear the testimony you are about to give before this +Commission will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the +truth, so help you God. + +Secretary DILLON. I do. + +The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Rankin will conduct the examination, Mr. Secretary. + +Secretary DILLON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. + +Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Secretary, will you state your name and residence, +please? + +Secretary DILLON. C. Douglas Dillon of Far Hills, N.J., presently +residing in Washington, 2534 Belmont Road, NW. + +Mr. RANKIN. Do you have an official position with the Government? + +Secretary DILLON. Yes, I do. I am the Secretary of the Treasury. + +Mr. RANKIN. In that capacity do you have responsibility for the Secret +Service of the United States? + +Secretary DILLON. Yes, the Secret Service is part of the Treasury +Department. + +Mr. RANKIN. Have you had that position responsibility for some time? + +Secretary DILLON. Since January 21, 1961. + +Mr. RANKIN. Can you tell us briefly the nature of your supervision of +the Secret Service, prior to the assassination? + +Secretary DILLON. Yes. Prior to the assassination, when I first took +office as Secretary of the Treasury, I naturally tried to find out, +in as much detail as seemed practical, how the various offices of +the Department functioned. One of the important ones was the Secret +Service. So I had a number of interviews with Chief Baughman who was +the Chief of the Secret Service at that time. + +I got the general description from him of how the Secret Service +operated, what their responsibilities were, what their problems were. +After he retired, which was early, after I had only been there for a +few months, I spoke with the President about this matter--President +Kennedy--and it was my responsibility to find a new Chief of the Secret +Service. + +He had known James Rowley very well as head of the White House detail, +and he felt that he would be an appropriate head of the Secret Service. +I talked with Chief Baughman, and he thought there were two or three +men, of whom Rowley was one, qualified to be head of the Secret +Service; so I decided to appoint Rowley and thereafter talked with him +considerably about the White House detail which he was more familiar +with than Chief Baughman. + +However, I did not in any sense conduct a day-to-day supervision, or +close following, of its day-to-day operations. The Secret Service had +been functioning for many years and the presumption from its record +was that it had been functioning successfully. I think that the events +that have developed since November have very clearly shown that some +of the procedures, many of them, need to be changed and improved. I +think this is probably largely due, to a considerable extent due, to a +very rapid change which probably took place without our fully realizing +its importance in the last 3 years, and which greatly increased the +responsibility of the Secret Service. That is the greatly changed +nature of Presidential travel. + +Mr. RANKIN. Will you describe to us how that affects the problems of +the Secret Service? + +Secretary DILLON. Yes. In earlier times, the Presidents did not travel +very often. When he did travel, he generally traveled by train, which +was a protected train. Doing that, he could not cover very many parts +of the country, and the Secret Service could move easily right along +with him on the train that he was on. + +What happened since has been, first, the advent of airplanes. +Presidents beginning with President Eisenhower began to move more +rapidly and were able to travel considerably more, and on very short +time differentials they could be in cities that were thousands of miles +apart. + +However, this only just began with President Eisenhower because, in +the first place, jets were not yet available, and in the second place, +in the last 4 years of his term, he had to take greater care of his +health, and he didn't travel around the country quite as much as his +successors have. So when President Kennedy came into office with the +availability of, the relatively recent availability, of jets and his +desire to travel, this greatly increased the burden on the Secret +Service. Formerly when they had a trip, they used to send out an +advance agent to some big town. Now the trip would be a 3-day trip, and +there might be four towns, each one 1,000 miles apart, that would have +to be covered thoroughly at the same time. I think that probably there +was not a full realization by anyone of this problem. + +Certainly the Secret Service came to me and said they needed more +personnel, and we tried to get them more personnel. Chief Rowley +testified, I thought quite convincingly, in 1962 before the various +Appropriations Committees of the Congress and met with very little +success because I think that this was not fully understood by the +public. The Appropriations Committees were a reflection of public +understanding, and probably it was not even fully understood within the +Secret Service. + +I would like---- + +Senator RUSSELL. Has there been any increase, Mr. Secretary, in the +number of agents assigned to guard the President. I thought there had +been some increase in recent years? + +Secretary DILLON. There has been some increase, and we have tried very +hard to increase the Secret Service in the last 3 or 4 years. We have +asked for more people every year, and while we never got the amount we +asked for, we did get increases. I have the figures here. In 1961, the +entire Secret Service amounted to 454 individuals, of whom 305 were +classified as agents. In 1964, that is the fiscal year just finished, +the figure was 571, of which 167 were clerks and 404 were agents. So we +had achieved an increase of about 100 agents, a little over a third. + +Mr. DULLES. That included both the counterfeiting responsibilities of +the Secret Service as well as the Presidential protection? + +Secretary DILLON. That is right. And I think it is important to note +that the counterfeiting problem was also increasing in volume very +rapidly and changing very rapidly at about the same time. Actually that +may have started a few years earlier because of the development of +photography, which enabled one to counterfeit by photography instead of +having to do it by hand engraving. + +Representative FORD. Wasn't the specific request for an increase in the +White House detail--I use this in a broad sense for both the President +and Vice President--primarily aimed at the increase of personnel for +the Vice President? + +Secretary DILLON. That was in one year. + +Representative FORD. 1962? + +Secretary DILLON. I think that was in--I think that was in 1963. In +1962 the law was passed, and we did have a deficiency appropriation +which was given to us. The following year when we came up for our +regular appropriation, we not only did not get the full amount that +we thought was necessary to cover the Vice President, but they cut +the protection we had been affording the Vice President in half, and +whereas there had been 20 persons assigned, they reduced it to 10. + +Representative FORD. But there had been no reduction in the funds for +the protection of the President? + +Secretary DILLON. For the White House detail; no. + +Representative FORD. It was a reduction for the protection of the Vice +President. + +Secretary DILLON. That is correct. But the thing that I think we are +coming to is, it is perfectly obvious that we have to do a great deal +more in this advance work, field work, in interviewing people who are +dangers to the President or could be classified as such. We need more +people in the field on account of this. That is what I say was not +probably fully realized, although Rowley specifically, when he first +went up in 1962 asking for an increase, pitched it on that basis, but +he did not have a very good reception from the Appropriations Committee +at that time because they felt that the White House detail was the +White House detail, right around the President. I don't think anyone +fully understood the connection with people in the field. I am not sure +that Secret Service made as good a case as they should, to be really +understood on this. It has become clear now. + +Representative FORD. Mr. Rowley in that presentation asked for +additional funds for and personnel for the Protective Research Service? + +Secretary DILLON. I don't think it was specifically for that. It was +for protection of the President, and he was the first person that made +this type of request. Baughman had always said that people in the field +were counterfeiting and just worked a little bit for the President, and +Rowley when he came in was the first one that made this claim that they +were needed to actually protect the President. He wanted more people in +the field to do these things, and that was the thing that did not go +over right away. I think it would be interesting here. We have---- + +Mr. RANKIN. May I interrupt a moment? We have a problem with some of +the members of the Commission that have to go to the Congress right +away for the vote. They would like to question you if they may. + +Senator COOPER. I have a question which I think you can address +yourself fully to later but considering these new factors which make +the protection of the President more difficult, I would like to ask if +it is your judgment that the Secret Service, if it is provided adequate +personnel and if it is--if a broader criteria for the ascertainment of +the persons who might be dangerous to the President is adopted, if it +is your judgment that the Secret Service could meet these new factors +and provide an effective protection for the President, taking into +consideration the factors which you mentioned? + +Secretary DILLON. Yes; I think they could. I think the answer +is clearcut. I don't think that means that under every and all +circumstances you could be absolutely a thousand percent certain that +nothing can happen. You never can be in a situation like this. But I +think they could be a great deal better, and you could feel everything +has been done. We have just completed--the thing I wanted to say--this +study we have been working on many months as to what is needed to +provide this in the Secret Service. Chief Rowley was not able to give +you this when he was here before. I have given a copy of this to Mr. +Rankin. I think it ought to go into the record at this point. + +Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Secretary, I will hand to you the document you just +referred to, called Planning Document, U.S. Secret Service, and ask if +that is the document that you were describing. + +Secretary DILLON. Yes. That is the document; yes. + +Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Chief Justice, I would like to ask leave at this time +to mark this document our next exhibit number which I will furnish +later to the reporter, and offer it in evidence as part of this +examination. + +The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Secretary, that is not a security matter that +couldn't go into the record, is it? + +Secretary DILLON. No. I have one thing I would like to say about that, +and I think it should go into the record. What this is is our report +as to how many personnel are needed and what has to be done and what +they should do. We have transmitted that with a covering letter to +the Bureau of the Budget. The final decision on what will be done on +many of these things is taken in the light of recommendations of the +Bureau of the Budget to the President and what he finally decides for +budgetary reasons. So ordinarily budgetary matters are not published +prior to the time the President has approved them. He hasn't approved +this. He hasn't seen it, but I think under the circumstances I see no +reason under this special circumstance, why this report should not go +into the record, and I think it is perfectly all right. + +The CHAIRMAN. The report may be admitted and take the next number. + +(Commission Exhibit No. 1053-A was marked for identification and +received in evidence.) + +Representative FORD. This would be the recommendation of the Treasury +Department to the Bureau of the Budget for the personnel and the funds +for the Secret Service in fiscal year 1966? + +Secretary DILLON. No. This is a recommendation to the Bureau of the +Budget for the personnel and equipment that would be needed to put the +Secret Service in what they consider adequate position to fully handle +this problem. They feel that it would take about 20 months to get all +the necessary people on board and trained. If this were started right +away, as we think it could be if a reapportionment on a deficiency +basis were approved, this could start in fiscal year 1965 and depending +on whether such is approved, the fiscal year 1966 final recommendation +would be affected. But this is the total picture, and it is assuming +our recommendation that they start in the next couple of months. + +Representative FORD. In other words, this is the plan that you would +like instituted immediately regardless of budget considerations. + +Secretary DILLON. That is right. + +Mr. McCLOY. Mr. Secretary, there is nothing in this exhibit that in any +way, according to your judgment, would compromise the protection of the +security of the President if it became---- + +Secretary DILLON. Oh, no; and there is also with it--it is just a +covering letter but I think it is equally important--it is a letter +which I wrote to the Director of the Budget on Monday when I forwarded +this plan to him, and I think that probably should also go in because +it has a recommendation at the end covering the matter Mr. Ford raised. + +Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Secretary, I will ask you if this document, dated +Angust 31, 1964, is a copy of the letter that you have just referred to +now? + +Secretary DILLON. That is correct. + +Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Chief Justice, I ask that this letter, dated August 31, +1964, directed "Dear Kermit," from the Secretary, be marked the next +number in order and offered in evidence as part of the record. + +The CHAIRMAN. It will be admitted. + +(Commission Exhibit No. 1053-B was marked for identification and +received in evidence.) + +Secretary DILLON. It is marked "limited official use," and I think that +should be declassified for this purpose. + +Mr. RANKIN. Now, Mr. Secretary, will you very briefly describe the +general plan of your planning document. We have that so we can use it +in considerable detail, but if you can just summarize briefly. + +Secretary DILLON. Well, in brief, this asks for a total of 205 +additional agents, which is about--not quite but nearly--a 50 percent +increase from the 415 agents they now have. It asks also for 50 clerks +to add to the 171 that are presently there. Those are stenographers, +typists and other clerical workers. And for five technicians. Of this +the idea is to put 17 agents and the 5 technicians in the PRS. Five +would be used to maintain 24-hour coverage in the PRS which is not +presently in force because of lack of personnel. One would add to the +Research and Countermeasures Unit to fill out three full units that +could be operating all the time. Six of them would do advance work for +PRS with local agencies and institutions. One of the new things we have +instituted is that each time they do an advance, someone from the PRS +goes out and works with the local law enforcement agencies. I think +that is obviously a very important thing. They need more people in view +of the volume of traveling. Then they also need five more employees +to expand our liaison with the other law enforcement and intelligence +agencies. We now have one man assigned really full time to that. We +found even in the period that we have been doing this that while +that is a great help, much the best way would be to have individuals +assigned to each agency that work full time with the agency, know the +people in the agency, and that is the only way we can be sure we have +adequate liaison. + +Mr. DULLES. May I ask, would that include the FBI? + +Secretary DILLON. Oh, yes. + +Mr. DULLES. And the CIA and military intelligence services? + +Secretary DILLON. Oh, yes. + +Mr. DULLES. And the State Department possibly? + +Secretary DILLON. Yes. + +Representative FORD. Could you specify those agencies. I was interested +in what agencies you were referring to. + +Secretary DILLON. Well, I would think certainly it would be the +military, the FBI, the security services of the State Department, and +the CIA. + +Now, there may be additional ones. There are additional ones within the +Treasury Department. I think we probably have one, for instance, with +the intelligence section of the Internal Revenue Service, Alcohol and +Tobacco Tax Unit, and so forth, which a good deal can come out of. + +In addition we recommend here five technical specialists, two of which +would be highly trained computer technicians, programers, and three +less well trained to work with these others. The purpose of this is to +automate the whole PRS operation. We have been thinking of that for +some time. It was something that obviously needed to be done. + +Mr. RANKIN. Excuse me, Mr. Secretary. Will you describe a little more +what you mean by automate. + +Secretary DILLON. I mean using electronic processing, punchcard +systems, so that they would be able to pull out of their files for any +locality, various different types of people that might be a danger or +might have made threats to the President or to other high officials, +so that they would be able to function rapidly and well in planning +protection as the President travels to these various cities. + +Mr. RANKIN. Does that include computer systems? + +Secretary DILLON. Yes. And what I was going to say was about 2 or +3 months before the events in Dallas, the Secret Service had asked +the IBM Co. to make a study of this problem for it. That study was +not completed until after the events in Dallas, and it did not prove +satisfactory because from our point of view it did not go into enough +detail in being able to handle criteria so you could tell when you +retrieved a name from the file whether it was truly dangerous or not. + +We needed a more complex system and after working with Rand Corp., the +Research Analysis Corp., and also talking with IBM, we all felt the +best way would be to hire some good programers, knowing our problems, +and then work out a pilot program and get consultants in. + +One of the things we recommend here is appropriation of $100,000 to get +consultants from IBM Co., Honeywell or other companies, and get pilot +machines to try to work out the details of this system. + +Mr. McCLOY. For the record, Mr. Secretary, you had no electronic system +of this character operating before the assassination? + +Secretary DILLON. No. Now, the total of that is 17 agents and 5 +specialists for the PRS. + +In addition, for a long time, Mr. Rowley has believed that it would +be preferable to improve the capacity of the White House detail if we +could establish a headquarters pool of 18 men where new individuals +who are going into the White House detail would be fully trained +first--before, they had to be trained sort of partially on the job--and +also through which you could rotate people from the field from time to +time, bringing them up to date on Presidential protection. + +So we would ask for 18 people, 18 spaces for that. + +We have asked for 25 spaces to provide adequate protection for the Vice +President in addition to the 10 that are already on board. + +Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Secretary, excuse me. I think spaces may not be clear +to all our readers. Will you explain what that means? + +Secretary DILLON. Twenty-five job positions. I think the thing that is +very important here is to keep in mind that to keep one man on the job +around the clock covering a post, which is the way the Secret Service +works--one man that would be always with the President or the Vice +President, that would be always watching his house--to get one man +requires five job positions. In the first place, the coverage required +is for 24 hours a day. + +In the second place, there are holidays, there are weekends off. On +a full-time basis, the Secret Service works a 40-hour week, 5-day +week, as the rest of the Government does, and there are provisions for +sickness and leave, and so forth. When the number of hours that a man +can work a year full time is figured out, it requires 5 men to fill one +spot. + +So that is one reason why these protective numbers may seem rather high +to the uninitiated. + +When you are talking about the Vice President, and 10 people are +required to produce two posts, coverage of two posts, it is obviously +not adequate because you have to cover his house, whether he is there +or not, so that someone can't come in and put a destructive device in +it. + +This simply can't be done with the present numbers that are assigned. + +Then, going beyond this to complete this list, there is a request for +145 agents in the field offices who would handle the substantially +increased volume of security investigations. We are now getting about +twice as many referrals already as we did before. Instead of something +like 25,000, we are up to something over 50,000, and they expect it +will go over 60,000 next year. + +To really run these down out in the districts, they need, obviously, +more men than they have had. + +Now, one thing that they also need these fellows for, which I think is +important, is keeping track of more dangerous individuals. They have +tried to keep track of a few of them. But I think that probably a good +many more should be put on that list. It requires more people, so they +can periodically check up, and particularly before a visit, that all +of these people are looked at to see where they are and what they have +been doing recently before the President visits a particular place. + +Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Secretary, while you are on that subject, could you +explain to the Commission how you make use of your agents in the White +House duty and those in the field so they will understand that? + +Secretary DILLON. Well, yes; the White House detail is composed of +about 60 people now. About half of these are what you might call, more +or