summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/44005-h/44005-h.htm
blob: 2a5374ec0ed4f3af520bf52dd6cf1d55c5298074 (plain) 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
698
699
700
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
710
711
712
713
714
715
716
717
718
719
720
721
722
723
724
725
726
727
728
729
730
731
732
733
734
735
736
737
738
739
740
741
742
743
744
745
746
747
748
749
750
751
752
753
754
755
756
757
758
759
760
761
762
763
764
765
766
767
768
769
770
771
772
773
774
775
776
777
778
779
780
781
782
783
784
785
786
787
788
789
790
791
792
793
794
795
796
797
798
799
800
801
802
803
804
805
806
807
808
809
810
811
812
813
814
815
816
817
818
819
820
821
822
823
824
825
826
827
828
829
830
831
832
833
834
835
836
837
838
839
840
841
842
843
844
845
846
847
848
849
850
851
852
853
854
855
856
857
858
859
860
861
862
863
864
865
866
867
868
869
870
871
872
873
874
875
876
877
878
879
880
881
882
883
884
885
886
887
888
889
890
891
892
893
894
895
896
897
898
899
900
901
902
903
904
905
906
907
908
909
910
911
912
913
914
915
916
917
918
919
920
921
922
923
924
925
926
927
928
929
930
931
932
933
934
935
936
937
938
939
940
941
942
943
944
945
946
947
948
949
950
951
952
953
954
955
956
957
958
959
960
961
962
963
964
965
966
967
968
969
970
971
972
973
974
975
976
977
978
979
980
981
982
983
984
985
986
987
988
989
990
991
992
993
994
995
996
997
998
999
1000
1001
1002
1003
1004
1005
1006
1007
1008
1009
1010
1011
1012
1013
1014
1015
1016
1017
1018
1019
1020
1021
1022
1023
1024
1025
1026
1027
1028
1029
1030
1031
1032
1033
1034
1035
1036
1037
1038
1039
1040
1041
1042
1043
1044
1045
1046
1047
1048
1049
1050
1051
1052
1053
1054
1055
1056
1057
1058
1059
1060
1061
1062
1063
1064
1065
1066
1067
1068
1069
1070
1071
1072
1073
1074
1075
1076
1077
1078
1079
1080
1081
1082
1083
1084
1085
1086
1087
1088
1089
1090
1091
1092
1093
1094
1095
1096
1097
1098
1099
1100
1101
1102
1103
1104
1105
1106
1107
1108
1109
1110
1111
1112
1113
1114
1115
1116
1117
1118
1119
1120
1121
1122
1123
1124
1125
1126
1127
1128
1129
1130
1131
1132
1133
1134
1135
1136
1137
1138
1139
1140
1141
1142
1143
1144
1145
1146
1147
1148
1149
1150
1151
1152
1153
1154
1155
1156
1157
1158
1159
1160
1161
1162
1163
1164
1165
1166
1167
1168
1169
1170
1171
1172
1173
1174
1175
1176
1177
1178
1179
1180
1181
1182
1183
1184
1185
1186
1187
1188
1189
1190
1191
1192
1193
1194
1195
1196
1197
1198
1199
1200
1201
1202
1203
1204
1205
1206
1207
1208
1209
1210
1211
1212
1213
1214
1215
1216
1217
1218
1219
1220
1221
1222
1223
1224
1225
1226
1227
1228
1229
1230
1231
1232
1233
1234
1235
1236
1237
1238
1239
1240
1241
1242
1243
1244
1245
1246
1247
1248
1249
1250
1251
1252
1253
1254
1255
1256
1257
1258
1259
1260
1261
1262
1263
1264
1265
1266
1267
1268
1269
1270
1271
1272
1273
1274
1275
1276
1277
1278
1279
1280
1281
1282
1283
1284
1285
1286
1287
1288
1289
1290
1291
1292
1293
1294
1295
1296
1297
1298
1299
1300
1301
1302
1303
1304
1305
1306
1307
1308
1309
1310
1311
1312
1313
1314
1315
1316
1317
1318
1319
1320
1321
1322
1323
1324
1325
1326
1327
1328
1329
1330
1331
1332
1333
1334
1335
1336
1337
1338
1339
1340
1341
1342
1343
1344
1345
1346
1347
1348
1349
1350
1351
1352
1353
1354
1355
1356
1357
1358
1359
1360
1361
1362
1363
1364
1365
1366
1367
1368
1369
1370
1371
1372
1373
1374
1375
1376
1377
1378
1379
1380
1381
1382
1383
1384
1385
1386
1387
1388
1389
1390
1391
1392
1393
1394
1395
1396
1397
1398
1399
1400
1401
1402
1403
1404
1405
1406
1407
1408
1409
1410
1411
1412
1413
1414
1415
1416
1417
1418
1419
1420
1421
1422
1423
1424
1425
1426
1427
1428
1429
1430
1431
1432
1433
1434
1435
1436
1437
1438
1439
1440
1441
1442
1443
1444
1445
1446
1447
1448
1449
1450
1451
1452
1453
1454
1455
1456
1457
1458
1459
1460
1461
1462
1463
1464
1465
1466
1467
1468
1469
1470
1471
1472
1473
1474
1475
1476
1477
1478
1479
1480
1481
1482
1483
1484
1485
1486
1487
1488
1489
1490
1491
1492
1493
1494
1495
1496
1497
1498
1499
1500
1501
1502
1503
1504
1505
1506
1507
1508
1509
1510
1511
1512
1513
1514
1515
1516
1517
1518
1519
1520
1521
1522
1523
1524
1525
1526
1527
1528
1529
1530
1531
1532
1533
1534
1535
1536
1537
1538
1539
1540
1541
1542
1543
1544
1545
1546
1547
1548
1549
1550
1551
1552
1553
1554
1555
1556
1557
1558
1559
1560
1561
1562
1563
1564
1565
1566
1567
1568
1569
1570
1571
1572
1573
1574
1575
1576
1577
1578
1579
1580
1581
1582
1583
1584
1585
1586
1587
1588
1589
1590
1591
1592
1593
1594
1595
1596
1597
1598
1599
1600
1601
1602
1603
1604
1605
1606
1607
1608
1609
1610
1611
1612
1613
1614
1615
1616
1617
1618
1619
1620
1621
1622
1623
1624
1625
1626
1627
1628
1629
1630
1631
1632
1633
1634
1635
1636
1637
1638
1639
1640
1641
1642
1643
1644
1645
1646
1647
1648
1649
1650
1651
1652
1653
1654
1655
1656
1657
1658
1659
1660
1661
1662
1663
1664
1665
1666
1667
1668
1669
1670
1671
1672
1673
1674
1675
1676
1677
1678
1679
1680
1681
1682
1683
1684
1685
1686
1687
1688
1689
1690
1691
1692
1693
1694
1695
1696
1697
1698
1699
1700
1701
1702
1703
1704
1705
1706
1707
1708
1709
1710
1711
1712
1713
1714
1715
1716
1717
1718
1719
1720
1721
1722
1723
1724
1725
1726
1727
1728
1729
1730
1731
1732
1733
1734
1735
1736
1737
1738
1739
1740
1741
1742
1743
1744
1745
1746
1747
1748
1749
1750
1751
1752
1753
1754
1755
1756
1757
1758
1759
1760
1761
1762
1763
1764
1765
1766
1767
1768
1769
1770
1771
1772
1773
1774
1775
1776
1777
1778
1779
1780
1781
1782
1783
1784
1785
1786
1787
1788
1789
1790
1791
1792
1793
1794
1795
1796
1797
1798
1799
1800
1801
1802
1803
1804
1805
1806
1807
1808
1809
1810
1811
1812
1813
1814
1815
1816
1817
1818
1819
1820
1821
1822
1823
1824
1825
1826
1827
1828
1829
1830
1831
1832
1833
1834
1835
1836
1837
1838
1839
1840
1841
1842
1843
1844
1845
1846
1847
1848
1849
1850
1851
1852
1853
1854
1855
1856
1857
1858
1859
1860
1861
1862
1863
1864
1865
1866
1867
1868
1869
1870
1871
1872
1873
1874
1875
1876
1877
1878
1879
1880
1881
1882
1883
1884
1885
1886
1887
1888
1889
1890
1891
1892
1893
1894
1895
1896
1897
1898
1899
1900
1901
1902
1903
1904
1905
1906
1907
1908
1909
1910
1911
1912
1913
1914
1915
1916
1917
1918
1919
1920
1921
1922
1923
1924
1925
1926
1927
1928
1929
1930
1931
1932
1933
1934
1935
1936
1937
1938
1939
1940
1941
1942
1943
1944
1945
1946
1947
1948
1949
1950
1951
1952
1953
1954
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
2041
2042
2043
2044
2045
2046
2047
2048
2049
2050
2051
2052
2053
2054
2055
2056
2057
2058
2059
2060
2061
2062
2063
2064
2065
2066
2067
2068
2069
2070
2071
2072
2073
2074
2075
2076
2077
2078
2079
2080
2081
2082
2083
2084
2085
2086
2087
2088
2089
2090
2091
2092
2093
2094
2095
2096
2097
2098
2099
2100
2101
2102
2103
2104
2105
2106
2107
2108
2109
2110
2111
2112
2113
2114
2115
2116
2117
2118
2119
2120
2121
2122
2123
2124
2125
2126
2127
2128
2129
2130
2131
2132
2133
2134
2135
2136
2137
2138
2139
2140
2141
2142
2143
2144
2145
2146
2147
2148
2149
2150
2151
2152
2153
2154
2155
2156
2157
2158
2159
2160
2161
2162
2163
2164
2165
2166
2167
2168
2169
2170
2171
2172
2173
2174
2175
2176
2177
2178
2179
2180
2181
2182
2183
2184
2185
2186
2187
2188
2189
2190
2191
2192
2193
2194
2195
2196
2197
2198
2199
2200
2201
2202
2203
2204
2205
2206
2207
2208
2209
2210
2211
2212
2213
2214
2215
2216
2217
2218
2219
2220
2221
2222
2223
2224
2225
2226
2227
2228
2229
2230
2231
2232
2233
2234
2235
2236
2237
2238
2239
2240
2241
2242
2243
2244
2245
2246
2247
2248
2249
2250
2251
2252
2253
2254
2255
2256
2257
2258
2259
2260
2261
2262
2263
2264
2265
2266
2267
2268
2269
2270
2271
2272
2273
2274
2275
2276
2277
2278
2279
2280
2281
2282
2283
2284
2285
2286
2287
2288
2289
2290
2291
2292
2293
2294
2295
2296
2297
2298
2299
2300
2301
2302
2303
2304
2305
2306
2307
2308
2309
2310
2311
2312
2313
2314
2315
2316
2317
2318
2319
2320
2321
2322
2323
2324
2325
2326
2327
2328
2329
2330
2331
2332
2333
2334
2335
2336
2337
2338
2339
2340
2341
2342
2343
2344
2345
2346
2347
2348
2349
2350
2351
2352
2353
2354
2355
2356
2357
2358
2359
2360
2361
2362
2363
2364
2365
2366
2367
2368
2369
2370
2371
2372
2373
2374
2375
2376
2377
2378
2379
2380
2381
2382
2383
2384
2385
2386
2387
2388
2389
2390
2391
2392
2393
2394
2395
2396
2397
2398
2399
2400
2401
2402
2403
2404
2405
2406
2407
2408
2409
2410
2411
2412
2413
2414
2415
2416
2417
2418
2419
2420
2421
2422
2423
2424
2425
2426
2427
2428
2429
2430
2431
2432
2433
2434
2435
2436
2437
2438
2439
2440
2441
2442
2443
2444
2445
2446
2447
2448
2449
2450
2451
2452
2453
2454
2455
2456
2457
2458
2459
2460
2461
2462
2463
2464
2465
2466
2467
2468
2469
2470
2471
2472
2473
2474
2475
2476
2477
2478
2479
2480
2481
2482
2483
2484
2485
2486
2487
2488
2489
2490
2491
2492
2493
2494
2495
2496
2497
2498
2499
2500
2501
2502
2503
2504
2505
2506
2507
2508
2509
2510
2511
2512
2513
2514
2515
2516
2517
2518
2519
2520
2521
2522
2523
2524
2525
2526
2527
2528
2529
2530
2531
2532
2533
2534
2535
2536
2537
2538
2539
2540
2541
2542
2543
2544
2545
2546
2547
2548
2549
2550
2551
2552
2553
2554
2555
2556
2557
2558
2559
2560
2561
2562
2563
2564
2565
2566
2567
2568
2569
2570
2571
2572
2573
2574
2575
2576
2577
2578
2579
2580
2581
2582
2583
2584
2585
2586
2587
2588
2589
2590
2591
2592
2593
2594
2595
2596
2597
2598
2599
2600
2601
2602
2603
2604
2605
2606
2607
2608
2609
2610
2611
2612
2613
2614
2615
2616
2617
2618
2619
2620
2621
2622
2623
2624
2625
2626
2627
2628
2629
2630
2631
2632
2633
2634
2635
2636
2637
2638
2639
2640
2641
2642
2643
2644
2645
2646
2647
2648
2649
2650
2651
2652
2653
2654
2655
2656
2657
2658
2659
2660
2661
2662
2663
2664
2665
2666
2667
2668
2669
2670
2671
2672
2673
2674
2675
2676
2677
2678
2679
2680
2681
2682
2683
2684
2685
2686
2687
2688
2689
2690
2691
2692
2693
2694
2695
2696
2697
2698
2699
2700
2701
2702
2703
2704
2705
2706
2707
2708
2709
2710
2711
2712
2713
2714
2715
2716
2717
2718
2719
2720
2721
2722
2723
2724
2725
2726
2727
2728
2729
2730
2731
2732
2733
2734
2735
2736
2737
2738
2739
2740
2741
2742
2743
2744
2745
2746
2747
2748
2749
2750
2751
2752
2753
2754
2755
2756
2757
2758
2759
2760
2761
2762
2763
2764
2765
2766
2767
2768
2769
2770
2771
2772
2773
2774
2775
2776
2777
2778
2779
2780
2781
2782
2783
2784
2785
2786
2787
2788
2789
2790
2791
2792
2793
2794
2795
2796
2797
2798
2799
2800
2801
2802
2803
2804
2805
2806
2807
2808
2809
2810
2811
2812
2813
2814
2815
2816
2817
2818
2819
2820
2821
2822
2823
2824
2825
2826
2827
2828
2829
2830
2831
2832
2833
2834
2835
2836
2837
2838
2839
2840
2841
2842
2843
2844
2845
2846
2847
2848
2849
2850
2851
2852
2853
2854
2855
2856
2857
2858
2859
2860
2861
2862
2863
2864
2865
2866
2867
2868
2869
2870
2871
2872
2873
2874
2875
2876
2877
2878
2879
2880
2881
2882
2883
2884
2885
2886
2887
2888
2889
2890
2891
2892
2893
2894
2895
2896
2897
2898
2899
2900
2901
2902
2903
2904
2905
2906
2907
2908
2909
2910
2911
2912
2913
2914
2915
2916
2917
2918
2919
2920
2921
2922
2923
2924
2925
2926
2927
2928
2929
2930
2931
2932
2933
2934
2935
2936
2937
2938
2939
2940
2941
2942
2943
2944
2945
2946
2947
2948
2949
2950
2951
2952
2953
2954
2955
2956
2957
2958
2959
2960
2961
2962
2963
2964
2965
2966
2967
2968
2969
2970
2971
2972
2973
2974
2975
2976
2977
2978
2979
2980
2981
2982
2983
2984
2985
2986
2987
2988
2989
2990
2991
2992
2993
2994
2995
2996
2997
2998
2999
3000
3001
3002
3003
3004
3005
3006
3007
3008
3009
3010
3011
3012
3013
3014
3015
3016
3017
3018
3019
3020
3021
3022
3023
3024
3025
3026
3027
3028
3029
3030
3031
3032
3033
3034
3035
3036
3037
3038
3039
3040
3041
3042
3043
3044
3045
3046
3047
3048
3049
3050
3051
3052
3053
3054
3055
3056
3057
3058
3059
3060
3061
3062
3063
3064
3065
3066
3067
3068
3069
3070
3071
3072
3073
3074
3075
3076
3077
3078
3079
3080
3081
3082
3083
3084
3085
3086
3087
3088
3089
3090
3091
3092
3093
3094
3095
3096
3097
3098
3099
3100
3101
3102
3103
3104
3105
3106
3107
3108
3109
3110
3111
3112
3113
3114
3115
3116
3117
3118
3119
3120
3121
3122
3123
3124
3125
3126
3127
3128
3129
3130
3131
3132
3133
3134
3135
3136
3137
3138
3139
3140
3141
3142
3143
3144
3145
3146
3147
3148
3149
3150
3151
3152
3153
3154
3155
3156
3157
3158
3159
3160
3161
3162
3163
3164
3165
3166
3167
3168
3169
3170
3171
3172
3173
3174
3175
3176
3177
3178
3179
3180
3181
3182
3183
3184
3185
3186
3187
3188
3189
3190
3191
3192
3193
3194
3195
3196
3197
3198
3199
3200
3201
3202
3203
3204
3205
3206
3207
3208
3209
3210
3211
3212
3213
3214
3215
3216
3217
3218
3219
3220
3221
3222
3223
3224
3225
3226
3227
3228
3229
3230
3231
3232
3233
3234
3235
3236
3237
3238
3239
3240
3241
3242
3243
3244
3245
3246
3247
3248
3249
3250
3251
3252
3253
3254
3255
3256
3257
3258
3259
3260
3261
3262
3263
3264
3265
3266
3267
3268
3269
3270
3271
3272
3273
3274
3275
3276
3277
3278
3279
3280
3281
3282
3283
3284
3285
3286
3287
3288
3289
3290
3291
3292
3293
3294
3295
3296
3297
3298
3299
3300
3301
3302
3303
3304
3305
3306
3307
3308
3309
3310
3311
3312
3313
3314
3315
3316
3317
3318
3319
3320
3321
3322
3323
3324
3325
3326
3327
3328
3329
3330
3331
3332
3333
3334
3335
3336
3337
3338
3339
3340
3341
3342
3343
3344
3345
3346
3347
3348
3349
3350
3351
3352
3353
3354
3355
3356
3357
3358
3359
3360
3361
3362
3363
3364
3365
3366
3367
3368
3369
3370
3371
3372
3373
3374
3375
3376
3377
3378
3379
3380
3381
3382
3383
3384
3385
3386
3387
3388
3389
3390
3391
3392
3393
3394
3395
3396
3397
3398
3399
3400
3401
3402
3403
3404
3405
3406
3407
3408
3409
3410
3411
3412
3413
3414
3415
3416
3417
3418
3419
3420
3421
3422
3423
3424
3425
3426
3427
3428
3429
3430
3431
3432
3433
3434
3435
3436
3437
3438
3439
3440
3441
3442
3443
3444
3445
3446
3447
3448
3449
3450
3451
3452
3453
3454
3455
3456
3457
3458
3459
3460
3461
3462
3463
3464
3465
3466
3467
3468
3469
3470
3471
3472
3473
3474
3475
3476
3477
3478
3479
3480
3481
3482
3483
3484
3485
3486
3487
3488
3489
3490
3491
3492
3493
3494
3495
3496
3497
3498
3499
3500
3501
3502
3503
3504
3505
3506
3507
3508
3509
3510
3511
3512
3513
3514
3515
3516
3517
3518
3519
3520
3521
3522
3523
3524
3525
3526
3527
3528
3529
3530
3531
3532
3533
3534
3535
3536
3537
3538
3539
3540
3541
3542
3543
3544
3545
3546
3547
3548
3549
3550
3551
3552
3553
3554
3555
3556
3557
3558
3559
3560
3561
3562
3563
3564
3565
3566
3567
3568
3569
3570
3571
3572
3573
3574
3575
3576
3577
3578
3579
3580
3581
3582
3583
3584
3585
3586
3587
3588
3589
3590
3591
3592
3593
3594
3595
3596
3597
3598
3599
3600
3601
3602
3603
3604
3605
3606
3607
3608
3609
3610
3611
3612
3613
3614
3615
3616
3617
3618
3619
3620
3621
3622
3623
3624
3625
3626
3627
3628
3629
3630
3631
3632
3633
3634
3635
3636
3637
3638
3639
3640
3641
3642
3643
3644
3645
3646
3647
3648
3649
3650
3651
3652
3653
3654
3655
3656
3657
3658
3659
3660
3661
3662
3663
3664
3665
3666
3667
3668
3669
3670
3671
3672
3673
3674
3675
3676
3677
3678
3679
3680
3681
3682
3683
3684
3685
3686
3687
3688
3689
3690
3691
3692
3693
3694
3695
3696
3697
3698
3699
3700
3701
3702
3703
3704
3705
3706
3707
3708
3709
3710
3711
3712
3713
3714
3715
3716
3717
3718
3719
3720
3721
3722
3723
3724
3725
3726
3727
3728
3729
3730
3731
3732
3733
3734
3735
3736
3737
3738
3739
3740
3741
3742
3743
3744
3745
3746
3747
3748
3749
3750
3751
3752
3753
3754
3755
3756
3757
3758
3759
3760
3761
3762
3763
3764
3765
3766
3767
3768
3769
3770
3771
3772
3773
3774
3775
3776
3777
3778
3779
3780
3781
3782
3783
3784
3785
3786
3787
3788
3789
3790
3791
3792
3793
3794
3795
3796
3797
3798
3799
3800
3801
3802
3803
3804
3805
3806
3807
3808
3809
3810
3811
3812
3813
3814
3815
3816
3817
3818
3819
3820
3821
3822
3823
3824
3825
3826
3827
3828
3829
3830
3831
3832
3833
3834
3835
3836
3837
3838
3839
3840
3841
3842
3843
3844
3845
3846
3847
3848
3849
3850
3851
3852
3853
3854
3855
3856
3857
3858
3859
3860
3861
3862
3863
3864
3865
3866
3867
3868
3869
3870
3871
3872
3873
3874
3875
3876
3877
3878
3879
3880
3881
3882
3883
3884
3885
3886
3887
3888
3889
3890
3891
3892
3893
3894
3895
3896
3897
3898
3899
3900
3901
3902
3903
3904
3905
3906
3907
3908
3909
3910
3911
3912
3913
3914
3915
3916
3917
3918
3919
3920
3921
3922
3923
3924
3925
3926
3927
3928
3929
3930
3931
3932
3933
3934
3935
3936
3937
3938
3939
3940
3941
3942
3943
3944
3945
3946
3947
3948
3949
3950
3951
3952
3953
3954
3955
3956
3957
3958
3959
3960
3961
3962
3963
3964
3965
3966
3967
3968
3969
3970
3971
3972
3973
3974
3975
3976
3977
3978
3979
3980
3981
3982
3983
3984
3985
3986
3987
3988
3989
3990
3991
3992
3993
3994
3995
3996
3997
3998
3999
4000
4001
4002
4003
4004
4005
4006
4007
4008
4009
4010
4011
4012
4013
4014
4015
4016
4017
4018
4019
4020
4021
4022
4023
4024
4025
4026
4027
4028
4029
4030
4031
4032
4033
4034
4035
4036
4037
4038
4039
4040
4041
4042
4043
4044
4045
4046
4047
4048
4049
4050
4051
4052
4053
4054
4055
4056
4057
4058
4059
4060
4061
4062
4063
4064
4065
4066
4067
4068
4069
4070
4071
4072
4073
4074
4075
4076
4077
4078
4079
4080
4081
4082
4083
4084
4085
4086
4087
4088
4089
4090
4091
4092
4093
4094
4095
4096
4097
4098
4099
4100
4101
4102
4103
4104
4105
4106
4107
4108
4109
4110
4111
4112
4113
4114
4115
4116
4117
4118
4119
4120
4121
4122
4123
4124
4125
4126
4127
4128
4129
4130
4131
4132
4133
4134
4135
4136
4137
4138
4139
4140
4141
4142
4143
4144
4145
4146
4147
4148
4149
4150
4151
4152
4153
4154
4155
4156
4157
4158
4159
4160
4161
4162
4163
4164
4165
4166
4167
4168
4169
4170
4171
4172
4173
4174
4175
4176
4177
4178
4179
4180
4181
4182
4183
4184
4185
4186
4187
4188
4189
4190
4191
4192
4193
4194
4195
4196
4197
4198
4199
4200
4201
4202
4203
4204
4205
4206
4207
4208
4209
4210
4211
4212
4213
4214
4215
4216
4217
4218
4219
4220
4221
4222
4223
4224
4225
4226
4227
4228
4229
4230
4231
4232
4233
4234
4235
4236
4237
4238
4239
4240
4241
4242
4243
4244
4245
4246
4247
4248
4249
4250
4251
4252
4253
4254
4255
4256
4257
4258
4259
4260
4261
4262
4263
4264
4265
4266
4267
4268
4269
4270
4271
4272
4273
4274
4275
4276
4277
4278
4279
4280
4281
4282
4283
4284
4285
4286
4287
4288
4289
4290
4291
4292
4293
4294
4295
4296
4297
4298
4299
4300
4301
4302
4303
4304
4305
4306
4307
4308
4309
4310
4311
4312
4313
4314
4315
4316
4317
4318
4319
4320
4321
4322
4323
4324
4325
4326
4327
4328
4329
4330
4331
4332
4333
4334
4335
4336
4337
4338
4339
4340
4341
4342
4343
4344
4345
4346
4347
4348
4349
4350
4351
4352
4353
4354
4355
4356
4357
4358
4359
4360
4361
4362
4363
4364
4365
4366
4367
4368
4369
4370
4371
4372
4373
4374
4375
4376
4377
4378
4379
4380
4381
4382
4383
4384
4385
4386
4387
4388
4389
4390
4391
4392
4393
4394
4395
4396
4397
4398
4399
4400
4401
4402
4403
4404
4405
4406
4407
4408
4409
4410
4411
4412
4413
4414
4415
4416
4417
4418
4419
4420
4421
4422
4423
4424
4425
4426
4427
4428
4429
4430
4431
4432
4433
4434
4435
4436
4437
4438
4439
4440
4441
4442
4443
4444
4445
4446
4447
4448
4449
4450
4451
4452
4453
4454
4455
4456
4457
4458
4459
4460
4461
4462
4463
4464
4465
4466
4467
4468
4469
4470
4471
4472
4473
4474
4475
4476
4477
4478
4479
4480
4481
4482
4483
4484
4485
4486
4487
4488
4489
4490
4491
4492
4493
4494
4495
4496
4497
4498
4499
4500
4501
4502
4503
4504
4505
4506
4507
4508
4509
4510
4511
4512
4513
4514
4515
4516
4517
4518
4519
4520
4521
4522
4523
4524
4525
4526
4527
4528
4529
4530
4531
4532
4533
4534
4535
4536
4537
4538
4539
4540
4541
4542
4543
4544
4545
4546
4547
4548
4549
4550
4551
4552
4553
4554
4555
4556
4557
4558
4559
4560
4561
4562
4563
4564
4565
4566
4567
4568
4569
4570
4571
4572
4573
4574
4575
4576
4577
4578
4579
4580
4581
4582
4583
4584
4585
4586
4587
4588
4589
4590
4591
4592
4593
4594
4595
4596
4597
4598
4599
4600
4601
4602
4603
4604
4605
4606
4607
4608
4609
4610
4611
4612
4613
4614
4615
4616
4617
4618
4619
4620
4621
4622
4623
4624
4625
4626
4627
4628
4629
4630
4631
4632
4633
4634
4635
4636
4637
4638
4639
4640
4641
4642
4643
4644
4645
4646
4647
4648
4649
4650
4651
4652
4653
4654
4655
4656
4657
4658
4659
4660
4661
4662
4663
4664
4665
4666
4667
4668
4669
4670
4671
4672
4673
4674
4675
4676
4677
4678
4679
4680
4681
4682
4683
4684
4685
4686
4687
4688
4689
4690
4691
4692
4693
4694
4695
4696
4697
4698
4699
4700
4701
4702
4703
4704
4705
4706
4707
4708
4709
4710
4711
4712
4713
4714
4715
4716
4717
4718
4719
4720
4721
4722
4723
4724
4725
4726
4727
4728
4729
4730
4731
4732
4733
4734
4735
4736
4737
4738
4739
4740
4741
4742
4743
4744
4745
4746
4747
4748
4749
4750
4751
4752
4753
4754
4755
4756
4757
4758
4759
4760
4761
4762
4763
4764
4765
4766
4767
4768
4769
4770
4771
4772
4773
4774
4775
4776
4777
4778
4779
4780
4781
4782
4783
4784
4785
4786
4787
4788
4789
4790
4791
4792
4793
4794
4795
4796
4797
4798
4799
4800
4801
4802
4803
4804
4805
4806
4807
4808
4809
4810
4811
4812
4813
4814
4815
4816
4817
4818
4819
4820
4821
4822
4823
4824
4825
4826
4827
4828
4829
4830
4831
4832
4833
4834
4835
4836
4837
4838
4839
4840
4841
4842
4843
4844
4845
4846
4847
4848
4849
4850
4851
4852
4853
4854
4855
4856
4857
4858
4859
4860
4861
4862
4863
4864
4865
4866
4867
4868
4869
4870
4871
4872
4873
4874
4875
4876
4877
4878
4879
4880
4881
4882
4883
4884
4885
4886
4887
4888
4889
4890
4891
4892
4893
4894
4895
4896
4897
4898
4899
4900
4901
4902
4903
4904
4905
4906
4907
4908
4909
4910
4911
4912
4913
4914
4915
4916
4917
4918
4919
4920
4921
4922
4923
4924
4925
4926
4927
4928
4929
4930
4931
4932
4933
4934
4935
4936
4937
4938
4939
4940
4941
4942
4943
4944
4945
4946
4947
4948
4949
4950
4951
4952
4953
4954
4955
4956
4957
4958
4959
4960
4961
4962
4963
4964
4965
4966
4967
4968
4969
4970
4971
4972
4973
4974
4975
4976
4977
4978
4979
4980
4981
4982
4983
4984
4985
4986
4987
4988
4989
4990
4991
4992
4993
4994
4995
4996
4997
4998
4999
5000
5001
5002
5003
5004
5005
5006
5007
5008
5009
5010
5011
5012
5013
5014
5015
5016
5017
5018
5019
5020
5021
5022
5023
5024
5025
5026
5027
5028
5029
5030
5031
5032
5033
5034
5035
5036
5037
5038
5039
5040
5041
5042
5043
5044
5045
5046
5047
5048
5049
5050
5051
5052
5053
5054
5055
5056
5057
5058
5059
5060
5061
5062
5063
5064
5065
5066
5067
5068
5069
5070
5071
5072
5073
5074
5075
5076
5077
5078
5079
5080
5081
5082
5083
5084
5085
5086
5087
5088
5089
5090
5091
5092
5093
5094
5095
5096
5097
5098
5099
5100
5101
5102
5103
5104
5105
5106
5107
5108
5109
5110
5111
5112
5113
5114
5115
5116
5117
5118
5119
5120
5121
5122
5123
5124
5125
5126
5127
5128
5129
5130
5131
5132
5133
5134
5135
5136
5137
5138
5139
5140
5141
5142
5143
5144
5145
5146
5147
5148
5149
5150
5151
5152
5153
5154
5155
5156
5157
5158
5159
5160
5161
5162
5163
5164
5165
5166
5167
5168
5169
5170
5171
5172
5173
5174
5175
5176
5177
5178
5179
5180
5181
5182
5183
5184
5185
5186
5187
5188
5189
5190
5191
5192
5193
5194
5195
5196
5197
5198
5199
5200
5201
5202
5203
5204
5205
5206
5207
5208
5209
5210
5211
5212
5213
5214
5215
5216
5217
5218
5219
5220
5221
5222
5223
5224
5225
5226
5227
5228
5229
5230
5231
5232
5233
5234
5235
5236
5237
5238
5239
5240
5241
5242
5243
5244
5245
5246
5247
5248
5249
5250
5251
5252
5253
5254
5255
5256
5257
5258
5259
5260
5261
5262
5263
5264
5265
5266
5267
5268
5269
5270
5271
5272
5273
5274
5275
5276
5277
5278
5279
5280
5281
5282
5283
5284
5285
5286
5287
5288
5289
5290
5291
5292
5293
5294
5295
5296
5297
5298
5299
5300
5301
5302
5303
5304
5305
5306
5307
5308
5309
5310
5311
5312
5313
5314
5315
5316
5317
5318
5319
5320
5321
5322
5323
5324
5325
5326
5327
5328
5329
5330
5331
5332
5333
5334
5335
5336
5337
5338
5339
5340
5341
5342
5343
5344
5345
5346
5347
5348
5349
5350
5351
5352
5353
5354
5355
5356
5357
5358
5359
5360
5361
5362
5363
5364
5365
5366
5367
5368
5369
5370
5371
5372
5373
5374
5375
5376
5377
5378
5379
5380
5381
5382
5383
5384
5385
5386
5387
5388
5389
5390
5391
5392
5393
5394
5395
5396
5397
5398
5399
5400
5401
5402
5403
5404
5405
5406
5407
5408
5409
5410
5411
5412
5413
5414
5415
5416
5417
5418
5419
5420
5421
5422
5423
5424
5425
5426
5427
5428
5429
5430
5431
5432
5433
5434
5435
5436
5437
5438
5439
5440
5441
5442
5443
5444
5445
5446
5447
5448
5449
5450
5451
5452
5453
5454
5455
5456
5457
5458
5459
5460
5461
5462
5463
5464
5465
5466
5467
5468
5469
5470
5471
5472
5473
5474
5475
5476
5477
5478
5479
5480
5481
5482
5483
5484
5485
5486
5487
5488
5489
5490
5491
5492
5493
5494
5495
5496
5497
5498
5499
5500
5501
5502
5503
5504
5505
5506
5507
5508
5509
5510
5511
5512
5513
5514
5515
5516
5517
5518
5519
5520
5521
5522
5523
5524
5525
5526
5527
5528
5529
5530
5531
5532
5533
5534
5535
5536
5537
5538
5539
5540
5541
5542
5543
5544
5545
5546
5547
5548
5549
5550
5551
5552
5553
5554
5555
5556
5557
5558
5559
5560
5561
5562
5563
5564
5565
5566
5567
5568
5569
5570
5571
5572
5573
5574
5575
5576
5577
5578
5579
5580
5581
5582
5583
5584
5585
5586
5587
5588
5589
5590
5591
5592
5593
5594
5595
5596
5597
5598
5599
5600
5601
5602
5603
5604
5605
5606
5607
5608
5609
5610
5611
5612
5613
5614
5615
5616
5617
5618
5619
5620
5621
5622
5623
5624
5625
5626
5627
5628
5629
5630
5631
5632
5633
5634
5635
5636
5637
5638
5639
5640
5641
5642
5643
5644
5645
5646
5647
5648
5649
5650
5651
5652
5653
5654
5655
5656
5657
5658
5659
5660
5661
5662
5663
5664
5665
5666
5667
5668
5669
5670
5671
5672
5673
5674
5675
5676
5677
5678
5679
5680
5681
5682
5683
5684
5685
5686
5687
5688
5689
5690
5691
5692
5693
5694
5695
5696
5697
5698
5699
5700
5701
5702
5703
5704
5705
5706
5707
5708
5709
5710
5711
5712
5713
5714
5715
5716
5717
5718
5719
5720
5721
5722
5723
5724
5725
5726
5727
5728
5729
5730
5731
5732
5733
5734
5735
5736
5737
5738
5739
5740
5741
5742
5743
5744
5745
5746
5747
5748
5749
5750
5751
5752
5753
5754
5755
5756
5757
5758
5759
5760
5761
5762
5763
5764
5765
5766
5767
5768
5769
5770
5771
5772
5773
5774
5775
5776
5777
5778
5779
5780
5781
5782
5783
5784
5785
5786
5787
5788
5789
5790
5791
5792
5793
5794
5795
5796
5797
5798
5799
5800
5801
5802
5803
5804
5805
5806
5807
5808
5809
5810
5811
5812
5813
5814
5815
5816
5817
5818
5819
5820
5821
5822
5823
5824
5825
5826
5827
5828
5829
5830
5831
5832
5833
5834
5835
5836
5837
5838
5839
5840
5841
5842
5843
5844
5845
5846
5847
5848
5849
5850
5851
5852
5853
5854
5855
5856
5857
5858
5859
5860
5861
5862
5863
5864
5865
5866
5867
5868
5869
5870
5871
5872
5873
5874
5875
5876
5877
5878
5879
5880
5881
5882
5883
5884
5885
5886
5887
5888
5889
5890
5891
5892
5893
5894
5895
5896
5897
5898
5899
5900
5901
5902
5903
5904
5905
5906
5907
5908
5909
5910
5911
5912
5913
5914
5915
5916
5917
5918
5919
5920
5921
5922
5923
5924
5925
5926
5927
5928
5929
5930
5931
5932
5933
5934
5935
5936
5937
5938
5939
5940
5941
5942
5943
5944
5945
5946
5947
5948
5949
5950
5951
5952
5953
5954
5955
5956
5957
5958
5959
5960
5961
5962
5963
5964
5965
5966
5967
5968
5969
5970
5971
5972
5973
5974
5975
5976
5977
5978
5979
5980
5981
5982
5983
5984
5985
5986
5987
5988
5989
5990
5991
5992
5993
5994
5995
5996
5997
5998
5999
6000
6001
6002
6003
6004
6005
6006
6007
6008
6009
6010
6011
6012
6013
6014
6015
6016
6017
6018
6019
6020
6021
6022
6023
6024
6025
6026
6027
6028
6029
6030
6031
6032
6033
6034
6035
6036
6037
6038
6039
6040
6041
6042
6043
6044
6045
6046
6047
6048
6049
6050
6051
6052
6053
6054
6055
6056
6057
6058
6059
6060
6061
6062
6063
6064
6065
6066
6067
6068
6069
6070
6071
6072
6073
6074
6075
6076
6077
6078
6079
6080
6081
6082
6083
6084
6085
6086
6087
6088
6089
6090
6091
6092
6093
6094
6095
6096
6097
6098
6099
6100
6101
6102
6103
6104
6105
6106
6107
6108
6109
6110
6111
6112
6113
6114
6115
6116
6117
6118
6119
6120
6121
6122
6123
6124
6125
6126
6127
6128
6129
6130
6131
6132
6133
6134
6135
6136
6137
6138
6139
6140
6141
6142
6143
6144
6145
6146
6147
6148
6149
6150
6151
6152
6153
6154
6155
6156
6157
6158
6159
6160
6161
6162
6163
6164
6165
6166
6167
6168
6169
6170
6171
6172
6173
6174
6175
6176
6177
6178
6179
6180
6181
6182
6183
6184
6185
6186
6187
6188
6189
6190
6191
6192
6193
6194
6195
6196
6197
6198
6199
6200
6201
6202
6203
6204
6205
6206
6207
6208
6209
6210
6211
6212
6213
6214
6215
6216
6217
6218
6219
6220
6221
6222
6223
6224
6225
6226
6227
6228
6229
6230
6231
6232
6233
6234
6235
6236
6237
6238
6239
6240
6241
6242
6243
6244
6245
6246
6247
6248
6249
6250
6251
6252
6253
6254
6255
6256
6257
6258
6259
6260
6261
6262
6263
6264
6265
6266
6267
6268
6269
6270
6271
6272
6273
6274
6275
6276
6277
6278
6279
6280
6281
6282
6283
6284
6285
6286
6287
6288
6289
6290
6291
6292
6293
6294
6295
6296
6297
6298
6299
6300
6301
6302
6303
6304
6305
6306
6307
6308
6309
6310
6311
6312
6313
6314
6315
6316
6317
6318
6319
6320
6321
6322
6323
6324
6325
6326
6327
6328
6329
6330
6331
6332
6333
6334
6335
6336
6337
6338
6339
6340
6341
6342
6343
6344
6345
6346
6347
6348
6349
6350
6351
6352
6353
6354
6355
6356
6357
6358
6359
6360
6361
6362
6363
6364
6365
6366
6367
6368
6369
6370
6371
6372
6373
6374
6375
6376
6377
6378
6379
6380
6381
6382
6383
6384
6385
6386
6387
6388
6389
6390
6391
6392
6393
6394
6395
6396
6397
6398
6399
6400
6401
6402
6403
6404
6405
6406
6407
6408
6409
6410
6411
6412
6413
6414
6415
6416
6417
6418
6419
6420
6421
6422
6423
6424
6425
6426
6427
6428
6429
6430
6431
6432
6433
6434
6435
6436
6437
6438
6439
6440
6441
6442
6443
6444
6445
6446
6447
6448
6449
6450
6451
6452
6453
6454
6455
6456
6457
6458
6459
6460
6461
6462
6463
6464
6465
6466
6467
6468
6469
6470
6471
6472
6473
6474
6475
6476
6477
6478
6479
6480
6481
6482
6483
6484
6485
6486
6487
6488
6489
6490
6491
6492
6493
6494
6495
6496
6497
6498
6499
6500
6501
6502
6503
6504
6505
6506
6507
6508
6509
6510
6511
6512
6513
6514
6515
6516
6517
6518
6519
6520
6521
6522
6523
6524
6525
6526
6527
6528
6529
6530
6531
6532
6533
6534
6535
6536
6537
6538
6539
6540
6541
6542
6543
6544
6545
6546
6547
6548
6549
6550
6551
6552
6553
6554
6555
6556
6557
6558
6559
6560
6561
6562
6563
6564
6565
6566
6567
6568
6569
6570
6571
6572
6573
6574
6575
6576
6577
6578
6579
6580
6581
6582
6583
6584
6585
6586
6587
6588
6589
6590
6591
6592
6593
6594
6595
6596
6597
6598
6599
6600
6601
6602
6603
6604
6605
6606
6607
6608
6609
6610
6611
6612
6613
6614
6615
6616
6617
6618
6619
6620
6621
6622
6623
6624
6625
6626
6627
6628
6629
6630
6631
6632
6633
6634
6635
6636
6637
6638
6639
6640
6641
6642
6643
6644
6645
6646
6647
6648
6649
6650
6651
6652
6653
6654
6655
6656
6657
6658
6659
6660
6661
6662
6663
6664
6665
6666
6667
6668
6669
6670
6671
6672
6673
6674
6675
6676
6677
6678
6679
6680
6681
6682
6683
6684
6685
6686
6687
6688
6689
6690
6691
6692
6693
6694
6695
6696
6697
6698
6699
6700
6701
6702
6703
6704
6705
6706
6707
6708
6709
6710
6711
6712
6713
6714
6715
6716
6717
6718
6719
6720
6721
6722
6723
6724
6725
6726
6727
6728
6729
6730
6731
6732
6733
6734
6735
6736
6737
6738
6739
6740
6741
6742
6743
6744
6745
6746
6747
6748
6749
6750
6751
6752
6753
6754
6755
6756
6757
6758
6759
6760
6761
6762
6763
6764
6765
6766
6767
6768
6769
6770
6771
6772
6773
6774
6775
6776
6777
6778
6779
6780
6781
6782
6783
6784
6785
6786
6787
6788
6789
6790
6791
6792
6793
6794
6795
6796
6797
6798
6799
6800
6801
6802
6803
6804
6805
6806
6807
6808
6809
6810
6811
6812
6813
6814
6815
6816
6817
6818
6819
6820
6821
6822
6823
6824
6825
6826
6827
6828
6829
6830
6831
6832
6833
6834
6835
6836
6837
6838
6839
6840
6841
6842
6843
6844
6845
6846
6847
6848
6849
6850
6851
6852
6853
6854
6855
6856
6857
6858
6859
6860
6861
6862
6863
6864
6865
6866
6867
6868
6869
6870
6871
6872
6873
6874
6875
6876
6877
6878
6879
6880
6881
6882
6883
6884
6885
6886
6887
6888
6889
6890
6891
6892
6893
6894
6895
6896
6897
6898
6899
6900
6901
6902
6903
6904
6905
6906
6907
6908
6909
6910
6911
6912
6913
6914
6915
6916
6917
6918
6919
6920
6921
6922
6923
6924
6925
6926
6927
6928
6929
6930
6931
6932
6933
6934
6935
6936
6937
6938
6939
6940
6941
6942
6943
6944
6945
6946
6947
6948
6949
6950
6951
6952
6953
6954
6955
6956
6957
6958
6959
6960
6961
6962
6963
6964
6965
6966
6967
6968
6969
6970
6971
6972
6973
6974
6975
6976
6977
6978
6979
6980
6981
6982
6983
6984
6985
6986
6987
6988
6989
6990
6991
6992
6993
6994
6995
6996
6997
6998
6999
7000
7001
7002
7003
7004
7005
7006
7007
7008
7009
7010
7011
7012
7013
7014
7015
7016
7017
7018
7019
7020
7021
7022
7023
7024
7025
7026
7027
7028
7029
7030
7031
7032
7033
7034
7035
7036
7037
7038
7039
7040
7041
7042
7043
7044
7045
7046
7047
7048
7049
7050
7051
7052
7053
7054
7055
7056
7057
7058
7059
7060
7061
7062
7063
7064
7065
7066
7067
7068
7069
7070
7071
7072
7073
7074
7075
7076
7077
7078
7079
7080
7081
7082
7083
7084
7085
7086
7087
7088
7089
7090
7091
7092
7093
7094
7095
7096
7097
7098
7099
7100
7101
7102
7103
7104
7105
7106
7107
7108
7109
7110
7111
7112
7113
7114
7115
7116
7117
7118
7119
7120
7121
7122
7123
7124
7125
7126
7127
7128
7129
7130
7131
7132
7133
7134
7135
7136
7137
7138
7139
7140
7141
7142
7143
7144
7145
7146
7147
7148
7149
7150
7151
7152
7153
7154
7155
7156
7157
7158
7159
7160
7161
7162
7163
7164
7165
7166
7167
7168
7169
7170
7171
7172
7173
7174
7175
7176
7177
7178
7179
7180
7181
7182
7183
7184
7185
7186
7187
7188
7189
7190
7191
7192
7193
7194
7195
7196
7197
7198
7199
7200
7201
7202
7203
7204
7205
7206
7207
7208
7209
7210
7211
7212
7213
7214
7215
7216
7217
7218
7219
7220
7221
7222
7223
7224
7225
7226
7227
7228
7229
7230
7231
7232
7233
7234
7235
7236
7237
7238
7239
7240
7241
7242
7243
7244
7245
7246
7247
7248
7249
7250
7251
7252
7253
7254
7255
7256
7257
7258
7259
7260
7261
7262
7263
7264
7265
7266
7267
7268
7269
7270
7271
7272
7273
7274
7275
7276
7277
7278
7279
7280
7281
7282
7283
7284
7285
7286
7287
7288
7289
7290
7291
7292
7293
7294
7295
7296
7297
7298
7299
7300
7301
7302
7303
7304
7305
7306
7307
7308
7309
7310
7311
7312
7313
7314
7315
7316
7317
7318
7319
7320
7321
7322
7323
7324
7325
7326
7327
7328
7329
7330
7331
7332
7333
7334
7335
7336
7337
7338
7339
7340
7341
7342
7343
7344
7345
7346
7347
7348
7349
7350
7351
7352
7353
7354
7355
7356
7357
7358
7359
7360
7361
7362
7363
7364
7365
7366
7367
7368
7369
7370
7371
7372
7373
7374
7375
7376
7377
7378
7379
7380
7381
7382
7383
7384
7385
7386
7387
7388
7389
7390
7391
7392
7393
7394
7395
7396
7397
7398
7399
7400
7401
7402
7403
7404
7405
7406
7407
7408
7409
7410
7411
7412
7413
7414
7415
7416
7417
7418
7419
7420
7421
7422
7423
7424
7425
7426
7427
7428
7429
7430
7431
7432
7433
7434
7435
7436
7437
7438
7439
7440
7441
7442
7443
7444
7445
7446
7447
7448
7449
7450
7451
7452
7453
7454
7455
7456
7457
7458
7459
7460
7461
7462
7463
7464
7465
7466
7467
7468
7469
7470
7471
7472
7473
7474
7475
7476
7477
7478
7479
7480
7481
7482
7483
7484
7485
7486
7487
7488
7489
7490
7491
7492
7493
7494
7495
7496
7497
7498
7499
7500
7501
7502
7503
7504
7505
7506
7507
7508
7509
7510
7511
7512
7513
7514
7515
7516
7517
7518
7519
7520
7521
7522
7523
7524
7525
7526
7527
7528
7529
7530
7531
7532
7533
7534
7535
7536
7537
7538
7539
7540
7541
7542
7543
7544
7545
7546
7547
7548
7549
7550
7551
7552
7553
7554
7555
7556
7557
7558
7559
7560
7561
7562
7563
7564
7565
7566
7567
7568
7569
7570
7571
7572
7573
7574
7575
7576
7577
7578
7579
7580
7581
7582
7583
7584
7585
7586
7587
7588
7589
7590
7591
7592
7593
7594
7595
7596
7597
7598
7599
7600
7601
7602
7603
7604
7605
7606
7607
7608
7609
7610
7611
7612
7613
7614
7615
7616
7617
7618
7619
7620
7621
7622
7623
7624
7625
7626
7627
7628
7629
7630
7631
7632
7633
7634
7635
7636
7637
7638
7639
7640
7641
7642
7643
7644
7645
7646
7647
7648
7649
7650
7651
7652
7653
7654
7655
7656
7657
7658
7659
7660
7661
7662
7663
7664
7665
7666
7667
7668
7669
7670
7671
7672
7673
7674
7675
7676
7677
7678
7679
7680
7681
7682
7683
7684
7685
7686
7687
7688
7689
7690
7691
7692
7693
7694
7695
7696
7697
7698
7699
7700
7701
7702
7703
7704
7705
7706
7707
7708
7709
7710
7711
7712
7713
7714
7715
7716
7717
7718
7719
7720
7721
7722
7723
7724
7725
7726
7727
7728
7729
7730
7731
7732
7733
7734
7735
7736
7737
7738
7739
7740
7741
7742
7743
7744
7745
7746
7747
7748
7749
7750
7751
7752
7753
7754
7755
7756
7757
7758
7759
7760
7761
7762
7763
7764
7765
7766
7767
7768
7769
7770
7771
7772
7773
7774
7775
7776
7777
7778
7779
7780
7781
7782
7783
7784
7785
7786
7787
7788
7789
7790
7791
7792
7793
7794
7795
7796
7797
7798
7799
7800
7801
7802
7803
7804
7805
7806
7807
7808
7809
7810
7811
7812
7813
7814
7815
7816
7817
7818
7819
7820
7821
7822
7823
7824
7825
7826
7827
7828
7829
7830
7831
7832
7833
7834
7835
7836
7837
7838
7839
7840
7841
7842
7843
7844
7845
7846
7847
7848
7849
7850
7851
7852
7853
7854
7855
7856
7857
7858
7859
7860
7861
7862
7863
7864
7865
7866
7867
7868
7869
7870
7871
7872
7873
7874
7875
7876
7877
7878
7879
7880
7881
7882
7883
7884
7885
7886
7887
7888
7889
7890
7891
7892
7893
7894
7895
7896
7897
7898
7899
7900
7901
7902
7903
7904
7905
7906
7907
7908
7909
7910
7911
7912
7913
7914
7915
7916
7917
7918
7919
7920
7921
7922
7923
7924
7925
7926
7927
7928
7929
7930
7931
7932
7933
7934
7935
7936
7937
7938
7939
7940
7941
7942
7943
7944
7945
7946
7947
7948
7949
7950
7951
7952
7953
7954
7955
7956
7957
7958
7959
7960
7961
7962
7963
7964
7965
7966
7967
7968
7969
7970
7971
7972
7973
7974
7975
7976
7977
7978
7979
7980
7981
7982
7983
7984
7985
7986
7987
7988
7989
7990
7991
7992
7993
7994
7995
7996
7997
7998
7999
8000
8001
8002
8003
8004
8005
8006
8007
8008
8009
8010
8011
8012
8013
8014
8015
8016
8017
8018
8019
8020
8021
8022
8023
8024
8025
8026
8027
8028
8029
8030
8031
8032
8033
8034
8035
8036
8037
8038
8039
8040
8041
8042
8043
8044
8045
8046
8047
8048
8049
8050
8051
8052
8053
8054
8055
8056
8057
8058
8059
8060
8061
8062
8063
8064
8065
8066
8067
8068
8069
8070
8071
8072
8073
8074
8075
8076
8077
8078
8079
8080
8081
8082
8083
8084
8085
8086
8087
8088
8089
8090
8091
8092
8093
8094
8095
8096
8097
8098
8099
8100
8101
8102
8103
8104
8105
8106
8107
8108
8109
8110
8111
8112
8113
8114
8115
8116
8117
8118
8119
8120
8121
8122
8123
8124
8125
8126
8127
8128
8129
8130
8131
8132
8133
8134
8135
8136
8137
8138
8139
8140
8141
8142
8143
8144
8145
8146
8147
8148
8149
8150
8151
8152
8153
8154
8155
8156
8157
8158
8159
8160
8161
8162
8163
8164
8165
8166
8167
8168
8169
8170
8171
8172
8173
8174
8175
8176
8177
8178
8179
8180
8181
8182
8183
8184
8185
8186
8187
8188
8189
8190
8191
8192
8193
8194
8195
8196
8197
8198
8199
8200
8201
8202
8203
8204
8205
8206
8207
8208
8209
8210
8211
8212
8213
8214
8215
8216
8217
8218
8219
8220
8221
8222
8223
8224
8225
8226
8227
8228
8229
8230
8231
8232
8233
8234
8235
8236
8237
8238
8239
8240
8241
8242
8243
8244
8245
8246
8247
8248
8249
8250
8251
8252
8253
8254
8255
8256
8257
8258
8259
8260
8261
8262
8263
8264
8265
8266
8267
8268
8269
8270
8271
8272
8273
8274
8275
8276
8277
8278
8279
8280
8281
8282
8283
8284
8285
8286
8287
8288
8289
8290
8291
8292
8293
8294
8295
8296
8297
8298
8299
8300
8301
8302
8303
8304
8305
8306
8307
8308
8309
8310
8311
8312
8313
8314
8315
8316
8317
8318
8319
8320
8321
8322
8323
8324
8325
8326
8327
8328
8329
8330
8331
8332
8333
8334
8335
8336
8337
8338
8339
8340
8341
8342
8343
8344
8345
8346
8347
8348
8349
8350
8351
8352
8353
8354
8355
8356
8357
8358
8359
8360
8361
8362
8363
8364
8365
8366
8367
8368
8369
8370
8371
8372
8373
8374
8375
8376
8377
8378
8379
8380
8381
8382
8383
8384
8385
8386
8387
8388
8389
8390
8391
8392
8393
8394
8395
8396
8397
8398
8399
8400
8401
8402
8403
8404
8405
8406
8407
8408
8409
8410
8411
8412
8413
8414
8415
8416
8417
8418
8419
8420
8421
8422
8423
8424
8425
8426
8427
8428
8429
8430
8431
8432
8433
8434
8435
8436
8437
8438
8439
8440
8441
8442
8443
8444
8445
8446
8447
8448
8449
8450
8451
8452
8453
8454
8455
8456
8457
8458
8459
8460
8461
8462
8463
8464
8465
8466
8467
8468
8469
8470
8471
8472
8473
8474
8475
8476
8477
8478
8479
8480
8481
8482
8483
8484
8485
8486
8487
8488
8489
8490
8491
8492
8493
8494
8495
8496
8497
8498
8499
8500
8501
8502
8503
8504
8505
8506
8507
8508
8509
8510
8511
8512
8513
8514
8515
8516
8517
8518
8519
8520
8521
8522
8523
8524
8525
8526
8527
8528
8529
8530
8531
8532
8533
8534
8535
8536
8537
8538
8539
8540
8541
8542
8543
8544
8545
8546
8547
8548
8549
8550
8551
8552
8553
8554
8555
8556
8557
8558
8559
8560
8561
8562
8563
8564
8565
8566
8567
8568
8569
8570
8571
8572
8573
8574
8575
8576
8577
8578
8579
8580
8581
8582
8583
8584
8585
8586
8587
8588
8589
8590
8591
8592
8593
8594
8595
8596
8597
8598
8599
8600
8601
8602
8603
8604
8605
8606
8607
8608
8609
8610
8611
8612
8613
8614
8615
8616
8617
8618
8619
8620
8621
8622
8623
8624
8625
8626
8627
8628
8629
8630
8631
8632
8633
8634
8635
8636
8637
8638
8639
8640
8641
8642
8643
8644
8645
8646
8647
8648
8649
8650
8651
8652
8653
8654
8655
8656
8657
8658
8659
8660
8661
8662
8663
8664
8665
8666
8667
8668
8669
8670
8671
8672
8673
8674
8675
8676
8677
8678
8679
8680
8681
8682
8683
8684
8685
8686
8687
8688
8689
8690
8691
8692
8693
8694
8695
8696
8697
8698
8699
8700
8701
8702
8703
8704
8705
8706
8707
8708
8709
8710
8711
8712
8713
8714
8715
8716
8717
8718
8719
8720
8721
8722
8723
8724
8725
8726
8727
8728
8729
8730
8731
8732
8733
8734
8735
8736
8737
8738
8739
8740
8741
8742
8743
8744
8745
8746
8747
8748
8749
8750
8751
8752
8753
8754
8755
8756
8757
8758
8759
8760
8761
8762
8763
8764
8765
8766
8767
8768
8769
8770
8771
8772
8773
8774
8775
8776
8777
8778
8779
8780
8781
8782
8783
8784
8785
8786
8787
8788
8789
8790
8791
8792
8793
8794
8795
8796
8797
8798
8799
8800
8801
8802
8803
8804
8805
8806
8807
8808
8809
8810
8811
8812
8813
8814
8815
8816
8817
8818
8819
8820
8821
8822
8823
8824
8825
8826
8827
8828
8829
8830
8831
8832
8833
8834
8835
8836
8837
8838
8839
8840
8841
8842
8843
8844
8845
8846
8847
8848
8849
8850
8851
8852
8853
8854
8855
8856
8857
8858
8859
8860
8861
8862
8863
8864
8865
8866
8867
8868
8869
8870
8871
8872
8873
8874
8875
8876
8877
8878
8879
8880
8881
8882
8883
8884
8885
8886
8887
8888
8889
8890
8891
8892
8893
8894
8895
8896
8897
8898
8899
8900
8901
8902
8903
8904
8905
8906
8907
8908
8909
8910
8911
8912
8913
8914
8915
8916
8917
8918
8919
8920
8921
8922
8923
8924
8925
8926
8927
8928
8929
8930
8931
8932
8933
8934
8935
8936
8937
8938
8939
8940
8941
8942
8943
8944
8945
8946
8947
8948
8949
8950
8951
8952
8953
8954
8955
8956
8957
8958
8959
8960
8961
8962
8963
8964
8965
8966
8967
8968
8969
8970
8971
8972
8973
8974
8975
8976
8977
8978
8979
8980
8981
8982
8983
8984
8985
8986
8987
8988
8989
8990
8991
8992
8993
8994
8995
8996
8997
8998
8999
9000
9001
9002
9003
9004
9005
9006
9007
9008
9009
9010
9011
9012
9013
9014
9015
9016
9017
9018
9019
9020
9021
9022
9023
9024
9025
9026
9027
9028
9029
9030
9031
9032
9033
9034
9035
9036
9037
9038
9039
9040
9041
9042
9043
9044
9045
9046
9047
9048
9049
9050
9051
9052
9053
9054
9055
9056
9057
9058
9059
9060
9061
9062
9063
9064
9065
9066
9067
9068
9069
9070
9071
9072
9073
9074
9075
9076
9077
9078
9079
9080
9081
9082
9083
9084
9085
9086
9087
9088
9089
9090
9091
9092
9093
9094
9095
9096
9097
9098
9099
9100
9101
9102
9103
9104
9105
9106
9107
9108
9109
9110
9111
9112
9113
9114
9115
9116
9117
9118
9119
9120
9121
9122
9123
9124
9125
9126
9127
9128
9129
9130
9131
9132
9133
9134
9135
9136
9137
9138
9139
9140
9141
9142
9143
9144
9145
9146
9147
9148
9149
9150
9151
9152
9153
9154
9155
9156
9157
9158
9159
9160
9161
9162
9163
9164
9165
9166
9167
9168
9169
9170
9171
9172
9173
9174
9175
9176
9177
9178
9179
9180
9181
9182
9183
9184
9185
9186
9187
9188
9189
9190
9191
9192
9193
9194
9195
9196
9197
9198
9199
9200
9201
9202
9203
9204
9205
9206
9207
9208
9209
9210
9211
9212
9213
9214
9215
9216
9217
9218
9219
9220
9221
9222
9223
9224
9225
9226
9227
9228
9229
9230
9231
9232
9233
9234
9235
9236
9237
9238
9239
9240
9241
9242
9243
9244
9245
9246
9247
9248
9249
9250
9251
9252
9253
9254
9255
9256
9257
9258
9259
9260
9261
9262
9263
9264
9265
9266
9267
9268
9269
9270
9271
9272
9273
9274
9275
9276
9277
9278
9279
9280
9281
9282
9283
9284
9285
9286
9287
9288
9289
9290
9291
9292
9293
9294
9295
9296
9297
9298
9299
9300
9301
9302
9303
9304
9305
9306
9307
9308
9309
9310
9311
9312
9313
9314
9315
9316
9317
9318
9319
9320
9321
9322
9323
9324
9325
9326
9327
9328
9329
9330
9331
9332
9333
9334
9335
9336
9337
9338
9339
9340
9341
9342
9343
9344
9345
9346
9347
9348
9349
9350
9351
9352
9353
9354
9355
9356
9357
9358
9359
9360
9361
9362
9363
9364
9365
9366
9367
9368
9369
9370
9371
9372
9373
9374
9375
9376
9377
9378
9379
9380
9381
9382
9383
9384
9385
9386
9387
9388
9389
9390
9391
9392
9393
9394
9395
9396
9397
9398
9399
9400
9401
9402
9403
9404
9405
9406
9407
9408
9409
9410
9411
9412
9413
9414
9415
9416
9417
9418
9419
9420
9421
9422
9423
9424
9425
9426
9427
9428
9429
9430
9431
9432
9433
9434
9435
9436
9437
9438
9439
9440
9441
9442
9443
9444
9445
9446
9447
9448
9449
9450
9451
9452
9453
9454
9455
9456
9457
9458
9459
9460
9461
9462
9463
9464
9465
9466
9467
9468
9469
9470
9471
9472
9473
9474
9475
9476
9477
9478
9479
9480
9481
9482
9483
9484
9485
9486
9487
9488
9489
9490
9491
9492
9493
9494
9495
9496
9497
9498
9499
9500
9501
9502
9503
9504
9505
9506
9507
9508
9509
9510
9511
9512
9513
9514
9515
9516
9517
9518
9519
9520
9521
9522
9523
9524
9525
9526
9527
9528
9529
9530
9531
9532
9533
9534
9535
9536
9537
9538
9539
9540
9541
9542
9543
9544
9545
9546
9547
9548
9549
9550
9551
9552
9553
9554
9555
9556
9557
9558
9559
9560
9561
9562
9563
9564
9565
9566
9567
9568
9569
9570
9571
9572
9573
9574
9575
9576
9577
9578
9579
9580
9581
9582
9583
9584
9585
9586
9587
9588
9589
9590
9591
9592
9593
9594
9595
9596
9597
9598
9599
9600
9601
9602
9603
9604
9605
9606
9607
9608
9609
9610
9611
9612
9613
9614
9615
9616
9617
9618
9619
9620
9621
9622
9623
9624
9625
9626
9627
9628
9629
9630
9631
9632
9633
9634
9635
9636
9637
9638
9639
9640
9641
9642
9643
9644
9645
9646
9647
9648
9649
9650
9651
9652
9653
9654
9655
9656
9657
9658
9659
9660
9661
9662
9663
9664
9665
9666
9667
9668
9669
9670
9671
9672
9673
9674
9675
9676
9677
9678
9679
9680
9681
9682
9683
9684
9685
9686
9687
9688
9689
9690
9691
9692
9693
9694
9695
9696
9697
9698
9699
9700
9701
9702
9703
9704
9705
9706
9707
9708
9709
9710
9711
9712
9713
9714
9715
9716
9717
9718
9719
9720
9721
9722
9723
9724
9725
9726
9727
9728
9729
9730
9731
9732
9733
9734
9735
9736
9737
9738
9739
9740
9741
9742
9743
9744
9745
9746
9747
9748
9749
9750
9751
9752
9753
9754
9755
9756
9757
9758
9759
9760
9761
9762
9763
9764
9765
9766
9767
9768
9769
9770
9771
9772
9773
9774
9775
9776
9777
9778
9779
9780
9781
9782
9783
9784
9785
9786
9787
9788
9789
9790
9791
9792
9793
9794
9795
9796
9797
9798
9799
9800
9801
9802
9803
9804
9805
9806
9807
9808
9809
9810
9811
9812
9813
9814
9815
9816
9817
9818
9819
9820
9821
9822
9823
9824
9825
9826
9827
9828
9829
9830
9831
9832
9833
9834
9835
9836
9837
9838
9839
9840
9841
9842
9843
9844
9845
9846
9847
9848
9849
9850
9851
9852
9853
9854
9855
9856
9857
9858
9859
9860
9861
9862
9863
9864
9865
9866
9867
9868
9869
9870
9871
9872
9873
9874
9875
9876
9877
9878
9879
9880
9881
9882
9883
9884
9885
9886
9887
9888
9889
9890
9891
9892
9893
9894
9895
9896
9897
9898
9899
9900
9901
9902
9903
9904
9905
9906
9907
9908
9909
9910
9911
9912
9913
9914
9915
9916
9917
9918
9919
9920
9921
9922
9923
9924
9925
9926
9927
9928
9929
9930
9931
9932
9933
9934
9935
9936
9937
9938
9939
9940
9941
9942
9943
9944
9945
9946
9947
9948
9949
9950
9951
9952
9953
9954
9955
9956
9957
9958
9959
9960
9961
9962
9963
9964
9965
9966
9967
9968
9969
9970
9971
9972
9973
9974
9975
9976
9977
9978
9979
9980
9981
9982
9983
9984
9985
9986
9987
9988
9989
9990
9991
9992
9993
9994
9995
9996
9997
9998
9999
10000
10001
10002
10003
10004
10005
10006
10007
10008
10009
10010
10011
10012
10013
10014
10015
10016
10017
10018
10019
10020
10021
10022
10023
10024
10025
10026
10027
10028
10029
10030
10031
10032
10033
10034
10035
10036
10037
10038
10039
10040
10041
10042
10043
10044
10045
10046
10047
10048
10049
10050
10051
10052
10053
10054
10055
10056
10057
10058
10059
10060
10061
10062
10063
10064
10065
10066
10067
10068
10069
10070
10071
10072
10073
10074
10075
10076
10077
10078
10079
10080
10081
10082
10083
10084
10085
10086
10087
10088
10089
10090
10091
10092
10093
10094
10095
10096
10097
10098
10099
10100
10101
10102
10103
10104
10105
10106
10107
10108
10109
10110
10111
10112
10113
10114
10115
10116
10117
10118
10119
10120
10121
10122
10123
10124
10125
10126
10127
10128
10129
10130
10131
10132
10133
10134
10135
10136
10137
10138
10139
10140
10141
10142
10143
10144
10145
10146
10147
10148
10149
10150
10151
10152
10153
10154
10155
10156
10157
10158
10159
10160
10161
10162
10163
10164
10165
10166
10167
10168
10169
10170
10171
10172
10173
10174
10175
10176
10177
10178
10179
10180
10181
10182
10183
10184
10185
10186
10187
10188
10189
10190
10191
10192
10193
10194
10195
10196
10197
10198
10199
10200
10201
10202
10203
10204
10205
10206
10207
10208
10209
10210
10211
10212
10213
10214
10215
10216
10217
10218
10219
10220
10221
10222
10223
10224
10225
10226
10227
10228
10229
10230
10231
10232
10233
10234
10235
10236
10237
10238
10239
10240
10241
10242
10243
10244
10245
10246
10247
10248
10249
10250
10251
10252
10253
10254
10255
10256
10257
10258
10259
10260
10261
10262
10263
10264
10265
10266
10267
10268
10269
10270
10271
10272
10273
10274
10275
10276
10277
10278
10279
10280
10281
10282
10283
10284
10285
10286
10287
10288
10289
10290
10291
10292
10293
10294
10295
10296
10297
10298
10299
10300
10301
10302
10303
10304
10305
10306
10307
10308
10309
10310
10311
10312
10313
10314
10315
10316
10317
10318
10319
10320
10321
10322
10323
10324
10325
10326
10327
10328
10329
10330
10331
10332
10333
10334
10335
10336
10337
10338
10339
10340
10341
10342
10343
10344
10345
10346
10347
10348
10349
10350
10351
10352
10353
10354
10355
10356
10357
10358
10359
10360
10361
10362
10363
10364
10365
10366
10367
10368
10369
10370
10371
10372
10373
10374
10375
10376
10377
10378
10379
10380
10381
10382
10383
10384
10385
10386
10387
10388
10389
10390
10391
10392
10393
10394
10395
10396
10397
10398
10399
10400
10401
10402
10403
10404
10405
10406
10407
10408
10409
10410
10411
10412
10413
10414
10415
10416
10417
10418
10419
10420
10421
10422
10423
10424
10425
10426
10427
10428
10429
10430
10431
10432
10433
10434
10435
10436
10437
10438
10439
10440
10441
10442
10443
10444
10445
10446
10447
10448
10449
10450
10451
10452
10453
10454
10455
10456
10457
10458
10459
10460
10461
10462
10463
10464
10465
10466
10467
10468
10469
10470
10471
10472
10473
10474
10475
10476
10477
10478
10479
10480
10481
10482
10483
10484
10485
10486
10487
10488
10489
10490
10491
10492
10493
10494
10495
10496
10497
10498
10499
10500
10501
10502
10503
10504
10505
10506
10507
10508
10509
10510
10511
10512
10513
10514
10515
10516
10517
10518
10519
10520
10521
10522
10523
10524
10525
10526
10527
10528
10529
10530
10531
10532
10533
10534
10535
10536
10537
10538
10539
10540
10541
10542
10543
10544
10545
10546
10547
10548
10549
10550
10551
10552
10553
10554
10555
10556
10557
10558
10559
10560
10561
10562
10563
10564
10565
10566
10567
10568
10569
10570
10571
10572
10573
10574
10575
10576
10577
10578
10579
10580
10581
10582
10583
10584
10585
10586
10587
10588
10589
10590
10591
10592
10593
10594
10595
10596
10597
10598
10599
10600
10601
10602
10603
10604
10605
10606
10607
10608
10609
10610
10611
10612
10613
10614
10615
10616
10617
10618
10619
10620
10621
10622
10623
10624
10625
10626
10627
10628
10629
10630
10631
10632
10633
10634
10635
10636
10637
10638
10639
10640
10641
10642
10643
10644
10645
10646
10647
10648
10649
10650
10651
10652
10653
10654
10655
10656
10657
10658
10659
10660
10661
10662
10663
10664
10665
10666
10667
10668
10669
10670
10671
10672
10673
10674
10675
10676
10677
10678
10679
10680
10681
10682
10683
10684
10685
10686
10687
10688
10689
10690
10691
10692
10693
10694
10695
10696
10697
10698
10699
10700
10701
10702
10703
10704
10705
10706
10707
10708
10709
10710
10711
10712
10713
10714
10715
10716
10717
10718
10719
10720
10721
10722
10723
10724
10725
10726
10727
10728
10729
10730
10731
10732
10733
10734
10735
10736
10737
10738
10739
10740
10741
10742
10743
10744
10745
10746
10747
10748
10749
10750
10751
10752
10753
10754
10755
10756
10757
10758
10759
10760
10761
10762
10763
10764
10765
10766
10767
10768
10769
10770
10771
10772
10773
10774
10775
10776
10777
10778
10779
10780
10781
10782
10783
10784
10785
10786
10787
10788
10789
10790
10791
10792
10793
10794
10795
10796
10797
10798
10799
10800
10801
10802
10803
10804
10805
10806
10807
10808
10809
10810
10811
10812
10813
10814
10815
10816
10817
10818
10819
10820
10821
10822
10823
10824
10825
10826
10827
10828
10829
10830
10831
10832
10833
10834
10835
10836
10837
10838
10839
10840
10841
10842
10843
10844
10845
10846
10847
10848
10849
10850
10851
10852
10853
10854
10855
10856
10857
10858
10859
10860
10861
10862
10863
10864
10865
10866
10867
10868
10869
10870
10871
10872
10873
10874
10875
10876
10877
10878
10879
10880
10881
10882
10883
10884
10885
10886
10887
10888
10889
10890
10891
10892
10893
10894
10895
10896
10897
10898
10899
10900
10901
10902
10903
10904
10905
10906
10907
10908
10909
10910
10911
10912
10913
10914
10915
10916
10917
10918
10919
10920
10921
10922
10923
10924
10925
10926
10927
10928
10929
10930
10931
10932
10933
10934
10935
10936
10937
10938
10939
10940
10941
10942
10943
10944
10945
10946
10947
10948
10949
10950
10951
10952
10953
10954
10955
10956
10957
10958
10959
10960
10961
10962
10963
10964
10965
10966
10967
10968
10969
10970
10971
10972
10973
10974
10975
10976
10977
10978
10979
10980
10981
10982
10983
10984
10985
10986
10987
10988
10989
10990
10991
10992
10993
10994
10995
10996
10997
10998
10999
11000
11001
11002
11003
11004
11005
11006
11007
11008
11009
11010
11011
11012
11013
11014
11015
11016
11017
11018
11019
11020
11021
11022
11023
11024
11025
11026
11027
11028
11029
11030
11031
11032
11033
11034
11035
11036
11037
11038
11039
11040
11041
11042
11043
11044
11045
11046
11047
11048
11049
11050
11051
11052
11053
11054
11055
11056
11057
11058
11059
11060
11061
11062
11063
11064
11065
11066
11067
11068
11069
11070
11071
11072
11073
11074
11075
11076
11077
11078
11079
11080
11081
11082
11083
11084
11085
11086
11087
11088
11089
11090
11091
11092
11093
11094
11095
11096
11097
11098
11099
11100
11101
11102
11103
11104
11105
11106
11107
11108
11109
11110
11111
11112
11113
11114
11115
11116
11117
11118
11119
11120
11121
11122
11123
11124
11125
11126
11127
11128
11129
11130
11131
11132
11133
11134
11135
11136
11137
11138
11139
11140
11141
11142
11143
11144
11145
11146
11147
11148
11149
11150
11151
11152
11153
11154
11155
11156
11157
11158
11159
11160
11161
11162
11163
11164
11165
11166
11167
11168
11169
11170
11171
11172
11173
11174
11175
11176
11177
11178
11179
11180
11181
11182
11183
11184
11185
11186
11187
11188
11189
11190
11191
11192
11193
11194
11195
11196
11197
11198
11199
11200
11201
11202
11203
11204
11205
11206
11207
11208
11209
11210
11211
11212
11213
11214
11215
11216
11217
11218
11219
11220
11221
11222
11223
11224
11225
11226
11227
11228
11229
11230
11231
11232
11233
11234
11235
11236
11237
11238
11239
11240
11241
11242
11243
11244
11245
11246
11247
11248
11249
11250
11251
11252
11253
11254
11255
11256
11257
11258
11259
11260
11261
11262
11263
11264
11265
11266
11267
11268
11269
11270
11271
11272
11273
11274
11275
11276
11277
11278
11279
11280
11281
11282
11283
11284
11285
11286
11287
11288
11289
11290
11291
11292
11293
11294
11295
11296
11297
11298
11299
11300
11301
11302
11303
11304
11305
11306
11307
11308
11309
11310
11311
11312
11313
11314
11315
11316
11317
11318
11319
11320
11321
11322
11323
11324
11325
11326
11327
11328
11329
11330
11331
11332
11333
11334
11335
11336
11337
11338
11339
11340
11341
11342
11343
11344
11345
11346
11347
11348
11349
11350
11351
11352
11353
11354
11355
11356
11357
11358
11359
11360
11361
11362
11363
11364
11365
11366
11367
11368
11369
11370
11371
11372
11373
11374
11375
11376
11377
11378
11379
11380
11381
11382
11383
11384
11385
11386
11387
11388
11389
11390
11391
11392
11393
11394
11395
11396
11397
11398
11399
11400
11401
11402
11403
11404
11405
11406
11407
11408
11409
11410
11411
11412
11413
11414
11415
11416
11417
11418
11419
11420
11421
11422
11423
11424
11425
11426
11427
11428
11429
11430
11431
11432
11433
11434
11435
11436
11437
11438
11439
11440
11441
11442
11443
11444
11445
11446
11447
11448
11449
11450
11451
11452
11453
11454
11455
11456
11457
11458
11459
11460
11461
11462
11463
11464
11465
11466
11467
11468
11469
11470
11471
11472
11473
11474
11475
11476
11477
11478
11479
11480
11481
11482
11483
11484
11485
11486
11487
11488
11489
11490
11491
11492
11493
11494
11495
11496
11497
11498
11499
11500
11501
11502
11503
11504
11505
11506
11507
11508
11509
11510
11511
11512
11513
11514
11515
11516
11517
11518
11519
11520
11521
11522
11523
11524
11525
11526
11527
11528
11529
11530
11531
11532
11533
11534
11535
11536
11537
11538
11539
11540
11541
11542
11543
11544
11545
11546
11547
11548
11549
11550
11551
11552
11553
11554
11555
11556
11557
11558
11559
11560
11561
11562
11563
11564
11565
11566
11567
11568
11569
11570
11571
11572
11573
11574
11575
11576
11577
11578
11579
11580
11581
11582
11583
11584
11585
11586
11587
11588
11589
11590
11591
11592
11593
11594
11595
11596
11597
11598
11599
11600
11601
11602
11603
11604
11605
11606
11607
11608
11609
11610
11611
11612
11613
11614
11615
11616
11617
11618
11619
11620
11621
11622
11623
11624
11625
11626
11627
11628
11629
11630
11631
11632
11633
11634
11635
11636
11637
11638
11639
11640
11641
11642
11643
11644
11645
11646
11647
11648
11649
11650
11651
11652
11653
11654
11655
11656
11657
11658
11659
11660
11661
11662
11663
11664
11665
11666
11667
11668
11669
11670
11671
11672
11673
11674
11675
11676
11677
11678
11679
11680
11681
11682
11683
11684
11685
11686
11687
11688
11689
11690
11691
11692
11693
11694
11695
11696
11697
11698
11699
11700
11701
11702
11703
11704
11705
11706
11707
11708
11709
11710
11711
11712
11713
11714
11715
11716
11717
11718
11719
11720
11721
11722
11723
11724
11725
11726
11727
11728
11729
11730
11731
11732
11733
11734
11735
11736
11737
11738
11739
11740
11741
11742
11743
11744
11745
11746
11747
11748
11749
11750
11751
11752
11753
11754
11755
11756
11757
11758
11759
11760
11761
11762
11763
11764
11765
11766
11767
11768
11769
11770
11771
11772
11773
11774
11775
11776
11777
11778
11779
11780
11781
11782
11783
11784
11785
11786
11787
11788
11789
11790
11791
11792
11793
11794
11795
11796
11797
11798
11799
11800
11801
11802
11803
11804
11805
11806
11807
11808
11809
11810
11811
11812
11813
11814
11815
11816
11817
11818
11819
11820
11821
11822
11823
11824
11825
11826
11827
11828
11829
11830
11831
11832
11833
11834
11835
11836
11837
11838
11839
11840
11841
11842
11843
11844
11845
11846
11847
11848
11849
11850
11851
11852
11853
11854
11855
11856
11857
11858
11859
11860
11861
11862
11863
11864
11865
11866
11867
11868
11869
11870
11871
11872
11873
11874
11875
11876
11877
11878
11879
11880
11881
11882
11883
11884
11885
11886
11887
11888
11889
11890
11891
11892
11893
11894
11895
11896
11897
11898
11899
11900
11901
11902
11903
11904
11905
11906
11907
11908
11909
11910
11911
11912
11913
11914
11915
11916
11917
11918
11919
11920
11921
11922
11923
11924
11925
11926
11927
11928
11929
11930
11931
11932
11933
11934
11935
11936
11937
11938
11939
11940
11941
11942
11943
11944
11945
11946
11947
11948
11949
11950
11951
11952
11953
11954
11955
11956
11957
11958
11959
11960
11961
11962
11963
11964
11965
11966
11967
11968
11969
11970
11971
11972
11973
11974
11975
11976
11977
11978
11979
11980
11981
11982
11983
11984
11985
11986
11987
11988
11989
11990
11991
11992
11993
11994
11995
11996
11997
11998
11999
12000
12001
12002
12003
12004
12005
12006
12007
12008
12009
12010
12011
12012
12013
12014
12015
12016
12017
12018
12019
12020
12021
12022
12023
12024
12025
12026
12027
12028
12029
12030
12031
12032
12033
12034
12035
12036
12037
12038
12039
12040
12041
12042
12043
12044
12045
12046
12047
12048
12049
12050
12051
12052
12053
12054
12055
12056
12057
12058
12059
12060
12061
12062
12063
12064
12065
12066
12067
12068
12069
12070
12071
12072
12073
12074
12075
12076
12077
12078
12079
12080
12081
12082
12083
12084
12085
12086
12087
12088
12089
12090
12091
12092
12093
12094
12095
12096
12097
12098
12099
12100
12101
12102
12103
12104
12105
12106
12107
12108
12109
12110
12111
12112
12113
12114
12115
12116
12117
12118
12119
12120
12121
12122
12123
12124
12125
12126
12127
12128
12129
12130
12131
12132
12133
12134
12135
12136
12137
12138
12139
12140
12141
12142
12143
12144
12145
12146
12147
12148
12149
12150
12151
12152
12153
12154
12155
12156
12157
12158
12159
12160
12161
12162
12163
12164
12165
12166
12167
12168
12169
12170
12171
12172
12173
12174
12175
12176
12177
12178
12179
12180
12181
12182
12183
12184
12185
12186
12187
12188
12189
12190
12191
12192
12193
12194
12195
12196
12197
12198
12199
12200
12201
12202
12203
12204
12205
12206
12207
12208
12209
12210
12211
12212
12213
12214
12215
12216
12217
12218
12219
12220
12221
12222
12223
12224
12225
12226
12227
12228
12229
12230
12231
12232
12233
12234
12235
12236
12237
12238
12239
12240
12241
12242
12243
12244
12245
12246
12247
12248
12249
12250
12251
12252
12253
12254
12255
12256
12257
12258
12259
12260
12261
12262
12263
12264
12265
12266
12267
12268
12269
12270
12271
12272
12273
12274
12275
12276
12277
12278
12279
12280
12281
12282
12283
12284
12285
12286
12287
12288
12289
12290
12291
12292
12293
12294
12295
12296
12297
12298
12299
12300
12301
12302
12303
12304
12305
12306
12307
12308
12309
12310
12311
12312
12313
12314
12315
12316
12317
12318
12319
12320
12321
12322
12323
12324
12325
12326
12327
12328
12329
12330
12331
12332
12333
12334
12335
12336
12337
12338
12339
12340
12341
12342
12343
12344
12345
12346
12347
12348
12349
12350
12351
12352
12353
12354
12355
12356
12357
12358
12359
12360
12361
12362
12363
12364
12365
12366
12367
12368
12369
12370
12371
12372
12373
12374
12375
12376
12377
12378
12379
12380
12381
12382
12383
12384
12385
12386
12387
12388
12389
12390
12391
12392
12393
12394
12395
12396
12397
12398
12399
12400
12401
12402
12403
12404
12405
12406
12407
12408
12409
12410
12411
12412
12413
12414
12415
12416
12417
12418
12419
12420
12421
12422
12423
12424
12425
12426
12427
12428
12429
12430
12431
12432
12433
12434
12435
12436
12437
12438
12439
12440
12441
12442
12443
12444
12445
12446
12447
12448
12449
12450
12451
12452
12453
12454
12455
12456
12457
12458
12459
12460
12461
12462
12463
12464
12465
12466
12467
12468
12469
12470
12471
12472
12473
12474
12475
12476
12477
12478
12479
12480
12481
12482
12483
12484
12485
12486
12487
12488
12489
12490
12491
12492
12493
12494
12495
12496
12497
12498
12499
12500
12501
12502
12503
12504
12505
12506
12507
12508
12509
12510
12511
12512
12513
12514
12515
12516
12517
12518
12519
12520
12521
12522
12523
12524
12525
12526
12527
12528
12529
12530
12531
12532
12533
12534
12535
12536
12537
12538
12539
12540
12541
12542
12543
12544
12545
12546
12547
12548
12549
12550
12551
12552
12553
12554
12555
12556
12557
12558
12559
12560
12561
12562
12563
12564
12565
12566
12567
12568
12569
12570
12571
12572
12573
12574
12575
12576
12577
12578
12579
12580
12581
12582
12583
12584
12585
12586
12587
12588
12589
12590
12591
12592
12593
12594
12595
12596
12597
12598
12599
12600
12601
12602
12603
12604
12605
12606
12607
12608
12609
12610
12611
12612
12613
12614
12615
12616
12617
12618
12619
12620
12621
12622
12623
12624
12625
12626
12627
12628
12629
12630
12631
12632
12633
12634
12635
12636
12637
12638
12639
12640
12641
12642
12643
12644
12645
12646
12647
12648
12649
12650
12651
12652
12653
12654
12655
12656
12657
12658
12659
12660
12661
12662
12663
12664
12665
12666
12667
12668
12669
12670
12671
12672
12673
12674
12675
12676
12677
12678
12679
12680
12681
12682
12683
12684
12685
12686
12687
12688
12689
12690
12691
12692
12693
12694
12695
12696
12697
12698
12699
12700
12701
12702
12703
12704
12705
12706
12707
12708
12709
12710
12711
12712
12713
12714
12715
12716
12717
12718
12719
12720
12721
12722
12723
12724
12725
12726
12727
12728
12729
12730
12731
12732
12733
12734
12735
12736
12737
12738
12739
12740
12741
12742
12743
12744
12745
12746
12747
12748
12749
12750
12751
12752
12753
12754
12755
12756
12757
12758
12759
12760
12761
12762
12763
12764
12765
12766
12767
12768
12769
12770
12771
12772
12773
12774
12775
12776
12777
12778
12779
12780
12781
12782
12783
12784
12785
12786
12787
12788
12789
12790
12791
12792
12793
12794
12795
12796
12797
12798
12799
12800
12801
12802
12803
12804
12805
12806
12807
12808
12809
12810
12811
12812
12813
12814
12815
12816
12817
12818
12819
12820
12821
12822
12823
12824
12825
12826
12827
12828
12829
12830
12831
12832
12833
12834
12835
12836
12837
12838
12839
12840
12841
12842
12843
12844
12845
12846
12847
12848
12849
12850
12851
12852
12853
12854
12855
12856
12857
12858
12859
12860
12861
12862
12863
12864
12865
12866
12867
12868
12869
12870
12871
12872
12873
12874
12875
12876
12877
12878
12879
12880
12881
12882
12883
12884
12885
12886
12887
12888
12889
12890
12891
12892
12893
12894
12895
12896
12897
12898
12899
12900
12901
12902
12903
12904
12905
12906
12907
12908
12909
12910
12911
12912
12913
12914
12915
12916
12917
12918
12919
12920
12921
12922
12923
12924
12925
12926
12927
12928
12929
12930
12931
12932
12933
12934
12935
12936
12937
12938
12939
12940
12941
12942
12943
12944
12945
12946
12947
12948
12949
12950
12951
12952
12953
12954
12955
12956
12957
12958
12959
12960
12961
12962
12963
12964
12965
12966
12967
12968
12969
12970
12971
12972
12973
12974
12975
12976
12977
12978
12979
12980
12981
12982
12983
12984
12985
12986
12987
12988
12989
12990
12991
12992
12993
12994
12995
12996
12997
12998
12999
13000
13001
13002
13003
13004
13005
13006
13007
13008
13009
13010
13011
13012
13013
13014
13015
13016
13017
13018
13019
13020
13021
13022
13023
13024
13025
13026
13027
13028
13029
13030
13031
13032
13033
13034
13035
13036
13037
13038
13039
13040
13041
13042
13043
13044
13045
13046
13047
13048
13049
13050
13051
13052
13053
13054
13055
13056
13057
13058
13059
13060
13061
13062
13063
13064
13065
13066
13067
13068
13069
13070
13071
13072
13073
13074
13075
13076
13077
13078
13079
13080
13081
13082
13083
13084
13085
13086
13087
13088
13089
13090
13091
13092
13093
13094
13095
13096
13097
13098
13099
13100
13101
13102
13103
13104
13105
13106
13107
13108
13109
13110
13111
13112
13113
13114
13115
13116
13117
13118
13119
13120
13121
13122
13123
13124
13125
13126
13127
13128
13129
13130
13131
13132
13133
13134
13135
13136
13137
13138
13139
13140
13141
13142
13143
13144
13145
13146
13147
13148
13149
13150
13151
13152
13153
13154
13155
13156
13157
13158
13159
13160
13161
13162
13163
13164
13165
13166
13167
13168
13169
13170
13171
13172
13173
13174
13175
13176
13177
13178
13179
13180
13181
13182
13183
13184
13185
13186
13187
13188
13189
13190
13191
13192
13193
13194
13195
13196
13197
13198
13199
13200
13201
13202
13203
13204
13205
13206
13207
13208
13209
13210
13211
13212
13213
13214
13215
13216
13217
13218
13219
13220
13221
13222
13223
13224
13225
13226
13227
13228
13229
13230
13231
13232
13233
13234
13235
13236
13237
13238
13239
13240
13241
13242
13243
13244
13245
13246
13247
13248
13249
13250
13251
13252
13253
13254
13255
13256
13257
13258
13259
13260
13261
13262
13263
13264
13265
13266
13267
13268
13269
13270
13271
13272
13273
13274
13275
13276
13277
13278
13279
13280
13281
13282
13283
13284
13285
13286
13287
13288
13289
13290
13291
13292
13293
13294
13295
13296
13297
13298
13299
13300
13301
13302
13303
13304
13305
13306
13307
13308
13309
13310
13311
13312
13313
13314
13315
13316
13317
13318
13319
13320
13321
13322
13323
13324
13325
13326
13327
13328
13329
13330
13331
13332
13333
13334
13335
13336
13337
13338
13339
13340
13341
13342
13343
13344
13345
13346
13347
13348
13349
13350
13351
13352
13353
13354
13355
13356
13357
13358
13359
13360
13361
13362
13363
13364
13365
13366
13367
13368
13369
13370
13371
13372
13373
13374
13375
13376
13377
13378
13379
13380
13381
13382
13383
13384
13385
13386
13387
13388
13389
13390
13391
13392
13393
13394
13395
13396
13397
13398
13399
13400
13401
13402
13403
13404
13405
13406
13407
13408
13409
13410
13411
13412
13413
13414
13415
13416
13417
13418
13419
13420
13421
13422
13423
13424
13425
13426
13427
13428
13429
13430
13431
13432
13433
13434
13435
13436
13437
13438
13439
13440
13441
13442
13443
13444
13445
13446
13447
13448
13449
13450
13451
13452
13453
13454
13455
13456
13457
13458
13459
13460
13461
13462
13463
13464
13465
13466
13467
13468
13469
13470
13471
13472
13473
13474
13475
13476
13477
13478
13479
13480
13481
13482
13483
13484
13485
13486
13487
13488
13489
13490
13491
13492
13493
13494
13495
13496
13497
13498
13499
13500
13501
13502
13503
13504
13505
13506
13507
13508
13509
13510
13511
13512
13513
13514
13515
13516
13517
13518
13519
13520
13521
13522
13523
13524
13525
13526
13527
13528
13529
13530
13531
13532
13533
13534
13535
13536
13537
13538
13539
13540
13541
13542
13543
13544
13545
13546
13547
13548
13549
13550
13551
13552
13553
13554
13555
13556
13557
13558
13559
13560
13561
13562
13563
13564
13565
13566
13567
13568
13569
13570
13571
13572
13573
13574
13575
13576
13577
13578
13579
13580
13581
13582
13583
13584
13585
13586
13587
13588
13589
13590
13591
13592
13593
13594
13595
13596
13597
13598
13599
13600
13601
13602
13603
13604
13605
13606
13607
13608
13609
13610
13611
13612
13613
13614
13615
13616
13617
13618
13619
13620
13621
13622
13623
13624
13625
13626
13627
13628
13629
13630
13631
13632
13633
13634
13635
13636
13637
13638
13639
13640
13641
13642
13643
13644
13645
13646
13647
13648
13649
13650
13651
13652
13653
13654
13655
13656
13657
13658
13659
13660
13661
13662
13663
13664
13665
13666
13667
13668
13669
13670
13671
13672
13673
13674
13675
13676
13677
13678
13679
13680
13681
13682
13683
13684
13685
13686
13687
13688
13689
13690
13691
13692
13693
13694
13695
13696
13697
13698
13699
13700
13701
13702
13703
13704
13705
13706
13707
13708
13709
13710
13711
13712
13713
13714
13715
13716
13717
13718
13719
13720
13721
13722
13723
13724
13725
13726
13727
13728
13729
13730
13731
13732
13733
13734
13735
13736
13737
13738
13739
13740
13741
13742
13743
13744
13745
13746
13747
13748
13749
13750
13751
13752
13753
13754
13755
13756
13757
13758
13759
13760
13761
13762
13763
13764
13765
13766
13767
13768
13769
13770
13771
13772
13773
13774
13775
13776
13777
13778
13779
13780
13781
13782
13783
13784
13785
13786
13787
13788
13789
13790
13791
13792
13793
13794
13795
13796
13797
13798
13799
13800
13801
13802
13803
13804
13805
13806
13807
13808
13809
13810
13811
13812
13813
13814
13815
13816
13817
13818
13819
13820
13821
13822
13823
13824
13825
13826
13827
13828
13829
13830
13831
13832
13833
13834
13835
13836
13837
13838
13839
13840
13841
13842
13843
13844
13845
13846
13847
13848
13849
13850
13851
13852
13853
13854
13855
13856
13857
13858
13859
13860
13861
13862
13863
13864
13865
13866
13867
13868
13869
13870
13871
13872
13873
13874
13875
13876
13877
13878
13879
13880
13881
13882
13883
13884
13885
13886
13887
13888
13889
13890
13891
13892
13893
13894
13895
13896
13897
13898
13899
13900
13901
13902
13903
13904
13905
13906
13907
13908
13909
13910
13911
13912
13913
13914
13915
13916
13917
13918
13919
13920
13921
13922
13923
13924
13925
13926
13927
13928
13929
13930
13931
13932
13933
13934
13935
13936
13937
13938
13939
13940
13941
13942
13943
13944
13945
13946
13947
13948
13949
13950
13951
13952
13953
13954
13955
13956
13957
13958
13959
13960
13961
13962
13963
13964
13965
13966
13967
13968
13969
13970
13971
13972
13973
13974
13975
13976
13977
13978
13979
13980
13981
13982
13983
13984
13985
13986
13987
13988
13989
13990
13991
13992
13993
13994
13995
13996
13997
13998
13999
14000
14001
14002
14003
14004
14005
14006
14007
14008
14009
14010
14011
14012
14013
14014
14015
14016
14017
14018
14019
14020
14021
14022
14023
14024
14025
14026
14027
14028
14029
14030
14031
14032
14033
14034
14035
14036
14037
14038
14039
14040
14041
14042
14043
14044
14045
14046
14047
14048
14049
14050
14051
14052
14053
14054
14055
14056
14057
14058
14059
14060
14061
14062
14063
14064
14065
14066
14067
14068
14069
14070
14071
14072
14073
14074
14075
14076
14077
14078
14079
14080
14081
14082
14083
14084
14085
14086
14087
14088
14089
14090
14091
14092
14093
14094
14095
14096
14097
14098
14099
14100
14101
14102
14103
14104
14105
14106
14107
14108
14109
14110
14111
14112
14113
14114
14115
14116
14117
14118
14119
14120
14121
14122
14123
14124
14125
14126
14127
14128
14129
14130
14131
14132
14133
14134
14135
14136
14137
14138
14139
14140
14141
14142
14143
14144
14145
14146
14147
14148
14149
14150
14151
14152
14153
14154
14155
14156
14157
14158
14159
14160
14161
14162
14163
14164
14165
14166
14167
14168
14169
14170
14171
14172
14173
14174
14175
14176
14177
14178
14179
14180
14181
14182
14183
14184
14185
14186
14187
14188
14189
14190
14191
14192
14193
14194
14195
14196
14197
14198
14199
14200
14201
14202
14203
14204
14205
14206
14207
14208
14209
14210
14211
14212
14213
14214
14215
14216
14217
14218
14219
14220
14221
14222
14223
14224
14225
14226
14227
14228
14229
14230
14231
14232
14233
14234
14235
14236
14237
14238
14239
14240
14241
14242
14243
14244
14245
14246
14247
14248
14249
14250
14251
14252
14253
14254
14255
14256
14257
14258
14259
14260
14261
14262
14263
14264
14265
14266
14267
14268
14269
14270
14271
14272
14273
14274
14275
14276
14277
14278
14279
14280
14281
14282
14283
14284
14285
14286
14287
14288
14289
14290
14291
14292
14293
14294
14295
14296
14297
14298
14299
14300
14301
14302
14303
14304
14305
14306
14307
14308
14309
14310
14311
14312
14313
14314
14315
14316
14317
14318
14319
14320
14321
14322
14323
14324
14325
14326
14327
14328
14329
14330
14331
14332
14333
14334
14335
14336
14337
14338
14339
14340
14341
14342
14343
14344
14345
14346
14347
14348
14349
14350
14351
14352
14353
14354
14355
14356
14357
14358
14359
14360
14361
14362
14363
14364
14365
14366
14367
14368
14369
14370
14371
14372
14373
14374
14375
14376
14377
14378
14379
14380
14381
14382
14383
14384
14385
14386
14387
14388
14389
14390
14391
14392
14393
14394
14395
14396
14397
14398
14399
14400
14401
14402
14403
14404
14405
14406
14407
14408
14409
14410
14411
14412
14413
14414
14415
14416
14417
14418
14419
14420
14421
14422
14423
14424
14425
14426
14427
14428
14429
14430
14431
14432
14433
14434
14435
14436
14437
14438
14439
14440
14441
14442
14443
14444
14445
14446
14447
14448
14449
14450
14451
14452
14453
14454
14455
14456
14457
14458
14459
14460
14461
14462
14463
14464
14465
14466
14467
14468
14469
14470
14471
14472
14473
14474
14475
14476
14477
14478
14479
14480
14481
14482
14483
14484
14485
14486
14487
14488
14489
14490
14491
14492
14493
14494
14495
14496
14497
14498
14499
14500
14501
14502
14503
14504
14505
14506
14507
14508
14509
14510
14511
14512
14513
14514
14515
14516
14517
14518
14519
14520
14521
14522
14523
14524
14525
14526
14527
14528
14529
14530
14531
14532
14533
14534
14535
14536
14537
14538
14539
14540
14541
14542
14543
14544
14545
14546
14547
14548
14549
14550
14551
14552
14553
14554
14555
14556
14557
14558
14559
14560
14561
14562
14563
14564
14565
14566
14567
14568
14569
14570
14571
14572
14573
14574
14575
14576
14577
14578
14579
14580
14581
14582
14583
14584
14585
14586
14587
14588
14589
14590
14591
14592
14593
14594
14595
14596
14597
14598
14599
14600
14601
14602
14603
14604
14605
14606
14607
14608
14609
14610
14611
14612
14613
14614
14615
14616
14617
14618
14619
14620
14621
14622
14623
14624
14625
14626
14627
14628
14629
14630
14631
14632
14633
14634
14635
14636
14637
14638
14639
14640
14641
14642
14643
14644
14645
14646
14647
14648
14649
14650
14651
14652
14653
14654
14655
14656
14657
14658
14659
14660
14661
14662
14663
14664
14665
14666
14667
14668
14669
14670
14671
14672
14673
14674
14675
14676
14677
14678
14679
14680
14681
14682
14683
14684
14685
14686
14687
14688
14689
14690
14691
14692
14693
14694
14695
14696
14697
14698
14699
14700
14701
14702
14703
14704
14705
14706
14707
14708
14709
14710
14711
14712
14713
14714
14715
14716
14717
14718
14719
14720
14721
14722
14723
14724
14725
14726
14727
14728
14729
14730
14731
14732
14733
14734
14735
14736
14737
14738
14739
14740
14741
14742
14743
14744
14745
14746
14747
14748
14749
14750
14751
14752
14753
14754
14755
14756
14757
14758
14759
14760
14761
14762
14763
14764
14765
14766
14767
14768
14769
14770
14771
14772
14773
14774
14775
14776
14777
14778
14779
14780
14781
14782
14783
14784
14785
14786
14787
14788
14789
14790
14791
14792
14793
14794
14795
14796
14797
14798
14799
14800
14801
14802
14803
14804
14805
14806
14807
14808
14809
14810
14811
14812
14813
14814
14815
14816
14817
14818
14819
14820
14821
14822
14823
14824
14825
14826
14827
14828
14829
14830
14831
14832
14833
14834
14835
14836
14837
14838
14839
14840
14841
14842
14843
14844
14845
14846
14847
14848
14849
14850
14851
14852
14853
14854
14855
14856
14857
14858
14859
14860
14861
14862
14863
14864
14865
14866
14867
14868
14869
14870
14871
14872
14873
14874
14875
14876
14877
14878
14879
14880
14881
14882
14883
14884
14885
14886
14887
14888
14889
14890
14891
14892
14893
14894
14895
14896
14897
14898
14899
14900
14901
14902
14903
14904
14905
14906
14907
14908
14909
14910
14911
14912
14913
14914
14915
14916
14917
14918
14919
14920
14921
14922
14923
14924
14925
14926
14927
14928
14929
14930
14931
14932
14933
14934
14935
14936
14937
14938
14939
14940
14941
14942
14943
14944
14945
14946
14947
14948
14949
14950
14951
14952
14953
14954
14955
14956
14957
14958
14959
14960
14961
14962
14963
14964
14965
14966
14967
14968
14969
14970
14971
14972
14973
14974
14975
14976
14977
14978
14979
14980
14981
14982
14983
14984
14985
14986
14987
14988
14989
14990
14991
14992
14993
14994
14995
14996
14997
14998
14999
15000
15001
15002
15003
15004
15005
15006
15007
15008
15009
15010
15011
15012
15013
15014
15015
15016
15017
15018
15019
15020
15021
15022
15023
15024
15025
15026
15027
15028
15029
15030
15031
15032
15033
15034
15035
15036
15037
15038
15039
15040
15041
15042
15043
15044
15045
15046
15047
15048
15049
15050
15051
15052
15053
15054
15055
15056
15057
15058
15059
15060
15061
15062
15063
15064
15065
15066
15067
15068
15069
15070
15071
15072
15073
15074
15075
15076
15077
15078
15079
15080
15081
15082
15083
15084
15085
15086
15087
15088
15089
15090
15091
15092
15093
15094
15095
15096
15097
15098
15099
15100
15101
15102
15103
15104
15105
15106
15107
15108
15109
15110
15111
15112
15113
15114
15115
15116
15117
15118
15119
15120
15121
15122
15123
15124
15125
15126
15127
15128
15129
15130
15131
15132
15133
15134
15135
15136
15137
15138
15139
15140
15141
15142
15143
15144
15145
15146
15147
15148
15149
15150
15151
15152
15153
15154
15155
15156
15157
15158
15159
15160
15161
15162
15163
15164
15165
15166
15167
15168
15169
15170
15171
15172
15173
15174
15175
15176
15177
15178
15179
15180
15181
15182
15183
15184
15185
15186
15187
15188
15189
15190
15191
15192
15193
15194
15195
15196
15197
15198
15199
15200
15201
15202
15203
15204
15205
15206
15207
15208
15209
15210
15211
15212
15213
15214
15215
15216
15217
15218
15219
15220
15221
15222
15223
15224
15225
15226
15227
15228
15229
15230
15231
15232
15233
15234
15235
15236
15237
15238
15239
15240
15241
15242
15243
15244
15245
15246
15247
15248
15249
15250
15251
15252
15253
15254
15255
15256
15257
15258
15259
15260
15261
15262
15263
15264
15265
15266
15267
15268
15269
15270
15271
15272
15273
15274
15275
15276
15277
15278
15279
15280
15281
15282
15283
15284
15285
15286
15287
15288
15289
15290
15291
15292
15293
15294
15295
15296
15297
15298
15299
15300
15301
15302
15303
15304
15305
15306
15307
15308
15309
15310
15311
15312
15313
15314
15315
15316
15317
15318
15319
15320
15321
15322
15323
15324
15325
15326
15327
15328
15329
15330
15331
15332
15333
15334
15335
15336
15337
15338
15339
15340
15341
15342
15343
15344
15345
15346
15347
15348
15349
15350
15351
15352
15353
15354
15355
15356
15357
15358
15359
15360
15361
15362
15363
15364
15365
15366
15367
15368
15369
15370
15371
15372
15373
15374
15375
15376
15377
15378
15379
15380
15381
15382
15383
15384
15385
15386
15387
15388
15389
15390
15391
15392
15393
15394
15395
15396
15397
15398
15399
15400
15401
15402
15403
15404
15405
15406
15407
15408
15409
15410
15411
15412
15413
15414
15415
15416
15417
15418
15419
15420
15421
15422
15423
15424
15425
15426
15427
15428
15429
15430
15431
15432
15433
15434
15435
15436
15437
15438
15439
15440
15441
15442
15443
15444
15445
15446
15447
15448
15449
15450
15451
15452
15453
15454
15455
15456
15457
15458
15459
15460
15461
15462
15463
15464
15465
15466
15467
15468
15469
15470
15471
15472
15473
15474
15475
15476
15477
15478
15479
15480
15481
15482
15483
15484
15485
15486
15487
15488
15489
15490
15491
15492
15493
15494
15495
15496
15497
15498
15499
15500
15501
15502
15503
15504
15505
15506
15507
15508
15509
15510
15511
15512
15513
15514
15515
15516
15517
15518
15519
15520
15521
15522
15523
15524
15525
15526
15527
15528
15529
15530
15531
15532
15533
15534
15535
15536
15537
15538
15539
15540
15541
15542
15543
15544
15545
15546
15547
15548
15549
15550
15551
15552
15553
15554
15555
15556
15557
15558
15559
15560
15561
15562
15563
15564
15565
15566
15567
15568
15569
15570
15571
15572
15573
15574
15575
15576
15577
15578
15579
15580
15581
15582
15583
15584
15585
15586
15587
15588
15589
15590
15591
15592
15593
15594
15595
15596
15597
15598
15599
15600
15601
15602
15603
15604
15605
15606
15607
15608
15609
15610
15611
15612
15613
15614
15615
15616
15617
15618
15619
15620
15621
15622
15623
15624
15625
15626
15627
15628
15629
15630
15631
15632
15633
15634
15635
15636
15637
15638
15639
15640
15641
15642
15643
15644
15645
15646
15647
15648
15649
15650
15651
15652
15653
15654
15655
15656
15657
15658
15659
15660
15661
15662
15663
15664
15665
15666
15667
15668
15669
15670
15671
15672
15673
15674
15675
15676
15677
15678
15679
15680
15681
15682
15683
15684
15685
15686
15687
15688
15689
15690
15691
15692
15693
15694
15695
15696
15697
15698
15699
15700
15701
15702
15703
15704
15705
15706
15707
15708
15709
15710
15711
15712
15713
15714
15715
15716
15717
15718
15719
15720
15721
15722
15723
15724
15725
15726
15727
15728
15729
15730
15731
15732
15733
15734
15735
15736
15737
15738
15739
15740
15741
15742
15743
15744
15745
15746
15747
15748
15749
15750
15751
15752
15753
15754
15755
15756
15757
15758
15759
15760
15761
15762
15763
15764
15765
15766
15767
15768
15769
15770
15771
15772
15773
15774
15775
15776
15777
15778
15779
15780
15781
15782
15783
15784
15785
15786
15787
15788
15789
15790
15791
15792
15793
15794
15795
15796
15797
15798
15799
15800
15801
15802
15803
15804
15805
15806
15807
15808
15809
15810
15811
15812
15813
15814
15815
15816
15817
15818
15819
15820
15821
15822
15823
15824
15825
15826
15827
15828
15829
15830
15831
15832
15833
15834
15835
15836
15837
15838
15839
15840
15841
15842
15843
15844
15845
15846
15847
15848
15849
15850
15851
15852
15853
15854
15855
15856
15857
15858
15859
15860
15861
15862
15863
15864
15865
15866
15867
15868
15869
15870
15871
15872
15873
15874
15875
15876
15877
15878
15879
15880
15881
15882
15883
15884
15885
15886
15887
15888
15889
15890
15891
15892
15893
15894
15895
15896
15897
15898
15899
15900
15901
15902
15903
15904
15905
15906
15907
15908
15909
15910
15911
15912
15913
15914
15915
15916
15917
15918
15919
15920
15921
15922
15923
15924
15925
15926
15927
15928
15929
15930
15931
15932
15933
15934
15935
15936
15937
15938
15939
15940
15941
15942
15943
15944
15945
15946
15947
15948
15949
15950
15951
15952
15953
15954
15955
15956
15957
15958
15959
15960
15961
15962
15963
15964
15965
15966
15967
15968
15969
15970
15971
15972
15973
15974
15975
15976
15977
15978
15979
15980
15981
15982
15983
15984
15985
15986
15987
15988
15989
15990
15991
15992
15993
15994
15995
15996
15997
15998
15999
16000
16001
16002
16003
16004
16005
16006
16007
16008
16009
16010
16011
16012
16013
16014
16015
16016
16017
16018
16019
16020
16021
16022
16023
16024
16025
16026
16027
16028
16029
16030
16031
16032
16033
16034
16035
16036
16037
16038
16039
16040
16041
16042
16043
16044
16045
16046
16047
16048
16049
16050
16051
16052
16053
16054
16055
16056
16057
16058
16059
16060
16061
16062
16063
16064
16065
16066
16067
16068
16069
16070
16071
16072
16073
16074
16075
16076
16077
16078
16079
16080
16081
16082
16083
16084
16085
16086
16087
16088
16089
16090
16091
16092
16093
16094
16095
16096
16097
16098
16099
16100
16101
16102
16103
16104
16105
16106
16107
16108
16109
16110
16111
16112
16113
16114
16115
16116
16117
16118
16119
16120
16121
16122
16123
16124
16125
16126
16127
16128
16129
16130
16131
16132
16133
16134
16135
16136
16137
16138
16139
16140
16141
16142
16143
16144
16145
16146
16147
16148
16149
16150
16151
16152
16153
16154
16155
16156
16157
16158
16159
16160
16161
16162
16163
16164
16165
16166
16167
16168
16169
16170
16171
16172
16173
16174
16175
16176
16177
16178
16179
16180
16181
16182
16183
16184
16185
16186
16187
16188
16189
16190
16191
16192
16193
16194
16195
16196
16197
16198
16199
16200
16201
16202
16203
16204
16205
16206
16207
16208
16209
16210
16211
16212
16213
16214
16215
16216
16217
16218
16219
16220
16221
16222
16223
16224
16225
16226
16227
16228
16229
16230
16231
16232
16233
16234
16235
16236
16237
16238
16239
16240
16241
16242
16243
16244
16245
16246
16247
16248
16249
16250
16251
16252
16253
16254
16255
16256
16257
16258
16259
16260
16261
16262
16263
16264
16265
16266
16267
16268
16269
16270
16271
16272
16273
16274
16275
16276
16277
16278
16279
16280
16281
16282
16283
16284
16285
16286
16287
16288
16289
16290
16291
16292
16293
16294
16295
16296
16297
16298
16299
16300
16301
16302
16303
16304
16305
16306
16307
16308
16309
16310
16311
16312
16313
16314
16315
16316
16317
16318
16319
16320
16321
16322
16323
16324
16325
16326
16327
16328
16329
16330
16331
16332
16333
16334
16335
16336
16337
16338
16339
16340
16341
16342
16343
16344
16345
16346
16347
16348
16349
16350
16351
16352
16353
16354
16355
16356
16357
16358
16359
16360
16361
16362
16363
16364
16365
16366
16367
16368
16369
16370
16371
16372
16373
16374
16375
16376
16377
16378
16379
16380
16381
16382
16383
16384
16385
16386
16387
16388
16389
16390
16391
16392
16393
16394
16395
16396
16397
16398
16399
16400
16401
16402
16403
16404
16405
16406
16407
16408
16409
16410
16411
16412
16413
16414
16415
16416
16417
16418
16419
16420
16421
16422
16423
16424
16425
16426
16427
16428
16429
16430
16431
16432
16433
16434
16435
16436
16437
16438
16439
16440
16441
16442
16443
16444
16445
16446
16447
16448
16449
16450
16451
16452
16453
16454
16455
16456
16457
16458
16459
16460
16461
16462
16463
16464
16465
16466
16467
16468
16469
16470
16471
16472
16473
16474
16475
16476
16477
16478
16479
16480
16481
16482
16483
16484
16485
16486
16487
16488
16489
16490
16491
16492
16493
16494
16495
16496
16497
16498
16499
16500
16501
16502
16503
16504
16505
16506
16507
16508
16509
16510
16511
16512
16513
16514
16515
16516
16517
16518
16519
16520
16521
16522
16523
16524
16525
16526
16527
16528
16529
16530
16531
16532
16533
16534
16535
16536
16537
16538
16539
16540
16541
16542
16543
16544
16545
16546
16547
16548
16549
16550
16551
16552
16553
16554
16555
16556
16557
16558
16559
16560
16561
16562
16563
16564
16565
16566
16567
16568
16569
16570
16571
16572
16573
16574
16575
16576
16577
16578
16579
16580
16581
16582
16583
16584
16585
16586
16587
16588
16589
16590
16591
16592
16593
16594
16595
16596
16597
16598
16599
16600
16601
16602
16603
16604
16605
16606
16607
16608
16609
16610
16611
16612
16613
16614
16615
16616
16617
16618
16619
16620
16621
16622
16623
16624
16625
16626
16627
16628
16629
16630
16631
16632
16633
16634
16635
16636
16637
16638
16639
16640
16641
16642
16643
16644
16645
16646
16647
16648
16649
16650
16651
16652
16653
16654
16655
16656
16657
16658
16659
16660
16661
16662
16663
16664
16665
16666
16667
16668
16669
16670
16671
16672
16673
16674
16675
16676
16677
16678
16679
16680
16681
16682
16683
16684
16685
16686
16687
16688
16689
16690
16691
16692
16693
16694
16695
16696
16697
16698
16699
16700
16701
16702
16703
16704
16705
16706
16707
16708
16709
16710
16711
16712
16713
16714
16715
16716
16717
16718
16719
16720
16721
16722
16723
16724
16725
16726
16727
16728
16729
16730
16731
16732
16733
16734
16735
16736
16737
16738
16739
16740
16741
16742
16743
16744
16745
16746
16747
16748
16749
16750
16751
16752
16753
16754
16755
16756
16757
16758
16759
16760
16761
16762
16763
16764
16765
16766
16767
16768
16769
16770
16771
16772
16773
16774
16775
16776
16777
16778
16779
16780
16781
16782
16783
16784
16785
16786
16787
16788
16789
16790
16791
16792
16793
16794
16795
16796
16797
16798
16799
16800
16801
16802
16803
16804
16805
16806
16807
16808
16809
16810
16811
16812
16813
16814
16815
16816
16817
16818
16819
16820
16821
16822
16823
16824
16825
16826
16827
16828
16829
16830
16831
16832
16833
16834
16835
16836
16837
16838
16839
16840
16841
16842
16843
16844
16845
16846
16847
16848
16849
16850
16851
16852
16853
16854
16855
16856
16857
16858
16859
16860
16861
16862
16863
16864
16865
16866
16867
16868
16869
16870
16871
16872
16873
16874
16875
16876
16877
16878
16879
16880
16881
16882
16883
16884
16885
16886
16887
16888
16889
16890
16891
16892
16893
16894
16895
16896
16897
16898
16899
16900
16901
16902
16903
16904
16905
16906
16907
16908
16909
16910
16911
16912
16913
16914
16915
16916
16917
16918
16919
16920
16921
16922
16923
16924
16925
16926
16927
16928
16929
16930
16931
16932
16933
16934
16935
16936
16937
16938
16939
16940
16941
16942
16943
16944
16945
16946
16947
16948
16949
16950
16951
16952
16953
16954
16955
16956
16957
16958
16959
16960
16961
16962
16963
16964
16965
16966
16967
16968
16969
16970
16971
16972
16973
16974
16975
16976
16977
16978
16979
16980
16981
16982
16983
16984
16985
16986
16987
16988
16989
16990
16991
16992
16993
16994
16995
16996
16997
16998
16999
17000
17001
17002
17003
17004
17005
17006
17007
17008
17009
17010
17011
17012
17013
17014
17015
17016
17017
17018
17019
17020
17021
17022
17023
17024
17025
17026
17027
17028
17029
17030
17031
17032
17033
17034
17035
17036
17037
17038
17039
17040
17041
17042
17043
17044
17045
17046
17047
17048
17049
17050
17051
17052
17053
17054
17055
17056
17057
17058
17059
17060
17061
17062
17063
17064
17065
17066
17067
17068
17069
17070
17071
17072
17073
17074
17075
17076
17077
17078
17079
17080
17081
17082
17083
17084
17085
17086
17087
17088
17089
17090
17091
17092
17093
17094
17095
17096
17097
17098
17099
17100
17101
17102
17103
17104
17105
17106
17107
17108
17109
17110
17111
17112
17113
17114
17115
17116
17117
17118
17119
17120
17121
17122
17123
17124
17125
17126
17127
17128
17129
17130
17131
17132
17133
17134
17135
17136
17137
17138
17139
17140
17141
17142
17143
17144
17145
17146
17147
17148
17149
17150
17151
17152
17153
17154
17155
17156
17157
17158
17159
17160
17161
17162
17163
17164
17165
17166
17167
17168
17169
17170
17171
17172
17173
17174
17175
17176
17177
17178
17179
17180
17181
17182
17183
17184
17185
17186
17187
17188
17189
17190
17191
17192
17193
17194
17195
17196
17197
17198
17199
17200
17201
17202
17203
17204
17205
17206
17207
17208
17209
17210
17211
17212
17213
17214
17215
17216
17217
17218
17219
17220
17221
17222
17223
17224
17225
17226
17227
17228
17229
17230
17231
17232
17233
17234
17235
17236
17237
17238
17239
17240
17241
17242
17243
17244
17245
17246
17247
17248
17249
17250
17251
17252
17253
17254
17255
17256
17257
17258
17259
17260
17261
17262
17263
17264
17265
17266
17267
17268
17269
17270
17271
17272
17273
17274
17275
17276
17277
17278
17279
17280
17281
17282
17283
17284
17285
17286
17287
17288
17289
17290
17291
17292
17293
17294
17295
17296
17297
17298
17299
17300
17301
17302
17303
17304
17305
17306
17307
17308
17309
17310
17311
17312
17313
17314
17315
17316
17317
17318
17319
17320
17321
17322
17323
17324
17325
17326
17327
17328
17329
17330
17331
17332
17333
17334
17335
17336
17337
17338
17339
17340
17341
17342
17343
17344
17345
17346
17347
17348
17349
17350
17351
17352
17353
17354
17355
17356
17357
17358
17359
17360
17361
17362
17363
17364
17365
17366
17367
17368
17369
17370
17371
17372
17373
17374
17375
17376
17377
17378
17379
17380
17381
17382
17383
17384
17385
17386
17387
17388
17389
17390
17391
17392
17393
17394
17395
17396
17397
17398
17399
17400
17401
17402
17403
17404
17405
17406
17407
17408
17409
17410
17411
17412
17413
17414
17415
17416
17417
17418
17419
17420
17421
17422
17423
17424
17425
17426
17427
17428
17429
17430
17431
17432
17433
17434
17435
17436
17437
17438
17439
17440
17441
17442
17443
17444
17445
17446
17447
17448
17449
17450
17451
17452
17453
17454
17455
17456
17457
17458
17459
17460
17461
17462
17463
17464
17465
17466
17467
17468
17469
17470
17471
17472
17473
17474
17475
17476
17477
17478
17479
17480
17481
17482
17483
17484
17485
17486
17487
17488
17489
17490
17491
17492
17493
17494
17495
17496
17497
17498
17499
17500
17501
17502
17503
17504
17505
17506
17507
17508
17509
17510
17511
17512
17513
17514
17515
17516
17517
17518
17519
17520
17521
17522
17523
17524
17525
17526
17527
17528
17529
17530
17531
17532
17533
17534
17535
17536
17537
17538
17539
17540
17541
17542
17543
17544
17545
17546
17547
17548
17549
17550
17551
17552
17553
17554
17555
17556
17557
17558
17559
17560
17561
17562
17563
17564
17565
17566
17567
17568
17569
17570
17571
17572
17573
17574
17575
17576
17577
17578
17579
17580
17581
17582
17583
17584
17585
17586
17587
17588
17589
17590
17591
17592
17593
17594
17595
17596
17597
17598
17599
17600
17601
17602
17603
17604
17605
17606
17607
17608
17609
17610
17611
17612
17613
17614
17615
17616
17617
17618
17619
17620
17621
17622
17623
17624
17625
17626
17627
17628
17629
17630
17631
17632
17633
17634
17635
17636
17637
17638
17639
17640
17641
17642
17643
17644
17645
17646
17647
17648
17649
17650
17651
17652
17653
17654
17655
17656
17657
17658
17659
17660
17661
17662
17663
17664
17665
17666
17667
17668
17669
17670
17671
17672
17673
17674
17675
17676
17677
17678
17679
17680
17681
17682
17683
17684
17685
17686
17687
17688
17689
17690
17691
17692
17693
17694
17695
17696
17697
17698
17699
17700
17701
17702
17703
17704
17705
17706
17707
17708
17709
17710
17711
17712
17713
17714
17715
17716
17717
17718
17719
17720
17721
17722
17723
17724
17725
17726
17727
17728
17729
17730
17731
17732
17733
17734
17735
17736
17737
17738
17739
17740
17741
17742
17743
17744
17745
17746
17747
17748
17749
17750
17751
17752
17753
17754
17755
17756
17757
17758
17759
17760
17761
17762
17763
17764
17765
17766
17767
17768
17769
17770
17771
17772
17773
17774
17775
17776
17777
17778
17779
17780
17781
17782
17783
17784
17785
17786
17787
17788
17789
17790
17791
17792
17793
17794
17795
17796
17797
17798
17799
17800
17801
17802
17803
17804
17805
17806
17807
17808
17809
17810
17811
17812
17813
17814
17815
17816
17817
17818
17819
17820
17821
17822
17823
17824
17825
17826
17827
17828
17829
17830
17831
17832
17833
17834
17835
17836
17837
17838
17839
17840
17841
17842
17843
17844
17845
17846
17847
17848
17849
17850
17851
17852
17853
17854
17855
17856
17857
17858
17859
17860
17861
17862
17863
17864
17865
17866
17867
17868
17869
17870
17871
17872
17873
17874
17875
17876
17877
17878
17879
17880
17881
17882
17883
17884
17885
17886
17887
17888
17889
17890
17891
17892
17893
17894
17895
17896
17897
17898
17899
17900
17901
17902
17903
17904
17905
17906
17907
17908
17909
17910
17911
17912
17913
17914
17915
17916
17917
17918
17919
17920
17921
17922
17923
17924
17925
17926
17927
17928
17929
17930
17931
17932
17933
17934
17935
17936
17937
17938
17939
17940
17941
17942
17943
17944
17945
17946
17947
17948
17949
17950
17951
17952
17953
17954
17955
17956
17957
17958
17959
17960
17961
17962
17963
17964
17965
17966
17967
17968
17969
17970
17971
17972
17973
17974
17975
17976
17977
17978
17979
17980
17981
17982
17983
17984
17985
17986
17987
17988
17989
17990
17991
17992
17993
17994
17995
17996
17997
17998
17999
18000
18001
18002
18003
18004
18005
18006
18007
18008
18009
18010
18011
18012
18013
18014
18015
18016
18017
18018
18019
18020
18021
18022
18023
18024
18025
18026
18027
18028
18029
18030
18031
18032
18033
18034
18035
18036
18037
18038
18039
18040
18041
18042
18043
18044
18045
18046
18047
18048
18049
18050
18051
18052
18053
18054
18055
18056
18057
18058
18059
18060
18061
18062
18063
18064
18065
18066
18067
18068
18069
18070
18071
18072
18073
18074
18075
18076
18077
18078
18079
18080
18081
18082
18083
18084
18085
18086
18087
18088
18089
18090
18091
18092
18093
18094
18095
18096
18097
18098
18099
18100
18101
18102
18103
18104
18105
18106
18107
18108
18109
18110
18111
18112
18113
18114
18115
18116
18117
18118
18119
18120
18121
18122
18123
18124
18125
18126
18127
18128
18129
18130
18131
18132
18133
18134
18135
18136
18137
18138
18139
18140
18141
18142
18143
18144
18145
18146
18147
18148
18149
18150
18151
18152
18153
18154
18155
18156
18157
18158
18159
18160
18161
18162
18163
18164
18165
18166
18167
18168
18169
18170
18171
18172
18173
18174
18175
18176
18177
18178
18179
18180
18181
18182
18183
18184
18185
18186
18187
18188
18189
18190
18191
18192
18193
18194
18195
18196
18197
18198
18199
18200
18201
18202
18203
18204
18205
18206
18207
18208
18209
18210
18211
18212
18213
18214
18215
18216
18217
18218
18219
18220
18221
18222
18223
18224
18225
18226
18227
18228
18229
18230
18231
18232
18233
18234
18235
18236
18237
18238
18239
18240
18241
18242
18243
18244
18245
18246
18247
18248
18249
18250
18251
18252
18253
18254
18255
18256
18257
18258
18259
18260
18261
18262
18263
18264
18265
18266
18267
18268
18269
18270
18271
18272
18273
18274
18275
18276
18277
18278
18279
18280
18281
18282
18283
18284
18285
18286
18287
18288
18289
18290
18291
18292
18293
18294
18295
18296
18297
18298
18299
18300
18301
18302
18303
18304
18305
18306
18307
18308
18309
18310
18311
18312
18313
18314
18315
18316
18317
18318
18319
18320
18321
18322
18323
18324
18325
18326
18327
18328
18329
18330
18331
18332
18333
18334
18335
18336
18337
18338
18339
18340
18341
18342
18343
18344
18345
18346
18347
18348
18349
18350
18351
18352
18353
18354
18355
18356
18357
18358
18359
18360
18361
18362
18363
18364
18365
18366
18367
18368
18369
18370
18371
18372
18373
18374
18375
18376
18377
18378
18379
18380
18381
18382
18383
18384
18385
18386
18387
18388
18389
18390
18391
18392
18393
18394
18395
18396
18397
18398
18399
18400
18401
18402
18403
18404
18405
18406
18407
18408
18409
18410
18411
18412
18413
18414
18415
18416
18417
18418
18419
18420
18421
18422
18423
18424
18425
18426
18427
18428
18429
18430
18431
18432
18433
18434
18435
18436
18437
18438
18439
18440
18441
18442
18443
18444
18445
18446
18447
18448
18449
18450
18451
18452
18453
18454
18455
18456
18457
18458
18459
18460
18461
18462
18463
18464
18465
18466
18467
18468
18469
18470
18471
18472
18473
18474
18475
18476
18477
18478
18479
18480
18481
18482
18483
18484
18485
18486
18487
18488
18489
18490
18491
18492
18493
18494
18495
18496
18497
18498
18499
18500
18501
18502
18503
18504
18505
18506
18507
18508
18509
18510
18511
18512
18513
18514
18515
18516
18517
18518
18519
18520
18521
18522
18523
18524
18525
18526
18527
18528
18529
18530
18531
18532
18533
18534
18535
18536
18537
18538
18539
18540
18541
18542
18543
18544
18545
18546
18547
18548
18549
18550
18551
18552
18553
18554
18555
18556
18557
18558
18559
18560
18561
18562
18563
18564
18565
18566
18567
18568
18569
18570
18571
18572
18573
18574
18575
18576
18577
18578
18579
18580
18581
18582
18583
18584
18585
18586
18587
18588
18589
18590
18591
18592
18593
18594
18595
18596
18597
18598
18599
18600
18601
18602
18603
18604
18605
18606
18607
18608
18609
18610
18611
18612
18613
18614
18615
18616
18617
18618
18619
18620
18621
18622
18623
18624
18625
18626
18627
18628
18629
18630
18631
18632
18633
18634
18635
18636
18637
18638
18639
18640
18641
18642
18643
18644
18645
18646
18647
18648
18649
18650
18651
18652
18653
18654
18655
18656
18657
18658
18659
18660
18661
18662
18663
18664
18665
18666
18667
18668
18669
18670
18671
18672
18673
18674
18675
18676
18677
18678
18679
18680
18681
18682
18683
18684
18685
18686
18687
18688
18689
18690
18691
18692
18693
18694
18695
18696
18697
18698
18699
18700
18701
18702
18703
18704
18705
18706
18707
18708
18709
18710
18711
18712
18713
18714
18715
18716
18717
18718
18719
18720
18721
18722
18723
18724
18725
18726
18727
18728
18729
18730
18731
18732
18733
18734
18735
18736
18737
18738
18739
18740
18741
18742
18743
18744
18745
18746
18747
18748
18749
18750
18751
18752
18753
18754
18755
18756
18757
18758
18759
18760
18761
18762
18763
18764
18765
18766
18767
18768
18769
18770
18771
18772
18773
18774
18775
18776
18777
18778
18779
18780
18781
18782
18783
18784
18785
18786
18787
18788
18789
18790
18791
18792
18793
18794
18795
18796
18797
18798
18799
18800
18801
18802
18803
18804
18805
18806
18807
18808
18809
18810
18811
18812
18813
18814
18815
18816
18817
18818
18819
18820
18821
18822
18823
18824
18825
18826
18827
18828
18829
18830
18831
18832
18833
18834
18835
18836
18837
18838
18839
18840
18841
18842
18843
18844
18845
18846
18847
18848
18849
18850
18851
18852
18853
18854
18855
18856
18857
18858
18859
18860
18861
18862
18863
18864
18865
18866
18867
18868
18869
18870
18871
18872
18873
18874
18875
18876
18877
18878
18879
18880
18881
18882
18883
18884
18885
18886
18887
18888
18889
18890
18891
18892
18893
18894
18895
18896
18897
18898
18899
18900
18901
18902
18903
18904
18905
18906
18907
18908
18909
18910
18911
18912
18913
18914
18915
18916
18917
18918
18919
18920
18921
18922
18923
18924
18925
18926
18927
18928
18929
18930
18931
18932
18933
18934
18935
18936
18937
18938
18939
18940
18941
18942
18943
18944
18945
18946
18947
18948
18949
18950
18951
18952
18953
18954
18955
18956
18957
18958
18959
18960
18961
18962
18963
18964
18965
18966
18967
18968
18969
18970
18971
18972
18973
18974
18975
18976
18977
18978
18979
18980
18981
18982
18983
18984
18985
18986
18987
18988
18989
18990
18991
18992
18993
18994
18995
18996
18997
18998
18999
19000
19001
19002
19003
19004
19005
19006
19007
19008
19009
19010
19011
19012
19013
19014
19015
19016
19017
19018
19019
19020
19021
19022
19023
19024
19025
19026
19027
19028
19029
19030
19031
19032
19033
19034
19035
19036
19037
19038
19039
19040
19041
19042
19043
19044
19045
19046
19047
19048
19049
19050
19051
19052
19053
19054
19055
19056
19057
19058
19059
19060
19061
19062
19063
19064
19065
19066
19067
19068
19069
19070
19071
19072
19073
19074
19075
19076
19077
19078
19079
19080
19081
19082
19083
19084
19085
19086
19087
19088
19089
19090
19091
19092
19093
19094
19095
19096
19097
19098
19099
19100
19101
19102
19103
19104
19105
19106
19107
19108
19109
19110
19111
19112
19113
19114
19115
19116
19117
19118
19119
19120
19121
19122
19123
19124
19125
19126
19127
19128
19129
19130
19131
19132
19133
19134
19135
19136
19137
19138
19139
19140
19141
19142
19143
19144
19145
19146
19147
19148
19149
19150
19151
19152
19153
19154
19155
19156
19157
19158
19159
19160
19161
19162
19163
19164
19165
19166
19167
19168
19169
19170
19171
19172
19173
19174
19175
19176
19177
19178
19179
19180
19181
19182
19183
19184
19185
19186
19187
19188
19189
19190
19191
19192
19193
19194
19195
19196
19197
19198
19199
19200
19201
19202
19203
19204
19205
19206
19207
19208
19209
19210
19211
19212
19213
19214
19215
19216
19217
19218
19219
19220
19221
19222
19223
19224
19225
19226
19227
19228
19229
19230
19231
19232
19233
19234
19235
19236
19237
19238
19239
19240
19241
19242
19243
19244
19245
19246
19247
19248
19249
19250
19251
19252
19253
19254
19255
19256
19257
19258
19259
19260
19261
19262
19263
19264
19265
19266
19267
19268
19269
19270
19271
19272
19273
19274
19275
19276
19277
19278
19279
19280
19281
19282
19283
19284
19285
19286
19287
19288
19289
19290
19291
19292
19293
19294
19295
19296
19297
19298
19299
19300
19301
19302
19303
19304
19305
19306
19307
19308
19309
19310
19311
19312
19313
19314
19315
19316
19317
19318
19319
19320
19321
19322
19323
19324
19325
19326
19327
19328
19329
19330
19331
19332
19333
19334
19335
19336
19337
19338
19339
19340
19341
19342
19343
19344
19345
19346
19347
19348
19349
19350
19351
19352
19353
19354
19355
19356
19357
19358
19359
19360
19361
19362
19363
19364
19365
19366
19367
19368
19369
19370
19371
19372
19373
19374
19375
19376
19377
19378
19379
19380
19381
19382
19383
19384
19385
19386
19387
19388
19389
19390
19391
19392
19393
19394
19395
19396
19397
19398
19399
19400
19401
19402
19403
19404
19405
19406
19407
19408
19409
19410
19411
19412
19413
19414
19415
19416
19417
19418
19419
19420
19421
19422
19423
19424
19425
19426
19427
19428
19429
19430
19431
19432
19433
19434
19435
19436
19437
19438
19439
19440
19441
19442
19443
19444
19445
19446
19447
19448
19449
19450
19451
19452
19453
19454
19455
19456
19457
19458
19459
19460
19461
19462
19463
19464
19465
19466
19467
19468
19469
19470
19471
19472
19473
19474
19475
19476
19477
19478
19479
19480
19481
19482
19483
19484
19485
19486
19487
19488
19489
19490
19491
19492
19493
19494
19495
19496
19497
19498
19499
19500
19501
19502
19503
19504
19505
19506
19507
19508
19509
19510
19511
19512
19513
19514
19515
19516
19517
19518
19519
19520
19521
19522
19523
19524
19525
19526
19527
19528
19529
19530
19531
19532
19533
19534
19535
19536
19537
19538
19539
19540
19541
19542
19543
19544
19545
19546
19547
19548
19549
19550
19551
19552
19553
19554
19555
19556
19557
19558
19559
19560
19561
19562
19563
19564
19565
19566
19567
19568
19569
19570
19571
19572
19573
19574
19575
19576
19577
19578
19579
19580
19581
19582
19583
19584
19585
19586
19587
19588
19589
19590
19591
19592
19593
19594
19595
19596
19597
19598
19599
19600
19601
19602
19603
19604
19605
19606
19607
19608
19609
19610
19611
19612
19613
19614
19615
19616
19617
19618
19619
19620
19621
19622
19623
19624
19625
19626
19627
19628
19629
19630
19631
19632
19633
19634
19635
19636
19637
19638
19639
19640
19641
19642
19643
19644
19645
19646
19647
19648
19649
19650
19651
19652
19653
19654
19655
19656
19657
19658
19659
19660
19661
19662
19663
19664
19665
19666
19667
19668
19669
19670
19671
19672
19673
19674
19675
19676
19677
19678
19679
19680
19681
19682
19683
19684
19685
19686
19687
19688
19689
19690
19691
19692
19693
19694
19695
19696
19697
19698
19699
19700
19701
19702
19703
19704
19705
19706
19707
19708
19709
19710
19711
19712
19713
19714
19715
19716
19717
19718
19719
19720
19721
19722
19723
19724
19725
19726
19727
19728
19729
19730
19731
19732
19733
19734
19735
19736
19737
19738
19739
19740
19741
19742
19743
19744
19745
19746
19747
19748
19749
19750
19751
19752
19753
19754
19755
19756
19757
19758
19759
19760
19761
19762
19763
19764
19765
19766
19767
19768
19769
19770
19771
19772
19773
19774
19775
19776
19777
19778
19779
19780
19781
19782
19783
19784
19785
19786
19787
19788
19789
19790
19791
19792
19793
19794
19795
19796
19797
19798
19799
19800
19801
19802
19803
19804
19805
19806
19807
19808
19809
19810
19811
19812
19813
19814
19815
19816
19817
19818
19819
19820
19821
19822
19823
19824
19825
19826
19827
19828
19829
19830
19831
19832
19833
19834
19835
19836
19837
19838
19839
19840
19841
19842
19843
19844
19845
19846
19847
19848
19849
19850
19851
19852
19853
19854
19855
19856
19857
19858
19859
19860
19861
19862
19863
19864
19865
19866
19867
19868
19869
19870
19871
19872
19873
19874
19875
19876
19877
19878
19879
19880
19881
19882
19883
19884
19885
19886
19887
19888
19889
19890
19891
19892
19893
19894
19895
19896
19897
19898
19899
19900
19901
19902
19903
19904
19905
19906
19907
19908
19909
19910
19911
19912
19913
19914
19915
19916
19917
19918
19919
19920
19921
19922
19923
19924
19925
19926
19927
19928
19929
19930
19931
19932
19933
19934
19935
19936
19937
19938
19939
19940
19941
19942
19943
19944
19945
19946
19947
19948
19949
19950
19951
19952
19953
19954
19955
19956
19957
19958
19959
19960
19961
19962
19963
19964
19965
19966
19967
19968
19969
19970
19971
19972
19973
19974
19975
19976
19977
19978
19979
19980
19981
19982
19983
19984
19985
19986
19987
19988
19989
19990
19991
19992
19993
19994
19995
19996
19997
19998
19999
20000
20001
20002
20003
20004
20005
20006
20007
20008
20009
20010
20011
20012
20013
20014
20015
20016
20017
20018
20019
20020
20021
20022
20023
20024
20025
20026
20027
20028
20029
20030
20031
20032
20033
20034
20035
20036
20037
20038
20039
20040
20041
20042
20043
20044
20045
20046
20047
20048
20049
20050
20051
20052
20053
20054
20055
20056
20057
20058
20059
20060
20061
20062
20063
20064
20065
20066
20067
20068
20069
20070
20071
20072
20073
20074
20075
20076
20077
20078
20079
20080
20081
20082
20083
20084
20085
20086
20087
20088
20089
20090
20091
20092
20093
20094
20095
20096
20097
20098
20099
20100
20101
20102
20103
20104
20105
20106
20107
20108
20109
20110
20111
20112
20113
20114
20115
20116
20117
20118
20119
20120
20121
20122
20123
20124
20125
20126
20127
20128
20129
20130
20131
20132
20133
20134
20135
20136
20137
20138
20139
20140
20141
20142
20143
20144
20145
20146
20147
20148
20149
20150
20151
20152
20153
20154
20155
20156
20157
20158
20159
20160
20161
20162
20163
20164
20165
20166
20167
20168
20169
20170
20171
20172
20173
20174
20175
20176
20177
20178
20179
20180
20181
20182
20183
20184
20185
20186
20187
20188
20189
20190
20191
20192
20193
20194
20195
20196
20197
20198
20199
20200
20201
20202
20203
20204
20205
20206
20207
20208
20209
20210
20211
20212
20213
20214
20215
20216
20217
20218
20219
20220
20221
20222
20223
20224
20225
20226
20227
20228
20229
20230
20231
20232
20233
20234
20235
20236
20237
20238
20239
20240
20241
20242
20243
20244
20245
20246
20247
20248
20249
20250
20251
20252
20253
20254
20255
20256
20257
20258
20259
20260
20261
20262
20263
20264
20265
20266
20267
20268
20269
20270
20271
20272
20273
20274
20275
20276
20277
20278
20279
20280
20281
20282
20283
20284
20285
20286
20287
20288
20289
20290
20291
20292
20293
20294
20295
20296
20297
20298
20299
20300
20301
20302
20303
20304
20305
20306
20307
20308
20309
20310
20311
20312
20313
20314
20315
20316
20317
20318
20319
20320
20321
20322
20323
20324
20325
20326
20327
20328
20329
20330
20331
20332
20333
20334
20335
20336
20337
20338
20339
20340
20341
20342
20343
20344
20345
20346
20347
20348
20349
20350
20351
20352
20353
20354
20355
20356
20357
20358
20359
20360
20361
20362
20363
20364
20365
20366
20367
20368
20369
20370
20371
20372
20373
20374
20375
20376
20377
20378
20379
20380
20381
20382
20383
20384
20385
20386
20387
20388
20389
20390
20391
20392
20393
20394
20395
20396
20397
20398
20399
20400
20401
20402
20403
20404
20405
20406
20407
20408
20409
20410
20411
20412
20413
20414
20415
20416
20417
20418
20419
20420
20421
20422
20423
20424
20425
20426
20427
20428
20429
20430
20431
20432
20433
20434
20435
20436
20437
20438
20439
20440
20441
20442
20443
20444
20445
20446
20447
20448
20449
20450
20451
20452
20453
20454
20455
20456
20457
20458
20459
20460
20461
20462
20463
20464
20465
20466
20467
20468
20469
20470
20471
20472
20473
20474
20475
20476
20477
20478
20479
20480
20481
20482
20483
20484
20485
20486
20487
20488
20489
20490
20491
20492
20493
20494
20495
20496
20497
20498
20499
20500
20501
20502
20503
20504
20505
20506
20507
20508
20509
20510
20511
20512
20513
20514
20515
20516
20517
20518
20519
20520
20521
20522
20523
20524
20525
20526
20527
20528
20529
20530
20531
20532
20533
20534
20535
20536
20537
20538
20539
20540
20541
20542
20543
20544
20545
20546
20547
20548
20549
20550
20551
20552
20553
20554
20555
20556
20557
20558
20559
20560
20561
20562
20563
20564
20565
20566
20567
20568
20569
20570
20571
20572
20573
20574
20575
20576
20577
20578
20579
20580
20581
20582
20583
20584
20585
20586
20587
20588
20589
20590
20591
20592
20593
20594
20595
20596
20597
20598
20599
20600
20601
20602
20603
20604
20605
20606
20607
20608
20609
20610
20611
20612
20613
20614
20615
20616
20617
20618
20619
20620
20621
20622
20623
20624
20625
20626
20627
20628
20629
20630
20631
20632
20633
20634
20635
20636
20637
20638
20639
20640
20641
20642
20643
20644
20645
20646
20647
20648
20649
20650
20651
20652
20653
20654
20655
20656
20657
20658
20659
20660
20661
20662
20663
20664
20665
20666
20667
20668
20669
20670
20671
20672
20673
20674
20675
20676
20677
20678
20679
20680
20681
20682
20683
20684
20685
20686
20687
20688
20689
20690
20691
20692
20693
20694
20695
20696
20697
20698
20699
20700
20701
20702
20703
20704
20705
20706
20707
20708
20709
20710
20711
20712
20713
20714
20715
20716
20717
20718
20719
20720
20721
20722
20723
20724
20725
20726
20727
20728
20729
20730
20731
20732
20733
20734
20735
20736
20737
20738
20739
20740
20741
20742
20743
20744
20745
20746
20747
20748
20749
20750
20751
20752
20753
20754
20755
20756
20757
20758
20759
20760
20761
20762
20763
20764
20765
20766
20767
20768
20769
20770
20771
20772
20773
20774
20775
20776
20777
20778
20779
20780
20781
20782
20783
20784
20785
20786
20787
20788
20789
20790
20791
20792
20793
20794
20795
20796
20797
20798
20799
20800
20801
20802
20803
20804
20805
20806
20807
20808
20809
20810
20811
20812
20813
20814
20815
20816
20817
20818
20819
20820
20821
20822
20823
20824
20825
20826
20827
20828
20829
20830
20831
20832
20833
20834
20835
20836
20837
20838
20839
20840
20841
20842
20843
20844
20845
20846
20847
20848
20849
20850
20851
20852
20853
20854
20855
20856
20857
20858
20859
20860
20861
20862
20863
20864
20865
20866
20867
20868
20869
20870
20871
20872
20873
20874
20875
20876
20877
20878
20879
20880
20881
20882
20883
20884
20885
20886
20887
20888
20889
20890
20891
20892
20893
20894
20895
20896
20897
20898
20899
20900
20901
20902
20903
20904
20905
20906
20907
20908
20909
20910
20911
20912
20913
20914
20915
20916
20917
20918
20919
20920
20921
20922
20923
20924
20925
20926
20927
20928
20929
20930
20931
20932
20933
20934
20935
20936
20937
20938
20939
20940
20941
20942
20943
20944
20945
20946
20947
20948
20949
20950
20951
20952
20953
20954
20955
20956
20957
20958
20959
20960
20961
20962
20963
20964
20965
20966
20967
20968
20969
20970
20971
20972
20973
20974
20975
20976
20977
20978
20979
20980
20981
20982
20983
20984
20985
20986
20987
20988
20989
20990
20991
20992
20993
20994
20995
20996
20997
20998
20999
21000
21001
21002
21003
21004
21005
21006
21007
21008
21009
21010
21011
21012
21013
21014
21015
21016
21017
21018
21019
21020
21021
21022
21023
21024
21025
21026
21027
21028
21029
21030
21031
21032
21033
21034
21035
21036
21037
21038
21039
21040
21041
21042
21043
21044
21045
21046
21047
21048
21049
21050
21051
21052
21053
21054
21055
21056
21057
21058
21059
21060
21061
21062
21063
21064
21065
21066
21067
21068
21069
21070
21071
21072
21073
21074
21075
21076
21077
21078
21079
21080
21081
21082
21083
21084
21085
21086
21087
21088
21089
21090
21091
21092
21093
21094
21095
21096
21097
21098
21099
21100
21101
21102
21103
21104
21105
21106
21107
21108
21109
21110
21111
21112
21113
21114
21115
21116
21117
21118
21119
21120
21121
21122
21123
21124
21125
21126
21127
21128
21129
21130
21131
21132
21133
21134
21135
21136
21137
21138
21139
21140
21141
21142
21143
21144
21145
21146
21147
21148
21149
21150
21151
21152
21153
21154
21155
21156
21157
21158
21159
21160
21161
21162
21163
21164
21165
21166
21167
21168
21169
21170
21171
21172
21173
21174
21175
21176
21177
21178
21179
21180
21181
21182
21183
21184
21185
21186
21187
21188
21189
21190
21191
21192
21193
21194
21195
21196
21197
21198
21199
21200
21201
21202
21203
21204
21205
21206
21207
21208
21209
21210
21211
21212
21213
21214
21215
21216
21217
21218
21219
21220
21221
21222
21223
21224
21225
21226
21227
21228
21229
21230
21231
21232
21233
21234
21235
21236
21237
21238
21239
21240
21241
21242
21243
21244
21245
21246
21247
21248
21249
21250
21251
21252
21253
21254
21255
21256
21257
21258
21259
21260
21261
21262
21263
21264
21265
21266
21267
21268
21269
21270
21271
21272
21273
21274
21275
21276
21277
21278
21279
21280
21281
21282
21283
21284
21285
21286
21287
21288
21289
21290
21291
21292
21293
21294
21295
21296
21297
21298
21299
21300
21301
21302
21303
21304
21305
21306
21307
21308
21309
21310
21311
21312
21313
21314
21315
21316
21317
21318
21319
21320
21321
21322
21323
21324
21325
21326
21327
21328
21329
21330
21331
21332
21333
21334
21335
21336
21337
21338
21339
21340
21341
21342
21343
21344
21345
21346
21347
21348
21349
21350
21351
21352
21353
21354
21355
21356
21357
21358
21359
21360
21361
21362
21363
21364
21365
21366
21367
21368
21369
21370
21371
21372
21373
21374
21375
21376
21377
21378
21379
21380
21381
21382
21383
21384
21385
21386
21387
21388
21389
21390
21391
21392
21393
21394
21395
21396
21397
21398
21399
21400
21401
21402
21403
21404
21405
21406
21407
21408
21409
21410
21411
21412
21413
21414
21415
21416
21417
21418
21419
21420
21421
21422
21423
21424
21425
21426
21427
21428
21429
21430
21431
21432
21433
21434
21435
21436
21437
21438
21439
21440
21441
21442
21443
21444
21445
21446
21447
21448
21449
21450
21451
21452
21453
21454
21455
21456
21457
21458
21459
21460
21461
21462
21463
21464
21465
21466
21467
21468
21469
21470
21471
21472
21473
21474
21475
21476
21477
21478
21479
21480
21481
21482
21483
21484
21485
21486
21487
21488
21489
21490
21491
21492
21493
21494
21495
21496
21497
21498
21499
21500
21501
21502
21503
21504
21505
21506
21507
21508
21509
21510
21511
21512
21513
21514
21515
21516
21517
21518
21519
21520
21521
21522
21523
21524
21525
21526
21527
21528
21529
21530
21531
21532
21533
21534
21535
21536
21537
21538
21539
21540
21541
21542
21543
21544
21545
21546
21547
21548
21549
21550
21551
21552
21553
21554
21555
21556
21557
21558
21559
21560
21561
21562
21563
21564
21565
21566
21567
21568
21569
21570
21571
21572
21573
21574
21575
21576
21577
21578
21579
21580
21581
21582
21583
21584
21585
21586
21587
21588
21589
21590
21591
21592
21593
21594
21595
21596
21597
21598
21599
21600
21601
21602
21603
21604
21605
21606
21607
21608
21609
21610
21611
21612
21613
21614
21615
21616
21617
21618
21619
21620
21621
21622
21623
21624
21625
21626
21627
21628
21629
21630
21631
21632
21633
21634
21635
21636
21637
21638
21639
21640
21641
21642
21643
21644
21645
21646
21647
21648
21649
21650
21651
21652
21653
21654
21655
21656
21657
21658
21659
21660
21661
21662
21663
21664
21665
21666
21667
21668
21669
21670
21671
21672
21673
21674
21675
21676
21677
21678
21679
21680
21681
21682
21683
21684
21685
21686
21687
21688
21689
21690
21691
21692
21693
21694
21695
21696
21697
21698
21699
21700
21701
21702
21703
21704
21705
21706
21707
21708
21709
21710
21711
21712
21713
21714
21715
21716
21717
21718
21719
21720
21721
21722
21723
21724
21725
21726
21727
21728
21729
21730
21731
21732
21733
21734
21735
21736
21737
21738
21739
21740
21741
21742
21743
21744
21745
21746
21747
21748
21749
21750
21751
21752
21753
21754
21755
21756
21757
21758
21759
21760
21761
21762
21763
21764
21765
21766
21767
21768
21769
21770
21771
21772
21773
21774
21775
21776
21777
21778
21779
21780
21781
21782
21783
21784
21785
21786
21787
21788
21789
21790
21791
21792
21793
21794
21795
21796
21797
21798
21799
21800
21801
21802
21803
21804
21805
21806
21807
21808
21809
21810
21811
21812
21813
21814
21815
21816
21817
21818
21819
21820
21821
21822
21823
21824
21825
21826
21827
21828
21829
21830
21831
21832
21833
21834
21835
21836
21837
21838
21839
21840
21841
21842
21843
21844
21845
21846
21847
21848
21849
21850
21851
21852
21853
21854
21855
21856
21857
21858
21859
21860
21861
21862
21863
21864
21865
21866
21867
21868
21869
21870
21871
21872
21873
21874
21875
21876
21877
21878
21879
21880
21881
21882
21883
21884
21885
21886
21887
21888
21889
21890
21891
21892
21893
21894
21895
21896
21897
21898
21899
21900
21901
21902
21903
21904
21905
21906
21907
21908
21909
21910
21911
21912
21913
21914
21915
21916
21917
21918
21919
21920
21921
21922
21923
21924
21925
21926
21927
21928
21929
21930
21931
21932
21933
21934
21935
21936
21937
21938
21939
21940
21941
21942
21943
21944
21945
21946
21947
21948
21949
21950
21951
21952
21953
21954
21955
21956
21957
21958
21959
21960
21961
21962
21963
21964
21965
21966
21967
21968
21969
21970
21971
21972
21973
21974
21975
21976
21977
21978
21979
21980
21981
21982
21983
21984
21985
21986
21987
21988
21989
21990
21991
21992
21993
21994
21995
21996
21997
21998
21999
22000
22001
22002
22003
22004
22005
22006
22007
22008
22009
22010
22011
22012
22013
22014
22015
22016
22017
22018
22019
22020
22021
22022
22023
22024
22025
22026
22027
22028
22029
22030
22031
22032
22033
22034
22035
22036
22037
22038
22039
22040
22041
22042
22043
22044
22045
22046
22047
22048
22049
22050
22051
22052
22053
22054
22055
22056
22057
22058
22059
22060
22061
22062
22063
22064
22065
22066
22067
22068
22069
22070
22071
22072
22073
22074
22075
22076
22077
22078
22079
22080
22081
22082
22083
22084
22085
22086
22087
22088
22089
22090
22091
22092
22093
22094
22095
22096
22097
22098
22099
22100
22101
22102
22103
22104
22105
22106
22107
22108
22109
22110
22111
22112
22113
22114
22115
22116
22117
22118
22119
22120
22121
22122
22123
22124
22125
22126
22127
22128
22129
22130
22131
22132
22133
22134
22135
22136
22137
22138
22139
22140
22141
22142
22143
22144
22145
22146
22147
22148
22149
22150
22151
22152
22153
22154
22155
22156
22157
22158
22159
22160
22161
22162
22163
22164
22165
22166
22167
22168
22169
22170
22171
22172
22173
22174
22175
22176
22177
22178
22179
22180
22181
22182
22183
22184
22185
22186
22187
22188
22189
22190
22191
22192
22193
22194
22195
22196
22197
22198
22199
22200
22201
22202
22203
22204
22205
22206
22207
22208
22209
22210
22211
22212
22213
22214
22215
22216
22217
22218
22219
22220
22221
22222
22223
22224
22225
22226
22227
22228
22229
22230
22231
22232
22233
22234
22235
22236
22237
22238
22239
22240
22241
22242
22243
22244
22245
22246
22247
22248
22249
22250
22251
22252
22253
22254
22255
22256
22257
22258
22259
22260
22261
22262
22263
22264
22265
22266
22267
22268
22269
22270
22271
22272
22273
22274
22275
22276
22277
22278
22279
22280
22281
22282
22283
22284
22285
22286
22287
22288
22289
22290
22291
22292
22293
22294
22295
22296
22297
22298
22299
22300
22301
22302
22303
22304
22305
22306
22307
22308
22309
22310
22311
22312
22313
22314
22315
22316
22317
22318
22319
22320
22321
22322
22323
22324
22325
22326
22327
22328
22329
22330
22331
22332
22333
22334
22335
22336
22337
22338
22339
22340
22341
22342
22343
22344
22345
22346
22347
22348
22349
22350
22351
22352
22353
22354
22355
22356
22357
22358
22359
22360
22361
22362
22363
22364
22365
22366
22367
22368
22369
22370
22371
22372
22373
22374
22375
22376
22377
22378
22379
22380
22381
22382
22383
22384
22385
22386
22387
22388
22389
22390
22391
22392
22393
22394
22395
22396
22397
22398
22399
22400
22401
22402
22403
22404
22405
22406
22407
22408
22409
22410
22411
22412
22413
22414
22415
22416
22417
22418
22419
22420
22421
22422
22423
22424
22425
22426
22427
22428
22429
22430
22431
22432
22433
22434
22435
22436
22437
22438
22439
22440
22441
22442
22443
22444
22445
22446
22447
22448
22449
22450
22451
22452
22453
22454
22455
22456
22457
22458
22459
22460
22461
22462
22463
22464
22465
22466
22467
22468
22469
22470
22471
22472
22473
22474
22475
22476
22477
22478
22479
22480
22481
22482
22483
22484
22485
22486
22487
22488
22489
22490
22491
22492
22493
22494
22495
22496
22497
22498
22499
22500
22501
22502
22503
22504
22505
22506
22507
22508
22509
22510
22511
22512
22513
22514
22515
22516
22517
22518
22519
22520
22521
22522
22523
22524
22525
22526
22527
22528
22529
22530
22531
22532
22533
22534
22535
22536
22537
22538
22539
22540
22541
22542
22543
22544
22545
22546
22547
22548
22549
22550
22551
22552
22553
22554
22555
22556
22557
22558
22559
22560
22561
22562
22563
22564
22565
22566
22567
22568
22569
22570
22571
22572
22573
22574
22575
22576
22577
22578
22579
22580
22581
22582
22583
22584
22585
22586
22587
22588
22589
22590
22591
22592
22593
22594
22595
22596
22597
22598
22599
22600
22601
22602
22603
22604
22605
22606
22607
22608
22609
22610
22611
22612
22613
22614
22615
22616
22617
22618
22619
22620
22621
22622
22623
22624
22625
22626
22627
22628
22629
22630
22631
22632
22633
22634
22635
22636
22637
22638
22639
22640
22641
22642
22643
22644
22645
22646
22647
22648
22649
22650
22651
22652
22653
22654
22655
22656
22657
22658
22659
22660
22661
22662
22663
22664
22665
22666
22667
22668
22669
22670
22671
22672
22673
22674
22675
22676
22677
22678
22679
22680
22681
22682
22683
22684
22685
22686
22687
22688
22689
22690
22691
22692
22693
22694
22695
22696
22697
22698
22699
22700
22701
22702
22703
22704
22705
22706
22707
22708
22709
22710
22711
22712
22713
22714
22715
22716
22717
22718
22719
22720
22721
22722
22723
22724
22725
22726
22727
22728
22729
22730
22731
22732
22733
22734
22735
22736
22737
22738
22739
22740
22741
22742
22743
22744
22745
22746
22747
22748
22749
22750
22751
22752
22753
22754
22755
22756
22757
22758
22759
22760
22761
22762
22763
22764
22765
22766
22767
22768
22769
22770
22771
22772
22773
22774
22775
22776
22777
22778
22779
22780
22781
22782
22783
22784
22785
22786
22787
22788
22789
22790
22791
22792
22793
22794
22795
22796
22797
22798
22799
22800
22801
22802
22803
22804
22805
22806
22807
22808
22809
22810
22811
22812
22813
22814
22815
22816
22817
22818
22819
22820
22821
22822
22823
22824
22825
22826
22827
22828
22829
22830
22831
22832
22833
22834
22835
22836
22837
22838
22839
22840
22841
22842
22843
22844
22845
22846
22847
22848
22849
22850
22851
22852
22853
22854
22855
22856
22857
22858
22859
22860
22861
22862
22863
22864
22865
22866
22867
22868
22869
22870
22871
22872
22873
22874
22875
22876
22877
22878
22879
22880
22881
22882
22883
22884
22885
22886
22887
22888
22889
22890
22891
22892
22893
22894
22895
22896
22897
22898
22899
22900
22901
22902
22903
22904
22905
22906
22907
22908
22909
22910
22911
22912
22913
22914
22915
22916
22917
22918
22919
22920
22921
22922
22923
22924
22925
22926
22927
22928
22929
22930
22931
22932
22933
22934
22935
22936
22937
22938
22939
22940
22941
22942
22943
22944
22945
22946
22947
22948
22949
22950
22951
22952
22953
22954
22955
22956
22957
22958
22959
22960
22961
22962
22963
22964
22965
22966
22967
22968
22969
22970
22971
22972
22973
22974
22975
22976
22977
22978
22979
22980
22981
22982
22983
22984
22985
22986
22987
22988
22989
22990
22991
22992
22993
22994
22995
22996
22997
22998
22999
23000
23001
23002
23003
23004
23005
23006
23007
23008
23009
23010
23011
23012
23013
23014
23015
23016
23017
23018
23019
23020
23021
23022
23023
23024
23025
23026
23027
23028
23029
23030
23031
23032
23033
23034
23035
23036
23037
23038
23039
23040
23041
23042
23043
23044
23045
23046
23047
23048
23049
23050
23051
23052
23053
23054
23055
23056
23057
23058
23059
23060
23061
23062
23063
23064
23065
23066
23067
23068
23069
23070
23071
23072
23073
23074
23075
23076
23077
23078
23079
23080
23081
23082
23083
23084
23085
23086
23087
23088
23089
23090
23091
23092
23093
23094
23095
23096
23097
23098
23099
23100
23101
23102
23103
23104
23105
23106
23107
23108
23109
23110
23111
23112
23113
23114
23115
23116
23117
23118
23119
23120
23121
23122
23123
23124
23125
23126
23127
23128
23129
23130
23131
23132
23133
23134
23135
23136
23137
23138
23139
23140
23141
23142
23143
23144
23145
23146
23147
23148
23149
23150
23151
23152
23153
23154
23155
23156
23157
23158
23159
23160
23161
23162
23163
23164
23165
23166
23167
23168
23169
23170
23171
23172
23173
23174
23175
23176
23177
23178
23179
23180
23181
23182
23183
23184
23185
23186
23187
23188
23189
23190
23191
23192
23193
23194
23195
23196
23197
23198
23199
23200
23201
23202
23203
23204
23205
23206
23207
23208
23209
23210
23211
23212
23213
23214
23215
23216
23217
23218
23219
23220
23221
23222
23223
23224
23225
23226
23227
23228
23229
23230
23231
23232
23233
23234
23235
23236
23237
23238
23239
23240
23241
23242
23243
23244
23245
23246
23247
23248
23249
23250
23251
23252
23253
23254
23255
23256
23257
23258
23259
23260
23261
23262
23263
23264
23265
23266
23267
23268
23269
23270
23271
23272
23273
23274
23275
23276
23277
23278
23279
23280
23281
23282
23283
23284
23285
23286
23287
23288
23289
23290
23291
23292
23293
23294
23295
23296
23297
23298
23299
23300
23301
23302
23303
23304
23305
23306
23307
23308
23309
23310
23311
23312
23313
23314
23315
23316
23317
23318
23319
23320
23321
23322
23323
23324
23325
23326
23327
23328
23329
23330
23331
23332
23333
23334
23335
23336
23337
23338
23339
23340
23341
23342
23343
23344
23345
23346
23347
23348
23349
23350
23351
23352
23353
23354
23355
23356
23357
23358
23359
23360
23361
23362
23363
23364
23365
23366
23367
23368
23369
23370
23371
23372
23373
23374
23375
23376
23377
23378
23379
23380
23381
23382
23383
23384
23385
23386
23387
23388
23389
23390
23391
23392
23393
23394
23395
23396
23397
23398
23399
23400
23401
23402
23403
23404
23405
23406
23407
23408
23409
23410
23411
23412
23413
23414
23415
23416
23417
23418
23419
23420
23421
23422
23423
23424
23425
23426
23427
23428
23429
23430
23431
23432
23433
23434
23435
23436
23437
23438
23439
23440
23441
23442
23443
23444
23445
23446
23447
23448
23449
23450
23451
23452
23453
23454
23455
23456
23457
23458
23459
23460
23461
23462
23463
23464
23465
23466
23467
23468
23469
23470
23471
23472
23473
23474
23475
23476
23477
23478
23479
23480
23481
23482
23483
23484
23485
23486
23487
23488
23489
23490
23491
23492
23493
23494
23495
23496
23497
23498
23499
23500
23501
23502
23503
23504
23505
23506
23507
23508
23509
23510
23511
23512
23513
23514
23515
23516
23517
23518
23519
23520
23521
23522
23523
23524
23525
23526
23527
23528
23529
23530
23531
23532
23533
23534
23535
23536
23537
23538
23539
23540
23541
23542
23543
23544
23545
23546
23547
23548
23549
23550
23551
23552
23553
23554
23555
23556
23557
23558
23559
23560
23561
23562
23563
23564
23565
23566
23567
23568
23569
23570
23571
23572
23573
23574
23575
23576
23577
23578
23579
23580
23581
23582
23583
23584
23585
23586
23587
23588
23589
23590
23591
23592
23593
23594
23595
23596
23597
23598
23599
23600
23601
23602
23603
23604
23605
23606
23607
23608
23609
23610
23611
23612
23613
23614
23615
23616
23617
23618
23619
23620
23621
23622
23623
23624
23625
23626
23627
23628
23629
23630
23631
23632
23633
23634
23635
23636
23637
23638
23639
23640
23641
23642
23643
23644
23645
23646
23647
23648
23649
23650
23651
23652
23653
23654
23655
23656
23657
23658
23659
23660
23661
23662
23663
23664
23665
23666
23667
23668
23669
23670
23671
23672
23673
23674
23675
23676
23677
23678
23679
23680
23681
23682
23683
23684
23685
23686
23687
23688
23689
23690
23691
23692
23693
23694
23695
23696
23697
23698
23699
23700
23701
23702
23703
23704
23705
23706
23707
23708
23709
23710
23711
23712
23713
23714
23715
23716
23717
23718
23719
23720
23721
23722
23723
23724
23725
23726
23727
23728
23729
23730
23731
23732
23733
23734
23735
23736
23737
23738
23739
23740
23741
23742
23743
23744
23745
23746
23747
23748
23749
23750
23751
23752
23753
23754
23755
23756
23757
23758
23759
23760
23761
23762
23763
23764
23765
23766
23767
23768
23769
23770
23771
23772
23773
23774
23775
23776
23777
23778
23779
23780
23781
23782
23783
23784
23785
23786
23787
23788
23789
23790
23791
23792
23793
23794
23795
23796
23797
23798
23799
23800
23801
23802
23803
23804
23805
23806
23807
23808
23809
23810
23811
23812
23813
23814
23815
23816
23817
23818
23819
23820
23821
23822
23823
23824
23825
23826
23827
23828
23829
23830
23831
23832
23833
23834
23835
23836
23837
23838
23839
23840
23841
23842
23843
23844
23845
23846
23847
23848
23849
23850
23851
23852
23853
23854
23855
23856
23857
23858
23859
23860
23861
23862
23863
23864
23865
23866
23867
23868
23869
23870
23871
23872
23873
23874
23875
23876
23877
23878
23879
23880
23881
23882
23883
23884
23885
23886
23887
23888
23889
23890
23891
23892
23893
23894
23895
23896
23897
23898
23899
23900
23901
23902
23903
23904
23905
23906
23907
23908
23909
23910
23911
23912
23913
23914
23915
23916
23917
23918
23919
23920
23921
23922
23923
23924
23925
23926
23927
23928
23929
23930
23931
23932
23933
23934
23935
23936
23937
23938
23939
23940
23941
23942
23943
23944
23945
23946
23947
23948
23949
23950
23951
23952
23953
23954
23955
23956
23957
23958
23959
23960
23961
23962
23963
23964
23965
23966
23967
23968
23969
23970
23971
23972
23973
23974
23975
23976
23977
23978
23979
23980
23981
23982
23983
23984
23985
23986
23987
23988
23989
23990
23991
23992
23993
23994
23995
23996
23997
23998
23999
24000
24001
24002
24003
24004
24005
24006
24007
24008
24009
24010
24011
24012
24013
24014
24015
24016
24017
24018
24019
24020
24021
24022
24023
24024
24025
24026
24027
24028
24029
24030
24031
24032
24033
24034
24035
24036
24037
24038
24039
24040
24041
24042
24043
24044
24045
24046
24047
24048
24049
24050
24051
24052
24053
24054
24055
24056
24057
24058
24059
24060
24061
24062
24063
24064
24065
24066
24067
24068
24069
24070
24071
24072
24073
24074
24075
24076
24077
24078
24079
24080
24081
24082
24083
24084
24085
24086
24087
24088
24089
24090
24091
24092
24093
24094
24095
24096
24097
24098
24099
24100
24101
24102
24103
24104
24105
24106
24107
24108
24109
24110
24111
24112
24113
24114
24115
24116
24117
24118
24119
24120
24121
24122
24123
24124
24125
24126
24127
24128
24129
24130
24131
24132
24133
24134
24135
24136
24137
24138
24139
24140
24141
24142
24143
24144
24145
24146
24147
24148
24149
24150
24151
24152
24153
24154
24155
24156
24157
24158
24159
24160
24161
24162
24163
24164
24165
24166
24167
24168
24169
24170
24171
24172
24173
24174
24175
24176
24177
24178
24179
24180
24181
24182
24183
24184
24185
24186
24187
24188
24189
24190
24191
24192
24193
24194
24195
24196
24197
24198
24199
24200
24201
24202
24203
24204
24205
24206
24207
24208
24209
24210
24211
24212
24213
24214
24215
24216
24217
24218
24219
24220
24221
24222
24223
24224
24225
24226
24227
24228
24229
24230
24231
24232
24233
24234
24235
24236
24237
24238
24239
24240
24241
24242
24243
24244
24245
24246
24247
24248
24249
24250
24251
24252
24253
24254
24255
24256
24257
24258
24259
24260
24261
24262
24263
24264
24265
24266
24267
24268
24269
24270
24271
24272
24273
24274
24275
24276
24277
24278
24279
24280
24281
24282
24283
24284
24285
24286
24287
24288
24289
24290
24291
24292
24293
24294
24295
24296
24297
24298
24299
24300
24301
24302
24303
24304
24305
24306
24307
24308
24309
24310
24311
24312
24313
24314
24315
24316
24317
24318
24319
24320
24321
24322
24323
24324
24325
24326
24327
24328
24329
24330
24331
24332
24333
24334
24335
24336
24337
24338
24339
24340
24341
24342
24343
24344
24345
24346
24347
24348
24349
24350
24351
24352
24353
24354
24355
24356
24357
24358
24359
24360
24361
24362
24363
24364
24365
24366
24367
24368
24369
24370
24371
24372
24373
24374
24375
24376
24377
24378
24379
24380
24381
24382
24383
24384
24385
24386
24387
24388
24389
24390
24391
24392
24393
24394
24395
24396
24397
24398
24399
24400
24401
24402
24403
24404
24405
24406
24407
24408
24409
24410
24411
24412
24413
24414
24415
24416
24417
24418
24419
24420
24421
24422
24423
24424
24425
24426
24427
24428
24429
24430
24431
24432
24433
24434
24435
24436
24437
24438
24439
24440
24441
24442
24443
24444
24445
24446
24447
24448
24449
24450
24451
24452
24453
24454
24455
24456
24457
24458
24459
24460
24461
24462
24463
24464
24465
24466
24467
24468
24469
24470
24471
24472
24473
24474
24475
24476
24477
24478
24479
24480
24481
24482
24483
24484
24485
24486
24487
24488
24489
24490
24491
24492
24493
24494
24495
24496
24497
24498
24499
24500
24501
24502
24503
24504
24505
24506
24507
24508
24509
24510
24511
24512
24513
24514
24515
24516
24517
24518
24519
24520
24521
24522
24523
24524
24525
24526
24527
24528
24529
24530
24531
24532
24533
24534
24535
24536
24537
24538
24539
24540
24541
24542
24543
24544
24545
24546
24547
24548
24549
24550
24551
24552
24553
24554
24555
24556
24557
24558
24559
24560
24561
24562
24563
24564
24565
24566
24567
24568
24569
24570
24571
24572
24573
24574
24575
24576
24577
24578
24579
24580
24581
24582
24583
24584
24585
24586
24587
24588
24589
24590
24591
24592
24593
24594
24595
24596
24597
24598
24599
24600
24601
24602
24603
24604
24605
24606
24607
24608
24609
24610
24611
24612
24613
24614
24615
24616
24617
24618
24619
24620
24621
24622
24623
24624
24625
24626
24627
24628
24629
24630
24631
24632
24633
24634
24635
24636
24637
24638
24639
24640
24641
24642
24643
24644
24645
24646
24647
24648
24649
24650
24651
24652
24653
24654
24655
24656
24657
24658
24659
24660
24661
24662
24663
24664
24665
24666
24667
24668
24669
24670
24671
24672
24673
24674
24675
24676
24677
24678
24679
24680
24681
24682
24683
24684
24685
24686
24687
24688
24689
24690
24691
24692
24693
24694
24695
24696
24697
24698
24699
24700
24701
24702
24703
24704
24705
24706
24707
24708
24709
24710
24711
24712
24713
24714
24715
24716
24717
24718
24719
24720
24721
24722
24723
24724
24725
24726
24727
24728
24729
24730
24731
24732
24733
24734
24735
24736
24737
24738
24739
24740
24741
24742
24743
24744
24745
24746
24747
24748
24749
24750
24751
24752
24753
24754
24755
24756
24757
24758
24759
24760
24761
24762
24763
24764
24765
24766
24767
24768
24769
24770
24771
24772
24773
24774
24775
24776
24777
24778
24779
24780
24781
24782
24783
24784
24785
24786
24787
24788
24789
24790
24791
24792
24793
24794
24795
24796
24797
24798
24799
24800
24801
24802
24803
24804
24805
24806
24807
24808
24809
24810
24811
24812
24813
24814
24815
24816
24817
24818
24819
24820
24821
24822
24823
24824
24825
24826
24827
24828
24829
24830
24831
24832
24833
24834
24835
24836
24837
24838
24839
24840
24841
24842
24843
24844
24845
24846
24847
24848
24849
24850
24851
24852
24853
24854
24855
24856
24857
24858
24859
24860
24861
24862
24863
24864
24865
24866
24867
24868
24869
24870
24871
24872
24873
24874
24875
24876
24877
24878
24879
24880
24881
24882
24883
24884
24885
24886
24887
24888
24889
24890
24891
24892
24893
24894
24895
24896
24897
24898
24899
24900
24901
24902
24903
24904
24905
24906
24907
24908
24909
24910
24911
24912
24913
24914
24915
24916
24917
24918
24919
24920
24921
24922
24923
24924
24925
24926
24927
24928
24929
24930
24931
24932
24933
24934
24935
24936
24937
24938
24939
24940
24941
24942
24943
24944
24945
24946
24947
24948
24949
24950
24951
24952
24953
24954
24955
24956
24957
24958
24959
24960
24961
24962
24963
24964
24965
24966
24967
24968
24969
24970
24971
24972
24973
24974
24975
24976
24977
24978
24979
24980
24981
24982
24983
24984
24985
24986
24987
24988
24989
24990
24991
24992
24993
24994
24995
24996
24997
24998
24999
25000
25001
25002
25003
25004
25005
25006
25007
25008
25009
25010
25011
25012
25013
25014
25015
25016
25017
25018
25019
25020
25021
25022
25023
25024
25025
25026
25027
25028
25029
25030
25031
25032
25033
25034
25035
25036
25037
25038
25039
25040
25041
25042
25043
25044
25045
25046
25047
25048
25049
25050
25051
25052
25053
25054
25055
25056
25057
25058
25059
25060
25061
25062
25063
25064
25065
25066
25067
25068
25069
25070
25071
25072
25073
25074
25075
25076
25077
25078
25079
25080
25081
25082
25083
25084
25085
25086
25087
25088
25089
25090
25091
25092
25093
25094
25095
25096
25097
25098
25099
25100
25101
25102
25103
25104
25105
25106
25107
25108
25109
25110
25111
25112
25113
25114
25115
25116
25117
25118
25119
25120
25121
25122
25123
25124
25125
25126
25127
25128
25129
25130
25131
25132
25133
25134
25135
25136
25137
25138
25139
25140
25141
25142
25143
25144
25145
25146
25147
25148
25149
25150
25151
25152
25153
25154
25155
25156
25157
25158
25159
25160
25161
25162
25163
25164
25165
25166
25167
25168
25169
25170
25171
25172
25173
25174
25175
25176
25177
25178
25179
25180
25181
25182
25183
25184
25185
25186
25187
25188
25189
25190
25191
25192
25193
25194
25195
25196
25197
25198
25199
25200
25201
25202
25203
25204
25205
25206
25207
25208
25209
25210
25211
25212
25213
25214
25215
25216
25217
25218
25219
25220
25221
25222
25223
25224
25225
25226
25227
25228
25229
25230
25231
25232
25233
25234
25235
25236
25237
25238
25239
25240
25241
25242
25243
25244
25245
25246
25247
25248
25249
25250
25251
25252
25253
25254
25255
25256
25257
25258
25259
25260
25261
25262
25263
25264
25265
25266
25267
25268
25269
25270
25271
25272
25273
25274
25275
25276
25277
25278
25279
25280
25281
25282
25283
25284
25285
25286
25287
25288
25289
25290
25291
25292
25293
25294
25295
25296
25297
25298
25299
25300
25301
25302
25303
25304
25305
25306
25307
25308
25309
25310
25311
25312
25313
25314
25315
25316
25317
25318
25319
25320
25321
25322
25323
25324
25325
25326
25327
25328
25329
25330
25331
25332
25333
25334
25335
25336
25337
25338
25339
25340
25341
25342
25343
25344
25345
25346
25347
25348
25349
25350
25351
25352
25353
25354
25355
25356
25357
25358
25359
25360
25361
25362
25363
25364
25365
25366
25367
25368
25369
25370
25371
25372
25373
25374
25375
25376
25377
25378
25379
25380
25381
25382
25383
25384
25385
25386
25387
25388
25389
25390
25391
25392
25393
25394
25395
25396
25397
25398
25399
25400
25401
25402
25403
25404
25405
25406
25407
25408
25409
25410
25411
25412
25413
25414
25415
25416
25417
25418
25419
25420
25421
25422
25423
25424
25425
25426
25427
25428
25429
25430
25431
25432
25433
25434
25435
25436
25437
25438
25439
25440
25441
25442
25443
25444
25445
25446
25447
25448
25449
25450
25451
25452
25453
25454
25455
25456
25457
25458
25459
25460
25461
25462
25463
25464
25465
25466
25467
25468
25469
25470
25471
25472
25473
25474
25475
25476
25477
25478
25479
25480
25481
25482
25483
25484
25485
25486
25487
25488
25489
25490
25491
25492
25493
25494
25495
25496
25497
25498
25499
25500
25501
25502
25503
25504
25505
25506
25507
25508
25509
25510
25511
25512
25513
25514
25515
25516
25517
25518
25519
25520
25521
25522
25523
25524
25525
25526
25527
25528
25529
25530
25531
25532
25533
25534
25535
25536
25537
25538
25539
25540
25541
25542
25543
25544
25545
25546
25547
25548
25549
25550
25551
25552
25553
25554
25555
25556
25557
25558
25559
25560
25561
25562
25563
25564
25565
25566
25567
25568
25569
25570
25571
25572
25573
25574
25575
25576
25577
25578
25579
25580
25581
25582
25583
25584
25585
25586
25587
25588
25589
25590
25591
25592
25593
25594
25595
25596
25597
25598
25599
25600
25601
25602
25603
25604
25605
25606
25607
25608
25609
25610
25611
25612
25613
25614
25615
25616
25617
25618
25619
25620
25621
25622
25623
25624
25625
25626
25627
25628
25629
25630
25631
25632
25633
25634
25635
25636
25637
25638
25639
25640
25641
25642
25643
25644
25645
25646
25647
25648
25649
25650
25651
25652
25653
25654
25655
25656
25657
25658
25659
25660
25661
25662
25663
25664
25665
25666
25667
25668
25669
25670
25671
25672
25673
25674
25675
25676
25677
25678
25679
25680
25681
25682
25683
25684
25685
25686
25687
25688
25689
25690
25691
25692
25693
25694
25695
25696
25697
25698
25699
25700
25701
25702
25703
25704
25705
25706
25707
25708
25709
25710
25711
25712
25713
25714
25715
25716
25717
25718
25719
25720
25721
25722
25723
25724
25725
25726
25727
25728
25729
25730
25731
25732
25733
25734
25735
25736
25737
25738
25739
25740
25741
25742
25743
25744
25745
25746
25747
25748
25749
25750
25751
25752
25753
25754
25755
25756
25757
25758
25759
25760
25761
25762
25763
25764
25765
25766
25767
25768
25769
25770
25771
25772
25773
25774
25775
25776
25777
25778
25779
25780
25781
25782
25783
25784
25785
25786
25787
25788
25789
25790
25791
25792
25793
25794
25795
25796
25797
25798
25799
25800
25801
25802
25803
25804
25805
25806
25807
25808
25809
25810
25811
25812
25813
25814
25815
25816
25817
25818
25819
25820
25821
25822
25823
25824
25825
25826
25827
25828
25829
25830
25831
25832
25833
25834
25835
25836
25837
25838
25839
25840
25841
25842
25843
25844
25845
25846
25847
25848
25849
25850
25851
25852
25853
25854
25855
25856
25857
25858
25859
25860
25861
25862
25863
25864
25865
25866
25867
25868
25869
25870
25871
25872
25873
25874
25875
25876
25877
25878
25879
25880
25881
25882
25883
25884
25885
25886
25887
25888
25889
25890
25891
25892
25893
25894
25895
25896
25897
25898
25899
25900
25901
25902
25903
25904
25905
25906
25907
25908
25909
25910
25911
25912
25913
25914
25915
25916
25917
25918
25919
25920
25921
25922
25923
25924
25925
25926
25927
25928
25929
25930
25931
25932
25933
25934
25935
25936
25937
25938
25939
25940
25941
25942
25943
25944
25945
25946
25947
25948
25949
25950
25951
25952
25953
25954
25955
25956
25957
25958
25959
25960
25961
25962
25963
25964
25965
25966
25967
25968
25969
25970
25971
25972
25973
25974
25975
25976
25977
25978
25979
25980
25981
25982
25983
25984
25985
25986
25987
25988
25989
25990
25991
25992
25993
25994
25995
25996
25997
25998
25999
26000
26001
26002
26003
26004
26005
26006
26007
26008
26009
26010
26011
26012
26013
26014
26015
26016
26017
26018
26019
26020
26021
26022
26023
26024
26025
26026
26027
26028
26029
26030
26031
26032
26033
26034
26035
26036
26037
26038
26039
26040
26041
26042
26043
26044
26045
26046
26047
26048
26049
26050
26051
26052
26053
26054
26055
26056
26057
26058
26059
26060
26061
26062
26063
26064
26065
26066
26067
26068
26069
26070
26071
26072
26073
26074
26075
26076
26077
26078
26079
26080
26081
26082
26083
26084
26085
26086
26087
26088
26089
26090
26091
26092
26093
26094
26095
26096
26097
26098
26099
26100
26101
26102
26103
26104
26105
26106
26107
26108
26109
26110
26111
26112
26113
26114
26115
26116
26117
26118
26119
26120
26121
26122
26123
26124
26125
26126
26127
26128
26129
26130
26131
26132
26133
26134
26135
26136
26137
26138
26139
26140
26141
26142
26143
26144
26145
26146
26147
26148
26149
26150
26151
26152
26153
26154
26155
26156
26157
26158
26159
26160
26161
26162
26163
26164
26165
26166
26167
26168
26169
26170
26171
26172
26173
26174
26175
26176
26177
26178
26179
26180
26181
26182
26183
26184
26185
26186
26187
26188
26189
26190
26191
26192
26193
26194
26195
26196
26197
26198
26199
26200
26201
26202
26203
26204
26205
26206
26207
26208
26209
26210
26211
26212
26213
26214
26215
26216
26217
26218
26219
26220
26221
26222
26223
26224
26225
26226
26227
26228
26229
26230
26231
26232
26233
26234
26235
26236
26237
26238
26239
26240
26241
26242
26243
26244
26245
26246
26247
26248
26249
26250
26251
26252
26253
26254
26255
26256
26257
26258
26259
26260
26261
26262
26263
26264
26265
26266
26267
26268
26269
26270
26271
26272
26273
26274
26275
26276
26277
26278
26279
26280
26281
26282
26283
26284
26285
26286
26287
26288
26289
26290
26291
26292
26293
26294
26295
26296
26297
26298
26299
26300
26301
26302
26303
26304
26305
26306
26307
26308
26309
26310
26311
26312
26313
26314
26315
26316
26317
26318
26319
26320
26321
26322
26323
26324
26325
26326
26327
26328
26329
26330
26331
26332
26333
26334
26335
26336
26337
26338
26339
26340
26341
26342
26343
26344
26345
26346
26347
26348
26349
26350
26351
26352
26353
26354
26355
26356
26357
26358
26359
26360
26361
26362
26363
26364
26365
26366
26367
26368
26369
26370
26371
26372
26373
26374
26375
26376
26377
26378
26379
26380
26381
26382
26383
26384
26385
26386
26387
26388
26389
26390
26391
26392
26393
26394
26395
26396
26397
26398
26399
26400
26401
26402
26403
26404
26405
26406
26407
26408
26409
26410
26411
26412
26413
26414
26415
26416
26417
26418
26419
26420
26421
26422
26423
26424
26425
26426
26427
26428
26429
26430
26431
26432
26433
26434
26435
26436
26437
26438
26439
26440
26441
26442
26443
26444
26445
26446
26447
26448
26449
26450
26451
26452
26453
26454
26455
26456
26457
26458
26459
26460
26461
26462
26463
26464
26465
26466
26467
26468
26469
26470
26471
26472
26473
26474
26475
26476
26477
26478
26479
26480
26481
26482
26483
26484
26485
26486
26487
26488
26489
26490
26491
26492
26493
26494
26495
26496
26497
26498
26499
26500
26501
26502
26503
26504
26505
26506
26507
26508
26509
26510
26511
26512
26513
26514
26515
26516
26517
26518
26519
26520
26521
26522
26523
26524
26525
26526
26527
26528
26529
26530
26531
26532
26533
26534
26535
26536
26537
26538
26539
26540
26541
26542
26543
26544
26545
26546
26547
26548
26549
26550
26551
26552
26553
26554
26555
26556
26557
26558
26559
26560
26561
26562
26563
26564
26565
26566
26567
26568
26569
26570
26571
26572
26573
26574
26575
26576
26577
26578
26579
26580
26581
26582
26583
26584
26585
26586
26587
26588
26589
26590
26591
26592
26593
26594
26595
26596
26597
26598
26599
26600
26601
26602
26603
26604
26605
26606
26607
26608
26609
26610
26611
26612
26613
26614
26615
26616
26617
26618
26619
26620
26621
26622
26623
26624
26625
26626
26627
26628
26629
26630
26631
26632
26633
26634
26635
26636
26637
26638
26639
26640
26641
26642
26643
26644
26645
26646
26647
26648
26649
26650
26651
26652
26653
26654
26655
26656
26657
26658
26659
26660
26661
26662
26663
26664
26665
26666
26667
26668
26669
26670
26671
26672
26673
26674
26675
26676
26677
26678
26679
26680
26681
26682
26683
26684
26685
26686
26687
26688
26689
26690
26691
26692
26693
26694
26695
26696
26697
26698
26699
26700
26701
26702
26703
26704
26705
26706
26707
26708
26709
26710
26711
26712
26713
26714
26715
26716
26717
26718
26719
26720
26721
26722
26723
26724
26725
26726
26727
26728
26729
26730
26731
26732
26733
26734
26735
26736
26737
26738
26739
26740
26741
26742
26743
26744
26745
26746
26747
26748
26749
26750
26751
26752
26753
26754
26755
26756
26757
26758
26759
26760
26761
26762
26763
26764
26765
26766
26767
26768
26769
26770
26771
26772
26773
26774
26775
26776
26777
26778
26779
26780
26781
26782
26783
26784
26785
26786
26787
26788
26789
26790
26791
26792
26793
26794
26795
26796
26797
26798
26799
26800
26801
26802
26803
26804
26805
26806
26807
26808
26809
26810
26811
26812
26813
26814
26815
26816
26817
26818
26819
26820
26821
26822
26823
26824
26825
26826
26827
26828
26829
26830
26831
26832
26833
26834
26835
26836
26837
26838
26839
26840
26841
26842
26843
26844
26845
26846
26847
26848
26849
26850
26851
26852
26853
26854
26855
26856
26857
26858
26859
26860
26861
26862
26863
26864
26865
26866
26867
26868
26869
26870
26871
26872
26873
26874
26875
26876
26877
26878
26879
26880
26881
26882
26883
26884
26885
26886
26887
26888
26889
26890
26891
26892
26893
26894
26895
26896
26897
26898
26899
26900
26901
26902
26903
26904
26905
26906
26907
26908
26909
26910
26911
26912
26913
26914
26915
26916
26917
26918
26919
26920
26921
26922
26923
26924
26925
26926
26927
26928
26929
26930
26931
26932
26933
26934
26935
26936
26937
26938
26939
26940
26941
26942
26943
26944
26945
26946
26947
26948
26949
26950
26951
26952
26953
26954
26955
26956
26957
26958
26959
26960
26961
26962
26963
26964
26965
26966
26967
26968
26969
26970
26971
26972
26973
26974
26975
26976
26977
26978
26979
26980
26981
26982
26983
26984
26985
26986
26987
26988
26989
26990
26991
26992
26993
26994
26995
26996
26997
26998
26999
27000
27001
27002
27003
27004
27005
27006
27007
27008
27009
27010
27011
27012
27013
27014
27015
27016
27017
27018
27019
27020
27021
27022
27023
27024
27025
27026
27027
27028
27029
27030
27031
27032
27033
27034
27035
27036
27037
27038
27039
27040
27041
27042
27043
27044
27045
27046
27047
27048
27049
27050
27051
27052
27053
27054
27055
27056
27057
27058
27059
27060
27061
27062
27063
27064
27065
27066
27067
27068
27069
27070
27071
27072
27073
27074
27075
27076
27077
27078
27079
27080
27081
27082
27083
27084
27085
27086
27087
27088
27089
27090
27091
27092
27093
27094
27095
27096
27097
27098
27099
27100
27101
27102
27103
27104
27105
27106
27107
27108
27109
27110
27111
27112
27113
27114
27115
27116
27117
27118
27119
27120
27121
27122
27123
27124
27125
27126
27127
27128
27129
27130
27131
27132
27133
27134
27135
27136
27137
27138
27139
27140
27141
27142
27143
27144
27145
27146
27147
27148
27149
27150
27151
27152
27153
27154
27155
27156
27157
27158
27159
27160
27161
27162
27163
27164
27165
27166
27167
27168
27169
27170
27171
27172
27173
27174
27175
27176
27177
27178
27179
27180
27181
27182
27183
27184
27185
27186
27187
27188
27189
27190
27191
27192
27193
27194
27195
27196
27197
27198
27199
27200
27201
27202
27203
27204
27205
27206
27207
27208
27209
27210
27211
27212
27213
27214
27215
27216
27217
27218
27219
27220
27221
27222
27223
27224
27225
27226
27227
27228
27229
27230
27231
27232
27233
27234
27235
27236
27237
27238
27239
27240
27241
27242
27243
27244
27245
27246
27247
27248
27249
27250
27251
27252
27253
27254
27255
27256
27257
27258
27259
27260
27261
27262
27263
27264
27265
27266
27267
27268
27269
27270
27271
27272
27273
27274
27275
27276
27277
27278
27279
27280
27281
27282
27283
27284
27285
27286
27287
27288
27289
27290
27291
27292
27293
27294
27295
27296
27297
27298
27299
27300
27301
27302
27303
27304
27305
27306
27307
27308
27309
27310
27311
27312
27313
27314
27315
27316
27317
27318
27319
27320
27321
27322
27323
27324
27325
27326
27327
27328
27329
27330
27331
27332
27333
27334
27335
27336
27337
27338
27339
27340
27341
27342
27343
27344
27345
27346
27347
27348
27349
27350
27351
27352
27353
27354
27355
27356
27357
27358
27359
27360
27361
27362
27363
27364
27365
27366
27367
27368
27369
27370
27371
27372
27373
27374
27375
27376
27377
27378
27379
27380
27381
27382
27383
27384
27385
27386
27387
27388
27389
27390
27391
27392
27393
27394
27395
27396
27397
27398
27399
27400
27401
27402
27403
27404
27405
27406
27407
27408
27409
27410
27411
27412
27413
27414
27415
27416
27417
27418
27419
27420
27421
27422
27423
27424
27425
27426
27427
27428
27429
27430
27431
27432
27433
27434
27435
27436
27437
27438
27439
27440
27441
27442
27443
27444
27445
27446
27447
27448
27449
27450
27451
27452
27453
27454
27455
27456
27457
27458
27459
27460
27461
27462
27463
27464
27465
27466
27467
27468
27469
27470
27471
27472
27473
27474
27475
27476
27477
27478
27479
27480
27481
27482
27483
27484
27485
27486
27487
27488
27489
27490
27491
27492
27493
27494
27495
27496
27497
27498
27499
27500
27501
27502
27503
27504
27505
27506
27507
27508
27509
27510
27511
27512
27513
27514
27515
27516
27517
27518
27519
27520
27521
27522
27523
27524
27525
27526
27527
27528
27529
27530
27531
27532
27533
27534
27535
27536
27537
27538
27539
27540
27541
27542
27543
27544
27545
27546
27547
27548
27549
27550
27551
27552
27553
27554
27555
27556
27557
27558
27559
27560
27561
27562
27563
27564
27565
27566
27567
27568
27569
27570
27571
27572
27573
27574
27575
27576
27577
27578
27579
27580
27581
27582
27583
27584
27585
27586
27587
27588
27589
27590
27591
27592
27593
27594
27595
27596
27597
27598
27599
27600
27601
27602
27603
27604
27605
27606
27607
27608
27609
27610
27611
27612
27613
27614
27615
27616
27617
27618
27619
27620
27621
27622
27623
27624
27625
27626
27627
27628
27629
27630
27631
27632
27633
27634
27635
27636
27637
27638
27639
27640
27641
27642
27643
27644
27645
27646
27647
27648
27649
27650
27651
27652
27653
27654
27655
27656
27657
27658
27659
27660
27661
27662
27663
27664
27665
27666
27667
27668
27669
27670
27671
27672
27673
27674
27675
27676
27677
27678
27679
27680
27681
27682
27683
27684
27685
27686
27687
27688
27689
27690
27691
27692
27693
27694
27695
27696
27697
27698
27699
27700
27701
27702
27703
27704
27705
27706
27707
27708
27709
27710
27711
27712
27713
27714
27715
27716
27717
27718
27719
27720
27721
27722
27723
27724
27725
27726
27727
27728
27729
27730
27731
27732
27733
27734
27735
27736
27737
27738
27739
27740
27741
27742
27743
27744
27745
27746
27747
27748
27749
27750
27751
27752
27753
27754
27755
27756
27757
27758
27759
27760
27761
27762
27763
27764
27765
27766
27767
27768
27769
27770
27771
27772
27773
27774
27775
27776
27777
27778
27779
27780
27781
27782
27783
27784
27785
27786
27787
27788
27789
27790
27791
27792
27793
27794
27795
27796
27797
27798
27799
27800
27801
27802
27803
27804
27805
27806
27807
27808
27809
27810
27811
27812
27813
27814
27815
27816
27817
27818
27819
27820
27821
27822
27823
27824
27825
27826
27827
27828
27829
27830
27831
27832
27833
27834
27835
27836
27837
27838
27839
27840
27841
27842
27843
27844
27845
27846
27847
27848
27849
27850
27851
27852
27853
27854
27855
27856
27857
27858
27859
27860
27861
27862
27863
27864
27865
27866
27867
27868
27869
27870
27871
27872
27873
27874
27875
27876
27877
27878
27879
27880
27881
27882
27883
27884
27885
27886
27887
27888
27889
27890
27891
27892
27893
27894
27895
27896
27897
27898
27899
27900
27901
27902
27903
27904
27905
27906
27907
27908
27909
27910
27911
27912
27913
27914
27915
27916
27917
27918
27919
27920
27921
27922
27923
27924
27925
27926
27927
27928
27929
27930
27931
27932
27933
27934
27935
27936
27937
27938
27939
27940
27941
27942
27943
27944
27945
27946
27947
27948
27949
27950
27951
27952
27953
27954
27955
27956
27957
27958
27959
27960
27961
27962
27963
27964
27965
27966
27967
27968
27969
27970
27971
27972
27973
27974
27975
27976
27977
27978
27979
27980
27981
27982
27983
27984
27985
27986
27987
27988
27989
27990
27991
27992
27993
27994
27995
27996
27997
27998
27999
28000
28001
28002
28003
28004
28005
28006
28007
28008
28009
28010
28011
28012
28013
28014
28015
28016
28017
28018
28019
28020
28021
28022
28023
28024
28025
28026
28027
28028
28029
28030
28031
28032
28033
28034
28035
28036
28037
28038
28039
28040
28041
28042
28043
28044
28045
28046
28047
28048
28049
28050
28051
28052
28053
28054
28055
28056
28057
28058
28059
28060
28061
28062
28063
28064
28065
28066
28067
28068
28069
28070
28071
28072
28073
28074
28075
28076
28077
28078
28079
28080
28081
28082
28083
28084
28085
28086
28087
28088
28089
28090
28091
28092
28093
28094
28095
28096
28097
28098
28099
28100
28101
28102
28103
28104
28105
28106
28107
28108
28109
28110
28111
28112
28113
28114
28115
28116
28117
28118
28119
28120
28121
28122
28123
28124
28125
28126
28127
28128
28129
28130
28131
28132
28133
28134
28135
28136
28137
28138
28139
28140
28141
28142
28143
28144
28145
28146
28147
28148
28149
28150
28151
28152
28153
28154
28155
28156
28157
28158
28159
28160
28161
28162
28163
28164
28165
28166
28167
28168
28169
28170
28171
28172
28173
28174
28175
28176
28177
28178
28179
28180
28181
28182
28183
28184
28185
28186
28187
28188
28189
28190
28191
28192
28193
28194
28195
28196
28197
28198
28199
28200
28201
28202
28203
28204
28205
28206
28207
28208
28209
28210
28211
28212
28213
28214
28215
28216
28217
28218
28219
28220
28221
28222
28223
28224
28225
28226
28227
28228
28229
28230
28231
28232
28233
28234
28235
28236
28237
28238
28239
28240
28241
28242
28243
28244
28245
28246
28247
28248
28249
28250
28251
28252
28253
28254
28255
28256
28257
28258
28259
28260
28261
28262
28263
28264
28265
28266
28267
28268
28269
28270
28271
28272
28273
28274
28275
28276
28277
28278
28279
28280
28281
28282
28283
28284
28285
28286
28287
28288
28289
28290
28291
28292
28293
28294
28295
28296
28297
28298
28299
28300
28301
28302
28303
28304
28305
28306
28307
28308
28309
28310
28311
28312
28313
28314
28315
28316
28317
28318
28319
28320
28321
28322
28323
28324
28325
28326
28327
28328
28329
28330
28331
28332
28333
28334
28335
28336
28337
28338
28339
28340
28341
28342
28343
28344
28345
28346
28347
28348
28349
28350
28351
28352
28353
28354
28355
28356
28357
28358
28359
28360
28361
28362
28363
28364
28365
28366
28367
28368
28369
28370
28371
28372
28373
28374
28375
28376
28377
28378
28379
28380
28381
28382
28383
28384
28385
28386
28387
28388
28389
28390
28391
28392
28393
28394
28395
28396
28397
28398
28399
28400
28401
28402
28403
28404
28405
28406
28407
28408
28409
28410
28411
28412
28413
28414
28415
28416
28417
28418
28419
28420
28421
28422
28423
28424
28425
28426
28427
28428
28429
28430
28431
28432
28433
28434
28435
28436
28437
28438
28439
28440
28441
28442
28443
28444
28445
28446
28447
28448
28449
28450
28451
28452
28453
28454
28455
28456
28457
28458
28459
28460
28461
28462
28463
28464
28465
28466
28467
28468
28469
28470
28471
28472
28473
28474
28475
28476
28477
28478
28479
28480
28481
28482
28483
28484
28485
28486
28487
28488
28489
28490
28491
28492
28493
28494
28495
28496
28497
28498
28499
28500
28501
28502
28503
28504
28505
28506
28507
28508
28509
28510
28511
28512
28513
28514
28515
28516
28517
28518
28519
28520
28521
28522
28523
28524
28525
28526
28527
28528
28529
28530
28531
28532
28533
28534
28535
28536
28537
28538
28539
28540
28541
28542
28543
28544
28545
28546
28547
28548
28549
28550
28551
28552
28553
28554
28555
28556
28557
28558
28559
28560
28561
28562
28563
28564
28565
28566
28567
28568
28569
28570
28571
28572
28573
28574
28575
28576
28577
28578
28579
28580
28581
28582
28583
28584
28585
28586
28587
28588
28589
28590
28591
28592
28593
28594
28595
28596
28597
28598
28599
28600
28601
28602
28603
28604
28605
28606
28607
28608
28609
28610
28611
28612
28613
28614
28615
28616
28617
28618
28619
28620
28621
28622
28623
28624
28625
28626
28627
28628
28629
28630
28631
28632
28633
28634
28635
28636
28637
28638
28639
28640
28641
28642
28643
28644
28645
28646
28647
28648
28649
28650
28651
28652
28653
28654
28655
28656
28657
28658
28659
28660
28661
28662
28663
28664
28665
28666
28667
28668
28669
28670
28671
28672
28673
28674
28675
28676
28677
28678
28679
28680
28681
28682
28683
28684
28685
28686
28687
28688
28689
28690
28691
28692
28693
28694
28695
28696
28697
28698
28699
28700
28701
28702
28703
28704
28705
28706
28707
28708
28709
28710
28711
28712
28713
28714
28715
28716
28717
28718
28719
28720
28721
28722
28723
28724
28725
28726
28727
28728
28729
28730
28731
28732
28733
28734
28735
28736
28737
28738
28739
28740
28741
28742
28743
28744
28745
28746
28747
28748
28749
28750
28751
28752
28753
28754
28755
28756
28757
28758
28759
28760
28761
28762
28763
28764
28765
28766
28767
28768
28769
28770
28771
28772
28773
28774
28775
28776
28777
28778
28779
28780
28781
28782
28783
28784
28785
28786
28787
28788
28789
28790
28791
28792
28793
28794
28795
28796
28797
28798
28799
28800
28801
28802
28803
28804
28805
28806
28807
28808
28809
28810
28811
28812
28813
28814
28815
28816
28817
28818
28819
28820
28821
28822
28823
28824
28825
28826
28827
28828
28829
28830
28831
28832
28833
28834
28835
28836
28837
28838
28839
28840
28841
28842
28843
28844
28845
28846
28847
28848
28849
28850
28851
28852
28853
28854
28855
28856
28857
28858
28859
28860
28861
28862
28863
28864
28865
28866
28867
28868
28869
28870
28871
28872
28873
28874
28875
28876
28877
28878
28879
28880
28881
28882
28883
28884
28885
28886
28887
28888
28889
28890
28891
28892
28893
28894
28895
28896
28897
28898
28899
28900
28901
28902
28903
28904
28905
28906
28907
28908
28909
28910
28911
28912
28913
28914
28915
28916
28917
28918
28919
28920
28921
28922
28923
28924
28925
28926
28927
28928
28929
28930
28931
28932
28933
28934
28935
28936
28937
28938
28939
28940
28941
28942
28943
28944
28945
28946
28947
28948
28949
28950
28951
28952
28953
28954
28955
28956
28957
28958
28959
28960
28961
28962
28963
28964
28965
28966
28967
28968
28969
28970
28971
28972
28973
28974
28975
28976
28977
28978
28979
28980
28981
28982
28983
28984
28985
28986
28987
28988
28989
28990
28991
28992
28993
28994
28995
28996
28997
28998
28999
29000
29001
29002
29003
29004
29005
29006
29007
29008
29009
29010
29011
29012
29013
29014
29015
29016
29017
29018
29019
29020
29021
29022
29023
29024
29025
29026
29027
29028
29029
29030
29031
29032
29033
29034
29035
29036
29037
29038
29039
29040
29041
29042
29043
29044
29045
29046
29047
29048
29049
29050
29051
29052
29053
29054
29055
29056
29057
29058
29059
29060
29061
29062
29063
29064
29065
29066
29067
29068
29069
29070
29071
29072
29073
29074
29075
29076
29077
29078
29079
29080
29081
29082
29083
29084
29085
29086
29087
29088
29089
29090
29091
29092
29093
29094
29095
29096
29097
29098
29099
29100
29101
29102
29103
29104
29105
29106
29107
29108
29109
29110
29111
29112
29113
29114
29115
29116
29117
29118
29119
29120
29121
29122
29123
29124
29125
29126
29127
29128
29129
29130
29131
29132
29133
29134
29135
29136
29137
29138
29139
29140
29141
29142
29143
29144
29145
29146
29147
29148
29149
29150
29151
29152
29153
29154
29155
29156
29157
29158
29159
29160
29161
29162
29163
29164
29165
29166
29167
29168
29169
29170
29171
29172
29173
29174
29175
29176
29177
29178
29179
29180
29181
29182
29183
29184
29185
29186
29187
29188
29189
29190
29191
29192
29193
29194
29195
29196
29197
29198
29199
29200
29201
29202
29203
29204
29205
29206
29207
29208
29209
29210
29211
29212
29213
29214
29215
29216
29217
29218
29219
29220
29221
29222
29223
29224
29225
29226
29227
29228
29229
29230
29231
29232
29233
29234
29235
29236
29237
29238
29239
29240
29241
29242
29243
29244
29245
29246
29247
29248
29249
29250
29251
29252
29253
29254
29255
29256
29257
29258
29259
29260
29261
29262
29263
29264
29265
29266
29267
29268
29269
29270
29271
29272
29273
29274
29275
29276
29277
29278
29279
29280
29281
29282
29283
29284
29285
29286
29287
29288
29289
29290
29291
29292
29293
29294
29295
29296
29297
29298
29299
29300
29301
29302
29303
29304
29305
29306
29307
29308
29309
29310
29311
29312
29313
29314
29315
29316
29317
29318
29319
29320
29321
29322
29323
29324
29325
29326
29327
29328
29329
29330
29331
29332
29333
29334
29335
29336
29337
29338
29339
29340
29341
29342
29343
29344
29345
29346
29347
29348
29349
29350
29351
29352
29353
29354
29355
29356
29357
29358
29359
29360
29361
29362
29363
29364
29365
29366
29367
29368
29369
29370
29371
29372
29373
29374
29375
29376
29377
29378
29379
29380
29381
29382
29383
29384
29385
29386
29387
29388
29389
29390
29391
29392
29393
29394
29395
29396
29397
29398
29399
29400
29401
29402
29403
29404
29405
29406
29407
29408
29409
29410
29411
29412
29413
29414
29415
29416
29417
29418
29419
29420
29421
29422
29423
29424
29425
29426
29427
29428
29429
29430
29431
29432
29433
29434
29435
29436
29437
29438
29439
29440
29441
29442
29443
29444
29445
29446
29447
29448
29449
29450
29451
29452
29453
29454
29455
29456
29457
29458
29459
29460
29461
29462
29463
29464
29465
29466
29467
29468
29469
29470
29471
29472
29473
29474
29475
29476
29477
29478
29479
29480
29481
29482
29483
29484
29485
29486
29487
29488
29489
29490
29491
29492
29493
29494
29495
29496
29497
29498
29499
29500
29501
29502
29503
29504
29505
29506
29507
29508
29509
29510
29511
29512
29513
29514
29515
29516
29517
29518
29519
29520
29521
29522
29523
29524
29525
29526
29527
29528
29529
29530
29531
29532
29533
29534
29535
29536
29537
29538
29539
29540
29541
29542
29543
29544
29545
29546
29547
29548
29549
29550
29551
29552
29553
29554
29555
29556
29557
29558
29559
29560
29561
29562
29563
29564
29565
29566
29567
29568
29569
29570
29571