less, permanent employees. They have been there for a long time, 10 +years, 12 years, 15 years, on the White House detail. + +The other half are shorter time employees who generally serve up to +3 years on the White House detail and then either leave because they +prefer other duty in the Secret Service or sometimes leave because the +Secret Service feels they can do other duty better. + +Mr. RANKIN. Now, for the protection of the President. Mr. Secretary, is +there any need to have the White House detail have any connection or +reciprocal arrangement with those in the field? + +Secretary DILLON. Well, I think it is a great help. Because of this +turnover that I mentioned, very many of the agents in the field have +had service in the White House detail of up to 2 or 3 years. So they +know what the problems are and they are able to fit in very easily and +very readily and very quickly with the White House detail which is with +the President when he comes out on a trip. + +Mr. DULLES. By fieldwork you mean attached to your field stations, of +which I believe there are 65 in the United States? + +Secretary DILLON. Yes; that is right. And if they had not had this +training, obviously they would be enforcement officers and they could +work with White House detail when they come out, but they wouldn't be +able to be as cognizant of its procedures, how the matter is handled, +and they wouldn't be able to be fitted right into the routine as well +as they can presently. I think it is highly valuable that we have this +pool of experienced people around the country and, of course, this is +again one reason that if we get a few more people out there, we will be +able to do better. + +One of the additional things that we are now undertaking, is, for +instance, these building surveys that are partially a result of a study +by the Research Analysis Corp. This seems to be something that we can +probably do something about. We will probably use more people when the +President travels through a city than we have in the past because you +can have some success in designating certain buildings as high risk or +higher risk than other buildings, and as I say, they are now trying +to map the whole United States, at least the major cities where the +President might travel, the routes he might follow, coming in from an +airport, going to a major stadium or something like that so they will +know ahead of time what the danger spots are. And one of the obvious +ones which has come out is a warehouse where there are not so many +people in it and where someone could more likely be alone and therefore +more dangerous. A building that is full of people is not as dangerous +because the other people would be watching. It is that sort of +criteria. The same thing about roof access. If there is easy access to +a roof and people are not usually on it, that would be more dangerous +than if there wasn't. + +Mr. RANKIN. Now, have you made quite a change in the Secret Service in +regard to the inspection of buildings along a motorcade route since the +assassination? + +Secretary DILLON. Oh yes. We have been doing this, and we have used +a great many more people as a result of this in our procedures, both +local police officers and also our own people. The figures we have +here are interesting. They are in this report. From February 11--I +don't know why that was the beginning date for these figures--but from +there through June 30, we used 9,500 hours of work by other enforcement +agencies. About 2,000 of that came from the Justice Department and the +rest of it from other Treasury agencies, the biggest one being the +Intelligence Section of the Internal Revenue, but also the Bureau of +Narcotics, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax Unit and so on. + +Mr. RANKIN. And that is in connection with this motorcade route? + +Secretary DILLON. That is largely in connection with that, both +planning it out ahead and also stationing them in buildings that they +thought might be difficult. + +Mr. RANKIN. Now, Mr. Secretary, returning to your Planning document, is +there anything else that you have not covered in that? + +Secretary DILLON. Well, this is just the number of people. It does +not include in this figure any purchases of automatic data processing +equipment. It just includes the study I mentioned. There are funds for +a new armored car, various funds for improving the intrusion detection +at the White House, and lighting at the White House. There is no +automatic system now. If anyone breaks through the fence at night, +nobody knows it unless someone should see them. They have developed +such systems and the Secret Service would like to get one installed, +so if anyone broke through, a bell rings automatically, and they know +someone is on the grounds, and they can take action accordingly. Also, +they would like emergency lighting that would be hidden behind various +trees or behind the wall so that if someone broke through at a place, +the lights would go on automatically and the person would be seen. Then +there is just miscellaneous equipment that goes with increased staff, +such as automobiles, radios, travel and transportation that goes with +more staff, and so forth. + +I mentioned some of the things briefly that they intend to do. I +mentioned the PRS program, and ADP study. These special agents in the +field I think we have covered pretty well. They have clearly in here a +number of things they have to do, which there certainly is plenty of. +In addition to that--I mentioned the pool. In addition to that we have +made arrangements with the Department of Agriculture and the General +Services Administration has put the funds in their budget, to get a +new training facility. All we have now is a pistol range out at the +Arboretum, and this new one will have classrooms, pistol range, and a +place where they can practice automotive protection on a practice road. +This will be out at Beltsville at the Agricultural Station out there. +It is very useful. There are no funds for that in the plan. + +Mr. McCLOY. May I just ask you about the armored car, Mr. Secretary. Is +that to transport the President? + +Secretary DILLON. Yes; that is right. A protected car, a second one. +One was fixed for the Government free by the Ford Motor Co., but our +guess is that it cost the Ford Motor Co. somewhere between $175,000 and +$200,000 to do this, and it didn't cost the Secret Service anything, +although there was some research work done on the glass and armor by +the Defense Department. This was combined with research work they +needed for their own use, to develop protective glass and armor to use +in helicopters in Vietnam. They split the cost. It cost about $30,000. +So I think they assigned $15,000 of it to this project. But it was paid +by the Defense Department. That is the only cost on that one. But I +think the companies think that the Government should buy the new car. + +Mr. McCLOY. We had some testimony here in connection with the +assassination where it was developed that the access within the car to +the body of the President became very important. In the car in which +the President was assassinated there was a bar behind the front seat +making it very difficult if not impossible for the Secret Service +man who was operating from the front seat to get to the body of the +President, and we were strongly of the view that cars that should be +hereafter designed should have freedom of access. Either the man should +be in the jump seat or there should be means by which you could get, +the Secret Service man could get to the body of the President in case +of a threat of an attack, and I think it is likely we will mention that +in the report. But it seemed to me this is something to bear in mind in +connection with the design of a new armored car. + +Secretary DILLON. That would apply to an open car. + +Mr. McCLOY. Yes. + +Secretary DILLON. It wouldn't apply I think to a fully---- + +Mr. McCLOY. Fully armored; no. That is right. + +Secretary DILLON. Closed car. + +Mr. McCLOY. Usually on those motorcades you like to be seen. + +Secretary DILLON. Yes. + +Mr. RANKIN. Have you covered your planning document, then, Mr. +Secretary? + +Secretary DILLON. I think that covers this. + +Mr. McCLOY. May I ask a question at this point? I have a date at the +White House at 1 o'clock, not with the President, but with Mr. Bundy, +who wants to talk with me. + +How long do you think we will be with the Secretary and will we resume +after lunch? + +Mr. RANKIN. I was hoping to get through. I presume he was hoping we +would. + +Secretary DILLON. I would like to if we could. I have to leave tomorrow +to go to Japan. + +Mr. McCLOY. Well, would it interrupt you if I ask a few questions? + +Mr. RANKIN. No; go ahead. + +The CHAIRMAN. Ask what questions you want? + +Mr. McCLOY. You testified, Mr. Secretary, you felt with these additions +that the Secret Service would be competent to cope with the added +requirements for the protection of the President which have occurred. + +In testifying to that effect, do you include--you include the +investigative services of your own which are quite apart, as I +understand it, from the information that you may gather from other +agencies? + +Secretary DILLON. That is correct; yes. + +Mr. McCLOY. We have had the thought that perhaps the Protective +Research Section or Division of your organization wasn't as well +equipped as it should have been nor as it might have been presumably +for the purely preventive investigative work. + +Do you feel that with this new plan of yours, that that would, be +adequately taken care of? + +Secretary DILLON. Yes; I do. It was not equipped, I think, adequately +in two ways. First, it did not, as is clearly shown by the events in +Dallas, receive information on enough dangerous people. At least, they +didn't receive the information on Lee Oswald. + +So that what is required is the development of criteria, better +criteria, that can be circulated to law enforcement agencies generally, +and which will insure that adequate information comes in. We are making +progress there. + +I think you have already seen a document with some criteria that were +developed, which has been circulated in Washington. A similar document +has now been circulated by the Secret Service Chief to all special +agents asking them to write a briefer but somewhat similar letter to +all chiefs of police, sheriffs, and State police in their localities +which asks them to furnish any such information to the local Secret +Service agent. That is being disseminated now throughout the country. +It will be completed within the next 6 weeks or so. + +In addition, we have established an interagency committee which has as +one of its jobs the development of better criteria that will really +result in getting the kind of information we want without swamping +us. If we are too broad in our criteria and we get a million names, +obviously nothing can work. + +This committee is holding its first formal meeting next week. It has +representatives of the President's Office of Science and Technology, +of the Department of Defense, which is the Advanced Research Projects +outfit, of the CIA, an individual who is highly competent in their +file section and who understands the setting up of complex files and +retrieval, that sort of business, and four people from PRS, the PRS +head inspector, Mr. Thacker, the head of the research and development, +Mr. Bouck, the head of the files section, Mr. Young, and Mr. Stoner, +who is now handling the liaison job. + +There will also be, although the individual has not yet been named, +a representative of the FBI, and with that I think that we will be +able to develop criteria that will both be useful to us and be an +improvement on criteria that was so far developed with the help of +outside consultants. + +Mr. McCLOY. Mr. Secretary, the impression has been gained, I think, by +the Commission that perhaps too great emphasis has been directed to +the mere investigation of the threat, of the particular individual, +the crank, or the fellow that sends the poison food or the threatening +letter, and perhaps not enough in a broader scope, recognizing, of +course, that you can't be too broad without defeating your own purpose, +but that there are perhaps groups or other areas of ferment that could +provoke an attack quite without the threat. Would you comment on that? + +Secretary DILLON. Yes; one of the criteria that is presently out is +meant to cover individuals who have threatened bodily harm to any high +Government official, with the idea that threat might be switched and +visited upon the President. + +That would have worked in this particular case in Dallas if that had +been a specific criterion on at that time, which it wasn't. We are just +talking about threats to the President. So I think that was one obvious +case. + +We hope that this committee would be able to possibly come up with +other groups that can be identified that would fit into this without +bringing in too many names. + +There is one that may or may not work out. I just cite this as an +example. People with bad conduct records in the Marine Corps for some +reason have had a very bad record thereafter and there is quite a +connection of crime with that class of individual. + +It may be that it would even be worthwhile, if it is not too large, to +cover this. Why that is so, nobody has quite figured out. I think the +eye was focused on them because of this event in Dallas, but then it +was discovered that this group has been involved in an awful lot of +other crimes of violence. + +Mr. DULLES. As you read the Oswald life story, it looks as though he +was going into the Marines as a kind of escape. + +Secretary DILLON. It could have been. + +Mr. DULLES. What you say is very interesting in that connection. + +The CHAIRMAN. Will you excuse us just a moment until we see if we can +finish up. + +Secretary DILLON. I would think you might want to put into the record +at this point a copy of the memorandum that I mentioned from Mr. Rowley +to the special agents asking them to send letters to the local law +enforcement institutions. + +Mr. RANKIN. Yes. Mr. Secretary, I ask you to examine the memorandum +dated August 26, from Chief Rowley and ask you if that, with the +attachment, is the memorandum that you just described? + +Secretary DILLON. That is. Fine. Yes. + +Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Chief Justice, I ask leave to give this document that +the Secretary has just referred to the next number in order and offer +it in evidence as part of this examination. + +The CHAIRMAN. It may be admitted. + +(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 1053-C, for +identification and received in evidence.) + +Secretary DILLON. There is one other item--you asked whether there +is anything else in general. We felt that the Secret Service did not +have adequate regularized scientific advice. They got some--they have +been getting it over the years from time to time from the President's +office of Science and Technology, but we tried to regularize that. +I have worked out an arrangement with Dr. Hornig and written him a +letter which embodies that arrangement so that they would have their +services constantly available to the Secret Service and would give +certain specific advice; first, keeping the Secret Service informed of +scientific developments of possible use in providing protection for the +President, etc.; advising or arranging for scientific advice to the +Secret Service in connection with specific problems of Presidential +protection as they may arise; and reviewing the technical aspects of +the protective operations of the Secret Service and its development +program, and assisting it in establishing priorities and schedules for +introducing technical and scientific improvements. I have an answer +from Dr. Hornig saying they would be glad to carry this out and saying +that he concurs in my judgment that the increasingly complex nature of +Presidential protection requires that the Secret Service have access to +the best scientific advice and that they are glad to take on this job. + +Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Secretary, I will ask you if the exchange of letters, +dated August 31, between you and Mr. Hornig are the copies that I have +just given you? + +Secretary DILLON. That is right. + +Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Chief Justice, I ask leave---- + +Mr. DULLES. Just for the record, I wonder if he would identify Mr. +Hornig. I think we know, but possibly---- + +Secretary DILLON. Oh, yes; Dr. Hornig is Special Assistant to the +President for Science and Technology. + +Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Chief Justice, I ask leave to give this document +the next number in order and offer it in evidence as part of the +examination. + +The CHAIRMAN. It might be admitted. + +(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit 1053-D for +identification, and was received in evidence.) + +Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Secretary, would you just briefly tell us without +getting into any classified matters or matters that are not properly to +be revealed because of the effects they might have on the protection of +the President, why the Secret Service would need a scientific adviser? + +Secretary DILLON. Well, I think this is because they do a number of +things. First, they need it in the communications field. There are all +sorts of advances there, and they have been assuring or working to +assure the security of the communications of the President. In addition +there are all sorts of new developments in the form of protective +devices that are being developed all the time, better forms of +bulletproof glass, better forms of protection of that kind, new types +of protection against access. For instance, there is under development, +I understand, a sort of a radar type of fence so that you can see if a +person comes through a certain area without there being any fence there. + +They are developing, working on the development of other protection +devices. They have had very substantial progress recently, I +understand, in the detection of weapons that someone might be carrying, +devices that are more effective. This is something people have tried +to develop, I guess, for a long time. Apparently they are having some +success. It is that sort of thing that is very necessary. + +And then in addition this field of computer technology is highly +scientific and complex, and I think that the scientific adviser is in +an excellent position to be sure that the Secret Service has the very +best advice in trying to identify their needs and develop the machines +for those needs. + +Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Secretary, it has been suggested to the Commission +that it might be of assistance to you and other Secretaries of the +Treasury and the Secret Service to have someone acting as Special +Assistant to the Secretary of the Treasury, having supervision, under +your direction, of the Secret Service in its various activities, both +protection of the President and otherwise. Do you think that that would +be of help or would it not? + +Secretary DILLON. Well, I am not sure. You see, we have an Assistant +Secretary, and I should think he probably would be able to do it as +adequately as having another special assistant. + +We also have a Special Assistant for Law Enforcement Coordination who +coordinates the general work of all our law enforcement agencies and +works with outside agencies on overall law enforcement problems. + +Probably of interest is that the Treasury Department, I think, has +more law enforcement officials working for it than any other agency of +Government. It is a very large law enforcement organization, although +there are a number of separate organizations that work in different +fields. + +So we already have this. I think that it probably can be made tighter +and should be made tighter. + +One aspect of this matter, I think, is the advent of computers, +of course, which is very recent and has changed what can be done +effectively in this PRS. I think that should be done anyway. One +aspect of this matter that probably hasn't had as close and detailed +supervision as we may feel appropriate now is the White House detail. +It has always operated over the years in very close contact with +the President and has operated in a slightly different manner with +different Presidents, depending on their wishes. + +And it has been felt that as long as they were doing an adequate job, +that it was pretty hard to come in and tell them exactly what they +should do on a day-by-day basis because the President might not want +them to do that sort of thing. + +It is a very complex and personal assignment here that is a little +different than any other law enforcement agency, and I certainly think +it should be followed more closely--gone into in more detail--from the +top level of the Treasury Department probably than it has, but even if +it is, we are still going to have this problem that we won't be able +to tell the President exactly what he should do in each case. So there +never will be that close sort of supervision of day-to-day operations +of the White House detail--it wouldn't be effective anyway--that there +would be in another police operation. + +Mr. RANKIN. After the assassination, you did have Mr. Carswell take +over certain work in this area, did you not? + +Secretary DILLON. Yes; Mr. Carswell is my special assistant, in +my own office. He is a lawyer by profession and training. He has +had investigative experience, 3 years in Naval Intelligence on the +active side of it, and so he has some knowledge of this whole type of +operation, and I felt in view of this investigation, in view of the +work that had been done, it was important to have someone with legal +experience that was close to me, that had immediate access any minute +to me working on the matter. Then while this thing was running along, +they would get to me at any time, and I could ask questions, they would +bring matters to me, we could handle this matter of being sure that a +proper long-range plan was developed, and that the whole effort in the +Secret Service was organized as well as possible. That is why I asked +Mr. Carswell, as part of his work for me, to undertake this special +assignment, which he has done, and I think done very well. + +Mr. RANKIN. It