29572
29573
29574
29575
29576
29577
29578
29579
29580
29581
29582
29583
29584
29585
29586
29587
29588
29589
29590
29591
29592
29593
29594
29595
29596
29597
29598
29599
29600
29601
29602
29603
29604
29605
29606
29607
29608
29609
29610
29611
29612
29613
29614
29615
29616
29617
29618
29619
29620
29621
29622
29623
29624
29625
29626
29627
29628
29629
29630
29631
29632
29633
29634
29635
29636
29637
29638
29639
29640
29641
29642
29643
29644
29645
29646
29647
29648
29649
29650
29651
29652
29653
29654
29655
29656
29657
29658
29659
29660
29661
29662
29663
29664
29665
29666
29667
29668
29669
29670
29671
29672
29673
29674
29675
29676
29677
29678
29679
29680
29681
29682
29683
29684
29685
29686
29687
29688
29689
29690
29691
29692
29693
29694
29695
29696
29697
29698
29699
29700
29701
29702
29703
29704
29705
29706
29707
29708
29709
29710
29711
29712
29713
29714
29715
29716
29717
29718
29719
29720
29721
29722
29723
29724
29725
29726
29727
29728
29729
29730
29731
29732
29733
29734
29735
29736
29737
29738
29739
29740
29741
29742
29743
29744
29745
29746
29747
29748
29749
29750
29751
29752
29753
29754
29755
29756
29757
29758
29759
29760
29761
29762
29763
29764
29765
29766
29767
29768
29769
29770
29771
29772
29773
29774
29775
29776
29777
29778
29779
29780
29781
29782
29783
29784
29785
29786
29787
29788
29789
29790
29791
29792
29793
29794
29795
29796
29797
29798
29799
29800
29801
29802
29803
29804
29805
29806
29807
29808
29809
29810
29811
29812
29813
29814
29815
29816
29817
29818
29819
29820
29821
29822
29823
29824
29825
29826
29827
29828
29829
29830
29831
29832
29833
29834
29835
29836
29837
29838
29839
29840
29841
29842
29843
29844
29845
29846
29847
29848
29849
29850
29851
29852
29853
29854
29855
29856
29857
29858
29859
29860
29861
29862
29863
29864
29865
29866
29867
29868
29869
29870
29871
29872
29873
29874
29875
29876
29877
29878
29879
29880
29881
29882
29883
29884
29885
29886
29887
29888
29889
29890
29891
29892
29893
29894
29895
29896
29897
29898
29899
29900
29901
29902
29903
29904
29905
29906
29907
29908
29909
29910
29911
29912
29913
29914
29915
29916
29917
29918
29919
29920
29921
29922
29923
29924
29925
29926
29927
29928
29929
29930
29931
29932
29933
29934
29935
29936
29937
29938
29939
29940
29941
29942
29943
29944
29945
29946
29947
29948
29949
29950
29951
29952
29953
29954
29955
29956
29957
29958
29959
29960
29961
29962
29963
29964
29965
29966
29967
29968
29969
29970
29971
29972
29973
29974
29975
29976
29977
29978
29979
29980
29981
29982
29983
29984
29985
29986
29987
29988
29989
29990
29991
29992
29993
29994
29995
29996
29997
29998
29999
30000
30001
30002
30003
30004
30005
30006
30007
30008
30009
30010
30011
30012
30013
30014
30015
30016
30017
30018
30019
30020
30021
30022
30023
30024
30025
30026
30027
30028
30029
30030
30031
30032
30033
30034
30035
30036
30037
30038
30039
30040
30041
30042
30043
30044
30045
30046
30047
30048
30049
30050
30051
30052
30053
30054
30055
30056
30057
30058
30059
30060
30061
30062
30063
30064
30065
30066
30067
30068
30069
30070
30071
30072
30073
30074
30075
30076
30077
30078
30079
30080
30081
30082
30083
30084
30085
30086
30087
30088
30089
30090
30091
30092
30093
30094
30095
30096
30097
30098
30099
30100
30101
30102
30103
30104
30105
30106
30107
30108
30109
30110
30111
30112
30113
30114
30115
30116
30117
30118
30119
30120
30121
30122
30123
30124
30125
30126
30127
30128
30129
30130
30131
30132
30133
30134
30135
30136
30137
30138
30139
30140
30141
30142
30143
30144
30145
30146
30147
30148
30149
30150
30151
30152
30153
30154
30155
30156
30157
30158
30159
30160
30161
30162
30163
30164
30165
30166
30167
30168
30169
30170
30171
30172
30173
30174
30175
30176
30177
30178
30179
30180
30181
30182
30183
30184
30185
30186
30187
30188
30189
30190
30191
30192
30193
30194
30195
30196
30197
30198
30199
30200
30201
30202
30203
30204
30205
30206
30207
30208
30209
30210
30211
30212
30213
30214
30215
30216
30217
30218
30219
30220
30221
30222
30223
30224
30225
30226
30227
30228
30229
30230
30231
30232
30233
30234
30235
30236
30237
30238
30239
30240
30241
30242
30243
30244
30245
30246
30247
30248
30249
30250
30251
30252
30253
30254
30255
30256
30257
30258
30259
30260
30261
30262
30263
30264
30265
30266
30267
30268
30269
30270
30271
30272
30273
30274
30275
30276
30277
30278
30279
30280
30281
30282
30283
30284
30285
30286
30287
30288
30289
30290
30291
30292
30293
30294
30295
30296
30297
30298
30299
30300
30301
30302
30303
30304
30305
30306
30307
30308
30309
30310
30311
30312
30313
30314
30315
30316
30317
30318
30319
30320
30321
30322
30323
30324
30325
30326
30327
30328
30329
30330
30331
30332
30333
30334
30335
30336
30337
30338
30339
30340
30341
30342
30343
30344
30345
30346
30347
30348
30349
30350
30351
30352
30353
30354
30355
30356
30357
30358
30359
30360
30361
30362
30363
30364
30365
30366
30367
30368
30369
30370
30371
30372
30373
30374
30375
30376
30377
30378
30379
30380
30381
30382
30383
30384
30385
30386
30387
30388
30389
30390
30391
30392
30393
30394
30395
30396
30397
30398
30399
30400
30401
30402
30403
30404
30405
30406
30407
30408
30409
30410
30411
30412
30413
30414
30415
30416
30417
30418
30419
30420
30421
30422
30423
30424
30425
30426
30427
30428
30429
30430
30431
30432
30433
30434
30435
30436
30437
30438
30439
30440
30441
30442
30443
30444
30445
30446
30447
30448
30449
30450
30451
30452
30453
30454
30455
30456
30457
30458
30459
30460
30461
30462
30463
30464
30465
30466
30467
30468
30469
30470
30471
30472
30473
30474
30475
30476
30477
30478
30479
30480
30481
30482
30483
30484
30485
30486
30487
30488
30489
30490
30491
30492
30493
30494
30495
30496
30497
30498
30499
30500
30501
30502
30503
30504
30505
30506
30507
30508
30509
30510
30511
30512
30513
30514
30515
30516
30517
30518
30519
30520
30521
30522
30523
30524
30525
30526
30527
30528
30529
30530
30531
30532
30533
30534
30535
30536
30537
30538
30539
30540
30541
30542
30543
30544
30545
30546
30547
30548
30549
30550
30551
30552
30553
30554
30555
30556
30557
30558
30559
30560
30561
30562
30563
30564
30565
30566
30567
30568
30569
30570
30571
30572
30573
30574
30575
30576
30577
30578
30579
30580
30581
30582
30583
30584
30585
30586
30587
30588
30589
30590
30591
30592
30593
30594
30595
30596
30597
30598
30599
30600
30601
30602
30603
30604
30605
30606
30607
30608
30609
30610
30611
30612
30613
30614
30615
30616
30617
30618
30619
30620
30621
30622
30623
30624
30625
30626
30627
30628
30629
30630
30631
30632
30633
30634
30635
30636
30637
30638
30639
30640
30641
30642
30643
30644
30645
30646
30647
30648
30649
30650
30651
30652
30653
30654
30655
30656
30657
30658
30659
30660
30661
30662
30663
30664
30665
30666
30667
30668
30669
30670
30671
30672
30673
30674
30675
30676
30677
30678
30679
30680
30681
30682
30683
30684
30685
30686
30687
30688
30689
30690
30691
30692
30693
30694
30695
30696
30697
30698
30699
30700
30701
30702
30703
30704
30705
30706
30707
30708
30709
30710
30711
30712
30713
30714
30715
30716
30717
30718
30719
30720
30721
30722
30723
30724
30725
30726
30727
30728
30729
30730
30731
30732
30733
30734
30735
30736
30737
30738
30739
30740
30741
30742
30743
30744
30745
30746
30747
30748
30749
30750
30751
30752
30753
30754
30755
30756
30757
30758
30759
30760
30761
30762
30763
30764
30765
30766
30767
30768
30769
30770
30771
30772
30773
30774
30775
30776
30777
30778
30779
30780
30781
30782
30783
30784
30785
30786
30787
30788
30789
30790
30791
30792
30793
30794
30795
30796
30797
30798
30799
30800
30801
30802
30803
30804
30805
30806
30807
30808
30809
30810
30811
30812
30813
30814
30815
30816
30817
30818
30819
30820
30821
30822
30823
30824
30825
30826
30827
30828
30829
30830
30831
30832
30833
30834
30835
30836
30837
30838
30839
30840
30841
30842
30843
30844
30845
30846
30847
30848
30849
30850
30851
30852
30853
30854
30855
30856
30857
30858
30859
30860
30861
30862
30863
30864
30865
30866
30867
30868
30869
30870
30871
30872
30873
30874
30875
30876
30877
30878
30879
30880
30881
30882
30883
30884
30885
30886
30887
30888
30889
30890
30891
30892
30893
30894
30895
30896
30897
30898
30899
30900
30901
30902
30903
30904
30905
30906
30907
30908
30909
30910
30911
30912
30913
30914
30915
30916
30917
30918
30919
30920
30921
30922
30923
30924
30925
30926
30927
30928
30929
30930
30931
30932
30933
30934
30935
30936
30937
30938
30939
30940
30941
30942
30943
30944
30945
30946
30947
30948
30949
30950
30951
30952
30953
30954
30955
30956
30957
30958
30959
30960
30961
30962
30963
30964
30965
30966
30967
30968
30969
30970
30971
30972
30973
30974
30975
30976
30977
30978
30979
30980
30981
30982
30983
30984
30985
30986
30987
30988
30989
30990
30991
30992
30993
30994
30995
30996
30997
30998
30999
31000
31001
31002
31003
31004
31005
31006
31007
31008
31009
31010
31011
31012
31013
31014
31015
31016
31017
31018
31019
31020
31021
31022
31023
31024
31025
31026
31027
31028
31029
31030
31031
31032
31033
31034
31035
31036
31037
31038
31039
31040
31041
31042
31043
31044
31045
31046
31047
31048
31049
31050
31051
31052
31053
31054
31055
31056
31057
31058
31059
31060
31061
31062
31063
31064
31065
31066
31067
31068
31069
31070
31071
31072
31073
31074
31075
31076
31077
31078
31079
31080
31081
31082
31083
31084
31085
31086
31087
31088
31089
31090
31091
31092
31093
31094
31095
31096
31097
31098
31099
31100
31101
31102
31103
31104
31105
31106
31107
31108
31109
31110
31111
31112
31113
31114
31115
31116
31117
31118
31119
31120
31121
31122
31123
31124
31125
31126
31127
31128
31129
31130
31131
31132
31133
31134
31135
31136
31137
31138
31139
31140
31141
31142
31143
31144
31145
31146
31147
31148
31149
31150
31151
31152
31153
31154
31155
31156
31157
31158
31159
31160
31161
31162
31163
31164
31165
31166
31167
31168
31169
31170
31171
31172
31173
31174
31175
31176
31177
31178
31179
31180
31181
31182
31183
31184
31185
31186
31187
31188
31189
31190
31191
31192
31193
31194
31195
31196
31197
31198
31199
31200
31201
31202
31203
31204
31205
31206
31207
31208
31209
31210
31211
31212
31213
31214
31215
31216
31217
31218
31219
31220
31221
31222
31223
31224
31225
31226
31227
31228
31229
31230
31231
31232
31233
31234
31235
31236
31237
31238
31239
31240
31241
31242
31243
31244
31245
31246
31247
31248
31249
31250
31251
31252
31253
31254
31255
31256
31257
31258
31259
31260
31261
31262
31263
31264
31265
31266
31267
31268
31269
31270
31271
31272
31273
31274
31275
31276
31277
31278
31279
31280
31281
31282
31283
31284
31285
31286
31287
31288
31289
31290
31291
31292
31293
31294
31295
31296
31297
31298
31299
31300
31301
31302
31303
31304
31305
31306
31307
31308
31309
31310
31311
31312
31313
31314
31315
31316
31317
31318
31319
31320
31321
31322
31323
31324
31325
31326
31327
31328
31329
31330
31331
31332
31333
31334
31335
31336
31337
31338
31339
31340
31341
31342
31343
31344
31345
31346
31347
31348
31349
31350
31351
31352
31353
31354
31355
31356
31357
31358
31359
31360
31361
31362
31363
31364
31365
31366
31367
31368
31369
31370
31371
31372
31373
31374
31375
31376
31377
31378
31379
31380
31381
31382
31383
31384
31385
31386
31387
31388
31389
31390
31391
31392
31393
31394
31395
31396
31397
31398
31399
31400
31401
31402
31403
31404
31405
31406
31407
31408
31409
31410
31411
31412
31413
31414
31415
31416
31417
31418
31419
31420
31421
31422
31423
31424
31425
31426
31427
31428
31429
31430
31431
31432
31433
31434
31435
31436
31437
31438
31439
31440
31441
31442
31443
31444
31445
31446
31447
31448
31449
31450
31451
31452
31453
31454
31455
31456
31457
31458
31459
31460
31461
31462
31463
31464
31465
31466
31467
31468
31469
31470
31471
31472
31473
31474
31475
31476
31477
31478
31479
31480
31481
31482
31483
31484
31485
31486
31487
31488
31489
31490
31491
31492
31493
31494
31495
31496
31497
31498
31499
31500
31501
31502
31503
31504
31505
31506
31507
31508
31509
31510
31511
31512
31513
31514
31515
31516
31517
31518
31519
31520
31521
31522
31523
31524
31525
31526
31527
31528
31529
31530
31531
31532
31533
31534
31535
31536
31537
31538
31539
31540
31541
31542
31543
31544
31545
31546
31547
31548
31549
31550
31551
31552
31553
31554
31555
31556
31557
31558
31559
31560
31561
31562
31563
31564
31565
31566
31567
31568
31569
31570
31571
31572
31573
31574
31575
31576
31577
31578
31579
31580
31581
31582
31583
31584
31585
31586
31587
31588
31589
31590
31591
31592
31593
31594
31595
31596
31597
31598
31599
31600
31601
31602
31603
31604
31605
31606
31607
31608
31609
31610
31611
31612
31613
31614
31615
31616
31617
31618
31619
31620
31621
31622
31623
31624
31625
31626
31627
31628
31629
31630
31631
31632
31633
31634
31635
31636
31637
31638
31639
31640
31641
31642
31643
31644
31645
31646
31647
31648
31649
31650
31651
31652
31653
31654
31655
31656
31657
31658
31659
31660
31661
31662
31663
31664
31665
31666
31667
31668
31669
31670
31671
31672
31673
31674
31675
31676
31677
31678
31679
31680
31681
31682
31683
31684
31685
31686
31687
31688
31689
31690
31691
31692
31693
31694
31695
31696
31697
31698
31699
31700
31701
31702
31703
31704
31705
31706
31707
31708
31709
31710
31711
31712
31713
31714
31715
31716
31717
31718
31719
31720
31721
31722
31723
31724
31725
31726
31727
31728
31729
31730
31731
31732
31733
31734
31735
31736
31737
31738
31739
31740
31741
31742
31743
31744
31745
31746
31747
31748
31749
31750
31751
31752
31753
31754
31755
31756
31757
31758
31759
31760
31761
31762
31763
31764
31765
31766
31767
31768
31769
31770
31771
31772
31773
31774
31775
31776
31777
31778
31779
31780
31781
31782
31783
31784
31785
31786
31787
31788
31789
31790
31791
31792
31793
31794
31795
31796
31797
31798
31799
31800
31801
31802
31803
31804
31805
31806
31807
31808
31809
31810
31811
31812
31813
31814
31815
31816
31817
31818
31819
31820
31821
31822
31823
31824
31825
31826
31827
31828
31829
31830
31831
31832
31833
31834
31835
31836
31837
31838
31839
31840
31841
31842
31843
31844
31845
31846
31847
31848
31849
31850
31851
31852
31853
31854
31855
31856
31857
31858
31859
31860
31861
31862
31863
31864
31865
31866
31867
31868
31869
31870
31871
31872
31873
31874
31875
31876
31877
31878
31879
31880
31881
31882
31883
31884
31885
31886
31887
31888
31889
31890
31891
31892
31893
31894
31895
31896
31897
31898
31899
31900
31901
31902
31903
31904
31905
31906
31907
31908
31909
31910
31911
31912
31913
31914
31915
31916
31917
31918
31919
31920
31921
31922
31923
31924
31925
31926
31927
31928
31929
31930
31931
31932
31933
31934
31935
31936
31937
31938
31939
31940
31941
31942
31943
31944
31945
31946
31947
31948
31949
31950
31951
31952
31953
31954
31955
31956
31957
31958
31959
31960
31961
31962
31963
31964
31965
31966
31967
31968
31969
31970
31971
31972
31973
31974
31975
31976
31977
31978
31979
31980
31981
31982
31983
31984
31985
31986
31987
31988
31989
31990
31991
31992
31993
31994
31995
31996
31997
31998
31999
32000
32001
32002
32003
32004
32005
32006
32007
32008
32009
32010
32011
32012
32013
32014
32015
32016
32017
32018
32019
32020
32021
32022
32023
32024
32025
32026
32027
32028
32029
32030
32031
32032
32033
32034
32035
32036
32037
32038
32039
32040
32041
32042
32043
32044
32045
32046
32047
32048
32049
32050
32051
32052
32053
32054
32055
32056
32057
32058
32059
32060
32061
32062
32063
32064
32065
32066
32067
32068
32069
32070
32071
32072
32073
32074
32075
32076
32077
32078
32079
32080
32081
32082
32083
32084
32085
32086
32087
32088
32089
32090
32091
32092
32093
32094
32095
32096
32097
32098
32099
32100
32101
32102
32103
32104
32105
32106
32107
32108
32109
32110
32111
32112
32113
32114
32115
32116
32117
32118
32119
32120
32121
32122
32123
32124
32125
32126
32127
32128
32129
32130
32131
32132
32133
32134
32135
32136
32137
32138
32139
32140
32141
32142
32143
32144
32145
32146
32147
32148
32149
32150
32151
32152
32153
32154
32155
32156
32157
32158
32159
32160
32161
32162
32163
32164
32165
32166
32167
32168
32169
32170
32171
32172
32173
32174
32175
32176
32177
32178
32179
32180
32181
32182
32183
32184
32185
32186
32187
32188
32189
32190
32191
32192
32193
32194
32195
32196
32197
32198
32199
32200
32201
32202
32203
32204
32205
32206
32207
32208
32209
32210
32211
32212
32213
32214
32215
32216
32217
32218
32219
32220
32221
32222
32223
32224
32225
32226
32227
32228
32229
32230
32231
32232
32233
32234
32235
32236
32237
32238
32239
32240
32241
32242
32243
32244
32245
32246
32247
32248
32249
32250
32251
32252
32253
32254
32255
32256
32257
32258
32259
32260
32261
32262
32263
32264
32265
32266
32267
32268
32269
32270
32271
32272
32273
32274
32275
32276
32277
32278
32279
32280
32281
32282
32283
32284
32285
32286
32287
32288
32289
32290
32291
32292
32293
32294
32295
32296
32297
32298
32299
32300
32301
32302
32303
32304
32305
32306
32307
32308
32309
32310
32311
32312
32313
32314
32315
32316
32317
32318
32319
32320
32321
32322
32323
32324
32325
32326
32327
32328
32329
32330
32331
32332
32333
32334
32335
32336
32337
32338
32339
32340
32341
32342
32343
32344
32345
32346
32347
32348
32349
32350
32351
32352
32353
32354
32355
32356
32357
32358
32359
32360
32361
32362
32363
32364
32365
32366
32367
32368
32369
32370
32371
32372
32373
32374
32375
32376
32377
32378
32379
32380
32381
32382
32383
32384
32385
32386
32387
32388
32389
32390
32391
32392
32393
32394
32395
32396
32397
32398
32399
32400
32401
32402
32403
32404
32405
32406
32407
32408
32409
32410
32411
32412
32413
32414
32415
32416
32417
32418
32419
32420
32421
32422
32423
32424
32425
32426
32427
32428
32429
32430
32431
32432
32433
32434
32435
32436
32437
32438
32439
32440
32441
32442
32443
32444
32445
32446
32447
32448
32449
32450
32451
32452
32453
32454
32455
32456
32457
32458
32459
32460
32461
32462
32463
32464
32465
32466
32467
32468
32469
32470
32471
32472
32473
32474
32475
32476
32477
32478
32479
32480
32481
32482
32483
32484
32485
32486
32487
32488
32489
32490
32491
32492
32493
32494
32495
32496
32497
32498
32499
32500
32501
32502
32503
32504
32505
32506
32507
32508
32509
32510
32511
32512
32513
32514
32515
32516
32517
32518
32519
32520
32521
32522
32523
32524
32525
32526
32527
32528
32529
32530
32531
32532
32533
32534
32535
32536
32537
32538
32539
32540
32541
32542
32543
32544
32545
32546
32547
32548
32549
32550
32551
32552
32553
32554
32555
32556
32557
32558
32559
32560
32561
32562
32563
32564
32565
32566
32567
32568
32569
32570
32571
32572
32573
32574
32575
32576
32577
32578
32579
32580
32581
32582
32583
32584
32585
32586
32587
32588
32589
32590
32591
32592
32593
32594
32595
32596
32597
32598
32599
32600
32601
32602
32603
32604
32605
32606
32607
32608
32609
32610
32611
32612
32613
32614
32615
32616
32617
32618
32619
32620
32621
32622
32623
32624
32625
32626
32627
32628
32629
32630
32631
32632
32633
32634
32635
32636
32637
32638
32639
32640
32641
32642
32643
32644
32645
32646
32647
32648
32649
32650
32651
32652
32653
32654
32655
32656
32657
32658
32659
32660
32661
32662
32663
32664
32665
32666
32667
32668
32669
32670
32671
32672
32673
32674
32675
32676
32677
32678
32679
32680
32681
32682
32683
32684
32685
32686
32687
32688
32689
32690
32691
32692
32693
32694
32695
32696
32697
32698
32699
32700
32701
32702
32703
32704
32705
32706
32707
32708
32709
32710
32711
32712
32713
32714
32715
32716
32717
32718
32719
32720
32721
32722
32723
32724
32725
32726
32727
32728
32729
32730
32731
32732
32733
32734
32735
32736
32737
32738
32739
32740
32741
32742
32743
32744
32745
32746
32747
32748
32749
32750
32751
32752
32753
32754
32755
32756
32757
32758
32759
32760
32761
32762
32763
32764
32765
32766
32767
32768
32769
32770
32771
32772
32773
32774
32775
32776
32777
32778
32779
32780
32781
32782
32783
32784
32785
32786
32787
32788
32789
32790
32791
32792
32793
32794
32795
32796
32797
32798
32799
32800
32801
32802
32803
32804
32805
32806
32807
32808
32809
32810
32811
32812
32813
32814
32815
32816
32817
32818
32819
32820
32821
32822
32823
32824
32825
32826
32827
32828
32829
32830
32831
32832
32833
32834
32835
32836
32837
32838
32839
32840
32841
32842
32843
32844
32845
32846
32847
32848
32849
32850
32851
32852
32853
32854
32855
32856
32857
32858
32859
32860
32861
32862
32863
32864
32865
32866
32867
32868
32869
32870
32871
32872
32873
32874
32875
32876
32877
32878
32879
32880
32881
32882
32883
32884
32885
32886
32887
32888
32889
32890
32891
32892
32893
32894
32895
32896
32897
32898
32899
32900
32901
32902
32903
32904
32905
32906
32907
32908
32909
32910
32911
32912
32913
32914
32915
32916
32917
32918
32919
32920
32921
32922
32923
32924
32925
32926
32927
32928
32929
32930
32931
32932
32933
32934
32935
32936
32937
32938
32939
32940
32941
32942
32943
32944
32945
32946
32947
32948
32949
32950
32951
32952
32953
32954
32955
32956
32957
32958
32959
32960
32961
32962
32963
32964
32965
32966
32967
32968
32969
32970
32971
32972
32973
32974
32975
32976
32977
32978
32979
32980
32981
32982
32983
32984
32985
32986
32987
32988
32989
32990
32991
32992
32993
32994
32995
32996
32997
32998
32999
33000
33001
33002
33003
33004
33005
33006
33007
33008
33009
33010
33011
33012
33013
33014
33015
33016
33017
33018
33019
33020
33021
33022
33023
33024
33025
33026
33027
33028
33029
33030
33031
33032
33033
33034
33035
33036
33037
33038
33039
33040
33041
33042
33043
33044
33045
33046
33047
33048
33049
33050
33051
33052
33053
33054
33055
33056
33057
33058
33059
33060
33061
33062
33063
33064
33065
33066
33067
33068
33069
33070
33071
33072
33073
33074
33075
33076
33077
33078
33079
33080
33081
33082
33083
33084
33085
33086
33087
33088
33089
33090
33091
33092
33093
33094
33095
33096
33097
33098
33099
33100
33101
33102
33103
33104
33105
33106
33107
33108
33109
33110
33111
33112
33113
33114
33115
33116
33117
33118
33119
33120
33121
33122
33123
33124
33125
33126
33127
33128
33129
33130
33131
33132
33133
33134
33135
33136
33137
33138
33139
33140
33141
33142
33143
33144
33145
33146
33147
33148
33149
33150
33151
33152
33153
33154
33155
33156
33157
33158
33159
33160
33161
33162
33163
33164
33165
33166
33167
33168
33169
33170
33171
33172
33173
33174
33175
33176
33177
33178
33179
33180
33181
33182
33183
33184
33185
33186
33187
33188
33189
33190
33191
33192
33193
33194
33195
33196
33197
33198
33199
33200
33201
33202
33203
33204
33205
33206
33207
33208
33209
33210
33211
33212
33213
33214
33215
33216
33217
33218
33219
33220
33221
33222
33223
33224
33225
33226
33227
33228
33229
33230
33231
33232
33233
33234
33235
33236
33237
33238
33239
33240
33241
33242
33243
33244
33245
33246
33247
33248
33249
33250
33251
33252
33253
33254
33255
33256
33257
33258
33259
33260
33261
33262
33263
33264
33265
33266
33267
33268
33269
33270
33271
33272
33273
33274
33275
33276
33277
33278
33279
33280
33281
33282
33283
33284
33285
33286
33287
33288
33289
33290
33291
33292
33293
33294
33295
33296
33297
33298
33299
33300
33301
33302
33303
33304
33305
33306
33307
33308
33309
33310
33311
33312
33313
33314
33315
33316
33317
33318
33319
33320
33321
33322
33323
33324
33325
33326
33327
33328
33329
33330
33331
33332
33333
33334
33335
33336
33337
33338
33339
33340
33341
33342
33343
33344
33345
33346
33347
33348
33349
33350
33351
33352
33353
33354
33355
33356
33357
33358
33359
33360
33361
33362
33363
33364
33365
33366
33367
33368
33369
33370
33371
33372
33373
33374
33375
33376
33377
33378
33379
33380
33381
33382
33383
33384
33385
33386
33387
33388
33389
33390
33391
33392
33393
33394
33395
33396
33397
33398
33399
33400
33401
33402
33403
33404
33405
33406
33407
33408
33409
33410
33411
33412
33413
33414
33415
33416
33417
33418
33419
33420
33421
33422
33423
33424
33425
33426
33427
33428
33429
33430
33431
33432
33433
33434
33435
33436
33437
33438
33439
33440
33441
33442
33443
33444
33445
33446
33447
33448
33449
33450
33451
33452
33453
33454
33455
33456
33457
33458
33459
33460
33461
33462
33463
33464
33465
33466
33467
33468
33469
33470
33471
33472
33473
33474
33475
33476
33477
33478
33479
33480
33481
33482
33483
33484
33485
33486
33487
33488
33489
33490
33491
33492
33493
33494
33495
33496
33497
33498
33499
33500
33501
33502
33503
33504
33505
33506
33507
33508
33509
33510
33511
33512
33513
33514
33515
33516
33517
33518
33519
33520
33521
33522
33523
33524
33525
33526
33527
33528
33529
33530
33531
33532
33533
33534
33535
33536
33537
33538
33539
33540
33541
33542
33543
33544
33545
33546
33547
33548
33549
33550
33551
33552
33553
33554
33555
33556
33557
33558
33559
33560
33561
33562
33563
33564
33565
33566
33567
33568
33569
33570
33571
33572
33573
33574
33575
33576
33577
33578
33579
33580
33581
33582
33583
33584
33585
33586
33587
33588
33589
33590
33591
33592
33593
33594
33595
33596
33597
33598
33599
33600
33601
33602
33603
33604
33605
33606
33607
33608
33609
33610
33611
33612
33613
33614
33615
33616
33617
33618
33619
33620
33621
33622
33623
33624
33625
33626
33627
33628
33629
33630
33631
33632
33633
33634
33635
33636
33637
33638
33639
33640
33641
33642
33643
33644
33645
33646
33647
33648
33649
33650
33651
33652
33653
33654
33655
33656
33657
33658
33659
33660
33661
33662
33663
33664
33665
33666
33667
33668
33669
33670
33671
33672
33673
33674
33675
33676
33677
33678
33679
33680
33681
33682
33683
33684
33685
33686
33687
33688
33689
33690
33691
33692
33693
33694
33695
33696
33697
33698
33699
33700
33701
33702
33703
33704
33705
33706
33707
33708
33709
33710
33711
33712
33713
33714
33715
33716
33717
33718
33719
33720
33721
33722
33723
33724
33725
33726
33727
33728
33729
33730
33731
33732
33733
33734
33735
33736
33737
33738
33739
33740
33741
33742
33743
33744
33745
33746
33747
33748
33749
33750
33751
33752
33753
33754
33755
33756
33757
33758
33759
33760
33761
33762
33763
33764
33765
33766
33767
33768
33769
33770
33771
33772
33773
33774
33775
33776
33777
33778
33779
33780
33781
33782
33783
33784
33785
33786
33787
33788
33789
33790
33791
33792
33793
33794
33795
33796
33797
33798
33799
33800
33801
33802
33803
33804
33805
33806
33807
33808
33809
33810
33811
33812
33813
33814
33815
33816
33817
33818
33819
33820
33821
33822
33823
33824
33825
33826
33827
33828
33829
33830
33831
33832
33833
33834
33835
33836
33837
33838
33839
33840
33841
33842
33843
33844
33845
33846
33847
33848
33849
33850
33851
33852
33853
33854
33855
33856
33857
33858
33859
33860
33861
33862
33863
33864
33865
33866
33867
33868
33869
33870
33871
33872
33873
33874
33875
33876
33877
33878
33879
33880
33881
33882
33883
33884
33885
33886
33887
33888
33889
33890
33891
33892
33893
33894
33895
33896
33897
33898
33899
33900
33901
33902
33903
33904
33905
33906
33907
33908
33909
33910
33911
33912
33913
33914
33915
33916
33917
33918
33919
33920
33921
33922
33923
33924
33925
33926
33927
33928
33929
33930
33931
33932
33933
33934
33935
33936
33937
33938
33939
33940
33941
33942
33943
33944
33945
33946
33947
33948
33949
33950
33951
33952
33953
33954
33955
33956
33957
33958
33959
33960
33961
33962
33963
33964
33965
33966
33967
33968
33969
33970
33971
33972
33973
33974
33975
33976
33977
33978
33979
33980
33981
33982
33983
33984
33985
33986
33987
33988
33989
33990
33991
33992
33993
33994
33995
33996
33997
33998
33999
34000
34001
34002
34003
34004
34005
34006
34007
34008
34009
34010
34011
34012
34013
34014
34015
34016
34017
34018
34019
34020
34021
34022
34023
34024
34025
34026
34027
34028
34029
34030
34031
34032
34033
34034
34035
34036
34037
34038
34039
34040
34041
34042
34043
34044
34045
34046
34047
34048
34049
34050
34051
34052
34053
34054
34055
34056
34057
34058
34059
34060
34061
34062
34063
34064
34065
34066
34067
34068
34069
34070
34071
34072
34073
34074
34075
34076
34077
34078
34079
34080
34081
34082
34083
34084
34085
34086
34087
34088
34089
34090
34091
34092
34093
34094
34095
34096
34097
34098
34099
34100
34101
34102
34103
34104
34105
34106
34107
34108
34109
34110
34111
34112
34113
34114
34115
34116
34117
34118
34119
34120
34121
34122
34123
34124
34125
34126
34127
34128
34129
34130
34131
34132
34133
34134
34135
34136
34137
34138
34139
34140
34141
34142
34143
34144
34145
34146
34147
34148
34149
34150
34151
34152
34153
34154
34155
34156
34157
34158
34159
34160
34161
34162
34163
34164
34165
34166
34167
34168
34169
34170
34171
34172
34173
34174
34175
34176
34177
34178
34179
34180
34181
34182
34183
34184
34185
34186
34187
34188
34189
34190
34191
34192
34193
34194
34195
34196
34197
34198
34199
34200
34201
34202
34203
34204
34205
34206
34207
34208
34209
34210
34211
34212
34213
34214
34215
34216
34217
34218
34219
34220
34221
34222
34223
34224
34225
34226
34227
34228
34229
34230
34231
34232
34233
34234
34235
34236
34237
34238
34239
34240
34241
34242
34243
34244
34245
34246
34247
34248
34249
34250
34251
34252
34253
34254
34255
34256
34257
34258
34259
34260
34261
34262
34263
34264
34265
34266
34267
34268
34269
34270
34271
34272
34273
34274
34275
34276
34277
34278
34279
34280
34281
34282
34283
34284
34285
34286
34287
34288
34289
34290
34291
34292
34293
34294
34295
34296
34297
34298
34299
34300
34301
34302
34303
34304
34305
34306
34307
34308
34309
34310
34311
34312
34313
34314
34315
34316
34317
34318
34319
34320
34321
34322
34323
34324
34325
34326
34327
34328
34329
34330
34331
34332
34333
34334
34335
34336
34337
34338
34339
34340
34341
34342
34343
34344
34345
34346
34347
34348
34349
34350
34351
34352
34353
34354
34355
34356
34357
34358
34359
34360
34361
34362
34363
34364
34365
34366
34367
34368
34369
34370
34371
34372
34373
34374
34375
34376
34377
34378
34379
34380
34381
34382
34383
34384
34385
34386
34387
34388
34389
34390
34391
34392
34393
34394
34395
34396
34397
34398
34399
34400
34401
34402
34403
34404
34405
34406
34407
34408
34409
34410
34411
34412
34413
34414
34415
34416
34417
34418
34419
34420
34421
34422
34423
34424
34425
34426
34427
34428
34429
34430
34431
34432
34433
34434
34435
34436
34437
34438
34439
34440
34441
34442
34443
34444
34445
34446
34447
34448
34449
34450
34451
34452
34453
34454
34455
34456
34457
34458
34459
34460
34461
34462
34463
34464
34465
34466
34467
34468
34469
34470
34471
34472
34473
34474
34475
34476
34477
34478
34479
34480
34481
34482
34483
34484
34485
34486
34487
34488
34489
34490
34491
34492
34493
34494
34495
34496
34497
34498
34499
34500
34501
34502
34503
34504
34505
34506
34507
34508
34509
34510
34511
34512
34513
34514
34515
34516
34517
34518
34519
34520
34521
34522
34523
34524
34525
34526
34527
34528
34529
34530
34531
34532
34533
34534
34535
34536
34537
34538
34539
34540
34541
34542
34543
34544
34545
34546
34547
34548
34549
34550
34551
34552
34553
34554
34555
34556
34557
34558
34559
34560
34561
34562
34563
34564
34565
34566
34567
34568
34569
34570
34571
34572
34573
34574
34575
34576
34577
34578
34579
34580
34581
34582
34583
34584
34585
34586
34587
34588
34589
34590
34591
34592
34593
34594
34595
34596
34597
34598
34599
34600
34601
34602
34603
34604
34605
34606
34607
34608
34609
34610
34611
34612
34613
34614
34615
34616
34617
34618
34619
34620
34621
34622
34623
34624
34625
34626
34627
34628
34629
34630
34631
34632
34633
34634
34635
34636
34637
34638
34639
34640
34641
34642
34643
34644
34645
34646
34647
34648
34649
34650
34651
34652
34653
34654
34655
34656
34657
34658
34659
34660
34661
34662
34663
34664
34665
34666
34667
34668
34669
34670
34671
34672
34673
34674
34675
34676
34677
34678
34679
34680
34681
34682
34683
34684
34685
34686
34687
34688
34689
34690
34691
34692
34693
34694
34695
34696
34697
34698
34699
34700
34701
34702
34703
34704
34705
34706
34707
34708
34709
34710
34711
34712
34713
34714
34715
34716
34717
34718
34719
34720
34721
34722
34723
34724
34725
34726
34727
34728
34729
34730
34731
34732
34733
34734
34735
34736
34737
34738
34739
34740
34741
34742
34743
34744
34745
34746
34747
34748
34749
34750
34751
34752
34753
34754
34755
34756
34757
34758
34759
34760
34761
34762
34763
34764
34765
34766
34767
34768
34769
34770
34771
34772
34773
34774
34775
34776
34777
34778
34779
34780
34781
34782
34783
34784
34785
34786
34787
34788
34789
34790
34791
34792
34793
34794
34795
34796
34797
34798
34799
34800
34801
34802
34803
34804
34805
34806
34807
34808
34809
34810
34811
34812
34813
34814
34815
34816
34817
34818
34819
34820
34821
34822
34823
34824
34825
34826
34827
34828
34829
34830
34831
34832
34833
34834
34835
34836
34837
34838
34839
34840
34841
34842
34843
34844
34845
34846
34847
34848
34849
34850
34851
34852
34853
34854
34855
34856
34857
34858
34859
34860
34861
34862
34863
34864
34865
34866
34867
34868
34869
34870
34871
34872
34873
34874
34875
34876
34877
34878
34879
34880
34881
34882
34883
34884
34885
34886
34887
34888
34889
34890
34891
34892
34893
34894
34895
34896
34897
34898
34899
34900
34901
34902
34903
34904
34905
34906
34907
34908
34909
34910
34911
34912
34913
34914
34915
34916
34917
34918
34919
34920
34921
34922
34923
34924
34925
34926
34927
34928
34929
34930
34931
34932
34933
34934
34935
34936
34937
34938
34939
34940
34941
34942
34943
34944
34945
34946
34947
34948
34949
34950
34951
34952
34953
34954
34955
34956
34957
34958
34959
34960
34961
34962
34963
34964
34965
34966
34967
34968
34969
34970
34971
34972
34973
34974
34975
34976
34977
34978
34979
34980
34981
34982
34983
34984
34985
34986
34987
34988
34989
34990
34991
34992
34993
34994
34995
34996
34997
34998
34999
35000
35001
35002
35003
35004
35005
35006
35007
35008
35009
35010
35011
35012
35013
35014
35015
35016
35017
35018
35019
35020
35021
35022
35023
35024
35025
35026
35027
35028
35029
35030
35031
35032
35033
35034
35035
35036
35037
35038
35039
35040
35041
35042
35043
35044
35045
35046
35047
35048
35049
35050
35051
35052
35053
35054
35055
35056
35057
35058
35059
35060
35061
35062
35063
35064
35065
35066
35067
35068
35069
35070
35071
35072
35073
35074
35075
35076
35077
35078
35079
35080
35081
35082
35083
35084
35085
35086
35087
35088
35089
35090
35091
35092
35093
35094
35095
35096
35097
35098
35099
35100
35101
35102
35103
35104
35105
35106
35107
35108
35109
35110
35111
35112
35113
35114
35115
35116
35117
35118
35119
35120
35121
35122
35123
35124
35125
35126
35127
35128
35129
35130
35131
35132
35133
35134
35135
35136
35137
35138
35139
35140
35141
35142
35143
35144
35145
35146
35147
35148
35149
35150
35151
35152
35153
35154
35155
35156
35157
35158
35159
35160
35161
35162
35163
35164
35165
35166
35167
35168
35169
35170
35171
35172
35173
35174
35175
35176
35177
35178
35179
35180
35181
35182
35183
35184
35185
35186
35187
35188
35189
35190
35191
35192
35193
35194
35195
35196
35197
35198
35199
35200
35201
35202
35203
35204
35205
35206
35207
35208
35209
35210
35211
35212
35213
35214
35215
35216
35217
35218
35219
35220
35221
35222
35223
35224
35225
35226
35227
35228
35229
35230
35231
35232
35233
35234
35235
35236
35237
35238
35239
35240
35241
35242
35243
35244
35245
35246
35247
35248
35249
35250
35251
35252
35253
35254
35255
35256
35257
35258
35259
35260
35261
35262
35263
35264
35265
35266
35267
35268
35269
35270
35271
35272
35273
35274
35275
35276
35277
35278
35279
35280
35281
35282
35283
35284
35285
35286
35287
35288
35289
35290
35291
35292
35293
35294
35295
35296
35297
35298
35299
35300
35301
35302
35303
35304
35305
35306
35307
35308
35309
35310
35311
35312
35313
35314
35315
35316
35317
35318
35319
35320
35321
35322
35323
35324
35325
35326
35327
35328
35329
35330
35331
35332
35333
35334
35335
35336
35337
35338
35339
35340
35341
35342
35343
35344
35345
35346
35347
35348
35349
35350
35351
35352
35353
35354
35355
35356
35357
35358
35359
35360
35361
35362
35363
35364
35365
35366
35367
35368
35369
35370
35371
35372
35373
35374
35375
35376
35377
35378
35379
35380
35381
35382
35383
35384
35385
35386
35387
35388
35389
35390
35391
35392
35393
35394
35395
35396
35397
35398
35399
35400
35401
35402
35403
35404
35405
35406
35407
35408
35409
35410
35411
35412
35413
35414
35415
35416
35417
35418
35419
35420
35421
35422
35423
35424
35425
35426
35427
35428
35429
35430
35431
35432
35433
35434
35435
35436
35437
35438
35439
35440
35441
35442
35443
35444
35445
35446
35447
35448
35449
35450
35451
35452
35453
35454
35455
35456
35457
35458
35459
35460
35461
35462
35463
35464
35465
35466
35467
35468
35469
35470
35471
35472
35473
35474
35475
35476
35477
35478
35479
35480
35481
35482
35483
35484
35485
35486
35487
35488
35489
35490
35491
35492
35493
35494
35495
35496
35497
35498
35499
35500
35501
35502
35503
35504
35505
35506
35507
35508
35509
35510
35511
35512
35513
35514
35515
35516
35517
35518
35519
35520
35521
35522
35523
35524
35525
35526
35527
35528
35529
35530
35531
35532
35533
35534
35535
35536
35537
35538
35539
35540
35541
35542
35543
35544
35545
35546
35547
35548
35549
35550
35551
35552
35553
35554
35555
35556
35557
35558
35559
35560
35561
35562
35563
35564
35565
35566
35567
35568
35569
35570
35571
35572
35573
35574
35575
35576
35577
35578
35579
35580
35581
35582
35583
35584
35585
35586
35587
35588
35589
35590
35591
35592
35593
35594
35595
35596
35597
35598
35599
35600
35601
35602
35603
35604
35605
35606
35607
35608
35609
35610
35611
35612
35613
35614
35615
35616
35617
35618
35619
35620
35621
35622
35623
35624
35625
35626
35627
35628
35629
35630
35631
35632
35633
35634
35635
35636
35637
35638
35639
35640
35641
35642
35643
35644
35645
35646
35647
35648
35649
35650
35651
35652
35653
35654
35655
35656
35657
35658
35659
35660
35661
35662
35663
35664
35665
35666
35667
35668
35669
35670
35671
35672
35673
35674
35675
35676
35677
35678
35679
35680
35681
35682
35683
35684
35685
35686
35687
35688
35689
35690
35691
35692
35693
35694
35695
35696
35697
35698
35699
35700
35701
35702
35703
35704
35705
35706
35707
35708
35709
35710
35711
35712
35713
35714
35715
35716
35717
35718
35719
35720
35721
35722
35723
35724
35725
35726
35727
35728
35729
35730
35731
35732
35733
35734
35735
35736
35737
35738
35739
35740
35741
35742
35743
35744
35745
35746
35747
35748
35749
35750
35751
35752
35753
35754
35755
35756
35757
35758
35759
35760
35761
35762
35763
35764
35765
35766
35767
35768
35769
35770
35771
35772
35773
35774
35775
35776
35777
35778
35779
35780
35781
35782
35783
35784
35785
35786
35787
35788
35789
35790
35791
35792
35793
35794
35795
35796
35797
35798
35799
35800
35801
35802
35803
35804
35805
35806
35807
35808
35809
35810
35811
35812
35813
35814
35815
35816
35817
35818
35819
35820
35821
35822
35823
35824
35825
35826
35827
35828
35829
35830
35831
35832
35833
35834
35835
35836
35837
35838
35839
35840
35841
35842
35843
35844
35845
35846
35847
35848
35849
35850
35851
35852
35853
35854
35855
35856
35857
35858
35859
35860
35861
35862
35863
35864
35865
35866
35867
35868
35869
35870
35871
35872
35873
35874
35875
35876
35877
35878
35879
35880
35881
35882
35883
35884
35885
35886
35887
35888
35889
35890
35891
35892
35893
35894
35895
35896
35897
35898
35899
35900
35901
35902
35903
35904
35905
35906
35907
35908
35909
35910
35911
35912
35913
35914
35915
35916
35917
35918
35919
35920
35921
35922
35923
35924
35925
35926
35927
35928
35929
35930
35931
35932
35933
35934
35935
35936
35937
35938
35939
35940
35941
35942
35943
35944
35945
35946
35947
35948
35949
35950
35951
35952
35953
35954
35955
35956
35957
35958
35959
35960
35961
35962
35963
35964
35965
35966
35967
35968
35969
35970
35971
35972
35973
35974
35975
35976
35977
35978
35979
35980
35981
35982
35983
35984
35985
35986
35987
35988
35989
35990
35991
35992
35993
35994
35995
35996
35997
35998
35999
36000
36001
36002
36003
36004
36005
36006
36007
36008
36009
36010
36011
36012
36013
36014
36015
36016
36017
36018
36019
36020
36021
36022
36023
36024
36025
36026
36027
36028
36029
36030
36031
36032
36033
36034
36035
36036
36037
36038
36039
36040
36041
36042
36043
36044
36045
36046
36047
36048
36049
36050
36051
36052
36053
36054
36055
36056
36057
36058
36059
36060
36061
36062
36063
36064
36065
36066
36067
36068
36069
36070
36071
36072
36073
36074
36075
36076
36077
36078
36079
36080
36081
36082
36083
36084
36085
36086
36087
36088
36089
36090
36091
36092
36093
36094
36095
36096
36097
36098
36099
36100
36101
36102
36103
36104
36105
36106
36107
36108
36109
36110
36111
36112
36113
36114
36115
36116
36117
36118
36119
36120
36121
36122
36123
36124
36125
36126
36127
36128
36129
36130
36131
36132
36133
36134
36135
36136
36137
36138
36139
36140
36141
36142
36143
36144
36145
36146
36147
36148
36149
36150
36151
36152
36153
36154
36155
36156
36157
36158
36159
36160
36161
36162
36163
36164
36165
36166
36167
36168
36169
36170
36171
36172
36173
36174
36175
36176
36177
36178
36179
36180
36181
36182
36183
36184
36185
36186
36187
36188
36189
36190
36191
36192
36193
36194
36195
36196
36197
36198
36199
36200
36201
36202
36203
36204
36205
36206
36207
36208
36209
36210
36211
36212
36213
36214
36215
36216
36217
36218
36219
36220
36221
36222
36223
36224
36225
36226
36227
36228
36229
36230
36231
36232
36233
36234
36235
36236
36237
36238
36239
36240
36241
36242
36243
36244
36245
36246
36247
36248
36249
36250
36251
36252
36253
36254
36255
36256
36257
36258
36259
36260
36261
36262
36263
36264
36265
36266
36267
36268
36269
36270
36271
36272
36273
36274
36275
36276
36277
36278
36279
36280
36281
36282
36283
36284
36285
36286
36287
36288
36289
36290
36291
36292
36293
36294
36295
36296
36297
36298
36299
36300
36301
36302
36303
36304
36305
36306
36307
36308
36309
36310
36311
36312
36313
36314
36315
36316
36317
36318
36319
36320
36321
36322
36323
36324
36325
36326
36327
36328
36329
36330
36331
36332
36333
36334
36335
36336
36337
36338
36339
36340
36341
36342
36343
36344
36345
36346
36347
36348
36349
36350
36351
36352
36353
36354
36355
36356
36357
36358
36359
36360
36361
36362
36363
36364
36365
36366
36367
36368
36369
36370
36371
36372
36373
36374
36375
36376
36377
36378
36379
36380
36381
36382
36383
36384
36385
36386
36387
36388
36389
36390
36391
36392
36393
36394
36395
36396
36397
36398
36399
36400
36401
36402
36403
36404
36405
36406
36407
36408
36409
36410
36411
36412
36413
36414
36415
36416
36417
36418
36419
36420
36421
36422
36423
36424
36425
36426
36427
36428
36429
36430
36431
36432
36433
36434
36435
36436
36437
36438
36439
36440
36441
36442
36443
36444
36445
36446
36447
36448
36449
36450
36451
36452
36453
36454
36455
36456
36457
36458
36459
36460
36461
36462
36463
36464
36465
36466
36467
36468
36469
36470
36471
36472
36473
36474
36475
36476
36477
36478
36479
36480
36481
36482
36483
36484
36485
36486
36487
36488
36489
36490
36491
36492
36493
36494
36495
36496
36497
36498
36499
36500
36501
36502
36503
36504
36505
36506
36507
36508
36509
36510
36511
36512
36513
36514
36515
36516
36517
36518
36519
36520
36521
36522
36523
36524
36525
36526
36527
36528
36529
36530
36531
36532
36533
36534
36535
36536
36537
36538
36539
36540
36541
36542
36543
36544
36545
36546
36547
36548
36549
36550
36551
36552
36553
36554
36555
36556
36557
36558
36559
36560
36561
36562
36563
36564
36565
36566
36567
36568
36569
36570
36571
36572
36573
36574
36575
36576
36577
36578
36579
36580
36581
36582
36583
36584
36585
36586
36587
36588
36589
36590
36591
36592
36593
36594
36595
36596
36597
36598
36599
36600
36601
36602
36603
36604
36605
36606
36607
36608
36609
36610
36611
36612
36613
36614
36615
36616
36617
36618
36619
36620
36621
36622
36623
36624
36625
36626
36627
36628
36629
36630
36631
36632
36633
36634
36635
36636
36637
36638
36639
36640
36641
36642
36643
36644
36645
36646
36647
36648
36649
36650
36651
36652
36653
36654
36655
36656
36657
36658
36659
36660
36661
36662
36663
36664
36665
36666
36667
36668
36669
36670
36671
36672
36673
36674
36675
36676
36677
36678
36679
36680
36681
36682
36683
36684
36685
36686
36687
36688
36689
36690
36691
36692
36693
36694
36695
36696
36697
36698
36699
36700
36701
36702
36703
36704
36705
36706
36707
36708
36709
36710
36711
36712
36713
36714
36715
36716
36717
36718
36719
36720
36721
36722
36723
36724
36725
36726
36727
36728
36729
36730
36731
36732
36733
36734
36735
36736
36737
36738
36739
36740
36741
36742
36743
36744
36745
36746
36747
36748
36749
36750
36751
36752
36753
36754
36755
36756
36757
36758
36759
36760
36761
36762
36763
36764
36765
36766
36767
36768
36769
36770
36771
36772
36773
36774
36775
36776
36777
36778
36779
36780
36781
36782
36783
36784
36785
36786
36787
36788
36789
36790
36791
36792
36793
36794
36795
36796
36797
36798
36799
36800
36801
36802
36803
36804
36805
36806
36807
36808
36809
36810
36811
36812
36813
36814
36815
36816
36817
36818
36819
36820
36821
36822
36823
36824
36825
36826
36827
36828
36829
36830
36831
36832
36833
36834
36835
36836
36837
36838
36839
36840
36841
36842
36843
36844
36845
36846
36847
36848
36849
36850
36851
36852
36853
36854
36855
36856
36857
36858
36859
36860
36861
36862
36863
36864
36865
36866
36867
36868
36869
36870
36871
36872
36873
36874
36875
36876
36877
36878
36879
36880
36881
36882
36883
36884
36885
36886
36887
36888
36889
36890
36891
36892
36893
36894
36895
36896
36897
36898
36899
36900
36901
36902
36903
36904
36905
36906
36907
36908
36909
36910
36911
36912
36913
36914
36915
36916
36917
36918
36919
36920
36921
36922
36923
36924
36925
36926
36927
36928
36929
36930
36931
36932
36933
36934
36935
36936
36937
36938
36939
36940
36941
36942
36943
36944
36945
36946
36947
36948
36949
36950
36951
36952
36953
36954
36955
36956
36957
36958
36959
36960
36961
36962
36963
36964
36965
36966
36967
36968
36969
36970
36971
36972
36973
36974
36975
36976
36977
36978
36979
36980
36981
36982
36983
36984
36985
36986
36987
36988
36989
36990
36991
36992
36993
36994
36995
36996
36997
36998
36999
37000
37001
37002
37003
37004
37005
37006
37007
37008
37009
37010
37011
37012
37013
37014
37015
37016
37017
37018
37019
37020
37021
37022
37023
37024
37025
37026
37027
37028
37029
37030
37031
37032
37033
37034
37035
37036
37037
37038
37039
37040
37041
37042
37043
37044
37045
37046
37047
37048
37049
37050
37051
37052
37053
37054
37055
37056
37057
37058
37059
37060
37061
37062
37063
37064
37065
37066
37067
37068
37069
37070
37071
37072
37073
37074
37075
37076
37077
37078
37079
37080
37081
37082
37083
37084
37085
37086
37087
37088
37089
37090
37091
37092
37093
37094
37095
37096
37097
37098
37099
37100
37101
37102
37103
37104
37105
37106
37107
37108
37109
37110
37111
37112
37113
37114
37115
37116
37117
37118
37119
37120
37121
37122
37123
37124
37125
37126
37127
37128
37129
37130
37131
37132
37133
37134
37135
37136
37137
37138
37139
37140
37141
37142
37143
37144
37145
37146
37147
37148
37149
37150
37151
37152
37153
37154
37155
37156
37157
37158
37159
37160
37161
37162
37163
37164
37165
37166
37167
37168
37169
37170
37171
37172
37173
37174
37175
37176
37177
37178
37179
37180
37181
37182
37183
37184
37185
37186
37187
37188
37189
37190
37191
37192
37193
37194
37195
37196
37197
37198
37199
37200
37201
37202
37203
37204
37205
37206
37207
37208
37209
37210
37211
37212
37213
37214
37215
37216
37217
37218
37219
37220
37221
37222
37223
37224
37225
37226
37227
37228
37229
37230
37231
37232
37233
37234
37235
37236
37237
37238
37239
37240
37241
37242
37243
37244
37245
37246
37247
37248
37249
37250
37251
37252
37253
37254
37255
37256
37257
37258
37259
37260
37261
37262
37263
37264
37265
37266
37267
37268
37269
37270
37271
37272
37273
37274
37275
37276
37277
37278
37279
37280
37281
37282
37283
37284
37285
37286
37287
37288
37289
37290
37291
37292
37293
37294
37295
37296
37297
37298
37299
37300
37301
37302
37303
37304
37305
37306
37307
37308
37309
37310
37311
37312
37313
37314
37315
37316
37317
37318
37319
37320
37321
37322
37323
37324
37325
37326
37327
37328
37329
37330
37331
37332
37333
37334
37335
37336
37337
37338
37339
37340
37341
37342
37343
37344
37345
37346
37347
37348
37349
37350
37351
37352
37353
37354
37355
37356
37357
37358
37359
37360
37361
37362
37363
37364
37365
37366
37367
37368
37369
37370
37371
37372
37373
37374
37375
37376
37377
37378
37379
37380
37381
37382
37383
37384
37385
37386
37387
37388
37389
37390
37391
37392
37393
37394
37395
37396
37397
37398
37399
37400
37401
37402
37403
37404
37405
37406
37407
37408
37409
37410
37411
37412
37413
37414
37415
37416
37417
37418
37419
37420
37421
37422
37423
37424
37425
37426
37427
37428
37429
37430
37431
37432
37433
37434
37435
37436
37437
37438
37439
37440
37441
37442
37443
37444
37445
37446
37447
37448
37449
37450
37451
37452
37453
37454
37455
37456
37457
37458
37459
37460
37461
37462
37463
37464
37465
37466
37467
37468
37469
37470
37471
37472
37473
37474
37475
37476
37477
37478
37479
37480
37481
37482
37483
37484
37485
37486
37487
37488
37489
37490
37491
37492
37493
37494
37495
37496
37497
37498
37499
37500
37501
37502
37503
37504
37505
37506
37507
37508
37509
37510
37511
37512
37513
37514
37515
37516
37517
37518
37519
37520
37521
37522
37523
37524
37525
37526
37527
37528
37529
37530
37531
37532
37533
37534
37535
37536
37537
37538
37539
37540
37541
37542
37543
37544
37545
37546
37547
37548
37549
37550
37551
37552
37553
37554
37555
37556
37557
37558
37559
37560
37561
37562
37563
37564
37565
37566
37567
37568
37569
37570
37571
37572
37573
37574
37575
37576
37577
37578
37579
37580
37581
37582
37583
37584
37585
37586
37587
37588
37589
37590
37591
37592
37593
37594
37595
37596
37597
37598
37599
37600
37601
37602
37603
37604
37605
37606
37607
37608
37609
37610
37611
37612
37613
37614
37615
37616
37617
37618
37619
37620
37621
37622
37623
37624
37625
37626
37627
37628
37629
37630
37631
37632
37633
37634
37635
37636
37637
37638
37639
37640
37641
37642
37643
37644
37645
37646
37647
37648
37649
37650
37651
37652
37653
37654
37655
37656
37657
37658
37659
37660
37661
37662
37663
37664
37665
37666
37667
37668
37669
37670
37671
37672
37673
37674
37675
37676
37677
37678
37679
37680
37681
37682
37683
37684
37685
37686
37687
37688
37689
37690
37691
37692
37693
37694
37695
37696
37697
37698
37699
37700
37701
37702
37703
37704
37705
37706
37707
37708
37709
37710
37711
37712
37713
37714
37715
37716
37717
37718
37719
37720
37721
37722
37723
37724
37725
37726
37727
37728
37729
37730
37731
37732
37733
37734
37735
37736
37737
37738
37739
37740
37741
37742
37743
37744
37745
37746
37747
37748
37749
37750
37751
37752
37753
37754
37755
37756
37757
37758
37759
37760
37761
37762
37763
37764
37765
37766
37767
37768
37769
37770
37771
37772
37773
37774
37775
37776
37777
37778
37779
37780
37781
37782
37783
37784
37785
37786
37787
37788
37789
37790
37791
37792
37793
37794
37795
37796
37797
37798
37799
37800
37801
37802
37803
37804
37805
37806
37807
37808
37809
37810
37811
37812
37813
37814
37815
37816
37817
37818
37819
37820
37821
37822
37823
37824
37825
37826
37827
37828
37829
37830
37831
37832
37833
37834
37835
37836
37837
37838
37839
37840
37841
37842
37843
37844
37845
37846
37847
37848
37849
37850
37851
37852
37853
37854
37855
37856
37857
37858
37859
37860
37861
37862
37863
37864
37865
37866
37867
37868
37869
37870
37871
37872
37873
37874
37875
37876
37877
37878
37879
37880
37881
37882
37883
37884
37885
37886
37887
37888
37889
37890
37891
37892
37893
37894
37895
37896
37897
37898
37899
37900
37901
37902
37903
37904
37905
37906
37907
37908
37909
37910
37911
37912
37913
37914
37915
37916
37917
37918
37919
37920
37921
37922
37923
37924
37925
37926
37927
37928
37929
37930
37931
37932
37933
37934
37935
37936
37937
37938
37939
37940
37941
37942
37943
37944
37945
37946
37947
37948
37949
37950
37951
37952
37953
37954
37955
37956
37957
37958
37959
37960
37961
37962
37963
37964
37965
37966
37967
37968
37969
37970
37971
37972
37973
37974
37975
37976
37977
37978
37979
37980
37981
37982
37983
37984
37985
37986
37987
37988
37989
37990
37991
37992
37993
37994
37995
37996
37997
37998
37999
38000
38001
38002
38003
38004
38005
38006
38007
38008
38009
38010
38011
38012
38013
38014
38015
38016
38017
38018
38019
38020
38021
38022
38023
38024
38025
38026
38027
38028
38029
38030
38031
38032
38033
38034
38035
38036
38037
38038
38039
38040
38041
38042
38043
38044
38045
38046
38047
38048
38049
38050
38051
38052
38053
38054
38055
38056
38057
38058
38059
38060
38061
38062
38063
38064
38065
38066
38067
38068
38069
38070
38071
38072
38073
38074
38075
38076
38077
38078
38079
38080
38081
38082
38083
38084
38085
38086
38087
38088
38089
38090
38091
38092
38093
38094
38095
38096
38097
38098
38099
38100
38101
38102
38103
38104
38105
38106
38107
38108
38109
38110
38111
38112
38113
38114
38115
38116
38117
38118
38119
38120
38121
38122
38123
38124
38125
38126
38127
38128
38129
38130
38131
38132
38133
38134
38135
38136
38137
38138
38139
38140
38141
38142
38143
38144
38145
38146
38147
38148
38149
38150
38151
38152
38153
38154
38155
38156
38157
38158
38159
38160
38161
38162
38163
38164
38165
38166
38167
38168
38169
38170
38171
38172
38173
38174
38175
38176
38177
38178
38179
38180
38181
38182
38183
38184
38185
38186
38187
38188
38189
38190
38191
38192
38193
38194
38195
38196
38197
38198
38199
38200
38201
38202
38203
38204
38205
38206
38207
38208
38209
38210
38211
38212
38213
38214
38215
38216
38217
38218
38219
38220
38221
38222
38223
38224
38225
38226
38227
38228
38229
38230
38231
38232
38233
38234
38235
38236
38237
38238
38239
38240
38241
38242
38243
38244
38245
38246
38247
38248
38249
38250
38251
38252
38253
38254
38255
38256
38257
38258
38259
38260
38261
38262
38263
38264
38265
38266
38267
38268
38269
38270
38271
38272
38273
38274
38275
38276
38277
38278
38279
38280
38281
38282
38283
38284
38285
38286
38287
38288
38289
38290
38291
38292
38293
38294
38295
38296
38297
38298
38299
38300
38301
38302
38303
38304
38305
38306
38307
38308
38309
38310
38311
38312
38313
38314
38315
38316
38317
38318
38319
38320
38321
38322
38323
38324
38325
38326
38327
38328
38329
38330
38331
38332
38333
38334
38335
38336
38337
38338
38339
38340
38341
38342
38343
38344
38345
38346
38347
38348
38349
38350
38351
38352
38353
38354
38355
38356
38357
38358
38359
38360
38361
38362
38363
38364
38365
38366
38367
38368
38369
38370
38371
38372
38373
38374
38375
38376
38377
38378
38379
38380
38381
38382
38383
38384
38385
38386
38387
38388
38389
38390
38391
38392
38393
38394
38395
38396
38397
38398
38399
38400
38401
38402
38403
38404
38405
38406
38407
38408
38409
38410
38411
38412
38413
38414
38415
38416
38417
38418
38419
38420
38421
38422
38423
38424
38425
38426
38427
38428
38429
38430
38431
38432
38433
38434
38435
38436
38437
38438
38439
38440
38441
38442
38443
38444
38445
38446
38447
38448
38449
38450
38451
38452
38453
38454
38455
38456
38457
38458
38459
38460
38461
38462
38463
38464
38465
38466
38467
38468
38469
38470
38471
38472
38473
38474
38475
38476
38477
38478
38479
38480
38481
38482
38483
38484
38485
38486
38487
38488
38489
38490
38491
38492
38493
38494
38495
38496
38497
38498
38499
38500
38501
38502
38503
38504
38505
38506
38507
38508
38509
38510
38511
38512
38513
38514
38515
38516
38517
38518
38519
38520
38521
38522
38523
38524
38525
38526
38527
38528
38529
38530
38531
38532
38533
38534
38535
38536
38537
38538
38539
38540
38541
38542
38543
38544
38545
38546
38547
38548
38549
38550
38551
38552
38553
38554
38555
38556
38557
38558
38559
38560
38561
38562
38563
38564
38565
38566
38567
38568
38569
38570
38571
38572
38573
38574
38575
38576
38577
38578
38579
38580
38581
38582
38583
38584
38585
38586
38587
38588
38589
38590
38591
38592
38593
38594
38595
38596
38597
38598
38599
38600
38601
38602
38603
38604
38605
38606
38607
38608
38609
38610
38611
38612
38613
38614
38615
38616
38617
38618
38619
38620
38621
38622
38623
38624
38625
38626
38627
38628
38629
38630
38631
38632
38633
38634
38635
38636
38637
38638
38639
38640
38641
38642
38643
38644
38645
38646
38647
38648
38649
38650
38651
38652
38653
38654
38655
38656
38657
38658
38659
38660
38661
38662
38663
38664
38665
38666
38667
38668
38669
38670
38671
38672
38673
38674
38675
38676
38677
38678
38679
38680
38681
38682
38683
38684
38685
38686
38687
38688
38689
38690
38691
38692
38693
38694
38695
38696
38697
38698
38699
38700
38701
38702
38703
38704
38705
38706
38707
38708
38709
38710
38711
38712
38713
38714
38715
38716
38717
38718
38719
38720
38721
38722
38723
38724
38725
38726
38727
38728
38729
38730
38731
38732
38733
38734
38735
38736
38737
38738
38739
38740
38741
38742
38743
38744
38745
38746
38747
38748
38749
38750
38751
38752
38753
38754
38755
38756
38757
38758
38759
38760
38761
38762
38763
38764
38765
38766
38767
38768
38769
38770
38771
38772
38773
38774
38775
38776
38777
38778
38779
38780
38781
38782
38783
38784
38785
38786
38787
38788
38789
38790
38791
38792
38793
38794
38795
38796
38797
38798
38799
38800
38801
38802
38803
38804
38805
38806
38807
38808
38809
38810
38811
38812
38813
38814
38815
38816
38817
38818
38819
38820
38821
38822
38823
38824
38825
38826
38827
38828
38829
38830
38831
38832
38833
38834
38835
38836
38837
38838
38839
38840
38841
38842
38843
38844
38845
38846
38847
38848
38849
38850
38851
38852
38853
38854
38855
38856
38857
38858
38859
38860
38861
38862
38863
38864
38865
38866
38867
38868
38869
38870
38871
38872
38873
38874
38875
38876
38877
38878
38879
38880
38881
38882
38883
38884
38885
38886
38887
38888
38889
38890
38891
38892
38893
38894
38895
38896
38897
38898
38899
38900
38901
38902
38903
38904
38905
38906
38907
38908
38909
38910
38911
38912
38913
38914
38915
38916
38917
38918
38919
38920
38921
38922
38923
38924
38925
38926
38927
38928
38929
38930
38931
38932
38933
38934
38935
38936
38937
38938
38939
38940
38941
38942
38943
38944
38945
38946
38947
38948
38949
38950
38951
38952
38953
38954
38955
38956
38957
38958
38959
38960
38961
38962
38963
38964
38965
38966
38967
38968
38969
38970
38971
38972
38973
38974
38975
38976
38977
38978
38979
38980
38981
38982
38983
38984
38985
38986
38987
38988
38989
38990
38991
38992
38993
38994
38995
38996
38997
38998
38999
39000
39001
39002
39003
39004
39005
39006
39007
39008
39009
39010
39011
39012
39013
39014
39015
39016
39017
39018
39019
39020
39021
39022
39023
39024
39025
39026
39027
39028
39029
39030
39031
39032
39033
39034
39035
39036
39037
39038
39039
39040
39041
39042
39043
39044
39045
39046
39047
39048
39049
39050
39051
39052
39053
39054
39055
39056
39057
39058
39059
39060
39061
39062
39063
39064
39065
39066
39067
39068
39069
39070
39071
39072
39073
39074
39075
39076
39077
39078
39079
39080
39081
39082
39083
39084
39085
39086
39087
39088
39089
39090
39091
39092
39093
39094
39095
39096
39097
39098
39099
39100
39101
39102
39103
39104
39105
39106
39107
39108
39109
39110
39111
39112
39113
39114
39115
39116
39117
39118
39119
39120
39121
39122
39123
39124
39125
39126
39127
39128
39129
39130
39131
39132
39133
39134
39135
39136
39137
39138
39139
39140
39141
39142
39143
39144
39145
39146
39147
39148
39149
39150
39151
39152
39153
39154
39155
39156
39157
39158
39159
39160
39161
39162
39163
39164
39165
39166
39167
39168
39169
39170
39171
39172
39173
39174
39175
39176
39177
39178
39179
39180
39181
39182
39183
39184
39185
39186
39187
39188
39189
39190
39191
39192
39193
39194
39195
39196
39197
39198
39199
39200
39201
39202
39203
39204
39205
39206
39207
39208
39209
39210
39211
39212
39213
39214
39215
39216
39217
39218
39219
39220
39221
39222
39223
39224
39225
39226
39227
39228
39229
39230
39231
39232
39233
39234
39235
39236
39237
39238
39239
39240
39241
39242
39243
39244
39245
39246
39247
39248
39249
39250
39251
39252
39253
39254
39255
39256
39257
39258
39259
39260
39261
39262
39263
39264
39265
39266
39267
39268
39269
39270
39271
39272
39273
39274
39275
39276
39277
39278
39279
39280
39281
39282
39283
39284
39285
39286
39287
39288
39289
39290
39291
39292
39293
39294
39295
39296
39297
39298
39299
39300
39301
39302
39303
39304
39305
39306
39307
39308
39309
39310
39311
39312
39313
39314
39315
39316
39317
39318
39319
39320
39321
39322
39323
39324
39325
39326
39327
39328
39329
39330
39331
39332
39333
39334
39335
39336
39337
39338
39339
39340
39341
39342
39343
39344
39345
39346
39347
39348
39349
39350
39351
39352
39353
39354
39355
39356
39357
39358
39359
39360
39361
39362
39363
39364
39365
39366
39367
39368
39369
39370
39371
39372
39373
39374
39375
39376
39377
39378
39379
39380
39381
39382
39383
39384
39385
39386
39387
39388
39389
39390
39391
39392
39393
39394
39395
39396
39397
39398
39399
39400
39401
39402
39403
39404
39405
39406
39407
39408
39409
39410
39411
39412
39413
39414
39415
39416
39417
39418
39419
39420
39421
39422
39423
39424
39425
39426
39427
39428
39429
39430
39431
39432
39433
39434
39435
39436
39437
39438
39439
39440
39441
39442
39443
39444
39445
39446
39447
39448
39449
39450
39451
39452
39453
39454
39455
39456
39457
39458
39459
39460
39461
39462
39463
39464
39465
39466
39467
39468
39469
39470
39471
39472
39473
39474
39475
39476
39477
39478
39479
39480
39481
39482
39483
39484
39485
39486
39487
39488
39489
39490
39491
39492
39493
39494
39495
39496
39497
39498
39499
39500
39501
39502
39503
39504
39505
39506
39507
39508
39509
39510
39511
39512
39513
39514
39515
39516
39517
39518
39519
39520
39521
39522
39523
39524
39525
39526
39527
39528
39529
39530
39531
39532
39533
39534
39535
39536
39537
39538
39539
39540
39541
39542
39543
39544
39545
39546
39547
39548
39549
39550
39551
39552
39553
39554
39555
39556
39557
39558
39559
39560
39561
39562
39563
39564
39565
39566
39567
39568
39569
39570
39571
39572
39573
39574
39575
39576
39577
39578
39579
39580
39581
39582
39583
39584
39585
39586
39587
39588
39589
39590
39591
39592
39593
39594
39595
39596
39597
39598
39599
39600
39601
39602
39603
39604
39605
39606
39607
39608
39609
39610
39611
39612
39613
39614
39615
39616
39617
39618
39619
39620
39621
39622
39623
39624
39625
39626
39627
39628
39629
39630
39631
39632
39633
39634
39635
39636
39637
39638
39639
39640
39641
39642
39643
39644
39645
39646
39647
39648
39649
39650
39651
39652
39653
39654
39655
39656
39657
39658
39659
39660
39661
39662
39663
39664
39665
39666
39667
39668
39669
39670
39671
39672
39673
39674
39675
39676
39677
39678
39679
39680
39681
39682
39683
39684
39685
39686
39687
39688
39689
39690
39691
39692
39693
39694
39695
39696
39697
39698
39699
39700
39701
39702
39703
39704
39705
39706
39707
39708
39709
39710
39711
39712
39713
39714
39715
39716
39717
39718
39719
39720
39721
39722
39723
39724
39725
39726
39727
39728
39729
39730
39731
39732
39733
39734
39735
39736
39737
39738
39739
39740
39741
39742
39743
39744
39745
39746
39747
39748
39749
39750
39751
39752
39753
39754
39755
39756
39757
39758
39759
39760
39761
39762
39763
39764
39765
39766
39767
39768
39769
39770
39771
39772
39773
39774
39775
39776
39777
39778
39779
39780
39781
39782
39783
39784
39785
39786
39787
39788
39789
39790
39791
39792
39793
39794
39795
39796
39797
39798
39799
39800
39801
39802
39803
39804
39805
39806
39807
39808
39809
39810
39811
39812
39813
39814
39815
39816
39817
39818
39819
39820
39821
39822
39823
39824
39825
39826
39827
39828
39829
39830
39831
39832
39833
39834
39835
39836
39837
39838
39839
39840
39841
39842
39843
39844
39845
39846
39847
39848
39849
39850
39851
39852
39853
39854
39855
39856
39857
39858
39859
39860
39861
39862
39863
39864
39865
39866
39867
39868
39869
39870
39871
39872
39873
39874
39875
39876
39877
39878
39879
39880
39881
39882
39883
39884
39885
39886
39887
39888
39889
39890
39891
39892
39893
39894
39895
39896
39897
39898
39899
39900
39901
39902
39903
39904
39905
39906
39907
39908
39909
39910
39911
39912
39913
39914
39915
39916
39917
39918
39919
39920
39921
39922
39923
39924
39925
39926
39927
39928
39929
39930
39931
39932
39933
39934
39935
39936
39937
39938
39939
39940
39941
39942
39943
39944
39945
39946
39947
39948
39949
39950
39951
39952
39953
39954
39955
39956
39957
39958
39959
39960
39961
39962
39963
39964
39965
39966
39967
39968
39969
39970
39971
39972
39973
39974
39975
39976
39977
39978
39979
39980
39981
39982
39983
39984
39985
39986
39987
39988
39989
39990
39991
39992
39993
39994
39995
39996
39997
39998
39999
40000
40001
40002
40003
40004
40005
40006
40007
40008
40009
40010
40011
40012
40013
40014
40015
40016
40017
40018
40019
40020
40021
40022
40023
40024
40025
40026
40027
40028
40029
40030
40031
40032
40033
40034
40035
40036
40037
40038
40039
40040
40041
40042
40043
40044
40045
40046
40047
40048
40049
40050
40051
40052
40053
40054
40055
40056
40057
40058
40059
40060
40061
40062
40063
40064
40065
40066
40067
40068
40069
40070
40071
40072
40073
40074
40075
40076
40077
40078
40079
40080
40081
40082
40083
40084
40085
40086
40087
40088
40089
40090
40091
40092
40093
40094
40095
40096
40097
40098
40099
40100
40101
40102
40103
40104
40105
40106
40107
40108
40109
40110
40111
40112
40113
40114
40115
40116
40117
40118
40119
40120
40121
40122
40123
40124
40125
40126
40127
40128
40129
40130
40131
40132
40133
40134
40135
40136
40137
40138
40139
40140
40141
40142
40143
40144
40145
40146
40147
40148
40149
40150
40151
40152
40153
40154
40155
40156
40157
40158
40159
40160
40161
40162
40163
40164
40165
40166
40167
40168
40169
40170
40171
40172
40173
40174
40175
40176
40177
40178
40179
40180
40181
40182
40183
40184
40185
40186
40187
40188
40189
40190
40191
40192
40193
40194
40195
40196
40197
40198
40199
40200
40201
40202
40203
40204
40205
40206
40207
40208
40209
40210
40211
40212
40213
40214
40215
40216
40217
40218
40219
40220
40221
40222
40223
40224
40225
40226
40227
40228
40229
40230
40231
40232
40233
40234
40235
40236
40237
40238
40239
40240
40241
40242
40243
40244
40245
40246
40247
40248
40249
40250
40251
40252
40253
40254
40255
40256
40257
40258
40259
40260
40261
40262
40263
40264
40265
40266
40267
40268
40269
40270
40271
40272
40273
40274
40275
40276
40277
40278
40279
40280
40281
40282
40283
40284
40285
40286
40287
40288
40289
40290
40291
40292
40293
40294
40295
40296
40297
40298
40299
40300
40301
40302
40303
40304
40305
40306
40307
40308
40309
40310
40311
40312
40313
40314
40315
40316
40317
40318
40319
40320
40321
40322
40323
40324
40325
40326
40327
40328
40329
40330
40331
40332
40333
40334
40335
40336
40337
40338
40339
40340
40341
40342
40343
40344
40345
40346
40347
40348
40349
40350
40351
40352
40353
40354
40355
40356
40357
40358
40359
40360
40361
40362
40363
40364
40365
40366
40367
40368
40369
40370
40371
40372
40373
40374
40375
40376
40377
40378
40379
40380
40381
40382
40383
40384
40385
40386
40387
40388
40389
40390
40391
40392
40393
40394
40395
40396
40397
40398
40399
40400
40401
40402
40403
40404
40405
40406
40407
40408
40409
40410
40411
40412
40413
40414
40415
40416
40417
40418
40419
40420
40421
40422
40423
40424
40425
40426
40427
40428
40429
40430
40431
40432
40433
40434
40435
40436
40437
40438
40439
40440
40441
40442
40443
40444
40445
40446
40447
40448
40449
40450
40451
40452
40453
40454
40455
40456
40457
40458
40459
40460
40461
40462
40463
40464
40465
40466
40467
40468
40469
40470
40471
40472
40473
40474
40475
40476
40477
40478
40479
40480
40481
40482
40483
40484
40485
40486
40487
40488
40489
40490
40491
40492
40493
40494
40495
40496
40497
40498
40499
40500
40501
40502
40503
40504
40505
40506
40507
40508
40509
40510
40511
40512
40513
40514
40515
40516
40517
40518
40519
40520
40521
40522
40523
40524
40525
40526
40527
40528
40529
40530
40531
40532
40533
40534
40535
40536
40537
40538
40539
40540
40541
40542
40543
40544
40545
40546
40547
40548
40549
40550
40551
40552
40553
40554
40555
40556
40557
40558
40559
40560
40561
40562
40563
40564
40565
40566
40567
40568
40569
40570
40571
40572
40573
40574
40575
40576
40577
40578
40579
40580
40581
40582
40583
40584
40585
40586
40587
40588
40589
40590
40591
40592
40593
40594
40595
40596
40597
40598
40599
40600
40601
40602
40603
40604
40605
40606
40607
40608
40609
40610
40611
40612
40613
40614
40615
40616
40617
40618
40619
40620
40621
40622
40623
40624
40625
40626
40627
40628
40629
40630
40631
40632
40633
40634
40635
40636
40637
40638
40639
40640
40641
40642
40643
40644
40645
40646
40647
40648
40649
40650
40651
40652
40653
40654
40655
40656
40657
40658
40659
40660
40661
40662
40663
40664
40665
40666
40667
40668
40669
40670
40671
40672
40673
40674
40675
40676
40677
40678
40679
40680
40681
40682
40683
40684
40685
40686
40687
40688
40689
40690
40691
40692
40693
40694
40695
40696
40697
40698
40699
40700
40701
40702
40703
40704
40705
40706
40707
40708
40709
40710
40711
40712
40713
40714
40715
40716
40717
40718
40719
40720
40721
40722
40723
40724
40725
40726
40727
40728
40729
40730
40731
40732
40733
40734
40735
40736
40737
40738
40739
40740
40741
40742
40743
40744
40745
40746
40747
40748
40749
40750
40751
40752
40753
40754
40755
40756
40757
40758
40759
40760
40761
40762
40763
40764
40765
40766
40767
40768
40769
40770
40771
40772
40773
40774
40775
40776
40777
40778
40779
40780
40781
40782
40783
40784
40785
40786
40787
40788
40789
40790
40791
40792
40793
40794
40795
40796
40797
40798
40799
40800
40801
40802
40803
40804
40805
40806
40807
40808
40809
40810
40811
40812
40813
40814
40815
40816
40817
40818
40819
40820
40821
40822
40823
40824
40825
40826
40827
40828
40829
40830
40831
40832
40833
40834
40835
40836
40837
40838
40839
40840
40841
40842
40843
40844
40845
40846
40847
40848
40849
40850
40851
40852
40853
40854
40855
40856
40857
40858
40859
40860
40861
40862
40863
40864
40865
40866
40867
40868
40869
40870
40871
40872
40873
40874
40875
40876
40877
40878
40879
40880
40881
40882
40883
40884
40885
40886
40887
40888
40889
40890
40891
40892
40893
40894
40895
40896
40897
40898
40899
40900
40901
40902
40903
40904
40905
40906
40907
40908
40909
40910
40911
40912
40913
40914
40915
40916
40917
40918
40919
40920
40921
40922
40923
40924
40925
40926
40927
40928
40929
40930
40931
40932
40933
40934
40935
40936
40937
40938
40939
40940
40941
40942
40943
40944
40945
40946
40947
40948
40949
40950
40951
40952
40953
40954
40955
40956
40957
40958
40959
40960
40961
40962
40963
40964
40965
40966
40967
40968
40969
40970
40971
40972
40973
40974
40975
40976
40977
40978
40979
40980
40981
40982
40983
40984
40985
40986
40987
40988
40989
40990
40991
40992
40993
40994
40995
40996
40997
40998
40999
41000
41001
41002
41003
41004
41005
41006
41007
41008
41009
41010
41011
41012
41013
41014
41015
41016
41017
41018
41019
41020
41021
41022
41023
41024
41025
41026
41027
41028
41029
41030
41031
41032
41033
41034
41035
41036
41037
41038
41039
41040
41041
41042
41043
41044
41045
41046
41047
41048
41049
41050
41051
41052
41053
41054
41055
41056
41057
41058
41059
41060
41061
41062
41063
41064
41065
41066
41067
41068
41069
41070
41071
41072
41073
41074
41075
41076
41077
41078
41079
41080
41081
41082
41083
41084
41085
41086
41087
41088
41089
41090
41091
41092
41093
41094
41095
41096
41097
41098
41099
41100
41101
41102
41103
41104
41105
41106
41107
41108
41109
41110
41111
41112
41113
41114
41115
41116
41117
41118
41119
41120
41121
41122
41123
41124
41125
41126
41127
41128
41129
41130
41131
41132
41133
41134
41135
41136
41137
41138
41139
41140
41141
41142
41143
41144
41145
41146
41147
41148
41149
41150
41151
41152
41153
41154
41155
41156
41157
41158
41159
41160
41161
41162
41163
41164
41165
41166
41167
41168
41169
41170
41171
41172
41173
41174
41175
41176
41177
41178
41179
41180
41181
41182
41183
41184
41185
41186
41187
41188
41189
41190
41191
41192
41193
41194
41195
41196
41197
41198
41199
41200
41201
41202
41203
41204
41205
41206
41207
41208
41209
41210
41211
41212
41213
41214
41215
41216
41217
41218
41219
41220
41221
41222
41223
41224
41225
41226
41227
41228
41229
41230
41231
41232
41233
41234
41235
41236
41237
41238
41239
41240
41241
41242
41243
41244
41245
41246
41247
41248
41249
41250
41251
41252
41253
41254
41255
41256
41257
41258
41259
41260
41261
41262
41263
41264
41265
41266
41267
41268
41269
41270
41271
41272
41273
41274
41275
41276
41277
41278
41279
41280
41281
41282
41283
41284
41285
41286
41287
41288
41289
41290
41291
41292
41293
41294
41295
41296
41297
41298
41299
41300
41301
41302
41303
41304
41305
41306
41307
41308
41309
41310
41311
41312
41313
41314
41315
41316
41317
41318
41319
41320
41321
41322
41323
41324
41325
41326
41327
41328
41329
41330
41331
41332
41333
41334
41335
41336
41337
41338
41339
41340
41341
41342
41343
41344
41345
41346
41347
41348
41349
41350
41351
41352
41353
41354
41355
41356
41357
41358
41359
41360
41361
41362
41363
41364
41365
41366
41367
41368
41369
41370
41371
41372
41373
41374
41375
41376
41377
41378
41379
41380
41381
41382
41383
41384
41385
41386
41387
41388
41389
41390
41391
41392
41393
41394
41395
41396
41397
41398
41399
41400
41401
41402
41403
41404
41405
41406
41407
41408
41409
41410
41411
41412
41413
41414
41415
41416
41417
41418
41419
41420
41421
41422
41423
41424
41425
41426
41427
41428
41429
41430
41431
41432
41433
41434
41435
41436
41437
41438
41439
41440
41441
41442
41443
41444
41445
41446
41447
41448
41449
41450
41451
41452
41453
41454
41455
41456
41457
41458
41459
41460
41461
41462
41463
41464
41465
41466
41467
41468
41469
41470
41471
41472
41473
41474
41475
41476
41477
41478
41479
41480
41481
41482
41483
41484
41485
41486
41487
41488
41489
41490
41491
41492
41493
41494
41495
41496
41497
41498
41499
41500
41501
41502
41503
41504
41505
41506
41507
41508
41509
41510
41511
41512
41513
41514
41515
41516
41517
41518
41519
41520
41521
41522
41523
41524
41525
41526
41527
41528
41529
41530
41531
41532
41533
41534
41535
41536
41537
41538
41539
41540
41541
41542
41543
41544
41545
41546
41547
41548
41549
41550
41551
41552
41553
41554
41555
41556
41557
41558
41559
41560
41561
41562
41563
41564
41565
41566
41567
41568
41569
41570
41571
41572
41573
41574
41575
41576
41577
41578
41579
41580
41581
41582
41583
41584
41585
41586
41587
41588
41589
41590
41591
41592
41593
41594
41595
41596
41597
41598
41599
41600
41601
41602
41603
41604
41605
41606
41607
41608
41609
41610
41611
41612
41613
41614
41615
41616
41617
41618
41619
41620
41621
41622
41623
41624
41625
41626
41627
41628
41629
41630
41631
41632
41633
41634
41635
41636
41637
41638
41639
41640
41641
41642
41643
41644
41645
41646
41647
41648
41649
41650
41651
41652
41653
41654
41655
41656
41657
41658
41659
41660
41661
41662
41663
41664
41665
41666
41667
41668
41669
41670
41671
41672
41673
41674
41675
41676
41677
41678
41679
41680
41681
41682
41683
41684
41685
41686
41687
41688
41689
41690
41691
41692
41693
41694
41695
41696
41697
41698
41699
41700
41701
41702
41703
41704
41705
41706
41707
41708
41709
41710
41711
41712
41713
41714
41715
41716
41717
41718
41719
41720
41721
41722
41723
41724
41725
41726
41727
41728
41729
41730
41731
41732
41733
41734
41735
41736
41737
41738
41739
41740
41741
41742
41743
41744
41745
41746
41747
41748
41749
41750
41751
41752
41753
41754
41755
41756
41757
41758
41759
41760
41761
41762
41763
41764
41765
41766
41767
41768
41769
41770
41771
41772
41773
41774
41775
41776
41777
41778
41779
41780
41781
41782
41783
41784
41785
41786
41787
41788
41789
41790
41791
41792
41793
41794
41795
41796
41797
41798
41799
41800
41801
41802
41803
41804
41805
41806
41807
41808
41809
41810
41811
41812
41813
41814
41815
41816
41817
41818
41819
41820
41821
41822
41823
41824
41825
41826
41827
41828
41829
41830
41831
41832
41833
41834
41835
41836
41837
41838
41839
41840
41841
41842
41843
41844
41845
41846
41847
41848
41849
41850
41851
41852
41853
41854
41855
41856
41857
41858
41859
41860
41861
41862
41863
41864
41865
41866
41867
41868
41869
41870
41871
41872
41873
41874
41875
41876
41877
41878
41879
41880
41881
41882
41883
41884
41885
41886
41887
41888
41889
41890
41891
41892
41893
41894
41895
41896
41897
41898
41899
41900
41901
41902
41903
41904
41905
41906
41907
41908
41909
41910
41911
41912
41913
41914
41915
41916
41917
41918
41919
41920
41921
41922
41923
41924
41925
41926
41927
41928
41929
41930
41931
41932
41933
41934
41935
41936
41937
41938
41939
41940
41941
41942
41943
41944
41945
41946
41947
41948
41949
41950
41951
41952
41953
41954
41955
41956
41957
41958
41959
41960
41961
41962
41963
41964
41965
41966
41967
41968
41969
41970
41971
41972
41973
41974
41975
41976
41977
41978
41979
41980
41981
41982
41983
41984
41985
41986
41987
41988
41989
41990
41991
41992
41993
41994
41995
41996
41997
41998
41999
42000
42001
42002
42003
42004
42005
42006
42007
42008
42009
42010
42011
42012
42013
42014
42015
42016
42017
42018
42019
42020
42021
42022
42023
42024
42025
42026
42027
42028
42029
42030
42031
42032
42033
42034
42035
42036
42037
42038
42039
42040
42041
42042
42043
42044
42045
42046
42047
42048
42049
42050
42051
42052
42053
42054
42055
42056
42057
42058
42059
42060
42061
42062
42063
42064
42065
42066
42067
42068
42069
42070
42071
42072
42073
42074
42075
42076
42077
42078
42079
42080
42081
42082
42083
42084
42085
42086
42087
42088
42089
42090
42091
42092
42093
42094
42095
42096
42097
42098
42099
42100
42101
42102
42103
42104
42105
42106
42107
42108
42109
42110
42111
42112
42113
42114
42115
42116
42117
42118
42119
42120
42121
42122
42123
42124
42125
42126
42127
42128
42129
42130
42131
42132
42133
42134
42135
42136
42137
42138
42139
42140
42141
42142
42143
42144
42145
42146
42147
42148
42149
42150
42151
42152
42153
42154
42155
42156
42157
42158
42159
42160
42161
42162
42163
42164
42165
42166
42167
42168
42169
42170
42171
42172
42173
42174
42175
42176
42177
42178
42179
42180
42181
42182
42183
42184
42185
42186
42187
42188
42189
42190
42191
42192
42193
42194
42195
42196
42197
42198
42199
42200
42201
42202
42203
42204
42205
42206
42207
42208
42209
42210
42211
42212
42213
42214
42215
42216
42217
42218
42219
42220
42221
42222
42223
42224
42225
42226
42227
42228
42229
42230
42231
42232
42233
42234
42235
42236
42237
42238
42239
42240
42241
42242
42243
42244
42245
42246
42247
42248
42249
42250
42251
42252
42253
42254
42255
42256
42257
42258
42259
42260
42261
42262
42263
42264
42265
42266
42267
42268
42269
42270
42271
42272
42273
42274
42275
42276
42277
42278
42279
42280
42281
42282
42283
42284
42285
42286
42287
42288
42289
42290
42291
42292
42293
42294
42295
42296
42297
42298
42299
42300
42301
42302
42303
42304
42305
42306
42307
42308
42309
42310
42311
42312
42313
42314
42315
42316
42317
42318
42319
42320
42321
42322
42323
42324
42325
42326
42327
42328
42329
42330
42331
42332
42333
42334
42335
42336
42337
42338
42339
42340
42341
42342
42343
42344
42345
42346
42347
42348
42349
42350
42351
42352
42353
42354
42355
42356
42357
42358
42359
42360
42361
42362
42363
42364
42365
42366
42367
42368
42369
42370
42371
42372
42373
42374
42375
42376
42377
42378
42379
42380
42381
42382
42383
42384
42385
42386
42387
42388
42389
42390
42391
42392
42393
42394
42395
42396
42397
42398
42399
42400
42401
42402
42403
42404
42405
42406
42407
42408
42409
42410
42411
42412
42413
42414
42415
42416
42417
42418
42419
42420
42421
42422
42423
42424
42425
42426
42427
42428
42429
42430
42431
42432
42433
42434
42435
42436
42437
42438
42439
42440
42441
42442
42443
42444
42445
42446
42447
42448
42449
42450
42451
42452
42453
42454
42455
42456
42457
42458
42459
42460
42461
42462
42463
42464
42465
42466
42467
42468
42469
42470
42471
42472
42473
42474
42475
42476
42477
42478
42479
42480
42481
42482
42483
42484
42485
42486
42487
42488
42489
42490
42491
42492
42493
42494
42495
42496
42497
42498
42499
42500
42501
42502
42503
42504
42505
42506
42507
42508
42509
42510
42511
42512
42513
42514
42515
42516
42517
42518
42519
42520
42521
42522
42523
42524
42525
42526
42527
42528
42529
42530
42531
42532
42533
42534
42535
42536
42537
42538
42539
42540
42541
42542
42543
42544
42545
42546
42547
42548
42549
42550
42551
42552
42553
42554
42555
42556
42557
42558
42559
42560
42561
42562
42563
42564
42565
42566
42567
42568
42569
42570
42571
42572
42573
42574
42575
42576
42577
42578
42579
42580
42581
42582
42583
42584
42585
42586
42587
42588
42589
42590
42591
42592
42593
42594
42595
42596
42597
42598
42599
42600
42601
42602
42603
42604
42605
42606
42607
42608
42609
42610
42611
42612
42613
42614
42615
42616
42617
42618
42619
42620
42621
42622
42623
42624
42625
42626
42627
42628
42629
42630
42631
42632
42633
42634
42635
42636
42637
42638
42639
42640
42641
42642
42643
42644
42645
42646
42647
42648
42649
42650
42651
42652
42653
42654
42655
42656
42657
42658
42659
42660
42661
42662
42663
42664
42665
42666
42667
42668
42669
42670
42671
42672
42673
42674
42675
42676
42677
42678
42679
42680
42681
42682
42683
42684
42685
42686
42687
42688
42689
42690
42691
42692
42693
42694
42695
42696
42697
42698
42699
42700
42701
42702
42703
42704
42705
42706
42707
42708
42709
42710
42711
42712
42713
42714
42715
42716
42717
42718
42719
42720
42721
42722
42723
42724
42725
42726
42727
42728
42729
42730
42731
42732
42733
42734
42735
42736
42737
42738
42739
42740
42741
42742
42743
42744
42745
42746
42747
42748
42749
42750
42751
42752
42753
42754
42755
42756
42757
42758
42759
42760
42761
42762
42763
42764
42765
42766
42767
42768
42769
42770
42771
42772
42773
42774
42775
42776
42777
42778
42779
42780
42781
42782
42783
42784
42785
42786
42787
42788
42789
42790
42791
42792
42793
42794
42795
42796
42797
42798
42799
42800
42801
42802
42803
42804
42805
42806
42807
42808
42809
42810
42811
42812
42813
42814
42815
42816
42817
42818
42819
42820
42821
42822
42823
42824
42825
42826
42827
42828
42829
42830
42831
42832
42833
42834
42835
42836
42837
42838
42839
42840
42841
42842
42843
42844
42845
42846
42847
42848
42849
42850
42851
42852
42853
42854
42855
42856
42857
42858
42859
42860
42861
42862
42863
42864
42865
42866
42867
42868
42869
42870
42871
42872
42873
42874
42875
42876
42877
42878
42879
42880
42881
42882
42883
42884
42885
42886
42887
42888
42889
42890
42891
42892
42893
42894
42895
42896
42897
42898
42899
42900
42901
42902
42903
42904
42905
42906
42907
42908
42909
42910
42911
42912
42913
42914
42915
42916
42917
42918
42919
42920
42921
42922
42923
42924
42925
42926
42927
42928
42929
42930
42931
42932
42933
42934
42935
42936
42937
42938
42939
42940
42941
42942
42943
42944
42945
42946
42947
42948
42949
42950
42951
42952
42953
42954
42955
42956
42957
42958
42959
42960
42961
42962
42963
42964
42965
42966
42967
42968
42969
42970
42971
42972
42973
42974
42975
42976
42977
42978
42979
42980
42981
42982
42983
42984
42985
42986
42987
42988
42989
42990
42991
42992
42993
42994
42995
42996
42997
42998
42999
43000
43001
43002
43003
43004
43005
43006
43007
43008
43009
43010
43011
43012
43013
43014
43015
43016
43017
43018
43019
43020
43021
43022
43023
43024
43025
43026
43027
43028
43029
43030
43031
43032
43033
43034
43035
43036
43037
43038
43039
43040
43041
43042
43043
43044
43045
43046
43047
43048
43049
43050
43051
43052
43053
43054
43055
43056
43057
43058
43059
43060
43061
43062
43063
43064
43065
43066
43067
43068
43069
43070
43071
43072
43073
43074
43075
43076
43077
43078
43079
43080
43081
43082
43083
43084
43085
43086
43087
43088
43089
43090
43091
43092
43093
43094
43095
43096
43097
43098
43099
43100
43101
43102
43103
43104
43105
43106
43107
43108
43109
43110
43111
43112
43113
43114
43115
43116
43117
43118
43119
43120
43121
43122
43123
43124
43125
43126
43127
43128
43129
43130
43131
43132
43133
43134
43135
43136
43137
43138
43139
43140
43141
43142
43143
43144
43145
43146
43147
43148
43149
43150
43151
43152
43153
43154
43155
43156
43157
43158
43159
43160
43161
43162
43163
43164
43165
43166
43167
43168
43169
43170
43171
43172
43173
43174
43175
43176
43177
43178
43179
43180
43181
43182
43183
43184
43185
43186
43187
43188
43189
43190
43191
43192
43193
43194
43195
43196
43197
43198
43199
43200
43201
43202
43203
43204
43205
43206
43207
43208
43209
43210
43211
43212
43213
43214
43215
43216
43217
43218
43219
43220
43221
43222
43223
43224
43225
43226
43227
43228
43229
43230
43231
43232
43233
43234
43235
43236
43237
43238
43239
43240
43241
43242
43243
43244
43245
43246
43247
43248
43249
43250
43251
43252
43253
43254
43255
43256
43257
43258
43259
43260
43261
43262
43263
43264
43265
43266
43267
43268
43269
43270
43271
43272
43273
43274
43275
43276
43277
43278
43279
43280
43281
43282
43283
43284
43285
43286
43287
43288
43289
43290
43291
43292
43293
43294
43295
43296
43297
43298
43299
43300
43301
43302
43303
43304
43305
43306
43307
43308
43309
43310
43311
43312
43313
43314
43315
43316
43317
43318
43319
43320
43321
43322
43323
43324
43325
43326
43327
43328
43329
43330
43331
43332
43333
43334
43335
43336
43337
43338
43339
43340
43341
43342
43343
43344
43345
43346
43347
43348
43349
43350
43351
43352
43353
43354
43355
43356
43357
43358
43359
43360
43361
43362
43363
43364
43365
43366
43367
43368
43369
43370
43371
43372
43373
43374
43375
43376
43377
43378
43379
43380
43381
43382
43383
43384
43385
43386
43387
43388
43389
43390
43391
43392
43393
43394
43395
43396
43397
43398
43399
43400
43401
43402
43403
43404
43405
43406
43407
43408
43409
43410
43411
43412
43413
43414
43415
43416
43417
43418
43419
43420
43421
43422
43423
43424
43425
43426
43427
43428
43429
43430
43431
43432
43433
43434
43435
43436
43437
43438
43439
43440
43441
43442
43443
43444
43445
43446
43447
43448
43449
43450
43451
43452
43453
43454
43455
43456
43457
43458
43459
43460
43461
43462
43463
43464
43465
43466
43467
43468
43469
43470
43471
43472
43473
43474
43475
43476
43477
43478
43479
43480
43481
43482
43483
43484
43485
43486
43487
43488
43489
43490
43491
43492
43493
43494
43495
43496
43497
43498
43499
43500
43501
43502
43503
43504
43505
43506
43507
43508
43509
43510
43511
43512
43513
43514
43515
43516
43517
43518
43519
43520
43521
43522
43523
43524
43525
43526
43527
43528
43529
43530
43531
43532
43533
43534
43535
43536
43537
43538
43539
43540
43541
43542
43543
43544
43545
43546
43547
43548
43549
43550
43551
43552
43553
43554
43555
43556
43557
43558
43559
43560
43561
43562
43563
43564
43565
43566
43567
43568
43569
43570
43571
43572
43573
43574
43575
43576
43577
43578
43579
43580
43581
43582
43583
43584
43585
43586
43587
43588
43589
43590
43591
43592
43593
43594
43595
43596
43597
43598
43599
43600
43601
43602
43603
43604
43605
43606
43607
43608
43609
43610
43611
43612
43613
43614
43615
43616
43617
43618
43619
43620
43621
43622
43623
43624
43625
43626
43627
43628
43629
43630
43631
43632
43633
43634
43635
43636
43637
43638
43639
43640
43641
43642
43643
43644
43645
43646
43647
43648
43649
43650
43651
43652
43653
43654
43655
43656
43657
43658
43659
43660
43661
43662
43663
43664
43665
43666
43667
43668
43669
43670
43671
43672
43673
43674
43675
43676
43677
43678
43679
43680
43681
43682
43683
43684
43685
43686
43687
43688
43689
43690
43691
43692
43693
43694
43695
43696
43697
43698
43699
43700
43701
43702
43703
43704
43705
43706
43707
43708
43709
43710
43711
43712
43713
43714
43715
43716
43717
43718
43719
43720
43721
43722
43723
43724
43725
43726
43727
43728
43729
43730
43731
43732
43733
43734
43735
43736
43737
43738
43739
43740
43741
43742
43743
43744
43745
43746
43747
43748
43749
43750
43751
43752
43753
43754
43755
43756
43757
43758
43759
43760
43761
43762
43763
43764
43765
43766
43767
43768
43769
43770
43771
43772
43773
43774
43775
43776
43777
43778
43779
43780
43781
43782
43783
43784
43785
43786
43787
43788
43789
43790
43791
43792
43793
43794
43795
43796
43797
43798
43799
43800
43801
43802
43803
43804
43805
43806
43807
43808
43809
43810
43811
43812
43813
43814
43815
43816
43817
43818
43819
43820
43821
43822
43823
43824
43825
43826
43827
43828
43829
43830
43831
43832
43833
43834
43835
43836
43837
43838
43839
43840
43841
43842
43843
43844
43845
43846
43847
43848
43849
43850
43851
43852
43853
43854
43855
43856
43857
43858
43859
43860
43861
43862
43863
43864
43865
43866
43867
43868
43869
43870
43871
43872
43873
43874
43875
43876
43877
43878
43879
43880
43881
43882
43883
43884
43885
43886
43887
43888
43889
43890
43891
43892
43893
43894
43895
43896
43897
43898
43899
43900
43901
43902
43903
43904
43905
43906
43907
43908
43909
43910
43911
43912
43913
43914
43915
43916
43917
43918
43919
43920
43921
43922
43923
43924
43925
43926
43927
43928
43929
43930
43931
43932
43933
43934
43935
43936
43937
43938
43939
43940
43941
43942
43943
43944
43945
43946
43947
43948
43949
43950
43951
43952
43953
43954
43955
43956
43957
43958
43959
43960
43961
43962
43963
43964
43965
43966
43967
43968
43969
43970
43971
43972
43973
43974
43975
43976
43977
43978
43979
43980
43981
43982
43983
43984
43985
43986
43987
43988
43989
43990
43991
43992
43993
43994
43995
43996
43997
43998
43999
44000
44001
44002
44003
44004
44005
44006
44007
44008
44009
44010
44011
44012
44013
44014
44015
44016
44017
44018
44019
44020
44021
44022
44023
44024
44025
44026
44027
44028
44029
44030
44031
44032
44033
44034
44035
44036
44037
44038
44039
44040
44041
44042
44043
44044
44045
44046
44047
44048
44049
44050
44051
44052
44053
44054
44055
44056
44057
44058
44059
44060
44061
44062
44063
44064
44065
44066
44067
44068
44069
44070
44071
44072
44073
44074
44075
44076
44077
44078
44079
44080
44081
44082
44083
44084
44085
44086
44087
44088
44089
44090
44091
44092
44093
44094
44095
44096
44097
44098
44099
44100
44101
44102
44103
44104
44105
44106
44107
44108
44109
44110
44111
44112
44113
44114
44115
44116
44117
44118
44119
44120
44121
44122
44123
44124
44125
44126
44127
44128
44129
44130
44131
44132
44133
44134
44135
44136
44137
44138
44139
44140
44141
44142
44143
44144
44145
44146
44147
44148
44149
44150
44151
44152
44153
44154
44155
44156
44157
44158
44159
44160
44161
44162
44163
44164
44165
44166
44167
44168
44169
44170
44171
44172
44173
44174
44175
44176
44177
44178
44179
44180
44181
44182
44183
44184
44185
44186
44187
44188
44189
44190
44191
44192
44193
44194
44195
44196
44197
44198
44199
44200
44201
44202
44203
44204
44205
44206
44207
44208
44209
44210
44211
44212
44213
44214
44215
44216
44217
44218
44219
44220
44221
44222
44223
44224
44225
44226
44227
44228
44229
44230
44231
44232
44233
44234
44235
44236
44237
44238
44239
44240
44241
44242
44243
44244
44245
44246
44247
44248
44249
44250
44251
44252
44253
44254
44255
44256
44257
44258
44259
44260
44261
44262
44263
44264
44265
44266
44267
44268
44269
44270
44271
44272
44273
44274
44275
44276
44277
44278
44279
44280
44281
44282
44283
44284
44285
44286
44287
44288
44289
44290
44291
44292
44293
44294
44295
44296
44297
44298
44299
44300
44301
44302
44303
44304
44305
44306
44307
44308
44309
44310
44311
44312
44313
44314
44315
44316
44317
44318
44319
44320
44321
44322
44323
44324
44325
44326
44327
44328
44329
44330
44331
44332
44333
44334
44335
44336
44337
44338
44339
44340
44341
44342
44343
44344
44345
44346
44347
44348
44349
44350
44351
44352
44353
44354
44355
44356
44357
44358
44359
44360
44361
44362
44363
44364
44365
44366
44367
44368
44369
44370
44371
44372
44373
44374
44375
44376
44377
44378
44379
44380
44381
44382
44383
44384
44385
44386
44387
44388
44389
44390
44391
44392
44393
44394
44395
44396
44397
44398
44399
44400
44401
44402
44403
44404
44405
44406
44407
44408
44409
44410
44411
44412
44413
44414
44415
44416
44417
44418
44419
44420
44421
44422
44423
44424
44425
44426
44427
44428
44429
44430
44431
44432
44433
44434
44435
44436
44437
44438
44439
44440
44441
44442
44443
44444
44445
44446
44447
44448
44449
44450
44451
44452
44453
44454
44455
44456
44457
44458
44459
44460
44461
44462
44463
44464
44465
44466
44467
44468
44469
44470
44471
44472
44473
44474
44475
44476
44477
44478
44479
44480
44481
44482
44483
44484
44485
44486
44487
44488
44489
44490
44491
44492
44493
44494
44495
44496
44497
44498
44499
44500
44501
44502
44503
44504
44505
44506
44507
44508
44509
44510
44511
44512
44513
44514
44515
44516
44517
44518
44519
44520
44521
44522
44523
44524
44525
44526
44527
44528
44529
44530
44531
44532
44533
44534
44535
44536
44537
44538
44539
44540
44541
44542
44543
44544
44545
44546
44547
44548
44549
44550
44551
44552
44553
44554
44555
44556
44557
44558
44559
44560
44561
44562
44563
44564
44565
44566
44567
44568
44569
44570
44571
44572
44573
44574
44575
44576
44577
44578
44579
44580
44581
44582
44583
44584
44585
44586
44587
44588
44589
44590
44591
44592
44593
44594
44595
44596
44597
44598
44599
44600
44601
44602
44603
44604
44605
44606
44607
44608
44609
44610
44611
44612
44613
44614
44615
44616
44617
44618
44619
44620
44621
44622
44623
44624
44625
44626
44627
44628
44629
44630
44631
44632
44633
44634
44635
44636
44637
44638
44639
44640
44641
44642
44643
44644
44645
44646
44647
44648
44649
44650
44651
44652
44653
44654
44655
44656
44657
44658
44659
44660
44661
44662
44663
44664
44665
44666
44667
44668
44669
44670
44671
44672
44673
44674
44675
44676
44677
44678
44679
44680
44681
44682
44683
44684
44685
44686
44687
44688
44689
44690
44691
44692
44693
44694
44695
44696
44697
44698
44699
44700
44701
44702
44703
44704
44705
44706
44707
44708
44709
44710
44711
44712
44713
44714
44715
44716
44717
44718
44719
44720
44721
44722
44723
44724
44725
44726
44727
44728
44729
44730
44731
44732
44733
44734
44735
44736
44737
44738
44739
44740
44741
44742
44743
44744
44745
44746
44747
44748
44749
44750
44751
44752
44753
44754
44755
44756
44757
44758
44759
44760
44761
44762
44763
44764
44765
44766
44767
44768
44769
44770
44771
44772
44773
44774
44775
44776
44777
44778
44779
44780
44781
44782
44783
44784
44785
44786
44787
44788
44789
44790
44791
44792
44793
44794
44795
44796
44797
44798
44799
44800
44801
44802
44803
44804
44805
44806
44807
44808
44809
44810
44811
44812
44813
44814
44815
44816
44817
44818
44819
44820
44821
44822
44823
44824
44825
44826
44827
44828
44829
44830
44831
44832
44833
44834
44835
44836
44837
44838
44839
44840
44841
44842
44843
44844
44845
44846
44847
44848
44849
44850
44851
44852
44853
44854
44855
44856
44857
44858
44859
44860
44861
44862
44863
44864
44865
44866
44867
44868
44869
44870
44871
44872
44873
44874
44875
44876
44877
44878
44879
44880
44881
44882
44883
44884
44885
44886
44887
44888
44889
44890
44891
44892
44893
44894
44895
44896
44897
44898
44899
44900
44901
44902
44903
44904
44905
44906
44907
44908
44909
44910
44911
44912
44913
44914
44915
44916
44917
44918
44919
44920
44921
44922
44923
44924
44925
44926
44927
44928
44929
44930
44931
44932
44933
44934
44935
44936
44937
44938
44939
44940
44941
44942
44943
44944
44945
44946
44947
44948
44949
44950
44951
44952
44953
44954
44955
44956
44957
44958
44959
44960
44961
44962
44963
44964
44965
44966
44967
44968
44969
44970
44971
44972
44973
44974
44975
44976
44977
44978
44979
44980
44981
44982
44983
44984
44985
44986
44987
44988
44989
44990
44991
44992
44993
44994
44995
44996
44997
44998
44999
45000
45001
45002
45003
45004
45005
45006
45007
45008
45009
45010
45011
45012
45013
45014
45015
45016
45017
45018
45019
45020
45021
45022
45023
45024
45025
45026
45027
45028
45029
45030
45031
45032
45033
45034
45035
45036
45037
45038
45039
45040
45041
45042
45043
45044
45045
45046
45047
45048
45049
45050
45051
45052
45053
45054
45055
45056
45057
45058
45059
45060
45061
45062
45063
45064
45065
45066
45067
45068
45069
45070
45071
45072
45073
45074
45075
45076
45077
45078
45079
45080
45081
45082
45083
45084
45085
45086
45087
45088
45089
45090
45091
45092
45093
45094
45095
45096
45097
45098
45099
45100
45101
45102
45103
45104
45105
45106
45107
45108
45109
45110
45111
45112
45113
45114
45115
45116
45117
45118
45119
45120
45121
45122
45123
45124
45125
45126
45127
45128
45129
45130
45131
45132
45133
45134
45135
45136
45137
45138
45139
45140
45141
45142
45143
45144
45145
45146
45147
45148
45149
45150
45151
45152
45153
45154
45155
45156
45157
45158
45159
45160
45161
45162
45163
45164
45165
45166
45167
45168
45169
45170
45171
45172
45173
45174
45175
45176
45177
45178
45179
45180
45181
45182
45183
45184
45185
45186
45187
45188
45189
45190
45191
45192
45193
45194
45195
45196
45197
45198
45199
45200
45201
45202
45203
45204
45205
45206
45207
45208
45209
45210
45211
45212
45213
45214
45215
45216
45217
45218
45219
45220
45221
45222
45223
45224
45225
45226
45227
45228
45229
45230
45231
45232
45233
45234
45235
45236
45237
45238
45239
45240
45241
45242
45243
45244
45245
45246
45247
45248
45249
45250
45251
45252
45253
45254
45255
45256
45257
45258
45259
45260
45261
45262
45263
45264
45265
45266
45267
45268
45269
45270
45271
45272
45273
45274
45275
45276
45277
45278
45279
45280
45281
45282
45283
45284
45285
45286
45287
45288
45289
45290
45291
45292
45293
45294
45295
45296
45297
45298
45299
45300
45301
45302
45303
45304
45305
45306
45307
45308
45309
45310
45311
45312
45313
45314
45315
45316
45317
45318
45319
45320
45321
45322
45323
45324
45325
45326
45327
45328
45329
45330
45331
45332
45333
45334
45335
45336
45337
45338
45339
45340
45341
45342
45343
45344
45345
45346
45347
45348
45349
45350
45351
45352
45353
45354
45355
45356
45357
45358
45359
45360
45361
45362
45363
45364
45365
45366
45367
45368
45369
45370
45371
45372
45373
45374
45375
45376
45377
45378
45379
45380
45381
45382
45383
45384
45385
45386
45387
45388
45389
45390
45391
45392
45393
45394
45395
45396
45397
45398
45399
45400
45401
45402
45403
45404
45405
45406
45407
45408
45409
45410
45411
45412
45413
45414
45415
45416
45417
45418
45419
45420
45421
45422
45423
45424
45425
45426
45427
45428
45429
45430
45431
45432
45433
45434
45435
45436
45437
45438
45439
45440
45441
45442
45443
45444
45445
45446
45447
45448
45449
45450
45451
45452
45453
45454
45455
45456
45457
45458
45459
45460
45461
45462
45463
45464
45465
45466
45467
45468
45469
45470
45471
45472
45473
45474
45475
45476
45477
45478
45479
45480
45481
45482
45483
45484
45485
45486
45487
45488
45489
45490
45491
45492
45493
45494
45495
45496
45497
45498
45499
45500
45501
45502
45503
45504
45505
45506
45507
45508
45509
45510
45511
45512
45513
45514
45515
45516
45517
45518
45519
45520
45521
45522
45523
45524
45525
45526
45527
45528
45529
45530
45531
45532
45533
45534
45535
45536
45537
45538
45539
45540
45541
45542
45543
45544
45545
45546
45547
45548
45549
45550
45551
45552
45553
45554
45555
45556
45557
45558
45559
45560
45561
45562
45563
45564
45565
45566
45567
45568
45569
45570
45571
45572
45573
45574
45575
45576
45577
45578
45579
45580
45581
45582
45583
45584
45585
45586
45587
45588
45589
45590
45591
45592
45593
45594
45595
45596
45597
45598
45599
45600
45601
45602
45603
45604
45605
45606
45607
45608
45609
45610
45611
45612
45613
45614
45615
45616
45617
45618
45619
45620
45621
45622
45623
45624
45625
45626
45627
45628
45629
45630
45631
45632
45633
45634
45635
45636
45637
45638
45639
45640
45641
45642
45643
45644
45645
45646
45647
45648
45649
45650
45651
45652
45653
45654
45655
45656
45657
45658
45659
45660
45661
45662
45663
45664
45665
45666
45667
45668
45669
45670
45671
45672
45673
45674
45675
45676
45677
45678
45679
45680
45681
45682
45683
45684
45685
45686
45687
45688
45689
45690
45691
45692
45693
45694
45695
45696
45697
45698
45699
45700
45701
45702
45703
45704
45705
45706
45707
45708
45709
45710
45711
45712
45713
45714
45715
45716
45717
45718
45719
45720
45721
45722
45723
45724
45725
45726
45727
45728
45729
45730
45731
45732
45733
45734
45735
45736
45737
45738
45739
45740
45741
45742
45743
45744
45745
45746
45747
45748
45749
45750
45751
45752
45753
45754
45755
45756
45757
45758
45759
45760
45761
45762
45763
45764
45765
45766
45767
45768
45769
45770
45771
45772
45773
45774
45775
45776
45777
45778
45779
45780
45781
45782
45783
45784
45785
45786
45787
45788
45789
45790
45791
45792
45793
45794
45795
45796
45797
45798
45799
45800
45801
45802
45803
45804
45805
45806
45807
45808
45809
45810
45811
45812
45813
45814
45815
45816
45817
45818
45819
45820
45821
45822
45823
45824
45825
45826
45827
45828
45829
45830
45831
45832
45833
45834
45835
45836
45837
45838
45839
45840
45841
45842
45843
45844
45845
45846
45847
45848
45849
45850
45851
45852
45853
45854
45855
45856
45857
45858
45859
45860
45861
45862
45863
45864
45865
45866
45867
45868
45869
45870
45871
45872
45873
45874
45875
45876
45877
45878
45879
45880
45881
45882
45883
45884
45885
45886
45887
45888
45889
45890
45891
45892
45893
45894
45895
45896
45897
45898
45899
45900
45901
45902
45903
45904
45905
45906
45907
45908
45909
45910
45911
45912
45913
45914
45915
45916
45917
45918
45919
45920
45921
45922
45923
45924
45925
45926
45927
45928
45929
45930
45931
45932
45933
45934
45935
45936
45937
45938
45939
45940
45941
45942
45943
45944
45945
45946
45947
45948
45949
45950
45951
45952
45953
45954
45955
45956
45957
45958
45959
45960
45961
45962
45963
45964
45965
45966
45967
45968
45969
45970
45971
45972
45973
45974
45975
45976
45977
45978
45979
45980
45981
45982
45983
45984
45985
45986
45987
45988
45989
45990
45991
45992
45993
45994
45995
45996
45997
45998
45999
46000
46001
46002
46003
46004
46005
46006
46007
46008
46009
46010
46011
46012
46013
46014
46015
46016
46017
46018
46019
46020
46021
46022
46023
46024
46025
46026
46027
46028
46029
46030
46031
46032
46033
46034
46035
46036
46037
46038
46039
46040
46041
46042
46043
46044
46045
46046
46047
46048
46049
46050
46051
46052
46053
46054
46055
46056
46057
46058
46059
46060
46061
46062
46063
46064
46065
46066
46067
46068
46069
46070
46071
46072
46073
46074
46075
46076
46077
46078
46079
46080
46081
46082
46083
46084
46085
46086
46087
46088
46089
46090
46091
46092
46093
46094
46095
46096
46097
46098
46099
46100
46101
46102
46103
46104
46105
46106
46107
46108
46109
46110
46111
46112
46113
46114
46115
46116
46117
46118
46119
46120
46121
46122
46123
46124
46125
46126
46127
46128
46129
46130
46131
46132
46133
46134
46135
46136
46137
46138
46139
46140
46141
46142
46143
46144
46145
46146
46147
46148
46149
46150
46151
46152
46153
46154
46155
46156
46157
46158
46159
46160
46161
46162
46163
46164
46165
46166
46167
46168
46169
46170
46171
46172
46173
46174
46175
46176
46177
46178
46179
46180
46181
46182
46183
46184
46185
46186
46187
46188
46189
46190
46191
46192
46193
46194
46195
46196
46197
46198
46199
46200
46201
46202
46203
46204
46205
46206
46207
46208
46209
46210
46211
46212
46213
46214
46215
46216
46217
46218
46219
46220
46221
46222
46223
46224
46225
46226
46227
46228
46229
46230
46231
46232
46233
46234
46235
46236
46237
46238
46239
46240
46241
46242
46243
46244
46245
46246
46247
46248
46249
46250
46251
46252
46253
46254
46255
46256
46257
46258
46259
46260
46261
46262
46263
46264
46265
46266
46267
46268
46269
46270
46271
46272
46273
46274
46275
46276
46277
46278
46279
46280
46281
46282
46283
46284
46285
46286
46287
46288
46289
46290
46291
46292
46293
46294
46295
46296
46297
46298
46299
46300
46301
46302
46303
46304
46305
46306
46307
46308
46309
46310
46311
46312
46313
46314
46315
46316
46317
46318
46319
46320
46321
46322
46323
46324
46325
46326
46327
46328
46329
46330
46331
46332
46333
46334
46335
46336
46337
46338
46339
46340
46341
46342
46343
46344
46345
46346
46347
46348
46349
46350
46351
46352
46353
46354
46355
46356
46357
46358
46359
46360
46361
46362
46363
46364
46365
46366
46367
46368
46369
46370
46371
46372
46373
46374
46375
46376
46377
46378
46379
46380
46381
46382
46383
46384
46385
46386
46387
46388
46389
46390
46391
46392
46393
46394
46395
46396
46397
46398
46399
46400
46401
46402
46403
46404
46405
46406
46407
46408
46409
46410
46411
46412
46413
46414
46415
46416
46417
46418
46419
46420
46421
46422
46423
46424
46425
46426
46427
46428
46429
46430
46431
46432
46433
46434
46435
46436
46437
46438
46439
46440
46441
46442
46443
46444
46445
46446
46447
46448
46449
46450
46451
46452
46453
46454
46455
46456
46457
46458
46459
46460
46461
46462
46463
46464
46465
46466
46467
46468
46469
46470
46471
46472
46473
46474
46475
46476
46477
46478
46479
46480
46481
46482
46483
46484
46485
46486
46487
46488
46489
46490
46491
46492
46493
46494
46495
46496
46497
46498
46499
46500
46501
46502
46503
46504
46505
46506
46507
46508
46509
46510
46511
46512
46513
46514
46515
46516
46517
46518
46519
46520
46521
46522
46523
46524
46525
46526
46527
46528
46529
46530
46531
46532
46533
46534
46535
46536
46537
46538
46539
46540
46541
46542
46543
46544
46545
46546
46547
46548
46549
46550
46551
46552
46553
46554
46555
46556
46557
46558
46559
46560
46561
46562
46563
46564
46565
46566
46567
46568
46569
46570
46571
46572
46573
46574
46575
46576
46577
46578
46579
46580
46581
46582
46583
46584
46585
46586
46587
46588
46589
46590
46591
46592
46593
46594
46595
46596
46597
46598
46599
46600
46601
46602
46603
46604
46605
46606
46607
46608
46609
46610
46611
46612
46613
46614
46615
46616
46617
46618
46619
46620
46621
46622
46623
46624
46625
46626
46627
46628
46629
46630
46631
46632
46633
46634
46635
46636
46637
46638
46639
46640
46641
46642
46643
46644
46645
46646
46647
46648
46649
46650
46651
46652
46653
46654
46655
46656
46657
46658
46659
46660
46661
46662
46663
46664
46665
46666
46667
46668
46669
46670
46671
46672
46673
46674
46675
46676
46677
46678
46679
46680
46681
46682
46683
46684
46685
46686
46687
46688
46689
46690
46691
46692
46693
46694
46695
46696
46697
46698
46699
46700
46701
46702
46703
46704
46705
46706
46707
46708
46709
46710
46711
46712
46713
46714
46715
46716
46717
46718
46719
46720
46721
46722
46723
46724
46725
46726
46727
46728
46729
46730
46731
46732
46733
46734
46735
46736
46737
46738
46739
46740
46741
46742
46743
46744
46745
46746
46747
46748
46749
46750
46751
46752
46753
46754
46755
46756
46757
46758
46759
46760
46761
46762
46763
46764
46765
46766
46767
46768
46769
46770
46771
46772
46773
46774
46775
46776
46777
46778
46779
46780
46781
46782
46783
46784
46785
46786
46787
46788
46789
46790
46791
46792
46793
46794
46795
46796
46797
46798
46799
46800
46801
46802
46803
46804
46805
46806
46807
46808
46809
46810
46811
46812
46813
46814
46815
46816
46817
46818
46819
46820
46821
46822
46823
46824
46825
46826
46827
46828
46829
46830
46831
46832
46833
46834
46835
46836
46837
46838
46839
46840
46841
46842
46843
46844
46845
46846
46847
46848
46849
46850
46851
46852
46853
46854
46855
46856
46857
46858
46859
46860
46861
46862
46863
46864
46865
46866
46867
46868
46869
46870
46871
46872
46873
46874
46875
46876
46877
46878
46879
46880
46881
46882
46883
46884
46885
46886
46887
46888
46889
46890
46891
46892
46893
46894
46895
46896
46897
46898
46899
46900
46901
46902
46903
46904
46905
46906
46907
46908
46909
46910
46911
46912
46913
46914
46915
46916
46917
46918
46919
46920
46921
46922
46923
46924
46925
46926
46927
46928
46929
46930
46931
46932
46933
46934
46935
46936
46937
46938
46939
46940
46941
46942
46943
46944
46945
46946
46947
46948
46949
46950
46951
46952
46953
46954
46955
46956
46957
46958
46959
46960
46961
46962
46963
46964
46965
46966
46967
46968
46969
46970
46971
46972
46973
46974
46975
46976
46977
46978
46979
46980
46981
46982
46983
46984
46985
46986
46987
46988
46989
46990
46991
46992
46993
46994
46995
46996
46997
46998
46999
47000
47001
47002
47003
47004
47005
47006
47007
47008
47009
47010
47011
47012
47013
47014
47015
47016
47017
47018
47019
47020
47021
47022
47023
47024
47025
47026
47027
47028
47029
47030
47031
47032
47033
47034
47035
47036
47037
47038
47039
47040
47041
47042
47043
47044
47045
47046
47047
47048
47049
47050
47051
47052
47053
47054
47055
47056
47057
47058
47059
47060
47061
47062
47063
47064
47065
47066
47067
47068
47069
47070
47071
47072
47073
47074
47075
47076
47077
47078
47079
47080
47081
47082
47083
47084
47085
47086
47087
47088
47089
47090
47091
47092
47093
47094
47095
47096
47097
47098
47099
47100
47101
47102
47103
47104
47105
47106
47107
47108
47109
47110
47111
47112
47113
47114
47115
47116
47117
47118
47119
47120
47121
47122
47123
47124
47125
47126
47127
47128
47129
47130
47131
47132
47133
47134
47135
47136
47137
47138
47139
47140
47141
47142
47143
47144
47145
47146
47147
47148
47149
47150
47151
47152
47153
47154
47155
47156
47157
47158
47159
47160
47161
47162
47163
47164
47165
47166
47167
47168
47169
47170
47171
47172
47173
47174
47175
47176
47177
47178
47179
47180
47181
47182
47183
47184
47185
47186
47187
47188
47189
47190
47191
47192
47193
47194
47195
47196
47197
47198
47199
47200
47201
47202
47203
47204
47205
47206
47207
47208
47209
47210
47211
47212
47213
47214
47215
47216
47217
47218
47219
47220
47221
47222
47223
47224
47225
47226
47227
47228
47229
47230
47231
47232
47233
47234
47235
47236
47237
47238
47239
47240
47241
47242
47243
47244
47245
47246
47247
47248
47249
47250
47251
47252
47253
47254
47255
47256
47257
47258
47259
47260
47261
47262
47263
47264
47265
47266
47267
47268
47269
47270
47271
47272
47273
47274
47275
47276
47277
47278
47279
47280
47281
47282
47283
47284
47285
47286
47287
47288
47289
47290
47291
47292
47293
47294
47295
47296
47297
47298
47299
47300
47301
47302
47303
47304
47305
47306
47307
47308
47309
47310
47311
47312
47313
47314
47315
47316
47317
47318
47319
47320
47321
47322
47323
47324
47325
47326
47327
47328
47329
47330
47331
47332
47333
47334
47335
47336
47337
47338
47339
47340
47341
47342
47343
47344
47345
47346
47347
47348
47349
47350
47351
47352
47353
47354
47355
47356
47357
47358
47359
47360
47361
47362
47363
47364
47365
47366
47367
47368
47369
47370
47371
47372
47373
47374
47375
47376
47377
47378
47379
47380
47381
47382
47383
47384
47385
47386
47387
47388
47389
47390
47391
47392
47393
47394
47395
47396
47397
47398
47399
47400
47401
47402
47403
47404
47405
47406
47407
47408
47409
47410
47411
47412
47413
47414
47415
47416
47417
47418
47419
47420
47421
47422
47423
47424
47425
47426
47427
47428
47429
47430
47431
47432
47433
47434
47435
47436
47437
47438
47439
47440
47441
47442
47443
47444
47445
47446
47447
47448
47449
47450
47451
47452
47453
47454
47455
47456
47457
47458
47459
47460
47461
47462
47463
47464
47465
47466
47467
47468
47469
47470
47471
47472
47473
47474
47475
47476
47477
47478
47479
47480
47481
47482
47483
47484
47485
47486
47487
47488
47489
47490
47491
47492
47493
47494
47495
47496
47497
47498
47499
47500
47501
47502
47503
47504
47505
47506
47507
47508
47509
47510
47511
47512
47513
47514
47515
47516
47517
47518
47519
47520
47521
47522
47523
47524
47525
47526
47527
47528
47529
47530
47531
47532
47533
47534
47535
47536
47537
47538
47539
47540
47541
47542
47543
47544
47545
47546
47547
47548
47549
47550
47551
47552
47553
47554
47555
47556
47557
47558
47559
47560
47561
47562
47563
47564
47565
47566
47567
47568
47569
47570
47571
47572
47573
47574
47575
47576
47577
47578
47579
47580
47581
47582
47583
47584
47585
47586
47587
47588
47589
47590
47591
47592
47593
47594
47595
47596
47597
47598
47599
47600
47601
47602
47603
47604
47605
47606
47607
47608
47609
47610
47611
47612
47613
47614
47615
47616
47617
47618
47619
47620
47621
47622
47623
47624
47625
47626
47627
47628
47629
47630
47631
47632
47633
47634
47635
47636
47637
47638
47639
47640
47641
47642
47643
47644
47645
47646
47647
47648
47649
47650
47651
47652
47653
47654
47655
47656
47657
47658
47659
47660
47661
47662
47663
47664
47665
47666
47667
47668
47669
47670
47671
47672
47673
47674
47675
47676
47677
47678
47679
47680
47681
47682
47683
47684
47685
47686
47687
47688
47689
47690
47691
47692
47693
47694
47695
47696
47697
47698
47699
47700
47701
47702
47703
47704
47705
47706
47707
47708
47709
47710
47711
47712
47713
47714
47715
47716
47717
47718
47719
47720
47721
47722
47723
47724
47725
47726
47727
47728
47729
47730
47731
47732
47733
47734
47735
47736
47737
47738
47739
47740
47741
47742
47743
47744
47745
47746
47747
47748
47749
47750
47751
47752
47753
47754
47755
47756
47757
47758
47759
47760
47761
47762
47763
47764
47765
47766
47767
47768
47769
47770
47771
47772
47773
47774
47775
47776
47777
47778
47779
47780
47781
47782
47783
47784
47785
47786
47787
47788
47789
47790
47791
47792
47793
47794
47795
47796
47797
47798
47799
47800
47801
47802
47803
47804
47805
47806
47807
47808
47809
47810
47811
47812
47813
47814
47815
47816
47817
47818
47819
47820
47821
47822
47823
47824
47825
47826
47827
47828
47829
47830
47831
47832
47833
47834
47835
47836
47837
47838
47839
47840
47841
47842
47843
47844
47845
47846
47847
47848
47849
47850
47851
47852
47853
47854
47855
47856
47857
47858
47859
47860
47861
47862
47863
47864
47865
47866
47867
47868
47869
47870
47871
47872
47873
47874
47875
47876
47877
47878
47879
47880
47881
47882
47883
47884
47885
47886
47887
47888
47889
47890
47891
47892
47893
47894
47895
47896
47897
47898
47899
47900
47901
47902
47903
47904
47905
47906
47907
47908
47909
47910
47911
47912
47913
47914
47915
47916
47917
47918
47919
47920
47921
47922
47923
47924
47925
47926
47927
47928
47929
47930
47931
47932
47933
47934
47935
47936
47937
47938
47939
47940
47941
47942
47943
47944
47945
47946
47947
47948
47949
47950
47951
47952
47953
47954
47955
47956
47957
47958
47959
47960
47961
47962
47963
47964
47965
47966
47967
47968
47969
47970
47971
47972
47973
47974
47975
47976
47977
47978
47979
47980
47981
47982
47983
47984
47985
47986
47987
47988
47989
47990
47991
47992
47993
47994
47995
47996
47997
47998
47999
48000
48001
48002
48003
48004
48005
48006
48007
48008
48009
48010
48011
48012
48013
48014
48015
48016
48017
48018
48019
48020
48021
48022
48023
48024
48025
48026
48027
48028
48029
48030
48031
48032
48033
48034
48035
48036
48037
48038
48039
48040
48041
48042
48043
48044
48045
48046
48047
48048
48049
48050
48051
48052
48053
48054
48055
48056
48057
48058
48059
48060
48061
48062
48063
48064
48065
48066
48067
48068
48069
48070
48071
48072
48073
48074
48075
48076
48077
48078
48079
48080
48081
48082
48083
48084
48085
48086
48087
48088
48089
48090
48091
48092
48093
48094
48095
48096
48097
48098
48099
48100
48101
48102
48103
48104
48105
48106
48107
48108
48109
48110
48111
48112
48113
48114
48115
48116
48117
48118
48119
48120
48121
48122
48123
48124
48125
48126
48127
48128
48129
48130
48131
48132
48133
48134
48135
48136
48137
48138
48139
48140
48141
48142
48143
48144
48145
48146
48147
48148
48149
48150
48151
48152
48153
48154
48155
48156
48157
48158
48159
48160
48161
48162
48163
48164
48165
48166
48167
48168
48169
48170
48171
48172
48173
48174
48175
48176
48177
48178
48179
48180
48181
48182
48183
48184
48185
48186
48187
48188
48189
48190
48191
48192
48193
48194
48195
48196
48197
48198
48199
48200
48201
48202
48203
48204
48205
48206
48207
48208
48209
48210
48211
48212
48213
48214
48215
48216
48217
48218
48219
48220
48221
48222
48223
48224
48225
48226
48227
48228
48229
48230
48231
48232
48233
48234
48235
48236
48237
48238
48239
48240
48241
48242
48243
48244
48245
48246
48247
48248
48249
48250
48251
48252
48253
48254
48255
48256
48257
48258
48259
48260
48261
48262
48263
48264
48265
48266
48267
48268
48269
48270
48271
48272
48273
48274
48275
48276
48277
48278
48279
48280
48281
48282
48283
48284
48285
48286
48287
48288
48289
48290
48291
48292
48293
48294
48295
48296
48297
48298
48299
48300
48301
48302
48303
48304
48305
48306
48307
48308
48309
48310
48311
48312
48313
48314
48315
48316
48317
48318
48319
48320
48321
48322
48323
48324
48325
48326
48327
48328
48329
48330
48331
48332
48333
48334
48335
48336
48337
48338
48339
48340
48341
48342
48343
48344
48345
48346
48347
48348
48349
48350
48351
48352
48353
48354
48355
48356
48357
48358
48359
48360
48361
48362
48363
48364
48365
48366
48367
48368
48369
48370
48371
48372
48373
48374
48375
48376
48377
48378
48379
48380
48381
48382
48383
48384
48385
48386
48387
48388
48389
48390
48391
48392
48393
48394
48395
48396
48397
48398
48399
48400
48401
48402
48403
48404
48405
48406
48407
48408
48409
48410
48411
48412
48413
48414
48415
48416
48417
48418
48419
48420
48421
48422
48423
48424
48425
48426
48427
48428
48429
48430
48431
48432
48433
48434
48435
48436
48437
48438
48439
48440
48441
48442
48443
48444
48445
48446
48447
48448
48449
48450
48451
48452
48453
48454
48455
48456
48457
48458
48459
48460
48461
48462
48463
48464
48465
48466
48467
48468
48469
48470
48471
48472
48473
48474
48475
48476
48477
48478
48479
48480
48481
48482
48483
48484
48485
48486
48487
48488
48489
48490
48491
48492
48493
48494
48495
48496
48497
48498
48499
48500
48501
48502
48503
48504
48505
48506
48507
48508
48509
48510
48511
48512
48513
48514
48515
48516
48517
48518
48519
48520
48521
48522
48523
48524
48525
48526
48527
48528
48529
48530
48531
48532
48533
48534
48535
48536
48537
48538
48539
48540
48541
48542
48543
48544
48545
48546
48547
48548
48549
48550
48551
48552
48553
48554
48555
48556
48557
48558
48559
48560
48561
48562
48563
48564
48565
48566
48567
48568
48569
48570
48571
48572
48573
48574
48575
48576
48577
48578
48579
48580
48581
48582
48583
48584
48585
48586
48587
48588
48589
48590
48591
48592
48593
48594
48595
48596
48597
48598
48599
48600
48601
48602
48603
48604
48605
48606
48607
48608
48609
48610
48611
48612
48613
48614
48615
48616
48617
48618
48619
48620
48621
48622
48623
48624
48625
48626
48627
48628
48629
48630
48631
48632
48633
48634
48635
48636
48637
48638
48639
48640
48641
48642
48643
48644
48645
48646
48647
48648
48649
48650
48651
48652
48653
48654
48655
48656
48657
48658
48659
48660
48661
48662
48663
48664
48665
48666
48667
48668
48669
48670
48671
48672
48673
48674
48675
48676
48677
48678
48679
48680
48681
48682
48683
48684
48685
48686
48687
48688
48689
48690
48691
48692
48693
48694
48695
48696
48697
48698
48699
48700
48701
48702
48703
48704
48705
48706
48707
48708
48709
48710
48711
48712
48713
48714
48715
48716
48717
48718
48719
48720
48721
48722
48723
48724
48725
48726
48727
48728
48729
48730
48731
48732
48733
48734
48735
48736
48737
48738
48739
48740
48741
48742
48743
48744
48745
48746
48747
48748
48749
48750
48751
48752
48753
48754
48755
48756
48757
48758
48759
48760
48761
48762
48763
48764
48765
48766
48767
48768
48769
48770
48771
48772
48773
48774
48775
48776
48777
48778
48779
48780
48781
48782
48783
48784
48785
48786
48787
48788
48789
48790
48791
48792
48793
48794
48795
48796
48797
48798
48799
48800
48801
48802
48803
48804
48805
48806
48807
48808
48809
48810
48811
48812
48813
48814
48815
48816
48817
48818
48819
48820
48821
48822
48823
48824
48825
48826
48827
48828
48829
48830
48831
48832
48833
48834
48835
48836
48837
48838
48839
48840
48841
48842
48843
48844
48845
48846
48847
48848
48849
48850
48851
48852
48853
48854
48855
48856
48857
48858
48859
48860
48861
48862
48863
48864
48865
48866
48867
48868
48869
48870
48871
48872
48873
48874
48875
48876
48877
48878
48879
48880
48881
48882
48883
48884
48885
48886
48887
48888
48889
48890
48891
48892
48893
48894
48895
48896
48897
48898
48899
48900
48901
48902
48903
48904
48905
48906
48907
48908
48909
48910
48911
48912
48913
48914
48915
48916
48917
48918
48919
48920
48921
48922
48923
48924
48925
48926
48927
48928
48929
48930
48931
48932
48933
48934
48935
48936
48937
48938
48939
48940
48941
48942
48943
48944
48945
48946
48947
48948
48949
48950
48951
48952
48953
48954
48955
48956
48957
48958
48959
48960
48961
48962
48963
48964
48965
48966
48967
48968
48969
48970
48971
48972
48973
48974
48975
48976
48977
48978
48979
48980
48981
48982
48983
48984
48985
48986
48987
48988
48989
48990
48991
48992
48993
48994
48995
48996
48997
48998
48999
49000
49001
49002
49003
49004
49005
49006
49007
49008
49009
49010
49011
49012
49013
49014
49015
49016
49017
49018
49019
49020
49021
49022
49023
49024
49025
49026
49027
49028
49029
49030
49031
49032
49033
49034
49035
49036
49037
49038
49039
49040
49041
49042
49043
49044
49045
49046
49047
49048
49049
49050
49051
49052
49053
49054
49055
49056
49057
49058
49059
49060
49061
49062
49063
49064
49065
49066
49067
49068
49069
49070
49071
49072
49073
49074
49075
49076
49077
49078
49079
49080
49081
49082
49083
49084
49085
49086
49087
49088
49089
49090
49091
49092
49093
49094
49095
49096
49097
49098
49099
49100
49101
49102
49103
49104
49105
49106
49107
49108
49109
49110
49111
49112
49113
49114
49115
49116
49117
49118
49119
49120
49121
49122
49123
49124
49125
49126
49127
49128
49129
49130
49131
49132
49133
49134
49135
49136
49137
49138
49139
49140
49141
49142
49143
49144
49145
49146
49147
49148
49149
49150
49151
49152
49153
49154
49155
49156
49157
49158
49159
49160
49161
49162
49163
49164
49165
49166
49167
49168
49169
49170
49171
49172
49173
49174
49175
49176
49177
49178
49179
49180
49181
49182
49183
49184
49185
49186
49187
49188
49189
49190
49191
49192
49193
49194
49195
49196
49197
49198
49199
49200
49201
49202
49203
49204
49205
49206
49207
49208
49209
49210
49211
49212
49213
49214
49215
49216
49217
49218
49219
49220
49221
49222
49223
49224
49225
49226
49227
49228
49229
49230
49231
49232
49233
49234
49235
49236
49237
49238
49239
49240
49241
49242
49243
49244
49245
49246
49247
49248
49249
49250
49251
49252
49253
49254
49255
49256
49257
49258
49259
49260
49261
49262
49263
49264
49265
49266
49267
49268
49269
49270
49271
49272
49273
49274
49275
49276
49277
49278
49279
49280
49281
49282
49283
49284
49285
49286
49287
49288
49289
49290
49291
49292
49293
49294
49295
49296
49297
49298
49299
49300
49301
49302
49303
49304
49305
49306
49307
49308
49309
49310
49311
49312
49313
49314
49315
49316
49317
49318
49319
49320
49321
49322
49323
49324
49325
49326
49327
49328
49329
49330
49331
49332
49333
49334
49335
49336
49337
49338
49339
49340
49341
49342
49343
49344
49345
49346
49347
49348
49349
49350
49351
49352
49353
49354
49355
49356
49357
49358
49359
49360
49361
49362
49363
49364
49365
49366
49367
49368
49369
49370
49371
49372
49373
49374
49375
49376
49377
49378
49379
49380
49381
49382
49383
49384
49385
49386
49387
49388
49389
49390
49391
49392
49393
49394
49395
49396
49397
49398
49399
49400
49401
49402
49403
49404
49405
49406
49407
49408
49409
49410
49411
49412
49413
49414
49415
49416
49417
49418
49419
49420
49421
49422
49423
49424
49425
49426
49427
49428
49429
49430
49431
49432
49433
49434
49435
49436
49437
49438
49439
49440
49441
49442
49443
49444
49445
49446
49447
49448
49449
49450
49451
49452
49453
49454
49455
49456
49457
49458
49459
49460
49461
49462
49463
49464
49465
49466
49467
49468
49469
49470
49471
49472
49473
49474
49475
49476
49477
49478
49479
49480
49481
49482
49483
49484
49485
49486
49487
49488
49489
49490
49491
49492
49493
49494
49495
49496
49497
49498
49499
49500
49501
49502
49503
49504
49505
49506
49507
49508
49509
49510
49511
49512
49513
49514
49515
49516
49517
49518
49519
49520
49521
49522
49523
49524
49525
49526
49527
49528
49529
49530
49531
49532
49533
49534
49535
49536
49537
49538
49539
49540
49541
49542
49543
49544
49545
49546
49547
49548
49549
49550
49551
49552
49553
49554
49555
49556
49557
49558
49559
49560
49561
49562
49563
49564
49565
49566
49567
49568
49569
49570
49571
49572
49573
49574
49575
49576
49577
49578
49579
49580
49581
49582
49583
49584
49585
49586
49587
49588
49589
49590
49591
49592
49593
49594
49595
49596
49597
49598
49599
49600
49601
49602
49603
49604
49605
49606
49607
49608
49609
49610
49611
49612
49613
49614
49615
49616
49617
49618
49619
49620
49621
49622
49623
49624
49625
49626
49627
49628
49629
49630
49631
49632
49633
49634
49635
49636
49637
49638
49639
49640
49641
49642
49643
49644
49645
49646
49647
49648
49649
49650
49651
49652
49653
49654
49655
49656
49657
49658
49659
49660
49661
49662
49663
49664
49665
49666
49667
49668
49669
49670
49671
49672
49673
49674
49675
49676
49677
49678
49679
49680
49681
49682
49683
49684
49685
49686
49687
49688
49689
49690
49691
49692
49693
49694
49695
49696
49697
49698
49699
49700
49701
49702
49703
49704
49705
49706
49707
49708
49709
49710
49711
49712
49713
49714
49715
49716
49717
49718
49719
49720
49721
49722
49723
49724
49725
49726
49727
49728
49729
49730
49731
49732
49733
49734
49735
49736
49737
49738
49739
49740
49741
49742
49743
49744
49745
49746
49747
49748
49749
49750
49751
49752
49753
49754
49755
49756
49757
49758
49759
49760
49761
49762
49763
49764
49765
49766
49767
49768
49769
49770
49771
49772
49773
49774
49775
49776
49777
49778
49779
49780
49781
49782
49783
49784
49785
49786
49787
49788
49789
49790
49791
49792
49793
49794
49795
49796
49797
49798
49799
49800
49801
49802
49803
49804
49805
49806
49807
49808
49809
49810
49811
49812
49813
49814
49815
49816
49817
49818
49819
49820
49821
49822
49823
49824
49825
49826
49827
49828
49829
49830
49831
49832
49833
49834
49835
49836
49837
49838
49839
49840
49841
49842
49843
49844
49845
49846
49847
49848
49849
49850
49851
49852
49853
49854
49855
49856
49857
49858
49859
49860
49861
49862
49863
49864
49865
49866
49867
49868
49869
49870
49871
49872
49873
49874
49875
49876
49877
49878
49879
49880
49881
49882
49883
49884
49885
49886
49887
49888
49889
49890
49891
49892
49893
49894
49895
49896
49897
49898
49899
49900
49901
49902
49903
49904
49905
49906
49907
49908
49909
49910
49911
49912
49913
49914
49915
49916
49917
49918
49919
49920
49921
49922
49923
49924
49925
49926
49927
49928
49929
49930
49931
49932
49933
49934
49935
49936
49937
49938
49939
49940
49941
49942
49943
49944
49945
49946
49947
49948
49949
49950
49951
49952
49953
49954
49955
49956
49957
49958
49959
49960
49961
49962
49963
49964
49965
49966
49967
49968
49969
49970
49971
49972
49973
49974
49975
49976
49977
49978
49979
49980
49981
49982
49983
49984
49985
49986
49987
49988
49989
49990
49991
49992
49993
49994
49995
49996
49997
49998
49999
50000
50001
50002
50003
50004
50005
50006
50007
50008
50009
50010
50011
50012
50013
50014
50015
50016
50017
50018
50019
50020
50021
50022
50023
50024
50025
50026
50027
50028
50029
50030
50031
50032
50033
50034
50035
50036
50037
50038
50039
50040
50041
50042
50043
50044
50045
50046
50047
50048
50049
50050
50051
50052
50053
50054
50055
50056
50057
50058
50059
50060
50061
50062
50063
50064
50065
50066
50067
50068
50069
50070
50071
50072
50073
50074
50075
50076
50077
50078
50079
50080
50081
50082
50083
50084
50085
50086
50087
50088
50089
50090
50091
50092
50093
50094
50095
50096
50097
50098
50099
50100
50101
50102
50103
50104
50105
50106
50107
50108
50109
50110
50111
50112
50113
50114
50115
50116
50117
50118
50119
50120
50121
50122
50123
50124
50125
50126
50127
50128
50129
50130
50131
50132
50133
50134
50135
50136
50137
50138
50139
50140
50141
50142
50143
50144
50145
50146
50147
50148
50149
50150
50151
50152
50153
50154
50155
50156
50157
50158
50159
50160
50161
50162
50163
50164
50165
50166
50167
50168
50169
50170
50171
50172
50173
50174
50175
50176
50177
50178
50179
50180
50181
50182
50183
50184
50185
50186
50187
50188
50189
50190
50191
50192
50193
50194
50195
50196
50197
50198
50199
50200
50201
50202
50203
50204
50205
50206
50207
50208
50209
50210
50211
50212
50213
50214
50215
50216
50217
50218
50219
50220
50221
50222
50223
50224
50225
50226
50227
50228
50229
50230
50231
50232
50233
50234
50235
50236
50237
50238
50239
50240
50241
50242
50243
50244
50245
50246
50247
50248
50249
50250
50251
50252
50253
50254
50255
50256
50257
50258
50259
50260
50261
50262
50263
50264
50265
50266
50267
50268
50269
50270
50271
50272
50273
50274
50275
50276
50277
50278
50279
50280
50281
50282
50283
50284
50285
50286
50287
50288
50289
50290
50291
50292
50293
50294
50295
50296
50297
50298
50299
50300
50301
50302
50303
50304
50305
50306
50307
50308
50309
50310
50311
50312
50313
50314
50315
50316
50317
50318
50319
50320
50321
50322
50323
50324
50325
50326
50327
50328
50329
50330
50331
50332
50333
50334
50335
50336
50337
50338
50339
50340
50341
50342
50343
50344
50345
50346
50347
50348
50349
50350
50351
50352
50353
50354
50355
50356
50357
50358
50359
50360
50361
50362
50363
50364
50365
50366
50367
50368
50369
50370
50371
50372
50373
50374
50375
50376
50377
50378
50379
50380
50381
50382
50383
50384
50385
50386
50387
50388
50389
50390
50391
50392
50393
50394
50395
50396
50397
50398
50399
50400
50401
50402
50403
50404
50405
50406
50407
50408
50409
50410
50411
50412
50413
50414
50415
50416
50417
50418
50419
50420
50421
50422
50423
50424
50425
50426
50427
50428
50429
50430
50431
50432
50433
50434
50435
50436
50437
50438
50439
50440
50441
50442
50443
50444
50445
50446
50447
50448
50449
50450
50451
50452
50453
50454
50455
50456
50457
50458
50459
50460
50461
50462
50463
50464
50465
50466
50467
50468
50469
50470
50471
50472
50473
50474
50475
50476
50477
50478
50479
50480
50481
50482
50483
50484
50485
50486
50487
50488
50489
50490
50491
50492
50493
50494
50495
50496
50497
50498
50499
50500
50501
50502
50503
50504
50505
50506
50507
50508
50509
50510
50511
50512
50513
50514
50515
50516
50517
50518
50519
50520
50521
50522
50523
50524
50525
50526
50527
50528
50529
50530
50531
50532
50533
50534
50535
50536
50537
50538
50539
50540
50541
50542
50543
50544
50545
50546
50547
50548
50549
50550
50551
50552
50553
50554
50555
50556
50557
50558
50559
50560
50561
50562
50563
50564
50565
50566
50567
50568
50569
50570
50571
50572
50573
50574
50575
50576
50577
50578
50579
50580
50581
50582
50583
50584
50585
50586
50587
50588
50589
50590
50591
50592
50593
50594
50595
50596
50597
50598
50599
50600
50601
50602
50603
50604
50605
50606
50607
50608
50609
50610
50611
50612
50613
50614
50615
50616
50617
50618
50619
50620
50621
50622
50623
50624
50625
50626
50627
50628
50629
50630
50631
50632
50633
50634
50635
50636
50637
50638
50639
50640
50641
50642
50643
50644
50645
50646
50647
50648
50649
50650
50651
50652
50653
50654
50655
50656
50657
50658
50659
50660
50661
50662
50663
50664
50665
50666
50667
50668
50669
50670
50671
50672
50673
50674
50675
50676
50677
50678
50679
50680
50681
50682
50683
50684
50685
50686
50687
50688
50689
50690
50691
50692
50693
50694
50695
50696
50697
50698
50699
50700
50701
50702
50703
50704
50705
50706
50707
50708
50709
50710
50711
50712
50713
50714
50715
50716
50717
50718
50719
50720
50721
50722
50723
50724
50725
50726
50727
50728
50729
50730
50731
50732
50733
50734
50735
50736
50737
50738
50739
50740
50741
50742
50743
50744
50745
50746
50747
50748
50749
50750
50751
50752
50753
50754
50755
50756
50757
50758
50759
50760
50761
50762
50763
50764
50765
50766
50767
50768
50769
50770
50771
50772
50773
50774
50775
50776
50777
50778
50779
50780
50781
50782
50783
50784
50785
50786
50787
50788
50789
50790
50791
50792
50793
50794
50795
50796
50797
50798
50799
50800
50801
50802
50803
50804
50805
50806
50807
50808
50809
50810
50811
50812
50813
50814
50815
50816
50817
50818
50819
50820
50821
50822
50823
50824
50825
50826
50827
50828
50829
50830
50831
50832
50833
50834
50835
50836
50837
50838
50839
50840
50841
50842
50843
50844
50845
50846
50847
50848
50849
50850
50851
50852
50853
50854
50855
50856
50857
50858
50859
50860
50861
50862
50863
50864
50865
50866
50867
50868
50869
50870
50871
50872
50873
50874
50875
50876
50877
50878
50879
50880
50881
50882
50883
50884
50885
50886
50887
50888
50889
50890
50891
50892
50893
50894
50895
50896
50897
50898
50899
50900
50901
50902
50903
50904
50905
50906
50907
50908
50909
50910
50911
50912
50913
50914
50915
50916
50917
50918
50919
50920
50921
50922
50923
50924
50925
50926
50927
50928
50929
50930
50931
50932
50933
50934
50935
50936
50937
50938
50939
50940
50941
50942
50943
50944
50945
50946
50947
50948
50949
50950
50951
50952
50953
50954
50955
50956
50957
50958
50959
50960
50961
50962
50963
50964
50965
50966
50967
50968
50969
50970
50971
50972
50973
50974
50975
50976
50977
50978
50979
50980
50981
50982
50983
50984
50985
50986
50987
50988
50989
50990
50991
50992
50993
50994
50995
50996
50997
50998
50999
51000
51001
51002
51003
51004
51005
51006
51007
51008
51009
51010
51011
51012
51013
51014
51015
51016
51017
51018
51019
51020
51021
51022
51023
51024
51025
51026
51027
51028
51029
51030
51031
51032
51033
51034
51035
51036
51037
51038
51039
51040
51041
51042
51043
51044
51045
51046
51047
51048
51049
51050
51051
51052
51053
51054
51055
51056
51057
51058
51059
51060
51061
51062
51063
51064
51065
51066
51067
51068
51069
51070
51071
51072
51073
51074
51075
51076
51077
51078
51079
51080
51081
51082
51083
51084
51085
51086
51087
51088
51089
51090
51091
51092
51093
51094
51095
51096
51097
51098
51099
51100
51101
51102
51103
51104
51105
51106
51107
51108
51109
51110
51111
51112
51113
51114
51115
51116
51117
51118
51119
51120
51121
51122
51123
51124
51125
51126
51127
51128
51129
51130
51131
51132
51133
51134
51135
51136
51137
51138
51139
51140
51141
51142
51143
51144
51145
51146
51147
51148
51149
51150
51151
51152
51153
51154
51155
51156
51157
51158
51159
51160
51161
51162
51163
51164
51165
51166
51167
51168
51169
51170
51171
51172
51173
51174
51175
51176
51177
51178
51179
51180
51181
51182
51183
51184
51185
51186
51187
51188
51189
51190
51191
51192
51193
51194
51195
51196
51197
51198
51199
51200
51201
51202
51203
51204
51205
51206
51207
51208
51209
51210
51211
51212
51213
51214
51215
51216
51217
51218
51219
51220
51221
51222
51223
51224
51225
51226
51227
51228
51229
51230
51231
51232
51233
51234
51235
51236
51237
51238
51239
51240
51241
51242
51243
51244
51245
51246
51247
51248
51249
51250
51251
51252
51253
51254
51255
51256
51257
51258
51259
51260
51261
51262
51263
51264
51265
51266
51267
51268
51269
51270
51271
51272
51273
51274
51275
51276
51277
51278
51279
51280
51281
51282
51283
51284
51285
51286
51287
51288
51289
51290
51291
51292
51293
51294
51295
51296
51297
51298
51299
51300
51301
51302
51303
51304
51305
51306
51307
51308
51309
51310
51311
51312
51313
51314
51315
51316
51317
51318
51319
51320
51321
51322
51323
51324
51325
51326
51327
51328
51329
51330
51331
51332
51333
51334
51335
51336
51337
51338
51339
51340
51341
51342
51343
51344
51345
51346
51347
51348
51349
51350
51351
51352
51353
51354
51355
51356
51357
51358
51359
51360
51361
51362
51363
51364
51365
51366
51367
51368
51369
51370
51371
51372
51373
51374
51375
51376
51377
51378
51379
51380
51381
51382
51383
51384
51385
51386
51387
51388
51389
51390
51391
51392
51393
51394
51395
51396
51397
51398
51399
51400
51401
51402
51403
51404
51405
51406
51407
51408
51409
51410
51411
51412
51413
51414
51415
51416
51417
51418
51419
51420
51421
51422
51423
51424
51425
51426
51427
51428
51429
51430
51431
51432
51433
51434
51435
51436
51437
51438
51439
51440
51441
51442
51443
51444
51445
51446
51447
51448
51449
51450
51451
51452
51453
51454
51455
51456
51457
51458
51459
51460
51461
51462
51463
51464
51465
51466
51467
51468
51469
51470
51471
51472
51473
51474
51475
51476
51477
51478
51479
51480
51481
51482
51483
51484
51485
51486
51487
51488
51489
51490
51491
51492
51493
51494
51495
51496
51497
51498
51499
51500
51501
51502
51503
51504
51505
51506
51507
51508
51509
51510
51511
51512
51513
51514
51515
51516
51517
51518
51519
51520
51521
51522
51523
51524
51525
51526
51527
51528
51529
51530
51531
51532
51533
51534
51535
51536
51537
51538
51539
51540
51541
51542
51543
51544
51545
51546
51547
51548
51549
51550
51551
51552
51553
51554
51555
51556
51557
51558
51559
51560
51561
51562
51563
51564
51565
51566
51567
51568
51569
51570
51571
51572
51573
51574
51575
51576
51577
51578
51579
51580
51581
51582
51583
51584
51585
51586
51587
51588
51589
51590
51591
51592
51593
51594
51595
51596
51597
51598
51599
51600
51601
51602
51603
51604
51605
51606
51607
51608
51609
51610
51611
51612
51613
51614
51615
51616
51617
51618
51619
51620
51621
51622
51623
51624
51625
51626
51627
51628
51629
51630
51631
51632
51633
51634
51635
51636
51637
51638
51639
51640
51641
51642
51643
51644
51645
51646
51647
51648
51649
51650
51651
51652
51653
51654
51655
51656
51657
51658
51659
51660
51661
51662
51663
51664
51665
51666
51667
51668
51669
51670
51671
51672
51673
51674
51675
51676
51677
51678
51679
51680
51681
51682
51683
51684
51685
51686
51687
51688
51689
51690
51691
51692
51693
51694
51695
51696
51697
51698
51699
51700
51701
51702
51703
51704
51705
51706
51707
51708
51709
51710
51711
51712
51713
51714
51715
51716
51717
51718
51719
51720
51721
51722
51723
51724
51725
51726
51727
51728
51729
51730
51731
51732
51733
51734
51735
51736
51737
51738
51739
51740
51741
51742
51743
51744
51745
51746
51747
51748
51749
51750
51751
51752
51753
51754
51755
51756
51757
51758
51759
51760
51761
51762
51763
51764
51765
51766
51767
51768
51769
51770
51771
51772
51773
51774
51775
51776
51777
51778
51779
51780
51781
51782
51783
51784
51785
51786
51787
51788
51789
51790
51791
51792
51793
51794
51795
51796
51797
51798
51799
51800
51801
51802
51803
51804
51805
51806
51807
51808
51809
51810
51811
51812
51813
51814
51815
51816
51817
51818
51819
51820
51821
51822
51823
51824
51825
51826
51827
51828
51829
51830
51831
51832
51833
51834
51835
51836
51837
51838
51839
51840
51841
51842
51843
51844
51845
51846
51847
51848
51849
51850
51851
51852
51853
51854
51855
51856
51857
51858
51859
51860
51861
51862
51863
51864
51865
51866
51867
51868
51869
51870
51871
51872
51873
51874
51875
51876
51877
51878
51879
51880
51881
51882
51883
51884
51885
51886
51887
51888
51889
51890
51891
51892
51893
51894
51895
51896
51897
51898
51899
51900
51901
51902
51903
51904
51905
51906
51907
51908
51909
51910
51911
51912
51913
51914
51915
51916
51917
51918
51919
51920
51921
51922
51923
51924
51925
51926
51927
51928
51929
51930
51931
51932
51933
51934
51935
51936
51937
51938
51939
51940
51941
51942
51943
51944
51945
51946
51947
51948
51949
51950
51951
51952
51953
51954
51955
51956
51957
51958
51959
51960
51961
51962
51963
51964
51965
51966
51967
51968
51969
51970
51971
51972
51973
51974
51975
51976
51977
51978
51979
51980
51981
51982
51983
51984
51985
51986
51987
51988
51989
51990
51991
51992
51993
51994
51995
51996
51997
51998
51999
52000
52001
52002
52003
52004
52005
52006
52007
52008
52009
52010
52011
52012
52013
52014
52015
52016
52017
52018
52019
52020
52021
52022
52023
52024
52025
52026
52027
52028
52029
52030
52031
52032
52033
52034
52035
52036
52037
52038
52039
52040
52041
52042
52043
52044
52045
52046
52047
52048
52049
52050
52051
52052
52053
52054
52055
52056
52057
52058
52059
52060
52061
52062
52063
52064
52065
52066
52067
52068
52069
52070
52071
52072
52073
52074
52075
52076
52077
52078
52079
52080
52081
52082
52083
52084
52085
52086
52087
52088
52089
52090
52091
52092
52093
52094
52095
52096
52097
52098
52099
52100
52101
52102
52103
52104
52105
52106
52107
52108
52109
52110
52111
52112
52113
52114
52115
52116
52117
52118
52119
52120
52121
52122
52123
52124
52125
52126
52127
52128
52129
52130
52131
52132
52133
52134
52135
52136
52137
52138
52139
52140
52141
52142
52143
52144
52145
52146
52147
52148
52149
52150
52151
52152
52153
52154
52155
52156
52157
52158
52159
52160
52161
52162
52163
52164
52165
52166
52167
52168
52169
52170
52171
52172
52173
52174
52175
52176
52177
52178
52179
52180
52181
52182
52183
52184
52185
52186
52187
52188
52189
52190
52191
52192
52193
52194
52195
52196
52197
52198
52199
52200
52201
52202
52203
52204
52205
52206
52207
52208
52209
52210
52211
52212
52213
52214
52215
52216
52217
52218
52219
52220
52221
52222
52223
52224
52225
52226
52227
52228
52229
52230
52231
52232
52233
52234
52235
52236
52237
52238
52239
52240
52241
52242
52243
52244
52245
52246
52247
52248
52249
52250
52251
52252
52253
52254
52255
52256
52257
52258
52259
52260
52261
52262
52263
52264
52265
52266
52267
52268
52269
52270
52271
52272
52273
52274
52275
52276
52277
52278
52279
52280
52281
52282
52283
52284
52285
52286
52287
52288
52289
52290
52291
52292
52293
52294
52295
52296
52297
52298
52299
52300
52301
52302
52303
52304
52305
52306
52307
52308
52309
52310
52311
52312
52313
52314
52315
52316
52317
52318
52319
52320
52321
52322
52323
52324
52325
52326
52327
52328
52329
52330
52331
52332
52333
52334
52335
52336
52337
52338
52339
52340
52341
52342
52343
52344
52345
52346
52347
52348
52349
52350
52351
52352
52353
52354
52355
52356
52357
52358
52359
52360
52361
52362
52363
52364
52365
52366
52367
52368
52369
52370
52371
52372
52373
52374
52375
52376
52377
52378
52379
52380
52381
52382
52383
52384
52385
52386
52387
52388
52389
52390
52391
52392
52393
52394
52395
52396
52397
52398
52399
52400
52401
52402
52403
52404
52405
52406
52407
52408
52409
52410
52411
52412
52413
52414
52415
52416
52417
52418
52419
52420
52421
52422
52423
52424
52425
52426
52427
52428
52429
52430
52431
52432
52433
52434
52435
52436
52437
52438
52439
52440
52441
52442
52443
52444
52445
52446
52447
52448
52449
52450
52451
52452
52453
52454
52455
52456
52457
52458
52459
52460
52461
52462
52463
52464
52465
52466
52467
52468
52469
52470
52471
52472
52473
52474
52475
52476
52477
52478
52479
52480
52481
52482
52483
52484
52485
52486
52487
52488
52489
52490
52491
52492
52493
52494
52495
52496
52497
52498
52499
52500
52501
52502
52503
52504
52505
52506
52507
52508
52509
52510
52511
52512
52513
52514
52515
52516
52517
52518
52519
52520
52521
52522
52523
52524
52525
52526
52527
52528
52529
52530
52531
52532
52533
52534
52535
52536
52537
52538
52539
52540
52541
52542
52543
52544
52545
52546
52547
52548
52549
52550
52551
52552
52553
52554
52555
52556
52557
52558
52559
52560
52561
52562
52563
52564
52565
52566
52567
52568
52569
52570
52571
52572
52573
52574
52575
52576
52577
52578
52579
52580
52581
52582
52583
52584
52585
52586
52587
52588
52589
52590
52591
52592
52593
52594
52595
52596
52597
52598
52599
52600
52601
52602
52603
52604
52605
52606
52607
52608
52609
52610
52611
52612
52613
52614
52615
52616
52617
52618
52619
52620
52621
52622
52623
52624
52625
52626
52627
52628
52629
52630
52631
52632
52633
52634
52635
52636
52637
52638
52639
52640
52641
52642
52643
52644
52645
52646
52647
52648
52649
52650
52651
52652
52653
52654
52655
52656
52657
52658
52659
52660
52661
52662
52663
52664
52665
52666
52667
52668
52669
52670
52671
52672
52673
52674
52675
52676
52677
52678
52679
52680
52681
52682
52683
52684
52685
52686
52687
52688
52689
52690
52691
52692
52693
52694
52695
52696
52697
52698
52699
52700
52701
52702
52703
52704
52705
52706
52707
52708
52709
52710
52711
52712
52713
52714
52715
52716
52717
52718
52719
52720
52721
52722
52723
52724
52725
52726
52727
52728
52729
52730
52731
52732
52733
52734
52735
52736
52737
52738
52739
52740
52741
52742
52743
52744
52745
52746
52747
52748
52749
52750
52751
52752
52753
52754
52755
52756
52757
52758
52759
52760
52761
52762
52763
52764
52765
52766
52767
52768
52769
52770
52771
52772
52773
52774
52775
52776
52777
52778
52779
52780
52781
52782
52783
52784
52785
52786
52787
52788
52789
52790
52791
52792
52793
52794
52795
52796
52797
52798
52799
52800
52801
52802
52803
52804
52805
52806
52807
52808
52809
52810
52811
52812
52813
52814
52815
52816
52817
52818
52819
52820
52821
52822
52823
52824
52825
52826
52827
52828
52829
52830
52831
52832
52833
52834
52835
52836
52837
52838
52839
52840
52841
52842
52843
52844
52845
52846
52847
52848
52849
52850
52851
52852
52853
52854
52855
52856
52857
52858
52859
52860
52861
52862
52863
52864
52865
52866
52867
52868
52869
52870
52871
52872
52873
52874
52875
52876
52877
52878
52879
52880
52881
52882
52883
52884
52885
52886
52887
52888
52889
52890
52891
52892
52893
52894
52895
52896
52897
52898
52899
52900
52901
52902
52903
52904
52905
52906
52907
52908
52909
52910
52911
52912
52913
52914
52915
52916
52917
52918
52919
52920
52921
52922
52923
52924
52925
52926
52927
52928
52929
52930
52931
52932
52933
52934
52935
52936
52937
52938
52939
52940
52941
52942
52943
52944
52945
52946
52947
52948
52949
52950
52951
52952
52953
52954
52955
52956
52957
52958
52959
52960
52961
52962
52963
52964
52965
52966
52967
52968
52969
52970
52971
52972
52973
52974
52975
52976
52977
52978
52979
52980
52981
52982
52983
52984
52985
52986
52987
52988
52989
52990
52991
52992
52993
52994
52995
52996
52997
52998
52999
53000
53001
53002
53003
53004
53005
53006
53007
53008
53009
53010
53011
53012
53013
53014
53015
53016
53017
53018
53019
53020
53021
53022
53023
53024
53025
53026
53027
53028
53029
53030
53031
53032
53033
53034
53035
53036
53037
53038
53039
53040
53041
53042
53043
53044
53045
53046
53047
53048
53049
53050
53051
53052
53053
53054
53055
53056
53057
53058
53059
53060
53061
53062
53063
53064
53065
53066
53067
53068
53069
53070
53071
53072
53073
53074
53075
53076
53077
53078
53079
53080
53081
53082
53083
53084
53085
53086
53087
53088
53089
53090
53091
53092
53093
53094
53095
53096
53097
53098
53099
53100
53101
53102
53103
53104
53105
53106
53107
53108
53109
53110
53111
53112
53113
53114
53115
53116
53117
53118
53119
53120
53121
53122
53123
53124
53125
53126
53127
53128
53129
53130
53131
53132
53133
53134
53135
53136
53137
53138
53139
53140
53141
53142
53143
53144
53145
53146
53147
53148
53149
53150
53151
53152
53153
53154
53155
53156
53157
53158
53159
53160
53161
53162
53163
53164
53165
53166
53167
53168
53169
53170
53171
53172
53173
53174
53175
53176
53177
53178
53179
53180
53181
53182
53183
53184
53185
53186
53187
53188
53189
53190
53191
53192
53193
53194
53195
53196
53197
53198
53199
53200
53201
53202
53203
53204
53205
53206
53207
53208
53209
53210
53211
53212
53213
53214
53215
53216
53217
53218
53219
53220
53221
53222
53223
53224
53225
53226
53227
53228
53229
53230
53231
53232
53233
53234
53235
53236
53237
53238
53239
53240
53241
53242
53243
53244
53245
53246
53247
53248
53249
53250
53251
53252
53253
53254
53255
53256
53257
53258
53259
53260
53261
53262
53263
53264
53265
53266
53267
53268
53269
53270
53271
53272
53273
53274
53275
53276
53277
53278
53279
53280
53281
53282
53283
53284
53285
53286
53287
53288
53289
53290
53291
53292
53293
53294
53295
53296
53297
53298
53299
53300
53301
53302
53303
53304
53305
53306
53307
53308
53309
53310
53311
53312
53313
53314
53315
53316
53317
53318
53319
53320
53321
53322
53323
53324
53325
53326
53327
53328
53329
53330
53331
53332
53333
53334
53335
53336
53337
53338
53339
53340
53341
53342
53343
53344
53345
53346
53347
53348
53349
53350
53351
53352
53353
53354
53355
53356
53357
53358
53359
53360
53361
53362
53363
53364
53365
53366
53367
53368
53369
53370
53371
53372
53373
53374
53375
53376
53377
53378
53379
53380
53381
53382
53383
53384
53385
53386
53387
53388
53389
53390
53391
53392
53393
53394
53395
53396
53397
53398
53399
53400
53401
53402
53403
53404
53405
53406
53407
53408
53409
53410
53411
53412
53413
53414
53415
53416
53417
53418
53419
53420
53421
53422
53423
53424
53425
53426
53427
53428
53429
53430
53431
53432
53433
53434
53435
53436
53437
53438
53439
53440
53441
53442
53443
53444
53445
53446
53447
53448
53449
53450
53451
53452
53453
53454
53455
53456
53457
53458
53459
53460
53461
53462
53463
53464
53465
53466
53467
53468
53469
53470
53471
53472
53473
53474
53475
53476
53477
53478
53479
53480
53481
53482
53483
53484
53485
53486
53487
53488
53489
53490
53491
53492
53493
53494
53495
53496
53497
53498
53499
53500
53501
53502
53503
53504
53505
53506
53507
53508
53509
53510
53511
53512
53513
53514
53515
53516
53517
53518
53519
53520
53521
53522
53523
53524
53525
53526
53527
53528
53529
53530
53531
53532
53533
53534
53535
53536
53537
53538
53539
53540
53541
53542
53543
53544
53545
53546
53547
53548
53549
53550
53551
53552
53553
53554
53555
53556
53557
53558
53559
53560
53561
53562
53563
53564
53565
53566
53567
53568
53569
53570
53571
53572
53573
53574
53575
53576
53577
53578
53579
53580
53581
53582
53583
53584
53585
53586
53587
53588
53589
53590
53591
53592
53593
53594
53595
53596
53597
53598
53599
53600
53601
53602
53603
53604
53605
53606
53607
53608
53609
53610
53611
53612
53613
53614
53615
53616
53617
53618
53619
53620
53621
53622
53623
53624
53625
53626
53627
53628
53629
53630
53631
53632
53633
53634
53635
53636
53637
53638
53639
53640
53641
53642
53643
53644
53645
53646
53647
53648
53649
53650
53651
53652
53653
53654
53655
53656
53657
53658
53659
53660
53661
53662
53663
53664
53665
53666
53667
53668
53669
53670
53671
53672
53673
53674
53675
53676
53677
53678
53679
53680
53681
53682
53683
53684
53685
53686
53687
53688
53689
53690
53691
53692
53693
53694
53695
53696
53697
53698
53699
53700
53701
53702
53703
53704
53705
53706
53707
53708
53709
53710
53711
53712
53713
53714
53715
53716
53717
53718
53719
53720
53721
53722
53723
53724
53725
53726
53727
53728
53729
53730
53731
53732
53733
53734
53735
53736
53737
53738
53739
53740
53741
53742
53743
53744
53745
53746
53747
53748
53749
53750
53751
53752
53753
53754
53755
53756
53757
53758
53759
53760
53761
53762
53763
53764
53765
53766
53767
53768
53769
53770
53771
53772
53773
53774
53775
53776
53777
53778
53779
53780
53781
53782
53783
53784
53785
53786
53787
53788
53789
53790
53791
53792
53793
53794
53795
53796
53797
53798
53799
53800
53801
53802
53803
53804
53805
53806
53807
53808
53809
53810
53811
53812
53813
53814
53815
53816
53817
53818
53819
53820
53821
53822
53823
53824
53825
53826
53827
53828
53829
53830
53831
53832
53833
53834
53835
53836
53837
53838
53839
53840
53841
53842
53843
53844
53845
53846
53847
53848
53849
53850
53851
53852
53853
53854
53855
53856
53857
53858
53859
53860
53861
53862
53863
53864
53865
53866
53867
53868
53869
53870
53871
53872
53873
53874
53875
53876
53877
53878
53879
53880
53881
53882
53883
53884
53885
53886
53887
53888
53889
53890
53891
53892
53893
53894
53895
53896
53897
53898
53899
53900
53901
53902
53903
53904
53905
53906
53907
53908
53909
53910
53911
53912
53913
53914
53915
53916
53917
53918
53919
53920
53921
53922
53923
53924
53925
53926
53927
53928
53929
53930
53931
53932
53933
53934
53935
53936
53937
53938
53939
53940
53941
53942
53943
53944
53945
53946
53947
53948
53949
53950
53951
53952
53953
53954
53955
53956
53957
53958
53959
53960
53961
53962
53963
53964
53965
53966
53967
53968
53969
53970
53971
53972
53973
53974
53975
53976
53977
53978
53979
53980
53981
53982
53983
53984
53985
53986
53987
53988
53989
53990
53991
53992
53993
53994
53995
53996
53997
53998
53999
54000
54001
54002
54003
54004
54005
54006
54007
54008
54009
54010
54011
54012
54013
54014
54015
54016
54017
54018
54019
54020
54021
54022
54023
54024
54025
54026
54027
54028
54029
54030
54031
54032
54033
54034
54035
54036
54037
54038
54039
54040
54041
54042
54043
54044
54045
54046
54047
54048
54049
54050
54051
54052
54053
54054
54055
54056
54057
54058
54059
54060
54061
54062
54063
54064
54065
54066
54067
54068
54069
54070
54071
54072
54073
54074
54075
54076
54077
54078
54079
54080
54081
54082
54083
54084
54085
54086
54087
54088
54089
54090
54091
54092
54093
54094
54095
54096
54097
54098
54099
54100
54101
54102
54103
54104
54105
54106
54107
54108
54109
54110
54111
54112
54113
54114
54115
54116
54117
54118
54119
54120
54121
54122
54123
54124
54125
54126
54127
54128
54129
54130
54131
54132
54133
54134
54135
54136
54137
54138
54139
54140
54141
54142
54143
54144
54145
54146
54147
54148
54149
54150
54151
54152
54153
54154
54155
54156
54157
54158
54159
54160
54161
54162
54163
54164
54165
54166
54167
54168
54169
54170
54171
54172
54173
54174
54175
54176
54177
54178
54179
54180
54181
54182
54183
54184
54185
54186
54187
54188
54189
54190
54191
54192
54193
54194
54195
54196
54197
54198
54199
54200
54201
54202
54203
54204
54205
54206
54207
54208
54209
54210
54211
54212
54213
54214
54215
54216
54217
54218
54219
54220
54221
54222
54223
54224
54225
54226
54227
54228
54229
54230
54231
54232
54233
54234
54235
54236
54237
54238
54239
54240
54241
54242
54243
54244
54245
54246
54247
54248
54249
54250
54251
54252
54253
54254
54255
54256
54257
54258
54259
54260
54261
54262
54263
54264
54265
54266
54267
54268
54269
54270
54271
54272
54273
54274
54275
54276
54277
54278
54279
54280
54281
54282
54283
54284
54285
54286
54287
54288
54289
54290
54291
54292
54293
54294
54295
54296
54297
54298
54299
54300
54301
54302
54303
54304
54305
54306
54307
54308
54309
54310
54311
54312
54313
54314
54315
54316
54317
54318
54319
54320
54321
54322
54323
54324
54325
54326
54327
54328
54329
54330
54331
54332
54333
54334
54335
54336
54337
54338
54339
54340
54341
54342
54343
54344
54345
54346
54347
54348
54349
54350
54351
54352
54353
54354
54355
54356
54357
54358
54359
54360
54361
54362
54363
54364
54365
54366
54367
54368
54369
54370
54371
54372
54373
54374
54375
54376
54377
54378
54379
54380
54381
54382
54383
54384
54385
54386
54387
54388
54389
54390
54391
54392
54393
54394
54395
54396
54397
54398
54399
54400
54401
54402
54403
54404
54405
54406
54407
54408
54409
54410
54411
54412
54413
54414
54415
54416
54417
54418
54419
54420
54421
54422
54423
54424
54425
54426
54427
54428
54429
54430
54431
54432
54433
54434
54435
54436
54437
54438
54439
54440
54441
54442
54443
54444
54445
54446
54447
54448
54449
54450
54451
54452
54453
54454
54455
54456
54457
54458
54459
54460
54461
54462
54463
54464
54465
54466
54467
54468
54469
54470
54471
54472
54473
54474
54475
54476
54477
54478
54479
54480
54481
54482
54483
54484
54485
54486
54487
54488
54489
54490
54491
54492
54493
54494
54495
54496
54497
54498
54499
54500
54501
54502
54503
54504
54505
54506
54507
54508
54509
54510
54511
54512
54513
54514
54515
54516
54517
54518
54519
54520
54521
54522
54523
54524
54525
54526
54527
54528
54529
54530
54531
54532
54533
54534
54535
54536
54537
54538
54539
54540
54541
54542
54543
54544
54545
54546
54547
54548
54549
54550
54551
54552
54553
54554
54555
54556
54557
54558
54559
54560
54561
54562
54563
54564
54565
54566
54567
54568
54569
54570
54571
54572
54573
54574
54575
54576
54577
54578
54579
54580
54581
54582
54583
54584
54585
54586
54587
54588
54589
54590
54591
54592
54593
54594
54595
54596
54597
54598
54599
54600
54601
54602
54603
54604
54605
54606
54607
54608
54609
54610
54611
54612
54613
54614
54615
54616
54617
54618
54619
54620
54621
54622
54623
54624
54625
54626
54627
54628
54629
54630
54631
54632
54633
54634
54635
54636
54637
54638
54639
54640
54641
54642
54643
54644
54645
54646
54647
54648
54649
54650
54651
54652
54653
54654
54655
54656
54657
54658
54659
54660
54661
54662
54663
54664
54665
54666
54667
54668
54669
54670
54671
54672
54673
54674
54675
54676
54677
54678
54679
54680
54681
54682
54683
54684
54685
54686
54687
54688
54689
54690
54691
54692
54693
54694
54695
54696
54697
54698
54699
54700
54701
54702
54703
54704
54705
54706
54707
54708
54709
54710
54711
54712
54713
54714
54715
54716
54717
54718
54719
54720
54721
54722
54723
54724
54725
54726
54727
54728
54729
54730
54731
54732
54733
54734
54735
54736
54737
54738
54739
54740
54741
54742
54743
54744
54745
54746
54747
54748
54749
54750
54751
54752
54753
54754
54755
54756
54757
54758
54759
54760
54761
54762
54763
54764
54765
54766
54767
54768
54769
54770
54771
54772
54773
54774
54775
54776
54777
54778
54779
54780
54781
54782
54783
54784
54785
54786
54787
54788
54789
54790
54791
54792
54793
54794
54795
54796
54797
54798
54799
54800
54801
54802
54803
54804
54805
54806
54807
54808
54809
54810
54811
54812
54813
54814
54815
54816
54817
54818
54819
54820
54821
54822
54823
54824
54825
54826
54827
54828
54829
54830
54831
54832
54833
54834
54835
54836
54837
54838
54839
54840
54841
54842
54843
54844
54845
54846
54847
54848
54849
54850
54851
54852
54853
54854
54855
54856
54857
54858
54859
54860
54861
54862
54863
54864
54865
54866
54867
54868
54869
54870
54871
54872
54873
54874
54875
54876
54877
54878
54879
54880
54881
54882
54883
54884
54885
54886
54887
54888
54889
54890
54891
54892
54893
54894
54895
54896
54897
54898
54899
54900
54901
54902
54903
54904
54905
54906
54907
54908
54909
54910
54911
54912
54913
54914
54915
54916
54917
54918
54919
54920
54921
54922
54923
54924
54925
54926
54927
54928
54929
54930
54931
54932
54933
54934
54935
54936
54937
54938
54939
54940
54941
54942
54943
54944
54945
54946
54947
54948
54949
54950
54951
54952
54953
54954
54955
54956
54957
54958
54959
54960
54961
54962
54963
54964
54965
54966
54967
54968
54969
54970
54971
54972
54973
54974
54975
54976
54977
54978
54979
54980
54981
54982
54983
54984
54985
54986
54987
54988
54989
54990
54991
54992
54993
54994
54995
54996
54997
54998
54999
55000
55001
55002
55003
55004
55005
55006
55007
55008
55009
55010
55011
55012
55013
55014
55015
55016
55017
55018
55019
55020
55021
55022
55023
55024
55025
55026
55027
55028
55029
55030
55031
55032
55033
55034
55035
55036
55037
55038
55039
55040
55041
55042
55043
55044
55045
55046
55047
55048
55049
55050
55051
55052
55053
55054
55055
55056
55057
55058
55059
55060
55061
55062
55063
55064
55065
55066
55067
55068
55069
55070
55071
55072
55073
55074
55075
55076
55077
55078
55079
55080
55081
55082
55083
55084
55085
55086
55087
55088
55089
55090
55091
55092
55093
55094
55095
55096
55097
55098
55099
55100
55101
55102
55103
55104
55105
55106
55107
55108
55109
55110
55111
55112
55113
55114
55115
55116
55117
55118
55119
55120
55121
55122
55123
55124
55125
55126
55127
55128
55129
55130
55131
55132
55133
55134
55135
55136
55137
55138
55139
55140
55141
55142
55143
55144
55145
55146
55147
55148
55149
55150
55151
55152
55153
55154
55155
55156
55157
55158
55159
55160
55161
55162
55163
55164
55165
55166
55167
55168
55169
55170
55171
55172
55173
55174
55175
55176
55177
55178
55179
55180
55181
55182
55183
55184
55185
55186
55187
55188
55189
55190
55191
55192
55193
55194
55195
55196
55197
55198
55199
55200
55201
55202
55203
55204
55205
55206
55207
55208
55209
55210
55211
55212
55213
55214
55215
55216
55217
55218
55219
55220
55221
55222
55223
55224
55225
55226
55227
55228
55229
55230
55231
55232
55233
55234
55235
55236
55237
55238
55239
55240
55241
55242
55243
55244
55245
55246
55247
55248
55249
55250
55251
55252
55253
55254
55255
55256
55257
55258
55259
55260
55261
55262
55263
55264
55265
55266
55267
55268
55269
55270
55271
55272
55273
55274
55275
55276
55277
55278
55279
55280
55281
55282
55283
55284
55285
55286
55287
55288
55289
55290
55291
55292
55293
55294
55295
55296
55297
55298
55299
55300
55301
55302
55303
55304
55305
55306
55307
55308
55309
55310
55311
55312
55313
55314
55315
55316
55317
55318
55319
55320
55321
55322
55323
55324
55325
55326
55327
55328
55329
55330
55331
55332
55333
55334
55335
55336
55337
55338
55339
55340
55341
55342
55343
55344
55345
55346
55347
55348
55349
55350
55351
55352
55353
55354
55355
55356
55357
55358
55359
55360
55361
55362
55363
55364
55365
55366
55367
55368
55369
55370
55371
55372
55373
55374
55375
55376
55377
55378
55379
55380
55381
55382
55383
55384
55385
55386
55387
55388
55389
55390
55391
55392
55393
55394
55395
55396
55397
55398
55399
55400
55401
55402
55403
55404
55405
55406
55407
55408
55409
55410
55411
55412
55413
55414
55415
55416
55417
55418
55419
55420
55421
55422
55423
55424
55425
55426
55427
55428
55429
55430
55431
55432
55433
55434
55435
55436
55437
55438
55439
55440
55441
55442
55443
55444
55445
55446
55447
55448
55449
55450
55451
55452
55453
55454
55455
55456
55457
55458
55459
55460
55461
55462
55463
55464
55465
55466
55467
55468
55469
55470
55471
55472
55473
55474
55475
55476
55477
55478
55479
55480
55481
55482
55483
55484
55485
55486
55487
55488
55489
55490
55491
55492
55493
55494
55495
55496
55497
55498
55499
55500
55501
55502
55503
55504
55505
55506
55507
55508
55509
55510
55511
55512
55513
55514
55515
55516
55517
55518
55519
55520
55521
55522
55523
55524
55525
55526
55527
55528
55529
55530
55531
55532
55533
55534
55535
55536
55537
55538
55539
55540
55541
55542
55543
55544
55545
55546
55547
55548
55549
55550
55551
55552
55553
55554
55555
55556
55557
55558
55559
55560
55561
55562
55563
55564
55565
55566
55567
55568
55569
55570
55571
55572
55573
55574
55575
55576
55577
55578
55579
55580
55581
55582
55583
55584
55585
55586
55587
55588
55589
55590
55591
55592
55593
55594
55595
55596
55597
55598
55599
55600
55601
55602
55603
55604
55605
55606
55607
55608
55609
55610
55611
55612
55613
55614
55615
55616
55617
55618
55619
55620
55621
55622
55623
55624
55625
55626
55627
55628
55629
55630
55631
55632
55633
55634
55635
55636
55637
55638
55639
55640
55641
55642
55643
55644
55645
55646
55647
55648
55649
55650
55651
55652
55653
55654
55655
55656
55657
55658
55659
55660
55661
55662
55663
55664
55665
55666
55667
55668
55669
55670
55671
55672
55673
55674
55675
55676
55677
55678
55679
55680
55681
55682
55683
55684
55685
55686
55687
55688
55689
55690
55691
55692
55693
55694
55695
55696
55697
55698
55699
55700
55701
55702
55703
55704
55705
55706
55707
55708
55709
55710
55711
55712
55713
55714
55715
55716
55717
55718
55719
55720
55721
55722
55723
55724
55725
55726
55727
55728
55729
55730
55731
55732
55733
55734
55735
55736
55737
55738
55739
55740
55741
55742
55743
55744
55745
55746
55747
55748
55749
55750
55751
55752
55753
55754
55755
55756
55757
55758
55759
55760
55761
55762
55763
55764
55765
55766
55767
55768
55769
55770
55771
55772
55773
55774
55775
55776
55777
55778
55779
55780
55781
55782
55783
55784
55785
55786
55787
55788
55789
55790
55791
55792
55793
55794
55795
55796
55797
55798
55799
55800
55801
55802
55803
55804
55805
55806
55807
55808
55809
55810
55811
55812
55813
55814
55815
55816
55817
55818
55819
55820
55821
55822
55823
55824
55825
55826
55827
55828
55829
55830
55831
55832
55833
55834
55835
55836
55837
55838
55839
55840
55841
55842
55843
55844
55845
55846
55847
55848
55849
55850
55851
55852
55853
55854
55855
55856
55857
55858
55859
55860
55861
55862
55863
55864
55865
55866
55867
55868
55869
55870
55871
55872
55873
55874
55875
55876
55877
55878
55879
55880
55881
55882
55883
55884
55885
55886
55887
55888
55889
55890
55891
55892
55893
55894
55895
55896
55897
55898
55899
55900
55901
55902
55903
55904
55905
55906
55907
55908
55909
55910
55911
55912
55913
55914
55915
55916
55917
55918
55919
55920
55921
55922
55923
55924
55925
55926
55927
55928
55929
55930
55931
55932
55933
55934
55935
55936
55937
55938
55939
55940
55941
55942
55943
55944
55945
55946
55947
55948
55949
55950
55951
55952
55953
55954
55955
55956
55957
55958
55959
55960
55961
55962
55963
55964
55965
55966
55967
55968
55969
55970
55971
55972
55973
55974
55975
55976
55977
55978
55979
55980
55981
55982
55983
55984
55985
55986
55987
55988
55989
55990
55991
55992
55993
55994
55995
55996
55997
55998
55999
56000
56001
56002
56003
56004
56005
56006
56007
56008
56009
56010
56011
56012
56013
56014
56015
56016
56017
56018
56019
56020
56021
56022
56023
56024
56025
56026
56027
56028
56029
56030
56031
56032
56033
56034
56035
56036
56037
56038
56039
56040
56041
56042
56043
56044
56045
56046
56047
56048
56049
56050
56051
56052
56053
56054
56055
56056
56057
56058
56059
56060
56061
56062
56063
56064
56065
56066
56067
56068
56069
56070
56071
56072
56073
56074
56075
56076
56077
56078
56079
56080
56081
56082
56083
56084
56085
56086
56087
56088
56089
56090
56091
56092
56093
56094
56095
56096
56097
56098
56099
56100
56101
56102
56103
56104
56105
56106
56107
56108
56109
56110
56111
56112
56113
56114
56115
56116
56117
56118
56119
56120
56121
56122
56123
56124
56125
56126
56127
56128
56129
56130
56131
56132
56133
56134
56135
56136
56137
56138
56139
56140
56141
56142
56143
56144
56145
56146
56147
56148
56149
56150
56151
56152
56153
56154
56155
56156
56157
56158
56159
56160
56161
56162
56163
56164
56165
56166
56167
56168
56169
56170
56171
56172
56173
56174
56175
56176
56177
56178
56179
56180
56181
56182
56183
56184
56185
56186
56187
56188
56189
56190
56191
56192
56193
56194
56195
56196
56197
56198
56199
56200
56201
56202
56203
56204
56205
56206
56207
56208
56209
56210
56211
56212
56213
56214
56215
56216
56217
56218
56219
56220
56221
56222
56223
56224
56225
56226
56227
56228
56229
56230
56231
56232
56233
56234
56235
56236
56237
56238
56239
56240
56241
56242
56243
56244
56245
56246
56247
56248
56249
56250
56251
56252
56253
56254
56255
56256
56257
56258
56259
56260
56261
56262
56263
56264
56265
56266
56267
56268
56269
56270
56271
56272
56273
56274
56275
56276
56277
56278
56279
56280
56281
56282
56283
56284
56285
56286
56287
56288
56289
56290
56291
56292
56293
56294
56295
56296
56297
56298
56299
56300
56301
56302
56303
56304
56305
56306
56307
56308
56309
56310
56311
56312
56313
56314
56315
56316
56317
56318
56319
56320
56321
56322
56323
56324
56325
56326
56327
56328
56329
56330
56331
56332
56333
56334
56335
56336
56337
56338
56339
56340
56341
56342
56343
56344
56345
56346
56347
56348
56349
56350
56351
56352
56353
56354
56355
56356
56357
56358
56359
56360
56361
56362
56363
56364
56365
56366
56367
56368
56369
56370
56371
56372
56373
56374
56375
56376
56377
56378
56379
56380
56381
56382
56383
56384
56385
56386
56387
56388
56389
56390
56391
56392
56393
56394
56395
56396
56397
56398
56399
56400
56401
56402
56403
56404
56405
56406
56407
56408
56409
56410
56411
56412
56413
56414
56415
56416
56417
56418
56419
56420
56421
56422
56423
56424
56425
56426
56427
56428
56429
56430
56431
56432
56433
56434
56435
56436
56437
56438
56439
56440
56441
56442
56443
56444
56445
56446
56447
56448
56449
56450
56451
56452
56453
56454
56455
56456
56457
56458
56459
56460
56461
56462
56463
56464
56465
56466
56467
56468
56469
56470
56471
56472
56473
56474
56475
56476
56477
56478
56479
56480
56481
56482
56483
56484
56485
56486
56487
56488
56489
56490
56491
56492
56493
56494
56495
56496
56497
56498
56499
56500
56501
56502
56503
56504
56505
56506
56507
56508
56509
56510
56511
56512
56513
56514
56515
56516
56517
56518
56519
56520
56521
56522
56523
56524
56525
56526
56527
56528
56529
56530
56531
56532
56533
56534
56535
56536
56537
56538
56539
56540
56541
56542
56543
56544
56545
56546
56547
56548
56549
56550
56551
56552
56553
56554
56555
56556
56557
56558
56559
56560
56561
56562
56563
56564
56565
56566
56567
56568
56569
56570
56571
56572
56573
56574
56575
56576
56577
56578
56579
56580
56581
56582
56583
56584
56585
56586
56587
56588
56589
56590
56591
56592
56593
56594
56595
56596
56597
56598
56599
56600
56601
56602
56603
56604
56605
56606
56607
56608
56609
56610
56611
56612
56613
56614
56615
56616
56617
56618
56619
56620
56621
56622
56623
56624
56625
56626
56627
56628
56629
56630
56631
56632
56633
56634
56635
56636
56637
56638
56639
56640
56641
56642
56643
56644
56645
56646
56647
56648
56649
56650
56651
56652
56653
56654
56655
56656
56657
56658
56659
56660
56661
56662
56663
56664
56665
56666
56667
56668
56669
56670
56671
56672
56673
56674
56675
56676
56677
56678
56679
56680
56681
56682
56683
56684
56685
56686
56687
56688
56689
56690
56691
56692
56693
56694
56695
56696
56697
56698
56699
56700
56701
56702
56703
56704
56705
56706
56707
56708
56709
56710
56711
56712
56713
56714
56715
56716
56717
56718
56719
56720
56721
56722
56723
56724
56725
56726
56727
56728
56729
56730
56731
56732
56733
56734
56735
56736
56737
56738
56739
56740
56741
56742
56743
56744
56745
56746
56747
56748
56749
56750
56751
56752
56753
56754
56755
56756
56757
56758
56759
56760
56761
56762
56763
56764
56765
56766
56767
56768
56769
56770
56771
56772
56773
56774
56775
56776
56777
56778
56779
56780
56781
56782
56783
56784
56785
56786
56787
56788
56789
56790
56791
56792
56793
56794
56795
56796
56797
56798
56799
56800
56801
56802
56803
56804
56805
56806
56807
56808
56809
56810
56811
56812
56813
56814
56815

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
    "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xml:lang="en" lang="en">
  <head>
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=UTF-8" />
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Style-Type" content="text/css" />
    <title>
      The Project Gutenberg eBook of Warren Commission (5 of 26): Hearings Vol. V, by Warren Commission.
    </title>
    <link rel="coverpage" href="images/cover.jpg" />
    <style type="text/css">

body {
    margin-left: 40px;
    margin-right: 40px;
}

h1,h2, h3 {
    text-align: center;
    clear: both;
    margin-top: 2.5em;
    margin-bottom: 1em;
}

h1 {line-height: 1;}
.vspace {line-height: 1.5;}

h2>.subhead {display: block; margin-top: .75em;}

.transnote h2 {
    margin-top: .5em;
    margin-bottom: 1em;
}

p {
    text-indent: 1.75em;
    margin-top: .51em;
    margin-bottom: .24em;
    text-align: justify;
}
p.center {text-indent: 0;}

.p1 {margin-top: 1em;}
.p2 {margin-top: 2em;}
.p4 {margin-top: 4em;}

.in0 {text-indent: 0;}
.in2 {padding-left: 2em;}

.small   {font-size: 70%;}
.smaller {font-size: 85%;}
.larger {font-size: 125%;}
.xxlarge {font-size: 200%;}

.container {text-align: center;}
ul {list-style-type: none; padding: 0; display: inline-block; text-align: left;}

.tb {
    text-align: center;
    padding-top: .5em;
    padding-bottom: .5em;
}
.center   {text-align: center;}

.smcap    {font-variant: small-caps;}

hr {
    width: 33%;
    margin-top: 2em;
    margin-bottom: 2em;
    margin-left: 33%;
    margin-right: auto;
    clear: both;
}

table {
    margin-left: auto;
    margin-right: auto;
    width: 80%;
    border-collapse: collapse;
}

table.exhibits {width: 40%;}

.tdl {
    text-align: left;
    vertical-align: top;
    padding-right: 1em;
    padding-left: 1.5em;
    text-indent: -1.5em;
}
.tdl.in2 {padding-left: 2.5em;}
.tdl.in3 {padding-left: 3em;}
.tdl.p1 {padding-top: .5em;}

.tdr {
    text-align: right;
    vertical-align: bottom;
    padding-left: .3em;
    white-space: nowrap;
}

.pagenum {
  position: absolute;
  right: 4px;
  text-indent: 0em;
  text-align: right;
  font-size: 70%;
  font-weight: normal;
  font-variant: normal;
  font-style: normal;
  letter-spacing: normal;
  line-height: normal;
  color: #acacac;
  border: 1px solid #acacac;
  background: #ffffff;
  padding: 1px 4px;
}

.footnote {font-size: .95em;}

.fnanchor {
    vertical-align: 80%;
    line-height: .7;
    font-size: .75em;
    text-decoration: none;
}
.footnote .fnanchor {font-size: .8em;}

.transnote {
    background-color: #EEE;
    border: thin dotted;
    font-family: sans-serif, serif;
    color: #000;
    margin-left: 5%;
    margin-right: 5%;
    margin-top: 4em;
    margin-bottom: 2em;
    padding: 1em;
}
.covernote {visibility: hidden; display: none;}

.sig-container {text-align: right; padding-right: 1em;}
.sigright {display: block; text-align: right;}
.sigright2 {display: block; text-align: right; padding-right: 1.5em;}
.sig-block {text-align: left; display: inline-block;}
.sig {display: inline-block;}
.sig .first {padding-left: 1.5em;}
.sig .second {padding-left: 2.75em;}

span.locked {white-space:nowrap;}

@media print, handheld
{
    h1, h2 {
        page-break-before: always;
    }

    p {
        margin-top: .5em;
        text-align: justify;
        margin-bottom: .25em;
    }

	table {width: 100%;}

	.tdl {
	    padding-left: .5em;
		text-indent: -.5em;
	}
}

@media handheld
{
    body {
        margin-left: 2%;
        margin-right: 2%;
        margin-top: 1%;
        margin-bottom: 1%;
    }

    hr {
        margin-top: .1em;
        margin-bottom: .1em;
        visibility: hidden;
        color: white;
        display: none;
    }

    .transnote {
        margin-left: 2%;
        margin-right: 2%;
        margin-top: 1em;
        margin-bottom: 1em;
        padding: .5em;
    }
    .covernote {visibility: visible; display: block;}

}

  </style>
  </head>
<body>
<div>*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK 44005 ***</div>

<div class="transnote covernote">
<p>Cover created by Transcriber and placed in the Public Domain.</p>
</div>

<h1>
<span class="small">INVESTIGATION OF<br />
THE ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY</span></h1>

<h2 class="xxlarge vspace">HEARINGS<br />
<span class="smaller">Before the President's Commission<br />
on the Assassination<br />
of President Kennedy</span>
</h2>

<p><span class="smcap">Pursuant to Executive Order</span> 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. <span class="smcap">Res</span>. 137, <span class="smcap">88th Congress</span>, a concurrent resolution conferring
upon the Commission the power to administer oaths and affirmations,
examine witnesses, receive evidence, and issue subpenas</p>

<p class="p4 center"><i>Volume</i><br /><span class="larger">V</span></p>

<p class="p4 center">UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE</p>

<p class="center smaller">WASHINGTON, D.C.</p>

<hr />

<p class="p4 center smaller">U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON: 1964</p>

<p class="p1 center smaller">For sale in complete sets by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Washington, D.C., 20402<br />
</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_iii" id="Page_iii">iii</a></span></p>

<hr />

<h2>
PRESIDENT'S COMMISSION<br />
ON THE<br />
ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT KENNEDY</h2>

<p class="p2 center"><span class="smcap">Chief Justice Earl Warren</span>, <i>Chairman</i></p>

<div class="container"><ul>

<li><span class="smcap">Senator Richard B. Russell</span></li>
<li><span class="smcap">Senator John Sherman Cooper</span></li>
<li><span class="smcap">Representative Hale Boggs</span></li>
<li><span class="smcap">Representative Gerald R. Ford</span></li>
<li><span class="smcap">Mr. Allen W. Dulles</span></li>
<li><span class="smcap">Mr. John J. McCloy</span></li>

<li class="p2 center"><span class="smcap">J. Lee Rankin</span>, <i>General Counsel</i></li>

<li class="p2 center"><i>Assistant Counsel</i></li>

<li class="p1"><span class="smcap">Francis W. H. Adams</span></li>
<li><span class="smcap">Joseph A. Ball</span></li>
<li><span class="smcap">David W. Belin</span></li>
<li><span class="smcap">William T. Coleman</span>, Jr.</li>
<li><span class="smcap">Melvin Aron Eisenberg</span></li>
<li><span class="smcap">Burt W. Griffin</span></li>
<li><span class="smcap">Leon D. Hubert</span>, Jr.</li>
<li><span class="smcap">Albert E. Jenner</span>, Jr.</li>
<li><span class="smcap">Wesley J. Liebeler</span></li>
<li><span class="smcap">Norman Redlich</span></li>
<li><span class="smcap">W. David Slawson</span></li>
<li><span class="smcap">Arlen Specter</span></li>
<li><span class="smcap">Samuel A. Stern</span></li>
<li><span class="smcap">Howard P. Willens</span><a name="FNanchor_A" id="FNanchor_A" href="#Footnote_A" class="fnanchor">A</a></li>

<li class="p2 center"><i>Staff Members</i></li>

<li class="p1"><span class="smcap">Phillip Barson</span></li>
<li><span class="smcap">Edward A. Conroy</span></li>
<li><span class="smcap">John Hart Ely</span></li>
<li><span class="smcap">Alfred Goldberg</span></li>
<li><span class="smcap">Murray J. Laulicht</span></li>
<li><span class="smcap">Arthur Marmor</span></li>
<li><span class="smcap">Richard M. Mosk</span></li>
<li><span class="smcap">John J. O'Brien</span></li>
<li><span class="smcap">Stuart Pollak</span></li>
<li><span class="smcap">Alfredda Scobey</span></li>
<li><span class="smcap">Charles N. Shaffer</span>, Jr.</li>
</ul></div>

<p class="p2">Biographical information on the Commissioners and the staff can be found in
the Commission's <i>Report</i>.</p>

<div class="p2 footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_A" id="Footnote_A" href="#FNanchor_A" class="fnanchor">A</a> Mr. Willens also acted as liaison between the Commission and
the Department of Justice.</p></div>

<hr />

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_v" id="Page_v">v</a></span></p>

<h2><a name="Preface" id="Preface">Preface</a></h2>

<p>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.&nbsp;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.</p>

<hr />

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_vii" id="Page_vii">vii</a></span></p>

<h2><a name="Contents" id="Contents">Contents</a></h2>

<table summary="Contents">
  <tr class="smaller">
    <td>&nbsp;</td>
    <td class="tdr">Page</td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl">Preface</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_v">v</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl p1">Testimony of&mdash;</td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in2">Alan H. Belmont.</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#ahb">1</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in2">Jack Revill</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#jr">33</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in2">V. J. Brian</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#vjb">47</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in2">Robert A. Frazier</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#raf">58</a>, <a href="#raf2">165</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in2">Alfred Olivier</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#ao">74</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in2">Arthur J. Dziemian</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#ajd">90</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in2">Frederick W. Light, Jr</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#fwl">94</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in2">J. Edgar Hoover</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#jeh">97</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in2">John A. McCone and Richard M. Helms</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#jam">120</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in2">Thomas J. Kelley</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#tjk">129</a>, <a href="#tjk2">175</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in2">Leo J. Gauthier</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#ljg">135</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in2">Lyndal L. Shaneyfelt</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#lls">138</a>, <a href="#lls2">176</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in2">Mrs. John F. Kennedy</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#jfk">178</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in2">Jack Ruby</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#jr2">181</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in2">Henry Wade</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#hw">213</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in2">Patrick T. Dean</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#ptd">254</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in2">Waggoner Carr</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#wc">258</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in2">Richard Edward Snyder</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#res">260</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in2">John A. McVickar</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#jam2">299</a>, <a href="#jam3">318</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in2">Abram Chayes</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#ac">307</a>, <a href="#ac2">327</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in2">Bernice Waterman</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#bw">346</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in2">Hon. Dean Rusk</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#dr">363</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in2">Frances G. Knight</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#fgk">371</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in2">Mrs. Lee Harvey Oswald (resumed)</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#lho">387</a>, <a href="#lho2">410</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in2">Harris Coulter</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#hc">408</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in2">Robert Alan Surrey</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#ras">420</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in2">James J. Rowley</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#jjr">449</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in2">Robert Carswell</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#rc">486</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in2">Bernard William Weissman, accompanied by Thomas A. Flannery, Esq</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#bww">487</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in2">Robert G. Klause</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#rgk">535</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in2">Mark Lane (resumed)</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#ml">546</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in2">President Lyndon B. Johnson</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#lbj">561</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in2">Mrs. Lyndon B. Johnson</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#lb">564</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in2">Llewellyn E. Thompson</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#let">567</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in2">C. Douglas Dillon</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#cdd">573</a></td></tr>
</table>

<h3 class="p2">COMMISSION EXHIBITS INTRODUCED</h3>

<table class="exhibits" summary="List of Exhibits">
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl">Exhibit No.:</td>
    <td class="tdr smaller">Page</td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in3">825</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_16">16</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in3">833</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_10">10</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in3">834</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_14">14</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in3">835</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_15">15</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in3">836</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_32">32</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in3">837</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_32">32</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in3">838</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_47">47</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in3">839</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_58">58</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in3">840</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_66">66</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in3">841</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_69">69</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in3">842</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_72">72</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in3"><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_viii" id="Page_viii">viii</a></span>843</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_73">73</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in3">844</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_88">88</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in3">845</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_88">88</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in3">846</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_88">88</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in3">847</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_88">88</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in3">848</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_88">88</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in3">849</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_88">88</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in3">850</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_88">88</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in3">851</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_88">88</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in3">852</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_88">88</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in3">853</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_88">88</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in3">854</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_88">88</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in3">855</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_88">88</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in3">856</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_88">88</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in3">857</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_88">88</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in3">858</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_88">88</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in3">859</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_88">88</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in3">860</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_88">88</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in3">861</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_89">89</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in3">862</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_89">89</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in3">863</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_111">111</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in3">864</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_115">115</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in3">865</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_115">115</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in3">866</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_120">120</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in3">867</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_120">120</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in3">868</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_123">123</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in3">869</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_123">123</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in3">870</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_121">121</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in3">871</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_130">130</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in3">872</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_131">131</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in3">873</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_131">131</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in3">874</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_131">131</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in3">875</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_134">134</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in3">876</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_135">135</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in3">877</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_135">135</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in3">878</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_136">136</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in3">879</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_136">136</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in3">880</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_136">136</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in3">881</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_136">136</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in3">882</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_137">137</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in3">883</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_137">137</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in3">884</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_138">138</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in3">885</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_171">171</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in3">886</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_171">171</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in3">887</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_171">171</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in3">888</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_171">171</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in3">889</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_171">171</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in3">890</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_171">171</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in3">891</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_171">171</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in3">892</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_171">171</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in3">893</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_171">171</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in3">894</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_171">171</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in3">895</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_171">171</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in3">896</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_171">171</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in3">897</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_171">171</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in3">898</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_171">171</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in3">899</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_171">171</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in3">900</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_171">171</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in3">901</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_171">171</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in3">902</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_171">171</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in3">903</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_171">171</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in3">904</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_178">178</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in3">905</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_178">178</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in3">906</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_178">178</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in3">907</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_178">178</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in3">908</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_299">299</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in3">909</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_299">299</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in3">910</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_299">299</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in3">911</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_325">325</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in3">912</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_299">299</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in3">913</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_299">299</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in3">914</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_299">299</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in3">915</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_299">299</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in3">916</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_299">299</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in3">917</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_299">299</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in3">918</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_299">299</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in3">919</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_299">299</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in3">920</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_299">299</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in3">921</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_299">299</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in3">922</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_299">299</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in3">923</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_299">299</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in3">924</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_299">299</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in3">925</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_299">299</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in3">926</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_299">299</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in3">927</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_299">299</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in3">928</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_299">299</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in3">929</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_299">299</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in3">930</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_299">299</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in3">931</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_299">299</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in3">932</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_299">299</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in3">933</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_299">299</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in3">934</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_299">299</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in3">935</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_299">299</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in3">936</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_299">299</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in3">937</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_299">299</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in3">938</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_299">299</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in3">939</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_299">299</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in3">940</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_299">299</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in3">941</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_325">325</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in3">942</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_325">325</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in3">943</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_326">326</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in3">944</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_326">326</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in3">945</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_326">326</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in3">946</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_299">299</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in3">947</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_299">299</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in3">948</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_346">346</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in3">949</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_346">346</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in3">950</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_346">346</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in3">951</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_336">336</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in3">952</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_335">335</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in3">953</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_346">346</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in3">954</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_345">345</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in3">955</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_343">343</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in3">956</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_345">345</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in3">957</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_362">362</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in3">958</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_326">326</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in3">959</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_326">326</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in3">960</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_340">340</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in3">961</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_362">362</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in3">962</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_362">362</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in3">963</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_362">362</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in3">964</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_362">362</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in3">965</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_362">362</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in3">966</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_362">362</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in3">967</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_362">362</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in3">968</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_362">362</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in3">969</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_362">362</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in3">970</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_362">362</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in3">971</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_362">362</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in3">973</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_362">362</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in3">974</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_362">362</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in3">975</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_362">362</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in3">976</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_362">362</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in3">977</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_362">362</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in3">978</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_362">362</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in3">979</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_362">362</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in3">980</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_362">362</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in3">981</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_362">362</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in3">982</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_362">362</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in3">983</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_362">362</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in3">984</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_371">371</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in3">985</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_371">371</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in3">986</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_371">371</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in3">987</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_404">404</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in3">988</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_404">404</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in3">989</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_371">371</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in3">990</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_403">403</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in3">991</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_403">403</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in3">992</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_404">404</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in3">993</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_410">410</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in3">994</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_413">413</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in3">995</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_421">421</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in3">996</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_448">448</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in3">997</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_448">448</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in3">998</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_448">448</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in3">999</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_448">448</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in2">1000</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_448">448</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in2">1002</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_448">448</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in2">1003</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_448">448</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in2">1004</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_448">448</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in2">1005</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_448">448</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in2">1006</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_448">448</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in2">1007</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_448">448</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in2">1008</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_448">448</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in2">1009</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_448">448</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in2">1010</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_448">448</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in2">1011</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_448">448</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in2">1012</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_448">448</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in2">1013</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_448">448</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in2">1014</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_448">448</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in2">1015</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_448">448</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in2">1016</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_448">448</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in2">1017</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_448">448</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in2">1018</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_454">454</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in2">1019</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_461">461</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in2">1020</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_462">462</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in2">1021</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_463">463</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in2">1022</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_463">463</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in2">1023</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_465">465</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in2">1024</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_469">469</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in2">1025</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_469">469</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in2"><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_ix" id="Page_ix">ix</a></span>1026</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_471">471</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in2">1027</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_471">471</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in2">1028</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_476">476</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in2">1029</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_483">483</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in2">1030</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_483">483</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in2">1031</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_532">532</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in2">1032</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_532">532</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in2">1033</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_532">532</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in2">1033-A</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_532">532</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in2">1034</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_532">532</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in2">1035</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_532">532</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in2">1036</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_532">532</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in2">1036-A</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_532">532</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in2">1037</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_532">532</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in2">1037-A</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_532">532</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in2">1037-B</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_532">532</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in2">1038</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_532">532</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in2">1038-A</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_532">532</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in2">1039</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_532">532</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in2">1040</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_532">532</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in2">1041</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_532">532</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in2">1042</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_532">532</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in2">1043</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_532">532</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in2">1044</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_532">532</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in2">1045</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_532">532</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in2">1046</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_532">532</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in2">1047</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_532">532</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in2">1048</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_532">532</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in2">1049</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_532">532</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in2">1050</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_532">532</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in2">1051</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_532">532</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in2">1052</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_532">532</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in2">1053-A</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_576">576</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in2">1053-B</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_577">577</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in2">1053-C</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_582">582</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in2">1053-D</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_583">583</a></td></tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="tdl in2">1053-E</td>
    <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_585">585</a></td></tr>
</table>

<hr />

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_1" id="Page_1">1</a></span></p>

<h2 class="vspace">Hearings Before the President's Commission<br />

on the<br />

Assassination of President Kennedy</h2>

<hr />
<h2 id="ahb"><span class="smaller"><a name="Wednesday_May_6_1964" id="Wednesday_May_6_1964"><i>Wednesday, May 6, 1964</i></a></span><br />
<span class="subhead">TESTIMONY OF ALAN H. BELMONT</span></h2>

<p>The President's Commission met at 9:25 a.m. on May 6, 1964, at 200 Maryland
Avenue NE., Washington, D.C.</p>

<p>Present were Chief Justice Earl Warren, Chairman; Representative Gerald R.
Ford, John J. McCloy, and Allen W. Dulles, members.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p class="p2">The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Well, gentlemen, the Commission will come to order.</p>

<p>Mr. Belin, you had something you wanted the record to show in connection
with our testimony yesterday.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belin</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Would you present it to the Commission now, please.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belin</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. And their caliber, and so forth.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belin</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Yes, sir; I think that is desirable. You ought to do that.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. I do.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Will you be seated, please.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Stern</span>, will you conduct the examination, please?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Stern</span>. Thank you, sir. Would you state your full name for the record,
please?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. Alan H. Belmont.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_2" id="Page_2">2</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Stern</span>. And your address, Mr. Belmont?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. 2711 North Yucatan Street, Arlington, Va.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Stern</span>. Mr. Belmont, what was your education at the college level?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. Graduate of Stanford University in California, with an A.B.
degree, majoring in accounting.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Stern</span>. What year?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. 1931.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Stern</span>. What was your employment briefly before joining the Federal
Bureau of Investigation?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Stern</span>. Would you describe, please, for the Commission briefly your experience
in the Federal Bureau of Investigation since 1936?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Stern</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. There is nothing classified here.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Right. I know that you would have that in mind.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. Thank you.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Depending <span class="locked">on&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. May I ask is that 55 in the United States?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. United States and its possessions.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. And Puerto Rico?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. It doesn't include your <span class="locked">legal&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_3" id="Page_3">3</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. Legal attachés abroad?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. No; they are under the direct supervision of our headquarters.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Stern</span>. Can you describe the establishment of a typical case, indicating the
meaning of the terms office of origin and auxiliary office?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Stern</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>When a report is prepared in our field office&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Stern</span>. This is the auxiliary office?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. The auxiliary office.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Is that teletype from the office to Washington only, or is there
some interoffice teletypes?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. Each office is connected with each other office by teletype.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. It is; all over the country?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. Yes, sir; permitting rapid communication.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. That is, New Orleans and Dallas would have teletype between
these two offices?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. What kind of radio communication, Mr. Belmont, did you say?</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_4" id="Page_4">4</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. 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.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. On your own transmission system?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. Yes, sir; that is correct. We feel that in any type of an
emergency we must, because of our heavy <span class="locked">responsibilities&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. 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.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Is that so?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. And we assisted in passing messages down from Alaska.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Stern</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Stern</span>. Did you have any particular involvement that you can recall
in the investigation of his case before November 22&mdash;personally?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Stern</span>. Have you been personally involved in the investigation since the
assassination?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. I have indeed.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCloy</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCloy</span>. They also would not come per se to your attention, your personal
attention?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCloy</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. Again, Mr. McCloy, I have no way of knowing the extent to
which those particular cases would be called to my attention.</p>

<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_5" id="Page_5">5</a></span>
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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCloy</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. That is a judgment that he would render, but that judgment
would be passed on by our headquarters staff.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCloy</span>. Passed on by Washington?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. Yes, indeed. In this instance by the domestic intelligence
division.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCloy</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. Not tacitly approved. Approved.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCloy</span>. Approved. Well, you mark the paper approved or you just accept
it, accept the file with a notation "return for closing."</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCloy</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. No, Mr. McCloy. With the volume of work that we have that
would be an unnecessary move.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCloy</span>. I can understand that.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCloy</span>. All right.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Could I ask one question further on that point?</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Yes, indeed.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. 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.</p>

<p>In March 1963 Agent Hosty received information in Dallas to the effect that<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_6" id="Page_6">6</a></span>
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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. That was even before what we call the New Orleans incident?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. Correct.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Thank you. So that at the time of the assassination, this was
an open and not a closed case as regards the Dallas office.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Subsequently, the case was again transferred back to Dallas when it was determined
that Oswald was again residing in the Dallas area.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. All right, Mr. Stern.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Stern</span>. We were getting, Mr. Belmont, to the question of whether you
had been personally involved in the investigation since the assassination.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. I said I have indeed.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Stern</span>. Yes. As a part of that you have reviewed in detail the investigation
made prior to the assassination?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Stern</span>. Have you participated in or supervised the preparation of reports
and other correspondence to the Commission in response to questions from
the Commission?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Stern</span>. 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?</p>

<p>(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 833 for
identification.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Stern</span>. Did you supervise the preparation of this letter?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Stern</span>. And you have reviewed it and are familiar with it?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Stern</span>. We have covered in your answers to Mr. Dulles and Mr. McCloy
a good deal of the material in here.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>I would like to turn to the first question in which we <span class="locked">asked&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. 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?</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_7" id="Page_7">7</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Stern</span>. I think he might be able to highlight the answer. We have the
exact answer on the record, and I thought it <span class="locked">might&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Stern</span>. I might ask, Mr. Belmont, whether there is anything you would
like to add or amplify in these questions?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Stern</span>. Could you explain, Mr. Belmont, this procedure of placing a
stop in the files that you just referred to?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Stern</span>. I think that is all covered in quite adequate detail in the answer
to the first question.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. 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&mdash;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."</p>

<p>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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. 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.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_8" id="Page_8">8</a></span>
We received communications from the Navy, and from other agencies.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Thank you.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Stern</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Stern</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. There is nothing unusual whatsoever. Agent Fain interviewed
Oswald on June 26, 1963&mdash;1962, I believe it was, was it not?</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Yes; 1962.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Stern</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Stern</span>. Would it be usual for the defector to agree to advise you if he got
a contact? Are they generally that cooperative?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Stern</span>. Turning <span class="locked">to&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. No evidence whatsoever.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_9" id="Page_9">9</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Stern</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCloy</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. It is my recollection that he had that printed up himself.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. That is right.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCloy</span>. All of it, so far as you know, was self-induced, so to speak?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. Correct.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Stern</span>. Does your answer imply, Mr. Belmont, that there were Fair Play
for Cuba activities in Dallas and New Orleans that you knew about?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Stern</span>. 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."</p>

<p>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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. Let me turn this just a little bit and say why should we re-interview
him?</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Stern</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Stern</span>. I gather what you are saying is they would note the contradictions
from the reports?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Stern</span>. 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."</p>

<p>Can you expand on that and tell us how they were considered?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. That is right along the line of my previous explanation to you,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_10" id="Page_10">10</a></span>
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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Stern</span>. 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."</p>

<p>What was the nature of that continuing interest at that time?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Stern</span>. Mr. Chairman, I believe the answers to the other questions give us
a complete enough record.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Very well.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Stern</span>. May this exhibit which has been marked 833 for identification be
admitted?</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. It may be admitted in evidence under that number.</p>

<p>(The document referred to, previously marked Commission Exhibit No. 833 for
identification, was received in evidence.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCloy</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. No, sir; unless the Commission has further questions at this
point, I believe that the questions are answered properly and sufficiently.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCloy</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. I have just a little difficulty following you.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCloy</span>. Here is my point. Here was a defector who comes within the
category of interesting cases naturally.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCloy</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_11" id="Page_11">11</a></span>
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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCloy</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. I don't know why he asked to see an agent. I simply do not
know why.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCloy</span>. I think that is all.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Stern</span>. Mr. Belmont, I show you a letter marked for identification Commission
Exhibit No. 834. Can you identify that for the Commission, please?</p>

<p>(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 834 for
identification.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Stern</span>. Do you have that file with you?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Stern</span>. Would you explain generally to the Commission what materials
there are in that file that for security reasons you would prefer not to disclose?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Stern</span>. I think that is enough, Mr. Belmont, on that.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCloy</span>. You didn't have anything further to add to that, did you?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. No.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. I would like to make it clear, Mr. Chairman, that&mdash;I think
that is very kind of you&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Stern</span>. Mr. Belmont, have you reviewed the actual file and this letter of
May 4 which summarizes each document in the file?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Stern</span>. And to your knowledge, is this an accurate summary of each piece
of information in the file?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Stern</span>. The file is available to the Commission?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Stern</span>. If they want to look at any item in it?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. The file does not include that security matter that you mentioned,
or does it?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. This file is as it is maintained at the Bureau with all information
in it.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. With all information in it?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. Yes, sir; this is the actual file.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. I see.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Mr. Belmont, are you willing to leave the file a reasonable time
in case any of the Commissioners desire to examine it personally?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. We will return it.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. 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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_12" id="Page_12">12</a></span>
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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. I think he has stated that the file will be made available
to us whenever we want it.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. I think I would personally rather have it done on that basis.
What do you think, Mr. McCloy?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCloy</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_13" id="Page_13">13</a></span>
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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCloy</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. That is correct, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCloy</span>. If that is <span class="locked">so&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. In some instances.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCloy</span>. Only in some instances. There are other cases where that is
not the case.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. Yes; that is right.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCloy</span>. There is a great deal of narrative in here about Oswald and his
relations with the Embassy. Maybe it is elsewhere in the record.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. I would presume that you have received that from the other
agencies. Those are copies of communications that the other agencies sent to us.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. 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
<span class="locked">want&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCloy</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. Mr. McCloy, you have that record.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. We have the record, I have read the records myself.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCloy</span>. Maybe we have that one.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. Any investigative report you have.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCloy</span>. Is there any investigative report in here that we have not got?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. No, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Yes; we could do that for you.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. 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.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. You could come back, couldn't you, Mr. Belmont?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. I am at your disposal.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_14" id="Page_14">14</a></span>
in view of the fact that we have practically&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCloy</span>. Do we have copies of all these telegrams that are in here from
the Embassy?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. You are looking <span class="locked">at&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCloy</span>. Not Embassy; here is one from Mexico. Do we have that?
We don't have these in our files, for example.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCloy</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCloy</span>. I think in a rapid glance through it, I think just about half of it.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Well, suppose you do that then, get those and let's see. All
right, proceed, Mr. Stern.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Stern</span>. I think perhaps we ought to leave the entire matter of the file
then until we can give you the information.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. That is right.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Stern</span>. May we admit for the purposes of the record this list at this time,
Mr. Chief Justice, which has been marked No. 834?</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Yes. There are no security matters in this?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. No, sir.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. It may be admitted as Exhibit No. 834.</p>

<p>(The document referred to, previously marked Commission Exhibit No. 834 for
identification, was received in evidence.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Stern</span>. 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?</p>

<p>(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 835, for
identification.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Stern</span>. What is the subject?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. Stating flatly that Lee Harvey Oswald was never an informant
of the FBI.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Stern</span>. Thank you.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. 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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_15" id="Page_15">15</a></span>
matters. In other words, I want to make it clear we do not regard patriotic
citizens as informants.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Stern</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. Indeed not; in no way could he be considered an informant; in
no way.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Stern</span>. Did you supervise or assist in the preparation of the information
contained here?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Stern</span>. And you are familiar with it?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. Yes; I am.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Stern</span>. And to your knowledge, does it accurately and completely state
the Bureau's practice in recruiting a prospective informant?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. That is correct.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Stern</span>. Is there anything you would like to add to the information covered
in there with respect to your practices regarding informants?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. No; only in my personal knowledge this is a correct statement
and Lee Harvey Oswald was not an informant of the FBI.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Stern</span>. Did you ever use the term "agent" to apply to anyone other than
an employee, a special agent employee of the FBI?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. No; we do not.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Thank you.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. He retired in good graces, good standing, so far as the FBI is
concerned.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. And a year before the assassination.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. Frankly, I don't recall.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Yes; it was August 1962, he testified.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Stern</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. Lee Oswald was never an agent of the FBI.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Stern</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Stern</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. The Commission's letter so advised us.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Stern</span>. Mr. Chairman, may this be admitted with No. 835?</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. It may be admitted under that number.</p>

<p>(The document referred to, previously marked Commission Exhibit No. 835
for identification, was received in evidence.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Stern</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. In order to be sure&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Stern</span>. Did you supervise the preparation of this material?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. These affidavits were prepared, of course, by the men themselves.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_16" id="Page_16">16</a></span>
I have read the affidavits, and they were compiled as an enclosure and sent
over with this letter.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Stern</span>. You have reviewed them in preparation for your testimony before
the Commission?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Stern</span>. To your knowledge, are they accurate?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. They are accurate, to my knowledge, yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Stern</span>. Are they complete?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Stern</span>. They do not omit any significant fact you know of?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. No.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Stern</span>. In connection with the material they cover?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. No.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Stern</span>. Unless there are any questions on that, Mr. Chairman, I suggest
we admit this document.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. It may be admitted as No. 825.</p>

<p>(The document referred to, previously marked Commission Exhibit No. 825
for identification, was received in evidence.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Stern</span>. 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?</p>

<p>(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 836 for
identification.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Stern</span>. It was prepared in response to a request from the Commission?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. That is correct.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Stern</span>. Did you supervise or assist in the preparation?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. I did.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Stern</span>. Have you reviewed it recently?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Stern</span>. Is it complete with respect to the matters covered?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. Yes; it is.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Stern</span>. Is there anything you would like to add to it with respect to the
matters covered?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. <span class="locked">Well&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Subsequent to the assassination?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Stern</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. 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.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_17" id="Page_17">17</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Stern</span>. Specifically, the kind of information you were interested in, that
is before the assassination?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. Yes. Specifically the kind?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Stern</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. Any information indicating the possibility of a threat against
the President and Vice President and members of the family.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Stern</span>. Have you <span class="locked">broadened&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. I may say, <span class="locked">sir&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Stern</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Stern</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Stern</span>. That is, established by the Secret Service.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. That is correct.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Stern</span>. And you yourself never participated in any discussion <span class="locked">of&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. No; I did not.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Stern</span>. This liaison function.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Stern</span>. Have you subsequent to the assassination augmented your instructions
to special agents in this respect?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. 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.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Where do those new ones appear in the exhibit, Mr. Belmont?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. They appear as an attachment&mdash;working from the back, I think,
Mr. Chairman, I can help you most.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. Eight pages from the back it starts, it reads, "Manual of Instructions
Section 83."</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Yes; I have it.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. The first page is the same information that we previously furnished
to Secret Service involving threats.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. The first page is intact, as it was before.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. There may be some slight changes in wording but essentially
it is the same dealing with possible threats.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. We can do that without any difficulty. I would be glad to do
it with the staff, or can I help you here?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. Very good.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_18" id="Page_18">18</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Thank you.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. 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, (<i>a</i>) possessing
emotional instability or irrational behavior, (<i>b</i>) who have made threats of
bodily harm against officials or employees of Federal, State or local government
or officials of a foreign government, (<i>c</i>) 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 (<i>d</i>)
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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Stern</span>. This did not come about, this change did not come about, through
any request from the Secret Service or discussion with the Secret Service?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. I wonder, Mr. Belmont, whether you would consider possibly
changing in section (<i>d</i>) 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. We will be happy to change that.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. I just suggest for your consideration, I don't wish to rewrite it.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. We would be happy to change it, Mr. Dulles.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Stern</span>. Following Mr. Dulles' thought, in the line above that, Mr Belmont,
should that "and" before (<i>d</i>) be "and" or "or"? Do you mean <span class="locked">these&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. We do not mean that all of these items must be coupled together
if that is your thought.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Stern</span>. That is right.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. We will be happy to change the "and" before (d) to an "or".</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Stern</span>. This means any of the broad classifications of people, subversives,
ultrarightists, racists or fascists who meet any of these four tests.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. That is correct.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Stern</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. 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.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. In what period of time?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. Since we put them out.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. I see.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. Which was December 26.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCloy</span>. Have you included defectors in this list?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. Yes, sir; we do include defectors.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Stern</span>. You mean as of December 26, 1963?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. Correct.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Stern</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. 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.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_19" id="Page_19">19</a></span>
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&mdash;I am not boring you with this, am I?</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. No, indeed. This is tremendously important.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>(At this point in the proceedings, Representative Ford enters the hearing
room.)</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_20" id="Page_20">20</a></span>
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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCloy</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. It will be more than 5,000, sir. This will continue.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCloy</span>. 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 <span class="locked">feel&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCloy</span>. It may be they will have to reorganize some of their procedures
to cope with this, won't they?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. I do not know.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCloy</span>. You have got a pretty broad classification here. "All investigative
personnel should be alert for the identification of subversives, ultrarightists,
racists, and Fascists (<i>a</i>) possessing emotional instability or irrational behavior."
That may include a good many people in the United States and maybe some members
of this Commission&mdash;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&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCloy</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCloy</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCloy</span>. Well, that brings up again the comment that I originally made.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_21" id="Page_21">21</a></span>
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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. I think you are correct.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCloy</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. Yes, sir. If <span class="locked">you&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. By the definitions under paragraph 2 of the Manual of Instructions.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. The previous page and the paragraph right above No. 2 sets
forth the same information that we acted on prior to the assassination.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. That is paragraph 1?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. The Manual of Instructions, section 83.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. What are the various categories given now at the top of page 2
of this exhibit which have been added?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Under the new criteria would Oswald's name have gone
to the Secret Service automatically?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. Well, Congressman, right now we are including all defectors
automatically.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCloy</span>. Do you under that category send forward all Communists?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCloy</span>. All Communists, yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. 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?</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Yes; we can put it into the record.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. That is correct.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCloy</span>. Which, as I counted, is the 12th page of the Commission's Exhibit
No. 836; is that right, Mr. Stern?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Stern</span>. That is right number of the exhibit.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCloy</span>. 836, and I think it is the 12th page.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. For convenient reference I suggest that when this be included
that we add the dates and the page numbers.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Stern</span>. I think the witness can do this immediately.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. We will give a copy of it to the reporter and he may copy it
and incorporate it later in the record.</p>

<p>(Paragraph 2 reads as follows:)</p>

<p>"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 (<i>a</i>) possessing emotional instability or
irrational behavior, (<i>b</i>) who have made threats of bodily harm against officials<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_22" id="Page_22">22</a></span>
or employees of Federal, State, or local government or officials of a foreign
government, (<i>c</i>) 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 (<i>d</i>) whose prior acts or
statements depict propensity for violence and hatred against organized
government."</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. We do notify Secret Service of any defectors coming to our
attention.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. If they haven't come <span class="locked">back&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. They are not a danger.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. They are not within our cognizance and we don't notify Secret
Service.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCloy</span>. Not necessarily, not exclusively the Soviet Union, of course.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Communist countries, I would say.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Just to get an order of magnitude, how many are there?
Is this a sizable number?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. I don't have a figure, Mr. Ford. You have had defectors in
Korea from the military. You have had <span class="locked">defectors&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCloy</span>. Germany.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. 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.</p>

<p>When we become interested is when they return to this country and warrant
action by us from an internal security standpoint.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Stern</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. 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.</p>

<p>The <span class="locked">ultrarightists&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Socialist Workers Party is a Trotskyite Party, is it not?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>The racists, I think, are&mdash;that speaks for itself, individuals who will go beyond
the bounds of propriety in seeking their goals, and who adopt violence.</p>

<p>The <span class="locked">Fascists&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCloy</span>. I was wondering how you were going to define that one.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. Is to give you the opposite end of the spectrum of subversives.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Do we have anarchists in this country at the present time?
There used to be an old anarchist society in the old days.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. That used to be, but it is dissolved. There is no organization.
I venture to say we have individual anarchists at this time.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. No organized anarchist organization.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. No.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_23" id="Page_23">23</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Stern</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Stern</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCloy</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. 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 <span class="locked">or&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. By front groups you mean those on the Attorney General's list;
you are taking that as a criterion of a front group?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. No, sir; not necessarily that, sir. There are other groups
that we consider front groups.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. I see.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. I have no doubt of that whatsoever.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. I just wanted to get that in the record.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. So you don't lump them all under the term "subversive," that
is what I was trying to get at.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. Right.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. I suppose some join before an organization is infiltrated,
too.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_24" id="Page_24">24</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. That is correct, sir.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. They find themselves in a mousetrap then.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. That is correct, sir; that is right.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCloy</span>. In other words, you would expect your agents to exert some
selection before they would send these names over to the Secret Service.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. What has been the reaction of the Secret Service to
this greater flow of information that they have received?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. They have taken it. There has been no official reaction, to
my knowledge.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Have they objected to the greater burden?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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&mdash;yes, 139
agents that we have made available.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>This is done, this agent going with Secret Service is done, at the invitation
and request of Secret Service.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. 169 agents of the FBI who have assisted since the
assassination. Did Secret Service make a specific request for their help in
these instances?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. I gather that prior to the assassination such requests,
specific requests, had not come from Secret Service to the Bureau.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. No. There were never any such requests before.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Stern</span>. At the level at which the requests have been made so far, have
they proved to be a difficult burden for the FBI?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. 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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_25" id="Page_25">25</a></span>
our agents are putting in an average of over 2 hours overtime a day voluntarily,
the loan of 139 men will be felt.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. 169.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. I believe it was 139, sir. I think the letter says 139.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Stern</span>. 139 on 16 separate occasions.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. Yes. I do not wish to overplay this. We are not complaining.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. 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 <span class="locked">to&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. At the time of the assassination?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. And you have no auxiliary function to <span class="locked">that&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. No, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Except to furnish names and suspects, as you have indicated.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. That is correct. We have no function there. That is a primary
responsibility and function of Secret Service.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. You mean President Johnson, immediately after the assassination?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. And there was a period there, there was a period though, after
the assassination and before President Johnson took the oath of office&mdash;did this
order come to you during that period or after he had taken the oath of office?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. It was very rapid, probably within a day.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. I see. It wasn't immediately after.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. No.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. It wasn't this period I am speaking of.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. I realize that.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. And started the investigation and it was theirs.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. You were only in there by courtesy. What you did was by
courtesy of the local authorities.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. 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."</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. I understand.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Mr. Belmont, just one question. Do you know of any legislation<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_26" id="Page_26">26</a></span>
in recent years that might have been introduced in the Congress to make
an attack upon the President a Federal offense?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. I do know that there is legislation presently pending.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Since the assassination?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. Since the assassination.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. Mr. Chairman, I must plead ignorance. I haven't done research
on it, and I just don't know.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Yes. Well, we can find that out very easily.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. I am sure there is a pending bill because my recollection is
that it was called to our attention&mdash;I cannot pinpoint it for you&mdash;but I think
there is pending legislation now in this matter.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCloy</span>. I noticed in some Law Review article recently reference to the
fact that previous bills had been introduced but had gone into the wastebasket.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. That is true.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCloy</span>. In respect of other incidents.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. When the emotion died down.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCloy</span>. When the emotion died down, that is true.</p>