has been suggested to the Commission that it might +be helpful if the National Security Council or some Cabinet level +committee would help to supervise in this area of Presidential +protection. Do you have any comments you care to make? + +Secretary DILLON. Yes; I think that would be helpful because in +relationship with the President, if there are questions of what is the +proper protection, I think a group of the Cabinet would have a stronger +voice, and also having a group, the President would be more sure that +this was not just one man's ideas, that it would be helpful. + +I am not quite sure about the National Security Council as such because +as I recall, the President himself is the Chairman of that, so he would +be advising himself, and I suppose this would be a group to advise the +President. + +Mr. DULLES. We thought there might be certain advantages in that +because if you prescribe things for the President to do, and he doesn't +want to do them, they don't get done in the field of protection. + +Secretary DILLON. That is right. Then if you describe it in the meeting +at which he was present, that might be well. + +The CHAIRMAN. I suppose, Mr. Secretary, also if a committee of that +kind was composed of the Secretary of the Treasury, Secretary of +Defense, Secretary of State, and the Attorney General, that you would +have on that committee the men who had all of the agencies that would +of necessity have to be coordinated in order to bring all the work into +focus. + +Secretary DILLON. Yes, and the Central Intelligence Agency. + +The CHAIRMAN. Yes. + +Secretary DILLON. One thing about the National Security Council is that +neither the Secretary of the Treasury nor the Attorney General are +members of the National Security Council by law. + +The Secretary of the Treasury has been asked by the Presidents to sit +with the National Security Council for some years, practically since +its beginning. + +The Attorney General has sat with it during the last few years, but I +don't know whether that will or will not continue into the future. So +there is a certain problem there. + +If this assignment is given by law to the National Security Council, +and some other President comes along that doesn't ask the Secretary of +the Treasury or the Attorney General to sit with it, the two people who +are probably most concerned wouldn't have any part in this. + +Mr. DULLES. It would have to provide that in all matters relating to +Presidential security, of course, they will be present. One way of +doing it, I would say. + +Secretary DILLON. Yes; there should be some such provision; otherwise I +see some advantages as you say. + +Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Secretary, are you familiar with the method of +selection of the Secret Service personnel? + +Secretary DILLON. Only somewhat. They do get young men who meet their +qualifications. They do hire them at GS-7 and they stay there for 1 +year. If they have a year of satisfactory service, they are promoted +two grades. Then if they have 2 more years of satisfactory service, +they are promoted another double jump to GS-11. + +These individuals do not have the legal qualifications that some other +law enforcement agencies such as the FBI require, where you have to be +a lawyer or an accountant, because they do other kinds of investigative +work and that wasn't thought to be necessary in the case of the Secret +Service. + +But the Secret Service has felt, and I have inquired into this, that +they have no difficulty in getting young men of the highest type to +come and to take these jobs under the present setup. + +Mr. RANKIN. Do you have a printed or written list of the various +qualifications that you seek in regard to the Secret Service? + +Secretary DILLON. I don't--I am not aware of that. There probably is +such a list; yes. + +Mr. RANKIN. If you have such a list will you please supply it to us? + +Secretary DILLON. Yes; I will be glad to. + +Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Chief Justice, I would like to ask leave to give the +next number of exhibits to that document once supplied and make it part +of the record. + +The CHAIRMAN. It may be admitted. + +(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 1053-E for +identification and received in evidence.) + +Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Secretary, are you familiar in a general way with the +investigation that the Commission has been making with regard to this +matter? + +Secretary DILLON. Yes; In a general way, I have followed it through +Mr. Carswell, who has followed it more closely, and through the Secret +Service, so I am generally aware of it. + +Mr. RANKIN. And are you generally aware of the investigation in +connection with the assassination, the entire matter? + +Secretary DILLON. Oh, yes. + +Mr. RANKIN. Have you made any inquiry in the Secret Service to +determine whether or not Lee Harvey Oswald was ever an agent of that +Service? + +Secretary DILLON. Yes. I heard rumors of this type of thing very early, +and I asked the direct question of Chief Rowley and was informed that +he never had any connection with the Secret Service. + +Mr. RANKIN. Do you know of any evidence in regard to Lee Harvey Oswald +being an agent of any part of the government? + +Secretary DILLON. I am not aware of any evidence myself in that way, +but I don't think I necessarily would be fully competent in that. + +Mr. RANKIN. But you have never heard of any such evidence? + +Secretary DILLON. I have never heard it. + +Mr. RANKIN. Do you know of any area of the investigation of the +Commission that you would like to suggest that we do more than we have +insofar as you are familiar with it? + +Secretary DILLON. No. As far as I know, the investigation has been very +thorough. + +Mr. RANKIN. Do you know of any credible evidence that would lead you +or anyone to believe that there was a conspiracy, foreign or domestic, +involved in the assassination of President Kennedy? + +Secretary DILLON. No. From all the evidence I have seen, this was the +work of one deranged individual. + +Mr. RANKIN. And who would that be? + +Secretary DILLON. Lee Harvey Oswald. + +Mr. RANKIN. Do you know of any evidence in regard to any connection +between Jack Ruby and Lee Harvey Oswald? + +Secretary DILLON. No, no. + +Mr. RANKIN. Is there anything that you would like to call to the +attention of the Commission at this time that we should know or that we +should cover? + +Secretary DILLON. No; I think we have covered my area of competence +pretty thoroughly this morning. I can't think of anything else. + +The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Dulles? + +Mr. DULLES. Doug, in the field that in the Commission here we have +described as the preventive intelligence field; that is, trying to +identify beforehand the individuals or the type of individuals who +might be a danger to the President, have you ever thought of any +possible division of responsibility and of work between the Secret +Service and the FBI to define more clearly which each should do in that +field? + +Secretary DILLON. Well, my own feeling is that the agency that handles +the actual work of deciding who the individuals are that the Secret +Service should watch out for, which is the PRS, would function much +better and would strengthen the Service if it works as it does now as +part of the whole Secret Service operation, and working very closely +with the people who are on the White House detail and not having to be +involved in a liaison operation somewhere else. + +So I think our problem is to strengthen this PRS, and I think that this +long-range plan is a good beginning. + +I don't think it is necessarily an end because as soon as we develop +the automated machinery that we need, then we will know a little +better, and we may need some people to make full use of that. + +But this is enough to get it underway and all you can use, I think, +well, for that purpose at present. + +I would think that there is a liaison problem which exists whenever +you have liaison with anyone, whether it is within your department or +without, as long as it is a separate organization. And I think there +has been clearly a problem of inadequate liaison with other Government +agencies. + +It is much better now. We have already taken steps. And additional +steps of assigning specific liaison officers will help. But I think +this is something that has just got to be worked out continually at all +levels to make it work. So the problem is not unique to this situation; +it affects all intergovernmental relations. + +Mr. DULLES. Today with the Communist Party and with rightist groups and +we have more and more groups--we have always had them, but we seem to +have more than others which might breed up elements of danger--is there +any part of that you would like to turn over to anybody else or---- + +Secretary DILLON. Well, I think the identification of groups that are +likely to be dangerous as groups would probably more likely fall on +the FBI because they study the background of these groups and they are +aware of them and try to penetrate them, and so forth. + +So I think that from that point of view, they would certainly be +the purveyor, the first purveyor of the information that is needed +and the ones who would have the responsibility of signaling to the +Secret Service that this is a dangerous group and to the best of our +knowledge these are its members. Some of the members would probably be +subterranean and might not be known. And it would be important that +they pass on that information on the individuals. + +The Secret Service I think would be more concerned in dealing +with--trying to protect against the actual individuals. + +I think that probably on the basis of thinking of something that would +be sort of an international plot, Communist Party plot, or something +like that, I think you probably need all arms of the Government working +on that. + +We can't say that Secret Service can do it alone. Central Intelligence +Agency might get wind of it anywhere in the world or FBI would have to +use all its resources. Just to beat back something like that you would +need the combined resources of whatever you have got. + +I think there is sort of a greater thrust of continuing responsibility +obviously on the FBI for following these groups, as you call them. +For following individuals which may come to their notice because they +were somewhat deranged or did something bad at one time, they would +then pass that on to the Secret Service, and with adequate manpower, +I think that the Secret Service would have more or less the primary +responsibility of following those sort of individuals. + +The CHAIRMAN. I suppose you wouldn't want to take away from the Secret +Service entirely the concern that it might have for groups? + +Secretary DILLON. Oh, no. + +The CHAIRMAN. And the necessity of going into those groups to ascertain +further whether they were a threat to the President? + +Secretary DILLON. Yes; but I don't think it is their function to try, +for instance, to have undercover people to penetrate groups or do +things of that nature which the FBI generally does. + +The CHAIRMAN. Yes. + +Secretary DILLON. And it is their job to do that. That would require, +of course, a much larger organization, but I certainly think the +Service has to keep track of them, and they can't just say we have no +interest and everything must come from somewhere else. I don't mean +that at all. But that is not their primary responsibility. I thought +that is what Mr. Dulles' view of it was. + +The CHAIRMAN. Anything more? + +Mr. DULLES. Mr. Secretary, just one other question. It raises the +question of the combination of the--in the Secret Service of the two +functions of Presidential protection and of the counterfeiting and +related investigatory duties in connection with counterfeiting. Have +you got any comments on that? Is that a logical or wise combination or +would you suggest any change there? + +Secretary DILLON. Well, these are two separate functions. I do think +that there is a certain advantage to it that has developed and +which I think should be maintained. That comes from the fact that +counterfeiting is not an operation that is overly large; so it means +that people who are engaged in this can very well be trained. Many have +had tours such as earlier in the White House detail. + +Mr. DULLES. You transfer back and forth, do you, from these two +functions? + +Secretary DILLON. Oh, yes; many of the people after a little service in +the White House detail find that life too strenuous, the hours bad, or +prefer not to travel, and so forth, prefer the type of work that opens +up in the counterfeiting section. Then they move out into one of the +field offices, and there are probably a few more possibilities as heads +of these fields offices for higher level jobs than there would be in +the White House detail. So there is an interchange. + +Now, that interchange, I think, is useful because you do have these +field offices that you can then call upon to do protective work, and +I think there can be much more of that because, as what I indicated +earlier, with this development of more detailed criteria, the greater +number of people coming in to check up on, there are going to be more +investigations in the field that should be done by the Secret Service, +and it can be done by these people who have had this training and +who know what to look for and who have worked on this same sort of +assignment. + +They also are readily available and fit right into the pattern of +Presidential protection when the President goes to their area. So I +think that is another great advantage. + +So therefore I think there is substantial advantage by having this +additional assignment which is in a different area, counterfeiting. I +think it is probable happenstance; it grew that way. It could have been +in some other different area, but the size of it which is large enough +but not too large I think combines very well with the White House +detail to give us a possibility of making a very effective operation. + +Mr. DULLES. Do I correctly assume from what you have said that +initially your field offices were largely organized for the +counterfeiting side of the work but that is now changing, and more +and more the work of the field office is coming into the Presidential +protection? + +Secretary DILLON. Well, I think certainly the amount that they will be +doing on Presidential protection has greatly increased. + +The counterfeiting hasn't decreased. That has increased also. But +whereas earlier I think they were only used in Presidential protection +when they had to be, when they were pulled off their other jobs and +brought to Washington and sent to travel on a trip or something like +that, because extra people were needed, I think now if we get an +adequate staff they will be doing more of this as a regular routine +part of their job, investigating people in their areas as well as +investigating counterfeit cases in their area. + +So they will have more or less two permanent jobs to do. + +The CHAIRMAN. While you may have had a decrease in counterfeiting, I +suppose you have had a great increase in forgeries, haven't you? + +Secretary DILLON. Yes; we have had an increase I said in counterfeiting +and also in forgeries. + +The CHAIRMAN. Oh, in counterfeiting. I misunderstood you. I thought you +said you had a decrease. + +Secretary DILLON. No; a great increase in counterfeiting on account of +development of these methods of photography. + +The CHAIRMAN. Yes; I recall now. + +Secretary DILLON. That is similar to check forgery which is the same +problem on Government checks which has also increased. + +Mr. DULLES. That is all I have, Mr. Chief Justice. + +The CHAIRMAN. Very well. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary. + +Before we adjourn, I would like to say to you, Mr. Secretary, that the +Secret Service has been most cooperative ever since this Commission was +formed. It has been very attentive to our every wish and has been very +helpful throughout. We appreciate it very much indeed. + +Secretary DILLON. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice. + +The CHAIRMAN. Also, we appreciate the very fine work which the Internal +Revenue agents did in making a study of reconstructing income of +persons involved in the investigation and the other assistance that the +agents gave in connection with our work. + +[In connection with the testimony of Secretary Dillon the Commission +requested and received additional information on Secret Service +budget requests for the fiscal years 1960 through 1965. The document +containing the information was marked as Commission Exhibit No. 1053-F +for identification and received in evidence.] + +We will adjourn now. + +(Whereupon, at 1:25 p.m., the President's Commission adjourned.) + + + + +_Sunday, September 6, 1964_ + +TESTIMONY OF MRS. LEE HARVEY OSWALD RESUMED + +The President's Commission met at 3:20 p.m., on September 6, 1964, at +the U.S. Naval Air Station, Dallas, Tex. + +Present were Senator Richard Russell, presiding; Senator John Sherman +Cooper, and Congressman Hale Boggs, members. + +Also present were J. Lee Rankin, general counsel; Dean R. G. Storey, +special counsel to the attorney general of Texas; Leon I. Gopadze and +Peter P. Gregory, interpreters; and John Joe Howlett, Secret Service +agent. + + +[NOTE.--The witness, Mrs. Lee Harvey Oswald, having been previously +sworn in these proceedings, testified through the interpreters as shown +in this transcript as follows: *Translation is by Mr. Paul D. Gregory, +interpreter; **translation is by Mr. Leon I. Gopadze, interpreter. +Where the answer or a paragraph shown as part of an answer has no +asterisk, the answer is by the witness herself without the use of the +interpreters.] + + +Mr. RANKIN. Senator Russell, will you swear the witness? + +Senator RUSSELL. Since she is already under oath in this hearing, I +assume that oath will carry over? + +Mr. RANKIN. All right. + +Senator RUSSELL. You understand that you have been sworn?* + +Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Gregory, have you been sworn in connection with these +proceedings? + +Mr. GREGORY. No. + +Senator RUSSELL. Will you do it, Mr. Rankin? + +Mr. RANKIN. Will you rise and raise your right hand. + +Do you solemnly swear that the testimony that you are going to +translate of Mrs. Oswald will be truly translated? + +Mr. GREGORY. To the best of my knowledge and ability, so help me God. + +Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Gopadze, have you been sworn as a translator in these +proceedings? + +Mr. GOPADZE. No, sir. + +Mr. RANKIN. Will you rise, please? + +Do you solemnly swear that your translation of anything of the +testimony of Mrs. Oswald will be true and correct, to the best of your +knowledge? + +Mr. GOPADZE. I do. + +Mr. RANKIN. Thank you. Mrs. Oswald, we're going to ask you rather +informally a number of questions about matters that have come up that +we would like to get your testimony about. Senator Russell will start, +then Senator Cooper will have some, and then I'll have a few I would +like to ask you about, and Representative Boggs will have some. + +Representative BOGGS. I suggest we designate Senator Russell as +chairman of this meeting. + +Mr. RANKIN. Will you record Senator Russell, Miss Reporter, as the +chairman of the meeting, please? + +The REPORTER. Yes, sir. + +Dean STOREY. This is Miss Oliver. She is the reporter to Judge Hughes, +a Federal judge here. + +Mr. RANKIN. Yes; we know her well by her reporting in other matters for +us. + +Senator RUSSELL. Mrs. Oswald, there may be some repetition in what we +say, in the testimony that was taken in Washington, because, I among +others, could not attend that hearing, so you will understand if we ask +questions that are similar to those that were asked of you when you +were in Washington on other occasions.* + +We will try to avoid any more of that than we can help. + +I have read all of your testimony. I don't mean that I recall all of +it, but I read it, as well as your memoirs that were submitted to the +Commission. + +When you first met Lee Oswald, did he ever mention anything about +politics or his political philosophy?* + +*Mrs. OSWALD. No. + +Senator RUSSELL. Did you ever ask him his reason for coming to Russia?* + +*Mrs. OSWALD. Not the first evening when we got acquainted. + +Senator RUSSELL. Prior to the time that you were married to him, did +you ask him his reasons for coming to Russia?* + +*Mrs. OSWALD. Yes. + +Senator RUSSELL. Why did he say that he had come to Russia?* + +*Mrs. OSWALD. He told me that the Soviet Union is the outstanding +Communist country and he wanted to see it with his own eyes. + +Senator RUSSELL. Well, I notice in your testimony that you said that +his memoirs insofar as he claimed that he wished to be a citizen of the +Soviet Union were erroneous?* + +In other words, I want to continue the statement so there won't be any +confusion--I'm not trying to trap her. But that he told you that he had +been offered citizenship in the Soviet Union and had declined?* ** + +**Mrs. OSWALD. Yes. + +*Yes, that's what he said to me. + +Senator RUSSELL. Did he give any reasons why he declined citizenship in +the Soviet Union?* + +*Mrs. OSWALD. The reason he gave me for declining to become a Soviet +citizen was because he said that in case he did not like the way they +do things in the Soviet Union, it would be easier for him to leave the +country than if he did become a citizen. + +Senator RUSSELL. After you were married to Lee, did he complain about +the way they did things in the Soviet Union?* ** + +Mrs. OSWALD. What? + +Mr. GREGORY. Senator, excuse me, sir. I'm a little mixed up on your +question. Would you mind to repeat that question, sir? + +Senator RUSSELL. Did he ever, after their marriage, complain about +conditions as he found them in the Soviet Union, or the way they did +things in the Soviet Union? I believe that was the word you said she +used.* + +*Mrs. OSWALD. Yes; he did. + +Senator RUSSELL. What was the subject of his complaint?