<p>I have some further questions.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Have you finished, Mr. Stern?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Stern</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. Yes; we checked with our Dallas office, and they do not have
a specific record of when that information was recorded.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Stern</span>. Was it recorded in substantially the same form in some contemporaneous
communication?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Stern</span>. You might refer to Commission Exhibit 834, page 9, items 64 and
67, just so the record is straight.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Stern</span>. Thank you, Mr. Belmont.</p>

<p>I have no further questions.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Mr. McCloy.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCloy</span>. I have one or two questions.</p>

<p>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?</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_27" id="Page_27">27</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCloy</span>. In the course of your investigation do you have any reason to
make you believe that he was an agent of any other country?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. No, sir; we have no reason to believe that he was an agent of
any other country.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCloy</span>. Or any other agency of the United States?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. Or any other agency of the United States.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCloy</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCloy</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. No, sir; we have no evidence, and I could support no conclusion
that this was other than an act of Oswald.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCloy</span>. Now, the investigation does lead you to the conclusion that he
was the President's assassin?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCloy</span>. Did you ever at any time have any connection whatever&mdash;you or
the agency&mdash;have anything to do with the Walker, General Walker, case?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. 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 <span class="locked">recovered&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCloy</span>. Bullets.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCloy</span>. Until recently.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. No; we had no connection with it, with that investigation.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCloy</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. Yes, sir; we went into that very thoroughly.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCloy</span>. Have we got all your reports on that?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCloy</span>. Have you come to any conclusions or opinions in regard to
Ruby and his connection with Oswald, if any?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCloy</span>. Maybe this is in the record, but do you&mdash;by reason of your very
close association with this investigation, I venture to ask this question&mdash;do
you, from your knowledge of the investigation find&mdash;was there any evidence in<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_28" id="Page_28">28</a></span>
regard to Ruby's propensity for violence before this shooting took place in the
police headquarters in Dallas?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. Did we have any information of that character and of that
nature?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCloy</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. 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 <span class="locked">capable&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCloy</span>. Whether he was prone to violent action.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Was there any evidence that the FBI found to the effect
that Ruby was a Communist?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. No, sir.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. None whatsoever?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. No, sir.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Was there any evidence found by the FBI to the effect
that Ruby was connected with in any way whatsoever so-called rightist groups?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. No, sir; I do not recall anything of that nature.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCloy</span>. No association that you know of as a result of the investigation
of Ruby with any foreign government or agency of a foreign government?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCloy</span>. That is what we were seeking, no more than that, because your
impressions would be valuable.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCloy</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. 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&mdash;I am paraphrasing, a renewed concept&mdash;of the American
free society.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>We again exhibited interest on the basis of these contacts with The Worker,
Fair Play for Cuba Committee, which are relatively inconsequential.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>The interview with him in jail is not significant from the standpoint of whether
he had a propensity for violence.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCloy</span>. That is the Quigley interview you are talking about?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. Yes; it was a self-serving interview.</p>

<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_29" id="Page_29">29</a></span>
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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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 <span class="locked">certainly&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCloy</span>. We wish he had.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. Of course.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Mr. Chairman, I have a call from the floor of the House.
I wonder if I could ask Mr. Belmont a question.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Yes, indeed.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. You would be in a position to know specifically that
information?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. I will affirm what you said.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. There is a difference, however, between your knowledge
as to whether the FBI had hired Oswald, you can be very categorical about
that.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. That is correct.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. You can <span class="locked">only&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. But there is a difference in the way you can answer those
two questions.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. But as far as a foreign government is concerned, you
only know what you have been able to find out?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. That is correct, sir.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. There is always the possibility in the second case, involving
a foreign government, that something might come up at some other time.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. There is always the possibility. We have no indication of it.
There is always the possibility; yes, sir.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. But you cannot be as categorical about the future in the
second case as you were in the first case.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. Yes, sir; you are right.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Are there any other questions?</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_30" id="Page_30">30</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Do you have some more?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCloy</span>. I think I have got all the questions I wanted to ask.</p>

<p>(At this point in the proceedings, Representative Ford leaves the hearing
room.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. I have two or three questions.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. As I understand it, Mr. Dulles, this is probably a compilation
of the articles that he wrote in the French press.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Express; yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. Which, I believe, we sent over to the Commission as we received
them.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. That is correct.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. We do not want that. I don't think we need that.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. 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 <span class="locked">a&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. I think that would be useful for the Commission to have, Mr.
Chairman. Do you agree?</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. Most certainly, sir.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. But otherwise I don't think we want a review of the book.
That is your idea, is it?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCloy</span>. Do you have any record of Buchanan? Do you know anything
about Buchanan's background?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. No, sir; I do not recall.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. I wish you would check.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. We can send you a letter.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. We have the record.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCloy</span>. He seems to be very much Ivy League, Lawrenceville School
and Yale.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. I thought he had been in touch with the Commission.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. I have one or two more questions, Mr. Chairman.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_31" id="Page_31">31</a></span>
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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. I am sure we have explored that fully, and we have reported it
to the Commission fully.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. All right; good.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. No, sir; we have not made a study of that nature. I would
imagine that Secret Service has made a study.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. They have made a study. I didn't know whether you had made
one also.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. No, sir; we have not.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. That is all I have, Mr. Chairman.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. 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 <span class="locked">opinion&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. All right, sir.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. And with your knowledge there is any truth to any part of it.
You, of course, are acquainted with that paper.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. 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.</p>

<p>(Discussion off the record.)</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. Very good, sir.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>"Washington&mdash;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.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_32" id="Page_32">32</a></span>
"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:</p>

<p>"1. That the Justice Department deliberately kept Oswald and Ruby out of
jail before the assassination.</p>

<p>"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&mdash;7 months
before the President was assassinated.</p>

<p>"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.</p>

<p>"A top-secret document&mdash;a letter signed by a high official of the Justice Department&mdash;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.</p>

<p>"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.</p>

<p>"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.</p>

<p>"The top-secret document&mdash;a copy of it is reportedly in the hands of the
Presidential Commission investigating the assassination&mdash;bares a web of intrigue
that involves the Federal Bureau of Investigation, along with the Justice Department
and the Central Intelligence Agency.</p>

<p>"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.).</p>

<p>"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.</p>

<p>"The document&mdash;requesting the cops not to arrest Ruby and Oswald&mdash;contradicts
the FBI report on the assassination and the subsequent murder
of Oswald."</p>

<p>My question is, do you have any information that would lead you to believe
that any of those allegations are true?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. My answer, sir, is that that is utter fantastic nonsense, and
I have no information to indicate that any of the allegations are true.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Stern</span>. It will be numbered 837.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. 837. It is introduced in evidence as No. 837.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Stern</span>. May we also have admitted, Mr. Chief Justice, Exhibit No. 836,
the letter of March 31, 1964, which Mr. Belmont has identified.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. It may be admitted under that number.</p>

<p>(The documents referred to were marked for identification as Commission
Exhibits Nos. 836 and 837 and were received in evidence.)</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Is there anything further, gentlemen?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCloy</span>. May I suggest that we get a copy of the paper which does
have the date on it. I forget what date it was.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Belmont</span>. Mr. Rankin, I understand you have sent it over to us, so we
will be glad to answer your letter.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Well, Mr. Belmont, we appreciate your cooperation, and we
thank you for your courtesy.</p>

<p>(Whereupon, at 12:40 p.m., the President's Commission recessed.)</p>

<hr />

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_33" id="Page_33">33</a></span></p>

<h2 id="jr"><span class="smaller"><a name="Wednesday_May_13_1964" id="Wednesday_May_13_1964"><i>Wednesday, May 13, 1964</i></a></span><br />
<span class="subhead">TESTIMONY OF LT. JACK REVILL</span></h2>

<p>The President's Commission met at 10 a.m. on May 13, 1964, at 200 Maryland
Avenue NE., Washington, D.C.</p>

<p>Present were Chief Justice Earl Warren, Chairman; Representative Gerald
R. Ford; and Allen W. Dulles, members.</p>

<p>Also present were J. Lee Rankin, General Counsel; Norman Redlich, assistant
counsel; Arlen Specter, assistant counsel; and Charles Murray, observer.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Lieutenant Revill, the purpose of today's hearing is to hear
your testimony and that of Detective V.&nbsp;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.</p>

<p>What are those&mdash;those are the affidavits?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. That is his affidavit and Detective Brian's.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Those are the affidavits that you made in that regard.</p>

<p>Would you please rise and raise your right hand and be sworn?</p>

<p>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?</p>

<p>Lieutenant <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. I do, sir.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Mr. Rankin will conduct the examination.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Lieutenant Revill, will you state your name and place of residence
for the record, please?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. My name is Jack Revill. I reside at 5617 Madowics, Dallas, Tex.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Do you have an official connection with the police department of
Dallas?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. Yes, sir; I do.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. What is that?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. I am presently a lieutenant of police of the Dallas Police Department.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. How long have you occupied that position?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. I was promoted to lieutenant June 26, 1958.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Do you have any particular area of responsibility?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. Yes, sir; I am presently in charge of the criminal intelligence
section.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Have you been in charge of that section since November 22 of
1963?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. Yes, sir; I have.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. What are the functions of your work in that job?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. My unit&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Who is that?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. Capt. Pat Gannaway.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. How long have you reported to him?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. In my present capacity?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. Since I have been assigned to the criminal intelligence section.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. So that was for all times since and on November 22, 1963?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. Yes, sir; this is true.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Do you know James P. Hosty, Jr.?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. Yes, sir; I do.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. How long have you known him?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. I have known Jim, Mr. Hosty, since 1959, when I took over the
intelligence section.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Did you see him on November 22?</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_34" id="Page_34">34</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. Yes, sir; I did.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Where.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. In the basement of the city hall.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Just before you saw Special Agent Hosty, where had you been?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. I had been at the Texas School Book Depository.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. What did you do there?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Was anyone working with you there?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Who?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. Numerous people.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. I see. Was Detective Brian with you there?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. 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.&nbsp;J. Tarver.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. How did you come back to the police department?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. By automobile.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. By car?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Was anyone with you?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. Yes, sir, I had Detectives Brian, Tarver, and Westphal.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. They were all in the car with you?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. And which way did you enter the building?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. The Main Street ramp into the basement of the city hall.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. About what time of the day?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. It must have been about 2:45, 2:50.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. All of these officers were with you?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Where did you see Special Agent Hosty?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Will you explain to the Commission where you parked the car
with reference to the point where you saw Agent Hosty?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. 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 <span class="locked">me&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Now, about the parking, excuse me.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Is that a part of the basement area of the police department?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. Yes, sir; it is.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. All right; proceed.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. And Mr. Hosty ran over to me and he says, "Jack"&mdash;now as I
recall these words&mdash;"a Communist killed President Kennedy."</p>

<p>I said, "What?"</p>

<p>He said, "Lee Oswald killed President Kennedy."</p>

<p>I said, "Who is Lee Oswald?"</p>

<p>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, <span class="locked">"Jim"&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. What did he say in regard to his being capable?</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_35" id="Page_35">35</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. This was it. They had&mdash;"We had information that this man
was <span class="locked">capable"&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Of what?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. Of committing this assassination. This is what I understood him
to say.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Are those his exact words?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. What time of the day, could you give me the approximate time?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. And Chief Curry had not yet returned, had he?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. I don't know where he was.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. You didn't know about that?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. No, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Did you say anything about this to Captain Fritz?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. And you didn't say anything to the inspector about it?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. The inspector?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Lieutenant Wells.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. No, sir; I did not.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. You didn't tell him this important information?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. Hosty was going up to tell him the same thing.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Did he tell you that?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. Yes, sir; he told me that.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. And Hosty told you then that he was going up to tell him that
they knew he was capable of being the assassin?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Did you know that Oswald had been arrested?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. No, sir; at that time I did not.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. You just knew about the someone by the name of Lee, didn't you?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. 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 <span class="locked">Negro&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Were you in charge of that?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. 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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_36" id="Page_36">36</a></span>
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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. When did you learn that Oswald had been arrested?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Did you know it by the time you went to Lieutenant Wells'
office?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. No, sir; I did not. He may have been in the office at that time.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. You didn't know that Oswald was already in the police
department?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. And the particular words about Oswald being capable of being
an assassin those were told you by Agent Hosty in the elevator?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. I see. Did you do anything about losing your temper, did you
say anything?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. You went to the third floor on the elevator?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Who else went with you?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. Detective Brian and Hosty, the elevator was&mdash;had several people
on it. I don't recall who they were.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Was Detective Brian on that elevator?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. Yes, sir; he was.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. At that same time?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. He went to the third floor with me.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. And you are sure Agent Hosty was on the elevator with you?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. Yes, sir; he was.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. And you are sure you were on the elevator?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Now, will you tell us exactly what you said to Hosty and also
what he said to you?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. After hearing about the information that they were purported
to have <span class="locked">had&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Have you told us all the information that Hosty told you?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. As well as I recall; yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Now, did you say anything to him about it?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_37" id="Page_37">37</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. What?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. And you are certain you went up there on the elevator together?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. Yes, sir; took him to the third floor and introduced him to
Lieutenant Wells.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Are you sure you didn't go up the stairs together.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. No, sir; we went to the third floor on the elevator.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. You are positive?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. Yes, sir; because we caught the elevator in the basement, and
there would have been no reason to walk up the stairs.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. If Agent Hosty said you went up the stairs rapidly together,
that would be untrue?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. Yes, sir; this would be untrue.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Did you go in that same driveway that the car went in that
was to take Oswald out?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. That driveway; and you took that elevator right to the left as
you went in there?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. No, sir; we go straight into the doors into the elevator that goes
up to the third floor.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. Third and fourth floor.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. May I ask a question to reconstruct this a bit? Both
Detective Brian and yourself came in one car?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. And you had two other officers with you?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. More or less the same time Mr. Hosty came in?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. We followed Mr. Hosty into the basement.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Each in a car?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. Yes, sir; he was in a car and we were in mine.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Your first contact with Mr. Hosty was in the basement
there?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. What did he say there?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Then Brian, Hosty, and yourself walked to the elevator?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. And the three of you took the elevator up to the third
floor?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. It is about 10 feet as I remember it.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. No, sir; it is more than that.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. It is a different elevator. It is not the one that take prisoners
down?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. No, sir; it is the swinging doors, you go through the swinging
doors.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. It is another elevator?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. At what point in the sequence did you blow up, as you
say?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. When he told me about the capability. By blowing <span class="locked">up&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_38" id="Page_38">38</a></span>
Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Was that standing in the basement near the car or was
it over toward the elevator?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. What is his reaction to that?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. "We couldn't." I do not know what he meant by that.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. 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 <span class="locked">just&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. No, sir; if I said that I was wrong.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Was that just confusion?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. You stress the word "capable", that sticks in your mind, does it?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. He didn't say might have done it?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. No, sir; capable.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Normally would information of this kind have passed to you directly
from the FBI or through the Secret Service in the event&mdash;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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. No, sir; I personally had taken part in no meetings.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. With the FBI?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. With the FBI.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Or Secret Service?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. Or Secret Service.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Why was this?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. This I do not know. This was handled at a higher level. It is<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_39" id="Page_39">39</a></span>
my understanding meetings were held and my captain who is my immediate
supervisor was involved in these meetings <span class="locked">but&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. You were not present at these meetings?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. No, sir; I was not.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. But the meetings you think were held?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. This is my understanding; yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Lieutenant Revill, have you seen the original of that Exhibit 709?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. Yes, sir; I have.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Is that the report that you referred to when you were answering
questions?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. Yes, sir; I brought a copy.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. And Congressman Ford?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. By that you are referring to the statement sworn to and subscribed
before me this 7th day of April 1964?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Now, will you tell us how you happened to make this report,
Exhibit 709?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. Why I made the report?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. How did it happen that you made it?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. When was this?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. Within minutes after I left Mr. Hosty at the homicide and robbery
bureau.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. What did you say to him?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. I told him what had happened, what had transpired.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Just describe what you said to him.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. About meeting Mr. Hosty in the basement?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Just tell us what you said.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. 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 <span class="locked">this&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Did you say anything about what you have said?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. No, sir; I don't recall. I might have.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. You don't recall that at all?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. No, sir; I don't.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Did your captain ask you whether you said anything about that?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. I don't recall him asking me that; no, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Did he say anything to you about it?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. Yes, sir; he did. He told me to put this on paper.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. That is all he said?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Within 30 minutes to an hour after the thing happened.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Neither one of you said anything about this being strange that
Agent Hosty would say anything like this?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. I do not recall, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. You didn't say anything like that?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. I don't recall making such a statement.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. And he didn't say anything like that to you that you recalled?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. No, sir.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Did you write this out in longhand?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. Yes, sir; and then I dictated it to one of the stenos in the office.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_40" id="Page_40">40</a></span>
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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. This is on November 22 you are talking about?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Did you sign it on November 22 or at a later date?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. The same time.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. But you swore to it on the 7th day of April 1964?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. You swore that was your signature?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. Yes, sir; at the time I was hoping it would never come up.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Why?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. Because of the relations that we had with the Bureau.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. You thought this was a bad thing for the Bureau?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. Yes, sir; I did.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. For them to admit to you that they <span class="locked">knew&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. Not the admitting but to withhold it.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. To withhold the information?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. They thought this man was capable of being an assassin?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. And yet you say that Agent Hosty just blurted that out?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. Yes, sir; he did.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Have you told us all that you remember about it?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. Yes, sir; all that I remember.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Did you make <span class="locked">this&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. No, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. That did not come up in this conversation?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. No, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Did you ask him how he knew he was a Communist?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. No, sir; I did not.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Why not?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. I don't know.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. In the statement that you gave on November 22 which
you have signed, you say?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. "The subject was arrested for the murder of J. D.
Tippit and is a prime suspect in the assassination of President Kennedy."</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. This I found out after reporting to my office, I didn't know what
time this happened.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. In other words, you learned this subsequent to going with
Hosty?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. And then coming back to your own office?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. Yes, sir; some of the officers assigned to the Special Service
Bureau on&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. That is how you learned about this?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. At what time of day did you make this actual statement and
sign it approximately?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. Approximately 3:30, 3:35.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. 3:35 on the 22d of November?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. No, sir; the notary's was on April 7, I believe.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. 7th day of April, I mean, 7th day of April.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. Yes, sir; but this is the report that I signed on the 22d.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. This is the actual report that you signed on the 22d?</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_41" id="Page_41">41</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. On the 22d. This is a copy, I believe.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Yes; this is a copy I have in my hand.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. The original of this was made on November 22?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. And signed on November 22d?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. Yes, sir; it was.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. And later sworn to on April 7?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. Yes, sir; this is correct.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. April 7, 1964.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Is all the information on 709 given by you?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. Is this 709?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. All of the information, what do you mean by this, sir?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. All of the language and everything on that exhibit, did you
give that to some stenographer to write?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. Yes, sir; I wrote it out. My stenographer, she is a clerk
typist, and&mdash;I roughed it out and then she typed it for me.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Now, the words "subject" Lee Harvey Oswald.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Was that given by you on the slip of paper you wrote out?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. Yes, sir; I wrote it out in longhand.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. And the words 605 Elsbeth Street, was that given by you?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. Yes, sir; this is the address we were given or I was given by
some of the officers involved in the arrest.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Who gave that to you?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. I believe Detective Carroll, Carroll or Detective Taylor, they
were both there.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. And was that at the time you made this out that you were
given that information?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. Shortly before I made this out.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. You didn't even know where he lived then?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. No, sir; I did not. I had never heard of him.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. You know that is wrong, don't you?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. The 605?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. I don't know.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Is it wrong?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. Yes; it is.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. As of the time.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. That is what they gave me.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. You found that out?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. This is an address he once lived at.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Do you know that?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. This is correct. I want to find out what he knows about it.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. Is this a&mdash;is this an incorrect address on Mr. Oswald where he
was living at the time?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. If you check it up I think you will find&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. Now, where they got this <span class="locked">address&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. You never checked that?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. I personally have not checked it but I am sure it has been checked.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. I see.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. But this is the address I was given.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Now, you say here that you were told that the subject was a
member of the Communist Party. Is that right?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. This might be my interpretation of Mr. Hosty saying a Communist
killed the President and we had him in our security files.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. You are an expert in this field, aren't you? You are working
in the subversive field?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. Yes, sir; but as far as an expert, I wouldn't say I am an expert.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_42" id="Page_42">42</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. You know the difference between membership and a person being
a Communist, don't you?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. And you know it is a very real difference?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. Yes, sir; there is a difference.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Do you know which Mr. Hosty told you?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. 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."</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Could I ask a question? Where did you get this address that
you put on of 605 Elsbeth Street, do you recall?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. Yes, sir; from Detective E.&nbsp;B. Carroll or Detective Taylor.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Are they subordinates?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. You never ascertained where they got it?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Can you find out where they got this address?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. Yes, sir; I can.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. I think that would be useful. I would like to know that. I would
like to know where they got this address also.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. It would have been the same day because this was made within
an <span class="locked">hour&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. You didn't put down on this statement anything about what you
said, did you?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. No, sir; I did not.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Why didn't you?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. All I was doing was reporting what Mr. Hosty said to me.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Is that the way you make all your reports just one side?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. Yes, sir; yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. You never say what you said?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. No, sir; I do not put our opinions or our interpretation in the
report.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. You don't even say what you asked?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. No, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. You just put the answer down?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. Put what was given to me; yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. And that is the way all the police department reports are made?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. After you made this report, do you know what happened to it?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. I gave it to the captain, my captain, Captain Gannaway.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Do you know whether it was given to the Commission when the
police reports were furnished to the Commission?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. This I do not know, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. I will tell you that it was not given to the Commission. Do
you know any reason why it was withheld?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. No, sir; I do not.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Do you know any reason why it should have been withheld
until Chief Curry came here?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. No, sir; I do not.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Did you have anything to do with that being withheld?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. No, sir; I gave it to my superior, and what he did with it, I do
not know.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Did you ever have any discussions about withholding it?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. No, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. You did want to protect Agent Hosty, you say?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. And you hoped the information would not get out?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. By <span class="locked">hoping&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_43" id="Page_43">43</a></span>
The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Did you recently have a conversation with Lieutenant Hopkins
of Fort Worth?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Where was that?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. Lieutenant Hopkins and I went to Sacramento, Calif., to a law
enforcement intelligence unit conference and shared a room.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Did you discuss this matter with him?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. Yes, sir; it broke in the papers while we were there.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. What did you say to him about it?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. About the report? About this report?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Did you say anything about the report being inaccurate?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. Inaccurate?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. No, sir.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. What was the date of this conference in Sacramento?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Did you examine the newspaper report of your report, Exhibit
709?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. Did I examine it? Yes, sir; I read several newspaper reports
of it.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Did you give the reports to the newspapers?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. No, sir; I did not.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Did you have anything to do with giving it to the newspapers?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. No, sir; this would have been the last thing I would have done.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Do you know who did?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. No, sir; I do not.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. What prompted you to discuss this information with
the other officer from Fort Worth?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. 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
<span class="locked">course&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Lieutenant who?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. Lieutenant Hopkins of the Fort Worth Police Department. H. F.
Hopkins.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. And I discussed it with him.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Who was calling you long distance, what relevance does
that have to it?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. To my discussing it with him?</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. The long-distance phone calls were about this report, the Associated
Press and the United Press.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. That is all that I have, Mr. Chief Justice.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_44" id="Page_44">44</a></span>
The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Have you anything further, or you?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Tippit was not under your jurisdiction, was he?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. No, sir; he was not.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Lieutenant, I am not familiar with the newspaper report that
you are speaking of. What, in substance, did it say?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. And that is what caused you and Lieutenant Hopkins to have
a discussion?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Did he bring the matter up to you or did you bring it up to
him?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. I might have brought it up to him because I was concerned that
this thing had been released.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. What was your conversation concerning that?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. 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.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Looks like what?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. 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.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Then you discussed that with Mr. Hopkins?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Do you recall just what Mr. Hopkins asked you and what you
told him about this report?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. 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.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. 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.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Did you at any time in talking to him repudiate anything that
was in this report?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. 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.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Yes. Anything more?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. I have nothing more.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Lieutenant, thank you very much, sir, for your help here.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. Thank you, sir. I am just sorry it happened.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_45" id="Page_45">45</a></span>
The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. You have told us what the truth of the situation is, you could
do no more and no less.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>(Discussion off the record.)</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Lieutenant, just a question or two, we forgot to ask, Mr.
Rankin, would you ask them, please?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. You said you made some handwritten notes about this 709
exhibit.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. When you gave them to the typist&mdash;do you know what happened
to those notes?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. They were destroyed, I am sure.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Do you know what her name is who typed 709?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. Mary Jane Robertson.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Is she still with the police department?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. What position is she in now?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. She is a clerk-typist in the special service bureau.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Do you know where the original of 709 is?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. With Chief Curry, I assume. Well, let's see. You have a copy;
I would assume he has got it.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Wasn't a copy made at the time?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. Yes, sir; I have it.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. The actual copy, you have?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. Yes, sir; it is in my little briefcase.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. So that original would be available to us?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. You have it here now?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. I have a copy.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. A carbon copy?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. He showed us a copy of his testimony.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Do you know how many copies were made?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. Yes, sir; one and one; an original and one.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. And you kept one copy and one went to Captain Gannaway?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. And you have had the one copy in your possession since
how long?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. Probably a week or two after this thing happened, and I have had
it in the Lee Harvey Oswald file.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. You have had this copy in your files in the police department?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Since about December 1 or thereabouts?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. Yes, sir; thereabouts.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Do you number those items in the file?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. And the order in which they come in?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. Yes, sir. Now, this particular report was put in the Lee Harvey
Oswald file, and he was given an intelligence number, A &amp; T, if I may get this
copy I will explain to <span class="locked">you&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Yes; would you do so, please?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. Excuse me just a moment. You see, he was given A &amp; T 2965,
page 34, as it appears in his file. This is indexed with a card with this file number
and page number.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. May I ask, would the next item in that file be numbered 35?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. Yes, sir; it would.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. And the one directly preceding it would be 33?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. Thirty-three; yes, sir.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_46" id="Page_46">46</a></span>
The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. I see, and you have the rest of your file which would indicate
that?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. Yes, sir; I don't have it with me.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. No; but you have it in your records.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. And that could be produced if we wanted it?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. Yes, sir; it is the complete file we have now on Lee Harvey Oswald.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. May we <span class="locked">have&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Could I just see that?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Could we make a copy of that?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. Yes, sir; I put another piece in there because it is on onion skin.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. We could make a photostatic copy quickly and return this to you.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. I see, not in your own office.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Did you consult with Detective Brian?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. No, sir.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. During the time you were preparing it?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. No, sir.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Or subsequent to its preparation?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. But Brian was with you on the elevator?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. Yes, sir; he was with me in the automobile and on the elevator.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Was he up in Gannaway's office with you, too?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. Yes, sir; he works for me.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. He was with you at the time you went to Gannaway's
office?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. The special service bureau office; yes, sir.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. But he didn't see this at anytime?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. 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.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Lieutenant, did that entire Oswald file that you have just
told us about come to the Commission, do you know?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. When was that?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. This was a month or two ago.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Yes; but not when you first gave the files.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_47" id="Page_47">47</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. No, sir; because this happened on the same day.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Should that file have included this?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. No, sir; it didn't. There were only two pieces made of it, one
copy and the original made of this.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. The Lee Harvey Oswald file?</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. 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.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. I see.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. But this one here, was not placed in that book?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. 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&mdash;yes; I do.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Would that be for filing purposes?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. That was a card, also, under the file of James Hosty?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. His name is also underlined in red?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. His name indexed; yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. In your original copy of Exhibit 709?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. No, sir; not the original copy, because the <span class="locked">original&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. The carbon copy, excuse me, the carbon copy of 709.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. Yes, sir; and I don't know who made the photostat, I did not.
I assume Chief Curry had it made.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Mr. Reporter, we are giving the number 838 to the carbon copy
of Exhibit 709 that Lieutenant Revill has just produced.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. You propose to take a photostat of this and return this report
to the lieutenant?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. If we may, Mr. Chief Justice, this is the only copy that I have.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. You should have it back.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. That is fine.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. We will take a photostat and return this to you then.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. I appreciate that.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. It may be admitted in that manner.</p>

<p>(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 838 for
identification, and received in evidence.)</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. I think that is all. Thank you, again, lieutenant.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Revill</span>. I will attempt to find out on that address, and I shall let Mr.
Sorrels know, with Secret Service.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Yes; that will be fine.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Thank you.</p>

<h2 id="vjb">TESTIMONY OF V. J. BRIAN</h2>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. 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.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_48" id="Page_48">48</a></span>
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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Brian</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Would you raise your right hand and be sworn, please?</p>

<p>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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Brian</span>. Yes, sir; I do.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Please be seated.</p>

<p>Mr. Rankin will conduct the examination.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Brian</span>. My name is Brian.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Where do you live?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Brian</span>. In Dallas, Tex.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Do you have some connection with the police department in
Dallas?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Brian</span>. Yes, sir; I am a detective in the criminal intelligence section.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. How long have you occupied that position?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Brian</span>. Since June of 1955.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. What is your function as a detective for the criminal intelligence
section?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Brian</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Did you have anything to do with the Lee Harvey Oswald case?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Brian</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. When was the first time that you had anything to do with
that matter?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Brian</span>. Well, we started interrogating people and talking to people
immediately after the assassination.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. About what time of the day?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Brian</span>. In the middle of the afternoon, <span class="locked">probably&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. November 22, 1963?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Brian</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Who were the four you are describing now?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Brian</span>. Lieutenant Revill, myself, a detective, O.&nbsp;J. Tarver, and a detective,
Roy W. Westphal.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. What did you do there?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Brian</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Did you find anything at that time?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Brian</span>. No, sir. I was there on the floor when the man found shells over
in a corner when&mdash;where the assassin was hidden at. But other than that,
I wasn't present when anything was found.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Will you just describe that event when you saw those shells?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Brian</span>. 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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_49" id="Page_49">49</a></span>
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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. What did you see, how many shells did you see?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Brian</span>. I am going to guess.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. We don't want you to guess. If you can tell us your recollection,
that is all.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Brian</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Now after that, did you leave the Depository Building?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Brian</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. You were making a complete search of each floor, were you?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Brian</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Then you left the building?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Brian</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Did you leave with some other officers?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Brian</span>. Yes, sir; Lieutenant Revill, myself, and Tarver and Westphal all
went back to the car and left to go to city hall.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Then you got back to the city hall. What did you do?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Brian</span>. We drove into the basement and parked.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. What time of the day was that, can you tell us?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Brian</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. And the four of you were together at that time?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Brian</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. What happened at that point?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Brian</span>. We got out of the car, and as we got out of the <span class="locked">car&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Was the car already inside the building or in the driveway there?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Brian</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Let me explain. City hall basement, as some of you all <span class="locked">know&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. I was just there so I want to know.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Brian</span>. 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 <span class="locked">fast&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Special Agent Hosty of the Bureau?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Brian</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>And he came across there and I know him, and I had known him for a good
while to speak to him.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Where were you with reference to Lieutenant Revill at that
point?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Brian</span>. I think I was on his, probably his right-hand side.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Close to him?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Brian</span>. Fairly close; yes, sir.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>He was in&mdash;nervous&mdash;in a hurry, and was just talking.</p>

<p>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&mdash;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 <span class="locked">the&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_50" id="Page_50">50</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Was the elevator there at the basement floor when you took it
or did you have to wait?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Brian</span>. We had to wait just a very short time on it. It wasn't standing
open waiting; no, sir.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. You accompanied them to the third floor and then you came
down?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Brian</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. In the elevator?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Brian</span>. That I am not sure.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Or did you get out and come down the stairs?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Brian</span>. I am not sure.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. But you weren't with Lieutenant Revill any further?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Brian</span>. 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&mdash;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."</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. What did he say at that time? What did he tell the Captain that
Agent Hosty had said?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Brian</span>. 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."</p>

<p>And he went right back and wrote a report.</p>

<p>I forgot about the whole incident, I didn't think it would be important and
I didn't&mdash;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."</p>

<p>So I never did dwell on it again.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. In this conversation down in the basement, have you told us
all that Agent Hosty said that you recall?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Brian</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. And have you told us all that Lieutenant Revill said that you
recall?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Brian</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Have you told us all that Lieutenant Revill told to Captain
Gannaway that you recall?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Brian</span>. Well, let's see. I believe that I have, yes, sir. When&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. You have made an affidavit about this, have you not?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Brian</span>. Yes, sir; I made a report to Chief Curry.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. And you swore to that?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Brian</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Is Exhibit 711 a photostatic copy of your report that you made
that you have just described?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Brian</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Did you swear to that report on the date that it bears?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Brian</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. April 20, 1964?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Brian</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. You read the Exhibit 711 right now, didn't you?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Brian</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Is it correct?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Brian</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_51" id="Page_51">51</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Are there any additions or corrections that you wish to make
to it?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Brian</span>. No, sir.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. I was just going to ask if you fixed the date on which he
dictated that or wrote it, whichever he did.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. I haven't, but I will.</p>

<p>Will you tell us on what date you wrote or dictated Exhibit 711?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Brian</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Will you tell us on what date you wrote or dictated Exhibit 711?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Brian</span>. I didn't think&mdash;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 <span class="locked">haven't&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Have you ever seen that report?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Brian</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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."</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. You made no contemporaneous memoranda, that is on November
22 you made no notes or memoranda of this?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Brian</span>. No, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. So the report of April 20 you dictated on or about April 20 is
based on your memory?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Brian</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Exhibit 711, your report, was that written out in longhand or
dictated to a girl?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Brian</span>. No, sir; I typed it myself on the typewriter. We don't have a
stenographer in our office to dictate to.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. You did type the part about the notary and so forth on the
bottom?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Brian</span>. No, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Do you know who did that?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Brian</span>. I believe Bill Biggio.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Who is he?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Brian</span>. He is a detective who works the desk there, who is a notary who
notarized it.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Now, before you made Exhibit 711 did anyone give you Lieutenant
Revill's report to examine?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Brian</span>. No, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Compare your report with?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Brian</span>. No, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. And you have never read that?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Brian</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. So if there is any differences between your report and his you
are not familiar with them?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Brian</span>. No, sir.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Brian</span>. 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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_52" id="Page_52">52</a></span>
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."</p>

<p>And he said, "You were the one who was with me?"</p>

<p>And I said, "Yes, I was with you."</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. When did this conversation take place?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Brian</span>. The date I don't have any idea. Probably 2 or 3 weeks, I will
tell <span class="locked">you&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. 2 or 3 weeks what? After November 22?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Brian</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Who prompted this conversation that you have been
describing?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Brian</span>. In our office that day?</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Brian</span>. I am trying to think what brought it on. Somebody, there was a
statement in the paper or something that said that&mdash;anyway, somewhere down
the line it came out, it said it wasn't right what Lieutenant Revill had said.</p>

<p>And I said, "I know it is right, I was standing there," and that was about
the extent of that.</p>

<p>And then he said, "Well, I will need"&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. In this Commission 711 you actually typed it out yourself?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Brian</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Are you a fairly accomplished typist?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Brian</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Did you have to rewrite this a second time on the
typewriter?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Brian</span>. Yes, sir. I made several strikeovers and some other stuff, and
typed it, I had to type it over again.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. In other words, you typed it out once, and then retyped
it yourself?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Brian</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. But after you typed it over the first time did you show it
to somebody else?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Brian</span>. I believe Lieutenant Revill looked at it and called a bunch of mistakes
to my attention.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. What kind of mistakes?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Brian</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. But these mistakes that were pointed out by Lieutenant
Revill, were they mistakes of substance or just mistakes involving spelling
and the like?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Brian</span>. Well, what do you mean by substance now?</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Well, I mean as to the precise things that you said as
to what transpired?</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_53" id="Page_53">53</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Brian</span>. I don't believe there were. I am trying to recall what I had
to add that took place there, <span class="locked">and&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. It is important whether or not any statements of facts
were altered or whether the changes were simply typographical errors or
otherwise.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Brian</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. While you were in the process of discussing this with
Lieutenant Revill he didn't show you his report, Exhibit 709?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Brian</span>. I don't know whether he did or not. I don't believe that he did.
I don't believe he did.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Had you seen it before?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Brian</span>. I have seen the report.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Did you see it before you typed this up?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Brian</span>. I don't recall seeing it. I may have, but I don't recall it.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. When did you learn that that statement was in Revill's
statement?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Brian</span>. Just to be truthful, I don't know.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Brian</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. You told him, no.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. When was that?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Brian</span>. Probably the day&mdash;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&mdash;I didn't think all this was real important, and so I didn't
try to backlog it to where&mdash;it was probably the day, probably about April 20,
along in there.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Before or after you wrote your report?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Brian</span>. In between the first report and the second report I imagine.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Brian</span>. 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&mdash;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."</p>

<p>And he said, "Oh, you are the one who was with me?" And I said, "Yes."</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_54" id="Page_54">54</a></span>
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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. All of that happened, though, before any news accounts of it,
didn't it?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Brian</span>. 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."</p>

<p>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&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. You said you were there with him?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Brian</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. How close were you to him when he was talking to Hosty?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Brian</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. You were walking toward the elevator at that time, weren't you?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Brian</span>. Let me draw you a little picture of how that is down there.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. I have been in the basement so I know something about it.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Brian</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. In the car?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Brian</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. And you parked in the basement?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Brian</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Where is the elevator which takes prisoners up where Oswald was
shot?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Brian</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Where is the elevator?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Brian</span>. The elevator is right there.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. That is the prisoners' elevator?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Brian</span>. No, sir.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Or the freight elevator?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Brian</span>. No, sir; that is the elevator going <span class="locked">up&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Which one did you take?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Brian</span>. We took the elevator inside the city hall basement.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. I see.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Is there only one elevator there?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Brian</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Where are the stairs?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Brian</span>. In the basement?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. You don't know?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Brian</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. I only saw the jail on top side.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Brian</span>. Well, the jail office is right there at the head of this ramp, the jail
office where they book the prisoners through.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_55" id="Page_55">55</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. I didn't go in there.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Brian</span>. That is the door they brought Lee Oswald out of when he was
shot, going into the jail office right there.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. There are no stairs from the basement to the third floor?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Brian</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Where are the stairs from the place where the elevators are that
you took. Are there any stairs?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Brian</span>. I didn't take any stairs.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. No. You say you took elevators.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Brian</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Were there stairs near the elevators?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Brian</span>. Back right over&mdash;let me get a pencil and draw the whole thing
for you. That is about the way it is situated right there.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Mr. Brian, we will call that Exhibit 839. Will you just briefly
tell the Commission what you have done in making that exhibit now?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Brian</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Mark that "A" where Mr. Hosty was parked as you just indicated.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Brian</span>. 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, <span class="locked">and&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. You were right alongside of Lieutenant Revill?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Brian</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. How close were you when you came behind them?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Brian</span>. Just&mdash;I didn't keep a constant pace with them, but as far as&mdash;I
don't recall <span class="locked">exactly&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. You were close to them, were you?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Brian</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. And you were close to them as you went across there to take
the elevator?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Brian</span>. I was behind them and they were going away from me and I
was fairly close, yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. About how far?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Brian</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Where did the conversation take place, in front of the elevators
there?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Brian</span>. That I heard?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Brian</span>. Right out here, because Mr. Hosty started blurting it out just
as soon as he started across here.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. And you walked from this point here?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Brian</span>. Over to here, to the elevators.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Mark that point "B."</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Where you met?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Where you met Hosty.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Brian</span>. OK.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. And you walked along, make a mark there, if you would, along
there to the elevators where you walked.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Brian</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. How far is that, a hundred feet&mdash;no, less than that.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Brian</span>. It is much less than a hundred feet.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Fifty feet, something like that.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Brian</span>. Probably 60, 70 feet.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_56" id="Page_56">56</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Brian</span>. Something like that.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Where is this, where does that stairway go?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Brian</span>. Up to the first floor. Back in the hallway.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. And you are quite clear you didn't go up that stairway?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Brian</span>. We didn't go up a stairway, no; not that stairway here.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Or any other stairway?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Brian</span>. Going up?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Brian</span>. No, sir; we didn't go up the stairway going up.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Brian</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Was anybody with Mr. Hosty?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Brian</span>. Not when we met him there; no, sir.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. When you got on the elevator, who was on the elevator?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Brian</span>. It was full.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Were there a lot of pressmen down there, no <span class="locked">television&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Brian</span>. I don't recall seeing any but there may have been some. I don't
recall seeing any but there may have been.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. You say the elevator was full?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Brian</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. About how many people would it carry approximately?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Brian</span>. Probably 10 or 12.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Did Revill and Hosty and yourself get on the elevator?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Brian</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Anybody else get on at that point that you recall?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Brian</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. At the bottom, that is the bottom story for the elevator?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Brian</span>. Yes, sir; in the basement.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. As you got on the elevator and as you rode up, did you
hear Hosty and Revill converse at all?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Brian</span>. No, sir.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. There was no further conversation on this problem?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Brian</span>. No, sir.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. When you got off the elevator where did you go?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Brian</span>. Right on around. You get off the elevator and you come straight
<span class="locked">out&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. What floor&mdash;three?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Brian</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Captain Fritz wasn't there at that time?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Brian</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. What did Revill and you do?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Brian</span>. Went back down to our office.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Gannaway's&mdash;is that Gannaway's office?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Brian</span>. Gannaway's; yes, sir.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. As you <span class="locked">drove&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. What floor is that on?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Brian</span>. Captain Gannaway's is on the second floor.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. As you drove from the Texas School Depository Building
after making a check of the facilities who was in the car?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Brian</span>. Our car?</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_57" id="Page_57">57</a></span>
Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Brian</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Army, Air Force, or something?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Brian</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Who drove the car?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Brian</span>. Lieutenant Revill. It was his car.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Did you sit in the front or back seat?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Brian</span>. Sat in the back seat on the left-hand side.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Who sat in the front seat.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Brian</span>. I don't recall.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. You were right behind Lieutenant Revill?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Brian</span>. I believe I was right behind Lieutenant Revill. Yes, sir; that is,
I believe I sat in the back seat.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. When you got into the building and got out of the car,
what happened to the other occupants of the car?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Brian</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. They didn't accompany you up the elevator?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Brian</span>. No, sir; and I don't know where they went.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Brian</span>. As far as I remember; no.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Brian</span>. Yes, sir; I read this in the Dallas paper, I believe.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Did you have anything to do with giving that to the paper?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Brian</span>. No, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Did you talk to any newspaper people about it?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Brian</span>. No, sir; haven't talked to any since it happened.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. All you know about it is that you just saw it in the paper?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Brian</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. <span class="locked">Then&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Brian</span>. I know the next&mdash;it was supposed to come out on Friday because
on Saturday they started calling my house and I left.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. You never answered any of the calls?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Brian</span>. No, sir; I never talked to any reporters about it.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. That is all I have, Mr. Chief Justice.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Congressman, do you have anything?</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. I don't believe so, Mr. Chief Justice.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Mr. Dulles?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Brian</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. And you go on to say "and was walking very fast toward the
entrance of the city hall from the parking area."</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Brian</span>. Yes, sir; that is this entrance over here.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. What is that marked? Is there a mark on that?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Brian</span>. No, sir. You didn't tell me to mark "A" and "B" where we met.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. You might mark that "C," I think we have "A" and "B."</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Brian</span>. O.K., "C" would be the entrance by the jail office.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_58" id="Page_58">58</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. That is right.</p>

<p>"At this time Hosty made the statement that Lee Oswald had killed the President,
and that Oswald was a Communist."</p>

<p>Now, at this time, that is walking toward point "C" you have just marked on
<span class="locked">exhibit&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Brian</span>. 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&mdash;it wasn't long because it don't
take long to make a statement.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. That is point "B."</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Brian</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Near point "B" is where this conversation took place.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Brian</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. And you did not hear the content of any further conversations?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Brian</span>. No, sir; other than that he said he knew he was a Communist and
knew he was working in the Book Depository.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Did further conversations take place between Lieutenant Revill
and Agent Hosty after that?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Brian</span>. Yes, sir; they walked on talking.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. But you did not hear what they said at that time?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Brian</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Brian</span>. 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&mdash;and things were happening pretty fast, and
along about that time.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. That is all I have, Mr. Chairman.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Mr. Chairman, I would like to offer the diagram, Exhibit 839,
if I may.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Yes, all right; it may be admitted under that number. Thank
you very much.</p>

<p>(At this point Representative Ford left the hearing room.)</p>

<p>(Commission Exhibit No. 839 was marked for identification and received in
evidence.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. That is the original before the notary public put his endorsement
on it.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Brian</span>. Yes, sir; that went forward.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Thank you.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Mr. Chief Justice, Mr. Specter is going to examine these people
about the velocity and so forth and I want to speak on&mdash;speak to him just a
minute about the matter we talked about.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. We will take a break now.</p>

<p>(Recess.)</p>

<h2 id="raf">TESTIMONY OF ROBERT A. FRAZIER</h2>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Mr. Specter, you may proceed.</p>

<p>You have been sworn and you are still under oath, as you understand?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Will you state your name again for the record, please?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. Robert A. Frazier.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. I am a special agent assigned to the FBI laboratory, the firearms
identification unit in Washington, D.C., where I make examinations of bullets,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_59" id="Page_59">59</a></span>
cartridges, gunpowder tests, bullet holes, examinations of clothing, and other
similar types of examinations.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. Yes, sir; I have.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. And do you have that clothing with you at the present time, sir?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. 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.</p>

<p>And by referring to that coat will you describe what, if anything, you observed
on the rear side of the coat?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. There was located on the rear of the coat 5-3/8 inches below the
top of the collar, a hole, further located as 1¾ 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. What characteristics did you note, if any, on the nature of that
hole?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Did any tests conducted on the coat disclose any metallic
substance on that area of that hole?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. Yes, sir; they were.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. And have those results been made available to you through the
regular recordkeeping procedures of the FBI?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Would you then please tell us what those tests disclose?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Have you now described all of the characteristics of that hole,
which you consider to be important for the Commission's consideration?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. Yes, sir; I would say that it was an entrance hole for a bullet.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. And what is the reason for that conclusion, please?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Is the presence of the metallic substance relevant in your conclusion
that it was a bullet hole?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. Not necessarily. It is a factor which corroborates that opinion<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_60" id="Page_60">60</a></span>
but even without it, it would still have been my opinion that it was a bullet
entrance hole.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Can you tell the size of the bullet from the hole in the jacket?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. The hole in the jacket is approximately a quarter of an inch in
diameter.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Would that hole be consistent with a hole which would be caused
by a 6.5 millimeter bullet?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Were there any holes indicative of being bullet holes found on
the front part of the President's jacket?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. No, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Did you have further occasion to examine the President's shirt?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. I did.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. May the record show that the shirt has heretofore been identified
as Commission Exhibit 394?</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Yes; it may be.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. What, if anything, did you observe then on the back side of the
shirt, Mr. Frazier?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. I found on the back of the shirt a hole, 5¾ 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. May the record show the witness is examining the shirt, as he
has the coat, to indicate the hole to the Commission.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. The record may show that.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. 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&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Is that hole consistent with having been caused by a 6.5 millimeter
bullet?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. Yes; it is.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. With respect to the front side of the shirt, what, if any, hole did
you find there?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. Only one hole.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. May I ask one question there?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. Yes; certainly.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. Yes; they are. They are both&mdash;the coat hole is 5-3/8 inches below
the top of the collar. The shirt hole is 5¾ inches, which could be accounted
for by a portion of the collar sticking up above the coat about a half inch.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. I see.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. And they are both located approximately the same distance to
the right of the midline of both garments.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Proceed.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. 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.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_61" id="Page_61">61</a></span>
The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. You are speaking of the collar button itself, aren't you?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. The collar button.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. 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&mdash;it had not been
altered from the condition it was in at the time the hole was made.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Have you now described all of the characteristics of the front
of the shirt holes which you consider to be important?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. I see.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Or possibly the velocity of the bullet at that place, would that
have anything to do with it?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. I think the hole would not have been affected unless it was a very
large change in velocity.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. 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.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. 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.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. I see.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_62" id="Page_62">62</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. 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.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Could have caused both holes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. That is sufficient.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. Yes; it could have come from any other wound on the body
as well as this one.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Did you have occasion to examine the President's tie or the tie
purportedly worn by the President on November 22, 1963?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. Yes; I did.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. May the record show at this juncture that that tie has heretofore
been marked as Commission Exhibit 395?</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Yes; it may show that.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. What did you note, if anything, with respect to the tie, Mr.
Frazier?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. As you now indicate on your own tie, you are indicating on the
portion of the tie to your right?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. If it was on my tie it would be on the left side of the tie.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Your left side.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Does the nick in the tie provide any indication of the direction
of the missile?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Is the nick consistent with an exiting path?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. Oh, yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Is there any indication from the nature of the nick as to the
nature of the projectile itself?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. No, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Is the nick consistent with a 6.5 millimeter bullet having caused
the nick?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Did any of the <span class="locked">other&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Excuse me, on the back of the coat?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. The shirt.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Back of the coat and on the shirt?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. No, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Mr. Frazier, did you have occasion to examine the clothing which<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_63" id="Page_63">63</a></span>
has heretofore been identified in prior Commission proceedings as that worn by
Governor Connally on November 22, 1963?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. Yes; I did.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. 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?</p>

<p>(At this point the Chairman left the hearing room.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span> [presiding]. The record may so show.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Have you had opportunity heretofore to examine that coat?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. Yes; I have.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. What did your examination reveal with respect to the back side
of the coat?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. 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 7¼ 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. Yes; they had.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Is that different from or the same as the condition of the President's
clothing which you have just described this morning?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Had the President's clothing been pressed then?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. No, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Will you proceed to describe any other <span class="locked">characteristics&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Had been dried artificially or let nature take its course?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. It appeared to be air dried.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Air dried, artificially?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Proceed.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Is the nature of the opening consistent with being a bullet hole?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. Yes, sir; it is.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. I could not determine that.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. You couldn't determine that it was, but could it have been?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. It could have been, yes; either way.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. 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 6½ inches from the right side seam line and also 6½ inches
from the armpit which places this hole approximately 5 inches to the right of
the front right edge of the coat.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_64" id="Page_64">64</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Was the hole consistent with being an exit bullet hole? That
is to say, could it have been caused by an exiting bullet?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Did you find any damage on the right sleeve of the jacket?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Were you able to observe sufficient characteristics to formulate
any conclusion as to the cause of that tear?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. This also did not indicate direction from the condition of the
fibers, possibly due to the cleaning and pressing of the garment.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. Yes; I did.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. 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 7½ inches to the
right of the midline of the shirt, the right side being as you look at the back of
the shirt.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>This hole corresponds in position to the hole in the back of the coat, Governor
Connally's coat, identified as Commission No. 683.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Were there sufficient characteristics observable to formulate a
conclusion as to the cause and direction of that hole?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Could it have been caused by a 6.5-mm. bullet coming from the
rear of the wearer toward his front?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>, 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 1½ 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Had that garment been cleaned and pressed, Mr. Frazier, prior
to the time you examined it?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_65" id="Page_65">65</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. No, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Could it have been caused by a 6.5 millimeter bullet exiting from
the chest of the Governor?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. Yes, it could.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Now what, if <span class="locked">anything&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. No, sir; it would not.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Even a bullet in full flight, full velocity could have made this
kind of a hole in the shirt?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>(Discussion off the record.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Will you proceed?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Mr. Frazier, what, if any, defect or hole did you observe on the
right sleeve of the Governor's shirt?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. 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 1½ inches up from the end of the
sleeve, and 5½ 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. Yes; they could.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. Yes, I did.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Now, referring to those trousers, what if anything did you observe in the nature
of a defect or hole, Mr. Frazier?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Had the trousers been cleaned and pressed prior to your
examination?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Were there sufficient characteristics available for you to formulate
any conclusion as to the cause of that hole?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. 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.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_66" id="Page_66">66</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. What are the characteristics which led you to believe that it had
the characteristics of a bullet hole?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. It has the roughly circular shape with slight tearing away from
the edges of the material.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Is there any other hole on the trousers which could be a hole
of exit?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. No, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. Yes; I did.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. When did that examination occur?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. In the early morning hours of November 23, 1963, at the Secret
Service garage here in Washington, D.C.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. Yes, sir; it is.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. Yes, sir; however, it wasn't in this condition. It wasn't as
clean as it is in Exhibit 346.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. What was the condition with respect to cleanliness?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Is that condition depicted by Commission Exhibits 352 and 353
to the extent that they show the interior of the automobile?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. What was the purpose of the examination which you made of
the car at that time and place?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. With respect to the fragments first, what did your examination
disclose?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Have those particles been identified during the course of your
prior testimony?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. No, sir; they have not?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Will you produce them at this time then, please? May we
assign to this group of particles Commission Exhibit No. 840?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. These have not been discussed before, have they?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. They have not.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. It shall be admitted as Commission Exhibit No. 840.</p>

<p>(Commission Exhibit No. 840 was marked for identification and received
in evidence.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. I move formally for their admission, then, into evidence at
this time.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. They shall be admitted.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Will you describe the three pieces of metal which are contained
within this vial, please?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. 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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_67" id="Page_67">67</a></span>
portions have been removed for spectrographic analysis and comparison with
other bullets and bullet fragments.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. For identification purposes, has that fragment from the front
seat been heretofore identified during your prior testimony?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. Yes; it has. It bears Commission No. 567.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Now, what did the comparative examination then disclose as
among Commission Exhibits 399, 567, and 840?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. So that they could have come from, so that the fragments
designated 840 could have come from the same bullet as fragment designated 567?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Were the tests sufficient to indicate conclusively whether fragments
840 did come from the fragment designated as 567?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. No, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Did you personally find any other fragments in the President's
car during the course of your examination?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. No; I did not.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Now, where, according to information provided to you then,
was the fragment designated Commission Exhibit 567 found?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Was there another fragment, was there any other fragment found
in the front seat of the car?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. And the front seat is the seat which would be the driver's seat?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. And the Secret Service man on his right, I believe?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Mr. Kellerman.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. That was the seat from which this came?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Right. Thank you.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. 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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_68" id="Page_68">68</a></span>
Service again, to Special Agent Orrin Bartlett of the FBI who delivered it to me
at 11:50 p.m. on November 22, 1963.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. 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&mdash;its weight when I first received it was 158.6 grains.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Referring now to 399.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. 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&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Have you now described all of the bullet fragments which you
found in the President's automobile?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Was it your job to analyze all of the bullets or bullet fragments
which were found in the President's car?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. Yes; it was, except for the spectrographic analysis of the
composition.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. Yes, sir; not this morning but at previous times during my
testimony I have; yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. <span class="locked">Now&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Just one moment. You mean bullet fragments related to the
car or bullet fragments found anywhere?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Related to the President's automobile.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. Yes; you have.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Did you have occasion then to examine the windshield of the
Presidential limousine?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. Yes; I did.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. What did that examination disclose?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. 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, 13½ 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. What do you mean by the "outer layer of the laminated windshield"?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. 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.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_69" id="Page_69">69</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. And the outside surface was the surface away from where the
occupants were sitting?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. That is correct; yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. And the inside surface was the surface nearest the occupants?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. What do those characteristics indicate as to which side of the
windshield was struck?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. So the pressure must have come from the inside and not from the
outside against the glass?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. Yes, sir; that is correct.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. As far as the car is concerned from the back to the front?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Not from outside against the glass&mdash;from the front against the
glass.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. That is right.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Was that examination made in the regular course of examining
procedures by the FBI?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. And was that information made available to you through the
normal conference procedures among FBI examiners?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. Yes, sir. He submitted his report to me and I prepared the
formal report of the entire examination.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Are his report and your formal report a part of the permanent
record of the FBI then?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. It shall be admitted into evidence.</p>

<p>(Commission Exhibit No. 841 was marked for identification and received in
evidence.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. May I just ask a question of you, Mr. Specter, and possibly of
the witness.</p>

<p>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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. 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.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_70" id="Page_70">70</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. You don't have the windshield here today, though?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. No, we do not.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. It would be the same windshield that the Commission saw.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. We can establish it through the witness, too.</p>

<p>Mr. Frazier, for that purpose can you identify what is depicted in a photograph
heretofore identified as Commission Exhibit 351?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. 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.</p>

<p>(Discussion off the record.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Mr. Frazier, have you now described all of your findings on the
windshield of the Presidential limousine?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. Yes, sir; that is concerning the glass itself and not the molding
around the windshield.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Will you then move to the molding around the windshield and
state what, if anything, you found there?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Was there one dent or more than one dent or what?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. One dent.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Will you identify what is depicted by a photograph heretofore
marked as Commission Exhibit 349?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. No, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. Yes; I believe it could have by either, in fact, of the two fragments
of rifle bullets found in the front seat.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Thank you.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. It would have penetrated the windshield?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_71" id="Page_71">71</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Would the missile then have proceeded in a forward direction?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. Yes, sir; it would.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Do you have an opinion as to how far it would have gone?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. Until it struck some other object in the area of approximately a
mile.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. No, sir; there was not.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. And had there been any such evidence would your examination
of the automobile have uncovered such an indication or such evidence?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. Yes, sir; I feel that it would have.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Was your examination a thorough examination of all aspects of
the interior of the automobile?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. When was this examination made?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. Between 2 and 4:30 a.m. on November 23, 1963.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. That was about 10 hours, 12 hours after the assassination?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. Yes, sir; 14 to 16 hours.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Fourteen to sixteen hours.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. 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.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_72" id="Page_72">72</a></span>
Other than that I do not know.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Was this a joint examination by you and by the Secret Service or
was the examination made by the FBI?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Did they certify to you or advise you that the car had been under
their custody during this 14-to 16-hour period?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Thank you.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Was a fragment of metal brought to you which was identified as
coming from the wrist of Governor Connally?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. It was identified to me as having come from the arm of Governor
Connally.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Will you produce that fragment at this time, please?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. This one does not have a Commission number as yet.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. May it please the Commission, I would like to have this fragment
marked as Commission Exhibit 842.</p>

<p>(Commission Exhibit No. 842 was marked for identification and received in
evidence.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. 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.</p>

<p>However, it lacks any physical characteristics which would permit stating
whether or not it actually originated from a bullet.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Are its physical characteristics consistent with having come from
Commission Exhibit 399?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. Yes, sir; it could have.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Are they consistent with that fragment identified as Commission
Exhibit No. 842, as having come from fragment identified as Commission
Exhibit 567?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. Which is 567?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. 567 is the one which was found on the front seat.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. Yes, sir; it could have.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Were the characteristics of the fragment identified as Commission
Exhibit 842 consistent with having come from the fragment heretofore
identified as Commission Exhibit 569?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. 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.</p>

<p>I do not know where Captain Fritz obtained it.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. Yes, sir; there was, approximately a 35-degree downward angle.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Measuring <span class="locked">from&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. That <span class="locked">is&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Back to front or front to back?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. From back towards the front.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. How about the same question as to the Governor's shirt?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. I would say it was approximately the same angle or slightly less.
I think we measured approximately 30 degrees.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_73" id="Page_73">73</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Was that from the front to back or from the back to front of the
Governor's shirt?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. That would be from the back towards the front. Downward from
back towards the front.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Mr. Dulles, those questions complete the ones which we have
to ask, sir.</p>

<p>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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. No, sir; I have never heard of any nor have any been submitted
to me.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. Yes; they would.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Were any metallic fragments brought to you which were purported
to have been found in the head of President Kennedy?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Or body?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Or body of President Kennedy?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. Yes; they were.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Is there any specification as to the portion of the President's
head from which they were removed?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. May it please the Commission I would like to have those marked
and admitted into evidence as Commission Exhibit No. 843.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. It shall be so marked and admitted under those numbers.</p>

<p>(Commission Exhibit No. 843 was marked for identification and received in
evidence.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. That shall be admitted.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Moving back to 843 will you describe those fragments indicating
their weight and general composition?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. Yes; they were.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. What did that examination disclose?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Which is the fragment from the arm of Governor Connally?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. Yes, sir; they were compared with the lead scraping from the
inside of the windshield.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Which is Exhibit 841.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. And with the three lead fragments found on the rear floorboard
carpet of the limousine.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Which is Exhibit 840.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_74" id="Page_74">74</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. And they were found to be similar in metallic composition.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Can you state with any more <span class="locked">certainty&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Is it possible to state with any more certainty whether or not
any of those fragments came from the same bullet?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. Not definitely, no; only that they are of similar lead composition.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Have you now described fully all of the relevant characteristics
of the fragments identified as Commission Exhibit 843?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. No, sir; that is all of them.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Is there anything further?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. No.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Thank you very much, Mr. Frazier.</p>

<p>The Commission will reconvene at 2:30.</p>

<p>(Whereupon, at 1:30 p.m., the President's Commission recessed.)</p>

<hr />
<h2 id="ao"><span class="smaller">Afternoon Session</span><br />
<span class="subhead">TESTIMONY OF DR. ALFRED G. OLIVIER</span></h2>

<p>The President's Commission reconvened at 3 p.m.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. The Commission will come to order.</p>

<p>Mr. Specter, has the doctor been sworn yet?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. No, sir; he has not.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Olivier</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. You may be seated.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. State your full name for the record.</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Olivier</span>. Dr. Alfred G. Olivier.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. What is your occupation or profession?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Olivier</span>. A supervisory research veterinarian and I work for the Department
of the Army at Edgewood Arsenal, Md.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Would you describe the nature of your duties at that arsenal,
please?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Olivier</span>. Investigating the wound ballistics of various bullets and other
military missiles.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Would you describe the general nature of the tests which are
carried on at Edgewood Arsenal?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Olivier</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Would you set forth your educational background briefly, please?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Olivier</span>. 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.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_75" id="Page_75">75</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. In what year did you complete your educational work?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Olivier</span>. 1953.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Would you outline your experience in the field subsequent to
1953?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Olivier</span>. In this field?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Olivier</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Olivier</span>. Yes; I have.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. And in the course of those tests what weapon was used?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Olivier</span>. It was identified as Commission Exhibit 139. It was a 6.5 mm.
Mannlicher-Carcano rifle.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Did the designation, Commission Exhibit No. 139, appear on
the body of that rifle?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Olivier</span>. Yes; it did.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. What type of bullets were used in the tests which you performed?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Olivier</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Olivier</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. And where were those bullets obtained from?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Olivier</span>. I obtained 100 rounds from Remington at Bridgeport. Conn.,
and Dr. Dziemian obtained another 160 rounds, I believe, from Winchester in
New Haven.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Olivier</span>. We didn't fire any of the others at the same time. These had
been fired previously. We have all these records for comparison.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Was the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle then fired for comparison purposes
with the other bullets where you already had your experience?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Olivier</span>. No; it was fired for the purposes for which&mdash;to try to shed some
light on say the factors leading to the assassination and all, not for comparison
with the other bullets.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Olivier</span>. Yes; it was.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Would you explain to the Commission what that photograph
depicts?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Olivier</span>. 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.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_76" id="Page_76">76</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. I now show you Commission Exhibit No. 845 which is a photograph,
and ask you to state for the record what that photograph represents?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Olivier</span>. 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&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Olivier</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Would the Western bullet be characterized as having the qualities
of a more stable bullet?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Olivier</span>. Yes; it would. You mean in the target?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Olivier</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. The stability in the air would be the same for any missile, would
it not?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Olivier</span>. To be a good bullet they should be stable in air in order to hit
what you are aiming at, yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Then would the characteristics of stability in the air be the
same for either of the two bullets you have heretofore referred to?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Olivier</span>. Essentially so.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. I now hand you photograph marked as Commission Exhibit No.
846 and ask you to state what that depicts?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Olivier</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. How does it compare with the Western bullet?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Olivier</span>. It would be better for wounding, better for hunting purposes.
But as I said, it isn't acceptable as a military bullet.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. How does it compare with respect to penetration power?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Olivier</span>. Much less than the Mannlicher-Carcano.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Olivier</span>. Yes; we do use animal tissues or gelatin as simulants for tissues
of the human body.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Has the autopsy report on President John F. Kennedy been made
available to you for your review?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Olivier</span>. Yes; it has.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Olivier</span>. Yes; I did.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. What substance did you prepare to simulate that portion of
the President's body?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Olivier</span>. 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 13½ to 14½ cm.</p>

<p>As a consequence, I used gelatin blocks 20 percent gelatin cut at 13½ cm.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_77" id="Page_77">77</a></span>
lengths and also used horsemeat and goatmeat placed in a box so that&mdash;this
was a little harder to get the exact length but that varied between 13½ and
14½ cm. of muscle tissue.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Olivier</span>. As closely as we could for these test purposes; yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. I now hand you a photograph marked as Commission Exhibit
No. 847 and ask you to testify as to what that depicts?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Olivier</span>. This is a box containing&mdash;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 13½ to 14½ 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&mdash;I have it right here if you
<span class="locked">want&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Olivier</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. I now hand you a photograph marked Commission Exhibit 848
and ask you to describe what that shows?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Olivier</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. And that is similar to that depicted in 846?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Olivier</span>. Essentially; yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Except that it <span class="locked">is&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Olivier</span>. Gelatin instead of the tissues.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Now at what range was the firing performed on the gelatin,
goatmeat and horsemeat?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Olivier</span>. This firing was done at a 60-yard range.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. And what gun was used?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Olivier</span>. The 6.5 Mannlicher-Carcano that was marked Commission
Exhibit 139.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. And what bullets were used?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Olivier</span>. The Western ammunition lot 6,000, 6.5 Mannlicher-Carcano.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. And was there any substance placed over the gelatin, horsemeat
and goatmeat?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Olivier</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Would there be any significant difference to the test by leaving
out the undershirt if the President had not worn an undershirt?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Olivier</span>. No.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Olivier</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. What measurement was obtained as to the entrance velocity of
the bullet at the distance of 60 yards which you described?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Olivier</span>. The striking velocity at an average of three shots was 1,904
feet per second.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. And what was the average exit velocity on each of the substances
used?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Olivier</span>. For the gelatin the average exit velocity was 1,779 feet per<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_78" id="Page_78">78</a></span>
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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. I now hand you a photograph marked Commission Exhibit 849
and ask you what that picture represents?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Olivier</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Would you describe that as being a straight line?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Olivier</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. I now hand you a picture marked Commission Exhibit No. 850
and ask you what that represents?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Olivier</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. When you say "this," you are referring to a piece of goatskin
which is marked "enter"?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Olivier</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. For the record, will you describe the characteristics, which are
shown on the goatskin at the point of entry, please?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Olivier</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. And how about the third or lower bullet on the skin designated
exit?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Olivier</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Olivier</span>. 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 72½ 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Olivier</span>. Yes; I do.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. And did you have occasion to make a test on goat material in
connection with the experiments which you ran?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Olivier</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Are you familiar with the wounds inflicted on Governor Connally
on November 22, 1963?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Olivier</span>. Yes; from reading the surgeon's report and also from talking
to Dr. Gregory and Dr. Shaw.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Did you have access to the medical reports of Parkland Hospital
concerning the wounds of Governor Connally in all respects?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Olivier</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. And did you have occasion to discuss those wounds in great<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_79" id="Page_79">79</a></span>
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?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Olivier</span>. Yes; I did.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. What was the nature of the wound on Governor Connally's
back?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Olivier</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Olivier</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Olivier</span>. Yes; I did.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Why was goat substance selected for that purpose in the testing
procedure?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Olivier</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Does it closely simulate the nature of a wound in the human
body?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Olivier</span>. In this particular instance it did.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. 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 <span class="locked">wound&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Olivier</span>. Yes; it was.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Inflicted on Connally?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Olivier</span>. Yes; it was.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. I now hand you an X-ray marked Commission Exhibit 851 and
ask you to state what that shows?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Olivier</span>. It shows a fractured rib. From this you wouldn't be able to&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. I now hand you Commission Exhibit No. 852, which is a photograph,
and ask you to testify as to what that depicts, please?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Olivier</span>. This is a photograph taken from the same X-ray again showing
the comminuted fracture of the eighth left rib.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. And is that a photograph then of the X-ray designated Commission
Exhibit 851?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Olivier</span>. Yes; it is.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Did you have an opportunity to observe personally the X-rays
showing the wound on Governor Connally's rib?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Olivier</span>. Yes; I did.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. And how do those X-rays compare with the wound inflicted
as depicted in Exhibits 851 and 852?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Olivier</span>. They are very similar.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. When the wounds were inflicted, as depicted in 851 and 852,
what weapon was used?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Olivier</span>. This was again the 6.5 millimeter Mannlicher-Carcano rifle.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_80" id="Page_80">80</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. And what bullets were used?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Olivier</span>. The 6.5 millimeter Western ammunition lot 6,000.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. And what distance was utilized?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Olivier</span>. On the goat the distance was 70 yards.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. And was there any covering over the goat?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Olivier</span>. Yes. There was a suit, shirt, and undershirt.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. What was the entrance velocity of the bullet?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Olivier</span>. Striking velocity for an average of 11 shots was 1,929 feet per
second.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. And what was the exit velocity?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Olivier</span>. The exit velocity was 1,664 feet per second.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Olivier</span>. Yes; I have.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. And under what circumstances have you previously seen that
bullet?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Olivier</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Was that fired through the goat depicted in the photographs
and X-ray, 851 and 852?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Olivier</span>. Yes; that was the goat.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Would you describe for the record, verbally please, the characteristics
of that bullet?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Olivier</span>. The bullet has been quite flattened. The lead core is extruding
somewhat from the rear. We weighed the bullet. It weighs 158.8 grains.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Olivier</span>. Yes; I have.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. And what did you find on that comparison?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Olivier</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Is there some flattening on both of those bullets in approximately
the same areas toward the rear of the missiles?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Olivier</span>. In the bullet, our particular bullet is flattened the whole length,
but you say towards the rear?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. You say our bullet; you mean 853?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Olivier</span>. Yes, 853 is flattened. No. 399 is flattened more towards the rear.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Are there any other conclusions which you have to add to the
tests performed on the goat?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Olivier</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. What does that indicate?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Olivier</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. And that was after the point of exit from the goat?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Olivier</span>. Yes.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_81" id="Page_81">81</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Are there any other conclusions which you found from the
studies on the goat?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Olivier</span>. No, I believe that is all I can think of right at this moment.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Olivier</span>. Yes, I do.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Olivier</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Were you familiar with the nature of the wound on Governor
Connally's wrist prior to performing those tests?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Olivier</span>. Yes, I was.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. What was the source of your information on those wounds?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Olivier</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Olivier</span>. Yes; I did.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. On April 21, 1964?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Olivier</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. I now hand you an X-ray marked as Commission Exhibit 854,
and ask you what that depicts?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Olivier</span>. This is a comminuted fracture of the distal end of the radius
of a human arm.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. And in what manner was that wound caused?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Olivier</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Fired at what distance?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Olivier</span>. Fired at a distance of 70 yards.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. And was there anything protecting the wrist at the time of
impact?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Olivier</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. I now hand you a photograph marked as Commission Exhibit
855 and ask you what that represents?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Olivier</span>. This is a photograph taken from the X-ray, Commission Exhibit
854.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Will you describe for the record the details of the injuries shown
on 854 and 855, please?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Olivier</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. How does the entry and exit compare with the wound on
Governor Connally which you observed on the X-rays?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Olivier</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Is there any definable difference at all?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Olivier</span>. I couldn't determine any.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. It is close, you say?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Olivier</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. I now hand you a bullet in a case marked Commission Exhibit
856 and ask if you have ever seen that before?</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_82" id="Page_82">82</a></span>
Dr. <span class="smcap">Olivier</span>. Yes. This is the bullet that caused the damage shown in Commission
Exhibits Nos. 854 and 855.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Would you describe that bullet for the record, please?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Olivier</span>. The nose of the bullet is quite flattened from striking the radius.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. How does it compare, for example, with Commission Exhibit
399?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Olivier</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. What was the velocity of the missile at the time it struck the
wrist depicted in 854 and 855?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Olivier</span>. The average striking velocity was 1,858 feet per second.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Do you have the precise striking velocity of that one?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Olivier</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. When you say five shots with an average striking velocity,
those were at the delineated distance without striking anything on those
particular shots?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Olivier</span>. Right, and after establishing that velocity, then we went on
to shoot the various arms.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. And what was the exit velocity?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Olivier</span>. On this particular one?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. If you have it?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Olivier</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. What exit velocity did you get on the average?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Olivier</span>. Average exit velocity was 1,776 feet per second. This was for
an average of seven. We did 10. We obtained velocity on seven.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Olivier</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. And what would the close approximation be, the average?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Olivier</span>. The average.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Olivier</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. How much more severe is the comminution?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Olivier</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Olivier</span>. I don't believe so. I don't believe his wrist was struck by a
pristine bullet.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. What is the reason for your conclusion on that?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Olivier</span>. 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.</p>

<p>In every instance we had a larger exit wound than an entrance wound firing<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_83" id="Page_83">83</a></span>
with a pristine bullet apparently at the same angle at which it entered and
exited the Governor's wrist.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>So I am pretty sure that the Governor's wrist was not hit by a pristine or a
stable bullet.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Olivier</span>. Do you want to repeat that question again?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Olivier</span>. Well, he would have had a larger exit wound than entrance
wound, which he did not.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. And if the velocity of the missile is decreased, how does that
effect the nature of the wounds of entry and exit?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Olivier</span>. If the velocity is decreased, if the bullet is still stable, he still
should have a larger exit wound than an entrance.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. So the crucial factor would be the analysis that the bullet was
characterized with yaw at the time it struck?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Olivier</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Causing a larger wound of entry and a smaller wound of exit?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Olivier</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Now is there anything in <span class="locked">the&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Olivier</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Olivier</span>. No; because holding the velocity the same or similar the damage
would be greater with a tumbling bullet than a pristine.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Had Governor Connally's wrist been struck with a pristine bullet
without yaw, would more damage have been <span class="locked">inflicted&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Olivier</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Than was inflicted on the Governor's wrist?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Olivier</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. So then the lesser damage on the Governor's wrist in and of
itself indicates in your <span class="locked">opinion&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Olivier</span>. That it wasn't struck by a pristine bullet; yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Are there any other conclusions which flow from the experiments
which you conducted on the wrist?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Olivier</span>. 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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_84" id="Page_84">84</a></span>
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&mdash;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.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. What is more probable than not, Doctor?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Olivier</span>. 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.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. It might have been?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Olivier</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. The one that went through his chest went through his hand
also.</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Olivier</span>. Yes; and also through the President.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. The first shot?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Olivier</span>. 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.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. The one that went through his back and came out his trachea?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Olivier</span>. 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.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. May I ask one more question? Would you think, that the
same bullet could have done all three of those things?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Olivier</span>. That same bullet was capable.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Olivier</span>. It was certainly capable of doing all that.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. It was capable?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Olivier</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. The one shot?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Olivier</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Olivier</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. And how was that wound described with respect to its size?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Olivier</span>. The Governor's wound?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. On the Governor's back?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Olivier</span>. About 3 centimeters at its largest dimension.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Olivier</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Olivier</span>. With this particular bullet those would be the two probable causes
of this wound of this size.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_85" id="Page_85">85</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. And those two probable causes are what?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Olivier</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Olivier</span>. I don't think I would want to say. If I could have seen the
Governor's wound, this would have been a help.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Olivier</span>. It would indicate there was some other factor that had slowed
up the bullet in addition.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. What is your reason for that conclusion, sir?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Olivier</span>. The amount of damage alone; striking that end it would have
caused more severe comminution as we found. You know&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Olivier</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. The approximate reduction in velocity on passage through the
goat was what, Doctor?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Olivier</span>. The average velocity loss in the seven cases we did was 82 feet
per second.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Olivier</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Let me rephrase it for you, Dr. Olivier.</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Olivier</span>. Yes; please.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. You testified that the bullet lost 82 feet per second when it passed
through the goat.</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Olivier</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Olivier</span>. It would be greater; the distance through the Governor's chest
would have been greater.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_86" id="Page_86">86</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Would that be an appreciable or approximately the same?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Olivier</span>. Can I bring in any other figures? Dr. Dziemian has computed
approximately what he thought it would have lost.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Yes, of course, if you have any other figure which would be
helpful.</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Dziemian</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Olivier</span>. I am sorry. We were on the wrist; okay.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Olivier</span>. Yes; I did misunderstand you. I am sorry. The loss in velocity
passing through the goat was 265 feet per second.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Now, would that be the approximate loss in velocity of a pristine
bullet passing through the Governor?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Olivier</span>. The loss would be somewhat greater.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. How much greater in your opinion?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Olivier</span>. Do you have that figure, Dr. Dziemian?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Dziemian</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Olivier</span>. My feeling is it would have been greater.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Olivier</span>. It would have lost more.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. What is the reason for that?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Olivier</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Olivier</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. It struck the rib of the Governor?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Olivier</span>. It struck the rib of the Governor at a lower velocity because that
bullet was less flattened than the bullet through the goat material.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Olivier</span>. Will you say that again to make sure I have it?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. [To the reporter.] Could you repeat that question, please?</p>

<p>(The question was read by the reporter.)</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Olivier</span>. You couldn't say exactly at all. My feeling is that it would be<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_87" id="Page_87">87</a></span>
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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Olivier</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. The President's body as well as the Governor's body?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Olivier</span>. As well as the Governor's.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Does the nature of the wound which was inflicted on Governor
Connally's thigh shed any light on this subject?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Olivier</span>. 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&mdash;and there was also this small fragment of bullet in this thigh wound&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Would you have any opinion as to the velocity of that bullet at
the time it struck the Governor's thigh?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Olivier</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Olivier</span>. Yes; I do.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. And did you have occasion to conduct such a test in connection
with the series which you are now describing?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Olivier</span>. Yes; I did.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. And would you outline briefly the procedures for simulating the
human skull?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Olivier</span>. 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.</p>

<p>They are in the moisture content. When I say 20 percent, it is 20 percent
weight of the dry gelatin, 80 percent moisture.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. And at what distance were these tests performed?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Olivier</span>. These tests were performed at a distance of 90 yards.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. And what gun was used?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Olivier</span>. It was a 6.5 Mannlicher-Carcano that was marked Commission
Exhibit 139.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. What bullets were used?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Olivier</span>. It was the 6.5 millimeter Mannlicher-Carcano Western ammunition
lot 6,000.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. What did that examination or test, rather, disclose?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Olivier</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. I now hand you a case containing bullet fragments marked
Commission Exhibit 857 and ask if you have ever seen those fragments before.</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Olivier</span>. Yes, I have.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_88" id="Page_88">88</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. And under what circumstances have you viewed those before,
please?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Olivier</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Olivier</span>. Yes, I have.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. And have you had an opportunity to compare those to the two
fragments identified as Commission Exhibit 857?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Olivier</span>. Yes, I have.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. And what did that comparison show?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Olivier</span>. They are quite similar. These two fragments on, what is the
number?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. 857.</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Olivier</span>. On 857 there isn't as much of the front part in this one, but in
other respects they are very similar.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. I now hand you a photograph marked Commission Exhibit 858
and ask you what that depicts.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Could I see that other exhibit?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Olivier</span>. These are the same fragments as marked 857.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. That is a photograph of the fragments marked 857?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Olivier</span>. 857.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. I now hand you a photograph marked Commission Exhibit 859
and ask you what that depicts?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Olivier</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Are all of the fragments on 859 contained within 857?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Olivier</span>. They are supposed to be, photographed and placed in the box.
If they dropped out they are supposed to be all there.</p>

<p>(Discussion off the record.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Back on the record.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. At what point on the skull did the bullet, which fragmented into
Commission Exhibit 857, strike?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Olivier</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Olivier</span>. We did 10 skulls so I can't remember offhand where everyone
struck.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. For that purpose I hand you Commission Exhibit 860 and ask
you if that is designated in any way to identify it.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. This is the test we are talking about now, is it?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Yes, sir; where the bullet fragmented into pieces in 857.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Are you introducing that into evidence?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Have you already introduced it in the record?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. They shall be admitted.</p>

<p>(The documents heretofore marked for identification as Commission Exhibits
Nos. 844 through 860 were received in evidence.)</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_89" id="Page_89">89</a></span>
Dr. <span class="smcap">Olivier</span>. This photograph is the skull that was shot with the bullet, the
fragments which are marked 857.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. At what point on the skull did the bullet strike?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Olivier</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>In other words, a couple centimeters to the right.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Do you have any record which would be more specific on the
point of entrance?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Olivier</span>. Our notebook has <span class="locked">all&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Will you refer to your notes, then?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Olivier</span>. The notebook is in the safe in there in the briefcase.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Would you get the notebook and refer to it so we can be as
specific as possible on this point.</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Olivier</span>. I have the location of that wound.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Would you give us then the precise location of the wound caused
by bullet identified as 857?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Olivier</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. I now hand you a photograph marked as Commission Exhibit
861, move its admission into evidence, and ask you to state what that depicts.</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Olivier</span>. This is the skull in question, the same one from which the fragments
marked Exhibit 857 were recovered.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. And what does that show as to damage done to the skull?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Olivier</span>. It blew the whole side of the cranial cavity away.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. How does that compare, then, with the damage inflicted on
President Kennedy?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Olivier</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Does the human scalp work to hold in the human skull in such
circumstances to a greater extent than the simulated matters used?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Olivier</span>. Yes; we take this into account.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. I hand you Commission Exhibit 862, move its admission into
evidence, and ask you what that depicts?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Olivier</span>. 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&mdash;we reconstructed the
skull. In other words, it exited very close to the superorbital ridge, possibly
below it.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Did you formulate any other conclusions or opinions based on
the tests on firing at the skull?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Olivier</span>. Well, let's see. We found that this bullet could do exactly&mdash;could
make the type of wound that the President received.</p>

<p>Also, that the recovered fragments were very similar to the ones recovered
on the front seat and on the floor of the car.</p>

<p>This, to me, indicates that those fragments did come from the bullet that
wounded the President in the head.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_90" id="Page_90">90</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. And how do the two major fragments in 857 compare, then,
with the fragments heretofore identified as 567 and 569?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Olivier</span>. They are quite similar.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Olivier</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. And it couldn't have then gone through the wrist into the thigh?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Olivier</span>. I don't believe so.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Have you had an opportunity to examine a fragment identified
as Commission Exhibit 842 which is the fragment taken from Governor Connally's
wrist?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Olivier</span>. Yes, I have.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Could that fragment have come from the bullet designated as
Commission Exhibit 399?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Olivier</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Olivier</span>. I believe that it was. That is my feeling.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. To be certain that the record is complete on the skull tests,
would you again state the distance at which those tests were performed?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Olivier</span>. Yes, the skulls&mdash;it was fired at the skulls at a range of 90 yards.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. With what gun?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Olivier</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Going to the results of the test on the cadavers, what was the
average exit velocity?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Olivier</span>. The average exit velocity on the wrist was 1,776 feet per second.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Olivier</span>. It would have made a very severe wound.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Would it have been more severe than the one which was
inflicted?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Olivier</span>. Much more so.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Do you have anything to add, Dr. Olivier, which you think
would be helpful to the Commission in any way?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Olivier</span>. No; I don't believe so.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. I have no further questions.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. That completes my questions, Mr. Dulles.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Thank you very much. We appreciate very much your coming.</p>

<p>(Discussion off the record.)</p>

<h2 id="ajd">TESTIMONY OF DR. ARTHUR J. DZIEMIAN</h2>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Dr. Dziemian.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. 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?</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_91" id="Page_91">91</a></span>
Dr. <span class="smcap">Dziemian</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Dziemian</span>. Arthur J. Dziemian.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. What is your profession or occupation, sir?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Dziemian</span>. I am a physiologist at the U.S. Army Chemical Research and
Development Laboratories, and am chief of the Biophysics Division.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Would you outline your educational background briefly, please?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Dziemian</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. In a general way, what have your professional activities been
since 1939?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Dziemian</span>. Since 1939?</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. And how long have you been chief of the Biophysics Division?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Dziemian</span>. Since November of 1959.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Where is this Biophysics Division?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Dziemian</span>. U.S. Army Chemical Research and Development Laboratories,
Edgewood Arsenal, Md.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Would you describe in a general way the tests which are performed
at the Edgewood Arsenal, please?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Dziemian</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Is it the regular function of your unit then to test the effects
of bullet wounds on various parts of the human body?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Dziemian</span>. Yes; it is.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. And does Dr. Olivier function under your direction in his
capacity as chief of the Wounds Ballistics Branch?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Dziemian</span>. Yes; his branch is one of the branches of the Biophysics
Division.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Have you been present today to hear the full testimony of Dr.
Olivier?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Dziemian</span>. Yes; I have.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Were the tests which he described, performed under your
general supervision and direction as his superior?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Dziemian</span>. Yes; they were.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Dziemian</span>. Well, I think that Dr. Olivier described them pretty well on
the whole, got all the details in.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Do you agree with the recitation of the detailed findings, then,
as described by Dr. Olivier?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Dziemian</span>. I do, yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Dziemian</span>. Yes, I have.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_92" id="Page_92">92</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. And have you had access to the same general information described
by Dr. Olivier on the wounds inflicted on Governor Connally?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Dziemian</span>. Yes, I have. I did not speak to the surgeons. I was not here
at that time. My information on Dr. Connally's <span class="locked">wounds&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Governor Connally.</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Dziemian</span>. Governor Connally, are from the reports and from discussions
with Dr. Light or Dr. Olivier.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Dziemian</span>. That is right.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. And have you had an opportunity to observe certain films known
as the Zapruder films showing the assassination?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Dziemian</span>. No; I did not see those.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Dziemian</span>. Yes, I <span class="locked">did&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. You are speaking now of the first two wounds, aren't you?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. You are not speaking now of the brain wound at all, are you?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Dziemian</span>. My opinion is that it is most probably so, that one bullet produced
all the wounds on Governor Connally.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Dziemian</span>. I think the probability is very good that it is, that all the
wounds were caused by one bullet.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. When you say all the wounds, are you excluding from that the
head wound on President Kennedy?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Dziemian</span>. I am excluding the head wound, yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Dziemian</span>. I am saying that the probability is high that that was so.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. What is the reason for your assessment of that high probability?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Dziemian</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Dziemian</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Could I ask a question here? Does that take into account any<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_93" id="Page_93">93</a></span>
evidence as to the angle of fire and the relative positions of the two men, or
excluding that?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Dziemian</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Dziemian</span>. I think that could be a good explanation.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Dziemian</span>. I think it is unlikely.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. What is your opinion as to whether or not Governor Connally's
wrist wound could have been caused by a pristine bullet?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Dziemian</span>. That is unlikely, too. Our results with pristine bullets were
very different from the wound that the Governor had.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Dziemian</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. For the record, would you define in lay terms what yaw means?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Dziemian</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Dziemian</span>. 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 <span class="locked">coefficient&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. What do you mean by drag coefficient?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Dziemian</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. So would a bullet with yaw cause a greater or lesser hole on
the surface which it strikes than a bullet without yaw?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Dziemian</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. And would a bullet with yaw decrease in velocity to a greater,
lesser, or the same extent as a bullet without yaw?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Dziemian</span>. It would decrease in velocity to a greater extent.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Whether it passed through air <span class="locked">or&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Dziemian</span>. Or through tissue, and the important thing in tissue is that it
transfers more energy to the target than would a nonyawing bullet.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Dziemian</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. So that it is possible in some situations there is some delay in
reaction?</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_94" id="Page_94">94</a></span>
Dr. <span class="smcap">Dziemian</span>. I couldn't say.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Is it a highly individual matter as to the reaction of an individual
on that subject?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Dziemian</span>. I don't know.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. But take a wound like the wrist wound of Governor Connally.
He couldn't get that without knowing it, could he?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Dziemian</span>. I think he said that he didn't know he had a wrist wound until
much later.</p>

<p>(Discussion off the record.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. I have no further questions of Dr. Dziemian, Commissioner
Dulles.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Thank you very much.</p>

<h2 id="fwl">TESTIMONY OF DR. FREDERICK W. LIGHT, JR.</h2>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Doctor, would you give your full name?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Light</span>. Frederick W. Light, Jr.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Light</span>. I do.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Light</span>. Frederick W. Light, Jr.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. What is your business or profession, sir?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Light</span>. I am a physician specializing in pathology.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. What is your educational background?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Light</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Would you outline your experience since 1933 in a very general
way, please?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Light</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. To study mathematics?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Light</span>. Yes. And then in 1952, or 1951, excuse me, I began working at
Edgewood Arsenal where I am at the present time.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. What have your duties consisted of while working at Edgewood
Arsenal?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Light</span>. Primarily the study of pathology of wounding.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. What is your formal title there now, Dr. Light?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Light</span>. I am chief of the Wound Assessment Branch and assistant chief
of the Biophysics Division.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. And what is your relationship to Dr. Olivier and Dr. Dziemian?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Light</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Have you been present here today to hear the full testimony
of Dr. Olivier?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Light</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. And were the tests which he described conducted under your
joint supervision with Dr. Olivier?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Light</span>. Only a very general way. I wouldn't want to say I supervised
him at all. We discussed what he was going to do.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Would it be more accurate to state that you coordinated with
him in the tests which were under his general supervision?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Light</span>. Yes; that might be stretching it a bit even.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. How would you characterize your participation?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Light</span>. Largely&mdash;originally Dr. Dziemian, as I recall, was ill, and by the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_95" id="Page_95">95</a></span>
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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Were the tests which Dr. Olivier described made at the request
of the President's Commission on the Assassination of President Kennedy?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Light</span>. Yes; they were.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Do you have anything to add by way of any detail to the findings
reported by Dr. Olivier in his testimony here earlier today?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Light</span>. No; I think he covered it very thoroughly.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. And as to the conclusions and opinions which he expressed,
do you agree or disagree, to some extent, on his conclusions?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Light</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. What are the things on which you are not quite so certain?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Light</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. That is the wound, then, in the thigh?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Light</span>. No; in the chest.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. I was thinking that the wound in the thigh&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Light</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Prior to entering Governor Connally's body, but you feel that the
wound in the thigh might be consistent?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Light</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Light</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. You think that is the most likely possibility?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Light</span>. I think that is probably the most likely, but I base that not entirely
on the anatomical findings but as much on the circumstances.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. What are the circumstances which lead you to that conclusion?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Light</span>. The relative positions in the automobile of the President and the
Governor.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Are there any other circumstances which contribute to that
conclusion, other than the anatomical findings?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Light</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. The whole bullet?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Light</span>. The whole bullet.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Identified as Commission Exhibit No. 399?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Light</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Light</span>. Nothing about that bullet. Mainly the position in which they are
seated in the automobile.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. So in addition to <span class="locked">the&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Light</span>. 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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_96" id="Page_96">96</a></span>
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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Have you had access to the autopsy records?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Light</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. And have you had access to the reports of Parkland Hospital
on the Governor's operations there?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Light</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. All three of them?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Light</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. And have you had an opportunity to view the films of the assassination
commonly known as the Zapruder films?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Light</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. And the slides?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Light</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. And have you had an opportunity to talk to Dr. Shaw and Dr.
Gregory who performed the thoracic and wrist operations on Governor Connally?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Light</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. And you heard Governor Connally's version yourself?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Light</span>. Yes; but not <span class="locked">in&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Not in the Commission?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Light</span>. Not in the Commission session.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. But at the time when the films were viewed by the Governor?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Light</span>. Yes; I did.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. At the VFW building on the first floor?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Light</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Light</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Light</span>. I think the difference in likelihood is negligible on that basis
alone.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. So the damage on the Governor's wrist would be equally <span class="locked">consistent&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Light</span>. Equally consistent; yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. With (<i>A</i>) passing only through the Governor's chest, or (<i>B</i>)
passing through the President's neck and the Governor's chest?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Light</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Now, as to the damage on the thigh, would the nature of that
wound again be equally consistent with either going through (<i>A</i>) the President's
neck, the Governor's chest, the Governor's wrist, and then into the thigh,
or (<i>B</i>) only through the Governor's chest, the Governor's wrist and into the
thigh?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Light</span>. I'd say equally consistent; yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Light</span>. No; I don't. That is really one of the <span class="locked">points&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. It would be either way?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Light</span>. 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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_97" id="Page_97">97</a></span>
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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Light</span>. Yes; I would say I don't feel justified in drawing a conclusion
one way or the other on that basis alone.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Do you have any preference of any sort?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Light</span>. Yes; I do, for other reasons.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. But only for the other reasons?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Light</span>. As I mentioned, their positions in the automobile, the fact that if
it wasn't the way&mdash;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.</p>

<p>(Discussion off the record.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. On the record.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Light</span>. It is barely conceivable but I do not believe that that is the case.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. You say barely?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Light</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Do you have anything to add which you think would be helpful
to the Commission in any way?</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Light</span>. I don't believe I do.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Those are all the questions I have, Commissioner Dulles.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. 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.</p>

<p>(Whereupon, at 5:10 p.m., the President's Commission recessed.)</p>

<hr />
<h2><span class="smaller"><a name="Thursday_May_14_1964" id="Thursday_May_14_1964"><i>Thursday, May 14, 1964</i></a></span><br />
<span class="subhead">TESTIMONY OF J. EDGAR HOOVER, JOHN A. McCONE, AND
RICHARD M. HELMS</span></h2>

<p>The President's Commission met at 9:15 a.m., on May 14, 1964, at 200 Maryland
Avenue NE., Washington, D.C.</p>

<p>Present were Chief Justice Earl Warren, Chairman; Senator John Sherman
Cooper, Representative Hale Boggs, Representative Gerald R. Ford, and Allen W.
Dulles, members.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<h2 id="jeh">TESTIMONY OF J. EDGAR HOOVER</h2>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. The Commission will be in order.</p>

<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_98" id="Page_98">98</a></span>
will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Hoover</span>. I do.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Mr. Rankin will carry on the examination, Mr. Director.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Mr. Chief Justice, do you want to tell him briefly what our
purpose is?</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Oh, yes; it is our practice to make a brief statement before
the testimony of each witness, and I will do it now.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Mr. Hoover, will you state for the record your name and
position?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Hoover</span>. J. Edgar Hoover, Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation
of the Department of Justice.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Where do you live, Mr. Hoover?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Hoover</span>. I live at 4936 30th Place, Northwest, Washington, D.C.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. And you have been Director of the Bureau for some 40 years
according to the newspapers?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Hoover</span>. That is correct; since 1924.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Hoover</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Hoover</span>. That is correct.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Do you wish to add anything?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Hoover</span>. No; there is nothing that I desire to add to what appears in this
letter and my affidavit which accompanied it to the Commission.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Hoover</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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?</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_99" id="Page_99">99</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Hoover</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. May I ask this, Mr. Hoover. As I understand your
testimony, it is based on the evidence that has been accumulated thus far?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Hoover</span>. That is correct, sir.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Is the Federal Bureau of Investigation continuing its
investigation of all possible ramifications of this assassination?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Hoover</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Could you give us some idea of how many agents are
currently working to one degree or another on any aspects of this case?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Hoover</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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&mdash;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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_100" id="Page_100">100</a></span>
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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Hoover</span>. That is, of course, possible; yes.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Hoover</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Hoover</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Boggs</span>. Mr. Chairman.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Yes, Congressman Boggs.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Boggs</span>. Mr. Hoover, I don't want any cover&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Hoover</span>. Thank you.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Boggs</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. A book now. A book is out; yes.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Boggs</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Would you have any suggestions on how this Commission should deal with
this sort of thing?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Hoover</span>. 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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_101" id="Page_101">101</a></span>
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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Boggs</span>. Now, on the other side of the <span class="locked">fence&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Hoover</span>. He is a Philadelphia correspondent.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Hoover</span>. That is not the same one.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Hoover</span>. I would appreciate that.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Boggs</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Hoover</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_102" id="Page_102">102</a></span>
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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>I think it was very well <span class="locked">expressed&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Hoover</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Boggs</span>. That brings me back to the question I think I heard<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_103" id="Page_103">103</a></span>
Congressman Ford ask you as I came into the room, because I think this is the
crux of our investigation.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Hoover</span>. Correct.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Boggs</span>. Do you still subscribe to that?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Hoover</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Boggs</span>. Surely.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Hoover</span>. 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.</p>

<p>And I also am further convinced that there is absolutely no association between
Oswald or Ruby. There was no such evidence ever established.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Or Oswald and anybody else? Would you go that far?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Hoover</span>. Anybody else who might <span class="locked">be&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. In connection with the assassination?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Hoover</span>. Yes; I would certainly go that far. There was suspicion at first
this might be a Castro act.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Boggs</span>. Right.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Hoover</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>We found no associations between Oswald and Ruby. There has been a story
printed that Ruby and Oswald worked together and were close friends.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Boggs</span>. The FBI interviewed practically everybody who ever
associated with Oswald?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Hoover</span>. It did.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Boggs</span>. You didn't find any indication of why anyone should
even suspect that Oswald would do this, did you?</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_104" id="Page_104">104</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Hoover</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Boggs</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Hoover</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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&mdash;that is mere speculation, no one can
tell that, because the gun and the sighting of the gun was directed at the car.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_105" id="Page_105">105</a></span>
slowly. It wasn't going at a high rate of speed, so that he had perfect opportunity
to do it.</p>

<p>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?</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>But he had given no indication of that&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Boggs</span>. And had he been?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Hoover</span>. 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.</p>

<p>But just the day before yesterday information came to me indicating that
there is an espionage training school outside of Minsk&mdash;I don't know whether
it is true&mdash;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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Boggs</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Hoover</span>. Yes; she has.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Boggs</span>. Just for the purpose of the record, I think it would be
well if you would comment on that, Mr. Director.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Hoover</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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."</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Boggs</span>. And the allegations she has made about this man being
an agent either of the CIA or the FBI are false?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Hoover</span>. Well, I can certainly speak for the FBI that it is false, and I<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_106" id="Page_106">106</a></span>
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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Boggs</span>. Surely.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Hoover</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Boggs</span>. No doubt about the problem being a difficult one.
I remember some years back when these fanatics started shooting up the
House of Representatives.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Hoover</span>. I recall that.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Boggs</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Hoover</span>. 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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_107" id="Page_107">107</a></span>
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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>President Truman last week expressed his concern that the President was
taking unnecessary chances.</p>

<p>But the governmental agency having the responsibility for guarding him, the
Secret Service, has a natural hesitancy to say, "You can't do this."</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Boggs</span>. Of course, for the record, President Kennedy had the
same difficulty.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Hoover</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Mr. Hoover, you have categorically testified that the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_108" id="Page_108">108</a></span>
FBI never at any time had Oswald as an agent, as an informant, or in any
other way.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Hoover</span>. That is correct. I couldn't make it more emphatic.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. And Mr. Belmont testified to the same last week when
he was before us.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Hoover</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Both you and he would be fully familiar with all of
the records of the FBI in this regard?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Hoover</span>. 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&mdash;we have two assistants to the Director, one in charge of administrative
work and the other in charge of investigative work&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. And you were not under any limitation or restriction
from any other authority in this regard?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Hoover</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. There is no limitation on what you can tell us about
this situation?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Hoover</span>. None whatsoever.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. No limitation; no restrictions?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Hoover</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Hoover</span>. 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&mdash;I think it was the mother of Oswald
first, if I recall correctly&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Hoover</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. I have just about two questions, I may have to go in a few<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_109" id="Page_109">109</a></span>
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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Hoover</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. During that period, did the FBI have any jurisdiction over
intelligence regarding him, or any capacity to know?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Hoover</span>. While he was in Russia?</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Hoover</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. As I understand it, you had no capacity at that time to
follow his activities?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Hoover</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Hoover</span>. <span class="locked">Well&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. Would that be a matter for some other agency?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Hoover</span>. That could be a matter for CIA or for us after Oswald had returned
here.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Hoover</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Hoover</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_110" id="Page_110">110</a></span>
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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. May I ask one other question?</p>

<p>Is there any, considering the number of defectors in the United States to
Communist countries, which cannot be large, I would <span class="locked">assume&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Hoover</span>. I think there are about 36.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Hoover</span>. We have <span class="locked">now&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. To determine whether they are a risk to become Soviet or
Communist espionage agents or in fact become dangerous?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Hoover</span>. We have taken steps to plug that gap.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. That includes military defectors, does it not?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Hoover</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. Just one other question, because I have to go.</p>

<p>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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Hoover</span>. We have had no credible evidence that they have been related
to the Communist Party in this country.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. Thank you.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_111" id="Page_111">111</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Hoover</span>. Thank you.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Hoover</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. I ask you if you would care to add anything to that letter except
what you have already testified to?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Hoover</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Mr. Chairman, I offer in evidence Exhibit 863, being the letter
just referred to.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. It may be admitted.</p>

<p>(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 863 for
identification and received in evidence.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Mr. Hoover, is Exhibit 837 the article that you referred to in
the National Enquirer?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Hoover</span>. Yes; that is the one.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Hoover</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Does that Exhibit correctly set forth the information you had
in regard to those matters?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Hoover</span>. It does.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Do you care to add anything to it?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Hoover</span>. No; I have nothing to add to it at all.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Hoover</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_112" id="Page_112">112</a></span>
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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Mr. Hoover, may I interrupt, you said Hosty was not there at
the time, he was at work&mdash;did you mean Mr. Oswald?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Hoover</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_113" id="Page_113">113</a></span>
But, anyway, that was in the book that was later found, and which contained
many other things that Oswald had entered in the book.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>People of this type are among those we would have furnished to the Secret
Service. They have the potential to harm somebody.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Hoover</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_114" id="Page_114">114</a></span>
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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Mr. Hoover, I ask you about Exhibit 825 which is first a letter
and then encloses certain affidavits of your agents.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Hoover</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. You are familiar with that?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Hoover</span>. I am familiar with that. I read all of that and signed it.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Hoover</span>. That is correct; and the affidavits of all agents, who had any
contact with him.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Hoover</span>. That is correct; yes. I recall very distinctly.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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?</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_115" id="Page_115">115</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Hoover</span>. That is correct; and my letter of April 30 states the facts as
they are in our files.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Mr. Chairman, we offer in evidence Exhibits 864 and 865.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. They may be admitted.</p>

<p>(Commission Exhibit Nos. 864 and 865 were marked for identification and
received in evidence.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Hoover</span>. Well, I, at the request <span class="locked">of&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Director, before you get into that question, and may I ask
something that I would like to hear you discuss in this same connection?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Hoover</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. You have told us that you had no jurisdiction down there
in Dallas over this crime.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Hoover</span>. That is correct.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Because there is no Federal crime committed. And I assume
that that caused you some embarrassment and some confusion in doing your
work?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Hoover</span>. It most certainly did.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Because of the likelihood of your being in conflict with other
authorities. Do you believe there should be a Federal law?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Hoover</span>. I am very strongly in favor of that.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Against an attempt to assassinate the President?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Hoover</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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&mdash;blood, dirt, dust,
guns, anything of that kind&mdash;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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_116" id="Page_116">116</a></span>
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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Hoover</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Boggs</span>. Why don't you ask the Director just to summarize it.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Will you summarize it?</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_117" id="Page_117">117</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Can we have a copy of it?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Hoover</span>. Oh, yes.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Could the copy be put in the record as an exhibit?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Hoover</span>. Yes, sir; that is all right with me. I have no objection to it.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Boggs</span>. You have one like that right now, Mr. Director.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Hoover</span>. I know from experience.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Fourth, avoid setting a specific pattern of travel or other activity such as
visiting the same church at the same time each Sunday.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Fourth, in appearances at public sporting events such as football games,
remain in one place rather than changing sides during half-time ceremonies.</p>

<p>(Discussion off the record.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Hoover</span>. Oh, yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Because if the armored car had been <span class="locked">open&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Hoover</span>. He must never ride in an open car; that has been my recommendation.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. The back never comes down?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Hoover</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Fifth, limit public appearances by use of television whenever possible.</p>

<p>Sixth, avoid walking in public except when absolutely necessary.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. You would add to that I understood from your prior remarks,
the Speaker and the President Pro Tempore?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Hoover</span>. In view of the situation which prevails at the present time the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_118" id="Page_118">118</a></span>
Speaker and President pro tempore, in other words, the line of succession
under the Constitution but not below that.</p>

<p>(Discussion off the record.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Hoover</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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 <span class="locked">course&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. In a false name.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Hoover</span>. In a false name.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Of course, today firearms control is practically negligible, and I think some
steps should be taken along that line.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Boggs</span>. It is illegal to picket a Federal court now, Mr. Director,
I happen to be the author of that law.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Hoover</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_119" id="Page_119">119</a></span>
Those in general are the recommendations I made and I will furnish the
committee with a copy of this memorandum.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Hoover</span>. I have taken that into account, and I would like to say this off
the record.</p>

<p>(Discussion off the record.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. That is all I have, Mr. Chairman.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Any other questions, gentlemen?</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Boggs</span>. I would just like to thank the Director again for all the
help he has given us.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Hoover</span>. I am happy to.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Hoover</span>. Thank you very much.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Hoover</span>. I would most certainly do that.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. You do it.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Hoover</span>. I want to give all the cooperation I can to this most difficult
task you have.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. One question. The other day when we had the State,
Justice, Judiciary Appropriation bill before the full Committee on <span class="locked">Appropriations&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Hoover</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Hoover</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Hoover</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Secret Service asked us to let them have additional manpower, as a matter
of assistance, and we have done so.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. I think it would be helpful if you would have a memorandum
prepared.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Hoover</span>. I will be glad to.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Hoover</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. And the justification you have indicated.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Hoover</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Mr. Chairman, in order to complete the record, may I ask to<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_120" id="Page_120">120</a></span>
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.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Yes; it may be.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Also a number for this letter Mr. Hoover is going to
submit.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. May I assign 867?</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>(Commission Exhibit Nos. 866 and 867 were marked for identification and
received in evidence.)</p>

<h2 id="jam">TESTIMONY OF JOHN A. McCONE AND RICHARD M. HELMS</h2>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. The Commission will be in order.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCone</span>. I do.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Will you be seated, please? Mr. Rankin will conduct the
examination.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Mr. McCone, will you state your name?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCone</span>. My name is John Alex McCone.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Do you have an official position with the U.S. Government?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCone</span>. Yes, sir; I am Director of Central Intelligence.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Have you been Director for some time?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCone</span>. Yes; a little over 2½ years.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Where do you live, Mr. McCone?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCone</span>. I live at 3025 Whitehaven Street in Washington.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCone</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCone</span>. Yes; I have determined to my satisfaction that he had no such
connection, and I would like to read for the <span class="locked">record&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Will you tell us briefly the extent of your inquiry?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCone</span>. 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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_121" id="Page_121">121</a></span>
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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Does that include whether or not he was in the United
States, in the Soviet Union, or anyplace?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCone</span>. Anyplace; the United States, Soviet Union, or anyplace.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Mr. McCone, is that the affidavit you are going to supply the
Commission in connection with our request for it?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCone</span>. Yes; this is the substance of the affidavit which I will supply
to you.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. It may be admitted.</p>

<p>(Commission Exhibit No. 870 was marked for identification and received in
evidence.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCone</span>. No; it does not have to come through my personal hands.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Without disclosing something that might be a security matter,
could you tell us how that is handled in a general way in the Agency?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCone</span>. Mr. Helms, who is directly responsible for that division of the
Agency's activities as a Deputy Director, might explain. Would that be
permissible?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Could we have him sworn then?</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Helms</span>. I do.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Mr. Helms, you heard the inquiry just directed to Mr. McCone.
Could you answer the question directly?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Helms</span>. 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?</p>

<p>(Discussion off the record.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Helms</span>. Yes; I did.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Will you tell us what you did in that regard?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Helms</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_122" id="Page_122">122</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Mr. <span class="locked">Helms&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Helms</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Helms</span>. We have; all.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Has a member of the Commission staff had full access
to your files on Lee Harvey Oswald?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Helms</span>. He has, sir.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. They have had the opportunity to personally look at
the entire file?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Helms</span>. 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.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Helms</span>. Yes; I can.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Helms</span>. It is my understanding that they were satisfied.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCone</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. On the basis of that authority, you or the Agency have
made a full disclosure?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCone</span>. That is correct.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Helms</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Thank you. Mr. Chief Justice, I ask leave to have those two
exhibits, 868 and 869, received in evidence at this time.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. They may be admitted under those numbers.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_123" id="Page_123">123</a></span>
(Commission Exhibits Nos. 868 and 869 were marked for identification and
received in evidence.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCone</span>. No; I have no information, Mr. Rankin, that would lead me to
believe or conclude that a conspiracy existed.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Did the CIA make an investigation of this aspect of
the assassination?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCone</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Did the Central Intelligence Agency have any contact
with Oswald during the period of his life in the Soviet Union?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCone</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Did the Central Intelligence Agency have any personal
contact with Oswald subsequent to his return to the United States?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCone</span>. No.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCone</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Do you also include in your statement that you found no
evidence of conspiracy in all of that investigation?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCone</span>. That is correct.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. And also the investigation you made of the period that Lee
Harvey Oswald was in the Soviet Union?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCone</span>. That is right.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Mr. <span class="locked">McCone&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCone</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Is the Central Intelligence Agency continuing any
investigation into this area?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCone</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Helms</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. In other words, the case isn't closed.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Helms</span>. It is not closed as far as we are concerned.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_124" id="Page_124">124</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Helms</span>. Yes. I would assume the case will never be closed.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Mr. McCone, do you have any ideas about improving the security
provisions for the President that you would like to relate to the Commission?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCone</span>. Well, this is, in my opinion, a very important question which I
am sure this Commission will&mdash;has and will&mdash;devote a considerable amount of
thought to, and undoubtedly have some recommendations as part of its report.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Your Agency does have an important function in some aspects.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCone</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Will you please do that.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Director, is that a security matter?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCone</span>. No. I think I can handle this for the record.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Very well.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCone</span>. If I have to make a remark or two off the record I will ask that
privilege.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>These instructions were given two months before the trip.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Emergency contingency plans were discussed and a consensus was reached that
the President should make the visit as scheduled.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_125" id="Page_125">125</a></span>
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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>The report was presented to the President personally by the Director at noon
in a final meeting prior to departure on this trip.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. That is the normal format of your procedures?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCone</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. When the President goes abroad?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCone</span>. Yes, I selected this one. The same was true of his trip to
Caracas or Paris or elsewhere.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCone</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Assassination?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCone</span>. Assassination.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCone</span>. 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.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Yes; I did.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCone</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>I would like to emphasize the very great importance of this exchange, which
is not always easily accomplished because it is cumbersome.</p>

<p>Sometimes it becomes involved in distracting people from other duties, and
so on and so forth.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_126" id="Page_126">126</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Smuggling cases?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCone</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Is it your belief, Mr. McCone, that the methods for exchange
of information between intelligence agencies of the Government could be materially
improved.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCone</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCone</span>. Well, I am not sure that we got full information, Mr. Dulles.
The fact is we had very little information in our files.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Helms</span>. It was probably minimal.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Why did that happen?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Helms</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCone</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCone</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Helms</span>. I don't believe they do, either.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCone</span>. I am not sure they should.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. It wouldn't be your recommendation that you, the head
of Central Intelligence Agency, should have that information?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. In a case of an American defecting to a Communist country,
shouldn't you have it?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCone</span>. Certainly certain types of information. What we ought to be<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_127" id="Page_127">127</a></span>
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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCone</span>. Well, certainly information on defectors or possible recruitments
should be, and I have no question is being, transmitted.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. 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.</p>

<p>I would like your comment on it.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCone</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCone</span>. You might answer that.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Helms</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. 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&mdash;and when I say this, I mean the
Oswald case&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCone</span>. That is quite correct; there is no question about that.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. 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.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_128" id="Page_128">128</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCone</span>. Such an intrusion?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Upon their right to travel.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCone</span>. 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 <span class="locked">the&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Burden?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCone</span>. Of the burden of vast numbers involved.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Do you you have any thought in regard to whether it would be an
intrusion upon their rights?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCone</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. May I inquire?</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Senator Cooper.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. I missed the first part of Mr. McCone's testimony; I went to
answer a quorum call. Perhaps the question has been asked.</p>

<p>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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCone</span>. I am not familiar with them; no.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Helms</span>. Neither am I, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCone</span>. I presume that the Department's inquiries have covered it.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. Is it possible to ascertain the names of those employees?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCone</span>. 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.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Anything more? Congressman Ford?</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Did the Central Intelligence Agency investigate any
aspects of Oswald's trip to Mexico?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCone</span>. Yes; we did.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Can you give us any information on that?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCone</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Did the Central Intelligence Agency make any investigation
of any alleged connection between Oswald and the Castro government?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCone</span>. 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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_129" id="Page_129">129</a></span>
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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Was there any other evidence or alleged <span class="locked">evidence&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCone</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCone</span>. Not to my knowledge.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Helms</span>. We had no information.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCone</span>. We had no information.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Central Intelligence Agency has no information of any
connections of Ruby to the Castro government?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCone</span>. That is right.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Did you ever make a check of that?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Helms</span>. We checked our records to see if we had information and found
we did not.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. What would that indicate, the fact that you checked
your records?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Helms</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. That is all.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Director, thank you very much, sir, for coming and being
with us and we appreciate the help your department has given to us.</p>

<p>(Whereupon, at 12:30 p.m., the President's Commission recessed.)</p>

<hr />
<h2><span class="smaller"><a name="Thursday_June_4_1964" id="Thursday_June_4_1964"><i>Thursday, June 4, 1964</i></a></span><br />
<span class="subhead">TESTIMONY OF THOMAS J. KELLEY, LEO J. GAUTHIER, LYNDAL L.
SHANEYFELT, AND ROBERT A. FRAZIER</span></h2>

<p>The President's Commission met at 2:10 p.m., on June 4, 1964, at 200 Maryland
Avenue NE., Washington, D.C.</p>

<p>Present were Chief Justice Earl Warren. Chairman; Senator John Sherman
Cooper, Representative Gerald R. Ford, Allen W. Dulles, and John J. McCloy,
members.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<h2 id="tjk">TESTIMONY OF THOMAS J. KELLEY</h2>

<p>(Members present at this point: The Chairman, Representative Ford, Mr.
Dulles, and Mr. McCloy.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. 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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_130" id="Page_130">130</a></span>
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.</p>

<p>May we have them sworn in as a group?</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Yes. Will you rise and raise your right hands, please?</p>

<p>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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Kelley</span>. I do.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Gauthier</span>. I do.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. I do.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. I do.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. You may be seated, gentlemen. Mr. Kelley, will you take
the witness chair, please? Mr. Specter will conduct the examination.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Will you state your full name for the record, please?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Kelley</span>. Thomas J. Kelley.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. By whom are you employed?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Kelley</span>. I am employed by the U.S. Secret Service.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. In what capacity?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Kelley</span>. I am an inspector.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. In a general way, of what do your duties consist, Mr. Kelley?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Kelley</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. How long have you been with the Secret Service?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Kelley</span>. Twenty-two years.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Did you participate in the planning of the onsite tests at
Dallas, Tex.?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Kelley</span>. I did.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. And did you participate in the making of those tests?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Kelley</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. On what date was the onsite testing made?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Kelley</span>. It was a week ago Sunday.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. That would be May 24, 1964?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Kelley</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. What car was used for testing purposes?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Kelley</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Was that car actually in the motorcade on November 22, 1963,
in Dallas?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Kelley</span>. Yes; it was.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Was there any special reason why the car in which the President
rode on November 22 was not used?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Kelley</span>. Yes; the car in which the President rode has been modified by a
body builder in Cincinnati, the Hess &amp; Eisenhardt Co. of Cincinnati.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. And do you have a diagram showing the dimensions of the Secret
Service followup car which was used during the onsite tests?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Kelley</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. 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.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. It may be admitted.</p>

<p>(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 871 for identification,
and received in evidence.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Do you have diagrams showing the dimensions of the Presidential
car?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Kelley</span>. I have.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_131" id="Page_131">131</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. I would like to have that marked as Commission Exhibit No.
872 and move for its admission into evidence.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. It may be admitted.</p>

<p>(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 872 for identification,
and received in evidence.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Without specifying all of the details, Inspector Kelley, are the
followup car and the Presidential car generally similar in dimensions?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Kelley</span>. Yes; they are. There are very few, of course, seven-passenger
convertible cars in existence, and these are specially&mdash;these cars are specially
built for us by the Lincoln&mdash;the Ford Motor Co. and the followup car by the
General Motors Co.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Would you describe what seating arrangements are present in
each of those cars in between the permanent front seat and the permanent rear
seat?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Kelley</span>. 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.</p>

<p>In the President's car, they are occupied by the President's guests.</p>

<p>On the day of the assassination, of course, the jump seats were occupied by
Mrs. Connally and Governor Connally.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Mr. Kelley, have you brought with you two photographs depicting
the interior of the President's car?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Kelley</span>. I have. These are photographs of the interior of the President's
car which is known to us as 100-X.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. 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.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. It may be admitted.</p>

<p>(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 873 for identification,
and received in evidence.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. I would like to mark the second photograph as Commission
Exhibit No. 874 and move, also, its admission into evidence.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. It may be admitted.</p>

<p>(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 874 for identification,
and received in evidence.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Would you describe briefly what Exhibit No. 873 depicts, please?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Kelley</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCloy</span>. As of what time were these photographs taken?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Kelley</span>. I am sorry, Commissioner. I don't know just when those photographs
were taken. They were taken some time in the last 2 years.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. As to Exhibits Nos. 873 and 874, do they accurately depict the
condition of the President's car as of November 22, 1963?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Kelley</span>. They do, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Would you describe briefly what Exhibit No. 874 shows?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Kelley</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. So that the record may be clear, which Commission number has
been given to the diagram of the President's car?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Kelley</span>. The President's car is Exhibit No. 872.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. And the followup car diagram is what?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Kelley</span>. Exhibit No. 871.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCloy</span>. Do you know whether these photographs were taken before or
after the assassination?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Kelley</span>. Before the assassination.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Did the car that you used for this test&mdash;did that car have the
seat lifting capacity that I understand the President's car had?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Kelley</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. On the President's car itself, what is the distance on the right<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_132" id="Page_132">132</a></span>
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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Kelley</span>. There is 6 inches of clearance between the jump seat and the door.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. And what is the relative position of the jump seat to the rear
seat on the Presidential automobile?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Kelley</span>. There is 8½ inches between the back of the jump seat and the
front of the back seat of the President's car, the rear seat.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. And what is the relative height of the jump seat and the rear
seat?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Kelley</span>. 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 10½ inches. But at the time of the assassination, the seat was
in its lowest position.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. And what is the differential between the jump seats and the
rear seat on the Secret Service followup car?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Kelley</span>. The jump seat of the Secret Service car is a little closer to the
right door.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Kelley</span>. 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.</p>

<p>When it was in the White House garage, it was at its lowest point.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. And there would be no opportunity to lower it from the time
the President was shot?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Kelley</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. What was the height of President Kennedy?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Kelley</span>. He was 72½ inches.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Kelley</span>. I was.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Do you know the name of that individual?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Kelley</span>. He was an FBI agent by the name of James W. Anderton.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. And what was the height of Mr. Anderton?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Kelley</span>. He was 72½ inches.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Do you know the height of Governor Connally?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Kelley</span>. Governor Connally was 6 foot 4.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Was that the height of the Governor himself or the Governor's
stand-in?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Kelley</span>. It was my understanding that Governor Connally was&mdash;6 foot
2, I guess. The Governor's stand-in, Mr. Doyle Williams, was 6 foot 4.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Were you present when those two individuals were seated in
the Secret Service followup car?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Kelley</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Kelley</span>. 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 72½ inches would be seated in this car before its modification. And<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_133" id="Page_133">133</a></span>
it was ascertained that the person would be 52.78 inches from the ground&mdash;that
is, taking into consideration the flexion of the tires, the flexion of the
cushions that were on the car at the time.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. When you say 52.78 inches, which individual would that be?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Kelley</span>. That would be the President.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. And what part of his body?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Kelley</span>. The top of the head would be 52.78 inches from the ground.</p>

<p>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&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Considering the 3-inch difference in the jump seat&mdash;and I believe
it would be an inch and a half difference in height between President Kennedy
and Governor Connally&mdash;how much higher, then, approximately, was President
Kennedy sitting than the Governor on November 22?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Kelley</span>. I am <span class="locked">not&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Would the President have been about an inch and half higher
than the Governor on the day of the assassination?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Kelley</span>. The day of the assassination, yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. And <span class="locked">were&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Wouldn't the height of these men depend upon the length of
their torso?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Kelley</span>. <span class="locked">Well,&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. 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&mdash;a man who looks large sitting down, when he stands up he is
small, because he has a long torso, and vice versa.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Kelley</span>. 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&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Kelley</span>. Yes, sir; in my judgment that is very close.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. What marking, if any, was placed on the back of President Kennedy&mdash;the
stand-in for President Kennedy?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Kelley</span>. There was a chalk mark placed on his coat, in this area here.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. And what did that chalk mark represent?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Kelley</span>. That represented the entry point of the shot which wounded the
President.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. And how was the location for that mark fixed or determined?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Kelley</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. As to the drawing, was that not the drawing made by the autopsy
surgeons from Bethesda Naval Hospital?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Kelley</span>. Bethesda Naval.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCloy</span>. Not Parkland, as I understand it?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. No, sir; not Parkland, because as the record will show, the
President was not turned over at Parkland.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Kelley</span>. I was shown a drawing of&mdash;that was prepared by some medical
technicians indicating the point of entry.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. 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.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_134" id="Page_134">134</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Kelley</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. And the record will show, may it please the Commission, that
this was made by the autopsy surgeons at Bethesda.</p>

<p>And was there any marking placed on the back of Governor Connally?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Kelley</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. And what coat was worn by the stand-in for Governor Connally?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Kelley</span>. It was the coat that Governor Connally was wearing at the time
he was injured.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. And was the chalk circle placed around the hole which appeared
on the back of that coat garment?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Kelley</span>. It was.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Were certain tests made by the Secret Service shortly after the
day of the assassination?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Kelley</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. And were those tests reduced to photographs which were compiled
in an album?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Kelley</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. 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.</p>

<p>I would now like to mark it Commission Exhibit No. 875 and move for its
admission into evidence.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. It may be admitted.</p>

<p>(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 875 for
identification, and received in evidence.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Does a photograph in that group show the condition of the
foliage of the trees in the vicinity where the assassination occurred?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Kelley</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. And is <span class="locked">there&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. One question. This photograph was taken, though, several weeks
later, wasn't it?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Kelley</span>. On December 5.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. That was 2 weeks later.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Kelley</span>. Two weeks later; yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. So the foliage would presumably be somewhat less in that picture,
would it not, than it was on November 22?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Kelley</span>. No; actually, the foliage hadn't changed very much even in the
latest tests we are making.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. It was an evergreen?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Kelley</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. And did you observe the foliage on the tree on May 24?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Kelley</span>. I did, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. And would you state the relative condition of that foliage, as
contrasted with the photographs you have before you taken on December 5?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Kelley</span>. It was very similar, practically the same.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Kelley</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Mr. Chief Justice, the purpose of having Inspector Kelley testify
was just to set the scene. That completes our questioning of him.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Very well. Thank you, Inspector Kelley.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. The next witness will be Inspector Gauthier.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_135" id="Page_135">135</a></span></p>

<h2 id="ljg">TESTIMONY OF LEO J. GAUTHIER</h2>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Would you state your full name for the record, please?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Gauthier</span>. Leo J. Gauthier.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. And by whom are you employed, sir?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Gauthier</span>. The Federal Bureau of Investigation.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. And what is your rank with the Federal Bureau of Investigation?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Gauthier</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. How long have you been employed by the Federal Bureau of
Investigation?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Gauthier</span>. Twenty-nine years.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Did you have occasion to reconstruct certain models to scale in
connection with the investigation on the assassination of President Kennedy?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Gauthier</span>. Yes; I did.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. And what model reproduction, if any, did you make of the scene
of the assassination itself?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Gauthier</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Gauthier</span>. Yes; I did.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Handing you that Commission Exhibit No. 876, I will ask you
to describe what it represents in toto.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Gauthier</span>. This is an aerial view of the site known as Dealey Plaza, in
Dallas, Tex.</p>

<p>It indicates the large buildings that surround this area. They are numbered
1 through 11. It indicates the main streets&mdash;Commerce, Main, and Elm Streets,
and the roadways through the plaza, including the triple underpass.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Gauthier</span>. Yes; this is a description of Dealey Plaza stating the historical
background and the physical description.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. I move at this time for the admission into evidence of Commission
Exhibits Nos. 876 and 877.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. They may be admitted.</p>

<p>(The documents referred to were marked Commission Exhibits Nos. 876 and
877 for identification, and received in evidence.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Inspector, I now hand you two photographs marked as Commission
Exhibits Nos. 878 and 879 and ask you to state what those depict.</p>

<p>(The documents referred to were marked Commission Exhibits Nos. 878 and
879 for identification.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Gauthier</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. What motorcade is this?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Gauthier</span>. We are depicting the Presidential motorcade at the time of
the assassination, the motorcade that passed that area.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_136" id="Page_136">136</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. And this was done on what day?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Gauthier</span>. Our data to build this were compiled on December 2, 3, and 4.
It took about 5 weeks to prepare this exhibit in Washington.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Would you now describe what is shown on the photograph?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Gauthier</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. I now hand you two additional photographs marked as Commission
Exhibits Nos. 880 and 881, and ask you to state what they represent.</p>

<p>(The documents referred to were marked Commission Exhibits Nos. 880 and
881 for identification.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Gauthier</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. And in the corner of that photograph is the area depicted which
has been described as the possible site of the rifleman?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Gauthier</span>. That is correct.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Will you now describe what Exhibit No. 881 shows?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Gauthier</span>. 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&mdash;representing position of people in this
area of the basement garage.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. And what event is depicted in that model, if any?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Gauthier</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. And where have these models been maintained since the time
they were prepared by the FBI?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Gauthier</span>. The models were delivered to the Commission's building and
installed in the exhibits room on the first floor, on January 20, 1964.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Mr. Chief Justice, I now move for the admission into evidence
of the photographs 878, 879, 880, and 881.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. They may be admitted.</p>

<p>(The documents heretofore marked for identification as Commission Exhibits
Nos. 878, 879, 880, and 881, were received in evidence.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Did you participate in the onsite tests made in Dallas?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Gauthier</span>. I did.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Was a survey made of the scene used to record some of the
results of that onsite testing?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Gauthier</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. And by whom was the survey made?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Gauthier</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Have you brought the tracing of that survey with you today?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Gauthier</span>. I have; yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. And have you brought a cardboard reproduction of that?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Gauthier</span>. A copy made from the tracing; yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Would you produce the cardboard copy made from the tracing
for the inspection of the Commission at this time, please?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Gauthier</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Would you produce the tracing at this time, please?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Gauthier</span>. Yes; the tracing is wrapped, and sealed in this container.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Without breaking the seal, I will ask you if the cardboard which
has been set up here&mdash;may the record show it is a large cardboard. I will ask
you for the dimensions in just a minute.</p>

<p>Does the printing on the cardboard represent an exact duplication of the
tracing which you have in your hand?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Gauthier</span>. Yes.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_137" id="Page_137">137</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. 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.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. They may be admitted.</p>

<p>(The documents referred to were marked Commission Exhibits Nos. 882 and 883
for identification, and received in evidence.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Will you now describe what Exhibit No. 883 is, Inspector
Gauthier, indicating, first of all, the approximate size of the cardboard?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Gauthier</span>. 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.</p>

<p>From the data compiled on that day by the surveyor, this tracing was prepared.</p>

<p>The area is bounded on the north by the Texas School Book Depository Building,
and on further here by railroad property.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Indicating a general westerly direction from the School Book
Depository Building?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Gauthier</span>. Yes; I am pointing towards the west.</p>

<p>On the east it is bounded by Houston Street.</p>

<p>On the south by Main, which is a roadway going through Dealey Plaza.</p>

<p>And on the west by the triple underpass.</p>

<p>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&mdash;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. <span class="locked">Zapruder&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. When you say this window, which window did you mean?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Gauthier</span>. The window on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository
Building, the one in the southeast corner, the farthest window.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. And when you identify the Zapruder position, what did you
mean by that?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Gauthier</span>. This is a concrete abutment of the pergola, located in the
area upon which Zapruder was standing at the time the movies were made.</p>

<p>(At this point, Senator Cooper entered the hearing room.)</p>

<p>(At this point, Representative Ford withdrew from the hearing room.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Are there any other positions noted on the diagram that you
have been describing showing where other movies were made?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Gauthier</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>(At this point, Chief Justice Warren withdrew from the hearing room.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Gauthier</span>. We also locate the position of Mr. Nix, who also made movies
of the motorcade at certain points on the roadway.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. On what street was Mr. Nix standing?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Gauthier</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. A short distance west of the intersection?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Gauthier</span>. West.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. And what other position is shown of the situs of a movie
photographer?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Gauthier</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. I now hand you a schedule which I have marked as Commission
Exhibit No. 884 and ask you what figures are contained thereon.</p>

<p>(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 884 for
identification.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Gauthier</span>. This is a copy of a tabulation which appears on the plat map.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_138" id="Page_138">138</a></span>
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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. May it please the Commission, that concludes the description
of the general setting.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCloy</span>. It may be admitted.</p>

<p>(The document heretofore marked for identification as Commission Exhibit
No. 884, was received in evidence.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. May it please the Commission, that completes the testimony of
Inspector Gauthier.</p>

<p>I would like to call Mr. Shaneyfelt.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCloy</span>. Mr Shaneyfelt?</p>

<h2 id="lls">TESTIMONY OF LYNDAL L. SHANEYFELT</h2>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Would you state your full name for the record, please?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. Yes; Lyndal L. Shaneyfelt.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. By whom are you employed?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. I am employed as a special agent of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. And how long have you been so employed?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. Fourteen years.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. What are your duties, in a general way?</p>

<p>Mr <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. I am assigned to the FBI Laboratory, as a document examiner,
and photographic expert.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. Yes; I have.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. What movies have you examined?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Can you outline in a general way how the movies taken by
Mr. Zapruder came into your possession?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. 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.</p>

<p>The original and other copy he sold to Life magazine.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. At any time in the course of the examination of the Zapruder
film, was the original of that movie obtained?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. And what was the reason for his making that original available?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Was that because the copies were not distinct on certain important
particulars?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. That is correct. The original had considerably more detail<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_139" id="Page_139">139</a></span>
and more there to study than any of the copies, since in the photographic process
each time you copy you lose some detail.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. And subsequently, were slides made from the original of the
Zapruder film?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Would you outline what you mean by frames, please?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. 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&mdash;even
though they are individual little pictures on the film. So each one
of those little pictures on the film is called a frame.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. And how did you number the frames?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. I numbered the frames on the Zapruder film beginning
with No. 1 at the assassination portion of his film.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. And what was happening at the time of frame 1?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. What other movies have been examined by you in the course of
this analysis?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Would you explain briefly how you ascertained the location of
Mr. Nix when he took those movies?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. You are now indicating the southwest corner of Houston and
Main?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. When you say this point, you mean the point of the Nix position?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. And when you say this street light, you are referring to a street
lamp on the opposite side of Main Street?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. That is correct.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Would you outline in a general way how you obtained the copy
of the Nix film?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. Yes.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_140" id="Page_140">140</a></span>
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.</p>

<p>And, as a result of this, we learned of the Nix film and arranged to obtain
a copy of it.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Did you analyze any other film in connection with this inquiry?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. Yes. I analyzed a film that was 8-mm. motion picture film
taken by Mrs. Mary Muchmore of Dallas, Tex.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. How did you obtain a copy of that film?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Where was Mrs. Muchmore standing at the time she took those
movies?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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
<span class="locked">point&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Indicating a position on Exhibit No. 883 marked "Muchmore
Position."</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. That is correct.</p>

<p>And this we established as her position when she photographed a portion
of the assassination&mdash;motorcade.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Would you elaborate just a bit more on how you ascertained that
position from fixed points in the background of the movie?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. That is correct.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. And was that same system used to ascertain the position of
Mr. Nix?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. That is correct.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. And how did you ascertain the position of Mr. Zapruder?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. Mr. Zapruder's position was known, as he was on the top
of the abutment along Elm Street&mdash;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.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_141" id="Page_141">141</a></span>
(At this point, Representative Ford entered the hearing room.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. And aside from that, we checked that position against his
photographs and determined that that was in fact correct.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Was the position of Mr. Zapruder confirmed through the use
of any other film?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. Yes; in Mr. Nix's motion picture films you can see Mr.
Zapruder standing on the abutment.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. May I ask a question there?</p>

<p>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&mdash;your findings corresponded
with their recollection as to where they were standing?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. We did not do that; no. Mr. Nix, I might say, did state
that he went down along this side&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. Mr. Zapruder's position was established by another
photograph?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. That is correct.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Do I understand you correctly that Mrs. Muchmore didn't realize
she had taken the later pictures that appear?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. According to her statement, she said after hearing the shots,
she panicked, and didn't take any more pictures.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. You think she did?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. On the film there are pictures.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Was the position of Mrs. Muchmore and Mr. Nix ascertained
through a geometric calculation, lining up various points as you have just
described?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Was there reasonable mathematical certainty in that alinement,
within the limits of your observations of their pictures?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Did Mr. Zapruder himself point out his location on the abutment
as depicted on Exhibit No. 883?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. That is correct.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Now, how many occasions were you a participant in an analysis
of these various films which you have just described?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. Seven.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. And when was the first time that you were a participant in such
an analysis?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. On January 27, 1964.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. And who else has been with you at the time you analyzed those
films&mdash;just stating in in a general way without identifying each person present on
each of the occasions?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Representatives of the Commission were always present&mdash;normally Mr. Redlich,
Mr. Specter, or Mr. Eisenberg were present.</p>

<p>On several occasions Mr. Ball and Mr. Belin were present. Mr. Rankin was
present on some occasions.</p>

<p>I believe Mr. McCloy was present on one occasion.</p>

<p>Various representatives of the Commission were present.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. And how long did those analysis sessions ordinarily last?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. They would normally last most of the day, about all day.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_142" id="Page_142">142</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. And what would be done during the course of those analytical
sessions?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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&mdash;whether either one
was reacting to being hit.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Why do you say that is readily apparent?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>On April 14, representatives of the Commission, FBI, and doctors&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Are those the autopsy surgeons?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Did any individuals who were present at the motorcade itself
ever have an opportunity to view the films and slides?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. I now hand you an album which has been marked as Commission
Exhibit No. 885.</p>

<p>(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 885 for
identification.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. I ask you to state what that album depicts.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. This is an album that I prepared of black and white photographs
made of the majority of the frames in the Zapruder <span class="locked">film&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Starting with what frame number?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. Starting with frame 171, going through frame 334.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. And why did you start with frame 171?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Is that a frame where President Kennedy comes into full view
after the motorcade turns left off of Houston onto Elm Street?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. Yes, yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. And how was the ending point of that frame sequence, being
No. 334, fixed?</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_143" id="Page_143">143</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Are there any other photographs in that album in addition to the
Zapruder frames?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. And where was the viewing of the films and slides undertaken?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. They have been viewed here at the Commission&mdash;all those
in addition to the ones I have made personally in the FBI Laboratory.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. And was that down on the first floor of the VFW Building here?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. That is correct.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. Yes; the model was available and used.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Is that the model which has been described earlier this afternoon
by Inspector Gauthier?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. That is correct.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Were you present on May 24 in Dallas, Tex.?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. And what, if anything, was done at the site of the assassination
on that date?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Who was present at that time representing the Commission?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. The Commission was represented by Mr. Rankin, Mr. Specter,
and Mr. Redlich.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. And who was present at that time from the FBI?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. I was present, Inspector Gauthier was present, Inspector
J.&nbsp;R. Malley was present, Special Agent R.&nbsp;A. Frazier was present, with some
aids, assistants.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Other aids from the FBI were also present?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. Yes; in addition, there were several agents from the Dallas
office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation who assisted.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. And were there representatives of the Secret Service participating
in that onsite testing?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. 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 <span class="locked">recall&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. George Hickey?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. That is correct.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. And at what time did the onsite test start?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. They started at 6 o'clock Sunday morning.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Why was that time selected?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. At what time did the onsite tests conclude?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. They concluded about 1 o'clock, 12:45 to 1 o'clock.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Was there any subsequent testing done in Dallas on that day?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. Yes; there was.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_144" id="Page_144">144</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. And where was that testing undertaken?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. There was some testing done in a railway express agency
garage nearby the assassination site.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. At what time did that start?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. That started at 3 p.m., and lasted until 5:30 p.m.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Now, was that rifle found at the window or in another location
on the sixth floor?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. In another location on the sixth floor.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. And that is the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle which was heretofore
identified as Commission Exhibit No. 139?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. That is correct.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. And where were you positioned on most of the occasions at the
time of the onsite tests?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. What communications were available, if any, among the participants
at the various locations heretofore described?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. We had radio contact between all points.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. What was the starting position of the car at the most easterly
position on Elm Street, immediately after turning off Houston Street?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. The first position we established that morning was frame
161.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Was there not a position established prior in sequence to frame
161, specifically that designated as position A?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. That was actually established later. But the first one to
be actually located was 161. And we went back later and positioned point A.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Have you a photographic exhibit depicting that position?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. This chart has been marked as Commission Exhibit No. 886.</p>

<p>(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 886 for
identification.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. 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.</p>

<p>The Zapruder film does not start until the car gets farther down Elm Street.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. What is that exhibit number?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. Exhibit No. 886.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. And why was that location selected for the position of the car?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. This location was selected as the first point at which a person<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_145" id="Page_145">145</a></span>
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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. And what position is station C?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Where is position A on that chart?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. Position A is here.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCloy</span>. That is before you get to the tree?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. Yes; he isn't under the tree yet.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. And what occupant, if any, in the car is position A sighted on
for measuring purposes?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. That is correct.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. That is correct.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. I don't quite understand the question.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. No; because as the car moves back, you lose sight of the
chalk mark on the back of his coat.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. And what is the distance between that point on the President
and station C?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. That is 44 feet from station C&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. On the coat of the President?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. That is correct.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. The President's stand-in?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. Right. The angle to the rifle in the window was 40°10´.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. And what is the other data?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. The distance to the overpass was 447 feet, and the angle
to the overpass was minus O°27´; that is, 27´ below the horizontal.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. May I ask a question there? How did you establish the
location of the rifle in making those calculations?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. 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.</p>

<p>It was an estimation of where the rifle most likely was based on the knowledge
that the Commission has through testimony.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. 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.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_146" id="Page_146">146</a></span>
Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. I think we can just make a note of that, and go ahead with
this witness.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Fine. We will proceed then with this witness and Mr. Frazier
will testify in due course.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Could he see the mark on the back of the coat from the window?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. Yes; through the rifle scope, he could see the mark.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Does the picture designated "photograph through rifle scope"
depict the actual view of the rifleman through the actual Mannlicher-Carcano
weapon?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. That is correct. At point A.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Off the record.</p>

<p>(Discussion off the record.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Back on the record.</p>

<p>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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. The actual manner in which it was set up&mdash;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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. And that is point A?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. That is point A. Does that answer your question?</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. That is correct.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. And the chalk mark we see there is through that sight?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. That is correct. And that is exactly what an individual
looking through the sight would see.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. He could see only a portion of the back.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. And the portion, which he could not see, is that which is below
the seat level?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. You didn't say the President's stand-in, did you?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Yes; stand-in.</p>

<p>Mr. Shaneyfelt, for purposes of illustration would you produce the photograph<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_147" id="Page_147">147</a></span>
at this time showing the mounting of the motion picture camera on the weapon
found on the sixth floor?</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 887 for
identification.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. How did you determine the level and angle at which to hold the
rifle?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. You used the same boxes, did you, that the assassin had used?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. No; I did not.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Were those boxes used by Mr. Frazier.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Was Mr. Frazier present at the time you positioned the rifle
on the tripod?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. Yes; he was.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. That is correct.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. 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.</p>

<p>What is the next position which has been depicted on one of your exhibits,
please.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. The next position that we established during the reenactment
is frame 161 of the Zapruder motion picture film.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Permit me to mark that if you would as Commission Exhibit
No. 888.</p>

<p>(Commission Exhibit No. 888 was marked for identification.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. How was that position located, from the ground or from the
sixth floor?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. 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.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_148" id="Page_148">148</a></span>
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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. How did you then select the appropriate frame from the Zapruder
film?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Do you have on Exhibit No. 888 a reproduction of frame 161?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. 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"?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. There is no one sitting in that right-hand corner of the rear seat,
is there in that picture?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. Yes; the person taking President Kennedy's place is sitting
in the back seat.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Yes; I see it. It is rather hard to see through the trees.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. Yes; we moved it up to a point where the chalk mark was
just about to disappear on the street.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. I don't think I see the chalk mark maybe someone else can.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. It may be covered by the crosshair of the rifle scope.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. That is correct. He is mostly hidden by the tree.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Yes; I see.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. 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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_149" id="Page_149">149</a></span>
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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. What Commission Exhibit number has been affixed to that?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. This is Commission Exhibit No. 889.</p>

<p>(Commission Exhibit No. 889 was marked for identification.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Is that 10 inches difference due to the difference in the two cars?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. That is correct.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. That is the President's&mdash;the car the President was in and the
car you had to use for this particular test?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. That is correct.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. On Exhibit No. 889, is the car in the same position on the
"photograph through rifle scope" as it is on "photograph from reenactment"?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. That is correct, the same position.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. And what is the comparison between the photograph from
Zapruder film on that Exhibit No. 889 and the photograph from reenactment?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. The car is in the same position relative to the surrounding
area in both the reenactment photograph and the Zapruder photograph.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Before leaving frame 161, finally, would you recite the distances
which appear from the various points on that exhibit?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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´.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Are all angles calculated thereon based on the horizontal?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Was there any street angle taken into consideration in the calculations
here?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Will you <span class="locked">now&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Frame 161 is 3° on 161?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. Three degrees all along Elm Street.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. All along. That applies to all of these different pictures, is that
correct?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. That is correct.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Would you now read the same statistical data from frame 166 on
Exhibit No. 889, please?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>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´.</p>

<p>Distance to overpass is 391.5 feet. The angle to the overpass is 0°7´.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Did the back of President Kennedy ever come into view at any
time while he was passing through the foliage of the oak tree?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. What frame number was ascertained with respect to that
position?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. 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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_150" id="Page_150">150</a></span>
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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. What Commission Exhibit number has been assigned to frame
185?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. This is Commission Exhibit No. 890, frame 185.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Is the "photograph through rifle scope" taken with the position of
the car at the same place as "photograph from reenactment"?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. That is correct.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. And is the "photograph from reenactment" in the same position,
as close as you could make it to the "photograph from Zapruder's film"?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. That is correct.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Will you read the statistical data from frame 185?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. What Commission Exhibit number is affixed to frame 186?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. Commission Exhibit No. 891.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. On Exhibit No. 891 is the car in the same position in "photograph
through rifle scope" and "photograph from reenactment"?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. That is correct.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Are the cars on those two pictures in the same positions on all
of the frames which you are going to show this afternoon?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. That is correct.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. 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"?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. That is correct.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Will you read the statistical data from frame 186, please?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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´.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. That is correct.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. This is after passing the tree.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. After passing out from under the oak tree.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. What frame did that turn out to be?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. That was frame 207.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Do you have an exhibit depicting the same photographic sequence
on frame 207?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. Yes; I do.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. What Commission Exhibit number has been affixed to that frame?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. Commission Exhibit No. 892.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_151" id="Page_151">151</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Is the car in the same position on "photograph through rifle scope"
and "photograph from reenactment" on that exhibit?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Is the car in the same position, as closely as you could make it,
on the "photograph from reenactment" and "photograph from Zapruder film"?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. That is correct.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Will you now read the statistical data from that exhibit?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. Yes. Distance from the chalk mark on the back of the
stand-in for the President to the station C is 136.6 feet.</p>

<p>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'.</p>

<p>This is on frame 207, Commission Exhibit No. 892.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Was an adjustment made on that position for the heights of the
automobiles?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Is the layout of frame 210 exactly the same as that for frames
207 and 185 that you have already testified about?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. That is correct.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. In viewing the films on the frames preceding 210, what was
President Kennedy doing?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. 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
<span class="locked">hand&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Which way is he turning, to the left or to the right?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. What is the latest frame count where, to your eye, it appears
that he is showing no reaction to any possible shot?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. Approximately&mdash;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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. When you say "signboard" what do you mean by that, Mr.
Shaneyfelt?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. I refer to the sign that is between the photographer, Mr.
Zapruder, and the Presidential car.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Not any sign post between the rifleman and the President?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. No; this is a sign between the cameraman and the President.
So that we are unable to see his reaction, if any.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. What is the frame at which Governor Connally first emerges from
behind the sign you just described?</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_152" id="Page_152">152</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. That is frame 222.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Have you prepared a model demonstration on frame 222?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. Yes; I have.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. What Commission Exhibit number has just been affixed on that
frame?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. Frame 222 has been given Commission Exhibit No. 894.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Was the location of the automobile fixed from the window or
from the street on frame 222?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. On frame 222, the position of the automobile was fixed
from the street, based on the photograph from the Zapruder film.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. That is correct.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. What is the first frame at which President Kennedy is visible
coming out from behind that sign?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. This is frame 225.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. What Commission Exhibit has been affixed to frame 225?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. Frame 225 has been assigned Commission Exhibit No. 895.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. What, if anything, is detectable from a view of the Zapruder
film frame 225 as to the positions or reaction of President Kennedy?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. Frame 225 there appears to be a reaction on the part of
the President. This <span class="locked">is&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Describe specifically what movement he is making in that picture
or what his position is?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCloy</span>. That doesn't exist in frame 225 yet, does it?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. It is just beginning in frame 225. That is frame 225 is
the first view we have of the President.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCloy</span>. Out past the sign.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. As he comes out from behind the sign that obstructs the
cameraman from the President.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. But there is no obstruction from the sixth floor window?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>, 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Do the photographs on frame 225 depict the same circumstances
as those depicted on the prior exhibits?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. That is correct.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. And do the measurements on frame 225 cover the same subjects
as those covered on prior exhibits?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. That is correct.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. What is the angle from the rifle to the spot on the President's
back on frame 210, please?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. On frame 210, the angle from the rifle to the window, based
on the horizon is 21°34´.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. That is from the rifle to what, Mr. Shaneyfelt.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. From the rifle to the chalk mark on the back of the stand-in
for the President.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_153" id="Page_153">153</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. What is the same angle at frame 225?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. It is 20°11´.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Those angles are computed to the horizontal?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. That is correct.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. What is the range of distance from the position of the car in
frame 210 to the position of the car in frame 225?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. That is 14.9 feet between frame 210 and frame 225.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. What is the position of President Kennedy at frame 210 with
respect to position C.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. President Kennedy is 138.9 feet from station C at frame
210.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Station C.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. Yes; station C to President Kennedy on frame 210 is
138.9 feet.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. What is the distance between station C and President Kennedy
at frame 225?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. That is 153.8 feet.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Was the car further positioned at frame 231?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. Yes; it was.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. What Commission exhibit number are we affixing to that?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. That is Commission Exhibit No. 896.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Are the photographs and measurements on 896 the same layout
as those affixed to prior exhibits?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. That is correct.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Was the automobile stopped at frame 235 and similar photographs
and measurements taken?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. That is correct.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. What Commission exhibit number is affixed to frame 235.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. Exhibit No. 897.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Was the automobile again stopped at frame 240 with measurements
and photographs taken similar to those in prior exhibits?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. Yes; it was. That is correct.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. What Commission exhibit number is affixed to that frame?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. Exhibit No. 898.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Was the automobile again stopped at frame 249 with similar
photographs and measurements taken?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. That is correct.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. And what Commission exhibit number is given to those calculations
and photographs on frame 249?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. Commission Exhibit 899.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. That is 249?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. It is 42 frames.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. And does a 42-frame count have any significance with respect to
the firing time on the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Would you repeat that again, please?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. 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&mdash;41 to 42
frames.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Then the firing of the rifle, repeat that again?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. As to the firing of the rifle&mdash;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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_154" id="Page_154">154</a></span>
to 42 frames to establish two points in the film where two successive quick shots
could have been fired.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. That is with one shot and then the firing.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. Work the bolt and fire another one.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. I don't quite get that. You mean because of his having turned
this way, the shot that was then&mdash;had then been fired and apparently had hit
the President could not have gone through him at that point?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. That is correct, if it followed a straight path.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. And exiting immediately under his right nipple, again as described
in the hospital records at Parkland and by Dr. Shaw.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. That is correct.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Have those points of entry and exit been made available to you
in your analysis of this situation?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. Yes; they have.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. We are speaking of frame 249, are we?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Yes, sir, frame 249.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCloy</span>. I don't quite follow that yet. The President has been shot at
frame 249, according to your theory.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCloy</span>. Might he not also have been shot at some earlier frames in&mdash;the
indications are the reactions are shown considerably ahead of that frame.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. That is correct.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCloy</span>. So, for example, at frame 237 and at frame 237 Governor Connolly
hasn't turned to the right.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. But a shot has been fired at this time.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_155" id="Page_155">155</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">McCloy</span>. But a shot has been fired at that time.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCloy</span>. So at that point he could have been hit; Governor Connally
could have been hit.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. Yes; Governor Connally could have been hit by frame 238.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCloy</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. That is correct.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCloy</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. He made the turn later than those frames you have been discussing
at the time apparently of the first shot at the President.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCloy</span>. Yes; the first shot, but according to these frames, the first shot
hit the President considerably before this.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCloy</span>. And at a time again when Governor Connally's back was square
to the window.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. Well, not exactly square. I believe he was turned slightly
to the right as he went behind the sign.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCloy</span>. Take frame 231.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCloy</span>. There the President has got his hands up as you put it to his
throat.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCloy</span>. And here is Connally facing to the front.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCloy</span>. So at that point a bullet coming through the President's throat
could have hit Connally in the spot where it did hit Connally.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCloy</span>. But your testimony is in frame 248&mdash;frame 249 Connally couldn't
have been hit from this window in the position where he was sitting.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. That is correct, on the basis stated.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCloy</span>. That is right.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Because the wounds would have been inflicted.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCloy</span>. That is what puzzles me.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. That is what puzzles me.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. Would you identify the frame in which Governor Connally
started turning to the right?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. I might say that as&mdash;in the motion picture&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Jerky motion in Connally in the film.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. There is&mdash;it may be merely where he stopped turning and
started turning this way. It is hard to analyze.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. What I wanted to get at&mdash;whether it was Connally who made
the jerky motion or there was something in the film that was jerky. You can't
tell.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. You can't tell that.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCloy</span>. Certainly the film is jerky at that point. I mean there is a
big blur.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. He does turn.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCloy</span>. Just before and after that.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. But isn't it apparent in those pictures that after a<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_156" id="Page_156">156</a></span>
slight hesitation Governor Connally's body turns more violently than the President's
body?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. The President's only reaction is a motion to his throat
or to his neck with his hands.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. That is correct.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Whereas Governor Connally actually turns his body
rather sharply?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. 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.</p>

<p>But in the motion picture it is a continuous movement as he goes around
and falls.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. I am sorry. That starts approximately at frames 233 to 234.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. In what frame does the photograph show or in what frame
is it shown that President Kennedy had moved his hands to his throat?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. That shows on frame&mdash;it is clearer on frame 226, 225 is the
frame where you first see him, and frame 226.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. How many frames between those two?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. From 26 to 33, eight. That would be a fraction of a second
in time.</p>

<p>That is less than half second.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. 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.</p>

<p>So, in that 15 frames there it is behind the signboard, we can't see what is
happening.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. What frame first shows him with his hands at his throat?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. 225, 226.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCloy</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. And Mrs. Kennedy has apparently turned around and looking
at him.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCloy</span>. One hand may be coming down from waving in 225.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. That is his left hand there&mdash;no; it is his right hand, your right.
His right hand.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Then based on the mathematics of how quickly a second
shot could be fired, the second shot would be fired in approximately what frame?</p>

<p>If you assume it, the first shot is from 210 to 224.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. It would be 252 to 266, down in there.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. That would be the elapsed time of what?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. Two and a quarter seconds.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Two and a quarter seconds.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. That is the very quickest.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. When you say reaction time you mean?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. Of the President?</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_157" id="Page_157">157</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Reaction time from <span class="locked">205&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. To 210?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. That is correct.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Form</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. That is correct.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. What frames are blanked out because of the sign?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. The President, the last we get any scene of him at all, and
this is just the very top of his head is 210.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. 210 to what is blanked out?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. 225.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. To 225 is blanked out?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. Yes, that is 15 frames.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCloy</span>. 224 he just begins to appear.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCloy</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. But that is about a tenth of a second.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCloy</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. That is correct.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. 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&mdash;in
either the slides or pictures&mdash;is clearly apparent in 226, and barely apparent
in 225.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. That was the basis for the selection of frame 249, yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. That is correct.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_158" id="Page_158">158</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. That is correct.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. Yes; there was.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. That is correct.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. What Commission exhibit number is attached to the photographs
of that AP shot and the reenactment picture?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. That is Commission Exhibit No. 900.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Would you describe what photographs appear then on Commission
Exhibit No. 900?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Secret Service agents on the followup car are seen also. The Texas School
Book Building in the background.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Was an exhibit prepared then on frame 255?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. That is correct.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. What Commission exhibit number is affixed to frame 255?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. Exhibit No. 901.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Does that have the same layout of photographs and measurements
as on frames 225, 222 and those which preceded them.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. The Secret Service agents on the right-hand side of the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_159" id="Page_159">159</a></span>
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.</p>

<p>The one in back of him on the left fender is looking slightly to his right.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. What is the distance on frame 255 between the President
and the rifle?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCloy</span>. Well past the first evidence of reaction?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCloy</span>. On the part of the President to a shot.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. Well past, and past the point in the film where Governor
Connally states he has been hit.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Was that simulated car placed in any other position to duplicate
still a subsequent frame?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. What Commission number has been affixed to frame 313?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. Commission Exhibit No. 902.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Is this exhibit organized in a somewhat different fashion from
the prior frame exhibits?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. That is correct.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. You are describing the photograph on which <span class="locked">side&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. On the&mdash;</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Of the viewer.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. On the upper left-hand side.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCloy</span>. I think you said right.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. The upper left-hand photograph is the photograph from the&mdash;taken
from the frame 24 of the Nix film.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_160" id="Page_160">160</a></span>
picture down from the right, is the photograph made at the reenactment from
Zapruder's position.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. That is correct, and this, therefore, checks out this as being
a fairly accurate position for the car in frame 313.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCloy</span>. Would you read off those dimensions from that?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Distance to the overpass is 260.6 feet, the angle to the overpass is 1°28´.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. What would the angle be considering the adjustment on the
angle of the street?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. It would be less 3° or 12°21´, approximately.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. When you say approximately is that because the adjustment
is somewhat greater than 3°?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. How much is it exactly, if you know?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. It is 3.9. It is almost 4.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Three degrees nine minutes?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. Three degrees nine minutes, I am sorry.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Would you have to make a similar adjustment to the overpass?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. Yes; because the angle to the overpass is based on the
horizontal. The overpass, you would have to add the 3°9´.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. From the overpass, is this an angle up or angle down?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. This is an angle down.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. So it is an angle down in both cases?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. That is correct.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. That is correct. It is at that point.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. How was the speed of the camera ascertained, Mr. Shaneyfelt?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>The Zapruder camera was found to run at an average speed of 18.3 frames
per second.</p>

<p>The Nix and Muchmore cameras were both found around 18.5 frames per
second.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Were you able to ascertain the speed of the Presidential limousine
at the time of the assassination?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. Yes; because we were able to determine the speed of the
camera, and thereby accurately determine the length of time it takes for a<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_161" id="Page_161">161</a></span>
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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>This distance is 136.1 feet, and this can be calculated then to 11.2 miles per
hour.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Is that a constant average speed or does that speed reflect any
variations in the movement of the car?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Over the entire run between what points?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. Between frame 161 and 313.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Yes; but where, could you place that on that chart, for
example?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. And describe the points?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. In referring to those points, will you specify what exhibit number
you are referring to there?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. That <span class="locked">is&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. I wonder if we could mark those points on that exhibit?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Of course, Mr. Dulles.</p>

<p>That is Commission Exhibit No. 883, is it not, Mr. Shaneyfelt?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCloy</span>. Where is that point? What significance is that point? The first
point?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. This frame <span class="locked">161&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCloy</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Is the first frame we have on the Zapruder film.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. It is only to get the speed and distance here.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCloy</span>. It has no relation to any shots.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. No relation to shots. Speed and distance.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. That is correct. What letter designations did you want?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Mark 161, frame 161, with the letter designation X, if you will,
please.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. And 313?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. With the letter designation Y.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCloy</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. That is correct.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCloy</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Between those two points the car went at an average speed of
11.2 miles an hour?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. How long did the car take to go that distance, do you know,
translated into time?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. 8.3 seconds.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. 8.3 seconds.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_162" id="Page_162">162</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. What motion pictures, if any, were taken during the reenactment?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>(Off the record.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. The last question was about what movies and stills you took?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. We haven't discussed them all yet.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Were any other movies taken or photographs taken in addition
to those which you heretofore described?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>This completed all the photographs that were made at the assassination site.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Was a subsequent photograph taken in the garage which you
previously identified as the railway express garage?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. That is correct.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. The angle, based on the horizontal at frame 210, to the
rifle in the window was 21°34´.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. What was the comparable angle at frame 225?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. 20°11´.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. So what would be the average angle then between those two
points?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. 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´´.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. That is correct. To the wound entrance.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. Yes; I took this photograph.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_163" id="Page_163">163</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. When was that photograph taken?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. It was taken Sunday afternoon, May 24, 1964.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Is there a white string which is apparent in the background of
that photograph?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. That is correct.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. What is the angle of declination of that string?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. That string was placed along the wall by the surveyor at
an angle of 17°43´30´´.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Did the surveyor make that placement in your presence?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. He did.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. And through what positions did that rod pass?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. That is correct.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. May I ask a couple of questions?</p>

<p>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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. The location of the wound, you mean the angle of the
wound?</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. The <span class="locked">angle&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. That is correct. The positions in the car, their positions
in the car, were based on the Zapruder film.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. Then the factor then, which is not determinate, exactly, then
is the location of the rifle, is that correct?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. That is correct.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. Upon what did you determine the location of the rifle&mdash;upon
what factors?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. Did you have information about the location of certain boxes
that were seen&mdash;were found&mdash;at the window after the shooting occurred?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. 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.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_164" id="Page_164">164</a></span>
Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. I want to ask you&mdash;you did have information from the testimony
of witnesses who said they saw the rifle protruding from the window?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. We had this information furnished to us by the Commission.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. And those facts, those locations were made known to you,
and upon that evidence did you locate the rifle, in making these calculations?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. That was the basis for the location of the rifle in all of our
calculations.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. 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&mdash;how much variation would it have made, in
your judgement, in these calculations you made?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. 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.</p>

<p>And the variations from the position of the rifle at that particular window,
I feel would be negligible.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. That is correct.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. That is all I want to ask.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. Even under the tree you still could see the car and the
President through the tree.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. That is correct.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. Yes; they do. They are on all the exhibits.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. 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°.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. From the exhibit that has been introduced, showing the position
of the car and the President at the time of the first shot&mdash;what was
the distance from that point to the overpass?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. The approximate location of the first <span class="locked">shot&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. Frame what?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. 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.</p>

<p>At frame 225 the line of sight distance from the handrail of the overpass to
the wound on the President is 334 feet.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. What is the distance at those points to the window in the
Texas School Book Depository?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. Did you yourself stand at the handrail of the overpass?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. Did I?</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_165" id="Page_165">165</a></span>
Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. No; I did not.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. What do you mean, Mr. Shaneyfelt, by line of sight?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. Straight line distance.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Is that what is calculated by the surveyor?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. That is correct; by Mr. West.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Were there members of the testing teams that did go to the handrail
at the triple underpass to make observations?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. Yes; there were.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Who were they?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. I am not real sure.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Mr. Chairman, those conclude my questions for Mr. Shaneyfelt.
If it please the Commission, I would like to call Mr. Frazier at this time.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCloy</span>. Thank you very much, Mr. Shaneyfelt.</p>

<h2 id="raf2">TESTIMONY OF ROBERT A. FRAZIER RESUMED</h2>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Would you state your full name for the record, please?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. Robert A. Frazier.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Mr. Frazier, you have appeared before to testify, but will you
at this juncture again give us the outline of your occupation and experience?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. Yes; I am a special agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation
assigned to the FBI Laboratory, Washington, D.C.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>(At this point Senator Cooper left the hearing room.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. Yes; I have.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Did you participate in the onsite tests at Dallas on May 24, 1964?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. What was your position during most of the time of those onsite
tests?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. I was stationed at the window on the sixth floor of the Texas
School Book Depository Building at the southeast corner of the building.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. How far was that window open at the time the tests were being
conducted?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. I estimated it as approximately one-third. It was somewhat
less than halfway open.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Is that the distance depicted on Commission Exhibit No. 492,
which has heretofore been introduced in evidence?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Is the distance open on that window about the same as that
which you had it open at the time these tests were run?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Did you handle the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle during the course
of the onsite tests?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. The rifle previously identified as Commission Exhibit No. 139?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. Yes, sir; I did.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. At what position&mdash;what was the basis for your positioning of
that rifle during those tests?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. 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.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_166" id="Page_166">166</a></span>
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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. Yes, sir; we attempted to put the muzzle of the weapon sufficiently
far out the window so it would have been visible from below.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. 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"?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Would you explain to us simply how you made those adjustments?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. I mean how did you get him down 10 inches as a practical matter.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Thank you.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. Continuing with Commission Exhibit No. 890, represented by
<span class="locked">frame&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCloy</span>. Hold that around so I can see it.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. 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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_167" id="Page_167">167</a></span>
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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. There are no heavy limbs in there of any kind, are <span class="locked">there&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. No, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. That would obstruct a bullet?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. No, sir. The tree&mdash;it is a live oak tree which retains its leaves
all year around and the limbs at that point are relatively small.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. All right.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. Yes; I did.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. What was that comparison?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. They are so nearly identical that you could not really pick out
any difference between the foliage and the photograph taken previously in
November.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Were you standing, seated, or kneeling at the time when these
photographs were taken and the sighting of the rifle was made by you.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. I was actually sitting on a carton with my left elbow resting on
the boxes stacked in front of the window.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. And the eyewitness accounts as to how far the rifle protruded?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. Yes, sir; it was.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. What was the alinement of President Kennedy's stand-in with
Governor Connally's stand-in at frames 207 and 210?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. Alinement of people?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. 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?</p>

<p>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?</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_168" id="Page_168">168</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Have you in addition had an opportunity to examine personally
the clothing worn by the Governor consisting of his jacket and shirt?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. Yes; I have.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. Yes; I would say that this could have happened at these two
frames.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. You would state that as a possibility based upon the observations
you made and the facts provided to you?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. All right.</p>

<p>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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>This is similarly true of Commission Exhibit No. 895&mdash;895 being frame No. 225.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. 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.</p>

<p>In the "photographs through the scope" the individuals representing the President
and the Governor are as they were positioned on May 24.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. 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?</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_169" id="Page_169">169</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. I can give you my opinion based on this reconstruction, as
I understand your question.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>In my opinion the bullet had to strike in the car, either the car itself or an
occupant of the car.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. Yes; it is, and in fact, I think it is rather&mdash;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.</p>

<p>It shows that there would be no chance for the bullet to miss the car at all if
it had no deviation in its&mdash;if it had no deflection in its path.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Did you have an opportunity to examine the car shortly after
the assassination?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. Yes; I did, on the early morning of November 23, 1963.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. No, sir; we found none.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Did you also examine the windshield of the car, interior and
exterior?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. And the chrome of the car on the interior and the exterior?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Did you also examine the front portion of the Presidential
limousine?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Did any of that area examined disclose any impact of such a
missile?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. 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.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_170" id="Page_170">170</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. How about the same question in frames 231, 235, 240 and thereafter?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Why not, Mr. Frazier?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. 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 <span class="locked">back&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Indicating the right shoulder?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. How would the bullet have passed through his body based on
his position as shown in frame 235?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. How about the Governor's position in frame 240?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. How about the Governor's position at frame 249?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. How about frame 255?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. 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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_171" id="Page_171">171</a></span>
impact would be sufficient to account for the movement of the car during the
flight of the bullet.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>So the lead would be constant between 5.9 inches above the point of impact to
6.3 inches above the point of impact.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Have you asked the witness&mdash;I was studying these frame pictures&mdash;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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Yes; I believe I did.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. I wasn't quite clear.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. I testified that it would have been in position from anywhere
from frames 207 to 225.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Between frames 207 and 225?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. Yes, sir; approximately frame 207 to approximately frame 225.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Thank you.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. Yes; it is.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. 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.</p>

<p>(Commission Exhibits Nos. 855 through 903 were marked for identification,
and received in evidence.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCloy</span>. They may be admitted.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. That completes the questioning.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCloy</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. That is exactly right.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCloy</span>. Somewhere when he is turning to the right.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. He was placed approximately 20° to the right.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCloy</span>. To the right.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. That is 20° according to my examination of his clothing but
I don't know the exact figures of the angle through his body.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. I have one additional question.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_172" id="Page_172">172</a></span>
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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. What evidence is it that you would be missing to assess the
probabilities?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCloy</span>. Let me put it to you in another way&mdash;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 <span class="locked">to&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. I will say this&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Frame 313? Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. The President?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCloy</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Where would the first shot have gone under that thesis?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCloy</span>. I just say I don't know where it could have gone.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. 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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_173" id="Page_173">173</a></span>
reason except they hit and all the pressure is on one side and it turns the bullet
and it goes off at an angle.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. You mean from the time it exited through the Governor's body?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. 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&mdash;for instance&mdash;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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Does that opinion rule out the possibility or cast doubt
on the possibility of a third shot?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Do you mean rule out a third shot entirely or just rule out a
third shot hitting in the car?</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Rule out a third shot in one instance or establish the
possibility of a third shot that missed everything.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. The bullet went through the President and through
the Governor.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Under these assumptions there is a possibility there
was not a third shot or there was a third shot that missed everything.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. That missed everything; yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. It is possible, I don't have any evidence to support it one way
or the other.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. 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&mdash;which deflected from a limb or for some
other reason and was never discovered.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Mr. Chairman, may I return to questions that I was
asking Mr. Frazier?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCloy</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Again making those same assumptions we made a moment<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_174" id="Page_174">174</a></span>
ago, is there any evidence that a third shot hit the car or any occupant
of the car?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Therefore, it had to go through Governor Connally.</p>

<p>And the second shot had to strike the President in the head.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCloy</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. Under that circumstance the bullet exiting from the President
would have had to strike something else in the car to break it up.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCloy</span>. Break it up inasmuch as it was broken up?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. That completes my questions of Mr. Frazier.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Could I ask just one more question?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Yes, sir; Mr. Dulles.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. 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?</p>

<p>(Discussion off the record.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCloy</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. I think if you will read the testimony you will find it at least
2 to 1 except for the people in the car.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCloy</span>. 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.</p>

<p>And yet there seems to be no doubt at all that three shots were fired.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. That seems to be the evidence.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCloy</span>. At least three shots were fired, and probably three shots were
fired because of the three shells that were found.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Three shells?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCloy</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. We probably won't settle that today.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frazier</span>. 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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_175" id="Page_175">175</a></span>
second, assuming that the second one actually occurred and that it occurred at
about the middle of that interval.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCloy</span>. In the middle of that frame, yes. I think that is pretty
persuasive.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. I didn't quite follow that.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCloy</span>. There seemed to be more frames between, going backwards,
between the third shot, that is between the time <span class="locked">that&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. The first shot went astray, you don't know whether it was fired.
You have no way of getting at that.</p>

<p>(Discussion off the record.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCloy</span>. Thank you very much, Mr. Frazier.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. I want to call Inspector Kelley for observations from the
underpass.</p>

<p>May the record show that Inspector Thomas Kelley has returned to the witness
chair.</p>

<h2 id="tjk2">TESTIMONY OF THOMAS J. KELLEY RESUMED</h2>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Kelley</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Kelley</span>. Yes; I accompanied Mr. Redlich and Mr. Specter from the Commission
on the point on the overpass.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. From the Commission or from where to the overpass&mdash;pardon
me. I understand your sequence there.</p>

<p>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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Kelley</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. And was the stand-in obstructed by the windshield at anytime as
the car drove down Elm Street?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Kelley</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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, <span class="locked">and&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. By the wound in the shoulder do you mean the wound in the
back of the President's neck, the base of his neck?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Kelley</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Kelley</span>. In my judgment, no.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Kelley</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. There would have been no place where such a person
could have hidden himself and not been detected?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Kelley</span>. Not on the overpass.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. What were the railway workmen doing on the overpass, were
they helping to guard the overpass or just spectators?</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_176" id="Page_176">176</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Kelley</span>. No; they were working. There are a great many tracks indicated
here.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Yes; I was up there and I remember it very well.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Kelley</span>. They were doing some repairs on the tracks.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. I see.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCloy</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Do you recall, Mr. Specter, what the testimony is on that&mdash;the
number of policemen on the overpass?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. I believe there were two officers on the overpass, who said that
no shots came from that direction.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCloy</span>. No shots came from that direction. Is that all you wanted?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. That completes the testimony of Mr. Kelley and all of the individuals
this afternoon.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCloy</span>. Thank you very much, Mr. Kelley.</p>

<p>(Whereupon, at 6:40 p.m., the President's Commission recessed to view the
films.)</p>

<h2 id="lls2">TESTIMONY OF LYNDAL L. SHANEYFELT RESUMED</h2>

<p>(Present were Mr. McCloy, Mr. Dulles, and Representative Ford)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. Shaneyfelt, what are you going to show us first of all?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. 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.</p>

<p>(Film)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Is that going 11 miles per hour?</p>

<p>(Discussion off the record.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>That will be after the car driving scene.</p>

<p>(Film)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>This is 225 now. 231. At this point Governor Connally states he has been hit
by now. This is 235. 240&mdash;249&mdash;255&mdash;and the shot to the head which is 313.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. What is this? Describe this, Mr. Shaneyfelt.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. 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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_177" id="Page_177">177</a></span>
of the difficulty of tracking a car with a heavy camera mounted on the rifle.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCloy</span>. You have to sight that with a camera?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. Sighting through a camera.</p>

<p>(Film)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Redlich</span>. Just as a final thing, Mr. McCloy, would you like to see the
Zapruder film?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCloy</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCloy</span>. I think we have seen all we need to see with regard to that.
What have you got left?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. The original Zapruder film.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCloy</span>. We will see that.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. I think you would find that worth while to see.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. Then we have Nix and Muchmore of the same run.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCloy</span>. Let's do those, too.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. First is the original Zapruder.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. Original Zapruder. This is not the original. This is the
first copy.</p>

<p>(Film)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Will you state for the record what film we just saw?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. This film we just viewed is a copy made directly from the
original Zapruder film of the actual assassination.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Could you now show us the film which was taken at the reconstruction
from the Zapruder position?</p>

<p>(Film)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCloy</span>. This is 16 mm.?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. No; 8 mm.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Is this from his camera?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. Yes; taken with his camera. Frame 222, frame 225. This
is frame 231.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. He has a delayed reaction compared to what the President
did.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. What frame is this, Mr. Shaneyfelt?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. 313, the head shot.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCloy</span>. The head shot.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. This is the position which is not duplicated on the Zapruder
film. This is running the film out to reload it.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCloy</span>. Did Nix, Muchmore get a second shot of the head shot?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. Mrs. Muchmore got the head shot and Mr. Nix got the head
shot.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCloy</span>. They both got it.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. We have both those films.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCloy</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>(Film.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. This film is the film that was taken by Mr. Orville Nix of
the assassination. This is along Houston street going toward Elm. There<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_178" id="Page_178">178</a></span>
was the head shot. We will roll it back and run it at slow motion. The head
shot shows just a very faint pink.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCloy</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>(Film)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Have you now shown us, Mr. Shaneyfelt, all of the movies that
we saw, we took in Dallas?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCloy</span>. Mrs. Muchmore.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Mrs. Muchmore.</p>

<p>(Film)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. This is the motorcade coming down Main and turning into
Houston street.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCloy</span>. She didn't know she took that.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Shaneyfelt</span>. No.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. Have we now seen all the films from Dallas? That concludes
the films.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCloy</span>. That is all the movies that were taken on May 24 in Dallas by the
test team, so to speak.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Specter</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCloy</span>. They may be admitted.</p>

<p>(Commission Exhibits Nos. 904, 905, 906, and 907 were marked for identification,
and received in evidence.)</p>

<p>(Whereupon, at 7:20 p.m., the President's Commission recessed.)</p>

<hr />
<h2 id="jfk"><span class="smaller"><a name="Friday_June_5_1964" id="Friday_June_5_1964"><i>Friday, June 5, 1964</i></a></span><br />
<span class="subhead">TESTIMONY OF MRS. JOHN F. KENNEDY</span></h2>

<p>The President's Commission met, at 4:20 p.m., on Friday, June 5, 1964, at
3017 N Street NW., Washington, D.C.</p>

<p>Present was Chief Justice Earl Warren, Chairman.</p>

<p>Also present were J. Lee Rankin, general counsel; and Robert F. Kennedy,
Attorney General of the United States.</p>

<p class="p2">The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. The Commission will be in order.</p>

<p>Mrs. Kennedy, the Commission would just like to have you say in your own<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_179" id="Page_179">179</a></span>
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.</p>

<p>Would you be sworn, please, Mrs. Kennedy?</p>

<p>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?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Kennedy</span>. I do.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Would you be seated.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. State your name for the record.</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Kennedy</span>. Jacqueline Kennedy.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. And you are the widow of the former President Kennedy?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Kennedy</span>. That is right.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. You live here in Washington?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Kennedy</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Kennedy</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Kennedy</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. And was Mrs. <span class="locked">Connally&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Kennedy</span>. In front of me.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. And Governor Connally to your right in the jump seat?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Kennedy</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. And Mrs. Connally was in the jump seat?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Kennedy</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. And then did you start off on the parade route?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Kennedy</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. And were there many people along the route that you waved to?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Kennedy</span>. Yes. It was rather scattered going in.</p>

<p>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."</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Did you?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Kennedy</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. As you got into the main street of Dallas were there very large
crowds on all the streets?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Kennedy</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. And you waved to them and proceeded down the street with
the motorcade?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Kennedy</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Now, do you remember as you turned off of the main street onto
Houston Street?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Kennedy</span>. I don't know the name of the street.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. That is that one block before you get to the Depository Building.</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Kennedy</span>. 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.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_180" id="Page_180">180</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. And then do you remember as you turned off of Houston onto
Elm right by the Depository Building?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Kennedy</span>. Well, I don't know the names of the streets, but I suppose
right by the Depository is what you are talking about?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Yes; that is the street that sort of curves as you go down
under the underpass.</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Kennedy</span>. 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."</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. What did he say?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Kennedy</span>. I think he said&mdash;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.</p>

<p>And then&mdash;do you want me to tell you what happened?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Yes; if you would, please.</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Kennedy</span>. 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."</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Did he turn toward you?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Kennedy</span>. 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.</p>

<p>And then he sort of did this [indicating], put his hand to his forehead and
fell in my lap.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>You know, then, there were pictures later on of me climbing out the back.
But I don't remember that at all.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Do you remember Mr. Hill coming to try to help on the car?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Kennedy</span>. I don't remember anything. I was just down like that.</p>

<p>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.]</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Do you have any recollection of whether there were one or
more shots?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Kennedy</span>. 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.</p>

<p>And I read there was a third shot. But I don't know.</p>

<p>Just those two.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Do you have any recollection generally of the speed that
you were going, not any precise amount.</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Kennedy</span>. We were really slowing turning the corner. And there were
very few people.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_181" id="Page_181">181</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. And did you stop at any time after the shots, or proceed about
the same way?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Kennedy</span>. I don't know, because&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. And then from there you proceeded as rapidly as possible to
the hospital, is that right?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Kennedy</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Do you recall anyone saying anything else during the time of
the shooting?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Kennedy</span>. 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.</p>

<p>And there was a big windshield between&mdash;you know&mdash;I think. Isn't there?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Between the seats.</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Kennedy</span>. So you know, those poor men in the front, you couldn't hear
them.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Can you think of anything more?</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. No; I think not. I think that is the story and that is what
we came for.</p>

<p>We thank you very much, Mrs. Kennedy.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Kennedy</span>. You mean before the shots?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Kennedy</span>. Well, I don't, because&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Yes. You have told us what you remember about the entire
period as far as you can recall, have you?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Kennedy</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Thank you very much, Mrs. Kennedy.
(Whereupon, at 4:30 p.m., the President's Commission recessed.)</p>

<hr />
<h2 id="jr2"><span class="smaller"><a name="Sunday_June_7_1964" id="Sunday_June_7_1964"><i>Sunday, June 7, 1964</i></a></span><br />
<span class="subhead">TESTIMONY OF MR. JACK RUBY</span></h2>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Present were Chief Justice Earl Warren, Chairman; and Representative
Gerald R. Ford, member.</p>

<p>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.&nbsp;E. Decker, sheriff of Dallas County.</p>

<p class="p2">Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. Without a lie detector test on my testimony, my verbal statements
to you, how do you know if I am tell the truth?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Tonahill</span>. Don't worry about that, Jack.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. Just a minute, gentlemen.</p>

<p>Chief Justice <span class="smcap">Warren</span>. You wanted to ask something, did you, Mr. Ruby?</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_182" id="Page_182">182</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Now Mr. Warren, I don't know if you got any confidence in the lie detector
test and the truth serum, and so on.</p>

<p>Chief Justice <span class="smcap">Warren</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. I do want it. Will you agree to that, Joe?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Tonahill</span>. I sure do, Jack.</p>

<p>Chief Justice <span class="smcap">Warren</span>. Any kind of a test you want to verify what you say,
we will be glad to do.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Tonahill</span>. Jack, you have wanted to do that from the very beginning,
haven't you?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. Yes; and the reason why I am asking for that is&mdash;are you limited
for time?</p>

<p>Chief Justice <span class="smcap">Warren</span>. No; we have all the time you want.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. As it started to trial&mdash;I don't know if you realize my reasoning,
how I happened to be involved&mdash;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.</p>

<p>In other words, I was carried away tremendously.</p>

<p>You want to ask me questions?</p>

<p>Chief Justice <span class="smcap">Warren</span>. You tell us what you want, and then we will ask you
some questions.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. I think he ought to be sworn.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. Am I boring you?</p>

<p>Chief Justice <span class="smcap">Warren</span>. Go ahead. All right, Mr. Ruby, tell us your story.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. That particular morning&mdash;where is Mr. Moore&mdash;I had to go down
to the News Building, getting back to this&mdash;I don't want to interrupt.</p>

<p>Chief Justice <span class="smcap">Warren</span>. What morning do you mean?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. Friday morning, the starting of the tragedy.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>It can happen&mdash;it happens to many people who happen to be at the wrong
place at the right time.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Chief Justice <span class="smcap">Warren</span>. I understand.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. 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."</p>

<p>But I didn't care, because I wanted to tell the truth.</p>

<p>He said, "When the prosecution gets you on the stand, they will cut you to
ribbons."</p>

<p>So naturally, I had to retract, and he fought his way to try to vindicate me
out of this particular crime.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_183" id="Page_183">183</a></span>
You follow that?</p>

<p>Chief Justice <span class="smcap">Warren</span>. Yes; I do indeed.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Chief Justice <span class="smcap">Warren</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. On Friday, the morning parade&mdash;this goes back to Thursday night,
because it has something to do with it.</p>

<p>We were having dinner at the Egyptian <span class="locked">Restaurant&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Chief Justice <span class="smcap">Warren</span>. Right now, Mr. Ruby, before we get started taking your
testimony, would you mind being sworn?</p>

<p>(Chief Justice Warren and Jack Ruby stand and both raise their right hand.)</p>

<p>Chief Justice <span class="smcap">Warren</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. I do.</p>

<p>Chief Justice <span class="smcap">Warren</span>. Now will you please state whether the things you have
just told us are true under your oath?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. I do so state they are the truth.</p>

<p>Chief Justice <span class="smcap">Warren</span>. Now you complete whatever story you want to tell.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>And there is a columnist by the name of Tony Zoppi&mdash;and prior to that, I
wrote out a full page copy of this build&mdash;I have the copies&mdash;as an emcee, and
I brought a picture and brochure, and Tony said, "I will write a story."</p>

<p>This was done 2 days prior to this Thursday night.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>And I remained there for a while. I started to write the copy of my ad.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>I started to explain to him why I didn't want to go there, because this fellow
mentioned&mdash;Tony, I think&mdash;I can't think of his last name&mdash;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.</p>

<p>And he started to apologize, "Jack, I am sorry, I did work for the fellow and<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_184" id="Page_184">184</a></span>
we have been advertising him for that club, and I am putting out a night club
book."</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>My ads were completed, I believe, and after finishing my conversation with
him, he left.</p>

<p>Suddenly the man that completes my ads for me, that helps me with it on
occasion&mdash;but I usually make it up myself&mdash;but the person that takes the
money for the ads&mdash;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.</p>

<p>When you are in debt, it is necessary, and they will not put it in unless you
pay cash.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>But all that adds up why it is important for me to be in the News Building.</p>

<p>I owe the Government quite a bit of money, and it is doing business out of
your pocket, supposedly, in the slang expression.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>And I am sorry, I got carried away. It is the first time I got carried away,
because I had been under pressure.</p>

<p>And someone else came running over and he said a Secret Service man was
shot, or something to that effect.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>You say, "Oh my God, it can't happen." You carry on crazy sayings.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>(A tray of water and glasses was brought in.)</p>

<p>Thank you.</p>

<p>Has every witness been this hesitant in trying to explain their story?</p>

<p>Chief Justice <span class="smcap">Warren</span>. You are doing very well. I can understand why you
have to reflect upon a story of that length.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Chief Justice <span class="smcap">Warren</span>. Yes; I am.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Then he said, "Well, you have seen him pay part cash and come back and
pay the balance."</p>

<p>Now everything is very vague to me as to when this transpired; after they
heard the President had been shot, or prior to that.</p>

<p>You know it's been a long time, and I am under a very bad mental strain
here.</p>

<p>Chief Justice <span class="smcap">Warren</span>. Yes.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_185" id="Page_185">185</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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."</p>

<p>And I don't know what else transpired there. I know people were just
heartbroken.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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&mdash;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.</p>

<p>You think that literally?</p>

<p>I went up to the club, and I told Andy, I said, "Call everyone and tell them
we are not opening."</p>

<p>We have a little girl in Fort Worth I wanted to make sure he called her.</p>

<p>And a fellow by the name of Bell called and wanted to know if we were
open.</p>

<p>And Kathy Kay called, and I said, "Definitely not."</p>

<p>And I called Ralph Paul, that owns the Bull Pen. He said, "Jack, being as
everyone else is open"&mdash;because he knows I was pressed for money&mdash;and I said,
"No, Ralph, I can't open."</p>

<p>He said, "Okay, if that is why, that is the way it's got to be."</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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&mdash;you
follow the story as I tell it?</p>

<p>Chief Justice <span class="smcap">Warren</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>He left and went to California, but before he went to California I promised him
my dachshund dog.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_186" id="Page_186">186</a></span>
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."</p>

<p>Then I must have called my sister, Eileen, in Chicago.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Then I kept calling my sister, Eva, because she wanted me to come be with
her.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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&mdash;very implusive
about everything.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Oh, I called from the apartment&mdash;my sister knew more of my calls than I
did. I remember I think I called&mdash;I can't think of who I called.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Oh yes, I called Andy. This Andy Armstrong called me and said, "Don
Safran wants you to call him."</p>

<p>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."</p>

<p>I called him, and he said, "Jack, are you going to be closed tonight?"</p>

<p>I said, "Yes."</p>

<p>He said, "Well, the Cabana and the Adolphus, the Century Room, are going
to be closed."</p>

<p>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."</p>

<p>And he said, "Jack, that is what I want to know."</p>

<p>And I said, "You don't have to prompt me about who else is going to be closed."</p>

<p>I put the receiver down and talked to my sister, and I said, "Eva, what shall
we do?"</p>

<p>And she said, "Jack, let's close for the 3 days." She said, "We don't have
anything anyway, but we owe it to"&mdash;(chokes up).</p>

<p>So I called Don Safran back immediately and I said, "Don, we decided to
close for Friday, Saturday, and Sunday."</p>

<p>And he said, "Okay."</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>And it was a little late in the afternoon, but he said, "we will try to get the
copy in."</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_187" id="Page_187">187</a></span>
I lie down and take a nap. I wake about 7 or 7:30. In the meantime, I
think I called&mdash;the reason this comes back to me, I know I was going to go to
the synagogue.</p>

<p>I called Coleman Jacobson and asked him what time services are tonight,
and he said he didn't know.</p>

<p>And I said, "Are there going to be any special services?"</p>

<p>And he said he didn't know of any.</p>

<p>And I called the Congregation Shearith Israel and asked the girl, and she said,
"Regular services at 8 o'clock."</p>

<p>And I said, "Aren't there going to be earlier services like 5:30 or 6?</p>

<p>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&mdash;either to the club or to the apartment.</p>

<p>And I changed, showered and shaved, and I think I drove&mdash;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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Then he had a confirmation&mdash;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.</p>

<p>I left the club&mdash;I left the synagogue and I drove by the Bali-Hai Restaurant.
I noticed they were open. I took recognition of that.</p>

<p>I drove by another club called the Gay Nineties, and they were closed.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>I felt I have always abided by the law&mdash;a few little infractions, but not
serious&mdash;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.</p>

<p>And over the radio I heard they were working overtime.</p>

<p>I stopped at the delicatessen called Phil's on Oak Lawn Avenue, and suddenly
I decided&mdash;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.</p>

<p>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."</p>

<p>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."</p>

<p>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?</p>

<p>Chief Justice <span class="smcap">Warren</span>. I think I do not.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. 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&mdash;I want to describe him&mdash;of Oswald.</p>

<p>Very rarely do I use the name Oswald. I don't know why. I don't know how
to explain it&mdash;of the person that committed the act. [Pause to compose self.]</p>

<p>So before going down to the police station, I try to call KLIF but can't get
their number.</p>

<p>I wanted to bring the sandwiches to KLIF so they would have the sandwiches,
since they already started to make them up.</p>

<p>And I remember Russ Knight, a diskjockey&mdash;these names aren't familiar to
you, but I have to mention them in order to refresh my memory.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>I probably thought I could get the phone number, but after 6 p.m., you<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_188" id="Page_188">188</a></span>
cannot get into the premises unless you have a "hot" number that is right to
the diskjockey room.</p>

<p>So I couldn't get a hold of that.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>I said, "Anyone home?"</p>

<p>She said, "No."</p>

<p>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."</p>

<p>She said she would go and see, and gave me a Riverside exchange.</p>

<p>Mind you, this is 6 or 7 months back, gentlemen.</p>

<p>And I asked her name. Her name was Christine, I think. I said, "I wanted
to bring some sandwiches."</p>

<p>She said, "My mother already brought sandwiches."</p>

<p>And I said, "I wanted to go there too." And that was the end of this little
girl's conversation with myself.</p>

<p>I called that number, as I am repeating myself. There was no such number.
It was an obsolete number.</p>

<p>I go down to the&mdash;I drive by&mdash;I leave the delicatessen&mdash;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."</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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. &amp; 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.</p>

<p>I drove down to Commerce and Harwood and parked my car with my dog&mdash;incidentally,
I always have my dog with me&mdash;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.</p>

<p>This is the first time I ever entered the building, gentlemen. The first time
of that Friday. This time it must have been about&mdash;I mean the time, the time
of my entering the building, I guess, was approximately 11:15 p.m.</p>

<p>The officer was there, and I said, "Where is Joe Long?"</p>

<p>I said, "Can I go and look for him?"</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>I even had a police officer try to page him and he couldn't locate him.</p>

<p>I recognized a couple of police officers, Cal Jones and a few others, and I
said "hello" to them.</p>

<p>And I am still looking for Joe Long, but I am carried away with the excitement
of history.</p>

<p>And one fellow then&mdash;I am in the hallway there&mdash;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.</p>

<p>I don't recall Henry Wade coming out in the hallway. He probably did.
I don't recall what happened.</p>

<p>(To Joe Tonahill) Is that for me, Joe?</p>

<p>Then suddenly someone asked, either the Chief or Captain Fritz, "Isn't there
a larger room we can go into?"</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_189" id="Page_189">189</a></span>
They said, "Well, let's go down to the assembly room downstairs."</p>

<p>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&mdash;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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Then they brought the prisoner out and various questions were being shouted.</p>

<p>I noticed there was a chief county judge&mdash;Davidson, I can't think of his
name, one of these precinct court judges, and they brought the prisoner out.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>And they questioned Henry Wade, "what organization did he belong to," or
something. And if I recall, I think Henry Wade answered, "Free Cuba."</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>So he said, "Oh yes, Fair Play Cuba," and he corrected that.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>From the way he stated, he let the reporters know that this was the guilty one
that committed the crime.</p>

<p>He specifically stated that in that room, that he was the one.</p>

<p>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?"</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>By the way, it was "Fair Play Cuba," or something to that effect.</p>

<p>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?"</p>

<p>And I said, "I got to get into KLIF. I have got some sandwiches."</p>

<p>And he said, "What about us?"</p>

<p>And I said, "Some other time."</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>And in the testimony of John Rutledge, if I recall now&mdash;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.</p>

<p>In other words, I felt that I was deputized as a reporter momentarily, you
might say.</p>

<p>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?"</p>

<p>And he said, "Yes, do that."</p>

<p>That is when everyone was beckoning Henry Wade, and I called him over and
he talked on the phone to this boy.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>And this fellow was very much elated that I brought him over there.</p>

<p>And I said, "Now, will you let me in?"</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_190" id="Page_190">190</a></span>
He said, "I will only leave the door open for 5 minutes." That was after
the conversation was finished with Henry Wade.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>I had the sandwiches with me and some soda pop and various things, and
Russ Knight opened the door and we went upstairs.</p>

<p>(Mr. Arlen Specter, a staff counsel, entered the room.)</p>

<p>Chief Justice <span class="smcap">Warren</span>. This is another man on my staff, Mr. Specter. Would
you mind if he came in?</p>

<p>(Chief Justice Warren introduced the men around the room.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. Is there any way to get me to Washington?</p>

<p>Chief Justice <span class="smcap">Warren</span>. I beg your pardon?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. Is there any way of you getting me to Washington?</p>

<p>Chief Justice <span class="smcap">Warren</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Tonahill</span>. Jack, will you tell him why you don't think you will get a fair
representation?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. Because I have been over this for the longest time to get the lie
detector test. Somebody has been holding it back from me.</p>

<p>Chief Justice <span class="smcap">Warren</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. What State are you from, Congressman?</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Michigan. Grand Rapids, Mich.</p>

<p>Chief Justice <span class="smcap">Warren</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>And they spliced the various comments they got back and forth of Henry Wade,
of Russ Knight's copy&mdash;of Russ Knight's items of Henry Wade.</p>

<p>Chief Justice <span class="smcap">Warren</span>. Mr. Ruby, this is the young man, Mr. Specter. He is
a member of our staff, and he comes from Philadelphia.</p>

<p>(Ruby shakes hands with Mr. Specter.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. I am at a disadvantage, gentlemen, telling my story.</p>

<p>Chief Justice <span class="smcap">Warren</span>. You were right at the point where you had it about<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_191" id="Page_191">191</a></span>
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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. Well, lots of things occurred up to that. They talked pro and con
about the tragedy.</p>

<p>At 2 a.m., I left the building. I drove&mdash;I was going to go toward the Times
Herald Building, because as a result&mdash;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&mdash;into the Morning News.</p>

<p>And I promised one of the boys working in the Times Herald Building there&mdash;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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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&mdash;did I
tell you this part of it?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Moore</span>. I don't recall this part; no.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>I went to the building of the Times Herald. I went to the Times Herald&mdash;may
I read that, Joe? May I please?</p>

<p>(Joe Tonahill hands paper to Jack Ruby.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Tonahill</span>. Sam ever get your glasses?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. Not yet. [Reading.] "This is the girl that"&mdash;what?&mdash;"that started
Jack off." What is this other word?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Tonahill</span>. Culminated?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. That is untrue. That is what I wanted to read. (Throwing pad
on table.)</p>

<p>Gentlemen, unless you get me to Washington, you can't get a fair shake
out of me.</p>

<p>If you understand my way of talking, you have got to bring me to Washington
to get the tests.</p>

<p>Do I sound dramatic? Off the beam?</p>

<p>Chief Justice <span class="smcap">Warren</span>. 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.</p>

<p>You have given it to us in detail.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. Unless you can get me to Washington, and I am not a crackpot,
I have all my senses&mdash;I don't want to evade any crime I am guilty of. But
Mr. Moore, have I spoken this way when we have talked?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Moore</span>. Yes.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_192" id="Page_192">192</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. 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&mdash;you all want to hear what he wrote?</p>

<p>Chief Justice <span class="smcap">Warren</span>. Yes; you might read it. If you need glasses again,
try mine this time (handing glasses to Mr. Ruby).</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span> (putting on glasses). "This is the <span class="locked">girl"&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Tonahill</span>. "Thing," isn't it?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. "This is the thing that started Jack in the shooting."</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Tonahill</span>. Kathy Kay was talking about Oswald.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. You are lying, Joe Tonahill. You are lying.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Tonahill</span>. No; I am not.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. You are lying, because you know what motivated me. You want
to make it that it was a premeditation.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Tonahill</span>. No.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. Yes; you do.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Tonahill</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. Not when you specify this.</p>

<p>You are Senator Rankin?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. No; I am the general counsel for our Commission, Mr. Ruby.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Tonahill</span>. You go on and keep telling it down to Caroline and the truth.</p>

<p>Chief Justice <span class="smcap">Warren</span>. 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&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Tonahill</span>. I didn't say the thought entered your mind. I didn't say
that.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. You are inferring that.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Tonahill</span>. Unconsciously, maybe, is what I meant to say.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. Why go back to Friday, Joe?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Tonahill</span>. You are going to come right <span class="locked">down&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. Why go back to Friday? That set me off.</p>

<p>Then it is a greater premeditation than you know is true.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Tonahill</span>. I don't say it is premeditation. I never have. I don't think
it is.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Tonahill</span>. The psychiatrist said that to me.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Well, it is too bad, Chief Warren, that you didn't get me to your headquarters
6 months ago.</p>

<p>Chief Justice <span class="smcap">Warren</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_193" id="Page_193">193</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. You have power to do it, even though the district attorney objects
to me getting the tests?</p>

<p>Chief Justice <span class="smcap">Warren</span>. Yes; I do.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. How soon can it be done?</p>

<p>Chief Justice <span class="smcap">Warren</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. Are you staying overnight here, Chief Warren?</p>

<p>Chief Justice <span class="smcap">Warren</span>. No; I have to be back, because we have an early
session of the Court tomorrow morning.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. Is there any way of getting a polygraph here?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Decker</span>. May I make a suggestion?</p>

<p>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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. That wouldn't prove any truth.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Decker</span>. 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.</p>

<p>You asked me for permission to tell your story, and I told you "No."</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. It is unfair to me unless I get all the facilities to back up what
I say.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Decker</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Moore</span>. What I suggest&mdash;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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. I wish the President were right here now. It is a terrible ordeal,
I tell you that.</p>

<p>Chief Justice <span class="smcap">Warren</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. I don't know how to answer you.</p>

<p>Chief Justice <span class="smcap">Warren</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. There is a Saturday.</p>

<p>Chief Justice <span class="smcap">Warren</span>. Beg your pardon?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. There is a Saturday night. There is a Friday night. This is
still only Friday night, Chief.</p>

<p>Chief Justice <span class="smcap">Warren</span>. Yes; that is true.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Chief Justice <span class="smcap">Warren</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. I am in the Times Herald Building. I go upstairs, naturally.</p>

<p>Chief Justice <span class="smcap">Warren</span>. This is about what time?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. This, I imagine, is&mdash;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.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_194" id="Page_194">194</a></span>
Chief Justice <span class="smcap">Warren</span>. It doesn't make any difference.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. Forty-five minutes difference.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>You follow me, gentlemen, as I describe it?</p>

<p>Chief Justice <span class="smcap">Warren</span>. Yes; I do.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Bill, will you do that for me that you asked a minute ago? You said you
wanted to leave the room.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Decker</span>. I will have everyone leave the room, including myself, if you
want to talk about it. You name it, and out we will go.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. All right.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Decker</span>. You want all of us outside?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Decker</span>. I will leave Tonahill and Moore. I am not going to have Joe
leave.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. If you are not going to have Joe <span class="locked">leave&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Decker</span>. Moore, his body is responsible to you. His body is responsible
to you.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. Bill, I am not accomplishing anything if they are here, and Joe
Tonahill is here. You asked me anybody I wanted out.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Decker</span>. Jack, this is your attorney. That is your lawyer.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. He is not my lawyer.</p>

<p>(Sheriff Decker and law enforcement officers left room.)</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Do I sound sober enough to tell you this?</p>

<p>Chief Justice <span class="smcap">Warren</span>. Yes; go right ahead.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Chief Justice <span class="smcap">Warren</span>. Well, let's not talk about sense. But I really can't
see why you can't tell this Commission.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. What is your name?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ball</span>. Joe Ball.</p>

<p>Chief Justice <span class="smcap">Warren</span>. Mr. Joe Ball. He is an attorney from Los Angeles
who has been working for me.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. Do you know Belli too?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ball</span>. I know of him.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. Ball was working with him. He knows Belli. You know Melvin
Belli?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ball</span>. I am not acquainted with him.</p>

<p>Chief Justice <span class="smcap">Warren</span>. No association of any kind.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ball</span>. We practice in different cities.</p>

<p>Chief Justice <span class="smcap">Warren</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. Where do you stand, Moore?</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_195" id="Page_195">195</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Moore</span>. Well, I am assigned to the Commission, Jack.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. The President assigned you?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Moore</span>. No; my chief did. And I am not involved in the investigation. I
am more of a security officer.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. Boys, I am in a tough spot, I tell you that.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Moore</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. But this isn't the place for me to tell what I want to tell.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Moore</span>. The Commission is looking into the entire matter, and you are
part of it, should be.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. Chief Warren, your life is in danger in this city, do you know that?</p>

<p>Chief Justice <span class="smcap">Warren</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. No; I would like to talk to you in private.</p>

<p>Chief Justice <span class="smcap">Warren</span>. You may do that when you finish your story. You
may tell me that phase of it.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. I bet you haven't had a witness like me in your whole investigation,
is that correct?</p>

<p>Chief Justice <span class="smcap">Warren</span>. There are many witnesses whose memory has not been
as good as yours. I tell you that, honestly.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. My reluctance to talk&mdash;you haven't had any witness in telling the
story, in finding so many problems?</p>

<p>Chief Justice <span class="smcap">Warren</span>. You have a greater problem than any witness we
have had.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. I have a lot of reasons for having those problems.</p>

<p>Chief Justice <span class="smcap">Warren</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. When are you going back to Washington?</p>

<p>Chief Justice <span class="smcap">Warren</span>. I am going back very shortly after we finish this hearing&mdash;I
am going to have some lunch.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. Can I make a statement?</p>

<p>Chief Justice <span class="smcap">Warren</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. If you request me to go back to Washington with you right now,
that couldn't be done, could it?</p>

<p>Chief Justice <span class="smcap">Warren</span>. No; it could not be done. It could not be done. There
are a good many things involved in that, Mr. Ruby.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. What are they?</p>

<p>Chief Justice <span class="smcap">Warren</span>. 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.</p>

<p>And certainly it couldn't be done on a moment's notice this way.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. Well, from what I read in the paper, they made certain precautions
for you coming here, but you got here.</p>

<p>Chief Justice <span class="smcap">Warren</span>. There are no precautions taken at all.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. There were some remarks in the paper about some crackpots.</p>

<p>Chief Justice <span class="smcap">Warren</span>. I don't believe everything I read in the paper.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Moore</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Incidentally, if it is the part about George Senator talking about the Earl<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_196" id="Page_196">196</a></span>
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.</p>

<p>Chief Justice <span class="smcap">Warren</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Did you know Lee Harvey Oswald prior to this shooting?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. That is why I want to take the lie detector test. Just saying no
isn't sufficient.</p>

<p>Chief Justice <span class="smcap">Warren</span>. I will afford you that opportunity.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. All right.</p>

<p>Chief Justice <span class="smcap">Warren</span>. I will afford you that opportunity. You can't do both
of them at one time.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. Gentlemen, my life is in danger here. Not with my guilty plea of
execution.</p>

<p>Do I sound sober enough to you as I say this?</p>

<p>Chief Justice <span class="smcap">Warren</span>. You do. You sound entirely sober.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Chief Justice <span class="smcap">Warren</span>. You have indeed. I understood everything you have
said. If I haven't, it is my fault.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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?</p>

<p>Chief Justice <span class="smcap">Warren</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. What happens then? I didn't accomplish anything.</p>

<p>Chief Justice <span class="smcap">Warren</span>. No; nothing has been accomplished.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. Well, then you won't follow up with anything further?</p>

<p>Chief Justice <span class="smcap">Warren</span>. There wouldn't be anything to follow up if you hadn't
completed your statement.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. You said you have the power to do what you want to do, is that
correct?</p>

<p>Chief Justice <span class="smcap">Warren</span>. Exactly.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. Without any limitations?</p>

<p>Chief Justice <span class="smcap">Warren</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. But you don't have a right to take a prisoner back with you when
you want to?</p>

<p>Chief Justice <span class="smcap">Warren</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. Yes; but those people aren't Jack Ruby.</p>

<p>Chief Justice <span class="smcap">Warren</span>. No; they weren't.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. They weren't.</p>

<p>Chief Justice <span class="smcap">Warren</span>. 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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_197" id="Page_197">197</a></span>
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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>So I want you to feel that you are free to refrain from testifying any time
you wish.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Chief Justice <span class="smcap">Warren</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. Well, it is too tragic to talk about.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Isn't it true that we waited until very late in our proceedings to
talk to Mrs. Kennedy?</p>

<p>Chief Justice <span class="smcap">Warren</span>. 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.</p>

<p>So we are not treating you different from any other witness.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. I tell you, gentlemen, my whole family is in jeopardy. My sisters,
as to their lives.</p>

<p>Chief Justice <span class="smcap">Warren</span>. Yes?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. Naturally, I am a foregone conclusion. My sisters Eva, Eileen,
and Mary, I lost my sisters.</p>

<p>My brothers Sam, Earl, Hyman, and myself naturally&mdash;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&mdash;does that sound serious enough to you, Chief Justice
Warren?</p>

<p>Chief Justice <span class="smcap">Warren</span>. 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 <span class="locked">sister&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. Eileen wrote you a letter.</p>

<p>Chief Justice <span class="smcap">Warren</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. But unfortunately, when did you get the letter, Chief Justice
Warren?</p>

<p>Chief Justice <span class="smcap">Warren</span>. It was a long time ago, I admit. I think it was, let's
see, roughly between 2 and 3 months ago.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Chief Justice <span class="smcap">Warren</span>. I think it was; yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Chief Justice <span class="smcap">Warren</span>. Yes?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. Because then they would have known the truth about Jack Ruby
and his emotional breakdown.</p>

<p>Chief Justice <span class="smcap">Warren</span>. Yes?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. Of why that Sunday morning&mdash;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.</p>

<p>But I felt very emotional and very carried away for Mrs. Kennedy, that with
all the strife she had gone through&mdash;I had been following it pretty well&mdash;that
someone owed it to our beloved President that she shouldn't be expected to come
back to face trial of this heinous crime.</p>

<p>And I have never had the chance to tell that, to back it up, to prove it.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_198" id="Page_198">198</a></span>
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.</p>

<p>Months back had I been given a chance&mdash;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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>At this moment, Lee Harvey Oswald isn't guilty of committing the crime of
assassinating President Kennedy. Jack Ruby is.</p>

<p>How can I fight that, Chief Justice Warren?</p>

<p>Chief Justice <span class="smcap">Warren</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. All right, there is a certain organization <span class="locked">here&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Chief Justice <span class="smcap">Warren</span>. That I can assure you.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. 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&mdash;take it for what it is worth, Chief Justice Warren.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Don't register with you, does it?</p>

<p>Chief Justice <span class="smcap">Warren</span>. No; I don't understand that.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. Would you rather I just delete what I said and just pretend that
nothing is going on?</p>

<p>Chief Justice <span class="smcap">Warren</span>. I would not indeed. I am only interested in what you
want to tell this Commission. That is all I am interested in.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. 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 <span class="locked">morning&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Chief Justice <span class="smcap">Warren</span>. What morning?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. Sunday morning.</p>

<p>Chief Justice <span class="smcap">Warren</span>. Sunday morning.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. Let's go back. Saturday I watched Rabbi Seligman. Any of
you watch it that Saturday morning?</p>

<p>Chief Justice <span class="smcap">Warren</span>. No; I didn't happen to hear it.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. 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].</p>

<p>I must be a great actor, I tell you that.</p>

<p>Chief Justice <span class="smcap">Warren</span>. No.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. That created a tremendous emotional feeling for me, the way
he said that. Prior to all the other times, I was carried away.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Moore</span>. I think I saw it.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. 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.</p>

<p>That caused me to go like I did; that caused me to go like I did.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>I never spoke to anyone about attempting to do anything. No subversive<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_199" id="Page_199">199</a></span>
organization gave me any idea. No underworld person made any effort to
contact me. It all happened that Sunday morning.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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&mdash;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.</p>

<p>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&mdash;I am repeating myself&mdash;and I took it for granted he
had already been moved.</p>

<p>And I parked my car in the lot across from the Western Union. Prior to
that, I got a call from a little girl&mdash;she wanted some money&mdash;that worked for
me, and I said, "Can't you wait till payday?" And she said, "Jack, you are
going to be closed."</p>

<p>So my purpose was to go to the Western Union&mdash;my double purpose&mdash;but the
thought of doing, committing the act wasn't until I left my apartment.</p>

<p>Sending the wire was when I had the phone call&mdash;or the money order.</p>

<p>I drove down Main Street&mdash;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.</p>

<p>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&mdash;I didn't sneak in. I didn't linger in there.</p>

<p>I didn't crouch or hide behind anyone, unless the television camera can make
it seem that way.</p>

<p>There was an officer talking&mdash;I don't know what rank he had&mdash;talking to a
Sam Pease in a car parked up on the curb.</p>

<p>I walked down those few steps, and there was the person that&mdash;I wouldn't
say I saw red&mdash;it was a feeling I had for our beloved President and Mrs.
Kennedy, that he was insignificant to what my purpose was.</p>

<p>And when I walked down the ramp&mdash;I would say there was an 8-foot clearance&mdash;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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>I think the actual act was committed&mdash;I take that back&mdash;was it 11 o'clock?
You should know this.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Moore</span>. 11:21.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. No; when Oswald was shot.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Moore</span>. I understood it to be 11:22.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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?</p>

<p>Chief Justice <span class="smcap">Warren</span>. Yes; I do indeed, every word.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. 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.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_200" id="Page_200">200</a></span>
I think I used the words, "You killed my President, you rat." The next thing,
I was down on the floor.</p>

<p>I said, "I am Jack Ruby. You all know me."</p>

<p>I never used anything malicious, nothing like s.o.b. I never said that I
wanted to get three more off, as they stated.</p>

<p>The only words, and I was highly emotional; to Ray Hall&mdash;he interrogated
more than any other person down there&mdash;all I believe I said to him was, "I
didn't want Mrs. Kennedy to come back to trial."</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>And I have a friend of mine&mdash;do you mind if it is a slipshod story?</p>

<p>Chief Justice <span class="smcap">Warren</span>. No; you tell us in your own way.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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&mdash;of this Mr. McWillie&mdash;flashed across me, because
I have a great fondness for him.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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?</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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?</p>

<p>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&mdash;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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>As a matter of fact, I even called a Mr.&mdash;hold it before I say it&mdash;headed the
American Federation of Labor&mdash;I can't think&mdash;in the State of Texas&mdash;Miller.</p>

<p>Chief Justice <span class="smcap">Warren</span>. I don't know.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. Is there a Deutsch I. Maylor? I called a Mr. Maylor here in
Texas to see if he could help me out.</p>

<p>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?</p>

<p>Chief Justice <span class="smcap">Warren</span>. Well, I will go back to the original question that I
asked you. Did you ever know Oswald?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. No; let me add&mdash;you are refreshing my mind about a few things.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_201" id="Page_201">201</a></span>
Can I ask one thing? Did you all talk to Mr. McWillie? I am sure you have.</p>

<p><span class="smcap">Voice</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Chief Justice <span class="smcap">Warren</span>. Yes?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. I refused. I couldn't make it. Finally he sent me tickets to
come down, airplane tickets.</p>

<p>I made the trip down there via New Orleans, and so I stayed at the Volk's
Apartments, and I was with him constantly.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>And that was the only environment. That was in August of 1959.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>The only other association with him was, there was a gentleman here that
sells guns. He has a hardware store on Singleton Avenue.</p>

<p>Have I told this to you gentlemen? It is Ray's Hardware. His name is
Ray Brantley.</p>

<p>This was&mdash;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.</p>

<p>He called me or sent me a letter that I should call Ray Brantley. He wanted
some four little Cobra guns&mdash;big shipment.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Chief Justice <span class="smcap">Warren</span>. Yes?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. That was the only relationship I had of any mention, outside of
phone calls, to Mr. McWillie, or any person from Havana, Cuba.</p>

<p>Chief Justice <span class="smcap">Warren</span>. When was that?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. Now the guns&mdash;am I correct? Did you ever go to check on it?
On Ray Brantley?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Moore</span>. No.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Chief Justice <span class="smcap">Warren</span>. I don't know.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. I kept&mdash;did I tell you this, Joe, about this?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Tonahill</span>. Yes; you did.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. That I wanted someone to go to Ray Brantley?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Tonahill</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. When Phil Burleson came back with a letter signed, an affidavit<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_202" id="Page_202">202</a></span>
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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Haven't I felt that right along, Joe?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Tonahill</span>. You sure have, Jack.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Chief Justice <span class="smcap">Warren</span>. When was that little incident about the Cobras? About
what year? That is all I am interested in.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. Could have been prior to the early part of 1959.</p>

<p>Chief Justice <span class="smcap">Warren</span>. Yes; all right.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. 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&mdash;who is this
new gentleman, may I ask?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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.</p>

<p>(Pause for reporter to change paper, and Ruby asked about one of the gentlemen,
to which Chief Justice Warren replied as follows):</p>

<p>Chief Justice <span class="smcap">Warren</span> (referring to Mr. Specter). He has been working
with us on the Commission since very close to the beginning now.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. How long did you spend in Cuba on this trip?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>He bought them&mdash;did you meet McWillie?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Moore</span>. I didn't.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. He was checked by the Commission in connection with this
work.</p>

<p>Chief Justice <span class="smcap">Warren</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. 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.</p>

<p>But probably in conversation with other persons&mdash;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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Moore</span>. I don't recall that.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. I think his name was Longley out of Bay&mdash;something&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Chief Justice <span class="smcap">Warren</span>. Before the Batista government fell?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Storey</span>. No; I don't know him.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_203" id="Page_203">203</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. How can I prove my authenticity of what I have stated here
today?</p>

<p>Chief Justice <span class="smcap">Warren</span>. Well, you have testified under oath, and I don't even
know that there is anything to disprove what you have said.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Would you tell us what that is?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. The John Birch Society.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Can you tell us what basis you have for that, Mr. Ruby?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. Just a feeling of it. Mr. Warren, you don't recall when I&mdash;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."</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>And I called the club and I asked this kid Larry if he knew how to pack
a Polaroid, and he said "Yes."</p>

<p>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&mdash;I am skipping back&mdash;why I had awakened George.</p>

<p>I recall seeing a sign on a certain billboard "Impeach Earl Warren." You
have heard something about that?</p>

<p>Chief Justice <span class="smcap">Warren</span>. I read something in the paper, yes; that is all.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. And it came from New Bedford, or Massachusetts; I don't recall
what the town was.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>What happened to the picture, I don't know. I asked Jim Bowie or Alexander
to tell you.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Did you know Weissman before that?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. Never knew him. When I said Jim Bowie, no one says a word.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Bowie</span>. We never have seen them.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. They were in my person.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Bowie</span>. But no evidence came?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. 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?"</p>

<p>And he said, "I can't give you the information. All I know is, it is a legitimate
business box purchase."</p>

<p>And I checked the various contents of mail there.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Did you know Officer Tippit?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. Who was the rich oil man?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Can you remember? We haven't been told. We are just trying
to find out anything that you know about him.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_204" id="Page_204">204</a></span>
And Bellocchio said, "Why did the newspaper take this ad of Weissman?"</p>

<p>And Bellocchio said, "I have got to leave Dallas."</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>I said, "The city was good enough for you all before this. Now you feel that
way about it." And that was Bellocchio.</p>

<p>As far as Tippit, it is not Tippitts, it is not Tippitts it is Tippit.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. This Weissman and the rich oil man, did you ever have a conversation
with them?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. There was only a few. Bill Rudman from the YMCA, and I
haven't seen him in years.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Chief Justice <span class="smcap">Warren</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. 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.</p>

<p>I am incarcerated, nothing to be worried about anyone hurting me.</p>

<p>Chief Justice <span class="smcap">Warren</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. How many days prior to the assassination was that?</p>

<p>Chief Justice <span class="smcap">Warren</span>. My recollection is that it was a week or two. Is that
correct?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Chief Justice <span class="smcap">Warren</span>. Well, I don't know just what those dates are.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. I see.</p>

<p>Chief Justice <span class="smcap">Warren</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. 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&mdash;I have
never been a criminal&mdash;I have never been in jail&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Chief Justice <span class="smcap">Warren</span>. The prizefights?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>All I was was a representative to sound out applications for the American<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_205" id="Page_205">205</a></span>
Federation of Labor, and if the employees would sign it, we would accept them
as members.</p>

<p>I never knew what a goon looked like in Chicago, with the exception when
I went to the service.</p>

<p>I never belonged to any subversive organization. I don't know any subversive
people that are against my beloved country.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. You have never been connected with the Communist Party?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. Never have. All I have ever done in my life&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. There was a story that you had a gun with you during the
showup that you described in the large room there.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. It would be quite helpful to the Commission if you could&mdash;in the
first place, I want to get the trip to Cuba. Was that in 1959?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. Yes; because I had to buy a $2 ticket, a pass to get through Florida.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Did you have any other trip to Cuba?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. Never; that is the only one that I made.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>I probably had two dates from meeting some young ladies I got to dancing
with, because my dinners were served in the Tropicana.</p>

<p>One thing I forgot to tell you&mdash;you are bringing my mind back to a few
things&mdash;the owners, the greatest that have been expelled from Cuba, are the
Fox brothers. They own the Tropicana.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Who are the Fox brothers?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. Martin Fox and I can't think of the other name.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Do you know where they are located now?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. They are in Miami, Fla. They know everything about McWillie,
I heard; and know the officials.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>The Fox brothers came to Dallas&mdash;I don't know which one it was&mdash;to collect
a debt that some man owed the Cotton Gin Co. here.</p>

<p>Do you know their name, Mr. Bowie?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Bowie</span>. Murray, or something.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Chief Justice <span class="smcap">Warren</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. He is still alive though.</p>

<p>Chief Justice <span class="smcap">Warren</span>. Oh, yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. There was one Lane that was killed in a taxicab. I thought he
was an attorney in Dallas.</p>

<p>Chief Justice <span class="smcap">Warren</span>. That was a Dave Lane.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. 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.</p>

<p>And Mrs. McWillie&mdash;Mr. McWillie was married to her at that time&mdash;and if
I recall, I didn't show them off to the airport at that time.</p>

<p>This is when they were still living in Havana, the Fox brothers. We had
dinner at&mdash;how do you pronounce that restaurant at Love Field? Luau? That
serves this Chinese food.</p>

<p>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?</p>

<p>And there was a McClain.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_206" id="Page_206">206</a></span>
Chief Justice <span class="smcap">Warren</span>. Alfred was killed in a taxi in New York.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. The only one I recall Mr. Sorrels in, there were some incorrect
statements made at this time.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Can you tell us what you said?</p>

<p>Congressman <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. First, tell us when this took place.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. How soon after the shooting occurred?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. Well, Ray Hall was the first one that interrogated me. Wanted
to know my whole background.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Can you tell us how soon it was? Within a few minutes after
the shooting?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. No; I waited in a little room there somewhere upstairs in&mdash;I don't
know what floor it was. I don't recall.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Where did this occur, on the third floor?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. One of those floors. I don't know whether it was the third or
second. If you are up on an <span class="locked">elevator&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Can you give us any idea of the time after the shooting?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. 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.</p>

<p>And I heard there was a statement made&mdash;now I am skipping&mdash;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&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Now what else could I have said that you think I could have said? Refresh
my memory a little bit.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. There was a conversation with Mr. Sorrels in which you told
him about the matter. Do you remember that?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. 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."</p>

<p>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&mdash;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.</p>

<p>But I am certain&mdash;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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>I never used any words&mdash;as a matter of fact, there were questions at the
hearing with Roy Pryor and a few others&mdash;I may have used one word "a little<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_207" id="Page_207">207</a></span>
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.</p>

<p>I never made the statement to anyone that I intended to get him. I never
used the obscene words that were stated.</p>

<p>Anything I said was with emotional feeling of I didn't want Mrs. Kennedy
to come back to trial.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. It has been alleged that you went out to Parkland Hospital.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Congressman <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. You didn't go out there subsequent to the assassination?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. No; in other words, like somebody is trying to make me something
of a martyr in that case. No; I never did.</p>

<p>Does this conflict with my story and yours in great length?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Moore</span>. Substantially the same, Jack, as well as I remember.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Did you say anything about people of your religion have guts,
or something like that?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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."</p>

<p>And you have a different type of entertainment here than any other part of
the country, our type of entertainment.</p>

<p>But I don't recall that. I could have said the sentimental feeling that I may
have used.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. They were Delta Airlines employees in New Orleans
or Dallas?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. 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&mdash;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.</p>

<p>But I only made one trip to Havana. Yet I know I was in Miami, Fla. and I
was in New Orleans.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Do you recall going up the elevator after the shooting of Oswald?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. That is so small to remember, I guess it is automatic, you know.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Did you have this gun a long while that you did the shooting
with?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. You didn't carry it all the time?</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_208" id="Page_208">208</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. I did. I had it in a little bag with money constantly. I carry
my money.</p>

<p>Chief Justice <span class="smcap">Warren</span>. Congressman, do you have anything further?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. You can get more out of me. Let's not break up too soon.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. When you got to Havana, who met you in Havana?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Castro employees?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Whether it was they were in exile at that time. I don't know.</p>

<p>But they came to my club, the Vegas Club, and we had taken pictures.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. You spent 8 days there in Havana?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. Yes; approximately.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. And you stayed at the apartment of <span class="locked">Mr.&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. 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&mdash;not
often&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Because I would always be with him for the complete evening.</p>

<p>We leave the place and stop somewhere to get coffee, a little dugout&mdash;I saw
Ava Gardner down there at the time when I was there. She was visiting there.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. What prompted you to leave at the end of 8 days?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. 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.</p>

<p>I went to the Capri rooftop to go swimming, and went to the Nacional to go
swimming once.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Did you ever go to Mexico? Have you ever been to
Mexico?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. The only time, 30 or 40 years ago, 1934.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. This trip to Cuba was the only time you left the country
other than military service?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Chief Justice <span class="smcap">Warren</span>. Now you said there were some other things. Would
you mind telling us anything you have on your mind?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. 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.</p>

<p>How valuable am I to you to give you all this information?</p>

<p>Chief Justice <span class="smcap">Warren</span>. 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.</p>

<p>So we are interested in anything that you would like to tell us, in your own
language.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. 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.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_209" id="Page_209">209</a></span>
Mr. Moore, you seem to have known more about my interrogation than anybody
else, right?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Moore</span>. I think you have told us about everything you told me.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. Well, assuming that, as I stated before, some persons are accusing
me falsely of being part of the plot&mdash;naturally, in all the time from over
6 months ago, my family has been so interested in helping me.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. By that, you mean a party to the plot of Oswald?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. That I was party to a plot to silence Oswald.</p>

<p>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&mdash;on the surface, they
see me only as the guilty assailant of Oswald, and by helping me like they have,
going all out.</p>

<p>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
<span class="locked">actual&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>That they felt, well, Jack did it. They probably felt they would do the
same thing.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Now if I sound screwy telling you this, then I must be screwy.</p>

<p>Chief Justice <span class="smcap">Warren</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. Yes; but you don't know this area here.</p>

<p>Chief Justice <span class="smcap">Warren</span>. No; I don't vouch for anything except that I think I
am correct in that, am I not?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. That is correct.</p>

<p>Chief Justice <span class="smcap">Warren</span>. I just wanted to tell you before our own Commission,
and I might say to you also that we have explored the situation.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Chief Justice <span class="smcap">Warren</span>. 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.</p>

<p>I don't anticipate that there will be any such testimony, but should there be,
we will give you that opportunity.</p>

<p>Does that seem fair?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. No; that isn't going to save my family.</p>

<p>Chief Justice <span class="smcap">Warren</span>. Well, we can't do everything at once.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. I am in a tough spot, and I don't know what the solution can be
to save me.</p>

<p>And I know our wonderful President, Lyndon Johnson, as soon as he was the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_210" id="Page_210">210</a></span>
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.</p>

<p>How can you remedy that, Mr. Warren? Do any of you men have any ways
of remedying that?</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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?</p>

<p>That goes over your head, doesn't it?</p>

<p>Chief Justice <span class="smcap">Warren</span>. Well, I don't quite get the full significance of it, Mr.
Ruby. I know what you feel about the John Birch Society.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. Very powerful.</p>

<p>Chief Justice <span class="smcap">Warren</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Chief Justice <span class="smcap">Warren</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Do I sound sort of screwy in telling you these things?</p>

<p>Chief Justice <span class="smcap">Warren</span>. No; I think that is what you believe, or you wouldn't
tell it under your oath.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. But it is a very serious situation. I guess it is too late to stop it,
isn't it?</p>

<p>All right, I want to ask you this. All you men have been chosen by the President
for this committee, is that correct?</p>

<p>Chief Justice <span class="smcap">Warren</span>. Representative Ford and I are the only members of
the Commission that are here.</p>

<p>Mr. Rankin of the Commission is employed as our chief counsel.</p>

<p>Mr. Rankin employed Mr. Specter and Mr. Ball as members of the staff.</p>

<p>You know who the other gentlemen here are.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Are there any questions that ought to be asked to help
clarify the situation that you described?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Now up to this moment, I have been talking with you for how long?</p>

<p>Chief Justice <span class="smcap">Warren</span>. I would say for the better part of 3 hours.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. All right, wouldn't it be ridiculous for me to speak sensibly all this
time and give you this climactic talk that I have?</p>

<p>Maybe something can be saved, something can be done.</p>

<p>What have you got to answer to that, Chief Justice Warren?</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_211" id="Page_211">211</a></span>
Chief Justice <span class="smcap">Warren</span>. Well, I don't know what can be done. Mr. Ruby, because
I don't know what you anticipate we will encounter.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Is there anything more you can tell us if you went back
to Washington?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. Yes; are you sincere in wanting to take me back?</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. We are most interested in all the information you have.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Now maybe something can be saved. It may not be too late, whatever happens,
if our President, Lyndon Johnson, knew the truth from me.</p>

<p>But if I am eliminated, there won't be any way of knowing.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>But he has been told, I am certain, that I was part of a plot to assassinate the
President.</p>

<p>I know your hands are tied; you are helpless.</p>

<p>Chief Justice <span class="smcap">Warren</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Chief Justice <span class="smcap">Warren</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. No.</p>

<p>Chief Justice <span class="smcap">Warren</span>. You may be sure of that.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Chief Justice <span class="smcap">Warren</span>. The President will know everything that you have said,
everything that you have said.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. But I won't be around, Chief Justice. I won't be around to verify
these things you are going to tell the President.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Tonahill</span>. Who do you think is going to eliminate you, Jack?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Chief Justice <span class="smcap">Warren</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. You have lost me though. You have lost me, Chief Justice Warren.</p>

<p>Chief Justice <span class="smcap">Warren</span>. Lost you in what sense?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. I won't be around for you to come and question me again.</p>

<p>Chief Justice <span class="smcap">Warren</span>. Well, it is very hard for me to believe that. I am
sure that everybody would want to protect you to the very limit.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. All I want is a lie detector test, and you refuse to give it to me.</p>

<p>Because as it stands now&mdash;and the truth serum, and any other&mdash;Pentothal&mdash;how
do you pronounce it, whatever it is. And they will not give it to me,
because I want to tell the truth.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Chief Justice <span class="smcap">Warren</span>. Mr. Ruby, I promise you that you will be able to
take such a test.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. When?</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_212" id="Page_212">212</a></span>
Chief Justice <span class="smcap">Warren</span>. 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.</p>

<p>But it will not be unnecessarily delayed, and we will do it on behalf of the
Commission, I promise you.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. All I want, and I beg you&mdash;when are you going to see the President?</p>

<p>Chief Justice <span class="smcap">Warren</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. All I want is to take a polygraph to tell the truth. That is all
I want to do.</p>

<p>Chief Justice <span class="smcap">Warren</span>. Yes; that, I promise you you can do.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. Because my people are going to suffer about things that will
be said about me.</p>

<p>Chief Justice <span class="smcap">Warren</span>. Yes; well, I promise.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. Hold on another minute.</p>

<p>Chief Justice <span class="smcap">Warren</span>. All right.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. How do you know if the facts I stated about everything I said,
statements with reference to, are the truth or not?</p>

<p>Chief Justice <span class="smcap">Warren</span>. Well, if you want a test made to test those principal
questions, we will work them out so they can be tested.</p>

<p>As I understand it, you can't use the polygraph to say now this is the story.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. I know that.</p>

<p>Chief Justice <span class="smcap">Warren</span>. To say you have the story of Jack Ruby. You can't
do that.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. I know that. You can clarify by questioning me when I conceived
the idea and what my answer would naturally be that Sunday morning.</p>

<p>Chief Justice <span class="smcap">Warren</span>. 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.</p>

<p>What things do you consider vital in it, and what would you like to have
verified?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. Yes; but you are telling me to do these things&mdash;these things
are going to be promised, but you see they aren't going to let me do these things.</p>

<p>Because when you leave here, I am finished. My family is finished.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Now maybe certain people don't want to know the truth that may come out
of me. Is that plausible?</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. 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.</p>

<p>And I am sure you can rely on what has been stated here by the Chairman.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. How are we going to communicate and so on?</p>

<p>Chief Justice <span class="smcap">Warren</span>. We will communicate directly with you.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. 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.</p>

<p>I shouldn't hurt your feelings in telling you that.</p>

<p>Chief Justice <span class="smcap">Warren</span>. That won't hurt my feelings, because I have had some
evidence of the feeling that some people have concerning me.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. But you are the only one that can save me. I think you can.</p>

<p>Chief Justice <span class="smcap">Warren</span>. Yes?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. But by delaying minutes, you lose the chance. And all I want
to do is tell the truth, and that is all.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_213" id="Page_213">213</a></span>
Chief Justice <span class="smcap">Warren</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. Well, you won't ever see me again, I tell you that. And I have
lost my family.</p>

<p>Chief Justice <span class="smcap">Warren</span>. Yes?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. No, no; you don't believe me, do you?</p>

<p>Chief Justice <span class="smcap">Warren</span>. To be frank with you, I believe that you are not
stating now what is the fact.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ruby</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Chief Justice <span class="smcap">Warren</span>. That we will do for you.</p>

<p>(Whereupon, at 2:50 p.m., the President's Commission recessed.)</p>

<hr />
<h2><span class="smaller"><a name="Monday_June_8_1964" id="Monday_June_8_1964"><i>Monday, June 8, 1964</i></a></span><br />
<span class="subhead">TESTIMONY OF HENRY WADE, PATRICK D. DEAN, AND
WAGGONER CARR</span></h2>

<p>The President's Commission met at 9:25 a.m., on June 8, 1964, at 200 Maryland
Avenue NE., Washington, D.C.</p>

<p>Present were Chief Justice Earl Warren, Chairman; Senator John Sherman
Cooper and Allen W. Dulles, members.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<h2 id="hw">TESTIMONY OF HENRY WADE</h2>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. Will you raise your hand?</p>

<p>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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. I do.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. You are informed about the purposes of this investigation.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. I know it, generally.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. Do you desire a lawyer?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. No, sir.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. Thank you very much.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Will you state your name?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. Henry Wade.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Where do you live?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. I am district attorney, or criminal district attorney of Dallas, Tex.;
my home is in Dallas.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Will you tell us briefly your qualifications for your position and
profession?</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_214" id="Page_214">214</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. 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&mdash;I was there until August of 1943, these
were rough months&mdash;when I resigned and became an apprentice seaman in the
Navy.</p>

<p>Later I became a lieutenant, junior grade, served in the Pacific 2 years, about
2 years.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>I was elected district attorney in 1950 and have been criminal district attorney
of Dallas County since January 1, 1951.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Have you handled many of the prosecutions of that county since
that time?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Do you have any particular policy about which cases you would
try generally?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Do you have any policy about capital cases as to whether you
should try them or somebody else?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Do you remember where you were at the time you learned of
the assassination of President Kennedy?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. How did you learn about the assassination?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. 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&ndash;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 <span class="locked">the&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Who was the chairman of that meeting, do you recall?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. Eric Johnson. Eric Johnson.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Was he mayor then?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. 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&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. What did you do after you heard of the assassination?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. 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.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_215" id="Page_215">215</a></span>
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.</p>

<p>There might be some lesser offense. I talked to the U.S. attorney.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Who was that?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Where did you talk to him?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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&mdash;do you want me to tell you?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. I will tell you what I can.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>This must have been 3 o'clock roughly.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. The witnesses that were on the street near the Depository
Building?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. Yes, sir; and in the building, I am not sure who they were, they
had two court reporters there taking statements.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Did they tell you anything about a suspect at that point?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. The Sheriff told me, he said, "Don't say nothing about it, but
they have got a good suspect," talking about the Dallas Police.</p>

<p>He didn't have him there. John Connally, you know, was shot also&mdash;and he
was, he used to be a roommate of mine in the Navy and we were good friends,
and are now&mdash;and the first thing I did then was went out to the hospital to
see how he was getting along.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Do you have a reason for that?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Have you any personnel for that?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. At this point that you are describing, had you learned of any
arrest?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>At that time they kept announcing they had Oswald or I believe they named
a name.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Had you learned about the Tippit murder yet?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. Yes, sir; of course, it had been on the air that Tippit had been
killed.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_216" id="Page_216">216</a></span>
I went by the Dallas police, just to let us see what was kind of going on.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Was that unusual for you to do that?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. How did you happen to do that this time?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. 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.</p>

<p>As I went in, and this is roughly 6:30, 7 at night&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Did you go down to the airfield when President Johnson left?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. No, sir; no, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. You did not.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. About what time was this at the police station?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. I would say around 7 o'clock. This can vary 30 minutes either
way.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Who did you see there?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. Chief Curry.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Did you talk to him?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. I talked to him.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. What did you say to him and what did he say to you?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. 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?"</p>

<p>And I <span class="locked">said&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. I wonder if you would identify this for the record?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. 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
<span class="locked">Revill&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. Who was that?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. Hosty.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. Can you identify him as to what he does?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. He is a special agent of the FBI, but I don't think I would know
him if he walked in here actually.</p>

<p>But that is his business. He showed me that, and I read it. Now, as far as
identifying it, I have seen&mdash;I have a copy of it in my files.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. Who said that?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. This memorandum said that.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. Who is reported to be quoting the memorandum?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. 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&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Do you know when you first got the memorandum in your files
that you are referring to?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. I will hand you Commission Exhibit No. 709 and ask you if that
is the memorandum you just referred to?</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_217" id="Page_217">217</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Would your records show when you received a copy of this
document, Commission Exhibit No. 709?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. Well, I am sure it would. It would be the day&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. You put a receipt stamp on anything like that?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. 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&mdash;it is
in our files, and I am rather sure it is the same time. You all got the same thing.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. We didn't receive anything like that until the time that Chief
Curry came to testify, just for your information.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. Well, I didn't know that, but now on this, this is the Ruby
<span class="locked">matter&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Could I ask one question there?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Just to refresh my recollection of your testimony, did you see
this that afternoon around 5 or 6 o'clock?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. Around 7 o'clock I would say it was on Chief Curry's desk.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Of the 22d?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. Of the 22d.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. Yes; let me see it; yes.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. Is your recollection, was the memorandum that was shown
to you by&mdash;first, who did show you the memorandum on the 22d?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. Chief Curry of the Dallas police.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. Was the memorandum shown to you on the 22d by Chief
Curry in this same form?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. To the best of my knowledge that was it now.</p>

<p>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."</p>

<p>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&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Do you remember whether he said just what was in this Exhibit
No. 709 or something less than that or more or what?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. I will answer anything, of course.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. You can tell us the rest that you said to Chief Curry and he said
to you at that time, first.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. You found that to be true.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_218" id="Page_218">218</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. 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&mdash;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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Which assistant was that?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. Bill Alexander. There was another one of&mdash;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.</p>

<p>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&mdash;of Fritz's cases.</p>

<p>But he was there. Your FBI was there, your Secret Service were there in the
homicide.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Who from the FBI, do you recall?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. Well, I saw Vince Drain, a special agent that I knew, and Jim
Bookhout, I believe, and there was Mr. Kelley and Mr. Sorrels&mdash;Inspector
Kelley of the Secret Service, Sorrels, Forest Sorrels.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>You could hardly walk down the hall. You just had to fight your way down
through the hall, through the press up there.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Who were they?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Did you say anything to Chief Curry about that?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. No, sir; I probably mentioned it but I assume you want&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. Yes; I think that is the brief conversation, that is the last I
talked to Curry that night. I may have talked to&mdash;but that is all I recall. I
left thereafter, and went on out to dinner.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. About what time did you leave?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. I wanted to get for the record, Mr. Wade, who would be trying
to file like that.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. 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.</p>

<p>I know I heard it and I am not sure where.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_219" id="Page_219">219</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. 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.</p>

<p>So, when I heard it I went down to the police station and took the charge on
him, just a case of simple murder.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Is that of Tippit or of the President?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. 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&mdash;somebody was interested in
something other than the law because there is no such charge in Texas as
part of&mdash;I don't care what you belong to, you don't have to allege that in an
indictment.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. What do you mean by the radio saying that Johnson was there?
Do you mean President Johnson?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. No; that is the justice of the peace whose name is Johnston.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. I see.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. Yes; Justice of the Peace David L. Johnston was the justice of the
peace there.</p>

<p>So, I went down there not knowing&mdash;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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Have you told us all that you said to the U.S. attorney when
you talked to him at that time?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. So far as I know. I know that concerned that point, you know.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Well, did he say anything to you about that point?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. Well, I think he asked me was that&mdash;I don't think Barefoot was
real conversant, I guess is the word with what the law is in a murder charge.</p>

<p>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&mdash;thought it might because some&mdash;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.</p>

<p>I went over the evidence which they&mdash;when I saw the evidence, it was the
evidence as told to me by Captain Fritz.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. This conversation you have described you had when Jim Alexander
was there and the others?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Is that the case about the assassination?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. Yes; we are talking entirely about the assassination.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Did you discuss the evidence that they did have at that time
with Captain Fritz?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Will you tell us what evidence you recall?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. 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,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_220" id="Page_220">220</a></span>
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.</p>

<p>I don't know&mdash;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.</p>

<p>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&mdash;not Senator&mdash;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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Will you clarify the palmprint that you are referring to on
the rifle?</p>

<p>Was it on the underside of the rifle, was it between the rifle and the stock
or where was it as you recall?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. Specifically, I couldn't say because&mdash;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.</p>

<p>I thought we had that all the time when I took the complaint on the thing.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>I think they varied a little as to where they picked him up but generally they
had some type of statement from them.</p>

<p>That is generally what they gave me now.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. That is all you recall as of that time?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Did you give any report to the press then <span class="locked">about&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. No; I will tell you what happened then.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. As we walked out of the thing they started yelling, I started
home, and they started yelling they wanted to see Oswald, the press.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Still Friday night?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. About what time?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. I would say around midnight roughly. It would&mdash;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.</p>

<p>So, they started interviewing Fritz and Curry, and I started to leave and
Fritz said, "Well, we will get&mdash;" either Fritz or Curry said, "We will show him
up down there," he said, "This is Mr. Wade, the district attorney."</p>

<p>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&mdash;I went down there with
them. They started to put Oswald in the lineup down there.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Will you describe that briefly to the Commission?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. Well, I don't know whether you have seen&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. You mean observers can see?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. Observers can see, but the defendants or suspects can't see through
or at least can't identify.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_221" id="Page_221">221</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Do you remember who else besides Lee Harvey Oswald was in
the showup?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Did they ask you whether they should do this?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. I don't think I said yea or nay to the thing so far as I know, because
it was&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Well, I think I did say, "You'd better get some officers in here or something
for some protection on him."</p>

<p>I thought a little about, and I got a little worried at that stage.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. How did you happen to pick him out?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. Well, I don't know. He had&mdash;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 <span class="locked">mostly&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. You mean a scratch pad?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. 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 <span class="locked">left&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Excuse me. Where was Ruby from where you told us where
Oswald was?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. Well, he was, I would say, about 12 feet. I am giving a <span class="locked">rough&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. When you saw <span class="locked">him&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Were there press men around him?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. All kinds of press men around him, and also press men 10 deep
between him and Oswald.</p>

<p>Now, one of their&mdash;you mentioned the gun awhile ago&mdash;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&mdash;when they got through, they started
asking him questions, the press.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. Wait a minute. How close were the nearest people in the
audience to Oswald?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. I would say they were that far from him.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. How far is that?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. Three feet.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. You mean some of the reporters and photographers were
within 3 feet of him?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. There is a platform up there where the microphone is.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. Was he standing up on the platform?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. No, he was not at the platform.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. Was he on the floor level?</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_222" id="Page_222">222</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. Were there people around him, surrounding him?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. People were on the floor in front of those desks.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. But I mean, were they, were people on all sides of him?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. 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.</p>

<p>So they <span class="locked">started&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. Excuse me one moment.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. Thank you, sir.</p>

<p>(At this point, Senator Cooper withdrew from the hearing room.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Proceed.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Will you proceed?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. 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&mdash;they asked him something.</p>

<p>Then they started asking me questions everywhere, from all angles.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Under your practice, what do you mean by file on him? Is that
something different than an arraignment?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. I see. You don't bring him before a magistrate?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. Well, that is called&mdash;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.</p>

<p>But at that meeting you had two attorneys from American Civil Liberties
Union.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Which meeting?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Did you talk to them about it?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. What did they say then?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. 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&mdash;they were in the meeting there.</p>

<p>Let me get a little further and go back to&mdash;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&mdash;I will tell
you what happened the next day.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Let's finish with the showup now.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_223" id="Page_223">223</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. 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 <span class="locked">evidence&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Which interview is that?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. At that time, had you filed on the assassination?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. Yes, sir; we had filed upstairs prior to this. He had been filed
on for murder with malice.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. But he hadn't been brought before the justice of the peace or
magistrate yet on that complaint, had he?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Like I told you, I never did see Oswald except in that lineup downstairs. That
was the first time I had seen him.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. Yes; it was some time during that hour, this went on for about
an hour down there, everything.</p>

<p>Well, during that interview somebody said, and the thing&mdash;Oswald belonged
to, was he a Communist, something generally to that effect.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. They asked you that?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. 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&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. You hadn't known him before?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Were any of your assistants or people working for you there
at that showup?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. By "he" you <span class="locked">mean&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. Ruby, Jack Ruby.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. 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.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_224" id="Page_224">224</a></span>
I don't know him personally&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Who is this?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. KLIF is the name of the radio station.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>But that came out in the trial.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Did you give him an interview over the telephone to KLIF?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. Ruby?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. No.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. It was a KLIF reporter that you gave this to, not Ruby?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. On the pornography charge, was Ruby involved in that?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Well, that is about all I can recall of that night.</p>

<p>I went home then.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. You have told us all you remember about the showup?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. 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.</p>

<p>At that time, most of it had already been given out, however, by someone. I
think by the police.</p>

<p>Now, the next morning, I don't know of anything else until the next morning.
I went to the office about 9 o'clock.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Could I ask a question?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>(Discussion off the record.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Do you have any particular transcript that you are speaking
about?</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_225" id="Page_225">225</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. 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&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. So there were a number of networks, possibly, and a number of
the radio stations and television stations from the whole area?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Has that got it cleared? Can I go to the next morning?</p>

<p>I will try to go a little and not forget anything.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>I talked to him about an hour.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. What did you say to him and what did he say to you?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. Well, we discussed the history of Lee Harvey Oswald and the&mdash;one
of the purposes he came to me, he wanted his mother, Oswald's mother, and
wife and him to see Oswald.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Did he say this to you?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Did you do anything about it?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Did Robert tell you anything about Lee Harvey Oswald's background
at that time?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. 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&mdash;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. &amp; P. and the
big, I guess you call them, supermarkets or whatever they are.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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&mdash;I said "Do you think"&mdash;I<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_226" id="Page_226">226</a></span>
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."</p>

<p>Now, I never did see him. Roughly, that is about all I remember from that
conversation. We rambled around for quite a bit.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>I told him they would be out there, and he said, "I won't have anything to
say."</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Was this the morning after the assassination?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. Yes, sir; Saturday morning.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. About what time?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. I would say between 9 and 10 is when I talked with him.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. By "we" who do you mean, in your office?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. Well, I think I had seven or eight in there, Bowie, and Alexander,
and Dan Ellis, Jim Williamson, but there was a legal point.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Secret Service?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. No.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. FBI?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. There was an inspector of the FBI who called me two or three
times. I don't remember.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Did they tell you how to handle the case in any way?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. I don't think so. I mean it wasn't really up to them.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. The only time you ever talked to Barefoot Sanders about it
was in regard to this conspiracy, possibility of, that you have already described?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Was Barefoot Sanders suggesting how you should handle the
Oswald case except the time you already related?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. I don't recall him doing, suggesting that.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Any other Federal officers suggesting anything like that to you?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Now, I don't know whether that was after Ruby shot Oswald or before,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_227" id="Page_227">227</a></span>
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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. And he told you that, did he?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. That is the only conversation of that type that you recall with
any Federal officer?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Do you know what Barefoot said about publicity when you
did discuss it with him?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. I don't recall anything.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. All right.</p>

<p>What happened next, as you recall?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. I was going home. I went by the police station to talk to Chief
Curry.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Did you discuss the evidence then?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. Well, at that time&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. What did he say about that?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. He said, "That is fine. I think that is so."</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. I don't think I ever saw the map.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. You don't know what it contained in regard to the parade route?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. But you have never seen the map?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Then I walked out, and Tom Pettit of NBC said, "We are all confused on
the law, where we are really on this thing."</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. What did you say?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Did you discuss the evidence at that time?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Did you tell them why you wouldn't answer those questions?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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,
<span class="locked">and&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. That day is Saturday?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. Saturday; yes, sir.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_228" id="Page_228">228</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. About what time? Do you recall?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. I guess I got home 2:30 probably. I must have eaten on the way
home or somewhere.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. In the afternoon?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Will you just describe what you saw there at that time?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>In other words, he went directly over the evidence connecting him with the gun.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. You say there was a crowd there. Who was the crowd around
him?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. Newsmen. You see, I was at home. I was watching it on
television.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. I see. Did you do anything about that, then? Did you call
him and ask him to quit that?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Will you explain what you mean by that?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. This way of giving evidence to the press and all of the news
media, is that standard practice in your area?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Have you done anything about it, tried to stop it in any way?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. 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&mdash;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&mdash;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.</p>

<p>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&mdash;well, not generally the same type of
juror.</p>

<p>The only thing I make a practice of saying is that I reviewed the evidence in<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_229" id="Page_229">229</a></span>
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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Did you say that at any time about the Oswald case?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. Oh, yes, sir; I have said that about both Oswald and Ruby.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. When did you say it about the Oswald case?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. I guess it was Friday night probably. I was asked what penalty
we would ask for.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. When the police made these releases about the evidence, did
they ever ask you whether they should make them?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Did you consult any State officials about how you should handle
either the Oswald or the Ruby case?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. I don't know. It seems like I talked to Waggoner Carr that night,
but I don't remember.</p>

<p>Didn't we talk some time about it?</p>

<p>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 <span class="locked">actually&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Does the Texas attorney general have any jurisdiction to tell you
how to try such cases?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Mr. Carr didn't try to tell you in any way how to handle either
case?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. Not that I know of.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Carr</span>. Off the record.</p>

<p>(Discussion off the record.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. May we proceed.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Mr. Wade, will you give us the substance of what Mr. Carr
said to you and what you said to him at that time?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. All I remember&mdash;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.</p>

<p>It was late at night and I believe that <span class="locked">is&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. It must have been Saturday night, wasn't it?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. No; that was Friday night.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Friday night.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. 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&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Did you say anything about whether you had evidence to support
such a complaint of a conspiracy?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_230" id="Page_230">230</a></span>
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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Will you tell us what you mean by taking a complaint under
your law.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Is that what you did in the Oswald-Ruby case?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Now, it goes to the justice of the peace court to clear the whole thing up and
his purpose, he has&mdash;the law says you shall take him immediately before a
magistrate, which is the justice of the peace.</p>

<p>The courts have held that it is not necessary in Texas, but there is a statute
that says that, and then he&mdash;his purpose is to hold an examining trial to see
whether it is a bailable case or not.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Does that answer some of the questions?</p>

<p>(At this point, Senator Cooper returned to the hearing room.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Which route did you follow in regard to the Oswald case?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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."</p>

<p>It was a straight murder indictment, murder with malice charge, and that
was the procedure we followed in the Oswald case.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Why did you not include in that complaint a charge of an international
conspiracy?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. 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&mdash;</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. By the "attorney general" who do you mean?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. 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&mdash;had no idea about what murder was.</p>

<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_231" id="Page_231">231</a></span>
and means is the only thing that varies in a murder indictment, all other wordage
is the same. Does that clear that up?</p>

<p>(Discussion off the record.)</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. As I understand it, under Texas law there is no crime which
is denominated under the term "international conspiracy."</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. No, sir.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. I assume that conspiracy is a crime in Texas, isn't it, conspiracy
to commit a crime?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. My point is, though, that conspiracy is a crime under Texas
law?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. Yes, sir; conspiracy to commit murder is a crime.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Let me ask this question.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. But conspiracy is not essential to the crime, to describe
the person accused as belonging to any organization?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. No, sir; it is not necessary and it is entirely what they call
surplusage.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. No, sir; you mean parties other than Oswald?</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. 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.</p>

<p>I never did see the book, none of that.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. What you are saying in this last answer relates to the present
time, not only the way your knowledge <span class="locked">has&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. At that time and up to the present.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Rather than the day of assassination.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. 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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_232" id="Page_232">232</a></span>
told them I thought they ought to let them bring it on up here that night and
get it back the next night.</p>

<p>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."</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Have you ever had any evidence that Oswald was involved with
anyone else in actually shooting the President?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. Well, I will answer that the same way. I have absolutely no evidence
myself.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin.</span> Do you have any evidence as to whether Jack Ruby was involved
with anyone else in the killing of Oswald?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>That, I can't think of his name, some of you all may know it, but he is a lawyer
there in Dallas.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. You found that was not anything you could rely on.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. 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&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. No, but I didn't&mdash;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.</p>

<p>I read where they checked with the Department of Public Safety and they did
not, were not able to&mdash;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.</p>

<p>The reason I think he actually must have thought it was so, but&mdash;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&mdash;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.</p>

<p>We had a waitress that I think you are all familiar with that was out at B&amp;B
Cafe at 3 a.m. on the 22d who said she served Ruby and Oswald there.</p>

<p>B&amp;B Cafe on Oak Lane, I know you have got that, I have seen it somewhere.</p>

<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_233" id="Page_233">233</a></span>
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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>That is in the record which you will get of the trial, I guess.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. You see, they announced Dallas businessman kills him.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. I took my family, I was in church with the family. I took them
on home and on the way down there they kept&mdash;they didn't say who it was but
this ran through my mind, a businessman.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Mr. Chairman, what do you want to do about Mr. Carr?</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. <span class="locked">Well&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. Start out with the first one, his name.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. If anybody would mention the lawyer's name, I know him&mdash;he has
run for the legislature a number of times.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. A lawyer who lives in Dallas?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. A lawyer in Dallas, and he has&mdash;we have, he made a four-page
affidavit about this thing, and mailed it to J. Edgar Hoover.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. You can supply his name.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. We can supply his name and I would supply you with copies of his
affidavit which I think you have.</p>

<p>Don't you have it, isn't that up here?</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. Without going into that in a moment, you can refresh your
recollection and supply to the Commission the name of this lawyer.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. Had he talked to you?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. What did he say? Did he make a written statement to you
or just talk to you?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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."</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_234" id="Page_234">234</a></span>
Don't you have this memorandum?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. There is no use of me trying to give it to you.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. I was just personally trying to get your recollection about it.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. 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."</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>This was during the trial actually, and then when the man called me he took
a lie detector. There was no truth in it.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. Did anyone else tell you that they had seen Ruby and
Oswald talking together?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. No one else personally has told me this.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. You mentioned a girl.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. 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&amp;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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>The report indicated these, all these people were homosexuals as I believe,
or there was an indication of that.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. Lynn?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. I believe that is his first name, and he is a lawyer there.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. He is the lawyer?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. That is the lawyer I am thinking about, I am trying to think of his
name while I sit here.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Have you heard the names of any other persons who it is claimed had something
to do with the assassination of President Kennedy?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. 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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_235" id="Page_235">235</a></span>
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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. Of course, once Oswald was killed, then your duties were
connected with the prosecution of Ruby.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. And there wasn't any occasion for you then to search
<span class="locked">out&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. I had this, Senator.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. Other persons.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. 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.</p>

<p>I mean he planned the thing. He practiced shooting, and he had his inspiration
from somebody else. Whether he had a&mdash;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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. Did you ever hear about any evidence that there was an
airplane stationed any place there?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. 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.</p>

<p>We have reporters down there coming down and said, "My office said to write
something on Ruby today, what are we going to write."</p>

<p>And it has been so very irresponsible.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. Thank you.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. You referred, Mr. Wade, to some testimony or some evidence
that Oswald was at one time in the Carousel when Ruby was there.</p>

<p>Was that solely from this lawyer whose testimony you have mentioned?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. 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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_236" id="Page_236">236</a></span>
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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. 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.</p>

<p>The answer to your question is "No."</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Was any statement made by you as to whether or not there
was any international conspiracy, conspiracy with Oswald about the assassination?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Did anybody ask you to say anything one way or another about
that?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. But no officials asked you to say anything about it publicly or
otherwise?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. No, sir; not that I recall.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. He is not our FBI man, he is the FBI. We are an independent
commission.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Somebody might have said that. I don't know but it wasn't me because I
hadn't talked to anybody.</p>

<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_237" id="Page_237">237</a></span>
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.</p>

<p>It had been most of it laid out but not in chronological order.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. When was this now?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>It probably would have been better off without giving anything, because we
didn't give what all we had.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Do you remember the elements of inaccuracy that got into this
statement of yours?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. 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&mdash;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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Well, you see, at that <span class="locked">stage&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Who was it that called you?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>So, I did that entirely&mdash;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.</p>

<p>There was undoubtedly a breakdown on security there in the basement.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_238" id="Page_238">238</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. On the seven points were any of them that were new that hadn't
already been told to the public?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. That was the purpose of that interview.</p>

<p>You also have to&mdash;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.</p>

<p>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&mdash;called me up and I denied it. [Laughter.]</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. But you had lots of things of that kind. And I thought you needed
some type of, somebody&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Tell us how that affected it. You had the jurisdiction of the
crime itself.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. Of the trial of the case.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. And the police department, what jurisdiction did they have?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. They had the jurisdiction, the primary responsibility for the investigation
of the assassination, and&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Had the State authorities any jurisdiction or effect on the
operation?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. You mean the State?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Of Texas.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Was that confusing, did that make it harder to try to solve
the crime and handle the problems?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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&mdash;they ran all that on. They were just running
everybody. There was no control over your public media. It made it<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_239" id="Page_239">239</a></span>
worse since all television networks were on the assassination all&mdash;24 hours, I
mean all day. And there was no central thing from&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. Well, offhand, I think probably it would, <span class="locked">but&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. It would help?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. You need more control over the police investigation in order to
carry out your duties, is <span class="locked">that&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Is the lawyer that you referred to in answer to Senator Cooper's
questions Carroll Jarnegan?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. 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.&nbsp;G. Storey, and the dean of the Harvard
Law School, raising, wondering what the situation was with reference to
attorneys for Oswald.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. What Saturday are you talking about?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. What were they saying to you about that?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. 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.</p>

<p>I told them they ought to appoint the president of the bar association and
the president of the Criminal Bar Association to represent him.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Who did you tell that to?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. Told that to Mr. Paul Carrington and also to Mr. Storey, I believe.</p>

<p>I believe they are the two that discussed it more at length with me.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Do you know whether anything was done about that?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. What?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Louis Nichols, I talked to him, the president of the bar, and he was trying<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_240" id="Page_240">240</a></span>
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."</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. You are speaking now about a lawyer for Oswald?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. Yes; for Oswald.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>He says, "He doesn't want but one lawyer, John Abt, in New York."</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Who is he?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. He is an attorney in New York.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. You said he didn't want any attorney?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>I wanted to get that because I think you probably knew it and get it in the
record anyhow.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. We will call him in a minute.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. O.K.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Was he during that conversation saying anything to you about
not alleging it if it were true?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. None to my knowledge.</p>

<p>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.&nbsp;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."</p>

<p>I asked them both about it and they both denied it.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. Did anyone ever say to you in the event there was a charge
of conspiracy who would be named other than Oswald?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. 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.</p>

<p>The question we are talking about here, if I understand it, being that Oswald,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_241" id="Page_241">241</a></span>
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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Mr. Wade, I don't think you have quite finished the&mdash;all of your&mdash;hour-by-hour
description of what happened up through the killing of Mr. Oswald.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. I thought I had hit it. The only thing I can't remember now is
the Saturday night.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>At that time there wasn't anything going on and I went home.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Did you do anything more about the press and TV and radio
people crowding into the police station than you have already described?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. No; you see&mdash;I have been in that building probably once every 2
years.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. In any event you didn't do anything.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. What did you do on Sunday, the 25th?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. Well, went to church.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. The 24th.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. I went to church, my family and I went to Dr. W.&nbsp;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.</p>

<p>And as I walked out somebody said they shot Oswald. So I took&mdash;turned
on the radio and took my wife and kids home, and went down to the police
station.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Did you have anything to do with a lawyer by the name of
Tom Howard in connection with that?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. 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?"</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Do you know what happened to that habeas corpus of Tom
Howard's?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. No.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_242" id="Page_242">242</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. You didn't have anything to do with it?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. 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.</p>

<p>And then, of course, after he died and the murder charge was filed, well, that
would actually be out of date.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. Was it a writ of habeas corpus to bring Oswald before a
court?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. No. Jack Ruby.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. Jack Ruby.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. 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."</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>I never saw the writ or anything. I just heard somebody say there is a writ
on him.</p>

<p>(At this point, Chairman Warren entered the hearing room.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Did you ever help Ruby about any of his troubles of any kind?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. Not that I know of.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Prior to this occasion?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. No; I think we have had him for a liquor violation or something,
but if we have&mdash;like I say, I never knew him. I think that they have had some
charges against him.</p>

<p>As a matter of fact, they had two pistol charges against him but I don't
think they ever reached my office.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Do you know what charges they were about pistols?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Did you know Eva Grant?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. No, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Ruby's sister. Do you know Sam Ruby?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Did it come to your attention that there was some claim that
Oswald was an agent of one of the intelligence agencies of Government?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. I heard that talk down there. It was talk <span class="locked">some&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Do you know who was talking that?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. I don't know. I have been up here once before, and some of the
press were&mdash;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.</p>

<p>I never saw it and heard it, talk, but I am sure you all know more about it
than I do.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_243" id="Page_243">243</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. By voucher you mean an entry or something of that kind, what
kind of a voucher?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. What book are you referring to?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. The little black book that Oswald had in his possession at the
time he was arrested.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Now what agency was it rumored he was a member of?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. It was rumored he worked first for the FBI and then for the CIA.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Is that all you have heard?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. As a matter of fact, I don't think I had ever heard that until
Waggoner Carr called me and told me&mdash;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&mdash;rumors of the
thing.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Is that the report by the reporter Hudkins?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Is there anything more that you know about that matter?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. 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&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. There was one other report by Goulden, reporter of the Philadelphia
Inquirer. Did that ever come to your attention in regard to this matter?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Apparently it was the same thing.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. Different angle.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. From Hudkins' report that had been picked up.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Have you inquired of him?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. I have asked him about it and he gives me nothing in the way of
evidence.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Did you prepare the complaint in regard to Jack Ruby yourself?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Did you give any information to the press about what you had
in regard to that prosecution, and the nature of the evidence?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. No; not that I know of. Of course, they all saw it on television,
you know. We have got in&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Who was that?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. 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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_244" id="Page_244">244</a></span>
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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Did you have anything to do with the preparation of the case
for trial?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. Yes, to some extent. You see I had four assistants to assist
me in the trial.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Who were they?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Tell us what happened.</p>

<p>Mr <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Who were they?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>So, I said, "Get all these witnesses in during the noon hour and let me talk
to them."</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Tell us what starting with&mdash;which one did you talk to first,
Archer, Dean, or McMillon.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. I think I talked to all of them at first in a body. I talked <span class="locked">to&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. I see.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. What did they say?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. 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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_245" id="Page_245">245</a></span>
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."</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. When?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. 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."</p>

<p>Incidentally, you may not know it but their psychiatrist corroborated that
statement.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Who was that?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. Dr. Guttmacher on cross-examination. We asked Dr. Guttmacher,
"Well, didn't Ruby tell you that he meant to shoot three times?"</p>

<p>He said, "Yes; and he told me that."</p>

<p>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&mdash;he
said something about, "You fellows couldn't do it," or talking about the police,
and, I believe that was Archer and McMillon.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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&mdash;time
varies from 20 minutes to an hour, depending on who you are listening to.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. I have to go to a quorum call.</p>

<p>(At this point, Senator Cooper left the hearing room.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. The defense cross-examined McMillon&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Where did they stay with him?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. In the jail. They were&mdash;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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. By "he" there you mean Ruby?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. Ruby.</p>

<p>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."</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Did they say when that was?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. 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, <span class="locked">but&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. After what?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. After the killing of Oswald.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Did they describe what the conversation was with Ruby when
Sorrels and Dean were there?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. 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&mdash;they were in the room<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_246" id="Page_246">246</a></span>
but I may say not within hearing distance. They heard part of what was said
but not all of the conversation.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. By "they" who do you mean?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. I am talking about McMillon and Archer.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. What did they hear?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Where did that occur?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. That occurred as they arrived on the floor where the jail is,
the fifth floor, I believe, of the jail.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Then what else could they testify to?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Shortly thereafter, Dean's testimony came on and only&mdash;I am kind of anticipating
your questions on this.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Where was Dean then?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. They were in the jail. <span class="locked">Dean&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Who else?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. Sorrels, Forest Sorrels. I am not testifying as a fact but this
was all told to me, of course, by Dean and Sorrels.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. That is the following day?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. That is Thursday before we rested the case on Friday.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Will you tell us the approximate date that you talked to him?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. It seems like we started on the 17th, and this was 2 <span class="locked">weeks&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 17th of what month?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. Of February.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>I sat down there to talk to Dean and Sorrels because we was going to put&mdash;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.</p>

<p>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."</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Sorrels didn't have that in his statement, did he?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_247" id="Page_247">247</a></span>
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."</p>

<p>I said, "How are you going to&mdash;what are you going to say if you go on the
stand on this?"</p>

<p>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."</p>

<p>He said, "Those were the two things I went to find out and I dwelled on those
entirely."</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>He had practically everything in the statement, but this is one thing that he
didn't have in there, as I recall.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Did you examine Dean's statement in regard to this matter?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. Well, I read it there that day. It is a very short one, you know.
Of course, there is more than one statement.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Yes; did you look at his prior statements at that time?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Did he say anything in regard to this premeditation in the
prior statement?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. What did Dean tell you at the time that you asked him about
the later statement?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. What did he say about that, the security?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Did you learn from Dean how Ruby got into the basement?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. I learned the way he told him he got in.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. How was that?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Did Dean tell you why he left out of his prior statements the
statement about premeditation or prior thinking about killing Oswald?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. Well, he was cross-examined about that, and told me also that<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_248" id="Page_248">248</a></span>
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.</p>

<p>Now, McMillon and Archer are detectives, you know, but he is not. He is a
uniformed man.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. What did McMillon tell you about his statement?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. 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&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Did McMillon make a statement about premeditation?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. What about Archer, did he have anything in his statement about
Friday night in his prior statements?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. No, sir; I don't think he did. He did have about the intending to
shoot three times.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. He didn't tell that to Sorrels?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. That is on Oswald's face?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. On Oswald's face.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Did you make any further investigation of this addition or
change in the statements of Dean and these other people?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. I don't think there is any change in the statement. I think you
are asking a kind of a misleading question.</p>

<p>I think that first report dealt entirely with the security in the basement of
the thing.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. You don't think that purported to relate what the conversation
was?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. 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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_249" id="Page_249">249</a></span>
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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. You have already testified that you thought it was Jack Ruby
before you even knew the name.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. Well, you may&mdash;I may have stressed a little saying thought. When
I was driving down there they said Dallas businessman kills him, without his
name.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. You didn't say that to your wife?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Now, did you get any assistance from the FBI, Secret Service,
and other agencies in the handling of these cases?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. 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.</p>

<p>They helped us in this way. If you had a witness on the stand&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Do you know whether the files of the&mdash;of either of these agencies
or both of them were made available to the police in connection with the two
cases?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>But that was about a week before the trial, and during the picking of the jury
when we were still going through them.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Did you learn anything during your investigation of the Ruby
case about the billfold and the ignition case in the car?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. Of Ruby's car?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. No.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. That didn't come to your attention?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. You know they found a lot of stuff in his car and a lot of stuff
on his person. I might say this&mdash;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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>We later got a copy of that because the night before the killing he gave<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_250" id="Page_250">250</a></span>
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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>This was the night before the killing.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. And all you have in regard to Jack Ruby, too.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. Everything I know of.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. So, far as you know it has all been supplied then?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. As far as I know it has. I don't know&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. I think that was one of the inaccuracies that Sunday night on
the thing.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. What did you say about it?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. I think I said I thought it was a Mauser or I thought&mdash;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?</p>

<p>But I think you have that&mdash;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&mdash;all my information came from the
police and actually somebody said originally it was a Mauser but it turned out
it was not.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. You learned it was not.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. 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&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. In your testimony you were not entirely sure as to whether
Chief Curry had the gun during the press conference?</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_251" id="Page_251">251</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. I am deducting, I think probably that I saw someone else with
the gun, rather than Chief Curry.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Did you in any press conference describe anything about paraffin
tests?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. I told them they gave him paraffin tests. I believe that&mdash;I am
not positive what I told them, but what I was told, they found paraffin on one
hand&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Did you indicate what that meant in terms of the effect on
crime or its investigation?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. That is all I have, Mr. Chief Justice. Mr. Dulles has a few
questions.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Mr. Dulles, do you have some questions you would like to ask
Mr. Wade?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Mr. Chief Justice, Mr. Ford, believing I was the only one going
to be here during the interrogation&mdash;during the entire session this morning&mdash;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.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. A great many of these questions have already been covered.
I will just run over them briefly.</p>

<p>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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. 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 <span class="locked">had&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. There were no other messages other than these messages that
you mentioned with Cliff Carter, is that right?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. Yes; I talked to him, but I don't think it concerned this problem.
I think it was on a&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. 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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_252" id="Page_252">252</a></span>
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.</p>

<p>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&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. How they got in I have no idea, but the whole mechanics of the
thing&mdash;for instance, in the homicide office, the whole office&mdash;you probably have
seen it&mdash;I don't imagine it is as big as this room. It is cut up into little offices.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. I was in there; yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. 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&mdash;you don't have a
transcript of the trial, but that will be testimony.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. How long was the transcript, Mr. Wade?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. I don't know how many pages. I don't think&mdash;we don't have our
copy of it. We ordered a copy, and so&mdash;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.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Will that all be in the record on appeal?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Have they made any extra copies, do you know?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. 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.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. I see; yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. 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.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Do you know what it will cost? You don't know that yet?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. I think&mdash;we think&mdash;our copy will be $3,000. I mean I have got
that figure in my mind, because the Commissioners' Court kicked about us having<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_253" id="Page_253">253</a></span>
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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. 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&mdash;he or they&mdash;refused
to identify. Do you know anything about that?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. No; Hudkins, as I recall, wrote in his article&mdash;I don't know who
the high official is, but I imagine they are basing it on me or the police or someone&mdash;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.</p>

<p>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."</p>

<p>And I said, "Well, fine, I have none myself," and he said, "What would you
think about it?"</p>

<p>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."</p>

<p>So he quoted from that. That is all the conversation I had with Hudkins,
and you can get that&mdash;I haven't seen the Goulden article, and didn't talk with
him. I haven't seen Joe Goulden&mdash;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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Does that cover that?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. That covers that.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. 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&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Do you know whether any other Texas officials made any such
statement?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Do you know whether there were any official transcripts made of<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_254" id="Page_254">254</a></span>
the various interrogations of Oswald from the time he was captured to the time
of his killing?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. 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&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. If any transcript was made we would have had it, would we not?
So far as you know?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. 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&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. In your talks, going back to your talks, with Mr. Carter at the
White <span class="locked">House&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. Carter; yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Carter&mdash;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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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&mdash;that they&mdash;concerning
the international conspiracy angle. I didn't discuss it because it was silly,
I mean the whole thing was a silly deal.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. That is all I have, Mr. Chief Justice.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. I think that is all, Mr. Wade. Thank you very much for your
cooperation.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Wade</span>. 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.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. All right. We will recess until 2 o'clock.</p>

<p>(Whereupon, at 12:50 p.m., the President's Commission recessed.)</p>

<hr />

<p>Afternoon Session</p>
<h2 id="ptd">TESTIMONY OF PATRICK T. DEAN</h2>

<p>The President's Commission reconvened at 2 p.m.</p>

<p>(Chairman Warren presiding and Mr. Dulles present.)</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. All right, gentlemen.</p>

<p>Do you have a statement?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_255" id="Page_255">255</a></span>
deposition, whether he couldn't appear personally, so we are permitting him to
do this.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. We are very happy to have you, Sergeant. Will you raise
your right hand and be sworn, please?</p>

<p>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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dean</span>. I do.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Be seated, please.</p>

<p>Mr. Rankin, you may examine the witness.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Sergeant, will you give us your name, your address, please?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dean</span>. Patrick T. Dean. I live at 2822 Nicholson Drive in Dallas.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Are you connected with the police department in Dallas?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dean</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. What is your position?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dean</span>. I am a sergeant on patrol.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. How long have you been an official in the police department?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dean</span>. Eleven and a half years.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Will you tell us briefly any training or experience you have had?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dean</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. You have given us your deposition, have you not, Sergeant?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dean</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. And is that correct and true as far as anything you know?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dean</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Is there any part of it that you want to change or correct or
modify?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dean</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Well, do you want to tell that at this time?</p>

<p>First, is there anything about what you said on the record that was not
correct?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dean</span>. No, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. And the truth?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dean</span>. No, sir.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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."</p>

<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_256" id="Page_256">256</a></span>
did not tell you that he had thought or planned to kill Oswald two nights prior."</p>

<p>And he said, "Your testimony was false, and these reports to your chief of
police are false."</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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."</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Did you ask Mr. Griffin to ever put this part that was off the
record on the record?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dean</span>. No, sir; I didn't.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Why didn't you at that time?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dean</span>. 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.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. And you do not need one either Sergeant.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dean</span>. True.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. You will get along all right.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dean</span>. Thank you.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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&mdash;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&mdash;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.</p>

<p>I told Mr. Griffin at the time that I had told this man&mdash;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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>This was just additional information that I told Mr. Griffin that I was&mdash;this
is an example&mdash;I was there to help them in any way I could.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Now, the differences in your testimony that Mr. Griffin was discussing<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_257" id="Page_257">257</a></span>
with you off the record, you have gone into that in detail on the record,
haven't you, in your deposition?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dean</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. And you have explained all that in your deposition, haven't you?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dean</span>. I believe so; I am not certain.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. And did he ask you about why you didn't have your&mdash;this
information about his planning to shoot Oswald the night before, or on the
<span class="locked">Friday&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dean</span>. Now, are you asking did Mr. Griffin ask me why I <span class="locked">didn't&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Why you didn't put it in your February&mdash;in your statement
before the February 18 one?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dean</span>. Yes, sir; I believe he did, and I explained to him this wasn't the subject&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. So you didn't put it in your prior reports?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dean</span>. No, sir; this was later on. Chief Curry&mdash;I think probably it was
February 18&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Well, this was fine with me. I wrote the report. This was February 18.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Did you tell Mr. Griffin at that time that you thought it was
unimportant or had some other reason for not including it?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dean</span>. 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&mdash;Officer R.&nbsp;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&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. And about his planning to shoot him prior to the day <span class="locked">that&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dean</span>. Now, this wasn't&mdash;the only time that I put that in the report was
February 18.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Yes; did you explain to Mr. Griffin in your prior testimony why
you didn't put it in?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dean</span>. I believe that I did; I am not sure.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Do you want to add anything to that, just anything that you
wanted, to the Commission?</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. I have to look at the record to be sure.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Then we can't blame him if he didn't answer why.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. No; I just wanted to find out if he wanted to add anything at
this time that would complete the record.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Yes; all right.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_258" id="Page_258">258</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Dean</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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."</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dean</span>. Well, I don't think I would like&mdash;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&mdash;he wouldn't discuss it with me.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>So, so far as that conversation is concerned, there is nothing that will be
binding upon this Commission.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dean</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dean</span>. Yes, sir; thank you. That is about all I had.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. That is all I have, Mr. Chief Justice.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dean</span>. Thank you. I appreciate the opportunity.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. All right, Sergeant.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dean</span>. Thank you. It is nice to have met you.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Waggoner, do you want to take the stand for a minute about
that conversation?</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. You are going to ask the General about it?</p>

<p>Have you been sworn?</p>

<h2 id="wc">TESTIMONY OF WAGGONER CARR</h2>

<p>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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Carr</span>. I do.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Be seated, please.</p>

<p>Proceed, Mr. Rankin.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Mr. Carr, will you state your name and position for the record?</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_259" id="Page_259">259</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Carr</span>. I am Waggoner Carr, attorney general of the State of Texas.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. And you are a practicing lawyer, are you?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Carr</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Carr</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Insofar as the State of Texas is concerned?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Carr</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Were you here when Henry Wade was testifying with regard
to a conversation between himself and yourself, this morning?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Carr</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Would you relate to us that conversation as you recall it, both
what you said and what he said?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Carr</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>As a matter of fact, I hadn't been in Dallas since the assassination and was
not there at the time of the assassination.</p>

<p>So the request was made of me to contact Mr. Wade to find out if that allegation
was in the indictment.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>And then I called back, and&mdash;as I recall I did&mdash;and informed the White House
participant in the conversation of what Mr. Wade had said, and that was all of it.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Carr</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Thank you. That is all I have, Mr. Chief Justice.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>The Commission and I all appreciate it very much indeed.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_260" id="Page_260">260</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Carr</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. May I add my voice to that, Mr. Chief Justice?</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Yes; indeed, you may.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Could I ask just one question?</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Yes, indeed.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Carr</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Thank you very much.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Carr</span>. But there was no such thing going on.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Well, General, I think that will be all then. Thank you very
much.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Carr</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. The Commission is adjourned.</p>

<p>(Whereupon, at 2:50 p.m., the President's Commission recessed.)</p>

<hr />
<h2><span class="smaller"><a name="Tuesday_June_9_1964" id="Tuesday_June_9_1964"><i>Tuesday, June 9, 1964</i></a></span><br />
<span class="subhead">TESTIMONY OF RICHARD EDWARD SNYDER, JOHN A. McVICKAR, AND
ABRAM CHAYES</span></h2>

<p>The President's Commission met at 10 a.m., on June 9, 1964, at 200 Maryland
Avenue NE., Washington, D.C.</p>

<p>Present were Chief Justice Earl Warren, Chairman; Senator John Sherman
Cooper, Representative Gerald Ford, and Allen W. Dulles, members.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<h2 id="res">TESTIMONY OF RICHARD EDWARD SNYDER</h2>

<p>(Members present at this point: Chief Justice Warren, and Mr. Dulles.)</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Gentlemen, the Commission will come to order. Mr. Coleman,
would you make a statement as to the purpose of the meeting this morning?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Mr. Chief Justice, the first witness is Mr. Richard E. Snyder,
who is presently first secretary in the American Embassy in Tokyo, Japan, and<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_261" id="Page_261">261</a></span>
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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Will you please rise and raise your right hand and be sworn?</p>

<p>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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. I do, sir.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. You may be seated.</p>

<p>Mr. Coleman will conduct the examination.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Mr. Snyder, will you state your name for the record.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. Richard Edward Snyder.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. And what is your present address?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. 118 Geary Drive, South Plainfield, N.J.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Are you presently employed by the Federal Government?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. In what capacity?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. As a Foreign Service officer of the Department of State.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Where are you presently stationed?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. In Tokyo, American Embassy.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Directing your attention to the fall of 1959, were you employed
by the Federal Government at that time?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Where were you stationed?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. At the Embassy in Moscow.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. What was your title?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. Second secretary and consul, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Calling your attention to the date of October <span class="locked">31&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Could I ask one question, Mr. Coleman, about that? What previous
posts had you had before going to Moscow?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. Well, my first post in the Foreign <span class="locked">Service&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. I am interested as an old Foreign Service officer.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. As a Foreign Service officer?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. 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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_262" id="Page_262">262</a></span>
then a year and a half in Tokyo. Then a summer and an academic year at
Harvard, in Russian area studies.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. In what school there?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. In Littauer.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Did you learn Russian at that time?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. No; I had had Russian in college before.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. So you speak Russian fairly fluently?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. Fairly fluently; yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. And then Moscow was your next post?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. And then Moscow for 2 years; yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. What 2 years?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. July of 1959 to July of 1961. I arrived there just before the Vice
President.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Directing your attention, sir, to October 31, 1959, did you have
occasion to see Lee Harvey Oswald on that day?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Had you ever seen him before?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. No, sir.</p>

<p>(At this point, Representative Ford entered the hearing room.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Had you ever heard about him before?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. No.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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?</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Before you answer that question, may I say that this is
Congressman Ford, a member of the Commission.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Thank you.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. 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.</p>

<p>But since I told Oswald&mdash;and you will come to this, I think, a little later on&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. For the record, I think it was a Saturday, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. Was it a Saturday?</p>

<p>So, at any rate&mdash;if it had been a morning, I could not have used this particular
approach with him. So I presume it was an afternoon.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. You had no way of knowing he was in Russia?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. I had no previous knowledge of his presence; no, sir.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>I presume that he was well shaven. Otherwise, I would not have had this
feeling about him&mdash;that he, in general, was competent looking.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_263" id="Page_263">263</a></span>
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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Could I ask one question there? When you say you presume you
asked for it, you mean you asked to see it&mdash;you didn't ask to take it from him?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. No, I asked to see it. If he didn't put it on the desk, then I
asked for it early in the game&mdash;one way or the other.</p>

<p>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."</p>

<p>He said, "I am well aware"&mdash;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"&mdash;words to that effect.</p>

<p>Well, he was a very cocksure young man at that time.</p>

<p>I am not sure that he sat at all throughout the interview, but certainly in the
early part of it he did not.</p>

<p>I asked him&mdash;I recall asking him to take a seat, and he said, no, he wanted
to stand. He may have relented later on.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Sir, was anyone else present at the time you were talking to
Mr. Oswald?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. No; I believe Mr. McVickar was in the next room. But there
was no one in the room with us at that time.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. How long did the interview with Mr. Oswald last, approximately?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Other than the passport, did he give you any other piece of
paper?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. We have that written statement, do we not?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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?</p>

<p>(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 913 for
identification.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. Yes; I would say it is, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. After he gave you the letter and the passport, did he do
anything else?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Did you at that time go through whatever formalities are
required for a person to renounce his citizenship?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. No; I did not.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. What does an American citizen have to do at the Embassy to
renounce his citizenship?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. Well, the law requires, in general, that an American citizen,
to renounce his citizenship, must appear before&mdash;I am not sure whether the law<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_264" id="Page_264">264</a></span>
confines it to a consular officer&mdash;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&mdash;the exact wording
of which is contained in our regulations, and has the person swear to it in his
presence.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Well, did Mr. Oswald ask for such an affidavit?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Well, did you provide him with the affidavit?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. No, sir; I did not.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Why didn't you provide him with the affidavit at that time?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. Well, as the consul and, of course, the responsible person at
the time, it didn't seem to me the sensible thing to do&mdash;in the sense that&mdash;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&mdash;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&mdash;I cannot speak for the Foreign Service
in this&mdash;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&mdash;for what value
there is in making sure&mdash;that the man's action is not something completely off the
top of his head.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. 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?</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. That may be done; yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. May I ask a question at this point?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. If you want it in now, we can indicate the sections which are
applicable.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. 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.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Do you have the law there, Mr. Snyder&mdash;is that the law?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. I brought nothing with me, myself.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. I saw a book there that you were looking at, and I thought
that would suffice.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. Shall I read the section of law, sir?</p>

<p>This is the Immigration and Nationality Act, section 349(a)(6).</p>

<p>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"&mdash;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."</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. This is my understanding; yes, sir.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Are those forms available? Are they printed up, or
do you have to draft them? What is the circumstance?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. They are not printed forms, to my knowledge, Mr. Ford&mdash;at<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_265" id="Page_265">265</a></span>
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.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. You may continue, Mr. Coleman.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. We ought to have in the record, Mr. Chief Justice, a copy of
that form&mdash;either here or later.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. That is right, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Mr. Snyder, when you were talking to Mr. Oswald on
October 31, 1959, did he say anything with respect to applying for Soviet
citizenship?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. Yes; this was contained in his written statement, for one thing,
and I believe that he also stated this to me orally.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. 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&mdash;he was an electronics specialist of some sort, a
radar technician&mdash;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.</p>

<p>He volunteered this statement. It was rather peculiar.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Do you recall just what he said when he left your office?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. No, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. I show you a <span class="locked">document&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Could I ask one question there? Did he take his passport or
did he leave it?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. No; I kept it.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. You kept the passport?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 908 for
identification.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Was there any cabled report of this incident?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. Yes; I cabled a report on the 31st, Mr. Dulles. Commission
Exhibit No. 908 is a somewhat fuller report, 2 days later.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 910 for
identification.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_266" id="Page_266">266</a></span>
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.</p>

<p>(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 909 for
identification.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. I ask you if you can identify that telegram?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. There is a slight problem of classification on these, Mr. Dulles.
I don't know how public the records are.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Maybe you could paraphrase it, then. You mean it is a question
of codes?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. It is a question of code security; yes, sir.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. If this is in the record, it will be published.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Off the record.</p>

<p>(Discussion off the record.)</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Back on the record.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Would you be kind enough to read Commission Exhibit No. 910
into the record?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. In paraphrase?</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Paraphrase, yes; in your own way.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Of course keeping the intent of what was said precisely
as it was sent.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>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&mdash;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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>A dispatch follows.</p>

<p>The press has been informed.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Would the Commissioners like to see the document itself?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Mr. Snyder, could you tell the Commission what the Petrulli
case was?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. Yes. The Petrulli case I remember quite well.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>It is not clear what intent he had when he arrived.</p>

<p>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&mdash;I did not accept his renunciation the first time he came in, but did<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_267" id="Page_267">267</a></span>
accept it when he subsequently appeared, and insisted that is what he wanted
to do.</p>

<p>The case had a&mdash;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&mdash;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."</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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."</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>The Petrulli case, as I say, was very much in my mind when Mr. Oswald
showed up.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 916 for
identification.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Now, by paraphrasing, could you read the second paragraph
of that telegram into the record?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. "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."</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 917 for
identification.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. We also have had marked as Commission Exhibit No. 918 the
telegram which the Navy sent in reply to Commission Exhibit No. 917.</p>

<p>(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 918 for
identification.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Have you seen that before and can you identify that?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. I do not recall having seen this telegram before; no, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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?</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_268" id="Page_268">268</a></span>
(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 912 for
identification.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. Yes&mdash;to the best of my knowledge, this was the next thing that
I heard of Oswald&mdash;the next thing I heard from Oswald.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. How did the original of Commission Exhibit No. 912 come into
your possession?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. I believe it came through the mail.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. And after you received Commission Exhibit No. 912, what did
you do?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. I wrote Mr. Oswald a reply, I believe, the same day.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Exhibit No. 912 was a request to revoke his application to
renounce citizenship, was it not?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. No, Mr. Chief Justice; Commission Exhibit No. 912 is a letter
from Mr. Oswald complaining that the Embassy had not permitted him to
renounce.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. I misread it. Yes; that is right. Excuse me.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. You say you wrote Mr. Oswald a letter the same day?</p>

<p>We have had marked as Commission Exhibit No. 919 a letter from Richard E.
Snyder, to Lee Harvey Oswald, dated November 6, 1959.</p>

<p>(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 919 for
identification.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. I show it to you and ask you is this a copy of the letter which
you wrote to Mr. Oswald?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Mr. <span class="locked">Chairman&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Could we have some indication of what that letter is, for the
record.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. I think that is a pretty categorical statement.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Yes; it is.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. 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.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. As a result of receiving Commission Exhibit No. 912, you wrote
Mr. Oswald a letter which has been&mdash;a copy of which has been marked and
identified as Commission Exhibit No. 919, is that correct?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Earlier in your testimony, when asked about what a citizen has
to do to renounce his citizenship, you referred to section 349(a) (6).</p>

<p>I would like to call your attention to the fact there is also another provision&mdash;section
349(a) (2)&mdash;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."</p>

<p>Did you consider whether the Oswald letter, marked as Commission Exhibit
No. 912, was such an affirmation or other formal declaration?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. <span class="locked">Did&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. May I ask one question about Exhibit No. 912?</p>

<p>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."</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_269" id="Page_269">269</a></span>
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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. 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 <span class="locked">him&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Which was subsequent to Exhibit No. 912, was it not, in answer
to 912?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. In answer to Exhibit No. 912&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. You are talking about Commission Exhibit No. 919, the third
paragraph, is that correct, where you use the word "again"?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. Yes; that is correct.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>But the reason which I gave him was not that I had any legal right to refuse
him&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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)?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. Yes, sir; that is right.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Slawson</span>. 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?</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. How could he tell what was in his mind?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. I really don't know.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Slawson</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. Yes; I have every reason to believe he would have.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. May I ask a preliminary question about Exhibit No. 913?</p>

<p>This is undated. Do we know the date of the receipt of this by the Embassy?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Yes, Mr. Dulles; the testimony is that when Mr. Oswald came
into the Embassy, sir, he handed this document to Mr. Snyder.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. That is the first time he came in, he handed this document to
you?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>This is undoubtedly his passport; yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 920 for
identification.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. I show you the document and ask you whether you prepared
the original thereof and sent it to the State Department?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. May I ask a question here?</p>

<p>When Oswald first came in, and either placed his passport on the desk or the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_270" id="Page_270">270</a></span>
table, or you asked for it, did you note that he had overstayed his visa by 5
days?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. I can't recall that I did or did not, Mr. Ford.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Is that something that you would normally examine and
determine under circumstances like this?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. Oh, I might if there were some reason to look at it&mdash;if it were
particularly relevant to something I was thinking at the time or asking about
at the time.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. 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&mdash;I mean to the United States officials?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Is it the usual thing for them to let an individual stay
beyond their visa termination date?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. 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&mdash;people simply do not overstay
their visas in the Soviet Union without the knowledge, by and large, of the
Soviet authorities.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. When he presented the passport, or when you were
given the passport by him, did you examine it?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. I undoubtedly examined it.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Where in the passport would this fact be noted that
he had overstayed his visa by 5 days?</p>

<p>(At this point, Senator Cooper entered the hearing room.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. So it is clearly a Soviet document in the passport?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. I could probably find these for you, if you would like.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. When Oswald came in, did you notice anything peculiar
about his physical appearance&mdash;any bruises, any injuries of any kind?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. No, no; as I said&mdash;you may not have been here, Mr. Ford, at
the time I made my original comments on his appearance.</p>

<p>He was very neatly dressed, very well composed, and to all outward appearances
a respectable-looking young man.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. No, sir; I did not.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. You did not.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Mr. Snyder, on November 2 you sent forward Commission<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_271" id="Page_271">271</a></span>
Exhibit No. 908, which is the Foreign Service dispatch. You had also sent
forth 2 days earlier a telegram advising them about Oswald.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Was there any messages that went back to the Embassy, other than Commission
Exhibit No. 916, during that period?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Well, would you expect to get some answers to those dispatches
that you were sending forward to Washington?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. Not really&mdash;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.</p>

<p>I would have expected&mdash;if the Department had had any information concerning
Oswald in its files&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. <span class="locked">Well&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Is this the first time he came into the Embassy?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. This is 3 days before he came.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. The first time?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. I recall writing. I think probably the letter you have in <span class="locked">mind&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 914 for
identification.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman.</span> Is that a copy of the letter that you sent to Mr. Boster?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Do you feel that the regulations then, as well as now,
and the law as well, are archaic in this regard?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. Oh, no; it is simply that&mdash;not the law, and certainly not the
regulations&mdash;and certainly not the law, can ever take the place of the judgment
of the officer on the spot.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Was this motivated by the Petrulli case?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. 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.</p>

<p>It was motivated, as best I can recall, by my experience with a few other<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_272" id="Page_272">272</a></span>
cases. Well, let's say&mdash;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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Almost universally they have never been to the country before. They speak
no Russian. And they are rebounding from something&mdash;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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>At any rate, almost universally, the pattern is of a person who is not acting
out of any ideological grounds. He simply doesn't&mdash;and I think this is essentially
true probably of Oswald&mdash;this was my feeling in speaking with him&mdash;that Oswald
really knew nothing about Marxism and Leninism, that he professed to be
modeling his life after.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Isn't it possible, though, from this discussion&mdash;maybe this should
be asked to your legal adviser&mdash;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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. Well, in the specific instance and circumstances of the Soviet
Union, you obviously have a major problem, there is a major state problem.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. That might arise in other cases. Isn't that true in any case&mdash;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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. Well, this is a <span class="locked">point&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. That is a question of law.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. This is a question of law which I really cannot answer.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Do we have an extradition treaty with the Soviet Union?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. No, sir.</p>

<p>Well, we did not at that time, and I don't think we have subsequently. But
we did not at that time.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Do the legal advisers to the Department know whether
we have an extradition treaty now?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. We do not have an extradition treaty with the Soviet Union.</p>

<p>The only bilateral treaty we have with the Soviet Union, the Senate has not
yet given advice and consent&mdash;but the only bilateral agreement is the consular
agreement.</p>

<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_273" id="Page_273">273</a></span>
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&mdash;or there could be
treaty provisions perhaps, commerce and navigation, that might bear on it.
But in the usual case, I think not.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. May I ask a question here? It might save time.</p>

<p>Is there any statutory&mdash;any statute bearing on this question of renunciation?</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Isn't that correct, generally speaking?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. He must get an immigration visa.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. All this matter, the legal side of it, will be put into the record?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. At 2 o'clock, sir.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 915 for
identification.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 921 for
identification.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. I am not sure whether this was my statement <span class="locked">or&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Well, would you look at that, sir?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. Yes; this was the statement of the correspondent. The correspondent
states that.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Oh, you were informing the Department that the correspondent
told you that she felt that Oswald may have been leaving a crack open?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. That is right. This crack part here is part of the sentence "correspondent
states."</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Who was the correspondent?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. This was Priscilla Johnson.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_274" id="Page_274">274</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. And I take it you were the one that prepared Commission Exhibit
No. 921?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. Not to my knowledge.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Is that usual in these cases, where Americans attempt to
renounce their citizenship?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. I think if there is a usual pattern&mdash;and, again, this is difficult to
use words like "usual" because there are never two cases alike in this sort of
thing&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Up to that point, publicity in the Soviet press probably is not to be expected.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. In the meantime, however, there was correspondence between
the Embassy in Moscow and the State Department, is that correct?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. <span class="locked">Did&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. Well, let me see.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. I will <span class="locked">mark&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 922 for
identification.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 923 for
identification.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. And also a letter sent to Mrs. Marguerite Oswald, which has
been marked as Commission Exhibit No. 924.</p>

<p>(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 924 for
identification.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 927 for
identification.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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."</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_275" id="Page_275">275</a></span>
Do you recall that statement in the operations memorandum?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. The statement which I made in that letter&mdash;to be quite accurate,
as to its content&mdash;was made not for the&mdash;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&mdash;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&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. In other words, in your own mind, at that point, he had
not renounced his citizenship?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. There is no question he had not renounced his citizenship; yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. You considered that he was still an American citizen as of
March <span class="locked">28&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. No evidence to the contrary.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. That is, he hadn't taken the procedures required under the law
to renounce his citizenship?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. 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.</p>

<p>So, for lack of evidence to the contrary, he was an American citizen.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. On April 5, 1960&mdash;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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 929 for
identification.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. The second paragraph of that memorandum indicates that
a lookout card or file has been opened or prepared.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. What does that mean?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. Never having worked in this end of the Department of State,
I can say only what it would mean in general terms&mdash;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&mdash;under this name or this
category, that there would be&mdash;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&mdash;perhaps
red flag is not the word to use here&mdash;but it is a flag placed in the file
to attract the attention of anyone looking in the file under that.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. You remember receiving those?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>(The documents referred to were marked Commission Exhibits Nos. 925 and
928, respectively, for identification.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_276" id="Page_276">276</a></span>
you are not going to make any further inquiry or do anything further in connection
with Oswald, is that correct?</p>

<p>(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 926 for
identification.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. That is correct.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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&mdash;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.</p>

<p>(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 930 for
identification.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Did you ever make such an inquiry of the Ministry of Foreign
Affairs?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. No, I think I did not.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Do you know just when that Department instruction reached
the Embassy in Moscow?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. The date should be stamped on the document.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Well, on the copy we have, sir, there is no date. I take it
you have no independent recollection?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. No; it should have been within a week, though.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. I take it, though, you would say that Commission Exhibit
No. 930 went by diplomatic pouch.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. This didn't go by cable?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. No, that is not a telegraphic form.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. On February 13, 1961, you received a letter from Mr. Oswald,
did you not?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 931 for
identification.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. 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&mdash;at
least I am not able to know what is transpiring between the counsel and
the witness.</p>

<p>Are there extra copies of these we could have to examine as the exhibit is
submitted to the witness?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Slawson</span>. We could have them made up, Mr. Ford. I don't think there
are any extra ones right now.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. This letter is presumably the reason why no action was taken
on the previous operations memorandum. It was overtaken, presumably, by
Oswald's letter.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Could you indicate for the record what Oswald said in his
letter which has been marked as Commission Exhibit No. 931?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. Perhaps I might just read the letter into the record.</p>

<p>The letter is dated February, no date.</p>

<p>"Dear <span class="locked">sirs"&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. What year?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. 1961.</p>

<p>"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.</p>

<p>"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.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_277" id="Page_277">277</a></span>
If I could show them my American passport, I am of the opinion they would
give me an exit visa.</p>

<p>"They have at no time insisted that I take Russian citizenship. I am living
here with non-permanent type papers for a foreigner.</p>

<p>"I cannot leave Minsk without permission, therefore I am writing rather
than calling in person.</p>

<p>"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.</p>

<p>"Sincerely Lee Harvey Oswald."</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. That is addressed to the American Embassy in Moscow?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. It is simply "Dear sirs:" As near as I can recall, it came
by mail, through the Soviet mail, addressed to the Embassy.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. No, sir; we did not.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. This is the first letter you received?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. This is the first communication since he left Moscow.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 933 for
identification.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. When you say since he left Moscow, that was <span class="locked">in&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. November 1959, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. November 1959?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. This is what we presume was the date.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Mr. Dulles, we have other evidence that he didn't leave until
January 7, 1960.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. The last the Embassy heard from him was in November 1959?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. You have been shown Commission Exhibit No. 933. Is that
a copy of a letter which you sent to Mr. Oswald?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. At the same time did you inform the State Department that
you had received a letter from Mr. Oswald?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. I presume that I did.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 932 for
identification.)</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Do the records show the date that the letter from Oswald
was written&mdash;yes; February 5&mdash;and received February 13. This communication
is dated February 28. Is that a long or a short time in communicating
with Washington?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. I would say it is a long time.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Is there any explanation why it is a long time?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Had there been any communication with the State
Department in Washington concerning the inquiries of the mother, other than
this?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. 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&mdash;since they could hardly act upon
them themselves.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. What is the date of the last inquiry by the mother
as to <span class="locked">Oswald's&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_278" id="Page_278">278</a></span>
inquiry of February 1, 1961, went forward, making the inquiry. It has already
been put in as an exhibit.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. This is the trouble not keeping copies available. It is
a little difficult to follow the sequence.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. It is Commission Exhibit No. 930.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. This document, Commission Exhibit No. 930, shows
what, as far as you are concerned, Mr. Snyder?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. Well, it shows an interest by Oswald's mother in his whereabouts.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. As of what date, and where?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. And that was communicated to the Embassy in Moscow?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. When was it received in the Embassy in Moscow?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. And according to the records, the letter written by
Oswald on February 5, 1961, which was received&mdash;was received February 13,
1961.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. And this document, Commission Exhibit No. 933, shows
a reply was given February 28, is that correct?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. I think that is correct, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Does that mean it took 8 days to go from Minsk to Moscow?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Isn't that an unusually long time?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. Well, not too much of that time is transit time.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. That is what I was getting at.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. It also shows it took 15 days to get out of the American
Embassy.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. Oswald had no claim to any unusual attentions of mine, I must say.</p>

<p>I think that the letter from Oswald from the Metropole Hotel to the Embassy
took something like 3 days or 4 days.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. What does that mean to you? Does that mean that his
correspondence was intercepted?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. There was no question about that, Mr. Ford?</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Intercepted by Soviet authorities?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. Oh, yes; this has been known for years.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Common practice?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. As far as you know, is that still the process today?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. I am sure it is, sir. The essentials of the Soviet State haven't
changed.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. May I ask a few questions?</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Is that from Moscow to Washington, the State Department?</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. Yes; it is your interview with Oswald.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. Yes, sir; that is right.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. 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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_279" id="Page_279">279</a></span>
said that he appeared at the Embassy on October 31, and presented his request
for renunciation in writing.</p>

<p>I assume that you have had other cases of this kind, have you not?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. Well, particularly the Petrulli case, yes; a few weeks earlier.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. I would think it would be highly unusual if it were acted upon
in 2 weeks; yes, sir.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. Did others talk to him in the Embassy beside you?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. Not to my knowledge; no, sir.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. Did you know whether or not newspaper people, American
newspaper people were talking to him?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. I know that Priscilla Johnson talked to him. Whether others
got to him, I don't know. He wasn't terribly communicative.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. Did she tell you she talked to him?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. Oh, yes.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. But you do not know whether or not other members of the
Embassy staff talked to him?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. No, sir.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. To whom were you directly responsible in the Embassy?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. My immediate superior was Mr. Freers, Edward Freers, who
was the Deputy Chief of Mission.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. Was he informed about this case?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. Who was the American ambassador at that time?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. Ambassador Thompson.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. Did he know about it?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_280" id="Page_280">280</a></span>
acceptance, I will request my government to lodge a formal protest regarding
this incident."</p>