* + +*Mrs. OSWALD. He did not like his job. He did not like the wage scale +that they paid him, not only for him but for people that were engaged +in the same line of work. + +*Then, he was unhappy about the restrictions that his movements were +subjected to, being a noncitizen of the Soviet Union. Every 3 months he +was obliged to report--every 3 months or every so often---- + +Senator RUSSELL. Periodically? + +*Mrs. OSWALD. Periodically, he had to report to a certain government +institution, where they would extend his permit of residence. + +Senator RUSSELL. Were there any other restrictions on his movements? +If he had reported duly as he was required, could he have gone down to +Kharkov or any other place that he might have wished to go? * ** + +*Mrs. OSWALD. Of course, in addition to restrictions imposed on his +movements, there were other things that he was dissatisfied with in the +Soviet Union. + +Senator RUSSELL. Do you care to give any of those?* + +*Mrs. OSWALD. He was dissatisfied with high prices for everything that +he had to pay. He was dissatisfied with the quarters, living quarters +that he had. + +Senator RUSSELL. Do you know whether or not he had any friends that he +made there in Minsk while he was living there?* + +*Mrs. OSWALD. Yes. + +Senator RUSSELL. Did most of them work in the same plant where he did +or did he make other friends out in the community?* + +*Mrs. OSWALD. He had many acquaintances that worked in the same place, +but he had no friends. He had two friends at work, in other words, +closer than acquaintances--friends--those that I know personally. + +Senator RUSSELL. But none other than those that worked there in the +same plant?* + +*Mrs. OSWALD. There was one young man who was a friend of his, which +did not work in the same plant, but was a student at the medical +college. + +Senator RUSSELL. Did Lee go to school while he was there in Minsk? Did +he do any studying in any of the institutes? + +Mrs. OSWALD. No. + +Senator RUSSELL. He did not. + +*Mrs. OSWALD. Lee wanted to attend Patrice Lumumba Institute in Moscow +but his application was turned down. He was very much put out, because +he told me that one of the main reasons he came to the Soviet Union was +to get education. He said that after his application was turned down. +He told that to me after his application was turned down. + +Senator RUSSELL. Was that before or after you were married? + +Mrs. OSWALD. After. + +Senator RUSSELL. Now, in reading your testimony, Mrs. Oswald, I noticed +that you referred to a number of foreign students who attended the +institutes in Minsk, including, I believe you said, a number of Cubans. +Do you know whether or not Lee Oswald was acquainted with any of those +Cubans?* + +*Mrs. OSWALD. I have never met these Cuban friends of his, but I +do know that he and Erich; Erich is the medical student previously +referred to, they had Cuban friends. What they were talking about, +I do not know. I have never met him. Lee was interested in Cuba and +in Cuban affairs, but I don't know anything in detail, just through +conversations. + +Senator RUSSELL. Do you know whether he had any Cuban friends here in +Texas or in New Orleans after he came back from Russia? + +Mrs. OSWALD. No. [Nodding a negative response.] + +Senator RUSSELL. You don't know whether he did or not? + +Mrs. OSWALD. No; I don't think he had. + +Senator RUSSELL. You don't think he did. Now, you referred to the fact +in your testimony about his joining some gun club or rifle club in +Minsk?* + +*Mrs. OSWALD. Yes. + +Senator RUSSELL. And he purchased, I believe, a rifle or he had a rifle? + +*Mrs. OSWALD. By the time we got married, he already owned a rifle and +he already was a member of a gun club in Minsk. + +Senator RUSSELL. From your testimony I gathered that he was not very +active in the gun club in carrying on with his rifle?* + +*Mrs. OSWALD. No. He never went hunting except once during all the time +that we lived in Minsk. + +Senator RUSSELL. Did he ever discuss with you his desire to meet any +high official with the Soviet Government?* ** + +*Mrs. OSWALD. No. + +Senator RUSSELL. He never did?* + +*Mrs. OSWALD. No. + +Senator RUSSELL. Do you know whether or not he carried on any +correspondence? + +Mrs. OSWALD. Excuse me---- + +*The only instance I recall--when we filed an application for our +returning to the United States, he visited some colonel, some Soviet +colonel, Aksenov [spelling] A-k-s-e-n-o-v, in order to expedite the +exit visas for us. I also visited this Colonel Aksenov. + +Mrs. OSWALD. I'm sorry---- + +*Correction. He never got to see Colonel Aksenov because when he went +to discuss this question in the--whatever office that was--he talked to +some junior officer, and they would not let him have an audience with +the colonel. + +Senator RUSSELL. Did you go to see the colonel likewise? + +Mrs. OSWALD. Yes. + +Senator RUSSELL. You were both there together? + +*Mrs. OSWALD. We never got to see him. I saw Colonel Aksenov later on. + +Senator RUSSELL. Was he a colonel in the army or in the militia or in +the police or just what? Where did he get his rank?* + +*Mrs. OSWALD. He was a colonel in the MVD, which is the Administer of +Internal Affairs. + +Senator RUSSELL. He had to do then with the passports. His +recommendation would have had to have been had with the passports?* + +*Mrs. OSWALD. I think so. I do not know definitely, but that meeting +was in the Ministry of Internal Affairs. He was not dressed in a +military uniform. + +Senator RUSSELL. Had you known the colonel prior to that time?* + +*Mrs. OSWALD. No; he introduced himself as Colonel Aksenov. + +Mr. GREGORY. When? + +*Mrs. OSWALD. When I talked to him concerning these documents for exit +visas. Even if he were in a uniform, I would not have known what the +insignia meant. + +Senator RUSSELL. If you didn't know him prior to that time, why is it +you got to see him and Lee could not visit him?* + +*Mrs. OSWALD. When Lee went to see Colonel Aksenov in regard to the +exit visas and other documents, he could not see the colonel. Then, on +another later occasion, I went to see the colonel and they let me see +him, on a later occasion. + +Senator RUSSELL. But you don't know why?* + +Mrs. OSWALD (no response). + +Senator RUSSELL. Did any of your friends or relatives intercede with +the colonel in your behalf?* + +*Mrs. OSWALD. My uncle works in the MVD, but I'm sure that he did not +discuss this matter of exit visas with Colonel Aksenov because I think +he would have been afraid to talk about it. When my uncle knew that +Lee and I were planning to go back to the United States, my uncle was +afraid for his own job and for his own welfare. + +Senator RUSSELL. I knew you testified before that he did not want you +to come to the United States, that your uncle did not, but he was +working in the same line of work as this colonel was?* + +Mrs. OSWALD. In the same building, but not in the same department. I +believe that Colonel Aksenov knew my uncle. + +Senator RUSSELL. Yes; but you didn't testify before, I believe, that +your uncle would have been afraid to have helped you. You did testify +that he did not want you to leave Russia? That's the way I recall it. I +could be in error about that--do you know why he was afraid? Why should +he have been afraid for you to leave Russia?* + +*Mrs. OSWALD. My uncle never told me personally that he was afraid that +something might happen to him if I went to America, but his wife, my +aunt, confided in me that my uncle was afraid for his job and for his +well-being if I went to America. + +Senator RUSSELL. What rank did your uncle hold in the MVD? If this man +was a colonel, what was your uncle, was he a colonel or a major or +what?* + +*Mrs. OSWALD. My uncle has a degree in forestry, but he is also a +colonel in MVD. Every employee has to be in the service, in the +military service. He has a degree in forestry, but he is also a colonel +in MVD. + +Senator RUSSELL. He also has the rank of a colonel in the MVD?* + +Mrs. OSWALD. No. He is the head of the forestry department in MVD. I +don't know what he is doing there. + +Senator RUSSELL. Did you ever have any occasion or know any other +Russian wife of a foreigner who tried to leave Russia?* + +*Mrs. OSWALD. Mrs. Zeger. Mrs. Zeger and her husband lived in Argentina +for 25 years---- + +Senator RUSSELL. Well, you testified very fully about them. But I am +asking now if you know of any Russian national or citizen who was +married to a foreign national who ever was able to get a visa to leave +from Russia? + +*Mrs. OSWALD. No; I don't know--I don't know of anyone. I only heard +in the American Embassy in Moscow, where I heard of a Russian woman +married to an American, who had difficulty leaving the country. + +Senator RUSSELL. Well, that's what I had in mind. + +*Mrs. OSWALD. Therefore, to the very last moment we did not believe +that they would let us out of the Soviet Union. + +Senator RUSSELL. Did they examine you very much or ask you many +questions about why you wished to leave, other than the fact that your +husband decided to return to the United States?* + +Mrs. OSWALD. No. + +*No. We only filled out a proper questionnaire containing a statement +that this will be a permanent residence in the United States, or +leaving the Soviet Union for permanent residence in the United States. + +Senator RUSSELL. And none of the officials or police examined you at +all about your reason for wishing to leave?* + +*Mrs. OSWALD. It's very surprising, but nobody did. + +Senator RUSSELL. Do you know as to whether or not Lee corresponded with +any of his friends in Russia after he came back to this country?* + +Mrs. OSWALD. Yes. + +*He did. + +Mrs. OSWALD. With Mr. and Mrs. Zeger. + +*With Mr. and Mrs. Zeger, and Erich; the medical student. I don't +recall the medical student, and Pavel Golovachev. + +Senator RUSSELL. Paul--he was one of your old boy friends, wasn't he? + +Mrs. OSWALD. Paul? + +Senator RUSSELL. I thought one of them was named Paul?* + +Mrs. OSWALD (no response). + +Senator RUSSELL. Did he correspond very frequently?* + +*Mrs. OSWALD. Not often. + +Senator RUSSELL. Did you write very often to your family and friends in +Russia?* + +*Mrs. OSWALD. I wrote several letters shortly after we came to America, +but I never received any answer. I also wrote to some of my colleagues +where I worked. + +Senator RUSSELL. In Minsk? + +Mrs. OSWALD. And shortly after that, my aunt wrote me. Then I +understood that perhaps the letters I wrote my aunt never reached her. + +Senator RUSSELL. She did not refer to your letters when she wrote to +you?* + +*Mrs. OSWALD. No; the only thing that she wrote, she was glad to +get--that she learned my address. + +Senator RUSSELL. Did she say how she learned it? That was my next +question?* + +*Mrs. OSWALD. The supervisory of a drugstore, an apothecary---- + +Senator RUSSELL. An apothecary? + +*Mrs. OSWALD. Or manager of a drugstore telephoned my aunt and told her +she received a letter from me. + +Senator RUSSELL. But she did not answer that letter, or if she did, you +didn't receive it? + +Mrs. OSWALD. No--she answered this letter. + +Senator RUSSELL. I understand, but the friend in the apothecary, did he +answer?* + +Mrs. OSWALD. No. + +Senator RUSSELL. Now, in some of your testimony you referred to a time +when you became somewhat piqued with Lee about something and wrote one +of your old friends there and forgot to put the stamp or didn't know +that the stamps had been increased--you recall that testimony, do you +not? + +Mrs. OSWALD. Yes. + +Senator RUSSELL. Did you write to any of your other friends there and +put the proper stamps on them?* + +*Mrs. OSWALD. No; this was the only letter I wrote. + +Senator RUSSELL. The only one you wrote? + +*Mrs. OSWALD. This was the only letter I wrote after I found out the +proper postage required for mailing letters. After that, my aunt never +wrote me. + +Senator RUSSELL. Have you corresponded with your uncle or aunt at any +time since this great tragedy?* + +*Mrs. OSWALD. Yes; I did. + +Senator RUSSELL. And did you receive any reply? + +Mrs. OSWALD. No. + +Senator RUSSELL. Have you written them more than once since this great +tragedy?* + +*Mrs. OSWALD. I don't remember exactly whether I did or not. + +Senator RUSSELL. But you've written them at least once without +receiving a reply? + +*Mrs. OSWALD. I remember well that I wrote at least once, maybe it was +twice or three times, but I don't remember. + +Senator RUSSELL. Has any official of the Russian Government +communicated with you since this great tragedy?* + +*Mrs. OSWALD. No; no one ever communicated with me from the Soviet +Embassy or any other representative of the Soviet Government, and I +felt rather bad about it, because there I was--all alone in a strange +country and I did not receive any encouragement from anyone. They +didn't approach me even as a show of interest in my well-being. + +Senator RUSSELL. You didn't even hear from them with reference to your +application for visas to return to Russia, although you had heard from +them prior to the time Lee was killed?* ** + +*Mrs. OSWALD. Not after Lee was killed. + +Senator RUSSELL. Now, if I've understood it from reading your +testimony, Mrs. Oswald, Lee went to Mexico from New Orleans a day or +two after Mrs. Paine brought you back to Texas, is that right? + +*Mrs. OSWALD. I do not know definitely, but I believe Mrs. Paine and I +left one day before he went to Mexico. + +Senator RUSSELL. He had talked to you about going to Mexico, had he +not?* + +*Mrs. OSWALD. Yes; he had told me he was going to Mexico. + +Senator RUSSELL. And he had told you that he intended to visit the +Russian Embassy and the Cuban consulate while he was there? + +Mrs. OSWALD. Yes. + +Senator RUSSELL. And that was at a time when he was very anxious to get +to Cuba, I believe? + +Mrs. OSWALD. Yes. + +Senator RUSSELL. When was it, Mrs. Oswald, that Lee told you he +thought it was best for you to go back to Russia, as to time? I know +you testified he told you that, but was that after the Walker case or +before the Walker case? * + +*Mrs. OSWALD. I believe it was before he made the attempt on General +Walker's life. It may be that I stated it differently in my deposition, +but I believe it was before. Lee insisted on my returning to the Soviet +Union before the attempt on Walker's life. + +Senator RUSSELL. I gather from your evidence, Mrs. Oswald, that Lee +was a very devoted husband, unusually so for an American husband, even +though you had little spats at times. Do you think that he advised +you that because he thought something was going to happen that would +involve the family in difficulties?* + +Mrs. OSWALD. No. + +Senator RUSSELL. You don't think so? + +*Mrs. OSWALD. No; he was not a good husband. I may have said so in my +deposition, but if I did, it was when I was in a state of shock. + +Senator RUSSELL. You not only said so in your deposition, Mrs. Oswald, +but you testified in your testimony before the Commission several times +that he was a very good husband and he was very devoted to you, and +that when he was at home and not employed that he did a great deal of +the housework and in looking after the children? + +*Mrs. OSWALD. Well, I also testified to the fact that he beat me on +many occasions, so some of the statements I made regarding him were +good and some were bad. + +Senator RUSSELL. In other words, some of them were not true that you +made?* + +*Mrs. OSWALD. No; everything was true. + +Senator RUSSELL. Everything was true? + +Mrs. OSWALD. Yes. + +*I made statements in the record that he was good when he did housework +and washed the floors and was good to the baby, and again, he was not +good when he beat me and was insolent. + +Senator RUSSELL. Did he beat you on many occasions?* + +*Mrs. OSWALD. Rather--many. + +Senator RUSSELL. Well, you only testified to one, did you not, before +the Commission?* + +*Mrs. OSWALD. I was rather embarrassed to discuss this before the +Commission, but he beat me on more than on one occasion. + +Senator RUSSELL. And you stated at that time that you bruise very +readily and that's the reason you had such a bad black eye? Did you not +testify to that?* ** + +*Mrs. OSWALD. Yes. + +Senator RUSSELL. Was that true or not true?* + +*Mrs. OSWALD. It is true--it is--whatever I said. + +Senator RUSSELL. It is true that you bruise easily, but that was just +one of many occasions he had beat you?* + +*Mrs. OSWALD. On one occasion; yes. + +Senator RUSSELL. But you didn't testify to the others, did you? + +*Mrs. OSWALD. I think I testified only about one particular occasion +that I was asked about, whether he beat me or not, and I replied that +he did, but he beat me on more than one occasion. + +Senator RUSSELL. Did he ever fail to provide for you and the children?* + +Mrs. OSWALD. No---- + +*While he never earned too much, but when he had the job and earned, +say, around $200 a month, we never had any particular need of anything. +However, Lee was so frugal, not only frugal, but he kept part of the +money in his own possession all the time that was not available for the +family. + +Senator RUSSELL. You always had plenty to eat and the children had +plenty to wear? + +Mrs. OSWALD. Not really. + +We were never hungry, but we didn't have much. We were never too +hungry, but we never had any plentitude. We never had too much, and I +wanted--I always wanted this and that, but that was not available. + +Senator RUSSELL. But he never made a great deal of money, did he?* + +*Mrs. OSWALD. I marvel now how we managed to live on what he earned at +that time in comparison with what I have now. We spent $12 or $15 a +week at that time. + +We spent $12 or $15 a week at that time--you know, we can live--that +was for milk and so on. + +Senator RUSSELL. He didn't spent any money on himself, did he, he +wasn't extravagant in his own habits? He didn't spend his money on +clothes or whisky or women or things of that kind, did he? + +Mrs. OSWALD. Oh, no. He told--somebody told about Jack Ruby--he went to +his nightclub, he never did go to nightclub. + +Senator RUSSELL. Well, I mean just extravagance in his own habits--he +was frugal in his own eating habits, he didn't eat much when he was +away from home, did he? + +Mrs. OSWALD. No. + +Senator RUSSELL. You knew where he kept his money in your home, did you +not?* + +*Mrs. OSWALD. He had a black wallet, but I never ventured into it. + +Senator RUSSELL. Did he not tell you to take some of the money out +of the wallet at one time and buy some clothes for the children and +yourself? + +Mrs. OSWALD. No. + +Mr. GOPADZE. Pardon--you don't understand the question?** + +*Mrs. OSWALD. Yes; he did. It was the morning before the tragedy. + +Senator RUSSELL. Before the assassination of the President? + +*Mrs. OSWALD. Yes. + +Senator RUSSELL. Did he ever talk to you about the result of his visit +to Mexico? + +*Mrs. OSWALD. Yes. + +Senator RUSSELL. Did he say his efforts were all a failure there, that +he got any assistance that he was seeking?* + +*Mrs. OSWALD. He told me that he visited the Cuban Embassy and the +Soviet Embassy and that they have the same bureaucracy in the Cuban +Embassy that they have in the Soviet Embassy and that he obtained no +results. + +Senator RUSSELL. Did you have less money in the United States than you +had in Russia when you were married over there? + +*Mrs. OSWALD. We had more money in the United States than we did in +the Soviet Union, but here we have to pay $65 a month rent from $200 +earned, and we didn't have to do that in the Soviet Union. Here the +house rent amounted to 30 percent of total wages earned, while in the +Soviet Union we paid 10 percent of the wages earned. Then, all the +medical expenses, medical assistance--expenses are paid there. However, +Lee didn't spend much money on medical expenses here because he found +ways to get the expenses free; the services free. + +Senator RUSSELL. You have testified, I believe, that Lee didn't use his +rifle much, the one he had in the Soviet Union. Did he ever discuss +shooting anyone in the Soviet Union like he did in shooting Nixon and +Walker here in this country?* + +*Mrs. OSWALD. No; not in the Soviet Union. + +Senator RUSSELL. You haven't then heard from anyone except one letter +from your aunt, since you left Russia?* + +*Mrs. OSWALD. No; I received letters from my girl friend. + +Senator RUSSELL. Oh, how many letters from your girl friend? + +Mrs. OSWALD. Just from one--a Christmas card--I don't remember how +many, probably not more than four or five. + +*But only one letter from the aunt. + +*Mrs. OSWALD. We received letters from Lee's friends written to both of +us--several letters. + +Senator RUSSELL. Written to you? + +Mrs. OSWALD. Written to Lee and to me. + +Senator RUSSELL. I see, but it's strange about your family that you +didn't hear from them when you had written to them?* + +*Mrs. OSWALD. It is strange and it's hurtful. + +Senator RUSSELL. Mrs. Oswald, I believe you testified that Lee didn't +ever discuss political matters with you very much? * + +*Mrs. OSWALD. He discussed politics with me very little. + +Senator RUSSELL. And that when he was discussing political matters with +Mr. Paine and Mr. De Mohrenschildt and others, that you didn't pay +any attention, that they didn't address any of it to you, that they +discussed it between themselves?* + +*Mrs. OSWALD. No; I did not participate in those conversations. + +Senator RUSSELL. And that he didn't discuss a great many things about +his work and things of that kind with you?* + +*Mrs. OSWALD. The only time he discussed his work with me was when he +worked for a printing company. He told me that he liked that job. + +Senator RUSSELL. Why do you suppose he told you about the fact that he +was going to shoot Mr. Nixon and had shot at General Walker?* + +*Mrs. OSWALD. As regards General Walker, he came home late. He left me +a note and so that is the reason why he discussed the Walker affair +with me. + +*Now, in regard to Mr. Nixon, he got dressed up in his suit and he put +a gun in his belt. + +Senator RUSSELL. You testified in his belt--I was going to ask about +that, because that was a very unusual place to carry a gun. Usually, he +would carry it in his coat. Did you ever see him have a gun in his belt +before?* + +*Mrs. OSWALD. No; I would have noticed it if he did. + +Senator RUSSELL. You wouldn't have noticed it? + +*Mrs. OSWALD. I would have noticed it if he did. + +Senator RUSSELL. I see--you would have noticed it. + +*Mrs. OSWALD. And so--I have never seen him before with the pistol. + +Senator RUSSELL. He didn't state to you that he talked to any person in +Mexico other than at the Russian Embassy and the Cuban Embassy?