<p>Signed "Lee Harvey Oswald."</p>

<p>I would assume that the last sentence referred to the Soviet Union.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. That is a difficult thing to speculate on, Senator Cooper. I would
say <span class="locked">this&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. It is a very good letter.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. 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&mdash;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.</p>

<p>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&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. One other question.</p>

<p>In your report you noted that he had made statements about the United States,
derogatory statements.</p>

<p>Did he ever direct his statements toward any individual in the United States,
any official?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Was he technically correct there in his statement&mdash;I believe he
said that his application was pending before the Supreme Soviet. Is that technically
correct?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. That is technically correct; yes, sir.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. You may continue, Mr. Coleman.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 940 for
identification.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Could this be very briefly summarized for the record while it is
being read?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. These are the papers about his return?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Yes, papers that he would have to fill out to see if he was
entitled to get his passport back.</p>

<p>Would the witness identify the despatch? Is that the one you sent?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. Yes; it is.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 934 for
identification.)</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_281" id="Page_281">281</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Is that the despatch which you received?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. 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.</p>

<p>(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 936 for
identification.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Mr. Chairman, I note a reference in the margin here, in Commission
Exhibit No. 934.</p>

<p>Do you know whose handwriting that is in, Mr. Snyder?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. Yes, sir; that is my handwriting.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. What does that say?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. It says, "May be necessary give him before he can arrange
depart."</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Now, Mr. Snyder, on or about July 10 or 11, 1961, Mr. Oswald
physically appeared at the American Embassy again, did he not?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. Yes; I saw him once more&mdash;I believe once more&mdash;possibly twice.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Do you recall when he came into the Embassy on the 8th and
what he said, and what you did?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. No; in fact, I have no recollection of his having come in at that
time, Mr. Coleman.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. And you handled that application? That is correct?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 938 for
identification.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 935 for
identification.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. This is the interview which I thought I had on the 10th.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. 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'"?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. 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.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. What is the last category?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. 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.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_282" id="Page_282">282</a></span>
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&mdash;it is a separate passport.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. And that did not necessarily require, as far as you know, reference
to Moscow?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. No.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. You think the local authorities could have done that on their
own, and on the information they got from Oswald?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Except the fact that they had seen his passport and knew of
the existence of his American passport.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. On that basis, they would&mdash;well, he was certainly an American
citizen when he entered as far as they were concerned; yes, sir.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Is a person who is stateless the same as a person who
is "without citizenship"?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. Yes, sir; this distinction is only in translation, Mr. Ford.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Would you just clarify for us what application this is?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. This is the application for the passport renewal which Oswald
<span class="locked">signed&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. For the American passport to return to the United States?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Well, this is a renewal of the passport.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. A renewal of the passport to return to the United States?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. It says, "I have&mdash;have not&mdash;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.</p>

<p>"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."</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. This is what it would mean.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Which one of the various acts that you have read was
it your impression that Oswald was admitting that he had done?</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_283" id="Page_283">283</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. No; the questionnaire is filled out routinely in Moscow in any
kind of problem case.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Even though the citizen has done none of the acts which are
set forth in the passport renewal application?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. 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 <span class="locked">Union&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Is it your testimony this is only a typographical error?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. 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."</p>

<p>He had, on several occasions, you know, stated that his allegiance was to the
Soviet Union.</p>

<p>He may have put this down&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. I am sorry, I don't think I understand the question.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. 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&mdash;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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Do you recall whether or not that striking out was noted at the
time the passport application or extension was considered?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. I do not, Mr. Dulles; no.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Did you have his file out and looking at it, reading it,
studying at the time he was there and this came up?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. I presume I did, Mr. Ford, but&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. In any event, having received the questionnaire and the application,
you determined that Mr. Oswald was entitled to an American passport,
is that correct?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. And your recommendation was that the passport should issue&mdash;the
passport office should issue a new passport, is that correct?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. I would issue the passport; yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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?</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_284" id="Page_284">284</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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 <span class="locked">Commission&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. I will have to correct a word we used before. It is renewal, and
not issuance.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>In either event, the issuance or renewal would have been done by the Embassy,
by me.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. The problem, Mr. Dulles, is the existing passport he had, by its
term, would expire September 1961, is that correct?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. I think I did. I might reread my despatch and see.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. And, second, you accepted his application for renewal of the
passport.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. Yes; my mind is clear on that. Yes; I recall now.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. When you returned to him his old passport, you first
stamped the old passport.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Will you indicate for the record how you stamped the old
passport?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. The passport was marked "This passport is valid only for direct
travel to the United States." (Commission Exhibit No. 946, p. 6.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Are you quite clear you returned the passport to him before he
made his final plans to return?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. I am not <span class="locked">entirely&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. Oh, yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Could that be read into the record&mdash;just what he did say about
the handling of the passport at that time&mdash;that is July what?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. July 8, 1961.</p>

<p>This was July 8. "Oswald intends to institute an <span class="locked">application"&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. I don't know. It isn't clear from my despatch, I would say.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Would you <span class="locked">read&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. Actually, if we knew what day of the week the 8th <span class="locked">was&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Subject to check, it was a Saturday.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. "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&mdash;for direct return to the United States only."</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. In that same Foreign Service Despatch you indicated at the end<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_285" id="Page_285">285</a></span>
that you were sending to the Passport Office in Washington the application for
renewal, isn't that correct?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. Yes; that is right.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. May I ask Mr. Snyder&mdash;on Commission Exhibit No. 938,
where Oswald said, "I have been naturalized as a citizen of a foreign state,"
and so forth&mdash;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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. Well, it would have the effect of flagging the consular officer to
ask some questions, Mr. Ford.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Would it have automatically disqualified him for renewal
or the issuance of a new passport?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. No, sir.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Not under the law or the regulations?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. 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&mdash;does not affect his American
citizenship. It is the determination of facts which determines it. And the
only thing this does, really&mdash;well, the first thing it does is to alert the consular
officer to start asking him some questions.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. 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.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Would you be back at 2 to preside until I return from the
Court?</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. I would be very glad to, Mr. Chairman.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. I will be here at 2:30, Mr. Chairman.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. All right, fine.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. May I ask how much longer you intend to go on?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. I think I can finish in about 4 minutes with Mr. Snyder.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Off the record.</p>

<p>(Discussion off the record.)</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Back on the record.</p>

<p>We will recess now until 2 o'clock.</p>

<p>(Whereupon, at 12:25 p.m., the President's Commission recessed.)</p>

<hr />
<h2><span class="smaller">Afternoon Session</span><br />
<span class="subhead">TESTIMONY OF RICHARD EDWARD SNYDER RESUMED</span></h2>

<p>The President's Commission reconvened at 2 p.m.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. The Commission will come to order. Will you proceed.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Mr. Snyder, we have marked as Commission Exhibit No. 947,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_286" id="Page_286">286</a></span>
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.</p>

<p>(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 947 for
identification.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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."</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. I had originally shown you Exhibit No. 938, which was the
other copy of the application for renewal of passport.</p>

<p>I take it when you compare those two copies, you note that one is not a direct
offset of the other.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Do you have an explanation of why on July 10, two separate
typings were made of the application for renewal?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. No, sir; I do not.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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?</p>

<p>I show you Commission Exhibit No. 937.</p>

<p>(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 937 for
identification.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. This communication would have been received after my departure
from Moscow.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. You never saw that communication?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. No, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. 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."</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. But you say you never saw that document?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. No; this arrived after I departed from the post.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. I show you Commission Exhibit No. 939, the State Department
operations memorandum dated August 18, 1961, and ask you if you saw it?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. No; it arrived after I left.</p>

<p>(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 939 for
identification.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. On July 8 and July 10, when Oswald was at the Embassy,
did you see his wife, Marina?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. Not to the best of my knowledge, Mr. Coleman.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Did you have any knowledge that she was also in Moscow?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. When you spoke to Oswald on the 8th or on the 10th of July,
did he indicate that his wife was in Moscow?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. I am sorry, I don't know.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. In connection with the various decisions you have made in
this matter, did you consult with anyone?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Did anyone instruct you as to what particular decision you
should make in connection with any requests made by Mr. Oswald?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. There is one other question, sir.</p>

<p>We have some information that Oswald stated that in 1959, when he was in<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_287" id="Page_287">287</a></span>
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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. No; I am afraid not.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. We kept an informal file of all information relating to the
presence of Americans any place in the Soviet Union.</p>

<p>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&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Would that information be in a special file in the Embassy, or
would it be spread throughout various files?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. 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 <span class="locked">maintained&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Have you any idea what that file might be called, if we were
going to ask for it by name&mdash;what name we would give so that the people in
Moscow would know what we are trying to take a look at?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. 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&mdash;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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. 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.</p>

<p>The second time around this was pretty much absent from his conversation.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. You say you felt he was well briefed on his first conversation
with you in 1959, but not in connection with his second?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. Well, again, I cannot say that he was well briefed. I just don't<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_288" id="Page_288">288</a></span>
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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. 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&mdash;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.</p>

<p>It was at least one other case, when I was in Moscow, of a person&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Did you make any inquiry about that? Did that rouse
your curiosity, that he was able to come?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. 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&mdash;which could be used by him in a sense should
he run up against real difficulties in getting permission to come to Moscow.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Is there any other information you have which you think the
Commission would be interested in in connection with its work and its investigation?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. I can't really&mdash;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.</p>

<p>There may well be&mdash;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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>There are other observations about Oswald and this sort of thing I suppose
I could elaborate on to some extent.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Earlier in the interrogation, Mr. Coleman had you outline
what transpired the day that Oswald walked into the Embassy, in the
first instance?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. No, sir.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. 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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_289" id="Page_289">289</a></span>
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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>There was no one in the office with me at the time I saw him.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Well, he stated&mdash;he gave me a written statement, which is in the record, almost
immediately upon his arrival, I believe.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. That is Commission Exhibit No. 913.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. 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"&mdash;I think he used another word&mdash;but
that he desired to renounce his American citizenship. That his allegiance was
to the Soviet Union.</p>

<p>I think initially this was pretty much what his statement was. And would I
please do what was necessary to get this over with.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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."</p>

<p>I then asked him&mdash;I continued to probe and see where I could find a chink
in his armor some place.</p>

<p>And I think that the initial chink which I found was regarding his relatives
and place of residence in the United States.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>I noted that on the inside of the cover page of his passport his home address
had been crossed out.</p>

<p>When I asked him where he lived, he declined to tell me. When I asked
him about his relatives&mdash;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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>At that stage, he kind of hemmed and hawed a bit and said&mdash;well, I live at
so and so. And from there on it opened the crack a little bit, and I found his<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_290" id="Page_290">290</a></span>
mother also lived at that&mdash;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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Some of these questions he answered, and some he didn't. However, he
did not seem quite, as I recall&mdash;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?</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Did you go into those questions in your probing with
him?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. Oh, yes; this sort of question he parried. I won't say he parried
them&mdash;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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. What prompted the breakup of the interview, or the
meeting?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. Well, the interview finally broke up when I couldn't get any
more out of him.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Was he satisfied or dissatisfied with the result of his
conference with you?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. 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&mdash;and thus my refusal at that time
to complete his renunciation may have been a hurdle which he had been totally
unprepared for.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. 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.</p>

<p>That other consideration is that the consul has a certain obligation towards
the individual, and also towards his family, to see that a person&mdash;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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>So I don't think that he left the room happy&mdash;if I can use that term&mdash;in
his attitude towards me.</p>

<p>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&mdash;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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_291" id="Page_291">291</a></span>
been doing some reading, and that is about as far as I got. On that subject,
he simply would not be drawn out.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Did you ask him anything about his knowledge of
the Russian language? Did he volunteer anything?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. Yes; I did ask him a bit about that. He said he had been
studying Russian. And, again, I had the impression&mdash;I don't recall&mdash;I may
have spoken some Russian to him&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Did he converse with any other member of the staff
at the Embassy, to your knowledge, during the time of this first visit?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. No, no; at this time he definitely did not. And I don't think
that he did during the time I was there&mdash;unless it was simply a passing word
with the receptionist, or something of this sort.</p>

<p>But as far as I know, he had no knowledgeable conversation with anyone
there.</p>

<p>Actually, there were only&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. No; I don't think so, Mr. Ford. You mean in terms of would
I have taken his renunciation? No; I think not.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. In other words, you would have put him off, or stalled
him off, in this first interview, make him come back again?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. Yes; I would have.</p>

<p>(At this point, Mr. Dulles entered the hearing room.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. In one of the despatches I believe you sent to Washington,
you indicated that you had informed the press&mdash;I don't recall what
exhibit that is.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. I think I said, "Press informed."</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Commission Exhibit No. 910, sir.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. You say, "Press informed." Is that the same as informing
the press?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. No; this <span class="locked">simply&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. What is the difference?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. That doesn't mean the Embassy informed the press?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. Oh, no.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. How did you know the press had been informed?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. Again right at the moment, I cannot say. At what stage&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Was he given much attention by the press in Moscow?</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_292" id="Page_292">292</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. I cannot really speak with great authority on the point. I don't
think so. This is based on several things.</p>

<p>One, there was very little about Oswald, I think, at the time other than what
was sent in by Priscilla Johnson.</p>

<p>Secondly, I believe that Oswald himself had declined to talk to some other
press persons of the American press corps.</p>

<p>Priscilla, as I recall, was the only one who seemed to have an entree to him.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. But you did not inform the American press in Moscow of
Oswald?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. No.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Did you ever talk to any of the American press or any
other of the press, about Oswald at this time?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. 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&mdash;each one being
different in any event&mdash;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&mdash;and the press understood
this very well.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Were you familiar with his interview with Miss Mosby?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. I don't recall that I was. I knew that Priscilla Johnson had
seen him and had been seeing him.</p>

<p>But I don't recall that I was aware that Ellie Mosby had seen him.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. You were acquainted with Miss Mosby as well as
Priscilla Johnson?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. Oh, yes; very well.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Are any of these stories that these correspondents write
on these defector cases ever checked out with your office, or people, in corresponding
position?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. Normally not, I would say.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. No.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Are you aware of that organization in the Soviet Union?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. Oh, yes.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Would you describe it for us, as far as you know what
it is?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. <span class="locked">Well&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. 5,000 rubles&mdash;excuse me.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. This was the old rubles at that time. No; I <span class="locked">don't&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. 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&mdash;May-June of 1960, I think.</p>

<p>When it went into effect, I don't remember.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. I think somewhere in the record that ought to appear. I have
an idea it was May of 1960.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ehrlich</span>. January 1, 1961.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. That is when it went into effect?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ehrlich</span>. It was officially revalued.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. January 1, 1961&mdash;let the record show that&mdash;the ruble was revalued,
so that it took about 10 rubles to make 1 new ruble.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. So 5,000 rubles in 1959 was not an inconsequential
amount.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. Oh, no.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. It wasn't very much.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. No; but 5,000 rubles at that time was probably two-thirds to
three-quarters of the monthly salary of an average Soviet worker.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Could you <span class="locked">describe&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_293" id="Page_293">293</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. About $500, isn't it, roughly&mdash;10 to 1 in those days?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. Wait a minute; yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. It was a considerable sum.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. It would be more than a month's salary, then.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. Yes; an average month's salary at the time was about 750 rubles,
something around there.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. 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&mdash;10 to the dollar. The legal rate, I think, was 5 to the dollar.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. No; I think the legal rate was 10 to a dollar, Mr. Dulles.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. I understand.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Can you tell us your impression of this so-called Red
Cross in the Soviet Union?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. Well, again, I cannot speak of&mdash;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.</p>

<p>I don't think that the Soviet Red Cross conducts public fund-raising campaigns,
for instance, in the way ours does.</p>

<p>It also is not an organization to which an individual might turn routinely
for assistance as he might in our society.</p>

<p>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&mdash;they also do not admit of public
welfare organs in a sense such as the Red Cross.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>But the reaction of such persons indicated to me that they felt the Soviet Red
Cross was not the place to go.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Mr. Snyder, had you ever heard, while you were in the Embassy
in Moscow, the secret police referred to as the Red Cross?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. No.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. You never heard the MVD, for example, referred to in that
way?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. No; to my knowledge&mdash;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.</p>

<p>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.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_294" id="Page_294">294</a></span>
And, secondly, I do not think they have the same role internally that our Red
Cross organizations do.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Have you heard of it being used in other instances for what
might be called extraneous payments&mdash;that is, payments not related to Red
Cross work?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. No, sir.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. Oh, yes; there is a well-defined way of acquiring Soviet citizenship
under Soviet law.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Was Oswald familiar with that, as you could tell from
your conversation with him?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. Well, he obviously was familiar with what one does. That is,
he had made application to the Supreme Soviet, which is what one does.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Did he tell you that?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. Oh, yes.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. He did?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. What did he tell you had happened when he did that?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. All he said was that he had made application.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. He didn't indicate the application had been processed
and approved?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. No; I cannot recall what our conversation was on that score.
It was quite clear that he had not received Soviet citizenship.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. En masse, so to speak?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. That is right. It has them on its calendar. So many times a
year it acts on petitions for Soviet citizenship, presumably.</p>

<p>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&mdash;that sort of
thing.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. If you had known that Oswald was in Minsk, what
would your reaction have been?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. Serves him right.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Why do you say that?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. You have never been in Minsk.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. In Minsk?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. Any place.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. I am more particularly interested in Minsk.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Have you ever been in Minsk?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. I spent about an hour walking around Minsk, between trains,
one time.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_295" id="Page_295">295</a></span>
Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Is there anything significant about him being sent to
Minsk, as far as you are concerned?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. No, no; the only pattern that I would discern is that it is in all
cases to my knowledge&mdash;all cases of which I have had knowledge, the invariable
pattern of the Soviets is to send defectors somewhere outside of the capital city&mdash;to
settle them in some city other than Moscow. There have been some minor
exceptions to this.</p>

<p>What is the name&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. McLean is still alive.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. Pardon me&mdash;Burgess. Is Burgess the one married to an
American?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Philby is married to an American.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. One of the two, Burgess or McLean, is married to an American.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. McLean is.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. I had an interview with McLean's mother-in-law at the Embassy.
At any rate, this was one exception.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. No; I have not, Mr. Ford.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Did you ever contact any Soviet officials about Oswald
at the time of this first interview?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. No.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Is that unusual or is that usual?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. It is usual.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. In other words, you, in your capacity, would not normally
contact a Soviet official about someone such as Oswald?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. That is right; yes, sir. In other words, there is nothing at that
stage of the game which&mdash;for which I would have any reason to go to the Soviet
authorities.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Even the fact that he had a visa 5 days overdue?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. 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
<span class="locked">that&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. It is implied consent, even though it may not be official
as far as the documents are concerned?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. 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&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Very gladly. I have one or two questions.</p>

<p>(At this point, Representative Ford withdrew from the hearing room.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Is there any question as to whether a minor can renounce his
nationality?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. To my knowledge, there is not. To my <span class="locked">knowledge&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. They may.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. There is not a requirement?</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_296" id="Page_296">296</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. No; as a matter of fact, most do. Most that are in Moscow do
stop in.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. There is a book in the Embassy that they can come in and sign?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Oswald did not sign in the book, I gather.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. For the record, how long was it after his arrival in Moscow that
he reported to the Embassy?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. He arrived on October 16, and he didn't go into the Embassy
until October 31.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. That was about the time his visa&mdash;his permission to stay was
going to expire?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. His permission to stay as designated on his visa had already
expired.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Was that a 12-day?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. He was in the Soviet Union 15 days before he went to the
American Embassy.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. How long was his permit good for?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. His permit was good for 6 days.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>, Only 6 days? You, of course, get no word from the Soviet Union
when they give visas to Americans to come into the country.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. Oh, no, no; we get no cooperation from the Soviet authorities on
anything concerning American citizens&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. Well, no.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. They have no way of knowing? So they have no way of informing
you about it?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. No.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. These stamps are changed a little from time to time.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. I will ask Mr. Chayes that question.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. Hungary, North Korea, North Vietnam, and <span class="locked">China&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Now Cuba.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. I think there must have been others, and Hungary was added
after 1946.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. I will just read this.</p>

<p>"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."</p>

<p>Now, that speaks as of&mdash;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&mdash;I guess that is printed on the passport&mdash;also printed, in a special
box, "This passport is not valid for travel in Hungary."</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. And then that is superimposed with a void stamp when we took
Hungary off the list of restricted areas.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_297" id="Page_297">297</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Right. I don't know whether that void stamp was put on in
1959&mdash;but it is not important as far as we are concerned.</p>

<p>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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. Oh, yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. On the other hand, the State Department has no mechanism
for notifying posts abroad of ordinary travel to those countries.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. I can't see what value this would be to a consul.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. You mean if he gets in trouble in Russia?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. If he gets in trouble in Russia, we know he is there.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. You might; you might not. They don't always tell you. You
don't think that would be of any particular value, though?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. 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&mdash;it
would seem to me&mdash;to attempt to notify embassies <span class="locked">abroad&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. I am not saying embassies abroad. I am saying the Soviet Union.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. But why the Soviet Union and not Poland, Czechoslovakia,
Bulgaria?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. I said the Communist countries, I think, before. I certainly
would not do it for Britain, France, and friendly countries. There is no point.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. Not necessarily. I mean in terms of the thousands of people&mdash;thousands
of Americans who flutter back and forth across the face of the
<span class="locked">earth&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. I am not talking about people floating back and forth across the
earth. I am talking about people going to the Soviet Union.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. No.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. There are none?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. He has got to know the law, too&mdash;he has to know the law and
regulations.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. 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.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_298" id="Page_298">298</a></span>
In renunciation cases, it is a fairly simple matter&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. 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&mdash;I think I
would feel that that was a pretty&mdash;rather a tough one to handle.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. 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 <span class="locked">operate&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. I will talk to Mr. Chayes about the problem of a minor doing
that.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. From the consular's point of view it is a fairly simple one. It
doesn't require a lot of legal research.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. 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&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. That includes renunciation?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. Yes, 6 is renunciation. But he has to assert&mdash;within 6 months
after obtaining the age of 18 years&mdash;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&mdash;not 21. It used to be 21, but the
Congress reduced the age limit to 18.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Well, that covers the point here. Was there anything about the
Oswald case in the Soviet press at any time to your knowledge?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. To my knowledge, there was not, Mr. Dulles.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. No, sir; I never communicated with the Soviet authorities about
Oswald in any form, nor did they ever ask me anything about him.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. I was not aware of this element of the case.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. No.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. I don't know offhand whether Marina Oswald got her visa, her
exit visa, that quickly and easily.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Well, I think that is a matter of record&mdash;when she applied and
when she got it.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. The American <span class="locked">visa&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. This is the Soviet exit visa.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. You are talking about the Soviet passport? She applied for
her <span class="locked">passport&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. It is a visa to get out.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. It is both. She needs a Soviet passport. They are issued at the
same time.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. That is correct.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. 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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_299" id="Page_299">299</a></span>
don't think I ought to ask you about any period other than the period you were
in the Soviet Union.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. That is all I have, Mr. Witness.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Let me take these one at a time.</p>

<p>Exhibits Nos. 908 through 940, except for Exhibit No. 911, shall be admitted.</p>

<p>(The documents heretofore marked for identification as Commission Exhibits
Nos. 908&ndash;910, and 912&ndash;940 were received in evidence.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Now, for the record, what about these two numbers that are
omitted?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. When Mr. McVickar testifies he will be able to identify the
documents.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. You will have these admitted at a later date?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Now, the second category you wanted to have admitted.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. I would like to also offer into evidence Commission Exhibit 946
which is the Oswald passport.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. It shall be admitted.</p>

<p>(The document referred, to heretofore identified as Commission Exhibit No.
946 for identification, was admitted into evidence.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. And Exhibit No. 947, the passport application, shall be admitted.</p>

<p>(The document referred to, heretofore identified as Commission Exhibit No.
947 for identification, was admitted into evidence.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. I have no further questions, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. We are just starting with a new witness. Won't you go ahead.</p>

<p>(Discussion off the record.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. I want to thank you very much, Mr. Snyder. It has been very
helpful to us.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Snyder</span>. I hope it has.</p>

<p>(Discussion off the record.)</p>

<h2 id="jam2">TESTIMONY OF JOHN A. McVICKAR</h2>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. McVickar will also be examined on two memoranda which he has provided
the State Department since the assassination of President Kennedy.</p>

<p>At this time I would ask the Chairman to swear Mr. McVickar.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_300" id="Page_300">300</a></span>
Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McVickar</span>. I do, so help me God.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Mr. McVickar, will you state your full name for the record?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McVickar</span>. John Anthony McVickar.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. That is spelled M-c-V-i-c-k-a-r?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McVickar</span>. I have given the court reporter here my card.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. And what is your present address?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McVickar</span>. American consulate, Cochabamba, Bolivia.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. What was your position with the American Embassy in Moscow
in the fall of 1959?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McVickar</span>. I was one of two officers in the consular section of the Embassy.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. How long did you remain in Moscow?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McVickar</span>. I was there from June of 1959, until September of 1961.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. I take it you have been shown a copy of the Congressional resolution
with respect to the formation of this Committee?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McVickar</span>. I am not sure but I think so. With respect to this Commission?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McVickar</span>. Do you want me to read it now?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. No, just generally have it available.</p>

<p>Directing your attention to the fall of 1959, did you have occasion to see
or to talk to Lee Harvey Oswald?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McVickar</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Was the day he came in October 31, 1959?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McVickar</span>. I couldn't say exactly but that sounds just about right.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Was it a Saturday?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McVickar</span>. I don't know.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Do you recall what time of the day it was?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McVickar</span>. I don't know. It might have been in the morning but I am
not sure. I don't know for sure.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Did Oswald speak to you at all or was all of his conversation
with Mr. Snyder?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McVickar</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McVickar</span>. In an effort to be helpful I have already, in the form of this
memorandum, put everything I could remember down.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Sir, are you referring to the memorandum you prepared on
November 27, 1963?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McVickar</span>. 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&mdash;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&mdash;possibly he was stationed
in Okinawa.</p>

<p>I think that he did seem to know something about the renunciation process,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_301" id="Page_301">301</a></span>
and it was almost as though he was trying to bait the consul into taking an
adverse action against him.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McVickar</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. I take it the memorandum you refer to is dated November 17,
1959?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McVickar</span>. That is right.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. We have marked it Commission Exhibit No. 911. I will ask
you whether that is a copy of the memorandum?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McVickar</span>. Yes; that is a copy of the memorandum. Is it 911 or 9&mdash;excuse
me&mdash;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."</p>

<p>I am almost certain that would have been Sunday, November 15.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Did Miss Johnson tell you that?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McVickar</span>. I feel sure I wouldn't have written that if she hadn't.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Do you know whether Oswald actually left the hotel the end
of the week?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McVickar</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McVickar</span>. That is new to me.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. You had no such information?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McVickar</span>. I had no such&mdash;this is the first time I heard that.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. He left the hotel, however, for a period, did he not? He was in
the hospital for a period.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. No, sir; he was in the hospital before he came into the
Embassy.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. That is correct.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. His suicide attempt was before October 31.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McVickar</span>. Now it says leaving the hotel, but it doesn't say&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. In the P.S. you also indicated that "he will be trained in
electronics." Did you get that information from Miss Johnson?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McVickar</span>. Well, yes; I think so, according to this.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Did she say any more than just he would be trained in electronics?
Did she say what type of training he would get?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McVickar</span>. I am afraid I have no more memory than what is written<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_302" id="Page_302">302</a></span>
here. In fact, I didn't even remember that I had written this memorandum
until I saw it the other day.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Is the language "he will be trained" or "he had been trained"?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McVickar</span>. "He will be," that is what I wrote.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Is it possible that could have been a reference to past training
during the Marines when he was trained in electronics?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McVickar</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McVickar</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McVickar</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. I take it that after October 31 of 1959, until Oswald left
Moscow, that you had no further contact with Oswald?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McVickar</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McVickar</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McVickar</span>. Yes; that is a copy of it.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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."</p>

<p>Could you indicate to the Commission the basis for making that statement?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McVickar</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_303" id="Page_303">303</a></span>
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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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"?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McVickar</span>. Yes; the same applies.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. You had no independent evidence of this at all, did you?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McVickar</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Could we have marked as Commission Exhibit No. 958 a three-page
memorandum from Mr. McVickar to Mr. Ehrlich, dated April 7, 1964?</p>

<p>(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 958 for
identification.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Is that the memorandum you just referred to?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McVickar</span>. Yes; that is the same memorandum.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McVickar</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McVickar</span>. 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.</p>

<p>But I would say that it was not a commonly known fact among the ordinary
run of people in the United States.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McVickar</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McVickar</span>. 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.</p>

<p>But as I say, I can't be sure that it would be very significant. But I think
it is a point, however.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. How long is the ordinary tourist visa good for?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McVickar</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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?</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_304" id="Page_304">304</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">McVickar</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McVickar</span>. No; I think that the length of time that he apparently was in
Moscow was sufficient for them to make any bureaucratic decision.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Could you indicate for the Commission just what he did which led you to
that conclusion?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McVickar</span>. 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&mdash;that is what I understand&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>First, from where did you get that information?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McVickar</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McVickar</span>. Yes; I would say so; yes.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. In other words, if it was a fact?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McVickar</span>. If it was a fact.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. That he belonged to a rifle club and did shooting it would
be unusual?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McVickar</span>. It would seem to me, yes, particularly for a foreigner, but
unusual in any case, I think.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. But you did not hear that either from Oswald or from his wife
whom you saw later, I believe.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McVickar</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. After November 17, 1959, you had no more contact with Oswald
until some time in July 1961, is that correct?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McVickar</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Do you speak Russian?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McVickar</span>. Yes; or I did.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. When did his wife come in in July of 1961?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McVickar</span>. 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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_305" id="Page_305">305</a></span>
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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>I do not really remember this interview, and I can only speak about it on the
basis of the record.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Isn't it possible that you saw her on July 11, 1961?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McVickar</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Are you certain about this, sir?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McVickar</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McVickar</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McVickar</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. Would it be appropriate to point out that there seems to be more
on your copy than on his copy?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McVickar</span>. No, these are my own notes. This is exactly what it is here.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McVickar</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Now you have a notation "was not Komsomol." What does
that mean?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McVickar</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Did she say whether she had at anytime been a member of the
Komsomol?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McVickar</span>. I would have undoubtedly phrased my question in such a way
as to cover that point, I think.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Did you ask her whether she was a member of any particular
Communist organization?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McVickar</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. When you had this interview wouldn't she then have<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_306" id="Page_306">306</a></span>
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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McVickar</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McVickar</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McVickar</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Can we infer from Commission Exhibit No. 959 that you must
have seen Mr. Oswald on July 11, 1961?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McVickar</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. By both signing parties you only mean Oswald and the notary
or whoever certifies to it?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McVickar</span>. I being the notary in this case you see. But the beneficiary,
Mrs. Oswald, did not have to be present for this thing.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. There is a possibility she was present?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McVickar</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. You keep on referring to the fact that you recall seeing this in
the record. Could you tell me where you saw it, please?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McVickar</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>(Discussion off the record.)</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_307" id="Page_307">307</a></span></p>

<h2 id="ac">TESTIMONY OF ABRAM CHAYES</h2>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. I do.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Mr. Chayes, will you state for the record your full name?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. My name is Abram Chayes. There is a middle name that I
don't use. It is Joseph.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Where do you presently reside?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. At 3520 Edmunds Street NW., Washington, D.C.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. When did you become Legal Adviser to the State Department?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. I think I was sworn in on February 7, 1961.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. So, therefore, anything that happened with respect to Mr.
Oswald prior to that time you had nothing to do with and knew nothing about?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. On or about May 28, 1964, you had occasion to reassemble the
files and deliver another set to the Commission, is that correct?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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."</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_308" id="Page_308">308</a></span>
to us just yesterday, that they constitute all of the files that the State Department
has?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. That is correct, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. 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&mdash;Expatriation."</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. On what page is that, Mr. Chayes?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. 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&mdash;Expatriation."</p>

<p>Now, in that memorandum we analyze three sections of the act under which
it might be argued that an expatriation took place.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Yes?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. 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 <span class="locked">section&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. May I ask one question? This is a formal opinion of your office
as Legal Adviser to the State Department?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. I realize that it is not a formalized opinion from that angle.
Was this ever submitted to the Department of Justice for consideration?</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_309" id="Page_309">309</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. No; it was not.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ehrlich</span>. Actually this report did go to the Department of Justice because
it was submitted before the Commission was formed.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. Yes; but it wasn't submitted to the Department of Justice for
consideration.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. For concurrence or anything of that kind.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. For concurrence, no.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Now, the first section which I assume you address your attention
to was section 349(a) (1).</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. We could do it that way.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Do you want to start with 349(a) (6)?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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."</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Do you have those citations, Mr. Chayes?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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)?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. That would be (a) (2), and we consider that at page 7 of the
memorandum, subsection C.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Are we through with all pages up to 7?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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 <i>Bautista's Petition</i>, 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
<i>The Matter of L.</i> 1 I. &amp; N. Dec. 317 (B.I.A. 1942).</p>

<p>The courts have said that this is a reciprocal relationship in which in order<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_310" id="Page_310">310</a></span>
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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. There has to be action on both sides. Unilateral action is not
enough if the affirmation is not accepted.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. 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).</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Do you know whether Oswald had to make any statement or
take any oath when he got employment in the Soviet Union?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. I don't personally, but it may have been inquired into by the
consul when Oswald came back for a renewal passport.</p>

<p>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).</p>

<p>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 <i>Insogna</i>
v. <i>Dulles</i>, 116 F. Supp. 473 (D.D.C. 1953); <i>Stipa</i> v. <i>Dulles</i>, 233 F. 2d 551 (3d Cir.
1956); and <i>Bruni</i> v. <i>Dulles</i>, 235 F. 2d 855 (D.C. Cir. 1956). In at least one other
case, <i>Mendelsohn</i> v. <i>Dulles</i>, 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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. I think it would be helpful wherever you say, Mr. Chayes,
there are cases, that the record show the citation of the cases.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. I think that would be very helpful. Otherwise I think
the record <span class="locked">is&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. Yes; I agree.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. I will be very glad to do so, Mr. Chairman.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Now do you want to address yourself to section 349(a) (1)?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. 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.</p>

<p>We knew that he applied for naturalization, but even on the basis of his
Soviet documents he had not been given Soviet citizenship.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. 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.</p>

<p>I think for the record I would like to read here a citation from the case of
<i>Stipa</i> v. <i>Dulles</i> decided by the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit&mdash;the citation
is at 233 F. 2d. 551&mdash;which gives some idea of the general attitude with
which the courts approach expatriation cases. In that case it said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>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.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_311" id="Page_311">311</a></span>
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.</p></blockquote>

<p>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.
<i>Acheson</i> v. <i>Murakami</i>, 176 F. 2d 953 (9th Cir. 1949).</p>

<p>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., <i>Schneiderman</i> v. <i>United
States</i>, 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. 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:</p>

<p>"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."</p>

<p>Mr. Coleman, do we have that in our files?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. Yes; I think also the American Embassy officer was Ambassador
Kohler?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. It was Stoessel.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. Oh, Stoessel, Deputy Chief of Mission.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. The statement was made to him by an official of the Foreign
Office?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. I think he is identified in the telegram; yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Yes; I would rather like to put that in the record unless there
is some similar reason to the one we had before.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. Could I go off the record for just a moment?</p>

<p>(Discussion off the record.)</p>

<p>(Mr. Coleman's last question was read back by the reporter.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. Yes; on the basis of the record that I have in the file.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_312" id="Page_312">312</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Was that reviewed in your office at that time?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. No; it wasn't.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Shouldn't it have been?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. I don't think so, Mr. Dulles. The Passport Office has to make
nationality determinations on thousands and thousands of people.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. But this is a legal question, isn't it?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. But they have adjudicators in the Passport Office.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. They have legal officers.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. Thirty lawyers or something.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. They have?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. And two lawyers reviewed this case. There are just thousands
of nationality or loss of nationality determinations.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. And those are generally all settled in the Passport Office?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. In almost every case.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Some of them may be presented to your office.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. Where they present especially difficult questions of law or general
policy of administration; yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. And this wasn't considered as a case involving particularly
difficult questions of law?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. No; I don't think it did then or does now.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. 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 <span class="locked">form&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Commission Exhibit No. 938, for the record.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. I think they are on the list to testify.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Mr. Chayes, those lawyers didn't review the file in 1961. They
are the two lawyers that reviewed it in October 1963.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. I see. Well, I can find out if we haven't supplied the names
already.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_313" id="Page_313">313</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. I don't think any lawyer reviewed the file in 1961.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. Well, an adjudicator did.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. It was Miss Waterman. She is not a lawyer.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. I see.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. She is coming before us?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. She is a passport adjudicator.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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:</p>

<p>"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."</p>

<p>I would like to show you this Commission exhibit and ask you are you familiar
with that memorandum?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. I have seen this, but only since the assassination in my general
review of the files.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Now, has your office made a check to determine whether a
lookout card was prepared?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Your examination revealed that a lookout card actually was
never prepared, is that correct?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. But there was none in the file.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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 <span class="locked">operating&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. So that when 1963 came around and there was a further application
for a passport, there was no lookout card then found in 1963?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. Nor should there have been.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. That is the issue under your procedure.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Even in 1961?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. In 1961.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. But in 1961 all of these facts with regard to Oswald were before
you, were they not?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. If I could just give some notion of what this system is like.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. 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 <span class="locked">passport&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Does a defector or an attempted defector fall in that
category?</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_314" id="Page_314">314</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Don't you keep records of what you put in and what
you take out?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. That notation also does not appear.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. So the probability is increased.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. That is correct.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. That there was no lookout card ever made and put into
the file.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. There is a Commission Exhibit No. 948 where Mr. Chayes under
date of May 8, 1964, addressed himself to these problems.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Is this that which I have here?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. And that is to be in the record?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. We will give it an exhibit number.</p>

<p>(Discussion off the record.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Back on the record.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 948 for identification.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. I would like to ask the witness whether this letter was prepared
under his direction together with the attachments.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. Yes; the letter and attachments are those which were prepared&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. In Commission Exhibit No. 948 you explain the lookout card
situation.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. You treat with the question of whether a lookout card was
in the State Department file on Oswald in 1961.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. Yes, sir; I think it is covered in the answers to questions 12 and<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_315" id="Page_315">315</a></span>
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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Was there any other occasion as a result of acts by Oswald
that you felt that a lookout card should have been prepared?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. What were those?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Can you refuse issuance of a passport when there is an unpaid
balance due?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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 <span class="locked">was&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Could we have in the record the form that was in
existence before and that which is now the form?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. 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"&mdash;it is about the middle of the page&mdash;"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.'"</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. Yes; we can't find any evidence that a lookout card might have
been prepared.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Do you know why one was not prepared?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. But the Passport Office had that information.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. The Passport Office had the date and place of birth information
on Lee Harvey Oswald; yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. But not on Marina?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. 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.</p>

<p>That is the problem. The problem is avoiding the difficulties that would
arise if duplicated names put you into the lookout card system.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Once the loan had been repaid, would the card have been taken
out?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_316" id="Page_316">316</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. 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.</p>

<p>The second is if you are a very important person and your passport is supposed
to be given specially expeditious treatment.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Does the State Department have any regulations which set
forth the circumstances under which they will refuse a person a passport?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Volume 22, title 22?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. Yes; title 22, part 51 of the Code of Federal Regulations.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Or the Communist Party of any other country.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. Of any other country.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Is there any other regulation, which the State Department
has, dealing with the circumstances under which they can refuse to issue a
passport?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. The other regulation covering substantive grounds of refusal
is 51.136.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Could you read into the record the regulation?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. Yes; the regulation says:</p>

<p>"In order to <span class="locked">promote"&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Well, it is entitled "Limitations on Issuance of Passports to Certain Other
Persons."</p>

<p>It reads:</p>

<p>"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."</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Is there any record in the Department that anyone ever<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_317" id="Page_317">317</a></span>
examined Oswald's file to make a determination of whether he should have
been issued a passport?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. In 1963?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 1963.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. In 1963 the passport was issued on the basis of a simple check
of the lookout file under the normal procedures of the Department.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Since there was no lookout card, I take it we can assume that
the June 25, 1963, passport was issued without <span class="locked">any&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. Without any examination.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Without any consultation of the files on <span class="locked">Oswald&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. Exactly.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. That were in the Department.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. I am confident that that was the case.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. May I ask whether there are any lookout cards to your knowledge
that are filed under that third section there?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. "Violate the laws or be prejudical"?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. That is it; yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. If we had the instruction in the Schwartz to Knight memorandum,
yes; there would have been a lookout card on Oswald.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. In my opinion, they could not. They could not have refused
a passport based on the information in the Oswald file.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. If that is true, how could you have a lookout card now
that would have resulted, that would result in a passport being refused?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. 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."</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_318" id="Page_318">318</a></span>
And as you say, when you got all the facts as in the expatriation situation,
you might determine that he had not expatriated himself.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. At least in this case if there had been a lookout card,
there would have been a delay.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. That is the very least that would have happened.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. There would have been a delay of a couple of days probably.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. And in this case time might have been important.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. Well, I think that is correct without knowing any more about
what he intended to do this time on his travels abroad.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. No.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Who was going abroad again?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Thank you very much.</p>

<h2 id="jam3">TESTIMONY OF JOHN A. McVICKAR RESUMED</h2>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Have you had such opportunity.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McVickar</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Is that despatch dated July 11, 1961?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McVickar</span>. Yes.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_319" id="Page_319">319</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. The record shows it is Commission Exhibit No. 935.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McVickar</span>. 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."</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Moscow?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McVickar</span>. No; apparently from Minsk after he had returned.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Oh, Minsk.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McVickar</span>. 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."</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Wouldn't you say that it took place, sir, on the 11th of July?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McVickar</span>. 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.</p>

<p>No, no; this says that he appeared at the Embassy on July 8, and so this was
probably prepared on the 8th of July.</p>

<p>I would say then it must have taken place on the 11th of July.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McVickar</span>. Oh, yes; that is correct.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. That was probably the day that Marina came into the
Embassy?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McVickar</span>. Probably the day she came into the Embassy, and probably
the day on which I interviewed her.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. And, therefore, the notes, Commission Exhibit No. 945, were
apparently made on July 11?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McVickar</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McVickar</span>. 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.</p>

<p>But in this case, in the Soviet Union, it was reversed because it was so
difficult to get exit visas.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>But usually there was very little done in the American documentation until
after they had received an exit visa from the Soviet Union.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Sir, you then on August 28, 1961, prepared the Operations Memorandum
which has been given Commission Exhibit No. 944; is that correct?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McVickar</span>. Yes; that was the date of the memorandum.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Now in that memorandum you indicated that Marina had been
in to see you; is that correct?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McVickar</span>. 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.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_320" id="Page_320">320</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McVickar</span>. Yes; that is correct.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. What were the sanctions imposed by section 243(g), which
you referred to in the memorandum?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McVickar</span>. There is a provision 243(g), section 243(g) of the Immigration
and Nationality Act, which provides that countries which&mdash;and I am just
taking this from memory now&mdash;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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>So Soviet citizens who were relatives of American citizens could receive
a waiver of these sanctions.</p>

<p>Is that clear?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. If the sanctions had not been waived, what would be the effect
of refusing to waive the sanctions?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McVickar</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Would that mean that Marina could not have come to the
United States?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McVickar</span>. 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 <span class="locked">this&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Couldn't she have gone to say, Brussels, for example, in
Belgium?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McVickar</span>. And then applied for a visa there? This may be.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McVickar</span>. I think that the record shows that there were such discussions,
but they did not take place during the time I was there.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. When did you leave?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McVickar</span>. I left on September the 1st of 1961.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McVickar</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McVickar</span>. Yes; that is exactly right.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McVickar</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Under section 212(A)(28)(i) of the act?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McVickar</span>. Yes; that is correct.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Is it the general practice to indicate that such membership
is involuntary when it is connected with employment?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McVickar</span>. Yes; there are instructions from the Department giving guidance
to officers in general terms, that indicate that membership in mass organizations,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_321" id="Page_321">321</a></span>
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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McVickar</span>. Yes; I believe so.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Would you be kind enough to read into the record the instruction
referred to?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McVickar</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McVickar</span>. 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."</p>

<p>I should note that the text of that is confidential, as a part of confidential
appendix A.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. After you interviewed Marina and took the facts, that you
determined that her membership in the Soviet Trade Union for Medical Workers
was involuntary?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McVickar</span>. It appeared to be involuntary.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Suppose Marina had told you that she was a member of the
Komsomol, what would you have done then?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McVickar</span>. 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.</p>

<p>But if you are going to the university, not everybody is a member of the
Komsomol, although a high percentage of them are.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. In that case, the latter one, there was a denial?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McVickar</span>. There was a denial, yes, but this was because&mdash;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.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_322" id="Page_322">322</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McVickar</span>. No; I don't think so, because I left almost immediately afterward,
and I had nothing more to do with the case.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McVickar</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. No one called you and asked you to do it?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McVickar</span>. No, no; it was my responsibility to look into the matter and
make the recommendation and I did.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McVickar</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. I have no other questions.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. 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."</p>

<p>Was the Oswald case in October of 1959 a then unusual case?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McVickar</span>. Yes; because we had had only a few people in the category
of defectors, and at that point I think we might have had&mdash;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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McVickar</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. 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)."</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McVickar</span>. Yes.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_323" id="Page_323">323</a></span>
Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Is there any other port such as Helsinki, in the context
you are using it?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McVickar</span>. 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.</p>

<p>What I think&mdash;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 <span class="locked">is&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Wasn't he traveling by boat, however?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McVickar</span>. He traveled by boat to Helsinki.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. That is where the boat went?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McVickar</span>. That is right.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. He did? He went by plane?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McVickar</span>. I didn't realize that. But he flew from London to Helsinki and
then entered the Soviet Union from Helsinki.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. By rail?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McVickar</span>. By rail.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. What is so unusual and relatively uncomplicated about
Helsinki as a point of entry?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McVickar</span>. 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.</p>

<p>It might be more logical for some people to take the train into the Soviet
Union through Warsaw.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Where did he get his visa?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McVickar</span>. He got his visa in Helsinki.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. So it is the ease of getting the visa.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McVickar</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McVickar</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McVickar</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Can any ordinary tourist, unknown tourist, just go to Helsinki
and get a visa there and pick it up and get into Russia?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McVickar</span>. Yes; I think an ordinary tourist can go to any one of their
Embassies and get a visa.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_324" id="Page_324">324</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Do they have authority, do you know, to do that without referring
back to Moscow?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McVickar</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. On page 3 of your memorandum of April 7, 1964, paragraph
8, you say:</p>

<p>"My impression was that in the Soviet Union such a privilege would not have
been usual."</p>

<p>You are referring, of course, to the allegations made that he had been a member
of a rifle club and did target shooting?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McVickar</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Why do you have that impression?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McVickar</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Let's assume the fact that he did.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McVickar</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Have you ever been to Minsk?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McVickar</span>. I have only passed through Minsk on the train several times
going back and forth to Poland.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Do you feel from your experiences in the Soviet Union
it was unusual for Oswald to be sent or permitted to go to Minsk?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McVickar</span>. 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.</p>

<p>The same thing was done in the case of the immediately previous defector, Mr.
Webster, who was a glass expert&mdash;what do they call that kind of glass, foam
glass?</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McVickar</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. I want to straighten out if I can this question of the delay in
the issuance of an exit visa for Mrs. Oswald.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Mr. Dulles, I do have to leave. Would you take over
and preside as chairman.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. 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&mdash;what is this exhibit number?</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_325" id="Page_325">325</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. That is Commission Document No. 2. It hasn't been marked
as an exhibit yet.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Oh, it has not been marked. I don't understand what that
number can be.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. That is the number, Commission Document No. 2.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Do you know the date when the exit visa was granted?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McVickar</span>. 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&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 1962?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McVickar</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. So that 5 months of the delay in their getting out was American
regulations?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McVickar</span>. 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&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McVickar</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McVickar</span>. It does look as though at that time there was a certain
amount of consideration.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. I am not blaming anyone for giving this the fullest possible consideration.
That is all I have.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Do you have some exhibits?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. For the record, Commission Exhibit No. 911 which is the
McVickar memorandum of November 17, 1959.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. It may be admitted.</p>

<p>(The document referred to, previously marked as Commission Exhibit No.
911 for identification, was received in evidence.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Commission Exhibit No. 941, which is the McVickar memorandum
of November 27, 1963.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. It may be admitted.</p>

<p>(The document referred to, previously marked as Commission Exhibit No.
941 for identification, was received in evidence.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Commission Exhibit No. 942, which is the note which Mr.
McVickar wrote for the Oswald file on November 9, 1959.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. It may be admitted.</p>

<p>(The document referred to, previously marked as Commission Exhibit No.
942 for identification, was received in evidence.)</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_326" id="Page_326">326</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. It may be admitted.</p>

<p>(The document referred to, previously marked as Commission Exhibit No.
943 for identification, was received in evidence.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Commission Exhibit No. 944, which is the Operations Memorandum,
dated August 28, 1961.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. It may be admitted.</p>

<p>(The document referred to, previously marked as Commission Exhibit No.
944 for identification, was received in evidence.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. It may be admitted.</p>

<p>(The document referred to, previously marked as Commission Exhibit No.
945 for identification, was received in evidence.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. It may be admitted.</p>

<p>(The document referred to, previously marked as Commission Exhibit No.
959 for identification, was received in evidence.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. And also Commission Exhibit No. 958, which is the memorandum
of Mr. McVickar, dated April 7, 1964.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. It may be admitted.</p>

<p>(The document referred to, previously marked as Commission Exhibit No.
958 for identification, was received in evidence.)</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Are we going to admit as exhibits this State Department
answer?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. All this will then go in.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Oh, yes; that is all going in.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Unless there is something else the Commission will recess until 9 o'clock
tomorrow morning.</p>

<p>(Whereupon, at 6:20 p.m., the President's Commission recessed.)</p>

<hr />
<h2><span class="smaller"><a name="Wednesday_June_10_1964" id="Wednesday_June_10_1964"><i>Wednesday, June 10, 1964</i></a></span><br />
<span class="subhead">TESTIMONY OF ABRAM CHAYES, BERNICE WATERMAN, HON. DEAN
RUSK, SECRETARY OF STATE, AND FRANCES G. KNIGHT</span></h2>

<p>The President's Commission met at 9:10 a.m., on June 10, 1964, at 200 Maryland
Avenue NE., Washington, D.C.</p>

<p>Present were Chief Justice Earl Warren, Chairman; Senator John Sherman
Cooper, Representative Gerald Ford, and Allen W. Dulles, members.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_327" id="Page_327">327</a></span></p>

<h2 id="ac2">TESTIMONY OF ABRAM CHAYES RESUMED</h2>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. The Commission will come to order. Mr. Chayes is on the
stand. Mr. Coleman, you may continue the examination.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. Yes; Mr. Coleman.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Could you tell us the circumstances in which the State Department
feels it can refuse a passport based upon the regulations?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Is that the case that was in the Fifth Circuit?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. I think so.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. It came up from the Federal District Court in Florida?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. New Orleans, it came up from New Orleans.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. This applies to American citizens of course?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. American citizens. Only American citizens can get passports.
When we are dealing with aliens, we are in the visa area.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_328" id="Page_328">328</a></span>
checks. He was arrested in Australia for fraud and subsequently convicted
and sentenced to jail there.</p>

<p>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&ndash;64&mdash;through
March of 1964.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Can the record note that the original of that letter has been
given Commission Exhibit No. 949?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. I take it that judgment is effected in part by the holding of
the Supreme Court in the <i>Kent</i> v. <i>Dulles</i> case.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_329" id="Page_329">329</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. It is my judgment that the passport was properly issued in June
of 1963; yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Even despite the past history?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. I think that is correct. In other words, by itself it doesn't
disqualify the applicant because there is no suggestion here that even&mdash;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.</p>

<p>(Discussion off the record.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. May I ask at that <span class="locked">point&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. May he finish? He hadn't finished that statement.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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?</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_330" id="Page_330">330</a></span>
ability of the Passport Office to furnish them with passport facilities, in very
short order, is of tremendous service, and tremendous convenience to them.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. 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.</p>

<p>In certain cases they can. But in a great many cases they cannot.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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&mdash;it
could notify the security agencies whenever a lookout card, a person as to
whom there was a lookout card applied for a passport.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_331" id="Page_331">331</a></span>
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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. When did the CIA report of the Mexican trip get into the
passport file?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. 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&mdash;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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. 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&mdash;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&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Would it be your judgment that the June determination,
using your new criteria, would have resulted in a refusal of this passport?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. Oh, yes.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. And said "I, Lee Harvey Oswald, do hereby request that
my present citizenship in the United States of America be revoked."</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. Oh, yes; the entire file.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. 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"?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. Yes; It would have had all of that.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. It would have had all of that?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. And it would have had <span class="locked">the&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_332" id="Page_332">332</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. And a person who in his application in June of 1963, indicated
he wanted to return to the Soviet Union?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. 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."</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. There was such a determination?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. Well, I don't <span class="locked">know&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. It was a determination, but it was not one that was
absolutely all black or white.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. But you also <span class="locked">said&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. And I think there should.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. He would then be given his passport again despite the
new regulation.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. 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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_333" id="Page_333">333</a></span>
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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Would that preclude him from getting a passport?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. 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&mdash;although we might get a little more information
in the next couple of weeks, we have a case before the Chief Justice
now&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. That is, of course, a more difficult one. Of course we know he
didn't have very much information.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. 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 <span class="locked">performance&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. This isn't a question of freedom of speech.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. No; I understand.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. This is a question of giving away Government secrets.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Was any investigation of that aspect made at the time?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. When he came back and asked for the renewal of his
passport?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. No; but what happened was when he returned to the United
States&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. And those reports were in the passport file.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. 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&mdash;I haven't reviewed it recently&mdash;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.</p>

<p>So that we did have whatever information there was.</p>

<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_334" id="Page_334">334</a></span>
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.</p>

<p>Mr. Ehrlich points out to me that on May 16, 1962&mdash;this is one of several
such memorandums&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Will you indicate what file that is by the number?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. This is the folder II in the numbering that we gave you, and
it is document No. II-6(4), in our number system.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Could you read or indicate what that says about Oswald?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. Oh, yes; it just summarizes his status as of that date and it
says:</p>

<p>"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."</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. May I clarify one other point?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Mr. Dulles, you had a question.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. This apparently just went to the Bureau, did it not? Did it
go to the other agencies?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. I think <span class="locked">the&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. 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 <span class="locked">check&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. A lookout card.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. A lookout card.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. No; the passport file, I am holding it up.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. It is a big file.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. It is roman numeral X and it contains in our numbering system
80 documents or something like that.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. That was in the passport file itself?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Do you know whether that file was reviewed before the issuance
of the passport in June 1930 or not?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. 1963.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. I mean 1963?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. It was not.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. It was not?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. 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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_335" id="Page_335">335</a></span>
procedures we didn't have a flag for people of this kind to stimulate a further
inquiry or investigation.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>And then would issue the passport. If there were a supplemental questionnaire
or something like that, then he would probably go to the file.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>(Commission Exhibit No. 952 was marked for identification and received in
evidence.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. You had better explain the "NO" which is beside Oswald's name.
name.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. 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.</p>

<p>That is the designation of the office.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Now it is interesting, the Telex came in and it is stamped June 24, 4:19 p.m.&mdash;June
24, 1963. It went out June 25, 10:57 a.m. and these 25 people all got the
passports.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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?</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_336" id="Page_336">336</a></span>
(Commission Exhibit No. 951 was marked for identification and received in
evidence.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Would you describe Commission Exhibit No. 951?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. As of what date does this read?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. February 1962.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. How do you define the defector category, do you know?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. I think we have <span class="locked">the&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Would that have covered Oswald? That is what I am interested in.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. Yes; well, it was in fact designed to cover Oswald, so <span class="locked">that&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. It probably would have.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. There is a definition we could get though and put it in the record.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. No, no.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. There is no definition?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. 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.</p>

<p>"On the basis of the attached information, please bring up to date the lookout
cards of the Passport Office."</p>

<p>And then it simply lists the names of the people that came over from the
military.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Mr. Chayes, is the document we have marked Exhibit No. 951,
the standard operating notice as of February 28, 1962?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Wouldn't Mr. Oswald have fallen in that category, based upon
the passport file?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. 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.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_337" id="Page_337">337</a></span>
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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. 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&mdash;my letter of June 6.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. If you really are equating someone who is intoxicated
in Paris with <span class="locked">Oswald&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Don't you have a category X, which is called "catch card,"
denotes limited lookout validity, not necessarily refusal situation?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. So perhaps Oswald could have been put in there, couldn't he, in
that category, based upon the file?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. It is possible, and I suppose that is exactly what we are now
doing with defectors.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Do you know what <span class="locked">category&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. I think you ought to inquire from Miss Knight about that.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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."</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. I don't personally know at all.</p>

<p>(Discussion off the record.)</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_338" id="Page_338">338</a></span>
as well as the Bureau of Security and Consular Affairs, and a very deliberate
and special decision was made.</p>

<p>The subsequent application, the June 1963 application, was handled as a
matter of routine.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. The application in the Embassy for renewal or reissuance,
was that handled more expeditiously or less expeditiously than other
defector or attempted defector cases?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. How long did it take from the actual time that he made
the application in Moscow until it was finally approved?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. He made the application <span class="locked">on&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. This is the passport?</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Yes; in Moscow.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Though the instruction that it could be issued was submitted,
sent forward to the Embassy, certainly by the end of 1961.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. Yes; they were submitted subject to the Embassy being satisfied
on certain points.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. An exit document for himself?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. For himself.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. Oh, yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Anytime?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. 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&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. You mean comparable to the June application?</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. No; I am talking of the Moscow application.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. 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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_339" id="Page_339">339</a></span>
was also issued a passport routinely. But I can supply for the record the information
as to the others.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. I think it would be helpful.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Yes; if we could have that for the record.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. We will be very glad to submit it.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. Yes; unless she was subject to one of those disqualifications in
212(a)(28).</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. That is correct.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. I take it you reviewed the record and you concur in that
judgment?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. That is a general rule of international law, isn't it, you are
supposed to do it.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. 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.</p>

<p>In any event&mdash;that is a little digression&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. 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 <span class="locked">years&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. I think we have already.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. 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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_340" id="Page_340">340</a></span>
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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. Well, her processing in the Soviet Union from the time she first
started to try to get <span class="locked">back&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. That is it.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. Until she got an exit visa was about 6 months. It was just
under 6 months.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. We have answered in our answers to <span class="locked">your&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>(Commission Exhibit No. 960 was marked for identification and received in
evidence.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Does that cover this particular point?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. It covers the point not for 10 years but for 3 or 4 years.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. If I can read into the record this answer, it <span class="locked">says&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Which answer is that?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. Question 3, attachment A.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>"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."</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. 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."</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. That is very helpful.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. But we will get a detailed account for the Commission.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. 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).</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_341" id="Page_341">341</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. May I just ask one question there. Our file that I have before
me, and your very helpful <span class="locked">paper&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Commission Document No. 2.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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:</p>

<p>"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.</p>

<p>"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."</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. That is correct.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. That is right. The sanction was waived only after urging from
the Department.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. We will have that. That testimony will be put in through Miss
James and Miss Waterman.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. They have that. All right, if they supply that, that will be
adequate.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. So I take it that, in your judgment after reviewing the file,
you think that the waiver should have been granted?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. Well, I think there that it was not an improper exercise of discretion.
That is correct.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Just one other question. Is there any policy in the Department
to delay the acceptance of attempted renunciation of citizenship?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Is that routine prescribed, should it be prescribed do you think
now in the light of hindsight in this situation?</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_342" id="Page_342">342</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Wouldn't it be useful though to give&mdash;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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Does Snyder have the authority to make a determination
of competency?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. I agree.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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?</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_343" id="Page_343">343</a></span>
(Commission Exhibit No. 955 was marked for identification and received in
evidence.)</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. When Oswald came back on November 3, I believe, which
was a regular working <span class="locked">day&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Mr. Commissioner, he did not come back on November 3. He
merely wrote a letter.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. Wrote a letter. He never came back.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. In the strictest term.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. Yes, sir; members of the Foreign Service, appointed by the
President with the advice and consent of the Senate.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. 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 <span class="locked">defector&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Ball is the Under Secretary of State.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. He still had some authority.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. What would that smaller fourth file be?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. You got this order on or about 5 o'clock the 22d of
November?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. The 22d; yes, sir.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. And you issued orders to have these files brought in,
or did you go and get them yourself?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. No.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Or what happened?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. I issued orders to have them brought in. I called&mdash;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.</p>

<p>(Discussion off the record.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. 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.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_344" id="Page_344">344</a></span>
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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Nothing of significance happened. We did <span class="locked">find&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. May I ask is the passport office under you as Assistant Secretary
and Legal Adviser?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. No, sir; the passport office is under Mr. Schwartz.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Under Mr. Schwartz?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. It is Bureau of Security and Consular Affairs.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. And he is directly under the Secretary of State.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. We will give that Commission Exhibit No. 950, your first report.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. The one we did overnight?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. No; the one that you sent us. It is Commission Exhibit No.
950. It has been given a number.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. I wonder if the witness would identify this and verify the circumstances
under which it was prepared?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. 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.</p>

<p>What I say is that Commission Exhibit No. 950 is essentially an expansion
and elaboration of the document that we prepared that night.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. 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.</p>

<p>I think there was one stage where perhaps that wasn't understood, but we got<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_345" id="Page_345">345</a></span>
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&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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?</p>

<p>(Commission Exhibit No. 956 was marked for identification and received in
evidence.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>(Commission Exhibit No. 954 was marked for identification and received in
evidence.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. That is correct.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Was that made orally as well as in writing or should we ask
that of the Secretary of State?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. 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.</p>

<p>But again I say I am really not the best man to ask that.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_346" id="Page_346">346</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Your answers to attachment A were in Commission Exhibit
No. 960. We have already identified that in the record.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>(Commission Exhibit No. 953 was marked for identification and received in
evidence.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. They shall be admitted.</p>

<p>(Commission Exhibits Nos. 948, 950, and 949 were marked for identification
and received in evidence.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. May I ask this question? Have all of these been previously
identified in the testimony.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Yes, sir; they have been identified and marked.</p>

<p>(Discussion off the record.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. I have no further questions.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. I have no further questions. Thank you very much. You have
been very full, very frank, very helpful.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. I am glad to do what I can.</p>

<h2 id="bw">TESTIMONY OF BERNICE WATERMAN</h2>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Would you kindly rise and raise your right hand.</p>

<p>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?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Waterman</span>. I do.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Would you please advise Miss Waterman of the general purpose
of the testimony we will ask of her.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_347" id="Page_347">347</a></span>
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).</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Miss Waterman, I wonder if you would just give us a brief
outline of your experience with the State Department.</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Waterman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Can you hear?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Waterman</span>. Then I became in charge of a section adjudicating citizenship
cases from certain places. I continued in citizenship work until I retired.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Would you proceed, Mr. Coleman.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Waterman</span>. Yes; I did look over the State Department file. I don't
mean State Department files, I mean Passport Office files on Oswald.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Waterman</span>. I believe so.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Waterman</span>. Well it was rather seeing it in connection with <span class="locked">the&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Waterman</span>. The telegram&mdash;this is a reply.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Yes; I am talking about the telegram dated November 2, 1959.</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Waterman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Waterman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Waterman</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. And that telegram indicated that it was <span class="locked">prepared&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Miss Waterman's file doesn't have the exhibit numbers on it so
you will have to identify it in some other way.</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Waterman</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. That telegram shows that it was prepared by you because your
name appears in the lower left hand corner, is that right?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Waterman</span>. That is right.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Waterman</span>. This is a telegram, isn't it?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Waterman</span>. 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.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_348" id="Page_348">348</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Geographical divisions?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Waterman</span>. Geographical divisions, yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Could you identify for the record who Miss V. James is?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Waterman</span>. Well, Virginia James, an officer in EE.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. EE means?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Waterman</span>. Eastern Europe.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. And SOV?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Waterman</span>. SOV, Soviet Division.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman.</span> So the Commission Exhibit No. 961, which is a <span class="locked">telegram&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Waterman</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Indicates that the telegram was at least communicated to and
cleared by the Soviet desk in Washington before it was sent out?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Waterman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Waterman</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Waterman</span>. Yes&mdash;refusal sheet.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Waterman</span>. 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 <span class="locked">not&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Waterman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Well, there was a report submitted by the Embassy on November
2, 1959, which has already been identified as Commission Exhibit No. 908.</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Waterman</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. And I assume that you received a copy or saw that report?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Waterman</span>. Yes; I did.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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."</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Waterman</span>. That is not a card. That is a sheet.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Waterman</span>. This was prepared after the receipt, I believe, of further
correspondence from the Embassy, which indicated that Oswald was&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. What was your office?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Waterman</span>. In the adjudication part of the office, to put a flag on the
case for future reference.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. After you made the refusal card which has been <span class="locked">marked&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Waterman</span>. Not a card.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Pardon me, refusal <span class="locked">sheet&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Waterman</span>. Refusal sheet.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_349" id="Page_349">349</a></span>
his passport or come back to the United States without the Department having
notice?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Waterman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Waterman</span>. At that time, at least&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. After you prepared the refusal sheet which is Commission
Exhibit No. <span class="locked">962&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Waterman</span>. Yes; I wrote that myself.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Would you then give&mdash;how would the records section know
that a lookout card should be prepared?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Waterman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. In other words, you <span class="locked">say&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Waterman</span>. In our adjudication part.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Are you saying that Oswald, Lee Harvey, would not have
<span class="locked">been&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Waterman.</span> No, no; the sheet was completely blank as to the margin.
At no time would anything have been entered there, in our adjudication part.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Waterman</span>. The typewritten red sheet. If you have the file, it is right
here.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman.</span> You say that after you prepared that, you would physically
place that red sheet on the top of the passport file, is that correct?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Waterman</span>. Well, now this was placed&mdash;I think there was a communication
which went out at the same time.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. You are talking about the Operations Memorandum dated
March 28, 1960?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Waterman</span>. I am talking about the Operations Memorandum, yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Which has been marked as Commission Exhibit No. 963?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Waterman</span>. Now that would have gone to file, to the file with this
Operations Memorandum, and the Refusal Sheet.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. You prepared the Operations Memorandum also?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Waterman</span>. Yes; now I see that was mailed 3 days after it was prepared.
In the meantime someone else was looking at it.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Was it your responsibility actually to see that the lookout card
was prepared?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Waterman</span>. No; I wouldn't think so, no.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Who would have that responsibility?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Waterman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Would the indication that the card was made be put on
the refusal sheet?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Waterman</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Would you look at the original of the State Department
records?</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_350" id="Page_350">350</a></span>
Miss <span class="smcap">Waterman</span>. Yes; I am looking at it.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Was it put on the refusal sheet?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Waterman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. It was written on.</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Waterman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. What does 130 mean?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Waterman</span>. That is the Department's classification of citizenship.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Waterman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Who called for it, can you tell from that?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Waterman</span>. Apparently we received&mdash;this was called for from&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ehrlich</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Waterman</span>. X-64.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. X-64.</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Waterman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Well, was the attorney that replaced you G.&nbsp;W. Masterton?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Waterman</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. I would like to ask you to identify Commission Exhibit No. 983.</p>

<p>Is that a copy of the sheet you referred to, to indicate the file had been called
for?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Waterman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Waterman</span>. 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&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. <span class="locked">But&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Could I ask one question?</p>

<p>Who would make out lookout cards in the normal process? Would it be quite
a number of people, or one particular office?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Waterman</span>. I am not sure about that, Mr. Dulles. That was completely
another area, and I don't know.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Outside of the Passport Department entirely, was it?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Waterman</span>. Oh, no.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. In the Passport Department?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Waterman</span>. Oh, yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Miss Knight could tell us that.</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Waterman</span>. In the records part of the Passport Office.</p>

<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_351" id="Page_351">351</a></span>
forward any kind of classified files to the usual place for having these cards
made&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Waterman</span>. Yes, yes; that was our procedure at that time at least.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Waterman</span>. I don't think there was too much going on in the file in 1960.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Well, I would like to call your attention <span class="locked">to&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Waterman</span>. But in <span class="locked">1961&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Do you have that? Your number should be X-49.</p>

<p>I show you the document which is marked in your file X-49, and it has been
given Commission Exhibit No. 965.</p>

<p>Now, is that your handwriting on that document?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ehrlich</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Well, I am referring to the one on top. Is that your writing
"took initial action, <span class="locked">action"&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Waterman</span>. No; that is Mr. Masterton&mdash;the memorandum on the little
larger size below was a memorandum, informal memorandum, which I sent to
my section chief, Mr. Masterton.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Could you indicate what you said in your memorandum?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Waterman</span>. 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."</p>

<p>I believe that was a letter which had been prepared in SCS&mdash;you know what
that is.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Waterman</span>. And had been forwarded to our office for clearance, for our
initial, before it was mailed, to reply to some inquiry of the mother.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman.</span> Now, on top of that memorandum you read, that you prepared,
there is another memorandum, isn't there?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Waterman</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman.</span> Now, could you read that into the record?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Waterman</span>. Yes; "SCS. Took initial action on action copy, case of
split action. Copy our action to go to SCS."</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman.</span> Do you know or do you have any knowledge what they meant
about case is split action?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Waterman</span>. 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&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. In other words, you are saying that the phrase, split action,
on Commission Exhibit No. 965, doesn't mean <span class="locked">that&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Waterman</span>. The decision was split; no.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. It just means that different offices in the Department would
have to make different decisions, or take different action?</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_352" id="Page_352">352</a></span>
Miss <span class="smcap">Waterman</span>. Yes; and I think that most of Mrs. Oswald's letters were
quite involved, and brought up several questions.</p>

<p>(At this point, Mr. Dulles withdrew from the hearing room.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Then the next document which I want to ask you questions
about is your X-55.</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Waterman</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. That we have marked as Commission Exhibit No. 966.</p>

<p>Now, this letter, though signed by Miss Knight, was prepared by you?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Waterman</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. And it was a reply to an inquiry made by Congressman Wright?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Waterman</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. With respect to the Oswald case.</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Waterman</span>. Yes; this was&mdash;we probably either received a memorandum
from SCS or telephone call, something of that sort.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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).</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Waterman</span>. Are you talking about the Department's Despatch?</p>

<p>(At this point, Mr. Dulles reentered the hearing room.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Yes; despatch. The Foreign Service Despatch.</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Waterman</span>. Yes; our despatch to the Embassy.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. I beg your pardon. It is a despatch from the Embassy to you.</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Waterman</span>. Yes; that is right.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Which we have marked as Commission Exhibit No. 967.</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Waterman</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. When that was received in Washington, you got a copy of it,
did you not?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Waterman</span>. Well, I think&mdash;we seem to have the original in our file.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Yes; you saw the document?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Waterman</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Waterman</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Waterman</span>. You mean the copy of <span class="locked">the&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. The proposed State Department instruction.</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Waterman</span>. Yes; I see that.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. And it indicates on the copy that the original was not sent, is
that correct?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Waterman</span>. That is right. Nothing was sent.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Can I get this clear now? I am not sure&mdash;which was the document
that was not sent?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. That is X-47 (Commission Exhibit No. 969).</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Could you identify that for the record&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. And this was drafted on March 27, was it?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Waterman</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. And you, I gather, Miss Waterman, drafted this?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Waterman</span>. I drafted this, and then apparently we had&mdash;everyone had
second thoughts on some of the statements in there, and I believe that it was
at this time&mdash;wait a minute.</p>

<p>We sent this to Miss Knight's office for the special attention of Mr. Hickey.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. And is that the memorandum dated March 31, 1961?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Waterman</span>. Yes; that is right.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_353" id="Page_353">353</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Which has been given Commission Exhibit No. 970.</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Waterman</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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 <span class="locked">safeguards&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Waterman</span>. Now, are you talking about what wasn't sent or what finally
was?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. The memorandum of March 31, 1961.</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Waterman</span>. Yes; these memorandums were prepared by my superiors.
In other words, this looked a little different and more important by that time.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. In other words, the State Department document No.
X-42 came back to you from higher authority?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Waterman</span>. No; I prepared the instruction, and I sent it to Mr. Kupiec,
who by that time was in charge of our section&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Well, that has been given Commission Exhibit No. 970.</p>

<p>It is in your files as X-42.</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Waterman</span>. Right.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. And you had no part in connection with the drafting of that
memorandum?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Waterman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Waterman</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. And we have marked it as Commission Exhibit No. 971.</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Waterman</span>. Yes</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. And that is the instruction that was actually sent to the
Embassy?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Waterman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. May I ask a question here, Mr. Coleman?</p>

<p>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."</p>

<p>Who would have prepared the March 31, 1961 memo that contained that
quotation?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Waterman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Who is Mr. Hickey?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Waterman</span>. Who is he?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. I meant at this time what was his position?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Waterman</span>. Well, I believe at that time his title was&mdash;I wouldn't like
to say definitely&mdash;I believe he was the Deputy Chief of the Passport Office.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Under Miss Knight?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Waterman</span>. Under Miss Knight, yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. I would like to ask one question about X-38(2).</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. That is Commission Exhibit No. 971.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. That is the cable sent&mdash;cable of instructions sent on the Lee
Harvey Oswald matter to the American Embassy in Moscow. This relates <span class="locked">to&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Waterman</span>. Now, you are talking about the State Department instruction?</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_354" id="Page_354">354</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. 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."</p>

<p>What does that mean?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Waterman</span>. I think it meant deliver it to him in person.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. I see&mdash;deliver it to him in person.</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Waterman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. And that may be qualified by the last sentence here, suggesting
that it would not be wise to send it through the mails?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Waterman</span>. Yes; in other words, the memorandum which Mr. Hickey
returned to us, with our proposed instruction, was used as a basis for our action.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. It was to be given to him personally, and not transmitted through
the mails.</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Waterman</span>. I think that is what it means.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Waterman</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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."</p>

<p>Do you know who wrote that, and what that means?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Waterman</span>. Well, I think the person has initialed it who wrote it.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Who is CHS?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Waterman</span>. I think that is Mr. Seeley&mdash;Mr. Carroll Seeley.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Carroll H. Seeley, Jr.?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Waterman</span>. If that is the way his name is listed in the book.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Is he an attorney in the Passport Office?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Waterman</span>. I don't know what he is now. So far as I know, he was an
attorney at that time. He was in&mdash;in the Legal Division of the Passport Office.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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
<span class="locked">sheet&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. What is that paper?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. It is physically attached.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. You see, exhibit numbers won't <span class="locked">appear&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Is that correct?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Waterman</span>. I know nothing about that. That is something that was
entirely outside of our Adjudication Division, our Foreign Operations Division.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Waterman</span>. I am looking at it. Yes. But that was nothing that emanated
from our part of the Passport Office.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Waterman</span>. Yes, yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Waterman</span>. Yes; I am looking at a copy.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. And also the <span class="locked">despatch&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Would you identify that a little bit?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_355" id="Page_355">355</a></span>
it indicates that Oswald has informed the Embassy that he had an internal Soviet
passport in which he was designated as "without citizenship."</p>

<p>And the Embassy Despatch actually has as a copy the letter which Mr. Oswald
sent to the Embassy in May 1961.</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Waterman</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. And you received that in Washington some time shortly after
March 26, 1961.</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Waterman</span>. We received it in our particular office on June 12.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. As a result of <span class="locked">receiving&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Just one second.</p>

<p><span class="locked">June&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Waterman</span>. I am going by our automatic clock stamps on the reverse
of the original.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. You received it on June 12?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Waterman</span>. Yes; we received it in our action office June 12, 1961.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Waterman</span>. Yes; I am looking at a copy.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. In those instructions, you said that Mr. Oswald could
be given his passport, is that correct?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Waterman</span>. Well, yes&mdash;because we are in effect agreeing with the suggestion
of the Embassy. We are telling the Embassy that <span class="locked">we&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. You are agreeing with their despatch of May 26, 1961, which
has been identified for the record as Commission Exhibit No. 973.</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Waterman</span>. What is this word?</p>

<p>Oh&mdash;"seek."</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Is that correct?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Waterman</span>. What was your question again now?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Waterman</span>. Yes; but I see we also note that the Embassy intended to
contact the Department again before granting any documentation to Oswald.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Off the record.</p>

<p>(Discussion off the record.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Back on the record.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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."</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Waterman</span>. Yes; I am looking at that.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Do you recall whether Miss James asked you to send her
a copy, or did you just send her a copy without being requested?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Waterman</span>. No; I would not recall, really. We tried to keep&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Then I would like to next call your attention to your document
which is X-28.</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Waterman</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Waterman</span>. That is right.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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?</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_356" id="Page_356">356</a></span>
Miss <span class="smcap">Waterman</span>. Yes; that is right.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Did you discuss with anybody in the Department Miss James'
request?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Waterman</span>. Well, I don't recall. I don't know. I wouldn't recall
right now.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Well, is this the only time, to your knowledge, where the SOV
had made a request in connection with a passport?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Waterman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. The next document in the sheaf of papers I gave you is the
Operations Memorandum dated August 18, 1961, prepared by <span class="locked">you&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Waterman</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. And we have given it Commission Exhibit No. 979.</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Waterman</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Waterman</span>. That is right.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Did you review the entire files which you had in the Passport
Office on Oswald before you wrote this memorandum?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Waterman</span>. Yes; our file was all together.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. And you also had the benefit of the various Embassy Despatches
which were sent prior to August 18, 1961?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Waterman</span>. Oh, yes.</p>

<p>Well, the part that concerned his citizenship, certainly, was with our file.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Waterman</span>. That is correct.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. When you say "no information and/or evidence to show
that Mr. <span class="locked">Oswald"&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Waterman</span>. No information or evidence.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Did you have the information that he had come in and
presented a statement to Mr. Snyder that he wanted to renounce his citizenship?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Waterman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. In other words, you were relying upon the need for
this particular document?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Waterman</span>. Well, in the first place, when he came in&mdash;as I believe Mr.
Snyder said, or whoever reported from the Embassy&mdash;and threw down his passport,
he apparently was a disgruntled young man&mdash;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&mdash;no&mdash;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.</p>

<p>In other words, he <span class="locked">was&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Waterman</span>. That is right. He had not.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_357" id="Page_357">357</a></span>
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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. I must differ with you. That first statement that he
submitted was not very ambiguous.</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Waterman</span>. Well, I think probably he made several. But, in any
<span class="locked">event&mdash;he&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. I do think I ought to read what he said on October 31.</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Waterman</span>. Yes; I believe I recall that.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Here is a letter or a statement in Lee Harvey Oswald's
handwriting, which says:</p>

<p>"I, Lee Harvey Oswald, do hereby request that my present citizenship in the
United States of America be revoked.</p>

<p>"I have entered the Soviet Union for the express purpose of applying for
citizenship in the Soviet Union, through the means of naturalization.</p>

<p>"My request for citizenship is now pending before the Supreme Soviet of
the U.S.S.R.</p>

<p>"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.</p>

<p>"I affirm that my allegiance is to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics."</p>

<p>Signed, "Lee Harvey Oswald."</p>

<p>I don't think that is very ambiguous.</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Waterman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. 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 <span class="locked">States&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Waterman</span>. I think that is correct. I think the statement is correct.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Waterman</span>. Well, I made the decision and prepared the communication
which went through my superiors, and they apparently agreed with me.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Waterman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Now, that would not be for citizenship purposes, but it would be there for
reference.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. And who was CHS?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Waterman</span>. That is the same person you mentioned awhile ago, Mr.
Seeley.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Waterman</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. May I ask a question here, Mr. Coleman?</p>

<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_358" id="Page_358">358</a></span>
himself under the pertinent laws of the United States"&mdash;where is their
documentation, if any, that the Embassy has come to that conclusion?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Sir, I think she is referring to the despatch of July 11, 1961,
which is identified as Commission Exhibit No. 935.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Waterman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Mr. Coleman, do you have that paper we had yesterday,
where the cross-out was present?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Yes, sir; here it is.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. On Commission Exhibit No. 938, Oswald crossed out
"have <span class="locked">not"&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. What is the date of that, Mr. Ford?</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. It is <span class="locked">dated&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. July 11, 1961, and it is Oswald's application for renewal of
passport.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. I remember the paper. That is subsequent to this document here
that we are discussing now.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Done at the same time. The State Department document
shows&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. And this was sent with their dispatch of July 11, 1961, which
we are now discussing.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Did you have that document at the time you wrote the
statement, "We concur," and so forth?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Which is Commission Exhibit No. 979.</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Waterman</span>. What is the date?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. It is your X-27.</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Waterman</span>. Yes; I think we had that. Because we referred to it.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Waterman</span>. His questionnaire discloses no information.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. But what about the statement on the first page?</p>

<p>Will you read it, for the record&mdash;the printed part?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Waterman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. But all we can go by is what we see.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Would you examine the original in the State Department file,
and see what was crossed out there?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Waterman</span>. Yes&mdash;"I have not." I think that was an Embassy error.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. That is a fairly important error, though.</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Waterman</span>. Yes; it is.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Will you read the full text of what is shown there as
it is shown on the original?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Waterman</span>. "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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_359" id="Page_359">359</a></span>
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."</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. That is signed by Lee Harvey Oswald.</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Waterman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Any one of those conditions, however, in that statement
would indicate that he had renounced his citizenship?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Waterman</span>. It could. But, in other words, he now <span class="locked">says&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. He says some place in there he is without nationality.
Did you have that at the <span class="locked">time&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Waterman</span>. "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 <span class="locked">explanation&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. That is what the document shows.</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Waterman</span>. But his explanation clearly shows that he had not.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles.</span> 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?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Waterman</span>. Well, in any event&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman.</span> You want the reporter to print physically in the record Commission
Exhibits Nos. 912 and 913, the two Oswald letters?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. All we can go by is what the record shows.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. I think we ought to clarify that through the record in Moscow,
because the record is not good at this point.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ehrlich</span>. There is another copy, as you know, that came in from the
Embassy that we sent to you that showed in fact&mdash;it was not a carbon, it was
a separate one, in which the "have" <span class="locked">was&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. That is Commission Exhibit No. 947.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ehrlich</span>. That was in the Embassy. It was not in the Department.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. There the "X's" were above everything, but probably were intended
to mark out the "have."</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Is Commission Exhibit No. 938 the original?</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. This is a photostat of the original?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Waterman</span>. The original is in the Department's file.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Congressman Ford, the original document is right physically in
front of you.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. That one is crossing out his "have not." It is very
clear.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_360" id="Page_360">360</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. 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."</p>

<p>(At this point, Representative Ford withdrew from the hearing room.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. We just thought the record should&mdash;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.</p>

<p>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?</p>

<p>Now, we have marked it as Commission Exhibit No. 977.</p>

<p>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?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Waterman</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. That indicates that the document was received on July 19,
is that correct? There is a stamp on there?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Waterman</span>. Yes; July 19.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. There is another stamp on there, August 3, 1961.</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Waterman</span>. Yes; I see that.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. You also have the lookout file on the Passport Office, is checked
under "No Lookout (refusal) File Record."</p>

<p>Do you see that?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Waterman</span>. Yes; I see it.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Waterman</span>. Apparently so. That was probably done automatically.
The records people probably did that.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. This was prior to the time when you had made your decision
there had been no expatriation, is that correct?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Waterman</span>. I will have to look at this.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Your recommendation wasn't made until August 18, 1961.</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Waterman</span>. That is what we were replying to. That is one of the communications
that we were acknowledging, yes, that is right.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Well, should there have been a lookout card when the search
was made in July 1961, on Lee Harvey Oswald?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Waterman</span>. Well, I would say that if one were made, it would have
been in there.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Waterman</span>. Are you talking about a lookout card?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. A lookout card, yes.</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Waterman</span>. A lookout card would only have referred to this file.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Waterman</span>. Which we already had, and which we already determined
had no evidence of expatriation.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. I am suggesting that you did not make that determination until
August 18, 1961.</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Waterman</span>. 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&mdash;the refusal sheet would be in here.</p>

<p>As I said, that was not for expatriation. It was just to flag an adverse&mdash;possible
adverse interest in the case.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. But there has been testimony given here before, Miss Waterman,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_361" id="Page_361">361</a></span>
that when the question came up later of the issuance of a passport, since there
was no lookout card, this file was not consulted.</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Waterman</span>. Well, that could be. That was, I believe&mdash;I believe that
was after I had anything to do with the file.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Yes; I know. You cannot testify as to that.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Waterman</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. And that is in the file&mdash;your file as 1X-24. It has been given
Commission Exhibit No. 980.</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Waterman</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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."</p>

<p>And the attachment is an FBI report.</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Waterman</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Written on the side in your handwriting, I assume, is the
word "incorrect."</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Waterman</span>. That is correct.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Do you recall when you wrote that on that paper?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Waterman</span>. Well, probably when I saw it. I would not recall when I
wrote it, but it would be&mdash;the statement&mdash;my inference there that the statement
in this memorandum is what you might call a misnomer would have been
correct at any date.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Who wrote this memorandum which you indicated was
incorrect?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Waterman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. With reference to that one statement?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Waterman</span>. That is right.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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 <span class="locked">about&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Waterman</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. That Oswald was not a citizen of the United States is incorrect.</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Waterman</span>. That is right.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. And you <span class="locked">prepared&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Waterman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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&mdash;was not a citizen of the United States
was incorrect.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Waterman</span>. Well, yes; well, that is self-explanatory.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Waterman</span>. Yes; I drafted that.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_362" id="Page_362">362</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. That has been given Commission Exhibit No. 982.</p>

<p>That is December 28, 1961. It is the last document.</p>

<p>Now, after December 28, 1961, did you have anything else to do as far as
the Oswald matter was concerned?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Waterman</span>. I don't think so, except perhaps sending a copy of some
document or letter to our files&mdash;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.</p>

<p>I might have marked some paper or something of that sort.</p>

<p>But I don't recall any action. If the file shows it, I took it. But, otherwise,
I don't remember.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Waterman</span>. What do you mean?</p>

<p>Do you mean outside of the Passport Office?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Waterman</span>. Outside the Passport Office?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Yes; I am just asking you for the record.</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Waterman</span>. I know. But you mentioned&mdash;such as who?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Did anyone call you up and say, "Miss Waterman, this is the
way you have to resolve this case"?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Waterman</span>. Oh, no. Oh, no.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Waterman</span>. Certainly.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Did you consult anyone in connection with reaching that decision
in the Oswald case?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Waterman</span>. 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 <span class="locked">while&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Your decision, then, is not final. It is subject to review by your
superiors in matters of this kind?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Waterman</span>. That is right.</p>

<p>But in no event&mdash;I don't know of any&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Waterman</span>. Certainly not. They have absolutely nothing to do with
citizenship&mdash;nothing.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Off the record.</p>

<p>(Discussion off the record.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. They shall be admitted.</p>

<p>(The documents heretofore marked for identification as Commission Exhibits
Nos. 957&ndash;983, were received in evidence.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. I would like to thank Miss Waterman for coming in.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. We thank you very much, Miss Waterman.</p>

<p>(Whereupon, at 12:50 p.m., the President's Commission recessed.)</p>

<hr />

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_363" id="Page_363">363</a></span></p>

<h2 id="dr"><span class="smaller">Afternoon Session</span><br />
<span class="subhead">TESTIMONY OF THE HON. DEAN RUSK, SECRETARY OF STATE</span></h2>

<p>The President's Commission reconvened at 3:30 p.m.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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?</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Yes; very well.</p>

<p>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?</p>

<p>Secretary <span class="smcap">Rusk</span>. I do.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Will you be seated, please, and Mr. Rankin will ask you the
questions, Mr. Secretary.</p>

<p>Secretary <span class="smcap">Rusk</span>. Mr. Chief Justice, may I ask one question?</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Yes, indeed.</p>

<p>Secretary <span class="smcap">Rusk</span>. 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&mdash;it would be a very grave difficulty
about publication, so I wonder what the Commission's view on that is.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Secretary <span class="smcap">Rusk</span>. Thank you, sir, I am at your disposal.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Mr. Chief Justice, could I make a suggestion in that connection?</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. 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.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. We will have a recess for a few moments then.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. I thought between the two wouldn't that be easier than put the
two together.</p>

<p>(Discussion off the record.)</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Back on the record.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Mr. Secretary, will you give us your name and address, please?</p>

<p>Secretary <span class="smcap">Rusk</span>. Dean Rusk, 4980 Quebec Street, Washington, D.C.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. And you are the Secretary of State for the United States?</p>

<p>Secretary <span class="smcap">Rusk</span>. That is correct.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. You have occupied that position for some time?</p>

<p>Secretary <span class="smcap">Rusk</span>. Since January 22, 1961.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Secretary <span class="smcap">Rusk</span>. Yes; within the limitations of the possibilities, it is at least
my task to be as familiar as possible with those things.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Secretary <span class="smcap">Rusk</span>. I would first have to say on a question of that sort that it is<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_364" id="Page_364">364</a></span>
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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. If you will, please.</p>

<p>Secretary <span class="smcap">Rusk</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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&mdash;to the
answer to that question&mdash;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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Could you expand on that a little bit so that others than those
who deal in that area might understand fully what you mean?</p>

<p>Secretary <span class="smcap">Rusk</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_365" id="Page_365">365</a></span>
Indeed without exaggeration, one could almost say the existence of the
Northern Hemisphere in this nuclear age.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>It has not been our impression that madness has characterized the actions
of the Soviet leadership in recent years.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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&mdash;and ideological effect has crept into that.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Can you give us any light on that, Mr. Secretary.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. By suggestion you mean rumor?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. In the newspapers, and things of that kind, rumor.</p>

<p>Secretary <span class="smcap">Rusk</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. How could you tell us in regard to Cuba in the same general
way, your opinion and knowledge of any information or credible evidence?</p>

<p>Secretary <span class="smcap">Rusk</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>But again, I have seen no evidence that seems to point in that direction.</p>

<p>There were some exchanges, with which the Commission is familiar, that
seemed to be&mdash;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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>But I have seen no evidence that points to involvement by them, and I don't<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_366" id="Page_366">366</a></span>
see objective facts which would seem to make it in their interests to remove
Mr. Kennedy.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. After the assassination, did you have direct communications
with Ambassador Thomas Mann while he was still Ambassador at Mexico?</p>

<p>Secretary <span class="smcap">Rusk</span>. Yes; we had a number of exchanges with Ambassador Mann
connected with the presence in Mexico of Mr. Oswald.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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&mdash;and that our Ambassador would be given the
fullest support from us in facilitating the investigation at the Mexican end.</p>

<p>So I was for a period, until this particular trail ran its course, very much involved
in those exchanges.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Do you have any commentary that you want to make about those
exchanges other than what you have given us?</p>

<p>Secretary <span class="smcap">Rusk</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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."</p>

<p>Do you know anything about that matter or what the source of it might have
been?</p>

<p>Secretary <span class="smcap">Rusk</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. You may do that, Mr. Secretary.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. I don't know of any.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. I think the Commission ought to have them for our own
analysis as well as the analysis of the Secretary of State.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Is that under your jurisdiction?</p>

<p>Secretary <span class="smcap">Rusk</span>. Yes; indeed I could provide that.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. If you will, please.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_367" id="Page_367">367</a></span>
Secretary <span class="smcap">Rusk</span>. The Commission might also be interested in either digests or
the fuller materials on world reactions to the President's assassination.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>I would be happy to furnish the Commission with any material of that sort
which you might wish.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. We would appreciate having that.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Very well, thank you, Mr. Secretary.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Would that include the Voice of Moscow or whatever
they call it over there?</p>

<p>Secretary <span class="smcap">Rusk</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. From the outset of the events that took place?</p>

<p>Secretary <span class="smcap">Rusk</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Was that prepared in the Department or by the Foreign Broadcast
Information Service?</p>

<p>Secretary <span class="smcap">Rusk</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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."</p>

<p>Do you know anything about that or can you give us any information?</p>

<p>Secretary <span class="smcap">Rusk</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. I don't understand that.</p>

<p>Secretary <span class="smcap">Rusk</span>. 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 <span class="locked">of&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Wouldn't it have been just as effective to say no
comment?</p>

<p>Secretary <span class="smcap">Rusk</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. But, at that time, this was 2 days after the assassination,
you really didn't have much time to evaluate all of the evidence.</p>

<p>Secretary <span class="smcap">Rusk</span>. Well, that is correct. But if the evidence or the known
facts had changed certainly that type of statement would have changed.</p>

<p>In other words, such statements are based upon the situation as known at
the time the statements are made.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Secretary <span class="smcap">Rusk</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. I was also asked to inquire whether that was an official statement<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_368" id="Page_368">368</a></span>
if under your responsibility or if you could tell me who would be responsible
for it?</p>

<p>Secretary <span class="smcap">Rusk</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. That is all I have.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Could I ask a question in connection with that?</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Mr. Dulles.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. 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 <span class="locked">charging&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Unless there was evidence to support it.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Did that ever reach your attention, did you know anything
about that?</p>

<p>Secretary <span class="smcap">Rusk</span>. I don't personally recall that particular message. I do
<span class="locked">recall&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. That took place, I think before you got back, because that took
place on the evening of the 22d.</p>

<p>Secretary <span class="smcap">Rusk</span>. I didn't arrive <span class="locked">until&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. You didn't get back until the 23d?</p>

<p>Secretary <span class="smcap">Rusk</span>. Until the early morning of the 23d.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Secretary <span class="smcap">Rusk</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Could you check to see if somebody in the Department
of State made such a call or made such a contact?</p>

<p>Secretary <span class="smcap">Rusk</span>. Yes; I will be be glad to.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. And if so so report it for the proceedings?</p>

<p>Secretary <span class="smcap">Rusk</span>. Yes, indeed; I will be glad to.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. 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&mdash;I can't remember the exact words that he used&mdash;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.</p>

<p>I didn't in any sense authorize, and I certainly couldn't direct him to do<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_369" id="Page_369">369</a></span>
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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>I think that is the entire State Department side of that particular transaction.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Would you check, however, Mr. Secretary, to see if
there is anything further in this regard?</p>

<p>Secretary <span class="smcap">Rusk</span>. Yes; I will.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Secretary <span class="smcap">Rusk</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Would they be voluminous, the originals?</p>

<p>Secretary <span class="smcap">Rusk</span>. I would think they would be fairly voluminous, but not
unmanageably so.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Secretary <span class="smcap">Rusk</span>. Right.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Secretary <span class="smcap">Rusk</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Secretary <span class="smcap">Rusk</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. This document which you handed me, Mr. Secretary, is
for Tuesday, 26 November 1963. Are these done on a daily basis?</p>

<p>Secretary <span class="smcap">Rusk</span>. I think that one was a summary of the first 2 or 3 days,
but I <span class="locked">would&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Mr. Secretary, could you give us a brief description of that, we
have been calling it this and these.</p>

<p>Secretary <span class="smcap">Rusk</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_370" id="Page_370">370</a></span>
so that although it may be voluminous it might have some material of
interest to the Commission or its staff.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Secretary <span class="smcap">Rusk</span>. All right, sir.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Do you have any recollection of that?</p>

<p>Secretary <span class="smcap">Rusk</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Secretary <span class="smcap">Rusk</span>. 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.</p>

<p>I gather the Commission has Mr. Danielle's interview with Mr. Castro on the
subject. You have the published report of that.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Was that the long interview with Castro?</p>

<p>Secretary <span class="smcap">Rusk</span>. 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, <span class="locked">but&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Do you have that available?</p>

<p>Secretary <span class="smcap">Rusk</span>. We certainly can get it.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. It was in the press I guess at the time. Maybe you have a fuller
copy than we have.</p>

<p>Secretary <span class="smcap">Rusk</span>. Yes; it was a rather extensive interview.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chayes</span>. I think the staff has it already.</p>

<p>Secretary <span class="smcap">Rusk</span>. I see.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Secretary <span class="smcap">Rusk</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. We would appreciate it so it would give a complete picture.</p>

<p>Secretary <span class="smcap">Rusk</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Do I understand now, Mr. Rankin, that what the Secretary
provides will be put in the record as exhibits?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Mr. Chairman, I would like to offer to do that if that is satisfactory,
as a part of this record.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Yes, sir; it might be admitted.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Secretary <span class="smcap">Rusk</span>. 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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_371" id="Page_371">371</a></span>
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.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Are there any further questions? Mr. Dulles.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Had you finished?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Yes; I have.</p>

<p>(Discussion off the record.)</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Are we ready to go back on the record?</p>

<p>All right, the Commission will be in order.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. They may be admitted under those numbers.</p>

<p>(Commission Exhibits Nos. 984 and 985 were marked for identification and
received in evidence.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. They may be admitted under that number.</p>

<p>(Commission Exhibit No. 986 was marked for identification and received in
evidence.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Those were the ones that were voluntarily offered by the
Russians before any request was made of them?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Yes, Mr. Chairman.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. They may be admitted under that number.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Secretary <span class="smcap">Rusk</span>. No; I have no evidence that would point in that direction or
to lead me to a conclusion that such a conspiracy existed.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. That is all I have.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Are there any further questions, gentlemen?</p>

<p>If not, thank you very much, Mr. Secretary.</p>

<p>Secretary <span class="smcap">Rusk</span>. Thank you very much, Mr. Chief Justice and gentlemen.</p>

<h2 id="fgk">TESTIMONY OF FRANCES G. KNIGHT</h2>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. The Commission will be in order.</p>

<p>Mr. Coleman, will you state to Miss Knight, please, the reason we asked her
to come here today?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Miss Frances G. Knight is the head of the Passport Office of the
State Department.</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Knight</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. We want to ask her concerning the standard operating notice
with respect to the lookout card system which was in effect as of November&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Knight</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Would you raise your right hand and be sworn, Miss Knight?</p>

<p>Do you solemnly swear the testimony you are about to give before the Commission<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_372" id="Page_372">372</a></span>
shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you
God?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Knight</span>. I do.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Be seated. Mr. Coleman will ask you the questions.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Miss Knight, will you state your name for the record?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Knight</span>. Frances G. Knight.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. What is your present address?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Knight</span>. Home address?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Knight</span>. 2445 Wyoming Avenue NW.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. What is your present position?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Knight</span>. I am Director of the Passport Office in the Department of State.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. How long have you occupied that position?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Knight</span>. Since May 1, 1955.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Knight</span>. No, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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.)</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Knight</span>. Sir, you want to know whether I personally saw this before
it went out?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Knight</span>. 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&mdash;I might sign it or if I were
not in the office at the time my deputy might sign it for me.</p>

<p>But these communications usually go out over my name.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Well, Miss Knight, does that <span class="locked">document&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Knight</span>. This one looks as though it was initialed by me because it has
the type of a "K" that I make.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. That document indicates that it was prepared by Miss B. Waterman,
is that correct?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Knight</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Would you be kind enough to read what is on the memorandum
into the record, please?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Knight</span>. Yes, sir; the memorandum is addressed to "SY," Mr. William O.
Boswell from PPT&mdash;Frances G. Knight, subject "Lee Harvey Oswald."</p>

<p>"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."</p>

<p>The blue file copy would indicate who prepared this memorandum in the
Passport Office and who signed it.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Do you have the file copy?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Knight</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. You have no independent recollection of ever having seen that
document prior to the assassination?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Knight</span>. No, sir.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_373" id="Page_373">373</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Did you ever participate or make any decision as to whether
Lee Harvey Oswald lost his citizenship?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Knight</span>. No.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. In 1959?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Knight</span>. No.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Did you ever make any personal decision or participate in any
decision as to whether he should be reissued a passport in July 1961?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Knight</span>. No.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Knight</span>. No; I had nothing to do with the papers that were involved at
that time.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. But the decision that he had not renounced his citizenship was
made in your department?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Knight</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Could you state the names, their names for the record?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Knight</span>. Yes; Miss Bernice Waterman, and Mr. John T. White.</p>

<p>Both of those employees have now retired from the Passport Office.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. You said both were lawyers?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Knight</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Well, since the assassination of President Kennedy, have you
had occasion to review the passport file.</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Knight</span>. Well, the first time that I actually had an opportunity to look
through the passport file was last Saturday.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Did you get a chance to read each document in the file?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Knight</span>. I read through the file; yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Knight</span>. 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.</p>

<p>(At this point, the Chief Justice left the hearing room.)</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Knight</span> (continuing). May I ask one question, please?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Knight</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Would that be all right?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. That would be fine.</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Knight</span>. After reading the <span class="locked">file&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. And by "file" you mean the passport file?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Knight</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_374" id="Page_374">374</a></span>
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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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
<span class="locked">recall&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. By whom?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Knight</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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."</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. We will note for the record that document you are referring
to&mdash;I think it is the Operations Memorandum of May 23, 1960&mdash;has been given
Commission Exhibit No. 963.</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Knight</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. May I ask a question there. Would you prefer to read this
entire document first?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Knight</span>. No; it is <span class="locked">easier&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Is it conceivable that the lookout card could have been removed
in 1961 when his passport was extended to return to the United States?</p>

<p>Under your procedure would that have been done?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Knight</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Even though the passport was issued specifically saying it
was only good for return to the United States and only good for 1 month.</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Knight</span>. That is right.</p>

<p>The passport was limited and could not be used beyond the time it was limited
for.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Would that have caused the card to be removed?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Knight</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Issuance of that passport, even a limited passport would have
resulted in the card being withdrawn?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Knight</span>. 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.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_375" id="Page_375">375</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. That is what&mdash;somewhat earlier, that is several months before
the passport was extended?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Knight</span>. Oh, yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Knight</span>. Well, that would be possible, I think; yes.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Now, as far as the repatriation loan is concerned, the recording of such a
loan in the Passport office is a very routine procedure.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>It is very important that this information be complete and accurate to guard
against embarrassing situations which could develop from misidentification.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_376" id="Page_376">376</a></span>
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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Knight</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Knight</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Knight</span>. Excuse me for a second, please. There is one subsequent to
this.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Yes; but that is the one that was in effect as of June 1963,
isn't it?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Knight</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Attached thereto is a list which indicates the various categories
for the lookout card.</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Knight</span>. That is right.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Knight</span>. No; I don't think so.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. How about category R?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Could you read category K?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Knight</span>. Yes; certainly. "K" is "Known or suspected Communist or
subversive". And "does not include those falling within categories O and P".</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Would you tell me what "O" and "P" categories are?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Knight</span>. "O" is a category of cards in which the FBI has special interest.
And "P" is also a project of the same sort.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Has the FBI ever put defectors in that category?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Knight</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. In other words, if the FBI merely sends you a report on a<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_377" id="Page_377">377</a></span>
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"?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Knight</span>. Only when a request is specific.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. How about category "R", if you will put that in the record.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. May I ask a question first, what is the criteria for the
determination as to whether or not a person is a Communist?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Knight</span>. Well, the criteria are based on the information that we get from
the investigative agencies regarding his activities and membership in the Communist
Party.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Knight</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. 20 million?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Knight</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>File experts from the General Services Administration estimated at that time
that 30 percent of this master index was misfiled.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>From the standpoint of accuracy in identification, the cards that remained
still left much to be desired in the file.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>So further culling and screening reduced this basic file to the present size
of 250,000 cards.</p>

<p>This project was <span class="locked">very&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Is that two or four?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Knight</span>. 250 now.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. 250. It is different.</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Knight</span>. We had reduced it to 450,000 and we culled it some more and
it is now 250,000.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. That is a reduction from the earlier 450,000?</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_378" id="Page_378">378</a></span>
Miss <span class="smcap">Knight</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>When we issued a passport to Oswald in June 1963 we felt that he had not
expatriated himself and that determination was made.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Knight</span>. If we had thought he had expatriated himself we would have
had a card in his file.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Yes; but in 1963 no decision was made.</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Knight</span>. There was no question raised. There was never a question
at that time.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. It was never a question because your Office never looked at
the file.</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Knight</span>. Not at the file, but his application was checked over the lookout
cards.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Knight</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>(At this point, Senator Cooper entered the hearing room.)</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Who finally determines whether a lookout card should be made?
Would you determine that or in your office?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Knight</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. If the FBI or CIA asked you to put in a card you would do it?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Knight</span>. Yes, sir; and this is part of "O" and "P" project.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Would you read again that paragraph about Communist or
Communist sympathizer?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Knight</span>. Category K is, "Known or suspected Communist or subversive."</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. And you interpret that pretty narrowly?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Knight</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Why do you interpret it narrowly?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. The record will note that it is attached to Commission Exhibit
No. 948, which is the letter from Mr. Chayes.</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Knight</span>. Would you like an extra copy of it?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. May I ask a further question there? When you issue a passport<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_379" id="Page_379">379</a></span>
limited solely to returning to the United States, isn't that some indication
that you don't want the fellow traveling around abroad?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Knight</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Knight</span>. Well, if it is a case which merits a stop card we wouldn't do
it. But in this case of <span class="locked">Oswald&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. In this case would there be a stop card?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Knight</span>. In the case of Oswald?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Knight</span>. I think that depends very much on the record that we would
have on him.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>So, as a result, the Department's decisions in all passport cases have to be
based on an open record.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Knight</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. What regulation requires you to issue them a passport?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Knight</span>. Well, the Department's regulations are very specific on this
point. They state and I quote, "In making its <span class="locked">decision"&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. Could you identify the regulation?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Knight</span>. Yes, sir; it is 51.138(b).</p>

<p>Would you like me to read that section?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Knight</span>. All right.</p>

<p>"(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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_380" id="Page_380">380</a></span>
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."</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Knight</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Knight</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. There has to be information which is confidential,
however?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Knight</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Knight</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Knight</span>. Yes; yes.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Well, then, I think the answer is that you do have
authority to deny passports to Communists where the <span class="locked">information&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Knight</span>. Is made available.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Is made available.</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Knight</span>. Yes; where the information is made available and can be
used in an open hearing.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Miss Knight, the same regulation that is in effect today was also
the regulation in effect in 1963, isn't it?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Knight</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Now, as of March 14, 1964, didn't the Department establish
another category for lookout cards, namely for defectors?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Knight</span>. Yes; we have that. I think that was provided to the Commission.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Knight</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Knight</span>. No; but we haven't denied passports to any of them, either.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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?</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_381" id="Page_381">381</a></span>
Miss <span class="smcap">Knight</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Now, you know that in October 1963 the Passport Office received
information that Mr. Oswald had been down to the Russian Embassy in Mexico?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Knight</span>. That is correct.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Would that fact cause the Department to attempt to revoke a
passport which had already been issued?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Knight</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Knight</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Knight</span>. 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.</p>

<p>The fact that we gave attention to it is beside the point.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. Might I ask just a few questions?</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>I am now looking at Federal Register, Title 22&mdash;Foreign Relations, Chapter 1:
Department of State, part 51, dealing with passports. This title refers to the
issuing officer.</p>

<p>Who is the issuing officer? Does that mean you or those who are under you,
who are responsible to you?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Knight</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. And you are responsible to the Secretary of State?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Knight</span>. Through the echelons.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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."</p>

<p>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?</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_382" id="Page_382">382</a></span>
Miss <span class="smcap">Knight</span>. No, sir.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. Why do you say that?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Knight</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Knight</span>. No, sir.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. Or a Communist organization?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Knight</span>. No, sir.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. Was there anything in the files from the FBI or any other
security agency which would give you that information?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Knight</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. They were then, of course, would have been, received in the
office after the time.</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Knight</span>. That was the date of the assassination.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. After the time that the passport had been renewed.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. That included the information that he was active in the Fair
Play for Cuba Committee.</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Knight</span>. 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.</p>

<p>I never saw these reports and no one in the Passport Office had an opportunity
to read them or see them.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Knight</span>. No, sir; there was nothing in the file.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Knight</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Knight</span>. He didn't have a passport for Mexico City.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. Not a passport for Mexico City.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. He had the passport in June 1963.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. Yes; to go over to Cuba and different places.</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Knight</span>. 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.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_383" id="Page_383">383</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Yes; that is true.</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Knight</span>. Is that right?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Not until October 1963.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Is that correct?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. The point I am trying to develop at some point in 1963
prior to the assassination he went to the office in New Orleans.</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Knight</span>. That is right, the New Orleans Passport Agency.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. And he secured a passport there.</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Knight</span>. He applied for a passport.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. To travel, applied for a passport, to travel in a number of
countries.</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Knight</span>. That is right.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. And that was issued to him.</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Knight</span>. That is right.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. On the following day?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Knight</span>. That is right.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. 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&mdash;would the officer in New Orleans have any information available
to him?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Knight</span>. No, sir.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. About Oswald?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Knight</span>. 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&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. The record shows there were 25.</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Knight</span>. 25.</p>

<p>These names were then checked over the lookout file which I have explained
here.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. Here in Washington?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Knight</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Knight</span>. No, sir.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Knight</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. Of lookout cards?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Knight</span>. Yes, sir; we have had that system for a long time.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Knight</span>. That is correct.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. Is that the reason?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Knight</span>. 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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_384" id="Page_384">384</a></span>
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.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Knight</span>. No.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Knight</span>. I am sure of that; yes, sir.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. Have you yourself examined those files?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Knight</span>. I examined the file last Saturday for the first time.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. And do you know who had charge of the file?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Knight</span>. The file was in the Passport Office up until November 22, the
day of the assassination.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. Where did it go then?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Knight</span>. It went to the Bureau of Security and Consular Affairs, to Mr.
Schwartz.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. Who is in charge there?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Knight</span>. Mr. Schwartz. He is the Administrator.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ehrlich</span>. 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.</p>

<p>And anyone in the Department who wanted to review them was free to do
so but we kept them all in one place.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. Have you been testifying?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ehrlich</span>. I have broken in.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. Just for the purpose of the record identify yourself.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ehrlich</span>. I have not been sworn in. My name is Thomas Ehrlich, I am
Special Assistant to the Legal Adviser to the Department of State.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. 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.</p>

<p>And from there Mr. Chayes collected reports from other sources.</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Knight</span>. That is right.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Knight</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. I go a little further.</p>

<p>Look at 51.136, "Limitations on issuance of passports to certain other persons.</p>

<p>"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."</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_385" id="Page_385">385</a></span>
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?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Knight</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. June 24, 1963.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. Was there any information in his file relative to his participation
in the Fair Play for Cuba Committee in New Orleans?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Knight</span>. No, sir.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. The first information that came to the office came in
November?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Knight</span>. November 20 and 22.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. And November 22.</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Knight</span>. And I think, Senator, you would be interested to know that these
FBI reports are sent to us by the Office of Security.</p>

<p>A large volume of these reports come to us in the Passport Office on a very
routine basis.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. I can see your problem.</p>

<p>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?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Knight</span>. Oh, yes, sir.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. In determining whether or not a passport should be issued?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Knight</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Knight</span>. When it reached the Department, I don't know. I think maybe
Mr. Ehrlich might know.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ehrlich</span>. I will look to see if I have it.</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Knight</span>. I have the dates of them.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. Will you give the date?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Knight</span>. The date of the reports?</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. The date when it was sent, when it was received.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_386" id="Page_386">386</a></span>
Miss <span class="smcap">Knight</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. All of those dates are after the date of the issuance of the
passport?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Knight</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. I have just one more thing I want to inquire about.</p>

<p>Are you familiar with the&mdash;were you the Chief of the Passport Division at
the time Oswald returned from Russia to the United States?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Knight</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. Who was empowered to issue passports in Moscow to Oswald?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Knight</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Knight</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. Did you make the determination as to whether the passport
should be issued to him?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Knight</span>. I personally did not. This was made by experienced citizenship
lawyers.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. By whom?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Knight</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Those details are in the file in considerable extent.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. I have just two more questions then.</p>

<p>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?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Knight</span>. No, sir.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. Whatever decision has been made on that has come since
that time?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Knight</span>. When you say "defector," the answer to that is in the
questionnaire.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. When I say "defector," was there any regulation, I mean
in the Department, which required any special attention to be given to a
<span class="locked">defector&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Knight</span>. No, sir.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. With regard to the issuance of passports?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Knight</span>. No, sir; and we cannot deny them passports.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Knight</span>. This is my opinion; yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. I have no other questions.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. I have no further questions.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coleman</span>. Thank you, Miss Knight. We appreciate your coming in.</p>

<p>(Whereupon, at 6:35 p.m., the President's Commission recessed.)</p>

<hr />

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_387" id="Page_387">387</a></span></p>

<h2><span class="smaller"><a name="Thursday_June_11_1964" id="Thursday_June_11_1964"><i>Thursday, June 11, 1964</i></a></span><br />
<span class="subhead">TESTIMONY OF MRS. LEE HARVEY OSWALD AND HARRIS COULTER</span></h2>

<p>The President's Commission met at 9:45 a.m., on June 11, 1964, at 200
Maryland Avenue NE., Washington, DC.</p>

<p>Present were Chief Justice Earl Warren, Chairman; Senator John Sherman
Cooper, Representative Gerald Ford, and Allen W. Dulles, members.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<h2 id="lho">TESTIMONY OF MRS. LEE HARVEY OSWALD RESUMED</h2>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. The Commission will be in order.</p>

<p>Shall we reswear Mrs. Oswald?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. I would think her former swearing would be sufficient, Mr.
Chief Justice.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Very well. You consider yourself under oath, do you, Mrs.
Oswald?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. I only know one Nixon and I think it was Richard Nixon which
it was all about.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Can you fix the date when this occurrence did happen? Approximately?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. 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&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Can you place the place of the various homes you had that this
happened?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. Neely Street.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. At the Neely Street house. Do you know what time of day it
occurred?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. This was in the morning.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Who was there?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. Just my husband and me.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. 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.</p>

<p>I was looking over the earlier record and that is the way it was over the
earlier record and it went quite well.</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Then he got dressed and put on a good suit. I saw that he took a pistol.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_388" id="Page_388">388</a></span>
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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Had it come to your attention, Mrs. Oswald, that Mr. Nixon was
going to be in Dallas prior to that time?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. No; it did not.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Had you seen anything in the newspapers or heard anything
over the radio or television?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. No; we didn't have TV. I didn't see this in the newspaper.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Do you know what newspaper it was in which your husband read
this report?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. No; Dallas Morning News maybe. It was a morning paper.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Do you know whether there was any information at all in the
papers about Mr. Nixon planning to come to Dallas about that time?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Could we establish the date more precisely, either by the
newspapers or by testimony from Mrs. Oswald?</p>

<p>(At this point, the Chief Justice left the hearing room.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Mrs. Oswald, can you help us by telling how many days it was
before you went to New Orleans that this incident occurred?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. What day did I go to New Orleans?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Do you recall that your husband went to New Orleans on
April 24?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. April 24? My husband?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Yes; and you went at a later date with Mrs. Paine, do you
remember that?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. I remember it was about 2 weeks before.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Two weeks before April 24?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. Yes; but when was the incident with Walker?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. April 10 was the Walker incident. Does that help you?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. This is a short distance, you know, I think <span class="locked">maybe&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. So you think it had to be sometime between April 10 and
April 24?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. What do you mean by that, Mrs. Oswald?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. No; I just didn't know what to do, you know.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. How did you know he was interested in doing something about
Mr. Nixon at that time?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. My husband just said that Nixon is coming to Dallas.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Then what did you do?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. First I didn't know what to do. I wanted to prevent him from
going out.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Did you say anything to him?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Are you referring to his promise to you that you described
in your prior testimony after the Walker incident?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. Yes; that was the promise.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_389" id="Page_389">389</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Do you recall the bathroom, how the door closes? Does it close
into the bathroom on Neely Street or from the outside in?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. I don't remember now. I don't remember. I only remember
that it was something to do with the bathroom.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Did you lock him into the bathroom?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. I can't remember precisely.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Do you recall how the locks were on the bathroom door there?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. I can't recall. We had several apartments and I might be
confusing one apartment with the other.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Is it your testimony that you made it impossible for him to get
out if he wanted to?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. I don't remember.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Did he try to get out of the bathroom?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. He is quite a big man and you are a small woman.</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. No; he is not a big man. He is not strong.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Well, he was 5 feet 9, and you are how tall?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. You meant mentally or physically?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. I am not strong but, you know, there is a certain balance of
forces between us.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Do you think it was persuasion, your persuasion of him or the
physical force or both that prevented him from going?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. I don't think it was physically, physical prevention because if
he&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McKenzie</span>. 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&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McKenzie</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McKenzie</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Thank you.</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. 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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_390" id="Page_390">390</a></span>
happened quite that way, but there is no doubt that he got dressed and had
a gun.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Do you remember what you said to him and what he said to
you at that time?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. I don't remember now but I told the FBI precisely.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. And were your reports to the FBI in regard to this incident
accurate, truthful, and correct?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. They were correct as far as I could remember. The only detail
as far as my memory served me&mdash;the only detail which might be confused
is the one with the bathroom.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. Showing any hostility or friendship toward Mr. Nixon?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Yes; toward Nixon.</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. I don't remember him saying anything&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Where did your husband get the pistol that morning; do
you remember?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. What, where?</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Where.</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. My husband had a small room where he kept all that sort of
thing. It is a little larger than a closet.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Did you see him go in and get the pistol?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Do you recall which pocket he put the pistol in?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. It was not in a pocket. He put it in his belt.</p>

<p>(Discussion off the record.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Had you and your husband ever discussed Mr. Nixon at a previous,
at any previous time?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. No. No.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. What else happened about this incident beyond what you have
told us?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Did you say anything more than you have told us to him about
this matter at that time?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. I closed the front door to the building that day and when we
were quarreling about&mdash;when we were struggling over the question of whether
or not he should go out I said a great deal to him.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. What did you say to him then?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. I don't remember.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Just tell us in substance?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. 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
<span class="locked">me&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Did he say anything in answer to that?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. I don't remember.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. 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?</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_391" id="Page_391">391</a></span>
Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. Yes; I said that. But he didn't go at that time and after all he
was my husband.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Does&mdash;do you mean you said it again at the time of the Nixon
incident?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McKenzie</span>. Was that the passport?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. No. After the incident with <span class="locked">Walker&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Was that paper the Walker incident note that you have described
in your testimony?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. When you put the pistol under the mattress, what
happened to the pistol from then on?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Will you relate the promise that your husband made to you right
after the discovery of the Walker incident by you?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. This wasn't a written promise.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. No.</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. But in words it was more or less that I told him that he was
very lucky that he hadn't killed&mdash;it very good that he hadn't killed General
Walker. I said it was fate that&mdash;it was fated that General Walker not be killed
and therefore he shouldn't try such a thing again.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. What did he say in answer to that?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Yes. Did he say that he would or would not do that again,
that is what I want to know.</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. What did you say about that?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. Yes; I told him that I was pregnant.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Did you observe his action at the time of this Nixon incident,
how he acted?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. How he reacted to this?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. How he reacted to your interfering with him.</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. 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&mdash;he had a sadistic&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Have you told us substantially all that happened about this
Nixon incident?</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_392" id="Page_392">392</a></span>
Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. That is all I can remember.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Can you tell us why you didn't mention this incident
to the Commission when you appeared before?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. At the time of this incident did you threaten to go to the authorities
in case your husband did not desist in his intention?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. Yes; I said that.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. I may have to go&mdash;could I ask a few questions? Mrs. Oswald,
will you repeat what your husband said that morning when he dressed and got
the pistol?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. 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."</p>

<p>I answered, "I know how you look," and I had in mind the fact that he was
taking a pistol with him.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. Did he say anything about what he intended to do with the
pistol?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. No.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. Did you ask him if he intended to use the pistol against Mr.
Nixon?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. I told him that, "You have already promised me not to play
any more with that thing." Not really play, but, you know&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. Did your husband say why he wanted to use the pistol against
Mr. Nixon?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. No.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. Did he say where he intended to see Mr. Nixon?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. He didn't say. He just said in Dallas, and since Nixon was
coming to Dallas.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. When he was talking to you about seeing Mr. Nixon and
using the pistol, what was his attitude? Was he angry <span class="locked">or&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. He wasn't angry. He looked more preoccupied and had sort
of a concentrated look.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. This was maybe 30 minutes. The whole incident took maybe
20 minutes. It was about 10 minutes I took&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. No; no.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. Did he say anything more that day?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. No. He read a book.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Do you know what book it was, by chance?</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_393" id="Page_393">393</a></span>
Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. The incident occurred, you said just a few days after he had
told you he shot at General Walker?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. The General Walker incident made a very strong impression
on you, didn't it?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. Of course. I never thought that Lee had a gun in order to
use it to shoot at somebody with.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Didn't this statement that he made about Vice President Nixon
make a strong impression on you also?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Was there any reason why you didn't tell the Commission about
this when you testified before?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. I had no&mdash;there is no particular reason. I just forgot. Very
likely this incident didn't make a very great impression on me at that time.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Now, before the death of President Kennedy, of course, you knew
that your husband had purchased a rifle?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. You knew that he had purchased a pistol?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. And a knife?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. No; what kind of knife?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Did he have a knife?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. He had a little pocket knife; I think.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. You knew that he had told you that he had tried to kill General
Walker?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. And, of course, as you said you heard him make a threat against
Nixon.</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Did you have some fear that he would use these weapons against
someone else?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. Of course; I was afraid.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. What?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. Of course; I was afraid.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. You thought that he might use his weapons against someone?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. After the incident with Nixon I stopped believing him.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. You what?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. I stopped believing him.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Why?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. Because he wasn't obeying me any longer, because he promised
and then he broke his promise.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Would you repeat that?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. Because he wasn't obeying me any more. He promised and,
he made a promise and then he broke it.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. That is my question. Having been told that&mdash;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?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. After the incident with Walker, I believed him when he told
me that he wouldn't use the weapons any longer.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. Because I forgot at that time about the incident with Nixon.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_394" id="Page_394">394</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. I want to ask you again: In view of the fact that you knew&mdash;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?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. I am just asking questions. Will you say here that he never did
make any statement against President Kennedy?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. Never.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Did he ever make any statement about him of any kind?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. I didn't catch the last.</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. He never said these articles were not true or that President
Kennedy was a bad President or anything like that.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. I think you testified before that he made statements showing
his dislike of our system of government and its economic system.</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. He used to complain about the educational difficulties and about
the unemployment in the United States and about the high cost of medical care.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McKenzie</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. After our return from Russia. When we were living in New
Orleans after returning from Russia.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McKenzie</span>. Did he likewise make such complaints about the American
system while you were living in Russia after you were married?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. You knew, of course, because of the incidents in New Orleans
that he did not like American policy respecting Cuba.</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. He was definitely a supporter of Cuba. This was something
which remained with him from Russia.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. Did he ever say to you who was responsible or who had some
responsibility for our policy toward Cuba?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. No.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. Had he ever mentioned President Kennedy in connection with
our Cuban policy?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. Never to me.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Did he ever say <span class="locked">anything&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. He might have discussed this with Paine.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. With who?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. Mr. Paine, husband of Ruth Paine.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. He might have done what now?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. With the husband of Ruth Paine.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. Why do you say that, did you ever hear him talking about it?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. Did you mean, though, to say that you believed he might have
discussed the Cuban policy with Mr. Paine.</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. Yes; especially after we returned from New Orleans.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_395" id="Page_395">395</a></span>
Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. Why? Why do you make that statement?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. But my question is what makes you think he might have
talked to Mr. Paine about Cuba?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. I think, sir; because after returning from New Orleans this
was his favorite subject, Cuba, and he was quite&mdash;a little bit cracked about it,
crazy about Cuba.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. You mean he talked to you a great deal about it after you
came from New Orleans?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. "He" in this case is your husband?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. 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."</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. That is all I want to ask for the time being.</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. I think that Mr. Paine knows more about my husband's political
attitudes toward the United States than I do.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Do you know what Mr. Johnson you were asking about?</p>

<p>Let me rephrase the question.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Do you know what Mr. Johnson was being referred to?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. You didn't know that the FBI was asking about the then Vice
President and now President Johnson?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. No; I never heard of Johnson before he became President.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. And you are quite <span class="locked">sure&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. Maybe I am stupid, I don't know.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. And you are quite sure that your husband mentioned the name
of Nixon to <span class="locked">you&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. Yes; I am sure it was Nixon.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. That morning?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Do you know whether this Nixon incident occurred the day
before your husband went to New Orleans?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. It wasn't the day before. Perhaps 3 days before.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McKenzie</span>. Mr. Rankin, may I ask a question?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McKenzie</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McKenzie</span>. Do you know where the meetings were?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. In Dallas. After they came back from some meeting my husband<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_396" id="Page_396">396</a></span>
said to me something about Walker being at this meeting, and he said,
"Paine knows that I shot him."</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McKenzie</span>. Would they go in Mr. Paine's automobile?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McKenzie</span>. It was the day before.</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Did you say that there were a number of political <span class="locked">meetings&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. Excuse me; but I think this was on Friday. I think that Lee
was at this meeting on a Friday.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Did you say there were a number of political meetings that your
husband went <span class="locked">to&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. Excuse me; this was October 24.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. With Mr. Paine?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. A week after his birthday&mdash;this was Friday. I think it was
a week after my husband's birthday about October 24 or something like that
or the 25th.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Mr. Reporter, can you give her the question that I asked?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. Excuse me, please.</p>

<p>(The question was read by the reporter.)</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. I only know about this one.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. But you still are certain it was Mr. Nixon and not Vice President
Johnson?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Did your <span class="locked">husband&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Did you husband during the Nixon incident say Mr. Nixon's
name several times or how many times.</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. Only once.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Was it out, was the pistol out in the room or was it in a
closet?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. This room contained only a table and some shelves, and the
pistol was not on the table. It was hidden somewhere on a shelf.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Was the rifle in that room, too?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Where was the rifle in the room?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. By closed, do you mean locked?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. He used to close it from the inside. I don't remember what
kind of lock it was. Possibly it was just a&mdash;some kind of a <span class="locked">tongue&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_397" id="Page_397">397</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">McKenzie</span>. Latch.</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. Latch or something like that.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. How could he close it from the inside and then get out?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. When he was inside he could close it from the inside so that
I couldn't come in.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. But when he came out could he close it from the outside so
that you could not get in?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. No; from the outside it couldn't be locked.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. When you went to New Orleans and packed for the trip
to New Orleans, did you help to pack the pistol or the rifle?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. No, no; Lee never let me pack things when we went for trips.
He always did it himself.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Did you see him pack the pistol or the rifle?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. No.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Did you know the pistol and the rifle were in the luggage
going to New Orleans?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. No.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. 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&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Did he take the rifle and the pistol to Love Field or at
the time he went on the bus?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. Only the rifle.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McKenzie</span>. Just a minute. Let me ask her a question. May I ask a
question?</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McKenzie</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. The record <span class="locked">is&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. I don't know where he practiced. I just think that the bus
goes to, went to Love Field.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McKenzie</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Well, the investigation that the Commission has made shows
that there is a place near Love Field where people do shooting and practicing.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McKenzie</span>. Not at Love Field.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. It is right adjacent, in the neighborhood.</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. 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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_398" id="Page_398">398</a></span>
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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. How did he pack the gun or conceal the gun when he went out on
the bus toward Love Field?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. Are you talking about the gun or the rifle?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. I am talking about the rifle.</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. He used to wrap it up in his overcoat, raincoat.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Is there testimony, Mr. Rankin, as to more than one trip or
should we get that from the witness?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. I thought the record was a little fuzzy. Maybe you should
clarify it.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McKenzie</span>. I think you should ask the question.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. Only because that is the bus, only because that is where the
bus goes. He never told me where.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. No; I don't know, even now I don't know where it is.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. Can I just ask a question? Do you know how many times he
took the rifle from your home?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. <span class="locked">Well&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. You are speaking of Neely Street.</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. I only <span class="locked">saw&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. When you were living on Neely Street&mdash;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?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. 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&mdash;three times.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. Did he ever tell you that he was practicing with a rifle?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. Only after I saw him take the gun that one time.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. Did you ask him if he had been practicing with the rifle?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. Yes, I asked him.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. What did he say?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. He said yes.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. Did he ever give any reason why he was practicing with the
rifle to you?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. 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.</p>

<p>(At this point, Senator Cooper left the hearing room.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. At the time of the Nixon incident did you know who Mr. Nixon
was?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. I didn't know what position he held. I thought he was Vice
President.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Did you ever check to see whether Mr. Nixon was in fact in
Dallas anytime around that date?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. No.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_399" id="Page_399">399</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. After the day of the Nixon incident did you ever discuss that
incident again with your husband?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. No.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Did the Nixon incident have anything to do with your decision
to go to New Orleans to live?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. 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&mdash;I insisted on it.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. After the Nixon incident did you ever discuss that Nixon incident
again with your husband?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Did you discuss the Nixon incident with anyone other than your
husband before the assassination of President Kennedy?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. No.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Did you ever consider telling the police about the Walker and
Nixon incidents?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. When did you first tell something about the Nixon incident?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Do you know about when that was with reference to the time
you moved in with the Martins?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. I think it was in the first month. I don't remember which day
it was, though.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Do you recall whether you first told Robert about it some time in
January of this year?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. If Robert has stated that it was on a Sunday, January 12 of
this year, do you think he is in error then?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Did you discuss the Nixon incident at anytime with Mr. Thorne
or Mr. Martin, your agent?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. You just related how you told Mr. Martin about it and the
occasion in your testimony a moment ago; is that right?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. I am certain that these were the circumstances in which I told
Martin about this. Whether or not the&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Did anyone at anytime advise you or tell you not to tell the
Commission about this incident?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. 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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_400" id="Page_400">400</a></span>
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."</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Did he say anything about why it wasn't necessary to tell about
this incident?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. When you were telling about the Nixon incident you referred
to your husband's sadistic streak. Do you recall that?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Can you tell us a little more about that, how it showed?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. 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&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. He kept carbons of these letters but he sent the letters off
himself.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. To the Russian Embassy?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. Yes; he didn't give me any money to buy stamps. I never had
any pocket money of my own.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. But the letters to the Embassy you are referring to are actual
letters and requested&mdash;requests&mdash;they weren't practice letters or anything of that
kind to punish you, were they?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. He did send them and he really wanted this. He knew that
this hurt me.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Those are the letters to the Russian Embassy we have introduced
in evidence in connection with your testimony; is that right?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. Yes; those are the letters.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Did he ever show you replies to those letters?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. At first&mdash;yes; there were. At first I didn't believe that he was
sending off those letters.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. But you did see the replies?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. I received answers from the embassy.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Now, I will turn to another subject, Mrs. Oswald.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Would you like to have a 5-minute recess? We will proceed.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Now, Mrs. Oswald, I would like to ask you about the Irving
Gun Shop in Dallas.</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. The what? I don't know anything about this at all.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Did you ever go into such a furniture store in Irving?</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_401" id="Page_401">401</a></span>
Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. Never.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. That you recall?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Do you know a Mrs. Whitworth who works in a furniture store
in Irving?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. I was never in Irving in any furniture store.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Do you know a Mrs. Whitworth?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. It is the first time I have ever heard that name.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Do you know a Mrs. Hunter, a friend of Mrs. Whitworth?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. No.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Did you ever go on a trip with your husband to have a telescopic
lens mounted on a gun at a gunshop?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. 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&mdash;we never went to
any gun store and never had any telescopic lens mounted.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Did the four of you, that is, your husband, you, and your two
children, ever go alone any place in Irving?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. In Irving the baby was only 1 month old. I never took her out
anywhere.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Did you ever go <span class="locked">anytime&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. Just to doctor, you know.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Did you ever go anytime with your husband in a car
with the rifle?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Did you go in a car with somebody else driving where
your husband had the pistol or the rifle?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. Never. I don't know what to think about this.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Mrs. Oswald, I will hand you Commission's Exhibit No. 819
and ask you particularly about the signature at the bottom.</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. That is Lee's handwriting, and this is mine.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Were the words "A.&nbsp;J. Hidell, Chapter President" on Commission
Exhibit No. 819 are in your handwriting?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Would you tell the Commission how you happened to sign that?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Did you have any other discussion about your signing that
name?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. What discussion did you have?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. 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."</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Was there any discussion about who Hidell, as signed on the
bottom of that card, was?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. 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."</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Was anything else said about that matter at any time?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Did you ask him why he needed to have the other name in your
handwriting rather than his own?</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_402" id="Page_402">402</a></span>
Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Did you ever sign any more such cards with the name "Hidell"?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. Only this one.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. And you never signed the name "Hidell" on any other paper
at any time?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. Only once.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Where did this actual signing take place, Mrs. Oswald?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. In New Orleans.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Where in New Orleans?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. In what is the name of the street where we lived, in an
apartment house.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. In your apartment house?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. Yes; in our apartment house.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. What time of day, do you recall?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. It might have been 8 or 9 o'clock in the evening.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Had you ever heard the name "Hidell" before?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. I don't remember whether this was before or after Lee spoke
on the radio. I think it was after.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Did he use the name Hidell on the radio?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. This might have been on television also?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Did you ever sign the name Hidell at any subsequent time to any
document?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McKenzie</span>. If you recall signing it. Do you recall signing his name to
any other document?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. I only remember this one occasion.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Was the way you signed on this Commission's Exhibit No. 819
your usual way of writing English?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. My English handwriting changes every day, and my Russian
handwriting, too. But that is more or less my usual style.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. You weren't trying to conceal the way you sign anything?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. I tried to do it, I just tried to write it as nicely as possible.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Did you make some practice runs of writing this name before you
actually put it on the card?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. Yes; because it was difficult for me to write English properly.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. So you mean you wrote it several times on another sheet of paper
and then put it on this card?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Was there anybody else present at the time of this
incident?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. No; only Lee.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Did he have you sign only one card?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. This was the only time when I&mdash;when Lee asked me to do
this and I did it. I might have signed two or&mdash;cards and not just one but there
weren't a great many.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Did the other cards have someone else's name besides
Lee Harvey Oswald on it?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. No; only Lee Oswald.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. But you think you might have signed more than one such
card?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. Maybe two, three. This is just 1 day when I was signing this.
It just happened on one occasion.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Mrs. Oswald, turning to another subject, I would like to ask you
about some correspondence with the Dallas Civil Liberties Union.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_403" id="Page_403">403</a></span>
Do you recall that they inquired as to whether you were being kept from
seeing and speaking to people against your will?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. This letter was translated by Ruth Paine and I answered on the
basis of the translation.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McKenzie</span>. May I see those letters, Mr. Rankin?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. I didn't want to answer this letter. It was simply a matter of
courtesy on my part.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Now, you received a letter from the local chapter of the Civil
Liberties union in Russian, did you not?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. What did you do with the translation or the&mdash;I will ask you
the translation first. Did you keep that?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. I don't remember what I did with it.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Do you know what you did with the part that was in Russian?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. Perhaps it is somewhere among my papers but I didn't pay any
special attention to it.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. I will hand you Commission Exhibit No. 331 and ask you if that
is the letter in English that you referred to?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. Yes; it is the letter.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. I call the Commission's attention to the fact that that has already
been received in evidence.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McKenzie</span>. Mr. Rankin, did you write Mr. Olds about this? This appears
to be a letter in reply to a letter from you.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. That is right. I asked for it.</p>

<p>Mrs. Oswald, will you examine Commission Exhibits Nos. 990 and 991 and
state whether you know the handwriting in these exhibits?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. This is all mine, my handwriting. This is the answer to that
letter.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. Yes; this was my answer to this letter, Exhibit No. 331.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. I offer in evidence Commission Exhibits Nos. 990 and 991.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. You want them admitted at this time?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Yes; Mr. Chairman.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. They shall be admitted.</p>

<p>(Commission Exhibits Nos. 990 and 991 were marked for identification and
received in evidence.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. This is not an accurate translation.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Mrs. Oswald, can you tell us what errors were made, where
the corrections should be to make it a correct translation?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. 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."</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. How would you correct that?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. 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."</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Now, will you proceed with any other corrections?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. This, the letter, the spirit of the letter reflects my own spirit in
my own Russian text&mdash;although the translation is somewhat inaccurate and tends
to shorten my own text somewhat.</p>

<p>There is another inaccuracy which is more important than the others&mdash;it is
not more important, the first one is more important&mdash;there is another which
should be called to the Commission's attention.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_404" id="Page_404">404</a></span>
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."</p>

<p>Whereas the letter only states that: "Of course, consider her my friend."</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. It can't possibly be the 7th of December 1964 because it hasn't
even come yet.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. You might wish to examine the envelope, Exhibit No. 991, that
may help you as to the correct date.</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McKenzie</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Mr. <span class="locked">McKenzie&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. They wrote me that I can answer them in Russian, and which
I did but I haven't any idea who translated my answer.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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.</p>

<p>The translation of the exhibit that you now have in your hand, what is the
number of that?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McKenzie</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. The exhibits shall be admitted. Have we the numbers of all
of these exhibits?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Yes; the reporter has them.</p>

<p>(Commission Exhibit No. 987 was marked for identification and received in
evidence.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Mrs. Oswald, I will hand you the cameras of <span class="locked">your&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. I wonder before we finish <span class="locked">this&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McKenzie</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. If you will furnish it.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McKenzie</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Excellent, that will be admitted as such, Commission Exhibit
No. 992.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_405" id="Page_405">405</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">McKenzie</span>. Thank you, Mr. Rankin and thank you Mr. Chairman.</p>

<p>(Commission Exhibit No. 992 was marked for identification and received in
evidence.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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?</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. With one of these cameras.</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. This is the first and last time in my life I ever took a photograph
and it was done with this gray camera.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Redlich</span>. Mr. Rankin, the Commission exhibit numbers of the two cameras,
one is Commission Exhibit No. 136 and one is Commission Exhibit No. 750.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McKenzie</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. That is the gray camera you just said you took pictures with,
is that correct?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. Yes. The other camera also belonged to Lee but I don't use it.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. While there did he read much?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. He didn't read very much because there wasn't a very great
choice of books in English except the ones on Marxism.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. He could, however, read books in Russian, could he not, at this
time?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Did he go to the rifle club there?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. He belonged to a hunters&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Did he buy the rifle or was it given to him?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. He bought it.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. What did you do with it when you went to the United
States?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. I think he sold it.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Was it a rifle of&mdash;much like the one that was used in
the assassination?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. All rifles look alike to me.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McKenzie</span>. Did it have a telescopic sight on it, Marina?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. No.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McKenzie</span>. But it was similar to the same rifle that he had in the United
States?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_406" id="Page_406">406</a></span>
rabbits or things of that sort. Did he go to the hunting club on other occasions
to practice to shoot?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Did he practice shooting the rifle in Russia?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. No.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Did you see him or observe him cleaning the rifle in Russia?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. And would he clean the rifle, did he clean it on several occasions?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. Yes, several times.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. The hunting club that he belonged to, did it have an instructor
in shooting the rifle?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. I don't know but there should have been one.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Now, he had to have a permit to purchase the rifle in Russia.</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. Yes; you can't possess a rifle without a&mdash;permission in the
Soviet Union.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Did he purchase the rifle from a government agency?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. And the authorized government official gave him authority to buy
the gun through the hunting club?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. The hunting club issues this permit. He used to clean the rifle
but he never used it. It always hung on the wall.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. We all went out together in a group of boys and girls in order to
get&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Did that happen more than once?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. 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."</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Did you and your husband have any friends other than Russians
while you were at Minsk?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. There were friends. We had some friends from Argentina but
they didn't come on this excursion with us.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Did you have any friends there who were from Cuba?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Do you know where the Cuban students were studying, what
particular school?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Could you tell us a little more about these Argentinians, were
they there for educational reasons or what was the reason they were there?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. Excuse me; I am mixed up with Cubans. You talk about
Argentinians?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. I asked about Argentinians but I would be glad to have you add
the Cubans to it, too.</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. 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.</p>

<p>From what I could tell from what Lee said, many of these Cuban students<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_407" id="Page_407">407</a></span>
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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Would you have any idea how many Cubans were in
school in Minsk?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. I heard the figure of 300 but I never knew even a single one.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Could you be more helpful in the kind of schools they
went to, what were the schools?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. About how old were these students?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. About between 17 and 21.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Yes; if you have more to say about that.</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. Before we were married he apparently&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Did you have any idea how much extra he was getting
over his wages?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Did you know how much he was earning each week
while he was employed?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. In Russia they don't pay for every week. Eighty rubles a
month.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Eighty rubles a month?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Those are the new rubles?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. New rubles.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_408" id="Page_408">408</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Those were the new rubles, revalued rubles, that is about $90;
is it not?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. $90 or $80.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. While you were married did you know of any extra
money he was getting?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. He didn't receive any&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Did he handle all of the money that he received or did
he give you some while you were in the Soviet Union?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. So the only income that you know about was the money
you earned and the money that he earned?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. And how much did you earn?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. 45.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. 45 rubles a month?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. A month.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. There were no other funds, to your knowledge, that he
received after you were married?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. No.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. He paid all the bills?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. Yes. You didn't have too much bills in Russia.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Did he take your money, too? What was your rent, do you recall
at that time, rent of the apartment?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. Seven rubles and 50 cents, kopeks.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Was it 7 rubles and 50 kopeks? A week?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. A month; the rent in Russia are usually about 10 percent
of wages a month.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McKenzie</span>. Wages are low, too.</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. Of course, people who get more, higher wages have bigger
apartments.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Mr. Rankin, I think, is it all right to adjourn at this point?</p>

<p>We will reconvene at 2 o'clock.</p>

<p>(Whereupon, at 12:50 p.m., the President's Commission recessed.)</p>

<hr />
<h2 id="hc"><span class="smaller">Afternoon Session</span><br />
<span class="subhead">TESTIMONY OF HARRIS COULTER</span></h2>

<p>The President's Commission reconvened at 2 p.m.</p>

<p>(Members present at this point: Chief Justice Warren and Representative
Ford.)</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. The Commission will come to order. You may proceed, Mr.
Rankin.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Very well.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Mr. Coulter, I think you should be sworn for this.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coulter</span>. I do.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Will you please state your full name?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coulter</span>. Harris Livermore Coulter.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Where do you live?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coulter</span>. Glen Echo Heights, Md.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Do you have a position in the Government at the present time?</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_409" id="Page_409">409</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Coulter</span>. Yes; I am an interpreter with the State Department.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. How long have you been in that capacity?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coulter</span>. About 3 months.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Do you have any special field of foreign languages that you are
working in?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coulter</span>. Russian is my best foreign language. I also work in French
and in Yugoslavian.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. What training have you had for interpreting or translating
Russian?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coulter</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Can you tell us what period of time you studied at the University
of Moscow?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coulter</span>. I was there from December 19&mdash;excuse me&mdash;from September
1962 until January 1963.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Have you been acting as an official interpreter in Government
work?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coulter</span>. Yes; for the last 3 months I have been.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. And will you describe the nature of that activity?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coulter</span>. 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.</p>

<p>In July I will be going to Geneva to be an interpreter at the disarmament
negotiations between the United States and the Soviet Union.</p>

<p>I worked 3 years as simultaneous interpreter at the United Nations, in
Russian and French.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. And have all these various activities since you have been employed
by the Government been as a part of your Government work?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coulter</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Do you have facility in the reading of the Russian language?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coulter</span>. Yes; I read it fluently.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Have you had any difficulty understanding Mrs. Oswald?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coulter</span>. Not in the slightest; no.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. I will ask you to ask her if she has had any difficulty understanding
you.</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. In the Russian language?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. No.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Mr. McKenzie, do you have anything else?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McKenzie</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coulter</span>. I was unemployed from June 1963 until March 1964. I was
in the process of being cleared for a Government job at the time.</p>

<p>I terminated my employment with the United Nations in June 1963.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McKenzie</span>. And you have been cleared for Government security purposes?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coulter</span>. That is right. The clearance began about August. I had some
part-time jobs, freelance work, between the dates, but nothing permanent.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McKenzie</span>. But for a number of years you were an interpreter at the
United Nations?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coulter</span>. About 3 years.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McKenzie</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coulter</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McKenzie</span>. You were the interpreter present this morning when Mrs.
Oswald commenced her testimony on this occasion?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coulter</span>. I was.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_410" id="Page_410">410</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">McKenzie</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coulter</span>. I have.</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. I appreciate Mr. Coulter helping me.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McKenzie</span>. 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&mdash;and so that the record
will show she was not answering in English.</p>

<h2 id="lho2">TESTIMONY OF MRS. LEE HARVEY OSWALD RESUMED</h2>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. I took both these pictures at the same time, and with the
same camera.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. And in giving that answer, you have examined the pictures, and
you know they are different positions&mdash;that is, your husband has the rifle in
different positions and the newspaper in different positions in the two pictures&mdash;do
you?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. I am aware of that.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. 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&mdash;in fact, the exact opposite.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. That is correct.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. When did this conversation on this subject take place,
Mrs. Oswald?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. About 3 months after we were married.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. While you were living in Minsk?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Do you remember how the discussion came up?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_411" id="Page_411">411</a></span>
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.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Yes. Does counsel wish to add anything to that?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McKenzie</span>. Yes, Mr. Chairman; I would, if I may, sir.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McKenzie</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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&mdash;and I will say this&mdash;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.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Before you answer that, I want to say this. I am sure no member of the
Commission wants to&mdash;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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McKenzie</span>. 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.</p>

<p>I think through the interrogation that Mr. Rankin has conducted&mdash;I might remark,
most ably&mdash;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&mdash;it was prepared beforehand. And she brought it so<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_412" id="Page_412">412</a></span>
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.</p>

<p>I ask this not so much for Mrs. Oswald herself, but more for her two minor
children.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McKenzie</span>. 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&mdash;if not impossible.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McKenzie</span>. I thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McKenzie</span>. 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.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. You may have one immediately.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McKenzie</span>. Fine, sir&mdash;I would like to say at the Commission's expense.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Yes; of course, we will see you have one.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McKenzie</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. You have made your request.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_413" id="Page_413">413</a></span>
The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. We will consider that along with the other things. Mr.
Rankin, will you continue now?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Mr. Coulter, could you state for the record whether you have
related this colloquy to Mrs. Oswald, so that she is informed of it?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Coulter</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Thank you.</p>

<p>(At this point, Mr. Dulles entered the hearing room.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Mr. Chief Justice, I thought we would save them the expense.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McKenzie</span>. 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.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McKenzie</span>. 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&mdash;if that is satisfactory with the Commission.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Yes; if it is satisfactory with you, it is satisfactory with me.
There is no question about that.</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. Maybe in this manuscript many details are lacking which have
been developed in my testimony, because I wrote it mainly for public
consumption.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. It may be done in that manner.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_414" id="Page_414">414</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. That is all.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Congressman Ford, do you have some matters?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. 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.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. The Commission will ask the questions, if there is anything
of that nature. Now, Congressman Ford, do you have some questions?</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. There are certain applications which have to be filled out by the
boy and girl.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Do you have to go down together to make the application?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. It is necessary for both to appear with their passports and fill
out this application.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. In other words, Lee Harvey Oswald had to take his
passport down to&mdash;at the time that he applied for a marriage application?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. So it is not the passport in the sense that we think of a
passport, that we get to travel to a foreign country?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Do we have the document that he presented at the time
he applied for marriage?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. I don't know. I think he had to turn that in before he left the
Soviet Union.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McKenzie</span>. Are you referring to his American passport?</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. No; I am referring to the document that he presented at
the time he applied for marriage.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McKenzie</span>. Which would be a Russian instrument?</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Right.</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. I don't know if it is available. I think he had to turn it in
before he left the Soviet Union.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. In other words, both you and Lee Harvey Oswald signed
the necessary documents for marriage?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. That was the only difficulty you had?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Was your vacation trip to Kharkov&mdash;was that a vacation,
or did that result from any marital difficulty?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. My aunt invited me to Kharkov, and that is why I went. It was
not the result of any marital difficulties.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. I have only read what the FBI agents translated, those parts of
the diary which were translated into Russian by the FBI.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_415" id="Page_415">415</a></span>
Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Was that much of it or a small part of it?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. It was the part about his attempt at suicide.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. And also the part concerning the status of his Soviet
citizenship?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. You have no idea of when he wrote the historic diary?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. He never read you the diary in Russian?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. No.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. He didn't write them while you were present?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. No.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Redlich</span>. I might mention for the record that this document has already
been introduced as Commission Exhibit No. 25.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. If you didn't see him write it in the cabin how did you
know he wrote it?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. In the first place, because the paper was from the Holland-American
Line, and then I think&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Have you read that which he wrote on the ship?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. No; I have not read them, because I don't understand English.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. He never read it to you in Russian?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. No.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. You left the Soviet Union by what means, now?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. Train and boat.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. You went from the Soviet Union to Poland by train?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. We took a train from Moscow to Amsterdam, through Poland
and Germany.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. You had no difficulty going into Poland, going through
Germany?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. No.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Or into Holland?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. No. And there were no difficulties in our entering the United
States, either.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. When you were living at Elsbeth Street, did you and
Lee have any domestic trouble?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Could you relate how frequently and how serious they
were?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. That was the first incident?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. Yes.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_416" id="Page_416">416</a></span>
Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Were there others?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. During this time, did he physically abuse you? Did
he hit you?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Did Mr. De Mohrenschildt reprimand Lee for his abuse
to you?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Mr. De Mohrenschildt didn't say anything to Lee
Oswald in your presence about his abuse towards you?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. No; not in my presence.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Did Mr. De Mohrenschildt take you to Mellers, was it?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. Anna Meller&mdash;no; he did not.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Mr. De Mohrenschildt did not take you there?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. No; we had a quarrel, and I took the child and took a taxi, and
went by myself there.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Did you have money to pay for a taxi?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. Anna Meller paid for the taxi.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. When you got to Anna Meller's?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. I believe that is all, Mr. Chairman.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Mr. Dulles, do you have any questions?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. A couple, Mr. Chief Justice.</p>

<p>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?</p>

<p>I am speaking of your stays in Dallas, Fort Worth, and New Orleans.</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Were you together most of the time?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. That is correct. We were together.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Do you know what he was reading in those days?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. He read nonfiction almost entirely and mainly historical works.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Was he reading Russian books or mostly English books?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. He could read Russian, but he read only English works.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Was he doing much writing in this period, during the American
stay?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Do you know what happened to that particular writing?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. I know that he destroyed this after the Walker business.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. When you say he used to go away, do you mean go away in the
house or outside the house with the map?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. In the house, in the kitchen, and would tell me not to come in,
not to make any noise at all.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Could you specify as to time and date, as to about when he acquired
this map and began this study of the map?</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_417" id="Page_417">417</a></span>
Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. Could I ask the Commission just when we were living on
Elsbeth Street, since I have forgotten?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Redlich</span>. November 1962 to March 1963. November 3, 1962 to March 2,
1963.</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. 1963?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. No one, except for my friends whom I have already told you
about.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. That is all I have, Mr. Chief Justice.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Congressman, did you have any more?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. I was speaking of the United States.</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. 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&mdash;a paper with
bus schedules on it, and he was somehow comparing them or working on them,
or doing something with these two documents.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Congressman Ford?</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. We had&mdash;it is permissible to exchange a certain amount of
Soviet rubles into American dollars in such cases, and we did exchange some
Soviet rubles&mdash;I think about $180 worth&mdash;when we left. But that wasn't enough
to pay the whole trip.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Lee had borrowed from the Government approximately
$600?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. $450, and then the exchange made a total of $600 and something.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. This $180 was used with the State Department money
for the transportation and the funds for the trip?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. I don't know, since my husband took care of that whole matter.
He never talked about money with me.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. The train stopped and people come in and check your documents.</p>

<p>On the Russian border, of course, people come in and look at your bags&mdash;that
is to say, they don't rifle through everything, but they pick things at random and
look at them.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Did Lee carry all the documents?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. He carried all the documents, since I had the baby to look after.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. At the Polish-German border, did they actually examine
the documents?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. More carefully between Russia and Poland than between Poland
and Germany.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Did Lee make any acquaintances on the train and the
boat?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. No.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. <span class="locked">Did&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Did George De Mohrenschildt at any time take you any
place from the Elsbeth Street residence?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. Only to his house.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Did Lee accompany you at that time?</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_418" id="Page_418">418</a></span>
Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. Yes; once he took us both home to see his daughter. He took
us&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. But he only took you once from one place to his house?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. No; we went several times to his house. Maybe two or three
times.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Did Lee accompany you on any of these occasions?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. I wasn't implying that he was dangerous. I was just
trying <span class="locked">to&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. He talks all the time. Did he appear before the Commission or
not?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. We have his testimony.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. I have nothing further.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. I think that is all, Mrs. Oswald. Thank you very much.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McKenzie</span>. I have some questions, if I may.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Yes; Mr. McKenzie.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McKenzie</span>. 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.</p>

<p>When did you first learn that the Soviet Government wanted Lee Harvey
Oswald to become a Soviet citizen?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. I heard this 3 months after we were married, from Lee.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McKenzie</span>. Did any <span class="locked">Soviet&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Who did you hear it from?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. From Lee.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McKenzie</span>. Did any Soviet Government official come to see you or Lee
after you were married, and visit with you?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. No.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McKenzie</span>. Did Lee, from time to time, have to report to any Soviet Government
agency after you were married?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McKenzie</span>. And how often did he make a report to a government official
or to a government agency?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McKenzie</span>. And how long would he be gone on those occasions from home,
or from work?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. About half an hour.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McKenzie</span>. You have mentioned that he had Cuban friends and friends
from the Argentine in Minsk. Did he ever have any Mexican friends in Minsk?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. No.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McKenzie</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. He might have had some, but I don't know anything about any
of them. He never mentioned it.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McKenzie</span>. It has been reported that&mdash;in the papers&mdash;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?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. I only knew about the two books on Marxism and Leninism.
I don't know anything about this third one.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McKenzie</span>. And those books you know about, were they books from the
public library in New Orleans?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. I think these were his own private possession. I think he had
even a book in English when he was in Russia on Marxism.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_419" id="Page_419">419</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">McKenzie</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. When he left Dallas for Fort Worth?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McKenzie</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. I think he had some money saved up. He always was saving
money for a rainy day.</p>

<p>(At this point, Representative Ford withdrew from the hearing room.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McKenzie</span>. From what source did he save that money? Where did the
money come from?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. Only from his salary, from his wages.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McKenzie</span>. When he was not working, did he have any other source of
money, or did he have money?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. When he wasn't working, he got some unemployment compensation
from the place where he had been working.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McKenzie</span>. Did he ever receive money to your knowledge from any other
sources, other than from the Government or from his work?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. The only sources I know of were the companies where he
worked.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McKenzie</span>. Who did your husband consider as good friends of his in Dallas,
Tex.?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. 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&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McKenzie</span>. Did your husband have any other good friends? For example,
did he consider Michael Paine a good friend of his?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McKenzie</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. He never gave me any money. We would go shopping together,
and he would make all the payments.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McKenzie</span>. Were there not times when you didn't have enough money and
food in the house, and friends had to help you?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McKenzie</span>. And did Mr. George Bouhe or Mrs. Ford have to take you to
the hospital at one time or another?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. No.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McKenzie</span>. For June?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. Not Mrs. Ford and not Mr. Bouhe.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McKenzie</span>. Who was it?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. Lydia Dymitruk took me to the hospital.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McKenzie</span>. That is all I have, Mr. Chief Justice.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Thank you, Mrs. Oswald, I think that will be all.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McKenzie</span>. 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.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McKenzie</span>. 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.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_420" id="Page_420">420</a></span>
The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. The Commission will consider that in connection with all the
other things that you asked for in connection with her writings.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McKenzie</span>. 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?</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Well, I <span class="locked">think&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McKenzie</span>. Mind you, I ask that as respectfully as I possibly can.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. 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&mdash;we hope so, anyway.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McKenzie</span>. 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.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McKenzie</span>. We want that, too.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. I say, we will give consideration to that. But I cannot give
you any assurance of it at this time.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Mr. Chief Justice, I would like to have the record show at this
point&mdash;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 <span class="locked">appear&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McKenzie</span>. 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&mdash;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.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McKenzie</span>. Thank you, sir.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. All right. I think that will be all. The Commission will
adjourn.</p>

<p>(Whereupon, at 3:35 p.m., the President's Commission recessed.)</p>

<hr />
<h2 id="ras"><span class="smaller"><a name="Tuesday_June_16_1964" id="Tuesday_June_16_1964"><i>Tuesday, June 16, 1964</i></a></span><br />
<span class="subhead">TESTIMONY OF ROBERT ALAN SURREY</span></h2>

<p>The President's Commission met at 10:15 a.m., on June 16, 1964, at 200
Maryland Avenue NE., Washington, D.C.</p>

<p>Present were Chief Justice Earl Warren, Chairman; Senator John Sherman
Cooper, and Representative Hale Boggs, members.</p>

<p>Also present were J. Lee Rankin, general counsel; and Albert E. Jenner, Jr.,
assistant counsel.</p>

<p>(Members present: Chief Justice Warren, Senator Cooper, and Representative
Boggs.)</p>

<p class="p2">The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. 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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_421" id="Page_421">421</a></span>
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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. 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."</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. For what reason&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. I believe that my answers would tend to incriminate me under
the fifth amendment.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. 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&mdash;are willing to testify about the other matters, you may do so.</p>

<p>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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. I do.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Boggs</span>. 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.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Well, on any phase of it that you wish to ask him a question,
of course it is all right.</p>

<p>Mr. Jenner will conduct the examination.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. 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?</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Very well. Mr. Jenner?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.</p>

<p>Mr. Chief Justice, I offer in evidence as Commission Exhibit No. 995 the
original of the subpena served upon Mr. Surrey.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Yes. A subpena was served on you, was it, Mr. Surrey?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Yes; it was.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Very well, it may be admitted.</p>

<p>(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 995 for identification,
and received in evidence.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. You are appearing in response to the subpena?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Yes; I am.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Were you furnished with copies of the Senate joint resolution,
or legislation which created&mdash;authorized the creation of the Commission?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. At a previous time; yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. And President Johnson's Executive order, and the rules and
regulations of the Commission as to taking of testimony?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Yes; I was. It was hard to read them.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Yes; they are a little bit difficult to read.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Robert Alan Surrey.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. And what is your address?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. 3506 Lindenwood, Dallas, Tex.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_422" id="Page_422">422</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. How long have you resided there?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Eight years.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. And what is your age?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Thirty-eight.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Where were you born?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Oak Park, Ill.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. When did you move to Texas?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. First moved there in 1948, and then left for 2 years, from 1951
to 1953, and then moved back to Texas.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. You are a college graduate; are you not?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Yes; I am.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. What university or college?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Northwestern.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. In Evanston, Ill?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. When did you receive your degree?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. 1948.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. You are married?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Yes; I am.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Is Mrs. Surrey a native born American?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Yes; she is a Dallasite.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. She is a Dallas girl?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. What is your business, occupation, or profession?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. I am a printing salesman.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. For what company?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. For Johnson Printing Co.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Is that located at 2700 North Haskell, in Dallas?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Yes; it is.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. How long have you been employed by Johnson Printing Co.?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Seven years.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Commercial printing, advertising printing, house organs&mdash;just
general commercial work.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Did you have some military service?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Yes; I did.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Would you state what it was?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. I was 4 years in the Navy, in World War II.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Are you also the president of a book publishing company located
in Dallas?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. The American Eagle Publishing Co?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Yes; I am.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. The only volume I have seen&mdash;there was a publication of reprints
of newspaper stories.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Called the Assassination Story, yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. And your name appeared, I think, in that as the president of the
company.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. A cover letter that was on the back cover.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. <span class="locked">And&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. This was not our only publication. We have done many publications
before that.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Boggs</span>. Do we have a copy of this publication?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Of this particular one?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Mr. Alger's office came to me and requested two copies for the
Warren Commission, which I furnished to him.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Boggs</span>. Whose office?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Congressman Bruce Alger's office.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Boggs</span>. Did we make such a request through Congressman
Alger?</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_423" id="Page_423">423</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. I am not advised as to whether we did or not.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. I am quite sure we did not.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Did we receive any such copies?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. There is none among our exhibits in the exhibit room.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. His secretary called, and they came out to the house and got two
copies of it.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Boggs</span>. How long ago was this?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Oh, I would say 3 weeks.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Boggs</span>. When did you publish this book?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. I believe it was finally ready on January 1, right after January
1&mdash;January 1, 2, or 3, right in that area.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Boggs</span>. What does the book allege?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Boggs</span>. Nothing else&mdash;just newspaper clippings?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Just newspaper clippings.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Boggs</span>. No editorial comment of any kind?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Outside of the letter on the back; no.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Boggs</span>. And what is the letter on the back?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. It said&mdash;this is just to the best of my knowledge, I don't recall
exactly&mdash;"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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Boggs</span>. Not see fit to what?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. To answer.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Boggs</span>. What was the implication of that?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. The implication being, as I see it, in Dallas&mdash;a local reporter&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Boggs</span>. The implication was that this Commission would not
investigate these allegations?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. No&mdash;perhaps.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Boggs</span>. Well, what did you mean by the word "muzzle"?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Of the press?</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Boggs</span>. You used "muzzle" in this letter&mdash;written. I don't have
the letter before me. I would like to have it.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. I don't, either. I would like to know what the exact wording
was on it, sir.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Boggs</span>. Did you write it?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Boggs</span>. And the implication was that this Commission would
not seek out the entire truth of the incidences <span class="locked">arising&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Oh, no, sir; this was not the implication of the muzzling. This
was not the implication.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Boggs</span>. What was the implication of the statement you made
a moment ago, about questions that would not be asked by this Commission?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Boggs</span>. 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?</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_424" id="Page_424">424</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Possibly.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Boggs</span>. Is that the substance of the book?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. No. No; the substance of the book is strictly newspaper
clippings.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Boggs</span>. Plus a letter.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. The letter is on the back cover of the book, just a cover letter.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Boggs</span>. Tell me more about what the letter says.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. I would much rather have the letter. I don't recall exactly what
it does say, sir.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Did you write it yourself, or did somebody write it for you?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. I wrote it myself.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. You don't remember what you wrote?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. No; not as per specific words, I do not.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Boggs</span>. Well, not specific words. The sense.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. You picked the specific word "muzzling" out of it.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Boggs</span>. 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&mdash;you used it.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Based on some past experience that I have had&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Now, the local paper there&mdash;and I was not privileged to read the local papers
at the time&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. Did you select the clippings that were in the book?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Pardon?</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. Did you select the newspaper clippings?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. No; I did not.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. Who selected them?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. A couple named Osburn that lived in Dallas.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. Who are they?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Just some people that live in Dallas.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. Do you know their names?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Just Osburn.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. Do you know their address?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. No; I do not.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. How did you happen to be associated with them?</p>

<p>Mr <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Mrs. Osburn works at Walker's offce.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. You are speaking of General Walker?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Boggs</span>. 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.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Will you supply us with a copy of the book?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. If I have one, sir. They are out of print. And I don't <span class="locked">know&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Are they all sold?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. 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.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. How many copies did you have printed?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. 3,000.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Were they sold?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Some of them were; yes, sir.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. How many were sold?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. I would say about 900 to a thousand.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. What became of the rest of them?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. They were sent to our presubscriber list, and given away.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Is this company that published them a corporation?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. No; it is a partnership.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Who are the partners?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Myself and General Walker.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_425" id="Page_425">425</a></span>
The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. And General Walker?</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Boggs</span>. Was this pamphlet that you printed included in the
book?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Excuse me. That <span class="locked">is&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Boggs</span>. "Wanted for Treason"?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Commission Exhibit No. 996.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. No.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Boggs</span>. That was not included?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. No.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Boggs</span>. You didn't make that a part of the record of the events
surrounding the assassination of President Kennedy?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. I did not make it a part of the record?</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Boggs</span>. In this record that you published.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. I had nothing to do with making it a part of the record.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Boggs</span>. You published the book, didn't you?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Yes; but these were newspaper reprints.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Boggs</span>. You published this, too, didn't you?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. No, sir.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Boggs</span>. You didn't publish it?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. No, sir.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. You are speaking of the book now?</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Boggs</span>. I am talking about your printing company.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. You are talking about my printing company?</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Boggs</span>. The company you work for.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Yes, Johnson Printing Co.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Boggs</span>. Didn't you publish this?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. No.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Boggs</span>. Who printed it?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. I decline to answer on the grounds it may tend to incriminate me.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Boggs</span>. 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.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. You may proceed, Mr. Jenner.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Thank you. Does the American Eagle Publishing Co. have a
bookstore subsidiary or outlet?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. No; we do not.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. What is the American Eagle Book Store?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. There is no American Eagle Book Store.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Do you have a headquarters?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. No, sir.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Do you have a telephone?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. No, sir.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Are you listed with the local authorities under a fictitious or
assumed name?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Yes&mdash;doing business as?</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Doing business as, yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. And the names given are yourself and General Walker?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Where is that filed&mdash;with your county clerk?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. County clerk in Dallas.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. We have talked about General Walker. That is General Edwin A.
Walker, now resigned?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. And do you know a Robert G. Krause?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. I refuse to answer on the grounds the answer may tend to incriminate
me.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Was he not formerly employed by Johnson Printing Co.?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. I refuse to answer for the same reason.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_426" id="Page_426">426</a></span>
Representative <span class="smcap">Boggs</span>. Excuse me. Mr. Chief Justice&mdash;we will have testimony
from Mr. Krause, I presume?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Yes; do you know of a company, a printing company, Lettercraft
Printing Co.?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. I refuse to answer&mdash;same reason.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. For the reason it would tend to incriminate you?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Did you not prepare the copy for Commission Exhibit No. 996?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. I decline to answer on the same reason; that it would tend to
incriminate me.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. And, in turn, turn that copy over to Robert G. Krause, of the
Lettercraft Printing Co. for reproduction?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. I decline to answer, same reason.</p>

<p>(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 996 for
identification.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Exhibiting again Exhibit No.&mdash;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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. I decline to answer on the grounds it may incriminate me.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. I decline to answer; same reason.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. I decline to answer on the grounds it may incriminate me.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Did you thereafter&mdash;did you not in fact thereafter, yourself&mdash;well,
I will ask you first&mdash;yourself, distribute duplicates of Exhibit No. 996 in
and about the streets of Dallas, Tex., on November 22 and days preceding?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Point of order. Can I ask a question? If I now answer one or
two in through here, does <span class="locked">this&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Well, this is connected with the entire situation&mdash;the publication,
the distribution of it is one and the same subject matter, I would think.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. I decline to answer on the grounds it may incriminate me.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Yes; I am, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. And you appear without counsel?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. I cannot afford to bring counsel.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. But you do appear without counsel?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Yes; I do.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Boggs</span>. I think, Mr. Chief Justice, the record should show if
this man requested counsel he would be entitled to counsel, would he not?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. He certainly would. And he has not requested it.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Boggs</span>. I just want the record to show that.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. Did you request counsel?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. From whom, sir?</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. Did you request the Commission to appoint counsel for you?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. No; I did not. I did not know this was available.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Boggs</span>. I might say it is still available.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Would this be a court-appointed?</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Beg pardon?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Would this be a court-appointed attorney?</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. No; it would be an attorney appointed by the Commission.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Thank you.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Proceed, Mr. Jenner.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Boggs</span>. You prefer not to have an attorney appointed by the
Commission?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_427" id="Page_427">427</a></span>
Representative <span class="smcap">Boggs</span>. We might let the record show at this point, also, that
the American Bar Association has been closely associated with the Commission.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. What does that mean? I mean what is the purpose of that
remark?</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Boggs</span>. To show that the attorneys appointed are completely
objective.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. I did not imply they were not, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Do you know Mrs. Clifford Mercer, Dorothy Mercer?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. I decline to answer on the grounds it may incriminate me.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Do you know Mr. Clifford Mercer?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. I decline to answer; same reason.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Do you know of a photoengraving company in Dallas, 2027 Young
Street, Monks Bros.?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. I decline to answer on the grounds it may incriminate me.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Do you know J.&nbsp;T. Monk or J.&nbsp;T. Monk, Jr.?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. I decline to answer, same grounds.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. I decline to answer on the grounds it may tend to incriminate me.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. And thereafter, after that type was set, have photographs made
of that type?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. I decline to answer; same reason.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Do you know Mr. Bernard Weissman?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. No. We are in another field now, I gather.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Well, I don't want to represent to you that it is.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. I decline to answer on the ground it may tend to incriminate me.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Have you had any business relations with a man by the name
of Bernard Weissman?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. If this is in your opinion still part of the other&mdash;concerning these
leaflets, then I will plead the fifth amendment.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. 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.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. There is that possibility; yes&mdash;that is a sufficient statement.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. And being that possibility, do you wish to decline to answer the
question on the ground an answer may tend to incriminate you?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. 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&mdash;unless you gentlemen desire to ask questions.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Any further questions, Congressman Boggs?</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Boggs</span>. Was anyone associated with you in the publication of
this leaflet?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. I decline to answer on the ground it may tend to incriminate me.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Did General Walker have anything to do with it?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. I decline to answer on the ground it may tend to incriminate me&mdash;but,
no.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. What? Now you have opened that up, sir&mdash;if you say&mdash;was
your answer no, or is your answer that you claim the privilege?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. My answer is that I claim the privilege, sir.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. That is different.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. May I just ask one question? To return for a moment to this
book that you printed with newspaper clippings&mdash;what was your purpose in
printing it?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. As a memento, primarily.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. You had no other purpose?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. No, sir.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. No, sir. This was not the intent; no.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_428" id="Page_428">428</a></span>
Representative <span class="smcap">Boggs</span>. What was the allegation in the cease and desist order
which was issued against you by the Dallas newspaper?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. That this would be in competition to a book which they were
going to promote&mdash;I believe the AP. At the time&mdash;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&mdash;silver prints, you may call them
in Washington.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. For how much did you sell these books a copy?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. We gave them free to our presubscriber list.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. I didn't ask you that.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. They were $5 per copy.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. And how many did you say you sold?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. About 900 to a 1,000.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. What happened to the money?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. It was put into the American Eagle Publishing Co. account.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Do you have a regular bookkeeping system?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. And those figures would be available, showing how many you
had sold, would they?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. In your books?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Boggs</span>. Is the American Eagle Publishing Co. an incorporated
company?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. No.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Boggs</span>. What is it?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Partnership, sir.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Boggs</span>. Who are the partners?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Myself and General Walker.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Boggs</span>. And this presubscription list, how many people on that?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. I would say 700, 800.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Boggs</span>. You publish a newspaper?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. No; we don't.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Boggs</span>. What do you publish besides this book?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Pamphlets&mdash;pamphlets.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. You receive part of your income from the American Eagle Publishing
Co.?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. No; I do not.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. You serve as president, but you receive no compensation for that?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. That is true.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Would you tell us, please, the address of the American Eagle
Publishing Co.?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. P.O. Box 750, Dallas 21.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. It has no physical office itself&mdash;just the post office address?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. That is correct. That mail comes to my desk at Johnson Printing
Co. That is the same post office box as Johnson Printing Co.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. I see. And where do you keep&mdash;where does American Publishing
Co. warehouse or keep or store its pamphlets and books?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. 4011 Turtle Creek Boulevard, Mr. Walker's residence. I have a
room.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. That is General Walker's residence?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. That is General Walker's residence?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Yes; it is.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Who owns the Johnson Printing Co.?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. It is&mdash;the stock is split, four or five different people.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. A corporation?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Yes; it is.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Who are they?</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_429" id="Page_429">429</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. 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.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. It is a commercial company?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Yes; it is.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Is General Walker connected with it?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. No; he is not.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Or with the other people, as far as you know?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. No, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Is Mr. Borak the general manager of the plant itself?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. No; he is president of the company.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. I see. Who is the general manager of the plant?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Mr. Owens.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Mr. Owens.</p>

<p>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.?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. I decline to answer on the ground it may tend to incriminate me.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. 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.?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. I decline to answer on the ground it may tend to incriminate
me.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. How many printers do you have at Johnson Printing Co.?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. How many employees?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. No&mdash;that operate linotypes or operate these machines that produce
these slugs&mdash;what is the name of that kind of machine?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Well, it would be a monotype or a linotype or a Ludlow.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Are these lines on Exhibit No. 996 Ludlow productions?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. I decline to answer on the ground it may tend to incriminate me.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Who are the Ludlow machine operators at Johnson Printing Co.?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Oh, I would say there are probably 10 or 15 that operate the
Ludlow machine.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. I decline to answer on the ground it may tend to incriminate
me.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Are you able to name any of the linotype operators who were
employed during the first 22 days of November 1963?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Who were employed at Johnson Printing Co.?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Well, I gather this has nothing to do with this. So may I
answer?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. I don't want to lead you to believe it doesn't, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. I decline to answer on the ground it may incriminate me.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. From whom was the paper purchased on which appears the imprinting
on the exhibit identified here as Commission Exhibit No. 996.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. I decline to answer on the same grounds.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. I decline to answer on the grounds it may incriminate me.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Mr. Chief Justice, I will now depart from this particular phase,
if that is permissible.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Very well.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. I am now going to turn, Mr. Surrey, to the attempt on the life
of General Walker.</p>

<p>First I would like to have you examine a series of photographs which purport
to be photographs of the area of the Walker house.</p>

<p>Mr. Chief Justice, may I approach the witness for this purpose?</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Yes.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_430" id="Page_430">430</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. I show the witness Commission Exhibit No. 2, Item No. 7, and
subdivision item No. P-2. Do you see that, sir?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Yes; I do.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Examining the subitem, P-2, is the area depicted in that photograph
familiar to you?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Yes; it is. It is the alley in behind Mr. Walker's residence,
looking west.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Looking west?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. I would say late fall.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Could it have been the early spring, mid-March, for example?
1st of March, along in there?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. It could have been; yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Either in the fall, when there is a deleafing or lack of foliage
on trees, or the early spring?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. I show you what purports to be the same thing, also marked&mdash;it
is a larger photograph&mdash;Commission Exhibit No. 2, Item No. 7. Directing
your attention to the subdivision P-2 you have just testified about, are they
<span class="locked">photographs&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Basically the same thing. It looks like this one was taken a
little closer to the ground.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. When you say this one, you mean the larger of the two?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. On Commission Exhibit No. 3, Item 14, subitem P-1, directing
your attention to that, you recognize that?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. That is a picture of the back of the residence of 4011 Turtle
Creek.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. General Edwin Walker's home?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. I perhaps should have asked you this: You are familiar with
the area surrounding General Walker's home?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Yes, I am.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. You have been there a good many times, have you?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Yes, I have.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. On all sides of the home?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. And are you familiar with the inside of the home?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Yes; I am.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. And have you worked there from time to time over the years?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. How long have you been associated with General Walker?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Since the beginning of his campaign, when that was&mdash;I think the
spring&mdash;about 3 years now.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. What campaign is that?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. When he ran for Governor of Texas.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. That initiated your association with him?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. And what are your duties in your association with General
Walker?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. I am just a volunteer helper, whatever he needed, volunteer help
in doing, I would help.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Are you compensated?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. No; I am not.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. You have never received any compensation?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. No; I haven't.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. You have never received any compensation from the publishing
company we have identified that published that book?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. No, sir.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_431" id="Page_431">431</a></span>
The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Do you handle any funds for General Walker?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Of General Walker's fund?</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. No, sir.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Or any <span class="locked">funds&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Except <span class="locked">what&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Or any funds that come to General Walker?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. No; only that comes to American Eagle Co., which is in fact, I
guess, technically his funds.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Well, what funds do come to American Eagle Co.?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Funds for purchasing of materials, and some donations. That
is it.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Outside of donations, how do you get your funds for publishing?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. From the sale of materials.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. And the rest of it is all donations?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Donations are extremely small, as a matter of fact, yes. We
operate on the sale of materials.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. How much in the aggregate of donations have you had?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. To American Eagle Publishing Co.?</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. I would say a hundred dollars.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. A hundred dollars?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Over 2 years or 2½ years.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Where did you get the money to publish your book?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. 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.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Did General Walker sell his campaign books?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. I don't know if he did or not.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Well, you don't pay publishing funds with books, do you?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. 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.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. At its inception, where did you get the money to publish?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. I don't understand your question, sir.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. <span class="locked">Well&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. At its inception we didn't have any money.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. When you publish books, you have to have some capital of
some kind.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. The capital was raised from the sale of a book called "Walker
Speaks Unmuzzled" which sells for 35 cents. We started with that.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. You published that first?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. No, sir.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Who published that?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. I believe General Walker did.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. And how much money came from the sale of those books?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. I do not know offhand, sir.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Approximately.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. We are still selling them.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Beg pardon?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. We are still selling them.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. But you handle the funds, don't you, for the company?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Yes; but I don't know specific items.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Well, I am not asking you for specific items. But I would
like to know approximately how much money.</p>

<p>Let me put it this way: How much money have you handled for that company
in the last&mdash;since it has been established?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Oh, as a rough estimate, $10,000 to $15,000.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. And only a hundred dollars of that was contributions from
outsiders?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. I would say that would be it.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_432" id="Page_432">432</a></span>
The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. And was there any of that $10,000 or $15,000 that came from
any individual other than from people who purchased the hooks?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Yes; at one time the General put some more money into the
company.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. How much money did he put into it?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. I believe a thousand dollars.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. That is all?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Anybody else put any money into it?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. No, sir.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Did you?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. No, sir.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Very well.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. 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.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Your questions have stimulated me to ask another question.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. 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.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Boggs</span>. I would like to see it when it gets here. You expect
it pretty soon?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. I sent him on the run.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Boggs</span>. Good.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Mr. Surrey, I will return to the General Walker incident now.</p>

<p>I would like you particularly to examine the next photograph, which appears
in Commission Exhibit No. 4, Item 6, as subletter P-5.</p>

<p>This depicts, Mr. Chairman, and gentlemen, a railroad track&mdash;in the far
distance a tall building. Is that area at all familiar to you?</p>

<p>That is undoubtedly the MKT line, or some spur line.</p>

<p>You are familiar with the MKT line, are you not?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. This I do not recognize the area.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. I will ask you this. Is there a railroad near General Walker's
home?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Facing out of the house, facing Turtle Creek, across the creek,
and then another half block or so, there is a railroad.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Within a half a block?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Having that in mind, I show you a photograph, aerial view
photograph, which we have marked Commission Exhibit No. 998.</p>

<p>Mr. Chief Justice, that is a copy of the exhibit.</p>

<p>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."</p>

<p>First, do you recognize that general area?</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_433" id="Page_433">433</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Yes; I do.</p>

<p>(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit 998 for
identification.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. And does the encirclment of the home there appear to be General
Walker's home?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Yes, sir; it does. I don't see a house that should be in the
corner.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. You say corner&mdash;you <span class="locked">mean&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Right there.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. To the left?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Yes; there is a house there between Walker's residence and the
next house, and the street here, which is Avondale, I believe.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. And you are talking about the street here&mdash;you are pointing
to a street that runs obliquely from left to right towards the upper corner of the
picture?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. To the left of the house encircled as General Walker's house?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Yes. Oh, I see, I am sorry. It is much further back from the
street. That is the house.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Now, the house you say that is next is the one immediately to
the left of the one encircled?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Yes; I was looking in this area for the houses. That is correct.
That is General Walker's residence, as depicted in the picture.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. And the house to the left is the house you thought at first was
not shown, but in fact it is shown?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. It is.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. And who is the owner of that home?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. I do not know. A doctor.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. A lady doctor?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Yes; it is a woman, runs the household.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Dr. Ruth Jackson?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. It sounds familiar, but I do not know.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Does she have a dog that is sometimes obstreperous, does a
lot of barking?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Yes; she does.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. You are quite familiar with that fact, are you?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Yes, sir; I am.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. How and why did you become familiar with that fact?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Anyone approaching the house, generally her house or General
Walker's house, would be barked at, in the middle of the night noises.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. And you have approached General Walker's house, I assume, at
night, have you?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. If the dog is out in Dr. Jackson's yard, the dog is alerted and
barks?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Not so much any more. Evidently he knows who I am now.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. I see. But before the dog became familiar with you, he did bark?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. What kind of a dog is it, by the way?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. A small Collie, I guess&mdash;shaggy, brownish dog.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Yes; it was. This was reported to me. I do not know of firsthand
knowledge.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. I would prefer not to have your hearsay. You have no knowledge
firsthand, however?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. No; I do not.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Unless, Mr. Chairman, you desire to pursue the <span class="locked">hearsay&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. No, no.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Continuing with Exhibit No. 998, and looking at the footnotes,
would you tell us whether that footnoting is accurate&mdash;A through G?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. I am not familiar with Gilbert Street.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_434" id="Page_434">434</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Which is designated as G?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. It very well could be Gilbert Street. I just don't know the names
of those streets.</p>

<p>Yes; to the best of my knowledge that is accurate.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. There is a tall building to the left, rather nice-looking. Are
you familiar with that building?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. No; there are several new ones going right up in that area. I
think that is the Spa, or something.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. I am referring, Mr. Chief Justice, to the tall building with a
lattice design immediately to the right of the letter "A".</p>

<p>What did you think that was?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. A new development in there called 21 Turtle Creek, the Spa,
or something. I only know it from newspaper ads.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. I see. Was that building in that condition or being erected
in the spring of 1963?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. If that is the building I think of, it has just been finished a
month or so now.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. How long has it been under construction?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Possibly a year, a year and a half.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Does that photograph fairly depict and represent the area it
shows as that area existed in the spring of 1963?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. No; you are missing a Jesuit high school which was here.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Tell us about that.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. That was the old Jesuit high school, which has been torn down
just recently. I believe just recently finished tearing it down.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. 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.</p>

<p>I have now handed the witness Commission Exhibit No. 999.</p>

<p>(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 999 for
identification.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. I believe that to be generally correct. This area of Walker's
residence here is <span class="locked">difficult&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Otherwise, this is an accurate representation of that area and
as it existed in the spring of 1963?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Again, the high school is&mdash;I don't believe that that Jesuit high
school was to the ground as it shows here, in the spring of 1963.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. I now call your attention to the building that appears immediately
to the right of the circle.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. That is, I believe, the same building that shows in the previous
exhibit.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Thank you. That is just exactly what I was going to ask you.
All right. Now, would you look at Commission Exhibit No. 1000.</p>

<p>(The documents referred to were marked Commission Exhibits Nos. 1000 and
1002 for identification.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Are those footnotings correct?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Yes, sir; I believe they are.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Would you look at 1002.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Yes, sir; I believe they are substantially correct.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. 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.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_435" id="Page_435">435</a></span>
(The documents referred to were marked Commission Exhibits No. 1003 and
1004, respectively, for identification.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Yes; that street previously mentioned was Avondale. That is
the street immediately to the west.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. And it appears on Commission Exhibit No. 1003?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. That is correct.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Have you yet examined Commission Exhibit No. 1004?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. No; I have not.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. The witness is now examining Commission Exhibit No. 1004.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Very well.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. I believe that is correct, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. All right. I will ask you a general question to be sure we have
covered all of these.</p>

<p>Calling your attention to Commission Exhibits Nos. 998, 999, 1000, 1002,
1003, and 1004, which are aerial photographs&mdash;are they aerial photographs of
the vicinity of General Walker's house?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Yes; they are.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. And do they, except for the high school matter which you have
pointed out to us&mdash;do they represent fairly the area as it was in the spring
of 1963?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Yes, I would say that is generally correct.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Directly across from in front of the house&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Using the blank sheet of paper I hand you, would you just give
us a diagram&mdash;a rough diagram of the area of General Walker's house, so that
I can locate the field about which you now speak?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. It is not actually a field.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. And we will mark that as Commission Exhibit No. 1005.</p>

<p>(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 1005 for
identification.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. This is Turtle Creek. [Witness draws.]</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Now, is Turtle Creek a street?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Yes; it is a street, a boulevard.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. All right.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Mr. Walker's residence is here. [Witness draws.]</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Is the top of this sheet north or south, west or east? When I
say that I refer to Commission Exhibit No. 1005.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. This is north.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. These are not exact. They are several points off. But generally.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. 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"?</p>

<p>Now, having done that, you have now described an area&mdash;told us of an area
where a firearm&mdash;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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Here is Turtle Creek. [Witness draws.]</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. You are now drawing a wavy line. Would you write in there
"Turtle Creek." And that is a stream, is it?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Does it always have water in it?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. To my knowledge; yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. All right.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Now, this area across Turtle Creek Boulevard.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. That is to the south of General Walker's house.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_436" id="Page_436">436</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. And going down to the creek is a grassy, leafed, brushed, tree
area.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. It is not an open field?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. No.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. But it is an area in which a firearm could be buried?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. It is down near the creek&mdash;there are rocks.</p>

<p>(At this point, Representative Boggs withdrew from the hearing room.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. In addition to that&mdash;here is Avondale, here is the doctor's residence.
[Witness draws.]</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. This is Dr. Jackson's residence you have now drawn?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Would you <span class="locked">please&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. And this entire block here <span class="locked">is&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. You are pointing to the west?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Along Turtle Creek Drive?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Would you put the word "drive" there.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. It is boulevard.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. All right. Would you repeat your testimony in that connection?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Another block of <span class="locked">residences&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. To the west?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. To the west. And then you come to that field where the new
building is going up and the Jesuit high school was.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. And that is the new building you identified in one of the earlier
exhibits, and the high school has now been torn down?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. All right. And there was&mdash;in the spring of 1963, was there a
field there?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Yes; there still is.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Where a firearm could have been buried?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. We understand there is a church, a church house, near the
Walker home. Am I correct?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. That is correct.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Would you locate it, please?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. 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.]</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Excuse me. For the purpose of the record, the witness has now
drawn in what looks like a parking lot area, is that correct?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Is that the church parking lot?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Yes; it is.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. And where is the church house itself located?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. This entire area. I don't know about the shape of it. But it is
in this area.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Write the word "church" in there. [Witness does so.] What
church is that?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. It is a Mormon church.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. And about how far distant from the Walker house is the Mormon
church?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. It is on the next lot&mdash;I would say 400 feet, maybe.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. What is there intervening, if anything, between the Mormon
church buildings and General Walker's home?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. In the way of a fence, you mean?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Well, first; are there any buildings?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. No.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Or any sheds or anything of that character?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. No.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Are there any trees?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Yes; there are trees.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_437" id="Page_437">437</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Is it heavily or lightly wooded?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Lightly.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. There is a fence?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. A wooden fence?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. A wooden fence&mdash;about 5-foot tall.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. I see. Is that a lattice fence or a solid fence?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Along this side here it is a solid fence.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. When you say this side, you are pointing to the driveway leading
to Turtle Creek Boulevard?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Yes; the fence actually is here. [Witness draws.]</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. You have now put&mdash;he is indicating the fence. And that is a
lattice or slat fence?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. That is a solid fence there. And then it is latticed along the
alley.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Which way does the front of General Walker's house face&mdash;on
Turtle Creek Boulevard?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. On Turtle Creek.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. All right. That will be helpful to us. We will just set that
exhibit aside for the moment.</p>

<p>Some of these photographs I am now about to show you&mdash;I now show you
a photograph, Commission Exhibit No. 5, Item No. 369. Do you recognize that?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Yes, I do. It is a photo of the back of General Walker's home.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. All right. Now, returning to your plat, Commission Exhibit No.
1005, is that the side of General Walker's house that faces the church?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. No.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. It is the side&mdash;is it the side that faces Dr. Jackson's home?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. No.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Is it the side that faces onto or toward Turtle Creek Boulevard?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. No; it is not.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Is it the side that faces toward the alley which you have drawn
on Commission Exhibit No. 1005?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Yes; it is.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Now, first, you do see the automobile?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Yes; I have seen this photo before. Mr. Barrett of the FBI in
Dallas brought this to my attention.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Do you recognize the automobile?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Not positively, but I think it belongs to Mr. Charles Klihr.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. And who is Mr. Charles Klihr?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. He is a volunteer worker of Mr. Walker's, also.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Are you sufficiently familiar with Mr. Charles Klihr's automobile&mdash;you
already identified <span class="locked">it&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. No; I did not identify it. I cannot do that, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. To the best of your ability is all I am suggesting, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Yes; but located at or about in the vicinity of that black spot?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. I would say to the best of my knowledge; yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Thank you, sir. Were you at General Walker's home the evening
of the attempted assassination, or attempt on his life?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Yes, I was. After the shot. I was not there at the time.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. How soon after the shot were you there?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. About 15 minutes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. How did you become aware that there had been an attempt
on his life?</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_438" id="Page_438">438</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. He called me on the telephone at my home.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. And how far did you live from General Walker's home?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. About 2 miles.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. And you immediately drove over there?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. What kind of an automobile do you own and drive?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. A 1961 Ford convertible.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. And did you arrive at his home in that convertible?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Yes, I did.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. What time of the day or night was this?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. This was about 9 to 9:30 in the evening.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. What day? I mean date.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. April 10th.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. What year?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. 1963.</p>

<p>Excuse me. This is 1964, isn't it.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. So this <span class="locked">would&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Was this a year ago?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. It would be 1963, yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. I have marked a series of photographs as Commission Exhibits
Nos. 1006 through 1012.</p>

<p>(The photographs referred to were marked Commission Exhibits Nos. 1006
through 1012, respectively, for identification.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. These purport to be photographs of portions and places in&mdash;both
inside and outside General Walker's home relating to the incident in question.</p>

<p>Would you be good enough to take them seriatim, identify them by exhibit
<span class="locked">number&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Take them how?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Seriatim, in series&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. From the direction the shot came?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. And the marring on the molding of the window is the point of
the screen and the window through which the bullet came?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Did you examine that that evening?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Yes; I did.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Did you see the breach in the casement which is depicted on
Commission Exhibit No. 1006?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Yes; I did. What is this in the back? Do you happen to know?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. No; I don't. But I think I can bring it out. These photographs,
I think, were taken fairly recently.</p>

<p>Have you been at General Walker's house in the last couple of weeks?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Yes; I have.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. I don't believe it has.</p>

<p>That looks like a stack of cardboard back there. I am not familiar with it.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Yes; it looks like heavy asbestos, or some wood out in the yard.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. I am not familiar with that.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Now, look at Exhibit No. 1007.</p>

<p>Excuse me&mdash;the photograph Exhibit No. 1006 represents that casement in
its present condition?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Yes, sir; to the best of my knowledge.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. And also as it was when you saw it that night, April 10?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. No; the window was closed when I saw it that night.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_439" id="Page_439">439</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. But the breach in the molding is the same on this photograph
as it was when you saw it that night?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. That is correct.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. <span class="locked">And&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. It shows the same breach allegedly caused by a <span class="locked">bullet&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. That is shown on Exhibit 1006?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Yes; I seem to recall more cobwebbing effect than it shows
in the photograph.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Exhibit No. 1008 purports to be a room in General Walker's home,
and a wall with a bullet hole shown in it.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Do you recognize that room?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Yes; I do.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. And is that a picture of one of the rooms in General Walker's
home?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Yes; it is.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Where is it with respect to the room shown in Commission
Exhibit No. 1007?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. It is the same room.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. The same room?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Yes; all this material has been turned around, from that night.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. You are referring in your last comment to Commission Exhibit
No. 1007, some pamphlet materials you see shown in that photograph?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. It is the other wall, the other side of the room from the window.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Is that the wall in which the bullet entered, or the wall, the
side of the wall from which the bullet exited?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. That is the side of the wall that it entered.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. All right. Then I show you Commission Exhibit No. 1009.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Yes; this is the next room now where the bullet exited.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. That is correct.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. In other words, the side of the wall that the bullet exited?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. That is correct.</p>

<p>Now, this picture was taken at the time, or soon thereafter, because this material
was in this position.</p>

<p>(At this point, Senator Cooper withdrew from the hearing room.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. All right, sir.</p>

<p>You are able to say, from your familiarity with the condition of matters on
the evening of April 10, 1963, that both Commission <span class="locked">exhibits&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. No; that one I don't know.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Substantially the same; yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. And even including the boxes and packages of material?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. That is correct.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_440" id="Page_440">440</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. You will notice in substantially the center of that exhibit a
rupture appears to be in the wall. Was that in fact a rupture?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. I believe it is the same type of thing as is in back of Walker's
home, in the alleyway.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Is it not in fact a picture of the fence that is&mdash;surrounds to the
rear General Walker's home?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. I don't know. It is the same type, it looks the same.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. It looks the same to you?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Yes; I drew it too far. This is Jackson's back yard.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Well, that is all right. The lattice fence you <span class="locked">identified&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Is of the same type and construction.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. As shown on Exhibit No. 1011?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. All right, sir. Thank you. Is the area depicted on Commission
Exhibit No. 1012 familiar to you?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. It looks like a picture taken from the top of that lattice fence
towards the back of Walker's home.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. 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 <span class="locked">see&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Yes; there was.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. To find some identification in the way of automobile tire impressions?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. It is my impression that the police were looking primarily for
a casing from a shell. I did not see them take <span class="locked">any&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. So that the particular portion of the Walker vicinity shown
on Commission Exhibit No. 1010 is not familiar to you?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. I wouldn't know where it was in the area.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Those have all been formally introduced, Mr. Jenner?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. 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.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Yes; very well.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Thank you. Some of the exhibits the witness has identified have
already been introduced. They were exhibited to Marina Oswald.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Yes; I recall.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Would you help us, also&mdash;I hand you a map of Dallas, which
we will mark Commission Exhibit No. 1013&mdash;or I should correct myself&mdash;I hand
you what purports to be a map of Dallas.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 1013 for
identification.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Yes; that is correct. That is the area.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. That is a scale map of Dallas that appears to have been obtained
from the Dallas Transit Co. in Dallas, Tex.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Now, you received a telephone call from General Walker?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. The evening of April 10. It was about 9 o'clock? Please try to
fix that time as accurately as you can.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. I would say it was closer to 9:15.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_441" id="Page_441">441</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. And you arrived 15 minutes later?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. 10 to 15 minutes later.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Now, would you very carefully, calling on your most accurate
recollection, recite for us&mdash;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&mdash;just
the course of events as best you are able to recall them that evening. And
I will try not to interrupt you.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. When I pulled&mdash;I pulled up in front on Turtle Creek, got out of
my car. A police car was there.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Was there anything in addition to a police car?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. No.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. You pulled your car up on Turtle Creek Boulevard?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Behind the police car.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Would you be good enough, when you refer to Turtle Creek
Boulevard, to say boulevard, because we have talked about Turtle Creek, a
stream.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Turtle Creek Boulevard.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. There was one squad car there at that time?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Yes; just as I was getting out of the car, another squad car
came up.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. I parked and got out of my automobile, and walked up the front
walkway into the house.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. I see. All right.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. There were several policemen in the house, just arriving. Mr.
Walker was sitting at his desk in this back room.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. All right.</p>

<p>Now it will be helpful to the Commission&mdash;let's take this blank sheet of
paper&mdash;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.</p>

<p>(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 1014 for
identification.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. This is the ground floor.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Yes; it is.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. So that the lower portion is east?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Do we need these directions exactly, because that Turtle Creek
Boulevard winds all around.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. All I want to do is tie it up with Commission Exhibit No. 1005.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Yes; it is the same direction.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. And the top a westerly direction. And the right, northerly, and
the left, southerly. All right. Now, we have it located.</p>

<p>Which is the doorway into General Walker's home?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. This is the&mdash;this is the front door. [Witness draws.]</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. You have now put two oblique lines on the line facing southerly.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. That is correct.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. And then as you enter, there is a long hallway.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. And which is the rear of the house towards the alley?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Toward the north.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. 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?</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_442" id="Page_442">442</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. His desk was positioned right there.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. And from what you learned from General Walker on that occasion
in the presence of the policemen, was he seated at the desk?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. He was seated at his desk.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. His back to the window you have drawn, or facing the window?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. To the window.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. So he was facing to the window?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. No; his back was to the window.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. He was facing away from the window?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. And you have drawn a little circle by the figure representing
a desk, indicating where General Walker was seated?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. And facing westerly?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Now, locate for us, put a circle with a cross, the wall, the side
of the wall indicated by Commission Exhibit No. 1008.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. It is right here, sir. [Witness draws.]</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. 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&mdash;the wall shown on Commission
Exhibit No. 1009, I take it, is precisely the other side.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. The other side.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. You have done that by showing an area?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. All right. Then we have that located.</p>

<p>Did General Walker in your presence relate what occurred?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Tell us what he said about how it occurred, when he became
aware of it?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. I walked in the front door, and there were several policemen
standing around in various areas. I walked in through here.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. When you say "through here" [witness draws two lines to represent
<span class="locked">door.]&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Through the <span class="locked">front&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. You came in from the south, the front, and you went down the
hallway?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. It is not really a hallway. It is mostly glass doors here. And
I walked through those glass doors.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. You have put three strikes on your sketch. What is that?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Those are glass doors.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. You walked through the glass doorway. You walked into the
room, the wall of which is shown on Commission Exhibit No. 1009. Correct?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. That is right.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. All right.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. And I went right through this room.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Into the room in which General Walker's desk is located?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. The wall of which on that side appears shown on Commission
Exhibit No. 1008?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. That is correct.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. All right.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. The General was sitting at his desk.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. When you arrived?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. When I arrived.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Was he <span class="locked">facing&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. He <span class="locked">was&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Westerly?</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_443" id="Page_443">443</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Shown on Commission Exhibit No. 1008?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Yes. And I facetiously said, "Oh, you found a bug."</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Would you explain your facetious remark? I don't get the
fact that it is facetious.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Well, actually, it may not be. It is a common joke around the
General's house that there may be microphones.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. That kind of a bug?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Yes; and, therefore, had chopped a hole in the wall.</p>

<p>And he said, "No; I have been shot at." And he pointed to the hole in the
window.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Which is shown on Commission Exhibits Nos. 1007 and 1006?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. That is correct. Except the window was closed at this time&mdash;both
casements were together.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Yes; and there is a screen on that window?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. I believe there is.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. All right.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. And <span class="locked">then&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Yes. I will mark it with an "A" and a circle.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Good.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. And then a policeman asked him a question, and I noticed that
his arm was bleeding.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. General Walker's arm?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. General Walker's arm, was bleeding in four or five places.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. How was he dressed?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. In a dress shirt of a color, as I recall, but it was not a sport
shirt&mdash;and slacks.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. It was not a uniform of any character?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. No; and without a tie.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Short sleeved or long sleeved?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Long sleeved, rolled up.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. And his right arm, was it?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. His right arm, yes; on his forearm. <span class="locked">And&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Was he bleeding profusely?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. No. And he said "The jacket of the bullet must have come apart
when it went through the window." And he brushed plaster&mdash;I assume it came
from this wall&mdash;out of his hair, which was in his hair, also.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. What color hair does General Walker have?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Brown; a dark brown.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. He has a fairly full head of hair, does he?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. And plaster and that sort of thing would be quite apparent,
would it, to anyone who saw it in his hair?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. And you noticed it?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. And you noticed him brushing plaster out of his hair?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. You mean how high is the <span class="locked">hole&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. From the floor.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. 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.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_444" id="Page_444">444</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. And when Walker sat down at his desk, it went right through his
head.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. So he was seated on a chair substantially the height of the one
you are seated on?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Yes, and he is approximately a little taller than I am.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. He is a little taller than you are. So that would be about 4,
4½ feet.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. I would say 18 inches.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. He was that close?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. To the wall there; yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. So that the representation you have made on Commission Exhibit
No. 1014 is distorted?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Yes; it is. The desk was right up against the wall, and he was
seated in the middle of the desk.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. His chair was much closer to the wall than would appear to have
been as you have roughly diagramed on Exhibit No. 1014?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. That is correct.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. All right. Proceed, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. And what was done with those pieces of metal?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. They were&mdash;I believe the police took them.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. But you recall that you, in fact, yourself took the pieces of metal
from General Walker's right forearm?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. And&mdash;all right. Go ahead, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Is that what you did next, after you took the metal out of General
Walker's forearm?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. You immediately went out of the <span class="locked">house&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Not immediately; no. We talked. I would say within 2 or 3
minutes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. But you did not go into any other room? That is what I am
getting at first. You went outside first?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. I don't recall if we went in the other room then or later on.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. When you say the other room, it is the room opposite the one and
to the left of the one shown on your <span class="locked">diagram&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. As I recall, I merely looked around the separation here when
they said that the bullet came clear through into the other room.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Who said that?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. One of the policemen.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. And did you go around and look then?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. I just looked around the doorway; yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. What did you find when you looked around&mdash;what did you see?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. I saw these books stacked, as shown in this picture.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Identify the picture, please.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Exhibit No. 1009.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Had&mdash;you mentioned a bullet as having been found.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_445" id="Page_445">445</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Yes, the policeman said he had found that bullet, on top of the
packages.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Shown in Exhibit No. 1009?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Was that portion of the bullet exhibited to you on that occasion?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. No.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. You did not see it?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. No.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Was the statement that the bullet had been found on the opposite
side of that wall made in the presence of General Walker?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. What did General Walker say when that statement was made in
his presence, if anything?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. I don't recall that he made any statement.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Did he say anything about where the spent bullet had been
found?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Not at that time, no. Not to me.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Well, did he say it to an officer in your presence?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Not that I recall.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Was it uttered by him at all in your presence on that evening?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Not that I recall.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. That is, that the spent bullet had been found on the opposite
side of the wall next to which he had been sitting?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. No; I think the policeman said it, and that is all that was said.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. But it was said in General Walker's presence?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Yes; it was.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. What did the policeman say?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. He said the bullet went clean through the wall and they found
it laying on the packages in the other room.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Did he say they found it or "I found it"?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. He said, "I found it" as I recall.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Proceed in your chronology, please.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. That is all there was to it. Then he started getting calls from
newsmen, and newsmen coming to the door.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. First, you went out and looked around the premises.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Yes; but it was quite dark at this time, and they said, "We will
come back in the morning."</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. I should have asked you this. Perhaps I just assumed it. Was
it dark when you arrived at General Walker's home?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Yes; it was.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. When does it get dark in Dallas, Tex., in this area in the spring?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. I would say 7.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Do you have daylight saving time in Dallas?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. No; we don't.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. And you are on what time?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Central standard.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Central standard time?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. <span class="locked">Well&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. It is 2 hours from here.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Two hours from here when we have daylight savings.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. You have daylight saving now?</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Only 1 hour then.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. After looking around, you say newspapermen began to come.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. That is right.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. And interview General Walker?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. In your presence?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. And in the presence of the policemen?</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_446" id="Page_446">446</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. When did you leave General Walker's home that night?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. I stayed that night.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Did you hear General Walker being interviewed?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. What did he say about what had occurred, if anything?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. 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&mdash;"That is the closest I have ever been missed in 30 years
of military service."</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Did he say anything about whether he was seated&mdash;whether he
had been moving about?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. No; he said he had been seated at his desk when it happened.
Working on his income tax.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Now, Mr. Surrey, was there an occasion preceding October&mdash;April
10, 1963, that you noticed an automobile and some people in the automobile
in and about General Walker's premises?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Yes; that was 2 nights before, on Monday evening.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. That would be April 10?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. I mean April 8, I am sorry.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. April 8; yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. What time?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. About 8:30 to 9. I am not sure about what time it was.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. I take it, then, it was dark?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Yes; it was.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. And tell the Commission what led up to that, what you said, and
what you did. This incident that you have in mind.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Have we put Avondale into your plat? You are now turning to
Commission Exhibit No. 1005. [Witness draws.]</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. The normal route into the parking lot behind the general's
<span class="locked">house&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. He does have a parking lot?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Yes; this is the parking area back in here.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Now, would you crossline that, so we know it is the parking
lot? [Witness draws.]</p>

<p>That is fine.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. 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&mdash;about 20 yards
<span class="locked">actually&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. 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?</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. What is this designed to establish, Mr. Jenner? We are
getting a little afield, it seems to me.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Mr. Surrey, Mr. Chief Justice, was interviewed and related this
particular incident, and we want to dissipate any possibility&mdash;I don't want to
put it this <span class="locked">way&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. 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.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. All right.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. I show you an exhibit marked Garner Exhibit No. 1. At anytime<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_447" id="Page_447">447</a></span>
prior to April 10, 1963, were you familiar with the person who is shown
on Garner Exhibit No. 1?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. No.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. When I say familiar, I mean did you know of or had you seen
consciously a person with that physiognomy and physical appearance?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. No; I have not.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. That is a side view.</p>

<p>I show you Commission Exhibit No. 520. The man in the center&mdash;had you
prior to April 10, 1963, ever seen a man with that physiognomy, facial showing,
and body?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. No.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. All right, sir. I take it, then&mdash;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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. I don't believe either of them was.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. All right.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. May I ask&mdash;is this what you spoke of as the book?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. I notice on here that there is no price of any kind. You
say you sold this for $5?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. That was an afterthought. The original intent was not a sale.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Was it ever advertised to the public as for sale from $5?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Where was it advertised?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. In just a flier that we included with some materials we were
mailing out.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. I see. I would like to ask you if you were present when&mdash;at
the time that they had&mdash;that there was the demonstration against Ambassador
Adlai Stevenson?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. No; I was not.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Did you have anything to do with that demonstration?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. No, sir.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Were you present when the demonstration was against then
Vice President Johnson in Dallas?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. No, sir.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Did you have anything to do with that?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. No, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Mr. Chief Justice, we have marked the book as Commission
Exhibit No. 1015.</p>

<p>(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 1015 for
identification.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Yes, sir; it is.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. What did it cost you to publish that?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. It came to $2.50 and some cents. In a limited quantity&mdash;3,000.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Do you now propose to offer all of the exhibits?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Yes; I have three more FBI photos, and then I will have completed.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Very well.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. 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?</p>

<p>(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 997 for
identification.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Looking now at the face of the photograph, Commission Exhibit
No. 997, does&mdash;do the inscriptions on the reverse side correctly describe that
area of General Walker's home and the Mormon church references?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Yes; they do.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_448" id="Page_448">448</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. You are familiar with that area?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Yes; I am.</p>

<p><span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. That is correct.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. I hand you Commission Exhibit No. 1016.</p>

<p>(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 1016 for
identification.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Read the inscription on the reverse side, please. You are familiar
with that area shown on the photograph?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Yes; I am.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Do the descriptions on the reverse side of the photograph correctly
describe that area?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. With the exception that I do not know these cars and so forth.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. I am talking about the area.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. The physical area; yes, they do.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. And that area looks the same today as it did on the evening of
April 10, or the day of April 10, 1963?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. 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.</p>

<p>(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 1017 for
identification.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Yes, sir; these are substantially correct.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. As of today, as well as as of April 10, 1963?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. All right.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. They may all be admitted under those numbers.</p>

<p>(The documents heretofore marked Commission Exhibits Nos. 996 through
1000 and 1002 through 1017 were received in evidence.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. That includes, Mr. Chief Justice, the diagrams which the witness
has prepared for us.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. 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?</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. I will do it very quickly.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Who is Mr. Coleman? Do you know a man by that name?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Not personally.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Walker Kirk Coleman.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. That is immaterial to this issue.</p>

<p>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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Not to my knowledge. I never was very close to them.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Were you able to&mdash;what kind of an automobile was it, do you
know?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. It was a Ford, a new Ford at that time.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Sedan?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Four-door sedan.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. And it was new?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. To your knowledge, have you ever seen that automobile before
or since?</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_449" id="Page_449">449</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. No, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. What color was it, if you noticed?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. It was either a dark brown or a maroon.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. You followed it awhile and then gave up the chase?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. That is correct. Actually, they made a turn which&mdash;I am
familiar with downtown Dallas&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. I will close, Mr. Chief Justice, by asking the witness&mdash;was the
Mormon church in session? Had there <span class="locked">been&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. There had been services.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. The evening of April 10?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. They were still dispersing.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. When you arrived at approximately 9:30 in the evening of April
10, were people still leaving the Mormon church?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Surrey</span>. Yes; they were.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. I have no more questions.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. That will be all, Mr. Surrey. You may be excused now.</p>

<p>The Commission is adjourned.</p>

<p>(Whereupon, at 12:20 p.m., the President's Commission recessed.)</p>

<hr />
<h2><span class="smaller"><a name="Thursday_June_18_1964" id="Thursday_June_18_1964"><i>Thursday, June 18, 1964</i></a></span><br />
<span class="subhead">TESTIMONY OF JAMES J. ROWLEY AND ROBERT CARSWELL</span></h2>

<p>The President's Commission met at 9 a.m., on June 18, 1964, at 200 Maryland
Avenue NE., Washington, D.C.</p>

<p>Present were Chief Justice Earl Warren, Chairman; Senator John Sherman
Cooper, Representative Hale Boggs, Representative Gerald R. Ford, and Allen
W. Dulles, members.</p>

<p>Also present were J. Lee Rankin, general counsel; and Samuel A. Stern,
assistant counsel.</p>

<h2 id="jjr">TESTIMONY OF JAMES J. ROWLEY</h2>

<p>(Members present at this point: Chief Justice Earl Warren.)</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. The Commission will come to order.</p>

<p>Chief, it is our procedure to read a little statement as to the purpose of the
meeting, for the benefit of the witness.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Would you raise your right hand and be sworn?</p>

<p>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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. I do.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Will you be seated, please. Mr. Rankin will conduct the
examination.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_450" id="Page_450">450</a></span>
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.</p>

<p>Would that be satisfactory?</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. I think that is an appropriate way to proceed.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Chief Rowley, will you state your name and address for the
record, please?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. James J. Rowley, 3501 Rittenhouse Street NW., Washington, D.C.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Do you have an official position with the Government?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. I have, as Chief of the U.S. Secret Service.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. How long have you occupied that position?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. Since September 1, 1961.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. What is the nature of the duties of that position?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. The nature of the duties is the general overall supervision of the
activities of the Secret Service.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. And, in a general way, what is the official responsibility under
the statutes of the United States of the Secret Service?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Will you please tell us what experience you had with the Secret
Service prior to the time that you became chief.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. I was in charge of the White House detail from 1946 to 1961.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Now, will you tell us briefly the training that you had in regard
to Government Service?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. 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.</p>

<p>(At this point, Mr. Dulles entered the hearing room.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. What educational training did you have?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. Well, that would be part of my job&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Could you describe briefly the nature of Mr. Behn's responsibilities
in that work?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Did you become familiar with what did happen on that trip,
in your position as chief?</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_451" id="Page_451">451</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. What did you learn?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. I learned that there were nine agents involved at the Press
Club. And I might say this&mdash;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&mdash;from the time
they arrived, I would say roughly around 12:30, until the place closed at 2
o'clock.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Did you learn whether or not there were any violations of the
regulations of the Secret Service by these men?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. Yes; there was a violation. At that time there was a section in
our manual in effect that said that <span class="locked">during&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Will you give us first the number?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. Section 10.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Is that chapter 1, page 7?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. Chapter 1, page 7; yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Now, will you tell the Commission about what the regulation
was?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. "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."</p>

<p>The one that applies here&mdash;"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."</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. There were 9 men involved at the Press Club, and there were 10
men involved at the Cellar.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Now, how many men, of those 10 men, were in the Presidential
motorcade on the day of the assassination?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. Four&mdash;four men were in the followup car.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Who were they?</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_452" id="Page_452">452</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Do you know their names?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. Yes; Landis, Hill, Ready, and Bennett.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. How do you know that?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. From the reports that I got from their superiors.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Did you ever participate in such motorcades yourself?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. I have; yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. How much?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. Well, I have participated, in rough numbers, over a period of
22 years&mdash;roughly, maybe, a thousand or more.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Will you briefly describe the functions of the Secret Service
agents in connection with the President's car?</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Have you finished this other matter?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. No; I just wanted <span class="locked">to&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. All right. Go right ahead.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Now, when they come into a big crowd, they take it on foot, and at a little
jog, if necessary.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Now, what positions did the four men that you referred to that<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_453" id="Page_453">453</a></span>
were involved in the press club and the Cellar matter occupy on the day of the
assassination?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. Well, Mr. Ready occupied the right front, Mr. Landis to his
<span class="locked">rear&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. What do you mean by right front?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. Landis, if necessary, to jump off if the occasion demanded and take the
right front of the President's car.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. 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&mdash;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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. What about the other two?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. The other two were watching&mdash;they reacted normally&mdash;the man
on the left side looked to his left rear, and the man, Landis, looked to his right
rear.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Have you done anything to discipline these men for violation
of the regulations of the Secret Service?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. Well, I did consider what type of punishment would be provided.</p>

<p>Then I also considered the fact that these men in no way had&mdash;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&mdash;I didn't think this was fair, and that they did not
deserve that, with their family and children.</p>

<p>(At this point, Representative Ford entered the hearing room.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. May I ask one question there?</p>

<p>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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Who would cover straight ahead?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. The man in the front seat has that responsibility.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Chief Rowley, how do you construe subparagraph (c) of your
regulation 10 regarding the use of alcoholic liquors?</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_454" id="Page_454">454</a></span>
The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Will you read it for the record?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Will you kindly read it?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. "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."</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. How do you construe and apply that?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. Well, in this instance, it was wrong.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Now, were these men under this regulation considered to be on
travel status, so that they should not be using intoxicating liquor?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. And there is no question about that in your mind?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. No, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Has anything been done to reprimand and cause them to realize
that this is a violation of your regulations?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. Yes; that is what I have been reading here, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Mr. Chief Justice, I would like to offer as a part of the record
the regulation, Commission Exhibit No. 1018.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. It may he admitted.</p>

<p>(The document was marked for identification as Commission Exhibit No.
1018, and received in evidence.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. We had one in the last month. We had charges leveled at us
by an agent of the Secret <span class="locked">Service&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Will you tell us about that?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. 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.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. There is no reason to discuss that case here, Chief.</p>

<p>Is there anything in particular that would affect this situation you wanted to
know about, Mr. Rankin?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. 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.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_455" id="Page_455">455</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. Well, it ties in with the crime, because he said he was framed.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Had he ever made any complaint to you before?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. He had never made any complaint to me. It came as a complete
surprise.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. The complaint to you came subsequent to the filing of
criminal charges against him?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. I don't think that quite <span class="locked">answers&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. I am giving the background.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. I think the question is as to when you got the complaint.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. Well&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Before he left on this 30-day assignment?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. When he left to return to his office in Chicago.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. And what is the fact in that regard?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. The fact is he never informed me. He never informed any of
his supervisors or anyone on the detail.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Could I ask a question?</p>

<p>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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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&mdash;quite frequently
this occurs&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. But if they do not take that special examination, then&mdash;and become
a part of the civil service, then they have to be assigned to the White
House, to stay on?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. Yes.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_456" id="Page_456">456</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Is that by law or by regulation?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Chief, can you clarify Commissioner Dulles' inquiry? The Civil
Service does not direct that you put certain people in the White House?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. Oh, no; we do that in order to&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. But that is the choice of the Secret Service rather than anybody
else?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. I gather the Civil Service prescribed if they did not do this, they
could not be retained. Is that correct?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. That is right. In other <span class="locked">words&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. There is some pressure, I should think.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Maybe I can help, Chief. Schedule A is an exemption from the
regular civil service roster, is it not?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. That is correct.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. That is right.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. In other words, Civil Service Commission has set up for
the White House detail all <span class="locked">inclusive&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. Not necessarily for the White House detail, Mr. Ford. For the
Secret Service&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. In other words, every person recruited by Secret Service
for any capacity is recruited in the first instance under schedule A.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. Yes; if he hasn't&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. That is right; yes, sir. Most of them from your State, sir&mdash;Michigan
State University.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. It is a fine school.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. 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.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_457" id="Page_457">457</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Chief Rowley, I don't think you covered the Bolden matter as
to whether you had an investigation made. Did you?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. Yes; I did, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Did you find out anything about the conduct of your agents?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. I found out there was no truth to the charges of misconduct.
There were 11 charges lodged against us.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. What do you mean by that, Chief? Did they get a certain house
and were able to live together there to reduce their expenses?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. That is correct.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. And then they each contributed to that common expense?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. That is correct.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. And did someone cook for them?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. One of the agents who enjoyed it as a hobby cooked the meals
for them, while the others took care of the dishes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. They did contribute to supporting that?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. They contributed to supporting that, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Was there criticism of that action?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Now, were they on a travel status or subject <span class="locked">to&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. So it was really a summer White House position?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. Summer White House is what we called it.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. And did you investigate the charges to see whether they were
valid?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. I investigated. This portion was correct. There was some substance
to that portion.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Now, from your investigation, did you find any violation at
Hyannis of the regulations of the Secret Service?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. No, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Have you been informed of any other claims that Secret Service
agents had been violating the regulations while on duty?</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_458" id="Page_458">458</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Have you ever had a Secret Service agent indicted or a complaint
filed against him, a criminal complaint, prior to this time?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. This is the first time I remember anything like this happening
since I have been with the Secret Service.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. There was no reprimand. You are talking about the current
thing?</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. I am talking about the Dallas trip.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. So there was no official reprimand or disciplinary action?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. No, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Did you talk to the agents, to indicate and make it plain to them
that this was a violation of the regulations?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. I talked to some of the agents, as did my inspector at the time,
who interviewed each and every one of them.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. Well, I am confident that it would not happen again, Mr. Rankin.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Can you tell us why you think so?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. Because they realize the seriousness of their action.</p>

<p>Initially I can understand the situation&mdash;they thought they were going for
a dinner, buffet, and they got into the place and it wasn't there.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>But I am quite confident that we will not have a repetition of that.</p>

<p>And in talking to Mr. Behn&mdash;I am confident, too, in him&mdash;I know that he will
see to it that they are well supervised.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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&mdash;that is, subject to call?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. That is right.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_459" id="Page_459">459</a></span>
regulations is a violation, because they are subject to the call and must be ready
at any moment to perform their duties.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. They certainly do, because there have been situations, whether
or not they have had it with the Kennedy administration I don't know&mdash;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&mdash;as Mr. Dulles
knows, you never advertise your successes, you just get the other things&mdash;that
I would like to give you as an example off the record, to answer your question,
if I may.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Off the record.</p>

<p>(Discussion off the record.)</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Back on the record.</p>

<p>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&mdash;even a small amount of drinking&mdash;would be as alert the next day as men
should be when they are charged with the tremendous responsibility of protecting
the President.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. And they have submachineguns in one of the cars.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. No; for security reasons, I would like to&mdash;we don't have machine-guns
now, sir.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. I just thought I heard that from the record here, that they
had some kind of guns.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. They had a weapon, a new weapon; yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Well, whatever it is.</p>

<p>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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. If I remember that witness' testimony&mdash;and that was one of the
first statements that he made&mdash;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.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. 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.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. I am not talking about the past. We are talking about nine
men here who were out until rather unusual hours of the morning.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. They were to be on duty the next day.</p>

<p>The next day&mdash;or if not sooner.</p>

<p>The next day they were supposed to be alert to anything that might occur<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_460" id="Page_460">460</a></span>
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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. Yes, sir; but I don't believe they could have prevented the
assassination.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Isn't it a substantial violation of these rules to do a thing
of that kind?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. Yes, sir&mdash;on the basis of this section here.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. In this case, I talked to these three agents. They were relieved
at different times&mdash;because their posts are in the corridor of a stuffy <span class="locked">hotel&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Of the what?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. 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&mdash;it was a block&mdash;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.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Do you have any regulations concerning where they shall
remain when they are relieved for this short period of time?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. No, sir.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. They can go any place they want?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. No; not any place. They usually stay within the immediate
confines. That is understood. The hotel or the residence.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Well, they didn't do that here, did they?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. No, sir.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. They went to the beatnik joint.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Now, is that consistent with their duty?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. 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&mdash;particularly in hotels. This was not an air-conditioned hotel.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. 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.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. As I understood the report, they said they left for a coffee
break.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. Well, it is an expression. They left to have coffee, sir.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Was there any place for coffee in the hotel?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. I think there was a coffee shop in the hotel; yes, sir.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. 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.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. But they did there meet other agents?</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_461" id="Page_461">461</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. They saw other agents&mdash;those that were in the place at the time
they looked in. I think they came in after most had left, though.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Were these men off duty for the night or were they going back
on duty immediately after this break?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. No; they were on duty. They were the midnight shift, Mr.
Dulles, from 12 to 8 a.m.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. They were going back on duty?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. They were going back on duty; yes, sir; in 10 minutes, 15
minutes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. I see.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. And they did go back on duty and relieve somebody subsequent
to this?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. That is right; yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. And is that letter correct in regard to what happened as far as
you know?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. And did you make available to the Commission the statements
of each agent signed by the agent?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. I think you said Dallas. Did you not mean Fort Worth?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Yes&mdash;it should be Fort Worth, I am sorry. Thank you.</p>

<p>I hand you Commission Exhibit No. 1019 and ask you if that is your letter of
May 5 that we have just referred to.</p>

<p>(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 1019 for
identification.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Mr. Chairman, I offer in evidence Commission Exhibit No. 1019.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. It may be admitted.</p>

<p>(The document heretofore marked for identification as Commission Exhibit
No. 1019, was received in evidence.)</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Chief, I notice in the report that was made that while your
inspector found that no one&mdash;no member of the Secret Service was intoxicated
at the club&mdash;but that there was someone connected with the group who was
intoxicated.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. 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."</p>

<p>Did you call that to the attention of your people?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. Yes, sir. They ran into that individual as they were entering&mdash;two
agents ran into this individual as they were entering the Fort Worth Club.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Go ahead.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Chief Rowley, I hand you Commission Exhibit No. 1020, and
ask you if that is a document that you had prepared for the Commission.</p>

<p>(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 1020 for
identification.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. That is right.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_462" id="Page_462">462</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. And are those various documents a part of the official report by
the Secret Service to the Commission of this matter?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Mr. Chairman, I offer in evidence Commission Exhibit No. 1020.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. It may be so admitted.</p>

<p>(The document heretofore marked for identification as Commission Exhibit
No. 1020, was received in evidence.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Off the record, may I ask a question?</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>(Discussion off the record.)</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Back on the record.</p>

<p>Chief, I notice&mdash;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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. 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.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Has there been any report made to the Commission to the
effect that there was any violation <span class="locked">of&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. No, sir; unless it is contained in this document here, sir.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Mr. Chairman, I plan to leave that subject now&mdash;unless there
is some further question.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Any further questions?</p>

<p>Very well.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Chief Rowley, will you tell us whether you learned anything
about the preparations in Dallas for the visit of the President on November 22?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. Yes; I read the report of Special Agent Lawson, who was designated
as the advance agent for that visit.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. And do you know that that report has been furnished to us?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. A copy of it.</p>

<p>And have you examined it to determine whether it is accurate, as far as you
can determine?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. It is accurate; yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Do you have any additions or corrections?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. No; I have no corrections to make, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Were you&mdash;are you satisfied, now examining that report, with
the manner in which the advance preparations for the trip of the President
were handled?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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?</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_463" id="Page_463">463</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. 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&mdash;particularly in the area of the advance men.</p>

<p>But in Dallas we had sufficient agents with prior experience in Presidential
protection who assisted Mr. Lawson in the advance preparations.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Did you furnish to the Commission a statement of the preparations
that were made for the trip?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. And that included the various protective activities, did it?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. I hand you Commission Exhibit No. 1021, and ask you if that
is the report you made in regard to the trip.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 1021 for
identification.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Do you have any corrections or additions that you care to make
to it?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. No, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Mr. Chairman, I offer in evidence Commission Exhibit No.
1021.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. It may be admitted.</p>

<p>(The document heretofore marked for identification as Commission Exhibit
No. 1021, was received in evidence.)</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Chief, I have wondered about this question. Some months
before Ambassador Adlai Stevenson had been handled very roughly in Dallas.
Did you make&mdash;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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. 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.</p>

<p>(At this point, Representative Boggs entered the hearing room.)</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Did they do the same thing concerning the incident that Vice
President Johnson had a year or so before that?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. 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.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. I see.</p>

<p>But you did do it with the Stevenson matter?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. That is right.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Chief Rowley, did you make a report to the Commission with
regard to the publicity concerning the trip of the President?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. And is Commission Exhibit No. 1022 that report?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 1022 for
identification.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Do you wish to make any additions or corrections of that letter?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. Of that letter? No.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Mr. Chairman, I offer in evidence Commission Exhibit No. 1022.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. It may be admitted.</p>

<p>(The document heretofore marked for identification as Commission Exhibit
No. 1022, was received in evidence.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_464" id="Page_464">464</a></span>
and might make the work of the Secret Service and others who are doing protective
work more difficult.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Could you tell the Commission what the problem is in that
regard?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>But these are the things that are hard in security, as far as developing a close
screen on the President.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Is the Protective Research Section of the Secret Service under
your direction, too?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. Yes, sir; that is part of the White House area, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Are you familiar with the testimony of Robert Bouck concerning
that Section?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Do you know whether that accurately describes the conduct of
that Section?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Did the Secret Service have a written communication to other
intelligence agencies as to the criteria for information that they sought?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. At that time?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Yes; at that time.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. No; it was more or less of an informal arrangement that we
had with the agencies, as we developed the Section.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Will you tell the Commission what the standard was that you
told the agencies you would like to have information concerning?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Did you know that this standard only developed about 400 names
from all over the country?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. And that it produced none in the immediate Dallas vicinity?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. That is right.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Now, have you done anything about that standard since the
assassination?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. Well, we have had a complete reexamination of the Protective
Research Section.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Can you <span class="locked">describe&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_465" id="Page_465">465</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 1023 for
identification.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Does it accurately state that criteria?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. Yes, sir; it does.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Mr. Chairman, I offer in evidence Commission Exhibit No. 1023.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. It may be admitted.</p>

<p>(The document heretofore marked for identification as Commission Exhibit
No. 1023, was received in evidence.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. If I may <span class="locked">read&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Would you tell us the gist of the new criteria, and what the
difference is as you conceive it from the old standard?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. 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."</p>

<p>Another thing today now that we have to concern ourselves with, is that we
get an expanding file of information.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Has that happened since the assassination?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Now, how is the standard described in Exhibit No. 1023 different
from the prior standard?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. And these are in addition to the threat of harm to the President?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. That is correct.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. All right, proceed.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. 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.</p>

<p>"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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_466" id="Page_466">466</a></span>
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."</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Now, is the Secret Service operating under the standard or
criteria described in Exhibit No. 1023 at the present time?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. At the present time, it is, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. And when did that become effective?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. That became effective in the last 3 weeks as we developed and
explored and examined the many reports that we were receiving.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. 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&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. In connection with the PRS?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. Well, we have conferred with the IBM. Can I go off the record
on this?</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>(Discussion off the record.)</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Back on the record.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Do you know how many such cases you now have?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. Approximately a thousand.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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&mdash;that
is, whether you made inspection of adjacent buildings?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. At that time, and prior to that time, except for the inaugurations<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_467" id="Page_467">467</a></span>
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&mdash;if I
may read this.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. "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.</p>

<p>"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.</p>

<p>"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."</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. There has been a change in this regard.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. I will not make an inquiry about that, unless the Commission
wishes to go into it off the record.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Is it my understanding that the Commission has such
documents that we could analyze ourselves as to these changes?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. I don't think we have any report of this.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Boggs</span>. Why can't we get it off the record?</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. All right.</p>

<p>(Discussion off the record.)</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Back on the record.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Chief Rowley, did you give <span class="locked">us&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Could I ask one question with regard to Exhibit No. 1023?</p>

<p>This, as I understand it, is the new specifications with regard to persons
with respect to whom you wish to have alert information.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. 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"&mdash;and
that is the interest of the suspect, I <span class="locked">assume&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. "The interest must be towards the President, or others named,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_468" id="Page_468">468</a></span>
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."</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>And this is an example of what we were trying to include in the area of this
type of individual. Now, the other <span class="locked">people&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. But that was not a threat directed against the President. That
was directed against the Secretary of the Navy.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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&mdash;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&mdash;particularly, to the President. They use that father complex, as indicated
in the research work that these different agencies have submitted to us.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Under these criteria, which you are now following,
Oswald would have been designated? Is that your judgment?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. That is correct; yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. 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&mdash;the President personally, or even
afterward.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. 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&mdash;of course, that wasn't
known.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. It would not, unless it was furnished by the Navy Department
or Secretary of the Navy's office.</p>

<p>Just like you gentlemen get letters that never come to our attention. But<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_469" id="Page_469">469</a></span>
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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. It could. In this case it would be a help. But they refer all
their complaints to the FBI. Threats of this kind.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. The State?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. The Governors do in most cases. So that the FBI under this
system would bring it to our attention.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. I would think, Mr. Rowley, this might be subject to misinterpretation
as being rather narrower than you suggest.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. Well, this is something&mdash;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.</p>

<p>(At this point, Senator Cooper entered the hearing room.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 1024 for
identification.)</p>

<p>(At this point, Mr. Dulles withdrew from the hearing room.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Mr. Chairman, I offer in evidence Commission Exhibit No. 1024.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. It may be admitted.</p>

<p>(The document heretofore marked for identification as Commission Exhibit
No. 1024, was received in evidence.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Very well.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. I will hand you Commission Exhibit No. 1025, and ask you if
that is your transmittal letter with the statements attached.</p>

<p>(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 1025 for
identification.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Mr. Chairman, I offer in evidence Commission Exhibit No. 1025.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. It may be admitted.</p>

<p>(The document heretofore marked for identification as Commission Exhibit
No. 1025, was received in evidence.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Do you know why there was no one riding on the rear step at
the time of the assassination?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. 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,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_470" id="Page_470">470</a></span>
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.</p>

<p>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&mdash;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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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&mdash;the action
of the President. Then he responded immediately. That is why he got up to the
President's car.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Has it ever been the practice of the Secret Service to have an
agent ride all of the time on the back step?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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&mdash;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.</p>

<p>So those are the different things that occur in a given situation.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. No President will tell the Secret Service what they can or cannot
do.</p>

<p>(At this point, Representative Boggs withdrew from the hearing room.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. 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.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Yes.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_471" id="Page_471">471</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Chief Rowley, did you give us a report of the activities in protecting
the President at and around Parkland Hospital?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. And is that Commission Exhibit No. 1026?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 1026 for
identification.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Mr. Chairman, I offer in evidence Commission Exhibit No. 1026.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. It may be admitted.</p>

<p>(The document heretofore marked for identification as Commission Exhibit
No. 1026, was received in evidence.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Do you have any additions or corrections you care to make in
that exhibit?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. No, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Chief Rowley, did you give us a report about protective activity
subsequent to Dallas on behalf of the Secret Service?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. I will hand you Commission Exhibit No. 1027 and ask you if
that is the report that you have just referred to.</p>

<p>(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 1027 for
identification.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Chief Rowley, I ask you, are there any problems with regard to
Commission Exhibit No. 1027 concerning security, and whether that should be&mdash;that
document should be made public? You just take your time if you want to
glance over it.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. No; as I read it, it is general enough, sir, that it can be included.</p>

<p>(At this point, Mr. Dulles entered the hearing room.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Mr. Chairman, I offer in evidence Commission Exhibit No. 1027.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. It may be admitted.</p>

<p>(The document heretofore marked for identification as Commission Exhibit
No. 1027, was received in evidence.)</p>

<p>(At this point, Representative Boggs entered the hearing room.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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?</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. No; not at this time.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. May I ask a question there?</p>

<p>You consider that the criteria as now furnished by you to the FBI and other
investigative agencies would cover a case like Oswald's?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. You think they would?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. You think they understand that?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. Well, as we stated in the covering letter when we sent this
out&mdash;we haven't gotten any reaction&mdash;we asked for their cooperation and suggestions
in connection with such guidelines.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Defectors are not specifically covered, are they, by your criteria?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Chief <span class="locked">Rowley&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Boggs</span>. May I ask a question there?</p>

<p>Would you have any notion as to why names of defectors were not provided
to you prior to November 22?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. Yes; under the broad picture, Mr. Congressman, there was no<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_472" id="Page_472">472</a></span>
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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Boggs</span>. This fellow was interviewed by the FBI several times&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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?</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Boggs</span>. Well, that is right.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. And then you get in the area of civil rights and all, if you start
going into <span class="locked">individuals&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Boggs</span>. And if I remember correctly, there has never been&mdash;we
have had no testimony from anyone that Oswald ever threatened the President
of the United States. Is that correct?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. That is correct.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Boggs</span>. That was the only question I had.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. That is right. Well, this has been so with loners, too.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. No, no, sir; not unless we <span class="locked">had&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. Since the assassination?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. Not unless we had these three categories of factors we just
enunciated.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. I would suggest&mdash;first, I understand there are not many defectors
who have returned to the United States.</p>

<p>Secondly, it seems to me a man who has defected from the United States to<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_473" id="Page_473">473</a></span>
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.</p>

<p>I would think that fact alone would make it important to watch his activities
when he came back.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Boggs</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Boggs</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. That is correct.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Boggs</span>. And you must necessarily keep a degree of secrecy
about the methods you employ.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. Yes, sir; otherwise they could develop countermethods, to thwart
anything we might set up.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Boggs</span>. Exactly. Thank you very much.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Chief Rowley, do you in the Secret Service obtain the benefit
of cooperation with other governmental agencies in the protection of the
President?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. We receive cooperation from every agency. If I may name a
few&mdash;we were scheduled to visit Puerto Rico in 1948 or 1947&mdash;I am not quite
certain&mdash;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.</p>

<p>(At this point, Representative Boggs withdrew from the hearing room.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>(Discussion off the record.)</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Back on the record.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. You know of that, do you?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. 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&mdash;a certain given figure&mdash;was to be used by the U.S. marshals to
assist the Secret Service.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Was the Secret Service opposed to that provision in the appropriation
act for the FBI?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. No; it has never opposed that provision over the years. I
started to say, Mr. Rankin&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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?</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_474" id="Page_474">474</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. Yes; that has to do with the codification, wherein it states that
the Attorney General will appoint&mdash;I think, in substance&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Is that a bill, Mr. Rankin, that is before the House Committee
on the Judiciary and the Senate Judiciary Committee?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. They are preparing it, and they asked for our opinions. It must
be now. This is a month or so ago, Mr. Ford.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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"&mdash;and then
in quotes below that, in (2) "to protect the person of the President" and&mdash;and
then it deals with other matters.</p>

<p>Now, will you tell why you have an objection to that? Just briefly summarize
it.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. Because of the long history of Presidential protection we have
been directed&mdash;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.</p>

<p>If anything happened like Dallas, we would get into an Alphonse and Gaston
pantomine.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. You would get into a jurisdictional dispute?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. That is right.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. And that is why you object?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. That is right.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. No objection at all.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Do you know how much in the way of funds have been
utilized through that provision?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. No; I would not know of my own knowledge, Congressman, because
that would be under the jurisdiction of the FBI and the Budget Bureau.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. In other words, they don't take money that they get
through their appropriation bill, and transfer it to the Secret Service?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. No.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. This is simply a provision which authorizes them to use
whatever funds they get for this purpose?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. That is correct.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. That is correct.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. And that is satisfactory?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. That is right. That is what we worked out.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. Yes; some 8 or 9 years ago, we evolved a relationship with the
Defense Department&mdash;I think more specifically in the last 4 years&mdash;a relationship
with the President's Scientific Advisor.</p>

<p>This is off the record.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Why, Chief?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. That has to do with national security.</p>

<p>(Discussion off the record.)</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Back on the record.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_475" id="Page_475">475</a></span>
or consultation with independent consultants, it would assist and in fact be
necessary to your work?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Mr. Rankin, is the letter of April 22, 1964, from Mr.
Rowley to you with the enclosures a Commission exhibit?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Yes; that has been offered. That is Commission Exhibit No.
1027.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. 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."</p>

<p>Could you define more particularly what you had in mind for these so-called
technical specialists?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. 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.</p>

<p>As I said earlier, I realize the shortcomings and the requirements which we
are operating under&mdash;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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>But now they have gotten so busy, as you well know, that they haven't got
much time to assist us.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. When you talk about technical specialists here, you are
referring to electronics specialists?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. You are not referring to a general research and development
program, however?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. No, sir; this confusion is why it was refused a year ago.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. Yes; but they would have been employed in something entirely
different.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. They wouldn't have had any relationship to the motorcade?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. No, sir. If I may go off the record.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Will you tell us why you are going off the record?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. Because it involves national security.</p>

<p>(Discussion off the record.)</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Back on the record.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. As I understand it, then, the deletion of these funds for<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_476" id="Page_476">476</a></span>
these technical specialists in fiscal year 1964 did not in any way handicap your
operation in Dallas at the time of the assassination?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. No; we have never said that. We are just saying that if we had
the equipment&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. 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&mdash;what they
have in the past and what you are suggesting they might be in the future.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Do you receive your appropriations in a lump sum or
how do you receive Secret Service appropriations?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. I guess it is on a warrant. When the warrant is <span class="locked">signed&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Your budget is included as a part of the Treasury
Department budget?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Now, do you have it in a separate part of the Treasury
Department budget?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Is it specifically earmarked for the Secret Service?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. It is; yes, sir.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. It is a lump sum for the Secret Service?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. That is a public appropriation, it is made public?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. That is correct; yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 1028 for
identification.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. I then offer in evidence Commission Exhibit No. 1028.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. It may be admitted.</p>

<p>(The document heretofore marked for identification as Commission Exhibit
No. 1028, was received in evidence.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Exhibit No. 1028, Chief Rowley, does include in this&mdash;so it will
be understandable to the Commission, the figures for your proposed budget of
1966, doesn't it?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. And those are shown in that manner on the exhibit?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Is the figure we see <span class="locked">here&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. This is what we call a tentative budget.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. That has been presented to the Budget Bureau?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. You said it has not been.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. No; this is a tentative proposal that we have made.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. At this stage, so we get the record clear&mdash;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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. That is right. But it does not include&mdash;necessarily, until we
complete our thorough examination&mdash;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.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_477" id="Page_477">477</a></span>
Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Well, the figure that is shown here for fiscal year 1965
is $7,550,000.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Is that the budget submission to the Congress?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. To the Congress; yes, sir.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. And do you recall what the House approved in its version
of the bill?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. $7,500,000. They cut $50,000.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Do you recall what the reduction was predicated on?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. No; I don't. I think it was just cut to a round figure.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. What is the footnote here which is entitled "Pending
action by the Senate"? Is that a $669,000 increase?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. That is right.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Is that a supplemental?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. No, no; we are just showing the increase&mdash;this has nothing to
do with the $669,000. We show&mdash;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&mdash;to the Senate
for approval.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. But there is an asterisk there.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. Yes; this is the 1965 budget. This figure that was reduced by
$50,000, by the House. Now, it goes before&mdash;for a markup&mdash;it will be placed
before the Senate for approval.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. It relates to the difference&mdash;the increase between 1965 and our
proposed budget of 1966. The asterisk here relates to the 586 positions.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. Yes; it represents the increase that we are asking for in the 1966
budget.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. You are not asking the Senate, though, to increase the House
figure of $7,500,000, by $669,000.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. 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&mdash;meaning that the House has passed
the 1965 budget, but the Senate has yet to pass it.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. But to clarify, there is no connection between the increased figure
and the fact that it is pending before the Senate?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. That is right. It happens to be on the same line.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. But there is no connection?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. No, sir.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. What you mean is the House has passed an appropriation of
$7,500,000, and the Senate has not yet acted upon it.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. That is correct.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. The $669,000 is an increase that you hope will be voted in the
next fiscal year.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. That is correct.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Do you present the budget yourself, or does the Secretary of the
Treasury, or someone else in the Treasury Department&mdash;present and defend it?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. The Secretary presents the overall Treasury budget, but then in
detail, we appear before the appropriations subcommittee ourselves to justify
our request.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. The Secret Service justifies its own request in the overall budget
of the Department of the Treasury?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_478" id="Page_478">478</a></span>
Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. 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."</p>

<p>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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. 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&mdash;you won't delay the submission of that request
just because of the fiscal year budget coming up for fiscal 1966?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. No, sir.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Because we do have, as you well know, supplemental
and deficiency appropriation bills.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. That is right.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. That is right. Because now as I understand it the same committee
handles the supplemental.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. That is correct.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. We are aware of that. That is what we would do when we
arrive at what our requirements would be.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. We can have your assurance that if you come up with
requirements, you won't wait for fiscal 1966 to make your submission.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. That is right.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. And you are seeking the help and advice of people that you have
named, such as the Rand Corp., and others?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. And do you have any estimate now that you can give the Commission
as to when you might have your estimates in that regard?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Now, following the evaluation and the processing of these reports, we will
determine just what we actually need in the way of manpower.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. You also have the problem of being able to get that material out
once you have it, don't you?</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_479" id="Page_479">479</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. That is right. And this is the point that we have to develop
with IBM, or, as I said initially, with the CIA.</p>

<p>Now, they have facilities that would be available to us, if it works.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. And you are going to present that to the Congress as soon as you
have something definite that you can support?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. That is right&mdash;in response to Congressman Ford's inquiry.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. And are there any other conditions or standards that you would
like to describe?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. May I inquire for one point? Is that a college education for the
White House detail?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>As a matter of fact, a good portion of them are agents in charge of our 65
offices throughout the country.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. 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&mdash;let's set a figure at 30&mdash;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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Is the FBI School open to any of your respective recruits?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. <span class="locked">Well&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. FBI Academy.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. How does your agent get into the Presidential protection?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. 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,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_480" id="Page_480">480</a></span>
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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. But your theory is that they should be able to be trained so that
they could be shifted to any part of the service?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. 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&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. That is correct.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. And I think it might be helpful for the record.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. We do not disclose the number of men on Presidential protection.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. I understand that. But you are familiar with the presentation
you might submit for your overall budget, including personnel?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. Right.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Can that not be submitted for our record, just as it is
submitted to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. I would not expect that it would.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. No; but the others can be.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask leave to secure a copy of that
and insert it in the record.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. It may be admitted when you obtain it.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. May I ask one other question, and then I have to leave?</p>

<p>In listening to the testimony, Chief Rowley, sometime ago, I was a little
concerned&mdash;more than a little, I should say&mdash;with the process by which the man
in charge of a Presidential trip undertakes his relationship with the local law
enforcement agencies.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>But it seems to me that a more precise checklist, a clear understanding, would
be wholesome and better.</p>

<p>What is your reaction on that?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. Well, No. 1, in our revised Manual on Presidential Protection,
this is part of the thing.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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&mdash;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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_481" id="Page_481">481</a></span>
see whether or not it could be negotiated within that particular period of time.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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&mdash;whether by precinct or by group
commanders, and so forth. And this is what I think in this instance that they
are complaining about.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. That is set forth in your manual as presently revised?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. In our present revised manual.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. That is right. And you have to necessarily do that, because
you have agents, as I said&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Other countries have protection problems of their chief
executive.</p>

<p>I am sure in recent months the French have had considerable problems in
this regard.</p>

<p>Do you ever have an exchange of methods with other governments for your
benefit or their benefit?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. We have been approached, Mr. Congressman, for instructions
on security and so forth, but we, for reasons&mdash;for national security reasons, I
would like to go off the record.</p>

<p>(Off the record.)</p>

<p>(At this point, Representative Ford left the hearing room.)</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Back on the record.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. You have referred to the dry runs which you made in Dallas,
and you usually make, I understand, to establish a route.</p>

<p>First I think you said you did this yourself, and then with the local police.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. No; they did not receive any publicity.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Chief, you were referring a little while ago to the revised
rules.</p>

<p>When did the last revision take place? Has it been since the assassination?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. No.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. And&mdash;but there has been&mdash;as yet there has been no revision
since the assassination?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. No, sir; It is in the process.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. It is in the process of being done? Very well.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. 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&mdash;prior to his visit to Dallas.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_482" id="Page_482">482</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. No, sir.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. I thought you said that you participated in a dry run.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. Oh, no; I was describing what the advance agents do.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. Anyway&mdash;you know what the agents of the Secret Service did
in preparing for the visit, of President Kennedy to Dallas?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. And you know what procedures they followed during the
actual route of the motorcade on that day?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. No, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Chief Rowley, would you tell us the salary scale for your agents
for the first 2 years?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. Yes; we recruit an agent at grade GS-7, at $5,795.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. How does that compare with the starting salary for the FBI?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. I think it is a difference of three grades. As I understand, the
lowest FBI grade is GS-10.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. $10,000.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. Grade 10.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. What salary would that be?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. It might be&mdash;for example, GS-11 is $8,410. Now, it could be
somewhere between $7,500 and $8,000.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Are you able to get at that salary the quality of men that you
should for this kind of work?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. Yes; we have found to date that we have been able&mdash;we have
been selective. And, of course, the fact that we have only appropriations for
a limited number of men.</p>

<p>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&mdash;the character and the physical is up to
date&mdash;and we can put them on, if we get the funds precisely at the beginning of
the fiscal year.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. You recognize that your starting salary is not favorable in comparison
with some police forces, do you not?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Now, what kind of a workload do your agents have on an
average?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. Well, at the present time we have a caseload of 110.1 cases per
man.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. How does that compare with other intelligence agencies?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. Well, I think&mdash;a satisfactory caseload per man per month is
from 14 to 15 cases.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Do you thing that is a handicap to your operation?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Did you write the Commission a letter telling the history of the
early development and growth of the Secret Service operation over the years?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_483" id="Page_483">483</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Is Commission Exhibit No. 1029 that information that you gave
us?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. Yes, sir; this also included the White House police.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. I have no objections, because in the years past&mdash;this is part of
the public record. So I would not see any objection at this time.</p>

<p>(At this point, Senator Cooper left the hearing room.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Mr. Chairman, I offer in evidence Commission Exhibit No. 1029.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. It may be admitted.</p>

<p>(The document was marked for identification as Commission Exhibit No.
1029, and received in evidence.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Chief Rowley, did you write us a letter with regard to proposed
legislation, dated June 11?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>(The document was marked for identification as Commission Exhibit No.
1030.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. I offer in evidence Commission Exhibit No. 1030.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. It may be admitted.</p>

<p>(The document heretofore marked for identification as Commission Exhibit
No. 1030, was received in evidence.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Can you briefly state the contents of the attachment to that
exhibit, Chief Rowley?</p>

<p>You recall that it is a commentary on the suggestion of legislation about the
assassination of the President?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. 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.</p>

<p>(At this point, Senator Cooper reentered the hearing room.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. Currently there is such a law whereby when people of lesser
rank in the Government are murdered, that is investigated by Federal agencies.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Would you tell the Commission briefly what your idea is as to
whether or not it would be helpful to have such a statute?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. I think today it would be helpful, because it would be a continuation
of the present law, and it would be under Federal jurisdiction&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. Currently the Federal enforcement agencies&mdash;namely, the FBI&mdash;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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. In the early stages when we assigned our men to inquire into<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_484" id="Page_484">484</a></span>
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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. That is correct.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. I have no credible information of that kind; no, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Was he an agent or informant or directly or indirectly connected
with the Secret Service in anyway?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. Not in any way. We did not know of him until the event.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. It would; yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. And you are certain that he never was hired directly or indirectly
or acted in that capacity.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. He was never hired directly or indirectly in any capacity.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Do you have any credible information that would cause you to
believe that Lee Harvey Oswald was an agent of any foreign country.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. I have no such credible information.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. I have no credible information on any of those.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. I do not.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. No, sir.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. May I ask a question?</p>

<p>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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. I have no such facts, sir.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. I have no such information.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Mr. Dulles, any questions?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Yes, sir; I have one general question.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_485" id="Page_485">485</a></span>
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&mdash;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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. As it applies to this law now?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. 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.</p>

<p>My question is, where should that responsibility be primarily centered in order
to avoid undue duplication and expense, and yet accomplish our objective?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. I see.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Or abroad&mdash;where you have the problem of the Secret Service and
the CIA.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. 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&mdash;whether a police
organization could lead to a police state or a military state&mdash;if you want to
delegate it to some organization like that.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. 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.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. And in law enforcement, you have to have the feel of the
situation, do you not?</p>

<p>You have to do the spadework in order to be aware of every possibility that
might develop?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. But they have to know against whom to protect him.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. That is right. But they are ready for anything under the present
close screening.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Is "they" the FBI?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. The FBI.</p>

<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_486" id="Page_486">486</a></span>
that is what is uppermost in your mind. We have to be most correct about
that, in any of the agencies, as you know.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. How much larger staff do you think you are going to have to have
to cover that situation in the future?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Should you do field investigations as contrasted with the FBI&mdash;the
FBI have a large number of people in a large number of cities throughout
the United States. You do not have that?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. If the name of Lee Harvey Oswald had been submitted to you by
the FBI, what would you, in the normal course, have done?</p>

<p>Would you have referred that back to them for investigation, or would you
have carried on an independent investigation?</p>

<p>I am talking now if that name had been referred to you when you knew you
were going to go to Dallas.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. If we knew we were going to go to Dallas and we had this present
criteria, then we would investigate him.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. You would carry on the investigation?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Thank you.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Mr. Chief Justice, I am through with Chief Rowley now&mdash;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.]</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Very well.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. It will be very brief.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rowley</span>. Thank you, sir.</p>

<h2 id="rc">TESTIMONY OF ROBERT CARSWELL</h2>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Mr. Carswell, you have been sworn, have you not?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Carswell</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Very well. You may proceed.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Very well. You may proceed.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_487" id="Page_487">487</a></span>
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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. Carswell, will you tell us now what the facts are as you have learned?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Carswell</span>. 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.</p>

<p>I understood that that was the case the next day&mdash;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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. That is all I have.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Very well.</p>

<p>Thank you, Mr. Carswell.</p>

<p>Well, gentlemen, I think that will be all today. The Commission will adjourn
now.</p>

<p>(Whereupon, at 12:35 p.m., the President's Commission recessed.)</p>

<hr />
<h2><span class="smaller"><a name="Tuesday_June_23_1964" id="Tuesday_June_23_1964"><i>Tuesday, June 23, 1964</i></a></span><br />
<span class="subhead">TESTIMONY OF BERNARD WILLIAM WEISSMAN AND
ROBERT G. KLAUSE</span></h2>

<p>The President's Commission met at 10:30 a.m., on June 23, 1964, at 200 Maryland
Avenue NE., Washington, D.C.</p>

<p>Present were Chief Justice Earl Warren, Chairman; Senator John Sherman
Cooper, Representative Hale Boggs, Representative Gerald R. Ford, and Allen
W. Dulles, members.</p>

<p>Also present were J. Lee Rankin, general counsel; and Albert E. Jenner, Jr.,
assistant counsel.</p>

<h2 id="bww">TESTIMONY OF BERNARD WILLIAM WEISSMAN, ACCOMPANIED BY
THOMAS A. FLANNERY, ESQ.</h2>

<p>(Members present: Chief Justice Warren, Representative Ford, and Mr.
Dulles.)</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. The Commission will be in order. Mr. Flannery, you are here
representing Mr. Weissman?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Flannery</span>. Yes; Your Honor.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Mr. Jenner, would you mind making a brief statement of the
testimony we expect to develop here?</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_488" id="Page_488">488</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Yes; Mr. Chief Justice.</p>

<p>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."</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 1031 for
identification.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. Flannery, would you be good enough to state your full name?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Flannery</span>. Thomas A. Flannery.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. And you are a practitioner in Washington?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Flannery</span>. Yes; Your Honor, I am a partner in the firm of Hamilton and
Hamilton.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Mr. Weissman; will you raise your right hand and be sworn?</p>

<p>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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. I do.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Will you be seated? Mr. Jenner will question.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Your full name is Bernard William Weissman?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. That is right.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. And you now reside in New York City, do you not?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Mount Vernon, N.Y.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Would you give your address?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. 439 South Columbus Avenue, Mount Vernon, N.Y.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. You were born November 1, 1937?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. That is right.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. You are almost 27 years old?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. All right. I would like some vital statistics, if I may, Mr.
Weissman. Are you presently employed?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. And where are you employed presently?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Carpet Corp. of America, 655 Clinton Avenue, Newark, N.J.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. I see. Is that connected in any fashion with the Carpet Co. by
which you were employed in Dallas, Tex., last fall?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. None whatsoever.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. You are a native born American?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. And your folks are as well?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Excuse me?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Your folks are as well, mother and father?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. And you have two brothers?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Yes; I do.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. And they likewise are native born Americans?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. What is your marital status at the present time?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Separated.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. You were married or are married to Jane Byrnes Weissman?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. She is a native born American, also?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. You have been separated since when?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. May 16, 1963.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. So you became separated from her before you went to Dallas in
the fall of 1963?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. I was in the service at the time.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_489" id="Page_489">489</a></span>
(At this point, Senator Cooper entered the hearing room.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Now, are you acquainted with a gentleman by the name of Larrie
Schmidt?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Yes; I am.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. When did you first meet him?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. In Munich, Germany, about July or August of 1962.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. His middle name is Henry. Are you aware of that?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. No; I am not aware of that.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Where does he reside?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Well, he was in Dallas. I understand he has dropped from
sight. I don't know where he is now.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Was he residing in Dallas in the fall of 1963 when you were there?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. When did you arrive in Dallas?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. In Dallas, on the 4th of November 1963.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. And was Mr. Schmidt aware that you were about to come to
Dallas?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. And what was the purpose of your coming to Dallas?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Did that conservative organization, or your purpose in going
to Dallas, as well, have any business context in addition to politics?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Do you mean as far as my schooling and where I lived before
then? Before I went into the service?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Let's take it from high school.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. 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&mdash;oh, that was from the 18th of
November 1957 up until about April or May of 1958.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Your brother Joe is a little bit older than you?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. He is 20 months older, yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. And his given name is Joe, and not Joseph?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Joseph. Then&mdash;let's see&mdash;I went to work for the American
Schools of Music, which my brother founded in Jersey.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Which brother?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. My brother Joe&mdash;in New Jersey. And I stayed with him as
his sales manager for a little over a year.</p>

<p>Then I went to work for Encyclopedia Americana, Harvard Classics Division,
as a district sales manager. I was with them about a year&mdash;until 19&mdash;I believe
it was September of 1960.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. You were honorably discharged from the Army in August 1963?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. August 5; yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. What has been your father's occupation?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Well, for about 20 years he was plant superintendent for
University Loudspeakers in White Plains, N.Y. They moved to some place out<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_490" id="Page_490">490</a></span>
west. He quit and went back to work with Local 3 in New York City, IBW.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Your father's name is Harry?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Harry Weissman; yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Do you reside with him now at 439 South Columbus Avenue in
Mount Vernon?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. You were discharged from the Army honorably?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. You were married when, sir?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. November 7, 1958.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. A New York girl?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Yonkers, N.Y.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. And you have some children?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. No.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. You separated, as you have indicated. Now, would you start
from the Army?</p>

<p>Before I get to that, you met Larrie Schmidt in the Army?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Yes; I did.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Only one beside Larrie. That was Bill Burley. William
Burley.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. 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&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. You say he deviated from the original plan. What was the
original plan?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. When you say radical, what do you mean?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. 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&mdash;which is good for him, I guess, and bad for me.</p>

<p>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&mdash;he was in Baltimore,
Md., selling hearing aids. He wasn't getting anywhere. He was making a
living.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Up to this point each of you was barely making a living?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Right.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. And you had no capital?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. No.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. No funds of your own?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. 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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_491" id="Page_491">491</a></span>
salesman's paradise. I invited Bill to Mount Vernon. He came up about the
last week of August.</p>

<p>I am sorry&mdash;October of 1963. And we set up about looking for work and
trying to find him work, that is&mdash;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.</p>

<p>In the meantime, Larrie had up to a point&mdash;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&mdash;up until about, I guess, the 26th or
28th of October.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Excuse me. Why were you thinking of Dallas at this time?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. 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&mdash;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.</p>

<p>And, at the same time, it was new, different, exciting, it had a lot of promise
for the future if it worked out.</p>

<p>So Adlai Stevenson was down there in the latter part of October.</p>

<p>(At this point, Representative Boggs entered the hearing room.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. And I didn't pay too much attention to this&mdash;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&mdash;that Stevenson
had been struck by several individuals down there.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Please call on your best recollection and tell us what he said to
you. You recall that he made that telephone call?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. You recognized his voice?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. You are clear it was Larrie Schmidt?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. That is right.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. What did he say?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. He said that big things are happening, and he went&mdash;this is
before it hit the papers. He told me what had happened with Adlai Stevenson.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. What did he say?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. 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 <span class="locked">that&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Did you say to him, "What do you mean you have made it for us?"</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. When he said, "I have made it for us," meaning Larrie
Schmidt&mdash;meaning me and Bill and whoever else was going to come down
<span class="locked">here&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. That <span class="locked">was&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Bill Burley.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. What did you say when he made that remark?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. I said "Great."</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. What did it mean to you, sir?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. What did it mean to me?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. It is a generalization.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_492" id="Page_492">492</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Could I go back a little bit, please. You received a telephone call
from Mr. Schmidt.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. At that moment, you knew nothing about the Adlai Stevenson
incident, is that correct?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. I had received a letter from him several weeks before saying
that&mdash;if you will wait just a minute, I think I might have the letter with me.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. All right. While you are looking, what was your rank when
you were discharged?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Pfc.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Did you reach any higher rank when you were in the service?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. No; this is a letter I received on October 1, 1963.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. For purposes of identification, we will mark that as Commission
Exhibit No. 1033.</p>

<p>(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 1033 for
identification.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. May I approach the witness, Mr. Chief Justice?</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Yes; go right ahead.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. That is marked only for identification for the moment.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Flannery</span>. The record will reflect it is a three-page letter.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Thank you.</p>

<p>Marked Commission Exhibit No. 1033, is that not correct?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Yes; that is correct. Now, in Exhibit No. 1033, the letter I
received from Larrie on October 1&mdash;that was typed on October 1, 1963, and mailed
on 7 October 1963.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. You are looking at the envelope in which the letter was enclosed
when you received it?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. 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."</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Is that document signed?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. No; it is not.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Does it bear a typed signature?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Did you have occasion to speak with Mr. Schmidt respecting the
contents of that letter at any time subsequent to your receiving it?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. I don't recall.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Did you ever talk with him about having received that particular
letter, that he acknowledged having sent to you?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. And what did you do&mdash;call Mr. Schmidt or talk with him on that
subject?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. I don't recall if I spoke with him, or if I wrote it to him in a
letter. I don't recall.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. 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?</p>

<p>(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 1033-A for
identification.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Did you hear my question?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Repeat it, please.</p>

<p>(The question, as recorded, was read by the reporter.)</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_493" id="Page_493">493</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. 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&mdash;that
is, the Stevenson incident?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Was there anything else in Mr. Schmidt's letter that disturbed
you?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. I received so many.</p>

<p>Would it be permissible to&mdash;excuse me.</p>

<p>Mr. Jenner, would it be permissible to read this letter into the record?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. My trouble is, Mr. Weissman, and Mr. Flannery&mdash;I haven't seen
the letter.</p>

<p>Mr. Chief <span class="locked">Justice&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. I suppose Mr. Jenner could see the letter for a moment,
couldn't he?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Definitely; yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Mr. Flannery, would you be good enough to pass it up?</p>

<p>(At this point, Representative Ford withdrew from the hearing room.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. You see, up to the point of that letter&mdash;excuse me.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Mr. Chief Justice, it is quite apparent to me, from glancing
through the letter, that this is a letter that we&mdash;in connection with Mr.
Weissman's testimony, that we would like to offer in evidence in due course.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. I would like to take a look at it now.</p>

<p>(At this point, Representative Ford reentered the hearing room.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Ready?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Mr. Reporter, would you be good enough to read, let us say, the
last question and answer of the witness?</p>

<p>(The question and answer, as recorded, was read by the reporter.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. So that was the reason why you didn't ask him to elaborate upon
what he meant by, "I have made it for us"?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Right. That is right.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Well, at the time I was almost&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. But up to the time that you arrived in Dallas, you were under
the impression that he had had a more extensive part?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. This is what he led me to believe. In other words, he was
trying to&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. 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.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_494" id="Page_494">494</a></span>
(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 1032 for
identification.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Yes; I did receive this letter, Exhibit No. 1032, from Larrie,
about the 29th of October.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. And, gentlemen of the Commission, this is a letter dated, as the
witness has stated&mdash;it is addressed to, "Dear Bernie and Bill," and I assume
Bill <span class="locked">is&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Bill Burley.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. He was then staying with you in New York?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Right.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. And it is signed Larrie. By the way, do you have the original
of this letter with you?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. 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&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. It seems to be; yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Now, in that letter, there is a reference to CUSA in capital
letters. What is CUSA, what was CUSA? What was its genesis?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Well, CUSA, the letters stand for Conservatism USA, for
lack of a better name. Larrie had originally founded this himself&mdash;as far as
I know he had originally founded this himself in Munich some time in 1961.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. You mean it was a concept of his?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. 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 <span class="locked">organization&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. And while you were still in the Army?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. While I was still in the Army; right.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Boggs</span>. What was your rank in the Army?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Private, first class.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Boggs</span>. That is when you completed your service?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Yes; at the time I was pfc, also.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Boggs</span>. How long were you in the Army?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Two years.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Boggs</span>. When you were separated you were private, first class?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Is this Germany, now?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Yes; this is Germany.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Who was the overall commander in Germany at that time?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. The overall commander?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Was General Walker one of the commanders at that time?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. No; he had been removed at that time. In any case, he
would have been about 60 or 70 miles&mdash;he was based in Landshut, Germany.</p>

<p>In any case, I was on this army training test with my company, MP Company,
and I was talking to the company clerk&mdash;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."</p>

<p>And I said, "What do you mean?"</p>

<p>And he went into this CUSA organization. He was at that time a partner
in CUSA. It was set up as a business.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Boggs</span>. What does CUSA mean?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Conservatism USA.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Boggs</span>. What was Mr. Schmidt's rank?</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_495" id="Page_495">495</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. He was specialist fourth class, SP-4, and he was in charge of
public relations for Armed Forces Recreation Centers.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. How old a man is he?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Larrie is 26 or 27.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. About the same age as yours?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. And Mr. Burley?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Twenty-nine now, I believe.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. A little older&mdash;about 2 years older than you and Mr. Schmidt.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. In there. A year and a half, 2 years, yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Excuse me. What was his rank?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. What was the rank of the company clerk?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. At that time&mdash;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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>I don't recollect the step-by-step involvement&mdash;just that I jumped in with both
feet, because I liked the idea.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. This was Conservatism USA, and it consisted of an idea at this
particular time?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Right.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. And associated with that idea were these people, Larrie Schmidt,
yourself, was <span class="locked">Burley&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. At that time, I don't think so.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. But he did become?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Later.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. And the company clerk&mdash;what was his name?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Norman Baker.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. And yourself&mdash;what was that&mdash;five? Were there any others?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. In Texas; no.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. I take it it was organized?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Yes; it was.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. As a corporation or partnership?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. As a partnership.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. In what state?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. In Munich, Germany.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. I see. And that was a sort of declaration among you?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. It was a written declaration; yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Who drafted that?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. We did&mdash;that is, we called ourselves&mdash;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.</p>

<p>And the partners, the five partners, were the inner circle, the leaders of this
organization; <span class="locked">and&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Gentlemen, may I interrupt for just a minute? I have an
appointment I must keep at the court.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_496" id="Page_496">496</a></span>
Congressman Ford, will you preside, please?</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Surely.</p>

<p>(At this point, Chief Justice Warren withdrew from the hearing room.)</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Will you proceed, please, Mr. Jenner.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Thank you. In short compass, tell us the objectives of CUSA.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. 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 <span class="smcap">USA,</span> and the Ford would be AMBUS, or American business.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. What was AMBUS?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. American business. This was the business half of the political
organization.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. This was to be a combination of business and politics?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Right. We were going to use the business <span class="locked">end&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Which you called AMBUS?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. That is right.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. That would <span class="locked">be&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. American business, or American businesses.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. I don't get the initials. A-B-U-S?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. A-M-B-U-S&mdash;American business.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. All right.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. All right. Could I characterize it this way&mdash;that a material
objective of this group or partnership was ultimately a self-interest in business?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. No.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Coupled with a political arm which was to aid or assist in the
business, and each was to feed the other?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. The business arm was to be developed mainly to feed the
political arm.</p>

<p>(At this point, Representative Ford withdrew from the hearing room.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>(At this point, Representative Ford reentered the hearing room.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. We left out one man, one of the original men. His name
was James Moseley.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Was he a GI with you?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. No; he was an American civilian. His father was a major&mdash;is
a major in the Army.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. And was he an acquaintance of yours?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Prior to this time?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Not prior to this. I met him when I went into the organization.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. I see. Was he an acquaintance of Mr. Schmidt's?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. How did he get in, is what I am getting at? How did he get
into this little group here?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. They all hung around the same bar.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. What bar?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. The Gastatte Lukullus.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Boggs</span>. How far was that from the bar where Hitler used to
gather?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. A couple of miles, I think.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. It is a bar in Munich?</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_497" id="Page_497">497</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Yes. It is a GI guest house.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. This man you have now mentioned, Moseley, was a civilian in
Germany?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. He was a civilian; yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. How did he come to be in Munich? Was his father stationed
there?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. His father was stationed there. But he was also employed
by Rambler&mdash;he was selling Ramblers.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. What is Mr. Moseley's hometown?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. What is Mr. Mosley's hometown?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. I believe it is New York. I am not sure.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. How old a man is he?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. He is a pretty young fellow. He is about 21.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Now, have you named all of you who were the nucleus of this
group?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. To my recollection, yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Had you finished your statement as to the general&mdash;the general
statement as to the purpose of this organization which consisted of the two arms?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. You never accomplished this, did you?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Almost. Here is how far we did get.</p>

<p>Larrie had&mdash;and this was according to plan&mdash;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.</p>

<p>This didn't last too long, because a few weeks after that the NIC went under.
And we had also&mdash;in other words, we had planned to use these organizations as
vehicles to <span class="locked">accomplish&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Keep going on those details of your infiltration.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. All right. We had planned to infiltrate these various rightwing
organizations.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. You mentioned one.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. The NIC. The Young Americans for Freedom. We succeeded
there.</p>

<p>Mr <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. What organization is that?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Where was it based?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. This is southwest. Regional headquarters was in Dallas, Tex.,
Box 2364.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. And the earlier organization, the organization you mentioned
a moment ago, NIC&mdash;where was that based?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Dallas.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. All right. What is the next one?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. We had also discussed getting some people in with General
Walker, getting some people into the John Birch Society.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Stick with General Walker for a moment. To what extent were
you able to infiltrate, as you call it, General Walker's group?</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_498" id="Page_498">498</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Well, this was rather a fiasco. Larrie's brother, as I mentioned
in the letter&mdash;Larrie's brother went to work for General Walker.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. What was his name?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. And this is what he told you?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Right. So when I got to Dallas, I found that Larrie's brother
drank too much, and he had&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. This man's name, by any chance, was not Volkmar?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. This name is entirely unfamiliar to me. Never heard it before.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. Could you identify the Walker organization? You keep
speaking of the Walker organization.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. General Edwin Walker.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. General Edwin A. Walker?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Did you ever meet him?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. No; I never have.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. How did you infiltrate the Young Americans for Freedom,
and what led you to believe you had been successful?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Well, Larrie had been named executive secretary of the
Dallas chapter of the Young Americans for Freedom. And another man&mdash;his
name is in one of these letters somewhere&mdash;I don't recall it offhand&mdash;who
was brought into CUSA by Larrie, was named chairman or vice chairman&mdash;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.</p>

<p>A friend of Larrie's had come to Dallas&mdash;this was Larry Jones, another
partner <span class="locked">in&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. He is mentioned in some of these interviews. Did you meet
Larry Jones?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. 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&mdash;I saw
through Larry the first time I met him&mdash;is to get rid of this guy, because he was
not going to do us any good.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. You did meet Jones?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. In the Army; yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. You met Larry Jones in the Army?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Yes. We were all on the same post.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Mr. Chairman, if you will permit, I would like to go back to that
at this moment.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Surely.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. This was another man. You hadn't mentioned him before.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. I didn't? I thought I did.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. What rank was he?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. SP-4, Specialist-4.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. That wasn't the company clerk?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. No. Larry worked for headquarters. He was in communications&mdash;the
scramblers and so forth.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Seeking to scramble broadcasts?</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_499" id="Page_499">499</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. No. In other words, they would send out the secret messages
and so forth from commander to commander and so on.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. These were military messages?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. How old a man was Larry Jones?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Larry&mdash;he looked 30. I think he is 21.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Do you have the charter or partnership agreement of CUSA
with you?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Yes; I do.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. I wonder if I could see that.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Sure.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. 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.</p>

<p>(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 1034 for
identification.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. That is right.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. And were those initials placed on there in your presence?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Yes; they were.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. That is right.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Were they placed on there in your presence?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Yes, they were.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Do you want that admitted at this time, Mr. Jenner?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. 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 <span class="locked">groups&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Do you have that list with you?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. I don't know. I have lost an awful lot of it. I might.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Would you look, please?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. No; I don't have it.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. May I ask, then&mdash;can he name from memory the organizations?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Using your recollection, sir, and it appears to be very good, if I
may compliment <span class="locked">you&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Thank you.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Would you do your best to respond to Senator Cooper's question
by naming those various groups?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Yes. One was the NIC.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. When you use initials, will you spell out what the initials mean?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. National Indignation Convention, headed by Frank McGee,
in Dallas, Tex.</p>

<p>Young Americans for Freedom, which encompassed the southwest. The initials
are YAF.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Located in Dallas?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Regional headquarters in Dallas. John Birch Society.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Where was the John Birch&mdash;was there a chapter or headquarters
in Dallas?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. There are several chapters in Dallas; yes. And as far as I can
recollect, that is as far as we went.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Boggs</span>. What did you hope to accomplish by this infiltration,
as you call it?</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_500" id="Page_500">500</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Well, I will be very blunt.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Boggs</span>. That is what I would like for you to be.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. We were, you might say&mdash;at least I personally&mdash;this is my
reason&mdash;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.</p>

<p>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&mdash;because
we felt that the Communists were gaining ground all over the place, we were
doing nothing but losing.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Boggs</span>. Did you have a candidate for the Presidency?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Excuse me?</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Boggs</span>. Did you have a candidate&mdash;you said your man.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Boggs</span>. Are you still in this business?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. No.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Boggs</span>. What are you doing now?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. I am a salesman, I sell carpets.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Boggs</span>. You have given up this goal?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Well, if I had money I didn't know what to do with, I would
get back into it&mdash;only I would do it myself, because I found that in order to
accomplish these aims&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Boggs</span>. What ideals did you find you had to prostitute?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. I personally didn't want to associate with the John Birch
Society.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Boggs</span>. You did not want to?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. No; I did not.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Boggs</span>. Why didn't you?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Boggs</span>. Is that what they do?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Boggs</span>. What do you mean by that&mdash;bigots?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. They are anti-everything, it seems.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Boggs</span>. Are you Jewish?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Yes; I am.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Boggs</span>. Were they anti-Jewish?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Too many of them, yes. It was requested at one time that I
change my name.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Boggs</span>. Is that right?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. That is right.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Boggs</span>. What did you tell them?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Excuse me?</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Boggs</span>. What did you tell them? Did you change your name?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. No, sir.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Boggs</span>. Well, did you find this request unusual?</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_501" id="Page_501">501</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Yes; I did, as a matter of fact, I got pretty mad.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Boggs</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. In what vein are you using Nazi?</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Boggs</span>. Well, of course, you know they exterminated quite a
few members of your religion in Germany.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Boggs</span>. That is a fact; is it not?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Yes; it is.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Boggs</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. I think you are giving me a little too much credit. But I think
I can answer your question.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Boggs</span>. I would like for you to.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. 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 <span class="locked">written&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Boggs</span>. I didn't ask you whether you had considered yourself as
a <span class="locked">fascist&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Or any of my associates, sir.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Boggs</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. No. In fact, I never thought&mdash;I thought of the extremists
as superpatriots. I had never really defined the term fascist or Nazi in my
own <span class="locked">mind&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Boggs</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. This is quite true. But you are getting into a field right now
that at the <span class="locked">time&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Boggs</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. It was downright insulting, as a matter of fact. No, I wasn't
surprised. <span class="locked">Now&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Yes. I received a letter from Larrie, while I was in Germany.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Is this another document to which no reference has been made?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. I am not sure whether this is the one I want to read from.
But this letter is an answer that I wrote Larrie.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Excuse me, sir. I want to put an exhibit number on that.</p>

<p>This will be exhibit&mdash;Commission Exhibit No. 1035.</p>

<p>(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 1035 for
identification.)</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Boggs</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. This is my answer. I would like to read just this one paragraph.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Boggs</span>. Who was this addressed to?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. This was addressed to Larrie Schmidt.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Boggs</span>. Did he ask you to change your name?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Boggs</span>. He was your associate?</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_502" id="Page_502">502</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. He didn't ask me directly. He had written a letter to Larry
Jones, and Larry Jones gave me the letter.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Where was Larry Jones at this time?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. In Germany.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. You are now reading from Commission Exhibit <span class="locked">No.&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Exhibit No. 1035. This is dated Munich, Germany, January
7, 1963.</p>

<p>(At this point, Senator Cooper withdrew from the hearing room.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. It is addressed to whom?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Larrie Schmidt.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. And I take it it is your letter to Larrie Schmidt.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Did you dispatch the letter?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Yes; I did.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. And is that a true and correct copy of the original that you
did dispatch to Larrie Schmidt?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Erasures and all; yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. And did you become aware of the fact subsequently to your
mailing that letter that he received it?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. You had occasion to discuss it with him?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. He sent me a letter.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. He responded?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Yes; he did.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. All right. Do you have his response?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. I don't know. I have his response. I don't know if it is
with me.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Boggs</span>. Let's first have what he said.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Paragraph 2 on the second page, "Larrie, as relates to the
political goals of CUSA and the methods of achieving them, I (not alone)"&mdash;meaning
Bill Burley&mdash;"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."</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Boggs</span>. What do you say about your name, though?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. About my name?</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Boggs</span>. Yes. Changing your name.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. I didn't refer to it directly. In other words, in the letter I
received from Larrie, he said&mdash;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.</p>

<p>(At this point, Senator Cooper reentered the hearing room.)</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Boggs</span>. Do you have a copy of that letter?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Let me take a look here. With your permission, I would
like to read into the record a <span class="locked">paragraph&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. To what are you referring now, sir?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. This is a letter sent by Larrie Schmidt to Larry Jones.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. And it is in longhand, is it?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Yes; it is.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. And do you recognize the handwriting?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. It is Larrie's.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. It consists of seven pages, which we will mark Commission
Exhibit No. 1036.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_503" id="Page_503">503</a></span>
(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 1036 for
identification.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Before you read from the letter, how did you come into possession
of the letter?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Larry Jones gave it to me.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Over in Germany?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Over in Germany; yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. And the envelope which I now have in my hand, from which
you extracted the letter, is postmarked Dallas, Tex., November 5.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Boggs</span>. What year?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. We will mark that as Commission Exhibit No. 1036-A&mdash;that is,
the envelope.</p>

<p>(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 1036-A for
identification.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. 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."</p>

<p>"We must all return to church. These people here are religious bugs. Also
no liberal talk whatsoever&mdash;none." Larrie had a flare for the dramatic.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. When he mentions "these people" who does he mean?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. 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&mdash;it is like changing your wife after you
marry her. You figure everything will work out.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. This CUSA organization in Munich&mdash;did it have any
local Munich affiliation at all? I mean German affiliation?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. No; none whatsoever. Strictly an American proposition.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. All among GI's, with the one exception <span class="locked">of&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. GI's or, one or two hangers-on, American civilians over there.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. May I ask a question, Mr. Chairman?</p>

<p>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&mdash;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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. It is difficult to explain. The situation being as fluid as it
was&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. Did you intend to get some financial support from these
organizations, in addition to political support?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. No; not directly. We felt that after we had accomplished
our goal&mdash;this is assuming we would accomplish our goal&mdash;any treasury that
they had through membership dues or what-have-you would then be a common
treasury, a CUSA treasury.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. Did you think, also, in terms of contributions to these organizations
from individuals?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. It had been discussed&mdash;never very completely. It had just
been brought up. But we didn't know exactly what we were going to do, really.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. Was there any discussion about the support of these organizations<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_504" id="Page_504">504</a></span>&mdash;about
the financial support of these organizations, that they might be
a source of funds?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. You mean from individuals who would contribute?</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. Was there any discussions as to what individuals were supporting
these organizations?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Just those that we had occasionally read about in Life or Look
or Time&mdash;people like Hunt, H.&nbsp;L. Hunt.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Of Dallas, Tex.?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Of Dallas, Tex.&mdash;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&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Boggs</span>. It has been established, I presume, who paid for this
newspaper advertisement.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Well, this is something else. I am still not sure of who
paid for it.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. The newspaper advertisement is Commission Exhibit No. 1031.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Boggs</span>. Did you bring the money in to pay for it?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Yes; I did.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Boggs</span>. Do you know where you got it?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. I know where I got it. But I don't know where he got it from.
I got it from Joe Grinnan.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Joseph P. Grinnan, Room 811, Wilson Building, Dallas, Tex.,
independent oil operator in Dallas.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Boggs</span>. How did you happen to get it from him?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Well, Joe was the volunteer coordinator for the John Birch
Society.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Boggs</span>. And how did he hand it to you&mdash;in a check or cash?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. In cash.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Boggs</span>. How much was it?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Boggs</span>. Do you think you know where he got it from?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. I don't know. I really don't know.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Boggs</span>. He didn't tell you where he got it from?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. No; he didn't.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Boggs</span>. But you are convinced in your own mind that it wasn't
his money?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Yes; because he seemed to be&mdash;he didn't seem to be too solvent.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Boggs</span>. Did you solicit him for this money?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. No; I didn't.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Boggs</span>. Who did?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. I believe&mdash;well, I believe Larrie did. I think the idea for
the ad originated with Larrie and Joe.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Boggs</span>. And Larrie solicited the money?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. No; I don't think so. I think it was Joe who originally
broached the subject.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Boggs</span>. How did you happen to end up with the money?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. This was an expression of confidence, you might say, that
Joe Grinnan had in me.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Boggs</span>. Did you write the copy?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. I helped.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Boggs</span>. Who else?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Larrie.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Boggs</span>. So Joe Grinnan gave you the money, and you and
Larrie wrote the copy?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. We wrote the copy before that.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_505" id="Page_505">505</a></span>
Representative <span class="smcap">Boggs</span>. And then you paid for it. What was this committee?
Are you the chairman of that committee?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Well, this is an ad hoc committee. I think we finally thought
of the name&mdash;as a matter of fact, we decided on it the same morning I went
down to place the original proof of the ad.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Boggs</span>. What do you mean an ad hoc committee?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. It was formed strictly for the purpose of having a name to
put in the paper.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Boggs</span>. Did you have many of these ad hoc committees?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. This is the only one that I was involved in; that I know of.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Boggs</span>. Were there others?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Not that I know of.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Boggs</span>. Did you ever ask Joe where this money came from?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. No; Joe was pretty secretive. I frankly didn't want to know.
I was interested, but not that interested. And it didn't&mdash;it would have been a
breach of etiquette to start questioning him, it seemed.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Boggs</span>. Have you ever heard of H.&nbsp;R. Bright, independent oil
operator?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. No.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Boggs</span>. Did you ever hear of Edgar Crissey?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. No.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Boggs</span>. Did you ever hear of Nelson Bunker Hunt?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Yes; that is H.&nbsp;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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. The "he" is Mr. Grinnan?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Grinnan; right.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Boggs</span>. That is all, Mr. Chairman.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Did you suggest that this advertisement had been drafted before
he collected the money?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. As far as I know; yes.</p>

<p>(At this point, Representative Boggs withdrew from the hearing room.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. May I see the ad for a moment? There are a few things I
would like to point out in this.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Give the exhibit number, please.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. It is Exhibit No. 1031.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. 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&mdash;and then just go forward.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. 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&mdash;I was told&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Would you please tell us who you mean?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Me and Larrie, Larrie and Joe, and then all of us together.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. All right.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. And I originally&mdash;well, I took the copy of the ad to the Dallas
Morning News.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Please, sir&mdash;we wanted the genesis from the beginning. How
it came about, who participated in drafting it.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. About a week or so before placing the ad, Larrie and I got
together at his house.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. The ad was placed when?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. The first payment was made on the 19th or 20th of November.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_506" id="Page_506">506</a></span>
Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Was this after the announcement of the President's
visit?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. You knew that President Kennedy was to be in Dallas
on November 22?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. A week before that?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. 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&mdash;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 <span class="locked">was&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Read them, please.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Was the 11th <span class="locked">question&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Are those questions numbered?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. 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?"</p>

<p>This was handed in at the last minute by one of the contributors. He would
not contribute.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. By whom?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. I have no idea. But he would not contribute the money.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Was this one of the men who gave money to Mr. Grinnan?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Yes; this is my understanding.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. And did Mr. Grinnan tell you this?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Yes; he said "This has to go in."</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. He said that to you in the presence of whom?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. I believe Bill Burley was there, and Larrie Schmidt.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Where was this?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. In Joe Grinnan's office.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. In Dallas?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. In Dallas; yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. That is room 811 of the Wilson Building?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Another question that was put in here&mdash;I forget exactly when&mdash;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?"</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Who suggested that question?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. I don't remember. I just remember that it came up&mdash;I didn't
like it. But the fact was that it had to be in there.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. I really don't recall.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Or Mr. Grinnan?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. I don't recall if it originated with Larrie or Mr. Grinnan
or with someone else. I really don't know.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. How old a man is Mr. Grinnan?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. I would say in his very early thirties.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. That suggestion, the last one, didn't come from you,
however?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Which?</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_507" id="Page_507">507</a></span>
Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. The one you just read.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Oh, no.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Because of your own liberal domestic philosophy?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>"Why have you scrapped the Monroe Doctrine in favor of the spirit of Moscow?"
I will still stand by that question.</p>

<p>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."</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Mr. Chairman, may I stand over near the witness?</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Surely.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Thank you.</p>

<p>When you say the copy at the top of the ad, does that include the banner,
"Welcome, Mr. Kennedy, to Dallas."?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. And you are referring to all that portion of the ad which is
Commission Exhibit No. 1031, down to the first question?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Yes. The idea of the black border was mine.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Yes. I was going to ask you that. Why did you suggest the
black border?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Well, I saw a proof of the ad&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. I take it from your present statement that you worked with
a copywriter or advertising composer at the Dallas Morning News.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Yes. His name was Dick Houston.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. How many editions did this ad run for the $1,463?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. One edition. It came out on the evening edition, on the 21st,
and the morning of the 22d.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Just one paper?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. One edition, one paper.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. That is only the Dallas Morning News?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. That is right.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. It was not in the other Dallas papers?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. No.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. The Times Herald?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. No. We felt&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>When I came back that afternoon, or the following morning&mdash;I don't recall
which&mdash;and they said everything was okay, that it would go.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. When you spoke of the head of the advertising department, that
is the advertising department of the News?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Of the Dallas Morning News; yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Mr. Weissman, you have read two questions with which you
disagreed.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_508" id="Page_508">508</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. You have read a question, which is the last in the advertisement.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Of which you are the author, and you said you would still stand
by that particular one.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. A hundred percent; yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Identify it, please.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. 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?</p>

<p>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&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. When you spoke, then, of selection from a list&mdash;was that the list
to which you referred before, which I believe you said came from the Birch
Society?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. A list of 50 questions.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. 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&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. So the final selection rested with Larrie, Mr. Grinnan,
and yourself, with the exception of this one contributor who insisted on one?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. 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&mdash;the ad would have been printed
anyway. Larrie would have put his name to it.</p>

<p>Now, let me tell you this. It will be a very short story.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. What do you mean by that?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>And I had discussed&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Did Larrie object to your being the one to sign the advertisement?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. 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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_509" id="Page_509">509</a></span>
he wanted to avoid this. But if it was a question of printing an ad or not
printing it, he would have signed it.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Tell us why, now. Please expand on that.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. 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. <span class="locked">And&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Who is the head of that now?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. The Birch Society?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. I never met the fellow. They had a paid coordinator. I don't
recall his name offhand. But, <span class="locked">anyway&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Were you in his offices?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. No; Joe Grinnan, as a matter of fact, is the only man in the
hierarchy of the Birch Society in Dallas that I met.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Your allegiance was to CUSA?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Who were the members of the American Fact-Finding Committee,
if any?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Well, the members would be myself, Bill Burley, Larrie
Schmidt, Joe Grinnan&mdash;just the people immediately involved.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. That was a name and solely a name?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Solely a name.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. There was no such organization?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. None whatsoever.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. And you used it for convenience on this advertisement?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Had you ever used that name before?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Never.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Did your group ever use it thereafter?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Not as far as I know.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Have you now named all of the people who played any part in,
to the best of your recollection&mdash;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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Is he an older or younger brother?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. I believe he is an older brother.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. What business is he engaged in?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Oil and real estate.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Who took out the post office box 1792, Dallas 21, Tex., that appears
under your name here on this advertisement?</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_510" id="Page_510">510</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Bill, Larrie, and I went to the post office together. I signed
for the box.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Do you recall the date?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. It was the same&mdash;the morning&mdash;the same morning I originally
went to get the ad laid out at the Morning News.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Has it been discontinued?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. 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&mdash;as far as I know, it is nonexistent now.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. 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&mdash;what
is the other's name?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Larrie Schmidt.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. Alone, and there was no stimulation from any outside group
or organization. Do you state that under oath?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. There was stimulation.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. From whom?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. 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&mdash;I think the idea for the something to do came from the Birch Society&mdash;whether
Mr. Joe Grinnan or someone else, I don't know.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. Was it communicated as an idea to you?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Larrie communicated the idea to me, said what do you think.
I said, why not?</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. Which one of this group did the idea come to?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. I don't know.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. It didn't come to you?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. No; it didn't come to me personally originally, no.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. What is the basis of your evidence of saying this was the Birch
Society? How did you know that? Where did you get that?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Well, it came to a point where everything we were doing we
had to go talk to Joe&mdash;big brother. And that is just the way it worked out.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. This is Joe Grinnan?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Yes. They were getting a grip on us, and Bill and I felt
that we had to bust this grip somehow.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Was he prominent in the Birch Society?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Yes; he was known.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Joe Grinnan?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Yes; he was known as a coordinator.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. 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"&mdash;to
what does that refer? Do you have any specific information?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. I know it specifically refers to the Vietnam thing, with the
overthrow of Diem, and the subsequent murder of the Diem people.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Was that said to you at the time?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. 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&mdash;this was
definitely the reason for placing that. As a matter of fact, this had occurred
not too long after that, I believe.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Who was it that insisted on the insertion of that?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. 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."</p>

<p>So I had to run back to the Morning News, with this other insertion. This
is just the way it happened.</p>

<p>(At this point, Senator Cooper withdrew from the hearing room.)</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. I understand that you made a downpayment on the ad.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. That is right.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. And then went back and paid the rest in full?</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_511" id="Page_511">511</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. A thousand dollars the first day, and $400-odd on the second
day.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Were both payments made before publication?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Mr. Dulles called attention to the post office box number.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. That stimulates me to ask you this: Did you receive any responses
to the advertisement?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Oh, did I? Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Now, tell us about that and also, before you start, do you have
any of those responses?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Not with me. All that I received I have at home.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. And indicate to us the volume that you have at home.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. 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&mdash;they were postmarked, the envelopes were
postmarked before the President was assassinated. And the threatening letters
and the nasty letters came afterward.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Did you receive any contributions?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. 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 <span class="locked">contribution&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Cash?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Right&mdash;from a retired train engineer, or something.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. And that <span class="locked">is&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. For the Wabash Railroad.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Were those the only contributions?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. To my knowledge; yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. At least that you know anything about?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. The 25th of November?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. About; yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Did anybody have the key to the box in addition to yourself?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Up to that point, only I had the key. After that, I left Dallas
on Wednesday, I <span class="locked">believe&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. I misspoke&mdash;it was the 24th of November rather than the 25th.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. I left Dallas on the following Wednesday. And at that time
I didn't see Larrie personally&mdash;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.</p>

<p>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&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. I don't know who has the rest. I don't know if it is Larrie
or Joe.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Larrie had the key.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Yes. I left him the key&mdash;I left him access to the key. I
received the letters written during the 2 days following the assassination&mdash;the
Friday afternoon and Saturday following the assassination&mdash;because I picked
the mail up the following Sunday morning.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. 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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_512" id="Page_512">512</a></span>
Schmidt, in which he made the reference to Stevenson, following which, that is
following this conversation, you eventually came to Dallas.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. And this conversation, as I recall it, the telephone call, was in
the month of October 1963?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Yes. It was the evening of the Stevenson demonstration.
According to the letter I think it was the 24th of October.</p>

<p>(At this point, Mr. Dulles withdrew from the hearing room.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Now, one of the members of the Commission is interested in
having you repeat that conversation in full, to the best of your recollection.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Since it is recollection, it is going to change somewhat in
words, but in tenor it will be the same.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. You do your best.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Larrie called me on the telephone and he was very excited,
and he had described what had transpired in <span class="locked">Dallas&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Tell us what he said, please. That is what we are interested in.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. He just <span class="locked">said&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. And his part in it, if any.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. 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&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. And identified himself with the demonstration?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Yes, sir. He said he had&mdash;what did he say&mdash;something to the
effect that he had a bunch of his people down there, the University of Dallas
students.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Did he identify them as students?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. I don't recall. I met the students several weeks later when
I got to Dallas.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. The students he had employed?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. That had participated in the demonstration; yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Did he describe what the demonstration was insofar as his part
and his group's part in it was?</p>

<p>(At this point, Mr. Dulles reentered the hearing room.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Were they his picketers?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. I don't know. This he didn't specify. I had <span class="locked">assumed&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. What impression did you get in that respect?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. I had assumed his picketers were part of it.</p>

<p>(At this point, Representative Ford withdrew from the hearing room.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. You were repeating to the best of your recollection that telephone
conversation.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. The gist of the conversation; yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. As best you are able to recall.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. That is right. I really cannot swear to its 100 percent accuracy,
but I would say it is 75 percent accurate anyway.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Have you now exhausted your recollection as to all that was
said, in substance?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. In substance; yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. In the course of that conversation.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. I take it he urged you to come to Dallas?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. He did.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. That this Stevenson incident had stimulated things to the point
that CUSA&mdash;you members of CUSA should come to Dallas, and everything was
ripe?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. He said we can pick up the ball and start running.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_513" id="Page_513">513</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Now, you and Mr. Burley then went to Dallas, did you?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. That is right. We left on the 2d of November.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. And that would have been following the receipt of the letter of
October 29, which we have identified <span class="locked">as&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Commission Exhibit No. 1032.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. How did you get there?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. I drove in my car.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Did Mr. Burley accompany you?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Did you stop off anywhere on the way?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. We stopped at his mother's house in South Carolina for about
4 or 5 hours.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. And when you reached Dallas, did you find a room, or what did
you do?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. That night we stayed at Larrie's house. We got there about
5 o'clock in the afternoon.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Where does he live?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. At that time he was living at the Eden Roc Apartments, in
Dallas.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Is he a married man?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. He was.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. I take it he was separated from his wife at that time?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. No, no. He has been divorced since.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. But he was living with his wife at that time?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. By the way, is Mr. Burley a married man, also?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. I spoke with him just the other day. His divorce will be
final in about 6 weeks, he thinks.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. He was married at that time?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Yes; separated.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Where was his wife living?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. In West Virginia, I believe.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. He had a family, did he not, several children?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Four or five children.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. You stayed with him at the Eden Roc Apartments?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. That is right.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. That is, with Mr. Schmidt?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. And then you and Mr. Burley arranged a room somewhere, did
you?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. We rented an apartment. I think we stayed with Larrie for
2 days, 2 or 3 days. Then we rented an apartment in Dallas.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Where was that?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. I don't recall the address offhand.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. All right. Now, approximately where are we now, as a matter
of time in this period?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. This <span class="locked">is&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. That you rented the apartment.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. About the middle of the first week after we arrived in Dallas.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Which should be approximately what date?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. About the 7th or so of November.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. What did you do thereafter in the way of furthering the business
of CUSA?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Well, we were thinking of buying a fourplex, a four-family
apartment house.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Where were you going to get the money?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. What club was that?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. That was the Ducharme Club.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_514" id="Page_514">514</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. That was in Dallas?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. In Dallas; yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Where did you become acquainted with that possible business
opportunity?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. What did this club purport to do?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. It was a private club. They sold liquor and beer over the bar
to members.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Entertainment?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. They had a dance floor and jukebox.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Who&mdash;do you recall the names of any of the people interested in
the Ducharme Club?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. The owners?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. The only one I know of is Leon Ducharme, the owner.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Did Jack Ruby or Jack Rubenstein have any interest in this club?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. No; not as far as I know.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Did you ever meet Jack Ruby or Jack Rubenstein?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Never.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Did you become acquainted with the Carousel Club when you were
in Dallas?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. I was never in it, and I still don't know where it is.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. You were never in it; you don't know where it is. Did you hear
of it when you were there?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Never. As a matter of fact, in the entire 3½ 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 <span class="locked">Lounge&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Where is that located?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. That is in Dallas.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Where?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. I don't recall the street.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. It is downtown, is it?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. No; it is not downtown. This is&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Where was that located?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. That was on Haskell Avenue, in Dallas.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. How far from the downtown area, if at all?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Well, to make it conveniently, you should take a bus. Otherwise,
about a 20-minute walk.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. From the Ducharme Club to the downtown area of Dallas?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. <span class="locked">Now&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Now, in the Lavender Lounge, the reason we went there, is
we were dickering with the owners of the Lavender <span class="locked">Lounge&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Name him.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. L.&nbsp;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.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_515" id="Page_515">515</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Never.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Did you hear of the name Jack Ruby or Jack Rubenstein up to&mdash;at
anytime prior to November 24, 1963?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. No; never.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. I think I can state pretty emphatically no.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Never.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. When did you first hear of the name Jack Ruby?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. I think he shot Oswald some time in the afternoon or the
morning&mdash;since Bill and I had neither a radio or TV in the apartment&mdash;we were
in the apartment all day.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. All day that Sunday?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Yes; we had heard about it that night.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. That is the 24th of November 1963?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. If that is when Oswald was shot.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. And you first became aware of Oswald being shot the night or
evening of the 24th?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. That Sunday?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Yes. I don't recall exactly how. I think Larrie telephoned
us, and told us that.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. No.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Did you hear of the name Lee Harvey Oswald at any time prior
to November 22, 1963?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. No.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Was the name ever mentioned in your presence?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. No.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. I take it from what you have said that you did not know a man
by the name of Lee Harvey Oswald.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. No.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. When did you first hear the name Lee Harvey Oswald?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. We were sitting in a bar, right after President Kennedy's
assassination.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. This was the 22d of November 1963?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Yes; it was Bill Burley, myself, and Larrie. We had made&mdash;we
were to meet Larrie and Joe Grinnan at the Ducharme Club.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. For what meal?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. For luncheon. We were supposed to meet him at 12:30 or
1 o'clock, I forget which&mdash;about 1 o'clock. And I had a 12:30 on the button,
as a matter of fact&mdash;I had an appointment to sell a carpet out in the Garland
section of Texas&mdash;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&mdash;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.</p>

<p>And after several minutes, it began to take on some substance about the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_516" id="Page_516">516</a></span>
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&mdash;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&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. When you arrived there, was Mr. Schmidt there?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Why?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Why did he have every reason to be frightened?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Bill and I were frightened to the point because I knew about the ad. And I
knew exactly what&mdash;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&mdash;I don't
remember the name of it&mdash;the Ducharme Club was closed, by the way, that
afternoon.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. When you reached the Ducharme Club, it was closed, but you
found Mr. Schmidt there?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. What was said at that time?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. By us?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Yes. When it was announced it was Lee Harvey Oswald.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. We were relieved.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Anything said about it?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. I don't recall. First, what was said, like, I hope he is not a
member of the Walker group&mdash;something like that&mdash;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&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. I thought the Ducharme Club was closed.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. 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 <span class="locked">fact&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. You remained in the house all that evening, did you&mdash;the apartment?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. I think the&mdash;yes; late that evening Larrie came home.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_517" id="Page_517">517</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. That is Friday evening, November 22?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Yes; I think Larrie went home late that evening, and Bill and
I met him there.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. You went to Larrie's home?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. To Larrie's apartment; yes. And I said what are we going
to do? And Larrie said, "Well"&mdash;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 <span class="locked">later&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. What did you mean by that&mdash;it is going to be pretty bad?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. In other words&mdash;this is just exactly the way it worked out.
For <span class="locked">example&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. You are now explaining what you mean by "and it was"?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Right. Stanley Marcus, who was a Dallas businessman,
<span class="locked">financier&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Nieman Marcus?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. 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&mdash;I didn't see <span class="locked">this&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. This was on the 23d now?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. 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&mdash;they tried to transfer the blame to the rightwing. They
had us on the run and they were going to keep it that way.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. How did this come to your attention?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Just by reading the newspapers.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. The Dallas Times Herald and the Dallas Morning News?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. There was very little in the Morning News about the rightwing,
that was antirightwing, and the Dallas Times Herald was full of it.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Would you please delineate what you mean by "us" who were
on the run?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. I mean any conservative in Dallas at that time was keeping
quiet.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Including yourself and the other men you mentioned?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. You are probably a few days beyond the 23d now?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Right; I am. I am going now&mdash;everything was rather stable,
static up until the Wednesday, the following Wednesday, when I left Dallas.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Yes; we were over at Larrie's house. I don't remember
exactly the times. We had been to Larrie's place several times.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Were you in the Dallas downtown business district at anytime
on the 23d?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. I don't think so&mdash;no&mdash;no, as a matter of fact. In fact, I
didn't get around to the business district until&mdash;yes. We went into the outer
edge of the downtown area to get to the post office, to pick up the letters.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. That is right. And then we went directly back to the
apartment, and opened these letters.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_518" id="Page_518">518</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. That is all you did in the downtown area?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Yes; so far as I can recollect.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Approximately what time of the day was that?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. That was in the morning. That was early in the morning&mdash;about
8 or 9 o'clock, I guess, in the morning.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Did you receive any telephone calls at your apartment that day?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. I received&mdash;Larrie called us, I know. I don't recall what
was said. It was just like, "What is happening&mdash;everything okay?"</p>