* + +*Mrs. OSWALD. No. The only persons he mentioned were the Cuban Embassy +and the Soviet Embassy in Mexico. + +Senator RUSSELL. Now, going back to your personal relations, Mrs. +Oswald, with Lee. Do you think he wanted to send you back to Russia +just to get rid of you?* + +*Mrs. OSWALD. This is the question that I am puzzled about and I am +wondering about it myself, whether he wanted to get rid of me. + +Senator RUSSELL. Do you think he was really devoted to the children or +was he just putting on a show about liking the children?* + +*Mrs. OSWALD. Yes; he loved the children. + +*I believe he loved the children, but at times--one side of his life +was such that I wondered whether he did or not. Some of the things that +he did certainly were not good for his children--some of the acts he +was engaged in. + +Senator RUSSELL. He knew you would take the children back to Russia +with you, if you wanted, did he not?* + +*Mrs. OSWALD. Of course I would have taken the children with me to the +Soviet Union. + +Senator RUSSELL. It seems to me that I recall once or twice in this +testimony when you had had some little domestic trouble, as all married +couples have, that he had cried, which is most unusual for a man in +this country--men don't cry very often, and do you think that he cried +despite the fact that he wasn't very devoted to you and loved you a +great deal?* ** + +*Mrs. OSWALD. The fact that he cried, and on one occasion he begged +me to come back to him--he stood on his knees and begged me to come +back to him--whether that meant that he loved me--perhaps he did. On +the other hand, the acts that he committed showed to me that he didn't +particularly care for me. + +Senator RUSSELL. You think then that his acts that he committed outside +your domestic life within the family, within the realm of the family, +was an indication that he did not love you?* + +*Mrs. OSWALD. The fact that he made attempts on the lives of other +people showed to me that he did not treasure his family life and his +children, also the fact that he beat me and wanted to send me to the +Soviet Union. + +Senator RUSSELL. And you think that the fact that he promised you after +the Walker incident that he would never do anything like that again but +did, is an indication that he didn't love you?* + +*Mrs. OSWALD. Logically--yes. That shows to me that he did not love +me. At times he cried, and did all sorts of helpful things around the +house. At other times he was mean. Frankly, I am lost as to what to +think about him. + +And I did not have any choice, because he was the only person that I +knew and I could count on--the only person in the United States. + +Senator RUSSELL. Did he beat you very often, Mrs. Oswald, strike you +hard blows with his fists? Did he hit you with his fists?* ** + +*Mrs. OSWALD. When he beat me, sometimes he would beat me hard and +sometimes not too hard. Sometimes he would leave a black eye and +sometimes he wouldn't, depending on which part of me he would strike +me. When we lived in New Orleans he never beat me up. + +Senator RUSSELL. Did he ever beat you in Russia before you came to this +country?* + +Mrs. OSWALD. No. + +Senator RUSSELL. Had you ever heard of any husband striking his wife in +Russia?* + +*Mrs. OSWALD. It seems that beating of wives by the Russian husbands is +a rather common thing in the Soviet Union and that is why I was afraid +to marry a Russian. + +Senator RUSSELL. I see. Do they beat them with anything other than +their hands? + +There was a law in my State at one time that a man could whip his wife +as long as he didn't use a switch that was larger than his thumb. That +law has been repealed. + +But, did they ever whip their wives with anything other than their +hands in Russia?* + +*Mrs. OSWALD. I do not know. I was not interested in what manner they +beat their wives. + +Senator RUSSELL. That's difficult for me to believe--that a very +charming and attractive girl who was being courted by a number of men, +I would have thought you would have been greatly interested in all the +aspects of matrimony?* ** + +*Mrs. OSWALD. How would I know? + +Senator RUSSELL. How would you know it--well, by general conversation. +Don't people talk about those things all over the world--in Russia and +everywhere else? + +Mrs. OSWALD. That's different there. + +Senator RUSSELL. People are very much the same, aren't they, all over +the world? If a man in the neighborhood gets drunk and beats and abuses +his wife and children, isn't that discussed by all the people in the +block--in that area? + +Mrs. OSWALD. **Sometimes during a life of 20 years with a husband, +everything will be all right, and then some occasion will arise or +something will happen that the wife will learn about what kind of +person he is. + +*I know of one family in the Soviet Union in Minsk, where a husband was +married to a woman 17 years, and he just went to another woman. + +For 1 year. + +*For 1 year--then he came back to the first one full of shame and +repentance and he cried and she took him back in. He lived with her for +3 days and then left her again. He was excluded from the party. + +Senator RUSSELL. Excommunicated from the party? + +Mrs. OSWALD. **Expelled from the party. + +*But he took all the possessions of their common property when he left. + +Senator RUSSELL. I'm taking too much time, and I will hurry along. Did +he ever beat you badly enough, Mrs. Oswald, for you to require the +services of a doctor, a physician?* + +Mrs. OSWALD. No. + +Senator RUSSELL. Did he ever strike you during your pregnancy, when you +were pregnant?* + +Mrs. OSWALD. Yes. + +Mr. GOPADZE. She said, "I think." She said, "I think." + +*Mrs. OSWALD. Yes; he did strike me. + +Senator RUSSELL. What reason did he give for striking you, usually?* + +*Mrs. OSWALD. Well, the reasons were if--they were very petty--I can't +even remember what the reasons were after this quarrel was over. +Sometimes he would tell me to shut up, and I don't take that from him. + +**I'm not a very quiet woman myself. + +Senator RUSSELL. "I'm not--" what? + +**Mrs. OSWALD. I'm not a quiet woman myself and sometimes it gets on +your nerves and you'll just tell him he's an idiot and he will become +more angry with you. + +*Enraged. When I would call him an idiot, he would say, "Well, I'll +show you what kind of an idiot I am," so he would beat me up. + +Senator RUSSELL. Did you ever strike him?* + +*Mrs. OSWALD. I would give him some in return. + +Senator RUSSELL. You would give him some in return. + +As I recall your testimony, when he told you about the Nixon incident, +you testified that you held him in the bathroom by physical strength +for some 4 or 5 minutes, so you should have been able to hold your own +pretty well with him if you could do that?* ** + +Mrs. OSWALD. Probably not 5 minutes, but a long time for him. + +*Sometimes one can gather all of his strength in a moment like that. I +am not a strong person, but sometimes under stress and strain perhaps I +am stronger than I ordinarily am. + +Senator RUSSELL. Did you ever strike him with anything other than your +hand?* + +*Mrs. OSWALD. Well, I think at one time I told him that if he would +beat me again, I will hurl a radio, a transistor radio, and when he did +strike me, I threw the radio at him. + +Senator RUSSELL. You missed him? + +*Mrs. OSWALD. No--it broke. I missed him. + +Senator RUSSELL. Yes, she missed him. + +*Mrs. OSWALD. I tried not to hit him. + +Senator RUSSELL. Now, going back a moment or two to your uncle, whom +you lived with and to whom I understand you are quite devoted--did he +try to keep you from coming to the United States very vigorously? + +*Mrs. OSWALD. My uncle was against my going to America, but he never +imposed his will or his opinion on me. + +Senator RUSSELL. Did he or any other members of your family ever +tell you why you had such little difficulty in getting your passport +approved?* + +*Mrs. OSWALD. During the pendency of receiving this exit visa, we never +discussed the question, my uncle and my aunt, but when we received it, +the exit visa and it was granted to us so quickly, they were very much +surprised. + +Mr. GOPADZE. Now, Marina, I'm sorry. I would like to make a correction +to that point. + +Mr. GREGORY. All right. + +Mr. GOPADZE. That during the time they were expecting a visa to +depart the Soviet Union, the relatives didn't express too much about +it--because they didn't [think] they would depart, and when they did +receive it, they were very much surprised---- + +Mr. GREGORY. Correct. + +Mr. GOPADZE. With the expediency of the visa. Therefore, they didn't +bother asking any questions or into their affairs concerning the +departure. The last time they visited their aunt and uncle, they say, +"Oh, of all places, you're going to the United States." + +Senator RUSSELL. Lee never did make much more than $225 a month, in +that area, did he, and he was unemployed almost as much as he was +employed?* + +*Mrs. OSWALD. Yes. + +Senator RUSSELL. How did he manage to pay the State Department the +money he had borrowed from them and to pay his brother Robert under +those circumstances?* + +Mrs. OSWALD. He paid those debts out of his earnings. The first few +weeks when we came to the United States, we lived with his mother, and +that gave us the opportunity to pay the debts. + +Senator RUSSELL. Well, you only lived with Mrs. Oswald a matter of 3 or +4 weeks, didn't you?* + +*Mrs. OSWALD. Yes; but he was earning money during that time. + +Senator RUSSELL. I understand, but he was not earning more than $200 a +month, was he, and he paid four or five or six--what was it, Mr. Rankin? + +Mr. RANKIN. It was over $400. + +Senator RUSSELL. Over $450 or more to the State Department and some +amount to his brother Robert. + +Mrs. OSWALD. Around $100. + +*It was $100. + +It was probably $100. + +Senator RUSSELL. That's $550, and a person that's earning $200 a month +part of the time, and having to support a family, that's a rather +remarkable feat, isn't it, of financing?* + +*Mrs. OSWALD. I think that at the time we were leaving Russia, some of +the rubles were exchanged for dollars, and maybe he kept part of that +money, of which I have no knowledge, when we arrived in the United +States. The only thing I know is that we lived very, very economically +and Lee was saying all the time that the debts have to be paid as +quickly as possible. + +Senator RUSSELL. I was under the impression that there was a very +drastic limit on the number of rubles that could be exchanged, that it +was a hundred or 130 or something in that area?* + +*Mrs. OSWALD. According to the law in the Soviet Union, they allow +about 90 rubles per person to be exchanged into foreign currency or +dollars--$180 in our case because Lee was including the baby, and +she---- + +Senator RUSSELL. For each of them--the exchange. + +Mrs. OSWALD. Not for Lee. + +Senator RUSSELL. No; he couldn't bring out any more than he took in +with him. Well, he wasn't a visitor, though--yes, he was a visitor +then. I know they checked my money when I went in there.** + +**Mrs. OSWALD. I don't know the reason why they didn't allow Lee to +exchange $90, but I believe that there is a Soviet law that for Soviet +citizens they allow $90 for each person. Excuse me. + +*I believe that a foreigner is also entitled to exchange rubles for +dollars, but in a very limited amount. + +Senator RUSSELL. Mrs. Oswald, do you have any plans to return to the +Soviet Union, or do you intend to live in this country?* + +*Mrs. OSWALD. Of course--to remain in the United States. + +Senator RUSSELL. I have a few other questions, but I'm already taking +too much time. + +Senator COOPER. I want to say something off the record. + +(Conference between Senator Cooper and Senator Russell off the record.) + +Representative BOGGS. I have just one question. + +Senator COOPER. All right. + +Senator RUSSELL. Go right ahead. + +Representative BOGGS. Mrs. Oswald, have you been taking English lessons? + +Mrs. OSWALD. Yes. + +Representative BOGGS. Do you speak English now?* + +*Mrs. OSWALD. I can't call it speaking English. + +Representative BOGGS. But you understand English, you replied to my +question a moment ago?** + +Mrs. OSWALD. Yes. + +Representative BOGGS. But you have been speaking English, studying +English, and whom do you live with now? + +Mrs. OSWALD. With myself and my kids, with my neighbors. + +Representative BOGGS. Do you read English? + +Mrs. OSWALD. No. A little bit. + +*A little bit. + +Mr. GOPADZE. Naturally, she knows the English alphabet, but she doesn't +read too much. + +**Sometimes I read on my own, but on the other hand, it might be +entirely different for an American. + +Senator RUSSELL. Well, I believe you can speak it pretty well, Mrs. +Oswald. You are a very intelligent person, and I've never seen a woman +yet that didn't learn a foreign language three times as fast as a man. + +Mrs. OSWALD. Thank you. + +Senator RUSSELL. They all do, and in some places in Russia you run into +women that speak three or four languages very fluently, including in +the high schools, where they have 10 or 12 years of English, starting +in the first grade with it? + +Mrs. OSWALD. That's the way they try--to learn it in school. + +Senator RUSSELL. Is that your foreign language? I understand in Russia +each student has to study some one foreign language all the way--or at +least for 5 or 6 years? + +Mrs. OSWALD. Yes; but I don't like this system of education in Russia +to study some languages--well, he can speak, you know. + +Senator RUSSELL. Mrs. Oswald, your attorney--your then attorney, +according to the record, asked the Commission some questions +about your memoirs, your diary or whatever it was that you have +written--your reminiscences, and that they not be released. Have you +ever made arrangements yet to sell them? Have you gotten rid of them? +Because--the record of the Commission will be printed at a rather early +date?* ** + +*Mrs. OSWALD. I do not want these memoirs to be published by Warren +Commission. + +Senator RUSSELL. Yes; I understand that. + +*Mrs. OSWALD. I am now working on a book and I may wish to include +these memoirs in that book. I have no objection to the publication +of the material in those memoirs that have any relation to the +assassination of the President, or anything that is pertinent to this +particular inquiry. + +Senator RUSSELL. Of course, a great deal of it is very personal. It's +about your social relations when you were a young woman. Of course, +you are a young woman now, but when you were even younger than you +are now, and the friends that you had, and things of that nature, and +this report is going to be published before too long. And that's among +the evidence there, and I was trying to get some timing on your book +or whatever it is you are going to publish that would utilize this +material, in an effort to help you--that is the only purpose I had, to +try to see that you don't lose the publicity value of the memoirs.* + +*Mrs. OSWALD. I understand that and I'm certainly grateful to you for +it. + +**Would it be possible to publish in the report only parts of my life, +that pertaining to the assassination, instead of my private life? + +Senator RUSSELL. I cannot answer that, and only the entire Commission +could answer that, but when I read that in the testimony, I was hoping +that you had found some means of commercializing on it either to the +moving picture people or to the publishing world. + +Mrs. OSWALD. As yet, I have not availed myself of that opportunity, sir. + +Senator RUSSELL. When do you think you will publish this book?* + +*Mrs. OSWALD. The publisher will possibly publish the book toward the +end of December, maybe in January and even perhaps---- + +Mr. GOPADZE. Not the publisher. The person who writes the story is +hoping to be able to finish it in the latter part of December. + +Senator RUSSELL. Of course, it goes into much more detail, I'm sure, +than this sketch we have, because this wouldn't be anything like a +book. It would be more of a magazine article. + +**Mrs. OSWALD. Would it be possible to delete it from the Commission's +report? + +Senator RUSSELL. I can't answer that because I'm not the whole +Commission.** + +Very frankly, I think the Commission would be disposed to publish all +the material that they have, is my own honest view about it. The reason +I am discussing it with you is to find out if you have done anything +about it. Of course, if you are writing a whole book, it won't be so +important, just this one phase of it. + +Mrs. OSWALD, during the course of your testimony, you testified that +Lee often called you twice a day while he was working away from home. + +Why do you think he called you if he was not in love with you?*** + +*Mrs. OSWALD. When he was away from me, he told me that he missed me. + +Senator RUSSELL. You don't think that's an indication that he loved +you?* + +*Mrs. OSWALD. This shows--this would show that he loved me. He was a +dual personality. + +Senator RUSSELL. Split personality. + +Mrs. OSWALD. Split personality--that's it. + +Senator RUSSELL. Mrs. Oswald, I noticed that one of the witnesses, +I've forgotten which one it was, that ran the boarding house where Lee +lived, testified that he called someone every night and talked to them +at some length in a foreign language. That couldn't have been anyone +except you, could it, that he was calling?* ** + +*Mrs. OSWALD. I believe that I was the person he talked to. + +Senator RUSSELL. He did call you quite frequently, did he not when you +were in Irving and he was in Dallas, for example? + +Mrs. OSWALD. Every day. + +Senator RUSSELL. But he didn't call you to abuse you over the phone, +did he?* ** + +*Mrs. OSWALD. Of course not. + +Senator RUSSELL. It was the ordinary small talk you would have between +a man and his wife--he would ask you about how the children were--one +of them--was?* + +*Mrs. OSWALD. He always talked about our daughter June. + +Senator RUSSELL. Did he ever say anything about, "I love you" or +anything like that over the phone?** + +Mrs. OSWALD. (no response). + +Mr. GOPADZE. Did he? + +*Mrs. OSWALD. Yes. + +Senator RUSSELL. He did? + +*Mrs. OSWALD. He did. + +Senator RUSSELL. Now, you've testified before, and I'm just going on +recollection, but I'm sure I'm right about this, that he told you in +New Orleans that he was going to Mexico City and that he was going by +bus and that a round trip would be much cheaper than a one-way fare. +I noticed something in the paper the other day where you had found a +one-way ticket or stub on the bus from Mexico City to Dallas, I believe +it was. How did you happen to come into possession of that stub?* + +*Mrs. OSWALD. You say round trip was cheaper than one-way? + +Senator RUSSELL. Yes; that's what you testified he told you in New +Orleans when he said he was going. But here, according to the press--I +don't know--a one-way stub turns up where he came back here to Dallas. +Where did you get that stub?* + +*Mrs. OSWALD. My statement apparently was misinterpreted in the record, +because Lee stated that the cost of the ticket, say, from Dallas to +Mexico is cheaper than it is from Mexico City to Dallas or from one +point to Mexico and from Mexico to that same point. + +Senator RUSSELL. Well, that very easily could have become confused in +translation, but it certainly is in there.* + +Mr. RANKIN. I think they have confused your question, Senator, I think +they have confused your question. I think they think that you were +saying that a round trip was cheaper than one way? Or--two ways? + +Senator RUSSELL. I'm sorry, Mr. Gregory. You misunderstood it. I didn't +mean that a round trip was cheaper than one way. I meant that a round +trip was cheaper than to go there and back on individual tickets--than +two ways. + +Mr. GREGORY. She understood you correctly. I misunderstood you, +Senator. I'm sorry. + +*Mrs. OSWALD. The fact remains, according to Lee, that it is cheaper +from Mexico--a one-way ticket from Mexico City, say, to Dallas costs +less than from Dallas to Mexico, Mexico City. Or vice versa. + +Senator RUSSELL. Be that as it may, how about the stub? + +*Mrs. OSWALD. I found the stub of this ticket approximately 2 weeks ago +when working with Priscilla Johnson on the book. Three weeks. + +*Three weeks ago--I found this stub of a ticket among old magazines, +Spanish magazines, and there was a television program also in Spanish +and there was the stub of this ticket. + +Mrs. OSWALD. But this was, you know, a piece of paper and I didn't know +this was a ticket. + +Senator RUSSELL. You didn't know it was a ticket? + +Mrs. OSWALD. No. + +Senator RUSSELL. Until you showed it to Miss Johnson? + +Mrs. OSWALD. Yes--it was in the TV book and then Mr. Liebeler called me +on telephone and asked me some questions about Mexico. + +Senator RUSSELL. Yes? + +Mrs. OSWALD. And I told him, "Just a minute, I'll go and inquire +and tell him what I have," and I told him I have some kind of piece +of paper. I don't know what it is. I don't know whether it would be +interested--the Commission, and somebody who was at my house one +time---- + +*Read what was on the stub. + +Senator RUSSELL. You could read the stub all right, could you, Mrs. +Oswald? There wasn't anything complicated there, you could read +"One-way ticket," couldn't you? You know that much English?* + +*Mrs. OSWALD. It was a mixture of Spanish and English. + +Senator RUSSELL. Oh, I see--it had it both ways, and the name of the +bus company, too, perhaps. + +Mrs. OSWALD. I didn't understand this in languages--you can't say this. + +Senator RUSSELL. Where had that magazine been that had this bus ticket +in it, was anything else in it, any tickets to bull fights or anywhere +else?* + +*Mrs. OSWALD. I turned all of this material over to the FBI, thinking +that they might find something of interest in it. I did not try to +determine for myself what it was. + +Senator RUSSELL. Was it in the possessions that were removed from Mrs. +Paine's room, or was it in some of Lee's material that was moved from +his boardinghouse?* + +Mrs. OSWALD. It was with Mrs. Paine. + +Senator RUSSELL. Didn't you testify, Mrs. Oswald, that Lee couldn't +read Spanish, when you were testifying before? What was he doing with a +Spanish magazine? + +Mrs. OSWALD. It wasn't a Spanish magazine, it was a TV program. + +Senator RUSSELL. Pardon? + +Mrs. OSWALD. It was a TV program. + +*It was not a Spanish magazine, it was a TV program. + +Senator RUSSELL. Oh, it was not a magazine, it was a TV program. I +understood you to say it was a Spanish magazine? I'm sorry. + +*Mrs. OSWALD. I found all this among my old magazines and newspapers, +that I was collecting after the assassination of the President, and +there also were English books which could have been in that small +suitcase in which I put everything. + +Senator RUSSELL. How did the FBI happen to overlook that when they +made the raid out there at Mrs. Paine's? I thought they carried off +everything you had out there, practically?