<p>On Monday I received a <span class="locked">letter&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Excuse me. Have we now accounted from the time you got up
Saturday morning until the time you went to bed that evening?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. The 22d&mdash;we picked you up in your car with Mr. Burley around
12:30. Now, what happened that morning?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. That morning?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Yes&mdash;the 22d. Where were you the morning of the 22d, up to
12:30 o'clock in the afternoon?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Let's see. I left the apartment at about&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. That was the carpet company by which you were employed?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Exactly.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Name it.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Carpet Engineers.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. And you had obtained that job when?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. About a week after arriving in Dallas.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. And that was located where?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. 1002 South Beckley, in the Oak Cliff section of Dallas.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. In the Oak Cliff section?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. That is right.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. On Beckley?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. On Beckley.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. What was the address?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. At least a few miles. I don't know. I had never been on
North Beckley.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. At no time while you were in Dallas were you ever on North
Beckley?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. And you were a salesman of carpeting?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. That is right.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Did you ever sell any carpeting?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Not a one.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Did you make any effort?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. I made a lot of effort. This is where most of my money
went&mdash;for gas and things like that.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Your associate, Mr. Burley, was he a salesman for this company
also?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. He quit about 2 weeks&mdash;about several days before the 22d.
And he was looking&mdash;of course, one of us had to make money. We both were
blanking out with the carpets.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. I take it, however, he had been employed by the same carpet
company?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_519" id="Page_519">519</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. You made application together, did you?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. And you were both employed at approximately the same time?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. That is right.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. But he left the carpet company before you did?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. That is right.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. And I understand you attended a sales meeting at the carpet
company the morning of the 22d.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. That is right.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. When did that sales meeting break up?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. 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 <span class="locked">had&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. What was his name?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. 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?"</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. All right. Now, would you tell us what you did on the 24th?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Went to pick up the mail in the morning, went back to the
apartment.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. You picked up mail in the morning on Sunday?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. That is right, the post office was open Sunday morning.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. You went to the post office on the 23d, which is Saturday, and
you also <span class="locked">returned&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. No; I didn't go to the post office on Saturday the 23d.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. I misunderstood you, then.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. No; I am almost positive it was Sunday morning. I know
it wasn't Saturday. I am positive&mdash;almost positive it was Sunday morning.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. That is when you picked up the 50-odd letters you referred to?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Right.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. It was the day that you heard that Ruby had shot Oswald, was it?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. I am getting a little confused now. I think I might be 1
<span class="locked">day&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. See if we can orient you. The assassination of the President
occurred on the 22d of November 1963, which is a Friday.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Right.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Then there was Saturday. Then on Sunday the 24th occurred
the shooting of Lee Harvey Oswald by Jack Ruby.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Now, with those events in mind, when did you go to the post office
box?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Well, now, I know it was not Monday. Now, I am back in
perspective. I am almost definitely sure it was Sunday morning.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. No; couldn't have.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. That was an error?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. That was an error; yes. It was Sunday.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. I am almost positive it was Sunday morning.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. You are equally positive it was not Monday?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. It might either be&mdash;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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_520" id="Page_520">520</a></span>
am not sure if it was Sunday morning&mdash;it might have been Monday morning. I
doubt it. But it might have been.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. But it was early?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Around 8 o'clock?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Eight, nine o'clock; yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Went right back to the apartment.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Did Mr. Burley accompany you?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Yes; and another fellow. Ken&mdash;Kenneth Glazbrook.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Who is he?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. This is a fellow associated with CUSA, but never really. He
came in, as a matter of fact&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. You knew he was coming?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Yes. <span class="locked">He&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Please identify him.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Ken Glazbrook.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Yes; who was he?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Ken is what you might call a world traveler. This is a guy&mdash;he
is a political science&mdash;he has a masters in political science from UCLA, I
believe. And we had hoped to bring him in as our political analyst.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Had you met him in the service?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. 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."</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. I am still accounting for Sunday. You went to the post office
box, you think. You went to the bus station to pick <span class="locked">up&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. I am not sure whether this was&mdash;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&mdash;my inclination goes more toward
Friday night.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. You saw him on Sunday?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Ken?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Did you see this man on Sunday?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. He was in the apartment with us.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. He came to stay with you?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Yes; he brought a pitcher and a knapsack.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Did he go down to the post office box with you?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. And he returned to your apartment?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. What did you do then?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. 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&mdash;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&mdash;that is about it for Sunday.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_521" id="Page_521">521</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. When did you first hear about the Ruby-Oswald incident?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. You have testified you were never in the Carousel Club.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Never.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. What if any acquaintance did you have with Officer Tippit?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. None.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. What if any acquaintance did any of your associates have to your
knowledge with Officer Tippit?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Absolutely none.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Had you ever heard of the name Officer Tippit?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Never.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Up to or any time during the day of November 22, 1963?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Do you know whether any of your associates, Schmidt or Burley
or Jones, or any persons you have mentioned, knew Officer Tippit?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. To the best of my knowledge, no.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Not as far as I know. I don't know too much about Joe
Grinnan.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Did you at anytime while you were in Dallas ever have a meeting
with or sit in the Carousel Club with Officer Tippit?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. No.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. None whatsoever.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Absolutely not.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. And you were never in the Carousel Club at all; and you never
were with Officer Tippit.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Right.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Any place.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Any place.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Mr. Weissman, it has been asserted that a meeting took place on
November 14, 1963, in the Carousel Club between Officer Tippit and yourself&mdash;and
I take it from your testimony that you vigorously deny that that ever took
place.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Very definitely. May I say something in relation to this?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Is it pertinent to this?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. You telephoned the radio station?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Right.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. And you asked for Mr. Lane.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. That's right.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Did the man for whom you asked come to the phone?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Yes; he did.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_522" id="Page_522">522</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Had you known Mr. Lane prior to this time?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Never heard of him before.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. You had never spoken to him?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Never.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Did you ask&mdash;when there was an answer on the phone, did you
ask who it was that was on the phone?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. I said something to the effect of "Hello, Mr. Lane?"</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. What did the voice on the other end of the phone say?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. He said yes&mdash;yes something.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Did you identify yourself?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Yes; I did.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Did you identify yourself before or after you asked whether the
voice was that of Mr. Lane?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. I identified myself&mdash;I called the radio station and it was a
telephone thing that was broadcast over the air, question and answer&mdash;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"&mdash;this is just what I said to him.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. What did he say?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. And he said&mdash;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 <span class="locked">time&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. What did he say?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. He said that he had no definite proof, that he would have to
check on it.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Proof of what?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Proof of the allegations.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Did you mention what the allegation was when you talked with
him on the telephone?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Yes; I did.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. What did you say?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Did he say yes he should have talked to you?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Yes; and that he would also recheck his facts in Dallas. And
that ended the essence of the conversation.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Have you exhausted your recollection as to that conversation?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. As to that particular conversation; yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. I denied that; yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. That was what you said.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. I said, "I did not know Lee Harvey Oswald. I did not know
Jack Ruby. I have never been in the Carousel Club."</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. And you said that to him over the telephone on that <span class="locked">occasion&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. That's right.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. What was his response to that?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. This is when he came up with he would have to recheck his<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_523" id="Page_523">523</a></span>
facts and he would have to check into it. Subsequently, I had talked to him later
that same evening&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. How did you get that number?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. The announcer gave it over the air. And he said, "If you
want to speak with Mr. Lane"&mdash;because I was getting pretty hot.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. You mean angry?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. You called the same number again.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. You asked for Mr. Lane.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Yes; I did.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. And somebody responded?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Mr. Lane got on the wire.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Was it the same voice?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. What did he say in the way of acknowledging that it was Mr.
Lane?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. I went into it again.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Did you say, "Mr. Lane"?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. And the voice's response was what?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. I said, "Hello, Mr. Lane." And he said&mdash;I said, "Hello, Mr.
Lane." And he said, "Yes."</p>

<p>"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&mdash;and
"I am going to get a hold of some friends in Dallas to check on your witness and
find out who he is."</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Please identify these people.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. I was saying this to Mark Lane. And Mark Lane repeated
<span class="locked">again&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. <span class="locked">Well&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. It might be well if you started over again. You called the station.
You asked for Mr. Lane and a voice responded.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. You then said, "Mark Lane"? And he responded?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. All right. Now, carry on from there.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. I told him that he had better check his facts, that he is off
on a tangent, that there is absolutely no factual background.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. For what?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. For him saying, his allegations, that I had had this meeting
with Tippit in Ruby's bar.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Did you repeat that again? Did you repeat again that you had
not been in the Carousel Club at anytime?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. 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&mdash;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 <span class="locked">later&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Have you finished the conversation?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. I have finished the conversation with him. Several days
later I got ahold of his office number.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Would you fix the time of this Town Hall meeting broadcast, as
best you can.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_524" id="Page_524">524</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. I am pretty sure it was on the 28th or the morning of the
29th&mdash;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&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Where did you reach him?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. 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&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. To check that date you gave us again. Mr. Weissman&mdash;Mr. Lane
appeared before the Commission on Wednesday, March 4, 1964.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. March 4? March? I did not think it was that long ago. If
he appeared March 4, then the conversation&mdash;well, I stand corrected. I am not
positive of the month.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. It might have been February 28?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. 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 <span class="locked">here&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Unless he appeared twice, I am a 100 percent positive.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. And from what source did your information come that he had
appeared before the Commission?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Newspapers.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. No.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. No.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Prior to November 22, 1963, had you ever seen him?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Never.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Never.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Did you ever have any contact with him of any kind?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Never.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Telephone calls, letters, memoranda of any kind or character?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Never.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. I would like to adjourn at this time if we can, because I have
a luncheon appointment.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. That is what I am suggesting, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Good.</p>

<p>We will adjourn until 2:30.</p>

<p>(Whereupon, at 1:05 p.m., the President's Commission recessed.)</p>

<hr />

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_525" id="Page_525">525</a></span></p>

<h2><span class="smaller">Afternoon Session</span><br />
<span class="subhead">TESTIMONY OF BERNARD WILLIAM WEISSMAN RESUMED</span></h2>

<p>The President's Commission reconvened at 2:45 p.m.</p>

<p>(The Chairman and Mr. Dulles being present.)</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. The Commission will be in order. You may proceed.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Thank you. Mr. Chief Justice.</p>

<p>Whereupon, Bernard Weissman was recalled as a witness and having been
previously duly sworn, testified further as follows:</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. 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.</p>

<p>I will identify these without reading from them, as some of them are rather
lengthy.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Very well.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. 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.</p>

<p>(The documents referred to were marked respectively Commission Exhibits
Nos. 1047 and 1048 for identification.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. The envelope is addressed to SP-4 Larry Jones, APO Station
407, New York, N.Y.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Do you recognize the handwriting on the envelope?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Yes; that is Larrie's.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. And the Larry Jones is the man to whom you made reference
in your testimony?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. The document Commission Exhibit No. 1047, do you recognize
that handwriting?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. It appears to be Larrie's.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Do you recognize it?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. And was document Commission Exhibit No. 1047, enclosed in
the envelope marked Commission Exhibit No. 1048?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Is there any signature on those documents?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. This page should be last.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. That is Larrie Schmidt's signature.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. How did you come into possession of the documents now identified,
one of which was addressed to Larry Jones rather than you?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Larry Jones gave it to me.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Where?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. In Munich, Germany.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. And when he handed the document to you was Exhibit No. 1047
enclosed in Exhibit No. 1048?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Next is a three-page letter dated Dallas, Tex., January 4, 1963,
typewritten, addressed to "Dear Bernie." Is that you?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Marked as Commission Exhibit No. 1040.</p>

<p>(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 1040 for
identification.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. It is signed in typing "Larrie."</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_526" id="Page_526">526</a></span>
A document of five pages marked Commission Exhibit No. 1041 on the first page
of which appears the signature Larrie H. Schmidt.</p>

<p>(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 1041 for
identification.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Do you recognize that signature?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Whose is it?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Larrie Schmidt's.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. 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.</p>

<p>(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 1042 for
identification.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. 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.&nbsp;H. Schmidt, 5417b Lewis
Street, Dallas 6, Tex., addressed to Private First Class Bernie Weissman. Is
that you?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. That is me.</p>

<p>(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 1043 for
identification.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. That is postmarked Dallas, January 4, 1963.</p>

<p>Did you receive the documents, now identified as Commission Exhibits Nos.
1040, 1041, 1042, and 1043?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Yes, I did.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Were the first of those three&mdash;were the first three of those
exhibits I have named enclosed in the document identified as Commission Exhibit
No. 1043?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. I have already identified the signature.</p>

<p>These documents relate to the development of and plans for CUSA, do they
not?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. They do.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. And the conduct of CUSA?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. 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.</p>

<p>(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 1049 for
identification.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. This is addressed "To All Members." It is signed in typing
"Sincerely, Larrie." Have you seen that document before?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Yes; I have.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. And was it enclosed in an envelope?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. It was.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Was it sent to you?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Yes; it was.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Is that document the envelope Commission Exhibit No. 1050?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. That is right.</p>

<p>(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 1050 for
identification.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. There is handwriting on the face of Exhibit No. 1050. Whose
handwriting is that?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. That is mine.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Read it.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. "Meeting with Bob Morris. Infiltration of YAF by CUSA."</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. That is right, of Dallas, Tex.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Which recounts the plans for infiltration of conservative groups<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_527" id="Page_527">527</a></span>
in Dallas, Tex., upon which the witness has somewhat expanded in his testimony
this morning.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Has the witness indicated who Mr. Bob Morris was? I don't
recall that.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. What office?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. I believe he was running in the primary for Senator.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. U.S. Senate.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. U.S. Senator.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Yes, sir; I did.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. The next series is&mdash;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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 1044 for
identification.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. That document was enclosed in what?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. In this envelope here.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. And the envelope is marked Commission Exhibit No. 1046?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. That's right.</p>

<p>(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 1046 for
identification.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Was there anything else enclosed in an envelope?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. I believe it was this.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. A newspaper clipping from the Dallas Morning News which has
been marked and identified as Commission Exhibit No. 1045. Is that right?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. That's right.</p>

<p>(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 1045 for
identification.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. The caption of this reads "Panel Reports Birch Society Dedicated
But Not Dangerous."</p>

<p>Those three documents were received by you from Larrie Schmidt?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. That is right.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Larrie Schmidt.</p>

<p>(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 1037 for
identification.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. There is some handwriting at the bottom of that letter&mdash;do you
recognize it?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Yes; that is Larrie Schmidt's.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Did you receive that document?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. I did.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. And was the handwriting on the document when you received it?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Yes; it was.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Was it enclosed in an envelope?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Yes; it was.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. You received the mail, then.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Yes.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_528" id="Page_528">528</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. In the envelope I now show you marked Commission Exhibit No.
1037-A?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 1037-A for
identification.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Addressed to you. Was there something further enclosed with
those?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. I think this piece.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Which is Commission Exhibit No. 1037-B.</p>

<p>(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 1037-B for
identification.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. This is a handbill of Young Americans For Freedom, Inc.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. That's right.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Yes; I did.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Yes; I have.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. When did you first see it?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. When I received it in the mail.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. I show you an envelope marked Commission Exhibit No. 1038-A.</p>

<p>(The document was marked Commission Exhibit No. 1038-A for identification.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Is that envelope the envelope in which Commission Exhibit No.
1038 was enclosed?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Please read what you have written on the face of Commission
Exhibit No. 1038-A.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. "Ready to take over YAF. Jones in Dallas. Ducharme
Club."</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. And that Ducharme Club is the club, the private club, semi-private
club in Dallas that you mentioned in your testimony this morning.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Lastly, a single-page exhibit, Commission Exhibit No. 1039, dated
at Munich, Germany, on July 31, 1963.</p>

<p>(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 1039 for
identification.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. This purports to be a copy of a letter apparently from you to
Larrie Schmidt, is that correct, sir?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. That's right.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. And this is a carbon copy of the actual letter?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. That's right.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Did you mail the original of this?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. I did.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. To whom?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Larrie Schmidt.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. On or about the date this letter bears?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. That's right.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. What date is that?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. July 21, 1963.</p>

<p>On Commission Exhibit No. 1043, which is the envelope which enclosed several
other exhibits, there is some handwriting. It that yours?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Would you read it.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. "Membership List 1962. Code of Conduct and Introduction
to CUSA. Ultimatum."</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_529" id="Page_529">529</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. And that is a shorthand description or summary of the contents
of the envelope?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. On Commission Exhibit No. 1048, which is also an envelope,
there appears to be written on the face "NIC Infiltration." Whose handwriting
it that?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. That's mine.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. And you put it on there under the circumstances you have
now related?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. 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"?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Never directly.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Well, I can only go by hearsay on this&mdash;what I have seen and
what I have heard from other individuals.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Did this come to your attention before November 22, 1963, or
after?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. After.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Tell what you know, please.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. From what source did you hear this?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Now, I think it was&mdash;I am not sure&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. How do you know that?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. He would have told me.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. That's the basis for your supposition?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. 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 <span class="locked">transporting&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. When?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. 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"&mdash;I had heard about
the handbills.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. From whom?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Excuse me?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. From whom, sir?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. 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&mdash;if incorporated, by the corporation
he is with, chairman of.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. How did you know that?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>(At this point, Senator Cooper entered the hearing room.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Not to my recollection, no.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_530" id="Page_530">530</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Shortly after that?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. And before you left Dallas?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Did you have anything to do with the bringing into existence of
this or similar handbills?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. None; none whatsoever.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. None that I know of.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. How about the names of those people who were in on it?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. On the handbill?</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Did you become acquainted at any time with Robert A. Surrey?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. No.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. With Robert G. Klause?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. No.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. With J.&nbsp;T. Monk?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. No.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Did you become acquainted at any time with the Johnson Printing
Co.?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. No.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Did you have any materials printed&mdash;and when I say you, I mean
you or your group&mdash;while you were in Dallas?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Not that I know of. I personally have no knowledge of anything
being printed.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Did you ever hear of the Lettercraft Printing Co.?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. No; I have not.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Did you ever hear of Ashland Frederick Birchwell?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. No.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Or have any contact with him?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Did you meet General Walker at any time while you were in
Dallas?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Never did.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Did you meet anybody or know anybody by the name of Mercer?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. No.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. While you were in Dallas&mdash;Mrs. Clifford or Dorothy Mercer?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. No.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Or Mr. Clifford Mercer?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Definitely not.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Among the exhibits we have identified this afternoon is a list of
members. Those were the members of CUSA as of that particular time?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. And the changes in membership you have recounted in your testimony
this morning, is that correct, sir?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Yes; I am sorry&mdash;I knew I had left something out of one
of those. I do not know which exhibit is. But it is the one that <span class="locked">says&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. I will hand them back to you, and you can tell me.</p>

<p>You now have in your hand a sheet of paper.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. I take it that sheet of paper came from one of the envelopes we
have already marked?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. This one here.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. The answer is yes?</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_531" id="Page_531">531</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. I will mark this sheet as Commission Exhibit No. 1051.</p>

<p>(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 1051 for
identification.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Would you tell us in what envelope Commission Exhibit No.
1051 was enclosed?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Commission Exhibit No. 1043.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. And what is Commission Exhibit No. 1051?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Membership in CUSA?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. 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&mdash;at about the time this was
printed&mdash;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&mdash;some to a much lesser degree than the others.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. None&mdash;none at all.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Was there any response from Jack Ruby?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Not under his name.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. And you say about a third of those responses were favorable and
two-thirds unfavorable.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. That's right.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Insofar as the questions asked on Exhibit&mdash;Commission Exhibit
No. 1031 are concerned?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Well, to put it very exact, if I did receive a letter from Jack
Ruby, I have no knowledge of it.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. That is what I wanted to know.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. And apart from&mdash;I asked you also the general question whether
you recognized any names. I would like to add to that&mdash;did you recognize in
reading over any of those letters or responses any persons, regardless of what
name was signed to the document?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. None whatsoever.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Yes; I have.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Does that accurately reflect the interview which the FBI had
with you on that day?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. But it does accurately reflect what took place during the course
of that interview.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Exactly.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. What you said&mdash;it reports it accurately.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Yes; very accurately.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. 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.</p>

<p>I will mark that with the next exhibit number, Commission Exhibit No. 1052.</p>

<p>(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 1052 for
identification.)</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_532" id="Page_532">532</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Mr. Chief Justice, I offer in evidence the exhibits which have been
identified&mdash;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.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. They may be admitted under those numbers.</p>

<p>(The documents referred to, heretofore marked for identification as Commission
Exhibits Nos. 1031 through 1052 inclusive, were received in evidence.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. I have no further questions of the witness. Mr. Flannery, do
you have anything?</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Mr. Dulles, do you have any questions you would like to ask?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Excuse me, please. There is just one thing but it is a question
of&mdash;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&mdash;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&mdash;though
I did not stare into his face, because I did not know if this fellow was
going to shoot me or say something.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. You were then frightened; were you not?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. 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&mdash;because
frankly my recollection of the individual on the pictures I have seen
of Ruby in the newspapers, they do not seem to jibe&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. A typical Texas western hat, sometimes called a 10-gallon hat?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. That's right. And this is about the only thing else I have
to add.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Did he follow you?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. This post office box from which you were taking the mail, was
that box the one that was advertised in the paper?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. So that the number of that box was known.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. 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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_533" id="Page_533">533</a></span>
and pointed him out to me. And this fellow just followed us right out, and that
was that.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. As I recall, you fixed the time when you went to the mail box
as probably sometime Sunday morning.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Can you be any more definite as to the time Sunday morning
when you were there?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. I am almost 100 percent sure it was between 8 and 9 o'clock.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. In the morning?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. I have no further questions.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Senator Cooper, have you any questions?</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. What age did the man seem to be?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. About 60.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. I have two or three other questions.</p>

<p>Did your organization, CUSA, ever consider violence as a means to reaching
its objectives?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. This had been&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. Did you consider the advertisements in the paper there as
possibly inciting to violence under the circumstances?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Definitely not.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. Was that considered at all?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Definitely not. At least not by me. And nobody ever mentioned
it.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. Was there any background of writings or theory of any kind
upon which you depended? Where did it come from?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. Let's see. You are putting me in sort of a box but I will
answer you. We read, for example&mdash;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.</p>

<p>We were asked&mdash;not asked&mdash;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&mdash;I didn't&mdash;I never did find the
time to do it&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Did the others read them?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. I guess Larrie read them, because he suggested these. There
were many times when I said yes&mdash;I yessed him to death, and did as I pleased.
And this is one of the cases.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. That was about the extent of your reading background?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. 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.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_534" id="Page_534">534</a></span>
Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. As one of your aims, did you have the purpose of making some
money out of this movement?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. Was this business interest to be these organizations which
you were going to infiltrate and whose treasuries you might capture?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. No.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. Or was it to be&mdash;you hoped to develop businesses because of
your political influence; is that it?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>And so we felt there is nothing wrong, and it is done occasionally in government,
where occasionally you would use&mdash;you would meet someone politically&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. Did you study methods of propaganda?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. 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 <span class="locked">fact&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>I have something here that was made up. It is just a list. I just happened
to remember. Publicity tactics, for example&mdash;rallies, hangings&mdash;these are effigies,
I would imagine&mdash;demonstrations, picketing, sit-downs, stickers, billboards,
boycotts, lectures, songfests, talkathons, telephone campaigns, door-to-door
campaigns. Publicity&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. That was your program?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. This was our advertising program; yes, sir.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. 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&mdash;do
you consider that as in the regular spirit of our system of government?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. I would say this, sir.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. Democratic system you spoke of?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. 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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_535" id="Page_535">535</a></span>
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.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. That is all I want to ask.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. I noticed on the list that you had there of techniques was
hangings. Now, you said&mdash;you added to that, I think, that that meant hanging
in effigy, you assumed. Is that right?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Is that not provocative to violence?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Weissman</span>. No; I think in the context that we meant it, that it was just
another way of getting possibly some publicity&mdash;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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>If there are any questions you would like to ask, you may feel free to do so
now.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Flannery</span>. I have nothing.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Very well.</p>

<p>(At this point in the hearing, Chairman Warren left the hearing room and
the witness Robert G. Klause entered.)</p>

<h2 id="rgk">TESTIMONY OF ROBERT G. KLAUSE</h2>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Would you kindly raise your right hand?</p>

<p>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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Klause</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. You are Robert G. Klause?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Klause</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. And you appear here voluntarily today?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Klause</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. Klause is here to testify with respect to the genesis and dissemination of
the "Wanted For Treason" handbill, Commission Exhibit No. 996.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Proceed, please.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Your age, please?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Klause</span>. 32.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. You are a married man?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Klause</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. You were born and reared in this country?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Klause</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Likewise your wife?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Klause</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. And your parents?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Klause</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. And you reside in Texas?</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_536" id="Page_536">536</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Klause</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Where?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Klause</span>. Dallas.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. What address?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Klause</span>. 1126 South Waverly.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. And what is the name of your mother?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Klause</span>. Dorothy Anna Mercer.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. And is she engaged in a printing business in Dallas?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Klause</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. She and her husband?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Klause</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. What is her husband's first name? Clifford?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Klause</span>. Clifford; yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Are you employed in their business?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Klause</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Is that the Lettercraft Printing Co.?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Klause</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. And that is located where?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Klause</span>. 2615 Oak Lawn, Dallas.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. And how long have you been employed in the Lettercraft Printing
Co.?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Klause</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. And tell us what the nature of that printing company is.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Klause</span>. Offset lithography, letterheads, statements, envelopes, things like
that.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Is it a small house?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Klause</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Were you employed theretofore by a different printing company?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Klause</span>. Sir?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Were you formerly employed by another printing company in
Dallas?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Klause</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. And that was Johnson Printing Co.?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Klause</span>. Johnson Printing Co.; yes, sir. With several other companies
in town.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. I see. And where is Johnson Printing Co. located?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Klause</span>. I think it is the 2700 block of Haskell in Dallas.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Did you become acquainted with Robert A. Surrey while you
were employed at Johnson Printing Co.?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Klause</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Had you known him before that?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Klause</span>. No, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Klause</span>. I am not too sure what you mean but as far as laying&mdash;laying the
job out, no, sir. Now, like I said, I ran the job. I shot the negatives.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Perhaps we can get at it this way, sir. When first did you have
any connection with this matter?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Klause</span>. Approximately, I would say, a month before President Kennedy
came to town.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. How did that arise?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Klause</span>. Mr. Surrey called on me and asked me if I would run a job.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. You say he called on you. Where were you when he called on
you?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Klause</span>. I believe I was at the shop. In fact, I know I was at the shop.
He must have called me at the shop.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. When you say shop, you mean the Lettercraft Printing Co.?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Klause</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_537" id="Page_537">537</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. He came to Lettercraft Printing Co.?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Klause</span>. No, sir; he called.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. What did he say?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Klause</span>. He said that he had a little job he would like to have run, and
would I run it myself?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. And you responded?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Klause</span>. I said yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Did he come over to your shop?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Klause</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Did I understand you to say that you said to him you would
run it yourself?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Klause</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. You mean by that something distinct from or having Lettercraft
Printing Co. run it?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Klause</span>. He asked me if I was interested in doing a little job on the side,
and I said yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. 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.?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Klause</span>. Yes, sir. You see, I have my own shop.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. You do?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Klause</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Where is that located?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Klause</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Was Mr. Surrey aware of this practice?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Klause</span>. Yes, sir; I am sure he was.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. And he proposed to you at the outset that you do it "on the side"?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Klause</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Now, you met with Mr. Surrey after this telephone call?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Klause</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Do you recall whether it was at your home or whether it was
at the Lettercraft Co. or some other place?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Klause</span>. Actually, like I say, Mr. Jenner, I am not real sure. I do not
know whether it was out at&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Klause</span>. By preparing the plates&mdash;the only thing that I actually did is&mdash;either
it was two newspaper clippings or magazine clippings.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. From whom did you receive the magazine clippings?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Klause</span>. From Mr. Surrey.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. They were slick paper magazine clippings?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Klause</span>. Something on a slick paper basis; yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. That contained the front and profile of President Kennedy, which
is reproduced on Commission Exhibit No. 996?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Klause</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Now, what did you do with those two slick magazine reproductions
of President Kennedy's head?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Klause</span>. Well, I tried to shoot them, and I could not shoot them. We have
our own camera. We take a picture of it&mdash;reproduce it.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. You must assume that none of us is experienced in the printing
business. And when you say <span class="locked">"shoot"&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Klause</span>. I will explain myself more carefully. When they were brought
to <span class="locked">me&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_538" id="Page_538">538</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. By Mr. Surrey?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Klause</span>. Yes, sir. Then I tried to make negatives of <span class="locked">them&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Negatives on film?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Klause</span>. Yes, sir; on film.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Klause</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. That is J.&nbsp;T. Monk?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Klause</span>. Tommy Monk, of Monk Bros.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. J.&nbsp;T. Monk is the father, and Tommy Monk, or J.&nbsp;T. Monk, Jr.,
is the son.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Klause</span>. The only person I know down there is Tommy.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. He is a young man?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Klause</span>. No, sir; Tommy I have known 12 or 13 years. He is somewhere
around 50, 55, probably.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Is he the apparent owner or manager at least of <span class="locked">this&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Klause</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Is it a lithography company?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Klause</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. So you took the two magazine pictures of President Kennedy to
Monk Bros.?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Klause</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. For the purpose of having Monk Bros. make negatives, film negatives
of them?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Klause</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Which in turn were to be employed to do what?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Klause</span>. To be employed to be run on this job. I mean it was part of this
piece right here.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. And do you recall what the charge was by Monk Bros. for that
service?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Klause</span>. No, sir; I think it was around three and a half, four and a half,
something like that.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Did you pay in cash?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Klause</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. And you paid in cash because you did not want it charged to
Lettercraft Printing Co.?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Klause</span>. 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&mdash;I mean when I go
down there and buy supplies for myself, since&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. When you received the negatives, then what did you do with the
negatives?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Klause</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Made a plate from those negatives?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Klause</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. In turn to be employed in printing the handbill?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Klause</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_539" id="Page_539">539</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. When you received those negatives, did you again communicate
with Mr. Surrey?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Klause</span>. I do not believe I understand what you mean, Mr. Jenner.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Klause</span>. No, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Had Mr. Surrey advised you as to how many he wished of these
handbills?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Klause</span>. Approximately&mdash;he said approximately 6,000, 7,000.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. You made a plate from which the front and profile of President
Kennedy as appears on Exhibit No. 996 was made?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Klause</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Klause</span>. That copy came, sir; as was&mdash;just approximately about the way
it is here. I do not know whether it was typed on&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. From whom did you receive that press-proof copy?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Klause</span>. I received all the copy from Mr. Surrey.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Klause</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. How did you reproduce it onto the handbill?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Klause</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Klause</span>. I believe it was all at the same time. This was&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Who, if anybody, assisted you in printing up the handbills?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Klause</span>. Nobody.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Mrs. Klause did not help you?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Klause</span>. She was in front of the shop. In fact, I do not even think she
ever came back.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. When you say shop are you talking now of your own shop in
your home or the shop at Lettercraft?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Klause</span>. Lettercraft.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. So the handbills were actually printed by you in the Lettercraft
Printing Co. shop?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Klause</span>. Yes, sir; after hours.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. After you had&mdash;how many did you print, if you recall?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Klause</span>. I would say, Mr. Jenner, approximately 5,000&mdash;5,200, 5,300.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. What did you do with them after you printed them?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Klause</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. And now, give us your recollection as to when you made contact
with Mr. Surrey&mdash;with particular reference to November 22, 1963.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Klause</span>. I would say, sir; it was approximately 2 or 2½ weeks before
Mr. Kennedy was in Dallas.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. That would be the early part of November 1963?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Klause</span>. Yes, sir; as close as I can remember right now.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Did you deliver the 5,000 plus handbills personally to Mr. Surrey?</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_540" id="Page_540">540</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Klause</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. And where did that delivery take place?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Klause</span>. Now, that I do remember. That was about 5 blocks approximately
from the shop. It was&mdash;from Lettercraft. It was a little cafe there
which we call the Waffle Shop. It is the Pal's Waffle Shop.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Did you make&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Klause</span>. 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."</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Did Mrs. Klause accompany you?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Klause</span>. No, sir; she was at work.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Anybody accompany you?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Klause</span>. No, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. You met Mr. Surrey at the Pal's Waffle Shop?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Klause</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. You delivered him all of the handbills you had printed up?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Klause</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. What color were those?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Klause</span>. The handbills were run on what we call assorted dodger stock&mdash;green
and orange and blue and yellow. It is a cheap colored newspaper print
is what it is.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. From where did you obtain the assorted dodger stock?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Klause</span>. Olmstead Kirk Paper Co.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Did you make it as an individual purchase or was that a purchase
on behalf of the Lettercraft Printing Co.?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Klause</span>. No; that was my own purchase.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. You purchased that and paid for it in cash?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Klause</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Now, were you paid for this work you did for Mr. Surrey?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Klause</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. And what did he pay you?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Klause</span>. I think it was $40, Mr. Jenner. In fact, I am almost positive.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Was it in cash?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Klause</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. When next did you see Mr. Surrey after you had delivered the
handbills to him?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Klause</span>. I would say approximately 2 or 3 weeks after Mr. Kennedy was
assassinated in Dallas.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Klause</span>. Yes, sir; that is correct.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. That whole time span was a month to 5 weeks?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Klause</span>. Yes, sir; and then at that time I called Mr. Surrey myself
personally.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Why?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Klause</span>. 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&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. On that occasion when you saw Mr. Surrey, did you have a
conversation&mdash;did you have any conversation with him with respect to the
dodger or handbill, Commission Exhibit No. 996?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Klause</span>. Yes, sir; I imagine there was. I cannot exactly say what it<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_541" id="Page_541">541</a></span>
is now. But I imagine there was something said&mdash;because I was quite upset
about it at the time.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. The FBI interviewed you about this incident, did they not?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Klause</span>. The Secret Service did; yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Klause</span>. No, sir; nothing at all.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. What led you to do that, Mr. Klause?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Klause</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. When you say folks, you mean your mother and stepfather?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Klause</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. You finally decided to reveal the full facts respecting this
handbill?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Klause</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. And you did so to the Secret Service?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Klause</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Did Mr. Surrey approach you at any time to suggest to you that
you should not reveal the source of this handbill?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Klause</span>. No, sir; I talked to him&mdash;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&mdash;I mean doing their job, that they wanted to find
something out.</p>

<p>I said this is strictly out of my territory&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Did you ever tell him you made up your mind you were going
to tell the full facts about this matter?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Klause</span>. No, sir; not really. I think in so many words he might have
understood that I was.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Did he ever make a remark to you, "Well, that is the way the
ball bounces."</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Klause</span>. It sounds like&mdash;it seems to ring a bell, but I cannot place it.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Klause</span>. Yes, sir; I believe so.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Does that refresh your recollection?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Klause</span>. The ball bounces&mdash;yes, sir&mdash;that rings a bell now.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Up to November 22, 1963, had you ever heard the name Lee
Harvey Oswald?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Klause</span>. No, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Had you ever seen anybody up to that day who purported to
be or whom you were advised was Lee Harvey Oswald?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Klause</span>. No, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. I show you Garner Exhibit No. 1. Did you ever see that man
prior to November 22, 1963?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Klause</span>. No, sir. The only time I seen this man was on television and
in the paper.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. You mean on or after November 22, 1963?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Klause</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Klause</span>. No, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Did you have a conversation with Mr. Surrey as to the purpose
for which the handbill was to be put?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Klause</span>. No, sir.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_542" id="Page_542">542</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. 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."</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Klause</span>. 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&mdash;which I should have done, I admit now. But I did not.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. You were running it at night because you were doing this on the
side?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Klause</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. You do have some printing equipment in your own apartment or
home?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Klause</span>. No, sir. Not at my house; no, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. You used the equipment of the Lettercraft Printing Co., did you?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Klause</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. And you did this at night because you were doing it on the side
with the Lettercraft Printing Co. equipment?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Klause</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Did you advise your mother or your stepfather you were doing
this?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Klause</span>. 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&mdash;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&mdash;as long
as it did not interfere with work during the day.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Did you tell your mother or stepfather that you had done this
work?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Klause</span>. No, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Did you tell them eventually?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Klause</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. They found out about it eventually?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Klause</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. You kept the money, did you?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Klause</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Do you know General Edwin A. Walker, resigned?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Klause</span>. No, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Have you ever heard of him?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Klause</span>. I have heard of him.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Did you ever have any contact with him?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Klause</span>. No, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Were you aware that Robert A. Surrey was associated with General
Edwin A. Walker at the time you made up these handbills?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Klause</span>. No, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Did you have any acquaintance with Robert A. Surrey other than
as a fellow employee at Johnson Printing Co.?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Klause</span>. No, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. And this incident about which you have testified?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Klause</span>. No, sir.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Klause</span>. No, sir. He just asked me to do the job&mdash;said he had a customer
that wanted it done. And that is all that was ever said about it.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. He did not tell you what the customer wanted to do with
them?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Klause</span>. No, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. But at the very outset he asked you to do this on the side?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Klause</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. Mr. Chairman, I think I am going to have to leave now. I
have no further questions.</p>

<p>(At this point, Senator Cooper left the hearing room.)</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_543" id="Page_543">543</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Have you ever heard of the American Eagle Publishing Co.?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Klause</span>. Yes, sir. It takes a minute to ring a bell, but it rings a bell.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Did you ever do any work for the American Eagle Publishing Co.?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Klause</span>. No, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. That is a company with which Mr. Surrey is associated?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Klause</span>. Yes, sir; I believe so. That is why I heard that mentioned.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. How did you become acquainted with that fact? And when?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Klause</span>. I believe there was a discussion one day that sometimes on jobs&mdash;I
think this was done, we talked about this at Johnson at the time.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. At the time you were employed at Johnson?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Klause</span>. Yes, sir. That jobs would come in that he would send through&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. You were aware of the fact that Mr. Surrey and General Walker
were the two partners in American Eagle Publishing Co.?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Klause</span>. No, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. But you knew he had some connection with the company&mdash;Mr.
Surrey?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Klause</span>. Yes, sir. Like I said, he had mentioned it.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Mr. Surrey had mentioned it to you. Did he tell you he was an
officer of that company?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Klause</span>. Well, as far as I knew, he was sole owner.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. I see.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Klause</span>. 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&mdash;if it is under an assumed name or
your name or whatever the name is, you have to file that business.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Do you have an assumed name certificate for your private
business?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Klause</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. What is it?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Klause</span>. Klause Printing.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Were you not aware of the fact that Mr. Surrey had some connection
with General Edwin A. Walker?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Klause</span>. No, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. At no time?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Klause</span>. No, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Klause</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. What I want to question you about&mdash;did you look at the back
of the book, the back cover of the book?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Klause</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. You never noticed that Surrey appears on the backside of the
back cover as the president of the American Eagle Publishing Co.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Klause</span>. No, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Have you ever heard of the Carousel Club in Dallas?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Klause</span>. Yes, sir; I have heard of it.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Do you know where it is located?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Klause</span>. All I can tell you, sir, it is downtown. I have never been there.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. You have never been there?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Klause</span>. No, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Did you ever meet Jack Ruby?</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_544" id="Page_544">544</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Klause</span>. No, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Did you ever see Jack Ruby prior to the 24th of November 1963?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Klause</span>. No, sir; I have never seen him and have never met him.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. You've never seen him before or since or on that day?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Klause</span>. No, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Did you ever have any business with him of any kind or character?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Klause</span>. 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&mdash;some people that
bought some of his property, or bought his business, called on us to do a job.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. This was after the assassination?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Klause</span>. Yes, sir; this was after&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Did Lettercraft Printing Co. ever do any work for Jack Ruby,
to your knowledge?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Klause</span>. No, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Did Johnson Printing Co. ever do any work for Jack Ruby, to
your knowledge?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Klause</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Were you generally aware of the jobs that went through Johnson
Printing?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Klause</span>. That came to my press, yes sir. Now, Johnson&mdash;I don't know
whether you know it&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. When you talk about your shop you are talking about Lettercraft?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Klause</span>. Yes, sir; now, on the press that I was working on, nothing ever
came in; no, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. I think that will be all. May I look at my notes, Mr. Chairman.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Have you told us in detail all your conversations with Mr. Surrey,
from the time that this particular job started until it was concluded?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Klause</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Did he tell you at all what his purpose was?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Klause</span>. No, sir; the only thing I mentioned&mdash;he said he had a customer
that wanted it.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. He did not identify the customer?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Klause</span>. No, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. But he indicated he was doing this for a customer?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Klause</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Klause</span>. It might have been; but not to my knowledge, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. You did not know at that time that President Kennedy was going
to visit Dallas?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Klause</span>. No, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. And I think you have testified that your first contact with Mr.
Surrey about this was some 3 weeks before the visit?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Klause</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Around the first of November that would be?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Klause</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Mrs. Klause works, does she?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Klause</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. And you both get home about the same time do you?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Klause</span>. Yes, sir&mdash;the biggest part of the time we do.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_545" id="Page_545">545</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. How many children do you have?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Klause</span>. We have three.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. I exhibit to you another handbill which we will mark as Commission
Exhibit No. 1053.</p>

<p>(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 1053 for
identification.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Have you ever seen that document before or one like it?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Klause</span>. No, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Do you see any form of type there that is the kind of type that
is reproduced in Lettercraft Printing?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Klause</span>. No, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Does that appear to be any type font or printing with which you
became familiar at Johnson Printing Co.?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Klause</span>. No, sir; actually from a printer's viewpoint&mdash;just looking at it
from this angle here&mdash;that could be done off of a typewriter. That looks more
like a typewriter than it does off a Linotype machine.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. And after its having been typed, then reproduced in the fashion
in which Commission Exhibit No. 996 was reproduced?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Klause</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. The mechanical processes you have described. You called it a
blanket?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Klause</span>. Plate.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Make up a plate of the whole sheet&mdash;you photograph the sheet,
then make a plate, and reproduce from the plate?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Klause</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Now why I say it doesn't look like Linotype&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. You are talking about the right-hand margin?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Klause</span>. Yes, sir; you see your left hand is flush. Now on a Linotype
those on the right can be flushed.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Now, directing your attention to Commission Exhibit No. 996,
are the right-hand margins of that material flushed as you call it?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Klause</span>. These I would say were pretty close to being flush. It would be
more of a Linotype than this Exhibit No. 1053 here.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Klause</span>. Linotype <span class="locked">or&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. A Ludlow?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Klause</span>. Possibly. I was getting ready to Varitype. Varitype would
come up close to flushing it.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. But Commission Exhibit No. 1053 does not stimulate your recollection
in any respect whatsoever?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Klause</span>. No, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. You never heard about that handbill?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Klause</span>. No, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Wholly apart from never having seen it?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Klause</span>. No, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. My handing it to you a moment ago was the first time you ever
knew of the existence of a handbill of that type?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Klause</span>. Yes, Sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. You never heard any discussion of it heretofore?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Klause</span>. No, Sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Mr. Chairman, I have covered all of the details with Mr. Klause.
I have no further questions of him.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. I have no more questions. We thank you very much, Mr. Klause,
for coming. We appreciate your testimony.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_546" id="Page_546">546</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Klause</span>. I am glad I can do what I can do. I would like to get this
straightened out. I feel real guilty about it.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. Is there anything you would like to add, Mr. Klause?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Klause</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>But like I said, it was late at night, and I was in a hurry, and I wanted to get
it on and off.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. And you needed the money.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Klause</span>. And I needed the money; yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. What did you net on this?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Klause</span>. $40. Actually, I think the stock was somewhere around $20. I
paid for the stock, and he in turn paid for the stock.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. $40 was your profit on this?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Klause</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. $40 was the full profit to you?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Klause</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Have you anything further, Mr. Jenner?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jenner</span>. No; I have not.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. The Commission will stand adjourned.</p>

<p>(Whereupon, at 4:15 p.m., the President's Commission recessed.)</p>

<hr />
<h2 id="ml"><span class="smaller"><a name="Thursday_July_2_1964" id="Thursday_July_2_1964"><i>Thursday, July 2, 1964</i></a></span><br />
<span class="subhead">TESTIMONY OF MARK LANE RESUMED</span></h2>

<p>The President's Commission met at 2 p.m., on July 2, 1964, at 200 Maryland
Avenue NE., Washington, D.C.</p>

<p>Present were: Chief Justice Earl Warren, Chairman; and Representative
Gerald R. Ford, member.</p>

<p>Also present were J. Lee Rankin, general counsel; and Norman Redlich,
assistant counsel.</p>

<p class="p2">The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. The Commission will be in order.</p>

<p>Mr. Lane, the last time you were here, we excused you as a witness. You
should be sworn again as a witness.</p>

<p>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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Lane</span>. I do.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Mr. Lane, you testified before the Commission the last time on
March 4, did you?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Lane</span>. Yes; I did.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. And you recall your testimony at that time?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Lane</span>. Well, it was rather long testimony. I recall portions of it; yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Yes. Do you recall that you were asked about an interview
with Helen Markham?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Lane</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. If you would care to refer to your testimony at any time, you
are free to do so.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_547" id="Page_547">547</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Lane</span>. Thank you.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Do you have any writing from Mrs. Markham in connection
with the interview that you referred to in your testimony?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Lane</span>. Any document which Mrs. Markham wrote? Is that the question?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Either that or anything that she signed which purports to be
her statement or affidavit or other recording.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Lane</span>. I have nothing that she signed or that she wrote.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Do you have anything that you made up yourself from any
interview with her?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Lane</span>. Yes; I do.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Do you have that with you?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Lane</span>. No; I do not.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Will you describe that document? Is it a paper or a tape
recording, or what form does it have?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Lane</span>. It is a tape recording and a transcript of the tape recording in
writing.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Was the tape recording made by you?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Lane</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Will you describe to the Commission the attorney and client
relationship that you claim to exist?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Lane</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Who was the client?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Lane</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. And do you claim that that attorney-client relationship is one
that exists now?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Lane</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Will you state what the peripheral matter is that you referred
to?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Lane</span>. It is the matter that Mrs. Oswald called you and spoke with you
on the telephone about yesterday, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. What is that?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Lane</span>. It is in reference to a matter regarding the son of Mrs. Markham.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Will you tell whatever else there is in regard to that?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Lane</span>. Mrs. Oswald has specifically requested that&mdash;in fact, has specifically
directed me not to discuss that matter publicly&mdash;inasmuch as you have
that information&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Are you refusing to disclose it, then?</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_548" id="Page_548">548</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Lane</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. And that is your reason for not disclosing it at this time?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Lane</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Lane</span>. At the present time?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. At the present time.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Lane</span>. No; I am not.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. When did that relationship terminate?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Lane</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Can you fix it more precisely?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Lane</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. 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?</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Lane</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. I think we should let the record speak for itself at the
time that this matter was raised before the Commission.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. That portion of the record may be incorporated in this record
at this particular time.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Lane</span>. I would just like to conclude on this note.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>It is not usual for an attorney representing a party to be given an opportunity
to testify, which is quite unusual&mdash;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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>The fact that Oswald is not going to have a real trial flows only from<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_549" id="Page_549">549</a></span>
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.</p>

<p>I think now that that episode is completed, hopefully never to reappear
ever again in our history, or anything close to it&mdash;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.</p>

<p>If Marina Oswald, the widow, sought to have counsel represent her husband
I would think&mdash;here&mdash;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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>I think under those circumstances it would be proper for the Commission
to permit me to participate.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Many criminal lawyers, very noted counsel, would probably seek to excuse
certain&mdash;and again no disrespect at all is meant to the background of members
of this Commission&mdash;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&mdash;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.</p>

<p>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&mdash;to function before this
Commission as counsel on his behalf.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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&mdash;the will of the Commission&mdash;that
no one else shall be entitled to participate in the work and
the deliberations of the Commission.</p>

<p>We asked you to come here today because we understood that you did<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_550" id="Page_550">550</a></span>
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?</p></blockquote>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Lane</span>. 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 <span class="locked">him&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Let the record speak for itself in that respect, too. The
exchange of letters will be in the record. [See Commission Exhibit No. 1053.]</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Lane</span>. Thank you, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Now, Mr. Lane, regarding this tape recording of Helen Markham,
and your interview with her, will you tell the Commission when you made
this?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Lane</span>. I had a conversation with Mrs. Markham on the 2d day of March
of this year.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Where was that?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Lane</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Will you tell the Commission when you made the tape recording
that you referred to?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Lane</span>. I just answered that question, Mr. Rankin.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. And do you refuse to tell, then, anything about that interview
with Helen Markham, how you recorded it?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Lane</span>. I beg your pardon?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. And how you recorded it?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Lane</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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&mdash;not November 22, but since I expressed
some interest in this case.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Mr. Lane, could you tell us whether there was anyone else
present at this interview with Helen Markham that you recorded?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Lane</span>. I don't believe that I said I recorded it. I believe I said it was
recorded.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Was it recorded by someone else?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Lane</span>. 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&mdash;I am amazed by that.</p>

<p>As you know, and I don't know if this has been placed on the record by the
Commission&mdash;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&mdash;their names
being William E. Folkner, his serial number being 5954, and John P. Dimarchi,
his serial number being 4256&mdash;and ordered to give to those gentlemen documents
in my possession, relating to my testimony before this Commission.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Did you do that?</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_551" id="Page_551">551</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Lane</span>. I did not give them those documents; no.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Why not?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Lane</span>. Does your tone and your question indicate you think I should have
given those documents to agents of the FBI?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. I would like to have you answer the question, if you would.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Lane</span>. You decline to answer my question?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Yes; I am examining you.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Lane</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Did you offer to furnish them copies if they would write to you
in the manner you suggested?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Lane</span>. 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&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Now, to return to the tape <span class="locked">recording&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Lane</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Is that in regard to the tape recording?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Lane</span>. No; it is not.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Lane</span>. I would like to make this quite clear to you, Mr. Rankin.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Lane</span>. Present where?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. At the time of the tape recording and the interview. That is
what I am asking you.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Lane</span>. No one else was present.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. And who did the tape recording?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Lane</span>. Again you are delving into an area which is an improper one for
you to delve into.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Did you know about the tape recording being made?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Lane</span>. I beg your pardon?</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Did you know about the tape recording being made?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Lane</span>. I decline to answer that question.</p>

<p>Am I a defendant before this Commission, or is the Commission trying to find
out who assassinated the President?</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. We are trying to find out information about a witness
before this <span class="locked">Commission&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Lane</span>. Well, then, call the witness before the Commission and ask the
witness questions. And if the Commission&mdash;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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_552" id="Page_552">552</a></span>
both of us for perjury. And then at that trial I will present documents in my
possession, and we will see who is convicted.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Do you believe Mrs. Markham is an important witness
in this overall matter?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Lane</span>. I would think so.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. I am sure you know what she has told you.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Lane</span>. I know what she has told me, that is correct.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. If there is any difference between what she told you
and told this Commission, is that important?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Lane</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Lane</span>. I have told you precisely under oath what Mrs. Markham has said
to me.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Are you unwilling to verify that with the tape recording that
you claim to have?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Lane</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. And where was this tape recording made?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Lane</span>. You have my answer to questions about that already, Mr. Rankin.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Did you, yourself, have any conversation with Helen Markham
at anytime?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Lane</span>. Yes; I testified to that on March 4, and again today.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Is this tape recording of that conversation?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Lane</span>. Precisely.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Can you tell us where the tape recording was made?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Lane</span>. I can tell you, but I will not tell you.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Lane</span>. And the sanctity of working documents of an attorney. I have
no other reason whatsoever.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Lane</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Do you claim any attorney and client relationship with regard
to the name of that informant?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Lane</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Is that the basis for your refusal to disclose the name?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Lane</span>. Obviously if I say yes, you cannot pursue this, but I must tell
you honestly that is not the reason.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Then I ask you to disclose the name of the informant.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_553" id="Page_553">553</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Lane</span>. I cannot. I have given my word to that person that I would
not disclose his name.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. You know that is no legal justification, do you not?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Lane</span>. 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&mdash;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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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 <span class="locked">prepared&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Lane</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Lane</span>. I will not do so, Mr. Rankin.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Lane</span>. 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.</p>

<p>You have hundreds of agents of the FBI running all over the Dallas area&mdash;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.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Lane</span>. I have handicapped you by working for 6 months and making<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_554" id="Page_554">554</a></span>
all of the information which I have had available to you? I understand very
fully your position, Mr. Chief Justice.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Lane</span>. 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.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. By denying&mdash;by refusing to answer either question.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Lane</span>. I think that&mdash;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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Lane</span>. Yes; I have.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Other witnesses have done the same thing. No witness is
under compulsion to keep his testimony secret. Naturally, some things would
come out.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Lane</span>. Well, it seems to me that when the transcript of my&mdash;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.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Lane</span>. Oh, I most certainly did. My testimony was open to the public.
My testimony was unlike the rest of the testimony before the Commission.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Lane</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Lane</span>. Yes; you did.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Are you asking that you be paid those expenses?</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_555" id="Page_555">555</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Lane</span>. I would expect that since you made that offer that is a commitment
you should keep. I would have remained in Europe; yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Lane</span>. Mr. <span class="locked">Rankin&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Did you?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Lane</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Lane</span>. 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 <span class="locked">to&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Is that your answer?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Lane</span>. 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.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Even where there is no relationship of attorney and client?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Lane</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Lane</span>. 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
<span class="locked">that&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Will this be in written form, signed statements and affidavits,
or what will you have for this?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Lane</span>. I don't understand your question, Mr. Rankin.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Will you have it in any kind of a written form; the additional
testimony or evidence that you refer to?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Lane</span>. 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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_556" id="Page_556">556</a></span>
before this Commission, I was halted by the immigration authorities because
my name appeared in that proscribed list.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Lane</span>. 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&mdash;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.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Were you prevented from entering the United States?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Lane</span>. No; I am here now, Mr. Chief Justice, but I was stopped.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. How long were you detained? Were you detained?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Lane</span>. Oh, just for a few minutes.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. How many minutes?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Lane</span>. Oh, perhaps 5. My objection is not to the period of time.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. What was the question asked of you?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Lane</span>. Just to wait.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Wasn't there something else asked of you?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Lane</span>. Well, perhaps I should, then, tell you what happened.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. All right. You better answer that question of the Chief Justice.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. That is a part of my question. I asked you: What did they
say to you?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Lane</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.&nbsp;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&mdash;not to Cuba at that
time.</p>

<p>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.&nbsp;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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Mr. Lane, when you asked your informant if you could disclose
the information that we have asked you about&mdash;and we have asked you the
name of the informer&mdash;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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Lane</span>. I most certainly did.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. And what was his response?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Lane</span>. He wondered whether that meant his name might not be revealed
anywhere&mdash;if not by the members of the Commission, perhaps somehow it might
be revealed.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Is that what he said?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Lane</span>. That is precisely what he said.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. When did he tell you that?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Lane</span>. When I spoke with him; I think it was during March or April of
this year, after I testified before the Commission.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Have you made any further inquiry in that regard?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Lane</span>. Have I?</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Yes.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_557" id="Page_557">557</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Lane</span>. I spoke with him one more time.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Since your return from Europe?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Lane</span>. No; I just arrived 2 days ago.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. When was the last time you spoke to him about disclosing his
name?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Lane</span>. I would think it was during April of this year.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. When in April?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Lane</span>. I don't recall the exact date. When I was last in Dallas.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Can you give us a closer approximation than that?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Lane</span>. I really cannot. I believe it was in April; perhaps toward the
middle of April, but I am not certain.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Was it by telephone?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Lane</span>. No; I saw him in person. I went down to see him.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. You saw him in Dallas?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Lane</span>. Yes; well, near Dallas.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Lane</span>. 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.</p>

<p>(At this point, Representative Ford withdrew from the hearing room.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Lane</span>. 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.</p>

<p>I am hopeful that in the next few days it will be possible to give you that
information, as I said earlier.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Lane</span>. 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.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. <span class="locked">And&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Lane</span>. And that is one of the working documents in my possession.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. How does that become a peripheral matter&mdash;the conversation
that you had with Mrs. Markham? What does that have to do with Mrs.
Oswald?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Lane</span>. I secured that information on behalf of an attorney-client relationship
when I was serving my client, Mrs. Oswald.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Lane</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman. Now</span>, 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Lane</span>. 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.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. And since that time she instructed you not to testify?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Lane</span>. Since that time, just actually 2 days ago&mdash;or perhaps it was yesterday<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_558" id="Page_558">558</a></span>&mdash;she
instructed me not to discuss the entire Markham situation at all, quite
specifically, and quite strongly, and insistently, over my objection.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Lane</span>. 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.</p>

<p>I think there is a clear distinction.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Lane</span>. Well, of <span class="locked">course&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Is that your position?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Lane</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Your conclusion about the testimony? Is that what you mean?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Lane</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. About the same matter; is that right?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Lane</span>. Of course, about the same matter. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Do you know of any law to support that position?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Lane</span>. That an attorney's working <span class="locked">documents&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Can be withheld about a matter that he purports to give testimony
concerning?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Lane</span>. I have not researched the question; no. Do you have law indicating
that is inaccurate?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Lane</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. What you purported to report was what you said was her testimony
in regard to these incidents, was it not?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Lane</span>. It was not her testimony. It was a statement that she made to me.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Her statement she made to you?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Lane</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. You purported to give that to the Commission.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Lane</span>. I did give it to the Commission.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. And then you said you had a recording of it; is that right?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Lane</span>. That is correct.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. And you are <span class="locked">not&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Lane</span>. I don't think I ever said that to the Commission.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. You are saying it now, are you not?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Lane</span>. Yes; I am saying it now.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Lane</span>. 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 <span class="locked">order&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Wouldn't you then be violating your attorney-client privilege
just the same?</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_559" id="Page_559">559</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Lane</span>. No; I don't have such a privilege&mdash;a relationship at the present
time. That relationship terminated, as I said, in March.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Well, you would freely discuss, though, the things that occurred
while the attorney-client privilege did prevail, or did exist?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Lane</span>. No; I would merely ask Mrs. Markham a series of questions.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Oh, yes; you would like to make the inquisition your own,
but you are unwilling to testify before this Commission.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Lane</span>. 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.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Lane</span>. 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?</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Lane</span>. 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.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Lane</span>. 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.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. We heard that when you were here in March&mdash;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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Lane</span>. 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.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Were you getting evidence over in Europe?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Lane</span>. 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.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Have you charged admission for any of your speaking?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Lane</span>. Have I charged admission?</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Lane</span>. No; I have not charged admission.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Do you collect any money in this country at the speeches that
you made?</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_560" id="Page_560">560</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Lane</span>. Did I, personally, collect any money?</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Did you have money collected?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Lane</span>. I collected no money.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Did you have any money collected?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Lane</span>. I did not.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Was there money collected at that meeting&mdash;at those meetings
that you had?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Lane</span>. I spoke at probably 40 different college campuses throughout the
United States.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Was money collected at those places?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Lane</span>. 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.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Who got the money?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Lane</span>. The citizens committee of inquiry.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Who is the head of that?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Lane</span>. I am the chairman of that.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Who else belongs to it?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Lane</span>. 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.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Lane</span>. 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.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Lane</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Lane</span>. Thank you. May I comment upon the examination?</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Yes; you may; if you saw anything of any significance there,
you may state it.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Lane</span>. 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&mdash;a deputy sheriff, I believe, or a deputy of some sort&mdash;the
alleged murder weapon, on the 22d day of November 1963, on the sixth floor of
the Book Depository Building.</p>

<p>And in that affidavit Mr. Weitzman&mdash;Officer Weitzman&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Although I am personally not a rifle expert, I was able to determine that it<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_561" id="Page_561">561</a></span>
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.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Very well. Anything further? We will take a short recess,
then.</p>

<p>(Brief recess.)</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Gentlemen, the Commission will come to order. There is
nothing further at this time. The meeting is adjourned.</p>

<p>(Whereupon, at 3:20 p.m., the President's Commission recessed.)</p>

<hr />
<h2 id="lbj">STATEMENT OF PRESIDENT LYNDON B. JOHNSON</h2>

<div class="sig-container">
<div class="sigright2"><span class="smcap">The White House</span>,<br /></div>
<div class="sigright"><i>Washington, July 10, 1964</i>.<br /></div>
</div>

<p class="in0">
The Honorable <span class="smcap">Earl Warren</span>,<br />
<i>The Chief Justice of the United States,<br />
Washington, D.C.</i><br />
</p>

<p><span class="smcap">My Dear Mr. Chief Justice</span>: 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p class="in2">Sincerely,</p>

<div class="sig-container"><div class="sigright"><span class="smcap">Lyndon B. Johnson</span>.<br />
</div></div>

<p>[Enclosure.]</p>

<div class="tb">*<span class="in2">*</span><span class="in2">*</span><span class="in2">*</span><span class="in2">*</span></div>

<p class="center">[Statement of the President, Lyndon Baines Johnson, concerning the events of
November 22, 1963]</p>

<p class="p2">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.</p>

<p>After that, at about 10:30 a.m., we motored to the Fort Worth airfield.
Mrs. Johnson and I then went aboard <i>Air Force II</i> for the trip to Dallas.</p>

<p>We arrived at Love Field in Dallas, as I remember, just shortly after 11:30 a.m.</p>

<p>Agents Youngblood and Johns and two other agents were with us.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>President Kennedy's plane arrived about 5 or 10 minutes after <i>Air Force II</i>.
The President and Mrs. Kennedy disembarked and they greeted us and the
people in the reception committee.</p>

<p>Then the President and Mrs. Kennedy walked along the fence, shaking hands<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_562" id="Page_562">562</a></span>
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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>I was sitting behind Agent Youngblood; Mrs. Johnson was next to me; and
Senator Yarborough was on the left of the rear seat&mdash;that is, just behind the
driver.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>After we had proceeded a short way down Elm Street, I heard a sharp report.
The crowd at this point had become somewhat spotty.</p>

<p>The Vice-Presidential car was then about three car lengths behind President
Kennedy's car, with the Presidential followup car intervening.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>I did not see anything that was going on in and around the President's
automobile.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>In the hospital room to which Mrs. Johnson and I were taken, the shades
were drawn&mdash;I think by Agent Youngblood. In addition to him, two or three
other agents were there.</p>

<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_563" id="Page_563">563</a></span>
that he thought we should make plans to get back to Washington immediately.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mrs. Johnson was allowed to leave for this purpose.</p>

<p>At some time during these events, Kenneth O'Donnell, Congressman Jack
Brooks, Congressman Homer Thornberry, and Cliff Carter came into the room.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>I found it hard to believe that this had happened. The whole thing seemed
unreal&mdash;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.</p>

<p>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 <i>Air Force I</i> and return to Washington.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Despite my awareness of the reasons for Mr. O'Donnell's insistence&mdash;in which
I think he was joined by one or more of the Secret Service agents&mdash;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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>As we started away from the hospital, Congressman Albert Thomas came up
to the car. He saw Congressman Thornberry&mdash;I don't think he saw me&mdash;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.</p>

<p>When we got to the airport, we proceeded to drive to the ramp leading into
the plane, and we entered the plane.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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&mdash;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.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_564" id="Page_564">564</a></span>
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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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&mdash;just after 2 o'clock.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>I shall never forget her bravery, nobility, and dignity.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<div class="sig-container"><div class="sigright">
<span class="smcap">Lyndon B. Johnson</span>.
</div></div>

<hr />
<h2 id="lb">STATEMENT OF MRS. LYNDON B. JOHNSON</h2>

<div class="sig-container">
<div class="sigright2"><span class="smcap">The White House</span>,<br /></div>
<div class="sigright"><i>Washington, July 16, 1964</i>.<br /></div>
</div>

<p class="in0">
The Honorable <span class="smcap">Earl Warren</span>,<br />
<i>The Chief Justice of the United States,<br />
Washington, D.C</i>.<br />
</p>

<p><span class="smcap">My Dear Mr. Chief Justice</span>: 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.</p>

<p>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&mdash;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.</p>

<p>The quality of the tape recording is very poor, but upon considering your<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_565" id="Page_565">565</a></span>
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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p class="in2">Sincerely,</p>

<div class="sig-container"><div class="sig-block">
<div class="sig">(S)<span class="first">Lady Bird Johnson,</span><br />
<span class="second">Mrs. <span class="smcap">Lyndon B. Johnson</span>.</span></div>
</div></div>

<p>[Enclosure.]</p>

<div class="tb">*<span class="in2">*</span><span class="in2">*</span><span class="in2">*</span><span class="in2">*</span></div>

<p class="center">[Transcript from Mrs. Johnson's tapes relating to November 22, 1963]</p>

<p>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&mdash;Lyndon and me and Senator Yarborough. The streets were
lined with people&mdash;lots and lots of people&mdash;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.</p>

<p>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&mdash;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."</p>

<p>Senator Yarborough and I ducked our heads. The car accelerated terrifically
fast&mdash;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."</p>

<p>As we ground to a halt&mdash;we were still the third car&mdash;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&mdash;a very small room. It was lined with white sheets, I
believe.</p>

<p>People came and went&mdash;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&mdash;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.</p>

<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_566" id="Page_566">566</a></span>
myself face to face with Jackie in a small hall. I think it was right outside
the operating room. You always think of her&mdash;or someone like her&mdash;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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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."</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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&mdash;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&mdash;and I am glad it was
she&mdash;was called to come in a hurry.</p>

<p>Mrs. Kennedy had arrived by this time and the coffin, and there&mdash;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&mdash;Lyndon took the oath of office.</p>

<p>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."</p>

<p>We all sat around the plane. We had at first been ushered into the main
private Presidential cabin on the plane&mdash;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&mdash;that
immaculate woman&mdash;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&mdash;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."</p>

<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_567" id="Page_567">567</a></span>
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.</p>

<p>The ride to Washington was silent, strained&mdash;each with his own thoughts.
One of mine was something I had said about Lyndon a long time ago&mdash;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."</p>

<p>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&mdash;I think&mdash;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.</p>

<hr />
<h2 id="let"><span class="smaller"><a name="Tuesday_July_28_1964" id="Tuesday_July_28_1964"><i>Tuesday, July 28, 1964</i></a></span><br />
<span class="subhead">TESTIMONY OF AMBASSADOR LLEWELLYN E. THOMPSON</span></h2>

<p>The President's Commission met at 3 p.m., on July 28, 1964, at 200 Maryland
Avenue NE., Washington, D.C.</p>

<p>Present were Senator John Sherman Cooper (presiding), and Allen W. Dulles,
members.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p class="p2">Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. The Commission will be in order.</p>

<p>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?</p>

<p>Ambassador <span class="smcap">Thompson</span>. I do.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Slawson</span>. Mr. Ambassador, could you please state for the record your
full name and address?</p>

<p>Ambassador <span class="smcap">Thompson</span>. My name is Llewellyn E. Thompson. I reside at
1913 23d Street NW., Washington.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Slawson</span>. And could you state your present position with the U.S. Government
and the positions you have held since late 1959?</p>

<p>Ambassador <span class="smcap">Thompson</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr <span class="smcap">Slawson</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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?</p>

<p>Ambassador <span class="smcap">Thompson</span>. 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 <span class="locked">him&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Was that Consul Richard E. Snyder?</p>

<p>Ambassador <span class="smcap">Thompson</span>. 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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_568" id="Page_568">568</a></span>
this kind he normally waited to make sure the man was serious, and also in
order to normally consult the State Department.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Slawson</span>. And that includes any other time thereafter, including through
1962?</p>

<p>Ambassador <span class="smcap">Thompson</span>. 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.</p>

<p>I recall, I think, being in Germany at the time I read in the press that he
was leaving the country&mdash;leaving Moscow, that is. But I don't recall having
been consulted about his application to leave.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Slawson</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Ambassador <span class="smcap">Thompson</span>. None that I recall.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Slawson</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Ambassador <span class="smcap">Thompson</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Slawson</span>. Was there any particular time in your career when this sort
of thing was more frequent than other times&mdash;any groups of people where it
might have occurred?</p>

<p>Ambassador <span class="smcap">Thompson</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Slawson</span>. Were those that did not give up their American citizenship
usually able to return to the United States if they changed their mind?</p>

<p>Ambassador <span class="smcap">Thompson</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Slawson</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Ambassador <span class="smcap">Thompson</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Slawson</span>. Can you give the Commission any estimate on the time periods
that sometimes are involved in the Soviet authorities making up their mind?</p>

<p>Ambassador <span class="smcap">Thompson</span>. 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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_569" id="Page_569">569</a></span>
could not reside. But since I did not handle these cases, I do not&mdash;I could not
cite any specific cases.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Slawson</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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&mdash;Oswald commented in his diary&mdash;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?</p>

<p>Ambassador <span class="smcap">Thompson</span>. I have no recollection of having heard of this man
before.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Slawson</span>. Do you have any recollection of any other American that might
fit this description?</p>

<p>Ambassador <span class="smcap">Thompson</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Slawson</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Ambassador <span class="smcap">Thompson</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Slawson</span>. You say the Americans normally were treated in a special ward
in that hospital, or a special section of it?</p>

<p>Ambassador <span class="smcap">Thompson</span>. Yes; it was a completely separate building, I believe.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Slawson</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Ambassador <span class="smcap">Thompson</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Slawson</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Ambassador <span class="smcap">Thompson</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Slawson</span>. Do you recollect who this doctor was in the fall of 1959?</p>

<p>Ambassador <span class="smcap">Thompson</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. I suggest that the Secretary can supply the name for the
Commission.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Slawson</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Ambassador <span class="smcap">Thompson</span>. 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.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_570" id="Page_570">570</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Do you happen to know whether that doctor is in the United
States at the present time?</p>

<p>Ambassador <span class="smcap">Thompson</span>. He was in Texas the last I heard. I draw a blank
on his name at the moment, although I know him quite well.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Slawson</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Ambassador <span class="smcap">Thompson</span>. That is correct.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. Was Edward L. Freers, Chargé d'Affaire?</p>

<p>Ambassador <span class="smcap">Thompson</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. Was there a consulate in Moscow?</p>

<p>Ambassador <span class="smcap">Thompson</span>. There is a consular section of the Embassy, but
not a separate consulate.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. Who had charge of the consulate section of the Embassy?</p>

<p>Ambassador <span class="smcap">Thompson</span>. At that time I believe it was Mr. Richard Snyder.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Ambassador <span class="smcap">Thompson</span>. I believe that is correct. I think the counselor was
also present at the time. I think both of them informed me.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Ambassador <span class="smcap">Thompson</span>. Yes, sir; I believe that would be done in every case.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. Did the State Department have any policy, other than reference
to the State Department, as to the approval of such applications?</p>

<p>Ambassador <span class="smcap">Thompson</span>. 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&mdash;the renunciation is accepted.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Ambassador <span class="smcap">Thompson</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Ambassador <span class="smcap">Thompson</span>. What was the date, sir?</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. May 26, 1961.</p>

<p>Ambassador <span class="smcap">Thompson</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. Then these dispatches, they were sent in your name, or by
someone for the Ambassador?</p>

<p>Ambassador <span class="smcap">Thompson</span>. Yes; but I don't recall having been shown them.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Slawson</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. How were those signed, Mr. Slawson?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Slawson</span>. Commission Exhibit No. 935 is signed for the Ambassador by
Boris H. Klosson, counselor for political affairs. And Commission Exhibit<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_571" id="Page_571">571</a></span>
No. 936 is signed for the Ambassador by Edward L. Freers, minister counselor.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. I might also refer to the earlier dispatch November 2, 1959,
Commission Exhibit No. 908.</p>

<p>Now, were the procedures followed with respect to his request for renewal
of his passport&mdash;that is in reference to the Department of State, for decision&mdash;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&mdash;to
refer it to the Department of State?</p>

<p>Ambassador <span class="smcap">Thompson</span>. Yes, sir; I think in every case that would be done.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. Now, between the time of Oswald's entrance into the Soviet
Union and his exit, did you ever see Oswald yourself?</p>

<p>Ambassador <span class="smcap">Thompson</span>. No, sir; I never saw him that I knew of.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. Did you hear anything about him during his stay in the
Soviet Union?</p>

<p>Ambassador <span class="smcap">Thompson</span>. My only recollection is of this first briefing. I don't
recall hearing anything else about him.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. In evidence it has appeared that not too long after he came
to Moscow, he went to Minsk and secured a job there.</p>

<p>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?</p>

<p>Ambassador <span class="smcap">Thompson</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. Also in evidence it indicates he was provided by the Soviet
officials with a passport or document which described him as a stateless person.</p>

<p>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?</p>

<p>Ambassador <span class="smcap">Thompson</span>. 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&mdash;to
stay in a hotel, very often to obtain transportation. So I think it would
be normal that they would provide him with documentation.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Ambassador <span class="smcap">Thompson</span>. No; I think not. I think that in cases of this kind
that this would be normal.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Ambassador <span class="smcap">Thompson</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. You would not have any reason to think, then, that these
circumstances might indicate that the Soviets were&mdash;could consider using him
as an agent at some future time?</p>

<p>Ambassador <span class="smcap">Thompson</span>. 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.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_572" id="Page_572">572</a></span>
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.</p>

<p>As far as I can understand, they encouraged them to come back because they
wanted their skills available.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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?</p>

<p>Ambassador <span class="smcap">Thompson</span>. Well, if it was a short time&mdash;and I am not aware of
the exact time, myself&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. Well, perhaps without reference to time, from your experience,
have you found that&mdash;do you know whether it was difficult for a Soviet
citizen, such as Marina Oswald, even though she might be married to an American&mdash;that
it is difficult for them to secure an exit visa from the Soviet Union?</p>

<p>Ambassador <span class="smcap">Thompson</span>. Yes; it is very difficult.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. Do you know the basis for that? Is it that they do not want
to permit the exit of any Soviet citizen?</p>

<p>Ambassador <span class="smcap">Thompson</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. What was that?</p>

<p>Ambassador <span class="smcap">Thompson</span>. Leaving without permission.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Ambassador <span class="smcap">Thompson</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Slawson</span>. 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&mdash;although the Oswalds
in fact did not leave until very early June 1962.</p>

<p>They nevertheless had received Soviet permission to do so before the child
was born.</p>

<p>In light of that fact, could you comment further upon the perhaps greater
difficulty of leaving when you have a child?</p>

<p>Ambassador <span class="smcap">Thompson</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. I take it the policy of the United States would be the
reverse&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Ambassador <span class="smcap">Thompson</span>. I believe that is right, on compassionate grounds.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Ambassador <span class="smcap">Thompson</span>. I have read in the press that they had received the
normal loan.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. Can you say anything about that as a practice of the American
Government?</p>

<p>Ambassador <span class="smcap">Thompson</span>. 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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_573" id="Page_573">573</a></span>
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.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Ambassador <span class="smcap">Thompson</span>. That is correct; yes, sir.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. I think that is all I have.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Ambassador <span class="smcap">Thompson</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. And do you know of any conversations of that nature that any
other official of the Department had in connection with the Oswald case?</p>

<p>Ambassador <span class="smcap">Thompson</span>. I do not myself know of any.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. You probably would, would you not, if that had taken place&mdash;of
any importance?</p>

<p>Ambassador <span class="smcap">Thompson</span>. Off the record.</p>

<p>(Discussion off the record.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Ambassador <span class="smcap">Thompson</span>. That is correct. I know of no other cases where it
was discussed with Soviet officials.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. That is all I have.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Slawson</span>. Thank you very much, Mr. Ambassador.</p>

<p>(Whereupon, at 3:40 p.m., the President's Commission adjourned.)</p>

<hr />
<h2 id="cdd"><span class="smaller"><a name="Wednesday_September_2_1964" id="Wednesday_September_2_1964"><i>Wednesday, September 2, 1964</i></a></span><br />
<span class="subhead">TESTIMONY OF C. DOUGLAS DILLON</span></h2>

<p>The President's Commission met at 12:05 p. m., on September 2, 1964, at
200 Maryland Avenue NE., Washington, D.C.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Also present was J. Lee Rankin, general counsel.</p>

<p class="p2">The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Mr. Secretary, would you please rise and follow me.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Secretary <span class="smcap">Dillon</span>. I do.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Mr. Rankin will conduct the examination, Mr. Secretary.</p>

<p>Secretary <span class="smcap">Dillon</span>. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Mr. Secretary, will you state your name and residence, please?</p>

<p>Secretary <span class="smcap">Dillon</span>. C. Douglas Dillon of Far Hills, N.J., presently residing
in Washington, 2534 Belmont Road, NW.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Do you have an official position with the Government?</p>

<p>Secretary <span class="smcap">Dillon</span>. Yes, I do. I am the Secretary of the Treasury.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. In that capacity do you have responsibility for the Secret Service
of the United States?</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_574" id="Page_574">574</a></span>
Secretary <span class="smcap">Dillon</span>. Yes, the Secret Service is part of the Treasury Department.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Have you had that position responsibility for some time?</p>

<p>Secretary <span class="smcap">Dillon</span>. Since January 21, 1961.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Can you tell us briefly the nature of your supervision of the
Secret Service, prior to the assassination?</p>

<p>Secretary <span class="smcap">Dillon</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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&mdash;President Kennedy&mdash;and it was my responsibility
to find a new Chief of the Secret Service.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Will you describe to us how that affects the problems of the
Secret Service?</p>

<p>Secretary <span class="smcap">Dillon</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>I would <span class="locked">like&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_575" id="Page_575">575</a></span>
Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Secretary <span class="smcap">Dillon</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. That included both the counterfeiting responsibilities of the
Secret Service as well as the Presidential protection?</p>

<p>Secretary <span class="smcap">Dillon</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Wasn't the specific request for an increase in the White
House detail&mdash;I use this in a broad sense for both the President and Vice
President&mdash;primarily aimed at the increase of personnel for the Vice President?</p>

<p>Secretary <span class="smcap">Dillon</span>. That was in one year.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. 1962?</p>

<p>Secretary <span class="smcap">Dillon</span>. I think that was in&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. But there had been no reduction in the funds for the
protection of the President?</p>

<p>Secretary <span class="smcap">Dillon</span>. For the White House detail; no.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. It was a reduction for the protection of the Vice
President.</p>

<p>Secretary <span class="smcap">Dillon</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Mr. Rowley in that presentation asked for additional
funds for and personnel for the Protective Research Service?</p>

<p>Secretary <span class="smcap">Dillon</span>. 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 <span class="locked">have&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. I have a question which I think you can address yourself
fully to later but considering these new factors which make the protection of<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_576" id="Page_576">576</a></span>
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&mdash;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?</p>

<p>Secretary <span class="smcap">Dillon</span>. 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&mdash;the thing I
wanted to say&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Secretary <span class="smcap">Dillon</span>. Yes. That is the document; yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Mr. Secretary, that is not a security matter that couldn't go
into the record, is it?</p>

<p>Secretary <span class="smcap">Dillon</span>. 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.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. The report may be admitted and take the next number.</p>

<p>(Commission Exhibit No. 1053-A was marked for identification and received
in evidence.)</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Secretary <span class="smcap">Dillon</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. In other words, this is the plan that you would like instituted
immediately regardless of budget considerations.</p>

<p>Secretary <span class="smcap">Dillon</span>. That is right.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCloy</span>. 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 <span class="locked">became&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Secretary <span class="smcap">Dillon</span>. Oh, no; and there is also with it&mdash;it is just a covering
letter but I think it is equally important&mdash;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.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_577" id="Page_577">577</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Secretary <span class="smcap">Dillon</span>. That is correct.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. It will be admitted.</p>

<p>(Commission Exhibit No. 1053-B was marked for identification and received
in evidence.)</p>

<p>Secretary <span class="smcap">Dillon</span>. It is marked "limited official use," and I think that should
be declassified for this purpose.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Secretary <span class="smcap">Dillon</span>. Well, in brief, this asks for a total of 205 additional agents,
which is about&mdash;not quite but nearly&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. May I ask, would that include the FBI?</p>

<p>Secretary <span class="smcap">Dillon</span>. Oh, yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. And the CIA and military intelligence services?</p>

<p>Secretary <span class="smcap">Dillon</span>. Oh, yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. And the State Department possibly?</p>

<p>Secretary <span class="smcap">Dillon</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Ford</span>. Could you specify those agencies. I was interested in
what agencies you were referring to.</p>

<p>Secretary <span class="smcap">Dillon</span>. Well, I would think certainly it would be the military,
the FBI, the security services of the State Department, and the CIA.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Excuse me, Mr. Secretary. Will you describe a little more
what you mean by automate.</p>

<p>Secretary <span class="smcap">Dillon</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Does that include computer systems?</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_578" id="Page_578">578</a></span>
Secretary <span class="smcap">Dillon</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCloy</span>. For the record, Mr. Secretary, you had no electronic system
of this character operating before the assassination?</p>

<p>Secretary <span class="smcap">Dillon</span>. No. Now, the total of that is 17 agents and 5 specialists
for the PRS.</p>

<p>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&mdash;before, they had to be trained
sort of partially on the job&mdash;and also through which you could rotate people
from the field from time to time, bringing them up to date on Presidential
protection.</p>

<p>So we would ask for 18 people, 18 spaces for that.</p>

<p>We have asked for 25 spaces to provide adequate protection for the Vice
President in addition to the 10 that are already on board.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Mr. Secretary, excuse me. I think spaces may not be clear to
all our readers. Will you explain what that means?</p>

<p>Secretary <span class="smcap">Dillon</span>. 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&mdash;one man that
would be always with the President or the Vice President, that would be always
watching his house&mdash;to get one man requires five job positions. In the first
place, the coverage required is for 24 hours a day.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>So that is one reason why these protective numbers may seem rather high
to the uninitiated.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>This simply can't be done with the present numbers that are assigned.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>To really run these down out in the districts, they need, obviously, more
men than they have had.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_579" id="Page_579">579</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Secretary <span class="smcap">Dillon</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Secretary <span class="smcap">Dillon</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. By fieldwork you mean attached to your field stations, of which
I believe there are 65 in the United States?</p>

<p>Secretary <span class="smcap">Dillon</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Secretary <span class="smcap">Dillon</span>. 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&mdash;I don't know why that was the
beginning date for these figures&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. And that is in connection with this motorcade route?</p>

<p>Secretary <span class="smcap">Dillon</span>. That is largely in connection with that, both planning
it out ahead and also stationing them in buildings that they thought might
be difficult.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_580" id="Page_580">580</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Now, Mr. Secretary, returning to your Planning document, is
there anything else that you have not covered in that?</p>

<p>Secretary <span class="smcap">Dillon</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCloy</span>. May I just ask you about the armored car, Mr. Secretary. Is
that to transport the President?</p>

<p>Secretary <span class="smcap">Dillon</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCloy</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Secretary <span class="smcap">Dillon</span>. That would apply to an open car.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCloy</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Secretary <span class="smcap">Dillon</span>. It wouldn't apply I think to a <span class="locked">fully&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCloy</span>. Fully armored; no. That is right.</p>

<p>Secretary <span class="smcap">Dillon</span>. Closed car.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCloy</span>. Usually on those motorcades you like to be seen.</p>

<p>Secretary <span class="smcap">Dillon</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Have you covered your planning document, then, Mr. Secretary?</p>

<p>Secretary <span class="smcap">Dillon</span>. I think that covers this.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCloy</span>. May I ask a question at this point? I have a date at the White<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_581" id="Page_581">581</a></span>
House at 1 o'clock, not with the President, but with Mr. Bundy, who wants to
talk with me.</p>

<p>How long do you think we will be with the Secretary and will we resume
after lunch?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. I was hoping to get through. I presume he was hoping we would.</p>

<p>Secretary <span class="smcap">Dillon</span>. I would like to if we could. I have to leave tomorrow to
go to Japan.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCloy</span>. Well, would it interrupt you if I ask a few questions?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. No; go ahead.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Ask what questions you want?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCloy</span>. 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.</p>

<p>In testifying to that effect, do you include&mdash;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?</p>

<p>Secretary <span class="smcap">Dillon</span>. That is correct; yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCloy</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Do you feel that with this new plan of yours, that that would, be adequately
taken care of?</p>

<p>Secretary <span class="smcap">Dillon</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McCloy</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Secretary <span class="smcap">Dillon</span>. Yes; one of the criteria that is presently out is meant to<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_582" id="Page_582">582</a></span>
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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. As you read the Oswald life story, it looks as though he was going
into the Marines as a kind of escape.</p>

<p>Secretary <span class="smcap">Dillon</span>. It could have been.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. What you say is very interesting in that connection.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Will you excuse us just a moment until we see if we can
finish up.</p>

<p>Secretary <span class="smcap">Dillon</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Secretary <span class="smcap">Dillon</span>. That is. Fine. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. It may be admitted.</p>

<p>(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 1053-C, for
identification and received in evidence.)</p>

<p>Secretary <span class="smcap">Dillon</span>. There is one other item&mdash;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&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Secretary <span class="smcap">Dillon</span>. That is right.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Mr. Chief Justice, I ask <span class="locked">leave&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Just for the record, I wonder if he would identify Mr. Hornig.
I think we know, but <span class="locked">possibly&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_583" id="Page_583">583</a></span>
Secretary <span class="smcap">Dillon</span>. Oh, yes; Dr. Hornig is Special Assistant to the President
for Science and Technology.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. It might be admitted.</p>

<p>(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit 1053-D for
identification, and was received in evidence.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Secretary <span class="smcap">Dillon</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Secretary <span class="smcap">Dillon</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>So we already have this. I think that it probably can be made tighter
and should be made tighter.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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&mdash;gone into in more detail&mdash;from the top level of the Treasury<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_584" id="Page_584">584</a></span>
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&mdash;it wouldn't be effective anyway&mdash;that
there would be in another police operation.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. After the assassination, you did have Mr. Carswell take over
certain work in this area, did you not?</p>

<p>Secretary <span class="smcap">Dillon</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Secretary <span class="smcap">Dillon</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Secretary <span class="smcap">Dillon</span>. That is right. Then if you describe it in the meeting
at which he was present, that might be well.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Secretary <span class="smcap">Dillon</span>. Yes, and the Central Intelligence Agency.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Secretary <span class="smcap">Dillon</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Secretary <span class="smcap">Dillon</span>. Yes; there should be some such provision; otherwise I see
some advantages as you say.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_585" id="Page_585">585</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Mr. Secretary, are you familiar with the method of selection of
the Secret Service personnel?</p>

<p>Secretary <span class="smcap">Dillon</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Do you have a printed or written list of the various qualifications
that you seek in regard to the Secret Service?</p>

<p>Secretary <span class="smcap">Dillon</span>. I don't&mdash;I am not aware of that. There probably is such
a list; yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. If you have such a list will you please supply it to us?</p>

<p>Secretary <span class="smcap">Dillon</span>. Yes; I will be glad to.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. It may be admitted.</p>

<p>(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 1053-E for
identification and received in evidence.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Mr. Secretary, are you familiar in a general way with the investigation
that the Commission has been making with regard to this matter?</p>

<p>Secretary <span class="smcap">Dillon</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. And are you generally aware of the investigation in connection
with the assassination, the entire matter?</p>

<p>Secretary <span class="smcap">Dillon</span>. Oh, yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Have you made any inquiry in the Secret Service to determine
whether or not Lee Harvey Oswald was ever an agent of that Service?</p>

<p>Secretary <span class="smcap">Dillon</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Do you know of any evidence in regard to Lee Harvey Oswald
being an agent of any part of the government?</p>

<p>Secretary <span class="smcap">Dillon</span>. I am not aware of any evidence myself in that way, but
I don't think I necessarily would be fully competent in that.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. But you have never heard of any such evidence?</p>

<p>Secretary <span class="smcap">Dillon</span>. I have never heard it.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Secretary <span class="smcap">Dillon</span>. No. As far as I know, the investigation has been very
thorough.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Secretary <span class="smcap">Dillon</span>. No. From all the evidence I have seen, this was the work
of one deranged individual.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. And who would that be?</p>

<p>Secretary <span class="smcap">Dillon</span>. Lee Harvey Oswald.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Do you know of any evidence in regard to any connection between
Jack Ruby and Lee Harvey Oswald?</p>

<p>Secretary <span class="smcap">Dillon</span>. No, no.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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?</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_586" id="Page_586">586</a></span>
Secretary <span class="smcap">Dillon</span>. No; I think we have covered my area of competence pretty
thoroughly this morning. I can't think of anything else.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Mr. Dulles?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Secretary <span class="smcap">Dillon</span>. 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.</p>

<p>So I think our problem is to strengthen this PRS, and I think that this long-range
plan is a good beginning.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>But this is enough to get it underway and all you can use, I think, well, for
that purpose at present.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Today with the Communist Party and with rightist groups and
we have more and more groups&mdash;we have always had them, but we seem to have
more than others which might breed up elements of danger&mdash;is there any part
of that you would like to turn over to anybody else <span class="locked">or&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Secretary <span class="smcap">Dillon</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>The Secret Service I think would be more concerned in dealing with&mdash;trying
to protect against the actual individuals.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. I suppose you wouldn't want to take away from the Secret
Service entirely the concern that it might have for groups?</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_587" id="Page_587">587</a></span>
Secretary <span class="smcap">Dillon</span>. Oh, no.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. And the necessity of going into those groups to ascertain
further whether they were a threat to the President?</p>

<p>Secretary <span class="smcap">Dillon</span>. 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.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Secretary <span class="smcap">Dillon</span>. 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.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Anything more?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. Mr. Secretary, just one other question. It raises the question
of the combination of the&mdash;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?</p>

<p>Secretary <span class="smcap">Dillon</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. You transfer back and forth, do you, from these two functions?</p>

<p>Secretary <span class="smcap">Dillon</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Secretary <span class="smcap">Dillon</span>. Well, I think certainly the amount that they will be doing
on Presidential protection has greatly increased.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_588" id="Page_588">588</a></span>
So they will have more or less two permanent jobs to do.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. While you may have had a decrease in counterfeiting, I suppose
you have had a great increase in forgeries, haven't you?</p>

<p>Secretary <span class="smcap">Dillon</span>. Yes; we have had an increase I said in counterfeiting and
also in forgeries.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Oh, in counterfeiting. I misunderstood you. I thought you
said you had a decrease.</p>

<p>Secretary <span class="smcap">Dillon</span>. No; a great increase in counterfeiting on account of development
of these methods of photography.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Yes; I recall now.</p>

<p>Secretary <span class="smcap">Dillon</span>. That is similar to check forgery which is the same problem
on Government checks which has also increased.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Dulles</span>. That is all I have, Mr. Chief Justice.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. Very well. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Secretary <span class="smcap">Dillon</span>. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>. 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.</p>

<p>[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.]</p>

<p>We will adjourn now.</p>

<p>(Whereupon, at 1:25 p.m., the President's Commission adjourned.)</p>

<hr />
<h2 id="lho3"><span class="smaller"><a name="Sunday_September_6_1964" id="Sunday_September_6_1964"><i>Sunday, September 6, 1964</i></a></span><br />
<span class="subhead">TESTIMONY OF MRS. LEE HARVEY OSWALD RESUMED</span></h2>

<p>The President's Commission met at 3:20 p.m., on September 6, 1964, at the
U.S. Naval Air Station, Dallas, Tex.</p>

<p>Present were Senator Richard Russell, presiding; Senator John Sherman
Cooper, and Congressman Hale Boggs, members.</p>

<p>Also present were J. Lee Rankin, general counsel; Dean R.&nbsp;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.</p>

<p class="p2">[<span class="smcap">Note</span>.&mdash;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.]</p>

<p class="p2">Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Senator Russell, will you swear the witness?</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. Since she is already under oath in this hearing, I assume
that oath will carry over?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. All right.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. You understand that you have been sworn?*</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Mr. Gregory, have you been sworn in connection with these
proceedings?</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_589" id="Page_589">589</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Gregory</span>. No.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. Will you do it, Mr. Rankin?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Will you rise and raise your right hand.</p>

<p>Do you solemnly swear that the testimony that you are going to translate of
Mrs. Oswald will be truly translated?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Gregory</span>. To the best of my knowledge and ability, so help me God.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Mr. Gopadze, have you been sworn as a translator in these
proceedings?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Gopadze</span>. No, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Will you rise, please?</p>

<p>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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Gopadze</span>. I do.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Boggs</span>. I suggest we designate Senator Russell as chairman of
this meeting.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Will you record Senator Russell, Miss Reporter, as the chairman
of the meeting, please?</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Reporter</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Dean <span class="smcap">Storey</span>. This is Miss Oliver. She is the reporter to Judge Hughes, a Federal
judge here.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Yes; we know her well by her reporting in other matters for us.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. 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.*</p>

<p>We will try to avoid any more of that than we can help.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>When you first met Lee Oswald, did he ever mention anything about politics or
his political philosophy?*</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. No.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. Did you ever ask him his reason for coming to Russia?*</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. Not the first evening when we got acquainted.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. Prior to the time that you were married to him, did you ask
him his reasons for coming to Russia?*</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. Why did he say that he had come to Russia?*</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. He told me that the Soviet Union is the outstanding Communist
country and he wanted to see it with his own eyes.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. 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?*</p>

<p>In other words, I want to continue the statement so there won't be any confusion&mdash;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?* **</p>

<p>**Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>*Yes, that's what he said to me.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. Did he give any reasons why he declined citizenship in the
Soviet Union?*</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. After you were married to Lee, did he complain about the
way they did things in the Soviet Union?* **</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. What?</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_590" id="Page_590">590</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Gregory</span>. Senator, excuse me, sir. I'm a little mixed up on your question.
Would you mind to repeat that question, sir?</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. 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.*</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. Yes; he did.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. What was the subject of his complaint?*</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. 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.</p>

<p>*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&mdash;every 3 months or every so <span class="locked">often&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. Periodically?</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. Periodically, he had to report to a certain government institution,
where they would extend his permit of residence.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. 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? * **</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. Of course, in addition to restrictions imposed on his movements,
there were other things that he was dissatisfied with in the Soviet Union.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. Do you care to give any of those?*</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. He was dissatisfied with high prices for everything that he
had to pay. He was dissatisfied with the quarters, living quarters that he had.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. Do you know whether or not he had any friends that he
made there in Minsk while he was living there?*</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. Did most of them work in the same plant where he did or
did he make other friends out in the community?*</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. 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&mdash;friends&mdash;those that I know personally.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. But none other than those that worked there in the same
plant?*</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. Did Lee go to school while he was there in Minsk? Did
he do any studying in any of the institutes?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. No.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. He did not.</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. Was that before or after you were married?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. After.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. 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?*</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. Do you know whether he had any Cuban friends here in
Texas or in New Orleans after he came back from Russia?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. No. [Nodding a negative response.]</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. You don't know whether he did or not?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. No; I don't think he had.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_591" id="Page_591">591</a></span>
Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. 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?*</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. And he purchased, I believe, a rifle or he had a rifle?</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. By the time we got married, he already owned a rifle and
he already was a member of a gun club in Minsk.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. From your testimony I gathered that he was not very
active in the gun club in carrying on with his rifle?*</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. No. He never went hunting except once during all the time
that we lived in Minsk.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. Did he ever discuss with you his desire to meet any high
official with the Soviet Government?* **</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. No.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. He never did?*</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. No.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. Do you know whether or not he carried on any correspondence?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. Excuse <span class="locked">me&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>*The only instance I recall&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. I'm <span class="locked">sorry&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>*Correction. He never got to see Colonel Aksenov because when he went to
discuss this question in the&mdash;whatever office that was&mdash;he talked to some junior
officer, and they would not let him have an audience with the colonel.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. Did you go to see the colonel likewise?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. You were both there together?</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. We never got to see him. I saw Colonel Aksenov later on.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. Was he a colonel in the army or in the militia or in the
police or just what? Where did he get his rank?*</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. He was a colonel in the MVD, which is the Administer of
Internal Affairs.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. He had to do then with the passports. His recommendation
would have had to have been had with the passports?*</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. Had you known the colonel prior to that time?*</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. No; he introduced himself as Colonel Aksenov.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Gregory</span>. When?</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. If you didn't know him prior to that time, why is it you
got to see him and Lee could not visit him?*</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. But you don't know why?*</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span> (no response).</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. Did any of your friends or relatives intercede with the
colonel in your behalf?*</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. 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?*</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_592" id="Page_592">592</a></span>
Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. In the same building, but not in the same department. I
believe that Colonel Aksenov knew my uncle.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. 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&mdash;do you know why he was afraid? Why should he have
been afraid for you to leave Russia?*</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. 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?*</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. He also has the rank of a colonel in the MVD?*</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. No. He is the head of the forestry department in MVD. I
don't know what he is doing there.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. Did you ever have any occasion or know any other Russian
wife of a foreigner who tried to leave Russia?*</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. Mrs. Zeger. Mrs. Zeger and her husband lived in Argentina
for 25 <span class="locked">years&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. 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?</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. No; I don't know&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. Well, that's what I had in mind.</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. Therefore, to the very last moment we did not believe that
they would let us out of the Soviet Union.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. 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?*</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. No.</p>

<p>*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.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. And none of the officials or police examined you at all
about your reason for wishing to leave?*</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. It's very surprising, but nobody did.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. Do you know as to whether or not Lee corresponded with any
of his friends in Russia after he came back to this country?*</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>*He did.</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. With Mr. and Mrs. Zeger.</p>

<p>*With Mr. and Mrs. Zeger, and Erich; the medical student. I don't recall
the medical student, and Pavel Golovachev.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. Paul&mdash;he was one of your old boy friends, wasn't he?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. Paul?</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. I thought one of them was named Paul?*</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span> (no response).</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. Did he correspond very frequently?*</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. Not often.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. Did you write very often to your family and friends in
Russia?*</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. In Minsk?</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_593" id="Page_593">593</a></span>
Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. And shortly after that, my aunt wrote me. Then I understood
that perhaps the letters I wrote my aunt never reached her.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. She did not refer to your letters when she wrote to you?*</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. No; the only thing that she wrote, she was glad to get&mdash;that
she learned my address.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. Did she say how she learned it? That was my next
question?*</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. The supervisory of a drugstore, an <span class="locked">apothecary&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. An apothecary?</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. Or manager of a drugstore telephoned my aunt and told her
she received a letter from me.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. But she did not answer that letter, or if she did, you didn't
receive it?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. No&mdash;she answered this letter.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. I understand, but the friend in the apothecary, did he
answer?*</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. No.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. 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&mdash;you recall that testimony, do you not?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. Did you write to any of your other friends there and put
the proper stamps on them?*</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. No; this was the only letter I wrote.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. The only one you wrote?</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. Have you corresponded with your uncle or aunt at any
time since this great tragedy?*</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. Yes; I did.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. And did you receive any reply?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. No.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. Have you written them more than once since this great
tragedy?*</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. I don't remember exactly whether I did or not.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. But you've written them at least once without receiving
a reply?</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. I remember well that I wrote at least once, maybe it was twice
or three times, but I don't remember.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. Has any official of the Russian Government communicated
with you since this great tragedy?*</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. 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&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. 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?* **</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. Not after Lee was killed.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. 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?</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. I do not know definitely, but I believe Mrs. Paine and I left
one day before he went to Mexico.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. He had talked to you about going to Mexico, had he not?*</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. Yes; he had told me he was going to Mexico.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. And he had told you that he intended to visit the Russian
Embassy and the Cuban consulate while he was there?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. Yes.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_594" id="Page_594">594</a></span>
Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. And that was at a time when he was very anxious to get to
Cuba, I believe?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. 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? *</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. 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?*</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. No.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. You don't think so?</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. 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?</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. In other words, some of them were not true that you made?*</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. No; everything was true.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. Everything was true?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>*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.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. Did he beat you on many occasions?*</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. Rather&mdash;many.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. Well, you only testified to one, did you not, before the
Commission?*</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. I was rather embarrassed to discuss this before the Commission,
but he beat me on more than on one occasion.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. 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?* **</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. Was that true or not true?*</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. It is true&mdash;it is&mdash;whatever I said.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. It is true that you bruise easily, but that was just one of
many occasions he had beat you?*</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. On one occasion; yes.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. But you didn't testify to the others, did you?</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. Did he ever fail to provide for you and the children?*</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. <span class="locked">No&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>*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.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. You always had plenty to eat and the children had plenty to
wear?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. Not really.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_595" id="Page_595">595</a></span>
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&mdash;I
always wanted this and that, but that was not available.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. But he never made a great deal of money, did he?*</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. 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.</p>

<p>We spent $12 or $15 a week at that time&mdash;you know, we can live&mdash;that was
for milk and so on.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. Oh, no. He told&mdash;somebody told about Jack Ruby&mdash;he went to
his nightclub, he never did go to nightclub.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. Well, I mean just extravagance in his own habits&mdash;he
was frugal in his own eating habits, he didn't eat much when he was away
from home, did he?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. No.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. You knew where he kept his money in your home, did you
not?*</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. He had a black wallet, but I never ventured into it.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. No.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Gopadze</span>. Pardon&mdash;you don't understand the question?**</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. Yes; he did. It was the morning before the tragedy.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. Before the assassination of the President?</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. Did he ever talk to you about the result of his visit to
Mexico?</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. Did he say his efforts were all a failure there, that he
got any assistance that he was seeking?*</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. Did you have less money in the United States than you
had in Russia when you were married over there?</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. 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&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. 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?*</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. No; not in the Soviet Union.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. You haven't then heard from anyone except one letter
from your aunt, since you left Russia?*</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. No; I received letters from my girl friend.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. Oh, how many letters from your girl friend?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. Just from one&mdash;a Christmas card&mdash;I don't remember how
many, probably not more than four or five.</p>

<p>*But only one letter from the aunt.</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. We received letters from Lee's friends written to both of us&mdash;several
letters.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. Written to you?</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_596" id="Page_596">596</a></span>
Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. Written to Lee and to me.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. I see, but it's strange about your family that you didn't
hear from them when you had written to them?*</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. It is strange and it's hurtful.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. Mrs. Oswald, I believe you testified that Lee didn't ever
discuss political matters with you very much? *</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. He discussed politics with me very little.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. 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?*</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. No; I did not participate in those conversations.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. And that he didn't discuss a great many things about his
work and things of that kind with you?*</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. Why do you suppose he told you about the fact that he
was going to shoot Mr. Nixon and had shot at General Walker?*</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. 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.</p>

<p>*Now, in regard to Mr. Nixon, he got dressed up in his suit and he put a gun
in his belt.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. You testified in his belt&mdash;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?*</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. No; I would have noticed it if he did.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. You wouldn't have noticed it?</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. I would have noticed it if he did.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. I see&mdash;you would have noticed it.</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. And so&mdash;I have never seen him before with the pistol.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. He didn't state to you that he talked to any person in
Mexico other than at the Russian Embassy and the Cuban Embassy?*</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. No. The only persons he mentioned were the Cuban Embassy
and the Soviet Embassy in Mexico.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. 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?*</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. This is the question that I am puzzled about and I am wondering
about it myself, whether he wanted to get rid of me.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. Do you think he was really devoted to the children or was
he just putting on a show about liking the children?*</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. Yes; he loved the children.</p>

<p>*I believe he loved the children, but at times&mdash;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&mdash;some of the acts he was engaged in.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. He knew you would take the children back to Russia with
you, if you wanted, did he not?*</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. Of course I would have taken the children with me to the
Soviet Union.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. 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&mdash;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?* **</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. The fact that he cried, and on one occasion he begged me to
come back to him&mdash;he stood on his knees and begged me to come back to him&mdash;whether
that meant that he loved me&mdash;perhaps he did. On the other hand,
the acts that he committed showed to me that he didn't particularly care for me.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. 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?*</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. The fact that he made attempts on the lives of other people<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_597" id="Page_597">597</a></span>
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.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. 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?*</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. Logically&mdash;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.</p>

<p>And I did not have any choice, because he was the only person that I knew
and I could count on&mdash;the only person in the United States.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. Did he beat you very often, Mrs. Oswald, strike you hard
blows with his fists? Did he hit you with his fists?* **</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. Did he ever beat you in Russia before you came to this
country?*</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. No.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. Had you ever heard of any husband striking his wife in
Russia?*</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. I see. Do they beat them with anything other than their
hands?</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>But, did they ever whip their wives with anything other than their hands in
Russia?*</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. I do not know. I was not interested in what manner they
beat their wives.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. That's difficult for me to believe&mdash;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?* **</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. How would I know?</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. How would you know it&mdash;well, by general conversation.
Don't people talk about those things all over the world&mdash;in Russia and everywhere
else?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. That's different there.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. 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&mdash;in that area?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. **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.</p>

<p>*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.</p>

<p>For 1 year.</p>

<p>*For 1 year&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. Excommunicated from the party?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. **Expelled from the party.</p>

<p>*But he took all the possessions of their common property when he left.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. 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?*</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. No.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. Did he ever strike you during your pregnancy, when you
were pregnant?*</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_598" id="Page_598">598</a></span>
Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Gopadze</span>. She said, "I think." She said, "I think."</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. Yes; he did strike me.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. What reason did he give for striking you, usually?*</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. Well, the reasons were if&mdash;they were very petty&mdash;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.</p>

<p>**I'm not a very quiet woman myself.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. "I'm not&mdash;" what?</p>

<p>**Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. 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.</p>

<p>*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.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. Did you ever strike him?*</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. I would give him some in return.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. You would give him some in return.</p>

<p>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?* **</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. Probably not 5 minutes, but a long time for him.</p>

<p>*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.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. Did you ever strike him with anything other than your
hand?*</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. You missed him?</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. No&mdash;it broke. I missed him.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. Yes, she missed him.</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. I tried not to hit him.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. Now, going back a moment or two to your uncle, whom
you lived with and to whom I understand you are quite devoted&mdash;did he try
to keep you from coming to the United States very vigorously?</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. My uncle was against my going to America, but he never
imposed his will or his opinion on me.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. Did he or any other members of your family ever tell you
why you had such little difficulty in getting your passport approved?*</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Gopadze</span>. Now, Marina, I'm sorry. I would like to make a correction
to that point.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Gregory</span>. All right.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Gopadze</span>. That during the time they were expecting a visa to depart
the Soviet Union, the relatives didn't express too much about it&mdash;because they
didn't [think] they would depart, and when they did receive it, they were very
much <span class="locked">surprised&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Gregory</span>. Correct.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Gopadze</span>. 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."</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. 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?*</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. 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?*</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_599" id="Page_599">599</a></span>
Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. Well, you only lived with Mrs. Oswald a matter of 3 or 4
weeks, didn't you?*</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. Yes; but he was earning money during that time.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. I understand, but he was not earning more than $200 a
month, was he, and he paid four or five or six&mdash;what was it, Mr. Rankin?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. It was over $400.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. Over $450 or more to the State Department and some amount
to his brother Robert.</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. Around $100.</p>

<p>*It was $100.</p>

<p>It was probably $100.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. 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?*</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. 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?*</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. According to the law in the Soviet Union, they allow about
90 rubles per person to be exchanged into foreign currency or dollars&mdash;$180 in
our case because Lee was including the baby, and <span class="locked">she&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. For each of them&mdash;the exchange.</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. Not for Lee.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. No; he couldn't bring out any more than he took in with
him. Well, he wasn't a visitor, though&mdash;yes, he was a visitor then. I know they
checked my money when I went in there.**</p>

<p>**Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. 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.</p>

<p>*I believe that a foreigner is also entitled to exchange rubles for dollars, but
in a very limited amount.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. Mrs. Oswald, do you have any plans to return to the Soviet
Union, or do you intend to live in this country?*</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. Of course&mdash;to remain in the United States.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. I have a few other questions, but I'm already taking too
much time.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. I want to say something off the record.</p>

<p>(Conference between Senator Cooper and Senator Russell off the record.)</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Boggs</span>. I have just one question.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. All right.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. Go right ahead.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Boggs</span>. Mrs. Oswald, have you been taking English lessons?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Boggs</span>. Do you speak English now?*</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. I can't call it speaking English.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Boggs</span>. But you understand English, you replied to my question
a moment ago?**</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Boggs</span>. But you have been speaking English, studying English,
and whom do you live with now?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. With myself and my kids, with my neighbors.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Boggs</span>. Do you read English?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. No. A little bit.</p>

<p>*A little bit.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_600" id="Page_600">600</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Gopadze</span>. Naturally, she knows the English alphabet, but she doesn't read
too much.</p>

<p>**Sometimes I read on my own, but on the other hand, it might be entirely
different for an American.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. Thank you.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. That's the way they try&mdash;to learn it in school.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. Is that your foreign language? I understand in Russia
each student has to study some one foreign language all the way&mdash;or at least
for 5 or 6 years?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. Yes; but I don't like this system of education in Russia to
study some languages&mdash;well, he can speak, you know.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. Mrs. Oswald, your attorney&mdash;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&mdash;your reminiscences, and that
they not be released. Have you ever made arrangements yet to sell them? Have
you gotten rid of them? Because&mdash;the record of the Commission will be printed
at a rather early date?* **</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. I do not want these memoirs to be published by Warren
Commission.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. Yes; I understand that.</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. 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&mdash;that is the only purpose I had, to
try to see that you don't lose the publicity value of the memoirs.*</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. I understand that and I'm certainly grateful to you for it.</p>

<p>**Would it be possible to publish in the report only parts of my life, that
pertaining to the assassination, instead of my private life?</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. As yet, I have not availed myself of that opportunity, sir.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. When do you think you will publish this book?*</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. The publisher will possibly publish the book toward the end
of December, maybe in January and even <span class="locked">perhaps&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Gopadze</span>. Not the publisher. The person who writes the story is hoping
to be able to finish it in the latter part of December.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. 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.</p>

<p>**Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. Would it be possible to delete it from the Commission's
report?</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. I can't answer that because I'm not the whole Commission.**</p>

<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_601" id="Page_601">601</a></span>
course, if you are writing a whole book, it won't be so important, just this one
phase of it.</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>, during the course of your testimony, you testified that Lee
often called you twice a day while he was working away from home.</p>

<p>Why do you think he called you if he was not in love with you?* **</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. When he was away from me, he told me that he missed me.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. You don't think that's an indication that he loved you?*</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. This shows&mdash;this would show that he loved me. He was a
dual personality.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. Split personality.</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. Split personality&mdash;that's it.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. 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?* **</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. I believe that I was the person he talked to.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. He did call you quite frequently, did he not when you were
in Irving and he was in Dallas, for example?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. Every day.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. But he didn't call you to abuse you over the phone, did
he?* **</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. Of course not.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. It was the ordinary small talk you would have between a
man and his wife&mdash;he would ask you about how the children were&mdash;one of
them&mdash;was?*</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. He always talked about our daughter June.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. Did he ever say anything about, "I love you" or anything
like that over the phone?**</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. (no response).</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Gopadze</span>. Did he?</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. He did?</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. He did.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. 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?*</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. You say round trip was cheaper than one-way?</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. Yes; that's what you testified he told you in New Orleans
when he said he was going. But here, according to the press&mdash;I don't know&mdash;a
one-way stub turns up where he came back here to Dallas. Where did you get
that stub?*</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. Well, that very easily could have become confused in translation,
but it certainly is in there.*</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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&mdash;two ways?</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. 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&mdash;than two ways.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Gregory</span>. She understood you correctly. I misunderstood you, Senator.
I'm sorry.</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. The fact remains, according to Lee, that it is cheaper from<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_602" id="Page_602">602</a></span>
Mexico&mdash;a one-way ticket from Mexico City, say, to Dallas costs less than from
Dallas to Mexico, Mexico City. Or vice versa.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. Be that as it may, how about the stub?</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. I found the stub of this ticket approximately 2 weeks ago
when working with Priscilla Johnson on the book. Three weeks.</p>

<p>*Three weeks ago&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. But this was, you know, a piece of paper and I didn't know this
was a ticket.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. You didn't know it was a ticket?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. No.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. Until you showed it to Miss Johnson?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. Yes&mdash;it was in the TV book and then Mr. Liebeler called me
on telephone and asked me some questions about Mexico.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. Yes?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. 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&mdash;the Commission,
and somebody who was at my house one <span class="locked">time&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>*Read what was on the stub.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. 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?*</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. It was a mixture of Spanish and English.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. Oh, I see&mdash;it had it both ways, and the name of the bus
company, too, perhaps.</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. I didn't understand this in languages&mdash;you can't say this.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. 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?*</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. 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?*</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. It was with Mrs. Paine.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. It wasn't a Spanish magazine, it was a TV program.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. Pardon?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. It was a TV program.</p>

<p>*It was not a Spanish magazine, it was a TV program.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. Oh, it was not a magazine, it was a TV program. I understood
you to say it was a Spanish magazine? I'm sorry.</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. 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?*</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. The reason they overlooked this particular suitcase is because
I took it with me <span class="locked">to&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>**To the hotel&mdash;the first night they moved us.</p>

<p>*When we stayed in the hotel.</p>

<p>It was in Dallas.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. It was in Dallas. That's when they were at the big hotel&mdash;where
you spent one night there?</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. It was in Dallas and I took it with me because there were
children's books.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_603" id="Page_603">603</a></span>
Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. I thought the FBI had already removed your passports and
your diploma and everything before that time?</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. The first day when Lee was arrested, the FBI made a search.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Gopadze</span>. The FBI or police.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Gregory</span>. The FBI or police.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. I believe it was the police then.</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. The police made the search in the Paine's house.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. And everything was there. I did not take anything with me
that first day when I was arrested.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. 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&mdash;I was just wondering how they happened
to leave this particular article with the bus stub in it?*</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. **I never retained that for any special reason.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. I'm quite sure of that. I wasn't asking that at all.**</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. **I don't know the reason.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. They just overlooked that?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. **It was just overlooked&mdash;the same way they overlooked that
other.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. 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&mdash;one of them was named Elena Hall, is that right, and Katya
Ford, Anna Meller, De Mohrenschildt, De Mohrenschildt's wife and children&mdash;are
you still on friendly terms with them, do you see them occasionally?*</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. I wondered if they had expressed their opinion or whether
they were afraid of you on account of publicity contamination?*</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Gopadze</span>. No.</p>

<p>**Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. Sometimes they invite Katya Ford, but they never invite me.
Nataska Krassovska is very nice to me.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. When was the first time you ever heard of Jack Ruby
or Jack Rubenstein?*</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. When he killed him.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. You had never heard of him until that time?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. (Nodding a negative response.)</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. That's all.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. What is your address now, Mrs. Oswald, and with whom
do you live?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. 629 Belt Line Road, Richardson, Tex.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. Does someone live with you or do you live with someone?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. No; I live by myself with my children.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. 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?*</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. Now, you later employed Mr. McKenzie as your attorney
and you have since discharged him, haven't you?*</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. I employed Mr. McKenzie to wind up the affair with Mr.
Martin and Mr. Thorne, and he was not employed on any other basis&mdash;just
for that particular thing.</p>

<p>**Not permanently.</p>

<p>*Not permanently&mdash;just for that particular thing, despite the fact that he
did give advice on other business of mine. Of course, I needed an attorney<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_604" id="Page_604">604</a></span>
in my dealings with the Commission that's what he told me&mdash;that I needed an
attorney to deal with the Commission.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Gopadze</span>. She <span class="locked">said&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. She said more than that.</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. Now, as I feel now, I don't need any lawyer before the Commission.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. If you'll just answer my question now: Do you have a lawyer
to represent you now?*</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. No.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. Who is your business agent?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. Mrs. Katya Ford.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. Can you tell the Commission about how much money has
been donated to you or how much you have earned through contracts?*</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. I do not know at this time how much money I have.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. Approximately?*</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. Do you have any contracts, have you made any contracts
for the sale of your writings which may be payable in the future?* **</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. The publishing company contract with me is all.</p>

<p>*I have not signed any contracts with the publishing company, except I
have already signed several contracts with Life Magazine.</p>

<p>After the diary was published.</p>

<p>**After the diary was published.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. That's for $20,000?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. $20,000 plus $1,000 for Parade Magazine, and one girl&mdash;Helen&mdash;I
don't know her last name, I know we <span class="locked">did&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>*Also, I signed&mdash;I agreed with a girl by the name of Helen&mdash;I cannot remember
her last name, for possible future stories Helen might write.</p>

<p>We have interview.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. You testified that your uncle is an official and a Colonel in
the MVD?* ** And, a member of the Communist Party, is that correct?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. Do you know that any other members of your family are
members of the Communist Party?* **</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. The husband of another aunt.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. Is that the aunt you visited from time to time?* **</p>

<p>**Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. At Kharkov?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. At Minsk.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. With whom did you file your declaration for an exit visa?** *</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. 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.</p>

<p>*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.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. When you talked to Colonel Aksenov, what did he tell you
when you asked him about the exit visa?*</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. 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 <span class="locked">replied&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Gopadze</span>. No. "Was it favorable or not," and he said it was favorable.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Gregory</span>. Yes, and he <span class="locked">said&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Gopadze</span>. That it takes official process of getting the answer.</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. He said, "You are not the only one who is seeking exit permit,
and so you have to wait your turn."</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. Did he attempt to discourage you from seeking the exit
visa?</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_605" id="Page_605">605</a></span>
Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. No.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. 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?</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. 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?*</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. He did not.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. 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.*</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. In the year that he bought it, I learned it.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. You had seen him clean it, you had watched him sight the rifle
in New Orleans and work the bolt?* **</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Gregory</span>. In New Orleans?</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. Yes; in your testimony, you said you saw him sitting on the
little back <span class="locked">porch&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. On the little back porch&mdash;yes.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. And sight the rifle?</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. I'm sorry, I might be mixed up.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. When you testified that you believed he did some target
practice at least a few times?</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. In Dallas or New Orleans?* **</p>

<p>*Yes; when we lived on Neely Street.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. He told you that he had used this rifle to fire at General
Walker?*</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. He told you he had threatened Vice President Nixon, you
had said?*</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. He did not say "Vice President Nixon," he just said "Nixon."</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. 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?* **</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. **He never expressed himself.</p>

<p>*When the assassination of President Kennedy took place, I was asking people
whether&mdash;people in general&mdash;whether General Walker was with President
Kennedy. It perhaps was a silly question, but I thought that <span class="locked">he&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. 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?*</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. I never thought&mdash;I was afraid to think that he would do anything
like that until the shooting of General Walker occurred.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. But now my question. After that&mdash;the continued possession&mdash;&mdash;* **</p>

<p>**Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. When you testified before the Commission, you said&mdash;generally&mdash;you
didn't think Lee would repeat anything like that&mdash;"Generally, I
knew that the rifle was very tempting for him".</p>

<p>"Very tempting for him"&mdash;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?*</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. Yes; I was afraid that he did have temptation to kill someone
else.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. 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?</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_606" id="Page_606">606</a></span>
Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. After that, you testified that many times or a number of
times he read you articles about President Kennedy?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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&mdash;not changed&mdash;but
you have told the Commission things you did not tell them when first asked.</p>

<p>Now, if he did speak to you about President Kennedy, we think you should
tell the Commission?*</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Boggs</span>. Pursuing this&mdash;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&mdash;is
your answer still "No"?*</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. My answer is "No."</p>

<p>**He never expressed himself anything against President Kennedy, anything
detrimental toward him. What I told them generally before, I am repeating
now too.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Boggs</span>. 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?*</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. No.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Boggs</span>. What about Nixon?*</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. 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.</p>

<p>*In other words, he never said to me, "Now, I'll kill Walker and then I'll kill
this fellow" and so on&mdash;he never did.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. 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&mdash;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?* **</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. No; he never told me.</p>

<p>**No; he never told me&mdash;he never told me.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Gregory</span>. At any time before or after?</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. Yes?</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. You said&mdash;in the United States, didn't you?</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. Yes; in the United States.*</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. When was the first time you ever heard of Police Officer
Tippit?*</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. When there was a broadcast over the radio that Officer Tippit
was killed.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. Have you seen Mrs. Paine since the time you left her home
after the assassination?*</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. Yes.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_607" id="Page_607">607</a></span>
I saw her twice since I left Irving, since I lived with her in Irving.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. When was that?*</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. Once, when I lived with Katya Ford in February of this year,
and the next time I do not recall&mdash;maybe 1 month later.</p>

<p>In my house.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. 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?*</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. Just one other question&mdash;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?* **</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. I would be glad to, but I don't know of any.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Boggs</span>. May I just ask one or two questions?</p>

<p>Have you seen Mrs. Marguerite Oswald at any time since you first appeared
before the Commission?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. No.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Boggs</span>. Have you heard from her?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. No.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Boggs</span>. You've had no communication from her either directly
or indirectly?* **</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. No.</p>

<p>*She tried to get in touch with me.</p>

<p>**Through Attorney McKenzie.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Boggs</span>. And you refused to see her?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>*I think that she may have been bad influence with the children&mdash;improper
influence with the children.</p>

<p>**I feel that&mdash;I hardly believe&mdash;that Lee Oswald really tried to kill President
Kennedy.</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. I feel in my own mind that Lee did not have President Kennedy
as a prime target when he assassinated him.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Boggs</span>. Well, who was it?</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. I think it was Connally. That's my personal opinion that he
perhaps was shooting at Governor Connally, the Governor of Texas.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. You've testified before us before that Lee told you he was
coming back to Texas&mdash;if he was back in Texas, he would vote for Connally for
Governor. Why do you think he would shoot him?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. **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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Boggs</span>. Well, now, my next question is&mdash;did he ever express
any hostility to Governor Connally?*</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. He never expressed that to me&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Boggs</span>. Just a minute. Excuse me, Senator.</p>

<p>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."</p>

<p>And then you go on and you express no doubt in your mind that he intended
to kill President Kennedy.</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. **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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_608" id="Page_608">608</a></span>
to the Commission, because I was told by Mr. McKenzie that it wasn't reported
accurately.</p>

<p>*The record should read that on the basis of the documents that I have read,
I have no doubt&mdash;that I had available to me to read&mdash;I had no doubt that he
<span class="locked">did&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Gopadze</span>. That he could kill <span class="locked">him&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Gregory</span>. Could or have wanted to&mdash;could have wanted <span class="locked">to&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Gopadze</span>. He could kill&mdash;she doesn't say "want"&mdash;he could have killed him.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Boggs</span>. Let's straighten this out because this is very important.</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. Okay.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Boggs</span>. 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&mdash;yes."</p>

<p>Now, do you have any reason to change that?*</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. That's correct. I have no doubt that he did kill the President.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Boggs</span>. Now, the other answer as I read it was: "On the basis
of documents that you had seen presented at the Commission hearing"&mdash;isn't
that right?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. **The word "documents" is wrong&mdash;the facts presented&mdash;that's
what I mean.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Boggs</span>. Again we get back to the question of motive. You
said again today that you are convinced that Lee Oswald killed President
Kennedy.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Now, am I correct in saying that she had not said this previously?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Ask her that.* **</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Boggs</span>. Let's get an answer. I think this answer is quite
important.</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. On the basis of all the available facts, I have no doubt in my
mind that Lee Oswald killed President Kennedy.</p>

<p>*At the same time, I feel in my own mind as far as I am concerned, I feel
that Lee&mdash;that my husband perhaps intended to kill Governor Connally instead
of President Kennedy.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Boggs</span>. 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?*</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. 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&mdash;it wouldn't make any difference&mdash;a killing is a killing. I am sorry.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Boggs</span>. There are one or two other questions I want to ask her.</p>

<p>I know you've been asked a lot of questions about this thing. How old were
you when you left Russia?*</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. Twenty years. My birthday&mdash;I was 21 when I came here. In
July&mdash;my birthday was in July.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Boggs</span>. Were you a member of the Communist Party in
Russia?*</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. No.</p>

<p>*I was a member of a Komsomol organization.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Boggs</span>. What is that?*</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Boggs</span>. Would it be normal for one to graduate, so to speak,
from the Komsomol to the membership in the Communist Party?*</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. What percentage?</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. She was expelled?</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_609" id="Page_609">609</a></span>
Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. No; she testified she quit the Youth Movement.*</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. I was dismissed.</p>

<p>**I was expelled from Komsomol.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. Why&mdash;for what reason?*</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. Did you pay any dues to the Komsomol?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. Yes; 30¢</p>

<p>*Yes; 30¢ every month.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. I thought that practically all young people belonged to
the Komsomol?* **</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. No.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. There are many more of them than there are members of
the Communist Party, aren't there?*</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. Oh, yes.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. Nearly every city in Russia has a big building, there is a
Youth Komsomol Building?*</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. Yes; I was persuaded or talked into joining the Komsomol
organization.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. I thought that was automatic?**</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. No.</p>

<p>*No&mdash;one has to be accepted into Komsomol. It is not automatic.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Boggs</span>. One further question, and this is off the record.</p>

<p>(Interrogatories and answers off the record at this point.)</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Boggs</span>. In response to Senator Russell, I gathered that you
plan to stay in the United States?*</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. Yes; if possible.</p>

<p>Representative <span class="smcap">Boggs</span>. Do you aspire to become a citizen of the United States,
or are you a citizen?*</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. I am not a citizen. I wish to become an American citizen.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. 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?* **</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. In Russia I did not belong to any church. No one belongs to
any church in Russia.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. Except old women?</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. I'll say this&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. But you are not actually a member of the church, are
you?* **</p>

<p>**Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. In Russian churches, they don't have a fee or they don't have
any membership, they have dues in Russian churches.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. But you've not been baptized in any church?*</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. Oh, yes; I have been baptized.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. When were you baptized?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. I don't remember.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. Are you actually a member of the church?* **</p>

<p>**Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. You are more of a communicant now than you are a member
of the church?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. I am concerned about this testimony, Mrs. Oswald, about<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_610" id="Page_610">610</a></span>
your believing now that Lee was shooting at Connally and not at the President,
because you did not tell us that before.*</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. 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?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. And that when he got a letter back, that you asked him what
it was?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. And he said, "Well, it's just some Bureaucrat's statement"?*</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>*Yes.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. 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?*</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. Now, do you think he would shoot and kill a man that he
would vote for, for the Governor of his state?* **</p>

<p>**Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. The only reason is&mdash;I am trying to analyze, myself, there
was a reason&mdash;more reason to dislike Connally as a man than he had for
Kennedy.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. 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.**</p>

<p>**Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. 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&mdash;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.* **</p>

<p>**Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. That's right&mdash;that's exactly right, but yet now you say
that he was his prime target.</p>

<p>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?* **</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. 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?** *</p>

<p>**Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. I am not sure when that particular thing happened, whether
Mr. Connally was the Secretary of the Navy or what he was doing.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. Well, it's a matter of common knowledge that he ran for
Governor after he resigned as Secretary of the Navy.</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. I don't know.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. 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?*</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. Yes, I knew&mdash;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.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_611" id="Page_611">611</a></span>
Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. Mrs. Oswald, didn't Lee read about government a great
deal? Didn't Lee read about civic affairs and about government a great
deal?*</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. He read books about Kennedy, about Hitler, about others.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. 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?*</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. I didn't pay any attention to it or I didn't know it or wasn't
told.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. 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?*</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. You haven't mixed anybody up, except I think that you
have your evidence terribly confused.*</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. No; I have no facts whatsover. I'm sorry I told them that.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. 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?*</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. 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?</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. 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?*</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. Yes; I testified that that was the rifle.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Gopadze</span>. No&mdash;I'm sorry. As far as she knows about the arms, the rifle
which was shown to her looked like the one he had.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Gregory</span>. Yes; that's right.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. That's all I asked her. That's just exactly what I asked
her.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Gregory</span>. Yes; that's correct.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. In discussing the motorcade, did he say anything about
Connally would be riding with the President?*</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. No; he did not.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. 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?* **</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. He was angry and excited. He was angry and excited.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. Did he show any of that on the morning that he left home
when the President was assassinated?* **</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. Why did you happen to watch him then on the morning
that he shot at General Walker?*</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. I simply&mdash;his mood left no impression on me that particular
morning. There was nothing extraordinary about it.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. On the Walker morning?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. No, no&mdash;on the morning of the President's assassination.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. Yes, but you said you noticed it on the morning before he
shot Walker?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. Are you talking about Walker?</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. If you didn't notice his moods, how did you happen to
notice it on the day before he shot at General Walker?* **</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_612" id="Page_612">612</a></span>
Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. Well, of course, that was the quarrel you had about him
registering under an assumed name or giving an assumed name at his room.**</p>

<p>Was that not the time, did you not try to telephone him and they told you
that no such person stayed there at all?</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. 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.* **</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. For June?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. For me.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. And for June?*</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. And for the baby.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. And for June?</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. That was out of the money in the black wallet, too?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>*Yes&mdash;that was a fleeting thought in my mind of why the change in him.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. But apparently he was not as excited and as upset as he
was the morning before the Walker shooting?*</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. He was just as usual&mdash;sort of sleepy that particular morning.
He was not excited. Then, I was so sleepy myself that I didn't pay any attention.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. But you did testify that he was unusually excited the night
before he shot at General walker, did you not?</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Mr. Chairman, I wonder if we could take a 5-minute recess?
The reporter has been at it a long time?</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. 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.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Reporter</span>. Thank you.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. And we will let you have a 5 minute recess, Mrs. Oswald.</p>

<p>(At this point the proceedings were recessed and resumed as stated, at
6:40 p.m., Sunday, September 6, 1964.)</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Mr. Chairman.</p>

<p>Mrs. Oswald, you have not appeared here today with a lawyer, have you?*</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. You have not, is that right? You have no lawyer with you?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. No.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. No.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. When you appeared before the Commission the other two times,
you did have a lawyer with you, did you not?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. Yes&mdash;the other two times.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Is there some reason why you do not have a lawyer at this time?*</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. That attorney cost me too much.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. And&mdash;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?* **</p>

<p>**Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. You did so?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_613" id="Page_613">613</a></span>
with you, if you wished it, and you said you didn't need it, you would just
tell the truth?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. 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."</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. And you understood that you would be supplied a lawyer if you
wanted one and you said you didn't, is that right?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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?*</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. I do not know the difference between the shotgun and the rifle.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Do you know that he had one or the other?*</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. You know that in the Soviet Union he did have either a rifle or
a shotgun, do you?*</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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?*</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. Yes&mdash;faintly.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Do you remember that was the latter part of September?*</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. **Possibly.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Do you remember what date you went back to Dallas from New
Orleans?* **</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. It wasn't the 26th of September?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Wasn't it about the 23d of September that you went back?* **</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. The 23d?</p>

<p>*I do not know.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Do you remember that you had a discussion with your husband
about the unemployment check that he was to receive about that time?* **</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. I remember Lee told me that he was expecting an unemployment
check just before he left for Mexico.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Did he tell you that he had changed the postal address and that
that check would probably come to Ruth Paine's?*</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. He told me that he was going to change his address and that
the letters would come to that new address of Ruth Paine.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Did the unemployment check ever come to Ruth Paine's?*</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Did he say anything about getting the check at New Orleans and
cashing it himself?* **</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. I do not remember it right now, but if I mentioned that to the
Commission before, then it was so.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Do you have any recollection about it now?*</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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?* **</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. I was not with Lee at that time.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Did he ever tell you anything about it?*</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. I do not remember at this moment.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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?* **</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. No; he did not tell me. I do not remember that he told me.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Did Lee ever tell you where he stayed the night after you left,
that is, the night of the 23d of September?*</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. He told me that he stayed in that same house.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_614" id="Page_614">614</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. At the house where you had lived?**</p>

<p>**Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. He stayed with his aunt. I remember something that he
stayed a couple days with his aunt in New Orleans.</p>

<p>*Did I leave on the 23d?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Is there something else?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. It is so difficult for me to remember now.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Did your husband have any Cuban friends at New Orleans?*</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. I do not know about this.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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.</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. Someone came, but I don't know from which organization or
who he was.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Was there more than one person who came asking about that
or only one?*</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. Just one.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Do you recall that your husband hired someone to help hand
out leaflets about fair play for Cuba on the streets of New Orleans?*</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. He mentioned that he hired a boy to help him, by giving him
some money to buy ice cream or something&mdash;I don't know.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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?*</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span> (examining instrument mentioned). I recognize only my
husband.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Is your husband the man with the marks that sort of look like a
"T" in light green?*</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. I ask you if you recognize anyone besides your husband in Frank
Pizzo Exhibit No. 453-B?*</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. No. *No. [Examining instrument mentioned.] No.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. But you do recognize your husband there?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. Yes&mdash;yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. He has a green mark over his photograph, does he not?</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Do you know whether or not your husband consulted any attorneys
in New Orleans while he was there?*</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. I do not know about this.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Do you know of a Clay Bertrand, [spelling] B-e-r-t-r-a-n-d?*</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. No.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Did your husband ever say anything about consulting an attorney
about his discharge from the Marines or about his American citizenship?* **</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. He did not.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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&mdash;at any time?*</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. I do not know.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Did he ever say anything about anything like that?*</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. No.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Did you ever know a Sylvia Odio, [spelling] O-d-i-o?*</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. No.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. You never heard of her?*</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. No.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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?*</p>

<p>**Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. No; I do not know about this.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_615" id="Page_615">615</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Have you ever heard of her?*</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. No.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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?*</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. He may have known him, but I don't know anything about it.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. He never told you that he knew anyone like that?*</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. No; he did not tell me.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. When you lived in New Orleans and after your husband lost
his job, did he stay away from home in the evenings much?*</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. He was not at home during the day time, but he was at home
most of the time in the evenings.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. And by being at home in the evenings, what time do you mean&mdash;from
6 o'clock on, or 7 o'clock, or what time?*</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. After 7.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Did he ever show signs of having been drinking or being
drunk when he came home?*</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. Never.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Did he ever talk about having seen some friends or some Cubans
or Mexicans in the bar or some bar in New Orleans?* **</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. No; it's strange for me to hear that Lee visited bars or that
he drank.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Did you know of his drinking at all in New Orleans?*</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. I never did.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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&mdash;August 9?*</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. I know about this.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. How did that come to your attention, how did you learn about
it?*</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Had he stayed out all night that way before?* **</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. No.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. It hadn't ever happened before?**</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. No.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. You say it never happened that he would even stay out
late in the evening?*</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. No; sometimes he was delayed, but he would be home by 9
o'clock.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Did you ever hear your husband say anything about being
associated with any pro-Castro or anti-Castro groups in Dallas?*</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. I didn't know that he belonged to any organization in Dallas.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Did you know of any such associations or any associations
with Cubans after he returned from Mexico City?*</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. I do not know about this.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Did he ever mention Sylvia Odio to you or any name like that,
that you recall?* **</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. No.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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?*</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. You said he read blueprints and translated them into the
finished product. Do you remember your husband saying anything like that
to you?* **</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. I don't think I testified to that.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. You don't recall testifying to that?*</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_616" id="Page_616">616</a></span>
Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. I testified that he was a&mdash;slesar.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Gregory</span>. Off the record, please?</p>

<p>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&mdash;metallic
details. He was a machinist apprentice working on parts for radio
receivers.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. He told the FBI at one time in one of the interviews that he
was busy reading blueprints and translating them.</p>

<p>Mr. Gregory, are you telling me what she says his job was or are you telling
me what you know?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Gregory</span>. 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'.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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?*</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. I have never been at the plant where Lee worked or in any
factory, but from the description that Lee gave <span class="locked">me&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Tell us that?* **</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. He was grinding details&mdash;detailed parts for small parts, small
metallic parts for radio receivers, on a lathe.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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?*</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. While he and I lived together&mdash;yes. That was the kind of work
that he was doing in Minsk.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. And that's all that you know of?*</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. That's all I know about his work.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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?*</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. He told me that for the most part he visited museums and
studied the Russian language.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Did he say anything about the intourist guides, the women
studied the Russian language.</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. The Russian guides?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Did he tell you about any of the others that he knew there?*</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. What did your husband tell you about Rimma?*</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. That she was a very fine, pretty, smart young girl, and unfortunately,
older than he is, and that she helped him a great deal.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Did he tell you how she helped him?*</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. First of all, as an interpreter.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. What else?</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. And that he spent time with her and did not feel lonesome.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Did he say anything about Rimma or the other intourist guides
helping him with learning Russian?*</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. Yes; he did.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Did he say how much they did that?*</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. No; he did not.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Did he say anything about the guides helping him in dealing
with the Embassy about his citizenship or giving up his citizenship?* **</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. No; he did not tell me about that.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Did he say anything about the guides giving him any financial
help?*</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. No; he did not tell me.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_617" id="Page_617">617</a></span>
Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Did your husband say anything about when he learned that
he might be able to stay in Russia, how he learned it?</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Did he say when he did that?*</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. That was before my time.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. How did you learn about it?*</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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?*</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. 1960?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. 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?*</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. That they would let him stay in the Soviet Union?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. Newspaper reporters?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Yes; newspaper reporters&mdash;Miss Johnson and Miss Mosby.*</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. He made the entry into his diary, I think, at a later date,
and they may not be correct or precise&mdash;just one.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Gregory</span>. 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."</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. We will soon be through, Mrs. Oswald. There are just a few
more questions.*</p>

<p>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?* **</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. He spoke over the radio of how everything&mdash;how wonderful
everything was in the Soviet Union, or what he thought they liked to hear.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. And did you understand that he spoke that in Moscow while he
was there?*</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. Yes; while he was in Moscow.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. That was during the period after he had first come to the country
and before he came to Minsk, is that right?*</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Now, do you recall any more than you have told us about
the time you had the interview with the MVD about your visa&mdash;what they said
to you and what you said to them?*</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. What did they say to that?*</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. 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."</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Do you recall anything else that was said at that time?*</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. What did you say to that?*</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. I told him that I would prefer to leave as soon as possible.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Is that all you remember of the conversation?*</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. Nothing of importance.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Where did this conversation occur?*</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. In the MVD building in Minsk.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. And who was present besides you and Colonel Aksenov?*</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_618" id="Page_618">618</a></span>
Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Now, your husband said that before you both left for the
United States, he had an interview with the MVD. Do you recall that?*</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. Before we left where?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Before you left the Soviet Union?*</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. I do not know about this.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Do you recall anything like that while you were in Moscow
before you left for the United States?*</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. No.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. You were never told about anything like that by your husband?*</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. No.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. By anyone else?*</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. Nobody.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. You were not present at any such meeting?*</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. No.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Do you know of any meeting of that kind in Minsk?*</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. He never told me that he had interviews.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. He said he quarreled with them trying to expedite the visas,
the exit permits, and where was that?*</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. In Minsk.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. And did he tell you whom he talked to when he quarreled with
them about the exit visas?*</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. I do not know their names, but all the people that were empowered
with issuance of the exit permits.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Was that the time that you said he tried to get to see Colonel
Aksenov and they wouldn't let him?* **</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. It could have happened before we moved because he apparently
had a conversation with the Colonel.**</p>

<p>**I remember it was cold.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Gregory</span>. May I ask Marina&mdash;will you mind to read the question?</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Reporter</span>. "Was that the time that you said he tried to get to see
Colonel Aksenov and they wouldn't let him?"</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. I was asking about the meeting with the MVD.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Gregory</span>. Lee meeting with the MVD in Minsk?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Yes&mdash;about the exit visas.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Gregory</span>. And you wanted to know the year and the month of the year?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. No; I was first trying to find out what meeting she was talking
about and whether it was the one she referred to later.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Gregory</span>. When she could not get the audience with the man?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. That's right.* **</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. It was approximately in January 1962.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. And did he tell you what happened at that meeting?*</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. He did not meet with&mdash;he did not get to see Colonel Aksenov.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. But he did see someone else in there?</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. Apparently he talked to someone who substituted or was
inferior to Colonel Aksenov.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. And what did he tell you happened at that time?*</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Then what happened?*</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. Then he came home&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. Did you talk to the colonel about both your visa and your husband's
at that time?*</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_619" id="Page_619">619</a></span>
Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. The conversation with Colonel Aksenov was to find out why
the delay in the issuance of the exit permits.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. That's all I have.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. There has been a good deal of testimony that you and your
husband were good friends with the De Mohrenschildt family?*</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. Yes.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. Is it correct that when he came to your house on one occasion
that he saw the rifle, your husband's rifle?*</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. I do not know about this. It is possible that I have shown
the rifle to them.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. Do you remember when Mr. De Mohrenschildt said something
like this after the Walker incident: "How could you miss it?" or something
like that.*</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. De Mohrenschildt&mdash;as soon as he opened the door, he said to
Lee, "How could you have missed, how could you have missed him?"</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. Do you have any explanation for that?* **</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. I do not know whether Lee told De Mohrenschildt about shooting
at Walker, and then Lee looked at me thinking&mdash;whether I told De Mohrenschildt
about it&mdash;I don't know. He even couldn't speak that evening. Lee could
not speak that evening. We were on the porch.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. Did he later ask you if you had told De Mohrenschildt?*</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. He asked me if I told De Mohrenschildt about it and when I
said I didn't, he said, "How did he guess it?"</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Gopadze</span>. No; she said, "Maybe you have told him."</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. Then he said, "Maybe you've told him about it", and then
he added&mdash;he said, "How did he guess it?"</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. De Mohrenschildt said he had lived in Minsk, did he ever
talk to you about Minsk?* **</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. Yes; he did say he lived in Minsk when he was a small child.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. 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?*</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. Yes; they discussed politics.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. Was De Mohrenschildt living in Dallas at the time of the
assassination of President Kennedy?*</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. He lived in Haiti.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Gopadze</span>. Do you know if he was in Haiti?</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. I do not know whether he lived in Dallas at the time of the
assassination or whether he lived in Haiti.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. 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?*</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. Of course, I don't know anything about it.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. But my question was&mdash;not whether you knew. I asked you
whether you had any facts which would lead you to believe that there was
anyone?* **</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. I do not know about this.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. 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?*</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. He did not tell me.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. I said one more, and this is the last one, I promise you.</p>

<p>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?* **</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. 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.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. Did you feel sympathy for him and love for him in those
days?*</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_620" id="Page_620">620</a></span>
Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. Yes; I felt sorry for him. I knew it was difficult for him
with his family. I felt sorry for him.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Cooper</span>. All right.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. When you testified the second time in Washington, Mrs.
Oswald, that you didn't think Mr. De Mohrenschildt was as dangerous as he
sounds&mdash;that was your personal opinion&mdash;what did you mean by that?*</p>

<p>Here it is: "Mr. Mohrenschildt once took us out to the Fords' house. It was
at New Year's, I think&mdash;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."</p>

<p>No one had said anything about him being dangerous, so why was that your
opinion?** *</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Gregory</span>. Off the record.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. She understood that.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Gregory</span>. This goes into the record, of course?</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. Yes, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Gregory</span>. I think she's <span class="locked">hesitated&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. I think she should explain it.</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. George is such a big mouth.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. Let's let her testify, if you don't mind?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Gregory</span>. I'm translating what she said.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. Oh, is that what she said? I see. I'm sorry. I'm sorry&mdash;I
didn't hear it.</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. George is such a loud mouth or big <span class="locked">talker&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. Big talker&mdash;that would be the equivalent, I'm sure.</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. I simply do not believe that&mdash;it is my <span class="locked">intuition&mdash;&mdash;</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Gopadze</span>. No; that point?</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. It is my opinion that people that talk too much do little.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. And did he talk too much or talk very loud? I don't know
Mr. De Mohrenschildt.** *</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. Very loud.</p>

<p>*He jokes all the time and people don't know when he talks sense and when
he jokes.</p>

<p>**Sometimes he would say something jokingly and people would think that
he's telling the truth.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. Was that boasting about some imaginary achievement of
his?*</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. It's simply his manner of speaking&mdash;of talking. It's his
character.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. He didn't talk then about his feats of any kind, about performing
any great feats?*</p>

<p>*Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. No; he never did.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. It was merely his tone of voice and his manner of expression
that made him sound dangerous?**</p>

<p>**Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. He was boasting about it, but he never would follow through.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Rankin</span>. You might tell the full story.</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. Quite often he would be boasting about something big but he
never did follow through.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. So he did talk about great achievements most of the time?*</p>

<p>**Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. Just like a fellow who is just a happy go-around man, a
happy go-lucky man.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. 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.</p>

<p>The Commission will now recess subject to the call of the Chairman or Chief
Justice Warren.</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Oswald</span>. Thank you very much.</p>

<p>Senator <span class="smcap">Russell</span>. Thank you.</p>

<p>(Whereupon, at 8 p.m., the President's Commission adjourned.)</p>

<div class="transnote">
<h2><a name="Transcribers_Notes" id="Transcribers_Notes">Transcriber's Notes</a></h2>

<p>Punctuation and spelling were made consistent when a predominant
preference was found in this book; otherwise they were not changed.</p>

<p>Misspellings in quoted evidence not changed; misspellings that could be
due to mispronunciations were not changed.</p>

<p>Some simple typographical errors were corrected.</p>

<p>Inconsistent hyphenation of compound words retained.</p>

<p>Ambiguous end-of-line hyphens retained.</p>

<p>Occasional uses of "Mr." for "Mrs." and of "Mrs." for "Mr." corrected.</p>

<p>Dubious repeated words, (e.g., "What took place by way of of
conversation?") retained.</p>

<p>Several unbalanced quotation marks not remedied.</p>

<p>Occasional periods that should be question marks not changed.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>The Index and illustrated Exhibits volumes of this series may not be
available at Project Gutenberg.</p>

<p>Asterisks in the Marina Oswald testimony have been reproduced as
originally printed.</p>

<p>Page <a href="#Page_vii">vii</a>: No Table of Contents entry for "Testimony of Mrs. Lee Harvey Oswald (resumed)"
beginning on page <a href="#Page_588">588</a>.</p>

<p>Page <a href="#Page_47">47</a>: "is a photostat is a photostat" was printed that way.</p>

<p>Page <a href="#Page_51">51</a>: "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.</p>

<p>Page <a href="#Page_88">88</a> and elsewhere: "Mr. Specter" misprinted five times as "Mr. Spector";
corrected here.</p>

<p>Page <a href="#Page_107">107</a>: "these tall building on either side" should be "buildings".</p>

<p>Page <a href="#Page_138">138</a>: "contains angels of sight" is a misprint for "angles".</p>

<p>Page <a href="#Page_139">139</a>: One occurrence of "Main Street" was misprinted as "Maine Street";
corrected here.</p>

<p>Page <a href="#Page_142">142</a>: "Dr. Hume" is a misprint for "Dr. Humes".</p>

<p>Page <a href="#Page_152">152</a>: "The other hand, his left hand is on his lapel" was misprinted as
"left had"; corrected here.</p>

<p>Page <a href="#Page_163">163</a>: "Did the surveyor make that placement" misprinted as "surveyer";
corrected here.</p>

<p>Page <a href="#Page_177">177</a>: "Those are 88 mm., too" is a misprint for "8 mm."</p>

<p>Page <a href="#Page_186">186</a>: "implusive" probably is a misprint for "impulsive".</p>

<p>Pages <a href="#Page_273">273</a> and elsewhere: "Mr. Snyder" misprinted six times as "Mr. Synder"; corrected here.</p>

<p>Page <a href="#Page_298">298</a>: "exist visa" probably is a misprint for "exit visa".</p>

<p>Page <a href="#Page_306">306</a>: "would't" was printed that way.</p>

<p>Page <a href="#Page_335">335</a>: "name." is repeated, originally on the next line; looks like a misprint.</p>

<p>Page <a href="#Page_365">365</a>: "How could you tell us" possibly should be "Now could".</p>

<p>Page <a href="#Page_482">482</a>: "Do you thing that is a handicap" should be "think".</p>

<p>Page <a href="#Page_528">528</a>: "handwriting. It that yours?" should be "Is".</p>

<p>Page <a href="#Page_529">529</a>: "handwriting it that?" should be "is".</p>

<p>Page <a href="#Page_530">530</a>: "I do not know which exhibit is." should be "it is".</p>

<p>Page <a href="#Page_562">562</a>: "miles and hour." should be "an".</p>

<p>Page <a href="#Page_563">563</a>: "take as much as minute" probably should be "as a minute".</p>

<p>Page <a href="#Page_611">611</a>: "whatsover" was printed that way.</p>

<p>Page <a href="#Page_613">613</a>: "Did he every tell you that" should be "ever".</p>

<p>Page <a href="#Page_618">618</a>: '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.</p>
</div>

<div>*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK 44005 ***</div>
</body>
</html>
generated by cgit v1.2.3 (git 2.25.1) at 2026-03-27 06:56:48 +0000