* + +*Mrs. OSWALD. The reason they overlooked this particular suitcase is +because I took it with me to---- + +**To the hotel--the first night they moved us. + +*When we stayed in the hotel. + +It was in Dallas. + +Senator RUSSELL. It was in Dallas. That's when they were at the big +hotel--where you spent one night there? + +*Mrs. OSWALD. It was in Dallas and I took it with me because there were +children's books. + +Senator RUSSELL. I thought the FBI had already removed your passports +and your diploma and everything before that time? + +*Mrs. OSWALD. The first day when Lee was arrested, the FBI made a +search. + +Mr. GOPADZE. The FBI or police. + +Mr. GREGORY. The FBI or police. + +Senator RUSSELL. I believe it was the police then. + +*Mrs. OSWALD. The police made the search in the Paine's house. + +Senator RUSSELL. Yes. + +*Mrs. OSWALD. And everything was there. I did not take anything with me +that first day when I was arrested. + +Senator RUSSELL. When you returned to Mrs. Paine's you found they had +left this particular program there with this bus stub? You testified +they had removed your passport and your diploma and Lee's union cards +and Social Security card and everything else--I was just wondering how +they happened to leave this particular article with the bus stub in it?* + +Mrs. OSWALD. **I never retained that for any special reason. + +Senator RUSSELL. I'm quite sure of that. I wasn't asking that at all.** + +Mrs. OSWALD. **I don't know the reason. + +Senator RUSSELL. They just overlooked that? + +Mrs. OSWALD. **It was just overlooked--the same way they overlooked +that other. + +Senator RUSSELL. Mrs. Oswald, what are your relations now with the +friends that you made in the Russian community here in Dallas? I +don't remember all of the names--one of them was named Elena Hall, +is that right, and Katya Ford, Anna Meller, De Mohrenschildt, De +Mohrenschildt's wife and children--are you still on friendly terms with +them, do you see them occasionally?* + +*Mrs. OSWALD. As far as I'm concerned, I consider all of them as my +friends, but George Bouhe, and Katya Ford are the only two people that +come to visit me. Others perhaps feel that it is not healthy for them +to come to see me. + +Senator RUSSELL. I wondered if they had expressed their opinion or +whether they were afraid of you on account of publicity contamination?* + +*Mrs. OSWALD. No, they never said that to me personally that they are +afraid to come to see me. When we meet in the church, they are all very +pleasant to me, but they never invite me. + +Mr. GOPADZE. No. + +**Mrs. OSWALD. Sometimes they invite Katya Ford, but they never invite +me. Nataska Krassovska is very nice to me. + +Senator RUSSELL. When was the first time you ever heard of Jack Ruby or +Jack Rubenstein?* + +Mrs. OSWALD. When he killed him. + +Senator RUSSELL. You had never heard of him until that time? + +Mrs. OSWALD. (Nodding a negative response.) + +Senator RUSSELL. That's all. + +Senator COOPER. What is your address now, Mrs. Oswald, and with whom do +you live? + +Mrs. OSWALD. 629 Belt Line Road, Richardson, Tex. + +Senator COOPER. Does someone live with you or do you live with someone? + +Mrs. OSWALD. No; I live by myself with my children. + +Senator COOPER. After the death of your husband, you had a lawyer, Mr. +Thorne, and a business agent, Mr. Martin, and they were discharged. Was +there any particular reason for discharging them?* + +*Mrs. OSWALD. I got rid of them because the contract that they prepared +was unfair to me, and it was prepared at a time when I did not +understand it and when it was not translated to me. + +Senator COOPER. Now, you later employed Mr. McKenzie as your attorney +and you have since discharged him, haven't you?* + +*Mrs. OSWALD. I employed Mr. McKenzie to wind up the affair with Mr. +Martin and Mr. Thorne, and he was not employed on any other basis--just +for that particular thing. + +**Not permanently. + +*Not permanently--just for that particular thing, despite the fact +that he did give advice on other business of mine. Of course, I needed +an attorney in my dealings with the Commission that's what he told +me--that I needed an attorney to deal with the Commission. + +Mr. GOPADZE. She said---- + +Mr. RANKIN. She said more than that. + +*Mrs. OSWALD. Now, as I feel now, I don't need any lawyer before the +Commission. + +Senator COOPER. If you'll just answer my question now: Do you have a +lawyer to represent you now?* + +Mrs. OSWALD. No. + +Senator COOPER. Who is your business agent? + +Mrs. OSWALD. Mrs. Katya Ford. + +Senator COOPER. Can you tell the Commission about how much money has +been donated to you or how much you have earned through contracts?* + +*Mrs. OSWALD. I do not know at this time how much money I have. + +Senator COOPER. Approximately?* + +*Mrs. OSWALD. Donations were $57,000, from which twelve and one-half +thousand plus expenses were paid to Martin and Thorne, and $15,000 to +Mr. McKenzie. + +Senator COOPER. Do you have any contracts, have you made any contracts +for the sale of your writings which may be payable in the future?* ** + +Mrs. OSWALD. The publishing company contract with me is all. + +*I have not signed any contracts with the publishing company, except I +have already signed several contracts with Life Magazine. + +After the diary was published. + +**After the diary was published. + +Senator COOPER. That's for $20,000? + +Mrs. OSWALD. $20,000 plus $1,000 for Parade Magazine, and one +girl--Helen--I don't know her last name, I know we did---- + +*Also, I signed--I agreed with a girl by the name of Helen--I cannot +remember her last name, for possible future stories Helen might write. + +We have interview. + +Senator COOPER. You testified that your uncle is an official and a +Colonel in the MVD?* ** And, a member of the Communist Party, is that +correct? + +Mrs. OSWALD. Yes. + +Senator COOPER. Do you know that any other members of your family are +members of the Communist Party?* ** + +*Mrs. OSWALD. The husband of another aunt. + +Senator COOPER. Is that the aunt you visited from time to time?* ** + +**Mrs. OSWALD. Yes. + +Senator COOPER. At Kharkov? + +Mrs. OSWALD. At Minsk. + +Senator COOPER. With whom did you file your declaration for an exit +visa?** * + +*Mrs. OSWALD. There is a special institution in Minsk where prospective +departees filed application for exit visa. They leave the application +in that institution, and that institution transmits it to Moscow where +the decision is made whether to grant or to deny the exit permit. The +reply then comes to the MVD in Minsk. + +*I want to assure the Commission that I was never given any assignment +by the Soviet Government or the American Government, and that I was so +surprised myself that I got the exit visa. + +Senator COOPER. When you talked to Colonel Aksenov, what did he tell +you when you asked him about the exit visa?* + +*Mrs. OSWALD. When I went to see Colonel Aksenov, I went to ask him +about the state in which my application is for exit visa, and he +replied---- + +Mr. GOPADZE. No. "Was it favorable or not," and he said it was +favorable. + +Mr. GREGORY. Yes, and he said---- + +Mr. GOPADZE. That it takes official process of getting the answer. + +*Mrs. OSWALD. He said, "You are not the only one who is seeking exit +permit, and so you have to wait your turn." + +Senator COOPER. Did he attempt to discourage you from seeking the exit +visa? + +Mrs. OSWALD. No. + +Senator COOPER. Did Lee Oswald ever express any opinion to you as to +why he thought an exit visa might be granted to you and your daughter? + +*Mrs. OSWALD. He encouraged me and he thought that I would consider +that he exerted every effort on his part for me to get this exit. Maybe +he just was saying that that way, but never hoped that actually I would +get the exit permit. + +Senator COOPER. During that time or at any other time, did Lee ever +say to you that he might do some work for the Soviet Union if you did +return to the United States?* + +*Mrs. OSWALD. He did not. + +Senator COOPER. I would like to turn to your testimony about your +knowledge of the rifle that Lee possessed. Now, as I remember your +testimony, you stated that you first learned that he had the rifle +early in 1963.* + +*Mrs. OSWALD. In the year that he bought it, I learned it. + +Senator COOPER. You had seen him clean it, you had watched him sight +the rifle in New Orleans and work the bolt?* ** + +Mr. GREGORY. In New Orleans? + +Senator COOPER. Yes; in your testimony, you said you saw him sitting on +the little back porch---- + +Mrs. OSWALD. On the little back porch--yes. + +Senator COOPER. And sight the rifle? + +*Mrs. OSWALD. I'm sorry, I might be mixed up. + +Senator COOPER. When you testified that you believed he did some target +practice at least a few times? + +*Mrs. OSWALD. In Dallas or New Orleans?* ** + +*Yes; when we lived on Neely Street. + +Senator COOPER. He told you that he had used this rifle to fire at +General Walker?* + +Mrs. OSWALD. Yes. + +Senator COOPER. He told you he had threatened Vice President Nixon, you +had said?* + +*Mrs. OSWALD. He did not say "Vice President Nixon," he just said +"Nixon." + +Senator COOPER. Now, was it your opinion throughout these months that +he was keeping this rifle for his purpose of using it again, firing at +some individual, perhaps an official of the United States Government?* +** + +Mrs. OSWALD. **He never expressed himself. + +*When the assassination of President Kennedy took place, I was asking +people whether--people in general--whether General Walker was with +President Kennedy. It perhaps was a silly question, but I thought that +he---- + +Senator COOPER. Listen to my question: During this time, didn't you +have the opinion that he was keeping possession of this rifle and +practicing with it for the purpose of using it to shoot at some +individual, and perhaps an official of the United States Government?* + +*Mrs. OSWALD. I never thought--I was afraid to think that he would do +anything like that until the shooting of General Walker occurred. + +Senator COOPER. But now my question. After that--the continued +possession----* ** + +**Mrs. OSWALD. After the attempting of the killing of General Walker, +I thought he might do it, but I didn't visualize that he could do +anything like that. + +Senator COOPER. When you testified before the Commission, you +said--generally--you didn't think Lee would repeat anything like +that--"Generally, I knew that the rifle was very tempting for him". + +"Very tempting for him"--what did you mean by that, about the rifle +being very tempting for him? Did you believe he might be tempted to +shoot at someone else?* + +*Mrs. OSWALD. Yes; I was afraid that he did have temptation to kill +someone else. + +Senator COOPER. Mrs. Oswald, you testified that when you talked to Lee +after he had shot at General Walker, or told you he had shot at General +Walker, he said that it would have been well if someone had killed +Hitler because many lives would be saved, is that correct? + +Mrs. OSWALD. Yes. + +Senator COOPER. After that, you testified that many times or a number +of times he read you articles about President Kennedy? + +Mrs. OSWALD. Yes. + +Senator COOPER. And said at one time, discussing President Kennedy's +father, that he had made his money through wine and he had a great deal +of money, and that enabled him to educate his sons and to give them a +start. + +I want you to remember and tell the Commission if he did ever express +any hatred or dislike for President Kennedy. You have several +times--not changed--but you have told the Commission things you did not +tell them when first asked. + +Now, if he did speak to you about President Kennedy, we think you +should tell the Commission?* + +*Mrs. OSWALD. I don't think he ever expressed hatred toward President +Kennedy, but perhaps he expressed jealousy, not only jealousy, but +envy, but perhaps he envied, because he said, "Whoever has money has it +easy." That was his general attitude. It was not a direct quotation. + +Representative BOGGS. Pursuing this--I asked you that very question +in Washington back in February, and the answer was "No." I asked you +whether or not your husband ever expressed hostility toward President +Kennedy--is your answer still "No"?* + +*Mrs. OSWALD. My answer is "No." + +**He never expressed himself anything against President Kennedy, +anything detrimental toward him. What I told them generally before, I +am repeating now too. + +Representative BOGGS. Did he ever indicate to you, except in the Walker +situation where he said he'd shot at General Walker, that he would kill +anyone?* + +*Mrs. OSWALD. No. + +Representative BOGGS. What about Nixon?* + +*Mrs. OSWALD. He did tell me he was about ready to commit that +particular act, with respect to Nixon. That's when I kept him in the +bathroom, but he never said, "Well, today it's Walker and then I'm +going to kill someone else." He never said that. He never related to me +any of his plans about killing anybody. + +*In other words, he never said to me, "Now, I'll kill Walker and then +I'll kill this fellow" and so on--he never did. + +Senator COOPER. You testified that your husband said that he did +not like the United States for several reasons; one, because of +certain Fascist organizations; two, because of difficulty of securing +employment; and another reason--because of the high cost of medical +care. Did he ever say that those things that he did not like could be +remedied or changed if an official of the Government were done away +with?* ** + +*Mrs. OSWALD. No; he never told me. + +**No; he never told me--he never told me. + +Senator COOPER. Did any official of the Soviet Union, or any person +who was a Soviet citizen, ever talk to you or ever talk to Lee to your +knowledge, during the time that you were in the United States? + +Mr. GREGORY. At any time before or after? + +Senator COOPER. Yes? + +Senator RUSSELL. You said--in the United States, didn't you? + +Senator COOPER. Yes; in the United States.* + +*Mrs. OSWALD. No; no one ever did. The only time Lee talked with a +representative of the Soviet Union was in Mexico, but not me and Lee, +we were never approached by the Soviet representatives. + +Senator COOPER. When was the first time you ever heard of Police +Officer Tippit?* + +*Mrs. OSWALD. When there was a broadcast over the radio that Officer +Tippit was killed. + +Senator COOPER. Have you seen Mrs. Paine since the time you left her +home after the assassination?* + +Mrs. OSWALD. Yes. + +I saw her twice since I left Irving, since I lived with her in Irving. + +Senator COOPER. When was that?* + +*Mrs. OSWALD. Once, when I lived with Katya Ford in February of this +year, and the next time I do not recall--maybe 1 month later. + +In my house. + +Senator COOPER. You had quite an association with her, and I need not +recall all of the facts, but is there any reason now that you do not +wish to see her?* + +*Mrs. OSWALD. One of the reasons is that she belongs to the Civil +Liberties Union and I don't want to get mixed up in anything. I already +have plenty of grief. + +Senator COOPER. Just one other question--is there any other fact about +this subject, which you have been asked by the Commission or by anyone +else that you have knowledge of that you have not told us about it? Any +fact that would bear on this inquiry?* ** + +*Mrs. OSWALD. I would be glad to, but I don't know of any. + +Representative BOGGS. May I just ask one or two questions? + +Have you seen Mrs. Marguerite Oswald at any time since you first +appeared before the Commission? + +Mrs. OSWALD. No. + +Representative BOGGS. Have you heard from her? + +Mrs. OSWALD. No. + +Representative BOGGS. You've had no communication from her either +directly or indirectly?* ** + +Mrs. OSWALD. No. + +*She tried to get in touch with me. + +**Through Attorney McKenzie. + +Representative BOGGS. And you refused to see her? + +Mrs. OSWALD. Yes. + +*I think that she may have been bad influence with the +children--improper influence with the children. + +**I feel that--I hardly believe--that Lee Oswald really tried to kill +President Kennedy. + +Mrs. OSWALD. I feel in my own mind that Lee did not have President +Kennedy as a prime target when he assassinated him. + +Representative BOGGS. Well, who was it? + +*Mrs. OSWALD. I think it was Connally. That's my personal opinion that +he perhaps was shooting at Governor Connally, the Governor of Texas. + +Senator RUSSELL. You've testified before us before that Lee told you he +was coming back to Texas--if he was back in Texas, he would vote for +Connally for Governor. Why do you think he would shoot him? + +Mrs. OSWALD. **I feel that the reason that he had Connally in his mind +was on account of his discharge from the Marines and various letters +they exchanged between the Marine Corps and the Governor's office, but +actually, I didn't think that he had any idea concerning President +Kennedy. + +Representative BOGGS. Well, now, my next question is--did he ever +express any hostility to Governor Connally?* + +*Mrs. OSWALD. He never expressed that to me--his displeasure or hatred +of Connally, but I feel that there could have been some connection, due +to the fact that Lee was dishonorably discharged from the Corps, and +there was an exchange of letters between the Governor's Office and Lee. +That's my personal opinion. + +Representative BOGGS. Just a minute. Excuse me, Senator. + +I asked you in February, Mrs. Oswald, I said, "What motive would +you ascribe to your husband in killing President Kennedy?" And, you +said, "As I saw the documents that were being read to me, I came to +the conclusion that he wanted by any means, good or bad to get into +history, and now that I've read a part of the translation of some of +the documents, I think that there was some political foundation to it, +a foundation of which I am not aware." + +And then you go on and you express no doubt in your mind that he +intended to kill President Kennedy. + +Mrs. OSWALD. **Did I say that, this last time in Dallas? The last time +in Dallas, apparently there was some misunderstanding on the part of my +answers to the Commission, because I was told by Mr. McKenzie that it +wasn't reported accurately. + +*The record should read that on the basis of the documents that I have +read, I have no doubt--that I had available to me to read--I had no +doubt that he did---- + +Mr. GOPADZE. That he could kill him---- + +Mr. GREGORY. Could or have wanted to--could have wanted to---- + +Mr. GOPADZE. He could kill--she doesn't say "want"--he could have +killed him. + +Representative BOGGS. Let's straighten this out because this is very +important. + +Mrs. OSWALD. Okay. + +Representative BOGGS. I'll read it to you, "I gather that you have +reached the conclusion in your own mind that your husband killed +President Kennedy?" You replied, "Regretfully--yes." + +Now, do you have any reason to change that?* + +*Mrs. OSWALD. That's correct. I have no doubt that he did kill the +President. + +Representative BOGGS. Now, the other answer as I read it was: "On +the basis of documents that you had seen presented at the Commission +hearing"--isn't that right? + +Mrs. OSWALD. **The word "documents" is wrong--the facts +presented--that's what I mean. + +Representative BOGGS. Again we get back to the question of motive. +You said again today that you are convinced that Lee Oswald killed +President Kennedy. + +You said something additionally today, though, and that is that you +feel that it was his intention not to kill President Kennedy, but to +kill Governor Connally. + +Now, am I correct in saying that she had not said this previously? + +Mr. RANKIN. Ask her that.* ** + +Representative BOGGS. Let's get an answer. I think this answer is quite +important. + +*Mrs. OSWALD. On the basis of all the available facts, I have no doubt +in my mind that Lee Oswald killed President Kennedy. + +*At the same time, I feel in my own mind as far as I am concerned, +I feel that Lee--that my husband perhaps intended to kill Governor +Connally instead of President Kennedy. + +Representative BOGGS. Now, let me ask you one other question: Assuming +that this is correct, would you feel that there would be any less guilt +in killing Governor Connally than in killing the President?* + +*Mrs. OSWALD. I am not trying to vindicate or justify or excuse Lee as +my husband. Even if he killed one of his neighbors, still it wouldn't +make much difference--it wouldn't make any difference--a killing is a +killing. I am sorry. + +Representative BOGGS. There are one or two other questions I want to +ask her. + +I know you've been asked a lot of questions about this thing. How old +were you when you left Russia?* + +Mrs. OSWALD. Twenty years. My birthday--I was 21 when I came here. In +July--my birthday was in July. + +Representative BOGGS. Were you a member of the Communist Party in +Russia?* + +Mrs. OSWALD. No. + +*I was a member of a Komsomol organization. + +Representative BOGGS. What is that?* + +*Mrs. OSWALD. It is an association of young Communist youth. It is not +party, sir. In order to become a member of the Communist Party, one +has to be first a member of the Komsomol, but I didn't even have the +membership card in Komsomol Association. + +Representative BOGGS. Would it be normal for one to graduate, so to +speak, from the Komsomol to the membership in the Communist Party?* + +*Mrs. OSWALD. It is a prerequisite for a prospective member of the +Communist Party to be first a member of the Komsomol organization, but +not every member of Komsomol becomes a Communist Party member. + +Mr. RANKIN. What percentage? + +Senator COOPER. She was expelled? + +Senator RUSSELL. No; she testified she quit the Youth Movement.* + +*Mrs. OSWALD. I was dismissed. + +**I was expelled from Komsomol. + +Senator RUSSELL. Why--for what reason?* + +*Mrs. OSWALD. The reason given to me for being expelled from Komsomol +was because I did not get my card, because I did not take out my +Komsomol card for 1 year. That was the reason given to me, but I +believe the true reason why they expelled me from Komsomol was because +I married an American. + +It also happened about the time when I visited the American Embassy. I +was expelled the following week after I visited the American Embassy in +Moscow. + +Senator RUSSELL. Did you pay any dues to the Komsomol? + +Mrs. OSWALD. Yes; 30¢ + +*Yes; 30¢ every month. + +Senator RUSSELL. I thought that practically all young people belonged +to the Komsomol?* ** + +Mrs. OSWALD. No. + +Senator RUSSELL. There are many more of them than there are members of +the Communist Party, aren't there?* + +Mrs. OSWALD. Oh, yes. + +Senator RUSSELL. Nearly every city in Russia has a big building, there +is a Youth Komsomol Building?* + +*Mrs. OSWALD. Yes; I was persuaded or talked into joining the Komsomol +organization. + +Senator RUSSELL. I thought that was automatic?** + +Mrs. OSWALD. No. + +*No--one has to be accepted into Komsomol. It is not automatic. + +Representative BOGGS. One further question, and this is off the record. + +(Interrogatories and answers off the record at this point.) + +Representative BOGGS. In response to Senator Russell, I gathered that +you plan to stay in the United States?* + +*Mrs. OSWALD. Yes; if possible. + +Representative BOGGS. Do you aspire to become a citizen of the United +States, or are you a citizen?* + +*Mrs. OSWALD. I am not a citizen. I wish to become an American citizen. + +Senator RUSSELL. Mrs. Oswald, when you were before us before, you +testified that you were not a member of any church, but you had your +own religion in your own heart, as I recall?* ** + +*Mrs. OSWALD. In Russia I did not belong to any church. No one belongs +to any church in Russia. + +Senator RUSSELL. Except old women? + +*Mrs. OSWALD. I'll say this--that I believe it's unhealthy in the +Soviet Union to openly belong to any church. While there is no +persecution of religious belief in Russia, the officials look at it +with much disfavor. + +Senator RUSSELL. But you are not actually a member of the church, are +you?* ** + +**Mrs. OSWALD. In Russian churches, they don't have a fee or they don't +have any membership, they have dues in Russian churches. + +Senator RUSSELL. But you've not been baptized in any church?* + +Mrs. OSWALD. Oh, yes; I have been baptized. + +Senator RUSSELL. When were you baptized? + +Mrs. OSWALD. I don't remember. + +Senator RUSSELL. Are you actually a member of the church?* ** + +**Mrs. OSWALD. Actually, I am not a member as you know in the United +States. However, I belong to the church, the Russian church here in +Dallas, and I don't pay dues. + +Senator RUSSELL. You are more of a communicant now than you are a +member of the church? + +Mrs. OSWALD. I think the understanding of church membership is +different in the Soviet Union or in the understanding of a person that +was brought up in the Soviet Union. + +Senator RUSSELL. I am concerned about this testimony, Mrs. Oswald, +about your believing now that Lee was shooting at Connally and not at +the President, because you did not tell us that before.* + +*Mrs. OSWALD. At that time I didn't think so, but the more I mull over +it in my own mind trying to get it in my own mind what made him do what +he did, the more I think that he was shooting at Connally rather than +President Kennedy. + +Senator RUSSELL. Now, did you not testify before that Lee wrote a +letter to Connally when he was Secretary of the Navy about the nature +of his Marine discharge? + +Mrs. OSWALD. Yes. + +Senator RUSSELL. And that when he got a letter back, that you asked him +what it was? + +Mrs. OSWALD. Yes. + +Senator RUSSELL. And he said, "Well, it's just some Bureaucrat's +statement"?* + +Mrs. OSWALD. Yes. + +*Yes. + +Senator RUSSELL. Did you not further testify that Lee said in +discussing the gubernatorial election in Texas that if he were here and +voting, that he would vote for Mr. Connally?* + +*Mrs. OSWALD. Yes. + +Senator RUSSELL. Now, do you think he would shoot and kill a man that +he would vote for, for the Governor of his state?* ** + +**Mrs. OSWALD. The only reason is--I am trying to analyze, myself, +there was a reason--more reason to dislike Connally as a man than he +had for Kennedy. + +Senator RUSSELL. Well, she testified before that he had spoken, as far +as Lee spoke favorably of anyone, that he had spoken favorably of both +Kennedy and of Governor Connally.** + +**Mrs. OSWALD. He also told me that he was also favorable toward +Connally, while they were in Russia. There is a possibility that he +changed his mind, but he never told her that. + +Senator RUSSELL. Well, I think that's about as speculative as the +answers I've read here. He might have changed his mind, but he didn't +tell her anything about it, as she testified--that discussing politics +in Texas, that he said that if he were here when they had the election, +that he would vote for John Connally for Governor, and that was after +he got the letter about the Marine corps.* ** + +**Mrs. OSWALD. That happened in Russia when he received some kind of +pamphlet with a picture of Connally, a separate time, at which time he +remarked that when he returned, if and when he returned to Texas he +would vote for Connally. + +Senator RUSSELL. That's right--that's exactly right, but yet now you +say that he was his prime target. + +I want to know what Connally had done to Lee since he got back from +Russia that would cause him to change his mind, to shoot him?* ** + +*Mrs. OSWALD. I do not know, but there is a possibility that Lee became +hateful of Connally because the matter of this dishonorable discharge +was dragging so long. + +Senator RUSSELL. Yes; but Connally had left the Navy, where he had +anything to do with the discharge, before he got the pamphlet about his +being a candidate for Governor?** * + +**Mrs. OSWALD. I am not sure when that particular thing happened, +whether Mr. Connally was the Secretary of the Navy or what he was doing. + +Senator RUSSELL. Well, it's a matter of common knowledge that he ran +for Governor after he resigned as Secretary of the Navy. + +Mrs. OSWALD. I don't know. + +Senator RUSSELL. Did you not know that when Mr. Connally was running +for Governor of Texas, he was no longer Secretary of the Navy and had +nothing to do with the Marine Corps?* + +*Mrs. OSWALD. Yes, I knew--I knew that he was not the Secretary of the +Navy any more because Lee told me that Connally stated in the letter to +Lee that he was no longer Secretary of Navy and hence he couldn't do +anything for him, and that Connally referred the petition to the proper +authorities. + +Senator RUSSELL. Mrs. Oswald, didn't Lee read about government a great +deal? Didn't Lee read about civic affairs and about government a great +deal?* + +*Mrs. OSWALD. He read books about Kennedy, about Hitler, about others. + +Senator RUSSELL. Haven't you been in this country long enough to know +that the President is Commander and Chief of the Army and Navy and he's +even head of the Secretary of the Navy. He can order him to do anything +he wants to?* + +*Mrs. OSWALD. I didn't pay any attention to it or I didn't know it or +wasn't told. + +Senator RUSSELL. Do you have any facts on which you base your opinion +now that Lee Oswald was shooting and was intending to kill Connally +rather than President Kennedy?* + +*Mrs. OSWALD. I have no facts whatsoever. I simply express an opinion +which perhaps is not logical at all, but I am sorry if I mixed +everybody up. + +Senator RUSSELL. You haven't mixed anybody up, except I think that you +have your evidence terribly confused.* + +*Mrs. OSWALD. No; I have no facts whatsover. I'm sorry I told them that. + +Senator RUSSELL. Do you know whether or not Lee knew Connally +personally or did he know that he was going to be in this motorcade at +all?* + +*Mrs. OSWALD. No; I did not know whether Lee knew or ever contacted +the Governor personally, and I don't know whether Lee knew that the +Governor would be in the motorcade. + +Senator RUSSELL. But Lee did take his gun into town that day, and so +far as you know, I believe you said that was the first day he had +carried it into town? + +*Mrs. OSWALD. I do not personally know that Lee took the rifle that +morning or the night before. Apparently the Commission has witnesses or +information to that effect, but of my own knowledge, I don't know. + +Senator RUSSELL. Did you not testify that you thought this was Lee's +rifle that was shown you as the one that shot Connally and the +President?* + +*Mrs. OSWALD. Yes; I testified that that was the rifle. + +Mr. GOPADZE. No--I'm sorry. As far as she knows about the arms, the +rifle which was shown to her looked like the one he had. + +Mr. GREGORY. Yes; that's right. + +Senator RUSSELL. That's all I asked her. That's just exactly what I +asked her. + +Mr. GREGORY. Yes; that's correct. + +Senator RUSSELL. In discussing the motorcade, did he say anything about +Connally would be riding with the President?* + +*Mrs. OSWALD. No; he did not. + +Senator RUSSELL. I believe you testified, did you not, Mrs. Oswald, +that the day before Lee told you that he fired at General Walker, that +he seemed to be under great emotional stress, strain, very tense?* ** + +*Mrs. OSWALD. He was angry and excited. He was angry and excited. + +Senator RUSSELL. Did he show any of that on the morning that he left +home when the President was assassinated?* ** + +*Mrs. OSWALD. Well, I did not notice any difference in Lee's attitude +during that morning from any other day. But sometimes, quite often, he +was impulsive and nervous and excited. I got tired from watching him in +those particular moods, in his moods, and I didn't pay any attention. + +Senator RUSSELL. Why did you happen to watch him then on the morning +that he shot at General Walker?* + +*Mrs. OSWALD. I simply--his mood left no impression on me that +particular morning. There was nothing extraordinary about it. + +Senator RUSSELL. On the Walker morning? + +Mrs. OSWALD. No, no--on the morning of the President's assassination. + +Senator RUSSELL. Yes, but you said you noticed it on the morning before +he shot Walker? + +Mrs. OSWALD. Are you talking about Walker? + +Senator RUSSELL. If you didn't notice his moods, how did you happen to +notice it on the day before he shot at General Walker?* ** + +Mrs. OSWALD. The reason I didn't notice that particular morning about +his mood was because the night before we had a little quarrel and I +didn't pay any attention to that, particularly, and I was thinking that +it was due to that quarrel we had the night before. + +Senator RUSSELL. Well, of course, that was the quarrel you had about +him registering under an assumed name or giving an assumed name at his +room.** + +Was that not the time, did you not try to telephone him and they told +you that no such person stayed there at all? + +*Mrs. OSWALD. That was the cause of the quarrel. You see, at this +particular morning of the assassination, I was very tired because the +baby woke up several times during the night and I was very tired, and +in the morning I did not register or I did not even attempt to register +his moods. + +Senator RUSSELL. I think you testified before that you only saw him +when he got up, that you stayed in bed and that he got up and fixed his +own coffee and got out.* ** + +*Mrs. OSWALD. The only extraordinary thing that I noticed about him the +morning of the assassination was that when Lee was leaving the house, +he asked me if I purchased a pair of shoes. + +Senator RUSSELL. For June? + +Mrs. OSWALD. For me. + +Senator RUSSELL. And for June?* + +*Mrs. OSWALD. And for the baby. + +Senator RUSSELL. And for June? + +*Mrs. OSWALD. And that was the only thing that was extraordinary, and I +wondered what was happening that he became, that he was so kind all of +a sudden. + +Senator RUSSELL. That was out of the money in the black wallet, too? + +Mrs. OSWALD. Yes. + +*Yes--that was a fleeting thought in my mind of why the change in him. + +Senator RUSSELL. But apparently he was not as excited and as upset as +he was the morning before the Walker shooting?* + +*Mrs. OSWALD. He was just as usual--sort of sleepy that particular +morning. He was not excited. Then, I was so sleepy myself that I didn't +pay any attention. + +Senator RUSSELL. But you did testify that he was unusually excited the +night before he shot at General walker, did you not? + +*Mrs. OSWALD. The more time is passing, the more I am mixed up as +to the exact occurrence. I'm forgetting these fine details with the +passing of time. + +Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Chairman, I wonder if we could take a 5-minute recess? +The reporter has been at it a long time? + +Senator RUSSELL. Oh, yes; I don't know how she's stood it. I've never +seen one in the Congress that took it anything like that long. + +The REPORTER. Thank you. + +Mr. RANKIN. And we will let you have a 5 minute recess, Mrs. Oswald. + +(At this point the proceedings were recessed and resumed as stated, at +6:40 p.m., Sunday, September 6, 1964.) + +Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Chairman. + +Mrs. Oswald, you have not appeared here today with a lawyer, have you?* + +Mrs. OSWALD. Yes. + +Mr. RANKIN. You have not, is that right? You have no lawyer with you? + +Mrs. OSWALD. No. + +Senator RUSSELL. No. + +Mr. RANKIN. When you appeared before the Commission the other two +times, you did have a lawyer with you, did you not? + +Mrs. OSWALD. Yes--the other two times. + +Mr. RANKIN. Is there some reason why you do not have a lawyer at this +time?* + +*Mrs. OSWALD. That attorney cost me too much. + +Mr. RANKIN. And--before this hearing, Mrs. Oswald, we offered to, that +is the Commission offered to furnish you an attorney if you wanted one +to be supplied to you for this hearing, did it not?* ** + +**Mrs. OSWALD. You did so? + +Mr. RANKIN. I understood that that message was given to you by the +Secret Service that we would ask for the appointment of counsel to +attend the meeting with you, if you wished it, and you said you didn't +need it, you would just tell the truth? + +Mrs. OSWALD. Mr. Sorrels called me on telephone and he asked me if I +have a lawyer, an attorney, and I said, "No," and he told me, "Do I +want to have one?" and I said, "No." + +Mr. RANKIN. And you understood that you would be supplied a lawyer if +you wanted one and you said you didn't, is that right? + +Mrs. OSWALD. Yes. + +Mr. RANKIN. You referred to the fact, when you were asked, that your +husband had a rifle in the Soviet Union while he was there. In your +prior testimony, you referred to either a rifle or a shotgun, do you +know which it was?* + +*Mrs. OSWALD. I do not know the difference between the shotgun and the +rifle. + +Mr. RANKIN. Do you know that he had one or the other?* + +*Mrs. OSWALD. I know that there is a difference between this particular +rifle and another rifle, but I don't know what the difference is. It +was perhaps a different color. + +Mr. RANKIN. You know that in the Soviet Union he did have either a +rifle or a shotgun, do you?* + +Mrs. OSWALD. Yes. + +Mr. RANKIN. Turning to the period when you were in New Orleans, just +before you went back to Dallas with Ruth Paine, do you recall that +time?* + +*Mrs. OSWALD. Yes--faintly. + +Mr. RANKIN. Do you remember that was the latter part of September?* + +Mrs. OSWALD. **Possibly. + +Mr. RANKIN. Do you remember what date you went back to Dallas from New +Orleans?* ** + +*Mrs. OSWALD. It wasn't the 26th of September? + +Mr. RANKIN. Wasn't it about the 23d of September that you went back?* ** + +Mrs. OSWALD. The 23d? + +*I do not know. + +Mr. RANKIN. Do you remember that you had a discussion with your husband +about the unemployment check that he was to receive about that time?* ** + +*Mrs. OSWALD. I remember Lee told me that he was expecting an +unemployment check just before he left for Mexico. + +Mr. RANKIN. Did he tell you that he had changed the postal address and +that that check would probably come to Ruth Paine's?* + +*Mrs. OSWALD. He told me that he was going to change his address and +that the letters would come to that new address of Ruth Paine. + +Mr. RANKIN. Did the unemployment check ever come to Ruth Paine's?* + +*Mrs. OSWALD. When he returned from Mexico, he asked me if the +unemployment check arrived, and I replied that I did not know. No; +there was no check. + +Mr. RANKIN. Did he say anything about getting the check at New Orleans +and cashing it himself?* ** + +*Mrs. OSWALD. I do not remember it right now, but if I mentioned that +to the Commission before, then it was so. + +Mr. RANKIN. Do you have any recollection about it now?* + +*Mrs. OSWALD. I do not recall distinctly now, but I think there was +some conversation about the check being long in transit, that the check +was sent from Dallas to New Orleans and from New Orleans to Irving. + +Mr. RANKIN. Well apparently, Mrs. Oswald, the facts show that the check +was cashed by your husband with a stamped mark of the bank, dated the +26th of September, in New Orleans. Does that refresh your memory at +all?* ** + +*Mrs. OSWALD. I was not with Lee at that time. + +Mr. RANKIN. Did he ever tell you anything about it?* + +*Mrs. OSWALD. I do not remember at this moment. + +Mr. RANKIN. Apparently he cashed the check at the little store, or the +supermarket, near where you lived there in New Orleans. Did he every +tell you that?* ** + +*Mrs. OSWALD. No; he did not tell me. I do not remember that he told me. + +Mr. RANKIN. Did Lee ever tell you where he stayed the night after you +left, that is, the night of the 23d of September?* + +*Mrs. OSWALD. He told me that he stayed in that same house. + +Mr. RANKIN. At the house where you had lived?** + +**Mrs. OSWALD. He stayed with his aunt. I remember something that he +stayed a couple days with his aunt in New Orleans. + +*Did I leave on the 23d? + +Mr. RANKIN. Yes. + +*Mrs. OSWALD. I do not recall distinctly at this moment, but I believe +he said he spent the first night at the house where we lived, and +perhaps one or two nights at Aunt Lillian's. + +Mr. RANKIN. Is there something else? + +Mrs. OSWALD. It is so difficult for me to remember now. + +Mr. RANKIN. Did your husband have any Cuban friends at New Orleans?* + +*Mrs. OSWALD. I do not know about this. + +Mr. RANKIN. Do you remember the time a man by the name of Bringuier +came to the house there? Bringuier [spelling] B-r-i-n-g-u-i-e-r. + +*Mrs. OSWALD. Someone came, but I don't know from which organization or +who he was. + +Mr. RANKIN. Was there more than one person who came asking about that +or only one?* + +Mrs. OSWALD. Just one. + +Mr. RANKIN. Do you recall that your husband hired someone to help hand +out leaflets about fair play for Cuba on the streets of New Orleans?* + +*Mrs. OSWALD. He mentioned that he hired a boy to help him, by giving +him some money to buy ice cream or something--I don't know. + +Mr. RANKIN. I'll hand you what is marked as Frank Pizzo Exhibit No. +453-A, which is a photograph, and ask you if you recognize your husband +there, and also, any of the other men there in the picture?* + +*Mrs. OSWALD (examining instrument mentioned). I recognize only my +husband. + +Mr. RANKIN. Is your husband the man with the marks that sort of look +like a "T" in light green?* + +Mrs. OSWALD. Yes. + +Mr. RANKIN. I ask you if you recognize anyone besides your husband in +Frank Pizzo Exhibit No. 453-B?* + +Mrs. OSWALD. No. *No. [Examining instrument mentioned.] No. + +Mr. RANKIN. But you do recognize your husband there? + +Mrs. OSWALD. Yes--yes. + +Mr. RANKIN. He has a green mark over his photograph, does he not? + +Mrs. OSWALD. Yes. + +Mr. RANKIN. Do you know whether or not your husband consulted any +attorneys in New Orleans while he was there?* + +*Mrs. OSWALD. I do not know about this. + +Mr. RANKIN. Do you know of a Clay Bertrand, [spelling] B-e-r-t-r-a-n-d?* + +*Mrs. OSWALD. No. + +Mr. RANKIN. Did your husband ever say anything about consulting an +attorney about his discharge from the Marines or about his American +citizenship?* ** + +*Mrs. OSWALD. He did not. + +Mr. RANKIN. Do you know whether or not your husband was in Dallas in +September between the 23d, the date that you left with Mrs. Paine, and +the 26th of September--at any time?* + +*Mrs. OSWALD. I do not know. + +Mr. RANKIN. Did he ever say anything about anything like that?* + +*Mrs. OSWALD. No. + +Mr. RANKIN. Did you ever know a Sylvia Odio, [spelling] O-d-i-o?* + +*Mrs. OSWALD. No. + +Mr. RANKIN. You never heard of her?* + +*Mrs. OSWALD. No. + +Mr. RANKIN. Sylvia Odio is a woman in Dallas who said that your +husband, along with two Cubans, came to see her under the name "Leon +Oswald," on the evening of the 25th or the 26th of September 1963. Do +you know anything about that?* + +**Mrs. OSWALD. No; I do not know about this. + +Mr. RANKIN. Have you ever heard of her?* + +*Mrs. OSWALD. No. + +Mr. RANKIN. Did you ever hear of a person by the name of Rodriguez +[Spelling] R-o-d-r-i-g-u-e-z, that your husband was said to have known +in New Orleans, while you were there? Do you know whether your husband +ever knew a Rodriguez [spelling] R-o-d-r-i-g-u-e-z in New Orleans?* + +*Mrs. OSWALD. He may have known him, but I don't know anything about it. + +Mr. RANKIN. He never told you that he knew anyone like that?* + +*Mrs. OSWALD. No; he did not tell me. + +Mr. RANKIN. When you lived in New Orleans and after your husband lost +his job, did he stay away from home in the evenings much?* + +*Mrs. OSWALD. He was not at home during the day time, but he was at +home most of the time in the evenings. + +Mr. RANKIN. And by being at home in the evenings, what time do you +mean--from 6 o'clock on, or 7 o'clock, or what time?* + +*Mrs. OSWALD. After 7. + +Mr. RANKIN. Did he ever show signs of having been drinking or being +drunk when he came home?* + +*Mrs. OSWALD. Never. + +Mr. RANKIN. Did he ever talk about having seen some friends or some +Cubans or Mexicans in the bar or some bar in New Orleans?* ** + +*Mrs. OSWALD. No; it's strange for me to hear that Lee visited bars or +that he drank. + +Mr. RANKIN. Did you know of his drinking at all in New Orleans?* + +*Mrs. OSWALD. I never did. + +Mr. RANKIN. He was arrested in connection with the Fair Play for Cuba +matter around August 9, if you will recall. You may not remember the +exact date, but I refresh your memory and call your attention to the +fact that it was that date--August 9?* + +*Mrs. OSWALD. I know about this. + +Mr. RANKIN. How did that come to your attention, how did you learn +about it?* + +*Mrs. OSWALD. That night I waited for him until 3 o'clock in the +morning. Then, I went to bed. When he came in the morning, I asked him +where he had been and he told me he was arrested by the police. + +Mr. RANKIN. Had he stayed out all night that way before?* ** + +Mrs. OSWALD. No. + +Mr. RANKIN. It hadn't ever happened before?** + +Mrs. OSWALD. No. + +Mr. RANKIN. You say it never happened that he would even stay out late +in the evening?* + +Mrs. OSWALD. No; sometimes he was delayed, but he would be home by 9 +o'clock. + +Mr. RANKIN. Did you ever hear your husband say anything about being +associated with any pro-Castro or anti-Castro groups in Dallas?* + +*Mrs. OSWALD. I didn't know that he belonged to any organization in +Dallas. + +Mr. RANKIN. Did you know of any such associations or any associations +with Cubans after he returned from Mexico City?* + +*Mrs. OSWALD. I do not know about this. + +Mr. RANKIN. Did he ever mention Sylvia Odio to you or any name like +that, that you recall?* ** + +*Mrs. OSWALD. No. + +Mr. RANKIN. Now, when you testified before the Commission before, you +were asked what kind of a job your husband had at the Minsk factory, do +you recall that?* + +*Mrs. OSWALD. Yes. + +Mr. RANKIN. You said he read blueprints and translated them into the +finished product. Do you remember your husband saying anything like +that to you?* ** + +*Mrs. OSWALD. I don't think I testified to that. + +Mr. RANKIN. You don't recall testifying to that?* + +Mrs. OSWALD. I testified that he was a--slesar. + +Mr. GREGORY. Off the record, please? + +She names a trade and that Russian word stands for locksmith, but I +know that he was not a locksmith, I mean, from the description of work +that he was doing. He was working at a factory where he was assembling +details for--metallic details. He was a machinist apprentice working on +parts for radio receivers. + +Mr. RANKIN. He told the FBI at one time in one of the interviews that +he was busy reading blueprints and translating them. + +Mr. Gregory, are you telling me what she says his job was or are you +telling me what you know? + +Mr. GREGORY. No; she's telling me, but Mrs. Oswald tells me that the +technical name of his job was the Russian word (spelling) s-l-e-s-a-r'. + +Mr. RANKIN. Now, will you describe, Mrs. Oswald, what he did in that +job so it will be clearer than just that word. Tell us what he did?* + +*Mrs. OSWALD. I have never been at the plant where Lee worked or in any +factory, but from the description that Lee gave me---- + +Mr. RANKIN. Tell us that?* ** + +*Mrs. OSWALD. He was grinding details--detailed parts for small parts, +small metallic parts for radio receivers, on a lathe. + +Perhaps he was boasting about the importance of his work when he told +you about reading the blueprints and translating them into the finished +product. He may have actually done that kind of work, but I know +nothing about that. + +Mr. RANKIN. Was the only work that he told you he was doing during the +period that you were there in Minsk, this job of grinding these parts +on the lathe?* + +*Mrs. OSWALD. While he and I lived together--yes. That was the kind of +work that he was doing in Minsk. + +Mr. RANKIN. And that's all that you know of?* + +*Mrs. OSWALD. That's all I know about his work. + +Mr. RANKIN. Now, turning to the period that your husband was in Moscow +in 1959 when he first came there, and, of course, you were married +later than that, did he tell you about his experiences when he first +came to Moscow?* + +*Mrs. OSWALD. He told me that for the most part he visited museums and +studied the Russian language. + +Mr. RANKIN. Did he say anything about the intourist guides, the women +studied the Russian language. + +Mrs. OSWALD. The Russian guides? + +Mr. RANKIN. Did he tell you about any of the others that he knew there?* + +*Mrs. OSWALD. He did, but I don't remember their names, except Rimma. +The only reason I remember Rimma Sherikova is because she visited us +in Minsk. She did not come especially to see us, but she was passing +through Minsk and stopped to see us. + +Mr. RANKIN. What did your husband tell you about Rimma?* + +*Mrs. OSWALD. That she was a very fine, pretty, smart young girl, and +unfortunately, older than he is, and that she helped him a great deal. + +Mr. RANKIN. Did he tell you how she helped him?* + +*Mrs. OSWALD. First of all, as an interpreter. + +Mr. RANKIN. What else? + +*Mrs. OSWALD. And that he spent time with her and did not feel lonesome. + +Mr. RANKIN. Did he say anything about Rimma or the other intourist +guides helping him with learning Russian?* + +*Mrs. OSWALD. Yes; he did. + +Mr. RANKIN. Did he say how much they did that?* + +*Mrs. OSWALD. No; he did not. + +Mr. RANKIN. Did he say anything about the guides helping him in dealing +with the Embassy about his citizenship or giving up his citizenship?* ** + +*Mrs. OSWALD. No; he did not tell me about that. + +Mr. RANKIN. Did he say anything about the guides giving him any +financial help?* + +*Mrs. OSWALD. No; he did not tell me. + +Mr. RANKIN. Did your husband say anything about when he learned that he +might be able to stay in Russia, how he learned it? + +*Mrs. OSWALD. No; he did not. He, Lee, took part in radio broadcasts, +propaganda in favor of the Soviet Union, which he felt helped him to +get permission to stay in the Soviet Union. + +Mr. RANKIN. Did he say when he did that?* + +*Mrs. OSWALD. That was before my time. + +Mr. RANKIN. How did you learn about it?* + +*Mrs. OSWALD. He told me about it. Lee told me that the Soviet Union +offered him Soviet citizenship, but he turned it down. He told me +that he turned it down. At the same time, other developments as I +recall, left the impression with me that he actually wanted to become +a Soviet citizen, but I didn't connect the two. There is a discrepancy +between the two, but at the time, I couldn't reconcile these apparent +differences in what he said. + +Mr. RANKIN. You know he told the reporters that he talked to in +Moscow in November, that the Government was going to let him stay, +but his diary says he didn't get that word until January the 4th of +the following year. Now, do you know anything about that, how that +happened?* + +Mrs. OSWALD. 1960? + +Mr. RANKIN. 1959 in November is when he told the reporters, and it was +January 4, 1960, that he actually put it in his diary that he had the +first learning of it?* + +Mrs. OSWALD. That they would let him stay in the Soviet Union? + +Mr. RANKIN. Yes. + +Mrs. OSWALD. Newspaper reporters? + +Mr. RANKIN. Yes; newspaper reporters--Miss Johnson and Miss Mosby.* + +*Mrs. OSWALD. He made the entry into his diary, I think, at a later +date, and they may not be correct or precise--just one. + +Mr. GREGORY. I think she's a little tired. She's saying many words, but +I can't connect them. She says, "To be brief, I don't believe I know." + +Mr. RANKIN. We will soon be through, Mrs. Oswald. There are just a few +more questions.* + +When your husband said that he had spoken over the radio and he thought +that helped him, did he tell you what he said over the radio?* ** + +*Mrs. OSWALD. He spoke over the radio of how everything--how wonderful +everything was in the Soviet Union, or what he thought they liked to +hear. + +Mr. RANKIN. And did you understand that he spoke that in Moscow while +he was there?* + +*Mrs. OSWALD. Yes; while he was in Moscow. + +Mr. RANKIN. That was during the period after he had first come to the +country and before he came to Minsk, is that right?* + +*Mrs. OSWALD. Yes. + +Mr. RANKIN. Now, do you recall any more than you have told us about the +time you had the interview with the MVD about your visa--what they said +to you and what you said to them?* + +*Mrs. OSWALD. First of all, Colonel Aksenov asked me why I wanted to go +to America, "Is it so bad here that you want to leave?" And I replied +that I wanted to go to America with my husband and that I believe that +I have that right. + +Mr. RANKIN. What did they say to that?* + +*Mrs. OSWALD. Then he said, "You will simply have to wait because you +are not the only one who wants to leave. You will have to wait your +turn." + +Mr. RANKIN. Do you recall anything else that was said at that time?* + +*Mrs. OSWALD. At that time I was pregnant and Colonel Aksenov suggested +that may be it would be better for me to wait until the baby came. + +Mr. RANKIN. What did you say to that?* + +*Mrs. OSWALD. I told him that I would prefer to leave as soon as +possible. + +Mr. RANKIN. Is that all you remember of the conversation?* + +*Mrs. OSWALD. Nothing of importance. + +Mr. RANKIN. Where did this conversation occur?* + +*Mrs. OSWALD. In the MVD building in Minsk. + +Mr. RANKIN. And who was present besides you and Colonel Aksenov?* + +Mrs. OSWALD. At first there were two military men who later left, and +they accompanied me or rather they showed me to the room where Colonel +Aksenov was. We were the only two in the room. + +Mr. RANKIN. Now, your husband said that before you both left for the +United States, he had an interview with the MVD. Do you recall that?* + +Mrs. OSWALD. Before we left where? + +Mr. RANKIN. Before you left the Soviet Union?* + +*Mrs. OSWALD. I do not know about this. + +Mr. RANKIN. Do you recall anything like that while you were in Moscow +before you left for the United States?* + +*Mrs. OSWALD. No. + +Mr. RANKIN. You were never told about anything like that by your +husband?* + +*Mrs. OSWALD. No. + +Mr. RANKIN. By anyone else?* + +Mrs. OSWALD. Nobody. + +Mr. RANKIN. You were not present at any such meeting?* + +*Mrs. OSWALD. No. + +Mr. RANKIN. Do you know of any meeting of that kind in Minsk?* + +*Mrs. OSWALD. He never told me that he had interviews. + +Mr. RANKIN. He said he quarreled with them trying to expedite the +visas, the exit permits, and where was that?* + +*Mrs. OSWALD. In Minsk. + +Mr. RANKIN. And did he tell you whom he talked to when he quarreled +with them about the exit visas?* + +*Mrs. OSWALD. I do not know their names, but all the people that were +empowered with issuance of the exit permits. + +Mr. RANKIN. Was that the time that you said he tried to get to see +Colonel Aksenov and they wouldn't let him?* ** + +Mrs. OSWALD. It could have happened before we moved because he +apparently had a conversation with the Colonel.** + +**I remember it was cold. + +Mr. GREGORY. May I ask Marina--will you mind to read the question? + +The REPORTER. "Was that the time that you said he tried to get to see +Colonel Aksenov and they wouldn't let him?" + +Mr. RANKIN. I was asking about the meeting with the MVD. + +Mr. GREGORY. Lee meeting with the MVD in Minsk? + +Mr. RANKIN. Yes--about the exit visas. + +Mr. GREGORY. And you wanted to know the year and the month of the year? + +Mr. RANKIN. No; I was first trying to find out what meeting she was +talking about and whether it was the one she referred to later. + +Mr. GREGORY. When she could not get the audience with the man? + +Mr. RANKIN. That's right.* ** + +*Mrs. OSWALD. It was approximately in January 1962. + +Mr. RANKIN. And did he tell you what happened at that meeting?* + +*Mrs. OSWALD. He did not meet with--he did not get to see Colonel +Aksenov. + +Mr. RANKIN. But he did see someone else in there? + +*Mrs. OSWALD. Apparently he talked to someone who substituted or was +inferior to Colonel Aksenov. + +Mr. RANKIN. And what did he tell you happened at that time?* + +*Mrs. OSWALD. Lee told me that when he came to MVD he asked to see +Colonel Aksenov, and the people in the office asked him the nature of +the business he wanted to discuss with him, and he told them that it +was about exit visas, and they told him that he could not see Aksenov, +but that they, whoever "they" were, were empowered to act on that +question, but he insisted on seeing the colonel, and he did not get to +see him. + +Mr. RANKIN. Then what happened?* + +*Mrs. OSWALD. Then he came home--then I went to MVD, then he sent me to +MVD. I said, "I don't want to go there and he said, "I insist." Then, I +was afraid to go there, but I did go, and the Colonel did not eat me up. + +Mr. RANKIN. Did you talk to the colonel about both your visa and your +husband's at that time?* + +Mrs. OSWALD. The conversation with Colonel Aksenov was to find out why +the delay in the issuance of the exit permits. + +Mr. RANKIN. That's all I have. + +Senator COOPER. There has been a good deal of testimony that you and +your husband were good friends with the De Mohrenschildt family?* + +Mrs. OSWALD. Yes. + +Senator COOPER. Is it correct that when he came to your house on one +occasion that he saw the rifle, your husband's rifle?* + +*Mrs. OSWALD. I do not know about this. It is possible that I have +shown the rifle to them. + +Senator COOPER. Do you remember when Mr. De Mohrenschildt said +something like this after the Walker incident: "How could you miss it?" +or something like that.* + +*Mrs. OSWALD. De Mohrenschildt--as soon as he opened the door, he said +to Lee, "How could you have missed, how could you have missed him?" + +Senator COOPER. Do you have any explanation for that?* ** + +*Mrs. OSWALD. I do not know whether Lee told De Mohrenschildt about +shooting at Walker, and then Lee looked at me thinking--whether I told +De Mohrenschildt about it--I don't know. He even couldn't speak that +evening. Lee could not speak that evening. We were on the porch. + +Senator COOPER. Did he later ask you if you had told De Mohrenschildt?* + +*Mrs. OSWALD. He asked me if I told De Mohrenschildt about it and when +I said I didn't, he said, "How did he guess it?" + +Mr. GOPADZE. No; she said, "Maybe you have told him." + +*Mrs. OSWALD. Then he said, "Maybe you've told him about it", and then +he added--he said, "How did he guess it?" + +Senator COOPER. De Mohrenschildt said he had lived in Minsk, did he +ever talk to you about Minsk?* ** + +*Mrs. OSWALD. Yes; he did say he lived in Minsk when he was a small +child. + +Senator COOPER. You said also you heard them talking on occasions, that +is, you heard Lee Oswald and De Mohrenschildt talking about Russia, did +you hear them talking about political problems, political affiliations?* + +*Mrs. OSWALD. Yes; they discussed politics. + +Senator COOPER. Was De Mohrenschildt living in Dallas at the time of +the assassination of President Kennedy?* + +*Mrs. OSWALD. He lived in Haiti. + +Mr. GOPADZE. Do you know if he was in Haiti? + +*Mrs. OSWALD. I do not know whether he lived in Dallas at the time of +the assassination or whether he lived in Haiti. + +Senator COOPER. Could you think back, Mrs. Oswald, is there any fact +which comes to your mind which would lead you to believe that any +person or persons were associated with your husband in any plan to +assassinate President Kennedy, or you thought, Governor Connally?* + +*Mrs. OSWALD. Of course, I don't know anything about it. + +Senator COOPER. But my question was--not whether you knew. I asked you +whether you had any facts which would lead you to believe that there +was anyone?* ** + +*Mrs. OSWALD. I do not know about this. + +Senator COOPER. One other question. Did Lee Oswald ever say to you that +he had any kind of connection with the Cuban Government or any of its +agents?* + +*Mrs. OSWALD. He did not tell me. + +Senator COOPER. I said one more, and this is the last one, I promise +you. + +Once you said that when you went to New Orleans together, he said +something like this: "I'm lost." If that's correct, what was he talking +about? Do you remember that?* ** + +*Mrs. OSWALD. On that particular occasion he sat by the icebox or +the frigidaire and he sat there and he had his head in his hands and +he said, "I am lost." I believe that that was the result of all the +failures of his. + +Senator COOPER. Did you feel sympathy for him and love for him in those +days?* + +Mrs. OSWALD. Yes; I felt sorry for him. I knew it was difficult for him +with his family. I felt sorry for him. + +Senator COOPER. All right. + +Senator RUSSELL. When you testified the second time in Washington, Mrs. +Oswald, that you didn't think Mr. De Mohrenschildt was as dangerous as +he sounds--that was your personal opinion--what did you mean by that?* + +Here it is: "Mr. Mohrenschildt once took us out to the Fords' house. It +was at New Year's, I think--Katya Ford's house. It was either Christmas +or New Year's. I don't think Mr. De Mohrenschildt is as dangerous as he +sounds. That's my personal opinion." + +No one had said anything about him being dangerous, so why was that +your opinion?** * + +Mr. GREGORY. Off the record. + +Senator RUSSELL. She understood that. + +Mr. GREGORY. This goes into the record, of course? + +Senator RUSSELL. Yes, sir. + +Mr. GREGORY. I think she's hesitated---- + +Senator RUSSELL. I think she should explain it. + +*Mrs. OSWALD. George is such a big mouth. + +Senator RUSSELL. Let's let her testify, if you don't mind? + +Mr. GREGORY. I'm translating what she said. + +Senator RUSSELL. Oh, is that what she said? I see. I'm sorry. I'm +sorry--I didn't hear it. + +*Mrs. OSWALD. George is such a loud mouth or big talker---- + +Senator RUSSELL. Big talker--that would be the equivalent, I'm sure. + +*Mrs. OSWALD. I simply do not believe that--it is my intuition---- + +Mr. GOPADZE. No; that point? + +*Mrs. OSWALD. It is my opinion that people that talk too much do little. + +Senator RUSSELL. And did he talk too much or talk very loud? I don't +know Mr. De Mohrenschildt.** * + +Mrs. OSWALD. Very loud. + +*He jokes all the time and people don't know when he talks sense and +when he jokes. + +**Sometimes he would say something jokingly and people would think that +he's telling the truth. + +Senator RUSSELL. Was that boasting about some imaginary achievement of +his?* + +*Mrs. OSWALD. It's simply his manner of speaking--of talking. It's his +character. + +Senator RUSSELL. He didn't talk then about his feats of any kind, about +performing any great feats?* + +*Mrs. OSWALD. No; he never did. + +Senator RUSSELL. It was merely his tone of voice and his manner of +expression that made him sound dangerous?** + +**Mrs. OSWALD. He was boasting about it, but he never would follow +through. + +Mr. RANKIN. You might tell the full story. + +Mrs. OSWALD. Quite often he would be boasting about something big but +he never did follow through. + +Senator RUSSELL. So he did talk about great achievements most of the +time?* + +**Mrs. OSWALD. Just like a fellow who is just a happy go-around man, a +happy go-lucky man. + +Senator RUSSELL. If there is nothing further, the Commission thanks you +very much for your assistance, and you, Mr. Gregory, and above all, the +very remarkable reporter who has been able to stay with us from the +beginning. + +The Commission will now recess subject to the call of the Chairman or +Chief Justice Warren. + +Mrs. OSWALD. Thank you very much. + +Senator RUSSELL. Thank you. + +(Whereupon, at 8 p.m., the President's Commission adjourned.) + + + + +Transcriber's Notes: + + +Punctuation and spelling were made consistent when a predominant +preference was found in this book; otherwise they were not changed. + +Misspellings in quoted evidence not changed; misspellings that could be +due to mispronunciations were not changed. + +Some simple typographical errors were corrected. + +Inconsistent hyphenation of compound words retained. + +Ambiguous end-of-line hyphens retained. + +Occasional uses of "Mr." for "Mrs." and of "Mrs." for "Mr." corrected. + +Dubious repeated words, (e.g., "What took place by way of of +conversation?") retained. + +Several unbalanced quotation marks not remedied. + +Occasional periods that should be question marks not changed. + +Occasional periods that should be commas, and commas that should be +periods, were changed only when they clearly had been misprinted (at +the end of a paragraph or following a speaker's name in small-caps at +the beginning of a line). Some commas and semi-colons were printed so +faintly that they appear to be periods or colons: some were found and +corrected, but some almost certainly remain. + +The Index and illustrated Exhibits volumes of this series may not be +available at Project Gutenberg. + +Asterisks in the Marina Oswald testimony have been reproduced as +originally printed. + +Page vii: No Table of Contents entry for "Testimony of Mrs. Lee Harvey +Oswald (resumed)" beginning on page 588. + +Page 47: "is a photostat is a photostat" was printed that way. + +Page 51: "Will you tell us on what date you wrote or dictated Exhibit +711?" occurs twice. The second occurrence either was spoken by Mr. +Rankin or is a typesetting error. + +Page 88 and elsewhere: "Mr. Specter" misprinted five times as "Mr. +Spector"; corrected here. + +Page 107: "these tall building on either side" should be "buildings". + +Page 138: "contains angels of sight" is a misprint for "angles". + +Page 139: One occurrence of "Main Street" was misprinted as "Maine +Street"; corrected here. + +Page 142: "Dr. Hume" is a misprint for "Dr. Humes". + +Page 152: "The other hand, his left hand is on his lapel" was +misprinted as "left had"; corrected here. + +Page 163: "Did the surveyor make that placement" misprinted as +"surveyer"; corrected here. + +Page 177: "Those are 88 mm., too" is a misprint for "8 mm." + +Page 186: "implusive" probably is a misprint for "impulsive". + +Pages 273 and elsewhere: "Mr. Snyder" misprinted six times as "Mr. +Synder"; corrected here. + +Page 298: "exist visa" probably is a misprint for "exit visa". + +Page 306: "would't" was printed that way. + +Page 335: "name." is repeated, originally on the next line; looks like +a misprint. + +Page 365: "How could you tell us" possibly should be "Now could". + +Page 482: "Do you thing that is a handicap" should be "think". + +Page 528: "handwriting. It that yours?" should be "Is". + +Page 529: "handwriting it that?" should be "is". + +Page 530: "I do not know which exhibit is." should be "it is". + +Page 562: "miles and hour." should be "an". + +Page 563: "take as much as minute" probably should be "as a minute". + +Page 611: "whatsover" was printed that way. + +Page 613: "Did he every tell you that" should be "ever". + +Page 618: 'I said, "I don't want to go there and he said, "I insist."' +either is missing a closing quotation mark or has a spurious opening +one. + + + + + + + + +End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of Warren Commission (5 of 26): Hearings +Vol. V (of 15), by The President's Commission on the Assassination of President Kennedy + +*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK 44005 *** |